&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(6306W)
EPA630-R-97-039
NTIS: PB97-177 505
June 1992
Response to oomments
Background Document
for the Newly Listed
Wastes and Hazardous
Debris Proposed Rule
Capacity-Related Comments
Printed on paper that contains at lest 20 percent postconsumer fiber

-------
Response to Comments
Background Document for the
Newly Listed Wastes and
Hazardous Debris
Proposed Rule
January 9, 1992
(57 Federal Register 958)
Capacity-Related Comments
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
401 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460

-------
72-101
>ORT DOCUMENTATION 11. Report No.
PAGE	|
I	EPA330-R-97-039
12.
Title and Subtitle
JPONSE TO COMMENTS BACKGROUND DOCUMENT FOR THE NEWLY LISTED WASTES AND
ZARDOUS DEBRIS PROPOSED RULE; CAPACITY-RELATED COMMENTS
15.	Report Date
|	June 1992
16.
I
\uthor(s)
18. Performing Organization R<
'eiforming Organization Name and Address
S. EPA
FF1CE OF SOLID WASTE
II M STREET, SW
ASHINGTON, DC 20460
110. Projcct/Task/Work Unit N
i	
|11. Contract © or Grant (G) h
|©
1(G)
±
Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
113. Type of Report & Period (
TECHNICAL REPORT
114.
Supplementary Notes
Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
>V1DES EPA SUPPORT AND RATIONALE FOR LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS OF NEWLY LISTED WASTES AND HAZARDOUS DEBR
iPONDS TO COMMENTS. DIVIDES COMMENT RESPONSES INTO CATEGORIES: AVAILABLE COMMERCIAL COMBUSTION CAPACIT
TNING WASTES; OTHER NEWLY LISTED WASTES; MIXED RCRA AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE; HAZARDOUS DEBRIS; AND K061, K06:
Document Analysis a. Descriptors
b. Identifiere/Open-Ended Terms
c. COSATI Field Group

-------
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 	 1-1
CHAPTER 2 AVAILABLE COMMERCIAL COMBUSTION CAPACITY .... 2-1
2.1	Commercial Combustion Market Indicators Show Less Capacity is
Available than EPA Estimated 					 2-3
2.2	EPA's Combustion Capacity Analysis Methodology Overestimated
Available Capacity	 2-10
2.3	1990 K-waste Land Bans Significantly Reduced Available Commercial
Capacity	 2-14
2.4	F037 and F038 Wastes May Not be Amenable to Liquid and Pumpable
Sludge Incinerator Feed Systems			 2-30
2.5	Bulk Solids Incineration Systems Are Operating at or Near Maximum
Capacity			 2-34
2.6	FQ37 and F038 Wastes May Not Meet Heating Value Requirements
for Fuels Substitution 				 2-39
2.7	The Boiler and Industrial Furnace (BIF) Rule May Reduce Available
Capacity			 2-55
2.8	Packaging Capacity May Constrain Utilization of Containerized Solids
Capacity	 2-59
2.9	F037 and F038 Wastes May Not Be Amenable to Pumpable Sludge
and Dry Solids Cement Kiln Feed Systems			 2-62
2.10	Winter Reductions in Cement Production May Affect Available
Capacity 			 2-70
CHAPTER 3 PETOOLEUM REFINING WASTES	 3-1
3.1	Some F037 and F038 Wastes Cannot Be Treated Using Technologies
Identified by the Agency 			;	 3-3
3.2	Commercial Treatment and Disposal Capacity Is Available for
Managing F037 and F038 Wastes	; 3-24
3.3	F037 and F038 Wastes Are Generated Sporadically In Large
Quantities, and Cannot Readily Be Commingled With K048 and K051 -
Wastes 					 3-30
3.4	Refineries Will Not Reconfigure Wastewater Treatment Systems to
Decrease F037 and F038 Waste Quantities 	 3-37
3.5	EPA Should Investigate Cases of Waste Code Switching from K048-
K052 to F037 and F038 to Avoid LDRs	 3-45
3.6	EPA Underestimated the Quantity of F037 and F038 Wastes that Will
Be Generated from Surface Impoundment Cleanouts During the Next
24 Months							 3-47
3.7	EPA Has No Technical, Scientific, or Legal Basts for Requiring that
F037 and F038 Wastes Be Removed from Surface Impoundments
Annually	 3-68
3.8	F037 and F038 Wastes From Surface Impoundments Should be
Removed Annually and Wastes Should be Removed When Surface

-------
Impoundments Close	 3-87
3.9	Requiring Clean Closure Will Conflict With Current Closure
Regulations, Has No Environmental Justification, and Is Technically
and Economically Infeasible					 3-90
3.10	F037 and F038 Wastes Should Not Be Managed in Non-MTR Surface
Impoundments 	3-108
3.11	Full Four Years Is Needed To Meet Minimum Technology
Requirements 	3-112
3.12	Two-year National Capacity Variance Should Be Granted to All F037
and F038 Wastes			3 - 133
3.13	EPA Should Delay Effective Date of LDR Rule 			3 - 143
CHAPTER 4 OTHER NEWLY LISTED WASTES 	 4-1
4.1	Incineration Capacity May be Difficult to Find for Brominated K-
Wastes 		 4-1
4.2	Alternative Treatment May be Difficult to Find for Brominated K-
Wastes That Are Currently Deepwell Injected 				4-7
4.3	Problems With Incineration of Potentially Explosive Kill Wastes . 4-10
4.4	EPA has Underestimated Potential Volumes from Non-De Minimis
Spills	 4-13
4.5	Potential Other Newly Listed Waste Streams For Which Treatment
Capacity Is No Longer a Concern 	 4-16
CHAPTER 5 MIXED RCRA/RADIOACTIVE WASTES	 5-1
5.1	Two-Year National Capacity Variance for Mixed RCRA/Radioactive
Wastes is Justified	 5-3
5.2	Two-Year National Capacity Variance for Mixed RCRA/Radioactive
Wastes is Not Justified					 5-11
5.3	DOE Should Not be Relied on to Develop New Capacity 			 5-13
5.4	Non-DOE Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Wastes Should be Stored Under
an Emergency Permit Program 			 5-16
5.5	Treatment Capacity for Some Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Wastes is
Increasing	 5-19
5.6	Several Obstacles Exist to the Development of New Treatment
Capacity for Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Wastes 	 5-22
5.7	EPA Should Encourage Separation of the Hazardous and Radioactive
Components of Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Waste	 5-28
CHAPTER 6 HAZARDOUS DEBRIS			 6-1
6.1	EPA Underestimated the Quantity of Hazardous Debris 	 6-3
6.2	Additional Data on the Quantity of Debris Generated	 6-12
6.3	EPA Should Grant Capacity Variances for Hazardous Debris
Contaminated with Newly Listed Wastes 					 6-26

-------
6.4 EPA Should Grant Capacity Variances for Hazardous Debris
Contaminated with Previously Regulated Wastes 			6-33
6.5	Materials Handling Difficulties Exist for Managing Hazardous
Debris				6-43
6.6	Treatment Capacity for Hazardous Debris May Be Inadequate ...	6-51
6.7	Storage for Hazardous Debris is Limited 		6-74
6.8	Other Issues 		6-80
CHAPTER 7 K061, K062, AND F006 		7-1
7.1	High Temperature Metals Recovery (HTMR) Capacity		7-2
7.2	Stabilization Capacity 		7-3

-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
On January 9, 1992, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, the
Agency) proposed a rule to prohibit the land disposal of the first phase of a new
schedule of restricted hazardous wastes. This group consists of primary and secondary
sludges from petroleum refining (F037 and F038), organic U wastes (U328 ortho-
toluidine, U3S3 para-toluidine, U359 2-ethoxyethanol), wastes from the production of
unsymmetrical dimethyihydrazine (K107, K108, KOI9, K110), wastes from the production
of dinitrotoluene and toluenediamine (Kill and K112), wastes from the production of
ethylene dibromide (K117, K118, K136), wastes from the production of
ethylenebisdithiocarbamic acid (K123, K124, K125, K126), and wastes from the
production of methyl bromide (K131 and K132).
The Agency requested public comment on the proposal. The regulated
community, trade associations, and State and Federal agencies submitted over 100
written letters on the proposed rule. The comments were divided into five categories:
those related to available combustion capacity, petroleum refining wastes, other newly
listed wastes, mixed radioactive wastes, debris and K061, K062 and FO06. Following is a
discussion of the format of the material covered in this document.
Format
Similar comments were grouped into issues. The format for the discussion of each
issue raised by commenters consists of three areas: summary, response, and comments.
The "summary" section provides a brief description of the content of the comments
related to the issue. The "response" section following each summary provides EPA's
response to the corresponding issue. The "comments" section following the summary and
response sections contains a list of each comment addressed with its EPA comment letter
number, and copies of the relevant sections of the comment letters.
Overview
Each chapter addresses comments related to surface disposed wastes, with the
exception of Chapter 4, which addresses a comment on the deepwell disposal of K117,
K118, K131 and K132 wastes. Comments discussing mixed radioactive wastes are all
summarized in Chapter 5, rather than in the chapters corresponding to the RCRA waste
in the mixed radioactive matrix. The remainder of this document is organized into six
chapters:
Chapter 2: Available Commercial Combustion Capacity;
Chapter 3: Petroleum Refining Wastes;
Chapter 4: Other Newly Listed Wastes;
Chapter 5: Mixed RCflA/Radioactive Waste;
Chapter 6: Hazardous Debris; and
Chapter 7: K061, K062, and F006.

-------
CHAPTER 2
AVAILABLE COMMERCIAL COMBUSTION CAPACITY
EPA received 12 comments in response to the proposed rule relating to the
commercial combustion capacity available for newly identified wastes. They were
received from: American Petroleum Institute (API; 87), Amoco (89), Cement Kiln
Recycling Coalition (CKRC; 40), Conoco (92), Exxon (118), Mobil (100), National
Petroleum Refiners Association (NPRA; 22), Phillips Petroleum (42), Retec Remediation
Technologies (28), Shell Oil (77), Texaco (97), and Unocal (44). Four commenters (API
(87), Conoco (92), Exxon (118), and Mobil (100)) discussed the market indicators that
suggest less commercial combustion capacity is available than EPA's analysis indicated.
API (87) and CMA (80) commented that EPA's capacity analysis methodology
overestimated capacity. Five commenters (API (87), Exxon (118), NPRA (22), Retec
Remediation Technologies (28) and Unocal (44)) discussed the effects of the 1990 K-
waste land disposal restrictions on currently available combustion capacity. API (87) and
Shell (77) discussed problems utilizing liquid and pumpable sludge incinerator feed
systems for F037 and F038. API (87), Phillips Petroleum (42) and Shell Oil (77)
discussed the availability of bulk solids incinerator feed systems. Ten commenters (API
(87), Amoco (89), Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition (CKRC; 40), Conoco (92). Exxon
(118), NPRA (22), Phillips Petroleum (42), Shell (77), Texaco (97) and Unocal (44))
expressed concern that the heating values of F037 ana F038 wastes are inadequate for
fuels substitution. Two commenters (Exxon (118) and Shell (77)) discussed possible
capacity reductions resulting from the Boiler and Industrial Furnace (BIF) Rule. Phillips
Petroleum (42) and Shell Oil (77) discussed storage and packaging limitations that could
limit utilization of cement kiln containerized solids feed systems. Five commenters (API
(87), Phillips Petroleum (42), Shell Oil (77), Texaco (97), and Unocal (44)) discussed
problems utilizing pumpable sludge and dry solids cement kiln feed systems. Shell (77)
discussed the effects of seasonal variations in cement production on cement kiln
combustion capacity.
In summary, commenters raised ten issues:
•	Commercial Cofnbustion Market Indicators Show Less Capacity is
Available Than EPA Estimated;
•	EPA's Combustion Capacity Analysis Methodology Overestimated
Available Capacity;
•	1990 K-waste Land Bans Significantly Reduced Available Commercial
Capacity;
•	F037 and F038 Wastes May Not be Amenable to Liquid and Pumpable
Sludge Incinerator Feed Systems;
» Bulk Solids Incineration Systems Are Operating At or Near Maximum
Capacity;

-------
2-2	Combustion
F037 and F038 Wastes May Not Meet Heating Value Requirements for
Fuels Substitution;
The Boiler and Industrial Furnace (B1F) Rule May Reduce Available
Capacity;
Packaging Capacity May Constrain Utilization of Containerized Solids
Capacity;
F037 and F038 Wastes May Not be Amenable to Pumpable Sludge and
Dry Solids Cement Kiln Feed Systems; and
Winter Reductions in Cement Production May Affect Available Capacity.

-------
2-3
Combustion
2.1 Commercial Combustion Market Indicators Show Less Capacity is Available than
EPA Estimated
Summaty:
Four commenters (API (87), Conoco (92), Exxon (118), and Mobil (100)) believe
that less commercial combustion capacity is available than EPA's capacity estimate
reveals. They cite the following market indicators as evidence that capacity is
inadequate:
•	Petroleum refineries are facing difficulty scheduling waste shipments;
•	Commercial combustion facilities are rejecting loads regularly;
•	Petroleum refineries are increasingly requesting storage time limit
extensions;
•	Incinerators are refusing to enter into "take or pay" contracts; and
•	Incineration costs have doubled over the last two years.
Response:
EPA recognizes that market forces are continuing to drive the commercial
combustion market toward optimal conditions for generators and treaters of K048-K052.
EPA also recognizes that institutional market barriers (e.g., contract negotiations) are not
likely to be resolved until the effective date of LDR standards is certain. EPA has
identified selective cases where loads have been rejected (e.g., because the wastes were
too viscous for pumpable sludges systems or because of free liquids in roll-off bins), but
does not see load rejection as a sign of inadequate capacity at the national level.
Regarding incineration cost increases, commenters did not provide specific examples
(i.e., facilities or companies) where such increases have taken place, and EPA was unable
to confirm such increases (nor is cost per se a relevant consideration in determining
available capacity). In general, EPA believes these "indicators" may be evidence that
commercial capacity utilization has risen, but not necessarily that there is insufficient
capacity for newly identified wastes. However, EPA lias analyzed waste-specific capacity
considerations for F037 and F038 and determined that F037 and F038 are not readily
amenable to all types of sludge and solid combustion systems. EPA recognizes that F037
and F038 wastes from surface impoundments are typically generated in large volumes in
short time periods, which exacerbates waste handling problems, and have relatively low
heating value, which makes them less amenable to cement kilns than routinely generated
F037 and F038 wastes. Therefore EPA is granting a two-year national capacity variance
to F037 and F038 wastes removed from surface impoundments.
Based on information received from refineries, and EPA's engineering judgement,
EPA has estimated that approximately 60 percent of the 69,000 tons per year of routinely
generated F037 and. F038 wastes will have a heating value sufficient for use in cement
kilns and that there is marginally adequate capacity for these wastes (accounting for

-------
2-4
Combustion
packaging capacity limitations). The remainder, approximately 28,000 tons, will require
bulk solids incineration capacity. Based on information provided by commercial
incinerators (please see Background Document for Phase One Land Disposal Restrictions
Chapter 2), EPA does not believe that sufficient bulk solids incineration capacity exists
for this volume of wastes. EPA considered limiting the variance to Iow-BTU F037 and
F038 wastes but decided that it would be excessively, burdensome for the regulated
community to,comply with or for regulators to enforce different standards. (For a more
detailed discussion of this decision, please see Background Document for Phase One Land
Disposal Restrictions Chapter 3.)
Additionally, EPA believes that available commercial combustion capacity will be
affected by the Boiler and Industrial Furnace (BIF) rule. Specifically, EPA is concerned
that cement kilns are having difficulty meeting the hydrocarbon emission levels required
by the BIF rule, and therefore may have to reduce their capacity or stop accepting
hazardous wastes. If one of the major cement facilities providing containerized solids
capacity is forced to cease burning hazardous waste, it would cause a significant
disruption to the commercial hazardous waste combustion system. The loss of one large
facility could remove as much as 35,000 tons per year of available capacity, leaving
roughly 48,000 tons available. This is very close to the estimated 41,000 tons required for
routinely generated F037 and F038 wastes that are amenable to cement kilns. Given the
uncertainty that cement kilns can meet BIF requirements by August 1992, and the
potential impact of a loss of cement kiln capacity, EPA is reluctant to set the LDR
effective dates such that large quantities of new wastes would be introduced into the
national combustion system immediately.
EPA also has revised its bulk solids incineration capacity estimate, as discussed in
the background documents for today's rule, to account for one facility that has not yet
received final permit approval and requires a permit modification for F037 and F038,
and other facilities whose available bulk solids capacity estimates were based on a lower
waste heating value than that of F037 and F038 wastes.
Due to the lack of adequate bulk solids incineration capacity and the uncertainty
regarding the availability of cement kiln capacity after August 1992, EPA is granting a
one-year variance for routinely generated FG37 and F038 wastes, and a two-year national
capacity variance for F037 and F038 removed from surface impoundments. A one-year
national capacity variance will allow time for cement kilns to certify compliance with BIF
interim status requirements and adjust their operating practices to deal with these
requirements on a routine basis. It should also allow adequate time for at least one new
incinerator to obtain final authorization to burn F037 and F038, and an existing
incinerator to expand capacity by improving operation efficiency.
Comments:
The comments discussing market indicators which suggest less capacity is available

-------
2-5	Combustion
than EPA estimated are presented in the following order:
API (87);
•	Conoco (92);
•	Exxon (118); and
Mobil (100).

-------
2 * 6	Combustion
Docket Number: CD2P-000S7
Commenier:	American Petroleum Institute
Comment:
The available treatment/recycling capacity is
currently very tight without any F037/F038 in the marketplace.
API has presented technical arguments to support its position •
that capacity is currently strained in the above discussions. In
addition, there are marketplace indicators which also confirm
that the balance between treatment capacity "supply" and
treatment volume "demand" is extremely tight at the present time
even without F037/FQ38 wastes.
•	Difficulty in scheduling waste shipments to
treatment/recycling facilities
Requests for extensions to the 90 day on-site storage
provisions have increased over the last year for
refinery K-wastes.
•	Refusal of treatment and recycling facilities to enter
into take-or-pay contractual agreements for waste
.treatment/recycling.
Incineration and cement kiln costs have more than
doubled in the last two years

-------
2 - 7
Combustion
Docket Number: CD2P-00(W2
Commenter:	Conoco, inc.
Commem:
Conoco recommends that EPA grant a 2-vcar National Capacity Variance for F037/F038 wastes
and aliow land treatment of th^se wastes during this period. Based on the American Petroleum
Institutes (	
: capacity that will be available in the 1992-1993 period. Conoco
lies prooicms in ujiuing off-site capacity, not only because of the quantities of waste that
requiring treatment, but also because of limitations on emissions, mechanical dewatering
dee handling at the commercial facilities. Thus there is the likelihood of a tremendous
'		making it necessary, to schedule critical turnaround and
management facilities.
-Ni

-------
Docket Number:
Commenter:
Comment:
CD2P-00118
Exxon
2-8
Combustion
Exxon (118) submitted comments as CBI.
DRAFT 23 June, 1992 11:36 pin **~

-------
2.9
Combustion
Docket Number: CD2P-OOKJO
Commenter:	Mobil Corporation
Comment:
Prior to the renewal process, adequate tankage and treatment
capacity oust be in place to store and dewater dredged material prior to
offsita disposition, this entire cleaning process can be ouplicated by
variations the v 1 ! yriali ios of dredc^cd iwfffirial, va^ t3 in the
characteristics of deaatered sludge (most notably, BIU content), scheduling of
transportation and aooefitanoe of waste at incinerators or cement kilns, etc.
All of these factors add to the question of whether adequate treatment capacity
will be available to continuously accept the large volumes of waste which will
be generated in the relatively short tiae period allowed for closure or
retrofitting of surface impoundments.

-------
2 -10
Combustion
2.2 EPA's Combustion Capacity Analysis Methodology Overestimated Available
Capacity
Summary:
Two commenters raised general issues regarding EPA's method of conducting the
capacity analysis. API (87) commented that EPA overestimated available capacity by
using permitted or design capacity. API argued that EPA should have used practical
maximum combustion capacity. CMA (80) disagrees with EPA's assertion that
commercial combustion capacity for sludges and solids is available at cement kilns and
incinerators. CMA cites the experience of its members, and believes that the cement
industry has the perception that solids and sludges are not worth the additional
operational and handling problems they cause.
Response:
In conducting its capacity analysis, EPA used either the practical or permitted
capacity, at individual incinerators, whichever was lower. The CKRC Survey asked
cement kilns for their maximum practical burning capacity, and whether their main
capacity limiting factor was a regulatory or permit limit, or a technical or product quality
related limit. EPA analyzed these data to ensure that the most limiting capacity
constraint was considered as maximum practical capacity. The Agency then reduced
facility-specific incinerator and cement kiln maximum capacity estimates by 10 to 50
percent, as was detailed in the background document (Background Document for Capacity
Analysis for Newly Listed Wastes and Contaminated Debris to Support 40 CFR 268 Land
Disposal Restrictions (Proposed Rule): Capacity Analysis Document 1, Chapter 2, December
1992), to account for the likelihood (based on actual past experience) that all incinerators
and cement kilns would not be able to achieve their reported maximum capacities. EPA
also notes that API's survey results generally concur with EPA's own assessment of
maximum practical capacity at specific cement kilns. In February 1992, EPA updated its
capacity analysis through discussions with the operators of the incinerators and cement
kilns responsible for the majority of the available capacity. As a result of these
discussions, EPA updated its original estimates of utilization rates and available capacity.
In response to the proposed rule, EPA received comments indicating that the
physical characteristics of F037 and F038 may make them unsuited for some types of
feed systems, and thus unable to utilize some types of available capacity. These issues
are discussed in greater detail in Sections 2.4 and 2.9. EPA agrees with commenters that
some commercial combustion facilities are limited in the amount and types of sludges
and solids they can burn, and has revised its F037/F038 capacity analysis to exclude
capacity from systems that are generally not amenable to F037 and F038 filter cakes.
However, information provided by the cement industry indicates that cement kilns are
generally increasing their sludge and solid combustion capacity. EPA believes that there
will be sufficient combustion capacity for routinely generated F037 and F038 wastes in six

-------
2-11	Combustion
to twelve months.
Comments:
The comments stating that EPA's capacity analysis methodology overestimated
available capacity are presented in the following order:
API (87); and
CMA (80).

-------
2-12
Combustion
Docket Number: CD2P-00087
Commenter:	American'Petroleum Institute
Comment:
f.pa has overstated 1992 available treatment capacity by using
nr design capacity for incinerators and cement kilns,
f.p& should ns«» practical operating capacity when assessing, 1,99,2
available treatment capacity.
in attempting to assess the F037/F038 treatment capacity that
will be available ir. 1992, EPA, in a number of cases, utilized
' permitted or design capacity for incinerators and cement kilns.
AFI believes that the use of permitted or design capacities has
significantly overstated 1992 available capacity.
Permitted or design feed capacity is typically based on optimum
feed properties and operating conditions that allow maximum
throughput within existing permit limits. For example, a number
of considerations go into calculating a maximum or permitted
throughput (feed properties such as BTU, water/solids content,
sulfur, metals concentrations). Additionally, the physical
limits of the mechanical facilities such as the feed handling and
injection systems, metallurgy, and control equipment efficiency
(such as solids removal from electrostatic precipitators and bag
houses) are also critical considerations in estimating maximum or
design throughputs. Some facilities, such as cement kilns, were
designed without initial consideration of processing hazardous
waste fuels and the subsequent impact of waste fuels processing
permit and equipment limitations.
Practical operating capacity takes into consideration the impacts
of non-optimized feed properties and operating conditions and
their subsequent effects on operating permit limits and the
physical limits of the mechanical facilities. For example,
wastes going to incineration with a'BTU content higher than
design will, in some cases, require a cutback in incineiator
throughput in order to stay below the maximum heat release
stipulated in operating permits. This is why commercial
incinerators charge a premium, typically in S/lb/BTU, for wastes
with BTUs above some base level.

-------
2-13
Combustion
Docket Number: CD2P-00080
Commenter:	Chemical Manufacturers Association
Comment:
2. EPA has overastlaated the Interest of the ceaent kiln
industry in aaaa*ln« debris and other non-fuel wastes.
EPA states that coaaercial coabuatioa capacity for sludges and
solids are available at bath Incinerators And ceaent kilns (as wall as
other industrial furnaces) (57 FR at 998). The Agency further asserts
that aany coaaercial ceaent kilns are currently changing their -
operations to accept, solids and sludges, lot the actual experience of
CNA aeaber companies over the last several years has been exactly the
opposite.
CMA aeaber coapanies have tried since the first third land
disposal restriction proposal to convince the ceaent kiln industry of
the TtlM of their facilities to the aanageaent of sore than fuel value
llquit Mates, and have eat with little success. EPA should not
aaiaa^tt it has lis the proposed rule, that regulatory changes will
alter^Wt loaf standing ceaent industry perception that solids and
slodgw'fir* not worth the operational aaa handling probleaa thay
supposedly cause.	*
CMA aeaber companies have also attempted, when appropriate, to
point out the reuae value of silicatea aad/or carbonates la solids and
sludges as effective substitutes to the sand and liaestone used in
ceaent aanufacture. But the aeaber coapaales have been usable to aake
significant headway with the ceaent kiln industry on this Issue either.

-------
2 -14
Combustion
23 1990 K-waste Land Bans Significantly Reduced Available Commercial Capacity
Summary:
Three commenters (API (87), Exxon (118), and Unocal (44)) believe that EPA
overestimated available capacity by using capacity utilization data from the first half of
1991 as a baseline for its analysis. Commenters suggested that petroleum refineries
timed periodic waste generation to occur just before the November 1990 Land Disposal
Restrictions for K048-K052 became effective. This timing, the commenters argued,
resulted in relatively small volumes sent to commercial facilities in the first half of 1991.
Petroleum refining wastes began returning to the commercial combustion market during
the second half of 1991, and the beginning of 1992. API (87) submitted the results of a
phone survey of cement kiln capacity conducted in January and February 1992, which
revealed that all cement kilns surveyed by EPA and CKRC in August are now at or near
capacity, and that their combustion of K-wastes had increased. NPRA (22) and Retec
Remediation Technologies (28) commented that off-site capacity is already stretched
from previous land bans promulgated for K048-K052, and a minimum of two years will
be necessary for refineries to implement on-site treatment alternatives.
Response:
EPA maintains that its estimates of utilized capacity are representative of 1991.
First, in conducting its original analysis for the proposed rule, EPA confirmed with the
operators of commercial incinerators that their first-half 1991 estimates were
representative of their expectations for the remainder of the year. Also, the CKRC
Survey included capacity utilization data for July and most of August, which are generally
periods of above average demand. Despite these considerations, EPA attempted to
confirm whether K048-52 volumes going to commercial combustion facilities had
increased markedly in the second half of 1991. Through numerous discussions with
commercial combustion facilities that routinely accept these wastes, EPA did not find that
such an increase had occurred. In fact, several commercial facilities noted that they had
lost part of their K048-52 market to on-site waste management, or other off-site facilities.
Cement kiln facilities explained that during certain days in winter months, with less kilns
operational, they are sometimes burning at 100 percent utilization rates, but overall their
annualized utilization was accurately reflected in the CKRC Survey. EPA found API's
survey results lacking in several respects. For instance, API did not include Giant
Cement, a participant in the CKRC survey. API reported that River Cement, Medusa
Cement and Heartland Cement are not permitted to accept petroleum refining wastes,
while Cemtech, their fuels blender, believes they are. When asking if cement kilns had
experienced increases in K-wastes "recently", API did not define "recently", and at least
one respondent, Lafarge's Fredonia, Kansas facility, clearly interpreted "recent" to mean
over the past year. EPA recognizes that the quantity of petroleum refining wastes gong
to commercial facilities had increased over the year preceding API's survey (since LDR
standards for K048-52 went into effect in November 1990, and survey coverage began in

-------
2-15
Combustion
January 1991), However, EPA has no information indicating a significant decrease in
available capacity occurred in the second half of 1991. EPA recognizes that its available
capacity estimates contain uncertainty, and adjusted its capacity estimates to account for
this uncertainty.
NPRA (22) and Retec Remediation Technologies (28) are concerned that EPA
underestimated the volumes of F037 and F038 which will be generated over the next two
years. EPA's analysis of required capacity is discussed in section 3.6.
Comments:
The comments stating that the 1990 K-waste land disposal restrictions reduced
available commercial capacity are presented in the following order:
API (87);
•	Exxon (118);
NPRA (22);
Retec (28); and
*	Unocal (44).

-------
2 - 16	Combustion
Docket Number. CD2P-00087
Commenter:	American Petroleum Institute
Comment:
EPA has significantly overstated available treatment capacity for
F037/F038 wastes bv using the first half of 1991 (1H91)
incineration and cement kiln utilization information.
In attempting to assess the treatment capacity for F037/FC38
wastes that will be available in 1992, the Agency looked at the
first half of 1991 (1H91) incineration and cement kiln
utilization data to project full year 1991 utilization. The
projected 1991 utilization was then subtracted from projected
1992 capacity in an attempt to estimate available or spare
treatment/recycling capacity for F037/F038 wastes. The 1H91
utilization data significantly underestimates actual current
utilization and therefore overestimates 1992 capacity available
for F037/F038 waste treatment and fuels recycling. Looking only
at 1H91 utilization, EPA does not consider the intermittently
generated K-wastes that only recently entered the
treatment/recycling market. Many refineries generate Refinery
Slop Oil Emulsion Solids (K04 9) and API Separator Sludge (K051)
on a batch basis as part of periodic tank and separator
maintenance and cleaning. Further, a number of refineries store
their K-wastes in above ground storage tanks for extended periods
for subsequent dewatering and disposal on a campaign basis.
Prior to the November 11, 1990 land disposal ban of all refinery
K-wastes (K048-K052), many companies cleaned slop oil emulsion
tanks and API separators in order to avail themselves of the
lower cost Subtitle C landfill option. These intermittently
generated K-wastes are just now entering the post-land-disposal-
ban treatment/recycling market as refineries perform their annual
or periodic cleanout and maintenance of these tanks and
separators. These significant waste volumes would not have been
captured by analysis of 1H91 incineration and cement kiln
utilization rates. API believes these intermittently generated
K-wastes are now consuming a significant volume of available
treatment/waste fuels recvclina caDacit-v.

-------
Docket Number: CD2P-00087
Commenter:	American Petroleum Institute
Comment (continued):
API recently conducted a telephone survey of those cement kilns
reported by EPA (in the docket of the proposed rule) to have
solids handling capacity (see Appendix C). According to the
results of the telephone survey, those facilities that are
permitted to manage K-wastes report recent increases in K-wastes
volumes entering the wastes fuels market. API believes these
volumes are primarily associated with intermittently generated K-
wastes just now being removed from API separators and slop oil
emulsion tanks. API also believes that a significant quantity of
low-BTU, intermittently generated K-wastes are just now entering
the commercial incineration market, as well.
Additionally, recycling of solid waste fuels is a relatively new
option for refineries and many companies continue to experience
difficulties in meeting the minimum BXU limits imposed on cement
kilns by state and federal regulations. Some companies report
that very aggressive dewatering or thermal desorption is required
to remove sufficient water to raise the BTU value above the
recycling threshold. Some companies also report that K-wastes
production was minimized in early 1991 while experimentation or
bench scale testing was on-going to determine how best to enhance
the natural BTU content of K-waste so that it could enter the
lower cost waste fuels recycling market verses commercial
incineration. API believes that these activities may also have
resulted.in artificially low 1H91 K-waste production rates and
consequently resulted in an overestimate of 1992 available
capacity by EPA.
In summary, API believes that a significant quantity of K-waste
entered the incineration and cement kiln markets after 1H91, As
such, EPA has significantly understated 1991 capacity utilization
and, therefore, 1992 treatment capacity available to refinery
F037/F038.

-------
Jacket Number: CD2P-00087
'ommenter:	American Petroleum Institute
;omment (continued):
Cement Kiln Capacity Survey
January/February 1992
Introduction
API contracted with Gossman Consulting, Inc. to conduct a survey of cement kiln solids
capacity. The survey covered 10 cement plants that were included in EPA "Commercial
Cement Kiln Hazardous V&ste Capacity" estimates. The following Is a list of those facilities
and contacts:
Ash Grove
Chanute, KS
Foreman, AR
Louisville, NB
Eric Hanson
(913) 451-8900
Lafarge
Fredonia, KS
Paul Peters
(316) 378-4451
Heartland
Independence, KS
Dan Nugent
(215) 866-4400
Lone Star
Greencastle, IN
Jerry Forgey
(317) 653-2606
Keystone
Bath, PA
Franklin Silfies
(215) 837-1881
River Cement
Festus, MO
Joe Pospisil
(314) 937-7601
Medusa
Wampum, PA
Joe Ford
(412)535-4311
ext. 322
Southdown
Knoxville, TN
Tom Nail
(615)522-1171
The survey was conducted by telephone for the sake of expediency as well as to increased the
participation rate. Each cement plant contact was informed that Gossman Consulting, Inc. was
conducting an API authorized survey.
Results and Comments
All ten facilities are at or very near their maximum practical operating substitution rate and/or
permitted maximum substitution rate (compare 2a with 2b). Various operational constraints
were cited. For the most pan, however, changes in the system and/or their permit(s) would be
necessary to increase their substitution rates. Three of the ten kilns are planning to increase
their usage by one third this year (see the Ash Grove note under 2).
Gottmtn Consuiting, Inc. February 1992
<513)376-5407 or (?08)6S3-41IS
2 -18
Combustion

-------
Docket Number: CD2P-00987
Commenter:	American Petroleum Institute
Comment (continued):
AH of the plants are planning to perform their BIF Compliance Tests at their maximum
substitution rates or even higher. One of the plants has completed its Compliance Test. None
of them expect their metals fuels specifications to be negatively impacted by their Compliance
Test.
Only four of the ten plants are currently permitted to receive F037 and F038 waste material.
Two more of these plants are in the process of adding these waste codes. However, just three
of those four plants are currently processing any F037/F038 wastes. Seven of the ten plants
are currently permitted to handle K wastes, and one more is in the process of adding K wastes.
Seven of the ten plants are interested in increased volumes of F037 and F038 wastes. It is
interesting to note that out of nine facilities, (one would not comment) none will be permitted
to receive materials below 5,000 BTUs per pound. Water content will continue to be an
operational consideration.
Only two plants are not planning to handle solids at all. Most of the plants said little about
solids handling problems. It should be noted that the three Ash Grove plants, which currently
process some F037/F038 wastes, do so by containerizing them. Gossman Consulting, Inc.
understands that it is not uncommon for API members to receive telephone calls from
TSDF/processors asking that regular shipments be stopped for a while until backlogged
inventory is worked off. Gossman Consulting, Inc. is also aware, through their industry
contacts, that this is not an uncommon occurrence.
None of the ten facilities surveyed view their state or local regulatory climate as detrimental to
their fuel burning plans. No permit or waste burning moratoriums are in effect or being
considered in the seven states where these plants are located.
Six of the ten plants are either down for turnaround right now or have already completed their
turnarounds. The other four plants will have completed their turnarounds by April. Gossman
Consulting, Inc. is aware of one cement plant not included in this survey that is planning
downtime for "inventory adjustment" due to reduced demand for cement. This issue was not
addressed in this survey.
Summary of Key Findings
Ten cement plants were contacted by phone as part of this capacity survey. These ten plants
represent 18 kilns. Only four of the ten plants are currently permitted to receive F037 and
F038 waste material, although two more are in the process of adding these waste codes. Just
three of those four plants permitted to receive F037.F038 waste material are currently
processing any F037/F038 wastes. The current method of processing F037/F038 waste at
Gossm&n Consulting. Inc. Februaty 1992
/
-------
Docket Number: CD2P-000S7
Commenter:	American Petroleum Institute
Comment (continued):
three of the four plants is by containerizing. All three are supplied through the same
"waste-as-fuels" broker.
AH ten facilities are at or very near their maximum practical operating substitution rate and/or
permitted maximum substitution rate. Clearly, current supplies/suppliers will have to be
adjusted in order to accommodate any new materials that enter the market place. This would
of course include F037 and F038 waste materials. The five plants that are already handling K
wastes have experienced a significant increase in K wastes over the last few months.
ine of the ten plants expect to have a BTU permit constraint as of May 31, 1992; two at 8,000
BTUs, four at 6,OCX) BTUs, and three at 5,000 BTUs. All ten plants will continue to have
operational water content restrictions. Seven of the ten plants already process solid wastes in
some form or another. Three of these seven plants plan to increase their solids handling
capacities by one third in 1992. Two additional plants will add solids when they are required
to renin their BIF Compliance Tests within the next two or three years.
Coumtn Consulting, Inc. Febnary 1992
(513)376* S4Q7 or (708)683^111
2 - 20
Combustion

-------
Docket Number: CD2P-00087
Commenter:	American Petroleum Institute
Comment (continued):
Name of Contact: ;			Date: '	
Position:			Time: 	
API Questionnaire
1)	What is your permitted HWF use rate? (gal/min?) (lb, gal or ton/year?)
What is your solids capacity?
2)	Is that your current HWF use rate? Y N
If no, then what is your current HWF use rate?
Is that your maximum practical operating limit? Y N
If no, then what is your limit?
What are the operating constraints that prevent you from burning at your maximum
permitted rate?
3)	Will you perform the BIF compliance test at your current or maximum level?
If not, at what level?
Do you anticipate any BIF compliance problems? Y N
4)	Are you currently permitted to handle F037 and F038? Y N.
Just one? Y N	Which?
Are you permitted to handle K wastes?
5)	How much F037 and/or F038 do you currently process?	What about K waste?
If yes, in what form do you process them? (i.e. liquid, dried, sludge)
Have you experienced an increase in K wastes recently? Y N
6)	Are you interested in more F037 and/or F03I? Y N
7)	On May 31, 1992 will you be operating with either a permit or operational BTU
content restriction? Y N
If so, what?	Will you be taking materials below 5,000 BTU? YN

-------
Docket Number: CD2P-0(M)S7
rommenter:	American Peiroleum Institute
Comment (continued):
8)	On May 31, 1992 will you be operating with either a permit or operational water
content restriction? Y N
If so, what?
9)	Can you handle liquids? Y N	dry solids? Y N i.e. filter cake? Y N
sludges (pumpable)? Y N sludges (non-pumpable)? Y N
• What is your solid waste storage capacity? How do you process that waste?
10)	If you can handle sludges, do you containerize? Y N
disperse in thinner liquids? Y N
What types of solids handling equipment do you use?
What types of materials give you handling problems?
on-site or off-site (third party)? Y N
If containerized, can there be free liquids? Y N
11)	Do you anticipate rerunning your BIF compliance test to add sludge handling capability
or capacity within one year? Y N Two years? Y N Three years? Y N
12)	If processing of sludges must be performed at other than the cement plant site are you
aware of any restrictions that your suppliers might have on capacity?
13)	Do you anticipate revised metals fuel specifications as a result of BIF? Y N
Hexavalent chrome? Y N Mercury? Y N
14)	Do you have a Part B permit for storage? Y N Have you submitted one? Y N
What is your storage capacity? Do you have off-site storage capacity? Y N
15)	Have you submitted a Part B and Trial Burn Plan for the facility? Y N
If not, has it been called? Y N Date due?
When do you anticipate doing your Test Bum?
API Queclioanftur/Gossnun Consulting, lnc./01-29>92

-------
Docket Number: CD2P-(XM)X7
Commenter:	American Petroleum Institute
Comment (continued):
16)	If API requests, would you provide a copy of your air permit? Y N
Part A? Y N precompliance certification? Y N waste analysis plan? Y N
17)	Does your facility use take or pay contracts with waste fuel suppliers? Y N
If yes, would you do so for oily sludges? Y N
18)	What is your assessment of state or local community opposition to burning HWF?
[ ] severe (permit threatening) [ J serious (but not permit threatening)
[ ] moderate	{] little or none
19)	Is there a burning or permit moratorium in your state? Y N
Is one under consideration? Y N
20)	When have you scheduled downtime this year?
Does that include any BIF modifications? (C.E.M., upgrade ESP/baghouse) Y N
21) Does downtime (planned or unplanned) figure into your capacity estimates? Y N

-------
I	I	11
i !<
-------
nmenter:	American Petroleum Institute
nment (continued):
mt
A*h 0 H*v« mtmiHd
c. Stong* uptdlgr
1 Off*** iteiy upadjr;
NO
YES
1
M«tgi hoin
pMMjwSlh
• to It rmiN
YES
NO
YES
t
*to**Q* hciNii
ptww*4*MN
• to {•merthc.
YES
NO
YES
t
MlQI IHCHIM
(trndiMMi
ItoilmnN
YES
NOfatort*
YES
T
***4tobuml
•ihM atoii
Unto
NO
lPMVTitd»gm«ufcMto*
bwn uM;
c. Ptovwtf Tax Sum *to:
YES
IMI
Uwcfc
YES
fcurr*i| »irw<
uMltlD
ftntabitff
YES
s-t-st
NO
NO
Mqsfcn*
WmM pv«W* Mfy «f
P«1Pf*ew«pftan»
iflfkeewsWAT:
YES
YES
YES
mM r*N» to
atatoONR
I. tefce/pey fci iMgee:
(MMMwhIIm:
X
•mpMSceSy NO
X
NO
X
w*f nn*Q»d
NO
NO
M**f n*n*
a Mn^wolMmMM:
b. On* «ndw mmUm*k
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
t Sehedv4d*ew*ee:
bi •» wtdWalini:
Fttedqr
t*M Ivn ptarto *M C€
if
r
Mm*
ln«uf»c*r«M1li
light itov
YES
. Do«n»MlHtt10«r*«ul*l
NO
uo«*r*	>»
-------
2-26	Combustion
Docket Number: CD2P-00118
Commenter:	Exxon
Comment:
Exxon (118) submitted comments as CBI.

-------
2.27
Combustion
Docket Number: CD2!MKX)22
Commenter:	National Petroleum Refiners Association
Comment:
NPRA urges that EPA provide 2 two year capacity variance for all F037 and F038
wastes, not only the F037 and F038 wastes from surface impoundments as is proposed by
EPA. Requiring refineries to immediately treat wastes covered under the proposal would
create significant disruption of their operations because sufficient treatment capacity does not
currently exist NPRA bases this conclusion on three facts:
1.	The American Petroleum Institute (API) in conjunction with NPRA conducted
a survey in 1991 to determine the practices of member companies in generating
and handling primary sludges. The results of this survey indicate that the
volume of wastes may be as much as 451,000 tons per year (dry wight); not
the 173,000 tons per year (dry weight) estimated by EPA. This is an increase
of 261 percent of the waste that will have to be treated by refineries. The ckta
supporting the survey results .tie provided in API's comments to this proposed
rule, and are fully supported by NPRA.
2,	NPRA believes that present treatment capacity is overtaxed in handling the
existing landband wastes (K048-K052). Requiring additional wastes to be
treated of the magnitude discussed above within the specified time period
would likely cause system failure. EPA's suggested use of cement kilns for
treatment of these wastes raises the issue of their general applicability for this
use. The BTU content of the wastes, even if comingled, may not always be
sufficient for use in kilns, and the permitting of kilns for treatment of these
wastes may not be possible within the proposed time. Therefore, until the
required treatment capacity actually becomes operational, there will be a major
shortfall in treatment capacity.

-------
2-28
Combustion
Docket Number: CD:P-lH)l!2.N
Commenter:	Retec Remediation Technologies
Comment:
EPA has greatly underestimated the quantity of F037 & F038 wastes which will be
generated as a result of the proposed rule as well as overestimated the availability of off-site and
on-site treatment capacity. Surveys completed by API and corroborated by RlTEC's experience
working with over SO refineries indicates that EPA has underestimated the amount of F037
wastes by a factor of two to three. REIBC's experience is that existing off-site capacity is
already stretched from previous land bans promulgated for K048-K052. On-site options require
relatively long lead times to be implemented. REIEC estimates that it will take a minimum of
two yean for refineries to implement on-site treatment alternatives.

-------
2-29
Combustion
Docket Number:
Commenter:
Comment:
CD2P-00044
Unocal Corporation
EPA has significantly overstated available treatment capacity for
F037/F038 wastes by usingfirsthalf.of 1991 (1H91) incineratien
and cement kiln utilization information.
While K wastes are routinely generated throughout the year, Unocal
typically schedules its intermittent wastewater treatment unit
sludge removal just prior to the rainy season which in California
begins in about November. Hence, Unocal's K wastes that were
shipped off-site in 1991 exhibited a spike in the second half of
the year with a larger volume generated than in the first half of
the year.

-------
2-30
Combustion
2.4 F037 and F038 Wastes May Not be Amenable to Liquid and Pumpable Sludge
Incinerator Feed Systems
Summary:
API (87) commented that F037 and F038 typically have high concentrations of
water and grit and low concentrations of oil. Keeping all the components suspended to
form a homogeneous, pumpable sludge is difficult, because during transportation the
heavier grit settles to the bottom of tankers, forming a nonpumpable layer. Based on
API members' experience with K048-52, pumpable sludge feed systems are generally not
capable of handling heavy, gritty F037 and F038 sludges. Shell (77) also listed problems
using liquid and pumpable sludge incineration systems to feed F037 and F038, including
solids settling during shipment, storage capacity limitations, and limitations on particle
size, ash, and fluoride content of wastes.
Response:
EPA recognizes that pumpable sludge feed systems may have difficulty with some
F037 and F038 and does not believe that pumpable sludge feed systems will be a viable
source of combustion capacity for most F037 and F038 filter cakes. EPA understands
the problems associated with F037 and F038 slurries, and in its capacity analysis did not
assign any F037 and F038 sludge volumes to liquid systems or pumpable sludge systems
that are not already handling either K048-K052 or F037 and F038.
Comments:
The comments stating that F037 and F038 wastes may not be amenable to liquid
and pumpable sludge incinerator feed systems are presented in the following order:
API (87); and
Shell (77).

-------
2-31
Combustion
Docket Number: CD2P-OOOS7
Commenter:
American Petroleum Institute
Comment:
EPA has estimated and reported In the Background Information
Document to the proposed rule, that about 86,000 tons of
"pumpable sludge" treatment capacity exist for refinery primary
sludge (F037/F038), Industry, in general, will not produce K-
wastes in a "pumpable" form but rather as a relatively solid,
dewatered filter cake. Some companies report limited success in
attempts to handle aqueous (non-dewatered) K-wastes in pumpable
treatment systems due to the relative fast physical phase
separation of the solids and water. This phase separation can
occur in storage tanks and during transportation resulting in the
formation of a non-pumpable sludge in the bottom of the tank or
transport tanker. In fact, due to the density of particles in
both K-wastes and particularly F037/F038 waste (mainly sand and
solid erosion products), refineries, transporters, and treatment
outlets would need systems (such as mixers, agitators, etc.} to
keep the waste suspended and in a pumpable form from the point of
generation to the point of treatment or recycling. Some
companies report having shipments rejected due to the phase
separation that occurs during transport and the subsequent
inability of the treatment outlet to remove the resulting non-
pumpable sludge from the transport container and handle it within
the treatment/recycling system of the receiver. API believes
that incineration and cement kiln "pumpable sludge" feed handling
systems in many cases will not be able to manage F037/F038 in the
form in which it will be produced. EPA should, therefore,
significantly discount the stated "pumpable sludge" capacity
available to treat refinery primary sludge.

-------
2-32
Docket Number: CD2P-000S7
Commenter:	American Petroleum Institute
Comment (continued):
Combustion
EPA should also significantly discount the 24,000 tons of cement
kiln "dry solids" handling capacity claimed to be available for
F037/F038 in the Background Information Document to the proposed
rule. These dry solids systems are typically pneumatic
conveyance devices that require a dry, non-tacky material for
materials handling. • Dewatered F037/F038 will still contain 25-
40% water and sufficient residual oil content to make the
resulting filter cake moist and "tacky." One refinery reports
having no success in the handling of K-wastes, that have been
thermally dried to less than 10% water content, within cement
kiln pneumatic handling systems. API believes that it is
unrealistic to assume that large quantities of F037/F038 can be
handled within pneumatic (dry solids) handling systems.

-------
2-33
Combustion
Docket Number: CD2P-(X>()77
Cummenier:	Shell Oil Company
Comment:
2. Liquid Incineration - Oily sludges can also be incinerated in
certain commercial incinerators as a pumpable slurry; however,
the water content will be 3-5 tines .higher than for dewatered
sludges which would significantly increase the transportation
requirements. Problems that have limited liquid incineration
capacity utilization includes
!
a.	Settling of solids in tank trucks during shipment.
b.	Limitations on storage capacity at incinerators which
impacts scheduling.
c.	Presence of relatively large sized particles (>1/4 in)
which cause plugging of screens and nozzles.
d.	Limitations on ash and fluoride content at certain liquid
incinerators.

-------
2-34	Combustion
2.5 Bulk Solids Incineration Systems Arc Operating at or Near Maximum Capacity
Summary:
API (87) and Phillips Petroleum (42) believe that bulk solids incineration systems,
generally the systems used for petroleum refining wastes, will be operating at or near
maximum capacity handling routinely generated'K-wastes and F037 and F038 wastes,
and that the remaining containerized solids feed systems will be overwhelmed by the
intermittent generation of F037 and F038 from surface impoundment cleanouts. Shell
Oil Company (77) detailed some problems refineries have had utilizing bulk solids
capacity for K048-52, including: high equipment maintenance requirements resulting in
frequent shutdowns, throughput severely reduced due to permit constraints, and the
heating value of wastes being too high (though not high enough for cement kilns).
Response:
EPA is aware that some incineration facilities have had problems that limited the
amount of hazardous wastes they were able to accept. EPA believes that some of these
incinerators have worked through their difficulties and are back on line, and for others,
EPA accounted for technical problems by adjusting their reported capacity estimates.
EPA believes that some overlap exists in the ranges of heating values suitable for
incinerators and cement kilns, and is not aware of wastes with heating values
simultaneously too high for incinerators and too low for cement kilns fuels substitution.
However, EPA is aware that waste heating values affect mass throughput limits when an
incinerator is operating at its heat release limit, and has revised its bulk solids
incineration capacity estimate to account for facilities that estimated their capacity based
on a lower waste heating value than that of F037 and F038.
As described in Section 2.1, EPA has estimated that approximately 60 percent of
the 69,000 tons per year of routinely generated F037 and F038 wastes will have a heating
value sufficient for use in cement kilns. The remainder, approximately 28,000 tons, will
require bulk solids incineration capacity. EPA revised its estimates of available bulk
solids capacity between the proposed and final rules, and does not believe that sufficient
bulk solids incineration capacity exists for this volume of wastes. EPA considered limiting
the variance to low-BTU F037 and F038 wastes but decided that it would be excessively
burdensome for the regulated community to comply with or for regulators to enforce
different standards. (For a more detailed discussion of this decision, please see
Background Document for Phase One Land Disposal Restrictions Chapter J.)
'For the purpose of the F037 and F038 capacity analysis, routinely generated F037 and
F038 wastes are wastes generated from tanks, including wastes from equalization tanks and
oil/water/solids separators (such as CPI units and 1AF units) that are not API separators or
DAF units.

-------
2-35
Combustion
EPA does not believe that cement kilns will be able to take more than 60 percent
of the routinely generated F037 and F038 wastes by blending them up to their required
minimum heating value. This issue is discussed further in Section 2.6.
EPA believes that wastes removed from surface impoundments are more likely
than routinely generated wastes to require bulk solids incineration because they generally
have lower heating value and are more heterogeneous than routinely generated F037 and
F038. The Agency believes that bulk solids incineration capacity will be insufficient to
handle low-BTU routinely generated F037 and F038 wastes, but that sufficient capacity
will come on line after one year. Therefore, due to the lack of sufficient bulk solids
incineration capacity, EPA is granting a two-year national capacity variance for F037 and
F038 removed from surface impoundments, and a one-year variance for routinely
generated F037 and F038 wastes.
Comments:
The comments stating that bulk solids incineration systems are operating at or
near maximum capacity are presented in the following order:
API (87);
Phillips Petroleum (42); and
Shell (77).

-------
2-36
Combustion
Docket Number: CD2P-00087
Commenter:	American Petroleum Institute
Comment:
API is concerned that bulk feed handling systems will be
.operating at or near capacity with continuously generated It-
wastes and the F037/F038 wastes, and that containerized feed
handling systems will be left to manage the majority of the one-
time and peak generated wastes. For the same Gulf Coast refinery
situation described above, the 60,000-70,000 tons of F037/F038
wastes will result in 2,500,000 six-gallon containers for
recycling to cement kilns, or 320,000, 55-gallon drums for
treatment at incinerators, over a six month time period. When
the scenario is extended over the entire refining industry, with
the significant volume of F037/F038 wastes expected to be
generated from impoundments over the next two years, API is
concerned that the treatment/recycling industry containerized
feed systems will not be able to handle this volume of waste.
Unless sufficient on- or off-site RCRA storage facility capacity
is available, refineries will likely have to significantly reduce
the rate of impoundment cleanouts. This forced reduction in the
rate of impoundment cleanouts, as the result of unavailable
treatment or recycling capacity, will severely disrupt
impoundment clean-out upgrades and/or replacement schedules.
This may place some refineries in an untenable position of not
meeting closures schedules agreed to with state agencies.

-------
2-37
Combustion
Docket Number: CD2P-00042
Commenter:	Phillips Petroleum
Comment:
A* bulk feed handling systems msy be opanting at or near capacity with continuously generated K-
wastes and F037/F038, it it probabla that containerized feed handling systarns will be left to manage the
majority of the one-time and ,eak generated primary sludge wastes. The 66,500 tons of F037/F038
wastes from Phillips' surface impoundments will result in 1,800,000, six gallon containers for recycling
to cement kilns or 250,000, 55 gallon drums for treatment at incinerators, over a short time period.
When the scenario is extended over the entire refining industry, with the significant volume of F037/F038
wastes expected to be generated from impoundments over the next year. Phillips is concerned that the
treatment/recycling industry containerized feed systems will not be able to handle this volume of waste.
Unless sufficient on or off-site RCRA storage facility capacity is available, refineries will likely have to
significantly reduce the rate of impoundment eleanout*. This forced reduction, in the rate of
impoundment cieanouta, is the result of unavailable treatment or recycling capacity, will saverely disrupt
impoundment annual eleanout, closure upgrade or replacement schedules.

-------
2-38
Combustion
D.wket Number: CD2P-00077
Cuitimenier:	Shell Oil Company
Comment:
X. Btalk Incineration of Dewatered Sludges - Since refinery
sludges such as K048-K052 and F037-F038 are usually dewatered
on-site using filter presses or centrifuges prior to offsite
disposal, incinerators that can process bulk solids (delivered
in trailers or roll-offs) are required. We understand that
there are only four permitted incinerators that can handle
bulk solids. When the land disposal restrictions for K048-
K052 wastes became effective in November, 1990, refiners that
were depending upon the bulk incinerators to handle their
¦ dewatered sludges found that the capacity was far short of
expectations and temporary storage was required. At Shell's
Wood River Refinery as many as 25 roll-off bins and trailers
were on site filled with dewatered K048 and K051 sludgej
awaiting allocation of incinerator space.	1
This shortfall was due to:
a.	Inability of certain incinerators to feed this material
in their solids handling system.
b.	High BTU contents (but not high enough to be suitable for
cement kilns) which reduced capacity.
c.	Unscheduled shutdown of facilities due to equipment
failure.
d.	Severally reduced throughput due to permit constraints.
While the hazardous waste incinerator industry is working to
overcome these problems, we believe that many are yet
unresolved so their potential capacity isn't fully available

-------
2-39
Combustion
2.6 F037 and F038 Wastes May Not Meet Heating Value Requirements for Fuels
Substitution
Summary:
API (87) commented that even after kilns certify compliance with BIF Interim
Status requirements, most will still have an operational minimum heating value limit
(around 5,000 BTU/lb) for wastes accepted as fuel. This limit, according to the
commenters, would exclude most F037 and F038 wastes. Nine commenters (API (87),
Amoco (89), Conoco (92), Exxon (118), NPRA (22), Phillips Petroleum (42), Shell (77),
Texaco (97), and Unocal (44)) indicated that the heating value of F037 and F038
typically ranges from 1,000 to 4,000 BTU/lb, which is less than the 5,000 BTU/lb limit set
by the Sham Recycling Policy Guidelines for fuels substitution and the operational
requirement for cement production. API (87) explained that F037 and F038 typically
have high concentrations of water and grit, and low concentrations of oil, a combination
that results in low heating value. Five commenters (Amoco (89), API (87), Conoco (92),
Texaco (97), and Unocal (44)) commented that EPA's reliance on mixing primary sludge
with higher heating value wastes is generally not practical, because these wastes are
generated at different times, and few refineries have storage capacity or permits. The
Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition (CKRC; 40) supports EPA's conclusions that F037 and
F038 wastes are fully suitable for use by cement kilns, and that the 5,000 BTU/lb
threshold, will no longer be of concern after cement kilns certify compliance with Boiler
and Industrial Furnaces (BIF) Rule interim status requirements.
Response:
EPA recognizes that many F037 and F038 waste streams as currently managed
(especially those removed from surface impoundments) may have heating values less
than 5,000 BTU/lb and may not be suitable fuels. However, EPA has received
information indicating that some routinely generated F037 and F038 wastes do have
heating values greater than 5,000 BTU/lb, and some cement kilns are already receiving
petroleum refining sludges. EPA has identified facilities that intend to blend low BTU
wastes with high BTU wastes to meet operational heating value limits (i.e., the minimum
waste heating value above which the kiln will produce a quality product) that will replace
sham recycling policy limits once cement kilns certify compliance with the BIF Rule
interim status requirements. EPA also believes that dewatering systems, especially
thermal dryers, ere capable of increasing the amount of F037 and F038 with a heating
value greater than 5,000 BTU/lb, thereby increasing the amount of these wastes which
could be treated in cement kilns under today's restrictions on the heating value of fuels.
In addition, the 5,000 BTU/lb limit established under the Sham Recycling Policy
Guidelines will be superseded as cement kilns certify compliance with the Boiler and
Industrial Furnaces (BIF) Rule interim status requirements by August 1992. EPA
recognizes that operational limits are likely to prohibit cement kilns from accepting
wastes with heating values below about 4,000 BTU/lb, but even this difference will

-------
2-40
Combustion
expand the universe of F037 and F038 wastes that are amenable to cement kilns. The
BIF Rule will also allow broader use of fuels processing to enhance the heating value of
wastes destined for cement kilns. However, as discussed in Section 2.7, it is EPA's
judgement that available commercial combustion capacity may also be decreased by the
BIF rule because certain cement kilns are having difficulty meeting the hydrocarbon
emission levels required by the BIF rule, and therefore may have to reduce their capacity
or stop accepting hazardous wastes. (Please see Background Document for Capacity
Analysis for Newly Listed Wastes and Hazardous Debris Appendix C.) Consequently, the
available capacity at cement kilns after August 1992 is uncertain.
EPA believes that the BIF Rule will allow cement kilns more flexibility in blending
or otherwise processing (e.g., thermal drying) F037 and F038 wastes with a heating value
less than 5,000 BTU/lb to acceptable levels by replacing the Sham Recycling Policy
guidelines. However, EPA believes that some fuels blenders have the 5,000 BTU/lb limit
written into their permit. Thus EPA does not expect blending to significantly increase
the amount of low BTU wastes used as fuels. (Such blending would also increase the
total amount of waste going to the cement kilns, and therefore reduce actual available
capacity.) Thus EPA is not relying on fuels blending to increase the amount of low BTU
F037 and F038 waste that will be able to go to cement kilns. For the proposed rule,
EPA estimated that refineries would be able to blend F wastes with higher BTU K
wastes. Commenters informed EPA that this is not likely to be true, as they lack the
necessary equipment and storage permits. These comments are discussed in Section 3.3.
EPA recognizes that sludges removed from surface impoundments may be less
amenable to fuels substitution that routinely generated F037 and F038 and will more
often require bulk solids incineration capacity. EPA has revised its bulk solids
incineration capacity estimate, as discussed in the background documents for today's rule,
to account for one facility that has not yet received final permit approval and requires a
permit modification for F037 and F038. EPA also revised its capacity estimates for
facilities whose available bulk solids capacity estimates were based on a lower waste
heating value than that of F037 and F038 wastes.
Due to the lack of adequate bulk solids incineration capacity and the uncertainty
regarding the availability of cement kiln capacity after August 1992, EPA is granting a
one-year variance for routinely generated F037 and F038 wastes, ar.d a two-year national
capacity variance for F037 and F038 removed from surface impoundments.
Comments:
The comments stating that F037 and F038 wastes may not meet heating value
requirements for fuels substitution are presented in the following order:
• Amoco (89);
API (87);

-------
2-41
Combustion
Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition (40);
Conoco (92);
Exxon (118);
National Petroleum Refiners Association (22);
Phillips Petroleum (42);
Shell (77);
Texaco (97); and
Unocal (44).

-------
2-42
Combustion
Docket Number: CD2P-0UlhSy
Commenter:	Amoco Corporation
Comment:
Analytical data on the removed sludge show that the sludge has
low heating value ranging from 3,030 to 4,560 BTU per pound,
which makes it presently unsuitable as cement kiln fuel.
Although cement kilns will be able to accept fuels with heating
values below 5,000 BTU per pound in the future, this treatment
method will not be available in sufficient capacity in the
short term due to the large amount of work required for cement
kiln operators to demonstrate compliance. The deadline for
cement kiln operators to submit their certifications of
compliance is not until August 21, 1992. Also, as discussed in
the API comments, commingling the primary sludge with other
refinery wastes to increase the heating value of the sludge to
5,000 BTU per pound is not feasible, at least in the short
term.

-------
2-43
Combustion
Docket Number: CD2P-00002
Commenter:	American Petroleum Institute
Comment:
Although API agrees that FQ37 and FOBS'wastes may contain the
same hazardous constituents as K048 and K051 wastes, certain
physical and chemical characteristics of the newly listed wastes
are sufficiently different from the K wastes to make certain-
treatment technologies identified by EPA inapplicable tc some
primary sludges.
EPA has assumed in its treatment capacity analysis for primary
refinery sludges that these sludges can be treated in either
incinerators or used for fuel substitution in cement kilns. In
fact, EPA's assumption that there is sufficient available
treatment capacity for routinely generated refinery primary
sludges is based on the extensive use of cement kilns.
EPA's assumption is flawed for several reasons. First, the BTU
content of a significant quantity of F037/F038 wastes will be too
low to allow treatment in cement kilns. Some states have
established a minimum heat content ranging from 5,000 to 8,000 •
BTU per pound of solid waste to prevent "sham" energy recovery.
For instance, Missouri and Kansas have state regulations on
minimum heat content for waste before it is mixed. See e.g. MO.
CODE REGS 70 CSR 25-9.010: KAN. ADMIN. REGS. 2-31-8a.
Respondents to API's primary sludge survey (Appendix A) indicated
that low BTU content of F037/F038 wastes will frequently prevent
their use for energy recovery in cement kilns and industrial
boilers. Some member companies report that the BTU content of
K048-K052 wastes are too low for waste fuels recycling.
8

-------
Docket Number: CD2P-0OOS7
Commenter:	American Petroleum Institute
Comment (continued):
Second, EPA's treatment capacity assumption is flawed because of
its reliance on mixing of low and high BTU-streams. In the
proposed rule, EPA has concluded that F037/F038 wastes could be
commingled with K048-K052 wastes with higher heat values and/or
oil content to make energy recovery feasible. Commingling of
•these solid wastes so that they can be sent to cement kilns for
energy recovery is not necessarily a feasible process, however.
For example, significant quantities of both refining K-wastes
(i.e., K049 and K051) and newly listed F037 and F038 waste
(primary from surface impoundments and wastewater treating tanks)
will be generated intermittently, but not necessarily
simultaneously. Refinery surface impoundments, tanks and
separators are typically cleaned one at a time rather that having
multiple work crews and equipment set-ups to perform the work
simultaneously. Even if refineries could generate both high and
low BTU waste simultaneously, mixing multiple refinery wastes
with different physical properties {particle si2e, oil and water
content) to provide a waste with uniform BTU, oil, water, and
solids contents will require specialized mixing and blending
equipment that is not available at most refineries. Storage would
also have to be part of such a mixing and blending operation, so
that proper proportions of low and high BTU solid waste could be
mixed to achieve an acceptable BTU content and other properties
necessary to make the mixed waste acceptable for off-site energy
recovery. At some refineries the amounts of impoundment sludges
may so outweigh the amounts of K-wastes that only a small
percentage of the impoundment sludge could be blended up to >
5000 BTU/lb. Many refineries do not have RCRA storage permits to
allow for greater than 90 day on-site storage. These wastes,
once removed for management, are typically sent off-site as soon
as treatment/recycling capacity becomes available in order to
meet the less that 90 day storage requirements and to comply with
the RCRA storage prohibition.
2-44
Combustion

-------
Docket Number: CD2P-000S7
Commenter:	American Petroleum Institute
Comment (continued):
A thir.1 factor which leads to flawed assumption is the fact that
EPA did not consider the wide differences in waste properties and
thus handling problems. Therefore, in addition to the issue of
heating value of the solid wastes, some F037/F038 wastes have
higher amounts of coarse particles, such as sand and soil erosion
products, as compared with K048-K051 wastes. These solids tend
to settle out, forming a non-pumpable sludge layer and a pumpable
aqueous layer. This property makes many F037/F038 wastes
incompatible with most incinerator and cement kiln pumpable
sludge feed handling systems. Some member companies report they
have had difficulty in making K-waste "pumpable" due to this
physical phase separation that occurs in tanks and transport
vehicles, and they anticipate similar problems with F037 and
F038. Additionally, attempts to make the wastes pumpable by
adding water simply lowers the BTU content of the overall waste
stream making the waste stream even less likely to contain
sufficient BTU content for the waste fuels market. In fact, most
member companies repor*. that only through the aggressive
dewatering of refinery K-wastes (and eventually some F037/F038)
will the heating value be sufficiently enhanced to allow
recycling to waste fuels markets.
API does not dispute that commingling refinery K and F wastes may
in some cases be an approach for achieving waste properties
suitable for energy recovery. However, the lack of available
equipment to effectively perform such commingling is a
significant capacity issue. Refineries will not be able to design
and install the necessary equipment before the proposed LDRs
become effective. In addition, for those refineries that will
generate large amounts of primary sludge through initial removals
from surface impoundments, the required- capacity of storage and
mixing equipment will be much larger than that required for
long-term operation.
2 - 45
Combustion

-------
2 * 46	Combustion
Docket Number: CD2P-00040
Commenter:	Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition
Comment:
First, we strongly support EPA's conclusion that F037 and
F038 wastes are fully suitable for use by cement kilns. 57 Fed.
Beg. 963, We note in fact that sone of the concern expressed by
other parties (and reflected in the preamble discussion on p.
963) is entirely misdirected. This is because even if petroleua
waste as burned failed to meet a 5000 Btu threshold, this would
be legally irrelevant as kilns certify compliance with BIF
interim status standards in the next few months. See n. 2,
suora.

-------
2-47
Combustion
Docket Number: CD2P-OIHM2
Commenier:	Conoco, Inc.
Comment:
EPA has assumed in its capacity analysis for primary refinery sludges that these sludges
can be treated in either incinerators or used for fuel substitution in cement kilns. In fact,
EPA's assumption that there is sufficient available treatment capacity for routinely
generated refinery primary sludges is based on the use of cement kilns. However, the
BTU content of some F037/F038 wastes may be too low to allow treatment in cement
kilns. Some states have established a minimum heat content of 5,000 BTU per pound of
solid waste to prevent "sham" energy recovery. In fact, the BTU content of primary sludge
samples from six surface impoundments at our Ponca City refinery range from 300 to 4900
BTU/lb. K-wastes range from 25 to 5100 BTU/lb. There is no advantage to mixing these
wastes.
In the proposed rule, EPA has concluded that F037/F038 wastes could be commingled
with K048-K052 wastes with higher heat values and/or oil content to make energy recm cry
feasible. It should be noted that F037 waste normally will not be generated at the «mc
time as K048/K051; hence, commingling for fuels substitution may not be feasible

-------
2 " ^	Combustion
Docket Number: CD2P-Q0118
Commenter:	Exxon
Comment:
Exxon (118) submitted comments as CBI.

-------
2-49
Combustion
Docket Number-. CD2P-00O22
Cnmmenter:	National Petroleum Refiners Association
C - .ment:
NPRA urges that EPA provide a two year capacity variance for all F037 and F038
wastes, not only the F037 and F038 wastes from surface impoundments as is proposed by
EPA. Requiring refineries to immediately treat wastes covered under the proposal would
create significant disruption of their operations because sufficient treatment capacity does not
currently exist NPRA bases this conclusion on three facts:
1. The American Petroleum Institute (API) in conjunction with NPRA conducted
a survey in 1991 to determine the practices of member companies in generating
and handling primary sludges. The results of this survey indicate that the
volume of wastes may be as much as 451,000 tons per year (dry weight); not
the 173.000 tons per year (dry weight) estimated by EPA. This is an increase
of 261 percent of the waste that will have to be treated by refineries. The dita
supporting the survey results are provided in API's comments to this proposed
rule, and are fully supported by NPRA.
2. NPRA believes that present treatment capacity is overtaxed in handling the
existing landband wastes (KQ48-K052). Requiring additional wastes to be
treated of the magnitude discussed above within the specified time period
would likely cause system failure. EPA's suggested use of cement kilns for
treatment of these wastes raises the issue of their general applicability for this
use. The BTU content of the wastes, even if comingled, may not always be
sufficient for use in kilns, and the permitting of kilns for treatment of these
wastes may not be possible within the proposed time. Therefore, until the
required treatment capacity actually becomes operational, there will be a major
shortfall in treatment capacity.

-------
2-50
Combustion
Docket Number: CD2P-00042
Commemer:	Phillips Petroleum
Comment:
Phillips participated on an informal study with several API member companies to determine the 8TU
content of primary sludge impoundments. Phillips' Sweeny and Borgar Refineries reported composite
results for impoundments at each refinery. Oil, water and solids ratios from samples as collected from
the impoundments were calculated on a volume basis using ASTM Method 4007-81. The BTU/ib values
were determined by ASTM Method 0240-87 on the solid fraction generated from centrifugation of the
sludge, which would be akin to our standard operating procedure of on-site dewatering to minimize waste
by volume reduction and oil recovery.
For the Borger Refinery, impoundments heating values of impoundment sludges ranged from 1271 -1992
BTU/tb averaging 1475 BTU/lb. Volumetric oil, water, solids percentages averaged 25%, 38% and 41 %
respectively. For three Sweeny Refinery impoundments, heating values ranged from 950-1570 BTU lb.
averaging 1283 BTU/lb, oil, water solids percentages averaged 3%, 12% and 85% respectively
All these sludges are wall below the 5000 BTU/lb threshold that many cement kilns must exceed to be
able to utilize Primary Sludge as fuel. Phillips urges the EPA to reassess the amounts and character of
surface impoundment sludges that will be reauired to be treated before May, 1993 under (he proposed
annual clean-out provision, and the ability of treatment facilities to process this waste.

-------
2- 51
Combustion
Docket Number: CD2P-00077
Commenter:	Shell Oil Company
Comment:
While completing compliance certification under the BIF
regulations will allow kilns to process material with
less than 5,000 BTU/lb, there are still State regulations
in effect that impose requirements up to 8,000 BTU/lb.
Also, the kilns themselves have limitations as to how
much low BTO fuel they can utilize and still maintain
sufficient temperatures in the kiln for cement
production. Generally, their average fuel requirement is
over 10,000 BTU/lb so in or^er to handle low BTU
materials they need sufficient high BTO fuels.

-------
2-52
Combustion
Docket Number: CD2P-(K)(W7
Commenter:	Texaco. Inc.
Comment:
Characteristics of the Newly Listed Wastes Are Sufficiently
Different from the »K" Hastesto MakeCertain Treatment
Technologies Identified hv EPA Inapplicable to Primary Sludge.
F037 and F038 wastes usually have low oil content and 8TU
value and may not be as amenable to incineration or energy
recovery as are K048-KOS2 wastes. EPA has assumed in its
capacity survey that these sludges can be treated in
incinerators or cement kilns similar to the refinery "K"
wastes. However, the low BTU content of F037 and F038 waste
often prevents thea from being considered for the cement kiln
industry.
EPA indicates that F037/F038 wastes could be commingled v: <• n
K048- K052 wastes in order to raise the BTU content, r.jki.*i
the waste usable for energy recovery. The major probles
this is the large volume of F037 and F038 which need t'; lo
disposed and the storage needed during mixing or while wa 11 •i
to be mixed. F037/F038 are not routinely generated an J - «,•
require extended storage time (greater than 90 days) it •
have to be mixed with other wastes to increase the BTU v»:

-------
2 - S3
Combustion
Ducket Number: CD2P-00044
Commenter:	Unocal Corporation
Comment:
The heat content of Unocal's FQ37, K048 and K051 refinery sludges
is tvtiieallv below 5000 BTU/lb. As such, these sludges are not
suitable for use for energy recovery in cement kilns and industrial
fegilers-'
The Unocal waste characterization data provided in Appendix A and
discussed above shows that both K048/K052 and F037 sludge will
typically have a heat content below 5000 BTU/lb and thus be liaited
in technologies available for treatment. One of Unocal's
refineries has developed extensive drying capabilities to ensure
that its API separator sludge, K051, can meet the 5000 BTU/lb
.requirement. Unocal's BTU data for F037 waste show that this can
also be a problem for these sludges.
EPA has erroneously assumed that refinery F wastes can be readily
commingled with refinery K wastes to enhance fuel value for
incineration or fuel substitution.
In the proposed rule, EPA has concluded that F037/F038 waste can be
commingled with K048-K052 waste with higher heat content and/or oil
content to make energy recovery feasible. There are three problems
with this assumption: timing, physical characteristics and
facilities. The most serious problem with the assumption that F
and K wastes can be mixed to produce a heat content sufficient to
allow for energy recovery is timing'; refineries operate on
established schedules for maintenance to optimize manpower. High
and low heat content sludge are not likely to be available at the
same time to provide an acceptable commingled sludge product for
energy recovery. This is further emphasized by the fact that at
some of the Unocal refineries, large quantities of primary sludge
will be generated on a one time basis in association with the
closure of interim status surface impoundments.
Secondly, special equipment and facilities are required to store
wastes in preparation for mixing and to mix multiple refinery
wastes with different physical properties (particle size, oil and
water content). Such equipment and facilities are not available at
some Unocal refineries. Adding storage facilities would not cnly
require the expenditure of capital funds but also could require a
RCRA storage permit. Unocal is making a major effort to eliainate
its present RCRA permitted facilities,i.e., the interim status
surface impoundments, and does not want to add facilities requiring
RCRA permits. Finally, in some instances F wastes have very
different physical characteristics with more silts and sand -r.ich
don't lend themselves to mixing.
The affect of the Agency's assumption that refinery F and K - iste
can be commingled to enhance fuel value for use as energy recovery
in cement kilns and industrial boilers is to flaw the capacity

-------
2-54
Combustion
Docket Number: CD2P-00044
Commenter:	Unoc.nl Corporation
Comment (continued):
analysis and hence lead to an erroneous conclusion concerning the
need for a national capacity variance for all primary sludge
Unocal urges the Agency to postpone the promulgation of the finai
rule for LDR's for F037/F038 wastes for one year and to use the
time to correctly evaluate available capacity for these wastes. In
the event that EPA does not postpone the final rule, Unocal
supports the extension of the national capacity variance'to include
all F037 and F038 waste, not just those stored in surface
impoundments.

-------
2-55
Combustion
2.7 The Boiler and Industrial Furnace (BIF) Rule May Reduce Available Capacity
Summary:
Two commenters (Exxon (118) and Shell (77)) were concerned about capacity
reductions resulting from the BIF Rule. Exxon commented that EPA should not include
the capacity of cement kilns that have not yet certified compliance with the BIF Rule
interim status requirements. Shell (77) mentioned that approximately twenty cement
kilns that are not currently burning hazardous wastes have applied for interim status
under the BIF regulations, and is concerned that there may be time delays before these
kilns are providing significant amounts of capacity.
Response:
EPA is aware that many cement kilns that are not currently burning hazardous
wastes applied for interim status under the BIF requirements. EPA agrees with Shell
that the timing of construction and permitting is uncertain and these facilities will not be
on line immediately, therefore, in its national capacity analysis EPA has not included any
capacity from kilns not currently burning hazardous wastes. As discussed in Section 2.6,
EPA believes that the BIF Rule will also allow broader use of fuels processing to
enhance the heating value of wastes destined for cement kilns. However, it is EPA's
judgement that the Boiler and Industrial Furnace (BIF) rule may reduce available
commercial combustion capacity. Specifically, EPA believes that certain cement kilns are
having difficulty meeting the hydrocarbon emission levels required by the BIF rule, and
therefore may have to reduce their capacity or stop accepting hazardous wastes. (Please
see Background Document for Capacity Analysis for Newly Listed Wastes and Hazardous
Debris Appendix C.) If one of the major cement facilities providing containerized solids
capacity is forced to cease burning hazardous waste, it would cause a sipificant
disruption to the commercial hazardous waste combustion system. The loss of one large
facility could remove as much as 35,000 tons per year of available capacity, leaving
roughly 48,000 tons available. This is very close to the estimated 41,000 tons required for
routinely generated F037 and F038 wastes that are amenable to cement kilns. Given the
uncertainty that cement kilns can meet BIF requirements by August and the potential
impact of a loss of cement kiln capacity, EPA is reluctant to set the LDR effective dates
such that large quantities of new wastes would be introduced into the national
combustion system immediately.
Due to the lack of adequate bulk solids incineration capacity and the uncertainty
regarding the amount of available cement kiln capacity after August 1992, EPA is
granting a one-year variance for routinely generated F037 and F038 wastes, and a two-
year national capacity variance for F037 and F038 removed from surface impoundments.
Additionally, it is EPA's judgement that available commercial combustion capacity
will be affected by the Boiler and Industrial Furnace (BIF) rule. Specifically, EPA is

-------
2-S6
Combustion
concerned that cement kilns are having difficulty meeting the hydrocarbon emission levels
required by the BIF rule, and therefore may have to reduce their capacity or stop
accepting hazardous wastes until they can overcome these problems.
Comments:
The comments stating that the BIF Rule may reduce available capacity are
presented in the following order:
'* • Exxon (118); and
Shell (77).

-------
2 - 57
Combustion
Docket Number: CD2P-00118
Commenter:	Exxon
Comment:
Exxon (118) submitted comments as CBI.

-------
2-58
Combustion
Docket Number: CD2P-00077
Commemer:	Shell Oil Company
Comment:
b.	While completing compliance certification under the BIF
regulations will allow kilns to process material with
less than 5,000 BTU/lb, there are still state regulations
in effect that impose requirements up to 8,000 BTU/lb.
Also, the kilns themselves have limitations as to how
much low BTU fuel they can utilize and still maintain
sufficient temperatures in the kiln for cement
production. Generally, their average fuel requirement is
over 10,000 BTU/lb so in order to handle low BTU
materials they need sufficient high BTU fuels.
c.	There are about 24 kilns in the United States that
currently bum hazardous fuels and will be applying for
compliance certification. While it is our understanding
that approximately 20 additional kilns have applied for
interim status under the BZF regulations, we don't
believe that these new kilns will be able to commence
burning hazardous wastes immediately due to time delays
in getting State and local permits as well as
constructing facilities to handle waste fuels.
Realistically, we understand that most of these new kilns
will not be on-line to burn hazardous wastes until about
1995.

-------
2-59
Combustion
2.8 Packaging Capacity May Constrain Utilization of Containerized Solids Capacity
Summary:
Phillips Petroleum (42) and Shell (77) are concerned that the limitations in
capacity for putting wastes into containers will limit generators' ability to utilize cement
kiln containerized solids capacity. Shell (77) has experienced storage and packaging
limitations in its attempts to use cement kiln containerized solid capacity for their wastes.
Response;
EPA recognizes that utilization of containerized solids feed systems (primarily the
Cadence process) depends heavily on automated systems that package wastes into 6^
gallon pails or 10-gallon bags. Although EPA has identified adequate packaging capacity
for the amount of routinely generated F037 and F038 assigned to cement kilns in the
capacity analysis, the Agency believes that the limited availability of packaging systems
does constrain the overall availability of container combustion capacity at cement kilns.
EPA also believes that mobile packaging systems, installed on site at refineries, will be
increasingly important in the utilization of this capacity. EPA has identified many fuels
blenders with waste packaging systems suitable for the Cadence process. Through
discussions with fuels blenders, EPA has learned that mobile packaging equipment can
be constructed in six weeks, and takes one to four days to install at a facility. However,
EPA believes that it will take from six months to one year for firms to negotiate
contracts, obtain storage and operating permits, construct and install the units, and have
them working routinely.
Comments:
The comments stating that packaging capacity may constrain the use of
containerized solids feed systems are presented in the following order:
• Phillips Petroleum (42); and
Shell (77).

-------
2-60
Combustion
Docket Number: CD2P-00(I42
Commemer:	Phillips Petroleum
Comment:
A* bulk feed handling systems may be operating at of mar capacity with continuously generated K-
wastes and F037/F038. it is probable that containerized feed handling systems will ba laft to manage the
majority of the one-time and peak generated primary sludge wastes. The 66.500 tons of F037/F038
wastes from Phillips' surface impoundments will result in 1,800,000, six gallon containers for recycling
to camant kilns or 250,000, 55 gallon drums for treatment at incinerators, over a short time period.
When the scenario is extended over the entire refining industry, with the significant volume of F037/F038
wastes expected to be generated from impoundments over the next year. Phillips is concerned that the
treatment/recycling industry containerized feed systems will not ba able to handle this volume of waste.
Unless sufficient on or off-site RCRA storage facility capacity is available, refineries will likely have to
significantly reduce the rate of impoundment cleanouts. This forced reduction, in the rate of
impoundment cleanouts, is the result of unavailable treatment or recycling capacity, will severely disrupt
impoundment annual cleanout, closure upgrade or replacement schedules.

-------
2-61
Combustion
Docket Number: CD2P-l)(K>77
Commenter:	Shell Oil Company
Comment:
Containerised fuel trograas for Cement Kilns - Several cement
companies have the ability to add six gallon containers to the
center of their kiln. However, there are similar limitations
as discussed with liquid fuels in terms of water and BTU
content as well as limited availability of equipment to
package waste in 6 gallon containers.

-------
2-62
Combustion
2.9 F037 and F038 Wastes May Not Be Amenable to Pumpabie Sludge and Dry
Solids Cement Klin Feed Systems
Summary:
Shell Oil (77) and API (87) commented thai cement kilns are generally increasing
their capacity for solids, but that F037 and F038 may not be amenable to all types of
cement kilns sludge and solid feed systems. Some refineries have aggressive dewatering
systems, including thermal dryers. Five commenters (API (87), Phillips Petroleum (42),
Shell (77), and Texaco (97), and Unocal (44)) said that while the resulting sludges are
more likely to have sufficient heating value for fuels substitution, the oil content makes
them "tacky", and not amenable to dry solids feed systems. These commenters also
mentioned that F037 and F038 can not easily be suspended into liquid waste fuels,
because the grit settles during transport and forms a heavy, nonpumpable sludge.
Response:
EPA recognizes that the physical characteristics of F037 and F038 may make them
unsuitable for some liquid slurry and dry solids feed systems because they are not
pumpabie by conventional means and their cohesiveness (or "tackiness") makes it difficult
to transport them pneumatically as is done with pulverized coal. Therefore, in its
capacity analysis, EPA did not assign any F037 and F038 sludge volumes to pumpabie
sludge or dry solids systems that are not already handling either K048-52 or F037 and
F038. EPA believes that the majority of F037 and F038 burned in cement kilns will be
fed via containerized solids feed systems.
As discussed in Section 2.1, EPA has estimated that approximately 60 percent of
the 69,000 tons per year of routinely generated F037 and F038 wastes will have a heating
value sufficient for use in cement kilns. The remainder, approximately 28,000 tons, will
require bulk solids incineration capacity. EPA has determined that adequate incineration
capacity does not exist for routinely generated F037 and F038 wastes that are not
amenable to any form of cement kiln combustion and is granting a one year national
capacity variance to routinely generated F037 and F038 wastes. EPA considered limiting
the variance to low-BTU F037 and F038 wastes but decided that it would be excessively
burdensome for the regulated community to comply with or for regulators to enforce
different standards. (For a more detailed discussion of this decision, please see
Background Document for Phase One Land Disposal Restrictions Chapter 3.)
Comments:
The comments stating F037 and F038 may not be amenable to pumpabie sludge
and dry solids feed systems at cement kilns are presented in the following order:
API (87);

-------
2 - S3
Phillips Petroleum (42);
Shell (77);
Texaco (97);
Unocal (44).
Combustion

-------
Docket Number:
2-64
CD2P-U(K)(I2
Combustion
Commenter:	American Petroleum Institute
Comment:
EPA has estimated and reported in the Background Information
Document to the proposed rule, that about 86,000 tons of
"pumpable sludge" treatment capacity exist for refinery primary
sludge (F037/F038). Industry, in general, will not produce K-
wastes in a "pumpable" form but rather as a relatively solid,
dewatered filter cake. Some companies report limited success in
attempts to handle aqueous (non-dewatered) K-wastes in pumpable
treatment systems due to the relative fast physical phase
separation of the solids and water. This phase separation can
occur in storage tanks and during transportation resulting in the
formation of a non-pumpable sludge in the bottom of the tank or
transport tanker. In fact, due to the density of particles in
both K-wastes and particularly F037/F038 waste (mainly sand and
solid erosion products), refineries, transporters, and treatment
outlets would need systems (such as mixers, agitators, etc.) to
keep the waste suspended and in a pumpable form from the point of
generation to the point of treatment or recycling. Some
companies report having shipments rejected due to the phase
separation that occurs during transport and the subsequent
inability of the treatment outlet to remove the resulting non-
pumpable sludge from the transport container and handle it within
the treatment/recycling system of the receiver. API believes
that incineration and cement kiln "pumpable sludge" feed handling
systems in many cases will not be able to manage F037/F038 in the
form in which it will be produced. EPA should, therefore,
significantly discount the stated "pumpable sludge" capacity
available to treat refinery primary sludge.

-------
2-^5	.Combustion
Docket Number: CD2P-00087
Commenter:	American Petroleum Institute
Comment (continued):
EPA should also significantly discount the 24,000 tons of cement
kiln "dry solids™ handling capacity claimed to be available for
FQ37/F038 in the Background Information Document to the proposed
rule. These dry solids systems are typically pneumatic
conveyance devices that require a dry, non-tacky material for
materials handling. Dewatered F037/F038 will still contain 25-
40% water and sufficient residual oil content to make the
resulting filter cake moist and "tacky." One refinery reports
having no success in the handling of K-wastes, that have been
thermally dried to less than 10% water content, within cement
kiln pneumatic handling systems. API believes that it is
unrealistic to assume that large quantities of F037/F038 can be
handled within pneumatic (dry solids) handling systems.

-------
2-66
Combustion
Docket Number: CD2P-00042
Commenter:	Phillips Petroleum
Comment:
EPA assumptions regarding the phvsicel form In which primary jludflt C«n be htndUd at incinerate and
cement kin fac9itie» over-estimates 1992 available capacity.
Phillips' generated K-wastes underoo extensive mechanical dewatering before being sent to incinerators
or cement kilns. This dewatering and drying is necessaiv to recover valuable oil and reduce tr>« .oiome
of waste requiring off-site treatment and to increase the BTU content. The same kind of *o *»•'
also be necessary for F037/F038 wastes. As such, this extensive dewatering produces a waste oroouet
that is amenable only to certain types of waste handling systems at disposal or recycling (ac.iit es
EPA has estimated and reported in the Background Information Document to the proposed ;.*•¦«
about 86.000 tons of 'pumpable sludge* treatment capacity exist for refinery primary wage
(F037/F038). Industry, in general; will not produceK-wattes in a 'pumpable* form but rattier ji
dewatered filter cake or centrifuge solids. Phillips understands that incineration and cement kiln
'pumpable sludge* feed handling systems, in general, are not amenable to the form in which F037/F038
will be produced, and IPA should, therefore, significantly discount the stated 'pumpable sludge" capacity
available to treat refinery prir.-ary sludge.
EPA should also significantly discount the 24,000 tons of cement kiln 'dry solids' handling capacity
claimed to be available for F037/F038 in the Background Information Document to the proposed rule.
These dry solids systems are typically pneumatic conveyance devices that require a dry, non-tacky
materials for materials handling. Dewatered F037/F038 will still contain 30-40% water and sufficient
residual oil content to make the resulting filter cake moiat and "tacky". It is unrealistic to assume that
large quantities of F037/F038 can be handled within pneumatic (dry solids) handling systems.

-------
2-67
Combustion
Docket Number: CD2P-(KK)77
Commenwr:	Shell Oil Company
Comment:
Pumpable Fuel for Cement Kilns - These techniques involve
devatering the sludges and reslurrying them in slop oils or
other liquid hydrocarbons to produce a puapable fuel which can
be handled by a larger number of kilns than have capability to
handle dry fuels. Considerations that have limited this
approach Include:
a.	Until the kiln's have completed their compliance
certification under the BIF regulations (deadline -
August, 1992), the sham recycling policy is still in
effect so that blending wastes with less than 5,000
BTO/lb is not permissible, Me have found that most
refinery listed wastes can't meet this criteria unless
dried to remove water. An exception seems to be slop oil
emulsions which have relatively high oil contents.
b.	Pumpable fuels produced in this matter will still contain
significant amounts of water (20-40%) which restricts
their use in cement kilns that have limited draft fan
capacity.

-------
2 - 68
Combustion
Docket Number: CD2P-OIMW7
Cominemer:	Te\;ico. Int.
Comment:
In addition, many cement kilns and incinerators require . • .
to be pumpable. Refineries normally dewater sludges,
them difficult to pump. Adding water or eliminating
dewatering step to make the waste pumpable further dect-i •
the BTU value. EPA has not given adequate considerat: - '
these differences and the effect they have on av~;:
capacity to treat FO37/F038. Texaco incorporates *.
comments on this issue.

-------
2-69
Combustion
Docket Number: CD2P-00044
Commenter:	Unocal Corporation
Comment:
5Ph assumptions regarding the Physical form in which primary sludoe
can be handled at	ioginSXiatlgn—aofl—cement kiln facilities
overestimates 1992 available capacity.
As discussed above, one of Unocal's refineries has K wastes-which
require extensive dewatering and thermal drying to get the heat
content sufficient for use as fuel substitution in cement kilns.
Hence, Unocal's sludges which are sent off-site from this refinery
are in a dry solid form. To date these dry solids have been sent
to incinerators. However, Unocal is presently in negotiation fcr
a non-exclusive contract at one of the cement kilns that EPA
included in their capacity analysis. In discussions with the
cement kiln's representative, it was acknowledged that there -.ere
problems with using pneumatic conveyance for these tacky dry solids
and that this particular cement kiln had quickly "resurrected" a
mechanical feed system to meet a particular timing demand. The
kiln has ordered but not received or installed, additional
mechanical equipment to provide for a higher throughput zt iry
sludge solids. It is obvious that this particular cement •:; In
cannot operate at full capacity for the handling of dry soli is.
At another refinery which presently relies on incineration for its
sludge, the sludge is no longer filtered but is sent with full
water content to facilitate the puapable requirements of the
incinerator. This has had an adverse impact on waste minimization
efforts.

-------
2-70
Combustion
2.10 Winter Reductions in Cement Production May Affect Available Capacity
Summary:
Shell (77) is concerned about the seasonality of cement kilns combustion,
mentioning that facilities close kilns for maintenance and accept less hazardous waste
fuels in the winter.
Response:
EPA is aware that most individual kilns shut down for about four weeks during
the winter, causing less capacity to be available during this season. However, at no time
will all cement kilns cease burning hazardous waste because companies that operate
more than one kiln bring them down in sequence rather than simultaneously. EPA's
capacity analysis examined wastes on an annualized basis, and accounts for these seasonal
variations. EPA also believes that certain refineries have some flexibility in the" timing of
their waste generation, apd that surface impoundment cleanouts are less likely to occur in
the wintertime.
Comments:
The Shell Oil Company (77) comment discussing the effects of winter reductions
in cement production is presented below.

-------
2-71
Combustion
Docket Number: CD2P-(K)077
Cummenter:	Shell Oil Company
Comment:
other Conaidarations la Bsiaf Caint Silas - In addition to
tha specific limitations discussed above there arm several
general factors that impact tha ability of count kilns to
utilize fully their hazardous vast* fuel permitted capacity
for F037 and F038 vastas:
a. Cement manufacturing has typically baan a seasonal
business, with cement production down in tha winter
months when construction activity is reduced. Also it is
subject to reduced throughput during a period of
recession which the country is now facing. In view of
these factors Shell has seen available capacity vary
considerably during the course a year causing a backup of
K048, X049 and K051 wastes at several of our refineries.

-------
CHAPTER 3
PETROLEUM REFINING WASTES
In response to the proposed rule, EPA received 20 submissions relating to the
generation and management of newly listed F037 and F038 petroleum refining wastes.
These submissions were received from American Petroleum Institute (API; 87), Amoco
(89), BP Oil (64), Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition (CKRC; 40), Chemical Manufacturers
Association (CMA; L21), Conoco (92), Envirosafe (7), Exxon (118), Hazardous Waste
Treatment Council (HWTC; 51), Landmark Petroleum Inc. (18), Mobil (100), National
Petroleum Refiners Association (NPRA; 22), Phillips Petroleum (42), Regswrite (17),
Retec Remediation Technologies (28), Shell Oil (77), Sun Oil (76), TDI Thermal
Dynamics (TDI; 10), Texaco (97), and Unocal (44).
Most of the comments were from refineries and trade associations. These
comments generally indicated that the physical/chemical and waste generation
characteristics of F037 and F038 wastes from surface impoundments are very different
from those of K048 and K051 wastes, and therefore these F037 and F038 wastes cannot
be treated with the types of technologies used for K048 and K051 wastes. Several of
these commenters also indicated that EPA underestimated the quantity of F037 and
F038 wastes that will be generated from surface impoundment cleanouts over the next 24
months. These commenters agreed with EPA that a two-year national capacity variance
for F037 and F038 wastes generated in surface impoundments is needed because
commercial treatment capacity is insufficient to treat these wastes. Some commenters
believe that a two-year national capacity variance should be granted to aH F037 and F038
wastes (i.e., not just those from surface impoundments). Other commenters, however,
indicated that commercial treatment and disposal facilities have the capability as well as
the capacity to manage F037 and F038 wastes, including those wastes from surface
impoundments.
More specifically, commenters raised the following issues:
•	Some F037 and F038 Wastes Cannot Be Treated Using Technologies
Identified by the Agency;
•	' Commercial Treatment and Disposal Capacity Is Available for Managing
F037 and F038 Wastes;
•	F037 and F038 Wastes Are Generated Sporadically In Large Quantities,
and Cannot Readily Be Commingled With K048 and K051 Wastes;
•	Refineries Will Not Reconfigure Wastewater Treatment Systems to
Decrease F037 and F038 Waste Quantities;
•	EPA Should Investigate Cases of Waste Code Switching from K048-K052
to F037 and F038 to Avoid LDRs;

-------
3 • 2	Petroleum Refining Wastes
•	EPA Underestimated the Quantity of F037 and F038 Wastes that Will Be
Generated from Surface Impoundment Geanouts During the Next 24
Months;
•	EPA Has No Technical, Scientific, or Legal Basis for Requiring that F037
and F038 Wastes Be Removed from Surface Impoundments Annually;
•	F037 and F038 Wastes From Surface Impoundments Should be Removed
Annually and Wastes Should be Removed When Surface Impoundments
Gose;
•	Requiring Clean Closure Will Conflict With Current Gosure Regulations,
Has No Environmental Justification, and Is Technically and Economically
Infeasible;
•	F037 and F038 Wastes Should Not Be Managed in Non-MTR Surface
Impoundments;
•	Full Four Years Is Needed To Meet Minimum Technology Requirements;
•	Two-year National Capacity Variance Should Be Granted to All F037 and
F038 Wastes; and
EPA Should Delay Effective Date of LDR Rule.
The remainder of this chapter provides additional detail on these issues and on EPA's
responses to them.

-------
3-3
Petroleum Refining Wastes
3.1 Some F037 and F038 Wastes Cannot Be Treated Using Technologies Identified by
the Agency
Summary:
Two commenters agreed with EPA that F037 and F038 waste may contain the
same hazardous constituents as K048 and K051 (API (87) and Shell (77)). Seven
commenters (Amoco (89), API (87), Conoco (92), Phillips (42), Shell (77), Texaco (97),
and Unocal (44)), however, stated that, unlike K048 and K051 wastes, the F037 and F038
primary sludges have a lower BTU content, and other physical characteristics, that make
them unacceptable to some incinerators or cement kilns. In particular, most of these
commenters believe that the BTU content of primary sludges are substantially lower than
5,000 BTU/lb. Five commenters (Amoco (89), API (87), Conoco (92), Phillips (42) and
Unocal (44)) submitted data on the BTU values of F037 and F038 wastes, and
specifically of surface impoundment sludges. Amoco (89) reported that the BTU values
of these sludges ranged from 3,000 BTU/lb to 4,500 BTU/lb; API (87) reported values
that ranged from less than 1,000 BTU/lb to 3,900 BTU/lb; Conoco (92) reported that the
BTU value of the sludges from one of their refineries ranged from 300 to 4,900 BTU/lb;
Phillips (42) indicated that for two of their refineries the BTU values of impoundment
sludges range from 950 BTU/lb to 2,000 BTU/lb; and Unocal (41) reported that BTU
value for their surface impoundment sludges averages 1,650 BTU/lb. These commenters
believe that this characteristic would render the wastes unsuitable as cement kiln feeds.
API (87) commented that refineries are currently developing and installing equipment
that will reduce the BTU content of both K and F037 and F038 wastes. Facilities and
work practices required to comply with the Organic Toxicity Characteristic and benzene
waste NESHAPs, and refinery pollution prevention will significantly reduce the amount
of oil entering refinery sewers and consequently, the BTU content of F037 and F038.
Most of these commenters indicated that the majority of the primary sludges are
tacky or not pumpable, and that this property would make them undesirable as feed for ,
most incinerators and cement kilns, which generally are not equipped to deal with such
waste characteristics. For example, Phillips (42) indicated that industry, in general, will
not produce petroleum refining wastes in a pumpable form but rather as dewatered filter
cake or centrifuge solids. Phillips mentioned that incineration and cement kiln pumpable
sludge feed systems, in general, are not amenable to the form in which F037 and F038
will be produced, and EPA should, therefore, discount the stated pumpable sludge
capacity available to treat refinery primary sludge.
Response:
EPA agrees with those commenters who stated that F037 and F038 wastes contain
the same hazardous constituents (e.g., benzene, toluene, chromium) as K048 and K051.
Furthermore, EPA believes that routinely generated F037 and F038 wastes from
treatment of refinery wastewaters in oil/water/solids separators (e.g., CPI separators, IAF

-------
3-4
Petroleum Refining Wastes
units) and tanks are similar to K048 and K051 wastes (which are generated from similar
types of wastewater treatment units), and therefore can generally be treated similarly. Of
the estimated 69,000 dewatered tons per year of routinely generated F037 and F038
wastes requiring off-site treatment, EPA estimated that 41,000 tons per year will have a
BTU value sufficient for combustion in cement kilns. The remaining quantity (28,000
tons per year) has insufficient BTU value for cement kilns, and will be managed at
incinerators (see Chapter 3 of the Background Document).
EPA is aware, however, that F037 and F038 sludges removed from surface
impoundments usually contain lower levels of organic constituents than K048 and K051
wastes and routinely generated FG37 and F038 wastes, and therefore may be generally
lower in BTU content. In fact, these wastes may be so low in BTU content that they
would be unacceptable as fuel substitutes for some cement kilns (e.g., because of product
quality limits; see discussion below). EPA estimated that 173,000 tons of dewatered F037
and F038 surface impoundment sludges will be generated between June 1992 and June
1993. Of this total, 112,000 tons will be low-BTU wastes that will require incineration.
Of the 99,000 tons of dewatered F037 and F038 wastes that will be generated between
June 1993 and June 1994, approximately 64,000 tons will be low-BTU wastes.
EPA is also aware that some facilities are developing techniques to increase the
BTU value of F037 and F038 wastes so that they can be accepted by cement kilns. For
example, EPA believes that dewatering systems, especially thermal dryers, are capable of
increasing the heating value of F037 and F038 wastes. These techniques will increase the
amount of F037 and F038 wastes that have a heat content higher than acceptable levels
for cement kilns. However, some of the F037 and F038 wastes have such low BTU
content that even using these techniques will not increase the heat content to acceptable
levels for cement kilns.
In addition, EPA has identified facilities that intend to blend low-BTU wastes with
high-BTU wastes to meet operational heating value limits that will replace Sham
Recycling Policy1 limits once cement kilns certify compliance with the BIF Rule interim
status requirements. (BIF Rule emission limits will replace Sham Recycling Policy
guideline limits once cement kilns certify compliance with the BIF Rule interim status
requirements by August 1992, thus allowing lower BTU wastes to be used in some cases.)
On the other hand, product quality constraints of cement kilns (i.e., wastes must have
sufficiently high BTU to achieve adequate conditions in the kiln to produce a quality
product) and technical and regulatory limitations of fuels blending for solids limit the use
of low-BTU wastes. EPA recognizes that product quality limits are likely to prohibit
cement kilns from accepting wastes with heating values below about 4,000 BTU/lb as
fired. In addition, EPA believes that some fuels blenders have the 5,000 BTU/lb limit for
received wastes written into their permit and would, at a minimum, require a
1 The Sham Recycling Policy was designed to prevent incineration from masquerading as energy recovery,
when combustion occurred in unregulated units.

-------
3-5
Petroleum Refining Wastes
modification to accept low-BTU wastes. Thus EPA does not expect blending to
significantly increase the amount of low BTU wastes used as fuels. Therefore, EPA
believes that certain F037 and F038 wastes will not be amenable to cement kilns despite
various attempts to dewater the wastes.
EPA agrees with commenters that some dewatered F037 and F038 wastes are
tacky and generally cannot be pumped using conventional means. Because of these
characteristics, EPA believes that dewatered F037 and F038 wastes are not amenable to
pumpable sludge feed systems at incinerators and sludge or dry solids feed systems at
cement kilns. Additionally, EPA believes that refineries will likely package F037 and
F038 wastes in roll-off bins for treatment and disposal. EPA, therefore, believes that
low-BTU F037 and F038 wastes (the estimated 28,000 tons per year of routinely
. generated F037 and F038 wastes, 112,000 tons of surface impoundment wastes that will
be generated between June 1992 and June 1993, and 64,000 tons of surface
impoundment wastes that will be generated between June 1993 and June 1994) will be
treated at incinerators with bulk solids feed systems. Although F037 and F038 wastes
could be incinerated in drums at incinerators with containerized feed systems, packaging
capacity is not widely available. Packaging capacity could be added at generators,
incinerators or intermediate processors. EPA believes obtaining storage and operating
permits, as well as construction and startup of packaging units will take six months to one
year. Therefore, EPA believs that containerized solids systems at incinerators will not
receive a large portion of the nation's F037 and F038 waste streams.
EPA believes that high-BTU F037 and F038 wastes (the estimated 41,000 tons per
year of routinely generated F037 and F038 wastes, 61,000 tons of surface impoundment
sludges that will be generated between June 1992 and June 1993, and 35,000 tons of
surface impoundment wastes that will be generated between June 1993 and June 1994)
will be managed at cement kilns with containerized solid feed systems.
Comments:
The comments stating that some F037 and F038 wastes cannot be treated using
technologies identified by EPA are presented in the following order:
Amoco (89);
•	American Petroleum Institute (87);
•	Conoco (92);
Phillips (42);
Shell Oil (77);
•	Texaco (97); and
•	Unocal (44).

-------
3-6
Petroleum Refining Wastes
Docket Number. CD2P-00089
Commcnter:	Amoco
Comment:
Analytical data on tha removal aludga ahow that tha aludga haa
lav haating valua ranging fro* 3,030 to 4,560 BTU par pound,
which aakaa it prasantly unsuitabla aa caaant kiln fual.
Although caaant kilna will ba abla to aceapt Mala vith haating
valuas baled 5,000 8TB par pound in tha futura, this traataant
nathod will not. ba. availabla in sufficiant capacity in tha
short tax* dua. to tha larga aaount of work raquirad for caaant
kiln oparatora to daaonstrata coaplianca. Tha daadlina for
caaant kiln oparatora to subait thair cartifications of
coaplianca is not until Auguat 31, 1993. Also, as discussad In
tha API ceaaanta, coaaingling tha priaary aludga with athar
rafinary wastas to incraasa tha haating valua of tha aludga to
9,000 BTO par pound ia not faaaUbla, at laaat in tha short'
tara.

-------
3-7	Petroleum Refining Wastes
Docket Number: CD2P-00087
'Commenten	American Petroleum Institute
Comment: -
Although API agrees that F037 and F038 wastes may contain rh»
same hazardous constituents as K04 8 and K0S1 wastes, certal-g
physical and chemical characteristics of the newly listed was>»c
are sufficiently different from the K wastes to make certain
treatment technologies identified by EPA inapplicable to some
primary sludges.
EPA has assumed in its treatment capacity analysis for primary
refinery sludges that these sludges can be treated in either
incinerators or used for fuel substitution in cement kilns. la
fact, EPA's assumption that there is sufficient available
treatment capacity for routinely generated refinery primary
sludges is based on the extensive use of cement kilns.
EPA's assumption is flawed for several reasons. First, the 3TU
content of a significant quantity of F037/F03S wastes will be .t;
low to allow treatment in cement kilns. Some states have
established a minimum heat content ranging from 5,000 to 8,COO
BTU per pound of solid waste to prevent "sham" energy recovery.
For instance, Missouri and Kansas have state regulations on
minimum heat content for waste before it is mixed. See e.g.
CODE REGS 70 CSR 25-9.010: KAN. ADMIN. REGS. 2-31-8a.
Respondents to API's primary sludge survey (Appendix A) indicate
that low BTtJ content of F037/F038 wastes will frequently preve.-.-
their use for energy recovery in cement kilns and industrial
boilers. Some member companies report that the BTU content: zi
K048-K052 wastes are too low for waste fuels recycling.

-------
3.8
Petroleum Refining Wastes
Docket Number: CD2P-00087
Commenter:	American Petroleum Institute
Comment:
Second, EfA's'treatment capacity assumption is flawed because of
its reliance on mixing of low and high BTtl-streams. In the
proposed rule, EPA has concluded that F037/F038 wastes could be
commingled with K048-K0S2 wastes with higher heat values and/or
oil content to make energy recovery feasible. Commingling of
these solid wastes so that they can be sent to cement kilns for
energy recovery is not necessarily a feasible process, however.
For example, significant quantities of both refining K-wastes
ti-e., K049 and K051J and newly listed F037 and F038 waste
(primary from surface impoundments and wastewater treating tanks)
will be generated intermittently, but not necessarily
simultaneously. Refinery surface impoundments, tanks and ,
separators are typically cleaned one at a time rather that having
multiple work crews and equipment set-ups to perform the work
simultaneously. Even if refineries could generate both high and
low BTU waste simultaneously, mixing multiple refinery waste* '
with different physical properties {particle size, oil and water
content) to provide a waste with unifora BTU, oil, water, and
solids contents will require specialized mixing and blending
equipment that is not available «t most refineries. Storage would
also have to be past of such a mixing and blending operation, so
that proper proportions of low and high 1TO solid waste could be
mixed to achieve an acceptable BTO content-and other properties
necessary to make the mixed waste acceptable for off-site energy
recovery. At some refineries the amounts o£ impoundment sludges
may so outweigh the amounts of K-wastes that only a small
percentage of the impoundment sludge could be blended up to >
5000 BTU/lb. Many refineries do not have RCBA storage permits to
allow for greater than 90 day on-site storage. These wastes,

-------
3-9
Docket Number: CD2P-00087
Commenter: American Petroleum Institute
Comment (continued):
ones removed for management, are typically sent off-site as soon
as treatment/recycling capacity becomes available in order to
meet the less that 90 day storage requireaents and to comply with
the RCBA storage prohibition.
API does not dispute that commingling refinery X and r wastes may
in sob* eases be as approach for achieving waste properties
suitable for energy recovery. However# the lack of available
equipaant. t« effectively perform such commingling is a
significant: capacity issue. Refineries will not be able to design
and install, the necessary equipment before the proposed LORs
become effective-. Za addition, for those refineries that will
generate large amounts of primary sludge through initial removals'
froat surface impoundments, the required capacity of storage and
mixing equipment will be much larger thaa that required for
long-tern operation.

-------
3- 10
Petroleum Refiling Wattes
Docket Number: CD2P-00087
Comment en	American Petroleum Institute
Comment (continued):
A third factor which leads to flawed assumption is the fact that
E?A did not consider the wide differences in waste properties and
thus handling problems. Therefore, in addition to the issue of
heating value of the solid wastes, some F037/F038 wastes have
higher amounts of coarse particles, such as sand and soil erosion
products, as compared with KQ48-K051 wastes. These solids tend
to settle out, forming a non-puntpable sludge layer and a pumpable
aqueous layer. This property makes many F037/FQ38 wastes
incompatible with most incinerator and cement kiln pumpable
sludge feed handling systems. Some member companies report they
have had difficulty in making K-waste "pumpable" due to this
physical phase separation that occurs in tanks and transport
vehicles, and they anticipate similar problems with F037 and
FQ38. Additionally, attempts to make the wastes pumpable by
adding water simply lowers the BTU content of the overall waste
stream making the waste stream even less likely to contain
sufficient BTU content for the waste fuels market. In fact, most
member companies report that only through the aggressive
dewatering of refinery K-wastes (and eventually soma F037/F038)
will the heating value be sufficiently enhanced to allow
recycling to waste fuels markets.
API members have performed a characterisation of the oil ar.di heat
content of F037/F038 nonwastewaters.
Several API member companies have analysed F037/F038 impoundment
sludges to determine their heat, oil, solids, and water contents.
These data are presented in the following table:

-------
3-U	Petroleum Refining Waste*
Docket Number: CD2P-00087
Commenter:	American Petroleum Institute
Comment (continued);
BTU VALUE OF SELECTED SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
HEAT VALUE OIL	WATER SOLIDS
REFINERY
BTU/lb
wt. %
HLt_!
SS-
Amoco Texas City
3940
—
—
—
Amoco Whiting
2500
—
• —
—
Exxon Baton Rouge
2920
12
38
SO
Exxon Baytown
j;eo
8
36
56
Marathon
<1000
2
54
44
Phillips Borger
1480
¦ 21*
38*
41*
Phillips Sweeny
1280
3*
12*
85*
Notes:
— ¦ not available
* - volume % (as collected); BTU value from solids functions
These data document API's concern that significant quantities :f
refinery impoundment primary sludges will have heat contents zr.&z.
are too low to allow then to be used in cement kilns and
industrial boilers for energy recovery. All of the sludges ir-
below the 5,000 BTU/lb limitation that many cement kilns must
exceed. Additionally, refineries are currently developing and
installing equipment that will reduce the BTU content of both K-
wastes and F037/F038 wastes. Facilities and work practices
required to comply with the Organic Toxicity Characteristic and
Benzene Waste NESHAPs will significantly reduce the amount of oil
that-enters refinery sewer systems. Also, a significant
component of many refinery pollution prevention programs involves
reducing the amount of oil entering the sewers. These
activities, over time, will reduce the oil content of K-wastes
and F037/F038 and consequently, the BTU content. This lower STU
content will make less and less refinery wastes available for the

-------
3 • 12
Petroleum Refilling Wastes
Docket Number; CD2P-00092
Cominenter: Conoco
Comment:
Although analytica! data suggests some characteristic difference!, tha EPA is proposing to
transfer BDATcriteria for refiaery K>wsstcs ta F037/FQ38 waste*. FQ37/F038 wastes lend
to contain mere water and let. oi than K0O-K031 ««im Thus F037/FQ3* wastes will
generally have less fuel value and require mora dewatering prior ta treatment.
EPA has assumed in its capacity analysis for primary refiaery sludges that these sludges
can be treated in either incinerators or used for fuel substitution in cement kilns, (n fact.
EPA's assumption that there is sufficient available treatment capacity for routinely
generated refinery primary sludges is based on the us® of cement kilns. However, the-
BTU content of some F037/F038 wastes may be too low to allow treatment in cement.
kilns. Some states have established a minimum heat, content of 5,000 BTU per pound of
solid waste to prevent 'sham* energy recovery. In fas, the BTU content of primary sludge
samples tan six surface impoundments at our Pone* City refinery range from 300 t»490Q
BTU/lh. K-w**tes range from 25 to 3100 BTU/Bx There ta bo advantage to mixing these
wastes.

-------
3- 13
Petroleum Refining Wastes
Docket Number CD2P-00042
Commenter:	Phillips
Comment:
map* parddpatad on an Mennai study wftti aavomi API mambor cotttpaniM to datamtina dia 8TII
eomm of printofy riudoo iiripoundnwttta FMHpt* SwvoAy snd Boipor Baflnariaa raponad compowta
mM for bnpoundmantiat aaeft nrfinary. Of. wotar and aoida rtdas from wmplta u esSastad from
¦ tfwlm0aundmants«Mr*ealeUa«adonavQliimabaaiaualnaASTMMatfttd4OO741. Tha rru/fe viH*s
warn datonninad by ASTM Mathod 02*0-47 on tho aold fraction aanarnad tram eantrtfugation of ttm
afcidgoi.*Mdi would baaidn to our standard ooaradngproeaduro of on-afeodawatarinfl to minimixa wu»
by voiuma isAictlon and ad racoyoiY"
rar wm ootyw iwiwy* (npoMnaRwrn nM»ng vimi ot ¦npounanwni vuoqh iwoio from h/m 992
8TU/*> tvarvging UTS ITll/few Vofcmvte 08, wiw, toidt pereamigee mr»eod 21%, 38% 41%
fiiQicthily'* For tfvti Swnny Rcfirwy iinpoundinMtf hivtfno vsluoo rartgod from IKMS70 HTU/fc,
tvMO^tQt 1383 ilU/fc» A WHBf loBdk piRMOQII IVMQKl 3%# 12% Mid 88% inpt6tivily«
AM xtmm studom m Ml Mow tm 8000 ffTUA #wmM4 *m many Am kins mm itcHd to &•
•bfto to uiffai Prifttify Sfcjdpo m tat FHMpi wbh tfio CPA to memt tin amounts md dwictif of
surfni fci'iwuficiiiMWW sludpas that wfll bt fwMnKl to bi vmrmI bcfvi Miy# 1883 undaf sNi pcooond
annual dsaiwws piovisiofw and dio ab®ty of vsasnam facflWaa to fvooaaa tMs wasio»
mmiiifitii I'wftw fa*™ ^ wtifcft rtrtKY dMdtt an hi hufltrf it ftfifrt'tt'g*
emu m twMm rfvxrinwm ittl mUMt	a—cte»
FWpef panatitad K-wtstat uhdarfe axtansiv* machanical dt»itarinq bafora Mrto sant to monitors
of cafnont fcflna* ftilB diwiiurinQ md drying ta nacoaaary to racovar vaktaMa el and raduea tfta »oium»
of woaaa raquirine off-arta tratmant and ta ineraaaa tha STU comm. Tha tama kind of dawattms *<*
a wasta product
fhn it vniittbii only SB canals typos of wssta handing mittrnm at dhpaa* or racycSnq f«3*M».
SPA has aadmatad and rapartad it tha Background Interaadon Oocumam to dto prapoiad »w*. mat
about 88.000 tm of 'pumpofaia aJudga* traatmant capacity aada* tot rtflnary pnmary imis*
(KJ37/F03t>. Muosy. b» panaral. *¦ net produearK-wastat in a 'pwnpafeia*. form but now "
dawitarad fta* eafca or camrtfiiga aoSda. PhMpa undarstanda that inetoaratten and ernnmt kim
am not amanadia to tfw famt in wNcti P037/F03a
wM ba prodixad> and EPA ahould. tharafora; aisnifleantty diaeount tfta ctatad 'pwnpaWa aludpa* capacity
tviBihlc to nit itflynrv orim*v <**«**—
EPA thouid aias tignWcantfy tfaesunt dw 24,000 tons of oamant kin 'dry tofida* handling capacity
cWmad ta ba avafi^la-tar P837/F031 ki tha Background Infonnatton Ooeumant ta tha preposad ruK.
t>Maa dry aeSda ayttama an typicaPy pnoumsde convoyanea davfeoa that raquira a dry, non-tacky
mttarWa fm mttarfais handbig. Pawatarad F037/FC31 wfl it> eantain 30-40% wstar and tuffioant
raaiduai ol eamant to maka tha raautdns fDtar caka moiat and *tadcya. It if unroaBade ta mum that
largo auamWaa of F037/F031 can ba Handiad within pnaumade (dry aoida) handing aytsama.

-------
Petroleum Refining Wtstes
Docket Number: CD2P-OO042
Commenter:	Phillips
Comment (continued):
EPA has nor considered thi impact of impoundment dtanoutt expected to occur over the n.rt ?4
months orrcontainsfited feed system cigicttv.
Phillips believes that the incineration and camant kiln containerized feed system capacity will ba
overwhelmed by tha intermittent and peak nitura of F037/TO38 impoundment deanouts or closures thai
will ba occurring ovar tha next 12-24 months, A typical impoundmam claanout may take anywhere from
2-8 months, depending on tha size and volume of wastea containad in tha unit. Therefore, entire
volumes of wasta in an impoundment will ba removed ovar a relatively short period of tima. To comply
with annual ciaanout and/or claan-closura raquiramants, our two Taxaa rafinariaa will produca 66.500
tons of F037/F038 dawatarad primary sludge before mid-1993.
As bulk faad handling systama may ba operating at or naar capacity with continuously ganaratad K-
wastas and F037/F038. it is probable that containerized faad handling systama will ba left to manage tha
majority of the one-time and paak ganaratad primary sludga wastaa. Tha 66,500 tons of F037/F038
wastes from Phillips' surface impoundments will result in 1,800,000, six gallon containers for recycling
to cement kilns or 250,000, 55 gallon drums for treatment at incinerators, ovar a short tima period.
When tha scenario is extended over the entire refining industry, with the significant volume of F037/F038
wastes expected to ba generated from impoundments over the next year. Phillips is concerned that the
treatment/recycling industry containerized feed systems will not ba able to handle this volume of waste.
Unless sufficient oft or off-site RCRA storage facility capacity is available, refineries wiH likely have to
significantly reduce the rata of impoundment cfeanouts. This forced reduction, in the rate of
impoundment deanouts, is tha result of unavailable treatment or recydirtg capacity, wilt severely disrupt
impoundment annual deanout, closure upgrade or replacement schedules..

-------
3-15
Petroleum Refining Wastes
Docket Number; CD2P-00Q77
Cornmenter: Shell Oil Co.
Comment:
w* agraa that FQ37 and 703« ara ganarally aiailar to XQ4S aba
KOSlt hovavar, t&ara ara km dlffarancas and wa axpact that
cartain traataant tachnologiaa will not b« applicable Cor botfc
sats off vaataa-

-------
3-16
Petroleum Refilling Wastes
Docket Number CD2P-00097
Cammenter:	Texaco
Comment:
Characteristics of .th* Kwlv Listed Waataa krm sufficiently
Different froathe "K* Waifs to Mafce Cartain Traatm«ne
^o^iee Idintifinl by EPA InBDPllcflbli tp PgiMry Sludoa^
*037 and F031 vaatas usually have low oil content and BTU
value and aay not bo as aaenable to incineration or energy
recovery as are K04S-K0S2 wastes. EPA lias assuaed in its
capacity survey that theso sludges - can be treated in
Incinerators or caaent kilns similar to the rafinary "k-
wastes. However, the low BTU content of F037 and FQ38 waste
often prevents thea froa being considered for the cement Kiln
industry.
Zn addition, many ceaent kilns and incinerators require •- n.t. .
to be puapable. Refineries normally devater sludges, n. .*•s
thea- difficult to pump. Adding water or eliainatin*, *
devatexing step to sake the waste puapable further decift .•
the WSU value. EPA has not given- adequate considerst i ••
these differences and the effect they have on avii:
capacity to treat. F037/F03S. Texaco incorporates
consents on this issue.

-------
3- 17
Petroleum Refining Wastes
Docket Number: CD2P-OOQ44
Commenter: Unocal
Comment:
The heat content of Unocal's yo37. *041 ar*» jmi nftmw> aludomm
1« t^csllv balw sooo BTO/lb.
suitable for ui« for energy newirv in	fi'wS .;^Vnrt^'J2T1
Tha Unocal vast* characterisation data provided in Appendix A, and
discussed above sheva that both X04«/rO52 and F037 sludam vlll
typically have a heat eoataat below 5000 BTO/lb and thw b« liaitad
is technologiea available for traataant. om of Unocal's
refineriee baa developed extenaive drying capabilities to ensure
that its Aft seperator sludge, K09X, eaa Beet tha sooo STC/lb '
requireaent. Unocal's BTO data for 703? vast* show tbat -**.
also- be a problaa for these sludges.
gPA «»«mmtiaM regarding the physical form Iw vhich wlwfv
bm handled
ovir«»tlMta» 1992 availabla capacity.
As discussed above, om of Unocal's rafinariaa baa K vastas which
require extensive davatering and thermal drying to gat tba haat
content sufficient fer use aa fuel substitution in caaant kilns.
Hence, Unocal's sludgea which are sent off-ait* froa this refinery >
ara in a dry aolid for*. To data tbaaa dry solids bava baan sane
to incinerators. However, Unocal is praaantly in negotiation Cor
a non-exclusive contract at one of tba caaant kilna tbat EPA
included in tbair capacity analyaia. Za discussions with the
caaant kiln*a representative, it vaa acknowledged tbat there ware
probleas with.using pneuaatic conveyanca far tbese tacky dry solids
and tbat tbla particular caaent kiln bad quickly "resurrected" a
¦echanical feed systsa to aaet a particular timing daaand. The
kiln baa ordered "bat. not received or installed, additional
aecbanical equipment to provide for a bigbar throughput of dry
sludge solids. It is obvieua that thia particular caaent kiln
cannot operate at full capacity fer the handling of dry solids.

-------
3-18
Petroleum Refining Wastes
Docket Number: CD2P-00044
Comroenter: Unocal
Comment (continued);
At another refinery which presently relies en incineration for its
sludge, the sludge is no longer filtered but is sent with full
water content to facilitate the pumpable requirements of the
incinerator. This has had an adverse impact on waste minimization
efforts.
In general, the use of incinerators or cements kilns runs contrary
to both source reduction and waste minimization. The hazardous
constituents of concern in refinery sludge are chemicals that
originate in the oil. The oil is also the ingredient that makes
the wastes appropriate for treatment by incineration or fuel
substitution in cement kilns. EPA. should identify LOR approaches
that are more conducive to pollution prevention than the use
incinerators or cement kilns.

-------
3-15
Petroleum Refining Wastes
Docket Number: CD2P-0Q044
Commcnter: Unocal
Comment (continued):
APPENDIX A
UNOCAL JOINT REFINERY LAND BAM STUDY
WASTE ANXLY8ES

-------
3-2#
Petroleum Refining Wastes
Docket Number: CD2P-00044
Commenter:	Unocal
Comment (continued):
Milt MM - WttM «t** UMMlwInamt •411*1
tmmt mumv twl M M«i»
fW iMMlUt
•¦I
Mill
**»•»
MMtllM Ail
MM! IMIMI
•Ml «M1M« I»|l
M*U Hit Itttl
•¦a	MK
«»# l«|t
IMC
IUM IHMM
«MiM Mill aiitti
(IMl«
IMW
lft»l*
•f I
M4 H«l	»«•»«•! IMlia
IM	tM
MWill U) tlMCHM (l| 1
««*l 1 rfi'f I
• »
11
II
«• l«l
11
«
• «
*•
it
tm
M |«|
««
»«
1 «
»*'
• i
M
m Id
II
M
II
•

• •

• «

• 11*
1 IM

i Ml
I Ml III
I. Ml
¦ Ml
• 111
1 Ml


It M |M
t I.IM

M I4|
I •
>«
•I
m
• 1
It
>1
M I
I 1
• 1
M
It

II
II 1
II 1


M
• |

I


• •
M
I t

• •«»



<11
~Ml
Ml INI
m ««ii
i t
H
Ml •
IM
1*1
Ml IMI!




Ift.M*




Ml IMI
M 1
•1
Ml
Ml IMI
M 1
,fl
• *
i*
I.IM
*«




..
IM
, .
..
..

m ttmi
..
M

Ml IMII
..
,,
m in
• 1 .
II
 IMlll tM
|*|	MUM* 
-------
3-21
Petroleum Refining Wastes
Docket Number: CD2P-00044
Commenter:	Unocal
Comment (continued):
l*ml 4 « tu—t
Mkll tall •	•£»* liMH tVIMMn Mlttt
MMI
kllllt
MhM
MM . I«*t
.	mM«i»i« wi
•Mil**
IH«i IWIIK
tmrntm
•tlMI. tM«t
IIItlllM tMMHIIliK
MMIfllMI
IMIINIM
MM* (t| MMkiM*
ffiM*
MtKltl fQ» •
WtlM>
mf
m***
mil
MM*#
•ftt
MMM
Nl»|
•fit
wpitl
*»«l
¦|A|
MkIM llat|«
to*l<
M« Oil UMiiol Mttfl
HtKltl*

mt tt
*¦»•*•» l«l
IIMttll* «»|
MmMU
MUMml


i«
• *



II)
• n
i »
1 «
II
« *
Ml IB )|


•ft




rti til
m m>i
» l
IM
)l
M
It

• H



B M
* »
HI Ittl
Ml
MB It M
Ml itl
MM IMI
1.MB

Ml I* »

MB <• II
Ma ill
M
.

MB (1 II

MB |> >1
Mb <11
IM


* >

» •
Mi III
MB


M* 114*1


HI
Ml ('«•>


m hmi

MB 11*1
S
ft* MMI


m cm**

MB (Ml
m nt
IBB


m imi)
..

•
),*BB


tO *t«*|


«
Ml M«»l


m « mci


i
MB MMI


MB (!«•>


• I
•B |I«BI


m i mmi


ii
IM


MTIMBt
--
IB IMI
ii
MB MM)


«B (Mt|
**
M» IMI
i*
MB (IMI
**



•B 1* l|
• ii






• *



MMtl
|«|	Id .Mitaii oriilM Iiimi (Mi
|*|	**•»!• (MIIIMI ••••»•	MM
III	>11 ¦ llaa It* m«llll*4 idllHIft MM» l«*
III	l«tl >IM ** ••• MM	l|»u«| |»«l ltl«« 
  • M« MMt «¦ l«l Mil* Ml *•••<• 4*1 Mil* M« MM nwlfllt iwp lit NIIMIIM

  • -------
    Petroleum RefiniBg Wutel
    Docket Number: CD2P-00044
    Commcntcr:	Unocal
    Comment (continued):
    **1 (WIMI Kill
    *aiai •«« »ir»»
    • •IM'CI »«!•
    •CM IIIVI
    IX
    (¦«» M»«M
    MlMIM tWll MIDI
    MIMll
    •it 1MB
    COMIt
    •« %
    •t %
    •I I
    •I »
    • ¦Wit
    I1WI*
    •I I
    t ts Mai* »•»*•«
    **«•<•• lit
    If
    «r i
    • • •
    I IM
    > M*
    • »•
    «» 1
    If I
    Ml II
    Ml II
    f—
    «)NI
    ,1 .hum •*«** «• IINMI IM« *M1. Mill MM Ml MM.
    I! »6» ••mill	«M t« 'MIIM •«•««« II' «•««*• MM «M«*I *»M» H<«
    •*>« mt MIHIN «» INI *OC IMiiMI M4 I'l l>fit|l «l	M«NH
    "HI !*<*• MlMiMN MM IM	Mll-wmt «•* '¦«» «MIMll
    :i -*i <•«*
    -------
    3-23
    Petroleum RefiaiilWwtM
    Docket Number: CD2P-00044
    Commenter:	Unocal
    Comment (continued):
    »•» ica»t •»
    •114* Oll» •	MMftt
    iiAfl IN liwff
    catt** turn
    SI*rM*ii
    litta n«
    aim*
    lattllt
    Wil'M
    W*'*« i«t»i
    •I'll
    *§•*«
    «V»I
    ¦VI
    •( I
    MINIM
    V|•««*
    HIM* III
    til
    -etc in
    NMI III
    •+%* HI
    Ml II
    Ml II
    Ml II
    •cvmmkmm
    *11
    —
    NWI III
    •4KI fl
    •«€t.|»
    MMiUM
    •VM
    •CMMI
    
    ••41 ftl
    •omii
    IMM Ul *»«*•«•«•
    •Ml
    •4MMI
    ••(•111
    MMI.lt
    ««M| if
    WflMI
    •Ml
    H
    Ml
    ••ft II
    *«NI II
    MMtfV'M
    •Ml
    -•
    III
    *•4)11
    •«H« >1
    "MTWINM
    «VM
    —
    *«««.lll
    •C4III
    •Oil II
    *«M»*M
    
    
    •Mill)
    •4MI.II
    * >
    -MMIX***
    HfM
    M
    • 1
    III
    1 1
    1 1
    •*
    -»»»M
    
    •CM MM
    '•ll.lll
    •*41,11
    *m% H
    ¦w«w' < :(|tii«iM
    ••"1
    ¦4KMI
    • fl
    *(	* s%
    I •	*«« iiiiiiM >• 4C •*«•*»•« »M IK "Vi iMHIl M
    ••lit Mill	MM IM 9W« MM'Mif »•» **»• MIHll
    41 41 »*««»» •<	WW M »«»
    II	II'MH' *N «Mi*IM •» «»'%• "M <<**•*«
    «| IMH IIIMM IM 'C I'«t H I 1 »«>• SHIM
    

    -------
    3-24
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    3.2 Commercial Treatment and Disposal Capacity Is Available Tor Managing F037
    and F038 Wastes
    Summary:
    Two commenters (Regswrite (17) and TDI (10)) indicated that, although EPA
    recognizes that available data suggest sufficient treatment capacity exists to properly
    manage much of the F037 and F03S wastes, EPA appears to have ignored the
    commercial treatment and disposal industry capabilities. TDI (10) strongly opposes the
    unnecessary two-year capacity variance for F037 and F038 wastes, given the large
    available treatment capacity (available combustion capacity of 225,000 tons per year,
    which includes 118,000 tons per year of available recovery/reuse capacity) presented in
    the proposed rule. Regswrite (17) indicated that the commercial treatment and disposal
    industry is capable of properly managing F037 and F038 wastes, and therefore the
    Agency must acknowledge this fact by allowing and encouraging commercial waste
    treatment and disposal solutions. TDI noted that, in the analysis for the proposed rule,
    EPA estimated a surplus of 118,000 tons per year of available combustion capacity to
    treat F037/8 wastes generated from surface impoundments.
    The Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition (CKRC (40)) fully supports the Agency's
    conclusion that F037 and F038 wastes are fully suitable for use by cement kilns. Failure
    of petroleum refining wastes to meet a 5,000 BTU/lb threshold, CKRC states, would be
    legally irrelevant because kilns will be certifying compliance with BIF interim status
    standards in the next few months, thus allowing cement kilns to accept F037 and F038
    wastes with heating content less than 5,000 BTU/lb.
    Response:
    EPA disagrees with commenters that commercial treatment and disposal
    capabilities were ipored in the proposed rule. EPA, in its capacity analysis, reviewed
    relevant data on commercial treatment capacity (e.g., incinerators and cement kilns) and
    identified available capacity for the various classes of treatment capacity (e.g., bulk solids
    incineration, containerized solids systems at cement kilns). EPA believes that a
    significant portion of this capacity may be unavailable for F037 and F038 wastes because
    of chemical and physical characteristics of F037 and F038 wastes and limitations in the
    feed systems at combustion facilities.
    EPA agrees with commenters that some dewatered F037 and F038 wastes are
    tacky or not pumpable. Because of these characteristics, EPA believes that dewatered
    F037 and F038 wastes are not amenable to pumpable sludge feed systems at incinerators
    and sludge or dry solids feed systems at cement kilns.
    EPA believes that some F037 and F038 wastes currently are suitable for cement
    kilns. The Agency notes that F037 and F038 sludges removed from surface
    

    -------
    3-25
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    impoundments downstream of oil/water/solids separation units may contain prohibitively
    low amounts of organic contaminants. Even after using aggressive dewatering (e.g.,
    filtration, drying), the BTU content of some of these surface impoundment sludges may
    not rise above acceptable levels for cement kilns.
    The Sham Recycling Policy limit of 5,000 BTU/Ib will be superseded as cement
    kilns certify compliance with the Boiler and Industrial Furnaces (BIF) Rule interim status
    requirements by August 1992. The BIF Rule also will allow broader use of fuels
    processing to enhance the heating value of wastes destined for cement kilns. On the
    other hand, product quality constraints of cement kilns (i.e., wastes must have sufficiently
    high BTU to achieve adequate conditions in the kiln to produce a quality product) and
    technical and regulatory limitations of fuels blending for solids limit the use of low-BTU
    waste at cement kilns. EPA recognizes that operational limits are likely to prohibit
    cement kilns from accepting wastes with heating values below about 4,000 BTU/lb. In
    addition, EPA believes that some fuels blenders have the 5,000 BTU/lb limit written into
    their permit and would, at a minimum, require a modification to accept low-BTU wastes.
    Thus EPA does not expect blending to significantly increase the amount of low BTU
    wastes used as fuels. EPA has identified 83,000 tons per year of containerized solids
    capacity and believes that it will receive much of the high-BTU content F037 and F038
    wastes (primarily from routine waste generation). EPA believes there is uncertainty in
    this containerized solids capacity because some cement kilns may not meet the August
    1992 deadline for complying with interim status requirements of the BIF Rule (i.e.,
    problems in complying with the hydrocarbon emission requirements of the BIF rule, see
    Chapter 2).
    EPA thus believes that low-BTU F037 and F038 wastes will likely require
    incineration. EPA believes, however, that systems for packaging petroleum refining
    wastes into drums for incinerators are not widely available. Therefore, EPA believes that
    containerized solids systems at incinerators will not receive a large portion of the nation's
    F037 and F038 wastes. Although packaging capacity could be added at generators,
    incinerators or intermediate processors, EPA believes that obtaining storage and
    operating permits, as well as construction and startup of packaging units will take six
    months to one year. EPA estimated that 23,000 tons per year of bulk solids incineration
    capacity is available to treat F037 and F038 wastes. (Because only 1,000 tons per year of
    nonpumpable sludge incineration capacity is available, the discussion here focuses on the
    much higher available bulk solids incineration capacity.) EPA has information that
    significant quantities of low-BTU F037 and F038 wastes from surface impoundment
    cleanouts will be generated in the next 24 months (approximately 112,000 tons from June
    1992 to June 1993 and 64,000 tons from June 1993 to June 1994). Because the bulk
    solids commercial incineration capacity is insufficient to treat the large quantity of F037
    and F038 wastes from surface impoundments, EPA is granting a two-year national .
    capacity variance to these surface impoundments wastes. This variance allows refineries
    time to find suitable storage, handling, treatment, and disposal capacity and also allows
    

    -------
    3-26
    Petroleum Reflaing Wastes
    time for other types of commercial capacity to increase to meet the demand from these
    surface impoundment wastes.
    EPA estimated that of the 69,000 tons per year of routinely generated F037 and
    F038 wastes requiring off-site treatment, 41,000 tons would be high-BTU and would likely
    be managed in the form of containerized solids at cement kilns, fa addition, of the
    69,000 tons per year, 28,000 tons would be low-BTU and would need to be managed in
    the form of bulk solids at incinerators. The bulk solids capacity currently available at
    commercial incinerators is not sufficient to treat these wastes, however. As discussed in
    Chapter 3 of the Background Document for the Capacity Analysis for Newly Listed Wastes
    and Hazardous Debris to Support 40 CFR 268 Land Disposal Restrictions (Final Rule),
    EPA does not feel it warranted to subcategorize among types of routinely generated
    F037/8 wasres, and moreover, believes that there is substantial uncertainty that there is
    adequate kiln capacity even if these wastes were further subcategorized. Therefore, EPA
    is granting a one-year national capacity variance to all routinely generated F037 and F038
    wastes to allow time for cement kilns to comply with the requirements of the BEF rule
    and for additional capacity for bulk solids incineration and other treatment and recycling
    technologies to come online to meet the demand for low-BTU routinely generated
    wastes.
    Comments;
    The comments stating that commercial treatment and disposal capacity is available
    for managing F037 and F038 wastes are presented in the following order:
    Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition (40);
    Regswrite (17); and
    TDI(10).
    

    -------
    3-27	Petroleum Redoing Wastes
    Docket Number: CD2P-0OG4O
    Commenter: Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition (CKRQ
    Comment:
    ¦^j^w^fa2e2dEw™82i^^jyL2i^Li^wE&jEJUUE
    EPA has proposed new BOAT standard* foe- two petroleua
    refining wastes, F037 and F03*. 37 Fad. mo. 9M-i«s. EPA has
    also proposed a two-year national capacity variance for those
    F037 and F031 vutu that are generated in surface iapoundaents.
    37 Fad. Rao. 99S-1QI>0. Basad upon our review of these sactiona
    of the- proposal, v« generally support CPA's approach. «• have
    the following eavaata and points te make, however.
    First, we strongly support ZPA** conclusion that F037 and
    F03S waates ara fully suitable for us* by caaent kilns. 57 Fad.
    Rag. 9«3. We nota ia fact that soae oS th* concern expressed by
    otftar parties (and reflected ia tha preamble discussion on p.
    983) ia antirsly miadiractad. This is because avaa if patrolaua '
    vast* as burned. failed te seat a SOOQ Bt» threshold, this would
    be legally irrelevant as kiln* certify compliance with. BIF
    inter ia status* standard* in the next few souths. Se* a.' 2,
    auort.	— , ..
    Second, w*> should not* oar concern with Table XX-l on page
    1009. This Tabl*- state* that eeaeat kiln* are aaong tha
    appropriate sanagaaeat options for handling F03T and F03* vast**.
    As is clear froa.th* above discussion, we certainly.agree
    with this point and v* appreciate EFA'a recognition of this face,
    our concern goes back to the "Confusion in U>R* With Kespact eo
    Cement Kilns," discussed ia pages 1-4 abev*. -
    -*
    A quick perusal at Tabl* IX-1 should vividly daaonstrate our
    concerns. For her*, ia just a few inches of Federal Register
    space,' EPA is craatiag tha potential iafareoc* for th* unindorsed
    reader that ceaant kilna ar* accaptabl* for F037 and F03S wastes,
    but not for any of th* other waste* listed ia th* table.
    ifot* that evaa oa th* listing for F037-31, DA areata* tha
    inference-that e*aent kilns ars not included with "incineratcr."
    for th* two options ar* listed separately. Then elsewhere in r-«
    tabl*, theraal destruction and incineration are sentioned i*.v»nl
    tiaes whil* ceaent kilns ar* not.
    As w* explained above, caaent kila burning is just as
    affective as incineration and is now regulated even aore
    stringently than incineration. Tha inferences that aay be jn.n
    froa this tabl* ars accordingly entirely inappropriate.
    

    -------
    3-28
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    Docket Number CD2P-00017
    Commenier:	Regs write
    Comment:
    era aekamladsM that available data iodieatea that auttieiaat
    treatiaaat capacity eaiata ta properly aaaaga the aewly liated
    *037 aad f03» petrol avaa refiaiag vaataa. *ow«*«r, the a««aoy
    appears to ignore tba cowaercial, atf-aita traataaafc ud diapoaal
    iadoatry capabilities by dafarria# to oa-aite treataeat capacity
    at petreleta rafiaariaa. The eoMceial treataeat aad disposal
    *.<4*ustry is capabU of properly aaaa«i&* theae aealr 1 la tad
    -»• aad the agaaey aoit aekao«led«e this fact br allowing aad
    .agiaf coaaaarcial vast* treataeat tai disposal aalutioaa.
    
    m esapaoMls the oa-aite capacity iiraa by allowing •
    "eoaplailtr faster" ta dictate the deferred diapoaal deoiaioa.
    Tba "cooplaxity faster" concerns tba geaaratioa of the aewlyi,
    lists* V03f as* rQS# vaataa la aorfaee lapoqadaanta that do aot
    satisfy aisias	r«f«liaHatt (KVI). Whits noa-MTS
    awfaet poads sad i^wateati ara pataatiailr tba aaat
    eavirenaeatally datriaMatal aadi least aaYiroaaaatally protective
    treatawat and dispoaal units. Oft appears coataat ta allot* theae
    uaita ta eoatiana ta feaerate and atara thaaa aew "hasardous
    vaataa far taa or, aora likely, fottr faua. Thaaa uaits- should
    ba rstrofitsd ta aaat Ktm, at tba vary lesst# or ataaad. at tha
    *sry bast. Tba ccsMrcial treataeat aad dispoaal industry haa
    tba capabilitiaa aad tha capacity ta aama«a thaaa wastaa ia mora
    appropriate, aara protective facilities.
    

    -------
    3-29
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    Docket Number CD2P-00010
    Commenten TDI Thermal Dynamics
    Comment:
    TO! strongly oppcaas the unneceasary tvo-ysar capacity
    variance few r037 sad F03» vutu, givaa the large docusentad
    available trsataent capacity and IFA's own adaisaioa in the
    proposed rula that suffieiant capacity to accoaaodate thaae wuu
    exists.
    la the Agency's capacity analysis,. ifc.«astiaatas that
    -approximately 74,000 teas par yaar of devatered FQ37 and F03»
    wastes (nsmrmatavrntars) frea routine vasts trsataent will require
    alternative trsataent." 47 Fad. Rag. 1000 (January t, 19*3). In
    this analysis, the Jtgeacy alao identifies aa available surplus of
    229,000 tons/year of combustion capacity. S7 Fad. Bag. 999
    (January •» 1992). Considering the 119,000 tsns/yaar of
    available recovery/reuse capacity, not to aaatloa the potantially
    available recovery/reuse capacity, there ehould be bo re than
    sufficiaat capacity to treat additional F037 aad F03« wastes
    generated froe annual reaoval of these wastes in unratrofitted
    surface iapoundaaats vhile the 4 yaar retrofitting exesption is
    in place, aa veil as F037 aad FQ3S vastas gaaeratad free
    petroleua refining facilities choosing to claaa close their
    surfaoe iapeeadaaats in lieu of retrofitting.
    

    -------
    3-30
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    3.3 F037 and F038 Wastes Are Generated Sporadically In Large Quantities, and
    Cannot Readily Be Commingled With K048 and K051 Wastes
    Summary:
    Five commenters (API (87), Amoco (89), Conoco (92), Texaco (97), and Unocal
    (44)) stated that EPA has erroneously assumed that F037 and F038 wastes could be
    commingled with K048 and K051 wastes with higher heating values to make energy
    recovery feasible. These commenters mentioned that for this commingling to be
    practical, the two wastes would have to be generated simultaneously and in the proper
    proportions so that the combined fuel value would be above 5,000 BTU/lb. These
    commenters stated that most F037 and F038 wastes are generated sporadically and in
    large quantities (due to surface impoundment cleanouts), whereas K048 and K051 wastes
    are generated routinely and usually in smaller quantities. According to the commenters,
    even if F wastes and K wastes were generated in the desirable proportions over time,
    refineries lack the capacity to store large quantities of F and K wastes, and in the short
    run refineries would have to build costly RCRA-permitted storage facilities to
    accommodate the difference in the time of generation. API (87) and Unocal (44) also
    mentioned that commingling the wastes would require mixing and blending systems that
    are not available at most refineries. Three commenters (Unocal (44), API (87) and
    Texaco (97)) implied that EPA ignored significant storage and blending problems
    associated with commingling F and K wastes, and incorrectly assumed that commingling
    these wastes results in a waste that can be used as fuel in cement kilns. The commenter
    believes that, as a result of this incorrect assumption, EPA has overestimated the
    available treatment capacity for F037 and F038 wastes from surface impoundments.
    Response:
    EPA agrees with these commenters and is aware that large amounts of K048 and
    K051 wastes would need to be combined with the generally low-BTU F037 and F038
    wastes from surface impoundments so that the combined fuel value would m-.et
    acceptable levels for use at cement kilns. Although EPA assumed in the proposed rule
    that commingling of F and K wastes would be feasible, EPA has reconsidered this
    assumption based upon additional information. For the final rulemaking, therefore, EPA
    assumes that F037 and F038 wastes will not be commingled with K048 and K052 wastes.
    The original assumption regarding commingling for the proposed rule was based
    on data showing that many hazardous wastes (including K048 and K051) are routinely
    commingled for the purpose of treatment by technologies such as incineration and fuel
    substitution. The commingling of K048 and K051 wastes may also occur for recovery
    purposes in units such as solvent recovery, thermal desorption, or high temperature
    thermal distillation. Since F037 and F038 and K048 and K051 wastes have similar
    physical and chemical characteristics, the Agency believed that they are amenable to all
    treatment technologies on which K048 and K051 treatment standards are based.
    

    -------
    3-31
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    For the final rale, however, EPA has collected information and received
    comments that indicate that the cleanout of surface impoundments over the next 24
    months would generate relatively large quantities of low-BTU F037 and F038 wastes.
    These wastes will usually be generated sporadically and in a short time period, and
    refineries lack appropriate storage and blending capacity to commingle these wastes with
    K wastes. Even if commingling were possible, the resultant F and K waste mixture may
    not have sufficiently high BTU for cement kilns. That is the quantity of low-BTU F037/8
    surface impoundment clean-out wastes is usually much larger than the quantity of high-
    BTU K wastes. EPA believes that the BIF Rule will allow cement kilns more flexibility
    in blending or otherwise processing (e.g., thermal drying) F037 and F038 wastes with a
    heating value less than 5,000 BTU/lb to acceptable levels by replacing the Sham
    Recycling Policy guidelines. The Agency believes, however, that product quality
    constraints and technical and regulatory limitations of fuels blending for solids limit the .
    use of low-BTU wastes at cement kilns. EPA recognizes that these factors are likely to
    prohibit cement kilns from accepting wastes with heating values below about 4,000
    BTU/lb as fired. In addition, EPA believes that many fuels blenders have the 5,000
    BTU/lb limit for wastes received written into their permit. Thus EPA does not expect
    blending to significantly increase the amount of low BTU wastes used as fuels, (see
    Chapter 2).
    Because F037 and F0j8 wastes are assumed to not be commingled with K048 and
    K052 wastes generated from surface impoundments, EPA has concluded that bulk solids
    incineration capacity rather than cement kiln capacity would be required to treat most of
    the F037 and F038 wastes. EPA has determined that insufficient bulk solids incineration
    capacity exists to treat these wastes. Therefore, for this and other reasons described
    elsewhere in this chapter, the Agency is granting a two-year national capacity variance to
    F037 and F038 wastes from surface impoundments. This variance will also allow time for
    capacity of other types of treatment (e.g., thermal desorption and solvent extraction) to
    increase and meet the demand from any F037 and F038 wastes remaining in surface
    impoundments and requiring off-site treatment after the two-year period. Furthermore,
    a two-year variance minimizes the possibility that large quantities of these wastes would
    overwhelm materials handling and storage capacity.
    Comments:
    The comments stating that F037 and F038 wastes are generated sporadically in
    large quantities and that these wastes cannot readily be commingled with K048 and K051
    wastes are presented in the following order:
    '•	American Petroleum Institute (87);
    •	Amoco (89);
    •	Conoco (92);
    •	Texaco (97); and
    •	Unocal (44).
    

    -------
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    . Docket Number CD2P-00087
    . Commeiuen American Petroleum Institute
    Comment:
    Second, EPA's 'treatment capacity assumption is flawed because of
    its reliance on mixing of low and high ITO-streams. In the
    proposed rule, EPA has concluded that F037/F038 wastes could be
    commingled with KQ48-KQS2 wastes with higher heat values and/or
    oil content to make energy recovery feasible. Commingling of
    these solid wastes so that they can be sent to cement kilns for
    energy recovery is not necessarily a feasible process, however.
    For example, significant quantities of both refining IC-wastes
    (i.e.. K049 and KQSl) and newly listed F037 and F038 waste
    (primary from surface impoundments and wastewater treating tanks)
    will be generated intermittently, but not necessarily
    simultaneously.. Refinery surface impoundments, tanks and t
    separators are typically cleaned one at a time rather that having
    multiple work crews and equipment set-ups to perform the work
    simultaneously. Even if refineries could generate both high and
    low BT8 waste simultaneously, mixing multiple refinery wastes '
    with different physical properties (particle size# oil and water
    content) to provid* a waste with uniform WTB, oil, water, and
    solids contents will require specialized mixing and blending
    equipment that is not available at moat refineries. Storage would
    also have to be part of such a mixing and blending operation, so
    that proper proportions of low and high BT8 solid wast* eeuld be
    mixed to achiev* aa acceptable BTO content'and ether properties
    necessary to make the mixed waste acceptable for off-site energy
    recovery. At soma refineries the amounts of impoundment sludges
    may so outweigh th» amounts of K-wastes that only a small
    percentage of th« impoundment sludge could be blended up to >
    5000 BTO/lb. Many refineries do not have RCRA storage permits to
    allow for greater than 90 day on-site storage. These wastes,
    

    -------
    3-33
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    Docket Number: CD2P-00089
    Commenter: Amoco
    Comment:
    			• The deadline for
    cenent kiln operators to sulmit their certifications pf
    compliance is not until August 21, 1992. Also, as discussed in
    the API comments, coaainglin? the primary- sludge with othar
    refiner*, waste^ta increase the heating valua of the sludge to
    5,000^B3k&e^'gband. is not feasible,, at. least" in the short
    

    -------
    3-34
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    Docket Number: CD2P-Q0092
    Commenter:	Conoco
    Comment:
    la tfa« piopo—d tuta. EPA has conducted that FQ37/FCOS waataa could b« commingled
    with K0484C0S2 warn with UfhcrbaatvahKaaad/or oil coiuaat to oaks otergy man cry
    feasibte. It should b« aoted that KB7 waa» normally wffi doc ba featrated at the 
    -------
    3-35
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    Docket Number: CD2P-00097
    Commenter: Texaco
    Comment;
    C|igacttglftlcg Qt till	^ Hlltig flf auf»<>«iafn-iy
    filffir#Rt» Hjtqm til# K*	—fcti—Cijrtj^JL ypm>w*w»
    Tachnoloqiae Idantiflad bv WPh Imppii*»mm 11	" ,;Sy?s
    EPA indicate* that r93?/F03S vutM could ba coniriglcd wtm
    K04S- K032 vutu la order to rala* thm WSO content, oakir.t
    thm vast* usable far energy recavary. tfca major problca vim
    tha larg*» volume of F037 and F03» vhicb need ts :«
    dlapoeed and tha atorag* n—dmd during mixing or while wait ;r.*f
    to mixed. *037/F03« are not routinely generated arid s.«y
    r»pfm extended atorage tima (greater' 90 diy>) it tr.*f
    bav» to ba mixed vitls other vaatas to iaereaaa the btu v.»:
    

    -------
    3-3*
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    Docket Number: CD2P-00044
    Commenten	Unocal
    Comment:
    EPA hag ¦rron«ou«lv a««unad that nflnirv P vaataa can bm r.»^nY
    Ineinaratlon or fual substitution.
    Zn tha proposed tuls, EPA bu concluded time FQ37/F03S vast* can b«
    coaainglad with K04S-K0S2 vtiti vith higher hut contant and/or oil
    content to sake anargy recovery faasibls. Thar* ara thraa problaas
    vith this assusptiom. timing, physical characteristics and
    facilitias. ma most aarioua problem with the assumption that r
    and K vastss can bs aixad to producs a heat eostant suffieiant to
    allow for anargy racovary is timing; rafinarias oparata on
    establishsd aehadulas tor aaintanance to optimize aanpover. High
    and lew heat content sludgs ass not litaly to be available at tha
    mm tiam to provide aa acceptable coaaingled aludga product Co?
    anargy recovery. This is turthar asphaaizsd by ths tact that -at -
    soms of ths U»ocs2 rsfinsrias, large quantities ot primary sludge
    vill bs genarated aa s on* tias basis ia association with tha
    closure of interia status surfacs impoundments.
    Secondly, special equipment and facilities ars required to acora
    vastss in preparation for mixing and to mix multiple rafinary
    vastas vith diffarsafc physical propartias (particls aiza, oil ana
    vatar content). Such squipaant and facilitias ars not availabla at
    soas Unocal rafinsriss.. Adding storage facilitias vould not only
    require tha expenditure of capital funds bat else could raquira a
    RCRA storage permit, Unocal is asking a aajcr effort to elisinaca
    its prsseat HSNk peraittad facilities,i.s., tha intsria imiui
    surface impoundments, end does not vent to add facilities raquirmg
    RCRA permits. rinally, in aoas. instances F vastas have vary
    different physical characteristics with aora silts and. sand -nich
    don't land thesselves to mixing.
    The affect of the Agency*s assumption that rafinary F and K vasta
    can be maatngled to anhsncs fuel value for use aa ansrgy racovary
    in cement kilns and industrial boilers is to flaw ths capacity
    analysis arid hance lead to an erroneous conclusion concerning tha
    need for a national capacity variance for all primary sludga.
    Unocal urgaa ths Agsney to postpons ths promulgation of ths final
    ruls for LDR's for F037/F031 vastss for one year and to uss tha
    tiss to corrsctly svaluats availabla capacity far thass vastas. zn
    ths event that EFA does not postpone the final rule, Unocal
    supporta the extension of ths national capacity variance to includa
    all F03? and FQ3i vasts, not just thoss stored in surfaca
    impoundments.
    

    -------
    3-37
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    3.4 Refineries Will Not Reconfigure Wastewater Treatment Systems to Decrease F037
    and FC38 Waste Quantities
    Summary:
    API (87) stated that most refineries will likely not reconfigure their wastewater
    treatment systems to reduce the generation of F037 and F038 wastes and increase the
    generation of K048 and KQ51. F037 and F038 wastes, they indicated, are often
    generated as a result of treating wastewater hydraulic surges directed to the surface
    impoundments. Directing the hydraulic surges through API and DAF units as suggested
    by EPA in the proposed rule would overload their treatment capacity, resulting in
    wastewater discharges in exceedance of concentration standards required by their
    National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. API (87) and
    Texaco (97) mentioned that increasing the DAF unit treatment capacity to accommodate
    the peak flows would not be feasible for most of the refineries because it would require
    large units and a total engineering redesign of the entire wastewater treatment system.
    Also, they believe, such modifications cannot be accomplished in the short run. Three
    other commenters (Conoco (92), Texaco (97), and Unocal (44)) also reported that their
    facilities do not expect any increase in the quantities of K048 and K051 wastes generated
    as result of F037 and F038 listing. One comnxnter (44) implied that EPA's use of this
    assumption, which is not supported by experience at the commenter's refineries,
    minimized the quantity of F037 and F038 wastes.
    Response:
    For the proposed rule, EPA believed that some refineries might respond to the
    organic TC and F037 and F038 listings by reconfiguring their wastewater treatment
    processes such that wastes are no longer hazardous or are managed in API separators or
    in DAF units. Wastes managed in these wastewater treatment units are considered K048
    or K051 wastes and are already subject to LDR treatment standards. EPA believes that
    refineries have the incentive to reconfigure their wastewater treatment process so that
    sludges listed as F037 and F038 wastes or that exhibit toxicity characteristics do not
    accumulate in surface impoundments. In the proposed rule, EPA did not reduce the
    quantity of F037 and F038 wastes to account for reconfiguration of refinery wastewater
    treatment processes, and requested comments concerning this issue.
    In the capacity analysis for the final rule, EPA did not assume any systems
    currently generating F037 and F038 wastes would be reconfigured to increase K048 and
    K051 generation. Therefore, the Agency did not reduce the quantity of F037 and F038
    waste generation to account for an increase in K048 and K051 quantity. Based on
    comments received, EPA concluded that although some refineries can reconfigure their
    wastewater treatment processes such that wastes are managed in API separators or DAF
    units (thus increasing K048 or K051 wastes and decreasing F037 and F038 wastes), most
    refineries will not do so. This conclusion also is supported by data received prior to the
    

    -------
    3-38	Petroleum Refining Wastes
    proposed rule from approximately 30 refineries. These refineries indicated that K048
    -and K051 wastes have not increased due to the F037 and F038 listing. However, EPA is
    aware of several refineries that have initiated aggressive biological treatment upstream of
    primary separation such that the wastes are no longer hazardous. Therefore, for those
    refineries that have initiated aggressive biological treatment upstream of primary
    separation, EPA assumed their primary sludges would no longer be hazardous (although
    their K048-K052 wastes would still be hazardous) and did not include them in the F037
    and F038 capacity analysis.
    Comments:
    The comments stating that refineries will not reconfigure their wastewater
    treatment systems to decrease generation of F037 and F038 wastes are presented in the
    following order:
    •	American Petroleum Institute (87);
    •	Conoco (92);
    •	Texaco (97); and
    •	Unocal (44).
    

    -------
    3-39
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    Docket Number: CD2P-Q0G87
    Commenten American Petroleum Institute
    Comment:
    EPA'a assumption that the Quantities of K04I and K0S1 waar»y
    Increase as a result of the listing Qg F037 and r038 waac«,« 4 g
    nee realistic.
    EPA'* assumption that refineries will reconfigure chair treatee.it
    systems- in such a sannar as to reduce feneration of F037/FQ38
    wastes and increase generation of K048/K051 wastes is unlikely ta
    be true .for the majority of refineries, Most refineries that
    generate F037/FQ38 waste* in surface impoundments, for example,-:-
    do so because they muat have the hydraulic surge capacity
    provided by a large impoundment to operate their wastewater
    treatment unit* witllia permitted limits. Simply eliminating the
    use of the surface impoundments would hydraulieally overload the
    wastewater treatment system. This event would likely adversely
    affect the wastewater treatment system, resulting in exceedar.ses
    of the refinery's HfOES permit limits.
    To eliminate the surface impoundments that collect F037/F038
    wastes* refineries will, typically have to choose one or more s!
    the following approaches:
    f
    

    -------
    3 - 44	Petroleum Reflate* Waites
    Docket Number: CD2P-00087
    Comtnenter:	American Petroleum Institute
    Comment (continued):
    •	replace the impoundments with tanks;
    •	-retrofit existing impoundments*
    •	increase the capacity of All and Dissolved Air
    Floatation (OAF) units (this will generally be
    inapplicable to systeas that treat large volumes of
    stora water;
    *
    add new primary and secondary- oil reaovat units other
    than API separators and OAf'units (such as Induced
    Static flotation (1ST) devices and Corrugated Plate
    Separators (CPS)); and
    •	segregate process wastewater from stocowater so thai
    impoundaents receive only stocm water.
    Three of these five approaches will neither reduce the voi*-=e :
    r037 and 1*031 wastes nor increase the voluae of K048/X051 wjs-.-;
    increasing the size of API and OAT units to accommodate,pe«*
    flows is not iapleaentable quickly, and will not be feasible i:
    moat refineries because the of large units required to tren
    hydraulic surges effectively. In fact, some refineries rep:;- *
    switch, away froa classic ASZ Separator/DAT float combinat
    CPS and 1ST units era typically enclosed vessels asking ~
    

    -------
    3 • 41	Petroleum Refiniftg WiM
    Docket Number: CD2P-00087
    Commenter:	American Petroleum Institute
    Comment (continued):
    amenable to viper recovery# a requirement anticipated under - -f
    new Cleaa Air Act KACT requirement*. Only the fifth alter.-..**.
    se§refatioa of process and stem sewers, will significant:,
    reducv th» volua* of r037/F03l wastes# and this alternative . . .1
    cake aaay- years te accomplish at aost refineries with cerr. - :
    sewer systeas. API believes that EJX'i assuaption atoout
    reduction in r-vaste and concurrent increase in JC-waste
    categories is not a realistic assessaent of how refineries
    and will respond to the refinery solid wastes listings ars *•¦• :*
    rule.
    

    -------
    3-43
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    Docket Number: CD2P-00092
    Commenten Conoco
    Comment:
    gPA'i MMfitgrion thit the ouifitidea ef K04i twd KM I wmb wtH mrr**,* as .i f^uli of
    the taring of KB? Bid FtB8 wmstfa a not wlkfe
    Matt raSnariwwia not raaonffpim ttatr *Mniur iMtapmrtt tyitcnu t«i ,(%rr ««
    K048 aad KOSI wbiuml. Thk would t» s poor k»g una sntagy *"d conflicts *.t n ur
    yak to ndue»«xiM ftacntioa.
    Gaaae* has dais two approadtw ts	FC37/F03* wutts m —
    •	fopfawv t&Mt mtpouotibsicsitt wxtti
    •	fffiwt ^lyrtitfw frrrt ^ uTy^**?rKfhT%fWi^>-
    Tmfftmntrtftti of citiMt of tUcM iltmttNi bmk bt ctfvfuJDy eoonfiMifil '•"« *• *«•
    ifTtpogfulflMiBtiiKctucaito (Wf day to 4ty opyiiom* &ihayfcii^pert***** . J
    COCUtfUCtlOQ of tbi SlttfOAtZ^O f^ttCQS ttifc® JpWS to tt00OO^pi£^bL>
    

    -------
    3-43
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    Docket Number CD2P-00097
    Commenter: Texaco
    Comment:
    *a«a»otlon that tha Ouantltlaw of K04»'«nd itast ».«».«
    EPh*m ascuaptioit that rafinasias will raeonfigurs thair
    traatsant systass in audi a sannar as to rsducs ganaration of
    f037/*03« vutu and incsaasa ganaration of K04«/XflSX vaatas
    is not likely to ba trua Cob tha aajority of rafinsrias. Sob*
    rafinarias ganarata f037/F03« vasts* in aurfaca ispoundaants
    bacauss tha hydraulic «urga--fcap*city prwidad by- « l&rga
    iapoundaant is nacassaxy to ansurs that: tha vaatavatar.
    traatsant. systa* units eparats tha AFT - separators and
    dissolved air flotation (OAT) units within their design
    eapaeitias. Eliminating tha use of the surface impoundments
    would hydraulieally overload their AFI and fifty units and would
    requirs a total engineering ^ redesign of thair - antira
    wastewater traatsant aystaa,
    Taxaco is- using tanks and KTR surfaes ispoundaants to replace-
    ths surfacs- impoundments that collaet r037/r03S wastes. This
    approach will neither reduce tha voluma of 1037' and F038
    wastes, nor will it: ineraaaa tha volua* of X04I/K0S1 wastes.
    

    -------
    3 - 44	Petroleum Refining Wastes
    Docket Number CD2P-Q0044
    Commenter:	Unocal
    Comment:
    gyftiiliiiiiwvietlfin tftit
    fcha (ramntitimm at m<« »M rnmi will
    " » MWlt °* lirting Of F037 ind ran ta not	»nr ftny
    Unocal r«flnarv.
    EPA baliavaa that sea* raf inariaa may faava raapondad to tfea TC rula
    and/or tha f037 and F03» liatinga by raconfigoring tHalr vaatavatar
    traataant proeaas to incraaaa K0S1 and K04* vast* and ainiaiza ro37
    and roat vaataa.
    Unocal Is raconfiguring thraa of its f oar rafinariaa la raspen** to *
    tha liatiag of r037/F03» boe nons of tha ehaagas vill raault in t*a
    radoctioa of I037/F03« or tha incraasad gaaaratioa of K04I/K0S1.
    On* of ttm mtst^em iapeondsanta is ondar a Part 9 parait far
    ataraga at TC vastavatar. Aft aaeb of tha thraa rafinariaa
    undargoing conatxuctioa bacanaa of tha primary alodg* rait, the
    primary alodga onrfaca iapouarfaaxrta ara being rapiaead vith taniea
    to handla tha amy* capacity naadad in tha vaatavatar traataant
    aystaas. Tha tanks will ba in tha aaaa poaitiea in tha vaatavatar
    traataant ayataas as vara tha aarfaea iapoondaaata; hence, they ara
    not expected to iapaet tha level of 1CQ51, API separator aludga, or
    tha aaoont of K04», dissolved air flotation float.
    onm refinery replaced .Its primary traataant rarfaca iapoundaant
    vith tasks wall, ia adranca of tUs yQ37/r038 Hating* Hovevar, in
    inatanea tha	vara r10n1itarail to raee#.va vaatavatar
    befora th* JUPX aaparator rather thaa f as	aurfaea
    'iapotadaasfe did- Biia raoongigaratioa resulted ia ineraaaing tha
    alodg* oollaetad ia thataale, aa 7937 vaata, and reducing the KOSi
    alodga lis tha ATX separator.
    Again in* ha* aada aa aaanaptioa to alaialta tha quantity of
    rafiaary Fwstas vhieh ia not aoppertad toy axparianca at Unocal,
    clearly Oft aaat, at a minimum, gnat a national capacity variance
    for all 7037/fQ3C vasts bacatiaa of tm incomplete capacity analyst a
    which lad to aa arsoaaous daeiaion for a limited national capacity
    varianca.
    

    -------
    3 • 45
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    3.5 EPA Should Investigate Cases of Waste Code Switching from K048-K052 to F037
    and F038 to Avoid LDRs
    Summary:
    HWTC (51) indicated that EPA should investigate cases of impermissible waste
    code switching from K048-K052 to F037 and F038 codes to avoid LDRs for K wastes.
    Response:
    EPA analyzed the wastewater treatment processes and refinery waste generation
    and management at 30 refineries, and at most of these refineries the quantity of K waste
    generated stayed the same even after treatment standards for these wastes became
    effective. A small number of these refineries did report a reduction in K waste
    generation; these reductions likely were achieved through waste minimization methods,
    such as refinery sewer segregation and upstream process changes. To the best of EPA's
    knowledge, refineries did not impermissibly switch waste codes from K048-K052 to F037
    and F038 to avoid K waste LDRs (which became effective on November 7, 1990). In
    fact, several refineries ha"e incorrectly classified their F037 and F038 wastes from
    oil/water/ solids separators and tanks as K048 and K051, which led them to treat these -
    wastes to LDR treatment standards earlier than required.
    Comments:
    One commenter (HWTC (51)) submitted a statement that EPA should investigate
    cases of waste code switching from K048-K052 to F037 and F038.
    

    -------
    3-4*
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    Docket Number: CD2P-00051
    Cotmnenten	Hazardous Waste Treatment Council (HWTC)
    Comment:
    —«p« »,¦ - »,—	IsrA	qqon of knpvmiHbto
    oo^yiei*iQi^i€>wcD5atiPatrindP0aicod>tiBiwMtti>i«id{i^o«*
    ., rtiMcfSoni tec Jtw K wnM^
    

    -------
    3-47
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    3.6 EPA Underestimated the Quantity of F037 and F038 Wastes that Will Be
    Generated from Surface Impoundment Cleanouts During the Next 24 Months
    Summary:
    Seven commenters (API (87), BP Oil (64), Conoco (92), Exxon (118), National
    Petroleum Refiners Association (NPRA) (22), Phillips (42), and Unocal (44)) indicated
    that EPA underestimated the amount of F037 and F038 wastes that will be generated
    from surface impoundment cleanouts. They beb'eve that these wastes will overwhelm the
    incineration and cement kiln containerized system capacity, and therefore, refineries or
    treatment facilities will have to build costly storage facilities in order to accommodate the
    shortfall in treatment capacity.
    API (87) and NPRA (22) submitted results of a survey they conducted on the
    current generation of primary sludge and its management methods. This survey covers
    95 of the 194 operating U.S. facilities, and represents 71 percent of domestic crude oil
    processing capacity. The data indicate that significant quantities of F037 and F038 will
    be cleaned out of surface impoundments during 1992 to 1993. These quantities were not
    accounted for in the EPA analysis for the proposed rule. In addition, three commenters
    (BP (64), Conoco (92), and Phillips (42)) provided data on the quantity of surface
    impoundment sludges that would be generated from cleanouts over the next 24 months.
    The API and NPRA survey reported that 369,000 wet tons of F037 and F038
    surface impoundment sludge will be generated in 1992 and 185,000 wet tons will be
    generated in 1993. The survey also reported that 653,800 wet tons and 609,000 wet tons
    of F037 and F038 will be generated routinely from tanks, oilAvater/solid separators, and
    refinery sewers in 1992 and 1993, respectively.
    API and NPRA also estimated the total quantities of wastes (from surface
    impoundments, tanks, oilAvater/solid separators, and refinery sewers) as treated or
    disposed on site and off site. These quantities are presented below. (For certain types
    of treatment, these estimated may represent dewatered quantities. Also, these on-site
    and off-site waste quantities were not separated into routinely generated wastes and
    surface impoundment wastes, as in the EPA capacity analysis for the final rule.)
    Furthermore, the API and NPRA survey reported that 50 to 53 percent of the wastes
    treated on site will be managed using on-site cokers, and the remaining 47 to 50 percent
    will be managed using other technologies.
    In addition, BP Oil (64), Conoco (92), and Phillips (42) provided data on cleanout
    quantities over the next 24 months. Two of Phillips' refineries are expected to generate a
    total of 66,500 tons of dewatered surface impoundment sludge by 1993. Five BP Oil
    refineries are expected to generate a total of 38,600 tons of surface impoundment sludge
    that averages 60 percent water. One Conoco refinery is expected to generate a total of
    40,000 tons of surface impoundment sludge by 1994.
    

    -------
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    TOTAL F037 AND F038 WASTE GENERATION (WET TONS)
    TREATMENT
    LOCATION
    1992
    1993
    On Site
    312,000 (44%)
    319,000 (58%)
    Off Site
    392,000 (56%)
    231,000 (42%)
    Total
    704,000
    550,000
    Response:
    For the proposed rule, EPA assumed that refineries have the incentive to clean
    out F037 and F038 wastes from surface impoundments before the LDR prohibition date
    for these wastes. Supporting this assumption were data received from refineries
    indicating that most are in the process of retrofitting or closing their surface
    impoundments that store F037 and F038 wastes. However, EPA's analysis for the final
    rule, using new data collected for the final rulemaking and comments submitted in
    response to the proposed rule, generally agrees with commenters' statements that a
    significant quantity of F037 jnd F038 wastes will be removed from surface impoundments
    within the next 24 months rather than prior to the effective date of the LDRs as
    originally thought. The remainder of this section briefly discusses this analysis.
    First, EPA reviewed the API and NPRA survey, which contains aggregated data
    from 95 refineries. Because EPA conducts capacity analyses on a facility-specific basis,
    however, it did not use the aggregated API and NPRA survey data as a basis for the
    capacity analysis. Nevertheless, the API and NPRA survey provided a useful reference
    for comparing the Agency's capacity analysis. For example, for the proposed rule, EPA
    estimated that routine generation of F037 and F038 (i.e., from tanks, oil/water/solid
    separators, and refinery sewers) would be approximately 500,000 non-dewatcred tons per
    year. EPA's final estimate of 571,000 non-dewatered tons per year is not substantially
    different from that used for the proposed niie. These quantities can be compared to the
    approximately 600,000 to 650,000 tons per year estimated by API and NPRA
    For the final rule, EPA used data provided in comments (BP (64), Conoco (92),
    and Phillips (42)), information submitted by refineries for the proposed rule, and data
    from the TC Questionnaire, to estimate that 173,000 tons of dewatered surface
    impoundment sludge will be treated off site between June 1992 and June 1993, and
    99,000 tons of dewatered surface impoundment sludge will be treated off site between
    June 1993 and June 1994. EPA estimated that 423,000 tons of non-dewatered F037 and
    F038 will be generated from surface impoundments between June 1992 and June 1993,
    and 225,000 tons will be generated between June 1993 and June 1994. These quantities
    differ slightly from the API and NPRA survey estimates for F037 and F038 wastes
    

    -------
    3-49
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    generated from surface impoundments (369,000 tons as treated in calendar year 1992 and
    185.000 tons as treated in calendar year 1993).
    EPA's estimate that 37 percent and 43 percent of total F037 and F038 generation
    will be managed using on-site treatment or recycling capacity during June 1992 to June
    1993 and during June 1993 to June 1994. respectively (the remaining 63 percent and 57
    percent will be managed off site during June 1992 to June 1993 and during June 1993 to
    June 1994, respectively) is slightly lower than estimates in the API and NPRA survey
    showing that 44 percent and 58 percent of the total F037 and F038 generation will be
    managed using on-site treatment or recycling capacity in 1992 and 1993, respectively.
    However, EPA's estimated proportion of the types of on-site treatment or recycling
    capacity is significantly different than the proportion reported in the API and NPRA
    Survey. EPA estimated that of the total F037 and F038 wastes managed on site,
    approximately 80 percent will be managed using on-site cokers and 20 percent using
    other technologies (e.g., thermal desorption. solvent extraction), whereas API and NPRA
    estimated that cokers will take about 50 percent and other technologies will take the
    other 50 percent in both 1992 and 1993. EPA believes that this difference exists because
    of the uncertainties involved with modifying on-site cokers to recycle F037 and F038
    wastes, with installing treatment technologies on site, and estimating the waste treatment
    or recycling capacity of these technologies.
    Comments:
    The comments stating that EPA underestimated the generation of F037 and F038
    wastes from surface impoundment cleanouts during the next 24 months are presented in
    the following order:
    •	American Petroleum Institute (87);
    BP Oil (64);
    •	Conoco (92);
    •	Exxon (118);
    •	National Petroleum Refiners Association (22);
    •	Phillips (42); and
    •	Unocal.
    

    -------
    3 * 56
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    Docket Numben CD2P-00087
    Commenter: American Petroleum Institute
    Comment:
    ***'» Primary sludge survey orovldee currant	an management
    methods and the amount of prlwarv sludge aintt««d.
    The primary sludge survey conducted by API and the'National
    fetroleua Refiners Association (NFRA) in 1991 provides data on
    waste volumes. and the management practices currently used, and
    planned foe 7037/F038 wastes, A summary of this survey is . v
    Ninety-fiv* (93) of 194 operating 0. S. refineriea responded to
    the survey (49% of the refineries). The responding refineries
    represent a total crude processing capacity of 11,500,000 barrels
    per stream day, which is 71% of domestic refinery capacity,
    epa has underestimated the ««ounes of primary sludge that nrntt h»
    removed and treated.'
    The ASI/NfRA survey asked respondents to project the amounts of
    F037/r03§ wastes that would be removed froa units (i.e.,
    generated) in the final I months of 1991, and ia all of 1992 and .
    1993. The estimated quantities of primary sludges froa these 95
    refineries are as follows:
    

    -------
    Docket Number: CD2P-00087
    3-51
    Pctrotew JUIlM* Wastes
    Commenter:	American Petroleum Institute
    Comment (continued):
    fRIHWI 8L0SGI TO* S5 REFINERIES REfRESETTING
    711 Or U.S. DOMESTIC CAPACXTT
    Generated	Managed
    1SA£	.	1
    -------
    Petroleum Refining Wutet
    3-52
    Docket Number: CD2P-00087
    Commenter:	American Petroleum Institute
    Comment (continued):
    BMtd OA-MZ'a priaary sludge survey, EPA has undtrestiaated tha
    quantity of F037/F038 soYid wast* significantly, this
    underestiaata haa a dramatic impact on the availability of
    traataant technology during the two-year* period following the
    . effective data of tha LBRs,
    fPA has not considered the impact of impoundment clmmneut*
    tffltettd to occur over the next 24 aontha en containerised ?«»¦*
    svatma capacity.
    API believes that tha incineration and ctsaat kiln containerised
    faad systaa capacity will ba overwhelaed by tha intermittent ar.s
    paak natura of F037/F038 iapoundaent cleanouts that will ba
    occurring over tba next 24 aonth*. K typical impoundment
    cleanoue say taka anywhere fcoa 2 to . I aontfca# depending on t.k.e
    sis* and voluaa of waatea contained in the- facility. Therefore,
    tha aatira voluaa of wast* in- an iapoundaane will ba reaoved :ver
    a relatively short period of tiaa. Ona Gulf Coast refinery
    reports that it will produce 60,000-70,000 tona of F037/FQ3I
    filter cake within a six aonth window. To a traataant or
    recycling facility, this voluaa of waste, produced over a S aonth
    period, will appear equivalent to a 120,000-140,000 tons'per year
    production rata on a "straaa day" basis.
    

    -------
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    3-53
    Docket Number: CD2P-00087
    Coramenter:
    American Petroleum Institute
    Comment (continued):
    Afl is concerned that bulk feed handling systems will be
    operating at or neat capacity with, continuously generated K-
    wastes and the FQ37/FQ31 wastes, and that containerized feed
    handling systems will be left to manage the majority of the one-
    time and peak generated wastes. For the same Gulfi.coast refinery
    situation described above, the 60,000-10,000 tons of F037/F03S
    wastes will result in 2,S0Q,000 six-gallon containers for
    recycling to cement kilns, or 350,000, 35-gallon drums for
    treatment at incinerators, over a six month time period. When
    the scenario is extended over the entire refining industry, with
    the significant volume of F037/F038 wastes expected to be
    generated froa impoundments over the next two years. A? I is
    concerned that the treatment/recycling-industry containerized .
    feed systems will not be able to handle this volume of waste.
    Unless sufficient on- or off-site RCRA storage facility capacity
    is available, refineries will likely have ts significantly reduce
    the rate of impoundment cleanouts. This forced reduction in tSe
    rata of impoundment eleanouts, as the result of unavailable-
    treatment or recycling capacity, will severely disrupt
    impoundment clean-out upgrades and/or replacement schedules.
    This may plaee some refineries in an untenable position of
    meeting closures schedules agreed to with state agencies.
    

    -------
    Petroleum Reftninj Wastes
    3 »54
    Docket Number: CD2P-00087
    Commenter:	American Petroleum Institute
    Comment (continued):
    Based oa the current proposal, API uiiow* that the first annual
    reaoval of sludge weuia have ca occur before May 1993 —- if all
    existing surface impoundments have to remove and treat all
    accumulated F037/F03S solid wastes in this one-year period, the
    existing treatment capacity Mill be completely overwhelmed. API's
    estimates of priaary sludge generation froa its priaary sludge
    survey, as described earlier in these comments, do not. assume
    that all accumulated solids in surface impoundments would be
    removed, certainly not in on* year. Rather, they represent only
    the scheduled reaoval of sludge during the ongoing replacement :f
    the unretrofitted impoundments is likely only where discretionary
    clean-closures were-to b« attempted. If all of the accumulated
    sludge had to b* removed in one year froa all in-service
    impoundments, ths estiaated quantities for 1992-1993 would he
    Buch greater . Additionally, mueli of this reaoval could likely
    occur during the dry, suaaer months resulting in a large "peak"
    production of F03?/fQ31. It is apparent that-capacity for
    treating such -amounts of solids siaply is not available.
    

    -------
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    3-55
    Docket Number; CD2P-00087
    Commenter:	American Petroleum Institute
    Comment (continued):
    SUMMARY OP RESULTS OF API PRIMARY SLUDGE SURVEY
    N^ctfgn
    In July 1991, the American Petroleum Institute {API} In conjunction with 8* National Petroleum Refiners
    Association (NPRA) conducted a survey of member company refineries using a questionnaire to
    determine their practices for generating and handling sludges from primary oil/w*ter/soto separation
    (F037 and F038 wastes). NInety-ffve {49%}. of 194 operating domestic refineries responded to the
    survey. The refineries that responded refine approximately 11.100,000 barrels of crude oil per stream
    day and represent 71% of total domestic refining capacity.
    The questionnaire sent to the refineries requested Information such aa the number of tons of primary
    sludge expected to be generated, the percent water content of these sludges, the expected method of
    treatment/cSsposal of the sludges, problems encountered fining treatment capacity, and the volume
    of primary sludge in surface impoundments. The results of the survey were compiled into the tables
    and charts presented In this report
    
    •	The survey results show a significantly higher quantity of F037/F038 waste being generated and
    needing treatment in 1991 • 1994 than estimated by EPA.
    The survey shows that refineries expect to manage a substantial amount of sludge in 1992 and
    1993.
    ¦ Because tfta survey results irtdude data only for 49% of refineries, the true quantity of
    . F037/F038 waste generated and managed would be expected to be even higher than inn survey
    results indksa®.
    *	Many respondents anticipate problems finding offsite treatment capacity for their F037/FQ38
    wast*. Respondents report that because waste treatment facilities vary in their requirements
    and waste specifications, than is always soma property of the sludge that limns treatment
    options.
    

    -------
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    3-5*
    Docket Number: CD2P-00087
    Commcnter:	American Petroleum Institute
    Comment (continued):
    WASTI QUAWTTim Th« Mowing tabto shows tha quanty, in wat tens, of aaeh typa of wuti
    J*«gl	f#<5Mri#i r,spcn
    SiudOB
    68.900
    109.000
    107.000
    SEWEft&OIUNt
    . 23,200
    80,800
    80.000
    FC37/roasoa.t
    OBMM ((fcaawt^
    18300
    »***>
    64.300
    TOT*.WAtri(Mt
    co8iww9*
    -49a,ooo
    1,110,000
    858,000
    Rasponatt ara from.49* of domastio raSnartas, raprasanting 71* of rafining capacity,
    mimbara ara roundad to thraa significant ifgtts.
    T%tm hi*al i
    
    

    -------
    Petroleum Rcfiaiag-Waite*
    3-57
    Docket Number: CD2P-00087
    Commenter:	American Petroleum Institute
    Comment (continued):
    • METHOD AND LOCATION OF TREATMENT/DISPOSAL FOR PRIMARY SLUDGE. The Mowing
    tablt shows how and whars refinance manage, and expect to manage, primary sludge The total
    . tonnage in thi» taWe it rent than that in the preceding table because of the reduction in wat.r
    content before treatment or cSsposaL
    . The waste management volumaa shown in tha table below reflect the uaa of proven and reliable
    technelogiee. As a rasutt, tha off-site totals for industrial fumacaa and cement kilns appear lowar than
    expected. In fact, off-site totala for incineration may be artificially high, reflecting amounts that would
    otherwise ba aant to cement kiina aa tha permitting and allowable waste speeifieationa became known.
    Should the capacity be available at the time of the effective date of the regulation, mora primaiy sludge
    would be expected to be sent off-site toindustrial fumacea and cement kiina.
    Tons of Primary Sludge Managed (Treated or Disposed)
    
    19
    «1
    1 9
    92
    1 993
    AVC. ANNUAL-MM
    METHOD**
    
    owns
    TOTAL •
    omns
    TOTAL
    QHMfTM
    TOT*
    own
    total
    own*
    TOTAL
    omm
    WTAL
    owrct
    total
    OFmrt
    TOTAL
    fticovixr
    TscHNOuona
    fill
    4&6BS
    a
    mm
    n
    11LOQO
    *4jB0B
    ¦1.000
    f
    r
    (0
    eoKHi
    •1.000
    a
    UTOO
    s
    tiuoa
    a
    112.000
    0
    MOusmuL
    nmuev
    CCMtNTHLNe
    e
    we
    a
    *****
    a
    iMsa
    0
    11.400
    OCtTHUCTION
    imoncmtion
    na
    am
    i.oaa
    m.Ko
    77.(00
    IITjOOO
    24.900
    90,700
    kouxhcal
    T*IATV«NT
    UkNO
    murmur
    mote
    a
    11SJB0B
    a
    
    e
    3,710*
    0
    UHOflU.
    11. too
    MM
    ujoe
    XWXB
    a
    UN
    0
    1(30
    OTHCT"
    
    iaa
    iijoe "
    Ma
    f.m
    IMS
    1170
    2.31a
    TOTAt
    
    M.S0Q
    stt.no
    3H.90S
    jtvooo
    231.900
    214000
    ftt.400
    PranttQt «n*» vcnui tfMNk
    n»
    33%
    44*
    M*
    Hft
    42*
    7t%
    24%
    Responaea are from 49% of domestic refineries. representing 71% of rafin.rg capac
    Al numbers are rounded to three significant digits.
    Numbers In cement kiln and incineration categories subject to change as cement
    permit and operating requirementa beoome known.
    

    -------
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    3 • S«
    Docket Number: CD2P-Q0087
    Commenter: American Petroleum Institute
    Comment (continued):
    MATER CONTENT. T!>t twvty rtqutstad information on tha ivmm pareantaaa waiar
    m«t«ffal «t It it rtmovtd from tic* unit Etch ftfinwyt wporttd avtraga for tart
    quantity of primtiy Utxigt fltntttttd In ttch unit in 1891 (stt tht tabit on past 2) warn ustdm J
    tha waighttd cvtragtt shown In tht foUowing tabic.	H B 1 ™ USM t0M ..
    Ptrotnt Wtftr Rtporttd for laefi Sourot of Waata
    At Ramovad from bed umt
    WasaSouna
    Surfaoa bnpounctnaitt
    71%
    Tanks
    85%
    tAFUMs
    79%
    lAROAFUMta
    ao%
    OMttO/Sold SapaniMS
    74%
    Seiewi/Drifcis
    aW WW •••
    7t%
    ns7/F03asoaao«M
    33%
    The aurvay alaa rtquasttd Information on	In primary stud;
    baing Mnt to offirtt (neintrators and Industrial tanaoaaftttntnl kSrft. For aiudga baing sant
    indnarttort, tht wattr oonttnt rangad from 3* ts 90%; tha waighttd wtiagt was 36%. For slud;
    baing atnt to Industrial fUmaoatfcamant kilns, tht w*ar contant rangad from 0% to 70%; tha waigt*«
    avaraga was 27%*
    DIFFICULTY FINDING OFPSTS CAPACITY. Tha aurvty askad whathar tha prepares of tt
    rafinatya primary aludgt im# tht abfflty to And offsftt indnaratfon and/brindustrial fumaca/eamant ki
    capacity. Moit than half of Ihoat raapontfng raportad anticipating tffScuWaa Intfng ©Hsita capiat
    PROPERTIES OP PRIMARY SLUDGE THAT UMT OFFJKTE CAPACITY. Tha survay uk>_
    rispondants to Indfcttt tht typo of oftaltt capacity natdtd tnd tha propartlaa of thaif primary slut*
    that Mtthair abfflty to SndoffiSa capacity. FoOowup caBt wtft madt to approximately on* third
    tht rtfinartti to btttar undtratand tht dfflcuWaa anoounttfad.
    

    -------
    Docket Number: CD2P-00087
    3 - 5f
    Petrokom Refining Wastes
    •Commenter; American Petroleum Institute
    Comment (continued):
    Many of the respondents win anticipate problems fining ofbfta cap®dty said that because fao'fitf
    vary in their requirements and waste sptctfieatfona, thane la always some property of tha Uudge tr
    limits treatment option*. Por example, tha BTll content of tha aiudga may be too low for cement tf
    . or too high for Incinaretois. Tfco sludga may ba too viscous or not viacoua anough to matt spac
    facility requirement#. Respondents report being discouraged from using (Star prassas and other was
    minimization mechanisms that extract water and 08 from tha sbdge because many incinerators' feec
    systems cannot handia tha dry, sancHike material thai results from using thasa processes.
    Tha propane* of tha aiudga vaiy among units and even within tha aama units, making it diffiai
    negotiate contracts and procure consistant traatmant In addtfon. many raspondants said t
    intinawora ara backioggad, provide inadequate servica, and have waste requirements that
    cumbersome or difficult for primary aiudga to meet
    Tha fotfowtng pmpartiaacraata difflcuitfae in fincEna ortstta	,, —
    vrth nor. tl2£on« prap.il,. """""" "ra"» 0TO* =*«!*• nlbwin hjw
    BTU caffi.nt:
    BTU content of tha sludga limits t«a ability of many refineries to find off-sita treatment	<-»•*
    tha ITU contant ia too tew for industrial furnaces/cement Wins.OnaSSSh
    f f«Xwmn *1" *proc#SMd in *»•* SS,
    availabla for low BTU wastes that ara unsuitable for kilns. Other refiners reported thathrtM^N wT
    ^5*	Ul# Biy cont,m * 100 Several refiners indcated that the BTU
    content of their sludge fluctustes, making traatmant difficult to schedule.
    Fluorine contt nt;
    Several refiners reported that the sfudga sometimes exceeds fluorine limits for incinerators or industrial
    furnaces.	...
    Packaging and transportation "
    Packaging and transportation pose difficulties for a number of refineries because the sludge is tithe,
    too liquid or too solid. Often sludge is not be sccepted unless It Is packed in drums. Also, sometime!
    It must ba transported long distancsa to reach a facility that win accept It Large volumes of sludge ear
    also craata problems In findng packaging and transportation options.
    Metals;
    For soma refineries, the metal contents of their siudges can pose probieme. One refinery reported tha
    a shipment of it* sludga was returned because tha mercury content exceeded incinerator limrtaticrr
    X
    

    -------
    j £1	Petroleum Refining Wastes .
    Docket Number: CD2P-00087
    Commenter:	American Petroleum Institute
    Comment (continued):
    Fumoahintv/VIacasihr
    PumpabitltyMjccsity can be a proWam becaust indneratort and csmsnt kilns generally warn
    pumpabie, flowable mixture. Most often the sludge contains too many solids and the mixture is tcx
    cake-like. Adcfing water increases ths volums of wraitt and reduces ths ITU content, creating tunhe
    obstaciss to sanding ths waste to a cement kfln. Refineries often uss IIH»r prsssss to extract wata
    and oil, resulting in a sludge thai is of a sand-like consistency. Many incinerator feeder systams ar
    unable to accept this dry material. Other rsfinsrits not using filter prsssss rtport that if the mixture i
    too liquid, water must be minimized before shipping. Even then, the wasts may not be suitable lor th
    feeder systems because of tackiness.
    QthjrymrffngFKtgff;
    For some refineries As lack of available treatment capacity has little to do with the physical prapertif
    of the sludge. Ralher, their sxperfsnca is that insufficient capacity exists to handle all the waste
    generated Ona concern ia that capacity priority is given to continuous waste streams with chemic
    properties that do not fluctuate. Aa a result there will be Stile capacity left for waste, such as prima
    sludge, which is generally sent offsite in batchss a few time a year.
    NUMBER OF SURFAC* IMPOUNDMENTS GENERATING PRIMARY SLUDGE Upstsfiu nm
    BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT	SLUDQE UPSTREAM OF
    -N
    Th, ^^r^qu^Jntarm^ion onth.	..pMMtob.
    pnmary sludge or to be dosed sometime aftar May 31,1992. Approximately one third of the refineries
    number of surface impoundmsnta par rsfinery ranges from ona to six. The survey respondent
    reported the following:	••»pono«rn.
    •	Number of refineries with at least ona surface impoundment
    that cannot be dosed until aftar May 31,1982 -	32
    •	Total number of impoundments Act cannot be dosed
    unta after May 31,1992- •	53
    •	Total combined acreage of impoundments that cannot b*
    dosed until after May 31,1992-	195
    

    -------
    3 - <1
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    Docket Number: CD2P-00064
    Commenter: BP Oil
    Comment:
    When the tanks ik completed and In service, BP plans to close most of these nine surface
    impoundments. A umber of closure approaches are being considered dependent on site-speciflc
    conditions Including the configuration of the wastewater treatment system, the amount of sludge
    involved, the geology of Ac site, and possible itaun tut* of the Impoundment. The amount of
    pyjimyy WSJEB ift SUBTfiMSB il&p(MA&&COB it CSd&UttDSl fisQCftA*
    
    ¦fc-j-		 m.
    ntowydDeiei
    
    Tom
    Water
    
    3J64
    46
    Refinery B - 3 Impoondments
    1.193
    S3
    Refinery C• 2 Impocmdmeno
    U14
    47
    .. —- ¦> ¦ ¦ - - -
    jvcxbjC^t a# * i aBooananicnK
    9m
    60
    
    \ism
    11
    
    nMt
    60
    .TV1 pf ruling on to riosare plan for the piitolir lajWinlHKHi removal otprimary sludge prwr to the
    effective dais of the LJDR (Land Disposal Restriction) regulations has been considered. However.
    hi—ii— of mrmrmiir* mmmhmr mvl other COBttntBB it Will nOC be	10 PUflOve Sludge (trior to
    the proposed eflbcth* dsn of ft* LDR provisions. May, 1992. * mod of Ua tapowdraenis.
    Routine generation of primary sladgg 1s estimated to be aborn 2300 tons per year (total from five
    refineries).
    

    -------
    3 -«2
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    Docket Number: CD2P-00092
    Commentcr:
    Conoco
    Comment:
    AtTi primary rfudw wnry nrprida current data on mtn»»enient methods »nd thm
    amount of primary lludge generated.
    Tho primary sludge survey conducted by API tad the National Petroleum Refiners
    Assodatioa (NP1A) in 1991 provides data" on wast* roiumes and cfeus management
    practices currently used snd planned for FB37/F03S wastes. The summary of the results
    of this sum? is included with die comments submitted by the API
    Ninety-Era (95) of 194 operating refineries responded to tin survey (46% of the
    refineries). Hie responding refineries represent a total erode processing capacity of
    11,471,700 barrets per stream day, which is 71% of domestic refinery capacity.
    EPA has underestimated the amounts of primary shidee that mint be rmnwd and
    treated.
    The API/NPRA surrey asked respondents to project the amounts «f FC37/FQ38 wastes
    that would be gmmffd in the last 7 months of 1991, 1992, and 1993. The estimated
    quantities of primaiy sludges from these 93 refineries an as Mows:
    These estimates represent wastes generated from surface impoundments, tanks, induced .
    air flotation units, ofl/water/solids separators other than AH separators, sewers/drains.
    %nri	(eodudirg dean closure quantities).
    EPA has estimated that 173.000 tons per yesr (dty weight) of FQ37/PQ38 waste are
    routinely generated by all operating petroleum refineries. Tb» Agency estimates that
    117,000 toos per year of this total are land disposed. Hies* figures do not indude solid
    wastes generated from dosure of surface impoundments.
    Eased oq the API/NPRA Primary Sludge Sumy, EPA has sipEcaady underestimated
    the quantity of F037/F03S solid waste. This underestimate has a dramatic impact on the
    availability of treatment tedtne^ofir during the two-year period following the effective date
    of the land disposal restrictions.
    1991	(7 months)
    1992
    1993
    497,000 wet toss
    1110,000 wet toos
    859,000 wet tons
    

    -------
    Docket Number: CD2P-00092
    Commenter:	Conoco
    Comment (continued):
    3 • <3
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    Bated as the AH/NFRA Primary Sudge Survey, it a arimstad that off-site waste
    treatment need* for refineries nationwide will inert** significantly u existing surface
    impoundments an doted over the wo yeat variance period, then resnra lo routine levels.
    This estimate does not nsdnde annual sludge removal nor removal of contaminated soil
    and debris. Most et the sludge wfll be feoraed it maaerators and cement kilns. It 'a
    unlikely that commercial fwalities will invest the capital to add the capacity to handle such
    a tremeodoosjet short term increase ia wute volume. We astfcipete problems in finding
    offcite capacity, aoc only because of the quantities of waste that wfll be requiring
    hrtf mitn kmiM frf ImiarinM an mma^ n»ri»atiir»l tSt-wtrrinf ifid
    ¦» fK« twin*—-.'.!	Urns then is the Ulcsiihood of a tremendous baddog
    

    -------
    3 - <4
    Docket Number: CD2P-00118
    Commenter; Exxon
    Comment:
    Petroleum Refining Wutet
    EXXON SUBMITTED CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
    

    -------
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    Docket Number: CD2P-00022 .
    Commenten National Petroleum Refiners Association (NPRA)
    Comment:
    1. ;T!*AiiwiM flKioteum laranre (API) in coqnnaicn with NPRA conducted
    s sswy te 1991 .« determine the pacdees of neaber axapoks in pawinni
    aidhtadtinf pcinwy sludges. The mobs of this ramy Indian that the
    vohsaBaf man n*y be ai much u 451,000 toos per year (Ay weight); no*
    the 173,000 ton per year (diy weight) turitmwd fcy SPA. IUs Is >a inaeue
    of 261perc»at of the wtne thit will h*v« o lift tRaSSKl JBfloiSS468w Th® dSfill
    supporting the satvey tesults are provided ia APT« canimmi m thSa proposed
    rule, tad m faBy mpytmed by NPRA.
    
    

    -------
    3-U
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    Docket Number CD2P-00042
    Commentcn Phillips
    Comment:
    R*pe wtinii onit 2% of tfw cruda o« raflnad In tfia Unicad Staiaa ym tm M.SOO mt *
    mosunORMni magi ™ waa raqim uuaua uuui** unaar nor raquraa ewr CIOIU a or annual
    ctfrtom acanariaa (Tab* 11. 9A dM not eenaidar tfw mt bnpaundmant dudoaa wouM taquira
    iiMuiiai. vat a van lucx PMtaa (2% of cruda lafWno ""Trt^'nrt wrii oanataia hot (rem In firm annu^
    a# Willi *aawPa® jaP%	a^B	| w w yWNNSMI	aa^^aa aaaB "War® aaa Bi ^aaaia
    daneut of impoundmaRi ovtr t8% o( tfw 77,000 nm o< aludQa tfm 9A antkipatM wa nquira effsiv
    .SMOTMRt an an annual basis. AatNalanotthacaaa.itliacoar»nttfmgAliaaafOMf»u^fm«timjt»d
    9* ^mkwps w^aa® ipv ^^aa	wi^av	w	a	aa^^m aaa awaav	j	aMPaaa'a® a V^B
    tfw amount of pHnvy riudoo ssnifitfoft* wl ki ptffeulv tfm few# aurtoco feipMndMRH*
    gy*W**knawfaf fcTWiniiftrrwrrt rtmrnm uamttif iff ttnr4
    IDQO9bUIIU9BSlfaOdttAJtttfJE0BKELfiMdKifit*
    PMtoo baaovto diat dm incinortitow and ew«tti conninofUod ted «ynw eaoadty w» bo
    fa># #>a imnwlwiwi kw< n—fc niMa ai BHffMll hwwtoMut Aiiiinw hp >Uai —»<¦ ^
    ap *«^pb *""H^^aaw^aip Uy a®^aaawi® aa^a%aaaaa^ ^aaa ji^awi^^ai awaw^a	www	^aa^Q^^^aaaaaBvaaaRBMa ap^^apa^a^^pa^a aaa aaPaMPaaB™aa aaa^a^
    ^jja	j^^ua oAmk d^^MatG	aaauiMParilMa A d^flh^aarf
    *¦ so ocwtv^i ovwmi nn i«*«t rmiunh a ifiMfl trfnNniiwi; impvwi nif m p?fHnitfV front
    2*§ nomfwa dapandtog on tho alto and vokm of wooao coraair>od fci tfio unfe ThrttaK, arniro
    voftuntao of worn In on knpoundmant wB bo iwnovad ow o foknh^ly ohont pariod of tfcno* Ta comply
    wttfi annual daonout andtat daaMkon roouirwnaRtL our tua Tom raflnarflaa wfl Braduai — t/v\
    w a	i^^aanM	aa	a^a^a	a^pn^^ap aaaaanwai^i^w	p^vMaaanaav
    —m— mS aanytpyipyy iHhfiPf0t !N,T'T
    Ao ImA faod ImdBfiB mbm mm Imi ooarotina s or naof oaMfev wOAi oondnuouilv aaniittad )C*
    wooaao and PQ37/FG34L il la praMli tfiot conninartnd faod handkiQ oyotano wB bo iaft to ftunioi tho
    ma^ortcf of tho onrtmo and poak oanoratod primary aiudoo «wo«too- Thi88»|00t0fls af P037/F03S
    ^ waocao from FNBpaf aurtaco hnpoundmanio tMH faouil In lii&OiQQft alx oadon csontainoni tot racvdvio
    »eamM» kino or 280.0011 II oaflnn dfumo fef SBamani aa tadnoiBR. ovor o ahort timo Dohod.
    aaaaani ^a^a ^a^^a Ma aiaai^^aaa^^^^W^	ai^a^aa aai^a aa awwaaa^a^a^ak awa ^a^a^^a ^vhi aiMHkMi aap w	^i^a s a^ a
    Wwntho oconorioteoxtandad owtfio ondra nfMnQ Induowy* wdditfio al8rift30flst volumo of FCOTZP03S
    wonao oj9octod to bo ponanRad from knooundntonti ovof tfio nctt yoor* ffdRoo It eoncomodtfisttho
    u uuiioiiiA otyvAno Miovy oontainorliod laid syftomo •! not bo aMo to hondki thli voIurio of wut#»
    Unlooa aufMant on Of oINbo KCRU atotooo teflty capodiy lo ovolabiaw nfkioriao wi Bsdf Havo to
    th»yflf aitfhr ndoa in no of kma^mr etaui TMa fanai raduesion. '* im tt» of
    a«»
    -------
    3-67
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    Docket Number: CD2P-00044
    Commenter.	Unocal
    Comment:
    Both of tbaa* rafinary's aatiaata* eC primary aludga vara included
    la tfaa API aorvay and contribute to tha flavad capacity assumption*
    inharanfc. in EPA capacity analysis.
    

    -------
    3-68
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    3.7 EPA Has No Technical, Scientific, or Legal Basis for Requiring that F037 and
    F038 Wastes Be Removed from Surface Impoundments Annually
    Summary:
    Nine Commenters (API (87), BP (64), CMA (L21), Conoco (92), Phillips (42),
    Retec (28), Shell (77), Sun (76), and Unocal (44)) believe that annual cleanouts of
    surface impoundments should not be required. In general, commenters believe that
    annual cleanouts would interrupt the oil refining operation, damage the wastewater
    treatment system, interfere with surface impoundment closure plans, result in economic
    hardship for the refineries, and realize limited environmental benefit. These commenters
    recommended that EPA withdraw the proposed requirement for annual cleanout of
    sludges from unretrofitted surface impoundments (i.e., impoundments not satisfying the
    minimum technology requirements specified in section 3004(o)) period allowed for
    storage and treatment of petroleum refining wastes in these impoundments.
    In particular, Phillips (42) and Unocal (44) commented that their refineries and
    other similar operations would have to be shut down while the cleanouts are in progress
    because the surface impoundments function as an integral part of their wastewater
    treatment systems. These commenters believe that EPA incorrectly assumed that annual
    waste removal can take place while the surface impoundment is in service. While
    commenters acknowledge that equipment is available to remove waste from a surface
    impoundment without complete^ emptying it of waste, the impoundment cannot
    necessarily be used while solids are being removed. The commenters believe that if the
    solids removal process affects oil and solids loadings on the wastewater treatment system,
    resulting in potential exceedance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
    (NPDES) permit limits, the surface impoundment cannot remain in service while it is
    being cleaned.
    Four commenters (API (87), BP (64), Retec (28), and Unocal (44)) believe that
    annual cleanouts could potentially increase environmental risk. They reasoned that the
    bottom sludge in many cases acts as an additional liner for the surface impoundment, and
    that the excavation itself may damage the liners below the sludge. Consequently, these
    commenters stated, excavating the sludge may expose the environment to greater risk.
    Furthermore, they believe, when sludges are excavated from the bottom of the
    impoundments, the disturbed sludge may cause the wastewater downstream to exceed the
    NPDES permit limits and damage the biotreatment units.
    Finally, some of these commenters believe that most of the surface impoundments
    in refineries are presently following a closure plan. The closure plans, they stated,
    include ground-water monitoring and, in many cases, removal of the accumulated primary
    sludge; requiring annual cleanouts would interfere with the closure plans and add
    unnecessary economic burden to refineries. Commenters mentioned that most of their
    closure plans do not require removal of accumulated sludge prior to May 1992 and that
    

    -------
    3-69
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    changing schedules by EPA requiring removal of accumulated F037 and F038 wastes
    ahead of the time originally planned, will require revisions of existing plans and budgets,
    may require permit and closure plan revisions, and will cause disruption to their original
    replacement and closure schedule. Because surface impoundments will be closed no
    later than May 1994, commenters believe limited environmental benefit is associated with
    the proposed annual removal requirement. Commenters urged EPA to withdraw the
    proposed requirement for annual cleanout of sludges from non-MTR surface
    impoundments during the two-year national capacity variance period allowed for
    replacement or retrofit of these impoundments.
    Response:
    In the proposed rule, EPA required annual cleanout of surface impoundments as
    a condition for allowing management of F037 and F038 wastes in non-MTR surface
    impoundments. The proposal was premised on the logic that if retrofitted surface
    impoundments receiving wastes not meeting treatment standards had to be dredged
    annually (because of RCRA section 3005(j)(ll)), then the unretrofitted surface
    impoundments should be subject to the same standards if there was a means of treating
    the wastes being removed. Moreover, all other persons operating impoundments
    pursuant to section 3005(j)(ll) have complied with the annual removal requirement since
    1986 (when section 268.4 was promulgated implementing the requirement) without the
    types of environmental harms the commenters mention. Thus, EPA is skeptical that the
    requirement would cause the types of difficulties posed by the commenters.
    Concerning the potential increase in environmental risk during annual cleanout
    activities, EPA agrees that risks exist, but disagrees with the implication that they are
    unreasonable. RCRA section 3005(j)(ll) requires that hazardous wastes in retrofitted
    impoundments be removed annually for treatment; EPA believes that owners and
    operators of these impoundments are capable of conducting this activity safely, and
    indeed, that owners/operators already subject to this requirement do so properly.
    However, the Agency agrees with commenters that requiring annual cleanouts may
    interfere with some closure plans, and may achieve only limited environmental benefit
    since surface impoundments are likely to be closed in a short time and already have
    interim status ground-water monitoring in place. EPA acknowledges that some
    refineries* wastewater treatment systems are an integral part of their refining operations
    and that many refineries may need to shut down their refining operations to clean out
    surface impoundments, possibly causing undue hardship to the refineries. Furthermore,
    EPA agrees with commenters that removing an impoundment from service before an
    alternative system is in place (e.g., tanks to replace surface impoundments) may affect oil
    and solids loading on the wastewater treatment system, thus potentially resulting in
    exceedance of NPDES permit limits and/or damage to biotreatment units (although the
    alternative system could be built first). The AGency believes it has discretion to
    determine how to resolve the conflict between statutory provisions, and is not mandated
    

    -------
    3-70
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    to impose an annual removal requirement. Given that the short term environmental
    benefits appear relatively small, and the requirement potentially burdensome, EPA is not
    requiring surface impoundments to be cleaned out annually during the four-year period
    in which the impoundments would be retrofitted or closed. EPA believes, however, that
    periodic cleanouts would be beneficial where treatment capacity exists (e.g., where on-site
    cokers can be used to recycle F037 and F038 wastes).
    To allow non-MTR surface impoundments to continue managing F037 and F038
    wastes, EPA is resolving the conflict in RCRA concerning the deadline by which surface
    impoundments receiving wastes that are newly listed must comply with MTRs (i.e.,
    section 3005(j)(6) allows a four-year compliance period after a waste managed in the
    surface impoundment is listed as hazardous, whereas section 3004(g)(4) requires EPA to
    prohibit land disposal of newly listed wastes within six months of their listing). EPA is
    resolving this conflict by allowing interim status surface impoundments a four-year period
    from the promulgation of the listing of the waste.
    Comments:
    The comments stating that EPA has no basis for requiring the annual removal of
    F037 and F038 wastes from surface impoundments are presented in the following order:
    •	American Petroleum Institute (87);
    BP Oil (64);
    CMA (L21);
    •	Conoco (92);
    •	Phillips (42);
    •	Retec Remediation Technologies (28);
    Shell Oil Co. (77);
    •	Sun Co., Inc. (76); and
    •	Unocal (44).
    

    -------
    3-71	Petroleum Refining Wastes
    Docket Number: CD2P-00087
    Commenter: American Petroleum Institute
    Comment:
    Therm la no technical. scientific. or legal baala for reautrina
    that F037/r03» mtti be removed from aurfaca impoundmence
    innmlly«
    EPA has proposed that surface'lapoimdmVnt'i"a^agSif f037/F038 '
    wastes' after the effective date of the LDRs be required to remove
    and treat accumulated wastes annually until the impoundment is
    either closed or retrofitted to meet the minimum technology
    requirements (MTRs) for surface impoundments. This approach is
    deemed by SfA to be consistent with RCRA Section 3Q0S(j)(11),
    which requires annual removal of restricted wastes from surface
    impoundments that meet the MTRs.
    

    -------
    3 - 72	Petroleum Refining Wastes
    Docket Number: CD2P-00087
    Commenter:	American Petroleum Institute
    Comment (continued):
    This proposal, however, is inconsistent with the reality of WIJt#
    management in these units. First, contrary to epa's assumption,
    accumulated wastes in many refinery surface impoundments will not
    be removed by the proposed effective date of May 2, 1992. Sine®
    the fC and F037/F03S rules became effective, refineries have
    formulated plans to replace unretrofitted impoundments with other
    types of management units .<* »•«=<'.»«
    found so that the impoundment can be drained, cleaned, and
    retrofitted. Again, this requires substantial planning and tir*
    to accomplish.
    Refineries that must deal with surface impoundments eohtair.i.-.;
    F037/F038 wastes have formulated their plans and are
    concentrating their efforts on achieving compliance by the
    deadline. The replacement of surface impoundments is in sir-*
    cases inextricably linked to closure of the existing units.
    Refineries have already scheduled and are implementing the
    replacement and closure actions, which may include schedule
    

    -------
    J * ,J	Petroleum Reflain* Wastes
    Docket Number: CD2P-00087
    Commenter:	American Petroleum Institute
    Comment (continued):
    removal of accumulated f037/f038 »«.t« from surface impe-.r
    that will *• clo**d. In most cases, theaa plans «• out	"
    Rafinery ROW- interim status permits and have some level ::
    approval by tha state or federal regulatory agency. Thai.
    and schedules alto rapr.sant economic decisions, and bud-*- ' -
    b..n sat to perform certain required activities at cartas. -*
    in tha overall project to raplaca unratrofittad impounder.' •
    Changing thasa acbad.il.., by raquiring removal of accumu..-:
    r037/r038 wastes ahead off whan originally planned, say t- . •
    coapl-ati revision of present-plans and budgfts, disrupting the
    original replacement/closure schedule and may result in
    unnecessary interia status permit revisions and incraasas in
    cost *
    •	Soma rafineries may not ba abla to ramova F037/F038
    waste from surface impoundaants without first samoving
    the surface impoundment from serviea.
    h fundamental premise of BA'i proposed annual ramoval
    raquirament is that this removal can take place whila the
    impoundment,„i s.,in,«fcv^ce. While Ml acknowledgea that equipment
    is available to ramova waste from aa impoundment without
    complately emptying it of water, this doaa not maaa that tha
    impoundment can ba used whila tha solids ara being removed. If
    tha solids ramoval process affects oil and solids loadings on the
    wastewater traatmant system (by reducing hydraulic surge capacity
    and/or stirring up solids and oil in tha water column), resulting
    in potential axceadances off NSDES permit limits, tha impour.lr«r.s
    cannot ramain in service whila it is being cleaned.
    

    -------
    3 • 74	Petroleum Refining Wastes
    Docket Number: CD2P-000S7
    Commenter:	American Petroleum Institute
    Comment (continued):
    Another problem is the implication of the mixture rule, in s:.-e
    cases, there could be a danger that in reaoving the sludge fr:s
    an in-service iapoundaent, sludges could b« suspended and e.-.ter a
    downstreaa unit, iaplicatinq aa otherwise non-haiardous «as;»
    unit through the oixtur* rule. Soma refineries may not hava tr.«
    flexibility to reaova impoundments froa service without cay..?;.-.?
    a cessation of refining oparationa. When waatawatar tr«:r».v.
    systea surface iapoundaents are in series, sludge raaoval
    procedures such as dredging say hava implicationa for
    rula" contaaination of downstreaa units toy the mixing of
    raauapandad priaary sluiga with, waatawatar destined for 4:s>: ;•
    to non-regulated downstream units. In this regard annual
    raaoval would not be compatible with continuous use. of tJur
    iapoundaants.
    .	EPA's capacity calculations do not account foe tha
    accumulated sludga that oust ba removed froa the
    iapoundaants.
    Initial annual reaoval Bay requite sludga that has accumulated
    over many years to ba removed and treated — the quantities of
    sludge will ba very larga at soae refineries and treataent
    capacity will not be available. Contrary to EfA's assumption, few
    refineries have planned to remove accumulated sludges in
    iapoundaents before Hay 1192 aad'sf6r some, it would simply be ;
    physically impossible to do so. Weather constraints, available
    treatment capacity, and construction conflicts will prevant most
    refineries froa responding to this notice by removing ail
    accumulated solids before May of 1992. Therefore, it can be
    assumed that most accumulated solids will be removed froa surface
    iapoundaents after May of 1992, and thus will require BOAT
    treataent as currently proposed.
    

    -------
    3 75
    Docket Number: CD2P-000S7	Petroleum Refining Wastes
    Commemer: American Petroleum Institute
    Comment (continued):
    Based on the currant proposal, API assumes chat the first annual
    removal of sludge woul'd have to occur before May 1313 — if all
    axisting surface impoundments have to remove and treat all
    accumulated F037/F038 solid wastes in this one-year period, the
    existing treatment capacity will be completely overwhelmed. Afl's
    estimates of primary sludge generation from its primary sludge
    survey, as described earlier in these comments, do not assume
    that all accumulated solids in surface impoundments would be
    removed, certainly not in one year. Rather, they represent only
    the scheduled removal of sludge during the ongoing replacement s!
    the unretrofitted impoundments is likely only where discretionary
    clean-closures were-to be attempted. If all of the accumulated
    sludge had to b« removed in one year from all in-service
    impoundments, th* estimated quantities for 1992-1993 would be
    much greater . Additionally, much of this removal could likely
    occur during the dry, summer months resulting in a large "peak"
    production of F037/r03l. It is apparent that* capacity for
    treating such amounts of solids simply is not available.
    •	There are no environmental benefits associated with the
    proposed annual removal.
    All surface impoundments managing F037/F038 wastes will begin
    closure no later than May 1994 (or March 1994 if they manage ic
    wastes). Thus, there is at most a two-year period from the
    prpposed effective date of the LOR rule for continued management
    of FQ37/FQ3S wastes in surface impoundments. Thereafter, closure
    of units that have not been retrofitted will be required
    {retrofitted units will, of course, have already undergone
    

    -------
    3 - 7<
    Docket Number: CD2P-00087	Petroleum ReBniiig Wastes
    Commenter: American Petroleum Institute
    Comment (continued):
    removal of *11 wastes). Refineries operating these units already
    lave interim status ground water monitoring in place, and have
    prepared and will implement closure plans that will provide
    protection of human health and the environment. As necessary, ..
    corrective actions will also be implemented. Since these
    lapoundaents have been in use for many years, it is obvious that
    leaving the waste solids in the iapoundments for the two-year
    period until closure is required will have essentially no effect
    sn the existing risk, if any, that these units pose to human
    health and the environment. In fact, it caa be argued that a
    hurried attempt to remove solids to comply with as annual removal
    rule may actually be detrimental to final closure activities and
    could increase environmental risk. This would be' the ease if
    disturbing the solids and the soils in aa impoundment damaged the
    clay or other liners resulting in percolation of leachate into
    the soils and ground water beneath the impoundment.
    There is net: a specific statutory requirement for the one year
    removal of the primary sludge under these circumstances.
    In light of the substantial technical difficulty, the yearly.
    removal of sludge may cause, it would be unwise to Impose this
    requirement in the interest of "consistency" with other sections
    of RCRA not directly applicable. , •
    API does not believe that the annual removal requirement is
    legally or technically justified.; EPA should allow the
    lapoundaents to be used for waste management until Che mandated
    date for treatment in retrofitted impoundments, which at most is
    only two years from the proposed land ban date for FQ37/F038
    wastes.
    

    -------
    J - 77
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    Docket Number: CD2P-00064
    Commenter:	BP Oil
    Comment:
    K- rminved
    tnnoaav froa surface taroowndments.
    EPA tm proposed this requirement for comlstrncy with provisions ofRCRA Section .viKijh 11),
    which requires annual removal of restricted wastes too surftce impoundments meeting MTR V The
    proposal. hOHW« St tomiiUPW with the prarrtrellrtri of the curia* itnnrton of replacing pniaaiy
    sludge sorike impoundments with tanks.
    Hie proposed annual cleanout requirement is closely tied to oveafl surface impoundment replacement
    plan and the ultimate closure plans for the impoundments. The replacement pirn are in place, inl •
    current effort is focused oa Qe design, permitting. construction. and startup of these tanks znd "
    assorisrrrf equipment, sewgs, and piping to meet the four-year retrofit frarilfnei In addition, we hive
    formulated plans for closure of these impoundments which may tnclode removal of accumulated
    sludges. Horemedlatkxi of the stodges sad demonstration thu the unit poses no risfc to human health
    and the environment and/or other approaches. Current plans do not call for removal of accumulated
    sludge before the effective date of the LDR*s.Le. May, 1992 at most impoundments. In no case are
    there plans for interim removal of sludge, Le. after the effective date of die LDR's and before final
    closure operations. these plans and schedules represent economic decisions, and budgets have been
    set and monies allocated to perform these activities at scheduled times in the overall project.
    Changing schedules, by requiring the removal of accumulated F037/F031 wastes ahead of the time
    originally planned, will requite revisions of existing plans and budgets, may require permit and
    closure plan revisions, and will cause disruption to the original replacementitlasue schedule.
    EPA has assumed that die annual cleanout can take place while the impoundment is In service and
    without imrepdngnonsalopemkn of the impoundment. This is ixx necessarily the case; the solids
    dredging and removal operation may affect oil and solids loadings on downstream wastewater
    treatment units resulting in potential NFDES permit exceedaaces. In addition, because refinery
    wastewater tttatmea systems are being revised and sewers and tanks are under construction, nonnal
    flexibility in wastewater treatment system operation may not be available. Rather, in some cases,
    sludges could be suspended during the dredging and removal process, carry over, and enter
    downaaeaui non-hszaRtous waste units implicating them through the mixture rale.
    

    -------
    Docket Number: CD2P-00064
    Commenter:	BP Oil
    Comment (continued):
    3-7*
    Petroleum Refilling Wastes
    There wfli be few environmental benefits associated with the proposed amal removal rcquirctneru.
    Sortacc impoandments. which are not retrofitted to KfTR. win begin closure no liter thin May. 1994
    (or earlier tfTC wxste is also being managed in the impoundment). Thus, there is it mosi a iwo-year
    period for continued management of R337/F03I wastes in surface impoundments. Thc*c units are
    included in facility RCRA pernio, and interim stains groundwater monitoring is in plate tor these
    iapondseas. Appropriate ckxuit pin tm bees developed whldi *fll be approved tiy itjtulatoiy
    agencies prior© impietneatadon. Delaying removal of the priaaiy stodge ftr a two-year pen<*j until
    final closure will lav* a minimal effect oo the existing risk, if any. that the impoundment f*i« so
    human health and the environment, bt fact, removal of solids under an anrstal removal mie could
    vetjr vcS ific n i w eoviitHoenial risk by distoibtog tolls or breaching day or other liners
    We tnfi SPA »withdi*w the proposed requirement (or annual cleanoat of dodges frum MTR .*
    raftcetepoodoeas daring the two-year national capacity variance period allowed fur rcpf* oment
    or retrofit of these Impoundwm, the last sencaice to propoeed Saction 26»J56(e) should tv .u-i-tpd.
    

    -------
    3-79	Petroleum Refining Wastes
    Docket Number; CD2P-L0021
    Commenter:	CMA
    Comment:
    2. EPA should net require annual sludte ttiofil for
    ¦ unretrofltted lapoundaents.
    CHA disagrees with the Agency's broad requireaaat for annual
    sludge removal at unretrofltted Impoundaents holding restricted wast**
    for which treatment capacity exists. Contrary to EPA's assart Ion at S7
    Tt 999, operating facilities will, in easy cases, need to be shut down
    during the sludge removal operation. As a result, this aeasnre will be
    costly while providing little environmental benefit. Unlike
    retrofitted minimum technology requirement (HTS) impoundments,
    unretrofitted lapoundaents containing restricted wastes are not
    intended for long-tera operations, and will be either closed or
    retrofitted within four years. Appropriate, environmentally-protective
    actions can be taken -at the tiae of the retrofitting or closure.
    the Agency should also evaluate the iapact of an annual sludge
    reaoval requirement on treatment capacity. Given the Agency's
    propensity to overestimate the aaount of capacity now availble, and to
    inflate even further its estimates of future capacity, the Agency
    should be cautious In aaking assuaptions regarding the availability of
    treataent capacity for huge voluaes of sludges.
    

    -------
    3-80
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    Docket Number: CD2P-00092
    Commenter:	Conoco
    Comment:
    That there a the IflrtJihood atatremendous bacldog
    of wa«a» waiting for treatment, making it aeoemuy to schedule critical turnaround and
    ——— mM,	».».	Tb« lag time required and
    tempomy storage limitations will make it sot to hnpotihU to comply with the annual
    itudfi moral requirements.
    Annual Snrfcaa Tmaoundmwit Qeanrnf
    The propped raien^uirw annual rfcaning of ar&ce impoundment! for which treatment
    capacity too.
    Coaoctrt Fooca City Refinery ha* six surface impoundments m primary studfe service. and ¦
    intends to dose the impoundLjents by November 2,1994 as required by RCRA. The units
    are presently being cleaned u quickly as poeabte in anticipation of dosure, utilizing the
    refinery hazardous waste la&dfann fat treatment and disposal of die sludge.
    Annual detnhty of all the riudee in the two larw mwrnndmam at the Pnn«
    Refinerr wnnM nr* h»	The rats of ihidge amrmnlarioB in the large
    impoundment* averages approximately one-half inch per year. The dredge contractors
    hired to dean the impoundments can generally easily remove the sludge down to three
    inches in thickness without touching the impoundment bottom, and can dean to oae inch
    thickness if the impoundment bottom is touched. Cleaning the large impoundments of all
    primary sludge is {r"—with a dredging type operation.
    It is much more eoooomical to allow the sludge » accumulate before deaning. Dredging
    the impoundments is very expensive. The Poaa City Refinery will spend nearly S1.000.000
    to remove sludge from just one pood. Repeating the rteaning annually would cost about
    the ens though the quantity of stodge tunuwd would be less. This is not
    considered economically feasible or practical.
    

    -------
    3-81
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    Docket Number CD2P-00042
    Commentcn	Phillips
    Comment:
    K an annual deanout of-the impoundments i« required the whole Sf.500 tone of Mgi would nttd to
    be t«m offsita for treatment and disposal by mid-18S3. Orlginaay, 26,700 torn at sludge wn to be
    removed from Sweeny impoundments by the end of IMS end pcoceaaad « an oruha incinerator, An
    annual daan-out prevision would raquira that al Primary Sludge be managed offaita, aa onsita treatment
    would not ba available unfl mld-1983-« the earliest fTsble 1).
    Thara la na tsehnicat. aejantfffc,pf fwj fe«lj| fgf nflHrtW »«t ITOff33t WittW
    -Bi^^8SSL^liS82ll06^SE2$LflQ9Ufl6^
    EPA ha proposed that surface Impoundments managing ro37/TOM wattee after "the effective data et
    the ICRs ba required to remove and treat ecewmaated wastes annuity und the impoundment's either
    doaad or retrofitted to meat ** mMmwn tscftnotogy requirements firms) for surface impoundments.
    Thl« approach la daamad by EPA to ba consistent with RCHA Section 3008(J)(1 II, which requires annual
    removal of restricted wsstst from surfaee impoundments that meet the MTBa. PhlBipa disagrees that
    annual deanout of storage or dlspotal impoundments ia required by statute*
    A fundamantal pramlaa of iPA's proposed annual removal requirement la that this removal can take place
    Is i^t ae^^^ice, ^^^hSe	t^^st etita^sn^e^tt la s^^aHa^sls to remove
    warn from an Impoundment without completely emptying k of water, ttta does not mean that the
    impoundment can be uaad whle the aofids are being (amoved. If the soSds removal preeaaa affects oil
    and aoida loadings on the wastewater treatment system (by reducing hydrauRe surge capacity anchor
    stirring up aoHde and ol in :the water column!* raautdng In potential exceedance of NPOCS permit limits,
    thi iwwwmwAwMw* cm***, ramain in junisi whli k is bainfi dunad. Ytf another rnnhUim at thi
    tmpficartion of the mixture fuis* In oomo ciitt. there csouhi bi i (tvi^v thet fct rimovvtQ the siudoe frofn
    tn in Mfvin impoundment shidoee couW bo tunincM ind ww s (townitrHM unft Nnobcitino w
    otherwise iw4mifdois wro uiii ihe mestEjm nie. Some toflneriea moy not !»*• the flexibility to
    nflioyi lis kt i m' n n from iirvict withoui fMuriM a eictttion of fiffcnano ooorstiorift. When
    wutowvtaf niiiBMBt twHMH mf^e* IneaaundmeftHi in in lariift.	hwiqviI ame»dures tueh u
    *	w ea a^eei	aa y *^aai^"aa vPaew ¦	^aea • vimp	aa a	a i^ia * ai® aiwwai^aa*Mpa ea^p aaap%p* •
    dnNSyiixi fwy how hnuhaiUotn fof v(nbRun ruii" contsminjition vvl downstmn ufutt by tho mixifiQ of
    r»-iu«p«PKM prtrnwy Mm iwWi wtstcwtttr (Stsmd for (fiscMrgo to nofwogutetai dowtwswi units.
    In tfiis roguPdL onnuol tfcidpe rem© vol woufcj not bo compotiblo continuou* uao of tho imeoun<4m«ntt.
    /
    

    -------
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    3-82
    Docket Number: CD2P-00042
    Commenter:	Phillips
    Comment (continued):
    &A't capacity eaieulatfana do net account for the tcsmlnd aiudse that muat ba removed from the
    impoundments. Initial annual ramoval wM require (Judge that Hat accumulated war tha yean is ba
    removed and treated - tha quarwftiaa of tiudge w« ba vary targa at soma rafineriee and treatment
    capacity wil not ba avaBable. Contrary to IPA'a assumption, PhMpe and Bkaiy other refineries had not
    planned to ramev* af accumulated sludges in impoundments before May 1992 and for soma it would
    aimpty ba phyalcaty impoaaftie to do so. Weather uamuaaiu. available traatmam capacity, ami
    construction conflcts wSI pravant PNEps and other rafinariaa front respondtog to thie nooca by removing
    al accumulated aolda bafora May of 1992. Therefore, It can ba aaaumad that moat accumulated souoa
    wB ba removed ftwn aurfaea impowidments after May of 1992, and thua. wfl raquira BOAT traatmam
    aa currently proposed.
    Baaad on tha currant proposal, PhlSpa assumes that tha first annual ramoval of sludge would have to
    occur bafora June. 1S93 and M.SOO tana res of impowidment sludge wauM naad to ba naatad o«*ita.
    If al domaatic raBnarlaa have «S remove and trwt al accumulated aurfaea ImpouiJdment F037/F038
    wastes in this ona yaar period, tha existing traatmam caoadty wfl ba completely overwhelmed. APt'a
    estimate* of Primary Sludge generation from its -primary sludge aurway, referenced earlier in mesa
    comments. do not asstane that al accumulated soida In aurfaea impounAnams would ba removed.
    cartaWy notlnonsyear. Rather, they represent only the scheduled removol of aiudge during the ongoing
    raplecomem of the ufMvtrofttted impoundments is Btaly only where dtaostionary daan-cioaurae were to
    be attempted. ff al of tha accumulated sludge had to be removed In one yaar from al in-service
    impoundments, the estimated quantities for 1992-1893 would ba much greaser. AddWonaly, much of
    this removal i-wpH llcaly occur during the (fey, summer montfta raaulting in a large 'peak* production of
    K337^Q3S. This indicates that capacity for tresdngeueh amounts of solds la not avaBable.
    niTliii h alia vai that there la Mivfcuimtental bane ft t aasodatad wMi tha uroooiort annual removal.
    Al aurfaea impoundments managing KJ37/F838 wasaa w* bagin doaura no later than May, 1994.
    Thus, there la st moat a two-year pariod from the propoeed effective data of tha UDft nie for continued
    management of FB37/TO38 waataa in eurfeee impoundments. TVieraafta*. doaura of irtts that have not
    been lauoflBad wfl ba required (retrofitted units *¦, of come, have already undergone ramoval of as
    waataal. Rafineriee operating thaae unita airaady have Interim atatua tfiuundwa«ar monitoiinB in plaee,
    and have prepared end wB Implement doeure piene that w« provide protection of human health end the
    environment by either dean-doaure or doeure aa a landf*. Aa naceaaary, corrective actiona wM alio ba
    implemented. Since thaae Impoundments have bean in uea for many years. It le obvloua that leaving tha
    waste eoSda in the Impoundments for the two year period urttl doeure ie required wB not Inereaaa rwk
    M human hiiM and thi tnvitucwnL
    e wa® »aaa>a a wjwaai a* a awi ^^e %a we, aw a ™ w w vai
    Pfcffipa does not beSeve that the annual removal requirement Is lagsty or tachnicaly Justified, A should
    alow tha impoundments to be uaed for waste management untl the mandated data for traatmam in
    leuufltted impoundments, which st most Is only two yaars from the 1892 propoeed land ban data for
    FC37/F039 waatae.
    

    -------
    3 -83
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    Docket Number: CD2P-00028
    Commenter: Retec Remediation Technologies
    Comment:
    A	vohnno will b* genented from the atonal clesa-oot of impoundments
    suggested by the proposed mis. This volume wiQ likely cocne as a large batch which could
    overwhelm off-site capacity.
    rnrnoundmenB should not be namrirad to remove tH the watts rnmanr rfimnr the two year
    anmat
    As noted above, the animal dan out requirement proposed in this role could overwhelm "
    the already stretched trratmmf and dlspool capacity. "Ms will alio Hwrft the ability of refiners
    to develop viable on-site treatment and oil recovery technology. Long lead times are needed for
    selecting, rirrigning aad	a viable oo-ttm heatmeut aad redamatioa process such as
    thermal desorptioo, solvent ealianlon or Musluuy processes. Massy refiners do not generate
    suffidcntprocesswsstestomafeeoft-sitetrettmeaccortcfBKtiv*. Bower, many refiners may
    find that oo-itetxcttnentsyaeBS an coacoopetitivewhea they iadnde the votamesroulting
    from surface impoundment rteaiVQnts. It win oot be pooible for oo« refiners to install such
    a system by May, 1993. Howanw, it is a viable proportion by May, 1994.
    Furthccmon, the deea oat of an impoundment while still in operation could pose jraier
    risks, than lesrini the wasaia place. DredgingorpumpingaaiYitJes wjflresuspend solidswd
    oils which cooM be scooted to downstream wasswater units. These activities also have a htfh
    probability of damaging existing Bpen. For theae reasons, the wastes should not be diuurfed
    until the refinery is reedy to proceed with dosurt or retrofitting.
    

    -------
    3-84
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    Docket Number: CD2P-00077
    Commenter: Shell Oil Co.
    Comment:
    As to the need to annually raaova accuaulatad sludges fro* affactad
    iapoundaenta during the capacity variance period, .we vim this,
    requireaent as unjustified froa a protection o£ health and tha
    environment perspective. We also feel it will be overly burdensoae
    and likely vary costly and inefficient. The Shell impoundments
    iapacted are integral parts of tha treatment train for process
    wastewater*. Tha disruptions to tha flow achaae during cleanout*
    would be savara in that it ia unlikely that alternative capacity
    for tha function afforded by tha iapoundaents in tha treatment
    schaaa could ba reasonably arranged. Many systaaa are based on
    gravity flow with strategic lift stations in sections of refinerie*
    uaually reaote rrea large tankage that could b« readily and
    taaporarily used during ixpoundaant cleanout*. Attaapting sludge
    reaoval during operation would likely nullify tha Battling function
    of tha impoundment and tax downatraaa equipment froa carryover
    caused by the attampted cleanout. Implications of tha mixture rule
    during cleanout ia also of concern. obviously# tha sludge
    accusulated during tin capacity variance period would not pose a
    new or increasing threat' to health and tha anvironaent.
    Ha urge tha Agency to recognise tha potential riska posed by non-
    HTR iapoundaenta during the four year retrofit or close period and
    establish a reasonable regulatory schedule that affords* an orderly
    and ¦inland coat sequence during tha transition period needed to
    Beet the m aandata.
    

    -------
    3 - 85
    Pet/oleum Refining Wastes
    Docket Number: CD2P-00076
    • Comraenter: Sun Co., Inc.
    Comment:
    EPA has propoaad that primary. aludga Battling in aurfaca
    iapoundaanta that ara aubjact to a. national capacity variance ba
    raaovad one* par yaar. SPA has also aaid it ia considaring
    requiring that aurfaca impoundments that are being replaced be
    "clean-closed*.¦
    Sua-opposes both ok thaaa propoaala. Mandatory removal of
    aludga tram, activa impoundaanta will require that aignifleant
    addition*! aaounta ot asterial be treated, compounding tha capacity
    problaa. Sine* tha impoundaanta will ba closed ia two yaara and
    reaadiatad at that: time, auch a requirement vould ba .of
    queationable aznrirotaaantal benefit.
    Evan aora significsnt vould ba a regalresent that impoundments
    b* claaa-cloaad. It adopted, this could pracluda use of in situ
    traataant techniquea thereby raatricting vary mound aathoda for
    addreaaing reaediation that in many casaa is auperior froa an
    anvironaantal point of view than vould ba tha altamativa «.g,,
    incineration, la fact this vould ba such a substantive dapartura
    froa vhat ia required aa part of cloaura undar existing ragulationa
    that ZFA cannot lagally adopt this vitheut going through a
    rulemaking procadura to aodify tha cloaura rulaa.
    

    -------
    3-M
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    Docket Number: CD2P-00Q44
    Commenter:	Unocal
    Comment:
    Thara is no tichnlcal. iclantlflc. or laoal baala for fttwli*lpq thm
    TQ37/F038 "aitu ba rMBVM rroa surfaca inmnundaanf annual 1 v.
    EPA has proposal that surface iapoundaanta aanaging F037/FQ3S
    wastsa aftar tha affactiva data of tha LDRa ba raqudrad to raaova
    and traat accuaulatad waataa annually until tha iapoundaant La
    aithar eloaad or ratrofittad to aaat KTRs Cor surfaca iapoundaants.
    •
    As atatad abova, it ia Unocal«a profaaaional anginaaring opinion
    that tha aludga should not ba r«wv«d froa its casting plaea vhila
    it is still in usa. In addition to tHa arguaants givan abova
    ragarding tha hasards and daaaga that could rasult to tha
    waatavatar traataant systaa itsal£, thara is an additional eoncazm
    about tha iapact em tha linar. Bydrogaologic assassaant raporta
    hava baaa praparad for tha California Jtagion Watar Quality Control
    Board in coaplianca with stata raquiraaanta tag tha closura of tha
    two iapoundaanta discussad abova. Both assasaaanta found that tha
    groundvatar had not baan eontaainatad during th* many yaara of usa
    at thasa iapoundaants. Unocal baliavaa that tha yaars- . of
    accuaulatad aludga in thaaa iapoundaanta halp to aarva as part of
    tha linar and that disturbing tha accuaalatad aludga has a
    possibility of daaaging tha linar itsalf and causing contaainatien
    of tha groundvatar. Unocal cannot raaova tha sludga froa thasa two
    iapoundaanta until tha tanks that ara undar construction ara
    ceaplatad and tha iapoundaant is taJean out of aarvica and drainad.
    This tiaa tabla for accoaplishing tha tank convaraion ia wall
    astabliahad and is shown, aa prasantly concaivad, ia Apf*ndix B.
    EPA aust abandon its propoaad raquiraaant that non-HTR aurfaca
    iapoundaants ba claanad out annually bacauaa it ia tachnically and
    anvironaantally unsound.
    

    -------
    3 - 87
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    3.8 F037 and F038 Wastes From Surface Impoundments Should be Removed
    Annually and Wastes Should be Removed When Surface Impoundments Close
    Summary:
    TDI (10) supports EPA's proposal that either the F037 and F038 wastes disposed
    in unretrofitted surface impoundments be removed annually for treatment within the four
    years allowed to retrofit and if treatment is available, the impoundments be clean closed.
    TDI also stated that they oppose the two-year variance for F037 and F038 and they
    believe sufficient capacity exists to treat F037 and F038 wastes generated from the
    annual removal of wastes in unretrofitted surface impoundments while the four year
    retrofitting exemption is in place, as well as F037 and F038 wastes generated from
    facilities closing their impoundments in lieu of retrofitting. HWTC(51) does not support
    the use of unretrofitted surface impoundments for management of F037 and F038
    wastes; however, HWTC does support the requirement that solids be removed from
    surface impoundments annually.
    Response:
    In the proposed rule, EFA stated that during the two-year national capacity
    variance, refineries using surface impoundments that contain F037 and F038 wastes
    remove their wastes annually for treatment. EPA's intent was to require impoundment
    operators to comply with the annual waste removal requirements in RCRA Section
    3005(j)(ll), which applies to minimum technology requirement (MTR) impoundments.
    EPA also required in the proposed rule that surface impoundments be clean closed. The
    Agency's intent was to mandate removal of prohibited wastes where capacity is available
    (i.e., where there is available treatment capacity, the strong statutory policy is to treat
    hazardous waistes rather than allow them to be land disposed; see RCRA Sections
    1002(7) and 1003(4),(5), and (6)).
    EPA agrees that F037 and F038 sludges in surface impoundments should be
    managed in a way that minimizes risk to human health and the environment. The
    Agency believes, however, that requiring annual cleanouts may interfere with some
    closure plans, and may achieve only limited environmental benefit since surface
    impoundments are likely to be closed in a short time and already have interim status
    ground-water monitoring in place. For these reasons, as stated more fully in Section 3.7,
    EPA is not requiring surface impoundments to be cleaned out annually during the two-
    year national capacity variance granted to F037 and F038 wastes for storage and
    treatment of these wastes in surface impoundments. EPA believes, however, that
    periodic cleanouts would be beneficial where treatment capacity exists (e.g., where on-site
    cokers can be used to recycle F037 and F038 wastes).
    Concerning closure of surface impoundments, EPA believes that owners and
    operators of petroleum refineries are entitled to the same flexibility that was available in
    

    -------
    3-88
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    1984 to other owners and operators of surface impoundments facing the 1988 deadline to
    . comply with RCRA section 3005(j)(l). Consequently, EPA is not requiring that owners
    and operators of section 3005(j)(6) impoundments remove wastes when they close their
    impoundments.
    For the proposed rule, EPA proposed to grant a national capacity variance for
    only the storage and treatment of petroleum refining wastes in surface impoundments;
    EPA was not proposing to grant a variance for the wastes removed from surface
    impoundments. Because the commenter supports EPA's resolution of the conflict
    between RCRA sections 3004(h) and 3005(j)(6), the annual removal of F037 and F038
    from surface impoundments and clean closure of surface impoundments, EPA believes
    that the commenter misinterpreted EPA's intent in proposing the two-year variance.
    This commenter did mention the surplus of available combustion capacity and their
    opposition for a national variance. A more detailed discussion of EPA's variance
    decision for the final rule is described in Section 3.2.
    Comments:
    The TDI (10) comment stating F037 and F038 wastes from surface impoundments
    should be removed annually and that wastes should be removed upon closure of the
    impoundments and HWTC(51) comment referring to annual removal are presented
    below:
    

    -------
    3-89
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    Docket Number CD2P-00010
    Commenter:	TDI Thermal Dynamics
    Comment:
    However, TOT strongly supports tha z?A's proposed
    resolution of the conflict between >CU sections 3004(b) And
    300S(j)(C) by requiring that F037 and F03» vutu disposed of :n
    unretrofitted surface iapoundaenta ba reaoved annually for
    treataent. Under this resolution, petroleua refining facilities
    will be allowed up to- four yaars to either. retrofit ts mt the
    RCXA Section 3004(e) ainiaua. technology reqoireaents or close
    those surface iapoundaenta which receive only F037 uid F03I
    wastes under section 300S(j)(<). However, the resolution will
    also require impoundment operators to cosply with the annual
    vasts reaoval requireaenta in RCXA Section 3005(j) (H) which
    currently applies to iupoundaente seating the
    sinixua technology
    requireaents. He believe this resolution is both fair and
    protective to tha environaent.
    Further, TDX also strongly supports tha Ageney*s
    proposal to prohibit facilities froa leaving F037 and 703* wastes
    in placa in surface iapoundaenta which • facility chooses to
    closa rather than retrofit. This provision would liait tha
    optiona available to facilities with unretrofitted surface
    iapoundaents to retrofitting or clean closure. In this Banner,
    the statutory goal of treataent la accoapllshed and hazardous
    wastes are net left in tha least-secure type of land disposal
    unit for an indafinita period of tiae. This ensures a permanent
    anvironaental reaedy to the surface iapoundaent and reduces the
    likelihood that tha facility would eventually become a superfund
    site.
    In tha Agency's capacity analysis,. it»"estiaatee that
    approximately 74,000 tons per year of devatared F037 and f03S •
    wastes (nociwastewaters) froa routine waste treataent will require
    alternative treataent.* 47 Fed. Reg. 1000 (January 9, 1992). In
    thla analysis, tha Agency also identifies an available surplus of
    225,000 tons/year ofcoabustion capacity. 37 Fed. Reg. 999
    (January *, 1992). Considering tha 119,000 tons/year of
    available recovery/reuse capacity, net to aantion tha potentially
    available recovery/reuse capacity, thsra should be aore than
    sufficient capacity to treat additional F037 and F03t wastes
    generated froa annual reaoval of these wastes in unretrofitted
    surface iapoundaents while the 4 year retrofitting exemption is
    in place, as well as F037 and F03* wastes generated froa
    petroleua refining facilities choosing to eleaa close their
    surfaca iapoundaents in lieu of retrofitting.
    

    -------
    3-90
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    3.9 Requiring Clean Closure Will Conflict With Current Closure Regulations, Has
    No Environmental Justification, and Is Technically and Economically Infeasible
    Summary:
    Ten commentcrs (API (87), BP Oil (64), CMA (L21), Conoco (92), Mobil (100),
    Phillips (42), Retec (28), Shell (77), Sun (76), and Unocal (44)) remarked that
    regulations under 40 CFR 264.228 and 40 CFR 265.228 set requirements for surface
    impoundment closures for all industries, and that any changes in closure requirements
    should be adopted through these regulations. According to the commenters, the Agency
    is being unfair in singling out the petroleum industry by requiring clean closures and thus
    subjecting refineries to additional costs. In addition, requiring clean closures eliminates
    the flexibility provided by 40 CFR 264 and 40 CFR 265 for refineries to use other closure
    alternatives. For example, API (87) and Mobil (100) mentioned that in-situ treatment or
    stabilization are better alternatives than clean closure in many cases and removal of the
    wastes and contaminated soil may result in more adverse environmental effects than
    leaving it in place. They reasoned that alternative closure plans include ground-water
    monitoring and other environmental and economic considerations that result in costs that
    are far less than clean closures.
    Six commenters (API (87), Mobil (100), Phillips (42), BP Oil (64), Sun (76), and
    Retec (28)) stated that implementing clean closure is infeasible for many facilities
    because removing all hazardous contaminants may not be possible. Furthermore, six
    commenters (API (87), BP (64), CMA (L21), Mobil (100), Retec (28), and Sun (76))
    predicted that incineration capacity will be insufficient for the large amount of
    contaminated sludge and soil that will result from clean closures. From an economic
    point of view, four commenters (API (87), CMA (L21), Mobil (100), and Phillips (42))
    questioned whether the excessive cost is justified. API (87) and Phillips (42) mentioned
    that a strong incentive for clean closure exists anyway, as this results in decreasing the
    liability and post-closure requirements.
    Response:
    In the proposed rule, EPA proposed that impoundments be "clean closed" (i.e.,
    with wastes removed from the surface impoundment). The Agency's intent was to
    mandate removal of prohibited wastes and thus be consistent with the statutory intent to
    treat wastes where capacity is available. That is, where there is available treatment
    capacity, the strong statutory policy is to treat hazardous wastes rather than allow them
    to be land disposed. (See RCRA sections 1002(7) and 1003(4),(5), and (6).) For the
    final rule, EPA is not promulgating requirements relating to the closure of surface
    impoundments. This leaves section 3005(j)(6) impoundments with the same latitude as
    to closure alternatives available to other impoundments facing the closure/retrofit
    decision in 1984 (i.e., section 3005(j)(l) impoundments).
    

    -------
    3-91
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    Comments:
    The comments stating that requiring clean closure will conflict with current
    regulations, has no environmental justification, and is technically and economically
    infeasible are presented in the following order;
    •	American Petroleum Institute (87);
    BP Oil (64);
    CMA (L21);
    •	Conoco (92);
    Mobil (100);
    Phillips (42);
    •	Retec Remediation Technologies (28);
    Shell Oil Co. (77);
    •	Sun Co., Inc. (76); and
    •	Unocal (44).
    

    -------
    3-92
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    Docket Number CD2P-00087
    Commcnter American Petroleum Institute
    Comment:
    EPA's proaoaed requirement that ill surface Impoundments treating
    F037/T038 whe elean closed Is technically lnfeaalble. an*
    will g.nir»t» oreat quantities of waste and aall which win
    exceed available treatment capacity.
    EPA ha* suggested in the preamble to the proposed rale that it.,
    may limit the closure options foe surface impoundments that ¦
    manage wast* for which there is available treatalant capacity.
    Specifically, the Agency has indicated thae it may require "clean,
    closure" for surface impoundments used to manage F037/F038
    waste*.
    AffX believe* such a proposal is inappropriate for aa LDK
    rulemaking-. Closure- requirements for interim statu* surface
    impoundment* are promulgated, at 40 CTR 265 and any changes in
    closure requirement* should be adopted in those regulations. :.n
    ' addition# thl* proposal conflicts with the elosure rule* for
    surface impoundment* at 40 CTK 265.228(a) (2), which allow clcs-jre
    a* a landfill and. with delay-ox: closure rule* for surface
    lnpoundawnt* is 40 CTK 264.113. Zn fact* EPA. ha* provided r.o
    justificaelo» for" why surface impoundments containing primary
    sludge should be treated differently than other RCRA Subtitle Z
    surface impoundment*. This does not fulfill EPA'* obligation '.z
    provide "rational basis*- for its decision*.
    EPA ha* not considered the feasibility of clean elosure for
    

    -------
    3-93
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    Docket Number: CD2P-00087
    • Commenter: American Petroleum Institute
    Comment (continued):
    surface iapouridaenta. The Agency considers.clean closure to
    require thm reaoval of all contaainated subsoils (40 CFR
    265.228(a)(1)J. Khan contaminated soil is present'as the result
    of surface impoundment operation# removal of all contaainated
    subsoil is simply infeasible. Even when removal of contaainated
    subsoil is the quantity of contaminated soil that must be removed
    can easily exceed the amount of waste removed. It is not uncommon
    to remove several feet or more of contaainated soil during
    ^closure. The quantities; of contaainated soil that would have to
    be removed to achieve clean closure have not been estimated by
    EPA or API, but coulcf easily be as large or larger than the
    estimated quantities of waste that were reported in the API .
    survey as ainiaal or no dewatering will be necessary.
    This soil would also not contain high concentrations of oil and .
    would have low heat values* so resource recovery methods would* be
    generally inapplicable. Thus, under current rules, the	'
    contaainated soils would generally have to be sent to
    incinerators. Incineration capacity for large amounts of
    contaminated soils may not be available when these closures are
    implemented.
    

    -------
    3-94
    Petroleum Refining Wanes
    Docket Number: CD2P-00087
    Commenter:	American Petroleum Institute
    Comment (continued):
    There la no environmental justification for the clean closure of
    primary sludge surface Impoundments..
    It is also questionable that claaa closure of soa* impoundments
    is mora environmentally beneficial than closing the impoundment
    as a secure landfill. Ac sites vhtra tbe geological setting is
    conducive to long-ten waste.. containaent with consequent
    protection of human health and tbe environment, removal of the
    ' waste and contaminated soil may result in aore adverse
    "environaental effects than leaving it in place. Energy recovery,
    resource recovery, and incineration are not without environmental
    impacts of their own, which although saall are not
    inconsequential. EfA's proposal would eliminate the ability to
    choose the most environmentally appropriate closure aethod for a
    surface impoundment.
    The potential costs of CPA's closure proposal are also excessive,
    for one 2-acre ispoundaent at a maaber company refinery, the
    estimated cost of closure as a landfill is «, 400,000 while the
    estimated lowest clean closure alternative is over 59,000,000 in
    1992 discount dollars assuming that clean closure is technically
    feasible. These figures reflect that large amounts of solids
    that would'lsave to be treated if clean closure is mandated for
    all impoundments. There is not any sound environmental basis for
    requiring clean closure in every case, and it is economically
    detrimental to the industry.
    

    -------
    Petroleum' Refining Wastes
    Docket Number: CD2P-00087
    Commenter: American Petroleum Institute
    Comment (continued):
    EPA should rely an the existing interim statu* closure
    requirements to control impoundment closures. There are already
    strong incentives (decrease in liability, no post-closure
    requirements} for refineries that can economically elaan closa a
    surfaca impoundment to do so. Furthermore, clean closure as
    defined at 40 CTR 265.228(a) (2) may simply be infeaaible. at some
    sites, especially where state regulations excead federal standards
    so EPA will be setting as a requirement closure standard that
    cannot necessarily ba achieved.
    

    -------
    3 - 96
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    • Docket Number: CD2P-00064
    Commenter:	BP Oil
    Comment:
    Closure requirements for interim stxtss surface impoundments are induded in 40CFR 26S and for
    new surface impoundments in 40CFR 264, ud change* in clonn requirements must be adopted
    under those tegnlsrione. A "clesn doswe" requirement for primary sludge surface impoundments
    conflicts with existing cloture rales for suffice impoundments which allow for dosme in place
    (40CFK265J2KaX2) Bid 40CPR244J2KiX2». delay of closure (40GFR263.1 !3(dXe) and 40CFR
    264,113(d)(e)), and oilier clonic options. Has, primary sludge Impoundments appear to be
    aibinOysbi^ out for apecUl requirements; •••• . •••:.•.. w ;	,
    There has been uncertainty as ta what Is meant by'dean closure*. W« assume that EPA metns
    removal of stadge fern these Impoundments priorttdosure. but that removal of contaminated soil is
    nocindaded. The quantities of contaminated sod that would have to be removed to achieve clean -
    done Itsw new txsc& cRtsufifid by EPA: fhriff ijosotbScs ooold be csrosMSiy
    ® A mandate far clean closure by removal It technically unnecessary and eliminates new
    ttwnativci»d»asbtaren>edlattonofsladicinp»ace. ^
    Clonre of primary iladge impoundments by removal of sludge la not necessarily required for
    protection of hnwian healiti and die environment. At Individual .
    submitted on the Advance Notice of Propoced Rulemaking. Land Dtspoeal Restriction* ivt-ntial
    Treatment Standards for Newty Identified and listed Wastes and Cootsalnated Dehm. ik*ket
    Number MI-CDP-FFFFF, The Petroleum Environmental Research Foram (PERF> di-HuwJ its
    rmmmtrh rrt tJnbtgh—l	mrarnm riwrfj— TlM gOtl Ofl'fBI- I'mjCO
    I7-QJ is to desmine what level of treatment can be obtained using an optimized bMttymi imiment
    process and how it comperes ® BDAT (Best Demonstrated Available Technology) %un.:.ir.s *ith
    the ultimate goal of trying to meet BDAT. The data submitted are results obum.- t « -¦•m-
    wasm waters at Urn sludges themselves, not on wastewater as Is tndiaead In the preami*- *. « .-<>on
    (J7F* 964 Is cotton).
    

    -------
    3-97
    Petroktun Refining Waste*
    Docket Number: CD2P-00064
    Commenter:	BP Oil
    Comment (continued):
    Tbcrefot*. >8 imomuic atadate for 'dean dome* or removal at sludge eliaiutei
    flexibility to choose jite-ipedfic, ewrtrennentiily appropriate, cost-effective cioiore options for
    prtoiiy slodse Impoundments allowed under existing provisions at40CFR 264 ind 2fi5.
    BP bss done considerable work to identity cost-effeai w alternative# to meet these primary sludje
    tad uwciittd aanpilsnce mpdreatsus. We hive idestifled a namber at impoundment closure
    o damn ia (dace;
    a MotmedlMionof slBdg and deaonsgatk» flat the twit ywes an risk mteminhMirt!
    tfafi fBQFtribfQQEDCQCr
    o removal of stadgt.tieaBneai to BDATsaodartsisint annul distfflmon and dlsposil to a
    hi I llJUM MM JjrikJtfflfe.	* •
    a removal ofsfadp and asetf a
    o
    Cms of tbMB itanatives ia 1992 discounted dollars iintB from;
    ReflacyA g hnpwtrtmfflta) JlJ-30.7
    1 ft hty MiikbiMiiflfr	a2.|lf
    M9
    fUflnwy D(1 Impmnftnnfl	L2-1(U
    lis lowest axa involve dona* ia place whlla the biihest costs reprtftat treatment and ofT-sits
    amounts of so a.
    Ctareatdoamplam do not neoesaiQycall ft* tte lowest east abemativ*. bat da cai} for the most
    cso-eflectiv* ^Jttsmlvo ofc&if afl oooddetatloos iato accooo^
    EPA stuold rely oi existing Interim toot dean requirements to resists Impoundment closure.
    Then am inc*odv«a ft* dean dossre, radi as decrease ia long-tena liabilities. no past-closure
    mmt —— Afrhm lawt	wffl rt— fhnira nrf
    ia low ea«L However. flesfttttty most be retained tat domm option is sbwpedric cases where
    ptoocttoaofbunaQ beatsh aad the esvtanacat eaa be achieved wMw* toe removal of *ii*Jge from
    d»i
    

    -------
    3 . 98	Petroleum Refining Wastes
    Docket Number: CD2P-L0021
    Commenter:	CMA
    Comment:
    EPA should recognize the need for alternative closure
    potions for surface lapoundaents.
    EPA appears to recognize that adequate treatment capacity Bay not
    exist to allow for the reaoval of sludges for disposal when a surface
    iapoundaent is closed. CMA believes that adequate treataent capacity
    will not exist. One CMA aeaber coapany's iapoundaent systea contains
    enough sludge that reaoval and treataent of all of the sludge would
    fully occupy its on-site Incinerator for 20 years. Even if off-site
    capacity did exist to treat soae portion of this sludge, the logistical
    probleas associated with packaging and shipping such huge voluaes would
    be nearly insuraountable. For exaaple, if the sludges described
    earlier were druaaed for disposal off-site, at least 4,000,000 druas
    would have to be shipped. Overloading treataent facilities with large
    voluaes of sludges would prevent other wastes froa being treated
    appropriately.
    Given these'practicaT considerations'; any'proposal to'liait
    treataent options for facilities closing surface iapoundaents is a aove
    in the wrong direction. As an exaaple of the potential effect of such
    a policy, one CMA aeaber coapany is spending, at one site, over $120
    aillion to build an aboveground tank wastewater treataent systea :o
    replace the current surface impoundment systea covering in excess of 60
    acres. The surface iapoundaent systea will be closed, but a
    requirement to clean close such a large iapoundaent systea would prove -
    technically iapossible to aeet. EPA aust allow additional options for
    closure of a surface iapoundaent beyond sludge reaoval and clean
    closare.
    

    -------
    3-99
    Petroleum Refining Wastes
    Docket Number: CD2P-00092
    Commenten Conoco
    Comment:
    ^rSti^wdS^ffiTltb tatlppropmw tad eoofusmg to vkktu do«re requtremenu
    in the lasd dbponl rettriakmi.
    S,wtm*m Tmp^trvjmwit C3o«ar»
    Tfc> SPA tiM tin aid Ail if trettmait amarr ft	ttahc*
    ber*aaktdta+i'*"~*»"A Uhubl j^di
    priaaxyiiodffc.
    T1Wj4Um Aft res Mul CmImmM V *¦ - --*	¦»	• 	— -«		- •_ _«		I	-
    UtUMT #0 UK 2o# CMS 203 SOOpftft & 50060 ffipOOBOBMOa^ CSOtDTt a plfiOC tfta pQtt*
    dnitt cut an ikmAvi to duft dom Al tbo is|MMinBti Is oof reSBini
    opontiono sto st oporstfnjf f^cOSfiss wid^ tlMt tubttttjf to ptwido post^cioKBo ours* Thcro
    is 00	*w*4t#	pftlwilay	\Q Mmmm doSQft, Vld it
    is tfispppppnottr s&dl coofissiBj 69 sddrsso dosoro* FOEp32tvs&flBts xo dio Isod dupcyudl
    If f^|§1,1 pmy .. , _• _
    At fffr# pw^tfi: Qty Tt&oKj it is	to don two itrgo **'ff*^ topouitdintflts by.
    fCSBORS^ SO SBBCfeL d tffcO stuidfO 

      -------
      3-100
      Petroleum Refining Wastes
      Docket Number: CD2P-00100
      Commenten
      Comment:
      land Disposal Restrictions On Primary SluefasffiBm
      • Q«mi Q«ur» of Surfaas Tgpoun±am£a
      EE* has rM-wit, on whether surfaca iapcurctaants containing pciwry
      slutos (1X3371 or ssoondazy sludb* (F038) should b» claan clcsad if suffice—
      traataant capacity is available, and further, repasts data on tha aaount
      sludge that would be generated if clean closure was unilaterally nandated.
      m.'* ccntaeplatad clean closura mandate, as vmll as Its arcual sludge wwal
      zequlrsnant, far newly regulated aurfaaa ijqpcundaents Hiish contain
      Ma not* that a different dznmtai'ca could be presented upon prmilgaticn ¦at
      land rtitpnsal restrictions for newly idrfl fieri wastes vrdar the toxicity - -
      characteristic. Iter exsaple, if a surface iapomfesnt receives TC hazardous
      wiStu^Bi, the diadbarge of vestMstecs into	quImi# n-tii*
      constitutes "land dlspoaal^ (I.e. , plsoswafrti of a specified tossardous fc®sta in a
      surfaca <«y*; Uu'li the *<»	conflict?* <¦«—» by tha
      Agancy nay thm exist. As will be illmaeel in nmsia cn Bit's proposed tula
      benaerninj **# tilting of »"• *»¦ ¦» iapauxtaant	«¦>»«~» "conflict"
      ahmilrt ba reealuad. 37 BIff. 4X70, 4173. (Ms. 4, 2993). Weed, tha
      Agency wii* avoid suc3i a conflict entirely by sixply reeuminj to Its pie 1988
      interpretation of tha ststots. ££. {fcbil 041 0». v «7X F. 2d 149 Or.
      1989).
      In addition to ""»• concerns regarding tha authority of Agncy to rec$iixa
      elaan closure and amial rvwil of priaazy/seoondazy sludge (F037/T038!, um
      itlj© quatf&icn i^ppc6(39^LbGmmhhi o£	kLrqPLJLsi^ fflft tim jmbCxoXcuees
      HmSmttuffff 'f^cOm AddsdL GovtsE#	w® ®t3cco5jly G£ij®ct» tin
      X®CJLljLjP(B!BRft GECT CnLflMBS C&QMKfiEV pjf J2SS*	ispCUT^faflTSSe CUlCAillinQf jQ)Q£
      hsziztfcuE Mfta bacauaft it tics *n	«rd axtoitrmiy standburil which
      not tafee into aaaumit slts-ipaeific factsna, nor doas it allow Cor an
      &3N5CMR& o£ zdaks £0 fisnsn bafeltft and ths •nvircnoant vxl tte essociaced
      ^	"» VAftA mov&l.
      Ha balisva that it is illogical to autoiKtically rsquizs elaan closura of
      «tii 4k^..ii.>h^i»« in light of tha existing wajrta	technologies
      awmilabla today, uasts stabillzstion lirianhlliras hazardous wests oonstitucrts
      in pl,i»oa and offara s pzwan, cc*t-*ff«ctiva tseteology iteldt pcotacta Iutmti
      haalth ant tha anvizonaane. Existing JCSX post-dosura car* caqulrwnants
      provide tec futuzs sonitoring and tha naasumrre of potantial oBRtastimnc
      aigation fro* tha mt'ja, with provisicr* tar aarractiva action ihcuid
      aontaainant migratlcn bs dstactad at any tins during tha 30' yasr post-clao^*
      cars psrlod.
      

      -------
      3-101
      Petroleum Refining Wastes
      Docket Number: CD2P-00100
      Commenten
      Mobil
      Comment (continued):
      roiMM veuirmmit* for surface i^xxntaits would doubla or trip:-
      ( 1—iillij prooama can 1 nat fly to nlns Berths, dhpending i^xn tte ntem of
      frier to the rsawal prooMS, adequate tankage and tiaal—ifc
      capacity oust ba in place to ataoa and rkmttc dcadkgad wtarial prior to
      cdtifiBJltiis	tm* mttixm clmaniixj jxcoonmi can fa* '"T1*	jgy
      variation® in th*	cf	nstaarial, wistiotv in tha
      AaxBetaeistica of rtitarad sludge (aoat notably, 8HJ acntnt), scheduling of
      teanaportation and aocaptance of vuta at incinerators or c—it JdHna, etc.
      A&t^OCtbao* 	tinL
      -------
      3-102
      Petroleum Refining Wastes
      Docket Number: CD2P-00G42
      Commenten Phillips
      Comment:
      !>&*¦	rmtw*mnant tfiat tM mwfmm W—limtf WHJWaifl ¦«««« h*	(jftUt#
      i Iff canffler wtft nirtna BOM rtnttrtanar
      doouro options for turfaeo
      ampoundmams tfioc mmam «m iar wfUch tfm to ovoflofaio ttmmm* copocfty. SpocHleoOy, tno
      Aomy hot Indfctiod tm it mo* nqilii *eiton ctet* far aurtn impomftnomo iMd to mamo*
      F037*03S*ot«Ofc.	*
      PhMpo boiovoo ouch o preponl it Inoppropritto for art IM nrfonwfcino. Qooun nquhwuflu for intiriw
      ranuo lurfiQi fcnpoundnioftiEi aro pramulpitod at 40 GPPI288 on! ony chonpot fci ctooyro focM*ow*oniB
      shoitt bo adopted in ftooo rapuMono.
      2$8L228Q4b^wMflfe oSowa ^aioypd ctoouro to doouro at o I
      GPA pivos not fooriflcodovt udhy Primwy Shidpo ifflpoundmanto dioufcf fapulni *daofrc4oc5ini# but otftor
      GPA aliolAf toly on ttio oiirtrip doturo foouifOfiionBi to contfoi ton^oundmant doouioo* Tlioro aro skssdy
      amp inoontfvoo ttfocrooao in Mer« no poot*doouro ropuironwnai lor raflnariao feat cob ooononncaay
      l a aurfoco irvipotftdniant to do ao»
      

      -------
      3-103
      Petroleum Refining Wastes
      Docket Number CD2P-00028
      Commenter:	Retcc Remediation Technologies
      Comment:
      Qacition and closure of primary imwundmaa
      RETEC believe# the agency has gready underestimated the total volume of F037 and
      F038 wastes which will be generated as patt of the annual *cle«Be hive *>—»»«t—«< ia both &CRA ¦««< CERGLA closure and cotrccth e
      fg ffflf-	wfly ihvtje— T» W <4iW/-nl* m jBimhi iglwrtno rtm |>rr»pr>«*<4 ruif*
      would provide the refining industry with this flexibility became of the complexity ot the
      proposed ride. We urge the Ageacy is ensure that the proposed rules allow this as a viable
      closure option. .
      Priranr STnrfft Trnnmttirfmratt should not be HwdfM « ttm* rw
      la the proposed rale, 1PA has indicated that ll may requite impoundments coniainmf
      F
      -------
      3 - 104 Petroleum Refining Wastes
      Docket Number: CD2P-00028
      Commenter:	Retec Remediation Technologies
      Comment (continued):
      RETEC believes the same closure alternatives which are available to other impoundment* under
      40CFR 264.228 and 265.228 should be available to primary sludge impoundments at closure.
      The 'clean closure" section of tbe proposed rule implies thai all wastes must be removed
      from the impoundment at closure. Removal of all wastes may not always be tbe most
      environmentally sound alternative. This requirement will force maay refiners to remove the
      waste and send it off-site for iaciaeratioa. We have previously discussed the capacity problems
      rgiawH tn iwwngnrinH- A seoood issue relates to exponiag wastes across large distances
      to communities that are geofxtphiaUy distant from the refinery which generated the wase. It
      has been RETEC'i experience that the public does aot want to receive waste in their community
      that is coming .from out of stata^ EPA wiil exacerbate this problem by iwiuiiing that refiners
      remove the waste from the impounrfmmt rather than acrntnpliihim oo-sjte treatment.
      There are a number of rrmplfti of successful impoundment closures which have been -
      accomplished by treating the waste ia-sits. In Sugar Creek, Missouri over 100,000 cubic yards
      of mixed primary impoundment stodges and K048-KQ32 wastes are being treated by aa ir-o'ru
      biuluny process. The dosure is anticipated to save SS0 miTlinn as compared to incineration
      and is a mow acceptable alternative far the cocnffUtfuty* Murphy Qfl recently reported
      successful completion of a primary impoundment dosure where they used ta-situ biosluny
      processes to meet BOAT standards far E04S-KQS2.
      It is dear that there are a nrrmh—¦ of dosure opticas available to hazardous waste
      impoundments. Maay of these opticas indade "ia^ita" trestmeat of the waste to
      esviroameatally safe levels which have been developed in co-operation with state and federal
      agrnriri. EPA shoo Id not impose ummai rcqukwnrnti oa primary impoundments and should
      allow far the use of inaovaiive on-site aad in-sita treataieBt alternatives.
      

      -------
      3-105
      Petroleum Refining Wastes
      Docket Number: CD2P-00Q77
      Commenten	Shell Oil Co.
      Comment:
      As to thm pgopossd rsquir«a«nt for el«u elesnr* of affactod
      lepeundwmte, vs ssriously qusstioa ttm justification or nssd for
      this type a £ elosors. . Korsovsr, vp> itt,«me«Md as to, whati*««*
      eltiB closurs that -incXadss rnovtl ot any contaminatsd soils and
      
      -------
      3 -106
      Petroleum Refitting Wastes
      Docket Number CD2P-00076
      Commenter:	Sun Co., Inc.
      Comment:
      EPA has proposed that primary sludge settling in surface
      impoundments that are subject to a national capacity variance b«
      removed once par year. EPA has alio . said it is considering
      requiring tliat surface impoundments that are being replaced be
      •clean-closed*.
      Sun opposes both of these proposals. Mandatory reaoval of
      sludge frea active impoundments vill require that significant
      additional amounts of material be treated, compounding the capacity
      problem. Sine* the impoundments vill be closed in tvo years and.
      remediated at that tin,, such a requirement would be of
      questionable environmental benefit.
      Even aore significant would be a requirement that impoundments
      be clean-closed. If adopted, this could preclude use of in situ
      treatment techniques thereby restricting very .sound asthods Cor
      addressing remediation that in many cases is superior frea an
      environmental point of view than would be the alternative e.g.,
      incineration. In fact this would be such a substantive departure
      froa what is required as part of closure under existing regulations
      that EPA cannot legally adopt this without going through a
      ruleaaJeing procedure to modify the closure rules.
      

      -------
      3-107
      Petroleum Refining Wastes
      Docket Number: CD2P-00044
      Commenten Unocal
      Comment:
      mimrm la no iurtlflcatlon for rwrnirincr elaan elaturt of orinarv
      f us# Xftmsnnditi§nT^
      		' *"ie is unreaaonable for SPA ta writ® Into a
      regulation • reqairasant that baa ths potential of bain? iapoaaibla
      to aee«&. Xbi» is especially tru* whan groundwater haa b««n
      contaminated. It appeara that E»A has baaa onclaar in the praaaeia
      about, ths saanlnfr at *Cleaa Closure* and 1 Italy aaans that the
      aludge suat be removed free ths lapoaadaut and cannot be eland
      i»-plaes. Ef& ahould clarify its interpretation e£ clean sloaura
      for stzrfacs iapoundsaata.
      

      -------
      3 - 108
      Petroleum Refining Wastes
      3.10 F037 and F038 Wastes Should Not Be Managed in Non-MTR Surface
      Impoundments
      Summary:
      Regswrite (17) asserted that surface impoundments that do not meet the
      minimum technology requirements (MTR) are the type of treatment and disposal units
      that are potentially the least environmentally protective, and the most environmentally
      detrimental. According to this commenter, F037 and F038 sludges should be removed
      from non-MTR surface impoundments as soon as possible, or, at the least, be retrofitted
      to meet MTR. Regswrite (17) also claimed that because the commercial treatment and
      disposal industry has the capability and the capacity to treat F037 and F038 wastes and
      these wastes should not be managed in non-MTR surface impoundments.
      HWTC (51) indicated that EPA's proposal to grant a two-year national capacity
      variance to F037 and F038 wastes from surface impoundments, and allowing
      management of these wastes in non-MTR impoundments during the two-year variance, is
      inconsistent with the intent of Congress. This commenter believes that rather than grant
      a two-year variance, EPA could issue case-by-case extensions to refineries that cannot
      construct the required alternative tankage to replace non-MTR surface impoundments by
      the effective date of the F037 and F038 LDRs. HWTC (51) also believes that refineries
      will not close and replace affected surface impoundments with environmentally protective
      systems until the latest time possible, and such work will expand to occupy the full
      measure of time available. In general, this commenter believes that EPA should not
      issue a national capacity variance, because adequate capacity is available. There is in
      fact, they stated, just a perceived "difficult" burden of closing surface impoundments.
      Response:
      EPA disagrees with Regswrite (17) that non-MTR surface impoundments can be
      closed or retrofitted (and no variance need be given) and with HWTC (51) that closing
      surface impoundments is just a perceived "difficult" burden. EPA believes that adequate
      time must be allowed to retrofit or close surface impoundments. In 1992, EPA
      conducted a study to determine how quickly refineries can retrofit or close their surface
      impoundments to comply with LDR requirements.2 EPA found that replacing a surface
      impoundment with a wastewater tank frequently takes two to four years, and retrofitting
      a surface impoundment frequently takes two to three years. This timing is consistent
      with Congress' intents as expressed in RCRA sections 3005(j)(l) and (j)(6).
      In an associated rule, EPA is resolving the conflict in RCRA concerning the
      deadline by which surface impoundments receiving wastes that are newly listed must
      2 "Technical Background Document and Response to Comments: The Timing of Surface Impoundment
      Retrofitting Under the Land Disposal Restrictions Rule," Office of Solid Waste, EPA, June 1992.
      

      -------
      3- 109
      Petroleum Refining Wastes
      comply with MTRs (i.e., RCRA section 3005(j)(6) allows a four-year compliance period
      after a waste managed in the surface impoundment is listed as hazardous, whereas,
      section 3005(j)(ll), as well as 3004(h)(4), requires that restricted wastes disposed in
      surface impoundments can only be placed, in impoundments meeting the minimum
      technology requirements in section 3004(o), EPA is resolving this conflict by allowing
      interim status surface impoundments a four-year period from the listing cf the waste to
      continue using the impoundment to receive prohibited wastes and generate prohibited
      sludges (i.e., until June 1994 for F037 and F038 wastes, and March 1994 for surface
      impoundment sludges that exhibit organic toxicity characteristics).
      Comments:
      The comments stating that a two-year national capacity variance for non-MTR
      surface impoundments is not justified are presented in the following order;
      *	Hazardous Waste Treatment Council (51); and
      •	Regswrite (17).
      

      -------
      3 • 110	Petroleum Refilling Wastes
      Docket Number: CD2P-00051
      Commenten	Hazardous Waste Treatment Council (HWTC)
      Comment:
      Wadonl beta* the *poaahprseeriad by 9A in theea matters b
      ooneteunt vdtft the Intent of Oungreae and thetorte eirtUUs a CPA a totm the
      tdantfed problem, The problem la iiairellrierieeQan not eonrttiot the required
      tmnkmn* fwiaffru Vi liflhfla nfln UTP «Aai hWfltMiai la	a
      1902 effectfce data of the fl037>RSB KMT standard. To meet t» requirements of the
      rfflnty'B FFA pfppotff i vtpfffWy	copiflnf'
      cn*rt 4h» wftuJJTHI	Iwafluiitiiiii. OUIlil Wtl lubl»Ci fa 1 fMfiOfMi
      "	W J Ml^P •# P w PPvMi	™	P WPP	ft	^WP Vft • P^BP^PiW ^SSi
      oaoacltv variance must be Disced Into a IflR land dhooeef unt durina the term af the
      ~ VHP i^^P	V1MR W^V PP^WPPP^^^^W W WV PP*	^^P	P ^Pl P^P ^PM H M VP P^P I^PP VIV	w
      vifiinsi. ffli varimai n»id md iihyi tft 4 ¥Wf rimi tfmt Irofc mdi far ih»
      P^^P PMRB P »	vPPP	^^P ¦ * ¦ ^1^ • ™	' Jj V^PPP •	MP P<^» * ^P ^Pl	Pi WP>
      _4KjcfKc^4p)poyn4ffiOi^*<"*#***'MM*,"M			 111 ' 			***** "**¦ *™w*
      Tte Maruarv 1100S cimooasd nii DfMMtai ft ntinbcr af 11— JV' im^fii 1
      P ¦ PPPP § ^^P^l WPi V ^^P P ^^WPP	^PPW	VP * • WWN ^^P POTP^IMIw^M 9 9 P PB
      anaedoM storiaa proaantingffia ruaona *rtiy tour years ia naoaaaary to addraaa tfia
      probiarR oI haiardooa waati dhpoaal hip laaidng auUi aa that aornaganaratorsof this waata cannot corratvbv
      Uay 8,1962, than imay ieaua a caae-by-case asdnafon i«d» 288A.
      

      -------
      3-111
      Petroleum Refining Wastes
      Docket Number; CD2P-00017
      Commenter:	Regswrite
      Comment:
      PttraUta Rtttalag Wiftt - Sigfisi Iropgndainti
      BVl aekncwladgaa that avallabia data iadlcataa that sufficient
      traatswat capacity aaiata to proparly aaaaga tha bhIj listad
      POST and N3» patrolau» rsfining waataa. tomtr, tha agaacy
      appaara to lgaora tha ccnarcial, off-alta traataaat aad disposal
      industry eapabilltlaa by dafarring to oa-sita traataaat capacity
      at patrolaua rofiaariaa. Tha cosawrcial traataaat and diapoaal
      industry la capable of proparly Managing thaaa aawly listad
      waataa aad tha agancy Mat acknowledge this faet by allowing aad-
      encouraging coaaercial waata traataaat and diapoaal solutions.
      SPA compounds tha en-site capacity issue by allowing a
      "coaplexlty factor1* ta dietata tha deferred diapoaal daclalon.
      Tha "complexity factor" ooseetas tha gaaaratiaa of tha aawly
      liatad FC37 maA P03§ waataa ia surface iapoundaenta that do aot
      aatiafy ad&iam technology reeoireaests {XII}. Ilhilo asa-KTX
      aurfaoa ponds aad iapottadMata ara potentially- tha aost
      aavlro&aeatally datriaeatal aad laaat eawiro&ae&tally protactiva
      traataaat aad diapoaal units, CPA appears coataat to allow these
      units ta continue to generate aad atara thaaa &e« "hasardous
      waataa for two or, Mr* likaly, four yaara. Thaaa uaita- should
      be ratrofitad to aaat Ml, at tha wary laaat, or oloaed, at tha
      wary boat. Tha eonereial traataaat aad disposal industry has
      tha eapabllltlaa aad tha capacity to aaaage thaaa waataa ia mora
      appropriate, aore protaotiva faoilitiaa.
      

      -------
      3- 112
      Petroleum Refining Wastes
      3.11 Full Four Years Is Needed To Meet Minimum Technology Requirements
      Summary:
      Six commenters (BP (64), CMA (L2!), Envirosafe (7), Mobil (100), Shell (77), and
      Unocal (44)) support the Agency's intention to propose (in an associated rulemaking)
      that in the case of wastes subject to a national capacity variance, such wastes (and no
      other wastes subject to an earlier prohibition) can continue to be managed in
      impoundments that still have four years to retro6t or close. This time is needed to
      design permit, construct and place tanks in operation. CMA believes that the decision is
      substantiated because of the lack of treatment capacity for wastes currently being
      managed in unretrofitted surface impoundments. Four commenters (BP (64), CMA
      (L21), Mobil (100), and Shell (77)) remarked that the decision is consistent with
      provisions allowed by the Agency under MTR (RCRA §3005(j)), which allows four years
      for surface impoundments to close or be retrofitted from the time a waste is listed.
      Response:
      EPA agrees with these commenters and is promulgating that in the case of wastes
      subject to a national capacity variance, that impoundments managing such wastes (and no
      other wastes subject to an earlier prohibition) have four years from the date of the
      identification or listing (i.e., the date identifying or listing of wastes is promulgated, not
      the effective date of the rule).
      Comments:
      The comments stating that a use of non-MTR surface impoundments is justified
      are presented in the following order:
      BP Oil (64);
      CMA (L21);
      •	Envirosafe (7);
      Mobil (100);
      •	Shell Oil Co. (77); and
      » Unocal (44).
      

      -------
      3-113
      Petroleum Refining Wastes
      Docket Number CD2P-00064
      Commenter: BP Oil
      Comment:
      Aa deacrfbed above. BP OQ'i tapoenrfmem repUcemeat profma is wefl underway. Even thoujti
      coopBiape efibcti wn bepn expeditiaaijr, ttae |a& hai set beea (sfSdeot ttsae » taip. petmit.
      coanroctandplacetiiettnlatoopenbanby May. 1992. Tin foil foer year*, tab allowed by EPA'i
      MMnan Tednotofy Reqabxment (MTK) provWow, ta needed.
      IT* tank eooitniedeapregr^haw been coaptattfta»taffTOje« IT* primary iludte surfice
      Imposndnena in put of Q* mflmif wnmw treatment ayattau tad ftoenJly h*re been
      telfaetf » hiodSe ftnavsKr low snd 8p«s rd la {»ma( mfH n a* AP! sepnion >M other
      wuuwidf ntumeat cite. Existing frirtty-fVwr mwri km Had to ba modified and decistona
      mad« ngirdiag coostractloa of Ingroud or abovtfmmd tanta. Tten an advantagca ud
      fn mmeft tvr* ihwutiiw; ihfuiia^ wmmmwmmi#hm	hyft ||Wff |1 Wflfl
      Mifci enwpii^ tft	flft« tti ftiy^mid	AS W CXSSpis of t2w tetSU wMcft hid 10 bO -
      iddaid« eloctrtcil faflm in the om of I wool M opi ftftwcy win poitfbfiliy became of
      tfM mpifid loculow of tho tmkM wftftte the nflmi) pwpxiy lodtbi teideqmcy of the existing
      pow nppty m tibM locttfcML TlHi poww is dw pHBpi codd bo ot off wiMBi li would be 1MB
      citlci2y undid is i socb west to potop dv wwstt Into is dbotogRNsod mfc» Coostiuctiod of sn
      iHxBioQF pow^r joppiy iddid xb£ESoeme of do0®B to fbi pcG^sct. AbMSHdwi hid lo be detctroincd sid
      la iddlto, dm hm beeo	cotspiiMtce	bsve bid id be rrfKff rc jutiinj the
      YC ttd Btfruim Wm KESHAP ralet* Ortttoffl| pMoci oft tti qjpUcibfllty of fttol New
      Som PuiMiiiwiffi SnM tot fnttai finny Wmiwunf Syixcm (40CPR60.690I lus iiso
      diliycd dictrtonniiMn^ M ooe liiloeyy M>d Im flutbef cooftttod (hi imii TtecfoiCi ws
      loppofl* Bf
      -------
      3-114
      Petroleum Refining Wastes
      Docket Number: CD2P-L0021
      Commenter: CMA
      Comment:
      CMA supports EPA'a proposal providing a four-year retrofit or
      cloeure period for impoundments receiving exclusively
      newly-identified and listed was tea.
      CHA strongly supports EPA's proposal to allow the statutory
      four-year retrofit or closura period for iapoundaents receiving
      exclusively newly-identified and listed wastes, froa the data of
      promulgation of the rule listing or identifying the wastes. See also
      5? FK 4170, February 4, 1992. Although CPA has scheduled the surface
      iapoundaent retrofit rule for final action in June 1992 (56 FS
      54012-54098), aailiar promulgation could clarify CPA's position on
      retrofitting impoundments and benefit the regulated cownmity.
      1- CPA should grant a national capacity variance for F037
      and F038 wastes generated in a surface iapoandaent and
      clarify the availability of alternative treatment
      capacity for other F037 and F038 wastes.
      CHA agrees with EPA's proposal to grant a national capacity
      variance for F037 and F038 petroleua refining wastes that are generated
      in surface iapoundaents, since there is no treatment capacity for these
      wastes. EPA is also to be commended for recognising that it is not
      reasonable to require that wastes/sludges generated in a surface
      impoundaent be removed for treataent whan treatment capacity is not
      available. If treataent capacity does not exist, annual sludge removal
      only exacerbates the shortfall in treataent capacity. A national
      capacity variance for such sludge la a reasonable course of action.
      However, the Agency's discussion of available treatment capacity
      for other F037 and F038 nonwastewaters and wastewaters is confusing,
      particularly as it- relates to the uaa'of newly-regulated"unretrefitted
      surface impoundments. The preamble does not explain how EPA decided
      that treataent capacity for these wastes exists or whether the interim
      use of unretrofittad iapoundaents has been included in CPA's capacity
      estimates. Regardless, CHA believea that EPA ahould allow the
      aanageaent of newly-reatrictad wastewaters in non-HIX impoundments for
      wastewaters during the statutory four-year retrofit period. During
      this transition period the Agency should not require pretreataent of
      newly-regulated wastewaters before placement in non-HTR iapoundaents,
      nor require annual sludge reaoval from those iapoundaents.
      

      -------
      3-115
      Petroleum Refining Wastes
      Docket Number CD2P-OOOQ7
      Conuaenter:	Envtrosafe
      Comment:
      Zrtviroaafa concurs with tha *fancy»« prcpoaal to frant a
      National Capacity Variance to F037 and P031 wait* ?anaratad in
      suxfac* iapoundsanta. Tha action will provide tiaa for
      traataant faeilitias to add tha naadad capacity.
      J
      * DRAFT June 24, 1992 ***
      

      -------
      3 - ll<
      Petroleum Refining Wastes
      Docket Number CD2P-00100
      Commenier:	Mobil
      Comment:
      th* far*golng is not to suggwe that a national capacity variant* for theaa
      uucm is sitter onomuy or uwuzsnead but that tt» m«d foe audh a
      varfanoa ¦hnilfl ba difftewiUy baaad. As rtlarnaaarl abova, aurfaaa iapexwdsmtea
      ubiA "stars? peiaaxy/aaoardaxy aludja an autojaet to tfca' four yaar tsctofit
      raqoiraBjant of tha Act- BOtA f 300S(j)(«). As Bft oocractly a—in,
      i ¦ «ii|ii 4vitli. this n^fE2i£MBci& will j»t»— i i*f < — wurfus* izqpexzxiBwtts
      GXCNMt or to®	CO KiftiSHB	CV^p2aSjCVBHRli3B by Che and of
      tha ratrofit	fac tboas who to ratrofit, t&s aludgaa sust ba
      movad and ara than autojaet to land diapoaal raatrictiona* Ill via* of tM
      iii»»>n
      -------
      3-117
      Petroleum Refining Wastes
      Docket Number CD2P-00077
      Commentcr:	Shell Oil Co.
      Comment:
      Mm atrongly ropport thm Aganey'a ppoul to mtabiiah a two nir
      capacity varianca for tha aurfaca iapoundaanta t&at do not aaat «ba
      alnlaum tachaology raqoiraaants _.(«*). of, paction 3005(j). wa also
      org* tli* Manor' t» ewtfim • tha application as tit* Sew yaar
      ratrofit or cloa* allovanca for tba affactad iapouadaaata and tliat
      a Hovambar 1994 is tha logical, tarminatioo of tha a yaar capacity
      varianca foe tha non-M* iapoondnaata with axtasaiooa poaaibla on
      a caaa-by-caaa basis. x aix-aoatb dalay la tlsa affactiva data fojr
      tha land diapoaal raatrictiona would afford a aora ozdarly and laaa
      coatly propagation of thesa. iapoondnants that hava aceuaulatad
      aluOyas that weald bp sobjagt gh» &DKa aftar tha affactiva data.
      ~** DRAFT June 24, 1992
      

      -------
      3-118
      Petroleum Refining Wastes
      _ Docket Number: CD2P-00044
      Commenten	Unocal
      ¦ Comment:
      Raquirad capacity for Patrolaua Rafining Waataa (F037 and F03S)
      PnflCEl
      'a ¦xparianca with tha raalacaaant of murfxem i«mOUndw»nf«
      with tanka prolacta an avaraca of about tva and m half vara. Thi»
      tmifltiiM aubatantiataa EPA'i daclalon for a two vmmr
      eicaeitv v»finne« toy aludam atorad in murtacm iwomin€mmnr*.
      At tha tlaa of API's priaary alodga survay, Ofcocal ownad and
      oparatad thraa rafinariaa? ona rafinary has btu acquixad ainca
      tha aurvay was conductad. Ml thraa of Unocal's rafinariaa ae that
      tiaa participatad ia tho APX aurvay. Xn addition to participation
      ia tha AFX priaary sludgo survay, Unocal participatad in an API
      aaating witli Ztft on Friday, Dacambar 13, 1992, and rapartad dataila ;
      of its axisting projact* to raplaco non-KI* aurfaea iapoundaanta
      with tanfca for two of tba rafinariaa. Tha charts providad to EPA
      by A#X following that praaantation ara includad ia Appandisc &•
      Tha charts in Appandix S and tha praaantation to EFJk dascribad tha
      intardapandant natnro of Unocal's rafinary systaa. with - tha
      addition of a fourth rafinary, this intardapandanca is avan oora
      accantuatad. Sfio dataila of ths timing to rap!aca two primary
      aludgs starfaca iapoundaanta vith taaJcs at ono rafinary vara givan.
      This rafinary axaaplifiad a caaa ia w!lich ths tiaa lina , vas
      pradcainatad hy nuaaroua aganey approvals and paraita. a tias span
      of two yaara and aavan months vms projactad vith closura of ths
      iapoundaanta aefaadulad for Kay, 1999. Tha seopo of a projact at a
      aacond rafinary was givan vith an astiaatad tiao spaa of 2?
      with a astiaatad coaplation data of Juno 1992. rinally, tha
      achadola ot a projact coaplatad ia 19»» at a third, rafinary had a
      tiao spaa ot two yaars and fivo aontha. Th* seopo of tha 19S»
      projact lneladad raplacaaant of two surfaeo iapoundaanta vith a
      coabinad capacity of 10 Billion gallons vith thraa abovaground
      floating roof tanks vith a coabinad atoraga capacity of 20 aillioa
      gallons. Also a systaa e£ aaltiplo poapa to haadla a paak flow
      rata of 110,000 gp« vaa includad ia tha projact. Osaso projacts
      claarly aubatantiata EPA* a daciaioo to giva a national capacity
      varianea to priaasy aludga storad ia non-*nt aurfaea iapoundaanta.
      " DRAFT June 24, 1992 ***
      

      -------
      3-119
      Petroleum Refining Wastes
      APFZHDIX. B
      CHOCAL WXATETATE* TRSXTEKT SYSTEM
      TJUIK COHVZKflZOlt 9ROJZCT8
      COATS
      

      -------
      CALIFORNIA REFINERY SYSTEM
      ALASKAN
      CRUDE '
      GREEN COKE
      CALCINED
      COKE
      (ANODE GRADE)
      GAS OIL
      NAPHTHA
      FUEL COKE
      CALIFORNIA
      ~ CRUDE"*
      CALCINED
      COKE
      (NON-FUEL USE)
      OAS OIL
      FUEL GAS
      L#"G
      SOLVENTS
      GASOLINES
      FUEL OILS
      SULFUR
      GAS OIL
      FOREIGN CRUDE
      COKE CALCINER
      COKE CALCINER
      REFINERY A
      CRUDE / WCUUM DISTILLATION
      DELATED COKING
      REFINERY C
      CRUDE I VACUUM DISTILLATION
      VIS8REAKINQ
      HYDROCRACKING
      FLUID CATALYTIC CRACKING
      ALKYLADON
      HYDROT BEATING
      REFORMING
      CRUDE IVWCUUM DISTILLATION
      DELAYED COKING
      HYDROCRACKING
      HYDROTREATING
      REFORMING
      LUBE OIL PRODUCTION
      w
      C
      l	i
      

      -------
      RCRA INTERIM STATUS
      PRIMARY SLUDGE SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
      O REFINERY A
      -	WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SAFETY BASIN
      -	COKE COOLING AND CUTTING WATER POND
      o REFINERY C
      -	STORMWATER SAFETY BASIN*
      o REFINERY B
      -	STORMWATER SAFETY BASIN*
      •ALSO PERMITTED FOR TC WASTEWATER
      

      -------
      3-122
      Petroleum Refiaiag Wute*
      COKE COOLING AND CUTTING
      WATER SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT
      REFINERY A
      MAKE UP
      WATER
      SOURCE
      COKING
      UNIT A i | UNITS
      I COKING!
      h toNTHOlj
      V-J HOUSE I
      cok| DRUMS
      [trans, conveyor
      OVERFLOW
      COKE COOLING I
      CUTTING WATER PONO
      SAFETY
      BASIN
      

      -------
      3-123
      Petroleum Refining Wastes
      WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
      SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT
      REFINERY A
      DIVERSION BOX
      PROCESS
      WATER
      Aggmssivo
      Biological
      API
      T.F.
      SAFETY
      BASIN
      ORBAt.
      EFFLUENT
      TREATING
      AREA
      TO OCEAN
      MOtiOCtl
      vi
      

      -------
      COMPONENTS PF NEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
      REFINERY A
      o NEW DIVERSION BOX (COVERED)
      o NEW API SEPARATOR (COVERED)
      o TWO SAFETY SURGE TANKS WITH FLOATING ROOFS:
      EFFLUENT AIR COOLER IS REQUIRED TO COMPENSATE
      FOR LOSS OF SURFACE AREA AND ASSOCIATED
      EVAPORATIVE COOLING
      o TEMPORARY LINES FROM NEW API SEPARATOR TO
      EXISTING SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT
      O COKE HOT TANK, AIR COOLER AND COKE COOL TANK
      o ASSOCIATED PUMPS, UTILITIES, SEWERS, STEAM, WATER, AIR
      

      -------
      CONSTRUCTION LOGISTICS
      REFINERY A
      CONSTRUCT NEW DIVERSION BOX
      CONSTRUCT NEW API SEPARATOR WITH TEMPORARY
      LINES TO SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT
      DEMOLISH EXISTING API SEPARATOR
      CONSTRUCT TWO COKE SETTLING TANKS
      CONSTRUCT ONE SAFETY SURGE TANK
      CONSTRUCT PERMANENT LINES FROM NEW API
      SEPARATOR TO NEW SURGE TANK
      CLOSE SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
      CONSTRUCT SECOND SAFETY SURGE TANK
      

      -------
      PERMITS
      WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM CONVERSION TO TANKS
      REFINERY A
      AGENCY
      OATE FIRST
      CONTACTED
      EST AGENCY PERMIT/
      ACTION	REGULATION
      CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
      TOXJC SUBSTANCES CONTROL
      (OTSC}/EPA REGION IX
      CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER
      QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
      (RWQCB)
      COUNTY AIR
      POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
      (CO APCD)
      COUNTY
      DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
      AND BUILDING (CO DPBJ
      COUNTY
      DEPARTMENT OF PUNNING
      AND Ullll liiNG (CO DPU)
      DECEMBER 12,1890
      OECEMBER 12.1990
      NOVEMBER 20.1890
      DECEMBER 4.18S0
      MID 1992
      ON COMPLETION OF
      ENGINEERING ORAWINGS
      EARLY 1992	MID 1992
      RCRA INTERIM
      STATUS
      MID 1992 NPDES / TPCA
      EARLY 1802 AUTHORITY TO
      CONSTRUCT
      EARLY 1092 LAND USE / CEQA
      BUILDING
      

      -------
      PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
      WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM CONVERSION TO TANKS
      REFINERY A
      PERMIT
      AGENCY
      REQUIREMENTS
      APPROVAL
      APPROVAL
      LAND USE
      CEQA
      BUILDING
      PTSCI EPA IX
      RWCQB
      AUTHORITY	COUNTY
      TO CONSTRUCT APCO
      CODEPT
      OF PLANNING
      ANOBLOQ
      CODEPT
      OF PLANNING
      AND BLDG
      CLOSURE PLAN
      CLOSURE PLAN
      HYDROGEOLOGIC ASSESSMENT REPORT (MAR)
      APPLICATION FOR AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT
      PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAMS
      PIPING AND INSTRUMENT DIAGRAMS
      PRE AND POST PROJECT EQUIPMENT LISTS
      PRE AND POST PROJECT EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS
      PROJECT DESCRIPTION
      PLOT PLAN
      HEIGHTS OF STRUCTURES
      GRADING, EXISTING AND PROPOSED
      CEQA REVIEW: NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR EIR REQ D
      COMPLETE ENGINEERING DRAWINGS
      FOR CONSTRUCTION
      

      -------
      TIMELINE FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM CONVERSION TO TANKS
      NOV
      90
      PROMULGATION, PRJMARY
      SLUDGE LISTING
      AGENCIES CONTACTEO
      BUIE EFFECTIVE DATE
      UNO USE PERMIT
      CLOSURE PLAN SUBMITTED
      HAD SUBMITTED
      RWOCB APPROVAL
      DTSC APPROVAL
      DETAILED ENGINEERING
      APCO AIR PERMIT
      BUILDING PERMIT
      CONSTRUCTION
      CLOSURE BEGINS
      ALL SLUDGE REMOVED
      A
      A
      JAN
      JULY
      JAN
      JULY
      JAN
      1991
      1892
      JULY
      J	
      1993
      NOV 1990
      DEC 1890
      REFINERY A
      TIME SPAN: 2 YRS ? MOS
      A MAY 1991
      UAMAR 1992
      AJUL 1991j
      A SEPT 1991
      C
      3 AJUN 1992
      PA MAR 1992
      A AUG 1992
      3 A MAY 1992
      I I A JUL 1992
      3 A MAY 1993
      AJUN 1993
      OCT 1993 A
      
      t
      

      -------
      WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM CONVERSION TO TANKS
      REFINERY C
      •	REPLACE 22 MILLION GALLON WASTEWATER SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
      •	CONSTRUCT 1WO 12 MILLION GALLON FLOATING ROOF STORAGE TANKS
      •	HIGH VOLUME PUMPS PIPING AND CONTROLS CAPABLE OF
      DELIVERING 65.000 GPM TO THE TANKS
      •	DESIGNED TO MEET SCAQMD RULE 1176 WHICH LIMITS VOC EMISSIONS
      FROM DRAIN SYSTEMS AND THE 1C RULE
      •	7 MONTH PROJECT DELAY FROM UNPLANNED CITY AND AGENCY
      REQUIREMENTS
      •	REVISION OF EXISTING AND ACTIVE DRAIN SYSTEMS
      •	REPLACEMENT OF OVERHEAD POWER UNES WITH UNDERGROUND LINES
      •	REPLACE REFINERY TRUCK SCALES, HAZARDOUS WASTE STORAGE AREA.
      AND OPERATOR CONTROL HOUSE WITH NEW FACILITIES
      •	EST TIME SPAN: 27 MONTHS; EST COST: $25 MILLION
      

      -------
      SCHEDULE FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM CONVERSION TO TANKS
      REFINERY C
      i ii asgm'
      c
      im:
      3m:
      FEASIBILITY STUDY AND
      COST ESTIMATE
      PROJECT FUNDING
      PROCESS DESIGN
      MECHANICAL DESIGN
      PERMITTING
      PROCUREMENT
      CONSTRUCTION
      COMMISSIONING
      J FMAMJ J ASONDJ FMAMJJASONDJ FMAMJ
      
      a
      x>
      
      TIME SPAN: 2 YRS 3 MOS
      X>
      x>
      v
      <£
      X>
      x>
      !
      

      -------
      WASTEWATER TREATMENT EXPANSION AND STORM BASIN REPLACEMENT
      DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
      REFINERY B
      ~sue
      3
      3C
      1888
      31 1969 I
      CONTRACTOR SELECTION
      PROCESS DESIGN
      MECHANICAL DESIGN
      N D J F M AM JJASONDJ FMAMJ JASONDJ FMAM
      MM
      Q~Q
      PERMITS
      EQUIP PROCUREMENT
      FIELD CONSTRUCTION
      EQUIP COMMISSIONING
      
      <1
      t
      
      
      i I i i t ) t
      Mm
      TIME SPAN: 2 YRS 5 MOS
      x>
      2>
      I :
      i !
      
      

      -------
      RERilING AND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
      IMPACTS OF PREMATURE CLOSURE OF
      PRIMARY SLUDGE SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
      O SHUTDOWN OF TWO REFINERIES
      o LOSS OF FEEDSTOCK TO REFINERIES
      o LOSS OF PARTIAL GASOLINE PRODUCING CAPACITY
      o LOSS OF ABILITY TO SHIP SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
      HEAVY CRUDE TO REFINERY
      o LOSS OF ABILITY TO SUPPLY SULFUR AND COKE
      TO CUSTOMERS
      o SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS TO ENTIRE CORPORATION
      ) ! »
      

      -------
      3-133	Petroleum Refining Wastes
      3.12 Two-year National Capacity Variance Should Be Granted to All F037 and F038
      Wastes
      Summary:
      Seven commenters (API (87), BP (64), Conoco (92), Landmark Petroleum (L18),
      Mobil(lOO), NPRA (22), and Shell (77)) stated that a two-year national capacity variance
      should be granted to all F037 and F038 wastes. Several commenters believe that the
      Agency underestimated the amount of F037 and F038 that will be generated in the next
      two yean (according to the survey conducted by API). Other commenters mentioned the
      uncertainty concerning the demand for and availability of treatment capacity. Several
      commenters expressed the need for EPA to clarify its interpretation for the proposed
      variance. The proposed regulatory language is section 268.36(b) sap that 'F037 and
      F038 that are generated in surface impoundments are prohibited from land disposal.' In
      the preamble, EPA states that 'the Agency is proposing to grant national capacity
      variances only for storage and treatment of petroleum refining wastes in surface
      impoundments.' The proposed regulatory language can be interpreted to mean that the
      variance is for primary sludge while it is being generated in surface impoundments as
      well as primary sludge when it is removed from surface impoundments and disposed. In
      the preamble language, however, the Agency indicated its intent to grant a national
      capacity variance for primary sludge only while it is being generated in a non-MTR
      impoundment.
      Response:
      For the proposed rule, EPA's intent was to propose a variance for only the
      storage and treatment of petroleum refining wastes in surface impoundments; EPA was
      not proposing to grant a variance for the wastes removed from surface impoundments.
      EPA was proposing that wastes removed from surface impoundments be treated to the
      LDR standards prior to land disposal.
      EPA disagrees with commenters that a two-year national capacity variance should
      be granted to all F037 and F038 wastes. EPA has determined that F037 and F038 wastes
      generated in oil/water/solids separators (e.g., CP I separators, LAF unit) and tanks, known
      in EPA's analysis as routinely generated F037 and F038 wastes, are similar to K048 and
      K051 wastes (which are generated in sipular types of oil/water/solids separators) and
      therefore can be treated similarly. EPA's capacity analysis on routinely generated F037
      and F038 wastes indicate that 69,000 dewatered tons of these routinely generated wastes
      will be generated annually. Of this quantity, 41,000 tons per year of high-BTU wastes
      will likely be managed at cement kilns with containerized solid feed systems and 28,000
      tons per year of low-BTU wastes will likely be managed at incinerators with bulk solids
      feed systems. The Agency has identified potentially sufficient containerized solids
      capacity at cement kilns to manage the 41,000 tons per year of high-BTU wastes.
      However, EPA believes that some of this capacity is unlikely to be available in August
      !
      

      -------
      3- 134
      Petroleum Refining Wastes
      1992 because some cement kilns may not meet the BIF compliance certification deadline
      (see Chapter 2). EPA's analysis, however, indicates that existing capacity at bulk solids
      incineration systems is insufficient to treat the 28,000 tons per year of low-BTU wastes.
      Therefore, EPA is granting a one-year capacity variance for routinely generated F037
      and F038 wastes. The Agency believes that this one-year variance will provide sufficient
      time for cement kilns treating high BTU wastes to comply with the BEF rule and for bulk
      solids incineration and other treatment technologies to come online to treat low-BTU
      routinely generated F037 and F038 wastes.
      F037 and F038 wastes are also removed from surface impoundments during
      cleanouts and closures. For the proposed rule, the Agency received data that refineries
      are in the process of retrofitting or closing their surface impoundments that accumulate
      F037 and F038 wastes, and assumed that refineries have the incentive to cleanout F037
      and F038 wastes from surface impoundments before the LDR prohibition date for these
      wastes. However, new data collected for the final rulemaking and comments submitted
      in response to the proposed rule indicate that a significant quantity of F037 and F038
      wastes will be removed from surface impoundments within the next 24 months (i.e., after
      the effective date). (EPA estimated that 163,000 tons of dewatered F037 and F038
      surface impoundment sludges will be generated between June 1992 and June 1993, and
      148,000 tons of these dewatered sludges wil] be generated between June 1993 and June
      1994.) Also, because surface impoundment wastes are generated sporadically in large
      quantities, cement kiln and incineration capacity may not be readily available to treat
      these wastes. Therefore, EPA is granting a two-year national capacity variance only for
      F037 and F038 wastes from surface impoundments, allowing refineries time to find
      suitable treatment and disposal capacity for these wastes.
      Comments:
      The comments stating that a two-year national capacity variance should be
      granted to all F037 and F038 wastes are presented in the following order:
      •	American Petroleum Institute (87);
      BP Oil (64);
      •	Conoco (92);
      Mobil (100);
      •	Landmark Petroleum (L18);
      •	National Petroleum Refiners Association (22); and
      Shell Oil Co. (77).
      

      -------
      3 " 135	Petroleum Refining Wastes
      • Docket Number CD2P-00087
      Commenten American Petroleum Institute
      Comment:
      CTA ahould either postpone the premutation of the LORs far
      F037/F038 nittf, or should extend the	capacity wri.^
      ta a11 r037/r039 wastes.
      AVI b*liev*» thst. EVA's proposed application of th» LDR* for
      r037/r03« wastes is unworkable. As shown in thase comments,
      substantially more F037/FQ3I wastes will require treatment in the
      next. two year* than EVA has estimated. Capacity to treat all of'
      this wast* is simply not available at any cost. In addition, the
      required annual. reswvai of r037/r03r wastes froa in-service
      surface impoundments say not be technically or regulatorily
      feasible, and in any event, is inconsistent with the planned
      replacement and closure activities that are currently underway in
      order to meet the March 1994 deadline for eliminating the use of
      TC impoundments that don't meet MTRs.. •
      API requests that EVA postpone the adoption of the rule so that
      the problems described above can be resolved. The Consent
      Agreement with EOF allows such a postponement for some wastes,
      and AVI believes that the potential management erisis for
      F037/FQ3I wastes described in this rule justifies this approach.
      If the rule is postponed, the problems with permitting cement
      kilns should be resolved, thus providing resource recovery that
      is not currently available. It will also allow refineries to
      proceed with the planned replacement/closure of surface
      impoundments using their currently implemented schedules and
      budgets.
      4
      

      -------
      3 -134	Petroleum Refining Wastes
      Docket Number: CD2P-00087
      Commenter:	American Petroleum Institute
      Comment (continued):
      If the adoption of the ml# is not postponed, then EFX should
      provide a 2-year capacity variance foe all FQ37/FQ38 wastes, this
      variance is necessary, since as shewn in API's treatment capacity
      analysis# enough treatment capacity is simply not available to
      manage the waste that will be generated in the 1992-1994 period.
      

      -------
      3-137
      Petroleum Refining Wastes
      Docket Number: CD2P-00064
      Comraemer:	BP Oi!
      Comment:
      0 EPA rtonld caend the nw-vear national opacity viriaiicg to HI F037/TOg w»w
      As discussed. there tm serious problem mi associated with these proposed rales including the
      proposed annual sludge deaaautteqabement. In addiboa AP! is rabmimnf ed fcrtapotaL Aaotter alternative would be to delay proaelgatiaa of the rale, which Is
      afewabb andsriennsof iheEDF lawsuit agreement.
      4
      

      -------
      3-138
      Petroleum Refining Wastes
      Docket Number CD2P-OOG92
      Commenter:	Conoco
      Comment;
      •PPA AooM extend the g.vcaf **> »«*«»«¦ to *0 PBW/PfWg wmMs.
      EPA fcfraatij^ a tw^yearaatioiiai capacity wrfanoefcrpcsnaiysiBdip only if generated
      m surface teoonadBMDts. "It* variance p«riod may be «ntraded op to two yean on a
      case-bf«8*e basis. Du&g the variance period the stodfes mo* be removed annually.
      Then is ao vtrfaaee tot the removed tbidgm ud the siadfa out be treated to meet
      BOAT, lit eaon All results in no capaei^ variance at aS dan aB primary fudges
      generated sad removed during the variance period an subject to BOAT. It is st effect a
      variance on Koeratioa. not land	of the nuts,
      W " 			' <1	¦¦¦
      Thk h gonfrtfy w tHa mtrftt nf t?iM vuitnem which k to mwwim tn mJlnm Unit /Hwpntmf
      due to lade of BOAT capacity.
      EPA should provide a 2-year capacity variance (to tadnde land treatment) fix aO F237 aad
      F038 wastes. This variance a accessary-smce as sho&B ia APTs treatment capacity
      amlym, enough treatment capedtyls aofivailahie to mantes the vasts ***»» will be
      generated ia the 1992-1994 period. Otherwise as earrentfr propound. oaly eaatamtnatfd
      soils ia the impoundment reafy have a capacity variaaoe and the oafr benefit of the
      vwnMoeM Is **»•* th#	do not bicvo 19 b® dhsuHdoisdl auBidtit^.
      

      -------
      3-13*
      Petroleum Refining Wastes
      Docket Number: CD2P-L0018
      Commenter:	Landmark Petroleum Inc.
      Comment:
      As a snail, independent refinery, Landmark Petroleum is gravely
      concerned about the serious, adverse economic impact the above-
      referenced Proposed Rulemaking could have on both this operation and
      other small refining operations throughout the United States. The
      Rulemaking, as it now stands, will, in all likelihood, overwhelm the
      already overtaxed treatment capacity available to handle the current
      landban wastes. This would lead to disruption of the waste treatment
      infrastructure currently handling these wastes and would undoubtedly
      result in severe economic difficulties for all segments of industry
      currently relying on the availability of this treatment capacity.
      A 1991 survey by the American Petroleum Institute and the National
      Petroleum Refiners Association has ascertained that the volume of wastes
      to be dealt with by member companies alone is in excess of two and one-
      half times as much as the EPA's estimates used in formulating the
      proposed Rulemaking. As such, we believe it prudent for EPA to
      reexamine its proposed Rulemaking with this likely treatment capacity
      shortfall in mind. In particular, landmark urges the EPA to provide, in
      a revision to its proposed Rulemaking, a two year capacity variance for
      all F037 and F038 wastes. This will allow for an orderly expansion ot
      waste treatment capacity to handle the increased needs of industry with
      a minimum of economic disruption.
      

      -------
      3 *	, Petroleum Refining Wastes
      Docket Number: CD2P-00100
      Conmenter:	Mobil
      Comment:
      Ihi tarwrjalng is not to suggest that a natienel capacity variance for these
      wastes is either aweoassary or unwarranted but that the need for such a
      variance should ba differently based. As discussed above, surfaoa impoundments
      %toieh "star** primary/secondary sluSge are subject to the four year retrofit
      requirement of the Act. RCRA S 300S(j) (6). As Oft cccrectly assuaes,
      oa^d.ianoe with this requixenerst will require that such surf*ae ispounetaertes
      either close or be retrofitted to	technology requixvntnts by the end of
      the retrofit period. Far those who elect to retrofit, the sludges must be
      naovwd and are then subject to land disposal restrictions. In view of the
      uncertainty as to when and how such of these sludps would be so affected, as
      wall as uraertain treatment capacity for such wastes, the Agency should grant a
      national rapacity varianoe for these wastes.
      

      -------
      3-141
      Petroleum Refining Wastes
      Docket Number: CD2P-00022
      Commenter: National Petroleum Refiners Association (NPRA)
      Comment:
      NPRA urges that EPA provide t two year capedry variance for ill HJ3? and P03I
      wastes, not only tin RJ37 sad RJ3I wastes from foftao iBpouadaeaa as is proposed by
      EPA. Reqooinf refineries to hnmedlately trtst wastes covered under the proposal would
      crests sigmfiaus disrapdoa a{their openaoas because ttffiaem mihiihii csptc&y does not
      cmeady "if.
      	 la Mammy, NPRA urges EPA to provide a two year Btdoui capacity variance to til
      F037 and FQ3S wastes. This delay in daring will provide EPA the oppocuaiiiy to evaluate the'
      effects that hnpfemenring the flrnirne NESHAP rale aad rrincating the mkong and derived
      rale have on the totaafeoea of tfaess wastes, ft will aiao provide the oecessaxy time for the
      privu# sector to develop	treatment capacity.
      

      -------
      3-142
      Petroleum Refining Wastes
      Docket Number. CD2P-OOQ77
      Comraenten	SheU Oil Co.
      Comment:
      eaoaeltv Varianca fog Patrola\a Baflnarv TQ37 «nd FQ3« Va*t*n
      Tha attacfeaaat prasanta Shall*a axparianca vitli ccaant kiln usa
      -------
      3-143
      Petroleum Refining Wastes
      3,13 EPA Should Delay Effective Date of LDR Rule
      Summary:
      Four commenters (API (87), Amoco (89), BP (64), and NPRA (22)) suggested
      that the Agency delay the promulgation of the LDR rule, as allowed by the
      Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). Furthermore, these commenters pointed out that
      the benzene NESHAP rule may have a significant effect on the characteristics of F037
      and F038 wastes (e.g., removal of benzene from wastewaters may result in less organic
      contaminants in F037 and F038 sludges) and therefore on their treatment and disposal.
      These commenters believe it would be prudent for the Agency to see the results of the
      benzene NESHAP rule before requiring actions that may be unnecessary, disruptive, and
      costly,
      Amoco (89) urges the Agency to postpone the effective date of the LDR final rule
      to September 1, 1992 due to heavy spring precipitation. The heavy rainfall during the
      spring, reasoned Amoco, prevents an efficient surface impoundment closure. For
      instance, Amoco expects the cost for closing its surface impoundments in the spring to be
      seven times that of closing during the summer for its Texas City Refinery.
      Response:
      EPA is not exercising the flexibility provided by the EDF consent decree. EPA
      already has exceeded the statutorily mandated date for promulgating prohibitions for
      these wastes. The Agency has stayed the benzene waste NESHAP requirements and,
      therefore, does not see a need to change this rule to mitigate the effects of benzene
      waste NESHAP.
      Comments:
      The comments stating that EPA should delay the effective date of the LDR rule
      are presented in the following order:
      •	Amoco (89);
      •	American Petroleum Institute (87);
      BP Oil (64); and
      •	National Petroleum Refiners Association (22),
      

      -------
      3-144
      Petroleum Refining Wastes
      Docket Number: CD2P-00G87
      Commenter; American Petroleum Institute
      Comment:
      CTA should althar ooitcon* tha grenulgatlon of th» inn* far
      r037/r038 waitas. or should axtand tha t»9-v»ir capacity
      ta all F037/F038 waata*»
      AS I baliaraa- that EPA'a proposed. application of tha LDRs for
      r037/r038 witu is unworkable. As shown Ln thai* consents,
      substantially mar* rQ3?/F03l wastes will requirs treatment ih tsa
      nexfc two years thsa Ef A has estimate*. Capacity to tcaae all of
      tM* wasta is a Imply not. available at any core. Xs'addition, the
      required, annual. nasvtl of r037/r03f waatas fro* ia-aarvice
      surface iapoun&aents, stay not ba technically or refulatorily
      feasible# «ad la any avast, is inconsistent witu th* planned
      replacement and closure activities that are currently undarway in
      order to Mat tha Karch 1184 deadline foe eliminating the us* of
      TC impoundments that don't aaat KTRs.
      All requests that E9A postpone tha adoption of the rule ao that
      tha problems- described above can be resolved. Tha Cons ant
      Agreement witli ssr allows such a postponement for sobs waatas,
      and A9X believes that tha potantial management criais for
      r03?/r03» waatas daacribed in this rula juatlfias this approach.
      Zf tha rula is postponed, tha problems witu permitting cement
      kilns should ha resolved, thus providing reaourca recovery that
      is not eurrantly a^SS&lable. Zt will also allow rafinarias to
      proceed witb tha plannad replacement/closure of surf tea
      impoundments using their eurrantly implemented schedules and
      budgata.
      

      -------
      Petroleum Refining Wastes
      Docket Number: CD2P-00087
      Coramenter:	American Petroleum Institute
      Comment (continued):
      If the adoption o£ the rule is not postponed, then tSh should
      provide a 2-year capacity variance foe all F037/r038 wastes. This
      variance is necessary, since as shorn ia API's treataent capacity
      analysis, enough treataent capacity ia aiaply not available to
      manage the waste that will be generated in the 1992-1994 period.
      

      -------
      3-14*
      Petroleum Refining Wastes
      Docket Number CD2P-00Q89
      Commenter:	Amoco
      Comment:
      As a aaabar of tha-Aaarican Patrolau* Xnatituta (API), Aaoco
      partieipatad in davalopaant of API coaaants aubaittad on this
      propoaad zrula and andoraaa thoaa coaaairta. Concerning tha
      affactiva data of tha rula, Aboco r«p«ct fully raquaata that
      tha Ag«ncy poatpona adoption of tha rula ao that tha affactiva
      data ia Saptaabar 1, 1992. This axtanaion would taka into
      consideration ths abort-tan traataant capacity ahortaga that
      presently axiat* for low haatinf valus patrolaua refining
      wastes F037 and-F03t and ths dalays to iapoundaant claanout
      causa* by spring precipitation.
      Although Aaoeo baliavas a thr«a-»onth axtanaion is appropriate-,
      tha Agency should avaluata vhathar additional tias is required
      by* othar companies. This evaluation ahould include efforts
      sada by tha rmat of tha industry to aaat tha propoaad May 1992
      LOS affective data. Tha following is a dascription of Aaoco's
      afforts, which daaonatrata our coaaitaant to aaat tha Agancy's
      deadlines, and which justify a thraa-aonth axtanaion.
      Beginning ia 19«», Aaoco Oil Coapany (AOC) has aggrasaively
      pursuad tha clawing of storawatar iapoundaant* at its
      rafinarias. Thaa« iapoundaenta racaiva dry weather flow.' %?S
      tharafora, ganarata priaary sludga. All iapoureSaenta hava fc-»n
      claanad except for one, ss no. 1, at'Texas City. Tha T»» t»
      City Rafinery is Aaoco'p largest refinery* its storawatar
      iapoundaenta- cover 25 acres of surface araa. To data,
      approxiaataly 250,000 cubio yards of aludg* havs baan raaovad
      froa iapoendaents at ths Texas City Refinery. Above-normal
      amount* o£ rainfall prevented tha coaplation of an afficiant
      cleaning of S» Ko. 1 in 1991. Iapoundaenta ara aoat
      efficiently claanad during dry conditions. Rainfall at tha
      refinery aaaaurad 71 inches ia 1991, 24 inchaa abova normal,
      which rasultad ia storswatar ratantion ia ths impoundments
      throughout aost of ths year. In all, only 19,000 cubic yarda
      of sludga wars raaovad in tha attaaar of 1991 during a six-week
      pariod of dry conditions*
      

      -------
      3 -147	Petroleum Refining Wastes
      Docket Number: CD2P-00089
      Commenter: Amoco
      Comment (continued):
      father, to date,'iir 1992, continues to b« a problaa. ovar 16
      liters of riia have fallen since January l. Kevartfcalaaa, In
      order to rasove as such sludge as possible prior to tha
      proposal Kay LOSt effective data, MC has decided to dredge,
      around tte clock, at * cost: o« war aavaw tl»«« tha coat of
      raaoviisf tha sludge under dry conditions. Although dredging is
      anticipated to be complete by Hay 1992, residual sludge wmt, be
      reaoved undar dry conditions.
      Deferral- of th* effective dats of the Ui final rule' until
      saptaabsr I, I992r voeld allow MC to eosplats> ths cleaning of
      the atenmtur ispoundsent by avoiding dalays caused by tha
      present, shortage of cout kiln and incinerator capacity.
      

      -------
      3-14»
      Petroleum Refining Wastes
      Docket Number: CD2P-00064
      Commenter:	BP Ofl
      Comment:
      We orjB EPA to withdraw the proposed recrement that primary *ladge (a oon-MTR surface
      impoondmeatt be removed annually ~<» WT»	—faxi «w Mnm mraimifd m«
      

      -------
      3-149
      Petroleum Refining Wastes
      Docket Number: CD2P-00022
      Commenter: National Petroleum Refiners Association (NPRA)
      Comment:
      fapieaasadoe of d* Beams HESHAP tola Is IOsely.to hswa a
      efta oatbi chuiotriitka of da PQ37 and F03S wsnot «ad tbetr Bcaszna
      aadditpooL Becsa*of tfauaecmiadaiof ia impact k woold t* pnideat to
      ict rewla of tfao Bcagna NESHAP tmpkmcnarioa prior to reqgiring
      action] nay not be oeeestuy tad could be dimptfro ud cosdy.
      

      -------
      CHAPTER 4
      OTHER NEWLY LISTED WASTES
      EPA received five comment Setters in response to the Proposed Rule addressing
      capacity issues specific to other newly listed wastes from: Air Products and Chemicals
      (84), Ethyl Corporation (62), Great Likes Chemical Corporation (12). Hazardous Waste
      Treatment Council (51), and Union Carbide (111). Two commenters. Great Lakes
      Chemical Corporation (12) and Ethyl Corporation (62), discussed problems with
      incineration of brominated wastes. One commenter, Air Products and Chemicals (84),
      expressed concern over problems with incineration of potentially explosive wastes. Two
      commenters, Union Carbide (111) and Great Lakes Chemical Corporation (12),
      discussed issues concerning de minimis exemptions (40 CFR 261.3(a)(iv)(D)). Two
      commenters who generate streams that potentially carry waste codes K117, K1I8, K131,
      and K132 informed EPA that capacity for this stream is no longer a concern. In
      summary, commenters raised the following issues:
      •	Incineration Capacity May be Difficult to Find for Brominated K-Wastes;
      •	Alternative Treatment May be Difficult to Find for Currently Deepwell
      Injected Brominated K-Wastes;
      •	Problems With Incineration of Potentially Explosive K111 Wastes;
      •	EPA has Underestimated Potential Volumes from Non-De Minimis Spills;
      and
      •	Quantities of Other Newly Listed Waste Streams That Are Below LDR
      Treatment Standards
      4.1 Incineration Capacity May be Difficult to Find for Brominated K-Wastes
      Summary:
      Two commenters (Great Lakes Chemical Corporation (12), and Ethyl Corporation
      (62)) discussed problems with incineration of brominated K-wastes, Both commenters
      have encountered difficulties finding incinerators to accept brominated nonwastewaters
      because incineration of these nonwastewaters may form molecular bromine or hydrogen
      bromide. Some incinerators must limit the volume of brominated wastes fed to the
      incinerator to a few pounds per hour. Great Lakes currently sends 15 tons of K118
      nonwastewater per year and 15 tons of K132 nonwastewater per year to a commercial
      off-site incinerator. Ethyl Corporation generates 30 tons of K118 nonwastewater per
      year. This material was sent to a commercial incinerator, which experienced problems
      with the waste and refused to accept additional K.118 waste shipments from Ethyl
      Corporation. Ethyl Corporation has been unsuccessful in locating a commercial
      incinerator for K] 18 nonwastewater solids.
      

      -------
      4-2
      Other Newly Listed Wastes
      Response;
      Many incinerators and cement kilns reported to EPA that they Sre equipped to
      handle brominated wastes; however, highly brominated wastes might require blending
      with non-brominated wastes (see Chapter 2 of the Background Document for Capacity
      Analysis for Newly Listed Wastes and Contaminated Debris to Support 40 CFR 268
      Land Disposal Restrictions). Given the relatively small quantity of the waste stream, and
      the absence of specific facility information in Great Lakes Chemical Corporation's
      comment, the Agency maintains that a national capacity variance for these wastes is not
      warranted. If incineration is not appropriate for this waste stream, 40 CFR 268.44 allows
      the waste generator to pursue a variance from the treatment standard, and 40 CFR 268.5
      contains provisions for a case-by-case extension of the effective date of the standard.
      EPA assumes that the 30 tons per year of K118 nonwastewater generated by Ethyl
      Corporation (62) is currently land disposed and will require alternative treatment
      capacity. Therefore, EPA is adding this new quantity to its estimate of required
      combustion capacity.
      Comments:
      The comments discussing the difficulty in finding incineration capacity for
      brominated K-Wastes are presented in the following order:
      *	Great Lakes Chemical Corporation (12); and
      *	Ethyl Corporation (62).
      

      -------
      4 * 3	Other Newly Listed Wastes
      Docket Number: CD2P-00012
      Commenter:	Great Lakes Chemical Corporation
      Comment:
      Great Lakes expects to generate 377,000,000 gallons ef
      brominatad K-waatewaters annually, Thermal treatment capac-.z.
      for. this volume of brominatad K-waatewaters is neither
      technically, logistical1y nor economically available. As
      described in Great Lakes* anpr comment*, thermal treatment
      present* unique technical problem* that commercial incinerate
      facilities are unable to salve for large volumes of brommasas
      compound*. The operating conditiona at commercial Incineration
      facilitie* result in the liberation of elemental bromine «n:c-.
      attacks the materials of construction and the refractory of t-e
      incinerator. At significant concsntrationa and without sum:"¦»
      scrubbing controls, commercial incinerators also may vent f<-s*
      elemental bromine to the atmosphere. A memorandum on the
      combustion difficulties of mixed halldes in incinerators or
      bromine recovery unit* is enclosed as Attachment 1, a portic- .
      which is being separately submitted to the appropriate prc?r »-
      branches with a request for confidentiality.
      Great Lakes annually generates over 15 tons of solid
      activated alumina containing ethylene dibromide (K118) and
      approximately 15 tons of solid activated alumina containing
      methyl bromide (K132). . Great Lakes already sends these wastes
      off-site for disposal to a commercial hazardous waste
      incinerator, and the proposed rule would require Great Lakes to
      continue this wast* management practice. As described in Great
      Lakes1 ANPR comments, these wastes must be packaged in small
      cardboard containers and fed to the incinerator at a rate of on.y
      a few pounds per hour. Consequently, the capacity for thermal
      treatment of additional brominated K-nonwastewaters is limited.
      

      -------
      4 - 4	Other Newly Listed Wastes
      Ducket Number: CD2P-0U062
      Cummemer:	Eihvl Corporation
      Comment:
      EPA's proposal notes that only one facility generates K118 and reports dispoMng
      of it in a hazardous waste landfill, 57 Fed.Reg. 966, col. 2. This presumably refers :<•
      Ethyl's Magnolia, Arkansas plant Ethyl's comments to the ANPRM indicated that tr.e
      material was being sent for incineration. Ethyl regrets, however, that it must correct mat
      statement to report that incineration of K118 occurred only once. The commercial
      incinerator experienced problems with the waste and refused to accept additional
      shipments from Ethyl for incineration. Ethyl personnel had been seeking to have im-
      material incinerated and were hopeful that commercial incineration would be possible
      However, Ethyl was unsuccessful in locating a commercial Incinerator to treat/dispo>e
      the K118 solids. In fact, in making those inquiries. Ethyl identified several important
      considerations, described below, which weigh against incinerating this material. Similars.
      Ethyl regrets having to correct here its response to the Organobromine Survey, in wituM
      it indicated that the K118 waste was incinerated before land disposal. It has only Kc
      incinerated once in the past, and Ethyl will be investigating the possibility of »tc.c-
      stripping the K118 waste alumina solids to meet the proposed constituent concentration
      limits for land disposal.
      The K118 waste ("spent adsorbent solids from purification of EDB in the
      production of EDB via bromination of ethene") is inherently a nonwastewater. The
      adsorbent is saturated with EDB, but is a solid material from which the free liquid is
      removed. Ethyl generates approximately 30 tons per year of K118. The proposed
      BDAT standard for this material is incineration. However, the background document
      (Docket S0575), which explains the feasibility of incineration, states that the materials
      incinerated in the Rollins Deer Park rotary kiln were stocks of the canceled EDB
      pesticide (page 4-8), ie, a liquid and not a solid saturated with EDB. Moreover, since
      the EDB concentration of the untreated waste in the test burn at Rollins Deer Park was
      on the order of 100,000 ppm (10%) (as reported in the BDAT document, Docket S0575,
      page 4-28), the EDB liquid had apparently been blended with other materials not
      containing bromine. Also, the BDAT document did not specify the percentage of
      bromine in the total incinerator feed. Was this dilute EDB material further diluted by.
      the addition of other feed streams to the incinerator? Herefore, we submit that EPA's
      commercial incineration capacity analysis for brominated wastes may be severely flawed.
      Data from the incineration of liquid EDB cannot be transferred to incineration of solids
      saturated with EDB. Incineration of KU8 adsorbent solids has not been "demonstrated*
      and is not "available" and, therefore, is not BDAT. 51 FedHeg. 40588, coL 3 (Nov. 7,
      1986); 55 Fed.Reg. 6642, coL 2, n. 2 (Feb. 26, 1990).
      

      -------
      4 - S
      Other Newly Listed Wastes
      Docket Numoer; CD2P-IMI062
      Commenter: Ethyi Corporation
      Comment (continued)
      Ethyl is concerned regarding the EPA's determination of commercial incineration
      capacity for K118 nonwastewaters. The presence of bromine, in solid and liquid wastes,
      complicates the incineration of a material. Certain commercial incinerators have been
      reluctant to receive certain brominated wastes or have refused to accept such wastes for
      incineration for fear of jeopardizing operations. The incineration of brominated material
      can result in the generation of free bromine, or bromine molecules, which are difficult
      to scrub from exhaust stacks if present in too great a quantity. Inadequate bromine
      scrubbing can result in a brown plume of bromine emitted from the stack. As a result,
      commercial incinerators typically feed in brominated materials at a fixed percentage of
      the total incinerator feed and must carefully control oxygen levels in the combustion
      chamber, f Jmiring the feed rate of bromine and controlling combustion oxygen levels
      allow the downstream control devices to operate efficiently and effectively. These
      engineering limitations to the incineration of bromine containing compounds were also
      noted in the proposed EPA BDAT document (Docket SQ575).
      

      -------
      4-6
      Other Newly Listed Wastes
      4.2 Alternative Treatment May be Difficult to Find Tor Brominated K-Wastes That
      Are Currently Deepwell Injected
      Summary:
      Great Lakes Chemical Corporation (12; L22) anticipates that beginning in 1992 it
      will generate approximately one million tons per year (260 million gallons) of K117
      wastewaters from ground-water cleanup activities. This stream also will cany the K131,
      U067, and possibly TC waste codes. As a result of buried K118 nonwastewaters at two
      closed landfills on the El Dorado plant site, Great Lakes Chemical currently collects
      about 13.1 million gallons per year of leachate and ground water, which is aggregated
      with process wastewater, resulting in disposal of approximately 115 million gallons per
      year. In addition to K118, this wastewater mixture also carries K131 and K132 waste
      codes. The stream is currently treated in an on-site wastewater treatment plant (where it
      undergoes neutralization, equalization, and filtration) before being deep-well injected.
      The total quantity of the two deep-well disposed wastewater streams to be generated at
      the Great Lakes Chemical Corporation facility is expected to be greater than 300 million
      gallons per year.
      Response:
      EPA has evaluated this information on K117, K118, K131 and K132 and
      acknowledges that these wastes are deepwell injected. EPA also agrees that these wastes
      are mixed in non-segregable waste streams, which exceed 300 million gallons annually.
      EPA has concluded that there is not adequate treatment capacity for this deep-well
      disposed quantity of wastewaters carrying the K117, K118, K131, 'and K132 waste codes.
      Therefore, the Agency is granting a national capacity variance for deepwell injected
      quantities of K117, K118, K131, and K132 wastewaters that are deep-well injected.
      Comments;
      The Great Lakes Chemical Corporation comments (12; L22) discussing the
      difficulty in finding alternative treatment capacity for brominated K-Wastes that are
      currently deepwell injected are presented below.
      

      -------
      4-7
      Other Newly Listed Wastes
      Docket Number: CD2P-00012
      Commenter:	Great Lakes Chemical Corporation
      Comment:
      Evan if Che Agency uses staam stripping to establish BOAT
      standards for brcminated K-wastewatars, EPA must reconsider me
      proposed capacity determination for brominated K-wastewaters ana
      grant a two-year national capacity variance for their on-site
      underground injection. The proposed caoacity determination
      assumed that no brominated K-wastewatars would require additicr.a
      treatment as a result of the rule. However, Great Lakes
      currently generates it5,000,000 gallons par year of brominated
      K-wastewaters that will be subject to the BOAT standards when
      they become affective. Pursuant to a proposed Part 3 RCRA
      permit, Great Lakes expects that it will soon begin corrective
      action activities that will generate an additional 262.000.0CC
      gallons of brominated K-wastewaters per year which will be
      subject to the BOAT standards.
      Great Lakes cannot make any off-site treatment alternative
      available becauaa of logistical and economic limitations. The
      brominated K-wastewatars generated by Great Lakes are currently
      hard piped to on-site injection well* because the plant requires
      immediate disposal capacity. If off-sita treatment becomes
      necessary, Great Lakes would have to load over 200 truck leads ,'at
      5,000 gallons par truckload) of brominatad K-waatewatars Per say
      for delivery to off-site treatment facilities. It is
      logistically impossible for the £1 Dorado plant to load over ZZZ
      truckloada of wastewater every day, or one truckload
      approximately every seven minutea. Great Lakes estimates zrzz
      the capital costs to purchase and Install the necessary leas
      unloading ind hauling equipment would be at least $50 milli:^.
      Furthermore, if the combined tranaportation and disposal ccszs
      for off-site treatment were *0.45 per gallon, the annual czsz -zr
      off-site management of brominated K-wastewatars would be alses:
      $170 million. These logistical and economic limitations -a-e
      off-site treatment alternatives unavailable for brominatad
      K-wastewaters.
      Great Lakes has unsuccessfully attempted to locate off-site
      hazardous waste management facilities that have the capacity to
      handle 377,000,000 gallons of brominated K-wastewaters annually.
      Thermal treatment of this volume of brominated K-wastewaters
      would require at least 1,681,000 tons of incinerator capacity
      annually. In making its proposed capacity determinations, the
      Agency assumed that only 638,000 tons of thermal treatment
      capacity was available for the combustion of liquids. 57 Ped.
      Reg. at 998. Similarly, Great Lakes is not aware of any off-sita
      staam stripping facility which currently has the available
      capacity to manage 377,000,000 gallons of brominated
      K-wastawaters annually. As previously discussed, logistical
      consideration# make the transportation of large volumes of
      wastewater unavailable even if off-sita capacity existed.
      

      -------
      4-8
      Other Newly Listed Wastes
      Docket Number: CD2P-L0022
      Commenter:	Great Lakes Chemical Corporation
      Comment:
      As a related point of clarification, the Agency has
      correctly noted that Great Lakes' February 21 consent letter
      (at page eight, section five) did not reference the U.S. EPA's
      specific discussion regarding alternate treataent capacity for
      broainated K wastes currently disposed by underground
      injection. See 57 Fed. Reg, at 1003. In this regard, Great
      Lakes requires treataent capacity for 377,000,000 gallons of
      injected broainated X wastewaters which cannot be segregated
      from other process waters? this treataent capacity is not
      available and cannot be Bade available by the effective date of
      the final rule. The Agency's specific discussion about
      underground injection of broainated K vastes indicates that
      available treataent capacity could be substantially less than
      Great Lakes assuaed in its comment letter because EPA allocates
      "available capacity first to those wastes disposed in surface
      units, next to wastes resulting froa CERCLA and KCKA clean ups,
      and finally to underground injected wastes." Id.
      

      -------
      4-9
      Other Newly Listed Wastes
      43 Problems With Incineration of Potentially Explosive Kill Wastes
      Summary:
      One commenter, Air Products and Chemicals (84), reported generating 3,500 tons
      of spent activated carbon, a Kill nonwastewater, which will require alternative treatment
      capacity (i.e., incineration). The commenter expressed concern as to whether an
      incinerator will be equipped to handle this volume, which the commenter described as
      potentially explosive. The Hazardous Waste Treatment Council (JHWTC; 51) reported
      that their incineration company members can safely incinerate K111 wastes, which are
      not explosive under incineration conditions. The HWTC also noted that there have been
      no explosion incidents involving the incineration of wastes containing dinitrotoluene at
      their incineration facilities.
      Response:
      EPA believes that incinerators are equipped to handle Kill nonwastewaters, but
      believes that in general facilities manage spent activated carbon by returning it to the
      supplier for regeneration. The generator of the Kill nonwastewater did not discuss this
      option or provide data as to why this form of management was not employed. If the
      waste from a particular facility presents problems that incinerators or carbon
      regenerators are not equipped to handle, the facility may apply for a case-by-case
      extension (40 CFR 268.5), cr a variance from the treatment standard (40 CFR 268.44).
      Comments:
      The comments discussing problems with incineration of potentially explosive Kill
      wastes are presented in the following order:
      •	Air Products and Chemicals (84); and
      •	Hazardous Waste Treatment Council (51).
      

      -------
      4-10	Other Newly Listed Wastes
      Docket Number: CD2P-01KJX4
      Commemer:	.Air Products and Chemicals
      Comment:
      la order to comply with EPA Effluent Guidelines rules our treatment sysi.
      will be changed to activated carbon for a large portion of our wastewaters
      treatment system will be starting up in March 1992. This will cause us to
      generate a much larger amount of this waste, Le. over 7 million pounds c«.
      of spent activated carbon that is not exempt from RCRA. We are not cert a
      that adequate treatment capacity (i.e. incinerator capacity in the propose
      rales) exists for this additional volume. By specifying incineration as thv
      technology for Kill nonwastewaters, EPA may be forcing us into the din".,
      position of either creating an unsafe condition (i.e. putting a potentially
      explosive material into an incinerator not equipped to handle it) or not
      complying with the rules. A two year capacity variance should be allows:
      evaluate appropriate safe technologies for handling these wastes.
      

      -------
      4 - II
      Docket Number: CD2P-0005J
      Other Newly Listed Wastes
      Commenter:	Hazardous Waste Treatment Council
      Comment;
      The HWTC is not in agreement with the concern expressed by one commenter
      that dinitrotoluene wastes may be explosive. It is the experience of our incineration
      company members that these wastes are not explosive under incineration conditions,
      and that wastes containing dinitrotoluene can be safely incinerated. There have been
      no explosion incidents involving the incineration of dinitrotoluene wastes.
      

      -------
      4-12
      Other Newly Listed Wastes
      4.4 EPA has Underestimated Potential Volumes from Non-De Minimis Spills
      Summary:
      One commenter, Union Carbide (111), believes that EPA's capacity analysis
      underestimated required capacity for U359 by failing to address the volumes of non-de
      minimis spills into wastewater treatment systems that may require treatment as a result of
      today's final rule (40 CFR 261.3(a)(iv)(D)). The commenter reported generating roughly
      500 tons of U359 from remedial action that potentially will not meet de minimis
      requirements. The commenter expressed concern that other facilities may also generate
      non-de minimis volumes. Union Carbide (111) believes that there are a number of
      locations (greater than the two facilities discussed in the proposed rule) which may be
      subject to U359 treatment standards as a result of corrective action or non-de minimis
      losses to wastewater treatment systems, based on the large number of customers to
      whom they sell 2-ethoxyethanol, the constituent basis for U359.
      Great Lakes Chemical Corporation (12) expects to generate 262,000,000 gallons
      per year of ground water classified as brominated wastewaters (mixtures including K117)
      in future corrective action activities. If the Agency repromulgates the mixture and
      derived-from rules with de minimis exemptions, some or all of the ground water may be
      excluded from regulation as a hazardous waste.
      Response:
      EPA added 500 tons to its estimated required alternative treatment capacity for
      U359 wastewaters. Since losses to wastewater treatment systems may not be subject to
      U359 land disposal restrictions due to the de minimis ruling (40 CFR 26l.3(a)(iv)(D)),
      and no other commenters reported non-de minimis volumes requiring treatment, the
      Agency believes that there is not enough data available to justify a national capacity
      variance for U359. In addition, EPA has determined that there is sufficient excess
      combustion capacity to handle additional quantities of U359 if the need arises. If
      unexpectedly large volumes of wastes are generated from remediation activities, and
      these wastes are not excluded from the definition of hazardous wastes via the de minimis
      provision, 40 CFR 261.5 allows waste generators to seek case-by-case extensions to the
      effective date of the LDR prohibitions, if the generator is unable to identify adequate
      treatment capacity.
      Comments:
      The comments concerning underestimation of potential volumes of non-de
      minimis spills are presented in the following order:
      •	Union Carbide (111); and
      •	Great Lakes Chemical Corporation (12).
      

      -------
      4-13
      Other Newly Listed Wastes
      Docket Number: CD2P-00111
      Commenter:	Union Carbide
      Comment;
      EPA has significantly underestimated the impact of the proposed U359 land disposal
      restrictions by failing to address the requirement to treat non-deminimis spills into
      wastewater treatment systems and the impact of the land disposal restrictions on
      corrective action in its capacity analysis. For example. Union Carbide is developing
      remedial action alternatives to treat groundwater contaminated with 2-ethoxyethanoi as
      the result of a leak of 2-ethoxyethanol from an underground line. While the duration
      and generation rate of contaminated groundwater needing treatment during corrective
      action is difficult to estimate, it will certainty result in several hundred thousand gallons
      or more in this case. While Union Carbide believes the pipeline leak to be demmimis
      under 40 CFR 261.3(a}(2)(iv}(D) and hence not subject to U359 land disposal
      restrictions, the Texas Water .Commission is reviewing Union Carbide's determination
      (at Union Carbide's request) and may rule otherwise. If the groundwater is determines
      to be U359, then the proposed land disposal restrictions for U359 would leave Union
      Carbide with few, extremely expensive options. As described in the attached summary
      to the report "Evaluation of Technologies to Treat CELLOSOLVE Solvent-Contammatec
      Groundwater," there art other promising technical alternatives which would allow mc-e
      expedient remediation at substantially lower costs than EPA's proposed LDR's. Ti-ese
      technologies include reverse osmosis and artificial wetlands.
      The consequences of non-deminimis losses to wastewater treatment systems is of
      great concern to Union Carbide. Union Carbide's wastewater collection systems are
      designed to collect and divert spills to wastewater treatment systems for environre<-ra<
      and safety reasons. Several Union Caroide wastewater treatment systems use sufare
      impoundments. In these systems, wastewater containing non-deminimis spills is
      diverted to large tanks to prevent land ban violations, resulting in a substantial
      accumulation of wastewater to be treated by BDAT before further treatment in the
      locations' Impoundment based systems. EPA's U359 BDAT proposals would leave few,
      expensive options for such treatment An alternative concentration based LOR, as
      proposed elsewhere in these comments, would allow more prompt and cost effective
      treatment without compromising environmental protection.
      The large number of customers to whom Union Carbide sells 2-ethoxyethanol suggests
      that the number of locations which may be subject to U359 LDR's as a result of
      corrective action or non-deminimis losses to wastewater treatment systems probably
      substantially exceeds the two facilities referred to in EPA's discussion of the proposed
      rule.
      

      -------
      4-14
      Other Newly Listed Wastes
      Docket Number: CD2P-00012
      Commemer:	Great Lakes Chemical Corporation
      Comment:
      As noted in the prooosed rule, the decision in Shell C•'
      Co. V. EFA. No. 80-1532 {D.C. Cir. December 6, 1391) may a
      hew the land disposal restrictions for newly listed wastes a;;
      to Great Lakas. 57 Fed. Reg, at 358. For example, none c-" ¦
      groundwater or leachate that Great Lakes expects to recover
      during corrective action activities would be hazardous wastas
      subject to land disposal restrictions if the mixture and
      derived-from rules were not in effect. If the Agency
      repromulfates the mixture and derived-from rules with de •- »
      exemptions, some or all of the recovered groundwater and 'eac-i-.a
      may be excluded from regulation as a hazardous waste and th-a
      subject to the land disposal restrictions. Although some
      Great Lakes" process wastewater is specifically listed as a
      Hazardous waste in 40 C.F.R. I 281.32, the aggregation of
      wastewater for treatment prior to underground Injection cc-'i
      remove it from the effect of the proposed land disposal
      restrictions if the mixture and derived-from rules were r.c*.
      effect.
      

      -------
      4- 15
      Other Newly Listed Wastes
      4.5 Quantities of Other Newly Listed Waste Streams That Are Below LDR Treatment
      Standards
      Summary:
      One commenter, Great Lakes Chemical Corporation (12), reported that the K117,
      K118, K131, and K132 waste volumes they reported in response to the ANPR will not
      require alternative treatment capacity as a result of today's rule. In its comment to the
      ANPR, Great Lakes Chemical Corporation (12) expressed concern over difficulty in
      locating treatment capacity for a waste filter cake potentially carrying the K118, K131,
      and K132 waste codes. Great Lakes Chemical Corporation (12) generates 1,650 tons per
      year of filter cake currently identified as K118, K13I, and K132 waste. Analyses of the
      filter cake indicated that the concentrations of the regulated constituents are below the
      treatment standards being promulgated today, and therefore the waste will not require
      treatment as a result of today's rule. In addition, Great Lakes Chemical Corporation
      (12) has located a sulfuric acid producer that can reconstitute its K131 nonwastewater
      stream, which is generated at the rate of 2,100 tons per year, to commercial-grade
      material.
      Response:
      EPA acknowledges these comments, and has taken them into account in their
      determination of required capacity for these wastes.
      Comments;
      The Great Lakes Chemical Corporation comment (12) concerning potential other
      newly listed waste streams for which treatment capacity is no longer a concern is
      presented below.
      

      -------
      4-16
      Other Newly Listed Wastes
      Docket Number: CD2P-00012
      Commenten	Great Lakes Chemical Corporation
      Comment:
      Great Lakes supports the establishment of BOAT stanoaras f
      K117, K118, K131 and K132 r.cnwastewaters by transferring
      incineration-based data that was used to establish concentratic
      Timits for certain brominated U-code wastes in the third rule.
      57 Fed. Reg, at 366-67. Despite the technical difficulties
      inherent in the incineration of brominated wastes, thermal
      treatment capacity currently exists for the non-wastewater
      brominated K-wastes that the proposed rule would require to sa
      incinerated prior to land disposal.
      Great Lakes annually generates over 15 tons of solid
      activated alumina containing ethylene dibromide (Kits) and
      approximately 15 tons of solid activated alumina containing
      methyl bromide (K132). Great Lakes already sends these wastes
      off-site for disposal to a commercial hazardous waste
      incinerator, and the proposed rule would require Great Lakes to
      continue this waste management practice. As described in Graat
      Lakes' ANPR comments, these wastes must be packaged in small
      cardboard containers and fed to the incinerator at a rate of cn
      a few pounds per hour. Consequently, the capacity for thermal
      treatment of additional brominated K-nonwaatewaters is limited.
      In its ANPR comments. Great Lakes expressed concern aocur
      the effect of the nonwastawater BOAT standards on the manage-«r
      of wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) filter cake that the El
      Dorado plant currently generates. WWTP filter cake is currer,-'
      identified as K118, K131 and K132 waste. Once corrective act-:
      begins at the plant, WWTP filter cake could also carry the
      waste code. In 1990, Great Lakes generated 1.SS0 tons of tr.e
      WWTP filter cake that was disposed of in hazardous waste
      landfills. Analyses of the WWTP filter cake indicate that
      thermal treatment of it is not required by the proposed r-*
      because the concentrations of the regulated constituents •- *.-*
      WWTP filter cake are below the proposed BDAT standards.
      Great Lakes also generates approximately 2,100 tons cer -
      of sulfuric acid that may be a K131 waste because the acia •>.
      used to scrub methyl bromide to remove ethers, water and
      methanol. Great Lakes has located a sulfuric add producer
      can reburn and reconstitute this material to produce commer;i
      grade sulfuric acid. Spent sulfuric, acid that is used zc c :
      virgin sulfuric acid is excluded from the definition of so* :
      waste. 40 C.F.R. S 261.4(a)(7). In addition, reclamation c-
      used materials does not constitute land disposal which woo' • -
      subject to BDAT standards.
      

      -------
      CHAPTER 5
      MIXED RCRA/RADIOACnVE WASTES
      In response to the proposed rule. EPA received seven comments addressing mixed
      RCRA/radioactive waste capacity issues, several of which concerned the proposed
      national capacity variance. These comments were received from: Regswrite, Inc.
      (Regswrite; 17); Department of Energy {DOE; 41); Waste Management, Inc. and its
      subsidiary Chemical Waste Management, Inc. (WMI; 81); Utility Solid Waste Activities
      Group, Edison Electric Institute. American Public Power Association, and the National
      Rural Electric Cooperative Association (USWAG; 96); Westinghouse Electric Corp.
      (WEC; 114); American Gas Association (AGA; LG003); and Westinghouse Savannah
      River Company (WSRC; L0007).
      Three commenters (DOE (41); USWAG (96); and AGA (L0003)) explicitly
      supported EPA's proposed two-year variance. Another commenter (Regswrite (17))
      disagreed with the proposed national capacity variance, arguing that the variance for
      mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes "appear(s) to indicate that EPA may be adopting an
      expedient, but marginal, less environmentally protective approach to the land disposal
      restrictions" for radioactive materials contaminated with the newly listed wastes. The
      same commenter suggested that EPA not rely on DOE to develop the capacity needed to
      manage the largest quantities of mixed RCRA/radioactive waste, and also stated that
      EPA should mandate that non-DOE mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes be managed under
      an emergency permit program. One commenter (WSRC (L0007)) mentioned that it was
      in the process of adding capacity for a specific mixed RCRA/radioactive waste treatment
      technology. Two commenters (DOE (41) and WEC (114)), while praising EPA's efforts
      to limit the permitting obstacles to adding LDR treatment capacity, also stated that new
      mixed RCRA/radioactive waste treatment capacity could not be obtained in a short time.
      Finally, one commenter (WMI; 81) stated that the shortage of disposal sites that are
      permitted to accept radioactive hazardous wastes is the most pressing problem associated
      with the proper management of mixed RCRA/radioactive waste.
      In general, the comments can be divided into the following issues:
      •	Two-Year National Capacity Variance for Mixed RCRA/Radioactive
      Wastes is Justified;
      •	Two-Year National Capacity Variance for Mixed RCRA/Radioactive
      Wastes is Not Justified;
      •	DOE Should Not be Relied on to Develop New Capacity;
      •	Non-DOE Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Wastes Should be Stored Under an
      Emergency Permit Program;
      •	Treatment Capacity for Some Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Wastes is
      Increasing;
      

      -------
      5 - 2
      Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Wastes
      Several Obstacles Exist to the Development of New Treatment Capacity
      for Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Wastes; and
      EPA Should Encourage Separation of the Hazardous and Radioactive
      Components of Mixed RCRARadioactive Waste.
      

      -------
      S - 3	Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Wastes
      S.I Two-Year National Capacity Variance for .Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Wastes is
      Justified
      Summary:
      Three commenters supported EPA's proposed national capacity variance for
      mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes: the Department of Energy (DOE; 41; p. 35), the
      Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, Edison Electric Institute, American Public Power
      Association, and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (USWAG; 96; p.
      28), and the American Gas Association (AGA; L0003; pp. 7-8). DOE reported that any
      new mixed RCRA/radioactive waste capacity that becomes available will be used to treat
      previously regulated mixed wastes. In addition, USWAG stated that all generators of
      mixed RCRA/radioactive waste are affected by the shortage of treatment capacity, and
      that any new capacity "will be quickly consumed by the existing volumes of mixed waste
      that owners or operators have no choice but to accumulate on-site pending the
      development of off-site treatment or disposal capacity."
      As part of its comments, DOE included a report entitled 1991 Report on Hanford
      Site Land Disposal Restrictions for Radioacti%'e Mixed Wastes. DOE/RL-43, October
      1991 (1991 Hanford Site Report I The 1991 Hanford Site Report resulted from the
      Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (commonly referred to as the
      Tri-Party Agreement) developed in 1990 by the Washington State Department of
      Ecology, EPA, and DOE. The purpose of the Agreement is "to bring Hanford Site
      operations into compliance with dangerous waste regulations." The Tri-Party Agreement
      requires DOE to develop a plan with annual updates to comply with land disposal
      restriction requirements for mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes. The 1991 Hanford Site
      Report represents the first annual update of the plan.
      The Report contains "a detailed description of the generation and management of
      land disposal restricted waste (mixed waste) generated, treated, and stored at the
      Hanford Site." The Report identifies 16 land disposal restricted mixed waste streams and
      classifies these wastes based on eventual waste treatment methods. Overall, the 1991
      Hanford Site Report provides information on the following:
      •	schedules and methods for characterizing each land disposal restricted
      waste stream;
      •	the quantities and types of waste in storage;
      •	storage capacity;
      •	waste treatment processes;
      •	schedules for developing appropriate treatment technologies and capacity; and
      \
      

      -------
      5-4	Mixed RCRA/Radioaetive Wastes
      • methods to minimize the generation, volume, and toxicity of land disposal
      restricted waste.
      The 16 restricted mixed RCRA/radioactive waste streams identified by the 1991
      Hanford Site Report are listed in Exhibit 5-1. For each waste stream, Exhibit 5-1
      summarizes the quantities of waste in storage, available storage capacity, dates when
      storage capacities are expected to be full, and future waste generation projections.
      Exhibit 5-2 summarizes planned waste treatments for each waste stream, the capacity of
      each treatment type, and the expected dates on which each treatment capacity will be
      available. Although the 1991 Hanford Site Report identifies no mixed RCRA/radioactive
      wastes affected by the LDRs being promulgated, the waste stream information presented
      below illustrates the lack of available treatment capacity for previously restricted mixed
      RCRA/radioactive wastes.
      

      -------
      KxhlbK 5-1
      Quantities of Mixed KCKA/Kadioactive Wastes Currently In Storage
      and Expected to be Generated at the llanford Site
      No.
      Waste Stream
      Quantity in
      Storage
      (mJ)
      Total Storage
      Capacity
      (ro5)
      Dale Storage Capacity
      Will be Reached
      Total Generation
      Projections f1991-1996)
      (m )
      1
      Double-Shell Tank Waste
      73,939
      111,800
      1993
      77.600
      2
      PUKflX Aging Waste
      7.245
      7,600
      1993f
      0
      3
      Single-Shell Tank Waste
      139,500
      357,500
      
      0
      4
      242-A Evaporator Process Condensate
      0
      49,000
      1992
      361,000
      5
      4843 Sodium Storage Facility Waste
      1009 kg
      84,000 kg
      ....
      1.26
      6
      PIJRI-X Ammonia Scrubber Waste
      5.900
      e
      
      0
      7
      PIJRRX Process Condensate
      4,800
      c
      
      0
      8
      1 !aone Waste
      137
      151
      
      0
      9
      183-11 Solar Basin Waste
      128
      8,200
      
      0
      10
      PURliX Storage Tunnel No. ?. Waste
      (Mercury)
      0.01*
      3.080*
      S
      to be determined
      tl
      PURF.X Storage Tunnel Nos. 1 and 2 Waste
      (Ixad and Silver)
      0.43'
      3.680*
      t
      to be determined
      12
      PURF.X Canyon Waste Pile (Lead)
      0.2S
      not available
      %
      to be determined
      13
      llanford Central Waste Complex Stored
      Uiw-lxvel, Transuranic and PCR Waste
      2,077
      14,450
      1996
      8740
      14
      Relricvably Stored Low-Level and Transuranic
      Waste
      2.184
      15,440
      
      0
      IS
      TRUSAF Stored Waste
      43
      420
      t
      not available
      16
      303-K Stored Waste
      1,203 kg
      42
      
      2
      
      Total
      225,254*
      568,283*
      ....
      447,343
      n	The u^al quantity of elemental mercury in Tunnel No. 2 is 0.01 m', and there are 0.26 m} of elemental lead and 0.17 m5 of silver nitrate in TunncU 1 and
      h	loi.il quantity in storage docs not include waste stream nos. 5 and 16, as no density conversion factor was reported,
      c	lliift waste is currently stored with waste stream no. 1.
      d "The capacities of Tunnel Nos. 1 and 2 are 600 mJ and 3.080 m\ respectively; the total capacity for waste stream nos. 10 and II is 3.680 m\
      e	Total storage capacity does not include waste stream no. 16. as no density conversion factor was reporied.
      f	Waste stream no. 2 is stored in double-shelled tank*, and D()K reported (hat these tanks will reach their capacity in 1993.
      g	l)()l;. believes that available storage capacity is sufficient for all future generation of this waste.
      

      -------
      5-6
      Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Wastes
      Exhibit 5-2
      Planned Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Waste Treatment at the Hanford Site
      Treatment Facility1
      Streams Utilizing
      Treatment Facility
      'Planned Treatment
      Planned Capacity*
      (reryear)
      Date Available
      242-A Evaporator
      1, 3, 6, 7
      evaporation
      174.000
      1992*
      Effluent Treatment
      Facility (ETF)
      4
      destruction of organic*,
      removal of inorganics
      TBD
      October 1994
      Grout Treatment
      Facility (GTF)
      1. 2. 3, 6,1
      grout
      76,400
      1991*
      Hanford Waste
      Vitrification Plant
      (HWVP)
      1. 2. 6,1
      vitrification
      6.600
      December 1999
      incinerator (off-site)2
      8
      incineration
      TBD
      —
      Incinerator (on-site)
      13
      TBD
      TBD
      1999
      Waste Receiving and
      Processing Facility
      (WRAP)
      9, 13, 14. 16
      TBD
      TBD
      September 1999
      TSD
      5,9.10, 11, 12
      TBD. deactivation for
      waste stream no. 5
      TBD
      TBD |
      1	Waste sires in bo. IS wilt not be treated at the Hanford Site, but will be shipped to the Waste isolation Pilot Plant for
      permanent storage.
      2	DOE plans to incinerate waste stream no. 8 off-site at an undetermined facility.
      3	Tbe planned capacities presented in this column were calculated assuming that the treatment facilities operate 200 days a
      year, at daify capacities of 870 m5 for the 242-A Evaporator. 382 en3 for the GTF, and 33 m3 for the ETF.
      4	.The condensate from the evaporator will be treated at the ETF,
      5	Some of waste stream no. 1 can be treated direcUy at the GTF. Most wastes that are to be treated at the GTF will first
      haw to undergo preireatmem to separate them from other wastes. Pretrcatment is expected to begin in 19%.
      Approximately 225,000 m3 of restricted mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes are
      currently stored at the Hanford Site, The current total storage capacity for these wastes
      is approximately 570,000 m3. The Hanford Site plans to implement a waste reduction
      and minimization program that is expected to reduce the amount of mixed
      RCRA/radioactive wastes generated at the facility by approximately 100,000 m3 per year.
      The majority of the reduction is expected to come through treatment. Overall, treatment
      for most of the previously restricted mixed RCRA/radicactive wastes stored and expected
      to be generated at the Hanford Site will net be available until after October 1994.
      Response:
      EPA accepts comments supporting the proposed national capacity variance.
      These comments also confirm EPA's analysis of an overall lack of alternative treatment
      capacity for mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes. EPA's capacity analysis methodology
      assigns any new commercial capacity for mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes that becomes
      available to mixed wastes that were regulated in previous land disposal restriction
      

      -------
      5*7	Mixed RCRA/Radioactfve Wastes
      rulemakings (i.e., radioactive wastes mixed with solvents, dioxins, California list wastes, or
      First Third, Second Third, or Third Third wastes). Therefore EPA. under RCRA
      §3004(h)(2), is granting a two-year national capacity variance for mixed
      RCRA/radioactive wastes containing newly identified and listed wastes. The Agency may
      also consider granting up to a one-year extension (renewable only once) of a prohibition
      effective date on a case-by-case basis, as outlined in 40 CFR 268.5.
      Separately, EPA is considering an application submitted by DOE for a one-year
      case-by-case extension of the May 8, 1992 effective date of the LDRs for certain Third
      Third mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes generated and stored at 31 of its facilities. EPA
      issued a proposed finding on May 26," 1992 that, for the mixed wastes addressed in the
      application, DOE has made all but one of the demonstrations required by 40 CFR 268.5;
      for a case-by-case extension (57 FR 22024). In the near future, EPA will issue a specific
      proposal addressing the remaining demonstration in greater detail. DOE has stated that
      it would request a second extension. If the extension is approved and renewed, the LDR
      effective date of May 8, 1994 would apply to the wastes included in the application.
      »
      Comments:
      The comments supporting the two-year national capacity variance for mixed
      RCRA/radioactive wastes are presented in the following order:
      •	Department of Energy (DOE; 41; p. 35);
      •	Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, Edison Electric Institute, American
      Public Power Association, and the National Rural Electric Cooperative
      Association (USWAG; 96; p. 28); and
      •	American Gas Association (AGA; L0003; pp. 7-8).
      

      -------
      S - 8	Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Wastes
      Docket Number: CD2P-00041
      Commenter:	Department of Energy
      Comment:	p. 35
      VI.C. Required «nd Available Capacity for Newlv Listed Wastes Mixed with
      Radioactive Components
      EPA has determined that sufficient alternative capacity Is not available and
      proposes to grant a two-year national capacity varlanca for mixed
      *RCRA/rad1oact1ve wastewaters and nonwastawaters contaminated with newly listed
      wastes whose standards ara addressed In the proposed rule.
      DOE supports EPA's determination of the need for a two-year national capacity
      variance for the newly listed RMW. Any new commercial capacity that becomes
      available will be needed for treatment of WW that were regulated in by
      previous LOR rulemakings (I.e., radioactive wastes mixed with spent solvents,
      dioxins; California 11st wastes; or First, Second, and Third Third wastes.)
      Attached to these coments (Attachment 4), DOE is providing a report entitle:
      1991 Report on Hanford Site land Disposal Restrictions for Radioactive
      Wastes. DOE/RL-43, October, 1991. This report Is being provided to EPA as *-
      additional source of information on DOE RHW streams (I.e., in addition tc
      documents/data submitted as part of previous DOE content packages [in resecv-
      to the November 22, 1989 proposed rule; the Hay 30, 1991 ANPRM; and the
      October 24, 1991 ANPRM] and other regulatory activities).
      

      -------
      5-9
      Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Wastes
      Docket Number: CD2P-00096
      Commenter: USWAG
      Comment:	p. 28
      71. r.*tnr.iTt pctctsiom Ton mtxto waste
      dswag fully concurs with EPA'¦ statement that there is ¦»
      significant lack of commercial treatment capacity for mixed waste
      already ¦obiact to the LOR program. 57 Fed. Sag. at 1002. In fact,
      the lacX'of qualified mixed vast® treatment- or disposal capacity
      continues to plague all generators of nixed waste — including the
      electric utility industry — and DSWAG believes that it is critical
      for EPA to continue to consider this dileans when implementing and
      enforcing the UK requirements.
      naturally, 0SNAG also supports EPA's proposal to grant a
      two-year national capacity variance for mixed waste that contains
      newly listed wastes. Id* Plainly, any capacity that does become
      available will be quickly consumed by the existing volumes of mixed
      waste that owners or operators have no" choice but to accumulate
      on-site pending the development of off-site treatment or disposal
      capacity.
      

      -------
      5 • 10	Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Wastes
      Docket Number: CD2P-L0003
      Commenter:	American Gas Association
      Comment:	pp. 7-8
      9. Capacity Variance Decisions for Newly Listed Wastes
      A.G-A. supports a two year variance from the surface disposal requirements oemg
      proposed for storage and treatment of petroleum wastes in surface impoundments, aeons
      contaminated with newly listed Wastes, and mixed radioactive waste. A.GA believes a
      two year capacity variance must be approved for contaminated soils as well, when EPA
      proposes this rule in the near future.
      

      -------
      5-11	Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Wastes
      S.2 Two-Year National Capacity Variance Tor Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Wastes is Not
      Justified
      Summary:
      Regswrite, Inc. (Regswrite: 17; p. 1) disagreed with EPA's proposed national
      capacity variance for mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes, arguing that the variance "appears
      to indicate that EPA may be adopting an expedient, but marginal, less environmentally
      protective approach to the land disposal restrictions" for.radioactive materials
      contaminated with the newly listed wastes.
      Response:
      EPA disagrees with Regswrite's claim that a capacity variance reflects a less
      environmentally sound approach to the land disposal restrictions for mixed
      RCRA/radioactive wastes. Although DOE is in the process of increasing its capacity to
      manage mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes, information supplied by DOE under other
      rulemakings indicates that a significant capacity shortfall currently exists for the treatment
      of mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes, much of which is in storage facilities awaiting
      treatment. EPA's review of non-DOE data sources also showed a significant lack of
      commercial treatment. Although EPA shares Regswrite's concerns over the proper
      management of mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes, EPA believes the national capacity
      variance is necessary and justified because of the severe shortage of available treatment
      capacity.
      Comments:
      The comment stating that the two-year national capacity variance for mixed
      RCRA/radioactive wastes is not justified is presented here:
      • Regswrite, Inc. (Regswrite; 17; p. 1).
      

      -------
      5-12	Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Wastes
      Docket Number:
      Commenter:
      Comment:
      CD2P-0Q017
      Regswrite, Inc.
      p.l
      REGSWRITI, lac., is pleased to have the opportunity to submit
      general and specific comments on the proposed regulations on
      "Land Disposal Restrictions for Hewly Listed Hastes and
      Contaminated Debris" as published in the Federal Register on
      January 9, 1992.
      RBGSHRITK is an environmental issues and government affairs
      consulting firm specialising in federal and state legislative and
      regulatory program planning, development, management and
      response. MESSmtlTX currently assists clients comprehend the
      options, opportunities and obligations created by environmental
      legislation and regulations at the federal level and in twenty
      states.
      REGSTOUTZ agrees with EFA on much of the generic and particular
      aspects of the regulatory framework that restricts indiscriminate
      disposal of hasardous waste on or in the land. However, in the
      currently proposed regulations, several elements addressing
      capacity variances appear to indicate that EPA may be adopting an
      expedient, but marginal, less environmentally protective approach
      to the land disposal restrictions for some newly listed hazardous
      waste. WhiTe the national capacity variances stay-conform to the
      permissible letter of the law, the variances discount or
      disregard the spirit of the law.
      

      -------
      5-13	Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Wastes
      S3 DOE Should Not be Relied on to Develop New Capacity
      Summary:
      Regswrite. Inc. (Regswrite; 17; pp. 2, 5) suggested that EPA should not rely on
      DOE to develop the capacity needed to manage the largest quantities of mixed
      RCRA/radioactive wastes. Regswrite claimed that DOE has a poor history of producing
      and managing radioactive materials. For example, the commenter argued that DOE
      "follows few rules in the production and management of radioactive materials, ... is
      reluctant to assume responsibility for cleanups and attempts to circumvent or postpone
      corrective action." Regswrite concluded that DOE would not be able to properly treat
      and dispose of mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes.
      Response:
      EPA disagrees with Regswrite's contention that EPA not rely on DOE to provide
      additional treatment capacity for certain RCRA/radioactive wastes. DOE has an
      obligation under various federal statutes to manage certain radioactive wastes, including
      to develop new waste management capacity. See, for example, the Nuclear Waste Policy
      Act and the Atomic Energy Act, which make the Federal Government, including DOE,
      responsible for the proper management of highly radioactive waste. In addition, DOE
      facilities are subject to regulations designed to ensure that mixed RCRA/radioactive
      wastes are properly managed. EPA and authorized states regulate the hazardous
      components of these wastes under RCRA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
      (NRC) and agreement states regulate the radioactive components under the Atomic
      Energy Act and other statutes. While recognizing that DOE is responsible for and in the
      process of creating additional treatment capacity for certain mixed RCRA/radioactive
      wastes, EPA also realizes that DOE is not responsible for managing all mixed
      RCRA/radioactive wastes and that other entities may be creating any needed commercial
      capacity for such wastes.
      DOE is committing to providing the necessary capacity to treat its mixed
      RCRA/radioactive wastes through its application for a case-by-case extension for certain
      Third Third mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes. In addition, as more commercial capacity
      becomes available in the future for the treatment of mixed RCRA'radioactive wastes,
      DOE intends, where appropriate, to utilize that capacity. In order to receive the case-by-
      case extension, DOE must demonstrate that it has entered into a binding contractual
      commitment to construct or otherwise provide alternative treatment, recovery, or disposal
      capacity for the wastes included in the application, as required by 40 CFR 268.5(a)(2).
      EPA is considering several approaches for applying the binding contractual commitment
      requirement to DOE. These approaches include the following:
      • In the case of facilities that have already been constructed but are not yet
      in operation, the requirement of a contractual commitment may be
      

      -------
      5 - 14	Mixed RCRA/Rad inactive Wastes
      addressed in a variety of ways. For example, facility construction would be
      very strong evidence of commitment to treat waste, and this evidence may
      be acceptable in the place of a contractual commitment. Also. EPA has
      proposed that a contractual commitment requirement is no longer
      appropriate where a facility has been constructed and the only contingency
      preventing it from becoming operational is the issuance of a permit by a
      regulatory authority.
      •	Where the totality of evidence supports a showing that DOE is managing
      construction in-house, and is in effect acting as its own general contractor,
      EPA has proposed that the requirement has been met;
      •	EPA may consider compliance agreements negotiated with regulatory
      agencies (in this case, EPA) to be binding contractual commitments for the
      purposes of this requirement, if they contain commitments to provide
      certain capacity by a stated date; and
      •	EPA is considering an Interagency Agreement (IAG) between EPA and
      DOE. EPA anticipates that such an IAG would contain a commitment by
      DOE to provide, by a specified date, all the capacity required to treat the
      waste streams addressed by the extension application that are not
      addressed by compliance agreements or where DOE is constructing
      capacity in-house.
      No final decision will be made on DOE's case-by-case application until EPA has
      resolved whether DOE has met the requirements of 40 CFR 268.5(a)(2).
      Comments:
      The comment suggesting that EPA should not rely on DOE to develop the
      capacity needed to manage the largest quantities of mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes is
      presented here:
      Regswrite, Inc. (Regswrite: 17; pp. 2, 5).
      

      -------
      5-15	Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Wastes
      Docket Number: CD2P-00017
      Commenter:	Regswrite, Inc.
      Comment:	pp. 2, 5
      Mixtures with Radioactive Waatt
      EPA indicates that while there is uncertainty as to tha quantity
      of wastas that ara mixtures of newly listed RCRA/radioactive
      residues,it is comfortable allowing these uncertain quantities
      to remain untreated at the predominant generator# Department of
      Energy {DO*} sitas, and to remain untreated, and probably
      unmanaged, at an unknown number of "other" generator sites. This
      "comfort" logic leaves a great deal to be desired and discerned.
      First, it appears that EPA is relying on DOB to develop the
      primary capacity for treating and managing the largest quantities
      of mixtures of RCRA/radioactive wastes, Historical data and
      present conditions illustrate DOE's inability to properly produce
      and manage radioactive materials, so it follows that DOE would
      poorly treat and dispose of mixtures of RCRA/radioactive wastes.
      2, EPA should utilise the known permitted nuclear waste
      commercial and on-site facilities to manage the
      RCRA/radioactive mixture wastes rather than allow the
      generation, management and disposal of an unknown volume
      of wastes at an unknown number of unidentified generator
      sites,
      EPA appears to be relying on DOS to "do the right thing"
      and to develop proper treatment and disposal technology.
      However, DOE has proven to be a recalcitrant federal
      agency that follows few rules in tha production and
      management of radioactive materials. It is currently
      being accused of allowing a contractor to dispose of
      radioactive residues at non-permitted facilities for
      eleven years or so.... In addition, the agency is
      reluctant to assume responsibility for clean-ups and
      attempts to circumvent or postpone corrective actions.
      

      -------
      5-16	Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Wastes
      S.4 Non-DOE Mixed RCRVRadioactive Wastes Should be Stored Under an
      Emergency Permit Program
      Summary:
      Regswrite, Inc. (Regswrite: 17: pp. 3. 5) staled that EPA should mandate that
      non-DOE mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes be managed and stored under an emergency
      permit program at known, permitted nuclear waste commercial and on-site facilities, as
      opposed to allowing the generation, management, and disposal of these wastes at an
      "unknown number of unidentified generator sites." The commenter explained that "the
      fewer the sites managing the waste the higher the ability of EPA to supervise and
      manage the program and the better the ability to determine the quantities generated.
      Inadequate capacity would receive timely permit attention."
      Response:
      EPA disagrees with the commenter, who appears to misunderstand the RCRA
      regulatory program. Mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes are not generated, managed, and
      disposed at "unidentified generator sites." EPA and authorized states know where mixed
      RCRA/radioactive wastes are generated and managed. All facilities generating more
      than 100 kilograms/month of RCRA hazardous wastes, including mixed wastes, must
      notify EPA or an authorized state and obtain an EPA identification number. Facilities
      generating more than 1,000 kilograms/month of hazardous wastes also must file Biennial
      Reports, which identify the types of hazardous wastes generated and whether they are
      mixed with radioactive materials. (See, for example, the federal 1991 Hazardous Waste
      Report, Form GM, Box I.)
      Non-DOE mixed RCRA/radioactive waste generators also are regulated bv the
      NRC or agreement states. Non-DOE generators of mixed RCRA/radioactive waste
      include nuclear power plants, a large number of academic and medical institutions such
      as hospitals, medical centers, and university laboratories dealing with radioisotopes, and
      other selected industries (e.g. radiopharmaceutical companies). Any facility possessing
      radioactive material, including waste, regardless or quantity, is identified by the NRC.
      Facilities possessing radioactive material are neither "unknown" nor "unidentified". Of
      the 24,000 non-DOE facilities currently licensed by the NRC and agreement states, EPA
      estimates that roughly 1,000 are generators of mixed RCRA/radioactive waste. In
      addition, storage of any radioactive material, including mixed waste, has to comply with
      NRC technical storage requirements. Therefore, generators and other handlers of mixed
      RCRA/radioactive wastes are neither "unknown" nor "unidentified" as claimed by the
      commenter.
      Mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes, like other RCRA wastes, can be stored at the
      site of generation for greater than 90 days only if the generator has a permitted or
      interim status storage facility that is specifically allowed to handle mixed wastes. (In the
      

      -------
      5 - 17	Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Wastes
      case of generators of 100-1000-kilograms per month, the limit is 180 days, or 270 days in
      certain cases.) Furthermore, treatment, or disposal of mixed RCRA/radioactiVe wastes is
      allowed only at facilities specifically permitted to handle mixed wastes. Currently, only
      five facilities nationwide hold or are in the process of obtaining RCRA permits to treat .
      waste scintillation fluids. Two of these facilities are located in Tennessee, and the others
      are located in Texas, Colorado, and Florida. Only one facility, located in Utah, is
      permitted to land dispose mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes, and the types of waste
      disposed at this facility are constrained by the facility's RCRA permit and NRC license.
      Other than these facilities, EPA is aware of no other facilities that are permitted to treat,
      store, or dispose of mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes.
      EPA believes that the current RCRA regulatory program is adequate to ensure
      proper management of the hazardous component of mixed RCRA'radioactive wastes and
      that "emergency permits" are unnecessary, EPA and state programs are able to conduct
      adequate compliance monitoring and enforcement for generators of mixed
      RCRA/radioactive wastes and facilities that manage these wastes, and to provide timely
      review of applications for new treatment capacity.
      Comments:
      The comment stating that EPA should mandate that non-DOE mixed
      RCRA/radioactive wastes be managed and stored under an emergency permit program is
      presented here:
      * Regs write, Inc. (Regswrite; 17; pp. 3, 5).
      

      -------
      5-18	Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Wastes
      Docket Number: CD2P-00017
      Commenter:	Regswrite, Inc.
      Comment:	pp. 3, 5
      Mixtures with Radioactive Waste - Continued
      Second, since there are relatively few conmercial facilities
      permitted to manage radioactive or RCRA/radioactive mixture
      wastes, it would seem prudent to ensure that these mixtures be
      managed, or stored under an emergency permit prior to treatment
      and disposal, at these few facilities. Since EPA admits that,
      besides DOB, it is uncertain of the number of "other" generators,
      reducing the number of unknown sites to a known number of
      conmercial sites would provide more security, emotionally and
      environmentally. The fewer the sites managing the waste the
      higher the ability of EPA to supervise and manage the program and
      the better the ability to determine the quantities generated.
      Inadequate capacity would receive timely permit attention.
      2. EPA should utilize the known permitted nuclear waste
      commercial and on-site facilities to manage the
      RCRA/radioactive mixture wastes rather than allow the
      generation, management and disposal of an unknown volume
      of wastes at an unknown number of unidentified generator
      sites.
      EPA appears to be relying on DOE to "do the right thing"
      and to develop proper treatment and disposal technology.
      However, DOE has proven to be a recalcitrant federal
      agency that follows few rule? in the production and
      management of radioactive materials. It is currently
      being accused of allowing a contractor to dispose of
      radioactive residues at non-permitted facilities for
      eleven years or so.... In addition, the agency is
      reluctant to assume responsibility for clean-ups and
      attempts to circumvent or postpone corrective actions.
      

      -------
      5-19	Mixed RCRA/Radioaclive Wastes
      5.5 Treatment Capacity for Some Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Wastes is Increasing
      Summary:
      Westinghousc Savannah River Company (WSRC; L0007; p. 1) reported that it
      was in the process of adding new mixed RCRA/radioactive waste treatment capacity.
      WSRC has some equipment that is both radioactive and contaminated with mercury.
      Roasting or retorting was identified in the Third Third rule as the appropriate technology
      for high concentration mercury wastes (i.e., greater than 260 ppm). Since that rule was
      promulgated, WSRC has proceeded through several planning and design stages for a
      mixed RCRA/radioactive waste treatment facility that will include roasting and retorting
      capabilities. WSRC stated that the waste streams designated for treatment in the new
      facility would mostly be classified as debris. (The commenter did not mention either the
      amount of capacity being developed or its scheduled date of operation.)
      Response:
      EPA welcomes comments detailing efforts to develop alternative capacity to treat
      mixed RCRA/radioactive debris in accordance with the land disposal restrictions
      promulgated under the Third Thirds. Although the two-year national capacity variance
      that EPA granted for this debris expired on May 8, 1992, DOE has submitted a case-by-
      case extension application for certain Third Third mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes,
      including debris, generated and stored at 31 of its facilities. DOE requested a one-year
      extension of the Third Third capacity variance for the mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes
      addressed in the application, including 24 low-level and 2 transuranic mixed waste
      streams generated by WSRC DOE stated in its application that it would request a
      second extension.
      EPA is reviewing DOE's application and has issued a proposed finding that DOE
      has made all but one of the demonstrations required by 40 CFR 268.5 for a case-by-case
      extension (57 FR 22024). The remaining demonstration requires DOE to enter into a
      binding contractual commitment to construct or otherwise provide alternative treatment,
      recovery, or disposal capacity for the wastes included in the application. (See response in
      Section 5.3.) EPA will consider granting the case-by-case extension based on its
      evaluation of the remaining demonstration.
      In addition, EPA has taken regulatory action to grant a generic, one-yeir
      extension of the LDR effective date applicable to all facilities managing hazardous debris
      (with several exceptions) (57 FR 20766, May 15, 1992), including mixed ;
      RCRA/radioactive waste classified as debris. This extension is effective from May 8,
      1992 to May 8, 1993. EPA encourages WSRC to continue developing the treatment
      facility described in its comment, and also encourages WSRC to make this facility
      available for waste treatment operations by the end of the generic extension period.
      

      -------
      S * 20	Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Wastes
      Comments:
      The comment stating that treatment capacity for some mixed RCRA'radioactive
      wastes is increasing is presented here:
      • Westinghouse Savannah River Company (WSRC; L0G07; p, 1).
      

      -------
      S - 21	Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Wastes
      Docket Number: CD2P-L0007
      Commenter:	Westinghouse Savannah River Company
      Comment:	p. 1
      SgcHttti V. F. CS7 FS 987) Cftntimlfiatcd Prims Tff flljnClLSlAfldmls
      VWstinghouse Savannah River Company  has some equipment which Is contaminated with mercury
      and Is also radioactive. Roasting or retorting was identified in the third third
      rule as the appropriate technology to be performed on fee high mercury
      subcategory (>260 ppm mercury). Since the third third final rule, the SRS has
      proceeded through several planning and design stages of a mixed waste
      treatment facility which will include roasting and retorting capabilities.
      Waste streams designated for treatment in that unit ax*, lor the most part
      streams that meet the definitioe of debris. Roasting or retorting is an
      appropriate treatment standard for debris which is contaminated with
      volatile metals on tin inside of the piece of equipment and also may be
      appropriate for fee conacle, brick, ceramics, tome glass, composites/ etc
      debris. A roasting or retorting system is able to reach all sur&cq of a debris to
      remove nearly all the volatile metals present la fee case of mixed waste,
      contaminated with mercury, as given in fee example above, fee resulting
      byproduct waste streams would be a decontaminated debris which could be
      disposed of as a non-ha2ardous waste, and a radioactive elemental mercury
      which has a specified treatment standard of amalgamation. Boasting or
      retorting is also an appropriate technology for debris wastes contaminated
      with less than 260 ppm mercury.
      

      -------
      5-22
      Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Wastes
      5.6 Several Obstacles Exist to the Development of New Treatment Capacity for Mixed
      RCRA/Radioactive Wastes
      Summary:
      Two commenters, the Department of Energy (DOE; 41; pp. 32-34) and
      Westinghouse Electric Corp. (WEC; 114; p. 21), while praising EPA's efforts to limit the
      obstacles to permitting new LDR treatment capacity, stated that new mixed
      RCRA/radioactive waste treatment capacity could not be obtained in a short time. DOE
      explained that it was subject to the procedures of the Federal budgetary process, and
      therefore it would be impossible to meet the immediate needs for treatment of mixed
      RCRA/radioactive waste, including debris contaminated with mixed waste. DOE also
      mentioned that the complexities and time requirements of the permitting process impair
      efforts to provide additional capacity to manage mixed RCRA/radioactive waste. DOE
      said that complying with the LDR requirements for mixed RCRA/radioactive waste is
      difficult because of unique hazards and handling difficulties associated with the
      radioactive component of the waste, WEC also reported that the slow permit review and
      approval process considerably impairs its attempts to add new mixed waste management
      capacity.
      DOE explained several obstacles to developing new capacity.
      •	DOE stated that much debris contaminated with mixed RCRA/radioactive
      waste has yet to be generated from remediation and decommissioning of
      DOE facilities, and that generation of these wastes will frequently be
      nonroutine or unanticipated. As a result, it will be difficult to predict in
      advance the amount of treatment capacity that will be required.
      •	Decommissioning and maintenance at DOE facilities will generate high-
      level mixed RCRA/radioactive debris that vill require extensive
      containment. Under the Atomic Energy Act, containment for these wastes
      will often have to be custom fabricated according to the radiological
      hazards presented by the waste, which may take months or years to
      complete.
      •	To add to the difficulty of providing proper containment for radioactive
      materials, DOE reported that permitted storage areas that are
      appropriately shielded may not be available.
      •	DOE also stated that mixed RCRA/radioactive debris can be unusually
      large or bulky, and that since these wastes are typically generated in a
      nonroutine fashion, it would not be practical to expand the amount of
      storage permitted to accept them.
      

      -------
      5-23
      Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Wastes
      *	Finally, DOE explained that because of a lack of capacity and appropriate
      sampling and analytical techniques, there could be a substantial delay in
      properly characterizing mixed RCRA/radioactive waste prior to selecting
      the proper treatment alternative. DOE argued that analytical capabilities
      for certain types of mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes will not exist for
      several years.
      DOE provided an example of the difficulties associated with the management of
      mixed RCRA/radioactive debris at one of its facilities, the PUREX facility at the
      Hanford Site. DOE described the handling and access problems that a specific waste
      presented, as well as the cost and time requirements to allow transport of the waste away
      from the facility.
      Response;
      EPA agrees with both DOE and WEC that the development of new treatment
      capacity for mixed RCRA/radioactive debris will often be complicated and time
      consuming. Nevertheless, DOE is committing to providing the necessary treatment
      capacity by specified dates, including an Interagency Agreement with EPA, as part of its
      application for a case-by-case extension of the Third Third capacity variance for mixed
      RCRA/radioactive wastes.
      Comments:
      The comments stating that new mixed RCRA/radioactive waste treatment capacity
      cannot be obtained in a short time are presented in the following order:
      *	Department of Energy (DOE; 41; pp. 32-34); and
      Westinghouse Electric Corp. (WEC; 114; p. 21).
      

      -------
      5 - 24	Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Wastes
      Docket Number: CD2P-00041
      Commenter:	Department of Energy
      Comment:	pp. 32-34
      2. EPA aalntains that there is sufficient flexibility 1n the RCRA regulations
      for facilities and generators to add additional treatment capacity and new
      waste treataent processes in a short period of tiae.
      DOE cournends EPA for Its efforts to limit permitting barriers associated wil-
      adding LOR treataent capacity to a facility. However, DOE maintains that
      the case of WW, additional treatment capacity and processes cannot be
      obtained in a short time. DOE is subject to the steps Inherent to the Fee?'.
      budgetary process and therefore cannot possibly meet the immediate needs t"
      treatment of RHW-contam1nated debris waste, or any other RMW. Furthermore.
      the permitting process is a complex, time consuming process that impacts
      efforts to develop additional waste management capacity for WW,
      (OOE's reaalnlng consents under this section (V.I) disregards continuing DOE
      compliance issues relative to the prohibition on storage of LDR WW. This
      particular issue has been brought to EPA's attention 1n earlier DOE contents
      (e.g., consents in response to the Hay 30, 1991 ANPRM and the November 22,
      1989 Third Third proposed rule) and will not be readdressed here.]
      DOE is encountering permitting barriers relative to the storage of LDR RMW.
      As has been addressed by DOE in aany past coanents to LDR proposed
      rulemakings, RMW presents a unique situation relative to compliance with LDR
      requiresents. RMW debris presents an even greater challenge in that much of*
      this category of waste will be generated upon remediation and decommissioning
      of DOE's vast legacy of nuclear weapon production facilities. Generation of
      these wastes will often be a nonroutine or unanticipated occurrence for
      specific debris/contaminant aatrices (this is probably the case for non-RMW
      debris and nondebris waste generation at decommissioning and remediation
      activities, as well). RMW generation creates additional, protracted problems
      that non-RMW debris will not encounter. Some of these problems are briefly
      described below:
      

      -------
      5 - 25
      Docket Number: CD2P-00Q41
      Commenter:	Department of Energy
      Comment:	(continued)
      Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Wastes
      Reictor and nuclear weapon production facility decommissioning and
      maintenance activities, in particular, will result In the
      generation of highly radioactive RMW debris (e.g., equipment,
      filters, shielding aaterials, contaminated.structures, etc.) that
      will require special management, such as extensive levels of
      containment. This will result in som of the following AEA
      requirements:
      Containers for these wastes are often required to be custom
      fabricated according to the radiological specifications of
      the matrix. Fabrication can take months or years to
      complete.
      Storage areas must be appropriately shielded. Dependent
      upon the waste generated, permitted areas may not be
      available. Often It 1s safer from a'radiation exposure
      standpoint to leave the waste in the area where it is
      generated rather than move it to a permitted area, if in
      fact such an area exists that can safely manage the waste.
      DOE can neither readily predict nor justify the penal tt in-,*
      of every possible area in which such waste may be generate:
      particularly in light of the fact that these wastes may z*
      nonroutinely generated.
      Should an RMH require sampling and analysis, the lack of capacf.
      and appropriate sampling and analytical methodologies for RMw
      create a lengthy waiting period In order to appropriately
      characterize the waste prior to a treatment decision. Some
      analytical capabilities will not exist for certain RMW for yei'.
      Debris waste can bemassive in volume or dimension (e.g.,
      telephone poles, structures, large pieces of equipment).
      Appropriate storage capacity may not be available for this IV •
      And in light of their typical nonroutine generation, it would setm
      to be unrealistic to expand permitted storage for these wastes.
      

      -------
      5-26	Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Wastes
      Docket Number: CD2P-00041
      Commenter:	Depanment of Energy
      Comment:	(continued)
      At the Hanford Site, an example of the problems encountered with RMW debris
      management can be illustrated. At the PUREX facility, a highly radioactive
      waste containing large amounts of fission products (400 grams of plutonium)
      and an extremely high dose rate (for 10 ml of waste the dose rate is three to
      five rad/hr) was generated during installation of a vessel. This waste stream
      contains mainly concrete and tank dunnage (carbon steel) corrosion products
      from the E-Cell canyon floor. Analytical TC Leaching Procedure capabilities
      do not currently exist for highly radioactive contaminated materials at
      Hanford, however process knowledge has conservatively designated this waste as
      hazardous due to chromium. Chromium was not used in the PUREX process and the
      source of the chromium 1s believed to be the concrete. This waste is being
      stored within the PUREX canyons due to Its high radiological hazards. The
      canyons are only accessible remotely, making treatment decisions very
      problematic. Transport of the waste In a highly shielded transport vessel
      will require design, construction, and safety testing to meet Department of
      Transportation requirements for highly shielded transport vessel. This
      process has been estimated to take six months to three years to complete and
      the cost of constructing the container has been estimated at J100.000 •
      $500,000 (the figure could potentially double when safety analysis
      documentation and container testing costs are added). Because this waste was
      unanticipated, permitted storage Is currently not available and treatment
      capability does not exist for this waste.
      While DOE supports EPA's allowance for maximum efficiency 1n the permitting of
      facilities to treat LOR waste, special concessions need to be made for
      situations where a nonroutlne RMW, particularly debris, will require storage
      over 90 days outside of a permitted storage area due to the constraints
      associated with the management of the radiological hazards (e.g., hot cells,
      tunnels, canyons).
      

      -------
      5-27	Mixed RCRA/Radioaetive Wastes
      Docket Number: CD2P-O0114
      Commenter;	Westinghouse Electric Corporation
      Comment;	p. 21
      WEC applauds the efforts by EPA to limit permitting barriers associated with adding LDR
      treatment capacity to a facility. However, WEC maintains that in the case of RMW, additional
      treatment capacity and processes cannot be obtained in a short time. WEC is encumbered by
      an excessively slow permit review and approval process which continues to hamper efforts in
      creating additional waste management capacity for RMW.
      

      -------
      5-28
      Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Wastes
      5.7 EPA Should Encourage Separation of the Hazardous and Radioactive
      Components of Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Waste
      Summary:
      Waste Management, Inc. (WMI: 81; pp. 16-19) commented that the shortage of
      disposal sites that are permitted to accept mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes is the most
      significant problem associated with the proper management of these wastes. WMI also
      argued that there is little incentive to develop commercial treatment capacity in the
      absence of a means of disposal for treated waste "because it makes little sense to ship
      mixed waste for treatment, only to be forced to store the treated waste on-site or return
      it to the generator for indefinite storage." As a result, WMI recommended that EPA
      encourage separation of the hazardous and radioactive components of mixed waste
      through the development of BDAT standards, in order to allow the treated waste streams
      to be reclassified as either hazardous or radioactive waste. WMI suggested that EPA
      apply the "contained-in" interpretation to mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes. Under this
      approach, wastes treated to BDAT standards that do not pose significant risks to human
      health and the environment from their toxic constituents would no longer be regulated
      under Subtitle C. This reclassification would allow the treated radioactive waste to be
      disposed of at an existing radioactive waste disposal site.
      Response:
      EPA has recently proposed regulations that address WMI's suggestion to allow
      treated waste streams to be reclassified as either hazardous or radioactive. On May 20,
      1992, EPA published a proposed rule to amend the hazardous waste identification system
      (57 FR 21450). This proposal includes an option that would establish concentration-
      based exemption criteria (CBEC) for certain listed wastes and media contaminated with
      such wastes. Under this proposed option, certain listed wastes whose hazardous
      constituents are below the proposed CBEC levels would no longer be regulated as
      hazardous wastes. These wastes would be exempted from Subtitle C regulation because
      they do not pose significant risks to human health and the environment. Thus, certain
      mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes treated to below CBEC levels would be exempt from
      Subtitle C and could be disposed in existing facilities that are permitted to accept
      radioactive wastes but not mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes.
      The proposed rule also requests comment on a variant of the CBEC option that
      would specifically address mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes (57 FR 21463). Under this
      approach certain mixed wastes with relatively low concentrations of hazardous
      constituents would be exempt from RCRA Subtitle C regulation if the wastes are
      managed in compliance with Atomic Energy Act regulations that control the radioactivity
      hazards. EPA encourages WMI to submit comments on the proposed hazardous waste
      identification rule.
      

      -------
      S - 29	Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Wastes
      Comments:
      The comment recommending thai EPA encourage separation of the hazardous
      and radioactive components of mixed RCRA/radioactive waste is presented here:
      • Waste Management, Inc. (WMI; 81; pp. 16-19).
      

      -------
      5-30	Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Wastes
      CD2P-00081
      Waste Management, Inc.
      pp. 16-19
      Mired Wsftg
      EPA should apply the "comained-in" interpretation to mired hazardous radioactive wa«e.
      Those who generate and manage mixed radioactive hazardous waste are faced with a
      unique set of problems when complying with the Land Disposal Restrictions. Perhaps
      the most significant problem associated with the proper management of mixed waste is
      that there is a shortage of disposal sites which are permitted to accept radioactive
      hazardous wastes. Without a means of disposal there is little impetus to develop
      commercial treatment capacity because it makes little seme to ship mixed waste for
      treatment, only to be forced to store the treated waste on site or return it to the
      generator far indefinite storage.
      If through treatment the radioactive portion were to be separated from the hazardous
      waste, then the resulting waste streams could be reclassified as either hazardous or
      radioactive wastes and then disposed of separately at	hazardous waste or
      radioactive waste disposal sites. However, there are no explicit criteria for determining
      when a mind waste ceases to be hazardous or radioactive. Seeking a delisting for the
      treated waste and residuals derived from treatment would be a long and costly ordeal.
      Alternatively, EPA's Office of Solid Waste has informed the Regions that they may make
      Docket Number:
      Commenter:
      Comment:
      

      -------
      5-31	Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Wastes
      Docket Number: CD2P-00081
      Commenter:	Waste Management, Inc.
      Comment:	(continued)
      decisions regarding when a non-solid waste (ix^ radioactive material regulated under the
      AEA) no longer contains a RCRA hazardous waste, bat the Regions have been reluctant
      to make these decisions without guidance from EPA Headquarters. Furthermore,
      because this is a national problem we believe that EPA Headquarters should address this
      issue to ensure consistency between Regions.
      Many mixed wastes, once treated to BDAT standards, will no longer pose significant
      threat to human beahh and the environment from the standpoint of toxic constituents
      because they have bees substantially immobilized, removed, or destroyed. Even if these
      treated materials do not meet delisting or & minimi* lewis that render them eatable and
      drinkable, placement into a licensed radioactive waste depository should provide more
      than adequate safeguards against environmental contamination. EPA can codify the
      "contained-in" interpretation or use the authority under section 1006 of RCRA to exempt
      the BDAT treated mixed waste residues from Subtitle C regulation and defer regulation
      of any radioactive treated residuals to the AEA and other applicable EPA regulations.
      Of course, such treatment devices may have to be permitted under Subtitle C to treat
      mixed waste, but this should not be as difficult a task as securing the necessary permits
      for a mixed waste land disposal facility.
      

      -------
      5-32	Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Wastes
      Docket Number: CD2P-00081
      Commenter:	Waste Management, Inc.
      Comment;	(continued)
      EPA should encourage separation of mixed waste components for reclassification
      purposes through its development of BDAT standards. This may entail selecting certain
      physical and chemical methods of separation prior to a destruction, recoveiy,
      stabilization, or immobilization technology as well as specifying thermal treatment to
      destroy organic compounds. Moreover, a specified method of treatment for BDAT is
      preferable to a concentration-based treatment standard for mixed wastes because the
      radioactive portion of the seated waste presents a health hazard to those attempting
      sampling and analysis for compliance testing. In keeping with the NRCs "as low as is
      reasonably achievable" (ALARA) principle, the handling of radioactive materials should
      be minimized to reduce the potential for human exposure. For example, thermal
      treatment could be specified for radioactive scintillation cocktails or soil and debris
      contaminated with organic toxic compounds. Following treatment to destroy the toxic
      organic constituents in the waste, the ash could be reclassified from mixed waste to
      merely radioactive waste and subsequently placed in a radioactive disposal site.
      

      -------
      S - 33	Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Wastes
      Docket Number: CD2P-00081
      Commenten	Waste Management, Inc.
      Comment:	(continued)
      In addition, WMJ ha* experimented with its X*TRAX™ thermal desorption process
      whicli has successfully separated, through volatilization, the organic fraction from a mixed
      waste stream that also was contaminated with PCBs. The organic component was
      subsequently stabilized and able to pass the TCLP. This type of process may prove to be
      instrumental in addressing mixed waste treatment problems.
      

      -------
      CHAPTER 6
      HAZARDOUS DEBRIS
      EPA received 44 comments discussing issues related to the capacity available for
      hazardous debris. They were received from: American Petroleum Institute (API) (2),
      General Motors (4), Envirosafe (7), Beazer East (13), Chlorine Institute (14), US
      Ecology (16), Soil Tech (33), Allied Signal (35), Coastal Corporation (39), Department of
      Energy (41), Phillips (42), USPCI (43), Unocal (44), Ash Grove (45), General Electric
      (46), Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (47), National Association of Metal
      Finishers (49), Hazardous Waste Treatment Council (HWTC) (51), Lubrizot (60),
      American Paper Institute/National Forest Products Association (61), British Petroleum
      Oil (64), Exide Corp. (69), State of North Carolina Dept. of Environment, Health and
      Natural Resources (72), Department of the Army (73), OHM Corp. (74), Olin Chemicals
      (78), Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) (80), Waste Management, Inc. (Chem
      Waste) (81), DuPont (83), Corning (86), Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (96),
      National Association of Demolition Contractors (98), Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp.
      (102), HWAC (103), Electronic Industries Association (107), Rubber Manufacturers
      Association (RMA) (110), Union Carbide (111), Eastman Kodak Co. (115), BF Goodrich
      Co. (116), American Gas Association (L003), Portland Cement Association (PCA)
      (L004), Institute of Chemical Waste Management (ICWM) (L016), Rollins (L026),
      USPCI (LQ27).
      Some commenters believe that EPA has underestimated the quantities of
      hazardous debris generated and subject to this rule, and that EPA has failed to take into
      account the quantities of debris treatment residuals that need to be managed.
      Commenters generally agreed with the need for a capacity variance for debris
      contaminated with newly listed and identified wastes and several commenters requested
      an additional national capacity variance for debris contaminated with previously regulated
      wastes. Some commenters provided data on the type and quantities of hazardous debris
      generated and land disposed based on their debris management experience.
      Commenters also raised the issues of materials handling problems with hazardous debris
      and the permitting of extraction treatment systems to manage hazardous debris.
      Commenters believe that these concerns can limit the available treatment capacity for
      hazardous debris. Commenters also expressed concern that storage capacity for
      hazardous debris is limited.
      The major issues raised by commenters relating to the hazardous debris capacity
      analysis can be classified into the following categories:
      •	Underestimation of the Quantity of Contaminated
      Debris Generated;
      •	Total Quantity of Debris Generated;
      « Capacity Variances For Hazardous Debris Contaminated With Newly
      Listed Wastes;
      

      -------
      6-2	Debris
      Capacity Variances For Hazardous Debris Contaminated With Pre%iously
      Regulated Wastes;
      Materials Handling Problems With Hazardous Debris;
      Treatment Capacity For Hazardous Debris Is Limited;
      Storage Capacity For Contaminated Debris Is Umited; and
      Other Issues.
      

      -------
      6-3
      Debris
      6.1 EPA Underestimated the Quantity of Hazardous Debris
      Summary:
      Five eommenters [USPCI (43), General Electric (46), Department of the Army
      (73), Chemical Manufacturers Association (80), and Dupont (83)] believe that EPA has
      underestimated the quantity of hazardous debris generated. These eommenters cited
      several factors which they maintain led EPA to underestimate hazardous debris
      quantities:
      •	Some eommenters are of the opinion that EPA has neglected
      to include significant categories of debris generated. The
      Department of the Army (73) asserts that the rule does not
      reflect debris resulting from the removal of above ground
      structures. The army argues that the proposed rule does not
      address the impact on construction debris generated from
      routine renovation projects, specifically, debris resulting from
      the removal of lead based paint.
      •	USPCI (43) expressed concern that EPA's c-nacity estimates
      do not include residuals from the treatmer .azardous
      debris.
      •	Dupont (83) maintains that EPA's esti of debris
      requiring treatment is miscalculated ai .oes not take into
      account the volume of demolition was .hat would have to
      be managed under this proposal. Dr .t further contends
      that EPA did not take into account impact the proposal
      will have on construction and demolitiun activities.
      • Other eommenters do not mention specific debris types that
      they believe have not been properly considered, but simply-
      state that EPA has significantly underestimated debris
      quantities based on their own experience and research. GE
      (46) argues that the new definition of debris expands the
      universe of wastes that are considered debris and that many
      debris that may exhibit a characteristic were not accounted
      for in EPA's analysis.
      Response:
      The Agency acknowledges the uncertainty associated with hazardous debris
      estimates. The Agency is aware that demolition and construction activities can generate
      significant quantities of hazardous debris. To the extent that eommenters have provided
      

      -------
      6-4
      Debris
      data on the quantities of debris they generate or manage, EPA has taken these data into
      accourt in its capacity analysis for the final rule. EPA has updated its estimates of debris
      contaminated with newly listed and identified wastes from 8,000 tons per year to 33,000
      tons per year.
      Debris that exhibits a characteristic is either a previously regulated waste (if it is
      contaminated with waste codes D001-D013) or will be addressed in a future rulemaking
      (if it is contaminated with waste codes D018-D043). Therefore, these debris are not
      covered by this rule.
      EPA does not have specific data on the amount of wastewater residuals from the
      treatment of hazardous debris. Furthermore, these residuals are not debris and therefore
      are not included in the hazardous debris capacity analysis. However, under this rule,
      debris treated by a prescribed extraction or destruction technology and that does not
      exhibit a hazardous characteristic is excluded from Subtitle C regulation. Thus, residuals
      from the treatment of hazardous debris by extraction or destruction technologies that
      meet the definition of debris may not require additional treatment.
      Comments:
      The comments stating that EPA has underestimated the volume of hazardous
      debris are presented in the following order:
      USPCI (43);
      •	General Electric (46);
      •	Department of the Army (73);
      •	Chemical Manufacturers Association (80); and
      •	DuPont (83).
      

      -------
      6-5
      Debris
      Docket Number:
      Comraenter:
      Comment:
      CD2P-00043
      USPCI
      p. 19
      Additionally, EPA has not presented any capacity estimates for the avalanche of
      residuals from the treatment of contaminated debris, EPA estimates that as much as 800.000
      tons of contaminated debris will exist at the time of the national capacity variance expiration.
      EPA has not provided an estimate of the volume of waste which will occur from the use of
      waste-generating treatment technologies. If it were aa order of magnitude for each unit of
      debris treated, it would meats that 8,000,000 tons of treatment capacity will be required, not
      800,000. If EPA has capacity information relative to the production of debris treatment
      residuals it should include it in the rulemaking economic analysis.
      \
      

      -------
      6-6
      Debris
      Docket Number:
      Commemer:
      Comment:
      CD2P-00046
      General Electric
      pp. 13-15
      A. EPA has net taken Into aeeount the 'araa volumes of debris that will
      be newtv reaulated bv this proposal.
      GE believes that EPA does not comprehend the impact of this
      proposal. EPA apparently does not recognize that this proposal is just as much a
      waste identification rule making for contaminated debris as it is one dealing with
      t*nd ban treatment standards. Itie agency is proposing a new definition of debris
      ar* contaminated debris, along with a series of interpretations on how to
      determine whether debris should be considered contaminated. These rules will
      result in large volumes of debris being regulated by RCRA Subtitle C for the first
      time. Therefore, the agency is seriously underestimating the impact of tha rule
      when it assumes that the only contaminated debris alreedy identified as
      hazardous prior to this rulemaking will be affected by it.
      EPA's woeful miscalculation is reflected in the estimate that this
      proposal will result in the regulation of only an additional 8,COO tons of debris a
      year; an estimate that ia based primarily on additional volumes of debris
      contaminated with F037 and F038 wastes generated by the petroleum industry.
      There is no evidence that EPA has gathered any data regarding the potential
      impact this proposal will have on normal construction and demolition activities.'
      

      -------
      6 - 7
      Debris
      Docket Number:
      Coinmenter:
      Comment:
      CD2P-00046
      General Electric
      continued
      However, given EPA'* position that debris from an entire demolition project will
      have to be managed as hazardous waste If a few pieces of metal in the debris
      exhibit a hazardous characteristic, this proposal will clearly bring more than 8,000
      tons of newly regulated debris into RCRA each year. In addition, it would be safe
      to say that most companies have not been grinding up all their solid debris for
      purposes of the TCLP to determine if their debris is characteristically hazardous,
      or evaluating the debris to determine if it "contains" a listed waste in the "pores"
      of the debris.
      This is reflected in the data EPA used to support this rulemaking, it reKed en meetings with
      companies already in the business of disposing contaminated debris. Records of Decision from
      Superfund sites, the National Survey of Treatment Storaoe. Disposal and Recycling Facilities, and
      *>• National Survey of Hazardous Waste Generators. 57 Fed. Reg. at 1002. The limitations of
      ***e data are dear. The aurveys are eeveral years old, and the respondents almost certainly did
      "ot apply the aweeping definition of contaminated debris now proposed by EPA. Further,
      determining how waste management compenies have been meneging contaminated debris begs
      question of how much more contaminated debria will be identified as a conaequence of this
      nils. •
      14
      

      -------
      6-8
      Debris
      Docket Number: CD2P-00073
      Commenten	Department of the Army
      Comment;	pp. 1-2
      3. The proposed rule change is based on several assumptions
      that do not correctly reflect the current situation. In
      particular, the category and volume of construction debris that
      may contain a listed hazardous waste. The survey of primarily
      Superfund waste sites revealed "that the most frequently found
      debris consists of metal objects (typically drums and tanks),
      brick, concrete, and rock." Since the survey concentrated on
      Superfund sites, this- finding does not represent the more cs.t„t.c
      debris resulting from the removal of above ground structures.
      6 The proposed rule also does not address the impact on
      construction debris generated from routine renovation projects.
      Renovation projects normally involve removing old doors and
      windows. Most facilities constructed before 1977 were painted
      with LBP. As mentioned previously# surfaces painted with LBP
      may fail TCLP, and thus, the debris may become hazardous waste.
      Since FORSCOM. has an inventory of SI,251 housing units, the
      majority of which were constructed between 1950 and 1974,
      disposal of LBP renovation debris may become a significant
      problem.
      

      -------
      6-9
      Debris
      Docket Number: CD2P-00Q80
      Commenter:	Chemical Manufacturers Association
      Comment:	pp. 26-28
      T. CNA la concerned that EPA has Dot adequately addressed
      capacity Uaitationa la cooaectioo with this proposed rul«.
      1. EPA hss underestimated tha volume of contaminated
      dabrla that will need to be aaaased la accordance »!• h
      this rata.
      Tha Agency aatlmates that a volume of 1,000,000 cubic yards of
      contaalasted dabrla Is generated annually. CMA believes that eh<>
      Agency's estimated is low. Aa tha Agency notes (5? F* at 99fi)
      generation ratas for dabrla ara highly variabla and large volunes can
      ba generated during dismantling of plants or portlona of plants. Ona
      CMA seabar company alona generated more than 30,000 cubic yards of
      dabrls in 1988 alona.
      EPA haa alao made several arronaous asauaptions with respect to
      dabrls ganaration ratas that affactad tha accuracy of its capacity
      analysis. For example, CPA atataa that wastes currantly land disposed
      and naadlng sltarnatlva traataant ara to ba included la tha capacity
      considaration. But EPA than proceeds to list as noa-laad disposed (and
      therefore excluded from coosldaratlon) discharges under tha NP0ES
      prograa and dischargaa to POTVs (57 Ft at 998). Vhila it is true chat
      tha dischsrgaa themselves ara not conaldarad land disposad, tha
      activated carbon uaad in some of thasa traataant ayataas and tha
      sludgaa ganaratad by most of thaa ara iapactad by tha proposed rule.
      In sddltlon, tha Agaacy proposal for Uatiag wsstewatar froa debris
      treatment aa F039 would paaa that wsste coda to wastewater treatment
      residues. Tharafora, aaay wastewater traataant systaaa that msnage
      only nonhazardoua or characteristic waatas ara praclodad froa use.
      Alternatively, thasa wastes aaad to ba iacludad ia this capacity
      analysis. CMA la also concerned about Agaacy asstmptioas regarding the
      aaount of on-site or iatra-coapaoy capccity availabla. CMA questions
      the basis upon which needed capacity waa discounted because of so««
      undefined capacity that EPA aasuaas is la e*iateaca.
      Ia light of the significant projected capacity shortfall, cha
      requests that tha Agency consider tha following alternative apprench
      for aanaging contaminated debris. For those situatioaa where
      sufficient capacity exists for a specified techaology, tha technology
      should be implemented as described ia thu proposed rule, includin* <.*•
      reeoval of tha treated debria froa farther Subtitle C regulation. F ••
      those situstions where the availabla capacity to treat a given
      contaminant with a given technology ia inadequate, EPA should c-nt
      to subject the contssinsted debris to the treatment standards for -.«•
      listed waste or characteristic wsste that is contaaiaatinx the
      

      -------
      6-10
      Debris
      Docket Number: CD2P-00080
      Commenter:	Chemical Manufacturers Association
      Comment:	continued
      AbM&t as available specified technology, alternative techno: * •«
      Hill obviouslj have to be eaployed for these waitVfc. lecAut*
      Agency My sat have detailed aaalysis of these alternative proc«<*-«
      treataeat efficiency will have to be based on aaalysis of eoepoe i: ; «
      While obtaining representative saaple* la difficult for aoee d»b"«
      types, other dabtia types eu ba readily analyzed. Aa exaapla h «
      cloth filter, which should, if iaaersed in a filter housing, ba
      uniformly contaminated, ao that a representative sasple can b* <-
      swatch of tha cloth.
      The treatment levels tha Agency should aaploy to dataralns if this
      treated debris raaalos la Subtltla C should be health-based or
      rlak-bcsad, aa should all traataant levels undar tha land disposal
      rastrlctlona. Acceptable risk lava la should ba tha baa la for tha
      reaoval of treated dabris froa Subtltla C requireaeata. Tha degree to
      which dabris mat be treated could b« determined basad on reasonable
      •xposura pathway*, such aa iagestion assumptions for tbosa items ««a11
      •nough to ba ingaatad. This approach would have tha affact of allowing
      potentially unproven decontamination technologies to ba usad for
      dabris. Moreover, slnca tha dabris would contain contaainants only ae
      below haalth-basad lavals, tha aaterlal remaining aftar traataent could
      ba axcludad fro* Subtltla C regulations. CHA suggests tha Agency look
      to existing standards, such as tha TC lavals, for setting thaaa
      health-based lavala.
      For dabris that, due to ita complex aatrix or analytical
      constraints, cannot demonstrate decontamination to low health-based
      levels, CHA suggests tha Agency'allot* uaa of tha Super fund 6A and 6B
      guidance on traataant levels, but require that dabris thua treated
      reaaia under Subtitle C control.
      All the above atape could, if the Agency agree* it has tha
      authority, be. adopted aa guidance to allow corrective action and other
      remediation work to continue la the interim until such tlae aa capacity
      for EPA'a proposed technologies becomes available.
      

      -------
      6- 11
      Debris
      Docket Number: CD2P-00083
      Commented	DuPont
      Comment:	p. 2
      Du Font considers EPA's assumptions on impacted debris volumes to b<
      significantly underestimated
      As the Agency states in Section VI of the preamble at 57 FR 998, thi
      volumes counted in the capacity deterainations include petroleui
      refining and organic wastes, mixed radioactive wastes and debri;
      contaminated with newly listed wastes in the amount of an estimatei
      200,000 tens or cubic yards per year. The available capacity as o:
      Kay 8, 1992 has been balanced against that Agency estimate. Because
      this proposal deals with treatment standards for all contaminate;
      debris (57 FR 961), regardless of whether or not land disposal
      restrictions already exist for the contaminating waste, the potential
      required capacity is the full 1,000,000 cubic yards per year. Thi
      1,000,000 cubic yard assumption is based on the Agency's assertion, at
      57 FR 1002, that 80 % of all debris currently enjoys a variance anc
      the assertion, at 57 FR 996, that 800,000 tons or cubic yards art
      believed to be brought back into the LOR requireaenta as of Hay 8,
      1992.
      Du Pont believes that the Agency has significantly underestimated thi
      volume of debris generated. As the Agency notes in its discussion at
      57 FR 996, generation ratea for debris are highly variable and largi
      volumes can be generated during dismantling of plants or portions o:
      plants. Du Font's Deepwater, New Jersey facility, in calendar year:
      1992 through 1994, will generate an estiaated 10,000 cubic yards o:
      impacted debris as the result of disaantling a single process at tha«
      site, the site operates several hundred processes which will generati
      additional debris across that tiaefraae. SPA has erred in several
      stated assumptions on generation of wastes impacted by this propose;
      rulemaking which iapact the capacity analysis. At 57 FR 998, EWi
      states that wastes currently land disposed needing alternativi
      treatment are to be included in the capacity consideration and thei
      proceeds to list, as non-land disposed (and therefore excluded froi
      consideration) discharges under NPDES and those to POTWs. While it i:
      true that the discharges themselves are not considered land disposed
      the activated carbon used in some of these treatment systems and thi
      sludges generated by most of thea are iapacted by the rule, a:
      proposed. The rationale adopted by the Agency that would subject
      wastewater froa debris treatment to F039 standards would pass thost
      requirements on to wastewater treatment residues, based on contact:
      with the Agency. Therefore, many wastewater treatment systems whlcl
      manage only nonhazardous or characteristic wastes are either preclude!
      from use for these debris residues or the resultant residues and thei
      treatment wastes need to be included in this capacity analysis
      . I
      

      -------
      6-12
      Debris
      6.2 Additional Data on the Quantity of Debris Generated
      Summary:
      Seven commenters provided data on the quantity of debris generated based on
      their debris management experience: Envirosafe (7); Beazer East (13); Soil Tech (33);
      USPCI (43); Department of the Army (73); Waste Management Inc. (Chem Waste) (81);
      and DuPont (83). Generally, each comment addressed one or more particular types of
      debris that they managed. For example, commenters submitted the following data:
      •	Envirosafe (7) submitted data on incoming waste steams for a
      one month period at their facilities:
      Loads with no debris - 5%
      Loads with one debris category - 26%
      Loads with two debris categories - 60%
      Loads with three or more categories - 9%
      •	Soil Tech (33) reported managing:
      42,000 tons of PCB-contaminated material at
      the Wide Beach Superfund site.
      5,000 tons of PCB-contaminated material at the
      Waukegan Harbor Superfund Site (20,000 tons
      before May 1992).
      Over 15,000 tons of refinery wastes, drilling
      muds, PCB wastes, municipal garbage, shredded
      tires, and oil field wastes.
      •	Beazer East (13) identified a remedial action site containing •
      approximately 22,500 cubic yards of hazardous debris.
      •	Waste Management Inc. (81) noted that its Model City
      Subtitle C landfill approved for disposal approximately 50,000
      cubic yards of debris containing material. This material was
      disposed of during a four-month period in 1991. The volume
      represented 37 different waste streams. Waste Management
      also provided data on three demolition projects containing
      hazardous debris.
      

      -------
      6-13
      Debris
      •	USPC1 (43) reported that 69% of remedial action projects they are familiar
      with include a significant amount of debris, and that 17% include debris
      that is a mixture of all sic debris types.
      •	Dupont (83) reports 10,000 cubic yards of debris from the cleanup of a
      former Dupont facility,
      •	The Department of the Army (73) mentioned that it has a goal of reducing
      building space by 17 million square feet for FY92 to FY96. The demolition
      of these structures is likely to generate very large quantities of debris that is
      likely to contain lead based paint.
      Response:
      EPA acknowledges the data that commenters have submitted. To
      commenters have provided data on the quantities of debris they generate
      EPA has updated its information and taken these data into account in its
      analysis for the final rule.
      Comments:
      The comments providing data on the generation of hazardous debris are
      presented in the following order:
      •	Envirosafe (7);
      •	Beazer East (13);
      •	Soil Tech (33);
      USPCI (43);
      •	Department of the Army (73);
      •	Waste Management (81); and
      •	DuPont (83).
      the extent that
      or manage,
      capacity
      

      -------
      6-14
      Debris
      Docket Number: CD2P-0007
      Commenter:	Envirosafe
      Comment:	p. 2
      In earns of the scope of the proposed rule, ESI has conducted
      a vasta load survey of incoming waste streams ovar the last
      month at our facilities, and hava realized the following data:
      toads with no debris - 5%
      Loads with ona dabris category - 261
      Loads with two dabris categories - 60%
      Loads with three or more categories of debris - 9%
      Based on this data, EMSX would like to propose an alternate
      standard. The strategy which we encourage the Agency
      consider, given the saall amount of contamination found :n
      most inorganic debris, would allow for inorganic contaminated
      debris to be disposed directly into a properly permitted and
      operated Subtitle C disposal unit, providing the debris .as
      free of "caked-on" soil or nonwastewater (KWW). For detsris
      mixed with WWW, the debris may be separated from the nww j.-.i
      then co-disposed subsequent to the treatment cf kww . - t
      . Subtitle C disposal unit. The disposal into a Subtitle c ,n:t
      provides excellent protection, especially when the debris :s
      co-disposed with treated waste that was the source cf --e
      contamination.
      

      -------
      Docket Number:
      Commenter:
      Comment:
      CD2P-OOQ13
      Beazer East
      p. 52
      6. 15
      Debris
      This information was obtained fcoa the analysis of 31
      Records of Decision and may be of use to EPA in its analysis of
      capacity and cost issues.
      In this analysis, Beazer East determined that on the
      average, about 84,000 cubic yards of soil would be generated in
      the remediation of wood treating sites. Based on the number of
      wood treating sites that exist, it was estimated that nearly
      S5.3 millon cubic yards of soil nay be generated. In a recent
      report on remedial actions at a wood treating site in Montana,
      it was stated that approximately 75,000 cubic yards of materials
      were excavated foe treatment. Approximately 30 percent of this
      volume consisted of coarse fragments that may fit the definition
      of debris in this Proposed Rule. It is not known how
      representative this figure is for all wood treating sites. This
      figure coupled with the potential volume of railroad ties and
      other debris generated during building and tank demolition at
      these sites indicates that a very large volume of material from
      wood treating sites may potentially be regulated. When debris
      volumes frosi other types of contaminated sites are considered,
      the amount of material potentially regulated is staggering.
      

      -------
      6- 16
      Debris
      Docket Number: CD2P-00033
      Commenter:	Soil Tech
      Comment:	p. 2
      Specifically, the Soil Tech process
      has successfully treated:
      1.	Forty-Mo thousand tons of PCB-contaminated material at the Wide Beach
      Superfund Site;
      2.	Over 5,000 tons of PCB-contaminated material to date at the Waukegan
      Harbor Superfund Site (expected to reach 20,000 tens before May 1992);
      3.	Over 15,000 tons of various waste streams and materials in a fixed-baso unit
      in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Specific wastes include refinery wastes, drilling
      muds, PCB wastes, municipal garbage, shredded tires, and oil field wastes.
      

      -------
      6 . 17
      Debris
      Docket Number: CD2P-00043
      Commenter;	USPCI
      Comment:	p. 11
      USPCI is familiar with many remedial actions where the debris matrices are
      thoroughly mixed and physically inseparable. A review of remedial project proposals
      submitted in the past three months has been conducted by USPCI's Remedial Services Group.
      Sixty-nine percent (69%) of the projects include a significant amount of debris and seventeen
      percent (17%) include debris that is a mix aire of all sic debris types. Combined with
      multiple contaminant-types this real world condition will render many debris streams to be
      untreatable by the proposed methods. In light of the presumptive treatment the Agency is
      imparting upon its proposed debris treatment technologies, USPCI believes that it is critically
      important for the Agency to recognize that many generators and treaters will prefer to
      maintain all debris within the subtitle C management system. USPCI believes that a subtitle
      C management option must be provided by the Agency which involves amplified treatment
      measures followed by the more protective long-term protection offered by subtitle C MTR
      disposal.
      

      -------
      6- 18
      Debris
      Docket Number: CD2P-00073
      Commenter:	Depanment of the Army
      Comment:	pp. 1-2
      4, In December 1990, the Department of the Army (DA) initiated
      a program to reduce the inventory of buildings (facilities).
      The FORSCOM facility reduction goal for FY92 to FY96 is over 17
      million square feet. The majority of the facilities targeted
      for disposal are wooden structures constructed during World war
      II (WW II). Me are finding that most of these facilities
      contain Lead Based Paint (LBP). Construction debris containing
      LBP may fail the Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure
      (TCLP)- If the debris fails the TCLP, it is subject to disposal
      as hazardous waste.
      

      -------
      Docket Number:
      Commenter;
      Comment:
      6 . 19
      CD2P-00081
      Waste Management, Inc. (Chem Waste)
      pp. 29-31
      Debris
      Mixed Debris
      By far the greatest challenge will be treating mixed debris commonly generated from
      demolition at remediation sites. Three recent demolition projects received at Model (\:>
      are described below. The Srst project consists of 6000 cubic yards of demolition debris
      from an old process building in a mercury cell area. The waste includes the floors nnj
      walls of the building which tested EP toxic for mercury. When the wrecking ball was
      finished knocking down the structure, there was a large mass of brick, concrete block,
      concrete flooring, wood, glass, metal including steel columns, roofing material, fiberglass
      panels, and other materials completely mixed together. Separating this waste into the
      proposed eight categories would be totally unrealistic.
      4
      

      -------
      6-20
      Debris
      Docket Number:
      Commenter:
      Comment:
      CD2P-0G081
      Waste Management Inc. (Chem Waste)
      continued x
      Prior to any crushing and grinding activities, most of the metal components and all non-
      brittle materials (e.g., window frames, rebar, I beams, etc.) would have to segregated.
      Even a magnetic separator can only separate out isolated ferrometallic type debris,
      leaving many other metal type debris (e.gn aluminum) and sections too large or heavy to
      lift (e.g., T beams) mixed in with other debris which can hinder the crushing and
      grinding activities. The types of crashing and grinding machines in operation today are
      designed to handle geologic materials. They were not designed to pulverize any and
      every thing that can be fed into it Assuming the sorting can be accomplished, the
      increased exposure to contaminated dust during sotting, and the release of fugitive
      emissions of hazardous constituents undoubtedly outweighs any realized environmental
      benefits.
      The second example consists of 7000 cubic yards of contaminated soil and debris. Debris
      material include metal bolts, dross, concrete, glass, dirt, rubble, plastic battery cases, rags
      and cardboard contaminated with arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead and
      mercury. Although this material will not require the tremendous grinding and crushing it
      

      -------
      6 - 21
      Debris
      Docket Number: CD2P-00081
      Comr.ienter:	Waste Management, Inc. (Chem Waste)
      Comment:	continued
      will require significant sifting and sorting. It is unknown whether this grinding and
      crushing can be mechanized; however, it is clear that not just one treatment technique
      will be effective in managing this wide range of material that is encountered on a
      remedial site such as this CERCLA project
      The third example of a mixed debris waste stream which contained concrete and rock
      mixed with soil and debris contaminated with chromium. The loads of soil have been
      found to contain the front end of a car, a hot water beater, ductwork, and yes, even a
      kitchen sink. In the absence of a sophisticated mapetic separator and load sifting and
      screening equipment, these buried treasures are causing a significant amount of damage
      to our stabilization equipment
      

      -------
      6-22
      Debris
      CD2P-00081
      Waste Management, Inc. (Chem Waste)
      Attachment 6
      AMI K I *
      mimhauy
      oi I'liiiTAfiuiATKii or.mu:; 1'iioH ntirmcAi.
      mmuu riM-Y, nv unih-im.
      {AppfiovenieB u«vi«tit
      WAIiTi:
      HANftt:i;ni:i)T
      ....
      tuortc
      #
      GCNEBAIOn
      WASTf
      PROCESS
      .oacmira
      WAS1E
      EPA
      CODE
      &UB-'
      CATEOORr
      (TOlia
      ANNUAL
      VOLUME
      COMUENIS
      Kit030
      llut$ Mioriej
      lo*.b»c*.fu«X«.
      ¦oat ptrm. nt
      »w» peducton KU d
      nMm
      0009
      1.1.3.5
      lid
      2.500
      cv yOs.
      Pr^ad
      "059
      hto
      tei, lackidtteis
      {inchdtt k*cha>i
      ka4»ndelC».
      MM on* Un*. ductooik
      oomtd eenciai* a«cu.«e I
      Itenm* et Ct conuwln*«i
      ¦ (inHu* lian c***nrtM«
      «t>)
      0007
      1,1,7
      Itol
      s.ooo
      cu ydt
      Piot«ei«
      MM/88
      GC. W*rr«n
      6* IpK Ump i
      cmeencnt ft'sdum (glass
      *mM*Q
      mcrtacarl temp nig
      DOO*
      I.*
      400
      KM
      
      Kll/K
      U£.
      o* *>ec Urrp »
      conpomm podvcN (Qttat
      •
      ac90mc#M Ixno wig
      uooa
      1.«
      100
      m nil.
      
      KIUK
      GE.
      ;orpornnl piadiKts MW
      ourtocw* imp Me
      noo*
      1-
      i.« ':-n
      2300
      cvyO*
      
      J57009
      Octfd«if»l
      Jti***® Mn« wcxn
      •ftlg
      mo •< poean Mis
      mwcuyainu
      uoo»
      1X3* f
      M ' :
      6 000
      cu ids.
      Pt^ad
      Mjoms
      AIM Sly*
      f 11 **• tsbestm rnmAtban
      •»Mh dxanium
      dnmni—m Mm dxmtcii
      PWB rac»r
      inor
      (
      MO
      CU. *tl
      
      ACS203
      GtE
      ¦•kaetorMMoals fc«ict.
      IMUt. OHM
      0*aft*nac«
      dwMiofi
      U004
      ins*
      i.H
      sso
      MS
      •
      AC9659
      OMM.NI
      PW.«alo«t
      i«n»owtf oi procMBi
      M'yUMWI'll
      foot
      I
      1.200
      ». |Ot
      
      
      Oiipom
      c«amc cMpi *»d
      tl1"li <¦ ik 1 dupf
      raw
      t
      ISkM
      ~ -
      
      OC
      ume »I I «»W tt.llvl
      Docket Number:
      Commenter:
      Comment:
      

      -------
      6-23
      Debris
      Docket Number:
      Commcnter:
      Comment:
      Of COHTAHL HAITI) IICUNIU KltOM C1ILMICA1. UASTi: HANACMII NT".*
      HOUKt. CITV, N* IJII.NIIPII.I. (CtjiiMI
      (AmovEorea-iuTtMq
      PnOfHE
      awaiiM
      WASTE
      process
      Qaeumo
      IMURE
      EM
      oooc
      aus-
      CATOOORV
      P1MJQ
      annual
      VOLUME
      nmmriffti
      
      IkUPwM
      i
      1
      1
      I
      ¦^pMciNp MBmm
      MM
      DON
      1
      n
      a. )0t
      
      MBMO .
      D«mCW
      ¦fcactofffciiefc
      
      DOW
      1
      2ta«a
      
      UIISM
      OlMikM
      AttVllJtAQBt fpNK*
      m
      
      DOM
      II
      0«S
      Mrs
      
      **tm
      QiiMtt
      P'VCftMf frlNRpllfc'm
      |yi|
      rnmmmmmm
      DOB?
      rw|Q
      S
      0.8
      Mnt
      
      *czao
      GakjwfelOu
      blfebMi Mttl •suwldgi
      tow Mttf tadw 1
      tffli 9*ad ttifebfll
      i r
      a os
      tons'
      
      OH	
      lAttttBfVftl
      :*aci«**K»«
      dttvtMlMi
      rMnfMflMMMM
      SMlifi
      0001
      i
      «
      aij*
      
      Nrikidvy kicks
      MfeMAd gf Mfttl kal^r
      Q0»
      i
      r.
      JO
      Mnt
      
      MSIM
      QMWIUI
      Mbfis Imm InJMMNI 4mm
      MM**-*
      UQM-II
      UM.
      r
      i
      t
      <00
      MMS
      
      ACM If
      MMM
      & flttwKiW 4 ttHCtwoM
      
      cm
      f»BI|
      ,
      20
      on fdt
      
      Mtm
      WNwiWi.
      
      
      rmr^
      14
      300
      a*, yda
      
      Mint
      Of
      (ifiifwfti'ili
      
      mat
      14
      300
      Ctt. >*§.
      
      KtSNS
      US Amy
      m
      MMMdtjfCMlO Vp
      DOW.
      1
      14
      1 mm
      C
      lout
      
      m&mij
      USIPA
      9&t & diiiii fMttUrf Md
      mam. e«nci0«i'gUii,ifi,
      ikMil*. f*MK baowi ciut.
      uga 8 c*dMaril
      CXIICLA xaUc* Milt
      (XKM-
      nwwf
      SIH
      M*
      r.ooo
      em r*t.
      
      CD2P-00081
      Waste Management, Inc. (Chem Waste)
      continued
      

      -------
      6-24
      Debris
      Docket Number: CD2P-00081
      Commenter:	Waste Management, Inc. (Chem Waste)
      Comment:	continued
      :;iinn.uiY nr i'iiiitamiij.vitk ni:uin:: i huh ini:nir:
      
      
      KIM153
      *or>!S
      rudotel
      n|Ktnin*( HMcx
      tlq corillninaKkltl l^H
      tuft* |«»y I
      U*»*				
      leadeortfiM mate* Uts(p> pes,
      (inks »•!») Ipotyptof
      co»ic*e. MM) ip&clllfcMi
      mm. Pftj	
      oslitMWriMltM mfi Iq
      NMMng
      4et»ts
      llftetgf m |nsul3tio>!|
      ckcui boards wtii ln>i.
      l»n I capp*
      51 (Ml vihrjtiuti iatlft
      *«lt» Iigi cotrfjta
      •I i>ri
      * • •• I-M-4*|
      I
      FftOCCSS
      • GriiEmim
      W*StE __
      Mm cttangts
      ligit luck ««i
      opaaHan _
      spid«ans fat,
      COHcmt, *•. pipa. aool.
      (<*aie. Pit, «l 1^'!».»)
      t V sttxs 
      rVKfX fcom jyviea
      IMiMingOunail
      mlg ceiiec uptauxt
      medio-its dqN
      labia
      ¦¦Jim Ha gu dd.^lr *><»
      «><
      SUO-
      CArcGonv
      tTG ia.n
      IKKW
      i KKK.
      KX)f.
      ItOOfl
      iiiEJf
      1X306,
      11005
      I >010
      i>009
      EJQQ6
      oota
      CXXJ5.
      WQ8
      >006
      1)009
      <*u
      I.2.3L*.
      47
      1.2.67
      l.W.
      '
      i.i.i,
      ?
      ?
      ?
      i
      17
      7
      AflflUAi
      vaiiwE
      » *"
      ?u" rds 	
      tto
      u |di
      (»0
      M*iS
      (SpriQ coiid
      nolbid«cenn«1
      «th *id vosti
      MHi
      font
      100
      ions
      Stuns
      too"
      tons
      ii
      (WIS
      IS"
      ions
      I ions
      i.CKW
      CU |*li
      GO '
      fa ipds,
      OOMMEHIS
      

      -------
      6-25
      Debris
      Docket Number: CD2P-00083
      Commenter:	DuPont
      Comment:	p. 5
      In the first instance, a former Du Pont facility, now owned by another
      Company, require# cleanup in order to allow for commercial
      development. Du Pont is coordinating that cleanup effort.
      Approximately 10,000 cubic yards of debris, principally in the form o:
      bricks from former manufacturing facilities, will need to be managed.
      The primary contaminant in the bricks is lead. The facility operate
      from the early 1900s and therefore, the debris is considerably
      stained. Additionally, the bricks contain low levels of
      dinitrotoluene, which results in an additional classification as a
      D030 contaminated debris.
      

      -------
      6-26
      Debris
      63 EPA Should Grant Capacity Variances for Hazardous Debris Contaminated with
      Newly Listed Wastes
      Summon:
      Six commenters [API (2), Phillips (42). INGAA (47). BP Oil (64), Rubber
      Manufacturers Association (110), and the American Gas Association (L003)] requested
      that capacity variances be issued for hazardous debris contaminated with newly listed
      wastes covered in this rule. Five commenters [API (2), Phillips (42). BP Oil (64), Rubber
      Manufacturers Association (110), and the American Gas Association (L003)] explicitly
      supported the Agency's proposed variance for F037/F038 hazardous debris. INGAA (47)
      believes that a one-year capacity variance must be approved for contaminated soils.
      Response:
      EPA acknowledges the lack of available capacity to treat debris contaminated with
      wastes covered under this. Several commenters noted that EPA's estimate of the
      quantity of hazardous debris contaminated with waste covered under this rulemaking is
      low. EPA recognizes that there is a general lack of treatment capacity for hazardous
      debris. Therefore, EPA is granting a two-year national capacity variance for debris
      contaminated with newly listed wastes covered in this rule. EPA notes that no comments
      were received that disagreed with the need for a national capacity variance for debris
      contaminated with wastes covered under this rulemaking.
      Comments:
      The comments requesting capacity variances are presented in the following order:
      API (2);
      •	Phillips (42);
      INGAA (47);
      BP Oil (64);
      •	Rubber Manufacturers Association (110); and
      •	American Gas Association (L003).
      

      -------
      6-27
      Debris
      Docket Number: CD2P-0002
      Commenter:	API
      Comment:	pp. 25, 26
      API supports the proposed two-year national capacity variance fcr
      soil and debris contaminated with F037/F038 waste.
      EPA recognizes the considerable uncertainty concerning the
      quantity of contaminated debris requiring treatment and disposal
      and has proposed a two-year national capacity variance fcr secns
      contaminated with newly listed waste. API supports issuance cf
      thi3 variance. As EPA recognizes, by May 8, 1992, national
      capacity variances will expire for debris contaminated with
      hazardous wastes. This will cause a shortfall in treatment
      capacity and thus warrants a two year capacity variance.
      Contrary to EPA's assertions, the need to obtain permit
      modifications to allow treatment of contaminated debris at
      seraitted facilities would significantly hinder the treatrer.*.
      capacity available for contaminated debris. Very likely, most,
      permit modifications will entail class III permit modifications
      which by their nature are quite lengthy. Although theoretically
      temporary authorizations under 40 CFR 270.42(e) are available,
      companies may be reluctant to expend their resources to engage in
      additional treatment unless and until they are sure that their
      permit modifications will be approved. In short, EPA's
      assumptions concerning treatment capacity at permitted units are
      flawed.	, .
      

      -------
      6-28
      Debris
      Docket Number: CD2P-00042
      Commenter:	Phillips
      Comment:	p. 2
      re37%038	PfQ0Cf*d tw°'Y,tf r,*tior|<111 e«°»c'tY ""iw" *qv«^s
      treatment and diiposai and has proposed • two year national capacity variance. PtMii.oi tycoons
      isauance of tftia variance.
      

      -------
      6-29
      Debris
      Docket Number:
      Commenter:
      Comment:
      p. 8
      CD2P-00047
      INGAA
      ia Capacity Variance Decisions for Newty Llated Waaiea
      INGAA offers its support for a two-year vaxjance from the surface disposal
      requirements being proposed for storage and treatment of petroleum wastes m
      surface impoundments. INGAA believes an additional one-year capacity vanar.ee
      must be approved for contaminated soils, as well, when EPA proposes that rule
      the near future.
      \
      

      -------
      6-30
      Debris
      Docket Number:
      Commenter:
      Comment:
      CD2P-00064
      BP Oil
      p.?
      <4
      o BP Oil supports the proposed iwo-vcar national capacity variance fof debris contaminated with
      F037/F038 waste.	^
      EPA has recognized the considerable uncertainties concerning the quantity of contaminated debris
      requiring treatment and disposal and has proposed a two-year national capacity variance, Wc support
      issuance of this variance.	'
      

      -------
      6.31
      Debris
      Docket Number: CD2P-000110
      Commenter:	Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA)
      Comment:	p. 5
      Finally, RMA supports the Agency's proposal to grant a two-year national capacity
      variance for debris contaminated with newly-listed wastes. Based on the information
      EFA has received from the regulated community subsequent to the Advance Notice of
      Proposed Rulemaking, the Agency has determined the available capacity for contaminated
      debris will be limited because of the large quantity of debris covered under the easting
      LDR program that requires treatment Further, additional commercial treatment facilities
      and technologies are necessary to handle the estimated additional debris contaminated
      with the newly-identified wastes that will be required to be treated under the proooval.
      The extension of time is needed to construct and permit additional treatment faonties.
      Accordingly, RMA agrees with EPA's proposal to establish a two-year capacity %ar.ar.cc
      to allow sufficient time to establish additional treatment facilities and technologies u>r
      debris contaminated with the newly-identified wastes.
      

      -------
      Docket Number:
      Commenter:
      Comment:
      6-32
      CD2P-L003
      American Gas Association
      pp. 7,8
      Debris
      9. Capacity Variance Decisions (or Newly Listed Wastes
      A.G.A supports a two year variance from the surface disposal requirements Demg
      proposed for storage and treatment of petroleum wastes in surface impoundments, ceons
      contaminated with newty listed wastes, and mixed radioactive waste. AG.A. believes a
      two year capacity variance must be approved for contaminated soils as well, when EPA
      proposes this rule in the near future.
      

      -------
      6-33
      Debris
      6.4 EPA Should Grant Capacity Variances for Hazardous Debris Contaminated with
      Previously Regulated Wastes
      Summaiy:
      Eight commentcrs [US Ecology (16), Chemical Manufacturers Association (80),
      DuPont (83), HWAC (103), BF Goodrich Co. (116), ICWM (L016), Rollins (L026), and
      USPCI (L027)] requested that capacity variances be issued for hazardous debris
      contaminated with previously regulated wastes. Specific issues raised by these
      commenters include;
      •	The Chemical Manufacturers Association (80) expressed the
      view that EPA should limit the proposed rule to newly listed
      wastes that are eligible for variances and then phase in new
      treatment standards for previously restricted wastes as
      additional capacity becomes available.
      •	Dupont (83) stated that due to the change that EPA
      proposed in treatment standards for previously regulated
      wastes, these wastes either need a generic variance or warrant
      a capacity variance, or EPA should restrict the new standards
      to newly listed wastes and phase in previously restricted or
      prohibited wastes as capacity becomes available.
      « HWAC (103) supports a national extension of the effective
      date of treatment for debris contaminated with previously
      regulated wastes because the number of case-by-case
      extensions that would be submitted by affected facilities
      would render the process unworkable.
      •	BF Goodrich (116) suggests that EPA grant a variance
      request for D009 debris. BF Goodrich further contends that
      a D009 variance should be in effect for at least 12 months
      after the final rule.
      •	US Ecology (16) believes EPA should establish new waste
      codes for various debris/contaminant categories and issue a
      two-year capacity variance.
      •	ICWM (L0016) urges the Agency to consider alternatives to
      ensure that the beneficial treatment of contaminated debris
      does not come to a grinding halt when the national variance
      expires. ICWM suggests the promulgation of provisions for
      implementing simplified case-bv-case capacity variances that
      

      -------
      6-34
      Debris
      allow the continued management of debris at specific
      facilities.
      •	Rollins (L0026) expressed support for a case-by-case extension to the
      contaminated debris requirements.
      •	USPCI (L0027) requests a nationwide case-by-case extension
      to be granted for a period of one-year for previously
      regulated contaminated debris.
      Response:
      EPA acknowledges the lack of available capacity to treat debris for which the two-
      year national capacity variance granted in the Third Third expired on May 8, 1992.
      Commenters have pointed to the complexity of this rule, the large quantities of
      hazardous debris that require treatment, and numerous technical uncertainties with the
      proposed treatment standards as reasons why obtaining immediate treatment capacity is
      beyond their control and capabilities. EPA has been and continues to be cognizant of
      the existing capacity shortfall for hazardous debris and agrees that adequate treatment
      capacity for hazardous debris cannot be provided by the treatment effective date.
      Therefore, EPA has taken regulatory action, effective May 8, 1992, to approve a generic,
      one-year extension of the LDR effective date applicable to all facilities managing
      hazasdous debris (with certain exceptions) (57 FR 20766, May 15, 1992).
      Comments:
      The comments requesting capacity variances are presented in the following order:
      •	US Ecology (16);
      •	Chemical Manufacturers A	• bu);
      •	DuPont (83);
      HWAC (103);
      •	BF Goodrich Co. • j);
      ICWM (L016);
      •	Rollins (L026); and
      USPCI (L027).
      

      -------
      6 ¦ 35
      Debris
      Docket Number:
      Comtnenter:
      Comment:
      CD2P-O0O16
      US Ecology •
      p. 2
      S, If it can be statutorily justified, EPA should establish *aste
      codes for various debris/contaminant categories and issue i '-o year
      capacity variance so that the problem can be mr? z'osely
      scrutinized. The regulated community had only 47 days to	the
      proposal; EPA will have only 10 weeks to evaluate the ::-r-e--.s and
      finalize the regs. This rulemaking will have a dramatic --;izz on
      Industry, large and small, cleanups, Superfund, Corrective -z::n, as
      well as TSDFs. It deserves closer attention.
      (
      

      -------
      Docket Number:
      Commemer:
      Comment:
      6-36
      CD2P-00080
      Chemical Manufacturers Association
      p. 29
      Debris
      3. Due to the lack of capacity for imt of the n»u1y-
      soaelflad tachnolotlas. EPA should Halt the proposed
      rule to newly-listed wastes that are eligible for
      variances and then phase In new ttMtwut standards for
      previously restricted wastes as additional capacity
      bacoaaa available.
      Under proposed I 268.65, any debria contaainated with on* or aora
      of tha contaainants subject to treataent listed la Tab la 2 aust ba
      traatad by one or aora of tha appropriata aatboda deterained for that
      constituent in Tibia 1. Tha affact of thla proposal would ba to
      require all tha debris for which variances expire on Kay 8, 1992 to be
      treated by technologies that, by the Agancy'a own adaiasion, do not
      currently exist coaaercially in suitable capacity. The vendors
      presaatly employing aany of these technologies, such as water and
      abrasive blasting, are generally industrial cleaning companies not
      presently involved in the hazardous waste business. They will
      generally not be available to provide the necessary services by Hay 8,
      1992. To aatca aatters worse, aany debris-generating activities are
      perait coaplianca activities related to corrective action. Generators
      aust perfora these activities on schedule, despite the Hay 8 NCV
      expiration, to avoid stipulated penalties.
      In order to respond to the lack of capacity, EPA should liait the
      new rule to newly-listed wastes, which are eligible for variances, and
      phase in tha treataent standards for previously restricted wastes as
      additional capacity becoaes available. la addition, EPA should Include
      in the final rule language sufficient flexibility in the applicability
      section to allow treaters, storars, and disposers to coaply with both
      40 CT* Part 26* and 40 CF* Part 268.
      

      -------
      Docket Number:
      Commentcr:
      Comment:
      CD2P-00083
      DuPont
      p. 3
      6-37
      Debris
      Due to the change that EPA has proposed in treatment standards for
      previously addressed wastes, Du Font believes these wastes either need
      • generic vari&ice, warrant a capacity variance or that the Agency
      should restrict the new standards to newly listed wastes and phase in
      previously restricted cr prohibited wastes as capacity becomes
      available
      By the wording proposed in 268.45 of this proposal, any debris
      contaminated with one or more of the "contaminants subject to
      treatment" listed in Table 2 must be treated by any of the appropriate
      methods determined foe that constituent in Table 1. The effect of
      this decision by the Agency is to take all the debris for which
      variances expire on Kay 8, 1992 and subject it to treatment
      technologies which, by the Agency's own admission, do not currently
      exist commercially in suitable capacity. The vendors presently
      employing many of these technologies, such as water and abrasive
      bitting, are industrial cleaning companies. Many of these companies
      are not in the hazardous waste business and may not be available to
      engage in the necessary activities by the Hay 8 date, due to the
      extensive training needs for the crews engaged in this work. Many of
      the sources of debris are permit compliance activities, related to
      corrective action, for which generators must continue work past Kay 8
      or face stipulated penalties. The Agency should include, in the final
      rule language, sufficient flexibility in the applicability section to
      allow treaters, storers and disposers to comply with both 40 CFR 264
      and <0 CM 268. That flexibility does not exist in the rule, as it is
      proposed.
      

      -------
      6-38
      Debris
      .Docket Number: CD2P-00103
      Commenter:	HWAC
      Comment:	pp. 2,3
      The Agency has several avenues available to provide for
      a smooth transition to the new rules affecting contaminated
      media. They include options involving the timing and the
      mechanics of the standards such as providing sufficient advance
      notice of the chosen treatment standards and delaying the
      effective date of the new regulations to allow for proper
      implementation.
      EPA could establish a presumption that soil and
      debris will be given favorable consideration for
      case-by-case extensions; however, HWAC believes
      that this could prove unworkable due to the volume
      of waste and the number of facilities that would
      b« required to seek extensions.
      

      -------
      6-39
      Debris
      Docket Number:
      Commenter:
      Comment:
      CD2P-000116
      BF Goodrich Co.
      pp. 1, 2
      In meetings with the Agency during 1991, the Chlorine Institute and
      BFGoodrlch expressed their concerns about the timelines of any EPA
      proposed rulemaking pertaining to land disposal restrictions for
      contaainated soil and debris. On August 1, 1991 the Institute made
      separate application to EPA for Generic Treatability Variances for
      Alternate Treatment Technology for D009 Contaainated Debris and for
      DO09 Contaminated Soil. BFGoodrich is included in this
      application. The Agency has not acted on these applications.
      The BFGoodrich Company requests "'the Agency to act on this
      application and grant the variance requests. The Agency should
      approve the variance request for D009 debris to be in effect for at
      least 12 months after the final rule is promulgated for debris.
      Similarly, the Agency should approve the variance request for D009
      soil to be in effect for at least 12 months after the final rule is
      promulgated for soil.
      

      -------
      6-40
      Debris
      Docket Number: CD2P-L0016
      Commenter:	ICV/M
      Comment:	p. 2
      In light of these uncertainties, the Agency must consider
      alternatives to insure that the beneficial treatment of
      contaminated debris does not come to a grinding halt when the
      national variance expires. One option that has been suggested is
      the establishment of a new waste code for contaminated debris.
      While such an action entails possible legal complications, it has
      precedent (the creation of the F039 code) and could buy some of
      the time needed to further improve the debris proposal. However,
      a unique waste code does not appear to be particularly
      appropriate for such a diverse universe of materials as
      contaminated debris. Alternatively, EPA should promulgate
      provisions for implementing simplified case-by-case capacity
      variances that allow the continued management of debris at
      specific facilities.
      

      -------
      6.41
      Debris
      Docket Number: CD2P-ID026
      Commenter:	Rollins
      Comment:	p. 1
      Thes* conusant* ara filad in support of tha request tor a case-by-
      casa extension to the Contaainated Debris requirement*, which was
      filed by the Hasardoti* Wast* Traataant Council ("HWTC") on behalf
      of the hazardous vast* treatment industry. Tha HWTC request was
      submitted as part of tha organiration's consents on the proposed
      rule on Contaminated Debris (37 Fad. Rag. 938).
      

      -------
      6-42
      Debris
      Docket Number: CD2P-L0027
      Commenter: . USPCI
      Comment:	pp. 1,2
      USPCI is respectfully requesting a nationwide case-by-case extension pursuant to 40 CFR
      S 268.5 to be granted for a period of at least one year. The extension would apply to any waste
      received that meets a classification of a contaminated debris subcategory under the land disposal
      restrictions regulations. The extension would cover our primary land disposal facilities, namely
      the Grassy Mountain facility, in Utah (EPA ID No. UTD991301748) and the Lone Mountain
      facility in Oklahoma (EPA ED No. OKDC65438376).
      

      -------
      6-43
      Debris
      6,5 Materials Handling Difficulties Exist for Managing Hazardous Debris
      Summary:
      Six commenters mentioned materials handling difficulties with hazardous debris:
      Envirosafe (7); Department of Energy (41); Hazardous Waste Treatment Council (51);
      Exide Corp,'(69); Waste Management Inc. (81); and Owens Corning Fiberglass Co,
      (102), Most commenters focused on a particular type of waste that they felt would be
      difficult to manage under the proposed rule. Several of these commenters shared the
      concern that the existing permitting process would further hamper their efforts to treat
      waste that are difficult to manage.
      The following concerns were specifically raised:
      •	Envirosafe (7) commented that the proposed rule would
      require a significant increase of physical handling capacity for
      sorting,
      •	The Department of Energy (DOE) (41) asserted that highly
      radioactive mixed waste (RMW) debris is difficult to manage
      because its generation is often a non-routine or unanticipated
      occurrence for specific debris/contaminant matrices. DOE
      notes that reactor and nuclear weapons facility
      decommissioning will result in the generation of RMW debris.
      These wastes require custom fabricated containers and
      shielded storage areas. DOE suggests that special
      concessions be made for nonroutine RMW debris. DOE also
      is concerned that the permitting process is complex and
      impacts on efforts to develop additional waste management
      and storage capacity for RMW.
      •	Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation (102) mentioned that
      some hazardous refractory brick containing phosphorous or
      other hazardous debris does not have recycling or treatment
      options. Owens-Corning urges EPA to provide a mechanism
      for processing and granting extensions on an extremely
      expedited basis in order to address such capacity shortages
      which may develop.
      •	Waste Management Inc (81) mentions problems with
      separating demolition debris that contains many different
      types of materials completely mixed together. Waste
      Management further contends that the types of crushing and
      

      -------
      6-44
      Debris
      grinding machines currently in operation cannot pulverize all
      debris.
      The Hazardous Waste Treatment Council (HWTC) (51) also
      mentions that the separation of debris prior to crushing and
      grinding is problematic,
      Exide Corporation (69) is concerned that operators of
      commercial facilities lack the technologies necessary to crush
      refractory bricks to render them suitable for stabilization.
      Response:
      EPA recognizes the concerns expressed by commenters relating to the immediate
      logistical problems of materials handling and of the time needed* for permit modifications
      and to construct specialized debris treatment units such as containment buildings. EPA
      believes many of these concerns to be valid and agrees that additional time is needed to
      resolve these concerns. Further, EPA recognized in both the Advance Notice of
      Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) (57 FR 24444) and the proposed rule (57 FR 982)
      that many significant technical issues remained unresolved. EPA believes that these
      circumstances are beyond the control of the generators who need to treat or dispose of
      their hazardous debris. The concerns about materials handling for hazardous debris were
      a key factor in EPA's decision to take regulatory action on May 8, 1992 by granting a
      generic, one-year extension of the LDR effective date applicable to all facilities managing
      hazardous debris (with certain exceptions) (57 FR 20766, May 15, 1992). In addition, the
      two-year national capacity variance granted to debris contaminated with wastes covered
      in this rule is issued, in part, because of the current materials handling problems with
      hazardous debris.
      Comments:
      Comments describing materials handling problems are presented in the following
      order:
      •	Envirosafe (7);
      « Department of Energy (41);
      •	Hazardous Waste Treatment Council (51);
      •	Exide Corp. (69);
      •	Waste Management Inc. (81); and
      « Owens Corning Fiberglass Co. (102).
      

      -------
      Docket Number:
      Commenter:
      Comment:
      6-45
      Debris
      CD2P-O0O7
      Envirosafe
      p. 2
      Additionally, the proposal. *s published would tec-
      significant .increase cf physical handling by f.
      personnel, increasing sharply the level of occupy
      hazards for workers now required to conduct debris s
      opera* ion*.
      

      -------
      6-46
      Debris
      Docket Number: CD2P-00041
      Commenter:	Department of Energy
      Comment:	p. 33
      RHW debris presents in even greater challenge in thit much of
      this category of waste will be generated upon remediation and decommissioning
      of DOE's vast legacy of nuclear weapon production facilities. Generation of
      these wastes will often be a nonroutlne or unanticipated occurrence for
      specific debris/contaminant matrices (this Is probably the case for non-RHW
      debris and nondebrls waste generation at deconaissioning and remediation
      activities, as well). RHW generation creates additional, protracted problems
      that non-RMW debris will not encounter. Some of these problems are briefly
      described below:
      o Reactor and nuclear weapon production facility deconaissioning and
      maintenance activities, 1n particular, will result 1n the
      generation of highly radioactive WW debris (e.g., equipment,
      filters, shielding uterlals, contaminated structures, etc.) that
      will require special management, such as extensive levels of
      containment. This will result 1n some of the following AEA
      requirements:
      Containers for these wastes are often required to be custom
      fabricated according to the radiological specifications of
      the matrix. Fabrication can take months or years to
      cooplete.
      Storage areas must be appropriately shielded. Dependent
      upon the waste generated, permitted areas may not be
      available. Often it is safer from a radiation exposure
      standpoint to leave the waste in the area where it is
      generated rather than move 1t to a permitted area, if in
      fact such an area exists that can safely manage the waste.
      DOE can neither readily predict nor Justify the permittm?
      of every possible area 1n which such waste may be generated,
      particularly 1n light of the fact that these wastes may e*
      nonroutlnely generated.
      

      -------
      6 - 47
      Debris
      Docket Number: CD2P-00051
      Commenter:	Hazardous Waste Treatment Council
      Comment:	pp. 29.30
      Prior to any crushing and grinding activities, most alt of the metal components
      and all non-brittle materials (La., window frames, rebar,-1 beams, etc.) would have to
      segregate. Even a debris, leaving many other metal type debris (Lfi^ aluminum) and
      section too large/heavy to lift Qjl "I" beams) mixed in with other debris which can
      hinder the crushing and grinding activities. The types of crushing and grinding
      machines in operation today are designed to handle geologic materials. They were
      not designed to pulverize arty and every thing that can be fed in it Assuming the
      sorting can be accomplished, the increase in worker exposure to 'contaminated dust
      during sorting and the releases of fugitive emissions of hazardous constituents
      undoubtedly outweighs the realized environmental benefits.
      Another example of a challenging waste stream will be the 7000 cubic yard
      project sponsored by the EPA. The waste stream consists of soil and debris. Debris
      material include metal bolts, dross, concrete, glass, dirt, rubble, plastic battery cases,
      rags and cardboard contaminated with arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead and
      mercury. Although this material will not require the tremendous grinding and crushing,
      it will require significant sifting and sorting. It is unknown whether this grinding and
      crushing can be mechanized; however, it is clear that not just one treatment technique
      will be effective in managing this wide range of material that is encountered on a
      remedial site such as this CERCUk project.
      Yet another example of a mixed debris waste stream are those that contain
      concrete and rock mixed with soil that currently requires treatment One current
      project being managed at Model City includes soil and debris contaminated with
      chromium. The loads of soil have been found to contain a kitchen sink, the front end
      of a car, a hot water heater and ductwork buried below the surface. In the absence of
      a sophisticated magnetic separator and load sifting and screening equipment, these
      buried treasures are causing a significant amount of damage to our stabilization
      equipment.
      "Separating mixed debris,* which invariably consists of such a broad mixture of
      materials, into the Agency's eight subcategones and crushing and grinding for the
      purpose of solidifying would sometimes be a fruitless exercise producing no marginal
      increase in environmental protection.
      

      -------
      6-48
      Debris
      Docket Number:
      Commenter:
      Comment:
      CD2P-00069
      Eride Corp.
      p. 6
      With regard to th« proposed BDAT treatment standards for
      D008 inorganic solid* debris, Exid* Corporation continues
      to believe that carious capacity problems remain wnich
      pravant tha proposad treatment standards from Seing
      workable. Prior to stabilization, for example, inorganic
      solid dabris ( such as alaf or rafractory bricks .men
      ara usad in tha walls lining sacondary laad "furnaces and
      which are manufactured to be rasistant to cracking ind
      breaking) would naad to be raducad in size (i.a., to less
      than % inch diameter,' an action which increases tne
      surface area of the waste and increases potential,
      leachability of metals). Exide is concerned t.-.at
      operators of commercial facilities lack the technologies
      which ara necessary to crush these wastes to render rr.ee
      suitable fcr stabilization or to otherwise process tr.es*
      types of materials to meet the propoaed LOR treataent
      standards.
      

      -------
      6 • 49
      Debris
      Docket Number:
      Cemmenter:
      Comment:
      CD2P-00081
      Waste Manacement, Inc.
      pp. 19, 20, 30
      Based on our review of the wide spectrum of materia] that comprises debris, WMI
      believes the proposed categories are inadequate, inappropriate, and impractical. In some
      situations, EPA's approach will force operators to segregate debris into the proposed
      categories and effectively halt treatment operations. Workers will predominantly spend
      their time sifting through and categorizing debris material rather than performing the
      necessary task of treating hazardous waste for proper disposal. Not only is this time
      consuming, but it needlessly exposes workers to hazardous waste as well as sharp or
      heavy debris.
      Prior to any crushing and grinding activities, most of the metal components and all non-
      brittle materials (e.g., window frames, rebar, I beams, etc.) would have to segregated.
      Even a magnetic separator can only separate out isolated ferrometallic type debris,
      leaving many other metal type debris (e.g., aluminum) and sections too large or heavy to
      lift (e.g., 'T beams) mixed in with other debris which can hinder the crushing and
      grinding activities. The types of crushing and grinding machines in operation today are
      designed to handle geologic materials. They were not designed to pulverize any and
      every thing that can be fed into it. Assuming the sorting can be accomplished, the
      increased exposure to contaminated dust during sorting, and the release of fugitive
      emissions of hazardous constituents undoubtedly outweighs any realized environmental
      benefits.
      

      -------
      6- SO
      Debris
      Docket Number: CD2P-000102
      Commemer:	Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp.
      Comment;	p. 2
      However, «• have significant remaining concerns about issues
      related to recycling and treatment of refractory brick.
      At this time, the majority of the refractory brick generated by
      OCF and failing the "toxicity characteristic" test for chromium
      is racyclad. This rafractory is either returned to the original
      vandor for racycla or sent to a high temperature metals
      reclamation facility where the chromium is reclaimed. OCF is
      pleased to have these recycle options. On the other hand, there
      is a small amount of hazardous refractory brick that is not
      suitable for either recycle or reclamation. The vendor where
      this brick is purchased has no recycle process available, and it
      is not accepted for high temperature metals reclamation because
      of phosphorous content, which adversely affects the quality of
      finished product at the reclamation facility. Technical staff
      at OCF are and have been attempting to find a substitute
      refractory material.
      The key point here is that recycle or reclamation will not be an
      option for every type of refractory brick used by OCF or similar
      industries. In addition, OCF is only aware of one facility in
      the entire continental United States that will accept this
      refractory brick for reclamation. Should this facility become
      non-operational for any reason, or should the demand for
      reclamation of chromium-containing debris exceed the capacity of
      this facility after the Kay 8, 1992 deadline, OCF would be faced
      with a significant dilemma.
      Refractory brick which is not suitable for recycle or
      reclamation, will require treatment to comply with the land
      disposal requirements. OCF is not opposed to having this
      refractory brick treated, and indeed, OCF applauds the EPA for
      proposing several treatment technology options. The chromium
      contamination of this refractory brick consists of both surface
      contamination and contamination due to inherent chromium
      content.	Therefore, the immobilization technologies
      (macroencapsulation, microencapsulation, and sealing) would
      likely be required to provide treatment adequate for subsequent
      land disposal.
      

      -------
      6-5!
      Debris
      6.6 Treatment Capacity for Hazardous Debris May Be Inadequate
      Summon:
      Nineteen commenters expressed concern about the availability of treatment
      capacity. The commenters that addressed the issue of treatment capacity are: Beazer
      East (13); US Ecology (16); Department of Energy (41); USPCI (43, L027); General
      Electric (46); National Association of Metal Finishers (49); Hazardous Waste Treatment
      Council (51); Exide Corp. (69); State of North Carolina Department of Environment,
      Health, and Natural Resources (72); Chemical Manufacturers Association (80); DuPont
      (83); Corning (86); Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (96); Owens-Corning Fiberglass
      Corp. (102); Electronic Industries Association (107); Union Carbide (111); Eastman
      Kodak Co. (115); ICWM (L016); and Rollins (L026).
      Commenters had a wide variety of opinions concerning treatment capacity for
      hazardous debris. Most commenters who discussed treatment capacity are concerned that
      sufficient treatment capacity would not be available for specific types of debris when the
      national capacity variance granted in the Third Third Rule expired on May 8, 1992.
      Commenters mentioned several types of debris that could be difficult to manage due to
      treatment capacity shortfalls: radioactive mixed waste (RMW) debris, D008 inorganic
      solids, hazardous refractory brick, and pesticide contaminated rock/gravel. The
      commenters also stated that residuals from debris treatment requiring additional
      treatment also will strain capacity. Commenters raised the following specific issues:
      •	Several commenters [Dupont (83), Union Carbide (44), and
      Chemical Manufacturers Association (SO)] expressed the view
      that a shortage of incinerator and cement kiln capacity will
      exist in the time frame of 1992 to 1994.
      •	Exide Corp. (69) believes that national capacity for crushing
      and granulation is insufficient.
      •	The Hazardous Waste Treatment Council (HWTC) (51)
      stated that a substantial capacity shortfall will exist for the
      necessary treatment trains. General Electric (GE) (46) also
      warns that sufficient treatment capacity will not exist after the
      final rule is in effect.
      Several commenters [US Ecology (16), USPCI (43, L027),
      GE(46), HWTC (51), Eastman Kodak (115), ICWM(L016),
      Rollins (L026)] mentioned that capacity constraints will arise
      due to the extent of time it will take to permit treatment
      technologies for hazardous debris.
      

      -------
      6-52
      Debris
      CMA (80) and Dupont (83) believe that EPA has
      overestimated the interest of the cement kiln industry in
      managing hazardous debris, ¦
      •	Corning (86) and the Electronics Industry Association (ElA)
      believe that EPA's available capacity determination should
      only include those technologies that are commercially
      available at the time of rulemaking.
      •	. Owens-Corning (102) asserts that it is not aware of any
      treatment facilities that are currently performing
      immobilization technologies on refractory bricks and that this
      suggests a capacity shortfall.
      •	The North Carolina Department of Environment (72)
      requested information on the economic cost and availability
      of Subtitle C landfills for disposal of ACM, construction
      debris, or ashes that may have been painted with lead-based
      paints.
      Response;
      EPA acknowledges comments submitted concerning the issue of treatment
      capacity for hazardous debris and recognizes that there are capacity constraints to the
      treatment of hazardous debris. EPA has taken regulatory action to grant a generic, one-
      year extension of the LDR effective date applicable to all facilities managing hazardous
      debris (with certain exceptions) (57 FR 20766, May 15, 1992).
      The regulatory action taken by EPA reflects the Agency's concurrence with the
      views expressed by commenters to the proposed rule concerning the lack of treatment
      capacity and permitting constraints for treatment technologies for contaminated debris.
      EPA has no specific data on the economic cost and availability of Subtitle C
      landfill capacity for debris contaminated with lead-based paint.
      Comments:
      Comments concerning treatment capacity for hazardous debris are presented in
      the following order:
      •	Beazer East (13);
      •	US Ecology (16);
      •	Department of Enerey (41);
      USPCI (43, L027);
      

      -------
      I
      6 - S3	Debris
      General Electric (46);
      National Association of Metal Finishers (49);
      Hazardous Waste Treatment Council (51);
      Exide Corp (69);
      North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
      Natural Resources (72);
      Chemical Manufacturers Association (80);
      DuPont (83);
      Corning (86);
      Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (96);
      Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. (102);
      Electronic Industries Association (107);
      Union Carbide (111);
      Eastman Kodak Co, (115);
      ICWM (L016); and
      Rollins (L026).
      

      -------
      Docket Number:
      Commenter:
      Comment;
      CD2P-00013
      Beazer East
      p. 49
      6 - 54
      Debris
      Beazer East believes that there may be very few technologies
      that are demonstrated and available for the treatment of
      asbestos because of the Agency's past practice of mandating that
      asbestos be encapsulated and disposed, rather than treated in
      other ways. Because of EPA's past practice, there has been very
      little incentive to develop new technologies for the treatment
      of asbestos. Beazer East recommends that the Agency look at
      treatment of contaminated asbestos debris on a site-specific
      basis to determine the best technology available for treating
      each type of contaminated asbestos debris.
      

      -------
      ^ ^	Debris
      Docket Number: CD2P-00016
      Commenter:	US Ecology
      Comment:	p. 21
      4. Should the Agency promulgate the rules for debris as proposed, ft
      should be aware of the tremendous time invested for modifying
      permits. The capacity for debris wi 11 stop on Hay 8, 1992. !: will"
      take from six month to three years to obtain the permit modi ft rations
      necessary to utilize these technologies. Some facilities -ay no
      physically have the room for additional activities.
      

      -------
      6-56	Debris
      Docket Number: CD2P-G0041
      Commenter:	Department of Energy
      Comment:	P- 32
      2. EPA maintains that there is sufficient flexibility in the RCRA regulations
      for facilities and generators to add additional treataent capacity and new
      waste treataent processes 1n a short period of tlM.
      DOE commends EPA for Its ifforts to limit per«1tting barriers associated wiv
      adding LOR treataent capacity to a facility. However, DOE aalntains that i*
      the casa of RMW, additional treatment capacity and processes cannot be
      obtained In a short tlae. DOE is subject to the steps inherent to the Fece'i
      budgetary process and therefore cannot possibly aeet the imediate needs f.-«-
      treataent of RtW-contaa1nated debris waste, or any other RKH. Furthermore,
      the permitting process 1s a coaplex, tioe consunlng process that impacts
      efforts to develop additional waste aanageaent capacity for RHW.
      

      -------
      6 - 57	Debris
      Docket Number: CD2P-00043
      Commenter: , USPCI
      Comment:	p. 19
      V. T. 1. Capacity Shortfall
      USPCI is in absolute agreement with EPA that very large quantities of contaminated
      debris will be constrained by limited treatment capacity on May 8, 1992, However, USPCI
      believes EPA over-estimates the ability of the RCRA program to process permit modifications
      for permitted facilities.
      A
      

      -------
      6 - 58
      Debris
      Docket Number:
      Commenter:
      Comment:
      CD2P-L0027
      USPCI
      pp. 1.2
      USPCI does not presently have the capacity to provide treatment of contaminated debris
      as such treatment has been proposed by EPA. la order to provide treatment, USPCI's land
      disposal facilities will have to submit permit modification requests to add treatment capabilities
      for debris. One fundamental problem arises, there is no basis for the permit modification in the
      absence of a final rule and treatment standards. A company can not initiate a business decision
      on the basis of a proposed rule. The financial impacts of permit modification activities
      necessitate that we wait for a final rule so that the modification request is technically correct.
      For example, ia Utah a Class 3 modification is required to be accompanied by a ninety thousand
      dollar ($90,000) permit processing fee. The investment in staff time, engmeering, drafting,
      document assembly and QA/QC reviews is even greater. Thus, it simply is not prudent to
      submit a modification request until after the issuance of the final rule. The review and approval
      process for permit modification requests ranges from several months to a year. Therefore,
      USPCI is not going to have capacity to treat contaminated debris in a manner as described by
      the proposed rule for at least 12 months.
      COMMERCIAL TREATMENT FIRMS HAVE OR INTEND TO ENTER INTO BINDING
      CONTRACTUAL COMMITMENTS TO CONSTRUCT OR OTHERWISE PROVIDE
      ALTERNATIVE CAPACITY THAT MEETS THE TREATMENT STANDARDS.
      Upon issuance of a final rule, USPCI has every intention of filing permit modification
      requests and contracting with third-party firms to construct (or supply if the technology is 'off-
      the-shelf) treatment systems which will handle certain types of contaminated debris.
      DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND OUR CONTROL, THE ALTERNATIVE
      CAPACITY CANNOT REASONABLY BE MADE AVAILABLE BY THE EFFECTIVE
      DATE OF MAY «, 1992.
      As stated in the first paragraph of this letter, USPCI does not control the circumstances
      which drive the process to enable us to obtain permioed capacity to treat debris. Even if the
      company were to take the unreasonable risk of preparing and submitting permit modification
      requests based on proposed regulation, the state regulatory agencies would be unable to process
      the modification requests without the final rule to guide them. The absence of available capacity
      is certainly beyond our control is cannot reasonably be made available by May 8, 1992.
      

      -------
      6-59
      Debris
      Docket Number: CD2P-00046
      Commenter:	General Electric
      Comment:	p. 15
      B. Sufficient treatment capacity does not exist to eomolv with EPA's
      proposed treatment standards-
      Even with its low estimates for the volume of debris affected by this
      rule, EPA effectively admits that it suspects that the capacity to treat
      contaminated debris in the manner proposed does not exist. The agency states
      the equipment necessary to provide the required treatment is not in place and that
      much of the capacity of extraction technologies currently used to decontaminate
      debris will not be available by May 1992 because It must first be permitted. 57
      Fed. Reg. 1002. Though EPA is proposing a complex matrix of specific treatment
      technologies, it does not even attempt to demonstrate the existence of sufficient
      capacity for any one of them. Says the agency: "In conclusion, EPA anticipates
      that the capacity available to treat contaminated debris at the time this rule
      becomes effective will be limited." 5? Fed. Reg. 1003, In this remarkable
      statement, EPA is saying that It is planning to establish requirements on industry
      when it has no idea how Industry will be able to comply with them. This is
      inexcusable.
      

      -------
      6-60
      Debris
      Docket Number: CD2P-00049
      Commemer:	National Association of Metal Finishers
      Comment:	pp. 5,6
      HAM? also objects to the apparent strict application of the
      now uncertain "derived-fron" rule to contaminated debris found at
      57 Fad. Reg, 961 and 983. Evan if th* "derivad-from" rula survives
      in modified form it should not be appliad to residuals from
      contaminated debris treatment that are not shown to be hazardous by
      characteristic or unless there are delisted. This provision will
      have a detrimental effect on recycling, increase the costs of this
      requirement and strain national disposal capacity.
      

      -------
      6 - 61	Debris
      Docket Number: CD2P-00051
      Commenier:	Hazardous Waste Treatment Council
      Comment:	p. 20
      Most of the treatment technologies that EPA will sated as BOAT for hazardous
      waste debris are not currently widely available, and capacity for other required
      technologies is extremely limited, at remediation firms and fixed facilities. HWTC's
      preliminary review of EPA's limited data on generation and treatment capacity for
      debris, as well as HWTC's assessment of capacity from member companies, indicates
      a substantial shortfall in the availability of necessary technologies, and certainly of the
      necessary mufti-technology treatment trains. Companies involved in remediation and
      treatment will need to make a substantial capital investment on an expedited time
      frame, and obtain the necessary permits in order to bring these BOAT technologies on
      line. In the meantime, site cleanups will come to an alarming halt if EPA does not
      address the need for a general, but limited, capacity extension.
      

      -------
      6 ' 62	Debris
      Docket Number: CD2P-00069
      Commenter:	Bride
      Comment:	p. 8
      For nany reasons, sob* of which hava baan suaaaarizad above,
      Exida Corporation eontinuas to balisva that adaquata national
      capacity is not availabla to east tha proposed traataant standards
      for 0008 inorganic solids debris.
      

      -------
      Docket Number: CD2P-00072
      Commenter:	North Carolina Department of Environment,
      Health, and Natural Resources
      Comment:	p. 3
      (5) Do you hsva docuaantatioa aupportlag th« •coaoaic coat and
      availability of *utotitla-C landfilla for di*po«al of AOf, construction
      dabria, ear aahaa that say ***• *>**a palntad with laad-baaad paint*
      which axeaad th« allowabla limit*? Fltaaa aasd a* a copy.
      i
      

      -------
      6-64
      Debris
      Docket Number: CD2P-00080
      Commenter:	Chemical Manufacturers Association
      Comment:	p. 28
      2. EPA baa ovarastiaatad tba intarsst of tha caaant kiln
      industry In an**!!!* dabrls sad otbsr non-fa«l waatts.
      EPA stataa that coaaarcial eoabustion capacity for sludgas and
      solid* ara avallabla at both inclnaratora and caaant kiloa (as wall as
      othar industrial furnacas) (37 Ft at 998). Tha Agaocy furthar ustrts
      that aany coaaarcial caaant kilns ara currantly changing thair
      oparatiena to accapt solids and alodgaa. Bat tha actual azparitncc of
      CMA aaabar coapaaiaa ovac tha last savaral yaara baa baaa axactly tha
      oppoaita.
      CHA aaabar caapanlaa hava triad siaea tha first third land
      disposal raatrictioo proposal to convinca tha eaaaat kiln industry of
      tha nl«t of thair faeilitias to tja aanagaaast of aora than fuel valua
      liqai&mstaa, and hava aat with llttla succaas. EPA should noe
      assanjl* It ku la tha proposad tula, that ragalatory cha?*«s will
      altaa^m long-standing caaant industry par caption that solids ami
      s lndgafcra not worth tha operational and handling problaas thsy
      supposedly cans*.	*
      CHA aaabar coapaniaa bava also attaaptad, whaa appropriata, to
      poist out tha rasa* valua of silicatas aad/or carbosataa is solids ind
      sludgaa aa affactira aubatitutaa to tha aaad and !ia«stoa« usad in
      eaaaat aaanfaetara. But tba aaabar eoapaaisa hava baas naabla to sska
      sigsificaat haadvay with tha eaaaat kili industry on this issua althsr.
      

      -------
      6 . 65
      Debris
      Docket Number: CD2P-00083
      Zommenter: * DuPont
      Comment:	p. 2
      Du Pont believes tha Agency hat overestimated tha interest of the
      ceaent kiln industry in aanaging debria and other non-fual waste
      At S7 FR 998, tha Agency states that commercial combustion capacity
      for sludges and solids ara available at both incinerators and cement
      kilns (as well as other industrial furnaces). Tha Agency further
      asserts that aany commercial cement kilns are currently changing their
      operations to accept solids and sludgea. Du Font experience has been,
      for the past several years, exactly opposite of EPA's statements.
      Ha have tried, aince tha firat third land disposal restriction
      proposal, to convince the ceaent kiln industry of the value of thair
      facilities to aanageaent of aore than fuel value liquid wastes and
      have ret with little success. The Agency should not assume, as it
      has, that regulatory changea will iapact tha long-standing cement
      industry perception about solids and aludgea that they are not worth
      tha operational and handling probleas they supposedly cause.
      Ou Font offers the following example to illustrate tha problem, while
      the following scenario deals with nonhazardous wastes, we believe it
      illustrates tha ceaent kiln industry's overall concern with managing
      hazardous waatea or nonhazardoua waste residues which are subject to
      the stringent standards included in r03f. Du font's Potomac River
      facility generates an aaount of waste, as off-specification product,
      from a process which is 801 liaastona (ona of the product
      ingredients). Tha site is fine tuning a systea to recycle a portic
      of this material, but soma aaount will continue to require lam*
      disposal. Tha site is paraitted, under State solid waate rules, to
      operate a landfill on sita for that purpose. Tha need to landfill
      this waste is necessitated by the fact that we have been unable to
      convince a local caaant kiln to use this predoainantly carbonate waste
      as an affective substitute to tha liaestone used in that operation.
      \
      

      -------
      6-66
      Debris
      Docket Number:
      Commenter:
      Comment:
      CD2P-OOOS6
      Coming
      p. 2
      TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY AVAILABILITY AND CAPACITY
      The majority of the contaminated debris generated in our mius
      is 1) glass and 2) brick and block from the repair of glass
      melting furnaces. Our inquiries to waste management cor.pames
      indicate that for these wastes, the only treatment technology
      commercially available is microencapsulation. The proposed ru
      states that the technologies listed as applicable are either
      commercially available or have been demonstrated to be
      technically feasible. CI feels that the assumption that c.-.a
      other technologies will be implemented on a commercial basis ;
      these rules are final is dangerous in terms of the capacity
      determinations. In the event that the other technologies ir-?
      commercially available, the capacity of facilities with
      microencapsulation would probably be exceeded.
      The ampacity availability determination Bade by the EPA should
      only include those technologies commercially available at tne
      time of rale making.
      

      -------
      Docket Number:
      Commenter:
      Comment:
      6 ¦ 67
      CD2P-00096
      Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
      p. 28
      Debris .
      USWAG fully concurs with EPA's statement that there is "a
      significant lack of commercial treatment capacity" for mixed waste
      already subject to the U3R program. 57 red. Reg. at 1002. In fact,
      the lack of qualified mixed waste treatment or disposal capacity
      continues to plague all generators of mixed waste — including the
      electric utility industry — and USWAG believes that it is critical
      for EPA to continue to consider this dilemma when implementing and
      enforcing the LOS requirements.
      

      -------
      Docket Number:
      Commenter:
      Comment:
      6-68
      CD2P-00102
      Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp.
      p. 3
      Debris
      Although, immobilization technologies are readily available for
      many chromium containing wait* streams, none of these wasta
      stream* ara actually 'similar' to refractory brick bacausa of
      tha physical propartias of refractory bricks. OCP is not aware
      of any treatment facility that ara performing these
      iaaobilization technologies on refractory brick today, or that
      are planning on doing so by Hay 8, 1992. This suggests that
      capacity shortfalls nay well occur for OCP and other companies
      that generate hazardous refractory brick or other contaminated
      debris not having recycle or treatment options. We urge EPA to
      anticipate this and as part of its final rule to provide a
      mechanism for processing and granting extensions of the "land
      ban" effective date under RCRA 3004{h)(3) on an extremely
      expedited basis in order to address such capacity shortages
      which may develop after the Kay 8 date.
      

      -------
      Docket Number:
      Commenter;
      Comment:
      6 - 69
      CD2P-00107
      Electronic Industries Association
      p. 2
      Debris
      III. COMMERCIAL AVAILABILITY AND CAPACITY FOR PROPOSED TREATMEKT TECHNOLOGIES
      Inquiries sade by EIA companies to wast* management companies indicate that
      for CRT glass- cullet, th« only cooaerelally available treataent that u
      technically feasible Is alcroencapsulatlon.
      EPA's proposed nil* states that tfre technologies listed are either
      coaaerclally available or have been deeaed to be technically feasible. However,
      there Is a possibility that after the rules becoee final, other applicable
      treataent technologies say net becoe* coanereiallzed.
      Therefore, EIA reconends that 1n the final rule, EPA Include n. its
      determinations of capacity availability only those treataent technologies that
      are comerclally available at the tine of rtileaaking.
      

      -------
      6 - 70
      Debris
      Docket Number:
      Comrnenter:
      Comment:
      CD2P-00111
      Union Carbide
      pp. 5.6
      Lick of Capacity for Propositi Dabrl# Standards will Stall Correctly# Action and
      Impade Manufacturing Construction/Renovation Projects
      The proposed debris standards cannot be considered to be BOAT because EPA has
      failed to demonstrate that capacity exists or can be made readily available. Unicn
      Carbide is concerned about the following restrictions to capacity:
      1.	Overly conservative, grossly expensive containment building requirements wm
      limit the number of containment buildings built
      2.	The need to follow classical permitting procedures will result in substantial
      delays at Part B permitted facilities (2 or more years) before containment
      buildings can be used at permitted facilities. Ironically, permitted facilities are
      precisely the class of facilities most likely to need containment buildings because
      these are the facilities subject to RCRA corrective action. And EPA has n-a=e
      the installation of new capacity the most difficult for the facilities most likely :o
      install them, namely, permitted commercial TSDFs.
      3.	Broad application of F039 standards to all residuals will significantly restrict re
      locations of decontamination operations because of the lack of supporting
      treatment/disposal facilities for residuals. For example, only i of the 6 largest
      Union Carbide Manufacturing locations would have the capability to treat land
      disposal restricted wastewaters.
      EPA's own analysis has shown that debris treatment capacity, of the kind required by
      the proposal, simply does not exist in substantial quantity. The result of the proposed
      rules will be to freeze corrective action and stall construction/renovation programs at a
      time when International competitive pressures require continuous moaification and
      improvements to installed manufacturing processes. In fact, most excavation and
      demolition activity at Union Carbide facility is needed to install new or modified
      manufacturing and support facilities. A typical, large Union Carbide manufacturing
      location conducts on the order of 50 excavations per year in support of such activities.
      

      -------
      6- 71
      Debris
      Docket Number: CD2P-00115
      Commenter:	Eastman Kodak Co.
      Comment:	pp. 29,30
      EPA seen* to believe that th« shortfall in capacity
      can be easily and quickly remedied because permitted
      facilities can add new or expanded treatment capacity
      through class 2 or 3 permit modifications. This belief
      ignores the fact that the actual development and
      construction of additional treatment capacity itself my
      take a considerable time period and that the permitting
      process in reality does not move nearly as quickly as EPA
      intimates. EPA's permitting discussion of an accelerated
      Class 3 permit modification process involves obtaining
      case-by-case temporary authorizations from the
      Administrator. The timing for obtaining such
      authorizations is likely to be highly variable and
      unpredictable. Kodak's experience with even minor permit
      modifications has been that they take much longer than
      would reasonably be expected. Therefore, Kodak believes
      that EPA"'* expectation for the expansion of treatment
      capacity for contaminated debris is unrealistic.
      

      -------
      Docket Number:
      Commenter:
      Comment:
      CD2P-L0016
      ICWM
      pp. 1, 4 .
      6-72
      Debris
      As the national variance for contaminated debris nears its
      expiration on May 8th, 1992, we are concerned that much of the
      capacity needed to treat the debris could not fee on-line even if
      the proposed rule were "optimal". ICKM believes that the
      proposed BDAT standards may not be entirely practicable and.
      therefore, do not provide meaningful answers to the May 8th
      deadline. Indeed, treatment technologies proposed for certain
      contaminated debris materials Are unp^oven on a coisercial^scale.
      (e.g., vitrification, photochemical treatment and "sealing"!. In
      any case, the Agency must recognize the difficulties and delays
      associated with the permit modification process which would be
      triggered by a facility's attempt to add newly-required debris
      treatment technologies.
      ICWM does not believe SPA has adequately assessed the capacity
      needs for the treatment residuals generated through the rule as
      proposed. In particular, large volumes of wastewaters will be
      generated through acid washing processes, and significant
      quantities of debris wastes will be generated by stripping,
      spalling, sandblasting, scrapping, etc. EPA oust recognize that
      the standards as proposed will have a negative affect on waste
      minimisation and will exacerbate the already-limited availability
      of landfill capacity.
      

      -------
      6-73
      Debris
      Docket Number: CD2P-L0026
      Commenter:	Rollins
      Comment:	pp. 1,2
      Despite our own good faith efforts and good faith efforts of others
      in the treatment industry, it is obvious that there will not be
      sufficient capacity available as of Hay 8, 1992 for the treatment
      of contaminated debris in accordance with anticipated regulatory
      requirements.
      To begin with, we end others in the industry have not been able to
      plan and prepare effectively to comply with the regulatory
      requirements because those requirements have only been proposed but
      have not been finalized. He understand that they will not be
      promulgated in final form until Kay 8 at the earliest. Since the
      current capacity variance terminates on Hay a, we will not know the
      requirements until the last moment, and obviously cannot bring new
      technologies and capacities on line instantaneously.
      Zn the ease of RES (TX) and RES (LA), for example, the proposed
      microencapsulation operating requirements would necessitate the
      addition of considerable storage capacity in order to hold the
      encapsulated product for the proposed seven-day curing time. Zn
      the absence of such additional storage, the proposed regulation
      would effectively reduce microencapsulation capacity at these
      facilities by more than two-thirds. Depending on the specifics of
      the final regulation, RES (TX) might need additional shredding,
      grinding and/or crushing equipment, and a structure in which to
      house them.
      Baaed on innumerable meetings and discussions with others within
      the treatment industry, and as reflected in the comments to this
      Docket from both the HWTC and the Znstitute for Chemical Haste
      Management, it is clear that other treatment firms will also not be '
      in a position to comply with the debris regulations as of Kay 8.
      Thus, there will not be sufficient capacity for some time after
      that date.
      3. Capacity Cannot Be Available by May 8. As indicated above,
      capacity cannot be made available until the requirements of the
      regulation are known. Significant capital expenditures may be
      required, as well as permitting, and they cannot reasonably be
      undertaken until the regulatory requirements are clearly
      established.
      

      -------
      6-74
      Debris
      6.7 Storage for Hazardous Debris is Limited
      Summary:
      Four commenters expressed concern about storage capacity for hazardous debris:
      The Chlorine Institute (14); Department of Energy (41); Olin Chemicals (78); and BF
      Goodrich (116). These commenters maintained that adequate storage capacity did not
      exist for hazardous debris awaiting treatment. In addition, three of these commenters
      believe that the present length of time allowed for storage would be inadequate for '
      treatment capacity to develop. Two of the four commenters focused on storage capacity
      for mercury contaminated waste, and the other two addressed storage capacity for all
      debris;
      •	The Chlorine Institute (14) and Olin Chemicals (78)
      requested that EPA consider an extension of time for storage
      of mercury contaminated waste for up to one year following
      promulgation of the final debris regulations in order to permit
      facilities to appropriately develop and implement the
      performance technology required.
      •	The Department of Energy (41) expressed concern that
      storage capacity may not be available for debris wastes that
      are massive in volume or dimension.
      •	BF Goodrich (116) stated that EPA should allow temporary
      storage (without a permit) of any debris generated for up
      to twelve months after the final rule is promulgated.
      Response:
      EPA acknowledges comments submitted concerning the issue of storage capacity
      for hazardous debris. EPA has taken regulatory action to grant a generic, one-year
      extension of the LDR effective date applicable to all facilities managing hazardous debris
      (with certain exceptions) (57 FR 20766. May 15, 1992).
      EPA does not believe, however, that a storage extension is necessary for debris
      because of the aforementioned regulatory action. Furthermore, under this rule EPA is
      allowing storage and treatment of non-liquid hazardous wastes in containment buildings
      that meet certain specifications.
      Comments:
      Comments concerning storage of hazardous debris are presented in the following
      order:
      

      -------
      The Chlorine Institute (14);
      Department of Energy (41);
      Olin Chemicals (78); and
      BF Goodrich (116).
      

      -------
      Docket Number:
      Commenter:
      Comment:
      CD2P-00014
      Chlorine Institute
      p. 2
      6-76
      Debris
      This burden is even greater for mercury contaminated soils.
      Industry currently understands that it cannot expect final
      revised regulation* for soil and to b« promulgated before souse
      tine in 1993. Thus, storage time and capacity becomes a sore
      serious issue. Further, such limitations will certainly curb
      otherwise planned soil clean-up activities.
      Industry believes that it has mad* every possible effort to cone
      into compliance with regulations for mercury-contaminated waste
      and/or to promote alternative treatment in a timely fashion.
      Despite such efforts, timely compliance may not be possible.
      Accordingly, Industry requests that EPA consider an extension of
      time for storage of such waste for up to one year following
      promulgation of the final debris regulations in order to permit
      facilities to appropriately develop and implement the performance
      technology required.
      

      -------
      6-77	Debris
      Docket Number: CD2P-00041
      Comtnenter:	Depanment of Energy
      Comment:	pp. 33,34
      o Debris waste can be massive in volume or dimension (e.g.,
      telephone poles, structures, Urge pieces of equipment).
      Appropriate storage capacity may not be available for this .
      And in light of their typical nonrcutine generation, it would seem
      to be unrealistic to expand permitted storage for these wastes.
      

      -------
      Docket Number:
      Commenter:
      Comment:
      CD2P-00078
      Olin Chemicals
      p. 8
      6 - 78
      Debris
      Industry believes thai it has made every possible effort to come into compliance with
      regulations for mercury-contaminated waste and/or to promote alternative treatment in a
      timely fashion. Despite such efforts, timely compliance may not be possible. Accordingly.
      Industry requests that EPA allow an extension of time for storage of such waste for up to
      one year following promulgation of the final debris regulations is order to permit facilities
      to appropriately develop and implement the performance technology required. Such
      extension of time for storage should be included in the final rule. The Agency has
      acknowledged that there currently exists insufficient commercial capacity for treating debris.
      Even assuming final regulations are forthcoming in a timely manner, to contend that
      permitting and construction of either private or commercial facilities can occur within
      several months time in unrealistic.
      

      -------
      Docket Number:
      Commenter;
      Comment:
      CD2P-000116
      BF Goodrich Co.
      p. 1
      6 - 79
      Debris
      Tiainq for CgagUanct vith Prppqatd RcqyiaUgna
      In its proposed rule, EPA has prescribed an array of opt tern l
      treatment technique# for specific types of wastes. The treat swr.t
      techniques require the design, construction and installation c? new
      equipment to perform the required treatment. BFGoodrich believes
      it will take a minimus of twelve months to implement rne
      requirements of the proposed rule. BFGoodrich believes that £P*.
      as part of the final rule, should allow for the temporary storage
      of any debris generated for up to twelve months after the final
      rule is promulgated. Such additional storage time should be
      granted as pari: of the final rule without requiring addition*',
      permits for the generator.
      

      -------
      6 - 80
      Debris
      6.8 Other Issues
      Summary:
      Not all comments related to capacity fell into one of the categories pre%'iousiy
      mentioned above. In particular, some commenters [API (2, 87), Coastal Corporation
      (37), INGAA (47), and BP Oil (64)] expressed concern about the expiration of the
      national capacity variance for hazardous soil. Although hazardous soil is not addressed
      in this rulemaking, several commenters included issues related to hazardous soil.
      Response:
      While this rule pertains only to hazardous debris, EPA realizes that there are
      concerns with the management of hazardous soil since the expiration of the national
      capacity variance on May 8, 1992. These concerns will be addressed by EPA in the
      proposed rule for hazardous soil.
      Comments:
      Comments related to the expiration of the national capacity variance for
      hazardous soil are presented in the following order:
      •	American Petroleum Institute (2/87)
      •	Coastal Corporation (37)
      INGAA (47); and
      BP Oil (64).
      

      -------
      6 - 81
      Debris
      Docket Number: CD2P-00002/87
      Commcnter:	American Petroleum Institute (API)
      Comment:	pp. 25, 26
      As with contaminated debris, a two-year national capacity
      variance for soil contaminated with FQ37/FQ38 waste is justified
      because of the uncertainty concerning quantities requiring
      treatment.' Soils contaminated with the newly listed wastes for
      which standards are proposed today are not addressed in this
      rulemaking and reportedly (57 FR 960), will be addressed in a
      future proposal. However, as long as the "Mixture" and "Derivect-
      Frora Rules" are in force, the LDRs proposed for today's newly
      listed wastes will automatically be applicable to the soils
      contaminated with these wastes. EPA staff have given API verbal
      assurance that the two-year national capacity variance for
      contaminated debris in this proposed rule is also applicable to
      contaminated soils. The Agency should be certain to clarify t.-.is
      issue prior to the adoption of the final rule. API recommends
      modifying proposed 40 CFR Section 268.36 (d) to read:
      (d) Effective (insert date two years from the
      effective date), debris and soil contaminated
      with [newly identified] hazardous waste...
      

      -------
      Debris
      Docket Number: CD2P-00037
      Commenter:	Coastal Corporation
      Comment:	p- 3
      Further, regarding contaainatad soil. Coastal beliavas that sine*
      the national capacity variance ends on May 8, 1992, and the final
      rule for contaainatad soil vill not be finalized by 1993, EPA must
      realise that there exists an inadequate treataent capacity Cor
      eontaainatad soils and *ust urge its rational eftiees to respond
      quickly to any alternative technology variance request which is
      made in the interia.
      

      -------
      6-83
      Debris
      Docket Number: CD2P-0Q047
      Commenter:	INGAA
      Comment:	p. 2
      Further, regarding contaminated soil. INGAA believes that since the national
      capacity variance ends on May 8, 1992. and the final rule for contaminated soil will riot .
      be finalized until 1993. EPA must recognize that there exists an inadequate treatment
      capacity for contaminated soils and must urge Its regional offices to respond quickly id
      any alternative technology variance request after May 8. 1992.
      

      -------
      6-84
      Debris
      Docket Number: CD2P-00064
      Commemer:	BP Oil
      Comment:	pp. 1, 8
      o EPA must clarify the status of a national capacity variance for soil contaminated with F"" F038
      waste.
      Clarification is critically needed on this issue because of the pending closures of pnnjry sludge
      surface impoundments within the ne*t two yean. Large quantities of contaminated soil nu> require
      treatment and/or disposal under certain closure scenarios. Two refineries have estimated ifui under
      some closure scenarios, the amount of contaminated soil requiring handling and dupmji ujuid
      amount to 5 to 10 times the amount of primary sludge removed from the impoundment.
      In addition to quantities of contaminated soil generated from closure of existing primary sludge
      impoundments, additional large quantities of contaminated soil could result from corrective action
      activities. Some SWMU's (Solid Waste Management Units) are actually former impoundments
      which contained primary sludge but which were closed prior id RCRA. The F037/FG38 contaminated
      soil, if removed from these SWMU's. represents an additional large demand for treatment/disposal
      capacity.
      

      -------
      CHAPTER 7
      K061, K062, AND F006
      This rule removes the low and high zinc subcategories for K061 and establishes
      the same numeric treatment standards based on High Temperature Metals Recovery
      (HTMR) for all K061 nonwastewaters. This rule also establishes alternative treatment
      standards for K062 and F006. EPA received four comments regarding treatment
      capacity for KQ61 wastes. No commenters questioned the availability of treatment
      capacity for K062 or F006 wastes.1 In any case, the time for granting capacity
      extensions for these wastes has expired.
      The comtnenter addressed two issues:
      •	Analysis of High Temperature Metals Recovery (HTMR) Capacity May
      Not Be Adequate; and
      •	Stabilization Process For Meeting K061 Standards May Not Be Available.
      1 Since the treatmcm standards established for K062 and F006 are alternative treatment standards,
      generators and trcaters of these wastes arc not required to change their current management practices. At
      the present time, there is no shortage of capacity to treat these waste.
      

      -------
      7-2
      K061, K062, and F006
      7.1 Analysis of High Temperature Metals Recover)' (HTMR) Capacity May Not Be
      Adequate
      Summary:
      Four commentcrs questioned whether the Agency had adequately considered the
      high temperature metals recovery (HTMR) capacity for K061 wastes: Mill Service (19);
      American Iron and Steel Institute (93); Specialty Steel Industries of the United States
      (108); and Steel Manufacturers Association (109),
      Response:
      EPA recently conducted an analysis of HTMR capacity for the August 19, 1991
      final rule for high-zinc K061 (56 FR 41164). This analysis concluded that 573,000 tons of
      HTMR capacity would be available as of August 1991. The analysis also concluded that
      up to 415,000 tons of high-zinc K061 could require HTMR. Therefore, almost 160,000
      tons of excess HTMR capacity was available in August 1991. For the final high-zinc
      K061 rule, the Agency also analyzed the generation of K061 wastes (both high-zinc and
      low-zinc wastes). The Agency used data from the Treatment, Storage, Disposal, and
      Recycling (TSDR) Survey to estimate that approximately 86,000 tons of low-zinc K061
      would require LDR treatment. Two other sources provided information on the
      generation of K061 wastes. The Horsehead Resource Development Company (HRD)
      estimated that 50,000 to 100,000 tons of low-zinc K061 wastes were generated each year.
      The American Iron and Steel Institute estimated that 67,000 tons of low-zinc K061 would
      be generated annually. Even using the highest estimate of low-zinc generation (100,000
      tons), sufficient HTMR capacity exists to treat the additional K061 wastes subject to the
      numeric treatment standards based on HTMR. The Agency also notes that K061
      generators are in no way required to use HTMR to treat their waste. Therefore, if there
      were to be a shortage of HTMR capacity, K061 waste could be treated by another
      technology such as stabilization which is widely available.
      Comments:
      The commenters addressing the HTMR capacity are presented at the end of this
      chapter.
      2 Although the subcategories of high-zinc and low-zinc K061 have been removed, for
      the sake of clarity we will refer to the additional volume of K061 wastes now subject to
      the numeric treatment standards based on HTMR as low-zinc K061 wastes.
      

      -------
      7-3
      K06I, K062, and F006
      7.2 Stabilization Process For Meeting K061 Treatment Standards May 
      -------
      Docket Number:
      Commenter:
      Comment:
      CD2P-00019
      Mill Service
      p. 3
      7-4
      K061, K062, and F006
      Revisions To K06I. F006 and .<062 Treatment Standard.i
      Although we do not have data to refute the proposed establishment of HT""
      as BDAt for ?11 If061 •.•¦lste; Lr.d the uubsequont; proposed eliaination of the
      low zinc subcategory, we question whether the Agency has adequately
      considered the HTMR capacity for the low zinc wastes and/or the ability of
      stabilization or other processes to seat the HTHR standards in the event
      inadequate HTMR capacity exists. The aere face that coaoenters have said
      that oany K061 wastes with a zinc content less than IS percent are sent for
      recovery is not sufficient justification for the iaoadlate establishaent of
      the HTHR standard as applicable to all K061 wastes. At worst, we would
      propose that the Agency retain the lov zinc subcategory as an alternative
      to HTHR for K061 wastes which fall into this subcategory (siailar to the
      alternative tteatsent standard approach currently proposed for F006 and
      K062). Should the Agency choose to eliainats the low zinc subcategory and
      adopt the proposed HTHR standards, a National Capacity Variance should be
      granted to allow sufficient capacity for these additional wastes to be
      developed, during which tias the existing treatment standards would remain
      in effect (As a corollary to the above discussion. Kill Service supports
      the concept of an alternative treatment standard for FQQ6 and KQ62 wastes
      which are treated la HTHR units and would recoasand the saam consideration
      be given to low zinc K061 wastes.}
      

      -------
      7-5
      K061, K062, and F006
      Docket Number: CD2P-00093
      Commenter:
      Comment:
      American Iron and Steel Institute
      p, 6
      |
      AISX belisves that the Agency has not sufficiently
      evaluated! (1) the ai-ility of existing stabilization facilities
      to meet consistently the Agency's proposed new standards for low-
      zinc EAF dust, and (2) the HTHR capacity available to process
      both high- and low-zinc EAT dust that cannot b« treated by
      stabilization to nest these standards. Until the Agency does so
      and rationally explains why it believes sufficient capacity will
      exist to successfully process all SA7 dust to aeet land disposal
      restriction {"LOR*} requirements, EPA will have failed to aeet
      its statutory mandate under the LDR program to ensure that
      sufficient capacity exists to allow all KOfil wastes to be
      procured in compliance with the U3R standards. In addition, the
      Agency may well have fostered what AJSX presumes is an unintended
      result, i.e.. virtually eliminating, as a practical matter, the
      use of stabilization technologies as an alternative to treating
      K061 wastes for LBR compliance purposes.
      

      -------
      7-6
      KOfil, K062, and F006
      Docket Number:
      Commenter:
      Comment:
      CD2P-0010S
      Specialty Steel Industries of the United States
      p. 5
      SSIUS has serious concerns that there is and will continue to be inadequate
      HTMR recycling capacity as evidenced by the recent significant increases in HTMR
      treatment costs. The proposed rule fails to address the critical issue of whether there
      is currently sufficient capacity to recycle all K061 by HTMR, EPA needs to recognize
      that waste streams other than K061 could deplete the limited, available HTMR capacity.
      For example, Inmetco, which operates the only major process that recovers nickel and
      chromium from low zinc K061 and recycles the vast majority of that waste subcategory,
      is almost at full capacity. SSIUS is concerned that as Inmetco soon reaches full capacity
      it will decide not to accept particular K06I wastestreams for recycling because other
      available wastes provide higher recoverable concentrations of nickel. In fact, neither
      Inmetco nor HRD may be willing to accept high zinc K061 wastes (particularly in a
      sludge form) that contain too little nickel to recycle, but too much chromium to meet
      the applicable treatment standard. Moreover, EPA should also take into account the
      potential for malfunctions at existing facilities that can meet the treatment standards.
      For example, if a breakdown occurs at Inmetco, steel companies would face enormous
      problems in treating their K061. Thus, it is vital that EPA continue to allow K061 to
      be treated by stabilization and other emerging technologies.
      While we generally support EPA's determination to allow the use of stabilization
      to meet the BDAT standards, we are concerned that the use of stabilization is largely
      illusory because of the stringency of the proposed treatment standards. To our
      knowledge, ca facility has demonstrated the ability to stabilize K061 to meet the high
      zinc K061 BDAT standards. Even if treatment facilities develop an effective "mixing"
      recipe in the future, we doubt they could meet the high zinc K061 standards without
      violating the "dilution" prohibition. Consequently, SSIUS urges EPA to create alternate
      BDAT standards for K06i that can be achieved by stabilization. This concept is similar
      to the alternative treatment standards EPA is proposing for K062. EPA could limit the
      application of such "alternative* BDAT standards to those K061 wastestreams that are
      either not amenable to HTMR (i.e.. sludge, soil or debris contaminated with KOol r ur
      are located in areas of the country that axe deficient in HTMR capacity. In any e%er.t,
      the final rule should set treatment standards that make stabilization a real and not an
      illusory alternative to HTMR.
      

      -------
      7-7
      K061, K062, and F00t>
      Docket Number: CD2P-109
      Commenter:
      Comment:
      Steel Manufacturers Association
      p. 5
      SMA has serious concerns that there is and will continue to be inadequate HTMR
      recycling capacity as evidenced by the recent significant increases in HTMR treatment
      costs. "Hie proposed rule fails to address the critical issue of whether there is currently
      sufficient capacity to recycle all K061 by HTMR. EPA needs to recognize that waste
      streams other than K061 could deplete the limited, available HTMR capacity. For
      example, Inmetco, which operates the only major process that recovers nickel and
      chromium from low zinc KQ61 and recycles the vast majority of that waste subcategory,
      is almost at full capacity. SMA is concerned that as Inmetco soon reaches full capacity
      it will deride not to accept particular K061 wastestreams for recycling because other
      available wastes provide higher recoverable concentrations of aickeL In fact neither
      Inmetco nor HRD may be willing to accept high zinc K061 wastes (particularly in a
      sludge form) that contain too little nickel to recycle, but too much chromium to meet
      the applicable treatment standard. Moreover, EPA should also take into account the
      potential for malfunctions at existing facilities that can meet the treatment standards.
      For example, if a breakdown occurs at HRD's Paimerton facility or if HRD becomes
      subject to a cease and desist order, steel companies would face enormous problems in
      treating their K061. Th:is, it is vital that EPA continue to allow K061 to be treated by
      stabilization and other emerging technologies.
      While we generally support EPA's determination to allow the use of stabilization
      to meet the BDAT standards, we are concerned that the use of stabilization is largely
      illusory because of the stringency of the proposed treatment standards. To our
      knowledge, no facility has demonstrated the ability to stabilize K061 to meet the high
      zinc KQ61 BDAT standards. Even if treatment facilities develop an effective "mixing"
      recipe in the future, we doubt they could meet the high zinc K061 standards without
      violating the "dilution" prohibition. Consequently, SMA urges EPA to create alternative
      BDAT standards for K061 that can be achieved by stabilization. This concept is similar
      to the alternative treatment standards EPA is proposing for K062. EPA could limit the
      application of such "alternative* BDAT standards to those KQ61 wastestreams that are
      either not amenable to HTMR fi.e.. sludge, soil or debris contaminated with K061)" or
      are located in areas of the country that are deficient in HTMR capacity. In any event,
      the final rule should set treatment standards that make stabilization a real and not an
      illusory alternative to HTMR.
      

      -------