[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 223 (Monday, November 20, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57747-57800]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27693]



 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 57747]]


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 261, 266, 268, 271, and 302

[SWH-FRL-5327-2]
RIN 2050-AD88


Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of 
Hazardous Waste: Petroleum Refining Process Wastes; Land Disposal 
Restrictions for Newly Identified Wastes; and CERCLA Hazardous 
Substance Designation and Reportable Quantities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
amend the regulations for hazardous waste management under the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) by listing, as hazardous wastes, 
three residuals from petroleum refining processes because certain 
disposal practices may present a risk to human health or the 
environment. EPA is also proposing not to list as hazardous eleven 
process residuals. This action proposes to add the toxic constituents 
found in the wastes to the list of constituents that serves as the 
bases for classifying wastes as hazardous.
    This action is proposed pursuant to RCRA section 3001(b) and 
section 3001(e)(2), which direct EPA to make a hazardous waste listing 
determination for ``refining wastes.'' The effect of this proposed 
regulation would be to subject these wastes to regulation as hazardous 
wastes under Subtitle C of RCRA. Additionally, this action proposes to 
designate the wastes proposed for listing as hazardous substances 
subject to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act (CERCLA), and to adjust the one-pound statutory 
reportable quantities (RQs) for these substances.
    In support of the Agency's regulatory reinvention efforts, this 
action also proposes changes to the RCRA regulations to promote the 
environmentally sound recycling of oil-bearing residuals. Specifically, 
the Agency is proposing to broaden the existing exemption for certain 
wastes from the definition of solid waste. These include oil-bearing 
residuals from specified petroleum refining sources inserted into the 
petroleum refining process, and spent caustic from liquid treating 
operations when used as a feedstock. Today's proposal also would exempt 
from the definition of hazardous waste mixtures of clarified slurry oil 
(CSO) storage tank sediment and/or in-line filter/separation solids 
with tank wastewaters, provided that the waste is discharged to the oil 
recovery sewer before primary oil/water/solids separation, and ceramic 
support media separated from spent hydrotreating/hydrorefining 
catalysts.
    Finally, EPA is proposing to apply universal treatment standards 
(UTS) under the Land Disposal Restrictions program to the Petroleum 
Refining Wastes proposed for listing in this rulemaking.

DATES: EPA will accept public comments on this proposed rule until 
February 20, 1996. Comments postmarked after this date will be marked 
``late'' and may not be considered. Any person may request a public 
hearing on this proposal by filing a request with Mr. David Bussard, 
whose address appears below, by December 4, 1995.

ADDRESSES: The official record of this rulemaking is identified by 
Docket Number F-95-PRLP-FFFFF. The public must send an original and two 
copies (and a voluntary copy on a computer diskette) of their comments 
to: EPA RCRA Docket Clerk (5305W), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20460. Place the docket 
number F-95-PRLP-FFFFF on your comments. Through November 13, 1995, 
copies of materials relevant to this proposed rulemaking are located in 
the docket at the address listed above. The Agency plans to relocate 
the docket on November 14, 1995, and the docket will be physically 
closed from November 14, 1995 to November 26, 1995. Special 
arrangements for reviewing docket materials during this time can be 
made by calling (202) 260-9327. The Agency will be issuing a separate 
Federal Register notice explaining this change.
    Starting November 27, 1995, the EPA RCRA Docket will be located at 
Crystal Gateway #1, 1st Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, 
VA. Comments may be delivered to that location. The docket is open from 
9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal 
holidays. The public can make an appointment to review docket materials 
by calling (202) 260-9327. Starting November 27, 1995, the new 
telephone number for the docket will be (703) 603-9230. The public may 
copy 100 pages from the docket at no charge; additional copies are 
$0.15 per page.
    Requests for a hearing should be addressed to Mr. David Bussard at: 
Hazardous Waste Identification Division, Office of Solid Waste (5304), 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, 
D.C. 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RCRA/Superfund Hotline, toll-free, 
at (800) 424-9346 or at (703) 920-9810. The TDD Hotline number is (800) 
553-7672 (toll-free) or (703) 486-3323 in the Washington, D.C. 
metropolitan area. For technical information on the RCRA hazardous 
waste listings, contact Maximo Diaz, Jr., Office of Solid Waste (5304), 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, 
D.C., 20460, (202) 260-4786.
    For technical information on the CERCLA aspects of this rule, 
contact: Mr. Jack Arthur, Response Standards and Criteria Branch, 
Emergency Response Division (5202G), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20460, (703) 603-8760.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The contents of the preamble to this 
proposed rule are listed in the following outline:

I. Legal Authority
II. Background
    A. Schedule Suit
    B. Existing Petroleum Refining Listings and Other Relevant 
Agency Actions
    1. Listings
    2. Definition of Solid Waste Exemptions
    C. EPA's Hazardous Waste Listing Determination Policy
III. Today's Action
    A. Summary of Today's Action
    1. Summary of Listing Determinations 

[[Page 57748]]

    2. Summary of Definition of Solid Waste and Other Exemptions 
Proposed in Today's Notice
    B. Description of the Industry
    C. Overview of EPA's Information Collection Activities
    1. Field Investigations and Sampling
    2. RCRA Sec. 3007 Survey
    D. Description of the Process Residuals in Comparison With the 
Consent Decree Language
    E. Hazardous Oil-bearing Residuals Returned to Refinery 
Processes
    1. Background
    2. Proposed Amendments to Address Hazardous Residuals Returned 
to the Refining Process
    F. Description of Health and Risk Assessments
    1. Human Health Criteria and Effects
    2. Risk Analysis
    3. Consideration of Uncertainty in Listing Determinations
    4. Peer Review
    G. Waste-specific Listing Determination Rationales
    1. Crude Oil Storage Tank Sediment
    2. Clarified Slurry Oil (CSO) Tank Sediment and/or In-line 
Filter/Separation Solids
    3. Catalyst from Hydrotreating
    4. Catalyst from Hydrorefining
    5. Catalyst from Sulfuric Acid Alkylation
    6. Spent Caustic from Liquid Treating
    7. Off-specification Product and Fines from Thermal Processes
    8. Catalyst and Fines from Catalytic Cracking
    9. Sludge from Hydrofluoric Acid Alkylation
    10. Sludge from Sulfur Complex and H2S Removal Facilities
    11. Catalyst from Sulfur Complex and H2S Removal Facilities
    12. Unleaded Gasoline Storage Tank Sediment
    13. Catalyst from Reforming
    14. Sludge from Sulfuric Acid Alkylation
    H. Request for Comments on Options for Conditional Exemptions
    1. Legal Basis for Conditional Exemptions
    2. Improvements in Risk Assessment Methodology
    3. Options for Conditional Exemptions
    I. Impacts on Idled Units
    J. Third Party Regeneration/Reclamation of Spent Petroleum 
Catalyst
    1. Exemption under Sec. 266.100(b)
    2. Catalyst Support Media
    3. Residuals Generated from Petroleum Catalyst Regeneration/
Reclamation
    K. Headworks Exemption
IV. Waste Minimization
    A. Crude Oil Storage Tank Sediment
    B. Clarified Slurry Oil (CSO) Tank Sediment and/or In-line 
Filter/Separation Solids
    C. Catalyst from Hydrotreating
    D. Catalyst from Hydrorefining
V. Applicability of the Land Disposal Restrictions Determinations
    A. Request for Comment on the Agency's Approach to the 
Development of BDAT Treatment Standards
    B. Treatment Standards for the Newly Proposed Listed Petroleum 
Refining Wastes
    1. Identification of Wastes
    2. Proposed Treatment Standards
    3. Determination of BDAT
    C. Capacity Determination for the Newly Proposed Listed 
Petroleum Refining Wastes
    1. Introduction
    2. Capacity Analysis Results Summary
VI. Environmental Justice and Population Risk
    A. Applicability of Executive Order 12898
    B. Potential Effects
    C. Population Risk
    1. Results
VII. Compliance Dates
    A. Notification
    B. Interim Status and Permitted Facilities
VIII. State Authority
    A. Applicability of Rule in Authorized States
    B. Effects on State Authorizations
IX. CERCLA Designation and Reportable Quantities
    A. Reporting Requirements
    B. Basis for RQs and Adjustments
    C. Alternative Method
X. Regulatory Requirements and Economic Analysis
    A. Regulatory Requirements
    1. Executive Order 12866
    2. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
    3. Paperwork Reduction Act
    4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    B. Economic Impact Analysis
    1. Costs of Compliance
    2. Economic Impact Analysis
    3. Cost Effectiveness of Individual Risk Reduction
    4. Cost Effectiveness of Population Risk Reduction
    5. Other Benefits Considered
XI. Paperwork Reduction Act

I. Legal Authority

    Today's regulations are being proposed under the authority of 
sections 2002(a) and 3001(b)(1) and (e)(2) of the Solid Waste Disposal 
Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), and 6921(b) and (e)(1), (commonly 
referred to as RCRA), and section 102(a) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 
(CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9602(a).

II. Background

A. Schedule Suit

    In 1989, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) sued the Agency, in 
part, for failing to meet the statutory deadlines of section 3001(e)(2) 
of RCRA (EDF v. Browner; Civ. No. 89-0598 D.D.C.). To resolve most of 
the issues in the case, EDF and EPA entered into a consent decree which 
was approved by the court on December 9, 1994. The consent decree sets 
out an extensive series of deadlines for promulgating RCRA rules and 
for completing certain studies and reports. Paragraph 1.k of the 
consent decree obligates the EPA to promulgate a final listing 
determination on or before October 31, 1996, for the following 
petroleum refining process residuals: clarified slurry oil sludge 
1 from catalytic cracking, crude storage tank sludge, catalyst 
from catalytic hydrotreating, process sludge from sulfur complex and 
H2S removal facilities, off-spec product and fines from thermal 
processes, catalyst from catalytic reforming, unleaded storage tank 
sludge, catalyst from catalytic hydrorefining, catalyst and fines from 
catalytic cracking, catalyst from sulfur complex and H2S removal 
facilities, spent caustic from liquid treating, catalyst from 
H2SO4 alkylation, sludge from HF alkylation, and sludge from 
H2SO4 alkylation. Today the EPA is proposing listing 
determinations for these residuals in accordance with the consent 
decree's deadline for this rulemaking proposal.

    \1\ While the consent decree uses the term ``sludge'' to refer 
to any solid, semi-solid, or liquid residual, the term is defined 
more narrowly for RCRA Subtitle C (Sec. 260.10). Throughout today's 
proposal the Agency has used the term ``sediment'' to denote solid, 
semi-solid, or liquid residuals deposited from industrial process 
liquids.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Existing Petroleum Refining Listings and Other Relevant Agency 
Actions

1. Listings
    A number of wastes from petroleum refineries have been previously 
listed as hazardous. The Agency notes that today's proposal does not 
affect the scope of the existing hazardous waste listings (described 
below) or the applicability of CERCLA to these wastes. EPA is not 
soliciting comments concerning these listings and does not intend to 
respond to any such comments received.
    In addition, EPA-classified listed hazardous wastes are hazardous 
substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended. CERCLA 
hazardous substances are listed in Table 302.4 at 40 CFR 302.4 along 
with their reportable quantities (RQs), and include the listed 
hazardous wastes from petroleum refining in Table II-1.


[[Page 57749]]
     Table II-1.--List of Currently Regulated RCRA Wastes and CERCLA    
             Hazardous Substances and Reportable Quantities             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Statutory              
              Hazardous substance                RQ pounds     Final RQ 
                                                    (kg)     pounds (kg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
K048--Dissolved air flotation (DAF) float from                          
 the petroleum refining industry..............      1(.454)     10(4.54)
K049--Slop oil emulsion solids from the                                 
 petroleum refining industry..................      1(.454)     10(4.54)
K050--Heat exchange bundle cleaning sludge                              
 from the petroleum refining industry.........      1(.454)     10(4.54)
K051--API separator sludge from the petroleum                           
 refining industry............................      1(.454)     10(4.54)
F037--Petroleum refinery primary oil/water/                             
 solids sludge................................      1(.454)      1(.454)
F038--Petroleum refinery secondary                                      
 (emulsified) oil/water/solids separation                               
 sludge.......................................      1(.454)      1(.454)
------------------------------------------------------------------------


2. Definition of Solid Waste Exemptions
    The jurisdictional boundaries of RCRA are established primarily by 
the definition of solid waste, i.e., materials are subject to 
regulation under RCRA only if they meet the regulatory definition of 
solid waste. Secondary materials, including those EPA today is 
proposing to list as hazardous, may be excluded from the definition of 
solid waste and therefore from regulation under RCRA if they are 
recycled in certain ways. Today's notice describes how each material is 
typically managed. The notice also discusses existing regulatory 
exclusions that may apply to a particular refining residual, depending 
on how that residual is managed.
    It is important to note that EPA is currently evaluating the 
existing RCRA regulatory program, with emphasis on the need to clarify 
RCRA jurisdiction, particularly as it applies to secondary materials 
destined for recycling. Additionally, the Agency plans to develop a 
simpler, more streamlined approach to regulating hazardous waste 
recycling. One of the Agency's goals in revising the RCRA regulations 
is to address outstanding jurisdictional issues that specifically 
affect the petroleum refining industry. The petroleum industry poses 
unique regulatory issues largely because existing exclusions from the 
definition of solid waste generally do not apply to secondary materials 
used to produce fuels, the primary product of the refining industry.
    The current definition of solid waste at 40 CFR 261.2 classifies 
secondary materials destined for recycling as solid wastes if the 
recycling is a form of waste management. Conversely, if the materials 
are recycled as part of an ongoing manufacturing process, they are not 
solid wastes. Accordingly, the existing rules specifically exclude 
secondary materials from the definition of solid waste that are: used 
directly (i.e., without reclamation) as ingredients in manufacturing 
processes to make new products; used directly as effective substitutes 
for commercial products; or returned directly to the original process 
from which they are generated as a substitute for raw material feed 
stock. These exclusions do not apply to materials that are either 
contained in, or used to produce fuels, however, and therefore do not 
generally apply to secondary materials recycled as part of the 
petroleum refining process. Petroleum industry representatives have 
long argued that oil-bearing secondary materials used as ingredients in 
the petroleum refining process to make fuel should be excluded from 
regulation under RCRA.
    Today's proposal, which deals specifically with petroleum 
residuals, gives EPA the opportunity to address some larger, 
longstanding issues involving where the boundaries of RCRA should be 
drawn regarding jurisdiction over the petroleum industry. Therefore, in 
addition to addressing specific regulatory issues that may arise as a 
result of a decision to list an individual petroleum wastestream, the 
Agency is proposing more comprehensive revisions to the RCRA 
regulations relating to materials that are generated by and recycled 
within the petroleum industry. (See Section III.E.)

C. EPA's Hazardous Waste Listing Determination Policy

    Today's listing determination proposal follows the elements of the 
Agency's hazardous waste listing determination policy. That policy was 
presented in the dyes and pigments listing determination proposal (59 
FR 66072, December 22, 1994). Readers are referred to that notice for a 
description of EPA's listing policy. Also, Section III.F.2., ``Risk 
Analysis,'' contains a discussion of how elements of EPA's listing 
policy were applied in today's listing determination.

III. Today's Action

A. Summary of Today's Action

1. Summary of Proposed Listing Determinations
    In today's notice, EPA is proposing to add three wastes generated 
during petroleum refining operations to the list of hazardous wastes in 
40 CFR 261.32. A summary of the waste groupings proposed for listing 
are provided below with their proposed corresponding EPA Hazardous 
Waste Numbers.
    K170--Clarified slurry oil storage tank sediment and/or in-line 
filter/separation solids from petroleum refining operations.
    K171--Spent hydrotreating catalysts from petroleum refining 
operations (As discussed in III.A.2 below, this listing does not 
include ceramic support media.)
    K172--Spent hydrorefining catalysts from petroleum refining 
operations (As discussed in III.A.2 below, this listing does not 
include ceramic support media.)
    EPA is proposing to list certain wastes in this rule because these 
materials meet the criteria set out in 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3) for listing 
a waste as hazardous. EPA assessed and considered the factors contained 
in these criteria primarily by incorporating them as elements in a risk 
assessment. Based on this assessment, EPA is proposing to list those 
wastes that pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human 
health or the environment when improperly managed.
    Upon promulgation of these proposed listings, all wastes meeting 
the listing descriptions would become hazardous wastes and would 
require treatment, storage, or disposal at RCRA Subtitle C permitted 
facilities. Residuals from the treatment, storage, or disposal of the 
wastes included in this proposed listing also would be classified as 
hazardous wastes pursuant to the ``derived-from'' rule (40 CFR 
261.3(c)(2)(I)). For example, ash or other residuals from treatment of 
the listed wastes would be subject to RCRA Subtitle C hazardous 

[[Page 57750]]
waste regulations. Also, 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv) (the ``mixture'' rule) 
provides that, with certain limited exceptions, any mixture of a listed 
waste and a solid waste is itself a RCRA hazardous waste.
    However, when these materials are recycled as described in 40 CFR 
261.2(e)(1)(iii) or 261.4(a)(8), they are not solid wastes and are not 
subject to hazardous waste regulations. For example, if a material is 
collected and returned in a closed-loop fashion to the same process, it 
is not regulated. As discussed further in Section III.E of this notice, 
the Agency is proposing some modifications to these recycling 
exemptions.
    This action also proposes not to list as hazardous eleven residuals 
generated from petroleum refining operations:
     Crude oil storage tank sediment.
     Unleaded gasoline storage tank sediment.
     Off-specification product and fines from thermal 
processes.
     Catalyst from reforming.
     Catalyst from H2SO4 alkylation.
     Sludge from H2SO4 alkylation.
     HF alkylation sludge.
     Spent caustic from liquid treating.
     Catalyst and fines from catalytic cracking.
     Catalyst from sulfur complex and H2S removal 
facilities.
     Sludge from sulfur complex and H2S removal 
facilities.
    The Agency requests comments on the proposal not to list the above 
wastes. While the agency is proposing not to list crude oil storage 
tank sediment, the Agency specifically requests comment on the merits 
of listing this waste. Crude oil storage tank sediment could be 
finalized as a listing in response to comment. The Agency also requests 
comment on the data used in this proposal, the methodology and 
assumptions used in the risk assessment, the waste groupings chosen by 
the Agency, and other information and analyses supporting the proposed 
listings.
2. Summary of Definition of Solid Waste and Other Exemptions Proposed 
in Today's Notice
    While the primary purpose of today's proposal is to present the 
Agency's findings with respect to the hazards posed by the 14 residuals 
identified in the consent decree, the Agency also conducted a parallel 
effort to analyze the applicability of the definition of solid waste to 
these residuals, and to identify appropriate exemptions to the proposed 
listings that reflect the Agency's investigation (i.e., the appropriate 
scope of the proposed listings) and that encourage responsible 
recycling activities. The proposed exemptions and scope limitations are 
summarized below and discussed in detail in the following sections.
    a. Hazardous Petroleum Refinery Residuals Returned to Refinery 
Processes. The Agency is proposing to broaden the existing exemption in 
40 CFR 261.4(a)(12) for oil-bearing residuals from specified petroleum 
refining sources that are inserted into the petroleum refining process. 
If finalized, the existing exemption would be expanded to allow for 
reinsertion of a broader array of residuals into more parts of the 
refinery, including the coking process. The exemption would continue to 
be limited to situations where inappropriate storage or accumulation 
does not occur, and to processes that do not result in coke products 
that exhibit any of the characteristics of hazardous waste. A detailed 
discussion of this proposal is provided in Section III.E.
    b. Use of Spent Caustics as Feedstocks. Section III.G.6 describes 
the Agency's findings with respect to spent caustic from liquid 
treating operations and its status as a solid waste when used as a 
feedstock. A significant management practice for this residual is off-
site use as a feedstock in the manufacture of naphthenic or cresylic 
acids. The Agency proposes an exclusion from the definition of solid 
waste in Section III.G.6, clarifying that spent liquid treating 
caustics from petroleum refineries and used as feedstock in the 
manufacture of naphthenic and cresylic acid products are not solid 
wastes.
    c. Third Party Recycling of Spent Petroleum Catalysts. Section 
III.J describes the Agency's rationale for proposing an exclusion from 
the 40 CFR 266 Subpart H boiler and industrial furnace standards for 
spent hydrotreating and hydrorefining catalyst recovery furnaces. Spent 
hydrotreating and hydrorefining catalysts, two of the petroleum 
refining residuals proposed today for listing, are frequently 
regenerated for reuse or reclaimed off-site to recover nonprecious 
metals such as nickel, molybdenum, cobalt, and vanadium and other 
compounds sold as products (i.e., aluminum sulfate derived from the 
alumina substrate material).
    d. Wastewaters. The turnaround of both crude oil storage tanks and 
clarified slurry oil storage tanks may result in the generation of 
process wastewaters. The scope of the Agency's listing determinations 
for crude oil storage tank sediment and CSO storage tank sediment and/
or in-line filter/separation solids, as described in Section III.G.1 
and 2, respectively, does not include these wastewaters. These sections 
also describe the limitation of the scope of the listings to sediments 
generated from tanks that are directly associated with petroleum 
refining operations, reflecting the Agency's lack of data regarding the 
nature of sediments generated from tankage at facilities that are not 
petroleum refineries.
    In section III.K., the Agency proposes to exclude from the 
definition of hazardous waste mixtures of crude oil storage tank 
sediment (if listed) or of CSO storage tank sediment with tank 
wastewaters, provided the waste waters are discharged to the oil-
recovery sewer before primary oil/water/solids separation.
    e. Catalyst Support Balls. Upon removal from catalyst beds and/or 
during catalyst regeneration or reclamation, spent catalysts are 
separated from the support media that is used in the catalytic reactors 
to optimize mixing and flow within the reactor beds. The scope of the 
Agency's listing determinations for hydrotreating and hydrorefining 
catalysts, as described in Section III.J, does not include these 
ceramic support media.
    f. Application of Existing Exemptions to the Residuals of Concern. 
Section III.G.5 describes EPA's findings with respect to spent sulfuric 
acid used as a catalyst in refinery alkylation processes. The Agency 
concluded that this residual is already managed in a way that is 
virtually exempt from the definition of solid waste under 40 CFR 
261.4(a)(7).

B. Description of the Industry

    Petroleum refineries are defined as ``establishments primarily 
engaged in the production of gasoline, distillate fuel oils, residual 
fuel oils, naphtha, liquefied refinery gases, and lubricants through 
the integration of fractionation and/or straight distillation of crude 
oil, re-distillation of unfinished petroleum derivatives, cracking, or 
other processes'' (Office of Management and Budget, 1987).
    The refineries use a complex combination of interdependent 
operations to produce these petroleum-derived products. Depending upon 
the type of crude being processed, the type of product to be produced, 
and the process units present at a refinery, various combinations of 
processes may be employed to effect the separation of crude fractions. 
Petroleum refining operations and processes include desalting of crude, 
atmospheric and vacuum distillation, hydrotreating, catalytic cracking, 
thermal processing and upgrading of residual fuel oil, light 

[[Page 57751]]
hydrocarbon processing, hydrocracking, catalytic reforming, alkylation, 
extraction, isomerization, processing of lubricating oil, removal of 
sulfur, and blending of products. Additional processes may also be 
employed to produce additives or other desired products.
    Today's proposal is based on the Agency's analysis of data 
characterizing the industry in 1992. In 1992, 185 operating refineries 
were reported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Petroleum Supply 
Annual, with a total distillation capacity of 15 million barrels of 
crude oil per calendar day.

C. Overview of EPA's Information Collection Activities

    OSW's listing determination for the petroleum refining industry has 
been underway since 1992 and can be characterized in terms of two major 
avenues for information collection: field work and survey evaluation.
1. Field Investigations and Sampling
    As part of the Agency's field work, engineering site visits, 
familiarization sampling, and record sampling were conducted. Twenty-
five refineries were randomly selected for evaluation in the field 
program. The industry was stratified into large and small refineries 
and the 25 refineries were selected randomly (and proportionately) from 
the two strata so that any differences in waste generation and 
management practices could be observed. Engineering site visits were 
conducted at each of the targeted refineries, at which time the Agency 
conducted extensive discussions with the facilities and representatives 
of the American Petroleum Institute (API) to certify each of the 
potential sampling locations would result in samples that were 
representative of normal operating conditions and typical industry 
practices.
    Sixty three record samples of the listing residuals of concern were 
collected and analyzed. All sample volumes were obtained in duplicate 
for the purpose of providing API with sample splits. Of the 63 samples 
collected, 46 were split directly with API; the remaining 17 were 
either split with the refinery (12 samples) or only collected as single 
EPA aliquot (5 samples). Of the 46 split samples, the analytical data 
for 31 were compared directly to the API data. The results of the 
comparison indicated good agreement. The sampling and analysis plans 
and analytical data reports that are not Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) are available in the docket for this rule (see 
ADDRESSES section), and provide detailed discussions regarding the 
identification and collection of samples. The Listing Background 
Document available in the docket provides additional information on the 
Agency's field program, including a more detailed discussion of EPA's 
site selection process.
    EPA's approach to sample analysis is described generally in its 
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPjP), dated October 21, 1992 
(describing the familiarization phase of this investigation) and 
September 22, 1993 (describing the record sampling phase of this 
investigation) available in the docket of today's rule. Target analytes 
were identified by compiling lists of target constituents used in 
previous OSW investigations, including the petroleum refining listing 
investigation conducted in the 1980s, the 1984 ``Skinner List'' 
(guidance issued by OSW for the characterization of wastes derived from 
petroleum refinery wastewater treatment sludge), and the Delisting 
Program. Additional constituents were added to reflect waste-specific 
concerns such as amines from sulfur-removal residuals, and fluorides 
from HF alkylation residuals. The Agency's contracted laboratory 
confirmed its ability to reliably and adequately quantify the target 
analytes during the analysis of six familiarization samples collected 
during the engineering site visits. Upon completion of the 
familiarization sample analysis effort, EPA finalized the target 
analyte list and QAPjP with a list of more than 180 target 
constituents. In addition, during both familiarization and record 
sampling and analysis, the Agency quantified the ten most abundant 
nontarget volatile and the 20 most abundant nontarget semi-volatile 
organics in each sample.
    The Agency believes that the samples collected and analyzed under 
its field investigations are generally representative of residuals 
typically generated throughout the industry. This belief is based on 
(1) the extensive discussions between the Agency, the targeted 
facilities and API regarding the sampling protocol and sample 
representativeness; (2) the Agency's broader understanding of the 
residuals and the industry's array of management practices developed 
during extensive review of the industry-wide survey (described below); 
and (3) the fact that the toxicants that ultimately were found through 
risk assessment modeling to show significant risk and serve as the 
proposed basis for listing in today's notice are all common refinery 
constituents of concern (e.g., benzene, arsenic, polynuclear aromatic 
hydrocarbons (PAHs)) that are found in virtually all crudes and thus 
reasonably are expected to be present in refinery residuals across the 
Nation.
2. RCRA Section 3007 Survey
    The survey effort included the development, distribution, and 
assessment of an extensive industry-wide section 3007 survey. The 
questionnaire covered topics such as crude oil and product information, 
facility and unit process flow diagrams, process descriptions, residual 
generation and management profiles, residual and contaminated soil and 
debris characterization, residual management unit and media 
characterization, general facility characterization (focussing on 
exposure pathway characterization), source reduction efforts, and 
certification.
    The survey was distributed in September 1993 to all refineries 
identified as active in 1992 in the DOE Petroleum Supply Annual. Of the 
185 surveys distributed, completed responses were obtained for 172 
refineries. The remaining refineries notified EPA that they had stopped 
operations at some point in or after 1992 and thus were unable to 
complete the survey.
    The Agency entered the completed surveys into a relational database 
known as the 1992 Petroleum Refining Database (PRDB). An exhaustive 
engineering review of each facility's response was then conducted, 
resulting in follow-up letters to most of the industry which sought 
clarifications, corrections, and additional data where needed. The 
responses to the follow-up letters were entered into the database. A 
wide variety of additional quality assurance checks were run on the 
data, with added emphasis on the listing residuals, to ensure that the 
residuals of concern were characterized as completely and accurately as 
possible. Follow-up telephone interviews were conducted as necessary to 
address remaining data issues. After extensive review, the Agency 
believes that the data are reliable and represent the industry's 
current residual generation and management practices.

D. Description of the Process Residuals in Comparison With the Consent 
Decree Language

    The consent decree identifies fourteen residuals for which the 
Agency must make proposed listing determinations in this rulemaking. 
Upon investigation of the categories identified in the consent decree, 
the Agency determined that several of the categories should be split 
into distinct subcategories to allow the 

[[Page 57752]]
Agency to differentiate between unique residuals. For example, the 
consent decree identified as one residual catalysts from sulfur complex 
and H2S removal facilities. There are two major subcategories of 
catalysts used in refinery sulfur removal facilities: Claus catalysts 
(an alumina bauxite catalyst) and tail gas treating catalysts 
(typically a cobalt/molybdenum catalyst). These wastes are inherently 
different in their composition, application, and management, and thus 
were assessed separately in the Agency's risk assessment.
    Table III-1 identifies the residuals in the consent decree, 
describes their coverage in the listing determinations proposed in 
today's rulemaking, and the action proposed.

                                     Table III-1.--Consent Degree Residuals                                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Residuals identified in the consent decree                     Coverage in today's rulemaking            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crude oil storage tank sludge..........................  Crude oil storage tank sediment.                       
Unleaded storage tank sludge...........................  Unleaded gasoline storage tank sediment.               
Clarified slurry oil sludge from catalytic cracking....  Clarified slurry oil (CSO) storage tank sediment and/or
                                                          in-line filter/separation solids.                     
Catalyst from catalytic hydrotreating..................  Non-precious metal hydrotreating catalysts.            
Catalyst and fines from catalytic cracking.............  Equilibrium catalysts and catalyst fines were evaluated
                                                          as individual subcategories based on differences in   
                                                          particle sizes and management practices.              
Catalyst from catalytic hydrorefining..................  Non-precious metal hydrorefining catalysts.            
Catalyst from catalytic reforming......................  Includes spent catalysts and fines.                    
Catalyst from H2SO4 alkylation.........................  Spent sulfuric acid.                                   
Sludge from H2SO4 alkylation...........................  Same.                                                  
Sludge from HF alkylation..............................  Neutralization sludges.                                
Off-spec product and fines from thermal processes......  Same.                                                  
Spent caustic from liquid treating.....................  Same.                                                  
Process sludge from sulfur complex and H2S removal       Sludges from amine-based sulfur removal systems,       
 facilities.                                              including turnaround sludges and filter cartridges.   
Catalyst from sulfur complex and H2S removal facilities  Claus catalyst, an alumina-based sulfur conversion     
                                                          catalyst.                                             
                                                         SCOT-like catalyst, a cobalt/molybdenum      
                                                          tailgas treating catalyst.                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Hazardous Oil-Bearing Residuals Returned to Refinery Processes

    EPA is today proposing to exclude from the definition of solid 
waste oil-bearing residuals from specified petroleum industry sources 
that are inserted into the petroleum refining process (including the 
petroleum coker) along with normal process streams, if these materials 
are not stored in a manner involving placement on the land, or 
accumulated speculatively before being so recycled, and if the 
resulting coke product does not exhibit one or more of the 
characteristics of hazardous waste.
1. Background
    a. January 8, 1988 Proposal. On January 8, 1988, EPA proposed rules 
to implement a decision by the District of Columbia Circuit Court 
regarding EPA's statutory authority to regulate recycled materials. See 
53 FR 519, January 8, 1988. In its decision in American Mining Congress 
v. EPA, 824 F. 2d1177 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (AMC I), the D.C. Circuit Court 
held that EPA's rules defining the statutory term ``solid waste'' (RCRA 
Section 1004(27)) exceeded the Agency's statutory authority to the 
extent that the rules asserted jurisdiction over ``materials that are 
recycled and reused in an ongoing manufacturing or industrial 
process.'' Id. at 1186 (emphasis original). The court held that 
``Because these materials have not yet become part of the waste 
disposal problem,'' Id., they are not yet ``discarded'' within the 
meaning of Section 1004(27) and so cannot be considered to be ``solid 
wastes.''
    In its January 1988 proposal, EPA responded to the AMC I decision 
specifically as it applied to petroleum refining industry operations. 
The Agency proposed to exclude from the regulatory definition of solid 
waste oil bearing petroleum residuals that are returned for further 
refining ``as part of one continuous and ongoing process.'' (53 FR 525, 
January 8, 1988.) More specifically, EPA proposed to exclude oil-
bearing residues from the refining process when those residues are 
generated on-site and reinserted on-site into the petroleum refining 
process (including the coker), provided that the residues were not 
speculatively accumulated or stored in a manner involving land 
placement.
    Subsequent decisions have established that the decision in AMC I is 
relatively narrow. In particular, courts have rejected the argument 
that ``potential reuse of a material prevents the Agency from 
classifying it as 'discarded'.'' American Mining Congress v. EPA, 907 
F. 2d 1179, 1186 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (AMC II). The proper test as to when, 
as a matter of law, the Agency is foreclosed from classifying a 
material as a solid waste is when a material is ``destined for 
immediate reuse in another phase of the industry's ongoing production 
process'' and that ``have not yet become part of the waste disposal 
problem.'' Id. at 1186. EPA retains considerable discretion in 
ascertaining how to apply this standard. For example, secondary 
materials generated by one industry and sent to another industry for 
reclamation could be classified as solid wastes (although EPA retains 
discretion as to whether to make that determination). (American 
Petroleum Inst. v. EPA, 906 F. 2d 726, 740-41 (D.C. Cir. 1990); Ilco v. 
EPA, 996 F. 2d 1126 (11th Cir. (1993); Owen Electric Steel v. Browner, 
37 F. 3d 146 (4th Cir. 1994)). So can secondary materials generated on-
site, stored in wastewater treatment impoundments, and reclaimed within 
the process which generated them. AMC II. EPA also must normally 
justify determinations that a secondary material being recycled is not 
a solid waste by showing how the determination is consistent with 
RCRA's objective to ``establish a cradle-to-grave regulatory structure 
for the safe handling of hazardous wastes.'' API, 906 F. 2d at 741.
    b. July 28, 1994 Final Recovered Oil Rule. On July 28, 1994, EPA 
finalized parts of the January 8, 1988 proposal pertaining to petroleum 
refining industry operations. The proposal was based on the Court's 
decision in AMC I. As noted, however, post-AMC I decisions make clear 
that the statute 

[[Page 57753]]
affords EPA great latitude to set the jurisdictional parameters of 
RCRA. As a consequence, the final exclusion is more narrow than the one 
proposed: it excludes a more limited set of materials, and imposes 
greater restrictions on where the materials can be inserted within the 
petroleum refining process.
    In its January 1988 proposal, EPA did not distinguish between 
recovered oil and oil-bearing hazardous sludges, nor did it distinguish 
between the petroleum coker and other petroleum process units in 
defining the scope of the proposed petroleum refining exclusion. In 
contrast, in the July 28, 1994 rule, EPA limited the exclusion to 
recovered oil from petroleum refining, exploration and production that 
are inserted into the petroleum refining process prior to distillation 
and catalytic cracking. Also, the final exclusion thus does not apply 
to recovered oil reinserted into the petroleum coker. 
(Sec. 261.4(a)(12)).
    (1) Definition of Recovered Oil. Recovered oil, as defined in 
Sec. 261.4(a)(12), includes materials that are primarily oil and that 
are recovered from any phase of petroleum exploration, refining, 
production, and transportation. As explained in the July 28, 1994 rule, 
EPA limited the exclusion to recovered oil because recovered oil is 
equivalent to the raw materials normally used in the petroleum refining 
process in its composition and management.
    The exclusion does not apply to hazardous oil-bearing sludges. EPA 
reasoned that these materials are typically unlike raw materials 
normally used in the petroleum refining process (i.e., crude oil). 
First, oil-bearing sludges are not normally composed primarily of oil. 
Additionally, the units in which they are managed (e.g., API 
separators, DAF units, land treatment units and surface impoundments) 
are not parts of the refining process, but instead function as waste 
holding and treatment units. Finally, EPA cited damage incidents 
associated with management of such materials as confirmation that these 
materials can be part of the waste disposal problem.
    (2) Limitation on Point of Insertion. The final recovered oil 
exclusion does not apply to recovered oil or other hazardous oil-
bearing secondary materials that are inserted into the petroleum coker. 
EPA decided not to exclude materials that are recycled in the petroleum 
coker because of concerns about the fate of the hazardous constituents 
that may be contained in the recovered oil. As stated in the preamble 
to the recovered oil rule, the Agency was concerned that toxic 
constituents could end up in the coke product in quantities that could 
be harmful to human health and the environment when the coke is burned 
as a fuel. See 59 FR 38542, July 28, 1994. EPA had limited data on the 
composition of hazardous oil-bearing residuals compared to normal coker 
feed and was concerned that additional toxic constituents (e.g., heavy 
metals) that may be present in these secondary materials could be 
discarded by simple incorporation into the coke product, in which case 
the coke could be part of the waste disposal problem when burned.
    The Agency therefore retained jurisdiction over recovered oil, and 
other hazardous oil-bearing secondary materials that are inserted into 
the petroleum coker. Cokers that receive hazardous oil-bearing waste as 
a feedstock are currently not subject to regulation under RCRA, 
however. (59 FR 38542, July 28, 1994.) (See also May 3, 1995 letter to 
Ralph J. Colleli, API Counsel, from Michael Shapiro, Director, Office 
of Solid Waste).
2. Proposed Amendments To Address Hazardous Residuals Returned to the 
Refining Process
    a. Summary of Proposed Amendments. In the preamble to the final 
recovered oil rule, EPA indicated that the rulemaking was not 
necessarily its final disposition of jurisdictional issues relating to 
the petroleum industry, and that further exclusions might be warranted 
after additional study (59 FR 38536, and 38541, July 28, 1994). Since 
promulgation of the recovered oil rule, EPA has received numerous 
comments from petroleum industry representatives objecting to the 
Agency's decision to narrow the scope of the originally proposed 
exclusion. Industry representatives continue to assert that cokers are 
an integral part of the petroleum refining process and that the 
practice of recycling oil-bearing secondary materials (including 
recovered oil) as feed to petroleum cokers, or elsewhere to the 
refining process, falls outside of RCRA jurisdiction. In light of these 
comments, and as part of its continued efforts to define more clearly 
the scope of RCRA jurisdiction within the petroleum industry, EPA has 
reviewed its position regarding whether exclusions should apply only to 
recovered oil and whether reinsertion into petroleum cokers as well as 
earlier parts of the refining process should be excluded.
    Accordingly, the Agency has reevaluated existing information on 
oil-bearing residuals and their use in the petroleum refining process. 
In particular, EPA has reviewed existing information on the composition 
of oil-bearing refinery residuals and the fate of toxic constituents 
contained in secondary materials that are reinserted into the coker. In 
addition, the Agency has obtained more detailed information from the 
petroleum refining industry on the coking process itself. The Agency's 
analysis, which is discussed in detail below, supports broadening the 
existing recovered oil exclusion. Therefore, EPA is today proposing to 
expand the recovered oil exclusion to cover all oil-bearing secondary 
materials that are generated within the petroleum refining industry and 
are reinserted into the petroleum refining process (including 
distillation, catalytic cracking, fractionation, or thermal cracking 
(i.e., coking)).
    Under today's proposal, Sec. 261.4(a)(12) would be revised to 
provide that oil-bearing residuals from specified petroleum industry 
sources that are inserted into the petroleum refining process 
(including the coker) along with normal process streams would be 
excluded from the definition of solid waste, if the material is not 
stored in a manner involving placement on the land, or accumulated 
speculatively before being recycled and (if insertion is into the 
coker) if the coke product does not exceed characteristically hazardous 
levels. More specifically, today's proposed exclusion would cover oil-
bearing secondary materials that are generated on-site at refineries, 
transported intracompany from off-site, or received from any off-site 
facilities (intercompany transfers) in the following SIC codes: 1311, 
1321, 1381, 1382, 1389 (oil and gas extraction), 2911 (petroleum 
refining), 4612 and 4613 (crude oil and refined petroleum pipelines), 
4922 and 4923 (natural gas transmission and distribution), 4789 
(independent pipeline operators), and 5171 and 5172 (petroleum product 
bulk stations and terminals). It should be noted that certain existing 
exclusions provided under Sec. 261.6 that pertain specifically to 
petroleum refining wastes would become unnecessary as a result of 
today's proposal. The Agency will amend these provisions as necessary 
in its final rulemaking.
    Today's proposal would not effect the current regulatory status of 
petroleum refinery wastewaters. EPA considers refinery wastewaters to 
be discarded materials and therefore solid wastes potentially subject 
to regulation under RCRA (59 FR 38539, July 28, 1994). Likewise, 
wastewater treatment systems in which RCRA hazardous wastes are managed 
would continue to be subject to regulation as hazardous waste 
management units or exempt under 40 CFR 264.1 under today's proposal. 

[[Page 57754]]

    Today's proposed exclusion would also be expanded to include 
recovered oil that is generated from certain organic chemical industry 
operations and inserted into a petroleum refining process along with 
normal process streams.
    b. Rationale for Proposed Amendments. (1) Exclusion for Oil-Bearing 
Residuals Returned to Refining Process. Today's proposed exclusion 
applies to any oil-bearing residual material from any phase of 
petroleum exploration, refining, transport or marketing that is 
inserted directly into any part of the refining process. These 
materials are most likely to be inserted into the petroleum coker, and 
the basis for this proposed exclusion is discussed at length below. 
Materials inserted elsewhere into the refining process are likely to 
already be recovered oil, and hence to be excluded, or to so closely 
resemble recovered oil as to fit the rationale of the existing rule, if 
not its exact literal language. Thus, with respect to insertion into 
parts of the refining process other than coking, extending the 
exclusion to all oil-bearing materials largely avoids unproductive 
disputes about what is and is not recovered oil, and leaves refineries 
with maximum flexibility as to the best part of the process to reinsert 
oil-rich residuals.
    (2) Proposed Exclusion for Oil-Bearing Materials Inserted into 
Petroleum Coking. Role of the Petroleum Coker in the Petroleum Refining 
Process. EPA decided in the July 1994 rule not to exclude hazardous 
oil-bearing secondary materials that are inserted into the coking 
process until the Agency studied further whether the coker may be 
functioning, at least in part, as a waste management unit in these 
cases (59 FR 38542, July 28, 1994). A more detailed review of the 
coking process has since convinced EPA that the coker is in fact an 
integral part of the petroleum refining process and is similar to other 
refining processes such as distillation and catalytic cracking. The 
coker is normally located on-site and typically processes oil-bearing 
materials that are generated on-site. The petroleum coker contributes 
significant revenue to the refinery primarily through upgrading of 
lower value hydrocarbons into light ends that are used to produce more 
valuable product fuels. While coke is a co-product of the coking 
process, the primary purpose of the coker is, in fact, to thermally 
convert longer-chain hydrocarbons to recover the more valuable middle 
and light end hydrocarbons that are used to produce high grade fuels 
(e.g., gasoline, kerosene, jet fuel, etc.). The typical coker yield is 
about 25%-30% petroleum coke and 70% light hydrocarbons that are 
returned to the refining process to produce high grade fuels. The 
importance of the coker to the refining process is illustrated by the 
fact that the coking operation may determine the economic viability of 
the refinery. Given that the coker is a crucial unit in the refining 
process, industry representatives assert and the Agency believes that 
it is highly unlikely that refinery owners or operators would allow any 
incompatible materials to be inserted into the coker for fear of 
interfering with proper operation of the coker. It is also significant 
that, consistent with EPA's finding that cokers are considered process 
units for purposes of today's proposed exclusion, cokers are also 
viewed as process units under recently issued Clean Air Act (CAA) 
regulations and that emissions from cokers are subject to regulations 
under the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from 
Petroleum Refineries (40 CFR 63 Subpart CC; 60 FR 43244, August 18, 
1995).
    Hazardous Oil-bearing Residuals Compared to Normal Coker Feed. EPA 
also initially decided not to exclude recovered oil and other oil-
bearing hazardous materials used to produce petroleum coke because of 
concerns that toxic metals contained in these materials are being 
disposed of by incorporation into a coke product. At the time the 
recovered oil rule was published, the Agency had only limited data 
indicating that oil-bearing hazardous residuals do not contain 
significantly different amounts of toxic constituents from the heavy 
petroleum residuals that are normally fed to the petroleum coker, but 
was uncertain of the representativeness of the information. The Agency 
has since received some additional data on the composition of oil-
bearing hazardous sludges relative to crude oil residuals that are 
typically fed to the coker which supports industry's claim that oil-
bearing sludges generated during the refining process are substantially 
similar to normal coker feedstock material.2 At this time, all of 
the data in EPA's possession indicates that the recycling of oil-
bearing residuals can be accomplished without raising hazardous 
constituent (e.g., heavy metal) concentrations to levels of concern in 
the final coke product. To guard against this possibility, the Agency 
is limiting this exclusion to the production of coke which does not 
exhibit the characteristics of a hazardous waste. This is consistent 
with the thrust of RCRA Sec. 3004(q)(2)(A) which subjects certain 
petroleum refinery wastes converted into petroleum coke to regulation 
if the resulting coke exhibits a characteristic.

    \2\ See October 8, 1993 and October 13, 1993 letters from Mark 
A. Smith (Unocal) to James R. Berlow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another significant consideration bearing on today's proposal is 
the fact that hazardous oil-bearing sludges constitute only a very 
small fraction of the total residual materials that are generated by 
the petroleum refining process and inserted back into the refinery for 
further processing. Due to process limitations, hazardous oil-bearing 
materials comprise only about 1-3% of the total amount of refining 
residuals that are routinely fed to the coker according to industry 
representatives.
    Additionally, EPA has found that hazardous oil-bearing refinery 
sludges are managed in much the same way as are non-regulated crude oil 
residuals prior to insertion into the petroleum coker. In a typical 
petroleum refinery operation, refinery residuals (e.g., K048-52) that 
are inserted into petroleum cokers are transferred from wastewater 
treatment tanks to the coker via a closed system. The wastewater 
treatment tanks in which the residuals are initially stored are exempt 
from Subtitle C regulation. (See 40 CFR 264.1(g)(6).) The residuals are 
typically transferred from exempt wastewater treatment tanks via hard 
pipe or tank trucks to stationary tanks or containers where oil is 
recovered and/or the secondary materials are prepared for insertion 
into the coker. Since the residuals are not ordinarily stored in stand 
alone storage tanks but are instead transferred directly to process 
tanks and containers (i.e., centrifuge systems, desorption units, etc.) 
EPA does not believe that storage of the residuals prior to reinsertion 
into the refining process poses hazards to human health or environment. 
In addition, American National Standard Institute (ANSI) standards 
governing design, construction, operation, maintenance and inspection 
of petroleum terminal and tank facilities help to ensure 
environmentally protective management storage of the in-process 
residuals prior to reinsertion into the coker or other parts of the 
refinery.
    Furthermore, data on the composition of the coke product indicate 
that use of oil-bearing secondary materials has little, if any, impact 
on the quality and/or properties of the resulting coke. In particular, 
EPA has information which indicates that levels of toxic metals in coke 
produced from oil-bearing sludges are comparable to those found in coke 


[[Page 57755]]
produced strictly from crude oil residuum.3

    \3\ See February 2, 1993 data submission from Mobil Oil 
Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, coke product is subject both to regulatory requirements 
and certain limited industry product specifications, a fact that serves 
to ensure the quality of the coke product. The statute and existing 
regulations provide that coke product derived from a hazardous waste 
which exhibits a hazardous characteristic (as determined by application 
of the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure) is subject to 
regulation as hazardous waste under RCRA. See RCRA Sec. 3004(q)(2)(A) 
and 40 CFR 261.6(a)(3)(vii). EPA would retain this provision under 
today's proposal as a means of ensuring that reinsertion of these 
materials is not part of the waste disposal problem. See generally AMC 
II, supra. Coke is also subject to product standards established by the 
American Society for Testing of Materials' (ASTM) for volatile matter 
and ash content. Taken together, these controls help to ensure that 
coke product does not contain unsafe levels of toxic contaminants.
    Restrictions on Land Placement and Speculative Accumulation. 
Today's proposed exclusions do not apply to oil-bearing hazardous 
secondary materials that are placed in land-based hazardous waste 
management units such as surface impoundments or land treatment units. 
The Agency considers materials placed in such units to be discarded, 
and hence solid wastes. Land-based units that contain hazardous oil-
bearing residuals would remain subject to Subtitle C requirements under 
today's proposal. AMC II, 907 F. 2d at 1186-87. In addition, any 
material that spills from tanks and containers and is not expeditiously 
retrieved for reinsertion is a solid waste and, if listed or 
characteristic, a hazardous waste. See Sec. 261.33(d) and 55 FR 22671, 
June 1, 1990.
    Today's proposed exclusion also does not apply to oil-bearing 
secondary materials that are accumulated speculatively (as defined in 
Sec. 261.1(c)(8)) before being recycled into a petroleum refining 
process. Under RCRA, secondary materials that are accumulated 
speculatively are considered to be discarded and hence solid waste. EPA 
applies this standard condition to otherwise excluded secondary 
materials to prevent risks from prolonged storage of the material 
before recycling. See 50 FR 634-635, 658-661, Jan. 4, 1985.
    Restrictions on Petroleum Coke Produced From Hazardous Oil-Bearing 
Secondary Materials. Under the current regulations, petroleum coke 
produced from hazardous oil-bearing refinery wastes is excluded from 
regulation under RCRA provided that the resulting coke product does not 
exceed one or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste in part 
261, Subpart C (Sec. 261.6(a)(3)(vii)). Under today's proposal, EPA 
would continue to regulate coke that exhibits a characteristic as 
hazardous if the coke is produced from oil-bearing residuals that are 
excluded from regulation because they are reinserted into the refining 
process, but are otherwise regulated as hazardous waste. In addition, 
EPA is proposing to condition the exclusion for oil-bearing residuals 
that are inserted into the coker on the requirement that coke produced 
from these materials not exceed characteristic levels. In other words, 
the exclusion would not apply to secondary materials that, if recycled, 
would result in coke that exhibits a characteristic. To do otherwise, 
as noted, would lead to situations where management of oil-bearing 
residues becomes part of the waste management problem by tainting the 
coke. EPA thus is proposing these conditions to ensure that coke 
produced from otherwise excluded oil-bearing secondary materials will 
not contain toxic constituents in quantities that could be harmful to 
human health and the environment when the coke is burned so as to 
assure that the proposed exclusion does not undermine RCRA's cradle-to-
grave purpose. API, 906 F.2d at 741; RCRA Sec. 3004(q)(2)(A). EPA 
requests comment on the adequacy of the TCLP for this purpose.
    Materials That Are Deemed To Be Inherently Waste-Like. The existing 
regulations provide EPA with authority to designate as solid wastes 
materials that are inherently waste-like regardless of the mode of 
recycling. (See Sec. 261.2(d).) Under current regulations, the Agency 
may designate materials as inherently waste-like either because they 
are typically disposed of or incinerated on an industry-wide basis or 
they contain toxic constituents not normally found in the raw materials 
or products for which they are being substituted (50 FR 637, January 4, 
1985). Therefore, while EPA is proposing to generally exclude hazardous 
oil-bearing refinery residuals that are returned to the petroleum 
refining process, the Agency retains the authority to regulate specific 
waste-streams as ``inherently waste-like'' if it finds that particular 
petroleum refining residuals contain high levels of toxic constituents 
that are not ordinarily found in the normal coker feed and do not 
contribute to the product.
    Regulatory Status of Petroleum Refinery Wastewater and Wastewater 
Treatment Operations. Under today's proposal petroleum refining 
wastewaters would continue to be subject to regulation as solid wastes 
under RCRA. Petroleum industry representatives have argued in public 
comments submitted in response to both the January 8, 1988 proposal and 
the July 28, 1994 final recovered oil rule, that plant wastewaters 
containing oil are not solid wastes. Industry representatives contend 
that primary wastewater treatment operations in which oil is skimmed 
and oil-bearing sludges are separated from plant waters are part of the 
ongoing refining process.
    EPA has considered this argument but does not agree for the 
following reasons. First, petroleum refining wastewaters differ from 
both recovered oil and oily sludges that are separated from the 
wastewaters in that, unlike these secondary materials, the wastewaters 
themselves are not analogous in composition to normal petroleum 
refining feedstock material and consequently are not reinserted into 
the petroleum refining process to produce petroleum products. Instead, 
petroleum refining wastewaters from which oily materials have been 
removed are discharged, and are thus not eligible for exclusion as a 
petroleum refining process feed.
    Second, as explained in the preamble to the recovered oil rule, 
primary wastewater treatment operations exist to treat plant 
wastewater. The main purpose of wastewater treatment is to purify 
discarded wastewaters from the refining process so that they can 
ultimately be discharged pursuant to Clean Water Act requirements, not 
to recover secondary materials for recycling back into an ongoing 
manufacturing or industrial process. See 59 FR 38539, July 28, 1994.
    A final and equally important consideration in EPA's decision not 
to exclude refinery wastewaters from regulation is that regulation of 
these wastewaters ensures treatment of hazardous constituents in 
characteristic wastestreams that are managed in wastewater treatment 
impoundments (e.g., impoundments in which biological treatment occurs) 
in accordance with the land disposal restriction (LDR) requirements of 
Part 268. See 59 FR 38540.
    Recovered Oil From Co-Located Petroleum Refineries and 
Petrochemical Facilities. EPA is also today proposing to add an 
exclusion at Sec. 261.12(a)(13) for recovered oil that is generated by 
certain 

[[Page 57756]]
organic chemical industry operations and inserted into petroleum 
refining processes provided that the conditions discussed above are met 
(i.e., provided that the recovered oil is not stored in a manner 
involving placement on the land, or accumulated speculatively before 
being recycled and that (if insertion is into the coker) coke product 
does not exceed characteristically hazardous levels).
    The final recovered oil exclusion does not currently apply to 
recovered oil from organic chemical industry operations except in cases 
where petrochemical and petroleum refining operations share a common 
wastewater treatment system (where wastewater from petrochemical 
processing units typically comprises only small percentage of the total 
refinery wastewater volume). In these cases, given the predominance of 
petroleum refining wastewater, the Agency believes that the recovered 
oil exclusion appropriately applies to oil recovered from shared 
petrochemical/petroleum refining wastewater treatment systems.4 
The Agency did not more broadly exclude recovered oil from organic 
chemical operations in its final recovered oil rule because of concerns 
about additional toxic constituents that may be present in oil 
recovered from petrochemical processing residuals (i.e., the exclusion 
is provided on the premise that the oil-rich materials in question 
contain the same constituents as normal refining process streams).

    \4\ May 3, 1995 letter from Michael Shapiro (EPA) to Ralph J. 
Colleli, Jr. (API).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is aware, however, that some petrochemical facilities recover 
oil separately from their process streams and send it to petroleum 
refineries for insertion into the refining process. This practice 
typically occurs between petroleum refineries and chemical operations 
that are either co-located or owned by the same company. The oil 
recovered from petrochemical operations typically comes from ``dry'' 
process streams, i.e., hydrocarbon streams with little or no water 
content that are recovered outside of wastewater treatment systems. It 
is generally composed of hydrocarbons that originate from, or are 
derived from, feedstocks supplied by the petroleum industry.
    Since promulgation of the final recovered oil rule in July 1994, 
the Agency has received compelling information from the chemical 
manufacturing industry indicating that the recovered oil from these 
organic chemical industry operations is comparable to oil recovered 
from petroleum refining operations.5 Based on this information, 
which is described in detail below, the Agency is proposing to exclude 
oil that is recovered from petrochemical operations and inserted into 
co-located or commonly owned petroleum refining operations.

    \5\ September 13, 1995 letter to Becky Daiss (Office of Solid 
Waste) from Michael W. Steinberg (Morgan, Lewis & Bockius and July 
31, 1995 letter to Steven E. Silverman (U.S. EPA, Office of General 
Counsel) from Michael W. Steinberg (Morgan, Lewis & Bockius).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The specific reasons for the proposed petrochemical exclusion are 
as follows. First, chemical industry representatives have argued and 
EPA agrees that the need to closely control petroleum product quality 
makes it unlikely that the recovered oil from the dry organic chemical 
plant streams covered by the proposed exclusion would contain toxic 
contaminants not otherwise found in petroleum feedstock. The presence 
of non-hydrocarbon contaminants in the recovered oil can jeopardize the 
integrity of the refined product. Product quality problems (e.g., 
solids or potential gum-forming problems in automobile fuel injection 
or carburetor systems) can, in turn, have a widespread impact both on 
customers and the refiners because of the extensive distribution 
network in the industry. In addition, quality of the recovered oil 
feedstock is important to the integrity of the refining process itself 
(e.g., some chemicals and metals can cause equipment fouling and costly 
downtime at refineries).
    Precautions are therefore taken to ensure that recovered oil from 
petrochemical plants does not contain contaminants that may adversely 
affect the quality of refinery products or cause equipment and catalyst 
fouling process unit downtime within refineries. Recovered oil from 
organic chemical operations is segregated from other by-product or 
waste streams generated by petrochemical plants. In addition, the 
petrochemical recovered oil streams, which are generally aggregated on-
site, are routinely analyzed before being sent to the petroleum 
refinery for use as a feedstock to ensure that the recovered oil does 
not include toxic contaminants beyond those found in normal petroleum 
refining process streams. Recovered oil quality parameters include bulk 
solids and water content, bromine number (an indicator of olefin 
content and potential fouling due to polymerization) and specific 
gravity.
    Second, the Agency has received sampling and analytical data that 
supports industry's premise that recovered oil from petrochemical and 
petroleum refining operations is similar in composition and that, 
consequently, petrochemical recovered oil is suitable for insertion 
into the petroleum refining process. The data provides a comparison 
between recovered oil samples from co-owned petrochemical and petroleum 
refining operations on key parameters including specific gravity, 
distillation temperature ranges, flash point, hydrocarbon type, and 
sulfur, ash, and total chlorine content. The analysis indicates that 
the petrochemical recovered oil is comprised essentially of 
hydrocarbons that are within a refinery's distillation range and 
hydrocarbon type. The refinery and chemical plant recovered oil samples 
were also compared against the Agency's used oil fuel specification. 
The used oil specification includes levels for arsenic, cadmium, 
chromium, lead, and flash point. Used oil that is within the specified 
limits is considered by EPA to be comparable to crude oil for 
regulatory purposes. The analysis of all recovered oil samples 
indicates that arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead and total halogen 
levels are well below the used oil fuel specification. The 
petrochemical recovered oil samples were below detection limits for the 
specified contaminants. Flash points of both types of recovered oil 
were also well below the used oil specification minimum.
    EPA requests comment on today's proposed exclusion for recovered 
oil that is generated by organic chemical plants and inserted into co-
located or commonly owned petroleum refining processes along with 
normal refining process streams. Today's proposal is based on a very 
limited set of data. To ensure that the data are representative of the 
industry, the Agency is soliciting additional data on the composition 
of recovered oil from petrochemical operations that is typically sent 
to petroleum refineries. Additionally, EPA may consider broadening the 
proposed exclusion to include recovered oil from plastic materials and 
resins manufacturers (SIC Code 2821), synthetic rubber manufacturers 
(SIC Code 2822), and cyclic crude and intermediate producers (SIC Code 
2865) if the Agency receives sufficient analytical data to support such 
an extension. Finally, EPA also solicits additional information on 
refinery limitations that serve to preclude introduction of toxic 
constituents from recovered oil from chemical manufacturing operations.

F. Description of Health and Risk Assessments

    In determining whether wastes generated from petroleum refining 

[[Page 57757]]
    operations meet the criteria for listing a waste as hazardous as set 
out at 40 CFR 261.11, the Agency evaluated the potential toxicity and 
intrinsic hazard of constituents present in the wastes, the fate and 
mobility of these chemicals, the likely exposure routes, and the 
current waste management practices. A quantitative risk assessment was 
conducted for those wastes where the available information made such an 
assessment possible.
1. Human Health Criteria and Effects
    The Agency uses health-based levels, or HBLs, as a means for 
evaluating the level of concern of toxic constituents in various media. 
In the development of HBLs, EPA first must determine exposure levels 
that are protective of human health and the environment, then apply 
standard exposure assumptions to develop media-specific levels. EPA 
uses the following hierarchy for evaluating human health effects data 
and health-based standards in establishing chemical specific HBLs:
     The Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) is used as the HBL for 
the ingestion of the constituent in water, when it exists. MCLs are 
promulgated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974, as 
amended in 1986, and consider technology and economic feasibility as 
well as health effects.
     Agency-verified Reference Doses (RfDs) or Reference 
Concentrations (RfCs) are used in calculating HBLs for noncarcinogens 
and verified carcinogenic slope factors (CSFs) in calculating HBLs for 
carcinogens. Agency-verified RfDs, RfCs, and CSFs and the bases for 
these values are presented in the EPA's Integrated Risk Information 
System (IRIS).
     RfDs, RfCs, or CSFs are used which are calculated by 
standard methods but not verified by the Agency. These values can be 
found in a number of different types of Agency documents and EPA used 
the following hierarchy when reviewing these documents: Health Effects 
Assessment Tables (HEAST); Human Health Assessment Group for 
Carcinogens; Health Assessment Summaries (HEAs) and Health and 
Environmental Effects Profiles (HEEPs); and Health and Environmental 
Effects Documents (HEEDs).
     Use RfDs or CSFs that are calculated by alternative 
methods, such as surrogate analyses, including structure activity 
analysis, and toxicity equivalency.
    a. 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene. 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene was identified in 
the record samples. EPA has adequate toxicological information to 
develop a provisional health benchmark (i.e., RfD). The Agency has 
developed a provisional RfD of 0.05 mg/kg/day for 1,3,5- 
trimethylbenzene using a subchronic oral rat study, along with other 
toxicological studies. In addition, the Agency has determined that the 
provisional RfD developed for 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene is an appropriate 
benchmark for 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene. These studies and the Agency's 
supporting analysis for the provisional RfD can be found in the docket 
supporting this rule. The Agency has conducted limited external peer 
review of the provisional RfD and it is therefore subject to change.
    A number of assumptions and extrapolations are used to derive the 
provisional RfD, including extrapolating from short-term animal studies 
to a chronic human exposure, and the selection of the critical study on 
which to develop a health benchmark. The Agency requests comments on 
the appropriateness of the provisional RfD and requests any additional 
data on the toxicity of 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene.
    b. Use of Structure-Activity Relationships. There are 15 
constituents identified in the record samples for which EPA has found 
no reliable health effects data to calculate health benchmarks for 
carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic chemicals. Because of the lack of 
health effects data on these constituents, the Agency used a structure-
activity analysis to identify surrogate chemicals, where possible, that 
have reliable health benchmarks for use in the risk assessment. The 
approach involves identifying a surrogate chemical that has similar 
chemical structure, physical properties, and health effects information 
as that of the constituent for which human health data and animal data 
are either lacking or inadequate. The Agency used the surrogate health 
benchmarks in the risk analysis to assess the potential impacts of the 
constituents without benchmarks found in the wastestreams for the 
following five constituents: 1-methylnaphthalene; t-butylbenzene; 
butylbenzene; sec-butylbenzene; and 2-hexanone. The risk analysis did 
not include an evaluation of potential impacts from the following 
constituents because no appropriate surrogates with health benchmarks 
could be found: indene; 2-methylnaphthalene; n-propylbenzene; 
bromobenzene; dibenzofuran; aluminum (+3); cobalt; magnesium hydroxide; 
magnesium oxide; and iron oxide. Based on this assessment none of these 
constituents were of concern in any of the listing decisions in today's 
proposal. Further discussion of this approach can be found in the 
docket supporting this rule. The Agency is planning to conduct a peer 
review of the surrogate analysis and, therefore, the health benchmark 
is subject to change. See ADDRESSES section. The Agency requests 
comment on this approach, and any additional toxicity information on 
these compounds.
    c. Use of Relative Potencies for Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons 
(PAHs). The Agency has a verified cancer slope factor available for 
only one PAH, benzo(a)pyrene. For the remaining PAHs evaluated in the 
risk assessment supporting this rule, the Agency used two methods to 
quantitatively estimate the relative potencies of other PAHs. The first 
method, developed by EPA's Office of Health and Environmental 
Assessment, is interim guidance for the quantitative risk assessment of 
six PAHs. This guidance uses data from mouse studies to develop 
relative carcinogenic potency estimates relative to benzo(a)pyrene. A 
detailed description of the methodology and resulting rankings can be 
found in ``Provisional Guidance for Quantitative Risk Assessment of 
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons,'' included in the docket supporting 
today's rule. The second method the Agency used for the risk assessment 
is a semi-quantitative scoring exercise organized by the Office of 
Pesticides, Pollution Prevention and Toxic Substances. In this method, 
experts independently reviewed available data and reached consensus 
scoring on an additional 101 PAHs in terms of the compound's relative 
potency using benzo(a)pyrene as the reference compound. The Agency 
seeks comments on the uncertainties and limitations of both methods. A 
more detailed discussion of the two methods can be found in the docket 
supporting today's rule.
    All HBLs and their bases for this listing determination are 
provided in a document entitled ``Assessments of Risks from the 
Management of Petroleum Refining Waste: Background Document,'' which 
can be found in the RCRA docket for this rule at EPA Headquarters (see 
ADDRESSES section).
2. Risk Analysis
    a. Risk Characterization Approach. The risk characterization 
approach follows the EPA Guidance on Risk Characterization (Habicht, 
1992), and Guidance for Risk Assessment (EPA Risk Assessment Council, 
1991), and Guidance for Risk Characterization (EPA Science Policy 
Council, 1995). These guidance documents specify that EPA risk 
assessments will be expected to include (1) the central tendency and 
high-end portions of the risk 

[[Page 57758]]
distribution, and (2) important subgroups of the populations such as 
highly susceptible groups or individuals, if known, and (3) population 
risk. In addition to the presentation of results, these guidance 
documents also specifies that the results portray a reasonable picture 
of the actual or projected exposures with a discussion of 
uncertainties. These documents are available in the public docket for 
this action (see ADDRESSES section).
    b. Individual Risk. Individual risk descriptors are intended to 
convey information about the risk borne by individuals within a 
specified population and subpopulations. These risk descriptors are 
used to answer questions concerning the affected population, and the 
risk for individuals within a population of interest. The approach used 
in this analysis for characterizing baseline individual risk included: 
(1) identifying and describing the population of concern for an 
exposure route; (2) determining the sensitivity of the model parameters 
used in the risk estimation; (3) estimating central tendency and high-
end values for the most sensitive parameters in the risk estimation 
procedures; and (4) calculating individual risk for likely exposure 
pathways that provides a characterization of the central tendency and 
high-end risk descriptor.
    Descriptors of population risk are intended to convey information 
about the risk borne by the population or population segment being 
studied. These risk descriptors are used to answer questions concerning 
the number of cases of a particular health effect that could occur 
within the population during a given time period, the number of persons 
or percent of the population above a certain risk level or health 
benchmark (e.g., RfD or RfC), and risk for a particular population 
segment.
    The Agency performed a population risk analysis for impacts to the 
affected community surrounding the refineries across the country. The 
results of the analysis are discussed in Section VI.C.
    c. Risk Assessment. The results of the risk assessment are 
presented in waste-specific risk tables in each of the basis for 
listing sections (Section III.G). The risk tables include the following 
information: constituents of concern; estimated human health central 
tendency and high-end risk for each constituent of concern associated 
with the management scenarios; high, low, and average concentrations of 
constituents found in this waste; the number of samples in which the 
constituent was detected; and notes regarding potential sources of 
uncertainty. In addition to assessing the risks associated with the 
individual constituents found in the waste, the Agency presents the 
combined potential risk of constituents that coexist in the waste, as 
described in ``The Risk Assessment Guidelines of 1986,'' found in the 
docket supporting today's rule. However, where sampling data or the 
exposure analysis show compelling evidence that the constituents cannot 
or do not occur together in the waste stream or at the receptor, the 
Agency considered only the risk associated with the individual 
constituent.
    In addition to those compounds presented in the waste-specific risk 
tables, the Agency's characterization data include other constituents 
found in these wastes. The risk tables presented in this preamble 
contain only those constituents which had adequate data for 
quantitative risk assessment and which were found to present a risk of 
concern. The complete list of constituents found in each of the wastes 
generated from petroleum refining operations, an explanation of the 
risk analysis process, and an explanation of EPA's development of the 
target analyte list are presented in the background documents for this 
rule, which are located in the RCRA Docket for this rulemaking (see 
ADDRESSES section).
    (1) Selection of Waste Management Scenarios. EPA's regulations at 
261.11(a)(3)(vii) require the Agency to consider the risk associated 
with ``the plausible types of improper management to which the waste 
could be subjected'' because exposures to wastes (and therefore the 
risks involved) will vary by waste management practice. The choice of 
which ``plausible management scenario'' (or scenarios) to use in a 
listing determination depends on a combination of factors which are 
discussed in general terms in EPA's general policy statement on 
hazardous waste listing determinations (59 FR 24530, December 22, 
1994). EPA generally employed the elements of the policy in this 
listing determination.
    The following discussion explains the selection of plausible 
management scenarios for the petroleum listing determination. The 
Agency requests comment on its choice of plausible management scenarios 
and on the possibility of using alternative plausible management 
scenarios.
    EPA's basic approach to selecting which waste management scenarios 
to model for risk analysis in listing determinations is to examine 
current management practices and assess whether or not other practices 
are available and are reasonably expected to be used. Where a practice 
is actually reported used, that practice is generally considered 
``plausible'' and may be considered for potential risk. EPA then 
evaluates which of these current or projected management practices for 
each wastestream are likely to pose significant risk based on an 
assessment of exposure pathways of concern associated with those 
practices. There are common waste management practices, such as 
landfilling, which the Agency generally presumes are universally 
plausible for solid wastes and will assess it for risk. There are other 
practices which are less common, such as land treatment, where EPA will 
consider them plausible only where the disposal methods have been 
reported to be practiced. In some situations, potential trends in waste 
management for a specific industry suggest the Agency will need to 
project ``plausible'' mismanagement even if it is not currently in use 
in order to be protective of potential changes in management and 
therefore in potential risk. Finally, there may be situations where 
analysis shows no need to model any scenarios because, although 
considered plausible management, no exposure potential exists.
    In its study of the petroleum refining industry, EPA was able to 
develop a comprehensive database of existing waste management 
practices. All U.S. refineries that EPA was aware of were sent a RCRA 
section 3007 questionnaire and all the active ones responded. This 
allowed the Agency to conduct a careful analysis of how wastestreams 
were managed in 1992. Based on discussions with industry, the Agency 
also was able to project potential changes in these practices and thus 
determine whether or not to include unused or little used practices in 
the risk assessment.
    Overall, the Agency found the reported waste management practices 
for the industry to be numerous and varied. This required an assessment 
of the existing (and potential) management of each wastestream to 
determine which of those practices should be modeled for that 
particular residual. Some wastestreams had special considerations 
(e.g., rarity of practice, volumes managed, existing regulatory 
coverage) associated with their management that had to be included in 
the decision-making process. The description of such considerations is 
included in the listing determination section for that wastestream.
    Given the extensive amount of data collected for this industry, EPA 
did not find it necessary to quantitatively model all currently used 
waste management practices. Furthermore, for the reported management 
practices that were 

[[Page 57759]]
assessed for risk, EPA conducted risk analysis based on the volumes of 
wastes reported to be managed by those practices in 1992. This is a 
modification of EPA's general policy to consider plausible (and model) 
all reported waste management practices. The reasons for the 
modification, discussed in more detail later in this section, are:
    1. Some practices involve very small volumes or very few generators 
with a correspondingly low potential to cause unacceptable risk.
    2. Some practices have proved in past listing determinations to 
pose less risk than those more common practices (e.g., landfilling) 
that were modeled. Therefore the modeled practices act as surrogates to 
the less common, less risky alternatives.
    3. Most of the reported management practices selected for modeling 
are less expensive than other plausible alternatives (industry will 
usually select and continue to use the less costly option) and 
therefore there was no need to assess practices not currently used or 
only rarely used.
    4. The Agency was unable to model every reported management 
practice for every metric ton of waste due to time and resource 
constraints. However, EPA believes it has evaluated the practices 
likely to be of most concern.
    EPA's data show that the overwhelming volume of the wastestreams 
that were actually disposed of (as opposed to being recycled or 
reclaimed) involved three specific waste management practices: 
discharge to a wastewater treatment plant, landfilling, and land 
treatment. Each of these was reported to be currently in use by a 
number of refineries.
    (2) Disposal in Wastewater Treatment Plants. Exposure pathways and 
potential risks associated with disposal of wastes to wastewater 
treatment plants, which in this industry generally represents combined 
wastestream treatment in tanks, are largely covered by regulation under 
the NPDES or air permit programs. Furthermore, sludges generated by 
refinery wastewater treatment systems, which could be affected by the 
discharge of the wastestreams of concern in this listing, are already 
listed hazardous wastes F037, F038, K048, and K051. The exception is 
activated biological treatment (ABT) sludge and sludges generated 
downstream of ABT units. These sludges can be disposed of in various 
ways, including surface impoundments. However, activated biological 
treatment sludge is not one of the residuals under consideration in 
this listing. In addition, the volumes managed in the wastewater 
treatment system of the residuals under consideration in this listing 
are relatively small in comparison to the volumes typically handled in 
refinery wastewater treatment systems. In addition, unlike most 
refinery process wastewaters, these volumes are generated on an 
intermittent (e.g., once a year) basis. The wastestreams of concern for 
this listing would be considerably diluted by the other wastestreams 
sent to the plant. Further, EPA has proposed that the risk associated 
with disposal of these ABT and downstream sludges be covered by the 
Phase IV Land Disposal Restrictions treatment requirements (60 FR 
43654, August 22, 1995). For these reasons, discharge of wastes covered 
by the consent decree to wastewater treatment systems, although a 
practiced management scenario, was not modeled for risk.
    (3) Disposal in Landfills and Land Treatment Units. The principal 
waste management practices chosen for modeling the residuals in this 
listing determination were off-site and on-site Subtitle D landfilling 
and treatment in off-site and on-site land treatment units (LTUs). 
These disposal practices were reported in the Section 3007 
questionnaire survey to be in use by a large percentage of refineries 
and for a large proportion of the total volume discarded. Therefore, 
EPA modeled both direct and indirect exposure pathways associated with 
these two waste management practices.
    For on-site landfills and LTUs, the Agency used the data submitted 
by industry in the Section 3007 questionnaire to characterize the units 
in terms of the waste quantities disposed, surface area of disposal 
units, and distances to receptors. For off-site landfills and LTUs, the 
Agency used characteristics based on a statistical analysis of existing 
Subtitle D land treatment facilities, from the Agency's ``Industrial 
Subtitle D Facility Study'' (October 20, 1986).
    The Agency modeled the releases from the disposal of wastes in on-
site and off-site land treatment units by partitioning the constituents 
of concern between several fate and transport processes. These releases 
include the following: volatilization to the air, leaching to ground 
water, erosion of soil and runoff of dissolved constituents to nearby 
land and surface water bodies, and biodegradation. For the screening or 
bounding estimates, the Agency assumed that no partitioning or 
biodegradation occurred, thus maximizing releases to all media; for 
example, for the groundwater pathway's bounding analysis, TCLP results 
were used as model inputs. For the central and high-end estimates of 
risk, the Agency modeled the partitioning of these releases from the 
land treatment units to derive annual concentrations in the media. 
Biodegradation losses were calculated using data on constituent half-
life in the environment. The Agency's groundwater risk analysis used 
the estimated leaching concentrations from this analysis, instead of 
TCLP data, as the starting concentration in which to estimate 
groundwater concentrations at a receptor well. The TCLP data that the 
Agency collected estimate the concentration of the constituents 
leaching from the waste samples in a landfill management scenario. The 
Agency evaluated the land treatment scenario on a soil/waste mixture 
for which the Agency did not have TCLP data and, therefore, relied on 
the results of the partitioning analysis. A more detailed discussion of 
the release processes for land treatment units is presented in the 
``Assessment of Risks From the Management of Petroleum Refining Wastes: 
Background Document'' in the docket supporting today's proposal.
    (4) Other Disposal Practices Reported. There were other, less 
commonly employed waste management practices reported in the petroleum 
refining industry. Several residuals had ten or more different 
management practices reported as ``in use.'' For most of them, EPA has 
concluded that although they are used in the petroleum refining 
industry, they are not management scenarios that need to be assessed 
for risk. For example, there were ten reported management practices for 
HF alkylation sludge. Four of these (representing 75% of the reported 
waste volume) involved land treatment or disposal in a landfill and 
were modeled for risk. One practice was on-site recovery in the coking 
unit (12% of reported waste volume), two others involved practices 
since terminated (10% of reported waste volume), and the remainder of 
management practices involved discharge to the wastewater treatment 
plant. These latter practices were not modeled. The factors the Agency 
considered in deciding whether or not the less common disposal 
practices should be modeled are:
    i. Coverage of the characterization program. The comprehensive 
nature of EPA's petroleum refining database allowed the Agency to 
develop an in depth knowledge of the amounts of waste generated and the 
final management practices employed by the petroleum refining industry. 
In 

[[Page 57760]]
particular, a very high percentage (more than 80 percent of the total 
volume) of these wastestreams either were reused, reclaimed, or 
recycled or were disposed of using landfilling or land treatment (more 
than 50 percent of the remaining volume), suggesting that there are 
financial and practical incentives to handle wastes using the methods 
reported. These incentives were assumed to be constraints.
    Moreover, the information indicated that aside from recycling, 
landfilling, and land treatment, most reported management practices 
involved low volumes of waste that would be of significantly less 
concern in terms of risk. If possible given the potential risks 
involved, EPA tries not to base listing determinations on disposal 
practices employed by a very small segment of an industry producing low 
volumes of waste as this can penalize unnecessarily, without a 
concomitant benefit in actual risk reduction, the vast majority of 
generators who dispose of the bulk of the wastes generated in less 
risky ways. For example, if one plant reported one metric ton of a 
wastestream as used as dust suppressant, but thousands of tons of that 
wastestream were reported as landfilled by a number of other plants, 
EPA would likely conclude that dust suppression, although nominally in 
use, is not a practice that should be assessed for risk. In fact, EPA 
was unable, due to resource and time constraints, to cover all waste 
volumes reported with the plausible management scenarios selected for 
modeling. Therefore, there are some reported management practices that 
were not formally evaluated using predictive risk assessment models 
after EPA judged them unlikely to be significant. Less formal 
projections of potential risk were made for some management scenarios. 
Also, experience in previous listings has indicated some waste 
management practices show more risk than others. Therefore, if EPA 
calculates risk for the usually more risky management scenario, the 
risk from other scenarios will probably be lower.
    ii. Effect of other regulatory programs. For some wastestreams and 
their reported waste management practices, EPA concluded that existing 
regulatory programs provided a level of regulatory coverage that 
rendered further assessment of risk unnecessary. Many of these 
wastestreams are often characteristically hazardous. In fact, the 
Agency concluded that many of the wastestreams that were disposed of in 
Subtitle C management facilities were sent there specifically because 
they were characteristically hazardous wastes. Therefore, EPA believes 
that the volumes sent to Subtitle C facilities would continue to be 
handled in that way.
    iii. Management costs. Where one management practice is generally 
more expensive than another, cost becomes a factor in EPA's assessment 
of whether or not that practice should be considered plausible. In this 
industry, the Agency generally found that the lower cost management 
option was currently the one employed and that factor further suggested 
existing management practices would not change. The principal example 
is incineration, which is a higher cost option than landfilling or land 
treating. Little direct incineration of wastestreams was reported by 
the industry. EPA concluded there was a negative cost incentive for the 
industry to switch to incineration of these wastestreams. Additionally, 
the petroleum refining industry reported little disposal of these 
wastestreams in surface impoundments. Due to the industry's heavy 
investment in wastewater treatment tanks, there appears to be little 
incentive to switch to surface impoundments to treat and dispose of 
wastestreams. Therefore, EPA only modeled surface impoundments in its 
risk assessment for one wastestream.
    Because of all of these factors, EPA determined it was unnecessary 
either to project unreported management scenarios or to model many of 
the infrequently reported management practices for this listing 
determination. Instead, EPA determined it more appropriate to estimate 
risk based on the most plausible, highest risk management practices and 
therefore focused risk assessment modeling on landfilling and land 
treatment.
    During EPA's information collection process, it was pointed out to 
the Agency that leaking tanks and refinery piping have been problems 
for the petroleum industry and that exposures from such sources should 
be modeled. Although such unintentional spills are not management per 
se, exposures from such sources could be a concern. For the major 
liquid wastestreams evaluated in today's proposal (e.g., spent sulfuric 
acid and spent caustic), spills and leaks already fall under the 
hazardous waste management system because these wastes are typically 
characteristically hazardous. This obviates the need for conducting a 
risk assessment for such pathways. For other wastestreams, EPA 
concluded that the selection of unlined landfilling as a plausible 
management scenario could serve as a surrogate for such sources because 
the exposure scenario would be roughly similar. Leaks and spills of 
wastestreams would cause exposures similar to those caused by landfills 
(for potential groundwater contamination) or land treatment units (for 
runoff or windblown dust). Because EPA modeled those management 
scenarios, the Agency concluded additional modeling of leaks and spills 
is unnecessary. Furthermore, such leaks and spills are typically 
intermittent and should not present the long-term exposure potential 
presented by land disposal.
    The Agency evaluated each of the residuals of concern to determine 
whether it was appropriate to model interim storage methods (e.g., 
tanks, containers, etc.) that are typically employed prior to final 
management (e.g., landfilling). In most cases, the Agency determined 
that the predominant exposure risks were expected to be associated with 
long-term final management methods and that it was unnecessary to model 
short-term interim storage. For example, many of the residuals of 
concern are generated infrequently: the typical generation frequency 
for tank sludges is once every ten years per tank and the catalyst 
residuals are only generated every 2 to 5 years. For these types of 
infrequently generated residuals, the residuals are typically stored 
on-site for a period of time comparable to the tank or unit turnaround. 
The Agency observed that these turnaround periods are often only 4 to 6 
weeks in duration. Several factors contribute to the refineries' 
motivation to move the residuals out of short-term storage: (1) the 
residuals are often staged in the immediate vicinity of the process 
area, impeding movement for continued operations; (2) the containers 
used to transport the residuals (e.g., flo-bins, dumpsters, roll-off 
bins) are often rented and incur substantial cost during usage; and (3) 
turnarounds are often contracted out and the refineries are financially 
motivated to minimize the length of time that they must pay for 
contractor services and equipment, including storage units.
    Because the on-site storage period is so short for many of the 
infrequently generated residuals of concern, the Agency felt that it 
was more appropriate to focus on assessing risk from long-term 
management of these types of residuals. For those residuals, however, 
that are generated on a more frequent basis, the Agency did model 
certain storage practices. For example, spent caustic is generated on a 
continual or frequent basis and is generally stored in tanks prior to 
further management. These tanks are in continual usage. The Agency 
modeled potential air releases from these spent caustic storage tanks 
because of the potential for continual 

[[Page 57761]]
toxicant releases. Similarly, sludge from sulfur complex operations can 
be generated on a regular basis (e.g., weekly) and the Agency observed 
facilities that maintain storage areas in the process units for 
dumpsters used to accumulate filter cartridges. This practice also 
poses the potential for ongoing air emissions and was modeled in EPA's 
risk assessment.
    Finally, the Agency notes that residuals from refining are, due to 
their very nature, often reusable. They can be recycled, sold, or 
transferred to other facilities. The disposition of these reusable 
wastes is described in Section III.E. of this preamble. Because these 
residuals are currently exempt or are proposed to be excluded from the 
hazardous waste management system, exposures associated with their 
management were not modeled in this listing determination. However, for 
the wastestreams managed in an exempt manner that were assessed in this 
listing determination, EPA has done qualitative risk analysis. Those 
qualitative risk evaluations are described in the listing decision 
rationales for the appropriate individual wastestream. Additionally, 
the Agency did model air pathways for certain wastestreams when on-site 
storage tanks were projected to be a potential source of air risk.
    (5) Exposure Scenarios. The scenarios (i.e., receptors) included in 
the risk assessment include adult resident, child resident, subsistence 
fisher, recreational fisher, subsistence farmer, home gardener, and 
consumers of ground water.
    Adult Resident Applicable exposure pathways for the adult resident 
include incidental ingestion of contaminated soil and direct inhalation 
of vapors and particulates.
    Child Resident Exposure pathways for the child resident are 
identical to those for the adult resident. The rate of incidental soil 
ingestion for the child, however, is twice that for an adult.
    Recreational Fisher Applicable exposure pathways for the 
recreational fisher include ingestion of contaminated fish, in addition 
to exposure pathways of an adult resident (i.e., incidental ingestion 
of contaminated soil, and direct inhalation of vapors and 
particulates). Risks calculated for the recreational fisher were found 
to be predominantly driven by the incidental ingestion of contaminated 
soil; risks estimated through the ingestion of contaminated fish were 
negligible by comparison. While the results for the recreational fisher 
are presented in the risk assessment background document, they are not 
presented in the preamble. The Agency is not using the subsistence 
fisher scenario to support the listing determination proposed today.
    Subsistence Fisher Applicable exposure pathways for the subsistence 
fisher include ingestion of contaminated fish, in addition to exposure 
pathways of an adult resident (i.e., incidental ingestion of 
contaminated soil, and direct inhalation of vapors and particulates). 
The rate of ingestion of fish for the subsistence fisher is twice that 
for the recreational fisher. Risks calculated for the subsistence 
fisher were also found to be predominantly driven by the incidental 
ingestion of contaminated soil. The subsistence fisher risk assessment 
results are available in the risk assessment background document in the 
docket for this rule and are not presented in this preamble. The Agency 
is not using the subsistence fisher scenario to support the listing 
determination proposed today.
    Subsistence Farmer Applicable exposure pathways for the subsistence 
farmer include ingestion of home-grown beef and milk, ingestion of 
home-grown fruits and vegetables, incidental ingestion of soil, and 
direct inhalation of vapors and particulates. The total amount of beef, 
milk, fruit, and vegetables that the subsistence farmer consumes is 
assumed to be contaminated.
    In conducting the subsistence farmer risk assessment, the Agency 
determined that there is high uncertainty in the calculated plant-to-
animal (primarily beef and dairy cattle) bioconcentration factors for 
the key constituents of concern, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons 
(PAHs). No empirical data were found for bioaccumulation of PAHs in 
mammals by this route; the model uses physical properties of 
constituents (Kow) to predict transfer factors. For fish, 
empirical data show that using Kow to predict bioconcentration 
overestimates fish tissue concentrations by several orders of 
magnitude. Based on these very high predicted bioconcentration factors, 
the beef and dairy product ingestion pathways are major contributors to 
cancer risk estimates for subsistence farmers. Because of the high 
uncertainty associated with these bioconcentration factors, the Agency 
is not using the subsistence farmer scenario to support the listing 
determinations proposed today. The subsistence farmer scenario risk 
assessment results are presented in the risk assessment background 
document in the docket for this proposal but are not presented in the 
preamble; the Agency requests comment and data regarding the 
uncertainty associated with the bioconcentration factors of concern.
    Home Gardener Applicable exposure pathways for the home gardener 
include incidental ingestion of soil, direct inhalation of vapors and 
particulates, and ingestion of fruits and vegetables. Forty percent of 
the total amount of fruits and vegetables that the home gardener 
consumes is assumed to come from their home garden which is assumed to 
be contaminated.
    Consumers of Ground Water These receptors are exposed only from 
ingestion of untreated ground water contaminated by the leaching of 
toxic constituents in the wastes being managed in land disposal units. 
The Agency used a ground water fate and transport model, the EPACMTP 
(EPA's Composite Model for Leachate Migration with Transformation 
Products), to project the concentrations reaching the receptor well. 
The EPACMTP is described in the background documents available in the 
docket for today's proposal. See ADDRESSES section.
    Chemicals in the subsurface may be subject to a variety of 
biochemical transformation processes. EPACMTP accounts for 
transformations due to hydrolysis, however, none of the organic 
constituents considered in the present analysis are subject to 
breakdown by hydrolysis. Biodegradation may be a significant removal 
process for some of the constituents considered in the analysis. 
However, the data and parameters associated with biodegradation are 
subject to much greater uncertainty, vary over a wide range, and may be 
highly site-specific. For these reasons, the Agency developed a 
protocol for the determination of nationwide biodegradation rates, 
which was published on June 15, 1988 (53 FR 22300). The protocol 
requires biodegradation data from six sites that represent different 
regions of the country. To date, the Agency has not received a complete 
set of biodegradation rates for the constituents of concern 
(particularly benzene). Therefore, biodegradation is not considered 
directly in the groundwater pathway analysis. However, EPA evaluated 
the potential effect of biodegradation using the available information 
and best estimates.
    Using the limited data available, EPA estimates that the benzene 
concentration in well water is reduced by less than a factor of two 
(reduction varies from 2 to 44 percent). Details of effects of benzene 
biodegradation rates on modeling results for the different waste 
streams are presented in 

[[Page 57762]]
``Background Document for Groundwater Pathway Analysis'' available in 
the docket. The Agency is soliciting comments on these rates and 
requesting any biodegradation data, consistent with our protocol, which 
can be used for nationwide modeling analyses.
3. Consideration of Uncertainty in Listing Determinations
    One of the potential exposures of significant concern for this 
rulemaking is erosion of soil from a land treatment unit onto adjacent 
areas, including possible vegetable gardens. This type of exposure is 
what the Agency refers to as ``indirect'' exposure, meaning that the 
receptor (in this case a home gardener) is exposed to contaminants in 
the waste after these contaminants have been transported from the waste 
management area and have entered another environmental media (in this 
case soil and vegetables) at the receptor site.
    The Agency has used indirect exposure assessments in a number of 
programs over the last several years. Some examples include the 
development of the sewage sludge regulations, the development of 
proposed standards for land application of paper mill sludge, and the 
development of pesticide standards. In the hazardous waste listing 
program, the Agency has considered indirect exposures for several 
proposed regulations (wood surface protection, carbamate pesticides, 
dyes and pigments) but has not based any final listing determinations 
on risks from indirect exposures. These examples apply to national 
regulations; in addition, the Agency has used indirect exposure 
analyses on a site-specific basis in the Superfund program and to 
develop hazardous waste combustion permit limits.
    Despite its considerable experience with indirect exposure 
assessments, the Agency recognizes that there are still significant 
uncertainties associated with estimating the risks associated with some 
exposure routes. Therefore, the Agency requests comment on how it 
should factor in uncertainty in its listing determinations.
    For example, if a risk estimate has a high degree of uncertainty 
associated with it, should the Agency consider listing the waste in 
question only if the calculated risk is near the high end of the risk 
range of 10-6 to 10-4? Should the calculated risk estimate be even 
higher? These questions imply that greater uncertainty generally 
results in making a risk assessment more conservative. Is that 
implication accurate? The Agency solicits comment on these questions 
and this issue in general.
4. Peer Review
    A peer review of the risk assessment for non-ground water pathways 
has been performed. (The groundwater model was previously reviewed by 
the Agency's Science Advisory Board.) Particular emphasis was placed on 
the components that follow:

    (1) Confidence in data on biotransfer factors for PAHs;
    (2) Assumptions regarding design and operation of land treatment 
units, including methods used to prevent excess build-up of 
constituents in land treatment units;
    (3) Methods used to predict soil concentrations at receptor 
locations, with particular emphasis on the contribution of soil run-
off from land treatment units in which residuals are disposed and 
the maintenance of a mass balance of constituents at the receptor 
location; and
    (4) Overall maintenance of mass balance of constituents among 
multiple exposure pathways.

Three academic experts on risk assessment issues such as these were 
selected to review the risk assessment for non-ground water pathways. 
Comments have been received from these peer reviewers and will be 
addressed concurrently with public comments on this proposed rule.

G. Waste-specific Listing Determination Rationales

1. Crude Oil Storage Tank Sediment
    a. Summary. EPA is proposing to not list as hazardous tank sediment 
from the storage of crude oil at petroleum refineries. This wastestream 
does not meet the criteria set out at 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3) for listing a 
waste as hazardous, because it does not pose a substantial or potential 
hazard to human health and the environment. The Agency identified 
limited risks to consumers of groundwater associated with releases from 
off-site Subtitle D landfilling due solely to a single constituent, 
benzene, which is already regulated under the Toxicity Characteristic 
(TC). Home gardeners and adult residents show low risks from 
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) potentially released from land 
treatment operations. The risk assessment results are summarized in 
Table III-2.

                                Table III-2.--Waste Characterization and Risk Estimates--Crude Oil Storage Tank Sediment                                
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 On-site land treatment *     Off-site land treatment *                       Waste characterization                    
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Constituents of concern        Central                       Central                                                                                 
                                  tendency       High end       tendency      High end    Avg. conc.  High conc.   Low conc.    # of pts.       Notes   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Home Gardener                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzo (a) pyrene.............  2E-9           9E-7           2E-9           1E-7                12.3        26.0         6.6  3 of 6......  J(2), 1     
Dibenz (a,h), anthracene.....  9E-10          3E-7           7E-10          3E-8                 2.1         3.7  ..........  1 of 6......  J(1), 1     
Benzo (a) anthracene.........  4E-10          7E-8           3E-10          9E-9                11.5        31.0  ..........  1 of 6......  1           
Indeno (1, 2, 3-cd) pyrene...  2E-10          7E-8           1E-10          8E-9                15.0        15.0         3.0  2 of 6......  J(1)        
Benzo (b) fluoranthene.......  3E-10          1E-7           3E-10          1E-8                11.4        29.0         5.9  2 of 6......  J(1), 1, 2  
Total Carcinogen Risk***.....  4E-9           1E-6           3E-9           2E-7          ..........  ..........  ..........                            
                                                                                                                                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Adult Resident                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzo (a) pyrene.............  4E-9           7E-7           3E-9           9E-8                12.3        26.0         6.6  3 of 6......  J(2), 1     
Dibenz (a, h) anthracene.....  2E-9           5E-7           2E-9           6E-8                 2.1         3.7  ..........  1 of 6......  J(1), 1     
Total Carcinogen Risk***.....  8E-9           1E-6           6E-9           2E-7          ..........  ..........  ..........                            
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:                                                                                                                                                  
1. Detection limits greater than the highest detected concentration are excluded from the average concentration calculations.                           
2. Concentration for combined benzo(b)fluoranthene and benzo(k)fluoranthene. J(#) Samples were estimated concentrations below quantitation limits, ``#''
  indicates number of samples that are ``J'' values.                                                                                                    

[[Page 57763]]
                                                                                                                                                        
Only the combination of high-end factors resulting in the greatest overall carcinogen risk are presented:                                               
* Scenario: high-end factors of quantity, duration of exposure for all scenarios.                                                                       
** Scenario: high-end factors of small area, duration of exposure for all scenarios.                                                                    
*** Total carcinogen risk includes risks from other PAHs not tabulated. The risks for the PAHs not presented in this table are lower than those that are
  presented.                                                                                                                                            
All concentrations are in mg/kg.                                                                                                                        



                                                           Waste Characterization and Risk Estimates, Crude Oil Storage Tank Sediment                                                           
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      On-site land treatment          Off-site land treatment         Off-site landfill                             Waste characterization                      
                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Constituents of concern          Central                         Central                        Central                                                                                    
                                     tendency        High end        tendency        High end        tendency     High end   Avg. conc.  High conc.    Low conc.       # of pts        Notes    
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Groundwater                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                                                                                
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene.........................  <1E-6           <1E-6           <1E-6           <1E-6           4E-7                 3E-5        0.68         1.7  0.032          5 of 6         J(1)         
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:                                                                                                                                                                                          
J(#) Samples were estimated concentrations below quantitation limits, ``#'' indicates number of samples that are ``J'' values.                                                                  
All concentrations are TCLP leachate values in mg/L.                                                                                                                                            

    b. Discussion. Crude oil storage tank sediment is generated from 
the storage of crude oil where heavy hydrocarbons when basic sediment 
and water (BS&W) and entrapped oils settle in the bottom of storage 
tanks. A storage tank is drained for inspection and sediment removal on 
average once every 10 years. The results of the 1992 Sec. 3007 
petroleum refining survey showed that approximately 22,017 metric tons 
of crude oil storage tank sediment were generated.
    The management scenarios selected for risk assessment included on-
site land treatment units (12.1 percent of the sediment volume), off-
site land treatment units (0.9 percent), and off-site Subtitle D 
landfills (10.5 percent). Other major management practices used 
included discharge to the wastewater treatment plant (9.5 percent), 
Subtitle C landfilling (17.1 percent), or on-site recovery in the crude 
unit, coker or catalytic cracker (43.5 percent).
    The Agency collected six randomly selected samples of crude oil 
storage tank sediment. These samples are believed to be representative 
of typical sediments generated throughout the industry and the range of 
oil recovery techniques employed for crude oil storage tank sediment.
    The risks given in Table III-2 show a high-end cancer risk of 3E-5 
(3 x 10-5) due to benzene for an adult consuming groundwater 
contaminated from an off-site landfill. The high-end carcinogenic risks 
from PAHs in the home gardener and adult resident pathways were 1E-6 
for the on-site land treatment scenario. The central tendency estimates 
did not show significant risk for any exposure scenario.
    The Agency conducted another level of analysis of its risk results 
to further evaluate the PAH risks that were identified for land 
treatment. One of the major assumptions in the Agency's run-off models 
for releases from land treatment units (LTUs) is that the unit does not 
have controls for run-on and run-off waters from precipitation. A 
significant portion of the predicted risk for the PAHs is associated 
with contaminated soils washing off of the LTU into residential areas. 
PAH risks are reduced below listing levels of concern if no run-on/run-
off is assumed (i.e., the refinery diverts all run-on and collects all 
run-off). EPA's data collection effort showed most LTUs reported run-
on/run-off controls to be in place. A survey of some state programs, 
however, showed that non-hazardous waste LTUs run-on/run-off controls 
were voluntary.\6\ Permits were not required, nor were management 
standards (where developed) mandatory. The Agency believes that an 
assumption of complete run-on/run-off control would overstate reality 
in that existing controls for Subtitle D land treatment units may be 
inadequate to control all releases, including dike failures during 
severe storm events, and, more routinely, tracking wastes from the unit 
on trucks and earthmoving equipment. While the Agency does not have 
information on the actual effectiveness of land treatment units at 
controlling releases associated with run-on/run-off, the Agency 
believes the risks may lie somewhere between those posed by scenarios 
with and without controls. For crude oil storage tank sediment, LTU 
controls that reduced off-site run-off to nearby residential areas 
(e.g., by about 50%) would reduce the high-end risk from land treatment 
to below the 10-6 level.

    \6\ See ``Communications with State Authorities on Requirements 
for Land Treatment Units,'' U.S. EPA 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency believes the management practices of most concern (land 
treatment and landfills) were assessed, and that the other management 
practices would not serve as a basis for listing. The wastes being 
disposed of in Subtitle C landfills are already handled as hazardous 
and should not present significant risk. As described in Section II.F.2 
(``Risk Analysis''), EPA believes that potential risks associated with 
disposal of wastes to wastewater treatment plants are largely covered 
by existing regulations. In addition to the existing NPDES or air 
programs: (1) Refinery sludges generated by wastewater treatment 
systems are already listed hazardous wastes (K048, K051, F037, F038); 
(2) the volumes of the crude oil storage tank residuals are relatively 
small compared to volumes in refinery wastewater treatment systems; and 
(3) residual risk associated with treatment would be covered by the 
proposed Phase IV Land Disposal Restrictions treatment requirements. 
Concerning on-site recovery for this waste, nearly all of this material 
is currently excluded from the definition of solid waste because it is 
reinserted into the refining process prior to distillation and 
catalytic cracking. See Sec. 262.4(a)(12). A proposed expansion of this 
exclusion and its rationale are discussed in Section III.E. of this 
notice.
    Today's listing determination is limited in scope to crude oil 
storage tank sediment that is generated from storage tanks associated 
with petroleum refineries, either on-site or at affiliated tank farms 
(e.g., tank storage areas owned or under contract to the refinery). The 
Agency is not attempting to evaluate sediments generated from the 
storage of crude oil at exploration 

[[Page 57764]]
and production sites or associated with pipelines or other crude oil 
transportation conveyances. The Agency has not collected data necessary 
to support a risk characterization of these non-refinery sediments and 
is not, at this time, making a determination whether to list these 
materials. Furthermore, these non-refinery materials are governed by 
special statutory provisions (i.e., the ``Bevill'' provisions), and are 
currently exempt from regulation as hazardous waste.
    Under today's proposal, hazardous oil-bearing wastes that are 
inserted into the petroleum refining process (including the coker) 
would be excluded from the definition of solid waste, and thus from 
regulation, as a petroleum refining process feed under amended 
Sec. 261.4(a)(12). This exemption allows refineries to continue a 
practice currently in use where crude oil storage tank sediment or oil 
recovered from crude oil storage tank sediment are returned to the 
refinery operations, whether or not the Agency lists this waste as 
hazardous. The Agency believes this is appropriate for many reasons 
(see Section III.E for the Agency's detailed rationale for this 
exemption), and also reasonable given the inherent similarity between 
crude oil feedstock, crude oil storage tank sediment, and recovered oil 
from crude oil storage tank sediments.
    Based on an analysis of the risks associated with current 
management practices, EPA is proposing not to list crude oil storage 
tank sediment from petroleum refining operations as a hazardous waste. 
The Agency found essentially no significant risks arising from land 
treatment. The only risk of possible concern arises from management in 
landfills. However, even the landfill risks are within EPA's 
discretionary range for listing, and EPA believes that a number of 
additional factors argue for not listing this residual.
    First, the only constituent of significant concern for this waste 
is benzene, and this constituent is already regulated under the 
Toxicity Characteristic (TC). Wastes which contain levels of mobile 
benzene above 0.5 mg/L (as measured by the TCLP) are already subject to 
regulation as D018. Therefore, the Agency believes that the TC captures 
as hazardous the crude oil storage tank sediment that contains benzene 
levels of concern.
    For this waste, EPA is confident that constituents of most concern 
were identified, and that the risks are unlikely to be significantly 
higher. Several factors are compelling. First, the Agency compiled a 
comprehensive database on constituents found in crude oil storage tank 
sediments and concluded risks would be posed only by benzene. 
Uncertainty in potential risk levels from other toxicants or from 
unknown toxicants is low. Second, the Agency has employed a more 
accurate, realistic risk assessment approach, which the Agency believes 
accurately projects actual risks posed. Uncertainty in exposure 
analysis for crude oil storage tank sediments is also low. Finally, 
while the Agency did not factor biodegradation of benzene directly into 
its risk assessment, model runs using preliminary data suggest that the 
levels of benzene reaching a drinking water well will be reduced to 
some extent due to biodegradation. See Section III.F.2.c for further 
discussion of this point.
    EPA considers the listing decision for this waste to be a case in 
which the decision on whether or not to list crude oil storage tank 
sediments was difficult to make. The risk levels projected for the 
single constituent of concern, benzene, are above the Agency's initial 
risk level of concern (10-5). However, other factors can and were 
considered , which suggest the actual risk posed is not of concern. The 
Agency requests comment on the decision not to list crude oil storage 
tank sediments, and on other factors that may affect the final 
decision. EPA seeks comment on whether the TC effectively captures 
wastes of concern, whether the Agency adequately characterized the risk 
for this waste, and whether any other factors should be considered.
    If comments on this proposal provide sufficient information to show 
that the TC is not effective in regulating the wastes of concern, or 
that the risks from this waste have not be adequately characterized by 
the Agency's analysis, EPA would consider making a final decision to 
list this residual. If listed, this waste would be identified as EPA 
Hazardous Waste Number K169--Crude oil storage tank sediment from 
petroleum refining operations, and benzene would be added to Appendix 
VII to Part 261--Basis for Listing for the K169 wastestream. In today's 
notice, the Agency is also including treatment standards, the CERCLA 
reportable quantity, and exemptions that would apply to this waste 
stream if the waste were to be listed. Certain background documents in 
the docket for this rule present elements involving costs and treatment 
standards EPA would use were this waste to be listed. Thus, final 
action may not be delayed by the need for additional proposals. If the 
waste were to be listed, the Agency also seeks comments on whether the 
listing description might be narrowed to exempt crude oil storage tank 
sediments that are treated or disposed of in certain ways (e.g., if 
deoiled). See Section III.H, ``Request for Comment on Options for 
Conditional Exemptions,'' for a general discussion of possible 
approaches.
    2. Clarified Slurry Oil (CSO) Tank Sediment and/or In-line Filter/
Separation Solids
    a. Summary. EPA is proposing to list as hazardous sediment from the 
storage of clarified slurry oil and/or in-line filter/separation solids 
from the filtration of clarified slurry oil. This wastestream meets the 
criteria set out at 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3) for listing a waste as 
hazardous and is capable of posing a substantial present or potential 
hazard to human health or the environment when mismanaged. The Agency 
has identified risks of concern associated with two of four selected 
management practices: on-site land treatment, and off-site land 
treatment. The home gardener and adult resident receptors showed 
potential risks of concerns, and the contaminants of concern are 
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The risk assessment results 
are summarized in Table III-3.

                                                                                                                                                                                                

[[Page 57765]]
        Table III-3.--Waste Characterization and Risk Estimates: K170--Clarified Slurry Oil Tank Sediment and/or In-line Filter/Separation Solids       
                                                              [Assumes no run-off controls]                                                             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  On-site land treatment*     Off-site land treatment**                       Waste characterization                    
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Constituents of concern        Central                       Central                                                                                 
                                  tendency       High end       tendency      High end    Avg. conc.  High conc.   Low conc.    # of pts.       Notes   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      HOME GARDENER                                                                     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzo(a) pyrene..............  1E-7           1E-5           5E-7           7E-6               132.0       230.0        52.0  4 of 4......  J(1).       
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene........  8E-8           6E-6           3E-7           3E-6                37.0        49.0  ..........  1 of 4......  1.          
3-Methylcholanthrene.........  2E-7           1E-5           7E-7           6E-6                23.8        27.0  ..........  1 of 4......  J(1), 1.    
Benzo(a)anthracene...........  3E-8           2E-6           1E-7           1E-6               203.0       390.0       360.0  2 of 4......  ............
7, 12-Dimethylbenz             3E-7           3E-5           1E-6           4E-5               331.0     1,200.0  ..........  1 of 4......  ............
 (a)anthracene.                                                                                                                                         
Benzo(b)fluoranthene /         1E-8           1E-6           5E-8           5E-7                76.8       110.0        27.0  4 of 4......  J(3),2.     
 Benzo(k)fluoranthene (total).                                                                                                                          
Total Carcinogen Risk***.....  7E-7           6E-5           3E-6           5E-5          ..........  ..........  ..........                ............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     ADULT RESIDENT                                                                     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzo(a)pyrene...............  2E-7           1E-5           9E-7           6E-6               132.0       230.0        52.0  4 of 4......  J(1).       
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene........  2E-7           1E-5           7E-7           5E-6                37.0        49.0  ..........  1 of 4......  1.          
3-Methylcholanthrene.........  3E-7           1E-5           1E-5           6E-6                23.8        27.0  ..........  1 of 4......  J(1),1.     
7, 12-Dimethylbenz             7E-7           5E-5           3E-6           6E-5               331.0     1,200.0  ..........  1 of 4......  ............
 (a)anthracene.                                                                                                                                         
Benzo(b)fluoranthene.........  2E-8           1E-6           6E-8           4E-7                76.8       110.0        27.0  4 of 4......  J(3)2.      
Total Carcinogen Risk***.....  2E-6           9E-5           6E-6           8E-5          ..........  ..........  ..........                ............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:                                                                                                                                                  
1. Detection limits greater than the highest detected concentration are excluded from the average concentration calculations.                           
2. Concentration for combined benzo(b)fluoranthene and benzo(k)fluoranthene.                                                                            
J(#) Samples were estimated concentrations below quantitation limits, ``#'' indicates number of samples that are ``J'' values.                          
Only the combination of high-end factors resulting in the greatest overall carcinogen risk are presented:                                               
* Scenario: high-end factors of quantity, duration of exposure.                                                                                         
** Scenario: high-end factors of distance to receptor, duration of exposure.                                                                            
*** Total carcinogen risk includes risks from other PAHs not tabulated. The risks for the PAHs not presented in this table are lower than those that are
  presented.                                                                                                                                            
All concentrations are in mg/kg.                                                                                                                        


    b. Discussion. Clarified slurry oil wastes are generated from 
process unit residuals, and the storage or filtration of clarified 
slurry oil, which is the bottom distillation fraction from the 
Fluidized Catalytic Cracker (FCC) fractionator. CSO tank sediment is 
generated every 5 to 10 years during storage tank cleanout. Some 
refineries use in-line filters or separators to remove solids from CSO 
prior to storage. For example, cartridge filters can be used to remove 
catalyst fines entrained in the product CSO. Filter/separation solids 
may be generated once or twice a year depending on product volume.
    The results of the 1992 Sec. 3007 petroleum refining survey showed 
that approximately 24,010 metric tons of clarified slurry oil tank 
sediment and filter/separation solids were generated. The management 
scenarios selected for risk assessment focussed on known Subtitle D 
land disposal activities, which included on-site land treatment (12.1 
percent of the CSO tank sediment and filter/separation solid volume), 
off-site land treatment (9.9 percent), on-site Subtitle D landfilling 
(2.8 percent), and off-site Subtitle D landfilling (47.2 percent). 
Other major management practices included Subtitle C landfilling (14.8 
percent), on-site recovery or reuse (2.3 percent), discharge to the 
wastewater treatment plant (1.04 percent), transfer for use as fuel 
(7.7 percent), and on-site road material (1.7 percent).
    For this infrequently generated waste, the Agency was able to 
collect four samples, including 3 tank sediment samples and 1 CSO 
filter solid. These randomly selected samples are believed to be 
representative of typical residuals generated throughout the industry.
    The risks described in Table III-3 are significant for a variety of 
exposure routes and management scenarios. The high-end cancer risk 
arising from the home gardener exposure for on-site was 6E-5, and the 
central tendency risk was 7E-7. For off-site land treatment, the high-
end risk for the home gardener was 5E-5, with a central tendency risks 
of 3E-6. The adult resident scenario also showed a significant high-end 
risk of 9E-5 for on-site land treatment, and a central tendency risk of 
2E-6. For off-site land treatment, the high-end risk for the adult 
resident was 8E-5, and the central tendency risk was 6E-6.
    Similar to the analysis conducted for crude oil storage tank 
sediment, the Agency conducted another level of analysis of the CSO 
tank sediment and filter/separation solids risk results to further 
evaluate the impacts of run-on/run-off controls. While the Agency does 
not have information on the actual effectiveness of land treatment 
units at controlling releases associated with run-on/run-off, the 
Agency believes the risks lie somewhere between those posed by 
scenarios with and without controls. EPA believes that these results 
continue to warrant listing of the CSO wastes. In order for the high-
end risks to be reduced to a 10-6 level, the Agency estimates that for 
both on-site and off-site LTUs, controls would need to be more than 90 
percent effective in controlling releases to nearby fields.
    The Agency believes the management practices of most concern (land 
treatment and landfills) were assessed for this residual, and that the 
other management practices would not serve as a basis for listing. EPA 
did not 

[[Page 57766]]

attempt to model wastes discharged to the wastewater treatment system, 
disposed of in Subtitle C units, or recovered for use on-site, because 
wastewater treatment sludges are already listed as hazardous wastes 
(K048, K051, F037, and F037), and Subtitle C management and reuse 
activities are viewed as protective. The on-site road use scenario for 
this residual was not assessed because of the small volume and the 
small number of facilities using this practice. Additionally, the 
potential risks posed by the road use management scenario are likely to 
be less than those calculated for the land treatment scenario (using a 
much larger volume of >2,000 MT), which considered similar 
environmental pathways.
    Today's listing is limited in scope to clarified slurry oil tank 
sediment and filter/separation solids that are generated from CSO 
filtration/separation and storage tanks associated with petroleum 
refineries, either on-site or at affiliated tank farms. The Agency is 
not attempting to include sludges generated from the storage of 
clarified slurry oil at carbon black manufacturing facilities using 
clarified slurry oil as raw materials, or associated with 
transportation conveyances or other off-site storage of clarified 
slurry oil. The Agency has not collected data necessary to support a 
risk characterization of these non-refinery sludges and is not, at this 
time, making a determination regarding whether to list these materials.
    Under today's proposal, hazardous oil-bearing clarified slurry oil 
tank sediment or filter/separation solids that is inserted into the 
petroleum refining process (including the coker) would be excluded from 
regulation as a petroleum refining process feed under amended 
Sec. 261.4(a)(12). This exemption allows refineries to continue a 
practice currently in use where clarified slurry oil laded wastes or 
oil recovered from clarified slurry oil tank sediment or filter/
separation solids are returned to the refinery operations. The Agency 
believes this is appropriate for the reasons described in Section 
III.E. of this preamble, and also reasonable given the inherent 
similarity between refinery feedstocks, clarified slurry oil tank 
sediment or filter/separation solids, and recovered oils from clarified 
slurry oil sediment or filter/separation solids.
    Based on an analysis of the risks associated with current 
management practices, i.e., land treatment, EPA is proposing to list 
clarified slurry oil storage tank sediment and filter/separation solids 
from petroleum refining operations as a hazardous waste, designated as 
EPA Hazardous Waste Number K170. However, the disposal of CSO storage 
tank sediment and in-line filter/separation solids in landfills was not 
associated with significant risks. Therefore, EPA is also proposing two 
alternative listing descriptions that either limit the listing to CSO 
residuals managed in land treatment units, or specifically exclude from 
the listing waste managed in a landfill. These proposals and other 
options are discussed in Section III.H, ``Request for Comment on 
Options for Conditional Exemptions.''
    Due to the risks described above, the Agency is proposing to add 
the following constituents to Appendix VII to Part 261--Basis for 
Listing: benzo(a)pyrene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, 3-methylcholanthrene, 
benzo(a)anthracene, 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene, 
benzo(b)fluoranthene, and benzo(k)fluoranthene.
3. Catalyst from Hydrotreating
    a. Summary. EPA is proposing to list as hazardous spent catalysts 
from hydrotreating operations. This wastestream meets the criteria set 
out at 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3) for listing a waste as hazardous and is 
capable of posing a substantial present or potential hazard to human 
health or the environment when mismanaged. The Agency has identified 
risks of concern associated with: off-site and on-site Subtitle D 
landfilling. Health risks are associated with benzene and arsenic 
releases to groundwater. The risk assessment results are summarized in 
Table III-4. In addition, this material presents a hazard because it 
has pyrophoric and self-heating properties, and is sometimes 
characteristically hazardous due to its ignitability, or benzene and/or 
arsenic leachability.

                            Table III-4.--Waste Characterization and Risk Estimates--K171--Spent Catalyst From Hydrotreating                            
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     On-site landfill             Off-site landfill                           Waste characterization                    
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Constituents of concern        Central                       Central                                                                                 
                                  tendency       High end       tendency      High end    Avg. conc.  High conc.   Low conc.    # of pts        Notes   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       GROUNDWATER                                                                      
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene......................  9E-7           9E-6           2E-7           1E-5                 7.9        39.0        0.05  6 of 6......  J(1).       
Arsenic......................  8E-7           8E-6           2E-7           1E-5                 1.1         4.9        1.5   2 of 6 .....              
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:                                                                                                                                                  
J(#) Samples were estimated concentrations below quantitation limits, ``#'' indicates number of samples that are ``J'' values.                          
All concentrations are TCLP leachate values in mg/L.                                                                                                    

    b. Discussion. Spent catalysts from hydrotreating are generated 
every 2 to 7 years during hydrotreater turnarounds and topping 
activities. Hydrotreating is used to remove sulfur and nitrogen 
compounds and to saturate olefins in naphthas, lube oils, and some 
middle distillates. The catalyst is typically nickel and molybdenum or 
cobalt and molybdenum on an alumina base. The catalyst is removed from 
the unit because its activity has been reduced below acceptable levels 
due to coking, metals poisoning, and/or particle degradation. As 
described further in the listing background document in the docket to 
this proposal, the Agency is defining hydrotreating to be 
hydroprocessing applied to lighter boiling stocks and to not include 
those catalysts with precious metals as their active catalytic metals. 
Note that in this notice the Agency is also proposing to list 
hydrorefining catalysts, which is one of two other major types of 
hydroprocessing catalysts used by the industry. Today's listing 
determinations, however, do not address catalysts from hydrocracking 
operations which the Agency is studying separately under the consent 
decree and which will not be addressed in this notice.7

    \7\ The Agency recognizes that the terms hydrotreating and 
hydroprocessing are used somewhat loosely within the industry and 
that various definitions have been posed by different sources of 
authority. One widely used set of definitions is used in the Oil and 
Gas Journal's annual report on worldwide refining, which establishes 
that hydrotreating includes processes where essentially no reduction 
in the molecular size of the feed occurs, that hydrorefining 
includes processes where 10 percent of the feed or less is reduced 
in molecular size, and that hydrocracking includes processes where 
50 percent of the feed or more is reduced in molecular size. The 
Listing Background Document for this proposal discusses these 
definitions further. 

[[Page 57767]]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1992, the petroleum refining industry reported generating 5,640 
metric tons of spent hydrotreating catalyst. Of this total 2,236 metric 
tons were identified as hazardous, because the wastes were in most 
cases D018-benzene, D001-ignitable, or D004-arsenic. The management 
scenarios selected for risk assessment focussed on known Subtitle D 
landfilling activities, which included off-site Subtitle D landfilling 
(11.3 percent), and on-site landfilling (0.2 percent). Other major 
spent hydrotreating catalyst management practices included transfer for 
metals reclamation or regeneration (75.8 percent), or Subtitle C 
landfilling (11.3 percent).
    The Agency collected six samples of spent hydrotreating catalysts. 
These samples are believed to be representative of the various types of 
applications and active metals used by the industry. The Agency 
observed that many refineries take great care to remove this residual 
from the process units under an inert atmosphere due to the potential 
for this residual to ignite spontaneously. On two occasions during 
sampling, the refineries determined that the risk associated with 
collecting catalyst samples from inert gas blanketed catalyst storage 
bins was too great to allow EPA to collect the samples directly. 
Specially trained refinery personnel collected these samples while 
being observed by EPA representatives. A third refinery also requested 
that EPA not collect a sample of their residual due to the risks 
presented by the spent catalyst.
    When sufficient quantities of spent hydrotreating catalysts are 
stockpiled and exposed to air to allow self heating and self ignition 
to occur, harmful quantities of toxic sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, 
and other toxic constituents such as nickel carbonyl may be formed. The 
Agency has received reports of fires, building evacuations, and metals 
reclamation process disturbances attributed to the ignition of these 
spent catalysts.8

    \8\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the self-heating or self-ignition characteristics of spent 
hydrotreating catalysts, the spent catalysts frequently meet the 
Department of Transportation's (DOT) 49 CFR 173.124(b) definition of 
spontaneously combustible material, and must be shipped accordingly. A 
self-heating material is a material that once in contact with air and 
without an energy supply, is liable to self-heat. A material of this 
type may be classified as spontaneously combustible if the temperature 
of a test sample exceeds 200 deg.C (392 deg.F) during the 24-hour test 
period when tested in accordance with the DOT test in 49 CFR 173 
Appendix E--Guidelines for the Classification and Packing Group 
Assignment of Class 4 Materials. Test data obtained by the Agency 
indicate that up to 60 percent of these spent hydrotreating catalysts 
reclaimed at one site are self-heating solids.9 Furthermore, from 
the data collected by EPA in the Sec. 3007 questionnaire, about 40 
percent of this wastestream is characteristically hazardous, and a 
significant portion is classified as ignitable under RCRA.

    \9\ See May 19, 1995 letter from John N. Glover (CRI-MET) to 
William F. Brandes (EPA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The risk assessment results showed that the primary toxicants of 
concern for spent hydrotreating catalysts are benzene and arsenic. On-
site landfilling results in a high-end cancer risk of 9E-6, and a 
central tendency risk of 9E-7 for benzene, and arsenic risks of 8E-6 
and 8E-7 for high-end risk and central tendency risk, respectively. 
Off-site landfilling shows high-end modeled risks of 1E-5, and central 
tendency risks of 2E-7 for each constituent. The on-site groundwater 
risk is 18 times the MCL for benzene; the off-site risk is 30 times the 
MCL for benzene.
    The Agency believes the management practices of most concern (off-
site and on-site landfills) were assessed, and that the other 
management practices would not serve as a basis for listing. The wastes 
being disposed of in Subtitle C landfills are already handled as 
hazardous and should not present significant risk. As described in 
Section III.J. (``Third Party Regeneration/Reclamation of Spent 
Petroleum Catalysts''), EPA believes that the regeneration and 
reclamation of spent hydrotreating/hydrorefining catalysts is an 
environmentally sound alternative to disposal, and is also proposing 
that these units be excluded from regulation as Boilers and Industrial 
Furnaces (BIFs). In summary, EPA does not believe that these off-site 
recycling activities present significant risk because: (1) much of the 
waste going to recycling is characteristically hazardous, and EPA has 
found that recycling facilities typically handle nominally nonhazardous 
waste in a protective manner due to its pyrophoric properties; and (2) 
a preliminary survey of reclaimers/regenerators showed that these units 
are already equipped with pollution control devices.10 Therefore, 
EPA believes that any potential risks associated with regeneration and 
reclamation are unlikely to be significant, and would be less than the 
risks found to exist for the management practices modeled.

    \10\ See ``Survey of Spent Petroleum Catalyst Regenerators and 
Reclaimers,'' U.S. EPA 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on an analysis of the risks associated with current 
management practices and the characteristically hazardous properties of 
the waste, EPA is proposing to list spent catalysts from hydrotreating 
from petroleum refining operations as a hazardous waste, designated as 
EPA Hazardous Waste Number K171. Note that as described further in 
Section III.J. of this preamble that this listing does not include 
ceramic support media that is separated from the spent catalyst prior 
to catalyst disposal or recycling.
    For the reasons stated above, the Agency is proposing to add 
benzene and arsenic to Appendix VII to Part 261--Basis for Listing.
4. Catalyst from Hydrorefining
    a. Summary. EPA is proposing to list as hazardous spent catalysts 
from hydrorefining operations. This wastestream meets the criteria set 
out at 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3) for listing a waste as hazardous and is 
capable of posing a substantial present or potential hazard to human 
health or the environment when mismanaged. The Agency has identified 
risks of concern associated with: off-site and on-site Subtitle D 
landfilling. Health risks are associated with benzene and arsenic 
releases to groundwater. The risk assessment results are summarized in 
Table III-5. In addition, this material presents a hazard because it 
has pyrophoric and self-heating properties, and is sometimes 
characteristically hazardous due to its ignitability, or benzene and/or 
arsenic leachability.

                                                                                                                                                        

[[Page 57768]]
                            Table III-5.--Waste Characterization and Risk Estimates--K172--Spent Catalyst From Hydrorefining                            
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     On-site landfill             Off-site landfill                           Waste characterization                    
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Constituents of concern        Central                       Central                                                                                 
                                  tendency       High end       tendency      High end    Avg. conc.  High conc.   Low conc.   No. of pts       Notes   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       GROUNDWATER                                                                      
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene......................  1E-6           1E-5           2E-7           2E-5                 1.5         4.2         0.1  3 of 3......              
Arsenic......................  4E-6           4E-5           8E-7           6E-5                13.7        34.0         0.2  3 of 3 .....              
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All concentrations are TCLP leachate values in mg/L.                                                                                                    


    b. Discussion. Spent catalysts from hydrorefining are generated 
every 2 to 7 years during hydrorefiner turnarounds and topping 
activities. Hydrorefining is used to remove sulfur and nitrogen 
compounds and to saturate olefins in gas oil, residual oil, and some 
middle distillates. The catalyst is typically nickel and molybdenum or 
nickel and cobalt on an alumina base. The catalyst is removed from the 
unit because its activity has been reduced below acceptable levels due 
to coking, metals poisoning, and/or particle degradation. The Agency 
observed that many refineries take great care to remove this residual 
from the process units under an inert atmosphere due to the exposure 
hazards associated with this residual. Similar to hydrotreating 
catalysts, these hydrorefining catalysts also frequently exhibit the 
properties of spontaneously combustible materials. Two of the three 
refineries sampled insisted that refinery personnel collect the 
Agency's record samples due to potential risks. Similar to spent 
hydrotreating catalyst, the spent hydrorefining catalyst exhibits self-
heating and spontaneously combustible properties (see discussion in 
Section III.G.3). Also like the hydrotreating residual, data collected 
by EPA in the Sec. 3007 questionnaire showed that much of this 
wastestream (nearly 30 percent) is characteristically hazardous, and 
approximately 9 percent is classified as ignitable under RCRA.
    In 1992, the petroleum refining industry reported generating 18,630 
metric tons of spent hydrorefining catalyst. Approximately 5,028 metric 
tons (27 percent) were identified as hazardous because the waste 
exhibited a hazardous characteristic, primarily D018-benzene, D001-
ignitable, or D004-arsenic. The management scenarios selected for risk 
assessment focussed on known Subtitle D landfilling activities, which 
included off-site Subtitle D landfilling (12.6 percent), and on-site 
land filling (3.8 percent). Other major spent hydrorefining catalyst 
management practices included transfer for metals reclamation or 
regeneration (82.4 percent), or Subtitle C landfilling (1.1 percent).
    Due to sample availability, the Agency was only able to obtain 
three samples of spent hydrorefining catalysts during its data 
collection effort. These samples are believed to be representative of 
the various types of applications and active metals used by the 
industry.
    In this notice, the Agency is also proposing to list hydrotreating 
catalysts, which is one of two other major types of hydroprocessing 
catalysts used by the industry. Today's listing determinations, 
however, do not address catalysts from hydrocracking operations which 
the Agency is studying separately under the consent decree and which 
will not be addressed in this notice. Note that as described further in 
Section III.J of this preamble, this listing also does not include 
ceramic support median that is separated from the spent catalyst prior 
to catalyst disposal or recycling.
    The risk assessment results showed that the primary toxicants of 
concern for spent hydrorefining catalysts are arsenic and benzene. On-
site landfilling results in a high-end cancer risk of 4E-5, and a 
central tendency risk of 4E-6. Off-site landfilling shows a modeled 
high-end risk of 6E-5 and central tendency risk of 8E-7.
    The Agency believes the management practices of most concern (off-
site and on-site landfills) were assessed, and that the other 
management practices would not serve as a basis for listing. See 
Section III.G.3. for a discussion explaining why EPA did not attempt to 
model disposal in Subtitle C units or regeneration and reclamation 
processes.
    Based on an analysis of the risks associated with current 
management practices and the characteristically hazardous properties of 
the waste, EPA is proposing to list spent catalysts from hydrorefining 
from petroleum refining operations as a hazardous waste, designated as 
EPA Hazardous Waste Number K172.
    For the reasons stated above, the Agency is proposing to add 
benzene and arsenic to Appendix VII to Part 261--Basis for Listing.
5. Catalyst From Sulfuric Acid Alkylation
    a. Summary. The Agency is proposing not to list spent catalysts 
from sulfuric acid alkylation. This residual is currently managed 
almost entirely under an existing exemption from the definition of 
solid waste. In addition, this residual consistently exhibits the 
characteristic of corrosivity and already is subject to regulatory 
control if not returned to the production of virgin sulfuric acid.
    b. Discussion. The sulfuric acid alkylation process contacts olefin 
and isobutane gases over concentrated sulfuric acid catalyst to 
synthesize alkylates for octane boosting. A portion of the acid 
catalyst is continuously bled from the reactor and replaced with fresh 
acid to maintain the reactor acid concentration at around 90 percent. 
The acid bleed stream is the spent catalyst of concern for this 
category. The industry reported the generation of almost 1,760,100 
metric tons of spent catalyst in 1992. This residual consistently 
exhibits the characteristic of corrosivity.
    The Agency previously has exempted from the definition of solid 
wastes (40 CFR 261.4(a)(7)) spent sulfuric acid used to produce virgin 
sulfuric acid, unless it is accumulated speculatively (50 FR 614, 
January 4, 1985). In 1992, more than 99 percent of spent sulfuric acid 
generated was used to produce virgin sulfuric acid or reused on-site, 
and less than 1 percent was used to neutralize wastewaters prior to 
biological treatment. The Agency has reexamined the contaminants found 
in such spent acids and has found no materials which would likely be 
carried through production to the virgin acid. As noted in the preamble 
to the January 4, 1985, final rule on the definition of solid waste, 
the spent sulfuric acid recycling process more closely resembles a 
manufacturing operation than a reclamation process. (50 FR 642, January 
4, 1985). Spent sulfuric acid is a hazardous waste if disposed 
(assuming it is corrosive or exhibits other hazardous waste 
characteristics), and could be a hazardous waste if recycled 

[[Page 57769]]
in some other manner (such as burning for energy recovery). The Agency 
finds no reason to change the existing regulatory structure for spent 
sulfuric acid used to produce virgin sulfuric acid and is taking no 
action in this area.
    Waste survey data indicate that 155 metric tons of spent acid from 
spills were discharged to wastewater treatment units in 1992. The 
Agency believes that this small volume is unlikely to cause any 
significant risk, especially due to the existing regulation of primary 
treatment sludge as hazardous. Furthermore, spent acids which are used 
to neutralize other waste characteristics, forming a mixture which no 
longer exhibits a characteristic, remain subject to land disposal 
restrictions. The Agency has proposed in the Phase Three Land Disposal 
Restrictions Rule (60 FR 11702, March 2, 1995) that treatment is 
required not only to remove the characteristic, but also to treat any 
underlying hazardous constituents which may be present in the wastes, 
even though they are not what causes the characteristic property. EPA 
proposes to continue the current regulation of spent acids, which are 
not used to produce virgin acid, as characteristically hazardous waste 
when discarded. The Agency requests comment on this proposed decision.
6. Spent Caustic From Liquid Treating
    a. Summary. The Agency is proposing not to list spent caustic from 
liquid treating as a hazardous waste. After analyzing potential 
exposure pathways, EPA concluded that with the exception of air 
exposure pathways from open tank storage, there were no potential risk 
pathways that needed to be modeled. This residual, however, will 
frequently exhibit the characteristic of corrosivity and/or toxicity 
due to cresol leachability (and sometimes ignitability) and is subject 
to all applicable regulatory controls when any of the hazardous waste 
characteristics are present. The Agency has identified certain 
management practices used for spent caustics for which the Agency is 
clarifying the application of the definition of solid waste, and in one 
case proposes a modification to the definition.
    b. Discussion. Caustic is used to remove certain acidic compounds 
like mercaptans from liquid petroleum streams to reduce product odor 
and corrosivity as well as to meet product sulfur specifications. In 
1992, the industry reported the generation of approximately 918,000 
metric tons of spent caustic. Twenty-one separate management practices, 
most involving relatively small volumes, were employed. EPA's survey 
showed, however, that more than 99 percent of this wastestream is 
managed as follows: reused as an ingredient or substitute for virgin 
caustic (51 percent of the total volume or 470,400 metric tons); sent 
to wastewater treatment systems (29 percent or 266,200 metric tons); or 
used as a feedstock to production processes from which cresylic or 
naphthenic acids are obtained (17 percent or 153,000 metric tons). A 
much smaller volume is injected into underground wells.
    The Agency collected six samples of spent caustic. The samples are 
considered representative because the sample profile reflected the 
distribution of the different categories of caustics in use and because 
spent caustics perform essentially the same function in refining 
processes. The samples collected by the Agency were found to 
consistently exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous 
waste: corrosivity (D002) and/or toxicity for one or more cresols 
(D023, D024, D025, or D026).
    Under current rules, spent materials are solid wastes whether 
reclaimed or abandoned, and, because they are characteristically 
hazardous, spent caustics from liquid treating are hazardous wastes 
under existing regulations. Today's proposal does not change the 
regulatory status of liquid treating caustic managed in this manner 
except as discussed in section (3.) below.
    The Agency examined the various management techniques before 
concluding that, aside from tank storage, no exposure pathways needed 
to be modeled and therefore the residual should not be listed as 
hazardous. The analysis and conclusion are based on the following 
management practices reported.
    1. Use as Ingredients or Substitutes. Spent caustics that are used 
as ingredients or reagent substitutes (e.g., use in pH control; 
sulfidic caustic used in the making of paper) are eligible for 
exclusion from the definition of solid waste under (Sec. 261.2(e)). 
This exclusion provides that secondary materials that are used or 
reused directly (i.e., without reclamation) as ingredients in an 
industrial process to make a product are not subject to regulation 
under RCRA and therefore not subject to any listing determination. EPA 
notes that characteristically hazardous spent materials that are 
reclaimed prior to reuse would still be hazardous wastes subject to 
pertinent management requirements.
    2. Sent to Wastewater Treatment. The Agency considered whether 
there was a need to conduct a risk assessment of the wastewater 
treatment system but determined that the combination of the existing F 
and K sludge listings, the benzene NESHAP, the planned MACT standards 
for volatile organics emissions (assuming such standards would apply), 
and the proposed LDR Phase III (60 FR 11702, March 2, 1995) and Phase 
IV (60 FR 43654, August 22, 1995) rulemakings (if promulgated) would 
address any residual risk associated with spent caustics, mixed with 
other refinery wastewaters.
    Wastewaters discharged under NPDES permits are generally excluded 
from RCRA at the point they are discharged to surface waters so the 
exposure pathways associated with discharge were not modeled. For 
wastewater treatment plant sludges, only the aggressive biological 
treatment (ABT) sludges and sludges generated downstream from ABT units 
are not already listed hazardous wastes. While these sludges could be 
contaminated by toxicants carried in spent caustics, in fact the 
majority of the toxicants would either be removed by biotreatment or 
fall out in the listed sludges upstream from the biotreatment units. 
The Agency also concluded that dilution with other refinery wastewaters 
would significantly reduce the concentrations involved. EPA estimates 
that spent caustic wastestreams receive significant dilution upon 
discharge to wastewater systems (to less than 3 percent of original 
concentration). Further, it would be virtually impossible to trace 
contaminants in ABT sludges to a spent caustic wastestream because the 
contaminants are common to many different influent streams. For these 
reasons, EPA did not model risk associated with sludge disposal.
    Air exposure pathways from wastewater treatment systems treating 
spent caustics were not modeled because the Benzene NESHAP (55 FR 8292, 
March 7, 1990) and the MACT standards (60 FR 43244, August 18, 1995) 
for volatile organics emissions were considered to be the pertinent 
regulatory mechanisms for potential air emission sources. Furthermore, 
the Agency notes that bounding estimates for air emissions from storage 
tanks managing spent caustic show no significant risk from volatile 
emissions. The Agency specifically requests comment on this 
determination with regard to potential lapses in coverage due to 
emission volume cutoffs in CAA air rules and the adequacy of 
technology-based controls to control specific volatile organics from 
spent caustics that are discharged to wastewater treatment systems. 

[[Page 57770]]

    3. Use as a Feedstock. Some 153,000 metric tons/year of spent 
caustics are sold as feedstock to produce naphthenic and cresylic acid 
products (16.8 percent of reported 1992 generation). One reading of the 
existing regulations is that, because this production process arguably 
involves reclamation of the spent caustics, the spent caustics would be 
regulated as hazardous wastes. However, as an early finding in our 
effort to redefine ``solid waste,'' EPA has concluded that spent 
caustic from liquid treating is not a waste when recycled in this 
manner even though it does have an element of reclamation associated 
with it. Rather, the spent caustic constitutes a valuable commercial 
feedstock which is used in the manufacture of commercial chemical 
products. The caustic in this case has been used to isolate an acidic 
cresylic or naphthenic fraction during the refining of petroleum crude 
oil. Spent caustic meeting the appropriate specifications is purchased 
from petroleum refineries (i.e., it has a positive economic value and 
is not accepted indiscriminately) and is managed as a valuable 
commodity (i.e., feedstock) to prevent loss en route to its use in the 
manufacturing process. The caustic solutions are individually shipped 
by the refiners like other petroleum products. They move to the plant 
in barges, railroad cars and tank trucks. Because this feedstock is 
corrosive, the transportation conveyances used are subject to 
applicable Coast Guard, Federal Railroad Administration, and Department 
of Transportation regulations. Consequently, the human health and 
environmental risk posed by the transportation of these products is 
expected to be comparable to risks posed by similar raw materials. The 
spent caustic which is currently used as a feedstock is managed in the 
following manner. Upon arrival at the production facility, the caustic 
solutions are directly loaded into storage tanks. The storage tanks are 
constructed of steel and are built with diked concrete containment 
systems for spill control and equipped closed vent headers that are 
tied into a fume incinerator. These factors would mitigate air 
emissions concerns presented by the handling of caustics in this 
manner. The storage tanks meet all applicable Federal and State air 
pollution regulations. From the storage tanks, the caustic is directly 
pumped into the plant's chemical manufacturing process. The facility in 
question has been in operation for close to 50 years. A review of 
recent release history indicates that there have been no reportable 
spills or releases associated with the handling and receipt of caustics 
used in this manner over the past ten years. Based on the manner in 
which these materials are routinely handled and processed, this 
recycling practice more closely resembles a manufacturing operation 
than a reclamation process.
    EPA is therefore proposing to amend the regulations at 40 CFR 
261.4(a)(14) to provide an exclusion from the definition of solid 
waste, clarifying that spent liquid treating caustics from petroleum 
refineries used as feedstock in the manufacture of naphthenic and 
cresylic acid products are not solid wastes. EPA may identify 
additional ``commodity-like'' materials as we proceed with other Agency 
efforts to redefine the definition of solid waste and revise the 
existing RCRA regulations.
    4. Storage of Spent Caustic. Approximately 534,000 metric tons of 
spent caustic were reported stored on-site prior to further management. 
Storage is typically in covered tanks, however, EPA conducted a risk 
analysis of uncovered tanks under the assumption that uncovered tanks 
would pose the highest potential risk. A bounding maximum estimated 
risk assessment resulted in risk estimates of less than one additional 
cancer case in a population of one million (1E-6) and hazard 
quotients\11\ less than one for the toxicants detected in this 
residual.

    \11\  The hazard quotient is a ratio of exposure to the RFC or 
RfD, and is used as a measure of noncancer risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While RCRA hazardous wastes are subject to either 40 CFR 264 or 265 
Subpart AA, BB, and CC Air Emission Standards, storage vessels 
associated with petroleum refining process units are subject to the 
recently promulgated 40 CFR 63 Subpart CC--National Emission Standards 
for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants from Petroleum Refineries (60 FR 
43244, August 18, 1995). Therefore (assuming such standards' 
enforceability), regardless of whether this secondary material is 
considered waste or feedstocks, regulations in place prohibit the open 
storage of these materials. The Agency does not believe the management 
of the spent caustics at the petroleum refinery (prior to 
transportation and use as a feedstock) poses a risk to human health and 
the environment.
    5. Deep Well Injection. As noted above, this wastestream is 
typically characteristically hazardous. Spent caustics that are 
underground injected that are characteristic will be subject to LDR 
treatment requirements prior to injection. Furthermore, the spent 
caustic is usually neutralized and diluted before injection, further 
reducing any associated risks. Therefore, the Agency did not model this 
disposal practice.
7. Off-Specification Product and Fines from Thermal Processes
    a. Summary. EPA is proposing not to list as hazardous off-spec 
product and fines from thermal processes. The Agency assessed the 
potential risks associated with two selected management practices: on-
site Subtitle D landfilling and off-site Subtitle D landfilling. No 
risks of concern were identified.
    b. Discussion. Thermal processes include all processes where feed 
is cracked solely by a thermal, rather than a catalytic, reaction 
mechanism. These processes convert heavy stocks to light hydrocarbon 
products. The most common thermal process is delayed coking; other 
typical thermal processes include visbreaking, fluid coking, thermal 
cracking and coke calcining. Only two generate residuals of concern for 
this listing, delayed coking and fluid coking; the other processes do 
not generate product coke. (See the Listing Background Document in the 
Docket for this proposal for additional details. See ADDRESSES 
section.)
    The residual of concern for thermal processes consists of (1) off-
spec products (e.g., non-salable products generated during process 
upsets, start ups, shut downs, turnarounds, or other conditions); and 
(2) fines (e.g., coke fines generated during coke drum drilling). The 
petroleum refining industry reported generation of almost 194,300 
metric tons of off-spec product and fines. Approximately 87 percent of 
this material is collected and combined with product inventory to be 
sold.
    Some cokers have been retrofitted to allow the refineries to 
process certain waste materials, including the listed refinery 
wastewater treatment sludges, as coker feeds. Hazardous waste-derived 
petroleum coke or coke fines which exhibit any of the characteristics 
of a hazardous waste are currently subject to RCRA requirements (see 40 
CFR 261.6(a)(3)(vii)).
    Coke fines are generated on a daily basis. Although most off-spec 
product and fines are sold with the refinery coke product, more than 
7,250 metric tons (3.7 percent) are landfilled in on-site or off-site 
Subtitle D landfills. The Agency conducted its risk assessment on these 
disposal practices. Other management practices included recovery in the 
coker (4.8 percent), discharge to wastewater treatment (2.6 percent), 
and treatment in on-site boilers (1.1 percent). Smaller volumes went to 
Subtitle C units (0.5 

[[Page 57771]]
percent) and land treatment (0.03 percent). The volume reported 
disposed of in land treatment units (almost 50 metric tons) is small in 
comparison to the volumes modeled for landfills, and was assumed to be 
of insignificant risk.
    The Agency collected six samples of off-spec products and fines 
from thermal processes. Five were from the delayed coker, and one from 
a fluid coker; this corresponds to the dominance of delayed cokers in 
the industry. These samples are believed to be representative of the 
residual category as generated by the industry.
    The Agency believes the management practices of most concern (off 
site and on-site landfills) were assessed, and that the other 
management practices would not serve as a basis for listing. Fines sent 
to wastewater treatment are insoluble and will be incorporated in the 
primary treatment sludges; these are already listed (K048, K051, F037 
and F038). The volume reported going to an on-site boiler was somewhat 
misleading because this material was not isolated from the coking 
process. Rather, this volume is associated with fines entrained in off-
gases from fluid cokers, which were sent directly to carbon monoxide 
boilers for air pollution control. Furthermore, this process was only 
relevant to fluid cokers, which are present at only 3 of the 76 
facilities.
    EPA did not model storage of fines from thermal processes (i.e., 
coke fines). The majority of coke fines are managed with coke product 
as product and thus are not within the jurisdiction of this rulemaking. 
The Agency did assess the potential for air releases during landfilling 
as a result of the frequent generation frequency and small particle 
size associated with this residual and believes that this assessment 
would be comparable to any potential risks associated with on-site 
storage prior to final management.
    Based on an analysis of the risks associated with current 
management practices, EPA is proposing not to list off-spec products 
and fines from thermal processes from petroleum refining operations as 
a hazardous waste. Furthermore, EPA notes that most of the coke fines 
are sold with product coke, and that the coke product is statutorily 
exempt from regulation as hazardous, unless the material exhibits a 
hazardous waste characteristic (see RCRA Sec. 3004(q)(2)(A)).
8. Catalyst and Fines From Catalytic Cracking
    a. Summary. The Agency proposes not to list Fluidized Catalytic 
Cracking (FCC) catalyst and fines as hazardous wastes. The Agency 
characterized FCC catalysts and fines and modeled the risk associated 
with management in an on-site monofill. For the direct and indirect 
exposures from volatile and particulate emissions from monofills, 
bounding estimates showed no significant risk. The Agency also found no 
significant risk from the high-end analysis for the groundwater 
pathway.
    b. Discussion. The Agency's evaluation of this category considered 
two subcategories: spent equilibrium catalyst and catalyst fines. The 
FCC reactor is a fluidized bed through which catalyst circulates and is 
regenerated. Equilibrium catalysts are removed from the unit on a 
routine basis (daily or weekly) and replaced with fresh catalysts to 
maintain a target activity and metals level. Catalyst fines are 
collected in the FCC off-gas air pollution control devices (which may 
include dry systems such as cyclones and electrostatic precipitators or 
wet scrubbers). Physically, the two subcategories differ primarily in 
their particle size. More than 70 percent of the equilibrium catalyst 
is reused or otherwise recycled, while 15 percent of the catalyst fines 
are recycled.
    EPA chose to model the monofill and surface impoundment scenarios 
for these residuals because units dedicated to these materials were 
observed during the Agency's engineering site visits; in addition, 
these residuals are produced frequently and in sufficient quantities by 
numerous facilities to make a monofill or dedicated surface impoundment 
possible. The Agency observed several monofills and a dedicated surface 
impoundment during the 20 site visits performed as part of the listing 
determination; some of these monofills were referred to as ``catalyst 
landfills'' by facility personnel. EPA believes that this type of 
management will show greater risk than other plausible management 
practices that could have been modeled for these residuals (e.g., 
landfills that accept other non-hazardous waste), because the residual 
will not be mixed or diluted with other material in an unlined 
monofill.
    The Agency did not model storage of FCC catalysts and fines, even 
though these residuals are generated frequently. FCC catalyst and fines 
are typically managed in pneumatic containers and hoppers prior to 
final management due to their particle size and large volumes 
generated. These storage vessels are designed to minimize dust 
emissions and control material losses. The Agency did model potential 
air releases in the modeled monofill scenario for FCC residuals. Thus, 
interim storage was not modeled because of the nature of the storage 
vessels typically used and the consideration of air pathway releases 
during long-term final management.
    EPA collected six samples of catalysts and fines: two FCC catalyst 
samples, two dry samples of fines, and two samples of fines from wet 
scrubbers. Due to limited variation in feedstocks, catalyst-type, and 
use practices across the industry, EPA believes that these samples are 
representative of the different forms of FCC catalysts and fines.
    1. FCC Catalyst. The industry reported the generation of more than 
124,000 metric tons of spent FCC catalyst in 1992. Seventy percent of 
this volume was recycled to other FCC units or cement plants. Almost 19 
percent was managed in off-site Subtitle D landfills and 2.3 percent 
was managed in on-site Subtitle D landfills. Less than 1 percent was 
managed in on- or off-site land treatment units. About 3 percent was 
managed in on-site Subtitle C landfills, however, facilities did not 
report these as characteristically hazardous, so the reason for 
Subtitle C management is unclear.
    Bounding estimates for the direct and indirect exposures from 
volatile and particulate releases from monofills showed no risks of 
concern for the equilibrium catalyst. These bounding estimates were run 
under worst-case assumptions using multiple high-end assumptions for 
critical parameters. (More plausible high-end analyses would be 
expected to give even lower risks.) For the groundwater pathway, high-
end analyses also showed no significant risks from the monofill 
scenario. The results are available in the Risk Assessment Background 
Document in the docket for today's proposal (see ADDRESSES section).
    Spent FCC catalysts contain primarily silica, aluminum, iron, 
sodium, calcium, and some other trace metals. The constituents of 
concern found in other petroleum residuals evaluated in this listing 
determination (e.g., carcinogenic PAHs and benzene) were not detected 
in spent FCC catalysts. EPA did not pursue modeling for the relatively 
small volumes (less than 1 percent) of catalysts that were reported to 
go to land treatment. If the much larger volumes evaluated for 
monofills do not present a risk, it was considered highly unlikely that 
the land treatment risks will be significant.
    2. FCC Fines. More than 67,500 metric tons of FCC fines were 
reported to be generated in 1992. Over 48 percent of this volume was 
managed in off-site Subtitle D landfills, 20 percent was recycled 
(primarily by cement plants), 12.6 percent was managed in on-site 

[[Page 57772]]
Subtitle D landfills, and 1.1 percent was managed in Subtitle C 
landfills. 10.4 percent of the volume was reported to be managed in 
surface impoundments, and almost 10 percent reportedly was not 
collected, but vented into the atmosphere in states where aggressive 
emissions controls were not required. 0.6 percent of the volume was 
managed in land treatment units.
    Bounding estimates for the direct and indirect exposures from 
releases from monofills showed no risks of concern for FCC fines. For 
the groundwater pathway, high-end analyses also showed no significant 
risks from the monofill or surface impoundment scenarios. The results 
are available in the Risk Assessment Background Document in the docket 
for today's proposal (see ADDRESSES section).
    Similar to FCC catalysts, EPA did not pursue modeling for the 
relatively small volumes (less than 1 percent) of fines that were 
reported to go to land treatment because the much larger volumes 
evaluated for monofills and surface impoundments were not found to 
present a risk above the level of concern.
    3. Definition of Solid Waste Issues. A large fraction of the 
recycled FCC catalyst (over one-third) is only partially deactivated 
and may be reused without further reclamation in another FCC unit 
(generally at another refinery) that can utilize catalysts with the 
reduced activity. Because these materials are continuing to be used for 
their intended purpose, (i.e., as catalysts) they are not considered to 
be ``spent materials'' within the RCRA definition (50 FR 624, January 
4, 1985). ``Spent materials'' as defined under RCRA do not include 
materials that are reused for their original purpose, provided that the 
materials do not undergo reclamation or reprocessing prior to their 
reuse. Therefore, as long as the partially deactivated catalyst does 
not undergo reclamation prior to its reuse as a catalyst, it would be 
considered a product excluded from jurisdiction under RCRA.
    Some of the spent FCC material is legitimately recycled in cement 
plants, because the silica-alumina matrix, among other things, is 
useful as an ingredient in cement production. EPA did not attempt to 
model risks specifically from the recycling of FCC catalysts and fines 
in cement plants. However, given the low levels of any hazardous 
constituents in spent FCC catalysts and fines, the Agency does not 
believe the practice should present significant risks. Furthermore, the 
residuals are blended with other materials at the cement plant 
(typically up to 5% of the feed material), and the ultimate product 
(concrete) would tend to immobilize any trace metals present. While 
generators did not report that the catalyst or fines exhibited a 
characteristic, it should be noted that cement manufactured using a 
characteristically hazardous waste as an ingredient would result in 
regulation of the kiln as a BIF (56 FR 7185, February 21, 1991). 
Furthermore, cement produced from FCC catalysts that exhibit a 
hazardous characteristic would be considered a waste-derived product 
(see 40 CFR 266.20). Under RCRA, products that are derived-from 
hazardous wastes and are used in a manner constituting disposal (e.g., 
cement) may be marketed for the general public's use and used without 
further regulation, if they meet applicable LDR standards and if the 
hazardous constituents undergo a chemical change so as to be 
inseparable by physical means (50 FR 629, January 4, 1985).
9. Sludge From Hydrofluoric Acid Alkylation
    a. Summary. EPA is proposing not to list as hazardous sludge from 
hydrofluoric acid alkylation processes. The Agency assessed the 
potential risks associated with: on-site Subtitle D landfilling, off-
site Subtitle D landfilling, on-site land treatment, and off-site land 
treatment. Only marginal risk was identified for the ground-water 
ingestion exposure pathway in the modeled off-site landfill. The 
marginal risks identified in the Agency's risk assessment are 
summarized in Table III-7.

                                                          Table III-7.--Waste Characterization and Risk Estimates: HF Alkylation Sludge                                                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    On-site land treatment     Off-site land treatment    On-site                     Off-site landfill                    Waste characterization               
                                -------------------------------------------------------   landfill               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Constituents of concern                                                            -------------   High end                                                                                 
                                    Central       High end      Central      High end     Central                   Central      High end     Avg.     High     Low      # of pts       Notes   
                                    tendency                    tendency                  tendency                  tendency                  con.    conc.    conc.                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          GROUNDWATER                                                                                           
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene........................  <1E-6          <1E-6         <1E-6        <1E-6        1E-7         6E-7         5E-8         3E-6            0.08      0.2  .......  1 of 5                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All concentrations are TCLP leachate values in mg/L.                                                                                                                                            

    b. Discussion. The hydrofluoric acid (HF) alkylation process 
contacts olefin and isobutane gases over a hydrofluoric acid catalyst 
to synthesize alkylates for octane boosting. The hydrofluoric acid is 
managed in a closed-loop process, without leaving the unit for 
replacement or regeneration. As a result of neutralization of trace HF 
levels in product streams and certain process residuals, many 
refineries generate a calcium fluoride sludge. (See the Listing 
Background Document in the Docket for this proposal for additional 
details. See ADDRESSES section.) This sludge is the residual of concern 
for this category.
    Sludge from hydrofluoric acid alkylation is generated every 3 to 6 
months. The sludge is generally dewatered prior to final management and 
managed with other alkylation process unit wastewaters. The Agency 
collected five samples of sludge from hydrofluoric alkylation. These 
samples are believed to be representative of the sludges generated by 
the industry.
    In 1992, the petroleum refining industry reported generating 11,288 
metric tons of sludge from hydrofluoric acid alkylation. The management 
scenarios selected for risk assessment focussed on known Subtitle D 
land disposal activities, which included on-site land treatment (4.9 
percent), off-site land treatment (6.1 percent), on-site landfilling 
(0.4 percent), and off-site Subtitle D landfilling (65.3 percent). 
Other major hydrofluoric acid sludge management practices reported in 
1992 included on-site recovery in a coker (11.6 percent), off-site 
industrial furnace (7.3 percent), disposal in surface impoundment (2 
percent), and discharge to wastewater (0.7 percent).
    The Agency's risk assessment of HF alkylation sludge showed only 
marginal risk for one of the four management scenarios modeled--off-
site landfilling. The exposure route of concern was limited to ground-
water ingestion. The contaminant of marginal concern was benzene, with 
a high-end cancer risk of 3E-6 and a central tendency risk of 5E-8. EPA 
believes that this risk is not significant enough to warrant a listing 
because it is near the presumptive no-list level of 10-6, and the 
actual risk 

[[Page 57773]]
may be lower than the results indicate due to the possible 
biodegradation of benzene prior to reaching receptors. In addition, the 
frequency of detection in TCLP samples (one out of five) was low, 
further indicating that the risk attributed to this parameter would 
generally be lower.
    The Agency did not attempt to model the volume of HF alkylation 
sludge going to an off-site industrial furnace because: (1) EPA 
determined the furnace was a cement kiln that was already subject to 
regulation (the kiln had applied for a permit as a Boiler and 
Industrial Furnace (BIF)), and (2) this was reported to occur by only 
one facility, and the refinery has since closed. Therefore, EPA 
believes treatment of this waste in a furnace is extremely rare and, 
considering the existing regulatory controls in place for BIFs, this 
management practice is not of concern.
    EPA did not model the small volume (221 metric tons) reportedly 
disposed of in a surface impoundment, because this practice was rare 
(one facility). Furthermore, EPA determined that this facility has 
since ceased this practice entirely and closed the impoundment. 
Therefore, EPA believes that disposal in a surface impoundment is not a 
plausible management practice of concern for this waste.
    Some refineries reported the discharge of their HF alkylation 
sludge to wastewater treatment. The Agency believes any hazardous 
materials contained therein would be largely removed during oil/water/
solids separation as already listed hazardous waste (F037, F038, K048, 
and K051), or significantly diluted by other wastewaters. Therefore, 
the Agency did not model this management practice. Refineries also 
reported the transfer of this residual for processing in an on-site 
coker. The Agency did not model the risk associated with on-site coker 
recovery because the residual is managed in closed systems (i.e., 
vacuum trucks, tanks, and piping) which eliminate environmental 
pathways of concern. In addition, the HF alkylation sludge residuals 
processed in an on-site coker typically are oil-bearing materials which 
are being proposed for exclusion from the definition of solid waste in 
this rulemaking. See Section III.F.
    Based on an analysis of the risks associated with current 
management practices, EPA is proposing not to list sludge from 
hydrofluoric acid alkylation from petroleum refining operations as a 
hazardous waste. The Agency requests comment on this proposed decision.
10. Sludge From Sulfur Complex and H2S Removal Facilities
    a. Summary. EPA is proposing to not list as hazardous sludge from 
sulfur complex and H2S removal facilities. None of the plausible 
management practices identified and modeled by the Agency pose 
significant risk to human health and the environment.
    b. Discussion. Virtually all crude oil contains sulfur which must 
be removed at various points in the refining process. A common method 
for treating light petroleum gases is amine scrubbing, followed by 
recovery of elemental sulfur, and tail gas treating. The Agency has 
defined the category of sludge from sulfur complex and H2S removal 
facilities to capture sludge generated during amine scrubbing and 
recover.12 Sludges accumulate in amine systems due to the 
formation of heat stable salts and other inert process system 
impurities. Control methods to remove these impurities include 
particulate filters, activated carbon, diatomaceous earth, 
regeneration, and/or caustic addition, depending on the type of amine 
used and petroleum stream being treated. These control methods (with 
the exception of caustic addition) generate sludge that meets the 
Agency's definition of sludge from sulfur complex and H2S removal 
facilities.

    \12\ Other residuals of interest to the Agency from the H2S 
removal and sulfur complex include several residuals described 
elsewhere in today's notice (catalyst from Claus sulfur recovery, 
catalyst from SCOT tail gas treating), and several residuals to be 
addressed in the consent decree study (off-spec sulfur, off-spec 
treating solution).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More than 8,500 metric tons of sludge from sulfur complex and 
H2S removal facilities were reported by the petroleum refining 
industry in 1992. Over 47 percent was managed in off-site Subtitle D 
landfills, and about 2 percent was managed in on-site Subtitle D 
landfills. Less than 2 percent was disposed of in on-site or off-site 
land treatment units. In addition, the Agency believes that a 
significant portion (almost 50 percent) of this residual is managed on-
site intermediately in storage containers such as dumpsters prior to 
shipment or final disposal. The Agency conducted its risk assessment on 
these management practices. Other major management practices included 
discharge to wastewater treatment (40 percent), on-site incineration 
(0.1 percent), Subtitle C landfilling (2 percent), off-site carbon 
regeneration (1.2 percent), and miscellaneous recycling methods (3.0 
percent).
    The Agency collected five samples of this sludge. The samples 
represent sludges, sorbents, and filter media generated from amine 
systems. These samples are believed to be representative of the 
residual category as generated by the industry.
    The Agency found no significant risks for any exposure pathway for 
this waste when disposed of in on-site or off-site landfills and land 
treatment units. Furthermore, no significant risks were found from 
potential air releases from storage in dumpsters.
    EPA did not model the volumes of waste that were discharged to the 
wastewater treatment system, because the solids would be captured in 
the API separator or primary treatment sludge, which are already listed 
hazardous wastes (K048, K051, F037, F038). Incineration was also not 
modeled, because the volume was 197 metric tons, and nearly all of this 
volume (192 metric tons) was treated in a Subtitle C permitted 
incinerator. Therefore, neither scenario was expected to cause 
significant risk.
    Based on an analysis of the risks associated with current 
management practices, EPA is proposing not to list sludge from sulfur 
complex and H2S removal facilities as a hazardous waste.
11. Catalyst From Sulfur Complex and H2S Removal Facilities
    a. Summary. The Agency is not proposing to list any of the spent 
catalysts generated from H2S removal and sulfur complex 
operations. The plausible management scenarios used for the two major 
subcategories of catalysts were modeled and found to pose no 
significant risk.
    b. Discussion. The Agency subdivided this category into two 
distinct residuals of concern: spent Claus unit catalyst and spent 
SCOT like tail gas catalyst. A Claus unit converts H2S 
generated from the refinery sulfur removal system into elemental sulfur 
through the use of heat and an alumina catalyst. The SCOT 
unit converts sulfur dioxide in exhaust gas from the Claus unit to 
H2S using a cobalt/molybdenum catalyst. The H2S either is 
concentrated using amine solutions and sent back to the Claus unit, or 
is converted directly into elemental sulfur. The Agency has evaluated 
Claus and SCOT like catalysts separately because they differ 
in the point of generation and their composition also differs somewhat 
(the Claus catalyst is alumina, while the SCOT catalyst's 
active metals are cobalt and molybdenum).
    1. Claus Catalyst. The alumina Claus catalyst is generated during 
unit turnarounds every 1 to 3 years. The industry reported generation 
of over 3,800 metric tons in 1992. Almost 60 percent was reported to be 
managed in off-site Subtitle D landfills, and another 

[[Page 57774]]
10 percent was managed in on-site Subtitle D landfills. These 
management practices were evaluated in the Agency's risk assessment. 
Other management practices included recycling in cement plants (18.9 
percent), disposal in Subtitle C landfills (7 percent), and off-site 
reclamation (3.5 percent); these practices were not evaluated for the 
same reasons discussed for the FCC catalyst and fines in Section 
III.G.8.
    EPA was able to collect three samples of spent Claus catalysts. 
These are expected to be representative, because there are essentially 
no process variations with the Claus process; all units use alumina 
catalysts and all treat a purified stream of hydrogen sulfide.
    For the direct and indirect pathways of volatile emissions and 
particulate emissions, as well as for the groundwater leachate pathway, 
the Agency found no significant risk from bounding estimates. 
Therefore, the Agency proposes not to designate spent Claus catalyst as 
a listed hazardous waste.
    2. Tail Gas Treating Catalyst. Spent catalysts from tail gas 
treating are generated every 2 to 7 years during tail gas treater 
turnarounds and topping activities. Tail gas treating, as typified by 
the SCOT process, is used to remove sulfur dioxide from Claus 
unit off-gases. The catalyst is typically cobalt and molybdenum on an 
alumina base. The catalyst is removed from the unit because its 
activity has been reduced below acceptable levels due to coking and/or 
particle degradation. This residual is similar to hydrotreating 
catalyst in its general composition and purpose in sulfur removal. 
However, tail gas treating catalysts are generally much less 
contaminated than hydrotreating catalysts because they are exposed to 
off-gases rather than hydrocarbon streams; thus, the tail gas catalysts 
are not subjected to metals deposition. Twenty three percent of the 
SCOT catalyst volume generated in 1992 was reported to be 
managed as characteristically hazardous, primarily due to ignitability.
    In 1992, the petroleum refining industry reported generating 361 
metric tons of spent tail gas treating (e.g., SCOT) catalyst. 
The management scenarios selected for assessment focussed on known 
Subtitle D landfilling activities, which included on-site (2.7 
percent), and off-site Subtitle D landfills (13.8 percent). Other major 
management practices included transfer for metals reclamation or 
regeneration (52 percent), or Subtitle C landfilling (28.8 percent); 
these practices were not evaluated for the same reasons discussed for 
the hydrotreating catalyst in Section III.G.3.
    The Agency was able to collect three samples of spent tail gas 
treating catalysts. These samples are believed to be representative of 
the SCOT catalysts used by the industry, because there are 
essentially no process variations in the treating of tail gas.
    The Agency found no significant risks associated with the disposal 
of this waste in landfills. The potential risks from ingestion of 
groundwater were below levels of concern. Furthermore, the extremely 
small volumes disposed of in landfills (60 metric tons total, average 
of 12 metric tons per facility), suggest that spent tail gas treating 
catalysts should not present any significant risks. Therefore, the 
Agency is proposing not to list this waste.
12. Unleaded Gasoline Storage Tank Sediment
    a. Summary. EPA is proposing not to list as hazardous sediment from 
the storage of unleaded gasoline. The Agency assessed the potential 
risks associated with four selected management practices: on-site 
Subtitle D landfilling, off-site Subtitle D landfilling, on-site land 
treatment, and off-site land treatment. Only marginal risk was 
identified for the groundwater ingestion exposure pathway. The marginal 
risks identified in the Agency's risk assessment are summarized in 
Table III-8.

                                                Table III-8.--Waste Characterization and Risk Estimates: Unleaded Gasoline Storage Tank Sediment                                                
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    On-site land treatment     Off-site land treatment      On-site landfill          Off-site landfill                    Waste characterization               
                                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Constituents of concern         Central                     Central                   Central                   Central                   Avg.     High     Low                             
                                    tendency      High end      tendency     High end     tendency     High end     tendency     High end    conc.    conc.    conc.     # of pts       Notes   
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          GROUNDWATER                                                                                           
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene........................  3E-8           <1E-6         3E-8         <1E-6        3E-8         <1E-6        3E-8         2E-6            0.75      1.6     0.06  3 of 3       J(1)        
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:                                                                                                                                                                                          
J(#) Samples were estimated concentrations below quantitation limits, ``#'' indicates number of samples that are ``J'' values.                                                                  
All concentrations are TCLP leachate values in mg/L.                                                                                                                                            

    b. Discussion. Unleaded gasoline tank sediment is generated from 
the storage of unleaded gasoline and consists of tank scale and rust. 
The storage tanks are drained for inspection on average once every 10 
years during which time sediment removal occurs. An integral part of 
unleaded tank turnarounds includes extensive water washing to reduce 
volatile organic concentrations to achieve a concentration less than 
the lower explosive limit in preparation for safe tank entry. This tank 
washing results in significant sediment scouring to the wastewater 
treatment plant. The results of the 1992 Sec. 3007 petroleum refining 
survey showed that approximately 3,600 metric tons of unleaded gasoline 
tank sediment were generated.
    The management scenarios selected for risk assessment focussed on 
known Subtitle D land disposal activities, which included on-site land 
treatment (3.1 percent of the total unleaded gasoline tank sediment 
volume), off-site land treatment (2.6 percent), on-site Subtitle D 
landfilling (0.2 percent), and off-site Subtitle D landfilling (17.4 
percent). Other major unleaded gasoline tank sediment management 
practices included discharge to the wastewater treatment plant (58.4 
percent), Subtitle C landfilling (3.0 percent), off-site incineration 
(4.9 percent), and other on-site disposal (0.5 percent). The remaining 
7.6 percent was recovered on-site or transferred for use as fuel.
    The Agency was able to collect three samples of unleaded gasoline 
storage tank sediment. These samples are believed to be representative 
of typical sediments generated throughout the industry. The Agency 
attempted to collect additional samples, but was unable to because 
several tank turnarounds were observed where little or no sediment to 
be sampled remained in the tanks following tank washing to reduce 
occupational benzene concentrations.
    The Agency's risk assessment showed only marginal levels of concern 
for this residual. The Agency's models showed risk only for ground-
water ingestion associated with off-site landfilling. The off-site 
landfill scenario showed high-end risk due to benzene levels at a 
cancer risk of 2E-6 and a central tendency risk of 3E-8. EPA believes 
that 

[[Page 57775]]
this risk is not significant enough to warrant a listing because it is 
very close to the presumptive no-list level of 10-6, and the actual 
risk may be lower than the results indicate due to the possible 
biodegradation of benzene prior to reaching receptors. The Agency also 
notes that the total volume of unleaded gasoline tank sediment is 
moderately small (<4,000 metric tons), and that the portion actually 
disposed of in landfills is even smaller (about 600 metric tons total, 
or an average of 28 metric tons per facility) due to the intermittent 
generation of this waste. Therefore, EPA believes that the small waste 
volumes disposed of, and the infrequent generation of this waste are 
other factors that support a decision not to list this waste.
    The Agency notes that the industry reported that approximately 25 
percent of these sediments are managed as hazardous for benzene under 
the toxicity characteristic (TC). In this case, the Agency believes 
that the TC will effectively capture wastes with high benzene levels, 
i.e., the only constituent that exhibited even marginal concern in this 
waste. The Agency requests comment on whether this factor should be 
used to support a positive listing determination.
    EPA did not pursue modeling for the volume of sediment that was 
reportedly discharged to the wastewater treatment plant, because of the 
volumes concerned are small compared to other discharges and will have 
minimal impact of the treatment process. Furthermore, these waste 
solids would be incorporated in the API separator or primary treatment 
sludges, and these are already listed (K048, K051, F037 and F038). The 
Agency also did not try to assess risks associated with off-site 
incineration, because the practice was relatively rare and the volume 
was small (177 metric tons from 4 of 81 facilities). In addition, the 
off-site incinerators were reported to be hazardous waste incinerators 
that are already subject to regulatory control. Similarly, wastes 
disposed of in a Subtitle C landfill are already regulated as hazardous 
and should not present significant risk.
13. Catalyst From Reforming
    a. Summary. EPA is proposing not to list spent catalysts from 
reforming operations as a hazardous waste. A principal component of 
reforming catalyst is platinum and the spent catalyst itself is 
extremely valuable. Ninety four percent of it is recycled due to its 
platinum content. The remaining 6 percent consists primarily of other 
materials generated during catalyst replacement (e.g., ceramic support 
media). The strict inventory controls the industry uses with spent 
platinum catalysts limit potential routes of exposure resulting from 
the management of these materials.
    The only exposure pathway EPA examined was the air pathway from the 
combustion of the reforming catalyst prior to reclamation. EPA data 
show the presence of dioxins and furans in spent reforming catalysts 
that are believed to be generated during regeneration of the catalyst 
within the reforming reactor. A screening risk analysis of potential 
air release pathways for dioxins and furans at recycling facilities 
failed to show any significant risk.
    b. Discussion. The purpose of the reforming process is to upgrade 
the octane value of naphtha feedstocks by the conversion of the naphtha 
to aromatics. The process is catalyzed by platinum chloride or a 
platinum/rhenium chloride combination. Agency survey data indicate that 
94% of the approximately 3,600 metric tons of spent precious metal 
bearing reforming catalyst reported as generated in 1992 are currently 
recycled for their precious metal content. Because of the value of 
these materials (each drum of it is estimated to be worth several 
thousand dollars), the spent catalysts are controlled and tracked 
between the refinery and metals reclamation facilities to prevent loss. 
The Agency can foresee no generator site environmental release pathway 
for spent catalysts other than potential de minimis spills.
    There are two separate management activities for reforming catalyst 
the Agency assessed in this listing determination: in-situ regeneration 
and off-site recycling.
Regeneration
    Spent reforming catalysts are regenerated in-situ either on a 
cyclic, semi-regenerative, or continuous basis. Part of the purpose of 
regeneration is to redistribute the platinum into the catalyst. This 
involves the addition of chlorine or chlorinated compounds. Data 
collected by EPA shows that this regeneration step leads to the 
generation of dioxins and furans and the potential dioxin contamination 
of air pollution control scrubber waters as well as the release of 
these contaminants to the air. The EPA's Office of Water has collected 
limited data from five refineries and received addition voluntary data 
submissions from three refineries indicating that low levels of dioxins 
and furans are found in scrubber waters during the in-situ catalyst 
regeneration process. These scrubber waters are commonly discharged to 
the oil recovery sewer for transfer to wastewater treatment. Sludge 
data was obtained for three of the facilities. Two of the three samples 
were found to contain dioxins and furans. (The third sample was 
analyzed by two laboratories, and dioxins/furans were found by one of 
the laboratories; however, the presence of dioxins/furans could not be 
verified by EPA because the laboratory information was not complete.) 
Based on these limited data, the dioxins and furans appear to 
concentrate in wastewater treatment sludges generated during the 
regeneration process. (See Petroleum Refining Industry-Presence of 
Dioxins and Furans in Wastewater Generated by Reforming Operations, 
EPA, May 1994.) The primary oil/water/solids sludges are already listed 
hazardous wastes (K048, K051, F037, and F038).
    The Agency is seeking data on API separator sludge and other oil-
bearing wastes that have come into contact with discarded caustic 
scrubber waters from the regeneration of precious metal catalysts in 
the reforming process. In-situ regeneration of these catalysts 
typically occurs for a two to three day period from one to three times 
a year. EPA notes that the sampling was limited and that it is still 
unclear whether the samples would represent typical refinery 
operations. Therefore, EPA requests additional data on the dioxin/furan 
content of similar sludges, especially sludges generated during normal 
operations when regeneration is not occurring, and those sludges 
generated by facilities using a continuous reforming process that does 
not produce caustic scrubber waters. The Agency also requests comment 
on: (1) Opportunities for removing dioxin prior to discharge of 
scrubber water into WWT system, (2) opportunities to segregate this 
wastestream, and (3) potential health risk associated with insertion of 
dioxin-contaminated media back into the refining process (such as the 
coker).
    Petroleum refining reformer units are specifically cited in the CAA 
for MACT standards, scheduled for proposal in 1996 (57 FR 44156, 
September 24, 1992). 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin is a Hazardous 
Air Pollutant and would be assessed for potential controls under the 
air program. EPA may rely on the air program to protect human health 
and the environment from air emissions during the regeneration process. 
EPA currently lacks an adequate record to propose further regulation of 
the spent air pollution control caustic and sludge. Therefore, EPA is 
making no determination of the ``listability'' of 

[[Page 57776]]
these spent caustic residuals at this time.
Recycling
    Once spent reformer catalysts reach the recycler, EPA believes that 
the environmental pathways of potential significance are air emissions 
during the recycling process and any subsequent disposal of small 
quantities of support media separated from the spent catalyst. However, 
the support media is only a very small portion of the overall waste 
volume and, since it consists of inert ceramic material, it was not 
considered for risk assessment. Air emissions are scrubbed to capture 
and return precious metals to the process.
    A variety of polychlorinated dioxins and furans were detected in 
samples of spent reformer catalyst. While the dioxin isomer of most 
concern 2,3,7,8-tertachlorodibenzodioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) was not 
detected, other 2,3,7,8-homologs of dibenzodioxin and dibenzofuran were 
detected in samples of the spent reformer catalyst at levels ranging 
from 0.03 to 9.8 ppt when expressed in terms of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic 
equivalent value (TEQ). The median concentration was 0.12 ppt TEQ. A 
screening risk assessment was conducted to see if the concentrations of 
these toxicants in spent catalysts would produce possibly unacceptable 
risk from air releases during reclamation. The analysis showed the 
concentrations of dioxins and furans in spent reformer catalysts were 
below levels of concern.
    Residuals from recycling processes were found to be considered by 
recyclers to still have precious metals value and are shipped to 
smelters for further metals recovery. As such, they would be eligible 
for a case-by-case variance from certain RCRA hazardous waste 
management requirements (notification and manifesting requirements) 
even if the catalyst were listed as hazardous. See 40 CFR 260.31(c).
    Overall, the Agency's assessment of current management practices 
associated with recycling reforming catalyst fails to find any 
significant risks to human health or the environment.
    The results of the Agency's analysis of 6 spent reformer catalyst 
samples, as well as further description of the reforming process and 
catalyst management are provided in the Listing Background Document in 
the public docket for this rule (see ADDRESSES section).
    The Agency concludes that risk from the solid waste management of 
spent reformer catalysts are negligible because of the lack of release 
and exposure pathways associated with off-site precious metals recovery 
operations. Therefore, the Agency proposes not to designate spent 
reformer catalysts as a listed hazardous waste.
14. Sludge From Sulfuric Acid Alkylation
    a. Summary. EPA is proposing not to list sludge from sulfuric acid 
alkylation as a hazardous waste. The Agency evaluated the plausible 
management practices used by the industry to manage this residual and 
found no significant risk to human health or the environment.
    b. Discussion. Some refineries use a neutralization tank or pit in 
their sulfuric acid alkylation process areas to control the pH of 
alkylation wastewaters released to their wastewater treatment plants. 
Discharges to the pit may include spills, acid leaks, acid samples, and 
runoff from the process area. Refineries typically use caustic for any 
necessary neutralization. Over time, some sludge accumulates in the 
neutralization pit and periodically is removed for disposal. In the 
past refineries used lime for neutralization which resulted in a 
buildup of unreacted lime, scale, polymer, tars, and insoluble 
salts.13 However, the current use of liquid caustics for 
neutralization produces largely soluble sulfates, minimizing sludge 
generation. The sludge is removed for disposal only once every three to 
five years.

    \13\ The consent decree identified sulfuric acid alkylation 
sludge as a residual requiring a listing determination based on 
consideration of the large amount of sludge reported in the Agency's 
1983 database (61,338 metric tons). Upon subsequent review of the 
1983 volumes, the Agency determined that its original volume 
estimation was significantly overstated due to the misidentification 
of three large volume spent sulfuric acid catalyst residuals as an 
alkylation sludge. The corrected volume for the 1983 database is 482 
metric tons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agency data indicate that 608 metric tons were generated in 1992 by 
10 refineries. EPA selected the following practices for risk assessment 
modeling: on-site land treatment (46.0 percent of the residual volume 
generated), off-site land treatment (16.4 percent), and off-site 
landfilling (1.5 percent). 21.3 percent of this sludge is managed at 
the refinery wastewater treatment plant, 13.2 percent is transferred 
for reclamation, 1.2 percent is managed in Subtitle C landfills, and 
0.2 percent is sent to off-site incineration.
    Of the 45 facilities employing the H2SO4 alkylation 
process, the Agency was able to obtain only one sample of 
H2SO4 alkylation sludge during the sampling effort. This 
sample was found to be characteristically hazardous for chromium, but 
was derived from wastewaters from on-site acid reclamation, as well as 
the alkylation unit. As a result, the sample may not be completely 
representative of sludges from sulfuric acid alkylation alone. The 
Agency requests any additional waste characterization data.
    The Agency conducted a bounding risk assessment of the analytical 
data available, using on-site and off-site land treatment and off-site 
Subtitle D landfilling as the baseline management scenarios. No 
significant risk was indicated.
    The Agency did not attempt to model the volumes reported to be 
discharged to wastewater treatment plants because the primary treatment 
and API separator sludges resulting from the treatment of the residual 
are already listed hazardous waste (K048, K051, F037, F038). Off-site 
incineration was not modeled because the volume was extremely small (1 
metric ton) to pose any threat to human health and the environment.
    The Agency also believes, based on its examination of the process 
chemistry and the available analytical data, that this infrequently 
generated waste may exhibit the hazardous characteristic of 
corrosivity. Given the relatively small volumes and infrequent 
generation of this waste, the Agency proposes to regulate 
H2SO4 alkylation sludge within the existing framework of 
characteristic wastes, and not to list this process residual 
specifically. The Agency requests comment on this proposed decision.

H. Request for Comment on Options for Conditional Exemptions

    As EPA was preparing the risk assessments used for this rulemaking, 
the Agency became aware that there were risk scenarios (such as land 
treatment of a waste), or specific risk pathways (run-off to off-site 
receptors from land treatment) that may pose significantly higher risk 
than other scenarios or exposure pathways. If there were relatively 
simple, enforceable, means of assuring that those scenarios or exposure 
pathways would not occur, and if EPA could conclude it had identified 
the highest risk reasonable management scenarios, comparable protection 
of human health and the environment could be achieved at a 
significantly lower regulatory cost.
    Many Subtitle C requirements were written generically to address 
all hazardous wastes and, consequently, provide protection for those 
wastes that pose the greatest risks. Some are either explicitly or 
implicitly technology-based rather than risk-based. Some of these 
requirements are statutory and cannot easily be adjusted to take risk 
into account. Nevertheless, EPA 

[[Page 57777]]
generally believes that it would be desirable to tailor waste 
management requirements to more closely relate to risks. An initial 
significant step in this process would apply Subtitle C requirements 
only to those significant risk scenarios, leaving low risk scenarios 
subject only to less prescriptive federal and state controls for non-
hazardous wastes.
    EPA explored whether it would be possible to create additional 
exemptions from Subtitle C management standards to allow more flexible 
management of wastes found to be hazardous in one or more scenario, but 
not others, without compromising protection of human health and the 
environment. These options would be premised on the theory that a 
waste's risk is due not only to its chemical composition, but also the 
manner in which it is managed, which can greatly affect the amount of 
chemical constituents that ultimately reach a human or environmental 
receptor. The multipathway analysis prepared to support this listing 
determination shows that the risk to human health or the environment 
varies significantly with the type of management that a waste receives. 
The following discussion presents the legal framework for management-
based or conditional listings, outlines the options EPA has begun to 
consider, and presents in more detail the options which EPA finds to be 
most promising.
1. Legal Basis for Conditional Exemptions
    EPA's original approach to determining whether a waste should be 
listed as hazardous had been to focus on the inherent chemical 
composition of the waste and to assume that mismanagement would occur 
so that people or organisms would come into contact with the waste's 
constituents. See 45 FR 33113 (May 19, 1980). Based on more than a 
decade of experience with waste management, EPA questions whether it is 
appropriate to assume that worst-case mismanagement will occur, and EPA 
does not believe that such worst-case assumptions are compelled by the 
statute. Rather, in recent hazardous waste listing decisions, EPA has 
identified ``mismanagement'' scenarios that are reasonable, and looked 
at available data to then determine if any of these are unlikely for 
the specific wastes being considered, or if other scenarios are likely 
given available information about current waste management practices 
for the specific wastes. See the Carbamates Listing Determination (60 
FR 7824, February 9, 1995) and the Dyes and Pigments Proposed Listing 
Determination (59 FR 66072, December 22, 1994). As a further extension 
of that logic, EPA believes it may be more appropriate to find that, 
where a mismanagement scenario is not likely or has been adequately 
addressed by other programs, EPA need not consider risk from that 
scenario in deciding whether to classify the waste as hazardous.
    EPA believes that the definition of ``hazardous waste'' in RCRA 
section 1004(5) permits this approach to classifying wastes as 
hazardous. Section 1004(5)(B) defines as ``hazardous'' any waste which 
may present a substantial present or potential hazard to human health 
or the environment ``when improperly * * * managed.'' EPA reads this 
provision to allow it to determine the circumstances under which a 
waste may present a hazard and to regulate the waste only when those 
conditions occur. Support for this reading can be found by contrasting 
section 1004(5)(B) with section 1004(5)(A), which defines certain 
inherently dangerous wastes as ``hazardous'' no matter how they are 
managed. The legislative history of Subtitle C of RCRA also appears to 
support this interpretation, stating that ``the basic thrust of this 
hazardous waste title is to identify what wastes are hazardous in what 
quantities, qualities and concentrations, and the methods of disposal 
which may make such wastes hazardous.'' H.Rep. No. 94-1491, 94th Cong., 
2d Sess. 6 (1976), reprinted in A Legislative History of the Solid 
Waste Disposal Act, as Amended, Congressional Research Service, Vol.1, 
567 (1991) (emphasis added).
    EPA also believes that section 3001 provides it with flexibility to 
consider the need to regulate those wastes that are not managed in an 
unsafe manner as hazardous. (Section 3001 requires that EPA, in 
determining whether to list or otherwise identify a waste as hazardous 
waste, decide whether a waste ``should'' be subject to the requirements 
of Subtitle C.) EPA's existing regulatory standards for listing 
hazardous wastes reflect that flexibility by allowing specific 
consideration of a waste's potential for mismanagement. See 
Sec. 261.11(a)(3) (incorporating the language of RCRA section 
1004(5)(B)) and Sec. 261.11(c)(3)(vii) requiring EPA to consider 
plausible types of mismanagement. Where mismanagement of a waste is 
implausible, the listing regulations do not require EPA to classify a 
waste as hazardous based on that mismanagement scenario.
    Decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit provide support for considering management controls in deciding 
whether a waste should be listed as hazardous waste. See, e.g., Edison 
Electric Institute v. EPA, 2 F.3d 438, (D.C. Cir. 1993) (remanding 
EPA's RCRA Toxicity Characteristic (``TC'') as applied to certain 
mineral processing wastes because the TC was based on modeling of 
disposal in a municipal solid waste landfill, yet EPA had provided no 
evidence that such wastes were ever placed in municipal landfills or 
similar units).
2. Improvements in Risk Assessment Methodology
    EPA's early regulations defining hazardous waste reached broadly to 
ensure that wastes presenting potential or actual hazards were quickly 
brought into the system. When EPA promulgated its first listings and 
characteristic rules in 1980, its knowledge of toxic constituents, 
constituent transport pathways, and waste management options was more 
limited than it is today.
    Significant improvements in waste management have occurred since 
the early 1980's. Many states have established or strengthened 
industrial non-hazardous waste programs since that time. See EPA draft 
report ``State Requirements for Industrial Non-Hazardous Waste 
Management Facilities,'' September 1994 in the docket. Industry has had 
more experience in managing wastes and has improved waste management 
under the incentives provided by factors such as the publicity from the 
implementation of the Emergency Preparedness and Community Right to 
Know Act, and the deterrent value of Superfund cleanups, RCRA 
corrective action and state cleanup programs.
    EPA's ability to predict the risks that a waste may pose has also 
improved significantly. EPA has collected much more data on a variety 
of waste management units and other factors that impact the ability of 
waste constituents to reach a receptor. Models such as the EPACMTP and 
the models used in the multipathway analysis provide more sophisticated 
means of assessing the risks of a range of waste management options. As 
a result of all these changes, EPA is now in a position to begin to 
implement a more carefully tailored risk-based approach to regulating 
hazardous wastes.
3. Options for Conditional Exemptions
    a. Conditional Exemption based on Specific Management Practice. 
Where EPA has characterized a specific waste, modeled the associated 
management practices and found specific management practices (and not 
others) 

[[Page 57778]]
to present significant risks to human health or the environment, EPA 
could list as hazardous only those wastes managed in a manner that 
presents significant risk. Alternatively, EPA could list wastes unless 
they are managed by the method that does not exhibit significant risk. 
The Agency believes allowing use of exemptions tailored to waste 
management is a practical and appropriate way to allow waste to be 
exempt from Subtitle C without increasing risks, if the management 
practices identified are clear and very easily ascertainable (such as 
the difference between land treatment units and landfills), and the 
differences in risk presented by these practices are clearly defined.
    Concerning the wastes examined in today's rule, EPA believes that 
an opportunity exists to fashion a conditional listing for CSO storage 
tank sediment and filter/separation solids (also referred to as CSO 
residuals). While disposal of CSO residuals in land treatment units was 
projected to pose significant risks (due to releases from run-off), the 
disposal in landfills was found to not result in significant risks (see 
discussion in Section III.G. ``Waste-specific Listing Determination 
Rationales''). This arises because the constituents of most concern, 
PAHs, are relatively immobile in the groundwater pathway due to their 
low water solubility. Therefore, EPA believes a contingent management 
listing for this waste may be appropriate and is proposing three 
possible conditional listings for CSO storage tank sediment and filter/
separation solids as alternatives to simply listing all CSO residuals 
generated. The Agency requests comments on these proposed alternatives 
to simply listing all CSO residuals. These alternatives have certain 
advantages and disadvantages, and EPA seeks comment on the relative 
merits of the different approaches.
    Option (1)--The first option is to list CSO residuals as hazardous 
only if the waste is applied in a land treatment unit. Thus, the first 
alternative listing description would be:

K170--Clarified slurry oil storage tank sediment and/or in-line 
filter/separation solids from petroleum refining operations if the 
sediment and filter/separation solids are applied to the land in a 
land treatment unit.

    Under this option, only the waste disposed of in the type of unit 
exhibiting unacceptable risk (land treatment) would be subject to 
Subtitle C regulation. EPA believes that the practical effect of this 
option would be that refineries would cease land treatment for these 
wastes, thereby eliminating the practice that was found to pose 
significant risks. EPA seeks comment on whether other possible 
management methods might present risks that warrant Subtitle C control.
    Option 2--The second option would list CSO residuals as hazardous 
unless the waste was managed in a landfill. Thus, the second 
alternative listing description would be as follows:

K170--Clarified slurry oil storage tank sediment and/or in-line 
filter/separation solids from petroleum refining operations unless 
the sediment and filter/separation solids are disposed of in a 
landfill licensed or permitted by the State.

    Under this option, the waste would be hazardous if managed by any 
method, except for disposal in a landfill. EPA believes that the effect 
of this type of listing would be to encourage disposal in landfills, 
rather than land treatment units. (If data were submitted showing 
similarly low risks from other management methods, the Agency would 
consider expanding the list of permissible disposal practices.) EPA 
seeks comment on the impact of such changes in waste management might 
have on the risks associated with this waste.
    CSO residuals that are exempt due to contingent management would be 
considered as nonhazardous from the point of generation. As a result, 
the qualifying waste would not be subject to RCRA Subtitle C rules for 
generation, storage, transport, or disposal (including land disposal 
restrictions), if the waste is destined for disposal in a unit that is 
excluded from the listing because it does not pose unacceptable risk. 
(Of course, should the waste not be disposed of in such a unit, then 
the exemption would no longer be effective and full Subtitle C would 
apply). This approach is analogous to the existing exclusions from the 
definition of solid waste for materials that are to be recycled (see 
Sec. 261.2(e)(1)), or to special standards applicable to used oil 
destined for recycling; the exclusions or special standards apply at 
the point of generation, provided that certain conditions are met 
(e.g., no speculative accumulation). However, under such an approach, 
it would be necessary for the Agency to have the ability to easily 
determine whether or not the exempted wastes are disposed of in the 
proper manner. As a result, some kind of notification or certification 
process may be appropriate.
    EPA requests comment on whether the internal records typically kept 
by solid waste generators would be adequate, whether the usual Subtitle 
C recordkeeping and manifest requirements should apply, or if some 
other mechanism to document the destination of the waste would be 
desirable. Option 3 discussed below includes a specific mechanism that 
might be used.
    Option 3--With regard to the second option in particular, EPA has 
considered what requirements would be appropriate to ensure proper 
disposal in accordance with the conditional exemption. EPA determined 
that CSO residuals present a hazard if applied on the land due to 
potential run-off to nearby residents. To be certain that the 
intermediate management of the waste would not cause a similar problem, 
EPA could put limits on the conditional exemption to ensure that the 
waste was handled properly until safely disposed of in a landfill. The 
generator could be required to maintain proof of disposal in an on-site 
landfill, or document what off-site landfill received the waste. In 
addition, to address concerns over the handling of the waste until it 
reaches the landfill, the generator could be required to store the 
waste in containers, or be restricted from placement on the ground. 
Therefore, Option 3 is similar to Option 2, except that it specifically 
requires certain conditions be met for the exemption to be effective.
    One way to implement these restrictions would be to add conditions 
for the exemption directly to the listing description in Sec. 261.32. 
Therefore, EPA seeks comment on adding conditions for the landfill 
exemption for CSO residuals to the listing definition for K170, as 
shown below, to promote proper disposal of the waste.

K170--Clarified slurry oil storage tank sediment and/or in-line 
filter/separation solids from petroleum refining operations unless 
the sediment and filter/separation solids meet the following 
conditions: (i) the waste does not exhibit any of the 
characteristics of a hazardous waste; (ii) the waste is stored in 
containers and disposed of in a Subtitle D or C landfill licensed or 
permitted by the state or federal government; and (iii) the 
generator maintains documentation showing that the waste was (A) 
disposed of in an on-site landfill, or (B) consigned to a 
transporter or disposal facility that has provided a written 
commitment to dispose of the waste in an off-site landfill 
identified by name and address. Persons claiming this exclusion in 
an enforcement action will have the burden of proving by clear and 
convincing evidence that the material meets all the exclusion 
requirements.

    EPA seeks comment on whether the generator should also be required 
to file 

[[Page 57779]]
a one-time notification with EPA or authorized state (and update this 
if practices change), whether maintaining the on-site documentation is 
sufficient, and whether a documentation and/or notification certifying 
the ultimate disposal of the waste is an adequate guarantee that the 
waste is actually managed in a landfill, particularly if the waste 
leaves the generator's control. Since historic approaches to relying on 
the intent of the generator have proven extremely difficult, EPA seeks 
comment on what the regulatory status of the waste should be between 
the point of generation and the ultimate disposal in a landfill. 
Finally, EPA requests comment on whether there should be a clear 
prohibition for placement on the land (prior to reaching the landfill), 
rather than the proposed language to require intermediate storage of 
the waste in containers.
    Implementation of any of the above options also assumes that there 
is a clear understanding precisely how a landfill and a land treatment 
unit can be distinguished. EPA believes that the definitions 
incorporated into the RCRA regulations (see 40 CFR 260.10) should be 
adequate. According to that definition, for example, a land treatment 
facility is a facility at which waste is ``applied onto or incorporated 
into the soil surface.'' Furthermore, states typically define 
nonhazardous waste landfills clearly into several categories 
(industrial, municipal, debris), and issue permits or licenses. 
Therefore, EPA believes that States would be able to easily distinguish 
between landfills and land treatment. EPA seeks comment on whether the 
difference between landfills and land treatment units needs to be 
further defined.
    One of the drawbacks of contingent management listings that link 
regulatory status to particular management practices is that contingent 
regulation may reduce the incentive for generators to explore pollution 
prevention opportunities. Thus, allowing disposal in a Subtitle D 
landfill may result in more waste being placed in Subtitle D landfills, 
because it is less expensive than Subtitle C management or recycling, 
and easier than implementing process changes that would result in 
reduced or eliminated waste volumes. However, EPA is also proposing in 
today's rule to allow generators to reinsert oil-bearing wastes such as 
these back into the refining process. Thus, in the case of CSO 
residuals, generators will still have an incentive to deoil or reuse 
these residuals, if possible, thereby resulting in increased recycling.
    b. Conditional Exemption Based on Specific Management Standards. 
Another approach, but one about which EPA feels much more caution is 
required, is that EPA could use the multipathway methodology to 
determine whether imposing specific design or operating standards on 
particular unit types would result in adequate protection. In the case 
of the petroleum residuals evaluated in this rule, it might be possible 
to conclude that use of run-off controls would reduce releases 
sufficiently from land application units to warrant exemption. Failure 
to manage the waste in a unit meeting design and operating requirements 
would mean that the waste was not exempt.
    Exemptions based on specific management standards could be used to 
more narrowly define listed waste. The listing for CSO residuals, for 
example, might apply only to wastes managed in a land treatment unit 
that does not have run-off controls approved by the State. 
Alternatively, CSO residuals might be listed, unless they are managed 
in a landfill or land treatment units with approved run-off controls.
    However, as noted earlier in Section III.G.2. under the rationale 
for listing CSO residuals, the effectiveness of the run-on/run-off 
controls currently in place at land treatment units is unclear, and the 
level of control would have to be high to reduce risks to acceptable 
levels. EPA contacted the three States with the most land treatment 
units that receive CSO or crude oil tank residuals and found: none 
require permits for these nonhazardous waste units; run-off controls 
are usually voluntary; and that even voluntary controls appear 
variable. Therefore, more data are likely required before this approach 
could be implemented.
    EPA requests comment on the general approach and on the run-off 
control measures most likely to have a significant impact on 
contaminant migration. EPA particularly asks for comments on whether 
there are unit design attributes that are easily ascertainable in a 
spot inspection versus those that require more detailed engineering 
review, or review or monitoring of operations. The more complex a 
judgement, the more appropriate EPA believes it may be that such 
determinations are made in the context of a permitting authority or 
prior approval rather than as a directly enforceable condition for a 
listing exemption.

I. Impacts on Idled Units

    Many of the wastes proposed for listing in today's rule are 
normally generated on removal from the process unit during maintenance 
periods. These wastes may also become subject to hazardous waste 
regulation during periods of process shut down. If the proposed 
listings are finalized, wastes associated with idled units would become 
subject to RCRA regulation 90 days after the process ceases operation.
    Regulations at 40 CFR 261.4(c) state: ``A hazardous waste which is 
generated in a raw material storage tank, a product or raw material 
transport vehicle or vessel, a product or raw material pipeline, or in 
a manufacturing process unit or an associated non-waste-treatment-
manufacturing unit, is not subject to regulation under parts 262 
through 265, 268, 270, 271, and 124 of this chapter or to the 
notification requirements of section 3010 of RCRA until it exits the 
unit in which it was generated, unless the unit is a surface 
impoundment, or unless the hazardous waste remains in the unit more 
than 90 days after the unit ceases to be operated for manufacturing, or 
for storage or transportation of product or raw materials.''
    EPA provided further clarification on this provision in the October 
30, 1980 preamble to that rulemaking: ``The 90-day accumulation period 
(Sec. 262.34) starts when the hazardous waste is removed from the tank, 
vessel, or unit, except when in the case where a tank, vessel, or unit 
ceases to be operated for its primary purpose, in which case the period 
starts when operation ceases.'' 45 FR 72024 (Emphasis added.) Thus, the 
preamble states that for the owner/operator the accumulation period 
begins the day the manufacturing process unit is shut down.
    It was not the Agency's intent to regulate wastes in these units 
unless the waste exits the unit or remains in the unit for more than 90 
days after the unit is no longer in operation. Therefore, the Agency is 
changing its interpretation. The accumulation period for a tank, 
vessel, or unit that ceases to be operated for its primary purpose 
would begin either when the waste exits the unit, or if the waste 
remains in the unit for more than 90 days, the accumulation period 
would begin on day 91. Because the regulations delay application of 
Part 262 until 90 days after operation ceases, the Agency believes that 
the availability of the 90-day accumulation period in Sec. 262.34 is 
more consistent with the plain language of the regulation. Thus, 
hazardous waste which is generated in a product or raw material storage 
tank, a product or raw material transport vehicle or vessel, a product 
or raw material pipeline, or in a manufacturing process unit or 
associated non-waste-treatment-manufacturing unit, may remain in the 
unit for up to ninety days 

[[Page 57780]]
after the unit has been shut down, and may then be stored for an 
additional ninety days in a tank, container, drip pad, or containment 
building in the compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR 262.34, 
without an RCRA storage permit.

J. Third Party Regeneration/Reclamation of Spent Petroleum Catalysts

1. Exemption Under Section 266.100(b)
    Spent hydrotreating and hydrorefining petroleum catalysts are 
typically recycled either by being regenerated for reuse as catalysts 
or through the reclamation of valuable metals or metal-bearing 
products. Catalyst regeneration is a process by which spent catalysts 
are treated with heat and air to drive off impurities which have been 
deposited on the catalyst during use in the petroleum refining process. 
Once regenerated, the catalysts are returned for reuse within the 
petroleum industry. In metals recovery, various thermal treatment 
technologies are employed to extract valuable metals from the spent 
catalysts. There are currently four catalyst regeneration and five 
metals recovery facilities known by the EPA to be operating in the 
United States.
    Spent hydrotreating and hydrorefining catalysts that exhibit a 
hazardous characteristic for benzene and/or ignitability are currently 
subject to regulation as RCRA hazardous wastes (and, under today's 
proposal, would become listed hazardous wastes). Because reclamation of 
metals from and regeneration of spent hydrotreating and hydrorefining 
catalyst involves thermal processing of RCRA hazardous wastes, there 
has been confusion regarding whether these catalyst recovery furnaces 
are subject to regulation as a type of industrial furnace (as defined 
in Sec. 260.10 of the RCRA regulations).
    The Agency is today proposing to clarify the regulatory status of 
these units by specifically excluding them from regulation as 
industrial furnaces under RCRA for the following reasons. First, EPA 
did not consider these units specifically in developing regulations 
governing burning of hazardous waste in boilers and industrial furnaces 
(BIFs). They do not readily fit within the list of thermal processing 
units specifically designated as industrial furnaces subject to 
regulation under the BIF rules (40 CFR 266 Subpart H). They also differ 
from the types of furnaces specifically considered in the BIF rule in 
that the process involves burning of hazardous waste solely for 
materials recovery as opposed to destruction or energy recovery. In 
this sense, spent petroleum catalyst recovery units are analogous to 
smelting, melting, and refining furnaces that process hazardous waste 
solely for metals recovery. Significantly, such smelting, melting, and 
refining furnaces are conditionally exempt from the Subpart H 
regulations because the process does not involve burning either 
partially or wholly for destruction or energy recovery. See 40 CFR 
266.100(c).
    In addition, EPA believes that spent catalyst regeneration and 
metals recovery operations provide an environmentally sound alternative 
to disposal of spent petroleum catalysts. Spent catalyst recycling has 
been practiced in the petroleum refining industry since the 1950's. 
According to 1992 Petroleum Refining Survey data, approximately 80% of 
spent petroleum catalysts are currently recycled. In developing today's 
proposal, the Agency solicited information on the extent to which 
petroleum catalyst recovery units are currently equipped with emission 
control devices and the adequacy/efficiency of existing controls. The 
Agency's preliminary findings indicate that these units are already 
equipped with pollution controls comparable to those required under the 
BIF rule such that further regulation may be unnecessary.
    The Agency does not want to impose any unnecessary regulatory 
burden that may serve to discourage environmentally safe recycling of 
spent petroleum catalysts. Therefore, based on preliminary findings 
regarding existing emissions controls, and the fact that these units 
process spent catalyst solely for materials recovery, the Agency 
intends to formally exempt these units from regulation under the BIF 
rule and is proposing to amend the BIF regulations accordingly. 
However, the Agency has not yet fully evaluated the prevalence and 
adequacy of existing emission controls and the potential for 
uncontrolled emissions of toxic organic compounds, toxic metals, and 
particulate matter from spent hydrotreating and hydrorefining 
catalysts. EPA is therefore requesting additional information on 
control technologies currently being used to control toxic emissions 
from thermal treatment of spent petroleum catalysts. If, after further 
study, the Agency finds that emissions from these units pose a threat 
to human health and the environment, it will reconsider today's 
proposed exemption under Sec. 266.100(b) and assess whether the BIF 
standards should instead be amended to specifically apply to spent 
petroleum catalyst recovery furnaces. In the interim, if necessary to 
protect human health and the environment, 3008(h) authority can be used 
to address air emissions from particular catalyst processing 
facilities. (Availability of these authorities assumes that the 
catalyst recovery facility either has a permit for hazardous waste 
storage, or interim status as a hazardous waste storage facility.)
    It is important to note that today's proposed exemption applies 
only to the petroleum catalyst recycling furnace. The catalyst itself, 
if listed or characteristically hazardous, is subject to RCRA 
transportation and storage controls before introduction into the 
furnace. (See Sec. 261.6(c).) EPA is not proposing any changes to the 
management standards applicable to hazardous petroleum catalysts that 
are sent for recycling at this time. However, as explained in section 
III.E. above, the Agency is working to develop a simpler, more 
streamlined approach to regulating secondary materials recycling under 
RCRA.
2. Catalyst Support Media
    Hydrotreating and hydrorefining catalyst beds are kept in place in 
part by the use of screens and inert ceramic support media, which make 
up typically 6 to 8 percent by weight of the catalyst bed. The support 
media also functions to provide a mixing area at the inlet and outlet 
of the reactor vessel to lessen the back-pressure created by the more 
densely packed catalyst bed. These support media are commonly separated 
from the spent catalyst by screening the catalyst as it is removed or 
as the first step in catalyst regeneration or metals reclamation. The 
larger support media is readily distinguished from spent catalysts, and 
commonly is either reused or sent for cleaning prior to reuse. Because 
of its largely inert ceramic composition, the Agency has not 
specifically characterized catalyst support media.
    Because the support media is generally an inert ceramic, is 
separate from the catalyst, and is commonly managed separately, the 
Agency believes it is appropriate to specifically exclude these 
catalyst support media from the definition of hazardous waste. The 
Agency believes the screening separation of support media from the 
spent catalyst to be discarded or separately reclaimed is exempt 
recycling. Paragraph (E) would be added to 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(ii) to 
read as follows:
    Sec. 261.3(c)(2)(ii)  The following solid wastes are not hazardous 
even though they are generated from the treatment, storage, or disposal 
of a hazardous waste, unless they exhibit one or more 

[[Page 57781]]
of the characteristics of hazardous waste:
* * * * *
    (E) Ceramic support media separated from one of the following 
wastes listed in Sec. 261.32--Spent hydrotreating catalyst used in the 
refining of petroleum (EPA Hazardous Waste No. K171), and Spent 
hydrorefining catalyst used in the refining of petroleum (EPA Hazardous 
Waste No. K172).
* * * * *
3. Residuals Generated from Petroleum Catalyst Regeneration/Reclamation
    Residuals generated from the metals reclamation process are in some 
cases used as ingredients to produce cement because they contain 
alumina, a primary component in cement. Under existing regulations, 
residues from metal recovery of listed hazardous wastes are considered 
to be derived from the treatment of hazardous waste and thus hazardous 
themselves (40 CFR 261.3(c)). Therefore, if EPA finalizes today's 
proposal to list spent hydrotreating and hydrorefining catalysts, the 
residuals from the reclamation of metals from these wastes will also be 
considered RCRA hazardous wastes subject to transportation and storage 
controls prior to their insertion into the cement kiln.
    Today's proposal also has potential regulatory implications for 
cement produced from such petroleum catalyst reclamation residuals. 
Under 40 CFR 266.20, cement produced from hazardous waste is subject to 
regulation as a waste-derived product. Under RCRA, products that are 
produced from legitimately recycled hazardous wastes and are used in a 
manner constituting disposal (e.g., cement) may be marketed and used 
without further regulation, provided that they meet applicable land 
disposal restriction treatment standards and if the incorporated 
hazardous constituents are inseparable from the product by physical 
means. EPA is not proposing any changes to the existing RCRA 
regulations as they apply to waste-derived products that are placed on 
the land at this time. However, the Agency may propose changes to the 
regulations pertaining to waste-derived products that are land applied 
as part of future revisions to the RCRA regulations.
    a. Status of Partially Reclaimed Metals. Some petroleum catalyst 
reclaimers achieve only partial reclamation of metals from the spent 
catalyst (i.e., the reclaimed metals are not fit for end use as 
products without further reclamation through smelting and refining). 
Under RCRA, materials that are partially reclaimed from listed 
hazardous wastes are themselves hazardous wastes (40 CFR 261.3(c)). 
Therefore, if today's proposal is finalized, metals that are partially 
reclaimed from hydrotreating and hydrorefining catalysts would be 
considered RCRA hazardous wastes subject to applicable transportation 
and storage controls until the reclamation process is complete or until 
a variance from the definition of solid waste is granted pursuant to 40 
CFR 260.30. Under Sec. 260.30(c), a partially-reclaimed hazardous waste 
that is more commodity-like than waste-like may be excluded from the 
definition of solid waste through a variance from the Administrator. 
This determination must be based on a series of factors set forth in 40 
CFR 260.31(c). Variance considerations include: the degree of 
processing the material has undergone and the degree of further 
processing that is required; the value of the material after it has 
been reclaimed; the degree to which the reclaimed material is like an 
analogous raw material; the extent to which an end market for the 
reclaimed material is guaranteed; and the extent to which a material is 
managed to minimize loss.
    The purpose of this variance is to allow partially-reclaimed 
recyclable materials that are more commodity-like than waste-like to be 
excluded from the definition of solid waste and applicable hazardous 
waste regulatory requirements. Because this is a variance, it is not 
self-implementing. Administrative approval by the appropriate 
regulatory authority (authorized State or EPA) is required to grant 
this variance.
    Under existing regulations, variances for partially reclaimed 
materials must be granted on a case-by-case basis. However, the Agency 
would consider granting a generic exclusion for metals reclaimed from 
spent petroleum catalysts should it obtain data which indicates these 
partially reclaimed metals consistently meet the terms of the 
Sec. 260.30(b) commodity-like variance. EPA is therefore requesting 
information relevant to determining the ``commodity-like'' nature of 
metals reclaimed from spent petroleum catalysts as defined under 
Sec. 260.30(b) for possible use in developing a generic commodity-like 
exclusion, e.g., the typical composition and value of the reclaimed 
metals relative to analogous raw material, the manner in which the 
partially reclaimed materials are managed, etc.

K. Headworks Exemption

    Because some refineries manage some of the residuals proposed for 
listing today in their wastewater treatment facilities (i.e., CSO 
storage tank sediment), and because others may scour residual sludge 
proposed for listing during process vessel cleaning or tank washing 
into the refinery wastewater treatment system, a consequence of 
potentially listing certain residuals as hazardous waste would be to 
cause all wastewaters and wastewater treatment sludges to be derived 
from those wastes. The Agency believes those listed petroleum refining 
residuals carried into the wastewater system would be removed during 
primary treatment as sludges that are already regulated hazardous 
wastes (e.g., K048, K051, F037, or F038), provided they are discharged 
to the oil recovery sewer system. Therefore, the Agency proposes to 
modify the definition of hazardous waste to exclude when mixed with 
wastewaters as indicated in italic:
    Sec. 261.3(a)(2)(iv) * * *
    (C) One of the following wastes listed in Sec. 261.32, provided 
that the wastes are discharged to the refinery oil recovery sewer 
before primary oil/water/solids separation--heat exchanger bundle 
cleaning sludge from the petroleum refining industry (EPA Hazardous 
Waste No. K050), and clarified slurry oil storage tank sediment and/or 
in-line filter/separation solids (EPA Hazardous Waste No. K170); or * * 
*
    If the Agency makes a final decision to list crude oil tank 
sediment as hazardous waste (K169), this residual would also be added 
to this exemption.

IV. Waste Minimization

    Over the past several years, EPA has emphasized pollution 
prevention as the preferred method of environmental protection over 
``end-of-pipe'' treatment and disposal approaches. EPA seeks to avoid 
the generation of waste or environmental releases through pollution 
prevention by focusing on the relationship between air, land and water; 
viewing the environment as a whole, rather than individual segments. 
Finding opportunities to both reduce pollution at the source as well as 
recycle will result in more cost savings to industry and government, 
broader environmental protection, and more efficient implementation of 
the RCRA program as reflected in ``The Waste Minimization National 
Plan,'' EPA530-R-94-045, November 1994.
    Congress reinforced this approach by enacting the Pollution 
Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA) (42 U.S.C. 13101, et seq., Pub. L. 101-
508, November 5, 1990) establishing a national policy on pollution 
prevention. PPA reinforces EPA's waste management options 

[[Page 57782]]
hierarchy which lists, in order of importance, source reduction, 
recycling, treatment and disposal. Source reduction, the highest 
priority, includes equipment or technology modifications, process or 
procedure modifications, reformulation or redesign of products, 
substitution of raw materials, and improvements in housekeeping, 
maintenance, training, or inventory control.
    The petroleum refining industry and others have been working with 
EPA for several years to explore pollution prevention opportunities as 
part of this listing determination and other Agency efforts (i.e., a 
multimedia permitting initiative to foster pollution prevention 
opportunities at the Amoco Corporation refinery in Yorktown, VA).
    Due to the nature of the residuals of concern (e.g., high oil 
content, metals content), the residuals are well suited for source 
reduction and recycling. Many refineries have already done much to 
reduce, recycle and/or recover valuable hydrocarbons and other 
commodities from these wastes. EPA believes the impact of this rule 
will be offset by further source reduction and recycling efforts by 
industry through economical incentives and through waste minimization 
efforts in which EPA has not been made aware.
    Of the approximately 3 million tons represented by all the 14 
residuals of concern, 86 percent was reused, recycled or reclaimed 
either on-site or off site. Most of these activities will continue 
unaffected by the proposed listings because of the proposed exemptions 
designed to allow appropriate source reduction and environmentally 
sound recycling efforts as discussed in Section II. The following 
summarizes the source reduction and recycling findings from the 1992 
RCRA Sec. 3007 Survey. The industry's source reduction efforts were not 
quantified in the survey (i.e., refiners were not asked to report the 
volumes reduced) so the information will be presented as techniques 
reported. The recycling methods will be presented quantitatively with 
the percentage of the total quantity generated for that residual. 
However, the quantity generated is likely to be higher than the 
quantities reported because some facilities are not able to provide EPA 
with the volumes of residuals recycled back to the process.

A. Crude Oil Storage Tank Sediment

    Refiners use in-tank mixers to suspend the solids in the crude oil 
decreasing the amount of sediment that deposits on the bottom of the 
tank. Approximately 68 percent of crude oil storage tanks have mixers. 
Source reduction efforts for crude oil storage tank sediment were 
reported as equipment/technology modifications, process/procedure 
modifications and the installation of in-tank mixers.
    Many refiners attempt to de-oil the tank sediment to recover 
additional hydrocarbons from the sediment prior to and after removal 
from the tank. De-oiling procedures include hot diesel washing or 
stream-stripping the sediment while in the tank, then filter-pressing 
or centrifuging any remaining oil from the sediment prior to final 
management. The Agency does, however, believe that sediment de-oiling 
is valuable and can be an important element of a refinery's waste 
minimization activities. De-oiling appears to reduce tank sediment 
volumes significantly; the average de-oiled sediment volume is 
approximately 65 percent lower than the average oily sediment volume. 
Approximately 30 percent of the crude oil storage tank sediment has 
gone through a de-oiling process prior to final management. Recovered 
oil is recycled to various points in the refinery process, increasing 
product yield and reducing waste volumes disposed. About 44 percent of 
the tank sediment was reported to be recycled to either the 
distillation unit, catalytic cracker, coker or asphalt production. De-
oiling activities, whether in situ or ex situ, are considered recycling 
and thus are not subject to RCRA Subtitle C permitting requirements. 
The Agency anticipates that de-oiling usage will increase if this 
proposal is promulgated, reducing the cost of managing crude oil 
storage tank sediment as a listed waste.

B. Clarified Slurry Oil Tank Sediment and/or In-Line Filter/Separation 
Solids

    Waste minimization efforts for CSO storage tank sediment were 
reported as equipment/technology modifications and the installation of 
in-tank mixers. Approximately 28 percent of CSO tanks have mixers.
    Like the crude oil storage tank sediment, approximately 42 percent 
of the CSO storage tank sediment and filter/separation solid streams 
are de-oiled. Once removed from the tank, the sediment is filter-
pressed or centrifuged with the recovered CSO being sent to the slop 
oil system or the catalytic cracking unit. Refiners reported recycling 
2.4 percent to the catalytic cracker, coker, distillation unit, or 
asphalt production. CSO tank sediment was also used on-site as road 
material (2%) and transferred off-site for use as a fuel (8%).

C. Catalyst From Hydrotreating

    Spent hydrotreating catalyst volumes were reported to be reduced 
through process/procedure modifications and by on-site regeneration and 
reuse. Refiners reported transferring approximately 77 percent off-site 
for metals reclamation or regeneration. Over 2 percent was reused on-
site as replacement catalyst for another unit. Recycling choices for 
hydrotreating, hydrorefining, and SCOT-like catalyst are 
affected by the metals' market.

D. Catalyst From Hydrorefining

    The volume of spent hydrorefining catalysts was reported to be 
reduced through process/procedure modifications and by on-site 
regeneration and reuse. Refiners reported transferring approximately 83 
percent off-site for metals reclamation or regeneration.
    For source reduction and recycling information for the residuals of 
concern in which a no list decision was made, please refer to the 
``Listing Background Document for the 1992-1996 Petroleum Refining 
Listing Determination'' available in the docket.
    The Agency is soliciting any additional information on source 
reduction and recycling techniques for all of the residuals of concern. 
The types of waste minimization information the Agency desires includes 
process modifications, raw materials substitution, closed loop 
recycling, and commercially available alternative catalysts. Any 
information on the financial incentives for the implementation of these 
alternatives is also requested.

V. Applicability of the Land Disposal Restrictions Determinations

A. Request for Comment on the Agency's Approach to the Development of 
Land Disposal Restrictions

    RCRA requires EPA to make a land disposal prohibition determination 
for any hazardous waste that is newly identified or listed in 40 CFR 
Part 261 after November 8, 1984, within six months of the date of 
identification or final listing (RCRA Section 3004(g)(4), 42 U.S.C. 
6924(g)(4)). EPA is also required to set ``* * * levels or methods of 
treatment, if any, which substantially diminish the toxicity of the 
waste or substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous 
constituents from the waste so that short-term and long-term threats to 
human health and the environment are minimized'' (RCRA Section 
3004(m)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6924(m)(1)). Land disposal of wastes that meet 
treatment standards thus 

[[Page 57783]]
established by EPA is not prohibited. Each waste being proposed for 
listing in this rule would be subject to all the land disposal 
requirements the same day their respective listing becomes effective.
    A general overview of the Agency's approach in performing analysis 
of how to develop treatment standards for hazardous wastes can be found 
in greater detail in section III.A.1 of the preamble to the final rule 
that set land disposal restrictions (LDR's) for the Third Third wastes 
(55 FR 22535, June 1, 1990). The framework for the development of the 
entire Land Disposal Restrictions program was promulgated November 7, 
1986 (51 FR 40572).
    While the Agency prefers source reduction/pollution prevention and 
recycling/recovery over conventional treatment, inevitably, some wastes 
(such as residues from recycling and inadvertent spill residues) will 
be generated. Thus, standards based on treatment using Best 
Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT) will be required to be 
developed for these wastes, if a final rule listing them as hazardous 
is promulgated.
    Treatment standards typically are established based on the 
performance data from the treatment of the listed waste or wastes with 
similar chemical and physical characteristics or similar concentrations 
of hazardous constituents. Treatment standards are established for both 
wastewater and nonwastewater forms on a constituent-specific basis. The 
constituents selected for regulation under the Land Disposal 
Restrictions Program are not necessarily limited to those identified as 
present in the listings proposed in this action, but include those 
constituents or parameters that will ensure that the technologies are 
operated properly.
    Data on waste characteristics and current management practices for 
wastes proposed in this action have been gathered as part of the 
administrative record for this rule. The Agency has completed its 
evaluation of these data for the purpose of developing specific Land 
Disposal Determinations.

B. Treatment Standards for the Proposed Newly Listed Petroleum Refining 
Wastes

    EPA is proposing to apply universal treatment standards (UTS) to 
the Petroleum Refining Wastes proposed for listing in today's 
rulemaking. EPA is also proposing that 40 CFR 268.45 provisions apply 
to hazardous debris materials cross contaminated with these petroleum 
refining wastes.
1. Identification of Wastes
K170--Clarified slurry oil storage tank sediment and/or in-line 
filter/separation solids from petroleum refining operations.
K171--Spent hydrotreating catalysts from petroleum refining 
operations (This listing does not include ceramic support media).
K172--Spent hydrorefining catalysts from petroleum refining 
operations (This listing does not include ceramic support media).

    EPA is proposing to regulate specific constituents from each of 
these hazardous wastes. A list of the hazardous constituents proposed 
for regulation and the proposed treatment limits or technology can be 
found in Table V-1 (limits), Table V-2 (limits) as well as Table V-3 
(technology) at the end of this preamble discussion and the proposed 
regulatory Table 268.40. These wastes are generated during the 
management of clarified slurry oil storage tank sediment or in-line 
filter/separation solids (K170), and management of spent catalysts from 
catalytic hydroprocessing operations (K171-K172). If EPA makes a final 
decision to list crude oil storage tank sediment as hazardous (K169), 
the constituents and standards given in Table V-1 would apply to this 
waste.
2. Proposed Treatment Standards
    After reviewing the available characterization data and the 
available information on waste management practices for those petroleum 
wastes proposed for listing, EPA has determined that it is technically 
feasible to apply UTS to these wastes. Available information show that 
these wastes can be managed in treatment and reclamation units that 
routinely manage similar or as difficult to treat hazardous wastes that 
are currently prohibited from land disposal practices. It is believed 
that those wastes proposed for listing can be commingled with similar 
hazardous wastes prior to treatment or reclamation. In addition, some 
of these wastes may show corrosive, ignitable, reactive, and toxicity 
characteristics that can be managed in combustion treatment units or 
deactivation units that routinely manage hazardous wastes that show 
similar characteristics. Like some petroleum wastes currently subject 
to the land disposal restrictions, some of these petroleum wastes 
proposed for listing have also been managed in reclamation units that 
enable the recovery oil or fuel values from these wastes prior to 
disposal. The BDAT background document provides information on EPA's 
rationale for applying UTS to these wastes. Also see LDR Phase II final 
rule, 59 FR 47982, September 19, 1994, for further discussion of UTS.
    EPA also requests comments on the performance of other thermal and 
non-thermal treatment or recovery technologies demonstrated on wastes 
similar to these petroleum refining wastes and the applicability of 
such technologies to these petroleum wastes. EPA has provided in the 
BDAT Background Document a review of other thermal and non-thermal 
technologies that could be optimized to meet the proposed UTS limits. 
Since EPA is proposing a concentration limit, the use of other 
technologies capable of achieving the proposed treatment standards is 
allowed except for those treatment or reclamation practices 
constituting land disposal or impermissible dilution.
    In addition, EPA is proposing that the provisions in the 40 CFR 
268.45 are also applicable for the treatment and disposal of hazardous 
debris cross-contaminated with K169 (if listed), K170, K171, and K172. 
Hazardous debris treated in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR 
268.45 may be allowed for land disposal in a Subtitle C or D facility, 
and waste residues will have to meet the applicable UTS limits proposed 
today. See 57 FR 37277, August 18, 1992, for additional information on 
the applicability, scope, and content of the hazardous debris 
provisions.
3. Determination of BDAT
    a. Nonwastewaters. For nonwastewater forms of these petroleum 
wastes, the proposed treatment standards of each of the organic 
constituents are based on the combustion of wastes believed as 
difficult to treat as K170 (and K169, if listed). Table V-1, at the end 
of this section, provides a list of 13 organic constituents proposed 
for regulation.
    Table V-1 shows that out of these 13 organic constituents proposed 
for regulation, there are 10 constituents that are routinely monitored 
as UTS constituents in specific petroleum refining wastes already 
prohibited from land disposal. The 10 specific UTS constituents are 
benz(a)anthracene, benzene, chrysene, ethylbenzene, fluorene (usually 
in wastewater forms of petroleum refining wastes), xylenes (measured as 
the sum of o-, m-, and p- isomers), naphthalene, phenanthrene, pyrene, 
and toluene. These constituents are also proposed for regulation in 
K170-K172 because EPA believe they can be found at concentrations of 
concern in each waste under listing 

[[Page 57784]]
consideration and in K169, should EPA decide to list it as hazardous.
    Like the 10 constituents identified above, EPA has also identified 
benzo(g,h,i)perylene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, and ideno(1,2,3,-cd)pyrene 
at levels of regulatory concern. In addition, it appears that the 
regulation of just the 10 constituents may fail to ensure adequate 
treatment of benzo(g,h,i)perylene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, and 
indeno(1,2,3,-cd)pyrene. For example, these three constituents often 
require higher temperatures to volatilize than the one required for the 
other 10 constituents proposed for regulation. These three constituents 
also show higher bond dissociation energies than needed for 
dissociating the other 10 hazardous compounds. As a result, EPA 
believes that the regulation of benzo(g,h,i) perylene, 
dibenz(g,h)anthracene, and indeno(1,2,3,-cd)pyrene is appropriate.
    There were other UTS constituents present in K169-K172 that were 
above UTS limits, but EPA has determined that the 13 constituents 
proposed for regulation can ensure that they too are provided with 
adequate treatment. EPA believes that non-UTS constituents present in 
K169-K172 would also be regulated by the UTS constituents proposed for 
regulation in each one of the waste of concern.
    EPA is requesting, however, comments on other appropriate indicator 
or surrogate constituents that would enable the regulation of non-UTS 
polynuclear aromatic and non-UTS aromatic hydrocarbons present in K172. 
Available data show that some non-UTS aromatic and non-UTS polynuclear 
aromatic constituents measured in K172 may have larger boiling points 
than the one of those constituents proposed for regulation. EPA 
examined the feasibility of setting one or various UTS polynuclear 
aromatic hydrocarbons as proposed constituents for regulation in K172 
but none of the UTS polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon constituents were 
above their applicable UTS limits. Other structural and functional UTS 
constituents such as phthalate and halogenated organics were also given 
consideration but EPA felt they may not serve as good performance 
indicator constituents for the destruction of non-UTS aromatics and 
non-UTS polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons.
    For metals in nonwastewater forms, EPA is proposing the regulation 
of arsenic, nickel, and vanadium in K171 and K172. EPA is also 
proposing to regulate antimony in K172. EPA has determined that High 
Temperature Metal Recovery (HTMR) and stabilization are BDAT for 
nickel, vanadium, and antimony and that vitrification is BDAT for 
arsenic. Table V-2, at the end of this section, summarizes the metals 
proposed for regulation and the applicable UTS limits.
    Catalysts are routinely cleansed of organic contaminants via 
physical and thermal processes in order to regenerate the activity of 
the catalyst. Spent catalysts are also sent off site for the 
reclamation of molybdenum, nickel, and vanadium. The reclamation 
techniques practiced on these spent materials are based on 
pyrometallurgical, hydrometallurgical, or combinations of these 
techniques. Generally, recovered metals such as vanadium, molybdenum, 
and nickel/cobalt solutes are sold as products. A by-product of alumina 
is also produced and it is sold to cement kilns as one of the main 
process feeds to formulate portland cement. Nickel oxides are also 
recovered and reclaimed further in a nickel specialty HTMR facility. 
Residues from hydrometallurgical practices should be able to meet the 
proposed levels by stabilization. EPA thus requests comments on the 
TCLP and total concentration of those post-reclamation spent catalyst 
residues. Combusted or thermally desorbed spent catalyst should also be 
amenable to stabilization.
    Vanadium is a BDAT constituent that is present in the crude oil and 
it is deposited in the spent hydrotreating and hydrorefining catalysts 
as an impurity. Vanadium concentrations in K171 and K172 are above the 
UTS for vanadium. EPA is thus proposing the regulation of this 
constituent.
    Like vanadium, the presence of arsenic, antimony, and nickel in the 
spent catalyst is likely the direct result of entrained impurities from 
the crude oil. However, nickel can also be present as one of two or 
more components of the catalyst. Except for arsenic in K171, the 
concentrations of these metals are greater than their UTS concentration 
limits and EPA is requesting comments on their regulation.
    EPA is also proposing to regulate arsenic in K171. Available data 
show that arsenic may reach up to 4.9 mg/L, as measured by the TCLP, in 
untreated nonwastewater forms of K171. This concentration is below the 
UTS and the hazardous characteristic level of arsenic wastes (D004). 
EPA believes, however, that the total concentrations of arsenic may 
increase in residues from the regeneration and reclamation of K171. It 
is likely that reclamation practices that involve reducing conditions 
for the recovery of valuable metals can leave behind arsenic species 
that are more mobile and thus, likely to exceed UTS and the 
characteristic limit for arsenic. EPA is thus proposing UTS limits for 
arsenic in K171. EPA is also requesting comments on the regulation of 
arsenic in K171 and in particular, data characterizing the residues 
from the reclamation and regeneration of hydrotreating and 
hydrorefining catalysts.
    EPA also examined the need for regulating metals in K169, if it 
were listed as hazardous, and in K170. Based on the available data, EPA 
considered proposing the regulation of barium and chromium in K169, if 
listed, and the regulation of nickel in K170. However, EPA feels that 
regulation of metals in these two wastes may not be warranted at this 
time.
    For instance, available data show that barium may be up to 2.4 ppm 
(as measured by the TCLP) in K169. This barium level is below barium's 
UTS limit of 7.6 ppm (as measured by the TCLP) as well as the TCLP 
hazardous characteristic limit of 100 ppm (as measured by the TCLP).
    Chromium is another metal constituent present in K169 in 
concentrations up to 310 mg/kg (as measured by a total constituent 
analysis). K169 wastes did not have chromium concentrations above the 
UTS or characteristic levels. The total concentrations of barium and 
chromium are likely to increase, however, in combusted residues of 
K169. It is also likely that the mobility of chromium could increase 
above UTS limits in combusted K169 wastes. This premise is based on the 
observed behavior of chromium, and other metals, in K048-K052 treated 
by incineration and solvent extraction. EPA feels, however, that the 
regulation of barium and chromium may not be necessary at this time. 
Combusted residues of hazardous petroleum wastes currently prohibited 
from land disposal are routinely treated via stabilization in order to 
meet UTS levels for arsenic, chromium, and nickel prior to disposal. If 
K169 and K170 were promulgated as hazardous, these wastes will 
presumably be commingled with K048-K052, F037, and F038, and other 
characteristic wastes prior to treatment in combustion devices or prior 
to reclamation in recycling units. Therefore, the stabilization of 
petroleum refining wastes residues from the combustion or recycling of 
hazardous petroleum wastes should also provide metals in K169 and K170 
with effective treatment. EPA requests comments on this determination 
and premise.
    In addition, EPA has examined available data to assess the need for 
regulating other hazardous 

[[Page 57785]]
characteristics in K169-K172. EPA believes that the ignitable and 
corrosive characteristics in K169, K170, K171, or K172 can be 
effectively controlled via the regulation of organics. These wastes are 
routinely managed in thermal processes that destroy organics and thus, 
leave behind residues free of the ignitable characteristic and other 
corrosive causing constituents. EPA has already proposed a list of 
organics that may provide these hazardous characteristics with 
effective treatment.
    However, EPA is proposing to regulate the sulfide reactive 
characteristic in K171 and K172 via a treatment standard of 
deactivation to remove the reactive sulfide characteristic. First, 
these two wastes contain significant concentrations of reactive 
sulfides. The concentrations of iron sulfides and other metal sulfides 
complexes impart pyrophoric/self-heating properties to these two spent 
catalyst wastes. In addition to the D003 (reactivity), these wastes are 
also reported and managed as wastes that exhibit D001 (ignitability) 
and other hazardous constituent characteristics (primarily D004 and 
D018).
    It appears that existing thermal processes that enable the 
regeneration and reclamation of spent catalysts may be effective in 
removing the reactive characteristic from these wastes. One thermal 
process, roasting, is designed to remove organic and sulfide impurities 
from these spent catalysts prior to the hydrometallurgical recovery of 
valuable metals. Another thermal process, calcination, reclaims 
molybdenum oxides from a byproduct of molybdenum triosulfides. Offgases 
from these thermal operations undergo further treatment and abatement 
prior to undergoing an environmental discharge. EPA requests comments 
that can support a determination that residues from HTMR, calciners, 
and roasters as well as other hydrometallurgical trains already meet 
the proposed deactivation standard for reactive iron/metal sulfides in 
K171 and K172.
    Some residues from the regeneration and reclamation of K171 and 
K172 such as those from storage, feed processing, and other reclamation 
trains may still show the same sulfide reactive characteristic as the 
untreated wastes. These wastes can presumably be reclaimed on-site and 
available information suggests that this has been practiced. If not, 
EPA is proposing to regulate the sulfide reactivity in these wastes via 
a treatment standard expressed as Deactivation to Remove Reactive 
Sulfides. EPA is also requesting comments on whether the regulation of 
organics may also provide with effective treatment the reactive 
sulfides in K171 and K172. Additional discussion on the deactivation 
standard to remove the reactive sulfide characteristic is provided in 
``Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT) Background Document for 
Newly Listed or Identified Wastes from Petroleum Refining.'' Available 
in the docket for today's proposal. See also Table V-3 and 268.40.
    b. Wastewaters. Today's proposal emphasizes, for the most part, the 
listing of nonwastewater forms of petroleum wastes. EPA thus lacks data 
on the characterization of wastewater forms of these wastes. EPA 
anticipates, however, that if the proposed listings were finalized; the 
generation of wastewater forms of these wastes can occur during the 
management of leachates and groundwaters resulting from RCRA Corrective 
Orders and from the management of residues from units that store, 
treat, or reclaim these wastes in tanks or land disposal units.
    EPA is proposing that the existing UTS for wastewaters in 268.40, 
are also applied to those wastewater forms described above. In order to 
apply UTS, EPA is proposing that the same list of hazardous 
constituents proposed for regulation in nonwastewater forms of these 
petroleum wastes is also adopted for wastewater forms of these wastes. 
The proposed UTS for each organic constituent are based on treatment 
technologies such as biological (aerobic or anaerobic) treatment 
systems, steam stripping, wet air oxidation, carbon adsorption, 
chemical assisted clarification or by a train of two or more of these 
wastewater treatment technologies.
    The proposed treatment standards for metals in wastewater forms are 
based on lime addition followed by sedimentation and filtration for 
arsenic and antimony; chemical precipitation followed by sedimentation 
for nickel; and in electrochemical treatment followed by chemically 
assisted clarification for vanadium. See Table V-1, Table V-2, and 
Table V-3 for a summary of the proposed regulated constituents and the 
applicable UTS limits.

C. Capacity Determination for the Proposed Newly Identified Petroleum 
Refining Process Wastes

1. Introduction
    In the land disposal restrictions (LDR) determinations, the Agency 
must demonstrate that adequate commercial capacity exists to manage the 
waste with BDAT standards before it can restrict the listed waste from 
further land disposal. The Agency performs capacity analyses to 
determine the effective date of the LDR treatment standards for the 
proposed listed wastes.
    In general, EPA's capacity analysis methodology focuses on the 
amount of waste currently land disposed that will require alternative 
treatment as a result of the LDRs. The quantity of wastes that are not 
land disposed (e.g., discharges under NPDES or to a POTW, or treatment 
in an exempt tank) are not included in the quantities requiring 
additional treatment as a result of the LDRs. Also, land-disposed 
wastes that do not require alternative treatment (e.g., those that are 
currently treated using an appropriate technology) are excluded from 
the required capacity estimates. Land-disposed wastes requiring 
alternative treatment or recovery capacity that is available on-site or 
within the same company as the generator are also omitted from the 
required commercial capacity estimates. The resulting estimates of 
required commercial capacity are then compared to estimates of 
available commercial capacity. If adequate commercial capacity exists, 
the waste is restricted from further land disposal. If adequate 
capacity does not exist, RCRA section 3004(h) authorizes EPA to grant a 
national capacity variance for the waste for up to two years or until 
adequate alternative treatment capacity becomes available, whichever is 
sooner.
    To perform capacity analyses, the Agency needs to determine the 
volumes of the listed wastes that will require treatment prior to land 
disposal. The volumes of waste requiring treatment depend, in turn, on 
the waste management practices employed by the listed waste generators. 
Data on waste management practices for these wastes were collected 
during the development of this proposed rule. However, as the 
regulatory process proceeds, generators may decide to minimize or 
recycle their wastes or otherwise alter their management practices. 
Thus, EPA will update and monitor changes in management practices 
because these changes will affect the final volumes of waste requiring 
commercial treatment capacity. Therefore, EPA needs information on 
current and future waste management practices for these wastes, 
including the volumes and types of wastes that are recycled, wastes 
that are mixed with or co-managed with other waste, and residuals that 
are generated by the various management practices applicable to newly 
listed and identified wastes (e.g., treatment residuals).
    The availability of adequate commercial treatment capacity for 
these wastes determines whether or not a 

[[Page 57786]]
waste is granted a capacity variance under RCRA Sec. 3004(h). EPA 
continues to update and monitor changes in available commercial 
treatment capacity because the commercial hazardous waste management 
industry is extremely dynamic. For example, national commercial 
treatment capacity changes as new facilities come on-line and as new 
units and new technologies are added at existing facilities. The 
available capacity at commercial facilities also changes as facilities 
change their commercial status (e.g., changing from a fully commercial 
to a limited commercial or captive facility). To determine the 
availability of capacity for treating these wastes, the Agency needs to 
consider currently available data, as well as the timing of any future 
changes in available capacity.
    Thus, to perform the necessary capacity analyses as a result of the 
LDR standards, the Agency needs reliable data on current waste 
generation, waste management practices, available alternative treatment 
capacity, and planned treatment capacity. Therefore, the Agency 
requests data on the annual generation volumes and characteristics of 
waste by each waste code, including wastewater and nonwastewater forms, 
soil or debris contaminated with these wastes, and waste that is 
stored, treated, recycled, or disposed due to any change of management 
practices. The Agency also requests data on the current treatment 
capacity of facilities capable of treating these wastes, facility and 
unit permit status related to treatment of the proposed listed wastes 
and any plans the facilities may have in the future to expand or reduce 
existing capacity. Furthermore, the Agency requests comments from 
companies that may be considering developing new hazardous waste 
treatment capacity. Specifically, the Agency requests information on 
the determining factors involved in making decisions to build new 
treatment capacity.
    Of particular interest to the Agency are waste characteristics, 
such as pH level, BTU, anionic character, total organic carbon content, 
constituent concentrations, and physical form, that may limit the 
availability of certain treatment technologies. For these reasons, the 
Agency specifically requests data and comments on waste characteristics 
that might limit or preclude the use of any treatment technologies.
    For previous LDR determinations, the Agency performed capacity 
analyses using data from national surveys including the 1987 National 
Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, Disposal, and Recycling 
Facilities (the TSDR Survey), the 1987 National Survey of Hazardous 
Waste Generators (the Generator Survey), and the Biennial Reporting 
System (BRS). However, these surveys were not used or not the primary 
sources used to determine the volumes of proposed listed wastes 
requiring treatment, since these wastes were not included in the 
surveys. Additionally, these surveys may not contain adequate 
information on currently available capacity to treat newly identified 
wastes because the data do not reflect current capacity and do not 
include facility expansions or closures that have occurred since the 
data were obtained.
2. Capacity Analysis Results Summary
    A brief summary of the capacity analysis performed to support this 
rule is presented below. For additional detailed information, please 
refer to the ``Background Document for Capacity Analysis for Land 
Disposal Restrictions: Newly Identified Petroleum Refining Process 
Wastes (Proposed Rule)''.
    For this capacity analysis, EPA examined data on waste 
characteristics and management practices that have been gathered for 
the purpose of the petroleum refining hazardous waste listing 
determinations in the 1992 RCRA Section 3007 survey. The Agency has 
analyzed the capacity-related information from the survey responses and 
identified the following annualized quantities of newly identified 
wastes requiring commercial treatment: 11,100 tons of K170, 2,400 tons 
of K171, and 6,500 tons of K172; if the Agency decides to list crude 
oil storage tank sediment as hazardous (K169), the annualized volume of 
this waste requiring treatment would be 6,300 tons. The available data 
sources indicate that there are no quantities of K170-K172 (and K169, 
if listed) wastewaters that will require alternative commercial 
treatment, and therefore this volume is assumed to be zero. EPA 
estimates that 20,000 tons per year of K170-K172 will be managed off-
site and require alternative commercial treatment (this would increase 
to 26,300 tons if K169 is listed). Also, the final affected waste 
volume requiring alternative commercial treatment may be subject to 
change due to the final listing determinations. The capacity analysis 
will be revised accordingly. This quantity may be smaller due to 
increased recycling activities. The Agency requests comments on current 
and future management practices and the volumes managed for K170-K172, 
and K169, if listed.
    EPA is proposing to apply UTS to these wastes and the treatment 
standards for nonwastewaters containing organic constituents are based 
on combustion. The Agency estimated that the commercially available 
sludge and solid combustion capacity is 91,000 tons per year and 
sufficient to treat the proposed listed wastes. The Agency recognizes 
that the treatment residuals from these wastes may require additional 
treatment capacity (e.g., stabilization) to achieve the UTS for metal 
constituents. The Agency estimated that there is more than one million 
tons per year of commercial stabilization capacity. EPA also identified 
several metal recovery technologies that are commercially available and 
some of these technologies are being used currently by the petroleum 
refining industry to recycle K171 and K172. Therefore, EPA is proposing 
to not grant a national capacity variance for these proposed listed 
wastes. EPA is soliciting any updated or additional information that is 
pertinent to this determination. Since EPA is proposing a treatment 
concentration level for these wastes, the Agency does not exclude the 
use of other technologies capable of meeting the proposed treatment 
standard. EPA also requests comments on other commercially available 
thermal and non-thermal treatment or recovery capacity to meet UTS for 
the proposed listings.
    For soil and debris contaminated with the proposed listings, the 
vast majority of the soil is already in-place (e.g., soil contaminated 
as a result of spills, etc., which has not been moved and soil 
associated with land treatment units). EPA's promulgated final rule 
addressing corrective action management units (CAMUs) and temporary 
units (TUs) (58 FR 8658, February 16, 1993) is likely to reduce the 
volume of wastes and soil subject to the land disposal restrictions by 
reducing the volume of waste and soil excavated and also by reducing 
the volume of waste managed off-site. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 
not grant a national capacity variance to hazardous soil and debris 
contaminated with the newly listed wastes covered under this proposal. 
EPA is requesting comments and data on hazardous soil contaminated with 
K170-K172 (and K169, if listed) that may be managed off-site. Based on 
the questionnaire, there are no data showing the mixed radioactive 
wastes with the proposed listings. EPA is proposing to not grant a 
national capacity variance for mixed radioactive wastes, i.e., 
radioactive wastes mixed with K169 ( if listed), K170, K171, or K172. 
EPA is soliciting 

[[Page 57787]]
comments on any information pertinent to these determinations.

                  Table V-1.--Proposed BDAT Standards for Organics in K169*, K170, K171, & K172                 
                                        [Wastewaters and nonwastewaters]                                        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Wastewaters    Nonwastewaters        Constituents proposed for    
                                              maximum for    maximum for any              regulation            
                                              any 24 hr.       grab sample   -----------------------------------
                                               composite   ------------------                                   
                Constituent                ----------------                                                     
                                                 Total            Total        K169 *    K170     K171     K172 
                                              composition   composition (mg/                                    
                                                (mg/L)             kg)                                          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benz(a)anthracene.........................          0.059                3.4       x        x        x      N/A 
Benzene...................................          0.14                10         x        x        x        x 
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene......................          0.0055               1.8       x        x      N/A      N/A 
Chrysene..................................          0.059                3.4       x        x        x      N/A 
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene.....................          0.0055               8.2     N/A        x      N/A      N/A 
Ethylbenzene..............................          0.057               10         x        x        x        x 
Fluorene..................................          0.059                3.4     N/A        x      N/A      N/A 
Indeno(1,2,3,-cd)pyrene...................          0.0055               3.4       x        x      N/A      N/A 
Naphthalene...............................          0.059                5.6       x        x        x      N/A 
Phenanthrene..............................          0.059                5.6       x        x        x      N/A 
Pyrene....................................          0.067                8.2       x        x        x      N/A 
Toluene...................................          0.080               10         x        x        x        x 
Xylenes (total)...........................          0.32                30         x        x        x       x  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N/A--Not Applicable                                                                                             
* The proposed regulated constituent and UTS limits will apply, if EPA decides to list K169 as a hazardous waste
  in the final rule.                                                                                            


                          Table V-2.--Proposed BDAT Standards for Metals in K171 & K172                         
                                        [Wastewaters and nonwastewaters]                                        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Wastewaters   Nonwastewaters    Constituents  
                                                                  maximum for     maximum for     proposed for  
                                                                  any 24 hr.       any grab        regulation   
                                                                   composite        sample     -----------------
                          Constituent                          --------------------------------                 
                                                                     Total                                      
                                                                  composition    (TCLP) (mg/L)    K171     K172 
                                                                    (mg/L)                                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony......................................................            1.9              2.1     N/A        x 
Arsenic.......................................................            1.4              5.0       x        x 
Nickel........................................................            3.98             5.0       x        x 
Vanadium......................................................            4.3             0.23       x        x 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Table V-3.--Proposed BDAT Standards for Reactive Sulfides in K171 & K172
                    [Wastewaters and nonwastewaters]                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEACTIVATION (DEACT) * to remove reactive sulfide characteristic (iron  
 sulfides and other metal sulfide metals/complexes).                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* See section 268.40 for a list of applicable technologies that used    
  alone or in combination can achieve this standard. See also in 268.42,
  Table 1--Technology Codes and Descriptions of Technology--Based       
  Standards.                                                            

VI. Environmental Justice and Population Risk

A. Applicability of Executive Order 12898

    EPA is committed to address environmental justice concerns and is 
assuming a leadership role in environmental justice initiatives to 
enhance environmental quality for all residents of the United States. 
The Agency's goals are to ensure that no segment of the population, 
regardless of race, color, national origin, or income bears 
disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental 
effects as a result of EPA's policies, programs, and activities, and 
all people live in clean and sustainable communities. In response to 
Executive Order 12898 ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations'' and to 
concerns voiced by many groups outside the Agency, EPA's Office of 
Solid Waste and Emergency Response formed an Environmental Justice Task 
Force to analyze the array of environmental justice issues specific to 
waste programs and to develop an overall strategy to identify and 
address these issues (OSWER Directive No. 9200.3-17).
    Using 1990 U.S. Census Bureau data, the Agency created profiles of 
the populations surrounding petroleum refineries in the United States, 
as well as the smaller subset of facilities using land treatment or 
landfilling to manage the residuals proposed for listing in today's 
notice or estimated to have marginal risk. Statistics were generated 
regarding total population, population density (persons per square 
mile), white population, and population of color. Table VI-1 compares 
these population profiles with the overall national profile.

                                                                        

[[Page 57788]]
                                        Table VI-1.--Population Profiles                                        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Population   
                                                                                                     profile    
                                                                                 Population        surrounding  
                                                                National           profile         facilities   
                                                               population     surrounding U.S.   landfilling or 
                                                                 profile          petroleum       land treating 
                                                                                refineries *    proposed listing
                                                                                                   residuals *  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total population..........................................     249,402,000           651,757           195,693  
White population..........................................     209,180,000           408,280           151,955  
Percent white.............................................              83.9              62.6              77.6
Population of color.......................................      40,222,000           243,477            43,738  
Percent people of color...................................              16.1              37.4              22.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Population count does not double count persons living within 1 mile of more than one refinery.                


    The population profiles show that the populations in the vicinity 
of landfills and land treatment units that have been reported to manage 
the three residuals proposed for listing in today's notice are somewhat 
more likely to be minority populations than the National distribution. 
The effect of these listings, if finalized, will be to place these 
wastes under additional controls and reduce potential exposures to the 
surrounding populations.

B. Potential Effects

    Today's proposed rule covers a number of wastes produced from 
petroleum refining facilities. The proposed rule involves not one 
particular site, but will possibly affect many facilities nationwide. 
Because of the locations of some of these facilities, the potential 
exists for impacts to minority or low-income communities. Today's rule 
is intended to reduce risks of hazardous and characteristic wastes as 
proposed, and to benefit all populations. As such, this rule is not 
expected to cause any disproportionately high and adverse impacts to 
minority or low-income communities versus non-minority or affluent 
communities.
    The Agency is soliciting comment and input from all stakeholders, 
including members of the environmental justice community and members of 
the regulated community. The Agency encourages all interested parties 
to provide comments or further information that might be necessary on 
the data, analysis, and findings contained in this proposal. The Agency 
is interested in receiving additional information and/or comment on the 
following:
     Information on facilities that have evaluated potential 
ecological, human health (taking into account subsistence patterns and 
sensitive populations) impacts to minority or low-income communities.
     Information on facilities that have conducted human health 
analyses identifying multiple and cumulative exposures (populations at 
risk) from leaks, emissions, and waste management.
     Information on releases (leaks, emissions) that have 
occurred in the community and their health and environmental effects; 
and possible effects of exposure to the chemicals in the community.
     Information on hazardous materials stored, used, and 
transported in the community.

C. Population Risk

    The Agency calculated population risks for individuals living in 
the vicinity of sites at which each of the three residuals proposed for 
listing in today's rule are managed. The populations surrounding each 
of the refineries and off-site land treatment and landfill units were 
enumerated using Census Bureau summary data for radii of 1, 2, and 5 
miles. Further description of the population identification is 
presented in the ``Listing Background Document for the 1992-1996 
Petroleum Refining Listing Determination'' in the docket for today's 
rule (see ADDRESSES).
    Population risks were estimated for the following subpopulations: 
(1) adult residents and home gardeners exposed to PAHs in crude oil 
storage tank sediments, or clarified slurry oil storage tank sediments 
and/or filter/separation solids that are land treated, (2) consumers of 
ground water exposed to benzene and arsenic in hydrotreating and 
hydrorefining catalysts that are landfilled, and (3) consumers of 
ground water exposed to benzene from crude oil storage tank sediments 
that are landfilled. In estimating population risks from exposure of 
home gardeners and adult residents to PAHs, EPA evaluated exposures in 
which effective run-off controls were in place and exposures in which 
no run-off occurs. Under circumstances with effective run-off controls, 
home gardeners were estimated to be exposed by inhaling airborne 
particulates to which PAHs are adsorbed and ingesting soil, fruits, and 
vegetables contaminated by direct deposition of PAH-contaminated 
particulates; adult residents ingested only PAH-contaminated soil. 
Under circumstances where run-off occurs, additional contamination of 
soil, fruits, and vegetables with PAHs was estimated from erosion of 
PAH-contaminated soil from the land treatment site.
    For the purpose of estimating population risks assuming effective 
run-off controls are in place at land treatment units, a radius of five 
miles from the land treatment unit was used as the distance within 
which concentrations of PAHs in air were averaged and exposed 
populations were enumerated. The Agency selected a radius of five miles 
for air pathways based on modeling results that indicated a dramatic 
decrease in concentrations of PAHs beyond this distance. For the 
purpose of estimating additional population risks assuming effective 
run-off controls are not in place, a distance of 300 meters from the 
land treatment unit was used as the distance within which populations 
were enumerated. This distance corresponds to the distance used for 
estimating central tendency individual risks from exposure of the home 
gardener and adult resident from all applicable exposure pathways.
    For the purpose of estimating population risks for consumers of 
ground water, The Agency selected a one-mile radius down-gradient of 
the site to estimate 9-year average concentrations over the width of 
the plume. Exposures and risks to receptors located at distances 
greater than one mile were not considered because the exposure 
concentrations decrease as distance increases and there is a very long 
time period required for constituents to reach receptors outside a one-
mile radius.
    Steps for estimating non-ground water population risks assuming 
that no run-off occurs include: (1) Estimating the 

[[Page 57789]]
total population within 5 miles of the waste management unit; (2) 
determining the percentage of the total population that is the exposed 
population (e.g., the percentage of the total population that practices 
home gardening); (3) estimating the average concentration of PAHs in 
air, soil, fruits, and vegetables within 5 miles; (4) estimating the 
total lifetime average individual cancer risk based on the average 
media concentrations within 5 miles; and (5) estimating the total 
lifetime cancer incidence based on the product of the exposed 
population within 5 miles and the total lifetime cancer risk.
    Steps for estimating the non-ground water population risks assuming 
that run-off occurs include: (1) Estimating average individual cancer 
risks to home gardeners and adult residents at a distance of 300 meters 
of the land treatment unit; (2) estimating the total population within 
a 300-meter downgradient of the land treatment unit based on the 
population density within a 1-mile radius and assuming uniform 
population density; (3) estimating the percentage of the total 
population within 300 meters that are home gardeners and adult 
residents; and (4) estimating the total lifetime cancer incidence based 
on the product of the exposed population within 300 meters and the 
total lifetime cancer risk. Additional details on estimating population 
risks for non-ground water pathways are provided in ``Assessments of 
Risks from the Management of Petroleum Refining Wastes: Background 
Document.''
    The steps used by the Agency to estimate population risks for 
consumers of ground water include: (1) Conducting ground water modeling 
to estimate 9-year average concentrations over the width of the plume 
up to one mile down-gradient of the waste management unit at 400-meter 
intervals; (2) calculating the corresponding average individual risk 
from this average concentration; and (3) calculating the population 
served by the plume in each 400-meter interval. Additional details are 
provided in the ``Background Document for Groundwater Pathway 
Analysis.''
1. Results
    The Agency conducted analyses of population risks for non-
groundwater pathways for crude oil tank sediment and CSO sediment/
solids. EPA also conducted analyses of population risks for groundwater 
pathways in crude oil tank sediment, hydrotreating catalyst, and 
hydrorefining catalyst. For both non-groundwater and groundwater 
pathways, the results suggested that the incremental risk in terms of 
cancer cases avoided would be near zero. However, the Agency believes 
that the high-end risks to individuals for these wastes support listing 
them as hazardous.
    For non-groundwater exposure pathways to PAHs from land treatment 
units without run-off controls, the Agency estimated central tendency 
risks for crude oil tank sediment to be 3 x 10-9 for up to 274 
home gardeners and 6 x 10-9 for up to 721 adult residents for off-
site units. For the same scenario, the central tendency risks for CSO 
sediment/solids were 3 x 10-9 for up to 90 home gardeners, and 
6 x 10-6 for up to 235 adult residents. For on-site land 
treatment, central tendency risks from PAHs in crude oil tank sediment 
were 4 x 10-9 for up to 120 home gardeners, and 8 x 10-9 for 
up to 316 adult residents. For on-site land treatment of CSO sediment/
solids, central tendency risks from PAHs were 7 x 10-7 for up to 
76 home gardeners, and 2 x 10-6 for up to 200 adult residents.
    For the groundwater exposure pathway from landfills, the Agency 
estimated the total number of people exposed to constituent 
concentrations above health-based levels (at the 10-6 level) for 
off-site landfills. The number of individuals exposed above health-
based levels for benzene in crude oil storage tank sediment, 
hydrotreating catalyst, and hydrorefining catalyst is 17, 300, and 3, 
respectively. The number of people exposed above health-based levels 
for arsenic in hydrotreating and hydrorefining catalyst is 12 and 25, 
respectively. For on-site landfills, the number of individuals exposed 
above health-based levels was less than one for all three wastes.

VII. Compliance Dates

A. Notification

    Under the RCRA section 3010 any person generating, transporting, or 
managing a hazardous waste must notify EPA (or an authorized State) of 
its activities. Section 3010(a) allows EPA to waive, under certain 
circumstances, the notification requirement under section 3010 of RCRA. 
If these hazardous waste listings are promulgated, EPA is proposing to 
waive the notification requirement as unnecessary for persons already 
identified within the hazardous waste management universe (i.e., 
persons who have an EPA identification number under 40 CFR 262.12). EPA 
is not proposing to waive the notification requirement for waste 
handlers who have neither notified the Agency that they may manage 
hazardous wastes nor received an EPA identification number. Such 
individuals will have to provide notification under Sec. 3010.

B. Interim Status and Permitted Facilities

    Because HSWA requirements are applicable in authorized States at 
the same time as in unauthorized States, EPA will regulate the newly 
identified wastes listed under HSWA until States are authorized to 
regulate these wastes. Thus, once this regulation becomes effective as 
a final rule, EPA will apply Federal regulations to these wastes and to 
their management in both authorized and unauthorized States.

VIII. State Authority

A. Applicability of Rule in Authorized States

    Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize qualified States to 
administer and enforce the RCRA program within the State. (See 40 CFR 
Part 271 for the standards and requirements for authorization.) 
Following authorization, EPA retains enforcement authority under 
sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003 of RCRA, although authorized States 
have primary enforcement responsibility.
    Before the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) 
amended RCRA, a State with final authorization administered its 
hazardous waste program entirely in lieu of the Federal program in that 
State. The Federal requirements no longer applied in the authorized 
State, and EPA could not issue permits for any facilities located in 
the State with permitting authorization. When new, more stringent 
Federal requirements were promulgated or enacted, the State was 
obligated to enact equivalent authority within specified time-frames. 
New Federal requirements did not take effect in an authorized State 
until the State adopted the requirements as State law.
    By contrast, under section 3006(g) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(g), new 
requirements and prohibitions imposed by the HSWA (including the 
hazardous waste listings proposed in this notice) take effect in 
authorized States at the same time that they take effect in non-
authorized States. EPA is directed to implement those requirements and 
prohibitions in authorized States, including the issuance of permits, 
until the State is granted authorization to do so. While States must 
still adopt HSWA-related provisions as State law to retain final 
authorization, the Federal HSWA requirements apply in authorized States 
in the interim. 

[[Page 57790]]


B. Effect on State Authorizations

    Because this proposal (with the exception of the actions proposed 
under CERCLA authority) will be promulgated pursuant to the HSWA, a 
State submitting a program modification is able to apply to receive 
either interim or final authorization under section 3006(g)(2) or 
3006(b), respectively, on the basis of requirements that are 
substantially equivalent or equivalent to EPA's requirements. The 
procedures and schedule for State program modifications under 3006(b) 
are described in 40 CFR 271.21. It should be noted that all HSWA 
interim authorizations are currently scheduled to expire on January 1, 
2003 (see 57 FR 60129, February 18, 1992).
    Section 271.21(e)(2) of EPA's State authorization regulations (40 
CFR Part 271) requires that states with final authorization modify 
their programs to reflect federal program changes and submit the 
modifications to EPA for approval. The deadline by which the States 
must modify their programs to adopt this proposed regulation, if it is 
adopted as a final rule, will be determined by the date of promulgation 
of a final rule in accordance with section 271.21(e)(2). If the 
proposal is adopted as a final rule, Table 1 at 40 CFR 271.1 will be 
amended accordingly. Once EPA approves the modification, the State 
requirements become RCRA Subtitle C requirements.
    States with authorized RCRA programs already may have regulations 
similar to those in this proposed rule. These State regulations have 
not been assessed against the Federal regulations being proposed to 
determine whether they meet the tests for authorization. Thus, a State 
would not be authorized to implement these regulations as RCRA 
requirements until State program modifications are submitted to EPA and 
approved, pursuant to 40 CFR 271.21. Of course, States with existing 
regulations that are more stringent than or broader in scope than 
current Federal regulations may continue to administer and enforce 
their regulations as a matter of State law.
    It should be noted that authorized States are required to modify 
their programs only when EPA promulgates Federal standards that are 
more stringent or broader in scope than existing Federal standards. 
Section 3009 of RCRA allows States to impose standards more stringent 
than those in the Federal program. For those Federal program changes 
that are less stringent or reduce the scope of the Federal program, 
States are not required to modify their programs. See 40 CFR 271.1(i). 
This proposed rule, if finalized, is neither less stringent than nor a 
reduction in the scope or the current Federal program and, therefore, 
states would be required to modify their programs to retain 
authorization to implement and enforce these regulations.

IX. CERCLA Designation and Reportable Quantities

    All hazardous wastes listed under RCRA and codified in 40 CFR 
261.31 through 261.33, as well as any solid waste that exhibits one or 
more of the characteristics of an RCRA hazardous waste (as defined in 
Sections 261.21 through 261.24), are hazardous substances under the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 
of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended. See CERCLA Section 101(14)(C). CERCLA 
hazardous substances are listed in Table 302.4 at 40 CFR 302.4 along 
with their reportable quantities (RQs). RQs are the minimum quantity of 
a hazardous substance that, if released, must be reported to the 
National Response Center (NRC) pursuant to CERCLA Sec. 103.
    The Agency is proposing to list the wastes in this action as CERCLA 
hazardous substances in Table 302.4 of 40 CFR 302.4. In addition, the 
Agency proposes two alternative methods to adjust their one-pound 
statutory RQs. The first method, one traditionally utilized by the 
Agency, adjusts the RQ based on the lowest RQ of the most toxic 
substance present in each waste. The second method, as a part of the 
Agency's effort to review and re-evaluate its methods for CERCLA 
designation and RQ adjustment, adjusts the one-pound statutory RQ based 
upon the Agency's characterization and physical properties of the 
complex mixtures which comprise the wastes to be designated as K169 (if 
listed), K170, K171 and K172. The Agency invites comment on both 
methods, and may, based upon these comments and further information, 
decide to go forward with either method.

A. Reporting Requirements

    Under CERCLA section 103(a), the person in charge of a vessel or 
facility from which a hazardous substance has been released in a 
quantity that is equal to or exceeds its RQ must immediately notify the 
National Response Center of the release as soon as that person has 
knowledge thereof. The toll-free number of the NRC is 1-800-424-8802; 
in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, the number is (202) 267-
2675. In addition to this reporting requirement under CERCLA, section 
304 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to Know Act of 1986 
(EPCRA) requires owners or operators of certain facilities to report 
releases of extremely hazardous substances and CERCLA hazardous 
substances to State and local authorities. EPCRA section 304 
notification must be given immediately after the release of a RQ or 
more to the community emergency coordinator of the local emergency 
planning committee for any area likely to be affected by the release, 
and to the State emergency response commission of any State likely to 
be affected by the release.
    Under section 102(b) of CERCLA, all hazardous wastes newly 
designated under RCRA will have a statutory RQ of one pound unless and 
until the RQ is adjusted by regulation under CERCLA. In order to 
coordinate the RCRA and CERCLA rulemakings with respect to new waste 
listings, the Agency is also proposing adjustments to the one-pound 
statutory RQs for these wastestreams.

B. Basis for RQs and Adjustments

    EPA's methodology for adjusting the RQs of individual hazardous 
substances begins with an evaluation of the intrinsic physical, 
chemical, and toxic properties of each hazardous constituent. The 
intrinsic properties examined--called ``primary criteria''--are aquatic 
toxicity, mammalian toxicity, ignitability, reactivity, chronic 
toxicity, and potential carcinogenity.
    Generally, for each intrinsic property, EPA ranks hazardous 
substances on a scale, associating a specific range of values on each 
scale with an RQ value of 1, 10, 100, 1,000, or 5,000 pounds. The data 
for each hazardous substance are evaluated using the various primary 
criteria; each hazardous substance may receive several tentative RQ 
values based on its particular intrinsic properties. The lowest of the 
tentative RQs becomes the ``primary criteria RQ'' for that substance.
    After the primary criteria RQs are assigned, substances are further 
evaluated for their susceptibility to certain degradative processes, 
which are used as secondary adjustment criteria. These natural 
degradative processes are biodegradation, hydrolysis, and photolysis 
(BHP). If a hazardous substance, when released into the environment, 
degrades rapidly to a less hazardous form by one or more of the BHP 
processes, its RQ (as determined by the primary RQ adjustment criteria) 
is generally raised by one level. Conversely, if a hazardous substance 
degrades to a more hazardous product after its release, the original 
substance is assigned an RQ equal to the RQ for the more hazardous 
substance, which may 

[[Page 57791]]
be one or more levels lower than the RQ for the original substance. 
Table IX-1 presents the reportable quantity of each of the constituents 
of concern in the wastes to be identified as hazardous.

      Table IX-1.--Reportable Quantities of Constituents of Concern     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Hazardous                                                 RQ pounds  
   waste No.              Constituent of concern                (Kg)    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
K169 *          Benzo(a)pyrene...........................  1(0.454)     
                Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene...................  1(0.454)     
                Benzo(a)anthracene.......................  10(4.54)     
                Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene...................  100(45.4)    
                Benzo(b)fluoranthene.....................  1(0.454)     
                Chrysene.................................  100(45.4)    
                Benzene..................................  10(4.54)     
K170            Benzo(a)pyrene...........................  1(0.454)     
                Dibenz(a,h)anthracene....................  1(0.454)     
                Benzo(a)anthracene.......................  10(4.54)     
                Benzo(b)fluoranthene.....................  1(0.454)     
                Benzo(k)fluoranthene.....................  5000 (2270)  
                Chrysene.................................  100(45.4)    
                3-Methylcholanthrene.....................  10(4.54)     
                7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene...........  1(0.454)     
                Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene...................  100(45.4)    
K171            Benzene..................................  10(4.54)     
                Arsenic..................................  1(0.454)     
K172            Benzene..................................  10(4.54)     
                Arsenic..................................  1(0.454)     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* If EPA makes a final decision to list crude oil storage tank sediment 
  (K169) as hazardous, these RQs would apply.                           

    The RQ adjustment methodology for mixtures of hazardous substances, 
used to adjust the RQs for RCRA hazardous wastestreams, differs 
somewhat from the methodology applied to individual hazardous 
substances. The procedure for assigning RQs is based on an analysis of 
the hazardous substance constituents of the wastestreams. The 
constituents of each RCRA hazardous wastestream are identified in 40 
CFR 261, Appendix VII. The RQ of each constituent within the 
wastestream is determined, and the lowest RQ value of these 
constituents is established as the RQ for the wastestream. Because one 
or more of the constituents of concern in each waste has a final RQ of 
one pound, the Agency is proposing to assign one pound as the adjusted 
RQ for each of the newly designated wastestreams under this option.
    The preceding discussion only describes the Agency's methodology 
for assigning RQs to the wastestreams. This discussion does not address 
whether particular releases of the wastestreams are reportable under 
various scenarios. The person in charge of a facility from which a 
release of any of the wastestreams occurs may apply the mixture rule on 
a case-by-case basis to determine if a particular release of the 
wastestream must be reported under CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 
304. Essentially, the Agency's mixture rule (see 40 CFR 302.6(b)) 
provides that, if the quantity of each of the hazardous constituents in 
a particular wastestream is known, reporting is required only when an 
RQ or more of a constituent is released,
    It is important to note that this provision only applies to the 
individual wastestream for which the quantities of all the constituents 
are known. RCRA wastes may be treated as mixtures only if all hazardous 
components and their concentrations in the mixture are known. Knowledge 
that the average quantities of hazardous constituents in a wastestream 
with the same RCRA identification number (e.g., K170) are below their 
respective hazardous constituent RQs is not a sufficient basis for 
applying this provision of the mixture rule to all wastestreams with 
that identification number. In addition, the Agency's mixture rule also 
provides that, if the quantity of one or more of the hazardous 
constituents is unknown, reporting is required where the total amount 
of the waste equals or exceeds the RQ for the hazardous constituent 
with the lowest RQ (CFR 302.6(b)(1)(ii)).

C. Alternative Method

    The above proposal is for adjusting RQs utilizing the standard 
CERCLA methodology. In this rulemaking, the Agency also requests 
comment on the following alternative method for adjusting the RQs of 
the wastes in this proposal.
    The Agency believes it has fully characterized the wastes to be 
identified as K169 (if listed), K170, K171 and K172, and based upon the 
maximum concentration observed, the Agency has calculated the amount of 
each waste necessary to contain the reportable quantity of each 
constituent of concern.

                                   Table IX-2.--Pounds Required to Contain RQ                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Pounds required  Adjusted RQ
           Waste                     Constituent            Max ppm      RQ (lb)     to contain RQ       (lb)   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
K169 *                       Benzo(a)pyrene............          26              1         38,462           5000
                             Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene....           3.7            1        270,270           5000
                             Benzo(a)anthracene........          31             10        322,581          5000 

[[Page 57792]]
                                                                                                                
                             Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene....          15            100      6,666,667           5000
                             Benzo(b)fluoranthene......          29              1         34,483           5000
                             Chrysene..................          42            100      2,380,952           5000
                             Benzene...................         220             10         45,455           5000
K170                         Benzo(a)pyrene............         230              1          4,348           1000
                             Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene....          49              1         20,408           5000
                             Benzo(a)anthracene........         390             10         25,641           5000
                             Benzo(b)fluoranthene......         110              1          9,090           5000
                             Benzo(k)fluoranthene......         110           5000     45,454,545           5000
                             Chrysene..................         860            100        116,279           5000
                             3-Methylcholanthrene......          27             10        370,370           5000
                             7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthra        1200              1            833            100
                              cene.                                                                             
                             Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene....          26            100          38461.5         5000
K171                         Benzene...................         500             10         20,000           5000
                             Arsenic...................        1600              1            625            500
                             Self-heating solid........  ............          100  ...............          100
K172                         Benzene...................         100             10        100,000           5000
                             Arsenic...................         730              1          1,370           5000
                             Self-heating solid........  ............          100  ...............         100 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* If EPA makes a final decision to list crude oil storage tank sediment (K169) as hazardous, these RQs would    
  apply.                                                                                                        


    In this alternative method, the calculated amounts would determine 
the adjusted RQs. Specifically, for K169 wastes (if listed), over 5,000 
pounds would be required to contain the RQ of any of the constituents 
of concern. Thus, under this alternative methodology, the Agency would 
adjust the RQ for K169 to 5,000 pounds, if K169 is finalized as a 
hazardous waste. For K170, over 800 pounds would be required to contain 
one pound of 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene (the constituent of concern 
with the highest concentration in this waste). Therefore, because 800 
falls between the two possible RQ increments of 100 and 1000, under 
this alternative methodology, the Agency would adjust the RQ for K170 
to 100 pounds. In the case of K171 and K172, quantities of these wastes 
in excess of 5000 pounds would also be required to contain the RQ of 
benzene or arsenic. However, these wastes frequently are spontaneously 
combustible materials. Because the RQ for wastes exhibiting the 
characteristic of ignitability is 100 pounds, the Agency would adjust 
the final RQ for K171 and K172 to 100 pounds.

X. Regulatory Requirements and Economic Analysis

    The material covered in this section is described in detail in the 
background document entitled ``Cost and Economic Impact of Listing 
Hazardous Wastes from the Petroleum Refining Industry'', dated 
September 21, 1995, to be found in the EPA docket for this listing.

A. Regulatory Requirements

1. Executive Order 12866
    E.O. 12866 requires that a determination be made as to whether this 
proposed regulatory action is ``significant.'' While the proposal does 
not have an estimated annual effect of $100 million on the economy, 
interfere with actions planned by another agency, or materially alter 
budgetary impacts on parties named in the E.O., it does raise novel 
legal and possibly policy issues. Therefore, the Agency considers the 
action ``significant'' under the Executive Order and has gone beyond 
the minimal requirements for economic analysis required for ``non-
significant'' rules, as explained in the discussion of economic 
analysis (Section B, parts 3-5, below).
2. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
    This Act requires federal agencies to give full consideration to 
the effect a proposed rulemaking may have on ``small entities.'' 
Section 603 of the Act requires that a screening analysis be performed 
to determine whether ``small businesses, organizations and governmental 
jurisdictions'' are impacted.
    For the economic analysis performed for the Petroleum Refinery 
NESHAP, it was determined (under Title IV, Section 410H of the Clean 
Air Act) that a petroleum refinery is classified as a small business if 
it has less than 1500 employees or if its production is less than 
50,000 barrels of oil per day. Based upon this production criterion, 63 
refineries were determined to be small businesses in 1992. For SIC 
2911, Petroleum Refining, Small Business Administration (SBA) rules 
define small businesses as those firms processing less than or equal to 
75,000 barrels of crude oil per day. Based upon this SBA cutoff, 49 
refineries or approximately 30% of all refineries operating at the 
close of 1992 are considered ``small entities.''
    Since either of the above measures denote a sizable percentage of 
``small entities,'' an industry impact analysis was conducted and the 
findings are presented in Section B.2. below.
3. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    Today's proposed rule may require reporting, notification or record 
keeping subject to OMB approval under Section 3504(b) of the PRA. 
Facilities will have to comply with Subtitle C recordkeeping with 
respect to the waste streams proposed for listing. Costs are included 
in compliance costs for this proposed listing insofar as they could be 
estimated by EPA.
4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L 
104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the 
effects of regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments, 
and the private sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally 
must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, 
for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that may result 
in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one 
year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a 

[[Page 57793]]
written statement is needed, Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires 
EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of alternatives and 
adopt the least costly, most cost effective or least burdensome 
alternative that achieves the objective of the rule. The provisions of 
Section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable 
law. Moreover, Section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other 
than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome 
alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an 
explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA 
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it 
must have developed under Section 203 of the URMA a small government 
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected 
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to 
have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory 
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and 
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with 
the regulatory requirements.
    EPA has determined that today's proposed rule does not contain a 
federal mandate that will result in an expenditure of $100 million or 
more in any one year. The upper bound of the range of potential annual 
expenditure is well under $100 annually, as shown in Section B, below. 
Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 
and 205 of the UMRA.

B. Economic Analysis

1. Costs of Compliance
    EPA has assessed the costs associated with the regulation of each 
of the three waste streams proposed to the listed in today's proposal. 
These are: clarified slurry oil storage tank sediment and/or in-line 
filter/separation solids, hydrotreating catalyst and hydrorefining 
catalyst. EPA has examined four cost alternatives; (1) Subtitle C 
landfill costs alone, (2) off-site incineration of tank sediments/off-
site incineration and vitrification of catalysts, (3) a combination of 
on- and off-site incineration depending on the specific refinery, 
together with recycling/reclamation of catalysts, and (4) a contingent 
management composite alternative involving Subtitle D landfill for the 
CSO tank sediment and filter/separation solids together with recycling/
reclaiming of catalysts.
    The last named is clearly the least costly option of the options 
examined. It is important to note that the costs shown for all 
alternatives are not to be taken as precise. At the low end, 
especially, they are barely measurable in an industry of this size.
    Each alternative is discussed below.
    a. Alternative (1)--Subtitle C Landfill Costs Alone. After 
excluding the quantities exempt from regulation on the basis of the 
definition of solid waste, by ongoing reclamation, by headwaters 
exemption, and by the quantity already in compliance, as reported in 
the Sec. 3007 survey previously referred to, the quantities impacted 
and the related Subtitle C annual costs of compliance are presented in 
Table X-1.

                 Table X-1.-- Annual Cost of Compliance                 
                            [1992$, millions]                           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Costs   
                                                               (1992$,  
                                                              millions) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarified Slurry Oil Storage Tank Sediment and In-line                  
 Filter/Separation Solids..................................          2.8
Hydrotreating Catalyst.....................................          1.3
Hydrorefining Catalyst.....................................          1.5
Add: RCRA Administrative costs.............................          0.5
                                                            ------------
    Total Annual Costs \1\.................................          6.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The additional annual cost of compliance for potentially listing    
  crude oil storage tank sediments is $2.2 million.                     

    Costs per ton for Subtitle C compliance are also taken from the 
survey data as reported by the refineries. In that some uncertainty 
existed both for costs and for quantities, EPA tested the significance 
of variation in cost and in quantity by calculating the effect of a
+/-25% adjustment in estimated costs, and a +/-50% adjustment in 
quantities, as reasonable bounding values. The range of total annual 
compliance costs using these worst case limits was $3.3 to $12.1 
million in '92 dollars. ('92 dollars are used in that this was the date 
of the industry survey. Escalation to '95 or '96 dollars is of course 
possible, but would not change anything in the analysis.)
    b. Alternatives (2) and (3)--Costs Including On- and Off-Site LDR 
Costs.  If the costs associated with land disposal restrictions are 
included, the figures are as given below. The off-site alternative may 
be considered an unlikely upper bound in that those refiners finding it 
economical to continue on-site incineration of tank sediments in 
combination with recycling and reclaiming of catalysts will continue to 
do so, unless forced to off-site incineration and vitrification of the 
catalysts by added permitting costs.

 Table X-2.--Annualized Costs for Proposed Refinery Waste Listings Under
                            Two LDR Scenarios                           
                            [1992$, millions]                           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Off site       On-site  
                                              incineration  incineration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarified Slurry Oil Storage Tank Sediment                              
 and In-line Filter/Separation Solids.......         22.5          16.8 
Hydrotreating Catalyst......................          5.0           2.4 
Hydrorefining Catalyst......................         11.6           3.9 
RCRA Administrative Costs...................          0.5           0.8 
                                             ---------------------------
    Total Annual Costs with LDR \1\.........         39.7         23.9  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The additional annual costs with LDR for potentially listing crude  
  oil storage tank sediments is $21.6 million for off site incineration 
  and $16.7 million for on-site incineration.                           

    c. Alternative (4), Contingent Management--Subtitle D Landfill for 
the Storage Tank Sediments and CSO Filter/Separation Solids, and 
Recycling/Reclaiming of Catalysts. The costs shown include a credit for 
the revenues that would derive from waste minimization and reentry as 
added feedstocks for the two tank sediments, and the far lower (than 
Subtitle C) Subtitle D landfill costs. The negative number for the CSO 
tank sediment and filter/separation solids reflects the added net 
revenues in context of no added disposal costs.
    It is important to reiterate that for an industry of this size, 
costs at this low level are difficult to measure. These costs should 
not be taken to be precise; they are estimates only and are small 
compared to the revenue/cost stream for the industry as a whole.

            Table X-3.--Annualized Costs for Alternative (4)            
                            [1992$, millions]                           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Annualized 
                                                                costs   
                                                               (1992$,  
                                                              millions) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSO Storage Tank Sediment and In-line Filter/Separation                 
 Solids...................................................         (0.5)
Hydrotreating Catalyst....................................          2.3 
Hydrorefining Catalyst....................................          3.9 
RCRA Administrative Costs.................................          0.6 
                                                           -------------
    Total Alternative 4...................................          6.3 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The additional annual costs of option 4 for potentially listing     
  crude oil storage tank sediments is $17.4 million.                    

    d. The Cost Reducing Potential of Offsetting Savings. As noted in 
Section 5, below, (``Other Benefits Considered,'' 

[[Page 57794]]

Subsection 5.e), EPA estimated the revenue impact of recycling 
previously listed waste into cokers, in accordance with the changes to 
the current recycling exemptions described elsewhere in this preamble.
    These wastes include primary separation sludge (F038), secondary 
separation sludge (F039), dissolved air flotation float (K048), slop 
oil emulsion solids (K049), and API separator sludge (K051). As 
described in Section 5, such a practice is estimated to generate 
between $13 million and $26 million annually, depending on the volume 
not currently being recycled and other factors. Refineries would have 
to be individually evaluated to more accurately calculate this effect. 
Also, the costs associated with temporary on-site storage and 
processing, and transportation to a coker if a given refinery did not 
have a coker, would reduce this savings.
    EPA has not directly applied this potential offset to any of the 
alternatives costed above, but it is important to note that this 
recycling practice, if directly associated with this proposed 
rulemaking, could combine to make the estimated cost of the rule as a 
whole approach zero under the contingent management option.
2. Economic Impact Analysis
    EPA used a partial equilibrium model of the petroleum refining 
industry to estimate the effects of compliance on refiners. The model 
is the same as was used for the EPA NESHAP air contaminant analysis, 
for consistency. The major analytical variables are: market demand and 
supply (pre- and post compliance) for both domestic and foreign 
markets, market supply shifts, trade relationships as a function of 
elasticities, plant closures and other impacts, changes in economic 
welfare (consumer and producer surplus) and labor and energy effects. 
Baseline (pre-compliance) inputs and a complete model description may 
be found in the EPA docket for this proposed listing.
    It is important to note that the use of this model represents a 
very sophisticated approach to the measurement of what are not high 
compliance costs relative to the size of this industry. More simplified 
approaches were considered, including analysis of standard financial 
ratios pre- and post compliance. EPA's judgement is that the use of a 
model as a computational device has three major advantages: (1) 
comparability with the NESHAP analysis, (2) comprehensiveness as 
measured against all known effects as compared to the simpler 
approaches and (3) a built in ability to sensitivity test quickly and 
easily as desired. The only disadvantage is one shared with the simpler 
approaches; a possible inability to measure small impacts on a large 
industry. The results are not to be construed as precise, but rather as 
approximate indicators of impact.
    As shown in Table X-4, impacts on major variables are all less than 
one tenth of one percent, with almost no measurable impact on plant 
operations. As shown, plant closure potential is estimated as minimal. 
Hence, pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 
U.S.C. 605(b), ``the Administrator certifies that this rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
entities.''

                 Table X-4.--Impacts on Major Variables                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Lower bound    Midpoint     Upper bound
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Price Increase (All                                             
 products)....................       0.03%         0.08%         0.076% 
Annual Production Decrease....       0.03%         0.06%         0.59%  
Plant Closures--Estimated.....     0-2           0-2           0-2      
Jobs Lost.....................       0.03%         0.06%         0.59%  
------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Cost Effectiveness of Individual Risk Reduction
    a. Crude Oil Storage Tank Sediment. Benzene groundwater risks for 
this waste exceed 10-5 (all risks referred to in this section are 
discussed in detail in other sections of this preamble) and total 
10-6 for some pathways for polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons 
(PAHs). At a cost of approximately $17.5 million under Alternative (4) 
these risks will be reduced if not eliminated. (Note: EPA has not 
translated these risk reductions into illness avoidance equivalents and 
monetary streams--see ``Other Benefits Considered,'' below.)
    b. Clarified Slurry Oil Storage Tank Sediment and In-Line Filter/
Separation Solids. EPA is estimating significant indirect individual 
risks for PAHs in land treatment. The high-end adult resident 
individual lifetime cancer risks attributed to PAHs total 9 x 10-5 
and 8 x 10-5 for on-site and off-site land treatment, 
respectively. These are very high individual environmental risks. At 
essentially zero cost for the contingent management option (or $16.8 
million with reasonable LDR costs included) these major risks will be 
reduced if not eliminated.
    c. Spent Hydrotreating and Hydrorefining Catalysts. Risks for these 
catalysts are due to benzene at the 10-5 lifetime cancer level. 
Again, the total annual cost to reduce or eliminate this risk is $6.2 
million for all refineries under either the LDR or the contingent 
management scenario. This material is reused after treatment and there 
are no significant LDR costs. (Note: the practice of reclaiming is 
common now. The proposed listing would affect only amounts not now 
being reclaimed.)
4. Cost Effectiveness of Population Risk Reduction
    EPA evaluated several approaches to measuring population risk as a 
function of multi-path exposure analysis. This is discussed in section 
VI.C. of this preamble. As with the individual risks, the exposed 
population risks would be minimized or disappear altogether if the 
relatively low cost measures specified above are taken.
    EPA did not attempt to transform these cost effectiveness 
comparisons into monetary or commensurable measures both because of the 
uncertainties in such transformations and the absence of a statutory 
requirement to do so under either Executive Order 12866 or the UMRA 
(See Section A, above) as a function of the annual costs associated 
with the proposed listing. See also the discussion of other benefits, 
following.
5. Other Benefits Considered
    As the analysis for today's proposed rule progressed, the Agency 
began to consider certain of the traditional benefits associated with 
RCRA rulemaking. It is well established that quantification of these 
benefits, in a manner acceptable to stakeholders and to the scientific 
community as a whole, is very difficult. In fact, for the most part, 
there is no agreement on the utility of quantification of these 
benefits in a decision making sense, especially with 

[[Page 57795]]
respect to long lasting soil and ground water contamination.
    Still, because of the high visibility of the refinery industry and 
the potential for stakeholder reaction on both sides of this issue, EPA 
examined a range of benefits beyond the straightforward cost/
effectiveness tradeoffs noted above, but did not attempt to transform 
these (as with the cost effectiveness measures noted above) into 
commensurable or monetary measures both because of the uncertainties 
involved and the absence of a clear statutory requirement to do so. 
(The UMRA does not require it and while Executive Order 12866 may be 
interpreted to do so, the Agency elected to not undertake such analysis 
at this time due to the relatively low cost of the proposed rule.)
    Thus it is important to consider, given this relatively low cost, 
that the benefit factors enumerated below may have special relevance.
    a. Additional Potential Benefits and Tradeoffs. (1) Jobs and 
Transaction Costs. The regulation of the cited waste steams may serve 
to encourage further reclaiming activity. To the extent this occurs, 
the capacity of this industry may increase, with concurrent increases 
in employment. Economic multiplier effects should be added in, as a 
function of plant locations. Further, refineries may be able to save 
tipping fees in some cases, and may even be paid something for wastes 
now disposed of at a cost to the refinery. Further recycling (e.g., de-
oiling) of the nonmetallic-bearing wastes may also be considered both 
for economic reasons (product yield enhancement) and for waste 
minimization reasons.
    (2) Landfill Cost Tradeoffs. Reclaiming and recycling may decrease 
landfill costs, but land disposal restrictions relating to the fraction 
of the waste stream that cannot be recycled or reclaimed may offset 
these.
    (3) Land Value Benefits. While it is indisputable that land values 
are an inverse function of contamination, no clear cut rules for 
measuring these effects have been derived. Notions of contingent 
valuation, particularly in marginal cases, continue to be researched in 
the scientific community. For today's proposed listing, no analysis of 
this was conducted. This would be of relevance both to residential and 
commercial property in the vicinity of refineries. If this were done, 
it would be necessary to attempt to differentiate between effects 
attributable to these wastes and effects attributable to other causes.
    (4) Ecological and Natural Resource Benefits. Ecological benefits 
will derive from the proposed listing. EPA has attempted to define and 
measure such benefits often over the years, most recently in the 
Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR) proposal. For HWIR, linkages 
between effect levels (human health as well as ecological) and exposure 
concentrations were developed (for air, soil, surface water, plants and 
animal products). The methodology embodied a ``back-calculation'' to 
determine permissible concentrations of contaminants at a predetermined 
risk level. As difficult as this is, a variant might be attempted for 
today's proposed rule, given adequate time and resources.
    (5) Benefit From Extracting Oil Content From Prior Listings. EPA is 
proposing to expand the ability of petroleum refineries to recycle back 
into the process certain currently listed wastestreams: F037, F038, 
K048, K049, and K051. In each case, the oiled component of wastewater 
sludge could be fed back to a coker. A detailed analysis of the 
potential for savings (more accurately put, the potential for added 
feedstock resulting in revenue and for waste management cost avoided) 
was not possible in the time available given the mandated schedule, but 
EPA believes these benefits may be significant relative to the cost of 
the proposed listings. Offsetting these savings would be any cost 
associated with on-site storage and handling, and the cost associated 
with transport to cokers for refineries without cokers.
    A survey of refineries would have to be undertaken to determine how 
widespread this practice is now. However, in general terms and based 
upon quantities taken from the 1993 Biennial Report System for the five 
wastes, at $18.00 per barrel nominal value, EPA estimates that the 
benefit of this practice is between $13 million and $26 million. This 
could substantially offset any cost associated with this proposed 
listing.
    However, the Agency based these estimates on a number of 
assumptions that would need further assessment. EPA notes that there 
are uncertainties associated with such estimates and requests comment 
on the benefits associated with this action.

XI. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not contain any new information collection 
requirements subject to OMB review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Facilities will have to comply with the 
existing Subtitle C recordkeeping and reporting requirements for newly 
listed wastestreams.
    To the extent that this rule imposes any information collection 
requirements under existing RCRA regulations promulgated in previous 
rulemakings, those requirements have been approved by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and have been assigned OMB control numbers 2050-
120 (ICR no. 1573, Part B Permit Application and Modification); 2050-
120 (ICR 1571, General Facility Standards); 2050-0028 (ICR 261, 
Notification of Regulated Waste Activity); 2050-0034 (ICR 262, Part A 
Permit Application); 2050-0039 (ICR 801, Hazardous Waste Manifest); 
2050-0035 (ICR 820, Generator Standards); and 2050-0024 (ICR 976, 
Biennial Report).
    Release reporting required as a result of listing wastes as 
hazardous substances under CERCLA and adjusting the reportable 
quantities (RQs) has been approved under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and has been assigned 
OMB control number 2050-0046 (ICR 1049, Notification of Episodic 
Release of Oil and Hazardous Substances).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 261

    Environmental protection, Hazardous materials, Waste treatment and 
disposal, Recycling.

40 CFR Part 266

    Environmental protection, Hazardous materials, Waste management, 
Boilers and industrial furnaces.

40 CFR Part 268

    Environmental protection, Hazardous materials, Waste management, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Land Disposal Restrictions, 
Treatment Standards.

40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Confidential business information, Hazardous material transportation, 
Hazardous waste, Indians-lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control, 
Water supply.

40 CFR Part 302

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, 
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, Extremely hazardous 
substances, Hazardous chemicals, Hazardous materials, Hazardous 
materials transportation, 

[[Page 57796]]
Hazardous substances, Hazardous wastes, Intergovernmental relations, 
Natural resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, 
Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: October 31, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, it is proposed to amend 
Chapter I of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

    1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.

    2. Section 261.3 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2)(iv)(C), 
and adding paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(E) to read as follows.


Sec. 261.3  Definition of hazardous waste.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (C) One of the following wastes listed in Sec. 261.32, provided 
that the wastes are discharged to the refinery oil recovery sewer 
before primary oil/water/solids separation-- heat exchanger bundle 
cleaning sludge from the petroleum refining industry (EPA Hazardous 
Waste No. K050), and clarified slurry oil tank sediment and/or in-line 
filter/separation solids from petroleum refining operations (EPA 
Hazardous Waste No. K170); or
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (E) Ceramic support media separated from one of the following 
wastes listed in Sec. 261.32--Spent hydrotreating catalyst (EPA 
Hazardous Waste No. K171), and Spent hydrorefining catalyst (EPA 
Hazardous Waste No. K172).
* * * * *
    3. Section 261.4 is amended to revise paragraph (a)(12) and to add 
paragraphs (a)(13) and (a)(14) to read as follows:


Sec. 261.4  Exclusions.

    (a) * * *
    (12) Any hazardous oil-bearing secondary materials that are 
generated by SIC codes: 1311, 1321, 1381, 1382, 1389, 2911, 4612, 4613, 
4922, 4923, 4789, 5171 and 5172 and are inserted into the petroleum 
refining process (SIC Code 2911) (including, but not limited to, 
distillation, catalytic cracking, fractionation, or thermal cracking 
units (i.e., cokers)) along with normal process streams, unless the 
material is placed on the land, or speculatively accumulated before 
being so recycled. Such secondary materials inserted into thermal 
cracking units are excluded provided that the coke product also does 
not exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste.
    (13) Recovered oil from an associated organic chemical 
manufacturing facility which is to be inserted into the petroleum 
refining process (SIC Code 2911) along with normal process streams, 
unless the material is placed on the land, or speculatively accumulated 
before being so recycled. An ``associated organic chemical 
manufacturing facility (SIC Code 2869) is either a physically co-
located facility or a facility under common ownership with the refinery 
at which the recovered oil is inserted into the petroleum refining 
process.
    (14) Spent caustic solutions from petroleum refining liquid 
treating processes used as a feedstock to produce cresylic or 
naphthenic acid unless the material is accumulated speculatively as 
defined in Sec. 261.1(c).
* * * * *
    4. Section 261.32 is amended by adding in alphanumeric order (by 
the first column) the following wastestreams to the subgroup `Petroleum 
refining' to read as follows.


Sec. 261.32  Hazardous waste from specific sources.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Industry and EPA                                                       
 hazardous waste                Hazardous waste                 Hazard  
       No.                                                       code   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
*                  *                  *                  *              
                                     *                                  
K170.............  Clarified slurry oil tank sediment and/or  (T)       
                    in-line filter/separation solids from               
                    petroleum refining operations.                      
K171.............  Spent Hydrotreating catalyst from          (I, T)    
                    petroleum refining operations (This                 
                    listing does not include ceramic support            
                    media.).                                            
K172.............  Spent Hydrorefining catalyst from          (I, T)    
                    petroleum refining operations (This                 
                    listing does not include ceramic support            
                    media.).                                            
                                                                        
*                  *                  *                  *              
                                     *                                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    5. Appendix VII to part 261 is amended by adding the following 
wastestreams in alphanumeric order (by the first column) to read as 
follows.

Appendix VII to Part 261--Basis for Listing Hazardous Waste

------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA hazardous waste No.      Hazardous constituents for which listed    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
*                  *                  *                  *              
                                     *                                  
K170...................  Benzo(a)pyrene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene,         
                          benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene,     
                          benzo(k)fluoranthene, 3-methylcholanthrene,   
                          7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene.               
K171...................  Benzene, arsenic.                              
K172...................  Benzene, arsenic.                              
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 57797]]


* * * * *

PART 266--STANDARDS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC HAZARDOUS WASTES 
AND SPECIFIC TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES

    6. The authority citation for part 266 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Secs. 1006, 2002(a), 3004, and 3014 of the Solid 
Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924, and 
6934).

    7. Section 266.100 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(5) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 266.100  Applicability.

    (b) * * *
    (5) Catalyst recovery furnaces if the only hazardous wastes burned 
are spent hydrotreating catalyst from petroleum refining operations 
(EPA Hazardous waste No. K171), and/or spent hydrorefining catalyst 
from petroleum refining operations (EPA Hazardous waste No. K172).
* * * * *

PART 268--LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS

    8. The authority citation for part 268 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U. S. C. 6905, 6912 (a), 6921, and 6924.

    9. Section 268.31 is revised to read as follows:
* * * * *

Subpart C--Prohibitions on Land Disposal


Sec. 268.31  Waste specific prohibitions-petroleum refining wastes.

    (a) Effective [Date of Six Months from the Publication Date of the 
Final Rule for Listing as hazardous one or more of the proposed 
petroleum refining wastes in this rule.], the waste specified in 40 CFR 
261 as EPA Hazardous Wastes Numbers K170, K171, and K172, soils and 
debris contaminated with these wastes, and radioactive wastes mixed 
with these hazardous wastes, are prohibited from land disposal.
    (b) Between [Date of Six Months from the Publication of the Final 
Rule for Listing as hazardous one or more of the proposed petroleum 
refining wastes in this rule.], hazardous wastes K170, K171, and K172; 
radioactive wastes mixed with EPA Hazardous waste numbers K170, K171, 
and K172, and soil and debris contaminated with these wastes, may be 
disposed in a landfill or surface impoundment only if such unit is in 
compliance with the requirements specified in Sec. 268.5(h)(2).
    (c) The requirements of paragraph (a) of this section do not apply 
if:
    (1) The waste meet the applicable treatment standards specified in 
subpart D of this part;
    (2) Persons have been granted an exemption from a prohibition 
pursuant to a petition under Sec. 268.6, with respect to those wastes 
and units covered by the petition;
    (3) The waste meet the applicable treatment standards established 
pursuant to a petition granted under Sec. 268.44;
    (4) Hazardous debris that have met treatment standards in 
Sec. 268.40 or in the alternative treatment standards in Sec. 268.45; 
or
    (5) Persons have been granted an extension to the effective date of 
a prohibition pursuant to Sec. 268.5, with respect to these wastes 
covered by the extension.
    (d) To determine whether a hazardous waste identified in this 
section exceeds the applicable treatment standards specified in 
Sec. 268.40, the initial generator must test a sample of the waste 
extract or the entire waste, depending on whether the treatment 
standards are expressed as concentrations in the waste extract or the 
waste, or the generator may use knowledge of the waste. If the waste 
contains constituents (including underlying hazardous constituents in 
characteristic wastes that have been diluted to remove the 
characteristic) in excess of the applicable Universal Treatment 
Standard levels of Sec. 268.48, the waste is prohibited from land 
disposal, and all requirements of part 268 are applicable, except as 
otherwise specified.

Subpart D--Treatment Standards

    10. Section 268.40 is amended by revising paragraph (e), and in the 
Table of Treatment Standards adding in alphanumerical order entries for 
K170, K171, and K172 to read as follows. The appropriate footnotes to 
the Table of Treatment Standards are republished without change.


Sec. 268.40  Applicability of treatment standards.

* * * * *
    (e) For characteristic wastes subject to treatment standards in the 
following table ``Treatment Standards for Hazardous Wastes,'' all 
underlying hazardous constituents (as defined in Sec. 268.2(i)) must 
meet Universal Treatment Standards, found in Sec. 268.40, Table UTS, 
prior to land disposal.
* * * * *

                                    Treatment Standards for Hazardous Wastes                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Regulated hazardous         Wastewaters:                              
                 Waste description            constituent           concentration in        Nonwastewaters:     
   Waste code      and treatment/  --------------------------------   mg/L \3\; or    concentration in mg/kg \5\
                     regulatory                                      technology code    unless noted as ``mg/L  
                  subcategory \1\      Common name     CAS \2\ No.         \4\         TCLP'' or technology code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                
                                                        *                                                       
K170...........  Clarified slurry   Benz(a)anthracene      56-55-3            0.059   3.4                       
                  oil sludge from                                                                               
                  petroleum                                                                                     
                  refining                                                                                      
                  operations.                                                                                   
                                    Benzene..........      71-43-2            0.14    10                        
                                    Benzo(g,h,i)peryl     191-24-2            0.0055  1.8                       
                                     ene.                                                                       
                                    Chrysene.........     218-01-9            0.059   3.4                       
                                    Dibenz(a,h)anthra      53-70-3            0.0055  8.2                       
                                     cene.                                                                      
                                    Ethyl benzene....     100-41-4            0.057   10                        
                                    Fluorene.........      86-73-7            0.059   3.4                       
                                    Indeno(1,2,3,-        193-39-5            0.0055  3.4                       
                                     cd)pyrene.                                                                 
                                    Naphthalene......      91-20-3            0.059   5.6                       
                                    Phenanthrene.....      81-05-8            0.059   5.6                       

[[Page 57798]]
                                                                                                                
                                    Pyrene...........     129-00-0            0.067   8.2                       
                                    Toluene (Methyl       108-88-3            0.080   10                        
                                     Benzene).                                                                  
                                    Xylene(s) (Total)    1330-20-7            0.32    30                        
K171...........  Spent              Benz(a)anthracene      56-55-3            0.059   3.4                       
                  hydrotreating                                                                                 
                  catalyst from                                                                                 
                  petroleum                                                                                     
                  refining                                                                                      
                  operations (This                                                                              
                  listing does not                                                                              
                  include ceramic                                                                               
                  support media.).                                                                              
                                    Benzene..........      71-43-2            0.14    10                        
                                    Chrysene.........     218-01-9            0.059   3.4                       
                                    Ethyl benzene....     100-41-4            0.057   10                        
                                    Naphthalene......      91-20-3            0.059   5.6                       
                                    Phenanthrene.....      81-05-8            0.059   5.6                       
                                    Pyrene...........     129-00-0            0.067   8.2                       
                                    Toluene (Methyl       108-88-3            0.080   10                        
                                     Benzene).                                                                  
                                    Xylene(s) (Total)    1330-20-7            0.32    30                        
                                    Arsenic..........    7740-38-2            1.4     5 mg/L (TCLP)             
                                    Nickel...........    7440-02-0            3.98    5.0 mg/L (TCLP)           
                                    Vanadium.........    7440-62-2            4.3     0.23 mg/L (TCLP)          
                                    Reactive sulfides          N/A        DEACT       DEACT                     
K172...........  Spent              Benzene..........      71-43-2            0.14    10                        
                  hydrorefining                                                                                 
                  catalyst from                                                                                 
                  petroleum                                                                                     
                  refining                                                                                      
                  operations (This                                                                              
                  listing does not                                                                              
                  include ceramic                                                                               
                  support media.).                                                                              
                                    Ethyl benzene....     100-41-4            0.057   10                        
                                    Toluene (Methyl       108-88-3            0.080   10                        
                                     Benzene).                                                                  
                                    Xylene(s) (Total)    1330-20-7            0.32    30                        
                                    Antimony.........    7740-36-0            1.9     2.1 mg/L (TCLP)           
                                    Arsenic..........    7740-38-2            1.4     5 mg/L (TCLP)             
                                    Nickel...........    7440-02-0            3.98    5.0 mg/L (TCLP)           
                                    Vanadium.........    7440-62-2            4.3     0.23 mg/L (TCLP)          
                                    Reactive Sulfides          N/A        DEACT       DEACT                     
                                                                                                                
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                
                                                        *                                                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The waste descriptions provided in this table do not replace waste descriptions in 40 CFR part 261.         
  Descriptions of Treatment/Regulatory Subcategories are provided, as needed, to distinguish between            
  applicability of different standards.                                                                         
\2\ CAS means Chemical Abstract Services. When the waste code and/or regulated constituents are described as a  
  combination of a chemical with it's salts and/or esters, the CAS number is given for the parent compound only.
                                                                                                                
\3\ Concentration standards for wastewaters are expressed in mg/L are based on analysis of composite samples.   
\4\ All treatment standards expressed as a Technology Code or combination of Technology Codes are explained in  
  detail in 40 CFR 268.42 Table 1--Technology Codes and Descriptions of Technology-Based Standards.             
\5\ Except for Metals (EP or TCLP) and Cyanides (Total and Amenable) the nonwastewater treatment standards      
  expressed as a concentration were established, in part, based upon incineration in units operated in          
  accordance with the technical requirements of 40 CFR part 264, subpart O or part 265 subpart O, or based upon 
  combustion in fuel substitution units operating in accordance with applicable technical requirements. A       
  facility may comply with these treatment standards according to provisions in 40 CFR 268.40(d). All           
  concentration standards for nonwastewaters are based on analysis of grab samples.                             
*  *  *  *  *                                                                                                   
NOTE: NA means not applicable.                                                                                  


* * * * *
    12. Appendix VI to Part 268 is amended by revising the text 
preceding the table to read as follows:

Appendix VI to Part 268--Recommended Technologies To Achieve 
Deactivation of Characteristics in Sec. 268.40

    The treatment standard for many subcategories of D001, D002, D003, 
and D011-D043 wastes as well as for K044, K045, K047, K171, and K172 
wastes is listed in Sec. 268.40 as ``Deactivation and meet UTS.'' EPA 
has determined that many technologies, when used alone or in 
combination, can achieve the deactivation portion of the treatment 
standard. Characteristic wastes that also contain underlying hazardous 
constituents (see Sec. 268.2) must be treated not only by a 
``deactivating'' technology to remove the characteristic, but also to 
achieve the universal treatment standards (UTS) for underlying 
hazardous constituents. The following appendix presents a partial list 
of technologies, utilizing the five letter technology codes established 
in 40 CFR 268.42, Table 1, that may be useful in meeting the treatment 
standard. Use of these specific technologies is not mandatory and does 
not preclude direct reuse, recovery, and/or the use of other 
pretreatment technologies, provided deactivation is achieved and, if 
applicable, underlying hazardous constituents are treated to achieve 
the UTS.
* * * * *

PART 271--REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTHORIZATION OF STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE 
PROGRAMS

    13. The authority citation for part 271 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9602; 33 U.S.C. 1321 and 1361. 

[[Page 57799]]


Subpart A--Requirements for Final Authorization

    14. Section 271.1(j) is amended by adding the following entry to 
Table 1 in chronological order by date of publication in the Federal 
Register, and by adding the following entries to Table 2 in 
chronological order by effective date in the Federal Register, to read 
as follows:


Sec. 271.1  Purpose and scope.

* * * * *
    (j) * * *

                                   Table 1.--Regulations Implementing the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984                                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Promulgation date                  Title of regulation              Federal Register reference                     Effective date            
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                        
                *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *               
[Insert date of publication of final     Listing Wastes from the        [Insert Federal Register page numbers].  [Insert effective date of final rule]  
 rule in the Federal Register].           Petroleum Refining                                                                                            
                                          Processes, Land Disposal                                                                                      
                                          Restrictions for Newly                                                                                        
                                          Identified Wastes.                                                                                            
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

                                      Table 2.--Self-Implementing Provisions of the Solid Waste Amendments of 1984                                      
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Effective date               Self-implementing provision                RCRA citation                      Federal Register reference      
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
[Insert date 90 days from date of        Prohibition on land disposal   3004(g)(4) (C) and 3004 (m)............  [Insert date of publication of final   
 publication of final rule].              of newly listed and                                                     rule].                                
                                          identified wastes.                                                     [Insert FR page numbers].              
[Insert date 2 years from date of        Prohibition on land disposal   3004(m)................................      Do.                                
 publication of final rule].              of radioactive waste mixed    3004(g)(4) (C) and 3004(m)                   Do.                                
                                          with the newly listed or                                                   Do.                                
                                          identified wastes, including                                                                                  
                                          soil and debris.                                                                                              
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

PART 302--DESIGNATION, REPORTABLE QUANTITIES, AND NOTIFICATION

    17. The authority citation for part 302 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9602, 9603, and 9604; 33 U.S.C. 1321 and 
1361.

Option 1


Sec. 302.4  [Amended]

    18. Table 302.4 in Sec. 302.4 is amended by adding the following 
new entries to read as follows under option 1. The appropriate 
footnotes to Table 302.4 are republished without change.

                                          Table 302.4.--List of Hazardous Substances and Reportable Quantities                                          
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Statutory                            Final RQ       
        Hazardous substance                 CASRN          Regulatory  synonyms ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     RQ          Code         RCRA waste No.      Category   Pounds (Kg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
K170..............................  .....................  ....................         1*            4    K170                          X      1(0.454)
    Clarified slurry oil tank                                                                                                                           
     sediment and/or in-line                                                                                                                            
     filter/separation solids from                                                                                                                      
     petroleum refining                                                                                                                                 
     operations.                                                                                                                                        
K171..............................  .....................  ....................         1*            4    K171                          X      1(0.454)
    Spent hydrotreating catalyst                                                                                                                        
     from petroleum refining                                                                                                                            
     operations.                                                                                                                                        
K172..............................  .....................  ....................         1*            4    K172                          X      1(0.454)
    Spent hydrorefining catalyst                                                                                                                        
     from petroleum refining                                                                                                                            
     operations.                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        

[[Page 57800]]
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Indicates the statutory source as defined by 1, 2, 3, and 4 below.                                                                            
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                                     
4--Indicates that the statutory source for designation of this hazardous substance under CERCLA is RCRA Section 3001.                                   
1*--Indicates that the 1-pound RQ is a CERCLA statutory RQ.                                                                                             
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                                     



Option 2

    19. Table 302.4 in Sec. 302.4 is amended by adding the following 
new entries to read as follows under option 2. The appropriate 
footnotes to Table 302.4 are republished without change.

                                          Table 302.4.--List of Hazardous Substances and Reportable Quantities                                          
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Statutory                            Final RQ       
        Hazardous substance                 CASRN          Regulatory  synonyms ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     RQ          Code         RCRA waste No.      Category   Pounds (Kg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
K170..............................  .....................  ....................         1*            4    K170                          B    100 (45.4)
    Clarified slurry oil tank                                                                                                                           
     sediment and/or in-line                                                                                                                            
     filter/separation solids from                                                                                                                      
     petroleum refining                                                                                                                                 
     operations.                                                                                                                                        
K171..............................  .....................  ....................         1*            4    K171                          B    100 (45.4)
    Spent hydrotreating catalyst                                                                                                                        
     from petroleum refining                                                                                                                            
     operations.                                                                                                                                        
K172..............................  .....................  ....................         1*            4    K172                          B   B100 (45.4)
    Spent hydrorefining catalyst                                                                                                                        
     from petroleum refining                                                                                                                            
     operations.                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Indicates the statutory source as defined by 1, 2, 3, and 4 below.                                                                            
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                                     
4--indicates that the statutory source for designation of this hazardous substance under CERCLA is RCRA Section 3001.                                   
1*--indicates that the 1-pound RQ is a CERCLA statutory RQ.                                                                                             
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                                     

[FR Doc. 95-27693 Filed 11-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P