[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 57 (Monday, March 25, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13684-13700]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-7097]
[[Page 13683]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 260 and 261
Regulation of Hazardous Oil-Bearing Secondary Materials From the
Petroleum Refining Industry and Other Hazardous Secondary Materials
Processed in a Gasification System To Produce Synthesis Gas; Proposed
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 57 / Monday, March 25, 2002 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 13684]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 260 and 261
[FRL-7162-8]
RIN 2050-AE78
Regulation of Hazardous Oil-Bearing Secondary Materials From the
Petroleum Refining Industry and Other Hazardous Secondary Materials
Processed in a Gasification System To Produce Synthesis Gas
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing revisions to the RCRA hazardous waste
program to allow a conditional exclusion from the definition of solid
waste. This exclusion would be for hazardous oil-bearing secondary
materials generated by the petroleum refinery industry when these
materials are processed in a gasification system to produce synthesis
gas fuel and other non-fuel chemical by-products. We are proposing this
exclusion to put the gasification of these hazardous oil-bearing
secondary materials on the same regulatory footing (i.e., excluded) as
other hazardous secondary materials returned to a petroleum refining
process. If adopted, this proposal will establish a more consistent
regulatory framework for this practice, potentially enhancing the use
of this technology, as well as establishing conditions on the practice
to assure the legitimacy of this fuel manufacturing activity.
We are also soliciting comment on a proposal that would extend the
conditional exclusion to other hazardous secondary materials generated
by industries (other than the petroleum refining industry).
DATES: EPA will accept public comment on this proposed rule until June
24, 2002. Comments postmarked after the close of the comment period
will be stamped ``late'' and may or may not be considered by the
Agency.
ADDRESSES: Commenters should submit an original and two copies of their
comments referencing Docket Number F-2002-RPRP-FFFFF to: (1) If using
regular U. S. Postal Service mail: RCRA Docket Information Center,
Office of Solid Waste (5305G), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Headquarters (EPA-HQ), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20460-0002, or (2) If using special delivery, such as overnight express
service: RCRA Docket Information Center (RIC), Crystal Gateway One,
1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor, Arlington, VA 22202. The
official record (i.e., public docket) for this proposed rulemaking is
F-2001-RPRP-FFFFF. In addition to this official record, two additional
dockets have material supporting this proposal. They are: F-98-PR2A-
FFFFF and F-98-RCSF-FFFFF.
Public comments and supporting materials are available for viewing
in the RCRA Docket Information Center (RIC), located at Crystal Gateway
I, First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The RIC is
open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. To review docket materials, it is recommended that the public
make an appointment by calling 703-603-9230. The public may copy a
maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no charge.
Additional copies cost $0.15/page. The index and some supporting
materials are available electronically. See the ``Supplementary
Information'' section for information on accessing them.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the
RCRA Hotline at 1-800-424-9346 or TDD 1-800-553-7672 (hearing
impaired). In the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, call 703-412-9810
or TDD 703-412-3323. The RCRA Hotline is open Monday-Friday, 9 am to 6
pm, Eastern Standard Time. For more detailed information on specific
aspects of this proposed rulemaking, contact Elaine Eby at 703-308-8449
or [email protected], or write her at the Office of Solid Waste,
5302W, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460-0002.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Comment Submission
You may submit comments electronically through the Internet to:
[email protected]. You should identify comments in electronic format
with the docket number F-2002-RPRP--FFFFF. All electronic comments must
be submitted as an ASCII (text) file avoiding the use of special
characters and any form of encryption. If possible, EPA's Office of
Solid Waste (OSW) would also like to receive an additional copy of the
comments on disk in WordPerfect 6.1 file format.
Commenters should not submit electronically any confidential
business information (CBI). An original and two copies of CBI must be
submitted under separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer,
Office of Solid Waste (5305W), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0002.
Availability of the Proposal on the Internet
Please follow these instructions to access the proposal: From the
World Wide Web (WWW) type http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/gas.htm.
The official record for this action will be kept in paper form.
Accordingly, EPA will transfer all comments received electronically
into paper form and place them in the official record, which will also
include all comments submitted directly in writing. The official record
is the paper record maintained at the RIC listed in the ADDRESSES
section at the beginning of this document.
EPA responses to comments, whether the comments are written or
electronic, will be published in a notice in the Federal Register or in
a response to comments document placed in the official record for this
proposed rulemaking. EPA will not immediately reply to commenters
electronically other than to seek clarification of electronic comments
that may be garbled in transmission or during conversion to paper form,
as discussed above.
How Can I Influence EPA's Thinking on This Proposed Rule?
In developing this proposal, we tried to address the concerns of
all our stakeholders. Your comments will help us improve this rule. We
invite you to provide different views on options we propose, new
approaches we haven't considered, new data, how this rule may effect
you, or other relevant information. We welcome your views on all
aspects of this proposed rule, but we request comments in particular on
the items we have specifically identified throughout the proposal. Your
comments will be most effective if you follow the suggestions below:
Explain your views as clearly as possible and why you feel
that way.
Provide solid technical and cost data to support your
views.
If you estimate potential costs, explain how you arrived
at the estimate.
Tell us which parts you support, as well as those you
disagree with.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
Offer specific alternatives.
Refer your comments to specific sections of the proposal,
such as the units or page numbers of the preamble, or the regulatory
sections.
Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this
document.
[[Page 13685]]
Be sure to include the name, date, and docket number with
your comments.
The Agency will consider the public comments during development of
the final rule related to this action. The Agency urges commenters
submitting data in support of their views to include evidence that
appropriate quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures were
followed in generating the data. Data the Agency cannot verify through
QA/QC documentation may be given less consideration or disregarded in
developing regulatory options for the final rule.
Table of Contents
I. Statutory Authority.
II. Summary of Today's Proposal.
III. Why Are We Proposing This Exclusion?
IV. What Are The Environmental Benefits of This Proposal?
V. Background and Overview.
A. How Have Gasification Devices Been Used in the Past?
B. How Do Gasification Systems Operate?
C. How Do Gasification Systems Remove Contaminants From Raw
Synthesis Gas?
D. What Air Emissions Result From Gasification Systems?
E. What Solid Wastes Are Generated by Gasification Systems?
F. Gasification Systems Processing Hazardous Oil-Bearing
Secondary Materials From Petroleum Refineries.
VI. How Do Gasification Systems Differ From Hazardous Waste
Treatment Units?
VII. Detailed Description of Today's Proposal
A. What Are the Conditions of the Exclusion?
1. Definition of a Gasification System
2. Synthesis Gas Fuel Specification
3. Land Placement of Products, Co-Products, and Solid Waste
Residuals
4. Speculative Accumulation and Storage of Excluded Materials
B. What Are the Proposed Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements?
C. How Do We Ensure Excluded Material Is Processed In a
Gasification System?
D. Are We Concerned About Volatile Metals In the Excluded
Material?
E. Are We Concerned About Dioxin Emissions From the Processing
of Excluded Material?
VIII. Other Hazardous Secondary Materials That Could Also Be
Conditionally Excluded When Processed In a Gasification System.
A. What Are the Environmental Benefits of a Broader Exclusion?
B. What is the Regulatory Status of a Gasification System?
C. What Are the Conditions of a Broaden Exclusion?
D. What Are the Proposed Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements for This Broader Exclusion?
IX. State Authorization
A. Statutory Authority
B. Effect on State Authorization
X. Administrative Assessments
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5
U.S.C. 601 et. seq.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
D. Federalism--Applicability of Executive Order 13132
E. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Risks and Safety Risks
G. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act of 1995
H. Executive Order 12898
I. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
J. Paperwork Reduction Act
I. Statutory Authority
These regulations are proposed under the authority of sections
3001, 3002, 3003, and 3004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1970, as
amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA),
as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA),
42 U.S.C. 6921, 6922, 6923 and 6924.
II. Summary of Today's Proposal
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is today
proposing a conditional exclusion from the definition of solid waste.
This exclusion will apply to hazardous oil-bearing secondary materials
(i.e., sludges, byproducts, or spent materials) generated by the
petroleum refining industry (Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
2911) when processed, either on-site or off-site, in a gasification
system to produce synthesis gas fuel and other non-fuel chemical by-
products. We are proposing that the exclusion be subject to a set of
conditions that specify the following: (1) The system meets the
definition of a gasification system; (2) the system generates a
synthesis gas fuel that meets the specifications of exempted synthesis
gas; (3) the materials generated by the gasification system must not be
placed on the land if they exceed the nonwastewater Universal Treatment
Standards (UTS) for chromium, lead, nickel, vanadium, arsenic, and
antimony (found at 40 CFR 268.48); and (4) the excluded materials must
not be placed on the land or speculatively accumulated prior to
insertion into the gasification system.
We are also soliciting comment on a proposed option to broaden
today's conditional exclusion to other generated hazardous secondary
materials.
III. Why Are We Proposing This Exclusion?
We are proposing this exclusion to put gasification of hazardous
oil-bearing secondary materials (i.e., sludges, byproducts, or spent
materials) on the same regulatory footing, i.e., excluded--as other
secondary materials returned to a petroleum refining process. We
believe that such operations are better viewed as an aspect of
petroleum production rather than as hazardous waste management. (See 63
FR 42110, August 6, 1998) At the present time, gasification systems
processing these materials are exempt from RCRA permitting, as
recycling units. While the operation itself (i.e., gasification) is
exempt, there are numerous RCRA requirements that still apply to the
overall operation (e.g., storage and handling). The Agency believes
that gasification systems processing hazardous oil-bearing secondary
materials from petroleum refineries operate as fuel manufacturing
devices whether the operation takes place at a petroleum refinery or
elsewhere. As such, we believe that these additional requirements
present an unnecessary impediment to a fuel manufacturing activity.\1\
We are therefore proposing to revise the current regulations that apply
to this activity to better reflect our current way of thinking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In a May 25, 1995 letter from Michael Shapiro, Director of
the Office of Solid Waste to William Spratlin, Director, EPA Region
VII Air, RCRA, and Toxics Division, we explained that our
regulations classify gasification devices operating at petroleum
refineries to convert waste materials into fuels as recycling
devices exempt from RCRA permitting. OSWER Directive 9441.1995(18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's proposal supplements the current exclusions applicable to
the petroleum refining industry (found at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(12)). In
fact, we are proposing this exclusion for many of the same reasons that
we excluded hazardous oil-bearing secondary materials recycled through
coking and quench coking processes in the petroleum refining industry.
See August 6, 1998, Petroleum Listing Final Rule (see 63 FR 42110).\2\
In that rule, we
[[Page 13686]]
determined that hazardous oil-bearing secondary materials returned to a
petroleum refinery fuel production process need not be regarded as RCRA
solid wastes, even though a fuel is ultimately produced. See 63 FR at
42127-42128. Instead, the insertion of petroleum refining residuals
back into the refining process can be viewed as a production process
that involves the recovery of fuel value from crude oil, which is the
basic raw material used in petroleum refining.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ On July 15, 1998, we published in the Federal Register (see
63 FR 38139) a Notice Of Data Availability (NODA). In the NODA, we
requested comment on extending a then-proposed and now final solid
waste exclusion applying to certain recycling activities performed
at petroleum refineries (See 63 FR 42110, August 6, 1998). The
Agency requested comment as to whether the exclusion should also
apply to the recycling of hazardous oil-bearing secondary materials
in a gasification system operating at a petroleum refinery. As a
result of the comments received on the NODA, the Agency proceeded
with investigating whether gasification of oil-bearing hazardous
secondary materials from the petroleum industry is better regulated
as a recycling waste-management activity or whether it should be
excluded as a fuel manufacturing activity. The gasification industry
has argued that the current regulatory process does not make sense
because secondary materials from the petroleum refining industry
should not be defined as solid wastes if they are to be processed in
a gasification system. Nor is the operation of the gasification
system, pursuant to the exemption for recycling processes in 40 CFR
261.6(c)(1), altogether satisfactory to the industry. This is
because the resulting synthesis gas fuel remains classified as a
hazardous waste fuel (see 40 CFR 261.2(c)(2) (fuels produced from
secondary materials are normally themselves wastes) and 40 CFR
261.3(c)(2)(so-called derived from rule, which, as relevant here,
states that fuels derived from listed wastes remain hazardous waste-
derived fuels)), unless it meets the specification for hazardous
constituents set out in 40 CFR 261.38 of the rules. The gasification
industry maintains that this regulatory framework discourages the
use of gasification as a means to recycle hazardous oil-bearing
secondary materials from the petroleum refining industry.
Representatives of the petroleum refining industry have suggested
that an exclusion from the definition of solid waste for secondary
materials processed in a gasification system is a more appropriate
classification under RCRA, and would greatly enhance the use of this
technology in the industry. Proponents of gasification technologies
likewise maintain that petroleum refineries would be more likely to
recycle their solid waste if the regulatory status of the devices
and the gasification system were clearly identified to be a part of
the fuel manufacturing process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case of gasification, we are proposing this exclusion
because we have determined that the situation is analogous.
Gasification of hazardous oil-bearing secondary materials from
petroleum refineries involves the recovery of organic components from
the residuals of crude oil refining to produce a gaseous fuel, which
can be viewed as part of a fuel production process. Particular indicia
that this is a production process are the high cost of construction a
gasification unit and the exacting product specification that apply to
the final product. Furthermore, the gasification process appears to
provide a better and more efficient means to recover fuels from oil-
bearing materials than provided by quench coking, which we already
determined to be a valid process in refining operations (see 63 FR
42114).
If adopted, this exclusion will provide a more consistent
regulatory framework for petroleum refineries that wish to include
gasification as part of their refining configuration. We also believe
it will promote the use of a fuel manufacturing process that produces
marketable fuels and chemicals from materials that were otherwise
destined for waste treatment, disposal, or a less environmentally
benign recycling activity.
IV. What Are the Environmental Benefits of This Proposal?
There are numerous environmental benefits associated with today's
proposal. First, if promulgated, the exclusion will reduce the total
amount of hazardous waste sent for disposal by petroleum refineries.
Based on data from the 1997 Biennial Reporting System (BRS) database,
petroleum refineries operating in the United States generate
approximately 130 million tons of RCRA hazardous waste annually with at
least 7-10 million tons managed in RCRA units.\3\ Although equal
volumes of these same materials would be generated under this proposal,
a large fraction of the waste materials generated by petroleum
refineries would be processed into synthesis gas and other co-products
reducing the amount of waste materials sent for traditional RCRA
treatment and disposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Regulatory Impacts of Proposed Exclusions of Petroleum
Refinery Wastes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If adopted, today's proposal also likely provides additional
benefits to the environment because of the unique features of
gasification, including: (1) Increased efficiency in the production of
electricity; (2) reduction in emissions of acid rain causing
pollutants; (3) reduction in particulate matter and pollutants
implicated in global warming; (4) increased resource conservation; (5)
displacement of virgin materials used in the chemical manufacturing
industry by chemicals produced from gasification; and (6) reduction in
energy usage and pollution from reductions in the acquisition,
transportation, and preparation of virgin materials used in electricity
production, petroleum refining and chemical manufacturing industries.
V. Background and Overview
A. How Have Gasification Devices Been Used in the Past?
Gasification devices have a long history of use in the United
States for the production of fuels. The use of gasification processes
to produce useable quantities of fuel began in the mid 1800's when
manufactured gas plants converted coal into hydrogen gas and methane to
power city street lamps. Following the widespread use of electricity to
power city lights, the operation of manufactured gas plants largely
ended. Use of gasification systems to produce fuel from coal or other
organic sources increased briefly during the years surrounding and
during World War II as the international community experienced a
shortage of fuels derived from oil. Following the end of World War II,
the use of gasification declined rapidly as more effective techniques
to produce fuels from crude oil were developed and crude oil was once
again plentiful. In the 1970's, gasification technologies were
resurrected to deal with fuel shortages. During this time, the United
States Department of Energy (DOE) financed research in gasification
technologies that resulted in commercial ventures designed to use the
technology to produce higher value fuels from low value coal. Over the
last 10 to 15 years, private industry and the DOE have continued their
investigation of gasification as a clean coal energy alternative, and
have developed better methods to extract fuel value from organic
containing materials, as well as developing more efficient turbines to
utilize the clean burning fuel.
In recent years, the oil refining and chemical manufacturing
industries have configured gasification systems to produce base
chemical products and fuels. Presently, gasification systems operate
around the world in a number of different configurations. In the United
States, gasification systems have been designed to gasify coal,
municipal solid waste, tires, petroleum coke, biomass, and oil-bearing
hazardous secondary materials into synthesis gas for the production of
electricity or use as a feedstock to produce more complex chemical
products. Data on the use of gasification to process hazardous waste is
limited. Information that does exist, has largely been confined to
configurations where the systems produce specialty chemical
intermediates from virgin materials, or where the devices produce a
fuel from historically waste-like materials that can be burned for
energy recovery (e.g., gasification of petroleum refinery secondary
materials).
There are two reasons gasification has been used relatively
infrequently to process hazardous wastes. First, gasification systems
are expensive and generally cost more to construct and operate than
conventional process devices utilized by fuel and chemical
manufacturers. Second, current regulations (albeit relatively minimal
for the gasification of hazardous oil-bearing secondary materials from
the petroleum industry) limit operators processing these materials from
using them in the most cost effective manner. However, because of
increased emphasis on the use of more efficient systems, there is
renewed interest in using gasification as a possible method to reduce
the volume
[[Page 13687]]
of wastes disposed, and thereby reduce the associated treatment costs
of those wastes, while producing valuable commodities from the process.
B. How Do Gasification Systems Operate?
In general, gasification systems are designed to react carbon
containing materials and steam at high temperatures under partial
oxidation conditions to produce a synthesis gas fuel composed mainly of
carbon monoxide and hydrogen. However, all gasification systems do not
operate in exactly the same manner. Gasification systems can be
designed to operate at high or low pressures, reducing conditions,
using dry or wet feed systems, but they are all operated in a manner
that limits the complete oxidation of hydrogen and carbon monoxide to
water and carbon dioxide. Some gasification systems derive a portion of
the energy--in the form of heat--from the partial oxidation of the
materials being fed to the system. When the feed materials are
partially oxidized, heat is given off. The heat helps sustain the
process by promoting the disassociation of other molecular species in
the reactor freeing the molecular species for limited oxidation. In
gasification systems, this process promotes the formation of hydrogen
and carbon monoxide species which are the base compounds in synthesis
gas fuel. Using organic materials as both fuel and raw material for the
gasification process is one of the reasons the system operates with
increased efficiency when compared to traditional power plants that use
coal or petroleum coke as their fuel.
Gasification systems generally include two basic components. The
first is the high temperature reactor or gasifier and the second is a
gas cleanup or polishing system used to remove various contaminants
from the raw (un-polished) synthesis gas fuel. The two systems work in
conjunction to produce a high purity synthesis gas that can be used
directly as a fuel for power production, or used to produce chemicals
or fuels in other manufacturing processes. Operators of gasification
systems monitor and control the operation to ensure that it is
producing a high quality synthesis gas. They monitor and limit
parameters such as the BTU value, sulfur content, chloride content, and
ash content of the materials fed to the reactor (gasifier). They also
continuously monitor and regulate the amount of oxygen fed to the
reactor, the temperature of the reactor, and the composition of the raw
synthesis gas produced by the reactor. In the synthesis gas cleanup
stage, operators monitor and regulate various other parameters that
maintain the removal efficiency of the cleanup system. The result of
these parameter specifications and attendant monitoring is production
of a synthesis gas that meets the desired specifications.
Gasification systems, similar to many of the more traditional fuel
production units found at petroleum refineries, are expensive, highly
engineered systems that must be carefully operated to produce
marketable fuels and co-products in a cost-effective manner. Both
traditional petroleum refining processes (e.g., distillation, catalytic
cracking, fractionation, thermal cracking, etc.) and gasification
systems operate under conditions in which the feed, temperature, and
pressure are closely controlled to optimize the production of
marketable fuels or fuel components. Owners/Operators of both
gasification systems and traditional refinery process units must
analyze and characterize the feed materials, in addition to controlling
the operation of the unit. Operational control of the gasification
system is necessary to optimize the conversion processes occurring in
the reaction chamber and to regulate the performance of the gas
polishing systems.
C. How Do Gasification Systems Remove Contaminants From Raw Synthesis
Gas?
In a gasification system, the gas cleanup or polishing component
will be configured and monitored to operate with varying degrees of
performance. The operation of the gas cleanup component is determined
by the composition of the raw synthesis gas and the product
specifications for the fuel and chemicals generated. Generally, the
systems operate with sufficient effectiveness to produce a synthesis
gas that contains low contaminant levels of sulfur, nitrogen, ash, and
metals. The systems used to remove contaminants are generally the same
types of systems used in other industrial settings to produce
commercial grade chemical compounds or to remove unwanted contaminants
from gaseous effluent streams. These systems have a history of use in
industrial settings with the parameters that control their operation
being well understood.
As we explained earlier, the synthesis gas product from
gasification is not released directly to the atmosphere. Gasification
systems are generally designed to be closed to the environment. In
gasification systems, the raw synthesis gas exits the reactor at a
temperature between 1800 and 3000 degrees Fahrenheit (depending on the
design and operating characteristics of the device). Generally, after
exiting the reactor, heat value from the gas is extracted in systems
designed to produce steam and electricity. The raw synthesis gas is
then typically processed in a series of systems designed to remove
entrained particulate matter, acid gases (such as hydrochloric acid),
and other inorganic compounds. The gas cleanup systems typically
include filters or scrubbers for the removal of entrained particles and
absorbers for the removal/recovery of sulfur and chlorine. The solids
recovered in the filters or scrubbers are frequently put back into the
gasification system. The polishing systems that remove the unwanted
contaminants from the raw synthesis gas also concentrate these
materials to form chemical by-products. The reduced sulfur species are
recovered as elemental sulfur, or in some cases, converted to a
sulfuric acid by-product. The typical sulfur removal and recovery
process used to clean the raw synthesis gas (to yield a high purity
fuel) are the same commercially available methods used in other
industrial applications such as oil refining and natural gas recovery.
Sulfur recoveries of 95% to 99% can typically be achieved using these
systems. These systems do include process vents, but the synthesis gas
is not released through these vents. After the gas is polished, it is
sent for turbine combustion to produce electricity and steam or to
produce other chemical products.
Metal species found in the materials fed to the gasification system
are controlled both in the reactor phase, and in the cleanup systems
used by the device. The low volatility metals are captured in the slag
emitted from the reactor, with the higher volatility metals being
captured in the cleanup systems, or in the particulate removal systems
and acid gas scrubbers. These captured metals can be put back into the
reactor or be removed from the system and disposed. Control of metal
compounds in gasification systems is discussed more in a later section
of today's proposal.
Ultimately, the extent to which contaminant removal systems polish
the raw synthesis gas is governed by the fuel specifications for the
systems that use the synthesis gas and/or the environmental regulations
that apply to those systems. For example, use of synthesis gas in
combustion gas turbines can require fairly low levels of alkalis and
total entrained particles, thus the gas cleanup system would be
tailored for this type of contaminant removal. The turbine system may
also have fairly low sulfur oxide(s) emissions standards
[[Page 13688]]
applicable to the turbine stack, so the synthesis gas will also have to
be cleaned to a level to meet the emission standard. Therefore, the
ability of gasification systems to extract useful chemical by-products
from hazardous oil-bearing secondary materials is based on the extent
the gas must be polished before it is released for its intended
commercial application.
D. What Air Emissions Result From Gasification Systems?
As we stated earlier, there are generally no direct emissions to
the atmosphere from a gasification system.4 5 Emissions to
the atmosphere from gasification activities are nearly always the
result of using the synthesis gas as a fuel for the production of power
or heat generation. As a fuel, the synthesis gas can be burned in
simple cycle gas turbines or in steam boilers. However, synthesis gas
is typically used in more advanced systems that are designed as
combined cycle gas turbine/steam boilers. Combined cycle turbine
configurations exploit physical characteristics unique to synthesis gas
to produce electricity with greater efficiency than other power
generating designs. Alternatively, the synthesis gas can also be used
as a feedstock for chemical manufacturing processes including the
production of ammonia, methanol, acetic acid, and hydrogen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Generally, gasification systems are designed and operated to
prevent direct releases to the atmosphere when operating to produce
synthesis gas; however, some devices incorporate small incinerators
that combust effluent discharges from the raw synthesis gas cleanup
systems and those devices do release combustion off-gases to the
atmosphere. Under today's proposal, devices that utilize
incinerators to combust non-gaseous effluents from the gasification
process, or raw synthesis gas cleanup systems would be subject to
appropriate regulations to control emissions from those sources. For
example, if characteristic hazardous waste is removed from the
gasification process and sent to an incinerator for destruction, the
combustion device is subject to regulation as a hazardous waste
incinerator.
\5\ Gasification systems are designed with release vents or
flares that operate during emergencies or during malfunctioning
operations. Flares and release vents are necessary to prevent damage
or catastrophic failure of the gasification system in the event of a
major malfunction. These types of relief systems are common at
facilities that manufacture products using thermal processes. The
operation of the flares or release vents is regulated by each
facility's Title V Clean Air Act permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal and chlorine emissions from the combustion of synthesis gas
depend on the composition of the synthesis gas, which is dependent on
the effectiveness of the synthesis gas cleanup system. Chlorine control
using wet scrubbers to remove HCl has been used successfully for many
years and can routinely achieve a removal effectiveness of 99%.\6\
Semi-volatile metals are expected to be contained primarily in the
filter/scrubber ash. Lower volatility metals are primarily bound in the
slag. Mercury, which is not found in significant quantities in
petroleum refinery waste, is highly volatile and is expected to be
controlled only to a small degree in a gasifier's wet scrubbers. If
mercury was present in the hazardous oil-bearing secondary materials
generated by the petroleum refining industry and those materials were
processed by a gasification system, the mercury would likely be emitted
out the stack of the device (i.e., turbine) firing the synthesis gas
produced by the gasification system.\7\ Potential mercury emissions are
not a concern for this proposed conditional exclusion because hazardous
oil-bearing secondary materials generated by petroleum refineries are
not expected to contain significant quantities of mercury. See Docket
Number F-98-PR2A-FFFFF, Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste;
Petroleum Refining Process Wastes.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Removal effectiveness is based on data that was used to
support the Hazardous Waste Combustion Phase 1 MACT rule and is
based on data from hazardous waste burning incinerators. See Docket
Number F-1999-RC2F-FFFFF and the technical support document for:
NESHAPS: Final Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous
Waste Combustors. 64 FR 52828. September 30, l999. Removal
effectiveness of systems used by gasification systems were not
evaluated for this notice.
\7\ A Comparison of Gasification and Incineration of Hazardous
Waste--Final Report. March 30, 2000. This report was prepared for
the U.S. Department of Energy and contrasts incineration and
gasification technologies. It also evaluates emissions tests
performed on gasification systems processing coal that shows that
some mercury is controlled in the gasification process. The report
concludes that further tests are necessary to understand the control
mechanism and to ensure that the data is not an artifact of poor
composite coal sampling.
\8\ In a later section of today's proposal, we request comment
on options we are considering to revise the synthesis gas
specification (found at 40 CFR 261.38(b)) to reduce the allowable
concentrations of RCRA metals that can exist in waste-derived
synthesis gas excluded from the definition of solid waste. This is
because we have determined that the specification does not represent
the concentration of metals that realistically exists in synthesis
gas derived from hazardous waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. What Solid Wastes are Generated by Gasification Systems?
Gasification systems also generate solid waste residuals which are
largely dependent on the design, configuration, and operation of the
gasification system. They can include a slag material composed
primarily of ash and low and semi volatile metals bound in a glass-like
substrate that is released from the reactor component of the gasifier,
sour liquors from the cleanup systems that are used to scrub
contaminants from the product synthesis, and particulate matter
captured in particulate control systems used by the gasification system
to remove fine particulate matter from the synthesis gas.\9\ The
gasification designs we have reviewed either put the liquid streams and
particulate matter back into the reactor, remove the contaminants from
the scrubbing streams to produce valuable chemical by-products, treat
the effluents in devices designed to destroy or reduce the toxicity of
the effluents, or send the effluents for disposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Data submitted by Texaco in response to the July 1998 NODA
suggests that the slag produced by their gasification systems is an
inert material that does not leach metals because the glass-like
matrix of the material effectively stabilizes the metals. See Docket
Number F-98-PR2A-FFFFF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis conducted as part of research efforts utilizing
gasification technologies has shown that composition of the residues in
a given gasification system are largely dependent on the composition of
the secondary materials fed to the system. Data submitted by Texaco
show that the composition of the vitrified slag that is generated by
the gasification reactor is mostly inert material that does not exhibit
a characteristic of hazardous waste.\10\ At this time, we lack the data
necessary to determine whether the characteristics of the residues from
gasification are due to the dilution effect of the other materials
being processed along with petroleum hazardous secondary materials in
the device, or is the result of a unique operational or design trait
associated with gasification systems.\11\ The Agency specifically
solicits comment on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See: ``Analysis of Residues From Texaco Gasification
Process'' which is found in the docket supporting this proposed
rule.
\11\ Certain gasification systems function because they are
designed to take advantage of the heat given off in the limited
oxidation reactions, and thus require the introduction of inorganic
material to provide thermal inertia for the system. This design
characteristic could contribute to the inert quality of the residue
material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under today's proposal, we would classify solid waste residues
generated during the gasification of excluded material as newly
generated, and determine whether they are hazardous based on whether
they exhibit a characteristic when they are generated. Should a residue
exhibit a characteristic, it would have to be managed in compliance
with hazardous waste regulations. (As noted earlier, to assure process
legitimacy, we are also proposing that the residues comply with the UTS
for chromium, lead, nickel, vanadium, arsenic, and antimony).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ EPA's first study of wastes from coal gasification are set
forth in the 1990 Report to Congress on Special Wastes from Mineral
Processing. (See specifically Chapter 5.) In that report, EPA
determined that ash from coal gasification was Bevill exempt as a
result of the Bevill rul that was promulgated on June 13, 1991 (54
FR 27307). All other solid wastes generated at gasification plants,
other than coal gasification ash, are subject to RCRA as newly
generated wastes, and to subtitle C if they exhibit a characteristic
of hazardous waste. Coal gasification ash retains its Bevill exempt
status as long as the gasification facility uses feedstock that is
comprised of greater than 50 percent virgin feedstock (i.e. coal).
See 54 FR at 36619, September 1, 1989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 13689]]
F. Gasification Systems Processing Hazardous Oil-Bearing Secondary
Materials From Petroleum Refineries
The gasification of hazardous oil-bearing secondary materials from
the petroleum industry is taking place only under very narrow,
specialized exemptions. At the present time, we are aware of four
gasification operations in the United States that engage in this
activity. Three of the gasification systems are operated on-site at
petroleum refineries.\13\ The fourth is an off-site gasification system
owned and operated by the Dakota Gasification Company.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See letter from Mr. James Childress, Executive Director,
Gasification Technologies Council to Ms. Elaine Eby, USEPA. Re:
Operational Gasification Systems Processing Hazardous Oil-Bearing
Secondary Materials. January 2002.
\14\ The Dakota Gasification Facility, located in Belluah, North
Dakota, is a commercial operation that was constructed and designed
with the assistance of the DOE to promote the use of gasification of
coal for the production of fuels. This facility is currently
processing hazardous oil-bearing secondary material from a BP Amoco
refinery located in North Dakota under a RCRA treatment study
approved by the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. How Do Gasification Systems Differ From Hazardous Waste
Treatment Units?
In most cases, gasification systems resemble fuel manufacturing
devices more than they resemble RCRA treatment devices. Information
submitted to us in response to the July 1998 NODA suggests that the
design, operation, and operational characteristics of certain
gasification systems are significantly different from those of
conventional RCRA treatment devices. This is because gasification
systems are not designed and operated to treat waste. Gasification
systems manufacture synthesis gas fuel by re-forming the organic
compounds that exist in oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials
through unique conversion processes that involve thermal disassociation
and partial oxidation. The synthesized fuel is primarily composed of
hydrogen and carbon monoxide. Gasification systems can also be
configured to produce other gaseous or solid compounds for purposes
other than as a fuel.
The reformation or conversion processes occurring within
gasification systems are continuously monitored and controlled to
enhance conversion efficiency. As such, they require feedstock
materials to adhere to certain specifications prior to introduction
into the system. Feedstock materials must be analyzed to determine BTU
value, sulfur concentrations, chlorine concentration, and ash content.
The analytical information on the feed material is needed in order to
control the processes that convert the organic components of the
feedstock material into valuable products (including synthesis gas
fuel).
Gasification processes likewise limit and control oxygen levels to
ensure the process reactions convert organic material to the synthesis
gas product, and to prevent the complete (or unwanted) oxidation of the
gaseous compounds that constitute synthesis gas. In contrast to
gasification systems, thermal waste treatment devices (such as
incinerators and certain industrial furnaces) process materials through
``complete oxidation processes'' to reduce the volume and toxicity of
the waste materials. When referring to ``complete oxidation processes''
that occur in thermal treatment devices, what we mean is that the
oxidation of specific compounds in the waste material is not controlled
to any extent other than that what is needed to fully oxidize and
destroy the waste materials.
Gasification systems also differ significantly from thermal waste
treatment devices in terms of releases to the environment. As explained
more fully below, gasification systems are not designed to and
ordinarily do not release gases directly to the environment.
Gasification systems are generally designed to be closed to the
environment. The gases evolved in the partial oxidation or reactor
phase are processed in polishing systems following the reactor that
strip the gas of sulfur, chlorine, and particulate matter. These
polishing systems recover some of these materials to form additional
products such as elemental sulfur, sulfuric acid, or hydrochloric
acid.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The markets for these non-fuel by-products were not
evaluated for this proposal, but many of the by-products do have
marketable value. Non-gaseous by-products that are used in a
production process to produce other products are not regulated by
this proposal and are generally excluded from regulation under 40
CFR 261.2(e)(1)(i). In some systems the stripped contaminants are
fed back to the gasification reactor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the polishing processes, the synthesis gas can be used in
a number of ways: (1) Immediately as a fuel in a combustion turbine;
(2) as a chemical intermediate in a chemical manufacturing process; or
(3) stored for product use later. In contrast, thermal treatment
devices (e.g., incinerators and industrial furnaces) are designed to
release combustion off-gases to the environment as a consequence of
normal operation.\16\ The resultant gases, which are primarily carbon
dioxide and water, are rarely used in a manner similar to that of the
gasification system.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ However, we note that certain types of industrial furnaces
are designed to treat hazardous waste and extract sulfur compounds
or halogen acids from the effluent gas stream prior to release to
the atmosphere. These systems are generally operated to release the
gases directly to the atmosphere after the desired compounds are
extracted from the combustion off-gas.
\17\ In addition to the operational differences between
gasification systems and thermal waste treatment systems, it would
appear that gasification systems currently in operation are being
used in the chemical and petroleum refining industries to convert
non-waste feedstocks into synthesis gas fuel or chemical
intermediates required for specialty chemical manufacturing. These
systems are relatively expensive to construct and operate and
require a fairly large and consistent supply of carbon-based
feedstock (e.g., coal, natural gas, petroleum coke, etc.) to produce
synthesis gas that has economic value. The units, at least as
presently operated, are integral components of these manufacturing
operations. The fact that these devices can be operated in a manner
to process materials historically classified as hazardous waste does
not discount the fact that they are designed and operated to produce
a product that is valuable as a fuel or chemical and that this
appears to be their primary function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gasification systems differ significantly from hazardous waste
treatment units. As such, we are today proposing that full RCRA
oversight may not be warranted for the gasification of hazardous oil-
bearing secondary materials from the petroleum refining industry, as
long as we place conditions on the activity so that it can be
distinguished from hazardous waste treatment activities.
VII. Detailed Discussion of Today's Proposal
Today, we are proposing to conditionally exclude hazardous oil-
bearing secondary materials generated by the petroleum refining
industry (SIC 2911) from the definition of solid waste when the
materials are destined to be processed in a gasification system to
produce synthesis gas fuel and other non-fuel chemical by-products.\18\
To
[[Page 13690]]
ensure that each gasification system processing materials excluded
under today's proposal is engaged in a manufacturing activity, we are
proposing that the exclusion be subject to a set of conditions. The
conditions specify that: (1) The system processing the hazardous oil-
bearing secondary material meets the proposed definition of a
gasification system; (2) the synthesis gas product from the
gasification system meets the fuel specifications promulgated in the
``synthesis gas rule,'' \19\ which is a regulatory benchmark for
classifying synthesis gas produced from hazardous waste as a fuel
rather than as hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 261.38(b)); (3) the
materials (both co-products and solid waste residuals) generated by the
gasification system that are placed on the land do not exceed the
nonwastewater Universal Treatment Standards (UTS) for 6 metals present
in listed wastes generated by the petroleum refining industry; and (4)
the excluded hazardous oil-bearing secondary materials are not
speculatively accumulated nor placed on the land prior to insertion
into the gasification system. Provided these conditions are met, the
hazardous oil-bearing secondary materials from petroleum refineries
would not be solid wastes. Similarly, the fuels or chemical by-products
manufactured from these excluded materials would also be excluded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The proposed exclusion applies only to hazardous oil-
bearing secondary materials from SIC classification 2911. While the
Agency understands that some petroleum refineries may be integrated
with other industrial processes exhibiting other SIC
classifications, this exclusion is only for secondary materials
generated by the production processes under the 2911 classification.
However, the Agency solicits comment on whether the exclusion should
be expanded to other hazardous secondary materials from other
industrial operations (with other SIC classifications) when these
operations are integrated with industrial processes under the
primary SIC classification of 2911.
\19\ For purposes of this preamble discussion, we are using the
term, ``Synthesis Gas Rule'' to refer to the rulemaking that
provided for the ``Syngas Fuel Exclusion'' (40 CFR 261.(b)). The
entire rule can be found in 63 FR 33782, June 19,1998. Hazardous
Waste Combustors; Revised Standards; Final Rule--Part 1: RCRA
Comparable Fuel Exclusion; Permit Modification for Hazardous Waste
Combustion Units: Notification of Intent to Comply; Waste
Minimization and Pollution Prevention Criteria for Compliance
Extensions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The exclusion would apply to materials processed in a gasification
system operating either on site or off-site of a petroleum refinery.
While this does differ from existing exclusions in that it would apply
whether or not the gasification system is located at the site of the
petroleum refinery, we believe it is appropriate to extend the on-site
exclusion to off-site fuel manufacturing processes because gasification
systems operate in exactly the same manner whether they are used to
process materials into fuels on-site or off-site of a petroleum
refinery (i.e., gasification systems operate as fuel manufacturing
devices at any location they are operating).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Gasification systems operating off-site of petroleum
refineries may continue to process the materials they currently
gasify in addition to the materials we are proposing to exclude
without affecting the regulatory status of their device with respect
to RCRA regulation. However, if gasification systems are processing
hazardous wastes (i.e., hazardous materials identified or listed as
hazardous wastes, in addition to the petroleum industry secondary
materials we are proposing to exclude), then such devices would of
course continue to be subject to RCRA jurisdiction under the current
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. What Are the Conditions of the Exclusion?
Today's proposed exclusion includes four conditions to ensure that
each gasification system processing the excluded material is engaged in
a legitimate manufacturing activity that converts the valuable
components of the hazardous oil-bearing secondary materials into fuels,
and into non-fuel chemical by-products, that do not contain high levels
of non-contributing toxic components. Today's notice proposes to
exclude hazardous oil-bearing secondary materials generated by the
petroleum refining industry from the definition of solid waste if the
materials are processed in a gasification system and used in a manner
consistent with the conditions of the exclusion. The consequence of
this exclusion would be that hazardous oil-bearing secondary materials
are excluded from the definition of solid waste, at the point of
generation, provided: (1) The system meets the definition of a
gasification system; (2) the system generates a synthesis gas fuel that
meets the specifications of exempted synthesis gas; (3) the materials
generated by the gasification system are not placed on the land if they
exceed the nonwastewater UTS for chromium, lead, nickel, vanadium,
arsenic, and antimony (found at 40 CFR 268.48); and (4) the excluded
materials are not placed on the land or speculatively accumulated prior
to insertion into the gasification system.
1. Definition of a Gasification System
During our review of the operation and performance of available
gasification technologies, we determined that it is necessary to define
the types of devices that can process (i.e., gasify) hazardous oil-
bearing secondary materials into a synthesis gas that we believe is a
legitimate fuel. This is because there are a large number of devices
operating in the United States that could claim to be a type of
gasification system, but do not gasify materials in the same manner, or
to the same extent, as the gasification systems we considered for this
proposal. These other devices may be waste treatment devices, or
recycling devices that process solid waste. Therefore, this first
condition defines the types of systems that may process excluded
hazardous oil-bearing secondary material under this exclusion in order
to distinguish the gasification process from waste treatment, including
incineration.
As explained earlier, most combustion devices (e.g., incinerators)
convert organic material into hydrogen and carbon monoxide gases at
some point during ideal combustion processes (i.e., complete oxidation
of organic material to water and carbon dioxide). Gasification systems
preferentially convert the organic material into a synthesis gas
primarily composed of carbon monoxide and hydrogen by limiting the
oxidation reactions. Gasification systems generally accomplish this by
regulating the organic material and oxygen being fed to the reactor
based on feedback from continuous monitoring of temperature, pressure,
and products of oxidation. These continuously monitored parameters
control the extent that organic material is oxidized, and concentrates
the metals found in the feed into a slag emitted from the reactor as a
solid waste. Therefore, to limit the exclusion to gasification systems
that operate as fuel manufacturing devices, as well as to distinguish
gasification systems from treatment devices such as incinerators,
cement kilns, and thermal desorbers, we are proposing and solicit
comment on the following definition of a gasification system.
Gasification system means an enclosed thermal device and associated
gas cleaning system or systems that does not meet the definition of an
incinerator or industrial furnace (found at Secs. 260.10), and that:
(1) Limits oxygen concentrations in the enclosed thermal device to
prevent the full oxidization of thermally disassociated gaseous
compounds; (2) utilizes a gas cleanup system or systems designed to
remove contaminants from the partially oxidized gas that do not
contribute to its fuel value; (3) slags inorganic feed materials at
temperatures above 2000; deg. F; (4) produces a synthesis gas; and (5)
is equipped with monitoring devices that ensure the quality of the
synthesis gas produced by the gasification system.
Under this first condition, you would be required to ensure that
your gasification system meets the definition above, in order for the
hazardous oil-bearing secondary materials from the petroleum industry
to be eligible for the exclusion. The purpose of this condition
[[Page 13691]]
is to ensure that the exclusion applies only to gasification systems
designed, operated, monitored, and controlled in a manner that promotes
the removal or conversion of toxic compounds found in the hazardous
oil-bearing secondary materials, as well as generating a synthesis gas
fuel. The rationale supporting this condition is consistent with the
rationale we used in excluding recovered oil from the definition of
solid waste. See 63 FR at 42113.
2. Synthesis Gas Fuel Specification
The second condition of this proposed exclusion defines the
chemical and physical specifications of a legitimate synthesis gas fuel
product. This condition ensures that each gasification system using the
exclusion is engaged in a legitimate fuel manufacturing activity. It
does this by requiring you to ensure that the synthesis gas produced
from the gasification of excluded materials meet the specifications for
the exclusion of hazardous waste derived synthesis gas found at 40 CFR
261.38(b). It is appropriate to apply the ``Synthesis Gas Rule''
specifications to synthesis gas produced from hazardous oil-bearing
secondary materials, because we believe that synthesis gas manufactured
from this material should not contain hazardous constituents and other
non-contributing contaminates at concentrations greater than synthesis
gas derived from hazardous waste. We recognize that some gasification
systems are designed and operated to produce a synthesis gas that may
not meet the constituent levels specified by the Synthesis Gas Rule
because the gas is specifically manufactured for use in a specialized
chemical manufacturing process. Therefore, the specification would
apply only to synthesis gas actually used as a fuel. See the preamble
discussion on ``Parameters for the Synthesis Gas Fuel Exclusion'' found
at 63 FR 33791, June 19, 1998.
Under this proposal, hazardous oil-bearing secondary materials
would be excluded from the definition of solid waste at the point they
are generated, as long as they are processed in a gasification system
that meets our proposed definition, and handled in accordance with the
other conditions. Since RCRA regulations do not apply to the excluded
materials, the synthesis gas product is also not subject to RCRA
regulations, as long as the synthesis gas produced by the gasification
system meets as a fuel the specification levels of the synthesis gas
exclusion.Of course, units burning the synthesis gas fuel are
themselves potentially subject to regulation under other statutes,
notably the Clean Air Act. Today's proposal would not affect any such
regulation.
3. Land Placement of Products, Co-Products, and Solid Waste Residuals
The third condition of the proposed exclusion applies to co-
products and residues generated by the gasification system that are
recycled by being applied to the land. This condition would require
that materials that are applied to the land must meet the nonwastewater
Universal Treatment Standards (UTS) (40 CFR 268.48) for the following
toxic metals: antimony, arsenic, chromium, lead, nickel, and vanadium.
It is believed that these metals will partition with the ash into the
slag residue generated by the process. These metals do not contribute
to the gaseous fuel or to the gasification process. We suspect that the
metal concentration in the residue will be comparable to or
substantially less than the concentration of metals in the slag from
gasifiers that process petroleum coke or coal exclusively. Data
submitted by BP Amoco show that the metals in oil-bearing secondary
materials do not substantially increase the total metal concentration
normally found in the residue generated by the Dakota gasification
facility when it is processing coal exclusively.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Data submitted by Amoco Refining Inc, which show that
petroleum secondary materials make a minor contribution to the total
concentration of metals routinely found in ash from the Dakota
Gasification facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This third condition ensures that co-products or residues generated
by the gasification process do not contain toxic metals with a
potential for leaching greater than allowed by the requirements of the
land disposal restrictions. This condition is similar to conditions
established for hazardous waste-derived products that are used in a
manner constituting disposal (see 40 CFR 266.20), but we chose only to
apply the UTS limits for the metals which are known to exist in
petroleum refinery waste.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ This condition is also similar to a condition we included
in the exclusion for other petroleum oil-bearing secondary
materials. There, we applied the FO37 listing to non-fuel residuals
that are produced when oil-bearing wastes are reinserted into
petroleum distillation and refining processes. See 63 FR at 42128.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This condition ensures legitimacy by applying the same land
disposal provisions to the co-products or residuals that would have
existed had the material not been excluded from the definition of solid
waste, and so would eliminate an incentive to claim to be performing
``gasification'' for the real purpose of avoiding treatment of metals
in treatment residues that ultimately are placed on the land. The
condition similarly would serve to ensure that the gasification of
excluded oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials is not just a means
of discarding waste components in the materials (which are otherwise
listed hazardous wastes) by the eventual unrestricted placement of
those components on the land. Finally, the proposed condition is needed
to assure that the gasification system is operated for the production
purpose claimed. As explained earlier, part of the operating premise of
gasification is that it preferentially converts organic matter in
secondary materials into fuels (or intermediates) while removing metals
from raw synthesis gas and trapping those metals in an inert matrix.
The proposed condition provides a means of quantifying this premise.
4. Speculative Accumulation and Storage of Excluded Materials
The fourth condition of the proposed exclusion specifies that
excluded hazardous oil-bearing secondary materials may not be placed on
the land, or speculatively accumulated prior to insertion into a
gasification system. This condition further defines gasification of
excluded oil-bearing materials as a manufacturing activity because it
requires that the excluded materials are handled as a valuable feed to
the gasification system. We know of no gasification system (or for that
matter, any refinery) which stores these materials on the land, and to
do so would indicate that the materials are being handled as waste, not
feedstock (since physical integrity of the ostensibly-valuable feed
materials could no longer be assured, and there would be large-scale
losses of the oil-bearing secondary materials due to the land
placement). Thus, the physical characteristics of hazardous oil-bearing
secondary materials from the petroleum industry should preclude storing
the material in anything other than tanks or containers. This is
because the material is generally comprised of tar-like oily substances
that are not amenable for land storage.
The proposed condition prohibiting speculative accumulation of the
excluded oil-bearing secondary materials before they are inserted into
the gasification system ensures that legitimate quantities of the waste
material are being recycled rather than being stored to avoid
regulation. We feel that this condition also is necessary to assure
that recycling actually occurs, and that materials are not discarded by
being stored for extended periods. Furthermore, this condition is
consistent with the condition that we
[[Page 13692]]
adopted for excluded oil-bearing residuals returned to refinery
processes. See 60 FR 57752.
B. What Are the Proposed Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements?
There are no specific recordkeeping and reporting requirements
associated with this proposal. However, we are seeking comment whether
any records and reporting are necessary in addition to the current
documentation requirement associated with 40 CFR 261.2(f) for materials
that would be excluded from the definition of solid waste under today's
notice. 40 CFR 261.2(f) does not contain specific record keeping
requirements but it does require the respondent to bear the burden of
showing, through appropriate documentation, that the excluded material
is being processed in a manner that meets the conditions in the claimed
exclusion. We offer this information as a reminder and are not
reopening this provision for comment.
In today's notice, we are proposing to exclude hazardous oil-
bearing secondary materials generated from the petroleum refinery
industry (SIC 2911) that are destined for gasification whether or not
the gasification system is located at a refinery. We note that allowing
the secondary petroleum streams to go to facilities outside the
petroleum refining industry is somewhat different than the structure of
40 CFR 261.4(a)(12)(i), which the Agency has used as a model for
today's proposal. 40 CFR 261.4(a)(12)(i) excludes from RCRA
jurisdiction, under certain conditions, oil-bearing secondary materials
generated by petroleum refineries when the materials are re-inserted
into the petroleum refining process (either at the refinery generating
the secondary material or at another off-site petroleum refinery, as
long as the materials are shipped directly). 40 CFR 261.4(a)(12)(i)
does not specify recordkeeping requirements, except 40 CFR 261.2(f)
applies to respondents claiming the exclusion.
In today's proposal, however, we believe that excluding materials
processed in gasification systems operating independent (or off-site)
of petroleum refineries is appropriate because gasification is a
process employed by petroleum refineries to upgrade low value organic
material into fuels, and the purpose and operation of the system
remains the same whether the system is operated at the same location
the oil-bearing materials are generated or elsewhere. Since today's
proposal would be somewhat more expansive than the exclusion at 40 CFR
261.4(a)(12)(i), we are requesting comment on whether further
clarification of recordkeeping and reporting requirements is necessary
in addition to the 40 CFR 261.2(f) documentation requirement to ensure
that excluded materials are appropriately processed. The purpose of
recordkeeping, recording and documentation would be to: (1) Ensure that
the excluded materials are indeed fed to a gasification facility; (2)
the materials are handled appropriately prior to introduction to the
gasification system; (3) the synthesis gas fuel ultimately produced
meets the synthesis gas specifications; (4) the inorganic residues
produced by the gasification system that are placed on the land do not
exceed the nonwastewater UTS for metals found in the input refinery
material fed to the gasification system; and (5) the residue does not
exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic under subpart C, part 261. One
proposed rule, ``Requirements for Zinc Fertilizers Made From Recycled
Hazardous Secondary Materials'' (See 65 FR 70954, November 28, 2000)
provides an example of additional recordkeeping and reporting
requirements that could be used to verify that the conditions of an
exclusion are met.
EPA is interested in obtaining comments on what specific records
would be necessary to document whether: (1) The synthesis gas generated
from a gasification system, using excluded secondary materials, meets
the synthesis gas fuel specification under 40 CFR 261.38(b); (2) the
residue generated from the gasification system meets the UTS levels in
40 CFR 268.48 for specific inorganic metals; and (3) the residue
generated from the gasification system fails to exhibit a hazardous
waste characteristic as defined in part 261, subpart C. We are also
interested in receiving comments that explain the different types of
information petroleum refinery operators currently keep to demonstrate
compliance with other solid waste exclusions (such as 40 CFR
261.(a)(12)(i)) that rely on 40 CFR 261.2(f) to demonstrate compliance
with the conditions of the exclusions and whether such information is
routinely maintained as a type of industry practice.
C. How Do We Ensure Excluded Material Is Processed in a Gasification
System?
As with other exclusions and exemptions from the definition of
solid waste, the person claiming the exclusion must be able to produce
whatever documentation is necessary to demonstrate that the material is
excluded from regulation (see Sec. 261.2(f)). EPA recommends that to
make this demonstration, petroleum refineries document the amount of
secondary material excluded, and the location that these materials are
processed in a gasification system, as well as maintaining
documentation to demonstrate compliance with the enumerated conditions
of today's proposed exclusion.
D. Are We Concerned About Volatile Metals in the Excluded Material?
We are aware that certain metals, which can be found in low
concentrations in petroleum refining secondary materials, can be
processed by a gasification system and end up in the product synthesis
gas. The metals of most concern, based on their inherent properties,
are lead and mercury; however, based on data we received from the
petroleum refining industry, we do not believe that synthesis gas
manufactured from oil-bearing materials will contain sufficient
concentrations of these metals to create an emissions hazard if the
fuel is burned for energy recovery. Nevertheless, because there is a
potential for volatile metals to partition to the synthesis gas
product, we are proposing that the synthesis gas must meet the
specifications of 40 CFR 261.38(b) if used as a fuel, which limits the
concentration of those metals to levels we deemed appropriate for
hazardous waste-derived synthesis gas excluded from RCRA regulation. As
explained earlier, the fuel specification serves as a means to ensure
that the process produces a fuel product rather than a means to dispose
of waste.
E. Are We Concerned About Dioxin Emissions From the Processing of
Excluded Material?
In contrast to devices that burn organic compounds, gasification
systems are designed to promote the thermal decomposition of organic-
containing compounds and limit the formation of compounds with a
greater molecular weight than methane. This design characteristic
limits the formation of dioxin pre-cursors in the high temperature
reactor. Formation in the PM control units is controlled by the lack of
dioxin precursors, the lack of particulate matter, and the lack of a
favorable temperature profile. Analytical data submitted by Texaco and
Dow support the contention that dioxin is not generated during
synthesis gas production. The reader is referred to the docket for
additional information.
In addition to the theoretical arguments and analytical data
supporting the contention that synthesis
[[Page 13693]]
gas does not contain dioxin, we also limit the amount of dioxin that
can exist in synthesis gas fuel directly through the application of the
synthesis gas fuel specification found at 40 CFR 261.38(b). The
synthesis gas specifications that apply as a condition of the exclusion
do not allow significant concentrations of dioxin to be present in the
product gas. These factors, as well as analytical results that show low
concentrations of dioxin in the produced synthesis gas, lead us to
conclude that controls to limit the formation of dioxin in the
synthesis gas are unnecessary to propose. Additionally, we recognize
that the down stream applications of the synthesis gas will also
control the levels of dioxin that may be released to the atmosphere or
to other products manufactured from the synthesis gas. Specifically, we
believe that any dioxin compounds that exist (at low concentrations) in
the synthesis gas will be appropriately controlled under the applicable
MACT rules if the synthesis gas is burned to produce electricity in a
gas turbine. Therefore, we believe that concerns regarding dioxin
formation are adequately addressed in today's proposal and we are not
proposing any additional requirements to specifically limit dioxin
emissions as a result of downstream uses of the synthesis gas fuel.
VIII. Other Hazardous Secondary Materials That Could Also Be
Conditionally Excluded When Processed in a Gasification System
Today's proposed exclusion from the definition of solid waste is
based largely on two central themes. First, gasification is a
legitimate manufacturing process for processing secondary materials in
an efficient and environmentally protective manner and is better viewed
as a manufacturing activity rather than waste recycling. Second,
hazardous oil bearing secondary materials from the petroleum refining
industry (SIC 2911) are especially appropriate for use in such units.
With respect to these points, EPA is soliciting comment on expanding
the exclusion to allow for other hazardous secondary materials to be
conditionally excluded from the definition of solid waste if they are
processed in a gasification system.
A. What Are the Environmental Benefits of a Broader Exclusion?
The gasification of hazardous waste can be viewed as an innovative
extension of the conventional fuels gasification technology for
synthesis gas. The gasification of hazardous secondary materials (i.e.,
hazardous waste), in this manufacturing application, has the potential
to significantly reduce pollution to the environment by allowing for
the continued processing of hydrocarbon materials that would otherwise
be treated and/or land disposed.\23\ The downstream uses of the
products generated by the gasification process also have environmental
benefit. When the synthesis gas is burned for energy recovery it
displaces fossil fuels that would be used for the same energy
production. Plus, it displaces the energy used to liberate, transport,
and prepare the fossil fuels for use, as well as the pollution that
results from removing, transporting and processing the fossil fuels.
When synthesis gas is used as a feedstock for the manufacture of
chemicals such as acetic acid, acetic anhydride, oxoalcohols, butanol,
methanol, ammonia, and hydrogen, it displaces other feedstock that take
energy to produce and prepare for manufacturing. Furthermore, when
other non-fuel co-products are manufactured in the gasification system,
e.g., elemental sulfur, sulfuric acid, chlorine, hydrochloric acid and
ammonia, the co-products displace similar products manufactured
conventionally. This reduces pollution to the environment associated
with the conventional manufacturing processes that do not use secondary
materials as a component of the feed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Texaco Gasification
Process--Innovative Technology Evaluation Report. July 1995. EPA/
540/R-94/514.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What Is the Regulatory Status of a Gasification System?
Under existing regulations, hazardous secondary materials that are
processed in a gasification system to produce synthesis gas and is used
or re-used in an industrial process to manufacture legitimate products
are not subject to RCRA jurisdiction through the provisions of 40 CFR
261.2(e)(1)(i). This provision excludes materials from the definition
of solid waste if the materials are ``used or re-used as ingredients in
an industrial process to make a product, provided the materials are not
being reclaimed.'' As a result, gasification systems that manufacture
synthesis gas, used exclusively in other on-going manufacturing
processes, are currently not subject to RCRA jurisdiction because the
materials being processed by the system are never solid wastes.
Conversely, hazardous secondary materials that are processed in a
gasification system to produce synthesis gas that is used as a fuel
remain regulated by RCRA in accordance with 40 CFR 261.2(c)(2) and the
applicable regulatory provisions in Secs. 261.6 and 266.100 et seq. See
63 FR at 33791 (June 19, 1998); see also Sec. 261.2(e)(2)(ii), which
says that the exclusion for secondary materials being used or reused
does not apply to secondary materials that are burned for energy
recovery, used to produce fuels, or contained in fuels. Thus,
gasification systems that produce synthesis gas used as a fuel are
subject to RCRA jurisdiction because the materials being processed are
solid wastes (assuming that the secondary materials being processed are
also hazardous wastes).
In the past, we have stated that gasification systems processing
hazardous waste materials are exempt from RCRA permitting because they
are engaged in recycling (assuming that legitimate recycling is
occurring).\24\ Designating gasification systems as recycling units
exempts them from RCRA permitting, but it does not exclude the material
being processed from RCRA regulation. This results in the synthesis gas
fuel being designated as a waste-derived fuel and would require that
all parties comply with the regulations that apply to the generation,
transportation, storage and handling of the hazardous waste materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See OSWER Directives 9441.1995(18), and 9432.1996(01).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hazardous waste-derived synthesis gas fuel can be excluded from
regulation under the provisions of the synthesis gas exclusion found at
40 CFR 261.38(b). This section provides an exclusion from the
definition of solid waste for synthesis gas fuels that meet the
composition specifications of the provision. This exclusion applies at
the point the fuel is produced. We recognize that this results in a
situation where under one use, the product synthesis gas (i.e., as a
chemical intermediate), is excluded, but under a different use (i.e.,
as a fuel) the product synthesis gas is regulated. This is problematic
considering the fact that the synthesis gas product remains the same
whether it's used as an ingredient in an industrial process or as fuel,
and the device itself is unregulated by RCRA in either case.
Furthermore, available information suggests that chemical industry
gasification systems may not be dedicated to only one use for the
synthesis gas, i.e., gasification systems may produce synthesis gas
both for the manufacture of chemical products and as a fuel.\25\ See
the ``Comment Response
[[Page 13694]]
Document'' in Docket Number F-98-RCSF-FFFFF for additional information
on this point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See letter from Mr. Dan Pearson, Executive Director, Texas
Natural Resource Conservation Commission to Mr. Randall A. Jones,
Director, Regulatory Affairs, Molten Metals Technology, Re: Proposed
Catalytic Extraction Processing (CEP) Facility--Bay City, Texas.
February 27, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. What Are the Conditions of the Broader Exclusion?
In today's notice, we are also requesting comment on a proposed
expansion of the conditional exclusion from the definition of solid
waste (discussed earlier in today's notice) to additional hazardous
secondary materials.\26\ Under this alternative proposal, one
exclusion, under a set of expanded conditions, could be promulgated for
hazardous secondary materials, including those from the petroleum
industry, destined for processing in a gasification system to produce
synthesis gas fuel and other chemical products. We believe that because
of the unique properties of synthesis gas and the operational
capabilities of gasification systems, as well as its environmental
benefits, it is appropriate to suggest and solicit comment on
broadening the exclusion in this way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Information available to the Agency suggests that there are
other secondary materials amenable to gasification. For example,
municipal waste and sewage sludge, contaminated soil, tires, and
coal ash may be gasified to produce synthesis gas and other valuable
products. Used oil, is another example of a material that the Agency
believes can be processed in a gasification system to produce
synthesis gas (i.e., fuel). The reader is referred to the docket
supporting this proposal for additional information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To expand the exclusion to address additional hazardous secondary
materials, three modifications to the current proposal could be made.
First, in the third condition of the proposed exclusion, i.e., land
placement of products, co-products, and solid waste residuals, the
number of hazardous inorganic constituents required to meet UTS would
increase from six to fifteen. The addition of nine hazardous inorganic
constituents, captures the entire suite of inorganic constituents
regulated by RCRA in 40 CFR 268.48 and further ensures that the co-
products or residues generated by the gasification system do not
contain any toxic inorganics with a potential for leaching greater than
allowed by the requirements of the land disposal restrictions. These
additional constituents are all toxic metals, except for cyanide.
As mentioned previously, we have data showing metals will partition
with the ash into the slag residue generated by the gasification
process and be effectively immobilized. As we have discussed earlier,
these metal constituents do not contribute to the gaseous fuel or to
the gasification process. We are also proposing to add cyanide (both
total and amenable) to the array of hazardous inorganic constituents
being regulated. It is believed that cyanide will effectively
dissociate in the gasification process contributing to the production
of the synthesis gas. As such, there should not be any measurable
quantities of cyanide in the co-products or residuals. The expansion of
this condition to include all the RCRA toxic inorganics ensures that
the gasification system is being operated for the production purpose
claimed. As previously discussed, part of the operating premise of
gasification is that it preferentially converts organic matter in
secondary materials into fuels (or intermediates) while removing metals
from raw synthesis gas and immobilizing those metals in an inert
matrix. This condition is a means of quantifying this premise.
The second modification would be the addition of a fifth condition.
This condition would require each hazardous secondary material
processed in a gasification system to contain greater than 20% by
weight total organic carbon (TOC). The addition of this condition
ensures that every secondary material processed in a gasification
system contributes to the manufacture of the synthesis gas and so
eliminates an incentive to claim to be performing ``gasification'' for
the real purpose of avoiding hazardous waste treatment. The 20% TOC
threshold approximates the lowest value material known to be
effectively processed in a gasification system for synthesis fuel
production. The 20% TOC threshold represents the level which we believe
is reasonable both economically and technologically to ensure
legitimate manufacturing by the gasification system. The Agency
recognizes that by including such a condition, it could restrict
certain hazardous secondary material from being processed in a
gasification system under the exclusion. However, without a complete
understanding of these activities and knowledge of the types of
hazardous secondary materials that could be processed through such an
operation, we believe that with this broader exclusion, a TOC threshold
of 20% is a necessary condition to ensure that legitimate manufacturing
activities are taking place. Unlike hazardous oil-bearing secondary
materials from the petroleum refining industry, little information
exists that provides a comprehensive assessment of gasification's
performance on other RCRA hazardous waste. (See: A Comparison of
Gasification and Incineration of Hazardous Waste--Final Report. United
States Department of Energy. DCN 99.803931.02. March 30, 2000).
However, the Agency specifically solicits comment on the
appropriateness of requiring each hazardous secondary material to have
a 20% by weight TOC content. In addition, the Agency also requests
comment on alternative indicators, other than TOC, that could be used
to ensure that hazardous secondary materials are used legitimately in
gasification systems to manufacture synthesis gas fuel and other
products.
The third or final modification to the exclusion would be a
prohibition on the use of any mercury-containing hazardous secondary
material into the gasification system for the manufacturing of
synthesis gas. As discussed previously in the preamble (See section V.
D--What Air Emissions Result From Gasification Systems?), the Agency is
concerned with the potential for highly volatile metals, in particular
mercury, to be emitted out the stack of devices (i.e., turbines) firing
synthesis gas produced by a gasification system. As discussed earlier,
this is not a concern, for the petroleum refining exclusion being
proposed today, because hazardous oil-bearing secondary materials from
the petroleum refining industry are not expected to contain significant
quantities of mercury. However, the Agency is concerned that the
specification for the synthesis gas exclusion (see 40 CFR 261.38(b))
which requires that the synthesis gas contain less than 1 part per
million by volume of each RCRA metal, including mercury, may not
represent the concentration of metals that realistically exists in
synthesis gas derived from hazardous waste.\27\ To that end, the Agency
proposes a sixth condition to the broader exclusion--a prohibition on
the use of hazardous secondary materials containing mercury. This
prohibition would exclude, from processing in a gasification system,
any hazardous waste which exhibits the characteristic of mercury and
any hazardous waste for which mercury was a basis for listing under 40
CFR part 261, appendix VII.
[[Page 13695]]
This would include the RCRA hazardous wastes D009, K071, K106, F039,
U151, P065 and P092. The Agency also solicits comment on expanding this
prohibition to include other highly volatile metals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ The Agency conducted a preliminary analysis on determining
how much mercury can potentially be emitted from synthesis gas that
is combusted in a turbine if the synthesis gas contains mercury at
the 1ppmv specification level. It was determined that approximately
1.04 tons of mercury could potentially be released from the use of 1
trillion BTU of synthesis gas at the specification levels. If you
would compare this to coal for a similar 1 trillion BTU with a
concentration of 0.1ppmw of mercury, 0.004 tons of mercury could be
potentially released.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With these modifications, a broader exclusion is being suggested,
which the Agency believes should ensure that the processing of excluded
material(s) in a gasification system is a legitimate fuel manufacturing
activity that converts components of hazardous carbonaceous material
into fuel and into non-fuel chemical by-products without containing
high levels of non-contributing toxic components. As such, the option
discussed here conditionally excludes hazardous secondary materials
from the definition of solid waste, at the point they are generated,
when processed in a gasification system provided: (1) Each hazardous
secondary material processed in the system contains greater than 20% by
weight total organic carbon; (2) the system does not process any
hazardous waste which exhibits the characteristic of mercury and any
hazardous waste for which mercury is a basis for listing under 40 CFR
part 261, appendix VII as hazardous secondary materials; (3) the system
meets the definition of a gasification system; (4) the system generates
a synthesis gas fuel that meets the specifications of exempted
synthesis gas; (5) the materials generated by the gasification system
are not placed on the land if they exceed the nonwastewater UTS for
antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium (total),
cyanides (total), cyanides (amenable), lead, mercury, nickel, selenium,
silver, thallium, and vanadium; and (6) the excluded materials are not
placed on the land or speculatively accumulated prior to insertion into
the gasification system.
While the Agency requests comment on all aspects of this proposed
rulemaking, we are specifically soliciting comment, information, and
data on:
The performance of gasification on other hazardous
secondary materials (that are currently hazardous waste) known to
contain low concentrations of metals, e.g., hazardous secondary
materials that are generated outside SIC 2911, such as spent potliner
from the primary aluminum industry (K088).
The performance of gasification on certain hazardous
secondary materials that contain high concentrations of non-
contributing components (namely metals or halides).
Potential partitioning of metals to the product synthesis
gas and their subsequent release during the combustion of the synthesis
gas in turbines to produce electricity or steam.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ To address this issue, we are requesting comment on a
number of approaches to revise the synthesis gas specifications
found at 40 CFR 261.38(b). In particular, the Agency is interested
in soliciting comment on the specifications for highly volatile
metals. The approaches we are considering can be found in the docket
of today's proposal entitled Options to Revise the Synthesis Gas
Specification. We specifically request comment on this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether the Agency should develop a set of general
criteria for the types of hazardous secondary materials that would be
appropriate for gasification, and what those criteria might be.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ States could then develop procedures for identifying
specific waste streams that are excluded, using either rulemaking
procedures or a variance process. A variance process might be
similar to the provisions already found at 40 CFR 260.31 for certain
exclusions from the definition of solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether the Agency should require specific design and
operating conditions for all components of the gasification systems,
including the gas cleanup or polishing systems and the secondary
product recovery systems and what they would be.
The market for building and operating gasification systems
in the future, including future capacity for gasification.
The market for synthesis gas and other products from
gasification, including non-fuel products recovered in the process.
Finally, we recognize that in order to achieve the benefits of
gasification, secondary materials must be safely transported and
handled prior to delivery at the gasification facility, and actually
delivered for use as a feedstock to the facilities. We note that a
number of factors work towards safe delivery, including Department of
Transportation regulations for hazardous materials, and the threat of
legal liabilities under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) for spilled or disposed
hazardous materials. Further, there are currently only a very few
gasification facilities that have indicated any interest in accepting
hazardous secondary materials, and they have indicated they must have
contracts for acceptance of materials, including technical
specifications that limit the types of materials that the particular
unit may accept as a feedstock. Also, as explained in more detail in
the next section, current regulation requires a person claiming an
exclusion to produce appropriate documentation to show he or she
actually meets the terms of the exclusion, which may mean, for example,
producing contracts with a gasification facility, records of shipment
and delivery of materials to the gasification system.
The RCRA hazardous waste universe is broad with over 18,000 large
quantity generators and many more small quantity generators. Concerns
have been raised that generators, perhaps working with waste brokers,
may falsely claim to be sending material to gasification systems for
processing as a feedstock, when, in fact, they are simply trying to
evade regulation. Therefore, the Agency is specifically seeking comment
(as we note in the next section) on whether some sort of mechanism,
beyond current regulations, should be imposed to ensure that these
secondary materials arrive at the gasification facility and are used as
feedstock. Also, we request comment on whether an exclusion should
apply when brokers are involved, and if so, whether the exclusion
should apply in that case beginning only when the material is shipped
from the broker to the gasification facility (i.e., the broker would be
regulated under the RCRA rules).
In any event, should improper management occur, despite the factors
described above, the exclusion proposed today would not apply and
parties would be subject to enforcement action, possibly leading to
criminal penalties. We seek comment on the checks and balances
described above and whether they adequately address the concerns over
possible improper use of the exclusion.
D. What Are the Proposed Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for
This Broader Exclusion?
As with the petroleum refining conditional exclusion previously
discussed in this preamble, there are no specific recordkeeping and
reporting requirements specifically associated with this broader
conditional exclusion. However, we are seeking comment as to whether
any records and/or reporting are necessary in addition to the current
documentation requirement associated with 40 CFR 261.2(f) for materials
that would be excluded from the definition of solid waste. 40 CFR
261.2(f) does not contain specific recordkeeping requirements but it
does require the respondent to bear the burden of showing, through
appropriate documentation, that the excluded material is being
processed in a manner that meets the conditions in the claimed
exclusion. We offer this information again as a reminder and are not
reopening this provision for comment.
[[Page 13696]]
In this broader exclusion, we are proposing to exclude hazardous
secondary materials, meeting certain conditions, from the definition of
solid waste whether the gasification system is located on-site or off-
site. We again note that allowing the secondary streams to go to
facilities off-site is somewhat different than the structure of 40 CFR
261.4(a)(12)(i), which the Agency has used as a model for today's
proposal. 40 CFR 261.4(a)(12)(i) does not specify recordkeeping
requirements, except 40 CFR 261.2(f) applies to respondents claiming
the exclusion.
In this broader exclusion, however, we believe that excluding
materials processed in gasification systems operating independent (or
off-site) is appropriate because gasification is a process employed by
industry to manufacture synthesis gas. The purpose and operation of the
system remains the same whether the system is operated at the same
location that the secondary materials are generated or elsewhere. As
with the petroleum refining conditional exclusion being proposed today,
we are again requesting comment on whether further clarification of
recordkeeping and reporting requirements is necessary in addition to
the 40 CFR 261.2(f) documentation requirement to ensure that excluded
materials are appropriately processed. The purpose of recordkeeping,
recording and documentation would be to ensure: (1) That the excluded
materials are indeed fed to a gasification facility; (2) each hazardous
secondary materials has a TOC content of at least 20%; (3) no mercury-
containing hazardous wastes are processed in the gasification system;
(4) the materials are handled appropriately prior to introduction to
the gasification system; (5) the synthesis gas fuel ultimately produced
meets the synthesis gas specifications; (6) the inorganic residues
produced by the gasification system that are placed on the land do not
exceed the nonwastewater UTS for the inorganic constituents found in 40
CFR 268.48; and (7) the residue does not exhibit a hazardous waste
characteristic under subpart C, part 261. As mentioned previously, the
proposed rule, ``Requirements for Zinc Fertilizers Made From Recycled
Hazardous Secondary Materials'' (See 65 FR 70954, November 28, 2000)
provides an example of additional recordkeeping and reporting
requirements that could be used to verify that the conditions of an
exclusion are met.
EPA is interested in obtaining comments on what specific records
would be necessary to document whether: (1) The synthesis gas generated
from a gasification system, using excluded secondary materials, meets
the synthesis gas fuel specification under 40 CFR 261.38(b); (2) the
residue generated from the gasification system meets the UTS levels in
40 CFR 268.48 for specific inorganic metals; and (3) the residue
generated from the gasification system fails to exhibit a hazardous
waste characteristic as defined in part 261, subpart C. We are also
interested in receiving comments that explain the different types of
information industry operators currently keep to demonstrate compliance
with other solid waste exclusions (such as 40 CFR 261.(a)(12)(i)) that
rely on 40 CFR 261.2(f) to demonstrate compliance with the conditions
of the exclusions and whether such information is routinely maintained
as a type of industry practice.
IX. State Authorization
A. Statutory Authority
Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize qualified States to
administer the RCRA hazardous waste program within the State. See 40
CFR part 271 for the overall standards and requirements for
authorization. Following authorization, the State requirements
authorized by EPA apply in lieu of equivalent Federal requirements and
become Federally enforceable as requirements of RCRA. EPA maintains
independent authority to bring enforcement actions under RCRA sections
3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003. Authorized States also have independent
authority to bring enforcement actions under State law. A State may
receive authorization by following the approval process described under
40 CFR part part 271.
After a State receives initial authorization, new Federal
requirements promulgated under RCRA authority existing prior to the
1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) do not apply in that
State until the State adopts and receives authorization for equivalent
State requirements. The State must adopt such requirements to maintain
authorization.
In contrast, under RCRA section 3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), new
Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed pursuant to HSWA
provisions take effect in authorized States at the same time that they
take effect in unauthorized States. Although authorized States are
still required to update their hazardous waste programs to remain
equivalent to the Federal program, EPA carries out HSWA requirements
and prohibitions in authorized States, including the issuance of new
permits implementing those requirements, until EPA authorizes the State
to do so. Authorized States are required to modify their programs only
when EPA promulgates Federal requirements that are more stringent or
broader in scope than existing Federal requirements. RCRA section 3009
allows the States to impose standards more stringent than those in the
Federal program. See also 40 CFR 271.1(i). Therefore, authorized States
are not required to adopt Federal regulations, both HSWA and non-HSWA,
that are considered less stringent.
B. Effect on State Authorization
Today's proposal would be promulgated pursuant to non-HSWA
authority, and contains provisions that are less stringent than the
current Federal program. The conditional exclusion for hazardous waste
processed in a gasification system would be less stringent.
Consequently, States would not be required to adopt the proposed
exclusion as a condition of authorization of their hazardous waste
programs.
X. Administrative Assessments
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the
Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect, in a
material way, the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by
another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the
principles set forth in the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action''
because of novel legal or policy issues. As such, this action was
submitted for OMB review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions
or
[[Page 13697]]
recommendations will be documented in the public record.
Implementation of this rule may result in considerable positive
economic impacts and positive net benefits. Benefits derive from cost
savings and resource conservation, and potential environmental quality
improvements. There are no costs associated with this rulemaking,
outside of the costs of regulatory development.
Economic Impacts
The proposal discusses limiting the exclusion to facilities in the
petroleum refining industry, defined under the Census Bureaus's
Standard Industrial Classification code 2911. This industry includes
the production of petroleum products through distillation,
fractionation, and/or cracking of crude oil and unfinished petroleum
derivatives. Total 1999 employment in the sector was 63,500 and the
value of products estimated at $170 billion.
Data submitted to EPA in Biennial Reports shows 172 refineries
generated between 7 and 10 million tons of hazardous waste in 1997.
These refineries are currently treating and disposing of their wastes
in compliance with RCRA Subtitle C requirements for management,
treatment, and disposal. We estimate that approximately 20-25% of this
waste is being recycled to petroleum cokers. Some waste is land
disposed. Much of the remaining waste is currently used for fuel (at an
average cost of $75 per ton) or incinerated (which may cost between
$320 and $730 for liquids, sludges, and solids that are not severely
contaminated). Disposal of treatment residuals adds another $60-130 per
ton to waste management costs. The American Petroleum Institute has
estimated that refineries spent a total of $210 million in 1999 for
waste management.
Significant uncertainties make it difficult to estimate the impacts
of this rulemaking. Because so few facilities are gasifying hazardous
wastes, there is not a robust body of data on the operational
characteristics of the devices with these feedstocks. We do not have
good information on the proportion of these secondary materials that
could efficiently serve as supplements to the primary feedstocks of
coal and petroleum coke, nor do we have a clear idea of the types of
wastes that might be amenable to the process; therefore we are
requesting comment on these issue with this proposal.
In addition, we believe that an exclusion for all refinery wastes
would foster competition in the market for these secondary materials.
Since these materials are replacing (to some extent) other feedstocks
for the gasification system, tipping fees for these materials could be
charged. We have not attempted to model this market, nor determine
supply and demand or prices. It is clear, however, that revenue streams
from tipping fees would be bounded by current management costs.
EPA is aware of four refineries who are currently gasifying some
residuals; all refineries are eligible to take advantage of this
exclusion. It does seem likely that other refiners would be interested
in reducing their waste management costs by sending wastes to
gasification systems, whether to on-site captive facilities or to off-
site gasification facilities. Similarly, these units should be eager to
gain tipping fees for feedstocks. Therefore, transportation costs and
the technical specification requirements for gasification feedstocks
are likely to be the chief limiting factors in moving petroleum wastes
into these systems. Within those constraints, this proposal could lead
to a substantial reduction in that $210 million spent by refineries on
waste management. Concomitantly, gasifiers would receive economic
gains, with losses to the hazardous waste treatment and disposal
industry.
Costs and Benefits
Costs associated with this rule are expected to be minimal,
including time to read the rule, residual (i.e., slag) testing and
other tasks to meet the conditions. Losses to the hazardous waste
treatment and disposal industry are expected to constitute transfers to
generators and gasification owner/operators; although these may be
significant impacts, they are not true economic costs. Therefore, the
direction of social benefits from this proposal can only be positive.
These uncertainties and assumptions, therefore, do not affect the
Agency's assessment of positive net benefits stemming from this rule;
they only affect the magnitude of that net benefit.
Benefits From This Rule Are Likely To Include
Cost savings: Savings in treatment and disposal costs for wastes.
The magnitude of these savings is difficult to project, but the upper
bound would be the $210 million that refineries are currently spending
on waste management. Depending on how markets and prices develop, this
rule could also result in reduced costs of electricity, and reduced
costs for chemical intermediates that gasification systems produce. In
addition, both generators of refinery wastes and Federal/state RCRA
regulating agencies are expected to save administrative burden and
costs because of this regulatory change.
Resource conservation benefits: We project that this rule will
facilitate gasifiers in substituting secondary materials (formerly
disposed as wastes) for coal. To the extent that this rule induces
power generators to burn synthesis gas instead of coal, there is the
potential for additional resource conservation benefits. Potential
environmental benefits exist if that substitution takes place, since
synthesis gas is a much cleaner fuel than coal and produces less
harmful emissions.
More detail on costs and benefits of the rulemaking are provided in
the memorandum entitled, Regulatory Impacts of Proposed Exclusions of
Petroleum Refinery Wastes, which accompanies this proposal.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et.
seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business; (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In
determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603
and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a
[[Page 13698]]
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive
economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule. This
proposal is de-regulatory in nature. The primary industry affected by
this rule is the petroleum refining industry, and it will not cause
adverse effects to this industry. We have therefore concluded that
today's proposed rule will relieve regulatory burden for all small
entities. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal Agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
must prepare a written analysis, 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. If a
written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires
EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives. Under section 205, EPA must adopt the least costly, most
cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the
objectives of the rule, unless the Administrator publishes with the
final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. The
provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with
applicable law.
Today's proposed rule contains no Federal mandates (under the
regulatory provisions of Title II of UMRA) for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. This is because today's proposed
rule is de-regulatory and imposes no enforceable duty on any State,
local or tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, today's rule
is not subject to the requirements of sections 202, 204 and 205 of
UMRA.
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 UMRA 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
this rule will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
This is because today's proposed rule is de-regulatory and imposes no
enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the
private sector. Today's rule is not, therefore, subject to the
requirements of section 203 of UMRA.
D. Federalism--Applicability of Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This is because today's proposed
rule is de-regulatory and imposes no enforceable duty on any State,
local or tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.
E. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
This is because today's proposed rule is de-regulatory and imposes no
enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the
private sector. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and tribal governments,
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from
tribal officials.
F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental
Risks and Safety Risks
The Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) applies to any rule that EPA determines (1) is ``economically
significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) the
environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule has a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children; and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives. This proposed rule is not subject to
the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as
defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have
reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by
this action present a disproportionate risk to children. The public is
invited to submit or identify peer-reviewed studies and data, of which
the agency may not be aware.
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272
[[Page 13699]]
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. The
proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore, the Agency
conducted a search to identify potentially applicable voluntary
consensus standards. However, we identified no such standards.
Therefore, EPA proposes to use the constituent specification limits of
the synthesis gas exclusion found at 40 CFR 261.38(b) to establish the
legitimacy of the fuel, and the universal treatment standards for
chromium, lead, nickel, vanadium, arsenic, and antimony to establish
the legitimacy of products placed on the land.
EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such
standards should be used in this regulation.
H. Executive Order 12898
EPA is committed to addressing environmental justice concerns and
is assuming a leadership role in environmental justice initiatives to
enhance environmental quality for all populations in 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 or environmental
impacts as a result of EPA's policies, programs, and activities, and
that all people live in safe and healthful environments. In response to
Executive Order 12898 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).
Today's proposed rule pertains to hazardous oil-bearing secondary
materials processed in a gasification system to produce valuable
products. It is not certain whether the environmental problems
addressed by this rule could disproportionately affect minority or low-
income communities. Today's proposed rule is intended to reduce risks
of excluded hazardous secondary materials 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 wastes proposed for exclusion will be subject to protective
conditions regardless of where they are generated and regardless of
where they may be managed. Although the Agency understands that this
proposed exclusion, if finalized, may affect where these wastes are
managed in the future, the Agency's decision to conditionally exclude
these materials is independent of any decisions regarding the location
of waste generators and the siting of waste gasification facilities.
Today's proposed rule will reduce loadings of oil-bearing wastes to the
soil, and reduce emissions to the atmosphere. EPA believes that these
provisions of the proposal will benefit all populations in the United
States, including low-income and minority communities.
We encourage all stakeholders including members of the
environmental justice community and members of the regulated community
to provide comments or further information related to potential
environmental justice concerns or impacts, including information and
data on facilities that have evaluated potential ecological and human
health impacts (taking into account subsistence patterns and sensitive
populations) to minority or low-income communities.
I. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
This proposal is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. We have concluded
that this proposal will not have any adverse energy effects. It is a
de-regulatory proposal that will primarily affect the petroleum
refinery industry (SIC classification 2911). If adopted, the proposal
will promote the practice of petroleum refineries processing their
hazardous oil-bearing secondary material (materials historically
classified as hazardous waste) in gasification systems to produce
synthesis gas fuel. Synthesis gas fuel is an alternative fuel composed
primarily of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. When used to produce
electricity in combined cycle turbines, its use allows power generators
to produce electricity more efficiently than other forms of fossil fuel
based electricity production.
J. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.
There are no information collection requirements for this proposed rule
that require an ICR. Furthermore, there are no paperwork requirements
for entities affected by this proposal. Burden means the total time,
effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions;
develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information,
processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing
information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to
respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete
and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless
it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR
chapter 15.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 260
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 19, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble. Chapter I of title 40 of
the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
[[Page 13700]]
PART 260--HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
1. The authority citation for part 260 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921-6927, 6930, 6934, 6935,
6937-6939, and 6974.
2. Section 260.10 is amended by adding a new definition for
``gasification system'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 260.10 Definitions.
* * * * *
Gasification system means an enclosed thermal device and associated
gas cleaning system or systems that does not meet the definition of an
incinerator or industrial furnace (found at Secs. 260.10), and that:
(1) Limits oxygen concentrations in the enclosed thermal device to
prevent the full oxidization of thermally disassociated gaseous
compounds;
(2) Utilizes a gas cleanup system or systems designed to remove
contaminants from the partially oxidized gas that do not contribute to
its fuel value;
(3) Slags inorganic feed materials at temperatures above 2000 deg.F
;
(4) Produces a synthesis gas; and
(5) Is equipped with monitoring devices that ensure the quality of
the synthesis gas produced by the gasification system.
* * * * *
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 261.4 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(12)(iii) to
read as follows:
Sec. 261.4 Exclusions.
(a) * * *
(12) * * *
(iii)(A) Hazardous oil-bearing secondary materials (i.e., sludges,
byproducts, or spent materials) that are generated at a petroleum
refinery (SIC 2911) and inserted into a gasification system (defined in
Sec. 260.10 of this chapter) to produce a synthesis gas used as an
ingredient in chemical manufacture or as a fuel, subject to the
conditions of paragraph (a)(12)(iii)(B) of this section.
(B) Conditions.
(1) Synthesis gas used as a fuel must meet the specifications of
Sec. 261.38(b) of this part;
(2) The hazardous oil-bearing secondary material must not be placed
on the land prior to insertion in the gasification system;
(3) The hazardous oil-bearing secondary material must not be
speculatively accumulated prior to insertion in the gasification
system, unless a variance has been granted under Sec. 260.31(a) of this
chapter; and
(4) Any materials (by-products, sludges, ``frits'', bottoms)
generated by the gasification system that are excluded under paragraph
(a)(12)(iii) that are placed on the land must meet the non-wastewater
Universal Treatment Standards for chromium, lead, nickel, vanadium,
arsenic, and antimony found at Sec. 268.48 of this chapter.
[FR Doc. 02-7097 Filed 3-22-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P