EPAWATCH Three petroleum wastes proposed as hazardous Three waste streams common to all petroleum refining operations would be listed as hazardous waste and subject to stringent handling and disposal requirements under a proposed rule published Nov. 14 [Federal Register, 1995, 60(233), 57747800]. Refineries produce nearly 3.2 million metric tons of 14 waste stream types each year, according to EPA. The three to be listed—clarified slurry oil sludge and hydrorefining and hydrotreating catalysts—account for less than 2% of that amount. EPA is required to publish a final rule by Oct. 31, 1996, through a consent decree with the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). Under the 1984 amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), EPA was to study refining wastes to determine if they should be regulated. The decision was to be made within 15 months, and during the years of delay, the wastes escaped hazardous waste regulation. In a written statement, the American Petroleum Institute (API) agreed with EPA's conclusion that most of the 14 refinery residuals did not pose significant risks, but said it is withholding judgment on the three proposed for listing. EDF officials would not comment on the rule. In listing the three waste streams as hazardous, EPA would subject them to provisions of RCRAs Subtitle C, according to John Austin of the Office of Solid Waste. Clarified slurry oil sludge, if not recycled into the refining process for oil recovery, had been landfilled or "land treated," he said. Hydrorefining and hydrotreating catalysts are currently landfilled or processed for metals reclamation. The rule would eliminate landfilling and land treatment options for these three wastes. EPA estimates the cost to refineries will be $6.1 million per year, with future annual costs ranging from $6.3 million to
$23.9 million including land disposal restrictions, said Austin. But the rule allows refineries to circumvent the Subtitle C process and thus eliminate disposal costs. The rule would allow refineries to avoid Subtitle C and Subtitle D provisions by defining oil-bearing wastes generated as secondary wastes and allowing them to be immediately recycled into the refining process, Austin said. "The petroleum industry has been lobbying for [the recycling option] for a long time," he said.
Concentration of hazardous waste to determine listing Currently companies must adhere to strict treatment and disposal requirements for any waste that contains hazardous chemicals. Under a new proposal, however, industry will be able to avoid stringent requirements by keeping the concentrations of hazardous chemicals in their waste streams below defined levels. Under the proposed rule, which was signed Nov. 13, more than 21% of the hazardous effluents generated annually would be removed from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act regulatory system. The proposed rule sets "generic, across-the-board" concentration levels for about 400 hazardous chemicals, said Gregory Helms of the Office of Solid Waste. If a waste stream has concentrations below these levels as it exits an industrial process, it would not be listed as a "hazardous waste" under Subtitle C, he said. The rule would save waste generators about $75 million a year in disposal and handling costs, exempting 64 million tons of wastewater and 400,000 tons of nonwastewater hazardous wastes annually, according to Helms. Companies would be allowed to "manipulate" their processes to produce lower concentrations of hazardous chemicals at the exit point to avoid Subtitle C provisions, Helms said. However, companies will not
0013-936X/96/0930-11AS12.00/0© 1995 American Chemical Society
be allowed to dilute their waste after it has exited the process, he said. Concentrations were set by determining the exposure level at which a threat to human health and the environment would occur. EPA then extrapolated back, analyzing transport through all possible exposure pathways, to determine the concentration that defines the waste as hazardous as it exits the plant. The Environmental Technology Council (ETC), an association of waste treaters, supports the multiple pathway analysis concept so long as all pathways in which a chemical may be transported are considered, said Executive Director Doug McMillan. However, he said he is skeptical of EPA's method for conducting such analyses and of the data that were used to determine concentrations for the rule. The data will be a contentious issue during public comment, said David Anderson, a regulatory analyst for the Waste Policy Institute. "There are holes in the data," he said. But Anderson supports the intent of the rule, which he describes as removing the lower risk substances from Subtitle C and focusing on those with greater risks. Companies themselves will implement the rule, which calls for them to test their wastes for hazardous chemicals expected to be present. If the tests show concentrations below the established levels, the company can provide certification to state authorities and be exempted from Subtitle C, Helms said. The ETC sued EPA to force development of the rule, and a court-ordered proposal deadline was set for August. EPA was given a 90-day extension, which ended in November. Publication of the proposed hazardous waste identification rule is expected in mid-December. EPA is particularly interested in comments on site-specific "contingent management options." There will be a 60day comment period. The rule is to be finalized by Dec. 15, 1996.
VOL. 30, NO. 1, 1996 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 1 1 A
