Notice of Data Availability (NODA) Response to Comment Document - Part 1

Osw

Informations

• Publié par: Inke
• Nombre de lectures: 114
• Langue: English

Extrait

NOTICE OF DATA AVAILABILITY (NODA)
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
PART I
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
June 1998TABLE OF CONTENTS
........................................................ 0-1
I. ................................................ I-1
................ I-2
1. ................................. I-8
2. ..................................... I-9
3. ............................................ I-15
4. .................. I-25
5. ................................. I-32
6. ......................... I-48
a. .................................. I-48
...................................... I-54
c. ..................................... I-60
d. ................................... I-66
e. .................................. I-69 I-72
g. .................. I-73
B.
............... I-81
1. .................... I-84
2.
Receptors ............................................. I-85
3. ............................................ I-96
C.
....................... I-99
1. ................... I-99
2. ............. I-155
Potential for Additive Risks from Multiple Sources
Analyses Regarding Leaching of Oily Waste
Refining Process Waste Listing Determination
Supplemental Background Document: Listing Support Analyses: Petroleum
Co-disposal
Model Modifications Regarding Release and Transport of Soil to Off-site
Eliminating Wastes Managed as Hazardous
Petroleum Refining Process Waste Listing Determination
Supplemental Background Document: Non-groundwater Pathway Risk Analysis:
Existing Groundwater Contamination
Dispersivity f.
Plume Centerline
Biodegradation
Landfill Size
Active Life b.
Distance to Well
Other Groundwater Modeling Issues
Waste-Specific Comments
Capping Waste Analysis Results at TC Levels
Co-disposal
Monte Carlo Analysis
Revised High End Analysis
Petroleum Refining Process Waste Listing Determination
Supplemental Background Document: Groundwater Pathway Risk Analysis: A.
Additional Information
General Comments2
General Comments
Comment 1:
00004, pg 1):
a)
b)
Response:
(
Comment 2
0-1
June 29, 1998
sound data and a conservative risk assessment.
from thermal processes; and sludge from HF alkylation. EPA's original proposal was supported by
from liquid treating; unleaded gasoline storage tank sediment; off-specification product and fines
S removal facilities; spent caustic crude oil storage tank sludge; sludge from sulfur complex and H
Scot-like catalyst; catalyst from catalytic reforming; catalyst and fines from catalytic cracking;
residuals: sludge from sulfuric acid alkylation; catalyst from sulfuric acid alkylation; Claus and
NPRA comments on March 14, 1996 supported EPA's original proposal not to list eleven
: Comments on Notice of Data Availability
(b) For responses to comments in paragraph (b), see discussion in Section I.A.6.a.
hydrorefining catalyst and for benzene in crude oil tank sediment are all above 1E-05).
Background Document, USEPA, 1998; risks for benzene and arsenic in hydrotreating catalyst and
the Additional Groundwater Pathway Risk Analysis, Supplemental see Table 5.7 in analysis
discretionary range for waste streams proposed to be listed based on the groundwater pathway
However, both the two high-end parameter and the Monte Carlo analyses show risk above the
EPA to determine the percentile of the risk distribution represented by the two high-end analysis.
(a) The Agency agrees with the commenter that the Monte Carlo approach allows the
other hand, the Section 3007 survey is specific to this rulemaking.
stated at the start of this rulemaking, the OSW database is not refinery specific. On the
specific enough for the refining sector which is the focus of this rulemaking. As EPA
data such as the OSW database was not acceptable because it was too general and was not
distance between landfills and groundwater wells. EPA previously stated that existing
EPA failed to follow its own policy decision by using the OSW database to determine the
analysis. This information is necessary to make a defensible listing decision.
EPA to determine what percentile of the risk distribution is represented by the high-end
basis for the listing decision. The deterministic analysis, on the other hand, does not allow
make the listing determination. EPA should use results of the Monte Carlo risk analysis as
EPA as a superior technical approach to the deterministic approach which EPA used to
for Hydrotreating and Hydrorefining Catalyst . The Monte Carlo analysis is recognized by
EPA’s Monte Carlo analysis conducted with the new data supports a no-listing decision
because of errors in the methodology used to determine the risks as described below (NPRA,
catalysts warrant their listing as RCRA hazardous wastes. EPA overstated the potential risks
demonstrate that the risks from the CSO sediment, hydrotreating catalysts, and hydrorefining
identified in this rulemaking. However, NPRA does not believe that the new data analyses
which is based on both the initial and new data analyses not to list eleven of the fourteen residuals
The National Petroleum Refiners Association (NPRA) supports EPA's decision1
2
1
0004)
Response:
Comment 3:


USEPA, 1998.
0-2
June 29, 1998
Additional Groundwater Pathway Risk Analysis, Supplemental Background Document,
for both the high-end analysis and the co-disposal scenario. In fact, the Monte Carlo analysis
analysis strengthens these results and further highlights the conservatism in EPA’s risk assessment
not warrant listing, even with great conservatism in the risk assessment. EPA’s Monte Carlo
unit. Similarly, for co-disposal, EPA’s analysis emphasizes the fact that these eleven residuals do
would be simultaneously exposed to residuals managed in an on-site landfill or land treatment
the case of additive risks, EPA could find no circumstance which would suggest that individuals
The new analyses clearly support EPA’s no list decision for the eleven residuals listed above. In
listing.
appropriate candidates for in such a manner that they are not solid wastes and, therefore, are not
Additionally, as discussed in API’s March 1996 comments, some of these residuals are often used
eleven residuals is supported by sound data and a conservative, iterative risk assessment process.
proposal. As discussed in API’s comments of March 21, 1996, EPA’s proposal not to list these
from HF alkylation is adequately supported by these new analyses as well as the original listing
storage tank sediment, off-specification product and fines from thermal processes, and sludge
S removal facilities, spent caustic from liquid treating, unleaded gasoline sulfur complex and H
catalyst, catalyst from catalytic reforming, catalyst and fines from catalytic cracking, sludge from
catalyst from sulfuric acid alkylation, crude oil storage tank sludge, Claus catalyst and SCOT-like
and additive risk scenarios. EPA’s proposal not to list sludge from sulfuric acid alkylation,
As part of the NODA, EPA conducted several new analyses, including evaluation of co-disposal
Residuals Considered for Listing Do Not Warrant Listing
EPA Has Ample Support for its Proposal That Eleven of the Fourteen Refinery
Section III.R of the Proposed Rule Response to Comment Document.
I.A.3. For additive risk responses, see Section I.C.2 of this Response to Comment Document and
For waste-specific comment responses, see Section I.A.5. For co-disposal responses, see Section
in the preamble to the final rule.
. The final decisions are based on those results as discussed Supplemental Background Document
conducted additional analyses that are presented in the Additional Groundwater Pathway
The Agency appreciates the commenter’s supportive comments. The Agency has
simultaneously exposed to residuals being managed in a landfill or land treatment unit. (NPRA,
analysis on additive risks did not identify any conditions where individuals would be
EPA's decision not to list these eleven residuals even considering co-disposal. Further, the new
to change EPA's original decision. In fact, the results of the Monte Carlo risk analysis strengthen
The new analysis conducted by EPA and provided in the NODA does not demonstrate any reason(API, 00009)
Response:
I.A.3.
Comment 4:
Response:
Comment 5:
.
0-3
June 29, 1998
than EPA has considered.
associated waste volumes substantially), and reveal co-disposal occurs to a much greater extent
EPA's landfill active life assumptions are extremely and arbitrarily short (thus understating
document the potential for free-phased flow of contaminants in refinery landfills, demonstrate
For example, the NODA materials prove the ineffectiveness of the TCLP on oily and tarry wastes,
the NODA materials actually demonstrate the weaknesses in EPA's methodologies and rationales
As a result, the NODA risk assessments are also fundamentally flawed. Moreover, in many cases,
ignored the previous criticisms or attempted to justify the errors with supplementary information.
refinery wastes), the bulk of the modeling shortcomings remain. In most cases, EPA either
contaminated groundwater, and attempted to evaluate a scenari