Notice of Data Availability (NODA) Response to Comment Document - Part 2

Osw

Informations

• Publié par: Nuther
• Nombre de lectures: 47
• Langue: English

Extrait

NOTICE OF DATA AVAILABILITY (NODA)
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
PART II
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
June 1998TABLE OF CONTENTS
II. .......................................... II-1 II-1
B.
Processes Used as Product ...................................... II-11
1. .......................... II-24
2.
Waste to the Coker II-30
a. .................................. II-30
............................ II-36
c. ................................... II-78
d. ................ II-98
III.
........................... III-2
IV. ................................................... IV-1
........................................... IV-1
B. ................................ IV-18
C. ............................ IV-26
.......................................... IV-34
E. ................................. IV-35
Implications of Listing Catalysts
BIF Rule Exemption D
Waste Management Practices Assessed
Individual versus Population Risk
Conditional Listings A.
Other Comments
Hydrotreating (K171) and Hydrorefining (K172)
Land Disposal Restrictions - Revised Treatment Standards for Spent Catalysts from
Supplemental comments on clarification
Quench Coking
Disagrees with Exclusion b.
Favors Exclusion
EPA Invites Comment on the Potential Impact of Recycling Hazardous
EPA’s jurisdiction over coke fines
Jurisdictional Explanation of Off-Specification Product and Fines from Thermal
Headworks Exemption A.
Clarifications and Corrections2
1
1
2
II. Clarifications and Corrections
II.A. Headworks Exemption
Comment 1: EPA Has Correctly Expanded the Proposed Headworks Exemption to Cover
sludges (K048, K051, F037, and F038). (NPRA, 00004, pg 5)
Response:
Comment 2:
(EDF, 00006)

Response:
Comment 2.a:
not
Therefore, EPA conducted a
60 FR 57781 (November 20, 1995).
See NODA Background Document, Chapter 8, p. 2; Chapter 10, p. 1.
II-1
June 29, 1998
wastewater treatment sludge generation and subsequent disposal.
be repeated because of the expense associated with increased Agency that the practice will
Ironically, the one facility that reported disposing of CSO sludge in 1992 has indicated to the
CSO sediment is based on disposal of the waste itself in the wastewater treatment system.
the waste and cleanout wastewaters. In addition, the NODA risk assessment EPA conducted for
listed waste (sludge) itself. The proposed regulatory language would apply the exemption to both
tanks or other units containing these wastes, or whether the proposed exemption applies to the
proposed exemption is whether it is limited to dilute wastewaters resulting from the cleanout of
Prior to addressing the new risk analyses, the most important aspect of the
See following responses to Comments 2.a through 2.c.
analyses associated with this practice EPA conducted for CSO sludge and the two spent catalysts.
catalysts the Agency intends to list as hazardous in this rulemaking, and solicits comment on risk
In the NODA, EPA proposes expanding the exemption to the two spent treatment system.
generation in the refinery by any means and subsequently discharged into the refinery wastewater
sludge if EPA listed the waste as hazardous) where the residuals are transported from the point of
In 1995, EPA proposed to exempt from regulation CSO sludge (and crude oil tank
The Agency acknowledges the commenter’s support.
Clean Air Act, and the existing RCRA hazardous waste listing for refinery wastewater treatment
refinery wastewater treatment system are sufficiently regulated under the Clean Water Act, the
management of wastewaters associated with CSO sediment and hydroprocessing catalysts in the
of other regulatory programs. EPA correctly points out that the exposure pathways from the
hazards to human health or the environment and require EPA to consider the risk reducing effects
261.11(a)(3). These criteria allow EPA to list only those wastes shown to pose substantial
The proposed exemptions are consistent with EPA's listing criteria in 40 CFR Section
Water Associated with Catalyst Management.4
4
6
3
3
6
5
5
wastewaters
NODA Background Document, Chapter 8, p. 4.
62 FR 16749.
See 62 FR 26019 (May 12, 1997).
II-2
June 29, 1998
believes overstate actual PAH levels found in tank rinsate. EPA should revise these estimates to
Table 2 of Chapter 8 provides estimated rinsate contaminant concentrations that EPA
confirming the effect of diluting 250 MT of waste with large quantities of wastewaters. See
Indeed, EPA's CSO sludge risk assessment is largely a quantitative exercise in
And the generation practice should be limited to rinsate from the wastewater treatment system.
should be expressed as a maximum concentration of contaminants allowed into the facility's
wastewaters should incorporate the regulatory definition of wastewaters in Part 268. "Dilute"
The express limitation to much the same manner as 40 CFR 268.1(e)(4) is currently drafted.
should be limited to dilute wastewaters associated with specific allowable generation practices, in
Insofar as any wastewater treatment system-related exemption is appropriate in this rulemaking, it
potential scope of the exemption, cause the scope issue to remain a matter of great concern.
sludge itself, and the failure by EPA to propose for public comment specific language to limit the
the proposed exemption, the fact that EPA performed the NODA risk assessment on the CSO
the lack of preamble discussion regarding crude oil tank sludge potentially covered by systems",
the Agency's intent to foster the discharge of all CSO sediments to wastewater treatment
Accordingly, while EDF welcomes the Agency's statement in the NODA preamble that it "was not
dilution prohibition and minimized threat treatment requirements in the LDR program.
deficiencies discussed by EDF in its comments on the proposal, including the violation of the
systems. These fundamental shortcomings in the exemption as proposed can be added to the
should not be creating RCRA exemptions that would encourage the suboptimal use of such
, therefore the Agency treatment systems are optimally designed and operated to treat
Congress in Section 1003 of RCRA. Moreover, the experience demonstrates wastewater
result completely at odds with the waste minimization policy and objectives articulated by
be encouraging the generation of larger quantities of hazardous wastewater treatment sludge, a
as proposed, by including the actual waste within the scope of the exemption, EPA would likely
potentially subject to the exemption, the CSO experience is instructive. Through the exemption
Further, while the NODA contains no new information with respect to crude oil tank sludge
wastes, as discussed in Section IV of these comments.
assessments and consider current and potential management practices for larger quantity of
risk assessment in this context stands in stark contrast to the Agency's refusal to conduct risk
that the facility indicates will never be repeated. The Agency's willingness and ability to perform a
Agency's consideration of a waste management practice at one facility covering 250 MT of waste
risk assessment and proposed an exemption from RCRA for CSO sludge, based upon the. (EDF, 00006)
Response:
waste (see Additional Listing Support Analysis,
operations.
II-3
June 29, 1998
in exempt rinsate.
reduce inappropriate values, and then promulgate the concentrations as maximum levels allowed
spent catalysts), but rather dilute waters generated during tank or unit clean-outs and dewatering
exemption is not intended to allow the discharge of the entire wastestream (i.e., tank sediments or
headworks of the wastewater treatment system. As noted in the proposal, however, the
exemption to apply to wastewaters from cleaning operations when these wastewaters reach the
In amending the headworks exemptions under 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv)(C), the Agency intends the
be negligible.
analyses that any impact on the downstream wastewater treatment sludge or wastewaters would
1998 in the docket). EPA concluded from these
crude oil storage tank sediment to respond to the commenter’s concerns expressed about this
promulgating the exemption for K169 as well. EPA notes that it completed a similar analysis for
crude oil storage tank sediment in the exemption, if this waste was listed. Thus, EPA is also
at 57781), EPA intended to include FR headworks exemption. As noted in the proposal (see 60
After considering all comments on these analyses, EPA has decided to promulgate the expanded
discharges from the clean-out and turn around of hydrotreating and hydrorefining catalytic units.
associated with CSO tank cleaning, and the expansion of the exemption to include water
EPA presented analysis in the NODA to support the headworks exemption for both wastewater
into the system (see comment F-95-PRLP-00014, Chevron Corporation).
quantity of such primary sludge would be much greater than the quantity of solids initially dumped
would end up as F037 hazardous waste, and one commenter provides information stating that the
notes that refineries have no incentive to discharge solids to wastew