P.1 

RCRA Box 321 

Prepped by Ryan Dugan 

Document Number: 

216)OGRC-S0016.A 

Docket Number: 

F-93-OGRC-FFFFF 

Printed 5/8/2007 3:36:31 PM Sheet 216 of 259 
P.2 

06^C-soof4>.A 

\ \ 

THE GOAL OF THIS REQUEST IS TO IDENTIFY THE ADVERSE IMPACT TO 

THE NATION ARISING OUT OF THE APPLICATION OF RCRA E& P 

NONEXEMPT STATUS TO WASTE CRUDE OIL RECLAIMERS. 

SUBMITTED BY: VARIOUS TEXAS 

AND NEW MEXICO 

WASTE CRUDE OIL 

RECLAIMERS 
P.3 

Table of Contents 

1. THE PARTIES INVOLVED 

1.1. Participating Reclaimers 

1.2. Anticipated Meeting Attendees, 

2. SUMMARY OF WASTE CRUDE OIL ORIGIN AND RECLAIMING 

PROCEDURES 

3 . SUMMARY OF THE PROBLEM 6 

4 . SUMMARY OF THE RECLAIMERS • POSITION 8 

5. IT IS BELIEVED THAT EPA INTENDED THE REGULATORY 

DETERMINATION TO APPLY TO REFINERY RECLAIMERS, NOT 

TO UPSTREAM RECLAIMERS 10 

6. IN THE REPORT TO CONGRESS, EPA STATED THAT 

PRIMARY FIELD OPERATIONS PIVOTED ON DELIVERY 

TO A CARRIER FOR TRANSPORT TO A REFINERY OR REFINER, 

7. THE NONEXEMPT STATUS, COUPLED WITH THE 

NEW TC, WILL BE CONTRARY TO EPA's GOAL OF 

WASTE SEGREGATION IN THE OILFIELD 

13 

181 

8, THE TC REGULATION AND WASTE CRUDE OIL , 

8.1. The TCLP was Designed for Municipal Landfills, 

Application of the TC is Contrary 

to Waste Minimization , 

The TC was Proposed Without 

Significant Consideration to 

Waste Crude Oil Reclaimers 

8.2 

8.3 

I 

,21| 

,24! 

I 

25j 

i 

I 

i 

26 

I 

9. PROPOSED SOLUTIONS 29 
P.4 

Appendices I 

A. CONSULTANT RESUMES 31! 

B. LETTERS OF SUPPORT 3 2 

C. THE REGULATORY DETERMINATION 3 3' 

D. THE TC FEDERAL REGISTER 341 

I 

E. THE IOCC DRAFT REPORT 35j 

i 

i 

i 

List of Figures 

1. COST' ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS FOR E&P WASTE DISPOSAL UNDER i 

RCRA 16! 

2. COST ANALYSIS FOR E&P WASTE DISPOSAL UNDER RCRA 17 j 
P.5 

i Request by Waste Crude Oil Reclaimers 

i: September 18, 1990 

Page -2-

1. THE PARTIES INVOLVED 

The parties directly involved in this request are various 

Texas and New Mexico waste crude oil reclaimers. The Texas 

Railroad Commission and the New Mexico Oil Conservation 

Division have expressed their support in principle for this 

request. Representatives of the American Petroleum Institute 

(API), Independent Producers Associate (IPA) and the Permian 

Basin Petroleum Association (PBPA) similarly have supported 

this request in principle. 

l.i. Participating Reclaimers 

The crude oil reclaimers involved in this request are: 

TEXAS WASTE CRUDE OIL RECLAIMERS 

Albany Tank Cleaning, Inc. 

Box 901 

Albany, Texas 78648 

Amal Oil Company 

422 Perry Brooks Bldg. 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Atacosa Energy Corp. 

P.O. Box 23 6 

jourdanton, Texas 78026 

Dodson Inc. 

Rt. 5, BOX 360 D 

San Antonio, Texas 78221 

E&E Enterprises, Inc. 

P.O. BOX 683 

Brownfield, Texas 79316 

Gulf Tank Cleaning Corp. 

1205 Berkley 

Houston, Texas 77012 
P.6 

j Request by Waste Crude Oil Reclaimer s 

September 18, 1990 

Page -3 - • \ 

Midwestern Reclamation 

P.O. Box 1395 

Snyder, Texas 79549 

NABCO 

104 Teakwood, Ste. 2 

Victoria, Texas 77901 

NEW MEXICO RECLAIMERS 

AA Oilfield service 

3 221 W. county Road Parabo, Inc. 

Hobbs, New Mexico 88240 P.O. Box 1499 

Hobbs, New Mexico 8824 0 

Gandy Corp. 

P.O. Box 827 

Tatum, New Mexico 88267 

Letters of support are attached as Appendix "A". 

.1 • \} Anticipated Meeting Attendees 

Those anticipated to be in attendance at the meeting with 

EPA will include: 

Dub Huckabee 

Cub Enterprises 

Midland, Texas 

Wayne Price 

Parabo, Inc. 

Hobbs, New Mexico 

steve Reed 

Geraghty & Miller 

Midland, Texas 

Paul Bohannon 

Porter & Clements 

Midland, Texas 

Barry peters 

AA Oilfield Service 

Hobbs, New Mexico 

Charles Root 

Parabo, Inc. 

Hobbs, New Mexico 

Teresa salamone 

Geraghty & Miller 

Midland, Texas 

Anna Wood 

Porter & elements 

Houston, Texas 

Consultant resumes are attached as Appendix "B" 
P.7 

Request by Waste Crude Oil Reclaimers 

September 18, 1990 

Page -4- >\ 

2. SUMMARY OF WASTE CRUDE OIL ORIGIN AND RECLAIMING 

PROCEDURES 

Crude oil reclaimers accept waste crude oil and also 

purchase off-specification crude oil generated at exploration 

and production (E&P) sites. The crude oil reclaimers are 

central reclaiming facilities that are located near the E&P 

sites. Reclaimers off-load the E&P wastes into a field 

storage tank. The waste crude oil is then directed to a tank 

in which demulsifying agents, identical to E&P agents used 

frequently at the wellhead, is applied. During this stage, 

heat is also applied. The waste oil separates into marketable 

grade crude oil and basic sediment and water (BS&W) 

[wastewater storage tank bottoms, and demulsifying tank 

bottoms]. Reclaimers then sell the crude oil to refiners, 

dispose of the wastewater into Class II injection wells and/or 

state permitted evaporation impoundments, and dispose of the 

tank bottoms in permitted landfills. 

The societal benefits of waste crude oil reclamation are 

both environmental and economic. The environmental benefits 

include: waste minimization, segregation of the E&P wastes, 

and drastic reductions of on-site disposal of E&P wastes. The 

economic benefit of waste crude oil reclamation is that a 
; Request by Waste Crude Oil Reclaimers 

j! September 18, 1990 

!| Page -5-

\\ 

I 

substantial volume of marketable grade domestic crude oil is 

returned to the energy stream — rather than being disposed of 

at the wellsite. 

P.8 
P.9 

Request by Waste Crude Oil Reclaimers 

September 18, 1990 

Page -6- "•: 

3. SUMMARY OF THE PROBLEM 

According to EPA's Regulatory Determination for Oil and 

Gas and Geothermal Exploration, Development and Production 

wastes, issued on July 6, 1988 ("Regulatory Determination") 

(Appendix "C"), liquid and solid wastes generated by crude oil 

and tank bottom reclaimers are not included in the original 

E&P Exemption.1 Even though crude oil reclaimer wastes are 

said to have nonexempt status, these wastes were not subject 

to Subtitle C regulations because E&P waste crude oil tank 

bottoms and wastewater were not listed wastes, nor did they 

exhibit any of the characteristics of a hazardous waste. 

on September 25, 1990 the Toxicity Characteristic 

Leaching Procedure (TCLP) becomes effective and replaces the 

EP-Tox. The TC regulation (Appendix "D") adds 25 organic 

chemicals (including benzene) to the list of toxic 

constituents and establishes regulatory levels for these 

organic chemicals. The overall effect of the TC is to subject 

additional wastes, including those generated by waste crude 

oil reclaimers, to Subtitle C regulations. If this occurs, 

the costs of disposal for waste crude oil reclaiming tank 

bottoms will dramatically increase. 
P.10 

Request by Waste Crude oil Reclaimers 

September 18, 1990 

Page -7-

The concern from an environmental standpoint is that when 

confronted with an estimated tank bottom incineration cost of 

$550.00 per drum. There are 3.68 yd.3 to a drum of tank 

bottoms. Each drum of waste crude oil bears, on average, .272 

yd.3 of tank bottoms. It will no longer be economically 

feasible for industry to continue sending the waste crude oil 

to reclaimers. E&P operators will likely dispose of waste 

crude oil on-site. Moreover, the application of TCLP to waste 

crude oil reclaimers will adversely impact the waste 

minimization benefits directly associated with waste crude oil 

reclaiming operations. 
P.11 

j Request by Waste Crude Oil Reclaimers 

j; September L8, 1990 

•I Page -8- "•;. 

!i *' 

4. SUMMARY OF THE RECLAIMERS' POSITION 

The waste crude oil reclaimers involved in this request 

espouse the following positions: 

1. After reviewing the statutory authorities, statutory 

history, and regulatory histories, it appears that EPA was 

most concerned with refining reclaimers. There is little 

evidence that consideration was given to upstream crude 

reclaimers. If this is correct, then a simple clarification 

of the exemption language in the Regulatory Determination 

would be sufficient. 

2. In the Report to Congress, EPA stated that the key 

to "associated wastes" was whether the material derived from 

"primary field operations." EPA explained in the Report to 

Congress that "primary field operations" means those 

production related activities which occur before delivery of 

the crude oil to a carrier for transport to a refiner or 

refinery. Because these waste oil reclaimers are not 

refiners, they are upstream of refining reclaimers. 

Therefore, these waste crude oil reclaimers are within the 
P.12 

,' 

I 

Request by Waste Crude Oil Reclaimers 

September 18, 1990 

Page -9-

notion of a "primary field operation." The Regulatory 

Determination either should be changed to clarified to reflect 

this conclusion. 

3. Clarification of the waste crude reclaimers' status 

would facilitate EPA and Congressional policies of waste 

minimization, waste segregation in the oilfield, and 

minimizing disposal of waste crude oil onsite or in exempt 

landfills. 

4. The TC regulation preamble specifically states that 

once a material is exempt, the TC regulation does not apply. 

The TCLP was designed for municipal landfills, a worst case 

co-disposal scenario. The risk was deemed by EPA to be 

substantially less when a dedicated disposal facility was 

utilized. A review of the TC regulatory preamble discloses no 

evidence that these waste crude oil reclaimers were thought to 

have been within the ambit of the regulation. 

i 
P.13 

Request by Waste Crude oil Reclaimers 

September 18, 1990 

Page -10- ;.: 

5. IT IS BELIEVED THAT EPA INTENDED THE REGULATORY 

DETERMINATION TO APPLY TO REFINERY RECLAIMERS. NOT 

TO UPSTREAM RECLAIMERS 

The E&P exemption is a statutory creature. Section 

6921(b)(2)(A) provides: 

Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of this 

subsection, drilling fluids, produced waters, and other 

wastes associated with the exploration, development, or 

production of crude oil or natural gas or geothermal 

energy shall be subject only to existing State or Federal 

regulatory programs in lieu of this subchapter until at 

least 24 months after October 21, 1980.... 

congress further directed EPA to conduct a study as required 

under 42 U.S.C §6982(M) and to use the study to determine 

whether or not to promulgate regulations for drilling fluids, 

produced waters, and other waste, associated with the 

exploration, development, or production of crude oil or 

natural gas or geothermal energy.2 42 U.S.C. 

§6921(b)(2)(B). Congress requested that EPA transmit its 

decision, along with any regulations, if necessary, to both 

Houses of Congress. 
P.14 

Request by Waste Crude Oil Reclaimers 

September 18, 1990 

Page -11- -.-

In direct response to Congress' request, EPA submitted 

its Report to Congress entitled Report to Congress. 

"Management of Wastes from Exploration. Development. and 

Production of Crude Oil. Natural Gas, and Geothermal Energy. 

(Executive Summaries, U.S. EPA/530-SW-88-003, 12/87)("Report 

to Congress"). The original listing of exempt/nonexempt E&P 

materials in the Report to Congress did not focus on waste 

crude oil. However, EPA identified the following items as 

exempt: 

- hydrocarbon solids - drilling fluids3 

- BS & w, water and 

other tank bottoms from 

storage facilities 

and separators4 

- waste crude oil from 

primary field operations 

Report to congress, p.9. 

Thereafter, on July 6, 1988, EPA issued the Regulatory 

Determination concerning E&P wastes. In the Regulatory 

Determination, EPA listed as nonexempt "liquid and solid 

wastes generated by crude oil and tank bottom reclaimers." 

This was the first time that waste crude oil tank bottom waste 

i 
P.15 

I: 

I 

i 

Request by Waste Crude Oil Reclaimers 

September 18, 1990 

Page -12-

was contained on any list as nonexempt. EPA did not list it as 

nonexempt in the Report to Congress. In fact, the definition 

of "primary field operations" would have included waste crude 

oil reclaimer activities as exempt. The change in policy in 

the Regulatory Determination was a dramatic, albeit subtle, 

change in the definition of "primary field operations." 

It appears that EPA may have been concerned principally 

with refinery waste crude oil reclaiming. This would explain 

the apparent inconsistencies in the application of the phrase 

"primary field operations" in the Report to congress and the 

statement that waste crude oil reclaimers were nonexempt in 

the Regulatory Determination. If this is correct, the crude 

oil reclaimers simply need a clarification that their 

activities are exempt. 
P.16 

Request by Waste Crude Oil Reclaimers 

September 18, 1990 

Page -13-

6. IN THE REPORT TO CONGRESS. EPA STATED THAT 

PRIMARY FIELD OPERATIONS PIVOTED ON DELIVERY 

TO A CARRIER FOR TRANSPORT TO A REFINERY OR REFINER 

In the Report to Congress, EPA described how to identify 

exempt wastes under the E&P exemption as follows: 

Exempt wastes must be associated with measures (1) to 

locate oil or gas deposits, (2) to remove oil or natural 

gas from the ground, or (3) to remove impurities from 

such substances, provided the purification process is an 

integral part of primary field operations. 

Report to Congress, p.7 (emp. added). The very function of 

waste crude oil reclaiming is to remove the impurities from 

the waste crude. 

Because waste crude oil is considered an "associated 

waste" under the E&P exemption, one must explore the 

definition of "associate waste" and the related term "primary 

!, field operations": 

With respect to oil production, primary field operations 

encompass those activities usually occurring at or near 

the wellhead, but prior to the transfer of oil from an 

individual field facility or a centrally located facility 

to a carrier (i.e., pipeline or trucking company) for 

transport to a refinery or to a refiner. 
P.17 

| Request by Waste Crude Oil Reclaimers 

I September 18, 1990 

]' Page -14- > 

: i x 

Report to congress, p.7 (emphasis added). This language 

demonstrates the fallacy of the Regulatory Determination which 

held waste crude oil reclaimers to be nonexempt. Waste crude 

oil reclaimers are not refiners. Reclaimers are upstream of 

refiners. Major Group 29, SIC Code, is defined: 

2911. Petroleum Refining. 

Establishments engaged in producing gasoline, kerosene, 

distillat e fuel oils, residual fuel oils, lubricants and 

othe r products from crud e petroleum and it s 

fractionization products, through straight distillation 

of crude oil , redistillatio n of unfinished petroleum 

derivatives, cracking or other processes. 

Therefore, transport to a waste crude oi l reclaimer is 

upstream of the time when the EPA Report to Congress stated 

tha t the waste crude oil and produced fluids becomes 

nonexempt. The same is true with respect to natura l gas 

associated wastes. Report to Congress, p.8. 

If waste crude oil reclaimers (not refiner reclaimers) 

are upstream of refining operations, then the Regulatory 

Determination erred in failing to delineate between reclaiming 

operations at refinerie s and those a t sheer reclaimer 

facilities. 

i 
P.18 

Request by Waste Crude Oil Reclaimers 

September 18, 1990 

Page -15- --

it is inconsistent with the determination that E&P wastes 

containing identical substances as those contained in the 

reclaiming tank bottoms are exempt onsite, but regulated 

offsite. The result of this latent inconsistency is to 

subject waste crude oil reclaimers to Subtitle C regulations 

while onsite activities continue. The TC • s application to 

waste crude oil reclaimers will drive most of the reclaimers 

out of business and force E&P operators to dispose of greatly 

increased volumes of exempt E&P wastes onsite or at exempt 

landfills. Examples of the adverse economics appear at 

Figures "1" and "2". 
P.19 

Request by Waste Crude Oil Reclaimers 

September 18, 1990 

Page -16-

Figur e 1 , COST ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS FOR E&P WASTE DISPOSAL 

UNDER RCRA 
P.20 

\<i 

COST ANALYSIS 

POTENTIAL MONTHLY COSTS OF WASTE DISPOSAL 

NON-EXEMPT STATUS 

gures based upon: 

1. Average per month of Gross Off-Spec Crude Oil Purchases for the 

period of January 1989 to August 1990. 

2. Average wastewater content of non-recoverable BS&W at 75%. 

3. Wastewaters disposed of by Class I deep well injection sites at 

$2.00 per gallon. 

4. BS&W solids disposed of by incineration at $500.00 per 55 gallon 

drum. 

5. Refinery purchase of 1% BS&W crude $20.00 per barrel (actual price 

is posted price of West Texas Sour plus $0.30). 

6. Purchase of off-spec crude per barrel at $17.00 for 1-3% BS&w, 

$16.00 for 4-10% BS&W, $15.00 for 11-20% BS&W, and $2.00 for BS&W 

content greater than 20%. 
'I 

P.21 

Request by Waste Crude Oil Reclaimer s 

September 18, 1990 

Page -17 -

Figur e 2 . COST ANALYSIS FOR E&P WASTE DISPOSAL UNDER RCRA 
COSTAMALVS IS • 

POTENTIAL MONTHLY COSTS OF WASTE DISPOSAL 

NON€XEMPT STATUS 

1 

Amt BStW ' 

' 

*

t

l 5X1 

T1%: 

21 %' 

51 % 

Gross Purchased j 

(bbls) I 

! 

5000 

5000' 

5000: 

5000 

5000, 

, 

• 

Net Sold 

fbbls] 

; 

4900 

4800! 

45001 

4000! 

2500 

. 

i 

• 

Ami Rec-4 

1 

996.000 

396.000! 

S90.000I 

900.000 

350.000 

1 

AmtPd 

985.000 

980.000 • 

375.000 l 

91M00> 

910.000 

" \ 

. 

i 

Net Rec'd '• 

1 

913.000 . 

316,000' 

915,000 •' 

970.000 ' 

940.000 , 

. 

• 

Wastewater 

Disposal 

TSKefBSlW 

at 32.00/gsL 

98.250 . 

316.500 ' 

941.250 i 

982.500 ' 

$206,250 ; 

! 

; 

SoHds 

Disposal 

25XefBS»W ' 

at 950<Vdrum ; 

99.545 • 

919.091 ' 

947.727 = 

995.455 • 

323o\S36 . 

! 

TotaJ 

Disposal 

• 

317.795 

935.531 

908.977 i 

3177.955 ' 

9444,886 : 

- • • • * 

Net Rec'd \ 

After Disposal 

(94.7951 

IS19.591] 

(973.9771 

(3107,9551 

(9404,8861 

ro 
P.23 

I 

I 

il 

Request by Waste Crude Oil Reclaimers 

September 18, 19,90 

Page -18- ^ 

7 . THE NONEXEMPT STATUS. COUPLED WITH THE 

NEW TC. WILL BE CONTRARY TO EPA'S GOAL OF 

WASTE SEGREGATION IN THE OILFIELD 

There is little doubt that EPA felt waste crude oil 

presented a legitimate concern: 

The major categories of wastes responsible for damages 

include reserve pit wastes, fracturing and acidizing 

fluids, stimulation chemicals, waste crude oil, produced 

water, and other miscellaneous wastes generated by the 

exploration, development and production of crude oil and 

natural gas. 

53 Fed. Reg. 25449. EPA also felt tank bottoms need attention 

as a special waste: 

Tank bottoms, an associated waste sampled and analyzed by 

the Agency, contained significant levels of contaminants 

of concern, with some levels exceeding the reference 

doses (RfDs) for noncarcinogens or the risk-specific 

doses (RSDs) for carcinogens (health-based standards) for 

these contaminants. 53 Fed. Reg. 25448. 

EPA's position on centralized facilities in the 

Regulatory Determination evidenced an effort to balance 

environmental concerns. on the one hand, it felt that 
P.24 

Request by Waste Crude Oil Reclaimers 

September 18, 1990 

Page -19 - •;• 

| centralized facilitie s presented a greater degree of risk. On 

the other, waste segregation was deemed a more desirable 

method of handling. 

With respect to the risk attendant to centralized 

facilitie s (which a waste crude oil reclaimer could be) , EPA 

stated: 

EPA is particularl y concerned about centralized and 

commercial facilitie s that treat, store, or dispose of 

o il field wastes in concentrated form. Pits or 

impoundments at these facilitie s often contain hazardous 

constituents in high concentrations. I n addition , 

centralized facilitie s are responsible for some of the 

most significant damages the Agency documented. 

53 Fed. Reg. 25457. 

On the other hand, EPA highlighted the environmental 

benefits of isolating certain types of E&P wastes (which is a 

function of waste crude oil reclaimers): 

The Agency believes that under certain circumstances 

waste segregation is technically and economically 

feasible and environmentally desirable. 

53 Fed. Reg. 25451.5 This opinion was consistent with the 

later comments by EPA in the TC rulemaking. 
P.25 

Request by Waste Crude Oil Reclaimers 

September 18, 1990 

Page -20- .-

By discouraging crude oil waste reclaiming, EPA will be 

encouraging disposal of the material onsit e throughout the 

oilfields. This policy will be inconsistent with the goal of 

waste segregation. 
I 

Request by Waste Crude Oil Reclaimers 

September 18, 1990 

Page -21- "r" 

8. THE TC REGULATION AND WASTE CRUDE OIL 

Section 6921(b)(1) contemplates that EPA will provide two 

methods of identifying hazardous wastes: 

[T]he Administrator shall promulgate regulations 

identifying the characteristics of hazardous waste, 

and list particular hazardous wastes, which shall be 

subject to the provisions of this subchapter. 

The approach EPA uses to establish hazardous waste 

characteristics is to determine which properties of a waste 

would result in harm to human health or environment if a waste 

is mismanaged. 55 Fed. Reg. 11799 (March 29, 1990). The 

reclaimers underscore the fact that tank bottoms and related 

water are not listed wastes. They may be hazardous only if 

they exhibit the toxicity characteristic. Thus, the 

management methods are the principal concern. 

It should be noted that the preamble to the TC Regulation 

specifically states that: 
I! 

i | 

i; 

K 

i l 

i 

! 

j 

i . 

i 

i 

I: 

I 

Request by Waste Crude Oil Reclaimers 

September 18, 1990 

page -22- *• i 

Other commenters focused on the exemptions for "special 

wastes, " primarily ...oi l and gas production wastes. 

* * * 

The TC rule will not apply to wastes that are already 

excluded from subtitle C regulation under §261.4(b). 

These wastes will continue to be exempt from regulation 

as hazardous wastes, even if they would exhibit the TC. 

55 F.R. 11835 (March 29, 1990). Hence, the material these 

reclaimers are discussing would be exempt if handled in an 

identical fashion at the wellhead location. 

The Extraction Procedure Toxicity Characteristic (EPTC) 

currently used by EPA defines the toxicity of a waste by 

measuring the potential for the waste constituents to leach 

through the soil and contaminate groundwater at levels of 

health or environmental concern. The TCLP (which becomes 

effective September 25, 1990) replaces the EP-Tox and is 

designed to more accurately address the leaching potential in 

evaluating wastes containing organic constituents. 55 Fed. 

Reg. 11804 (March 29, 1990). The Agency stated: 

The Agency also believes that the co-disposal scenario 

still represents a reasonable worst-case mismanagement 

scenario. 
P.28 

I 

Request by Waste Crude Oil Reclaimers 

September 18, 19W 

Page -23- ^ 

Facilities dedicated to the management of only one waste 

or the wastes of only one generator (i.e., a "monofill") 

are likely to pose less of a hazard than general 

municipal landfills because the design and operation 

problems for a monofill are simpler and the operators 

generally have considerably more information on the 

properties of the wastes that are managed. 

55 Fed. Reg. 11806 (March 29, 1990). Thus, the TCLP is based 

upon a procedure designed to reflect municipal landfill 

disposal and decay reactions. It is not reflective of the 

risks associated with the segregated activities of waste crude 

oil reclaimers. 

One of the hazardous constituents added under the TCLP is 

benzene. Benzene iB given the D018 hazardous waste number and 

the regulatory level is 0.5 mg/l. 55 Fed. Reg. 11804 (March 

29, 1990). Benzene is present in waste crude oil tank bottoms 

both before and after the reclamation process. one of the 

real problems with crude oil reclaimers is that oilfield waste 

is highly variable in nature. Wellfield conditions, drilling 

and completion procedures can all impact the level of benzene 

in the waste material. Also, the inherent nature of the crude 

oil can differ from site to site. 

Due to the variable conditions of oilfield waste, the TC 

has presented crude oil reclaimers with a serious waste 

management problem. 
Request by Waste Crude Oil Reclaimers 

September 18, 19.90 

Page -24- \; 

A. The reclaimed crude oil waste can be tested with 

each tank. This may take weeks to complete. In the 

meantime, each tank will have to stored temporarily in 

separate tanks. Potential regulatory impact could extend 

to the storage tanks; and 

B. If testing is done regularly, the cost would have to 

be expended on each tank. This would have a direct and 

additional impact on the price of waste crude oil 

disposal (and the cost to the consumer); or 

C. Simply handle all tanks as hazardous waste. This 

would incur the full range of costs attendant to 

hazardous waste regulation. 

Accordingly, the TC regulations will require waste crude oil 

reclaimers to handle tank bottoms as a characteristic 

hazardous waste. However, waste crude oil which is disposed 

of on-site will be exempt under the E&P exemption. 

8.1. The TCLP was Designed for Municipal Landfills 
•I 

I 

I 

Request by Waste Crude Oil Reclaimers 

September 18, 1990 

Page -25- ^ 

The TCLP is inappropriate for the oil and gas industry, 

and in particular for reclaimers, because E&P disposal 

facilities are dedicated facilities and are more uniform in 

the materials received. EPA has expressly acknowledged that 

such a management scenario presents less of a hazard. In 

Issuing the final TCLP rule, EPA stated: 

Industrial facilities dedicated to the management of only 

one waste, or the waste from only one generator, are 

likely to pose less of a hazard than would general 

sanitary or industrial landfills, since the design and 

operation problems are simpler and the operator has much 

more information on the properties of the wastes before 

and while the facility is in operation. 

55 Fed. Reg. 11806 (March 29, 1990). The TCLP was formulated 

under municipal landfill conditions, with intermixing of many 

waste materials. This situation is not pertinent to the E&P 

waste. 

8.2. Application of the TC is Contrary 

to Waste Minimization 

Moreover, application of TC to reclaimers adversely 

affects the stated environmental priority of waste 

minimization. Congress expressly stated that significant 

savings could be realized by reclaiming materials in order to 
P.31 

Request by Waste Crude Oil Reclaimers 

September 18, 1990 

Page -26- \\ 

reduce the volume or quantity of material which ultimately 

becomes waste. 42 U.S.C. § 6941(a) ( 3) (1983) . Pollution 

prevention is also a priority Agency objective, in both 

regulatory and nonregulatory programs. EPA's policy places 

highest priority on source reduction (i.e., reducing the 

volume or toxicity of wastes generated) and reclaiming wastes 

in a manner beneficial to society. A reduction in the amount 

of waste which must be managed (i.e.. bv source reduction and 

recycling) provides direct benefits related to protecting 

human health and the environment from the mismanagement of 

hazardous wastes. 55 Fed. Reg. 11802 (March 29, 1990). 

8.3. The TC Was Proposed without 

Significant Consideration to 

Waste Crude Oil Reclaimers 

It appears that the TC was promulgated without 

significant consideration of E&P waste crude oil reclaimers. 

In the economic impact analysis, the preamble details the 

directly affected industries: 

Textile mills 

Lumber and wood products 

Pulp and paper 

22 

2421, 2499 

261, 262, 263, 266 
P.32 

I 

I 

f 

i 

Request by Waste Crude Oil Reclaimers 

September 18, 19SO 

Page -27- >^ 

Printing and publishing 

Plastics 

materials & resins 

Synthetic rubber 

Synthetic fibers 

Pharmaceuticals 

Soap & other detergents 

Surface active agents 

Paints & allied products 

organic chemicals 

Agricultural chemicals 

Petroleum refining 

Miscellaneous petroleum 

and coal products 

Rubber and miscellaneous 

plastic products 

Nonferrous wire drawing 

and insulation 

Machinery and mechanical 

products 

Pipelines, except 

natural gas 

Electric services 

Wholesale petroleum 

marketing 

27 

2821 

2822 

2823, 2824 

283 

2841 

2843 

2851 

2865, 2869 

2879 

2911 

2992 

30 

3357 

34 through 

1 

461 

4911 

-

517 
I 

I 

!i 

P.33 

Request by Waste Crude Oil Reclaimers 

September 18, 1990 

Page -28- \; 

Nowhere are waste crude oil reclaimers mentioned. The 

economic impact analysis was done without regard to the impact 

that a reclaimer shut-down might precipitate. 
P.34 

Request by Waste Crude Oil Reclaimers 

September 18, 1990 

Page -29- \ ^ 

9 . PROPOSED SOLUTIONS 

As EPA is aware, the Interstate Oil Compact Commission 

has been studiously preparing guidelines for new state 

implemented E&P solid waste practices. That report is now in 

the penultimate stage (Exhibit "E"). It is subject to review 

only for typographical corrections. 

The IOCC report is an all encompassing guideline for E&P 

waste management. it suggests detailed criteria for site 

permitting, emergency response, compliance inspections, 

financial assurance, waste tracking and manifesting, closure, 

and stage agency funding. 

The IOCC proposal presents a unique opportunity to EPA in 

that it affords assurance that the states promptly will be 

implementing waste control procedures. By classifying 

reclaimed crude oil waste as exempt, the Agency would be (i) 

consistent with its Report to Congress, (ii) encouraging waste 

minimization by recycling, (iii) stimulating waste 

segregation, (iv) and returning valuable domestic crude oil to 
Request by Waste Crude Oil Reclaimers 

September 18, 1990 

Page -30- ^ 

our energy stream. All of this can be done with the assurance 

afforded by the impending state programs to be developed under 

the IOCC report. 

The New Mexico and Texas waste crude oil reclaimers 

propose the following: 

A. Waste crude oil reclaiming be included within the 

Regulatory Determination as exempt. This would be 

consistent with the representations made by EPA to 

Congress in the Report, and would maintain a constant 

definition of the phrase "primary oilfield operations." 

B. Encourage special attention to states under the IOCC 

report for waste crude oil waste managemeht practices. 

The crude oil reclaimers appreciate EPA's expedited and 

professional consideration of this request. We stand ready to 

respond to any inquiries EPA may submit. 

i 

ii