Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules 16747

a second comment period on this action.

Any parties interested in commenting

on this action should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received in

writing by May 8, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the revision

request are available for inspection at

the following address: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604. (It is recommended that

you telephone Ryan Bahr at (312) 353–

4366 before visiting the Region 5

Office.)

Written comments should be sent to:

J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Regulation

Development Section, Air Programs

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ryan Bahr, at (312) 353–4366.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the

information provided in the Direct Final

action of the same title which is located

in the Rules and Regulations Section of

this Federal Register.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: March 19, 1997.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–8897 Filed 4–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[FRL–5807–5]

RIN 2050–AD88

Hazardous Waste Management

System; Identification and Listing of

Hazardous Waste; Petroleum Refining

Process Wastes; and Land Disposal

Restrictions for Newly Hazardous

Wastes; Notice of Data Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of data availability and

request for comment.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is making available for

public comment data and information

relating to its Notice published in the

Federal Register on November 20, 1995

(60 FR 57747). That Notice proposed to

amend EPA regulations under the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA) by designating as hazardous

wastes certain petroleum refining waste

streams and proposed not to list other

petroleum waste streams. The Notice

also proposed to broaden existing RCRA

exemptions for recycling of oil-bearing

residuals and proposed to apply

universal treatment standards under the

Land Disposal Restrictions program to

the wastes proposed for listing.

Comments submitted by interested

members of the public on the proposal

have convinced EPA that the

rulemaking record could be

considerably improved by adding data

and subjecting analysis of that data to

public comments. Today’s document,

therefore, presents for public comment

modeling analyses using different

assumptions than used for the proposal,

additional analyses of waste

characteristics and disposal practices,

and other evaluations of the potential

impact of different modeling

assumptions on the risk assessment

results. This document also corrects a

number of technical errors that were

contained in the original proposal.

Pursuant to a consent decree in

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) v.

Browner (Civ. No. 89–0598 D.D.C.), EPA

has committed to issuing this Notice of

data availability before making the final

regulatory determination on whether the

subject petroleum refining residuals

should be listed as hazardous wastes.

The consent decree requires the final

rule to be issued by April 30, 1998. The

Agency solicits comments on all aspects

of the new information sources

described in this Notice. All comments

on the new information received by the

close of the comment period will be

considered by the Agency when making

a final regulatory determination.

Comments will be accepted and

considered only on the new data

mentioned in today’s Notice and

specifically identified under the docket

number given in this document.

DATES: The Agency is reopening the

comment period only for the limited

purpose of obtaining information and

views on the new data and analyses

described in this Notice. Comments on

the additional data will be accepted

through June 9, 1997. Due to the short

deadline for the final rule, EPA does not

plan to grant any extensions of the

comment period.

ADDRESSES: Commenters must send an

original and two copies of their

comments referencing docket number

F–97–PRA–FFFFF to: RCRA Docket

Information Center, Office of Solid

Waste (5305G), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency Headquarters (EPA,

HQ), 401 M Street, SW, Washington,

D.C. 20460. Hand deliveries of

comments should be made to the

Arlington, VA, address listed below.

Comments may also be submitted

electronically by sending electronic

mail through the Internet to:

rcradocket@epamail.epa.gov. Comments

in electronic format should also be

identified by the docket number F–97–

PRA–FFFFF. All electronic comments

must be submitted as an ASCII file

avoiding the use of special characters

and any form of encryption. If

comments are not submitted

electronically, EPA is asking

prospective commenters to voluntarily

submit one additional copy of their

comments on labeled personal computer

diskettes in ASCII (TEXT) format or a

word processing format that can be

converted to ASCII (TEXT). It is

essential to specify on the disk label the

word processing software and version/

edition as well as the commenter’s

name. This will allow EPA to convert

the comments into one of the word

processing formats utilized by the

Agency. Please use mailing envelopes

designed to physically protect the

submitted diskettes. EPA emphasizes

that submission of comments on

diskettes is not mandatory, nor will it

result in any advantage or disadvantage

to any commenter.

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, 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, D.C. 20460.

Public comments and supporting

materials are available for viewing in

the RCRA 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. For

information on accessing paper and/or

electronic copies of the document, see

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

general information, contact the RCRA

Hotline at (800) 424–9346 or TDD (800)

553–7672 (hearing impaired). In the

Washington, D.C., metropolitan area,

call (703) 412–9810 or TDD (703) 412–

3323. For information on specific

aspects of the report, contact Maximo

Diaz, Jr. or Robert Kayser, Office of

Solid Waste (5304W), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20460.
16748 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules

[E-mail addresses and telephone

numbers: Diaz.max@epamail.epa.gov,

(703) 308–0439;

Kayser.robert@epamail.epa.gov, (703)

308–7304)].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Supporting documents in the docket for

this Notice are also available in

electronic format on the Internet. Follow

these instructions to access these

documents.

WWW: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/

hazwaste/id

FTP: ftp.epa/gov

Login: anonymous

Password: your Internet address

Files are located in /pub/gopher/

OSWRCRA.

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

address in ADDRESSES at the beginning

of this document.

EPA responses to comments, whether

the comments are written or electronic,

will be in a notice in the Federal

Register or in a response to comments

document placed in the official record

for this 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.

Background

RCRA section 3001(e), 42 U.S.C.

6921(e) requires EPA to make a

determination whether to list certain

specified wastes under RCRA section

3001(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6921(b)(1). These

include petroleum refining wastes. The

effect of such a listing would be to

subject the wastes to regulation as

hazardous waste under Subtitle C of

RCRA. Pursuant to a consent decree

between EPA and the Environmental

Defense Fund (EDF), EPA has agreed to

a schedule for promulgating a listing

determination for fourteen petroleum

residuals that the Agency had not

previously considered listing.

EPA issued its proposed

determination regarding the petroleum

residuals on November 20, 1995 (60 FR

57747). EDF and EPA have negotiated a

modification to the Consent Decree, in

which the Agency has agreed to

promulgate the final listing

determination on or before April 30,

1998. EPA also agreed to issue today’s

Notice of data availability.

In the proposal, EPA considered

whether the petroleum refining

residuals met the criteria for listing a

waste as hazardous as set out in 40

C.F.R. 261.11. EPA evaluated the

potential toxicity of the constituents

present in the wastes, the fate and

mobility of the constituents, likely

exposure routes, and the current waste

management practices. EPA conducted a

quantitative risk assessment where such

an assessment was appropriate. The

Agency proposed to list three of the

wastes based on a determination that

the wastes may pose a substantial

present or potential hazard to human

health or the environment when

improperly managed. These wastes are:

Clarified Slurry Oil Tank Sediment and/

or In-line Filter/Separation Solids,

Spent Catalyst from Hydrotreating, and

Spent Catalyst from Hydrorefining. EPA

proposed not to list the remaining 11

wastes.

EPA received approximately 2000

pages of comments from 52 parties,

many raising a variety of complex

technical issues. After reviewing the

comments, EPA decided it was

appropriate to undertake a variety of

analyses not previously available to the

public to assess the impact of using

alternative assumptions in the Agency’s

risk assessment. Although these

additional analyses are a logical

outgrowth of the comments received

and additional Notice and public

comment is, therefore, not required,

EPA has nevertheless decided that this

Notice of data availability is a useful

exercise and will help to strengthen the

record for the Agency’s decisions.

The remainder of this Notice is

divided into two general parts. The first

deals with new data and analyses

prompted by public comments claiming

EPA’s analysis was either incorrect or

incomplete; the second deals with

portions of the record that public

comments indicated were not clear and

require better explanation.

Additional Information

As a result of reviewing the public

comments, EPA reexamined the

modeling approaches used for both

groundwater and nongroundwater

exposure risks in making the listing

determinations in the November 1995

Notice, completed a variety of

additional modeling analyses, examined

a number of alternative modeling

assumptions, and gathered and

evaluated additional relevant data. EPA

also obtained additional data and

performed additional analyses in

response to comments for some of the

other decisions described in the

November 1995 Notice. A complete list

of all new materials placed in the docket

is available from the RCRA Docket at the

address and telephone number listed

above. A summary of the new data and

analyses follows.

• Supplemental Background

Document; Groundwater Pathway Risk

Analysis; Petroleum Refining Process

Waste Listing Determination—EPA has

prepared a new document, with this

title, that presents alternative

approaches to the groundwater

modeling used to evaluate risks from

landfills. The alternative approaches

are: A revised ‘‘high-end’’ analysis; a

probabilistic Monte Carlo analysis; an

analysis of potential risks presented by

codisposal of petroleum wastes in the

same landfill; an analysis of potential

risks arising from a contingent

management listing; consideration of

noningestion risks related to

groundwater use; and the potential for

the RCRA Toxicity Characteristic (TC),

promulgated under 40 CFR 262.24, to

reduce risks for some wastes.

• Supplemental Background

Document; Nongroundwater Pathway

Risk Assessment; Petroleum Refining

Process Waste Listing Determination—

EPA prepared a new document, with

this title, that presents modeling

analyses for pathways other than

groundwater for land treatment

disposal. These analyses incorporate

several modifications to the

assumptions used for the proposal

including: Limiting unit characteristics

of the onsite units used in risk modeling

to units that are not permitted

hazardous waste units; removing from

modeling consideration the volumes of

hazardous wastes that could not be sent

to a nonhazardous land treatment unit;

changes to the models used to estimate

release and transport of contaminated

soil to offsite receptors; and

incorporating the soil biodegradation of

constituents after they travel offsite. The

document also presents results from an

analysis of potential risks due to

codisposal of multiple petroleum wastes

in the same land treatment unit. In

addition, this document contains a

detailed description of the model

selected to estimate risks from

noningestion exposures (inhalation and

dermal absorption) arising from

residential use of groundwater (see also

the Background Document for

groundwater pathway risk analysis for

results of this modeling).

• Supplemental Background

Document; Listing Support Analyses;

Petroleum Refining Process Waste

Listing Determination—EPA prepared a

document, with this title, that presents

a variety of additional data and analyses

in the following areas:
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules 16749

—Analyses Regarding Leaching of Oily

Waste—Comments questioned

whether the method used by EPA

(Toxicity Characteristic Leaching

Procedure or TCLP) substantially

underestimates the mobility of

constituents in oily wastes sent to

landfills because of problems with the

method (e.g., filters clog), and because

constituents may be released in an

oily phase, as well as dissolved in

aqueous leachate. EPA presents

several analyses related to the

potential for oil in the petroleum

residuals to affect chemical analysis

and risk assessment. The data

presented consist of: compiled field

and laboratory data on the appearance

and oily nature of the residuals; the

oil and grease content reported by

petroleum refineries in wastes that

were sent to landfills for disposal;

additional analysis of archived

samples for metal constituents using

an alternative leaching method

mentioned by a commenter, the Oily

Waste Extraction Procedure (OWEP);

and the calculation of leaching

efficiency for organic constituents in

the wastes EPA sampled.

—Potential for Additive Risks From

Multiple Sources—Comments

suggested that the groundwater and

nongroundwater risks should be

added together to reflect the total

potential risks for the wastes

evaluated. In this notice, EPA is

summarizing data in the record to

assess the proximity of onsite

nonhazardous landfills and land

treatment units at each facility

surveyed to examine the potential for

combined exposures to releases from

both types of units.

—The Potential Impact of Oil-Bearing

Residuals Exclusion on Coke

Product—EPA proposed to exclude

from the definition of solid waste oilbearing residuals from certain

petroleum industry sources that are

inserted back into the refining process

(including the petroleum coker unit),

provided certain conditions are met.

EPA cited industry data showing that

such oil-bearing residuals (e.g., listed

sludges) are similar to normal

feedstock material. Some public

comments disagreed with excluding

these residuals from the definition of

solid waste and argued that this

action would allow the unregulated

disposal of ‘‘toxics along for the ride’’

due to the transfer of constituents in

the wastes to products, such as coke.

In evaluating comments on the

proposed rule, EPA realized it had

omitted from the original docket an

analysis concerning the potential

impacts that recycling petroleum

wastewater treatment sludge into coke

production might have on metals

loading in the coke product. The

purpose of this document is to

provide the analysis conducted in

support of the proposed rule, revised

to reflect more current data.

—Comparison of Product Coke to OffSpec Product and Fines From

Thermal Processes—Comments

questioned why EPA did not assess

risks from coke fines placed on piles

of coke product, arguing that the

waste does not become a product

simply because it is placed on the pile

and combined with another material.

In this Notice, EPA has clarified the

existing record, as noted below, but

has also added additional information

comparing the characteristics of coke

fines and coke product.

—Active Lives of Landfills Used for

Disposal of Petroleum Refining

Wastes—Comments suggested that the

active life for a landfill used by EPA

in its modeling (20 years) was too

short. In this Notice, EPA presents

relevant data compiled from the

industry survey, and calculations for

the active lives of onsite landfills.

—Characterization of On-site Land

Treatment Units—Some comments

claimed that EPA had modeled land

treatment units that were already

regulated as hazardous waste units

under RCRA, and as such, the release

scenarios modeled were unlikely. In

this Notice, EPA examines the

regulatory status of on-site land

treatment units and has compiled

statistics on unit areas for

nonhazardous units that managed the

petroleum wastes under evaluation.

These statistics are used in the revised

nongroundwater analysis (see

Supplemental Background Document;

Nongroundwater Pathway Risk

Assessment).

—Potential Impact of the Headworks

Exemption—EPA proposed to modify

the definition of hazardous waste to

exempt wastewaters containing one of

the wastes proposed for listing

(clarified slurry oil storage tank

sediment and/or in-line filter/

separation solids), if the discharge of

the wastewaters are regulated under

the Clean Water Act. This is the socalled ‘‘headworks exemption’’. EPA

took this action because some

refineries manage residuals derived

from this waste in their wastewater

treatment facility during process

vessel cleaning or tank washing. If

this waste is listed as hazardous

waste, this would cause all

downstream wastewaters and

treatment sludges to be derived from

this waste and thus, carry the same

waste code as the original waste (see

261.3(a)(2)(iv)). Little to no risk

reduction benefit would be achieved

from regulating this material as a

hazardous waste.

Comments on this headworks

exemption for CSO Sediment noted that

it should also include wastewater from

the other two wastes EPA proposed for

listing (Spent Catalyst from

Hydrotreating and Spent Catalyst from

Hydrorefining). The comments pointed

out that some petroleum refineries use

water to cool and wash out the spent

catalyst when the materials are removed

from the catalytic units. Highly

pressurized water is sometimes used to

drill out catalyst that cannot be easily

removed. EPA did not consider this

practice when proposing the headworks

exemption for the CSO sediment, and

believes that the same rationale for

proposing the exemption for

wastewaters containing CSO sediment

applies to wastewater containing the

two spent catalyst wastes.

If the listing of the spent catalyst

wastes are made final, these drill and

drainage waters would be derived-from

hazardous wastes. Thus, facilities that

engage in this practice would risk

having all down stream wastewater

treatment solids considered derived

from hazardous wastes, if these

wastewaters are discharged to the

treatment system. This was not EPA’s

intent. Therefore, EPA is clarifying that

the exemption proposed for

261.3(a)(2)(iv)(C) will also include

wastewater containing the two spent

catalyst wastes (K171 and K172), as well

as the CSO sediment (K170). The

Agency evaluated the potential impact

of including wastewater from these two

wastes in the headworks exemption,

and believes that including them would

not result in any significant risks in the

downstream wastes. In the docket to

this Notice, EPA presents additional

analysis to evaluate the impact of such

an exemption for wastewaters

containing the three wastes proposed for

listing.

Comments also claimed that, as

written, the headworks exemption for

CSO Sediment (K170) would allow the

discharge of more than merely

wastewaters, and that refineries could

also manage their original tank sludges

in wastewater treatment systems. It was

not EPA’s intent to foster the discharge

of all CSO sediments to wastewater

treatment systems. The Agency

envisions that after the tanks had been

cleaned, facilities would wash the tanks

out to remove the last residues and

make the tanks suitable for inspection.

Therefore, EPA is soliciting comments

on clarifying the headworks exemption
16750 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules

for wastewaters containing the three

petroleum wastes proposed for listing

(K170, K171, and K172) so as to limit

the exemption to dilute wastewaters.

EPA is considering adding language to

the proposed exemption clarifying that

the exemption applies to wash waters

from the clean out of units that

contained CSO sediments (K170), Spent

Hydrotreating Catalyst (K171), or Spent

Hydrorefining Catalyst (K172).

• Data Impacting Proposed Universal

Treatment Standards—EPA is including

additional waste stabilization data in

the docket to this Notice submitted to

EPA for the calculation of treatment

standards for antimony, nickel and

vanadium as applied to two petroleum

refining wastes that were proposed for

listing (K171—Spent Catalysts from

Hydrotreating, and K172—Spent

Catalysts from Hydrorefining). See two

documents in the docket entitled: Final

Revised Calculation of Treatment

Standards for Stabilization Using Data

Obtained from Rollins Environmental’s

Highway 36 Commercial Waste

Treatment Facility and GNB’s Frisco,

Texas Waste Treatment Facility;

Memorandum from Howard Finkel, ICF

Inc., to Anita Cummings, USEPA, March

1997; and High Temperature Metals

Recovery (HTMR) Treatment Standards

for Metals in Nonwastewater.

Clarifications and Corrections

The Agency is also taking this

opportunity to clarify several points in

the proposed rule.

Headworks Exemption

Comments on the headworks

exemption stated that the proposal did

not adequately justify this action. In this

Notice, EPA shows that the proposed

rule does, in fact, provide justification

for this exemption in the Risk

Assessment section III.F.2.(c).

Specifically, in section III.F.2.(c)(2)

entitled ‘‘Disposal in Wastewater

Treatment Plants,’’ EPA discusses

reasons why such disposal was not

considered to warrant risk modeling,

primarily due to existing regulatory

coverage and the treatment and dilution

that occurs in wastewater treatment

plants (see 60 FR 57759). Furthermore,

the Agency is including in this Notice

additional analysis it has undertaken to

further describe the dilution and

treatment that is expected to occur for

this practice. This analysis is presented

in the docket for this Notice (see

Potential Impact of the Headworks

Exemption, in the Supplemental

Background Document; Listing Support

Analyses; Petroleum Refining Process

Listing Determination).

Jurisdictional Explanation of OffSpecification Product and Fines From

Thermal Processes Used as Product

EPA proposed not to list as hazardous

Off-Specification Product and Fines

from Thermal Processes. EPA’s rationale

for this is that the majority of offspecification product and fines are

managed as coke product and thus are

either not within the jurisdiction of

RCRA or are exempt from RCRA

regulation. Comments on this action

stated that the proposal did not

adequately explain the statutory or

regulatory basis for the purported lack

of jurisdiction over coke fines managed

on a pile. EPA notes that the proposed

rule does provide justification.

However, further clarification is

provided below.

In responding to the commenter, the

Agency must first clarify that only

particle size distinguishes coke fines

from other coke product. The majority

of coke is removed from the coker by

hydraulic drilling. Coke fines are the

smaller pieces of coke generated during

this process.

Second, a jurisdictional distinction

exists between coke fines that are

produced from non-hazardous materials

and coke fines produced from

hazardous wastes (waste-derived fines).

Fines generated from non-hazardous

materials are simply coke product, as

would be expected since they are

produced from the same coking drum.

These fines are combined with other

coke in a product pile where the

material is stored prior to sales. Thus,

EPA’s belief that coke fines not derived

from hazardous waste are beyond RCRA

jurisdiction is based on the coke fines

being coke product.

In the case of waste-derived fines, so

long as the fines are legitimate coke

product, they are exempt from RCRA

regulation unless the material exhibits a

characteristic, 40 CFR 261.6(a)(3)(v).

(See also RCRA section 3004(q)(2)(A)).

EPA does not believe coke fails any

hazardous waste characteristic, but

invites comment if anyone has data to

the contrary. Since the fines used as

product are exempt, this material is

outside the jurisdiction of the RCRA

regulations. Therefore, EPA did not

evaluate risks posed by such product

uses of coke fines. In any event, EPA has

data which indicate that the use of

hazardous waste as feed material to the

coker would result in little, if any,

change to the qualities and the

properties of the coke and fines

produced. These coke fines would have

essentially the same composition as

fines generated from non-hazardous

feed materials. The waste-derived fines

are combined with other coke in a

product pile for storage prior to sales

and are coke product.

As noted in the Additional

Information section of this Notice, the

docket contains additional analyses

related to the similarity of coke fines to

existing coke product, and the potential

impact of recycling hazardous waste to

the coker. EPA invites comments on

these analyses.

Corrections to Proposal

EPA inadvertently inserted some risk

estimates in the preamble to the

proposed rule that did not accurately

reflect the risk calculations given in the

background documents to the rule. To

correct the record, EPA is including in

today’s Notice a comparison of the

groundwater risks from landfill disposal

that were published in the preamble to

the proposed rule (see 60 FR 57747;

November 20, 1995) with the correct (at

that time) risk estimates given in the

docket (‘‘Background Document for

Groundwater Pathway Analysis’’,

August 1995); this comparison is given

in Table I. EPA also omitted from the

preamble a risk estimate for one waste

(Off-Specifications Product and Fines

from Thermal Processes) that exceeded

the 10¥6 level. Table I also includes the

risk estimates for this waste that were

given in the background document to

the proposal (See Appendix C in

‘‘Background Document for

Groundwater Pathway Analysis’’).

Revised Risk Estimates

Table II summarizes the revised risk

estimates for the groundwater pathway

for onsite and offsite landfill disposal,

and contains the results for the revised

high-end analyses, the Monte Carlo

analyses, and the risks that would occur

if constituents (benzene and arsenic) in

the wastes were capped at the level

specified in the TC. Note that all revised

analyses for benzene represent the

combined groundwater risk from

ingestion and noningestion pathways

(i.e., showering).

Revised risk estimates for

nongroundwater pathways for onsite

and offsite land treatment are given in

Table III, and reflect the modifications

noted earlier in this Notice and

described in detail in the docket

(‘‘Supplemental Background Document;

Nongroundwater Pathway Risk

Assessment’’). The total carcinogenic

risks are shown for various exposed

populations and the methodologies used

are fully explained in the supplemental

background document.

The revised risk analyses for the

groundwater and nongroundwater

pathways complement and confirm the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules 16751

original analyses given in the proposed

rule. EPA believes that the additional

analyses completed for these wastes

support the listing determinations

contained in the proposed rule, and is

not proposing any new listing decisions

based on the new analyses.

Off-Specification Product and Fines

From Thermal Processes

While the preamble to the proposed

rule did not contain a risk level for OffSpecification Product and Fines, the

background document showed the risk

results relied on by the Agency in the

proposal as 1 × 10¥5. As shown in Table

II, the revised high-end analysis for this

waste yields risks that vary from 5 ×

10¥6 to 2 × 10¥5, depending on the

approach used. The varying approaches

used by EPA to calculate the risks in

Table II are described in more detail in

the docket (‘‘Supplemental

Groundwater Pathway Analyses’’). The

high-end risks for this waste are within

the Agency’s initial risk level of concern

(see the proposed rule and the listing

policy described in an earlier

rulemaking for the Dyes and Pigments

industry, 66 FR 66072, December 22,

1994, and the proposed rule for

petroleum, 60 FR 57747).

However, the estimated groundwater

risk for this waste was based on entirely

one chemical (benz(a)anthracene) that

was detected in only one out of six

aqueous leachate (TCLP) samples at a

level 8-fold below the quantitation limit.

(The quantitation limit is the lowest

concentration that can be reliably

achieved for specific samples within

acceptable limits of precision and

accuracy during routine laboratory

operations.) The higher risk (2 × 10¥5)

arises when the value below the

quantitation limit is used along with

two other high-end parameters. The

lower risk estimate (5 × 10¥6) results if

the one measured TCLP concentration is

assumed to be one of the two high-end

parameters. The highest risk from the

Monte Carlo analysis is 5 × 10¥6 at the

95th percentile. This means that in the

numerous simulation runs (10,000), the

risks were found to be below this level

95% of the time.

After evaluating the additional

analyses for Off-Specification Product

and Fines, EPA does not consider the

risk significant for a number of reasons.

EPA believes that the higher risk is an

overestimate because it is based on the

detection in one out of six samples well

below the quantitation limit. Thus, EPA

has low confidence in this TCLP value

and the subsequent modeling based on

this number. Further analysis using the

detected concentration as one of the two

high-end parameters shows that the risk

level drops to 5×10¥6. The water

solubility of this chemical is also very

low, indicating that its aqueous

concentration is likely to be very low. In

addition, this chemical is tightly

adsorbed to organic material in soils and

sediment, indicating that the constituent

is relatively immobile in groundwater.

Therefore, it is highly unlikely that this

waste would present a significant risk in

a groundwater scenario. For all of these

reasons, EPA continues to believe that

this waste should not be listed.

Land Disposal Restrictions—Revised

Treatment Standards for Spent

Catalysts From Hydrotreating (K171)

and Hydrorefining (K171)

In the November 20, 1995 proposed

rule, EPA proposed to apply the

universal treatment standards (UTS) to

the Petroleum Refining wastes proposed

for listing (60 FR 57783). Commenters to

that proposal have stated their inability

to stabilize K171 and K171

nonwastewaters to the proposed 0.23

mg/L TCLP standard for vanadium.

However, the commenters failed to

provide data adequate for the

calculation of an alternative treatment

standard. Rather, the commenters

provided data for the attempted

stabilization of a catalyst that had not

undergone extraction consistent with

normal vanadium recovery. Data on

stabilization alone does not reflect

proper treatment for this waste;

therefore, EPA does not consider these

data adequate to modify the treatment

standards. Subsequently, the Agency

has obtained additional data suitable for

the calculation of treatment standards.

The Agency has used this new

stabilization data, as well as data from

high temperature metal recovery

(HTMR), to recalculate treatment

standards for these wastes. (See the

docket for the two documents identified

in the Additional Information section

earlier in this Notice.) Based on these

calculations, the proposed UTS

standards as applied to K171 and K172

for antimony, nickel, and vanadium

would be revised to reflect the higher of

the standards calculated for stabilized

wastes and HTMR residues. The

antimony standard would be decreased

from 2.1 mg/L TCLP to 0.07 mg/L TCLP,

the nickel standard would be increased

from 5.0 mg/L TCLP to 13.6 mg/L TCLP,

and the vanadium standard would be

increased from 0.23 mg/L TCLP to 1.6

mg/L TCLP. The Agency is today

noticing the data used to calculate these

proposed revisions to the UTS standards

as applied to the petroleum refinery

wastes. The Agency requests any

additional treatment data to re-evaluate

or re-calculate the treatment standards

based on EPA’s BDAT Protocol (see

USEPA, ‘‘Final Best Demonstrated

Available Technology (BDAT)

Background Document for Quality

Assurance/Quality Control Procedures

and Methodology’’, Office of Solid

Waste, October 23, 1991). In the

upcoming Land Disposal Restrictions

Phase IV rulemaking, the Agency will

discuss in detail the proposed use of the

available data for developing Universal

Treatment Standards on a national

basis.

Dated: March 28, 1997.

Elizabeth A. Cotsworth,

Acting Director, Office of Solid Waste.

TABLE I.—COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL FEDERAL REGISTER GROUNDWATER RISK ASSESSMENT VALUES WITH

BACKGROUND DOCUMENT

Constituent

Federal Register 1 Background

document 2

On-site

landfill

Off-site

landfill On-site

landfill

Off-site

landfill

Spent Catalyst From Hydrotreating

Benzene .................................................................................................................................... 9E–06 1E–05 3E–05 4E–05

Arsenic ...................................................................................................................................... 8E–06 1E–05 2E–05 3E–05

Spent Catalyst From Hydrorefining

Benzene .................................................................................................................................... 1E–05 2E–05 2E–05 3E–05
16752 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules

TABLE I.—COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL FEDERAL REGISTER GROUNDWATER RISK ASSESSMENT VALUES WITH

BACKGROUND DOCUMENT—Continued

Constituent

Federal Register 1 Background

document 2

On-site

landfill

Off-site

landfill On-site

landfill

Off-site

landfill

Arsenic ...................................................................................................................................... 4E–05 6E–05 7E–05 1E–04

Crude Oil Storage Tank Sediment

Benzene .................................................................................................................................... NA3 3E–05 NA 5E–07

Unleaded Gasoline Storage Tank Sediment

Benzene .................................................................................................................................... <1 E–06 2E–06 6E–7 4E–06

HF Alkylation Sludge

Benzene .................................................................................................................................... 6E–07 3E–06 8E–07 3E–06

Off-Specification Product and Fines

Benzo(a)anthracene ................................................................................................................. NR 4 NR 3E–07 1E–05

1See 60 FR 57747, November 20, 1995.

2 2See ‘‘Petroleum Refining Waste Listing Determination, Background Document for Groundwater Pathway Analysis,’’ Docket Document Identification No. F–95–PRLP–S0007. 3 Not applicable.

4 None reported in Federal Register.

TABLE II.—COMPARISON OF GROUNDWATER RISKS FOR PETROLEUM RESIDUALS IN LANDFILLS 1

Constituent

Revised risks 2 TC-capped risks 3

High-end risk 4 Monte Carlo risk 5

(95th%) High-end risk Monte Carlo risk(95th%)

Off-site On-site Off-site On-site Off-site On-site Off-site On-site

Clarified Slurry Oil Tank Sediment

benzene ............................................. 3E–06 3E–06 1E–06 3E–07 NA NA NA NA

Hydrotreating Catalyst

benzene ............................................. 5E–05 8E–05 1E–05 8E–06 1E–05 2E–05 4E–06 4E–06

arsenic ............................................... 7E–05 6E–05 1E–05 7E–06 NA NA NA NA

Hydrorefining Catalyst

benzene ............................................. 4E–05 4E–05 8E–06 8E–06 2E–05 2E–05 6E–06 6E–06

arsenic ............................................... 7E–04 4E–04 1E–04 1E–04 4E–04 4E–04 1E–04 1E–04

Crude Oil Storage Tank Sediment

benzene ............................................. 3E–05 NA 5E–06 NA 2E–05 NA 3E–06 NA

Unleaded Gasoline Storage Tank Sediment

benzene ............................................. 5E–06 2E–06 2E–06 6E–07 3E–06 1E–06 1E–06 6E–07

HF Alkylation Sludge

benzene ............................................. 6E–06 6E–06 2E–06 2E–07 NA NA 2E–06 2E–07

Off-Specification Product and Fines From Thermal Processes

Benzo(a)-anthracene ......................... 5E–06 6 3E–06 6 4E–06 7 1E–07 NA NA NA NA

2E–05 2E–05 5E–06

1 Risk presented as carcinogenic risk.

2The revised risk includes an indirect risk from showering (6.05×10¥5 risk per 1 mg/L benzene). 3 Input leaching rates were capped at TC regulatory levels for maximum allowable TCLP values for disposal in Subtitle D landfills (0.5 mg/L for

benzene and 5.0 mg/L for arsenic). ‘‘NA’’ means either the TC level was not exceeded, or no TC level exists for a chemical. 4 Risks were estimated using high-end values for two most sensitive parameters, while the remaining parameters are kept at median values.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules 16753

5 Risks were estimated using Monte Carlo simulation runs; at the 95th percentile level, calculated risks were found to be below this level 95%

of the time. 6The lower risk was obtained by using the one detected value (a ‘‘J-value’’ below the quantitation limit) as one of the two high-end parameters. 7The lower risk was obtained by using only the J-value in the Monte Carlo simulation runs.

TABLE III.—NON-GROUNDWATER RISKS FOR PETROLEUM RESIDUALS IN LAND TREATMENT UNITS

Individual waste streams

On-site land treatment unit high-end total

carcinogen risk

Off-site land treatment unit high-end total

carcinogen risk

Home

gardener

Adult

resident

Subsistence

farmer

Subsistence fisherHome

gardener

Adult

resident

Subsistence

farmer

Subsistence fisher

Clarified Slurry Oil Tank Sediment .... 1E–04 2E–05 2E–04 4E–05 3E–05 1E–05 2E–05 3E–05

Crude Oil Tank Sediment .................. 3E–07 1E–07 4E–07 2E–07 2E–07 8E–08 2E–07 1E–07

Unleaded Gasoline Tank Sediment .. 4E–07 9E–08 2E–07 1E–07 3E–07 9E–08 4E–07 1E–07

Sulfur Complex Sludge ...................... 1E–07 3E–08 6E–08 3E–08 5E–08 1E–08 4E–08 1E–08

HF Alkylation Sludge ......................... 3E–08 7E–09 1E–08 8E–09 3E–08 7E–09 4E–08 9E–09

Sulfuric Acid Alkylation Sludge .......... 2E–09 1E–09 3E–10 2E–09 5E–10 3E–10 3E–10 7E–10

Off-Spec Product & Fines ................. 6E–08 3E–08 7E–08 4E–08 6E–08 2E–08 9E–08 4E–08

[FR Doc. 97–8816 Filed 4–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 268

[EPA–F–97–PH3A–FFFFF; FRL–5808–4]

RIN 2050 AE05

Land Disposal Restrictions—Phase IV:

Treatment Standards for Characteristic

Metal Wastes; Notice of Data

Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Extension of the comment

period.

SUMMARY: EPA has received requests to

extend the comment period on the

notice of data availability (NODA)

published in the Federal Register on

March 5, 1997 (62 FR 10004). The

NODA solicited public comments on

studies, and the results of a Peer Review

of those studies, pertaining to whether

the addition of iron filings (and iron

dust) to lead-contaminated spent

foundry sand is a means of diluting the

waste impermissibly rather than treating

it to conform with the requirements of

the LDR rules. The NODA addressed

whether this practice stabilizes (or

otherwise treats) lead, the chief

hazardous constituent found in the

spent sand, so that the lead will not

migrate through the environment when

the spent sand is land disposed. This

document extends the comment period

for the NODA for 30 days.

DATES: Comments are due by May 8,

1997.

ADDRESSES: To submit comments, the

public must send an original and two

copies to Docket Number F–97–PH3A–

FFFFF, located at the RCRA Docket. The

mailing address is: RCRA Information

Center, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (5305W), 401 M. Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20460. RCRA

Information Center is located at 1235

Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor,

Arlington, Virginia. The RCRA

Information Center is open for public

inspection and copying of supporting

information for RCRA rules from 9:00

a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through

Friday, except for Federal holidays. The

public must make an appointment to

review docket materials by calling (703)

603–9230. The public may copy a

maximum of 100 pages from any

regulatory document at no cost.

Additional copies cost $0.15 per page.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

general information or to order paper

copies of this Federal Register

document, call the RCRA Hotline.

Callers within the Washington,

Metropolitan Area must dial 703–412–

9810 or TDD 703–412–3323 (hearing

impaired). Long-distance callers may

call 1–800–424–9346 or TDD 1–800–

553–7672. The RCRA Hotline is open

Monday-Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,

Eastern Standard Time. For information

on this notice, contact Mary

Cunningham at (703) 308–8453, John

Austin at (703) 308–0436 or Rhonda

Craig at (703) 308–8771, Office of Solid

Waste, 401 M Street, SW, Washington,

DC 20460.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 268

Environmental protection, Hazardous

waste, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: April 3, 1997.

Elizabeth A. Cotsworth,

Acting Director, Office of Solid Waste.

[FR Doc. 97–9093 Filed 4–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 970318057–7057–01; I.D.

022097C]

RIN 0648–AJ42

Fisheries of the Northeastern United

States; Fishery Management Plan for

the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black

Sea Bass Fisheries; Recreational

Measures for the 1997 Summer

Flounder Fishery

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule, request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this proposed

rule to amend the regulations

implementing the Fishery Management

Plan for the Summer Flounder, Scup,

and Black Sea Bass Fisheries (FMP).

This rule proposes a possession limit of

10 fish per person and a minimum fish

size of 14.5 inches (36.8 cm) for the

1997 summer flounder recreational

fishery. The intent of this rule is to

comply with implementing regulations

for the fishery that require NMFS to

publish measures for the current fishing

year that will prevent overfishing of the

resource.