June 10, 1985

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Regulatory Options. for the Sun Refining and Marketing Facility in Oregon, Ohio

FROM: Eileen B. Claussen Director Characterization and Assessment Division (WH-562B)

TO: Acting Branch Chief Solid Waste Branch (Region V)

We have reviewed your May 6 memorandum requesting guidance on the current regulatory options available for regulating oily wastewater ponds at petroleum refineries. In your letter, you discuss the applicability of each of our previously supplied options (see my December 7, 1984 memo to Robert Duprey) to the subject facility. Your letter is quite timely since we are currently determining the extent to which the mixture and “derived from” rules should be applied to facilities like Sun. Unfortunately, we have not, as yet, completed our deliberations. We will keep you apprised of our progress.

As an interim measure you may wish to conduct some additional investigation of the site. In particular, sampling the pond to establish waste characteristics is critical to your case. We also should note, in connection with the sludge sampling, that failure of the described pond to accumulate significant sludge, is highly unlikely. To keep the pond clear of sludge for a six year period would require intermediate flushing or cleanout of the pit.

We also would encourage you to contact Larry Wapensky of Region VIII about the performance of a scour determination. Such a determination is not nearly as difficult as you described. Larry’s staff is in the process of developing some cases using that approach and may be quite helpful.

As I stated previously, we will get back to you with a mixture rule determination as soon as possible In the interim you should contact Ben Smith of my staff (FTS: 475- 8551) if additional questions arise concerning this facility or other refinery related matters.

Faxback 11084

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION V

DATE: MAY 6, 1985

SUBJECT: Regulation of Impoundments at Refineries that Contain Oily Wastewaters and Solids

FROM: Karl J. Klepitsch, Jr. Chief, Solid Waste Branch

To: John H. Skinner, Director Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)

This memorandum is prepared in response to your memorandum of December 7, 1984, to Robert L. Duprey, Director, Region 8, Air and Waste Management Division, concerning policy for permitting of refining oily wastewater treatment ponds. We are requesting guidance as to how we can mitigate the threat posed to ground and surface waters by the unlined wastewater pond in which oily wastewaters are treated and stored at a particular facility in Region V. We also anticipate that other refineries pose similar regulatory difficulties as this one in question. The process diagram and the facility diagram from the Part A are attached.

Your memorandum states that we cannot regulate a surface impoundment at a refinery on the basis of oil/water/solids separation occurring within the impoundment alone or on the basis that solids alone within the impoundment are evidence that API separator are carried over into the impoundment. The memorandum does state that we can regulate impoundments on the basis of one of three approaches.

The first approach, that of requiring the refinery to undertake corrective action for releases of hazardous waste constituents from the impoundment, is inapplicable to this refinery because they do not intend to obtain a RCRA permit. They would be a generator only accumulating for less than 90 days, assuming that they are not storing hazardous wastes in the impoundment. The slop oil emulsion solids, API separator sludge, and the OAF float are combined and processed in a gravity belt . The solids are transported to a nearby disposal facility. Other hazardous wastes produced periodically at the facility are removed within 90 days of being generated.

The second approach is to regulate the impoundments because the sludges exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste. The sediments could be EP toxic, corrosive, or reactive but must be tested first. Unless there is a high solids carryover, the sediments will probably not be a characteristic waste. The company uses the impoundment basin for surge capacity during periods of rain storms and an equalization basin during upsets in pH, etc. in the treatment system. The basin was put into service in 1952 and was cleaned in 1979 at the same time that the

system was installed. Approximately one foot of sediment and one foot of contaminated clay were removed. Now that the DAF unit is in place1 the company does not anticipate ever removing sludge from the impoundment in the future. At this point in time, a layer of sediment too thin to sample has accumulated in the impoundment. They place untreated or partially treated wastewater in the impoundment where it undergoes oil/water/solids separation. In the large impoundment (surface area is 5.5 acres and the volume is 12,000,000 gallons), the settled sediment accumulates slowly. The impoundment was cleaned shortly before the RCRA regulations went into effect so that we cannot establish that they are storing characteristic waste in the impoundment at the present time. We also anticipate that we would experience difficulty in ordering sampling and getting them classified as a TSD in the future.

The third option for regulating the surface impoundment is that of employing the mixture rule for carryover of API separator sludge to the impoundment, for that demonstration, the burden of proof is on the Agency to establish that scouring is occurring. We request that you assist us In establishing whether scouring is occurring. The correspondence and field monitoring efforts should originate from Headquarters because the contractor, Metcalf &. Eddy, is employed by the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE).

In this Region, we do not have the technical resources for monitoring flows through the API separator unit and the DAF unit to ascertain whether scouring could be occurring. The operator acknowledges that the surface impoundment receives untreated wastewater occasionally and that pH upsets in the API separator does result in solids carryover to the surface impoundment. Yet, we do not have monitoring data to demonstrate that scouring is occurring to the extent that losses are greater than “de minimis” quantities. Your memorandum states that sludge itself is not evidence of carryover and that API separation can only occur in an API separator. Thus, we would need monitoring data during those periods when solids carryover Is likely to occur, when significant rainfalls are occurring or when pH upsets may occur. The facility has no flow data from continuously monitoring the API separator inflow with which we could ascertain whether they exceed the maximum design flow rates. Thus, we are not aware of any of the evaluation factors that would apply to this facility without monitoring the units for a period of time.

The specific facility, Sun Refining and Marketing Company of Oregon, Ohio, has conducted a year of groundwater monitoring and the results indicate groundwater contamination in numerous

wells. TOC has exceeded 2,000 mg/L In one well and that well has high phenols and was observed to have a floating oil layer.

The NPDWR were exceeded for several parameters, specifically for arsenic, barium, chromium, fluoride, lead, selenium, mercury, and cadmium, although there was some question whether the wells accurately reflect groundwater at the facility. Because the surface impoundment Is a non-regulated unit, we cannot order the operator to institute an assessment monitoring program. We have no option but to Inform this company that the refinery is an unregulated facility and we have no authority to order assessment monitoring because no hazardous wastes have been stored in the surface impoundment since 1979. The State, without consulting U.S. EPA, has already informed the company that they are a generator only. Thus, we would need well detailed guidance and a firm regulatory basis for regulating the facility. The Part B permit application has been called in and is due May 15, 1985.

We expect them to Inform us that they are not intending to submit a Part B. We wish to have a prepared response for them and, therefore, are seeking guidance from you. Questions can be directed to Jerry Lenssen of my staff.

cc: Gene Lucero, OWPE Bill Constantelos, 5H Robert Duprey, Region 8 RCRA Branch Chiefs, Regions 1-4, 6-10 Bill Miner, 5HE