MEMORANDUM
DATE:
May
14,
2004
TO:
Effluent
Guidelines
Planning
Record
FROM:
M.
Ahmar
Siddiqui
RE:
Reasons
for
Not
Selecting
the
Petroleum
Bulk
Stations
and
Terminals
Industry
for
ELG
Development
in
the
2004/
2005
Effluent
Guidelines
Plan
In
the
Preliminary
2004/
2005
Effluent
Guidelines
Plan,
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
December
31,
2003
(
68
FR
75515­
75531),
EPA
stated
that
it
was
evaluating
the
petroleum
bulk
stations
and
terminals
(
PBST,
SIC
5171)
industry
for
inclusion
as
a
subcategory
into
the
Petroleum
Refining
effluent
discharge
standards
(
40
CFR
Part
419).
The
PBST
industry's
discharges
are
not
currently
regulated
and
the
Agency
requested
comments
at
that
time
regarding
this
approach.

The
Agency
received
more
than
a
dozen
comments,
both
from
trade
associations
and
citizens'
groups.
Those
industry
groups
commenting
on
EPA's
consideration
of
the
industry
as
a
subcategory
of
40
CFR
Part
419
strongly
objected,
stating
that
PBSTs
are
very
different
from
refineries.
They
make
several
points,
as
follows:

°
The
PBST
industry,
for
the
most
part,
performs
no
refining
activities.
°
The
PBST
industry,
by
and
large,
only
performs
transfer
and
distribution
of
petroleum
products.
°
The
PBST
industry's
discharges
are
different
from
those
of
refineries.
Refineries
discharge
large
volumes
of
water
from
their
separation
processes,
while
PBSTs
mostly
discharge
stormwater.
°
The
PBST
industry's
wastewaters
are
less
toxic
than
those
of
refineries.

The
citizen
group
commenting
on
this
issue
notes
takes
the
opposing
view:
that
refineries
and
PBSTs
are
similar
in
that
both
industries
handle
organic
compounds
and
that,
as
a
result,
subcategorization
would
be
appropriate.

As
to
the
question
of
regulating
wastewater
discharges
from
PBSTs,
a
similar
pattern
emerges:
those
in
the
industry
and
opposing
the
subcategorization
of
40
CFR
Part
419
also
oppose
the
development
of
ELGs,
for
the
following
reasons:

°
Toxic
discharges
are
generally
dilute,
small
in
volume,
and
intermittently
generated.
°
Toxic
discharges
are
managed
through
a
combination
of
stormwater
regulations
and
Best
Management
Practices
(
BMPs,
driven
by
EPA's
spill
control
program).
°
Toxic
discharges
are
generally
controlled
by
oil/
water
separation
or
offsite
treatment.
The
citizen
group,
on
the
other
hand,
approves
of
the
development
of
new
discharge
standards
for
PBSTs
for
the
following
reasons:

°
Marine
terminals
often
accept
huge
volumes
of
oily
ballast/
bilge
water.
Even
at
low
concentration,
high
discharge
volumes
can
lead
to
high
pollutant
mass
discharges.
°
The
pollutants
discharged
by
PBSTs
are
similar
to
those
discharged
by
refineries
and
refineries
have
discharge
standards
(
40
CFR
Part
419).

The
Agency
has
reviewed
these
comments,
along
with
conducting
its
own
study
of
the
industry
and
has
chosen
to
consider
PBSTs
a
subcategory
of
the
refining
industry.
The
reasons
for
this
decision
are
detailed
in
an
earlier
memorandum
(
please
see
"
Petroleum
Bulk
Storage
Stations
(
PBST)
is
Reasonably
Considered
a
New
Subcategory
Under
the
Existing
Effluent
Guidelines
Limitations
and
Standards
for
the
Petroleum
Refining
Industry
(
40
CFR
Part
419)").

As
to
the
question
of
developing
new
standards
for
the
PBST
industry
under
the
2004/
2005
Effluent
Guidelines
Plan,
EPA
has
chosen
to
defer.
The
deferral
is
based
both
on
the
comments
received
and
EPA's
own
study
of
the
industry
and
is
for
several
reason,
as
follows:

°
Toxic
discharges,
on
a
per­
facility
basis,
are
trivial.
°
Toxic
discharges
are
being
driven
by
a
small
number
of
facilities.
°
Large
numbers
of
facilities
discharge
no
toxic
wastewater.
°
EPA's
stormwater
and
spill
control
programs
already
address
these
facilities.

In
its
assessment
of
the
industry's
wastewater
discharges,
EPA
used
two
databases:
the
Toxic
Release
Inventory
(
TRI)
database
and
the
Permit
Compliance
System
(
PCS)
database.
While
these
databases
are
rather
useful,
both
have
limitations
(
e.
g.,
PCS
does
not
reveal
much
information
about
small
direct
dischargers
and
none
about
indirect
dischargers).
Of
the
502
PBSTs
reporting
to
TRI
in
2000,
167
reported
discharges
to
surface
waters
totaling
8,010
toxicweighted
pounds­
equivalent
(
TWPE).
In
the
2000
PCS
database,
eight
facilities
reported
discharging
5,389
TWPE.

Using
the
TRI
data,
it
can
be
calculated
that
PBSTs
discharge
approximately
48
TWPE
on
a
perfacility
basis,
if
only
the
167
reporting
discharges
are
counted.
In
addition,
only
four
facilities
account
for
more
than
95
percent
of
the
total
toxic
discharges.
Moreover,
the
top
reporting
facility,
accounting
for
more
than
40
percent
of
the
total
toxic
discharges
by
itself,
has
closed
since
the
time
of
reporting.
An
assessment
of
the
data
provided
by
PCS
reveals
something
similar.
In
this
case,
the
per­
facility
discharge
is
in
excess
of
670
TWPE.
However,
a
closer
examination
reveals
that
more
than
99
percent
of
the
toxic
discharges
are
driven
by
two
facilities.
Given
these
toxic
discharge
distributions,
it
is
reasonable
to
conclude
that
individual
facility
permit
support
might
be
the
most
appropriate
course
of
action.

To
the
point
of
large
numbers
of
facilities
discharging
no
toxic
wastewater,
note
that
the
2000
TRI
data
imply
that
two­
thirds
of
the
industry
is
zero­
discharge
(
335
of
502
reporting
facilities).
These
data
are
generally
in
agreement
with
what
the
Agency
has
been
able
to
learn
from
control
authorities
across
the
country.
By
and
large,
permitting
and
compliance
authorities
believe
that
small
dischargers
prefer
to
collect
their
polluted
wastewaters
(
e.
g.,
contaminated
stormwater,
tank
bottoms
water,
and
equipment
wash
water)
and
ship
them
offsite
for
treatment.
This
treatment
method
seems
to
be
driven
by
economic
factors,
with
small
facilities
finding
it
less
viable
to
operate
their
own
on­
site
treatment
systems.

Another
factor
reducing
toxic
discharges
from
the
PBST
industry
is
the
need
to
comply
with
EPA's
stormwater
and
spill
control
rules.
As
a
consequence
of
these
regulations,
PBSTs
implement
BMPs
and
pollution
practices
that
limit
stormwater
contamination
and
tank
bottoms
formation
and
enhance
the
capture
of
polluted
waters.
The
use
of
improved
tank
seals,
dikes
in
the
tank
farms,
and
collection
systems
in
loading­
rack
areas
all
work
to
capture
potentially
contaminated
wastewater
and
to
prevent
contamination
of
uncontaminated
water.
Once
properly
captured,
wastes
can
either
sent
through
the
facility's
treatment
system,
for
those
that
discharge,
or
collected
in
tanks
and
shipped
offsite
for
treatment.
