30811
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
89
/
Wednesday,
May
8,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
Protection
of
Children
The
Coast
Guard
has
analyzed
this
rule
under
Executive
Order
13045,
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks.
This
rule
is
not
an
economically
significant
rule
and
does
not
create
an
environmental
risk
to
health
or
risk
to
safety
that
may
disproportionately
affect
children.

Indian
Tribal
Governments
This
rule
does
not
have
tribal
implications
under
Executive
Order
13175,
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
because
it
does
not
have
a
substantial
direct
effect
on
one
or
more
Indian
tribes,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
Government
and
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
Government
and
Indian
tribes.

Environment
The
Coast
Guard
has
considered
the
environmental
impact
of
this
rule
and
concluded
that,
under
Figure
2–
1,
paragraph
34(
g)
of
Commandant
Instruction
M16475.1D,
this
rule
is
categorically
excluded
from
further
environmental
documentation.
A
``
Categorical
Exclusion
Determination''
is
available
in
the
docket
for
inspection
or
copying
where
indicated
under
ADDRESSES.

Energy
Effects
The
Coast
Guard
has
analyzed
this
rule
under
Executive
Order
13211,
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use.
We
have
determined
that
it
is
not
a
``
significant
energy
action''
under
that
order
because
it
is
not
a
``
significant
regulatory
action''
under
Executive
Order
12866
and
is
not
likely
to
have
a
significant
adverse
effect
on
the
supply,
distribution,
or
use
of
energy.
It
has
not
been
designated
by
the
Administrator
of
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs
as
a
significant
energy
action.
Therefore,
it
does
not
require
a
Statement
of
Energy
Effects
under
Executive
Order
13211.

List
of
Subjects
in
33
CFR
Part
165
Harbors,
Marine
safety,
Navigation
(water),
Reporting
and
record
keeping
requirements,
Security
measures,
Waterways.

Regulation
For
the
reasons
discussed
in
the
preamble,
the
Coast
Guard
amends
33
CFR
part
165
as
follows:
PART
165—
REGULATED
NAVIGATION
AREAS
AND
LIMITED
ACCESS
AREAS
1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
165
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
33
U.
S.
C.
1231;
50
U.
S.
C.
191,
33
CFR
1.05–
1(
g),
6.04–
1,
6.04–
6,
160.5;
49
CFR
1.46.

[§
165.103
Suspended]

2.
Suspend
§
165.103
from
June
21,
2002
through
August
15,
2002.
3.
In
temporary
§
165.
T01–
192
revise
the
section
heading
and
add
a
new
paragraph
(c)
to
read
as
follows:

§
165.
T01–
192
Safety
and
Security
Zones;
LPG
Transits,
Portland,
Maine
Marine
Inspection
Zone
and
Captain
of
the
Port
Zone
*
*
*
*
*
(c)
Effective
dates.
This
section
is
effective
from
November
9,
2001
through
August
15,
2002.

Dated:
April
29,
2002.
M.
P.
O'Malley,
Commander,
Coast
Guard,
Captain
of
the
Port,
Portland,
ME.
[FR
Doc.
02–
11491
Filed
5–
7–
02;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
4910–
15–
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
124
Procedures
for
Decisionmaking
CFR
Correction
In
Title
40
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations,
parts
100
to
135,
revised
as
of
July
1,
2001,
in
§
124.15,
on
page
266,
the
third
sentence
of
paragraph
(a)
is
revised,
and
in
§
124.56,
on
page
276,
paragraph
(b)(
1)(
vi)
is
revised,
as
follows:

§
124.15
Issuance
and
effective
date
of
permit.

(a)*
*
*
This
notice
shall
include
reference
to
the
procedures
for
appealing
a
decision
on
a
RCRA,
UIC,
PSD,
or
NPDES
permit
under
§
124.19
of
this
part.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

§
124.56
Fact
sheets
(applicable
to
State
programs,
see
§
123.25
(NPDES).)

*
*
*
*
*
(b)*
*
*
(1)*
*
*
(vi)
Waivers
from
monitoring
requirements
granted
under
§
122.44(
a)
of
this
chapter.

[FR
Doc.
02–
55511
Filed
5–
7–
02;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
1505–
01–
D
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
261
[SWH–
FRL–
7208–
6]

Hazardous
Waste
Management
System;
Identification
and
Listing
of
Hazardous
Waste:
Spent
Catalysts
From
Dual­
Purpose
Petroleum
Hydroprocessing
Reactors
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
ACTION:
Notice
of
availability
of
response
to
comments
on
the
scope
of
petroleum
hazardous
waste
listings.

SUMMARY:
The
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(EPA)
today
is
announcing
its
decision
to
maintain
its
interpretation
that
under
RCRA
regulations,
spent
catalyst
wastes
removed
from
dual
purpose
hydroprocessing
reactors
at
petroleum
refining
facilities
are
listed
hazardous
wastes.
This
interpretation
was
previously
announced
in
Agency
memoranda
dated
November
29,
1999
and
June
1,
2000.
In
a
Federal
Register
notice
published
July
5,
2001
(66
FR
35379),
EPA
announced
that
it
was
providing
the
public
an
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
interpretation
set
forth
in
these
memoranda
and
that
the
Agency
would
issue
a
second
Federal
Register
notice
that
would
announce
EPA's
decision
and
provide
responses
to
those
comments
received.
EPA's
responses
are
provided
in
today's
document
and
in
a
background
document,
``
Response
to
Comments:
July
5,
2001
FR
Notice
on
Spent
Catalysts
from
Dual­
Purpose
Petroleum
Hydroprocessing
Reactors.
''
The
regulations
addressed
in
the
memoranda
and
again
in
today's
document
were
promulgated
under
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(RCRA)
on
August
6,
1998
(63
FR
42110).
ADDRESSES:
Supporting
materials
to
this
notice
are
available
for
viewing
in
the
RCRA
Information
Center
(RIC),
located
at
Crystal
Gateway
I,
First
Floor,
1235
Jefferson
Davis
Highway,
Arlington,
VA.
The
Docket
Identification
Number
is
F–
2002–
PR2F–
FFFFF.
The
RIC
is
open
from
9
a.
m.
to
4
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
federal
holidays.
To
review
file
materials,
we
recommend
that
you
make
an
appointment
by
calling
(703)
603–
9230.
You
may
copy
a
maximum
of
100
pages
from
any
file
maintained
at
the
RCRA
Docket
at
no
charge.
Additional
copies
cost
$0.15/
per
page.
The
docket
index
and
some
supporting
materials
are
available
electronically.
See
the
beginning
of
the
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION
section
for
information
on
accessing
them.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
18:
09
May
07,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00043
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
08MYR1.
SGM
pfrm04
PsN:
08MYR1
30812
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
89
/
Wednesday,
May
8,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
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,
DC,
metropolitan
area,
call
(703)
412–
3323.
For
information
on
specific
aspects
of
the
information
contained
in
the
memoranda
discussed
below,
contact
Patricia
Overmeyer
or
Max
Diaz
of
the
Office
of
Solid
Waste
(5304W),
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Ariel
Rios,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460.
[E­
mail
addresses
and
telephone
numbers:
Overmeyer.
Patricia@
epa.
gov,
(703)
605–
0708;
Diaz.
Max@
epa.
gov,
(703)
308–
0439.]

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
The
docket
index
and
some
supporting
documents,
including
the
Response
to
Comments
document,
that
are
in
the
docket
for
today's
notice
also
are
available
in
electronic
format
on
the
Internet
at
URL:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
id/
petroleum/
catalyst.
htm
EPA
will
keep
the
official
record
for
this
action
in
paper
form.
The
official
record
is
the
paper
file
maintained
at
the
RCRA
Docket,
the
address
of
which
is
in
ADDRESSES
at
the
beginning
of
this
document.

I.
Background
A.
What
is
the
Reason
for
Today's
Publication?

Today's
notice
fulfills
the
terms
of
a
settlement
agreement
between
EPA
and
the
American
Petroleum
Institute
(API),
in
which
the
Agency
agreed
to
solicit
comment
on
its
interpretation,
described
in
two
Agency
memoranda,
regarding
the
regulatory
status
of
spent
catalysts
removed
from
dual
purpose
reactors
at
petroleum
facilities
and
provide
the
public
with
responses
to
comments
received.
Today's
notice
provides
an
overview
of
the
response
to
comments
and
announces
the
availability
of
a
separate,
more
detailed,
response
to
comments
document.
In
addition,
today's
notice
announces
that
the
Agency
is
maintaining
its
interpretation
provided
in
the
memoranda
dated
November
29,
1999
and
June
1,
2000
with
regard
to
the
hazardous
waste
listing
determinations
issued
on
August
6,
1998.
The
interpretation
is
that
spent
catalysts
removed
from
dual
purpose
petroleum
hydroprocessing
reactors
are
included
within
the
scope
of
the
hazardous
waste
listings
for
spent
hydrotreating
catalysts
(K171)
or
spent
hydrorefining
catalysts
(K172).
B.
Overview
of
Past
Agency
Actions
On
August
6,
1998,
EPA
listed
as
hazardous
wastes
spent
hydrotreating
catalysts
(K171)
and
spent
hydrorefining
catalysts
(K172)
generated
in
petroleum
refining
operations
(63
FR
42110).
These
regulations
were
promulgated
under
RCRA,
42
USC
6901,
et
seq.
EPA
took
no
action
with
regard
to
a
third
type
of
spent
hydroprocessing
catalyst
generated
by
petroleum
refineries,
hydrocracking
catalysts.
Subsequent
to
the
promulgation
of
the
hazardous
waste
listing
determination,
a
number
of
industry
and
environmental
groups
filed
lawsuits
challenging
the
validity
of
the
listings.
These
cases
were
consolidated
in
the
United
States
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
District
of
Columbia
Circuit
(D.
C.
Circuit)
in
American
Petroleum
Institute
v.
EPA,
Docket
No.
94–
1683.
Among
the
petitioners
was
Gulf
Chemical
and
Metallurgical
Corporation.
Gulf
asserted
that
the
final
rulemaking
did
not
provide
adequate
definitions
of
the
spent
catalysts
covered
within
the
scope
of
the
hazardous
waste
listing
descriptions
for
K171
and
K172.
In
particular,
Gulf
stated
that
the
scope
of
the
final
listing
descriptions
did
not
adequately
address
the
regulatory
status
of
spent
catalysts
from
petroleum
hydroprocessing
reactors
that
perform
both
hydrotreating
and
hydrocracking
functions
(i.
e.,
spent
catalysts
from
dual
purpose
reactors).
Gulf
pointed
out
that
such
dual
purpose
reactors
perform
functions
meeting
both
the
definitions
of
``
hydrotreating''
and
``
hydrocracking''
provided
in
the
Department
of
Energy's
(DOE's)
Petroleum
Supply
Annual
(PSA)
and
presented
in
the
preamble
to
the
August
6,
1998
final
petroleum
refining
listing
determination.
After
reviewing
the
issues
raised
by
Gulf
in
its
petition,
we
concluded
that
the
Agency
had
no
dispute
with
the
petitioner
with
regard
to
the
regulatory
status
of
spent
catalysts
removed
from
dual
purpose
reactors.
In
fact,
we
saw
no
grounds
for
Gulf's
challenge
to
the
August
1998
rulemaking
given
that
our
interpretation
of
the
final
listing
descriptions
for
K171
and
K172
is
that
spent
catalysts
from
petroleum
hydroprocessing
units
that
perform
hydrorefining
and
hydrotreatment
functions
are
captured
by
the
listing.
Gulf's
challenge
did,
however,
serve
to
highlight
the
potential
for
confusion
regarding
the
regulatory
status
of
spent
catalysts
removed
from
dual
purpose
reactors.
Although
a
straight
reading
of
the
regulatory
language
promulgated
in
the
final
rule
should
result
in
a
conclusion
that
spent
catalysts
from
units
or
reactors
that
perform
hydrotreatment
or
hydrorefining
functions
are
listed
hazardous
wastes,
EPA's
Office
of
Solid
Waste
decided
to
issue
a
memorandum
clarifying
the
regulatory
status
of
spent
catalysts
from
dual
purpose
petroleum
hydroprocessing
operations.
The
memorandum
was
issued
on
November
29,
1999,
and
was
distributed
to
industry
trade
associations
and
posted
on
EPA's
``
RCRA
On­
line''
website
(http://
www.
epa.
gov/
rcraonline).
After
the
memorandum
was
issued,
Gulf
dismissed
its
lawsuit
on
the
hazardous
waste
listings
(K171
and
K172).
The
Agency's
policy
with
regard
to
spent
catalysts
from
dual
purpose
reactors,
as
originally
expressed
in
the
November
29,
1999
memorandum,
is
based
on
the
fact
that
catalysts
used
in
dual
purpose
reactors
enhance
the
hydrotreatment
or
hydrorefining
of
petroleum
feedstock.
Dual
purpose
reactors
are
hydroprocessing
reactors
that
perform
hydrotreatment
or
hydrorefining
functions
while
simultaneously
hydrocracking
petroleum
feedstock.
As
explained
in
the
memorandum,
the
fact
that
such
reactors
hydrocrack
petroleum
feedstocks
does
not
exclude
the
spent
catalysts
from
the
hazardous
waste
listing.
It
was
never
the
Agency's
intent
to
exclude
a
spent
catalyst
from
the
listings
for
K171
and
K172
on
the
basis
that
a
spent
catalyst
is
removed
from
a
unit
or
reactor
that
hydrocracks
petroleum
feedstock,
when
the
same
unit
or
reactor
also
performs
a
hydrotreating
or
hydrorefining
function.
In
February
2000,
API
filed
a
lawsuit
in
the
D.
C.
Circuit
challenging
the
validity
of
the
November
29,
1999
memorandum.
API
v.
EPA,
Docket
No.
00–
1069.
API,
however,
agreed
to
hold
this
lawsuit
in
abeyance
until
the
court
decided
the
challenge
to
the
original
hazardous
waste
listing
determinations.
While
awaiting
the
opinion
of
the
court
in
the
first
API
lawsuit,
and
while
the
second
suit
was
being
held
in
abeyance,
EPA
received
further
inquiries
on
the
regulatory
coverage
of
spent
catalysts
from
dual
purpose
hydroprocessing
reactors.
In
response
to
these
additional
inquiries,
EPA
distributed
a
second
memorandum
on
June
1,
2000
further
clarifying
the
scope
of
the
K171
and
K172
hazardous
waste
listings
with
regard
to
spent
catalysts
removed
from
dual
purpose
reactors.
EPA
also
responded
to
two
letters
from
individual
petroleum
refineries
that
requested
information
on
the
regulatory
status
of
spent
catalysts
from
two
specific
types
of
hydroprocessing
reactors.
These
letters
are
discussed
in
more
detail
below,
and
both
letters
and
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
18:
09
May
07,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00044
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
08MYR1.
SGM
pfrm04
PsN:
08MYR1
30813
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
89
/
Wednesday,
May
8,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
1
Gary,
James
H.
and
Handwerk,
Glenn
E.,
``
Petroleum
Refining
Technology
and
Economics,
''
Third
Edition,
Marcel
Dekker,
Inc.,
New
York,
1994,
p.
174.
2
Gary,
James
H.,
Handwerk,
Glenn
E.,
Petroleum
Refining
Technology
and
Economics,
fourth
edition.
2001.
p.
165.
3
See
``
Background
Document
Clarifying
the
Scope
of
Petroleum
Hazardous
Waste
Listings:
Supplemental
Information
Regarding
Petroleum
Hydroprocessing
Units.
''
4
Carbon
residue
is
roughly
related
to
the
asphalt
content
of
crude
and
to
the
quantity
of
lubricating
oil
fraction
that
can
be
recovered
from
it.
It
often
is
expressed
in
terms
of
weight
percent
carbon
residue
by
the
Conradson
ASTM
test
procedure.
EPA's
responses
to
each
are
in
the
docket
for
this
notice.
On
June
27,
2000,
the
D.
C.
Circuit
issued
an
opinion
in
the
first
lawsuit
that
upheld
EPA's
hazardous
waste
listing
determinations.
API
v.
EPA,
216
F.
3d
50.
Following
the
announcement
of
the
court's
decision
with
regard
to
its
petition
filed
in
response
to
the
August
6,
1998
listing
determinations,
API
reactivated
its
lawsuit
on
the
November
29,
1999
memorandum.
In
June
2001,
API
and
EPA
entered
into
an
agreement
settling
the
second
lawsuit.
Under
the
terms
of
the
settlement
agreement,
EPA
agreed
to
publish
a
Federal
Register
notice
announcing
the
opportunity
for
the
public
to
comment
on
the
Agency's
memoranda
regarding
the
regulatory
status
of
spent
catalysts
removed
from
dual
purpose
reactors.
We
published
this
notice
in
the
Federal
Register
on
July
5,
2001.
In
the
settlement
agreement,
EPA
also
agreed
to
publish
a
second
notice,
after
evaluating
the
public
comments
received
in
response
to
the
first
notice.
In
the
July
5,
2001
notice,
we
explained
that
the
second
Federal
Register
notice
would
serve
as
an
announcement
of
EPA's
decision
either
to
maintain,
and
possibly
clarify,
the
positions
expressed
in
the
memoranda
or
to
change
them.
Today's
notice
serves
as
the
second
notice
that
EPA
agreed
to
publish
and
completes
the
activities
that
EPA
agreed
to
undertake
in
our
settlement
agreement
with
API.

C.
What
Are
Dual
Purpose
Reactors?

Petroleum
refineries
use
hydroprocessing
units
to
prepare
residual
stream
feedstocks
for
cracking
and
coking
units
and
to
polish
final
products
(
e.
g.,
diesel
fuels).
Hydroprocessing
reduces
the
boiling
range
of
petroleum
feedstock
and
removes
substantial
amounts
of
impurities
from
the
feed.
1
During
hydroprocessing,
molecules
in
petroleum
feedstock
are
split
or
saturated
in
the
presence
of
hydrogen.
Hydroprocessing
is
a
broad
term
encompassing
the
more
specific
processes
of
hydrotreating,
hydrorefining,
and
hydrocracking.
Hydroprocessing
reactors
that
hydrotreat
petroleum
feedstock
stabilize
the
feed
and
remove
impurities
catalytically
and
react
the
feed
with
hydrogen.
Hydrotreating
includes
the
removal
of
sulfur,
nitrogen,
metals,
and
other
impurities
from
petroleum
feedstocks.
Spent
catalysts
removed
from
hydrotreating
reactors
are
listed
hazardous
wastes
(K171).
Hydrorefining
also
removes
impurities,
but
uses
more
severe
operating
conditions
than
hydrotreating,
and
treats
heavier
molecular
weight
petroleum
fractions
(e.
g.,
residual
fuel
oil
and
heavy
gas
oil).
Spent
catalysts
removed
from
hydrorefining
reactors
also
are
listed
hazardous
wastes
(K172).
Hydrocracking
is
a
process
in
which
the
primary
purpose
is
to
reduce
the
boiling
range
of
petroleum
feedstocks.
Hydrocracking
involves
the
breaking
down
of
higher
molecular
weight
hydrocarbons
to
lighter
components
with
an
infusion
of
hydrogen
and
in
the
presence
of
heat.
In
the
August
6,
1998
final
rule,
EPA
did
not
make
a
listing
determination
for
spent
catalysts
from
petroleum
hydrocracking
reactors
and
these
spent
catalysts
are
not
currently
listed
as
hazardous
wastes.
Dual
purpose
hydroprocessing
reactors
are
designed
to
process
petroleum
feedstocks
by
both
hydrotreating
(or
hydrorefining)
the
feedstock
(i.
e.,
removing
sulfur,
nitrogen,
metals,
and/
or
other
impurities)
and
hydrocracking
the
feedstock
(i.
e.,
reducing
boiling
points).
The
impurities
are
removed
from
the
feedstock
and
become
deposited
on
the
spent
catalyst.
Given
that
the
catalysts
in
dual
purpose
reactors
are
used
to
promote
a
hydrotreating
or
hydrorefining
function,
as
well
as
a
hydrocracking
function,
such
catalysts
when
spent,
are
listed
hazardous
wastes
under
the
plain
language
of
the
regulation.
Although
some
commenters
argue
that
dual
purpose
reactors
fall
within
the
definition
of
``
hydrocracking''
provided
in
DOE's
Petroleum
Supply
Annual
(see
63
FR
42110,
at
42155),
we
point
out
that
these
units
also
clearly
fall
within
the
definition
of
``
hydrotreating''
included
in
the
Petroleum
Supply
Annual.
We
include
spent
catalysts
removed
from
dual
purpose
units
within
the
scope
of
the
hazardous
waste
listings
based
on
the
fact
that
these
units
perform
hydrotreating
or
hydrorefining
functions.
We
disagree
with
API's
apparent
view
that
the
definitions
are
mutually
exclusive
and
that
a
unit
that
can
be
described
legitimately
as
a
hydrocracking
unit
cannot
also
be
described
legitimately
as
a
hydrotreating
or
hydrorefining
unit.
We
also
disagree
with
API's
suggestion
that
the
hydrotreating
definition
should
be
limited
to
the
activities
that
do
not
also
fall
within
the
hydrocracking
definition.
The
Agency
knows
of
three
specific
types
of
dual
purpose
hydroprocessing
reactors
currently
in
use
at
petroleum
refineries.
The
Agency
is
clarifying
that
spent
catalysts
removed
from
these
three
types
of
dual
purpose
units
are
listed
hazardous
wastes.
All
are
expanded­
or
ebullating­
bed
processes.
These
are
the
H­
Oil,
the
LC­
Fining,
and
the
T­
Star
reactors.
These
reactors
are
designed
to
process
heavy
feeds
such
as
atmospheric
tower
bottoms
or
vacuum
reduced
crude
and
use
a
single
movingbed
catalyst
to
perform
hydrotreating
(i.
e.,
metals
removal,
desulfurization)
and
hydrocracking
functions.
2
Ebullating
bed
hydroprocessing
is
a
process
that
takes
place
in
a
reactor
bed
that
is
not
fixed.
In
such
a
process,
hydrocarbon
feed
streams
enter
the
bottom
of
the
reactor
and
flow
upwards
passing
through
the
catalyst
which
is
kept
in
suspension
by
the
pressure
of
the
fluid
feed.
LC­
Fining
and
H­
Oil
both
use
similar
technologies
but
offer
different
mechanical
designs.
The
purpose
of
an
ebullating
bed
reactor
is
to
convert
the
most
problematic
feeds,
such
as
atmospheric
residuum,
vacuum
residues,
and
heavy
oils
having
a
high
content
of
asphaltenes,
metals,
sulfur,
and
sediments,
to
lighter,
more
valuable
products
while
simultaneously
removing
contaminants.
The
function
of
the
catalyst
is
to
remove
contaminants
such
as
sulfur
and
nitrogen
heteroatoms,
which
accelerate
the
deactivation
of
the
catalyst,
while
cracking
(converting)
the
feed
to
lighter
products.
The
H­
Oil
reactor
is
used
to
process
residue
and
heavy
oils
to
produce
upgraded
petroleum
products
such
as
liquefied
petroleum
gas
(LPG),
gasoline,
middle
distillates,
gas
oil,
and
desulfurized
fuel
oil.
Stable
operation
is
achieved
through
a
high
operating
pressure.
The
reactor
achieves
a
very
high
level
of
treatment,
as
well
as
a
very
high
conversion
rate.
The
H­
Oil
process
can
achieve
conversion
rates
of
45
to
90
percent,
desulfurization
of
55
to
92
percent,
and
demetallization
of
65
to
90
percent.
3
The
LC­
Fining
process
serves
the
purposes
of
desulfurization,
demetallization,
Conradson
Carbon
Residue
(CCR)
reduction,
4
and
hydrocracking
of
atmospheric
and
vacuum
residuum.
The
LC­
Fining
process
can
be
used
to
yield
a
full
range
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
18:
09
May
07,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00045
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
08MYR1.
SGM
pfrm04
PsN:
08MYR1
30814
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
89
/
Wednesday,
May
8,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
5
Hydrocarbon
Processing.
``
Refining
Processes
2000.''
Process
descriptions
of
hydroprocessing
units.
November
2000.
of
high
quality
distillates,
including
residuals
that
may
be
used
as
fuel
oil,
and
synthetic
crude
or
feedstock
for
a
residuum
FCC,
coker,
visbreaker,
or
solvent
deasphalter.
The
LC­
Fining
process
can
achieve
conversion
rates
of
40
to
97
percent,
desulfurization
of
60
to
90
percent,
and
a
demetallization
rate
of
50
to
98
percent.
These
conversion
and
treatment
percentages
are
high,
relative
to
other
types
of
hydroprocessing
units.
The
T­
Star
Process
also
is
an
ebullated
bed
hydrotreating/
hydrocracking
process
designed
to
process
very
difficult
feedstocks
(e.
g.,
atmospheric
residuum,
vacuum
residues,
and
heavy
oils
with
high
levels
of
sulfur
and/
or
metals)
and
achieve
both
a
high
level
of
treatment
and
high
conversion.
T­
Star
units
can
maintain
conversion
rates
in
the
range
of
20
to
60
percent
and
hydrodesulfurization
rates
in
the
range
of
93
to
99
percent.
5
Additional
information
on
each
of
the
dual­
purpose
technologies
is
provided
in
``
Background
Document
Clarifying
the
Scope
of
Petroleum
Hazardous
Waste
Listings:
Supplemental
Information
Regarding
Petroleum
Hydroprocessing
Units'
which
can
be
found
in
the
docket
for
today's
notice.
At
this
time,
EPA
is
aware
of
only
three
specific
types
of
dual
purpose
hydroprocessing
units.
In
addition
to
the
technologies
identified
in
today's
notice
and
in
the
accompanying
background
document,
other
dual
purpose
units
may
be
under
development
or
made
commercially
available
in
the
future.
Therefore,
we
point
out
that
the
scope
of
the
spent
catalyst
listings,
as
it
applies
to
dual
purpose
units,
is
not
limited
to
the
three
units
named
here.
In
naming
these
three
specific
units
we
do
not
mean
to
imply
that
spent
catalysts
from
other
types
of
dual
purpose
units
that
are
designed
to
both
hydrocrack
petroleum
feedstock
and
hydrotreat
or
hydrorefine
the
feedstock
are
not
included
within
the
scope
of
the
listings.
Our
intention
is
to
clarify
that
the
scope
of
the
hazardous
waste
listings
includes
spent
catalysts
removed
from
petroleum
hydroprocessing
units
that
perform
both
a
hydrotreating
or
hydrorefining
function,
as
well
as
a
hydrocracking
function.
The
scope
of
the
hazardous
waste
listing
is
based
upon
the
function
performed
by
the
reactor
and
is
not
specific
to
the
name
or
brand
of
the
reactor.
II.
Summary
of
the
Agency's
Views
Regarding
Spent
Catalysts
From
Dual
Purpose
Reactors
EPA
is
retaining
its
determination
that
spent
catalysts
removed
from
dual
purpose
reactors
(i.
e.,
those
hydroprocessing
reactors
that
perform
both
hydrotreating,
or
hydrorefining,
and
hydrocracking
functions)
are
listed
hazardous
wastes.
In
the
November
29,
1999
memorandum,
the
Agency
clarified
that
these
spent
catalysts
meet
the
listing
descriptions
for
K171
or
K172.
Such
materials
include
spent
catalysts
removed
from
expanded­
or
ebullated­
bed
reactors
(e.
g.,
H­
Oil,
TStar
and
LC­
fining
processes).
As
explained
in
the
preamble
to
the
August
6,
1998,
final
rule,
definitions
for
petroleum
hydrotreating,
hydrorefining,
and
hydrocracking
operations
are
not
universally
established.
We
explained
in
the
final
rule
preamble
that
classifying
petroleum
refining
processes
on
the
basis
of
conversion
rates
is
problematic.
Although
the
preamble
introduced
the
concept
of
classifying
hydroprocessing
units
on
the
basis
of
conversion
rates,
we
decided
not
to
rely
upon
specific
conversion
rates
to
define
hydrotreating
and
hydrocracking.
Our
reasons
for
rejecting
the
use
of
specific
conversion
rates
included
the
fact
that
the
ability
to
vary
the
operating
conditions
for
some
reactors,
or
changes
to
the
manner
in
which
feedstock
conversion
is
calculated
or
accounted
for,
may
allow
refineries
to
classify
particular
reactors
as
hydrocracking
units
despite
the
amount
of
hydrotreatment
or
hydrorefining
conducted
in
the
reactor.
After
considering
all
relevant
information
in
the
rulemaking
record,
as
well
as
commenter
suggestions,
we
decided
that
the
simplest
way
to
differentiate
between
hydrocracking
and
hydrotreating
units
was
to
rely
on
categorizations
provided
in
the
Department
of
Energy's
(DOE)
Petroleum
Supply
Annual
(PSA).
We,
however,
did
not
foresee
the
confusion
that
arose
after
the
final
rule
was
promulgated
over
how
to
classify
hydroprocessing
units
that
meet
more
than
one
PSA
definition.
When
we
wrote
the
section
of
the
final
rule
preamble
discussing
the
definitions
of
hydrotreating,
hydrorefining,
and
hydrocracking,
we
did
not
have
dual
purpose
hydroprocessing
units
in
mind.
As
a
result,
the
discussion
did
not
address
the
uncommon
situation
of
petroleum
hydroprocessing
units
or
reactors
that
are
designed
to
both
hydrotreat
or
hydrorefine
and
hydrocrack
feedstock
and
that
legitimately
meet
both
the
PSA
definition
of
hydrotreating
and
the
PSA
definition
of
hydrocracking.
Inquiries
received
after
promulgation
of
the
1998
final
listing
determination
made
us
recognize
that
dual
purpose
hydroprocessing
units
that
achieve
high
conversation
rates
and
that
are
designed
to
and
in
fact
do
perform
a
high
level
of
treatment
were
not
specifically
addressed
in
the
preamble
discussion.
Due
to
the
high
level
of
treatment
obtained
in
the
units,
the
units
meet
the
definition
of
a
hydrotreater
and
the
spent
catalysts
generated
by
the
units
become
contaminated
with
the
same
contaminants
for
which
spent
hydrotreating
catalysts
were
listed
as
hazardous
wastes.
Dual
purpose
units
are
not
widely
used
in
the
petroleum
refining
industry.
The
discussion
provided
in
the
1998
final
rule
preamble
addressed
the
more
common
situation
where
hydrotreatment
and
hydrocracking
are
done
in
succession
and
in
separate
units
or
in
separate
reactors
within
a
given
unit
(e.
g.,
a
two­
staged
hydrocracker,
where
a
guard
bed
performs
treatment
prior
to
hydrocracking).
Most
hydrocracking
units,
with
the
exception
of
the
dual
purpose
units
addressed
in
today's
notice,
are
not
designed
to
convert
or
crack
untreated
petroleum
feedstock.
Most
hydrocracking
units
contain
catalysts
that
promote
hydrocarbon
conversion
but
will
become
poisoned
by
the
sulfur,
metal
and
other
heteoratom
content
of
untreated
feedstock.
This
is
not
the
case
with
dual
purpose
units
where
the
unit
and
catalyst
can
handle
untreated
petroleum
feedstock
and
perform
both
hydrotreating
and
hydrocracking
in
the
same
unit.
The
1998
preamble
discussion
addresses
the
most
prevalent
case,
and
did
not
address
the
unusual
or
limited
situation
of
a
dual
purpose
unit.
Our
intention
in
the
November
29,
1999
and
June
1,
2000
memoranda
was
to
address
this
situation
and
clarify
that
spent
catalysts
removed
from
hydroprocessing
units
that
meet
the
PSA
definition
of
hydrotreating
are
listed
hazardous
wastes,
even
in
cases
where
the
unit
also
meets
the
PSA
definition
of
hydrocracking.
We
also
clarified
that
we
do
not
consider
spent
catalysts
from
a
petroleum
hydroprocessing
reactor
to
be
a
listed
hazardous
waste
solely
because
some
incidental
and
minimal
amount
of
hydrotreatment
(or
hydrorefining)
of
feeds
occurs
in
a
hydrocracking
unit.
In
addition,
the
Agency,
in
the
November
1999
memorandum,
clarified
that
the
listing
should
not
be
interpreted
as
providing
that
spent
catalysts
from
any
hydrocracking
process­
regardless
of
whether
or
not
hydrotreatment
(or
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
18:
09
May
07,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00046
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
08MYR1.
SGM
pfrm04
PsN:
08MYR1
30815
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
89
/
Wednesday,
May
8,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
hydrorefining)
also
occurs—
are,
by
definition,
outside
the
scope
of
the
K171
and
K172
listings
(i.
e.,
if
a
spent
catalyst
otherwise
meets
the
K171
or
K172
listings
because
it
comes
from
a
unit
that
performs
a
hydrotreating
or
hydrorefining
function,
the
fact
that
the
spent
catalyst
is
removed
from
a
unit
that
also
hydrocracks
does
not
exclude
the
spent
catalyst
from
the
hazardous
waste
listing).
In
the
August
1998
final
rule,
we
did
not
define
hydrocracking
and
then
indicate
that
hydrotreating
and
hydrorefining
are
``
not
hydrocracking.
''
It
was
never
our
intent
to
allow
the
scope
of
the
hazardous
waste
listing
determination
to
be
defined
or
superseded
when
a
catalyst
performs
a
hydrocracking
function,
and
that
same
catalyst
also,
by
design,
facilitates
a
hydrotreatment
or
hydrorefining
function
in
the
same
unit
or
reactor.
The
final
listing
determinations
were
meant
to
include
spent
catalysts
removed
from
reactors
that
perform
hydrotreating
and
hydrorefining
functions,
even
if
the
reactors
also
perform
a
hydrocracking
function.
This
is
consistent
with
EPA's
decision
in
the
final
rulemaking
to
rely
on
the
PSA
definitions
in
determining
the
function
or
functions
performed
by
a
reactor.
The
PSA
definitions
of
hydroprocessing
take
into
account
the
function
or
operation
performed
by
a
reactor
when
defining
hydroprocessing
operations.
We,
therefore,
clarified
in
the
November
1999
memorandum
that
it
was
based
on
these
functions,
hydrotreating
and
hydrorefining,
that
we
determine
the
regulatory
status
of
the
spent
catalysts
from
dual
purpose
reactors.
The
presence
of
hydrocracking
within
a
reactor
does
not
exclude
a
spent
catalyst
from
the
scope
of
the
hazardous
waste
listing
when
the
reactor
also
functions
as
a
hydrotreating
or
a
hydrorefining
unit.
We
further
clarify
that
spent
catalysts
generated
by
refineries
that
classify
dual
purpose
reactors
as
hydrocracking
units
when
reporting
to
DOE
will
nonetheless
be
K171
or
K172
listed
wastes
if
the
unit
performs
a
hydrotreatment
or
hydrorefining
function.
Today's
notice
retains
the
clarification
that
the
1998
final
rule
should
not
be
interpreted
as
allowing
petroleum
refineries
to
classify
dual
purpose
reactors
as
hydrocracking
reactors
and
in
doing
so
claim
that
the
spent
catalysts
removed
from
these
reactors
are
spent
hydrocracking
catalysts
(which
are
not
listed
hazardous
wastes).
Catalysts
removed
from
reactors
that
perform
a
hydrotreating
or
hydrorefining
function,
regardless
of
whether
hydrocracking
is
performed
in
the
same
unit,
are
listed
hazardous
wastes,
when
spent.
We
acknowledge
that
the
preamble
is
confusing
in
that
it
indicated
that
units
that
previously
have
been
classified
as
hydrocrackers
are
not
covered
by
the
listing.
Again,
at
the
time
EPA
wrote
the
final
rule
preamble,
it
did
not
have
dual
purpose
reactors
in
mind.
The
preamble
did
specifically
address
guard
beds,
in
which
a
separate
bed
treats
feed
in
advance
of
feeding
the
petroleum
stream
to
a
hydrocracker.
But,
EPA
did
not
(in
the
1998
preamble)
address
the
situation
where
a
single
reactor
preforms
both
a
hydrotreating
(or
hydrorefining)
and
a
hydrocracking
function.
(Indeed,
EPA's
treatment
of
guard
beds
supports
the
interpretation
retained
today,
in
that
it
reflects
EPA's
clear
intention
to
capture
within
the
scope
of
the
listings
catalyst
wastes
from
units
that
are
intended
to,
and
do,
hydrotreat
or
hydrorefine
petroleum
feedstock).
In
any
event,
the
indication
that
self­
classification
as
a
hydrocracker
avoids
listing
coverage
is
inconsistent
with
EPA's
stated
intent
to
rely
on
the
PSA
definitions,
in
that
it
would
allow
spent
catalysts
from
units
that
are
designed
to,
and
in
fact
do,
perform
hydrotreating
or
hydrorefining
functions
to
escape
the
listing,
despite
the
fact
that
they
are
generating
precisely
the
wastes
EPA
intended
to
capture
in
the
listing.
It
was
because
of
the
potential
inconsistency
in
the
preamble
that
EPA
saw
the
need
to
issue
its
interpretive
memoranda
in
the
first
place.
EPA
believes
that
its
interpretation
presented
in
these
memoranda
and
retained
today
is
most
consistent
with
the
preamble
and
rulemaking
overall­
it
captures
wastes
from
units
that
are
designed
to
hydrotreat
or
hydrorefine
waste
under
the
PSA
definitions.
After
EPA
distributed
the
November
29,
1999
memorandum,
it
was
brought
to
the
Agency's
attention
that
the
memorandum
could
be
interpreted
as
indicating
that
spent
catalysts
from
petroleum
hydrocracking
reactors
are
captured
by
the
hazardous
waste
listings,
even
though
such
reactors
may
conduct
only
minimal
and
incidental
hydrotreatment
or
hydrorefining
of
previously
treated
feedstock.
For
example,
some
reactors
that
hydrocrack
petroleum
feedstock
treated
previously
to
remove
sulfur,
metals
and
other
impurities,
may
also
in
practice
perform
incidental
and
minimal
hydrotreating
or
hydrorefining
due
to
the
operating
parameters
employed
and
the
nature
of
the
pre­
treated
feed
entering
the
reactor.
The
Agency
did
not
intend,
when
issuing
the
November
29,
1999
memorandum,
to
include
within
the
scope
of
the
hazardous
waste
listings
spent
catalysts
from
hydrocracking
reactors,
if
such
reactors
are
designed
to
hydrocrack
feedstock
and
perform
only
a
minimal
and
incidental
amount
of
hydrotreatment
or
hydrorefining.
Rather,
EPA
intended
to
address
only
the
status
of
dual
purpose
units
that
are
designed
to
perform
hydrotreatment
or
hydrorefining
as
well
as
hydrocracking
functions.
Therefore,
we
issued
a
memorandum
dated
June
1,
2000,
clarifying
that
spent
catalysts
removed
from
reactors
that
hydrocrack
petroleum
feedstocks
and
perform
only
``
minimal
and
incidental''
hydrotreatment
or
hydrorefining
are
not
within
the
scope
of
the
hazardous
waste
listing
descriptions
for
K171
or
K172.
This
is
consistent
with
the
regulatory
language,
and
with
the
intention
stated
in
the
preamble
and
the
November
1999
memorandum,
to
adopt
a
functional
approach
to
defining
catalysts
removed
from
hydroprocessing
units.
Today,
the
Agency
reiterates
that
a
spent
catalyst
removed
from
a
unit
that
performs
hydrotreating
or
hydrorefining
functions
is
a
``
spent
hydrotreating
catalyst''
or
a
``
spent
hydrorefining
catalyst''
within
the
meaning
of
the
regulation,
even
if
the
unit
also
performs
a
hydrocracking
function.
However,
a
spent
catalyst
removed
from
a
reactor
that
hydrocracks
and
performs
only
minimal
and
incidental
hydrotreatment
or
hydrorefining
does
not
fall
within
the
scope
of
the
hazardous
waste
listings
K171
and
K172.
Spent
catalysts
removed
from
such
hydrocracking
reactors
are
not
captured
by
the
listings
simply
because
some
hydrotreating
or
hydrorefining
unavoidably
occurs
in
the
reactor.
A
copy
of
the
Agency's
June
1,
2000
memorandum
clarifying
this
conclusion
is
included
in
the
docket.
Following
distribution
of
the
November
29,
1999
memorandum,
EPA
also
received
requests
from
members
of
the
petroleum
refining
industry
for
clarification
of
the
regulatory
status
of
two
specific
types
of
spent
catalysts.
In
response
to
these
requests,
we
issued
two
letters
to
the
requesting
parties
on
June
1,
2000.
In
a
letter
to
Motiva
Enterprises
LLC,
we
explained
that
we
determined
that
the
spent
catalyst
removed
from
the
Motiva
refinery's
HOil
unit
is
a
listed
hazardous
wastes.
Based
on
our
determination
that
the
HOil
unit
is
a
dual
purpose
hydroprocessing
reactor
designed
to
both
hydrotreat
and
hydrocrack
petroleum
feedstock
in
a
single
reactor
using
a
single,
ebullating
bed
catalyst,
we
found
that
the
spent
catalyst
from
the
H­
Oil
unit
falls
within
the
scope
of
the
hazardous
waste
listings.
In
a
second
letter,
to
Chevron
Research
and
Technology
Company,
we
addressed
the
regulatory
status
of
spent
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
18:
09
May
07,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00047
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
08MYR1.
SGM
pfrm04
PsN:
08MYR1
30816
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
89
/
Wednesday,
May
8,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
catalyst
removed
from
Chevron's
twostage
ISOCRACKING
hydroprocessing
unit.
In
this
letter,
we
determined
that
spent
catalyst
removed
from
the
first
stage
of
the
ISOCRACKING
unit,
which
serves
as
a
guard
bed
reactor
and
performs
a
predominant
treatment
function,
is
a
listed
hazardous
waste
(K171).
The
resulting
K171
designation
of
spent
catalyst
from
the
first
stage
reactor
of
this
unit
follows
from
our
determination
that
spent
catalysts
from
guard
bed
reactors
are
within
the
scope
of
the
listing
descriptions
for
K171
and
K172
as
clarified
in
the
preamble
to
the
August
6,
1998
final
rule.
Also,
the
final
listing
descriptions
for
K171
and
K172
clearly
designate
spent
catalysts
from
guard
bed
reactors
as
included
within
the
scope
of
the
listings
(see
40
CFR
261.32).
In
addition,
we
also
stated
in
our
letter
to
Chevron
that
spent
catalysts
removed
from
the
second
stage
reactor
of
Chevron's
ISOCRACKING
unit
are
not
spent
hydrotreating
or
hydrorefining
catalysts
and
are
not
captured
by
the
listing
descriptions
for
K171
and
K172.
The
second
stage
reactor
within
the
ISOCRACKING
unit
receives
pretreated
feed
and
performs
a
predominant
hydrocracking
function;
we
concluded
that
any
hydrotreatment
that
occurs
in
the
second
stage
of
the
reactor
is
minimal
and
incidental.

III.
Overview
of
Public
Comments
In
the
July
5,
2001
Federal
Register
notice,
we
reiterated
our
explanation
that
spent
catalysts
removed
from
dual
purpose
reactors
are
listed
hazardous
wastes.
We
explained
in
that
notice
that
it
was
our
finding
that
this
conclusion,
as
expressed
in
the
two
EPA
memoranda,
is
consistent
with
the
plain
language
of
the
listing
description.
However,
we
acknowledged
that
the
memoranda
were
controversial
within
the
regulated
community
and
we
believed
that
providing
an
opportunity
for
public
comment
was
in
the
interest
of
good
government
because
it
provides
interested
parties
with
a
chance
to
influence
the
Agency's
thinking
and
could
avoid
potentially
unnecessary
litigation.
We,
therefore,
solicited
comment
on
the
regulatory
interpretation
presented
in
the
November
29,
1999
and
the
June
1,
2000
memoranda
which
explained
the
Agency's
position
that
spent
catalysts
removed
from
petroleum
hydroprocessing
reactors
that
perform
both
a
hydrotreatment
(or
hydrorefining)
function
and
a
hydrocracking
function
are
captured
by
the
hazardous
waste
listings
K171
or
K172.
We
also
solicited
comments
as
to
whether
there
are
specific
situations
where
it
is
not
clear
whether,
or
relatively
how
much,
hydrotreatment
or
hydrorefining
is
either
occurring
or
intended
in
a
particular
unit
or
reactor.
We
noted
especially
that
we
were
interested
in
comment
on
whether
there
is
a
better
test
for
generally
describing
dual
purpose
units
that
are
not
H­
Oil,
LC­
Fining,
or
T­
Star
reactors
(the
dual
purpose
reactors
that,
as
noted
above,
EPA
knows
about)
but
perform
hydrocracking
and
more
than
``
minimal
and
incidental''
hydrotreating
or
hydrorefining,
or
whether
decisions
regarding
the
regulatory
status
of
these
other
reactors
must
be
made
on
a
caseby
case
basis.
We
requested
that
any
improvements
suggested
by
commenters
be
consistent
with
our
focus
on
determining
when
a
catalyst
is
used
in
a
reactor
that
performs
a
hydrotreatment
or
hydrorefining
function,
regardless
of
whether
it
also
is
performing
a
hydrocracking
function.
We
explained
in
the
July
5,
2001
notice
that
we
were
not
reopening
comment
on
any
substantive
or
procedural
issues
affecting
the
August
6,
1998
hazardous
waste
listing
rule.
Comments
were
requested
solely
on
the
issues
addressed
within
the
context
of
the
two
memoranda.
We
received
comments
in
response
to
the
July
5,
2001
notice
from
one
petroleum
refinery,
as
well
as
from
the
American
Petroleum
Institute
and
the
National
Petrochemical
and
Refiners
Association
(NPRA).
We
also
received
comments
from
the
Ferroalloys
Association,
a
trade
association
representing
the
catalyst
recycling
industry.
We
did
not
receive
any
comments
on
determining
a
clear
test
for
describing
dual
purpose
reactors
that
are
not
the
three
types
EPA
knows
about,
nor
did
any
comments
identify
any
other
units
that
should
be
considered
dual
purpose
reactors.
However,
we
understand
that
we
may
in
the
future
have
to
make
caseby
case
determinations
of
the
status
of
spent
catalysts
from
other
dual
purpose
reactors
under
the
general
principles
discussed
in
the
record
for
the
August
1998
rulemaking,
as
clarified
by
the
record
accompanying
this
Federal
Register
notice.

A.
Comments
Received
From
the
Petroleum
Refining
Industry
Comments
received
from
parties
representing
the
petroleum
refining
industry
argued
that
the
memoranda
developed
by
EPA
clarifying
the
status
of
spent
catalysts
removed
from
dual
purpose
petroleum
refining
reactors
contradict
the
preamble
language
included
in
the
August
6,
1998
final
rulemaking
and
substantially
expand
the
listing
definitions.
The
commenters
stated
that
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule
did
not
mention
dual
purpose
reactors
and
stated
that,
with
the
exception
of
guard
beds,
if
a
refinery
had
been
classifying
hydroprocessing
units
as
hydrocrackers
for
the
purpose
of
the
DOE
form
EIA–
820,
spent
catalyst
from
such
a
unit
would
not
be
covered
by
K171
or
K172.
These
commenters
also
argued
that
since
EPA
promulgated
source­
specific
listings
(or
``
K''
listings),
the
listings
were
clearly
based
on
specific
processes
or
units
from
which
the
catalysts
are
removed
and
not
based
on
the
function
performed
by
the
catalysts.
In
addition,
these
commenters
suggested
that
EPA
define
the
scope
of
the
hazardous
waste
listings
on
the
percentage
of
feedstock
conversion
(i.
e.,
the
amount
of
hydrocracking
performed)
in
the
unit
from
which
a
spent
catalyst
is
removed.
We
admit
that
confusion
may
have
been
created
by
the
sentence
in
the
preamble
to
the
August
1998
final
rule
that
states
that
``
if
a
refinery
has
been
classifying
its
hydroprocessor
as
a
catalytic
hydrocracker
for
the
purposes
of
DOE's
Form
EIA–
820,
spent
catalysts
from
this
unit
would
not
be
covered
by
K171
or
K172
(with
the
exception
of
guard
beds
*
*
*).
''
As
stated
above,
when
we
wrote
the
section
of
the
final
rule
preamble
discussing
the
definitions
of
hydrotreating,
hydrorefining,
and
hydrocracking,
we
did
not
have
dual
purpose
hydroprocessing
units
in
mind.
As
a
result,
the
discussion
did
not
address
the
unusual
situation
of
petroleum
hydroprocessing
units
or
reactors
that
legitimately
meet
both
the
PSA
definition
of
hydrotreating
and
the
PSA
definition
of
hydrocracking.
Our
intention
in
the
November
29,
1999
and
June
1,
2000
memoranda
was
to
address
this
confusion
and
clarify
that
spent
catalysts
removed
from
hydroprocessing
units
that
meet
the
PSA
definition
of
hydrotreating
are
listed
hazardous
wastes,
even
in
cases
where
the
unit
also
meets
the
PSA
definition
of
hydrocracking.
We
also
clarified
that
we
do
not
consider
spent
catalysts
from
a
petroleum
hydroprocessing
reactor
to
be
a
listed
hazardous
waste
solely
because
some
incidental
and
minimal
amount
of
hydrotreatment
of
feeds
occurs
in
a
hydrocracking
unit.
In
addition,
the
Agency,
in
the
November
1999
memorandum,
clarified
that
the
listing
should
not
be
interpreted
as
providing
that
spent
catalysts
from
any
hydrocracking
process—
regardless
of
whether
or
not
hydrotreatment
also
occurs—
are,
by
definition,
outside
the
scope
of
the
K171
and
K172
listings.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
18:
09
May
07,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00048
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
08MYR1.
SGM
pfrm04
PsN:
08MYR1
30817
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
89
/
Wednesday,
May
8,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
Therefore,
we
disagree
with
the
underlying
premise
of
the
commenter's
argument
that
the
PSA
definitions
of
hydrotreatment
and
hydrocracking
are
mutually
exclusive.
The
definitions
clearly
overlap.
Individual
hydroprocessing
units
may
meet
both
definitions.
The
fact
that
any
unit
can
legitimately
be
classified
as
a
hydrocracker
does
not
preclude
the
unit
from
meeting
the
definition
of
a
hydrotreater
or
a
hydrorefiner.
Based
on
guidance
provided
in
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule,
including
our
use
of
definitions
that
categorize
hydroprocessing
units
based
on
the
function
performed
by
the
unit,
and
our
rejection
in
the
final
rule
of
general
refining
process
definitions
(e.
g.,
definitions
provided
by
the
Oil
and
Gas
Journal,
that
base
hydroprocessor
definitions
on
the
percent
of
conversion
obtained
within
a
unit),
we
believe
the
preamble
to
the
August
1998
rule
reflects
our
intent
to
base
the
scope
of
the
final
listings
on
the
function
performed
by
the
units
or
reactors
in
which
spent
catalysts
are
generated.
Therefore,
when
we
clarified
in
our
November
29,
1999
and
June
1,
2001
memoranda
that
spent
catalysts
removed
from
dual
purpose
reactors
are
included
within
the
scope
of
the
hazardous
waste
listings
based
on
the
function
performed
by
dual
purpose
reactors,
we
were
consistent
with
the
overall
thrust
of
the
discussion
provided
in
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule.
As
we
explained
in
the
July
5,
2001
Federal
Register
notice,
we
acknowledge
that
the
scope
of
the
hazardous
waste
listings,
as
explained
in
the
memoranda,
is
controversial.
Therefore,
although
we
believe
that
the
policy
explained
in
the
memoranda
is
a
correct
reading
of
the
final
regulatory
language,
we
decided
to
take
the
unusual
step
of
soliciting
public
comment
on
the
memoranda
in
which
we
explained
our
policy,
due
to
concerns
raised
by
the
regulatory
community.
In
today's
notice,
and
after
considering
public
comments
received
in
response
to
the
July
5,
2001
notice,
we
are
providing
public
notification
that
we
are
retaining
our
policy
with
regard
to
the
regulatory
status
of
spent
catalysts
removed
from
dual
purpose
hydroprocessing
units,
as
it
is
explained
in
our
memoranda
of
November
29,
1999
and
June
1,
2000.
We
also
disagree
with
the
commenters'
assertion
that,
because
we
promulgated
the
final
listings
as
``
K''
listings,
this
limits
the
scope
of
the
listings
to
specific
units.
Neither
the
listing
descriptions
codified
in
the
regulatory
language
nor
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule
limits
the
listings
to
specific
units.
Both
the
final
listing
descriptions
and
the
preamble
language
describe
the
scope
of
the
listing
based
on
the
function
performed
by
the
units
or
reactors
from
which
the
spent
catalysts
have
been
removed.
In
addition,
while
the
commenter
is
correct
that
some
K­
listings
are
unit
specific
(such
as
K051—
API
separator
sludge
from
the
petroleum
refining
industry),
many
K­
listings
are
not
unit
specific,
but
process­
specific
from
a
particular
industry.
For
example,
there
are
16
separate
listings
within
the
Klistings
that
specify
``
wastewater
treatment
sludge''
from
a
particular
industry
(e.
g.,
from
the
production
of
toxaphene
(K041)).
The
wastewater
treatment
sludge
listings
are
not
necessarily
from
a
particular
type
of
unit.
Instead,
the
listings
can
be
derived
from
any
wastewater
treatment
process
involved
in
the
production
of
a
certain
product.
In
fact,
very
few
of
the
Klistings
actually
specify
a
specific
unit.
The
major
difference
between
the
F­
and
K­
listings
is
that
the
K­
listings
generally
identify
wastes
generated
by
a
particular
industry
and
are
often
more
specific
with
regard
to
where
the
waste
is
formed.
Therefore,
the
Agency's
interpretation
that
spent
catalyst
from
dual­
purpose
reactors
is
included
in
the
listing
is
consistent
with
the
Agency's
designation
of
other
K­
listings.
We
also
do
not
agree
with
arguments
that
we
should
redefine
the
scope
of
the
hazardous
waste
listings
for
spent
hydrotreating
catalysts
and
spent
hydrorefining
catalysts
based
on
the
amount
of
hydrocracking
performed
in
the
units
or
reactors
from
which
the
catalysts
are
removed.
We
find
it
is
more
appropriate
to
base
the
scope
of
the
listings
on
the
basis
of
the
hydrotreating
and
hydrorefining
functions
performed
by
the
units.
As
we
explained
in
the
preamble
to
the
August
6,
1998
final
rule
and
in
our
responses
to
comments
received
on
the
proposed
listing
determinations
(60
FR
57747),
we
continue
to
reject
the
notion
of
defining
these
wastes
on
the
basis
of
the
degree
of
hydrocracking
that
is
performed
in
the
units
or
reactors
from
which
they
are
removed.
As
we
stated
in
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule,
reliance
on
specific
conversion
rates
allows
that
slight
changes
in
operating
and
accounting
practices
may
result
in
reclassification
of
units
or
reactors
that
otherwise
would
be
considered
hydrorefiners
or
hydrotreaters.
In
addition,
the
mere
presence
of
hydrocracking
does
not
preclude
a
unit
or
reactor
from
performing
a
significant
hydrotreating
or
hydrorefining
function.
Hydrotreating
and
hydrorefining
of
petroleum
feedstock
results
in
the
demetalization
and
desulfurization
of
petroleum
feedstock
as
well
as
the
removal
of
other
impurities
and
heteroatoms.
The
performance
of
these
functions
results
in
the
contamination
of
the
catalyst,
such
that
it
eventually
becomes
spent.
We
found
that
the
degree
of
contamination
of
the
catalyst
has
a
direct
correlation
to
the
risk
potential
of
the
spent
catalyst.

B.
Comments
Received
From
the
Catalyst
Recycling
Industry
We
also
received
comments
from
the
Ferroalloys
Association,
a
trade
association
representing
companies
that
recycle
spent
hydroprocessing
catalysts.
The
catalyst
recycling
industry
generally
supports
the
policy
articulated
in
the
November
29,
1999
and
June
1,
2001
memoranda.
As
stated
in
its
comments,
the
commenter
agrees
that
spent
catalysts
that
perform
hydrotreating
or
hydrorefining
functions
should
be
regulated
as
hazardous
wastes,
even
when
the
catalysts
are
removed
from
units
that
also
perform
conversion
of
heavy
fractions
to
lighter
fractions.
The
commenter
points
out,
however,
that
in
the
July
5,
2001
Federal
Register
notice,
we
identified
only
three
types
of
dual
purpose
hydroprocessing
units.
The
commenter
argues
that
other
types
of
hydroprocessing
units,
including
some
fixed
bed
units
also
perform
both
hydrotreating
and
hydrocracking
functions.
As
pointed
out
above,
our
interpretation
of
the
final
spent
catalyst
listings,
as
described
in
the
final
rule
preamble,
the
two
memoranda,
and
in
this
notice,
is
that
the
listings
include
spent
catalysts
from
dual
purpose
hydroprocessing
units.
At
present,
we
are
aware
of
three
types
of
specific
dual
purpose
units
(H­
oil,
L–
C
fining,
and
Tstar
units),
that
both
hydrocrack
petroleum
feedstock
and
perform
hydrotreatment
or
hydrorefining
functions.
We
are
aware
that
more
such
units
could
become
available
in
the
future
and
that
others
could
now
exist
of
which
we
are
unaware.
Although
we
do
not
anticipate
that
many
other
such
units
exist,
other
dual
purpose
units
could
exist,
and
the
spent
catalysts
from
such
units
would
be
captured
by
the
listings.
The
July
5,
2001
notice
established
that
the
Agency's
policy,
as
described
in
the
November
29,
1999
and
June
1,
2000
memoranda,
is
that
spent
catalysts
from
hydroprocessing
units
that
perform
both
a
hydrotreating
(or
hydrorefining)
function
and
a
hydrocracking
function
are
listed
hazardous
wastes.
However,
spent
catalysts
from
reactors
that
perform
a
hydrocracking
function
and
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
18:
09
May
07,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00049
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
08MYR1.
SGM
pfrm04
PsN:
08MYR1
30818
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
89
/
Wednesday,
May
8,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
only
some
incidental
and
minimal
amount
of
hydrotreatment
of
feeds
(e.
g.,
the
second
stage
of
a
two­
staged
ISOCRACKING
unit)
are
not
listed
hazardous
wastes.
As
explained
above,
the
scope
of
the
hazardous
waste
listings
for
K171
and
K172
includes
spent
catalysts
removed
from
a
reactor
that
performs
a
hydrotreating
or
hydrorefining
function,
including
a
spent
catalyst
from
any
dual
purpose
reactor
designed
and
operated
to
hydrotreat
or
hydrorefine
petroleum
feedstock,
as
well
as
hydrocrack
the
feed
in
the
same
reactor.
The
scope
of
the
listing
is
not
limited
to
the
specific
units
named
above
or
in
the
background
document
to
this
notice,
or
to
units
with
specific
brand
names.
The
catalyst
recyclers
also
commented
that,
when
EPA
promulgated
the
final
hazardous
waste
listings
for
spent
catalysts,
EPA
designated
the
listings
as
``
specific
source''
listings,
or
``
K''
listings.
The
recyclers
suggested
that
the
Agency
amend
the
listings
by
combining
both
listings
into
one
``
F,
''
or
non­
specific
source
listing.
In
its
comments,
the
catalyst
recycling
industry
also
encouraged
EPA
to
undertake
a
listing
investigation
to
determine
whether
or
not
spent
hydrocracking
catalysts
should
be
listed
as
hazardous
waste.
The
commenter
points
out
that
data
previously
collected
by
the
Agency
may
support
such
a
hazardous
waste
listing.
The
issue
regarding
the
designation
of
a
``
specific
source''
listing
versus
``
nonspecific
source''
listing
(i.
e.,
a
``
Flisting
versus
a
``
K­
listing'')
is
addressed
above.
The
request
regarding
a
listing
determination
for
spent
hydrocracking
catalyst
is
beyond
the
scope
of
today's
notice.

C.
Comments
Related
to
Encouraging
Recycling
Commenters
representing
petroleum
refineries
argued
that
EPA
should
promulgate
a
conditional
exemption
from
the
hazardous
waste
listings
for
spent
hydrotreating
catalysts
and
spent
hydrorefining
catalysts
that
are
recycled.
Commenters
argued
that
a
conditional
exemption
from
the
hazardous
waste
listing
would
encourage
more
recycling
of
spent
catalysts.
The
consideration
of
a
conditional
exemption
from
the
hazardous
waste
listing
for
spent
catalysts
that
are
recycled
is
beyond
the
scope
of
today's
notice.
A
commenter
representing
the
petroleum
refining
industry
argued
that
the
final
listing
determination
resulted
in
significant
increases
in
the
cost
of
recycling
spent
catalysts.
The
commenter
stated,
that
``
the
predicted
result
of
EPA's
refusal
to
tailor
the
listings
was
that
the
costs
related
to
reclamation
rose
substantially
(up
to
$500–
800/
ton)
after
the
listings
took
effect
in
early
1999,
while
landfilling
of
the
listed
catalysts—
in
compliance
with
Subtitle
C
of
RCRA—
became
relatively
more
practical
and
economical
(about
$200/
ton)
than
reclamation.
''
The
commenter
provided
no
additional
documentation
of
its
claim.
Information
available
to
EPA
does
not
support
this
conclusion.
Available
information
indicates
that
management
costs
for
catalyst
recyclers
increased
only
slightly
as
a
result
of
the
1998
final
rulemaking
due
to
the
need
to
manage
wastes
generated
as
a
result
of
the
reclamation
process
as
hazardous
wastes.
Almost
all
of
the
catalyst
reclaimers
had
Subtitle
C
storage
permits
prior
to
the
1998
final
rule
because
many
catalysts
exhibit
one
or
more
of
the
hazardous
waste
characteristics
and,
therefore,
had
to
be
managed
as
hazardous
wastes
prior
to
the
final
listing
determination.
Although
we
do
not
dispute
that
there
is
a
significant
cost
differential
between
the
costs
associated
with
reclamation
and
disposal
of
spent
catalysts,
the
cost
differential
is
not
a
result
of
the
final
listing
determination.
In
addition,
we
do
not
expect
a
regulatory
amendment
changing
the
listing
status
of
spent
catalysts
that
are
reclaimed
or
recycled
to
have
any
significant
effect
upon
the
future
costs
of
waste
management
practices.
In
its
comments,
the
association
representing
the
catalyst
reclaimers
did
not
address
the
issue
of
a
conditional
exemption
from
the
hazardous
waste
listing
for
spent
catalysts
that
are
recycled.
However,
the
association
has
petitioned
the
Agency
to
amend
the
land
disposal
restrictions
treatment
standards
promulgated
as
part
of
the
final
listing
determination
to
require
similar
treatment
requirements
for
both
spent
hydrotreating
catalysts
and
spent
hydrorefining
catalysts.
The
catalyst
reclaimers
argue
that
the
difference
in
treatment
standards
for
spent
hydrorefining
catalysts
discourage
recycling
of
these
wastes
and
result
in
significant
levels
of
hazardous
constituents
being
land
disposed.
We
believe
it
is
important
to
encourage
recycling
and
reclamation
of
hazardous
wastes,
as
well
as
the
conservation
of
resources.
It
is
a
particularly
important
goal
for
the
Agency
to
encourage
the
reclamation
of
hazardous
wastes
containing
significant
quantities
of
recoverable
metals.
As
commenters
to
the
July
5,
2001
notice
pointed
out,
spent
petroleum
hydroprocessing
catalyst
can
contain
recoverable
quantities
of
vanadium
and
other
metals.
Therefore,
we
continue
to
encourage
all
parties
to
identify
ways
in
which
the
recycling
of
spent
catalysts
may
be
encouraged.

Dated:
April
30,
2002.
Marianne
Lamont
Horinko,
Assistant
Administrator,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response.
[FR
Doc.
02–
11451
Filed
5–
7–
02;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560–
50–
P
FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47
CFR
Part
73
[DA
02–
975,
MM
Docket
No.
01–
128,
RM–
10133]

Digital
Television
Broadcast
Service;
Charleston,
SC
AGENCY:
Federal
Communications
Commission.

ACTION:
Final
rule.

SUMMARY:
The
Commission,
at
the
request
of
WCSC,
Inc.,
licensee
of
WCSC–
TV,
NTSC
channel
5,
substitutes
DTV
channel
47
for
DTV
channel
52
at
Charleston.
See
66
FR
34400,
June
28,
2001.
DTV
channel
47
can
be
allotted
to
Charleston,
South
Carolina,
in
compliance
with
the
principle
community
coverage
requirements
of
Section
73.625(
a)
at
reference
coordinates
32–
55–
28
N.
and
79–
41–
58
W.
with
a
power
of
1000,
HAAT
of
597
meters
and
with
a
DTV
service
population
of
851
thousand.
With
is
action,
this
proceeding
is
terminated.

DATES:
Effective
June
17,
2002.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Pam
Blumenthal,
Media
Bureau,
(202)
418–
1600.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
This
is
a
synopsis
of
the
Commission's
Report
and
Order,
MM
Docket
No.
01–
128,
adopted
April
26,
2002,
and
released
May
2,
2002.
The
full
text
of
this
document
is
available
for
public
inspection
and
copying
during
regular
business
hours
in
the
FCC
Reference
Information
Center,
Portals
II,
445
12th
Street,
SW,
Room
CY–
A257,
Washington,
DC.
This
document
may
also
be
purchased
from
the
Commission's
duplicating
contractor,
Qualex
International,
Portals
II,
445
12th
Street,
SW,
CY–
B402,
Washington,
DC,
20554,
telephone
202–
863–
2893,
facsimile
202–
863–
2898,
or
via
e­
mail
qualexint@
aol.
com.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
18:
09
May
07,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00050
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
08MYR1.
SGM
pfrm04
PsN:
08MYR1
