{
  "id": "R43263",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R43263",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 445439,
      "date": "2013-10-29",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-06T20:53:30.445766",
      "title": "Petroleum Coke: Industry and Environmental Issues",
      "summary": "Congressional Research Service\n7-5700\nwww.crs.gov\nR43263\nSummary\nIn early 2013, media outlets around Detroit, Michigan began publishing stories about large piles of petroleum coke stored along the Detroit Riverfront. Petroleum coke (petcoke) is a black-colored solid composed primarily of carbon, and may contain limited amounts of elemental forms of sulfur, metals and non-volatile inorganic compounds. Petcoke is essentially chemically inert. Petcoke exposure is considered to pose few human health or environmental risks, but may present significant nuisance concerns. The material in Detroit was the byproduct of the nearby Marathon Refinery\u2019s processing of heavy crude oils derived, in part, from Canadian oil sands deposits. The situation gained national attention with the publication of an article in the New York Times (\u201cA Black Mound of Canadian Oil Waste Is Rising over Detroit,\u201d New York Times, May 17, 2013). The piles of petcoke sparked local concerns over the potential impacts of the material on human health and the environment, and whether these concerns were adequately addressed by local, state, and federal regulations. As petroleum refining is a nationwide commercial industry, these concerns may arise in other regions.\nPetcoke is a co-product of several distillation processes used in refining heavy crude oil. Nearly half of U.S. petroleum refineries (56 or more) use a coking process to convert heavy crude oils into refined petroleum products, and more refineries may follow suit to take advantage of the supply of heavy crude oils from Canada\u2019s oil sands projects. Although it is a refining co-product, petcoke has economic value as both a heating fuel and raw material in manufacturing. In 2012, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported that U.S. refineries produced in excess of 56 million metric tons of petcoke, of which 80% was exported.\nThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has surveyed the potential human health and environmental impacts of petcoke through its High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program and found the material to be highly stable and non-reactive at ambient environmental conditions. Most toxicity analyses of petcoke find it has a low potential to cause adverse effects on aquatic or terrestrial environments as well as a low health hazard potential in humans, with no observed carcinogenic, reproductive, or developmental effects. Cases of repeated-dose and chronic inhalation of fugitive dust (as generated during petcoke handling and storage) in animal studies do appear associated with respiratory inflammation. Emissions from the combustion of petcoke, however, can have impacts on human health and the environment, including the release of common pollutants, hazardous substances, and high levels of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide.\nWhile some federal statutes address certain environmental impacts of petcoke\u2019s life-cycle, most regulatory action and oversight has been undertaken at the state and local levels, generally through facility-specific permitting requirements. Federally, petcoke is exempted from classification as either a solid or hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and is not considered a hazardous substance under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Petcoke facilities may be regulated under certain provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, as authorized by the Clean Water Act (CWA), if it is determined that runoff from sites where it is stored has the potential to transport the substance to nearby surface waters. The handling of petcoke may also create instances of reduced air quality due to releases of fugitive dust into the atmosphere. Most of the impacts of fugitive dust are localized; and thus, much of the regulatory oversight is implemented at the local and state level. Whether such oversight is providing adequate protection is among the issues that have been raised.\nContents\nBackground\t1\nPetcoke Uses\t1\nPetcoke Composition\t2\nPetcoke Compared to Metallurgical Coke and Coal\t3\nPetcoke Grades\t3\nCoking Refineries and Outputs\t4\nPetcoke Storage Terminals\t6\nPetcoke Market and Exports\t6\nPotential Health and Environmental Impacts\t7\nEPA\u2019s Hazard and Toxicity Characterizations\t8\nEnvironmental Fate\t8\nEnvironmental Toxicity\t9\nHuman Health Effects\t9\nReactivity\t10\nFederal Regulatory Requirements\t11\nWaste Classifications\t12\nIndustrial Stormwater Runoff\t13\nFugitive Dust\t14\nRegulatory Standards for Petcoke Combustion in Power Generation\t16\nConclusion\t16\n\nFigures\nFigure 1. Sponge Coke\t4\nFigure 2. Shot Coke\t4\nFigure 3. U.S. Refinery Net Petcoke Production\t5\nFigure 4. Net Petcoke Production vs. Exports\t7\n\nFigure A-1. Shell Delayed Coking Unit\t18\nFigure A-2. ExxonMobil Flexi-Coking Unit\t18\nFigure A-3. U.S. Refineries with Coking Capacity\t19\nFigure A-4. Coking Refineries by PADD\t20\nFigure A-5. Refining and Coking Capacity by PADD\t21\n\nTables\nTable 1. Petcoke Elemental Composition\t2\nTable 2. Petcoke vs. Metcoke and Coal\t3\nTable 3. Petcoke vs. Coal: Combustion Emissions\t11\n\nTable A-1. U.S. Refineries with Coking Capacity\t22\n\nAppendixes\nAppendix. Petroleum Refining and Petcoke Production\t17\n\nContacts\nAuthor Contact Information\t25\nAcknowledgments\t25\n\nBackground \nSome Members of Congress have expressed concern about storage and management of petroleum coke (petcoke) in their districts. Despite a lack of data on observed health impacts, local concerns have included potential human health and environmental impacts of fugitive dusts and runoff into waterways. Broader concerns have also been raised about the carbon dioxide (greenhouse gas) emissions from petcoke combustion. \nPetcoke is the co-product of several processes used in petroleum refining to upgrade \u201cresiduum\u201d into gasoline and middle distillate-range fuels. Residuum (or resid) remains after refineries initially distill heavy crude oils. Petcoke is a black-colored solid composed primarily of carbon, and may contain limited amounts of elemental forms of sulfur, metals, and non-volatile inorganic compounds.\nThe petroleum industry and federal regulators characterize petcoke as a \u201cco-product\u201d because it may have some commercial value as a boiler fuel and as a raw material in manufacturing. Nearly half of U.S. petroleum refineries employ \u201ccoking\u201d processes. Refineries also produce petcoke as a by-product of catalysis, which refineries later consume as a fuel.\nIn addition to the existing suite of coking refineries, other refineries may add coking processes to take advantage of increased supplies of heavy crude oils from Canada\u2019s oil sand projects. Meanwhile, newly available light crude oil from U.S. unconventional shale projects and the Texas Permian Basin is leading some coking refineries to cut back on coking. At present, it is uncertain whether petcoke production will increase, remain steady or even decline, given the changing slate of U.S. crude oil supplies. Nevertheless, the export and demand for U.S. petcoke has been rising recently.\nCommunity stakeholders have grown concerned over the potential effects on public health and the environment related to the production, storage, transportation, and use of petcoke. Some of these impacts include concerns over air quality due to fugitive dust, water quality due to run-off, and the potential for toxic and other emissions (including greenhouse gas emissions) from its combustion as a fuel source. In light of these concerns, industry, regulators, and compliance officers may be interested in best practices related to the storing, containing, and managing of petcoke.\nPetcoke Uses\nPetcoke may be combusted as fuel in industrial and power generating plants. Cement plants and power plants are currently the two greatest consumers of petcoke. There is some limited use as space heating and in commercial brick kilns in Europe, and a small but emerging market as a metallurgical coal blending component for the steel industry. In the United States, the high sulfur content may limit the petcoke in a coal/petcoke blend in a plant designed for coal. However, more recently designed Circulating Fluidized Bed (CFB) boilers can accommodate 100% high sulfur coke.\nFuel grade petcoke can substitute for \u201csteam coal\u201d in power plant boilers, having the advantage of a higher heating value (discussed below). Conventional coal-fired boilers can blend petcoke with steam coal, and newer boiler designs have replaced steam coal with petcoke entirely. Cement plants consume fuel-grade petcoke in rotary kilns.\nAnode grade calcined petcoke is the principal raw material used in manufacturing carbon anodes for use in aluminum smelting. The anodes act as conductors of electricity and as a source of carbon in the electrolytic cell that reduces alumina into aluminum metal. Carbon anode manufacturers, predominantly captive operations of aluminum smelting companies, purchase anode grade calcined petcoke, mix it with pitch binders, press the mixture into blocks, and then bake the mixture to form a finished, hardened carbon anode.\nPetcoke Composition\nPetcoke is composed primarily of carbon. The specific chemical composition of petcoke depends on the composition of the petroleum feedstock used in refining. Petcoke impurities (i.e., the non-elemental carbonaceous substances) include some residual hydrocarbons left over from processing (referred to as volatiles), as well as elemental forms of nitrogen, sulfur, nickel, vanadium, and other heavy metals. These impurities exist as a hardened residuum captured within coke\u2019s carbon matrix. Table 1 provides an observed range of petcoke properties for green and calcined petcoke.\nTable 1. Petcoke Elemental Composition\nBy Weight Percent\nComposition\nGreen\nCalcined\n\nCarbon\n89.58\u201391.80\n98.40\n\nHydrogen\n3.71\u20135.04\n0.14\n\nOxygen\n1.30\u20132.14\n0.02\n\nNitrogen\n0.95\u20131.20\n0.22\n\nSulfur\n1.29\u20133.42\n1.20\n\nAsh (including heavy metals such as nickel and vanadium)\n0.19\u20130.35\n0.35\n\nCarbon-Hydrogen Ratio\n18:1\u201324:1\n910:1\n\nSource: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Screening-Level Hazard Characterization, Petroleum Coke Category, June 2011; and H.W. Nelson, Petroleum Coke Handling Problems, 1970.\nNotes: The process of \u201ccalcining\u201d converts green coke to almost pure carbon, with a defined structure to produce carbon anodes for the aluminum industry.\nPetcoke Compared to Metallurgical Coke and Coal\nPetcoke has a significantly high heating value compared to metallurgical coke (metcoke) and bituminous coals (see Table 2). The higher heating value comes at the cost of higher sulfur and nitrogen content, however. Ash content is relatively low, compared to coal, but much of it is in the form of heavy metals. Due to the severe thermal environment in which petcoke forms, there is very little combustible volatile material. The low volatile content, in comparison to coal and other fossil fuels, makes petcoke more difficult to ignite and sustain combustion.\nBituminous coal includes two subtypes: thermal and metallurgical. Metallurgical coke is made from low ash, low sulfur bituminous coal, with special coking properties. To produce metcoke, special coke ovens heat metallurgical grade coal at temperatures of 1,000\u00baF to 2,000\u00baF to fuse fixed carbon and inherent ash, and drive off most of the volatile matter. Approximately 1.5 tons of metallurgical coal will produce one ton of metcoke. The final product is a nearly pure carbon source with sizes ranging from basketballs (foundry coke) to a fine powder (coke breeze).\nTable 2. Petcoke vs. Metcoke and Coal\nHeating Value and Price\n\nFuel\nCoal Rank\nBtu / lb.\n$/Short Ton\n\nPetcoke\nn.a.\n14,200\nSee Note\n\nMetcoke\nMetallurgic\n12,600\n171.51\n\nSteam Coal\n\n\n\n\n\nPittsburgh #8\nBituminous\n13,000\n68.25\n\n\nIllinois #6\nBituminous\n11,000\n45.40\n\n\nPowder River Basin \nSub-bituminous\n8,800\n10.30\n\nSource: MIT, The Future of Coal Appendices, P5, http://web.mit.edu/coal/The_Future_of_Coal_Appendices.pdf, and EIA, Coal News and markets, http://www.eia.gov/coal/news_markets/.\nNotes: Steam Coal Prices as of July 19, 2013. Petcoke prices track steam coal prices, but at a discount that may range from 15% to 85%. Recent prices have been closer to 67% of steam coal prices.\nPetcoke Grades\nThe coking processes described above produce \u201cgreen coke,\u201d which then requires additional thermal processing to remove any residual hydrocarbons (volatile matter) to increase the percentage of elemental carbon. Thermal processing lowers the potential toxicity of the coke. Depending on the coking operation temperatures, length of coking-time, and quality of the crude oil feedstock, one of several grades of petcoke can be produced:\nsponge coke, the most common type of regular-grade petcoke, used as a solid fuel (see Figure 1);\nneedle coke, a premium-grade coke made from special petroleum feedstock, used in the manufacture of high-quality graphite electrodes for the steel industry;\nshot coke, produced from heavy petroleum feedstock, used as fuel, but less desirable than sponge coke (see Figure 2);\npurge coke, produced by flexi-coking, used as a fuel in coke-burning boilers; or\ncatalyst coke, carbon deposited on catalysts, used in various refining processes and burned off and used as a fuel in the refining process; not recoverable in a concentrated form.\n\nFigure 1. Sponge Coke\n\n\nSource: John D. Elliott, Shot Coke: Design & Operations, http://www.fwc.com/publications/tech_papers/oil_gas/shotcoke.pdf.\nFigure 2. Shot Coke\nPartially Crushed\n\nSource: John D. Elliott, Shot Coke: Design & Operations, http://www.fwc.com/publications/tech_papers/oil_gas/shotcoke.pdf.\n\nCoking Refineries and Outputs\nThe fleet of petroleum refineries operating throughout the United States has steadily declined in the past several decades as refining capacity has become concentrated in larger refineries. At present, some 115 refineries (and refinery complexes) produce over 17 million barrels per day of motor fuels and other petroleum products. Nearly half (56) have the coking capacity to convert heavy crude oils (see the Appendix to this report).\nCoking capacity has been concentrated in refineries operating along the Gulf Coast, the historic refining center of the United States and primary destination for crude oil imports. However, to take advantage of the increasing supply of heavier crude oils from Canada\u2019s oil sands projects, several Midwest refineries have added coking conversion capacity.\nU.S. refineries have the capacity to process 2.5 million barrels per day of petroleum resid. The Gulf Coast not only represents the greatest refining capacity (9.3 million barrels per day), it also represents also the greatest coking capacity (1.5 million barrels per day).\nU.S. petcoke production has remained constant over the last decade for the reason that refining capacity has remained constant (see Figure 3). In 2012, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported that U.S. refineries produced 42 million metric tons of marketable petcoke and another 15 million metric tons of catalyst coke. For the purpose of comparison, the United States produced 9.3 million tons of coke from metallurgical grade coal and more than 1.2 billion tons of coal in 2012.\nFigure 3. U.S. Refinery Net Petcoke Production\nThousand Metric Tons per Year\n\nSource: U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Refinery Net Production, http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_refp2_dc_nus_mbbl_a.htm.\nNotes: Catalysts used in various refining processes (e.g., catalytic cracking) become deactivated from the buildup of carbon deposits, In order to reactivate the catalysts; the carbon is burned off and used as a fuel by the refinery. The carbon coke is not recoverable in a concentrated form.\nOverall, petcoke production reflects refinery capacity utilization rate, which represents the use of the refinery atmospheric crude oil distillation units. The rate is calculated by dividing the gross input to these units by the operable refining capacity of the units. The utilization rate has averaged from 82% to 88%. U.S. refineries have been producing approximately 40 million metric tons of marketable petcoke annually over the period of 2007 through 2012. Refineries, however, need enough light-heavy price spread (LHS) between coker feedstock (heavy resid) and light products (gasoline, jet, and diesel) to run their coking units profitably. With the rising availability of U.S. produced light-sweet crude oil, however, some refineries may choose to cut back on coking, and thus produce less coke. These and other variables lend uncertainty to whether petcoke production will increase, remain steady or decline in the coming years.\nPetcoke Storage Terminals\nRefineries temporarily stockpile petcoke on their facilities, but because they generally lack sufficient storage space must transport it regularly to avoid production slowdowns. Typically, coker drums are mounted over railroad tracks so that coke can be discharged directly into open hopper or gondola cars. The rail cars then transport the petcoke to calcining plants or to temporary storage terminals.\nA complete accounting of independent terminals that store petcoke exceeds the scope of this report. However, a CRS survey identified at least four companies with petroleum coke as a primary business line: SSM Petroleum Coke LLC, TCP Petroleum coke Corp, DTE Petroleum Coke, LLC, and Kinder Morgan Petroleum Coke Gp LC. SSM Petroleum Coke is an affiliate of Oxbow Carbon LLC (Koch Industries, Inc.). Koch Carbon, LLC specialize in the global sourcing, supply, handling, and transportation of bulk commodities including, but not limited to, petcoke. TCP Petroleum Coke Corporation is a joint venture between CITGO Petroleum Corporation (CITGO) and RWE Power AG, offering a diversified marketing network to over 30 countries. DTE Petroleum Coke is a subsidiary of DTE Energy, a diversified energy company that includes electric/gas utilities. DTE Energy has reportedly removed the petcoke it stored at its Detroit Bulk Storage site along the Detroit River. Kinder Morgan Petroleum Coke L.P. advertises that it is responsible for handling over 10 million tons of petcoke through several terminals located on the Texas Gulf Coast.\nPetcoke Market and Exports\nPetcoke competes with both coal and metcoke in the international market. Its comparatively higher heating values makes it an economic substitute for steam coal. However, its granular physical properties may add to the cost of material handling, which is reflected in a discounted price compared with coal in the United States. Petcoke prices track coal prices but at discounts in the range of 15% to 85%. Recently U.S. petcoke price have ranged from 67% to 68% of coal prices.\nU.S. petcoke exports have steadily increased over the last decade, as the U.S. market has given way to increased demand overseas (see Figure 4). In 2012, 80% of marketable (i.e., non-catalyst) petcoke was exported. The largest recipients of U.S. petcoke exports in 2012 were China (14%), followed by Japan (11%), Mexico (9%), and Turkey (7%). China\u2019s demand has steadily increased during the last decade.\nFigure 4. Net Petcoke Production vs. Exports\nThousand Metric Tons per Year\n\nSource: U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Refinery Net Production, http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_refp2_dc_nus_mbbl_a.htm, and Petroleum Coke Exports by Destination, http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_expc_a_eppc_eex_mbbl_a.htm.\nPotential Health and Environmental Impacts\nThe recent increase in coking capacity in the United States has raised concerns over the potential impacts of petcoke on both human health and the environment. Local concerns include air quality hazards, water quality hazards, and potential exposure to toxic substances. These impacts may arise during various stages of petcoke\u2019s life-cycle, including its production, handling, storage, transportation, combustion, and use. Broader concerns have been raised about the greenhouse gas (i.e., carbon dioxide) emissions from petcoke combustion. The focus of this report, however, is on the impacts of handling and storage, not on end-use combustion.\nEPA\u2019s Hazard and Toxicity Characterizations\nIn recent years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has surveyed the potential human health and environmental impacts of petcoke through its High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program. The HPV Challenge Program, initiated jointly by EPA, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), American Petroleum Institute (API), and American Chemistry Council (ACC), was instituted for several purposes, including\nto collect health and environmental effects data on industrial chemicals produced in the United States in high volumes,\nto provide the public with basic hazard information that would allow for active participation in environmental decision-making at all levels\u2014local, state, and federal, and\nto provide EPA with valuable hazard and toxicity information to support its mission of protecting human health and welfare.\nCompanies have sponsored research into more than 2,200 HPV chemicals, with approximately 1,400 administered directly through the HPV Challenge Program and the remainder administered indirectly through international efforts. API sponsored a testing group for the petcoke category, which produced an analysis in December 2007. This analysis was supplemented by EPA, after stakeholder comments, and published in June 2011.\nThe findings from EPA\u2019s hazard characterization of petcoke are summarized in the following sections.\nEnvironmental Fate\nMost chemical analyses of petcoke, as referenced by EPA, find it to be highly stable and non-reactive at ambient environmental conditions.\nDue to the extreme conditions under which petcoke is produced, qualities such as melting point, boiling point, vapor pressure, and water solubility exist well outside the range of ambient conditions. If released to the environment, petcoke would not be expected to undergo many of the environmental fate pathways which could lead to environmental risks. Depending on the particle size and density of the material, terrestrial releases of petcoke become incorporated into the soil or transported via wind or surface water flow. If released to the aquatic environment, petcoke incorporates into sediment or floats on the surface, depending on the particle size and density in relation to water. Chemically, petcoke is essentially inert. That is, petcoke does not vaporize into the atmosphere, does not react chemically in the presence of water, and does not react chemically in the presence of light. Furthermore, it is not biodegradable, nor does it bio-accumulate substances\u2014such as toxic chemicals\u2014into its structure.\nEnvironmental Toxicity\nMost eco-toxicity analyses of petcoke, as referenced by EPA, find it has a low potential to cause adverse effect on aquatic or terrestrial environments.\nThe environmental effects of petcoke have been tested along various pathways for exposure in the environment, including both aquatic and terrestrial endpoints in plants and animals. Aquatic and terrestrial toxicity tests have been performed to assess the hazard of petcoke releases to representative aquatic organisms and terrestrial soil-dwelling invertebrates and plants. In these studies, petcoke was found to be non-toxic to terrestrial plants and animals, non-toxic to aquatic animals (both vertebrates and invertebrates), and showed only slight effects on aquatic plants at the exposure levels tested (i.e., studies found slight growth inhibition in freshwater algae). (The exposure levels and durations were conducted in accordance with EPA and Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) recommendations, although, presumably, these tests could be re-administered at higher dosages or intervals to assess the effects of greater concentrations.)\nHuman Health Effects\nMost toxicity analyses of petcoke, as referenced by EPA, find it has a low health hazard potential in humans, with no observed carcinogenic, reproductive, or developmental effects. Only animal cases studies of repeated-dose and chronic inhalation have shown respiratory inflammation attributed to the non-specific effects of dust particles rather than the specific effects of petcoke.\nInhalation of and skin contact with petcoke were assessed to be the most likely exposure routes to humans. Most repeated-dose inhalation exposure studies (on rats and primates) found cases of irreversible respiratory effects and significantly increased lung weights. These effects were considered to be non-specific responses of the respiratory tract to high concentrations of dust particles rather than compound specific-induced effects. Petcoke was not found to be carcinogenic via inhalation. No excess skin or visceral cancers were observed in a lifetime skin painting study. Petcoke was not found to produce genetic mutations in bacteria and mammalian cells in standard in vitro toxicity tests or to produce chromosome aberrations of bone marrow in standard in vivo toxicity tests. Petcoke was not found to produce any reproductive or developmental effects following repeated inhalation or exposure to the skin.\nReactivity\nPetcoke is generally stable under normal conditions; however, the substance has the potential to become flammable or explosive. Emissions from the combustion\u2014either accidentally or purposefully\u2014of petcoke can have impacts on human health and the environment, including the release of common pollutants, hazardous substances, and greenhouse gases.\nWhen petcoke is combusted, common pollutants and hazardous decomposition products may be produced such as carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and heavy metals, depending upon the chemical composition of the feedstock (see Table 1 for the chemical composition of petcoke). These releases may take place unintentionally, through the natural or unintended combustion of surface or air-borne dust particles, or intentionally, through the combustion of petcoke for electrical power generation or other like purposes. \nPetcoke\u2019s use as a fuel is criticized because it commonly has higher greenhouse gas emissions relative to the amount of heat it generates when burned. Table 3 presents potential carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions for petcoke in comparison to metallurgical coke and several grades of steam coal. When petcoke or coal combust, CO2 forms from one carbon atom (C) uniting with two oxygen atoms (O). Assuming complete combustion, 1 pound of carbon combines with 2.667 pounds of oxygen to produce 3.667 pounds of carbon dioxide. Petcoke with a carbon content of 90% and a heating value of 14,200 Btu per pound emits about 232 pounds of carbon dioxide per million Btu when completely burned. Comparatively, Powder River Basin coal with a carbon content of 48% and a heating value of 8,800 Btu per pound emits about 202 pounds of carbon dioxide per million Btu when completely burned, or 15% less than petcoke. Because coal has high hydrogen-to-carbon ratio compared to petcoke, part of its energy content comes from the combustion of hydrogen that is emitted as water vapor instead of carbon dioxide.\nTable 3. Petcoke vs. Coal: Combustion Emissions\n\nFuel\nCoal Rank\nSulfur %wt.\nBtu / lb.\nCarbon %wt.\nCO2 lbs./ Million Btu\n\nPetcoke\nn.a.\n1.5\u20136.0\n14,200\n89\u201392\n232\n\nMetcoke\nMetallurgic\n0.4\u20130.7\n12,600\n91\u201392\n266\n\nSteam Coal\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPittsburgh #8\nBituminous\n3.0\n13,000\n73\u201374\n207\n\n\nIllinois #6\nBituminous\n3.9\n11,000\n60\u201361\n201\n\n\nPowder River Basin \nSub-bituminous\n0.5\n8,800\n48\u201349\n202\n\nSource: MIT, The Future of Coal Appendices, p. P5.\nNotes: Potential carbon dioxide emissions calculated by percent carbon \u00f7 Btu per pound x 36,670 = pounds (lbs.) of carbon dioxide per million Btu.\nFederal Regulatory Requirements\nVarious aspects of the production, handling, storage, transportation, combustion, and use of petcoke have been addressed at local, state, and federal levels to protect human health and the environment. While some federal statutes address certain environmental impacts of petcoke\u2019s life-cycle, most regulatory action and oversight has been undertaken at the state and local levels, generally through facility-specific permitting requirements. With few exceptions, petcoke is not specifically regulated by local, state, or federal codes. Rather, it is petcoke\u2019s potential contribution to more general hazards (e.g., air and water quality impacts such as haze, fugitive dust, and stormwater runoff) that is monitored and controlled through various permitting and reporting requirements at the state and local levels. This report focuses on the federal response to petcoke and on the rules that may be implemented during the handling, storage, and transportation phases of petcoke\u2019s life-cycle. States may also have their own laws or regulations related to the handling, storage, and transportation of petcoke, specifically, or high-production-volume industrial substances like petcoke, more generally; a full review of state and local code is beyond the scope of this report.\nRegulatory agencies at all levels of government commonly aim to manage the human health and environmental impacts of industrial materials (e.g., petcoke) based upon thorough assessments of their hazardous exposure pathways. Because of its relative inertness, exposure to petcoke is considered to pose few human health and environmental risks. Thus, federal law generally exempts petcoke from classification as either a solid or hazardous waste. Despite these exemptions, petcoke may nevertheless present significant nuisance concerns. A \u201cnuisance\u201d is the unreasonable, unwarranted and/or unlawful use of property, which causes inconvenience or damage to others, either to individuals or to the general public. A nuisance may not violate any regulatory standard or cause demonstrable environmental or health impacts; however, if a nuisance interferes with a person\u2019s use of his or her property, it may be the basis for a lawsuit for damages or an injunction. For example, fugitive dust from petcoke storage piles can be deposited on and in nearby waterways, outdoor areas, or residents\u2019 homes, leaving a black- or grey-colored residue. This deposition may result in undesirable and unsightly conditions, interfering with residents\u2019 comfort and use of their property. Similarly, dust from coke piles can challenge the operations of commercial or industrial facilities, such as pharmaceutical research and production plants, electronics assembly, or fuel cell membrane manufacturing. Dust from nearby coke piles can increase filtration costs or threaten the integrity of strict quality control standards required for such high technology operations.\nIn light of these issues, the monitoring and management of petcoke at the federal level is summarized in the following sections.\nWaste Classifications\nFederal law generally exempts petcoke from classification as either a solid or hazardous waste.\nThe exemption for petcoke from classification as either a solid or hazardous waste stems from the scope of the statutory term \u201csolid waste\u201d as decided in American Mining Congress v. U.S. EPA. In that decision, the court held that materials recycled and reused in an ongoing manufacturing or industrial process were not considered to be \u201cdiscarded,\u201d and hence, not considered to be \u201csolid wastes.\u201d Furthermore, in 1998, EPA identified a list of petroleum refining wastes that would be subject to federal regulations applicable to the management of hazardous waste established under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). In this rulemaking, EPA stated that petcoke is not a refining waste, but rather a \u201cco-product\u201d of the refining process. In separate rulemaking, EPA included petcoke among other fuels in its definition of \u201ctraditional fuels\u201d (at 40 C.F.R. 241.2). As a result of these determinations, unless or until it is discarded, petcoke would not be subject to federal waste management requirements established under RCRA.\nPetcoke would not be subject to the federal cleanup authorities of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, often referred to as Superfund) because of the exclusion of petroleum from the statute. The response authorities of CERCLA specifically apply to the release of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants into the environment. Hazardous substances under CERCLA are broader than hazardous wastes under RCRA and include hundreds of toxic chemicals. However, CERCLA defines a",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43263",
          "sha1": "b47f15959c362b7a8acce0e519048598c57b8c37",
          "filename": "files/20131029_R43263_b47f15959c362b7a8acce0e519048598c57b8c37.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43263",
          "sha1": "817011f032177b4ef6a39f6d9d4665f3c105d151",
          "filename": "files/20131029_R43263_817011f032177b4ef6a39f6d9d4665f3c105d151.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Energy Policy",
    "Environmental Policy",
    "Science and Technology Policy"
  ]
}