&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5305W)
EPA530-N-97-001
May 1997
Strategy Update
A Newsletter on EPA's Hazardous Waste
Minimization and Combustion Activities
THE Director's Chair
By Elizabeth Cotsworth
Acting Director
EPA Office of Solid Waste
As many of you undoubtedly
Know, a number of signifi-
cant milestones have been
reached since the fast edition of the
Strategy Update. This Update covers
these milestones and also gjves you
a "heads up"1 on other important
upcoming items,
Foremast is our continuing work on
the proposed emission standards for
the hazardous waste incinerators,
cement kilns, and lightweight aggregate
kilns. Our major work at EPA since last
August has been to analyse the reams
of comments received from all quarters.
These comments provided good insight
into the strengths arsd the shortcomings
of our proposal. We knew at the-outset
that some aspects wouid need to be
reevalualed.
I would like to express my appreciation
. to. all those who have spent time and
effort working on data, ideas, ut other
regulatory details brought to EPA's
attention. Responding to these
comments is requiring considerable
i:f'Ji.m As a KsuJu our ambitious
schedule for promulgating, a fina! rule
has changed. \Vfe now project a final
rule in March-April I9l>8.. pending
results of additional comment analysis
this spring. However, OSW plans io
accelerate some pieces of the proposal
by late 1997 (e.g., permit modification
changes and the comparable fuels
exclusion).
On the waste minimization From,
a list of the most persistent,
bbacetimtilative, and tnxtc (PBT)
(Continued on page 4)
TECHNICAL STANDARDS
Status of Combustion Rule
On April 19, 1996 (61 Federal Register 17358), EPA proposed Revised
Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities under joint
authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). The revised standards cover hazardous waste-burning
incinerators, cement kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns. For each unit, the
standards would impose the maximum achievable control technologies (MACT)
provisions of the CAA. The MACT standards will limit emissions of dioxins and
furans, mercury, semivolatile metals, low-volatile metals, particulate matter (PM),
acid gas, hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide. For compliance with PM and
mercury (Hg) standards, the Agency also proposed requiring continuous emissions
monitoring systems (CEMS). CEMS would address, among other things, local
citizen and environmental group concerns about timely assurances of compliance
with emission limits at affected facilities. EPA is currently evaluating the long-term
performance of the CEMS on hazardous waste combustion devices (see sidebar).
EPA is also considering accelerating a final rule for certain portions of the hazardous
waste combustion rulemaking in advance of promulgating the overall set of final
standards. This would be intended to prevent delays in the implementation of die
final standards when adopted and allow more facilities to come into compliance
within the required 3- to 4-year time frame. This rule, anticipated in the fall of
1997, would streamline RCRA permitting modification procedures under which
permitted facilities could more quickly make
changes to their processes and/or operating
parameters to comply with the final MACT
standards. Also slated for acceleration are the
comparable fuels exclusion, provisions related
to the compliance period, and a facility
implementation plan. The comparable fuels
exclusion will ensure that an excluded
hazardous waste fuel is similar in composition
to commercially available liquid fossil fuels.
Because of the additional time needed to
analyze and respond to the numerous
comments and data submitted on the proposal,
EPA has developed a revised schedule for the
final combustion rule. Also, in spring 1997,
EPA plans to publish further information on
CEMS Update
The CEMS demonstisiion
testing program, cr>sponsoffid
by EPA's Office of Solid Waste
irtment of Energy's
ana the
Westinghouse Savannah River
Site (DOEAVSRS), began in
Septefflter1<996 for PM and in
August 1996 for Hg. Both tests
are expected to continue into
the early summer of 1997, Loo!$
for upcoming Frckrol Register
notices describing initial results
of this test program.
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed on paper that contains at least 50 percent recycled fiber.
(Continued on page 2)
-------
TECHNICAL STANDARDS
(Continued from page 1)
CEM testing and MACT options in two Notices of Data
Availability (NODAs). The anticipated schedule for key Federal
Register notices is:
• March 1997: NODA: CEMS PM and Hg Testing Report
• April 1997: NODA: Revised MACT Levels
• Fall 1997: Accelerated Final Rule
• Spring 1998: MACT Standards Final Rule
Overview of Comments on Proposed Rule
The comment period for the proposed standards, which included
a 60-day extension, ended on August 19, 1996. Approximately
145 sets of comments were received covering virtually every
provision of the proposal. EPA will be addressing these comments
in developing the accelerated and final MACT standard rules.
MACT Standards—In general, the commenters were divided
over issues such as whether the three source categories covered
by the rule should be subdivided and the appropriateness of
establishing MACT floors for each proposed hazardous air
pollutant (HAP). Some commenters felt the proposed MACT
floors were skewed high because the emissions data applied in
developing the standards were obtained during compliance
testing and trial burns, thus representing a set of operating
conditions rarely approached. In response to the new data
submitted, EPA has updated its database of emissions and
ancillary information on hazardous waste combustors (see
sidebar). Another area of controversy was the Agency's application
of the priority pollutant provisions of section 112(c)(6). Many
industry commenters believed that EPA inappropriately applied
section 112(c)(6) in that: (1) area sources would be required to
meet MACT standards for all proposed HAPs and not just those
enumerated in section 112(c)(6), and (2) other section 112(c)(6)
requirements were not
fulfilled prior to EPAs
proposal to subject all area
sources to the MACT
standards.
EPA Releases
Updated Database
Based on comments and
additional data submitted, EPA
iijnlatM.1 its emissions database
on hazardous waste combustors
m the January 8, 3997, Federal
Renter. The updated database
contains stack gas entissions
data, process operating data,
and facility equipment design
and operational data from over
90 incinerators, 40 cement kitas,
and .13 lightweight: aggregate
kilns. The datab-ase can be
accessed through the CLU-IN
bulletin board by dialing
301-589-8366 or through
FedworM on the Internet at
htt pV/www. fedworld.gov.
Comparable Fuels—
Numerous comments
addressed the impacts of
fuels exclusion, the
benchmark approach,
implementation of the
exclusion, and the syngas
specifications. Some
commenters did not
believe that the Agency had
adequately evaluated the
impacts of the exclusion on
human health, the
environment, and waste
minimization and recycling
efforts. Others opposed a
blanket exemption from all hazardous waste
regulation. In general, however, most
commenters supported EPA's proposed benchmark approach to
determine the scope and levels of a comparable fuel specification.
Commenters were divided over whether process knowledge
should be allowed in determining whether a waste meets the
specification for exclusion. Commenters were also divided over
whether the exemption should be expanded to include other
emissions sources and whether blending should be allowed to
meet heating value specifications. Several commented that die
Agency lacks the Subtitle C regulatory authority over syngas
because it does not meet me definition of a solid waste and that
the proposed implementation approach is inappropriate for
syngas because it is specifically for liquid fuels. Some commenters
also supported the Chemical Manufacturers Association proposal
that would establish clean fuel specifications based on the
technology-based MACT emission standards.
CEMS—Commenters questioned this proposal (high cost often
being cited as a reason). However, some commenters did address
how the new CEMS could be implemented (e.g., establish site-
specific performance specifications based on CEMS performance
during a trial period). Commenters also addressed what to do
when the CEMS is down or not operating properly. Suggestions
were made for establishing averaging periods for CEMS when
only manual method testing data were available.
Risk—Several comments addressed the indirect risk assessment
conducted in support of the proposed MACT standards. One
commenter stated that the indirect exposure methodology should
not be applied for setting national standards because the current
guidance for conducting these assessments is believed to be
inadequate and the applied methodology has not been adequately
modified to address Science Advisory Board and public
comments. Others suggested that risk results from die case study
sites did not represent risks posed by hazardous waste emissions
and that the modeled scenarios did not adequately address
sensitive and highly exposed populations. One commenter
believed that risks posed by dioxin were exaggerated by applying
the dioxin toxicity equivalents (TEQ) methodology. Other
commenters stated that ecological risks were not fully considered
as part of the assessment process.
Economics—In general, commenters believed that the
regulatory impact analysis underestimated compliance costs and
impacts on small business and did not fully consider feed waste
reductions. Others commented that the proposal will discourage
waste-to-energy efforts causing wastes currently combusted to be
managed in ways that are less environmentally friendly.
Waste Minimization—One commenter suggested that
companies be required to complete pollution prevention (P2)
planning prior to making decisions concerning emission control
equipment and that beyond the floor (BTF) emission limits
should factor in P2 and waste feed reductions. Some commenters
stated that the comparable fuels exclusion created disincentives
for waste minimization; others believed it should be broadened.
-------
PERMITTING AND PUBLIC
INVOLVEMENT
Implementing the Combustion Strategy's
Permitting Policy
T
he Combustion Strategy permitting policy is implemented by EPA regional offices or
authorized states, which are the permitting agencies for hazardous waste combustors
under RCRA.
As a general rule, the Agency's position is that its regulations are protective of human health
and the environment and that permits containing these regulatory standards will also be
protective. However, the Agency's Combustion Strategy in 1993 indicated that the current
regulations for hazardous waste combustors may, after site-specific inquiry, need to be
supplemented through use of the omnibus provision to protect human health and the
environment. In such cases, use of the omnibus provision as part of the permitting process
is appropriate. Under the omnibus authority, permit writers determine on a site-specific
basis what, if any, additional permit conditions are necessary to ensure protection of human
health and the environment. Under 40 CFR 270.10(k), EPA may require the applicant to
submit additional information that the Agency needs to make required determinations
under the omnibus provision. For combustion facilities, multipathway site-specific risk
assessments often provide information needed to make such determinations. EPA has made
it clear that the decision to invoke omnibus authority must be made on a case-by-case basis
and only when the permitting agency, after examining all relevant data supplied during the
permitting process, determines that additional conditions are necessary to ensure protection.
EPA Regional and State Implementation Activities
• Each region and state currently continues to examine facility permit applications
to determine whether to exercise the RCRA omnibus permitting authority to apply
additional permit controls beyond those required under the current regulations.
To ensure sufficient protection of human health and the environment, site-specific risk
assessments (SSRAs) are being conducted. More than 50 SSRAs have been completed or
are under way at hazardous waste combustors across the country. EPA understands that
the State of Texas expects to perform risk assessments first on a selected and limited
group of hazardous waste combustors. They then intend to use these results, as
appropriate, to set protective permit conditions for the assessed facilities as well as for the
remaining combustors if possible.
• In a joint action by U.S. EPA's Region 7 and the Kansas Department of Health and
Environment, the first national permit to burn hazardous waste in cement kilns was
issued to the Ash Grove Cement Company in Chanute, Kansas, on August 15, 1996.
• The Agency has developed a new Draft Protocol for Screening Level Human Health Risk
Assessment (SLHHRA). The purpose of this document, which was drafted by Region 6,
is to provide guidance to both regions and states on performing SLHHRAs for hazardous
waste combustion facilities. Information on performing ecological risk assessments is
provided in a companion document titled Draft Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk
Assessments (SLERA). EPA expects that SLHHRA and SLERA reports, prepared in
accordance with these guidance documents, will be used by the permitting authority
to support permitting decisions for hazardous waste combustion units. The Agency
anticipates having these documents out to the regions and states for their internal peer
review and comment by April 1, 1997.
Texos Industries Permit
Texas Industries, Inc. (TXD,
operates four hazardous roiU1-
bummg wet process cement kiln?
at Ms Midlothian, 'Itxus, cement
plant. TXI's draft permit has been
strongly contested by local and
national environmental groups tor
several years, They allege thai
emissions from TXte wasie-
buming kilns have negatively
affected human health and the
environment Independent
studtes by the Texas Natural
Resource Conservation
Commission and the Texas
Department of Health determined
that the kilns presented no
significant risk. Diie to the intense
public scrutiny, in January 1996,
Region 6 assessed die cumulative
risk from TXI and three nearby
facilities. The results were below
the thresholds of concern;
however, Region 6 maintains
that fish monitoring provisions
should be included in the TXI
site permits.
Permitting Roundtobles
During the summer of IQ96, EPA
held two permitting roundtabk-
niei'tirigj, to discuss issues that
developed from the proposed
combnstor role, EPA brought
together representatives of the
various stakeholders lor an ;''|
dialogue concerning RCRA/CAA
interaction, permitting, and state
yudiorizauon. The meetings were
intended to help stakeholders
focus their comments on the
proposed rule and to g:vc EPA
some idea of tbeir key concerns.
Representatives from industry,
EPA HQ. EPA regions/labs, slates,
and federal facilities attended the
meetings. (^Environmental groups
were invited, but none attended.)
EPA may consider holding a third
permitting roundtable meeting
later this spring to discxiss Ambrf
developments.
-------
THE Director's Chair
(Ccntintsedjrom page 1)
chemicals and A repon identifying
the waste streams that contain
these priority PBT chemicals are
soon tpbe issued. Later in 1907
we will publish a measurement
approach for determining
reductions in waste streams that
contain those PBTs,
At the facility and community
level, risk assessments have been ,
completed or aW in process at
over 50 facilities, with mure
planned for the near future. These
risk assessments have turned out
to be very important milestones
for the permitting agencies, the
facilities, and the public.
Ori irat other hand, these risk
assessments tend so lengthen ihe
time to final permit decisions at
some facilities. In my view, the
importance of risk assessments
often justifies the delay. 1 am also
pleased, however, to see that local
actions are being taken to keep
the permitting process on track.
For example, a dialogue between
Region. 6 and the State uf Texas
has ted to an agreement on how
to proceed with an overall
permitting strategy that will lead
to the fastest possible decision-
making on key facility permit
applications.
As I said in the last Update, it it.
truly invaluable For EPA to have a
continuing dialogue with all
interested groups on the
keystones of our Combustion
Strategy. Again, I urge you to let
the Agency know your views.
WASTE MINIMIZATION
Waste Minimization and Pollution Prevention
For More Information
As OSW finalizes the MACT Combustion Rule, several efforts based on the goals
and objectives of the Waste Minimization National Plan are encouraging waste
minimization and pollution prevention (WM/P2) at affected facilities (including
combustors). EPA is (1) developing regulatory incentives for WM/P2 within the MACT rule,
(2) identifying opportunities for WM/P2 that apply to facilities generating streams sent to
combustion onsite, and (3) identifying overall waste minimization priorities.
• Developing Regulatory Incentives in the MACT Rule—In its April 1996 proposal,
EPA requested comment on several waste minimization approaches that could reduce the
amount and/or toxicity of combusted wastes. These included proposals to require waste
minimization planning for all facilities to identify measures to reduce the amount of
waste combusted; require waste minimization planning on a case-by-case basis; and
allow a case-by-case 1-year extension beyond the 3-year compliance deadline set in the
Clean Air Act for facilities that need more time to plan and implement waste
minimization measures. As an outgrowth of these options, EPA is also considering
voluntary incentive-based options that would encourage companies to consider waste
minimization measures as a means to achieve MACT standards. For example, EPA might,
under the auspices of the Agency's audit policy, consider allowing companies to enter
into compliance orders if they can demonstrate that they can meet MACT standards
using waste minimization measures but need more than the 3 years plus a 1-year
extension to complete the testing and installation of new approaches.
These waste minimization incentives are intended to reduce the amount of persistent,
bioaccumulative, and/or toxic (PBT) wastes, such as heavy metals, that are currently
generated and combusted and the releases to the environment that result from
combustion. Additional benefits may include a reduction in the use of raw materials and
worker exposure to hazardous materials and wastes.
• Identifying Process Opportunities—EPA has identified facilities impacted by the
MACT combustion rule and is evaluating WM/P2 opportunities for waste streams
generated at these facilities and combusted onsite. After assessing the costs of these
opportunities and estimating the waste quantity reductions likely to be achieved, EPA
plans to make this information available to facilities and the public.
• Identifying Overall Waste Minimization Priorities—As one means of prioritizing
waste minimization activities, OSW is developing products to help EPA regions, states,
and others identify PBT chemicals in their RCRA hazardous waste (including wastes
managed by combustion). These products include: a list of chemicals ranked based on
the PBT criteria, a "cross-walk" between these chemicals and the RCRA hazardous waste
codes that are likely to be associated with them, and a software tool automating the
process of linking PBT chemicals with waste codes. OSW plans to refine the products
and make them available through the RCRA Hotline during spring 1997.
These efforts involve coordination with state and
regional regulators, plus extensive information
exchange with representatives of impacted facilities
and other stakeholders. EPA's goal is to incorporate
a set of incentives into the MACT rule that
encourage WM/P2 and to offer documents to
generators on stream-specific waste minimization
opportunities.
For more information, call the RCRA Hotline at SOO-424-Q3-I6 or TDD
800-553-7672. The Strategy Update, is also available on the Internet.
To access this through the World Wide Web, type: hupy/www.epa.gov/
epaoswer/hazwstste/combust/stnit.txt. Please submit comments on iht
Strategy Vpdale to Keely Clifford, editor, ai diiiord krely@qximsi! epa.gov
------- |