Tuesday
August 25, 1992
Part III
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR 260 et al.
Burning of Hazardous Waste in Boilers
and Industrial Furnaces; Final Rule
-------
38558 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 25, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 260, 261, 264, 265, and
266
[EPA/OSW-FR-92-SWH-FRL-4198-5]
Burning of Hazardous Waste in Boilers
and Industrial Furnaces
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; technical
clarification amendments and
corrections.
SUMMARY: This action makes several
technical clarification amendments and
corrections to the final rule for boilers
and industrial furnaces burning
hazardous waste. The final rule was
published on February 21,1991 (56 FR
7134). These revisions provide
clarification and correct unintended
consequences of the rule.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 11,1992.
ADDRESSES: The documents are
available for viewing at the RCRA
Information Center (docket
identification number F-92-BBC3-
FFFFF), located at: EPA/RCRA
Information Center, room M2427,401M
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.
The RCRA Information Center is open
from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through
Friday, except for federal holidays. The
public must make an appointment to
review docket materials. Call (202) 260-
9327 for appointments. Copies cost $0.15
per page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For general information, contact the
RCRA Hotline at: (800) 424-9346 (toll
free) or (703) 920-9810.
Shiva Garg, Office of Solid Waste
(OS-322W), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460, (703) 308-8459.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble Outline
A. Technical Clarification Amendments
1, The Definition of Baseline Hydrocarbon
Level for Industrial Furnaces Complying with
the Alternative Hydrocarbon Limits is
Clarified to Require Consideration of Process
Variability.
2, Industrial Furnaces Complying with the
Alternative HC Limit May Comply with the
Interim HC Limit Using a Conditioned Gas
HC Monitoring System if They Demonstrate
that a Heated System Is Impracticable.
3. Industrial Furnaces that Cannot Comply
with Ihe 20 ppmv HC Limit by Aug. 21,1992,
because of Organic Matter in Raw Materials
May Apply for a Case-by-Case Time
Extension to Make Physical Changes to the
Facility in Order to Comply with that HC
Limit.
4. The Metals and Total Chlorine and
Chloride Feed Rate Operating Limits i:or Tier
I or Adjusted Tier I Are Based on the
Screening Limits, Not the Compliance Test.
5. Adjusted Tier I Feed Rate Screening
Limits May Be Used in Dispersion Situations
where the Tier I and Tier II Screening Limits
Are Precluded.
6. Several Requirements Are Clarified to
Account for Facilities that Comply with
Adjusted Tier I Limits.
7. BIF Storage Units are Subject to the Air
Emissions Standards of subparts AA and BB
of parts 264 and 265.
8. The Definitions of Plasma Arc and
Infrared Incinerators Are Clarified to Include
Only those Devices that Use an Afterburner.
9. Facilities that Comply with the Tier I or
Adjusted Tier I Metals and Chlorine Controls
and that have Uncontrolled Emissions that
Meet the Particulate Matter Standard Need
Not Establish a Limit on Production Rate
during Interim Status.
10. Halogen Acid Furnaces that Burn
Hazardous Waste as an Ingredient Are
Subject to the BIF Rule.
11. When Comparing Levels of Nonmetal
Constituents in Residue to the Health-Based
Limits for the Bevill Exclusion, the Levels
Cannot Exceed the Health-Based Limits or
the Level of Detection, whichever Is Higher.
12. The Applicability of part 266 Is
Clarified.
13. Conforming Revisions Are Made to the
Applicability Sections of parts 264 and 265.
14. A Conforming Revision Is Made to the
Rulemaking Petitions Provision of part 260.
B. Technical Corrections
C. Immediate Effective Date
A. Technical Clarification Amendments
On February 21,1991, the Agency
published a final rule which regulates
the burning of hazardous waste in
boilers and industrial furnaces (BIFs).
See 56 FR 7134. The rule controls
emissions of toxic organic compounds,
toxic metals, hydrogen chloride, chlorine
gas, and particulate matter from BIFs
that burn hazardous waste. In addition,
the rules subject owners and operators
of BIFs to the general facility and
permitting standards applicable to
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities.
After publication of the rule, the
Agency received many questions and
requests for clarification on certain
provisions of the rule. In addition, in a
number of cases, the Agency was
questioned as to whether the rule as
promulgated truly reflected the Agency's
intent. As a result of these questions and
as a result of the Agency's own review,
the Agency published a technical
amendment to the rule to clarify the
operation of the regulation and to
correct certain unintended
consequences. Those amendments were
published at 56 FR 42504 on August 27,
1991. (Note that EPA had previously
published several other technical
corrections and amendments to the
February 21 final rule (56 FR 32688 (July
17,1991).)
As facilities began to comply with the
BIF rules, additional questions have
been raised about the way various
provisions of the rule are intended to
work. Today's technical clarification
amendments address those questions.
1. The Definition of Baseline
Hydrocarbon Level for Industrial
Furnaces Complying With the
Alternative Hydrocarbon Limit Is
Clarified To Require Consideration of
Process Variability
The Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition
(CKRC) has expressed concern to the
Agency that the alternative hydrocarbon
(HC) provision of the rule is problematic
for furnaces that feed raw materials
containing naturally-occurring organic
matter.1 See § 266.104(f). That provision
was intended to allow furnaces that
could not comply with the 20 ppmv HC
limit because of organic matter in raw
materials to comply with an alternative,
higher HC limit. EPA's rationale for the
20 ppmb limit was to ensure good
hazardous waste combustion conditions
and, thus, control of emissions of
products of incomplete combustion
(PICs). However, because hydrocarbon
emissions from organic matter in raw
materials are not directly related to fuel-
generated hydrocarbons (i.e., from
burning normal fuels and hazardous
waste fuels), the Agency believed that
these hydrocarbon should not be
counted toward the 20 ppmv HC limit.
See 56 FR 7155-56. To implement the
alternative HC limit, the final rule
required such furnaces to establish an
HC limit that would be applicable when
burning hazardous waste as the HC
level achieved when not burning
hazardous waste and when the furnace
is operated to "minimize" HC levels. See
§ 266.104(f)(l).
CKRC has noted that this provision
could be read to limit fuel-generated
hydrocarbons to approximately 2 to 5
ppmv—the HC levels that are achieved
when cement kilns (and boilers,
incinerators, and other industrial
furnaces) are operated under conditions
to absolutely minimize HC levels.
Therefore, although the Agency limits
combustion-generated hydrocarbons
from other combustion devices to 20
ppmv, the rule could be read to limit
fuel-related hydrocarbon levels from
cement kilns to 2 to 5 ppmv. In
particular, CKRC notes that the rule
1 See the BIF docket for documentation of
meetings and phone conversations and copies of
correspondence.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 25, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 38559
could be interpreted to limit
hydrocarbons when burning hazardous
waste to the levels achieved when not
burning hazardous waste (i.e., baseline
conditions) and when kiln is operated to
absolutely minimize HC levels and
would not allow the facility to account
for normal transient combustion
conditions that occur because of factors
such as mechanically handling coal.
These conditions are elements of normal
operating variability. Although these
transient conditions cause combustion
perturbations and momentary increases
(i.e., spikes) in HC levels, these
combustion-related HC levels do not
generally exceed the 20 ppmv hourly
rolling average limit that the Agency has
established to control PICs.
Nonetheless, the most literal-minded
reading of the rule would preclude
consideration of these normal
combustion perturbations if the rule's
requirement that baseline HC levels be
established when the kiln is operated to
minimize HC levels is read to mean to
operate constantly at absolute peak
performance.2 This literal-minded
reading would lead to the result—not
intended by EPA—that whenever such a
normal combustion perturbation would
occur (when the kiln is burning
hazardous waste) and there is a spike in
the HC level that causes the baseline
HC level to be exceeded, the kiln would
be required to stop burning hazardous
waste and not restart the hazardous
waste feed until the HC level falls below
the baseline limit. Nor did EPA intend
that industrial furnaces operate at an
absolutely optimized performance in
establishing a baseline ignoring normal
operating variability (i.e., a performance
level analogous to a New Source
Performance Standard rather than best
available technology). Indeed, the rule
refers to establishing a baseline when
the industrial furnace "produces normal
products under normal operating
conditions" (see § 266.104(f)(l)), and the
analogous 20 ppmv HC limit itself is an
"indicator of good combustion
2 Even if the rule were interpreted to allow
normal combustion perturbations (i.e., perturbations
that do not result in combustion-generated
hydrocarbons exceeding 20 ppmv on an hourly
rolling average, and thus, are within the Agency's
definition of good combustion conditions) during
baseline testing, establishing a baseline that
includes such normal perturbations would be
problematic. This is because the owner or operator
cannot ensure that the perturbations that occur
during the baseline testing are representative (i.e., in
frequency, magnitude, and duration) of normal
perturbations. The occurrence of normal
perturbations cannot always be predicted, and it
would be difficult for the owner or operator to
demonstrate that perturbations that could be
artificially induced during baseline testing are
representative of normal perturbations.
conditions" (see 55 FR 7155), not
absolutely optimized combustion.
Although EPA believes these readings
take an unduly stringent view of the
requirement that HC levels be
minimized when establishing a baseline,
we nevertheless think it best to clarify
the text of the rule. Therefore, EPA is
correcting the definition of the baseline
HC level provided by § 266.104(f)(l) to
make it clear that the measured baseline
HC level must be adjusted as
appropriate to consider the normal
variability of hydrocarbon levels under
good combustion operating conditions.
Thus, the measured baseline level could
be increased by a variability factor that
considers normal transient combustion
conditions (i.e., provided that the
transient conditions do not result in
combustion-generated HC that exceed
the 20 ppmv limit provided by
§ 266.104{c)). Accordingly, today's
clarification amends the definition of the
baseline HC level in § 266.104(f)(l) to
read as follows: "The baseline HC level
is defined as the average over all valid
test runs of the highest hourly rolling
average value for each run, adjusted as
appropriate to consider the variability of
hydrocarbon levels under good
combustion operating conditions."
This HC variability factor would be
determined on a case-by-case basis by
the Director. As guidance in determining
what variability factor to apply, EPA
believes that a factor of 10 ppmv would
be appropriate in most situations.3 As
indicated previously, the Agency
believes that combustion-generated HC
levels from cement kilns (and other
furnaces eligible for the alternative HC
limit) should be limited to 20 ppmv to
ensure good combustion conditions.
This is the same HC limit that applies to
boilers, other furnaces, and incinerators,
and provides a "level playing field" with
respect to control of combustion-
generated hydrocarbons. Thus, we
recommend that the alternative HC limit
be established as 20 ppmv plus the raw
material-generated HC level. We do not
believe that it is feasible, however, to
measure only raw material-generated
hydrocarbons; the HC monitor in the
stack measures both hazardous waste
combustion-generated and raw material-
generated hydrocarbons. Therefore, to
estimate the level of raw material-
generated hydrocarbons, it is
conservative and reasonable to assume
that 10 ppmv 4 of the HC measured
under baseline conditions (when the kiln
must be operated to minimize ;
combustion-generated hydrocarbons) is
attributable to hazardous waste
combustion. (Note that when the kiln is
operated to absolutely minimize
hazardous waste combustion-generated
hydrocarbons, HC levels should be in
the range of 2 to 5 ppmv. Thus, the
recommended assumption that
combustion-generated hydrocarbons are
10 ppmv during baseline testing is
conservative.5 Under this approach, raw
material-generated hydrocarbons are
estimated to be the measured HC level
during baseline testing minus 10 ppmv.
The 20 ppmv combustion-generated HC
allowance would then be added to the
estimated raw material-generated
hydrocarbons. The net effect would be
simply to add 10 ppmv to the measured
baseline HC level.
As discussed above, the rational for
adding a variability factor to the
measured baseline HC level assumes
that the baseline level is determined
when the device is operated under
conditions that generally minimize
combustion-generated hydrocarbon;6
Therefore, combustion-generated
hydrocarbon spikes causing a significant
increase in the hourly rolling average
HC level should not be allowed during
baseline testing. To ensure that
substantial variability is not already
included in the baseline HC level, the
hourly rolling average hydrocarbon level
should not vary during baseline testing
by more than 5 ppmv when measured
HC levels are in the range of 10-30
ppmv. When measured HC levels
exceed 30 ppmv, then a higher allowable
range of HC levels (i.e., the difference
3 We note that, if a variability of 10 ppmv is used
to adjust he measured baseline HC level, facilities
with measured HC levels of 11 ppmv or greater
would be eligible for the alternative HC limit. This
is because the baseline HC level, when adjusted for
the 10 ppmv variability factor, would be 21 ppmv or
more and facilities with baseline HC levels
exceeding 20 ppmv are eligible for the alternative
HC limit.
4 Note that the assumption that 10 ppmv of HC
during baseline testing is attributable to hazardous
waste combustion is not the basis for the
recommended 10 ppmv variability factor. As
discussed in the text, however, this assumption
leads to the Agency's conclusion that a 10 ppmv
variability factor is appropriate.
5 The assumption that combustion-generated HC
is 10 ppmv during baseline testing is conservative
because if, for example, we assumed that
combustion-generated HC is 5 ppmv, the variability
factor would be 15 ppmv, not 10 ppmv. This is
because, the lower that the combustion-generated
HC is assumed to be, the higher the raw material-
generated HC is estimated to be, and the 20 ppmv
allowance for combustion-generated HC is added to
the estimated raw material-generated HC.
6 Although it is not practicable for an industrial
furnace to operate continuously under conditions
that minimize combustion-generated HC as
discussed previously in the text, it is reasonable and
necessary to require the facility to operate during
baseline testing under conditions that generally
minimize combustion-generated HC. This.is
because, otherwise, a variability factor would be
added to a baseline HC level that may already
include substantial variability.
-------
88560 Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 165 / Tuesday, August 25. 1992 / Rules and Regulations
between the highest and lowest hourly
rolling average level) during baseline
tesling may be appropriate given that
the absolute HC levels are higher and
even minor perturbations could cause
significant changes in HC levels.7
EPA is interested in obtaining further
information on whether this
recommended approach is reasonable to
establish an alternative HC limit for
devices that cannot meet the 20 ppmv
HC limit because of organic matter in
raw materials. EPA therefore invites all
interested persons to submit any
relevant information on this issue.
2, Industrial Furnaces Complying With
the Alternative HC Limit May Comply
With the Interim HC Limit Using a
Conditioned Gas HC Monitoring System
if They Demonstrate That a Heated
System Is Impracticable
Section 266.103(c)(5) of the rule allows
owners and operators of BIFs, other
than those that obtain a time extension,
to certify compliance with the 20 ppmv
HC limit using a conditioned gas (i.e.,
cold) HC monitoring system rather than
a healed monitoring system. Although
the Agency prefers the heated system
because a cold system may remove
some hydrocarbons during gas
conditioning (e.g., chilling the gas
sample line to condense water vapor
can also remove hydrocarbons), the
Agency recognized that heated systems
are not in widespread use on BIFs and
modifications to the monitoring systems
may be necessary to address operation
and maintenance problems. See 56 FR
7162 (February, 21,1991). Consequently,
the Agency reasoned that facilities that
comply with the HC limit on Aug. 21,
1092, should be allowed to use a cold
system. On the other hand, he Agency
reasoned that those owners and
operators who obtain a time extension
should be required to certify compliance
with a hot system given that the time
extension should provide enough time to
resolve operation and maintenance
problems. (Note that facilities that elect
to certify compliance with a cold system
on Aug. 21,1992, must use a hot system
when they recertify compliance under
interim status or obtain a RCRA
operating permit. See § 266.103(c)(5).
The Agency did not anticipated the
consequences that this requirement
would have on cement kilns complying
with the alternative hydrocarbon
provision of §§ 2B8.104(f) and
206.103(c)(7)(ii)(B). Under those
requirements, cement kilns must, prior
to August 21,1992, submit a complete
' Bateline testing should consist of a minimum of
three test runs, with each run having a minimum
duration of three hours.
Part B permit application that includes
documentation of the baseline HC level,
and obtain a time extension from the
Director. Until the operating permit is
issued, the facility must comply with an
interim HC (and CO) limit effective no
later than August 21,1992, that is
established as a condition of the time -
extension.
Consequently, although cement kilns
complying with the alternative
hydrocarbon provision must obtain a
time extension, they must monitor
hydrocarbons prior to August 21,1992,
in order to establish the baseline HC
level, and must monitor hydrocarbons
continuously beginning August 21,1992.
Thus, § 266.103 (c) (5) has the unintended
consequence of requiring such facilities
to use a hot HC monitoring system on
(and before) August 21,1992.
As discussed above, the Agency has
already determined that this is
infeasible (and therefore provided a
conditioned (i.e., cold) monitoring
option). Therefore, to give such facilities
the time they may need to resolve
operating and maintenance problems
with hot monitoring systems, today's
technical correction revises
§ 266.103(c)(5) to enable the Director to
approve on a case-by-case basis the use
of a cold system for establishing the
baseline HC level and complying with
the alternative, interim HC limit. This
correction is a logical and necessary
adjunct to the existing regulation that
allows the alternative use of cold HC
monitoring systems. The Director's
approval will be based on a
demonstration by the facility that it has
made a good faith effort to install and
operate a heated system but that it has
determined that continuous operation is
not practicable at this time. The Agency
does not believe that this demonstration
will be a burden on owners and
operators because they have known
since February 21,1991, that a hot
monitoring system was required by the
rule and should have been attempting to
operate continuously such systems for
some time.
In considering a request to use a
conditioned gas monitor in lieu of a hot
monitor, the Director may impose
additional requirements on the owner
and operator of the facility to ensure
that a hot monitoring system is installed
as soon as practicable. See
§ 266.103(c)(7)(ii)(A). For example, the
Director may require the owner or
operator to operate a hot monitoring
system to the extent practicable
concurrently with a conditioned gas
monitoring system in order to meet
specified milestones in activities
designed to resolve operational
problems with a heated HC monitoring
system, and to report periodically on
progress toward achieving sustained
operation of the hot monitoring system.
This amendment does not extend the
deadline for certification of compliance.
Owners and operators requesting to
comply with the alternative
hydrocarbon limit are required to submit
their request along with accompanying
supporting materials in time to allow the
Director to grant or deny the request by
August 21,1992.
3. Industrial Furnaces That Cannot
Comply With the 20 PPMYHC Limit by
August 21, 1992, Because of Organic
Matter in Raw Materials May Apply for
a Case-by-Case Time Extension To
Make Physical Changes to the Facility
in Order to Comply With That HC Limit
The Agency is clarifying the rule to
make it clear that industrial furnaces
that cannot comply with the 20 ppmv
HC limit for reasons beyond the owner's
or operator's control may request a time
extension to certify compliance with the
HC limit. The final rule allows facilities
that elected to comply with the
alternative hydrocarbon provisions of
§ 266.104(f) to obtain a time extension
under § 266.103(c)(7)(ii)(B). However, the
Agency inadvertently did not make it
clear that owners and operators that
elected to make physical changes to the
facility to enable them to comply with
the 20 ppmv HC limit (i.e., the usual HC
limit, rather than an alternative limit
established on a case-by-case basis) but
who cannot do so by August 21,1992, for
reasons beyond their control are also
eligible to request a time extension
under § 266.103(c)(7)(ii).
EPA meant for § 266.103(c)(7)(ii) (B) to
apply only to facilities that comply with
the alternative HC limit, and believes
that this intent is fairly clear in the
existing regulatory language since the
provision (§ 266.103(c)(7)(ii)(B)(2})
references the procedure for establishing
CO and HC baseline levels
(§ 266.104(f)(l)) applicable only to
persons complying with the alternative
HC limit. Conversely, the provisions
make little sense for persons who intend
to comply with the limit of 20 ppmv
because the requirements in
§ 266.103(c)(7)(ii)(B) are related only to
the alternative HC limit.
Accordingly, today's amendment
revises § 266.103(c)(7)(ii)(B) to clarify
that paragraph applies only to facilities
that comply with the alternative HC
limit. Thus, the general time extension
provision of § 266.103(c)(7)(ii) applies to
all other situations, including industrial
furnaces that need time to modify the
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 25, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 38561
facility to comply with the 20 ppmv HG
limit.
Industrial furnaces such as cement
kilns may elect to make physical
modifications to the facility to enable
them to certify compliance with the 20
ppmv HC limit rather than to comply
with the alternative HC provisions of
§ 266.104(f). If those modifications
cannot be completed in time to enable
the facility to certify compliance by
August 21,1992, for reasons beyond the
facility's control, the owner or operator
may request a time extension.
If a time extension is granted, the
Director will use the authority of
§ 266.103(c)(7)(ii) to establish operating
conditions as necessary to reasonably
ensure that emissions of toxic organic
compounds do not pose a threat to
human health and the environment.
Operating conditions that may be
applied may include limits on the type,
quantity, and method of firing hazardous
waste, and limits on combustion
parameters such as oxygen, carbon
monoxide, and hydrocarbons.
Examples of physical changes that
may be made to the facility in order to
meet the 20 ppmv HC limit are: (1)
Installation of a secondary combustion
chamber to destroy organic compounds
in the kiln off-gas; or (2) installation of a
roaster to volatilize organic compounds
from the raw material before feeding it
to the kiln where hazardous waste is
burned. These changes may enable the
owner or operator to demonstrate that
stack gas concentrations do not exceed
the 20 ppmv limit. At this time, the
Agency has not evaluated the
practicability of installing a secondary
combustion chamber or roaster to
reduce HC emissions. The Agency is
simply identifying these as conceivable
changes that may enable a facility to
meet the 20 ppmv HC limit.
4, The Metals and Total Chlorine and
Chloride Feed Rate Operating Limits for
Tier I or Adjusted Tier I Are Based on
the Screening Limits, Not the
Compliance Test
The final rule requires facilities that
comply with the Tier I or Adjusted Tier I
feed rate screening limits for metals and
total chlorine and chloride to establish
feed rate limits based on the feed rates
used during the compliance test, and to
establish feed rate limits on both
pumpable and total hazardous waste
feeds. In addition, the final rule requires,
the owner or operator to conduct a
compliance test to document compliance
with the particulate matter (PM) limit
even though a facility may comply with
the Tier I or Adjusted Tier I feed rate
screening limits for metals and total
chlorine and chloride.
As discussed in the preamble to the
final rule (56 FR 7175 (February 21, .
1991)), the Tier I or Adjusted Tier I feed
rate screening limits are protective of
human health and the environment
because the limits are back-calculated
from acceptable ambient levels using
conservative dispersion scenarios, and
because the limits are based on an
assumption that all metals and chlorine
feed to the BIF are emitted (i.e., metals
and chlorine do not partition to ash or
product and are not removed by an air
pollution control system). Because of
this, the Agency did not intend for
facilities complying with Tier I or
Adjusted Tier I to establish feed rate
limits on metals or chlorine during a
compliance test; rather, the feed rate
limits on metals and chlorine are
established by the reference tables in
appendices I and II of part 266. Further,
given that the Tier I or Adjusted Tier I
compliance approaches assume that all
metals or chlorine fed to the BIF are
emitted, it is not necessary to establish a
separate feed rate limit for these
parameters on pumpable or total
hazardous waste. The feed rate limits
under Tier I or Adjusted Tier I are based
on the total feed rate in total feed
streams, and are limited to the levels
established in appendices I and II of
part 266. (Note, however, that in order to
ensure and document compliance with
the feed rate screening limits, the facility
must nonetheless know the feed rate of
metal or chlorine in each feed stream at
all times.)
In addition, the Agency considered
whether facilities complying with the
Tier I or Adjusted Tier I limits for metals
and total chlorine and chloride during
the compliance test should be required
to feed metals and chlorine at the
maximum rate during the PM emissions
test to ensure maximum PM emissions.
As discussed in the preamble to the final
rule (56 FR 7144), the Agency is not
regulating PM emissions under RCRA
per se, but rather as a secondary control
on emissions of metals and organics that
could be adsorbed on the PM. Given
that the Tier I or Adjusted Tier I metals
and chlorine feed rate screening limits
ensure protection of human health and
the environment, the Agency does not
believe that it is necessary to spike
metals and chlorine at the screening
feed rate limits during the PM
compliance test.
To make sure that these requirements
are fully understood the Agency is
amending §§ 266.103(c)(l),
266.103(c)(l)(ii)(A), and 266.103(c)(l)(iii)
to clarify that the Tier I or Adjusted Tier
I feed rate limits are based on the feed
rate screening limits specified under
§§ 266.106 (b) or (e) (for metals) and
266.107 (b)(l) or (e) (for chlorine) and are
not based on the actual feed rates
demonstrated during the compliance
test. Further, the Agency is clarifying
§§ 266.103(b)(3)(ii)(B) and
266.103(c)(l)(ii)(C) by deleting the
requirements for metals feed rate limits
in total hazardous waste feed and in
total pumpable hazardous waste feed
when the BIF complies with the Tier I or
Adjusted Tier I metals feed rate
screening limits.
5. Adjusted Tier I Feed Rate Screening
Limits May Be Used in Dispersion
Situations Where the Tier I and Tier II
Screening Limits Are Precluded
Sections 266.106(b)(7) and
266.107(b)(3) of the rule preclude the use
of the Tier I and Tier II Screening Limits
for facilities located in areas where the
dispersion characteristics would be
worse than were used to calculate the
screening limits. Facilities in such
situations must conduct dispersion
modeling to ensure that the ambient
concentrations will not exceed
allowable levels. In drafting the final
rule, the Agency inadvertently
precluded the use of Adjusted Tier I
when dispersion characteristics
precluded the use of the Tier I and Tier
II Screening Limits. Therefore, the
Agency is clarifying those paragraphs to
allow facilities to apply either the Tier
III or Adjusted Tier I feed rate screening
limits to control metals and HC1/C12
emissions.
As explained in the final rule, the
Agency established the Tier I and Tier II
Screening Limits using dispersion
modeling; such modeling included a
number of conservative assumptions.
Despite the conservatism, several
situations still existed whereby the Tier
I or Tier II limits could result in
exposure levels that exceed those
established as acceptable in the rule,
These specific situations are listed in
§ 266.106(b)(7). In these situations,
facilities are required to conduct
dispersion modeling to ensure that
metals (or HC1/C12) concentrations will
not exceed allowable levels. Such
dispersion modeling is required under
both Tier III and Adjusted Tier I
standards. However, the Agency
inadvertently specified that facilities
must comply with Tier HI limits when
the facility is located in one of the
specified nonconservative dispersion
situations. Because the same dispersion
modeling is required for the Adjusted
Tier I standards as for the Tier III
standards, this correction makes it clear
that facilities may comply with either
Adjusted Tier I or Tier III in these
situations.
-------
38562 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 25, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
8, Several Requirements Are Clarified to
Account for Facilities That Comply
With Adjusted Tier I Limits
When prescribing requirements for
certification of precompliance in
§ 266.103{b), the Agency did not make it
clear (hat the requirements in
paragraphs (b)(2J (ii) and (in) that apply
to facilities that choose to comply with
the Tier I controls also apply to facilities
that elect to comply with the Adjusted
Tier I controls for metals or total
chlorine and chloride, although EPA
believes this result is implicit since there
is no logical reason for the requirements
to apply in one case but not the other.
Accordingly, today's amendments
simply clarifies that these provisions
also are applicable to facilities that
comply with Adjusted Tier I controls.
Similarly, the Agency inadvertently
did not require in § 266.108(d) that
facilities complying with the Adjusted
Tier I controls on metals emissions to
also comply with most of the
requirements applicable to facilities that
comply with Tier III controls, although
the February 21,1991, preamble clearly
indicates that these requirements do
apply. See 56 FR 7175. Accordingly, the
Agency is also clarifying paragraph (d)
lo add an introductory sentence and
revise paragraphs (d) (1) and (5) to apply
Ihe appropriate requirements to
facilities complying with the Adjusted
Tier I controls.
7. BIFStorage Units Are Subject to the
Air Emissions Standards ofSubparts
AA and BB of Parts 264 and 265
The final rule subjects storage units
for hazardous waste burned in BIFs to
the requirements of subparts A through
L of parts 264 and 265. See
§ 266.101(cHl). The Agency
inadvertently omitted reference to
subparts AA and BB of parts 264 and
265 that establish air emission standards
for process vents and equipment leaks,
respectively. Given that these air
emissions standards apply to other
hazardous waste storage units and are
necessary to protect human health and
the environment, they apply to storage
units for hazardous waste burned in
BIFs as well.
To implement this amendment, we are
revising § 266.101(c)(l) to require
compliance with the requirements of
parts 264 and 285 that are applicable to
storage units. This approach is
preferable to adding a reference
specifically to subparts AA and BB
because the Agency may add over time
other subparts that are applicable to
storage units.
In addition, we are amending
§ 260.101(c)(2) for the same reasons.
That paragraph conditionally exempts
storage units for exempt small quantity
burners from applicable regulations
under parts 264, 265, and 270.
8. The Definitions of Plasma Arc and
Infrared Incinerators Are Clarified To
Include Only Those Devices That Use
an Afterburner
In the February 21,1991 final BIF rule,
EPA modified the definition of
incinerator in § 260.10 to explicitly
include plasma arc and infrared devices
as incinerators. See 56 FR 7206. The
Agency added the devices to the
incinerator definition to make it clear
that they were to be regulated as
incinerators because: "(1) Although
these devices use nonflame sources of
thermal energy to treat waste in the
primary chamber, they invariably
employ controlled flame afterburners to
combust hydrocarbons * * *" (emphasis
added); and "(2) the incinerator
standards are workable and protective
for these units."
Since promulgation of the final rule, a
number of questions have been raised
as to whether the Agency intended to
classify as incinerators those plasma arc
units that treat the off-gas by methods
(e.g., condensation, catalytic converters)
other than by combustion in a controlled
flame afterburner.8 As indicated above,
the Agency made this modification
based on the (incorrect) understanding
that these units invariably use
controlled flame combustion in the
afterburner. Given that there are plasma
arc or infrared units that do not use
controlled flame combustion in an
afterburner or other device—that is,
they do not meet the definition of
incinerator (i.e., before the Agency
amended the definition to include
plasma arc and infrared units)—arid the
incinerator regulations are not
appropriate for devices not employing
combustion, the Agency is today
clarifying the definitions of these units
to specifically refer to the use of such an
afterburner (as stated in the February
21,1991, preamble).
Plasma arc and infrared devices that
are not incinerators because they do not
use controlled flame combustion in an
afterburner are subject to regulation
under subpart P, part 265 (for units in
interim status) and subpart X, part 264
8 See the memorandum from Sylvia Lowrance,
Director, Office of Solid Waste, EPA, to Allyn M.
Davis, Director, Region VI Hazardous Waste
Management Division dated September 30,1991,
stating that the BIF rule unintentionally includes as
incinerators plasma arc and infrared units not
equipped with an afterburner, and that the Agency
intends to issue a technical correction to the
incinerator definition to address the error.
(for units operating under a RCRA
permit).
Finally, we note that the revisions to
these definitions (being non-HSWA) do
not take effect in an authorized state
until the state becomes authorized for
the rule change.
9. Facilities That Comply With the Tier
I or Adjusted Tier I Metals and Chlorine
Controls and That Have Uncontrolled
Emissions That Meet the Particulate
Matter Standard Need Not Establish a
Limit on Production Rate During Interim
Status
Sections 266.103(b)(3)(v) and
266.103(c)(vi) of the rule require BIFs to
establish an operating limit during
interim status on maximum production
rate when producing normal product.
The Agency required a limit on
maximum production rate as a surrogate
for gas flow rate through the air
pollution control system (APCS) to
ensure that the collection efficiency of
the system would not be compromised
at higher gas flow rates—and higher
production rates—than occurred during
the compliance test. In drafting the final
rule, the Agency inadvertently required
that a limit on maximum production rate
be established during interim status in a
situation where a limit is not needed—
when an APCS is not needed to comply
with the emissions standards for metals,
HC1, C12, or particulate matter (PM).
Consequently, EPA is .correcting the
rule to indicate that the requirement to
establish a maximum production rate
during interim status is not necessary
when: (1) The BIF complies with Tier I
or Adjusted Tier I feed rate limits for all
metals and total chlorine and chloride
(which are conservatively based on a
reasonable, worst-case dispersion
scenario and assume that all metals and
chlorine fed to the BIF are emitted (i.e.,
no partitioning to bottom ash or product
and no removal by an APCS)); and (2)
uncontrolled stack emissions comply
with the PM standard (i.e., when there is
no APCS or when emissions at the inlet
to an APCS meet the PM standard).
10. Halogen Acid Furnaces That Burn
Hazardous Waste as an Ingredient Are
Subject to the BIF Rule
In the BIF rule published on Feb. 21,
1991, the Agency amended § 261.2(d) to
list as inherently waste-like any
secondary material that is identified or
listed as a hazardous waste and that is
fed to a halogen acid furnace (HAF). See
56 FR 7141 for the reasons for this rule.
By doing this, the Agency made clear
that burning of secondary materials in
HAFs that exhibit a characteristic or are
specifically listed would subject those
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 25, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 38563
units to the BIF regulations. While the
Agency revised § 261.2(d) by adding
paragraph (d)(2), the Agency
inadvertently did not make a conforming
change to § 261.2(e)(2)(iv) that identifies
materials that are solid wastes, even if
the recycling involves use, reuse, or
return to the original process.
Accordingly, the Agency is today
revising § 281.2(e)(2)(iv) to include a
reference to paragraph (d)(2) to make it
clear that inherently waste-like
materials burned in a HAF are solid
(and hazardous) wastes even if such
burning is recycling by use, reuse, or
return to the original process.
11. When Comparing Levels of
Nonmetal Constituents in Residue to the
Health-Based Limits for the Bevill
Exclusion, the Levels Cannot Exceed the
Health-Based Limits or the Level of
Detection, Whichever Is Higher
Section 266.112 of the BIF rule
prescribes requirements for determining
whether residues from certain devices
retain the Bevill exclusion. See 56 FR
7196-7200 (Feb. 21,1991). Paragraph
(b)(2)(i) of that section provides for a
comparison of nonmetal constituents in
the waste-derived residue to health-
based limits established in the rule (see
appendix VII, part 266) in determining
whether the residue would retain the
Bevill exclusion. This paragraph also
indicates that if a health-based limit for
a constituent was not included in
appendix VII, then a default limit of ,
0.002 micrograms per kilogram or the
level of detection, whichever is higher
must be used. A number of questions
have been raised to the Agency as to
how an owner or operator is to make
this determination if a health-based
level is identified in appendix VII but
the analytical detection level for that
constituent(s) exceeds the health-based
level.
As indicated above, the Agency
addressed this issue for those
constituents for which a health-based
limit was not identified in appendix VII,
part 266 (i.e., those constituents subject
to the default limit of 0.002 micrograms
per kilogram). In these circumstances,
the owner or operator had to meet either
a level of 0.002 micrograms per kilogram
or the level of detection, whichever is
higher. The Agency took this approach
because of concern that the level of
analytical detection for nonmetal
constituents in kiln dust may be higher
than the default limit of 0.002 " ..
micrograms per kilogram. In these
situations, the owner or operator could
not document compliance with the 0.002
micrograms per kilogram limit even
when using the SW-846 analytical
procedure providing the lowest level .of
detection.
For the same reason, the Agency also •
intended to cap the health-based limit ,
by the level of detection for a-
constituent(s) for which a health-based
limit (i.e., other than the default limit) is
established in appendix VII, part'266.
However, the rule inadvertently does
not include that language. To clarify this
provision, we are today modifying the
rule to require that, for purposes of
complying with paragraph (b)(2)(i), the
concentration of each nonmetal
constituent in the waste-derived residue
cannot exceed the health-based limit
established in appendix VII, part 266, or
the level of detection, whichever is
higher.
12. The Applicability of Part 266 Is
Clarified
In the Technical Amendments to the
final BIE rule published at 56 FR 42513 ,
(Aug. 27,1991), EPA amended § 266.100
(Applicability) to add paragraph (f) that
exempted precious metal recovery
furnaces from the BIF rule. The Agency
also made a conforming revision to
paragraph (a) of that section to add ,
"and (f)" in the first sentence. The
Agency subsequently made other .
changes to § 266.100 and published
tho.se changes at 56 FR 43877 (Sept. 5,
1991). In the September 5 notice, the -
Agency inadvertently neglected to
include the earlier amendment by which
"and (f)" was added to the first sentence
of § 266.100. To correct this omission,
we are reissuing in today's notice the
amendment to paragraph (a) made on
August 27.
13. Conforming Revisions are Made to
the Applicability Sections of Parts 264
and 265
The BIF rule, which is codified as
subpart.H, part 266, replaced regulations
for burning hazardous waste for energy
recovery that were codified in subpart
D, part 266. When the BIF rule was
promulgated, the Agency inadvertently
did not make conforming revisions to
the applicability sections of parts 264
and 265. Consequently, the Agency is
today revising §§ 264.1(g)(2) and
265.1(c)(6) (which exempt facilities
managing recyclable materials except to
the extent that requirements in those
parts are referred to in subparts to part
266) to delete reference to (now
reserved) subpart D, part 266, and to
reference subpart H, part 266.
14. A Conforming Revision Is Made to
the Rulemaking Petitions Provision of
Part 260
When part 266 was established, the
Agency inadvertently did not make a
conforming revision to § 260.20(a) to
allow rulemaking petitions to be
submitted to the. Administrator to .
modify or revoke any provisions of part
266. Section 260.20(a) already allows
rulemaking petitions to parts 260
through 265 and 268. Accordingly,
§ 260.20(a) is amended today to also
refer to part 266.
B. Technical Corrections
On July 17,1992, and August 27,1991,
EPA published several technical
corrections and amendments to the
February 21 final rule (see 56 FR 32688
and 42504). Today's notice corrects
several errors published.in those
notices. .
C. Immediate Effective Date
EPA has determined to make today's
action effective immediately. The
' Agency believes that the corrections
being made in this notice are either
interpretations of existing regulations
which do not require prior notice and
opportunity for comment (corrections 1,
3, and 11), or are technical corrections of
obvious errors in the rule (for example,
corrections of regulatory language that
is inconsistent with the preamble or
with otherwise clearly indicated Agency
intent) for which comment is
unnecessary (within the meaning of 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)) (the remaining
corrections).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 260
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Hazardous waste.
40 CFR Part 261
Hazardous waste, Recycling,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
40CFRPart264
Air pollution control, Hazardous
waste, Insurance, Packaging and
containers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures, Surety
bonds. .
40 CFR Part 265
Air pollution control, Hazardous
waste, Insurance, Packaging and
containers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements! Security measures, Surety
bonds, Water supply.
40 CFR Part 266
Energy, Hazardous waste, Petroleum,
Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
-------
38564 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 165 /Tuesday, August 25, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
Dated: August 11,1992.
Don R. Clay,
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 40 CFR parts 260, 261, 264,
265, and 266 are amended as follows:
PART 260—HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL
I. In part 260:
1. The authority citation for part 260
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905,6912(a), 6921-
6927, 6930, 6934, 6935, 6937, 6936, 6939, and
0974.
2. In § 260.10, the definitions for
"Infrared incinerator" and "Plasma arc
incinerator" are revised to read as
follows:
§ 260.10 Definitions.
*****
Infrared incinerator means any
enclosed device that uses electric
powered resistance heaters as a source
of radiant heat followed by an
afterburner using controlled flame
combustion and which is not listed as an
industrial furnace.
*****
Plasma arc incinerator means any
enclosed device using a high intensity
electrical discharge or arc as a source of
heat followed by an afterburner using
controlled flame combustion and which
is not listed as an industrial furnace.
*****
3. In § 260.20, the first sentence of
paragraph (a) is revised to read as
follows:
§ 260.20 General.
(a) Any person may petition the
Administrator to modify or revoke any
provision in parts 260 through 266 and
268 of this chapter. * * *
PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
II. In part 261:
1. The authority citation for part 261
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921,
0922, and 6938.
2. Section 261.2 is amended by
revising paragraph (e)(2){iv) to read as
follows:
§ 261.2 Definition of solid waste.
*****
(e) * * *
(2) * , *
(iv) Materials listed in paragraphs
(d)(l) and (d)(2) of this section.
PART 264—STANDARDS FOR
OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
III. In part 264:
1. The authority citation for part 264
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 165 / Tuesday, August 25, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 38565
chlorine, and the following information
to support such determinations:
*****
(iii) For facilities complying with the
Tier I or Adjusted Tier I feed rate
screening limits for metals or total
chlorine and chloride provided by
§§ 266.106 (b) or (e) and 266.107 (b)(l) or
(e), the feed rate (lb/hr) of total chloride
and chlorine, antimony, arsenic, barium,
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead,
mercury, silver, and thallium in each
feed stream (hazardous waste, other
fuels, industrial furnace feedstocks).
******
(3) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) Total hazardous waste feed,
unless complying with the Tier I or
Adjusted Tier I metals feed rate
screening limits under § 266.106 (b) or
(e); and
*****
(v) Maximum production rate of the
device in appropriate units when
producing normal product, unless
complying with the Tier I or Adjusted
Tier I feed rate screening limits for
chlorine under § 266.107 (b)(l) or (e) and
for all metals under § 266.106 (b) or (e],
and the uncontrolled p articulate
emissions do not exceed the standard
under § 266.105.
*****
(c) * * *
(1) Limits on operating conditions.
The owner or operator shall establish
limits on the following parameters based
on operations during the compliance test
(under procedures prescribed in
paragraph (c)(4)(iv) of this section) or as
otherwise specified and include these
limits with the certification of
compliance. The boiler or industrial
furnace must be operated in accordance
with these operating limits and the
applicable emissions standards of
§§266.104 (b) through (e), 266.105,
266.106, 266.107, and 266.103(a)(5)(I)(D)
at all times when there is hazardous
waste in the unit.
(A) Total feedstreams, except that:
[1] Facilities that comply with Tier I or
Adjusted Tier I metals feed rate
screening limits may set their operating
limits at the metals feed rate screening
limits determined under § 266.106 (b) or
(e); and
(2} Industrial furnaces that must
comply with the alternative metals
implementation approach under
paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section must
specify limits on the concentration of
each metal in the collected particulate
matter in lieu of feed rate limits for total
feedstreams;
(B)* * *
(C) Total pumpable hazardous waste
feed (unless complying with the Tier I or
Adjusted Tier I metals feed rate
screening limits under § 266.106 (b) or
(e);
(iii) Total feed rate of chlorine and
chloride in total feed streams, except
that facilities that comply with Tier I or
Adjusted Tier I feed rate screening
limits may set their operating limits at
the total chlorine and chloride feed rate
screening limits determined under
§ 266.107 (b)(l) or (e).
*; * * * *
(vi) Maximum production rate of the
device in appropriate units when
producing normal product, unless
complying with the Tier I or Adjusted
Tier I feed rate screening limits for
chlorine under § 266.107 (b)(l) or (e) and
for all metals under § 266.106 (b) or (e),
and the uncontrolled particulate
emissions do not exceed the standard
under § 266.105.
* * * * *
(5) Special requirements for HC
monitoring systems. When an owner or
operator is required to comply with the
hydrocarbon (HC) controls provided by
§ 266.104(c) or paragraph (a)(5)(i)(D) of
this section, a conditioned gas
monitoring system may be used in
conformance with specifications
provided in appendix IX of this part
provided that the owner or operator
submits a certification of compliance
without using extensions of time
provided by paragraph (c)(7) of this
section. However, owners and operators
of facilities electing to comply with the
alternative hydrocarbon provision of
§ 266.104(f) and requesting a time
extension under § 266.103(c)(7)(ii)(B)
may establish the baseline HC level and
comply with the interim HC limit
established by the time extension using
a conditioned gas monitoring system if
the Director determines that the owner
or operator has demonstrated that they
have made a good faith effort to operate
a heated monitoring system but found it
to be impracticable.
* * * * *
(7) * * *
(ii)
(B) When an owner or operator
requests an extension of time to enable
the facility to comply with the
alternative hydrocarbon provisions of
§ 266.104(f) and obtain a RCRA
operating permit because the facility
cannot meet the HC limit of § 266.104(c)
of this chapter:
* * * * *
5. Section 266.104 is amended by
revising paragraph (f)(l) to read as
follows:
§ 266.104 Standards to control organic
emissions.
* * * * * •
(f) * * *
(1) When the baseline HC (and CO)
level is determined, the owner or
operator must demonstrate that the
facility is designed and operated to
minimize hydrocarbon emissions from
fuels and raw materials and that the
facility is producing normal products
under normal operating conditions
feeding normal feedstocks and fuels.
The baseline HC level is defined as the
average over all valid test runs of the
highest hourly rolling average HC value
for each run when the facility does not
burn hazardous waste, adjusted as
appropriate to consider the variability of
hydrocarbon levels under good
combustion operating conditions. The
baseline CO level is determined based
on the test runs used to establish the
baseline HC level and is defined as the'
average over all test runs of the highest
hourly rolling average CO value for each
run. More than one baseline level must
be determined if the facility operates
under different modes that may generate
significantly lower HC (and CO) levels;
***** .
6. Section 266.106 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b)(7) introductory
text, (d)(l), (d)(5), and by revising the
equation in paragraph (d)(3) to read as
follows: . - ,
§ 266.106 Standards to control metals
emissions.
* * * * * ; •
(b)* * *
(7) Criteria for facilities not eligible
for screening limits. If any criteria
below are met, the Tier I and Tier II
screening limits do not apply. Owners
and operators of such facilities must
comply with either the Tier III standards
provided by paragraph (d) of this section
or with the adjusted Tier I feed rate
screening limits provided by paragraph
(e) of this section.
*****
(d) Tier III and Adjusted Tier I site-
specific risk assessment. The
requirements of this paragraph apply to
facilities complying with either the Tier
III or Adjusted Tier I controls, except
where specified otherwise.
[1] General. Conformance with the
Tier III metals controls must be
demonstrated by emissions testing to
determine the emission rate for each
metal. In addition, conformance with
either the Tier III or Adjusted Tier I
metals controls must be demonstrated
by air dispersion modeling to predict the
maximum annual average off-site
ground level concentration for each
-------
38566 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 25, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
dispersion modeling to predict the
maximum annual average off-site
ground level concentration for each
metal, and a demonstration that
acceptable ambient levels are not
exceeded.
(3), * *
" Predicted Ambient Concentration!)
i»i
Risk-Specific Dosed)
(5) Multiple stacks. Owners and
operators of facilities with more than
one on-site stack from a boiler,
industrial furnace, incinerator, or other
thermal treatment unit subject to
controls on metals emissions under a
RCRA operating permit or interim status
controls must conduct emissions testing
(except that facilities complying with
Adjusted Tier I controls need not
conduct emissions testing] and
dispersion modeling to demonstrate that
the aggregate emissions from all such
on-site stacks do not result in an
exceedance of the acceptable ambient
levels.
******
7. Section 266.107 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
§ 266.107 Standards to control hydrogen
chloride (HCI) and chlorine gas (CI2)
emissions.
(a) General. The owner or operator
must comply with the hydrogen chloride
(HCI) and chlorine (Cb) controls
provided by paragraph (b), (c), or (e) of
this section.
* * * * *
8. Section 266.108(c) is amended by
revising the equation to read as follows:
§ 266.108 Small quantity on-site burner
exemption.
*****
[c) * * *
n Actual Quantity Burnedd)
1=1 Allowable Quantity Burnedd)
9. Section 266.112 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(2)(i) to read as
follows:
§266.112 Regulation of residues.
*****
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Nonmetal constituents. The
concentration of each nonmetal toxic
constituent of concern (specified in
paragraph (b)(l) of this section) in the
waste-derived residue must not exceed
the health-based level specified in
appendix VII of this part, or the level of
detection (using analytical procedures
prescribed in SW-846), whichever is
higher. If a health-based limit for a
constituent of concern is not listed in
appendix VII of this part, then a limit of
0.002 micrograms per kilogram or the
level of detection (using analytical
procedures prescribed in SW-846),
whichever is higher, shallbe used; and
*****
Appendix IX [Amended]
10. In appendix IX, § 5.0, Hazardous
Waste Combustion Air Quality
Screening Procedure, Table 5.0-3.—
Clarification of Land Use Types,
footnote 1, revise "EPA-450/2-78-027"
to read "EPA-450/2-78-027R".
11. In appendix IX, § 5.0, Hazardous
Waste Combustion Air Quality
Screening Procedure, in the title to Table
5.0-4, revise "ISCT" to read "ISCST",
revise "PREDICATED" to read
"PREDICTED", and revise "8G/M 3" to
read "g/m3".
12. In appendix IX, § 5.0, Hazardous
Waste Combustion Air Quality
Screening Procedure, in the title to Table
5.0-5, revise "ISCT" to read "ISCST",
revise "PREDICATED" to read
"PREDICTED", and revise "8G/M 3" to
read "g/m3".
13. In appendix IX, § 6.0—Simplified
Land Use Classification Procedure for
Compliance with Tier I and Tier II
Limits, Subsection 6.1 Introduction:
second paragraph, add a footnote "1"
after "(EPA 1986)"; in footnote 1, revise
"EPA-450/2-78-027" to read "EPA-450/
2-78-027R"; and in the third paragraph,
revise "Auer 3978" to read "Auer 1978".
[FR Doc. 92-20202 Filed 8-24-92; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
------- |