January 23, 1981
Incinerator Standards for Owners and
Operators of Hazardous Waste
Management Facilities; Interim Final Rule
and Proposed Rule
-------
76S6 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 15 / Friday, January 23,1981 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 122,264, and 265
ISWH-FRL1730-5]
Incinerator Standards for Owners and
Operators of Hazardous Waste
Management Facilities; Consolidated
Permit Regulations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Interim Final Rule (Parts 264
and 122) and Final rule [Part 265).
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency is amending its regulations for
the management of hazardous waste by
(1) promulgating, on an interim final
basis, incinerator standards that will be
the basis for permit issuance to owners
and operators of hazardous waste
management facilities (Part 284, Subpart
O); (2) finalizing the interim status
incinerator standards issued on May 19,
1080 (Part 265, Subpart O); and, (3)
amending the permit regulations (Part
122) to correspond to the facility
regulations being published today.
Under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), the Agency is
required to establish a Federal
hazardous waste management system.
Early last year EPA began issuing the
first phase of regulations designed to
implement that system. In January of
this year EPA promulgated major
portions of the Phase II technical
standards for facilities that treat and
store hazardous wastes. Today's
publication adds another part to the
Phase II technical standards by setting
forth requirements for owners or
operators of incinerator facilities that
treat hazardous waste. These
regulations provide the necessary
standards by which permits may be
granted. The substantive requirements
for hazardous waste incinerator permits
are included in Part 264, Subpart O.
Information required for Part B of a
permit application is specified in Part
122.25(b)(5). In many cases trial burns
will be necessary to gather data needed
for Part B of an incinerator facility's
permit application. Criteria for trial burn
p«rmlts are detailed in Part 122.27(b).
Interim Status Standards must be
observed by existing facilities until final
action on their permit applications. EPA
is today finalizing the Interim Status
Standards for Incinerators which were
promulgated, on an interim final basis,
on May IS, I960. These are hi Part 265, .
Subparl O.
DATES: Effective Date; These regulations
become effective on July 22,1981, which
is six months after the date of
publication in the Federal Register, as
RCRA Section 3010(b) requires.
Comment Date: These regulations are
issued on an interim final basis. EPA
will accept public comments on the Part
264 and Part 122 regulations and
comments in response to requests in the
preamble until March 24,1981. In regard
to the final regulation (Part 265), EPA
will accept comments only on technical
errors (e.g., typographical errors,
inaccurate cross references, etc.).
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent
to Docket Clerk [Docket No. 30041], -
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
Public Docket: The public docket for
these regulations is located in Room
2711, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C., and is available for
viewing from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday, excluding
holidays. Among other things, the
docket contains background documents
which explain, in more detail than the
preamble to this regulation, the basis for
many of the provisions in this
regulation.
Copies of Regulations: Single copies
of these regulations will be available
approximately 30 days after publication
from Ed Cox, Solid Waste Information,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
26 West St. Clair Street, Cincinnati,
Ohio 45268, telephone (513) 684-5362.
Multiple copies will be available from
the Superintendent of Documents,
Washington, D.C. 20402.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For general information contact the
RCRA hazardous waste hotline, Office
of Solid Waste (WH-565), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401M
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460
(phone 800-424-9346, or in Washington,
D.C. 554-1404).
For information on implementation of
these regulations, contact the EPA
regional offices below:
Region I
Dennis Huebner, Chief, Waste
Management Branch, John F. Kennedy
Building, Boston, Massachusetts
02203, (617) 223-5775
Region II
Dr. Ernest Regna, Chief, Solid Waste
Branch, 26 Federal Plaza, New York,
New York 10007, (212) 264-0503
Region HI
Robert L. Allen, Chief, Hazardous
Materials Branch, 6th and Walnut
Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19106, (215) 597-0980
Region IV
James Scarbrough, Chief, Residuals
Management Branch, 345 Courtland
Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30308,
(404) 881-3016
Region V
Karl J. Klepitsch, Jr., Chief, Waste
Management Branch, 230 South
Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois
60604, (312) 886-6148
Region VI
R. Stan Jorgensen, Acting Chief, Solid
Waste Branch, 1201 Elm Street, First
international Building, Dallas, Texas
75270,, (214) 767-8941
Region VII
Robert L. Morby, Chief, Hazardous
Materials Branch, 324 East llth Street,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106, (816)
374-3307
Region VIII
Lawrence P. Gazda, Chief, Waste
Management Branch, 1860 Lincoln
Street, Denver, Colorado 80203, (303)
837-2221
Region IX
Arnold R. Den, Chief, Hazardous
Materials Branch, 215 Fremont Street,
San Francisco, California 94105, (415)
556-4606
Region X
Kenneth D. Feigner, Chief, Waste
Management Branch, 1200 6th
Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101,
(206) 442-1260
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
preamble outlines the basis and purpose
of the standards for incineration of
hazardous waste that the Agency is
publishing in today's Federal Register. It
also summarizes and explains changes
from the standards originally proposed.
More complete explanation of, and
support for, these standards can be
found in "Background Document, 40
CFR Part 264 Subpart O, and 40 CFR
Part 265 Subpart O: Incineration," and in
the guidance materials which the
Agency has developed to assist in the
understanding and implementation of
these regulations. The latest drafts of
these manuals—"Engineering Handbook
on Hazardous Waste Incineration," and
"Permit Writers' Guidance Document for
Hazardous Waste Incineration"—are
available in the RCRA docket room, as
is the Background Document.
EPA is also proposing today a
procedure to allow a variance in
acceptable incinerator emissions, based
on case-by-case assessments of the risk
to human health and the environment
from such emissions. This procedure
-------
Federal
could be used- to set emission limits for
hazardous inorganic constituents and
combustion by-products, as well as for
the organic constituents controlled by
today's promulgation. This proposal
appears elsewhere in today's Federal
Register and is discussed in a separate
preamble section,
•Preamble Outline
I. Authority
II. Background
HI. Synopsis of'the 19761 Proposal
A. The Regulation as Proposed
" B. Comments on the Proposed Regulation
IV. The Incinerator Regulations Promulgated
Today
A. Part 264—General Standards for
Hazardous Waste Incineration
B. Part 122—Incinerator Facility Permits
C. Part 265—Interim Status Standards for
' Hazardous Waste Incineration
V. Issues Raised by Comments, and Changes
in the Regulation
A. General Concept Underlying the
Regulations
B. Significant Comments; Changes to Part
264
C. Significant Comments; Changes to Part
122
D. Significant Comments; Changes to Part
265
VL Regulatory Analysis
A. Economic Analysis
, B. Regulatory Alternatives
VII. OMB Review
VIII. Supporting Documents •_
I. Authority
These regulations are issued under the
authority of Section 1006, 2002(a), 3004,
3005, and 3007 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, as amended by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
§§6905, 6912{a), 6924, 6925, and 6927.
JI. Background
On December 18,1978, EPA issued
proposed standards for owners and
operators of hazardous waste
management facilities, including
standards for incinerators (43 FR 58946).
The Agency received more than 250
comments on the proposed incinerator
regulations and held Eve public hearings
on the December 18 proposal. On May
19,1980, EPA promulgated the first of
two major phases of the final
regulations for hazardous waste
management facilities. Phase I included
administrative standards for hazardous
waste facilities with RCRA permits (40
CFR Part 264) and administrative arid
technical standards for hazardous waste
facilities in interim status (40 CFR Part
265). As part of those May 19, I960
regulations, EPA issued interim status
standards for incineration under 40 CFR
Part 265, Subpart O. Those Subpart O
regulations are being promulgated today
as final standards with few minor
-changes to reflect additional public
comment.
EPA also announced on May 19,1980,
its intent to promulgate the technical .
standards for hazardous waste facilities
with permits (40 CFR Part 264) as Phase ,
II of the regulations in the fall of 1980.
(For a discussion of the phased
approach to the regulations see the
background and overview discussion
accompanying the Parts 264 and 265
regulations published on May 19,1980,
at 45 FR 33154. For a discussion of the
Phase II regulations overall, see the
introductory material accompanying the
January 12,1981 regulations at 46 FR ....
2802.)
Early in January of this year, EPA
promulgated the first portion of Phase II
of the technical standards for facilities
with permits. These included standards
addressing financial requirements,
closure and post-closne, location, and
storage hi containers, tanks, piles, and
surface impoundments.
The regulations for incinerators that
EPA is issuing today represent an
additional part of the Phase H
standards. Another part of Phase K,
standards for land disposal, is being
promulgated elsewhere in today's
Federal Register, _. 5
The Agency has a&if made additions
in today's promulgation to the permitting
regulations in Part 122 to correspond
with the new technical requirements of
Part 264, Subpart O. These include
information required for Part B of a
permit application (§ 122.25(b)(5)) and
criteria for trial burn permits (§ 122.27).
Elsewhere hi today's Federal Register,
the Agency is proposing additions to the
Part 264, SubpartQ standards being
promulgated today. These additions will
necessitate future additions to the Part
122 permitting standards.
Many of the terats used in today's
regulation are defiled hi the Part 260
regulations which \vere issued on May
19,1980, at 45 FR 33066. For example
one key point underlying the regulations
promulgated today is that incineration.
of hazardous waste is a form of
"treatment" as treatment is defined
under § 260.10(73).
The definintion of incinerator in
§ 260.10(30) notes tbat the primary
purpose is to "thermally break down
hazardous waste-lThis should be :
differentiated froE the combustion of
wastes primarily|)i the recovery of
their thermal vahis, which is not
"incineration" andjn accordance with
the exclusion of reused or recycled
wastes under § ZW.8, is exempt from
these incinerator regulations.
Today's regulations should also be
distinguished from "thermal treatment"
• standards for which the Agency has
published interim status standards (Part
265, Subpart P) which it intends to
'finalize sometime soon. The Agency has
not yet issued technical permit
standards for thermal treatment under
Part 264. When promulgated, these
standards will address thermal
treatment processes which do not come
under the definition of incineration.
As a result of adding Subpart O to
Part 264, the Agency has also made a
number of technical conforming changes
to other sections, including § § 264.10,
264.13,264.15, 264.73, 264.112, and
264.142.
HI. Synopsis of the 1978 Proposal for
Incinerators
A. The Regulations as Proposed
Proposed regulations for incineration
of hazardous waste were published as
40 CFR | 250.45-1 on December 18-, 1978
(45 FR 59008). They required owners and
operators to meet a number of
performance standards coupled with
various operating requirements, most of
which were intended to help ensure that
the performance criteria were
continuously met.
The performance criteria required that
all incinerators burning hazardous
wastes achieve a destruction efficiency
(DE) of 99.99%, and a combustion
efficiency of at least 99.9%; that
particulate emissions be less than 270
mg./scm3 (0.12 gr/scf) at zero excess air;
that fugitive emissions be controlled;
and that emission controls remove more
than 99% of the halogens when
hazardous wastes containing more than
0.5% halogens were burned.
Proposed operating regulations
required that owners or operators
monitor and record significant variables
at 15 minute intervals! that trial burns be
conducted, analyzed and reported to the
Regional Administrator before each new
and "significantly different" hazardous
waste was incinerated;, and that the
wastes be retained for 2 seconds at
1000° C. combustion temperature (1200°
C. for halogen, containing wastes). A
"note" or variance provided that . •
incinerators need notcomply with the
detailed combustion criteria if an
equivalent combustion efficiency could
be achieved by other means. A device to
automatically cut off waste feed
whenever combustion or scrubber
conditions changed significantly was a
final requirement.
B. Comments on the Proposed
Regulations
The Agency received more than 25O1
comments on the proposed incinerator
regulations. The most significant of
these are discussed in Section V of this
-------
7668
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 15 f Friday, January 23, 1981 / Rules and Regulations
preamble. All of them are considered in
the accompanying "Background
Document."
Many comments dealt with broad and
general issues such as the propriety of
applying any design and operating
requirements, rather than relying solely
on performance standards. Some
comments questioned the Agency's
statutory authority to regulate
hazardous waste incineration under
RCRA at all, rather than under the Clean
Air Act
On the other hand, many comments
were essentially technical. One
comment suggested that turbulence
criteria be added to the time and
temperature requirements. Others
suggested that the measurement
methodology was unclear or difficult to
apply and that the measurement
locations and frequencies for emission
and effluent temperature measurements
need to be specified. Three comments
pointed to dangers inherent in automatic
cut-off devices, and suggested that
gradual shut-downs were preferable.
A middle range of comments accepted
the general framework of the proposed
regulations but stated that specific
criteria were unnecessary or infeasible.
In particular it was claimed that the
halogen removal levels appropriate for
chlorine were more stringent than those
necessary or possible for other halogens,
such as bromides or iodides. Similar
comments suggested that the general
S9.99JS Destruction Efficiency
requirement was impractical and very
costly and would divert wastes from the
relatively "safe" incineration option into
"dangerous" longterm disposal in
landfills. Some comments suggested
varying Destruction Efficiency in accord
with each waste's degree of hazard.
The high cost of trial burns and of trial
burn analyses was frequently
mentioned. There was considerable
concern about the requirement that a
new trial burn be performed before each
"significantly different" new waste was
incinerated. Several commenters
pointed out that the almost infinite
variety of chemical mixtures making up
waste feeds made this requirement both
expensive and impossible to apply with
certainty, depending on the definition of
"significantly different." A few
comments suggested that the
requirement that fugitive emissions be
controlled should be more .specific.
A final category of comments
suggested specific exemptions or
additional inclusions for the regulations
when finally promulgated. The most
important of these dealt with exempting
wastes which were hazardous solely
because of ignitability. Others
recommended clarifying the status of
incinerator ash residue and scrubber
effluents as hazardous wastes, and of
cement kiln incinerators and utility
boilers burning hazardous wastes for
their thermal value.
IV. The Incinerator Regulations
Promulgated Today
A. Part 264—General Standards for
Hazardous Waste Incineration
1. Applicability (§ 264.340]
This regulation and § 122.27(b)
provide the substantive basis for all
incinerator permits to be issued under
Section 3005 of RCRA. In accord with
§§ 261.2(c](2) and 261.6, Part 260 defines
"incinerator" so that combustion of
wastes primarily for the recovery of
their thermal value is not "incineration"
and thus, is exempt from these
standards. EPA plans to reconsider, and
perhaps narrow, the § 261.6 exclusions
in the future. The Agency specifically
solicits comments on appropriate
regulation of emissions from combustion
of hazardous waste for purposes of
thermal recovery.
The Agency may soon move to
integrate these regulations with those
promulgated under the Toxic Substance
Control Act (TSCA] to control
incineration of polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs). EPA welcomes
comments on the form and substance of
that integration. Until that time the
incineration of wastes which are subject
to EPA's TSCA disposal criteria (40 CFR
Part 761] will continue to be subject to
control under TSCA rather than RCRA.
Those requirements are more stringent
than, but not inconsistent with, the
requirements of this Subpart.
Thermal treatment of hazardous
waste in systems other than incinerators
is seldom utilized now, but EPA expects
that practice to grow in importance.
Interim Status Standards for such
treatment were published, on an interim
final basis, as Subpart P of Part 265. The
Agency expects to finalize those
standards soon and to promulgate
permitting standards for non-incinerator
thermal treatment at some time in the
future. These are expected to be Subpart
P of 40 CFR Part 264.
Finally, the regulation provides that
wastes which are hazardous solely
because of ignitability (and which
contain no constitutents listed as toxic
in Part 261, Appendix VIII] must be
burned in accordance with a permit, but
are exempted from most of the
substantive requirements of the Subpart
O regulations.
2. Waste Analysis (§ 264.341]
Required waste analysis takes two
forms.
First, on an on-going basis, the
operator must ensure that waste feed to
the incinerator does not deviate from
that defined in his permit. Such a
deviation would be a violation of the
permit. The permit, under § 264.345(b),
will be written to specify wastes which
the facility has demonstrated its ability
to treat adequately. Thus, for waste
feeds not specified in the permit, there is
no assurance that the required
performance standards can be met,
especially in the absence of defined
operation conditions. As a result, the
Agency will require facilities to analyze
waste feeds adequately to ensure that
they remain within the terms of their
permits, and to indicate in their waste
analysis plans (required by § 264.13]
how they will do this.
A second, and more intensive, form of
waste analysis is required as part of
each permit application and whenever a
permit modification or a trial burn
permit is sought. In these cases the
applicant must describe certain physical
properties of his waste feed and must
analyze his waste sufficiently to identify
the presence of any hazardous organic
constituents listed in Part 261, Appendix
VIII, except that the applicant need not
analyze for Appendix VIII constituents
which would not reasonably be
expected to be in the waste. This
analysis must be performed using the
techniques specified in EPA's
publication SW-846, or techniques of at
least equivalent sensitivity and
reliability.
A comprehensive analysis of the
hazardous organic constituents of a
waste as it is to be incinerated is
necessary to identify the waste
components to which the performance
standard (especially the destruction and
removal requirement) will apply.
Analytical techniques such as capillary
column gas chromatography and a
"reverse search" of mass spectra are
well within the capability of widely
available laboratory services, so long as
the constituents to be searched for are
specified in some way. In order to
identify hazardous components of waste
feeds and, at the same time, limit the
scope of the waste analysis to practical
limits, the scope of the search is initially
specified as those constituents listed in
Part 261, Appendix VIII. In almost all
cases the scope of the mass spectral
analysis will be further limited by
deleting analysis for those Appendix
VIII constituents which would not
reasonably be expected to be present in
the waste.
Incinerators commonly receive wastes
from a wide variety of generating
processes and mix them for .combustion
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 15 /
on the basis! of BTU value and physical -
characteristics. Thus analysis of waste
feed that will actually be burned is more
important than, analysis of wastes as
they are received or as they are. stored .
prior to blending as a .waste feed. .
Further, reliance on information - , ;
provided on the manifest or data
considered as part pfEPA's listing
•process will seldom be adequate.
Therefore, the analysis required by
§ 264.341 is necessary to allow EPA to
define operating conditions necessary to
incinerate the waste feed In compliance
with appropriate performance
standards.
3. Principal Organic Hazardous
Constituents (POHCs) (§ 264.342}
Waste feed mixtures will be specified
in each facility's permit. For each waste
feed mixture, identified in a facility
permit, the permit will specify Principial
Organic Hazardous Constituents
(POHC's) which must be destroyed or
removed as required by the .applicable
performance standard. Identification of
those waste feed constitutents to which
the performance standard will be
applied is central to application of the
standard. The Agency has chosen to
designate specific POHC's rather than '.
require thai a//liazardous. constituents
of the waste feed meet the performance
standard. This reduces the analytical
burden and associated cost of verifying
compliance with the performance
standard. Selecting limited POHCs
avoids the necessity for measuring
compliance against perhaps dozens of
constituents mat may be present in a
given waste in Insignificant quantities.
Finally, designating as POHCs those
waste constituents which are most
difficult to destroy will generally ensure
that .less stable hazardous organic
constituents are also destroyed.
For those reasons POHC selection will-
be made by the permit writer primarily
on the basis of difficulty of incineration,
but the permit writer may then consider
concentration or quantity of constituents
and need not designate as POHCs those
present only in insignificant quantities. -
Thus the regulation says that difficult-to-
burn constituents are those "most
likely" to be selected as POHCs, while
larger quantity constituents are "more
likely" to be selected than those present
in lesser quantities;
4. Performance Standards (§ 264.343}
Three performance standards are the
heart of this regulation. The most
important of these is the requirement.
that incinerators burning hazardous ,
waste must achieve a- destruction and
removal efficiency (DRE} of 99.99% for
each POHC designated for eacfc waste
feed. This requirement (which includes
particulate removal) is based on
extensive data indicating that such a
destruction efficiency is attainable in
industrial incinerators burning a wide
range of organic hazardous wastes. EPA
has now defined the required
performance standard to include credit
for removal efficiencies as well as
destruction efficiencies^ This approach ,
makes the performance standard more
easily attainable since it allows credit
for removal by air pollution control
equipment as well as for destruction in a
combustion zone, and it avoids the
technical difficulties associated with.
precise measurements within the
extreme conditions of a combustion
z;one. Yet the reliance on destruction
and removal efficiency, rather than mare
destruction efficiency, poses no
environmental hazards since the
standard still covers all emissions
before their release to the environment, •
and since waste residues trapped by
emission control equipment must still be
;, treated as hazardous wastes and
managed properly within the RCRA
system. •'•-'." ''
There are limits to the destruction and
removal efficiency approach. It does not
control the actual mass of POHCs
-emitted since,: for any given destruction
and removal efficiency, mass emissions
vary directly in proportion to variations '
in mass feed rate. Perhaps most .
importantly, the approach fails to
account for emissions of hazardous
combustion by-producta which may be
equally or more hazardous than POHCs
themselves. Finally, metals, since they
are not combustible; are not now
controlled using this approach.
EPA has considered, and is still
considering, the feasibility of additional
approaches to the control of emissions
from hazardous waste, incinerators. The ,
Agency is today proposing, elsewhere in
today's Federal Register, a set of
procedures for varying the performance
standard to address the problems just
mentioned. However, until it is clear
that the proposed variance procedure is
practicable, the Agency is relying upon
the approach promulgated today. The
effect of these combined approaches is
that in the absence of data showing that
lesser .emission levels are safe or that
greaters levels are necessary, the
Agency will require that hazardous
wastes not be incinerated under
standards less stringent than those
known to be currently attainable by the
existing technology of high quality.
commercial hazardous waste
incineration. Initial analysis of data ;
available to the Agency indicates that,:
for typical waste feed rates, most " "
organic wastes,will present no
significant health hazards when treated
to a 99.99% destruction and removal
efficiency.
An additional performance standard
is a requirement that incinerators
burning hazardous waste containing
more than 0.5% chlorine must remove
99% of the hydrogen chloride from their
exhaust gas. The level of 0.5% chlorine
content was chosen as the threshold
level for the 99% hydrogen chloride "•
removal requirement since the chlorine
content of American coal ranges up to
almost that concentration. Current
Clean Air Act regulations do not specify
hydrogen chloride or chlorine limits for
emissions for the combustion of such
coal. The small additional emissions
from incineration of low-chlorine
hazardous wastes are not likely to be a
serious problem. Some potential
candidates for incineration [for example
hexochlorobenzenej do include high
chlorine levels and will produce
significant emissions. Thus the hydrogen.
, chloride removal, requirement is , .
necessary., .....;
Tiie final'performance'standard is that
incinerators not emit particulate matter _
exceeding 180 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter. Particulates from
.hazardous waste combustion can
absorb hazardous constituents onto
their surface, or may themselves be
Hazardous, making their control
important. Control is addressed through
the DRE standard because particulates
are included in the analysis of the stack
emissions for POHC's. However, neither
combustion by-products nor metals are
controlled through the performance
standards promulgated today. Thus,
some control of these substances- can be
achieved by controlling the emissions of
particulates. The emission limits
required are the same as those required
by the Clean Air Act's New Source
Performance Standards for municipal
incinerators. Data indicate that they are
achievable by all hazardous waste
incinerators except,, perhaps, for cement
kilns. Cement kilns are exempt from this
Subpart when burning waste for re-use
or for recovery of thermal value.
It is very important to note that, while
these three performance standards are
the goal of this regulation, it is not,
technically practicable to directly"
monitor compliance with the
performance standards on a continuous
basis. Enforcement instead will be
based on compliance with operating
conditions demonstrated (by trial burns •
or alternative data) to be adequate to , .
achieve these performance standards,
and then specified Iri the permit, .
However, EPA may require verification'"
-------
7670 Federal Register / Vol. 46; No. 15 / Friday, January 23. 1981 /Rules and Regulations
tests of compliance with the
performance standard either
periodically, as specified in the permit,
or when there is an indication that the
performance standards are not being
mot. If the test, or other data, indicate
non-compliance with the performance
standard, then the Agency will have
grounds to modify, revoke, or re-issue a
permit so as to ensure that the
performance standards will be met. In
most cases the Agency does not expect
verification tests to be necessary more
frequently than annually.
S. New Wastes; trial burns or permit
modifications (§ 284.344)
Each permit will specify the waste
feeds which it allows and the operating
conditions required for each waste feed.
When an owner or operator wishes to
burn waste feeds for which operating
conditions have not been set in a permit
he must either secure a permit
modification, or, if the burn is to be of
short duration and for the specific
purposes listed In § 122.27(b), he must
secure a temporary trial burn permit.
The criteria for granting trial burn
permits are specified in § 122.27(b)
which is summarized later in this
preamble. The criteria for granting new
permits and permit modifications are
those outlined in Part 264, Subpart 0.
These criteria require demonstration, for
« defined waste feed, of operating
conditions adequate to achieve the
performance standards of § 264.343. This
demonstration may be based either on
the results of an approved trial burn, or
on alternative data adequate to
demonstrate that the performance
standard can be met and adequate to
dt'fine operating conditions necessary to
meet the standard. Obviously, if an
owner or operator wishes to avoid
repeated applications for permit
modifications, it is in his interests to
demonstrate, in each permit application,
the widest possible variety of waste
foods that can be adequately incinerated
under each set of operating conditions.
Furthermore, for economic reasons,
applicants may wish to define their
waste feeds in varying groups, seeking
less stringent operating requirements for
easily combusted waste feeds, while
narrowing the class of waste feeds that
are subject to more demanding and
expensive operating requirements. To
the extent that the applicant can
demonstrate in his permit application
that the required performance standards
can be met for each of these classes of
waste feed, he is, of course, free to make
these separations.
6. Operating Requirements (§ 264.345) 7. Monitoring and Inspections (§ 264.347)
Each permit will specify, on a case-by-
case basis, operating conditions which
have been demonstrated (in the trial
burn) to be adequate to meet the
performance standard and with which
compliance is required. The regulation
specifies several operating parameters
which will almost always be significant
variables for attainment of the
performance standards. Limits will be
set for these operating parameters in
every permit. However, if any specific
incinerator's design or waste feed makes
it necessary, the permit writer may also
specify other operating requirements
necessary to ensure that the applicable
performance standards are met.
Three further operating requirements
will be applied uniformly. During start-
up and shut-down of an incinerator,
ha2ardous waste must not be fed unless
the incinerator is at a steady state of
operation. This requirement is aimed at
the problem of inconsistent performance
and incomplete combustion when
wastes are burned in a zone where
combustion conditions have not
stabilized within limits defined in the
permit.
The regulation also requires that
fugitive emissions must be controlled.
Where feasible this should be through
total sealing of the combustion zone.
Where that is impossible [as with rotary
kilns) incinerators should maintain
"negative pressure", i.e. a combustion
zone pressure lower than atmospheric
pressure. Alternative means of control
may be allowed where they are
demonstrated to provide effectiveness
equivalent to maintenance of "negative
pressure." These requirements are
necessitated by the danger of escape of
fugitive emissions—including hazardous
waste constituents—that could threaten
human health or the environment. They
are already generally practiced in
commercial hazardous waste
incineration.
Finally, incinerators must be operated
with a functioning system to shut off
waste feed when operating requirements
are violated. This requirement will
protect against deviation from the
performance standard; in fact,,it is
implicit in the requirements that
hazardous wastes can be incinerated
only in compliance with a permit and
that the operating requirements are
conditions of the permit. After shutting
off hazardous waste feed, the facility
may take appropriate steps to either
shut-down the incinerator or to return to
operating conditions defined in its
permit.
EPA has made every effort to reduce
monitoring and inspection to the
minimum level necessary to ensure that
operation of the incinerator does not
deviate from the required performance
standards. In fact, the recognition that it
is technically not practical to
continuously monitor for compliance
with the performance standard is a
major factor underlying the monitoring
which is required. The regulation
requires, as a minimum, continuous
monitoring of combustion temperature,
waste feed rate, and air feed rate.
These are the variables which most
significantly affect destruction and
removal efficiency; they are also
continuously controllable by incinerator
operators. Continuous monitoring of
carbon monoxide emissions is also
required. This monitoring is the simplest
procedure for approximate verification
that adequate combustion actually is
taking place. Finally, the regulation
requires daily inspection of the
incinerator and associated equipment,
including alarm systems and emergency
shut-down controls. Since the
incinerator is a complex system, subject
to high stress conditions, this inspection
is necessary to control against leaks,
spills, or fugitive emissions, and to
ensure that stand-by systems will
actually operate when needed.
8. Closure (§ 264.351)
At closure the owner must remove all
hazardous waste and hazardous waste
residues from the incinerator site.
Wastes which are hazardous solely
because of ignitability are not exempt
from this provision, since the risk they
pose to human health and the
environment is very real when they are
not being burned in the controlled
combustion zone of a permitted
hazardous waste incinerator.
B. Part 122—Incinerator Facility Permits
Part 122 includes regulations covering
the permitting process. Two portions of
Part 122 are particularly related to
hazardous waste incinerator operation.
Section 122.25 describes information
required in Part B of an owner or
operator's permit application;
§ 122.25(b)(5) describes the particular
information required in applications for
permits to incinerate hazardous waste.
Section 122.27 describes short-term
permits; § 122.27(b) sets out the
procedures and standards for obtaining
a permit to conduct a trial burn of
hazardous waste.
-------
Federal Register / Vol.' 46, No. 15 /Friday, January 23,
Rdes^ and Regulations^
1. Permit Application Information
(§ 122.25(b){5)) • - ' . . _. .
Permit writer's will have to make
'Significant judgments, based on -
information contained in facility permit
applications,; EPA has limited the :
information required in Part B of a
permit application for an incinerator to
that necessary to make those judgments
properly. As § 122.25(b)(5) specifies,
applicants must meet one or more of
three sets of information requirements.
If the facility is seeking to incinerate
hazardous waste under the exemption
available for waste.which is hazardous
solely because it is ignitable, the permit
application must provide analytical
, results adequate to determine that
hazardous constituents listed hvPart
261, Appendix VIII, are not present in
j the waste. The reasons for this are
explained above, in the substantive .
discussion of the ignitability exemption.
Initially, information will be.
submitted for most facilities under
§ 122.25(b)(5](ii). This requires that an
applicant submit the results of a trial
burn of the relevant waste feed,
conducted under § 122.27(b). This
submission must include all the waste
analyses, engineering data," analytical
results, and calculations related to the
trial burn and its results. This
information must be adequate to allow
the permit writer to determine operating
conditions that will ensure that the
facility will meet the performance
standards for the relevant waste feeds.
Finally, applicants may seek to avoid
the trial burn requirement by submission
of alternative data. This information,
specified in § 122.25(b)(5)(iii), is
essentially a re-statement of the
information required to obtain a trial
burn permit under § 122.27{b). It is
supplemented by such further
information as the permit writer may
require to determine that the alternative
data in adequate to ensure that the
performance standards will be met, and
to set adequate operating parameters.
2. Trial Burn Permits (§ 122.27[b})
• Destruction and removal efficiencies
for any given waste feed can vary
greatly, and are dependent both on
operating conditions and on specific
aspects of any incinerator's design.
Thus, compliance with applicable
performance standards will often have
to be demonstrated by empirical
measurement, rather than by prediction.
Trial burns are the mechanisms for
these measurements.
Each trial burn can be conducted only
with the specific approval of a
permitting official. However, the full
procedural requirements for general
permits need not be followed. This is
because short term permits .will be of
limited duration (generally less than a
dozen hours of combustion, spread over •
operating periods of up to two weeks), ;
and for the limited purposes of
determining feasabiHty of compliance,
and the operating conditions necessary
to comply, with applicable performance
standards. In addition, trial burns will
not be allowed if they pose an imminent
hazard to human health or the
environment.
Applications for a trial burn permit
must include a trial burn plan which, if
approved, will become a condition of
the trial burn permit. This plan will
include a waste analysis (indentical to
that required for general permits) which
describes certain physical properties of
the proposed waste feed and which
includes an analysis sufficient to
identify the presence of any hazardous
organic constituents listed in Part 261, .
Appendix V1H, which may be present in
the waste.
In addition, the applicant must
provide a detailed description of his
incinerator and of the sampling and
monitoring procedures to be followed,
along with descriptions of safety
equipment and full information about
the time, waste quantity, and operating
conditions of the proposed trial burn.
The permitting official may ask to
have this information supplemented if
he needs further data to determine
whether the trial burn is likely to
demonstrate compliance with the
performance standards, identify
associated operating conditions, and
will not itself present an imminent
hazard to human health and the -
environment. When the permitting
official determines that the data meet
these objectives, he will approve the
trial burn plan, will specify the trial
Principal Organic Hazardous
Constituents (trial POHCs} for which the
facility must calculate destruction and
removal efficiencies during the trial
burn, and will issue a trial burn permit
incorporating the conditions in the trial
burnplari.
When trial burns are carried out, EPA
may wish to have an observer present
and, if necessary, can insist upon doing
so under the authority of Section 3007 of
RCRA, and 40 CFR 122.(7)(i). In any case
the trial burn must be conducted in
accordance with the trial burn permit
and waste feed must cease when
specified operating conditions are
violated.
Determinations specified in the trial
burn permit must be made during the
trial burn, or as soon after it as is
practical. In all cases, these will include
a quantitative analysis of the trial
POHCs in the waste feed to the.:; .- ..: .'
incinerator and a quantitative analysis • •
of the trial POHCs in the exhaust gas
emitted from the incinerator. These
analyses are necessary to make the -
required computation of destruction and
removal efficiency (DRE) in accordance
with the formula specified in ; . ••-
§ 264.343(a). This DRE computation must
be supported and verified by a total
mass balance of the:.trial POHGs in.the
waste feed, and must be compared with
required quantitative analyses of
scrubber water and other residues for
trial POHCs. Measurement of hazardous .
combustion by-products will be used to
verify attainment of the DRE
performance standard, through '
comparison with the mass balance of
POHCs. It may also help meet public
concern about the presence of by-
products in incinerator emissions. Data
accumulated from these trial burn ,,
analyses may lead to reductions in the
number, and complexity of subsequent
trial burns, either by reducing the need,
for those burns, or by aiding the
selection of surrogates to simplify such
analyses. • •••••.• • ;
Compliance with the other
performance standards must be
demonstrated by direct measurement of
particulate emissions and hydrogen
chloride removal efficiencies. Sources of
fugitive emissions and their means of
control must also be identified.
Measurements of average, maximum,
and minimum temperatures in the
combustion zone and of air feed rates
are always necessary to help establish
operating conditions which will assure
continued compliance with the
performance standard. In addition, the
trial burn permit may specify other data
collection, if necessary to determine
compliance with applicable performance
standards, or to establish operating
requirements.
Since § 122.27 Short-Term Permits are
somewhat separate from the normal
permitting procedures, and since they
will not always include public
participation, for purposes of clarity the
Agency has specified that all
submissions required by this subsection
shall be certified by signature. Since
repeated submissions may be required
to establish acceptable waste analyses,
trial burn plans, and trial burn analyses,
the Agency has decided to require only
that the certification be made by a *
person authorized to make reports, .
rather than requiring that each
submission be signed by a person of
vice-presidential or equivalent corporate
rank.--- -->' -- • -•-*-••••'••'• • -• •-—
-------
7672
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 15 / Friday, January 23
C. Part 263— Interim Status Standards
for Hazardous Waste Incineration
Facilities which qualify for interim
status may continue to operate until
final Agency action on their permit
applies lions. Throughout that time
owners or operators must comply with
all relevant interim status standards. If
the owner or operator of a facility which
has interim status wishes to burn a
waste which he has not listed in Part A
of his permit application, he must
supplement his Part A application as
required by § 122.23(c)(l).
EPA is today finalizing the Interim
Status Standards which were issued, on
an interim final basis, on May 19, 1980
(45 FR 33250). With small exceptions the
regulations follow the text of the interim
final promulgation. They are discussed
In the preamble accompanying that
promulgation. The Agency has,
however, modified those regulations hi
two significant ways. First, the
regulation now prevents hazardous
•waste feed during shut-down situations,
In addition to forbidding it during start-
up conditions. On the other hand, the
Agency has recognized that wastes
which are hazardous solely because of
Jgnitability can be burned safely even
when operating conditions are unstable,
Thus the final regulations allow
exemptions for ignitable wastes,
conditional upon the owner or operator
performing and maintaining analyses
that show that the waste feed would not
reasonably be expected to contain
hazardous constituents listed in Part
201, Appendix VIII.
V. Issues Raised by Comments, and
Changes hi the Regulation
A- General Concepts Underlying the
Regulation
1. Authority
Several commenters argued that
RCRA granted EPA no authority to
regulate hazardous waste incineration
since legislative history did not label
incineration a form of "disposal" and
since the Clean Air Act adequately
controlled incinerator emissions.
Whether hazardous waste
incineration falls within the Section
1(XM(3) definition of "disposal" is not a
controlling issue. The Agency is
regulating incineration as "treatment" of
hazardous wastes. Section 1004(34)
defines treatment:
(34) The term "treatment",
connection with hazardous waste, means any
method, technique, or process, including
neutralization, designed to change the
biological character or composition of any
hazardous waste so as to neutralize waste
and render it non-hazardous, safe for
transport, amenable for recovery, amenable
for storage, or reduced in volume. Such term
includes any activity or processing designed
to change the physical form or chemical
composition of hazardous waste so as tq
render it non-hazardous.
As a process designed to render
hazardous waste non-hazardous and
reduced in volume, incineration
certainly falls within this definition. The
Agency's statutory mandate to regulate
such treatment pocesses is then found in
Section 3004, which requires that the
Administrator promulgate performance
standards for the treatment of
hazardous wastes.
This also fits the broad structure of
RCRA, which requires that hazardous
wastes be sent only to facilities which
have RCRA permits to treat them. The
Administrator's authority in this matter
is make even more clear in Section 3004
which says that the standards set by the
Agency "shall include, but need not be
limited to, requirements respecting—
(3) Treatment... of all such wastes. . .
pursuant to such operating methods,
techniques, and practices as may be
satisfactory to the Administrator.
This mandate also serves the
objectives of the statute, defined by
Congress in Section 1003(4) as, among
other things, "regulating the treatment
... of hazardous wastes which have
adverse affects on health and the
environment". Furthermore, incineration
of hazardous wastes was discussed
extensively in EPA's 1974 Report to
Congress: Disposal of Hazardous
Wastes, a document that strongly
influenced Congressional development
of RCRA. Additionally, EPA has
consistently indicated in both Federal
Register proposals and Congressional
testimony that it will control
incinerators under RCRA. Congress
gave no signs of disapproval of this in
the 1980 RCRA amendments.
The Agency cannot agree with those
commenters who suggested that the
proposed regulations should be replaced
by, or were in conflict with, the Clean
Air Act. Current Clean Air Act
regulations address only a portion of the
potential emissions from a hazardous
waste incinerator. The Clean Air Act is
oriented toward control of emissions on
a pollutant-by-pollutant basis, and
current regulations are focused largely
on wide-spread, large-volume, pollutants
(particulates, NOX, SOX, etc) and on
specified hazardous emissions from
specific sources. In contrast, the
pollutants which could be emitted from
hazardous waste incinerators are far
more numerous and diverse. Many are
acytely toxic or carcinogenic. A case-by-
case, chemical by chemical, regulatory
approach under the Clean Air Act is not
practical in this situation.
RCRA provides authority to control
emissions broadly through destruction
and combustion performance standards
and direct operating and design
standards. Such a regulatory approach
is necessary in order to adequately
protect human health and the
environment as required by RCRA. To
the exent that standards can be
developed in the future under the Clean
Air Act to deal with specific hazardous
air emissions, this may aid in the task of
regulating hazardous waste incineration.
Moreover, since hazardous waste
incinerators will often store and
generate hazardous waste, they will
already be within the RCRA system for
manifests and permitting. Thus
regulating hazardous waste incineration
under RCRA (rather than the Clean Air
Act) may be the simplest way to
minimize the regulatory burden on
applicants.
2. Performance Standards and
Engineering Judgment
Several comments on the proposed
regulations criticized as too inflexible
two facets of the proposed regulations:
(1) universally applicable specific design
and operating requirements, and (2)
performance requirements that did not
allow waste-specific variances.
Both of these concerns were seriously
considered. As discussed in the next
paragraph, the Agency has revised the
regulations so that they now rely
heavily on performance standards, with
few operating requirements specified.
Facility-specific and waste-specific
variances proved, however, to be
technically and procedurally complex.
They required techniques and
procedures which were not proposed
and which relied on much scientific
knowledge not included in the 1978
proposal. EPA, therefore, is proposing
today a waste-specific and facility-
specific variance and a procedure for
applying it. The Agency specifically
solicits comments and data relevant to
the proposed variance and procedure;
but, until the variance is shown to be
(feasible and is finalized, permits will be
issued under the performance standards
promulgated today.
The other general comment was
easier to address. The proposed
regulations included specific,
universally applicable operating
requirements for temperature, dwell-
time, .combustion efficiency, and
quantity of excess air. Commenters
persuasively argued that these
standards did not provide enough
flexibility to account for the many
differences in wastes and incinerator
-------
Federal Register /Vol.' 46, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 1981 /Rules and Regulations
7673
designs, and that they were often not
necessary, even to meet the
performance standards EPA required.
On more abstract grounds they also
argued1 that performance standards were
inherently better than operating
standards since they adequately
protected human health and the
environment, while not stifling
innovative approaches which might be
more economical, more efficient, or
more effective.
The Agency concluded that these
comments had merit. Different wastes
and different incinerator designs have
been shown in EPA tests to attain the
required destruction and removal
efficiencies under a variety of operating
conditions. Thus some flexibility to
tailor operating standards on a case-by-
case basis can more effectively assure
protection of human health, while, at the
same time, avoiding needless
requirements. The regulations now
include few nationally applicable design
and operating standards, but rely
instead on selected performance
standards. However, as many industry
comments pointed out, it is technically
impractical to continuously monitor the
most important of these performance
requirements (destruction and removal
efficiency) especially when quick
response times may be important. Thus
pure reliance on performance standards
is not feasible and specific operating
criteria will have to be observed for
proper facility operation and to
demonstrate compliance with the
required DRE. These specific operating
standards will now, however, be
specified on a case-by-case basis during
the permit drafting process based
primarily on the results of trial burns (or
alternative data) which demonstrate the
operating conditions necessary to
achieve compliance with the
performance standards. The permit
writer will need to exercise some
measure of scientific and engineering
judgment in interpreting the trial burn
data and defining acceptable limits on .
operating conditions and waste feed
variations. The procedural mechanisms
for making these case-by-case
determinations (including data
compilations from trial burns) are
necessarily complex, but they appear
the best alternative to uniform national
standards.
This approach—tailoring of regulatory
requirements to specific wastes and
facilities, based on the trial burn (or
alternative data)—is consistent with the
approach EPA has adopted for other-
regulations for management of
hazardous waste. It recognizes that
case-by-case judgments, based on site-
specific circumstances can be applied in
establishing the operating requirements
applicable to an incinerator. In making
such scientific and engineering
judgments, the permit writers will be
able to apply the latest state-of-the-art
information on incinerator technology
and the thermal destruction
characteristics of waste to the facility-
specific information obtained from trial
burns and contained in permit
applications. To aid this process, EPA is
publishing a "Permit Writer's Guidance
Document for Hazardous Waste
Incineration" and an "Engineering
Handbook on Hazardous Waste
Incineration." The Agency expects to
make these manuals available to the
public in the near future. The latest
drafts of these manuals are now
available for inspection in the RCRA
docket room, but the Agency expects to
update them periodically.
3. Significant Comments; and Changes
to Part 264
The Agency has considered each
comment relevant to hazardous waste
incineration. Significant ones are
summarized here; others are included in
the detailed discussions in the
companion "Background Document."
Commenters suggested that
incineration of wastes which are
hazardous solely because of ignitability
sshould not be subject to incineration
regulations. EPA agrees in principle and,
as mentioned above, has exempted such
wastes from most of the substantive
requirements of Part 264, Subpart O.
However, applicants must show in a
permit .application that an ignitable
waste does not contain toxic organic
constituents listed in Part 261, Appendix
VIII. This showing must be based on an
analysis of the waste for any organic
constituents listed in Appendix VIII,
except those that can be demonstrated
not to be reasonably likely to be in the
waste. This showing is necessary
because wastes which fail the
ignitability characteristic described in
Part 261 may also contain toxic organic
constituents. Even wastes listed solely
for ignitability may contain such
constituents if the Agency did not have
exhaustive composition data at the time
of listing. Since toxic organic
constituents must be destroyed in an
incinerator in accordance with the
performance standard, any ignitable
waste containing such constituents is
iiubject to all of the Subpart O
standards.
Incineration of ignitable wastes which
are exempted from most of Subpart O
will, however, still be covered by RCRA
permits. This allows generators and
Ixansporters of ignitable hazardous
wastes to ship them to the facilities. It
also ensures that they .will be safely
stored and otherwise handled until and
through the facility's closure period.
Commenters challenged the .waste
analysis requirement both on the
general grounds that it was ambiguous
and unnecessary (since manifest data
should suffice) and on the specific
ground that determination of "principal
hazardous 'Components" was ambiguous
and, perhaps, ruinously expensive. The
waste analysis requirements are now far
more detailed and linked more closely
to the determination of the "principal
hazardous components"—now called
"principal organic hazardous
constituents (POCHs)." The
requirements clearly require more ,
information than is shown on the
manifest, as indeed they must since
further information is requred to
determine DRE and set operating
conditions. EPA has also improved the
clarity of the regulation by specifying
that it is the waste feed to the
incinerator that must be analyzed for
burn-related information (thus assuring
that affects of combination and blending
are given credit and consideration), and
by specifying which detailed waste
analyses requirements are required only
on permit application and which
simplified analyses must be performed
on an on-going basis.
Finally, EPA has responded to
concern about determination of
"principal hazardous components" by
establishing a procedure for
identification of POHCs during each
permit writing process. The applicant
may suggest certain POHCs for
designation, but the determination will
be made by the permit writer, using all
available data (including trial burns) to
determine those organic hazardous
constituents most difficult to burn and
present in significant quantities. This
POHC selection analysis, while costly,
will not be prohibitive since, even where
necessary, GC/MS analysis against an
identified list of constituents (those
organics listed in Part 261, Appendix
VIII) will give adequate qualitative and
quantitative results at a reasonable cost.
Even this analysis can be reduced if the
applicant demonstrates that listed
constituents would not reasonably be
expected to be present in the waste
feed.
Commenters often favored
performance standards in theory but
criticized the proposed Destruction
Efficiency requirement of 99.99% for
several reasons. Some criticized its
general attainability, others argued that
measurement near combustion zones
was dangerous and inherently
-------
7674 Federal Register / Vol. 46. No.,15i / j?"day, January 23, 1981 / Rules and Regulations
unreliable; others pointed out that
inorganic materials such metallic as
elements, could not be "destroyed" by
any combustion process short of nuclear
transformation.
The regulations now call for a
"Destruction and Removal Efficiency
(DRE)" of 99.99% rather than 99.99%
Destruction Efficiency (DE). This very
significant change avoids the risks and
unreliability of combustion zone gas
measurement, and it gives facilities
credit for pollutant removals made by
their air pollution control equipment. It
also means that measurements will be
made at the point of release to the
atmosphere—the real point of concern
for protection of human health and the
environment. Yet adequate protection is
assured because air pollution control
residues must be safely managed; in fact
protection may be enhanced by the
greater reliability of measurement.
EPA also now applies the DRE only to
hazardous organic constituents, thus
recognizing that inorganics are not
"destroyed" by combustion. Inorganics
can, of course, be "removed" from
incinerator emissions, however the
Agency has not yet analyzed data on
•what removal efficiencies represent the
state of the art for inorganics removal
controls. EPA is today proposing a
procedure for case-by-case
determinations of acceptable inorganic
emissions. The Agency specifically
solicits comments on that procedure and
data on attainable inorganic removal
standards.
Finally, on the most important point
(attainability), EPA surveyed U.S. and
international technical literature to
obtain all available data on performance
of Incinerators destroying hazardous .
waste. EPA has now identified 54
waste/incinerator combinations for
which an efficiency determination has
been reported. This survey included all
of the applicable full scale test work
performed by EPA's Office of Solid
Waste in 1975 and 1976, as well as all
known and relevant test burns reported
by industry, including a test-burn report
submitted by the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers.
In reviewing the 54 incinerator tests,
all but nine achieved at least a 99.99%
destruction efficiency. The remaining
nine achieved efficiencies very close to
99.99%, and, upon close examination of
the test reports, all of those nine tests
had explainable and correctable
problems which prevented attaining a
89.99% destruction efficiency. Since the
final regulation is based on destruction
and removal efficiency, the 99.99%
performance level is more readily
attainable than that monitored in test
burns. Data clearly indicate that
"commercial hazardous waste
incinerators can attain a 99.99% DRE for
a wide-range of organic hazardous
wastes, including those most difficult to
burn.
Commenters objected to the proposed
99% removal requirement for all
halogens, noting the difficulty of
achieving 99% removal of halogens other
than hydrogen chloride and claiming
that other halogens were less dangerous
than hydrogen chloride. Some argued for
case-by-case determinations of
necessary halogen removals.
EPA has retained the 99% removal
requirement for hydrogen chloride from
wastes containing significant amounts
of chlorine. The comments received, and
surveys of the technology in place,
indicate that 99% removal for hydrogen
chloride is attainable. EPA's Office of
Solid Waste determined hydrogen
chloride removals for four of its test
burns in 1975 and 1976. All exceeded the
required removals. Industry reports
confirm this. The Agency, however, does
not yet have data to support the
attainability of, or need for, similar
removals for other hydrogen halides.
EPA is today proposing a procedure for
case-by-case determination of
acceptable hydrogen halide emissions,
based on assessment of impacts on
human health and the environment. The
Agency specifically solicits comments
on that procedure and on attainable
hydrogen halide control levels.
Commenters criticized the proposed
regulatory standard for particulate
emissions. Some felt that it was too
stringent, and others saw it as more
permissive than existing Clean Air Act
standards. Both groups criticized the
complex formula for correcting for
carbon dioxide in the exhaust stream.
EPA has clarified the formula to make
it clear that the formula, calculations,
and final standard are equivalent to the
New Stationary Source Performance
Standard for municipal incinerators
promulgated under the Clean Air Act.
Industry information and EPA's own
full-scale tests indicate that this
standard is attainable for facilities
regulated under this Subpart.
Commenters objected to EPA's
reliance on a combination of continuous
monitoring of carbon monoxide
emissions and a requirement of 99.9%
combustion efficiency as an indicator of
destruction efficiency. Determination of
the combustion efficiency involves
monitoring of both CO and CO2 from the
combustion process on a continuous
basis. Commenters argued that a 99.9%
combustion efficiency, as defined in the,
proposed regulation, is not achievable.
Commenters also argued that
measurement is a problem because
absorption of CO2 in wet scrubber
systems can produce errors in the
measurement of combustion efficiency.
The Agency has decided to drop the
specification of combustion efficiency,
as a result of these and related
comments, and because the objectives
of the proposed combustion efficiency
standard can be obtained more simply.
Thus, carbon dioxide no longer needs to
be monitored. The final standard states
that the carbon monoxide in the exhaust
stack will be monitored on a continuous
basis, but the maximum concentration
limit in the emissions will be specified
as an operating condition on a case-by-
case basis in each permit. The permit
limit will be determined based on a trial
burn test or on other data submitted in
lieu of a trial burn.
Carbon Monoxide monitoring is
important because it provides a
continuous indicator of the
completeness of combustion which has
taken place in an incinerator. When CO
monitoring is combined with continuous
monitoring of temperature, waste feed
rate, and air feed rate, it is possible to
determine on a continuous basis
whether the incinerator is operating
within limits defined in the trial burn as
necessary to achieve 99.99% DRE.
As discussed above, commenters
critized reliance on uniform operating
requirements. The Agency agrees and
these requirements will now be set on a
case-by-case basis. The final regulations
specify several incinerator operating
parameters which are to become part of
the permit issued by the Agency. These
are combustion temperature, waste feed
rate, air feed rate, and CO level in the
exhaust gas. Also specified will be
allowable variations in waste
composition of the incinerator feed, and
allowable changes in incinerator design
and operating procedures. Standards
regarding changes in design, operation,
and feed composition are now specified.
The first reason for this is the shift
from uniform requirements to those set
on a case-by-case basis. It is now
necessary to ensure that incinerator
practices do not change (from those
specified in permit applications) in ways
that could make the specified conditions
inadequate. A related reason is that
DRE is now not monitored directly or
continuously and the proposed
combustion efficiency requirement has
been dropped. Modifications to
incinerators after trial burns could affect
DRE without detection. Permit writers,
therefore, will specify acceptable
changes in incineration design,
configuration, operating methods, and
waste feed character.
Commenters criticized the proposed
standard for control of fugitive
-------
emissions of unburned hazardous waste
and combustion products. Most stated
that the level of control required was
vague, or that EPA should state it as the
level of best practical technology.
Others argued that limited fugitive
emissions are inevitable in some types
of incinerators, particularly rotary kilns.
The Agency has now made the
standard more precise. It now specifies
two control techniques in current
usage—sealing the combustion zone,
and operating so that pressures in the
combustion zone are less than in
ambient air. Data indicate that the first
technique can be used in all incinerators
except rotary kilns, while "negative
pressure" is the norm for all incinerators
except fluidized bed incinerators. In any
case, each facility may rely on either or
both practices, or on any new method
demonstrated lo meet a performance
standard equivalent to that achieved by
"negative pressure" systems.
Commenters criticized the proposal
for requiring that incinerators be shut-
down and that waste feed be cut off
whenever permit deviations occurred.
Some argued that automatic shut-downs
would in fact be harmful since rapid
cooling would damage refractory liners.
The Agency has modified the
regulation to make clear that, while
hazardous waste feed must be cut-off, a
total facility shutdown is not required.
Human health and the environment will
be protected if waste feed ceases. Non-
hazardous auxiliary fuel feed may
continue. Having ceased waste feed, the
facility is free to correct deviations
through whatever control modifications
the situation requires.
Commmenters critized the proposed
monitoring and facility inspection
requirements. They questioned the
expense and reliability of the required
gaseous monitoring equipment, the
frequency of inspections, and the
specification of monitoring points. In
these final rules, the Agency has
specified a minimum schedule for
monitoring and inspecting the operation
of incinerators. Combustion and CO
monitoring equipment must be
monitored continuously, and operating
corrections made to ensure that critical
conditions are not allowed to vary
outside permit limits. In addition, the
regulation requires that equipment be
inspected in accordance with both the
minimum frequencies specified in the
Subpart O standard and in the facility
inspection schedule.
The permit writer may require
measurements and calculations {similar .
to those .used in a trial burn) to verify
compliance with the DRE. The Agency
expects that generally this will not be
required more frequently than annually,
and in most cases .even less frequently.
C. Significant Comments; and Changes
to Part 122 . ' _ i
Comments suggested that trial burns
should not be subject to the incinerator
performance standard since the purpose
of the trial burn is to determine the
feasibility ,of, and the conditions
necessary for, compliance with that
standard. They also argued that failures
to meet the performance standard might
be inevitable, instructive, in good faith,
and of minor environmental
consequence. EPA agrees with much of
this argument and, as discussed above,
has created a special, simplified, permit
process for trial burns. This procedure,
codified as § 122.27(b), effectively
exempts trial burns from Subpart O and
subjects them only to conditions directly
relevant to trial burns. In'substance,
these parallel § i 264.341 [waste
analysis) and 264.342 (POHC selection).
These are combined with required
compliance with approved operating
conditions set forth in an approved trial
burn plan. They provide an alternative
basis for protection of human health and
the environment, adequate for the
limited mass and duration of trial burn
emissions.
Trial burns are essential to the
application of this regulation. The
evaluation of trial burn data, and the
setting of permit conditions which result
from those data, represent the major
focus of scientific and engineering
judgment by the permitting official. It is
in that process that the permit writer:
(1) applies scientific and engineering
judgment to identify the principal »
organic hazardous constituents to which
the performance standard applies, and
(2) establishes the operating
conditions that will be placed in the
permit.
The Agency intends that new trial
burns should be minimized to the extent
possible and conduct of those burns
should proceed quickly so that they do
not become an administrative barrier to
the utilization of hazardous waste
incineration. This is a particular concern
vrith off-site facilities that burn a wide
variety of hazardous wastes from many
different generators. The regulations
deal with this concern in several ways.
First, the simplified permit process
described in § 122.27(b] has been set up.
Second, as § 122.25 and Subpart Q make
clear, a trial burn may be waived, if the
facility owner or.operator can provide
data equivalent to that which would oe
developed in a trial burn. This may be
data from previous operational burns in
a similar incinerator on similar waste,
burns in pilot facilities, etc. Finally, trial
burns can be minimized by prudent
planning and structuring of trial burns
by the facility owner or operator.
Although the DRE performance
standard applies .to each waste feed
burned, this does npt mean that a •
separate trial burn for each waste pr
each different mixture of wastes is :
required. To the extent practicable, the
Agency intends to establish a ranking of
wastes based on difficulty of thermal'
destruction. If an owner or operator
established (through a trial burn)
operating conditions for those wastes
which are most difficult to destroy, this
could provide the alternative
documentation for the permitting official
to allow certain other wastes to be
burned at the same conditions. To avoid
overly stringent burn conditions for
easily combusted wastes, the facility
owner might want to carry out, at
different operating conditions, trial
burns on two or more basic group of
wastes, or waste mixtures, so that
permit conditions could be established
for each.
As an aid to this approach, EPA is
working to construct a hierarchy of,
waste incinerability. Currently, data are
available to develop comparative and
predictive assessments, but not to define
a complete hierarchy. It is now possible,
based on current knowledge, to make
some judgments of relative
incinerability of different wastes. Data
indicate that each of several predictive
theories are reasonably accurate and
that various theories generally agree in
outcome. As more test burns are
completed, and as more research and
pilot incineration tests are conducted by
EPA, a more complete, incinerability
hierarchy will be developed. As this
data base is developing, the permit •
writer will need to exercise judgment to
establishing the bounds on wastes and
waste mixtures that can be burned at a
given set of incinerator conditions. Thus,
initially the trial burn burden may be
large, but it should diminish
substantially over time.
The Agency has placed a specific
requirement in the trial burn section
requiring that data collected from any
approved trial burn be submitted to the
Agency. This information is to be
submitted whether or not the trial burn,
was successful in demonstration
compliance with the performance
standards. This data will allow the
Agency to determine if excessive
amounts of POHC's were emitted during
the trial burn, to add to the information
base being developed by the Agency,
and to determine the reliability "of
successful trial burn results that are •
reported to the Agency. ;
-------
7676
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 15 / Fridaj^January 23, 1981 / Rules.andRegulations^
D, Significant Comments; and Changes
to Part 265
Commenters argued that banning the
use of high BTU hazardous waste as fuel
to start-up incinerators was contrary to
sound practice. Some also argued that
wastes which contain only carbon,
hydrogen, and oxygen should be
allowed as start-up fuel. Finally they
asserted that EPA had failed to
recognize degree of hazard of wastes.
The Agency has concluded that use of
clean auxiliary fuel (such as fuel oil or
natural gas] to start-up incinerators is a
prudent practice. EPA realizes, however,
that some wastes may be hazardous due
solely to ignitability and might well be
suitable for start-up. Thus, the final
regulations for interim status
incineration exempt wastes which are
hazardous due solely to ignitability from
the substantive requirements of this
Subpart. The Agency has also modified
the operating requirements to require
that hazardous waste not be fed to the
incinerator during shut down.
The Agency, however, disagrees with
the comment that wastes which have
only hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon in
thulr structure should be exempted from
the pre-heating requirement. AJI
example of such a waste material is
benzene, which contains only hydrogen
and carbon, but which is hazardous
because of its carcinogenic properties.
Finally, EPA has decided not to
incorporate a degree of hazard approach
into these Interim Status Standards
since, even if feasible at all, it would
require greater interaction between
facilities and the Agency than interim
status makes practical.
VI. Regulatory Analysis
Executive Order 12044 requires EPA
to prepare a regulatory analysis for all
new significant regulations. This
analysis includes a comprehensive
economic impact analysis and a
discussion of the regulatory alternatives
considered,
A, Economic Analysis
EPA plans to complete its formal
analysis of the total Part 264 RCRA
program and make it available for public
review and comment in mid-1981. The
Agency has, however, completed a fairly
substantial preliminary analysis of the
cost of the regulation published today. A
copy of the preliminary cost analysis
will shortly be available in the EPA
Regional libraries, the EPA
Headquarters library and the Docket
Room in the Office of Solid Waste.
While total costs and impacts of the
entire Part 264 regulation cannot be
determined yet, EPA is building a model
which allows such determinations.
Inputs to this model are quantities of
waste by waste stream and industry,
unit costs of waste management, lists of
feasible management methods for each
waste stream, and capacity for existing
management processes. The output from
Jthe model is the cost of the regulation by
industry. These costs then serve as input
to determining impacts. The incinerator
costs discussed here will be used in this
model.
The incremental costs by which
RCRA regulations will increase the costs
of current practice of managing
hazardous waste are now being
determined. These are the incremental
costs of treating (or storing or disposing)
of waste by a given method (e.g., in a
incinerator) which is in compliance with
the regulations. Preliminary costs have
been developed for incinerators. In the
following analysis these costs are
presented on an incremental annualized
after tax basis. Because they are
incremental, they represent the
additional cost of waste management
imposed by the Part 264 general status
regulations (over and above the costs
imposed by the Part 265 interim status
standards) on those owners or operators
required to obtain a RCRA permit for
incinerating hazardous waste. Because
they are annualized, they represent the
cost (in 1980 dollars) the owner or
operator would incur if he incurred the
same cost each year.
As a result of the permitting standards
for incinerator, (Subpart O of Part 264),
operators of incinerators will face higher
costs. The regulations require the
owners or operators of incinerators to
achieve a destruction and removal
efficiency (DRE) of 99.99%, to perform
trial burns, to monitor continuously for
carbon monoxide, to install an
automatic shut down system which will
automatically keep waste from entering
the combustion chamber when
incinerator operating conditions do not
comply with the permit conditions, to
close the incinerator against fugitive
emissions, and to determine the
principle organic hazardous constituents
of the waste.
In the cost analysis, EPA determined
that different types of wastes will incur
different incremental costs. The primary
reasons for cost differences among
waste types is that some wastes require
a higher temperature than others to
assure a DRE of 99.99%, and that some
types of wastes must be incinerated in a
rotary kiln, while others can be
incinerated in a liquid injector. The
following table shows the annualized
unit baseline (or pre-RCRA) cost for
incineration, the cost increment due to
the Part 265 Subpart O and financial
requirements regulations, the increment
due to the Part 264 Subpart O and
Financial requirements regulations, and
the cost of incineration following the
Part 264 regulations. These figures show
that the cost increment due to these Part
264 incinerator regulations is very low,
and adds less than 6% to current costs
even for the most toxic materials to be
burned.
Annualized incremental Unit Cost of Compliance With Part 264 for Incinerators'
tUnit cost (dollars por ton)]
Cost
Baseline „
Part 265 without financial requirements
Part 264 without financial requirements
Nonhalo- Nonhalo- Haiogenated
genated Haiogenated genated solids and
liquids liquids solids and sludges
sludges
$53.57
.97
1.86
3.62
.22
$259.29
1.94
7.04
7.23
.87
S357.14
.97
12.34
3.62
1.52
$556.79
.97
12.34
11.62
1.52
Highly
toxic
materials
$556.79
.97
12.34
45.48
1.52
Total
60.24
276.37
375.59
583.24
617.10
1 These costs are based on waste streams being incinerated as follows:
e Nonhalogenated liquids are incinerated In a liquid injection incinerator without pollution control devices and with a design
capacity of 20.000 MT per year.
• Haiogenated liquids are incinerated in a liquid injection incinerator with pollution control devices and with a design capac-
ity of 10.000 MT per year.
• Nonhalogenated solids and sludges, haloganated solids and sludges, and highly toxic materials are incinerated in a rotary
kiln incinerator with pollution control devices and with a design capacity of 20,000 MT per year.
The cost for Part 265 without financial
requirements includes costs for
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting,
administration, training and contingency
plans, and equipment. It excludes the
cost of waste analysis, which is
dependent on the annual quantity of
particular waste streams incinerated.
-------
3> 1981 /-
The cost for Part 265 financial ,
requirements includes the cost of
closure as well as providing a trust fund
for closure. To the extent that owners or
operators are able to use letters of credit
or surety bonds, to comply with the
financial requirements, these costs will
be significantly lower. The cost for Part
264 without financial requirements
reflects costs for achieving the requisite
DRE, performing trial burns, monitoring
for CO, installing and operating an
automatic waste feed cut-off system,
determining the principal hazardous
organic components of the waste, and
periodically inspecting and analyzing
burns to insure compliance with permit
conditions. The cost for Part 264
financial requirements reflects the fact
thai! the analysis assumes that owner or
operators will build trust funds over 10
years for Part 264 and 15 years for Part
285.
The annualized incremental unit costs
for Part 264 were derived from estimates
of capital and operating and
maintenance costs {O &M costs'). The
following table shows the capital and
O & M costs.'and serves as.the basis for
these Part 264 estimates. -
Total Incremental Capita! and Operating
and Maintenance Cost of Compiiance
With Part 284 for Incinerators
[Cost in 'thousands of
-------
7678 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 15 / Friday. January 23, 1981 / Rules and^ Regulations^
Federal Register as a final rule (see
preamble for discussion).
PART 264—STANDARDS FOR
OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
1. In § 264.10, paragraph (b) is revised
to read as follows:
§264.10 Applicability.
* * * * *
(b) Section 264.18{b) is applicable only
to facilities subject to regulation under
Part 263, Subparts I, J, K, L, and O.
2. In § 284.13, paragraph (b)(6) is
revised to read as follows:
§ 264,13 General waste analysis.
*****
(b) * * *
(6) Where applicable, the methods
which will be used to meet the
additional waste analysis requirements
for specific waste management methods
as specified in §§ 264.17 and 264,341.
* » * * *
3. In § 254.15, paragraph (b)(4) is
revised to read as fouows:
§ 264.15 General inspection requirements.
*****
(b) * * *
(4) The frequency of inspection may
vary for the items on the schedule.
However, it should be based on the rate
of possible deterioration of the
equipment and the probability of an
environmental or human health incident
if the deterioration or malfunction of
any operator error goes undetected
between inspections. Areas subject to
spills, such as loading and unloading
areas, must be inspected daily when in
uso. At a minimum, the inspection
schedule must include the terms and
frequencies called for in §§ 264.174,
264.194, 264.228, 264.254, and 264.347,
where applicable.
*****
4. In § 284.73, paragraph (b] is
amended by revising paragraph (b)(3),
adding new paragraph (b){6). and
redesignatlng paragraph (b)(6) and (b)(7)
as (b)(7) and (b)(8) respectively revised
to read as follows:
S 264,73 Operating Record.
*****
(b) * * *
(3) Records and results of waste
analyses performed as specified in
|| 264.13, 284.17, and 264.341;
« * * * *
(0) Monitoring, testing, or analytical
data where required by § 264.347;
(7) For off-site facilities, notices to
generators as specified in § 264.12(b);
and
(8) All closure cost estimates under
§ 264.142, and, for disposal facilities, all
post-closure cost estimates under
§ 264.144.
*****
5. In § 264.112, paragraph (a) and
paragraph (a)(l) are revised to read as
follows:
§ 264.112 Closure plan; amendment of
plan.
(a) The owner or operator of a
hazardous waste management facility
must have a written closure plan, The
plan must be submitted with the permit
application, in accordance with
§ 122.25(a)(13) of this Chapter, and
approved by the Regional Administrator
as part of the permit issuance
proceeding under Part 124 of this
Chapter. In accordance with § 122.29 of
this Chapter, the approved closure plan
will become a condition of any RCRA
permit. The Regional Administrator's
decision must assure that that approved
closure plan is consistent with
§§ 264.111, 264.113, 264.114, 264.115 and
the applicable requirements of
§§ 264.178, 264.197, 264.228, 264.258, and
264.351. A copy of the approved plan
and all revisions to the plan must be
kept at the facility until closure is
completed and certified in accordance
with § 264.115. The plan must identify
steps necessary to completely or
partially close the facility at any point
during its intended operating life and to
completely close the facility at the end
of its intended operating life. The
closure plan must include, at least:
(1) A description of how and when the
facility will be partially closed, if
applicable, and finally closed. The
description must identify the maximum
extent of die operation which will be
unclosed during the life of the facility,
and how the requirements of § § 264.111,
264.113, 264.114, 264.115, and the
applicable closure requirements of
§§ 264.178, 264.197, 264.228, 264.258, and
264.351 will be met;
*****
6. In § 264.142, paragraph (a) is
revised to read as follows:
§ 264.142 Cost estimate for facility
closure.
(a) The owner or operator must have a
written estimate of the cost of closing
the facility in accordance with the
requirements in §§ 264.111-264.115 and
applicable closure requirements in
§§ 264.178, 264.197, 264.228, 264.258, and
284.351. The owner or operator must
keep this estimate, and all subsequent
estimates required in this Section, at the
facility. The estimate must equal the
cost of closure at the point in the
facility's operating life when the extent
and manner of its operation would make
closure the most expensive, as indicated
by its closure plan [see § 264.112(a)].
[Comment: For example, the closure
cost estimate for a particular landfill
may be for the cost of closure when its
active disposal operations extend over
20 acres, if at all other times these
operations extend over less than 20
acres. The estimate would not include
costs of partial closures that the closure
plan schedules before or after the time
of maximum closure cost.]
*****
7. In 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart O is
added to read as follows:
Subpart O—Incinerators
Sec.
264.340 Applicability.
264.341 Waste analysis.
284.342 Principal organic hazardous
constituents (POHCs).
264.343 Performance standards.
264.344 New wastes: Trial burns or permit
modifications.
264.345 Operating requirements.
264.346 [Reserved]
264.347 Monitoring and inspections.
264.348-264.350 [Reserved]
264.351 Closure.
264.352-264.999 [Reserved]
Subpart O—Incinerators
§264.340 Applicability.
(a) The regulations in this Subpart
apply to owners and operators of
facilities that incinerate hazardous
waste, except as § 264.1 provides
otherwise.
(b) If the Regional Administrator
finds, after an examination of the waste
analysis included with Part B of the
applicants permit application, that the
waste to be burned:
(1) Is either (i) listed as a hazardous
waste in Part 261, Subpart D, of this
Chapter only because it is ignitable
(Hazard Code I) or, (ii) that the waste
has been tested against the
characteristics of hazardous waste
under Part 261, Subpart C, of this
Chapter and that it meets only the
ignitability characteristic; and
(2) That the waste analysis included
with Part B of the permit application
includes none of the hazardous
constituents listed in Part 261, Appendix
VIII;
then the Regional Administrator may, in
establishing the permit conditions,
exempt the applicant from all
requirements of this Subpart except
§ 264.341 (Waste Analysis) and
§ 264.351 (Closure).
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 15 / Friday.
(c) The owner or operator of an
incinerator may conduct trial burns,
subject only to the requirements of
§ 122.27(b) of this Chapter (Trial Burn
Permits). '
§264.341 Waste analysis.
(a) As a portion of a trial burn plan
required by § 122.27(b) of this Chapter,
or with Part B of his permit application,
the owner or operator must have
included an analysis of his waste feed
sufficient to provide all information
required by § 122.27(b)(2) or
§ 122.25(b)(5) of this Chapter.
(b) Throughout normal operation the
owner or operator must conduct •
sufficient waste analysis to verify that
waste feed to the incinerator is within
the physical and chemical composition
limits specified in his permit (under
§ 264.345(b)). .
§ 264.342 Principal organic hazardous
constituents {POHCs).
(a) Principal Organic Hazardous
Constituents (POHCs) in the waste feed
must be treated to the extent required
by the performance standard of
§ 264.343.
(b)(l) One or more POHCs will be
specified in the facility's permit, from
among those constituents listed in Part
261, Appendix VIII of this Chapter, for
each waste feed to be burned. This
specification will be based on the
degree of difficulty of incineration of the
organic constituents in the waste and on
their concentration or mass in the waste
feed, considering the results of waste
analyses and trial burns or alternative
data submitted with Part B of the
facility's permit application. Organic
constituents which represent the
greatest degree of difficulty of
incineration will be those most likely to
be designated as POHCs. Constituents
are more likely to be designated as
POHCs if they are present in large
quantities or concentrations in the
waste.
(2) Trial POHCs will be designated for
performance1 of trial burns in accordance
with the procedure specified in
§ 122.27(b) of this Chapter for obtaining
trial burn permits.
§ 284.343 Performance standards.
An incinerator burning hazardous
waste must be designed, constructed,
and maintained so that, when operated
in accordance with operating
requirements specified under § 264.345,
it will meet the following performance
standards: ..... , .-
(a) An incinerator burning hazardous .
waste mast achieve a destruction and -
removal efficiency (DRE) of 99.99% for
. each principal organic hazardous • • • -.
constituent (POHG) designated (under
§ 264.342) in its permit for each waste
feed. DRE is determined for each POHC
from the following equation:
DRE = Cwih ,.;WqU-t)' x- 1 00%
Where: '
Win=Mass feed rate of one principal
organic hazardous constituent (POHC) in
the waste stream feeding the incinerator,
and
Wout==Mass emission rate of the same
POHC present in exhaust emissions prior
to release to the atmosphere.
(b) An incinerator burning hazardous
waste containing more than 0.5%
chlorine must remove 99% of the
hydrogen chloride from the exhaust gas.
(c) An incinerator burning hazardous
waste must not emit particulate matter
exceeding 180 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter (0.08 grains per
dry standard cubic foot) when corrected
for 12% CO2, using the procedures
presented in the Clean Air Act
regulations, "Standards of Performance
for Incinerators", 40 CFR 60.50,
Subpart E.
(d) For purposes of permit
enforcement, compliance with the'
operating. requirements specified in the
permit (under § 264.345) will be regarded
as compliance with this Section.
However, evidence that compliance
with those permit conditions is
insufficient to ensure compliance with
the performance requirements of this
Section may be "information" justifying
modification, revocation, or reissuance
of a permit under § 122.15 of this
Chapter.
§ 264.344 New wastes: trial burns or
permit modifications,
(a) The owner or operator of. a
hazardous waste incinerator may burn
only wastes specified in his permit and
only under operating conditions
specified for those wastes under
§ 264.345, except:
(1) In approved trial burns under
§ 122.27(b) of this Chapter; or
(2) Under exemptions created by
§ 264.340.
(b) Other hazardous wastes may be
burned paly after operating conditions
have been specified in a new permit or a
permit modification as applicable.
Operating requirements for new wastes
may be be based on either trial burn
results or alternative data included with
Part B of a permit application under
1122.25(b){5) of this Chapter..
§ 2S4.345 Operating requirements.
(a) An incinerator must be operated in
accordance with operating requirements
specified in the permit. These will be
specified on a case-by-case basis as
those demonstrated (in a trial bum or in
alternative data as specified in- :
§ 264.344(b) and included with Part B of
a facility's permit application) to be
sufficient to comply with the
performance standards of § 264.343.
(b) Each set of operating requirements
will specify the composition-of the
waste feed (including acceptable
variations in the physical or chemical
•properties of the waste feed which will
not affect compliance with the
performance requirement of § 264.343) to
which the operating requirements apply.
For each such waste feed, the permit
will specify acceptable operating limits
including the following conditions:
(1) Carbon monoxide (CO) level in the
stack exhaust gas; . , ,,.,.., .,-..
(2) Waste feed rate;
(3) Combustion temperature;
(4) Air feed rate to the. combustion
system; :
(5) Allowable variations in incinerator.
system design or operating procedures;
and
(6) Such other operating requirements
as are necessary to ensure that the
performance standards of § 264.343 are
met.
(c) During start-up and shut-down of
an incinerator, hazardous waste (except
ignitable waste exempted in accordance
with § 264.340) must not be fed into the
incinerator -unless the incinerator is
operating within the conditions of
operation (temperature, air feed rate,
etc.) specified in the permit.
(d) Fugitive emissions from the
combustion zone must be controlled by:
- (1) Keeping the combustion zone •
totally sealed against fugitive emissions;
or •
(2) Maintaining a combustion zone
pressure lower than atmospheric
pressure; or
(3) An alternate means of control
demonstrated (with Part B of the permit
application) to provide fugitive
emissions control equivalent to '
maintenance of combustion zone
pressure lower than atmospheric
pressure.
(a) An incinerator must be operated
with a functioning system to
automatically cut off waste feed to the
incinerator when operating conditions
deviate from limits established under ,
paragraph (a) of this Section.
(f) An incinerator .must cease
operation when changes in waste feed.
-------
7C80
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No.-15 / Friday, January 23, 1981 / Rules and Regulations
incinerator design, or operating
conditions exceed limits designated in
its permit
§264.346 [Reserved]
§ 264.347 Monitoring and Inspections.
(a) The owner or operator must
conduct, as a minimum, the following
monitoring while incinerating hazardous
waste:
(I) Combustion temperature, waste
feed rate, and air feed rate must be
monitored on a continuous basis.
(2) CO must be monitored on a
continuous basis at a point in the
incinerator downstream of the
combustion zone and prior to release to
the atmosphere.
(3) Upon request by the Regional
Administrator, sampling and analysis of
the waste and exhaust emissions must
bo conducted to verify that the operating
requirements established in the permit
achieve the performance standards of
§ ZG4.343.
(b) The incinerator and associated
equipment (pumps, valves, conveyors,
pipes, etc.) must be completely
inspected at least daily for leaks, spills,
and fugitive emissions. All emergency
waste feed cut-off controls and system
alarms must be checked daily to verify
proper operation.
(c) This monitoring and inspection
data must be recorded and the records
must be placed in the operating log
required by § 201.73.
§§264.348-264.350 [Reserved]
§264.351 Closure.
At closure the owner or operator must
remove all hazardous waste and
hazardous waste residues (including,
but not limited to, ash, scrubber waters,
and scrubber sludges) from the
incinerator site.
{Comment: At closure, as throughout
the operating period, unless the owner
or operator can demonstrate, in
accordance with § 261.3(d) of this
Chapter, that the residue removed from
the incinerator is not a hazardous waste,
the owner or operator becomes a
generator of hazardous waste and must
manage it in accordance \vith applicable
requirements of Parts 262-266 of this
Chapter.]
§§264.352-264.999 [Reserved]
PART 265—INTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND
OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
1. In | 265,73, paragraph (b)(3) is
revised to read as follows:
§ 265.73 Operating record.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Records and results of waste
analysis and trial tests performed as
specified in §§ 265.13, 265.193, 265.225,
265.252, 265.273, 265.341, 265.375, and
265.402;
*****
2.40 CFR Part 265, Subpart O, is
revised to read as follows:
Subpart O—Incinerators
Sec.
265.340 Applicability.
265.341 Waste analysis.
265.342-265.344 [Reserved]
265.345 General operating requirements,
265.346 [Reserved]
265.347 Monitoring and inspection.
265.348-265.350 [Reserved]
265.351 Closure.
265.352-265.369 [Reserved]
§265.340 Applicability.
(a) The regulations in this Subpart
apply to owners or operators of facilities
that treat hazardous waste in
incinerators, except as § 265.1 and
paragraph (b) of this Section provide
otherwise.
(b) Incineration of wastes which:
(1) Meet only the ignitability
characteristic under Part 261, Subpart C,
of this Chapter, or
(2) Are listed hi Part 261, Subpart D, of
this Chapter for ignitability only
(Hazard Code I),
are exempted from the requirements of
this Subpart, except § 265.351, if the
owner or operator can document that
the waste feed would not reasonably be
expected to contain constituents listed
in Part 261, Appendix VHI of this
Chapter. Such documentation must be in
writing and must be kept at the facility.
§ 265.341 Waste analysis.
In addition to the waste analyses
required by § 265.13, the owner or
operator must sufficiently analyze any
waste which he has not previously
burned in his incinerator to enable him
' to establish steady state (normal)
operating conditions (Including waste
and auxiliary fuel feed and air flow) and
to determine the type of pollutants
which might be emitted. At a minimum,
the analysis must determine:
(a) Heating value of the waste;
(b) Halogen content and sulfur content
in the waste; and
(c) Concentrations in the waste of
lead and mercury, unless the owner or
operator has written, documented data
that show that the element is not
present.
[Comment: As required by § 265.73,
the owner or operator must place the
results from each waste analysis, or the
documented information, in the
operating record of the facility.]
§§ 265.342-265.344 [Reserved]
§ 285.345 Genera! operating requirements.
During start-up and shut-down of an
incinerator, the owner or operator must
not feed hazardous waste unless the
incinerator is at steady state (normal)
conditions of operation, including steady
state operating temperature and air
flow.
§265.346 [Reserved]
§ 265.347 Monitoring and inspections.
The owner or operator must conduct,
as a minimum, the following monitoring
and inspections when incinerating
hazardous waste:
(a) Existing instruments which relate
to combustion and emission control
must be monitored at least every 15
minutes. Appropriate corrections to
maintain steady state combustion
conditions must be made immediately
either automatically or by the operator.
Instruments which relate to combustion
and emission control would normally
include those measuring waste feed,
auxiliary fuel feed, air flow, incinerator
temperature, scrubber flow, scrubber
pH, and relevant level controls.
(b) The stack plume (emissions) must
be observed visually at least hourly for
normal appearance (color and opacity).
The operator must immediately make
any indicated corrections necessary to
return visible emissions to their normal
appearance.
(c) The complete incinerator and
associated equipment (pumps, valves,
conveyors, pipes, etc.) must be inspected
at least daily for leaks, spills, and
fugitive emissions, and all' emergency
shutdown controls and system alarms
must be checked to assure proper
operation.
§§ 265.348-265.350 [Reserved]
§265.351 Closure.
At closure, the owner or operator
must remove all hazardous waste .and
hazardous waste residues (including but,
not limited to ash, scrubber waters, and
scrubber sludges) from the incinerator.
[Comment: At closure, as throughout
the operating period, unless the owner
or operator can demonstrate, in
accordance with § 261.3(d) of this ,
Chapter; that the residue .removed from
his incinerator is not a hazardous waste,
the owner or operator becomes a
generator of hazardous waste and must
manage it in accordance with all
applicable requirements of Parts 262-266
of this Chapter.] „
-------
15 / Friday, January 23rl981 '
Regulaltons
§§ 265.352-285.369 [Reserved]
PART 122—EPA ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT
PROGRAM
1. In § 122.25, paragraph (b)(5J is
added to read as follows:
§ 122.5 Contents of Part B
* * * * * '
(b) * * *
(5j For facilities that incinerate
hazardous waste, except as § 264,340 of
this Chapter provides otherwise, the
applicant must fulfill the requirements of
paragraph (b}(5j (i), (ii), or (iii) of this
Section.
(i) When seeking exemption under
§ 284.340{b) (Ignitable waste only):
(Aj That the waste is either (13 listed
as a hazardous waste in Part 261,
Subpart D of this Chapter, only because
it is ignitable (Hazard Code I) or, (23 that
the waste has been tested against the
characteristics of hazardous waste
under Part 261, Subpart C of this .
Chapter, and that it meets only the
ignitability characteristic, and includes
none of the hazardous constituents
listed in Part 261, Appendix VII! of this
Chapter; or
(ii3 Submit results of a trial burn
conducted in accordance with
§ 122.27(b} including all the . ,
determinations required by § 122.27(b);
or . . . :. . .- . .
(iii) In lieu of a trial burn, the , .
applicant may submit the following
information:
(A} An analysis of each waste or
mixture of wastes to be burned
including: . ...
(23 Heat value of the waste in the form
and composition in which it will be
burned.
[2] Viscosity (if applicable), or
description of physical form of the
waste.
(3) An identification of any hazardous
organic constitutents listed in Part 281,
Appendix VIII, of this Chapter which
are present in the waste to be burned,
except that the applicant need not
analyze for constituents listed in Part
, 261, Appendix VIII, of this Chapter
which would reasonably not be
expected to be found in the waste. The
Constituents excluded from analysis
must be identified arid the basis for their
exclusion stated. The waste analysis
must rely on analytical techniques
specified in EPA document SW-846
(referenced in 40 CFR Part 261, -.
Appendix III) or their equivalent. .,.-'-
{4} An approximate quantification of
the hazardous constituents identified in
the waste, within the precision produced
by the analytical methods specified in
EPA document SW-846.
{5} A quantification of those
hazardous constituents in the waste
which may be. designated-as POHC's
based on data submitted from other trial
or operational burns which demonstrate
compliance with the performance
standard in § 264.343 of this Chapter.
(B) A detailed engineering description
of the incinerator, including:
' {1} Manufacturer's name and model
number of incinerator.
(2) Type of incinerator.
(53 Linear dimension of incinerator
unit including cross sectional area of
combustion chamber.
[4] Description of auxiliary fuel
system (type/feed).
[5] Capacity of prime mover.
(63 Description of automatic waste
feed cutoff system(s).
(73 Stack gas monitoring and pollution
control monitoring system.
(8] Nozzle and burner design.
{9} Construction materials.
(W) Location and description of
temperature, pressure, and flow
indicating devices and control devices.
(C3 A description and analysis of the
waste to be burned compared with the
waste for which data from operational
or trial burns are provided to support
the contention that a trial bum is not
needed. The data should include those
Items listed in § 122.25(b3(53(iii3(A3. This
analysis should specify the POCH's
which the applicant has identified in the
waste for which a permit is sought, and
any differences from the POCH's in the
waste for which burn data are provided.
(DJ The design and operating
conditions of the incinerator unit to be
used, compared with that for which
comparative burn data are available.
{E} A description of the results
submitted from any previously
conducted trial burn(s} including;
(2] Sampling and analysis techniques
used to calculate performance standards
in § 264.343 of this Chapter,
{2} Methods and results of monitoring
temperatures, waste feed rates, air feed
rates, and carbon monoxide,
(3) Identification of any hazardous
combustion by-products detected,
(43 The certification and results
required by § 122.27(b3(5)(ii3.
(FJ The expected incinerator operation
information to demonstrate compliance
with § § 264.343 and 264.345 of this
chapter including:
(1} Expected carbon monoxide (CO)
level in the stack exhaust gas.
(2) Waste feed rale.
(33 Combustion zone temperature.
[4} Air feed rate.
(5) Expected stack gas volume,-flow
rate, and temperature.
(63 Computed residence time for waste
in the combustion zone.
(7) Expected hydrochloric acid
removal efficiency.
{&) Expected fugitive emissions and
their control procedures.
(9) Proposed waste feed cut-off limits
based on the identified significant
operating parameters.
(G3 Such supplemental information as
the Director finds necessary to achieve
the purposes of this paragraph.
(H) Waste analysis data, including
that submitted hi paragraph.
(b){5}{iii3(A3, sufficient to allow the
Director to specify as permit Principal
Organic Hazardous Constituents (permit
POHC's) those constituents for which
destruction and removal efficiencies will
be required.
(iv) The Director shall approve a
permit application without a trial burn if
he finds that:
(A) The wastes are sufficiently
similar; and
(B) The incinerator units are
sufficiently similar, and the data from
other trial burns are adequate tp specify
(under § 264.345 of this Chapter)
operating conditions that will ensure
that the performance standards in
§ 264.343 of this Chapter will be met by
the incinerator.
2. Section 122.27 is amended by
revising the title, redesignating the
existing Section as paragraph (a) and
making conforming redesignatSons
within paragraph (a), and adding a new
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 122.27 Short term permits.
(Applicable to State RCRA Programs,
see § 123.7) • . ,
(a3 Emergency permits.
Notwithstanding any other provision of
this part or Part 124, in the event the
Director finds an imminent and
substantial endangerment to human ..-.
health or the environment the Director
may issue a temporary emergency
permit to a facility to allow treatment,
storage, or dispos'al of hazardous waste
for a non-permitted facility with an
effective permit. This emergency permit:
(1) May be oral or written. If oral, it
shall be followed in five days by a >
written emergency permit;
(23 Shall not exceed 90 days in , ;
duration;
(33 Shall clearly specify the hazardous
wastes to be received, and the manner
and location of their treatment, storage,
or disposal; , .,.-,,,
(43 May be terminated by the Director
at any tune without process if he or she
determines that termination is .
appropriate tp^ro'tect human health and
the; environment;
-------
7682
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 15
(S) Shall be accompanied by a public
notice published under § 124.ll(b)
including:
(i) Name and address of the office
granting the emergency authorization;
(ii) Name and location of the
permitted HWM facility,
(Hi) A brief description of the wastes
involved;
{iv) A brief description of the action
authorized and reasons for authorizing
it; and
(v) Duration of the emergency permit;
and
(0) Shall incorporate, to the extent
possible and not inconsistent with the
emergency situation, all applicable
requirements of this Part and 40 CFR
Parts 204 and 200.
(b) Trial bum permits, For the
purposes of determining feasibility of
compliance with the incinerator
performance standard of § 264.343 of
this Chapter and of determining
adequate incinerator operating
conditions under § 264.345 of this
Chapter, the Director may issue a trial
burn permit to a facility to allow short
term operation of a hazardous waste
incinerator subject to paragraphs (b)(l)-
(5) of this Section.
(1) The trial burn must be conducted
in accordance with a trial burn plan
prepared by the applicant and approved
by the Director. The trial burn plan will
then become a condition of the permit.
The trial burn plan will include the
following information:
(i) An analysis of each waste or
mixture of wastes to be burned which
includes:
(A) Heat value of the waste in the
form and composition in which it will be
burned.
(B) Viscosity (if applicable), or
description of physical form of the
waste.
(C) An Identification of any hazardous
organic constituents listed in Part 261,
Appendix Vin of this Chapter, which
are present in the waste to be burned,
except that the applicant need not
analyze for constituents listed in Part
201, Appendix VIII, of this Chapter
which would reasonably not be
expected to be found in the waste. The
constituents excluded from analysis
must be identified and the basis for their
exclusion stated. The waste analysis
must rely on analytical techniques
specified in EPA document SW-846
{referenced in 40 CFR Part 261,
Appendix HI), or their equivalent.
(D) An approximate quantification of
the hazardous constituents identified in
the waste, within the precision produced
by the analytical methods specified in
EPA document SW-846.
(E) A quantification of those
hazardous constituents in the waste
which may be designated as POHC's
based on data submitted from other trial
or operational burns which demonstrate
compliance with the performance
standard in § 264.343 of this Chapter.
(ii) A detailed engineering description
of the incinerator for \vhich the trial
burn permit is sought including:
(A) Manufacturer's name and model
number of incinerator (if available).
(B) Type of incinerator.
(C) Linear dimensions of the
incinerator unit including the cross
sectional area of combustion chamber.
(D) Description of the auxiliary fuel
system (type/feed).
(E) Capacity of prime mover.
(F) Description of automatic waste
feed cut-off system(s).
(G) Stack gas monitoring and pollution
control equipment.
(H) Nozzle and burner design.
(I) Construction materials.
(J) Location and description of
temperature, pressure, and flow
indicating and control devices.
(iii) A detailed description of sampling
and monitoring procedures, including
sampling and monitoring locations in the
system, the equipment to be used,
sampling and monitoring frequency, and
planned analytical procedures for
sample analysis.
(iv) A detailed test schedule for each
waste for which the trial burn is planned
including date(s), duration, quantity of
waste to be burned, and other factors
relevant to the Director's decision under
paragraph (b}(4) of this section.
(v) A detailed test protocol, including,
for each waste identified, the ranges of
temperature, waste feed rate, air feed
rate, use of auxiliary fuel, and any other
relevant parameters that will be varied
to affect the destruction and removal
efficiency of the incinerator.
(vi) A description of, and planned
operating conditions for, any emission
control equipment which will be used.
(vii) Procedures for rapidly stopping
waste feed, shutting down the
incinerator, and controlling emissions in
the event of an equipment malfunction.
(viii) Such other information as the
Director reaspnably finds necessary to
determine whether to approve the trial
burn plan in light of the purposes of this
paragraph and the criteria in paragraph
(b)(4) of this section.
(2) The Director, in reviewing the trial
burn plan, shall evaluate the sufficiency
of the information provided and may
require the applicant to supplement this
information, if necessary, to achieve the
purposes of this paragraph.
(3) Based on the waste analysis data
in the trial burn plan, the Director will
specify as trial Principal Organic
Hazardous Constituents (trial POHC's),
those constituents for which destruction
and removal efficiencies must be
calculated during the trial bum. These
trial PHOC's will be specified by the
Director based on his estimate of the
difficulty of incineration of the
constituents identified in the waste
: analysis, the concentration or mass in
the waste feed, and, for wastes listed in
Part 261 of this Chapter, the hazardous
waste constituent or constituents
identified in Appendix VII of that Part
as the basis for listing.
(4) The Director shall approve a trial
bum plan if he finds that:
(i) The trial burn is likely to determine
whether the incinerator performance
standard required by § 264.343 of this
Chapter can be met;
(ii) The trial burn itself vrill not
present an imminent hazard to human
health or the environment;
(iii) The trial burn will help the
Director to determine operating
requirements to be specified under
§ 264.345 of this Chapter; and
(iv) The information sought in
paragraphs (b)(4)(i) and {iii} of this
section cannot reasonably be developed
through other means.
(5)(i) During each approved trial burn
(or as soon after the burn as is
practicable), the applicant must make
the following determinations:
(A) A quantitative analysis of the trial
POHC's in the waste feed to the
incinerator.
(B) A quantitative analysis of the
exhaust gas for the concentration and
mass emissions of the trial POHC's,
CO2, Q2, and hazardous combustion by-
products.
(C) A quantitative analysis of the
scrubber water (if any), ash residues,
and other residues, for the trial POHC's.
(D) A total mass balance of the trial
POHC's in the waste.
(E) A computation of destruction and
removal efficiency (DRE), in accordance
with the DRE formula specified in
§ 264.343(a) of this Chapter.
(F) If the waste feed contains more
than 0.5 percent chlorine, a computation
of chlorine removal efficiency, in.
accordance with § 264.343(b).
(G) A computation of particulate
emissions, in accordance with
§ 264.343(c) of this Chapter.
(H) An identification of sources of
fugitive emissions and their means of
control.
(I) A measurement of average,
maximum, and minimum temperatures,
and air feed rates.
(}) A continous measurement of CO in
the exhaust gas.
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 46, No. 15 ;/ Friday, January 23, 1981- / Rules and Regulations
PC) Such other information as the
Director may specify _as necessary to
ensure that the trial b'urn will determine
compliance with the performance
standard in § 264.343 of this Chapter and
to establish the operating conditions
required by § 264.345 of this Chapter as
necessary to meet that performance
standard.^
[ii) The applicant shall submit to the
Director a certification that the trial
burn has been carried out in accordance
with the approved trial burn plan, and.
the results of all the determinations
required in paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this
Section. To the extent possible, this
submission shall be made within 30
days of the completion of the trial burn,
or sooner if the Director so requests. ;
(Hi) All data collected during any trial
burn must be submitted to the Director
following the completion of the trial
burn. The results of the trial burn must
be included wife Part B of the permit
application, if a permit application is
submitted,
(iv) All submissions required by this
paragraph shall be certified on behalf of
the applicant by the signature of a
person authorized to sign a permit
application or a report under § 122.6.
[FR Doc, 81-2113 Filed 1-22-81; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 65BO-30-M
-------
7884
Federal Register / Vol. 46'. No. 15 / Friday, January 23.1981 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 264
ISWH-FRL1730-$]
Incinerator Standards for Owners and
Operators of Hazardous Waste
Management Facilities
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rules.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency is proposing to amend the Part
204, Subpart O, general (permit)
standards published today in the
Federal Register. The proposed
amendments apply primarily to the
incinerator performance standards
(§ 264.343) and include emission limits
for hazardous combustion by-products,
a variance standard based on an
assessment of risk to human health, and
a procedure to set emission limits for
toxic metals and hydrogen halides
based on an assessment of risk. In
addition the procedure for designation
of POHC's (§ 284.342) is proposed to be
amended to include hazardous
combustion by-products.
EPA is proposing these additions to
the Part 234 general standards because
they are major changes from the
proposed rules published on December
18,1978 [43 FR 58982].
DATES: Comments are due on or before
April 23,1981. A public hearing will be
held March 10,1981.
ADDRESS: Comments should be
addressed to Deborah Villari, Docket
Clerk, Office of Solid Waste (WH-562).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401M St. SW., Washington, D.C. 20460.
Comments should identify the regulatory
docket as follows: "Docket No. 3004,
Proposed Amendment, Hazardous
Waste Incineration."
The official record for this rulemaking
is available at Room 2711, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401M
Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20460 and
is available for viewing from 9 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday
excluding holidays.
A public hearing will be held at the
Auditorium, Department of Health and
Human Services, 330 Independence Ave.
SW., Washington, D.C. on March 19,
1981, from 9 a.m. to 4 pan.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Ed Martin, Office of Solid Waste
(WH-S05) U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401M Street SW., Washington,
D.C. 20460, (202) 755-9203.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A public
hearing will be held at the Auditorium,
Department of Health and Human
Services, 330 Independence Ave. SW.,
Washington, D.C. on March 19,1981,
from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Anyone wishing to
make a statement at the hearing should
notify in writing Ms. Geraldine Wyer,
Public Participation Officer, Office of
Solid Waste (WH-562) U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401M
Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20460.
Oral and written comments may be
submitted at the public hearing. Persons
who wish to make oral presentations
must restrict their presentations to 10
minutes and are encouraged to have
written copies of their complete
comments for inclusion in the official
record.
Preamble Outline
I. Authority
II. Background
III. Summary of Proposed Rules
IV. Regulatory Analysis
V. Supporting Documents
I. Authority
This regulation is proposed under the
authority of Sections 1006, 2002(a), and
3004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended by the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended
[RCRA] 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), and
6924.
II. Background
Early last year EPA began issuing
regulations which comprise the Subtitle
C hazardous waste management system
and announced that the regulations
would be issued in two phases. In
January of this year EPA promulgated a
large portion of the Phase II technical
standards for facilities that treat and
store hazardous wastes (Part 264).
Elsewhere in today's Federal Register,
the Agency promulgated interim final
standards for incinerators under Part
264.
However, some of the requirements
which the Agency believes may be
necessary for adequate control of the
incineration of hazardous wastes are
substantially different than those
proposed in December 18,1978 [43 FR
58982]. The Agency is therefore
proposing these requirements herein, to
give the regulated community and the
general public the opportunity to
comment on them. As a result of the
comments received the Agency may
abandon these proposed requirements
or change them substantially before
promulgating them.
III. Summary of Proposed Rules
A. Introduction
On December 18,1978, EPA proposed
permitting standards for the incineration
of hazardous waste. (43 FR 58946). After
consideration of comments the Agency
is promulgating those standards on an
interim final basis elsewhere in today's
Federal Register. At the heart of those
interim final standards is the
requirement that incinerators must
achieve a destruction and removal
efficiency (DRE) of 99.99% for each
designated principal organic hazardous
constituent (POHC) in the waste feed
mixture. The principal organic
hazardous constituents are to be
designated by the permit writer based
on the difficulty of incineration and
quantity of the hazardous organic
constituents in the waste feed mixture.
Operating conditions capable of
achieving 99.99% destruction and
removal of these POHC's will then be
incorporated into the permit on the basis
of trial burns or equivalent information.
Concurrently with the promulgation of
these interim final permitting standards,
EPA is today proposing a number of
amendments to the standard which are
designed to supplement the standards
and make them more comprehensive.
The proposed additonal requirements
in this package include the following: (1)
a revision to the designation of POHCs
to include hazardous combustion by-
products (§ 264.342); (2) an emission
limit for the hazardous combustion by-
products formed during incineration
(i 264.343(d)); (3) a variance to the
99.99% DRE performance standard for
principal organic hazardous constituents
and the emission limit on hazardous
combustion by-products based on an
assessment of risk to human health
(§ 264.343(e)); and, (4) a procedure to set
emission limits on toxic metals,
elemental halogens, and hydrogen
halides based on assessment of risk to
human health (§ 264.343(f)).
B. Emissions Limits for Hazardous
Combustion By-Products (I 264.343(d))
An important shortcoming in the
incinerator performance standards
promulgated today is their failure to
address hazardous combustion by-
products formed during incineration. If
combustion in an incinerator is not
complete many hazardous wastes break
down and recombine into other forms of
hazardous organic compounds. Thus
even if the principal organic hazardous
constituents (POHC's) in the waste feed
are destroyed in accordance with the
destruction and removal efficiency
standard, the stack gases may contain
other hazardous constituents formed
during incineration. In some cases the
combustion by-products produced may
be more toxic than the unburned
POHC's.
-------
Federal
Friday, January 23. 1981 /Proposed Rules
7685
In order to remedy this problem, the
Agency is proposing,an amendment to
the incinerator regulations which
requires that the mass emission rate of
hazardous combustion by-products not
exceed 0.01% of the total mass feed rate
of POHC's feed to the incinerator. This .
mass emission rate is analogous to the
99.99% DRE based mass emission rate of
POHC's. However, the mass emission
rate is calculated, not as a percentage of
the quantity of combustion products
generated,, but as a percentage of the
quantity of POHC's fed into the
incinerator. Consequently, where the
DRE for POHC's is 99.99%, this mass
emission rate will allow a total emission
rate for by-products equal to the mass
emission for POHC's. The rationale
behind allowing a mass emission of
hazardous combustion by-products
equal to the mass emission allowed for
POHC's is that (1) such hazardous
combustion by-products are believed to
be as hazardous as POHC's and should
thus be equally limited to the extent
technologically feasible, and (2) a total
mass emission limit for hazardous
combustion by-products equal to the
total mass emission limit for POHC's is
technologically feasible since the
. chemical constitutents of both are the
same. EPA specifically solicits
comments on the technological
feasibility of the proposed emission
limit, and on alternate means of setting
emission limits on hazardous
combustion by-products.
As a supplement to the proposed 0.01
emission limit, the Agency is also
proposing to allow more or less stringent
mass emission limits for hazardous
combustion by-products on a case-by-
case basis pursuant to the variance
procedure being proposed at § 264.343
(e)and(g).
The Agency intends that the
hazardous combusion by-products
subject to the proposed emission limit
will be designated by the permit writer
on the basis of information supplied by
the permit applicant. This designation
cannot be made until the components of
the stack gas have been identified. The
identification of stack gas components
and designation of hazardous
cumbustion by-products will generally
take place following analysis of data
from the trial burn, which analysis will
encompass only Part 261, Appendix VIII,
constituents and will be based on the
same considerations upon which POHC
designation is based. Where the trial
burn data show that the designated
hazardous by-products of combustion
have not been destroyed in accordance
with the required emission limit, the
operating conditions will have to be
adjusted to achieve compliance with
this limit and the trial burn will have to
be repeated to show that the required
emission limit could be mejt.
In some instances, it may be possible
for the permit applicant to provide a
prediction of hazardous combustion by-
products based on data from the
literature or from laboratory burns or
previous pilot or full scale burns where
hazardous combustion by-products have
been identified/These data would be
included in the trial burn plan, and
would allow a tentative designation of
hazardous by-products by the permit
writer. This would allow the applicant
to plan for the destruction of these
substances in the trial burn and might
obviate the necessity of a second trial
burn. In cases where a trial burn waiver
is-requested, the applicant's prediction
of combustion by-products, as described
above, would provide the only basis for
designation of hazardous combustion
by-products by the permit writer and for
designation of the operating conditions
necessary to achieve the required
emission limit. Thus, if a trial burn
waiver is requested, the permit writer
must be convinced before granting the
waiver that the prediction of combustion
by-products and their emission rates is
accurate,
C. Limits on Toxic Metals, Hydrogen
Halidss and Elemental Halogens
% 284.343(f))
The proposed incineration regulations
(43 FR 58948) required incinerators to
meet the destruction efficiency
requirement for toxic metals and non-
organic halogen compounds.
Cornmeziters objected to this proposal
on the basis that non-organic
components cannot be thermally
destructed.
Commenters correctly discerned that
the originally proposed destruction
. efficiency requirement was inapplicable
to metals and other non-organics.
However, the destruction and. removal
efficiency approach adopted in today's
interim final regulations can be applied
to metals and non-organic halogen
compounds, because that approach
considers removal of waste constituents
in the emission control system as well
as destruction in the combustion zone.
This approach recognizes that metals
and non-organic halogens emitted can
be controlled through removal and
included in a destruction and removal
efficiency calculation. However, the
Agency elected not to apply a
destruction and removal efficiency
standard to metals and non-organic
halogens in the interim final regulation
because the Agency does not now have
test data to indicate what specific
removal levels are achievable, except in
the case of hydrogen chloride emissions.
Instead, the Agency is proposing at
§ 264.343(f) to require that emission
limits for metals and non-organic
• halogens (other than HCl) be set on a
case-by-case basis by assessing the risk
to human health, using the approach
established for assessing a variance to
the 99.99 percent DRE standard and the
proposed hazardous combustion by-
products standard. The methodology for
these assessments and the manner in
which these assessments are to be
integrated into the permitting process is
discussed in Section E of this preamble.
The Agency anticipates that a risk -
assessment will be required whenever
the permit applicant's waste analysis
reveals the presence of toxic metals or
non-organic halogens hi the waste.
Comments on the necessity and
feasibility of such a risk assessment
and/or the removal efficiencies
demonstrated to be technologically
feasible are specifically requested.
In proposing the risk assessment
based limits for toxic metals, hydrogen
halides and elemental halogens, the
Agency considered whether metals and
non-organic halogens were adequately
addressed through standards developed
under the Clean Air Act, and
determined that they were not. The only
existing Federal point source standards
applicable to hazardous waste
incineratprs address beryllium and
mercury. These metals are controlled
through National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS).
However, the NESHAP for mercury
applies to sludge incinerators, and thus
would not be applicable to all hazardous
waste incinerators. Additionally, an
ambient standard for lead has been
promulgated under the Clean Air Act
and is applied through the State
Implementation plan (SIP) process.
However, some incinerators, due to their
small size, may not be covered by this
standard.
D. Variance to the Destruction and >
Removal Efficiency (§ 264.343 fe) and
(SJ)
A number of comments on the
December 18,1978 proposed
incineration standards argued for
flexibility in the proposed destruction
efficiency. The Agency agrees that such
flexibility is desirable because the
Destruction and Removal Efficiency
(DRE) performance standard may be
either more or less stringent than
necessary to provide assurance of
protecting human health and the
environment in all circumstances. A
basic reason is that destruction and
removal efficiency is a percentage
-------
7886
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. IS / Friday, January 23, 1981 / Proposed Rules
removal standard, and, thus, allows for
varying mass emission rates. For any
ORE, mass emission rates can vary
based on the mass feed rate.
As a result of the comments and
EPA's further analysis, EPA is proposing
to add a variance procedure to the
incinerator regulations providing the
permit writer with discretion to alter the
basis performance requirements of 99.99
percent destruction and removal
efficiency. Under this proposal, the
permit writer may establish permit
limitations based on an assessment of
the risk to human health. If the risk
assessment indicates that a more
restrictive emission rate is needed to
protect human health, the permit writer
may strengthen the performance
standard either by requiring a higher
destruction and removal efficiency or by
specifying a lower waste feed rate. In a
like manner, the permit writer may
reduce the performance standard by
approving a lower destruction and
removal efficiency (or higher feed rate)
if the risk assessment indicates that the
lower rats limit will pose no significant
hazard to human health. Section d
(Estimating risk to human health) of this
preamble describes the procedures for
conducting these risk assessments.
Although the proposed variance
procedure allows the permit writer to
either raise or lower the mass emission
rate the Agency considered the option of
allowing use of the variance only to
raise the performance standard. The
primary reason for including the
variance is to ensure protection of
human health hi those instances where
either a highly toxic stack emission or a
very high through-put results hi potential
risk to humans even at a 99.99% DEE.
Although a S9.99% DRE may not be
required to protect human health in
other instances, the Agency is reluctant
to allow incinerators to operate below
performance levels that are widely
attainable by current technology. The
Agency is concerned that until the value
of risk assessments is proven and the
method of conducting them is perfected,
using 09.99% DRE as the minimum
acceptable performance, with risk
assessment as a tool to increase that
standard, provides a more conservative
approach which is more certain of
protecting human health. On the other
hand, the Agency recognizes that there
ore competing considerations which
argue for making the variance flexible in
both directions. For example, the 99.99%
DRE may not be necessary to protect
human health in a location remote from
population or where the waste being
burned is only marginally hazardous.
Accordingly, the Agency is requesting
comment on the question of whether the
variance procedure should be used to
both raise or lower the destruction and
removal efficiency, or only to raise it. If
the variance is flexible in both
directions, will the variance dominate
the standard, in essence making the
99.99% target moot? Is risk assessment
sufficiently developed that a relaxed
standard based on such an assessment
would be acceptable, or should a
minimum, i.e, 99.99% DRE, be
established?
The Agency recognizes that in some
instances it may not be possible, due to
lack of data, to conduct a scientifically
supportable risk assessment. When a
risk assessment is not possible or is not
conducted at the behest of the applicant,
the. public, or permit writer, the
performance standard of 89.99% DRE
will be the basis for permitting. Over
tune, data will be developed to expand
risk assessment capabilities.
E. Implementation of the Agency's
Proposed Risk Assessment Provisions
1. Procedures for developing a permit
requirements based on a human health
"risk assessment." The manner hi which
the risk assessment-based variance
procedure should be integrated with the
permitting process has deliberately been
left somewhat flexible in the proposed
regulations. Before discussing the many
ways in which these two can be
integrated, some overview of the
permitting process should be provided.
There are basically two routes by
which a permit applicant can obtain an
incinerator permit according to the
regulations promulgated today under
Parts 264 and 122. In one, the permit
applicant submits to the permit writer a
trial burn plan which contains an
analysis of his waste feed, a description
of the operating conditions believed to
be capable of achieving a 99.99% DRE of
POHC's, and a description of the test
protocol he intends to employ in
demonstrating achievement of this DRE.
On the basis of this submission, the
permit writer tentatively designates the
POHC's hi the applicant's waste and
issues a trial burn permit allowing the
applicant to conduct a trial burn. The
purpose of the trial burn is to
demonstrate that the operating
conditions specified in the trial burn
plan are indeed sufficient to achieve the
desired DRE. After the trial burn is
completed the applicant submits data to
the permit writer containing .the results
of the trial burn. The permit writer then
reviews this data, and issues a draft
permit which is subject to public review
and comment before being finalized.
The other route, is essentially the
same as the first, but the permit
applicant does not conduct a trial burn.
Instead, he secures a trial burn waiver.
Such a waiver will only be granted
where the applicant can supply data
demonstrating that particular operating
conditions for his incinerator will
achieve the desired DRE.
The Agency believes that the risk
assessment procedure can be effectively
integrated into the permit process
described above. The integration could
occur several possible ways, depending
on whether the risk assessment is
initiated by the permit writer, the permit
applicant or the public. It can also be
carried out at several different points of
the process—either prior to the trial
burn, following the trial bum but before
issuance of a draft permit for public
comment, or after public comment.
These are discussed below.
A risk assessment variance analysis
will in most instances be performed by
the applicant prior to conduct of a trial
burn. This would be advantageous in
that the applicant would know prior to
the trial burn whether he would need to
demonstrate a performance other than
99.99% DRE. Thus, he may be able to
avoid having to repeat a trial burn,
although the POHC's and hazardous
combustion by-products will not be .
finally determined until the trial burn is
complete. In most instances, the trial
POHC's, designated by the permit writer
from waste analysis data included with
the trial burn plan, will also be the final
POHC's. Thus the permit applicant, on
the basis of waste analysis data in his
possession, will be able to compute
stack POHC emissions at the 99.99%
DRE and at other destruction and
removal efficiencies and to compute the
risks associated with those DRE's.
Hazardous combustion by-products
present a more difficult problem. While
a prediction can be made, the trial burn
may indicate different or additional by-
products than those predicted. Should
this occur, a risk assessment for those
new hazardous by-products would have
to be performed after the trial burn.
In cases where the applicant requests
that a risk assessment for a variance be
performed, this request would be
included in a "variance assessment
plan" submitted as a part of the trial
burn plan. It would include a description
of the proposed methodology to be used
in the assessment. In reviewing the
variance assessment plan, the permit
writer would accept or, require
modification of, the risk assessment
methodology, and would designate the
trial POHC's and trial hazardous
combustion by-products to be included
-------
7687
in the risk assessment. The risk
assessment would then be performed
and the results submitted to the permit
writer for incorporation into the trial
burn plan.
In cases where the applicant does not
request a variance assessment, but
instead it is required by the permit
writer, upon review of the trial burn
plan, the applicant would be requested
to amend the plan with a methodology
for the risk assessment. Then the
process would proceed as described
above. In either case, the performance of
the risk assessment prior to conduct of a
trial burn would add a step to the trial
burn application process. That step
would require that a new part be added
to the trial burn plan, that the permit
writer approve that part of the plan, and
that the applicant complete the
assessment and submit it to the permit
writer to complete the trial burn plan. In
addition, the applicant or permit writer
might decide to provide opportunity for
public comment on the results of the risk
assessment and the variances .
determined by the permit writer prior to
conduct of the trial burn.
In cases where a waiver of the trial
burn is requested in Part B of the permit
application, the same procedure would
be followed regarding a risk assessment
variance. Part B would not be
considered final until a determination of
the need for, and, where appropriate,
completion of, a risk assessment was
made. -
The second option for integrating a
risk assessment into the permit process
is to conduct the assessment following
the trial burn. A probable basis for
requiring a risk assessment at this time .
would be that the data from the trial
burn revealed hazardous by-products
which were not predicted. A risk
assessment at this juncture might be
requested by the applicant in his
submittal of trial burn results in Part B
of the permit application, required by
the permit writer upon review of those
results prior to issuance of a draft
permit, or requested by the public as a
part of their review of the permit
application or draft permit. In any of
these cases the applicant may be
requested (at the permit writer's
descretion) to submit a methodology for
the risk assessment, and upon approval,
to conduct the assessment and submit
the results to the permit writer,
essentially as a modification of Part B of
the permit. If review of the results
causes the permit writer to use the
variance and alter the performance
standard, a repeat of the trial burn may
be necessary. If so, a new trial burn plan
will be required, thereby forcing a
repeat of the permit application process.
2, Calculation of the human health
"risk assessment." Section 264.343[g)
proposes four elements which must be
considered in performing any risk
assessment. These elements include (1)
data on the mass and concentrations of
POHC's, hazardous combustion by-
products, metals and hydrogen halides
which may be omitted from the stack;
(2) air dispersion estimates of these
substances for determining ground level
ambient concentrations of emitted
pollutants; (3} expected human and
environmental exposure; and (4) the
consequences of exposure, including
dose response curves for carcinogens
and or estimated toxic effects for
• rtoncarcinogens. Based on this data, the
Regional Administrator must determine
the maximum level of pollutants ^vhich
may be emitted without posing an
unacceptable risk to human health or
the environment. Operating conditions
necessary to ensure that these levels are
not exceeded would be included in the
incinerator permit.
These regulations do not specify any
one methodology for performing the risk
assessment. Permit writers may, as long
as they address the factors identified in
the regulation, develop risk assessments
in the manner most appropriate to the
nature of the incinerator and waste
feeds in question. The Agency has,
however, identified approaches to risk
assessment which it believes can
feasibly be employed by permit writers
and which satisfy the requirements of
today's proposal. These approaches are
discussed in detail in "Background
Document: Hazardous Waste
Incineration Proposal."
One major issue on which comment is
requested is whether the regulations
should specify a methodology, including
(as discussed below) an acceptable risk
level to be employed by the permit
writer in developing permit limitations
based on a risk assessment. The
following discussion identifies one
approach which could be used by permit
writers. EPA requests comments on the
appropriateness of the method and the
assumptions which are used.
a. Emission rate estimates. Emission
rates can be determined from sampling
and analysis during trial burns or they
can be calculated based on feed rates,
POHC concentrations in the food, and
assumed DRE's. In order to conduct a
risk assessment prior to a trial burn, the
latter approach would be required, and
is straight-forward using the equation >
for DRE in § 264.343(a}.
b. Air dispersion modeling. The role of
air dispersion modeling is to estimate
the ground level concentrations of
hazardous wastes emitted by
incinerators. This data is used, along
with health effects data discussed below
to calculate human health risks from
exposure to the emissions, and,
ultimately, the levels of emissions which
will be allowed by the permit writer.
One appropriate source of information
in developing air dispersion models is
the Guideline on Air Quality Models
(EPA publication 450/2-78-027). The
Guideline recommends specific air
dispersion models appropriate for
various situations. The guideline also
makes recommendations concerning the
source and meteorological data to be
used in these models. This document
has undergone extensive review by the
scientific community and is
incorporated into regulations under the
Clean Air Act.
The Guideline on Air Quality Models
discusses both screening and refined
modeling techniques. The screening
techniques involve simple calculation
' and are based on generally conservative
assumptions. Thus, if screening shows
that an allowable concentration is not
exceeded, more detailed modeling need
not be performed. If, however, screening
indicates that allowable concentrations
are exceeded, it is desirable to use a
more refined technique to confirm these
results.
In performing air quality modeling for
purposes of risk assessments, two
factors should be noted. First,
assessments of impact on human health
are generally based on long-term
exposure to emissions. Thus, there will
usually be no need to estimate daily or
hourly fluctuations. For some
substances *vhich demonstrate acute
effects, shorter averaging times may,
however, be necessary. Second,
hazardous pollutants should generally
be considered chemically unreactive in
the atmosphere. Unless applicants can
demonstrate that the hazardous
emissions are degraded to non-
hazardous substances in the
atmosphere, an inert pollutant model
should be used.
c. Exposure estimates. An approach to
risk assessment which the Agency
believes can most simply be applied is a
determination of incremental individual
risks at the point of maximum ground
level concentration of emissions from
the incinerator. The actual presence of
individuals at this point, or the number
of individuals, would not be considered.
This is a relatively simplified and
conservative approach to risk
assessment. It assumes, in essence, that
an individual is exposed to the greater!
ambient concentration of hazardous •• •
, constituents, regardless of where that
may be. An alternative approach would
-------
7888
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. IS / Friday, January 23, 1981 / Proposed Rules
be to assess the aggregate risk to total
exposed populations. The determination
of individual risk at the point of
maximum concentration avoids the
difficult and often disputed estimates of
actual total population exposure to
different concentrations. Nothing in the
regulation, of course, precludes the
permit applicant or other interested
persons from preparing such estimates
for consideration by the permit writer.
d. Estimating risk to human health.
Numerous models exist for predicting
the human health effects of exposure to
various concentrations of pollutants.
The fundamental question in selecting
the appropriate model is whether the
pollutant has a threshold below which
no adverse effects to human health are
expected. Carcinogens are generally
considered to be non-threshold
substances; pollutants displaying other
toxic effects may have a threshold. In
calculating the risk from several
pollutants with both threshold and non-
threshold effects, the lowest safe levels
should be employed in setting emission
limits.
Non-threshold pollutants
(Carcinogens). An appropriate
methodology for estimating the risk to
human health from carcinogens is the
Linearized Multistage Mode! for Cancer
Induction employed by EPA's Cancer
Assessment Group. The general formula
for this model is P=qi*x, in which P
represents the lifetime risk to an
individual of cancer due to an average
daily exposure, x, to the substance, qi*
Is a value representing the carcinogenic
potency of the carcinogen from
inhalation exposure. Currently qi*
values for inhalation exposure have
beecn developed for 21 carcinogens;
these values are listed in the
background document for this proposal.
Additional values will be prepared by
the Agency hi the near future.
In estimating the daily average
exposure assumptions which must be
employed include the weight of the
exposed individual, the amount of air
inhaled on a daily basis and the amount
of pollutant retained by the individual.
Values which have been developed, and
which could be used by the permit
writer, include a reference weight of 70
kg, inhalation of 20 m3/day of air, and
retention of 50% of inhaled pollutants.
The last value may vary with particulate
size. A detailed discussion on this
methodology and these assumptions is
contained in the background document.
To derive permit limitations based on
a risk assessment, permit writers must
determine an acceptable level of risk.
Two qualitative measures of risk have
been used by the Agency in evaluating
carcinogenic hazards to populations
exposed to an agent These are: (1)
individual lifetime cancer risk, which is
defined as the probability that an
exposed person will die of cancer, as
opposed to other causes, as a result of
exposure, and (2) the number of cancer
cases per year which can be attributed
to the exposure. The individual risk
depends on the carcinogenic potency of
the compound and the concentration of
the agent in the exposure medium,
whereas the number of cases depends
on the individual risk and the size of the
exposed population.
In deciding what risk is acceptable
from a public health protection point of
view the Environmental Protection
Agency regulatory offices have
concentrated on the individual risk. For
example, EPA's Office of Pesticides and
Toxic Substances is considering a
lifetime risk of less than 10~6 as
acceptably low in the case of
nitrosamine contamination of pesticide
products. EPA's Water Quality Office is
requiring the reporting of hazardous
material spills into navigable water that
could be used as a source of drinking
water if the risks are greater than 10"6.
In the Food and Drug Administration
regulations of animal feed additives that
could cause residues of carcinogenic
substances in edible meat, a risk of less
than 10"6 is considered safe enough to
require no use restriction. The Agency's
recently promulgated Water Quality
Criteria for the protection of human
health present values based on a risk
range of 10"7tolO"5.
The attitude of many scientists and
policy makers seems to be that risk of
less than 10"' is too small to justify the
resources required to issue and enforce
a regulation. However, a risk of above
10"* is usually considered serious
enough either to take regulatory action
or to require a determination that the
costs of control are prohibitively large.
Within the range of roughly 10"7 to 10"4
the acceptability of a risk is usually a
result of cost-benefit balancing.
Under the regulation proposed today,
the determination of acceptable risk has
been left to the permit writer. This
determination will be made on a case-
by-case basis as a part of the permitting
process. However, to ensure reasonable
consistency from one case to another,
the Agency anticipates establishing a
"Risk Review Board" to review
individual risk decisions.
The Agency considered establishing
an acceptable risk level in the
regulation, but has determined that such
a risk determination, affecting a local
area, can best be made on a case-by-
case basis after reviewing the local
circumstances associated with the
incinerator. However, the Agency is
requesting comment on the issue of how
acceptable risk levels can be
established, and whether that should be
done in the regulation or as part of the
permit process.
Threshold Pollutants (Non-
carcinogens) For pollutants which
display threshold effects, risk
assessment calculations require
development of an acceptable daily
intake from inhalation of the pollutant.
Unlike risk assessments for carcinogens,
no social judgment need be made as to
acceptable levels of risk. Rather, the
issue involves a scientific determination
of safe levels of exposure.
One basis for calculating these values
is by use of the "Threshold Limit
Values" ("TLV") developed by the
American Conference of Governmental
Hygienists. TLV's represent 8-hour, and
Industrial time-weighted average
concentrations in air that are intended
to protect workers from various adverse
health effects over a normal working
lifetime. For purposes of the risk
assessment associated with today's
proposal1, TLVs would have to be
reduced by. an appropriate factor to
reflect the fact that exposure would not
be limited to a healthy population an.d
for a limited period during the day.
Additionally, acceptable intake levels
may be derived from lexicological data
defining "No Observed Adverse Effect
Levels" ("NOAELs") or similar
appropriate concepts. Derivation of
acceptable intake values, in this case
would require application of "safety
factors" to account for extrapolation
from animal data to man. Guidelines for
applying such safety factors have been
developed by the National Academy of
Science.
IV. Regulatory Analysis
Under Executive Order 12044, the
Agency is required to prepare a
regulatory analysis for all new
significant regulations. This analysis
includes a comprehensive economic
impact analysis and a discussion of the
regulatory alternatives considered. The
Agency has not yet prepared the
economic impact analysis for this
proposal. However, the Agency plans to
complete it and make it available for
public review and comment before a
final rule is promulgated. In addition,
EPA plans to prepare and allow public
comment on a full Regulatory Analysis
before promulgation of this rule which
will include both the economic impact
analysis and summary of approaches
considered.
The Federal Report Acts of 1942
requires federal agencies to minimize
the reporting burden created by their
regulations. For all new regulations,
-------
FeteglRspster /. Vol.
Rules
agencies must estimate the size of the
reporting burden, describe who must
report and apply to OMR for a
clearance. Accordingly EPA is
estimating the reporting burden of this
rule and will submit a clearance
package to OMB as soon as possible.
Congress has recently amended this Act
with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980. After the effective date of this new
Act (April 1,1980} all Agencies must
have OMB's approval of the reporting
burden before any regulation is
published as a proposal or promulgation.
The Regulatory Felxibility Act
requires all Federal agencies to consider
the effects of their regulations on "small
entities", i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions. It requires agencies to
propose for public comment a
"Regulatory Flexibility Analysis" for
any regulations proposed after January
1,1981 which will cause a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
The analysis should include primarily
a description of the impact of the rule on
small entities, an estimate of the number
of small entities affected, a description
of the reporting and other compliance
requirements, and a description of any
alternatives considered to minimize the
impacts.
Although EPA has not yet prepared a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the
small entity impacts of the rules it is '•
proposing today, it believes that a
significant portion of the potential
impact of these rules on small entities
has already been substantially reduced
by the small quantity generator
exemption contained in EPA's May 19,
1980, regulations; an exemption granted
primarily for administrative reasons,
(See 40 CFR § 261.5.) EPA intends to
analyze the impact of these rules on
small entities more thoroughly in the
future, and publish its analysis for
public comment. In the meantime, the
Agency expressly invites the public to
address the impact of this rule on small
entities in their comments.
V, Supporting Documents
A. Background Documents
Two'background documents have
been prepared to support these
regulations, providing rationale for the
need to supplement the interim final
regulations, and the rationale for the
proposals as written. In conjuction with
the references listed in them, these
documents provide most of the basis for
and defense of the proposed regulations.
However, the background document in
support of the interim final Part,264, .
Subpart O regulations also provides '
background information that may help
in understanding the proposed
regulations. Finally, the guidance
documents that EPA is developing for
the Subpart 0 regulations frovide useful
background information;
Thus, the following documents and
others referenced in them support the
Subpart O regulations proposed today:
(Ij "Background Document, 40 CFR Part
264 Subpart O, and 40 CFR Part 265
Subpart O: Incineration"; (2)
"Background Document, 40 CFR Part 264
Subpart O: Incineration—Proposed
Standards"; (3) "Engineering Handbook
on Hazardous Waste Incineration"; and
(4) "Permit Writer's Guidance Document
for Hazardous Waste Incineration".
Copies of these documents are
available for review in the EPA regional
office libraries and at the EPA
headquarters library, Room 2404,
Wasterside Mall, 401 M Street, S.W., .
Washington, B.C. 20460,
B, Guidance Documents
Reliance on performance standards
and the incorporation of case-by-case
consideration of many factors provide
considerable flexibility to accommodate
new technologies, special needs of
' specific locations, and variations in
waste characteristics. To assist both
owners and operators of facilities and
regulatory officials, EPA is preparing
guidance manuals. These will not have
the effect of regulations, but will provide
guidance on how facilities may be
designed and operated to meet the
standards. Future manuals will also
provide guidance on what modifications
and variations are likely to be effective
under the variance procedures. They
will be organized to correspond closely
to the regulations and will be based on
the collective knowledge of the Agency,
the literature, and experts throughout
the world.
EPA has already prepared the
following manuals in support of the
hazardous waste incinerator regulations:
(1) Engineering Handbook on
Hazardous Waste Incineration;
(2) Permit Writer's Guidance Manual
on Hazardous Waste Incineration.
For a more complete list of guidance
manuals that EPA is preparing hi
support of the entire hazardous waste
regulatory program see the preamble
discussion in the January 12,1981
regulation.
(Section 10Q6, 2002fa), 3004, 3005, and 3007 of
. the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
of 1976, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § § 6905,
6912(a), 6924, 6925 and 6927.)
Dated: January 13,1981
Douglas M. Costle,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, it is proposed to amend 40
CFR Part 264, Subpart O as set forth
below:
PART 264—STANDARDS FOR
OWNERS AMD OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE, AMD DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
1. In § 264.342; the section heading
and paragraphs (a) and (b) are revised
to read as follows:
§ 264.342 Designation of principal organic
hazardous constituents and hazardous
combustion by-produeis.
(a) Principal organic hazardous
constitutents (POHCs) and hazardous
combustion by-products must be treated
to the extent required by the
performance standards specified in
§ 264.343. (b)(i) For each waste feed to
be burned, one or more POHCs and
hazardous combustion by-products will
be specified from among those
constituents listed hi Part 261, Appendix
VIII of this Chapter. This specification
will be based on the degree of difficulty
of incineration of the organic
constituents of the waste feed and its
combustion by-products, their
: concentration or mass, considering the
results of waste analyses and trial burns
or alternative data submitted with Part
B of the facility's permit application.
Organic constituents or by-products
which represent the greatest degree of
difficulty of incineration will be those
most likely to be designated as POHCs
or hazardous combustion by-products.
Constituents are more likely to be
designated as POHCs or hazardous
combustion by-products if they are
present in large quantities or
concentrations, pi) Trial POHCs will be
designated for performance of trial
burns in accordance with the procedure
specified in § 122,27(b) for obtaining
trial burn permits. Trial hazardous
combustion by-products may be
designated under the same procedures.
* * * ;* *
2. Section 264.343 is amended by
redesignating paragraphed) as
paragraph (h) and adding new
paragraphs (d), (e), (fj, and (g) as
follows: • .-.•'•• •••..-.
§264.343 Performance standards. ,
*****
(d). Incinerators burnirig hazardous
waste must destroy hazardous
combustion by-products designated
under § 264,342 so that the total mass
emission rate of these by-products
-------
7690
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 1981 / Proposed Rules
emitted from the stack is no more than
.01% of the total mass feed rate of
PQHCs fed Into the incinerator.
(e) After consideration of the factors
listed in paragraph (g) of this Section,
the Regional Administrator may, on a
case-by-case basis, establish
performance standards which are either
more or less stringent than those
required by paragraphs (a) and (d) of
this Section based on a finding that:
(1) More stringent standards are
necessary because the emission rates
achieved by the application of the
performance standards otherwise
required by this Section may pose an
unacceptable risk to human health and
the environment, or
(2) Less stringent standards will
achieve emission rates which do not
pose an unacceptable risk to human
health and the environment.
(f) After considera tion of the factors
listed in paragraph (g) of this section,
the Regional Administrator may, on a
casc-by-case basis, stipulate
performance standards for metals,
hydrogen halides, and elemental
halogens, based on a finding that such
standards are necessary to limit the
emission rates of these constituents to
levels which do not pose an
unacceptable risk to human health and
the environment
(g) The findings under paragraphs (e)
and (f) of this Section will be made after
evaluating the following data, which the
Regional Administrator may require
from the permit applicant:
(1) Emissions of POHC's, hazardous
combustion by-products, metals, and
hydrogen halides, including:
(f) Mass emission rates from the stack,
and
(ii) Concentration in the gas stream
exiting the stack;
(2) Air dispersion estimates for these
substances, including:
(i) Meteorological data,
(ii) Description of the air dispersion
models,
(ii!) Assumptions underlying the air
dispersion models used;
(3) Expected human and
environmental exposure, including:
(i) Topographic considerations,
(ii) Population distributions,
(Hi) Population activities, and
(lv) Modes, intensity and duration of
exposure;
(4) Consequences of exposure,
including:
(1) Dose-response curves for
carcinogens,
(i!) Health effects based on human or
animal studies for other toxic
constituents,
(iil) Potential for accumulation of toxic
cor^iituents In the human body, and
(iv) Statements of expected risk to
individuals or populations.
(h) For purposes of permit
enforcement, compliance with the
operating requirements specified in the
permit (under § 264.345) will be regarded
as compliance with this Section.
However, evidence that compliance
with those permit conditions is
insufficient to ensure compliance with
the performance requirements of this
Section mky be "information" justifying
modification, revocation, or reissuance
of a permit under § 122.15 of this
Chapter.
*****
[FR Doc. 81-2114 Filed 1-22-B1:8:45 am}
B!tLIN« CODE S580-30-M
------- |