81
Thursday
June 24, 1982
Part V
Standards Applicable to Owners and
Operators of Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facilities; Consolidated Permit
Regulations; and the Hazardous'.Waste
Management System
-------
27516
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 122 / Thursday. June 24,1982 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 122 and 264
ISWH-FRL-2089-3]
Standards Applicable to Owners and
Operators of Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facilities; Consolidated Permit
Regulations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of withdrawal of
proposal to suspend effective date of
interim final regulations.
SUMMARY: EPA is announcing
withdrawal of its proposal to suspend
the effective date of the permitting
standards for hazardous waste
incinerators, as applied to existing
facilities, and is ending its policy,
announced on October 20,1981, of
postponing requests for Part B permit
applications for existing hazardous
waste incinerators.
DATES: Today's action is effective June
24,1982.
FOB FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The RCRA Hotline, 800/424-9346 or 202/
382-3000, or Stephen A. Lingle, Chief,'
Technology Branch, Hazardous and
Industrial Waste Division, Office of
Solid Waste, 202/755-9200.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Authority
The regulations for incineration of
hazardous waste [40 CFR Parts 264 and
265, Subpart O) are issued under the
authority of Sections 1006,2002(a), 3004,
3005, and 3007 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, as amended by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act {RCRA) of 1976, as amended, 42
U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924, 6925, and
6927.
II. Background
The Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended by the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976,
requires EPA to establish performance,
design and operating standards, as
necessary, for facilities that treat, store,
and dispose of hazardous wastes. EPA
first proposed regulations for these
facilities in December of 1978 (43 FR
68946), On May 19,1980, EPA
promulgated an initial set of regulations
as a first step in meeting the
requirements of RCRA (45 FR 33066). On"
January 23,1981, EPA promulgated
regulations which established the
statutorily required standards for
incinerators, one class of hazadous
.waste treatment facilities. These
standards imposed identical
requirements on new and existing
incinerators.
EPA invited public comment on the
standards to ensure that we had not
overlooked any major problems in
addressing the comments received on
the standards proposed earlier
(December 18,1978, 43 FR 59008). The
Agency intended to remedy any serious
problems which might be surfaced by
public comments before the;standards
became effective on July 22,1981. In
response to its invitation for comments,
EPA received a number of comments
from the regulated community
contending that, for various financial,
technical, and practical reasons, the
standards were inappropriate for
application to existing incinerators.
Additionally, nearly all of these
co'mmenters stated that EPA had failed
to fulfill a statutory mandate to _ ,..
distinguish between new and existing
hazardous waste management facilities
in promulgating the standards. ^
More specifically, a trade association,
which represents companies operating
(by their estimate) approximately 300
on-site incinerators, alleged that the cost
of complying with the regulations (that
is, to meet the required 99.99%
destruction and removal efficiency)
would force half of these incinerators to
cease operation even though they posed
no threat to human health. The
association estimated that the annual
industrywide cost of compliance
(including the cost of off-site disposal in
cases where closures occur) would be
700 million dollars.
Because the Agency was not able to
address these comments within a
reasonable period of time, on October
20,1981 (46 FR 51407), EPA proposed to
suspend the effective date of the
standards as applied to existing
incinerators, pending a reexamination of
the standards in light of the comments
received. In the same publication, EPA
also proposed to suspend the effective
date of the standards applicable to
existing storage surface impoundments.
The Agency will deal with final
disposition of that proposal in a
separate document.
Concurrent with the proposal to
suspend the effective date of the
standards for existing incinerators, EPA
announced an immediately effective
policy of not calling in Part B permit
applications for those facilities. The
Agency stated that it would permit only
new incinerators and existing
incinerators for which Part B permit
applications were voluntarily submitted,
pending disposition df the proposed .
suspension. - -
-After reviewing the comments
submitted on the proposed suspension,
EPA has concluded that there is no basis
for suspending the standards for .
incineration at this time. Therefore, the
Agency is no longer actively considering
the suspension. Furthermore, since a
suspension is not contemplated by EPA,
there is no longer any reason to defer all
permitting of existing incinerators. EPA
is therefore discontinuing its policy,
announced on October 20,1981 (46 FR
51407), of refraining from requesting
permit applications for existing
incinerators. The permitting policy .
regarding existing hazardous waste
incinerators has been made immediately
effective in order to promptly clarify, to
the public and to the states, the way in
which EPA intends to address these
facilities in the context of the permitting
program and the state authorization
process'. The basis for these decisions is
discussed below.
in. Synopsis of Public Comments on the
Proposed Suspension
Many of the comments received in
support of the proposed suspension
were general statements of agreement.
Those who elaborated made two points.
First, these commenters contended that
Section 3004 of RCRA, as amended in
1980 (42 U;S.C. 6924), requires EPA to
distinguish between new and existing
facilities when promulgating regulations
for hazardous waste treatment, storage,
and disposal. They maintained that the
absence of such a distinction in the '
current incinerator standards is a
fundamental legal defect and that the
suspension is therefore necessary until
such a distinction can be considered.
Second, some commenters supporting
the suspension, principally the above
cited trade association and some of its
member companies, contended that
T implementation of the standards
applicable to existing incinerators
would force closure of many
incinerators which currently pose no
threat to human health. They argued
that, in many cases, the cost of
compliance will be so great as to result
in closure rather than retrofitting or
upgrading and that therefore, failure to
suspend the regulations would impose
unjustified and substantial economic
penalties.
Commenters who opposed the
suspension argued that a regulatory .
distinction between new and existing -
'incinerators is unnecessary because the
current standards have been shown to
be achievable by existing incinerators.
Furthermore, they argued that
distinction between new and existing
facilities is not mandated but, instead,
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 122 / Thursday, June 24, 1981 / Proposed Rules
27517
allowed by RCRA arid that .."-..;.-
implementation of the suspension would
~ give firms operating existing ~
incinerators a substantial competitive
edge over those who construct and
operate new incinerators. They also
argued that EPA's consideration of>
economic impact in promulgating
regulations under RCRA is inappropriate
because the Act identifies protection of
human health and the environment as
its sole objective.
Commenters who opposed the '
.suspension generally focused their
arguments on the claims raised by the
trade association, since the information
provided by this group was an important
factor in EPA's decision to propose the :
suspension. In particular, two
commenters provided a detailed critique
of the trade association's document, ,
contesting its underlying assumptions,
the adequacy of the data supporting
those assumptions and the final
conclusions drawn. At the outset, these
commenters stated that the association's
economic analysis was primarily
conjecture and therefore not appropriate
as the sole basis for a decision .
concerning the suspension.
With regard to specific points made
by the association, commenters. who ~
opposed the suspension identified three
major issues. First, they maintained that,
the trade association did not
substantiate its claim, that many existing
incinerators cannot meet the current ''-'
'standards. Second, they indicated that
the association failed to provide
sufficient evidence for the contention
that those incinerators which dp not
meet the standards will close rather
than upgrade. Commenters pointed out
that the association's analysis failed to
explore the numerous options currently
available for retrofitting or upgrading
existing incinerators and that this
resulted in overstatement of the
projected economic impact of the :
current standard.
Third, commenters who took
exception to the trade association
document criticized the assertion that
existing incinerators operate safely .-"
without meeting the;current standards.
They stated that the trade association ,
report made no reference to any existing
information which would substantiate
the alleged safety of existing
/incinerators currently operating below
compliance levels. One commenter
concluded, based on theoretical
. calculations, that incinerator >
performance levels below the required
99.99% destruction and removal..
efficiency (DRE) will result in ,
substantially higher mass emissions of
hazardous waste constituents.This
commenter also contended thatno
conclusions can;be drawn regarding the
safety of emissions resulting from
operation below 99.99% DRE since the
magnitude of-.the hazard is closely tied
to many site-specific factors. '
Several commenters addressed the
impact of a suspension on the process of
granting State interim authorization
under Section 3006 of RCRA. They
. expressed concern.that a suspension, if
instituted, would cause an unfair and
illegal delay hi the State authorization.
process. They also pointed out that the
delay would mearfthat facilities
permitted under State programs while/ ..
Jthe suspension is in effect would then
need to undergo a second permitting
prqcess, once the Fe'deral standards .
become effective, in order to receive a
RCRA permit. This t\vo-stage permitting
process, according to commenters,
would be" costiy, both to facility owners
and the State programs.
IV. EPA's Response to Comments and
Basis for Today's Action
A. Statutory Issues
Commenters raised two issues which
are relevant to the criteria for decision-
making set forth by RCRA. First,
commenters opposing the suspension
argued that suspension'of the current
standards only for the purpose of .
considering their economic.impact"
would be improper because the statute
specifies only one objective: protection
of human health and the environment.
These commenters concluded that
suspension of the current effective date,
pending re-examination of economic
. impacts, would therefore be .contrary to
RCRA. ; , "
. While the Agency recognizes
protection of human health and the
environment as,the primary objective of
RCRA, we have consistently held that
this goal does not preclude the
consideration of cost factors as they
relate, to the selection of an appropriate
'regulatory strategy. We believe that
economic factors have been . ' '
appropriately considered in "the ,
development of the current hazardous
waste management regulations. For
example, on May 19,1980, in our ~
publication of the Phase I regulations,
EPA stated that the cost-effectiveness of
various regulatory alternatives was
considered in order to assure that
protection of human health and the
environment is achieved through the
most efficient meaW(45 FR 33089). The
performance standard for incinerators
requiring 99.99% destruction and
removal of principal organic hazardous
constituents reflects a consideration of
cost tolthe extent that it requires
performance at a level known to be
attainable by technology currently in -"
Use. -.. "'{..' "'' ''' " ' :.-- -.
Consideration of economic impact
may also be necessary in order to
develop a regulatory program which '
effectively balances EPA's " '
environmeh'tal goals. For example,
economics .iii an important consideration
when the costs of complying with a
particular regulation are so high as to
result m decreased nationwide .
availability iof preferable hazardous .
waste management technologies.. Such a
decrease hi capacity may result in
shunting'hazardous wastes to less
desirable management options, thereby
indirectly affe£ting the degree of
protection ofhuman health and the
environmenlt. In such fi case, the cost of
compliance will, to some extent,
determine the overall level of protection
provided. Therefore, EPA. disagrees with
commenters who claim that the Agency
does not have authority to suspend the
current standards hi order to consider
their economic impact. , ~ ' :
The second issue relating to RCRA's
criteria for decisibninaking was raised
by commenters who supported the
, suspension. They argue that the absence
of a distinction between new and
existing facilities in the current
incinerator standards is a fundamental
legal defect'because the 1980
. amendments to RCRA mandate such a
distinction. I .
In 1980, Section 3004 of RCRA
(Standards Applicable to Owners and
Operators oi: Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facilities) was amended by Congress to
include the following language: '.<''
. In establishing such standards the ,-
Administrator shall, where appronriate,
distinguish in such standards between
.-requirements appropriate for new facilities "
and for faciliti.es in existence on the date of
promulgation pfsuch regulation (42 U.S.C. '
6924), '- ; '-; .';.;. ... '.
While this addition-clearly allows for
regulatory distinction between hew and
existing facilities, it is not mandated in
./all cases. Adlditionally, the legislative
history addressing this amendment ,
suggests that Congress was primarily
concerned with problems which might =
arise if rigid design standards are,
jLmposed on existing surface t
imppundmerits (see'H.R. Rep. No. 191,
96th Cong., Isi Sess.). Therefore, ::,-':
regulatory distinction between new and
. existing hazardous waste management
facilities will be made when
appropriate, as indicated by the factual
record developed during the course of
rulemaking.
-------
27518' Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 122 / Thursday, June 24, 1982 / Proposed JRules
B, Technical and Economic Issues
The trade association document
which provided much of the information
supporting the October 20 proposal
made three key points concerning the
potential impact of the standards on
existing incinerators: (1) That *
approximately one-half of an estimated
300 incinerators owned by its members
cannot meet the performance standard
for 99.99% destruction and removal of
principal organic hazardous constituents
and therefore will close: (2) that
compliance witli the standards
(Including off-site disposal where
closures occur) will cost the industry an
estimated $700 million annually; and (3)
that many of the incinerators which will
close do not pose a danger to human
health at their current performance
levels. However, as pointed out by
commenters who opposed the
suspension, the association did not
provide substantive data to support any
of these points. In response to a specific
request by EPA for further information,
the association has stated that the
above points were based on estimates
made by industry experts in the absence
of hard data.
This lack of data supporting the claim
that existing incinerators are unable to
meet the current performance standard
is significant. The current standards are
supported, in part, by data collected
during 54 test burns conducted in 15
different incinerators. A destruction
efficiency of at least 99.99% was
achieved in all but nine of these tests.
Furthermore, close examination of those
tests in which the destruction efficiency
was less than 89.99% showed that in all
nine tests, the incinerators had
experienced explainable and
correctable problems. In some instances,
for examplei the incinerator operating
conditions were purposely varied to
extremes in order to determine whether
the destruction efficiency would fall
below 99.9955. It is also important to
note that most of the 54 test burns were
conducted during the mid-1970s and
represent technology which was in use
at that time.
The promulgated regulation does not
limit compliance to achievement of
99.99% destruction efficiency. Instead,
the required 99.99% destruction and
removal efficiency allows the
incinerator operator to achieve
compliance through a combination of
destruction by combustion and removal
by air pollution control devices. Thus,
the standard does not demand a level of
performance beyond the capability of
existing technology as demonstrated by
the 54 incinerator test burns. EPA
believes, therefore, that the existing
data indicate that commercial
hazardous waste incinerators can attain
99.9995 destruction and removal of
principal organic hazardous
constituents. Absent the submission by
commenters of any contradicting data
regarding the performance of existing
incinerators, EPA cannot accept the
assertion, made by the association, that
over half of the incinerators operated by
their member companies cannot meet
the current standards.
The Agency also agrees with
commenters who found inadequate
support for the economic impacts
alleged by the association. Even if
signifiant numbers of incinerators were
unable to meet the current standards,
EPA finds no support for the assumption
that these facilities would close rather
than modify or upgrade their operations.
As commenters pointed out', numerous
alternatives exist for upgrading
incinerator performance, such as raising
temperature through increased use of
auxiliary fuel or modification of
incinerator components.
Finally, EPA does not believe that the
association has demonstrated that
existing incinerators not currently
achieving the performance standards
would not present a risk to human
health. This point was also contested
sharply by commenters, who presented
some evidence of potential hazard: ,
caused by existing Incinerators.
In promulgating the 99.99% ORE
performance standard, on January 23,
1981 (46 FR 7666), EPA indicated its
intent to develop a variance provision
for that standard based on a facility-
specific assessment of human health
risk. The preamble to the regulations
indicated, however,, that until EPA
determined that such a variance was
practicable, the Agency believed it
reasonable to require that all
incinerators achieve performance levels
''known to be currently attainable by the
existing technology of high quality
commercial hazardous waste
incineration" (46 FR 7669). The preamble
also indicate'd that "for typical waste
feed rates, most organic wastes will
present no significant nealth hazards
when treated to a 99.99% destruction
and removal efficiency" (46.FR 7669).
In the preamble to the proposed
variance provision which accompanied .
the January 23,1981 rule (46 FR 7634),
the Agency acknowledged that "tire
destruction and removal of efficiency
performance standard may be either
more or less stringent than necessary to
provide assurance of protecting human
health and the environment in all
circumstances" (46 FR 7685). This occurs
for two reasons. First, the DRE
performance standard does not control
the actual mass of hazardous waste
constituents emitted. Second, the
standard does not account for site-
specific factors Such as waste
characteristics (e.g., inherent toxicity),
incinerator design (e.g., waste feed rate),
and location parameters (e.g.,
meteorology and population
distribution), all of which affect the .
actual level of risk to human health and
the environment at an individual
facility. By incorporating facility-specific
risk analysis in the permitting process,
the amendment proposed on January 23,
1981 would have the effect of including a
detailed consideration of the above
factors in determining the necessary
level of protection.
A risk analysis of this type requires
extensive .data describing emissions of
hazardous air pollutants, exposure _
levels, exposed populations and the
effects of pollutants on human health.
Because such data are rarely available,
they must be generated by direct
measurement or estimated by means of
computer simulation techniques. Once
the data are collected and models are
developed, their precision and accuracy
must be evaluated before a meaningful
risk analysis can be conducted.
One of the primary goals of EPA's
ongoing Regulatory Impact Analysis is
to characterize the risks to human
health and the environment associated
with incineration of hazardous wastes.
This activity will provide valuable
information regarding the feasibility of
conducting site-specific risk
assessments. For this reason, action on
the January 23,1981 proposal prior to
completion of the RIA would be
premature. Today^s action, therefore,
does not include promulgation of the
proposed variance provision.
The trade association's assertion that
performance at 99.5 or 99.9% DRE is
protective in all or most cases is
reflective of the Agency's statement, of
January 23,1981 (46 FR 7685), that the
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.
Neither the trade association nor other
commenters, however, provided
information adequate to support the
assertion. Once the RIA is complete-
EPA will have the data to indicate
whether and for which types of facilities
the current performance standards are
either over protective or under
protective. In such cases, EPA will use
the data from the RIA to establish, as
appropriate, either a case-by-case :
variance, as proposed in January 'of
-------
:~ - '-."-/'. I ' '" '
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 122 /Thursday, June 24, 1981 / Proposed Rules
27519
1981, or to tailor the standards to
provide appropriate levels of ., ,
performance for diffeent classes of
facilities.. '." !
In its comment responding to the
.1 October 20,1981 proposal, the trade
. association proposed that, as an
, alternative to implementing,the
suspension, EPA should issue permits^to
existing incinerators that demonstrate
99.9% DRE but cannot demonstrate
99.99% DRE. This approach to permitting
existing facilities would require that
EPA amend the performance standard to
allow this lesser destruction and
removal efficiency for permitting .
existing facilities. However, the Agency
does not have the data :necessary to
support such an amendment at this time.
As "stated above, the Agency's existing
trial burn data clearly support the
achievability of a 99.99% DRE.
C. Impact on State RCRA Programs-
'The preamble to the October 20
proposal recognizes that suspension of
the regulations applicable to existing
facilities would affect the State :
authorization process under Section
3006 of RCRA. EPA has addressed the
concerns of commenters regarding this
issue to some extent in the notice of
February 24,1982 (47 FR 8010). This
notice announced a change in Agency
. policy which eliminates the delay in
State authorization decisions that had
been imposed by the October 20
proposal. The new policy allows States"
to receive interim authorization for
issuing RCRA .permitsfor both new and
existing incinerators (and storage
surface impoundments). However, if the
Agency suspended the effective dates
for certain exisitng facilities, State
authorization to issue RCRA permits to
those facilities would automatically
lapse under the new policy.
This policy did not address the
concern expressed by commenters that
facilities permitted under State
programs, while the Federal standards
are suspended, will have to be issued a
second permit when the Federal
standards .are reinstated. EPA agrees
that adding this complexity (and-,
expense) to the State interim
authorization process is undesirable and
should be avoided if possible. Today's
decision to withdraw the proposal to '
suspend the standards eliminates this
concern. ,
V. Permitting Activities Prior to
Completion of the Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA) . ;
- Executive Order 12291 requires EPA
to prepare a Regulatory Impact Analysis
(RIA) of the incinerator standards
published on January 23,1981. In
accordance with the Order, a major
study is underway to evaluate the
'human health risks and economic
impacts associated with both the current
incinerator standards and several
alternative standards. The Agency
expects a draft RIA to be ready for
public review and comment by April of
1983. : '"
The goal of the Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA) is to provide the Agency
with a comprehensive review of the
costs and benefits associated with the, ,
: RCRA hazardous waste incinerator
standards. This information will allow
EPA to re-evaluate several aspects of
the current standards for incinerators, .
including their appropriateness for : .
' application to existing facilities. The
Agency will then consider the results of
this analysis hi finalizing the standards-
for incineration.^
VI. Regulatory Analyses .
A. Executive Order 12291 ' ,
Section 3(B) of Executive Order 12291
(46 FR .12193, February 19,1981) requires
EPA to prepare a regulatory impact
analysis on all "major" rules. A major
rule is defined as a rule which is likely .
to result in: *
° An annual effect on the economy of
$100 million or more; -",'.;..
- A-major increase in costs or prices
for consumers, individual industries,
Federal, State'or local government
agencies or geographic regions regions;
or : , -, - : -,-'-'.-.' -:-
« Significant adverse effects on "
competition, employment, investment;
productivity, innovation or on the ability
of United States-based enterprises to
compete with foreign-based enterprises
in domestic or export markets.
EPA has determined that today's
action will not result hi any of the
foregoing impacts prior to completion of
a draft RIA on the current incinerator
.standards and consideration of any -
changes to those standards which might
derive from the RIA (see previous
discussion). In addition; EPA believes
that today's action, withdrawal of the -"
October 20,1981 proposal and
discontinuation of the policy of
refraining from requesting permit
applications from existing hazardous
waste incinerators, does not constitute a
rule. Accordingly, the Agency does not
believe thsit an RIA specific to today's
action is required and one has not been -
prepared.
EPA has'submitted this notice to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review under the Executive
Order. OMB's comments, if any, are
filed in the RCRA public docket, Room
S269, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 4CI1M Street SW., Washington,
D.C.20460;i V
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis _^,
Under, the Regulatory Flexibility Act .
(5 U.S.C. 6Q1 et seq.), EPA is required to
determine whether its regulations will
_have a significant impact on a '
substantial number of small entities.
Section 603 of the Act requires that an
initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis be
prepared when a rule is proposed and
Section 604 requires a final analysis
upon promulgation. Since today's action.
does not constitute the promulgation of
a rule, EPA has determined that no
Regualtory Flexibility Analysis is
required. ; ,
List of Subjects
40CFRPART-122
Administrative practice and
procedure, Air pollution control;
Hazardous materials, Reporting and .
recordkeepiing requirements, Waste
treatment and disposal, Water pollution
control, waiter supply, Confidential
business information'.
40CFRPART264
Hazardous materials, Packaging and
containers, Reporting and recordkeeping ,
requirement, Security measures, Surety
bonds, Waste treatment and disposal. .
Dated: June 21,1982.
Anne M. Gorsuch, ,
Administrator. - "
[FR Doc. 82-170S8 Filed B-23-82; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
-------
27520 Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 122 /
/
and
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 122,264 and 265
ISWH-FRL-2024-3)
The Hazardous Waste Management
System
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Interim Final amendments to
interim final and final rules.
SUMMARY: The Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) requires that
EPA set regulatory standards for all
facilities which treat, sHore, or dispose of
hazardous waste. In partial
implementation of its requirement, on
January 23,1981, EPA set regulatory
standards for incinerators that burn
hazardous waste. These regulations
were Issued as "interim final," which
means that, although they were issued
in final form, the Agency invited public
comment on them with a view to future
amendment.
Today, EPA is amending, on an
interim final basis, certain of its
regulations applicable to hazardous
waste incineration facilities. Today's
amendments include revisions to: the
general standards for permitting
hazardous waste incinerators (Part 284,
Subpart O), published in the Federal
Register on January 23,1981; the interim
status standards for hazardous waste
Incinerators (Part 265, Subpart O),
revised on January 23,1981; and the
consolidated permit requirements for
incinerators (Part 122), published on
May 19,1S80 and January 23,1981.
The amendments pertain specifically
to: (1) The permit procedure for
incinerators, (2) exemption of corrosive
and some reactive wastes from selected
Subpart O standards, (3) the
performance standard for hydrogen
chloride emissions, (4) the performance
standard for particulate emissions, (5)
designation of air feed rate as an
operating and monitoring parameter, (6)
Inspection of the waste feed cutoff
system, (7) visual inspection of the stack
gas plume during interim status, and (8)
requirements for data collection during
the trial burn. Additional issues
addressed by this preamble but not
pertaining to regulatory amendments
include: criteria for the selection of
principal organic hazardous constituents
(POHCs), applicability of the regulations
to incinerators installed as air pollution
control devices, and the need for
regulation of particulate emissions.
DATES:
Effective Date: June 24,1982.
Comments Date: EPA will accept public
comments on these amendments until
July 26,1982.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent
to: Docket Clerkr Office of Solid Waste
(WH-562), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401M Street, SW.,
' Washington, B.C. 20460.
Public Docket: The Public Docket for
this amendment is located in room S-
269, Waterside Mall, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401M Street, SW.,
Washington, D.C. and is available for
-viewing from 8:30 a.m. until 4:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, exclusive of
holidays.
FOR FURTHES INFORMATION CONTACT:
The RCRA hazardous waste HOTLINE,
Office of Solid Waste (WH-565),
telephone: (800) 424-9346 or, in
Washington, D.C.: 382-3000; or Jan
Jablonski, Hazardous and Industrial
Waste Division, Office of Solid Waste
(WH-565), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401M Street, SW.,
Washington, D.C. 20460; telephone: (202)
755-9200.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble Outline:
. I. Authority
n. Overview
A. Background
B. Structure of today's preamble
- UI. Amendments
A. Incinerator permit procedures
1. RCRA permits for new incinerators
2. RCRA permits for existing incinerators
B. Applicability of the incinerator :
standards
C. Amendments to the performance
standards
1. The performance standard for HC1
. removal
2. The performance, standard for particulate
emissions ,
D. Requirements for operation, inspection
and monitoring
1. Designation of air feed rate as an
operating and monitoring parameter
2. Inspection of the waste feed cutoff
mechanism
3. Visual inspection of the stack gas plume
during interim status
E. Trial burn requirements
1. Requirement for monitoring hazardous
combustion by-products
2. Computation of a total mass balance of
the trial POHCs
IV. Other Important Issues
A. Selection of principal organic hazardous
constituents
B. Applicability of Ihe incinerator
regulations.to fume incinerators
C. Regulation of particulate emissions from.
hazardous waste incinerators
V. Supporting Documents
A. Background documents
B. Guidance documents
VI. Regulatory Impacts
VII. Interim Final Regulations: Effective Dates
VIII, List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 122, 264,
and 265
I. Authority
This amendment is issued under the
authority of Sections 1006,2002(a), 3004,
and 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act, as amended by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
of 1976, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6905, V
6912(a), 6924, and 6925.
II. Overview
A. Background
The Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended by the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976, requires EPA
to establish a national regulatory
program to insure that hazardous wastes
.are managed in a manner which does
not endanger human h'ealth or the *
environment from the time they are
created until their eventual destruction
or final disposition. To this end, the Act
requires- regulations governing
generation and transport of hazardous
waste and/most significantly for today's
amendments, requires that all treatment,
storage, and disposal of hazardous
wastes be conducted in accordance with
a valid RCRA permit.
The Act defines a hazardous waste as
any solid waste which may cause
mortality or serious illness, or may
"pose a substantial present or potential
hazard to human health or the
environment when improperly treated,
stored, transported, or disposed of, or
otherwise managed." (42 U.S.C. 6921)
The statute further requires EPA to list
specific hazardous wastes and to
establish criteria by which wastes
which are not specifically listed may be
identified as hazardous. The statute alsq
requires EPA to:
Promulgate regulations establishing such
performance standards, applicable to owners
and operators of facilities-for the treatment,
storage or disposal of hazardous waste
identified or listed under this subtitle, as may
be necessary to protect human health or the
environment. (42 U.S.C. 6924)
Each such facility must apply for and
receive a permit which applies the
standards to its own particular
circumstances and states its particular
compliance obligations.
RCRA allows existing facilities to
operate during the period before a final
permit decision is reached, provided
that the owner or operator has made a
timely submission of the required permit
application. A facility is legally eligible
for operation during this period, called
the period of "interim status," only if it
was in existence on November 19,1980,
and if the owner or operator submits a
RCRA permit application.
On May 19,1980, EPA published
initial regulations as a first step in
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 122 / Thursday, June 24, 1982 /Rules and Regulations 27521
meeting the'requirements of RCRA.
Appendix VIII of those regulations
specified certain chemical substances
which, when present in a waste, could -
. serve as a basis for designating the
waste as hazardous for purposes of''
regulation under RCRA. The regulations
then explicitly listed a large number of
hazardous wastes (see 40 CFR Part 261).
In addition, these regulations list four
"characteristics" by which additional
wastes jnay be classified as hazardous.
These are ignltability, corrosivity,
reactivity and Extraction Procedure (EP)
toxicity (which generally measures a
tendency to release specific hazardous
chemicals through leaching). The May
19,1980 promulgation also included
some general requirements for the
operation of existing facilities during
interim status, .including limited interim
status standards for hazardous waste
incinerators.
On January 23,1981, EPA promulgated
regulations which established the
statutorily required standards for'
issuing operating permits to one class of
hazardous waste treatment facilities:
incinerators (46 FR 7666). These
standards set forth the requirements
incinerators must meet to qualify for the
"operating permit which the statute
contemplates every RCRA facility will
eventually receive.
Because of- the large number of RCRA -
permits that must be issued, the permit
application needed to qualify for interim
status may be due years before the .
facility's individual permit will be
considered. Requiring all of the
information needed for a decision.
concerning the facility permit at the time
of qualification for interim status would
result in a requirement that owners and
operators provide a great deal of
information to the Agency long before it
-. is needed for regulatory purposes.
Furthermore, because of the lengthy
period which ensues following
qualification for interim status,
information provided so far in advance
might well be outdated by the time EPA
begins to evaluate the permit
application.
To avoid this result, EPA has divided
the permit application into two parts.
Part A, which is relatively brief, is filed -.
by owners and operators of existing
facilities in order to qualify for interim
status. Part B of the permit application
contains the balance of the information
necessary to fully evaluate, the facility's
performance and reach a decision
concerning issuance of a permit. A ,
facility may file a Part B application
voluntarily at any time. Alternatively,
the Agency may require its submission.
EPA's January 23,1981 regulations
specifically identified the information
necessary to complete a Part B
application for an incinerator. In many
cases,, the required information can only
be collected by conducting a test burn
using the hazardous waste which the
facility will eventually be permitted to
treat. The regulations therefore specified
the information to be collected during
such a test burn.
The regulations also specified three
broad substantive requirements
regarding incinerator performance. They
are that the principal organic hazardous
constituents (POHCs) designated in
each waste must be destroyed and/or
removed to an efficiency of 99.99%, that
participate emissions must not exceed
-180 milligrams per dry standard cubic
meter corrected to 12% carbon dioxide
in the stack gas, and that, in most cases,
the gaseous hydrogen chloride (HC1)
resulting from combustion must be-
reduced by 99% prior to release to the
atmosphere.;The regulations also .
specified a number of requirements for
incinerator operation, performance
monitoring and inspections. Finally, they
established the procedures by which
permits to hazardous waste incinerators
would be granted.
During the comment period which
followed publication of the incinerator
regulations, the Agency received
numerous comments which suggested ,
that changes or clarifications were
needed. In addition, the Agency held a
public hearing and technical assistance
conference in Cincinnati, Ohio'oil April
21 and 22,1981, at which additional
comments were received. After careful
evaluation of these comments, EPA has
determined that modification of certain
Subpart O regulations would enhance
their technical feasibility and reduce the
" cost of compliance, while maintaining
adequate protection of human health
and the environment.
Portions of today's preamble and
amendments address issues that were
also "raised by the litigants in AMSA v.
EPA, Nos. 81-1440 etal. (D.C. Cir. 1981),
a lawsuit seeking review of the January
23,1981 incinerator regulations. Those
litigants include an environmental
advocacy group (the Environmental
Defense Fund), hazardous waste
generators (the Chemical
Manufacturers' Association .and the
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage
Agencies) and waste incinerator
specialists (the National Solid Wastes
Management Association and SCA
Services, Inc.). They have, in the context
of settlement negotiations, seen an'
earlier draft of today's amendments.
Their written comments are included hi
the record of this rule-making. The
Background Document for today's
amendments cites those comments
whenever the Agency has relied on
information 'included hi them..
B. Introduction to Today's Preamble
Today, EPA is amending the
incinerator regulations in a number of
, respects, none of which changes them
fundamentally.'Each of these changes is
discussed, in detail, below. The changes
fall into five; major areas: (1) Changes to
the procedures for issumg incinerator
permits, (2) changes to the scope of,
applicability of the incinerator :
regulations, (3) modifications to the
performance standards, (4) changes in
the requirements for'incinerator
operation, performance monitoring and
inspection, and (5) minor alterations in
the trial bunii data collection
requirements.
The amendments published today
include changes to all of the Part 264,
Subpart O sections, except § 264,342
(Principal Organic Hazardous
Gonstituente). Certain changes are being
made simply to clarify the intent of the
regulations or to correct for procedural
difficulties. For example, § 264.341
(Waste, analysis) is being revised to
acknowledge problems encountered by
applicants seeking permits for new
incinerators prior to construction. This
change simply formalizes the Agency's
intent to require waste, analysis
information to. the extent that it is
available to pwners and operators of
new facilities. Other changes alter the
regulatory requirements. For example, *
§ 264.340 (Applicability) is being revised
to expand the number of wastes which
may be exerapted from the performance
standards 61'Subpart O. .
As a result of the changes to Part 264,
minor confoiming changes are necessary
in the permit application requirements
of § § 122.25 and 122.27. Other, more
significant, changes to § 122.27 follow
from recognition of the need to operate
new facilities for periods before and '
after the trial burn. Today's - * -
amendments! also include changes to the
data reporting requirements of §§ 122.25
and 122.27. The Agency is removing the ..
requirements for identification of
hazardous combustion by-products from
these sections 'singe the amendment
pertaining toi those substances
(proposed January 23,1981, 46 FR 7684) ,
is still under consideration. The
provisions regarding waste analysis in,
§ 122v27(b) have been rewritten in order
to more clearly describe the three-step
process by which wastes should be
screened for hazardous constituents.
Additionally, EPA has modified the
requirement in § 122.27 for computation
of a total mass .balance of the trial
-------
27522 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 122 / Thursday, June 24, 4982 / Rules and Regulations
POHCs following completion of the trial
burn.
Today's amendments include two
changes to the interim status standards
for incinerators (Part 265, Subpart O).
Section 265.340 (Applicability) is being
revised to reflect the amendment to
5 204.340 concerning wastes which may
be exempted from the Part 264, Subpart
O performance standards. Secondly, the
provision for hourly visual inspection of
the stack gas plume (§ 265.347) is being
deleted in order to compensate for
various practical problems inherent in
the original regulation. EPA believes
that these and all of today's
amendments will reduce the regulatory
burden imposed on hazardous waste
incinerators without compromising the
integrity of its mandate under RCRA to
protect human health and the
environment.
The following table summarizes the
significant changes made by today's
amendments. It is presented here as an
aid-to tile reader in recognizing the
changes made in the regulatory
requirements and is not intended to be
used as a surrogate for the regulatory
text. The statements appearing in the
table are intended as brief summaries
and do not include all aspects of the
existing and amended regulations. The
reader is referred to the regulatory
paragraphs cited in the table for
information contferning specific
requirements.
Public comments received in response
to the January 23,, 1981 regulations
raised several issues which related to
interpretation of the regulations and the
, basis and purpose of specific
requirements. Today's preamble also
discusses these issues and provides a
statement regarding the Agency's
position on each.
The basis and purpose of today's
amendments is presented, in greater
detail, in the Background Document
which is a companion to this notice. The
document also provides the Agency's
response to public comments which
relate specifically to the amendments.
Comments not germane to today's
amendments continue to be under
consideration by the Agency and will be
addressed in the future.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT AMENDMENTS TO THE REGULATIONS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE
INCINERATORS
Section
864,340 >.
/
2
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 122 ./ Thursday, June 24, 1982 / Rules and, Regulations 27523
order to identify possible mechanical
difficulties, ensure that the facility has
reached operational readiness and
achieve steady-state operating
conditions prior to conducting the trial
burn. These purposes may be partially
accomplished by operating the unit with
auxiliary fuel or non-hazardous waste
(e.g.; for conditioning of refractories).
One litigant felt that burning of
hazardous waste should not be allowed
during shake-down. Engineering
considerations, however, will
necessitate operation of the incinerator,
prior to:conducting the trial burn, using
the .hazardous'waste or wastes .for
which the permit,will be written. Thus,
the amended regulation allows the
Director to specify, on a case-by-case
basis, conditions under which a new
facilitymay operate to treat hazardous
waste during the shakedown period. N
This phase of the permit is limited to
720 hours of operation to treat
hazardous' waste (approximately 30
days of continuous operation) hi order
to prevent prolonged operation in the
absence of permit requirements of
demonstrated adequacy. The Director
may extend the allowable hazardous
waste treatment period for one ~ ,
additional period of up to 720 hours if
the applicant is able to demonstrate
cause for the extension. Requests for
extensions should be accompanied by a
detailed statement regarding the
incinerator's performance and the need
for the extension.
The provision for a single extension
answers one litigant's concern that ' '.-
public participation might be excluded
from decisions to allow burning of
hazardous wastes during shake-down.
The initial.pu.blic hearing will allow an ,
opportunity to comment on the permit
conditions to be imposed during shake-
down and on the single extension. If
operational constraints require further
extension of the shake-down period,
opportunity for additional public
participation is appropriate. Thus,
further extensions will require
modification of the permit, according to
the procedures of § 122.15 [Modification
or revocation .and reissuance of
permits);
The operating requirements for the
shake-down period must meet two
criteria: (1) They must be sufficiently
stringent, based on the Director's best
engineering judgment, to meet the
performance standards of § 264.343, and
(2) they must not restrict operation to '
such a degree that the opetator is unable
to prepare the incinerator to perform -
properly during the trial burn. Design
and.operating information submitted
with Part B of the permit application and
the experience gained from other permit
deliberations will aid the Director in >
determining whether the incinerator is
likely to achieve the performance
standards of § 264.343 when operated
under certain conditions. Sufficiently
conservative conditions can be
implemented by limiting the waste feed
rate or concentration of hazardous
constituents input to the incinerator, or
by requiring operation at temperatures
in the upper reaches of the incinerator's
operating range/The Director should be .
able to specify conditions which, will
protect human health and the
environment while allowing sufficient
inputs of hazardous wastes to prepare
' the incinerator to function properly .
during the trial burn. , :
There are numerous feasible "
approaches to establishing acceptable
opera ting conditions during the shake-
down period. For example, some
applicants may wish to operate in the
, early stages of the shake-down .period
using auxiliary fuel or non-hazardous
wastes, followed by an informal or
small-scale trial burn. The results of this
burn might then be used to establish a
' preliminary set of operating conditions;
to be effective during the remainder of ..
the shake-down. Alternatively; the
applicant might operate during shake-
down under the operating requirements
originally proposed by EPA in December
of 1978 (43 FR 59008). The final decision
will be made on a case-by-case basis.
The permit application must be ,
accompanied by a statement which * _
identifies the conditions under which he
proposes to operate during shake-down -
and gives some justification for selecting
these conditions. The Director will
evaluate the proposal and decide upon
the conditions to be included in the
permit
''- After timely and satisfactory
completion of all shake-down
operations, the second phase of the -
permit begins. This phase consists solely
of the. period allotted for conducting the
trial burn. The operatmg requirements
applicable during this phase will "be set
in accordance with the trial burn plan
and will be determined following a
careful review of the plan arid aU other
information submitted,with Part B of the
permit application. "-''
Following completion of the trial burn,
a period of several weeks to several
months will be necessary for completion
and submission of the trial burn results
and subsequent specification of
operatmg conditions to reflect the '
results. This period represents the third
operational phase of the permit. Since
shutdown of the incinerator during this
period might result hi substantial
financial losses, and hi diversion, of
hazardous wastes to less effective ' :
treatment alternatives, the Agency has
determined that some provision must be
made to allow operation. The
amendment, therefore, will allow the
Director to specify a set of operating
requirements .to take effect following
completion olf the trial burn and until
modified operating requirements are
specified in the facility permit. -
EPA has considered numerous
approaches for setting requirements to
be applied dmring this phase. The
amended regulation requires that the
permit conditions be designed to meet
the performance standards of § 284.343.
Therefore, as;in the case of the shake-
down period, engineering judgment will.,
be necessary to set these conditions.
Again, consei-vative conditions should
be applied; for example, the Director
may choose to impose the most stringent
operatmg conditions imposed during the
trial burn or he may restrict waste
composition or feed rate. The
incinerator will have been operated to
treat hazardous wastes during the trial
burn and perhaps-during a shake-down
period prior to the follow-up phase.
Therefore, there may be circumstances
in which the Agency will consider , ;
whether any continuous monitoring data
collected during the trial burn could be
used to assist hi selecting operating
requirements for .the follow-up period.
For example, during the trial burn, the
stack emissions might be monitored for
total unburned hydrocarbons (i.e., all
unburned organic substances in the-
stack gas). By assuming that the total
concentration of unburned ' ^
hydrocarbons measured is emitted in the
form of the POHC * which isi most
difficult to burn, a destruction and
removal efficiency (DRE) might be
calculated using the unburned
hydrocarbon data. The operatmg
.requirements which result in attainment ~
of this DRE dioring the trial burn could
then be designated for application
during the follow-up phase. The
assumptions involved in this approach
are necessarily conservative and act to
offset uncertainty concerning possible
'A principal organic hazardous constituent
(POHC) is an organic chemical which is a
constituent of the waste to be burned and has been
identified as hazardous by EPA in Appendix Vin of
40 CFR Part 261. In each case, the permitting . ....
authority-will designate POHCs to be used in
measuring destruction and removal efficiency of the
incinerator. As discussed later in this preamble the
incinerator will be operated during a trial burn to
demonstrate 99.951 percent destruction arid removaf
efficiency for eaclbi POHC designated by the
permitting authority. The operating conditions
shown to achieve 99.99 percent destruction and -
removal efficiency will then become conditions of
the permit. Generally, those organic constituents
which are most difficult to destroy and most
abundant in the waste will be selected as POHCs.
-------
27524 Federal Register /" Vol. 47, No. 122 / Thursday, June 24, 1982 / Rules and
damage to human health and the
environment. For this reason and
because EPA lacks information
concerning the feasibility of such an
approach, today's amendment does not
require that total unburned hydrocarbon
data be used to set the permit conditions
for the follow-up phase. However, EPA
specifically requests that interested
parties submit comments regarding the
technical, financial, and practical
aspects of such an approach. After
further consideration of the method and
review of any comments received, EPA
will determine whether the above
approach can be used with a high
degree of confidence.
As in the case of the shake-down
phase, the applicant should include a
statement, with the permit application,
describing the conditions under which
he proposes to operate during the
follow-up phase. In the event that data
collected during the shake-down or the
trial burn phases show that different
operating conditions will be necessary,
the applicant may amend the permit
application and the Director may modify
the permit conditions, as required. This
modification may proceed according to
§ 122.17 (Minor modifications of
permits), which does not require
implementation of the procedures
specified In Part 124, including
preparation of a draft permit and
opportunity for public hearing and
appeal.
Detailed review of the trial burn
results will show either that the , -
incinerator is capable of complying with
the performance standards when
operating within the trial burn
conditions, or that compliance was not
attained during the trial burn and a
second test is necessary. If compliance
was shown, the permit may be modified
to set, as the final operating
requirements those demonstrated during
the trial burn according to § 122.17
(Minor modifications of permits). If
compliance has not been shown and an
additional trial burn is necessary, the
permit may also be modified under
§ 122.17, to allow for an additional trial
burn. In cases where 99.99 percent DRE
is achieved for some but not all of the
trial POHCs, the permit must be,
modified to allow incineration of only
those POHCs for which compliance has
been demonstrated. A further trial burn
will be necessary if the applicant wishes
to show compliance for the remaining
trial POHCs. When all permit
modifications are complete, the facility
begins Its fourth and final operating
phase which continues throughout the
duration of the permit
2. RCRA permits for existing
incinerators. Because RCRA provides
for existing incinerators to operate
under interim status whiTe awaiting the
Agency's decision concerning permit
issuance, these facilities do not
experience the operating restrictions
which complicate the permitting process
for new incinerators. The amendments
to the procedure for permitting existing
incinerators therefore do not change the
actual process. Instead, the changes
which have been made only serve to
clarify the sequence of events involved
in the application process.
The revisions at issue affect
§ § 122.25(b){5) and 122.27{b). They
require that owners and operators of
existing facilities who apply under the
trial burn method submit their trial burn
plans either before or with their Part B
permit application. The Director will
then evaluate the plan and approve it
after making the determinations
required in § 122.27(b)(2), If a trial burn
plan is submitted and approved before
the permit application has been
submitted, the applicant shoulcfconduct
the trial burn, and submit the resulting
data with the permit application. If
completion of this process conflicts with
the date set by the Director for
submission of the Part B application, the
applicant should contact the Director to
extend the date for, submission of the
Part B application or submit the PartB
without the trial bum results and
provide the data within 90 days ,
following completion of the trial burn. If
a trial burn plan Is submitted with Part B
of the permit application, the Director,
when approving the plan, will specify a
time period for conducting the trial burn
and submitting the results. Following
submission of the trial burn results and
the Part B application, the Director may
prepare a draft permit which will
specify the proper operating
requirements under § 264.345, based on
the results of the trial burn, along with
all other applicable permit conditions.
This permit will then be processed
through the standard procedures of Part
124.
The trial burn application procedure
for existing facilities differs from new
facilities because an existing facility in
interim status is authorized to conduct
treatment of hazardous wastes.
Therefore, an existing facility needs no
prior approval to continue operation or
conduct a trial burn. However; without
the Director's approval, the owner pr -
operator cannot be certain that the trial
bum data will be sufficient to meet the
Director's needs. Thus, the applicant
will find it advantageous to obtain the
Director's approval of a trial burn plan
prior to conducting the test. During
review of the trial burn plan, the
Director will designate principal organic
hazardous constituents to be monitored
and will specify other data
requirements. However, the applicant
may choose to collect data during the
course of normal operation under
interim status or may acquire data from
similar facilities burning similar wastes
to be submitted with Part B of the permit
application in lieu of conducting a trial
burn according to an approved trial burn
plan.
The January 23,1981 regulations:
required that trial burn results be
submitted to the Director no later than
30 days following completion of the
burn. Comments received following
publication of those regulations
suggested that the 30 day period is not
sufficient to allow completion of
chemical analysis, data computation,
and reporting. EPA concurred with
commenters on this point and has
extended the time period to 90 days
following completion of the trial burn.
As discussed above, the applicant may
avail himself of various options for
submitting the trial burn results and Part
B of the permit application, and should
recognize that EPA, in accordance with
§ 122.22(aJ[2), will allow the applicant at
least six months from the date of request
to submit Part B of the permit
application. Therefore, the 90-day
limitation takes effect only after this six
month period has elapsed.
B. Applicability of the Incineration
Standards
The January 23,1981 regulations
exempted ignitable hazardous wastes
from compliance with most of the
standards for incinerators. This
exemption was allowed because the
regulations focused primarily on
controlling emissions of hazardous
organic substances, toxic metals and
hydrogen chloride. As discussed below,
the regulations require that incineration
of hazardous waste result in destruction
and removal of 99.99% of the hazardous
organic waste constituents. The
restriction on particulate emissions
works to control release of toxic metals
and hydrogen chloride emissions are
controlled through imposition of a s
performance standard for air pollution "
control devices. Wastes which have
been designated as hazardous solely
because of ignitability were exempted
from coverage because they lack the ,
properties which these standards are
designed to control.
As noted earlier, a solid waste
becomes a "hazardous waste" subject to
regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA in
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 122 / Thursday, June 24, 1982 / Rules arid Regulations 27525
one of two ways. Either, the wasje is
designated as hazardous because it
contains hazardous constituents listed
in Appendix VIH and has been
specifically listed as hazardous by EPA,
or it is hazardous because: it fails one or
more of EPA's characteristic tests for
, ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity or
Extraction Procedure tbxicity. The
exemption from the technical standards
for incineration applied to wastes which
are designated as hazardous by either .
means solely because of their ignitable
properties. . _ '""
Many commenters felt that the
exemption for ignitable wastes should
be expanded to include corrosive and
: reactive wastes. The majority of these
commenters further Suggested that the
Agency should designate allowable
concentrations of Appendix VIE
constituents for the exempted wastes.
They also suggested that the exemption
should be automatic, based on criteria
published in the regulations rather than
left to the discretion of the Regional
Administrator,
EPA has decided to expand the
exemption, as_ requested by commenters,
to include corrosive wastes and wastes
having any of the reactivity
characteristics described by § 261.23(a)
(1), (2), (3], (6), (7), and (8). Today's .
amendment to §'264.340 provides for
automatic granting of the exemption for'
these; wastes'when they have been
shown to contain none of the hazardous
constituents listed in Appendix VIII of
Part 261. In contrast, ignitable, corrosive
and reactive wastes having low :
...concentrations of some Appendix VIII ;:
constituents may be exempted if the
Regional Administrator finds that the -
exemption will not result in a potential
threat to human (health and the*
environment. :
Wastes eligible for the exemption
include those which are hazardous
solely due, to any of the selected
characteristics and those which are
hazardous solely due to any
combination of those characteristics.
Wastes which are listed as hazardous in
Part 261 due to the presence of toxic
constituents and wastes having the
Extraction Procedure toxicity'
characteristic will not be eligible for the
exemption.
EPA has not yet listed any wastes :
solely because, of corrosivity. However,
the exemption for corrosives now
applies Jo wastes which are hazardous.
due to failure of the corrosivity test.
Should the Agency determine that .
further listings are necessary, this
exclusion may be applied when a waste
is listed due to corrosive properties. :
With respect to reactive wastes, the
Agency has two concerns: (1) Certain
reactive wastes require careful-
treatment, storage, and disposal because
they may release toxic gases, such as
cyanide, upon reaction with other
substances, and (2) reactive wastes
which are explosive, when burned in the
presence of other wastes, create the
potential for release of hazardous
pollutants to the environment in the
event of an explosion. The exemption
for reactive wastes has therefore been
limited to accommodate these concerns.
First, wastes having the reactivity
characteristics described by §261.23(a) _
(4) and (5) will not be exempted since -.
.they may emit toxic gases and vapors
upon reaction. Second, wastes described
by any of the remaining reactivity
characteristics are explosive or capable
of violent reactions that could disperse
toxic substances into the environment.
Therefore, the amendment specifies that
such wastes, if exempted, cannot be .
burned in the presence of any other
hazardous waste. ;
EPA's selection,of wastes to be; ,
exempted under § 264.340 was Based on
a consideration of the purpose -
. underlying each of the performance
standards of §;264.343. Since the :
destruction and removal efficiency
(DRE) requirement measures emissions
of hazardous organic, constituents and
the performance standard for particulate
emissions is intended primarily as a
means of controlling toxic metals and
hazardous organic substances adhering
to particulate material, application of
these standards is inappropriate when
the waste is known to contain none or
only insignificant concentrations of the
Appendix VH! hazardous constituents.
EPA has further determined that
application of the performance standard
for HC1 emissions to incineration of
these wastes is unnecessary. Although
Appendix VIII does not include an,
exhaustive list of chlorinated organic
substances, it does inqlude a large
percentage of the chlorinated,
substances expected to be present in ;
hazardous wastes. Therefore, we
believe that there will be few, if any,
exempted wastes which, when burned,
will, create emissions in excess of the
allowable emission rate of4 pounds per
hour, set by today's amendment to
§ 264.343.
Applicants seeking exemption under
§ 264.340 must submit sufficient waste
analysis data withJPart B of the permit
application to document levels of all
hazardous constituents listed,"in. .
Appendix VIH of Part 261 which would
reasonably be expected to be found in
the waste. The waste constituents
excluded from analysis must be
identified, and the reason for their
exclusion stated. During interim status,
owners and operators are required to
document, in writing, that any exempted
waste would not reasonably be
expected to contain any Appendix VHI
hazardous constituents. This"
documentation must be retained
throughout the period-of interim status.
' When setting the conditions of the
'.._ permit, the Regional Administrator will
determine whether an exemption should
, be granted lor incineration of an
ignitable, corrosive, or reactive waste
base on a review, of the waste analysis
._ data. This review will focus primarily on
the identity and numbers of any
Appendix \fin (Part 261] hazardous
constituents, hi the waste, and on the
concentrations in which those
constituent!! are found in the waste; ,, '
Today's amendment allows an ignitable,
corrosive, or reactive waste in which
none of the hazardous constituents.
listed in Appendix VHI of Part 261 have
been detected to be exempted without
further consideration of its content The '
Regional A
-------
27526 Federal Register / Vol.,47. No.^2 /Ttiursday, June 24. 1982\l Rules | and Regulations
will be routinely detected by stack gas
analysis and that a waste concentration
of 100 ppni probably represents a
practical lower limit beyond which
determination of 99.99% destruction and
removal will be difficult to document.
Stack gas concentrations resulting from
99.99% destruction and removal of
constituents present in the waste feed in
concentrations below 100 ppm can
generally be measured only through the
use of sampling and analysis techniques
which exceed the capabilities of those
recommended in EPA's guidance manual
(Sampling and Analysis Methods for
Hazardous Waste Incineration) and the
Regional Administrator may presume
they are allowable for purposes of the
exemption.
The Regional Administrator may also
consider available measures of the
relative toxicity of each hazardous
constituent in order to ascertain whether
potential exists for threat to human
health. In rare cases where the
constitutcnts under consideration are
known to be extremely toxic (e.g.,
2.3,7,8-TCDD), the Regional
Administrator may overcome the
presumptive exemption, even when
projected slack gas concentrations are
ao low that modified sampling and
analysis methods will be necessary for
measurement. This approach allows the
Regional Administrator the option of
denying an exemption when the toxic
constituents present in a waste, in his
judgment, pose a potential health
hazard, even at low levels. In granting
discretionary authority to the Regional
Administrator in this limited area, EPA
is particularly interested in determining
the feasibility of future regulations
specifying the toxicity criterion as a
factor in POHC selection.
C, Amend/iienis to the Incinerator
Performance Standards
Tha regulations require that
hazardous waste incinerators comply
with three performance standards. The
most important of these is the
requirement that incinerators achieve a
destruction and removal efficiency
(DRE) of 99.99% for each principal
organic hazardous constituent (POHC)
designated in each waste feed. This
Standard is not affected by today's
amendments. The second performance
standard is a requirement that
incinerators burning wastes containing
more than 0.5% chlorine remove 99% of
the gaseous hydrogen chloride (HCI) in
the stack (.'missions. The final
performance standard requires that
incinerators emit no more than 180
milligrams of particulate material per
dry standard cubic meter of stack gas
(.08 grains per dry standard cubic foot),
corrected to 12% carbon dioxid'e in the
stack gas. Amendments to both the HCI
and particulate control standards are
discussed below.
1. The performance standard for HCl
removal. The interim final, Subpart O,
regulations require that incinerators
burning a waste feed which is more than
0.5% chlorine remove 99% of the
hydrogen chloride (HCI) in the stack gas.
A substantial number of comments
addressed the acceptability of this
standard. The majority of these
comments requested that the
performance standard be modified to
regulate organically bound chloride
only. Many also stated that, since wet
scrubbers used to remove chlorides
operate with increasingly" less efficiency
as HCI concentrations decrease, specific
provisions are necessary for burning
small quantities pf chlorinated organic"
wastes or waste streams having a low
" chlorinated organic concentration.
Commenters pointed out that because
the standard allows a.large incinerator
burning a waste relatively high in
chloride to emit a much greater quantity
of HCl than a small facility burning a
waste which is relatively low in
chloride, it does not regulate uniformly.
Most contended that a maximum
allowable HCl emission level would
provide a more adequate.means for
regulating and suggested allowable
ambient air concentrations ranging from
12 parts per billion to 10 parts, per
million. "
" The amended performance standard
requires that incinerators emitting more
than 4 pounds of HCl per hour achieve a
removal efficiency of up to 99%. The
required removal efficiency will vary for
each facility since, for incinerators
emitting more than 4 pounds of HCl per
hour, removal need only be sufficient to
reduce'emissipns to feat rate. A
minimum of 99% removal efficiency is
required when removal at this efficiency
will not reduce emissions to 4 pounds
per hour. This requirement is.based ;j
primarily on the Agency's determination
that99% removal represents currently
achievable technology and is supported
by data obtained from the test burns
conducted by EPA's Office of Solid .
Waste during 1975 and 1976,'Whenever
HCl removal was measured, the 99%
standard was achieved. Additional
industry reports reinforce these data..
Establishment of the maximum
allowable uncontrolled emission level at
4 pounds per hour results from
consideration of a number of factors
including information supplied by'
commenters. Specifically, the value was
derived through application of the single
source (CRSTER) model for short term
air pollution exposures. The Threshold
Limit Value for exposure to HCl in
workplace air, developed by the :
American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists, was modified to
.account for the hourly difference
between occupational and .
environmental exposures. The resulting
value was then altered by a safety
factor of 100 in order to arrive at an
appropriate ambient air concentration.
This number was used to represent a
safe exposure level and provided input
to the single source model for
calculation of the corresponding
allowable emission rate. This approach
is not only the most acceptable of
methods currently available but is
consistent with suggestions made by
commenters. EPA believes that 4 pounds
of HCl per hour is a safe, and '
conservative allowable emission rate
which insures adequate protection and
resolves the problems raised by
commenters regarding small facilities.
A case-by-case approach to setting
mass emission limits, through the use of
risk assessments in the permitting
process, would further tailor this
standard to reflect actual risks to human
health. EPA has proposed the use of
quantitative risk assessments as a basis
for altering the performance standard in
individual cases (46 FR76&4, January 23,
1981), and will evaulate its usefulness
during the course of the regulatory
impact analysis currently underway. If
adopted as a final regulation, this
approach will provide a mechanism for
varying the HCl emission limit .
established by today's amendment.
2. The performance standard for
particulate emissions. The interim final.
performance standard for control of
particulate emissions requires that a
hazardous waste incinerator emit no
more than 180 milligrams of particulate
material per dry standard cubic meter,
when corrected to iz.% carbon dioxide in
the stack gas. This correction is
designed as a protection against
attempts to meet the particulate
standard simply by diluting: the stack
gas, rather than by controlling the
particulates. Selection of the correction,
factor was based on an assumption that
the stack gas should contain 12% carbon
dioxide when the incinerator is operated
using 50% excess air. Further dilution
with air, of course, would alter the
percentage of carbon dioxide. However,
comments suggested that the required
correction of measured particulate
emissions to 12% carbon dioxide is
inappropriate since it originated from
standards promulgated under the Clean
Air Act which address burning of fuel
relatively high in carbon content (i.e.,
-------
...
,,47» N°- 122 /Thursday^ June 24, 1982 / Rules: and. Regulations 27527
bituminous coal). The correction factor,
commenters contended, is not
representative of typical hazardous
waste carbon content, and does not
consider the high quantities of excess
air required for burning hazardous
wastes. - ' 1.-.' . " -
The 12% carbon dioxide correction-
factor was indeed derived from data.
, describing the combustion of coal.-
Without the use of'excess air, burning of
coal results iri stack emissions which
contain 18% carbon dioxide. Assuming
that use of 50% excess air is ;'
representative of common practices, the"
approprlate carbon dioxide content
'drops to 12%.. -:." "-.-''
- As commenters indicated, there are
two major problems involved in .
applying this factor to .incineration; of
hazardous wastes; [1] The correction is
based on conditions appropriate to
burning materials of high carbon content
and is inappropriate for hazardous
waste incineration because carbon
content,varies considerably among
wastes, and (2) since carbon dioxide is
absorbed to-a significant extent in. wet
scrubber systems, the correction
procedure requires sampling the :'
emissions in the hot zone of the stack,
prior to clean-up by pollution control ."
devices. In order to eliminate, these -
difficulties and correct for the wide
range of excess air use among
hazardous waste incineration facillties
the Agency has selected a replacement
for the carbon dioxide- cornecttbir
procedure. ''','.
As amendfedk the, performance:
standard for particulate emissions
requires adjustment of the measured
particulate concentratibrc by the
following'correction factor; {CF}r
'is.'
CF=
Where y is the, oxygen-measured; in the
stack gas,:expresseiffs-a Trfumelria
percentage. ' ,
This; correction;procedure; parallels
the carbon: dioxide: cprrectiion: since; it
adjusts, the measured narticulata
concentration; to; reflect the same;
- standard ccaiditibnsv, specifically 50%,
excess air.. Tire;factor is derived- from
- the; formula:;
CF=
21-Y
Where X" is: the volumefric oxyjerii
percentage of the. stack gas resulting,
from burning with a given, percentage, of
excess- air,. T is. the volumetric, oxygen;
percentage measured: in. the- stack and 21
is the oxygen content of ambient air
expressed as a volumetrkypercent. At
' 50% excess air, the stack gas will
contain 7% oxygen by volume and the
formula becpines: ' '
CF=
207
21-Y
14
21-Y
This correction factor provides
several advantages. Since pollution
control devices/dp not significantly alter
oxygen concentrations, it is no longer
necessary to sample emissions in the hot
zone of the stack;j3ampling and
analytical methods for oxygen :
: measurement are sufficiently similar to
those used for measurement of carbon
dioxide sO.as to impose no additional
cost. Furthermore, basing the correction
on oxygen rather "than carbon dioxide
content relies on assumptions which are
representative of conditions typically
found during incineration of hazardous
wastes. EPA views this change as one :
which will significantly decrease the -
burden imposed by the performance .
standard for particulate emissions, ;'.-
without increasing the potential threat
to human health and the environment.
For further discussion of the basis
underlying this correction procedure, the
reader is referred to the Background ;
Document for today's amendments.
The utility 'of the new correction
factor is restricted to incinerators which
use only ambient air as an oxygen
source. The factor will necessarily Be"
.altered for units which incinerate under,
oxygen enriched conditions. An ,
appropriate correction factor will" be.
selected on a case-by-case basis, for
these incinerators and '.will" be
established as a. condition. 'of the permit.
A more, appropriate correction factor.
may be calculated by replacing the,
volumetric percentage of pxygen in.,
ambient air, used in the, above formula.
(21%), with a, value' which represerita the
total oxygen ihput to, the.inciheratbr,,
also expressed as a volumetric, percent,
This combined value,. Ki; is. calculated
from, the: formula:
Where Va is the volume of afpfedito^ the
combustion;Zone''and''Vo i's"the volume^of
oxygen fed -to the combustion zone,. Both
corrected- to standard conditions. The-
above correction factor, then^becomes:'
CF=
K-7
K-Y
And is substituted in the equation:
K7 ' -.»'""'.
TT» . -n i*^- '. >- - --
Where PC iis the corrected concentration
of particulate matter and Pm is the
' measured (ibncentratioti of particulate
matter. : '. . '..-_>' ..... . ' '.'. . '..._ '
D. Requirements-for Operation,,
Inspection and Monitoring
The regulations -include several /
requirememts for incinerator operation,
inspection and monitoring. After a
permit is issued, temperature, Waste
feed rate, air flow rate and stack^gas
_carbon monoxide must'be monitored '*
continuously. In-addition, the; incinerator
must be ihEjpected for signs of spills,- ,
leakage and fugitive emissions arid the
emergency waste feed cutpff system
must be tested daily. .The regulations :
require that several operating
. requirements be specified in each
permit. At a mmimuni, these include:
limitations on waste feed composition;
stack gas ciarbon monoxide, air feed ;
ratei waste: feed rate and allowable
.variations in design and operating ",
procedures! Incinerators operating in -
interim staiys are required to monitor
any existing instruments which relate,to
combustion, and emission control at 15
minute intervals. Daily inspection for
_ signs of spiQs; leakage, and fugitive
emissions and hourly observation" of the
stack gas: glume/must also occur during :
interim status. Several amendments to
the operating, monitoring and"mspection
requirement are discussed below, :
including P3ie amendment to the interim '
status requirements. ',
"i. Designation of air feed rate as a '
monitoring'and'operating parameter,
The interinviinal regulations listed
several parameters which were to be
designated as^ 'Qperating. andmonitoririg
requiremenla iaeach:facility permit.
These mchidedcarbon.monoxide in the
exhaustgas^: waste, feed rate,, and ,,
combustion; temperature. Several
comments criticized the. efficacy of air
feed rate mibnitoring.. Such monitormg,
they contended, is riot a reliable
measur.emejitof retention.time 2and is
not feasible, for all types; of incinerators.
Commenteri^suggested that .
measuremejitdf o'ther paiameters, sjich
as combustion gas flow^rate, stack gas
oxygen,concentration, induced or forced
draft fan flow rate,' fan motor current, or
pressure differential within the system,
generally, retention (foe correlates with the
incinerator's deistracfion anoVremoval efficiency. As
retention time;increases; destruction efficiency
increases.. !.,*.' . .. :;;,
-------
27528 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 122 /Thursday. June
bo allowed as substitutes for air feed
rate as a retention time indicator.
EPA originally used the term "air feed
rate" to indicate the rate at which air
flows through the incinerator
combusliort zone. The comments
indicate however, that this term has
been interpreted more conservatively
than the Agency originally intended. As
commentcrs stated, incinerators such as
rotary kilns do not employ a forced draft
system which lends itself to
measurement of air feed rate. Instead,
air is drawn into the kiln at many points
and actual feed rate is impossible to
monitor. In such a situation,
measurement of combustion gas flow
rate is more appropriate.
Air feed rate was included as an
operating parameter for two reasons: (1)
To verify that sufficient excess air
enters the combustion zone in order that
combustion is completed to the extent
feasible, and (2) to provide a ceiling for
the gas flow rate through the
combustion zone in order to assure,
sufficient retention time.1 Since
specification of air feed rate as an
operating parameter is- not appropriate
for all facilities, today's amendment
adds language which allows the use of
other appropriate indicators of
combustion gas flow rate, in situations
where measurement of air feed or flow
rate is difficult. Suitable indicators, such
as induction fan amperage or exhaust
gas velocity, may be considered.
Pressure differential within the system
may also be monitored; however, it is
important to recognize that pressure
differential across exhaust gas wet
scrubbers should not be relied on since
many factors affect the scrubber
pressure and will act to decrease the
efficacy of its use as an indicator of
combustion zone retention time.
The Agency intends that the owner or
operator iselect a parameter which will
allow calculation of the volumetric gas
flow rate, to be measured during the
trial burn, by considering accuracy,
precision, ease of measurement and
facility design. The Regional
Administrator will then evaluate this
selection, based on the relevant
information included in Part B of the
permit application and, taking the above
considerations into account, the
parameter to be measured will be
designated hi the facility permit.
Owners and operators seeking to use
such alternatives should supplement
their Part B applications with
information concerning possible sources
of measurement error and the necessary
compensatory measures, so that a
meaningful evaluation can be made.
Further guidance concerning selection of
an appropriate indicator of combustion
gas flow rate can be found in the
Guidance Manual for Evaluating Permit
Applications for the Operation of
Hazardous Waste Incineration Units.
2. Inspection of the waste feed cutoff
mechanism. The interim final
regulations included a requirement for
daily inspection of hazardous waste
incinerators and associated equipment.
Many commenters expressed concern
that requiring daily inspection of the
emergency waste feed cutoff mechanism
would create an undue financial burden.
They maintained that proper inspection
requires the skill, of a qualified
instrument mechanic and is therefore
too costly to be conducted on a daily
basis. Furthermore, other comnienters
contended that the reliability of such
emergency equipment is sufficient To
support the assumption that an , ,,
incinerator will operate safely even
when failure of a component part
occurs, and that in the event that the
system should not respond, waste feed
cutoff can be' accomplished manually. In
view of the reliability and limited use of
such equipment, several comments
concluded that weekly or monthly
inspections would be more appropriate.
The amended regulation requires
inspection at two levels of detail. Daily
inspections may be limited to visual ,
examination of the incinerator and
associated equipment for signs of
leakage, spills, corrosion or breakdown,
A careful check of the emergency waste
feed cutoff system and associated
alarms must be conducted weekly. This
inspection should be conducted by
properly trained personnel [e.g., an
instrument mechanic) and should :
include testing of the control panel
circuits, triggering, through test circuits,
of alarms and any other associated
automatic functions (e.g., temperature
maintenance systems). Operation of the
waste feed cutoff valve,should be '
included as part of the weekly
inspection in cases where the valve is
not "fail safe" (i.e., does not fail in the
closed position). A fail safe valve,
however, need not be operated weekly.
The degree to which inspection of the
emergency waste feed cutoff system will
disrupt normal operation of the
. incinerator will vary, depending upon ,
facility design and other facility-specific
factors. For example, liquid injection
incinerators equipped with multiple feed
nozzles may undergo weekly inspection
with very little disruption simply by
checking the cutoff to each nozzle
individually while maintaining
operation of the remaining nozzles.
However, disruption may be significant
_in other instances. The amended
regulation therefore gives the Regional
Administrator the authority to allow
inspection of the emergency waste feed
cutoff system as infrequently as
monthly. The Agency intends that this
variance be granted only when the
applicant has shown that weekly
inspection will be highly disruptive (e.g.,
potential exists for refractory shock or
other equipment damage) or will impose
an inordinately large financial burden
due to some facility-specific condition.
In each case, granting of the variance
should be conditional on a finding that
proper operation will be maintained.
The inspection requirements have
been disigned to provide adequate
continuous assurance that the waste
feed cutoff system will respond when
needed. Although the mechanisms .
involved receive limited use and will not
suffer greatly from wear, the potential
for failure due to neglect is significant
and the consequences of failure can be
severe. Visual inspections will identify
obvious heeds for repair. However,
since all components of the feed cutoff
system are not visually accessible,
periodic verification of the operability of
the system in necessary both to assure
protection of human health and the
environment and to protect against the
possibility of equipment damage in the
event that the emergency waste feed
cutoff system is triggered.
3. Visual inspection of the stack gas
plume during interim status. The interim
status standards for hazardous waste
incinerators were published as interim ,
final on May 19,1980. On January 23,
1981, the regulations were amended and
finalized. These standards included a
requirement for hourly observation of
the stack gas plume and subsequent
correction of operating parameters,
when necessary, as indicated by
unusual color or opacity. Petitioners in
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage
Agencies v. EPA 81-1440 (D. C. Cir.)
have identified two problems with
implementation of this standard.
First, petitioners point out that visual
inspection during nighttime- hours is of
little or no value. Secondly, since the
regulation does not specifically identify
"normal" appearance, petitioners
contend tha't compliance with the
requirement is difficult. Another litigent,
however, argued that this provision
should be retained as the. only
significant control applicable during
interim status.
EPA concurs with, the petitioners who
contend that the visual inspection
requirement is impractical. Initially, the
inspection standard was'intended to
establish the operator's responsibility to
recognize serious environmental and
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 122 /J£k^sday,, .^""f,,,,2^
humarLhealth hazards and take the
actions necessary to. prevent or alleviate
the danger.. During; ihteriia status .
however,, the operator's; ability to detect
serious, hazards Is/Bmitedby the,
information: oataihedfiom reading, any
exisiihg coritihQua OE periodic
monitoring, devices, and?, observing the '
appearance, of the, stack gas;glume,
Since avallaBIe equfpniient vari'esr
considerably fromiacility; to, facility, the
regulation, cannoirely on the,use, of any
monitoring devices. Additionally,
standards based on stack plume opacity
or color are-oflimitedusefuffless.sirrce
typical emissions, vary iff steam ani
particulate content Absent a standard
, which would be reasonably; applicable
to all incinerators-, the Agency-Has
dropped the provision-'for monitoring the
stack,gas plume duriiigmteritastaius;
E.TfiaEBumiRequirements
TheJanuary23,. X9SI regulations, set, .,.
forth a detailed list of technical data and
information which must be; collected
during-the frailburn and submitted.with,
' Part B; of: the permit, application; Today's
, amendments to. theperformance,
standards and the: requirements, for
operating, monitoring-and^ inspecting; -
require, that corresprorrding changes-be
made to the UiaLburn information
,: requirements. Ebr example,^ tfie phrase
'.'combustibn:gas:flb:vrrateJ'has replaced
"air fe:ed:rafe"..'Ewo, signifibanL
amendriienfe are; diacussed.below.,
^, Requirement fae,-monitoriri§;
hazardous, coffibustiowby-pnaducts.. On
January 23,1981, in addition to
promulgating, the existing, incinerator
regulations1, EEA proposed^anrendments
to performance standards tor
incinerators.^ Onfrreq^ementwhichthe,
amendmentwouldadd is: a: performance: -
standard foE'destrnctibnL and removal: of
hazardous combustionsby-grbtfucts;
which are; fonned: during; combustion;
The amendment was. intended to
address those; hazardous: substances"
whichmay; be fbrmed when, wastes, are
broken, down in the. combujtioil zone,
and the resulting, chemical; fragments
recombine to form other hazardous;
substances. . .
'.- In anticipation^oCfmalizBig tEe,
proposed amendment, EPASscludeda.
requirement in the promulgated ,
regulations for, monitoring hazardous
combustion by-products-during the trial
burn. Some commenfers and one, litigant
agreed that the requiremenjwould '
provide the Agency with valuable data
describing_the formation; ofhazardous
combustion;Ey-groducts., EPA is
currently evaluating, the proposal and:
will address it after completion of the
regulatory impact' analysis-oTthe
incinerator regulations which is ,
currently underway. Therefore, the
requirement for,identifying:hazardous
combustion by-products in .incinerator
stack gas during the trial burn has been: s
deleted: .-'-'
2. Computation of atotal mass
balance of the trialPOHCs. Section
'122.27(b) of the ihterim final regulations
included requirements for quantitative
analysis-of the scrubber wafer, ash and
other incineration residues and for
computation of a total; mass balance of
, the trial POHCs, both to be conducted,
following completion of the trial burn.
Today's amendment fa § 122127 deletes.
the requiremenf for a; "total mass.
balance of the triatPOHCs," While
analysis of the-scrubber water, ash and
other residues is'still required^ the-
amended regulation states that this ,
analysis is intended to estimate tlie fate
of "the trial POHCs: Ownersand , ; k
operators will not be required to *
account for the destruction or iemoval.
of the total mass of each trial POHC;, ,
However, the-required analysis must '
provide sufficient information to
determine whether the PHOCaarft
primarily destroyed through thermal: >
combustiortor removed either by the air
pollution control system;, or in the '-';
bottbmashr
Comments: received.folio wing,
publication of the Subpart O. Regulation
Expressed a; strong belief that the costs
associatediWithcpnducting a'trial burn
would be much greater (i.e;, $150,000; to
$200,000). than EPA had estimated [i.e.,.
$40,000, to $60,000) This discrepancy
should be somawhat reduced by today's
amendment to §, 122.27[b), sincedt will
eliminate, any^^ perceived need to shut
down: tlie incinerator and thoroughly
empty and clean the scrubber system. ,
Furthermore,. since;many, applicants may
petition the Agency under Part 260; to
delist bottom-ash or scrubber effluents,
the required analysis of residues will
often serve a. dual purpose. The
amended regulation therefore acts: to
decrease the costs incurred during the
trial burn while preserving the intent of
the orignial requirement. . ,
IV. Other Important Issues
Several issues which concerned,
interpretation of the regulatory language
or the basis and purpose of the
regulations, .were raised by a majority of
the commenters who responded to the
January 23,; 1981 promulgation. The - .
issues include: selectibn. bf the. POHCs
in each waste; feed,, the applicability of
the incinerator; regulations to fume
; incinerators, and the need to regulate
particulate emissions from,hazardous
waste; ihciherators. Although
consideration of these issues did not
lead to amendment of the regulations,
further discussion may clarify these "
issues and is presented below.,
A. Selection of Principal Organic
Hazardous Constituents ,
Iri order; to establish compliance with
the performance'standard for 99.99%
destructioiii and removal of .organic-
waste constituents, the regulations
provide for selection; by the permitting^
official, of'principal organic hazardous
constituents fPOHCs) for each waste
feed to be'burned. POHCs are
hazardbus; organic substances'present in
the waste representative of those -
constituents which are most difficult to
burn andmosf abundant in the waste.
The incinerator' standards set but the .
criteria to be used in selecting POHCs
(i.e., easeypf ihcirterability and ; :
concentralibn),; EPA's Guidance Manual
for EvaluatingPermit Applications for
the Operalfion of Hazardous Waste
Incineration Units suggest one method
for maKih|[;the selection.
The destruction,and,remoyal, '.
efficiency is actually measured only for
the POHG sand the.incinera tor's .
performance in treatmg these '.-.'.
substances is used torindicate overall .
performance in treating organic wastes.
When a contrived waste feed is-used for
the triakburn, these constituents will be
added to: the Ieed inxoncentration
similar to those expected during normal
operationvThey are then to be "
'quantified'both m the waste and:in the
stack emisisibns during the trial burn.
This proyiMbn acts to'simplify the
sanipling and analysis efforts which are
necessary to determine whether the
performance standard has been, .
achieved,, thereby reducing the cost and
complexity of :the, trial burn. '
The, regiilation. specified the following
standardfbr use fay the, permitting ,
official in designatihg;PQHCs:,
This specificatioir-willibe; based on the ,
degree of difficulty;-pf inciheration of the
organic:constituents in-the:waste and on their:
concentration pr'nias'fr in, thefrwaste feed,
considering the res,ults:o£waste analyses and
trial burns or al'ternative data submitted, with
Part B of the facility's permit application.
Organic constituents wliicR represent the
greatest degree of "difficully1 of incineration
will be the most likely tobe^designated as
POHCs: Constituents are more likely to be
designated-as-POHCs.if they:are present in
large quantities; or concentrations in: the
waste:, (40:GFR 264.342) ' ''-', /
Many commenters requested that EPA :
provide^more specific.regulatbry
language. (:pncerning;POHC selection
and that a maximum allowable number
of POHCs: per waste be designated. In ,
general, Cijmmenters expressed concern
that, absent more specific guidance in
-------
27530 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 122 / Thursday, June 24, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
the regulations, POHC selection would
be arbitrary and overly burdensome,
resulting in costly sampling and analysis
requirements.
The Subpart O standards provide a"
mechanism for selecting POHCs and
designating operating requirements on a
case-by-case basis through the
permitting process. The Agency has
avoided setting cumbersome design and
operating standards for nationwide
application, and has developed a system
which allows the permit writer to select
those operating conditions, for each
facility, which are the most effective in
achieving compliance with the
performance standards. This selection is
based on a demonstration made by the
permit applicant during the trial burn. In
order to maintain the flexibility of this
system, EPA must avoid the use of
overly confining regulatory language,
and for this reason the specific limits on
POHC selection are not enumerated hi
the regulation. Section 264.342 cites two
general criteria for consideration is
selecting POHCs: quantity or
concentration, and ease of
incinerability.
The Guidance Manual for Evaluating
Permit Applications for the Operation of
Hazardous Waste Incineration Units
presents a forumla for incorporating
these two criteria into a numeric index
intended as a general guide in POHC
selection. That Manual can also assist
the permit writer in specifying allowable
xvaste constituents, based on the feed
constituents burned in the trial burn, *
including trial burns with contrived
waste blends.
EPA's manual.on chemical analysis of
wastes, "Test Methods for the
Evaluation of Solid Waste, Physical/
Chemical Methods" (SW-846), provides
analytical techniques which will detect.
concentrations of hazardous
constituents in wastes down to
approximately 1 part per million. In
selecting POHCs, the Regional
Administrator generally will not select
constituents which are present in a
waste feed at concentrations-less than
100 parts per million, since, for many
substances, special stack sampling
procedures would be required to
measure stack gas concentrations
resulting from 99.99% destruction and
removal efficiency of waste constituents
present in concentrations below this
level. EPA estimates indicate that waste
constituents present in concentrations
as low as 1000 ppm will be routinely
detected by stack gas analysis following
destruction and removal at 99.99%
efficiency and that a waste
concentration of 100 ppm probably
represents a practical lower limit
beyond which determination of 99.99%
destruction and removal will be difficult
to verify.
The Regional Administrator however,
will not always be able to definitively
establish that an organic hazardous
constituent present in relatively low
concentrations (i.e., concentrations
between 100 and 1000 ppm) will not be
detected in the stack gas following
99.99% destruction and removal.
Therefore, a POHC may be selected
which subsequently will not be detected
in the stack gas, despite careful'
fulfillment of the sampling, analysis and
quality control requirements set forth in
the trial burn plan. In such an instance,
EPA intends that attainment of 100%
destruction and removal will be
assumed for that POHC. In cases where
the.waste under consideration contains
none of the organic constituents listed in
Appendix VHI, no POHCs can or will be
designated and the trial burn will be
used only to establish the.incinerator's
ability to comply with the .performance
standards for hydrogen chloride and
particulate emissions.
With respect to ease of incinerability,
EPA has developed a ranking of the
Appendix Vm hazardous constituents
based on Heat of Combustion values.
This hierarchy will allow the applicant
to demonstrate the required level of
performance for a large number of
constituents by successfully burning one
. or several of those which are most
difficult to destroy. The Agency does not
intend however, that the incinerability
ranking be used as a substitute for the
permit writer's engineering judgment.
The list will provide the permit writer
and applicant with a useful means for
identifying the constituents of a waste
which are likely to most difficult to
destroy and may be used in conjunction
with other information relating to the
incinerability of an organic constituent
(e.g., Auto Ignition Temperature), when
available.
Heat of Combustion values are
measured tinder controlled laboratory
conditions or derived from theoretical
calculations. Therefore, they provide
only an indication of the temperature at
which a hazardous constituent will be
destroyed. In situations where the Heat
of Combustion values for the waste
constituents under consideration do hot
differ considerably and no other
information regarding incinerability is
available, the ranking must be used
cautiously and selection of a number of
trial POHCs may be necessary.
By developing the incinerability
hierarchy, the Agency has attempted to
provide a mechanism which %vill aid hi
minimizing the number of POHCs
selected for each trial burn. In theory,
the permit writer need select as a POHC
only the single hazardous constituent
which is most difficult to destroy, as
indicated by the hierarchy. However,
because of the imperfections inherent to
the hierarchy more than one POHC must
be selected in many cases. Overall, the
Agency believes that the incinerability
ranking will allow permit writers to
confine POHC selection to fewer than
six constituents in most cases, reducing
the need for costly sampling and
analysis.
B. Applicability of the Incinerator
Regulations to Fume Incinerators
Several commenters asked that EPA
clarify the applicability of the
incinerator regulations to fume
incinerators. Such incinerators are
installed as air pollution control devices
pursuant to regulations under the Clean
Air Act, and commenters contended that
these facilities do not fall into regulatory
jurisdiction under RCRA.
EPA agrees with commenters that , -
fume incinerators are subject only to
regulation under 'the Clean Ah1 Act and
does not intend that the Parts 264 and
265 regulations apply to these facilities.
Fume incinerators which are used to
destroy gaseous emissions from various
industrial processes, for example, are
not subject to regulation under RCRA. In
general, the RCRA standards do not
apply to fume incinerators since the
input is not identifiable as a solid waste,
according to the definition set forth in
§261.2.
C. Regulation of Particulate Emissions
from Hazardous Waste Incinerators
The performance standard for control
of particulate emissions is equivalent to .
the particulate standard established by
EPA's New SourcS'Performance
Standard for municipal incinerators,
promulgated under authority of the
Clean Air Act (46 FR 7674). Several
commenters contended that this use of a
Clean Air Act standard to satisfy the
requirements of RCRA was
inappropriate.
In borrowing the Clean Air Act
standard for use by the RCRA
hazardous waste regulations, the
Agency has simply adopted a standard
which is known to be achievable (see
the Background Document on
Incineration, December, 1980) and which
the Agency views as the minimum
necessary level of control for hazardous
waste incinerators. The reason for using,
this standard hi the RCRA regulations is
not the same as the reason for using it
under the Clean Air Act. The standard
for control of particulate emissions
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 122 / Thursday,^ Juge 24,'. 1982. / Rules and^
results .from concern for the release, of
toxic pollutants, particularly heavy
metals, as well as. organic hazardous
constituents,: which adhere to.
particulate material.: Currently,.no other.
controls for metal emissions are
included in ,the RCRA regulations.:
Existing data shows, that particulate
emissions carrying; toxic substances
may pose risk; to human-health., EPA has
chosen to use the current particulate.
regulation to establish basic control
over, this risk. - " /".'''-
V. Supporting Documents
A. Background Documents
The record supporting these
amendments ihgludes background
documents providing response to public
comments and the rationale underlying"
the incemator regulations. These
document's and the references listed itt
them, are part of the record indicating
the basis and purpose; of the ^
promulgated regulations. The
background! documents- address
comments received on the interim final
regulations published January 23,1981
(46 FR 7666) which pertained to the
issues discussed in this preamble, the
interim.1 fuial and interim status
regulations published May 19,1980 (45
FR 33066), and the proposed r-egulations
published December 18,1978 (43 FR
58946). Copies of these documents are
available-for review in the EPA Regional
Office Libraries arid at the EPA
Headquarters Library, Room 2404,
Waterside Mall, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
B. Guidance Documents
EPA is preparing guidance manuals to
assist facility owners and operators as
well as regulatory officials. These:
documents do not have the force of,
regulations, but will provide assistance
in applying the regulations: and will
include technical information
concerning the operation pf incinerators.
These manuals include an Engineering
Handbook on Hazardous Waste
Incineration and the Guidance Manual
for Evaluating Permit Applications for
the Operation of Hazardous Waste
Incineration Units.,F,or a more complete
list of manuals supporting the hazardous
waste regulatory; program, see the .
preamble to the interim finalrules,.
published January 12,1981 (46 FR 2802).
VI. Regulatory Impacts
EPA has determined, pursuant to
Executive Order No. 12291, that today's
amendments do not constitute a major
rule and that no regulatory impact
analysis is-required. The amendments to
the Parts 122, 264, and 265 regulations
presented here will not impose any
additional costs on the regulated , . ,
community.. EPAias submitted the
necessary Standard Form 83 (Request
for OMB Review) in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act and
Executive Order No. 12291. Any ~
comments received from OMB are
included in the docket forthis .
rulemaking.: . "..
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
requires"all Federal agencies to consider
the impacts of their regulations on small
business entities. For the reasons
discussed in this preamble,, EPA
believes that the net effect of today's
amendments will be to reduce the .
regulatory and economic burden
imposed on all hazardous w;aste.
incinerators, including those belonging
to small businesses. Pursuant to.section
605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,-it
has been determined that today's
amendments will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. .A copy of this certification has
been submitted to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the. Small Business
Administration.
Vfl. Interim Final Regulations: Effective
Dates
On July 24,1981, EPA published a .
Notice of Effective Dates of Interim
Final Rules (46 FR 38318). This notice
confirmed the effective dates of the
incinerator regulations (July 22,1981) '
and the standards applicable to
hazardous waste storage, facilities (July
13,1981). The notice also announced:
EPA's intention to. initiate rulemaking to
suspend the. effective dates of the
Jnterim final (Part 264) regulations 'for
"existing incinerators and storage surface
impoundments, pending further . .
evaluation of the appropriateness pf the.
standards for those facilities.
Today's amendments address some of
the issues related to the January 23,1981
regulations. These regulations were
noticed on an interim final basis, with a
specific request for comments. Many
comments were received in response to
the request arid today's amendments are
being promulgated as interim final on
the basis of that notice and comment -,
period. Since the regulations are
currently at t5ie interim final stage,
interested parties will have ample
' opportunity to comment on these
amendments before the regulations are
issued in final form. '
.Section 3010(b): of RCRA requires that
revisions to regulations pertaining to
requirements for permitting "*' * * shall
take effect on the date six months after .
the date of * - * * revision.". The Agency
does'not believe that a literal
application of this requirement would be
appropriation! this case. The purpose of
section 301;0(b) is to allpw persons
handling hazardous wastes' sufficient:
lead tune tb prepare for compliance with
new regula tory requirements. Because
today's amendments gerieraily ease the "
task of the permit applicant, delaying
their effective date is not necessary to
preserve the objective of section 3010(b).
Futhermore, EPA believes that an
effective date of six months after
promulgation would be r
counterproductive,,.since much of the
regulatory burden which these
amendments seek to avert would
already have been imposed on new
facilities and. because the existing
permitting procedures create difficulties
for owners and operators seeking
permits foi; new incinerators. Today's
amendments,, therefore, become
effective uiamediately.
List of Subjects '
40CERP(Ktl22
Adminisbative practice and
procedure* Air pollution control,
Hazardous materials, Reporting
requirements, Waste treatment and
disposal, Water pollution control/ Water
supply, Co:tifidential business
information.
40CFRPatt26&, . . '" '
Hazardous materials, Packaging and
containers,: Reporting requirements-,
Security measures, Surety bonds, Waste .
treatment and disposal.
40CFRPart265 :
.- Air pollu:tiPn control, Hazardous
materials, IPackaging and containers, "
Reporting requirements, Security
measures, Surety bonds, Waste ,.,
treatment and disposal, Water Supply.
Dated: June.21,1982.
Anne M. Gorsuch,
Administrator.
For the:reasons set outln the
preamble, Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
-- -" ' i ' "- - - ."...:' > I ' '
PART 264STANDARDS FOR
OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
SubpartOIncinerators
1. The aitthority citation.for Part 264
reads as follows: :
. AuthoritylfSections 1006;:2002{a), arid.3004
of the: Solid WastaDisposal Act, as amended
by the Resource Gphservatioh and Recovery
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912[a) and
6924). I - ,-'.'..'
-------
27532 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 122 / Thursday, June 24, 1982 / Rules and Regulations ^
2. Section 284.340 is amended by
revising paragraph (b), redesignating
and revising paragraph (c) as paragraph
(d), and adding new paragraph [c) to -
read as follows:
§ 304.340 Applicability.
*****
(b) After consideration of the waste
analysis Included with Part B of the
permit application, the Regional
Administrator, in establishing the permit
conditions, must exempt the applicant
from all requirements of this Subpart
except § 2(54.341 (Waste "analysis) and ,
i 264.351 (Closure),
(1) If the Regional Administrator finds
that the waste to be burned is:
(i) Listed as.a hazardous waste in Part
281, Subpart D, of this Chapter solely
because it is ignitable (Hazard Code I),
corrosive (Hazard Code C), or both; or
(ii) Listed as a hazardous waste in
Part 281, Subpart D, of this Chapter
solely because it is reactive (Hazard
Code R) for characteristics other than
those listed in § 281.23)(a) (4) and (5).
and will not be burned when other
hazardous wastes are present in the
combustion zone; or
(iii) A hazardous waste solely because
it possesses the characteristic of
ignitability, corrosivity, or both, as
determined by the test for
characteristics of hazardous wastes
under Part 281, Subpart C, of this
Chapter, or
(iv) A hazardous waste solely because
it possesses any of the reactivity
characteristics described by § 261.23(a)
(D, (2), (3), (8), (7). and (8) of this
Chapter, and will not be burned when
other hazardous wastes are present in
the combustion zone; and
(2) If the waste analysis shows that
the waste contains none of the
hazardous constituents listed in Part
261, Appendix VIII, of this Chapter,
which would reasonably be expected to
be in the waste,
(c) If the waste to be burned is one
which is described by paragraphs
(b)(l)(i), (b)(l)(ii), (b)(l)(iii), or (b)(l)(iv)
of this Section and contains insignificant
concentrations of the hazardous
constituents listed in Part 261, Appendix
VIII, of this Chapter, then the Regional
Administrator may. in establishing
permit conditions, exempt the applicant
from all requirements of this Subpart,
except § 264.341 (Waste analysis) and
§ 284.351 (Closure), after consideration
of the waste analysis included with Part
B of the permit application, unless the
Regional Administrator finds that the
waste \vill pose a threat to human health
and the environment when burned in an
incinerator.
(d) The owner or operator of an
incinerator may conduct trial burns
subject only to the requirements of
§ 122.27(b) of this Chapter (Short term
and incinerator permits).
3. Section 264.341 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) as follows:
§ 264.341 Waste analysis.
(a) As a portion of the trial burn plan
required by § 122.27(b) of this Chapter,
or with Part B of the permit application,
the owner.or operator must have
included an analysis of the waste feed
sufficient to provide all information
required by § 122.27(b)(2) or 122.25(b)(5)
of this Chapter. Owners or operators of
new hazardous waste incinerators must
provide the information required by
§ 122.27(b)(3) or 122.25(b)(5) of this
Chapter to the greatest extent possible.
4. Section 264.343 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read
as follows:
§264.343 Performance standards.
*****
(b) An incinerator burning hazardous
waste and producing stack emissions of
more than 1.8 kilograms per hour (4
pounds per hour) of hydrogen chloride
(HC1) must control HC1 emissions such
that the rate of emission is no greater
than the larger of either 1.8 kilograms
per hour or 1% of the HC1 in the stack
gas prior to entering any pollution ,
control equipment.
(c) An incinerator burning hazardous
waste must not emit particulate matter
hi excess of 180 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter (0.08 grains per
dry standard cubic foot) when corrected
for the amount of oxygen hi the stack
gas according to the formula:
v
P=Pm.JL. .
21-Y
Where P? is the corrected concentration
of particulate matter, Pm is the measured
concentration of particulate matter, and '
Y is the measured concentration of
oxygen in the stack gas, using the Orsat
method for oxygen analysis of dry flue
gas, presented in Part 60, Appendix A
(Method 3), of this Chapter. This
correction procedure is to bemused by all
hazardous waste incinerators except
those operating under conditions of
oxygen enrichment. For these facilities,
the Regional Administrator will select
an appropriate correction procedure, to .
be specified in the facility permit.
* '* * * *
5. Section 264:344 is amended by
revising the title and adding new
paragraph (c) as follows:
§ 264.344 Hazardous waste incinerator
permits.
* * * * * '' - .
(c) The permit for a new hazardous
waste incinerator must establish
appropriate conditions for each of the
applicable requirements of this Subpart,
including but not limited to allowable
waste feeds and operating conditions
necessary to meet the requirements of
§ 264.345, sufficient to comply with the
following standards: '
(1) For the period beginning with
initial introduction of hazardous waste
to the incinerator and ending with
initiation of the trial burn, and only for
the minimum time required to establish
operating conditions required in
paragraph (c)(2) of this Section, not to
exceed a duration of 720 hours operating
time for treatment of hazardous waste,
the operating requirements must be
those most likely to ensure compliance
with the performance standards of
§ 264.343, based on the Regional
Administrator's engineering judgment.
The Regional Administrator may extend
the duration of this period once for up to
720 additional hours when good cause
for the extension is demonstrated by the
applicant. ~
(2) For the duration of the .trial burn,
the operating requirements must be
sufficient to demonstrate compliance
with the performance standards of
§ 264.343 and must be in accordance
with the approved trial burn plan;
(3) For the period immediately
following completion of the trial burn,
and only for the minimum period
sufficient to allow sample analysis, data
computation, and submission of the trial
burn results by the applicant, and
review of the. trial burn .results and
modification of 'the facility permit by'the
Regional Administrator, the operating - _
requirements must be those most likely
to ensure compliance with the
performance standards of § 264.343,
based on the Regional Administrator's '
engineering judgement.
(4) For the remaining duration of the
permit, the operating requirements must
be those demonstrated, in a trial bum or
by alternative data specified in
§ 122.25(b)(5)(iii) of this Chapter, as
sufficient .to ensure compliance with the
performance standards of § 264.343.
6. Section 264.345 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(4) and (c) to read
as follows:
>
§ 264.345 Operating requirements.
_*****
(b) * * *
(4) An appropriate indicator of ,
combustion gas velocity;
-------
Federal Register '/ Vol. 47, No." 122 /Thursday. June 24, 1982 / Rules anci Regulations, 27533
{c) During'start-up and shut-down of
an incinerator, hazardous waste (except
wastes 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.~
* * * - * * -
7. Section 264.347 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a)(l) and (b), --..-
redesignating paragraph (c) as
paragraph (d), and adding new
paragraph (c),as follows:
§264.347, Monitoring and inspections. '.
(a)*** .. :
(1) Combustion temperature, waste
feed rate, and the indicator of
- combustion gas velocity specified in the
facility permit must be monitored on a,
continuous basis.
* *. * - * * > ..
(b) The incinerator and. associated
equipment (pumps, valves, conveyor's,
pipes, etc.) must'be subjected to
thorough visual inspection, at least
daily, for leaks, spills, fugitive
emissions, and sign's of tampering.
(c) The emergency waste feed cutoff
system" and -associated alarms must be ..
tested at least weekly to verify
operabilityr unless the applicant'-. . -
demonstrates to the Regional
Administrator that weekly inspections .
will unduly restrict or upset operations
and that less frequent inspection wfll be
adequate. At a minimum, operational
testing must be conducted at least
monthly,
(d) TMs moiirtoring and inspection
data must be recorded and the records
must be placed in the operating log
required by § 264.73. :
PART265INTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND
OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND
DISPOSAL FACUJT1ES';
Subpart Oincinerators
8. The authority citation for Part 265
reads as follows:
Aulhori$: Sections 1008,2002[a], and 300-t
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended
by the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976, as amended {42 U.S.G. fi905,
6912(a), .and 6924), .
9. Section 265.340 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
§265.340 Applicability.
* * * * * * ^ .
(b") Owners arid operators of
Incinerators burning hazardous waste
are exempt from.all of the requirements
of this Subpart, except § ,265,351 ,
.(Closure), provided that the owner or
operator has documented, in writing,
that the. waste-would not reasonably be
expected to contain any of the
hazardous constituents listed in Part
261, Appendix VEtt, of this Chapter, and
such documentation is retained at the
facility* if the waste to be burned is: _
(1) lasted as a hazardous waste in
Part 261, Subpart D, of this Chapter ,
solely because it is ignitable (Hazard
Code I), corrosive (Hazard Code C), or
both; or .'...'.
(2) Listed as a hazardous waste in
Part 261, Subpart D; of this Chapter
solely because it is reactive (Hazard
Code R) for characteristics other than
those listed in § 261.23(a) (4) and (5),
and will riot be burned when othef , ;
hazardous wastes are present in the
combustion zone; or -.- -
(3) A hazardous waste solely because
it possesses the characteristic of
ignitability, corrosivity, or both, /as
determined by the tests for ,
characteristics of hazardous wastes
under Part 261, Subpart C, of this
Chapter; or ,
(4) A hazardous waste solely because
it possesses the reactivity : -,-.
characteristics described by § 261;23(a)
(1), (2), (3), (6); (7), or (8) of this Chapter,
and wfll not be burned when other
hazardous wastes -are present itf the ' . - '
combustion zone. 'j
§265.347 [Amended] '
10. Section ;265.347 is amended by
removing paragraph r(b) and
redesignating old paragraph fc) as new
paragraph, (b). <'.
PART 1J22EPA ADMINISTERED '.';.-" "_
PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT
PROGRAM
11. The authority citation for Part 122
reads as follows:
Authority: Resource. ConserFaftion and
Recovery Act, 42 U.S:C. B901 etseq.. Safe
Drinking Water Act, 42.U.B.C. 3007 et seg.,
and Clean Water Act, 33 U.S:G. 1251 ':etssg, *
12. Section 122.17 is amended by
adding new paragraphs^ ej(3}, Ie}(4) and
(e}(5) as follows:
§ 122.17 Minor modifications of fpetntlts.
. .
(3) Change the ranges of the operating
requirements set in the permit to reflect
the results of the trial burn, provided
that" the .change Is minor.
(4) Change the operating requirements
set in the permit for conducting a trial
burn, provided that the change is minor.
(5) Grant cine extension of the time ,
period for determining operational
readiness following completion of
construction^ for up to 720 hours
operating time for treatment of
hazardous waste.
13. Section 122.25 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(5) (i), (ii), :
(iii)(E)(2), (iii)(E)(3), and (iii){F)(4) to
read as follows:
§122.25 Contents of Part B.
(i) When seeking' exemption under,
§ 264.340 (b) or (c) of this Chapter
(ignitable, . corrosive or reactive wastes
only): ""- f, /:': ' ''- ' ''.'
(A) Documentation that the wasjte is
listed as a hazardous' waste in Part 261,
Subpart D, ol: this Chapter solely
because it is ignitable (Hazard Code I), ;
corrosive-(Hiizard Code C), or both; or
(B) Documentatiori that the waste is
Msted as a hazardous waste in Part 261,
'Subpart D, of thiis Chapter solely :
because it is reactive (Hazard Code R)
for characteristics other than those
listed in §"26IJ23.(a) (4) and (5);of this
Chapter, and will not be burned when^
other hazardous wastes are present in
the combustion zone; or ; %.
(C) Documieritatipn that the waste is a
Hazardous waste .solely because it
possesses th<; characteristiaof
ignitability, corrosivity, or ;bbth, as
determined by .the tests for , . '.
characteristics of hazardous wastes
under Part 261, Subpart C, of ;this'
Chapter; or :| -'.f i ' '
(D) DocumBntation that the waste is a
hazardous waste solely because it
possesses the reactivity characteristics '
listed.in"§ 2ftL.23J[a) (1), {2), |3), (6), (7), or
(8) of this Chiapter, .and that it will not be
burned when other hazardous wastes
are present ill the combustion zone; or
; (ii) Submit a trial burn plan or the
results of a trial burn, including ,all
required determinations, inacpordance
with § 122.27;[b); .or
-' (iii)* * * i , . '.' -"--
'.(s).* *-* ; -. : .-; V- :' .-..- -'-.- :
[2] Methods and results of monitoring
temperatures, waste feed fates, carbon
monoxide, arid an appropriate indicator
of combustioii gas velocity (mcluding a
statement concerning the precision and
accuracy of tlbis measurement^
(3) The eeripirication and results
required by §: 122.27(b)[53(ii). -
(F)*> ;.*;'
-------
27534 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 122 / Thursday, June 24, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
[4] Indication of combustion gas
velocity.
*****
14. Section 122.27 is amended by
changing the title and revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§122.27 Short term and incinerator
permits.
*****
(b) Hazardous Waste -Incinerator
Permits, (1) For the purposes of .
determining operational readiness
following completion of physical
construction, the Director must establish
permit conditions, including but not
limited to allowable waste feeds and
operating conditions, in the permit to a
new hazardous waste incinerator. These
permit conditions will be effective for
the minimum time required to bring the
incinerator to a point of operational
readiness sufficient to conduct a trial
burn, not to exceed 720 hours operating
time for treatment of hazardous* waste.
The Director may extend the duration of
this operational period once, for up to -
720 additional hours, at the request of
the applicant when good cause is
shown. The permit may be modified to
reflect the extension according to
§ 122.17" (Minor modifications of permits)
of this Chapter.
(i) Applicants must submit a
statement, with Part B of the permit
application, which suggests the
conditions necessary to operate in
compliance with the performance :
standards of § 264.343 of this Chapter
during this period. This statement
should include, at a minimum,
restrictions on waste constituents, waste
feed rates and the operating parameters
Identified in § 264.345 of this Chapter.
(ii) The Director will review .this
statement and any other relevant
information submitted with Part B of the
permit application and specify
requirements for this period sufficient to
meet the performance standards of
§ 264.343 of this Chapter based on his
engineering Judgement.
(2) For the purposes of determining
feasibility of compliance with the
performance standards of § 264.343 of
this Chapter and of determining
adequate operating conditions under
§ 264.345 of this Chapter, the Director
must establish conditions in the permit
to a new hazardous waste incinerator to
be effective during the trial burn.
(i) Applicants must propose a trial
burn plan, prepared under paragraph
(b)(2)(ii) of this Section with Part B of
the permit application.
(ii) The trial burn plan must include
(he following information:
(A) An analysis of each waste or
mixture of wastes to be burned which
includes:
(1) 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 constituents listed in Part 261,
Appendix WI, 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, and the basis for
their exclusion stated. The waste
analysis must rely on-analytical
techniques specified in "Test Methods
for the Evaluation of Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods"
(incorporated by reference, see § 122.20),
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
"Test Methods for the Evaluation of
Solid Waste,;Physical/Chemical
Methods," (incorporated by reference,
see § 122.20) or their equivalent.
(B) A detailed engineering description
of the incinerator for which the permit is
sought including:
[i] Manufacturer's name and model
number of incinerator (if available).
(_2) Type of incinerator.
(3) Linear dimensions of the
incinerator unit including the cross
sectional area of combustion chamber.
[4] Description of the auxiliary fuel
system (type/feed).
(5) Capacity of prime mover.
(6] Description of sutomatic waste
feed cut-off system(s).
(7) Stack gas monitoring and pollution
control equipment.
(3) Nozzle and burner design.
[9] Construction materials.
(10) Location and description of
temperature, pressure, arid flow , '
indicating and control devices.
(C) 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.
(D) 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)(2)(v) of this Section.
(E) A detailed test protocol, including,
for each waste identified, the ranges of
temperature, waste feed rate,
combustion gas velocity, use of auxiliary
fuel, and any other relevant parameters
that will be varied to affect the
destruction and removal efficiency of
the incinerator.
(F) A description of, and planned
operating conditions for, any emission
control equipment which will be used.
(G) Procedures for rapidly stopping
waste feed, shutting down the
incinerator, and controlling emissions in
the event of an equipment malfunction. -
(H) Such other information as the
Director reasonably 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)(2)(v) of this section.
(iii) 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,
(iv) Based on the waste analysis data
in the trial burn plan, the Director will
specify as trial Principal Organic
Hazardous Constituents (POHCs), those
constituents for which destruction and
removal efficiencies must be calculated
during the trial burn. These trial POHCs
will be specified by-the Director based
on his estimate of the difficulty of
incineration of the constituents
- identified in the waste analysis, their
concentration or mass in the waste feed,
and, for wastes listed in Part 261,
Subpart D, of this Chapter, the
hazardous waste organic constituent of
constituents identified in Appendix VII
of that Part as the basis for listing.
(v) The Director shall approve a trial
burn plan if he finds that:
(A) The trial burn is likely to
determine whether the incinerator
performance standard required by
§ 264.343 of this Chapter can be met;
(B) The trial burn itself will not
present an imminent hazard to human
health or the environment;
(C) The trial burn will help the
Director to determine operating
requirements to be specified under
§264.345 of this Chapter; and
(D) The information sought in
paragraphs (b)(2)(v) (A) and (C) of this
Section cannot reasonably be developed
through other means.
(vi) During each approved trial burn
(or as soon after the burn as is "
practicable), the applicant must make
the following determinations:
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No,.122
(A) A quantitative analysis of the trial
POHCs in the waste feed to the , . ;
incinerator. ' -
(B) A quantitative analysis of the
exhaust gas for the concentration and
mass emissions of the trial POHCs,
oxygen (Oa) and hydrogen chloride .
(HC1).
(C) A quantitative analysis of the
scrubber water (if any], ash residues,
and other residues, for the purpose of
estimating the fate of the trial POHCs.
(D) A computation of destruction and
removal efficiency (ORE), in accordance
with the DRK formula specified in
§264.343(a) of this Chapter.-
(E) If the HC1 emission rate exceeds
1.8 kilograms of HC1 per hour (4 pounds
per hour), a computation of HCl removal
efficiency in accordance with
§ 264.343(b) of this Chapter.
(F) A computation of partioulate
emissiohs/in accordance with
§ 264.343(c) of this Chapter.
(G) An identification of sources of
fugitive emissions and their means of
control.
(H) A measurement of average, ,
maximum, and minimum temperatures .
and combustion gas velocity.
(I) A continuous measurement of
carbon monoxide (CO) in the exhaust '
gas. - "
(J),Such other information as the
Director may specify as necessary to
ensure that the trial burn will determine
compliance with the performance
.standards 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.
(yii) The applicant must submit to the
Director a certification that the trial
burn has been carried out in accordance
with the approved trial-burn plan, and
must submit the results of all the
determinations required in paragraph
(b)(2](vi). This'submission shall be made
within 90 days of completion of the trial
bum, or later if approved by the"
Director.
(yiii) All data collected duruig any
trial burn must be submitted to the
Director following the completion of the
trial burn. . '' .... ,
(ix) All submissions required by this
.paragraph must 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.
(x) Based on the results of the trial
bum, the Director shall set the operating
requirements in the final permit
according to § 264/345 of this Chapter.
The permit modification shall proceed
as a minor modification according to
§122.17. . .-."---
(3) For the purposes of allowing
operation of a new hazardous waste
incinerator following completion of the
trial burn and prior to final modification
of the permit conditions to reflect the
trial burn results, tfie Director may
establish permit conditions, including
but not limited to allowable waste feeds
and operating condi^ons sufficient to
meet the'requirements of § 264.345'of
this Chapter, in the permit to a new
hazardous waste incinerator. These ;,
permit conditions will be effective for
the minimum time required to Complete
sample analysis, data computation and
submission of the Mai burn results by
the applicant, and modification of the _
facility permit by the Director.
.. (i) Applicants must submit a
statement, with Part B of the permit
, application, which identifies the
conditions necessary to operate in
compliance with the performance '
standards of § 264.343 of this Chapter, '
during this period. This statement
should include, at a mimimum,
restrictions on waste constituents, waste
feed rates and the operating parameters
identified in § 264.345 of this Chapter.
(ii) The Eiirector will review this
statement amd any other relevant
information submitted with Part B of the
permit application and specify those
requirements for.this period most likely;
to meet the'perfofniance standards of
§ 264.343 of this Chapter based on his
engineering; judgement. ,
(4) For the purposes of determining
feasibility of compliance with the
performance standards of § 264.343 of
this chapter and of determining \
adequate operating conditions under
§ 264.345 of this chapter, the applicant.
fqr a permit to an existing hazardous .
waste incinerator may prepare arid
submit a trial burn plan and perform a
trial burn in accordance with . :
paragraphs'(b)(2)(ii) through (b)(2)(ix) of
"this section. Applicants who submit trial
burn plans and receive approval before
submission of a permit application must
complete the trial burn and submit the
results, specified hi paragraph* (b)(2)(vi),
with Part B of the permit application. If
completion of this process conflicts with
.the date sell for submission of the Part B
application, the applicant must contact
the Director to establish a later date for
submission of the Part B'application or
the trial bum results. If die applicant
submits a trial burn plan with Part B of
'the permit iipplication, the trial burn
must be conducted and the results
submitted within a time period to be
specified by the Director. -,,
£FR Doc. 82-17089 Filed e-i3-82! 8:45 amj . ,
BILLING CODE'6560-SO-M *<
-------
' I
-------
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty (or Private Use $300
Third-Class
------- |