October. 26, 1989
40 CFR Part 280 *ef al.
Burning of -Hazardous Wast© In Boilers
and Industrial Furnaces; Supplement to
-------
No- 206/ Thursday. October 26, 1989 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 260,261, 264,265, 266,
270, and 271
{PBl-3358-5 EPA/OSW-FR-89-024]
BIN 205Q-AA72
Burning of Hazardous Waste In Boilers
and Industrial Furnaces
AGENCY; Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Supplement to proposed rule.
SUMMARY: On May 6,1987 (52 FR 16982),
EPA proposed rules to control the
burning of hazardous waste in boilers
and industrial furnaces. Those rules
would control emissions of products of
incomplete combustion (PICs), toxic
metals, and hydrogen chloride (HCl) as
well as require a 99.99% destruction and
removal efficiency for hazardous
organic constituents in the waste. EPA
has received substantial comments on
the proposed rules, and as a result, is
considering alternative approaches to
several provisions of the proposed rule.
The Agency is also considering issuance
of a proposal to amend the hazardous
wpte incinerator standards to make
those rules consistent with these
proposed standards.
The purpose of this notice is to
request comment on alternate
approaches to address the following
issues: control of CO, metals, HCl, and
parllculate emissions, the small quantity
burner exemption, the definition of
waste that is indigenous when burned
for reclamation (e.g., of metal values),
revisions to the proposed definition of
halogen acid furnaces, applicability of
the metals and organic emissions
controls to smelting furnaces involved in
materials recovery, and the status under
the Bevill amendment of residues from
burning hazardous waste.
DATES: EPA will accept public
comments on this notice until December
20,1989. The Agency notes that the
corrfment period is reopened to address
only the issues discussed in this notice.
The comment period on other issues
addressed by the proposed rule closed
on July 27,1987.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent
to RCRA Docket Section (OS-305), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401M
Street, SW., Washington DC 20460
ATTN: Docket No. F-80-BBSP-FFFFF.
The public docket is located in Room
2427 and is available for viewing from
9,-CO am to 4:00 pm, Monday thru Friday,
excluding legal holidays. Individuals
interested in viewing the docket should
call (202) 475-9327 for an appointment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
RCRA HOTLINE, toll free, at (800) 424-
9346 or at (202) 382-3000. Single copies
of this notice are available by calling the
RCRA Hotline. For technical
information, contact Dwight Hlustick, -
Combustion Section, Waste
Management Division, Office of Solid
Waste, OS-322, U.s! Environmental
Protection Agency, 401M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460, Telephone: (202)
382-7917.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Part One: Background
Notice Outline
I. Legal Authority
II. Overview of this Notice
III. Relationship of this Notice to the May 6.
1987, Proposed Rule
IV. Relationship of this Notice to the Planned
Hazardous Waste Incinerator Revisions
Part Two: Alternatives Being Considered
I. Particulate Standards
A. Justification of Particulate Standard
B. Selection of Particulate Standard
1. Apply the current NSPS for Steam
Generators Burning Waste
2. Apply the Applicable NSPS
3. Apply the Existing Hazardous Waste
Incinerator Standard
C. Implementation of the Particulate
Standard , "
1. Preferred Option
2. Alternative Options
II. Alternative PIC Controls
A. Comments on Proposed CO Standard
B. Proposed Tier II Controls
1. Health-Based Approach
2. Technology-Based Approach
'"C. Implementation of Tier I and Tier II PIC
Controls
1. Oxygen and Moisture Correction
2. Formats of the CO Limit
3. Monitoring CO and Oxygen
4. Monitoring THC
5. Compliance with Tier I CO Limit
6. Establishing Permit Limits for CO
under Tier II
7. Compliance with THC Limit of 20
ppmv
8. Waste Feed Cutoffs
D. Miscellaneous Issues
1. PIC Controls for Nonflame Industrial
Furnaces
2. Measuring CO and THC in Preheater
and Precalciner Cement Kilns
3. Feeding Waste in Cement Kilns by
Methods Other than Dispersion in the
Flame at the Hot End
E, Implementation of PIC Controls During
Interim Status
1. Preferred Option
2. Alternate Option
III. Alternative Toxic Metals Standards
A. Overview
B. Expanded List of Metals
C. Revised Format for Screening Limits
D. Screening Limits Provided by the Risk
Assessment Guideline
E. Implementation of Metals Controls
During Interim Status
1. Preferred Option
2. Alternative Options
IV. Alternative Hydrogen Chloride Standards
V. Revisions to the Proposed Small Quantity
Burner Exemption
A. Summary
B. Revised Format for Exempt Quantities
C. Improvements in the Risk Assessment
Methodology
D. Multiple Devices
VI. Definition of Indigenous Waste That Is
Reclaimed
A. Industrial (Smelting) Furnaces in the
Standard Industrial Code (SIC) 33 Burn-
ing Wastes from SIC 33 Processes
B. SIC Code 33 Industrial Furnaces Burning
Wastes Generated by Processes Other
than SIC 33
C. Secondary Smelting Furnaces
VII. Conforming Requirements
VIII. Halogen Acid Furnaces
IX. Regulation of Smelting Furnaces Involved
in Materials Recovery
X. Status of Residues From Burning Hazard-
ous Waste
A. The Device Must Be a Bevill Device
B. Determining if the Residue's Character
is Influenced by the Burning of Hazard-
ous Waste
1. Baseline Concentrations
2. What Constitutes a Significant In-
crease
C. Determining if an Increase is Significant
XI. Applicability of the Sham Recycling
Policy
XII. Regulation of Direct Transfer of Hazard-
ous Waste from a Transport Vehicle'to a
Boiler or Industrial Furnace
XIII. Updated Health Effects Data
Appendix A: Background Support for PIC
. Controls
Appendix B: Emission Screening Limits for
THC
Appendix C: Performance Specifications
for Continuous Emission Monitoring of
CO and Oxygen
Appendix D: Performance Specifications
for Continuous Emission Monitoring of
THC
Appendix E: Feed Rate and Emission Rate
Screening Limits for Metals and HCl
Appendix F: Technical Support for Tier I-
III Metals and HCl Controls and the
THC Emission Rate Screening Limits
Appendix G: Implementation of Metals
and HCl Controls
Appendix H: Reference Air Concentrations
for Threshold Constituents
Appendix I: Unit Risk Values for Carcino-
genic Constituents '
. Today's notice is organized into two
parts. Part One contains background
information that summarizes the major
revisions which are being considered to
the May 6,1987, proposed rule. See 52
FR 16982. It also describes how today's
L.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, JWo._2gg / Ttosday,, October 28, 1989 / Proposed ^Rules .^43719
proposed rale woujd relate to the
planned amendments to the incinerator
standards that the Agency may soon
propose.
Part Two describes the alternative
approaches the Agency is considering to
address several issues. EPA is
requesting comment on these
alternatives because they differ
substantially from the provisions
proposed. The Agency will consider
comments on the original proposal as
well as on the alternatives discussed
here in developing final rules for
promulgation. Alternatives on which we
are soliciting comment are: adding a
partfeulate standard for boilers and
furnaces; and developing alternative
standards for carbon monoxide (CO) (to
limit products of incomplete combustion
(PICsj), toxic metals, and hydrogen
chloride (HC1). We also discuss-in this
part revisions being considered to the
small quantity burner exemption to
.make the risk assessment used to
establish the exempt quantities
consistent with the assessment used to
establish the metals, HC1, and PIC
standards. In addition, we discuss in
this part an expansion to the definition
of waste that would be considered
indigenous to particular types of devices
when it is reclaimed. Industrial furnaces
•burning indigenous waste solely .for
reclamation (i.e., not for energy recovery
or destruction) would not be :subje.ct to
any of the proposed emission standards.
Finally, we discuss here the Agency's
current thinking on the applicability of '
the Bevill exclusion (see RCRA section
3Q01(b)(3)(A) pHi«)) to residues from
fossil fuel-fired boilers, cement kilns,
and industrial furnaces that process ores
and minerals, when such devices also
burn or process hazardous waste.
PART ONE: BACKGROUND
I. Legai Authority
These regulations were proposed
under the authority of section 1006,
2002(a), 3001, 3004, 3005, and 3007 of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act as-amended
by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976, the Quiet
Communities Act ,of 1978, the Solid
Waste Disposal Act Amendments of
1980, and the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984,42 U.S.C.
6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6924, 6925, and 6927.
II. Overview ofThis Notice
The purpose of this notice is to
request comments on various
alternatives to the May 6,1887,
proposed rule. The alternative
approaches the EPA is discussing today
may be incorporated in^the final iule.
In this, notice, EPA is considering a
number of changes to the May 6,1987,
proposed rule. Several changes are a
result of comments received on the
proposal. Others result from the
Agency's revised risk assessment
approach. As a result, EPA is
considering: (1) Adding a particulate
emissions standard for boilers and
'industrial furnaces; (2) alternatives to
the proposed carbon'monoxide standard
based on risks posed by emissions of
products of incomplete combustion; (3) •
establishing emissions controls for six
additional toxic metals; (4) revising the
sma'll quantity burner exemption to base
it on an upgraded risk assessment; and
(5) expanding ths definition of •' .
indigenous waste as it applies to
industrial furnaces Involved in the.
"reclamation of hazardous wastes.
HI. Relationship of This Notice to the
May 6,1987, Proposed Rule
Comments on the alternative
approaches discussed in today's notice
will be considered as well as comments
on the. proposed rule in developing a
final rule for promulgation. The basic
methodology for developing the
'alternate standards discussed today is
the same as used to develop the May 6,
1987, proposal. The conservatix'e
Screening Limits discussed today are
based on the principle that ground level
. concentrations of pollutants emitted
from a facility must not result in
unacceptable health'risk to a maximum
exposed individual. Thus, these
. Screening Limits are similar in concept
to the Tier I-Tier III metals and HC1
Standards proposed in 1987. The major
change in the metals and HC1 Standards
would be to establish limits based on
effective stack height (i.e., physical
stack height plus plume rise) in lieu of
the thermal capacity and type of the
combustion device. This would result in
less over-regulation because the limits
would be established as a function of
effective stack height, a key site-specific
factor in dispersion of stack emissions.
The risk assessment methodology also
remains basically the same as proposed
on May 6,1987. The only change is an
upgrading of the air dispersion models'
based on revisions to EPA-
recommended air dispersion models.
Finally, we are updating Appendices
A (reference air concentrations) and B
(risk specific doses) originally published
on May 6,1987, and corrected on July 8,
1987 to reflect current health effects
data. Both Appendices are provided in
their entirety as appendices to this
notice.
IV. 'RelaiionsHlp of .This Notice to the
Planned Hazardous Waste Incinerator
Revisions
• It is EPA's intention to make the
standards for burning 1 hazardous waste
as uniform as possible given that the
potential risks posed are similar
irrespective, of the type of.combustion
device. This approach also should be
easier for both the regulated community
and EPA to implement. Accordingly, the
Agency is considering a proposal, which
may lie noticed shortly, to revise the
existing hazardous waste incinerator
standards under Subpart O of 40 CFR
part 264 to provide controls for PICs,
metals, and HC1 that are identical to
those described in today's notice for
boilers and industrial furnaces.
The Agency plans to address in a
future rulemaking an issue of particular
interest to owners and operators of
boilers and industrial furnaces; the
Agency plans to propose to expand the
definition of industrial furnace (which
presently applies to only controlled
flame devices) to include any of the
currently designated devices that are
supplied with heat energy by any
means. Thus, for example, electric arc
smelting furnaces would be included in
the definition.
PART TWO: ALTEF1NATIVES BEING
CONSIDERED
I. Paiticulate Standards
A. Justification for Particulate Standard
EPA received numerous comments on
the May 6,1987, proposed rule
suggesting the need for a particulate
standard for boilers and furnaces
burning hazardous waste. Many
respondents believed that unregulated
particulate emissions could pose a
significant threat to human health
because toxic metals and organic
compounds may be absorbed onto
particulate. matter (PM), and because
PM, per se, could pose a health risk
because 'the smaller size particles may
be entrained in the lungs.
1 For the purpose of this notice, "burning" in
industrial furnaces includes reduction as well as
combustion. As additional information, EPA plans
to propose to expand the definition of industrial
furnaces in 40 CFR 280.10 to include those
designated furnaces .that engage in any form of
thermal processing, not just combustion. Thus, that
proposal would include as regulated industrial
furnaces electric arc smelting furnaces processing
metal-bearing hazardous waste to recover metals.
The Agency plans to include that proposal in the
Federal Register notice to amend the incinerator
standards. See discussion in text. The Agency is not
including the proposal to.expand the definition of
industrial furnace in today's notice because this
notice is considered a supplemental notice to the
May 1987 proposedrule, rather than a new
proposed rule or reproposal.
-------
4372P Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 206 / Thursday. October 26, 1989 / Proposed Rules
In light of these comments, EPA is
considering establishing a particulate
emission standard for boilers and
Industrial furnaces. Even though we
believe that the proposed metals and
organic emissions standards would
adequately protect public health based
on current knowledge about toxic
pollutants and available risk assessment
methodologies, we acknowledge that
there are serious limitations to the
proposed health-based standards for
metals (see section B,3 below). A PM
control standard would provide
additional protection by ensuring that
absorbed metal and organic compounds
would be removed from stack gases
with the collected PM.
B. Selection of Particulate Standard
EPA Is considering limiting particulate
emissions from boilers and industrial
furnaces based on the current hazardous
waste incinerator standard of 0.08 gr/
dscf (grains/dry standard cubic foot),
corrected to 7 percent oxygen. We are
selecting this particulate limit because it
would provide a common measure of
protection from particulate emissions
from boilers, industrial furnaces, and
Incinerators burning hazardous waste.
We acknowledge that a particulate
standard for boilers and industrial
furnaces may be redundant in some
cases for a number of reasons: (1) EPA
may have established (usually more
stringent) particulate standards for the
facility as New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) under the Clean Air
Act; (2) the States may have established
pnrtkulate standards for the facility
under the Clean Air Act's State
Implementation Plan (SIP) required to
ensure that the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard for pariiculate matter -
It not exceeded; and (3) the metals and
HCl emission standards proposed for
bolltrs and furnaces burning hazardous
waste may result in particulate
emissions well below 0.08 gr/dscf. We
believe, however, that there would be
many situations where the standards
would not be redundant. As discussed
below, NSPS standards would not apply
to many boilers and industrial furnaces.
SIP standards may not apply to many
units with relatively small capacity,
Finally, many boilers may burn
hazardous waste with low levels of
me!«ls and chlorine such that emission
controls, if needed, may not lower
narticulate emissions to 0.08 gr/dscf.
thus, wo believe that particulate
standard would frequently not be
redundant, and where redundant, the
ndditional burden of compliance, if any,
•vould not be significant.
In selecting a particulate standard for
boilers and industrial furnaces, we
considered the following alternatives:
1. Apply the current NSPS Standard
for Steam Generators Burning Waste.
EPA promulgated NSPS for steam
generators burning waste with or
without other fuels that limit particulate
emissions from new municipal waste
combustors (MWCs) to 0.03-0.04 gr/
dscf. (See 40 CFR 60.43(b)). New MWCs
would be subject to this standard
because they almost invariably are
designed to recover energy. Thus, the
Agency has, in effect, lowered the 0.08
gr/dscf NSPS promulgated in 1981 at. 40
CFR 60.52 for new solid waste
incinerators to 0.03-0.04 gr/dscf. Given
that EPA based die hazardous waste
incinerator particulate standard on the
1981 municipal incinerator standard
(0.08 gr/dscf), it could be argued that the
Agency should lower the hazardous
waste incinerator particulate standard
accordingly to 0.03-0.04 gr/dscf. This
would allow the Agency to take
advantage of advances in the state-of-
the-art of particulate control technology.
However, as explained in Section B.3.,
EPA is not prepared to propose to lower
the hazardous waste incinerator
particulate standard at this time. This
issue will be discussed further in the
planned revisions to the hazardous
• waste incinerator standards.
2. Apply the Applicable NSPS. Under
this approach, the particulate matter
NSPS applicable to a source category
(e.g., cement kilns) would be applied to
all units in that category irrespective of
date of construction or size. (The NSPS
as authorized by the Clean Air Act
apply only to new units, and often
small-capacity units are exempt.)
EPA has promulgated particulate
matter NSPS for a number of devices
including boilers; cement kilns; lime
kilns; asphalt concrete drying kilns;
primary lead, zinc, and copper smelters;
and secondary lead and bronze
smelters. These standards generally
result in particulate emissions
concentrations ranging from 0.01 to 0.05
gr/dscf. However, many devices that
burn hazardous waste (e.g., light-weight •
aggregate kilns) are not covered by
NSPS regulations. Therefore, standards
would have to be developed for these
devices. Development of these
standards will take- a significant amount
of time and effort on the part of the
Agency.
In addition, the economic impacts of
applying the NSPS to existing and small
devices may be substantial given that
the standards were developed to control
particulate emissions to the limit of
technical and economic feasibility for
new units (without consideration of
retrofitting issues. We discuss below,
however, that we are beginning an effort
to establish a best demonstrated
technology (BDT) particulate standard
for boilers and industrial furnaces. In
that evaluation, we will consider
whether die NSPS represent BDT.
3. Apply the Existing Hazardous
Waste Incinerator Standard. We believe
that the existing hazardous waste
incinerator standard of 0.08 gr/dscf (see
40 CFR 340.342(c)) should be applied to
all boilers and industrial furnaces
burning hazardous waste (unless more
stringent NSPS or SIP Standards already
apply to the device). This would ensure
that the same interim cap on particulate
emissions applies to all hazardous
waste combustion devices until BDT
particulate standards can be developed.
The 0.08 gr/dscf standard is readily
achievable and should not result in
significant economic impacts.
Preliminary data indicate that
approximately 10-20 percent of boilers
and industrial furnaces burning
hazardous waste would be required to
upgrade or install particulate control
equipment or otherwise reduce
emissions to m.eet the standard.
In addition to providing some control
of particulate metals and adsorbed
organic compounds, the 0.08 gr/dscf
standard should also ensure that the
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) for particulates is achieved in
most cases. An analysis of existing sites
shows that emissions of particulates at
0.08 gr/dscf could result in MEI levels of
up to 30% of the maximum daily PM10
(particulate matter under 10 microns)
NAAQS (150 mg/m3). If background,
particulate levels at a site are already
high (i.e.,-the site is in a non-attainment
area), however, particulate emissions
from the device should be addressed as
part of the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) (as they are now for hazardous
• waste incinerators in particulate non-
attainment areas). Therefore, although
the 0.08 gr/dscf standard may not
ensure compliance with the NAAQS in
every situation, this issue will be
addressed by the SIP since the facility
would be, by definition, in a non-
attainment area for particulate
emissions.
As mentioned above, EPA is
undertaking an effort to investigate a
best demonstrated technology (BDT)
particulate standard for boilers and
industrial furnaces burning hazardous
waste. (We are also investigating a BDT
particulate standard for hazardous
waste incinerators.) Although we
believe the proposed metals and PIC
controls provide substantial protection
-------
Federal Regiater,./ Vol. 54, No.'-..206.' /.Thursday,: October, 26; 1989 / Proposed Rules 43721
of public health, those risk-based
controls have limitations including: (1)
Health effects via indirect exposure to
carcinogens (e.g., deposition of metals
and uptake through the food chain);
ecological effects, and synergistic effects
have not been considered; (2) without
, adequate health effects data to establish
acceptable ambient levels, emissions
limits,cannot be established (e.gr, we are
not proposing emission limits for
selenium for this reason); and (3)
constituent-specific, risk-based emission
limits must be implemented by limiting
feed rates, which can be difficult given
the variability of waste matrices and
pollutant concentrations. Given these
concerns, we believe that a BDT
particulate standard is necessary to • ;
adequately protect public health and the
environment. Once the BDT particulate
standard is promulgated (after proposal
and 'opportunity for public comment),
the risk-based controls would be used to
supplement the BDT standard on a case-
by-case basis to address .situations
'where the BDT standard may not be
fully protective. We specifically request
comment on whether NSPS particulate
limits can be considered BDT. Further,
given that time and budget constraints
are likely to limit development of BDT
standards for only the primary types of
devices that burn hazardous waste (e.g.,
oil, gas, arid, coal-fired boilers, cement
kilns, light-weight aggregate kilns), we ' -
request comment on how BDT
particulate standards can be established
on a case-by-case basis'during the
permitting process for other types of
devices.
C. Implementation of the Particulate
.Standard
1. Preferred Option. EPA wants
facilities in interim status to comply
with the particulate standard as quickly
as possible and believes that it is
reasonable to require compliance within
24 months of promulgation of the final
rule. Accordingly, the source would
^have to demonstrate initial compliance
under 40 CFR parted, appendix A,
Methods 1-5, within twelve months of
promulgation. The compliance test must
be representative of worst-case waste-
fuel/operating conditions with respect
to particulate emissions that will occur
during interim status. Previous testing
under the Clean Air Act could be used
to make this demonstration if the ; .
-. operating conditionsv meet the conditions
specified .above. Final compliance for
, :those sburces that are unable!to , , • .-•
demonstrate, initial compliance would..
,'be required within 24 months,.of..--.',.
... promulgation (whether or no.tthe facility,
>has;receiyed,a final RGR^permit)i The: 4
..coippliqtnce alternatives ar&;(l) Modify-
operations of the facility to bring it into;
compliance (e.g., upgrade air pollution
control equipment); or (2) • .• •.
implementation of closure (under 40 CFR
265.111). The Regional Administrator
could, however, extend the compliance
period if the owner or operator can
show inability to make the required
modifications due to situations beyond
its control, e.g., the required equipment
is unavailable from vendors within the
regulatory time frame. This option is
EPA's preferred alternative for
implementation of particulate standards.
2. Alternative Options. EPA is also
considering the following alternative >
interim status requirements to bring
sources into compliance with the
particulate standard. One alternative
would require facilities that cannot
demonstrate, compliance (within 12
months of promulgation) to submit a
compliance plan to the Agency within 15
months of promulgation which ensures
expedient compliance (i.e., within 12
months of Agency approval). Another
alternative would require the source to
submit a complete Part B, RCRA Permit
Application, or to cease burning
hazardous waste and complete closure
requirements within 18 months of -
promulgation. EPA requests comments
on each of these alternatives to
implement the particulate standard as :
quickly as possible.
II. Alternative PIC Controls
The 1987 proposed boiler and
industrial furnace rule would limit flue
gas carbon monoxide (CO) levels to
ensure that these devices do not emit
products of incomplete combustion
(PICs) at levels that could pose
unacceptable health risk. The Agency
discusses here its revised thinking on
how best to establish controls on PIC
emissions and we are also considering a
proposal, which may be noticed shortly,
to apply the revised approach to control
PIC emissions from hazardous waste
incinerators as well. We discuss below •
the comments received on the proposed
rule and describe the revised approach.
A. Comments on Proposed CO Standard
The proposed boiler and industrial
furnace rule would have applied the
same CO emissions limits to all boilers
and industrial furnaces: a lower limit of
100 ppmv over a 6Q-minute rolling
average and a 500 ppmv limit over a 10-
minute rolling average. The hazardous „
wagte feed would be automatically cut
off if either limit was exceeded, and
hazardous waste burning operations
would,have to cease pending review by
enforcement officials if .the waste feed;
.-were cut off more than 10 times_a> month.
-Thelpwerlimitof 10Qppmvwas.'-:>< »
selected as representative of steady^ •.' .
state high efficiency combustion
conditions resulting in PIC emissions .
that would not pose a significant risk.
The-higher limit of 500 ppmv was
proposed to limit the frequency of
emission spikes that inevitably
accompany routine operational
transients, such as load changes and
start-up of waste firing.
Many commenters opposed the
proposed CO trigger limits and
associated limits on the number of
waste feed cutoffs. Principally,
commenters objected to one set of CO
emission limits applicable to all boilers
and industrial furnaces. Further, they
argued that PIC emissions would not be
significant if, when the waste feed was
: cut off, combustion chamber
temperatures were maintained while the
waste remained in the chamber. Thus,
they argued that there was'no need to
limit the number of waste feed cutoffs.
Commenters indicated that several
types of boilers and many cement kilns
would not be able to meet the proposed
100 ppmv limit even though hydrocarbon
concentrations would not be high at the
. elevated CO levels. For example, boilers
burning residual oil or coal typically
operate with CO emission levels .above
the proposed 100 ppmv limit because of
inherent fuel combustion characteristics,
equipment design constraints, routine
transient combustion-related events,
requirements for multiple fuel flexibility,
and compliance with NOz emission
standards. Attempts to reduce CO
emissions from these devices to meet
the proposed limits may prove
unsuccessful in addition to the
possibility of heavy penalties in thermal
efficiency if successful.
Similarly,' industry and trade groups
for the cement industry voiced strong
opposition to the 100 ppmv limit for
cement kilns. These commenters
indicated that some cement kilns,
especially modern precalciners,
routinely emit CO above the proposed
100 ppmv limit. In general, commenters
indicated that while the proposed limits
may be appropriate for combustion
devices in which only fuel (fossil or
hazardous waste) enters the combustion
chamber, they are inappropriate for
. cement kilns and other product kilns in
which massive amounts of feedstocks
are processed. These feedstocks can
generate large quantities of CO
emissions which are, in large part,
... unrelated to the combustion efficiency .
of burning the waste and fuel. Whereas
• all the CO from boilers and some ,*'_-•.'••
'.-• industrialiurnaces is combustion-; ,j . .v
;-•• generated, the;bulk of the^CO from .11! ;;
;. product kilns-can'be thefresult of •'• "•»?,' •
-------
Fedoral Register / Vol. 54, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 1989 / Proposed Rules
process eveais unrelated to the
combustion conditions at the burner
where wastes are introduced.5
Therefore, limiting CO emissions from
thcie combustion devices to the
propoted 100 ppnsv level may be
difficult and not warranted as a means
of minimizing risk from PICs.
In summary, conmientcrs argued that
the proposed CO limits would be
difficult or virtually impossible to meet
In »ome cases, and, thus, inappropriate
flven that EPA has not established a
direct correlation between CO, PJC
emission!, and health risk.
In light of these concerns, commenters
suggested that EPA establish CO limits
for specific categories of devices based
on CO levels achieved by units
operating under best operating practices
(BOP), We considered this approach but
determined that equipment-specific CO
trigger limits would be difficult to
establish and support and would not
necessarily provide adequate protection
from PIC emissions. For example, the
BOP CO level for a precaleining cement
kiln may bt 800 ppmv, a level that
Industry representatives indicate may
bt typical (n some situations for that
device. If that CO level, in fact, results
in purl from tlia inefficient combustion
of hazardous waste, PICs may be
emitted at levels that pose significant
risk, (We note, however, that PIC
emissions may or may not be high when
CO levels are high, However, in all
known instances. PIC emissions are low
when CO levels are under 100 ppmv.)
EPA nonetheless believes that the CO
limits should bis flexible to avoid major
nconainic impacts on the regulated
community given that we cannot say
tl»«l when CO levels exceed 100 ppmv
that PIC omissions will always, or even
often, result in significant health risk. At
«ome elevated CO level, however, PIC
erahslojw would pose significant risk.
Unfortunately, we cannot at this time
Ifcillfy lite precise trigger level—the
trigger level may vary by type and
design of device and fuel mix.
Coiuequcndy, we have developed a
two* tiered Approach to control PICs.
Under Tier I, CO would fcs limited to the
100 ppimr Htnit proposed In 1887. (See
appendix A for background information
* {J|M exarnBtt, 'CO on l» generated tram the
«r»et!««!» of Ofgualc mmter contained fa fee raw
HMtartftl* M tin walwriiSi move down ibe Idta from
dm cold *«d !« #* bat «id »Aer« (be fuel .and -
*ftil* i» ftrel, CO can alto bf gaji^ctaled by
«8!r.btt»Uoa of'fciifl fcwl *t tbt bite of ihe
pKfkfmr, whld tkkci oombustfon.gasps from the
Mw itiMl tatt* fts» farfcar willi ftxtllftwi to
uwokln* |}i» MM »»terii!f ieforis feeding mto the
tula Although hwnrdout waste m«y not be fired Jn
tt prtcjltdnw, iMtAchnt t»mbu»tion of ftte
prfukiner fad wl!) rcith in Wgk flac gas (X)
met*.
on the basis for the Agency's concern
about PIC emissions and the use of CO
to minimize the potential health risk.)
Under Tier II, the 100 ppmv CO limit
would be waived under two alternative
approaches: (1) a demonstration that
total hydrocarbon (THC) emissions are
not likely to pose unacceptable health
risk using conservative, prescribed risk
assessment procedures; or (2) a
demonstration that the THC
concentration hi the stack gas does not
exceed a good opera ting practice-based
limit of 20 ppmv. Although we prefer the
technology-based approach for reasons
discussed below, we request comment
on the health-based alternative as well.
B. Proposed Tier II Controls
If the highest hourly average CO level
during the trial burn exceeds the Tier I
limit of 100 ppmv, a higher CO level
would be allowed under two alternative
approaches: a health-based approach, or
a technology-based approach.3 We
prefer the technology-based approach
for reasons discussed below. One of the
alternatives will be selected for the final
rule based on public comment and
Agency evaluation, including a critique
by the Agency's Science Advisory Board
(SAB).-*
1. Health-Based Approach. Under the
health-based approach to waive the 100
ppmv CO limit, the applicant would be
allowed to demonstrate that PIC
emissions from the combustion device
pose an acceptable risk (i.e., less than
10" ^ to the maximum-exposed
individual (MEI). Under this approach,
we would require the applicant to
quantify tqtal hydrocarbon (THC)
emissions during the trial burn and to
assume that all hydrocarbons are
carcinogenic compounds with a unit risk
that has been calculated based on
available data. The THC unit risk value
would be lJOxiO~Bms/«j and
represents the adjusted, 95th percentile
weighted (i.e., by emission
concentration) average unit risk of all
the hydrocarbon emissions data in our
data base of field testing of boilers,
industrial furnaces, and incinerators
burning hazardous waste. The weighted
unit risk value for THC considers
* This two-tiered approach would sapersede the
approach proposed In 1987 whereby the waste feed
would be cutoff within 10 minutes of exceeding a
100 pprav houiiy rolling average COlevel and
immediately when exceeding a 500 ppmv rolling 10
minute average. We believe thai the approach
proposed in today's notice is more environmentally
conservative and supportable in light of
commentcrs' concsms about the technical support
for the dual range CO limits and averaging periods
proposed in 1987.
* EPA's SAB reviewed the^proposed P!C controls
in the spring of 1389 and a final report is scheduled
to be available in ihe fall of-1989.
emissions data for -carcinogenic PICs
(e.g., chlorinated dioxins and furans,
benzene* chloroform, carbon
tetrachloride) as well as data for PICs
that are not suspected carcinogens and
are considered to be relatively nontoxic
(e.g., methane, and other Ci as well as
Gz pure hydrocarbons, i.e., containing
only carbon and hydrogen). We adjusted
the data base as follows to increase the
conservatism of the calculated THC unit
risk value: (1) We assumed that .the
carcinogen formaldehyde is emitted
from hazardous waste combustion
devices at the 95th percentile levels •
found to be emitted from municipal
waste combustors;5 -and (2) we assumed
that every carcinogenic -compound in
Appendix Vffl of Part 261 for which we
have health effects data but no
• emissions data is actually emitted at the
level of detection of the test methods, 0.1
ng/1. Finally, we assigned a unit risk of
zero to noncarcinogenic compounds
(e.g., Ci-Ce hydrocarbons such as
methane, acetylene). The calculated unit
risk value for THC is 1 X10~5m3/jJig,
comparable to the value for carbon
tetrachloride.8
To implement the health-based
approach with minimum burden on
permit writers and applicants, we have
established conservative THC emission
Screening Limits as a function of
effective stack height, terrain, and'land
use. See appendix B. These Screening
Limits were back-calculated from the
acceptable ambient level for THC, 1.0
jig/m3 {based on the unit risk value
discussed above and an acceptable MEI
risk of Mr5), using conservative
dispersion coefficients. (We also used
those dispersion coefficients to develop
alternative emissions and feed rate
Umits for metals andHCl, as discussed
below. The basis for those dispersion
coefficients is also discussed below.) If
THC emissions measured during the
trial bum do not exceed the THC
emissions Screening Limits, the risk
posed by THC emissions would be
considered .acceptable. If the Screening
Limits are exceeded, the applicant
would be required to conduct site-
specific dispersion modeling using EPA's
"Guidelines on Air Quality Models
(Revised)" to demonstrate that the
6 Because of its extremely high violatflity, special
stack sampling and analysis procedures are
required to measure formaldehyde emissions. Such
testing has nofbeen successfully conducted during
EPA's field testing of hazardous waste combustion
devices.
0 For additional technical support, see U.S. EPA,
"Background Information Document for the ;
Development of Regulations jor RIG Emissions from
Hazardous Waste Incinerator?," December, 1888
[Draft Final Report).
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 206 / Thursday, October 28. 1989 / Proposed Rules
'.'1 ^itsif^\jf^A^J^^^iKk^'^9xa^^ff'^!^^^^^^f^^^-'- '^2?&°^^2^lS&'i^'p^&'y^yT^-^i-.'fX^^-.'ftsxettf&^^&xe.-tt&iSZk^zzf -^Sja^e^Vrta^Kfejjjgajaii..a.aL^fc-.jaa'am :•% 'i?>!m£L^L^mtKjgzja^jgsCT!
43723
(potential) MEI exposure level (i.e., the
maximum annual average ground level
concentration) does not exceed the
acceptable THC ambient level.
2. Technology-Based Approach, Under
this Tier II approach, the Tier I CO limit
of 100 ppmv would be waived if THC
levels in the stack gas do not exceed a '
good operating practice-based limit of 20
ppmv.
We have developed this technology-
based approach because of cpncern
about scientific limitations of the risk-'
based approach. In addition^ the risk-
based approach could allow THC levels ,
of several hundred ppmv—levels that
are clearly indicative of upset
combustion conditions.
The Agency believes that risk
assessment can and should be used to
limit the application of technology-
based controls—that is, to demonstrate
that additional technology controls,
even though available, may not be
needed. However, we are sufficiently
. concerned that our proposed THC risk
assessment methodology may have
limitations particularly when applied to
THC emitted during poor combustion
conditions (Le., situations where CO
exceeds 100 ppmv) that we are
considering a cap on THC emissions.
Although we believe the development of
a risk-bassd approach is a step in.the
right direction, we are concerned
whether the risk-based approach is
adequately protective given our limited
data base on PIC -emissions and
understanding of what fraction of
organic emissions would be detected by
the THC monitoring system.
Notwithstanding the limitations of the
" THC risk assessment methodology,
however, we believe it is reasonable to
use the methodology to predict whether
a technology-based limit appears to be
protective. We have used the risk
assessment methodology to'show that a
20 ppmvTHC limit appears to be ...
protective of public health. ....'•'.
We discuss below our concerns with
. the proposed THC risk-based approach
and the basis for tentatively selecting-20
ppmv as the recommended THC limit
(measured^with a conditioned gas . '
^monitoring system, recorded on.an
hourly rolling average basis; reported as!
propane, and corrected to 7% oxygen).
. a. Concerns with the THC Risk
Assessment Methodology. Our primary
' concern, withithe risk assessment
methodology is that, although it may be
a reasonable approach for Devaluating
' PIC emissions under good combustion
conditions, it may not be adequate for
poor combustion condition's—when CO
exceeds 100 ppmv. The vast majority of
our data on the types and
concentrations of PIC emissions from
incinerators, boilers, and industrial
furnaces burning hazardous waste were'
obtained during test burns when the
devices were operated under good
combustion conditions. CO levels were
often well below 50 ppmv. Under Tier II
applications, CO levels can be 500 to
10,000 ppmv or higher (there is no upper
limit on CO).7 The concern is that we da
not know whether the types and .
concentrations of PICs at these elevated
CO levels, indicative of combustion
upset conditions, are similar to the types
and concentrations of PICs hi our data .
base. It could be hypothesized that as
combustion conditions deteriorate, the
ratio of semi- and nonvolatile
compounds to volatile compounds may
increase. If so, this could have serious
impacts oh the proposed risk
assessment methodology. First, the
proposed generic unit risk value for THC
may be understated when applied to .
THC, emitted under poor combustion
conditions. This is because semi- and
nonvolatile compounds comprise only
1% of the mass of THC m our data base,
but pose 80% of the estimated cancer
risk. Thus, if the fraction of semi- and
nonvolatile compounds increases under
poor combustion conditions, the cancer
risk posed by the compounds may also
increase.
To put this concern in perspective, we.
note that the proposed THC risk value
calculated from available data is 1X10~5
ms//xg. This unit risk is 100 times greater
(i.e., more potent) than the unit risk for
the quantified^PICs with the lowest unit
risk (e.g., tetrachloroethylene), but 1000
limes lower than the unit risk for PICs
such-as dibenzoanthracene, and 10,000
to 1,000,000 times lower than the unit
risk for various chlorinated dioxiris and
furans.
Second, if the fraction of semi- and
nonvolatile THC increases under poor,
combustion conditions, the fraction of
THC in the vapor phase when entering ;
the THC detector may be lower than the,
7595 assumed when operating under
good combustion conditions.8 If so, the
correction factor for the so-called
missing mass would be greater than the
1.33 factor proposed. .'.-,-'.' ;
The Agency is currently conducting
emissibhs testing to improve the data-
base in support of the. proposed risk- '
based approach. We are concerned,
however, that the testing that is
7 Hazardous waste incinerators have operated at
CO levels exceeding 13,000 ppmv during trial burns
that achieved 99.99% distribution and removal
efficiency.
8 See discussions in U.S. EPA, "Background
Information Document for the Development of
Regulations for PIC Emissions from Hazardous
Waste Incinerators", December, 1988 (Draft Final
Report). ....-•
underway and planned may not provide
information adequate to fully address all
the issues. In addition, we are
concerned that our stack sampling and
analysis procedures and our health
effects data base are not adequate to
satisfactorily characterize the. health
effects posed by Pics emitted under poor
combustion conditions.
A final concern with the risk
assessment methodology is that it does
not consider health impacts resulting
from indirect exposure. As explained
above, the risk-based standards
proposed today consider human health
impacts only from direct inhalation.
Indirect exposure via uptake through the
food chain, for example, has not been
considered because the Agency has not
yet developed procedures for . . .
quantifying indirect exposure impacts
for purposes of establishing regulatory
emissionlimits.
b. Basis for the THC Limit. We
request comment on a THC limit of 20
ppmv as representative of a THC level
distinguishing between good and poor
combustion conditions. Under this
alternative approach, THC would be
monitored continuously during the trial
burn, recorded on an hourly average
basis.'reported as ppmv propane, and
corrected to 7% oxygen. (See discussion
below in section C.4 regarding
performance specifications of the THC .
monitoring system.) We have tentatively
selected a level of 20 ppmv because: (1)
It is within the range of values reported
in our data base for hazardous waste
incinerators and boilers and industrial :
•furnaces burning hazardous waste; and
(2) the level appears to be protective of
human health based on risk assessments
using the proposed methodology for 30
incinerators.9 •
•The'available data appear to indicate
that 'the majority of devices can meet a
THC limit of 20 ppmv when operating
under good combustion conditions (i.e., .
when CO is less than 100 ppmv). It
appears, in fact, that many hazardous
waste incinerators can typically achieve
THC levels of 5 to 10 ppmv when
operating generally at low CO levels.
When incinerators emit higher THC
levels, CO levels typically exceed 100
ppmv, indicative of poor combustion .
conditions. The available information on
boilers and industrial furnaces is not
quite as clear, however. Although the
data base, indicates that boilers burning :
hazardous waste can easily meet a THC.
limit of 20 ppmv; the Agency has
obtained data pn various types of ;
8 Memorandum from Shiva Garg, EPA, to the
Docket, entitled "Supporting Information for a GOP-'
Based THC Limit", dated October 20,1988.
-------
Na 206
y, -October 26, 1989 / Proposed Rules
batters burping various types of fossil
fiwls {not hazardous waste} that
indicate that THC levels can exceed 20
ppmv wlwa CO levels are less than 100
ppmv. See footnote 7. We are reviewing
that data and obtaining additional
informttiqn to determine if an ...
alternative Hmit may be more
appropriate for boilers. We specifically
request comment on whether a THC
concentration of 20 ppmv 1m fact
represents food operating practice for
boilers burning hazardous waste as the
sole fuel or in combination with other
fuels.
We also request comment on whether
a THC concentration of 20 ppmv
represents good operating practice for
Industrial furnaces, Preheater and
precaldner cement kilns, for example,
mty not b« nble to readily achieve such
a low THC concentration for the same
reason thai they typically cannot
achieve CO levels below 100 ppmv.
Normal raw materials such as limestone
c«t contain trace levels of organic
materials that oxidiwj incompletely as
the raw material moves down the kiln
from the feed end to the hot end where
fuels are normally fired, Clearly, any
THC (or CO) resulting from this
phenomenon has nothing to do with
combustloa or hazardous waste fuel.
Thus, an Incinerator and a preheater or
precalctner cement kiln with exactly the
some quality of combustion conditions
may have very different THC (and CO)
levels, We request comment on: (1) The
types of industrial furnaces for which a
THC level of 20 ppmv is representative
of good combustion conditions; (2)
wke. ther oltomative THC limit? may be
more appropriate for certain industrial
furnaces; and (3] whether an approach
to identify a site-specific THC limit
representative of good operating
practices may be feasible (e,g., where
THC levels when burning hazardous
waste would be limited to baseline THC
levels without burning hazardous
Waste). In support of comments, we
request data on emissions of CO and
THC under baseline and hazardous
waste burning conditions, including
churacteriutioa of the type and
concentration of individual organic
compounds emitted.
As mentioned previously, some data
on CO and THC levels from industrial
boilers burning fossil fuels (not
hitturdous waste) appear to indicate
that THC levels can far exceed levels
considered to be representative of good
combustion conditions (20 ppmv) even
though CO levels are less than 100
ppmv. See footnote 7. If it appears that
Uiis situation can, in fact, occur for
particular devices burning particular
fuels, we would consider requiring both
CO and THC monitoring for all such
facilities irrespective of whether CO
levels were less than 100 ppmv during
the trial burn. Thus, under this scenario,
the two-tiered CO controls proposed
today would be replaced with a
requirement to continuously monitor CO
and THC for those particular facilities.
We specifically request information on
the types of facilities where THG levels
may exceed 20 ppmv even though CO
levels are less than 100 ppmv, and the
need to continuously monitor THC for
those facilities irrespective of the CO
level achieved during the trial burn.
C. Implementation of Tier I and Tier II
PIC Controls •
1. Oxygen and Moisture Correction.
The CO limits specified for either format
are on a dry gas basis and corrected to 7
percent oxygen. The oxygen correction
normalizes the CO data to a common
base, recognizing the variation among
the different technologies as well as
modes of operation using different
quantities of excess air. In-system
leakage, the size of the facility and the
type of waste feed are other factors that
cause oxygen concentration to vary
widely in Hue gases. Seven percent
oxygen was selected as the reference
oxygen level because it is in the middle
of the range of normal oxygen levels for
hazardous waste combustion devices
and it also is the reference level for the
existing participate standard for
hazardous waste incinerators under
§ 264.343{e). The correction for humidity
normalizes the CO data from the
different types of CO monitors (e.g.,
extractive vs. in situ). Our evaluation
indicates that the above two corrections,
when applied, could change the
measured CQ levels by a factor.of two
in some cases.
Measured CO levels should be
corrected continuously for the amount of
oxygen in -the stack gas according to the
formula:
COC =
X
14
21-Y
where COC is this corrected
concentration of CO in the stack gas,
COm is the measured CO concentration
according to guidelines specified in
appendix C, and Y is the .measured
oxygen concentration on a dry basis in
the stack. Oxygen should be measured
at the same stack location that CO is
measured.
2. Formats of the CO Limit. The CO
limits under Tier I and TierU would be
implemented under two alternative
formats. The applicant would select the
preferred approach on a case-by-case
basis. Under Format A, CO would be •
measured and recorded as an hourJv
rolling average. Under Format B, called
the time-above-a-limit format, three
parameters would be specified—a
never-to-exceed CO limit, and a base
CO limit not to be exceeded for more
than a specified time in each hour.
In developing these alternative
formats, EPA considered three alternate
methods:
• A level .never to be exceeded;
• A level to Ibe .exceeded for an
accumulated specified time within a
determined time frame; and
• An average level over a specified
time that is never to be exceeded.
The first alternative is the simplest
and .requires immediate liazardous
waste feed cutoff when the limit is
exceeded, regardless of how long the
,CO levels remain high. Short-term CO
excursions or peaks (a few minutes
duration) are typical of combustion
operations and can occur during routine
operations; e.g,, when a burner is
adjusted. It is possible that during
shutdown and start-up, the device may
momentarily have high GO emissions.
Since the total mass emissions under
such momentary CO excursions is not
high, a never-to-exceed limit would
impede operations while providing little
reduction in health risk.
The second alternative, allowing the
CO level to exceed the limit for a
specified accumulative time within a
determined time frame {e,g.t x minutes in
an hour), solves the problem associated
with the first alternative. The hazardous
waste feed would not be cut off by a
single CO peak of high intensity yet they,
would be restricted from operation with
several short interval CO peaks, or a
single long duration peak.
The third alternative, allowing the CO
level never to exceed an average level
determined over a specified time, also
avoids the problem of shutting off the
waste feed each time an instantaneous
CO peak occurs. A time-weighted
average value (i.e., integrated area
under the CO peaks over a given time
period) also provides a direct
quantitative measure of mass emissions
of CO. For this reason, the use of a
rolling average is EPA's preferred
format. A combination of the first and
second alternatives, with provisions to
limit mass CO emissions per unit time,
its also proposed as an alternative
format. This alternative CO format has
been proposed to reduce the cost of
instrumentation from that required to
provide continuous Tolling average CO
values corrected for oxygen. This format
may be particularly attractive to
operators of small
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No.
Thursday. October 26, 1989 /Proposed
43725
operated boilers. The CO monitoring
system needed for the first alternative ,
requires continuous measurement and
adjustment of the oxygen correction
factor and continuous computation of
hourly rolling averages. The
instrumentation costs of such a system,
consisting of continuous .CO and oxygen .
monitors with back-up systems, a data
logger and microprocessor, could be up
to $91,000 and would require increased
sophistication and operating costs over
simpler systems. The only ,
instrumentation needed for the
alternative time-above*the-limit format
is a CO monitor and a timer that can
indicate cumulative time of exceedances
in every clock hour, at the end of which
it is recalibrated [manually or
electronically) to restart afresh. Oxygen;
also would not have to be measured
continuously in this format; instead, an
oxygen correction value can be
determined from operating data
collected during the trial burn.
Subsequently, oxygen correction values
would be determined annually or at
more frequent intervals specified in the
facility permit.1 ° We have not limited
the use. of this alternative CO format to
any size or to any type or class of device
since we consider that this alternative
format provides an equal degree of
control of CO emissions to the rolling
average format.
The alternative format would require
• dual CO levels to be established in the
permit, the first as a never to exceed
limit and the second a lower limit for
cumulative exceedances of no more than
a specified time in an hour. These limits
and the time duration of exceedance
would be established on a case-by-case
basis by equating the mass emissions
(peak areas) in both the formats so that ,
the regulation is equally stringent in
both cases. The PIC Background
Document J1 for the incinerator rules
provides the methodology and
mathematical formulae showing how
this can be done.
3. Monitoring CO and Oxygen.
Compliance with the Tier I CO limit
. would require: (1) Continuous
monitoring of CO during the trial burn
and after, the facility is permitted; (2)"
continuous monitoring of oxygen during
the trial burn and, under the 60-minute
10 We believe that annual determ'nations of the
oxygen correction factor will be appropriate in most
cases because the concern is whether duct in-
leakage has substantially changed over'time. The
fact that excess'oxygen levels also change with
waste type and feed rate should be considered in
establishing the correction factor initially.
11 U.S. EPA, "Background Information Document
for the Development of Regulations for PIC
Emissions from Hazardous Waste Incinerators,"
December, 1H83 (Draft Final Report).
rolling average format, after the facility
is permitted; and (3) measurement of
moisture during the trial burn and
annually (or as specified in the permit)
thereafter. Compliance with the Tier II
CO limits would require all the Tier. I
measurements and measurement of THG
during the trial burn. Methods for
measurements of CO and oxygen, (and
THC) must be in accordance with the
3rd edition of SW-846, as amended. The
methods are summarized in Appendix C
and are discussed in more detail in
"Proposed Methods for Stack Emissions
Measurements of CO, O2, THC, HC1, and
Metals at Hazardous Waste
Incinerators'YU.S. EPA, July, 1989 (Draft
Final Report). If compliance with the CO
standard is not demonstrated during the
DRE trial burn, the CO test burn must be
under conditions identical to the DRE
trial burn. . .
4. Monitoring THC. Under Tier II,
THC would be monitored during the
trial burn to ensure that the highest
hourly average level does not exceed 20
ppmv. An exceedance of the THC limit
would be linked to automatic waste feed
cutoff. We believe that continuous THC
monitoring should also be required over
the life of the permit. This is because at
high CO levels (e.g., greater than 100
ppmv) THC levels may or may not be
high (e.g., greater than 20 ppmv). The
concern is that, although THC levels
during the trial burn may be less than 20
ppmv when CO exceeds 100 ppmv,
operations over the life of the permit
within the envelope allowed by the
permit conditions may result in THC
levels exceeding 20 ppmv. This concern
was expressed by EPA's Science
Advisory Board during its critique of the
proposed PIC controls in the spring of
1989. EPA specifically requests
comments on whether continuous
monitoring of THC should be required
over the life of the permit under Tier II.
EPA had developed specifications for
THC monitoring (see appendix D) that
would have required heated gas
sampling lines and a heated flame
ionization-detector (FID) to keep as
much of the THC in the vapor phase as
possible. EPA reasoned that heated
sampling lines were needed because the
FID can detect THC only in the vapor
phase—condensed organic compounds
are not measured. Preliminary results of
field testing of a hazardous waste
incinerator conducted in July 1988
indicate that detected THC levels were
3 to 27 times greater with a heated FID
system compared to an unheated system
• when CO levels ranged from 100 ppmv
to 2780 ppmv.12 The total mass of
volatile, semivolatile, and nonvolatile
organic compounds was also quantified
during those tests using the Level I
screening procedure.13 The results
indicate that the THC levels detected by
an unheated FID were much lower than
the levels determined by the Level I
screening procedure..
Based on cursory discussions in
October of 1988 with several hazardous
waste incinerator operators, we had
believed that such heated systems were
in use at some facilities. A follow-up
written survey ** indicated, however,
that all of.the six incinerator facilities
surveyed that use a FID to monitor THC
used a system that incorporated gas
conditioning—condensate traps
accompanying gas cooling systems.
Thus, the Agency has not been able to
document operating experiences with a
heated (i.e., not conditioned) gas
sampling system. Further, we
understand that, based on EPA tests
using a heated FID at an incinerator (see
footnote 11) and comments made during
the SAB review of the PIC controls, a
heated FID system can pose a number of
problems: (1) The sample extraction
lines may plug due to heavy particulate
loadings and condensed organic
" compounds; and (2) semi and
nonvolatile compounds may adsorb on
the inside of the extraction lines causing
, unknown effects on measurements.
Given these concerns about the
technical feasibility of requiring the use
of heated'FIDs at this time, we are
proposing that gas conditioning be
allowed. Such conditioning could
involve gas cooling to a level between
32 °F and the dew point of the gas and
the use of condensate traps. To reduce
operation and maintenance problems,
the extraction lines and FID should '
probably still be heated.
Allowing gas conditioning in the
interim until unconditioned systems can
be shown to be. practicable virtually
precludes the use of the health-based
alternative to assess THC emissions
under the Tier II controls. This is .
because a large, undetermined fraction
of THC emissions will be condensed to
;the trap and will not be reported by the
FID. This is another reason that the
12 U.S. EPA, "Measurement of Particulaies,
Metals, and Organics at a Hazardous Waste
Incinerator", November, 1983, (Draft Final Report).
13 The Level I screening procedure is described in
"IERL-RTP Procedure Manual: Level I—
Environmental Assessment," 2nd Edition, October
1978 (EPA 600/7-78-201). That procedure uses
gravimetric and total chromatographical organic
procedures to quantify the mass of semi and
nonvolatile organic compounds.
- " U.S. EPA, "THC Monitor Survey", June, 1989
(Draft Final Report). • .
-------
43726
Federal Register/ Vol. 54, No. 206 /Thursday, October 26, 1989 / Proposed Rules
Agency prefers the technology-based, SO
ppmv limit on THC as the Tier 31
standard.
Although a FID system monitoring a
conditioned gas will detect only the
volatile fraction of organic compounds
fund, In some cases, only the nonwater-
solublo volatile fraction}, the Agency
believes this is adequate for the purpose
of determining whether the Facility is
operating under good operating
conditions.'* Available data indicate
thai when omissions of semi and
nonvolatile organic compounds
Increase, volatile compounds also
Increase.1* Thus, volatile compounds
appear to ba a good indicator lor the
temt and nonvolatile compounds that
lira often of greater concern because of
Ilielr health effects. Given, however, that
(he good operating practice-based THC
limit of 20 ppmv was based primarily on
tut burn data using heated (i.e.,
unconditioned gas) PID systems, the
Agency considered whether to lower the
recommended THC limit when an
unboated system is used for compliance
monitoring. As discussed above, limited
available field test data indicated that a
heated system would detect two to four
times the mass of organic compounds
than a conditioned system. We believe,
however, th«t the 20 ppmv THC limit is
still appropriate when a conditioned
system !s used because: (I) The data
correlating heated vs conditioned
systems are very limited; (2) the data on
,TIIC emissions are limited (and there
apparently is confusion fn some cases as
to whether (he data were taken with a
heated or conditioned system); and (3)
the risk methodology is not
sophisticated enough to demonstrate
that a THC limit of S to 10 ppmv using a
conditioned system rather than a limit of
20 ppmv is needed to adequately protect
public health.
The THC monitoring method proposed
In Appendix D will be modified to allow
an unheated. conditioned system and
use of condeniate trap(s) and other
conditioning methods. The revised
method wiE specify, however, that the
'* Wt MMjaeit comment an whether I! would be
prMlic*bk to d*v*top • fltfrtpeGlfte correction
mctot for monitoring with m cootlltioned ges system
% monjlortnf **•* «» unconditioned aj'alom as well
wring 111* trial burn. Ihe ritto of the unconditioned
tjf'itam THC Itwl to tt»« conditioned system THC
ttvei eottld CH*R b* used *.t> outset (lie conditioned
«>•««« "H1C reluct over fht Hit of the permit. This
•PfWOneli miy no* be pnre»Q«b!n, however, for
MMMHt* Inclu-ltnjK Ihe laiit dint Ae waftt burned
iurifi'g
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 54, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 1989 / Proposed
43727 ••
system after the waste feed is ,
automatically cutoff. Ths-safe start-up of
the burners using auxiliary fuel requires
approved burner safety management
systems for prepurge, pilot lights, and
induced draft fan starts. If these safety
requirements preclude immediate start-
up of auxiliary fuel burners and' such
start-up is needed to maintain
temperatures (i.e., if the combustion
chamber temperatures drop
precipitously after waste feed cutoff),
the auxiliary fuel may have to be burned
continuously on "low fire" during
nonupset conditions. After an-automatic
cutoff, hazardous waste should not be
used as auxiliary fuel unless the waste
is hazardous solely because it is
ignitable, corrosive, or reactive, or it
contains insignificant levels of toxic
constituents. ...
We request comment on several
alternative approaches to allow restart
of the waste feed: (1) Restart after the "*
hourly rolling average no longer exceeds -
the permit limit; (2) restart after an
arbitrary 10 minute time period to
enable the operator to stabilize '
combustion conditions; or (3) restart
after the instantaneous CO level meets
the hourly rolling average limit. This
third alternative (i.e., basing restarts on
the instantaneous CO levels) may be
appropriate because it may take quite a
while for the hourly rolling average to
come within the permit limit while the
event that caused the exceedance may
well be over even Before the CO monitor
reports the exceedance. Under this
alternative, the rolling average could be
"re-set" when the hazardous waste feed
is restarted either by: (1) basing the
hourly rolling average on the CO level
for the first minute after the restart (the
same approach that would be used any
time the waste feed is restarted for
reasons other than a CO exceedance); or
(2) assuming more conservatively given
that CO levels may exceed the permit ".' •
limit after the waste feed cutoff while
residues continue to burn, that the
hourly rolling average is equivalent to
the permit limit (e.g., 100 ppmv) prior to
the waste feed restart. A final
refinement to this third alternative of-
allowing restarts after instantaneous CO
levels fall below the permit limit would -
be not to reset the rolling average CO
level and to require that the -
instantaneous CO level not, exceed the
(rolling average) permit limit (e.g., 100 •
ppmv) for the period after the restart
and until the rolling average falls below
the permit limit. Again, we specifically'
request comment on these alternative
approaches to allow waste feed restarts.
When the automatic waste feed cutoff '
is triggered by a THC exceedance, %ve
propose to allow a restart only after the
(hourly rolling average THC level has
'been reduced to 20 ppmv or less. We are
not considering the options discussed
above for restarts after a CO
exceedance given that THC is a better
surrogate for toxic organic emissions
than CO. Thus, we believe that a more
conservative waste feed restart policy is'
appropriate after a THC exceedance.
D. Miscellaneous Issues
1. PIC Controls for Nonflame
Industrial Furnaces. We note that the
PIC controls discussed above may not
adequately control THC emissions from
nonflame furnaces such as some electric
arc smelters (in situations where, in.fact,
controls for emissions of organic
compounds would apply (see discussion
in section IX)). In nonflame devices ,
where combustion is neither the primary
mode of destruction of organic
compounds, in the waste, nor is used in .
an afterburner to burn hydrocarbon-
laden off-gases from the thermal
cracking of the waste, CO may not be an
adequate surrogate to control THC
emissions. That i's, in nonflame devices,
when CO emissions are low, THC
emissions may be high. Thus, the Tier I
CO limit of 100 ppmv may not be
adequate to ensure that THC
concentrations are low. Accordingly, we
request comment on requiring
continuous THC monitoring for
nonflame devices to ensure that THC
concentrations do hot exceed the good
operating practice-based level of 20
ppmv. , . •'
2. Measuring CO and THC in
Preheater and Precalciner Cement
Kilns. EPA has received comments that'
preheater and precalciner cement kilns
typically have bypass ducts that by-pass
the preheater or precalciner and carry
kiln off-gases directly to the stack.
Measuring CO and THC in the bypass
duct rather than in the stack would-
provide data unaffected by CO and THC
produced in the preheater or precalciner
by coal combustion (in the precalciner)
or by volatilizing trace levels of organic
compounds present in the raw material.
Testing of bypass gases in lieu of stack
gases would be acceptable for
compliance with the CO and THC
controls provided that the CO and THC
levels in the bypass gases are
representative of the kiln off-gases (i.e.,
provided that CO and THC in the kiln
off-gases are not stratified before
entering the bypass).
3. Feeding Waste in Cement Kilns by
Methods Other Than Dispersion in the
Flame at the Hot End. The Agency is
aware that several cement, companies
are investigating the feasibility of
feeding solid hazardous waste into
"cement kilns and some "facilities are:
already engaging in the practice. The
solid materials are fed into the kiln •
system at locations other than the "hot"
end of the kiln where liquid hazardous
: waste fuels and fossil fuels are normally
fired. These practices may be an
• effective approach to both beneficially
use the heating value in solid hazardous
wastes and provide needed treatment
capacity for such wastes. The Agency
has not, however, conducted emission
testing of cement kiln systems when
burning solid hazardous wastes.
Depending on the kiln system, location
of the firing port, and type and quantity
of hazardous waste fired, there is a
potential concern for incomplete
combustion of organic compounds in the
waste. Conceivably, the waste may be
fired into the systems at a point where
adequate temperatures and residence
time may not be provided to ensure
adequate destruction. In addition, if a
kiln system is equipped with a by-pass
duct, combustion gases from burning the
hazardous waste may be "short-
circuited" and routed to the stack before
adequate destruction can occur.
The proposed controls will effectively
control emissions irrespective of how
• solid hazardous waste may be fired into
kiln systems because the standards
would apply to stack emissions. The
question is, given that the Agency has • *
not yet tested such operations, whether
special requirements should be applied
during interim status. We specifically
request comment on the need for special
controls during interim status when
cement kiln systems feed hazardous
waste at locations other than the hot
end. Commenters should provide
information on such practice, including
data on organic emissions (e.g., DRE
results, CO and THC concentration),
and suggestions on appropriate interim
status controls, if any are considered .
necessary (i.e., in addition to the interim
status standards that would be
applicable to all boilers and industrial
furnaces, as discussed elsewhere in
today's notice).
E. Implementation of PIC Controls
During Interim Status
1. Preferred Option. We believe that
the PIC controls can and should be /
applied as soon as possible for facilities
in interim status. Thus, we are
requesting comment on whether the
following compliance schedule-is
reasonable. Within 12 months of
promulgation of the final rule, boilers
and industrial furnaces operating under
interim status must install CO
monitoring equipment meeting the
performance specifications presented in
-------
4S728
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 1989 / Proposed Rules
today's notice and determine
compliance with the Tier I standard of
100 ppmv during a test burn
tvpcescnUtivfl of worst-case combustion
conditions that will occur during interim
stRitt*.11 (Irrespective of which CO
format ts selected (i.e., hourly rolling
average or tlme-above-a-limit) the
raixSmam taarly average CO level
during the test barn cannot exceed 100
ppmv under Tier I.) If CO levels do not
exceed 100 ppmv, CO levels are limited
during interim status to 100 ppmv.
If the maximum hourly average CO
level exceeds 100 ppmv during the test
bum, the owner or operator must, within
15 months of promulgation of the final
ruia, demonstrate that the maximum
hourly average TMC concentration does
not exceed 20 ppmv during a test burn
equivalent to the Tier! test barn, using
TBC monitoring equipment meeting the
performance specifications presented in
today's notice. U the THC concentration
does not exceed 20 ppmv during the test
barn, then, during the period of interim
stutua. continuous monitoring of THC
* would be required to ensure that THC
does not exceed 20 ppmv, and
continuous monitoring of CO would be
required to ensure that CO does not
exceed the time-weighted average CO
levtl th«t occurred during the test burn.
If the maximum hourly average THC
level exceeds 20 ppmv during the test
bum, the owner or operator must, within
18 month* of promulgation of the final
ruJt, modify operations as necessary
and demonstrate In a subsequent test
bum that THC concentrations do not
exceed 20 ppmv, or cease burning
hazardous waste and complete closure
requirements.
We are considering an exception to
the 20 ppmv THC limit, however, for
cement kilns thai can demonstrate that
fuel-derived THC levels do not exceed
the 20 ppmv limit even though stack gas
concentrations may exceed the limit.
The concern is that trace levels of
organic compounds ta the raw materials
(e.g., limestone) can produce THC as the
materials are gradually heated as they
travel from the cold {ie,, feed) end of the
kiln to the hot (i.e., fuel firing) end of the
kiln. We specifically request comment
on whether only fuel-derived THC
should b« considered for purposes of
" A ilnjlt tent "bum ooiwimtag of 3 runs should
to conducted to
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 20S / Thursday, October 26, 1989 / Pgopoged Rules
potential concern. The length of permit.
proceedings would thus be shortened
relieving to some extent regulatory
burden'as well.
We, therefore, are considering
expanding the list of controlled metals
to include: antimony, arsenic, barium,
beryllium, cadmium, chromium (VI),
lead, mercury, silver, and thallium. Thus,
-of the 12 metals listed in Appendix VIII,
only selenium and nickel would not be
controlled. We ars not considering
controls for selenium because the
Agency has inadequate health data to
establish a reference air concentration.
Nickel would not be controlled because
the two nickel compounds suspected at
this time of being potential human
' carcinogens, nickel carbonyl and
subsulfide, are not likely to be emitted
from combustion devices, given the
highly oxidizing conditions that exist in
combustion devices. We note, however,
that some industrial furnaces (e.g.,
electric arc smelters) do not use
combustion to provide heat to drive
process reactions. Such furnaces could
conceivably emit the reduced,
carcinogenic forms of nickel if present in
the hazardous waste feed. We
specifically request information on
emissions of nickel carbonyl and
subsulfide from such furnaces and
suitable stack sampling and analysis
procedures.
C. Revised Format for Screening Limits
'• In developing the proposed
amendments to the incineration
standards that the Agency plans to
propose shortly, we developed
Screening Limits for metals (and HC1
and THC) as a function of effective -
stack height, terrain, and land use. As
discussed above, we believe that basing
limits on these parameters more directly
ties the controls to the key parameters
that affect dispersion of emissions and,
ultimately, ambient levels. When '
developing the proposed Tier I through
Tier III screening limits for boilers and
industrial furnaces in 1987, we made a
simplifying assumption that effective
stack height correlated with thermal
capacity {e.g., if the thermal.capacity of
one device was 10 percent greater than
the thermal capacity of another, then the
effective stack height was also 10
percent greater]. This is not always true.
Stack height is often more a function of
the height of nearby buildings and-
surrounding terrain than the heat input
capacity of the device. Thus, we are
considering establishing for boilers and
industrial furnaces the.identicalfeed
rate and emission rate Screening Limits
we plan to propose for incinerators. The
Screening Limits are presented in -
Appendix E, and the technical support
for the Limits is summarized in" appendix
F. We would also implement the metals
controls for boilers and furnaces as we
plan to propose in the incinerator
amendments (i.e., risk from carcinogenic
metals must be summed; risk from all
on-site hazardous waste combustion
facilities must be considered). See
appendix G. "
We note that, under this approach,
screening limits provided by Tier I of the
proposed rule would be deleted. Tier I
established metals concentrations limits
for hazardous waste in units of pounds
of metal per million BTU of heat input to
the device. Under that tier, the device
was conservatively assumed to burn 100
percent hazardous waste (i.e., metals
levels in hazardous waste burned in
these devices are most always higher
than in cofifed fossil fuels). Under such
a conservative assumption, we believe
that few facilities bum hazardous waste
with metals levels low enough to meet
the Tier I limits.. Note also that the feed
^ rate Screening Limits provided by
Appendices B~l through B-4 of this
proposed incinerator amendments
would replace the Tier II limits
originally proposed for boilers and
industrial furnaces. The risk assessment
methodology remains basically the same
as proposed in 1987. EPA will, however,
continue to accept comments on this
methodology.
D. Screening Limits Provided by the
Risk Assessment Guideline'
We are considering providing the
Screening Limits in the Risk Assessment
Guidelines for Permitting Hazardous
Waste Thermal Treatment Devices
(RAG) rather than in the rule (i.e., the
Code of Federal Regulations). This is.
consistent with the approach the
Agency plans to propose for the
incinerator amendments and would
enable the Agency to update the limits
as health effects data are revised and
EPA's dispersion models evolve.
Revisions to the RAG would be noticed
in the Federal Register with the current
edition noted. ; , '
However, EPA solicits comment on %
this and an alternative approach
whereby the Agency would promulgate -
Screening Limits in the rule, as originally
proposed for boilers and industrial •
furnaces. Providing the Screening Limits
in the RAG has limitations. Our concern
is that guidance documents do not carry
the weight of a regulation—permit
writers Would be free to accept or reject
the guidance (e.g., Screening Limits
RACs, RSDs) and would be obligated to
justify use and appropriateness of the •
guidance on a case-by-case basis. This
could place a substantial burden on the
permit writer and result in inconsistent,
and, perhaps, inappropriate permit
conditions. If the Screening Limits are •
promulgated in the rule, EPA would then
revise them by rulemaking if warranted
by new information. In the interim,
permit writers could apply stricter limits
than contained in the rule (if the facts
justify it) pursuant to the omnibus
permit authority in section 3005(c}(3)
(with notice and comment provided on
the potential change during the permit
proceeding).
E. Implementation of Metals Controls
During Interim Status
1. Preferred Option. We are
considering a significant-modification to
the proposed compliance schedule.
Under this alternative, interim status
sources would determine compliance
with metal (and HC1) Screening Limits
within 12 months of promulgation of the
final rule. If a source cannot comply
with the Screening Limits within the
initial 12 months, then the owner or
, operator must:,(l) Within 15 months of
promulgation, demonstrate compliance
with the reference air concentrations for
noncarcinogenic metals and the 10" 5 risk
level for carcinogenic metals using
dispersion modeling; or (2) within 24
months of promulgation, either modify
the facility and demonstrate compliance
or complete closure requirements with
respect to hazardous waste burning. The
Regional Administrator could extend the
compliance period if the owner or
operator can show inability to make
required modifications because of
situations beyond its control (e.g.,
unavailability of equipment).
2. Alternative Options, In addition,
EPA is considering the following
alternative interim status requirements,
similar to those for particulates, to bring
sources into compliance with the metals
(and HCL) standards. The first would
require facilities- that cannot
demonstrate compliance within 12
months of promulgation to submit a
compliance plan within 15 months of
promulgation which assures expedient
compliance (i.e., within 12 months of
EPA approval). The last alternative
would require the source to submit a
complete Part B RCRA Permit
Application, draft trial burn plan, and
site-specific risk assessment as •
applicable, within 18 months of
promulgation; or implement closure
requirements within 18 months of
promulgation. EPA is requesting
comments on all three alternatives for
implementing metals and HC1 standards.
-------
:,,, 43730
**6"*1
° 206 I Thursday, October 26, 1989 / Proposed Rules
IV. Alternative Hydrogen Chloride
Standards
EPA la also considering an alternative
approach to the proposed hydrogen
chloride (HC1) standards. As discussed
above for the metals standards, we are
considering: (1) Establishing the
screening limits as a function of
effective stack height, terrain, and land
uie rather than device type and
capacity; and (2) providing the screening
Ifmit values in the RAG rather than in
Hit rula itself. (The HC1 controls would
also be implemented during interim
status like the metals controls.) The
bases for these changes are identical to
thoie discussed above for metals.
V. Revisions to tho Proposed Small
Quantity Burner Exemption
A, Summary
EPA proposed to exempt facilities that
bum de minimis quantities of their own
hazardous waste because, absent
regulatory control, the health risk posed
by such burning would not be
significant. Eligibility for the exemption
would be based on the quantity of waste
burned per month, established as a
function of device type and thermal
capacity. In order to be exempt, in
addition to restrictions on quantity of
waste burned, facilities would be
required to notify the Regional
Administrator that they are a small
quantity burner, the maximum
Instantaneous waste firing rate would
be limited to one percent of total fuel
burned, and dioxln-containing acutely
toxic wastes could not be burned. See
proposed 1266.34-l(b),
We are considering several revisions
to this proposed provision. Rather than
establishing exemption quantities as a
function of device type and capacity, we
are considering using effective stack
height. Also, several improvements
could be made in the risk assessment
methodology and the procedures for
handling multiple devices could be made
less arbitrary to reduce over-regulation.
The basis for these changes is discussed
belpw.
B, Revised Format for Exempt
Quantities
Under this alternative approach,
exempt quantities would be established
as a function of effective stack height
rather than device type and thermal
capacity (see Table 1). We believe this
approach is preferable for the reasons
discussed above. We note that we are
not suggesting to include the two
variables used for the metals and HC1
limits, terrain type and land use
classification, in establishing revised
exempt quantities. Rather, the revised
quantities are based on assumptions of
terrain and land use that result in the .'
lowest (i.e., most conservative) exempt
quantities. We believe that, this
conservative approach is appropriate
given that there would be no EPA or
State agency oversight of an operator's
determination of his terrain and land
use classification.
TABLE 1.—EXEMPT QUANTITIES FOR
SMALL QUANTITY BURNER EXEMPTION
Terrain-adjusted effective stack height
of device (meters)
0 to 3.9
4.0 to 5.9
6.0 to 7.9
8.0 to 9.9 :
10.0 to 11.9
-12.0 to 13.9
14.0 to 15.9
16.0 to 17.9 ,
180 to 19.9
20.0 to 21.9
22.0 to 23.9
24.0 to 25.9 ;
26.0 to 27.9 _
28.0 to 29.9 ,
30.0 to 34.9
35.0 to 39.9
40.0 to 44.9
45.0 to 49.9..,..
50.0 to 54.9 „
55.0 to 59.9..._ „
60.0 to 64.9
65.0 to 69.9 „ '.
70.0 to 74.9
75.0 to 79.9 .....i..
80.0 to 84.9
85.0 to 89.9
90.0 to 94.9
95.0 to 99.9 „...
100.0 to 104.9.:
105.0 to 109:9 :
110.0 to 114.9 „
Greater than 115.0
Allowable
hazardous
waste
burning
rates
(gallons/
month)
0
13
18
27
40
' 48
59
69
76
84
93
100
110
130
140
170
210
260
330
400
490
610
680
760
850
960
1,100
1,200
1,300
1,500
1,700
1,900
C. Improvements in the Risk
Assessment Methodology
The changes in the risk assessment
methodology used to develop the
revised exempt quantities presented in
Table 1 include: (1) Consideration of the
risk from emissions of total
hydrocarbons (THCJ rather than only
those products of incomplete
combustion (PICs) quantified during
EPA's field testing program; and (2) a
carcinogenic potency of Qi*=0.07 (that
translates to a unit risk of 2.0x10"*) was
assumed for the THC rather than a Qi*
of 1.0 for PICs. The revised Qi* is based
on the average weighted unit risk
developed to control THC emissions
(see discussion above under alternative
CO standards) which was doubled to
account for the fact that THC emissions
wjll likely be more toxic at the
conservatively assumed 99 percent DRE
than at the 99.99 percent DRE measured
during the tests.
We are considering this change
because we are concerned about a
nonconservative feature of the PIC/
POHC ratio used to estimate the risk
from PIC emissions in establishing the
proposed.exempt quantities. The PIC/
POHC ratio considers only those PICs
for which emissions have been
quantified. As discussed'elsewhere in
this Notice, organic compounds, other
than those specifically quantified to . f
date, are emitted from these combustion
devices, and some of those compounds
ar^ undoubtedly toxic. Thus, we believe
it is prudent (conservative) to consider
THC rather than just quantified PICs in
this analysis.
A detailed description of the
methodology used to calculate the
revised exempt quantities is available in
the docket for public review and
comment.18
18 U.S. EPA, "Analysis for Calculating a de
Minimis Exemption for Burning Small Quantities of
Waste in Combustion Devices", August 1989.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No.- 206 / Thursday, October 26, 1989 /Proposed Rules
43731
The revised approach uses the following equation to calculate exempt quantities:
Allowable THC Mass Emission Rate=THC Einis, Cone. I Waste quantity X :
Volume of combustion gas
Mass of waste
where:
Allowable THC Mass Emission Rate means
the back-calculated, risk-based THC
emission rate in grams/second, assuming
an acceptable MEI risk of 10~s and a
THC unit risk of 2.0xiO-5(Q*=0.07),
and using the conservative dispersion
coefficients discussed above.
THC Emission Concentration means the THC
emissions concentration in grams/lifer
(g/1] for an assumed destruction and
removal efficiency of 99 percent. The
value used is 15,000 ppm converted to g/
1 based on field data that show THG
concentrations range from 0 to 142 ppm
when devices achieve 99.99 percent DRE
and an assumption that the levels would
be 100 times higher at 99 percent DRE.
Waste Quantity means maximum allowable
waste quantity in pounds/second.
Volume of Combustion Gas/Mass of Waste
means the empirically^derived
relationship between combustion gas
volumes and quantity of waste burned.
That value is 200 dscf/lb of wastes.
The above equation was solved for
waste quantity per unit of time for a
range of Allowable THC Mass Emission
Rates corresponding to the range Of
effective stack heights. Those values
were then converted to gallons/month
assuming the waste has a density of 8
Ib/gallon;
D. Multiple Devices
Under this revised approach, the •
exempt quantities for a facility with
multiple stacks from boilers or industrial
furnaces burning hazardous waste
would be limited according to the . ,.
following equation:
X
— •'
130
Y
— -
33
Actual Quantity Burnedi
! Allowable Quantity Burnedi
<1
where:
N means the number of stacks
Actual Quantity Burned) means the waste
quantity per month burned in device with
"i"
Allowable Quantity Burnedi means the ".
maximum allowable exempt quantity for
stack "i" from Table 1.
For example if a site had two devices
with effective stack heights (ESH) of 30
and 10 meters, the following equation
would hold:
Where:
130 and 33 are the exempt quantities from
Table 1 for stack heights of 30 and 10
meters, respectively
X is the waste quantity burned in the device ;
with the 30 meter stack
Y is the waste quantity burned in tfee device
with the 10 meter stack
In this- example, if Y is burning 15
gallons/month, then X could burn no
more than 84 gallons/month.
VI. Definition of Indigenous Waste That
Is Reclaimed
In the May 6,1987, notice, the Agency
solicited comment on the-issue of When
a hazardous waste that was burned
exclusively for material recovery might
be considered to be "indigenous" to the
industrial furnace in which it was being
burned. See 52 FR16990-991. The
significance of being indigenous is that
the material would cease being a solid
and hazardous waste upon being ••'"-•
inserted into the industrial furnace. At
that point, it would be an in-process
material and no" longer discarded. The
industrial furnace thus would not be
subject to the proposed emission
standards. In addition, any residues
from burning would not be subject to the
derived-from rule in § 261.3(c)(2)
because such residues would not derive
from management of a hazardous waste.
The Agency proposed that a waste be
considered indigenous if it was
generated and burned in the same type
of industrial furnace. In addition, scrap
'metal would be considered indigenous
to any secondary smelting furnace, and
lead acid battery plates and grids would
have been considered to be indigenous
to secondary lead smelting furnaces.
Commenters almost unanimously
favored some type of indigenous test,
but disagreed on its precise scope,
' offering a variety of suggestions. After
analyzing these "comments, the Agency
solicits comment on a different option
which incorporates features from the
Agency's initial proposal, as well as .
proposals received from previous public •
.comments. •
As summarized below, the test for
when a waste is indigenous to an
industrial furnace would vary according
.to the source of the waste, and, in some
cases, whether the industrial furnace is
a primary or secondary furnace
[whether it processes chiefly ores or
secondary materials such as scrap
metal).
A. Industrial (Smelting) Furnaces in the
Standard Industrial Code (SIC) 33
Burning Wastes From SIC 33 Processes
Standard Industrial Code 33
encompasses all Primary Metal
Industries including iron and steel
manufacturing and processing, and iron
and-steel foundries; and primary and
secondary nonferrous metal ,
, manufacturing and processing according
to the 1972 Edition of the SIC.
Commenters suggested and the Agency
tentatively agrees, that these processes
. are sufficiently interrelated that
secondary materials going from one
process to another within this SIC code
(33} should be generally considered
indigenous.
However, situations may arise where
wastes from SIC 33 processes are
burned in SIC 33 furnaces for the
' objective of waste treatment by
destroying-unrecyclable toxic
constituents (that would be "discarded
materials" within the meaning of RCRA
1004(27)). Therefore, to be considered
indigenous, the only unrecyelable toxic
constituents (i.e., compounds listed in
Appendix VIII40 CFR part 261) the
waste could contain are those that are
found in the virgin, material customarily
processed (provided that the '
concentration in the waste is not
significantly higher than concentrations
in the raw material), and those that are
present only in insignificant amounts if
not normally found in the virgin material
customarily processed in, industrial
furnaces. In the Agency's opinion, an
insignificant amount of unrecyelable
constituents would be 500 ppm of total
nonindigenous toxic organics or 500 ppm
of total nonindigenous toxic metals (or
inorganic toxics) above the levels of
those toxic constituents found in the
virgin material customarily processed.
In the EPA's judgment, this
concentration level represents a
concentration, of material far exceeding
minimal trace levels (generally
measured in single digit parts per million
(ppm) or tens of ppm). This level of a
hazardous constituent could create an
incremental health risk if burned
inefficiently, or with inadequate
-------
Fedqrgl Register / Vol. 54, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 1989 / Proposed Rules
•million controls, and, moreover,
indicates that the objective of burning is
waste treatment as opposed to
reclamation,
The following example illustrates this
test as to whether a waste is indigenous:
* A steel production facility sends its
electric arc furnace emission control
dust (Hazardous Waste K061) t8 a zinc
smelting furnace for zinc recovery. This
waile contain 500 ppm and 2,100 ppm of
cadmium and lead respectively. Assume
for purposes of this example, lead and
cadmium are also found in zinc ore
concentrates at levels of 200 ppm and
2,000 ppm respectively. Lead and
cadmium are not recycled—they do not
partition primarily to a product.
Ai a result, K061 would be considered
to be indigenous because steel
production and zinc smelting are both
SlC 33 activities, and these dusts are
high in zinc content, indicating that
legitimate material recovery is
occurring. This is true even though the
Waste contains unrccyclable toxic
constituents in significant'
concentrations.1* However, these
constituents are also present in
significant concentrations in virgin ore
concentrates customarily processed by
zinc smelting facilities. The waste
contains a total of 400 ppm (300 ppm
ktd and 100 ppm cadmium) of toxic
metals above the virgin material, and,
thus, does not exceed the 500 ppm limit.
B. SIC Code 33 Industrial Furnaces
Burning Wattes Generated by Process
Other Than SIC 33
When an SIC Code 33 industrial
furnace burns a material generated by a
process other than SIC 33, there is no
longer such similarity of process and
material that transfer of wastes should
be considered prima facie indigenous.
There is also a greater likelihood that
flit purpose of burning really is xvaste
treatment. This is because the materials
being burned are more likely to contain
nigh concentrations of unrecyclable,
nonlndigenous toxic constituent^ (i.e...
toxic constituents not found in the virgin
material customarily burned in the
industrial furnace) because of the
dteimilarity of the generating and
recovery processes. Consequently, the
Agency is tentatively of the view that a
mittrial generated by a non-SIC code 33
process burned in an SIC 33 code
furnace would only be indigenous to
that furnace |f it contained unrecovered
toxic constituents present in the waste
in insignificant concentrations, i.e., less
than 500 ppm for total Appendix VIH
toxic organic compounds and 500 ppm
•*N©I«; SWIM idnc imelters may be capable of
»l*o Meafedng otdrolura and lead.
for total unreclaimed Appendix VIII
toxic metals.
The following example illustrates
operation of this principle. An
electroplating facility sends its
wastewater treatment sludge
(Hazardous waste F006) to a primary
copper smelter for recovery of copper.
The electroplating sludge also contains
thousands of parts per million each of
cyanide, cadmium and lead which are
not beneficially recovered in the
smelting process. The electroplating
sludge would not be considered
indigenous to the primary copper
smelter. The sludge is not from a SIC 33
process and contains substantial
concentrations of unrecovered toxic
constituents which are discarded by the
process. The environmental concern is
that, due to the presence of these
nonindigenous toxics, the waste poses
risks—in the transport, storage and
burning phase as well as residuals—that
are different than those posed by the
raw materials customarily burned in the
devices.
C. Secondary Smelting Furnaces
As the Agency noted at proposal, a
somewhat broader notion of indigenous
material is needed for secondary
smelting furnaces because these
furnaces normally accept secondary
materials (principally scrap metal) as
their principal feed material. Thus, the
Agency would consider any scrap metal
indigenous to a secondary smelter.
Further, the Agency would consider any
material with recoverable metal values
indigenous to a secondary smelter
providing that the materials do not
contain high concentrations of
nonrecovered organics or significant
concentrations of metals or inorganics
not found in the non-hazardous
secondary materials utilized as feed by
secondary smelting furnaces. To be
considered indigenous, these materials
need not be generated by an SIC 33
process. This type of comparison, rather
than a comparison just with virgin ore
concentrate utilized by primary
smelters, could be appropriate given
that secondary smelting furnaces are
different types of furnaces than primary
furnaces, and given further that,
secondary smelters have traditionally
processed a wider range of materials
than primary smelters.
In addition, for secondary lead
furnaces, the Agency would view items
listed in Table 2 as indigenous. These
are normal feed materials to secondary
lead furnaces. Also, any lead-bearing
waste from manufacture of batteries
would be considered indigenous to a
secondary lead smelter. These materials
are likewise routinely sent to lead
smelters for lead recovery and are
within any normal contemplation of the
term indigenous. EPA is specifically
requesting comment as to whether this
list is complete.
TABLE 2—MATERIALS INDIGENOUS TO
SECONDARY LEAD FURNACES
WHEN GENERATED BY PRIMARY
AND SECONDARY LEAD FURNACE
OR LEAD BATTERY MANUFACTUR-
ING OPERATIONS
Acid dump/fill solids •
Baghouse dusts • ' 4
Scrap grids —
Scrap batteries
Scrap lead oxide
Dross .
Scrap plates
Slurry and slurry screenings
Sump mud - , -
Lead acetate from laboratory analyses
Acid filters
Baghouse bags
Scrap battery cases, covers, vents
Charging jumpers and clips
Disposable clothing (coveralls, aprons, hats,
gloves)
Floor sweepings
Air filters '
Pasting belts
Platen abrasive
Respirator cartridge filters
Shop abrasives
Stacking boards
Waste shipping containers (cartons, plastic
bags, drums)
Water filter media
Paper hand towels
Cheesecloth from pasting rollers
Pasting additive bags
Wiping rags
Contaminated pallets
VII. Conforming Requirements
EPA is considering a proposal to
amend to the incinerator standards of
subpart O, part 264 and part 270. Many
of tie boiler and furnace requirements
proposed in 1987 were taken, from the
planned changes to the incinerator
standards. Thus, all revisions that
ultimately are proposed to such
incinerator standards also will be
proposed, as part of that notice, to apply
to boilers and industrial furnaces.
VIII. Halogen Acid Furnaces
On March 31,1986, Dow Chemical
Company petitioned EPA,, in accordance
with the provisions of 40 CFR 260.20,
requesting EPA to designate their
halogen, acid furnaces (HAFs) as
industrial furnaces under 40 CFR 260.10
EPA then proposed to grant 'the petition
in the May 6,1987, proposal.
-------
1989
.EPA received comments and. .,:-..- ,
additional information on the petition
and, as a result, plans to reproposq this
rule change as part of the proposed
amendments to the hazardous waste. ,
incinerator standards. A detailed
discussion will be provided in that
preamble. However, a brief summary of
the changes EPA is considering are
listed below:
1. The halogen acid concentration of
the halogen acid solutions produced will
be lowered to three percent from six
percent. ' . •' '
2. Fifty percent of the acid must be ;
used onsite. This condition did not
appear in the original proposal.
3. EPA proposes to allow the burning
of off site waste providing it is
indigenous to Chemical Production (i.e.,
generated by Standard Industrial
Classification 281 or 286).
4. The waste being burned must
contain at least 20 percent halogens by
weight.
5. Waste fed to HAFs would be listed
. as inherently waste-like under 40 CFR
261.2(d) to ensure they remain regulated.
EPA is considering the imposition of
some or all of the above changes, and,
although we will not consider comments
on these issues received in response to
today's notice, we will request
comments on these alternatives when •
they are proposed as a part of the
amendments to the incinerator
standards. " •
IX. Regulation of Smelting Furnaces
Involved in Materials Recovery
In the May 6,1986, proposal, EPA
proposed regulatory standards for
smelting furnaces burning metal-bearing
hazardous waste to recover metals that
we're the same as the standards for
furnaces and boilers burning hazardous
wastes for energy recovery. As
discussed in section VI above, smelters
burning nonindigenous waste would be
subject to full regulation.
We have reconsidered ,how the
proposed rules should apply when
permitting smelters and request ,
comment on the following approach. We
do not believe it is appropriate to apply
the organic emissions controls (i.e.,
destruction arid removal efficiency
(DRE), and carbon monoxide emissions
standards) to smelters that burn waste
containing de minimi's levels of toxic
organic constituents. We believe that
such de n>inimis levels could be based
on the quantity levels established for the,
; small quantity burner exemption; See
; table .1of section V of this notice. To
, establish de. minimis feed rate&of total
"... organic constituents for^-smelters,' thp
. sjnallquantity jburner exemption ; .-. v
Quantities in gallons per-mohthicqiilcl be.
converted to pounds per month.
assuming a waste density of 8 Ib/gallon.
Burning/processing these-feed rates of
toxic organlaconstituents absent the
DRE and CO controls should be
protective given that the exempt
quantities were calculated assuming a
99% DRE and considered the health risk
from total hydrocarbon emissions (i.e.,
unburned organic compounds in the
waste and'products of incomplete
combustion). In order to simplify
compliance-monitoring and assure
adequate conservatism when not
making a DRE determination, we believe
total organic carbon (TOG) could be
used as an indicator for toxic organic
constituents. A TOG measurement is
conservative because it measures all
organic compounds, not just toxic
" (appendix VIII) constituents.
We do not believe a similar, purely
health-based approach is appropriate to
determine when the proposed metals
controls should apply when permitting
smelters. Rather, we believe that the
metals controls should apply only when
the hazardous waste significantly '
affects emissions of toxic (appendix
VIII) metals. If we;were to regulate
metals emissions when burning/
processing hazardous, waste even
though those emissions are not
adversely affected, we would create an
economic disincentive to smelting
hazardous waste; Smelters burning
•hazardous wastes could be regulated
more stringently with respect to the
same metals than smelters processing
ores even though metals emissions were
identical. In that situation, ores could
displace the hazardous waste with no
•environmental benefit. To determine if
the hazardous waste significantly'
affects toxic metals emissions, the
applicant would need to demonstrate
that either: (1) The concentration of each
regulated toxic metal in the hazardous
waste is not significantly greater than
the average level of the metal in normal,
nonhazardous waste feedstocks; or (2)
the emissions of each regulated toxic
metal.present in the hazardous waste is
not significantly greater than baseline
emissions when hazardous waste is not
processed. An appropriate,statistical .' "
test would be used in either case to
determine if an increase were
significant. The proposed metals '
controls would apply to each metal for
which ihe applicant could not make a .
successful or significant increase -'.-.."
demonstration. ',,,. " -.. . .. .
. We specifically invite comment on
these approaches to determine the
applicability of the proposed controls on
organic and metals emissions.': :' • • ;
X. Status of Residues from Bunting
Hazardous Waste
Under the Agency's existing
regulations, wastes that are derived
from the treatment of listed hazardous
wastes are also considered to be .
hazardous unless and until they are
delisted. See 40 CFR 261.3 (c)(2) and
(d)(2). Thermal combustion of hazardous
waste, no matter the type of device in
• which it occurs or the purpose of
burning, is a type of treatment.
Accordingly, under the Agency's
existing rules, residues from thermal
combustion of listed hazardous waste
are considered to remain the listed
hazardous waste until delisted.
When the device burning hazardous
waste is a boiler burning primarily coal
or other fossil fuels, an industrial '
furnace processing ores or minerals (e.g.
light-weight aggregate kilns), or a
cement kiln, a further consideration
enters: the applicability of the so-called !
Bevill amendment (which requires a
specialstudy before subtitle C
regulations can be imposed). (See RCRA
section 30Ql(b)(3)(A) (i)-(iii).) The
Agency has stated previously that when
these devices burn hazardous waste
fuels: (1) Residues of industrial and
utility boilers burning at least 50 percent
coal remain within the Bevill
amendment; (2) residues of boilers
burning oil or gas with other materials
are not within the Bevill amendment;
and (3) residues of industrial furnaces.
(processing ores or minerals) and
cement kilns burning hazardous waste
fuel remain within the Bevill
amendment. See generally 50 FR 49190
and n. 87-89 (Nov. 29,1985). The
underlying principle for these "
determinations was that residues would
remain within the Bevill amendment if
the character of the residual is
determined by the Bevill material (i.e.,
coal, ores or minerals, or cement
aggregate) being burned or processed.
Thus, any residues that come from
burning or processing the Bevill material
requires a special study before it could
come under Subtitle C regulation and so
would remain exempt.
In a later proposal, the Agency
suggested a refinement of these
positions to address residues from
industrial furnaces processing ores or
minerals and cement kilns burning .
nonindigenous hazardous waste for
materials recovery. See 52 FR 17012-013
(May 6,1987). Under that proposal, such
residues would remain within the Bevill
Amendment provided that at least 50
percent of the raw material feed to the
device iwas-a virgin ore or mineral. In •
additioiij residues from devices •burning
-------
43734 Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 1989 /Proposed Rules
hamdous waste for the purpose of
destruction (i.e., for neither energy nor
materials recovery} would be outside of
tht Bevill amendment.
W« have further evaluated these
interpretations in light of our stated
principle: residues from coburnlng
hazardous waste and Bcvill raw
materials should remain within the
Bevill amendment provided that the
ch««Gter of the residues Is determined
by tha Bevffl material (i.e., the residue is
not significantly affected by burning the
hiHMudous waste). (We explain below
more precisely what we mean by these
terms,) W© believe that our present data
btso for making these interpretations is
not sufficient to ensure that, in every
c«e, the residue would not be
significantly affected by the hazardous
waste.*0 S1 Further, we have
reconsidered whether the May 6,1987,
proposed Interpretation that residues
generated by the subject devices when
burning waste for destruction are not
within the Bevill amendment is
consistent with the stated principle.
Thus, we are today taking two steps
to address these issues. We are
specifically requesting data on the levels
of Appendix VIII toxic compounds in
residues from Bevill devices generated
with and without burning or processing
h«x«rdous waste. If adequate data are
available, we may be able to make
generic determinations in some
situation* that the cogenerated residue
Is not significantly affected by burning
or processing the hazardous waste, and
thus, remains within the Bevill
amendment. Given that the effect of the
hazardous waste OR 'the degenerated
rasidu*- m*j be a function of site-
specific factors (aee discussion below),
it may be difficult to make generic
determinations In many cases. At a
19 A» no*«l cbovtt Uw Ag tncjr also found that
r*«:/ ,c » (torn eeltriof oil and gn with hazardous
wt,i!e fat I w«ra not WttMn ttia ncape of the Bevill
•mciutoMnl b*c*UM lo rcsWuci" character would be
ilrt* raiinwl % firing Iwiwrdaut waste. SO FR 48190,
That, »it MM}** horn boning hazardous waste
wRJi (»» l« * boiler «rJ bottom *t h and fly ask from
burning bMwitww wsstt with oil In • beifet are
»u!ilt!« of fiw BcviH trotndtnent This is became
p»'ft«d t»ll«»8f»irate vtrtuifly no redldues and
elif«rtd boiler* jectratt Itllte bottom or fly ub. In
won!* of &• ttetul*. MKh tetldue* mult primarily
Han* tiWittnj hjusiiniOTt wutt fuel, not from
totting fantt Kiuh, Tht* dclcnulmtion it not being
MtCpli'fMMt for {MiMfc coratntnt «ml Ike Agency is
Mttnttontnft tt «nty to accmwtrfy tfcteribe tti pmst
* * 8m MfeKoraechun to ttw Docket from Dwight
Htsrntlck, KPA, dated March II. I» Mugnuriztng
nv « flab tt Arts em knrel* of toxic compound* in
Mt*n*rat«d ascent k3n d«i Kghl-wtlght aggregate
kita inb «font control MxtiUxtt water m& settling
pom! ittidue, and coat- find bailer collected Qy ash.
»•• j btNtlnt (w|tb«>t burnbs/procesitng
fctstrdotn Mravtir) Itveta la eeiacnf kiln duat, and '
«o»l8tsd boStir eoScetcd % ask
minimum, however, we would like to be
able to establish generic baseline levels
of toxic compounds in the residues that
reflect the composition of residues
without burning or processing hazardous
waste. If baseline levels can be
established, each owner OF operator
would need only to determine the levels
of toxic compounds in the cogenerated
residue and compare them to the
established baseline levels.
In addition, in the absence of data at
this time to make supportable
determinations, we are proposing to
require case-by-case determinations of
the effect of coburning on residuals. We
believe that today's proposed approach
is preferable to that proposed on May 6,
1987, because today's approach would
focus on the residues actually generated
rather than on the purpose for which the
hazardous waste is burned. A drawback
to the May 6 proposal is that it would -
not ensure that the residues generated
continue to have the character that was
the basis for the statutory exclusion
pending completion of the Section 8002
studies. In addition, the Agency's
historic approach to the issue of
cogenerated residues has been to focus
on the character of the residues to
ascertain what determines their
character—the Bevill material or the
hazardous waste being burned. See 50
FR 49190, n. 87 (November 29,1987). The
Agency also solicited comment on this
approach— focused on what actually is
in the residues—in the May 6 proposal.
See 52 FR 17013. The statute itself does
not directly specify that the purpose of
the burning is a relevant criterion, but
rather states that certain types of waste
are excluded from subtitle C pending
completion of studies. The approach we
are proposing today is designated to •
ensure that the residues remain these
types of wastes in order for the
exclusion to continue to apply.
Accordingly, assuming that it is feasible
to implement on a case-by-case basis an
approach that focuses on the type of
residue generated by coburning
situations, we believe that this is the
preferable approach. We elaborate
below on how this determination could
be made.
As a preliminary matter, however, we
note that it may be cumbersome to make
case-by-case determinations on the
effect of coburning (and coprocessing)
on residues. As discussed below,
' sufficient sampling and analyses would
be required of large volume residuals
that often have levels of constituents
that vary widely on a daily (or hourly)
basis. Thus, we would prefer to obtain
the data necessary to make generic
determinations. Many factors, however.
could have an impact on whether the
residues from a particular device (e.g.,
cement kiln, light-weight aggregate kiln,
boiler) are affected by coburning. For
example, the following 'factors could
affect partitioning of metals to residues
rather than to product or flue gases: 22
(1) Waste feed rate; (2) levels and
volatility of metals in the waste; (3)
physical form of the waste (liquid versus
solid); and (4) waste feed system.
Similarly, the following factors could
affect levels of organic constituents in
the residues attributable to burning
hazardous waste: (1) Waste feed rate:
(2) levels and types (e.g., difficulty of
destruction, by-products formed) of
toxic organics in the hazardous waste;
(3) physical form of the waste; and (4)
waste feed system. In the absence of a
- sufficient data base, and due to the cost
of developing the extensive data base
needed to make a generic determination,
we believe we must rely on case-by-
case determinations. We believe that, in
the interim an'd absent documentation
on impacts of coburning and
coprocessing on residuals, the
alternative to case-by-case
determinations could be to exclude such
residuals from the Bevill Amendment. .
We discuss below how we propose to .
implement the stated principle on
application of the Bevill amendment—
coburning residues should remain within
the exclusion provided that the
character of the residues is not
significantly affected by the hazardous
waste.
A. The Device Must Be a Bevill Device
Congress intended to exclude, until
further studies were completed, residues
from: (i) Devices that burn primarily
fossil fuel; (ii) industrial furnaces
processing ores or minerals; and (iiij
cement kilns. Thus, to be eligible for
exclusion from subtitile C regulation
under the Bevill amendment, the residue
must be generated from a boiler burning
primarily coal,23 an industrial furnace
processing primarily ores or minerals
(since otherwise residues could not be
said to come from processing ores and
minerals, but rather from processing
some other material), or a cement kiln
processing primarily raw materials. To
implement objectively the provision
that, to be eligible for the Bevill
exclusion of residues^ the device must
21 We note that flue gases wouid.be subject to
regulation irrespective of the applicability of the
Bevill Amendment to residues, unless the device ia
an industrial furnace processing indigenous waste
solely for reclamation.
23 Residues from gas and oil fired boilers are not
within the scope of the BeviU amendment as
discussed above in the text.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 1989 / Proposed Rules • 43735
saKggroa^j^jyijMiaiijiKiia^tai&^giaatMEiaaasjgsgaajKSKSsi^:^^
burn primarily Bevill material, we would
require that a boiler must burn at least
50 percent coal, an industrial furnace 24
must process at least 50 percent ores or
_ minerals, and at least 50 percent of the
feedstock to a cement kiln must be raw
materials. This requirement also
corifirms the Agency's long-standing "
interpretation that the Bevill amendment
applies only to primary facilities and not
to secpndary facilities such as, for
example, secondary smelters.25
B. Determining if the Residue's
Character is Influenced by the Burning
of Hazardous Waste ,
As discussed above, residues front
cofiring hazardous waste with gas or oil
in a boiler would remain outside of the
Bevill amendment. For cogenerated
residues in other situations, we are
proposing to require a case-by-case
determination as to whether the
hazardous waste burning or processing
significantly affects the character of the
residue with respect to inorganic and
organic toxic (i.e., appendix VIII)
contaminants.26
To determine whether there is a
significant increase in the level of an
appendix VIII compound in the
' cogenerated residue compared to the
bas.eline residue generated without
burning or processing hazardous waste,
a number of questions must be
addressed, including: (1) What
constitutes a representative baseline
residue (e.g., considering type, sources,
and feed rates of normal—i.e.,
nonwaste—feedstocks and fuels): (2),
what constitutes a representative -
cogenerated residue (e.g.,. considering
composition, physical form, and feed
rate of hazardous waste); (3) what
sampling scheme is needed to ensure
representative samples for comparison
between baseline and cogenerated
residues; and, ultimately, (4) what .'••
constitutes a significant increase in ', ~ .'.
contaminant levels. We believe that the!
Agency needs to answer the first and
. fourth questions, as discussed below.
The second and third questions,
however, are typically site-specific and,
thus, can best be addressed by the
owner or operator. The owner and
operator should use their best judgment
to obtain analyses of representative'-,
21 Specific residues subject to the Bevill exclusion
(i.e., Mining Waste Exclusion) are listed in the April
V, 1989,'Federal'Register at 15316. ;.•'•'/.
t "M In support of this reading, one court has had " .
feat residues from a secondary lead smelter are not
covered by the Bevill amendment. Ilco Co. v. EPA
(W.D. Ala. 1986). . -
ae We note that the issue of the applicability of '
the Bevill amendment does not pertain to smelters
processing indigenous waste. In such cases, the
smelter is not coburning hazardous waste. ;
samples/The approach should be based
on, and be consistent with,
representative sampling protocols in
SW-846, and must be documented by
recordkeeping. The Agency solicits
comment on how frequently and under
what conditions residues should be
retested over time. : - '•.
We note that it may not be necessary
to obtain data on a site-specific bases.
Rather, owners and operators may
choose to use data from other
representative facilities to make generic
determinations for particular devices
' under particular conditions (see
discussion above on factors that can
affect generic determinations).
We discuss next how we believe the
other two questions should be
addressed: How to establish baseline
concentrations, and what constitutes a
significant increase in contaminant
levels.
1. Baseline Concentrations. As
discussed above, we prefer to establish
generic baseline residue concentrations
of toxic (appendix VIII) compounds. We
would use the limited available data
(primarily on coal-fired boiler ash and
cement kiln dust) and additional data
that may be forthcoming from the
regulated community. If baseline:
concentrations were-'establishedon a
site-specific basis, facilities cofiring
; with, for example, coal containing
unusually high (for coal) levels of metals
would be allowed to cpgenerate
residues (within the scope of the Bevill
amendment) that had higher metals
levels than residues cogenerated at
another like facility cofiring coal with
unusually low (for coalj'metals'levels.
Thus, facilities burning relative "clean"
fuels (and processing relatively clean
raw materials) would be at a ;
disadvantage.
We specifically request information
on concentrations of appendix VIIl toxic
constituents in baseline (and
cogenerated) residue. In addition, we
request comments on how to.established
generic baseline concentrations
•considering such issues as what
concentration for a given toxic
constituent (within the range of values
for a particular residue generated by a
particular type of device) should be used
as the generic value—-for example, the
mean value, SOthpercentile value, or
90th percentile value. :,
2. What Constitutes a Significant
Increase. To determine whether an
• increase is considered to be significant,
we propose to use a two part test. First,
: the increase must be statistically
significant. We could use \ the student's
"t'Vtest, "F" test, or some other
statistical test as appropriate, at a 95
percent confidence level for .the
statistical test. We specifically request
comment on whether this type of
statistical test is appropriate.
Second, if the cogenerated residue has
statistically significant high levels of
appendix VIII compounds, we propose
that a second test be considered to
'determine whether the residue has been
significantly affected—does the
.cogenerated residue pose a significantly
increased health risk. We believe that
consideration of health risk posed by
these compounds is appropriate because'
Congress excluded residues from the
subject devices based on their presumed
high volume and low toxicity pending
completion of the section 8002 studies.
Thus, we believe that the test of
applicability of the Bevill exclusion
should consider whether the compounds
present at statistically significant higher
levels in the cogenerated residue are
present at levels of concern from a
conservative human health perspective.
An alternative reading on the
applicability of the Bevill amendment,
on which we also request comment,
would be to measure whether an
increase is statistically significant
without regard to the health-based
significance of the increase (which could
be viewed as a decision relating to
whether the wastes warrant regulation,
rather than whether they are properly
wiihlng the scope of the Bevill '
amendment).
We specifically request comment on
whether it is appropriate to consider a •
health-based de minimi's level of
concern when determining applicability
of the Bevill amendment in these
cogeneration situations, and, if so, how
such de minimis levels could be .
established. For example, the following
approach could be used. For metals for
which EP Toxicity (see § 261.24) levels
have, been established, those levels
could be used as de minimis levels.
Under this approach, the cogenerated
residue would not be within the scope of
the Bevill amendment if the levels of EP
Toxic metals are significantly higher in .,
the cogenerated residue than in the • '
baseline residue and the cogenerated - •:.
residue exhibited EP Toxicity. ,
For appendix VIII compounds other
than the metals covered by EP Toxicity,
we could use an alternative approach.
This would include other metals (i.e.,
antimony, beryllium, nickel, and
thallium), other inorganics that could
reasonably be expected to be in the •
Waste, and organic compounds that
could reasonably be expected to be in
the waste or. that could result from . ,
-------
43736
Rules
Incomplete destruction during the
bttfninjj or processing.*7
For th»e compounds, we could apply
th« Toxietty Characteristic Leaching
Procedure fTCLP} codifed in appendix I,
40 CFR part 268 to obtain an extract or
leachato from the residue.88 We could
then conservatively assume that an
Individual actually drinks the leachate
at his sole source of drinking water over
a lifetime to determine acceptable
concentrations of toxic compounds. For
nencarcinogonic compounds, we could
establish d® tnmimfs levels based on the
RfD, For carcinogenic compounds, we
could establish da minimi's levels as
those that could not result in an
Incremental lifetime cancer risk greater
thun 10"*."
We also solicit comment on whether
less conservative approaches should be
adopted Our concern Is that any such
approiches-for example, involving site-
specific modeling—would not be self-
irnplementtng. The virtue of the
approach outline above is easy
Implamentability plus a clear way of
showing whether the residue's character
results from burning hazardous waste of
Bevill materials.
C. Regulator Impact of Today's
Pmpcsa/
The foregoing discussion is not
intended to change automatically at this
time the regulatory status of residues
from Bevill devices that burn or process
hazardous waste. In most cases, EPA
expects that these wastes' character is
indeed determined by processing or
burning the Bevill raw material. Thus, in
the absence of data indicating
otherwise, the policies regarding
applicability of the Bevill amendment to
Degenerated residues provided by the
November 29,1985, final rule and the
May 8,1967, proposed rule, as discussed
above, remain in effect EPA intends
today's discussion to begin to gather the
necessary data and to obatin comment
on alternative approaches on which to
base a more precise and workable test
for determining whether a cogenerated
*' 5ft Mldwctt Research Institute. "Background
taforamttoa Document fat the Development of
ftiguktlont for PIC Emissions from Hazardous.
W«»« tnehwnilMi." December. 1BS9.
i* y)t nUo nrqtiMt comment on whether, for
Ofgunk! eottjKWW*. the total concentration of the
compound it «b« mWue rather than the extract
eoocmtraUoa tliould be used for the health-baaed
tot ghnM that fits purpOM of burning toxic organic
ooffifouacl* sti Ikeie devices should be to destroy
the eoBiKwncU.
** A draft conpBftUmi of health-based
OOnctalMtloa* (or oia la determining applicability
of &e BeviM excteitoa has been made for
approximately ISO cemjXHffldt based on EP Toxlcily
krvtl*. Mwtawa conceatratSoa level*, RfD*. and
JtSU» Sec memorandum to the Docket from Dvright
Htudlck WA. dated June 8,1938.
residue remains within the scope of the
Bevill amendment. Based on comment
on today's discussion and additional
Agency analysis, we hope to be in a
position to develop a definitive test of
Bevill applicability. Ideally, the Agency
will establish a final rule on Bevill
applicability when the boiler and
industrial furnace standards are
promulgated,
XI. Applicability of the Sham Recycling
Policy
On March 16,1983, EPA published an
Enforcement Guidance (FR11157) which
provided guidance on burning low
energy'hazardous waste, ostensibly for
energy recovery, in boilers and,
industrial furnaces. This guidance has
been referred to as EPA's Sham
Recycling Policy. This policy stated that
when hazardous waste having a heating
value less than 5,000 Btu/lb is burned in
boilers or industrial furnaces, EPA
generally considers the practice to be
burning for destruction [i.e.,
incineration) rather than exempt burning
for energy recovery. The proposed rules
for boilers and industrial furnaces
burning hazardous waste would apply to
those devices irrespective of the purpose
of burning. Thus, the proposed rules
would supersede the* sham recycling
policy. A question has been raised •
regarding the status of the sham
recycling policy in the interim between
the time the rules are ultimately
promulgated and a facility is issued a
Part B permit.
The Agency is considering three •
options in this case. The first option is to
rescind the sham recycling policy on the
effective date of the final boiler/furnace
regulations. As a result, industrial
furnaces and boilers could begin burning
low heating value hazardous waste at
that time. The second alternative is to
rescind the sham recycling policy when
a faculty comes into compliance with
the interim status emission standards. In
this case, the facility could commence
burning low heating value hazardous
waste during interim status once it
complies with the emissions standards.
The last alternative is to have the
sham recycling policy remain in effect
until a Part B permit is issued. The Part
B permit would address final emission
and other standards, and the facility
would have completed any trial burn or
other emission testing requirements in
conjunction with permit writer
oversight.
EPA specifically requests comments
on these alternatives for rescinding the
sham recycling policy.
Regardless of which alternative EPA
selects, the sham recycling policy would
not apply during the trial burn required,
to receive a Part B permit or during test
burns conducted specifically in
preparation for the trial burn. This
exclusion is needed to ensure that the
facility has the opportunity to conduct a
successful trial burn using the wastes
for which it wishes to be permitted. The
permitting authority will have final
approval of the waste types, waste
quantities, and facility operating
conditions when low heating value (less
than 5,000 BTU/lb) wastes are burned in
preparation for, and during, the trial
burn.
XH. Regulation of Direct Transfer of
Hazardous Waste from a Transport ,
Vehicle to a Boiler or Industrial Furnace
Some permitting authorities have
expressed concern about the practice of
feeding hazardous waste fuels directly
from transport vehicles [e.g., 6,000 gallon
tankers) to industrial furnaces such as
cement kilns. Although these operations
may be exempt under § 261.6[c)(2) from
the storage standards providedjby parts
264 and 265, some permit authorities are
concerned about: [1} The potential for
fires, explosions, and spills during
transfer operations; and (2) the potential
for waste fuel flow interruptions and
stratification of waste in the transport
container which, in turn, could affect the
ability of the burner to consistently
provide efficient combustion of the
waste. Approaches to address these
issues are discussed below.
In situations where permit writers
believe that such transfer operations
pose a substantial risk of fires,
explosions, or spills that is not
adequately addressed by applicable
regulatory controls, the permit writer
should use the omnibus authority under
section 3005[c)[3) of RCRA codified at
§ 270.32[b}(2) to provide additional
permit conditions as may be necessary
to protect human health and the
environment.
With respect to the concern about fuel
flow interruptions and waste
stratification and the resultant effects on
combustion efficiency, we request
comment on whether blending and surge
storage tanks should be required at all
facilities burning hazardous waste. This
is common practice at the vast majority
of facilities. In fact, it could be argued
that the primary reason that the practice
of direct transfer from the transport
vehicle to the burner is used at some
cement kiln facilities in lieu of using a
fixed blending/storage tank is to avoid
the need to obtain a permit for the
storage tank. [Hazardous waste fuel
storage operations not "in existence" dn
May 29,1986, and thus, not eligible for
-------
^^^^.jL^i-Ji'_N°' 206 /••Thursday, October 26; 1989 / Proposed Rules 43737
""*" "a"""-——•—-^-'—.-^-rfiit—»j»H»i«Miiinmi«^aaBaBffi«e»MF=nni, fc-«v.v ,r.'.^-- - ,^-^^.,m^a.,a,i;.i^ja£J3Eags3i=sr»m^^T^
interim status, must obtain a part 264,
part B permit before they can operate.)
XIII. Updated Health Effects Data
In the 1987 proposal, appendices A &
B presented reference air concentrations
for noncarcinogens and unit risk values
for carcinogens for those compounds in
appendix VIII, part 261 for tvhich the
Agency had sufficient health effects
data to establish such values. Since May
1987, several values have been revised
based on new health effects data or
evaluations. For the convenience of the
reader, we are providing those entire
• appendices, incorporating the revised
values, in today's notice as appendices I
andj. '•.,••
Dated: October 13,1989.
William K. Reilly,
- Administrator.
Appendix A: Background Support for
PIG Controls
Hazard Posed by Emissions of Products
of Incomplete Combustion (PICs)
The burning of hazardous waste
containing toxic organic compounds
listed in appendix VIII of 40 CFR part
261 under poor combustion conditions
can result in substantial emissions of
compounds that result from the
incomplete combustion of constituents
in. the waste, as well as emissions of the
original compounds which were not
burned. The quantity of toxic organic
compounds emitted depends on the
concentration of the compounds in the
waste, and the combustion conditions
under which the waste is burned.
Data on typical PIC emissions from
hazardous waste combustion sources
were compiled and assessed in recent
EPA studies.30-31 These studies
identified 37 individual compounds in
the stack gas of the eight full-scale
hazardous waste incinerators tested, out
of which 17 were volatile compounds
and 20 semivolatile compounds. Eight
volatile compounds (benzene, 'toluene,
" chloroform, trichloroethylene, carbon
tetrachloride, tetrachlproethylene,
chlprobenzene, and methylene chloride),
and one semivolatile compound
(naphthalene) were identified most
frequently in over 50 percent of the tests.
30 Wallace, D. et al., "Products of Incomplete
Combustion from Hazardous Waste Combustion,"
Draft Final Report, EPA Contract No. 68-03-3241,
Acurex Corporation, Subcontractor No. ES59689A,
Work Assignment 5, Midwest Research Institute
Project No. 8371-L(1), Kansas City, MO, June 1986.
31 Trenholm, A., and C.C. Lee, "Analysis of PIC
and Total Mass Emissions from an Incinerator,"
Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Research
Symposium on Land Disposal, Remedial Action,
Incineration, and Treatment of Hazardous Waste,
Cincinnati, OH, April 21-23,1986, EPA/600-9-86/
022, pp. 376-381, August 1986. ' -
It was found that PIC emission rates
vary widely from site-to-site which may
. be due,,in part, to variations in waste
feed composition and-facility size. The
median values of the nine compounds
mentioned above range from 0.27 to 5.0
mg'/min. Using a representative
emission rate of 1 mg/min, the stack gas
concentration of PICs in a medium-sized
facility (250 m3/min combustion gas
flow rate) would be 4 fig/m3 (0.004 jug/
. The health risk posed by PIC
emissions depends on the quantity and
toxicity of the. individual toxic
components of the emissions, and the
ambient levels to which persons are
exposed.,Estimates of risk to public
health resulting from PICs, based on
available emissions data, indicate that
PIC emissions do, not pose significant
risks when incinerators are operated
under optimum conditions. However,
limited information about PICs is
available. PIC emissions are composed
of thousands of different compounds,
some of which are in very minute
quantities and cannot be detected and
quantified without very elaborate and
expensive sampling and analytical
(S&A) techniques. Such elaborate S&A
work is not feasible in trial burns for
permitting purposes and can only be
done in research tests. In addition,
reliable S&A procedures simply do not
exist for some types of PICs (e.g., water-
soluble compounds). The most
comprehensive analysis of PIC
emissions from a hazardous wa'ste
incinerator identified and quantified
only approximately 70 percent of
organic emissions. Typical research-
oriented field tests identify a much
lower fraction—from 1-60 percent. Even
if all the organic compounds emitted
could be quantified, there are
inadequate health effects data available
to assess the resultant health risk. EPA
believes that, due to -the above
limitations, additional testing will not, in
the foreseeable future, be able to prove
quantitatively whether PICs do or do not
pose unacceptable health risk.
Considering the uncertainties about PIC
emissions and their potential risk to
public health, it is therefore prudent to
require-that boilers and industrial
furnaces operate at a high combustion
efficiency to minimize PIC emissions.
Given that carbon monoxide (CO) is the
best available indicator of combustion
efficiency, and a conservative indicator
of combustion upset, we are proposing
to limit the flue gas CO levels to levels
.that ensure PIC emissions are not likely
to pose unacceptable health risk. In
cases where CO concentrations exceed
the proposed de minimis limit, higher
CO levels would be allowed under two
alternative approaches: (1) If total
hydrocarbon (THC) concentrations in
the stack gas do not exceed a good
operating practice-based limit of 20
ppmv; or (2) if the applicant
demonstrates that THC emissions are
not likely to pose unacceptable health
risk using conservative, prescribed risk
assessment procedures. Although we
prefer the technology-based approach
• for reasons discussed in the text, we are
requesting comment on the health-bag
alternative as well.
'Use of CO Limits to Ensure Good
Combustion Conditions
By definition, low CO flue gas levels
are indicative of a boiler or industrial
furnace (or any combustion device)
operating at high combustion efficiency.
Operating at high combustion efficiency
helps ensure minimum emissions of
•unburned (or incompletely burned)
organics.32 In a simplified view of
combustion of hazardous waste, the first
stage is immediate thermal
decomposition of the POHCs in the
flame to form other, usually smaller,
compounds, also referred to as PICs.
These PICs are generally rapidly
decomposed to form CO.
The second stage of combustion
involves the oxidation of CO to CO2
(carbon dioxide). The CO to CO2 step is
the slowest (rate controlling) step in the
combustion process because CO is
considered to be more thermally stable
(difficult to oxidize) than other
intermediate products of combustion of
hazardous waste constituents. Since fuel
is being fired continuously, both
combustion stages are occurring
simultaneously.
Using this view of waste combustion,
CO flue gas levels cannot be correlated
to DRE for POHCs and may not
correlate well with PIC destruction. As
discussed below, test data shown no
correlation between CO and DRE, but
do show a slight apparent correlation
between CO and chlorinated PICs, and a
fair correlation between CO and total
unburned hydrocarbons. Low CO is an .
indicator of the status of the CO to COz~
conversion process, the last, rate-
limiting oxidation process. Since
32 Given that CO is a gross inaicatoi uT
combustion performance, limiting CO may not
absolutely minimize PIC emissions. This is because
PICs can result from small pockets within the
combustion zone where adequate time, temperature,
and turbulence have not been provided'to oxidize
completely the combustion products of the POHCs.
Available data, however, indicate that PIC
emissions do not pose significant risk when
combustion devices are operated at high
combustion efficiency. EPA is conducting addiubnt.1
field and pilot scale testing to address this issue.
-------
43738 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 208 / Thursday, October 26, ^89 V J^oposed
oxidation of CO to CO* occurs after
destruction of the POHC and its (other)
intermediates (PICs). the absence of CO
is 8 useful indication of POHC and PIC
destruction. The presence of Ugh levels
of CO in the flue gas is a useful
indlculion of inefficient combustion and,
at some level of elevated CO flue gas
concentration, an indication of failure of
the PIC and POHC destruction process.
We believe it is necessary to limit CO
levels to levels indicative of high
combustion efficiency because we do
not know the precise CO level that is
Indicative of significant failure of the
PIC and POHC destruction process. It is
possible that the critical CO level may
bt dependent on site-specific and event-
speciuc factors (e.g., fuel type, air-to-fuel
ratios, rate and extent of change of these
and other factors that affect combustion
efficiency). We believe limiting CO
leyefs is prudent because: (1) It is a
widely practiced approach to improving
and monitoring combustion efficiency;
and (2) most well designed and operated
boilers and industrial furnaces can
easily be operated in conformance with
the proposed Tier I CO limit of 100
pprov,
The Tier I CO limit of 100 ppmv would
ba specified in the permit evea when
{though) the CO levels during the trial
burn were lower. EPA considered this
issue carefully and the proposal is based
on three considerations. First, permitting
a CO level of 100 ppmv will not cause
destruction and removal efficiencies to
be less than the required 99.99 percent.
•Second, many combustion devices run
very efficiently during a trial burn and
achieve CO emissions under 10 ppmv. It
may be difficult to achieve that high
degree of efficiency on a consistent
basis and specifying such low trial burn
CO values may result in numerous
unnecessary hazardous waste feed cut-
offs due to CO exceedances, Third, the
emission of PICs from incinerators has
not been shoWn to increase linearly at
such low CO levels. In fact, the trial
burn data indicate that total organic
emissions are consistently low (i.e., at
levels that pose acceptable health risk)
when CO emission levels are less than
100 ppmv. Two studies show that no
measurable change in DRE is likely to
occur for CO levels up to 100 ppmv. The
first study generated data from
combustion of a 12 component mixture
in a bench scale facility.33 The CO
Combustion Efficiency fCE) =
levels ranged from 15 to 522 ppm
without a significant correlation to the
•destruction efficiency for the compounds
investigated. The second study was
conducted on a pilot scale combustor.34
Test runs were conducted with average
CO concentrations ranging from 30 to
200 ppmv. When the concentration was
less than 220 ppmv, no apparent
decrease in DRE was noticed, but higher
CO concentrations showed a definite
decrease in DRE. EPA specifically
invites comments on whether the permit
should limit CO according to actual trial
burn values in lieu of the limits specified
here.
Supporting Information on CO as a
Surrogate for PICs
Substantial information is available
that indicate CO emissions may relate
to PIC emissions.
Combustion efficiency is directly
related to CO by the following equation:
percent COz
percent CO2+percent CO
(100}
" Hall D,!., et al, "Thermal Decomposition
Properties of a Twelve Component Organic
Mixture", Hazardous Wastes & Hazardous
Materials, Vol. 3, No. 4 pp'441-449,1088,
34 Waterland, L.R. "Pilot-scale Investigation of
Surrdgate Means of Determining POHC
Destruction" Final Report for the Chemical
Manufacturers' Association, ACUREX Corpora tioi,,
Mountain View, California, July tB83.
-------
Federal Register /.Vol. 54, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 1989 /Proposed Rules
43739
CE has been used as a measure of
completeness of combustion.35 EPA's
regulations for incineration of waste
PGBs'at 40 CFR 761.70 require that
combustion efficiency be maintained
above 99.9 percent. As combustion
•becomes less efficient or less complete,
,at some point, the emission of total
organics will increase and smoke will
eventually result. It is probable that
some quantity oLtoxic organic
compounds will be present in these ,
organic emissions. Thus, CE or CO
levels provide an indication of the••
potential for total organic emissions and
possibly toxic PICs. Data are not
available, however, to correlate these
variables quantitatively with PICs in
combustion processes.
Several studies have been conducted
to evaluate CO monitoring as a method
to measure the performance of
hazardous waste combustion. Though
correlations with destruction efficiency
of POHCs have not been found, the data
from these studies generally s&ow that.
as combustion conditions deteriorate,
both CO and total hydrocarbon
emissions increase. These data support
the relation between CO and increased
organic emissions discussed above. In
one of these studies,36 .an attempt was
made to correlate the concentrations of
CO with the-concentrations of four
common PICs (benzene, toluene, carbon
tetrachloride, and trichloroethylene) in
stack gases of full scale incinerators. For
a plot of CO versus benzene, one of the
most common PICs, there is-
considerable scatter in the data
indicating that parameters other than
CO affect the benzene levels. However,
there i$. a trend in the data that suggests
that when benzene levels are high, CO
levels also are high. The converse has
not .been found to be true; when benzene
levels are low, CO levels §re not always
low. Similar trends were observed for
toluene and carbon tetrachlo,rKle, but
not for trichloroethylene. In the pilot-
scale study by Waterland cited earlier,
similar trends were observed for
35 We specifically request comments on whether .
combustion efficiency, as defined above in Jhe text
(i.e., considering both CO and COjTfihission^)
should be used to control PIC emissions.rather than
CO alone. , A • - - •
38 Trenholm, A., P. Gorman, and G. jungclaus,
• "Performance Evaluation of Full-Scale Hazardous
Waste Incinerators, Vol. 2—Incinerator
Performance Results." EPA-600/2-e4_i8ib, NTIS
No. PB 85-129518, November 1984. 7
chlorobenzene and methylene chloride
and in another study 37 similar trends
were observed for total chlorinated
PICs. These data support the conclusion
that when the emission rates of some
commonly identified PICs are ,
sufficiently high, it is likely that CO
emissions will also be higher than
typical levels.
More importantly, however, available
data.indicate that when GO emissions
are low (e.g., under 100 ppmv), PIC
emissions are always low (i.e., at levels
that pose acceptable health risk). The
converse may not be true: when CO is
high, PIC levels may or may not be high.
Thus, the Agency believes that GO is a
conservative indicator of potential PIC
emissions and, given that CO monitoring
is already required hi the present
regulations, the emission levels should
be limited to low levels indicative of •
high combustion efficiency. (For those
facilities where CO emissions may be
high but PIC emissions low, we are
providing an opportunity under Tier II of
the proposed rule to demonstrate that, in
fact, PIC emissions pose acceptable
health risks at elevated CO levels.)
Appendix. B: Emission Screening Limits
for Total Hydrocarbons (mg/s)
Terrain
adjusted
effective
stack
height
(meters)
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28 -.
30
35 '
40
45
50 '
55
60
65
70
75
Noncomplex terrain
Urban iand
use
5.4E+01
6.1E+01
6.9E+01
7.7E+01
3.8E+01
9.9E+01
1.1E+02
1.3E+02
1.4E+02
t.6E-f 02 •
1.8E-f02
2.0E+02
2.3E+02
2.6E+02
3.4E+02
4.3E+02
5.4E+02
7.0E+02
8.8E+02
1.1E+03
1.3E+03
1.5E.+03
1.7E:f03
Rural land
use
2.8E+01
3.2E+01
3.6E+01
4.2E+01
5.1E+01
6.2E+01
7.7E+01 '
8.6E+01
1.2E+02
1.5E+02
1.9E+OS
2.5E+02
3.1E+02
4.0E+02
6.3E+02
9.6E+02
1.3E+03
1.8E+03
2.3E+03
3.1E+03
4.1E+03,
4.9E+03
5.8E+03
Complex
terrain
1.3E+01
1.9E+01
2.7E+01
4.0E + 01
4.9E+01
6.0E+01
6.9E+01
7.7E+0*
8.5E+01
9.4E+01
1.0E+02
1.2E+02
1.3E+02
1.4E+02
1.8E+02
2.2E+02
2.7E+02
3.3E+02
4.1E+02
5.0E+02
6.2E+02
6.9E+02
7.7E+02 -
Terrain
adjusted
effective
stack
height
(meters)
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
Noocomplex terrain
Urban land
use
1.9E+03
2.2E+03
2.5E+03
2.8E+03
3.2E+03
3.6E+03
4.1E+03
4.6E+03
5.3E+03
Rural land
use
6.9E+03
8.2E+03
9.7E+03
1.2E+04. .
1.4E+04
1.6E+04
•2.0E+04
2.3E+04
2.8E+04
Complex
terrain
8.6E+02
9.7E+02
1.1E+03
1,2E+03
1.4E+03
1.5E+03
1.7E+03
1.9E+03
2.1E+03
37 Chang, D. P. et al., "Evaluation of a Pilot-Scale
Circulating Bed Combustor as .a Potential
Hazardous Waste Incinerator," APCA Journal, Vol.
37, No. 3, pp. 266-274; March 1987.
Appendix C: Performance Specifications
for Continuous Emission Monitoring of'
Carbon Monoxide and Oxygen in
Hazardous Waste Incinerators, Boilers,
and Industrial Furnaces
1.0 Applicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability. This specification
is to be used for evaluating the
acceptability of carbon monoxide (CO)
and oxygen (02) continuous emission
monitoring systems (GEMS) installed on
hazardous waste incinerators, boilers,
and industrial furnaces. •
This specification is intended to be
used in evaluating the acceptability of
the GEMS at the time of or soon after
installation and at other times as
specified in the regulations. This
specification is not designed to evaluate
the GEMS performance over an '
extended period of time nor does it
identify specific routine calibration
techniques and other auxiliary
procedures to assess GEMS ,
performance. The source owner or
operator, however, is responsible to
calibrate, maintain, and operate the
GEMS.
1.2 Principle. Installation and
measurement location specifications,
performance and equipment
specifications, test procedures, and data
reduction procedures are included in
this specification. Relative accuracy
(RA) tests, calibration error (Ec) tests,
• calibration drift (CD) tests, and response
time (RTJ tests are conducted to
determine conformance of the GEMS
with the specification.
2.0 Definitions.
2.1 Continuous Emission Monitoring
System (CEMSJ. The GEMS comprises
all the equipment used to generate data-
and includes the sample extraction and
-------
43740 __ F0^raLRgg!!!g!jL..Y^,.^,i^0:208.L
October 26, 1989 / Proposed Rules
transport hardware, the analyzers), and
tha data recording/processing hardware
(«nd software},
12 Continuous. A continuous
monitor Is one In which the sample to be
analysed passes the measurement
nction of the analyzer without
Interruption, and, which evaluates the
detector response to the sample at least
once each IS seconds and which
oortputes «nd records the results at
least overy 80 seconds.
2.2,1 Hourly Rolling A verage. An
hourly rolling average is the arithmetic
«««n of Ow 60 most recant 1-minute
average values recorded by the
continuous monitoring system.
2,3 Moailoring System Types. There
art throe basic types of monitoring
systems: extractive, cross-stack, and in-
sittt. Carbon monoxide monitoring
generally are extractive or cross-stack,
while oxygen monitors are either
extractive or In-situ.
2,3,1 Extractive, Extractive systems
use a pump or other mechanical,
pneumatics, or hydraulic means to draw
a small portion of the stack or flue gas
and convey it to the remotely located
analyzer.
13.2 In-situ. In-sltu analyzers place
the sensing or detecting element directly
ta Ih^ilue gas strewn and thus perform
tht analysis without removing a sample
from the stuck.
8.3,3 CroswteeA'. Gross-stack
an»ily»rs measure the parameter of
Interest by placing a source beam on
on* side of the stack and either the
detector (in single-pass instruments) or a
rttto-reflcctor (in double-pass
instruments) on the other side and
measuring urn parameter of interest
(e$,, CO) by the attenuation of the beam
by the gas in its path.
2,4 Span, The upper limit of the gas
concentration measurement range.
2«S Instrument Range. The maximum
and minimum concentration that can be
measured by a specific instrument The '
minimum is often stated or assumed to
bo zero and the range expressed only as
the maximum. If a single analyzer is
uaed, for measuring multiple ranges,
(uithcr manually or automatically), the
performance standards expressed as a
percentage of full scale apply to all
ranges.
2J Calibration Drift. Calibration
drift is the change in the response or
output of an instrument from a reference
v«luo over time. Drift is measured by
comparing the responses to a reference
standard over time with no adjustment
of instrument settings.
2,7 Response Time. The response
time of a system or part of a system is
the amount of time between a step
change in the system input fe.g, change
of calibration gas) until the data
recorder displays 95 percent of the final
value.
2.8 Accuracy. Accuracy is a measure
of agreement between a measured value
and an accepted or true value and is
usually expressed as the percentage
difference between the true and
measured values relative to the true
value. For this performance •
specification, the accuracy is checked
by conducting a calibration error (Ec)
test and a relative accuracy (RA) test.
2.8.1 Calibration Error. Calibration
error is a measure of the deviation of a
measured value at the analyzer mid
range from a reference value.
2.8.2 Relative Accuracy. Relative
accuracy is the comparison of the GEMS
response to a value measured by a
reference test method (RM). The
applicable reference test methods are
Method 10 (Determination of Carbon
Monoxide frpm Stationary Sources) and
Method 3 (Gas Analysis for Carbon
Monoxide, Oxygen Excess Air, and Dry
Molecular Weight). These methods are
found in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
3.0 Installation and Measurement
Location Specifications
3.1 OEMS Measurement Location.
The best or optimum location of the
sample interface for the monitoring
system is determined by a number of
factors, including ease of access for
calibration and maintenance, the degree
to which sample conditioning will be
required, the degree to which it
represents total emissions, and the
degree to which it represent^ the
combustion situation in the firebox. The
location should be as free from in-
leakage influences as possible and
reasonably free from severe flow
disturbances. The sample location
should be at least two equivalent duct
diameters downstream from the nearest
control device, point of pollutant
generation, or other point at which a
change in the pollutant concentration or
emission rate occurs and at least 0.5
diameters upstream from the exhaust or
control device. The equivalent duct
diameter is calculated as per 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A, method 1, section
2.1.
'The sample path of sample point(s)
should include the concentric inner 50
percent of the stack or duct cross
section. For circular ducts, this is 0.707
X diameter and a single-point probe,
therefore, should be located between
0.141 X diameter and 0.839 X diameter
from the stack wall and a multiple-point
probe should have sample inlets in this
region. A location which meets both the
diameter and the cross-section criteria
will be acceptable.
If these criteria are not achievable of
if the location is otherwise less than
optimum, the possibility of stratification
should be investigated. To check for '
stratification, the oxygen concentration
should also be measured as verification ,
of oxygen in-leakage. For rectangular
ducts, at least nine sample points
located at the, center of similarly shaped,
equal area division of the cross section
should be used. For circular ducts, 12
sample points (i.e., six points on each of
the two perpendicular diameter) should
be used, locating the points as described
in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, method 1.
Calculate the mean value for all sample
points and select the point(s) or path .
that provides a value equivalent to the
mean. For these purposes, if no single
value is more than 15 percent different
from the mean and if no two single
values are different from each other by
more than 20 percent of the mean, then
the gas can be assumed homogeneous
and can be sampled anywhere. The
point(s) or path should be within the
inner 50 percent of the area.
Both the oxygen and CO monitors
should be installed at the same location
or very close to each other. If this is not
possible, they may be installed at
different locations if the effluent gases
at both sample locations are not
stratified and there is no in-leakage of
air between sampling locations.
3.2 Reference Method (RM}
Measurement Location and Traverse
Points. Select, as appropriate, an
accessible RM measurement point at
least two equivalent diameters
downstream from the nearest control
device, the point of pollutant generation,
or other point at which- a change in the
pollutant concentration or emission rate
may occur, and at least a half equivalenl
diameter upstream from the effluent
exhaust or control device. When
pollutant concentration changes are due
solely to oxygen in-leakage (e.g., air
heater leakages) and pollutants and
diluents are simultaneously measured at
the same location, a half diameter may
be used in lieu of two equivalent
diameteW. The GEMS and RM locations
need not be the same. Then select"
traverse points that assure acquisition of
representative samples over the stack or
duct cross suction. The minimum
requirements are as follows: Establish a
"measurement line" that passes through
the centroidal area and in the direction
of any expected stratification. If this line
interferes with the GEM measurements,
displace the line up to 30 cm (6r'5 '
percent of the equivalent diameter of the
cross section, whichever is less) from
the centroidal area. Locate three
traverse points at 16.7, 50.0, and 83.3
-------
federal. Register /Vol. 54, No. 206. /Thursday, October 26, 1989 / ProposedRuIe^
percent of the measurement line. If the
measurement line is longer than 2.4 m
and pollutant stratification is not
expected, the tester may choose to
locate the three tranverse points on the
line at 0.4,1.2, and 2.0 m from the stack
or duct wall.. This option must not be
used at points where two streams with
different pollutant concentrations are
combined. The tester may select other
traverse points, provided that they can
be shown to the satisfaction of the
Administrator to provide a
representative sample over the stack or
duct cross section. Conduct all
necessary RM tests within 3 cm [but not
less than 3 cm from the stack or duct
wall) of the traverse points., " -.
4.0 .Monitoring System Performance
Specifications
Table C-l summarizes the
performance standards for the
continuous monitoring systems. Each of
the items is discussed in the following
paragraphs. Two sets of standards for
CO are given—one for low range
measurement and another for high range
measurement since the proposed CO
limits are dual range. The high range
standards-relate to measurement and
quantification of short duration high
concentration peaks, while the low
range standards relate to the overall
average operating condition of the
incinerator. The dual-range specification
can be met either by using two separate
analyzers,, one for each range, or by
using dual range units which have the
capability of meeting both standards
with a single unit. In the latter case,
when the reading goes above the full
.scale measurement value of the lower
range, the higher range operation will be
started automatically.
TABLE C-f.—PERFORMANCE SPECIFICA-
TIONS OF CO AND OXYGEN MONITORS
Parameter
Calibration
drift 24 h.
Calibration
error *.
Response
time.
Relative
accuracy.
CO monitors
tow range
<5% FS1...
<5% FS
<1.5 min
-------
Proposed Rules.
•even consecutive days according to the
procedure given In section 8. The carbon
monoxide and oxygen (if applicable)
monitoring systems mast be evaluated
tcparattly.
8.4 M Tes! Period. Conduct the RA
leit according to the procedure given in
wclton 6 while the facility Is operating
at normal conditions. The RA test may
be conducted during the CD test period.
The RA tent may be conducted
separately for each of the monitors
(carbon monoxide and oxygen, if
applicable) or may be conducted as a
combined ttst so that the results are
calculated only for the corrected CO
concanlratlon (I.e., CO corrected to 7
percent oxygen); the latter approach is
preferred,
8.0 Performance Specification Test
Procedure®.
§.1 Response Time. The response
time tests apply to all types of monitors,
but will generally have significance only
for extractive systems. The entire
•yitern Is checked with this procedure
Including simple extraction and
transport (If applicable), sample
conditioning (If applicable), gas
analyses, and the data recording.
Introduce siero gas into the system.
For extructive aystema, the calibration
gaaea should be introduced at the probe
as near to the sample location as
posiibti. For fn-aitu systams, introduce
the wre gas at the sample Interface so
thai all components active in the
" analysts are tested. When the system
output has stabilized (no change greater
than 1 percent of full scale for 30 s),
switch to monitor stack effluent and
Will for 8 stable value. Record the time
(upscat* response time) required to
«rtch 95 percent of the final stable
value, Next, introduce a high level
calibration gas and repeat the above
prct€
-------
j^grcjjjfegfcte^ 1989 / Proposed Rules j*3743
(Eq.2-1)
Where n = number of data points
di = algebraic sum'of the individual differences di
When the mean of the differences of
pairs of data is calculated, be sure to
correct the data for moisture, if
applicable.
7^2 Standard Deviation. Calculate
the standard deviation, Sd, as follows:
Sd ' =
n - 1
(Eq.2-2)
7.3 Confidence Coefficient. Calculate
., „ _ , •",.,
the 2.5 percent error confidence
coefficient (one-tailed), CC, as follows:
-
Yn
(Eq.2-3)
Where to.975=t-value
TABLE 7-1,—VALUES
n»
2
3
4
5
6
to,975
12.706
4.303
3.182
2.776
2.571
n»
7
8'
9
W
11
to .975
2.447
2.365
2.306
2.262
2.228
r?
12
13
14
15
16
tff.975 •
2.201
2.179
2.160
2.145
2.131
.„ . ...... u, . .,
'The values in this table are already corrected for
n-1 degrees of freedom. Use n equat to the number
of individual values. '
7.4 Calibration Error. Calculate the
calibration error (EcJ of a set of data as
follows: , -
|dav| 4- |CC|
For carbon monoxide: Ec = X100 CEq. 2-4)
J FS
For oxygen38: Ec=)dav| +|CC | .
where: | dav=absolute value of the mean of
-differences [from.Equation Z-1)
| CC| = absolute yalu& of the confidence
coefficient (from Equation 2-3)
FS=full scale span of monitoring system (for
calculation of CO calibration error only)
7.5 Relative Accuracy. Calculate the
relative accuracy (RA) of a set of data
as follows:
RA-
[dav|' + |CC|
RM
wnere: | dav | = absolute value of the mean of
differences (from Equation 2—1)
| CC | = absolute value of the confidence
coefficient (from Equation 2-3]
RM=average value indicated by the
Reference Method.
8.0 Quality Assurance '
It is the responsibility of the owner/
operator to assure proper calibration, .
maintenance, and operation of the
GEMS on a continual basis; The owner/
operator should establish a QA program
to evaluate and monitor GEMS
performance on a continual basis. The
following QA guidelines are presented:
1. Conduct a daily calibration check
for each monitor. Adjust the. calibration
if the cheek indicates the instrument's
calibration drift exceeds the
38 For oxygen, the calibration error is expressed ,
as % O2 and the term! | d | + |Cf[ is not divided by,
FS or multiplied by 100.
specification established in Paragraph
,4.4. . " >. . .:'.,.. - - -.
2. Conduct a daily system audit.
During the audit, review the calibration
check data, inspect the recording
system, inspect the control panel
warning lights, and inspect the sample
transport/interface system [e.g.,
flowmeters, filters),, as appropriate.
3. Conduct a quarterly calibration
error test at the span midpoint.
.4. Repeat the entire performance
specification test every second year.
9.0 Repotting • •
At a minimum (check with the
appropriate regional office, or State, or
local agency for additional
requirements, if any), summarize in
tabular form, the results of the response
time tests, calibration error tests,
calibration drift tests, and the relative
accuracy tests. Include all data sheets,
calculations, charts (records of CEMS.
responses), cylinder gas, concentration
certifications, and calibration cell
response certifications (if applicable),
necessary to substantiate that the
performance of the GEMS met the
performance specifications.
10.0 References
10:1. Jahnke, James A. and G. J.
Aldina, "Handbook: Continuous Air
Pollution Source Monitoring Systems,"
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
. Technology Transfer, Cincinnati, Ohio
45268, EPA-625/6-79-005, June 1979. .
10.2. "Gaseous Continuous Emission
Monitoring Systems—Performance'
Specification Guidelines for SOa, NOX,
CO2, Q2, and TKS.'f U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency OAQPS/ESED,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
27711, EPA-450/3-82-026, October 1982.
10.3. "Quality Assurance Handbook
for Air Pollution Measurement Systems:
Volume I. Principles,." U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency ORD/
EMSL, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, 27711EPA-600/9-76-006,
December 1984.
10.4. Michie, Raymond, M. Jr. et al.,
"Performance Test Results and
Comparative Data for Designated
Reference Methods for Carbon
Monoxide," U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency ORD/EMSL,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
27711, EPA-600/S4-83-013, September
1982.
10.5. Ferguson, B.BM R.E. Lester and
W. J. Mitchell, "Field Evaluation of
Carbon Monoxide and Hydrogen Sulfide
Continuous Emission Monitors at an-Oil
Refinery," U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park,, North Carolina, 27711, EPA-600/4^-
82-054, August 1982.
Appendix D: Performance Specifications
for Continuous Emissions Monitoring of
Total Hydrocarbons in Hazardous
Waste Incinerators, Boilers and
Industrial Furnaces
Note: This proposed method may be
revised to-allow gas conditioning including
cooling to between 40 °F and 64 °F and the
use of condensate traps to reduce the
moisture .content of sample gas entering the
FID to less than 2%. The gas conditioning
system, however, should not allow the
-------
43744 Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 208 / Thursday,October 26.1989 / Proposed Rules
i.imp!e j}ii to bt bubbled through a water
column as thii would remove water-soluble
wpate compound*. Further, although beating
the sampling line and FID may be advisable
to reduce operation and maintenance
problem*, it may not be required In the final
procedure. Comments on the gas conditioning
*ysiem arc encouraged.
W Applicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability, This method
applies to the measurement of total
hydrocarbons as a surrogate measure
for the total gaseous organic
concentration of the combustion gas
stream. The concentration is expressed
in terms of propane.
1,2 Principle. A gas sample is
extracted from the source through a
beitted sample line and heated glass
fiber filter to a flame ionization detector
(FID). Results am reported as volume
concentration equivalents of the
propane,
2,0 Definitions
2.1 Measurement System. The total
equipment required for the
determination of the gas concentration.
The sj'item consists of the following
major subsystems:
8.1.1 Sample Interface. That portion
of tlta system that is used for one or
more of the following: sample
acquisition, sample transportation,
•ampta conditioning, or protection of the
analyzer from the effects of the stack
affluent.
2,1.2 Ofgaaic Analyzer. That portion
of tha system that senses organic
concentration and generates an output
proportional to the gas concentration.
JM.3 Data Recorder. That portion of .
the system that records a permanent
record of the, measurement values.
2.2 Span Value. For most
incinerators a §0 ppm propane span is
appropriate. Higher span values may be
necessary If propane emissions are
significant. For convenience, the span
value should correspond to 100 percent
of the recorder scale.
2.3 Calibration Gas. A known
concentration of a gas in an appropriate
diluent gas,
1.4 Zero Drift. The difference in the
measurement system response to a zero
level calibration gas before and after a
ttated period of operation daring which
no unscheduled maintenance, repair, or
adjustment took place.
aJ Calibration Drift. The cutference
in Iht measurement system response to
a mill-level calibration gas before and
aftur a staled period of operation during
which no unscheduled maintenance,
*ep»Ir or adjustment took place.
2,8 Response Time. The time interval
from it step change in pollutant
concentration at the inlet to the
emission measurement system to the
time at which 95 percent of the
corresponding final value is reached as
displayed on the recorder.'
2.7 Calibration Error. The difference
between the gas concentration indicated
by the measurement system and the
known concentration of the calibration
gas.
3.0 Apparatus
An acceptable measurement system
includes a sample interface system, a
calibration valve, gas filter and a pump
preceding the analyzer. THp
measurement systems are designated
HOT or COLD systems based on the
operating temperatures of,the system. In
HOT systems, all components in contact
with the sample gas (probe, calibration
valve, filter, and sample lines) as well as
all parts of the flame ionization analyzer
between the sample inlet and the flame
ionization detector (FID) must be
maintained between 150-175 "C. This
includes the sample pump if it is located
on the inlet side of the FTD. A
condensate trap may be installed, if
necessary, to prevent any condensate
entering the FID.
. The essential components of the
measurement system are described
below:
3.1 Organic Concentration Analyzer.
A flame ionization detector (FID)
capable of meeting or exceeding the
specifications in this method.
3.2 Sample Probe. Stainless steel, or
equivalent, three-hole rake type. Sample
holes shall be 4 mm in diameter or
smaller and located at 16.7, 50, and 83.3
percent of the equivalent stack diameter.
Alternatively, a single opening prcbe
may be used so that a gas sample is
collected from the centrally located 10
percent area of the stack cross-section.
3.3 Sample Line. Stainless steel or
Teflon 89 tubing to transport the sample
gas to the analyzer. The sample line
should be heated to between 150° and
175"C for a heated probe.
3.4 Calibration Valve Assembly. A
heated three-way valve assembly to
direct the zero and "calibration gases to
the analyzers is recommended. Other
methods, such as quick-connect lines, to
route calibration gas to the analyzers
are applicable.
3.5 Paniculate Filter. An in-stack or
an out-of-stack glass fiber filter is
recommended if exhaust gas particulate
loading is significant. An out-of-stack
filter must be heated.
3.6 Recorder. A strip-chart recorder,
analog computer, or digital recorder for
i
" Mention of trade names or specific products
does not constitute endorsement by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
recording measurement data. The
minimum data recording requirement is
one measurement value per minute.
Note: This method is often applied in highly
explosive areas. Caution and care should be
exercised in choice of equipment and
installation.
4.0 Calibration and Other Gases
Gases used for calibration, fuel, and
combustion air (if required) are
contained in compressed gas cylinders.
Preparation of calibration gases shall be
done according to the procedure-in
Protocol No. 1, listed in reference 9.2.
Additionally, the manufacturer of the
cylinder should provide a recommended
shelf life for each calibration gas
cylinder over which the concentration
does not change more than ±2 percent
from the certified value. -
4.1 Fuel. A 40 percent hydrogen and
60 percent helium or 40 percent
hydrogen and 60 percent nitrogen gas
mixture is recommended to avoid an
oxygen synergism effect that reportedly
occurs when oxygen concentration
varies significantly from a mean value.
4.2 Zero Gas. High purity air with
less than 0.1 parts per million by volume
(ppm) of organic material methane or
carbon equivalent or less than 0.1
percent of the span value, whichever is
greater.
4.3 Low-level Calibration Gas;
Propane calibration gas (in air or
nitrogen) with a concentration
equivalent to 20 to 30 percent of the
applicable span value.
4.4 Mid-level Calibration Gas.
Propane calibration gas (in air or
nitrogen) \vith a concentration
equivalent to 45 to 55 percent of the
apph'cable span value.
4.5 High-level Calibration Gas.
Propane calibration gas with a
concentration equivalent to 80 to 90 •
percent of the applicable span value.
5.0 Measurement System Performance
Specifications
5.1 Zero Drift. Less than ±3 percent
of the span value.
5.2 Calibration Drift. Less than ±3
percent of the span value. •
5.3 Calibration Error. Less than ±5
percent of the calibration gas value.
6.0 Pretest Preparations
6.1 Selection ofjSampling Site. The
location of the sampling site is generally
specified by the applicable regulation or
purpose of the test, i.e., exhaust stack,
inlet line, etc. The sample port shall be
located at least 1.5 meters or 2
equivalent diameters upstream of the
gas discharge to the atmosphere.
-------
'' Q^ober 26,1989 / Proposed Rules
43745
6.2 Location of Sample Probe. Install
the sample probe so that the probe is
centrally, located in the stack, pipe, or
duct and is sealed tightly at the stack
port connection. • : : , . '
6.3 Measurement System
Preparation. Prior to the emission test,
• assemble the measurement system
following the manufacturer's written
instructions in preparing the sample
interface arid the organic analyzer.
Make the system operable. •
6.4 Calibration Error Test.
Immediately prior to the test series,
(within 2 hours of the start o'f the test)
•introduce zero gas and high-level
calibration gas at the calibration valve
assembly. Adjust the analyzer output to
the appropriate levels, if necessary.
Calculate the predicted response for the
low-level and mid-level gases based oil
a linear response line between the zero
and high-level responses- Then
introduce low-level and mid-level
calibration gases successively to the
measurement system. Record the
analyzer responses for low-level and
mid-level calibration gases and
determine the differences between the
measurement system responses and the
predicted responses. These differences
must be less than 5 percent of the '
respective calibration gas value. If not,
the measurement system is not
acceptable and must be replaced or
repaired prior to testing. No adjustments
to the measurement system shall be
conducted after the calibration and
before the drift check (Section 7.3). If
adjustments are necessary before the
completion of the test series, perform
the drift checks prior to the required.
adjustments and repeat the calibration
following the adjustments. If multiple!
electronic ranges are to be used, each
additional range must be checked with a
mid-level calibration gas to verify the
multiplication factor.
6.5 Response Time Test. Introduce "
zero gas into the measurement system at
the calibration valve assembly. When
the system output has stabilized, switch
quickly to the high-level calibration gas.
Record the time from the concentration
change- to the measurement system
response equivalent to 95 percent of the
step change. Repeat the test three times
and average the results.
7,0 Emission Measurement Test
Procedure . .'•'•'
7.1 Organic Measurement, Begin
sampling at the start of the test period,
recording time and any required process
information as appropriate. In
particular, note on the recording chart
periods of process interruption or cyclic
. operation. . . •
7.2 Drift Determination. -Immediately
following the completion of the test
period and hourly during the test period,
reintroduce the zero and mid-level
calibration gases, one at a time, to the
measurement system at the calibration:,
•valve assembly. (Make no adjustments
to the measurement system until after . - "
both the zero and calibration'drift
checks are made.) Record the analyzer
response. If the drift values exceed the
specified limits, invalidate the test
results preceding the check and repeat
the test following corrections to the
measurement system. Alternatively,
recalibrate the test measurement system
as in Section 6.4 and report the results
using both sets of calibration data (i,e.,
data determined prior to the test period
and data determined following the test
period). "
8.0 Organic Concentration
Calculations
Determine the average organic
concentration in terms of ppmv propane.
The average shall be determined by the
integration of the output recording over
the period specified in the applicable
regulation.
9.0 Quality Assurance
It is the responsibility of the owner/
operator to assure proper calibration,
maintenance, and operation of the
GEMS on a continual basis. The owner/
operator should establish a QA program
to evaluate and monitor performance on
a continual basis. The following checks
should routinely be done.
1. Conduct a daily calibration check
for each monitor. Adjust the calibration
if the check indicates the instrument's
calibration drift exceeds the
specification established in paragraph
5.0. '•••
. 2. Conduct a daily system audit.
During the audit, review the calibration
• check data, inspect the recording ;
system, inspect the control panel
warning lights, and inspect the sample
' transport/interface- system (e.g.,
flowmeters, filters), as appropriate.
3. Conduct a quarterly calibration
error test at the span midpoint.
4. Repeat the entire performance
specification test every second "year.
10.0 Reporting of Total'(Hydrocarbon
Levels • •
THC levels from the trial burn will be
reported as ppm propane. Under the
health-abased alternative approach to
assess THC emissions, the THC levels
would need to be converted to mg/s.
This conversion is accomplished with '
the following equation:
THC, mg/s=[THC ppm propane) x (Stack gas
Flow) X 2.8 XKT2
Where:
• THC ppm propane is the total hydrocarbon
concentration as actually measured by
this method in ppm of propane,
* Stack gas flow is in dry standard cubic
meters per minute measured by EPA
Reference Method 5 (or Modified EPA
Method 5) dining the DRE trial burn, and
• 2.8X10"* i& a constant to account for the
conversion of units, differences in FID
response to various compounds and
weighted average molecular weights.
11.0 References •
11.1 Measurement of Volatile
Organic Compounds—Guideline Series,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park, N. C.
Publication No. EPA-J50/2-78-041. June
1978. p. 46-54.
11.2 Traceability Protocol for
Establishing-True Concentrations of
Gases Used for Calibration and Audits
of Continuous Source Emission Monitors
(Protocol No. 1). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Environmental
Monitoring and Support Laboratory.
Research Triangle Park, N. C. June 1978.
11.3 Gasoline Vapor Emission
Laboratory Evaluation—Part 2. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. Research Triangle Park, N. C.
EMB Report No. 75-GAS-6. August 1975.
Appendix E: Feed Rate and Emission Rate Screening Limits for Metals and HCL
TABLE E-t.—FEED RATE SCREENING LIMITS. FOR NONCARCINOGENIC METALS FOR FACILITIES IN NONCOMPLEX TERRAIN
Terrafn-adjusted
effective stack height
4m
6m
8m
10m
Antimony (Ib/hr)
1.3E-01
1.5E-01
1.7E-01 ,
1.9E-01
Values for urban areas
Barium (Ib/hr)
2.2E+01 ' " -
2.5E+01 :
2.8E+01
3.2E+01
Lead (Ib/hr)
4.0E-02
4.5E-02
5.1E-02
.5.8E-01
Mercury (Ib/hr)
1.3E-01
1.5E-01
1.7E-01
1.9E-01
Silver (Ib/hr)
1.3E+QQ
1.5E+00 „
1.7E+00
1.9E+ 00
Thallium,
Gb/hr)
1.3E-01
1.5E-01
1.7E-Ot
1.9E-01
-------
43746
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 208 / Thursday, October 26, 1989 / Proposed Rules
TABLE E-1,—FEED RATE SCREENING LIMITS FOR NONCARCINOGENIC METALS FOR FACILITIES IN NONCOMPLEX TERRAIN—Continued
T
Wm
i*n
18m
aom
iftn
34m
30m
Mm
30m
38m
40m
45m
Wra
SSfB
«Ja
•ft*
TOra
Wr»
BOn
85m
SOW
95m
100m
lOSffl
1tQ«
l«m
ttOm
Values for urban areas
Antimony (Ib/hr)
2.2E-01
2.4E-01
2.8E-01
3.1E-Ot
3.5E-01
4.0E-01
4.SE-01
5.1E-01
S7E-01
6.5E-01
8.3E-01
tlE-i-00
1.4EKX)
1.7E400
2.2E+00
&7E4-00
3.3E+00
3,7S*00
4.2E+00
4.8E4.00
5.4E+00
6.2E+00
7.0E+00
8.0E400
9.06*00
1.0E+01
1.2E+01
1,3E«-01
Barium (Ib/hr)
3.6E+01
4.1E-J-01
4.6E+01
5.2E+01
5.9E+01
6.6E+01
7.5E+01
8.5E+01
9.6E+01
1.1E+02
1.4E+02
1.8E+02,
2.3E+02
2.9E+02
3.6E+02
4.5E+02
5.5E+02
6.2E+02
7.0E+02
8.0E+02
9.1E+02
1.0E+03
1.2E+03
1.3E+03
1.5E+03
1.7E+03
1.9E+03
2.2E+03
Lead (!b/hr)
6.5E-02
7.3E-02
8.3E-02
9.4E-02
1.1E-01
1.2E-01
1.4E-01
1.5E-01
1.7E-01
1.9E-01
2.SE-01
3.2E-01
4.1E-01
5.2E-01
6.5E-01
8.0E-01
9.9E-01
1.1E+00
1.3E+00
1.4E+00
1.6E+00
1.9E+00
2.1E+00
2.4E+00
2.7E+00
3.1E+00
3.5E+00
4.0E+00
Msfcury (Ib/hr)
2.2E-01
2.4E-01
2.8E-01
3.1E-01
3.5E-01
4.0E-01 .
4.5E-01
5.1E-01
5.7E-01
6.5E-01
8.3E-01
1.1E+00
1.3E+00
1.7E-fOO
2.2E+00
2.7E+00
3.3E+00
3.7E+00
4.2E+00
4.8E+00 ,
5.4E+00
6.2E+00
7.0E4-00
7.9E+00
9.0E+00
1.0E + 01
1.2E+01
1.3E+01
Silver (Ib/hr)
2.2E+00
2.4E+00
2.8E+00
3.1E+00
3.5E+00
4.0E+00
4.5E+00
5.1E+00
5.7E + 00
6.5E+00
8.3E+00
1.1E+01
1.4E+01
1.7E+01
2.2E+01 .
2.7E+01
3.3E+01
3.7E+01
4.2E+01
4.8E+01
5.4E+01
6.2E+01
7.0E+01
8.0E+01
9.0E+01
1.0E+02
1.2E+02
1.3E+02
Thallium
(Ib/hr)
2.2E-01
2.4E-01
2.8E-01
3.1E-01
3.5E-01
4.0E-01 .
4.5E-01
5.1E-01
5.7E-01
6.5E-01
8^3E-01
1.1E+00
1.4E+00
1.7E+00
2.2E+00
2.7E+00
3.3E+00
3.7E+00
4.2E+00
4.8E+00
5.4E+00
6,2E^OO
7.0E+00
8.0E+00
9.0E+00
1.0E+01
1.2E+01
1.3E+01
If • ,-
TABLE E-1.—FEED RATE SCREENING LIMITS FOR NONCARCINOGENIC METALS FOR FACILITIES IN NONCOMPLEX TERRAIN
TwrekMKfuttel
«f'evlv3 suck lw;~ t
4m
Sm
6m
10m
i2m
14m
tem
iem
iJOm
22m
24m
20cn
2ftn
30m
asm
40m
45m
SOm
5@m
eom
OSra
70(t»
JSm
80m
esin
90m
SSw
100ra
105m
Hftn
1!5m
liKm
Values (or rural areas
Antimony (to/hf)
e.ae-02
7.9E-02
9.0E-02
1.0E-01
1.3E-01
1.5E-01
1.9E-01
2.4E-01
2.8E-01
3.8E-Ot
4JE-01
6.1E-01
7.7E-01
9.8E-01
1.6E-IOO
2.4E-fOO
3.3E<.00
4.4E+00
5.8E+00
7.6G4.00
1.0G+01
1^E+Ot
1.4E + 01
1.7E+01
2.0E+01
2.4E+01
2.9E+01
3.4E+01
4.1E+01
4.8E-I.01
5.8E+Ot
e.oe^oi
Barium (Ib/hr)
1.1E+01
1.3E+01
1.5E+01
1.7E+01
2.1E+01
2.6E+01
3.2E+01
4.0E+01
4.9E+01
6.3E+01
8.0E+01
1.0E+02
1.3E+02
1.6E+02
2.6E+02
4.0E-4-02
5.5E+02
7.3E+02
9.6E+02
1.3E+03
1.7E+03
2.0E+03
2.4E+03
2.8E+03
3.4E+03
4.0E+03
4.8E+03
5.7E+03
6.8E+03
8.1E+03
9.6E+03
1.1E+04
Lead (Ib/hr)
2.1E-02
2.4E-02
2.7E-02
3.1E-02
3.8E-02
4.6E-02
5.7E-02
7.1E--02
8.8E-02
1.1E-01
1.4E-01
1.8E-01
2.3E-01
2.9E-01
4.7E-01
7.1E-01
9.9E-01
1.3E+00
1.7E+00
2.3E+00,
3.0E+00
3.6E+00
4.3E+00
5.1E+00
6.1E+00
7.2E+00
8.6E+00
1.0E+01
1.2E+01
1.5E+01
1.7E+01
2.1E+01
Mercury (Ib/hf)
6.9E-02
7.9E-02
9.0E-02
llOE-01
1.3E-01
r5E-01 '
1.9E-01
2.4E-01
2.9E-01
3.7E-01
4.8E-0.1
6.1E-01
7.7E-01
9.8E-01
1.6E+00
2.4E+00
3.3E+00
414E+00
5.8E4-00
7.6E+00
1.0E+01
1.2E+.01 . :
1.4E+01
1.7E+01
2.0E+01
2.4E+01 ' ,
2.9E+01
3.4E+01
4.1E+01
4.8E+01
5.8E+01
6.9E+01
Silver (Ib/hr)
6.9E-01
7;9E-01
9.0E-01
I.OE-t-00
1.3E+00 ' .
1.5E+00
1.9E+00
2.4E+00
2.9E+00
3.8E+00
4.8E+00
6.1E4-00
7.7E+00
9.8E+00
1.6E+01
2.4E+01
3.3E+01
4.4E+01
5.8E+01
7.6E+01
1.0E+02
f.2E+,02
1.4E+.02
1.7E+02
2.0E+02 '
2.4E+02
2.9E+02 ' .
3.4E+02
4.1E+02
4.8E+02 ' •
5.8E+02
6.9E+02
Thallium
(Ib/hr)
6;9E-02
7.9E-02
8.0E-02
1.QE-01
1.3E-01
1.5E-01
1.9E-01
2.4E-01
2.9E-01
3.8E-01
4.8E-0<
6.1E^01
7.7E-01
9.8E-01
1.6E+00
2.4E+00
3.3E+00
4.4E+00:
5.8E+00
7.6E+00
liOE+01
1.2E+01,
•1.4E+01
1.7E+01
2.0E+01
"2.4E+01
2.9E+01
3.4E+01
4.1E+01
4.8E+01 '
5.8E+01
6.9E+01
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26,1989 / Proposed Rules
43747
TABLE E-2.—FEED RATE SCREENING LIMITS FOR NONCARCINOGENIC METALS FOR FACILITIES IN COMPLEX TERRAIN
Terrain-adjusted
effective stack height
4m
6m :
8m
10m
12m
14m
16m
18m
20m
22m
24m
26m
28m
30m
35m
40m
45m
50m
55m
60m
65m
70m
75m
80m ,
85m
90rn
95m
100m
105m
110m
115m
120m
Values for use in urban and rural areas
Antimony (tb/hr)
3.1E-02
4.6E-02
6.7E-02
9.9E-02
1.2E-01
1.5E-01
1.7E-01
1.9E-01
2.1E-01
2.3E-01
2.6E-01
2.9E-01
3.2E-01
3.5E-01
4.4E-01
5.4E-01
6.6E-01
8.1E-01
1.0E+00
1.2E+00 •
1.5E+00
1.7E+00
1.9E+00
2.1E+00
2."4E+00
2.7E+00
3.0E+00
3.4E+00
3.8E+00
4.2E+00
4.7E+00
5.3E+00
Barium (Ib/hr)
5.2E+00
7.7E+00 .
t.tE+01
1.7E+01
2.0E+01
2.5E+01
2.9E+01
3.2E+01
3.5E+01
3.9E+01
4.3E+01
4.8E+01
5.3E+01
5.8E+01
7.3E+01
8.9E+01
1.1E+02
1.4E+02
1.7E+02
2.tE+02
2.5E+02
2.8E+02
3.2E+02
3.6E+02
4.0E+02
4.5E+02
5.0E+02
5.6E+02
6.3E+02
7.0E+02
7.9E+02
8.8E+02
Lead(!b/hr)
9.4E-03
1.4E— 02
2.0E-02
3.0E-02
3.6E-02
4.4E-02
5.2E-,02
5.7E-02
6.3E-02
7.0E-02
7.7E-02
8.6E-02
9.5E-02
1.0E-01
1.3E-01
1.6E-01
2.0E-01
2.4E-Ot
3.0E-01 '
3.7E-01
4.6E-01
5.1E-01
5.7E-01
6.4E-01
7.2E-01
8.0E-01
9.0E-Ot ,
1.0E+00
1.1E+00
1.3E+00
1.4E+00
1.6E+00
Mercury (Ib/hr)
3.1E-02
4.6E-02
6.7E-02
9.9E-02
1.2E-01
1.5E-01
1.7E-01
1.9E-01
2.1 E -01
2.3E-01
2.6E-01
2.9E-01
3.2E-01
3.5E-01
4.3E-01
5.4E-01
6.6E-01
8.1E-01
1.0E-00
1.2E+00
1.5E+00
1.7E+00
1.9E+00 -'
2.1E+00
2.4E+00
2.7E+00
3.0E+00
3.4E+00
3.8E+00
4.2E+00
4.7E+00
5.3E+00
Silver (Ib/'hr)
3.1E-01
4.6E-01
6.7E-01
9.9E-01
1.2E+00
1.5E+00
1.7E+00 .
1.9E+00
2.1E+00 .
2.3E+00
2.6E+00
2.9E+00
3.2E+00
3.5E+00
4.4E+00
5.4E+00
6.6E+00
8.1E+00
l.OE+01 '
1.2E+01
1.5E+01
1.7E+01
1.9E+01
2.1E+01
2.4E+01
2.7E+01
3.0E+01
3.4E+01
3.8E+01
4.2E+01
4.7E+01 :
5.3E+01
Thallium .
(Ib/hr)
3.1E-02
4.6E-02
6.7E-02
9.9E-02
1.2E-01
1.5E-Ot
1.7E-01
1.9E-Ot
2.1E-01
2.3E-Ot
2.6E-Ot
2.9E-01
3.2E-01
3.5E-01
4.4E-OT
5.4E-OT
6.6E-01
8.1E-01
1.0E-00
1.2E+00
1.5E+00
1.7E+00
1.9E+00
2.1E+00
2.4E+00
2.7E+00
3.0E+00
3.4E+00
3.8E+00
4.2E+00
4.7E+00
5.3E+Oa
TABLE E—3. FEED RATE SCREENING LIMITS FOR CARCINOGENIC METALS FOR FACILITIES IN MOMCOMPLEX TERRAIN
Terrain-adjusted
effective stack
height
4m
6m •
8m
10m
12m
14m
16m
18rn'
20m
22m
24m
26m
28m
30m
35m '
40m
45m
50m
55m
bum
65m
70m
75m
80m
85m
90m
95m
100m -
105rn
110m
115m
120m
Values for use in urban areas
Arsenic (Ib/hr)
1.0E-03
1.2E-03
1.3E-03
liSE-03
1.7E-03
1.9E-03'
2.1E-03
2.4E-03
2.7E-03
3.1E-03
3.5E-03
3.9E-03
4,5E-03
5.0E-03
6.5E-03
8.2E-03
1.0E-02
1.3E-02
1.7E-02
2.1E-02
2.5E-02
2.9E-02
3.3E-02
3.7E-02
4.2E-02
4.8E-02
5.4E-02 , .
6.2E-02
7.0E-02
7.9E-02
9.0E-02
1.0E-01
Cadmium (Ib/hr)
2.5E-03'
2.8E-03
3.2E-03
3.6E-03
4.0E-03
4.5E-03
5.1E-03
5:8E-03 -
6.5E-03
7.4E-03
8.3E-03
9.4E-03
1.1E-02
1.2E-02
J.5E-02
2.0E-02
2.5E-02
3.2E-02
4.0E-02
5.0E-02
6.1E-02
6.9E-02
7.8E-02
8.9E-02
1.0E-01
1.1E-01
1.3E-01
1.5E-01
1.7E-01
1.9E-0"1
2.2E-01
2.4E-01
Chromium (Ib/
hr)
3.7E-04 ^
:4.2E-04
4.7E-04
5.3E-04
6.0E-04
6.8E-04
7.7E-04
8.7E-04
9.8E-04
1.tE-03
1.3E-03
1.4E-03
1.6E-03
1.8E-03
2.3E-03
2:9E— 03
3.8E-03
4.8E-03
6.1E-03
7.4E-03
9.1E-03 -•
1.0E-02
1.2E-02
1.3E-02
1.5E-02
1.7E-02
1.9E-02
2.2E-02
2.5E-02
2.8E-02
3.2E-02
3.7E-02
' Beryllium (ib/hr)
1.9E-03
2.1E-03
2.4E-03
2.7E-03
3.0E-03
3.4E-03
3.8E-03
4.3E-03
4.9E^03
5.5E-03
6.3E-03
7.1E-03
8.0E-03
9.0E-03
1.2E-02
1.5E-02
1.9E-02
2.4E-02
3.0E-02
3.7E-02
4.6E-02
5.2E-02
5.9E-02
6.7E-02
7.6E-02
8.6E-02
9.7E-,02
1.1E-01
1.3E-01
1.4E-01
1.6E-01
1.8E-01
Values for use in rural areas
Arsenic (Ib/hr)
5.3E-04
6ilE-04
7.0E-04
8.0E-04
9.8E-04
1.2E-03
1.5E-03
1.8E-03
2.3E-03
2.9E-03
3.7E-03
4.7E-03
6.0E-03
7.6E-03
1.2E-02
1.8E-02
2.6E-02
3.4E-02'
4.5E-02
5.9E-02
7.8E-02
9.3E-r02
1.1E-01 •
1.3E-01 . :
1.6E-01 .
1.9E-01
2.2E-01
2.8E-01
3.2E-01
3.7E-01
4.5E-01
5.3E-01
Cadmium (Ib/hr)
13E-03
1.5E-03
1.7E-03
1.9E-03
2.3E-03
2.9E— 03
3^E-03
4.4E-03
5.5E-03
6.9E-03
8.8E-03 '
1.1E-02
1.4E-02
1.8E-02
2.9E— 02
4.4E-02
6.1E-02
8.1 E -02
1.1E-Ot
1.4E-01
1^E-01
2^E-01
2.6E-01
3.1E-01
3.7E-01
4.5E-01
5.3E-01
6.3E-01
7.5E-01
9.0E-01
1.1E+00
1.3E+00
Chromium (ib/
hr)
1.9E-04
2.2E-04
2.5E-04
2.9E-0
-------
43748 Federal Register / Vol. 54J No. 206 / Thursda^, October'26.1989 /Proposed Rules
TABLE E-4.—-FEED RATE SCREENING LIMITS FOR CARCINOGENIC METALS FOR FACILITIES IN COMPLEX TERRAIN
T«min--*4uf ted atfecua stack
JwisM
4m
era
8m
10m
12m
Mm
NJm
ie«
2om
SSm
24m
3KNl>
mm
'30m
36ffl
40m
49m
S0m
S&»
80m
«m
TOm
rtra
90m
«m
»0m
«&n
100m
106m
now
lism
IMm
• Values for urban and rural areas
Arsenic (Ib/hr)
2.4E-04
3.6E-04
5.2E-04
7.7E-04
9.4E-04
1.1E-03
1.3E-03
1.SE-03
1.6E-03
1.8E-03
2.0E-03
2.2E-03
2.5E-03
2.7E-03
3.4E=03
4.2E-03
5.1E-03
6.3E-03
7.8E-03
9.6E-03
1.2E-02
1.3E-02
1.5E-02
1.7E-02
1.9E-02
2.1E-02
2.3E-02
2.6E-02
2.9E-02
3.3E-02
3.7E-02
4.1E-02
Cadmium (Ib/hr)
5.8E-04
8.5E-fJ4.
1.2E-03
1.8E-03
2.2E-03
2.7E-03
3.2E-03
3.5E-03
3.9E-03
4.3E-03
4.8E^03"
5.3E-03
5.9E-03
6.5E-03
8.1E-03
9.9E-03
1.2E-02
1.5E-02
1.9E-02
2.3E-02
2.8E-02
3.2E-02
3.5E-02
4.0E-02
4.4E-02
S.OE-02
5.6E-02
6.2E-02
7.0E-02
7.8E-02
8.7E-02
9.8E-02
. Chromium (Ib/hr)
8.7E-05
1.3E-04
1.9E-04
2.8E-04
3.4E-04
4.1E-04
4.8E-04
5.3E-04
5.9E-04
6.5E-04
7.2E-04
7.9E-04
8.8E-04
9.7E-04
1.2E-03
1:5E-03 -
1.8E-03
2.3E-03
2.8E-03 • '
3.4E-03
4.2E-03
4.7E-03
5.3E-03
5.9E-03
6.7E-03 '
7.4E-Q3
8.3E-03
9.3E-03
1.0E-02
1.2E-02
1.3E-02
1.5E-02
Beryllium (It)/
**)
4.4E-04
6.4E-04
9.4E-04
14E-03
1.7E-03
2.1E-03
2.4E-03
2.6E-03
2.9E-03
3.2E-03
3.6E-03
4.0E-03
4.4E-03
4.9E-03
6.0E-03
7.4E-03
9.2E-03
1.1E-02
1.4E-02
1.7E-02
2.3E-02
2-.4E-02
2.7E-02
3.0E-02
3.3E-02
3.7E-02
4.2E-02
4.7E-02
5.2E-02
5.9E-02
6.5E-02
7.3E-02
TABLE E-5.—-EMISSIONS SCREENING LIMITS FOR NONCARCINOGENIC METALS FOR FACILITIES IN NONCOMPLEX TERRAIN
aftccv* M*cfc heigh*
401
9m
Sm
10m
Urn
I4n>
WTO
18m
86m
Km
24m
Sim
Mm
Km
3iffi
40n»
4!w
som
Mm
6@fR
Kfert
70m
76ffl
80m
asm
eom
8Sw
loom
lOSm
,110m
lists
12001
•<.:.'." v. ,"' -
Values for urban areas
Antknony (g/sec)
1.7E-02
1J9£— 02
2.1E-02
Z4E-02
2.7E-02
3.1E-02
3.5E-02
3.9E-Q2
4.4E-02
5.0E-02
S.7E-02
6.4E-Q2
7.2E— 02
8JSE-02
1.1E-01
1.3E-01
1.7E-01
2.2E— 01
2.7E-01
3.4E-01
4.1E-01
4.7E-01
5.3E-01
6.0E-01
6.9E-01
7.8E-01
8.8E-01
13E+00
1.1E+00
i.3e^qp
1.56'fOO
1.7E+00
. , . . . . , . '.;.,,.
Barium (g/sec)
2.8E+00
3^E+00
3.6E+00
4.0E+00
4.6E+00
5.1E+00
5.8E+00
6.6E+00
7.4E+00
8.4E+00
9^E+00
1.1E+01
1.2E-J-01
1.4E+01
1.8E+01
2.2E+01
2.8E+01
3.6E+01
4.6E+01
5.6E+01
6.9E+01
7.8E-f 01
8.9E+01
1.0E+02
1.1E+02
1.3E+02
1.5E+02
1.7E+02
1,9E+02
2^E+02 .
2.4E-J-02
2.8E+Q2
, jji , ,. * n»
Lead (g/sec)
5.1E-03
5.7E-03
6.4E-03
7.3E-03
8.2E-03
9.3E-03
1.0E-02
1.2E-02
1.3E-02
1.5E-02
1.7E-02
1.9E-02
2.2E-02
2.5E-02
3.2E-02
4.0E-02
5.1E-02
6.5E-02
8.2E-02
1.0E-01
1.2E-01
1.4E-01
1.6E-01
1.8E-01
2.1E-01
2.3E-01
2.7E-01
3.0E-01
3.4E-01
3.9E-01 „ .
4.4E-01
6.0E-01 ',.".'•.'' !
• . .. . , . ^ . . t
Mercury (g/sec)
1.7E-02
1.9E-02
2.1E-02
2.4E-02
2.7E-02
3.1E-02
3.5E-02
3.9E-02
4.4E-02
5.0E-02
5.7E-02
6.4E-02
7.2E-.02
8.2E-02
1.1E-01
1.3E-01 ' '
1.7E-01
2.2E-01
2.7E-OJ
3.4E-01
4.1E-01 '
4.7E-01
5.3E-01
6.0E-01
6.9E-01
7.8E-01
8.8E-01 •'••-•
t.OE4-00
1.1E+00 ;•..•' ,-.:, .*•
1.3E^.OO . ; . , . ,
1.5E+.00 ..,!•'•!
1.7E+00"'''' '.'."' "",'""''
Silver (g/sec)
1.7E-01
1.9E-01
2.1E-01 '
2.4E-01
2.7E-01
3.1E-01
3.5E-01
3.9E-01
4.4E-01
5.0E-01
5.7E-01
6.4E-01
8.2E-01
1.1E+00
1.3E+00
1.7E+00
2.2E+00
2.7E+00
3.4E+00 , •
4.1E+00;
4.7E+00
5.3E+00
6.0E+00
6.9E+00
7.8E+00
8.8E+00 '
l.OE+01
t,1E+01 . , ..
1.3E+01:,-,; -,:,,-,,.
.1.5E+0.1- ' '•.... ,'..
1.7E+01 ' , . ';" :.
Thallium
(g/sec) .
1.7E-02
1.9E-02
2.1E-02
2.4 E- 02
2.7E-02
3.1E-02
3.5E-02
3.9E-02
4.4E.-02
5,OE-02
5.7E-02
6.4E-02
7.2E-02
8.2E-02
1.1E-01
1.3E-01
1:7E-01 ,
2.2E-01
2.7E-01
3.4E-01
4.1E-01 '
47E-01
5.3E-01
6.0E-01
6.9E-01
7.8E-01
8.8E-Of
i:oE+oo
1;1Ei-00
tj3E+OC,',
i.5Etdo",.
« '""-; ''!'
-------
54,0.
p 28. 1989 / Proposed Rules
43749
TABLE E-5 (CONTINUED).-EMISSIONS SCREENING LIMITS FOR NONCARCINOGENIC METALS FOR FACILITIES IN NONCOMPLEX TERRAIN
Terrain-adjusted
effective stack' height
4m
6m
8m
10m
12m
14m
16m
18m
20m
22m
24m
26m ~
28m
30m
35m •
40m
45m . •'• *'•
50m
55m
60m
65m
70m
75m
80m
85m
90m
95m
100m
105m
110m
115m
120m
Values for rural areas
Antimony (g/sec)
8.7E-03
9.9E-03
1.1E-02
1.3E-02
1.6E-02
1.9E-02
2.4E-02
3.0E-02
3.7E-02
4.7E-02
6.0E-02
7.7E-02
9.7E-02
1.2E-01 '
2.0E-01
3.0E-01
4.2E-01
5.5E-01
7.3E-01
9.6E-01"
1.3E+00
1.5E+00
1.8E+00 '
2.1E+00
2.6E+00
3.0E+00
3.6E+00
4.3E+00
5.1E+00
6.1E+00
7.3E+00
8.6E+00
Barium (g/sec)
1.4E+00
1.7E+00
1.9E+00
2.2E+00
2.7E+00
3.2E+00
4.0E+00
5.0E+00
6.2E+00
7.9E+00
1.0E+01
1.3E+01
1.6E+01
2.1E+01
3.3E+01
5.0E+01
7.0E>£01
9.2E+01
1.2E+02"
1.6E+02
'2.1E+02
2.5E+02
3.0E+02
3.6E+02
4.3E+02
5.1 E +02
6.0E+02 '
7.2E+02
8.5E+02 '
1.0E+03
1.2E+03
1.4E+03
Lead (g/sec)
2.6E-03
3.0E-03
3.4E-03
3.9E-03
4.8E-03
5.8E-03
7.2E-03
9.0E-03
1.1E-02
1.4E-02
1.8E-02 •
2.3E-02
2.9E-02
3.7E-02
5.9E-02
9.0E-02
1.3E-01
1.7E-01
2.2E-01
2.9E-01
3.8E-01
4.5E-01
5.4E-01
6.4E-01
7.7E-01
9.1 E— 01
1.1E+00
1.3E+00
1.5E+00
1.8E+00
2.2E+00
2.6E+00
Mercury (g/sec)
8.7E-03
9.9E-03
1.1E-02
1.3E-02
1.6E-02
1.9E-02
2.4E-02
3.0E-02
3.7E-02
4.7E-02
6.0E-02
7.7E-02 •- . .
9.7E-02 '
1.2E-01
2.0E-01
3.0E-01
4.2E-01
5.5E-01
7.3E-01
9.6E-01
1.3E+00
1.5E+00
1.8E+00
2.1E+00
2.6E+00
3.0E+00
3.6E+00
4.3E+00
5.1E+00
6.1E+00
7.3E+00
8.6E+00
' Silver (g/sec)
8.7E-02
9.9E-02
T.1E-01
1.3E-01
1.6E-01 '
1.9E-01
2.4E-01
3.0E-01
3.7E-01
4.7E-01
6.0E-01
7.7E-01
9.7E-01
1.2E+00
2.0E+00
3.0E+00
4.2E+00
5.5E+00'
7.3E+00
9.6E+00
1.3E+01
1.5E+01 ' • - •
1.8E+01
2.1E+01
2.6E+01
3.0E+01
3.6E+01
"4.3E+01
5.1E+01
6.1E+01
7.3E+01 .
8.6E+01
Thallium
(g/sec)
8.7E-03
9.9E-03
1.1E-02
1.3E-02
1.6E-02
1.9E-02
2.4E-02
3.0E— 02
3.7E-02
4.7E-02
6.0E-02
7.7E-02
9.7E-02
2.0E-01
3.0E-01
4.2E-01
5.5E-01
7.3E-01
9.6E-01
1.3E+00
1.5E + 00
1.8E+00
2.1E+00
2.6E+00
3.0E+00
3.6E+00
4.3E+00
5.1E+00
6.1E+00
7.3E+00
8.6E+00
TABLE E-6.—EMISSIONS SCREENING LIMITS FOR NONCARCINOGENIC METALS FOR FACILITIES IN COMPLEX TERRAIN
Terrain-adjusted
effective stack height
/
4m
6m
8m
10m
12m
14m
16m
18m
20m
22m
24m
26m
28m
30m
35m
40m
45m
50m
55m |
60m
65m
70m
75m
80m
85m
90m
35m
100m
105m
110m ' |
115m :
120m • j
- _' > . •'- Values for use in urban and rural areas
Antimony (g/sec)
3.9EM33
5.8E-03
8.5E-03 •
1.2E-02
1.5E-02 -
1.9E-02
2.2E-02
2.4E-02
2.7E-02
2.9E-02
3.3E-02
3.6E-02
4.0E-02
4.4E-02
5.5E-02
6.8E-02
8.3E-02
1.0E-01
1.3E-01
1.6E-01
1.9E-01
2.2E-01
2.4E-01
2.7E-01
3.0E-01
3.4E-01
3.8E-01
4.2E-01
4.7E-01
5.3E-01
5.9E-01 . - ,
6.7E-01
Barium (g/sec)
6.6E-01
9.7E-01
1.4E+00
2.1E+00
2.5E+00
3.1E+00
3.6E+00
4.0E+00
4.4E+00
4.9E+00
5.4E+00
6.6E+00
6.6E+00
7.4E+00
9.1E+00
1.1E+01
1.4E+01
1.7E+01
2.1E-+01
2.6E+01
3.2E+01
3.6E+01
4.0E + 01
4.5E+01
5.0E+01
5.6E+01
6.3E+01
7.1E+01
7.9E+01
8.9E+01
9.9E+01
1.1E-02; ;/ •' '- '
Lead (g/sec)
1.2E-03
1.7E-03
2.6E-03 ,
3.7E-03
4.6E-03,
5.6E-03
6.5E-03
7.2E-03
8.0E-03
8.8E-03
9.8E-03
1.2E-02
1.2E-02
1.3E-02
1.6E-02
2.0E-02
2.5E-02
3.1E-02
3.8E-02
4.7E-02
5.8E-02
6.5E-02
7.2E-02
8.1E-02 - .
9.1E-02 '
1.0E-01
1.1E-01
1.3E-01
1.4E-01
1.6E-01
1.8E-01
2.0E-01
' Mercury (g/sec)
3.9E-02
5.8E-03 :
8.5E-03
1.2E-02 :
1.5E-01 •
1.9E-02
2.2E-02
2.4E-02'
2.7E-02
2.9E-02
3.3E-02
3.6E-02
4.0E-02
4.4E-02
5.5E-02
6.8E-02
8.3E-02
1.0E-01
1.3E-01
1.6E-01
1.9E-01
2.2E-01
2.4E-01
2.7E-01
3.0E-01
3.4E-01
3.8E-01
4.2E-01
4.7E-01
5.3E-01
5.9E-01 ;
6.7E-01 .
Silver (g/sec)
3.9E-02
5.8E-02
8.5E-02
1.2E-01
1.5E-01
1.9E-01
2.2E-01
2.4E-01
2.7E-01
2.9E-01
3.3E-01
3.6E-01
4.0E-01
4.4E-01
5.5E-01 • '
6.8E-01
8.3E-01
1.0E+00
1.3E+00
1.6E+00
1.9E+00
2.2E+00
2.4E+00
2.7E+00
3.0E+00
3.4E+00
3.8E+00
4.2E+00
4.7E+00
5.3E+00 - "
5.9E+00
6.7E+00
Thallium
(g/sec)
3.9E-03
5.8E-03
8.5E-03
1.2E-02
1.5E-02
1.9E-02
'2.2E-02
2.4E-02
2.7E-02
2.9E-02
3.3E-02
4.0E-02
4.0E-02
4.4E-02
5.5E-02
6.8E-02
8.3E-02
1.0E-01
1.3E-01
1.6E-01
1.9E-01
2.2E-01
2.4E-01
2.7E-01
3.0E-01
3.4E-01
3.8E-01
4.2E-01
4.7E-01
5.3E-01
5.9E-01
6.7E-01
-------
437SO
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 200 / Thursday, October 26,1989 / Proposed Rules
TABLE E-7,—EMISSIONS SCREENING LIMITS FOR CARCINOGENIC METALS FOR FACILITIES IN NONCOMPLEX TERRAIN
T«rafi «5;-j;',cd
•ttKW* t!aek
twight
4m
9m
"ten
10«
Mm
14m
I5ci
tsm
Mm
t£m
24«
2Sn>
ttm
30m
35m
«0ra
•Wm
50m
Km
90m
asm
70m
7S«
60m
Mm
«0m
iSro
100m
10So»
tiOm
115m
120m
Values for use In urban areas
Arianic (a/sec)
1.3E-04
1.5E-04
1.7E-04
1.9E-04
2.1E-04
&4E-04
2.7E-04
3.1E-04
3.4E-04
3.9E-04
4.4E-04
5.0E-04
5.8E-04
6.3E-04
82E-04
1.QE-03
1.3E-03
1.7E-03
2.1E-03
2.6E-03
3.2E-03
3,66-03
4,1E-03
4.7E-03
5.3E-03
6,oe-03
6.9E-03
7.8E-03
8.8E-03
1.0E-02
1.1E-02
1.3E-02
Cadmium (g/
sec)
3.1E-04
3.5E-04
4.0E-04
4.SE-04
S.1E-04
5.7E-04
6.6E-04
7.3E-04
8.2E-04
9.3E-04
1.1E-03
1.2E-03
1.3E-03
1.5E-03
1.9E-03
2.5E-03
3.2E-03
4.0E-03
5.1E-03
6.2E-03
7.7E-03
8.7E-03
9.9E-03
1.1E-02
1.3E-02
1.4E-02
1.6E-02
1.9E-02
2.1E-02
2.4E-02
2.7E-02
3.1E-02
Crwomium (g/
sac)
4.7E-05
5.3E-05
6.0E-05
6.7E-05
7.6E-05
8.6E-05
9.7E-05
1.1E-04
1.2E-04
1.4E-04
1.^-04
1.8E-04
2.0E-04
2.3E-04
2.9E-04
3.7E-04
4.7E-04
6.1E-04
7.6E-04
9.4E-O4
1.2E-03
1.3E-03
1.5E-03
1.7E-03
1.9E-03
a2E-03
2.5E-03
2.8E-03
3.2E-03
3.6E-03
4.1E-03
4.6E-03
Beryllium (g/
sec)
2.3E-04
2.6E-04
3.0E-04
3.4E-04
3.8E-04
4.3E-04
4.8E-04
S.^E-04
6.2E-04
7.0E-04
7.9E-04
8.9E-04
1.0E-03
1.1E-03
1.5E-03
1.9E-03
2.4E-03
3.0E-03
3.8E-03
4.7E-03 '
5.8E-03
6.5E-03
7.4E-03
8.4E-03
9.5E-03
1.1E-02
1^E-02
1.4E-02
1.6E-02
1.8E-02
2.0E-02
^3E-02
Values for use in rural areas
Arsenic (g/sec)
6.7E-05
7.7E-05
8.8E-05
1.0E-04
1.2E-04
1.5E-04
1.9E-04
2.3E-04
2.9E-04
3.7E-04
4.7E-04
5.9E-04
7.6E-04
9.6E-04
1.5E-03
2.3E-03
3.2E-03
4.3E-03
5.7E-03
7.5E-03
9.9E-03
1.2E-02
1.4E-02
1.7E-02
2.0E-02
2.4E-02
2.8E-02
3,3E-02,,
4.0E^02 ^ !
4.7E-02
5.6E-02
6.7E-02
Cadmium (g/ ;
sec)
1.6E-04
1.8E-04
2.1E-04
2.4E-04
3.0E-04
3.6E-04
4.5E-04
5.5E-04
6.9E-04
8.8E-04
1.1E-03
1.4E-03
1.8E-03
2.3E-03 '
3.6E-03
5.5E-03
7.7E-03
1.0E-02
T.4E-02
1.8E-02
2.4E-02
2.8E-02
3.3E-02
4.0E-02
4.7E-02
5.6E-02
6.7E-02
8.0E-02 :
9.5E-02
1.1E-01
1.3E-01
1.6E-01
Chromium (g/
sec)
2.4E-05 '
2.8E-05
3.2E-05
3.6E-05
4.4E-05
5.4E-05
6.7E-05
8.3E-05
1.0E-04
1.3E-04
1.7E-04
2.1E-04
2.7E-04
3.4E-04
5.4E-04
8.3E-04
1.2E-03
1.5E-03
2.0E-03
2.7E-03
3.5E-03
4.2E-03
5.0E-03
6.0E-03
7.1E-03
8.4E-03
1.0E-02
1.2E-02.
1.4E-02
1.7E-02
2.0E-02
2.4E-02
Beryllium
(g/sec)
1.2E-04
1.4E-04
1.6E-04
1.8E-04
2.2E-04
2.7E-04
3.3E-04
4.2E-04
5.2E-04
6.6E-04
8.4E-04
1.1E-03
1.4E-03
1.7E-03
2.7E-03
4.2E-03
5.8E-03
7.7E-03
1.0E-02
1.3E-02
1.8E-02
2.1E-02
2.5E-02
3.0E-0?
3.5E-02
4.2E-02
5.0E-02
6.0E-02
7.1E-02
8.5E-02
1.0E-01
1.2E-01
TABLE E-8.—EMISSIONS SCREENING LIMITS FOR CARCINOGENIC METALS FOR FACILITIES IN COMPLEX TERRAIN
Terrain-adjusted effective stack height
V*fcs» tor use in urban and
rural areij
4m
Sm
0m
10m
l%m
14
-------
54, NoT 206 /Thursday, October 28,1989 / Proposed Rules
TABLE E-9.—FEED RATE SCREENING LIMITS FOR TOTAL CHLORINE
Terrain-adjusted effective stack height
4m •.,-.-
6m
8m • . .
1Qm
12m '
14m
16m .
18m
20m .
22m
24m
26m '
28m
30m
35m
40m
. 45m •
50m
55m
60m , .
65m
70m
75m , . , ,
80m
85m , ""• • ,
90m
95m . •
100m ... . • :
105m -.
110m „
115m ; -
120m
Noncomplex
Total chlorine (Ib/hr)
2.0E-01 : . .. ,
2.5E-01 ,
3.0E-01
3.7E-01
4.7E-01"
6.1E-01
'7.8E-01
9.8E-01
1.2E+00
1.6E+00 '
2.0E+00
2.5E+00 .--'--
3.1E+00
3.9E+00
5.7E+00
8.0E+00
1.1E+01
1.5E+01 .
1.9E+01
2.3E+01 •
2.7E+01 l
3.0E+01 - '
3.3E+01 '
3..6E+01 •
4-.OE+01
4.4E+01
4.9E+01
5.4E+01
5.9E+01
6.5E+01 .
7.2E+01
7.9E+01 -'.-..
Complex
- . Total chlorine (Ib/hr)
2.6E-01 . . . ..
2.7E-01
2.8E-01
2.9E-01
3.3E-01
3.8E-01
4.4E-01
5.0E-01
5.7E-01
6.5E-01
7.4E-01
8.4E-01
9.6E-01
1.1E+00 '
1.5E+00
2.1E+00
3.0E+00
4.1E+00
5.7E-1-00
8.0E+00
1.1E+01
1.2E+01,
1.3E+01
1.4E+01
1.5E+01
1.7E+01
1.8E+01 Y .
2.0E+01
2.1E+01
2.3E+01
2.5E+01
2.7E+01
TABLE E-10.—EMISSIONS SCREENING.LIMITS FOR HYDROGEN CHLORIDE
;, Terrain-adjusted effective stack height
4m ,
6m
8m
10m
12m
14m
16m
18m
20m
22m
24m
26m
28m ,
30m
35m
40m
45m
50m
55m
60m . ;
65m
70m ,
75m -..'"' , : - '
80m
85m '•-.,'.
90m • ,
95m
100m ; '
105m
110m,
115m
120m ;
• / .Noncomplex • -
. HCI (g/sec)"
2.6E-02
3.1E-02 '• •'•••:" .-
3.8E-02 .
4.6E-02
6.0E-02
7.7E-02
9.9E-02 :••-..•--.•
1.2E-01
1.6E-01
2.0E-01
2.5E-01
3.1E-01
3.9E-01 ,
4.9E-01
7.2E-01
1.0E+00
1.4E+00
1.9E+00
2.4E-fOO •
2.9E+00 '
3.4E+00 - •
3.8E+00
4.2E+00 ,
4.6E+00
5.1E+00
5.6E+00
6.1E+00
6.8E+00
7.5E+00 - -
8.2E+00 .
9.1E+00
1.0E+01
Complex . ' '
HCI (g/seo)
3.3E-02 . •
3.4E-02
3.5E-02
3.7E-02
4.2E-02
4.8E-02
5.5E-02
6.3E-02
7.2E-02
8.2E-02
9.3E-02 •-'...-
1.1E-01
1.2E-01 ' • . - •
1.4E-01 ,
1.9E-01 .
2.7E-01 ,
3.7E-01 --
5.2E-01
7.2E-01
1.0E+00
1.4E+00 '• . .
1.5E+00 - ' .
1.7E+00 -
1.8E+00
1.9E+00
2:1E + 00
2.3E+00
2.5E+00
2.7E+00
2.9E+00
3.2E+00
3.5E+00
-------
43752
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 208 /Thursday, October 26,1989 / Proposed Rules
Appendix F: Technical Support for Tier
Mil Metals and HCL Controls and THC
Emissions Rate Screening Limits
Tills appendix summarizes the risk
assessment approach the Agency used
to develop the proposed Tier I and II
Screening Limits for metals and HC1,
and the emission rate Screening limits
for total hydrocarbons (THC) that would
be used to assess THC emissions under
the health-based Tier II alternative for
PIC controls. In addition, the appendix
summarizes how the metals and HC1
controls would be implemented.
/. Overview of EPA's Risk Assessment
The risk assessment methodology is
discussed in detail in the background
document supporting the amendments
EPA plans to propose shortly for
hazardous waste incinerators—
Technical Background Document:
Controls for Metals and Hydrogen
Chloride Emissions for Hazardous
Waste Incinerators. As explained in the
text of today's notice, the emissions
standards, technical support, and risk
assessment methodology for the boiler/
furnace rules are identical to those the
Agency plans to propose for
Incinerators. The methodology is
summarized below for the convenience
of the reader.
A. Overview of the Risk Assess'ment
Approach
EPA'a risk assessment approach
involves: (1) Establishing ambient levels
of pollutants (i.e., metals, hydrogen
chloride (MCI), and total hydrocarbons
(THC)) that pose acceptable health risk;
and (2) developing conservative
dispersion coefficients 40 for reasonable
worst-cast facilities as a function of key
parameters (I.e., effective stack height,41
terrain type, and land use classification].
To establish the conservative Screening
Limits for metals, HC1, and THC, we
back-calculated from the acceptable
ambient levels using the conservative
dispersion coefficients.
Under today's proposal, applicants
would be required to demonstrate that
emissions of metals, HC1, and (when
stack gas CO concentrations exceed 100
ppmv and under the health-based
alternative approach to assess THC
emissions) THC emissions do not result
in an exccedance of the acceptable
ambient levels. If the conservative
Screening Limits are not exceeded,
applicants need not conduct site-specific
dispersion modeling to make this
demonstration.
B. Development of Conservative
Dispersion Coefficients
1. Factors Influencing Ambient Levels
of Pollutants. Ambient levels of
pollutants resulting from stack
emissions are a function of the
dispersion of pollutants from the source
in question. Many factors influence the
relationships between releases
(emissions) and ground-level
concentrations, including: (1) The rate of
emission; (2) the release specifications
of the facility (i.e., stack height, exit
velocity, exhaust temperature and inner
stack diameter, which together define
the facility's "effective stack height"); (3)
local terrain; and (4) local meteorology
and (5) urban/rural classification.
2. Selection of Facilities and Sites for
Dispersion Modeling.*2 Hazardous
waste incinerators are known to vary
widely in capacity, configuration, and
design, making it difficult to identify
typical parameters that affect dispersion
of emissions (i.e., release parameters).
For instance, stack heights of
incinerators listed in the 1981 mail
survey 43 vary from less than 15 feet to
over 200 feet. Futhermpre, many new
facilities that are now in operation that
are not listed on the survey, and EPA
expects that a large number of
additional facilities of various types of
designs are likely to be constructed over
the next several years.
For currently operating facilities, the
worst-case dispersion situation would
be a combination of release
specifications, local terrain, urban/rural
land use classification, and local
meteorology that produces the highest
ambient concentrations of hazardous
pollutants per unit of pollutant released
by a facility. This can be expressed, for
any specific facility, as a dispersion
coefficient, which, for purposes of this
proposal, is the maximum annual
average (or, as explained later, for HC1,
maximum 3-minute) ground-level
concentration for an emission of 1 g/s (a
** For jwrpoiet of this document, the term
dljptrtSen coefficient refers to the ambient
concentration that would remit from an emission
rate of 1 gram/sec.
41 Blf«ctlv* (tack height Is the height above
grcwd level of » plume, based on summing the
physical tttidt height plus plume rise.
42 A survey of hazardous waste incinerators was
used to identify the range of release parameters—
stact height, plume rise—representative of the
universe of incinerators. These release parameters
were used to develop the conservative dispersion
coefficients that were used to develop the Screening
Limits. Given that the range of incinerator release
parameters will also represent the range of release
parameters for boilers and industrial furnaces, the
Screening Limits will also be appropriated for
boilers and furnaces (U.S. EPA, Draft Technical
Background Document for Control of Metals and
HC1 Emissions from Hazardous Waste Incinerators,
August 1989).
43 DPRA, op. cit.
unit release); the units of the dispersion
coefficient are, therefore, jxg/m3/g/s.44
Since dispersion coefficients are, as a
general rule, inversely correlated with
effective stack heights, worst-case
facilities are most likely to be those with
the shortest effective stack heights. No
similar a priori judgment, however,
should be made with respect to terrain
or meteorology; evaluation of the
influence of these factors requires
individual site-by-site dispersion
modeling. It was therefore not possible
to screen facility locations in advance to
select for probable worst-case situations
'simply by considering stack height.
Instead, out of a total number of 154
existing facilities for which data were
available from the 1981 mail survey,45
we roughly sorted the facilities into
three terrain types based on broad-scale
topographic maps: flat, rolling, and
complex terrain. We then ranked the
facilities by effective ^tack heights.
Next, we evaluated terrain rise out to 50
km for each of the 24 facilities and
ranked the facilities by maximum
terrain rise. Finally, we subdivided the
24 facilities into three groups which are
loosely defined as flat, rolling, and
complex terrain. In addition, to enable
us to determine conservative dispersion
coefficients as a function of effective
height, we developed 11 hypothetical
incinerators and modeled each of these
"incinerators" at the 24 sites. The
hypothetical facilities were selected by
dividing the range of facilities listed in •
the 1981 survey into 10 categories based
on effective stack height. Then, within
each stack height category, we selected
a hypothetical effective stack height that
approximated the 25th percentile of the
range of heights that existed within the
category. The 25th percentile was
chosen in order to select a facility likely
to reflect the higher end of dispersion
coefficients (and ambient levels) in each
height category. In addition, an eleventh
hypothetical source was defined in
order to represent facilities whose
heights of release do not meet good
engineering practice (see the discussion
on good engineering practice in Section
II of this appendix). Such devices will .
44 Dispersion coefficients can be defined for any
specific location surrounding a release. The
maximum dispersion coefficient will, up.der the
assumptions used in this regulation, be the
dispersion coefficient for the MEL It may occur at
any distance and in any direction from the facility.
However, locations within the property boundary of
a facility would not be considered when
implementing these proposed rules unless
individuals reside on site.
48 We note that the survey should be
representative because it addressed over 50 percent
of the 250 hazardous waste incinerators now in
operation.
-------
*f.'^^L^^^^^^L October 26,1989 / Proposed Rules 43753
experience "building wake effects'"—
turbulence created'by adjacent
structures that immediately mixes the
plume resulting in high 'ground level
concentrations close to the stack.
Finally, we also included the site that
resulted in the worst-case complex "
terrain conditions during development
of the rule for boilers and industrial
furnaces in 1987.46 Although there is
currently no hazardous waste
incinerator at that site, we used the site
as another theoretical location for the 11
hypothetical incinerators and merged
- the results into those from the actual
incinerator sites. Under certain
conditions, fhis site provided higher
dispersion coefficients for some stacks.
In summary, 11 hypothetical
incinerators and the actual Incinerators
were modeled at each of 24 sites evenly
distributed among flat, soiling, and
complex terrain. In addition, the 11
hypothetical incinerators were modeled
at an additional complex terrain site.
3, Development of Dispersion
Coefficients, Estimating the air impacts
of the facilities required the use of five
separate air dispersion models. We used
the "EPA Guideline on Air Quality
Models (Revised)," *i and consulted
with the EPA Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards to select the
most appropriate model for each
application. .. .
For-each of the 25 locations, five
consecutive years of concurrent surface
and twice-per-day upper air data {to
characterize mixing height] were
acquired. The data sets contained
hourly records of surface observations
for five years, or approximately 44,000
consecutive hours of meteorological
data. The same five-year data set was
used to estimate the highest hourly
dispersion coefficient during the five-
year period, and to estimate annual
average concentrations based on.a five
year data set for all release
specifications modeled at each location.
The actual incinerator release
specifications at each location were
used to select the appropriate model for •
short-term and long-term averaging
periods. Once selected, the release
specifications for the actual incinerator
and the 11 hypothetical incinerators
48 See "'Background Information Document for 'the
Development of Regulations to Control the Burning
of Hazardous Waste in Boilers and Industrial
Furnaces, Volume III: Risk Assessment,
Engineering-Sciences", .February 1987. (Available
from the NaHonal Technical Information Service,
Springfield, VA, Order No. PB 87173845.)
47 VSEPA."GuideIine on Air Quality'Models
(Revised)." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, N.C. EPA-450/2/78HD27R
July 1986. .
were modeled. Table F-l lists the -
models selected.
TABLE F--L—MODELS SELECTED FOR THE
RISK ANALYSIS
Terrain
classifica-
tion
Fiat or
Rolling.
Flat or .
'Rolling.
Complex
Complex
Complex
Urban/
irural
'Urban
-------
43754
Federal Register /Vol.
situations identified below, the
Screening Limits may not be protective
end the permit writer should require
•f It-specific dispersion modeling
conuistent with EPA's "Guideline on Air
Quality Models (Revised)" to
demonstrate that emissions do not pose
unacceptable health risk:
• Facility It located in a narrow
vulky lets than 1 km wide; or
* Facility IMS a stack taller than 20 m
and is located such that the terrain rises
to the stick height within 1 km of the
facility; or
* Facility has a stack taller than 20 m
and is located within 5 km of the
shoreline of * large body of water (such
us en ocean or large lake); or
« The facility property line is within
200 m of tltt stack and the physical
stack height is less than 10 m; or
• Onsite receptors are of concern, and
the itiek height is less than 10 m.
In addition to the situations identified
nbovtt, there is a probability, albeit
small, that the combination of critical
parameters, stack height, stack gas
velocity, effluent temperature,
meteorological conditions, etc., will
result In higher ambient concentrations
than resulted from the conservative
modeling dona to support this rule. As a
result, the Agency is reserving the right
to raquin that the owner or operator
submit, as part of the permit proceeding,
»n Kir quality dispersion analysis
consistent with EPA's "Guideline on Air
Quality Models (Revised}" in order to
ensure that acceptable ambient levels of
pollutants art not exceeded irrespective
of whether the facility meets the specific
Screening Omits that would ba
*utibllshed by Oils regulation.
Finally, we specifically request
comment on whether less conservative
* assumptions, coupled with a safety
factor then applied to assure that
ambient levels are not underestimated,
should be used to develop the Screening
Limits. This alternative approach may
have merit because the repeated use of
conservative assumptions in an analysis
n»y "multiply" the conservatism
unreasonably. Comments are solicited
on: (ij The extent to which less
conservative assumptions would enable
applicants to meet the Limits and, thus,
how to reduce the conservatism of the
Screening Limits while still ensuring that
they are protective; and (3) how the
reduced conservatism would affect the
criteria discussed above that must be
considered to determine if the Screening
Limits are protective for a particular
situation.
C. Evaluation of Health Risk
1, Risk from Carcinogens. EPA cancer
risk policy suggests that any level of
human exposure to a carcinogenic'
substance entails some finite level of
risk. Determining the risk associated
with a particular dose requires knowing
the slope of the modeled dose-response
curve. On this basis, EPA's Carcinogen
Assessment Group (CAG) has estimated
carcinogenic slope factors for humans.
exposed to known and suspected human
carcinogens. Slope factors are estimated
by a modeling process. The slope of the
dose-response curve enables estimation
of a unit risk. The unit risk is defined as
the incremental lifetime risk estimated
to result from exposure of an individual
for a 70-year lifetime to a carcinogen in
air containing 1 microgram of the
compound per cubic meter of air. Both
the slope factors and unit risks are
reviewed by the Agency's Cancer Risk
Assessment Validation Endeavor
(CRAVE) workgroup for verification.
In setting acceptable risk levels to
develop today's proposed rule, we
considered the fact that not all
carcinogens are equally likely to cause
human cancers, as discussed in
"Guidelines for Carcinogenic Risk
Assessment" (51 FR 33992 (September
24,1988)). The Guidelines have
established a weight-of-evidence
scheme reflecting the likelihood that a
compound causes tumors in humans.
The weight-of-evidence scheme
categorizes carcinogens according to the
quantity and quality of both human and
animal data as known, probable, and
possible human carcinogens. The
proposed approach places a higher
weight on cancer unit risk estimates that
are based on stronger evidence of
carcinogenicity. The proposed approach
will provide for making fuller use of
information by explicitly examining risk
for different categories of carcinogens.
In reaching the conclusion of the level of
cancer risks to be used to support this
proposal, we have considered available
information on the constituents being
emitted, the evidence associating these
compounds with cancer risk, the
quantities of emissions of these
constituents, and the exposed
populations.
For purposes of today's notice, we are
proposing the following risk levels as
acceptable incremental lifetime cancer
risk levels to the hypothetical maximum
exposed individual (MEI): (1) for Group
A and B carcinogens, on the order of
IQ-* 52 and (2) for Group C carcinogens,
MA dose is calculated to correspond to a risk of
cousing cancer to one individual in one million
exposed to that dose over a lifetime.
on the order of 10~5. These risk levels
are within the range of levels
historically used by EPA in its
hazardous waste and emergency
response programs—10"4 to 10"7.
Under the weight-of-evidence
approach to assess carcinogenic risk for
this proposed rule, we believe it is
appropriate to add the risk from
carcinogens within the category of those
that are known or probable human
carcinogens, the Group A and B
carcinogens. Such a group is composed
of certain metals which cause lung
cancer (arsenic, beryllium, cadmium,
and chromium).
Similarly, it is appropriate to add the
risk from carcinogens within the
category of those that are probable or
possible human carcinogens, C
carcinogens.
To implement this carcinogenic risk
assessment approach, we are proposing
to limit the aggregate risk to the MEI to
10~s. Given that the carcinogenic metals
that would be regulated in today's ,
proposed rule are all Group A or B
carcinogens, this approach would
effectively limit the risk from individual
carcinogenic metals to levels on the
order of 10~6but below 10"5. We.
considered limiting the aggregate risk to
the MEI to 10"6 but determined that it
would result in setting risk levels for
individual carcinogens to levels on the
order of 10"', which has been judged (for
purposes of this rule) to be
unnecessarily conservative, considering
the relatively low projected cancer
incidence and relatively high cost per
.cancer reduced. Even though the cancer
incidence is low, we do not consider a ,
10"4 risk level acceptable because: (1)
The total annualized cost of the rule at a
10"5 aggregate risk level is not
substantial; thus, the cost of the added.
margin of safety is reasonable; (2)
indirect exposure has not yet been
considered; and (3) toxic compounds not
yet identified are not being controlled
directly in this rulemaking. We believe
that an aggregate MEI risk of 10~5 is'.
appropriate because: (1) It provides
adequate protection of public health; (2)
it considers weight of evidence of
human carcinogenicity; (3) it limits the
risk from individual Group A and B
carcinogens to risk levels on the order of
1Q~&, and (4) it is within the range of risk
levels the Agency has used for
hazardous waste regulatory programs.
The Agency would like to use the
weight-of-evidence approach in^
developing the health-based alternative
approach to assessing THC emissions
under the Tier II PIC controls. However,
there a number of unidentified
compounds in the mix of hydrocarbon
-------
26.1989/Proposed Rules
43755
emissions. These unidentified .
compounds could be either carcinogens
or noncarcinogens, or both. Of the .
compounds that may be carcinogens, the
Agency does not know whether they
. would be classified as A, Bl, B2, or C
carcinogens. Since the Agency cannot
classify these unknown carcinogens, the
Agency is unable to use a weight-of-
evidence approach to select an
acceptable risk level for THC. In order
' to be conservative, the Agency is
assuming that THC can be treated as a
single compound for which a unit cancer
risk is calculated. To derive this unit
cancer risk value, the historical data
base of THC emissions from hazardous
•waste incinerators, boilers, and
industrial furnaces was used. For each
organic compound identified in the
emissions, the 95th percentile highest
concentration value was taken as a
reasonable worst-case value. (The
highest concentration was often used •
because there were too few data to
identify the 95th percentile value.) For
organic compounds listed in Appendix
VIII of Part 261 for which health effects
data are adequate to establish an RSD
or RAG, but which have not been •
detected in emissions from hazardous
waste combustion, an arbitrary emission
concentration of 0.1 ng/L Was assumed.
The data base was further adjusted to
increase the conservatism of the
calculated THC unit risk value by
assuming that.the carcinogen
formaldehyde is emitted from hazardous
waste combustion devices at the 95th
percentile levels found to be emitted
from municipal waste combustors. The
proportion of the emission concentration
of each compound to the total emission
concentration for all compounds was
then determined. This proportion,
termed a proportional emission
concentration, was them multiplied by
the unit cancer risk developed by GAG
to obtain a risk level for that compound.
A unit risk of zero was used for
noncarcinogens like methane. All the
cancer risks were added together to
derive a weighted average 95th
percentile unit risk value for THC. This
procedure for developing a THC unit
.risk value assumes that the proportion
of the various hydrocarbons is the same
for all incinerators, boilers and
industrial furnaces burning hazardous
waste. In addition, it weighs all
carcinogens the same regardless of
current EPA classification.
As explained in the/text, we are
proposing to limit hydrocarbon
emissions-^-when stack gas carbon
monoxide levels exceed lOOppmv and
under the health-based alternative-
based on a l
-------
43756
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 206 / Thursday. October 26.1989 /
and tho amount of supporting data. The
criteria for the confidence rating are
discussed In the RfD decision
documents.
The Agency used the follwing strategy
to deriva the inhalation exposure limits
proposed today:
1, Where a verified oral RfD has been
based on an inhalation study, we will
calculate the inhalation exposure limit
directly from the study.
Z, Where a verified oral RfD has been
based on an oral study, we will use a
conversion factor of 1 for route-to-route
extrapolation in driving an inhalation
limit.
3. Where appropriate EPA health
documents exist, such as the Health
Effects Assessments (HEAs) and the
Health Effects and Environmental
Profiles (HEEPs), containing relevant
Inhalation toxicity data, their data will
be used in deriving inhalation exposure
limits. We will also consider other
agency health documents (such as
NIOSH's criteria documents).
4. If RfD» or other toxicity data from
agency health documents are not
ttvsllnble, then we will consider other
sources of toxicity information.
Calculations will be made in accordance
with the RfD methodology.
The Agency recognizes the limitations
of route-rto-route conversions used to
derive the RACs and is in the process of
examining confounding factors affecting
the conversion, such as: (a) The
appropriateness of extrapolating when a
portal of entry is the critical target
organ; (b) first pass effects; and (c)
effect of route on dosimetry.
The Agency, through its Inhalation
RfD Workgroup, is developing reference
dose values for inhalation exposure, and
additional values are expected to be
available this year. The Agency will use
the available inhalation RfDs—after
providing appropriate opportunity for
public comment—when this rule is
promulgated. Certainly, if the workgroup
develops inhalation reference doses
prior to promulgation of today's rule that
are substantially different from the
RACs proposed today, and if the revised
inhalation reference dose could be
expected to have a significant adverse
impact on the regulated community, the
Agency will take public comment on the
revised RACs after notice in the Federal
Register.
EPA proposed this same approach for
deriving RACs on May 6,1987 (52 FR
18993) for boilers and industrial furnaces
burning hazardous waste. We received a
number of comments on the proposed
approach of deriving reference air
concentrations (RACs) from oral RfDs.
As stated in today's proposal and the
May 6,1987, proposal, we would prefer .
to use inhalation reference doses. Some
comments suggested other means of
deriving RACs. We will consider those
comments and others that may be
submitted as a result of today's notice in
developing the final rule.
As previously stated, EPA has derived
the RACs from oral reference doses
(RfDs) for the compounds of concern. An
oral RfD is an estimate of a daily
exposure (via ingestion) for the human
population that is likely to be without an
appreciable risk of deleterious effects,
even if exposure occurs daily throughout
a lifetime.83 The RfD for a specific
chemical is calculated by dividing the
experimentally determined no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) or lowest-
observable-adverse-effect-level
(LOAEL) by the appropriate uncertainty
factor(s). The RAG values inherently
take into account sensitive populations.
The Agency is proposing to use the
following equation to convert oral RfDs
to RACs:
RAC
RfD (mg/kg-bw/day) X body weight X correction factor X background level factor
m3 air breathed/day
wbcro:
• RfD is the oral reference dose
* Dody weight (bw) is assumed to be
70 kg for an adult male
• Volume of air breathed by an adult
mate is assumed to be 20 m3 per day
• Correction factor for route-to-route
txtripolttlon (going from the oral route
lo tho inhalation route) is 1.0
* Background level factor is 0.25. It is
a factor to fraction the RfD to the intake
resulting from direct Inhalation of the
oonpound emitted from the source (i.e.,
«n Individual Is assumed to be exposed
to 75 percent of the RfD from the
combination of indirect exposure from
Ilia sourea tn question and other
iourcc*1).
a, Short-term Exposures. In today's
proposed rule, the RACs are used to
determine if adverse health effects are
likely lo result from exposure to stack
emiisfons by comparing maximum
•» Cartel scientific umteiUiultng. huwev«uv
«l«* not eoaiSiltr IM» demarcation to tat rigid- Fo
brief pwtodt «nd tor imail excursion* above the
RfO, ftttvKM effcfctt «rt unlikely to mast of the
itten, On the other hind, Mverol
annual average ground-level
concentrations of a pollutant to the
pollutant's RAC. If the RAC is not
exceeded, EPA does not anticipate
adverse health effects. The Agency,
however, is also concerned about the
impacts of short-term (less than 24-hour)
exposures. The ground-level
concentration of an emitted pollutant
can be an order of magnitude greater
during a 3-minute or 15-minute period of
exposure than the maximum annual
average exposure. This is because
meteorological factors vary over the
course of a year resulting in a wide
distribution of exposures. Thus,
maximum annual average
concentrations are always much lower
than short-term exposure
concentrations. On the other hand, the
short-term exposure RAC is also
generally much higher than the lifetime
exposure RAC. Nonetheless, in some
circumstances can be cited in which particularly
sensitive members of the population suffer adverse
responses at levels well below the RfD, Sse 51 FR
1627 (January 14,1986).
cases short-term exposure may pose a
greater .health threat than annual
exposure. Unfortunately, the use of RfDs
limits the development of short-term
acute exposure limits because no
acceptable methodology exists for the
derivation of less than lifetime exposure
from the RfDs.54 However, despite these
limitations, the Agency is proposing a
short-term (i.e., 3-minute) RAC for HC1
of 150 mg/m3, based on limited data
documenting a no-observed-effect-level
in animals exposed to HC1 via
inhalation.55 We do anticipate,
however, that short-term RACs for other
compounds will be developed by the
Agency in the future.
54 Memo from Clara Chow through Reva
Rubenstein, Characterization and Assessment
Division, EPA, to Robert Holloway, Waste
Management Division, EPA, entitled "Use of RfDs
Versus TLVs for Health Criteria," January 13,1987.
65 Memo from Characterization and Assessment
Division to Waste Management Division, October 2.
1986, interpreting results from Sellakumar, A.R.;
Snyder, C.A.; Solomon, J.J.; Albert, R.E. (1985)
"Carcinogenicity of Formaldehyde and Hydrogen
Chloride in Hats. Toxicol. Appl. Pharm" 81:401-408,
-------
/ Proposed Rules
43757
b. RAC'forHCL The RAC for annual
exposure to,HC1 is 7 jig/in56 and is •
, based on the threshold of its priority
effects.'Background levels were
considered to be insignificant given that
there are not many, large sources of HG1
and that this pollutant generally should
not be transported over long distances
in the lower atmosphere. The RAC for 3-
minute exposure is 150 ju,g/m3.57 We
note that EPA proposed an annual
exposure RAG for HC1 of 15 fig/m3 in
the 1987 boiler and furnace proposed
rule. See 52 FR 169S4.,The Agency's '
inhalation Rfd workgroup has recently
determined, however, that the annual
exposure RAG should be 7 ug/m3,
c.MAC'for Lead. To consider the
health effects from lead emissions, we
. adjusted the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQSj by ,a,factor
of one-tenth to account for background
ambient levels and indirect exposure
from the source in question^ In addition,
the Agency has recently determined that
lead is a probable human carcinogen
even though a unit risk value has not yet
been developed. Although the lead
NAAQS is 1.5 ^g/m3, sources .couid
contribute only up to 0.15 fig/m3 for
purposes of this regulation. Given,
however, that the lead NAAQS is based
on a quarterly average, ihe equivalent
annual exposure is 0.09 ing/m3 for a
quarterly average of 0115 /ig/m3. Thus,
the lead RAC is 0.09 jig/m3. This is the
same level EPA proposed in the 1987
boiler and furnace proposed rule. See 52
FR. 17006.
d. Relationship to NAAQS. The Clean
Air Act (GAA) requires EPA to establish
ambient standards for pollutants
determined to be injurious to public
health or welfare. Primary National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAWS) must reflect the level of .
attainment necessary to protect public
health allowing for an adequate margin
of safety. Secondary NNAQS must be
designed to protect public welfare in
addition to public health, and, thus, are
more'stringent.
- As discussed above, the Reference Air
Concentration {RAC) proposed today for
Lead is based on the Lead NAAQS. As
the Agency develops additional NAAQS
for toxic compounds that may be
emitted from hazardous waste
incinerators, boilers, and industrial
furnaces, we will consider whether the
acceptable ambient levels (and,
subsequently, the feed rate and emission
rate Screening Limits] ultimately
established under this rale should be
1 revised. : ••'".•>'.-. • . • ,. • .
The reference :air concentration values
(and risk-specific dose values for
carcinogens) proposed Tiere in no way
preclude the Agency from establishing
NAAQS as appropriate for these
compounds under authority of the GAA.
D. Risk Assessment Assumptions
We have used a number of
assumptions in the risk assessment,
some conservative and others
nonconservative, to simplify the
analysis or to address issues where
definitive data do not exist.
Conservative assumptions include the
following:
* Individuals reside at the point of
maximum annual average and (forHGl)
maximum short-term .ground-level
concentrations. Furthermore, risk
estimates for carcinogens assume that
the maximum exposed individual
resides at the point of maximum annual
average concentration for a 70-year
lifetime.
• Indoor air contains the same levels
of pollutants contributed by the source
as outdoor air.
» For noncarcinogenlc health
determinations, background exposure
already amounts to 75 percent of the
RfD. This includes other routes of
exposure., including ingestion and
dermal. Thus,, the incinerator is only
allowed to contribute 25 percent of the
RfD via direct inhalation. The only
exception is for lead, where the source
is allowed to contribute only 10 percent
of the NAAQS. This is because ambient
lead levels in urban areas already
represent a substantial portion (e.g.,
one-third or more) of the lead NAAQS.
In addition, the Agency is particularly
concerned about health risks from lead
in light of health effects data available
since the lead NAAQS was established.
EPA is currently reviewing the lead
NAAQS to determine if it should be
lowered.5,8 •'••'•
60 Memo from'Graig McCormaclc, EPA, to Dwight
Hlusiick, EPA, entitled "'Environmental Exposure
Limit Assessment for Hydrogen Chloride,"' July 1988.
57 -Memo from Lisa Ratcliff, EPA, to Dwight
Hlustick, EPA, entitled "Short-term Health-based
Number forHydrogen-GhlorJde;" September is,
198& . • . ...
58 At this point, we have not attempted to
quantify indirect exposure through the food-chain,
ingeslion of water contaminated by .deposition, -and
dermal exposure, because as yet no acceptable
methodology for doing so has been developed and
approved by the Agency for use for evaluating
combustion sources. We note, however, that by
allowing .the source to contribute only 25-percent of
the RfD .for 10 percent of the NAAQS in the case of
lead) accounts for indirect exposure by assuming a
person is exposed to 75 percent of the RfD Jfrom
other sources and other exposure pathways. (EPA is
developing such a melhoddlpgy for application to
waste combustion sources. The Agency's Science
Advisory Board has reviewed 'this methodology,
and the Agency .is .continuing to refine Ihe
methodology. When the Agency completes
development of procedures to .evaluate indirect
• Risks are considered for pollutants
that are known, prdbable, and possible
human carcinogens.
• Individual nealth risk numbers have
large uncertainty factors implicit in their
derivation to take into effect the most
sensitive portion of the population. •
Nonccnservative assumptions include
the following: •
• Although emissions are complex •
mixtures, interactive effects of threshold
or carcinogenic compounds have not
been considered m this regulation
because data on such relationships are
inadequate.59
* Environmental effects (Le., effect?
on plants and animals) have not been
considered because of a lack of
adequate information. Adverse effects
on plants and animals may occur at
levels lower than those that cause
adverse human Tiealth effects.. (The
Agency is also developing procedures
and requesting Science Advisory Board
review to consider environmental
effects resulting from emissions from all
categories of waste combustion
facilities.)
//. Implementation aj'theMetals -and
HGl Controls
A.
Overview '
As in the 1987 proposed rule, EPA is
proposing to.coritrol metals and HC1
emissions by requiring a site-specific
risk analysis when metals or HC1
emissions (or feed rates) exceed
conservative Screening Limits. EPA
developed the Screening Limits to
minimize the meed for conducting site- .
specific risk assessments, thereby
reducing the.burden to .applicants and
.permit officials. When the Screening
Limits are exceeded, the applicant
would be required to conduct a site-
specific risk assessment that
demonstrates that-the potential ,.
exposure of the maximum exposed
individual to metals and HC1 does not
result in an exceedance of reasonable
acceptable marginal .additional risks,
namely:
"* That exposure to all carcinogenic
metals be limited such that the sum of
the excess risks attributable to .ambient
concentrations -of these metals does not
exceed an additional lifetime individual
risk (to the (potential) maximum
exposed individual) of 3XT =; and
exposure, a more detailed analysis may be applied
to all devices burning hazardous wastes.)
6B Additive effects of carcinogenic compounds
are considered by summing the rislcs for all
carcinogens to estimate the aggregate risk to the
most exposed Individual fMEJPj.
-------
43753
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, ^89 /JfaoposedRules
• That exposure to each
noncirctnogenic metal and HC1 be
limited such that exposure (to the
(potential) maximum exposed ,
Individual} does not exceed the
referonee'atr concentration (RAC) for
the metal and HCl.
B. Meals and HCl Emissions Standards
The metals and HCl emissions
ilvndiifdf would require site-specific
risk assessment to demonstrate that
emissions will not: (1) Result fa
exce0d»nces of the reference air
concentrations (RACs) for
noncarctnogens at the potential MEI;
and (2) result in an aggregate increased
lifetime cancer risk to the potential MEI
of greater than \ X10"*. The RACs for
noncarcinogens and risk specific doses
(RSDsJ for carcinogens are presented in
appendix H to this notice.
To reduce the burden on applicants
and permitting officials, EPA has
developed conservative Screening
Limits for metals and HCl emissions
(»nd feed rates) as a function of terrain
adjusted affective stack height, terrain,
and land use. Sea discussion below. If
tho Screening Limi's are not exceeded,
sSta-Specific dispersion modeling would
not be required to demonstrate
oonformance with the proposed
standard.
If the Screening Limits are exceeded,
the applicant would be required to
conduct site-specific dispersion
modeling in conformance with
"Guideline on Air Quality Models
(Revised)," July 1908, EPA Publication
Number 450/2-78-027R (OAQPS
Guideline No. \.2-080), available from
National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Virginia, Order No. PB 88-
245280. Wo are proposing to incorporate
that document by reference in the rule.
The use of physical stack height in
excess of Good Engineering Practice
(GBP) stack height is prohibited in the
development of emission limitations
under EPA'* Air Program at 40 CFR
51.1* »nd -W CFR 51.18. We propose to
adopt a similar policy fay limiting the
height of the physical stack for which
cradit will be allowed in complying with
tht metals (and other) standards (i.e.,
both site-specific dispersion modeling
and Screening Limits). GEP identifies the
minimum stack height at which
significant adverse aerodynamic effects
are avoided, Although higher than GEP
stack heights are not prohibited, credit
will not be allowed for stack heights
greater than GEP. Good Engineering
Practice (GEP) maximum stack height
mean* the greater of: (1) 65 meters,
measured from the ground-level
elevation at the base of the stack; Or (2)
Hg=H+l.SL.so
where:
Hg = GEP minimum stack height measured
from the ground-level elevation at the
base of the stack;
H = height of nearby structure(s) measured
from the ground-level elevation at the
base of the stack;
L = lesser dimension, height or projected
width, of nearby structure(s).
If the result of the above equation is
less than 65 meters, then the actual
physical stack height, up to 65 meters,
could be used for compliance purposes.
If the result of the equation is greater
than 65 meters, the physical stack height •
considered for compliance purposes
cannot exceed that level.
EPA requests comment on this use of
GEP maximum stack height. We note
that although an owner or operator
could increase his physical stack height
up to the GEP maximum to achieve
better dispersion and a higher allowable
emission rate, he should first consider
that EPA plans to develop for
subsequent proposal in 1991 a best
demonstrated technology (BDT)
participate standard that is likely to.be
much lower than the current 0.08 gr/dscf
standard. Thus, it may be more cost-
effective to upgrade emission control
equipment to state-of-the-art control
rather than increase stack height.
EPA specifically requests comments
on how many facilities are likely to
exceed the Screening Limits discussed
below and, thus, would conduct site-
specific dispersion modeling to comply
with the proposed rule. Further, we
request information on the changes to
equipment and operations that would be
required to comply with the Screening
Limits if the provision for site-specific
dispersion modeling was not available. .
C. Screening Limits
EPA developed conservative
Screening Limits for metals and HCl
emission rates [and feed rates] to
minimize the need for site-specific
dispersion modeling, and thus, reduce
the burden on applicants and permitting
officials.01 The Screening Limits are
provided as a function of terrain-
adjusted effective-stack height, terrain,
and urban/rural classification as
discussed below. The Screening Limits
would be included' in the "Risk
Assessment Guideline for Permitting
Hazardous Waste Thermal Treatment
Services" (RAG) which would be
incorporated by reference in the rule.
1. Emission Screening Limits. As
discussed in Section I of this Appendix,
EPA derived conservative emission's
Screening Limits by back-calculating
from the reference air concentrations
(RACs) and risk-specific doses (RSDs)
using reasonable worst-case dispersion
coefficients. The emission Screening
Limits are presented in Tables E-5, E-6,
E-7, and E-8, and E-10 in appendix E.
Tables E-7 and E-8 apply to
carcinogenic metals, and tables E-5 and
E-6 apply to noncarcinogenic metals.
Tables E-5 and E-7 apply to facilities
located in noncomplex terrain. Different
emissions limits are provided for urban
versus rural land use because dispersion
coefficients are significantly different
for the land use categories. Tables E-8
and E-8 show emission limits for
facilities located hi complex terrain. No
distinction is made for urban .versus
rural land use with complex terrain
because of limitations in the available
modeling techniques. If multiple
' carcinogenic metals are to be burned,
(i.e., As, Cd, Cr, Be) then the following
equation would be used to demonstrate
that the aggregate risk to the MEI from
all carcinogenic metals does not exceed
10"5 (the ratios must be summed
; because the screening limit for each
metal is back-calculated from the 10~s
RSD for that metal).
Actual Emission Rate;
•° We nota that this equation also identifies the
GEP minimum stack height necessary to avoid
building wake effects. EPA recommends the
application of GEP to define minimum stack heights
to minimize potentially high concentration of
pollutants in tho immediate vicinity of the unit.
" We note that the Screening Limits are designed
to be conservative and would likely limit emissions
by a factor of 2 to 20 times lower than would be
al! jwed by site-specific dispersion modeling.
Emissions Screening Limit)
where:
n = number of carcinogenic metals
Actual Emission Rate = the emission rate in
g/s measured during the trial burn or
• provided in lieu of the trial burn for
metal "i"
Emissions Screening Limit = Limit provided
in Table E-7 or E-8 in Appendix E for
; ., metal "i"
To demonstrate Compliance with
Emissions Screening Limits, the owner,
or operator would conduct emissions
testing during the trial burn, as
discussed below.
2. Feed Rate Screening Limits. Feed
rate Screening Limits are provided to
enable applicants burning wastes with
-------
26.-1989 / Proposed Sules
very low metals or chlorine
concentrations to avoid emissions
testing. Hie feed rate limits are "back-
calculated" from the emissions
Screening limits assuming
conservatively that all metals and
chlorine in the waste are emitted to the
atmosphere; Thus, no metals are
assumed to partition to the bottom ash
and no allowance is made for removal
of metal or HCl emissions by air
pollution control .devices. Consequently,
the feed rate limits are equivalent to the
emission limits, but are presented in
units more consistent with waste feed
rate, lb./hr, rather than g/s.
The Feed Sate Screening Limits are
shown in Tables ,E-l, E-2, E-3, E-4 and
E-9 in appendix E. Tables E-3 .and E-4
apply to carcinogenic metals and Tables
E-l and E-2 apply to noncarcinogenic
metals. Tables E-i and E-3 apply to
facilities located in noncomplex terrain.
As with the emissions .Screening Limits,
different limits are provided for urban
•versus rural land use because dispersion
coefficients usually are significantly
different imirban and rural settings.
Tables E-r2, E-4, and E-9 show feed rate
limits for facilities located in complex
terrain. Again,' no distinction is made for
urban versus rural land use within
complex terrain. These feed rates for
carcinogen metals show the maximum
quantity of any single metal that may be
burned at any one time,, in the absence
of all others.
The feed rate limit for each
'carcinogenic metal ensures that ambient
levels will not exceed the risk-specific '
dose at an Incremental lifetime risk level
of 1XKT;5. Similarly, the feed rates for
the noncarclnogeniameials and HCl
ensure that the reference air
concentrations £RA€s3 will not be
exceeded. If the waste contains multiple,
carcinogenic metals, then the following
equation would be used to ensure that
aggregate risk to the MET does not
exceed 1 x ICT5.
n
I
Actual Feed Ratei
Feed Rats Screening Limitj - 1'°
where:
n = number of carcinogens
43759
Actual Feed Rate -the actual feed rate
during the trial burn for metal "i" to be
used in the permit
Feed .Rate Screening Omit = limit provided
in Table E-3 or .E-4 in Appendix E for
metal "i" "...
3. Terrain-Adjusted Effective Stack
Height. For purposes of complying with
the Screening Limits, terrain-adjusted
effective stack height is determined 'by •
adding to the stack heignt the
appropriate plume rise factor (which is a
function of temperature and stack flow
rate 6Z) established in Table F-2 and by
subtracting the maximum terrain rise
within 5 km of the stack,63 Since terrain
has, however, already been taken into.
account in the dispersion'modeling that
supports the emission limits, this
requirement effective "double counts"
terrain effects. This additional
conservatism is necessary to account for
the wide range of terrain complexities
encountered at real facilities—a range
that could not be fully considered by
modeling only 25 sites. If this double-
counting leads to permit emission limits
that the applicant considers unduly
conservative, the applicant is free to
conduct site-specific modeling.
TABLE F-a.-.EsTiMATeo PLUME Rise (H1. ,N METERS) BASED ON STACK EX.T Row RATE AND GAS TEMPERATURE
Flow rate* (m3/
sec)
69.9 •
{~i] I l^inrt thn
<325
. 0
1
1
'1
2
2
3(
4
5,'
6
7 •
8
9
10
31 '
14
IB
18
— • ' .
325-349
0
1
•j
1
2
2'
3
4 i
'5
-5
B
• fi
9
10 i
12 •
J3
15
- isi
20
'- '---
350^399
Q
^
2
3
3'
4
7"
a
9
~\ 1
• j i
•j R
4 O
17
1 /
19
26
29
400-449
1
2"
5
6
8
10
12
13-
17 '
.20
22
25 ,
28
33
00
OD
42-
Exha
450-499
1
1
2
4
5
6
7 '
10
12
14
16 |
20 '
24!
-" 27
31
34
40
45
49
ust temperatu
500 599
1
1
2
4
6
7
8
11
14
J6
19 .
23
27
31
35
39
44
50 ;
54
re(K)
600—699
1
2
3
S
7
8
10
13
16
19
22
27
32
37
41
44
50
. , 56
62
1
2
3
.- . 5
7
9
11
14
• 18
21
24;
30
35'
40
44
48
55
61
6?
800-999
-J
2
3
6
8
10
11
15
IB
22
26
32!
38
42
46:
50
57:
•64- J
sect,onal area of the stac* multiplied by the Sft S% of the stack gases"™ Iunotons of f!ow rate not 5imP'y Bxit veloci'y- Flow Rate is d<
1000-1499
1
3
4
6
a
10
, 12
.17
21 ;
24'
28
35
v 45
50,
61 '
68
75
sfined as the
>1499
' -\
2
4
7
3
11
13
18
23
27
•33
36
44
49
54
58
66
74
81
nner cross-
As discussed abeve, the physical
stack height component of the effective
stack height, however, may not exceed
. goodsngineeringpracUce for purposes
of compliance. Note tfiat increments in
the categories are small when the
terrain adjusted stack heights are low,
and increase as the terrain adjusted
stack height increases. This is because
ambient concentrations are more
strongly affected by variations in this
02 Staclc flow rate rather .than 'flue gas velodty Is
the critical parameter because plume rise is a
function orboth buoyancy flux and momentum flux,
both of which, in lum,ai'e functions of How rats. '
Flow rate is defined as the inner crossrSfictional
area of the stack multiplied by the exit velocity.of
the stack,gases.
63 .We note that, in complex terrain where
maximum terrain lisa >within 5 km of the stack •
- exceeds -stack height, &e terrain adjusted effective
•*»
stack height -will be zero (or negative). Given ihat
the Screening Mmits applicable for a four meter
. terrain adjusted effective stack height iave been
calculated to be .conservative for any stack height of
four meters or less, the Screening-Limits applicable
.for a four meter terrain adjusted effective stacl
height should be usnd
-------
43760
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26,1989 /Proposed Rules
term when stack heights are less than 30
meters.
The effective stack height Is the height
above the ground at which the plume
becomes parallel to the ground after
reaching equilibrium. Specifically, at the.
effective stack height the stack effluent
has reached a final plume rise level and
is assumed to remain at this height -
above tht ground as it travels
downwind. Therefore, the effective
stack height Is the physical stack height
plus the final plume rise.
4. Terrain Designation. Terrain
classifications are significant because
dispersion of air pollutants is affected
by the relationship between the
maximum height of the surrounding
terrain (especially within a radius of 1-2
km) and th« effective height of the stack,
EPA's analysis for this regulation
reviewed three classes of terrain: flat,
rolling, and complex. Although results
for fiat and for rolling terrain were
sufficiently similar that these classes are
combined for purposes of developing the
Screening Limits (i.e., called
noncomplex terrain), it will be
necessary for applicants to determine
whether their facility lies in noncomplex
or complex terrain.
For purposes of applying the
Screening Limits, a facility lies in
noncomplex terrain if the maximum
terrain rise within a radius of Eve
kilometers of the stack is less than or
equal to the physical stack height. If the
terrain rise is greater than the physical
•Uck height, the facility is in complex
terrain,
S, Land tfee. Characterization of
urban versus rural land use is significant
because pollutants tend to disperse
differently in these two settings—rural
ar«a» tend to have a higher frequency of
periods with limited dispersion. The
"Guideline on Air Quality Models
(Revised)" specifies a procedure to
determine the character of the modeling
aria as primarily urban or rural. In this
procedure, two methods are presented:
(1) Th« land use procedure, and (2)
population density procedure. The land
usa procedure is the recommended
approach.
Tha land use procedure classifies land
uso within an area circumscribed by a 3
kilometer radius circle around a source.
A typing scheme developed by August
H. Aucr, Jr. is referenced by the
guideline as an aid in defining the
•pacific types of land use. A simplified
adaption of this procedure is
recommended for this rule and is
described in Tab A and Appendix I of
the "Guidance on Metals and Hydrogen
Chloride Controls for Hazardous Waste
Incinerators".
D. Conservation of Risk Methodology
We specifically request comment on .
whether less conservative assumptions,
coupled with a safety factor then
applied to assure that ambient levels are
not underestimated, should be used to
develop the Screening Limits. This
alternative approach may have merit
because the repeated use of
conservative .assumptions in an analysis
may "multiply" the conservatism
unreasonably. Comments are solicited
•on: (1) The extent to which less
conservative assumptions would enable
applicants to meet the Limits and, thus,
(2) how to reduce the conservatism of
the Screening Limits while-stUl ensuring
that they are protective; and (3) how the
reduced conservatism would affect the
criteria discussed above that must be
considered to determine if the Screening
Limits are protective for a particular
situation.
Appendix G: Implementation of Metals
and HC1 Controls
The metals emissions standards
would be implemented by establishing
limits in the permit on the feed rate (lb/
hr) of each metal. If the applicant elects
to comply with the feed rate Screening
Limits, the Screening Limits for the
noncarcinogenic metals would become
the permitted levels. For carcinogenic
metals, the permitted feed rate limits
would be the feed rates the applicant
uses to demonstrate that the sum of the
ratios of actual feed rate to the
Screening Limits for all carcinogenic
metals does not exceed one.
If the applicant elects to comply with
the emissions Screening Limits or to
conduct site-specific dispersion
modeling to demonstrate that higher
emissions rates do not pose
unacceptable health risk, metals
emissions would be controlled in the
permit by: (1) Limiting feed'rates to
those during the trial burn when metals
emissions were determined; (2) limiting
emission rates to those during the trial
burn; (3) specifying key operating
parameters that can affect metals
emissions (e.g., maximum combustion
chamber temperature, maximum
chlorine content in the waste feed); and
(4) specifying operating and
maintenance requirements for the air
pollution control device to ensure that
collection efficiency does not degrade
overtime.
The waste feed rate limits (Ib/hr)
specified in the permit would represent
maximum limits that can never be
exceeded. We considered whether limits
should represent average values (e.g.,
hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, or even
yearly averages). We believe that
allowing (greater1 than hourly) averaging
would complicate operator
recbrdkeeping and EPA inspection and" "'
enforcement activities. EPA believes
compliance with the standards can be
enforced by sampling of waste feed
inputs to the incinerator. EPA requests
comment on whether and how alternate
averaging periods should be allowed for
compliance with the metals (and HCl)
standards. It could be argued that long-
term averaging is appropriate because
the proposed acceptable ambient levels
are based on long-term (annual)
exposure. However, in selecting an
averaging period, we must consider ease
of enforcement and.adverse health
effects from short-term exposures to
high ambient levels. One alternative
approach would be to allow for the
carcinogenic metals (i.e., arsenic,
beryllium, cadmium, and chromium) and
lead a 24-hour averaging period
provided that emissions at any point in
time do not exceed ten times the permit
limit based on annual exposure. A ten-
fold higher instantaneous ambient level
for the carcinogenic metals may not
pose adverse health effects given that
the 24-hour average would not exceed
the level that could pose a 10~5 health
risk over a lifetime of exposure and tha
threshold (i.e., noncancer) health effect
would not be likely at exposures only
. ten times higher than the 10~5 risk-
specific dose. A ten-fold higher
instantaneous ambient level for lead '
may not pose adverse health effects
given that the proposed acceptable
ambient level for long-term exposure to
lead is based on only 10% of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standard.
We do not believe that a similar
approach for the other noncarcinogenic
' metals would be appropriate given the
uncertainty in the level of protection
provided by the proposed long-term
• acceptable ambient levels (e.g., the
ambient levels are based on oral RfDs
converted 1-to-l to inhalation values).
We specifically request comment on this
and other approaches to implementing
the feed rate limits.
We also request comments on
approaches other than waste analysis
combined with feed rate limits to i
implement the controls on metals
emissions. Other approaches that may
be practicable include: (1) Determining
the correlation between metals
emissions and metals concentrations in
; emission control residues (e.g., scrubber
water, bag house dust, ESP dust) during
the trial burn followed by compliance
monitoring of metals concentrations in
the residues (e.g., daily analyses; daily
composite sampling with weekly ;
analyses; or daily composite sampling'
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26,1989 /Proposed Rules
43761
with monthly analyses); (2)
semicontinubus emission monitoring
(e.g., 6 hours of every 24 hours of , ••"'..
operation); and (3) ambient monitoring
in conformarice with procedures'
~ recommended by EPA1? Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards.64
Based on public comment and
additional analysis, the final rule.may
provide one or more alternative
approaches to waste analysis to
implement the controls.
EPA believes that the metal in a waste
may partition differently according to
the type and location of the feed system
through which a metal-bearing waste is
fed. For example, the mass fraction of a
metal in a solid waste fired onto the
grate of a boiler and that subsequently
enters the.cbmbustion gas stream and ,J....
finally escapes the emissions control
device and is emitted may be different
from the mass fraction of a metal in a
liquid waste fired with an atomization .
nozzel that is ultimately emitted to the
atmosphere. Similarly, wastes fired to
cement kiln systems may partition
differently depending on whether the
waste is fired in liquid or solid form, and
on firing location (e.g., hot end of the
kiln, midkiln, precalciner). EPA
anticipates, therefore, that separate feed
rate limits may need to be set in the
permit for each feed system.
Consequently, permit applicants may
wish to vary trial burn conditions to
establish appropriate permit limits for
metals fed through each separate feed
' system or location. EPA requests
comment on the need for and
practicality of such permit conditions.
EPA anticipates that boilers without
air pollution control devices capable of
capturing metals will choose to comply
with the Feed Rate Screening Limits by
controlling the levels of metals in the
wastes and will blend higher levels of
metals that exist in specific wastes
down to acceptable concentrations
depending upon the capacity of the
boiler. . .
For boilers and industrial furnaces
equipped with air .pollution, control
devices, we anticipate that the operator
will comply with the Emissions
Screening Limits. Compliance would be
demonstrated by conducting an actual
trial burn which measures metals
emissions. Such operators will attempt
•in some instances to increase operating
flexibility in their permits by ensuring
that wastes of high metals contents are
burned during trial burns. Spiking of ,
metals in soluble forms may be
advisable. Table G-3 gives typical
_ conservative efficiencies for air
. pollution control devices on
incinerators, and indicates the level of
advantage pperators may gain under
Emissions Screening Limits (versus Feed
Rate Screening Limits) by conducting
emission testing. ,
TABLE G-3.—AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DEVICES (APCDs) AND THEIR CONSERVATIVELY ESTIMATED EFFICIENCIES FOR CONTROLLING
- ! • Toxic METALS - . . '.
• . APCD ."-- . '
WS1 ' •'•..-..'-•
VS-201...: : ™
VS-60 » ..a...........
ESP-1 .-. " v '
ESP-2 """""
ESP-4 , •"•
WESP i ; "
FF » "
PS1 """
SD/FF; SD/C/FF , " -
FF/WS* -> '" """ "
ESP-1 /WS; ESP-1 /PS..... - "*"
ESP-4/WS* ESP-4/PS.. ."""
VS-20/WS * ':""" * v™
WS/IWS" * -"
WESP/VS-2Q/IWS -1 """ ' "-"
C/DS/ESP/FF; C/DS/C/ESP/FF
SD/C/ESP-1...
: — — : ; J
Ba, Be
99
98
99
Ag
99
98
Pollutant
Cr
99
98
As.Sb.Cd.Pb.TI
, 20
40
95
95
95
98
Hg
30
20
40
0
0
0
60
50
80
90
50
50
85
90
85
arsenic to I llss^'e)rteant.flUe gases have been Precooled in a quench. If gases are not cooled adequately, mercury recoveries will diminish, as will cadmium and
2 An IWS is nearly always used with an upstream quench and packed horizontal scrubber. , „
^=_Cyclone; WS = Wet Scrubber including: Sieve Tray Tower, Packed Tower, Bubble Cap Tower '
Darticulates ar?d co^i^nato^T^o ?eShan -1A number °J Proprietary wet scrubbers have come on the market in recent years that are highly efficient on both
P VS-20 = Ve^turi^^ •
VS-60 = Venturi Scrubber' ca! > 60 in W/G Ap"' ' " • • -
ESP-1 = Electrostatic Precipitator; 1 stage '
ESP-2 = Electrostatic Precipitator; 2 stages • '
ESP-4 = Electrostatic Precipitator; 4 staaes •
IWS = Ionizing Wet Scrubber . '
: DS = Dry Scrubber .
FF = Fabric Filter (Baghouse) "
SD = Spray Dryer (Wet/Dry Scrubber) . ,
Finally, operators of facilities burning
waste with high metals levels may elect
to conduct site-specific dispersion
modeling to demonstrate that emission
rates higher than allowed by the
Screening Limits would not-pose
unacceptable health risk. The adaed
cost of the dispersion modeling may be
reasonable even if the boiler or furnace
64 Under the ambient monitoring approach, the
Agency would consider increasing the RACs for the
noncarcinqgenicfmetals because exposure from
other sources-would be accounted for. To consider.
indirect exposure, however, the RACs would still.be
based on a fraction of the RfD (e.g., 50% rather than
the 25% proposed). Further, the Agency may not
raise the RAC for lead under this approach given
that we now believe that lead is a probable human
carcinogen.
-------
43762 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26,1989 / Proposed Rules
It equipped with high efficiency
omissions control equipment because
the Screening Limits are likely to be
conservative by a factor of 2 to 20.
Implementation for Multiple Sources On
Site
The preceding discussion of the ,
Screening Limits and Site-Specific
Dispersion Modeling presumed only one
hazardous waste combustion source at
etch site. However, facilities may have
more than one source on site burning
hazardous waste emitting from one or
more stacks. EPA proposes that all such
sources, whether incinerators, boilers, or
industrial furnaces must meet the
appropriate rnetrils (and hydrogen
chloridt and TUG) limits that would be
established by this rule if such
combustion devices bum hazardous
waste. EPA anticipates that the revised
Incinerator standards that it plans to
propose shortly would be
oopromulguted with the final rules for
boilers and industrial furnaces. Thus,
the sum of all emissions of toxic metals
(and HC1 and THC) from on-site sources
must be considered when complying
with the metals (and HC1 and THC)
standards.
EPA considered the method by which
owners and operators could comply
with this modified bubble approach. The
net effect is to limit the total amount of
metal-bearing waste at any one site with
the use of adequate air pollution control
devices. Thus, it would be inappropriate
for the Agency to regulate metal
emissions at an incinerator without
taking into account the metal emissions
generated by, for example, an on-site
boiler burning hazardous waste and
emitting toxic metals through the same
or a nearby stack.
Owners and operators with multiple
on-site sources could still demonstrate
compliance with the Screening Limits by
conservatively assuming all hazardous
waste Is fed to the source with the
worst-case (Le., considering dispersion)
slack. The worst-case stack would be
determined from the following equation
as applied to each stack: *
where:
K = a parameter accounting for relative
Influence of stack height and plume rise.
'H •Physical Stuck height (meters),
V«Flow r«ttt (m'/sccond).
TVExhauil temperature (Kelvin)
The stack with the lowest value of K
ts to be used as the worst-case stack.
The use of this assumption can be
very conservative if there are
substantial differences In effective stack
heights. We assume that most facilities
with multiple sources and stacks would
perform site-specific dispersion
modeling to determine the relative
importance of each source or stack
contribution to the ambient metal (and
HCi and THC) levels.-
Short-Term Exposure Considerations for
HC1
The dispersion modeling used to
develop the Screening Limits indicated
that, for the severe (i.e., poor) dispersion
scenarios considered, the risk, from
short-term exposure was invariably
greater than for long-term exposure.
Thus, short-term (i.e., 3-min) exposures
were used to develop the Screening
Limits.
EPA proposed the 3-minute exposure
RAG for HC1 in the 1987 boiler/furnace
proposal. Several commenters had
concerns with the use of a 3-minute HO
RAG. Other commenters suggested
alternative values for a short-term HC1
RAG. We will consider those comments
and other that may be submitted as a
result of today's notice in developing the
final rules.
EPA is evaluating continuous
emission monitors for HC1, and it
appears that accurate and reliable
instruments may be available
commercially. EPA specifically requests
comments on whether continuous
emission monitoring for HC1 would be a
feasible, practicable requirement in lieu
of waste analysis for chlorine to limit
HC1 emissions.
Appendix H: Health Effects Data for
Metals, HC1, and THG
A. Risk-Specific Dose for Carcinogenic
Metals at 1 X10~° Risk Level
Constituent *
Arssnic..
Beryllium ..„ .
Chromium (hexavalenQ ....... —
Maximum
annual
average
ground level
concentra-
tion (u.g/
m*)
2.3X10"3
4.1X10~3'
55X10"3
8.3X10-4
B. Reference Air Concentrations (RACs)
for Threshold Metals
Constituent
Antimony
Barium
Lead :
Maxi-
mum
annual
average
ground
level
concen-
tration
0*g/
m3)
Constituent
Silver .*.
Thallium (oxide)
Maxi-
mum
annual
average
ground
level
concen-
tration
(Ml/
m3)
0.3
3
0.3
C. Reference Air Concentrations for
Hydrogen Chloride
Maximum 3-Minute Exposure—150 ju,g/
m3
Maximum Annual Average Ground
Level Concentration—7 jig/m3
D. Risk^Specific Dose (RSD) for Total
Hydrocarbons at 10"5 Risk Level
Maximum Annual Average Ground
Level Concentration—1 jj-g/m3
Appendix I: Reference Air
Concentrations (RACs) for Threshold
Constituents
0.3
50
0.09
Constituent
Acetaldehyde ,
Acetonitrile . .
Aldicarb .
Aluminum Phosphide
Ally! Alcohol
Antimony
Barium
Barium Cyanide
Bromomethane .'.
Calcium Cyanide
Carbon Disulfide
Chloral.....
2-chloro-1 ,3-butadisne
Copper Cyanide ,
Cresols .
Cumene
Cyanide (free)
Cyanogen
Cyanogen Bromide
Di-n-butyl Phthalate
P-dichlorobanzene ;...
Dichlorodifluoromethane ....
2,4-dichlcrophenol ...*
Diethyl Phthalate . .
2,4-dinitrophenol
Olphenylamine
Endosuifan
Endrin .'.
Fluorine
Glycidyaldehyde
Hexachlorocycloponta-
diene
Hexachlorophene.
Hydrocyanic Acid
Hydrogen Sulfide — . —
Isobutyl Alcohol.....
Lead ...
CAS No.
75-07-0
75-05-8
98-86-2
107-02-3
116-06-3
20859-73-8
107-18-6
7440-36-0
7440-39-3
542-62-1
74-83-9
592-01-8
75-15-0
75-87-6
126-99-8
16065-83-1
544-92-3
1319-77-3
98-82-8
57-12-15
460-19-5
506-68-3
84-74-2
95-50-1
106-46-7
75-71-8
120-83-2
84-66-2
60-51-5
51-28-5
88-85-7
122-39-4
115-29-7
72-20-8
7782-41-4
64-18-6
765-34-4
77-47-4
70-30-4
74-90-8
7647-01-1
7783-06-4
78-83-1
7439-92-1
RAG (ug/
m3)
10
10
100
20
1
0.3
5
0.3
50
50
0.8
30
200
2
3
1000
5
50
1
20
30
80
100
10
10
200
3
800
08
2
0.9
20
0.05
0.3
50
2000
0.3
i
5
0.3
20
*15
3
300
0.09
-------
Register / Vol. 54, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 1989 / Proposed Rules
45763
Constituent ,
Mercury
Methacrylonitrile
Methomyl
Methoxychlor ...;....
Methyl Chlorocarbonate....
Methyl Ethyl Ketone...
Methyl Parathion..
Nickel Cyanide
Nitric Oxide :
Nitrobenzene
Phenol
M-phenylenediamine...
Phenylmercuric Acetate....
Phosphine
Phthalic Anhydride
Potassium Cyanide
Potassium Silver Cyanide .
Pyridine
Selenious Acid
Selenourea
Silver :
Silver Cyanide
Sodium Cyanide .:
Strychnine ;
1.2,4,5-
tetrachlorobenzene
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol ...
Tetraethyl Lead
Tetrahydrofuran
Thallic Oxide
Thallium (1) Acetate <
Thallium (i) Carbonate ........
Thallium (1) Chloride
Thallium (1) Nitrate
Thallium Selenite
Thallium (1) Sulfate
Thiram ...; ;.... ,
Toluene ;
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
Trichloromonofluorometh-
ane .-.
2,4,5-trichlorophenol :...
Vanadium Pentoxide....
Warfarin ....;.......;..
Xylenes
Zinc Cyanide
Zinc Phosphide ..'
CAS No.
108-31-6
7439-97-6
126-98-7
16752-77-5
72-43-5
79-22-1
76-93-3
298-00-0
557-19-7
10102-43-9
98-95-3
608-93-5
87-86-5
108-95-2
108-45-2
62-38-4
7803-51-2
85-44-9
151-50-8
506-61-6
110-86-1
7783-60-8
630-10-4
7440-22-4
. 506-64-9
143-33-9
57-24-9
95-94-3
58-90-2
78-00-2
109-99-9
1314-32-5
7440-28-0
563-68-8
6533-73-9
7791-12-0
10102-45-1
12039-52-0
7446-18-6
137-26-8
108-88-3
120-82-1
75-69-4
95-95-4
1314-62-1
81-81-2
1330-20-7
557-21-1
1314-84-7
RAC(ug/
m3)
100
2
0.1
20
50
1000
80
0.3
20
100
0.8
0.8
30
30
5
0.075
0.3
2000
'50
200
1
3
, 5
- 3
100
30
0.3
0.3
30
0.0001
10
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.5 .
0.075
5
300
20
300
100
20
0.3
80
50
0.3
Appendix J: Unit Risks for Carcinogenic
Constituents
Constituent
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin '. .
Arsenic
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo(a)pyrene....
Beryllium .'.
Bis(2-chlproethyl)ether,.
Bis(chloromethyl)ether ..
Bis(2-
ethylhexyOphthalate....
1,3-butadiene
Cadmium...;;
Carbon Tetrachloride .....
Chlordane
Chloroform.....
Chloromethane ,
"Chloromethyl Methyl
• Ether
Chromium VI
DDT
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ...
1,2-dibromo-3-
chloropropane
1,2-dibromoethane...
1,1-dichloroethane...
1,2-dichloroethane
1 ,1 -dichloroethylene
1 ,3-dichloropropene...
Dieldrin
Diethylstilbestrol !....
Dimethylnitrosamine
2,4-dinitrotoIuene
1 ,2-diphenylhydrazine.....
Epichlorohydrin '.
Ethylene Oxide.....
Ethylene Dibromide
Formaldehyde .................
Heptachlor..
Heptachlor Epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene ...
Hexachlorobutadieno
CAS No.
79-06-1
107-13-1
309-00-2
62-53-3
7440-38-2
.- 56-55-3
71-43-2
92-87-5
50-32-8
7440-41-7
111-44-4
542-88-1
117-81-7
'106-99-0
7440-43-9
56-23-5
57-74-9
67-86-3
74-87-3
107-30-2
7440-47-3
50-29-3
53-70-3
96-12-8
106-93-4
75-34-3
107-06-2
75-35-4
542-75-6
60-57-1
56-53-1
62-75-9
121-14-2
122-66-7
123-91-1
106-89-8
75-21-8
106-93-4
50-00-0
76-44-8
1024-57-3
118-74-1
87-68-3
Unit risk
(m3/ng)
6 8E 05
4 9E 03
•7.4E-06
4.3E-03
8.9E-04
8.3E-06
6.7E 02
3.3E 03
2.4E-04
3.3E-04
6.2E-02
2.4E-07
2.8E-04
-1.8E 03
1.5E-05
37E 04
23E 05
3 6E 06
1 2E 02
9 7E 05
1.4E-02
6.3E-03
~ 2.2E-04
2.6E-05
5.0E-05
3.5E-01
1.4E-01
1.4E— 02
8 8E 05
2.2E-04
1 4E 06
1.2E 06
1.0E-04
2.2E-04
.1.3= 05
1.3E 03
2.6E 03
4.9E-04
2.0E-05'
Constituent
Alpha-'
hexachlorocyclohex-
ane.........
Beta-
hexachlorocyclohex-
Gamma-
. hexachlorocyclohex-
ane : "
Hexachlorocyclohex-
ane, Technical
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin (1,2 Mixture)
Hexachloroethane
Hydrazine
Hydrazine Sulfate
3-methylcholanthrene
Methyl Hydrazine
Metnylene Chloride
4,4'-methylene-bis-2-
chloroaniline
Nickel
Nickel Refinery Dust
Nickel Subsulfide
2-nitropropane
N-nitroso-n-butylamine ...
N-nitroso-n-methylurea...
N-nitrosodiethylamine
N-nitrosopyrrolidine
Pentachloronitroben-
zene...
PCBs .
Pronamide
Reserpine. . .
2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-
dibenzorp-dioxin
1,1,2,2- ' .
tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene........
Thlourea."...
1 ,1 ,2-trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
Toxsphene...
Vinyl Chloride _
CAS No.
319-84-6
319 85-7
58 89-9
67-72-1 .
302-01 2
302-01-2
56-49-5
60-34-4
75-09-2
101-14-4
7440-02-0
7440-02-0
12035-72-2
79-46-9
924-16-3
684-93-5
55-18-5
930-55-2
82-68-8
1336-36-3
23950-58-5
50-55-5
1746-01-6
73-34-5
127-18-4
62-56-6
79-00-5
79'-Ol-6
88-06-2
8001-35-2
75-01-4
Unit risk
(m3/fig)
1 8E 03
5 3E 04
3 8E 04
5 1E 04
1.3E+00
4.0E-06
2 9E 03
2.9E-03
2.7E-03
3 1E 04
4.1E-06
4.7E-05
2 4E 04
2.4E-04
4 8E 04
27E 02
1.6E-03
3.5E-01
4.3E-02
6.1E-04
73E 05
1 2E 03
4 6E 06
3 OE 03
4.5E+01
5.8E-05
4.8E-07
5 5E 04
1.6E-05
1.3E-06
5.7E-06
32E 04
7 1E 06
[FR Doc. 89-25022 Filed 10-25 -89; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
-------
------- |