RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
SUBTITLE C - HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
SECTION 3004 - STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO OWNERS AND OPERATORS
OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
40 CFR PART 265
SUBPART 0 INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE INCINERATION
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
APRIL 1980
-------
124401
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. RCRA Mandate for the Regulation 3
B. Key Definitions 4
II. RATIONALE FOR THE REGULATIONS 8
A. Incidents Involving Improper Incineration 9
B. Basis for the Interim Status Standards 11
1. Interim Status Standards 11
2. Criteria for Interim Status Standards 12
3. The Experience Base for Incineration 15
Regulations
III. ANALYSIS OF AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RELEVANT TO THE 19
INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS
Issues;
•
#1 - General Issues: (1) Authority 19
(2) Performance Standards
#2 - Allowance of Variances During Startup Periods 23
#3 - Analysis of Wastes 26
#4 - Instrument Monitoring and Facility Inspection 32
#5 - Residue Treatment 37
IV. TEXT OF INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS 41
REFERENCES 44
ATTACHMENT I: THE 1978 PROPOSAL 46
iii
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
This is one of a series of documents providing support and back-
ground information for regulations issued under Section 3004 of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. Each Background
Document describes a regulation as originally proposed, summarizes
and responds to comments received that relate to that original propo-
sal, and indicates the Agency's rationales for final regulations.
On December 18, 1976, the Agency proposed permanent status stan-
dards for incineration of hazardous waste (43 Federal Register 59008-
59009). That proposal is summarized in Attachment I. The Agency is
still considering the extensive comments that were received on all
aspects of that proposal. However, the Agency has decided to issue
limited interim status standards for hazardous waste incinerator
facilities on an interim final basis. These will apply to each
facility during the time between submittal of the application for a
permit and the issuance of a permit.
One commenter, while asking that the permanent status standards
for monitoring and inspection of incinerators be made applicable
during the interim period, pointed out that the Agency has predicted
that the ultimate permitting process may take years to complete. The
Agency agrees that the long period makes some minimal level of
regulation necessary during the interim status period to protect
human health and the environment. Accordingly, the interim status
standards for incineration have brought together and detailed some of
-------
the rules originally proposed as general facility standards. The
criteria used by the Agency in selecting the appropriate standards
for interim status are discussed in this Background Document.
Other commenters expressed concern that the proposed incinera-
tion regulations would inhibit the development of alternative thermal
treatment techniques. These concerns prompted the Agency to develop
a new Subpart P - Thermal Treatment. This new subpart is dealt with
in the background document entitled "Thermal Treatment."
A number of comments were received requesting emission variances
during "start-up" periods. These comments reminded the Agency of a
dangerous practice which is sometimes used to cut costs, wherein
hazardous wastes are burned under less than sufficient conditions
during startup periods. Thus, an interim status standard has been
added, requiring the attainment of steady-state conditions using non-
hazardous, auxiliary fuel, if necessary, before waste is added.
The interim final status of these regulations means that the
Agency will continue to receive and consider comments upon them for a
period of 90 days from date of issuance. As a result of these com-
ments, the Agency may revise, add, or delete specific requirements.
However, these regulations are in force and effective on the date six
months after promulgation. The complete text of these interim status
standards can be found in Part IV of this document.
-------
A. RCRA Mandate for the Regulation
The Congress of the United States, in Section 3004 of Subtitle C
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 (PL 94-
580), required that the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency:
"...promulgate regulations establishing such performance stan-
dards, applicable to owners and operators of facilities for the
treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste identified
or listed under this Subtitle, as may be necessary to protect
human health and the environment. Such standards shall include,
but need not be limited to, requirements respecting - ...
(3) treatment, storage, or disposal of all such wastes received
by the facility pursuant to such operating methods, tech-
niques, and practices as may be satisfactory to the
Administrator;
(4) the location, design, and construction of such hazardous
waste treatment, disposal, or storage facilities;"
[emphasis added].
The term "treatment" is defined in Section 1004(34) of the Act
to mean:
"...any method, technique, or process, including neutralization,
designed to change the physical, chemical, or biological charac-
ter or composition of any hazardous waste so as to neutralize
such waste or so as to render such waste non-hazardous, safer
for transport, amenable for recovery, amenable for storage, or
reduced in volume..."
One objective of incinerating hazardous waste is normally to
change the physical form or chemical composition of the waste so as
to render it non-hazardous. Incineration may also render the waste
"safer for transport, amenable for recovery, amenable for storage, or
reduced in volume." Therefore, incineration is a treatment process
within the meaning of the Act, and the Agency is mandated to produce
-------
operating, location, design, and construction regulations for the
incineration of hazardous waste adequate to protect human health and
the environment.
B. Key Definitions
The definitions given in Part 260 should aid the reader in un-
derstanding this specific document and the interim status standards.
Some of those definitions are provided here for readers' convenience.
Changes relevant to these interim status standards are discussed
after each definition:
1. "Disposal" means the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping,
spilling, leaking, or placing of any solid waste or hazard-
ous waste into or on any land or water so that such solid
waste or hazardous waste or any constituent thereof may
enter the environment or be emitted into the air, or dis-
charged into any waters, including ground waters.
2. "Disposal Facility" means a facility or part of a facility
at which hazardous waste is intentionally placed into or on
any land or water, and at which waste will remain after
closure.
3. "Facility" means all contiguous land, and structures, other
appurtenances, and improvements on the land, used for
treating, storing, or disposing of hazardous waste. A
facility may consist of several treatment, storage, or
disposal operational units (e.g., one or more landfills,
surface impoundments, or combinations of them).
4, "Hazardous Waste" means a hazardous waste as defined in
§261.3 of this Chapter.
5. "Incinerator" means an enclosed device using controlled
flame combustion, the primary purpose of which is to
thermally break down hazardous waste. Examples of
incinerators are rotary kiln, fluidized bed, and liquid
injection incinerators.
This definition has been modified from the proposed rules as
a result of a number of comments. There were several who
urged that energy recovery units (boilers or other facili-
ties where the waste is used as fuel) should be excluded
-------
from coverage under these regulations since they were
alleged to be more efficient and have higher destruction
efficiencies than incinerators. Comments also suggested
that these rules would inhibit use of wastes as a resource
(fuel). Therefore, given the energy crisis and EPA's inter-
est in promoting resource recovery, these commenters sug-
gested that the Agency should exempt incinerators and
furnaces which utilize the heating value of wastes. There
was one additional comment which urged similar treatment for
furnaces which recover materials from hazardous wastes, for
example, furnaces which thermally regenerate spent activated
carbon.
For reasons discussed in the background document on exemp-
tions, most residual materials destined for energy or mater-
ial recovery operations will :not presently be regulated. It
follows, then, that facilities burning these materials, such
as utility boilers and cement kilns, to recover the energy
value inherent in them, are not now considered hazardous
waste facilities. Thus, boilers and cement kilns have been
removed from the list of examples of incinerators in the
definition. It should be noted, however, as discussed in
the background document entitled "Purpose, Scope and Applica-
bility," listed wastes in Part 261 are subject to the trans-
portation and storage requirements of these regulations,
even when destined for recovery or reuse. Thus, a listed
waste which is burned in a boiler for heat recovery, will
require a manifest to be transported, and storage of it
before burning will be subject to the storage requirements
and will ultimately require a permit. The boiler itself
will not at this time be subject to the regulations.
One commenter suggested that the definition be expanded to
include facilities, other than those using flame combustion,
to thermally degrade hazardous wastes. Examples suggested
were molten salt incinerators and pyrolysis units. The
Agency disagrees. Incinerator regulations which may ulti-
mately involve controls of excess air, temperatures, and so
on, are designed specifically to relate to flame oxidation
units. Other types of thermal treatment facilities, which
operate on different principals, do not always meet and may
not need to meet the conditions specified for flame combus-
tion in order for them to be effective and protective of
human health and the environment. Examples include those
suggested by the commenter, as well as wet air oxidation
(Zimmerman or Zimpro process) and microwave plasma destruc-
tion. These processes are being regulated under a new
Subpart P - Thermal Treatment.
-------
Another commenter felt that listing of examples of incinera-
tors placed an unfair stigma on units of the same type
(i.e., fluidized beds, kilns, etc) which do not burn hazard-
ous wastes. While some uninformed people might attach such
a stigma, the Agency is unable to see the significance of
it. These rules do not cover any facility which does not
burn hazardous wastes. As far as the public is concerned,
it has been EPA's experience that it is the fact that the
facility manages hazardous wastes, not the type of facility,
which elicits the serious public concern about such facil-
ities. The Agency believes that, for the sake of clarity,
it is important to give examples of the types of equipment
which meet the definition.
One commenter urged that experimental incinerators should
not be covered by the definition since, during experiments,
it is not possible to guarantee that all of the criteria
(temperatures, retention time, etc.) mandated in the propos-
ed regulations will be met. The Agency agrees that experi-
mental tests, whether in full-scale or pilot units, are
absolutely essential to implementation of these regulations,
and that it is not possible to predict, with absolute cer-
tainty, that all of the proposed requirements will be met
during the test. However, it is the Agency's experience in
running such tests that, for such experiments to be safe,
they must be meticulously planned and closely monitored and
controlled. Therefore, the Agency has chosen to impose upon
experimental burns the control mechanism provided by the
permitting process as described in Part 122.
6. "Treatment" means any method, technique, or process, includ-
ing neutralization, designed to change the physical,
chemical, or biological character or composition of any
hazardous waste so as to neutralize such waste, or so as to
recover energy or material resources from the waste; or so
as to render such waste non-hazardous, or less hazardous;
safer to transport, store, or dispose of; or amenable for
recovery, or amenable for storage, or reduced in volume.
The following definitions have been removed from the Part 260
regulations: fugitive emissions, monitoring, and retention time.
Either these terms are no longer used or the Agency has concluded
that regulatory definitions would add nothing to the meaning of the
terms which are obvious from their common meaning and context in the
-------
regulations. Some or all of these terms may be defined in later pro-
mulgations if it becomes necessary.
-------
II. RATIONALE FOR THE REGULATIONS
The Agency encourages incineration in properly designed and
operated facilities as a management technique which is preferable to
land disposal of hazardous wastes. Incineration of hazardous waste,
as compared to landfilling, open dumping, and disposal in streams,
has not been widely practiced. However, with State laws eliminating
open dumping and inadequate landfilling, interest in incineration as
a means of hazardous waste destruction is increasing. Incineration
is capable of destroying the hazardous nature of organic wastes,
while simultaneously reducing the volume of remaining wastes. Agency
tests have demonstrated that incineration of a broad range of hazard-
ous wastes can be conducted safely and properly using existing tech-
nology. 1
Incineration can be conducted improperly, however. In the past,
hazardous wastes have been burned in the open, in drums, in makeshift
burners, often without emission controls, and many times without pro-
per combustion conditions to ensure proper destruction. Improper
burning can lead to emission of odors and toxic gases and fumes,
uncontrolled fires and explosions, and the production of hazardous
residues which, if not managed properly, can pose as much of a hazard
as the original waste.
The potential for damage to the environment and to human health
is also related to the type of waste incinerated. For example,
sludges from oil and solvent recovery operations often contain heavy
-------
metals including lead.2 Uncontrolled incineration of sludges
containing metals could result in significant air emissions of these
hazardous heavy metal constituents, or other toxic chemical compounds
formed from them.3
Even properly designed incinerators have limitations regarding
the kinds and characteristics of the hazardous materials they can
safely treat. Significant amounts of water or other noncombustible
components of the waste can affect attainable incineration tempera-
tures, appropriate feed rates, the amount of auxiliary fuel neces-
sary, and the adequacy of control equipment. Failure to respect
these limitations can increase the probability of environmental and
human health injuries.
A. Incidents Involving Improper Incineration
Recently, incineration of hazardous waste, both adequate and
inadequate, has been increasing. Several damage incidents and near
incidents have come to the Agency's attention. A few, summarized
below, serve to illustrate the potential problems associated with
improper incineration:
1. In early 1974, f->llowing reports of air and ground water pol-
lution caused by the incineration of hazardous wastes, the
Air Compliance Division of the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection closed two organic solvent recov-
ery operations. One of the operations, in Southington,
Connecticut, was contaminating the air with heavy metals
from the incineration of solvent recovery sludges which con-
tained lead and zinc. Additionally-, the company's opera-
tions contaminated the soil and ground water in the area and
the company's own well. Incineration ceased in early 1974.
-------
In Beacon Falls, Connecticut, a similar operation was closed
for reasons of air pollution.4
2. An incinerator in Grafton, Ohio, has been the target of
numerous citizens complaints for unpleasant odors and air
pollution. Odors, which normally signify organic emissions,
are a common problem at incinerators due to the volatility
of many of the wastes. Release of odoriferous materials
usually occurs as a result of careless handling of the
waste, fugitive emissions, or incomplete combustion. The
area surrounding the facility is reported to have become
contaminated with unburned Kepone on one occasion.5
3. An on-site investigation by EPA officials at a closed haz-
ardous waste facility in Seymour, Indiana, revealed that a
makeshift incinerator had been used to destroy hazardous
wastes. The unit was little more than an open burning oper-
ation with an air blower to supply extra air.6
4. An incinerator in Chicago, Illinois, was shut down in August
1976, after numerous violations of stack emission standards.
The City of Chicago was able to close the facility down when
three violationsof air standards (particulates, opacity, and
odors) occurred within a 180-day period. The facility has
since reopened, after extensive modification of its air pol-
lution control equipment. To date, the City has issued
permits allowing only a limited number of wastes to be
burned.7
5. In April 1977, the State of New York shut down a liquid
waste incinerator run by Pollution Abatement Services at
Oswego, New York. The facility was a constant source of
odor complaints from local residents. The State Division of
Air Resources sampled the incinerator stack several times
and found, in one case, a particulate level of 10 times the
allowable limit. After the facility was closed, the State
of New York was left with a one-million gallon lagoon, four
50,000-gallon tanks and 8,500 drums of waste materials.8
It is clear from these incidents that unless incineration regu-
lations are written and implemented, damage incidents can be expected
to continue.
10
-------
B. Basis for the Interim Status Standards
1. Interim Status Standards
Given the Congressional mandate to protect human health and
the environment from inadequate hazardous waste treatment and the
demonstrated human health and environmental problems associated with
inadequate treatment via incineration, the Agency proposed a full set
of permanent status incinerator regulations on December 18, 1978.
(Attachment I gives a summary of the proposed regulations and a brief
synopsis of the comments received). These proposed regulations
included permanent status standards and very limited interim status
standards for chemical, physical, and biological treatment. Interim
status standards are applicable during the period of time between
submittal of an application for a permit and the granting of a
permit.
The Agency has determined that it is important to bring some
additional control over incineration and other thermal treatment by
promulgating additional interim status standards. This background
document and the associated regulations are limited to those regula-
tions which are to be in effect during the interim status period.
Regulations covering the permanent status period, the period after
permitting, will be issued in the next few months. At that time the
complex technical questions raised by commenters will be addressed.
These interim status standards have been organized to bring
together all of the regulations that will most directly affect
11
-------
hazardous waste incineration facilities during the period between the
time they apply for a permit under the permanent status standards and
the time the Agency completes action on that application. Thus, the
inspection and the waste analysis requirements specific to incinera-
tors, which were separately listed in the 1978 proposal, are listed
here. A commenter also suggested that the proposed permanent stand-
ards for trial burns and operational emissions monitoring be made
applicable during the interim status period. Since these do not meet
the interim status criteria (outlined below), the Agency will not do
this. However, a requirement that waste be burnt only at proper ope-
rating temperatures is consistent with the ISS criteria, and comments
asking for an operational variance during start-up periods made the
Agency aware of a serious potential for environmental hazards from
this practice. Thus, the requirement of pre-heating to proper
operating conditions was added to these interim status standards.
2. Criteria for Interim Status Standards
In general, the Agency used the following criteria to indicate
which regulations should be adopted during the interim status period:
(1) can reasonably be implemented by the regulated community within
the six-month period between promulgation and the effective date of
the regulations; (2) do not require large capital expense for items
which require approval and, thus, might be altered as part of the
permitting process; and (3) can be implemented directly by the
12
-------
regulated community with the need for minimal consultation with or
interpretation by the Agency. The rationale for these decision cri-
teria is discussed in the preamble to the Part 264 and 265 regula-
^ - - __ - .
tions and in the\General Issues Concerning Interim Status Standards
Background Document entitledy^Bugpooa, — Sropa qnd Applicability/^ It
should be understood, however, that the Agency used the criteria only
as guidance in deciding which standards to require during interim
status. They are not hard-and-fast rules. The Agency has gone
beyond these guidelines where it appeared justified, and may do so
again.
For incineration facilities, the proposed technical performance
and design requirements do not meet these criteria and, thus, cannot
readily be implemented during interim status. The time required and
the costs of conducting trial burns and upgrading most existing
facilities will be considerable, and the designs will require Agency
approval during the permitting process. The Agency has, however,
developed threshold standards for incineration which can be implemen-
ted during the interim status period. These have been designed
primarily to improve operating procedures, i.e., to eliminate the
careless and sloppy practices which have resulted in serious problems
in the past. They do meet the criteria for interim status standards.
Specifically, requirement §265.343, that the incinerator be
brought to its steady state operating condition before hazardous
wastes are introduced meets the criteria because: (1) it requires no
EPA approval or interpretation, (2) any capital expenditures
13
-------
necessary to install auxiliary fuel capability are not likely to be
the topic of disagreement during permitting activities, and (3) it
can be implemented with little lead time needed to obtain and install
equipment.
The requirement of §265.345, that off-site hazardous wastes be
analyzed before the owner or operator treats them, meets the criteria
because: (1) it can be implemented with no EPA involvement, since
the sampling and analytical procedures are largely left to the owner
or operator; (2) it can commence as soon as any necessary testing
equipment is delivered; and (3) it requires only limited (and neces-
sary) expense for the purpose of procuring testing equipment (if not
already available).
The requirement of §265.347, for instrument monitoring and con-
trol equipment and emission inspection, meets the criteria because:
(1) it can be begun by incinerator operators immediately, (2) it
requires no interpretation by the Agency, and (3) it requires no
capital expenditures, since only existing, in-place equipment and
instruments must be inspected.
Finally, the requirement §265.351, that hazardous waste and
hazardous residues (including sludges, ash, etc.) be removed from the
incinerator at closure will be incorporated as part of the closure
plan required by Subpart G (Closure and Post Closure) to be prepared
during interim status. This will be subject to Agency review and
approval before it is implemented. Implementation of these require-
ments will not be necessary until closure which may be years in the
14
-------
future but they may require significant capital expenditures. These
rules are being promulgated despite the interim status criteria
because of the importance the Agency places on proper closure. For
further discussion of the closure requirements during interim status
use the background document entitled "Closure and Post-Closure Care."
3. The Experience Base for Incineration Regulations
In developing both the proposed regulations and these interim
status standards, the Agency made use of its own experience in test-
ing destruction of hazardous wastes in incinerators^>9 an
-------
emissions. Because of the procedures required for the regulation of
any hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act, it has not been
practical to rely on pollutant-by-pollutant emission standards under
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act as a means of protecting human
health from emissions associated with hazardous waste incineration.
Yet, common sense, public concern, and sporadic incidents suggest
that the problem is already serious and can be expected to become
acute with the expected increase in the volume of hazardous wastes
incinerated and the number of incinerator sites.
Therefore, while the Agency has been able to utilize its experi-
ence with the Clean Air Act, it was necessary to design the proposed
regulations around performance criteria tor destruction efficiency
and design and operating requirements based on the RCRA statutory
requirement to protect human health and the environment. Attainable
performance criteria were developed, based on the results of a series
of trial burns and analyses conducted in 1975 and 1976 with 14 dif-
ferent wastes in 7 different full-scale commercial incinerators.1
These tests provided core data for development of the proposed regu-
lations, and the operational knowledge gained in that test series
supports the requirements designed for interim status.
The only federal regulations currently in effect which relate
specifically to hazardous waste incineration are embodied in EPA's
PCB disposal regulations.^ These regulations require that certain
PCS wastes be incinerated. Land disposal is not allowed for these
16
-------
materials. The regulation also includes destruction and combustion
efficiency requirements; specifications for temperature, retention
time, and excess air; requirements for inspecting (monitoring) oper-
ating conditions; and for automatic feed cutoff in the event of a
malfunction. The PCS regulations also call for formal test burn
procedures and for the installation pf scrubbers. The requirements
parallel the proposed RCRA regulations to a considerable degree, and
were helpful during development of the proposed regulations, pri-
marily in suggesting alternative regulatory approaches and ensuring
comprehensiveness of coverage.
In addition to adopting to varying degrees, EPA's Clean Air Act
standards, some States have found it necessary to control hazardous
waste incineration directly. The work done by these States in
developing their regulations and their experiences in implementation
was reviewed by the Agency during development of the December 18,
1978 proposal and these interim status regulations.
In the absence of regulations specifically addressing emissions
from incinerators burning hazardous waste, States have restricted the
operations ot hazardous waste incinerators by the authority of a
general protection or "nuisance" rule. The following general nuis-
ance rule of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is typi-
cal:
NR 154. Control of Hazardous Pollutants. General Limitations.
No person shall cause, suffer, allow, or permit emissions into
the ambient air hazardous substances in such quantity, concen-
tration, or duration as to be injurious to human health, plant,
17
-------
or animal life unless the purpose of that emission is tor the
control of plant or animal life. Hazardous substances include,
but are not limited to, the following materials, their mixtures,
or compounds: asbestos, beryllium, cadmium, chlorine, flourine,
lead, mercury, pesticides, or radioactive material.12
While this type of the rule provides no specific regulatory
guidelines, the general authority of similar statutes has been used
to impose a variety of emission restrictions on a case-by-case basis
in different States.
An initial survey of specific state regulations relevant to
these interim status standards revealed the following:
Arkansas - The Arkansas Solid Waste Disposal code has such
relevant incineration requirements as continuous temperature
monitoring, reporting, and ash disposal only into an approved
site.13
California - The "Minimum Standards for management of Hazardous
and Extremely Hazardous Wastes"- require that operators of off-
site facilities "shall inspect wastes before accepting them to
ensure that the delivered waste has essentially the same general
properties as identified by the producer on the manifest."^
Pennsylvania - Solid Waste rules require that incinerator ash
disposal be approved by the Department of Environmental
Resources, and that liquid effluents shall be treated as an
industrial waste and handled as approved by the Department of
Environmental Resources.15
Several states, including Missouri, Nevada, Tennessee, and South
Carolina, are currently in the process of proposing regulations cov-
ering hazardous waste incineration facilities.
18
-------
III. ANALYSIS OF AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RELEVANT TO THE INTERIM
STATUS STANDARDS
Many of the comments received went to technical points or issues
that will be resolved only in the general status (Phase II) regula-
tions to be promulgated late in 1980. These are not discussed here.
Other comments raised issues relevant to any RCRA regulation of
hazardous waste incineration. These are discussed immediately below.
Finally, comments specifically relevant to these Interim Status
Standards are discussed after the general issues raised.
Issue #1 General Issues
A. Summary of Comments
1. Incineration should be regulated in three ways: emissions
should be controlled by the Clean Air Act, effluents by the
NPDES system, and land disposal by Subtitle D of RCRA.
Legislative history does not indicate that Section 3004
"disposal" was intended to include incineration.
2. Design'and operation regulations are a mistake. The owner
or operator should be allowed to determine how to operate
the process so as to meet performance standards.
B. Analysis of and Response to General Issue Comments
1. Hazardous Waste Incineration Falls Within the RCRA Statute
The commenters' discussion of whether hazardous waste incinera-
tion falls within the Section 1004(3) definition of "disposal" is not
to the point. The Agency is regulating incineration as "treatment"
of hazardous wastes. Section 1004(34) defines treatment:
(34) The term "treatment," when used in connection with haz-
ardous waste, means any method, technique, or process,
including neutralization, designed to change the biologi-
cal character or composition of any hazardous waste so as
to neutralize waste and render it non-hazardous, safe for
19
-------
transport, amenable for recovery, amenable for storage, or
reduced in volume. Such term includes any activity or
processing designed to change the physical form or chemi-
cal composition of hazardous waste so as to render it
non-hazardous.
As a process designed to render hazardous waste non-hazardous
and reduced in volume, incineration falls squarely within this defi-
nition. The Agency's statutory mandate to regulate such treatment
processes is thus found in Section 3004, which requires that the
Administrator promulgate standards for the treatment of hazardous
wastes. This mandate also serves the objectives of the statute,
defined by Congress in Section 1003(4) as, among other things, "regu-
lating the treatment... of hazardous wastes which have adverse
affects on health and the environment." In addition, incineration of
hazardous wastes was discussed extensively in EPA's 1974 Report to
Congress: Disposal of Hazardous Wastes, a document that strongly
influenced Congressional development of RCRA. The Administrator's
authority in this matter is made even more clear later in Section
3004, which says that standards set by the Agency "shall include, but
need not be limited to, requirements respecting—
(3) treatment...of all such wastes...pursuant to such operating
methods, techniques, and practices as may be satisfactory to
the Administrator."
Some commenters suggested that the proposed regulations should
be replaced by, or were in conflict with, the Clean Air Act. Con-
gress, in Section 1006(b), required the Administrator to integrate
RCRA with the Clean Air Act, but "only to the extent that it can be
20
-------
done in a manner consistent with the goals and policies expressed in
this Act..." It is significant that Congress, in Section 1006(a),
omitted the Clean Air Act from a list of statutes that were specified
as unaffected by RCRA's provisions. As a result, the Administrator
has substantial discretion to determine the interplay between RCRA
and the Clean Air Act, so as to best effect the purposes of both sta-
tutes. Since incineration of hazardous waste poses dangers that go
beyond the general concerns of the Clean Air Act, it is appropriate
to regulate such facilities under RCRA. Also, incinerator sites will
be receiving manifested wastes, temporarily storing hazardous wastes,
and (usually) generating hazardous wastes in their ash and scrubber
effluents. Thus, regulating their operations under RCRA has the
added advantage of minimizing the regulatory paperwork applicable to
each facility.
The Clean Air Act controls air contaminant emissions largely on
a pollutant-by-pollutant basis, or on a pollutant-facility basis.
Its regulations include arpa-wide standards for relatively ubiquitous
pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and lead, and for certain hazardous
air pollutants, such as beryllium and vinyl chloride. Such action is
adequate and necessary for the pollutants and facilities heretofore
regulated (e.g., particulates from steam fired power plants, vinyl
chloride emissions from vinyl chloride production plants). In con-
trast, a case-by-case, chemical by chemical, regulatory approach is
not practical for control of hazardous waste incineration. The
21
-------
hazardous air pollutant provisions of Section 112 .of the Clean Air
Act, 42 U.S.C. §7412, require the use of extensive procedures for
each pollutant regulated.
The pollutant species which could be emitted from incineration
of hazardous wastes number in the tens of thousands. Many of them
could be accutely toxic or carcinogenic. The procedures of the Clean
Air Act are less effective and efficient in such situations. RCRA
has authority to control emissions broadly through destruction and
combustion performance standards and directly through operating and
design standards. These standards can be more effectively applied to
the entire mix of pollutants treated in each facility. Thus, the
Agency has decided to regulate hazardous waste incinerators and other
thermal treatment devices directly under RCRA.
Effluent discharges to surface waters, however, will still re-
quire NPDES permits. These RCRA regulations do not cover surface
water discharges. Finally, removal of ash or other residues gener-
ated by an incinerator to landfills or other sites will have to
comply with RCRA hazardous waste regulations for generators if the
waste is hazardous. There are no provisions of regulations issued by
the Agency under the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act which are
incompatible with these RCRA requirements. It should be noted that
these interim status standards do not apply to the incineration of
PCB items. These are regulated under 40 CFR 761.40. At a later
time, the Agency intends to integrate the PCB requirements with these
RCRA requirements.
22
-------
2. Performance Standards are the Best Approach
The Agency believes that performance standards are desirable
and, in fact, the destruction and combustion efficiency requirements
and the halogen removal requirements which were proposed were types
ot operational performance standards. The use of performance stan-
dards tends to encourage innovative technologies and provides maximum
cost-effectiveness and flexibility to the owner and operator. Very
specific design requirements, on the other hand, tend to freeze
technology. The Agency does not agree, however, that RCRA regula-
tions should depend solely and totally on performance standards.
There are a number of "good management practices," which are
currently routinely practiced by the reputable and knowledgeable
incinerator operators, which the Agency believes should be practiced
by anyone, regardless of the waste and incinerator types employed.
Some of these "good management practices" have been included in these
interim status regulations. These threshold operating requirements
are based on the belief that it is better to prevent injury to human
health through careful management than to take after-the-fact
enforcement measures when poor management has led to an inevitable
breach of a performance standard.
Issue: #2 Allowance of Variances During Startup Periods
A. Synopsis of the Proposed Regulations
The proposed regulations (Section 250.45-l(d)) required that
incinerators operate at 1000°C with at least a two-second residence
23
-------
time and at least 2 percent excess air (except for halogenated aro-
matics which required 1200°C for 2 seconds and at least 3 percent
excess air) whenever burning hazardous wastes. Similarly, a 99.9
percent combustion efficiency and 99.99 percent destruction effi-
ciency were required whenever burning hazardous wastes. These
standards are not requirements for the interim status period.
B. Summary of Comments
1. Define a one-hour startup period after wastes are introduced
before destruction efficiency and combustion efficiency
requirements are applied.
2. Allowance should be made for excursions and operational
variations during startups and shutdowns.
C. Analysis of and Response to Comments and Rationale for the Final
Regulation
The Agency cannot agree with the request for a variance during
startup and shutdown times. Such an allowance would open the door to
the possibility of an incinerator being allowed to spew out signifi-
cant quantities of hazardous wastes. Test burns in the past have
indicated that it is good management practice, and entirely feasible,
to use auxiliary fuel to bring the incinerator up to steady-state
operating conditions before burning hazardous wastes. The Agency's
test burn experience has demonstrated that, if preheating to standard
conditions is coupled with careful control, dangerous temperature and
residence time deviations can be eliminated when waste feed commen-
ces . 1»^
24
-------
While there may be a small increase in operating costs caused by
increased reliance on auxiliary fuels, that cost is clearly out-
weighed by the human health benefits of proper incineration. This
regulation, as a side benefit, will prevent unscrupulous owners and
operators from gaining an economic advantage over reputable facili-
ties .
The Agency agrees that combustion condition variations, with
attendent deviations in destruction efficiencies and increased emis-
sions, are most likely to occur during startup periods. If the prac-
tice suggested by these comments becomes widespread, significant
health and environmental damages are likely to result. Therefore,
while the Agency is currently unready to implement permanent combus-
tion, operating, and performance standards, it is reasonable and
necessary to require owners and operators of existing facilities to
achieve steady-state operating conditions within the incinerators
using auxiliary fuel before introducing any hazardous waste. Reput-
able firms currently practice this safeguard, regardless of the
design capability of their incinerator.^"
D. Summary of the Interim Status Regulations
As a result of comments received from the combustion efficiency
deviations during startup periods, the Agency is requiring (Section
265.343.) all incinerators during the interim status period to achieve
steady state temperature and air flow conditions using auxiliary fuel
before adding any hazardous waste.
25
-------
Issue #3 Analysis of Wastes
A. Synopsis of the Proposed Regulation
In Section 250.43(g) of the proposed General Facility Standards,
the owner or operator of any facility, including an incinerator, was
required to obtain a detailed analysis of each hazardous waste stream
at least annually. Also, owners and operators were required (Section
250.43(h)) to sample each truckload of hazardous waste received and
analyze it for appearances, specific gravity, pH, and vapor pressure.
In the incineration section (Section 250.45-l(b)(1) (i), (ii)
and (iii)), these requirements were proposed to be extended to trial
burns by requiring analysis of: (1) the waste for halogens and prin-
cipal hazardous components, (2) ash and scrubber wastes for principal
hazardous components, and (3) exhaust gas for halides, CO, C02,
02, and particulates.
B. Comments Received
Most of the general comments received on these requirements are
addressed in the Background Document entitled "Waste Analysis." The
few comments relating specifically to incinerators can be summarized
as follows:
1. Required testing and analysis are unnecessary for certain
wastes, or are too expensive.
2. It is not clear what is to be tested and what owners and
operators are to do with the information thus gathered.
3. Testing should not be required except to: (a) identify waste
as hazardous, and (b) provide necessary information to the
owner or operator to allow him to make decisions concerning
safe management.
26
-------
C. Analysis and Response to the Comments and Rationale for the Final
Regulation
The Agency based the proposed general requirements for making a
detailed -chemical and physical analysis of the wastes on the belief
that, to properly determine the adequacy of a facility (incinerator,
in this case) to manage a given waste, the operator must know some-
thing about the waste (compatibility, heating value, primary pol-
lutants, etc.) However; since the necessary properties varied by
facility type (i.e., tanks, incinerators, or landfills), the Agency
did not specify exactly what should be tested for, except in the case
of incineration where halogens and hazardous components were mandated
for trial burns in order to determine the efficiency of the incinera-
tor to remove the halogen and destroy the principle hazardous compon-
ents. A number of commenters on other sections agreed with the second
commenter, i.e., that the standard did not adequately spell out what
is to be tested and what is to be done with the information obtained.
The Agency agrees and has decided to require all facility owners and
operators to develop a waste analysis plan which will detail the
characteristics of a waste which he must know in order to adequately
manage the waste. This plan is discussed in detail in the background
document entitled "Waste Analysis." However, since all owners and
operators are not equally knowledgeable, the Agency has decided to
place minimum and more specific analytical requirements within the
facility regulation sections. This will guarantee that, as a
minimum, owners and operators will obtain at least rudimentary
27
-------
intormation on a new hazardous waste which will enable them to
evaluate the capability of their equipment and techniques to manage
it.
For wastes to be incinerated, the Agency will not require trial
burns during the interim status period. The Agency has not fully
developed its test protocol and trial burns are fully useful only in
conjunction with the permitting process. Nevertheless, reputable
incinerator operators have found it necessary to know certain waste
characteristics prior to burning wastes which they have not previ-
ously burned.17,18 Based on such industry experience, the Agency
will require incinerator operators to include the following informa-
tion on new wastes in their waste analysis plan: heating value,
halogens, sulfur, lead and mercury.
Heating value analysis is necessary to determine adequate
operating parameters, such as rate of auxiliary fuel feed. Hydrogen
chloride and sulfur dioxide are commonly recognized air pollutants
which result from combustion of wastes containing chlorinated organic
compounds and sulfur compounds. Sulfur dioxide emissions are causa-
tive agents for an increasingly worrisome problem acid rain. Also,
hydrogen halides, particularly HCL and HF, can cause serious corro-
sion problems in a thermal treatment system. This can lead to rapid
deterioration of the structural and operating integrity of the ther-
mal treatment system.
Sampling is also necessary tor certain heavy metals which are
known to De hazardous, which are likely to be emitted, and for which
28
-------
some guidance on emission levels is available. The Agency has
decided to require waste sampling for lead and mercury during interim
status.
Lead is oxidized during combustion and is emitted from uncon-
trolled incinerators as a particulate.19 Lead has been found to
produce an adverse effect on public health. The Criteria Document
for lead which served as a basis upon which the Administrator on
October 5, 1978 published a National Ambient Air Quality Standard for
lead summarizes the relationships between airborne lead and its
effects on man.20 Lead enters the body principally through inges-
tion and inhalation with consequent absorption into the blood stream
and distribution to all body tissues. Uncontrolled incineration of
waste containing lead can be a significant lead emission source. EPA
set ambient air quality standards tor lead in 43FR 46246.
Mercury compounds vaporize readily when heated and, during com-
bustion, are emitted to the atmosphere from uncontrolled incinera-
tion. Mercury has been found to cause or contribute to an increase
in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitat-
ing reversible illness. On March 31, 1971, the Administrator listed.
mercury as one of three hazardous air pollutants for which he inten-
ded to establish emission standards.21 The publication entitled
"Background Information on Development of National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Asbestos, Beryllium and Mercury" des-
cribes the health criteria for the EPA standards for mercury.22
29
-------
Elemental mercury has been shown to be carcinogenic while methyl
mercury is considered to be the most hazardous of mercury compounds.
The National Emission Standard for Mercury published under the
authority of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act on October 14, 1975 is
applicable to stationary sources that incinerate wastewater treatment
sludge.23
As more information is received, the Agency may add to or modify
these minimum analysis requirements. Also, the general status
regulations (Phase II) to be promulgated later in 1980 will contain
provisions to control emission of these pollutants. Until that time
the Agency recommends that facilities consider relevant Clean Air Act
standards when determining their emission levels. (40 CFR 61.52 pre-
scribes emission limits for mercury from incinerators of wastewater
treatment sludges. 43FR, 46246-46277 sets ambient air standards for
lead which should not be exceeded as a result of emissions from any
stationary source.)
Most incinerator operators find it useful to obtain additional
information such as viscosity and solids content, but the Agency
believes that certain types of facilities would not need this infor-
mation to operate safely. Therefore, while viscosity and solids
content analyses are not required for all incinerators, where they
are relevant, they must be included in the waste analysis plan.
These criteria are issued on an interim final basis, but they
(like the general waste analysis requirements) will be in effect
30
-------
throughout the interim status period. The Agency believes that the
additional cost of these analyses will be limited, since facilities
will need such information for their own safety. On the other hand,
the dangers of not properly analyzing wastes prior to incineration
are simply too high to be tolerated throughout the potentially
lengthy period prior to the issuance of a permit.
Thus, the Agency disagrees with the first comment that basic
information which will allow an evaluation of combustibility and
pollutant potential can be "too expensive" or unnecessary. The
Agency has dropped the requirement for annual reanalysis to reduce
expense for possibly unnecessary analytical work. Since the require-
ment is for a one time analysis, the cost, using standard laboratory
analytical procedures, would usually be less than $500. ' Reput-
able incinerator operators usually ask the generators to provide this
information or else analyze the waste themselves and include the cost
in their charges to the generator.*'»^°
D. Summary of the Final Interim Status Regulation (§265.345)
As part of the waste analysis plan required by §265.13, the
owner or operator must obtain a sample of each new waste to be
incinerated and analyze it sufficiently to establish normal com-
bustion conditions and the potential for emissions. At the minimum,
this analysis must include heating value, halogen and sulfur content,
and the concentrations of specified heavy metals.
31
-------
Issue #4 Instrument Monitoring and Facility Inspection
A. Synopsis of the Proposed Regulation
During both trial and operating burns, the following parameters
(§250.45-l(c)) were to be monitored and recorded:
1. combustion temperature
2. exhaust gas CO and 02 concentrations continuously, and
3. waste, tuel, and exces air feed at least every 15 minutes.
These requirements were not proposed for the interim status
period.
B. Summary of Comments
1. New equipment to monitor gas emissions (particularly CO)
would be expensive.
2. 15-minute inspection of waste flows is unnecessarily rigor-
ous.
3. Points ot measurement are unclear.
4. NOX, SOX, and C02 should be added to the list of moni-
tored effluents. One commenter suggested they be included
during interim status.
C. Analysis of and Response to Comments and Rationale for the Final
Regulation
The Agency believes it unwise to require specific monitoring
equipment, such as the proposed continuous oxygen and carbon monoxide
instrumentation, during the interim status period. The first com-
menter is correct: this equipment is expensive and complex.2° The
design of these systems and their sampling locations will be the sub-
ject of Agency review during the permit process and, thus, it is
unwise to require their installation before that interaction can take
32
-------
place. Also, lead time on purchases of instrumentation of this type
can be lengthy. When coupled with design and installation time, it
may not be possible to implement these requirements within the avail-
able six months. For similar reasons, the Agency does not believe
that NOX, SOX, and C0£ measurements should be required during
interim status, as was suggested by one commenter.
At this time, however, it appears that at least some of the
benefits of monitoring and inspecting can be realized simply by
requiring that combustion and emission control monitoring equipment
already in place be monitored on a regular basis and appropriate cor-
rections made, if this will ensure that (within the design limita-
tions of the existing equipment) the combustion and emission control
conditions will not be allowed to wander unraonitored and uncon-
trolled. It also seems reasonable and prudent to set up routine
inspection schedules to observe visible emissions from the stack;
monitor for fugitive emissions, odors, or smoke; and to look for
leaks, spills, and inoperative alarm and control systems. As dis-
cussed in the Background Document covering inspections, routine
inspections can often detect a malfunction or operator error before
it leads to a human health or environmental incident. The omission
of these requirements in the proposed interim status standards was an
oversight on the part ot the Agency.
EPA disagrees with the commenter who stated that a 15-minute
inspection frequency for waste flow is unnecessarily rigorous. The
33
-------
instruments (or other devices) which measure the combustion condi-
tions (temperature, retention time, excess air, and turbulence)
should be monitored and corrections made as often as possible, con-
tinuously and automatically where possible. The relevant control
points on which the combustion conditions depend in most incinerators
include waste feed rate, auxiliary fuel feed, and air flow. Varia-
tions in any of these, or in the heating value of either the waste or
the auxiliary fuel, can quickly lead to poor combustion conditions
and to emission of incompletely burned wastes. Some facilities
already have some of these control loops (temperature via auxiliary
fuel flow, for example) operating on a continuous basis.16 The
Agency encourages such continuous control, but will insist that any
such controls and, even more importantly, any manual control loops
(where the operator makes the correction), be monitored or inspected
at least every 15 minutes.
No specific data base can demonstrate the wisdom of the precise
15-minute frequency. It is based on the Agency's generalized engi-
neering expertise and the specific knowledge of incinerator opera-
tions gained in the 1975 and 1976 test burns. In some cases, where
combustion conditions are subject to rapid swings, arguments can be
made that more frequent monitoring and control is needed. This is,
however, a facility specific situation and depends on design para-
meters, such as the effectiveness of the instrumentation and the
response period once control changes are made. Thus, it is more
34
-------
appropriately treated during the permitting process. Therefore, in
developing the inspection schedule required in §265.15, more frequent
monitoring and control activities should be conducted where appropri-
ate (see the Inspection Background Document for discussion of Inspec-
tion Schedule development).
The 15-tninute schedule is a minimum. The Agency does not
believe that control loops which affect combustion conditions and,
thus, combustion efficiency should ever be allowed to wander out of
control for longer than that period of time. Even where automatic
control is installed, it is necessary to check the instrumentation to
ensure that it is functioning. The 15-minute minimum ensures that
improper conditions do not persist for longer than that period.
Because of the short time interval between a malfunction and possible
emission of hazardous materials, no incinerator of hazardous wastes
should operate unattended.
The Agency feels similarly about existing control loops which
might effect emissions or which could result in spills. These could
vary, depending on the design of the equipment, but often include
scrubber water flows, scrubber water pH and, perhaps, level controls
on tanks. They must similarly be inspected on a 15-minute basis.
All of these inspections are to be part of the Inspection Sched-
ule called for in Section 265.15, and significant results are to be
recorded in accordance with the provisions of that section. Addi-
tionally, stack emissions should be monitored hourly and the entire
35
-------
facility inspected at least daily for leaks, spills, fugitive emis-
sions, odors, and smoke. All of these can result in human health or
environmental impacts if not detected early. Control system alarms
must also be inspected daily to be sure they are functioning. Again,
no body of information can specifically support any given frequency.
Based on its own experience, however, with incinerator test burns,
the Agency believes that inspections at these frequencies will un-
cover problems in time to prevent serious incidents. Further, the
cost impact of conducting these inspections is expected to be small,
given the fact that an operator must be on duty to run an incinerator
anyway. For further discussion of the rationale for routine inspec-
tions, the reader is referred to the background document on inspec-
t ions.
D. gummary of the Interim Status Regulations (§265.347)
During interim status, the Agency believes many of the benefits
of the proposed monitoring requirements can be realized by simply re-
quiring operators to routinely monitor and make appropriate correc-
tions to the control equipment already installed. Similarly, in
accordance with the inspection schedule provisions of §265.15 and the
other sections dealing with facility standards (landfills, tanks,
etc.), routine inspection for malfunctions, spills, etc., are being
required during the interim status period. Specifically, as part of
the inspection schedule, operators must inspect (monitor):
1. existing (in place) combustion and emission control instru-
ments and make appropriate corrections, to maintain steady-
state combustion conditions, at least every 15 minutes,
36
-------
2. stack plume for normal appearance (opacity and color) at
least hourly^ and
3. the entire unit, daily, for leaks, spills, fugitive emis-
sions, odors, and smoke.
Issue #5 Residue Management and Closure Requirements
A. Synopsis of the Proposed Regulation
In the General Facility Standards (§250.43(e)) of the proposed
regulations, owner or operators of any facility (including an
incinerator) were required to consider any residue generated by the
treatment (or storage) of a hazardous waste as a hazardous waste.
B. Summary of Comments
1. Regulations must specifically address the disposition of
incinerator ash.
2. Regulations must protect human health and the environment
from the leachate of hazardous waste ash which is temporar-
ily stored.
3. The California State leaching test should be used to deter-
mine the leaching potential of ash from incineration of
hazardous wastes.
C. Analysis and Response to Comments and Rationale for the Final
Regulation
The Agency agrees with the first comment and has clarified that
waste from incineration of hazardous wastes is also hazardous, in a
comment in the final regulations. Section 261.3(c) should also
address the concerns of the second commenter since leachate dis-
charged from the stored ash resulting from incineration of a hazard-
ous waste would also be a hazardous waste unless either the leachate
or the ash had been tested and found not to be hazardous in accor-
dance with §260.22. The Agency responded to these comments in this
37
-------
way because of the difficulties in designating toxic wastes. These
problems are outlined below. For a fuller discussion, see the
background document entitled "Criteria for Listing/Delisting."
The Agency has determined that test procedures for identifying
if a waste is a toxic waste by virtue of its being carcinogenic,
mutagenic, teratogenic, or bioaccumulative have not been sufficiently
developed for routine use by waste generators in determining if their
waste is subject to regulation under Part 261. As a result the
toxicity characteristic in Part 261 now is limited to test procedures
that focus on the concentration in the waste of those metals and
pesticides for which there are National Primary Drinking Water
Standards. These procedures have been sufficiently developed and
will be used by waste generators to determine if their waste is a
toxic waste and thus subject to regulation. Despite the current lack
of sufficiently developed test procedures the Agency has retained
comprehensive criteria for listing other toxic wastes including those
which are carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, and bioaccumulative.
Thus, many wastes are listed as hazardous because data has shown that
they are carcinogenic or otherwise toxic even though they do not meet
the characteristics in Part 261.
This anomaly (a waste listed as hazardous for reasons other than
its meeting one of the characteristic tests in Part 261) leads to
some potentially troublesome loopholes. For example, an owner or
operator could superficially "treat" a waste which is listed because
38
-------
it is carcinogenic and claim that the "treatment" has produced a new
waste. And since the new waste (residue from the "treatment") is not
listed and does not contain the heavy metals or pesticides which
would cause it to fail the characteristic for toxicity in Part 261,
it would not be considered hazardous and would be unregulated. It
might, however, be just as carcinogenic as the original waste.
To close this loophole, the Agency has added a requirement
(§261.3(c)) that "any solid waste that is discharged, spilled, or
otherwise removed from a treatment, storage, or disposal facility
that contains any hazardous waste will continue to be considered a
hazardous waste..." unless it can be shown to be nonhazardous in
accordance with the delisting procedures in §260.22. Thus any resi-
due (ash, scrubber water, scrubber sludge, precipitator dust, etc.)
deriving from incineration of any hazardous waste, is a hazardous
waste itself, unless the owner or operator shows by means of the
procedures for delisting (§260.22) that it is not hazardous. For a
more complete analysis of these requirements, the reader is referred
to the background document dealing with the definition of hazardous
waste.
The third comment suggested reliance on the 30-day California
leaching test. This test would be more severe than EPA's Extraction
Procedure promulgated under Part 261. The Agency's rationale for
rejection of the California test is explained in the background docu-
ment entitled "Toxicity Characteristic." The Agency is unable to
39
-------
require that incinerator ash residue from hazardous waste burns
should be subject to a more severe test of hazard potential (the
California test) than other potentially hazardous wastes which will
be evaluated using EPA's Extraction Procedure.
To be consistent with the format and requirements of the other
facility specific requirements (landfills, surface impoundments,
etc.) and the closure and post-closure requirements (Subpart G), Sec-
tion 265.351 has been reoriented to specify what must be done with
residues at closure. Section 265.114 of the general closure and
post-closure requirements specifies that equipment must be decontami-
nated and Section 265.113(a) requires that remaining hazardous wastes
must be removed. For incinerators, Section 265.351 amplifies and
further defines these requirements specifying that remaining hazar-
dous residues, including ash, scrubber waters, and scrubber sludges,
must be removed at closure.
D. Summary of the Interim Status Regulation (§265.351)
Facility owners or operators must remove any remaining hazardous
wastes and residues at closure. A comment clarifies that any waste
or residue removed from an incinerator must be managed as a hazardous
waste unless the owner or operator can demonstrate that it is not in
accordance with §261.3(d).
40
-------
IV. TEXT OF INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS
Subpart 0 - Incinerators
§265.340 Applicability
The regulations in this Subpart apply to owners and operators of
facilities that treat hazardous waste in incinerators, except as
§265.1 provides otherwise.
[§265.341 Reserved]
[§265.342 Reserved]
§265.343 General operating requirements [Interim Final]
Before adding hazardous waste, the owner or operator must bring
his incinerator to steady state (normal) conditions of operation--
including steady state operating temperature and air flow—using
auxiliary fuel or other means.
l§265.344 Reserved]
§265.345 Waste analysis [Interim Final]
In addition to the waste analyses required by §265.13, the owner
or operator must sufficiently analyze any waste which he has not pre-
viously burned in his incinerator to enable him to establish steady
state (normal) operating conditions (including waste and auxiliary
fuel feed and air flow) and to determine the type of pollutants which
might be emitted. At a minimum, the analysis must determine:
(a) Heating value of the waste;
(b) Halogen content and sulfur content in the waste; and
(c) Concentrations in the waste of lead and mercury, unless the
owner or operator has written, documented data that show
that the element is not present.
41
-------
[Comment; As required by §265.73, the owner or operator must
place the results from each waste analysis, or the documented
information, in the operating record of the facility.]
I§265.346 Reserved]
§265.347 Monitoring and inspections [Interim Final]
The owner or operator must conduct, as a minimum, the following
monitoring and inspections when incinerating hazardous waste:
(1) Existing instruments which relate to combustion and emis-
sion control must be monitored at least every 15 minutes.
Appropriate corrections to maintain steady state combustion
conditions must be made immediately either automatically or
by the operator. Instruments which relate to combustion
and emission control would normally include those measuring
waste feed, auxiliary fuel feed, air flow, incinerator
temperature, scrubber flow, scrubber pH, and relevant level
controls.
(2) The stack plume (emissions) must be observed visually at
least hourly for normal appearance (color and opacity).
The operator must immediately make any indicated operating
corrections necessary to return visible emissions to their
normal appearance.
(3) The complete incinerator and associated equipment (pumps,
valves, conveyors, pipes, etc.) must be inspected at least
daily for leaks, spills, and fugitive emissions, and all
emergency shutdown controls and system alarms must be
checked to assure proper operation.
[§§265.348 - 265.350 Reserved]
§265.351 Closure [Interim Final]
At closure, the owner or operator must remove all hazardous
waste and hazardous waste residues (including but not limited to ash,
scrubber waters, and scrubber sludges) from the incinerator.
[Comment: At closure, as throughout the operating period,
unless the owner or operator can demonstrate, in accordance with
§261.3(d) of this Chapter, that the residue removed from his
incinerator is not a hazardous waste, the owner or operator
42
-------
becomes a generator of hazardous waste and must manage it in
accordance with all applicable requirements of Parts 262, 263,
and 265 of this Chapter.]
[§§265.352-265.369 Reserved]
43
-------
REFERENCES
1. Destroying Chemical Wastes in Commercial Scale Incineration,
Phase II Final Report, NTIS No. PB 278-816, 1978.
2. Assessment of Hazardous Waste Practices in the Petroleum Refin-
ing Industry, NTIS No. PB-259-097.
3. Determination of Incinerator Operating Conditions Necessary for
Safe Disposal of Pesticides, EPA-600-/2-75-041, NTIS No. PB251-
131/AS, p. 65
4. Hegener, W. and J. Heidtman, Connecticut DEP, to A. Giles, Envi-
ronmental Protection Specialist, USEPA, Personal Communication,
February 1975.
5. Kim, Y.J., USEPA Region V, to E. Grumpier, Environmental Engi-
neer, USEPA, Personal Communication, November 9, 1979.
6. Kaufman, H.B. Manager, Damage Assessment Program, USEPA to J.P.
Lehman, Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division, USEPA,
"Declaring Seymour Recycling Company Facility and Confines as an
Imminent Hazard under 7003 of the RCRA of 1976," April 15, 1978.
Unpublished Memo.
7. Gallay, D., Chicago Dept. of Energy and Environmental Protec-
tion, to E. Grumpier, Environmental Engineer, USEPA, Personal
Communication, December 6, 1979.
8. Fancy, C., N.Y. Dept. of Environmental Conservation, to E.
Grumpier, Environmental Engineer, U.S. EPA, Personal Communica-
tion, November 28, 1979.
9. Determination of Incinerator Operating Conditions Necessary for
Safe Disposal of Pesticides, EPA 600/2-75-041, "TIS No. PB 251-
131/AS, P. 67
10. Title 40, Clean Air Act, Part 60, Subparts E and 0.
11. Polychlorinated Biphenyls, Criteria Modifications, 40 CFR
761.40, Incineration, May 31, 1979.
12. Wisconsin "Administrative Rules for Air Pollution Control," Act
250 of 1965 as amended and Act 348 of 1965 as amended.
13. Arkansas Solid Waste Disposal Code, Act 237. 1971.
44
-------
REFERENCES (Concluded)
14. Requirements for Management of Hazardous and Extremely Hazardous
Wastes, Article 6, Chapter 2, Division 4, Title 22, California
Department of Health.
15. Chapter 75 Solid Waste Management Rules and Regulations; Author-
ity PL 788 of 1968, (NO. 243) §6, (35 P.S. §6006)
16. Moon, O.K., Rollins Environmental Company to D.A. Oberaker,
Senior Mechanical Engineer, USEPA; Personal Communication,
November 8, 1979.
17. Sernyake, R. Rollins Environmental Company to D.A. Oberaker,
Senior Mechanical Engineer, USEPA; Personal Communication,
November 8, 1979.
18. Trapp, J., City of Cincinnati to D.A. Oberaker, Senior Mechani-
cal Engineer, USEPA, Personal Communication, November 9, 1979.
19. Standard Support and Environmental Impact Statement, National
Ambient Air Quality Standard for Lead Emissions, September,
1978, MTR RPT No. 7525.
20. Air Quality Criteria for Lead, PB-280 411/OBE, 1978.
21. Federal Register Vol. 36,'No. 62, March 31, 1971, 5931.
22. Background Information on Development of National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Asbestos, Beryllium,
and Mercury, APTD-1563, p. 58.
23. 40 CFR 61.50, National Emission Standard for Mercury,
Applicability.
24. Trapp, J. City of Cincinnati, to D.A. Oberaker, Senior Mechani-
cal Engineer, USEPA, Personal Communication, January 10, 1980.
25. Moon, D., Rollins Environmental Services, Inc., to E. Grumpier,
Environmental Engineer, USEPA, Personal Communication, January
10, 1980.
26. Smith, J., Teledyne Inc, to D.A. Oberaker, Senior Mechanical
Engineer, USEPA, Personal Communication, December 12, 1979.
45
-------
ATTACHMENT I
THE 1978 PROPOSAL
A. Synopsis of the Regulations as Proposed
The proposed regulations for incineration of hazardous wastes
were published as §250.45-1 in 43 Federal Register, No. 243, December
18, 1978. They placed on owners or operators a number of performance
requirements coupled with various operating standards, most of which
were intended to help insure that the performance criteria were
regularly met.
The performance criteria required that incinerators burning
hazardous wastes achieve a destruction efficiency of 99.99% or
better, and a combustion efficiency of at least 99.9%; that particu-
late emissions be less than 270 mg/scm3 (0.12 gr/scf) at zero
excess air; that fugitive emissions be controlled; and that emission
controls remove more than 99 percent of the halogens when hazardous
wastes containing more than 0.5 percent halogens were burned.
Proposed operating regulations required that owners/operators
monitor and record significant variables at 15-minute intervals; that
trial burns be conducted, analyzed, and reported to the Regional
Administrator before each new and "significantly different" hazardous
waste was incinerated; and that the wastes be retained for 2 seconds
at 1000°C combustion temperature (1200°C for halogen containing
wastes) and more than 2 percent excess oxygen (3 percent for halogen
containing wastes). A "note" or variance provided that incinerators
46
-------
need not comply with the detailed combustion criteria if an equiva-
lent combustion efficiency could be achieved by other means. A
device to automatically cut off waste feed whenever combustion or
scrubber conditions changed significantly was a final requirement.
B. Synopsis of Comments Received on Proposed Regulations
The Agency received approximately 241 comments on the pro-
posed regulations. Many of these dealt with broad and general
issues, such as the propriety of applying any design and operating
requirements, rather than relying solely on performance criteria
based on destruction. Some comments questioned the Agency's statu-
tory authority to regulate hazardous waste incineration under RCRA at
all. Conflicts with the regulation of particulate emissions under the
Clean Water Act were cited.
Many comments were essentially technical. One comment suggest-
ed that turbulence criteria be added to the time and temperature
requirements. Others suggested that measurement methodology was
unclear or difficult to apply, and that the measurement locations and
frequencies for emission and effluent temperature measurements needed
to be specified. Three comments pointed to dangers inherent in auto-
matic cutoff devices, and suggested that gradual shutdowns were pre-
ferable.
A middle range of comments accepted the general framework of the
proposed regulations, but felt specific criteria were unnecessary or
infeasible. In particular, it was claimed that the halogen destruc-
tion levels appropriate for chlorine were more stringent than those
47
-------
necessary or possible for other halogens, such as bromides or
iodides. Similar comments suggested that the general 99.99 percent
destruction efficiency requirement was impractical and very costly,
and would divert wastes from relatively "safe" incineration into
dangerous, long-term landfills. Some comments suggested varying
destruction efficiency in accord with each waste's degree of hazard.
The high cost of trial burns and of trial burn analysis was fre-
quently mentioned. There was considerable confusion about the prac-
tical impact of the requirement that a new trial burn be held before
each "significantly different" new waste was incinerated. Several
comments pointed out that the almost infinite variety of chemical
mixtures making up wastes made this requirement both incredibly
expensive and impossible to apply with certainty. A few comments
focused on the vagueness of the requirement that fugitive emissions
be controlled.
Finally, many comments suggested specific exemptions or addi-
tional inclusions to the regulations when finally promulgated. The
most important of these dealt with clarifying the status of waste
oils and solvents, of incinerator ash residue and scrubber effluents,
and of cement kiln incinerators and utility boilers burning hazardous
wastes for their thermal value.
This document has considered those comments relevant to any
regulatory scheme for hazardous waste incineration and relevant to
the limited interim status standards set forth here. The remaining
48
------- |