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

-------