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
FINAL
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
40 CFR PART 265
SUBPART P INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE
FACILITIES FOR THERMAL TREATMENT
PROCESSES OTHER THAN INCINERATION
AND FOR OPEN BURNING
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
APRIL 1980
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. Need For Thermal Treatment Interim Status 1
Standards
B. Key Definitions 4
II. RATIONALE FOR THE REGULATIONS 6
A. Statutory Authority 6
B. Incidents Involving Improper Thermal Treatment 9
C. The Experience Base for Thermal Treatment 10
Regulations
D. Basis for the Interim Status Standards for 14
Thermal Treatment
III. ANALYSIS OF AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RELEVANT TO THE 19
INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS
Issues;
#1 - General Issues: (1) Authority, (2) Performance 19
Standards
#2 - Thermal Treatment Other than Incineration 25
#3 - Allowance of Variances During Start-up Periods 30
#4 - Analysis of Wastes 33
#5 - Instrument Monitoring and Facility Inspection 41
#6 - Residue Management 46
#7 - Open Burning 50
IV. TEXT OF INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS 54
REFERENCES 58
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Need For Thermal Treatment Interim Status Standards
This is one of a series of documents providing support
and background 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 proposal, and indicates
the Agency's rationale for final regulations.
This background document discusses the rationale for
regulations for facilities for hazardous waste thermal
treatment other than incineration. This document contains an
analysis of comments relevant to regulations for thermal
treatment facilities including an analysis of comments received
on the proposed regulations for incinerators (§250.45-1).
A background document for regulations for hazardous waste
incinerators closely parallels this document although the
rationales for each of the two sets of regulations are contained
within each of the two documents to avoid constant referral.
>
The Agency proposed standards on December 18, 1978
applicable to owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities. Included in those regulations
were requirements for owners and operators of hazardous waste
incinerators (43 FR 59008). The Agency is still considering
the extensive comments that were received on all aspects of
that proposal. However, the Agency has decided to issue
- 1 -
-------
interim status standards that apply to owners and operators
of these facilities during the time between submittal of the
application for a permit and the issuance of a permit.
These standards are being issued on an interim final
basis. This means that the Agency will continue to receive
and consider comments on the regulations for a period of QO
days from the date the regulations are issued. As a result
of these comments, the Agency may revise, add, or delete
specific requirements. These regulations, however, are in
force and effective six months after promulgation.
Several commenters on the proposed regulations expressed
concern that the standards for incinerators might have a
constraining effect on incineration technology development.
These commenters felt that EPA's design and operating criteria,
(particularly the requirement for incinerators to meet mini-
mum temperatures, retention times, and excess oxygen levels)
would restrict progress. The "note" following Section 250.45-ld
was intended to add flexibility to the regulations by recog-
nizing and allowing the use of other technologies and other
design and operating criteria. It said that permits would
be issued, provided that owners and operators could demonstrate
that an equivalent degree of combustion was taking place.
This was viewed by the commenters as ineffective because
permitting officials might be inclined to apply the standard
without the "note" rather than take on the responsibility of
determining what alternative operating and design conditions
constitute equivalent performance.
- 2 -
-------
Similarly, commenters felt that the proposed incineration
regulations would discourage innovative thinking relative to
hazardous waste thermal treatment and disposal. These
commenters pointed out that certain new and emerging tech-
nologies such as molten salt processes, catalytic incinerators,
pyrolysis units, and microwave plasma destruction might be
seriously stifled or even eliminated by having to comply with
incinerator operating and design standards. Commenters felt
that the regulations failed to recognize the existance of
these and other incineration-like processes which might soon
be capable of effectively handling a greater proportion of
the hazardous waste generated.
Several commenters suggested that design parameters
based on conventional incinerator technology should be replaced
by performance standards for destruction efficiency- These
performance standards would be broadly applicable to conven-
tional or innovative thermal treatment techniques. As one
commenter pointed out, pyrolysis combined with an after-burner
could achieve destruction efficiencies (at point of release
to the environment) that were comparable to incineration
results for many wastes.
The Agency believes that the regulations should encourage
the development of new techniques for management of hazardous
waste. Furthermore, the Agency recognizes that the proposed
incineration regulations did not provide sufficient latitude
to accomodate other thermal treatment approaches. There
fore, the Agency added in the final regulations a new and
- 3 -
-------
distinct set of requirements for thermal treatment processes
other than incineration.
These interim status standards for thermal treatment
are the first part of these final regulations. Together
with more performance based permanent status standards for
thermal treatment, planned for promulgation in a few months,
they allow application of new technology to' hazardous waste
management while maintaining protection of human health and
the environment.
B. Key Definitions
The definitions given in Part 260 should aid the reader
in understanding this specific document and the interim status
standards. Some of those definitions are provided here for
readers' convenience.
0 "Disposal" means the discharge, deposit, injection,
dumping, spilling, leaking, or placing of any solid
waste or hazardous 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 discharged into any
waters, including ground waters.
0 "Facility" means all contiguous land and structures,
other appertnances and improvements on the land,
used for the treating, storing, or disposing of
hazardous waste. A facility may consist of several
treatment, storage, and disposal operational units
e.g., one or more landfills, surface impoundments,
or combinations of them.
0 "Hazardous Waste" means a hazardous waste as defined
in §261.3 of this Chapter-
0 "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.
- 4 -
-------
This definition has been modified from the proposed
rules as a result of a number of comments. The
Agency's response to comments on this definition is
provided in the Background Document for Subpart 0;
Incinerators.
"Open Burning" means the combustion of any material
without the following characteristics:
(a) control of combustion air to maintain adequate
temperature for efficient combustion,
(b) containment of the combustion-reaction in an
enclosed device to provide sufficient residence
time and mixing for complete combustion, and
(c) control of emission of the gaseous combustion
products.
"Thermal Treatment" means the treatment of hazardous
waste in a device which uses elevated temperatures
as the primary means to change the chemical, physical,
or biological character or composition of the hazar-
dous waste. Examples of thermal treatment processes
are incineration molten salt pyrolysis, calcination,
wet air oxidation, and microwave discharge.
This is a new definition. Commenters suggested that
because the proposed definition of incinerators exclu-
ded thermal treatment processes which did not use flame
combustion, other forms of thermal treatment technology
would be unnecessarily stifled. The Agency believes
that by defining "thermal treatment" and requiring
applicable standards, much confusion will be avoided.
See Section III (Issue #2) of this Background Document
for a discussion of these comments.
"Treatment" means any method, technique, or process,
including neutralization, designed to change the
physical, chemical, or biological character or
composition of any hazardous waste so as to neutra-
lize 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, amenable for storage, or reduced in
volume.
- 5 -
-------
II. RATIONALE FOR THE REGULATIONS
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 Protection Agency:
"...promulgate regulations establishing such
performance standards, applicable to owners and
operators of facilities for the treatment, storage,
or disposal of hazardous waste identified or listed
under this Subtitle, as may be necessary to protect
human health and the environment. Such standards
shall xnclude, but need not be limited to, require-
ment respecting - ...
(3) treatment, storage, or disposal of all such
wastes received by the facility pursuant to such
operating methods, techniques, and practices as
may be satisfactory to the Administrator;
(4) the location, design, and construction of
such hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal
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 character 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 recover, amenable
for storage, or reduced in volume..."
One objective of thermal treatment of waste is normally
to change the physical form, biological character, or chemical
composition of the waste so as to render it non-hazardous or
less hazardous. Thermal treatment may also render the waste
"safer for transport, amenable for recovery, amenable for
storage, or reduced in volume." Therefore, thermal treatment
- 6 -
-------
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 thermal treatment of
hazardous waste adequate to protect human health and the
environment.
The Agency encourages thermal treatment in properly
designed and operated facilities as a management technique
which is preferable to land disposal of hazardous wastes.
Thermal treatment of hazardous waste other than incineration
has not been widely practiced as compared to land disposal
and incineration. With the exception of incinerators most
thermal treatment units are experimental or have only recently
been scaled to larger units. However, with state and federal
laws eliminating open dumping and inadequate landfilling,
interest in thermal treatment, particularly incineration as a
means of hazardous waste destruction, is increasing. Thermal
treatment 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 hazardous waste can be
conducted safely and properly using existing technology.1
Commenters have suggested that other thermal treatment
processes can achieve similar results. Analysis of pyrolysis
processes combined with the use of after-burners suggests
that this may be correct.2
Thermal treatment can be conducted improperly, however.
In the past, hazardous wastes have been burned in the open,
- 7 -
-------
in drums, in makeshift burners, often without emission controls
and many times without proper combustion conditions to ensure
proper destruction. Improper treatment can lead to the emission
of odors and toxic gases and fumes, uncontrolled fires and
explosions. The production of hazardous residues can, if not
managed properly, 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 types of waste thermally treated.
For example, sludges from oil and solvent recovery operations
often contain toxic heavy metals including lead, chromium,
and cadmium.3 Uncontrolled incineration of these sludges or
the use of other thermal treatment processes without proper
controls could result in significant air emissions of these
hazardous heavy metals or other toxic chemical compounds.^
Even properly designed thermal treatment units have
limitations regarding the kinds and characteristics of the
hazardous materials they can safely treat. Certain thermal
treatment units are designed specifically to treat only
certain classes of waste streams. Pyrolysis without an
after-burner or a close-coupled heat recovery system may be
unsuitable for treatment of many hazardous waste streams
since pyrolysis is a conversion process rather than a destruction
.-$
process.2 Calcination is a thermal treatment process applicable
to inorganic wastes contaminated by organic residues. For
incinerators and other thermal treatment processes, signifi-
cant amounts of water or other noncombustible components of
- 8 -
-------
the waste can affect attainable temperatures, appropriate
feed rates, the amount of auxiliary fuel necessary, and the
adequacy of control equipment. Failure to respect the limi-
tations inherent in each thermal treatment process can increase
the probability of environmental and human health injuries.
B. Incidents Involving Improper Thermal Treatment
Recently, thermal treatment of hazardous waste, both
adequate and inadequate, has been increasing. This is espe-
cially true of incineration. 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 thermal treatment:
1. In early 1974, following reports of air and ground
water pollution caused by the incineration of haz-
ardous wastes, the Air Compliance Division of the
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
closed two organic solvent recovery operations. One,
in Southington, Connecticut, was contaminating the
air with heavy metals from the incineration of sol-
vent recovery sludges which contained lead and
zinc. Additionally, the company's operations con-
taminated 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.^
2. An incinerator in Grafton, Ohio, has been the target
of numerous citizen 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 material 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:^
3. An on—site investigation by EPA officials at a closed
hazardous waste facility in Seymour, Indiana, revealed
that a makeshift incinerator had been used to destroy
- 9 -
-------
hazardous wastes. The unit was little more than an
open burning operation with an air blower to supply
extra air.^
4. An incinerator in Chicago, Illinois, was shut down
in August 1976, after numerous violations of stack
emission standards. The City of Chicago required
that the facility cease operations after three
violations of air standards (particulates, opacity,
and odors) occurred within a 180-day period. The
facility has since reopened, after ex-censive modifi-
cation of its air pollution control equipment. To
date, the City has issued permits allowing only a
limited number of wastes to be burned.®
5. In April 1977, the State of New York shut down a
liquid waste incinerator in 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.^
The Agency believes that unless thermal treatment regu-
lations are written and implemented, damage incidents such
as these can be expected to continue.
c* The Experience Base for Thermal Treatment Regulations
In developing both the proposed regulations for incine-
rators and these interim status standards for thermal treat-
ment, the Agency made use of its own experience in testing
destruction of hazardous wastes in thermal treatment facili-
ties.1'4 The Agency has also relied upon state and other
federal regulatory experience.
EPA, under the Clean Air Act, has promulgated emission
limits for particulates for solid waste incineration and
sewage sludge incineration.10 However, these controls were
not developed to deal specifically with hazardous waste
- 10 -
-------
incinerators or other thermal treatment processes. There
are, moreover, an almost infinite variety of toxic chemical
entities which could be emitted as a result of the infinite
variety of chemical species which make up hazardous waste.
It is difficult, expensive, and time-consuming to gather
rigorous data on threshold levels for area-wide health
effects for these potential emissions. Thus, it has not
been feasible to use comprehensive pollutant-by-pollutant
emission standards, developed under the procedural require-
ments of section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as a means of
protecting human health from emissions associated with
hazardous waste thermal treatment. Yet, common sense, public
concern, and sporadic incidents suggest that the problem is
already serious. The results of improper thermal treatment
of hazardous wastes can be expected to become acute in propor-
tion to the expected increase in the volume of hazardous
wastes thermally treated and the number of thermal treatment
facilities.
Therefore, while the Agency utilized its experience
with the Clean Air Act, it was necessary to design the proposed
hazardous waste incinerator regulations around performance
criteria for destruction efficiency and design and operating
requirements based on RCRA's 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
different wastes in 7 different full-scale commercial thermal
- 11 -
-------
treatment facilities.1 These tests provided core data for
development of the proposed incinerator regulations 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 thermal treatment are
embodied in EPA's PCB disposal regulations. These regulations
require that certain PCB wastes be incinerated. The regula-
tion also includes destruction and combustion efficiency re-
quirements; specifications for temperature, retention time/
and excess air; requirements for inspecting (monitoring)
operating conditions; and for automatic feed cutoff in the
event of a malfunction. The PCB regulations also call for
formal test burn procedures and for the installation of scrub-
bers. The requirements parallel the proposed RCRA regulations
to a considerable degree, and were helpful during development
of the proposed regulations, primarily in suggesting alter-
native regulatory approaches and ensuring comprehensiveness
of coverage.
In addition to developing and promulgating incinerator
standards pursuant to Clean Air requirements, some States have
found it necessary to control hazardous waste thermal treat-
ment as well. 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 for incineration and of these interim status
standards for thermal treatment.
- 12 -
-------
In the absence of regulations specifically addressing
emissions from incinerators burning "hazardous waste, States
have restricted the operations of hazardous waste incinerators
by the authority of a general protection or "nuisance" rule.
The following general nuisance rule of the Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources is typical:
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, concentration, or duration as to be
injurious to human health, plant, or animal life unless
the purpose of that emission is for 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.^
While this type of rule provides no specific regulatory
guidelines, the general authority of similar statutes has
been used in different States to impose a variety of emission
restrictions on a case-by-case basis.
An initial survey of specific State regulations relevant
to these interim status standards revealed the following:
Arkansas - The Arkansas Solid Waste Disposal code has
incineration requirements for continuous temperature
monitoring, reporting, and ash disposal only into an
approved s ite. J- 3
California - The "Minimum Standards for Management of
Hazardous and Extremely Hazardous Wastes" require that
operators of off-site facilities "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."14
Pennsylvania - Solid Waste Rules require that incinerator
ash disposal be approved by the Department of Environmental
Resources, and that liquid effluents be treated as an
industrial waste and handled as approved by the Depart-
ment of Environmental Resources. l->
- 13 -
-------
Several States, including Missouri, Nevada, Tennessee,
and South Carolina are currently in the process of proposing
regulations covering hazardous waste thermal treatment or
incineration facilities.
D. Basis for the Interim Status Standards for Thermal
Treatment
Given the Congressional mandate to protect human health
and the environment from inadequate hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and disposal and the demonstrated problems associated
with inadequate treatment via incineration, the Agency proposed
regulations for hazardous waste incinerators and chemical,
physical, and biological treatment on December 18, 1978.
These proposed regulations included permanent status standards
and very limited interim status standards for chemical, physical,
and biological treatment. Interim status standards are appli-
cable during the period of time between submittal of an appli-
cation 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 regulations, 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.
- 14 -
-------
For its interim status standards (ISS), the Agency is
mandating those requirements which: (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 regulated community with the need for minimal
consultation with or interpretation by the Agency. The
rationale for these decision criteria is discussed in more
depth in the Background Document entitled "Purpose, Scope
and 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 in the
future.
For thermal treatment processes, the proposed incinerator
technical performance and design requirements do not meet
these criteria and, thus, cannot 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. Technical performance and
design requirements were not proposed for thermal treatment
processes other than for incinerators. The Agency has,
however, developed general operating standards for thermal
- 15 -
-------
treatment that meet the criteria for interim status standards
and can be implemented during the interim status period.
These have been designed primarily to improve operating
procedures, i.e., to eliminate the careless and sloppy prac-
tices which have resulted in serious problems in the past.
Specifically, requirement §265.373 that the thermal
treatment unit be brought to its steady state operating
condition before hazardous wastes are introduced meets ISS
criteria because: (1) no EPA approval or interpretation
is required, (2) any capital expenditures necessary to install
auxiliary fuel capability are not lilcely 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 §265.375 that the owner or operator
must sufficiently analyze any waste which he has not previously
treated in his thermal treatment process to enable him to
establish steady state (normal) or other appropriate condi-
ditions and to determine the type of pollutants which might
be emitted: (1) can be implemented with no EPA involvement,
since the sampling and analytical procedures at this time
are largely left to the owner/ operator; (2) can commence
as soon as any necessary testing equipment is delivered; and
(3) requires only limited (and necessary) expense for the
purpose of procuring testing equipment (if not already
available).
- 16 -
-------
The requirement of §276.377 for instrument monitoring
and control and stack plume inspections: (1) can be initiated
by thermal treatment process operators immediately, (2)
requires no interpretation by the Agency, and (3) requires
no capital expenditures, since only existing, in-place equip-
ment and instruments must be inspected.
The requirement of §265.381 that hazardous waste and hazardous
residues (including sludge, ash) 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
requirements will not be necessary until closure but they may
require significant expenditures. These rules are beinq
promulgated despite the interim status critera because of the
importance the Agency places on proper closure. For further
discussion on this issue, see the Background Document on
Closure and Post-closure.
The requirement of §265.382 prohibiting open burning
expect for the open burning and detonation of waste explosives
(1) can be implemented within the six-month period between
promulgation and the effective date of the regulations; (2)
does not require large capital expense for items which require
approval and (3) requires no EPA interpretation.
A commenter suggested that the proposed incinerator perma-
nent status standards for trial burns and operational emis-
sions monitoring be made applicable during the interim status
- 17 -
-------
period. Since such requirements do not meet any of the
interim status criteria (as outlined above), the Agency has
not added them to the interim status requirements. However,
a requirement that waste be burned only at proper operating
temperature is consistent with these criteria and will prevent
incomplete treatment of hazardous waste. Thus, the require-
ment for preheating to proper operating conditions for other
than non-continuous (batch) processes was added to these
interim status standards.
- 18 -
-------
III. ANALYSIS OF AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RELEVANT TO THE
INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR THERMAL TREATMENT
Many of the comments received on the proposed incin-
erator standards went to technical points or issues that will
be resolved only in the Phase II incinerator and thermal
treatment regulations. These are not discussed here. Other
comments raised issues relevant to any RCRA regulation of
hazardous waste incineration. These and other comments rele-
vant to thermal treatment other than incineration are discussed
immediately below. Comments specifically relevant to these
Interim Status Standards are discussed after the general
issues raised.
It is important to recognize that comments discussed
below were directed to the incineration regulations. The
issues they raise are discussed here in the context of their
applicability to Interim Status Standards for Thermal
Treatment. Most of these comments are also discussed in the
Background Document for Part 265, Subpart O: Incinerators.
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 1004(3) "disposal" was intended
to include incineration.
2. Design and operation regulations are a mistake. The
owner/operator should be allowed to determine how to
operate the process so as to meet performance standards.
- 19 -
-------
B. Analysis of and Response to General Issue Comments
1. Hazardous Waste Incineration and Other Thermal Treat-
ment Falls Within the RCRA Statute
The commenters' discussion of whether hazardous waste
incineratxon falls within the Section 1004(3) definition of
"disposal" is not to the point. The Agency is required by
Section 3004 to regulate "treatment" of hazardous wastes.
RCRA section 1004(34) defines treatment as follows:
(34) The term "treatment", when used in connection with
hazardous waste, means 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
waste non-hazardous, safer to transport, amenable
for recovery, amenable for storage, or reduced in
volume.
As a process designed to render hazardous waste non-
hazardous and reduced in volume, thermal treatment falls
squarely within this definition. This mandate also serves
the objectives of the statute defined by Congress in Section
1003(4) as, among other things, "regulating the treatment...
of hazardous wastes which have adverse affects on health and
the environment." The Administrator's authority in the
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.. .purisuant to such
operating methods, techniques, and practices as may
be satisfactory to the Administrator."
In addition, incineration of hazardous wastes was discussed
extensively in EPA's 1974 Report to Congress; Disposal of
- 20 -
-------
Hazardous Wastes, a document that strongly influenced Congres-
sional development of RCRA.
Some commenters suggested that the proposed regulations
should be replaced by, or were in conflict with, the Clean Air
Act. Congress, in Section 1006(b), required the Administrator
to integrate RCRA with the Clean Air Act, but "only to the
extent that it can be 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 statutes. Since thermal treatment of hazardous
waste poses dangers that go beyond the general concerns of
the Clean Air Act, it is appropriate to regulate such facili-
ties under RCRA. Also thermal treatment sites, will in many
cases receive and generate hazardous waste, and thus will
necessarily be brought within the RCRA framework of manifest
systems and recordkeeping. Such facilities will be receiving
manifested wastes, temporarily storing hazardous wastes, and
(usually) generating hazardous wastes in their ash and scrubber
effluents. Thus regulation of their operations under RCRA
has the added advantage of simplifying the regulatory frame-
work applicable to each facility.
The Clean Air Act controls air contaminant emissions
largely on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis, or on a pollutant-
- 21 -
-------
facility basis. Its regulations include area-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 regu-
lated (e.g., particulates from steam fired power plants, vinyl
chloride emissions from vinyl chloride production plants).
In contrast, a case-by-case, chemical by chemical, regulatory
approach is not practical for control of hazardous waste
thermal treatment. The 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 thermal
treatment of hazardous waste number in the tens of thousands.
Many of them could be acutely toxic or carcinogenic. The
procedures of the Clean Air Act are less effective and effi-
cient in such situations. RCRA has authority to control
emissions broadly through destruction and combustion perfor-
mance 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 will still require
NPDES permits. Finally, removal of hazardous waste ash
generated by an incinerator or other thermal treatment process
- 22 -
-------
to landfills or other sites will have to be in compliance
with RCRA regulations for hazardous waste generators. 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.
C. Thermal Treatment of PCB's is regulated under 40 CFR 761.40.
2. Performance Standards are the Best Approach
The Agency believes that performance standards are
desirable and, in fact, the proposed incinerator destruction
and combustion efficiency requirements and the halogen removal
requirements were types of perfomance standards. The use of
performance standards tends to encourage innovative techno-
logies and provides maximum cost-effectiveness and flexibility
to the owner or operator. Highly specific design requirements,
on the other hand, tend to freeze technology. The Aqency
does not agree, however, that RCRA regulations 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 type of
waste and thermal treatment employed. Some of these "good
management practices" have been included in these interim
status regulations. These general 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
- 23 -
-------
has led to an inevitable breach of a performance standard.
The Agency recognizes that these general operating requirements
may not be sufficient for the long term protection of human
health and the environment. The permanent status standards
to be issued in the coming months, will rely more heavily on
performance standards together with guidance to permitting
officials on design and operating requirements. This will
allow a great deal more flexibility in tailoring design and
operating requirements to waste, site, and process specific
factors. The Agency believes this flexibility is necessary
for the regulation of the performance of such widely diverse
and innovative hazardous waste thermal treatment processes
as molten salt processes, wet air oxidation, calcination,
microwave discharge pyrolysis, and incineration.
- 24 -
-------
Issue #2 Thermal Treatment Other Than Incineration
A. Synopsis of the Proposed Regulation
The proposed rules defined an incinerator as an engi-
neered device using controlled flame combustion to thermally
degrade hazardous waste (250.41(b)(44)). The proposed rules
for incineration required standards of performance which
focused on flame combustion device design, construction, and
operations. (§250.45-1).
B. Summary of Comments
1. Incineration operating and design standards would
restrict thermal treatment technology. The use of
new and innovative technologies and processes would
be discouraged by these standards.
2. The definition of an incinerator would restrict ther-
mal treatment to flame combustion. Other thermal
treatment systems which do not use flame combustion
may be adequate for the destruction of hazardous waste
Comments relative to each of the proposed operating and
design standards for incinerators are not discussed in this
background document since these standards are not proposed
for the interim status period.
C. Analysis of and Response to Comments and Rationale for
the Final Regulation
The Agency agrees that the proposed definition of in-
cineration excludes those thermal treatment systems which do
not use flame combustion. Incineration technology is fairly
well developed, and has been in existence for a number of
years. Thus, the Agency feels it is appropriate to designate
a specific section of these regulations for those requirements
which are specific to incinerators.
- 25 -
-------
The Agency also recognizes the existence of several other
alternative technologies which may be employed to thermally
treat hazardous wastes. These devices may use various mecha-
nisms which result in destruction efficiencies for hazardous
waste comparable to that accomplished by conventional flame
combustion incinerators. The Agency wants to encourage such
technology development and application.
The Agency agrees with comments pointing out that the
proposed incinerator regulations might have unintentionally
discouraged new and innovative technology. The Agency recog-
nizes that classical incineration utilizing controlled flame
combustion systems contained within various forms of refractory
chambers is the primary state-of-the-art today, but agrees
that new and innovative systems should be built and evaluated,
and have their performance compared to that of flame combus-
tion incinerators.
Several new thermal treatment processes are beginning to
emerge. For example, an EPA research and development program
exploring the performance characteristics of a microwave
discharge system for destruction of toxic compounds in gaseous,
liquid and solid forms is currently underway- Currently, the
system has been found successful, with some inherent limitations,
for the treatment of certain toxic organic compounds.
However, it is clear that such technologies are not as
well developed or understood as conventional flame combustion
systems.2 The Agency will continue to observe and monitor the
state-of-the-art of lesser developed thermal treatment pro-
- 26 -
-------
cesses. This concern ranges from an awareness of additional
areas needing study to an interest in any new, novel, or
unique emerging technologies.
The Agency did not propose any regulations specific to
this class of thermal treatment processes. Based on reported
damage incidents the comments received, and risk of harm to
human health and the environment, however, the Agency believes
that these minimal standards for thermal treatment processes
should be instituted during interim status.
D. Summary of the Interim Status Standards
Many of the interim status standards provided in these
regulations for thermal treatment processes are similar in
nature to those being required for incinerators. This is to
be expected, since incinerators represent a sub-class of
thermal processes. However, it is anticipated that there
will be some significant differences between the requirements
for incinerators versus other thermal treatment processes in
the phase II regulations.
As discussed under Issue #3, the interim status standards
require that thermal treatment processes achieve steady
state (normal) conditions of operation prior to introducing
hazardous waste. This good operating practice will avoid
the problems which can occur during periods, such as facility
start-up, when thermal treatment processes can be subject to
wide fluctuations in temperature or other operating conditions,
potentially resulting in the release of hazardous emissions.
A variance has been added to the steady state requirement to
- 27 -
-------
recognize that some acceptable thermal treatment processes
may operate in a batch-wise or non-continuous mode.
Requirements for waste analysis were contained in the
General Facility Standards section of the proposed regulations.
In response to the comments received as discussed under
Issue #4, the waste analysis requirements for thermal
treatment processes include only those parameters and consti-
tuents considered necessary to determine whether the waste
can be adequately thermally treated, and to allow the operator
to estimate the necessary thermal treatment conditions. This
is a one-time analysis conducted prior to thermal treatment
of a new waste. The General Waste Analysis section (264.13
and 265.13) requires that each shipment received must be
compared visually or by simple tests against a standard
sample of the waste to confirm that the waste received is
the same as that expected. A description of such testing
is to be included in the Waste Analysis Plan (which is discussed
in the Waste Analysis Background Document).
A minimum set of monitoring and inspection requirements
is also contained in these interim status standards as dis-
cussed under Issue #5. Minimum monitoring and inspection
requirements are provided for instruments relating to tempe-
rature, emission control and the stack plume (where applica-
ble) , the complete thermal treatment device, ancf associated
ancillary equipment.
A requirement that all residues be removed from thermal
treatment processes and/or equipment at closure is contained
- 28 -
-------
in these interim status standards. That requirement is
intended to prevent potential human health or environmental
damage associated with retention of hazardous residuals
after closure.
A ban on open burning of hazardous wastes was contained
in the General Facility Standards section of the proposed
regulations. Although not proposed as an interim status
standard, because of the need for owners and operators to
deal with the Regional Administrator, it is incorporated
into these thermal treatment interim status standards because
the potential public health hazards associated with the
practice dictate that it be ended now, as discussed under
Issue #7. Comments received on the proposed requirement
centered around the need to dispose of waste explosives in
the open. The Agency agrees that open burning and detonation
are presently the only alternative for disposal of most waste
explosives and, thus, the proposed variance meant for waste
explosives has been incorporated in a modified form.
Finally, a definition of "thermal treatment" has been
added to the final rules which more explicitly defines the
relationship between incinerators and other thermal treatment
devices.
- 29 -
-------
Issue: 13 Allowance of Variances During Startup Periods
A. Synopsis of the Proposed Regulations
The proposed regulations (Section 250.45-1) required
that incinerators operate at 1000°C with at least a two-second
residence time and at least 2 percent excess air (except for
halogenated aromatics, 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 efficiency were required whenever
burning hazardous wastes. These standards were not proposed
as requirements for the interim status period.
B. Summary of Comments
1. Define a one-hour start-up period after wastes are
introduced before destruction efficiency and combus-
tion efficiency requirements are applied.
2. Allowance should be made for excursions and opera-
tional variations during start-ups 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 start-up and shutdown times. Such an allowance would
open the door to the possibility of thermal treatment device
being allowed to spew out significant 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 thermal treatment device 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
- 30 -
-------
careful control, dangerous temperature and residence time
deviations can be eliminated when waste feed commences.^/4
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
thermal treatment. This regulation, as a side benefit, will
prevent unscrupulous owners or operators from gaining an
economic advantage over reputable facilities.
The Agency agrees that combustion condition variations,
with attendent deviations in destruction efficiencies and
increased emissions, are most likely to occur during start-up
periods. If the practice 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 combustion, operating, and per-
formance standards, it is reasonable and necessary to require
owners or operators of existing facilities to achieve steady-
state operating conditions within the thermal treatment process
before introducing any hazardous waste. Reputable firms
currently practice this safeguard, regardless of the design
capability of their unit.16
Batch thermal treatment processes are not dependent upon
the continuous flow of fuel to reach steady state conditions.
Wet air oxidation of hazardous waste, for example, occurs in a
reaction vessel, at relatively low temperatures but very
high pressure. The requirement that a thermal treatment
process introduce waste following the achievement of steady
- 31 -
-------
state conditions is therefore not required during Interim
Status of (batch) thermal treatment processes which require
a complete thermal cycle to treat a discrete quantity of
hazardous waste. The Agency will be reviewing the performance
of these processes and may require applicable control devices
in future regulations.
D. Summary of the Interim Status Regulations
As a result of comments received regarding combustion
efficiency deviations during start-up periods, the Agency
is requiring (Section 265.403) all thermal treatment devices
during the interim status period to achieve steady state con-
ditions including temperature using auxiliary fuel or other
means before adding hazardous waste, unless the process is a
non-continuous (batch) thermal treatment process which requires
a complete thermal cycle to treat a discrete quantity of
hazardous waste.
- 32 -
-------
Issue #4 Analysis of Wastes
A. Synopsis of the Proposed Regulation
In Section 250.43(g) of the proposed General Facility
Standards, the owner/operator of any facility, including an
incinerator, was required to obtain a detailed chemical and
physical analysis of each hazardous waste stream at least
annually. Also owners/operators were required (Section
250.43(h)) to sample each truckload of hazardous waste received
and analyze it for appearance, specific gravity, pH, and
vapor pressure.
In the incineration section (Section 250.45-1(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 principal hazardous components, (2)
ash and scrubber wastes for principal hazardous components,
and (3) exhaust gas for halides, CO, CO2/ 02, particulates
and principal hazardous components.
B. Comments Received
Most of the general comments received on these requirements
are addressed in the Background Document entitled "Waste Ana-
lysis" . Few comments related specifically to incinerators.
These comments, also appropriate for other thermal treatment,
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/
operators are to do with the information thus gathered.
- 33 -
-------
3. Site owners/operators should be able to rely on infor-
mation in manifests, rather than duplicating work
done by generators.
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 (thermal treatment process in this case) to
manage a given waste, the operator must know something about
the waste (compatibility, heating value, primary pollutants,
etc.) However, since the necessary properties varied by
facility type (e.g., 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 incinerator to remove the
halogen and destruct the principle hazardous components. 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 in-
formation obtained. The Agency has decided to require all
facility owners or operators to develop a waste analysis
plan which will detail the characteristics of a waste which
they 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 or opera-
tors are not equally knowledgeable, the Agency has decided
- 34 -
-------
to place minimum and more specific analytical requirements
within the facility regulation sections. This will guarantee
that, as a minimum, owners or operators will obtain at least
rudimentary information on a new hazardous waste which will
enable them to evaluate the capability of their equipment
and techniques to properly manage it.
For wastes to be thermally treated, the Agency will not
require trial burns during the interim status period. The
Agency has not fully developed its test protocol and the
trial burns are fully useful only in conjunction with the
permitting process. Nevertheless, reputable incinerator ope-
rators have found it necessary to know certain waste charac-
teristics prior to burning wastes which they have not pre-
viously burned.17,18 Based on such industry experience and
its own test burning the Agency will require thermal treatment
process operators to include the following information 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 the rate of auxiliary fuel feed.
Hydrogen chloride and sulfur dioxide are commonly recognized
air pollutants which result from combustion of wastes con-
taining chlorinated organic compounds and sulfur compounds.
Sulfur dioxide emissions are causative agents for an increa-
singly worrisome problem acid rain. Also, hydrogen halides,
particularly HCL and HF, can cause serious corrosion problems
in a thermal treatment system. This can lead to rapid
- 35 -
-------
deterioration of the structural and operating integrity of
the thermal treatment system.
Sampling is also required for certain heavy metals, which
are known to be hazardous, which are likely to be emitted and
for which 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
uncontrolled"incinerators as 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 relation-
ships between airborne lead and its effects on man.20'33
Lead enters the body principally through ingestion and inha-
lation 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 established ambient air quality standards for lead
at 43 FR 46246.
Mercury compounds vaporize readily when heated and are
emitted to the atmosphere during combustion from uncontrolled
incineration. Mercury has been found to cause or contribute
.»
to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irrever-
sible or incapacitating reversible illness. On March 31,
1971, the Administrator listed mercury as one of these hazar-
dous air pollutants for which he intended to establish emission
- 36 -
-------
standards.21 The publication entitled "Background Information
on Development of National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants; Asbestos, Beryllium and Mercury" describes
the health criteria for the EPA standards for mercury.
The Agency found that mercury compound, particularly methyl
mercury to be a hazardous air pollutant. Elemental mercury
has been shown to be carcinogenic while methyl mercury is
considered to be the most hazardous of mercury compounds.22
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 The Agency may add to or modi-
fy these minimum requirements for waste analysis as more infor-
mation is received relative to their adequacy. The permanent
status regulations (Phase II), to be promulgated later in
1980, will contain provisions to control emissions of these
pollutants. Until that time the Agency recommends that faci-
lities consider relevant regulations under the Clean Air Act
in determining emissions levels for mercury and lead.*
i
Most thermal treatment process operators find it useful
to obtain additional information such as viscosity and solids
content, but the Agency believes that certain types of faci-
* The Agency has prescribed emission limits for mercury under
40 CFR 61.52 for incinerators of waste water treatment
sludges and an ambient air quality standard for lead under
43 FR 46246. Owners and operators of incinerators and
other thermal treatment processes should not permit their
incinerator to emit concentrations of lead that would
result in an exceedance of the lead ambient air quality
standard.
- 37 -
-------
lities would not need this information to operate safely.
Therefore, while viscosity and solids content analyses are
not required for all thermal treatment processes, 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 throughout the interim status period. The Agency
believes that the additional cost of these analyses will be
limited, since facilities already need such information for
their own safety. On the other hand, the dangers associated
with not properly analyzing wastes prior to waste thermal
treatment are simply too high to be tolerated in the poten-
tially lengthy period prior to issuance of a permit.
Thus, the Agency disagrees with the first comment that
basic information which will allow an evaluation of thermal
treatment and pollutant potential can be "too expensive" or
unnecessary. The Agency has dropped the requirement for annual
analysis to reduce expense for possibly unnecessary analytical
work. Since the requirement is for a one time analysis, the
cost, using standard laboratory analytical procedures, would
usually be less than $500.24,25
The purpose of the second requirement, to perform some
simple analyses on each truckload, was to ensure that the
facility was actually receiving what the owner or operator
thought was being shipped, i.e., that the generator had not
made an error in the shipment or labeling. This requirement
- 38 -
-------
is now placed in §265.13(c), the General Waste Analysis
Section. This requirement was made necessary by the fact
that sources of waste shipments vary widely from shipment to
shipment and even with particular shipments, and that thermal
treatment process owners or operators cannot rely on information
provided by transporters and off-site waste generators. 17,18
Safe operation of the thermal treatment equipment requires a
final verification of the substance to be processed before
initiation of treatment. This is similar to the California
regulations previously discussed. The Agency does not,
therefore, agree with the third comment that the manifest
can be absolutely relied upon to be accurate. Also the
manifest will not necessarily include all information needed
for proper treatment of the waste.
The Agency agrees with the first comment, as it may
relate to this requirement, that some of the parameters for
which analysis was proposed would simply provide superfluous
information for some facilities. For example, knowing vapor
pressure might not be useful for wastes to be thermally
treated, since most wastes received may be quite volatile.
What is really needed is a "fingerprint" of each waste,
i.e., identification of waste properties which can be quickly
and easily tested for, at minimum expense, while the truck
is waiting to unload in order to ensure that the waste re-
ceived is the same as expected without major deviation.
Depending on the mix of wastes received, such tests might
include color, texture, solids content, viscosity, and pH,
- 39 -
-------
among others. Reputable existing facilities have found it
necessary to check each shipment to protect their equipment
and to ensure that they don't violate any existing permits.17
As a result, as part of the waste analysis plan, the Agency
is requiring during xnterim status that treatment process
owners or operators sample each shipment and analyze it
sufficiently to confirm that the waste received is the one
expected.
D. Summary of the Final Interim Status Regulation
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 combustion conditions and the potential for emissions.
(§265.375) At the minimum, this analysis must include heating
value, halogen and sulfur content, and the concentrations of
lead and mercury-
Each shipment received must be sampled and analyzed
sufficiently to conclude that no major deviation was made in
the shipment, i.e., that the waste actually received was the
one expected. This is required under regulations for Waste
Analysis.
- 40 -
-------
Issue #5 Instrument Monitoring and Facility Inspection
A. Synopsis of the Proposed Regulation
During both incinerator 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, fuel, and excess 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
rigorous.
3. Points of measurement are unclear.
4. NOX, SOX/ CO2 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, during the interim
status period to require specific monitoring equipment,
(such as the proposed continuous oxygen and carbon monoxide
instrumentation for incineration), for other thermal treat-
ment processes. The first commenter is correct: this equip-
ment is expensive and complex.26 The design of these
systems and their sampling locations will be the subject of
- 41 -
-------
Agency review during the permit process and, thus, it is
unwise to require their installation before that interaction
can take place. Also lead time on purchase of this equipment
can be lengthy. For similar reasons, the Agency does not
believe that NOX, SOX, and CC>2 measurements should be
required for thermal treatment during interim status.
At this time, however, it appears that some of the
benefits of monitoring and inspecting can be realized simply
by requiring that thermal treatment and emission control
monitoring equipment already in place be monitored on a
regular basis and that appropriate follow-up actions be taken.
This will ensure that, within the design limitations of the
existing equipment, the thermal treatment and emission control
conditions will not be allowed to wander unmonitored and
uncontrolled. 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 discussed 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 of the Agency.
EPA disagrees with the comment that a 15-minute inspec-
tion frequency for waste flow is unnecessarily rigorous.
The instruments (or other devices) which measure the thermal
- 42 -
-------
treatment conditions (e.g., temperature) should be monitored
and corrections made as often as possible, continuously and
automatically where possible. The relevant control points
on which the thermal treatment conditions depend in most
processes include waste feed rate and auxiliary energy supply
(e.g., fuel, microwave energy). Variations in any of these,
or in the heating value of either the waste or the auxiliary
energy supply, can quickly lead to poor conditions for waste
destruction and to emission of incompletely destroyed wastes.
Some incinerators already have some of these control loops
(temperature via auxiliary fuel flow, for example) operating
on a continuous basis.^ The Agency encourages such continuous
control but feels that those controls and, even more importantly
any manual control loops (where the operator makes the correc-
tion) , 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 engineering expertise and the specific knowledge
of thermal treatment operations gained in the 1975 and 1976
testing. In some cases, where thermal treatment conditions
are subject to rapid swings, arguments can be made that more
frequent (near continuous) monitoring and control are needed.
This is, however, a facility specific situation and depends
on instrument and process design parameters, such as the
effectiveness of the instrumentation and the response period
once control changes are made. Thus, it is more appropriately
treated during the permitting process. Therefore, in deve-
- 43 -
-------
loping the inspection schedule required in §265.15, more
frequent monitoring and control activities should be conducted
where appropriate (see the Inspection Background Document
for discussion of Inspection schedule development).
The 15-minute schedule is a minimum. The Agency believes
that control loops which affect thermal treatment conditions
should not 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. The Agency feels similarly about existing
control loops which might effect emissions or which could
result in spills if out of control. These could vary,
depending on the design of the equipment.
All of these inspections are to be part of the Inspection
Schedule called for in Section 265.15, and significant results
are to be recorded in accordance with the provisions of that
section. Additionally, stack emissions (if such emissions
exist) should be monitored hourly and the entire facility
inspected at least daily for leaks, spills, fugitive emissions,
odors, and smoke. All of these discharges 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,
- 44 -
-------
with incinerator and other thermal treatment process tests,
the Agency believes that inspections at these frequencies
will uncover 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 discus-
sion of the rationale for routine inspections, the reader is
referred to the Background Document on Inspections.
D. Final Interim Status Regulations (§265.377)
During interim status, operators are required to routinely
monitor and make appropriate corrections 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 inspections for malfunctions, spills,
etc., are being required during the interim status period.
Specifically, as part of the inspection schedule, operators
must monitor:
1. existing (in place) thermal treatment process and
emission control instruments and make appropriate
corrections, to maintain steady state conditions,
at least every 15 minutes,
2. stack plume/ if a stack plume exists, for normal
appearance (opacity and color) at least hourly,
3. the entire unit, daily, for leaks, spills, fugitive
emissions, odors, and all emergency shutdown controls
and system alarms to assure proper operation.
- 45 -
-------
Issue #6 Residue Management.
A. Synopsis of the Proposed Regulation
In the General Facility Standards (§250.43(e)) of the
proposed regulations, owners or operators of any facility were
required to consider hazardous residue generated by the treat-
ment of a hazardous waste as a hazardous waste. Owners or
operators were required to analyze all residue from treatment
to determine if it was hazardous (§250.45-6(1))
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 temporarily stored.
3. The California State leaching test should be used to
determine the leaching potential of ash from incinera-
tion of hazardous wastes.
C. Analysis of 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 haz-
ardous. This clarification is described in a comment in the
final regulations. Section 261.3(c) and (d) should also
address the concerns of the second commenter since leachate
discharged from the stored ash resulting from incineration
of a hazardous waste would also be a hazardous wa§te unless
either the leachate or the ash had been tested and found not
to be hazardous in accordance with §§261.20 and 260.22.
The Agency responded to these comments in this way
because of difficulties in regulating toxic waste. These
- 46 -
-------
problems are described below.
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 charac-
teristic 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 regula-
tion. 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, terategenic 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 superfically "treat"
a waste which is listed because 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
- 47 -
-------
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 require-
ments §261.3(c) and (d) that a solid waste is a hazardous
waste unless and until it does not possess the characteristics
of a hazardous waste or it is exempted from rules governing
listed hazardous waste (in accordance with the procedures
for petitioning the Agency to amend Part 261 to exclude a
waste produced at a particular facility (§260.20 and 260.22)).
Any solid waste generated from the treatment, storage or disposal
of a hazardous waste, including any sludge, spill residue, ash,
emission control dust or leachate is a hazardous waste
(§261.3(c)(2) unless the owner or operator shows by means of
the procedures for petitioning the agency for an exemption
(§260.20 and 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. As discussed above neither this
test nor EPA's Extraction Procedure promulgated under part
261 would not comprehensively demonstrate that ash would not
meet the criteria for being regulated as a hazardous waste.
The Agency's rationale for rejection of the California test
- 48 -
-------
is explained in the Background Document entitled "Toxicity
Characteristic."
To be consistent with the format and requirements of the
other facility specific requirements (landfills, surface
impoundments, etc.) and the closure and post-closure require-
ments (Subpart G), Section 265.351 has been reoriented to
specify what must be done with residues at closure. Section
265.114 of general Closure and Post-Closure requirements,
specifies that equipment must be decontaminated and Section
265.113(a) requires that remaining hazardous wastes must be
removed. Section 265.351 amplifies and further defines
these requirements for incinerators, specifying that remaining
hazardous 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 a thermal treatment
process must be managed as a hazardous waste unless the
owner or operator can demonstrate in accordance with §261.3(c)
and (d) that it is not.
- 49 -
-------
Issue #7: Open Burning
A. Synopsis of the Proposed Regulation
In Section 250.43(d) of the proposed General Facility
regulations, owners/operators were forbidden to open burn
hazardous wastes. A "note" (variance) procedure allowed open
burning if there were no technically or economically feasible
alternatives.
B. Comment Summary
1. The regulation is good, but no variances should be
allowed since a public health hazard or environmental
damage could ensue.
2. Open burning and open detonation should be allowed
for waste ordnance or explosive wastes since:
(a) there is no safe alternative,
(b) alternatives are unnecessarily expensive, and
(c) it has been done safely for years.
3. Open burning should be allowed for wastes which are
hazardous solely because of ignitability.
C. Analysis and Response to Comments and Rationale for the
Final Regulation
The ban on open burning resulted from a common-sense
analysis of the potential air emissions associated with simple
lighting of ignitable hazardous wastes. The variance (note)
was added chiefly to allow the disposal of waste explosives.
and propellants in the open. This has been the common prac-
tice for disposal of obsolete ordnance, with no kstown damage
incidents indicating adverse health or environmental effects
caused by emissions.
- 50 -
-------
The Agency's data base in this area is poor. Common
sense leads one to conclude, as the first commenters have,
that open burning of anything cannot be environmentally
sound and many of these explosive materials contain very
exotic chemicals, some of which are probably toxic. However,
the military's claim appears valid. It is very dangerous to
cut or dissassemble large propellants and explosive wastes
so that the waste is amenable to present thermal treatment
technology, and there are significant human and environmental
damage associated with alternatives. 27,28 Damage cases
are primarily associated with processing and handling steps
and not with the emissions from open burning or detonation
of waste explosives.28
The Agency is aware that the Department of Defense
(DOD). working to develop alternatives to open burning or
detonation, has designed and built several incinerators
and associated equipment to manage some of these ordnance
wastes in a controlled manner. It is the Agency's understanding
that equipment does not yet exist to safely disassemble all
ordnance, particularly bulk ordnance and missile propellants
and that the effectiveness of the new incinerators is not fully
proven. 27^28 Therefore, the Agency has decided to allow open
burning and detonation of waste explosives during the interim
status period, provided it is conducted at minimum separation
distances adapted from standards developed and published by
the Department of Defense. 29,30,31 These standards require
small amounts (up to 100 pounds) of explosives to be at a
- 51 -
-------
minimum of 204 meters (670 feet) from locations where there
may be persons in the open, and succeedingly greater distances
for greater explosive amounts. These limits were developed
by DOD as minimum safe distances for the protection of persons
j.n the open from fragmentation, flying debris, or the effects
of blast overpressure. Since DOD does not provide safe dis-
tances for protection from fragmentation for larger amounts
of explosive waste than 30,000 pounds, the Agency has limited
the amount of explosive waste that can be burned at any one
time to 30,000 pounds. The Agency is requiring that separation
distances be measured from the open burn area to the "property
of others" since the owners or operators cannot assume or
control the absence of persons beyond these limits.
The Agency will be monitoring the progress of the on-
going development of safe alternatives, and may propose
additional regulations at a later time.
One commenter suggested that wastes which are hazardous
solely because of their ignitability can be safely open burned,
since any emissions would not be hazardous. Open burning of
most material including ignitable waste can lead to clouds
of smolce and often to odors, neither of which are environmen-
tally tolerable. In addition, many wastes listed as hazardous
because of their ignitability may never have been subjected
i^
to further testing necessary to determine whether they
might release toxic constituents when burned or whether
they might be hazardous for reasons in addition to their
ignitability. For example even non-hazardous wastes, such
- 52 -
-------
as plastics, when burned, produce NOX/ SOX/ and CO, which
are common pollutants, and some may produce even more hazar-
dous compounds. Finally, to allow open burning of such
wastes would be inconsistent with the ban on open burning of
non-hazardous solid wastes recently promulgated by the
Agency.32 That regulation also makes the interim final
imposition of this rule appropriate for the interim status
period. Therefore, the Agency will not allow open burning
of ignitable wastes or any other hazardous waste except for
the open burning and detonation of explosives and bulk
propellants under proper conditions.
D. Final Interim Status Regulations
The proposed ban on open burning has been incorporated
into these interim status standards for thermal treatment.
Waste explosives and bulk propellants may be open burned or
detonated, however, at the specified minimum separation
distances from the property of others.
- 53 -
-------
IV. TEXT OF INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS
Subpart P - Thermal Treatment
§265.370 Applicability
The regulations in this Subpart apply to owners or opera-
tors of facilities that thermally treat hazardous waste in
devices other than incinerators, except as §265.1 provides
otherwise. Thermal treatment in incinerators is subject to
the requirements of Subpart O.
§265.371 [Reserved]
§265.372 [Reserved]
§265.373 General Operating Requirements[Interim Final]
Before adding hazardous waste, the owner or operator
must bring his thermal treatment process to steady state
(normal) conditions of operation—including steady state
operating temperature—using auxiliary fuel or other means,
unless the process is a non-continuous (batch) thermal treat-
ment process which requires a complete thermal cycle to treat
a discrete quantity of hazardous waste.
§265.374 [Reserved]
§265.375 Waste Analysis [Interim Final]
In addition to the waste analysis required by §265.13,
the owner or operator must sufficiently analyze any waste
which he has not previously treated in his thermal treatment
process to enable him to establish steady state (normal)
or other appropriate (for a non-continuous process) operating
conditions (including waste and auxiliary fuel feed), and to
- 54 -
-------
determine the type of pollutants which might be emitted. At
a minimum, the analysis must determine:
(a) Heating value of the waste in the waste; and
(b) Halogen content and sulfur content;
(c) Concentrations in the waste of lead and mercury,
unless the owner or operator has written, documented data
that show that the element is not present.
[Comment; As required by §265.73, the owner or operator
must place the results from each waste analysis, or the
documented information, in the operating record of the
facility. ]
§265.376 [Reserved]
1265.377 Monitoring and Inspections [Interim Final]
The owner or operator must conduct, as a minimum, the
following monitoring and inspections when thermally treating
hazardous waste:
(l) Existing instruments which relate to temperature
and emission control (if an emission control device is
present) must be monitored at least every 15 minutes.
Appropriate corrections to maintain steady state or
other appropriate thermal treatment conditions must be
made immediately either automatically or by the operator.
Instruments which relate to temperature and emission
control would normally include those measuring waste
feed, auxiliary fuel feed, treatment process temperature,
and relevant process flow and level controls.
- 55 -
-------
(2) The stack plume (emissions) where present, 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 any visible emissions to their normal appearance.
(3) The complete thermal treatment process and asso-
ciated equipment (pumps, valves, conveyors, pipes, etc.)
must be inspected for leaks, spills, and fugitive emis-
sions, and all energency shutdown controls and system
alarms must be checked to assure proper operation.
[§265.378 - 265.380 Reserved]
§265.381 Closure [Interim Final]
At closure, the owner/operator must remove all hazardous
waste and hazardous waste residues (including, but not limited
to, ash) from the thermal treatment process or equipment.
[Comment: At closure, as throughout the operating period
unless the owner or operator can demonstrate, in accordance
with §26l.3(c) or (d) of this Chapter, that any solid waste
removed from his thermal treatment process or equipment is
not a hazardous waste, the owner or operator becomes a hazar-
dous waste generator and must manage it in accordance with
all applicable requirements of Parts 262, 263, and 265 of
this Chapter,]
- 56 -
-------
265.382 Open burning; waste explosives [Interim Final]
Open burning of hazardous waste is prohibited except for
the open burning and detonation of waste explosives. Waste
explosives include waste which has the potential to detonate
and bulk military propellants which cannot safely be disposed
of through other modes of treatment. Detonation is an
explosion in which chemical transformation passes through
the material faster than the speed of sound (0.33 kilometers/
second at sea level). Owners or operators choosing to open
burn or detonate waste explosives must do so in accordance
with the following table and in a manner that does not threaten
human health or the environment.
Pounds Of Waste
Explosives Or
Propellants
0
101
1,001
10,001
100
1,000
10,000
30,000
Minimum Distance From
Open Burn/Detonation To
The Property Of Others
204 meters (670 feet)
380 meters (1250 feet)
530 meters (1730 feet)
690 meters (2260 feet)
[§§265.383 - 265.399 Reserved]
- 57 -
-------
REFERENCES
1. Destroying Chemical Wastes in Commercial Scale Incine-
ration, Phase II Fxnal Report, NTIS No. PB 278-816, 1978.
2. Ibid, p. 4.
3. Assessment of Hazardous Waste Practices in the Petroleum
Refining Industry, NTIS No. PB-259-097.
4. Determination of Incinerator Operating Conditions Neces-
sary for Safe Disposal of Pesticides, EPA-600-/2-75-041,
NTIS No. PB251-131/AS, p. 65.
5. Hegener, W- and J. Heidman, Connecticut DEP, to A. Giles,
Environmental Protection Specialist, USEPA, Personal
Communication, February 1975.
6. Kim, Y. J., USEPA Region V, to E. Grumpier, Environmental
Engineer, USEPA, Personal Communication, November 9, 1979.
7. Kaufman, H. B., Manager, Damage Assessment Program, USEPA
to J. P. Lehman, Director, Hazardous Waste Management
Division, USEPA, "Declaring Seymour Recycling Company Faci-
lity and Confines as an Imminent Hazard under 7003 of the
RCRA of 1976", April 15, 1978. Unpublished Memo.
8. Gallay, D., Chicago Dept. of Energy and Environmental
Protection, to E. Grumpier, Environmental Engineer, USEPA,
Personal Communication, December 6, 1979.
9. Fancy, C., N.Y. Dept. of Environmental Conservation, to
E. Grumpier, Environmental Engineer, USEPA, Personal
Communication, November 28, 1979.
10. 40 CFR 60, Subparts E and 0.
11. Polychlorinated Biphenyls, Criteria Modifications, CFR
761.40, Incineration, FR(44), 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.
14. Requirements for Management of Hazardous and Extremely
Hazardous Wastes, Article 6, Chapter 2, Division 4, Title
22, California Department of Health.
- 58 -
-------
REFERENCES (Continued)
15. Chapter 75 Solid Waste Management Rules and Regulations;
Authority PL 788 of 1968, (NO. 243) §6, (35 P.S. §6006)
[Pennsylvania].
16. Moon, D. K., Rollins Environmental Services, Inc. to D.
A. Oberacker, Senior Mechanical Engineer, USEPA; Personal
Communication, November 8, 1979.
17- Sernyake, R., Rollins Environmental Services, Inc. to D.
A. Oberaker, Senior Mechanical Engineer, USEPA7 Personal
Communication, November 8, 1979.
18. Trapp, J., City of Cincinnati to D. A. Oberaker, Senior
Mechanical Engineer, USEPA, Personal Communication,
November 9, 1979.
19. Standard Support and Environmental Impact Statement,
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Lead, Emissions,
MTR RPT No. 7525, September 1978.
20. Air Quality Criteria for Lead, PB - 280 411/OBE 1978.
21. Federal Register, Volume 36, No 62, March 31, 1971, 5931.
22. Background Information on Development of National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Asbestos, Beryl-
lium, and Mercury APTD-1563, p. 58.
23. 40 CFR 61.50, National Emission Standard for Mercury.
24. Trapp, J., City of Cincinnati, to D. A. Oberacker, Senior
Mechanical Engineer, USEPA, Personal Communication,
January 10, 1980.
25. Moon, D., Rollins Environmental Services, Inc., to E.
Grumpier, Environmental Engineer, USEPA, Personal Communi-
cation, January 10, 1980.
26. Smith, J., Teledyne Inc., to D. A. Oberaker, Senior Mechani-
cal Engineer, USEPA, Personal Communication, December 12, 1979.
27- Meeting Minutes, Department of Defense/EPA Meetings on
RCRA, A. W. Lindsey, Chief, Implementation Branch, HWMD,
USEPA to J. P. Lehman, USEPA, Director, Hazardous Waste
Management Division, Unpublished Memo, May 30, 1978.
- 59 -
-------
REFERENCES (Concluded)
28. Trip Report; Demonstration of Open Burning of Waste Ord-
nance, Naval Ordnance Station, Indian Head, Maryland, J.
Howard Beard III to Stephen A. Lingle, Hazardous and Indus-
trial Waste Division, USEPA, March 13, 1980.
29. Department of Defense, Contractors Safety Manual for
Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Dangerous
Materials, October 1968.
30. Department of Defense, DOD Ammunition and Explosives
Safety Standards, DOD 5154.45, January 1978.
31. Department of Defense, DOD Ammunition and Explosives Safety
Standards, DOD 5154.45, Interim Change 1, -August 29, 1979.
32. 40 CFR Part 257, Criteria for Classification of Solid
Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices 44 Fed. Reg.,
Vol. 179, September 13, 1979.
33. Federal Register, Volume 43, No. 194, October 5, 1978,
pages 46246 to 46277.
- 60 -
------- |