November 15, 2005

NOTE

SUBJECT: Summary of Nov. 15, 2005 Meeting w/ ACC Re Potential Revisions
to the Comparable Fuels Exclusion

FROM: Bob Holloway, OSW/EPA

TO: The Docket

On November 15, 2005, Shiva Garg, OSW, and I met with Bob Elam and
Leslie Hulse, American Chemistry Council (ACC), and several ACC members
to discuss potential revisions to the comparable fuels exclusion. See
attachment.

Under Option A (Correcting Nondetect Specs for Volatile Hydrocarbons and
Oxygenates), we discussed whether the nondetect level (e.g., 3300 mg/kg)
should be corrected to 10,000 Btu/lb. We also discussed the disparity in
nondetect levels for volatiles in the eight gasoline samples, as
presented in Appendix A of USEPA, "Final Technical Support Document for
HWC MACT Standards, Volume VI: Development of Comparable Fuels
Specifications," May 1998.

Under Option B (Removing MEK and IBA from the Spec), ACC explained that
these compounds are found at relatively high levels in many waste fuels
that could otherwise meet the comparable fuel exclusion, and that the
compounds are fuel additives that enhance combustion. We also discussed
that, although these compounds have relatively low toxicity, they are
relatively difficult to destroy according to EPA's thermal stability
index. These compounds are listed in Class 3 of eight classes of
incinerability, where compounds in Class 8 are the least difficult to
destroy. Finally, we discussed that the other three options would also
provide some regulatory relief for wastes containing these compounds,
and that it may be more appropriate to consider deleting these compounds
as a suboption to option C.

Under Option C (Conditional Alternate Demonstration of Eligibility for
Waste Fuels that Are Off-Spec for Hydrocarbons or Oxygenates), ACC
explained that allowing off-site burning at a nonaffiliated facility
would be reasonable because it is consistent with other RCRA exclusions
(e.g., characteristic sludges and by-products that are reclaimed) where
the hazard the waste may pose during storage and transportation to an
off-site facility is not addressed by the exclusion. We also discussed
whether the restriction on waste firing rate when a waste containing an
off-spec hydrocarbon or oxygenate at a concentration greater than 1% in
a burner that is not a RCRA-permitted combustor should be linked to the
heating value of the waste fuel. For example, if the heating value of
the waste fuel is below 10,000, should the firing rate be limited to 10%
rather than 30%?

There was no substantive discussion of Option D (Conditional Blending to
Meet the Spec for Hydrocarbons and Oxygenates).

**ATTACHMENT**

**COMPARABLE FUELS: REVISIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION**

[ACC Suggestions,]{.mark} 11-14-05

EPA/OSW is considering revisions to the comparable fuel exclusion at 40
CFR 261.38 as part of the Resource Conservation Challenge. These
revisions would allow certain candidate fuels containing hydrocarbons
and oxygenates to use an alternate demonstration of eligibility for the
existing exclusion. Any proposed alternate eligibility demonstration
would be in addition to the eligibility demonstration permitted under
the current exclusion. In other words, it is EPA's intent *not* to
change in any way the application of the provisions of 261.38 to wastes
that meet the specifications as now promulgated. EPA is considering the
following revisions:

-   Correcting and Revising Non-Detect Specification Levels in Table 1
    of the Current Rule for Volatile Hydrocarbons and Oxygenates Based
    on Gasoline Detection Limits Rather than Fuel Oil Detection Limits

-   Removing Two Specific Fuel Additive Oxygenates, Methyl Ethyl Ketone
    (MEK) and Isobutyl Alcohol (IBA), from the List of Constituents in
    Table 1

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Allowing for a Conditional Alternate Demonstration of Eligibility
    (Based on Efficiency of Combustion) for the Comparable Fuels
    Exclusion for Candidate Fuels that Exceed the Threshold Levels Only
    for Hydrocarbons and/or Oxygenates

-   Allowing Conditional Blending to Meet the Specification Levels for
    Hydrocarbons and Oxygenates

A.  **Correcting and Revising Non-Detect Specification Levels in Table 1
    of the Current Rule for Volatile Hydrocarbons and Oxygenates Based
    on Gasoline Detection Limits Rather than Fuel Oil Detection Limits**

> [Issue]{.underline}: Due to analytical limitations, non-detect
> specification limits for volatile compounds are unachievable in a
> large number of candidate fuels that would otherwise qualify for the
> comparable fuels exclusion.
>
> [Background]{.underline}:
>
> The non-detect specification limits for volatile compounds were based
> on fuel oil analyses. Because most candidate fuel matrices are more
> similar to gasoline than fuel oil (i.e., candidate fuels contain
> volatiles while fuel oils do not), the non-detect specification limits
> for volatiles should have been based on gasoline analyses.
>
> The non-detect specification limits for volatiles would increase to
> 3300 mg/kg at 10,000 Btu/lb, versus the current non-detect levels of
> approximately 30 mg/kg.
>
> Volatiles in gasoline generally have molecular weights up to a C~12~
> compound, or 170 g/mol.
>
> [Revision under Consideration]{.underline}:
>
> Establish non-detect specification limits for volatile hydrocarbons
> and oxygenates---compounds with molecular weights up to 170
> g/mol\--based on quantitation limits in gasoline rather than
> quantitation limits in fuel oil.
>
> Restrict revisions to hydrocarbons and oxygenates because other
> compounds (e.g., halogenated, sulfonated, nitrogenated) not expected
> to be in gasoline and higher detection limits would not be
> appropriate.

A.  **Removing Two Specific Fuel Additive Oxygenates, Methyl Ethyl
    Ketone (MEK) and Isobutyl Alcohol (IBA), from the List of
    Constituents in Table 1**

> [Rationale]{.underline}: [For additional discussion with EPA]{.mark}

B.  **Allowing for a Conditional Alternate Demonstration of Eligibility
    (Based on Efficiency of Combustion) for the Comparable Fuels
    Exclusion for Candidate Fuels that Exceed the Threshold Levels Only
    for Hydrocarbons and/or Oxygenates**

> [Rationale]{.underline}:
>
> Excluding candidate fuels that cannot meet the current specification
> levels only for hydrocarbons and/or oxygenates would not result in
> emissions greater than burning a candidate fuel that meets the
> existing specification if the combustion unit operates under good
> combustion practices (GCP) to ensure destruction of the hydrocarbon
> and/or oxygenated organics.
>
> Excluding candidate fuels that do not meet current specifications for
> halogenated, sulfonated, or nitrogenated organics would not be
> appropriate because benchmark fuels are not expected to contain these
> compounds. Thus, even with GCP, emissions (albeit trace emissions)
> would be higher than from burning benchmark fuels. In addition, these
> compounds contribute to other emissions of concern---acid gases, SOx,
> and NOx.
>
> [Conditions]{.underline}:

1.  [On-Site and Off-Site Burning]{.underline}

    a.  The candidate fuel may be burned [on-site or at an affiliated
        off-site facility]{.underline} subject to the following existing
        regulatory oversight and compliance requirements (see 40 CFR
        Part 261.38(C)):

        i.  Notices and requisite certifications to Regional or State
            RCRA and CAA Directors and to the public, specifically:

            1.  Name, address and RCRA ID number or the generator

            2.  Applicable RCRA waste codes

            3.  Name and address of the receiving combustion unit

            4.  Fulfillment of official certification and public notice
                requirements

        ii. Combustion requirements, including:

            1.  Information on the receiving combustion unit

            2.  Information on any allowable blending or treatment
                performed

            3.  Information on syngas generation

            4.  Compliance with the dilution prohibition

            5.  Development of waste analysis plans

            6.  Sampling and analysis

            7.  Compliance with the speculative accumulation test

            8.  Compliance with recordkeeping and record retention
                requirements; and

            9.  Certification by the burner

    b.  The candidate fuel may be burned [off-site at a non-affiliated
        facility]{.underline} subject to all of the compliance
        conditions that limit the existing exclusion described in (a)
        above plus the additional requirement of annual reporting to the
        Regional or State RCRA and CAA permitting authorities by the
        generator of actual fuel quantity shipped and by the combustor
        of actual fuel quantity received and combusted.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  [CO/HC Emissions]{.underline}. The burner using this alternate
    demonstration must install, calibrate, maintain, and continuously
    operate a Carbon Monoxide (CO) or Hydrocarbon (HC) Continuous
    Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS) in compliance with Performance
    Specifications 4B (CO and O~2~) or 8A (HC) in Appendix B of 40 CFR
    Part 60.

    a.  Conditionally excluded comparable fuel may not be burned if CO
        levels exceed 100 ppmv, dry basis and corrected to 7% O~2~, or
        if HC levels exceed 10 ppmv, dry basis and corrected to 7% O~2~.

    b.  The CO or HC limits must be interlocked with an automatic feed
        cutoff system for the conditionally excluded comparable fuel;

> EPA notes that the American Chemistry Council (ACC), which has
> provided significant technical information to support revision of the
> existing exclusion for comparable fuels, believes that alternative
> monitoring of CO/HC emissions and/or monitoring other process
> parameters (e.g., excess oxygen levels) is sufficient to ensure
> compliance with the 100ppmv/10ppmv CO/HC emissions requirements. EPA
> intends to solicit additional input on this issue as the regulatory
> development process proceeds.

2.  [Minimum Heating Value]{.underline}. Candidate fuel must have an
    as-fired heating value of 8,000 Btu/lb to ensure proper combustion;

3.  [Maximum Firing Rate for Certain Candidate Fuels Combusted in Units
    Not Subject to RCRA Part B]{.underline}. For candidate fuels
    combusted in units not subject to RCRA Part B Permitting Standards
    for Hazardous Waste Incinerators or Boilers and Industrial Furnaces,
    a maximum candidate fuel firing rate of 30% (on an as-fired, total
    heat input to the combustion unit basis) applies when:

    a.  The candidate fuel exceeds the threshold specification limits
        for hydrocarbons and/or oxygenates specified in the current
        comparable fuels exclusion, [and]{.underline}

    b.  The hydrocarbon or oxygenate constituent is present in the
        candidate fuel at a concentration greater than 1%.

**D. Allowing Conditional Blending to Meet the Specification for
Hydrocarbons and Oxygenates**

[Rationale]{.underline}:

Blending of candidate fuel that exceeds the threshold specification for
hydrocarbons and/or oxygenates with comparable fuel or fuel oil to meet
the specification would not increase the environmental loading because
the organics would be treated by combustion.

Special conditions are not needed to ensure good combustion practices
(GCP) because these organics would be present at the same levels as may
be found in benchmark fuels, and thus would be destroyed comparably.

Blending to meet the specification for halogenated, sulfonated, or
nitrogenated organics would not be appropriate because these organics
are not expected to be found in benchmark fuels. Their specification
level is nondetect at a minimum detection limit. It would not be
appropriate to meet the specification by blending a detected quantity of
these organics to a level below the minimum detection limit.

[Conditions:]{.underline}

> [On-site Blending.]{.underline} To facilitate regulatory oversight
> (e.g., to ensure that blending is used to meet the specification only
> for hydrocarbons and oxygenates), the original generator must perform
> the blending and claim the exclusion.

[App. VII Compounds Without a Specification]{.underline}. The comparable
fuel cannot be listed for an Appendix VII compound that is not a
hydrocarbon or oxygenate for which we do not have a specification
because there is no analytical method. Although there are no
specifications for such compounds, the compounds are likely to be in the
candidate fuel, but would not likely be found in benchmark fuels. EPA
would allow generators to determine and document that the applicable
Appendix VII constituent(s) of a candidate fuel, based on testing or
knowledge, are not expected to be present. Such a determination would be
consistent with the current requirements o