## V E S 000174.pd f

## WASTE ANALYSI S PLA N FO R TRAD E WASTE INCINERATIO N

## WASTE ANALYSI S PLA N OUTLINE PAG E 1. 0 INTRODUCTIO N 3 2. 0 SAMPLIN G METHODOLOG Y 4 2. 1 Material s 5 2. 2 Type s o

f Containmen

t 5 2.2. 1 Containers andTanks 5 3. 0 ANALYTICA L RATIONAL E 7 3. 1 Mandator

y Analyse s 7 3.2 Non-hazardou s Wast e Analyse s 9 3. 3 Supplementa

l Analyse s - 9 4. 0 PROFILIN G PROCEDURE S 1 3 4. 1 Procedura

l Requirements 1 3 4.1. 1 Informatio n Provide db y Generato

r 1 3 4.1. 2 Wast

e Managemen

t Decisio n 1 4 4.1. 3 Wast

e Re-evaluation - 1 5 4.1. 4 Exception s t

o the Foregoin

g Requirements 1 5 4.1. 5 Standar

dProfile s 1 7 4. 2 Decision Evaluatio n Logic fo r Profilin g Procedure s 1 7
5. 0 INCOMIN G WAST E SHIPMEN T PROCEDURE S 21 5. 1 Receiving Procedure s 22 5.1. 1 Exception s to Incomin g Wast e Analysi s Procedure s 2 3 5.2 Incomin

g Wast e Shipmen

t Decisio n Evaluatio n Logic 25 5.2. 1 Wast

e Identificatio n 2 5 5.2. 2 The Nee dFo r

Additiona l Analysi s 2 5 5.2. 3 A n Evaluatio n of

Whethe r aWast e i s Foun d to be i n Conformance o

r Non-corrforaiance 2 6 5.2. 4 A n Evaluatio n o

f Whethe r Waste s Foun dt

o b e i n Nonconformanc e ca

n b e Accepte do r wil l be Rejecte d26

WAP- 1 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4


# VE S 00017 5

## 6. 0 PROCES S OPERATION S PROCEDURE S 6. 1 Storage 6.1. 1 Wast

e i n Containers 6.1. 2 Wast

e i n Tank s 6.1. 3 Bul k

Solid s Storage 6. 2 Decanting 6. 3 Incineratio n 6.3. 1 Pre-treatmen

t Analyse s 6.3. 2 Treatmen

t Residue Evaluatio n 2 9 2 9 2 9 2 9 3 0 30 30 3 1 3 2
7. 0 QUALIT Y CONTRO L POLIC Y 3 4

ATTACHMENT S

APPENDI X WAP-A : APPENDI X WAP-B : APPENDI X WAP- C APPENDI X WAP- D
APPENDI X WAP-E : APPENDI X WAP-F : APPENDI X WAP-G : ANALYTICA LPROCEDURE S

AS H AN D DR Y SCRUBBE RSOLID S SAMPLIN G PROTOCO L WAST E ACCEPTABILIT Y CRITERI A DETERMINATIO N O FINCOMIN G WAST E CONFORMANCE/NON

CONFORMANC E CONTAINERIZE D WASTE : SPECIA L SAMPLIN G PROCEDUR E BIBLIOGRAPH Y O FSTANDAR D CHEMICA L REFERENC E MATERIAL S HM-18 1 COMPARABILIT Y CLASSE S

WAP- 2 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4


# VE S 00017 6

## WAST E ANALYSI S PLA N I n accordanc

e wit h th e regulator

y requirement

s se tforth i n 4

0 CF R264.1

3 and 3 5 IA C 724.113 , Chemica

l Wast e Management

, Inc. (CWM

) ha s develope

d this Wast

e Analysis Pla n a

s a n integral parto

f th e RCRA PartB PermitApphcation forit s Trad e Wast

e Incineration (TWI

) facilit y locate d i n Sauge

t(St . Clai rCounty) , Illinois . Th e procedures se

tfort h i n thi s pla n ensur

e tha tthi s facilit

y willb e i n complianc

e wit h al l requirement

s o f 4 0 CF R264.1

3 an d 3 5 IA C 724.113

. A cop y of

thi s plan wil l b e availabl e a tthe faciht

y a tal l times . 1. 0 INTRODUCTIO N The purpos e o f

thi s Wast

e Analysi s Pla n (WAP

) i s t o describe an ddocumen

t the necessar

y samplin g methodologies , analytica l technique s an

doverall procedure s usedt o determin e th e acceptabilit

y and managemen

t o f al l waste s which ente

r thi s facilit

y fo r treatmen t o r storage
. Thes e procedure s shall appl y t o al l hazardou s andnonhazardou s wastes (hereafte r referre dt

o as "waste" ) receivedby the facility , excep t sample s a s identifie danddefine di n 4 0 CF R261.4(d) , (e) , and(f)

. Specifically , th e pla n delineate s the following : Analytica l Parameters , Rational

e an dTechnique s to identif y wastes o

r determin e informatio n s

o tha t treatmen t an dstorage technique s ca

n b e utilized

. Samplin g Methodolog

y t o ensur e tha t adequat e andrepresentativ e sample s ar e taken

. Profilin g Procedure s t

o detennin

e th e acceptabilit

y of aparticula

r wast e strea mpursuan

t to facilit y permi t condition s andoperating capabilitie s prior t o acceptanc

e o f th e wast e a t th e facility

. Incomin g Wast e Shipmen

t Procedure s t

o identif y tha t th e delivere

dwast e conform s t o the accompanyin

g manifest , profil e documents , andth e conditions o f th e facilit

y permit

. Proces s Operation s Procedure s t o maintain saf e andappropriat

e method s o f storage , treatment , disposa l o r movemen

t of waste s withi n the facility

. Residue(s ) resultin g fro mon-sit e treatmen

t o f lan ddisposa

l restricte dwastes wil l b e evaluated , a

s needed, against

th e appropriat

e treatmen

t standar do r prohibition

. Qualit y Contro l Policy th

e facilit y laborator

y follow s t

o achiev e high qualit

y analytica

l results

. The form s show

n withi n thi s WAP ar

e typica l form s currently use db

y th e existin

g facility

. Thes e form s ma y require updatin g t

o equivalen

t o r alternat e form s base

dupon changes i n regulations , custome r needs , facility operations , o

r compan y policies

. TWI wil l provid e notificatio n to th

e IEPA-DLP C Permi t

Section a s require db y 3 5 IA C 703.280

.

WAP- 3 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4


# VE S 00017 7

## Fo r purpose s o

f implementation an

dperformanc e o

f thi s WAP , "TWI Laboratory " mean s th e TW I laborator y o r an y CW M laboratory , an

y CWM subsidiar

y laboratory , o

r any CWM designate

dcontract laboratory , i n addition , th e use o f TWI mean

s CW M o r WM X Technologies

. Th e Laboratory , Technical , Operations , Environmental , an dGenera l Manager

s o r their designee s hereinafter

ar e collectivel

y referre dt

o a s "Facilit y Management" , o

r individually referre dt

o a s the Laboratory , Technical , Operations , Environmental , o r Genera l Manager
. Al l waste s handledb

y thi s facilit

y wil l b e subjectedt

o thes e procedures

. Thi s i s t o hel p ensur e tha t thi s facility wil l be i n complianc e wit h applicabl

e permit s an

dregulations

. The compan

y strive s to maintain , a

t al l times , complet

e compliance wit

h th e hazardou s wast

e regulations

. Becaus e ne

w requirements , suc

h a s thos e promulgate

dunde r the lan ddisposa

l restrictions , ofte n becom e effectiv e prior

to the tim

e WAP revision s ca

n b e formally mad

e an dapprove

db y al l appropriat

e agencies , i t

i s impossible t o hav

e i n plac e a n approve dWA P meetin

g al l th e condition s o

f immediatel

y effectiv e regulator y requirements

. I n light o f thes e facts , the facilit

y wil l hav e i n place awritte n protocol specifying th e ne w requirement s such a s testin g andfrequenc y prio r t o receip t and/o r processin g of th e regulate dwaste
. The facilit y ma y als o periodically revis e the protocol to reflect scientifi c advances o

r additiona l regulator

y requirements

. I f

WA P revision s ar

e necessar

y because o

f ane w regulator

y rule , the

y wil l b e submitte dwithi n 6 0 days afte r

the effectiv e dat

e o f th e rule

. 2. 0 SAMPLIN G METHODOLOG Y Samplin g i s performe da

t th e facilit y t o identif y wast e shipments andb y the wast e generato

r to mak e the initia l wast

e determination a

t their location

. Specifi c samplin g procedure s ar

e dependen

t on bot h the nature ofth e materia

l an dth e typ e o f containment

. A full-dept h representativ e sampl

e wil l be obtainedfrom eac h containe

r andtan k truc k unles s th e physica l propertie s (Le. , heterogenou s debris , extremel y har dmaterial , o r hig h shea

r force ) preclud

e obtaining afull-dept

h representative sample

. Exception s t o obtainin g full-dept

h sample s ar

e note di n Sectio n 2. 1 andd o no t appl y t o froze n o

r chille dmaterial

. Thi s sectio n presents samplin g methodologies t o be utilize don-sit e by personne

l i n accordanc

e with 4 0 CF R264.13(c)(2

) and/o r 3 5 IA C 724.113(c)(2)

. Wast e generator

s are referre dt

o 4 0 CF R261 , Appendi x I and/o r Appendi x A o

f 3 5 IA C 72 1 fo r

samplin g procedures

. I n the cas e wher e the generato

r submits asampl

e fo r initia l profil e approval , TWI require s th e generato

r to certif y tha t the sampl

e submitte

di s representative

. The sampling equipmen

t an dprocedure s describedi n thi s WA P represen t the facility' s recommende d sampling protoco l fo r

genera l type s o f wast e materia l an dcontainment

. Al l methodologies wil l b e update dand revise da s th e reference s ar

e updatedandrevised

.

WAP- 4 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4

## 2. 1 Material s A t aminimum , 

## the methodologies utilize dfo r specifi c material s correspondt o thos e reference

di n 4 0 

## CF R261 , Appendix I and/o r 3 5 IA C 721 , Appendix A The sampling methods an dth e equipmen

t utilize dfo r thes e andan

y differen t

material s ar

e presentedi n Table 2-1 . Thi s table i s asimplifie dsummar y of dat a excerpte dfrom4 0 CF R261 , Appendix I and/o r 3 5 IA C 721 , Appendi x A

. Car e mus t be take n whe

n collectin g samples t

o ensur e tha t excessiv e los s of volatile organi

c compound

s doe s not occu r durin g sampl

e handling an

dstorage
. Sampl

e container s must

no t b e lef t opene dexcep t whe n preparin g fo r

th e additio n o

r remova l o f th e sample , andsampl

e jar s mus t

b e fille da s completel

y a s practicable

. Certai n wast

e material s wil l requir

e deviations fromth e thes e protocols

. Whe n deviation s ar

e necessar y to sampl

e material s which canno

t b e sample

dusin g th e recommende

dprotocol (fo

r example, debris , extremely har

dmaterials , o

r othe r high shea

r forc e materials) , th e facility wil l obtain arepresentative sample , base do n the circumstance s preventing avertica l section , knowledge o f

the waste , an

dth e containe

r siz e an d shape

. Fo r

example , debri s andlik e materia l wil l be sample

dwit h scissors , tongs , hamme r and/o r chise L Adhesive s o

r other highly elastic substance s wil l be sample dwit h ascoo

p or shove l an dscissor

s o r tongs
. Resin s andothe

r extremel y hardmaterial s wil l b

e sample dwit h ahamme

r an dachise

L (Se e Appendix WAP-E)

. 2. 2 Typ e o f

Containmen

t I n additio n to America

n Societ y fo r Testin g Material s (ASTM ) an dothe r EPA-approvedsampling procedures , TW I has institute dspecific methodologies fo r ensurin g tha

t sample s taken fromvariou s type s o f container s ar

e representative

. The typ e o f containe r ma y b e transportabl e such a s drums , portabl

e transpor

t unit s (e.g

. small tanks , rol l of f boxes) , an

dtanke r trucks ; o r stationar y (e.g. , tanks ) an

din-proces s sources . Th

e samplin g device s ar

e selected , dependin

g on th e size an dtype o f containmen

t andon th e specific materia l involve d Becaus e ther

e i s amuc h greate r tendenc y fo r heterogeneit

y i n avertical plan

e rather tha n ahorizontal , sampling wil l b e performe dt o addres s thi s concer

n (e.g. , full-dept

h vertical samples wil l b e taken whe n possible)

. Whe n sample s ar e collectedwhich consis

t o f multipl e phases , analysi s wil l b e conducte do n the sampl e a s awhole

. I n addition , acces s t o acontaine

r (Le. , drumbungs , tan

k truc k domes , andlarge tank s wit h samplin g ports ) wil l influenc e th e locatio n fromwhich samples ca

n be take n
2.2. 1 Container s an

dTanks Sampling o

f smal l containers (e.g. , drums , cartons , andothe r small units ) varie s with th e natur e o f the wast e material

. Fo r

flowable materials , th e samplin g device to b e use di s eithe r aColiwas aunit

o r tub e sample r t o draw aful l vertical axi s sampl e of the flowabl

e material (o

r othe r appropriat

e devic e a s liste di n Tabl e 2-1) . Fo r

nonflowable wastes , atub e sample r o r atrie r i s use dto obtain asampl e (o r othe r appropriat

e devic e a s liste di n Tabl e 2-1) . WAP - 5 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4

## Larg e containers andtanks fo r flowabl e material s an

dbul k containers fo r

soli dmaterial s ma

y b e eithe r stationar y or mobile

. Liquid s ar

e sample dwit h aColiwas ao

r tub e sample

r t o obtain avertica

l sectio n (o r othe r appropriat e devic e a s liste di n Table 2-1)

. Light , dr y powder s an dgranule s ar

e sample dwit h atub e sample

r t o obtai n avertica

l cor e (o r othe r appropriat

e devic e a s liste di n Table 2-1)

. Heavie r solids ar e sample db y trie r o r shovel , o r by coring with atub e sample r (o r othe r appropriat

e devic e a s liste di n Table 2-1)

. Stationar y tanks fo r blending o f

liquid s fo r

feeding the incinerato

r ar e sample dwit h abaco n bom b (o r othe r appropriat

e devic e a s liste di n Tabl e 2-1)

. I n addition , tanks ma y b e sample dfromtan

k samplin g port s o r tap s through tan k inlet s o r outlets

. TABL E 2- 1 SAMPLIN G METHOD S AND EQUIPMEN T MATERIA L METHO D EQUIPMENT 0



## Extremel y viscou s liqui d AST M D 140-70 a

## o r AST M E 300 a 

## Tub e sampler 15 

## , thief , o r Coliwas a Crushe do

r powdered AST M D 346-75 a

## o r AST M E 300 a 

## Tub e sampler d 

## , trier , scoop , o r shove l Soi l AST M D 420-69 a

## o r AST M E 300 a 

## Tub e sampler d 

## , trier , auger, scoop , o

r shove l Soil-lik e material AST M D 1452-65 * o r AST M E 300 a 

## Tub e sampler 3 

## , trier , auger , scoop , o r shove l Fl y ash-lik

e materia l AST M D 2234-76 " o r AST M E 300 a 

## Tub e sampler d 

## , trier , auger , scoop , o r shove l Containerize dliquid s SW-846 b

## o r AST M E 300 a 

## Coliwasa/tub e sampler

d 

## , weightedbottle , bomb , o r tank samplin g ports

America n Societ y fo r Testing Materials , 1982

. Annua l Boo k o f AST M Standards , Philadelphia , PA , o r most recen t edition

. 'Tes t Method s fo r

Evaluatin g SolidWaste , Physical/Chemica l Methods"

. SW-846 , Thir dEdition , Septembe r 1986 a s amende db y Updat

e I (July 1992) , U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Offic e o f Soli dWast

e (NTIS , 528

5 Por t Roya l Road , Springfield , V A 22161 ) o r mor e recen t edition o r revisio n (GPO , Supt

. o f

Documents , Washington , D C 20402)

. The specifi c equipmen

t i s dependen

t o n the typ e o

f container

. Se

e SW-846 fo r

specific examples

. See als o Sectio n 2.2

. Persona l Protectio n andSafet

y Trainin g Manua

l (Cmcinnati , Ohio : U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , National Trainin g andOperationa l Technolog

y Center , 1981 ) pp . 3- 1 and3-4 , o r current revision

. WAP- 6 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4


# VE S 00018 0

## 3. 0 ANALYTICA L RATIONAL E I n accordanc

e wit h 4 0 CF R264.13(b)(5 ) and/o r 3 5 IA C 724.113(b)(5) , apre-existing wast e characterizatio n i s suppliedto TW I b y th e wast e generato r o n the Wast

e Profil e Shee

t (WPS , Figur

e 4-1)

. The generato r supplie s TW I wit

h al l th e informatio n require dt o characterize , treat , stor e o r dispos e o f hi s waste , a s define di n 4

0 CF R264.13(a)(1 ) and/o

r 35 IA C 724.113(a)(1)

. [ref : 4 0 CF R264.13(a)(2

) commen t and/o r 3 5 IA C 724.113(a)(2

) BoardNote}

. Se

e Section 4. 1 fo r

adiscussio

n regarding the information anddat at o b e supplie dby th e generator
. Th e analyse s i f

necessary , ar

e providedb

y th e generato

r o r TWI' s laborator

y t o evaluat e th e pre-existing wast

e characterization s an

dt o compl y wit h facility acceptanc

e criteria

. Analytical methods ar

e classifie da

s Mandator

y Analyses , Blen dAnalyses , an dSupplementa

l Analyses

. Thi s arrangemen

t allow s atiere dapproac

h to wast e identification , enabling TW I t o structur e th e analyse s to adequatel y identif y the wast

e o r t o defin e operationa

l parameters fo r

variou s treatmen

t processes . A t amininiiiTin, al l incomin

g waste s ar

e subjectedt

o the Mandator

y Analyse s a

s a " first ste p i n the analytica l schem e (excep t a s notedi n Section 4.1.4)

. Supplementa l Analyse s ar

e performedas specifie di n Sectio n 3.3

. Th e Blen dAnalyse s ar e use dto determin

e th e liqui dblendcharacteristic s i n orde r t o maintain astead y stat e (normal ) operation o

f th e incinerato

r (se e Sectio n 6.3)

. Facility Managemen t wil l perfor

m additiona l analyse s to augmen

t the mandator

y screenin

g o r t o provid e operationa

l contro l a

s prescribe di n Sectio n 3.3 , Supplementa l Analyses

. Th

e parameter

s which constitut

e thes e categorie s ar

e describedbelow

. Th e method s to b

e utilize di n deteirnunin

g thes e parameter

s ar e identifie di n Appendix WAP- A (a s require d b y 4 0 CF R264.13(c)(1 ) and/o r 3 5 IA C 724.113(c)(1))

. Facilit y Managemen

t ma y waiv e specific Mandator

y o r Supplementa

l Analyse s i f

performing th

e analysi s presents asafet y hazardi n th

e laborator

y as specifie di n Sectio n 4.1.4

. A summar

y o f the analytica

l parameter

s withi n eac

h categor y andtheir

usag e i s providedherein

. Analyse s ar e no t

repeatedfo r

sequentia l activitie s o

r movemen

t o f th e sam e wast e withi n the facility unles s require db y change s i n the waste' s character

. Se e Section 6. 0 fo r

acomplet

e description of

parameters performe di n conjunction wit h proces s operations

. Th

e result s o f

al l test s andinspection s describedbelo w wil l be maintaine da

t the facilit

y a s par t o f it s operatin

g recor dfo r aminimu mof thre e years after

th e testin g has been performed

. 3. 1 Mandator

y Analyse

s Mandator y Analyse s ar

e basi c fingerprinting procedure s (ke y parameters ) whic

h ar e usedt o identif y awast e an dto ensur

e tha t the appropriat

e wast e managemen

t technique ca

n b e utilize dI n addition , the y ai d i n liqui dblendin g decisions andt o determin

e the prope

r soli dwast

e fee dsequenc

e prior to incineratio n Mandator y Analyses : Provid e the informatio n concernin g th e wast e which i s pertinen

t to the saf

e storage , processing and incineratio n o

f th e waste ;

WAP- 7 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4

## Provide Facility Managemen t wit h dat awhic h ca n b e usedt o evaluat e the consistenc

y of informatio n providedb y the generator
. Incomin g Mandator

y Analyse s ar

e performedo

n th e incomin g wast e shipmen

t samples i n orde

r t o mak e the final decision o

f whethe r o r no t th e facilit y ca n manag e aparticula

r wast e strea mshipmen

t (excep t as note d i n Section 4.1.4

) an ddetermin

e i f th e wast e shipmen

t conform s t o the identit

y o f the wast e a s identifie do n th e wast e shipmen

t manifest , andt

o th e profil e information

. When necessar

y fo r profil e purposes , selec

t Mandator y Analyse s ma

y als o b e performe

do n agenerato

r suppliedsampl

e i f th e generato

r suppliedinformation i s no t sufficien t (Se e Section 4.1.1)

. I f

a n incoming wast

e conform s to the informatio n provide di n th e profile , the

n the informatio n gatheredca n b e use dt o safel y manag e th e waste
. I n accordanc

e wit h 4 0 CF R264.13(c)(1 ) and/o

r 3 5 IA C 724.113(c)(1) , th

e parameter

s andassociate

d rationale fo r

the Mandator

y Analyse s ar

e a s follows : 1

. Physical Description (appearance ) i s usedto determin

e th e genera

l physica l propertie s ofth e wast

e (color , physica l state , layering , turbidity , viscosity)

. Thi s facilitate s visua l compariso n o f the sample

dwast e wit h prior wast e description s o

r samples

. 2

. Heatin g Value (BTU) i s use dt o establish th

e prope r blendcharacteristics , evaluat e it s suitabilit

y fo r incineration an

ddevelo p appropriat

e packagin

g requirements

. Ther

e ar e n o minimii mo r Tna-rimn macceptanc

e Emits fo r

incomin g wast e shipment

s base d on heating value

. Heating valu e o f aparticula

r blendi s controlledb

y the incinerato

r fee dblend(se

e Section 6.3)

. Thi s testing doe s no t appl y to liqui ddecan

t drum s which wil l be blende

dprior t o incineration

. 3

. Chlorine Conten

t (Cl ) i s usedt o establish th

e prope r blen dcharacteristics , appropriat e containe r packagin g requirements and/o

r evaluat e potentia l impact s on the incinerato

r and/o r pollution control equipment

. Thi s testin g doe s not appl y to liqui ddecan

t drums whic h wil l b

e blende dprior t o incineratio n 4

. Radioactivit

y Screenin

g i s performedto detec

t radioactive material s abov e backgroun

d level s (greate

r tha n 0. 5 millirad s pe

r hour ) andt o ensur e tha t mixedwaste , a

s define d i n the TWI Part

B RCR A Permi t

i s no t accepte db y the facility

. 5

. Flammabilit

v Potentia l Screenin g i s usedt o indicat e th e fire-producing potentia l o f th e waste
. Thi s testin g ca

n b e applie dt o al l wastes , liquids , semi-solids o r solids

. Al l mcomin

g liqui d materia l indicating apositiv

e flammability potentia

l wil l b e storeda

s Clas s I flammable liquids , unles s close

dcu p flash poin

t i s performedshowin

g aflas h poin

t o f greate r tha n 100°F

. 6
. Wate

r Mi x Screenin

g i s use dt o determin

e whethe r th e wast e ha s apotentia

l to vigorousl

y reac t whe n mixe dwit h water, t

o formgase

s o r othe r products , o

r whethe r i t generate s significan t heat

. Thi s testing doe

s not appl y t o waste s tha

t ar e alread y i n contac

t wit h exces s water
. WAP- 8 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4

## 7
. Gvanide s Screening indicate s whethe r the wast e has the potentia

l to produce hydroge

n cyanid e upo n addiflcatio n belo

w p H 2.0

. I t

i s not require di f

th e p H o f the wast e i s les s tha

n o r equa l to 2.0

. 8

. Oxidize

r Screening i s use

dt o indicat e the absence o

r presence of

strong oxidizing materia

L 9
. p H Screening i s undertake n t o indicat e th e p H and , i n general , the corrosiv e natur e o f the waste
. Ful l rang

e pape r i s use dfo r the initia l screening of

wastes
. Wast

e accepte db y the facilit y wil L generally , b

e i n th e range o f 2. 0 t o 12. 5 p H units

. Liqui dwast e outsid e o f thi s range ma y b e analyze dfor alkalinity/acidity

. Base don th e result s or

th e chemica l composition , the appropriat

e proces s cod

e i s specified

. I f

the materia

l exhibits corrosiv

e propertie s a

s identifie di n technica

l literatur e vs . tan k far mmateria

l of construction , corrosion testin g ma y be performe dt

o allow fo r storage , o

r i t wil l b e accepte

da s specialt y fee dmateria

l an dinjecte d directly int

o th e incinerato

r withou t blending

. 10

. Pain t

Filte r Tes t i s usedt o determin

e whethe r fre e liquid s ar

e presen t i n awaste
. I t

i s no t performe don fre e flowing materials

. 11

. Sulfid e Screenin

g indicate s whethe

r the wast e has the potentia

l to produce hydroge

n sulfid e upon acidificatio n belo

w p H 2.0

. It

i s not require di f

th e p H of th e wast e i s les s tha

n o r equa l t o 2.0

. 3. 2 Non-hazardou

s Wast e Analyse

s Non-hazardou s waste s wil l b e sample da s describedi n Sectio n 5. 1 andteste dfo r physica l description , radioactivit

y screening , fiammability potentia l screening , wate

r mi x screening , andp H screenin g (i f liquid)

. Non-hazardou s soli dwaste s wil l b e sample dandanalyzed , a

s describedabove , fo r

hea t conten t an dchlorin e content
. Non-hazardou s liqui dwast e stream s wil l b e sampledandanalyzed , a s describe

dabove , fo r compatibilit

y testin g prio r

t o managemen

t i n bul k storage tanks

. I f

an y o f thes e screen s ar

e positive the material wil l b e considereddiscrepan t an dal l mandator

y analyse s complete

d(se e Mandator

y Analysis , Sectio n 3.1)

. 3. 3 Supplementa

l Analyse

s Supplementa

l Analyse s ar

e performedt

o furthe r identif y waste s andwil l b

e performe dwhe

n needed a s directe db y Facility Managemen t o r a s specifiedi n th

e followin g rationale

. Supplementa

l Analyse s ar

e conducte

dwhe n th e Mandator

y Analyse s indicat

e tha t further informatio n i s neededt

o confir mthe wast

e o r t o properl

y stor e and/o r proces s th

e waste
. Th

e analyse s ar

e performe da

s directe db y Facility Management
. Th e results o f

thes e analyse s provid

e Facilit y Managemen

t with anothe

r leve l o f confidenc e concerning the prope r mean s o f storag e and/o r processing

. Som e o f thes e additiona

l analyses utiliz e unique procedure s andprotocol s formulate db y TWL whic h have been foun dt o b

e preferable fo r

wast e identificatio n Thes e analyse s wil l mee t CW M performanc e standards

. Other s ar

e standar danalytica

l technique s recognizedby th e U.S

. EP A an

dASTM

. Th e parameters WAP- 9 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4

## whic h constitut

e the Supplementa

l Analyse s ar

e identifie dbelow , the methods to b e utilize di n determining thes e parameter s ar

e i n Appendix WAP- A 1

. Containerize dStorag e Compatibilit y i s usedt

o ensur e prope r compatibilit

y withi n containerized storag e buildings

. Thi s testin g applie s onl y t o containerize dwaste s which d o not pas s th e pain t filter test
. Th e testin g progra

mwil l no t appl y to small quantit

y package dchemicals , materia

l repackage

d o r solidified , o

r othe r materia l exempte dunde r 4.1. 4 and5.1.1

. I n th e even t tha t acompatibilit

y i s performe do

n material s which ar

e indicateda

s incompatible pe

r DO T HM181 , th

e compatibilit

y tes t wil l tak e precedence ove

r the DO T hazar

dclas s grouping

. 2

. Tank

FarmCompatibilit

y wil l b e assesse db y performin g aliqui dwast e compatibilit

y o n the liqui d wast e receivedfo r

bul k storag e wit h acomposit

e o f the tank s andstorag

e containe r withi n the containmen

t syste mt o which the ne

w wast e wil l b e adde dContainmen t are amaste

r composit e wil l b e mad e u p onc e per week

. The incomin

g materia l wil l b e checke

dagainst thi s maste

r composite

. 3

. Ga s Chromatograph y Sca n i s use dt o separat e an didentif

y certai n organi

c compounds

. 4

. Metal s (e.g.

. As

. Be
. C dCr

. Ni.KNa.T L Pb

. Hg
. Se ) identifie s heav

y metal s concentration s i n waste s to determin

e regulator

y statu s o f the waste
. Inorganic mercur y wast e a s specifiedi n 3 5 IA C 728

. Tabl e D , mercur

y high subcategor

y streams wil l b

e analyzedt

o ensur e the mercur

y concentration i s les s than the LD Rregulator y limit

. 5

. Close dCu

p Flas h Point

identifie s ignitable liqui dwaste s fo r storage purposes . Thi s tes t wil l be performe dwhe

n th e generato

r ha s no t providedanalytica

l datawit h the WPS

. Thi s tes t

wil l als o be performe dt

o resolv e non-conformanc

e issue s when ; a ) A n incoming wast

e indicate s apositive flanunability potential ; and b ) Profil e information indicate s tha t the materia

l shouldno

t exhibi t aflammabuit

y potential ; and c ) The discrepanc

y canno t b e resolvedthroug h discussion s wit h the generator
. 6
. Acidity/Alkalinity ma y be performedo

n liqui dinorganic wast

e which exhibit s ap H greate r tha t 12. 5 o r les s than 2. 0 t o evaluat

e th e processabilit

y of thes e wastes
. 7
. Apparent

Viscosit y i s a n indicato

r o f on e o f the fee dcharacteristic s t o the incinerator

. I t

i s determine ddurin g profilin g on liquid s whe n the Physical Descriptio n indicate s the wast e i s viscou s o

r whe n analytica

l dat ai s not

providedb

y the generato

r o n th e WPS

. 8

. Confinement

Tes t i s use dt o measur e the magnitud

e andrat e o

f hea t generatio n from amateria

l subjecte dt o aprogramme dtemperatur

e increas e unde

r confinedconditions

. Thi s tes t wil l be use d as a n indicator

o f the waste' s explosio

n potential Fo r

material s fo r

which the Facilit

y Managemen

t lacks explosivit

y information , eithe

r a s providedb

y th e generator, throug

h the facility' s previou s experience s wit

h the material , o

r i n arevie

w of standar dreferenc e material s ( abibliograph y of standardreference s availabl e t o the sit e i s include da

s Appendi x WAP-F ) andFacilit y Management' s

WAP-1 0 E E VISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4


# VE S 00018 4

## evaluation of th e chemica l structur e o f the compoun

dfail s t o preclud

e a n explosio n potentia l fo r the material , th e suspec

t materia l wil l b e subjecte dt o aConfinemen

t Test
. 9
. Liqui dWast

e Compatibilit

y i s use dt o determin

e i f wast e stream s ca

n b e blendedwithou

t causin g a releas e t o th e environment

. Thi s tes t wil l b e performe do

n al l liqui dwaste s receivedfo r bul k storage , decan t t o bul k storage , o r blendin g prior t o incineratio n wit

h al l tank s withi n th

e containmen

t syste m to which th e ne

w wast e wil l b e adde d 10

. PCB s ar

e ru n t o indicat e whethe r PCB s ar e presen t i n waste s an dt

o ascertai n thei r concentratio n PC B analysi s wil l be provide dby the generato

r o r analysi s wil l b

e performedprio r

t o profil e decisio

n approval

. Incomin

g wast e shipment

s wil l b e subjectedt

o PC B testin g base

do n th e criteri adefine d i n CWM' s PC B Suspec

t Analysi s Policy

. Material s containing PCB s abov e 5 0 pp mwil l no t b e accepte dOrganic extraction s wil l no t be performedo n oxidizing waste s because ofth e safet y hazar d involve d 11

. Chlorophenox

y Herbicide s b

v HPL C i s usedt

o detennine th e presenc

e o f dioxin suspec

t compound

s Silve x and2,4,5-T (se

e Appendi

x WAP-C ) a

t aleve l of

0.01 % o r greate r subjec t t o detection level/matri x interference

. Suspec t wast e stream s ar e identifie db y the TW I Dioxi n Suspec t Analysi s Policy

. 12

. Pheno l Screening i s usedt o determin

e the presence o f

dioxin suspec

t compound

s pentachloropheno

l (se e Appendix WAP-C ) a

t level s greate

r tha n 0.01 % o

r greater , subjec

t t o detection level/matrix interference

. Suspec

t wast e stream s ar e identifie db y the TW I Dioxi n Suspec t Analysi s Policy

. 13

. As h Conten

t i s usedt o determin

e the percen

t as h i n wast

e feed s t o the secondar

y combustio

n chamber

. Thi s tes t

i s performedo

n liqui dblends fo r

injectio n i n the SC C burners

. 14

. Fluorin e Conten

t i s use dt o determin

e th e percen t fluorin e i n wast

e feed s to the secondar

y combustio

n chamber

. Thi s tes t

i s performedo

n liqui dblends fo r

injectio n i n the SC C burners

. 15

. Bromin e Conten

t i s usedto determin

e the percen

t bromin e i n wast e feed s t o th e secondar

y combustion chamber

. Thi s tes t i s performedo

n liqui dblend s fo r

injectio n i n th e SC C burners

. 16

. Specifi c Gravitv/Densit y indicate s the densit

y o f the waste
. Thi s informatio n i s use dt o assur e tha t th e specifi c gravit

y of bul k liquid s i s les s tha

n the design specifi c gravit y fo r th e storag

e tank s (1.5)

.

Othe r parameter s no

t liste dher e ma y b e adde da s require db

y changes i n regulations , compan y policy , etc
. See Figure 3. 1 fo r

asummar

y o f analytica l requirements

.

WAP-1 1 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4


# VE S 00018 5

## FIGURE 3- 1 SUMMAR

Y O F ANALYSI S INCOMIN G PARAMETE RPROFIL E WAST E 3p^ysjc^lEhewsF%^o » r 

## \ '' ; __ ; x_-, % p H Screen X X Cyanide%*ee»^l > * 1 

## ^ \ - : - ?; \ OxidizerScreen X J ^iijac^^iciNemv , , , , X - ^ '; \ i-> % Flammabilit

y Potential Scree

n X Sffefegt^$eKef^$ > "- , ]. \& PaintFilte rTes

tX 

# m^mvmwm.y:[

'•• ' - /

. - - • -*-.

\ w Chlorin e Conten

tX(4 ) 

# MiCmtmk. - . - 'S# | Specifi c Gravit

y S(6 ) 

# fob s m , .. x - & G C Sca n (3

) S gfeife 1 

## T , '.'"v ; \t 

## - % ,- , • ' * Acidity/Alkalinit

y S Liqui d Wast

e Compatibilit

y S Pentachlorophenol Screening (3 ) S <Mo*Q|&e.w ^ * , ' " ' ' # Mercur y S 

# iFtom&m. /:

. „ t ^ ^ 1 

# ' ^ Bromine S 5$Btals , ' - - j>

## "I c^-i'' / , 8 Confinemen

tTes tS
X = Mandator

y Analysis (1 ) Doe s no tappl y t o wast e wit h p H < o r= 2 S = Supplementa

l Analysis (2 ) Doe s no tappl y t o wast e alread y i n contac twit h exces s water . (3 ) Notperformed o n oxidizin g waste . (4) Notperformed o n liqui d decan tdrums . (5 ) Liquid s only . (6 ) Bul k liquid s only .

WAP-1 2 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4

## 4. 0 PROFILIN G PROCEDURE S TW I has develope

daserie s o

f control procedure s t

o determin

e th e acceptabilit

y o f specifi c waste s fo r managemen

t a t th e facility

. Th

e profilin g procedur

e dictate s wha

t informatio n apotentia

l custome r must provid e t o enable TW I t

o carr y ou t it s responsibilit

y t o obtai n informatio n necessar y t o manag e th e waste
. I n accordance wit h 4

0 CF R264.13(b)(5 ) and/o r 3 5 Dl

. Adm

. Cod

e 724.113(b)(5 ) thi s facilit y requires , a

t a minimum , 

## th e generato

r t o suppl y al l th e mformation require db

y 4 0 CF R264.13(a)(1 ) and/o

r 3 5 D LAdm

. Cod

e 724.113(a)(1 ) (se

e Section 4. 1 fo r

adiscussio

n regardin g th e informatio n anddat at o b e suppliedb y the generator ) necessar

y t o characterize , treat , stor

e o r dispose o f

eac h wast e stream
. Profilin g i s th e mechanis

mfo r decidin g to rejec t

o r accep t aparticula

r typ e o f waste-prio r

to it s acceptance a

t th e facility-base don th

e condition s necessar

y t o maintai n incinerato

r operation s a

t a(normal

) stead y state , th e limitation s of

existing permits , andit s compatibilit y with othe

r waste s being treated , store d o r disposeda

t th e facility

. Prio r t o acceptin

g awast e a t the TWI facilit

y fo r treatment , storage o

r disposal , adeterminatio n ha s previously been mad

e b y the generato

r (an dreviewedb y TWI

) tha t th e wast e i s either : o acharacteristic wast e a s denne di n subpar

t C of 4 0 CF R26 1 and/o

r subpar t C , 3 5 R LAdm

. Cod e 721 , o aliste dhazardou s wast e a s denne di n subpar

t D of 4 0 CF R26 1 and/o

r subpar t B , 3 5 R L Adm

. Cod e 721 , o asoli dwast

e whic h i s no t ahazardou s wast

e a s define di n 4

0 CFR261.4(b

) and/o r 3 5 D L Adm

. Cod e 721.104(b)

. Th e generator' s suppliedcharacterization (Wast e Profil e Shee

t (WPS) , Figur

e 4- 1 i n Sectio n 4.1 ) provide s TW I with informatio n concernin g the distributio n o

f wast e component

s a s wel l a s th e nature of

th e wast e components
. 4. 1 Procedural Requirement s Fo r eac h ne w wast e strea mtha t i s acandidat

e fo r deliver y t o th e facility , excep

t fo r thos e specia

l material s note dbelow i n Section 4.1.4 , th e following procedure s ar e implemente d
4.1. 1 Informatio n Provide db y Generato

r Th e generato

r wil l provid

e TW I with : (1 ) chemica

l an dphysica l dat arequeste don the Wast

e Profil e Shee

t (WPS) , typica

l for mshow

n a s Figure 4-1

. Thi s informatio n wil l be base do n th e following : o Analytica

l Data ; the generato

r mus t provid e an y availabl e analytica

l datato suppor

t the information providedon the WPS

. A t aminimum , th

e generato

r mus t provid e th e following ; Flas h Point

(liquid s only

) WAP-1 3 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4



# VE S 00018 7

## PC B Apparen t Viscosit y (liquid s only

) p H Radioactivit

y Scree n Wher e th e generato

r doe s no t provid e analytica

l data , fo r the abov e items , th

e data wil l b e develope db y TWI prior

t o wast e profil e approva

l o Fo r

wast e cod e information , existin g o

r publisheddat

ao n th e wast e o r o n wast e generate dfro msimila r

## processes ; o Proces s an

dingredien

t information

. (2 ) arepresentativ

e sample ; i f

require d(arepresentativ e sampl e ma y no t b e require dby TW I i f Facilit y Managemen

t determine s tha

t th e profil e documentatio

n supplie db y the generato

r gives sufficien

t information t

o maintai n complianc

e wit h permi t an doperationa

l constraint s andtha t submitta l of asampl e woul dnot ai di n the disposa

l decisio n process . Als o se

e Section s 4.1.4 an

d4.1.5)

. Non-hazardou s wast e profile s fo r

whic h the generato

r ha s providedanalytica

l dat at o suppor t thi s determination wil l no t requir e asample

. (3 ) Certificatio n tha

t the representative sampl

e whe n require dfo r

approva l (se e above ) ha s bee n obtaine dusin g procedure s identifie di n 4 0 CF R261 , Appendi

x I and/o r 3 5 Dl

. Adm

. Cod

e 721 , Appendi

x A o r equivalen t methods

. (4 ) Lan dDisposa

l Restriction (LDR

) Notification/Certificatio n Information and/o r Dat a(4 0 CF R Part 268) : (5) Material Safet

y DataSheets , wher

e available ; (6 ) While not

specificall

y require dgenerator

s ar e encourage

dt o provid e othe r supporting documentation, including additiona l analytica

l results , produc

t ingredients , et c which wil l assist i n th e approva l process . CW M mamtains a

s par t of it s profilin g informatio n generator-supplie dan dCWM-develope

d informatio n Thi s information ma y b e accesse delectronicall

y o r vi ahardcopy . 4.1. 2 Wast

e Managemen

t Decisio n Afte r evaluatin g th e dat asupplie dby the generator, Facilit y Managemen

t wil l determin

e the acceptabilit

y o f the wast e base don : (1 ) permi

t conditions ; (2

) the availabilit

y of prope r wast e managemen

t technique s an doperationa l conditions necessar

y to maintain astead

y stat e (normal ) operation o f

the incinerator ; an d(3) storag e an dcompatibilit

y concerns . Se

e Section 4. 2 fo r

adetaile ddiscussio

n ofth e decision evaluation logic fo r

profilin g procedures

.

WAP-1 4 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4

## 4.1. 3 Wast e Re-evaluation I n accordance with 4

0 CP R264.1 3 and/o

r 3 5 111

. Adm

. Cod

e 724.113 , awast

e profil e re-evaluatio n wil l b e conductedwhe

n on e of th e following occurs : o A generato

r notifie s TWI tha

t the proces s generating th e wast e ha s changed ; o Th e result s o

f inspection o

r analysi s indicat

e tha t the wast e recdve da

t the facilit y doe s not matc h the identit

y o f the wast e designate

do n th e accompanyin

g manifest (o r shipping paper

) o r profil e documentatio

n (Se e Sectio n 5.2.3) ; or o Ever

y five years . A wast

e profil e re-evaluation along with avigilan t incomin g loa dscreening progra mi s sufficien

t t o ensur e tha t waste s continue t o b

e properl y manage da t the facility

. Fo r bulle t item s on e an dthre e above, thi s re-evaluation proces s consists of arevie w o f th e paperwor

k to ascertai n tha

t th e analytica

l dat ai s accurat

e andcurren

t an dtha t i t i s sufficient

t o properl y manag e th e wast

e a s intended

. Th e procedur e typicall y involve s comparin

g th e current

wast e profil e t o the availabl

e result s o

f routin e inspection , sampling , an danalysi s obtainedupo

n receipt of a n incoming loa

do f the wast e strea mT o augmen t thi s review , i f

existin g analytica

l i s not sufficient , the generato

r ma y be askedt

o revie w the current wast e profile , t o suppl

y anew profile , and/o

r to submi t asampl e fo r analysis , o

r TW I ma y obtai n asampl e fro m ashipmen

t o f th e waste
. 4.1. 4 Exception s t

o the Foregoing Requirements Exception s t

o the foregoin

g requirements includ

e the followin g specia

l material s a

s determine db y Facility Management :

(1 ) Packagedchemical s an ddebri s (e.g. , glassware , syringe , la b coats , etc.) , fro mlaboratories , hospitals , househol

dclea n sweeps , manufacturing facilities , etc. , including scintillatio n vial s packedi n accordanc

e wit h Small Quantit

y Chemica

l Guideline s (SQCG's)

. Scintillatio n vial s a s certifie db

y th e generato

r t o exhibit

les s tha n 0.0 5 microcurie/gra

mradioactivii y (scintillatio n vial s a

t thi s level ma

y exhibit radioactivit

y abov e backgroun

dbut les s tha n 0. 5 rmllirad s pe

r hour)

. Fo r

package dchemicals , th e generato r wil l suppl

y apackin g lis t (Inventory) fo r

eac h containe

r (e.g. , drums ) specifyin g typ e an dquantit y of chemical s containedwithin

. Complianc e wit h th e SQCG' s andaccurac

y ofth e dru minventor

y provide d t o TWI fo r

revie w must b e certifie dby the technicia n packagin

g th e wast e throug h completion ofth e druminventor y sheet

. Thi s druminventor y shee t mus t b e reviewe dan d approvedfo r

eac h containe

r b y the TW I Facilit

y Managemen

t prior t o acceptance a

t th e facility

. TW I wil l ope

n andinspect

th e contents o f

randoml y selecte ddirect charge container s receivedfro meac

h packing organization t

o verif y that the contents confor

mto th e dru m inventory

. Drums containin g scintillatio n vial s wil l b e screene dt o verif y tha t they ar e not radioactiv e (a

s note dabove)

. See Section 5.1.1(1 ) fo r acomplet

e description of

Incoming Wast e Shipmen

t procedure s fo r

smal l quantit y chemica

l drums

. Occasionally , TW I WAP-1 5 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4 

# VE S 00018 9

## determine s tha t aparticula

r materia l i s not acceptabl e andso notifie s the customer
. I f the custome r agree s wit

h TWI' s determination the unacceptabl e materia l i s remove

dfro mthe container

. Thes e drum

s wil l be tracke don-sit

e fo r th e purpose s of

determining wast

e storage compatibilit

y b y marjifest/profile/uniqu e dru midentificatio n combination (2 ) Empt

y containers a

s define da

t 3 5 IA C 721.107(b) , (e.g

. empt y fiber , steel o

r plasti c drums o r bags)

. These wastes wil l be visuall y inspectedupo n receipt

. I n addition t o difference s i n physica l appearance , thes e waste s wil l b e determinedt o b

e nonconformin

g whe n the y contain material i n quantitie s greate r tha n 3% ofth e total volum

e o f the containe

r o r mor e than on e inc h o f residue remain s on the botto mo f th e container

. (3 ) Pharmaceutica

l an dothe r commercia

l products package

di n consume

r quantitie s i n their origina l untampere

dpackaging

. (4 ) Commercia

l products o

r chemicals : off-specification , outdate dunusedo r banne dThes e material s must

b e receivedi n th e origina

l containe r o r package da s designate

db y TWI
. (5 ) Aeroso l can

s andLectur

e Bottles

. (6 ) Controlle dsubstances define di n 2 1 U.S.C

. Sectio n 80 2 regulatedby th e Federal Governmen

t suc h a s cocain e andothe

r drugs

. Thes e ar

e typicall y generatedb y a pharmaceutica

l company, healt

h car e agencies o

r stat e o r federal agency . (7 ) Potentially Infectiou s Medica l Wast e (PLMW ) a s define db y IEP A (8) Waste s whic

h ar e visually identifiabl e through an inspectio n process . Example s o f thes e type s of waste s are , batteries , cathod e ra y tubes , crushe dglass , piping , filters an dfilter cartridges , wir

e o r tubing , pape

r products , syringes , meta l sheetin g an dparts , explosive component

s an ddevises

. Thi s lis t

i s not mean t to b e al l inclusive , an

dma y be expande

dwit h IEP A approval

. (9 ) Prio r

Agenc y Approva

k Material s whic h d

o not fal l into on

e o f th e othe r exemption categories , but

presen t impractica

l sampling o

r analysi s complications

. Us e of thi s exemption wil l b e grantedo

n aprofil e specifi c basis , wit h initia l revie w b

y th e LEP A fieldoffic e (Collinsville)

. Profil e approva l wil l b e subjec

t to LEPA-DLP C Permi t

Sectio n writte n (e.g

. fax ) approva

l Th e requiremen

t tha t agenerato

r provid e arepresentativ e sampl

e i s waive dfo r thes e material s becaus e they exhibi t

unusua l o r impractica

l sampling an danalytica

l complication s an

dar e of such anatur

e tha t thei r content s ar

e know n i n sufficient

andreliabl e chemica

l andphysica

l detai l tha

t sampling andanalysi s i s not warrante dFo r

thes e exceptions , th

e generato

r wil l suppl

y TW I with chemica

l an dphysica l characteristi c informatio n necessar

y fo r prope r managemen

t o f th e wast e andsampling i s not

require dTh e abov

e waste s wil l b e describe don aWP S a s show n i n Figure 4- 1 andaccompanie db y supporting documentatio n (e.g. , dru m inventory , Materia l Safet y DataSheets (wher

e available) , an dothe

r datamad

e available by th e generator) , includin g informatio n a

s t o whethe r the wast e i s subject

t o the Lan dDisposa

l Restriction s of

4 0 CF RPar t

268

. WAP-1 6 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4

## 4.1. 5 Standar dProfile s StandardProfile s ma

y b e use dfo r wast e stream s which ar

e simila r i n physica

l an dchemica

l characteristics , generatedb y simila r

## industrie s o

r processes , consisten

t with the USEP A approac h o f assigning aliste dwast

e cod e to simila

r proces s wastes
. A n analytica

l database wil l be develope dfo r aspecifi c Standar

dProfil e base

don analytica

l dat afrom wast e stream s tha

t ar e representative o

f waste s fromsimila

r industries , processes or

historica l data

. CW M wil l review th e databas e an ddetermin

e whethe r th e individua

l wast e streams ar

e sufficientl y simila

r i n physica

l an dchemica

l characteristic s t

o a n establishedStandar

dProfile

. The analytica

l database develope

da s discussed abov e wil l replac e the requiremen t fo r aprofilin g sampl

e (se e Sectio n 4.1.1 ) fo r

eac h individua

l wast e stream
. Specifi c candidat

e wast e stream s which ar e identifie da

s confonning t

o a n existing IEP A approved StandardProfil e wil l b e manage dunde r th e existin g disposa

l decisio n specifi c fo r

tha t Standar dProfile

. 4. 2 Decisio n Evaluatio n Logic fo rProfilin g Procedures Th e Facility Managemen

t i s responsible fo r

the profil e evaluation decisio n (e.g. , whethe

r to approve th e candidat

e wast e fo r acceptance)

. Th

e dat aobtaine dfromth e WP S (Figur e 4-1) , an y analysi s performe d b y the CW M Laboratory , an dan y othe r informatio n provide db

y th e generato

r o r develope ddurin g th e assessmen

t o f the wast e i s evaluate

db y Facility Management
. Th e facilit y Genera l Manage r wil l designat

e writte n authorit

y fo r profil e decisio

n approva l t o qualifie dmdividual s base don training , experience , and supervise ddecision reviews

. Se e Figur e 4- 2 fo r require dwast

e managemen

t decisio n information

. Facility Managemen

t wil l appl y technica

l experience an djudgemen t t o al l the availabl

e informatio n i n orde r t o reac h atechnica

l profil e approva

l decisio n A t

aminimum , the following criteri awil l b e assessed : o Managemen

t method s available ; o Condition s o

r limitation s of

existin g permit s an dregulations ; o Capabilit

y t o manag e th e wast

e i n asaf e an denvironmentall

y soun dmanner ; o WP S description o f th e proces s generating th e waste ; o WP S description of th e chemica

l andphysica

l propertie s of

the waste ; o An y additiona

l documentatio

n supplie db y the generator, including informatio n tha t th e wast e i s subjec

t t o aLan dDisposa

l Restrictio n o

f 4 0 CF RPart

268 ; o Result s o

f Mandator

y Analyse s i f

applicable (se

e Sectio n 4.1.1) ; o Result s o

f Supplementa

l Analyses , as required , o MSD S recommendations (whe n available)

. A surnmar

y of particula r dat awhich , when observedon th e WP S o r during th e Profilin g phase , wil l subject the candidat

e wast e strea mt o restrictions , specia

l packagin g requirements , o

r outrigh t rejectio n from furthe r consideration i s provideda s Appendix WAP-C

.

WAP-1 7 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4


# VE S 00019 1

## A wast e strea mwil l b e rejecteddurin g the profilin g phas e fo r th e followin g reasons : o Incomplet

e o r outdate dinformatio n suppliedb y the wast

e generato

r which canno

t b e supplemente

dby th e generator, o WP S information i s inconsisten t andth e discrepanc

y canno t b e resolvedwit

h th e generator
. Inconsisten

t mformation i s tha

t which i s mutuall

y exclusiv e base do n scientifi c fact s an d principle s (fo

r example, WP S indicate s tha t awast e containin

g 50 % aceton e i s nonflammable)

. o Sampl

e analyses an

dWP S informatio n ar

e inconsisten

t andth e discrepanc

y canno t be resolvedwit

h the generator

, o The facilit

y i s not permittedto treat , store , o r dispos e ofth e particula

r wast e i n questio

n (for example , th

e wast e i s radioactive) , o Th

e facilit y doe s no t hav e th e capacit

y t o treat , store , o

r dispos e o f the wast e strea mi n question

. o Facilit

y experienc

e wit h simila r material s o

r standar dreferenc e material s (Se e Appendix WAP-F ) indicate s tha

t thi s materia

l canno t safel y be incineratedb

y limitin g size of

charge s o r othe r processin g controls

. Se

e Appendix WAP- C fo r

Wast e Acceptabilit

y Criteria

. o Facilit

y Managemen

t i s no t assuredof

th e abilit y o f the facilit y t o safel y trea t an dstor e th e waste
. Th e profil e evaluatio

n i s conclude

dwit h documentatio

n of the decisio

n regarding th

e acceptabilit

y o f th e wast e an dthe propose

dmetho dof management

, including suc

h specia l packagin g requirements a

s ma y b e require dofth e generator
. Th e acceptabilit y decisio n i s embodie

dwithin th e wast

e managemen

t decision

. A maste r Wast e Beceipt Analysi s Documen

t (WBAD ) (Se

e Figur e 5-1 ) wil l also b e preparedby completin g thos e section s o f th e formwhic

h requir e iriformatio n gatheredduring th e profil e proces s (generato r name, profil e number , result s of

profil e analyses , decisions restrictions , etc.)

. A cop y o f thi s maste

r WRAD wil l b e mad

e a t th e time the wast

e i s schedule

dt o transmit

profil e information t

o operation s andth

e laborator

y fo r the Incoming Wast

e Acceptanc

e process .

WAP-1 8 REVISIO N 1 1 9/2979 4

## FIGUR E 4- 1 GENERATOR' S WAST E MATERIA L PROFIL E SHEE T

WAP 

## . 1 9 

## REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4


# VE S 

# 000 1Za-e ?n.-.te dcaeBisa i wast e Matiagsrcsn-

. Inc
.
w hS t

S PROFIL E Chec k her e i f

thi s i s » Secertlficatio n LOCATIO N O F ORIGINA L

'.GENERA L INFORMATIO " Cenerato rKama:

_ Generato r USEP A ID : 2

. Generato r

Address : Billin g Address : ( ) San a

Technica l Contact/Phona : 4

. Aitarnat a" Billin g contact /Phona : Contact/Phona :

PROPERTIE S AN

B COMPOSITIO

N 5

. Proces s Generatin g Waste : 6
. Wast e Mama : 7A . I athi s a USEP A haiardou a waat a (4 0 CF S Par t261) ? Ye s (_ ) N o (_) B . Identif y AL L USEP A liste d an d characteristi c waat a cod a number s (D,F,K,P,U| : Stet e Waata Codaa : 8 . Physica l Stat e 9 70F : A . Solid(_ ) Liquid( J Both(_ ) Cas(_ ) B . Singl e Laye r(_) Multilaye r(_ ) C . Fre e liq . rang e t o » 9A . pH : Rang e o r Ho tapplicabl e (_ ) B
. Stron g Odo r(_);deacrib e _____ _ 10 . Liqui d Flaa h Point : < 73 F ( ) 73-99 F (_) 100-139 F (_ ) 140-199 F (_ ) > • 200 F (_ ) II.A . (_ ) Cloaa d Cu p (_) Ope * Cu p (_ ) 11 . CHEMICAL COMPOSITIOIl : Lie tAL L conatituant a (lncl . haloganata d organise ) preaeo tl n an y concentratio n an d forwar d analyai e conatituant a Rang a Uni tDaaerlptio n ;

TOTA L COMPOSITION (MUS T EQUA L O KEXCEE

D 100%) : 12 . OTHER : PCB a I f yaa , concentratio n ppa , P~ a regulate d b y 40 ~ 76 1 (_) . Pyrophorl c (_) Explosiv e (_ ) Radioactiv e ( ) Banxan a I f "yea , concentratio n _^ ppa . Shoc k Sen a i tir e (_) Oxidixa r(_) carcinoga n ( J

infactiou a ( j othe r Ai r Reactiv e ( ) Wate r Reactive " ( ) 13 . I f waat a subjec tt o th a lan d ba n • eeat a traataen tataadarda , chec k nara : _t auppl y analytica l result s wher e applicable .

SHIPPIK C 

### iiiram ~ o a 14 . PAOUkQ _«0 » Bul k Soli d (_ ) I oi k Liqui d (_) Dru a (_) Typa/Slia : ; Othe r 15 . .AHTICIPA— i AHUM . WOLSM i Units : Shippin g Frequency :

SAKPLIK G ISTOltm—O B Sampl e Trackin g Nuatoar : 16a . Sampl e sourc e (drua , lagoon , pond , tank , vat , etc.) : ________________________________ _ Dat a Sampled : Sampler' s Kama/Company : •16b . Generator' s Agan tSupervisin g Saapling : 17 . (_) Ko sampl e require d (Sa a instructions. )

GENERATOR' 3 CESTITICATIOa i I hereb y certif y tha tal l informatio n subaitta d i n thi s an d al l attache d document s contain s tru a an d accurat e description s o f thi s waste . An y aaapl a subaitta d i a representativ e a a deflna d l n 4 0 er a 26 1 - Appendi x X o r b y usin g a n equivalen tmethod . Al l relevan tInformatio n regardin g known o r suspecte d hazard s i n th a possessio n o f th a generato r ha a baa n disclosed . I authorli a CW M t o obtai n a aaapl a fro a an y waat a shipmen tfo r p m pu s s s o f recertlfication . Signatur e Raa a an d Titl e


# VE S 00019 4

## FIGUR E 4- 2 WAST E MANAGEMEN T DECISIO N

EEVISIO N 1 1 WAP-2 0 9/29/9 4 

# VE S 00019 5Oat * 9/29/9 4 VAST S MAa_3—«~ X DBCISIO H Pag e Tim e 9)35l5 7 Locatio n o f origina l

__________________ _

I . Ganarato ran d Facilit y Informatio n
Decisio n Sit e propose d Managemen tFacilit y Trackin g f i

_____ _Priorit y i Profil e I i Dat e Receive d i Sffactiv e Date . Generato ri „ Waat a Categor y Code i

________ _ Descriptio n l

________ _

II . Decisio n t o Dan v Approva l fo rt—nagensn to f Wast e
Reaso n fo rDenyin g Approva l

Initia l Approva l

_______________ _""su a (print )
Fina l Approva l

___________________ _Hem e (print )

b ) Precautio n Condition s o rLimitation s o n Approva l

(2 ) Contractin g Condition s

(3 ) Sit e an d contractin g Condition s

c ) Analytica l Requirement s fo rBac h Loa d

d ) Pscleio n Baqalratlo n Dat e
Initia l Approva l

____________________ _Hem e (print )

17 . Fina l Deciaio n
Stat s an y Additiona l Precautions . Ccnditions . o rLimitation a

Fina l Approva l Hem e (print ) Dat e

## 5. 0 INCOMIN G WAST E SHIPMEN T PROCEDURE S I n accordanc

e with 264.13(c

) and/o r 35 Dl

. Adm

. Cod

e 724.113(c) , eac

h shipmen

t of waste , upon arriva l a t the facility , wil l b e inspecteda s denne dherei n befor

e the initiatio n o

f an y furthe r activity

. Thi s serve s tw o purposes . First , i t compare s the actua

l wast e identif y wit h tha t determinedi n th

e profil e proces s andtha t liste do n th e wast

e manifest

. I f

the wast e conforms t

o the expecte

ddescription s andpropertie s a s determine ddurin g the profil e review , the n the informatio n obtaineddurin g profilin g ca n reasonabl

y be use d a s the basi s fo r

managin g 

## th

e wast e which arrive s a

t the facility

. Secondly , i t provide s asecon

dleve l o f assuranc e tha

t th e contemplate

dwast e managemen

t technique ca

n b e utilize dOthe

r CW M personnel (o

r a CWM-approve dlaboratory ) ca n provid e th e Mandator

y and/o r Supplementa

l Analyse s require dprio r to o r concurren

t with th e arrival ofth e loa dWast e shipment

s tha t hav e arrive da

t th e facilit y ar e consideredto be i n th e receivin g proces s unti l such tim e tha t Facilit y Managemen

t makes afina l decisio

n regarding wast

e acceptability ; a

t such tim e the waste s are considere daccepte d I f th e wast e doe s no t confor mto the expecte

ddescription s andpropertie s as determineddurin g th e profil e review (i s foun dt

o b e nonconforming) , the n th e irtformation obtainedusin g the Mandator y Analyse s and an y Supplementa

l Analyse s performed , wil l b e utilize dt o manag e the waste
. Al l wast e shipments which ar

e subject t o th e Lan dDisposa

l Restriction s o

f 4 0 CF RPart

26 8 an dhave bee n treated , exempted , varianced , or mee t th e appropriat

e treatmen

t standar do r prohibitio n without treatment mus t be accompanie

db y afor mfromth

e treater o r generator, certifyin g tha

t th e treate dexempted , o r variance dwast

e meet s th e appropriat

e treatmen

t standard , prohibition , o

r varianc e (o

r tha t the untreate d wast e naturall y meets th

e treatmen

t standar do r prohibition) andinclude s an y applicabl

e analytica

l dat ao r referenc e t

o suc h dat ao

r documentatio

n fin accordanc

e with 4 0 CF R268)

. Furthermore , al l waste s whic h ar e subject t o the lan ddisposa

l restriction s an drequir

e treatmen

t must b e accompanie

dby aformfromth e generator (o r treater) tha

t (1 ) notifie s tha

t th e wast e contain s prohibite dconstituents ; (2 ) identifie s th e appropriat

e treatment

standard s associate

dwit h th e material ; and(3 ) include s an y applicabl

e analytica

l data or referenc e to such dat

a(i n accordanc

e with 4 0 CF R268)

. Se

e Sectio n 4.1. 1 fo r

adiscussion regardin g th e informatio n an ddat at

o b e suppliedb y the generator
.

WAP-2 1 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4


# VE S 00019 7

## 5.1 Receiving Procedure s Incomin g wast e shipmen

t identificatio n begins upo n arrival o

f the wast e a t the facility

. Th e inspection , samplin

g an danalysi s o

f the incomin

g wast e wil l b e performedi n accordanc e wit h the methods/parameters describe di n Section s 2. 0 an

d3.0

. I n the cas e o f containe r shipment s no t covere di n th e exceptions , eac

h containe r i n the shipmen

t wil l hav e it s contents visuall

y inspecte db y obtaining aful l dept

h vertica l sampl e to verif y tha t the content

s ar e simila r prior to compositing

. Th

e receiving technicia

n wil l not e physica l stat e fo r eac h drumo n the receiving document s (se e Figur e 5-1 , Physica

l Descriptio n Worksheet) , which th e la b wil l compar

e t o th e profile dphysica

l descriptio n of

the waste , mcomin

g waste s wil l hav

e it s ful l dept

h vertical sampl

e visuall y inspectedfo r

colo r an dphas e (liquid , soli dsemi-solid)

. Drum s o f package dchemicals wil l b

e randoml y opene dan dinspectedt

o verif y tha t th e drumi s packe

da s identifie di n Sectio

n 5.1.1

. Upo n delivery , 1 0 percen t of the container

s fromeac

h wast e profil e within ashipment, wil l be randoml y selectedan

dsampledaccordin

g t o Section 2.0

. I n the even t tha t asingl e dru mo f aspecific wast

e profil e i s receive dtha

t dru mwil l b e sampled

. A maximu

mo f five containerize

dshipmen t samples fro mth e sam e wast e profil e ma

y b e composite

dprior t o analysis , providedthe individua l sample s ar e simila r i n physica

l appearance . "

. - Fo r wast e receiver s ove r 8 0 drums , a

n additiona

l singl e drumgra

b sampl e wil l b e take n a

s par t o f th e mcomin

g analysis

. Th

e gra b sampl e wil l b e subjec

t t o norma l receiving mandator

y analysis

. Thi s gra

b wil l i 

## b e compare

dto the profil e data

. Wher e container

s ar e t o b e randoml y selecte dfo r samplin g o r inspection (mdudin

g package dchemica l dru minspection) , th

e container

s t o b e evaluatedwil l b

e selecte dusing arando

mnumbe r table , o r arandom numbe r generato r o n apersona

l compute r o r programmabl

e calculator

. Dru

mnumber

s wil l b e assigne

dt o the drum s i n ashipmen

t upo n off-loadin

g prior t o inspection o

r sampling

. The rando

mnumber

s wil l b e generate

d t o establis h which container s wil l b e evaluateda

t thi s time

. ~ Containe r sample s wil l b e composite

donl y wit h samples fromth

e sam e profil e which ar

e o f siinila r color andphase

. I n addition , i f wastes fromth e sam

e profil e exhibi

t difference s i n physica

l appearanc

e durin g th e Mandator

y Analyse s andthes e canno t be resolve d(Se

e 5.2.4 ) the n al l remainin

g containers wil l be sample d t o determin

e which drum

s ar e conforming , unles s adeterminatio n ca n b e mad e fromth e containe

r visua l inspectio n

Sample s frommcomin

g wast e shipment

s wil l b e subjecte dt o Mandator

y Analyse s (se

e sectio n 3.0)

. Al l such sample s wil l b

e retainedfo r

aperio drequire dt

o approv e the wast

e fo r incineratio n Th e results o

f th e visua l inspection s an

dMandator

y Analyse s wil l b

e documente

do n th e wast e receip t analysi s documen

t (WRAD) , typica

l for mattacheda

s Figur e 5-1

. Thi s for

mi s use dt

o documen

t the profil e evaluation data, th e result s o f

th e Mandator

y Analyse s (se

e Section 3.1) , an

dth e determination o

f conformance/non-conformanc e (se e Sectio n 5.2)

.
WAP-2 2 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4 

# VE S 00019 8

## 5.1. 1 Exception s to Incomin g Wast e Analysi s Procedure s Th e following materials , which ar e define di n Section 4.1.4 , 

## wil l no t b e sample

dupo n arriva l but , a

t aminimum , 

## wil l be subjecte dto avisua

l inspectio n a

s describe dbelow

. Thes e material s ar e no t sample d becaus e the y exhibi

t unusua l o r impractica

l samplin g an danalytica

l complication s an

dbecause sufficient chemica l an dphysica

l dat aha s previousl

y bee n obtained :
1 ) Package

dchemicals an

ddebri s (se

e Section 4.1. 4 fo r

description)

. Thi s inspection procedur e wil l appl y t o thos e drums which ar

e selecte dfo r verificatio n o

f the dru minventor

y sheet s (DIS)

. Durin g the verification , thes e o^um s wil l b e identifie das conforming , non-confcninin g andprocessable , o

r non-confonning anddiscrepant

. Th e definition s andresponse s wil l b e a s follows : Conforming Drums : A drumtha t meet s guideline s andal l materia l i s identifie dan

d corresponds wit

h DIS

. Conforniin g drum s wil l b e processe d Processabl

e Drums ; A drumtha

t i s no t coriformin

g but sufficient

informatio n i s available to determin

e it s acceptability

- Th e following ar e example s o f

processabl

e drums : 1 . Missin g DI S but

DI S availabl

e i n approva

l package ; 2

. Material identifie don DI S bu t not presen t i n th e drum ; 3

. Broke n bottle(s ) with legibl e labels(s) ; 4

. Broke n bottle(s ) andlabel(s ) destroye dbu t materia l identifiabl e wit

h logica l deductio n andDI S review ; 5 . Extr acontainers o f identifie dmaterial ; 6
. Extr aidentifiabl e andacceptabl e material ; 7
. Extramaterial s corisistdn g o f PP E andjob supplie s (e.g. , markers , absorben t bags , cardboard) ; 8

. Material o

n DI S presen

t bu t quantitie s ar

e incorrectl

y identified ; 9
. Non-containerizedcompoun dbu t identifiabl e fro mDIS ; 10. Missin g labe l bu t

containe r type/size match DIS

. Processabl

e drums wil l b e accepte

dandprocessedTh e generato r o r packe r o f processabl

e drum s wil l b e notifie do f

the inaccuracie s associate dwith the processabl

e drum

. The generato r o r packe r wil l als o be notifie dtha

t the continuedreceipt

of processabl

e material s versu s corjforrning , wil l no t b e toleratedandwil l result i n th e issuanc e o f deterren t measures , u

p t o andincluding banning th e generator/packe

r fro msendin

g hazardou s wast

e t o TWI fo r treatment
.

WAP-2 3 EEVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4 

# VE S 00019 9

## Discrepan t Drums : A dru

mwher e insufficien

t information i s availabl

e t o determin

e acceptabilit

y o f th e dru mo r the drumcontains unacceptabl e material

. Th

e following ar

e examples o

f discrepan t drums : 1

. On

e or mor e broken bottle s wher

e the content

s canno t b e deteirmined ; 2

. Unidentifiabl e material ; 3

. Missin g label andcontaine r doe s no t matc h anythin g o n th e DIS ; 4

. Unacceptabl

e materia l i n drum ; 5

. DI S no

t available

. Th e portion o

f th e dru mwhic

h i s discrepan

t wil l b e rejecte dAl l no

n direc t charg e drums wil l b e inspecte dduring processin

g i n the Specialt

y Processing Building

. 2 ) Empt

y container

s a s defineda

t 35 IA C 721.107(b)

. Thes e waste s wil l be visuall y inspected upon receipt

. In additio n t o difference s i n physica

l appearance , thes e waste s wil l b e determine dt o b e nonconformin

g whe n the y contai n materia l i n quantitie s greate

r tha n 3 % of th e total volum

e of th e containe r o r mor e tha n on e inch o f residu e remain s o

n the bottom of th e containe r o r whe n th e shippin g containe r (overpack ) ha s free liquid s i n mor

e than the abov e quantities

. 3 ) Pharmaceutica

l an dothe r commercia

l product s package di n consume

r quantitie s i n thei r origina l untampere

dpackaging

. TWI wil l ope n an dvisuall y inspec t 5% o f th e mcomin g oute r container s o f thes e material s t o verif

y tha t the shipmen

t contain s consume

r packages

. 4 ) Commercia

l product s o r chemicals

. TW I wil l ope

n 5 % bu t not les s tha n on e of the mcomin

g container s o f eac h mcomin g profil e to ensur

e tha t the materia

l i s a s describe don the WPS

. 5) Aerosol can

s an dLecture Bottles : These wastes wil l b e visually inspectedupon processin g int o burnabl e charges

. 6 ) Controlledsubstances definedi n 2 1 U.S.C

. Section 802

. Thes e type s of material s wil l no

t be opene do r sample dby TWI du

e t o th e regulation s goverriin

g thes e rnaterials

. TW I wil l requir e a n inventor

y fromth e packe

r o f thes e material s a

s specifiedi n the procedure s outlinedi n Section 4.1.4

. Thes e material s ar e generate db y apharmaceutica

l compan y o r healt h car e agencie s o r stat e o r federa l agency . 7 ) Potentially Infectiou s Medica l Wast e (PIMW ) a s definedb y IEPA

. 8 ) Waste s whic

h ar e visually identifiabl e throug h a n inspectio

n process . Waste s i n origina l packagin g wil l b e subjec t t o 5 % inspectio

n a s pe r 5.1.1.4 above

. Waste s which ar e not i n origina l packagin g wil l be subjec

t to 100 % visua l inspection

. Example s o

f thes e type s o

f wastes are , batteries , cathod e ra y tubes , crushe

dglass , piping , filters an

dfilter cartridges , wir e o r tubing , pape

r products , syringes , meta

l sheetin g andparts , explosiv

e component

s an d devises

. Thi s lis t

i s not mean t t o be al l inclusive , an

dma y b e expande dwit h loca l IEP A approval

. WAP-2 4 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4


# VE S 00020 0

## 9 ) Prio

rAgenc y Approval : Material

s whic h d o no tfal l int o on e o f th e othe rexemptio

n categories , bu tpresen timpractica

l samplin g o ranalysi s complications

. Us e o f thi s exemptio

n wil l b e grante d o n a profil

e specifi c basis , wit h initia l revie w b y th e IEP A fiel d offic e (Collinoville)

. Profil e approva l wil l b e subjec tt o IEPA-DLP

C Permi tSectio n writte n (e.g . fax ) approval

. 5. 2 Incomin

g Wast e Shipmen

tDecisio n Evaluatio n Logi c Afte ra wast e ha s bee n receive d b y th e facility , inspected

, sampled , an d analyze d i n accordanc

e wit h Section s 5.1 , 2.0 , an d 3.0 , Facilii y Managemen

twil l revie w th e profil e mformation

, th e Mandator

y Analyses

, an d th e manifes

tt o determin

e whethe r th e materia l receive d conform

s wit h th e profil e informatio

n an d th e manifest , an d whethe r i tca n b e safel y manage d a tth e facility . Th e majo rfunction

s i n th e proces s ar e a s follows : ^ , 5.2.1 Wast

e Identificatio

n Facilit y Managemen

twil l rel y o n on e o rmor e o f th e followin g source s o f informatio

n t o deterniin

e th e identit y o f th e incomin g materia l togethe r wit h an y othe ravailabl e information: o Visua

l Inspectio

n o f th e containe

rcontents

, o Sampling

. o Result

s o f Mandator

y Analyses

. o Appropriat

e Lan d Disposa l Restrictio

n Notificarion/Certificatio n Form . o Wast

e Manifest

. Th e informatio

n gathere d fro m th e abov e source s wil l b e compare

d wit h irjformatio

n take n fro m th e foUowin g source s develope d durin g profilin g (se e Sectio n 4.1) : o Wast

e Profil e Sheet , o Result

s o f an y analyses

. o An

y additiona

l documentatio

n supplie d b y th e generator

, suc h a s a Materia

l Safet y Dat a Sheet , produc tingredient

, etc . Specifi c criteri a fo rwast e compariso

n ar e show n o n th e WRA D (Figur e 5-1) . Comparison

s wil l b e documente

d o n th e WRAD . Determinatio

n o f confonnanc

e wit h specifi c parameter

s wil l b e determine

d a s describe d i n Appendi

x WAP-D . 5.2. 2 Th e Nee d fo rAdditiona

l Analyse s Facilit y Managemen

twil l perfor m additiona

l analyse s accordin

g t o th e criteri a in Sectio

n 3. 3 whe n manifes tinformatio

n o rresult s o f th e Mandator

y Analyse s d o no tconfor m o rar e inconsisten

twit h profil e informatio

n (Le., i f a wast e i s nonconforniin

g a s describe d i n Appendi

x WAP- D o rinformatio

n gathere d i s mutuall y exclusiv

e base d o n scientifir

: fact s an d principles)

. WAP-2 5 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4


# VE S 00020 1

## 5.2. 3 A n Evaluatio n o f Whethe r aWast e i s Foun dt

o b e i n Conformance o

r Non-conformance Th e Facility Managemen

t must classif y th e wast

e a s being i n non-conformanc e i f i t i s significantly differen t fro mthe uiformatio n show n i n th e profil e paperwor

k o r o n th e manifest , o

r differ s i n quantit

y fro m that indicate do n th e nianifest , i n accordanc e wit h 4 0 CF R264.7 2 and/o

r 3 5 E LAdm

. Cod

e 724.172

. Thre e major

criteri aar

e usedt o arriv e a t thi s decision

. They are : o Fo r

bul k wastes , variation s greate r tha n 10 % i n volum

e or , o Fo r

batch wastes (e.g. , drums , bags , etc.) , an y variatio n i n piece coun

t (Le. , th e numbe r of piece s liste do n the manifes t o r druminventor

y does not

agre e wit h th e numbe

r of piece s received

) or , o I f inspection o

r analysi s o f

an y wast e determine s significan

t difference s exis t betwee n th e physica l propertie s o f

the wast e andth e description s on the profil e and/o r shipping paperwork

. Significan t difference s are : 1 ) Variation s fro mconformance criteri aas describedi n Appendix WAP- D or ; 2 ) Analytica

l result s which ar

e mutuall y exclusive base

do n scientifi c fact s and principle s fro mthe wast

e description o n the nianifes t o r profil e paperwork

. 5.2. 4 A n Evaluatio n o f Whethe r Waste s Foun dt

o be i n Non-conformance ca n b e Accepte do

r wil l be Rejecte d I f th e informatio n collecte

di n (1 ) and(2

) abov e indicate s tha

t on e o r mor e of the mcomin

g wast e evaluation criteri ai s significantly different fromthe rnanifes t

o r profil e irjformation , Facilit y Managemen

t mus t undertak e t o accoun

t fo r the apparen

t observe ddifference

. Thi s evaluation wil l includ e on e o r mor e of the following : o Revie w of samplin g methods to verif

y representativ e sampling ; o Supplementa

l Analysis , as specifie di n Section 3.3 ; o Furthe r

evaluatio

n o f th e wast e profil e andincoming analytica l o r discussion s wit h the generator
. I f informatio n gathere

ddurin g thi s evaluation ca n resolve the discrepancy , the resolutio n of th e discrepanc

y wil l b e documente

do n the WRA D alon

g with the result s of

the mcomin

g wast e analysis

. I f discrepancie s i n mcomin

g wast e evaluation criteri acanno t b e resolved , th

e wast e wil l b e considere d non-conforrning an dthe result s documente don the WRA D along with the result s o f the mcomin

g wast e analyses

. Waste s foun dt o b e i n non-conformance wil l eithe r be rejecte do

r re-profile dfo r

possibl e acceptance b y th e facilit

y despit e th e variance

. Waste s that

ar e rejecteddurin g unloading ma y b e placedbac

k on th e truc k

fo r transportation , as arrange dwit h th e generator
. Waste s tha t ar e rejecte dafte r

the transporte

r has departedthe facility ar e hel d

WAP-2 6 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4


# VE S 00020 2

## i n astorage are aholding onl y compatibl

e materials , base

do n th e Mandator

y Analyse s results

. A recor di s kept of th e location o f

al l drums on-sit

e a t al l times

. Alternatively , TW I ma

y re-evaluat

e the wast

e t o determin

e whethe r th e wast e materia l a s shippe d (Le. , inconsisten

t wit h WP S and/o

r manifest data ) ca n b e handle da t th e Facility

. I f

th e facility determine s tha

t the wast e ca n b e manage dconsisten

t wit h permi t requirements , th

e shipmen t wil l b e managedThe profil e informatio n wil l b

e amende dprio r to acceptanc

e o f th e nex t shipment

. Waste s t

o b e re-profile dwil l be subjec t to th e profil e proces s requirements a s se t forth i n Section 4.0

. I f th e re-evaluation procedur e indicate s tha

t th e wast e ca n b e accepte

dan dthe generato

r concurs , arevise dwast

e managemen

t decisio n wil l b e preparedb

y Facilit y Management

, i f th e metho do

f managemen

t changes

. I f

adiscrepanc

y canno t b e resolve dwithi n 1 5 days of

shipmen t receipt , th

e IEP A wil l b

e notifie di n writing , o f

the discrepanc

y an do f attempts t

o reconcil e it

. Wast

e wil l b e rejectedfo r

th e following reasons : o Facilit

y Managemen

t fo r an y reaso n determine s tha

t i t canno t manag e the materia

l i n complianc e wit h al l regulations , permi

t requirements , an

dstandards o

f healt h andsafely , o A nianifes t

discrepanc

y (o r non-confoniiance

) canno t be resolvedto the generator' s an

dTWI' s satisfaction using th e procedure s outlinedabove , o Th e generator's/transporter' s paperwor k i s no t i n orde r an dthe problems canno

t b e correctedupo

n arrival , o Storage spac

e i n containe

r storag e area s o r i n on-sit e bulk liqui dstorage tanks i s no t available t o provid e segregatio

n o f incompatibl

e materials , o A liqui dwast

e i s no t compatibl

e (pe r the Liqui dWast

e Compatibilit

y Test ) wit h wast e alread y i n storag

e an dno segregatio

n o r othe r managemen

t metho di s available

. Rejectedwaste s wil l be picked-u p b y th e generato

r o r by apermitte dtransporte r t o b e returne dt

o th e generator' s facilit

y o r transportedt

o a n alternat e hazardou s wast

e treatment , storage , o

r disposa l facility

.

WAP-2 7 EEVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4

## FIGURE 5- 1 PHYSICA L DESCRIPTIO N WORKSHEE T

AN D WAST E RECEIP T ANALYSI S DOCUMEN T

WAP-2 8 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4

## T W I LABORATOR Y ANALYSI S REPOR T
PROCES S COOE : ( ) PC B ANALYSI S REQUIRE D ( ) VERIF Y BtlRHABU

. CONTAINERS ( ) VISUA

L NSPECTIO N ONLY ( ) MERCUR Y ANALYSI S REQUIRE D { ) DtOXfl

V PRECURSO RANAL

. REQUIRE D RECEIVERNo
. , 

## DRU M STORAG E COMPATABHJT Y MANIFES T No
. PROFILED DO T HAZAR D CLASS : No
. of DRUMS : DATE : RESULTS : PASS : FAIL : SAMPLE RSIGN : SAMPL E NUMBE

R PROFILE CONFORM S DAT E ANALYS T Dru mNo
. YE S N O No
. Of -NT S 

### \ - 

## . ^ * -
F R M 

### Ua_ d(% ) ' - f 

### P_t»_* » 

## __- = _ Coto r " r- - :•= • = — 

### TirtW y _— 

### L = _ _ Accayai

. Vawoai y Mw_e_S_t a 

## - . = L

_- 

# mm W__ r RoaotM y uu- ~ &___»_ • = z - - :'=•—= = : ~ S 

### R--_-nScrM n O-dbvSera M = 1 = «==•

_= 

### Cyanjo aScrea

n - Is 1 ^ - —~ — . -i : _ =



### - , = 

### F_m
. Po t

Scraa n P H SCTMf

) S DOC M C Gf

_i

_ y 

### P111P I

. i j • • _* . . BIOIDHnD B ^JDD T 

### _____§_ § P_ntF_vTM l BTUt B z:: m I 

### % CMori M PCirtQ C PCB' s Scra m Maraa y FMiPcMCCF P

ACCEP T /

REJEC T ANALYTICA LCOMMENTS :

PROFIL E REVIEWE

D FO RAPPENDI

X WAP- C CONSTITUENT S BY : DATE : PROFIL E & HANDLIN

G COMMENTS :

71 _iiporth M baa

n prapara d fa r ranck- w u mb__ l c < Ct _T

_W_

__»^— _ < . Noia»«--_«_iiuai *>j -«M'iv__yara - T * B ' acoreyn r u<itaJa»

_« r—^rranai c ayit

—|i_iaii_aMiat-i«pon ^ Tn»_iiia»>a«

_

## PHYSICA L DESCRIPTIO N WORKSHEE T RECEIVE Ri DiT E PROFIL E t t O FCONTAINER

S
DRU M # SIZ E COLOR/DESCRIPTIO N %FUL L %S0 L %LI Q 1 2 3 4 5

- • 

## 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2



# VE S 00020 6

## 6. 0 PROCES S OPERATION S PROCEDURE S Eac h movemen

t o f awast e within th

e facility , during which an y chang e i n it s characteristic s ma y occur, make s i t

subjec t t o additiona

l inspection , samplin

g an danalyses t

o determin

e appropriat

e handling and managemen

t ofth e waste
. Man

y o f th e analyses neede

dfo r th e treatment , storage , an

ddisposa l function s ar

e performe ddurin g mcomin g wast e shipmen

t identification

. Thes e ar

e no t repeate dunles s i t

i s know n o

r believedtha

t th e wast e characteristic s hav

e change dduring storage
. Existin g andanticipatedoperations a t the facility , fo r

which curren

t an dperiodic samplin

g an d analyse s i s important , includ e th e following : Storage/Blendin

g Decantin g Incineration The analytica

l procedure s fo r

eac h of these ar e describedseparatel

y below

. 6.1 Storag

e Before an y wastes ar

e place dinto astorag

e unit , Facilit

y Managemen

t wil l asses s the compatibilit y ofth e wast

e with th e storag e unit material s o

f construction andwit

h waste s alread

y storedtherein

. 6.1. 1 Wast

e i n Container

s Containerize dwastes ar e storedwit

h respec t t o ignitibility , reactivit

y an dcompatibility

. Compatibilit

y shal l be determine

dconsisten

t wit h DO T HM-18 1 guideline s a s summarize

di n th e "Segregatio

n Tabl e fo r Hazardou s Materials " liste di n 4 9 CF K 177.848 (se

e Appendix WAP-G)

. Base don th e initia l DO T hazardclas s determination an danalysi s o

f th e waste , th

e drumme

dwast e wil l b e segregate

daccordin

g t o compatibility

. Thes e material s wil l b e separate dfromincompatibl

e material s b

y storag e i n segregate

dbay s vrithi n the dru mstorag

e buildings

. Thi s i s accomplishe db y the dat afromthe WPS , Mandator y Analyses , an d Supplementar

y Analyse s requeste

db y th e Facilit y Management
. Compatibilit y segregatio

n wil l no t appl y t o materia l whic h hav

e bee n repackaged, generate do r solidifie da

t TWI
. T o furthe r

verif y tha t wastes ar

e bein g properl y categorized , TWI wil l institute aprogra mo f Containerize dStorage Compatibilit y Testing

. Compatibilit

y wil l b e assesse dby performing aliqui dwast e compatibilit

y on the wast

e receivedfo

r containe r storag e a s outlinedi n Appendi

x WAP-A

. The testing progra m wil l not appl y to smal l quantit y package dchemicals o

r othe r materia l exempte dunde r 4.1. 4 an d5.1.1

. I n th e even t tha t acompatibilit

y i s performedo

n material s whic

h ar e indicateda

s incompatibl

e pe r DOT , the compatibilit

y tes t wil l tak e precedenc

e ove r th e DO T segregatio

n system
. 6.1. 2 Wast

e i n Tanks Liqui dwaste s deliveredi n bul k for m(e.g. , tan

k trucks , railroadtan

k cars) , o r pumpe dfro mdrums , ar e typically placedi n bul

k storag e tanks prior

to incineration

. Prio r

t o transferrin g an

y wast e into astorage WAP-2 9 EEVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4 

# VE S 00020 7

## tjnfc , th e compatibilit

y o f th e wast e wit h th e materia l alread y in th e tan k an d th e tan k material

s o f constructio

n wil l b e detennine

d b y a liqui d wast e compatibilit

y tes t(se e Appendi

x WAP-A). I

n addition

, tan k far m compatibilit

y wil l b e assesse d b y performin

g a liqui d wast e compatibilit

y tea to n th e liqui d wast e receive d fo r bul k storag e wit h a runnin

g composit

e o f th e tank s withi n th e containmen

tsyste m t o whic h th e ne w wast e wil l b e adde d 6.1. 3 Bul k Solid s Storag e Bul k solid s wil l b e manage d a s follow s fo r 'iTilnarfin g 

## int

o th e bul k solid s pits : 1 ) Onl

y materia l whic h passe s th e pain tfilter tes

tca n b e place d int o th e storag e pits . 2 ) Th e BT U an d chlorin e content s use d wil l b e either : (a ) Th e highe r valu e o f th e curren tpi to r th e mcomin g material

, o r (b ) Th e materia l wil l b e sample d afte r mixin g an d th e sampl e wil l b e analyze d fo rBT U an d chlorine

. 6. 2 Decantin g I n th e decantin

g process , liqui d waste s ar e decante d fro m drum s o rothe r smal l container

s int o large r bul k storag e units . Th e applicabl

e Mandator

y Analyse s wil l b e performe

d o n waste s t o b e decanted

. Prio rt o decanting

, a Liqui d Wast e Compatibilit

y Tes tan d specifi c gravit y tes to n a volum

e weighte d sampl e wil l b e performe

d t o ensur e tha twaste s t o b e bulke d togethe r ar e compatible

. A volum

e weighte d sampl e i s a volum

e proportionat

e composit

e o f th e intende d decan tliquids . 6. 3 Incineratio n I n th e incineratio

n process , liquid , semi-soli d an d soli d waste s ar e destroye

d b y hig h temperatur

e therma l oxidatio n Th e resultin g stream s includ e combustio

n gase s tha tar e scrubbe d t o remov e H Q an d particulates

, an d othe r treatmen

tresidue s (Le. , ash , sla g an d scrubbe rsludge , scrubbe rsolid s (ba g hous e dust ) tha tar e furthe rmanage d Th e treatmen

tsamphng/arjalvsi

s progra m fo rincineratio

n ma y b e divide d int o tw o segments

, eac h wit h a specifi

c purpose

: o Pre-treatmen

tanalvse a confir m tha tth e wast e fall s withi n th e facilit y permi tan d operatin

g constraint s an d allo w fine tunin

g o f th e proces s operationa

l constraints ; o Treatmen

tResidu e Evaluation

s confir m successfu

l treatmen

tan d tha tth e characteristic

s o f th e proces s effluen tar e suc h tha ti tca n b e sen tt o th e nex tste p (discharge

, disposal , o r furthe rtreatment

) base d upo n permi to r proces s constraints

. Residue

s fro m on-sit e treatmen to f lan d disposa l restricte d waste s wil l b e analyze d and/o revaluated

, a s needed , agains tth e appropriat

e treatmen

tstandard

s o rprohibitions

. An y residue s o rwaste s sen t of f sit e fo rstorage , furthe rtreatment

, and/o rdisposa l wil l hav e appropriat

e notificatio

n form s (i n accordanc

e wit h 4 0 CF RPar t268) . Th e applicatio

n o f thes e segment

s i s discusse d below . WAP-3 0 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4


# VE S 00020 8

## Th e applicatio n o f thes e segment

s i s discusse

dbelow

. 6.3. 1 Pre-treatmen

t Analyse s A U waste s fe dto the incinerato r ar e blende dt o mee t permit constraint s an

dt o nuuntai n stead y stat e (normal) operation o f

the incinerator

. Liqui dwast e i s blendedi n bulk

tank s prio

r t o incineration

. Pre

treatment

Analyse s (6.3. 1 number s 1-6 ) ar e optiona l fo r liqui dwast

e i n tanks whic

h wi U undergo furthe r blendin g prio r

t o incineration

. Prio r

t o incineration , asampl

e i s drawn fromthe tan

k t o b e fe dan danalyzed fo r th e foUowin

g parameters : 1

. Hea

t Valu e - Hea

t valu e i s measure

dto contro l the fee drate s o f wast e fe dinto th

e incinerators

. Th

e — •a-rmniT n hea t value whic

h ca n b e burne dpe

r hou r i s establishedi n th

e operating permit

. 2

. As h Conten

t - As h conten

t i s measuredt

o contro l percen

t as h o f wast e fe dint o th

e secondar y chambe r wast e burner s ofth e incinerators

. The maximu mas h conten

t fo r wast e fe dint o the secondar

y chambe r i s establishedi n the operating permit

. Wher e th e permit ha s no t establishedalimit , thi s analysi s wil l not b e performe d 3

. Tota l Chlorine Conten t - Chlorine conten

t i s measuredto contro l the percen t chlorine i n wast e fe dint o th e incinerators

. Th

e rnfl-yimii

mchlorine conten

t fo r wast e fe dinto th

e incinerator

i s establishe

di n th e operating permit

. 4

. Fluorin e Conten

t i s measure

dandusedi n conjunction with chlorin e andbromin

e conten t to detennine the haloge

n conten t i n wast e feed s t o the secondar

y chambe r wast e burner s o f th e incinerators

. Th

e nwirimii mhaloge n conten t fo r wast e fe dint o the secondar

y chambe r i s establishedi n th

e operatin

g permit

. 5

. Bromin e Conten

t i s measure

danduse di n conjunction with chlorin e an dfluorine conten

t t o determine th

e haloge n conten t i n wast e feed s to the secondar

y chambe r wast e burner s o f th e incinerators

. Th

e mm^^im 

## haloge

n conten t fo r wast e fe dint o th e secondar

y chambe r i s establishedi n the operatin g permit

. 6
. p H Screen i s usedt o protect the integrit

y of tank farmmaterial s o

f constructio n andprovid

e managemen

t dat afo r prope r blending

. 7
. Specifi c Gravit

y - Thi s informatio n i s use dto assur

e tha t the specifi c gravit

y of bulk or decan t composit e liqui di s les s tha

n th e desig

n specifi c gravit

y fo r th e storage tank s (s.g

. = 1.5)

. Th e permit

operating value s wer

e establishedthrough atria l burn

. The permi t operating value s ma

y b e change

di f i t i s demonstratedthroug

h atria l burn tha

t the ne w permit guideline s allo w th

e incinerator

to operat e withi n th

e permit constrain t an da t astead y stat e (normal ) operation

.

WAP-3 1 EEVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4


# VE S 00020 9

## Th e Facility Managemen t wil l review the blendanalyse s to assur e permit complianc

e andto assur

e tha t th e blen dwil l allow stead y stat e (normal ) operation o f

th e incinerator

. Th e blendwil l b e readjuste d wheneve r necessar y t o mee t al l permit

specifications

. Thi s i s accomplishe dthrough tank-to-tan

k blendin g with additiona l wastes
. A Liqui dWast

e Compatibilit

y Tes t wil l b e performe dprior

t o al l tank-to-tan

k transfer s o

f liqui dwaste
. Thi s ne

w blendi s the n testedfo r the blendparameters , which ar e use dt o detemiine optimu

m blen dcharacteristic s a

s mentionedi n th

e previou s paragraph

. Containerize dwast

e i s sequence

dfo r incineratio n through carefu l indexing of containe r feed

. Th e parameter s necessar

y fo r selection o f

prope r fee dsequenc

e (Hea t Value , Chlorine Content

) ar e evaluatedbased o n the Mandator

y Analyses

. Fo r

the material s identifie di n Section 5.1.1 , the value s o f the abov e parameters ar e categorize dbasedon physica l an dchemica

l compositio

n informatio n obtaine

dpe r Sectio n 4. 1 an d5.1

. Containe r fee dsequences reflec t

a n ongoin g evaluation o

f operating experience

. 6.3. 2 Treatmen

t Residue Evaluatio n Post-treatmen

t analyse s andevaluation wil l confir msuccessful treatmen

t an dtha t th e characteristic s ofth e proces s effluent

ar e suc h tha t i t ca n b e sen t t o the next

ste p (discharge , disposa

l o r furthe r treatment

) basedo n permit o r proces s constraints

. I n accordanc e wit h 4 0 CF R268.7(b) , residue s (o r wastes ) resultin g fro mon-sit

e treatmen

t o f lan ddisposa

l restricte dwaste s ar

e analyzedand/o

r evaluate da

s needed , agains t

th e appropriat

e treatmen

t standar d(e.g. , Constituen

t Concentration i n Wast

e Extrac t (CCWE) values ) o

r prohibition

. The incineratio n proces s result s i n th e generation o

f the followin g residues : ash , slag an dscrubbe

r systemsolids

. Eac h residue ha s bee n thoroughl

y evaluatedt

o develo p asampling frequency tha t i s consisten

t andindependen

t o f the origina

l waste s accepte

dfo r incineration

. Waste s o

r treatmen t residue s sen

t off-site fo r furthe r treatmen t wil l be accompanie

db y th e appropriat

e notificatio n (o

r certification ) forms

. Incinerator

as h andsla

g generate

di n the rotar

y kil n anddr

y scrubbe

r solids generatedi n incineratio n unit s numbers 2 , 3 o r 4 ar e sampled , analyzedan

devaluatedo

n aregula r basi s (Se e Appendi x WAP-B , Sectio n 2.2.1 ) i n accordanc e wit h analytica

l procedure s require dto analyze against th e appropriat

e treatment

standar do r prohibitio n (Se

e Appendix WAP-B)

. Incinerator

ash generatedi n the fixedheart h incineratio n unit s i s eithe r sampled , analyzedan d evaluate don aload-by-loa dbasi s o r i s retreate dandsubsequentl y evaluate d The Facilit

y Managemen

t wil l review the analytica l result s anddetermin

e the disposition of

th e treatment

residue

. I f

the analytica

l result s mee

t th e appropriat

e treatmen

t standar d(e.g. , CCW E value) , th e treatment

residu e i s the n approve dfo r shipment

. Eac h shipmen t i s accompanie

dwit h th e followin g documentation : Wast

e Manifest ; Lan dDisposa

l Restrictio n Treatmen

t Certification ; Analytical Repor

t o r referenc e to suc

h analytica

l data

.

WAP-3 2 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4


# VE S 00021 0

## I n the even t tha t th e analysi s doe

s no t mee t th e appropriat

e treatmen

t standar d(Le. , CCWE values) , the Facilit y Managemen

t wil l investigat

e th e samplin g procedur

e an dthe analytica

l procedur e t o ensur e n o contamination

. Tw

o additiona

l samples wil l b

e submitte

dfor analysi s of

the parameter

s whic h exceede d treatmen t standards i n th

e first roundo f analysis

. I f

th e secon danalyses pass , th

e residue wil l b

e approve d fo r disposal

- I f th e sourc e of th e contaminatio

n ca n b e determinedi t

wil l be documente

dHowever

, i f the secon danalyse s doe

s no t mee t th e appropriat

e treatmen

t standar d(Le. , CCWE values) , TWI wil l retrea t th e residue s i n orde

r to mee t th e appropriat

e treatmen

t standar d(Le. , CCW E values)

. Alternatively , TWI ma y forego additiona

l samplin g an danalysi s andchoos

e t o retrea t th e residue whic

h di dno t initially mee

t the treatmen t standar d

WAP-3 3 EEVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4

## 7. 0 QUALITY CONTRO L POLIC Y TW I ha s develope

daprogra mo f qualit y contro l practice s andprocedure s t o ensur e tha t precision andaccurac

y ar e maintaine

dthroughou

t al l of it s laboratories

. Al l sit

e laboratorie s ar

e require dt

o participat

e i n thi s progra

mContract

laboratorie s employe

db y the compan

y ar e subjec t t o inspection an

daudi t whil e performin g analysi s for

CWM

. A review of

th e contrac

t laborator y i s conducte

dt o ensur e tha t th e qualit y contro l o f CW M dat

ai s maintained

. The qualit

y contro l progra

mi s base do n "Handboo

k fo r Analytica l Qualit y Contro l i n Wate

r an d Wastewate

r Laboratories " EP A Marc h 1979

. Goodlaborator y practice s which encompas s sampling , sampl e handlin g 

## housekeepin

g andsafet

y ar e maintaineda

t al l laboratories

. Th

e following practice s must be implemente

da t al l sit e laboratories : Al l instrumentation must

b e evaluate

dthroug h the us e of

a n instrumen

t chec k standar d Divergenc e fromacceptabl

e benchmar

k criteri arequire s correction

. The instrumen t chec k standar dresults ar

e recorde dThe recor

dma y als o contai

n evaluation parameters , benchmar k criteri aan dmaintenanc

e records

. Reagen t blanks ar e typically preparedwit

h eac h batch o f samples an

danalyzedt

o ensur e sampl e contaminatio

n ha s not occurre dI f

blan k analyse s d

o not fal l withi n acceptabl

e Emits , modification o

f reagent s o r modification o

f th e analytica

l methodi s implemented A sampl e i s analyzedi n duplicat

e typicall y fo r eac h twent y samples being analyze

dfo r a particula r parameter
. A blin dduplicat e sampl e wil l b e submittedt

o the laborator

y on a monthl y basis

. Result s of

thes e duplicat

e analyses wil l b

e reviewedfo r

consistency

. A qualit y control solution or

sampl e materia l wil l b e analyze da t least onc e fo r eac h da y o r eac h batc h ru n to sho

w tha t calibration an

dstandardization of

instrumentation i s withi n acceptabl e limits

. Thi s procedur

e inform s th

e laborator

y tha t prescribedprecision and accurac y ar e being maintaine dResults o f thes e analyse s ar

e reporte dfo r

review

. Fortification s ar

e employe

dt o monito r recoverie s an

dniaintai n extraction and/o r concentratio

n technique s a

t acceptabl e levels

. Thi s procedur

e provide s informatio n abou t th e effect o f th e sampl e matri x o

n th e analyt e i n questio n Typically , arati o of on e fortificatio n fo r

eac h twent y samples analyze

dwil l b e maintaine dUsually , the sam e sampl e use dfo r the duplicat

e analysi s wil l be fortified

.

WAP-3 4 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4 

# VE S 00021 2

## When available , referenc e material s fromth e National Institut

e o f Standard s an

d Technology , o

r referenc e material s froman y othe r recognizedsource , wil l be obtaine dan d analyzedaccordin

g t o norma l laborator

y methodolog

y t o indicat e accurac y o f the methods

. Thes e material s wil l be analyzeda t least quarterl y i f th e paramete

r ha s bee n performed during tha

t quarter
. Referenc e material s ar e no t require dfo r

screenin g methods

. Al l CW M laboratorie s participat e i n "roun drobin " sampl

e analyses

. Thes e sample s wil l b e submittedb

y the QA/Q C Grou

p an dwil l b e fo r th e analysi s o f

norma l parameters
. Results must b e reporte dt

o the group . Digression s fromthe norm s establishedby the majorit y o f laboratorie s participating wil l b e investigatedan dcorrecte d A t least on e sampl e pe r mont h i s sen t t o aCWM designate

dlaborator

y o r adesignate

dan d approve dcontrac t laborator y fo r parallel analyses

. Thes e spli t samples o

r arepor t o f bot h result s ar e sen t t o th e Qualit y Contro l Uni t

whe n a n outsid e laborator

y i s employed Samples sen

t t o th e designate

dlaborator

y wil l b e logge di n andanalyze

dwithou t analysts ' knowledg e o f sit e la b results

.

- Th e facilit y reports the followin

g informatio n o

n amonthl

y basis : o Numbe

r o f samples analyzed o Numbe

r an dresult s o

f duplicate s o Numbe

r an dresult s o

f fortification s o Instrumen

t use d o Frequenc

y of occurrence fo r

qualit y contro l chec

k sampl e withi n acceptabl

e limit s o Mea

n andstandar

ddeviation o

f analyt e i n question

. The facilit

y als o reports intra-la

b an droun

drobin result s a

s the y occu r andreference s materia l analysi s a

t leas t quarterly

. A writte n cop

y of an y thir dpart

y contract laboratory' s qualit

y contro l procedure s i s submitte dt o CW M prio r

to approva

L A qualit

y assuranc

e inspection i s conducte

dt o ensur e tha t prope r record s an

d document s ar e presen t an dmaintainedAl l laboratorie s ar e subjec t t o inspection an

daudi t of al l procedure s whil e unde

r contract t o CWM

. A revie

w o f th e contract

laborator y i s conducte

dt o ensur e tha t th e qualit

y contro l i s being maintaine d

WAP-3 5 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4

## APPENDI X WAP-A
ANALYTICA L PROCEDURE S



# VE S 00021 4

## APPENDIX WAP- A ANALYTICA L PROCEDURE S
Th e following analytica

l procedure s ar

e designe dt o identif y o r scree n waste
. The

y ar e use db y CWM, base dupo n it s operatin

g experience , a

s rapi dbu

t effective mean

s fo r establishin

g ke y decisio n parameter

s pertinent t o prope r wast e management

. Th e analyses describe

di n the sections belo

w ar e base do n AST M an

d "Standar dMethods " approve

db y EP A o r ar e base do n procedures an

dprotocol formulatedb

y CW M an dmee t CW M performance standards

. Analytica l procedure s no

t liste dbelo

w ma y be adde da s necessar y wit h prio r LEP A approval

.

It shoul db e note dtha t th e informatio n presente

di n thi s appendi

x i s generi c i n character

. Therefore , certai n tes t

method s ar e discusse dwhic h ma y pertai n t

o treatmen

t o r disposa l processes tha

t ar e exclude dfrom th e facilit y fo r whic h th e foregoin g wast e analysi s pla

n i s presented

. I . UNIQU

E ANALYTICA L PROCEDURE S
Th e following analytica

l procedure s hav

e bee n foun db y CW M t o provid e importan

t quantitative informatio n pertinen t t o certain processes . I n som e cases , thes e tests hav

e bee n develope

db y CW M to provid

e informatio n not available from"Standar

dMethods " i n Section I I whic h follows

. I n othe

r cases , thes e test s ar

e substituted fo r "Standar dMethods " wher

e the y provid e sufficien

t equivalen t information

. Bench-Scal

e Treatmen

t Evaluatio n - Samples o

f wastes ar e combine dwit h samples o

f othe r wastes o r reagents a t predeterminedratios

. Further testing ma

y b e requiredi n orde

r t o confir mtha t the desiredreactio n has occurre d Chlorophenox

v Herbicide s b

v Hig h Performanc e Liqui dChromatograph y (HPLC ) - Thi s metho

d(CWM 92-78

) i s forth e analysi s o f

2,4-dichlorophenoxyaceti

c ari d(2,4-D) , 2,4,5-tricblorophenoxyaceti c ari d(2,4,5-T) , and2,4,5

- trichlorophenoxypropionic acid(Sihrex ) i n liquid s an

dsolids usin

g HPLC/UV

. Th

e chlorophenox

y acids an

d esters are hydrolyzedto their respectiv e salts b y heatin g an dstirrin g the sampl

e wit h aqueous alkali , The salt s ar e the n converte

dt o their respectiv e acids b y th e addition of

HCL

. Th e aqueous solution s o

f the free add s ar e the n analyze

dusing HPL C using ultraviole t detection

. DissolvedSulfide s - A n aliquo t o f wast e i s mixedwit

h distille dwater
. Th

e solution/slurr

y i s filteredthrough filter pape r andthe resultan

t filtrate i s then analyze

dfo r sulfide

. Saturate dantimon y potassiu mtartrate and 1: 1 hydrochloric acidar

e adde dandthe colo

r produce di s visuall y compare dwit h standards

.

WAP-A- 1 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4 

# VE S 00021 5

## Hea t Value by Nea

r Infrare dReflectance (NLTt ) Spectroscop

y - Hea t of combustio

n i s determine

db y Nea r Infrare dspectroscop

y i n adiffus e reflectance mod e by placin

g aproperl

y mixe dsampl e i n adiffus e reflectanc e cel l The instrumen

t produce s NU t

absorbanc

e spectru mwhic h ar e converte

dt o ahea t o f combustio

n value usin g apreviousl

y define dcalibratio n curve . Th e metho dfirs t screens fo r

samples t

o extract qualitativ e spectroscopi

c feature s fro mth

e NI Rspectr

aandthen produces quantitative datafo r hea t o f combustio

n usin g multivariat

e calibrations

. Metal s Scree

n by X-Ra y Fluorescence (XRF

) - Wast e sample s ma y b e prepare di f

necessary , b

y grinding t

o a specifie dmes

h size

. Th

e preparedsampl

e i s place di n asampl

e holde r andpositionedfo r

reading

. Instrumen

t outpu t identifie s the presenc

e of severa l metal s fo r

screenin g purposes . Semi-quantification o f selecte dmetal s i s the n possibl

e relativ e t o matrix matche dstandards

. Microwave Aide dDigestion - A portio n o f sampl e i s weighe

dint o a n appropriat

e microwav

e digestio n vessel and digestedusing amixtur

e of nitri c andhydrochlori

c acids

. Th

e vessel i s heatedi n amicrowav e ove n usin g programme

dstep s to minimize th

e possibilit

y o f venting

. Afte r

cooling , the contents ar

e dilute dt

o volume , filtere dan

danalyzedby the appropriat e method

. Organic s Screen bv TrnTTninoassa v

## - A portion o f the wast e sampl e i s preparedfo r

immunoassa

y screenin g (SW-846 4010

) by using appropriat

e separatio

n procedure s (e.g. , extraction , nitration , and/o r thi n laye

r chromatography)

. Th

e extract i s then mixe

dandincubatedi n astep-wise proces s insid e antibody-coate

dtubes

. Th e mechanic s of

mixing , incubating an

dmeasurin

g take s abou

t 3 0 minute s an dresult s i n acolo r chang e i n eac h tube

. Th e colo

r developmen

t i s inversel

y proportiona

l t o th e concentratio

n o f the antibody-specific anaryte(s) o

f interest , e.g. , herbicides , pentachloropheno l (POP) , pesticides , polyaromati c hydrocarbons (PAHs) , o r tota l petroleu

mhydrocarbon s (TPHs)

. PC B Scree

n by Immunoassa

y - A portio n o f

the wast e sampl e i s preparedfo r

immunoassa

y screenin

g (CW M 93-8 1 an d94-82

) b y performing a

n extraction wit

h methano

l followedb

y filtration Th

e sampl e extract i s the n mixedan dincubate di n astep-wise proces s insid e the antibody-coate

dtubes

. The mechanic s o f mixing , incubating an dmeasurin

g take s abou

t 3 0 minute s an

dresults i n acolo

r chang e i n eac h tube

. Th e colo

r developmen

t i s inversel

y proportiona

l t o the concentratio

n o f PCB s andi s detecte

dby aphotometer

. Percent Acidit y - Result s ar

e reporteda

s percen t o f CaC0 3 

## equivalen

t o r the particula

r specific specie s i f know n
Percent Alkalinity - Result s ar

e reporteda

s apercen t ofth e specific alkalin

e species (e.g. , CaOH , NaOH , etc.)

.

WAP-A- 2 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4

## Quick Leac h Extractio n Procedur e - A designate

damoun t o f sampl e i s mixedwith the appropriat e extractio n flui dan dstirre dfo r

adesignate

dtim e perio dAfte r

filtration , the p H and/o

r metal s conten

t ar e detennine d usin g th e appropriat

e approve dmethods

. Radioactivit

y Screen - A sampl

e of wast e materia l i s passe db y ageige r counte r o r surve y meter
. Radioactivit

y level s abov

e backgroun

dar e noted , recordedan

dinvestigate d
Solven t Screen - Use s "standar

dmethods " tailore dto the compoun dclas s bein g analyze d
Tan k FarmCompatibilit

y - Assessedb

y performing aLiqui dWast e Compatibilit

y Tes t on the liqui dwast

e receive dfo r

bul k storage wit

h acomposit

e sampl e ofth e tanks withi n the containmen t syste mt o which the wast e wil l b e adde dContainmen t are amaste

r composit e wil l b e mad e u p onc e pe r week

. Th e incomin

g material wil l b e checke

dagains t thi s maste

r composite

. Viscosit y - Th e viscosit

y of the materia

l i s visually evaluate

dusing wate

r as areferenc e fo r

lo w viscosity

. Viscosit y i s reporte da

s low , medium, high o

r non-flowable , etc
. Containerize dStorage Compatibilit y • Wil l be assesse

db y performing aLiqui dWast e Compatibilit

y Tes t o n the wast e receive dfo r

containe r storag e as follows : aTh e tes t

progra mapplie s onl

y t o materia l tha t fail s th e pain t filte r test
. b

. A maste

r composit e fo r eac h o f th e DO T hazar

dclas s categorie s wfl l b e maintaineda t the site

. c . Th e maste

r composit e wil l b e mad e u p initiall y b

y addin g 10 0 mi l o f eac h receive r i n th e categor

y t o an appropriatel

y sizedcontainer

. dWhe n the nee

dfo r compatibilit

y verificatio n ha

s bee n determine dacompatibilit y tes t wil l be performe dwit

h the appropriat

e DO T hazar

dclas s category , e . Th e compatibilit

y tes t wil l b e performe das follows : 1

. I n orde

r to ensur e tha t th e maste

r composit e represents the actua

l plant-wid

e inventor y i n eac h category , the maste

r composit e wil l b e maintainedi n an appropriatel y size dcontainer

. 2

. A 10

0 mi l sampl

e o f th e mcomin

g receive r wil l b e checke dwit h a10 0 mi l sampl

e of th e appropriat e DO T hazar

dclas s maste

r composit e using th e liqui dcompatibilit y test
. 3

. I f the receive

r passe s the compatibilit

y test , th e entir e 20 0 mi l mixtur

e i s adde dt o th e maste r composite

. Th

e receive r i s then approve

dto be store dwithi n an

y of the existing bay s containin

g drum s o f tha t DO T hazar

dclas s category
. 4

. I f the receive

r fail s the compatibilit

y test, th e sampl e wil l no t b e adde dt o the maste

r composite

. 5

. Th e receive

r wil l b e re-teste dagains

t on e o f the remaining DO T hazar dclas s categories

. WAP-A- 3 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4


# VE S 00021 7

## 6
. I f the receive

r i s not compatibl

e wit h an y existin g DO T hazar

dclas s maste

r composite , the drums wil l be segregate

di n storage unti l suc

h tim e tha t they ca n b e move

ddirectly to a proces s are afo r

treatment
. Th e testin g progra

mwil l not appl y t o smal l quantit y package dchemicals , materia

l tha t ha s been repackaged o r sohdified , o

r othe r materia l exempte dunde r 4.1. 4 and5.1.1

. I n the even t tha t acompatibilit

y i s performe d o n material s whic h ar

e indicate da

s incompatibl

e pe r DO T hazar

dclass , the compatibilit

y tes t wil l tak e precedenc e ove

r the DO T hazar

dclas s system
.

n . STANDARD ANALYTICA L PROCEDURE S
PARAMETE R METHO D REFERENC E Sample Wor

k U p Techniques : Inorgani c Technique s Aci ddigestion procedur

e fo r flam e atomi c absorption spectroscop

y Aci ddigestion procedur

e fo r furnac e absorptio n spectroscop

y Aci d(Parr) Bom

b digestion Aci ddigestion of

oils , greases , o

r waxe s Dissolutio n procedur

e fo r oils , greases , o r waxes Aci ddigestion o f

sludge s Alkalin e digestion (for

solids ) 1-301 0
8-84-07 ; 1-302

0 8-91-61 ; 3-E886 ; E926 ; 6-Bulleti n 474 5 1-303 0 1-304 0 8-84-08 ; 1-305

0 1-306 0 Organi c Technique s Separator y funne l hquid-liqui dextractio n Continuou s liquid-liqui dextractio n Acid-bas e clean-u

p extractio n Soxhlet extractio n Sonicatio n extractio n Alumin aColum

n Clean-u p an dSeparation o f

PetroleumWaste s Flurosf l Colum n Clean-u p Silic aGe l Clean-u

p Sulfu r Clean-u p Inorganic Analytica l Methods : Inductively Couple dPlasm aAtomi c Emission Spectroscop

y (ICP) Antimony Atomi c absorption , direct aspiration metho d Atomi c absorption , furnac e method Arseni c Atomi c absorption , furnac e method Atomi c absorption , gaseous hydrid e metho d WAP-A- 4 8-84-22 ; 1-351 0 1-352 0 1-353 0 1-354 0 1-355 0 1-361 1 8-84-22 ; 1-362

0 1-363 0 8-84-22 ; 1-366

0

1-601 0 1-7040 ; 4-204. 1 1-7041 ; 4-204. 2 8-84-10 ; 1-7060 ; 4-206. 2 1-7061 ; 4-206. 3 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4


# VE S 00021 8

## PARAMETE R METHO D REFERENC E
Bariu m Atomi c absorption , direct aspiration method 1-7080 ; 4-208. 1 Atomi c absorption , furnac e metho d 1-7081 ; 4-208. 2 Berylliu m Atomi c absorption , direct

aspiration method 1-7090 ; 4-210. 1 Atomi c absorption , furnac e metho d 1-7091 ; 4-210. 2 Cadmiu m Atomi c absorption , direct

aspiration method 1-7130 ; 4-213. 1 Atomi c absorption , furnac e metho d 1-7131 ; 4-213. 2 Calciu m Atomi c absorption , direct

aspiratio n method 1-7140 ; 4-215. 1 Atomi c absorption , furnac e metho d 4-215. 2 Chromium Atomi c absorption , direct

aspiratio n method 1-7190 ; 4-218. 1 Atomi c absorption , furnac e metho d 1-7191 ; 4-218. 2 Hexavalen

t chromium : Co-precipitation 1-719 5 Hexavalen

t chromium : Colorimetric 1-7196 ; 2-3500Cr D Hexavalen

t chromium : Chelation-extraction 1-7197 ; 4-218.4 Coppe r Atomi c absorption , direct aspiratio n method 1-7210 ; 4-220. 1 Atomi c absorption , furnac e metho d 4-220. 2 Iro n Atomi c absorption , direct aspiratio n method 1-7380 ; 4-236. 1 Atomi c absorption , furnac e metho d 4-236. 2 Phenanthroline method(ferrous ) 2-3500Fe D Lea d Atomi c absorption , direct aspiratio n method 1-7420 ; 4-239. 1 Atomi c absorption , furnac e metho d 1-7421 ; 4-239. 2 Magnesiu m Atomi c absorption , direct

aspiratio n metho d 1-7450 ; 4-242. 1 Manganes e Atomi c absorption , direct

aspiration metho

d 1-7460 ; 4-243. 1 Atomi c absorption , furnac e metho d 4-248. 2 Mercur y (manua l cold-vapo

r technique ) I n liqui dwast

e 8-84-12 ; 1-747 0 I n soli do r semi-soli dwast e 8-84-05 ; 8-84-12 ; 1-747 1 Nicke l Atomi c absorption , direct aspiration method 1-7520 ; 4-249. 1 Atomi c absorption , furnac e metho d 1-7521 ; 4-249. 2 Selenium Atomi c absorption , furnac e metho d 8-84-13 ; 1-7740 ; 4-270. 2 Atomi c absorption , gaseou s hydrid e method 1-7741 ; 4-270. 3 Silver Atomi c absorption , direct aspiration method 1-7760 ; 4-272. 1 Atomi c absorption , furnac e metho d 1-7761 ; 4-272. 2

WAP-A- 5 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4

## PARAMETE R METHO D REFERENC E
Thallium Atomi c absorption , direct aspiratio n method1-7840 ; 4-279. 1 Atomi c absorption , furnac e metho d1-7841 ; 4-279. 2 Zin c Atomi c absorption , direct aspiratio n method1-7950 ; 4-289. 1 Atomi c absorption , furnac e metho d4-289. 2 Organic Analytical Methods : Ga s Chromatographi c Method s Halogenate dVolatil e Organic s 1-801 0 Non-halogenatedVolatil e Organic s 1-801 5 Aromati c Volatil e Organic s 1-802 0 Acrolein , Acrylonitrile , Acetonitril e 1-8030 Phenol s 1-804 0 Phthalat e Ester s 1-806 0 Organochlorine Pesticide s an dPCB s 8-84-22 ; 1-808 0 Nitroaromatic s an

dCycli c Ketone s 1-809 0 Polynuclea

r Aromatic Hydrocarbon s 1-810 0 CMorinate dHydrocarbon s 1-812 0 Organophospbat

e Pesticide s 1-814 0 CMorinate dHerbicide s 1-815 0 G C Scan s 8-86-02 ; 3-E26 0 Ga s Chromatographic/Mas s Spectroscop y Method s GC/M S Metho dfo r

Dioxi n 1-8280 , 829 0 GC/M S Metho dfo r

Volatil e Organic s 1-8240 ; 7-62 4 GC/M S Metho dfo r

Semi-Volatile Organic s 1-8250 ; 8270 ; 7-62 5 Infrare dSpectroscopy Method s 3-D2621 , D4053 ; 5

- Screening Methods : Physical Descriptio n 3-D497 9 Flammabilit

y Potentia l Scree

n 3-D4982 Wate r Compatibilit

y 3-D5058 C p H Scree n 3-D498 0 Sulfid e Scree n 3-D497 8 Cyanid e Scree n 3-D504 9 CommingledWaste Compatibilit y 3-D5058A Polymerizatio n Potential 3-D5058B Oxidize r Scree n 3-D498 1 Pain t Filte r Tes t 1-909 5 Bul k Densit y an dApparen

t Specifi c Gravit

y Scree n 3-D505 7

WAP-A- 6 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4

## PARAMETE R METHO D REFERENC E
Miscellaneou s Analytical Methods : Acidit y Alkalinity Ammoni a Anion s by Io n Chromatograph y As h Conten

t Bromide s Chloride s Conductivity/Conductanc e Extractio n Procedur

e Flas h poin

t Pensky-Marten s closed-cu p method Setaflas h closed-cu

p method Clevelan dopen-cu

p Fluorid e Fre e Cyanide s Halogen Content Hea t Valu e Oi l andGreas e Oxidation-Reduction (Redox ) Potential (ORP

) Petroleu mHydrocarbons , Total Recoverabl e Phenol s p H Measuremen

t Phosphate s Radioactivit

y Screen Solid s Tota l (TS ) a

t 103-105° C Dissolve d(TDS ) a

t 180° C Suspende dTotal (TSS ) a t 103-105° C Fixe dandVolatil e a

t 500° C Specifi c Gravity Sulfate s Sulfu r Tota l andAmenable Cyanide s Total Chlorin e Conten

t Tota l Organic Carbo n Tota l Sulfide s Toxicit y Characteristi c Leaching Procedur e (TCLP ) Viscosit y Wate r Content 8-91-68 ; 2-231 0 2-232 0 4-350. 3 8-87-40 ; 3-D4327 ; 4-300. 0 8-91-69 ; 3-D482 , D317 4 2-4500Br- ; 4-300.0 , 320. 1 2-4500CT ; 4-300.0 , 325. 3 3-D1125 ; 4-120. 1

1-131 0 8-84-19 ; 1-1010 ; 3-D9 3 1

- 1020 ; 3-D327 8 3-D9 2 2-4500F" ; 4-300.0 , 340.2 , 340. 3

2

- 4500CN-H J 3-D808 , D236 L D432

7 8-87-37 ; 3-D240 , D201 5 2-5520 ; 4-413.1 , 413. 2

3-D149 8 2

- 5520F ; 4-418. 1 2-5530 , 6420 ; 4-420. 1 1-9040 , 9041 , 9045 ; 2-4500H+ ; 3-E70 ; 4-150. 1

2-4500P ; 4-300.0 , 365.1-

4 8-87-3 6 2-2540B ; 4-160. 3 2-2540C ; 4-160. 1 2-2540D ; 4-160. 2 2-2540E , 2540G ; 4-160. 4 2-2710F ; 3-D70, D891 , D1217 , D142 9 2-4500SO 4 2 

## " ; 4-300.0 , 375. 3 8-87-40 ; 3-D129 , D3177 , D432 7 1-9010A ; 2-4500CN-C,G ; 4-335. 1

3

- D808 , D432

7 2-5310 ; 3-D2579 1-9030 ; 2-4500S 2 

## "

1-131 1 8-86-35 ; 3-D88 , D446 , D298 3 3-D95 , D3173 , E20 3

WAP-A- 7 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4


# VE S 00022 1

## The above-reference dprocedure s ar

e describedi n the foUowin g publications

. Th e first

digi t ofth e referenc e numbers abov

e ar e keyedt o the number

s show n below : 1

- "Tes

t Method s fo r

Evaluatin g Soli dWaste , Physical/Chernica l Methods" , SW-846 , Thir dEdition , 1986 a s amende dby Updat

e I (July 1992) , U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Offic e o f Soli dWast

e (NTIS , 5285 Port

Roya l Road , Springfield , V A 22161 ) or mor e recen t edition o r revisio n (GPO , Supt

. o f Documents , Washington , D C 20402)

. 2

- "Standar

dMethods fo r

the Examinatio n o f

Wate r andWastewater" , 18t

h Edition , America

n Publi c Healt h Association (101 5 Fifteenth Street , NW , Washington , D C 20005) , America n Wate r Work s Association , Wate

r Environmen

t Federation , 1992, o

r mor e recen t edition o r update

. 3

- "Annua

l Boo k o f AST M Standards" , America n Societ y fo r Testin g andMaterial s (191 6 Race Street , Philadelphia , P A 19013-1187) , 1992 , o r mor e recen t edition or

revision

. 4

- "Methods fo r

Chemica l Analysi s o f

Wate r an dWastes" , EPA-600/4-79-020 , U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Environmenta l Monitorin g an

dSuppor t Laborator

y (Cincinnati , O H 45268) , as revise dMarc h 1983 , o

r mor e recen t revisio n o

r technica l edition

. 5

- Infrare dAnalysi s Metho di n HSRL-RTP Procedure s Manual

- Leve l 1 Environmenta l Assessmen

t (2n dEdition) , EPA-600/7-78-201 , October , 1978 , o r mor e recen t edition

. 6

- "Aci dDigestion Bombs" , Bulleti n 4745 , Par r Instrumen

t Compan y (Moline , I L 6L265) , or

mor e recen t bulletin

. 7

- "Methods fo r

Organi c Chemica

l Analysi s o

f Municipa l an dIndustrial Wastewater" , Appendix A o f Titl e 4 0 Cod e of Federa l Regulation s Part

136 , U
. S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Environmenta

l Monitorin g andSuppor

t Ijaboratory-Cmcinnati , a

s amende dJun e 198 6 or

mor e recen t revisio n 8

- "CW M Analytical Method s Manual" , Chemica l Wast e Management, Inc. , Analytical Programs , Septembe r 1992

. Standardanalytica

l procedure s liste dher

e which ar

e revisedca

n b e implemente

dupo n th e effectiv e dat

e o f th e revision , wit

h notificatio n t

o the LEPA-DLP C Permi t Sectio n

WAP-A- 8 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4

## APPENDI X WAP- B
AS H AN D DRY SCRUBBE RSOLID S
SAMPLIN G PROTOCO L



# VE S 00022 3

## APPENDI X WAP- B AS H AN D DR Y SCRUBBE RSOLID S SAMPLIN GPROTOCO L 1. 0 PURPOS E Th e TW I Incinerator s destro y hazardou s waste s i n high temperatur e therma l oxidation processes . Thi s procedur e provide s assuranc

e tha t arepresentativ e sampl

e o f ash o r dr y scrubbe r solids (DSS ) i s collectedfo r analysis

. 2. 0 SAMPLIN G 2. 1 Sampl e Identificatio n 2.1. 1 Eac h sampl

e containe r i s labeledwit

h date , tim

e o f day , sampler

, andcontaine

r identificatio n number

. The sample s ar

e logge dint o th e laborator

y Productio n Chain-of-Custod y logboo k upo n deliver y t o th e laboratory

. 2. 2 Sampl e Collectio n 2.2. 1 As h an dDS S samples ar e collected , analyzedan devaluate do n aquarterly basi s t

o ensur e the residual s me

t the LD Rtreatmen

t standards

. 2.2. 2 Sample s ar

e collecteda

s outlinedi n Sectio n 2.2. 1 of the WAP

. A n auge

r i s typically use dt

o obtain arepresentativ e sampl

e o f the as h or

DSS

. Eac h sampl

e ja r mus t be fille dwit h as

h o r DSS

. 2.2. 3 Trame doperation s personne l wil l collect

th e sampl

e an dsubsequentl

y acknowledg

e custod y b y completing applicabl

e sections of

th e laborator

y Production Chain-of-Custod y logbook

. Sampl

e preparatio n an danalysi s wil l be performe das soo n a s practicabl

e following whic h the disposition of the as h (Section 4.0

) wil l b e determine d 2. 3 Samplin g Personne l 2.3. 1 I t i s th e responsibilit

y o f Facilit y Managemen

t t o assig n onl y qualifie dpersonnel t

o perfor mth e as h o r DS S sampling

. Personnel tha t have been traine di n th

e implementation o f

thi s procedur

e ar e consideredto be qualifie d 3. 0 SAMPL E ANALYSI S 3. 1 Eac h sampl

e wil l b e sen t to aCW M or

CW M approve

dla b fo r analysi s o f LD Rconstituent s b y th e appropriat

e metho d 3. 2 Th e trackin g o f

wast e code s through th e incineratio n proces s to the incinerator residual s wil l b e don

e i n accordance wit

h TW I Standar

dDivisio n Practic e 1651

.

WAP-B- 1 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4



# VE S 000224

## 4. 0 DISPOSITIO N O F AS H AND DRY SCRUBBE RSOLID S (DSS) 4. 1 An y containe

r o f ash o r DS S tha t wa s sample dfo r testin g i n accordanc

e t o th e appropriat

e treatmen

t standar do r prohibition , wil l b

e retaine dby the facilit

y unti l result s are available fo r evaluation

. 4. 2 Th e analysi s result s ar e evaluatedagainst

th e LD Rtreatmen

t standards fo r

th e codes i n th e container

. Th e containe

r i s releasedi f

al l treatmen

t standard s ar

e met
. 4. 3 Th e analysi s result s ar e evaluate

dagainst th e LD Rtreatmen

t standards for

al l codes accepte

db y TWI
. Meetin g th e treatmen t standard s i s demonstrate dthroug h th e process . 4. 4 Whe n complianc

e wit h th e LD Rstandard s has bee

n demonstratedth e materia l wil l be stabilize dan

d subsequentl

y dispose do f a t CW M approvedhazardou s wast e managemen

t facilities

. Th e manifes t

an d Lan dDisposa

l Restrictio n Treatmen

t Certificatio n wil l be complete dprior t o shipment

.

WAP-B- 2 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4



# VE S 00022 5

## APPENDI X WAP- C
WAST E ACCEPTABILIT Y CRITERI A



# VE S 00022 6

## APPENDI X WAP- C
WAST E ACCEPTABILIT Y CRITERIA
The foUowin

g restriction s appl

y to th e acceptanc

e o f waste s exhibitin g certai n propertie s o r specifi c waste s a t TWI
. Prio r

t o acceptanc

e (se e Sectio n 5.2) , the Mandator y Analyse s an

dth e Wast

e Profil e Shee

t wi U be evaluatedagainst

thi s appendix

. An y restriction s identifie dwi U b e documente

do n th e wast

e managemen

t decision

. Th e lis t

o f items unde

r each o f thes e heading s i s no

t mean t t o b e exhaustive

. Th

e profilin g proces s wi U include areview o

f the MSDS s an dasearch o f th e othe r bibkograpbic resource s (se e Appendix WAP-F ) fo r synonyms , produc

t names , commo

n names . Th e natur

e o f the restriction s ar

e a s foUows :
REJEC T - These Material s ma y no tbe processe

d a tth e facility . Radioactiv e Waste s Thoriu mCompound

s Uraniu mCompound

s Radioactiv e material s a

s define db y th

e TWI Par t

B RCR A Permit , o

r greate r tha n 0. 5 miUirads pe

r hou r (pe r Sectio n 3.1.4

)
Permi t limite dWaste s F02 0 F02 1 F02 2 F02 3 F02 6 F02 7 F02 8 PCB s > 5 0 ppm(o

r othe r TSC A regulatedPCBs )

WAP-C- 1 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4

## Ttefnilntnr y Specifie dTreatmen

t Technolog

y othe r tha n Incineration D00 6 NiC dBatterie s D00 8 Lea daci dBatterie s K06 9 Non-CalciumSulfat e
Other Unacceptable Waste s Asbesto s
SPECIA L PACKAGIN G- Waste s exhibiting the propertie s liste dbelo w (water/ai

r reactive , malodorous , rapi dhea t release ) durin g th

e profilin g proces s ma

y b e accepte

di f the y ar e shipped i n specia l packaging , repackage

do n site o r i f the materia

l conform s t o specification s allowing processin g i n existin g TW I facilities

. Water/Ai r Reactiv e Waste s Isocyanate s Nitrate s Chlorate s Perchlorate s Thiony l chloride Meta l turning s Phosphorou s Meta l hydride s Silane s Chloroformate s Methylamin e Oleu m Other wate r o r ai r reactive waste s

WAP-C- 2 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4



# VE S 00022 8

## Malodorou s Compound s Mercaptan s Sulfide s
Wast e which exhibit s energetic characteristic s Wast e which exhibit s energetic characteristic s (e.g. , propellants , explosives , pyrotechnics , flammable liquids , etc ) wil l eithe

r b e accepte

dpe r th e Smal l Quantit

y Chemica l guideline s o

r wil l be accepte

dpe r the following procedure

. Whe n the volum

e of awast e strea mo r change s i n incinerato

r performance indicate s tha t alarge r charge size i s warrante dTW I wil l follo w the following procedure : 1 ) Th e material wil l b e reviewedusing referenc e information , MSDS s wher e available , generato

r discussion s o

r previou s experience

. Basedon thi s review , TW I wil l determine i f alarge r charge siz

e i s acceptable

. 2 ) When i t

has bee n determinedtha

t alarge r charg e size i s acceptable , TW I wil l either : a ) Determin

e i f thi s typ e of

materia l ha s bee n previousl

y processeda

t TW I i n large

r charge size s an dthereby establis h acharg e size ; o r b ) Conduc

t ates t bur n of the materia

l to o^termin

e wha t charge size woul db

e acceptable

. Thi s tes t bur n wil l star t with the quantit

y specifiedi n th

e SQCG' s ofth e energetic componen t an d b e increasedb y n

o mor e tha n doubl e the previou s charge fro mthi s startin g poin t base don th e incinerato r operations

. The incinerato r operation s parameters whic h wil l b e evaluatedt o determin e i f charge siz e ca

n b e increase dwil l b e a s follows : > Vacuu

mdecrease i n th

e primar y o r secondar y chamber

. > Temperatur

e increas e i n the primar

y chambe r o f > 100° F > Visua l interruptio n of the primar

y flam e > Non-stead

y stat e ga s flow

. NOTE : Thi s tes t

protocol ma

y be utilize dt

o establis h revisedcharg

e size s fo r al l material s previousl

y limite d i n th e SQCG's

. Tes t

burn documentatio

n wil l b e providedt

o th e LEPA-DLP C prio r

to implementin

g large r charge sizes

.

WAP-C- 3 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4



# VE S 00022 9

## DIOXI N TESTIN G - Waste

s which contain greate r tha n 0.01 % o f thes e constituent

s require dioxin analysis a ta 1 ppm threshold befor e acceptance. Erbo n (2-(2,4,5-tricMorophenoxy)-ethy l 2,2-dichloropropanate) ) Hexachlorophen

e (2,2-methylene-bi s [3,4,6-trichlorophenol] ) 2.4.5

- trichloropheno l 2.4.6

- trichloropheno l 2,4,5- T (2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy aceti c acid ) 2,4,5-T P (2-(2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy ) propanoi c acid , Silvex) 2,3,4,6-tetrachloropheno l Pentachloropheno l (PCP ) Ronne l (0,0-dimethy l 0-(2,4,5-tricblorophenyl)phosphorothioate) Debri s fromfir e involving PCB s o r the compound

s Hste dabov e
Som e of thes e waste s (Silvex , 2,4,5-T , andPCP ) ar e detecte db y the sCTeenin

g test s whic h willb e employe d o n dioxi n suspec

t wast e streams pe r

th e TWI Dioxi n Suspec

t Wast e Policy

. Additional waste s liste dabove , i f indicate db y th

e generato

r o n th e profil e information , wil l b e testedusing ga s chromatograp

h techniques ; Th e followin g ar

e bran dnam

e product s which includ

e the compound

s liste dabov

e (thi s lis t

i s no t intende dt

o b e al l inclusive) : AMCHE M FARMC O FENC E RIDE R SPONTO X AMIN E 2,4,5- T FENOPRO P SUPE RD WEEDON E AQUA-VE X FOERO N T-NO X BRUSH-REA P FRUTTON E T TORMAN A BRUSHTO X LNVERTO N 24 5 TRANSAMN E DACLN E KURO N TRLBUTO N DED-WEE D KUROSA L TRLNOXO L DOUBL E STRENGT H LIN E RIDE R U 4 6 DOWCEO E 3 PENCHLO R VEON24 5 DOWCLD E 6 PENTAGO N VERTO N 2 T DOWCLD E 2 S PENWA R VISK O RHA P LO W DOWCLD E EC- 7 PRJLTO X VOLATIL E ESTE R DOWCLD E G-S T REDDO N WEEDA R ENVERTD T SANTOBRIT E WEED-B-GON E ENVERT T SANTOPHE N WEEDBEAD S EMULSAMTN E B K SILVI-RA P WEEDON E ESTERON E STNITUH O
WAP-C- 4 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4



# VE S 00023 0

## APPENDI X WAP- D
DETERMINATIO N OF INCOMING WAST E
CONFORMANCE/NONCONFORMANC E

## APPENDIX WAP- D INCOMIN G WASTE CONFORMANCE/NO N CONFORMANC E Incomin g wast e ma y var y fro mthe information determine ddurin g th

e profilin g phase du

e t o th e variabilit

y i n the proces s generating th e wast e o r i n collectio

n o f th e wast e materia l I n orde

r t o determin

e whethe r a particula r mcomin g wast e strea mconform

s t o the profile , the following criteri awil l b e used

. Al l othe

r Mandator y andSupplementa

l analysi s dat

acollectedwil l b

e usedt o allow TW I t

o determin

e th e bes t method fo r processin g th e wast

e materia l
1

. p H Screen : A variatio n i n th e p H fromth

e rang e specifie di n the profil e document s ma y indicat e achange i n the wast

e stream
. I f

ap H variation beyon

dthe range specifiedo

n the liqui dprofil e sheet, th e procedure s outlinedi n Section 5.2.4 wil l b e initiate d(e.g. , awast

e whic h i s normall

y neutral i s foun dt

o b e corrosive)

. Material s wil l b e evaluatedfo r

conformanc

e a s follows : Profilin g Analytica

l Resul t Acceptabl

e Rang e < 2 < 2 2-12. 5 2-12. 5 > 12. 5 > 12. 5 Waste s profile da

s p H 2 to p H 12. 5 but

shippe dwith a n accompanyin

g LD Rfor mfor

D002 wil l b e consideredconforming a

t p H < 2 o r p H > 12. 5 i f

supportedb

y the profile dchemica

l constituents

. 2

. Flammabilit

y Potential Screen : A variatio n i n the therma l activit y fromthe indicators specifiedi n the profil e document

s wil l indicat

e achang e i n th e wast e streamI f

the variatio n causes achang e i n the hazardclas s of

th e waste , the procedure s outline di n Section 5.2.4 wil l b e initiate d(e.g

. a materia l which di dnot

exhibi t flammabilit

y potentia l i n the profilin g phase does durin g th e incomin g shipmen t procedures)

. 3

. PCBs : Th e unexpecte dpresenc e of PCB s > 5

0 ppmcontrar

y t o tha t specifiedi n the profil e document s wil l indicat

e achang e i n the wast

e stream , which woul

dinitiat e the procedure s outlined i n Sectio n 5.2.4

. TW I i s no t permitte dt

o accep t PCB s > 5

0 ppmo r TSC A derivedPC B wastes
. 4

. Radioactivit

y Screen : The presenc

e of radioactiv e material s a

s determine

dby th e radioactivit

y scree n (se e Sectio n 3.1.4

) wil l initiat

e the procedure s a

s outlinedi n Section 5.2.4 , leadin g t o rejection of

the materia l

WAP-D- 1 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4



# VE S 00023 2

## 5

. Apparen t Viscosity : A significan

t variatio n i n th

e apparen t viscosit y fro mtha

t specifie di n the profil e document s wil l indicat

e achang e i n th e wast e strea mtha t woul dinitiat

e th e procedure s outlinedi n Sectio n 5.2.4

.

WAP-D- 2 EEVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4



# VE S 00023 3

## APPENDI X WAP- E
CONTAINERIZE D WASTE : SPECIA L SAMPLIN G PROCEDURE S

## APPENDIX WAP- E CONTAINERIZED WASTE : SPECIA L SAMPLIN G PROCEDURE S
1. 0 PURPOS E Thi s procedur

e provide s assuranc

e tha t representative sample s ofth e following containerizedwaste s ar e collectedfo r

analysis

. Specifically , thes e ar e containerizedwaste s of debri s an dlik e material , adhesive s andothe

r highl y elastic substances , an

dresin s an

dothe r hardmaterials

. Representative samples ar

e collectedb

y usin g multipoin

t sampling

. 2. 0 DEFINITION S

2. 1 Debri s andlike materia l - include s woo dbricks , concrete , vegetation , plasti c sheeting , protectiv e clothing , etc
. 2. 2 Adhesive s andothe r highl y elasti c material s - sticky , glue-like , gummy, stretcbable materials

. 2. 3 Resin s andothe

r bardmaterial s - plastic s andplasti c components , epoxies an dothe r physicall y simila r material s tha

t hav e hardene do r cure d* 2. 4 Multipoint

sampl e - A sampl

e compose do f subsamples collectedfro mthe sam e containe

r tha t i s representative the content s o f the container

. 3. 0 INSPECTIO N Eac h containe

r wil l be evaluate

dprior to openin g t o determin

e it' s integrity

. Afte r

opening , the container' s contents wil l be visuall y inspecte dt o determin

e whethe r o r no t i t conforms with it s profile ddescription

. 4. 0 PERCEN T SAMPLE D

Se e Wast e Analysi s Plan Section 5.1

. 5.0 SAMPLIN G Multipoint

samples base

do n inspectio

n wil l b e collectedfro mcontainers selecte dfo r sampling

. Sampling equipmen

t wil l b e selecte

dbase do n result s of

th e inspection

. Samples wil l b e i n CW M custod y fromsampl

e collectio n unti l transfe

r o f custod y t o the analytica

l laboratory

. Sampling equipmen t wil l be decontaminate

dprio r t o an dafter samplin g eac h wast e stream
.

WAP-E- 1 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4



# VE S 00023 5

## 5. 1 HIGHL Y ELASTI C SUBSTANCE S Adhesive s an d othe r highl y elasti c substance

s wil l b e sample d wit h a scoo p o r shove l an d scissor s o rtongs . Th e procedur

e i s to:
5.1. 1 di p th e shove l o rscoo p int o th e materia l t o th e dept h o f th e blad e an d rotate; 5.1.2 lif tth e scoo p o r shove l wit h th e sampl e an d cu twit h th e scissor s o r tongs , a s appropriate

; 5.1. 3 win d th e hangin g portio n o f th e sampl e ont o th e scoo p o r shove l an d transfe r th e sampl e t o th e sampl e containe r b y scrapin g th e materia l fro m th e shove l o rscoo p int o th e sampl e container

. 5. 2 DEBRI

S AN D LIK E MATERIA

L Debri s an d lik e material

s wil l b e sample d wit h scissors

, hammer

, chise l an d tong s a s appropriate

. Th e procedur

e i s to :
5.2. 1 us e hamme r an d chise l t o collec tsample s o f woo d bric k o rothe r har d materia l fronrth e to p o f th e containe

r an d plac e i n th e sampl e containe

r wit h tongs; 5.2.2 us e scissor s t o cu tsampl e o f tyve k an d othe r easil y cutabl e material s (padding

, rubber , plasti c sheeting

, etc. ) an d plac e i n sampl

e containe r wit h tongs . 5. 3 RESIN

S AND/O ROTHE RHAR D MATERIAL

S Resin s and/o r othe r har d material

s wil l b e sample d wit h a hammer

, chise l an d tong s o rscoop . Th e procedur

e i s to :

5.3. 1 

## Us e hummer

## an

d chise l t o reduc e material(s

) siz e s o tha ti tca n easil y b e place d i n a sampl e containe r an d plac e th e sampl e i n th e containe

r wit h tong s o rscoop . SAMPLIN

G PERSONNE

L I ti s th e resrjonsibilit

y o f Facilit y Managemen

tt o assig n onl y qualifie d personne

l t o perfor m specialize d samplin g o f containerize

d waste . Personne

l tha thav e bee n traine d i n th e implementatio

n o f thi s procedur

e ar e considere

d t o b e qualifie d
SAMPL E ANALYSI

S Sample s wil l b e analyze d a s specifie d i n Section s 3.1 , 3.2 , an

d 3.3 , an d Figur e 3- 1 o f th e WAP . Additiona l analysi s wil l b e performe

d a tth e reques to f th e Facilit y Management

. WAP-E- 2 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4

## APPENDI X WAP- F
BIBLIOGRAPH Y O F STANDAR D CHEMICA L REFERENC E MATERIAL S



# VE S 00023 7

## APPENDI X WAP-F BD3LIOGRAPH

Y O F STANDAR

D CHEMICA L REFERENC E MATERIAL S

1 . Th

e Merc k Index , Curren tEdition , 198 3 Merc k & Co . Inc. , Rahway , NJ .

2 . Dangerou

s Propertie

s o f Industria l Chemicals

, Curren tEditio n 1989 , Va n Nostran

d Reinhold

, N Y NY.

3 . Handboo

k o f Reactiv e Hazards

, Curren tEdition , 1987 , Butterworths

, London .

4 . Condense

d Chemica

l Dictionary

, Curren tEdition , 198 7 Va n Nostran

d Reinhold,N

Y NY.

5 . CW

M AS-40 0 computerize

d MSD S system , curren tversion .

6 . Far

m Chemical

s '91 , Meiste rPublishin

g Co .

7 . Chemica

l Synonym

s & Trad e Names , Curren tEdition , 198 7 Gowe rTechnica

l Press .

8 . Lange'

s Handboo

k o f Chemistry

, Curren tEdition , 198 5 McGraw-Hill

.

9 . Handboo

k o f Reactiv e Chemicals

, Curren tEdition , 198 5 L . Bretherick

.

10 . Handboo

k o f Chemistr y & Physics

, Curren tEdition , 197 6 CR C Press .

WAP-F- 1 REVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4



# VE S 00023 8

## APPENDI X WAP- G
HM-18 1 COMPATIBILIT Y CLASSE S



# VE S 00023 9

## APPENDIX WA P- G
HM-18 1 COMPATIBILTI Y CLASSE S

DO T Clas s NAM E
1. 1 -1. 6 Explosive s
2. 1 - 2. 2 Aeroso l Can s
3 Flammabl e Liqui d
4. 1 Flammabl e Solid s 4. 2 Spontaneousl y Combustible s 4. 3 Dangerou s When We t
5. 1 Oxidizers 5. 2 Organi c Peroxide s
2. 3 Poisonou s Ga s Zon e A & B
6. 1 Poisonou s Liqui dZon e A
8 Corrosive s
9 Miscellaneou s N.O.S

. Debri s Non-Hazardou s Material

WAP-G- 1 EEVISIO N 1 1 9/29/9 4



# VE S 00024 0

# CHEMICALWASTE MANAGEMENT PCB SCREENING

POUCY

Revisio n 1 Octobe r199 1
VE S 00024 1

# CWM PCB SCREENING

POUCY


# INTRODUCTION Th e Toxi c Substance s Contro l Ac t (TSCA ) i s th e primar ysourc e o f federa l regulation s affectin g th e managemen t o f Polychlorinate d Biphenyl s (PCBs)

. Mos t o f th e provision s of th e TSC Aregulation s specifie d i n 4 0 CF R Par t 76 1 appl yt o PCB s onl yi f PCB s ar e presen t i n concentration s abov e specifie d levels

. Th e 4 0 CF R Par t 76 1 subpar t D Storag e an d Disposa l provision s appl ygenerall yt o materia l at concentration s o f 5 0 part s pe rmillio n (ppm ) an d above

. However , n o provisio n specifyin g a PC B concentratio n ma yb e avoide d b ydilutin g PC B containin g material s unles s otherwis e specificall yprovided

. Furthermore , th e Resourc e Conservatio n an d RecoveryAc t (RCRA ) i s a n additiona l sourc e o f federa l regulation s affectin g th e managemen t of hazardou s wast e containin g PCBs

. Th e lan d disposa l o f liqui d hazardou s waste s containin g PCB s a t concentration s greate rtha n o requa l t o 5 0 pp m i s prohibite d unde rth e provision s o f 4 0 CF R Par t 268.3 2 (a)(2)

. Th e lan d disposa l o f liqui d o rnon liqui d hazardou s wast e containin g halogenate d organi c compound s (HOCs ) including PCB s (se e 4 0 CF R Par t 26 8 Appendi xII I fo ra listin g o f HOCs ) a

t concentration s equa l t o o rgreate rtha n 100 0 mg/ L o r100 0 mg/kg , respectively , i s prohibite d unde rth e provision s of 4 0 CF R Par t 268.3 2 (a)(3) , (e)(1) , an d (e)(2 ) th e "Californi a List. " I n addition , th e managemen t o f liqui d hazardou s wast e containin g PCB s a

t concentration s o f 5 0 pp m o rabov e a s wel l a s liqui d o rnon liqui d hazardou s waste s containin g HOC s includin g PCB s (se e 4 0 CF R Par t 26 8 Appendi xII I fo rlis t of HOCs ) i n tota l concentration s equa l t o o rgreate rtha n 100 0 mg/ L o r100 0 mg/k g fo rliqui d o rsolid , respectively , ar e specifie d unde rth e provision s o f 4 0 CF R Par t 268.42

. Finally , th e lan d disposa l of hazardou s wast e containin g PCB s an d identifie d b yth e liste d hazardou s wast e cod e number s K08 5 an d F03 9 (multi-sourc e leachate ) i s regulate d unde rSpecifi c Lan d Disposa l Restriction s (LDR ) provision s unde r4 0 CF R Par t 268.43

. Thes e regulation s requir e PCB s t o b e treate d t o th e followin g level s (Tabl e I ) prio rt o lan d disposal

.

2 Revisio n 1 Octobe r199 1

# PC B Screenin g Policy
TABL E I
Wast e Wate rNon-Wast e Wate r K08 5 & F03 9 mg/ L mg/k g
Aroclo r101 6 0.01 3 0.9 2 Aroclo r122 1 0.01 4 0.9 2 Aroclo r123 2 0.01 3 0.9 2 Aroclo r124 2 0.01 7 0.9 2 Aroclo r124 8 0.01 3 0.9 2 Aroclo r125 4 0.01 4 1. 8 Aroclo r126 0 0.01 4 1. 8

Stat e an d loca l agencie s an d permit s mayals o regulat e th e managemen t o f PCBs

. Complianc e wit h thes e regulation s i s require d whereve rthe yar e mor e stringen t tha n federa l regulation s (e.g. , certai n state s requir e that th e PCB s b e reporte d o n a dryweigh t basis)

. Additionally , TSC Aaddresse s PCBs , no t Aroclors

. Thi s include s incidentall y produce d PCB s an d foreig n produce d material s that includ e Clophen*

. Phenoclor* , Pyralene*

. Kanechlor*

. an d Fenclor * I n orde rt o assur e tha t th e appropriat e practice s ar e bein g applie d consistentl y throughou t Chemica l Wast e Management , Inc

. (CWM ) regardin g th e managemen t o f waste s whic h ma ypotentiall ycontai n PCBs , It i s importan t t o defin e procedure s t o b e employe d throughou t th e company . Therefore , th e followin g Polic yan d Procedure s ha s bee n developed

.

3 Revisio n 1 Octobe r199 1

# PC B Screenin g Polic y



# //. POUCY A

. Th e treatment , storage , an d disposa l o f an yTSC Aregulate d wast e shal l occu ronl ya t a TSC Aapprove d treatment , storage , o rdisposa l facility

. B

. Al l PC B analyse s require d a s a resul t of th e applicatio n o f thi s polic yshal l b e performe d b ya CW M laborator yo ra CW M approve d wast e laboratory

. C

. An ywast e tha t wil l b e analyze d fo rPCB s i n accordanc e wit h thi s polic y shal l no t b e accepte d fo rstorage , treatment , o rdisposa l unti l PC B analyse s hav e bee n complete d an d evaluated

. D

. An ynon-TSC A wast e whic h meet s th e followin g criteri a shal l b e treate d a s a PC B suspec t wast e unti l demonstrate d otherwise , throug h chemica l analysis

. 

# ///. PCB SUSPECT

WASTE CRITERIA
Th e followin g criteri a hav e bee n develope d b yChemica l Wast e Management , Inc

. throug h it s extensiv e operatin g experience s a s wel l a s throug h revie w of variou s source s o f literature fo rdefinin g a wast e a s bein g PC B Suspect

. Thes e criteri a ar e intende d t o supplemen t existin g requirement s whic h ma yhav e bee n impose d throug h permi t conditions , administrativ e orders , o rothe ragreement s wit h federa l o rstat e regulator

yagencies

. A

. Generator-Define d PC B Wast e An ywast e fo rwhic h th e generato rha s indicate d o n th e "Generator' s Wast e Materia l Profil e Sheet " o ran yothe rsupportin g documentatio n that PCB s ar e presen t belo w regulate d levels

.

4 

# Revisio n 1 Octobe r199 1

# PC B Screenin g Polic y
B

. Oi l Bearin g Wast e NOTE:

. Di l bearin g waste s ar e define d a s an ymateria l (liquid , solid , organic , o raqueous ) containin g oi l a s describe d o n th e "Generator' s Wast e Materia l Profil e Sheet " (othe rsupportin g documentation ) O R an ymateria l whic h exhibit s th e visua l presenc e o f oil

. Th e visua l presenc e o f oi l ma y include , bu t i s no t limite d to , a n oi l emulsion , oi l film , oi l phase , o rwate r solubl e oil

. It i s th e responsibilit yo f th e LaboratoryManage ra t eac h divisio n t o us e soun d judgmen t base d o n thei ranalytica l experienc e t o mak e th e fina l determinatio n if a wast e strea m exhibit s th e visua l presenc e o f oil

. C

. Municipa l Wast e Wate rTreatmen t FacilitySludg e D

. Bul k

LaboratoryWaste s E

. Baghous e Dust s fro m SecondarySmelter s (e.g. , copper , aluminum ) F

. An yWast e a s Designate d b yth e Laborator yManage r G

. Al l Wastes , Liquid s o rSolids , fro m th e following : 1

. Electrica l Utilit

yCompan y 2

. Natura l Ga s Pipelin e Transmissio n Compan y 3

. Solven t Recovery , Reus e o rRecyclin g Uni t 4

. Oi l Recovery , Reus e o rRecyclin g Uni t 5

. Oi l Maintenanc e Center s 6

. Pon d Closure s (includin g Pon d Sludge s an d Dredgings ) 7

. Remedia l Actio n Superfun d Site s 8

. RCR ACorrectiv e Actio n Project * 9

. Timber/Lumbe rTreatin g Facility 10

. Hydrauli c Equipmen t 11

. ENRA C Remedia l Actio n Projects *

* Unles s demonstrate d non-TSC A

5 Revisio n 1 Octobe r199 1

# PC B Screenin g Polic y
12

. Heat Transfe rUnit s 13

. Meta l Machinin g (Cutting ) Operation s 14

. Pestidde/Herbicid e Manufacturin g 15

. In k

an d Pigmen t Manufacturin g 16

. Oi l Base d Pain t Manufacturin g 17

. Pape rRecyclin g Operation s 18

. Roofin g Fel t Manufacturin g o rProcessin g 19

. Aut o Fluf

f 20

. Non-WM I Wast e Treater s 21

. Chlorobenzen e Manufacturin g


# IV . PROCEDURE S A

. Pre-Acceptanc e Sample s Pre-acceptanc e sample s ar e t o b e analyze d fo rPCB s b ya laborator yi f th e wast e strea m meet s an yo f th e criteri a specifie d i n sectio n II I above

. B

. Incomin g Wast e Shipmen t Sample s Th e nee d t o analyz e incomin g wast e shipmen t sample s fo rPCB s wil l b e establishe d b yth e result s of th e sale s sampl e analysi s an d evaluatio n o f th e sale s sampl e Wast e Profil e Shee t informatio n agains t thi s policy

. Tabl e I I describe s th e overal l requirement s discusse d below

. If a wast e strea m doe s no t mee t an yof th e PC B suspec t criteria , the n ther e i s n o specifi c requiremen t t o perfor m PC B analyse s o n th e incomin g shipment s o f thi s wast e strea m unles s specificall yrequire d unde ra Wast e Analysi s Pla n (WAP)

.

6 Revisio n 1 Octobe r199 1

# PC B Screenin g Polic y
If a wast e strea m meet s an yof th e PC B Suspec t Criteri a an d th e sale s sampl e analysi s indicate s PCB s ar e les s tha n 5 ppm 1 

# o rth e regulator ylimi t (Th e ER ATSC Aoffic e ha s recentl yspecifie d concentration s of les s tha n 2 pp m PCB s i n treatmen t residue s fo rapprova l an d refe rt o Tabl e I fo r liste d cod e specifications) , whicheve ri s lower , the n th e laboratory/technica l manage rmus t specif yo n th e Wast e Managemen t Decisio n (WMD ) whethe r PC B analyse s o n incomin g wast e shipment s ar e require d and , i f so , th e frequenc yof analyses

. If a wast e strea m meet s an yof th e PC B Suspec t Criteri a an d th e sale s sampl e analysi s indicate s PCB s ar e abov e 5 ppm 1 

# o rth e regulator ylimit , whicheve ri s lower , the n th e laboratory/technica l manage rmus t specif yo n th e WM D that PC B analyse s o n incomin g wast e shipment s are require d an d th e frequenc ya

t whic h that analysi s i s t o b e performed

. I f th e receip t materia l demonstrate s a chang e i n th e wast e fro m th e pre acceptanc e sampl e an d i t no w meet s th e PC B suspec t criteria , the n PC B analysi s mus t b e performe d befor e treatment , storage , o rdisposal

.

1 

# Th e specifi c criterio n o f 5 pp m i s th e typica l laborator yreportin g limi t fo rPC B analysis

. I t i s a conservativ e approac h t o protectin g th e integrityo f non-TSC A facilities

.

7 Revisio n 1 Octobe r199 1

# PC B Screenin g Policy

WP S

Not a Suspect

(WMD ) N o Actio n Require d 

# TABL E I I

1 PC B Suspect I 

# 7 La b Dat a CW M or Generato r

( WMD ) Frequenc y o f Testin g 

# )

< 5 pp m PC B ( Ye s o r N o )
( WMD W Yes Frequenc y o f Testin g



# Meet s PC B Suspec t Criteri a *Sale s Sampl e

PC B Result s Receivin g Procedure s

N o Ye s

Ye s < 5 pp m

> 5 pp m

* o rth e regulator

ylimit , whicheve ri s lower

. N o specifi c action s required

. Specif yi n Wast e Managemen t Decisio n (WMD ) whethe rPC B analyse s o n incomin g wast e shipment s ar e require d and , if so , th e frequencyof analyses

. WM D mus t specif ythat PC B analyse s are require d o n incomin g wast e shipment s an d mus t specif yth e frequencyo f thos e analyses

.

Revisio n 1 Octobe r199 1

VE S 00024 8

# Trad e Wast e Incineratio n 7 Mobil e Avenu e Sauget . I L 62201-106

9 618/271-280

4



# TRAD K HAST E I MC I HERA T I O W DIOXI M

SUSPEC T AWALTSI S POLIC Y

SEPTEMBER28 , 199 4

a divisio n o

t 0 ^ Chemica l Wast e Management , Q Pnrle d o r feoae a ca p 

# VE S 00024 9

## TW I DIOXIN ANALYSI S POLIC Y
I . INTRODUCTIO

N Trad e Wast e Incineratio n i s implementin g thi s polic y fo r th e screenin g o f

waste s whic h ma y contai n dioxins . Thi s polic y wil l identif y th e type s o f waste s whic h mus tb e analyse d fo r dioxin s o r dioxi n precursor s prio rt o approva l fo racceptanc e a s a wast e strea m a tTWI . Implementatio n o f thi s polic y wil l provid e a mean s o f ensurin g tha tpotentiall y dioxi n contaminate d waste s ar e analyze d fo rdioxi n conten tan d subsequentl y manage d appropriatel y accordin g t o applicabl e stat e an d federa l regulations . The fina l decisio n t o manag e a dioxi n bearin g wast e mus tb e mad e accordin g t o . th e condition s an d restriction s o f th e governin g facilit y Was£ e Analysi s Pla n an d operatin g permits . - >
II . POLIC Y A . Wast e stream s contemplate d fo r managementa tTW I wil l b e subjecte d t o th e Dioxi n Suspec tWast e Criteri a durin g th e decisio n evaluatio n proces s o f th e profilin g procedure . B . Waste s whic h ar e determine d t o mee tth e Dioxi n Suspec t Wast e Criteri a wil l requir e analysi s fo r dioxi n precursor s prio rt o acceptanc e an d managementfo r treatmen tan d disposa l a tth e facility . C . Waste s whic h ar e foun d t o contai n dioxi n precursor s a to r abov e th e sit e actio n leve l fo r precursor s wil l requir e dioxi n analysi s prio rt o acceptanc e an d managementfo r treatmen tan d disposa l a tth e facility . D . Waste s whic h ar e foun d t o contai n dioxin s a to r abov e th e sit e actio n leve l wil l no tb e accepte d fo r managementfo r treatmen tan d disposa l a tth e facilit y unti l suc h tim e tha ttreatmen tan d disposa l ar e allowe d accordin g t o th e condition s an d restriction s o f th e governin g facilit y Wast e Analysi s Pla n an d operatin g permits .



# VE S 00025 0

## DIOXI N SUSPEC T WAST E CRITERI A
Th e followin g criteri a ha s bee n develope d fo r definin g a wast e a s dioxi n suspect . Thes e criteri a ar e intende d t o supplemen t existin g requirement s whic h ma y hav e bee n impose d throug h permi tconditions , administrativ e orders , o r othe r agreement s wit h federa l o r stat e authorities . Waste s considere d unde r thes e criteri a remai n subjec tt o al l existin g condition s impose d b y Chemica l Wast e Managemen tpolicie s an d environmenta l directives . A . Generato r Define d Dioxi n Waste . Any wast e fo rwhic h th e generato r ha s indicate d o n th e "Generator' s Wast e Materia l Profil e Sheet " o r an y othe r supportin g documentatio n tha tdioxin s o r dioxi# i precursor s ar e presen ta tan y level . ; f B . Waste s Fro m th e Following : Thes e waste s wil l b e considere d a s suspec ti f the y ma

y hav e bee n subjec tt o historica l contaminatio n fro m dioxin s o r dioxi n precursors , o r i f th e waste s contai n a know n dioxi n o r dioxi n precurso r material . 1 . Timber/Lumbe rTreatin g Facilities . 2 . Pesticide/Herbicid e Manufacturin g Facilities . 3 . Manufacturer s o r Processe s Using :
a ) mono- , di- , tri- , o r tetrachlorophenols , an d thei r chloro-phenox y derivativ e acids , esters , amine , an d othe r salts . b ) pentachloropheno l c ) mono- , di- , tri- , tetra- , penta- , o r hexachlorobenzenes . d ) trichlorophenoxypropioni c aci d (silvex ) e ) trichlorophenoxyaceti c aci d (2,4,5-T ) f ) hexachlorophen e 4 . Combustio n product s fro m source s outsid e o f th e CWM/WM X Technologie s famil y o f companie s wher e suc h combustio n occurre d unde r uncontrolle d condition s an d th e formatio n o f dioxin s o r dioxi n relate d compound s i s suspecte d t o hav e occurre d (i.e . th e combustio n o f

PVC , CPVC , etc.) . C . Waste s bearin g EP A hazardou s wast e number s F032 , F039 , K001 , K015 , K016 , K030 , K042 , K043 , K085 , K099 , K105 , K149 , K1S0 , an d K151 .

## IV . PROCEDURE S
A . Precurso r Analysis : Dioxi n precurso r analysi s ma y b e conducte d b y HPLC , G C o r GC/MS , o r immunoassa y scree n technique s followin g approve d EP

A method s o r CW M modification s o f suc h methods . 1 . Profil e Approva l Samples : Profil e approva l sample s ar e t o b e analyze d fo r dioxi n precursor s i f th e wast e strea m meet s an y o f th e criteri a specified-i » sectio n II I above . Waste s whic h ar e bein g reprofile d o r recertifie d du e t o change s i n th e proces s generatin g th e waste , o r a s a resul to f generato r informatio n gathere d durin g th e noji ~ conformanc e resolutio n durin g incomin g analysi s ac e als o subjec tt o th e criteri a specifie d i n sectio n III . 2 . Incomin g Wast e Shipmen tSamples :
a ) Th e nee d t o analyz e incomin g wast e shipmen t sample s fo r dioxi n precursor s wil l b e establishe d b y th e result s o f th e profil e approva l sampl e analysi s an d a n evaluatio n o f th e wast e profil e shee tinformatio n agains t th e criteri a establishe d i n thi s policy . b ) I f

a wast e strea m doe s no tmee tan y o f th e criteri a establishe d i n sectio n II I o f thi s policy , the n ther e i s n o specifi c requiremen t t o perfor m dioxi n precurso r analysi s o n th e incomin g shipmen tsample s o f th e wast e stream . c ) I f

th e receip tmateria l demonstrate s a chang e i n th e wast e fro m th e profil e approva l sampl e (i.e . informatio n provide d b y th e generato r durin g th e non-conformanc e resolutio n process) , an d i tno w meet s th e criteri a establishe d i n sectio n II I o f thi s policy , the n dioxi n precurso r analysi s mus tb e performe d a s par to f th e incomin g analysis . d ) Waste s whic h mee tth e criteri a establishe d i n sectio n II I o f

thi s polic y an d whic h exhibite d negativ e scree n result s fo r dioxi n precursor s durin g profil e approva l analysi s wil l no tb e screene d upo n receipt .



# VE S 00025 2

## e ) Haste s whic h mee tth e criteri a establishe d i n sectio n II I o f

thi s polic y an d whic h exhibite d positiv e scree n result s fo r dioxi n precursor s durin g profil e approva l analysi s wil l b e screene d upo n receip ti f th e profil e approva l scree n indicate d dioxi n precursor s abov e th e precurso rthreshol d value , an d subsequen t dioxi n analysi s confirme d dioxin s belo w th e dioxi n threshol d valu e (o r no tpresent) . Th e incomin g scree n wil l b e limite d t o onl y thos e precursor s whic h wer e detecte d durin g profil e approva l analysis . I f th e incomin g scree n indicate s th e presenc e o f dioxi n precursors , incomin g dioxd n confirmatio n analysi s wil l b e conducte d i f th e level s o f

precursor s i n th e incomin g scree n excee d th e level s o f precursor s i n th e profil e approva l analysi s wit h th e followin g guidelines : I i ) Profil e approva l precurso r scree n wa s positive , dioxi n confirmatio n analysi s wa s negative , non e detected .

- an d - Th e incomin g scree n indicate s precurso r level s greate r tha n a facto r o f 1 0 time s abov e th e profil e approva l results . i i ) Profil e approva l precurso r scree n wa s positive , dioxi n confirmatio n analysi s wa s negative , bu tdioxi n wa s detecte d belo w threshol d value .

- an d - Th e incomin g scree n indicate s precurso r level s greate r tha n a prorate d leve l abov e th e profil e approva l results . Th e prorate d leve l i s determine d a s follows : (DT L / DLD ) X PP L where : DT L = dioxi n threshol d leve l

DL D = dioxi n leve l detecte d (profil e approval ) PP L = profil e approva l precurso rleve l B . Dioxi n Analysis : Dioxi n analysi s wil l b e performed , wit h th e concurrenc e o f th e generato r o f th e waste , followin g a dioxi n precurso rscree n whic h indicate s a precurso r presen ta t o rabov e 0.01 % b y weight . Detectio n limit s fo r dioxi n analysi s wil l b e se ta ta 1 par tpe r millio n threshold . 

# VE S 00025 3

## DEFINITION S A . Dioxin : Genera l famil y nam e fo r compound s know n a s polychlorinate d dibenzo-p-dioxin s (PCDDs) . Specifically , "dioxin " i s typicall y use d t o refe r t o 2,3,7,8 - tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin , o r 2,3,7,8-TCDD . B . Dioxi n precursors : Chemical s whic h whe n manufacture d hav e bee n shown t o contai n dioxin s a s a wast e o r by product . Dioxi n precursor s ar e o f simila r chemica l compositio n t o dioxins . Som e example s .ar e 2,4,5 - trichlorophenol , silvex , an d hexachlorophene . C . HPLC : Hig h Pressur e Liqui d Chromatography . Thi s analysi s techniqu e i s use d i n CH M metho d 192-78 , "Th e Analysi s o f

Chlorophenox y Herbicide s usin g HPLC" .

.. . * 

## 0 . GC . GC/MS : Ga s Chromatography , GC/Mas s Spectroscopy . Analysi s instrumentatio n use d fo r th e specifi c identificatio n o f numerou s organi c compounds . Typically , th e method s fo r quantificatio n o f specifi c dioxin s o r dioxi n precursor s us e G C o r GC/M S techniques . E . Immunoassay screen : A quick , semi-quantitativ e metho d o f identifyin g th e presenc e o f a specifi c chemica l o r chemica l family . Specifically , SH-84 6 Metho d 4010 , Immunoassay Tes tfo rth e Presenc e o f Pentachlorophenol .
B:\TWIDIOX.TX T

# PO L 1C Y REV(E WO FPRO F1L E CONSTITUENT

S Suspec t pe r po1 i c y No

t suspect pe r polic y i << 1 1 

### > > — i 

# Conduc t dioxi n precurso r analysi s Proceedwit h decisio n process , n

o pre curso r analysi s Dioxi n precursor s found <<

- 

# Precursor s not

found ->> - 

# Doe s generator

wan t |N o t o hav e dioxi n test
- [—»

• in g performed ?

T _l

_ 

# Den

y decisio n 

# 1

N o dioxi n testin g N o precurso r

testin g o n incomin

g wast e Ye s Conduc t dioxi n analysi s

I 

# Wa s dioxi n detected ? V N o

_ i 

# Ye

s Wa s t h leve l dioxi n > 1 ppm ? Approv e decision , conduct precurso r analysi s o

n incomin g wast e shipment

s I 

# I s incomin

g wast e shipmen t precurso r leve l > 1

0 time s th e profil e analysi s pro-curso r

level ?

" I 

# V Yes Ye s Den y decisio n o r rejec t shipmen t V N o Approv e decisio n (o r

accept wast e shipments) , conduc

t pre curso r analysi s o

n incomin g wast e shipments
->> - 

# N o
—>> - 

# Accept

th e wast e shipmen

t

Doe s th e generator wan t t o hav e dioxi n testin g performed ? N o
V Yes i 

# Rejec t th e wast e shipmen

t

Conduc t dioxi n analysi s

T V 

# Wa s dioxi n detected ? V N o Ye

s ->> - Accept th e wast

e shipmen t -<< - 

# I s the pro

> . rate dIncomin

g waste , shipmen

t precurso r "•'

. screen di16x1h leve l •'<• • 1 • (see po l ic y sectio n IV , A , 2 , e , 11T

? V N o

Modif y decisio n analysi s result s fo r rati o o f

pre cursor s t o dioxih v i f necessar

y i

.. . ;

V Ya a -Iv y «•»••'•• • 

# Accep t wast e shipmen t

VE S 00025 5

# VE S 000256.pd f

# Draf

t Technica l SupportDocumentfo r HW C MAC T Standard s (NODA )
Volum e III : Evaluatio n o f Meta l Emission s Databas e t o Investigat

e Extrapolatio n an

dInterpolatio n Issue s

U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y Offic e o f Soli d Wast e an d Emergenc yRespons e (5305 ) 40 1 M Street , S W Washington , D.C

. 2046 0

Apri l 199 7

VE S 00025 6

## ABSTRAC T
Existin g U.S

. EP A guidanc e o n usin g extrapolatio n o r interpolatio n t o projec t emissio n level s base do n measure dfee drate s an demission s level s i s re-evaluated

. Th e evaluatio n i s base d o n theoretica l consideration s as wel l as recen t compilatio n o f

metal s fee drat

e an demissio n result s fro mman y hazardou s wast e combusto r tria l bur n complianc e test s a s part o f th e EPA' s development

o f revise demission s standard s fo r hazardou s wast

e combustors

. "Upward " extrapolatio n (fro mthe origin ) i s conservativ e fo r al l metal type s an dvolatilitie s (i.e. , emissio n level s predicte da t ahighe r

fee drate base do n extrapolatio n fro mmeasure d emission s level s a

t alowe r fee drate ten dto b e greate r tha n o r equal t o th e actual emissio n level s a t the highe r

fee drate)

. Thi s i s becaus e the metal s syste mremova l efficienc y tend s to sta y the sam

e or increas e wit h increasin g fee drate
. Thi s i s supporte db y theory , a s wel l a s analysi s o f

alimite d dataset
. Thus , upwardextrapolatio n continue s to b e recommende da s avali dalternativ e fo r

settin g metal s fee drate limits

. "Downward " extrapolatio n may b e appropriate fo r certai n meta l type s and fee drat e ranges . However , becaus e theor y an dlimite demission s dataanalysi s indicat e tha t i t may no t produc e conservativ e result s i n some cases , i t can no t b e generall y recommended

. Potentia l extrapolatio n implementatio n procedure s ar e discussed , includin g the us e o f a"universa l variabilit y factor"

.



# VE S 00025 7

## ACKNOWLEDGMENT S
Thi s documen t

wa s prepare db y EPA' s Offic e o f Soli dWaste , Wast e Minimizatio n an d Management

Division

. Energ y an dEnvironmenta l Researc h Corporatio n (EER ) provide dtechnica l suppor t under EP A contrac t

No
. 68-D2-0164

.

i i



# VE S 00025 8

## CONTENT S
ABSTRAC T i ACKNOWLEDGMENT S i i FIGURE S i v TABL E v i ACRONYM S vi i 1. 0 INTRODUCTIO N 1 2. 0 CURREN T BOILE RAN D INDUSTRIA L FURNAC E RUL E GUIDANC E 1 3. 0 RELATIONSHI P BETWEE N METAL S FEE D RAT E AN D EMISSIO N RAT E 2

Theoretical Consideration s 2 Tria l Bur n Sourc e Testin g Evaluation s 4 Individua l Metal s Fro mth e Sam e Facilit y . . . : 4 Group s o f

Simila r Behavin g Metal s Fro mthe Sam e Facilit y 7 Conclusion s o n Appropriatenes s o f Extrapolatio n 7 4. 0 DEVELOPMEN T O FA N EXTRAPOLATIO N PROCEDUR E 9 5. 0 REFERENCE S 1 3

ii i



# VE S 00025 9

## FIGURE S
1 Basi s fo r

Boile r andIndustrial Furnac e Guidanc e o n extrapolatio n 1 5 2 Theoretica l relationshi p betwee n metal s emission s an dfee drat e 1 6 3 Relationshi p betwee n metal s emission s an dfee drat e fo r metal s grouping s 1 7 4 Metal s emission s an dfee drat e relationship s —

Heart h incinerato r

wit h SD/VD/PB S (D u Pon t Experimenta l Facilit y Incinerator , Wilmington , DE ; I D No
. 700 ) 1 8 5 Metal s emission s an dfee drat e relationship s —Rotary kil n incinerato r wit h WHB/VS/PT/H S (ENSCO , Bridgeport , NJ ; I D No
. 807 ) 1 9 6 Metal s emission s an dfee drate relationship s —Rotary kil n incinerato r wit h V S (Tennesse e Eastman , Kingsport , TN ; I D No
. 809 ) 2 0 7 Metal s emission s an dfee drate relationshi p ~ Rotary kil n incinerato r wit h IW S (Rollins , Bato n Rouge , LA ; I D No
. 214 ) 2 1 8 aMetal s emission s an dfee drat e relationshi p —Liqui dinjectio n incinerato r wit h WHB/FF/VQ/P T (Laidlaw , Roebuck , SC ; I D No
. 209 ) 2 2 8 b Metal s emission s andfee drat e relationshi p —Liqui dinjectio n incinerato r wit h WHB/FF/VQ/P T (Laidlaw , Roebuck , SC ; I D No
. 209 ) 2 3 9 Metal s emission s an dfee drate relationship s —Rotary kil n incinerato r wit h WS/ESP/P T (3M , Cottag e Grove , MN ; I D No
. 334 ) 2 4 1 0 Metal s emission s an dfee drat e relationship s —Liqui dinjectio n incinerato r wit h VS/PB S (Tennesse e Eastman , Kingsport , TN ; I D No
. 810 ) 2 5 1 1 Metal s emission s an dfee drat e relationshi p —Rotai y kil n incinerato r wit h SD/FF/WS/IW S (Aptus , Coffeyville , KS ; I D No
. 325 ) 2 6 1 2 Meta l emission s an dfee drat e relationshi p ~ Rotary kil n incinerato r wit h SD/FF/WS/WES P (Aptus , Aragonite , UT ; I D No
. 327 ) 2 7 1 3 Meta l emission s an dfee drat e relationshi p —Rotary kil n incinerato r wit h HE/F F Lak e Cit y Arm y Ammunitio n Plant , Independence , MO ; I D No
. 503 ) 2 8 1 4 Metal s emission s an dfee drate relationship s (EP A IRF , Arkansas , rotar y kil n incinerato r

wit h VS/PB ) 2 9 1 5 Metal s emission s an dfee drat e relationship s —Cement kiln s (Keyston e Cement , Bath , PA ; No
. 207/208 ) 3 0 1 6 Metal s emission s an dfee drate relationshi p ~ Cement kiln s (Holnam , Holl y Hill , SC ; I D No
. 205/206 ) 3 1 1 7 Metal s emission s an dfee drat e relationship s —Cement kil n wit h F F(Southdown , Knoxville , TN ; I D No
. 316 ) 3 2 1 8 Metal s emission s an dfee drat e relationship s fo r

individua l metal s an dfacilitie s wit h multipl e condition s —Cement kiln s (Lafarge , Fredonia , KS ; I D No
. 322/323 ) 3 3 1 9 Metal s emission s an dfee drat e relationshi p fo r

individua l metal s an dfacilitie s wit h multipl e condition s —Cement kil n (Lon e Sta

r Industries , Inc. , MO ; No
. 303 ) 3 4 2 0 Metal s emission s an dfee drat e relationshi p fo r

individua l metal s andfacilitie s wit h multipl e condition s —Cemen t kiln s (As h Grove Cement Company) , Chanute , KS ; I D No
. 401/402 ) 3 5 2 1 Metal s emission s an dfee drat e relationship s —Ligh t

weigh t aggregat e kiln s wit h FF/V S (Norlite , Cohoes , NY ; I D No
. 307 ) 3 6
i v



# VE S 00026 0

## 22 aSelecte dmetal s emission s andfee drat e relationship s 3 7 22 b Selecte dmetal s emission s an dfee drat e relationship s 3 8 23 aMetal s emission s an dfee drat e relationship s fo r

lo w volatil e metal s grouping s fo r individua l facilitie s (cemen t kilns ) 3 9 23 b Metal s emission s an dfee drat e relationship s fo r

lo w volatil e metal s grouping s from individua l facilitie s (cemen t kilns ) 4 0 24 Metal s emission s an dfee drat e relationshi p fo r

lo w volatil e metal s grouping s fo r individua l facilitie s (incinerator s an dboilers ) 4 1 2 5 Metal s emission s an dfee drat e relationshi p fo r

lo w volatil e metal s grouping s fo r individua l facilitie s 4 2 2 6 Chromiu mfee drat e andemission s relationshi p fo r al l hazardou s wast

e burnin g combustor s 4 3 2 7 Lea dfee drat

e an demission s relationship s fo r al l hazardou s wast

e burnin g combustor s 4 4 2 8 Option s fo r

th e tria l bur

n metal s extrapolatio n procedure 4 5 2 9 Residua l analysi s fo r semi volatil e metal s 4 6 3 0 Modifie dhybri dtria l bur n metal s extrapolatio n procedur e 4 7 3 1 Illustratio n o f

the conservativ e impac t o f extrapolatio n of f

o f stack gas detectio n limi t tria l bur n measuremen

t 4 8

v



# VE S 00026 1

## TABL E
1 Metal s residual analysi s 4 9

v i

VE S 00026 2

## ACRONYM S
APC D Ai r

pollutio n contro l devic e BI F Boiler s an dindustria l furnace s dcfm dr

y standar dcubi c mete

r EP A Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y ES P Electrostati c precipitator F F Fabri c filter H E Hea

t exchange

r H S Hydrosoni c educto r scrubbe r IR F Incineratio n Researc h Facilit y IW S Ionizin g we t scrubbe r MAC T Maximu machievabl e conho l technolog y

microgra m(10- 6

## gram

) n g nanogra

m(10- 9 

## gram) NOD A Notic e o f dat aavailabilit y P B Packe dbe d PB S Packe dbe dscrubber S D Spray drye r SR E Syste mremova l efficienc y P M Particulate matte r P T Packe dtowe r U V F Universa l variabilit y facto r V Q Ventur i quenc h V S Ventur i scrubber WES P We t

electrostati c precipitato r WH B Wast

e hea t boile r 

# w s We t

scrubbe r

vi i

## 1. 0 INTRODUCTIO N 

## Thi s repor

t i s the thir do f

thre e technica l suppor

t document s fo r

the U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency' s Notic e o f Dat aAvailabilit y o n update s to the propose d"maximu machievabl e contro l technology " (MACT ) standard s fo r hazardou s waste combustors

. Th e thre e volume s include : Volum e I : MACT

Evaluations Based

on Revised

Database. Re-evaluatio n o f MAC T floo r standard s fo r

existin g an dne w source s base do n propose drul e comment s an ddat a submissions

. Volum e II : Evaluation of CO/HC and DRE Database. Evaluatio n o f the behavio r

o f principa l organi c hazardou s constituen t destructio n an dremova l efficienc y wit h carbo n monoxid e an dhydrocarbon s emissions ,

• Volum e III : Evaluation of Metals Emissions Database to Investigate Extrapolation and Interpolation Issues. Re-evaluatio n o f the us e o f

metal s extrapolatio n an dinterpolatio n t o se t metal s fee drat

e limit s base do n complianc e testin g measurements
. Volum e III : Evaluation of Metals Emissions Database to Investigate Extrapolation and Interpolation Issues i s are-evaluatio n o f existin g U.S

. EP A guidanc e o n usin g extrapolatio n o r interpolation t o projec t

emissio n level s base do n measure dfee drate s an demissio n levels

. Thi s i s o f interes t to th e hazardou s waste combusto r communit y fo r

reason s including : (1 ) potentiall y eliminatin g the nee dto us e larg e quantitie s o f expensiv e an dtoxi c metal s fo r spikin g i n futur e complianc e test s (e.g. , tria l burns , MAC T performanc e tests) ; an d(2 ) potentiall y avoidin g retestin g requirement s brough t

abou t b y more stringen t

metal s emission s limit s a s aresul t o f ne w ris k assessment

procedure s an dne w regulatory requirements

. Thi s evaluatio n i s base do n theoretica l consideration s a

s wel l a s recent compilatio n o f

metal s fee drat

e an demission s result s fro mman y recent hazardou s wast

e combusto r

tria l burn complianc e tests a s par t o f the Agency' s development o f revise demission s standard s fo r hazardou s wast

e combustors

. 2 . 0 CURREN T BOILE RAN D INDUSTRIA L FURNAC E RUL E GUIDANC E 

## Th e Boile r

an dIndustria l Furnac e Implementatio n Documen t (U.S

. EPA , 1992 ) provide s guidanc e o n conductin g tria l bur n metal s fee drat e an demission s rate interpolatio n an d extrapolatio n fo r

settin g permi t

limit s o n metal s fee drate s whic h ma y b e summarize da

s follows :

• Interpolatio n ~ Interpolation , base do n projectin g betwee n tw o tria l burn tes t serie s a t differen t fee drates , i s recommende da s lon g as the tes t serie s ar

e conducte dove r

a "reasonabl y limited " fee drat e range . Extrapolatio n —Allowance s fo r upwar dan ddownwar dextrapolatio n ar e base do n metal s behavio r an dconsideration s show n i n Figur e 1 :

1



# VE S 00026 4

## Upwar d~ Upwar dlinea r extrapolatio n i s recognize dt o b e conservativ e i n principle , conservativ e i n tha

t alinea r upwar dfee drat

e projectio n throug h the origi n (i.e. , a t ameta l fee dan demission s rat

e o f zero ) wil l overestimate the predicte dactua l emission s due t o an increas e i n metal syste mremova l efficienc y (SRE ) as fee drat e i s increased , a s discusse di n grea t detai l i n th e nex t

section

. However , i t

i s no t generall y recommende dfo r settin g permi t limit s becaus e o f

the lac k

o f validatio n data

. Upwar dextrapolatio n ma y b e appropriate i f

a n adequat

e "safet y factor " i s use d(i n case s where the desire dfee drat e correspond s to an emission s leve l tha t i s muc h lowe r

than the emission s limit)

. A safet y facto r o f 1 0 i s suggeste da

s adequate

. Downwar d—Downwar dextrapolatio n throug h th e origi n i s no t recommende dsinc e theoretical consideration s indicate tha t i t ma y no t produc e conservativ e fee drat e limit s (i.e. , emission s ar

e predicte dt o be highe r tha n thos e base do n adownwar dlinea r projectio n du e to adecreas e i n SR E a

s fee drat e i s decreased)

. 3 . 0 RELATIONSHI PBETWEE N METAL S FEE D RAT E AN D EMISSIO N RAT E 

## 3. 1 THEORETICA L CONSIDERATION S A variety o f

paramete r impac t metal s emissions , includin g meta l fee drate , metal s specie s an dform , wast

e typ e an dconstituent s (suc h as chlorine , sulfur , eart h an dminera l elements) , ai r pollutio n contro l syste mtyp e an doperation , facilit y operationa l practice s (dus t recycl e rates , soo t blowing) , an dcombusto r syste moperatin g parameter s (suc h a s temperature s an dtemperature profiles ) an ddesig n parameter s (e.g. , rotary kiln , controlle dai r types)

. However , fo r

agive n fixe dsyste mwit h al l thing s remainin g equa l excep t metal s fee drate , the general relationshi p betwee n metal s fee drat e an dstac k ga s emission s tha

t i s expecte dbase do n theoretica l consideration s i s show n i n Figur e 2

. There ar e thre e distinc t

regimes , eac h o f

whic h ha s alinea r relationshi p betwee n fee drat e an demissions , bu t

adifferen t

"slope " whic h i s relate dt o the meta l remova l efficiency :

• Regio n A —In the firs t regime , bounde dfro mthe plot' s origi n (with ameta l fee drat e inpu t an demission s rate o f

zero ) t o the uppe r

breakpoin t

(labele dwit h a"1") , the meta l full y vaporize s i n th e combusto r sinc e th e vapo r

pressur e o f

th e meta l a

t the combustio n temperatur

e i s hig h enoug h to pu t the entir e meta l fee dint o th e vapo r phase

. Al l o f

the meta l fee di s carrie dfro mth e combusto r

a s vapo r wit h the flu e gas . I n thi s region , the meta l remain s i n the vapor phas e throughou t

th e entir e system , includin g th e lowe r temperature s o f

downstreamai r

pollutio n control

. Typicall y i n th e Regio n A fo r

system s wit h traditiona l ai r

pollutio n conho l device s designe dfo r removin g soli dmeta l containin g particulat e matte

r an dfum e suc h a s fabri c filter s an delectrostati c precipitators , metal s ar e no t bein g controlle d(i.e. , what i s fe dflie s entirel y t o the stac k a s emissions , wit h a correspondin g SR E o f

zero)

. Fo r

certai n metals , contro l may b e achievabl e throug h th e remova l o f

metal s vapor s wit h specialize dtechnique s suc h a s absorptio n (e.g. , i n we t scrubbin g solutions ) o r

adsorptio n (e.g. , i n activate dcarbo n sieves)

.

2



# VE S 00026 5

## Regio n B ~ A s th e fee drate o f ameta l continue s to increas e i n Regio n A , the meta l vapo r pressur e a t the ai r pollutio n contro l devic e temperatur e become s "saturated " wit h the meta l (th e saturate dmeta l vapo r pressur e i s th e maximu mleve l o f

meta l tha

t wil l remai n i n th

e vapo r form ; additiona l metal beyon dthi s poin t wil l b e i n asoli dcondense dform)

. A t thi s breakpoin t

"1" , metal s whic h full y vaporiz e i n the combustio n chamber begin s to condens e out a t th e lowe r temperatur

e ai r pollutio n contro l device

. Condensatio n o f metal vapor

i s know n to tak

e plac e homogeneousl y to for mfin e fum e an dheterogeneously , preferentiall y als o o n fin e entraine dan dforme dparticulate

. Th e remova l o f the condense dmeta l (typicall y containe dprimaril y o n submicro n particulates ) i s relate ddirectl y to the abilit y o f the ai r pollutio n contro l devic e t o remov e thi s submicro n particulate fromth e flu e gas . Th e slop e o f the curv e i n Regio n B i s determine db y th e remova l efficienc y o f th e fin e particulat e matter

(PM ) containin g material

. A baghous e wit h ahig h fin e P M remova l efficienc y woul db e expecte dto produc e a"shallower " slop e compare dwit h tha t fro ma lowe r efficienc y we t

scrubber

. I n the cas e where n o ai r pollutio n contro l devic e i s used , the metal syste mremova l efficienc y woul dremai n a t zero , a s i n Regio n A

. Regio n C ~ Regio n C begin s an dRegio n B end s whe n the saturate dvapo r pressur e o f th e metal a t the combustio n temperatur e i s reached

. Not e tha

t th e saturate do

r "effective " vapo r pressure o f

ameta l depend s o n avariet y o f factors , amon g whic h temperature an dth e concentratio n o f

chlorine , oxygen , an dsulfu r i n the ga s ar

e som e o f

the mos t important

. Additiona l metal s fe dbeyon dthi s poin t wil l remai n as condense dsolid s a t th e waste burnin g locatio n (containe di n the botto man dfl y as h o f incinerators , o r

clinke r o r ligh t weigh t aggregat

e fo r industria l proces s kilns)

. Metal s stac k ga s emission s an dcontro l i n Regio n C ar

e attributabl e t

o the degre e o f

entrainmen t

an dsubsequent

contro l o f

meta l containin g as h particle s ("fl y ash" ) ou t o f the combustor

. Emission s o f metal s wil l continu e t o increas e i n Regio n C a s th e fee drat e increase s du e t o th e increase d concenhatio n o f

metal s i n th

e entraine dfl y ash , bu t

no t a s rapidl y a

s i n Regio n B sinc e n o more additiona l metal s can vaporiz e an dsinc e ai r pollutio n conho l device s typicall y collec t larger enframe dmetal s containin g particle s more efficientl y tha n condense dfine s an dfume s o f Regio n B
. Th e occurrenc e an dsignificanc e o f thes e thre e region s depend s o n the meta l typ e (e.g. , lead , mercury , o r

chromium) , an dit s volatilit y characteristics

. A s show n i n Figur e 3 , fo r the hig h volatil e metal s (suc h a

s mercur y andselenium ) whic h hav e ver y hig h vapo r pressure s a

t both th e combustio n an dai r

pollutio n contro l devic e temperatures , Regio n A may spa n mos t typica l fee d rates
. Not e tha

t fo r mercury whe n chlorin e i s present , saturate dvapor pressure s ar

e extremel y hig h (o n the order

o f million s o f

ug/dscm ) eve n a

t we t scrubbe r

temperatures
. Thi s ha s bee n confirme dthroug h detaile dsourc e testin g wor k showin g ver y lo w syste mremova l efficiencie s as wel l a s th e dominanc e o f

thes e metal s as vapor s i n stac k ga s emission s measurement train s (a s indicate db y th

e presenc e o f

the metal s i n the "back-hal f fraction o f

the multipl e metal s samplin g train)

. Breakpoin t

"1 " may no t

b e reache di n conventiona l practice

. Semi-volatil e an dlow

volatil e metal s hav e extremel y lo w vapo r pressure s a

t typica l ai r

pollutio n contro l devic e temperature s ( < ng/dscm)

. Thi s i s confirme dthroug h effectiv e remova l o f thes e metal s i n

3



# VE S 00026 6

## particulat e matte r ai r pollutio n contro l devices , a s wel l a s the majo r

presenc e o f

thes e metal s i n the "front-hal f

ofth e metal s samplin g trai n fo r stac k gas measurements
. Thu s Regio n A i s relativel y non-existent

fo r semi

—an dlow-volatil e metals

. Fo r semi-volatil e metal s (suc h a s lead , cadinium , an dthallium) , Regio n B dominate s ove r alarg e rang e o f

metal s fee drate s sinc e the vapo r pressur e o f thes e metal s a

t combustio n temperature s i s typicall y extremel y hig h (o n the order o f million s o f (ig/dscm)

. Fo r

low-volatil e metal s (suc h as chromium , barium , nickel , an dberyllium) , Regio n C ma y dominate , sinc e Regio n B ma y be smal l du e to the smal l vapo r pressure s o f

low-volatil e metal s a t combustio n temperatures
. 3. 2 TRIA L BUR N SOURC E TESTIN G EVALUATION S Hazardou s wast

e combusto r

tria l burn an dcomplianc e tes t metal s fee drate andemission s rate datawere evaluate di n acoupl e o f differen t

way s t o asses s the relatio n betwee n metal s fee d rate s an demissions

. Thes e ar e discussedbelow

. Not e tha t stac k ga s emission s tes t

dat aar e considere donl y whe n measur e a t level s abov e the analytica l metho ddetectio n limit ; consideratio n o f dat areporte da

t the metho ddetectio n limi t ma y provid e misleadin g results

. 3.2. 1 Individua l Metal s Fro mth e Sam e Facilit y Emission s andfee drat

e datafro mth e sam

e facilit y (o r

simila r unit s o n the sam

e site ) and sam e meta l were evaluate di n case s where alarg e rang e o f fee drate s wer e available

. Thi s wa s usuall y tru e onl y whe n multipl e tes t condition s were associate dwit h the sam e facility

. Thes e ar

e shown i n Figure s 4 throug h 1 4 fo r incinerators. Mor e limite ddat afo r cement kiln s i s show n i n Figure s 1 5 throug h 20

. Dat afro monl y on e ligh t weigh t aggregat

e kil n ar e show n i n Figur e 21 ; n o example s fo r

boiler s were available

. Th e dat ai n Figur e 4 ar e o f more importanc e tha

n the other s sinc e the y ar e aproduc t

o f testin g conducte dunder

ver y wel l controlle dcondition s durin g th e sam e tim e period

. Additionally , the y constitut e th

e onl y testin g tha

t wa s conducte dwit h the intentio n o f directl y evaluatin g the relationshi p betwee n fee drat e an dstac k

ga s emission s rate (Hinsha w e t al. , 1993)

. Testin g i s fro mth e D u Pon t

Experimenta l Statio n a t th e Wilmington , Delawar e uni t whic h include s a monoheart

h incinerato r

wit h spra

y dryer , revers e je t

cooler , ventur

i scrubber , an dthre e stage baffl e absorbe r ai r pollutio n contro l system
. Liqui dan dsoli dwaste s were spike dwit h liqui dmetal s solution s containin g Be , Cd , As , Cr , an dPb

. Th e test s were conducte da t 2,000° Fcombustio n temperatur

e wit h hig h chlorin e level s ( 4 to 10 % b y weight)

. Bes t fi t linear regression s ar

e show n o n eac h plot

. Th e relatio n betwee n stac k gas emission s andfee drat e i s highl y linear

throug h th

e origi n fo r

Be , Cd , As , an dPb ove r the entire rang e o f

fee drate s tested

. Thi s woul dappea r t o suppor t areasonabl e extrapolatio n upwar do r downwar dt

o differen t

fee drate s linearl y throug h the origin

. Fo r

C r however , one ma y imagin e tha t there ar e tw o region s base do n theory , where the slop e o f th e lin e a t the lowe r

fee drate s start s out

relativel y steep , an dlevel s of f a s the fee drate i s increased

. Kee p i n min dtha t eve n fo r thi s highl y controlle dse t o f tests , ther

e i s wid e datascatte

r a t the hig h fee drates
. Also , note tha t fo r lowe r volatil e metal s o f

Be , As , an dCr , the maximu m fee drat e tha

t wa s use dwa s no t

tha t hig h (600 0 |ig/dsc mfo r C r a s compare dwit h 500,00 0

4



# VE S 00026 7

## u,g/dsc mfo r Pb) , thu s the poin t

a t whic h the curv e begin s t o flatte n out

(i n particular

fo r B e an d As ) ma y occu r

a t higher fee drate s tha

t wer e no t use di n th

e testing

. Interestingly , fo r

the semi-volatil e metal s o f C dan dPb , the syste mremova l efficiencie s (indicate db y th

e slop e o f

the fee drat

e an demission s rate curve ) ar e very simila r

(bot h a t 80%) , indicatin g tha

t C dan dP b ma y be effectiv e surrogate s fo r eac h other

. Additionally , sinc e they hav e the sam e SRE , they woul dfal l on the exac t sam e lin e i f show n on the sam

e fee drat e an demission s plot

. Thi s appears to suppor t alinea r relationshi p throug h the origi n fo r semi-volatil e metal s over a very larg e rang e o f

fee drates
. In asimila r

manner , Be , As , andC r als o hav e relativel y comparabl e SRE s (B e o f

about 93% , C r

als o a t 93% , an dA s a

t 84%)

. Thi s woul dindicat e tha t B e an dC r coul dpotentiall y b e use da s surrogate s fo r

each other , but

no t fo r As

. Dat afromthe othe

r incinerator , cemen

t kiln , an dligh t

weigh t aggregat e facilitie s show n i n Figure s 5 throug h 2 1 ar

e discusse dbriefly

. Generally , datascatte r make s i t difficul t t o determin e relationships

. However , kee p i n min dthe followin g genera l trend s as the facilit y dat aar e reviewed :

• Emission s ten dto increas e a s fee drat e increases

. Th e relationshi p betwee n emission s rat e an dfee drat

e fo r lowe r volatil e metal s tend s to b e ver y fla t (no t astron g functio n o f

fee drate)

. Thi s i s becaus e SR E strongl y tend s t o increas e wit h increasin g fee drat e (i.e. , th e curv e betwee n metal s emission s an dfee drat e i s concav e i n shap e sinc e emission s level s increase s ar e not generall y proportiona l to fee drat e increases)

. Th e relationshi p betwee n emission s andfee drat e fo r high

- an dsemi-volatil e metal s tend s t o b e stronge

r than tha t fo r lo w volatil e metal s (i.e. , ther e i s amore proportiona l relationshi p betwee n emission s an dfee drates)

. Not e tha t fo r mos t o f thes e facilities , testin g wa s generall y conducte dyear s apar t whic h ma y b e contribut e t o som e o f th e dat asprea dan dvariabilit y du e to change s i n facilit y characteristics , conditions , an doperatin g practices

. Figur e 5 (incinerator , I D No
. 807 ) —Th e fee drate an demission s rat e fo r P b an dC di s fairl y proportional , wit h P b bein g fe da t muc h highe r

fee drate s an dbein g controlle dabout twic e as effectively

. Th e relationship s fo r Cr , As , an dB aar

e ver y "flat " (n o stron g correlatio n between emission s an dfee drate ) wit h lot s o f datascatter
. Figur e 6 (incinerator , I D No
. 809 ) ~ Dat aar e availabl e fro mthi s site a t var y lo w an dvery hig h fee drates
. A proportiona l fi t throug h the origi n appear s reasonabl e fo r al l metal s excep t Cr , whic h ma y hav e some typ e o f breakpoin t

as base do n theory (i.e. , tw o linea r region s wit h differen t

slopes)

. Additiona l dataa t intermediat e fee drate s ar e neede dt o confir mthis

.

5



# VE S 00026 8

## Figur e 7 (incinerator , I D No
. 214 ) ~ There i s n o stron g relationshi p (extremel y flat ) fo r th e lowe r volatil e B aan dCr

. Ther e i s aslightl y stronger relationshi p fo r

C dan dPb , whic h both hav e simila r

SREs

. Figure s 8 aan d8

b (incinerator , I D No
. 209 ) —There i s n o stron g relationshi p (extremel y flat ) fo r th e lowe r volatil e Cr , Sb , As , an dBa
. I t i s als o fla t

fo r C dan dPb

. There i s a stronger relationshi p fo r

Tl

. Figur e 9 (incinerator , I D No
. 334 ) —Ther e i s afairl y proportiona l relationshi p fo r A s an d Ba
. Fo r C dan dPb , th e dataa

t the lo w fee drate s ar

e suspec t sinc e SRE s ar

e < 0

. Dat a scatte r fo r C r make s i t difficul t t o assess . Figur e 1 0 (incinerator , I D No
. 810 ) - Lik e Figur e 6 (facilit y I D No
. 809) , dat aar e availabl e fro mver y lo w an dver y hig h fee drates
. Unlik e I D No
. 809 , i t indicate s tha

t a linea r proportiona l fi t

throug h th

e origi n ma y no t

b e appropriate

. I

t ma y suppor

t the tw o regio n brea

k point , wher e a

t lo w fee drate s i n Regio n 1 the curv e ha s alarg e slope , followe db y flattenin g of f a t highe r fee drate s i n Regio n 2

. However , additiona l intermediate fee drate dat aar e neede dt o confir mthis

. Th e lo w fee drate datama y b e i n error . Figur e 1 1 (incinerator , I D No
. 325 ) ~ There i s n o relationshi p fo r an y o f th e metal s (al l "flat")

. Lot s o f

datascatter
. Figur e 1 2 (incinerator , I D No
. 327 ) ~ There i s n o relationshi p fo r any ofth e metal s excep t possibl y fo r

Ba
. Lot s o f

datascatter
. Figur e 1 4 (incinerator ) — A serie s o f

parametri c test s were conducte da t the EPA' s IR F facilit y t o asses s A s behavio r

fo r tw o differen t

waste types
. Emission s increas e a t highe r fee drates , althoug h no t

proportionall y throug h the origi n sinc e the SR E a t th e highe r

fee d rat e i s lowe r

tha n tha t ofth e lowe r

fee drate , as oppose dt

o theoretica l prediction s an dmos t o f the othe r facilit y data

. Thi s highlight s effect s tha t may b e due to difference s i n wast e type s an darseni c type s tha t ma y make i t

difficul t to evaluate th e fee drat e an demission s relationshi p fo r

testin g done a

t differen t

conditions

. Figur e 1 5 (cement

kiln , I D Nos
. 207/208 ) ~ There i s afairl y stron g relationshi p fo r Cd , Pb , an dAg

. Fla t

fo r C r an dNi

. Figur e 1 6 (cement

kiln , I D Nos
. 205/206 ) — Thi s datase

t i s interestin g becaus e i t i s fro m the sam e cement kil n durin g tw o differen t testin g period s (199 2 an d1995)

. Ther e i s relativel y hig h variabilit y i n the emission s datafro mth e differen t tes t serie s tha

t were conducte da

t simila r fee drates ; illustratin g th e difficult y i n comparin g differen t tria l bur n result s eve n fro mthe same facility

. Thi s i s due t o avariet y o f factor s associate dwit h emission s sourc e testin g i n ful l scal e system s that effec t measuremen t

repeatability ,

6



# VE S 00026 9

## includin g facilit y "memory " effects , difference s i n operatin g conditions , equipmen t conditions , an dahos t

o f samplin g andanalytica l considerations

. Figure s 1 7 throug h 2 1 (cement kiln s an done ligh t

weigh t aggregate kiln ) ~ Ther e i s a general increas e i n emission s wit h fee drate , typicall y stronger fo r C dan dPb

. However , wit h limite dfee drat

e range s an ddatascatter , i t i s no t possibl e t o identif

y region s an d breakpoints

. 3.2. 2 Group s o f

Simila r Behavin g Metal s Fro mSimila r Type s o f Facilitie s Individua l meta l dat afro msimila r type s o f facilitie s were compared

. Grouping s included : (1 ) differen t

sourc e categorie s includin g boilers , incinerators , cemen t kilns , an dligh t

weigh t aggregat e kilns ; and(2 ) group s fro mthe sam e sourc e categor

y usin g the sam

e typ e o f ai r pollutio n contro l device

. Example s o f thes e ar e show n i n Figur e 2 6 fo r chromiu man dFigur e 2 7 fo r lea dfo r differen t sourc e categorie s (eac h differentiate db y adifferen t symbol)

. Thi s analysi s demonshate s tha t i t i s difficul t

to observ e trend s i n dat atake n fro manumber

o f facilitie s (eve n o f

commo n type ) becaus e o f

th e variance s produce dfro mdifference s i n contro l device , fee drates , operatin g parameters , an dmeasurement techniques

. However , generall y fo r chromiu m(an dother

low

volatil e metals) , emission s ten dto no t b e astron g functio n o f fee drate (i.e. , syste mremova l efficienc y tend s to increas e a s the fee drate increases , a s migh t b e expecte dbase do n theoretica l considerations)

. Fo r

lea d(an dothe

r semi-volatil e metals) , emission s ten dto b e astronger functio n o f fee drat e (increasin g wit h fee drate) , althoug h syste mremova l efficienc y tend s t o increas e wit h fee drat e a s i t doe s wit h lo w volatil e metals

. Not e tha t fee drate s ar

e show n o n lo g scale ; syste m remova l efficienc y onl y decrease s rapidl y a t very lo w fee drates
. 3. 3 CONCLUSION S O N APPROPRIATENES S O FEXTRAPOLATIO N Theoretica l volatilit y prediction s indicat e tha t the relationshi p betwee n fee drate an d emission s rat

e i s no t strictl y linear

fo r semi

- an dlow-volatil e metals , althoug h i t may b e linea

r over agenerall y larg e rang e o f fee drate s fo r

semi-volatiles , andals o fo r ver y lo w volatiles

. Scatter i n dataand/o r

lac k o f fee drate range s make s i t difficul t t o determin e arelationshi p fo r muc h o f th e tria l bur n data

. Inability to determin e region s an dbreakpoint s a s predicte dfro mtheor

y ma y be due t o eithe r insufficien t

dat a(no t

enoug h sprea do f

fee drates) , chang e i n slop e bein g to o smal l to notice , o r

absenc e o f

suc h behavio r

i n actual practice

. I n any case , the followin g conclusion s ar e drawn :

• Emission s dat agenerall y confir mtha t fo r individua l facilities , a n increas e i n fee drat e produce s a

n increas e i n emissions , a s expected

. Fo r th e semi-volatil e metal s (Cd , Pb , an dTl) , mos t o f the availabl e tria l bur n emission s dataten dt

o generall y confir maproportiona l relatio n throug h the origi n betwee n emission s an dfee drate s ove r

alarg e rang e o f

fee drate , a s base do n theory

.

7



# VE S 00027 0

## Fo r lower-volatil e metal s (Cr , Ba , As , Be , Ni) , due to lo w emission s level s fro mtypicall y hig h SRE s compare dwit h thos e o f semi-volatil e metals , the relationshi p i s more "flat " due t o SR E increasin g wit h increasin g fee drate
. Not e tha t i t i s difficul t

to evaluat

e th e precis e relationshi p base do n the tria l bur n dat afo r man y o f th e facilitie s due t

o the influenc e o f measurement

"noise " a

t th e lo w emission s levels

. Theory indicate s tha t the "breakpoint " o f the relationshi p ma y fal l withi n atypicall y encountere dfee drate fo r metal s tha

t hav e "medium " volatility , suc h a s A s o r Sb

.

• Fairl y stron g proportiona l relationship s ar e show n fo r

some limite dfacilitie s an dmetal s type s an dfee drat

e range s (bot

h semi

- an dlow-volatil e metals)

. Thi s i s particularl y evident fro mdatafro mon

e wel l controlle dserie s o f test s designe dspecificall y t o evaluat e fee drat e impacts

. Emission s dat afro mcommo n group s o f facilitie s indicate s ageneral tren dfo r SR E to decreas e wit h decreasin g fee drates , a s expecte dbase do n theory , althoug h no t unti l very lo w fee drates
. Base do n thes e conclusions , th e followin g recommendation s ar e mad e o n th e appropriatenes s o f

upwar dan ddownwar dextrapolation : Upwar dExtrapolatio n — Upwar dextrapolatio n throug h the origi n can b e implemente di n a manner tha t i s conservativ e fo r

al l meta l type s an dvolatilitie s sinc e SR E tend s to sta y the sam e o r increas e wit h increasin g fee drat e (i.e. , emissio n level s predicte da t ahighe r fee d rat e bas e o n extrapolatio n frommeasure demissio n level s a t alowe r fee drat e ten dt o b e greate r tha n o r equa l to the actua

l emissio n level s a

t th e highe r fee drate)

. Thi s i s supporte d b y theory , a s wel l a s limite demission s dat aanalyses

. Thu s i t continue s t o b e recommended

. Downwar dExtrapolatio n —Theory an dlimite demission s dat aanalysi s indicate s tha

t th e relationshi p between metal s fee drate s andemission s ma y b e proportiona l ove r

larg e range s o f fee drates ; however , breakpoint s separatin g differen t linea r regime s may b e present as discusse di n detai l previously

. Fo r high

- andsemi-volatil e metal s thi s breakpoin t i s presen

t a t extremel y hig h fee drates
. Thus , downwar dextrapolatio n throug h th e origi n ma y b e appropriate fo r

semi an dhig h volatil e typ e metals

. Fo r lowe r volatil e metals , however , the positio n ofth e regim e transitio n poin t i s no t a s clear

. Base do n limite dtria l burn data , i t may b e reasonabl e t o interpolat e linearl y throug h the origi n fo r ver y lo w volatil e metal s suc h as Be
. However , theory an dother limite ddataindicat e tha t i t ma y no t produc e conservativ e result s i n some cases . Thus , base do n the availabl e dat aan dtheoretica l consideration , i t

ca n no t b e generall y recommende dto extrapolate downwar dthroug h the origi n fo r

lowe r volatil e metals

.

8



# VE S 00027 1

## 4. 0 DEVELOPMEN T O F EXTRAPOLATIO N PROCEDUR E 

## A variet y o f option s ma

y b e considere dfo r

the implementatio n o f

metal s extrapolatio n an d interpolation , including , as show n i n Figur e 28 , projectio n fromthe : (a ) highes t

complianc e tes t

run ; (b ) averag e o f

the complianc e tes t

runs ; (c ) leve l basedo n statistical evaluatio n o f the complianc e tes t

runs ; o r (d ) leve l base do n th e averag e o f

th e complianc e tes t

run s wit h the consideratio n o f a"universa l variabilit y factor " applie dt o th e average . Althoug h les s conservative , optio n (c ) ha s a n advantag e ove r

optio n (d ) i n tha

t i t woul dno t penaliz e facilitie s tha

t ha dlo w within-tes t

conditio n emission s variability

. Unde r thi s option , a site-specifi c variabilit y facto r coul db e determine dfromactual complianc e tes t data , perhap s base d o n th e tes t averag e emission s plu s th e standarddeviatio n o f

the run s multiplie db y aconfidenc e t
factor

. Th e followin g discussion s pertai n t o optio n (d)

. Unde r

thi s option , a"universa l variabilit y factor " (UVF ) woul db e identified

. Thi s i s done b y evaluatin g the within-tes t conditio n variabilit y o f al l availabl e hazardou s wast e combusto r

tria l burn an dBI Fcertificatio n testin g metal s stac k ga s emission s measurements
. Withi n condition , individua l ru n "residuals " wer e evaluate das : (1 ) R , = Q - C a v g 

## where Q = lo g (Xi ) C a v g

## = averag e (Q ) X i : individua l ru n metal s stac k ga s emission s concentratio n (withi n agive n condition ) R; : individua l ru n residual Example s o f

the result s o f

the residua l analysi s ar e show n i n Figure s 2 9 fo r semi-volatil e metals

. Residual s ar

e show n bot

h a s afunctio n o f

conditio n geomea

n a s wel l a s aprobabilit y plo t o f th e absolute valu e o f

th e residuals

. Not e tha t the residual s ar

e evenl y distribute dabout 0 , and ar e not afunctio n o f

th e geomean , a

s expecte dafte r

havin g been fransformedt o the lo g plane

. Th e U V Fwoul db e establishe das th e 95t h percentil e residua l (meanin g th e leve l a t whic h 9 5 percent

o f th e residua l populatio n i s a t o r below)

. Th e 95th percentil e residua l wa s determine dbase do n th e probabilit y plot s as wel l a s wit h astatistica l analysi s o f the residua l dataset
. Bot h procedure s produce dvery simila r

results

. Tabl e 1 show s the 95t h percentil e residual s fo r the variou s metal s grouping s an dindividua l metals

. Residual s ten dt o b e the highes t fo r high-volatil e metals , an d simila r an dlowe r

fo r low

- andsemi-volatil e metals

.

9



# VE S 00027 2

## Th e UV Fcoul db e use dfo r extrapolation s unde r

severa l approaches : (1 ) usin g ametal

specifi c UVF , where th e multiplier s t o th e averag e complianc e tes t emission s woul drang e fro m 1.9x' s t o 5.1x's ; (2 ) usin g acommo n UV Ffo r al l metal s a s th e averag e o f the metal-specifi c UVFs , where the multiplie r woul db e 3.5x's ; o r

(3 ) usin g aUV Ffo r

eac h volatilit y grou p base d o n eithe r th e highes t UV Ffo r each metal i n th e group o r the averag e UV Ffo r

metal s i n the group . Unde r optio n 3 wher e the UV Fi s base do n the highes t UV Ffo r

eac h meta l i n the group , the multiplier s woul db e 5.1x' s fo r high-volatil e metals , 3.6x' s fo r semi-volatil e metals , an d4.3x' s fo r low-volatil e metals

. Alternatively , where the UV Fi s base do n the averag e UV Ffo r metal s i n th e group , the multiplier s woul db e 5.0x' s fo r high-volatil e metals , 3.1x' s fo r semi-volatil e metals , an d3.4x' s fo r

low-volatil e metals

. Give n tha t the UVF s ar

e highe r fo r high-volatil e metals , an d tha t the metal-specifi c UVF s var y considerabl y fo r semi

- an dlow-volatil e metals , i t ma y appropriate to us e th e optio n 3 approac h where the UV Fi s base do n th e highes t UV Ffo r

eac h metal i n the volatilit y group . Not e tha t the highe r

UVF s fo r

high-volatil e metal s ma y b e attributabl e t o th e difficult y i n samplin g an danalysi s fo r more volatil e specie s du e t o losse s an derror s associate dwit h the capture , recovery , digestion , analysis , etc
. Highe r variabilit y may als o b e attributabl e t o th e extremel y lo w level s o f th e high-volatil e metals—H g an dSe~tha t ar e typicall y presen t

i n combustio n stac k

gases . However , thi s argumen t i s no t entirel y consistent

fo r low-volatil e metals , wher e the variabilit y fo r

B e i s lowe r

tha n tha t o f C r even thoug h B e i s usuall y onl y asmal l fractio n o f th e C r leve l i n the stac k

gas . I n an

y case , within-tes t

conditio n variabilit y ca

n b e attributabl e t

o a variet y o f factor s including :

• Difference s i n fee drate s withi n condition ;

• Variabilit y i n wast e type s an doperatin g conditions ;

• Syste mnon-equilibriu man dmemor y effects ; an d Accurac y andprecisio n ofth e multipl e metal s trai n EP A Draf t Metho d2 9 (+ 20 % accordin g t o th e metho ddevelopers)

. Extrapolate dfee drat

e andemissio n limit s woul db e set base do n th

e universa l variabilit y facto r applicatio n as :

E R 

## limi t (2 ) FR pr0 J

## = FR c 

## , x l s 

## —
where : FRp r o



## j : Extrapolated/interpolate dfee drat e limi t FRct : Complianc e tes t

fee drat e (average ) ERct : Complianc e tes t

averag e stac k

gas emission s rat

e ERiimit : 

## Ne w stack

gas emission s limi t

1 0



# VE S 00027 3

## and : (3 ) E R 

## unv f

= 1 0 

## [ C avg+ 

## UVF ]

Cav g = averag e (lo g Xj ) X ; : individua l complianc e tes t stac k ga s emission s rate s U V F: Universa l variabilit y facto r i n lo g plan e (95t

h percentil e residual fo r

th e metal groupin g o f

interest ) Not e tha t th e UVF s (i n the lo g plane ) shown i n Tabl e 1 hav e avalu e o f about 0. 3 to 0.7

. Whe n applie dto the tria l bur n conditio n averag e emission s leve l i n Equatio n (3) , the y increas e th e leve l b y about afacto r o f about 3 (i.e. , ER^ f

i s about equa l t o 3 time s the complianc e tes t conditio n averag e emission s level)

. However , stric t

us e o f the universa l variabilit y facto r procedur e o f

Equatio n (1 ) woul dno t b e usefu l if : (1 ) the maximu mallowabl e emissio n rat e i s clos e t o the complianc e tes t emissio n rate ; an d(2 ) the UVF-adjuste demissio n rate i s highe r than th e highes t

ru n (a s i t

wil l generall y be)

. Additionally , the us e o f the conservativ e UV Fma y no t b e warrante dwhe n projectin g nea r the complianc e tes t

fee drate sinc e the potentia l error s associate dwit h th e complianc e tes t measurement s (suc h as thos e fromfee drate s an demission s stac k ga s measurements ) wil l no t b e significantl y magnifie dwhe n projectin g nea r to the complianc e tes t

emissio n level

. However , a s the projectio n increase s significantl y beyon dtha t emissio n level , the magnificatio n o f error s may becom e mor e important

. Thus , the us e o f th e UV Fapproac h i s warrante da t fee drate s significantl y differen t

tha n tha t o f the tria l burn

. Not e tha t wit h th e UV Fapproach , avarianc e facto r i s use da s oppose dt

o afixe dincrement ; the varianc e facto r acts to magnif

y th e safety margi n a s the projecte dfee drate increase s (i.e. , th e safet y facto r remain s constan t

a s th e fee drate increases)

. Base do n thes e considerations , th e followin g UV Fimplementatio n approac h ma y b e appropriate , a

s illustrate di n Figur e 30 : Whe n extrapolatin g t

o fee dandemissio n rate s significantl y beyon dtha t o f the complianc e test , us e the UVF
. Whe n extrapolatin g t o fee dan demissio n rate s nea r tha t o f the complianc e test , us e a combinatio n o f

extrapolatin g usin g th

e UV Fan dextrapolatin g fromth e highes t complianc e tes t run . Assumin g i t

woul db e appropriat e t o us e thi s les s conservativ e approac h to extrapolate emission s upwardi n the rang e fromthe highes t ru n o f the complianc e tes t

to an emissio n leve l of, fo r

example , 2x' s the complianc e tes t averag e emission s adjuste db y th e UVF , the extrapolatio n woul db e base do n alin e draw n fro mthe highes t complianc e tes t ru n to tha

t emissio n leve l (i.e. , 2x' s the complianc e tes t averag e emission s adjuste db y the UVF)

. I f

i t wer e appropriate t o extrapolate emission s downward , the extrapolatio n lin e

1 1

## coul db e draw n fro mthe highes t complianc e tes t

ru n to a n emissio n leve l of, fo r

example , 0.5x' s th e complianc e tes t

averag e emission s adjuste db y the UVF
. Thi s correspond s to the us e o f th e followin g equation s fo r th e determinatio n o f

th e projecte dfee drate , base do n the complianc e tes t fee drat e (FR c t 

## ) an demission s level s (ERh r 

## ) , th e universa l variabilit y facto r (ERunvf) , an dth

e desire dstac k

ga s emission s leve l (ERij r a 

## j t 

## ) : Upwar dExtrapolation : Fo r projectin g to desire demission s level s (ERii m 

## j t 

## ) between th e complianc e tes t highes t ru n (ERhr) a 

## n d2x' s th

e emission s limi t

base do n the universa l variabilit y facto r (ER unv 

## f ) (i.e. , ERh r < ERiimj t

, 2 x ER unv 

## f ) :

F R c t 

## (4 ) FRp r o j 

## = 2ERunvf 

## _ ERh r x

## [ ER 

## limi t

- 2 ER 

## h r + 2 ER 

## unvf ]
wher e ER ^ : Emission s rate o f highes t individua l ru n o f

the complianc e tes t conditio n Fo r projectin g t

o desire demission s level s (ERi; m 

## i t 

## ) greater than 2x' s the emission s limi t base do n th

e universa l variabilit y facto r (ER unv 

## f) :

us e Equatio n (2) Downwar dExtrapolation : Fo r projectin g t

o desire demission s level s (ERiimit ) between th e complianc e tes t highes t ru n (ERh r 

## ) an d0.5x' s th e emission s limi t base do n th e universa l variabilit y facto r (ER unv 

## f ) (i.e. , 0. 5 x ER unv f



## < ERiimi t

< ER h r 

## ) :

F R 

## c t ( 5 

## ) FR 

## pro j =

## 2ER h r 

## -ER uny f X

## [ ER 

## limi t

" ER 

## unv f + ER 

## h r ]

Fo r projectin g t

o desire demission s level s (ERi i m 

## i t 

## ) les s tha n 0.5x' s the emission s limi t base do n th

e universa l variabilit y facto r (ER unv 

## f) :

us e Equatio n (2 ) Not e th e additiona l followin g consideration s whe n extrapolatin g metal s fee drate s an d emission s level s upwar dan ddownward :

1 2

## I f a n individua l complianc e tes t ru n i s highe r

tha n th e limi t base do n the conditio n averag e plu s th e UVF , then th

e highes t ru n i s use dfo r

the projection

. Extrapolatio n (upwar do r downward ) fro mdetectio n limi t stac k ga s measurement s i s conservativ e an dappear s t o b e appropriate , a

s show n i n Figur e 31

.

• A s per

current practic e whe n determinin g metal s fee drate s use ddurin g tria l bum s an dBI F certifications , non-detect s i n fee dstream s (metal s measurement s a t the detectio n limit ) ar

e treate da s zero . Thu s facilitie s whic h hav e non-detec t measurement s i n al l fee dstream s woul dcontinu e to b e require dto spik e metal s i n order to se t meaningfu l non-zer o meta l fee drat e limits

.

• Th e us e o f

th e universa l variabilit y facto r procedure penalize s facilitie s wit h complianc e tes t wit h lo w dat aspread

. Th e procedur e doe s no t conside r

the variabilit y o f

th e actual emission s dat at o determin e the uppe r limit

. A s mentione dabove , a n alternative , les s conservativ e procedur

e might b e considere dwhic h woul db e base do n th e projectio n froma statisticall y determine dlimi t base do n th

e actual individua l complianc e test data(suc h a

s the conditio n averag e o f

the stac k gas emission s measurement s plu s the standarddeviatio n o f th e run s multiplie db y aconfidenc e t-factor , whic h woul db e evaluate da t the degree s o f freedo mofth e numbe

r o f run s anda

t som e confidenc e level)

. Projectio n fro mcomplianc e tes t fee drate s base do n metal s spikin g and/o r homogeneou s metal s wast

e analysi s (suc h as thos e fromliquids ) shoul db e encouraged

. Fee drate s fro m thes e type s o f

stream s ar

e typicall y muc h mor e accurate than thos e fro mwaste analysi s measurement s fro mdifficul t stream s suc h as heterogeneou s soli dwaste an dra w materia l an dfue l streams
. Projectio n o f spike dan dliqui dmetal s fee drat e dat ashoul dgenerall y b e more accurate
. Not e tha t soli dwaste fee drat

e measurement s wil l typicall y systematicall y er r conservativel y o n the lo w sid e du e t o extractio n problem s an dother s associate dwit h losse s durin g samplin g an danalytica l activities

. Laborator y contaminatio n (resultin g i n hig h sid e errors ) ar

e no t typicall y as importan t fo r metal s fo r

exampl e compare dwit h organics

. Error s associate dwit h the extrapolatio n procedur e ar e du e to inaccurat e complianc e tes t data

. T o hel p prevent

this , i t i s recommende dtha

t the quality assuranc e an dqualit y contro l associate dwit h the complianc e tes t measurement s an doperation s (suc h a s recoveries , accuracy , precision , etc. ) b e conducte das require dan ddocumente dan dreviewe dprio r to the extrapolation

. 5. 0 REFERENCE S Hinshaw , G. , P.S

. Murowchick , an dR.F
. Oranzi , "Parametri c Testin g o f Metal s Emission s Fro m th e D u Pon t

Experimenta l Statio n Hazardou s Wast e Incinerator, " Proceedings of the 1993 Incineration Conference, pp . 823-829 , Knoxville , Tennessee , Ma y 3-7 , 1993

.

1 3



# VE S 00027 6

## U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y (U.S

. EPA) , "Technica l Implementatio n Documen t fo r EPA' s Boile r

an dIndustria l Furnac e Regulations, " EP A 530-R-92-01 , U.S

. EP A Offic e o f Soli d Wast e an dEmergenc y Respons e (OS-322), March , 1992

.

1 4



# VE S 00027 7

# Downwar d Extrapolatio n

Upwar d Extrapolatio n Actua l metal s

3 5 

## Meta l Fee d Rat e 

## Figur e 1

. Basi s fo r

Boile r an dIndustrial Furnac e Guidanc e o n extrapolation

.

1 5



# VE S 00027 8

# Meta l Fee d Rat e Regimes : (A ) Slop e relate d t o captur e o f volatil e metal s

(B ) Slop e relate d t o captur e o f condense d fin e fum e P M (C ) Slop e relate d t o captur e o f entraine d large rP M 

# Breakpoints : (T ) Emission s leve l relate d t o meta l saturate d vapo rleve l a t APC D temperatur e

(5 ) Emission s brea k relate d t o meta l saturate d vapo rleve l a t th e combustio n temperatur e
Figur e 2

. Theoretica l relationshi p betwee n metal s emission s an dfee drate
.

## (? ) @ Meta l Fee d Rat e

Figur e 3

. Relationshi p betwee n metal s emission s an dfee drat e fo r metal s groupings

.

VE S 00028 0C O C 

### o ^ 

## " w P .<£

. o s z c o V

# Ti L U 

## TO " 5 12000 0 10000 0 8000 0 6000 0 4000 0 2000 0 0 

## X



## P b y= 

## 0 .1943 X - 303.3 7 

## P b R = 0.858 2 

## X

— X X

60 0 50 0 

## c o c 

# f. E 40 0 

## .£ 2 o E - g 30 0 c o l 20 0 | 10 0

0

6 0 8 0 

## c o c o „ C O £ 

## .2 2 o E « 4 0 D ) i S 3 2 0 m 

## o

50 0 c o , 

### o
_40 0 \ 'c o f = 

## .5 2 5 30 0 E w 

### U J % 20 0 

## ro " 5 10 0 0 10000 0 20000 0 30000 0 40000 0

50 0 100 0 150 0 200 0 250 0 50000 0

300 0 X 

## B e y= 0.0734 X + 2.509 4 R 2 

### = 0.895 7

- — " X



## y= 0.1626

x + 3.633

5

2 

## = 0.898 9
50 0 100 0 150 0 200 0 250 0 100 0 C O 

### §_80 0 c o p 

### <a §60 0 E < " ^ D>400 ro , i | 20 0 0 

## X



## C r y= 0.0755 X + 121.6 7 

## X R 2 

### = 0.607 1 

## X
X x x



### 100 0 200 0 300 0 400 0



## Meta l Fee d Rat e MTE C (u.g/dscm ) 500 0 600 0


## Figur e 4

. Metal s emission s andfee drat e relationship s ~ Hearth incinerato r wit h SD/VS/PB S (D u Pon t Experimenta l Facilit y Incinerator , Wilmington , DE ; I D No
. 700)

.

VE S 00028 1

### i n c o „ c C O 

### L U 5 c o O ) 

## 0 3 2

C O 

### c o c o " P c o 

### E E c o 

### L U 5 

## <a 2 > 

## I D 4 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 

## i 4 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 

## A A s y= -9E-05 x+ 15.8 2 X X X R 2 

### = 0.002 8



## X X x 

## X X

4 0 3 0 c o 

### c g 

# \ £ ^ 1 2 0 _C O 

### 1 ^ 1 0

0

C O 

### c g c o 

### c o b E c o 

### L U 3 2 

# tn ro 3 12 0 10 0 8 0 6 0 4 0 2 0 0

35 0 30 0 .25 0 C O 

### c g C O r C O C 

### c i n U I 

## 515 0 c n O 

### ro 310 0 5 0 0 500 0 1000 0 1500 0 2000 0 2500 0 3000 0 3500 0 4000 0

0 

# B a X X X _____X-_—X — X

X X X y= 7E-05 x+ 24.01 5 R 2 

### = 0.222 2

2000 0 4000 0 6000 0 8000 0 10000 0 12000 0 14000 0 16000 0 18000 0 

# C r X X 

# x

x X

y= -9E-06 x+ 22.21 2 

## X X R 2 

### = 0.003 2 

## X X 5000 0 10000 0 15000 0 20000 0 25000 0 30000 0 35000 0 

# C d X X x 

### y= 0.0018 x+ 23.78 3 R 2 

### = 0.06 7 

## X X X X X

500 0 1000 0 1500 0 2000 0 2500 0


# P b y= 0.0012X + 1.828 8 X 

# P b R 2 

### = 0 .548 1 

## X X X



## X 5000 0 10000 0 15000 0 20000 0 

## Meta l Fee d Rat e MTE C (ug/dscm ) 

## Figur e 5

. Metal s emission s an dfee drate relationship s —Rotar y kil n incinerato r wit h WHB/VS /PT /H S (ENSCO , Bridgeport , NJ ; I D No
. 807)

. 1 9 25000 0



## V E S 00028 2

### 800 0

20000 0 40000 0 60000 0 80000 0 100000 0

500 0 1000 0 1500 0 2000 0 2500 0 3000 0 3500 0 60 0 C O 

### § 50 0 j g 

### 1 40 0 i § | 30 0 I 220 0 -

I c u 2

( 0 

### c g C O " p c o h 

### E c o L U 

### 3 2 _c o _C O 

### 3 "c u 100 0 0 200 0 1500 1000 50 0 0 5000 0 10000 0 15000 0 20000 0 25000 0 30000 0 35000 0 40000 0 45000 0 

## C d X X X

0 2500 0 2000 0 1500 0 500 0 1000 0 1500 0 2000 0

i o c o '5 5 " P c o c E c o M I 

### x i „ TO 1000 0 I B ^ C U 

### 500 0

0 

## P b X X X

5000 0 10000 0 15000 0 20000 0 

## Meta l Fee d Rat e MTE C (ug/dscm ) 25000 0 

## Figur e 6
. Metal s emission s an dfee drat e relationship s (Tennesse e Eastman , Kingsport , TN ; I D No
. 809)

. • Rotar y kil n incinerato r wit h V S

2 0

VE S 00028 3

### 5 0 S 4 0 g "c o " P 

## • I 5 3 0 E C O U J " O 

### j o g)2 0 C D 

### 3 

# 1 1 0

80 c o 7 0 g 6 0 1 E 5 0 E 

## B a X X

X X X X

£ | 4 0 

## <a 2 > 3 0 f ~2 0

5

### 1 0 0 10000 0 20000 0 30000 0 40000 0 50000 0 60000 0 70000 0 

## X
X 

## C r

X X X X

0 5000 0 10000 0 15000 0 20000 0

C O 

### c g "t o " p c o 

### b E c o L U T 3 J O O ) 

### TO 3 0 ) 

### 70 0 60 0 50 0 40 0 30 0 20 0 100 0 

## P b X X X X

X X

5000 0 10000 0 15000 0 20000 0 25000 0 30000 0 35000 0

C O 

### c g "c o P * c o t E c o L U 

### 3 £ J O O ) c a 

### 3 C D 

### 70 0 60 0 50 0 40 0 30 0 - | 20 0 10 0 0 

## X A



## C d X X X X

0 5000 0 10000 0 15000 0 20000 0 25000 0 30000 0 35000 0



## Meta l Fee d Rat e MTE C (u,g/dscm ) Figur e 7
. Metal s emission s an dfee drat e relationshi p ~ Rotar y kil n incinerato r wit h IW S (Rollins , Bato n Rouge , LA ; I D No
. 214 )
2 1

VE S 00028 4

### 3 5 3 0 C O 

## I S 2 0 |^1 0

5

### 5 0 

## X X



## S b

X 

## X X

X X X
0 1. 2 

## I 1 

## I f °' 8 L U 

## I 0. 6 -

j 

# 2 0. 4 _c o 

### ro "5 5 0. 2 0 5000 0 10000 0 15000 0 20000 0



## A s X
X

X 

# x 

# >k X X
0 1000 0 2000 0 3000 0 4000 0 5000 0 6000 0 7000 0

C O 

## c o "c o P " c o E E c o L U 

### 3 2 <£ 

### ! ? ro 3 C D 

### 3 5 3 0 2 5 20 1 5 1 0 5 0 

## B a X * X X X X x



### 10000 0 20000 0 30000 0 40000 0 50000 0 60000 0 70000 0

1000 0 2000 0 3000 0 4000 0 5000 0 6000 0



## Meta l Fee d Rat e MTE C (ug/dscm ) 7000 0 8000 0


## Figur e 8a

. Metal s emission s andfee drate relationshi p ~ Liqui dinjectio n incinerato r wit h WHB/FF/VQ/P T (Laidlaw , Roebuck , SC ; I D No
. 209).
2 2

VE S 00028 5o 

### t o T J



### c o c E L U J O C O -t- » C D 

### 2

1 8 ?1 6 o «1 4 

# Il 2 £ 1 0 g

" » 8 L U 

### 6

- 4 i S a s o 2 2 

### 3 - t 

### 2. 5 X X

x x 

### 2 1.5 

# C d X X X X

1 0. 5 0 - i



### 2000 0 4000 0 6000 0 8000 0 10000 0 12000 0 14000 0

X 

# P b

X X X X X X X

2000 0 4000 0 6000 0 8000 0 10000 0 12000 0 14000 0 16000 0
3 0 

# I 2 5 c o p

c o 0 

### 1 5 c o C O L U J O C O


### " 8 1 0 5 0 

# T l x
x X X

X X X x

; : 1 

### 500 0 1000 0 1500 0 2000 0 2500 0 3000 0 3500 0 4000 0

Meta l Fee d Rat e MTE C (ug/dscm )
Figur e 8b

. Metal s emission s an dfee d rate relationshi p - Liqui dinjectio n incinerato r wit h WHB/FF/VQ/P T (Laidlaw , Roebuck , SC ; I D No
. 209)

. 2 3

V E S 00028 6

### 4 0 C O 

## 1- P 3 0 £ 5 t 

## LU I 2 0 j o g > 

## 3 —1 0 c u

2

### 0 0 120 0 100 0 80 0 60 0 40 0 20 0 0

100 0 80 0 

## A s X X X
X 

## X

X 

### X
20 0 40 0 60 0 80 0 1000

tn o c o P ~ C O t 

### E C O L U 5 j o 

### J 2 3 ti ) 

## X



## B a X

X X

5000 0 10000 0 15000 0 20000 0 25000 0 30000 0 35000 0 40000 0

C O 

### c o C O 

### c o

^ o ) 40 0 C O 

### 3
a 20 0

0 

## C r X



## M X X x 

## X

500 0 1000 0 1500 0 2000 0 2500 0 3000 0 3500 0 4000 0

200 0 400 0 600 0 800 0 1000 0 1200 0 1400 0 2 1200 0 § -P i 000 0 c o b E c o 800 0 ^ 1 , 600 0 S * 400 0 I 200 0 J

j 0 5000 0 10000 0 15000 0 20000 0



## Meta l Fee d Rat e MTE C (ug/dscm ) 25000 0 30000 0 

## Figur e 9
. Metal s emission s an dfee drat e relationship s • WS/ESP/P T (3M , Cottag e Grove , MN ; I D No
. 334)

. Rotar y kil n incinerato r wit h
2 4

VE S 00028 7C O 80 0 

### I f ? 60 0 c o c. 

### L U |40 0 j o 5 > 

## B 3

### 20 0 C D

5

### 0

C O 

## c o 'c o P * c o b b c o L U 

### 3 2 j o D ) i S 

## 3 

## Q )

12 0 100 8 0 C O 

## c g I f i l l 6 0 j o Q > TO 0 5 

### 4 0 2 0 0 

## S b X X X X X X

8 0 6 0 4 0 20 0 20000 0 40000 0 60000 0 80000 0 100000 0 120000 0 140000 0 

## A s x

# x x



## X X
1000 0 2000 0 3000 0 4000 0 5000 0


## X 

## C r X X X X

X

0 20000 0 40000 0 60000 0 80000 0 100000 0

C O 

## c g c o 

## I °- 20 0 15 0
i § 5 

### 10 0 5 0 0 

## j 2 g > ro 3 

## C d V X

X X X

0 200 0 

## C O o 150 0 c o " P 

# | 1100 0 j o ra 

# a 3 

### 50 0 C D 

### 1000 0 2000 0 3000 0 4000 0 5000 0

10000 0 20000 0 30000 0 40000 0 50000 0



## Meta l Fee d Rat e MTE C (Lig /dscm ) 6000 0


## P b X X 

# *
X

60000 0 70000 0 

## Figur e 10

. Metal s emission s an dfee drate relationship s —Liqui dinjectio n incinerato r wit h VS/PB S (Tennesse e Eastman , Kingsport , TN ; I D No
. 810)

. 2 5

VE S 00028 8

## .2 o c o < 2 O ) L U - 3 

### 2 E 100

8 0 6 0 4 0 2 0 0

40 0 £ -=30 0 

## ! o g I 

## ^ I 20 0 i S 3 10 0 

## C d X

X X 

## x x

## x M X X 10 0 20 0 30 0 40 0 50 0 60 0 70 0

500 0 1000 0 1500 0 2000 0 2500 0

20 0 40 0 60 0 80 0 1000 120 0

500 0 1000 0 1500 0 2000 0 2500 0 3000 0 3500 0 4000 0
c o c g 'c o " P C O 

### fc E c o L U 

### 3 2 JC Q 

### g > c o 3 0 ) 

### 20 0 15 0 10 0 5 0 0 

## C r X



# x x 

### X X

X X * X X

X X 100 0 200 0 300 0 400 0 500 0 600 0 20 0

0 3 C O T 3 IU U

5 

### ll5 0 0 0 1000 200 0 300 0 400 0 500 0 600 0 700 0 800 0 900 0 

## Meta l Fee d Rat e MTE C (ug/dscm ) Figur e 11

. Metal s emission s an dfee drate relationshi p ~ Rotar y kil n incinerato r wit h SD/FFAVS/IW S (Aptus , Coffeyville , KS ; I D No
. 325)

. 2 6

VE S 00028 9

### t o c o "t o E E t o L U 

### 3 2 J O O ) 

### ro 3 "5 5 20
1 5
1 0
5 

# B a X X

X X x 

## X

1000 0 2000 0 3000 0 4000 0 5000 0 6000 0 7000 0 8000 0 9000 0

t o c g 't o • p 

### t o c ' E 0 

### E t o L U 

### 3 2 _t o ~§ > ro 3 "2 5 30 25 2 0 1 5 1 0 5 0 

## X X 

# C r X X



# x x



### 1000 0 2000 0 3000 0 4000 0 5000 0 6000 0 7000 0 8000 0 9000 0

500 0 6 0 t o c g 't o " P t o fc ' E 0 

### E t o L U 

### 3 2 tn ro 3 1 5 50 4 0 30 2 0 1 0 n 0 

## X 

# P b

X

X X X X X X X
200 0 400 0 600 0 800 0 1000 0 1200 0 1400 0 1600 0 1800 0



## Meta l Fee d Rat e MTE C (ug/dscm ) 

## Figur e 12

. Meta l emission s an dfee drat e relationship s —Rotar y kih i incinerato r wit h SD/FF/WSAVES P (Aptus , Aragonite , UT ; I D No
. 327)

. 2 7

### 1400

1200

E 1000 

## o c o ~3 )

—80 0 C O 

## c g C O 

### t o E L U 

### _c o ro 60 0

40 0

20 0 

## A

O X

X X 

## A A xS b oB a AP b

x 

## x

10000 0 20000 0 30000 0 40000 0 50000 0



## Meta l Fee d Rat e MTE C (ug/dscm ) x
60000 0



## Figur e 13

. Meta l emission s an dfee drat e relationshi p ~ Rotar y kil n incinerato r wit h HE/F F (Lak e Cit y Arm y Ammunitio n Plant , Independence , MO ; I D No
. 503 )

2 8

VE S 00029 1

## IR F Testin g Rotar ykil n VS/PB S syste m Combustio n temp : 1500-1800° F

A syntheti c matri x O superfun d soi l 6 350
-

. o h - 

## @ 300
- E 

# I 250
-
200
- o ' w w E 15 0 L U t o 

## O 100
- o C D 

## co 50
- g 

## ' c £ 2 0
- C )
O

O

n

A
50 0 100 0 150 0 200 0 250 0 300 0 350 0 400 0 Arseni c Fee d Rat e MTE C (ug/dsc m @ 7 % CL )

Figur e 14

. Metal s emission s an dfee drat e relationship s (EP A IRF , Arkansas , rotary kil n incinerato r wit h VS/PB)

.

2 950 0 t o o 40 0 t o " P 

## •|o 30 0 20 0 +
a ) 100

0 0

t o c g t o ' c ~ t o b E t o ui 3 2 w "S ) 2 0 ro A " 5 5 0 4 0 3 0

1 0 

# 4 - 

# o 0 35 0 30 0 c •§-p25 0 t o b E 

# 8 20 0 L U 3 2 i S —10 0 C D 2 5 0

0

t o c g "c o t o 2
1. 5 E E C O L U 3 2 1 

# 4 • Facilit y 20 7 (condition 1)

• Facilit y 207 (condition 2) A Facilit y 20 8 (condition 1) A Facilit y 20 8 (condition 2) 

# C d



# • • • A 

## A 1000 0 2000 0 3000 0 4000 0 5000 0

• Facilit y 207 (condition 1)

• Facilit y 207 (condition 2

) A Facilit y 20 8 (condition 1) j 

# C r 

# •

A Facilit y 208 (condition 2

) A

- • JL A 

## A k 

## § "
500 0 1000 0 15000 2000 0 2500 0



# P b 

# •

• • • • A • A 

# 5 • A A A A A • Facilit y 20 7 (condition 1

)

• Facilit y 207 (condition 2

) A Facilit y 20 8 (condition 1

) A Facilit y 20 8 (condition 2

) J 1000 0 2000 0 3000 0 4000 0 5000 0 6000 0 7000 0 

# A g 

# • • •

•
• Facilit y 20 7 (condition 1

) A Facilit y 20 8 (condition 1)

j

1 0

c o -z> 

# 3 § i i S i o « c u .c o 3 2 L U
0 0 

## A

- A

## A 

# N i • Facilit y 20 7 (conditio n 1)

j A Facilit y 208 (condition 1 )



## A D 

# •

i i 1 i 100 0 200 0 300 0 400 0 500 0 600 0 700 0 800 0 900 0



## Meta l Fee d Rat e MTE C (ug/dscm ) 

## Figur e 15

. Metal s emission s an dfee drate relationship s — Cemen t kiln s (Keyston e Cement , Bath , PA ; I D No
. 207/208)

. 3 0

V E S 00029 3c o c g t o p - t o t E t o u i 3 J J O o > C D 10 0 8 0 + 6 0 4 0 2 0 0 • Facilit y 20 5 (1992

)

• Facilit y 20 5 (1995 ) O Facilit y 20 6 (1992

)

• Facilit y 20 6 (1995 ) 

## S b

1000 0 2000 0 3000 0 

## • i • 4000 0 -CD—CU .

5000 0 6000 0

C O g 't o " p C O t ' E ° E c o ti l 3 J j o g > c o 3> J— ' C D

C O c g 't o c o E E c o L U " O 3 2. 5 2 1.5 1 0. 5 

## - f 0

3 0 2 5 2 0 1 5 7 5 

# I 1 0 

# m 5

0 0 ^•Facilit y 205 (1992)

| • Facilit

y 20 5 (1995 ) j \ O Facilit

y 20 6 (1992)

• Facilit y 20 6 (1995 ) | 

## B e 

# • •



# • o ..••JU L 100 0 200 0 300 0 400 0 500 0 600 0 

## C r 

# •

• Facilit y 20 5 (1992) 

## C r

• Facilit y 205 (1995 ) O Facilit y 20 6 (1992) ,

• Facilit y 20 6 (1995 ) 

# •

2000 0 4000 0 6000 0 8000 0 10000 0 12000 0 14000 0 16000 0 18000 0

c o 20 0 c § - P 15 0 c o c i l l 10 0 j o g > 

# 3

—50 C D

s0 0

C O c g c o p c o fc E c o L u 32 j o ro 3 0 ) 140 0 120 0 100 0 80 0 60 0 40 0 20 0 0 • Facilit

y 20 5 (1992) j

• Facilit y 20 5 (1995 ) O Facilit y 20 6 (1992) j

• Facilit y 20 6 (1995 ) 

## C d 

# • •

•

200 0 400 0 600 0 800 0 1000 0 1200 0 1400 0 1600 0



# • u

• Facilit y 20 5 (1992 )

• Facilit y 20 5 (1995 ) O Facilit y 20 6 (1992 )

• Facilit y 20 6 (1995 ) 

## P b

um •

4000 0 8000 0 12000 0 16000 0 

## Meta l Fee d Rat e MTE C (ug/dscm ) Figur e 16

. Metal s emission s an dfee drate relationshi p —Cemen t kiln s (Holnam , Holl y Hill , SC ; I D No
. 205/206 ) 3 1

VE S 00029 4

### 1 2

o c n • D 

## 1 c n c g "t o c n L U 

## i S " S 2 

### 1 0 8 6 4 2 0 

# 4 - 0 

## C r 

# •

•
• •

1000 0 2000 0 3000 0 4000 0 5000 0 6000 0 7000 0 8000 0 9000 0

o c o 3 3
^ 5 

### zi. c n c g c o c n " E L U 

### _c o 

# s

c n c g c o c n b E i n L U 

### 3 2 tn <S c o - 3 

### c u 1. 8 1. 6 1. 4 1. 2 1 0.8 0. 6 0. 4 0.2 0

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 

# • C d 

# •

- 

# • •

- 

# • •

- ! 1 !



### 100 0 200 0 300 0 400 0 500 0 600 0 700 0 800 0


# • P b 

# • •

__ J 

# •

j 1 

### 2000 0 4000 0 6000 0 8000 0 10000 0 12000 0



## Meta l Fee d Rat e MTE C (ug/dscm ) Figur e 17

. Metal s emission s an dfee drate relationship s ~ Cemen t kil n wit h F F (Southdown , Knoxville , TN ; I D No
. 316)

.

3 2

VE S 00029 5

### 5 0 4 0 c o c o "t n 

# I S 3 0 L U 3 3 

### t n " B J 

### 2 0
c u 1 0 0 

# A s • Facilit y 32 2 

### A

- 

# A s A Facilit y 323



### A 

# i A D

, D 

# •

c o c o "c o c o " E L U 

### tn "c u 

### 1. 2 1 - 0. 8 0. 6 0. 4 0. 2 + 0

t o c g c o • P t o E E c o L U 32 _C O D ) ro 3 

### "c u 0 10 0 8 0 6 0 ] 4 0 2 0 0

6 0 

# 1 5 0 

# 1 E 4 0 

### £ w 3 0 L U T 3 

### w "§ > 2 0 ro 3 3 1 0
0 0
140 0 120 0 c o c •5 5 -P100 0 c o fc E c o L U 3 3 

### tn g > ro 3 c u 

### 80 0 60 0 40 0 20 0 0 1000 0 2000 0 3000 0 4000 0 5000 0 6000 0 7000 0 8000 0 9000 0

• Facilit y 32 2 A Facilit y 32 3 • 

# B e A A



# • • •
100 0 200 0 300 0 400 0

• Facilit y 322 A Facilit y 323 

# C d 500 0 A - 

### 600 0



# • 

# • A A 

# • 0 200 0 400 0 600 0 800 0 1000 0 1200 0

• Facilit y 32 2 ! 

# C r A j A Facilit

y 32 3 \ 

### A A

1 1 1 1 1 

### 2000 0 4000 0 6000 0 8000 0 10000 0 12000 0 14000 0 16000 0 18000 0

- Facilit

y 322 

# P b A A Facilit y 323 

### A

- 

### A

i 

# • • • 0 2000 0 4000 0 6000 0 8000 0 10000 0 12000 0 14000 0 16000 0 18000 0 20000 0



## Metal s Fee d Rat e MTE C (ug/dscm ) Figur e 18

. Metal s emission s an dfee drat e relationshi p fo r

individua l metal s an dfacilitie s wit h multipl e condition s —Cement kiln s (Lafarge , Fredonia , KS ; I D No
. 322/323)

.

3 3

VE S 00029 6

### c o c o in ' P tn fc ' E ° E t o L U 32 

### j o CJ > C D 

## 3 C U 

### 3. 0 2. 5 - 2. 0 1.5 - 1.0 0. 5 0. 0 

# A s o -o -



# • • • o

• Condition 1 O Condition 3



### 1000 200 0 300 0 400 0 500 0 600 0 700 0 4 0 3 5 3 0 

# 8 3 E 2 5 " E 0 

### E c o c o c o
L U 3 J 2 0 

# 3 % 1 5 

## I 1 0 5 0 

# •

D 

# C r [•Conditio n 1 i O Conditio n 3



### 500 0 1000 0 1500 0 2000 0 2500 0 3000 0 3500 0

C O 

### c g 'c o " P c o h ' E 0 

### E c o L U 

### 3 2 j o ^ > C D 3 

### 2 5 2 0 1 5 1 0 5 0 - • Conditio n 1

O Conditio n 3 

# C d 0



# —m ~ 1

— i 

# 0— [ 0
200 0 400 0 600 0 800 0 1000 0 1200 0 4 0 3 5 c o § 3 0 

## " 8 ?2 5 ' E 0 

### £-§2 0 

# 3S 1 5 

## I 1 0 5 0 • Conditio n 1

OConditio n 3 

# Pb o



# o 

# • • •

0 500 0 1000 0 1500 0 2000 0 2500 0 3000 0



## Metal s Fee d Rat e MTE C (|i,g/dscm ) Figur e 19

. Metal s emission s an dfee drat e relationshi p fo r

individua l metal s an dfacilitie s wit h multipl e condition s —Cemen t kil n (Lon e Sta

r Industries , Inc. , MO ; I D No
. 303)

. 3 4

VE S 00029 7

## 25 0

20 0
E o C O 

## 5 

## 15 0 O ) ri .

10 0 

# 4 -

5 0 

# C d

• Facilit y 40 1 (condition 1)

• Facilit

y 40 1 (condition 5) A Facilit

y 40 2 (condition 1) A Facilit

y 40 2 (condition 4)



### A 

# • A


# • 

# 1 A
0 100 0 200 0 300 0 400 0 500 0 600 0 Metal s Fee d Rat e MTE C (ug/dscm ) 700 0 800 0 900 0



## Figur e 20

. Metal s emission s an dfee drat e relationshi p fo r

individua l metal s an dfacilitie s wit h multipl e condition s —Cemen t kiln s (As h Grov e Cemen t Company , Chanute , KS ; I D No
. 401/402 )

3 5

### 80 0 

# •

- 

# C r

- 

# •

- 

# • • • •

i 1 

### —\ 2000 0 4000 0 6000 0 8000 0 10000 0 12000 0 14000 0

50 0 45 0 40 0 g 35 0
C D 

### 3 30 0 tn

. 2 25 0 tn tn
L U 

### 20 0 tn 

## I 15 0 10 0 5 0 0 U

- 

# N i

- 

# • • ft

# •

- D

# • • • D



### j 1 

# •

r

—

## h •—TJ Q 2000 0 4000 0 6000 0 8000 0



## Meta l Fee d Rat e MTE C (u,g/dscm ) 10000 0 12000 0


## Figur e 21

. Metal s emission s an dfee drat e relationship s - Ligh t

weigh t aggregat

e kil n wit h FF/V S (Norlite , Cohoes , NY ; I D No
. 307 )
3 6

# As : LWA K(Solite , FL ; 227 )

t o c g t n " P t n E E t o L U 3 2 _t o g > c o 3 1 2 1 0 8 6 4 2 0 - 

# •

- 

# • •

2 5 

# 1 2 

### 0 t o P "
• g I 1 5 E t o L U 3 2 m 

### "§ > 1 0 J S 3 

## 2 K



### 2 5 

# S 2 0 t o P - 

### | § 1 5 E t o L U T J jn g 1 0 c o 3= £ 5 2000 0 4000 0 6000 0 8000 0 10000 0 12000 0 14000 0



# Pb : C K(Nationa l Cemen t Plant , Lebec , CA ; 306 )

- 

# • D

- a

# •

• •

I ] 

### 2000 0 4000 0 6000 0 8000 0 

# Cr : Boile r (Meriche m Company , TX ; 724 ) 10000 0



# • • •

IIII I 

### 10 0 20 0 30 0 40 0 50 0 60 0 70 0 

# Cr : Incinerato r (Pennwal t Corp. , NJ ; 824 )

50 0 100

0 150 0 200 0 250 0 300 0 350 0 400 0 

# Metal s Fee d Rat e MTE C (|i .g/dscm ) Figur e 22a

. Selecte dmetal s emission s an dfee drat e relationships

. 3 7 450 0



# VE S 00030 0

# Cd : LWA K(Solite , NC ; 227 )

- 

# •

- 

# •

•
I 1 

### 5000 0 10000 0 15000 0 20000 0 25000 0 

# Cd : C K(Nationa l Cemen t Plant , Lebec , CA;306 )

- 

# • •
• •

50 0 1000 150 0 200 0 250 0 300 0 

# Hg : LWA K(Solite , NC ; 224 ) 350 0 400 0 450 0



## u 

# • •

5 1 0 1 5 20 2 5 

# Hg : LWA K(Solite , KY ; 310 ) 3 0 3 5

1 4 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2



# Metal s Fee d Rat e MTE C (ug/dscm ) Figur e 22b

. Selecte dmetal s emission s an dfee drate relationships

. 1 6



## 3 8



# VE S 00030 1

### 2000 0 4000 0 6000 0 8000 0 10000 0 12000 0 14000 0

1000 0 2000 0 3000 0 4000 0 5000 0

2000 0 4000 0 6000 0 8000 0 10000 0 12000 0 14000 0 16000 0 18000 0

C O £= 

### g 'c o " P c o t E c o U J 3 2 SU ro 

## ro 3 1 4 12 1 0 8 6 4 2 0 

# Southdown , O H (315 )



# ^0- OA s XB e OC r 

### 5000 0 10000 0 15000 0 20000 0 25000 0 

## Metal s Fee d Rat e MTE C (iig/dscm ) Figur e 2 3 a . Metal s emission s an dfee drat e relationshi p fo r

lo w volatil e metal s grouping s fo r

individua l facilitie s (cement kilns)

. 3 9

VE S 00030 2

### 1 2 1 0 C O 

### c g C O 

### ' P c o t E c o U J J 3 

# <Q S 1 

### c o 3

0 

## i t

6 0
5 0
c o g 4 0 C O 

### " P c o t E t o U J 

### 3 2 3 0 <n g > ro 3 o 20
1 0
0 

## Southdown , T N (316 ) A



## 4 i A
A A XB e A O 1000 0 2000 0 3000 0 4000 0 5000 0 6000 0 7000 0 8000 0 9000 0

0 2000 0 4000 0 6000 0 8000 0 10000 0 12000 0 14000 0 16000 0 18000 0
5 0 4 5 4 0 £ 3 5 

# 1 E 3 0 E t o o c L U T 3 £0 w 

### g > c o 3 C D 

### 2 1 5 2 0 4

1 0 5 0 

## WrAs h Grov e Cemen t Company , K S (401/402 )

o



## o



# ro • oo

500 0 1000 0 1500 0 2000 0 

## Metal s Fee d Rat e MTE C (u.g/dscm ) • S b OA s 

### AB a XB e 

## oC r

2500 0



## Figur e 23b

. Metal s emission s an dfee drate relationship s fo r lo w volatil e metal s grouping s fro mindividua l facilitie s (cement kilns)

. 4 0

VE S 00030 3

### c o c o t o " P C O t 

### E c o U J 

### 3 2 w g > ro 3 " 5 35 30 25 20 1 5 1 0 5 0 X 

# • • A A A A 

### A



# • Laidla w Environ. , S C (209 ) 

# • • • • S b OA s i AB a \ XB e | AC r 

### 10000 0 20000 0 30000 0 40000 0 50000 0 60000 0 70000 0

C O 

### c g C O 

### P " c o c E c o U J 

### 3 2 j o g ) ro - 3 -t— ' 

### c u 8 0 7 0 6 0 5 0 4 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 

## Rollin s Environ. , L A (214 )

A AB a AC r



### • A 

## A

^ A



### 10000 0 20000 0 30000 0 40000 0 50000 0 1 0

c o 8 g t o P ~ „ • | I 6 E c o U J 

### 3 2 j o g > 4 ro 3 

## Occidenta l Chem

. Corp. , N Y (348 ) 60000 0 70000 0



## " o

OA s :AC r C N i



### 200 0 400 0 600 0 800 0 1000 0 1200 0 1400 0 1600 0

t o c g 'c o 140 120 100 E o 8 0 E c o

m

### a 6 0

ro — c u 

### 4 0 2 0 0 

## R Tennesse e Eastma n Co. , T N (716 ) AB a XB e AC r|



### 0 200 0 400 0 600 0 800 0 

## Metal s Fee d Rat e MTE C (u.g/dscm ) 

## Figur e 24

. Metal s emission s an dfee drat e relationshi p fo r

lo w volatil e metal s grouping s fo r

individua l facilitie s (incinerator s an dboilers)

. 1000 0



## 4 1

VE S 00030 4

### 8 0 7 0 

# 4 -
< o 6 0 

### c o 'c o c C O t 

## • = o E

### 4 5 4 0 L U 

### 3 2 _c o g > i S —3 0 c u 5 0

2 0 1 0 0 

## Cemen t Kiln s - Holna m Inc. , M O (204 )
A A

A • S b OA s 

### AB a XB e AC r

A 

## A

_ 0 3 5 - 3 0
c o 2 5 c

• I § 

### 2 0 E c o L U 

### 3 2

1 0 5 0 X

-
9 0 8 0 7 0 

## 1 6 0 c o

• 2 

## 5 5 0 E C O L U 

### 3 2 u , gi 4 0 c o 3 | 3 0 - | 2 0 1 0 

# i
0 2000 0 4000 0 6000 0 8000 0 10000 0 12000 0 14000 0 16000 0

A 

## Cemen t Kil n - - Nationa l Cemen t Plant , C A (306 )

A A A A • S b OA s 

### AB a XB e A C r

O 

## o o 

# o

10000 0 20000 0



## A 30000 0 40000 0 50000 0 60000 0



## Incinerato r - Pennwal t Corporation , N J (824 )

O O 

### o 

## o OA s | 

### AB a A C rj ON i |


### 200 0 400 0 600 0 800 0



## Metal s Fee d Rat e MTE C (Ltg/dscm ) 1000 0 1200 0 

## Figur e 25

. Metal s emission s an dfee drat e relationshi p fo r

lo w volatil e metal s grouping s fo r individua l facilities

. 4 2

VE S 00030 5

# 0.0000 1 1 0 10 0 100 0 1000 0 10000 0 C rFee d Rat e MTE C (|ig/dscm ) 100000 0

100 0 H

c o
T 3

C O 

# c g CO CO 

# E L U 1

_ 

## O 

# 10 0

1 0 10 0 100 0 1000 0 10000 0 C rFee d Rat e MTE C (|ig/dscm ) 100000 0
Figur e 26

. Chromiu mfee drat e andemission s relationshi p fo r al l hazardou s wast

e burnin g combustors

.
4 3



# VE S 00030 6

# 0.0000 1 1 0 10 0 100 0 1000 0 10000 0 100000 0 P b Fee d Rat e MTE C (|xg/dscm ) 10000 0

—1000 0 E o CO T 3 

# 1 ? 100 0

CO 

# c g c o c o 

## UJ

_ Q 

# CL 10 0

1 0 O Boiler s

— | • Cemen t Kil r i \ A LWAK s X Incinerator s i s x

v X 

### O Boiler s

— | • Cemen t Kil r i \ A LWAK s X Incinerator s i s

x x V 

### • • c P x x n / \ 

### rJP



# • •

: X

X X " V

X 

### > x v, X A 

# * * x ^

x ^ D -JT-4— 1 A
: . X

- X X X 

### x

x 

### x Xx x•

& V % '#XXQ [



### x c 

### * \> x [_r)W l £ A


# • • x

# ^

<

TM A n
: O X X X v x • ^

O XX


# 1 0 10 0 100 0 1000 0 10000 0 100000 0

P b Fee d Rat e MTE C ((xg/dscm ) Figur e 27

. Lea dfee drat e an demission s relationshi p fo r al l hazardou s wast e burnin g combustors

.

4 4



# VE S 00030 7

# Meta l Fee d Rate Figur e 28

. Option s fo r

the tria l burn metal s extrapolatio n procedure

.C D C D C D 1

_ C D > < i 

# 2 1. 5 1 0. 5 

# Sem i Volatil e Metal s Residual s



# x o C O u 

# o --0.5 C D 

# 2 - 1 C O C D 

# ^-1. 5

- 1 1 

# 2 3 Averag e (logXi ) c

a o o o o

- o o

o o 

# j o

q^^ d

tyx? m 9 o 

# ^

^ 8

q^^ d

tyx? m 9 o 

# ^

^ 8
o o o u O g O C 

## O£©§ 0 icP n 

## Q



# o

2. 5

C D o 

## J 3 ^ C D 

# > C D 

# = 1. 5 

# o c o



## _ Q 

# § 1 C D

• g "c o 

# £0. 5 

# Probability Plo t fo r Sem i Volatil e Metal s Residual s

2 0 4 0 6 0

Sampl e Percentil e 8 0
Figur e 29

. Residua l analysi s fo r semi volatil e metals

.
4 6 

# o

© 

# 8

erz^sis&it

-— 

# 10 0

VE S 00030 9

## 0. 5 * FR t r 

## b r n 

## Tria l bur n fee d rat e 2 

## * FR 

## trbr n (FRtrbrn ) 

# Meta l Fee d Rate Figur e 30

. Modifie dhybri dtria l burn metal s extrapolatio n procedure

.



# VE S 00031 00 0



## Downwar d Tria l bur n Upwar d extrapolate d fee d fee d rat e extrapolate d rate s fee d rate s



## Meta l Fee d Rat e
Figur e 31

. Illustratio n o f th e conservativ e impac t

o f extrapolatio n of f

o f stack ga s detectio n limi t

tria l bur n measurement
.

VE S 00031 1

## TABL E 1

. METAL S RESIDUA LANALYSI S

Meta l Group/Specie s Residua l (loglO ) (95t h percentile ) Lo w Volatil e Metal s 0.5 3 S b 0.3 8 A s 0.4 3 B a 0.5 5 B e 0.44 C r 0.6 3 N i 0.5 8 A g 0.5 0 Sem i Volatil e Metal s 0.4 9 C d 0.5 6 Pb 0.4 8 T l 0.2 7 Hig h Volatil e Metal s 0.7 0 H g 0.7 1 S e 0.6 2
A l l Metal s Together 0.5 4

4 9

# VE S 000313.pd f

# Frida y Ma y2 , 199 7



# Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y 4 0 CF R Par t 60 , e t al

. Revise d Technica l Standard s fo r Hazardou s Wast e Combustio n Facilities ; Propose d Rul e

2421 1



# VE S 00031 3

## 2421 2 Federal Registe r / Vol

. 62 , No
. 8

5 / Friday , Ma

y 2 , 199 7 / ProposedRule s ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y 4 0 CF R Part s 60 , 63 , 260 , 261 , 264 , 265 , 266 , 270 , an d 271 [FRL-5818-9 ] 

### Revise d Technica l Standard s fo r Hazardou s Wast e Combustio n Facilitie s AGENCY : Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y (EPA)

. ACTION : Notic e o f

dat aavailabilit y an d reques t fo r comments
. unde r separat e cove r

to : RCR A CB I Documen t

Contro l Officer , Offic e o f Soli dWast e (5305W) , U.S

. EPA , 40 1 M Street , SW. , Washington , D C 20460

. Publi c comment s an dsupportin g material s ar e availabl e fo r viewin g i n th e RCR A Informatio n Cente r (RIC) , locate da t

Crysta l Gatewa y One , 123 5 Jefferso n Davi s Highway , Firs t Floor , Arlington , Virginia

. Th e RI C i s ope n fro m9 a.m . t o 4 p.m. , Monda y throug h Friday , excep t

fo r Federa l holidays

. T o revie w docke t

materials , th e publi c mus t mak e a n appointmen t b y callin g 703-603-9230

. Th e publi c ma y cop y a maximu mo f

10 0 page s fro man y regulator y docke t

a t n o charge

. Additiona l copie s cos t SO. 1 5 pe r

page . FO RFURTHE RINFORMATIO N CONTACT : Fo r genera l information , contac t th e RCR A Hotlin e a t

1-800-424-934 6 o r TD D 1

- 800-553-767 2 (hearin g impaired)

. I n th e Washingto n metropolita n area , cal l 703-412-981 0 o r

TD D 703-412-3323

. Th e RCR A Hotlin e i s ope n Monday

- Friday , 9 a.m . t o 6 p.m. , Easter n Standar dTime

. Th e RCR A Hotlin e ca n als o provid e direction s o n ho w t o acces s electronicall y som e o f th e document s an ddat areferre dt o i n thi s notic e vi a EPA' s Cleanu p Informatio n Bulleti n Boar dSyste m(CLU-IN)

. Th e CLU-I N mode macces s phon e numbe r i s 301

- 589-8366 , o r

Telne t t o clu-in.epa.go v fo r Interne t

access . Th e file s poste do n CLU-I N ar e i n Portabl e Documen t Forma t (PDF ) an dca n b e viewe dan d printe dusin g Acroba t Reader

. F o r mor e detaile dinformatio n o n specifi c aspect s o f

thi s notice , contac t Larr y Denyer , Offic e o f Soli dWast e (5302W) , U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , 40 1 M Street , SW. , Washington , D C 20460 , 703-308-8770 , e-mai l address : denyer.larry@epamail.epa.gov

. SUPPLEMENTAR Y INFORMATION : Th e Agenc y specificall y solicit s commen t

o n th e followin g documents : (1 ) Draf t

Technica l Suppor t

Documen t fo r HW C MAC T Standard s (NODA) , Volum e I : MAC T Evaluation s Base do n Revise dDatabase , Apri l 1997

. (2 ) Draf t

Technica l Suppor t

Documen t fo r HW C MAC T Standard s (NODA) , Volum e II : Evaluatio n o f CO/H C an d D R E Database , Apri l 1997

. (3 ) Draf t

Technica l Suppor t

Documen t fo r HW C MAC T Standard s (NODA) , Volum e III : Evaluatio n o f Metal s Emission s Databas e t o Investigat e Extrapolatio n an dInterpolatio n Issues , Apri l 1997

. I n preparin g thi s notice , th e Agenc y considere dcomment s o n th e propose d rule , includin g thos e liste dbelow

. EP A i s solicitin g responsiv e comment s regardin g certai n dat aan dinformatio n presente di n thes e comments : (1 ) Cemen t Kil n Recyclin g Coalitio n (2 ) Chemica l Manufacturer s Associatio n (3 ) Coalitio n fo r

Responsibl e Wast e Incineratio n (4 ) Do n Cla y Associate s (5 ) Th e Do w Chemica l Compan y (6 ) Environmenta l Technolog y Counci l (7 ) Holna mInc
. (8 ) Lafarg e Corporatio n (9 ) Molte n Meta l Technology , Inc
. (10 ) Th e Natura l Resource s Defens e Council , Inc
. (11 ) Rollin s Environmenta l Services , Inc
. (12 ) Safety-Klee n Corp

. (13 ) Texa s Natura l Resourc e Conservatio n Commissio n (14 ) vonRoll/WT I Reader s shoul dnot e tha t onl y comment s abou t

ne w informatio n discusse di n thi s notic e wil l b e considere db y th e Agency

. Issue s relate d solel y t o th e Apri l 19 , 199 6 propose d rul e an dothe r

subsequen t

notice s tha t ar e no t directl y affecte db y th e document s o r

dat areference di n today' s Notic e o f

Dat aAvailabilit y ar e no t ope n fo r furthe r comment
. 

### Glossary of

Acronym s acfm—Actua l Cubi c Fee t pe r Minut e ACI—Activate dCarbo n Injectio n APCD—Ai r

Pollutio n Contro l Devic e BIF—Boile r

an dIndustria l Furnac e BTF—Beyond-the-Floo r CAA—Clea n Ai r

Ac t CEMS—Continuou s Emission s Monitorin g Syste m D/F—Dioxins/Furan s ESP—Electrostati c Precipitato r gr/dscf—Grain s pe r Dr y Standar dCubi c Foo t HAP—Hazardou s Ai r Pollutan t HC—Hydrocarbon s HWC/HWI—Hazardou s Wast e Combustor/Incinerato r IWS—Ionizin g We t Scrubbe r LVM—Low-volatil e Metal s LWAK—Lightweigh t Aggregat e Kil n MACT—Maximu mAchievabl e Contro l Technolog y MTEC—Maximu mTheoretica l Emissio n Concentratio n NESHAPs—Nationa l Emissio n Standard s fo r

HAP s NODA—Notic e o f

Dat aAvailabilit y NPRM—Notic e o f

Propose dRulemakin g NSPS—Ne w Sourc e Performanc e Standard s PM—Particulat e Matte r RCRA—Resourc e Conservatio n an d Recover y Ac t SRE—Syste mRemova l Efficienc y SVM—Semi-volatil e Metal s TEQ—Toxi c Equivalen t Ug/dscm—Microgram s pe r Dr y Standar d Cubi c Mete r SUMMARY : Thi s documen t i s anotic e o f availabilit y an dinvitatio n fo r commen t o n th e followin g informatio n pertainin g t o th e propose drevise dstandard s fo r hazardou s wast e combustor s (6 1 F R 1735 8 (Apri l 19 , 1996))

. Repor t o n th e statu s o f

settin g nationa l emissio n standard s fo r

hazardou s ai r

pollutant s (NESHAPS ) base do n th e revise d emission s database ; Repor t o n th e selectio n o f

pollutant s an dsourc e categories , includin g are aan dmajo r sources ; repor t

o n th e statu s o f

variou s implementatio n issues , includin g complianc e dates , complianc e requirements , performanc e testing , an d notificatio n an dreportin g requirements ; an drepor t

o n th e statu s o f

permi t requirements , includin g wast e minimizatio n incentives

. DATES : Writte n comment s mus t b e submitte db y Jun e 2 , 1997

. ADDRESSES : Commenter s mus t sen da n origina l an dtw o copie s o f thei r comment s referencin g docke t numbe r F-97-CS4A-FFFF Fto : RCR A Docke t Informatio n Center , Offic e o f Soli d Wast e (5305G) , U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y Headquarter s (EPA , HQ) , 40 1 M Street , SW. , Washington , D C 20460

. Deliverie s o f comment s shoul db e mad e t o th e Arlington , Virgini aaddres s liste dbelow

. Comment s ma y als o b e submitte d electronicall y throug h th e Interne t to : rcra-docket@epamail.epa.gov

. Comment s i n electroni c forma t shoul d als o b e identifie db y th e docke t numbe r F-97-CS4A-FFFFF

. Al l electroni c comment s mus t

b e submitte da s a n ASCI I fil e avoidin g th e us e o f specia l character s an dan y for mo f encryption

. F o r othe r informatio n regardin g submittin g comment s electronicall y o r viewin g th e comment s receive do r supportin g information , pleas e refe r t o th e propose drul e (6 1 F R1735 8 (Apri l 19 , 1996))

. Commenter s shoul dno t submi t electronicall y an y confidentia l busines s informatio n (CBI)

. A n origina l an dtw o copie s o f

th e CB I mus t

b e submitte d



# VE S 00031 4

## Federa l Registe r / Vol

. 62 , No
. 8

5 / Friday , Ma

y 2 , 199 7 / Propose dRule s 2421 3
TABL E O F CONTENT S Par tOne : Backgroun d an d Overvie w o f Today' s Notic e I. Background II . Overvie w o f

Today' s Notic e Par tTwo : Standard s Fo rHazardou s Ai r Pollutants (NESHAPs ) I . Regulatio n of

Are a Sources A . Approac h t

o Regulat

e Are a Sources , a

s Proposed B . Positive Are a Source Findin g fo rHWC s C . Titl e V Permitting Requirement s fo r Area Source s II . Revisions t

o Proposed Standards Usin g th e Revised Emission s Databas e an d Dat a Analysi s Method s A . Notice o

f Dat a Availability o n th

e Revised Emission s Databas e B . P M a s a Surrogat

e fo rNon-H g Metal s C . Option s fo rControllin g Emission s of Organi c HAP s D . Accountin g fo rEmission s Variability i n Establishin g Emissio n Standard s E . Re-Evaluatio n o

f Proposed MAC T Standards fo rIncinerator s F . Re-Evaluatio n o

f Proposed MAC T Standards fo rCemen

tKiln s G . Re-Evaluatio n of

Proposed MAC T Standards fo rLightweightAggregat e Kiln s Par tThree : Implementatio n I. Complianc e Dat

e Consideration s A . Definitio n o

f Complianc e Dat

e B . Pre-Certificatio n o f Compliance C . Consequence

s of Non-complianc e II . Complianc e Requirement s A . Complianc e wit h C O and/o rH C Emissio n Standards B . Startup , Shutdown , an d Malfunctio n Plans C . Metal s Extrapolatio n an d Interpolation Considerations D . Consideratio n of

Site-Specifi c Variances forCemen

tKiln s an d LWAK s E . Emission s Averagin g fo rCemen tKiln s III . DRE Testin g Considerations A . Option s fo rEnsurin g Compliance wit h a DR E Standard B . DRE A s a MAC T Versus RCR A Standar d IV . Notificatio n an d Reporting Requiremen t Considerations A . Publi c an d Regulator y Notificatio n o f Inten tt o Compl y B . Dat a Compressio n Allowance s V . Wast e Minimizatio n an d Pollutio n Preventio n A . Overvie w B . EP A Proposed Flexibl e Wast e Minimizatio n Incentives C . Comment

s Receive d D . Comment

s Requeste

d on Additiona l Wast e Minimizatio n Incentive s VI . Permi

tRequirement

s A . Coordinatio n o f

RCRA and CA A Permitting Processe

s B . PermitProcess Issue s C . Omnibu s and RCRA/CA A Testin g Coordinatio n Par tFour : Miscellaneou s Issue s I . 500 0 Btu pe rPoun d Polic y fo rKil n Product s II . Foundr y San d Therma l Reclamation Units A . Backgroun d B . Deferra l and Varianc e Option s fo r Consideratio n III . Statu s o f Gaseou s Fuel s Generate

d fro m Hazardou s Wast

e Managemen

tActivitie s IV . Regulator

y Flexibilit y Analysi s 

### PartOne : Backgroun d an d Overvie w of Today' s Notic e I. Background O n Apri l 19 , 1996 , EP A propose d revise dstandard s fo r thre e sourc e categorie s o f

hazardou s wast e combustor s (i.e. , hazardou s wast e incinerator s an dhazardou s waste
burnin g cemen t

kiln s an dlightweigh t aggregat e kiln s (LWAKs)) , 6 1 F R17358

. Afte r a n extension , th e commen t perio d close do n Augus t

19 , 1996

. Th e Agenc y subsequentl y publishe d tw o Notice s o f

Dat aAvailabilit y (NODA)

. Th e firs t

NODA , publishe do n Augus t 23 , 199 6 (6 1 F R43501 ) invite d commen t

o n informatio n pertainin g t o a pee r revie w o f

thre e aspect s o f

th e propose drule , additiona l analyse s o f fue l oil s tha t

woul db e use dt o establis h acomparabl e fuel s exclusion , an d informatio n o n asynthesi s ga s process . Th e commen t

perio do n tha t

NOD A close do n Septembe r 23 , 1996

. Th e secon dNODA , publishe do n Januar y 7 , 199 7 (6 2 F R960 ) provide dnotic e an d opportunit y t o commen t o n a n update d hazardou s wast e combusto r databas e containin g th e emission s an dancillar y dat atha t

th e Agenc y plan s t o us e t o develo p th e fina l rule

. Th e commen t perio do n tha t

NOD A close do n Februar y 6 , 1997

. EPA' s proposa l t o revis e standard s fo r hazardou s wast e incinerator s an d hazardou s waste-burnin g cemen t kiln s an dLWAK s i s unde r join t authorit y o f th e Clea n Ai r

Act , a s amended , (CAA ) an dth e Resourc e Conservatio n an d Recover y Act , a s amende d(RCRA)

. Th e propose demissio n standard s wer e develope dunde r

th e CA A provision s concernin g th e maximu mleve l o f achievabl e contro l ove r hazardou s ai r pollutant s (HAPs) , takin g int o consideratio n th e cos t o f achievin g th e emissio n reduction , an y non-ai r qualit y healt h an denvironmenta l impacts , an d energ y requirements

. Thes e Maximu m Achievabl e Contro l Technolog y (MACT ) standards , als o r e ferre dt o a s Nationa l Emissio n Standard s fo r Hazardou s Ai r Pollutant s (NESHAPs) , wer e propose d fo r th e followin g HAPs : dioxins/furan s (D/F) , mercury , tw o semi-volatil e metal s (lea dan dcadmium) , fou r lo w volatilit y metal s (antimony , arsenic , beryllium , an dchromium) , particulat e matter , an d hydrochlori c acid/chlorin e gas . Othe r toxi c organi c emission s wer e addresse d b y standard s fo r

carbo n monoxid e (CO ) an dhydrocarbon s (HC)

. Becaus e o f th e join t

authoritie s fo r thi s rule , th e proposa l als o containe da n implementatio n schem e t o harmoniz e th e RCR A an dCA A program s t o th e maximu mexten t

permissibl e b y law

. I n pursuin g acommon-sens e approac h toward s thi s objective , th e proposa l sough t t o establis h aframewor k that : (1 ) Provide s fo r

combine d(o r

a t leas t coordinated ) CA A an dRCR A permittin g o f thes e facilities ; (2 ) allow s maximu m flexibilit y fo r

regional , state , an dloca l agencie s t o determin e whic h o f thei r resource s wil l b e use dfo r permitting , compliance , an denforcemen t efforts ; an d(3 ) integrate s th e monitoring , complianc e testing , an drecor dkeepin g requirement s o f

th e CA A an dRCR A s o tha t facilitie s wil l b e abl e t o avoi dtw o potentiall y differen t regulator y complianc e schemes

. //. Overview of

Today's Notice Th e Agenc y receive dalarg e numbe r o f publi c comment s i n respons e t o th e proposal

. Th e Agenc y evaluate dth e publi c comment s receive dan dthei r applicabilit y t o th e propose drule

. I n thos e instance s wher e comment s provide dne w informatio n o r ne w insights , th e Agenc y ha s reevaluate d certai n aspect s o f

th e proposa l base do n thi s ne w information

. Th e Agenc y i s issuin g thi s NOD A i n a n effor t t o infor m th e publi c of : (1 ) Significan t change s th e Agenc y i s considerin g o n aspect s o f th e proposa l base do n publi c comment s an d ne w information ; an d(2 ) th e Agency' s o w n reevaluatio n (an dt o som e degre e narrowing ) o f

MAC T standard-settin g approache s base do n ne w dat aan d(at leas t i n part ) o n publi c comments
. 

### Par tTwo : Standard s fo rHazardou s Ai r Pollutant

s (NESHAPs ) I. Regulation of

Area Sources I n thi s section , w e solici t commen t

o n makin g apositiv e are asourc e findin g t o subjec t hazardou s wast e combusto r are a source s t o th e sam e MAC T standard s tha t woul dappl y t o majo r source s an d o n whether , unde r

suc h afinding , are a source s shoul db e subjec t t o Titl e V permi t requirements

. A

. Approac h T o Regulat e Are aSources , a s Propose d A majo r

sourc e i s asourc e tha t ha s th e potentia l t o emi t

(considerin g controls ) eithe r 1 0 ton s pe r

yea r o f an y hazardou s ai r pollutan t

o r 2 5 ton s o f

an y combinatio n o f

HAPs

. Are asource s ar e an y source s whic h ar e no t majo r sources . Th e Agenc y propose dt o subjec t are a source s t o MAC T standard s unde r authorit y o f

CA A sectio n 112(c)(6)

. Se e 6 1 F Ra t

17365

. Tha t

sectio n require s



# VE S 00031 5

## 24214 Federa l Registe r / Vol

. 62 , No
. 85 /

Friday , Ma

y 2 , 199 7 / Propose dRule s
th e Agenc y t o subjec t t o MAC T standard s 1 al l source s i n sourc e categorie s tha t

accoun t

fo r no t les s tha n 9 0 percen t

o f th e aggregat e emission s o f eac h enumerate dpollutant. 2Th e enumerate dpollutant s emitte db y hazardou s wast e combustor s (HWCs ) includ e mercur y (Hg) , D/F , an dothe r polycycli c organi c HAPs

. Th e Agenc y explaine da t

proposa l tha t

HWC s wer e significan t

emitter s o f

D/ Fan dHg , an d tha t muc h o f

th e huma n healt h ris k fro m emission s o f

HAP s fro mHWC s come s fro mthes e hig h priorit y HAPs , an d D / Fi n particular

. W e receive dman y comment s pertainin g t o thi s par t o f th e proposal , an dw e wil l addres s thos e comment s i n th e fina l rule

. Th e are asourc e issu e i s discusse di n today' s notic e becaus e commenter s sai dtha t another , mor e appropriat e readin g o f sectio n 112(c)(6 ) i s tha t thi s authorit y coul db e use dt o appl y MAC T contro l t o are asource s onl y fo r

th e enumerate dHAPs , no t th e ful l arra y o f

HAP s tha t

th e Agenc y propose dt o regulat e (e.g. , particulat e matte r (PM) , semivolatil e metal s (SVM) , l o w volatil e metal s (LVM))

. Nonetheless , wer e EP A t o adop t thi s reading , th e Agenc y continue s t o believ e tha t are asource s nee dt o b e regulate d fo r thi s ful l arra y o f

HAPs

. I n ligh t o f issue s commenter s raised , w e solici t

commen t

o n a n alternativ e approac h tha t

woul dsubjec t

are a source s t o al l o f

th e MAC T standard s fo r majo r source s base do n th e Agenc y makin g apositiv e are asourc e finding

. B

. Positiv e Are aSourc e Findin g Fo r HWC s Are asource s mus t

b e regulate db y technology-base dstandards 3 i f th e are a sourc e categor y i s liste dpursuan t t o sectio n 112(c)(3 ) base do n th e Agency' s findin g tha t

thes e source s (individuall y o r i n th e aggregate ) presen t athrea t

o f advers e effect s t o huma n healt h o r th e environment

. Suc h afindin g i s terme d apositiv e are asourc e finding

. Th e Agenc y i s toda y solicitin g commen t o n whethe r

apositiv e are asourc e findin g i s appropriat e fo r

hazardou s wast e

1 Fo rare a sources , sectio n 112(c)(6 ) require s th e Agenc y t o establis h eithe r MAC T standard s unde r sectio n 112(d)(2) , o rgenerall y availabl e contro l technolog y (GACT ) standard s unde rsectio n 112(d)(5) . Give n th e similaritie s betwee n majo ran d are a sourc e HWC s a s discusse d i n subsequen t section s o f

th e text , are a source s shoul d b e subjec t t o MACT . ^Sectio n 112(c)(6 ) enumerate s th e followin g high priorit y hazardou s pollutant s fo rspecia l regulation : alkylate d lea d compounds , polycycli c organi c matter , hexachlorobenzene , mercury , polychlorinate d biphenyls , an d 2,3,7,8 - tetrachlorodibenzofuran s an d p-dioxin .
3Tha tis , MAC T standard s unde rsectio n 112(d)(2 ) o rGAC T standard s unde rsectio n 112(d)(5) . incinerator s an dhazardou s wast e burnin g cemen t

kiln s an dlightweigh t aggregat e kilns

. A positiv e are asourc e findin g woul d b e base do n th e ris k assessmen t performe dfo r

th e propose drul e an d ultimatel y th e fina l rule

. Eve n thoug h th e source s modele di n suppor t o f th e propose drul e ma y hav e me t th e definitio n o f

amajo r

source , EP A believe s thei r

HA P emissions , othe r tha n HCI , ar e als o representativ e o f are a sourc e emissions

. Thi s i s because , a s discusse dbelow , thes e exampl e source s ma y b e abl e t o reduc e thei r HC I emission s t o becom e are asource s withou t

reducin g emission s o f D/F , Hg , o r othe r meta l HAP s tha t

coul dpos e significan t

healt h risk. 4 Man y comment s wer e submitte do n th e ris k assessmen t

methodolog y use d t o suppor t

th e propose drule

. W e ar e considerin g thes e comment s i n developmen t

o f th e fina l rul e an dar e makin g appropriat e change s t o th e ris k methodology , includin g modelin g additiona l facilities , Thes e change s coul daffec t

th e Agency' s finding s fo r bot h majo r

an dare asources . Th e Agenc y i s no t

toda y reopenin g th e commen t

perio do n th e ris k

assessment
. 1

. Risk s tha t

coul db e pose db y are a sourc e incinerators

. W e showe da t proposa l tha t

baselin e emission s fro m incinerator s coul dpos e hig h en d individua l lifetim e cance r risk s fro mD / Fu p t o 9E-5

. Se e 6 1 F Ra t 17389

. I n addition , althoug h th e ris k fro mlo w volatil e metal s (i.e.

. As , Be , Cr , an dSb ) wa s no t estimate dt o excee d4E-6 , th e exampl e site s modele dwer e no t representativ e o f

th e shor t

stack s o f man y on-sit e incinerators

. Th e direc t inhalatio n componen t o f th e individua l cance r ris k estimate s ma y increas e whe n incinerator s wit h shor t stack s ar e include di n th e ris k assessmen t supportin g th e fina l rule

. 2

. Risk s tha t

coul dB e pose db y are a sourc e cemen t

kilns

. Th e Agenc y showe da t

proposa l tha t

baselin e emission s fro mcemen t kiln s coul dpos e hig h en dindividua l lifetim e cance r risk s fro mD/ Fu p t o 9E-5

. Se e 6 1 F Ra t 17402

. Althoug h severa l hig h D/F

emittin g cemen t

kiln s hav e recentl y reduce dthei r

D/ Femission s significantly , arevise dris k assessmen t ma y wel l sho w tha t cemen t

kiln s (bot h are aan dmajo r

sources ) ca n pos e significan t

healt h ris k

a t curren t emissio n levels

. 3

. Risk s tha t

coul dB e pose db y are a sourc e lightweigh t

aggregat e kilns

.

4Fro m a technica l perspectiv e relate d to th e natur e o f

commo n ai rpollutio n contro l devices , reducin g HC I emission s woul d no tgenerall y reduc e emission s o f

othe r HAPs . Althoug h th e Agenc y di dno t sho w hig h baselin e D/ Fcance r risk s fo r

LWAK s a t proposal , th e ris k

assessmen t

assume d extremel y lo w D/ Femissions—0.0 4 n g TEQ/dscm—base do n ver y limite ddat a fro masingl e LWAK

. However , a s discusse dbelo w i n sectio n II
. G , ne w dat afro mtw o additiona l LWAK s sho w substantiall y highe r emissio n levels—u p t o 4. 1 n g TEQ/dscm

. A t thes e emissio n levels , th e hig h en dindividua l lifetim e cance r ris k fro mD/ Fcoul dexcee d 1E-5

. 4

. Basi s fo r

apositiv e are asourc e finding

. I n evaluatin g thes e estimate d ris k level s t o determin e whethe r the y ar e sufficien t

t o mak e apositiv e are a sourc e finding , th e Agenc y considere d othe r factor s whic h EP A believe s t o b e relevan t

i n determinin g ho w t o exercis e it s discretio n regardin g are asourc e determination s fo r

thes e sources : a . HW C are asource s ca n pos e th e sam e hazar dt o huma n healt h o r th e environmen t

a s majo r

sources . A n are a sourc e ma y hav e th e sam e emissio n rate s o f HAP s othe r

tha n hydroge n chlorid e (HCI , th e principa l HA P tha t cause s aHW C t o b e amajo r source ) a s amajo r source , an dthu s pos e essentiall y th e sam e hazar dt o huma n healt h o r

th e environment

. I n othe r words , source s coul dhav e HC I emission s lo w enoug h t o avoi damajo r sourc e classification , bu t hav e emission s o f D/ Ftha t

coul dpos e ahealt h ris k give n tha t

ther e i s n o direc t

correlatio n betwee n HC I an dD/ Femissions. 5 I n addition , som e HWC s tha t woul d currentl y b e classifie da s majo r source s becaus e o f

thei r HC I emission s ma y b e abl e t o lowe r

thei r HC I emission s t o becom e are asources . Th e Agenc y project s tha t

al l LWAK s ar e currentl y majo r source s principall y becaus e o f thei r HC I emissions , an dtha t approximatel y 8 0 percen t o f cemen t kiln s ar e majo r

sources , agai n becaus e o f HCI

. Thes e HWC s ma y b e abl e t o lowe r thei r HC I emission s t o otherwis e becom e are asources. 6 Source s hav e unti l th e complianc e dat e ofth e MAC T standard s (i.e. , thre e year s afte r

publicatio n i n th e 

## Federa

l

3Fo rwell-designe d an d operate d combustio n systems , D/ F emission s ar e relate d primaril y to post-combustio n particl e surfac e catalyze d reaction s an d th e temperatur e o f th e combustio n ga s (th e optimu m temperatur e windo w fo rformatio n i s 450-75 0 °F) , virtuall y irrespectiv e o f HC I concentration s i n th e gas .
6Som e commercia l incinerator s ma y als o b e abl e to lowe r thei r allowabl e HC I emissio n level s to becom e are a sources . Itcoul d b e mor e problemati c fo ron-sit e incinerator s to lowe r thei r emission s t o becom e are a source s becaus e facility-wid e HA P emission s mus tb e considere d whe n makin g th e major/are a sourc e determination . Fo rexample , on sit e incinerator s locate d a tlarg e chemica l productio n facilitie s woul d nee d to reduc e HA P emission s a ta larg e numbe ro f sources .



# VE S 00031 6

## Federal Registe r / Vol

. 62 , No
. 85 /

Friday , Ma

y 2 , 199 7 / Propose dRule s 2421 5 Register ) t o mak e amajo r

sourc e determination

. Man y kiln s spike d chlorin e i n th e hazardou s wast e fee d durin g complianc e testin g t o ge t approva l t o fee dchlorin e (an demi t HCI / C12 ) a t level s ostensibl y highe r tha n normal

. Give n tha t

source s "hav e th e potentia l t o emit " a t thes e ostensibl y highe r tha n norma l emissio n rates , thes e emissio n rate s mus t b e use dfo r

th e majo r sourc e determination

. Se e CA A sectio n 112(a)(1) , definitio n o f majo r source . Thes e source s ma y b e abl e t o operat e successfull y a t lowe r allowabl e chlorin e feedrate s an demissio n rates , however

. I f

so , the y ca n elec t

t o retes t thei r unit s an dbas e th e major/are a sourc e determinatio n o n potentiall y lowe r HC1/C1 2 emissio n rates
. b

. RCR A section s 3004(o)(2 ) an d 3004(q ) essentiall y comman dregulatio n o f al l HWCs

. Unde r

thi s RCR A mandate , th e Agenc y ha s regulate dal l (i.e. , bot h majo r an dare asources ) hazardou s wast e incinerator s sinc e 198 1 (se e 4 6 F R 767 8 (Jan

. 23 , 1981 ) a s amende da t 4 8 F R1429 5 (Apr

. 1 , 1983) ) an dal l hazardou s wast e burnin g cemen t an d lightweigh t

kiln s sinc e 199 1 (se e 5 6 F R 713 4 (Feb

. 21 , 1991))

. Deferrin g regulatio n o f

HWC s t o th e CA A woul d no t b e appropriat e unles s al l HW C source s wer e covered

. I n addition , althoug h somewha t mor e tha n hal f

o f th e commercia l incinerator s appea r t o b e are asources , th e majorit y o f on-sit e incinerator s ar e likel y t o b e majo r sources. 7 Th e publi c expectatio n i s tha t a l l HWC s woul dcontinu e t o b e regulated. 8 c . MAC T control s ar e reasonabl e an d appropriat e fo r

bot h majo r

an dare a sources . Th e emissio n contro l equipmen t

(an dwher e applicable , feedrat e control ) define da s floo r o r beyond-the-floo r

(BTF ) contro l fo r

eac h sourc e categor y i s applicabl e an d appropriat e t o are asources . Ther e i s nothin g uniqu e abou t th e type s an d concent r

ation s o f

emission s o f

HAP s fro mare asource s versu s majo r source s tha t woul dmak e MAC T inappropriat e fo r a n are asource . d

. Are asourc e HWC s contribut e significantl y t o D/ Fan dH g emissions

. Bot h are aan dmajo r sourc e HWC s contribut e significantl y t o aggregat e emission s o f

D/ Fan dHg , tw o hig h

7Onl y approximatel y 3 0 percen to f incinerator s appea r t o b e majo rsources . Thi s estimat e i s base d o n onl y th e incinerators ' stac k emissions , however . Give n tha tfacility-wid e emission s o f HAP s ar e considere d whe n makin g a majo rsourc e determination , man y on-sit e incinerator s ar e likel y t o b e classifie d a s majo rsource s becaus e the y ar e locate d a tlarg e petrochemica l facilities .

8I twoul d b e particularl y problemati c fro m a RCR A perspectiv e fo rcommercia l incinerator s tha t ar e are a source s to b e exemp tfro m MAC T standards . priorit y HAPs

. Se e CA A sectio n 112(c)(6 ) an dproposa l discussio n a t 6 1 F Ra t 17366

. Fo r thes e reasons , th e Agenc y i s takin g commen t

o n makin g positiv e are a sourc e finding s fo r

eac h o f

th e thre e sourc e categorie s covere db y th e proposal

. Again , th e effec t woul db e t o subjec t al l source s withi n thes e categorie s t o MAC T standards , whic h als o woul db e th e effec t o f th e origina l proposal

. C. Title V

Permitting Requirements for Area Sources Unde r § 63.1(c)(2) , are asource s subjec t t o MAC T (o r

GACT ) ar e subjec t t o th e requiremen t

t o obtai n aTitl e V permi t unles s th e standar dfo r th e sourc e categor y (e.g. , Subpar t EE E fo r HWCs ) specifie s that : (1 ) State s wil l hav e th e optio n t o exclud e are asource s fro mTitl e V permi t requirements ; o r

(2 ) State s wil l hav e th e optio n t o defe r permittin g o f

are asources . Th e Agenc y ha s determine dtha t i f i t make s a positiv e are asourc e findin g an dsubject s are asource s t o MAC T standard s a s discusse dabove , th e Agenc y woul dals o conside r

subjectin g are asource s immediatel y t o Titl e V permittin g requirements , a s provide db y §63.1(c ) (2 ) (iii)

. Th e Agenc y ha s determine dtha t

are asourc e complianc e wit h Titl e V permi t requirement s woul d no t b e "impracticable , infeasible , o r unnecessaril y burdensome"

. Se e CA A sectio n 502(a)

. A s note dabove , are a source s ca n b e virtuall y identica l t o majo r source s wit h respec t t o size , typ e o f combustor , an dcommercia l versu s on-sit e status , excep t tha t thei r mas s emission s o f

HC I ar e lower

. Thus , waive r o f Titl e V permittin g woul dno t b e warranted

. I n addition , i f

th e Agenc y wer e t o waiv e th e Titl e V permi t requiremen t

fo r are asources , w e woul db e concerne d abou t th e confusio n i t

woul dlikel y creat e fo r

th e regulate dcommunit y an d th e publi c i f

th e ai r emission s standard s fo r som e hazardou s wast e combustor s (eve n i n th e sam e sourc e category ) wer e addresse di n th e Titl e V permittin g proces s an dth e ai r

emission s standard s fo r other s wer e addresse di n th e RCR A permittin g process . Sinc e asourc e ca n mak e modification s t o thei r emission s level s tha t

coul dchang e thei r major / are asourc e determination , asourc e coul dmov e fro mon e permittin g progra mt o th e other , creatin g difficultie s fo r

th e permittin g agencie s i n trackin g source s an dfo r th e publi c i n tryin g t o participat e i n o r follo w th e permittin g process . Therefore , i t appear s mos t appropriat e fro ma n implementatio n standpoin t t o subjec t are asource s t o Titl e V permitting

. I n thi s way , al l HWC s (bot h majo r an dare a sources ) woul db e subjec t t o th e sam e Titl e V permittin g requirements

. i7

. Revisions to Proposed Standards Using the Revised

Emissions Database and Data Analysis Methods. I n thi s section , th e Agenc y discusse s comment s o n th e revise demission s databas e an dth e revise dstandard s tha t woul dresul t

fro mapplyin g a n engineerin g evaluatio n an ddat a analysi s method s t o tha t revise d database

. I n addition , w e discus s severa l issue s tha t

ar e generi c t o th e MAC T standard s fo r

al l thre e sourc e categories : (1 ) Consideratio n o f P M a s asurrogat e fo r non-H g meta l HAPs ; (2 ) option s fo r controllin g emission s o f organi c HAPs ; an d(3 ) emission s variability

. A

. Notic e o f

Dat aAvailabilit y o n th e Revise dEmission s Databas e O n Januar y 7 , 199 7 th e Agenc y publishe daNOD A o n a n update d databas e o f

emission s an dancillar y information

. Se e 6 2 F R960

. Th e Agenc y update dth e databas e use da t proposa l t o correc t

error s an dinclud e additiona l emission s data

. Th e NOD A explaine d tha t th e update ddatabas e woul db e use dt o identif y MAC T standard s fo r th e fina l rul e an dt o evaluat e economi c impact s and , fo r

RCR A purposes , risk s associate dwit h th e fina l MAC T standards

. Th e Agenc y receive dcomment s o n th e revise ddatabas e fro m1 6 stakeholder s representin g th e cemen t industry , lightweigh t aggregat e industiy , an don-sit e an dcommercia l incinerators

. Th e databas e wa s revise d agai n t o accommodat e th e comment s receive do n th e databas e NODA

. Th e Agenc y the n re-analyze dth e databas e t o determin e th e MAC T floo r standard s discusse dbelow

. W e receive dsevera l specifi c comment s (i.e. , a s oppose dt o generi c an dundocumente dcomment s that , fo r example , th e Agency' s dat aar e inconsisten t

wit h th e commenter's ) tha t wer e no t

accompanie dwit h supportin g documentation

. Mos t o f thes e comment s pertai n t o miscellaneou s dat ao n feedstrea mfeedrate s an dequipmen t desig n informatio n tha t d o no t hav e a significan t

impac t o n developin g MAC T floo r standard s unde r

th e dat aanalysi s method s discusse di n today' s NODA

. Wher e ther e wa s asignifican t possibilit y tha t th e dat amigh t

affec t th e Agency' s determinations , reference s wer e re checke dt o determin e th e mor e accurat e numbe r t o b e used

. Th e Cemen t

Kil n Recyclin g Coalitio n (CKRC ) provide da n extensiv e run-by

run , HAP-by-HA P compariso n o f th e Agency' s databas e wit h theirs

. Whil e



# VE S 00031 7

## 2421 6 Federa l Registe r / Vol

. 62 , No
. 85 /

Friday , Ma

y 2 , 199 7 / ProposedRule s potentiall y usefu l i n som e cases , thei r submissio n unfortunatel y di dno t distinguis h betwee n significan t versu s insignifican t

differences ; no r

di dthe y verif y whic h dat awer e mor e accurat e fo r th e purpose s i n question

. Withi n curren t tim e constraints , th e Agenc y ha s identifie dwhic h appea r t o u s t o b e significan t

an drelevan t

difference s an d the n checke dthes e dat at o determin e whic h appea r

t o b e mor e accurat e an d ha s mad e necessar y changes

. Th e curren t database , a s update dan d revised , i s appropriat e an dsufficien t considerin g th e engineerin g an ddat a analysi s method s discusse dbelo w t o identif y MAC T standards

. Fo r example , althoug h ther e ma y stil l remai n difference s betwee n CKRC' s an dth e Agency' s databas e regardin g electrostati c precipitato r (ESP ) an d fabri c filte r

desig n an dperformanc e characteristics , thos e characteristic s ar e no t german e t o th e engineerin g an ddat a analysi s method s fo r determinin g relevan t

MAC T standards , a s discusse d below

. I n thes e situations , th e Agenc y ha s electe dno t

t o revis e inconsequentia l data , particularl y wher e i t i s no t clea r whic h dat aar e mor e accurate
. Som e overal l decision s o n dat a qualit y issue s hav e als o bee n mad e fo r purpose s o f

revisin g th e database

. Regardin g assignin g value s t o reporte d nondetects , w e ar e assumin g tha t nondetecte dvalue s wer e presen t a t one hal f th e detectio n limit

. W e considere d assumin g nondetecte dvalue s wer e presen t a t th e ful l detectio n limit , bu t foun di n mos t

case s n o significan t differenc e i n th e MAC T dat aanalysi s results

. I t

represent s ajudgmen t b y th e Agenc y base do n it s experienc e that , fo r assessin g standard s an drisk , thi s mor e conservativ e approac h increase s ou r confidenc e tha t

standard s an dris k

ar e appropriat e an dacceptable

. I n addition , w e ar e excludin g dat a fro msource s n o longe r burnin g hazardou s waste , a s suggeste db y severa l commenter s o n th e propose d rule

. Althoug h suc h dat ama y wel l b e indicativ e o f

th e capabilitie s o f

contro l equipmen t

an dthu s relevant , th e resultin g databas e i s stil l larg e enoug h t o ensur e tha t

potentia l fina l MAC T standard s ca n b e judge dt o b e achievabl e (o r

no t a s th e cas e ma y be ) withou t

includin g thes e mor e controversia l data

. Regardin g olde r emission s dat awhe n mor e recen t dat a wa s availabl e fo r

asource , w e ar e considerin g al l dat aset s fo r source s tha t currentl y bur n hazardou s waste
. Bot h recen t an dol ddat aar e instructiv e i n assessin g th e capabilitie s o f th e contro l equipmen t

a t thes e operatin g facilities

. Finally , w e screene dou t so-calle d "normal' ' emission s dat afro mth e MAC T analyses

. Althoug h doin g s o ma y appea r counterintuitiv e a t firs t blush , on e mus t

conside r

tha t facilit y complianc e wil l generall y b e base do n operatin g limit s establishe ddurin g th e MAC T performanc e tes t (excep t i f complianc e i s base do n acontinuou s emission s monitorin g syste m(CEMS))

. Durin g thes e MAC T performanc e tests , source s wil l likel y operat e unde r th e sam e worst-cas e condition s a s the y di d durin g tria l burn s an dBoile r an d Industria l Furnac e (BIF ) rul e certificatio n o f

complianc e testing

. Operatin g unde r

worst-cas e condition s wit h respec t

t o emission s an doperatin g parameter s give s operator s awid e allowabl e envelop e o f operatin g limit s neede dt o efficientl y an deconomicall y operat e th e combusto r an dye t

maintai n compliance

. Considerin g norma l emission s dat ai n th e MAC T analysi s coul dinappropriatel y resul t i n th e Agenc y establishin g aMAC T standar d base do n norma l emission s an d condition s whil e th e sourc e woul db e operatin g unde r

worst-cas e condition s t o demonstrat e compliance

. Thus , emission s whil e complyin g wit h operatin g limit s woul db e inappropriatel y constraine dt o belo w curren t norma l emissio n levels , eve n fo r source s equippe dwit h well-designe d an doperate dMAC T floo r control

. B
. P M a s aSurrogat e fo r Non-H g Metal s Th e Agenc y propose daMAC T P M standar da s asurrogat e fo r non-D/ F organi c HAP s (tha t

ar e adsorbe dont o th e PM ) an dfo r

th e meta l HAP s no t individuall y regulate dunde r th e propose dmeta l standard s (i.e. , Co , Mn , N i , an dSe)

. Se e 6 1 F Ra t 17376

. Sinc e proposal , th e Agenc y ha s reconsidere di n th e contex t o f thi s join t RCRA-CA A rulemakin g whethe r a MAC T P M emissio n standar dcoul d serv e a s asurrogat e fo r si x non-H g meta l HAP s fo r

whic h th e Agenc y di dpropos e specifi c standards—semivolatile s (C d an dPb ) an dlo w volatile s (As , Be , Cr , an dSb)

. Thi s issu e arises , i n part , becaus e th e ris k

assessmen t

a t proposa l o n th e MAC T standard s estimate dtha t th e high-en dindividua l lifetim e cance r risk s usin g 90t h percentil e meta l emissio n level s wer e wel l belo w IO

- 6 fo r cemen t

kiln s an dLWAKs

. Fo r incinerators , th e highes t estimate d cance r risk s exceede d10- 6 bu t wer e belo w IO" 5

. 9 T o evaluat e P M a s asurrogat e fo r non H g metal s i n th e contex t o f thi s join t
'^Note , however , tha ttile exampl e incinerator s modele d fo rth e ris k assessmen tha d relativel y tal i stack s whic h ma y no tresul ti n th e highe r groun d leve l concentration s (an d thu s highe r direc t inhalatio n risk ) tha tcoul d resul tfro m smal l incinerators . RCRA-CA A rulemaking , question s tha t mus t b e addresse dare : (1 ) Woul da MAC T P M standar dcontro l th e si x non H g metal s t o MAC T emissio n level s i n th e specia l contex t

o f hazardou s wast e combustors ; an d(Z ) woul dther e b e significan t

healt h ris k

a t MAC T emissio n level s tha t woul dhav e t o b e addresse dwit h RCR A control s (base da t leas t i n par t o n site-specifi c ris k assessment s usin g omnibu s authority) ? Because , i n th e cas e o f hazardou s wast e combustors , ther e ar e significan t level s o f

metal s i n th e hazardou s waste
derive dfue l bein g burned , th e Agenc y ha s initiall y conclude dtha t aMAC T P M emissio n standar di n thi s particula r rul e ma y no t

adequatel y contro l th e si x non H g metal s t o th e nomina l MAC T emissio n levels

. Th e residua l ris k tha t coul dresul t

fro memission s o f

som e o f th e si x non-H g metal s coul db e significant l 0 , an dregulatio n o f thes e problemati c metal s unde r RCR A woul d therefor e b e warranted

. Fro ma n implementatio n standpoint , thi s resul t o f mixe dstatutor y control s i s no t desirable

. Althoug h establishin g si x additiona l specifi c limit s o n th e non-H g metal s eliminate s thi s particula r implementatio n disadvantage , thi s woul dad dt o th e complianc e an d implementatio n burden s o n facilit y an d regulato r

alike

. Consequently , i t doe s no t currentl y appea r

appropriat e t o us e P M a s asurrogat e fo r al l si x toxic , non H g metals

. I n investigatin g thi s issue , however , w e determine dtha t antimon y (Sb) , on e o f th e fou r

lo w volatil e metals , ma y no t warran t direc t control

. Tha t

is , th e MAC T P M standar dma y serv e a s a n adequat e surrogat e fo r S b t o ensur e tha t i t i s no t emitte da t

level s tha t

pos e a healt h risk. 1 1 W e als o considere d whethe r

berylliu m(Be) , anothe r LVM , warrante dcontro l give n tha t i t i s no t generall y presen t

i n significan t concentration s i n hazardou s waste , an d baselin e emission s o f B e d o no t

appea r t o b e posin g ahealt h hazard

. Give n tha t B e i s atoxi c carcinogen , however , direc t MAC T control s shoul db e provide d eve n i f curren t feedrate s (an demissio n rates ) ar e low

. Onl y apreliminar y analysi s (se e discussio n below ) wa s use dt o investigat e whethe r

som e o f

th e

1 0Thi s i s a tleas tpartl y becaus e a P M contro l devic e alon e doe s no tgiv e th e sam e targete d degre e o f contro l fo rindividua l metal s tha ta combinatio n o f meta l fee d contro l plu s a P M contro l devic e does .
1 1 S b i s a non-carcinoge n wit h relativel y lo w toxicit y compare d wit h th e othe r fiv e non-H g metals , an d woul d hav e t o b e presen ti n hazardou s wast e (an d emitte d PM ) a textremel y hig h level s (perhap s ove r 100 0 time s th e curren tlevels ) to pos e a healt h hazard . Curren tdat a sugges ttha tmetal s feedrate s generall y ar e eithe r no tincreasin g o r increasin g a tmuc h lowe r rates .



# VE S 00031 8

## Federa l Registe r / Vol

. 62 , No
. 8

5 / Friday , Ma

y 2 , 199 7 / Propose dRule s 2421 7
remainin g semivolatil e an dlo w volatil e metals—Cd , Pb , As , an dCr—ma y warran t onl y indirec t

contro l throug h a P M standar dfo r

an y o r al l o f th e HW C sourc e categories

. W e continu e t o believ e tha t

direc t standard s ar e warrante dfo r

thes e fou r

metal s (eithe r individuall y o r

i n volatilit y groups)

. Fo r purpose s o f

publi c comment , w e hav e identifie dMAC T standard s fo r thes e individua l metal s i n cas e individua l standard s ar e ultimatel y deeme dmor e appropriat e tha n continuin g t o grou p th e metal s b y relativ e volatility

. However , w e remai n concerne dabou t th e complianc e an dimplementatio n complexitie s tha t

woul db e introduced

. (Se e th e discussio n belo w o f revise d S V M an dLV M standard s fo r eac h sourc e category. ) W e solici t

furthe r

commen t

o n ho w t o ensur e appropriat e an deffectiv e contro l o f non-H g meta l HAP s whil e ensurin g tha t th e regulator y schem e an d associate dcomplianc e element s ar e implementabl e an dno t unnecessaril y burdensome

. Som e o f th e pertinen t issue s ar e highlighte dbelo w fo r commente r

response . 1

. Can PM

serve as a surrogate for SVM and LVM? A MAC T P M standar d woul dprovid e MAC T emission s contro l technolog y (i.e. , th e ai r pollutio n contro l device ) fo r

non-H g metals

. Thi s i s becaus e stac k

emission s o f

non-H g metal s i n combustio n gase s ar e controlle db y th e P M contro l device

. Thus , MAC T contro l (i.e. , th e emissio n contro l device ) fo r

P M woul dals o b e MAC T contro l fo r

non-H g metals

. However , emission s o f non-H g metal s fro mHWC s ar e als o controlle db y th e feedrat e o f

non-H g metal s (fo r kilns , th e feedrat e o f

non-H g metal s i n haza r dou s waste ) i n additio n t o th e P M contro l device

. Thus , aMAC T P M standar d alon e ma y no t

resul t i n contro l o f

non H g metal s t o MAC T emission s level s becaus e emission s o f non-H g metal s wil l var y a t agive n P M leve l a s feedrat e varie s (i.e. , emission s o f non-H g metal s wil l b e agreate r

percentag e o f

P M emitte da s th e feedrat e rises)

. Som e commenter s hav e argue dtha t P M i s no t

agoo dsurrogat e fo r non-H g metal s emissions

. Whe n source s (withi n asourc e category ) ar e considere di n th e aggregate , apoo r

correlatio n betwee n P M an dnon-H g metal s emission s appear s t o exist

. Thi s i s becaus e source s hav e variou s feedrate s o f th e metal s an d becaus e differen t

type s o f

P M contro l device s hav e differen t collectio n efficiencie s fo r thes e metals. 1 2

. 1 3 Nonetheless , a t

agive n sourc e wit h a give n non-H g meta l feedrate , meta l emission s wil l correlat e wit h P M emissio n levels

. Althoug h th e correlatio n wil l b e differen t fo r mor e volatil e versu s les s volatil e metals , emission s o f

thes e metal s wil l increas e a s P M emission s increase

. I n summary , althoug h ther e i s a correlatio n betwee n P M an dnon-H g meta l emission s o n afacility-specifi c basis , an dth e MAC T P M standar dlikel y woul densur e us e o f MAC T emissio n contro l devic e fo r

thes e metals , i t

ma y no t ensur e attainmen t

o f MAC T emissio n level s o f

thes e metals

. Give n th e potentia l fo r

HWC s t o emi t

hig h level s o f

som e o f

thes e metals , metal

specifi c emissio n controls—MAC T standards—ar e warrante deithe r individuall y o r

i n volatilit y groups . 2 . Whic h non-H g metal s warran t specifi c contro l b y establishin g MAC T emissio n standards ? A s a n alternativ e t o establishin g MAC T standard s fo r SV M an dLV M a s proposed , w e ar e re evaluatin g whic h non-H g metal s warran t specia l contro l an dwhethe r t o establis h individua l MAC T emissio n standard s fo r

them. 1 4A s discusse d above , ou r

preliminar y analysi s indicate s tha t

standard s ma y no t

b e warrante dfo r

Sb

. W e ar e continuin g t o investigat e whethe r an y o f th e remainin g metals—As , Be , Cd , Cr , an d Pb—ma y no t

warran t

direc t emissio n standard s bu t

ma y warran t

onl y indirec t control s vi ath e P M standard

. Further , w e ar e investigatin g ho w th e meta l standard s shoul db e structured : (1 ) MAC T standard s fo r individua l metals ; o r (2 ) MAC T standard s fo r volatilit y grouping s (SV M an dLVM ) i f w e determine , a s currentl y contemplated , tha t direc t standard s fo r

al l fiv e remainin g metal s ar e warrante d(i.e. , a s proposed)

. Fo r cemen t

kiln s an dLWAKs , w e examine dacompariso n o f potentiall y allowabl e emissio n level s fo r non-H g metal s unde r

th e BI Frul e an dactua l allowabl e (i.e. , level s emitte ddurin g Certificat e o f

Complianc e (CoC ) testing ) emissio n levels

. (Not e tha t th e actua l allowabl e level s ar e generall y muc h highe r tha n norma l emissio n level s becaus e source s spike dmetal s durin g C o C testing. ) A wid e margi n exists —

1 2 I n addition , meta l collectio n efficienc y ofth e P M contro l devic e varie s a tdifferen tmeta l feedrates .

1 3 See , fo rexample , comment s submitte d b y Chemica l Manufacturer s Association , RCR A Docke t * F-96-RCSP-FFFF F commen t#RCSP-00128 .
HOthe rmeta l HAP s (othe r tha n H g an d th e si x toxi c metal s covere d a tproposal ) woul d b e controlle d indirectl y b y th e P M standar d an d an y individua l o rvolatilit y grou p meta l standards . Thi s i s essentiall y unchange d fro m th e proposal . generall y a n orde r o f magnitud e o r greater—betwee n BI Fpotentiall y allowabl e emissio n level s an dCo C allowabl e emissio n levels

. Thi s mean s that : (1 ) Cemen t

kiln s an dLWAK s ar e no t emittin g thes e metal s a t level s posin g aris k

usin g BI Fris k

assessmen t procedures ; an d(2

) cemen t

kiln s an d LWAK s ar e feedin g thes e metal s a t rate s wel l belo w thos e tha t woul db e allowe d unde r BI Frisk-base dlimit s and , thus , indirec t P M contro l unde r

MAC T ma y similarl y kee p feedrate s (an demissio n rates ) o f

thes e metal s low

. W e als o examine ddat ao n th e percentag e o f

emitte dparticulat e matte r tha t eac h non-H g meta l woul dhav e t o compris e t o pos e ahealt h risk , assumin g B I Fris k

assessmen t

procedure s wer e applied

. Unde r

thi s analysis , P b an dS b woul dhav e t o compris e fro m10-10 0 percen t o f emitte dP M t o pos e ahealt h risk

. Dat asugges t

tha t thes e percentage s ar e no t approache di n today' s operation s b y awid e margin

. Thes e preliminar y analyse s wer e performe dassumin g BI Fris k assessmen t procedures

. Thus , ou r evaluatio n ma y no t b e representativ e o f result s tha t

wil l b e forthcomin g shortl y usin g updated , mor e detaile dprocedure s fo r evaluatin g risk s unde r

th e fina l MAC T standards

. Fo r example , th e ris k

assessmen t

fo r thi s rul e consider s indirec t exposur e (i.e. , ingestio n an dfood-chai n uptake ) whil e B I Fprocedure s conside r onl y direc t inhalation

. O n th e othe r hand , BI F direc t inhalatio n exposur e assessmen t procedure s ar e mor e conservativ e (i.e. , resul t i n ahighe r

estimat e o f

risk ) tha n thos e tha t

wil l b e use dfo r

th e fina l MAC T standard s becaus e th e Agenc y ha s revise dthos e procedure s i n par t t o conside r

mor e realisti c exposur e scenarios

. Nonetheless , th e analyse s discusse dabov e ar e viewe da s suggestiv e tha t

regulatio n o f

eac h an d ever y semivolatil e an dlo w volatil e meta l a s propose dma y no t b e warranted

. W e coul dno t

perfor msimila r preliminar y analyse s fo r incinerator s becaus e w e d o no t

hav e dispersio n coefficient s readil y availabl e tha t woul d b e representativ e o f th e shor t

stack s use db y man y on-sit e incinerators

. However , arevie w o f th e emission s databas e indicate s that , a s expected , som e incinerators—bot h commercia l an don-sit e incinerators—emi t muc h highe r level s o f

thes e metal s tha n cemen t kiln s o r

LWAKs

. Nonetheless , w e ma y fin d(a s ma y b e th e cas e fo r cemen t kiln s an dLWAKs ) tha t S b ma y no t warran t

adirec t

metal-specifi c standar dfo r

incinerator s a s well , eithe r a s par t o f th e LV M grou p o r

a n individua l standard

.



# VE S 00031 9

## 2421 8 Federa l Registe r / Vol

. 62 , No
. 85 /

Friday , May 2 , 199

7 / Propose dRule s
C

. Option s fo r

Controllin g Emission s o f Organi c HAP s Base do n evaluatio n ofth e revise d emission s database , th e Agenc y i s solicitin g commen t

o n option s t o contro l emission s o f organi c HAP s by : (1 ) Establishin g MAC T standard s fo r carbo n monoxid e (CO ) and/o r H C emission s a s surrogat e indicator s o f goo dcombustio n conditions: 1 5 an d(2 ) ensurin g tha t

source s achiev e 99.9 9 percen t destructio n an dremova l efficienc y (DRE). 1 6Thes e option s ar e presente di n Par t

Three : Implementation , Section s I I an dIII , becaus e th e DR E issu e ha s implementatio n implications , an dth e CO/H C issu e relate s t o th e DR E issue

. D
. Accountin g fo r

Emission s Variabilit y i n Establishin g Emissio n Standard s A t proposal , th e Agenc y use da statistica l approac h t o identif y a n emissio n leve l tha t

MAC T floo r

contro l coul dachiev e routinel y considerin g tha t th e emission s databas e wa s comprise d o f "short-term " tes t

data

. Se e 6 1 F Ra t 17366

. T o identif y a n appropriat e standard , acompute dvariabilit y facto r considerin g within-tes t conditio n emission s variabilit y wa s adde dt o th e log-mea n o f

th e highes t

tes t conditio n averag e fo r

an y sourc e usin g floo r control

. Th e log-mea n o f th e run s fo r

th e standard-settin g tes t conditio n i s th e "desig n level'—th e emissio n leve l th e sourc e woul db e designe dt o mee t t o ensur e emission s wer e les s tha n th e standar d9 9 percen t o f th e time , assumin g asourc e ha daverag e within

- tes t conditio n emission s variabilit y (averag e base do n al l source s usin g floo r control)

. W e ar e concerne dtha t thi s compute d variabilit y facto r

approac h ma y b e inappropriat e i n thi s particula r rulemaking. 1 7 Fo r

example , thi s compute dvariabilit y facto r le dt o illogica l result s fo r

th e P M standard s fo r incinerator s an dLWAKs

. I n th e cas e o f P M , th e calculate dstandar dusin g th e compute dvariabilit y facto r i s 5 0 percen t highe r tha n th e curren t

legally

mandate dRCR A P M limi t fo r incinerators

. Fo r

LWAKs , usin g th e

1 5Th e Agenc y propose d t o establis h MAC T standard s fo rbot h C O an d HC , bu tsolicite d commen to n whethe r a standar d base d o n on e surrogat e o rth e othe r ma y b e sufficient . Se e 6 1 F R a t17376 .
1 0Th e Agenc y propose d t o retai n DR E a s a RCR A standar d becaus e o f concern s tha ti twoul d b e difficul tto self-implemen tunde rMAC T implementatio n procedures . Se e 6 1 F Ra t17447 . Th e Agenc y i s reconsiderin g thi s issu e an d solicit s commen to n alternativ e approache s to ensur e complianc e wit h th e DR E standard , includin g incorporatin g DR E a s a MAC T standard .
1 7See , fo rexample , propose d rul e (6 1 F Ra t 17367) . variabilit y facto r result s i n aP M standar do f

approximatel y 0.0 4 gr/dsc f (correspondin g t o adesig n leve l o f 0.02 2 gr/dscf ) nearl y twic e a s hig h a s an y P M emissio n valu e i n th e entir e LWA K database

. Further , give n tha t floo r contro l woul db e afabri c filter , ou r engineerin g evaluatio n 1 8 (an dth e LWA K databas e itself ) indicate s tha t a fabri c filte r

ca n readil y achiev e level s o f 0.02 2 o r

below , no t

th e calculate d0.04

. Thes e inappropriat e an dillogica l result s ma y flo w fro meithe r th e variabilit y facto r

itsel f o r th e tes t conditio n averag e identifie da s th e standard-settin g tes t conditio n (t o whic h th e variabilit y facto r i s added)

. Fo r example , th e variabilit y facto r itsel f (whic h consider s within-tes t condition s emission s variability ) coul db e inappropriatel y hig h i f ther e ar e outlie r run s withi n tes t

condition s tha t

ar e no t screene dout
. Althoug h run s i n man y tes t condition s appea r

t o b e outlier s (an danalytica l test s ma y sho w the mt o b e outliers ) i t

ca n b e difficul t

t o justif y screenin g the mou t

unles s ther e i s a specifi c technica l explanatio n (e.g. , uniqu e desig n o r

operatio n featur e o r inadequacy ) tha t

ca n b e identified

. Unfortunately , thi s informatio n i s ofte n no t availabl e fo r

man y potentia l outlie r data

. A s noted , identifyin g th e standard

settin g tes t

conditio n inappropriatel y coul db e afactor

. W e hav e ver y limite d informatio n o n th e design , operation , an dmaintenanc e characteristic s o f th e emissio n contro l device s an d combustors

. Accordingly , w e hav e ha d t o defin e MAC T floo r contro l ver y genericall y (e.g. , ES P o r fabri c filter) , a s discusse dbelow , withou t attemptin g t o specif y design , operation , an d maintenanc e characteristics

. Give n thes e concern s an dth e statute' s direcUo n t o establis h th e maximu mbu t achievabl e floo r

standard , w e reques t commen t

o n a n alternativ e approac h t o accoun t fo r emission s variability

. Thi s alternativ e ha s tw o elements

. First , whe n alarg e dat ase t fro msource s usin g floo r control 1 9 exists , th e rang e o f emissio n level s fro mthos e source s shoul dadequatel y reflec t emission s variability

. Tha t

is , astandar d establishe da s th e highes t tes t conditio n averag e fo r

source s usin g floo r contro l represent s a n emissio n leve l tha t th e contro l technolog y i s capabl e o f achieving , considerin g norma l

i * Se e USEPA , "Draf tTechnica l Suppor t Documen tfo rHW C MAC T Standard s (NODA) , Volum e I : MAC T Evaluation s Base d o n Revise d Database" , Apri l 1997 .
1 9Or , i n th e cas e o f LWAKs , wher e th e dat a se t i s essentiall y complet e (i.e. , wher e w e hav e dat a fro m al l o rmos tofth e source s i n th e sourc e category) . variabilit y i n combusto r operations , emissio n contro l devic e operations , an d tes t methods

. Wher e thes e dat asho w tha t man y source s usin g floo r contro l ca n achiev e wel l belo w th e standard , thi s demonstrate s tha t additiona l emission s variabilit y consideration s ar e no t warranted

. Source(s ) wit h emissio n level s clos e t o th e standar dshoul db e abl e t o determin e ho w t o emi t a t level s belo w th e standar dbase do n th e specifi c design , operation , an dmaintenanc e informatio n availabl e t o them , especiall y sinc e man y othe r source s wit h th e sam e basi c equipmen t ar e doin g so. 2 0Second , wher e onl y asmal l se t o f dat afro msource s usin g floo r contro l exists , th e rang e o f emissio n level s fro mthes e source s ma y b e les s likel y t o reflec t

emission s variability

. I n thi s case , consideratio n o f a n additiona l variabilit y facto r

(t o b e adde dt o th e highes t tes t conditio n averag e fo r a MACT-contro l facility ) ma y b e appropriate

. Th e impac t

o f thi s alternativ e approac h ha s bee n examined

. W e d o no t hav e alarg e dat ase t i n th e expande d univers e fo r

tw o standards : D/ F standard s fo r

incinerator s equippe d wit h wast e hea t

recover y boiler s an dD / Fstandard s fo r

LWAKs

. I n eac h case , w e hav e dat afro monl y thre e sources , an dconsequentl y floo r contro l i s base d o n th e suit e o f

control s use db y al l thre e sources. 2 1 I f

th e dat ase t

wer e large , w e woul didentif y th e floo r leve l a s th e tes t conditio n wit h th e highes t ru n average . But , give n th e smal l dat aset , i t i s reasonabl e fro ma n engineerin g vantag e poin t t o identif y th e standar da s th e highes t singl e ru n fo r

th e highes t

tes t conditio n (whe n th e uni t wa s properl y operated)

. W e discus s belo w engineerin g an d dat aanalysi s method s an dth e resultin g standard s fo r

eac h HA P an dsourc e categor y wher e acompute dvariabilit y facto r i s no t use dt o establis h emissio n standards

.

7 1 1 N o pattern s i n proces s desig n o roperatio n i n th e informatio n w e hav e explai n wh y som e source s though tto b e usin g floo rcontro l ha d significantl y highe r emission s tha n othe r source s though tto b e usin g floo rcontrol . Wher e floo rcontro l i s base d o n a n emissio n contro l device , thes e hig h emitter s ar e likel y no ti n fac tusin g floo rcontrols—considerin g th e suit e o f

design , operation , an d maintenanc e factor s tha taffec tperformanc e o f th e contro l equipmen tbu to n whic h th e Agenc y ha s n o data . Wher e floo rcontro l i s base d o n finit e contro l suc h a s combustio n ga s temperatur e o rfeedrat e control , th e hig h emitter s ma y b e experiencin g emission s durin g th e complianc e tes to n th e hig h en d o f th e rang e o f

emission s variability .
2 1 Whe n dat a ar e availabl e fro m fewe r tha n 3 0 sources , MAC T floo ri s define d a s th e media n emissio n limitatio n achieve d b y th e bes tfiv e performin g sources . Thus , th e bes tperformin g thre e source s (representin g th e media n (an d bette r performers) ) defin e MAC T i n thi s case .



# VE S 00032 0

## Federa l Registe r / Vol

. 62 , No
. 85 /

Friday , Ma

y 2 , 199 7 / Propose dRule s 24219

contro l an dthat , a s discusse dabove , th e larg e dat ase t

o f source s usin g floo r contro l an dmeetin g th e floo r standar d ampl y account s fo r emission s variability , w e wil l presum e tha t thes e relativel y hig h emission s fo r suc h floor

controlle dsource s represen t th e hig h en dofth e rang e o f emission s variability

. I n othe r

words , whe n thes e source s retes t emission s unde r

th e sam e conditions , thei r

emission s shoul dmee t th e standard

. E
. Re-Evaluatio n o f Propose dMAC T Standard s fo r

Incinerator s W e discus s i n thi s sectio n th e basi s fo r th e revise dstandard s fo r incinerator s tha t resul t fro mapplyin g engineerin g an ddat aanalysi s t o th e revise d emission s database

. W e als o discus s refinement s t o analytica l approache s use di n th e proposa l fo r identifyin g floo r control s an dlevels. 2 2A compariso n o f

th e originall y propose d an dpotentiall y revise dstandard s fo r existin g an dne w source s i s presente di n th e tabl e below : TABL E II.E.—REVISE D STANDARD S FO R EXISTIN G AN D NE W INCINERATORS 1

HA P o rHA P surrogat e Existin g source s Ne w source s HA P o rHA P surrogat e Propose d standar d Revise d

standar d Propose d

standar d Revise d

standar d D/ F (n g TEQ/dscm ) 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 H g (u.g/dscm ) 5 0 4 0 5 0 4 0 P M (gr/dscf ) 0.03 0 0.01 5 0.03 0 0.01 5 HCI/CI 2 (ppmv ) 28 0 7 5 6 7 7 5 C O (ppmv ) 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 H C (ppmv ) 1 2 1 0 1 2 1 0 SV M (ug/dscm ) 27 0 10 0 6 2 10 0 LV M ((xg/dscm ) 21 0 5 5 6 0 5 5

1 Al l emissio n level s ar e cotrecte d t o 7 % 0 2 . Finally , w e ar e usin g a n engineerin g evaluatio n t o identif y adesig n leve l fo r eac h standar dfo r

purpose s o f

estimatin g economi c impact s and , fo r RCR A purposes , th e ris k

associate dwit h th e desig n leve l fo r

agive n MAC T standard

. Th e desig n leve l i s th e emissio n leve l t o whic h th e contro l equipmen t mus t b e designe dt o ensur e complianc e wit h th e standard

. Fo r

th e RCR A ris k

analysi s o f th e fina l MAC T standards , w e wil l analyz e risk s unde r th e mor e realisti c assumptio n tha t

asourc e i s emittin g a t th e desig n leve l o n average , rathe r tha n righ t a t th e standar dal l o f th e time

. Base do n discussion s wit h severa l ai r pollutio n contro l devic e vendor s an d facilit y operators , adesig n leve l o f 7 0 percen t o f th e standar di s deeme d appropriat e becaus e i t i s withi n th e rang e o f

reasonabl e value s tha t ma y b e encountered

— 5 0 percen t t o 9 0 percent
. T o th e exten t

tha t industr y engineerin g experienc e sugges t tha t adifferen t desig n leve l assumptio n woul db e mor e typica l an dreasonable , w e invit e commenter s t o provid e tha t information

. W e als o considere dwhethe r th e desig n leve l a s apercentag e o f th e standar d(i.e. , desig n factor ) shoul dvar y dependin g o n whethe r th e contro l i s finit e (e.g. , temperatur e contro l o r feedrat e control ) versu s a n emissio n contro l devic e tha t i s affecte db y variou s parameters , o r

th e typ e o f

emissio n contro l devic e (e.g. , metal s controlle db y feedrat e an da n ES P o r fabri c filter)

. However , w e d o no t hav e enoug h informatio n t o establis h suc h tailore d an dcase-specifi c desig n factors

. I f commenter s suppl y sufficien t information , w e wil l conside r usin g thi s approach

. A s noted , w e wil l us e th e desig n facto r t o estimat e cost s o f retrofittin g fo r a l l source s wit h emission s exceedin g th e standard

. Fo r

thes e sources , w e wil l estimat e th e cost s o f upgradin g emissio n contro l equipmen t

t o mee t

th e desig n level

. Fo r

source s usin g floo r contro l (i.e. , source s i n th e expande duniverse ) tha t hav e emission s greate r tha n th e desig n level , however , w e wil l no t attribut e retrofi t

cost s fo r

compliance

. Give n tha t

thes e source s ar e usin g floo r

1

. Subcategorization considerations. Sinc e proposal , th e Agenc y ha s refine d potentia l option s fo r subdividin g th e incinerato r

sourc e categor y t o determin e i f subdivide dstandard s woul db e appropriate : (1 ) Small 2 3 versu s larg e sources ; (2 ) commercia l versu s on-sit e sources ; an d(3 ) smal l on-sit e source s versu s larg e on-sit e an dcommercia l sources . I n larg e part , commenter s believe dtha t

small , on-sit e incinerator s shoul dhav e les s stringen t standard s t o reduc e cost s o f

compliance

. However , give n tha t

ou r analysi s show s tha t th e revise dstandard s fo r th e smal l on-sit e

2 2Additiona l detail s o f th e engineerin g an d dat a analysi s evaluation s performe d o n th e revise d emission s databas e ca n b e foun d i n th e Agency' s backgroun d document : USEPA , "Draf tTechnica l Suppor tDocumen tfo rHW C MAC T Standard s (NODA) , Volum e 1 : MAC T Evaluation s Base d o n Revise d Database" , Apri l 1997 .
2 3A n analysi s o f

ga s flowrate s i n actua l cubi c fee t pe rminut e (ACFM ) indicate d tha ta maximu m source s woul deithe r remai n th e sam e o r b e mor e stringen t

unde r thes e options , w e continu e t o believ e tha t subdividin g woul db e inappropriate. 2 4 W e als o receive dcomment s fro mth e U S Departmen t

o f Energ y (DOE ) suggestin g tha t

DOE' s mixe dwast e 2 5 incinerator s ha dsevera l uniqu e feature s (discusse dbelow ) tha t woul dwarran t subcategorization. 2 6W e ar e investigatin g whethe r DOE' s incinerator s pos e uniqu e implementatio n an dcomplianc e problem s an dtherefor e ar e considerin g severa l option s fo r

th e fina l rule : (1 ) n o
flowrat e o f

20,00 0 acf m woul d b e withi n th e rang e o f value s tha tcoul d b e selecte d to designat e smal l versu s mediu m incinerators . W e performe d a simila ranalysi s a tproposa l an d selecte d a flowrat e o f 23,12 7 t o designat e smal l incinerators . Se e 6 1 F R a t17372 .
2 4Th e Agenc y requeste d a tproposa l comment s o n othe r mean s o f reducin g cost s t o small , on-sit e incinerator s (e.g. , waivin g requirement s fo rCEMS) . subcategorization ; (2 ) subcategorizatio n fo r mixe dwast e incinerators ; an d(3 ) deferra l o f

MAC T regulatio n fo r mixe d wast e incinerator s (wit h RCR A rule s continuin g t o apply)

. Unde r th e N o Subcategorizatio n Option , w e woul dfin dtha t th e MAC T control s an demissio n standard s applicabl e t o othe r

incinerator s ar e appropriat e fo r

DOE' s mixe dwast e incinerators

. Unde r thi s optio n w e coul dstil l defin e specia l complianc e requirement s tha t

accoun t

fo r an y uniqu e feature s o f

mixe dwast e incinerators

.
W e wil l conside r al l submitte d comment s o n option s to reduc e cost s o n thes e unit s i n th e fina l rule .
2 3Mixtur e o f

lo w leve l radioactiv e wast e an d hazardou s waste .
2 « Se e summar y o f DOE/EP A meetin g a tRCR A Docke t#F-96-RCSP-FFFF F ite m #S00270 .



# VE S 00032 1

## 2422 0 Federa

l Registe r / Vol

. 62 , No
. 85 /

Friday , Ma

y 2 , 199 7 / Propose dRule s
Unde r th e Subcategorizatio n Option , w e woul dfin dtha t

becaus e o f

uniqu e desig n o r

operatin g features , th e MAC T control s o r

emissio n standard s identifie dfo r

othe r incinerator s ar e no t appropriat e fo r

mixe dwast e incinerators

. MAC T standard s uniqu e t o thes e incinerator s woul db e developed , an dspecia l complianc e requirement s coul db e defined

. Unde r th e Deferra l Option , w e woul d determin e tha t

w e d o no t

hav e th e resource s t o mak e a n appropriat e MAC T determinatio n o n mixe dwast e incinerator s i n tim e t o mee t th e schedul e fo r

th e HW C rulemakin g (i.e. , th e Phas e I rul e establishin g MAC T standard s fo r

incinerators , cemen t kilns , an dLWAKs)

. Regulatio n o f mixe dwast e incinerator s woul db e deferre dt o th e Phas e I I rul e wher e th e Agenc y wil l establis h MAC T standard s fo r hazardou s wast e burnin g boilers , haloge n aci d furnaces , an dsulfu r recover y furnaces

. Th e RCR A rule s whic h no w appl y woul dcontinu e t o d o so . D O E suggest s tha t

it s mixe dwast e incinerator s hav e severa l uniqu e feature s tha t

woul drequir e subcategorizatio n an dspecia l complianc e standards :
• Eac h o f

DOE' s fou r

conventiona l incinerator s mee t

th e Agency' s definitio n o f

smal l incinerator s (i.e. , <20,00 0 acf mga s flo w rate) , an don e i s batch-operate donl y onc e o r twic e ayea r wit h aga s flo w rat e o f 3,00 0 acfm

. • Severa l mixe dwast e therma l treatmen t

unit s meetin g th e Agency' s definitio n o f

a n incinerato r

ar e smal l vitrificatio n device s designe dt o proces s meta l bearin g waste s an dfee dwaste s wit h extremel y lo w organi c content
. • Give n tha t

mos t o f th e mixe dwast e incinerator s ar e ver y smal l units , a mass-base demissio n limi t woul db e mor e appropriat e tha n aconcentration

base demissio n limit

. • Approximatel y 9 5 percen t o f th e mixe dwast e tha t

i s incinerate di s "legac y waste " generate ddurin g productio n o f

nuclea r

weapon s fro m 194 3 unti l 198 9 an dma y contai n hig h level s o f

mercur y tha t

canno t b e lowere db y sourc e reduction

. • Contro l o f

mercur y emission s usin g activate dcarbo n injectio n (ACI ) woul d b e problemati c becaus e th e spen t carbo n woul db e amixe dwaste , an di f i t containe dmor e tha n 26 0 pp mo f mercury , mercur y retortin g woul db e require dunde r

th e Agency' s lan d disposa l restriction s eve n thoug h ther e ar e n o retorter s i n th e countr y tha t manag e mixe dwast e (an ds o avarianc e woul dhav e t o b e obtaine dunde r § 268.44)

. • Give n tha t

CEM S ar e no t

ye t demonstrate dfo r

mult i metal s (an da CEM S requiremen t fo r mercur y alon e i s als o problemati c fo r th e fina l Phas e I rule) , complianc e wit h MAC T meta l emissio n limit s woul db e base do n feedrat e limit s fo r

metal s i n feedstreams , apotentiall y unworkabl e approac h fo r mixe dwast e sinc e samplin g an d analysi s o f

radioactiv e feedstream s raise s seriou s huma n healt h concerns . • DO E ha s negotiate dplan s an d agreement s wit h State s unde r Sit e Cleanu p Agreement s mandate db y RCR A sectio n 3021(b ) an dCERCL A sectio n 120(e) , an dsuc h plan s an d agreement s woul dprobabl y requir e renegotiatio n (an ddelay ) t o compl y wit h th e propose dMAC T standards

. Th e Agenc y i s continuin g t o investigat e thes e issue s an dwil l mak e a determinatio n regardin g th e appropriat e regulator y optio n i n th e fina l rule

. 2

. Dioxins and

Furans (D/F) a . MAC T floo r fo r existin g sources . W e propose d aMAC T floo r

standar do f

"0.2 0 n g TEQ / dsc mo r

ga s temperatur e a t

th e P M contro l devic e <400°F " base do n floo r contro l o f

temperatur e a t

th e P M contro l device

. Durin g subsequen t analysi s o f th e revise ddatabase , w e notice dagai n tha t incinerator s equippe dwit h wast e hea t boiler s hav e significantl y highe r D / Femission s tha n othe r incinerators

. Thi s i s likel y becaus e th e hea t recover y boile r preclude s rapi dtemperatur e quenc h o f

combustio n gase s t o a temperatur e o f

<400° F(usuall y wit h a we t scrubber) , whic h woul db e floo r contro l fo r

non-wast e hea t

boilers

. Floo r contro l fo r

wast e hea t

boiler s woul db e rapi dquenc h o f

combustio n gase s a t th e exi t o f th e boile r

t o atemperatur e o f <400°F

. Base do n th e revise ddatabase , th e floo r standar dfo r

wast e hea t

boiler s woul db e "0.20 , o r

1 2 n g TEQ/dsc man d atemperatur e o f

<400° Fa t

th e P M contro l device. " Give n tha t th e wast e hea t boile r expande dunivers e (i.e. , th e entir e database ) i s comprise do f onl y thre e sources , th e highes t singl e ru n fo r th e tes t conditio n wit h th e highes t ru n averag e i s areasonabl e floo r level

. (Not e tha t i f thi s wer e alarg e dat aset , w e woul ddefin e th e floo r leve l simpl y a s th e highes t

tes t conditio n average. ) Thi s floo r leve l i s 5 0 percen t

highe r tha n th e highes t tes t conditio n average , an dthu s appear s t o b e aleve l tha t wast e hea t boiler s shoul db e abl e t o mee t routinel y usin g floo r

control

. Th e floo r

standar dfo r

non-wast e hea t boiler s woul db e "0.20 , o r 0.4 0 n g TEQ / dsc man datemperatur e o f <400° Fa t

th e P M contro l device. " Thi s standar di s base do n arrayin g emissio n level s fo r source s usin g floo r

contro l an d screenin g ou t

fou r tes t condition s wit h anomalousl y hig h emissions

. Thre e o f thes e tes t

condition s wer e fro msource s fo r whic h w e ha dothe r tes t condition s wit h emission s average s wel l belo w 0.4 0 n g TEQ

. W e di dno t

originall y propos e separat e standard s fo r wast e hea t

boiler s becaus e th e floo r

standar da t

proposa l wa s "0.2 0 n g TEQ/dsc mo r temperatur e a t th e P M contro l devic e o f <400°F. " Wast e hea t

boiler s coul dmee t tha t standard , an dmoreover , w e propose da B T Fstandar do f

0.2 0 n g TEQ/dsc mfo r a l l incinerator s ( apreferenc e w e d o no t depar t fro mi n today' s notice)

. Today , however , w e ar e presentin g th e optio n o f statin g th e standar di n th e for mo f a T E Q leve l combine dwit h amaximu m temperatur e a t

th e P M contro l device

. Thi s for mo f

th e standar di s consisten t wit h th e revise ddata , an dwoul dresul t i n somewha t

lowe r emissions

. Thi s i s because , withou t

th e TE Q limit , som e source s coul dexcee dtha t TE Q leve l a t th e specifie dtemperature
. b

. BT Fconsideration s fo r existin g sources . Incinerator s ca n b e equippe d wit h AC I a t

temperature s <40 0 ° Ft o achiev e D/ Flevel s belo w 0.2 0 n g TEQ / dscm

. Give n th e limite dapplicatio n o f th e technolog y t o contro l D/ Femission s fro mhazardou s wast e incinerator s an d give n tha t

contro l efficienc y i s likel y t o decreas e a t

D/ Femissio n level s belo w 0.20 , aBT Fstandar do f 0.2 0 n g TEQ / dsc mwoul dcontinu e t o b e appropriate

. Se e proposa l fo r

extende ddiscussion , 6 1 F Ra t

17382

. Anothe r

optio n arisin g fro mth e refinemen t

o f ou r origina l analysi s i s t o establis h aBT Fstandar dfo r wast e hea t boiler s a t

"0.20 , o r

0.4 0 n g TEQ/dsc m an datemperatur e o f <40 0 ° Fa t

th e P M contro l device" , an dt o remai n a t th e floo r standar dfo r

non-wast e hea t boilers

. Thes e standard s woul densur e tha t most , bu t

no t all , source s woul d hav e emission s <0.2 0 n g TEQ/dscm

. Give n tha t

onl y afe w source s woul d nee dt o tak e additiona l measure s t o ge t thei r emission s belo w 0.20 , however , i t woul db e appropriat e t o establis h a0.2 0 B T Fstandard , assumin g thi s leve l remain s appropriat e afte r considerin g statutor y factor s fo r establishin g standard s mor e stringen t tha n th e floor

. c . MAC T floo r

fo r ne w sources . A t proposal , w e identifie dth e sam e floo r contro l fo r

ne w source s a s fo r

existin g sources : we t

scrubbin g an d<40 0 ° Fa t th e P M device

. Thi s i s becaus e th e source s wit h th e lowes t emission s use d thi s control

. I n re-evaluatin g th e databas e fo r

thi s NODA , however , a n engineerin g evaluatio n ma y b e mor e appropriat e t o identif y AC I a s floo r contro l becaus e on e sourc e (i.e. , th e singl e bes t

controlle dsource ) use s it

. Eve n thoug h mos t

source s usin g rapi d quenc h b y we t

scrubbin g ca n achiev e D / Flevel s les s tha n 0.2 0 TEQ , som e



# VE S 00032 2

## Federa l Registe r / Vol

. 62 , No
. 85 /

Friday , May 2 , 199

7 / Propose dRule s 24221

source s usin g we t

scrubbin g hav e highe r D / Flevels

. AC I operate da t 40 0 " Fo r lowe r ca n universall y achiev e D/ Flevel s o f 0.2 0 n g TEQ/dsc mo r les s an di s thu s th e bette r

performin g technology

. (Not e tha t wast e hea t

boiler s canno t

us e rapi d quenc h o f

combustio n gase s bu t ca n us e ACI. ) Althoug h th e sourc e equippe dwit h A C I (Wast e Technologie s Industries ) i s achievin g D/ Flevel s o f 0.0 7 n g TEQ / dscm , w e believ e tha t i t i s appropriat e t o conclud e tha t

AC I ca n routinel y achiev e astandar do f 0.2 0 n g TEQ/dsc m give n th e limite dapplicatio n t o dat e o f th e technolog y fo r

hazardou s wast e incinerator s an dth e uncertaintie s abou t h o w muc h AC I contro l efficienc y i s reduce da t

extremel y lo w D/ Femissio n concentrations

. However , w e specificall y invit e commen t o n th e potentia l level s tha t ca n b e reache dwit h ACI , an do n industry-wid e achievabilit y o f 0.0 7 n g TEQ/dsc ma s th e floo r fo r n e w sources . d

. BTF considerations for

new sources. A t

proposal , BT Ffo r

ne w source s wa s base do n performanc e o f A C I give n tha t

floo r contro l wa s base d o n performanc e o f

rapi dquench

. Unde r today' s analysis , MAC T floo r fo r ne w source s woul db e base do n ACI

. Althoug h carbo n bed s woul db e abl e t o achiev e lowe r

emissions , the y ar e no t though t t o b e cost-effectiv e (particularl y i f th e floo r

fo r ne w source s wa s wel l belo w 0.2 0 n g TEQ/dscm) , an daBT F standar dwoul dlikel y no t b e appropriate

. 3

. Mercury (Hg). a . MAC T floo r fo r existin g sources . A t proposal , th e Agenc y identifie dfloo r contro l a s eithe r (1 ) feedrat e contro l o f H g a t a n maximu mtheoretica l emissio n concentratio n (MTEC ) no t t o excee d1 9 Ug/dscm , o r

(2 ) we t scrubbin g wit h feedrat e contro l o f

H g a t a n MTE C no t t o excee d5 1 p,g/dscm

. W e propose da floo r standar do f

13 0 ug/dscm

. Mercur y emission s fro mincinerator s ar e currentl y controlle db y limitin g th e feedrat e o f

H g combine dwit h som e remova l b y ai r

pollutio n contro l system s (APCS)

. Ther e ar e tw o APC S technique s currentl y use db y hazardou s wast e incinerator s (HWIs ) t o contro l Hg : we t scrubber s an dACI

. Althoug h primaril y intende dfo r

aci dga s control , nearl y al l incinerator s emplo y we t scrubber s tha t captur e th e solubl e form s o f H g specie s (e.g. , mercur y salts)

. AC I i s use db y on e incinerato r

fo r contro l o f

H g (an dD/Fs)

. T h e Agenc y als o ha s dat afro mon e additiona l facilit y usin g ACI ; however , thes e dat awer e generate ddurin g a demonstratio n testin g program . Revie w o f

th e update dH g dat ai n th e revise ddatabas e show s tha t feedrate s var y substantially

. Generall y th e highe r feedrate s ar e th e resul t o f H g spiking

. W e re-evaluate dth e revise ddatabas e fo r today' s notic e usin g adat aanalysi s metho dsimila r

t o tha t use da t proposa l t o determin e floo r

levels : (1 ) Ran k

H g emission s fro mlowes t t o highest ; (2 ) defin e a s floo r

contro l th e ai r

pollutio n contro l devic e (APCD ) an dassociate d highes t H g MTE C fo r

th e 6 percen t

o f source s wit h th e lowes t emissions ; an d (3 ) defin e a s th e floo r standar dth e highes t tes t conditio n averag e emission s o f an y tes t

conditio n operate da t o r belo w th e Floo r

MTEC

. Usin g th e revise ddatabase , MAC T contro l woul d b e define da s we t

scrubbin g wit h a MTE C o f

5 0 ug/dscm , an dth e revise d floo r standar dwoul db e 4 0 p.g/dscm , Nearl y 6 0 percen t

o f HWI s fo r

whic h w e hav e dat aar e achievin g thi s level

. b

. BT Fconsideration s fo r existin g sources . Th e Agenc y originall y considere dflu e ga s temperatur e reductio n t o 40 0 ° Fo r les s followe db y A C I a s th e BT Foptio n fo r improve dH g control

. A s discusse da t proposal , EP A believe s tha t

AC I incinerato r application s ca n achiev e H g emissio n reduction s greate r

tha n 9 0 percent
. I n th e Notic e o f

Propose dRulemakin g (NPRM) , th e Agenc y propose daBT F standar do f

5 0 jlg/dscm

. A s mentione dabov e fo r existin g sources , th e Agenc y ha s i n it s databas e H g dat afro mon e facilit y (wit h tw o tes t conditions ) currentl y employin g AC I a s apermanen t

application

. Bot h tes t condition s achieve dH g remova l efficiencie s betwee n 9 7 an d9 8 percen t a t varyin g H g feedrates

. Th e Agenc y als o ha s dat afro masecon dfacilit y generate ddurin g ademonstratio n tes t tha t sho w abou t

a9 8 percen t effectivenes s a t

capturin g H g thoug h a t on e o f th e highes t

feedrate s i n th e database

. Thes e data , i n additio n t o AC I application s o n full-scal e municipa l wast e combustor s an dmedica l wast e incinerators, 2 7 

### suppor t th e Agency' s assumptio n tha t

AC I system s ca n readil y achiev e captur e efficiencie s o f 9 0 percen t

o r mor e o n incinerators

. I n ligh t o f th e revise ddatabase , EP A ca n initiall y identif y 4 |ig/dsc ma s th e potentia l BT Fstandar dbase do n AC I an dflu e ga s temperatur e reductio n t o 40 0 ° Fo r

less

. Thi s i s base do n asourc e achievin g th e floo r

leve l o f

4 0 |ig/dsc m an dthe n applyin g AC I wit h a9 0 percen t remova l efficiency

. However , a B T Fleve l o f

4 |ig/dsc mwil l likel y rais e significan t

cost-effectivenes s considerations

. Give n tha t th e floo r leve l discusse dtoda y woul db e

2 7USEPA , Sectio n 5 o f "Draf tTechnica l Suppor t Documen tFo rHW C MAC T Standards , Volum e III : Selectio n o f

Propose d MAC T Standard s an d Technologies , ' Februar y 1996 . 

### substantiall y lowe r tha n th e propose d floor , aBT Fstandar do f 4 |ig/dsc m woul db e les s cost-effectiv e tha n th e B T Flevel s o f

3 0 p.g/dsc man d5 ug/dsc m analyze da t

proposal

. c . MAC T floo r

fo r ne w sources . A t proposal , th e floo r

contro l fo r

ne w source s wa s simila r a s fo r existin g sources : we t

scrubbin g wit h feedrat e contro l o f

H g a t a n MTE C no t

t o excee d 5 1 ug/dscm

. W e propose dafloo r standar do f

11 5 (xg/dscm

. A s discusse dfo r

existin g sources , bot h we t

scrubbin g an dAC I ar e use dfo r H g control

. Th e singl e bes t performin g sourc e fo r

H g contro l i n ou r

database , measure db y lowes t emissions , i s awe t scrubbe r

wit h H g feedrate , expresse da s aMTEC , o f

5 0 |Xg/dscm

. Sinc e MAC T fo r ne w HWI s i s identica l t o MAC T fo r existin g sources , analysi s o f emission s usin g thes e o r

bette r control s woul d resul t i n afloo r

leve l fo r

ne w HWI s o f 4 0 (ig/dscm

. Th e Agenc y als o considere daMAC T floo r base do n ACI , atechnolog y mor e effectiv e a t

H g contro l tha n typica l we t scrubbin g applications

. Th e thre e tes t condition s i n th e databas e indicat e tha t A C I wa s effectiv e i n removin g ove r 9 7 percen t o f Hg
. However , th e H g feedrat e durin g th e singl e bes t AC I tes t

conditio n wa s highe r

tha n th e feedrat e associate d wit h th e singl e bes t performin g we t scrubber

. I n fact , H g feedrate s durin g th e A C I tes t

condition s range dfro m5 t o 30 0 time s greate r

tha n th e we t

scrubbe r MTE C level

. T o determin e a n emission s leve l tha t

AC I coul droutinel y achieve , w e applie dacaptur e efficienc y o f 9 0 percen t t o aH g MTE C o f

50 0 ug/dscm , atypica l feedrat e identifie db y aMTE C breakpoin t

analysis

. Thus , usin g th e revise ddatabase , th e floo r leve l fo r

th e A C I evaluatio n woul db e 5 0 (ig/dsc m whic h i s slightl y highe r tha n th e we t scrubbe r

floo r analysis

. Th e floo r

fo r ne w source s base do n th e we t scrubbe r evaluatio n appear s t o b e mor e appropriat e becaus e th e floor leve l fo r ne w source s shoul db e a t leas t a s stringen t

a s fo r existin g sources . d

. BT Fconsideration s fo r ne w sources . A t

proposal , BT Ffo r

ne w source s wa s base do n ACI

. Simila r t o existin g sources , th e Agenc y re considere dth e us e o f AC I a s th e BT F technology

. W e identifie daleve l o f 4 (ig/dsc ma s apotentia l BT Fstandar dfo r ne w source s base do n AC I an dflu e ga s temperatur e reductio n t o 40 0 ° Fo r less

. A s discusse dfo r

existin g sources , thi s B T Fleve l base do n AC I wil l likel y rais e significan t

cost-effectivenes s considerations

. 4

. Particulate Matter

(PM). a . MAC T floo r fo r existin g sources . A t proposal , E P A define dfloo r

contro l base do n eithe r (1 ) afabri c filte r

wit h a n air-to



# VE S 00032 3

## 2422 2 Federa

l Registe r / Vol

. 62 , No
. 85 /

Friday , May 2 , 199

7 / Propose dRule s
clot h rati o o f

1 0 acfm/ft 2 , o r

(2 ) aventur i scrubbe r

use dwit h a n ionizin g we t scrubbe r

(IWS)

. Th e resultin g floo r level , whic h include dastatistically

derive dvariabilit y factor , wa s 0.10 7 gr / dscf

. Sinc e thi s leve l i s highe r tha n th e curren t federa l standar do f 0.0 8 gr/dscf , th e Agenc y identifie dth e floo r leve l a s 0.0 8 gr/dscf

. Today , i n ligh t

o f th e revise d database , EP A i s takin g commen t o n tw o refine dengineerin g an ddat aanalysi s method s t o identif y th e P M MAC T floo r fo r HWIs
. Th e evaluatio n techniqu e an d result s fro mbot h analyse s ar e presente d below

. F o r th e firs t

(an dpossibl y EPA' s preferred ) dat amethod , EP A woul dus e th e followin g step s t o identif y th e P M floo r level : (1 ) Identif y al l P M contro l equipmen t

currentl y i n us e withi n th e H W I sourc e category , regardles s o f measure dperformance ; (2 ) identif y a s MAC T contro l thos e P M APC D application s use db y a t leas t 6 percen t o f source s tha t

coul db e expecte dt o routinel y an dconsistentl y achiev e superio r

P M performanc e relativ e t o al l contro l strategie s considered ; an d(3 ) identif y a n emission s leve l tha t well

designed , operate dan dmaintaine d MAC T control s ca n readil y achiev e base do n generally-accepte dtechnica l an dengineerin g information

. Usin g thi s approach , MAC T control s woul db e fabri c filter , IWS , an dESP

. Base do n th e revise ddatabase , EPA' s evaluatio n o f

th e MAC T floo r performanc e leve l readil y achievabl e b y awel l designed , operate dan d maintaine dMAC T contro l devic e (fabri c filter , IWS , ESP ) i s 0.01 5 gr/dscf

. Not e tha t eve n thoug h th e P M MAC T floo r i s base do n fabri c filter , IW S an dES P APCDs , asourc e i s no t require dt o emplo y MAC T floor contro l bu t

rathe r onl y achiev e th e standard

. Approximatel y 7 5 percen t o f source s employin g MAC T (measure db y availabl e tes t

conditio n data ) currentl y ar e achievin g 0.01 5 gr/dscf

. A n evaluatio n o f

th e remainin g P M dat a exceedin g 0.01 5 gr/dsc f fro msource s ostensibl y employin g MAC T indicat e tha t 2 0 t o 4 0 percen t

o f thes e dat ama y b e inappropriat e fo r inclusio n (e.g. , a n incinerato r

wit h multipl e tes t condition s wel l belo w an dafe w abov e 0.01 5 gr/dscf)

. Generally , ove r 5 0 percen t o f HWIs , regardles s o f th e P M contro l currentl y employed , ar e currentl y achievin g a0.01 5 gr/dsc f level

. T h e secon drefine ddat aevaluatio n metho dEP A i s considerin g fo r P M Floo r analysi s i s simila r

t o th e standard

settin g proces s applie da t proposal

. Thi s evaluatio n i s afour-ste p process : (1 ) Ran k al l P M emission s dat aan didentif y th e MAC T floo r control s use db y th e bes t performin g 6 percen t o f sources ; (2 ) develo p th e expande dunivers e t o includ e al l source s employin g MAC T control , withou t

furthe r characterizin g MAC T contro l (e.g. , air-to-clot h rati o o f th e fabri c filter , specifi c collectio n are a fo r a n ESP ) a s don e i n th e proposa l becaus e o f

th e absenc e o f

reliabl e detaile ddesign , operating , an d maintenanc e informatio n i n th e database ; (3 ) fo r

eac h P M tes t

condition , evaluat e th e correspondin g SV M syste m remova l efficienc y (SRE ) an dscree n ou t source s tha t

hav e relativel y poo r SRE s (i.e. , outlier s abov e abreakpoin t i n th e dat aarray) , whic h ar e indicator s o f poo r design , operation , an dmaintenanc e characteristic s o f

th e MAC T control s a t th e source ; an d(4 ) identif y th e MAC T floor equa l t o th e highes t tes t conditio n averag e o f

al l tes t condition s i n th e P M expande duniverse

. Usin g thi s alternativ e evaluatio n approac h a s applie dt o th e revise d database , MAC T woul db e base do n an y o f th e followin g P M controls : (1 ) Fabri c filter , (2 ) IWS , (3 ) ESP , o r (4 ) ventur i scrubbe r

burnin g liqui dlo w as h wastes
. T h e resultan t

MAC T floor

woul db e 0.02 9 gr/dscf

. Ove r

7 0 percen t

o f HWIs , regardles s o f

th e P M contro l equipmen t employed , ar e currentl y achievin g thi s level

. A potentia l drawbac k o f usin g thi s secon dalternativ e evaluatio n techniqu e i s tha t nearl y 7 5 percen t

o f th e availabl e incinerato r

P M dat ad o no t

hav e correspondin g SV M dat asuc h tha t a S R E coul db e calculated

. Thi s impact s ou r abilit y t o identif y an dscree n ou t poore r performin g MAC T APCD s fro m th e expande duniverse , acritica l ste p i n evaluatin g a n appropriat e performanc e leve l achievabl e b y MAC T control

. A s a result , thi s evaluatio n techniqu e ma y no t b e appropriatel y identifyin g aP M floo r leve l representativ e o f MACT

. Fo r thes e reasons , th e firs t dat ametho d evaluatio n appear s t o b e mor e reliabl e an dsoun dfo r

th e Agency' s revise d database

. Th e Agenc y request s comment s o n th e bot h dat aanalysi s method s presented

. I n th e NPRM , th e Agenc y propose d tha t source s maintai n continuou s complianc e wit h th e P M standar d throug h th e us e o f

aP M CEMS

. A decisio n whethe r

t o requir e incinerator s t o instal l aP M CEM S wil l b e mad e a t th e completio n o f

a n on-goin g demonstratio n testin g progra mt o determin e i f

a t leas t on e P M CEM S ca n mee t th e propose dperformanc e specifications

. Sinc e th e floo r standard s discusse dabov e wer e base do n manua l tes t metho ddata , th e Agenc y wil l re evaluat e a t

th e completio n o f

th e CEM S testin g progra mwhethe r thes e P M floo r standard s woul db e appropriat e i n th e even t tha t th e fina l rulemakin g require s continuou s complianc e wit h aP M CEMS

. Th e Agenc y wil l notic e th e result s an dconclusion s o f th e demonstratio n tes t

progra mi n th e docke t fo r th e HW C rule

. b

. BT Fconsideration s fo r existin g sources . I n th e NPRM , th e Agenc y propose daBT Fleve l o f 0.03 0 gr/dsc f an dsolicite dcommen t o n a n alternativ e B T Fleve l o f

0.01 5 gr/dsc f

base do n improve dP M control

. Base do n th e revise ddatabase , w e ca n evaluat e areduce dP M emission s leve l lowe r tha n 0.01 5 gr/dsc f

a s th e BT F standar d(i n conjunctio n wit h correspondin g BT Freduction s i n SVM s an dLVMs ) fo r

existin g HWIs
. Thi s woul drequir e a n improve dP M collectio n technolog y suc h a s th e us e o f mor e expensiv e ba g materia l fo r fabri c filter s o r

increase dplat e are ao r powe r inpu t t o a n ESP

. Give n tha t th e alternativ e floo r

leve l analyse s presente dtoda y woul db e substantiall y lowe r tha n th e propose dfloo r an dBT F levels , significan t

cost-effectivenes s consideration s com e int o pla y an d sugges t tha t aBT Fstandar dma y no t ultimatel y prov e t o b e appropriate

. c . MAC T floo r

fo r ne w sources . A t proposal , th e Agenc y define dfloo r contro l a s afabri c filte r wit h a n air-to

clot h rati o o f

les s tha n 3. 8 acfm/ft 2

. Th e propose dfloo r

leve l wa s 0.03 9 gr/dscf

. Base dupo n ou r

evaluatio n o f

th e revise ddatabase , th e floo r contro l an d emissio n leve l discusse dabov e fo r existin g source s woul dals o appea r t o b e appropriat e fo r

ne w sources . I f

thi s eventuates , the n MAC T floo r contro l woul db e awell-designe dan dproperl y operate dP M contro l devic e (e.g. , fabri c filter , IWS , o r

ESP) , an dth e MAC T floo r fo r ne w HWI s woul db e aroun d0.01 5 gr/dscf

. d

. BT Fconsideration s fo r ne w sources . A t

proposal , EP A propose dth e sam e BT Fstandar do f 0.03 0 gr/dsc f (base do n improve dP M control ) a s tha t propose dfo r

existin g sources . Today , give n th e cost-effectivenes s consideration s discusse dabov e fo r existin g sources , th e Agenc y i s incline d t o thin k

tha t aBT Fstandar dbeyon da P M floo r

leve l o f

0.01 5 gr/dsc f

(an d correspondin g BT Freduction s fo r SVM s an dLVMs ) woul dno t ultimatel y prov e t o b e acceptable

. 5

. Semivolatil e metal s (SVM ) (cadmiu man dlead ) a . MAC T floo r fo r existin g sources . A t proposal , EP A define dfloo r

contro l a s eithe r

(1 ) a ventur i scrubbe r

wit h aMTE C no t

t o excee d17 0 ug/dscm , (2 ) acombinatio n o f a n ES P an dwe t

scrubbe r

wit h a MTE C no t

t o excee d5,80 0 ug/dscm , o r (3 ) acombinatio n o f ventur i scrubbe r an dIW S wit h aMTE C les s tha n 49,00 0



# VE S 00032 4

## Federa l Registe r / Vol

. 62 , No
. 8

5 / Friday , Ma

y 2 , 199 7 / Propose dRule s 2422 3 ug/dscm

. Th e propose dfloo r leve l wa s 27 0 ug/dscm

. HWI s us e acombinatio n o f goo dP M contro l an dlimitin g hazardou s wast e feedrate s t o contro l SV M emissions

. SVMs , whic h typicall y vaporiz e a t combustio n chambe r temperature s an d recondens e ont o small-siz e particulate s i n th e APCD , ar e controlle dmos t efficientl y b y technologie s tha t ar e effectiv e a t

capturin g fin e PM
. EPA' s revise ddatabas e show s tha t SV M emission s var y substantiall y fro m2 t o nearl y 30,00 0 ug/dscm

. Th e refine ddat aanalysi s metho d use db y EP A t o evaluat e an didentif y a MAC T floo r

woul db e base ddirectl y o n th e result s fro mth e P M floo r analyse s discusse dabove

. A s mentione dthere , a floo r o f 0.01 5 gr/dsc f

woul dappea r

t o represen t

th e MAC T floo r

fo r HWI s base do n goo dP M control

. Sinc e SVM s ar e controlled , i n part , b y awell

designe dan doperate dP M contro l devices , i t

follow s tha t

source s achievin g thi s P M performanc e leve l a t typica l SV M feedrate s shoul dals o b e controllin g SVM s emissions

. Therefore , i n it s refine dSV M analyse s o f th e revise ddatabase , th e Agenc y firs t consider s al l SV M dat awhe n correspondin g P M measurement s ar e belo w 0.01 5 gr/dscf

. T o identif y th e S V M floo r

fro mthes e data , w e woul d determin e eithe r

th e highes t

SV M tes t conditio n averag e o r th e leve l tha t exclude s source s achievin g substantiall y poore r SV M contro l tha n th e majorit y o f sources . I t

i s mos t

likel y appropriat e t o us e th e latte r

approach—excludin g source s wit h significantl y poore r SV M performance—becaus e thei r highe r SV M emission s ma y b e th e resul t o f exceedingl y hig h SV M feedrate s o r som e othe r facto r tha t canno t b e readil y identifie dwit h availabl e informatio n (e.g. , samplin g o r

analysi s anomalies)

. A n SV M emission s breakpoin t analysi s i s th e approac h fo r

excludin g thes e poore r performin g tes t

conditions

. Applyin g thi s evaluatio n techniqu e t o th e revise dHW I SV M databas e result s i n aMAC T floo r

o f 10 0 ug/dscm

. Approximatel y 5 3 percen t o f al l HW I S V M tes t

conditio n data , regardles s o f P M emission s level , ar e currentl y achievin g thi s emission s level

. A s discusse dabov e fo r PM , th e Agenc y i s solicitin g commen t o n a n alternativ e evaluatio n o f th e HW I P M dat awhic h identifie dafloo r o f 0.02 9 gr / dscf

. Conductin g th e sam e SV M floo r analysi s discusse dabov e whe n P M measurement s wer e belo w 0.02 9 gr/dsc f als o result s i n th e sam e floo r o f 24 0 ug / dscm

. Approximatel y 6 0 percen t o f al l H W I SV M tes t

conditio n data , regardles s o f P M emission s level , ar e currentl y achievin g thi s emission s level

. Finally , a s discusse di n a n earlie r section , apreliminar y analysi s indicate s tha t MAC T standard s ma y no t b e warrante dfo r

on e HA P metal , antimony

. Sinc e th e numbe r

o f metal s bein g considere dfo r

MAC T standard s ma y change , w e ar e investigatin g th e appropriat e structur e o f metal s standard s (e.g. , retai n th e volatilit y group s o r

establis h individua l metal s standards)

. Usin g th e refine dmetho d discusse dabov e fo r SVM , w e analyze d th e revise ddatabas e wit h respec t t o C d an dP b data

. Th e floo r analysi s correspondin g t o P M measurement s belo w 0.01 5 gr/dsc f woul dresul t

i n th e followin g floo r

levels : C d2 0 ug/dscm , an dP b 9 5 ug/dscm

. Th e alternativ e dat a analysi s metho dfo r individua l metal s whe n correspondin g P M measurement s wer e belo w 0.02 9 gr/dsc f woul dresul t i n th e followin g floo r levels : C d5 7 ug / dscm , an dP b 9 5 ug/dscm

. b

. BT Fconsideration s fo r existin g sources . I n th e NPRM , th e Agenc y considere daBT Fstandar dfo r SVM s base do n improve dP M contro l belo w 0.03 0 gr/dscf

. However , th e Agenc y conclude dtha t

aBT Fstandar dwoul d no t b e cost-effectiv e give n tha t th e floo r leve l alon e woul dresul t i n a n estimate d 9 4 percen t

SV M reductio n i n emissions

. A s discusse dfo r

P M BT F considerations , w e als o re-evaluate dth e possibl e appropriatenes s o f usin g a reduce dP M emission s leve l base do n improve dP M contro l a s aBT Fstandar d (takin g int o consideratio n correspondin g BT Freduction s i n SVMs ) fo r existin g HWIs
. Give n tha t th e alternativ e P M floo r leve l analyse s presente dtoda y woul db e lowe r tha n th e propose dfloo r

an dBT Ffloo r

levels , significan t

cost-effectivenes s consideration s emerg e an dsugges t tha t aBT Fstandar dfo r

eithe r SVM s o r individua l P b o r

C dstandard s base do n improve dP M contro l ma y no t ultimatel y prov e t o b e cost-effective

. If , however , th e revise dris k assessmen t

ye t t o b e conducte dwoul d sho w significan t

ris k a t aSV M floo r standar do f

eithe r 10 0 ug/dsc mo r

24 0 Ug/dscm , whic h ar e floor level s fro mth e tw o dat aanalysi s method s discusse d above , th e Agenc y wil l determin e whethe r aBT Fstandar dbase do n contro l o f

SV M feedrat e t o level s belo w thos e a t th e floor

woul db e appropriate

. Thi s feedrat e limitatio n woul di n tur n reduc e SV M emissions

. Th e BT F standar dan dth e correspondin g leve l o f feedrat e contro l woul db e dictate db y consideration s o f

cost-effectivenes s an d th e nee dt o establis h mor e stringen t RCRA-relate dcontrols

. c . MAC T floor

fo r ne w sources . A t proposal , th e Agenc y define dfloor control , base do n th e bes t performin g source , a s acombinatio n o f ventur i scrubbe r

an dIW S wit h aMTE C les s tha n 49,00 0 ug/dscm

. Th e propose d floor leve l fo r

ne w HWI s wa s 24 0 ug / dscm

. Base dupo n ou r

re-evaluatio n o f

th e database , th e floo r

contro l an demissio n leve l discusse dabov e fo r existin g source s fo r

P M an dSVM s woul dals o appea r t o b e appropriat e fo r ne w sources . I n thi s event , MAC T floor contro l woul db e awell-designed , operate dan dmaintaine dP M contro l devic e (e.g. , fabri c filter , IWS , o r ESP ) achievin g th e P M floo r leve l o f

0.01 5 gr / dscf , an dth e MAC T floor woul db e aroun d10 0 ug/dscm

. A s discusse dabove , th e Agenc y i s solicitin g commen t

o n a n alternativ e evaluatio n o f

th e revise dSV M databas e whic h conclude s tha t MAC T floo r contro l i s awel l designed , operate dan d maintaine dP M contro l devic e (i.e. , fabri c filter , IWS , o r ESP ) achievin g a P M leve l o f

0.02 9 gr/dscf

. Th e floor analysi s considerin g al l revise dSV M dat awhe n correspondin g P M measurement s ar e belo w 0.02 9 gr/dsc f result s i n afloo r

fo r ne w source s o f

24 0 ug/dscm

. Finally , w e hav e evaluate dwha t individua l meta l floo r level s fo r

ne w source s woul dbe

. Whe n P M measurement s ar e belo w 0.01 5 gr/dscf , th e analysi s woul dresul t i n floo r

level s fo r C do f 2 0 ug/dsc man dfo r P b 9 5 ug / dscm

. Unde r

th e alternativ e dat a analysi s metho dfo r individua l metal s whe n P M measurement s wer e belo w 0.02 9 gr/dscf , floo r

level s woul db e 5 7 ug/dsc mfo r

C dan d9 5 ug/dsc mfo r Pb

. d

. BT Fconsideration s fo r ne w sources . I n th e NPRM , th e Agenc y propose daBT Fleve l o f 6 2 ug/dsc m base do n improve dP M contro l belo w 0.03 0 gr/dscf

. A s discusse dfo r

PM , areduce dP M emission s leve l base do n improve dP M contro l coul db e considere di n evaluatin g apotentia l BT Fstandar d (considerin g correspondin g BT F reduction s i n SVM s an dLVMs ) fo r ne w HWIs
. Becaus e th e P M floo r leve l presente dtoda y woul db e substantiall y lowe r tha n th e propose dfloo r an d propose dBT Ffloo r level , cost
effectivenes s issue s ar e agai n raise dan d sugges t tha t aBT Fstandar dfo r eithe r SVM s o r

individua l P b o r

C dstandard s base do n improve dP M contro l ma y likewis e ultimatel y prov e t o b e inappropriate

. 6
. Lo w volatil e metal s (LVM ) (arsenic , beryllium , an dchromium) , a . MAC T Floo r fo r Existin g Sources

. A t proposal , E P A define dfloo r

contro l a s eithe r

(1 ) aventur i scrubbe r

wit h aMTE C no t

t o excee d1,00 0 ug/dscm , o r (2 ) a n IW S wit h aMTE C les s tha n 6,20 0 ug/dscm

.



# VE S 00032 5

## 2422 4 Federa

l Registe r / Vol

. 62 , No
. 85 /

Friday , Ma

y 2, 199 7 / ProposedRule s
Th e propose dfloo r

leve l wa s 21 0 ug / dscm , whic h include dantimony

. HWI s us e acombinatio n o f goo dP M contro l an dlimitin g hazardou s wast e feedrate s t o contro l LV M emissions

. LVM s ar e les s likel y t o vaporiz e a t combustio n temperature s an dtherefor e partitio n primaril y t o th e residu e o r adsor b ont o particle s i n th e combustio n gas . EPA' s databas e show s tha t LV M emission s fro mHWI s var y widel y fro m 1 t o ove r

130,00 0 ug/dscm

. T o identif y aLV M MAC T floor , th e Agenc y use dth e sam e dat aanalysi s metho dapplie dt o th e revise dSV M database

. A s wa s determine di n th e P M analysi s o f

th e revise ddatabase , afloo r o f 0.01 5 gr/dsc f

represent s MAC T fo r HWI s base do n goo dP M control

. Considerin g al l LV M dat afro msource s achievin g aP M leve l 0.01 5 gr/dsc f o r better , th e Agency' s evaluatio n o f th e revise dHW I dat aresult s i n aLV M floo r o f 5 5 ug/dsc m(excludin g source s abov e abreakpoin t

an dtherefor e achievin g substantiall y poore r LV M emission s tha n th e majorit y o f sources)

. Ove r

7 0 percen t o f HW I LV M tes t

conditio n dat a ar e currentl y achievin g thi s emission s level

. A s discusse dearlier , th e Agenc y i s solicitin g commen t

o n a n alternativ e evaluatio n o f

th e revise dHW I P M dat a whic h identifie dafloo r o f 0.02 9 gr/dscf

. Evaluatin g th e revise dLV M dat ausin g thi s metho dresult s i n aLV M floo r o f 19 0 ug/dscm

. Approximatel y 9 0 percen t o f HW I LV M tes t

conditio n dat aar e currentl y achievin g thi s level

. Finally , a s discusse di n a n earlie r section , apreliminar y analysi s indicate s tha t MAC T standard s ma y no t b e warrante dfo r

on e HAP , antimony

. Sinc e th e numbe r

o f metal s bein g considere d fo r MAC T standard s ma y change , w e ar e investigatin g th e appropriat e structur e o f metal s standard s (e.g. , retai n th e volatilit y group s o r establis h individua l metal s standards)

. Usin g th e refine d metho ddiscusse dabov e fo r LVM , w e analyze dth e revise ddatabas e wit h respec t t o As , Be , an dC r

(hexavalent)

. Th e floo r

analysi s correspondin g t o P M measurement s belo w 0.01 5 gr/dsc f result s i n th e followin g floo r levels : A s 2 1 ug/dscm , B e 2 ug/dscm , an dC r (hexavalent ) 3 ug/dscm

. Th e alternativ e dat aanalysi s metho dfo r individua l metal s whe n correspondin g P M measurement s wer e belo w 0.02 9 gr/dsc f result s i n th e followin g Floo r levels : A s 2 1 ug/dscm , B e 2 ug/dscm , an dC r (hexavalent ) 5. 5 ug/dscm

. Th e Agenc y i s concerne dtha t som e o f th e potentia l floo r

standard s fo r

som e individua l metal s (e.g. , Be , C r (hexavalent) ) ma y b e presen t a t level s approachin g practica l quantitatio n limit s (PQLs)

. PQL s ar e th e lowes t leve l o f

quantificatio n tha t th e Agenc y believe s acompeten t analytica l laborator y ca n b e expecte dt o reliabl y achieve

. Th e Agenc y wil l investigat e whethe r

thi s issu e ma y nee dt o b e addresse di n th e developmen t o f an y individua l metal s standard s tha t ma y b e considere dfo r

th e fina l rulemaking

. W e invit e commen t

o n th e issu e o f

PQL s an dLV M BT Fstandards

. b

. BT Fconsideration s fo r existin g sources . I n th e NPRM , th e Agenc y considere daBT Fstandar dfo r LVM s base do n improve dP M contro l belo w 0.03 0 gr/dscf

. However , th e Agenc y conclude dtha t

aBT Fstandar dwoul d no t b e cost-effectiv e give n tha t th e floo r leve l alon e woul dresul t i n a n estimate d 9 1 percen t

LV M reductio n i n emissions

. A s discusse dfo r

PM , areduce dP M emission s leve l base do n improve dP M contro l coul db e considere di n evaluatin g apotentia l BT Fstandar d (takin g int o consideratio n correspondin g BT Freduction s i n LVM s an dSVMs ) fo r

existin g HWIs
. Becaus e th e P M floo r

leve l presente dtoda y woul db e substantiall y lowe r tha n th e propose dfloo r

an dBT Ffloo r

levels , a B T Fstandar dfo r

eithe r LVM s o r individua l As , Be , an dC r (hexavalent ) standard s base do n improve dP M contro l woul drais e significan t cost
effectivenes s concern s an dma y no t b e appropriate

. If , however , th e revise dris k assessmen t

ye t t o b e conducte dwoul d sho w significan t

ris k a t aLV M floo r standar do f

eithe r 5 5 ug/dsc mo r

19 0 ug / dscm , whic h ar e floo r level s fro mth e tw o dat aanalysi s method s discusse d above , th e Agenc y wil l determin e whethe r

aBT Fstandar dbase do n contro l o f

LV M feedrat e t o level s belo w thos e a t th e floo r

woul db e appropriate

. Thi s feedrat e limitatio n woul di n tur n reduc e LV M emissions

. Th e BT F standar dan dth e correspondin g leve l o f feedrat e contro l woul db e dictate db y consideration s o f

cost-effectivenes s an d th e nee dt o establis h mor e stringen t RCRA-relate dcontrols

. c . MAC T floo r

fo r ne w sources . A t proposal , th e Agenc y define dfloor control , base do n th e bes t performin g source , a s aventur i scrubbe r wit h a MTE C les s tha n 1,00 0 ug/dscm

. Th e propose dfloo r

leve l fo r

ne w HWI s wa s 26 0 ug/dscm

. Base dupo n ou r

re-evaluatio n o f

th e database , th e floor

contro l an demissio n leve l discusse dabov e fo r existin g source s fo r

P M an dLVM s woul dals o appea r t o b e appropriat e fo r ne w sources . MAC T floo r contro l i s awell

designed , operate dan dmaintaine dP M contro l devic e (e.g. , fabri c filter , IWS , o r ESP ) achievin g th e P M floo r leve l o f 0.01 5 gr/dscf , an danalysi s o f th e revise ddat aresult s i n aLV M MAC T

floo r o f 5 5 ug/dscm

. A s discusse dabove , th e Agenc y i s solicitin g commen t

o n a n alternativ e evaluatio n o f

th e revise dLV M databas e whic h identifie s MAC T floor contro l a s awell-designed , operate dan d maintaine dP M contro l devic e (e.g. , fabri c filter , IWS , o r ESP ) achievin g a P M leve l o f

0.02 9 gr/dscf

. Th e floo r analysi s considerin g al l revise dLV M dat awhe n correspondin g P M measurement s ar e belo w 0.02 9 gr/dsc f result s i n afloo r

fo r ne w source s o f

19 0 ug/dscm

. Finally , individua l meta l floor level s fo r ne w sources , whe n P M measurement s ar e belo w 0.01 5 gr/dscf , are : A s 2 1 ug/dscm , B e 2 ug/dscm , an d C r (hexavalent ) 3 ug/dscm

. Unde r th e alternativ e dat aanalysi s metho dfo r individua l metal s whe n P M measurement s ar e belo w 0.02 9 gr/dscf , th e floor

level s are : A s 2 1 ug/dscm , B e 2 ug/dscm , an dC r

(hexavalent ) 5. 5 ug / dscm

. [Note : Th e sam e PQ L concern s woul db e presen t

her e a s well. ) d

. BT Fconsideration s fo r ne w sources . I n th e NPRM , th e Agenc y propose daBT Fleve l o f 6 0 ug/dsc m base do n improve dP M contro l belo w 0.03 0 gr/dscf

. A s discusse dfo r

P M BT F considerations , th e Agenc y considere da reduce dP M emission s leve l base do n improve dP M contro l a s th e BT F standar d(takin g int o consideratio n correspondin g BT Freduction s i n LVM s an dSVMs ) fo r

ne w (an dexisting ) HWIs
. Becaus e th e alternativ e P M floo r leve l presente dtoda y i s substantiall y lowe r tha n th e propose dfloo r an dBT Ffloo r levels , aBT Fstandar dfo r eithe r LVM s o r individua l As , Be , o r C r (hexavalent ) standard s base do n improve dP M contro l ma y b e inappropriat e i n ligh t o f th e cost-effectivenes s issue s inheren t i n thi s scenario

. 7
. Hydrochloric Acid and Chlorine (HC1/C12). a . MAC T Floo r fo r Existin g Sources

. A t

proposal , th e Agenc y define dfloo r

contro l a s we t

scrubbin g wit h achlorin e MTE C (i.e. , maximu m theoretica l emissio n concentration ) u p t o 2.1E 7 "ug/dsc man dpropose dafloo r standar do f

28 0 ppmv . Whil e evaluatin g th e revise ddatabase , w e investigate d anothe r dat aanalysi s metho dwhereb y floor contro l woul db e define da s we t scrubbin g combine dwit h chlorin e feedrat e contro l t o achiev e a n emissio n leve l o f 7 5 ppmv. 2 8 Unde r

thi s method ,

2 8Althoug h a specifi c feedrat e (i.e. . MTEC ) leve l i s no tuse d to defin e MAC T floor , feedrat e contro l i s par to f

floo rcontro l to achiev e th e 7 5 ppm v standar d usin g we tscrubbin g (i.e. , a sourc e woul d probabl y no tb e abl e to fee d chlorin e a textremel y hig h rate s an d stil l achiev e th e standar d usin g we t scrubbing) . Further , a s discusse d belo w i n th e text ,



# VE S 00032 6

## Federa l Registe r / Vol

. 62 , No
. 85 /

Friday , May 2 , 199

7 / Propose dRule s Z422 5
emission s dat afro msource s usin g we t o r dr y scrubbin g wer e arraye dfrom lowes t t o highes t

(withou t

explici t regar dt o chlorin e feedrate ) an dsource s achievin g substantiall y poore r HC1/C1 2 contro l tha n othe r

source s wer e screene dfro mth e analysis

. Accordingly , afte r

fiv e o f 4 8 tes t condition s wer e screene dfro mth e analysi s fo r

anomalousl y hig h emissio n rates, 2 9 tli e floo r

standar dwa s establishe da s th e highes t remainin g tes t conditio n average—7 5 ppmv. 3 0Nearl y 9 0 percen t

o f tes t conditions 3 1 i n th e revise ddatabas e hav e emissio n level s belo w 7 5 ppmv . Th e Agenc y request s commen t o n whethe r

thi s alternativ e approac h t o defin e floo r

contro l an dafloo r leve l woul db e mor e appropriat e tha n th e propose dapproach

. b

. BT Fconsideration s fo r existin g sources . A t

proposal , th e Agenc y determine dtha t

aBT Fstandar dwoul d no t b e warranted

. Specifically , th e Agenc y note dtha t

ris k fro memission s a t th e floo r

standar dwoul dno t likel y trigge r th e nee dfo r

additiona l contro l unde r RCRA

. Althoug h tha t

ma y prov e t o b e th e cas e a s wel l fo r

th e alternativ e standar d discusse di n today' s notic e (i.e. , 7 5 ppmv) , th e ris k

assessmen t accompanyin g th e fina l rul e wil l conside r

incinerator s wit h shor t stack s an dwil l als o conside r acut e ris k

fro m H C I an dC1 2 durin g short-ter m exposures . Th e ris k assessmen t

a t proposa l modele demission s onl y fro m incinerator s wit h relativel y tal l stacks , an ddi dno t

conside r

acut e exposur e t o H C I an dC12

. If , however , th e revise d ris k assessmen t

ye t t o b e conducte d show s significan t

ris k a t afloo r standar d o f 7 5 ppmv , th e Agenc y wil l determin e whethe r

aBT Fstandar dwoul db e appropriat e considerin g cost
effectivenes s o f

suc h astandar dan dth e nee dt o establis h mor e stringen t control s unde r RCRA

. I n tha t

case , BT Fcontro l coul db e base do n aminimu msyste m remova l efficienc y (e.g. , 99. 9 percent ) and/o r contro l o f

chlorin e feedrate

. c . MAC T floo r

fo r ne w sources . A t proposal , th e Agenc y identifie dfloo r contro l fo r

ne w incinerator s a s we t scrubbin g wit h a n MTE C o f 1.7E 7 ug /

source s wit h anomalousl y hig h emission s wer e screene d fro m consideration . On e reaso n tha ta sourc e ma y hav e anomalousl y hig h emission s i s tha ti tma y b e feedin g unusuall y hig h level s o f chlorine .
2 9Th e anomalousl y hig h emission s coul d hav e bee n cause d by : (1 ) Poo rdesign , operation , o r maintenanc e o f

th e scrubber , an d thu s th e devic e woul d no trepresen tMAC T (e.g. , a dr y scrubbe rwa s screene d fro m th e analysi s becaus e dr y scrubber s ar e generall y les s efficien ttha n we tscrubbers) : (2) unusuall y hig h chlorin e feedrates ; o r(3 ) samplin g o ranalysi s anomalies . dcs mSe e 6 1 F Ra t 17388

. Althoug h th e floo r contro l fo r

ne w source s wa s base d o n th e singl e bes t

performin g sourc e an d wa s mor e stringen t

tha n floo r

contro l fo r existin g sources , th e floo r emissio n leve l wa s th e sam e fo r

ne w an dexistin g sources : 28 0 ppmv . Whe n evaluatin g th e revise d emission s databas e considerin g variou s dat aanalyse s method s fo r today' s notice , w e determine dtha t floo r contro l fo r ne w source s shoul db e th e sam e a s fo r existin g sources : We t scrubbin g wit h chlorin e feedrat e contro l t o achiev e a n emissio n leve l o f

7 5 ppmv . Thi s i s state
of-the-ar t

contro l fo r

thes e HAPs

. Accordingly , th e floo r standar dfo r

ne w source s woul db e 7 5 ppm v unde r thi s dat aanalysi s method

. d

. BT Fconsideration s fo r ne w sources . Th e Agenc y propose dBT F contro l fo r

ne w incinerator s a s 9 9 percen t SR E an daBT Fstandar do f 6 7 ppmv . Thi s standar dwa s base do n applyin g 9 9 percen t reductio n t o th e tes t conditio n i n th e databas e wit h th e highes t averag e emissio n withou t a n emissio n contro l devic e (i.e. , 110 0 ppmv)

. Then , considerin g othe r factor s includin g acompute demission s variabilit y factor , th e Agenc y determine dtha t

aBT Fstandar do f

6 7 ppm v woul db e appropriate

. I n retrospect , a s w e discusse dabove , virtuall y al l source s ar e alread y equippe dwit h som e for mo f scrubbe r an d9 0 percen t

ar e achievin g emissio n level s o f

7 5 ppm v o r

below

. Thus , thi s woul db e a n appropriat e floo r contro l an dstandar dfo r

ne w sources . A s discusse dabov e fo r existin g sources , a B T Fstandar dappear s t o b e unnecessary , unles s th e upcomin g fina l ris k analysi s indicate s tha t mor e stringen t

control s unde r

RCR A woul db e warranted

. A BT Fstandar dcoul db e base do n aminimu msyste mremova l efficienc y (e.g. , 99. 9 percent ) and/o r contro l o f

chlorin e feedrate

. 8

. Carbon Monoxide (CO). A s proposed , th e Agenc y continue s t o believ e tha t

floo r contro l fo r

C O (a s a surrogat e fo r

organi c HAPs ) fo r

bot h existin g an dne w source s woul db e operatio n unde r

goo dcombustio n practices

. Th e preponderanc e o f th e revise demission s dat aindicat e tha t a

3 0Th e floo rstandar d unde rthi s alternativ e analysi s method—7 5 ppmv—woul d b e substantiall y lowe r tha n th e propose d floo rstandard—28 0 ppmv—eve n thoug h feedrat e contro l o f chlorin e woul d no tb e use d expliciti y to hel p defin e floo r contro l unde rthi s alternativ e metho d because , to identif y th e propose d standard , th e Agency : (1 ) Selecte d a s th e standard-settin g tes tconditio n th e highes ttes tconditio n fo rsource s appearin g to b e usin g floo rcontro l withou tscreenin g anomalou s tes tconditions : an d (2 ) adde d a compute d emission s variabilit y facto r to emission s fro m tha t standard-settin g tes tcondition . floo r standar do f

10 0 ppm v ove r

a n hourl y rollin g averag e (HRA ) woul db e readil y achievable , h i addition , th e Agenc y continue s t o believ e tha t aBT F standar dfo r

C O base do n bette r goo d combustio n practice s i s likel y t o rais e significan t

cost-effectivenes s considerations

. 9
. Hydrocarbons (HC). Th e Agenc y propose dtha t

floo r contro l fo r

H C (a s a surrogat e fo r

otherwis e unaddresse d organi c HAPs ) fo r

bot h existin g an dne w source s woul db e operate dunde r goo d combustio n practice s an dtha t afloo r standar do f

1 2 ppm v ove r

a n hourl y rollin g averag e (HRA) , woul db e appropriate

. I n evaluatin g th e revise d emissio n databas e fo r today' s notice , w e use dth e sam e genera l approac h fo r H C a s a t proposal—th e entir e databas e wa s arraye dfro mth e lowes t t o th e highes t emissio n level s an dassume dtha t tes t condition s beyon dabreakpoin t wer e no t operate dunde r

goo dcombustio n practices

. Base do n tha t analysis , afloo r leve l fo r

H C o f 1 0 ppmv , HRA , results

. (Thi s 1 0 ppm v standar ddoe s no t includ e avariabilit y facto r fo r reason s discusse dabove , unlik e th e propose d standar do f

1 2 ppm v tha t

did. ) No t

onl y doe s th e revise ddatabas e sho w tha t th e preponderanc e o f

th e dat aar e belo w 1 0 ppmv , bu t

engineerin g experienc e an d othe r engineerin g informatio n suggest s tha t aH C leve l o f

1 0 ppm v i s readil y achievabl e usin g goo dcombustio n practices

. A s discusse da t

proposal , th e Agenc y continue s t o b e concerne dabou t cost
effectivenes s consideration s relate dt o B T Fcontrol s fo r

H C base do n operatin g unde r bette r combustio n practices

. F
. Re-Evaluatio n o f Propose dMAC T Standard s fo r

Cemen t

Kiln s W e discus s i n thi s sectio n th e basi s fo r th e revise dstandard s fo r cemen t kiln s tha t

resul t fro mapplyin g engineerin g an ddat aanalysi s t o th e revise demission s database. 3 2A compariso n o f

th e propose dan d potentiall y revise dstandard s fo r existin g an dne w source s i s presente di n th e tabl e below :

3 1 Considerin g approximatel y 5 0 tes tcondition s wher e emission s level s o n bot h HC I an d C1 2 wer e available .
3 2Additiona l detail s o f th e engineerin g an d dat a analysi s evaluation s performe d o n th e revise d emission s databas e ca n b e foun d i n th e Agency' s backgroun d document : USEPA , "Draf tTechnica l Suppor tDocumen tfo rHW C MAC T Standard s (NODA) , Volum e I : MAC T Evaluation s Base d o n Revise d Databas e " , Apri l 1997 .



# VE S 00032 7

## 2422 6 Federa

l Registe r/ Vol

. 62 , No
. 85 /

Friday , Ma

y 2 , 199 7 / Propose dRule s
TABL E II.F.—REVISE D STANDARD S FO R EXISTIN G AN D NE W CEMEN T KILN S

HA P o rHA P Surrogat e Existin g source s Ne wsource s HA P o rHA P Surrogat e Propose d standar d Revise d

standar d Propose d

standar d Revise d

standar d D/ F (n g TEQ/dscm ) 10 .2 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 H g (u.g/dscm ) 5 0 7 2 5 0 7 2 P M (gr/dscf ) 0.03 0 0.03 0 0.03 0 0.03 0 HCI/CI 2 (ppmv ) 63 0 12 0 6 7 12 0 C O (ppmv ) 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 H C (ppmv) : Mai n Stack 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 By-Pas s 6. 7 1 0 6. 7 1 0 SV M (ug/dscm ) 5 7 67 0 5 5 67 0 LV M (ug/dscm ) 13 0 6 3 4 4 6 3

1 Al l emissio n level s ar e correcte d t o 7 % 0 2 . 2 No t applicabl e t o preheate rand/o rprecalcine rkilns

.
1

. Subcategorization considerations. Afte r analyzin g comment s submitte db y th e Cemen t

Kil n Recyclin g Coalitio n (CKRC ) o n th e propose drule , includin g informatio n o n th e type s o f cemen t

kiln s tha t ar e currentl y burnin g hazardou s waste , w e considere dwhethe r th e followin g subcategorie s woul db e appropriate : (1 ) Shor t kiln s wit h separat e by-pas s an dmai n stacks ; (2 ) shor t kiln s wit h asingl e stac k tha t handle s bot h by-pas s an dpreheate r o r precalcine r

emissions ; (3 ) lon g dr y kiln s tha t us e kil n ga s t o dr y ra w mea l i n th e r a w mill ; an d(4 ) other s (i.e. , we t kilns , a n dlon g dr y kiln s no t usin g ra w mil l drying)

. Eac h ofth e firs t thre e categorie s i s comprise do f

onl y on e cemen t

kil n facilit y whil e th e kiln s a t th e remainin g 1 9 facilitie s ar e i n th e fourt h category : we t kiln s o r

lon g dr y kiln s tha t d o no t us e ra w mil l drying

. W e fin dtha t thes e subcategorie s shoul db e considere d becaus e th e uniqu e desig n o r operatin g feature s o f

thes e kiln s coul dhav e a significan t

impac t

o n emission s o f

on e o r mor e HAP s tha t

th e Agenc y propose d t o regulate

. T o determin e whethe r specia l standard s woul db e appropriat e fo r an y ofth e thre e uniqu e cemen t kil n types , w e identifie dfloo r contro l an demissio n level s considerin g dat aonl y fo r th e othe r kiln s (i.e. , we t

kilns , an dlon g dr y kiln s no t

usin g ra w mil l drying)

. W e the n considere dwhethe r th e uniqu e kil n type s coul dappl y th e thos e MAC T control s an dachiev e thos e emissio n standards

. I t

appear s tha t

thes e uniqu e kiln s ca n emplo y th e MAC T control s a n dachiev e th e correspondin g emissio n level s identifie di n today' s notic e fo r th e othe r kiln s (i.e. , we t

kilns , an dlon g dr y kiln s no t

usin g ra w mil l drying)

. Thus , subcategorizatio n woul dno t appea r t o b e neede dt o determin e achievabl e MAC T floor s fo r

al l cemen t

kiln s burnin g hazardou s waste
. 2

. Dioxins and Furans (D/F). a . MAC T Floo r fo r Existin g Sources

. A t proposal , th e Agenc y identifie dfloo r contro l a s "temperatur e contro l a t th e inle t

t o th e E S P o r fabri c filte r

a t 41 8 °F"

. Th e propose dfloo r

emissio n leve l wa s "0.2 0 n g TEQ/dscm , o r

temperatur e a t

th e inle t t o th e ES P o r

fabri c filte r

no t t o excee d41 8 °F"

. Upo n re-evaluatio n o f th e revise d database , w e hav e identifie da n alternativ e dat aanalysi s metho dtha t seem s mor e appropriat e t o identif y floo r contro l an dth e floo r emissio n level

. Base do n a n engineerin g evaluatio n o f thes e dat aan dothe r availabl e information , floo r

contro l woul db e "temperatur e contro l a t th e inle t

t o th e E S P o r fabri c filte r

a t 40 0 °F"

. Thi s result s i n afloo r

emissio n leve l o f

"0.2 0 n g TEQ/dscm , o r

0.4 0 n g TEQ/dsc man d temperatur e a t

th e inle t

t o th e ES P o r fabri c filte r

no t t o excee d40 0 °F". 3 3 Temperatur e contro l t o 40 0 ° Fo r lowe r i s appropriat e fo r

floo r contro l because , fro ma n engineerin g perspective , i t

i s withi n th e rang e o f reasonabl e value s tha t coul dhav e bee n selecte dconsiderin g that : (1 ) Th e optimu mtemperatur e windo w fo r surface-catalyze dD/ Fformatio n i s 450

- 75 0 °F ; an d(2 ) belo w 35 0 °F , kil n ga s ca n fal l belo w th e de w poin t whic h ca n increas e corrosio n i n ESP s an dfabri c filter s an dreduc e performanc e o f th e contro l devices

. I n addition , approximatel y 2 0 percen t o f th e tes t condition s i n ou r

revise ddatabas e reflec t operation s a t

temperature s o f

40 0

3 3Th e standar d woul d b e expresse d i n th e for m o f a TE Q leve l combine d wit h a maximu m temperatur e a tth e P M contro l device . Thi s for m o f th e standar d i s consisten twit h th e revise d dat a an d woul d resul ti n somewha tlowe r emission s (i.e. , becaus e withou tth e TE Q limit , som e source s coul d excee d tha tTE Q leve l a tth e specifie d temperature) . Thus , expressin g th e standar d i n thi s for m bette r achieve s th e statutor y mandat e to establis h standard s tha tprovid e th e maximu m degre e o f reductio n tha ti s achievabl e i n practice . ° Fo r below

. Thus , thi s temperatur e leve l i s readil y achievable

. T o identif y a n emissio n leve l tha t temperatur e contro l <40 0 ° Fcoul d achieve , i t

i s appropriat e t o poo l th e availabl e emission s dat afo r hazardou s wast e burnin g kiln s wit h dat afro m nonwast e burnin g kilns. 3 4Thi s i s becaus e w e ar e no t awar e o f

a n engineerin g reaso n wh y hazardou s wast e burnin g woul daffec t emission s o f D/F

. I n fact , whe n th e dat aset s ar e evaluate dseparately , th e highes t emittin g H W cemen t kil n operatin g th e E S P o r fabri c filte r

a t temperature s <40 0
° Fha dD/ Femission s o f 0.2 8 n g TEQ / dscm

. Th e highes t

emittin g nonwast e cemen t kil n operatin g a t

thos e temperature s ha dD/ Femission s o f 0.3 7 n g TEQ/dscm

. W e believ e tha t th e differenc e i n emissio n level s i s simpl y areflectio n o f

man y design , operation , an dmaintenanc e factor s o n whic h w e hav e littl e o r

n o information , bu t whic h coul daffec t

D/ Femissio n levels

. A n appropriat e emissio n leve l associate d wit h tha t

operatin g temperatur e fo r al l cemen t kiln s woul db e 0.4 0 n g TEQ / dscm

. Thus , th e floo r standar dwoul d be : "0.2 0 n g TEQ/dscm , o r 0.4 0 n g TEQ / dsc man dtemperatur e a t th e inle t

t o th e E S P o r fabri c filte r

no t t o excee d40 0 °F"

. b

. BT Fconsideration s fo r existin g sources . Th e Agenc y propose daBT F standar do f

0.2 0 n g TEQ/dsc mbase do n A C I operate da t

atemperatur e o f

<40 0

3 4W e considere d whethe r nonwast e cemen tkil n emissio n dat a shoul d b e poole d wit h H W cemen t kil n dat a fo rothe rHAP s an d determine d tha t emission s o f

othe rHAPs , excep tfo rPM , coul d b e affecte d b y hazardou s wast e burning . Fo rexample , hazardou s wast e ca n hav e highe rlevel s o f chlorin e an d metal s suc h a s Pb . Wit h respec tto PM , althoug h i tappear s appropriat e to poo l th e dat a sets , th e better-suite d dat a analysi s metho d i s base d o n th e Ne w Sourc e Performanc e Standard , no ta n analysi s o f

th e emission s database . Thus , poolin g o f dat a woul d no taffec tth e standar d derive d fro m tha t dat a analysi s method . Se e discussio n o n th e P M standar d i n th e tex t



# VE S 00032 8

## Federa l Registe r / Vol

. 62 , No
. 85 /

Friday , Ma

y 2 , 199 7 / ProposedRule s 2422 7
°F

. W e continu e t o believ e tha t thi s BT F standar di s appropriat e give n th e concern s th e Agenc y ha s expresse d abou t th e risk s pose db y D/ Femissions , an dth e H g reduction s tha t AC I woul d als o provide

. Se e 6 1 F Ra t 17392

. Onl y source s emittin g betwee n 0.2 0 an d0.4 0 n g TEQ/dsc mwit h temperatur e contro l alon e woul dnee dt o tak e furthe r measure s t o reduc e D/ Flevel s t o 0.2 0 n g unde r th e BT Fstandard

. Althoug h thes e source s coul dachiev e D/ Femissio n level s wel l belo w 0.2 0 n g TEQ/dsc m usin g AC I (i.e. , AC I remova l efficienc y shoul db e i n th e 95-9 9 percen t range) , a0.2 0 n g TEQ/dsc mappear s stil l t o b e appropriat e becaus e i t ma y allo w som e source s t o mee t

th e standar dmor e cost
effectivel y b y lowerin g ga s temperature s a t th e ES P o r

fabri c filte r

belo w 40 0 °F

. Further , aBT Fstandar do f 0.2 0 n g TEQ / dsc mwoul dlikel y avoi dth e nee dt o provid e furthe r

control s unde r

RCR A authority

. c . MAC T floo r

fo r ne w sources . A t proposal , th e Agenc y identifie dfloo r contro l fo r

ne w source s a s "temperatur e contro l a t

th e inle t

t o th e ES P o r

fabri c filte r a t 40 9 °F"

. Th e propose dfloo r emissio n leve l wa s "0.2 0 n g TEQ/dscm , o r temperatur e a t

th e inle t

t o th e ES P o r fabri c filte r

no t t o excee d40 9 °F"

. Upo n evaluatio n o f th e revise d database , th e floo r

contro l an demissio n leve l discusse dabov e fo r existin g source s woul dals o b e appropriat e fo r ne w source s (i.e. , "temperatur e contro l a t th e inle t

t o th e ES P o r

fabri c filte r

a t 40 0 °F " correspondin g t o a n emissio n leve l o f "0.2 0 n g TEQ/dscm , o r 0.4 0 n g TEQ/dsc man dtemperatur e a t th e inle t t o th e ES P o r

fabri c filte r

no t t o excee d 40 0 °F"

. Thi s i s becaus e ou r engineerin g evaluatio n o f

availabl e informatio n an d facilit y operatin g experienc e indicate s tha t th e bes t

controlle dsourc e i s on e tha t i s controllin g temperatur e contro l a t th e inle t

t o th e fabri c filte r

a t 40 0 °F

. d

. BT Fconsideration s fo r ne w sources . Th e Agenc y propose dAC I a s B T Fcontro l an daBT Fstandar do f 0.2 0 n g TEQ/dscm

. W e continu e t o believ e tha t thi s BT Fstandar di s appropriat e fo r ne w source s fo r

th e sam e reason s discusse dabov e i n th e contex t o f existin g sources . 3

. Mercury (Hg). a . MAC T floo r fo r existin g sources . A t proposal , th e Agenc y identifie dfloo r contro l a s hazardou s wast e feedrat e contro l no t t o excee da n MTE C o f 11 0 ug/dscm

. EP A propose dafloo r

standar do f

13 0 ug / dscm

. A l l cemen t

kiln s emplo y eithe r ESP s an dfabri c filter s fo r P M control

. However , sinc e H g i s generall y i n th e vapo r for mi n an ddownstrea mo f th e combustio n chamber , includin g th e ai r pollutio n contro l device , ESP s an d fabri c filter s d o no t achiev e goo d mercur y control

. Mercur y emission s fro mcemen t

kiln s ar e currentl y controlle db y th e BI Frul e whic h establishe s limit s o n th e maximu m feedrat e o f

H g i n tota l feedstream s (e.g. , hazardou s waste , ra w materials , coal)

. Thus , MAC T i s base do n hazardou s wast e fee dcontrol

. Revie w o f

th e revise ddatabas e indicat e tha t

cemen t kiln s onl y infrequentl y conducte dH g spikin g o f th e hazardou s waste s (contrar y t o th e Agency' s initia l information) , an dthu s th e H g conten t

i n th e waste s durin g testin g i s likel y representativ e o f th e H g conten t durin g typica l operations

. Th e revise ddat aals o sho w tha t ra w material s ca n represen t asignifican t sourc e H g inpu t

t o th e kil n system
. Sinc e cemen t

kiln s d o no t

emplo y a dedicate ddevic e capabl e o f H g control , th e Agenc y believe s tha t th e H g dat aar e essentiall y "normal " eve n thoug h generate ddurin g wors t cas e complianc e testin g condition s fo r othe r parameters
. T o evaluat e thes e revise ddat afo r th e purpos e o f

determinin g aMAC T floor , th e Agenc y use dth e followin g dat a analysi s steps : (1 ) Ran k H g emission s fro mlowes t

t o highest ; (2 ) conduc t a breakpoin t

analysi s o n th e ranke dH g emission s data , an d(3 ) establis h th e floo r standar da s th e tes t conditio n averag e o f

th e breakpoin t

source . Th e breakpoin t

analysi s reflect s a n engineering-base devaluatio n o f th e dat a an densure s tha t

th e fe w cemen t

kiln s spikin g extr aH g d o no t driv e th e floo r leve l t o level s highe r tha n th e preponderanc e o f

thi s "normal " dat a indicate s i s routinel y achievable

. Th e Agency' s analysi s result s i n aMAC T floo r leve l o f

7 2 ug/dscm

. Th e revise d databas e indicate s tha t approximatel y 8 0 percen t

o f cemen t kiln s ar e achievin g thi s floo r

level

. b

. BT Fconsideration s fo r existin g sources . Th e Agenc y propose daBT F standar do f

5 0 ug/dsc mbase do n flu e ga s temperatur e reductio n t o 40 0 ° Fo r les s followe db y ACI

. EP A continue s t o believ e tha t

AC I i s a n appropriat e BT F technolog y fo r

cemen t kilns

. Althoug h A C I i s no t

employe dfo r

H g contro l a t an y full-scal e H Wcemen t kiln , th e Agenc y i s no t

awar e o f

an y cemen t

kil n flu e ga s condition s tha t woul dpreclud e th e applicabilit y o f ACI—whic h ha s bee n demonstrate dfo r othe r simila r type s o f

combustio n applications

. A s discusse di n th e NPRM , EP A assume s tha t cemen t kiln s employin g AC I t o mee t aBT Fstandar dwoul dinstal l th e A C I syste mafte r

th e existin g ES P o r fabri c filter , an dthe n ad do n ane w fabri c filte r

t o remov e th e injecte d carbo n wit h th e adsorbe dHg
. Althoug h addin g ane w fabri c filte r i n serie s i s a n expensiv e approach , i t wil l enabl e cemen t kiln s t o continu e curren t cemen t kil n dus t

(CKD ) recyclin g practice s b y avoidin g potentia l interna l build-u p o f H g fro mCK D recycling

. I n th e NPRM , th e cemen t kil n BT F standar dwa s base do n th e assumptio n tha t a n AC I syste mcoul droutinel y achiev e H g emission s reduction s o f 8 0 t o 9 0 percent
. Th e Agenc y receive d publi c comment s from , amon g others , th e cemen t

manufacturin g industr y questionin g whethe r aAC I applicatio n o n acemen t

kil n coul droutinel y achiev e captur e efficiencie s a s proposed

. Th e commenter s wen t o n t o sa y tha t remova l efficiencie s o f approximatel y 6 0 percen t wer e perhap s mor e realistic

. W e wil l addres s thes e comment s specificall y a s par t i n th e fina l rulemaking , bu t fo r th e purpose s o f today' s analysis , EP A ha s assume da n A C I effectivenes s o f 6 0 percen t

i n identifyin g BT Flevel s fo r cemen t kilns

. Thus , th e BT Fstandar dfo r cemen t kiln s woul db e 3 0 ug/dsc mbase do n a n AC I efficienc y o f

6 0 percen t

applie dt o th e potentia l floo r

leve l o f

7 2 ug/dscm

. Ultimatel y adoptin g aBT Fstandar do f 3 0 ug/dsc mfo r

cemen t kiln s wil l likel y involv e clos e scrutin y o f cost
effectivenes s an dothe r factors , includin g th e cost s o f retrofit s tha t source s wil l nee dt o undertak e (e.g. , installin g th e AC I system , add-o n o f a ne w fabri c filter , managin g th e capture d carbon ) relativ e t o th e emission s reduction s achieved

. Withou t pre judgin g thi s issue , th e Agency' s experienc e t o dat e suggest s tha t th e fina l analysi s ma y wel l revea l significan t drawback s associate dwit h th e BT F level

. c . MAC T floo r

fo r ne w sources . A t proposal , th e Agenc y identifie dfloo r contro l fo r

ne w source s a s hazardou s wast e feedrat e contro l no t t o excee da n MTE C o f

2 8 ug/dscm

. EP A propose da floo r standar do f

8 2 ug/dscm

. Th e Agenc y believe s tha t th e floo r contro l an demissio n leve l discusse d abov e fo r

existin g source s woul dals o b e appropriat e fo r

ne w sources . Thus , th e MAC T floo r

fo r ne w cemen t

kiln s woul d b e 7 2 ug/dsc mbase do n th e revise d database

. d

. BT Fconsideration s fo r ne w sources . A t

proposal , BT Ffo r

ne w source s wa s base do n AC I an dw e propose daBT Fstandar do f 5 0 ug/dscm

. A s discusse dfo r

existin g sources , th e Agenc y i s considerin g th e us e o f AC I an dflu e ga s temperatur e reductio n t o 40 0 ° Fa s th e BT Ftechnology

. I n evaluatin g th e revise ddatabase , EP A ha s identifie daleve l o f 3 0 ug/dsc ma s th e BT Fstandar dfo r ne w source s base d o n ACI

. Thi s i s base do n asourc e achievin g th e MAC T ne w floo r leve l o f



# VE S 00032 9

## 2422 8 Federa

l Registe r / Vol

. 62 , No
. 85 /

Friday , Ma

y 2 , 199 7 / Propose dRule s
7 2 jig/dsc man dthe n applyin g AC I wit h a6 0 percen t

remova l efficiency

. Fo r th e sam e reason s identifie dfo r existin g sources , th e Agenc y i s concerne dabou t whethe r

thi s BT Fleve l base do n AC I wil l ultimatel y prov e t o b e cost-effectiv e fo r ne w cemen t

kil n sources . 4

. Particulate Matter (PM). a . MAC T floo r fo r existin g sources . A t proposal , E P A define dfloo r

contro l a s afabri c filte r wit h a n air-to-clot h rati o o f 2. 3 acfm/ft 2

. Th e floo r

analysi s le dt o aleve l o f 0.06 5 gr/dscf , bu t

du e t o concern s wit h th e appropriatenes s o f usin g a statistically-derive dvariabilit y factor , th e Agenc y instea destablishe dth e floo r standar dbase do n th e cemen t kil n Ne w Sourc e Performanc e Standar d(NSPS)

. Th e NSP S i s aproces s emission s rat e tha t convert s t o a n approximat e flu e ga s concentratio n o f

0.0 3 gr/dscf

. Today , EP A i s takin g commen t o n tw o dat aanalysi s method s t o identif y th e P M floo r

standar dfo r

cemen t kilns

. Th e firs t dat aanalysi s metho dwoul db e t o establis h th e floo r

standar dequivalen t t o th e NSPS , whic h i s 0. 3 lb s P M pe r to n o f dr y ra w materia l feed

. Currently , approximatel y 2 0 percen t o f H W cemen t kiln s ar e subjec t

t o th e NSPS

. Cemen t kiln s achiev e th e NSP S wit h well

designe dan dproperl y operate dESP s o r fabri c filters

. A secon ddat aanalysi s metho d considere dan dpotentiall y preferre d woul db e t o expres s th e NSP S a s astac k ga s concentratio n limi t a s don e i n th e NPRM
. Th e conversio n ofth e NSP S t o aconcentratio n standar dwil l var y b y kil n proces s typ e (e.g. , wet , dry , preheater , preheater/precalciner ) becaus e th e amoun t o f flu e ga s generate dpe r

to n o f ra w materia l fee d varie s b y proces s type
. Base do n typica l factor s o f

flu e ga s quantitie s generate d pe r to n o f ra w materia l fee dan dflu e ga s moistur e content , th e NSP S equate s t o a P M concentratio n o f approximatel y 0.0 3 gr/dsc f fo r we t proces s kiln s (als o th e leas t energ y efficient ) an d0.0 5 gr/dsc f fo r preheate r

kiln s (th e mos t

energ y efficient)

. Th e tota l H W cemen t kil n univers e i s comprise do f 4 1 kiln s wit h varyin g proces s types : 2 7 wet , 1 2 lon g dry , on e preheater/precalciner , an don e preheater

. O f

th e cemen t

kiln s currentl y subjec t t o th e NSP S standard , fou r ar e wet , tw o ar e lon g dry , on e preheater / precalciner , an don e preheater

. Notwithstandin g tha t th e concentratio n equivalen t o f th e NSP S ca n var y b y proces s type , establishin g th e floo r

standar dfo r

al l cemen t

kiln s a t 0.03 0 gr/dsc f

appear s t o b e appropriat e regardles s o f

manufacturin g proces s utilized , fo r

th e followin g reasons : (1 ) Th e majorit y (6 6 percent ) o f th e cemen t kiln s ar e we t

proces s kiln s fo r

whic h th e NSP S concentratio n equivalen t i s 0.03 0 gr/dscf

. Fo r thes e kilns , thi s floo r metho dwoul dno t

diffe r fro mth e initia l NSP S metho duse di n th e proposal

. (2 ) O u r databas e show s non-we t proces s kiln s hav e a t

leas t on e tes t

conditio n (i n additio n t o thre e quarter s o f al l non-we t proces s kil n data ) achievin g 0.03 0 gr / dscf

. Therefore , achievabilit y o f th e floo r appear s t o b e satisfied

. (3 ) Eve n thoug h we t

proces s kiln s typicall y hav e lowe r inle t grai n loading s tha n th e non we t processes , non-we t kiln s ar e achievin g th e 0.03 0 gr/dsc f level

. Again , th e achievabilit y requiremen t i s met
. Thus , th e Agenc y believe s tha t i t i s appropriat e t o establis h th e MAC T floo r fo r existin g source s a t 0.03 0 gr/dscf

. I n th e NPRM , th e Agenc y propose d tha t source s maintai n continuou s complianc e wit h th e P M standar d throug h th e us e o f

aP M CEMS

. A decisio n whethe r

t o requir e cemen t kiln s t o instal l aP M CEM S wil l b e mad e a t th e completio n o f

a n on-goin g demonstratio n testin g progra mt o determin e i f

a t leas t on e P M CEM S ca n mee t th e propose dperformanc e specifications

. Sinc e th e floo r standard s discusse dabov e wer e base do n manua l tes t metho ddata , th e Agenc y wil l re evaluat e a t

th e completio n o f

th e CEM S testin g progra mwhethe r thes e P M floo r standard s woul db e appropriat e i n th e even t tha t th e fina l rulemakin g require s continuou s complianc e wit h aP M CEMS

. Th e Agenc y wil l mak e availabl e th e result s an dconclusion s o f th e demonstratio n tes t

progra mi n th e docke t fo r th e HW C rule

. b

. BT Fconsideration s fo r existin g sources . I n th e NPRM , th e Agenc y considere daBT Fleve l o f 0.01 5 gr/dsc f base do n improve dP M control

. However , w e determine dtha t suc h a standar dwoul dno t likel y b e cost
effective

. W e di dno t hav e adequat e dat a t o ensur e that , give n th e hig h inle t grai n loadin g cause db y entraine dra w material , cemen t

kiln s coul droutinel y achiev e 0.01 5 gr/dsc f an dbelo w wit h a singl e fabri c filte r

o r ESP

. I n ligh t o f th e revise ddatabase , th e Agenc y agai n considere daBT FP M emission s leve l base do n improve dP M control

. Becaus e th e floo r leve l o f

0.03 0 gr/dsc f presente dtoda y i s th e sam e a s th e propose dfloor , aBT Fstandar d lowe r tha n 0.03 0 gr/dsc f

(eve n wit h correspondin g BT Freduction s fo r SVM s an dLVMs ) appear s no t t o b e cost
effectiv e base do n informatio n develope da t

proposal

. c . MAC T floo r

fo r ne w sources . A t proposal , th e Agenc y define dfloo r contro l a s afabri c filte r wit h a n air-to

clot h rati o o f

les s tha n 1. 8 acfm/ft 2

. Th e floo r analysi s lea dt o aleve l o f 0.06 5 gr / dscf

. Du e t o concern s wit h th e appropriatenes s o f

th e statistically

derive dvariabilit y factor , th e Agenc y instea destablishe dth e floo r standar d base do n th e cemen t kil n NSPS

. Th e NSP S i s aproces s emission s rat e tha t th e Agenc y converte dt o a n approximat e flu e ga s concentratio n o f 0.03 0 gr/dscf

. Upo n evaluatio n o f th e revise d databas e discusse dfo r existin g sources , E P A continue s t o believ e tha t th e floo r standar ddiscusse dabov e fo r existin g source s woul dals o b e appropriat e fo r ne w sources . Therefore , MAC T floo r contro l i s awell-designe dan dproperl y operate dP M contro l devic e (e.g. , fabri c filter , ESP) , an dth e MAC T floo r fo r ne w cemen t kiln s woul db e 0.03 0 gr/dscf

. d

. BT Fconsideration s fo r ne w sources . I n th e NPRM , EP A considere d aBT Fstandar dbase do n improve dP M contro l t o b e consisten t wit h existin g sources . However , w e foun dtha t th e B T Fleve l woul dno t b e cost-effective

. Today , a s discusse dabov e fo r existin g sourc e BT Fconsideration s an dbase d upo n examinin g th e revise ddatabas e i n ligh t o f th e finding s a t

proposal , aBT F standar dbeyon daP M leve l o f 0.03 0 gr / dsc f (an dcorrespondin g BT Freduction s fo r SVM s an dLVMs ) woul dno t appea r t o b e cost-effective

. 5

. Semivolatile Metals (SVM) (cadmium and

lead), a . MAC T Floo r fo r Existin g Sources

. A t proposal , EP A define dfloo r

contro l a s afabri c filte r wit h a n air-to-clot h rati o les s tha n 2. 1 acfm/ft 2an daH W MTE C o f 84,00 0 ug / dscm

. Th e propose dfloo r leve l wa s 5 7 ug/dscm

. Cemen t kiln s us e acombinatio n o f goo dP M contro l an dlimitin g hazardou s wast e feedrate s t o contro l SV M emissions

. SVM s ar e controlle dmos t efficientl y b y technologies , suc h a s fabri c filters , whic h ar e effectiv e a t capturin g fin e PM
. EPA' s databas e show s tha t

SV M emission s var y substantiall y fro m1 t o ove r 6,00 0 ug / dscm

. Th e engineerin g evaluatio n an ddat a analysi s metho duse db y EP A t o evaluat e an didentif y aMAC T floo r fro mth e revise ddatabas e i s a n extensio n o f

th e P M floo r

analyse s o f

th e revise ddatabase

. A s discusse di n th e P M analysis , afloo r o f 0.03 0 gr/dsc f coul drepresen t

MAC T base do n goo d P M control

. Sinc e SVM s ar e controlled , i n part , b y awell-designe dan doperate d P M contro l device , i t follow s tha t source s achievin g thi s P M performanc e leve l shoul dals o b e controllin g SV M emission s a t

typica l SV M feedrates

. Therefore , i n it s refine dSV M analysi s o f th e revise ddatabase , EP A woul dfirs t conside r

al l SV M dat awhe n correspondin g P M measurement s ar e belo w 0.03 0 gr/dscf

. T o identif y th e S V M floo r

fro mthes e data , w e woul d identif y th e floo r

a t th e leve l tha t



# VE S 00033 0

## Federal Registe r / Vol

. 62 , No
. 85 /

Friday , Ma

y 2 , 199 7 / Propose dRule s 2422 9
exclude s (b y breakpoin t analysis ) source s achievin g substantiall y poore r S V M contro l tha n th e majorit y o f sources . A s note dearlie r i n th e cas e o f HWIs , i t

i s appropriat e t o exclud e source s wit h significantl y poore r SV M performanc e becaus e thei r highe r SV M emission s ma y b e th e resul t o f exceedingl y hig h SV M feedrate s o r som e othe r facto r tha t show s th e tes t conditio n di dno t

actuall y reflec t

MAC T floo r controls

. Th e Agenc y doe s no t hav e availabl e informatio n t o otherwis e scree n ou t

thes e non-MAC T tes t condition s fro mth e expande dunivers e fo r SVM

. Th e Agency' s evaluatio n o f th e revise dcemen t

kil n SVM s dat aresult s i n aMAC T floo r

o f approximatel y 67 0 ug/dscm

. Approximatel y 8 5 percen t o f S V M tes t

conditio n dat aar e currentl y achievin g thi s emission s level

. Finally , a s discusse di n a n earlie r section , apreliminar y analysi s indicate s tha t MAC T standard s ma y no t b e warrante dfo r

on e HA P metal , antimony

. Sinc e th e numbe r

o f metal s bein g considere dfo r

MAC T standard s ma y change , w e ar e investigatin g th e appropriat e structur e o f metal s standard s (e.g. , retai n th e volatilit y group s o r

establis h individua l metal s standards)

. Usin g th e refine dmetho d discusse dabov e fo r SVM , w e analyze d th e revise ddatabas e wit h respec t t o C d an dP b data

. Th e floo r analysi s correspondin g t o P M measurement s belo w 0.03 0 gr/dsc f woul dresul t

i n th e followin g floo r

levels : C d6 0 ug/dscm , an dP b 56 0 ug/dscm

. b

. BT Fconsideration s fo r existin g sources . I n th e NPRM , th e Agenc y considere daBT Fstandar dfo r SVM s base do n improve dP M contro l belo w 0.03 0 gr/dscf

. However , th e Agenc y conclude dtha t

aBT Fstandar dwoul d no t b e cost-effectiv e give n tha t th e SV M Floo r leve l o f

5 7 ug/dsc malon e woul d resul t i n a n estimate d9 4 percen t SV M reductio n i n emissions

. A s discusse dfo r

P M BT F considerations , th e Agenc y als o re evaluate dth e possibl e appropriatenes s o f usin g areduce dP M emission s leve l base do n improve dP M contro l a s aBT F standar d(wit h correspondin g BT F reduction s i n SVM s an dLVMs)

. Eve n thoug h th e SV M floor standar di s highe r tha n a t proposal , ou r

preliminar y judgmen t

i s tha t significan t

cost
effectivenes s consideration s wil l likel y b e encountere di n afina l analysi s o f whethe r

t o establis h aBT Fstandar dfo r eithe r SVM s o r

fo r P b o r C d individually

. If , however , th e revise dris k assessmen t

ye t t o b e conducte dwoul d sho w significan t

ris k a t aSV M floor standar do f

eithe r 67 0 ug/dscm , th e Agenc y wil l determin e whethe r aBT F standar dbase do n contro l o f H W SV M feedrat e t o level s belo w thos e a t th e floor woul db e appropriate

. Thi s feedrat e limitatio n woul di n tur n reduc e S V M emissions

. Th e BT Fstandar dan d th e correspondin g leve l o f feedrat e contro l woul db e dictate db y consideration s o f

cost-effectivenes s an d th e nee dt o establis h mor e stringen t RCRA-relate dcontrols

. c . MAC T floor

fo r ne w sources . A t proposal , th e Agenc y define dfloo r control , base do n th e bes t performin g source , a s afabri c filte r wit h a n air-to

clot h rati o les s tha n 2. 1 acfm/ft 2an da H WMTE C o f

36,00 0 ug/dsc mTh e propose dfloo r

leve l fo r

ne w cemen t kiln s wa s 5 5 ug/dscm

. Upo n evaluatio n o f th e revise d database , EP A believe s tha t th e floo r contro l an demissio n leve l discusse d abov e fo r

existin g source s fo r SVM s woul dals o b e appropriat e fo r ne w sources . I n thi s event , MAC T floor contro l woul db e awell-designed , operate dan dmaintaine dP M contro l devic e (i.e. , fabri c filte r o r ESP ) achievin g th e P M floo r leve l o f

0.03 0 gr / dscf

. Th e Agency' s evaluatio n o f th e revise dSV M dat aresult s i n aMAC T floor o f 67 0 ug/dscm

. Finally , base do n th e revise d database , individua l meta l floo r level s fo r ne w source s ar e identica l t o thos e fo r existin g sources . Thus , individua l C d an dP b standard s are : C d6 5 ug/dsc m an dP b 55 0 ug/dscm

. d

. BT FConsideration s fo r ne w sources . I n th e NPRM , th e Agenc y considere daSV M BT Flevel , bu t determine dtha t

aBT Fstandar dwoul d no t b e cost-effective

. A s discusse dfo r

existin g sources , th e Agenc y considere damor e stringen t P M emission s leve l fo r

improve dcontro l o f P M , SV M an dLV M emission s fo r ne w cemen t kiln s i n ligh t

o f th e revise d database

. Eve n thoug h th e SV M floo r standar di s highe r

tha n a t proposal , ou r preliminar y judgmen t i s tha t significan t cost-effectivenes s consideration s wil l likel y b e encountere di n afina l analysi s o f whethe r

t o establis h aBT Fstandar d fo r eithe r SVM s o r

fo r P b o r C d individually

. 6
. Low Volatile Metals (LVM) (arsenic, beryllium, and

chromium), a . MAC T floor fo r existin g sources . A t proposal , E P A define dfloor

contro l a s eithe r

(1 ) afabri c filte r

wit h a n air-to-clot h rati o les s tha n 2. 3 acfm/ft 2an daH W MTE C o f 140,00 0 ug/dscm , o r (2 ) a n ES P wit h aspecifi c collectio n are ao f 35 0 ft 2 / kacfm

. Th e propose dfloo r leve l wa s 13 0 ug/dscm , whic h include dantimony

. Th e engineerin g an ddat aanalysi s metho duse db y EP A t o evaluat e th e revise ddatabas e an didentif y aMAC T floor fo r LVM s i s als o relate ddirectl y t o th e P M floor

analysis

. A s wa s determine di n th e P M analysis , afloo r o f 0.03 0 gr/dsc f

represent s MAC T fo r cemen t kiln s base do n goo dP M control

. Considerin g al l LV M dat afro msource s achievin g aP M leve l 0.03 0 gr/dsc f o r better , EPA' s evaluatio n o f th e revise d cemen t kil n dat awoul dresul t i n aLV M floor o f 6 3 ug/dsc m(excludin g source s abov e abreakpoin t

an dtherefor e excludin g thos e wit h substantiall y poore r LV M emission s tha n th e majorit y o f sources)

. Approximatel y 9 0 percen t o f cemen t

kil n LV M tes t

conditio n dat a ar e currentl y achievin g thi s emission s level

. Finally , a s discusse dfo r SVMs , EP A i s continuin g t o investigat e th e appropriat e structur e o f metal s standard s (e.g. , retai n th e volatilit y group s o r

establis h individua l metal s standards)

. Th e Agenc y analyze d individua l As , Be , an dC r (hexavalent ) dat aan destablishe dindividua l meta l floor level s consisten t

wit h th e engineerin g evaluatio n an ddat a analysi s method

. Wher e P M measurement s ar e belo w 0.03 0 gr/dscf , th e resul t

woul dbe : A s 1 0 ug/dscm , B e 1. 1 ug/dscm , an dC r (hexavalent ) 4. 6 ug/dscm

. Th e Agenc y i s concerne dtha t som e o f th e potentia l floor

standard s fo r

som e individua l metal s (e.g. , Be , C r (hexavalent) ) ma y b e presen t a t level s approachin g practica l quantitatio n limit s (PQLs)

. PQL s ar e th e lowes t leve l o f quantificatio n tha t th e Agenc y believe s acompeten t analytica l laborator y ca n b e expecte dt o reliabl y achieve

. Th e Agenc y wil l investigat e whethe r

thi s issu e ma y nee dt o b e addresse di n th e developmen t o f an y individua l metal s standard s tha t ma y b e considere dfo r

th e fina l rulemaking

. W e invit e commen t

o n th e issu e o f

PQL s an dLV M BT Fstandards

. b

. BT Fconsideration s fo r existin g sources . I n th e NPRM , th e Agenc y considere daBT Fstandar dfo r LVM s base do n improve dP M contro l belo w 0.03 0 gr/dscf

. However , th e Agenc y conclude dtha t

aBT FLV M standar d woul dno t

b e cost-effective

. A s discusse dfo r

PM , areduce dP M emission s leve l base do n improve dP M contro l coul db e considere di n evaluatin g apotentia l BT Fstandar d (takin g int o consideratio n correspondin g BT Freduction s i n LVM s an dSVMs ) fo r

existin g CKs

. Becaus e bot h th e P M an dLV M floo r level s presente dtoda y woul db e simila r t o th e propose dfloor, aBT Fstandar dfo r eithe r LVM s o r

individua l As , Be , an d C r (hexavalent ) standard s base do n improve dP M contro l woul dlikel y rais e



# VE S 00033 1

## 2423 0 Federa

l Registe r / Vol

. 62 , No
. 8 5 /

Friday , Ma

y 2 , 199 7 / Propose dRule s significan t

cost-effectivenes s concern s an dma y no t

ultimatel y b e appropriate

. c . MAC T floo r

fo r ne w sources . A t proposal , th e Agenc y define dfloo r control , base do n th e bes t performin g source , a s afabri c filte r wit h a n air-to

clot h rati o les s tha n 2. 3 acfm/ft 2an da H WMTE C o f

25,00 0 ug/dscm

. Th e propose dLV M floo r leve l fo r

ne w CK s wa s 4 4 ug/dscm

. Base dupo n ou r

re-evaluatio n o f

th e database , th e floo r

contro l an demissio n leve l discusse dabov e fo r existin g source s fo r

LVM s woul dals o appea r t o b e appropriat e fo r

ne w sources . MAC T floo r contro l i s awell-designe dan d properl y operate dP M contro l devic e (i.e. , fabri c filter , ESP ) achievin g th e P M floo r leve l o f

0.03 0 gr/dscf

. Th e Agency' s evaluatio n o f th e LV M dat a result s i n aMAC T floo r o f 6 3 ug/dscm

. Finally , individua l meta l floo r level s fo r ne w source s ar e identica l t o thos e fo r existin g sources . Thus , th e standard s woul dbe : A s 1 0 ug/dscm , B e 1. 1 ug / dscm , an dC r

(hexavalent ) 4. 6 ug/dscm

. d

. BT Fconsideration s fo r ne w sources . I n th e NPRM , th e Agenc y considere daLV M BT Flevel , bu t determine dtha t

aBT Fstandar dwoul d no t b e cost-effective

. A s discusse dfo r

existin g sources , th e Agenc y considere damor e stringen t P M emission s leve l fo r

improve dcontro l o f P M , SV M an dLV M emission s fo r ne w CKs

. Becaus e bot h th e alternativ e P M an dLV M floo r

level s presente dtoda y ar e lowe r

tha n th e propose dfloors , a B T Fstandar dfo r

eithe r LVM s o r individua l As , Be , o r C r (hexavalent ) standard s base do n improve dP M contro l ma y b e inappropriat e i n ligh t o f th e cost-effectivenes s concern s inheren t i n thi s scenario

. 7
. Hydrochloric Acid and Chlorine (HCl/Ch). a . MAC T floor fo r existin g sources . A t

proposal , th e Agenc y identifie dfloo r

contro l fo r

tota l chlorin e (i.e. , HC I + Cl 2 ) a s feedrat e contro l o f chlorin e i n th e hazardou s wast e a t a n MTE C no t

t o excee d1. 6 g/dscm , an d propose dafloo r

standar do f

63 0 ppmv . Whe n w e evaluate dth e revise ddatabas e prio r t o today' s notice , w e use dadat a analysi s metho dsimila r t o tha t use da t proposal

. Th e floor

contro l woul db e define dth e sam e wa y a s proposed , bu t th e floor

standar dwoul db e 12 0 ppmv . Thi s standar dshoul db e readil y achievabl e give n tha t 9 3 percen t

o f th e tes t condition s i n th e revise ddatabas e ar e meetin g tha t

level

. W e use dth e followin g dat aanalysi s step s fo r

bot h th e propose dstandar d an dtoday' s alternativ e standard : (1 ) Ran k emission s fro mlowes t t o highest ; (2 ) defin e a s floor

contro l th e highes t hazardou s wast e chlorin e MTE C fo r th e 6 percen t

o f source s 3 5 wit h th e lowes t emissions ; an d(3 ) defin e a s th e floor standar dth e highes t tes t conditio n averag e emission s o f an y tes t

conditio n operate da t

o r belo w th e floor

MTE C (i.e. , th e expande duniverse)

. W e the n refine dth e dat aanalysi s metho di n tw o respect s base do n a n engineerin g evaluatio n ofth e revise ddatabase : (1 ) W e di dno t

ad dacompute demission s variabilit y facto r 36 ; an d(2 ) severa l tes t condition s wer e delete dfro mth e expande dunivers e wher e a n engineerin g evaluatio n reveale dtha t SRE s wer e significantl y wors e tha n th e majorit y o f

othe r SREs

. I n th e cas e o f

tota l chlorin e emission s fo r CKs , i t

appear s no t

t o b e appropriat e t o us e abreakpoin t

analysi s t o scree n fro mth e expande dunivers e source s tha t ar e no t achievin g a n appropriat e remova l efficiency

. Thi s i s becaus e tota l chlorin e i s remove dincidentall y b y reaction s wit h th e alkalin e ra w material s (e.g. , limestone)

. Thus , i t i s difficul t

t o reaso n tha t

poo r SR E i s cause db y poo r

design , operation , o r maintenanc e o f

th e contro l system
. Nonetheless , w e believ e i t i s stil l appropriat e t o scree n ou t clearl y anomalou s SRE s becaus e the y ar e likel y Indicativ e o f

a n incorrec t

MTE C valu e o r emissio n measurement
. A n incorrec t valu e fo r

eithe r coul daffec t

th e floo r standard. 3 7 b

. BT Fconsideration s fo r existin g sources . A t

proposal , th e Agenc y define dBT Fcontro l a s we t scrubbin g wit h a9 9 percen t

remova l efficiency , bu t determine dtha t

aBT Fstandar d woul dno t

b e cost-effective

. Give n tha t th e alternativ e floo r leve l presente d toda y woul db e substantiall y lowe r tha n th e propose dfloor , aBT Fstandar d woul db e les s cost-effective

. Thus , w e believ e tha t

ou r fina l analysi s i s likel y t o conclud e tha t

aBT Fstandar dwoul d no t b e warranted

. c . MAC T floo r

fo r ne w sources . A t proposal , th e Agenc y define dfloor contro l fo r

ne w source s a s hazardou s wast e feedrat e contro l fo r chlorin e a t

a n MTE C o f

1. 6 g/dsc mo r

less

. Th e propose dfloo r

standar dwa s 63 0 ppmv , th e sam e a s th e floor standar dfo r existin g sources .

3 5O rwher e w e ha d dat a fro m fewe r tha n 3 0 sources , th e thre e source s wit h th e lowes temission s (i.e. , 3 represent s th e media n o f th e fiv e bes t performin g sources) .
3 0 S e e previou s discussio n i n th e text . A s w e discusse d a tproposa l (6 1 F Ra t17396) , th e compute d variabilit y facto r fo rthi s standar d resulte d i n a standar d tha tdi d no tcompor twit h engineerin g informatio n o n Ih e APCD s a tissue , engineerin g experienc e o n facilit y performanc e withi n thi s sourc e category , o rth e emission s database .

3 7Th e floo rstandar d withou tscreenin g th e anomalou s SRE s woul d hav e bee n 16 0 ppmv . Give n tha t th e alternativ e dat a analysi s metho ddiscusse dabov e fo r existin g source s di dno t chang e th e expande duniverse , excep t t o scree n ou t tes t condition s wit h anomalou s SREs , MAC T floor

contro l an dth e floor emissio n leve l woul db e th e sam e a s fo r existin g sources : hazardou s wast e feedrat e contro l fo r chlorin e a t

a n MTE C o f 1. 6 g/dsc mo r

less , resultin g i n afloo r standar do f

12 0 ppm v (i.e. , afte r screenin g ou t

tes t condition s wit h anomalou s SREs)

. d

. BT Fconsideration s fo r ne w sources . Th e Agenc y propose daBT F standar dfo r

ne w source s o f

6 7 ppm v base do n we t

scrubbing

. Give n tha t unde r th e revise ddat aanalysi s metho d discusse dtoda y th e floor standar d woul db e muc h lowe r tha n proposed , th e Agenc y believe s tha t th e economi c impac t analysi s bein g conducte di n suppor t ofth e fina l rul e i s likel y t o rais e significan t

concern s abou t

cost
effectiveness

. I n tha t event , th e Agenc y woul dpromulgat e th e 12 0 ppm v floo r standar dfo r

ne w sources . 8

. Carbon Monoxide (CO)

. Th e Agenc y propose dth e sam e MAC T floor standard s fo r

C O fo r existin g an dne w CKs , an ddetermine dtha t BT Fcontrol s woul dno t

b e cost-effective

. Floo r contro l wa s define dfo r kiln s wit h by

pas s duct s a s operatio n unde r goo d combustio n practice s an dth e standar d wa s 10 0 ppmv , HRA , measure di n th e by-pas s duct

. Fo r

kiln s withou t

aby

pas s duc t

(i.e. , lon g we t

an ddr y kilns) , n o C O standar dwa s propose dgive n tha t C O level s i n th e mai n stac k woul dno t b e a n indicato r

o f combustio n efficiency

. Thi s i s becaus e C O ca n b e generate db y proces s chemistr y (i.e. , dissociatio n o f

C0 2t o for mCO ) an d evolutio n fro mtrac e organic s i n th e ra w materia l feedstocks , a s wel l a s fro m combustio n o f

fuels

. Th e Agenc y continue s t o believ e tha t th e propose dC O standar dfo r kiln s equippe dwit h aby-pas s duc t woul db e appropriate

. However , unde r on e optio n bein g considere dfo r limitin g C O (an d HC ) emissions , kiln s withou t aby-pas s duc t woul dals o b e require dt o compl y wit h aC O limi t

base do n th e leve l achieve ddurin g th e performanc e tes t demonstratin g complianc e wit h th e H C limit

. Se e discussio n i n Par t Two , Sectio n ll.C

. Finally , th e Agenc y continue s t o believ e tha t

aBT Fstandar dfo r C O base do n bette r

combustio n practice s i s likel y t o rais e significan t cost
effectivenes s considerations

. 9
. Hydrocarbons (HC)

. Th e Agenc y propose dth e sam e MAC T floo r standard s fo r

H C fo r existin g an dne w CKs , an ddetermine dtha t BT Fcontrol s woul dno t

b e cost-effective

. Floo r



# VE S 00033 2

## Federa l Registe r/ Vol

. 62 , No
. 8 5 /

Friday , Ma

y 2 , 199 7 / ProposedRule s 2423 1

contro l wa s define dfo r kiln s wit h by

pas s duct s a s operatio n unde r goo d combustio n practice s an dth e standar d wa s 6. 7 ppmv , base do n a n hourl y rollin g averag e (HR A an dmeasure di n th e by-pas s duct

. Fo r kiln s withou t

aby

pas s duc t

(i.e. , lon g we t

an ddr y kilns) , floo r contro l wa s define da s goo d combustio n practice s an dus e o f ra w material s wit h relativel y lo w organi c content , an dth e standa r dwa s 2 0 ppmv , HRA , measure di n th e mai n stack

. I n evaluatin g th e revise ddatabas e fo r today' s notice , th e 2 0 ppm v standar d stil l appear s t o b e appropriat e fo r th e mai n stac k

o f lon g kilns 3 8

. Whe n considerin g by-pas s kilns , however , th e revise ddatabas e stil l lack s H C emission s dat afo r

th e onl y tw o CK s currentl y burnin g hazardou s wast e i n unit s equippe dwit h by-pas s ducts

. Thes e tw o source s ar e complyin g wit h th e BI Frule s b y documentin g tha t C O level s ar e belo w 10 0 ppmv , HRA. 3 9 Unde r on e attractiv e optio n fo r complianc e wit h th e C O an dH C standard s (i.e. , source s woul dhav e th e optio n o f

complyin g wit h eithe r th e C O o r H C standard ; se e discussio n i n Par t Two , Sectio n II.C) , w e woul dexpec t tha t thes e tw o source s woul dcontinu e t o compl y wit h th e C O limit

. Thus , i t ma y no t

b e necessar y t o establis h aH C limi t fo r them

. However , give n tha t i t ma y b e pruden t

t o establis h aH C limi t fo r thes e by-pas s kilns , w e woul d transfe r

th e goo dcombustio n practices

base dH C standar dfo r incinerators—1 0 ppmv , HRA—t o thes e kilns

. Thi s i s appropriat e because : (1 ) Goo d combustio n practice s i s floo r contro l fo r C O an dH C fo r

thes e kiln s a s wel l a s fo r incinerators ; an d(2 ) give n tha t th e goo d combustio n practices-base dC O standar di s th e sam e fo r incinerator s an dby-pas s kilns , th e goo dcombustio n practices-base dH C standar dshoul dals o b e th e same . A s discusse da t

proposal , th e Agenc y continue s t o b e concerne dabou t cost
effectivenes s consideration s relate dt o B T Fcontrol s fo r

H C base do n operatin g unde r bette r combustio n practices

. G

. Re-Evaluatio n o f Propose dMAC T Standard s fo r

Lightweigh t

Aggregat e Kiln s W e discus s i n thi s sectio n th e basi s fo r th e revise dstandard s fo r LWAK s tha t coul dresul t

fro mapplyin g variou s engineerin g evaluatio n an ddat a analysi s method s t o th e revise d emission s database 4 0

. A compariso n o f th e propose dan dpotentiall y revise d standard s fo r

existin g an dne w source s i s presente di n th e tabl e below : TABL E II.G:—REVISE D STANDARD S FO R EXISTIN G AN D NE W LWAKS 1

HA P o rHA P surrogat e Existin g source s Ne w source s HA P o rHA P surrogat e Propose d standar d Revise d

standar d Propose d

standar d Revise d

standar d D/ F (n g TEQ/dscm ) 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 H g (ug/dscm ) 7 2 4 7 7 2 4 7 P M (gr/dscf ) 0.03 0 0.02 2 0.03 0 0.02 2 HCI/CI 2 (ppmv ) 45 0 13 0 6 2 4 3 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 H C (ppmv ) 1 4 1 0 1 4 1 0 SV M (ug/dscm ) 1 2 7 6 5. 2 7 6 LV M (ug/dscm ) 34 0 3 7 5 5 3 7

1 Al l emissio n level s ar e correcte d t o 7 % 0 2 .
1

. Dioxins and

Furans (D/F)

. a . MAC T floo r fo r existin g sources . A t proposal , th e Agenc y ha dD/ Femission s fo r onl y on e LWA K

an dtherefor e poole dtha t LWA K dat apoin t

wit h D/ Fdat afo r

CK s t o identif y MAC T standards

. Consequently , floo r contro l an dth e floo r emissio n leve l fo r LWAK s wer e th e sam e a s fo r

CKs

. Th e propose dfloo r contro l wa s "temperatur e contro l a t th e Inle t t o th e fabri c filter 4 1 a t 41 8 °F" , an d th e propose dfloo r

emissio n leve l wa s "0.2 0 n g TEQ/dscm , o r temperatur e a t th e inle t

t o th e fabri c filte r

no t t o excee d 41 8 °F"

. Th e Agenc y reasone dtha t poolin g D/ Fdat afo r LWAK s an dCK s coul db e appropriat e becaus e bot h type s

•> * Th e Agenc y di d no tpropos e a H C standar d fo r th e mai n stac k o f

a preheate ro rpreheater / precalcine rkiln . Se e F E a t17397-8 . Th e Agenc y i s currentl y developin g MAC T standard s fo rnon wast e burnin g cemen tkilns , however . An y standard s tha tth e Agenc y ma y propos e tha tar c applicabl e to th e mai n stac k o f a preheate ro r preheater/precalcine rnon-wast e burnin g kil n ma y als o b e appropriat e fo rth e mai n stac k o f suc h hazardou s wast e burnin g kilns .
3 9Th e tw o kiln s operatin g wit h by-pas s duct s ar e Medusa' s facilit y i n Demopolis , AL , an d Lon e Star' s facilit y i n Cap e Girardeau , MO . W e not e tha t o f device s ar e designe dan doperate d similarl y wit h respec t t o factor s tha t

ca n affec t surface-catalyze dD/ Fformation

. Bot h LWAK s an dCK s hav e hig h P M inle t loading s comprise dprimaril y o f entraine dra w materia l an dbot h ar e equippe dwit h fabri c filter s tha t operat e withi n th e sam e temperatur e range . Commenter s o n th e propose drule , however , argue dtha t poolin g LWA K an dC K D/ Fdat awa s inappropriat e fo r purpose s o f

establishin g MAC T standard s fo r

LWAKs

. Sinc e proposal , th e Agenc y ha s obtaine dD/ Femission s dat afro mtw o additiona l LWA K facilities

. Thes e dat aar e include di n th e revise demission s databas e an dar e use d

Holna m ha s a lon g we tkil n i n Clarksville , M O tha t ha s bee n retrofitte d wit h a mid-kil n samplin g por t fo rpurpose s o f

monitorin g C O i n complianc e wit h th e BI F rule , Tha tmonitorin g approac h woul d b e acceptabl e unde rth e MAC T rul e a s well .
4 0Additiona l detail s ofth e engineerin g an d dat a analysi s evaluation s performe d o n th e revise d emission s databas e ca n b e foun d i n th e Agency' s backgroun d document : USEPA , "Draf tTechnica l Suppor tDocumen tfo rHW C MAC T Standard s (NODA) , Volum e I : MAC T EvaluaUon s Base d o n Revise d Database" , Apri l 1997 . t o identif y th e alternativ e standard s presente dhere

. Base dupo n evaluatio n ofth e revise d LWA K D/ Fdatabase , ou r engineerin g evaluatio n o f

th e dat aan dothe r informatio n o n LWA K performanc e suggest s th e floo r

contro l ca n b e specifie da s "temperatur e contro l a t th e inle t t o th e fabri c filte r

a t 40 0 °F"

. Thi s woul dresul t

i n afloo r

emissio n leve l o f "0.2 0 n g TEQ/dscm , o r 4. 1 n g TEQ / dsc man dtemperatur e a t th e inle t

t o th e fabri c Alte r

no t t o excee d40 0 °F'. 4 2 Give n tha t

th e entir e revise ddatabas e als o comprise s th e expande dunivers e (al l source s usin g floo r control ) th e highes t singl e ru n fo r

th e tes t

conditio n

4 1 Al l LWAK s currentl y burnin g hazardou s wast e ar e equippe d wit h fabri c filters .
4 2Th e standar d woul d b e expresse d i n th e for m o f a TE Q leve l combine d wit h a maximu m temperatur e a tth e P M contro l device . Thi s for m o f di e standar d i s consisten twit h th e revise d dat a an d woul d resul ti n somewha tlowe remission s (i.e. , becaus e withou tth e TE Q limit , som e source s coul d excee d tha tTE Q leve l a tth e specifie d temperature) . Thus , expressin g th e standar d i n thi s for m bette r achieve s th e statutor y mandat e to establis h standard s tha tprovid e th e maximu m degre e o f reductio n tha ti s achievabl e i n practice .



# VE S 00033 3

## 2423 2 Federa

l Registe r / Vol

. 62 , No
. 85 /

Friday , Ma

y 2 , 199 7 / Propose dRule s
wit h th e highes t

ru n averag e woul db e areasonabl e floo r

leve l fro ma n engineerin g perspective

. (Not e tha t i f thi s wer e alarg e dat aset , th e floo r leve l coul db e identifie dsimpl y a s th e highes t tes t conditio n average. ) Thi s floo r leve l i s mor e tha n 4 0 percen t highe r tha n th e highes t

tes t conditio n averag e (becaus e o f substantia l variabilit y amon g th e run s fo r tha t tes t condition) , an dthu s appear s t o b e a leve l tha t

LWAK s shoul db e abl e t o mee t routinel y usin g floo r control

. A s discusse dfo r

CKs , temperatur e contro l t o 40 0 ° Fo r les s i s appropriat e fo r floo r contro l because , fro ma n engineerin g perspective , i t i s withi n th e rang e o f

reasonabl e value s tha t coul d hav e bee n selecte dconsiderin g that : (1 ) Th e optimu mtemperatur e windo w fo r surface-catalyze dD/ Fformatio n i s 450

- 75 0 °F ; an d(2 ) belo w 35 0 °F , kil n ga s ca n fal l belo w th e de w poin t whic h ca n increas e corrosio n i n fabri c filter s an d reduc e performanc e o f th e contro l device

. I n addition , mor e tha n thre e LWAK s i n th e revise ddatabas e wer e operate da t

temperature s o f

40 0 ° Fo r les s (eve n thoug h w e d o no t hav e D/ F emission s dat afo r

them)

. Thus , thi s temperatur e leve l appear s t o b e readil y achievable

. Althoug h onl y tw o o f th e thre e LWAK s fo r

whic h w e hav e D/ F emission s dat aoperate dth e fabri c filte r a t 40 0 "Fo r

lowe r (th e thir doperate da t 41 7 °F) , w e hav e fabri c filte r operatin g dat afo r othe r LWAK s whe n performin g emission s testin g fo r othe r HAP s tha t documen t

fabri c filte r

operation s a t

40 0
° Fo r lower

. Th e LWA K

whos e fabri c filte r wa s operate da t

41 7 ° Fha dlowe r D / Femission s tha n akil n whos e fabri c filte r wa s operate da t

40 0 °F

. Thus , eve n thoug h ou r

engineerin g evaluatio n di d no t explicitl y includ e th e LWA K whos e fabri c filte r

operate da t

41 7 °F , definin g MAC T floo r

contro l a s "temperatur e contro l a t

th e inle t

t o th e fabri c filte r

a t 40 0 °F " di dno t

resul t i n alowe r

MAC T floo r emissio n leve l (i.e. , lowe r tha n 4. 1 n g TEQ/dscm)

. Rather , doin g s o ensure s tha t LWAK s wil l b e operatin g a t floo r level s consisten t

wit h soun doperationa l practice s fo r

controllin g D/F

. b

. BT Fconsideration s fo r existin g sources . Th e Agenc y propose daBT F standar do f

0.2 0 n g TEQ/dsc mbase do n A C I operate da t

atemperatur e o f

<40 0 °F

. Upo n evaluatio n o f th e revise dLWA K D / Fdatabase , LWAK s appea r t o b e abl e t o achiev e a0.2 0 n g TEQ/dsc mstandar d simpl y b y rapidl y quenchin g combustio n gase s a t th e exi t

o f th e kil n t o <40 0 °F , an dinsulatin g th e duct-wor k leadin g t o th e fabri c filte r t o maintai n ga s temperature s an davoi dde w poin t problems

. Althoug h th e dat aar e no t conclusive , an dfurthe r testin g i s warrante dt o confir mthi s approach , ou r engineerin g evaluatio n o f al l availabl e informatio n indicate s tha t thi s approac h shoul db e feasible. 4 3 I f thi s approac h prove s t o b e les s effectiv e tha n anticipated , the n AC I ca n b e use dt o achiev e th e BT Fstandard

. W e continu e t o believ e tha t thi s BT F standar di s appropriat e give n th e concern s th e Agenc y ha s expresse d abou t th e risk s pose db y D/ Femissions

. Se e discussio n regardin g aD/ FBT F standar dfo r

CK s a t 6 1 F R17392

. Further , aBT Fstandar do f 0.2 0 n g TEQ / dsc mwoul dpreclud e th e nee dt o provid e furthe r

control s unde r

RCR A authority

. c . MAC T floor

fo r ne w sources . A t proposal , th e BT Fconsideration s fo r n e w LWAK s wer e th e sam e a s fo r ne w CKs , an dth e propose dstandard s wer e th e same . Upo n evaluatio n o f th e revise dLWA K D / Fdatabase , th e floo r contro l an d emissio n leve l discusse dabov e fo r existin g source s woul dals o appea r t o b e appropriat e fo r

ne w source s (i.e. , "temperatur e contro l a t th e inle t

t o th e fabri c filte r

a t 40 0 °F " correspondin g t o a n emissio n leve l o f "0.2 0 n g TEQ / dscm , o r

4. 1 n g TEQ/dsc man d temperatur e a t

th e inle t

t o th e fabri c filte r no t t o excee d40 0 °F"

. Ou r engineerin g evaluatio n indicate s tha t th e bes t

controlle dsourc e i s on e tha t i s controllin g temperatur e contro l a t th e inle t t o th e fabri c filte r

a t 40 0 °F

. d

. BT Fconsideration s fo r ne w sources . Th e Agenc y propose dAC I a s B T Fcontro l an daBT Fstandar do f 0.2 0 n g TEQ/dscm

. W e continu e t o believ e tha t thi s BT Fstandar di s appropriat e fo r ne w source s fo r

th e sam e reason s discusse dabov e i n th e contex t o f existin g sources . Not e tha t BT Fcontrol , a s fo r existin g sources , woul db e define da s rapi dquenc h o f kil n ga s t o <40 0 ° Fcombine dwit h duc t insulation , a s required , o r

AC I operate da t

<40 0 °F

. 2

. Mercuiy (Hg ) a . MAC T Floo r fo r existin g sources . A t proposal , th e Agenc y identifie dfloor contro l a s hazardou s wast e feedrat e contro l no t t o excee da n MTE C o f 1 7 ug/dscm

. EP A propose dafloo r

standar do f

7 2 ug / dscm

. A l l LWAK s emplo y fabri c filter s an d on e sourc e use s afabri c filte r an d ventur i scrubbe r

t o contro l mercury . However , sinc e H g i s generall y i n th e vapo r for mi n an ddownstrea mo f th e combustio n chamber , includin g th e ai r pollutio n contro l device , fabri c filter s

« Se e USEPA , "Draf tTechnica l Suppor t Documen tfo rHW C MAC T Standard s (NODA) , Volum e I : MAC T Evaluation s Base d o n Revise d Database" , Apri l 1997 . alon e d o no t achiev e goo dmercur y control

. Mercur y emission s fro m LWAK s ar e currentl y controlle dunde r th e BI Frule , whic h establishe s limit s o n th e maximu mfeedrat e o f H g i n tota l feedstream s (e.g. , hazardou s waste , ra w materials)

. Thus , MAC T i s base do n hazardou s wast e fee dcontrol

. Revie w ofth e update dH g dat ai n th e revise ddatabas e indicat e tha t LWAK s d i dno t conduc t

H g spikin g o f

th e hazardou s waste s wit h th e exceptio n o f on e facility , an dthu s th e H g conten t i n th e waste s durin g testin g i s likel y representativ e o f

typica l operations

. Th e dat afro mthi s testin g als o sho w tha t ra w material s ca n represen t asignifican t sourc e H g inpu t

t o th e kil n system
. Sinc e th e bes t

performin g sources , measure db y H g emissions , d o no t emplo y adedicate ddevic e capabl e o f H g control , th e Agenc y believe s tha t th e H g dat aar e essentiall y "normal " eve n thoug h generate ddurin g wors t cas e complianc e testin g condition s fo r othe r parameters
. T o evaluat e thes e revise ddat afo r th e purpos e o f

determinin g aMAC T floor , th e Agenc y use dth e followin g dat a analysi s steps : (1 ) Ran k H g emission s fro mlowes t

t o highest ; (2 ) conduc t a breakpoin t

analysi s o n th e ranke dH g emission s data , an d(3 ) establis h th e floo r standar dequa l t o th e tes t conditio n averag e o f th e breakpoin t source . Th e breakpoin t analysi s reflect s a n engineerin g evaluatio n o f th e dat a an densure s tha t

th e on e sourc e tha t spike delevate dquantitie s o f H g di dno t driv e th e floo r

leve l upwar dt o level s highe r tha n th e preponderanc e o f thi s "normal " dat aindicate s i s routinel y achievable

. Th e Agency' s analysi s result s i n aMAC T floor leve l o f

4 7 ug / dscm

. Th e revise ddatabas e indicate s tha t approximatel y 7 5 percen t o f LWAK s ar e achievin g thi s floo r level

. b

. BT Fconsideration s fo r existin g sources . Th e Agenc y originall y considere daBT Fstandar dbase do n flue ga s temperatur e reductio n t o 40 0 ° F o r les s followe db y ACI , bu t determine d tha t aBT Fleve l woul dno t b e warranted

. E P A continue s t o believ e tha t flue ga s temperatur e reductio n t o 40 0 ° F followe db y AC I i s th e appropriat e BT F contro l optio n fo r

improve dH g contro l a t LWAKs

. A s discusse dabov e fo r existin g CKs , w e hav e assume da n AC I effectivenes s o f

6 0 percen t

i n identifyin g BT Flevel s fo r LWAK s fo r th e purpose s o f

today' s analysis

. Thus , th e BT Fstandar di s 1 5 ug/dsc mwhic h i s base do n aAC I efficienc y o f 6 0 percen t applie dt o th e floo r leve l o f

3 3 ug/dscm

. Goin g t o aBT Fstandar do f 1 5 ug/dsc mfo r

mercur y i s consisten t wit h th e rang e examine di n th e proposal

.



# VE S 00033 4

## Federa l Registe r / Vol

. 62 , No
. 8

5 / Friday , May 2 , 199

7 / Propose dRule s 2423 3

However , a t

proposal , significan t cost
effectivenes s issue s wer e raise d(an d commente dextensivel y on)

. I t i s likel y tha t thos e sam e issue s woul daris e her e wit h respec t

t o aBT Fstandar do f 1 5 ug / dscm

. c . MAC T floo r

fo r ne w sources . A t proposal , th e Agenc y identifie dfloo r contro l a s hazardou s wast e feedrat e contro l no t

t o excee da n MTE C o f 1 7 ug / dscm—th e sam e a s existin g sources . Thus , EP A propose da n identica l floo r standar do f

7 2 ug/dscm

. Fo r th e sam e reason s discusse dfo r existin g LWAKs , th e Agenc y believe s tha t th e mos t

appropriat e engineerin g evaluatio n an ddat aanalysi s metho dt o identif y th e floo r

leve l i s identica l t o th e analysi s don e fo r

existin g sources . Thus , th e MAC T Floo r

standar dwoul db e 4 7 ug/dsc mfo r

ne w LWAKs

. d

. BT Fconsideration s fo r ne w sources . Th e Agenc y considere daBT F standar dfo r

ne w source s base do n ACI , bu t determine dtha t

i t woul dno t

b e cost-effectiv e t o adop t th e BT Fstandard

. Th e Agenc y continue s t o conside r th e us e o f AC I a s th e BT Ftechnology

. I n evaluatin g th e revise ddatabase , EP A ha s identifie daleve l o f 1 5 ug/dsc ma s th e BT Fstandar dfo r ne w source s base d o n AC I an dflu e ga s temperatur e reductio n t o 40 0 ° Fo r less

. Thi s i s base d o n asourc e achievin g th e MAC T ne w floo r leve l o f

3 3 ug/dsc man dthe n applyin g AC I wit h a6 0 percen t remova l efficiency

. Again , i n ligh t o f th e reason s identifie dfo r

existin g sources , th e Agenc y ha s concern s a s t o whethe r a B T Fleve l base do n AC I wil l ultimatel y b e warrante dfo r

ne w LWA K

sources . 3

. Particulate Matter

(PM)

. a . MAC T Floo r fo r Existin g Sources

. A t proposal , E P A define dfloo r

contro l a s afabri c filte r wit h a n air-to-clot h rati o o f 2. 8 acfm/ft 2

. Th e MAC T floo r wa s 0.04 9 gr / dscf

. I n evaluatin g th e revise ddatabase , w e examine darefine dengineerin g evaluatio n an ddat aanalysi s metho dt o identif y aMAC T floor

. Thi s evaluatio n wa s afour-ste p process : (1 ) Ran k al l P M emission s dat aan didentif y th e MAC T floo r control s use db y th e bes t performin g 6 percen t o f sources . (2 ) Develo p th e expande dunivers e t o includ e al l source s employin g MAC T control , withou t

furthe r

characterizin g MAC T contro l (e.g. , air-to-clot h rati o o f th e fabri c filter ) a s don e i n th e proposa l becaus e w e d o no t

hav e sufficien t

dat a o n th e detaile ddesign , operating , an d maintenanc e characteristic s relate dt o tes t condition s i n th e revise ddatabase

. Sinc e al l LWAK s us e fabri c filter s fo r P M control , al l tes t

conditio n dat aar e include di n th e expande duniverse

. (3 ) F o r eac h P M tes t

condition , evaluat e th e correspondin g SV M SR E an dscree n ou t source s tha t hav e relativel y poo r SRE s (i.e. , outlier s abov e abreakpoin t i n th e dat aarray) , whic h i s a n indicato r o f poo r design , operation , an d maintenanc e characteristic s o f th e MAC T control s a t

th e source . (4 ) Identif y th e MAC T floo r equa l t o th e highes t tes t conditio n averag e o f al l tes t condition s i n th e P M expande d universe

. Th e Agency' s evaluatio n o f th e LWA K P M dat aresult s i n aMAC T floo r o f 0.02 2 gr/dscf

. Al l LWA K tes t conditio n dat aar e achievin g 0.02 2 gr/dscf

. LWAK s typicall y operat e a t highe r stac k oxyge n concentration s compare d t o othe r combustio n system s du e t o th e LWA K manufacturin g proces s (e.g. , exces s ai r

i s force dint o th e kil n t o ai d i n th e expansio n o f th e ra w materia l int o lightweigh t

aggregate)

. Typica l stac k oxyge n concentration s rang e fro m 1 2 t o 1 6 percent , whil e CKs , fo r example , typicall y rang e fro m3 t o 8 percent
. Sinc e th e standard s ar e expresse da t

7 percen t

oxygen , th e floo r standar do f

0.02 2 gr/dsc f

woul db e equivalen t

t o 0.01 4 gr/dsc f

a t 1 2 percen t oxyge n an d0.00 8 gr/dsc f a t 1 6 percen t oxyge n unde r

th e condition s tha t LWAK s typicall y operate
. I n th e NPRM , th e Agenc y propose d tha t source s maintai n continuou s complianc e wit h th e P M standar d throug h th e us e o f

aP M CEMS

. A decisio n whethe r

t o requir e LWAK s t o instal l aP M CEM S wil l b e mad e a t th e completio n o f

a n on-goin g demonstratio n testin g progra mt o determin e i f

a t leas t on e P M CEM S ca n mee t th e propose dperformanc e specifications

. Sinc e th e floo r standar d discusse dabov e wa s base do n manua l tes t metho ddata , th e Agenc y wil l re evaluat e a t

th e completio n o f

th e CEM S testin g progra mwhethe r thes e P M floo r standard s woul db e appropriat e i n th e even t tha t th e fina l rulemakin g require s continuou s complianc e wit h aP M CEMS

. Th e Agenc y wil l notic e th e result s an dconclusion s o f th e demonstratio n tes t

progra mi n th e docke t fo r th e HW C rule

. b

. BT Fconsideration s fo r existin g sources . I n th e NPRM , th e Agenc y propose daBT Fleve l o f 0.03 0 gr/dsc f an dsolicite dcommen t o n a n alternativ e B T Fleve l o f

0.01 5 gr/dsc f

base do n improve dP M control

. Base do n th e revise ddatabase , w e ca n evaluat e areduce dP M emission s leve l lowe r tha n 0.02 2 gr/dsc f

a s th e BT F standar d(i n conjunctio n wit h BT F reduction s i n SVM s an dLVMs)

. Thi s woul drequir e a n improve dP M collectio n technolog y suc h a s th e us e o f mor e expensiv e fabri c filte r ba g material

. Give n tha t th e alternativ e floo r leve l analysi s presente dtoda y woul db e substantiall y lowe r tha n th e propose d floo r an dBT Flevels , significan t cost
effectivenes s consideration s com e int o pla y an dsugges t

tha t BT Flevel s ma y no t ultimatel y prov e t o b e warranted

. c . MAC T floo r

fo r ne w sources . A t proposal , EP A define dfloo r contro l fo r ne w source s a s afabri c filte r wit h a n air

t o clot h rati o o f

1. 5 acfm/ft 2

. Th e MAC T floo r wa s 0.05 4 gr/dscf

. Base dupo n evaluatio n o f th e revise d database , th e floor

contro l an demissio n leve l discusse dabov e fo r existin g source s woul dals o appea r t o b e appropriat e fo r

ne w sources . Therefore , MAC T floor

contro l i s awell-designe d an dproperl y operate dfabri c filter , an d th e MAC T floo r

fo r ne w LWAK s i s 0.02 2 gr/dscf

. d

. BT Fconsideration s fo r ne w sources . I n th e NPRM , EP A propose da B T Fstandar do f

0.03 0 gr/dsc f

base do n improve dP M control , whic h wa s consisten t

wit h existin g sources . Today , a s discusse dabov e fo r existin g sourc e BT Fconsideration s an dbase d upo n examinin g th e revise ddatabas e i n ligh t o f th e finding s a t

proposal , aBT F standar dfo r

ne w source s beyon d0.02 2 gr/dsc f (an dcorrespondin g BT F reduction s fo r

SVM s an dLVMs ) woul d no t appea r t o b e cost-effective

. 4

. Semivolatile Metals (SVM) (cadmium and

lead), a . MAC T floo r fo r existin g sources . A t proposal , EP A define dfloo r

contro l a s eithe r

(1 ) a fabri c filte r

wit h a n air-to-clot h rati o o f 1. 5 acfm/ft 2wit h ahazardou s wast e (HW ) MTE C les s tha n 270,00 0 ug/dscm , o r (2 ) acombinatio n o f afabri c filte r

an d ventur i scrubbe r

wit h a n air-to-clot h rati o o f 4. 2 acfm/ft 2an daH W MTE C les s tha n 54,00 0 ug/dscm

. Th e propose d floor leve l wa s 1 2 ug/dscm

. LWAK s us e acombinatio n o f goo d P M contro l an dlimitin g hazardou s wast e feedrate s t o contro l SV M emissions

. SVM s ar e controlle dmos t efficientl y b y technologie s whic h ar e effectiv e at

capturin g fin e PM , suc h a s fabri c filter s whic h ar e employe db y al l LWAKs

. EPA' s revise ddatabas e show s tha t SV M emission s var y substantiall y fro m3 t o ove r

160 0 ug/dsc mwit h 6 0 percen t belo w 8 0 ug/dsc man dth e remainin g 4 0 percen t abov e 40 0 ug / dscm

. Th e refine ddat aanalysi s metho d use db y EP A t o evaluat e an didentif y a MAC T floor

woul db e base ddirectl y o n th e result s fro mth e P M floo r analyse s discusse dabove

. A s mentione dthere , 0.02 2 gr/dsc f

woul dappea r

t o represen t th e MAC T floor

fo r LWAK s base do n goo dP M control

. Sinc e SVM s ar e controlled , i n part , b y awell-designe d an doperate dP M contro l devices , i t follow s tha t

source s achievin g thi s P M



# VE S 00033 5

## 2423 4 Federa

l Registe r / Vol

. 62 , No
. 85 /

Friday , Ma

y 2 , 199 7 / Propose dRule s performanc e leve l shoul dals o b e controllin g SVM s emissions

. Therefore , i n it s refine dSV M analyse s o f th e revise ddatabase , th e Agenc y woul dfirs t

conside r

al l SV M dat awhe n correspondin g P M measurement s ar e belo w 0.02 2 gr/dscf

. T o identif y th e S V M floo r

fro mthes e data , w e identif y eithe r a t th e highes t

SV M tes t

conditio n averag e o r

th e leve l tha t

exclude s source s achievin g substantiall y poore r S V M contro l tha n th e majorit y o f sources . I t

i s mos t likel y appropriat e t o us e th e latte r

approach—excludin g source s wit h significantl y poore r SV M performance—becaus e thei r highe r SV M emission s ma y b e th e resul t o f exceedingl y hig h SV M feedrate s o r som e othe r facto r whic h i s no t

abl e t o b e discerne dfro mth e dat aavailabl e t o th e Agency

. A n SV M emission s breakpoin t analysi s i s th e approac h fo r excludin g thes e poore r

performin g tes t

conditions

. Applyin g thi s evaluatio n techniqu e t o th e revise dLWA K

SV M databas e result s i n aMAC T floo r

o f 7 6 ug/dscm

. Approximatel y 6 2 percen t o f LWA K S V M tes t

Conditio n dat aar e currentl y achievin g thi s emission s level

. Finally , a s discusse di n a n earlie r section , apreliminar y analysi s indicate s tha t MAC T standard s ma y no t b e warrante dfo r

on e HA P metal , antimony

. Sinc e th e numbe r

o f metal s bein g considere dfo r

MAC T standard s ma y change , w e ar e investigatin g th e appropriat e structur e o f metal s standard s (e.g. , retai n th e volatilit y group s o r

establis h individua l metal s standards)

. Usin g th e refine dmetho d discusse dabov e fo r SVM , w e analyze d th e revise ddatabas e wit h respec t t o C d an dP b data

. Th e floo r analysi s correspondin g t o P M measurement s belo w 0.02 2 gr/dsc f woul dresul t

i n th e followin g floo r

levels : C d5 3 ug/dscm , an dP b 6 7 ug/dscm

. b

. BT Fconsideration s fo r existin g sources . I n th e NPRM , th e Agenc y considere daBT Fstandar dfo r SVM s base do n improve dP M control

. However , th e Agenc y conclude dtha t a B T Fstandar dwoul dno t b e cost
effectiv e give n tha t

th e SV M floor

leve l o f 1 2 ug/dsc malon e woul dresul t i n a n estimate d9 7 percen t SV M reductio n i n emissions

. A s discusse dfo r

P M BT F considerations , th e Agenc y als o re evaluate dth e possibl e appropriatenes s o f usin g areduce dP M emission s leve l base do n improve dP M contro l a s aBT F standar d(wit h correspondin g BT F reduction s i n SVM s an dLVMs)

. Eve n thoug h th e alternativ e SV M floor standar di s highe r

tha n a t proposal , ou r preliminar y judgemen t i s tha t significan t

cost-effectivenes s consideration s wil l b e nonetheles s encountere di n afina l analysi s o f whethe r

t o establis h aBT Fstandar dfo r SVM s o r

fo r P b o r C dindividually

. If , however , th e revise dris k assessmen t

ye t t o b e conducte dwoul d sho w significan t

ris k a t aSV M floor standar do f

7 6 ug/dscm , whic h woul d b e th e floo r

leve l resultin g fro m applicatio n ofth e dat aanalysi s metho d discusse dabove , th e Agenc y wil l determin e whethe r

aBT Fstandar d base do n contro l o f SV M feedrat e t o level s belo w thos e a t th e floo r

woul db e appropriate

. Thi s feedrat e limitatio n woul di n tur n reduc e SV M emissions

. Th e BT Fstandar dan dth e correspondin g leve l o f feedrat e contro l woul db e dictate db y consideration s o f cost-effectivenes s an dth e nee dt o establis h mor e stringen t RCRA-relate d controls

. c . MAC T floo r

fo r ne w sources . A t proposal , EP A define dfloo r contro l a s a fabri c filte r

wit h a n air-to-clot h rati o o f 1. 5 acfm/ft 2wit h ahazardou s wast e (HW ) MTE C les s tha n 270,00 0 ug/dscm

. Th e propose dfloo r

leve l wa s 5. 2 ug / dscm

. Upo n evaluatio n o f th e revise d database , EP A believe s tha t th e floo r contro l an demissio n leve l discusse d abov e fo r

existin g source s fo r SVM s woul dals o b e appropriat e fo r ne w sources . I n thi s event , MAC T floo r contro l woul db e awell-designed , operate dan dmaintaine dP M contro l devic e (e.g. , fabri c filter ) achievin g th e P M floo r

leve l o f

0.02 2 gr/dscf

. Th e Agency' s evaluatio n o f th e SV M dat a result s i n aMAC T floor o f 7 6 ug/dscm

. Finally , base do n th e revise d database , individua l meta l floor level s fo r ne w source s ar e identica l t o thos e fo r existin g sources . Thus , individua l C d an dP b standard s ar e 5 3 ug/dsc mfo r C d an d6 7 ug/dsc mfo r Pb

. d

. BT Fconsideration s fo r ne w sources . I n th e NPRM , th e Agenc y considere daSV M BT Flevel , bu t determine dtha t

aBT Fstandar dwoul d no t b e cost-effective

. A s discusse dfo r

existin g sources , th e Agenc y considere damor e stringen t P M emission s leve l fo r

improve dcontro l o f P M , SV M an dLV M emission s fo r ne w LWAK s i n ligh t

ofth e revise ddatabase

. Eve n thoug h th e SV M floor standar di s highe r tha n a t proposal , a s discusse d above , cost-effectivenes s issue s ar e agai n raise dan dsugges t tha t aBT F standar dfo r

eithe r SVM s o r

fo r P b o r C d individuall y base do n improve dP M contro l ma y likewis e ultimatel y prov e t o b e inappropriate

. 5

. Low Volatile Metals (LVM) (arsenic, beryllium, and

chromium) a . MAC T Floo r fo r Existin g Sources

. A t proposal , E P A define dfloo r

contro l a s afabri c filte r wit h a n air-to-clot h rati o o f 1. 8 acfm/ft 2wit h aH W MTE C les s tha n

46,00 0 ug/dscm

. Th e propose dfloo r leve l wa s 34 0 ug / dscm , whic h include dantimony

. LWAK s us e acombinatio n o f goo d P M contro l an dlimitin g hazardou s wast e feedrate s t o contro l LV M emissions

. LVM s ar e les s likel y t o vaporiz e a t

combustio n temperature s an dtherefor e partitio n primaril y t o th e residu e o r

adsor b ont o particle s i n th e combustio n gas . EPA' s databas e show s tha t LV M emission s var y fro maroun d 2 0 t o 28 5 ug/dscm

. Th e engineerin g evaluatio n dat a analysi s metho duse db y EP A t o evaluat e th e revise ddatabas e an d identif y aMAC T floo r fo r LVM s i s als o relate ddirectl y t o th e P M floor analysis

. A s wa s determine di n th e P M analysis , afloor o f 0.02 2 gr/dsc f

represent s MAC T fo r LWAK s base do n goo dP M control

. Considerin g al l LV M dat afro msource s achievin g aP M leve l 0.02 2 gr/dsc f o r better , EPA' s evaluatio n o f th e revise d LWA K dat aresult s i n aLV M floo r o f 3 7 ug/dsc m(excludin g source s abov e a breakpoin t

an dtherefor e achievin g substantiall y poore r LV M emission s tha n th e majorit y o f sources)

. Approximatel y 7 1 percen t o f LWA K L V M tes t

conditio n dat aar e currentl y achievin g thi s emission s level

. Finally , a s discusse dfo r SVMs , EP A i s continuin g t o investigat e th e appropriat e structur e o f metal s standard s (e.g. , retai n th e volatilit y group s o r

establis h individua l metal s standards)

. Th e Agenc y analyze d individua l As , Be , an dC r (hexavalent ) dat aan destablishe dindividua l meta l floor level s consisten t

wit h th e engineerin g evaluatio n an ddat a analysi s method

. Wher e P M measurement s ar e belo w 0.02 2 gr/dscf , th e resul t

woul dbe : A s 2 2 ug/dscm , B e 3 ug/dscm , an dC r

(hexavalent ) 6. 2 ug / dscm

. Th e Agenc y i s concerne dtha t som e o f th e potentia l floor

standard s fo r

som e individua l metal s (e.g. , Be , C r (hexavalent) ) ma y b e presen t a t level s approachin g practica l quantitatio n limit s (PQLs)

. PQL s ar e th e lowes t leve l o f quantificatio n tha t th e Agenc y believe s acompeten t analytica l laborator y ca n b e expecte dt o reliabl y achieve

. Th e Agenc y wil l investigat e whethe r

thi s issu e ma y nee dt o b e addresse di n th e developmen t o f an y individua l metal s standard s tha t ma y b e considere dfo r

th e fina l rulemaking

. W e invit e commen t

o n th e issu e o f

PQL s an dLV M BT Fstandards

. b

. BT Fconsideration s fo r existin g sources . I n th e NPRM , th e Agenc y considere daBT Fstandar dfo r LVM s base do n improve dP M control

. However , th e Agenc y conclude dtha t a



# VE S 00033 6

## Federa l Registe r / Vol

. 62 , No
. 8 5 /

Friday , Ma

y 2 , 199 7 / Propose dRule s 24Z3 5

B T Fstandar dwoul dno t b e cost
effective

. A s discusse dfo r

P M BT F considerations , th e Agenc y als o re evaluate dth e possibl e appropriatenes s o f usin g areduce dP M emission s leve l base do n improve dP M contro l a s aBT F standar d(wit h correspondin g BT F reduction s i n SVM s an dLVMs)

. Considerin g tha t

th e alternativ e LV M floo r standar dwoul db e lowe r tha n a t proposal , ou r

preliminar y judgmen t i s tha t significan t

cost-effectivenes s consideration s wil l likel y b e encountere di n afina l analysi s o f whethe r

t o establis h aBT Fstandar dfo r eithe r LV M o r

fo r As , Be , o r

C r (hexavalent ) individually

. c . MAC T floo r

fo r ne w sources . A t proposal , EP A define dfloo r contro l a s a fabri c filte r

wit h a n air-to-clot h rati o o f 1. 3 acfm/ft 2wit h ahazardou s wast e (HW ) MTE C les s tha n 37,00 0 ug/dscm

. Th e propose dfloo r

leve l wa s 5 5 ug / dscm

. Base dupo n ou r

re-evaluatio n o f

th e database , th e floo r

contro l an demissio n leve l discusse dabov e fo r existin g source s fo r

LVM s woul dals o appea r t o b e appropriat e fo r

ne w sources . MAC T floo r contro l i s awell-designe dan d properl y operate dP M contro l devic e (i.e. , fabri c filter ) achievin g th e P M floo r leve l o f 0.02 2 gr/dscf

. Th e Agency' s evaluatio n o f

th e LV M dat awoul dresul t i n aMAC T floo r

o f 3 7 ug/dscm

. Finally , individua l meta l floo r level s fo r ne w source s ar e identica l t o thos e fo r existin g sources . Thus , th e standard s woul dbe : A s 2 2 ug/dscm , B e 3 ug/dscm , an dC r (hexavalent ) 6. 2 ug/dscm

. d

. BT Fconsideration s fo r ne w sources . I n th e NPRM , th e Agenc y considere daLV M BT Flevel , bu t determine dtha t

aBT Fstandar dwoul d no t b e cost-effective

. A s discusse dfo r

existin g sources , th e Agenc y considere damor e stringen t P M emission s leve l fo r

improve dcontro l o f P M , SV M an dLV M emission s fo r ne w LWAKs

. Becaus e th e alternativ e P M an d L V M floo r

level s presente dtoda y ar e lowe r an dapproximatel y equivalent , respectively , tha n th e propose dfloors , a B T Fstandar dfo r

eithe r LVM s o r individua l As , Be , o r C r (hexavalent ) standard s base do n improve dP M contro l ma y b e inappropriat e i n ligh t o f th e cost-effectivenes s concern s inheren t i n thi s scenario

. 6
. Hydrochloric Acid and Chlorine (HCl/Ch) a . MAC T floor fo r existin g sources . A t

proposal , th e Agenc y identifie dfloor

contro l fo r

tota l chlorin e a s either : (1 ) Hazardou s wast e feedrat e contro l o f

chlorin e t o aMTE C o f 1. 5 g / dsc mo r

less ; o r (2 ) ventur i scrubbe r wit h hazardou s wast e MTE C o f 1 4 g / dsc mo r less

. Th e propose dfloor emissio n leve l wa s 210 0 ppmv . Upo n evaluatio n o f th e revise d database , th e dat aanalysi s metho duse d a t proposa l appear s stil l t o b e appropriat e and , consequently , floor contro l woul db e define dvirtuall y th e sam e a s a t

proposal

. However , EP A n o longe r think s i t

appropriat e t o ad da compute demission s variabilit y facto r t o th e standard-settin g tes t conditio n fo r larg e dat aset s 44

. Thus , th e floo r emissio n leve l woul db e 130 0 ppm v rathe r tha n 210 0 ppmv . b

. BT Fconsideration s fo r existin g sources . A t

proposal , th e Agenc y define dBT Fcontro l a s we t o r dr y lim e scrubbin g wit h acontro l efficienc y o f 9 0 percen t an dpropose daBT Fstandar do f 45 0 ppmv . Th e Agenc y continue s t o believ e tha t we t o r dr y lim e scrubbin g ca n achiev e a t leas t 9 0 percen t

remova l o f

HC1/C12

. Therefore , th e revise dBT Fstandar d woul db e 13 0 ppm v assumin g tha t th e requisit e cost-effectivenes s informatio n continue s t o sugges t tha t aBT Fstandar d i s warranted

. Th e tw o LWAK s tha t ar e equippe dwit h we t

scrubber s achieve d emissio n level s belo w 4 5 ppmv . c . MAC T floor

fo r ne w sources . A t proposal , th e Agenc y define dMAC T floor contro l fo r

ne w source s a s a ventur i scrubbe r

wit h ahazardou s wast e MTE C o f

1 4 g/dsc mo r

less , an d identifie dafloo r

leve l o f

6 2 ppmv . A s fo r existin g sources , th e dat a analysi s metho duse da t proposa l fo r ne w source s i s appropriat e and , consequently , floo r contro l fo r

ne w source s woul db e define dth e sam e a s a t proposal

. Excludin g acompute d emission s variability , th e floo r emissio n leve l woul db e 4 3 ppm v rathe r tha n 6 2 ppmv . d

. BT Fconsideration s fo r ne w sources . Th e Agenc y di dno t propos e a B T Fstandar dfo r

ne w source s becaus e th e floo r

standar dwa s base do n bes t availabl e contro l technology : we t scrubbing

. W e hav e n o ne w informatio n i n th e revise ddatabas e tha t woul d indicat e tha t

thi s conclusio n a t

proposa l shoul db e revisited

. 7
. Carbon Monoxide (CO)

. Th e Agenc y propose daMAC T standar dfo r C O o f 10 0 ppm v base do n ahourl y rollin g averag e (HRA)

. W e continu e t o believ e tha t

thi s standar di s appropriat e fo r th e reason s expresse di n th e preambl e t o th e proposal

. 8

. Hydrocarbons (HC)

. Th e Agenc y propose daH C leve l o f 1 4 ppm v base d o n floo r

contro l usin g goo dcombustio n practices

. Althoug h w e continu e t o believ e tha t

floor contro l i s goo d combustio n practices , ou r engineerin g

4 4Se e discussio n i n Par tTwo , Sectio n ll.D . evaluatio n o f th e revise ddatabas e suggest s tha t

afloor standar do f

1 0 ppmv , HRA , ma y b e mor e appropriate

. Th e singl e LWA K

facilit y i n th e revise d emission s databas e tha t coul dno t achiev e aH C standar do f 1 0 ppm v (perhap s becaus e o f trac e organic s i n th e ra w material ) ha s stoppe dburnin g hazardou s waste
. Dat afro mtha t facilit y hav e bee n exclude di n th e revise d analysis

. Althoug h th e remainin g LWAK s appea r

t o b e abl e t o mee t

aH C standar do n th e orde r o f 6 ppmv , i t

ma y b e mor e appropriat e t o establis h th e standar da t

1 0 ppmv . Thi s i s becaus e w e ar e no t awar e o f

a n engineerin g reaso n tha t LWAK s usin g goo dcombustio n practice s shoul db e abl e t o achiev e lowe r H C emission s tha n incinerators

. Give n tha t

th e incinerato r

H C standar d woul db e 1 0 ppmv , tha t standar dals o appear s t o b e appropriat e fo r LWAKs

. 

### Par tThree : Implementation I. Compliance Date Considerations Th e Agenc y propose dtha t al l source s subjec t t o th e fina l rul e b e i n complianc e wit h th e fina l standard s thre e year s followin g th e effectiv e dat e ofth e rul e (6 1 F R17416)

. Th e propose d complianc e perio di s consisten t wit h th e CAA , whic h define s th e maximu m complianc e perio dfo r source s regulate d unde r th e statut e a s thre e years , wit h th e possibilit y o f

aone-yea r

extensio n fo r thos e source s tha t

adequatel y demonstrat e anee dfo r additiona l tim e fo r th e installatio n o f

emissio n controls

. Th e Agenc y propose dth e maximu m complianc e perio dallowe db y th e Ac t becaus e thi s rul e wil l likel y requir e th e majorit y o f

units , currentl y operatin g unde r RCR A regulations , t o underg o substantia l modification s t o com e int o complianc e wit h th e potentiall y mor e stringen t

fina l MAC T standards

. Th e genera l provision s o f 4 0 CF RPar t 6 3 d o no t

requir e ademonstratio n o f complianc e unti l 24 0 day s followin g th e complianc e date

. Thi s 24 0 da y perio d betwee n th e complianc e dat e an dth e demonstratio n o f

complianc e i s clearl y no t appropriat e fo r

HWC s becaus e thes e device s ar e presentl y regulate dunde r RCR A vi aenforceabl e operatin g limits , an di n thi s interi mperio dth e enforceabl e operatin g limit s woul db e undefine d(6 1 F R17415)

. Therefore , t o provid e consistenc y wit h th e currently-applicabl e RCR A regulator y complianc e scheme , th e Agenc y departe dfro mth e genera l requirement s applicabl e t o MAC T source s an dpropose darevise d definitio n o f

complianc e date

. Th e propose ddefinitio n o f complianc e dat e woul drequir e source s t o complet e installatio n o f

control s an dt o



# VE S 00033 7

## 2423 6 Federa

l Registe r / Vol

. 62 , No
. 8 5 /

Friday , Ma

y 2 , 199 7 / Propose dRule s
successfull y complet e performanc e testin g an dcertif y complianc e within th e three-yea r

complianc e period , no t b y adat e 24 0 day s afte r th e three-yea r complianc e period

. Id. I n additio n t o th e revise ddefinitio n o f complianc e date , th e Agenc y als o propose danumbe r o f extr aconsequence s fo r HW C source s tha t ar e no t i n complianc e b y th e complianc e date : (1 ) Immediat e terminatio n o f

waste-burnin g activities ; (2 ) los s o f

RCR A permi t

o r interi m status ; (3 ) arequiremen t t o obtai n ane w RCR A permit ; an d(4 ) complianc e wit h MAC T standard s fo r ne w sources . I n respons e t o th e proposal , th e Agenc y receive dcomment s suggestin g th e three-yea r

complianc e perio dwoul d b e impossibl e t o mee t du e t o anumbe r o f competin g factors , an dtha t mor e tim e woul db e necessar y t o compl y wit h th e rule

. Thes e factor s include dpermi t modification , installatio n o f controls , an ddocumentatio n o f compliance

. Furthermore , commenter s expresse d seriou s concern s abou t combinin g thes e factor s wit h th e consequence s o f missin g th e complianc e date

. Industr y commente dtha t

unde r thi s propose d approac h facilitie s engage di n legitimat e effort s t o compl y wit h th e standard s woul db e force dt o terminat e waste
burnin g activities , an db e subjecte dt o burdensom e consequence s tha t ar e unnecessar y t o protec t th e environmen t o r ensur e th e public' s safety

. However , EP A ha s becom e persuade d b y commenter s concern s regardin g th e abilit y o f

HW C source s i n particula r t o compl y wit h th e propose dstandard s b y th e complianc e date

. Source s wil l hav e t o modif y thei r

RCR A permits

. Further , som e source s ma y choos e t o pursu e wast e minimizatio n strategies

. Fo r thes e reasons , th e Agenc y i s considerin g certai n action s tha t

ma y b e finalize di n advanc e o f

th e fina l HW C rul e suc h as , th e streamline dpermi t modificatio n procedure s discusse da t 1745 5 i n th e proposal ; a s wel l as , th e wast e minimizatio n optio n fo r extensio n o f

th e complianc e dat e t o allo w fo r th e applicatio n o f

wast e minimizatio n control s t o mee t

th e fina l standard s discusse da t

17417

. Th e streamline d permi t modificatio n procedure s woul d reduc e th e administrativ e requirement s an dtim e necessar y t o begi n modificatio n procedure s require dt o compl y wit h th e fina l standards

. Th e wast e minimizatio n complianc e dat e extensio n option , whic h provide s a n additiona l avenu e fo r facilitie s t o reques t a n extensio n o f

th e complianc e date , woul daffor dfacilitie s tha t choos e t o institut e wast e minimizatio n measure s a n additiona l yea r t o complet e thes e actions

. However , eve n wit h th e specia l provision s unde r

consideration , source s ma y requir e th e ful l amoun t o f tim e allowe dunde r

th e CA A t o comply

. Therefore , th e Agenc y i s als o considerin g arevise dimplementatio n schem e tha t

wil l allo w fo r

asimplifie d approac h consisten t wit h th e implementatio n o f

genera l CAA-MAC T rules

. Thi s approac h woul dprovid e bot h additiona l relie f t o source s complyin g wit h th e fina l rule , an d informatio n regardin g asource' s complianc e statu s o n th e complianc e dat e fo r th e Agency

. Th e specific s o f thi s ne w optio n ar e explaine di n greate r detai l i n th e followin g paragraphs

. Comment s ar e requeste do n thi s ne w approac h t o implementin g th e HW C MAC T standards

. A

. Definitio n o f

Complianc e Dat e Today , th e Agenc y i s considerin g a revisio n t o th e propose ddefinitio n o f complianc e date

. Unde r thi s revise d approach , HW C source s woul dfollo w th e CAA-MAC T schedul e fo r demonstratio n o f

compliance , throug h MAC T performanc e testin g an d submissio n o f

tes t results , containe di n § 63.7

. Unde r

tha t section , affecte d source s mus t

conduc t

performanc e test s withi n 18 0 day s followin g th e complianc e date , an dsubmi t th e result s o f th e test s 6 0 day s followin g th e completio n o f

th e performanc e test. 4 5 Thi s CAA-base dapproac h respond s t o th e comment s questionin g ou r revise d definitio n o f

complianc e dat e an d woul dachiev e amor e consisten t implementatio n framework

. However , becaus e th e Agenc y i s concerne dabou t th e complianc e statu s o f affecte d source s o n th e complianc e date , th e Agenc y als o seek s commen t o n provision s t o enhanc e th e genera l requirement s fo r

HWC s wit h a requiremen t

fo r th e submissio n o f

a "precertificatio n o f

compliance " i n th e fina l rule

. A precertificatio n o f complianc e woul drequir e facilitie s t o precertif y thei r

complianc e statu s o n th e complianc e date

. Th e detail s ofth e precertificatio n o f

complianc e ar e describe di n greate r detai l i n th e followin g paragraphs

. B
. Pre-Certificatio n o f Complianc e Toda y th e EP A i s seekin g commen t o n a n optio n whic h woul drequir e source s t o submi t

anotificatio n t o regulator y agencie s tha t

detail s th e operatin g limit s auni t wil l b e operate dunde r i n th e interi mperio dfollowin g th e complianc e

4 5I n th e HW C propose d rule , however , th e Agenc y allowe d source s 9 0 day s to submi ttes t result s becaus e D/ F analyse s ca n requir e mor e tim e tha n traditiona l MAC T analyses . W e continu e to believ e tha tthi s 90-da y allowanc e i s appropriate . dat e bu t befor e th e result s o f th e initia l comprehensiv e performanc e tes t ar e submitted

. Thi s notification , th e precertificatio n o f

compliance , woul d includ e al l o f

th e informatio n necessar y t o determin e th e complianc e statu s o f a n affecte dsourc e (e.g. , automati c wast e fee dcutof f

limits , feedrat e limits , emissio n contro l devic e operatin g limits , etc. ) durin g th e 24 0 da y perio d afte r th e complianc e date

. A t a minimum , th e facilit y woul db e require dt o establis h operatin g limit s o n a l l o f th e parameter s identifie di n th e propose dmonitorin g requirement s foun di n tabl e V
. 2. 1 a t 1741 9 ofth e propose drule

. Thi s approac h i s appropriat e becaus e thes e facilitie s ar e alread y regulate dunde r RCRA

. Ther e shoul dno t

b e an y ambiguit y fo r thes e facilitie s i n term s o f bein g betwee n regulator y regime s a t an y poin t

i n time

. T h e operatin g limit s i n th e precertificatio n o f

complianc e woul db e enforceabl e limits. 4 6However , i f followin g th e initia l comprehensiv e performanc e test , th e facility' s precertificatio n o f

complianc e designate doperatin g limit s ar e foun dt o hav e bee n inadequat e t o ensur e complianc e wit h th e MAC T standards , th e facilit y wil l no t

b e deeme dou t

o f complianc e wit h th e MAC T emission s standards

. EP A invite s commen t o n thi s approach , an dspecificall y invite s commen t

o n th e necessit y o f establishin g operatin g limit s o n th e entir e se t

o f parameter s identifie di n tabl e V.2.1

. C

. Consequence s o f Non-complianc e A s mentione dearlier , th e Agenc y propose danumbe r o f seriou s consequence s tha t

woul dbefal l asourc e tha t misse s th e complianc e dat e (6 1 F R 17416)

. Th e Agenc y propose dthes e consequence s t o provid e a n incentiv e fo r affecte dsource s t o mov e swiftl y t o compl y wit h th e fina l standards

. I n respons e t o th e proposal , throug h writte n comment s fromindustr y an d durin g roun dtabl e discussion s wit h

•"•Th e Agenc y note s tha tunde rthi s schem e facilitie s ar e stil l subjec tt o th e RCR A emissio n limitations , an d th e associate d operatin g limit s an d enforcemen taction s unti l remova l o f th e ai r emissio n limitation s fro m th e RCR A permit . However , becaus e o n th e complianc e dat e al l facilitie s mus tb e complianc e wit h th e emissio n standard s ofth e fina l MAC T rule , th e Pre-CO C operatin g limits , whic h ar e expecte d to b e mor e stringen ttha n curren tRCR A emissio n standards , tak e precedenc e ove r th e RCR A permi tlimit s excep t wher e th e RCR A permi tlimit s ar e base d o n a mor e stringen tstandar d adopte d unde rth e Omnibu s provision s o f

RCR A sectio n 3005 . Furthermore , EP A note s tha tcomplianc e wit h Pre-CO C operatin g limit s tha tar e base d o n standard s tha tar e mor e stringen ttha n RCR A emissio n standard s assure s complianc e wit h th e RCR A base d emissio n standards .



# VE S 00033 8

## Federa l Registe r / Vol

. 62 , No
. 85 /

Friday , Ma

y 2 , 199 7 / Propose dRule s 2423 7
affecte dparties , th e Agenc y receive d informatio n suggestin g tha t impositio n o f thes e consequence s throug h regulator y languag e wa s unnecessary . Consequently , th e Agenc y i s considerin g deletin g thos e specifi c consequence s fro mth e regulator y languag e an drelyin g o n th e regulatin g agency' s polic y regardin g enforcemen t respons e t o gover n th e typ e o f enforcemen t

respons e a t

afacilit y tha t fail s t o mee t

th e complianc e deadline

. Upo n revie w o f

thi s enforcemen t process , th e Agenc y i s presentl y incline dt o appl y th e norma l CA A enforcemen t

procedure s t o non complian t

source s i n th e fina l rul e fo r hazardou s wast e combustors

. II. Compliance Requirements I n thi s section , w e discus s severa l complianc e issues : (1 ) Complianc e wit h carbo n monoxid e (CO ) and/o r H C emissio n standards ; (2 ) complianc e wit h astartup , shutdown , an dmalfunctio n pla n whe n no t

burnin g hazardou s waste ; (3 ) metal s extrapolatio n an d interpolatio n considerations ; (4 ) site

specifi c variance s fo r cemen t kiln s an d LWAK s becaus e o f

inabilit y t o mee t

th e standard s solel y du e t o metal s o r chlorin e i n ra w materials ; an d(5 ) emission s averagin g fo r cemen t kiln s wit h uniqu e desig n o r operatin g features

. A

. Complianc e Wit h C O and/o r H C Emissio n Standard s Th e Agenc y propose dMAC T emissio n standard s fo r bot h C O an dH C fo r incinerator s an dLWAK s a s surrogate s t o contro l emission s o f organi c HAPs

. Cemen t kiln s woul db e require dt o compl y wit h eithe r aC O o r H C standar dbecaus e o f ra w materia l considerations

. Se e 6 1 F Ra t 17375-6

. Th e Agenc y explaine dtha t relyin g o n onl y C O o r

H C alon e appeare dt o hav e drawbacks , an dthu s propose dtha t incinerator s an dLWAK s compl y wit h emission s standard s fo r both

. Nonetheless , th e Agenc y acknowledge d tha t requirin g complianc e wit h standard s fo r

bot h C O an dH C ma y b e unnecessaril y redundant , an drequeste d commen t

o n th e followin g alternativ e approaches : (1 ) Givin g source s th e optio n o f

complyin g wit h eithe r C O o r H C ; o r (2 ) establishin g aMAC T standar d fo r eithe r C O o r HC , bu t

no t both

. Althoug h th e Agenc y i s continuin g t o evaluat e comment s an doption s 4 7 o n

4 7W e ar e als o evaluatin g anothe r optio n whereb y complianc e wit h th e H C limi twoul d b e required , an d a site-specifi c C O limi t(bu tno tlowe r tha n 10 0 ppmv , th e propose d MAC T standard ) woul d als o b e established . Thi s optio n woul d provid e assuranc e tha tH C emission s ar e withi n allowabl e levels , an d b y als o limitin g CO , i twoul d giv e th e operato r ho w t o limi t C O and/o r

H C t o contro l organi c HAPs , w e invit e commen t o n a n additiona l featur e o f th e firs t

optio n whereb y asourc e ca n elec t t o compl y wit h eithe r

th e C O o r

H C standard

. Unde r thi s approach , asourc e tha t elect s t o compl y wit h th e C O standar d (rathe r tha n th e H C standard ) woul db e require dt o documen t durin g th e performanc e tes t

complianc e wit h th e H C limit

. Thi s i s necessar y becaus e w e hav e som e (limited ) dat atha t sho w a sourc e ca n hav e H C level s exceedin g th e standar ddiscusse di n today' s notic e whil e meetin g th e C O limit

. Eve n thoug h th e vas t

majorit y o f

th e dat a indicat e tha t

H C wil l b e lo w whe n C O level s ar e low , arequiremen t t o confir m thi s relationshi p o n asite-specifi c basi s ma y b e warranted

. T o confir mth e relationshi p durin g th e performanc e test , th e sourc e woul d us e aportabl e H C monito r t o documen t tha t H C level s ar e belo w th e MAC T standard

. Thi s i s no t expecte dt o b e a burdensom e test
. Further , however , t o ensur e tha t

th e CO/H C relationshi p i s maintaine dove r

th e rang e o f

operatin g condition s tha t

th e facilit y ma y ultimatel y employ , w e ar e considerin g whethe r

t o requir e th e sourc e t o establis h limit s o n ke y operatin g parameter s tha n ca n affec t combustio n efficienc y (an dthu s H C emissions)

. Th e limit s woul db e establishe dbase do n paramete r

value s observe dwhil e demonstratin g th e CO/H C relationshi p durin g th e performanc e test
. W e specificall y reques t commen t

o n whic h ke y parameter s shoul db e limite d t o ensur e tha t

th e CO/H C relationshi p i s maintained

. Further , w e reques t commen t

o n whethe r

thes e ke y parameter s shoul db e identifie do n a nationa l basi s o r

asite-specifi c basi s durin g revie w ofth e performanc e tes t protocol

. I n providin g comment , not e tha t th e Agenc y ha s alread y propose dt o establis h site-specifi c limit s o n severa l combustion-relate dparameter s t o ensur e complianc e wit h th e D/ F emissio n standar d(e.g. , minimu m combustio n chambe r temperature ; maximu mwast e feedrate ; an dfo r batc h fe dunits , maximu mbatc h siz e an d feedin g frequency , an dminimu m oxyge n concentratio n i n th e combustio n gas)

. I n addition , not e tha t i t ma y b e appropriat e t o identif y a s ke y parameter s (fo r

purpose s o f

ensurin g tha t th e CO/H C relationshi p i s maintained ) thos e parameter s fo r whic h limit s ar e currentl y establishe ddurin g destructio n an dremova l efficienc y (DRE ) testing , including : (1 ) Minimu m

advanc e notic e o f

a potentia l increas e i n H C levels , thu s helpin g to avoi d a n exceedanc e o f th e H C standard . combustio n temperatur e a t eac h combustio n chambe r o r fee dlocation ; (2 ) minimu mcombustio n ga s residenc e tim e (i.e. , maximu mcombustio n ga s velocity , o r

appropriat e surrogate) ; an d (3 ) minimu mcombustio n ga s oxyge n concentration

. I f

th e Agenc y determine s tha t DR E testin g i s no t

necessar y fo r som e type s o f

source s a s discusse di n Sectio n II I below , testin g t o documen t th e CO/H C relationshi p woul db e use d t o establis h limit s o n thes e heretofor e DRE-limite dparameters
. B
. Startup , Shutdown , an dMalfunctio n Plan s T h e Agenc y propose dtha t startup , shutdow n an dmalfunctio n plan s ar e no t necessar y fo r

hazardou s wast e combustio n source s becaus e th e allowance s tha t

suc h plan s provid e ar e no t appropriat e fo r

hazardou s wast e combustor s (6 1 F R17449)

. Specifically , th e Agenc y state dtha t EP A di dno t

nee d informatio n regardin g ho w quickl y a sourc e i s abl e t o correc t amalfunctio n t o com e bac k

int o complianc e wit h th e standard s becaus e affecte dsource s canno t bur n wast e unles s th e sourc e i s i n complianc e wit h al l applicabl e standards

. However , i n comments , th e Agenc y wa s informe do f

afe w situation s i n whic h i t

i s appropriat e fo r

source s t o compl y wit h astartup , shutdown , an d malfunctio n plan

. Thes e situation s includ e thos e i n whic h source s temporaril y sto p burnin g hazardou s wast e bu t

inten dt o resum e burnin g hazardou s wast e i n th e nea r future

. Th e example s presente dt o th e Agenc y involv e productio n unit s (i.e. , cemen t kilns , LWAKs , an dpossibl y on-sit e incinerator s equippe dwit h wast e hea t boiler s t o generat e stea mo r hea t a t a chemica l productio n facility ) tha t mus t continu e operation s followin g wast e fee dcutof f

t o maintai n productio n a t th e facility

. Also , commenter s cite d temporar y shutdown s necessar y fo r planne dmaintenanc e t o b e performe d o n th e unit

. I n ligh t o f thes e comments , th e Agenc y i s rethinkin g it s propose d approac h an drequest s commen t o n a requiremen t

fo r source s t o compl y wit h th e provision s liste di n § 63. 7 regardin g startup , shutdow n an dmalfunctio n plans , includin g th e reportin g requirement s o f

§63.10(d)(5)(I)

. Thes e provision s woul dappl y a t HWC s whe n wast e i s no t

bein g fe do r

doe s no t remai n i n th e combustor , excludin g automati c wast e fee dcutof f events
. Source s woul db e subjec t t o th e standard s a t

al l times , an dth e malfunctio n pla n woul donl y appl y durin g time s whe n th e sourc e i s eithe r temporaril y no t

burnin g wast e o r

whe n



# VE S 00033 9

## 2423 8 Federa

l Registe r / Vol

. 62 , No
. 85 /

Friday , Ma

y 2 , 199 7 / Propose dRule s

wast e n o longe r

remain s i n th e combustor

. Fo r

example , i f

asourc e i s temporaril y no t

burnin g wast e an da malfunctio n occur s tha t i s followe db y a n exceedanc e o f

a n applicabl e standard , th e sourc e wil l no t b e i n violatio n a s lon g a s i t i s complyin g wit h th e procedure s outline di n th e malfunctio n plan

. O n th e othe r hand , i f asourc e i s burnin g wast e an da malfunctio n occur s tha t necessitate s a n automati c wast e fee dcutof f followe db y a n exceedenc e o f

astandard , th e sourc e woul db e i n violatio n regardles s o f whethe r

th e sourc e i s complyin g wit h th e malfunctio n plan. 4 8 Therefore , unde r

thi s option , asourc e ma y develo p amalfunctio n pla n tha t detail s th e situation s i n whic h th e sourc e i s intentionall y no t feedin g waste , o r

tha t detail s th e situation s whe n certai n emissio n contro l device s wil l no t b e i n operation

. C

. Metal s Extrapolatio n an d Interpolatio n Consideration s I n th e NPRM , th e Agenc y discusse d th e operatin g condition s unde r whic h a sourc e wil l likel y operat e t o demonstrat e complianc e wit h th e metal s emissio n limit s identifie di n th e propose drul e (6 1 F Ra t 17428-30)

. Th e Agenc y als o acknowledge di n th e proposa l tha t

operator s wil l likel y wan t t o operat e thei r

unit s durin g comprehensiv e performanc e test s clos e t o th e edg e o f

th e operatin g envelop e s o tha t the y ca n compl y wit h th e emissio n standard s an dstil l achiev e th e necessar y operationa l flexibilit y require db y th e facility

. EP A furthe r state dthat , t o achiev e asufficien t leve l o f operationa l flexibility , source s coul d b e expecte dt o engag e i n th e spikin g o f metal s int o th e wast e matrix , whic h i s apractic e tha t

concern s th e Agency

. EPA' s concer n extend s t o th e overal l metal s loadin g t o th e environmen t (fo r example , H g an dPb) , exposur e o f facilit y employees , an dexposur e o f surroundin g communit y t o highe r tha n norma l metal s concentration s du e t o testin g procedure s tha t ar e fo r th e purpose s o f

developin g wast e feedrat e limit s an doperationa l flexibility

. Therefore , th e Agenc y ha s investigate dapproache s tha t ma y provid e ametho dt o affor dadditiona l metal s feedrat e flexibilit y withou t th e nee do f hig h metal s spikin g (otherwis e necessar y t o identif y ametal s feedrat e fo r a n associate dmetal s emissio n

4 8Thi s situatio n woul d b e considere d a violatio n unles s th e sourc e ca n documen ttha tth e exceedanc e occurre d afte r wast e wa s n o longe r i n th e combusto r an d th e residual s o f th e wast e combustio n proces s ha d bee n treate d b y th e pollutio n contro l equipment . level). 4 9 On e promisin g approac h woul d us e astatistica l extrapolatio n methodology. 5 0 Unde r thi s approac h asourc e woul d us e th e meta l feedrate s an demissio n rate s associate dwit h aMAC T performanc e tes t

t o extrapolat e t o highe r allowabl e feedrate s an demissio n rates
. Th e Agenc y believe s tha t th e upwar d extrapolatio n procedur e develope dca n conservativel y b e use dt o allo w fo r highe r metal s feedrat e limits , bu t stil l ensur e tha t

th e facilit y i s wel l withi n an y applicabl e MAC T (o r RCRA ) emission s limit. 5 1 Althoug h downwar d interpolatio n (i.e. , betwee n th e measure dfeedrat e an demissio n leve l an dzero ) wa s als o investigated , th e Agenc y i s concerne dtha t downwar d interpolatio n ma y no t b e conservativ e primaril y becaus e syste mremova l efficienc y decrease s a s meta l feedrat e decreases

. Thus , projecte demission s a t lowe r feedrate s ma y i n fac t b e lowe r tha n actua l emissions

. Consequently , th e Agenc y i s no t

incline dt o allo w downwar dinterpolation

. Th e Agenc y expect s tha t an y extrapolatio n methodolog y woul db e reviewe dan dapprove db y regulator y officials

. Source s woul dreques t approva l t o extrapolat e feedrate s a s par t o f th e performanc e tes t pla n tha t

woul d b e submitte da t

leas t 6 0 day s prio r

t o th e tes t date

. Se e § 63.7(b ) an d(c ) an d

4 D Se e USEPA , Draf tTechnica l Suppor tDocumen t fo rHW C MAC T Standard s (NODA) , Volum e 1TJ: Evaluatio n o f

Meta l Emission s Databas e to Investigat e Extrapolatio n an d Interpolatio n Issues , Apri l 1997 .
5 0Extrapolation s woul d b e base d o n applyin g a conservativ e "universa l variabilit y factor " (UVF ) multiplie rto th e tes tconditio n average . Th e UV F i s base d o n evaluatin g within-tes tconditio n emission s variabilit y fo reac h meta l i n th e Agency' s tria l bur n an d BI F certificatio n o f complianc e meta l emission s database . Itrepresent s (i n lo g form ) a "residual " leve l tha t9 5 percen to f th e residua l populatio n i s below , wher e th e residua l i s define d a s th e differenc e betwee n th e lo g o f th e emissio n leve l fo reac h tes tconditio n ru n an d th e lo g o f th e tes tconditio n average . Th e UV F woul d rang e fro m 3 x t o 5 x dependin g o n th e volatilit y groupin g fo r th e metal . Give n th e conservatis m o f th e UVF , a les s conservativ e approac h woul d b e use d (i.e. , meldin g extrapolatin g usin g th e UV F wit h extrapolatin g fro m th e highes tru n i n a tes tcondition ) t o extrapolat e to feedrat e an d emissio n level s clos e t o level s actuall y tested .
5 1 Unde rth e extrapolatio n approach , source s woul d b e require d t o fee d metal s a tn o les s tha n norma l rate s t o narro w th e amoun to f extrapolatio n sought . Further , w e expec ttha tsom e spikin g woul d b e desire d to increas e confidenc e i n th e measure d feedrat e level s tha twil l b e use d t o projec thighe r allowabl e feedrate s (i.e. , th e error s associate d wit h samplin g an d analyzin g heterogeneou s wastestream s ca n b e minimize d b y spikin g know n quantities) . However , th e Agenc y doe s no twan t source s to extrapolat e to allowabl e feedrate s tha tar e significantl y highe r tha n thei r historica l rang e o f feedrate s (i.e. , extrapolate d feedrate s shoul d b e limite d clos e t o th e historica l level s tha ta sourc e actuall y fed) . Thi s ma y wor k t o limi tth e practica l utilit y o f

extrapolation . propose d§63.1208

. Th e revie w woul d conside r

i n particula r

whether : (1 ) Performanc e tes t

meta l feedrate s wer e appropriat e (e.g. , whethe r feedrate s wer e a t leas t a t norma l levels ; dependin g o n th e heterogeneit y o f th e waste , whethe r

som e leve l o f

spikin g woul db e appropriate ; an dwhethe r th e physica l for man dspecie s o f spike d materia l i s appropriate) ; an d(2 ) whethe r th e requested , extrapolate dfeedrate s wer e warrante dconsiderin g historica l meta l feedrat e data

. I n addition , regulator y official s woul drevie w th e performanc e tes t

result s i n makin g a rindin g o f

complianc e require db y § 63.6(f)(3 ) t o ensur e tha t emissio n tes t result s hav e bee n interprete dproperl y an dtha t

th e extrapolatio n procedur e i s appropriat e fo r

th e source . Th e Agenc y i s discussin g thi s approac h wit h som e hesitatio n becaus e facilitie s woul db e abl e to : (1 ) Fee d metal s a t

highe r rate s withou t

aspecifi c complianc e demonstratio n o f th e associate dmetal s emissions ; an d(2 ) obtai n approva l t o fee dmetal s a t highe r level s tha n normal , eve n thoug h al l combustio n facilitie s shoul db e tryin g t o minimiz e metal s feedrates

. However , becaus e th e Agenc y remain s concerne d tha t source s woul dotherwis e continu e t o fee dmetal s durin g complianc e testin g a t hig h levels, 5 2t o i t

ma y b e appropriat e t o conside r

thi s extrapolatio n approac h a s amean s t o reduc e unnecessar y emission s an dcost s incurre db y facilitie s (an dth e healt h ris k t o testin g personnel ) durin g performanc e tests
. E P A invite s commen t o n thi s extrapolatio n approach , an di n particular , a s t o whethe r th e approac h i s adequatel y conservativ e an dpracticable

. D
. Consideratio n o f Site-Specifi c Variance s fo r

Cemen t

Kiln s an dLWAK s Th e Cemen t

Kil n Recyclin g Coalitio n (CKRC ) ha s provide dcomment s o n th e propose drul e suggestin g tha t tw o varianc e procedure s b e incorporate di n th e fina l rule : (1 ) Waive r o f th e Hg , SVM , LVM , and/o r

HCI/C1 2 standard s whe n metal s o r

chlorin e i n mineral s an d relate dproces s material s caus e th e sourc e t o excee dth e standar deve n thoug h th e sourc e i s demonstrabl e usin g MAC T control ; an d(2 ) waive r ofth e H C standar dfo r

th e mai n stac k

o f alon g kil n tha t

doe s no t

monito r

C O o r H C i n th e by-pas s duc t

whe n organic s desorbe dsolel y fro mmineral s an d relate dproces s material s caus e th e sourc e t o excee dth e standar di n th e mai n stack

.

5 2T o achiev e operationa l flexibilit y du e t o practica l testin g an d complianc e restrictions .



# VE S 00034 0

## Federa l Registe r / Vol

. 62 , No
. 85 /

Friday , May 2 , 199

7 / Propose dRule s 2423 9
CKR C note s tha t

th e Conferenc e Repor t fo r th e Clea n Ai r

Amendment s o f 199 0 5 3 state s that : Fo rcategorie

s an d subcategorie

s o f source s of hazardou s airpollutant s engage d i n mining , extraction , beneficiation , and processin g of

nonferrous ores, concentrates , minerals , metals , an d relate d proces s materials , th

e Administrato rshal l no t conside r th

e substitutio n of

, o rother change

s in , metal - o

rmineral-bearing ra

w material s tha tar e use d a s feedstocks o

rmaterials inputs , * * * i n setting emissio n standards , wor k practice standards , operating standards o rothe r prohibition s o

rrequirement

s o r limitation s underthi s sectio n fo rsuc h categorie

s an d subcategories . I t shoul db e note dtha t thi s languag e i s no t reflecte di n th e legislativ e text , whic h state s withou t cavea t tha t MAC T standard s ma y b e base do n "proces s changes , substitutio n o f material s o r othe r modifications. " CA A sectio n 112(d)(2)(A). 5 4However , assumin g tha t CKRC' s reques t

fo r thes e variance s ha s merit , an di f

th e variance s ar e incorporate di n th e fina l rule , the y woul dappl y t o LWAK s a s wel l give n tha t LWA K ra w material s coul dals o caus e thos e combustor s t o excee dth e standard s usin g MAC T control

. W e solici t commen t

o n whethe r

thes e variance s ar e appropriat e an dworkable , a n do n th e potentia l issue s raise d below. 5 5 1

. Variance for

metals or

chlorine in minerals and

related process materials. I t ma y b e appropriat e t o waiv e an y MAC T standar dfo r ameta l o r

grou p o f metal s o r

th e standar dfo r

HC1/C1 2 i f

th e sourc e document s tha t i t canno t compl y wit h th e standar dwhil e usin g MAC T contro l solel y becaus e o f ra w materia l feed

. A s examples , MAC T contro l fo r H g woul db e hazardou s wast e feedrat e contro l a t

aspecifie dMTEC

. MAC T contro l fo r

SV M an dLV M woul dals o b e feedrat e contro l a t

aspecifie dMTE C an dcomplianc e wit h th e P M standard

. A conditio n o f

th e varianc e coul db e tha t th e sourc e woul db e require dt o documen t

tha t th e concentratio n o f meta l o r

chlorin e (fo r

whic h i t

i s seekin g th e variance ) i n hazardou s wast e an d an y non-minera l feedstoc k i s withi n th e rang e o f

norma l level s fo r

th e industry

. Thi s woul densur e tha t metal s an d chlorin e emission s attributabl e t o non minera l feedstream s ar e equivalen t t o thos e fro msource s meetin g MACT

.

5 3H.R . Rep . No . 101-952 , a tp.339 , 101s tCong. , 2 d Sess . (Oct . 26 , 1990) .
5 4CKR C cite s additiona l authorit y i n it s lette r to B . Hollowa y an d F . Beha n (USEPA ) o f Marc h 10 , 199 7 addressin g thes e issues . Availabl e i n RCR A Docke t#F-97-CS4A-FFFFF . 5 5T o mee tit s RCR A mandate , th e Agenc y woul d continu e t o evaluat e emission s unde rth e omnibu s permi tauthorit y to ensur e tha tcontrol s wer e adequat e t o protec thuma n healt h an d th e environment . W e therefor e reques t commen t

o n th e followin g issues :
• Ho w woul dnorma l level s b e determined ? Wha t

statistic s shoul db e used ? Wha t

shoul db e th e baselin e yea r fo r th e determinatio n (e.g. , agive n yea r (2000 , o r

th e complianc e dat e o f th e rule) ?

• Shoul dth e varianc e b e grante donl y i f th e hazardou s wast e and/o r non minera l feedstream s hav e lowe r tha n norma l level s o f

metal s o r

chlorine ? H o w muc h lowe r

(e.g. , 25t h percentil e levels , 40t h percentil e levels) ?

• Woul di t

b e necessar y t o establis h th e norma l level s i n th e rule , o r shoul d the y b e establishe dinitially , o n acase by-cas e basis ?

• Shoul dth e Agenc y b e concerne di f level s o f

metal s o r

chlorin e i n minera l feedstock s declin e ove r tim e thu s enablin g th e sourc e t o mee t th e standard ? I f

so , wha t

monitorin g approac h woul db e appropriat e t o identif y whe n tha t

occurred ?

• Whe n shoul dvarianc e petition s b e submitte dt o th e Stat e o r EP A regulator y official s (e.g. , 12 0 o r 18 0 day s prio r

t o th e complianc e date) ? 2

. Variance for

organics in minerals and related process materials. Althoug h curren t

BI Fregulation s limi t H C level s i n kiln s t o 2 0 ppm v irrespectiv e o f

th e sourc e o f

th e hydrocarbon s 5 6an dth e Agenc y propose dt o maintai n tha t standar d unde r MACT , CKR C note s tha t som e source s hav e t o operat e inefficientl y t o mee t th e standard

. Fo r

example , a sourc e ma y hav e t o operat e back-en d temperature s a t

highe r tha n norma l level s t o oxidiz e enoug h o f th e organic s bein g desorbe dt o mee t th e H C standard

. Thi s mean s tha t

mor e fue l tha n norma l mus t b e fire dt o provid e th e extr ahea t a t th e back-end. 5 7 CKR C ha s suggeste dapproache s whereb y asourc e ca n documen t tha t hazardou s wast e i s bein g burne di n complianc e wit h eithe r th e C O limi t

o f 10 0 ppm v o r

th e H C limi t

o f 1 0 ppmv. 5 8 I n situation s wher e th e kil n ca n monito r arepresentativ e sampl e o f combustio n ga s a t mid-kil n a t

leas t temporaril y

5 6Th e Agenc y ha s acknowledge d tha tH C i n th e mai n stac k o f

a lon g kil n ca n b e generate d b y desorptio n o f

trac e organic s i n ra w materia l feedstock s a s wel l a s fro m fue l combustion .
5 7Highe rback-en d temperature s ma y b e associate d wit h highe r rate s o f D/ F formation .
5 8Neithe r approac h woul d appea r t o b e appropriat e fo rkiln s tha tfee d hazardou s wast e a t location s othe r tha n th e clinke rend . Th e concer n i s tha tth e kil n ga s tha ti s withdraw n fo rtestin g a t th e mid-kil n locatio n fo rcomplianc e wit h th e C O o rH C limi tma y no tb e representativ e o f hazardou s wast e combustio n gase s (i.e. , eithe r becaus e th e hazardou s wast e i s bein g fire d downstrea m or , i f th e wast e i s fire d a tmid-kiln , th e wast e combustio n gase s ma y no tb e thoroughl y mixe d a tth e poin to f kil n ga s withdrawa l fo rC O an d H C monitoring) . durin g aperformanc e tes t t o documen t complianc e wit h th e C O limi t o f 10 0 ppm v (o r

aH C limi t

o f 1 0 ppmv) , limit s o n ke y combustio n parameter s woul db e establishe dbase do n operation s durin g th e performanc e test
. Th e operatin g limit s woul db e continuousl y monitore d t o ensur e complianc e wit h th e C O o r H C limits

. Limit s o n th e followin g operatin g parameter s woul db e established : kil n ga s oxyge n a t

th e kil n outlet ; kil n ga s residenc e tim e usin g ra w materia l feedrat e a s asurrogate ; an dcombustio n zon e temperature , usin g a n appropriat e surrogat e o r

measure da t

a n appropriat e location

. CKR C als o suggeste dtha t sulfu r hexafluorid e (SF6 ) coul db e use da s a continuousl y monitore dcomplianc e paramete r

i n lie u o f

limit s o n othe r parameters , excep t

oxygen . Thi s i s becaus e SF 6 i s recognize da s a temperatur e labil e compound—i t i s mor e stabl e tha n mos t an y othe r

toxi c compoun dunde r

atemperature-failur e mod e o f

organic s destruction

. SF 6 i s not , however , a n indicato r o f oxygen deficien t

combustio n failur e modes—i t i s destroye da t

hig h temperature s irrespectiv e o f

oxyge n levels

. Give n tha t bot h adequat e temperatur e an doxyge n ar e necessar y fo r

goo dcombustion , a n oxyge n limi t

a s wel l a s a n SF 6 fee dlimi t an demissio n limi t

woul db e establishe d unde r thi s optio n base do n a performanc e tes t

documentin g complianc e wit h eithe r th e C O o r

H C limit s a t

mid-kiln

. Finally , CKR C suggeste dvarianc e approache s fo r

th e mor e problemati c situatio n wher e akil n i s no t abl e t o sampl e kil n ga s a t

mid-kil n fo r complianc e wit h th e C O o r H C limit

. On e approac h woul db e t o allo w akil n t o documen t

complianc e wit h th e C O limi t o f 10 0 ppm v o r

th e H C limi t

o f 1 0 ppm v i n th e mai n stac k whe n burnin g hazardou s wast e bu t temporaril y feedin g imported , lo w organi c ra w material

. Unde r

thi s approach , a s wit h th e approache s discusse dabove , operatin g limit s o n oxyge n level s i n kil n ga s a t th e kil n outlet , residenc e tim e o f combustio n gas , an dcombustio n zon e temperatur e woul db e establishe dbase d o n aperformanc e tes t usin g th e lo w organi c ra w material

. Also , continuou s monitorin g o f

limit s o n feedrate s an d emissio n rate s (base do n performanc e testing ) o f

SF 6 coul db e use di n lie u o f establishin g limit s o n residenc e tim e an dtemperature
. E
. Emission s Averagin g fo r Cemen t Kiln s Severa l cemen t

kiln s hav e uniqu e desig n o r

operatin g procedure s tha t warran t specia l consideratio n i n



# VE S 00034 1

## 2424 0 Federa

l Registe r / Vol

. 62 , No
. 8

5 / Friday , Ma

y 2 , 199 7 / ProposedRule s
demonstratin g complianc e wit h th e MAC T standards , a s discusse dbelow

. 1

. Preheater

or Preheater/Precalciner Kilns with Dual

Stacks. Som e preheate r o r preheater/precalcine r kiln s ar e designe dwit h separat e mai n an dalkal i by-pas s stacks

. T o demonstrat e complianc e wit h th e emissio n standard s (othe r tha n th e CO/H C standard s wher e complianc e i s base do n emission s i n eithe r th e mai n o r

by-pas s stack) , i t

i s appropriat e t o allo w suc h kiln s t o documen t

eithe r tha t bot h stack s mee t th e applicabl e emissio n limits , o r tha t th e stack s mee t

th e limit s considerin g flow-weighte daverag e emissions

. Thi s i s th e approac h currentl y use dfo r complianc e fo r

th e P M NSPS , an di t i s appropriat e a s wel l fo r th e MAC T standard s tha t

th e Agenc y ha s proposed

. 2

. Kilns that

operate an in-line raw mill. Som e cemen t

kiln s ven t

th e kil n ga s throug h th e mil l tha t grind s th e ra w materia l (i.e. , ra w mill ) t o hel p dr y th e ra w materia l befor e chargin g t o th e kiln

. Suc h design s ar e referre dt o a s "in-lin e ra w mills"

. Whe n th e ra w mil l i s ou t o f servic e fo r

maintenance , approximatel y 10 % o f th e tim e annually , kil n ga s by

passe s th e mil l an di s vente dt o th e stac k afte r passin g throug h th e P M contro l device

. (Store dmille dra w materia l i s charge ddurin g thes e period s o f mil l downtime. ) Th e Cemen t Kil n Recyclin g Coalitio n indicate s tha t emission s o f

HAP s tha t

th e Agenc y propose dt o regulat e ca n b e differen t whe n ga s i s vente dthroug h th e ra w mil l versu s period s o f

tim e whe n th e mil l i s ou t o f service. 5 9 I t appear s appropriat e t o bas e complianc e wit h th e MAC T emissio n standard s fo r

suc h kiln s o n atime

weighte daverag e basis

. Source s woul d us e historica l informatio n o n utilizatio n tim e fo r

th e in-lin e ra w mil l t o documen t

th e time-weighte daverag e an dwoul dpresen t

thi s informatio n t o regulator y official s a s par t o f th e tes t plan

. Further , source s woul db e require dt o conduc t performanc e testin g unde r bot h operatin g conditions : wit h th e ra w mil l on-lin e an doff-line

. III. DRE Testing Considerations I n th e NPRM , th e Agenc y propose d tha t th e 99.9 9 percen t

destructio n an d remova l efficienc y (DRE ) standar db e retaine dunde r

RCR A authority

. Se e 6 1 F Ra t 17447

. Althoug h EP A coul dhav e propose dth e DR E requiremen t a s par t

o f th e MAC T standard s t o hel p contro l organi c HAPs , th e Agenc y explaine d tha t doin g s o woul dhav e raise d significan t

practica l implementatio n concerns . Thi s i s becaus e MAC T

CKR C Comments , Augus t19 , 1996 , p p 112 - 113 , Docke tNumbe rRCSP-0170 . standard s ar e generall y self

implemente db y facilitie s t o alarg e degre e wherea s DR E testin g ha s historicall y involve dadetaile dan d iterativ e proces s betwee n afacilit y an d th e regulator y agency . Th e Agenc y receive dcomment s tha t raise dothe r

concerns , including : (1 ) Whethe r

i t i s necessar y fo r

asourc e t o actuall y perfor maDR E tes t t o ensur e tha t i t i s achievin g DRE; 6 0an d(2 ) ho w ca n th e Agenc y ensur e tha t RCR A DR E testin g i s coordinate dwit h MAC T performanc e testing

. Th e Agenc y ha s reconsidere dDR E testin g issue s an di s toda y requestin g commen t

o n option s fo r

ensurin g complianc e wit h aDR E standard , an d ho w t o coordinat e DR E testin g wit h MAC T performanc e testing

. A

. Option s fo r

Ensurin g Complianc e wit h aDR E Standar d Th e Agenc y ha s investigate dwhethe r complianc e wit h th e C O o r H C MAC T standard s woul densur e tha t asourc e i s achievin g 99.99 % DR E 61

. Th e vas t preponderanc e o f

th e dat aindicat e tha t whe n asourc e i s achievin g C O level s unde r 10 0 ppm v o r

H C level s unde r

1 0 ppmv , i t

i s virtuall y alway s als o achievin g 99.99 % DRE. 6 2Th e Agency' s investigatio n noted , however , a n

6 0Th e statutor y minimu m technolog y requiremen tfo rincinerator s (se e RCR A 3004(o)(B) ) require s th e "attainment " o f 99.9 9 percen t deshuctio n an d remova l efficiency . DR E testin g coul d b e replace d b y a n alternativ e tha ti s equall y o rmor e stringen t(e.g. , complianc e wit h stringen t limit s o n C O o rHC ) to ensur e attainmen to f 99.9 9 percen tDRE .

6 1 Th e Agenc y evaluate d approximatel y 45 5 DR E tes tconditions , wher e C O wa s les s Uia n 10 0 ppm v an d 27 3 tes tcondition s wher e H C wa s les s tha n 1 2 ppmv , t o determin e i f complianc e wit h stringen t C O an d H C limit s woul d ensur e tha t99.99 % DR E wa s bein g achieved . Te n source s faile d DR E eve n thoug h C O o rH C level s wer e belo w 10 0 ppm v o r 1 2 ppm v (o n a ru n averag e basis) , respectively . Nin e o f th e failure s coul d b e explaine d by : (1 ) Selectin g principa l organi c hazardou s constituent s (POHCs ) tha twer e als o commo n product s o f incomplet e combustion ; (2) feedin g lo w concentration s o f POHC s ( a phenomeno n o f DR E testin g i s tha ti ti s ver y difficul tto measur e 99.99 % DR E whe n POHC s ar c fe d a tlo w concenfrations , eve n thoug h emissio n concentration s ma y b e trivial) ; o r(3 ) feedin g aqueou s wast e wit h suc h lo w concentration s o f organic s that , eve n unde rpoo rcombustio n conditions , th e wast e di d no tgenerat e hig h level s o f C O o rHC . Se e USEPA , "DraftTechnica l Suppor t Documen tfo rHW C MAC T Standa rd s (NODA) , Volum e II : Evaluatio n o f CO/H C an d DR E Database" , Apri l 1997 .

6 2Itcoul d b e argue d tha tthi s i s du e t o tw o factors : (1 ) durin g successfu l DR E testin g man y source s operate d a tC O o rH C level s tha twer e wel l belo w th e 100/1 0 levels ; an d (2) i ti s no tclea r tha t thos e source s woul d continu e to achiev e 99.99 % D R E a thighe r C O o rH C level s (bu tno texceedin g th e 100/1 0 levels) . Thi s i s unlikel y to b e a majo r concern , however , becaus e combustio n device s operatin g a tC O level s unde r10 0 ppm v ar e generall y considere d t o b e operatin g unde rgoo d combustio n condition s tha twoul d ensur e 99.99 % DR E i n an y event . atypical , failur e mod e fo r th e CO/H C versu s DR E relationship : whe n lo w organi c conten t

wast e i s fe dint o a regio n o f

acombusto r

othe r tha n th e flam e zon e (e.g. , int o a n unfire d afterburner)

. On e tes t conditio n ofth e approximatel y 45 5 investigate dfaile d th e CO/H C versu s DR E relationshi p fo r thi s reason . Thi s wa s ahighl y unusua l tes t condition , an ddoe s no t represen t goo dcombustio n practice

. C O level s wer e likel y lo w becaus e flam e combustio n wa s no t occurring , an dH C wa s likel y lo w becaus e th e wast e coul d hav e ha donl y trac e level s o f toxi c organic s tha t

di dno t

contribut e significantl y t o th e H C loadin g (bu t whic h coul dnonetheles s pos e ahealt h o r environmenta l hazard)

. Give n th e genera l relationshi p betwee n CO , HC , an dDR E an dth e highl y unusua l natur e o f th e lon e exception , th e Agenc y i s considerin g whethe r

DR E testin g i s warrante di n al l case s fo r

source s complyin g wit h th e MAC T C O an dH C standards

. Th e DR E tes t i s acomplicated , expensiv e test
. I n addition , althoug h i t ca n hel p indirectl y t o ensur e tha t

asourc e i s operatin g unde r goo dcombustio n conditions , i t ma y no t

provid e th e operationall y direc t leve l o f assuranc e o f

goo dcombustio n condition s tha t

C O o r H C does

. Th e dat a sho w tha t

source s ca n b e achievin g 99.99 % DR E eve n thoug h C O o r H C level s excee dvalue s considere dt o represen t

goo dcombustio n (i.e. , C O o f 10 0 ppmv , HRA , an dH C o f 1 0 ppmv , HRA). " Accordingly , th e Agenc y i s considerin g thre e option s fo r reducin g th e DR E testin g burden , a s discusse d below. 6 4Unde r

al l option s wher e DR E testin g woul db e waived , asourc e woul dhav e t o b e i n complianc e wit h th e fina l MAC T standard s fo r CO/HC , whic h wil l b e sufficien t t o sho w ensur e complianc e wit h th e DR E standar da s well, 6 5

6 3Unde ra n optio n th e Agenc y i s considerin g fo r establishin g MAC T standard s fo rC O an d HC , a sourc e woul d b e abl e t o elec twhethe r to compl y wit h eithe r th e C O o rH C standard . Althoug h C O i s no ta direc tmeasur e o f H C emissions , th e Agenc y i s considerin g requirin g source s tha telec tt o compl y wit h th e C O standar d to documen ttha t thei r H C emission s als o mee tth e standard .
6 4Th e Agency' s analysi s to dat e ha s focuse d o n th e 99.99 % DR E standard . W e hav e no tinvestigate d whethe r source s tha tbur n "dioxin-Iiste d waste " unde r§ 264.343(a)(2 ) an d ar e require d to demonstrat e 99.9999 % DR E ar e likel y to achiev e tha tDR E whe n operatin g unde rstringen tC O an d H C levels . Give n tha tther e ar e fe w HWC s tha tar e permitte d to manag e suc h waste s an d give n th e hig h toxicit y potentia l o f suc h wastes , th e Agenc y i s incline d to continu e t o requir e DR E testin g a l facilitie s handlin g thos e wastes .

6 5Lon g cemen tkiln s generall y canno tmee tth e stringen tC O an d H C limit s applicabl e fo rwast e combustio n (i.e. , 100/1 0 ppmv ) becaus e o f organic s i n ra w materials . Thus , th e Agenc y propose d tha t



# VE S 00034 2

## Federa l Registe r / Vol

. 62 , No
. 85 /

Friday , May 2 , 199

7 / Propose dRule s 24241

B
. DR E A s aMAC T Versu s RCR A Standar d I n investigatin g approache s t o ensur e coordinatio n o f

DR E testin g wit h MAC T performanc e testing , th e Agenc y ha s reconsidere dwhethe r th e DR E standar d coul db e effectivel y implemente da s a MAC T standar d(t o hel p contro l organi c HAPs)

. T o ensur e coordinatio n o f DR E an dMAC T performanc e testing , th e Agenc y i s considerin g extendin g th e tes t pla n revie w perio dfro mth e propose d 6 0 da y perio d(se e propose d §63.1208(e ) an d§ 63.7(b)(1) ) t o on e yea r t o allo w regulator y official s tim e t o conside r

DR E testin g i n contex t wit h MAC T testing

. Wit h thi s opportunit y fo r coordinatin g th e testing , th e Agency' s concern s expresse da t proposa l abou t th e difficult y o f

implementin g th e DR E standar dunde r

th e self-implementin g regim e o f

MAC T ma y b e largel y overcom e (i.e. , i f

th e Agenc y incorporate s int o th e MAC T standard s opportunit y t o revie w an dapprov e th e D R E tes t

protocol)

. Thus , th e Agenc y i s considerin g incorporatin g th e DR E standar da s aMAC T standard

. Source s wishin g t o perfor ma combine dDR E an dcomprehensiv e performanc e tes t

woul dhav e t o submi t th e tes t pla n on e yea r

i n advanc e ofth e test
. I f th e revie w require s mor e tha n on e year , th e Agenc y ca n exten dth e testin g dat e fo r

coordinatio n purpose s (assumin g th e sourc e ha s mad e agoo d fait h effor t

t o cooperat e wit h regulator y official s t o identif y a n appropriat e tes t protocol)

. However , ther e woul db e n o extension s grante dfo r th e initia l comprehensiv e performanc e tes t becaus e i t

i s imperativ e tha t

source s documen t

complianc e wit h th e MAC T emissio n standard s (includin g thos e fo r th e hig h priorit y HAPs , D/F , Hg ) o n schedule

. Source s wishin g t o perfor ma combine dinitia l comprehensiv e performanc e an dDR E tes t woul d therefor e hav e t o b e diligen t i n workin g wit h regulator y official s t o ensur e tha t

suc h kiln s compl y wit h a C O leve l o f 10 0 ppm v o r a H C leve l o f

2 0 ppmv . Notwithstandin g th e inabilit y to documen tgoo d combustio n condition s b y complyin g wit h stringen tCO/HC limits , th e Agenc y believe s dia l cemen tkiln s tha tfir e hazardou s wast e int o th e clinke ren d o f th e kil n wil l virtuall y alway s achiev e 99.99 % DR E because , t o mak e marketabl e products , clinke rtemperature s mus tb e approximatel y 2700 ° F . an d combustio n ga s temperature s ar e typicall y severa l hundre d degree s hotte r tha n th e solid s temperature . Thes e temperature s ar e theoreticall y hig h enoug h to ensur e destructio n o f organi c compound s i n th e waste . Consequently , suc h kiln s shoul d no tb e preclude d fro m th e waiver s discusse d i n th e text . I f suc h a kil n wer e t o injec thazardou s wast e a t nonflam e zon e location s suc h a s mid-kil n o ra ttli e ra w materia l en d o f th e kiln , however , w e ar e concerne d tha tDR E ma y no talway s b e achieved . Th e kil n woul d no tb e eligibl e fo rth e DR E waiver . th e combine dtes t protoco l i s develope d an dapprove di n atimel y manner. 6 6 Th e Agenc y invite s commen t o n thes e issues , includin g whethe r DR E shoul d b e incorporate da s aMAC T standard , an dirrespectiv e o f

tha t decision , whethe r

aone-yea r

revie w perio d provide s adequat e opportunit y t o revie w acombine dDR E tes t an d comprehensiv e performanc e tes t protocol

. IV. Notification and Reporting Requirement

Considerations A

. Publi c an dRegulator y Notificatio n o f Inten t t o Compl y I n th e propose drule , th e Agenc y requeste dcommen t o n strategie s t o encourag e o r

requir e affecte dsource s t o compl y wit h th e fina l emission s standard s a t

th e earlies t

possibl e date

. T h e Agenc y als o aske dfo r view s o n method s tha t

coul db e use dt o determin e whe n asourc e coul d realisticall y conclud e whethe r i t wil l compl y i n atimel y fashio n wit h th e fina l standard s (6 1 F Ra t 17416)

. A numbe r o f commenter s argue dfo r th e Agenc y t o requir e asubmissio n fro m affecte dsource s tha t identifie s whethe r an dho w th e facilit y intend s t o compl y wit h th e fina l standards

. Thi s notificatio n requiremen t wa s referre dt o a s a"Notificatio n o f Inten t t o Comply. " T h e purpos e o f

th e submissio n woul d b e t o identif y th e source s tha t wil l no t compl y wit h th e fina l standard s s o tha t thos e source s coul db e force dt o terminat e wast e burnin g activitie s a s soo n a s possibl e followin g th e effectiv e dat e ofth e fina l HW C rule

. Othe r commenters , respondin g t o ou r reques t fo r commen t

regardin g th e propose dpermi t

modificatio n option s (6 1 F Ra t

17455) , suggeste dtha t al l facilitie s b e require dt o submi t apla n tha t outline s th e procedure s eac h facilit y intend s t o follo w t o compl y wit h th e fina l standards

. However , th e purpos e o f

thi s submissio n woul db e t o begi n a n earl y proces s o f communicatio n betwee n th e publi c an d th e facilit y throug h th e publi c disclosur e o f

th e facility' s complianc e strategy
. Th e Agenc y ha s reviewe dthes e comment s an dsupport s th e goal s an d

6 6Th e Agenc y als o considere d requirin g source s l o submi tdraf ttes tprotocol s on e yea r prio rto tli e tes tdate , regardles s i f th e comprehensiv e performanc e tes ti s to b e combine d wit h a DR E demonstration . W e determine d tha tma y no tb e appropriate , however , becaus e norma l comprehensiv e performanc e test s shoul d no t requir e a revie w proces s longe r tha n provide d b y th e CAA-MAC T genera l requirement . Therefore , th e one-yea r tes trevie w perio d woul d onl y appl y fo r thos e source s tha twis h l o coordinat e th e comprehensiv e performanc e (o rconfirmatory ) tes t wit h a DR E test . purpose s o f arequiremen t

tha t compel s source s t o identif y thei r intention s t o compl y wit h th e fina l rule , an dt o describ e ho w the y wil l achiev e tha t compliance

. Furthermore , th e Agenc y support s an y proces s tha t promote s publi c notificatio n an dinteractio n wit h respec t t o ahazardou s wast e combusto r

s futur e operations

. T o th e exten t tha t som e limitation s o n publi c participatio n woul db e th e resul t o f a streamline dpermi t

modificatio n proces s tha t ma y b e finalize dahea do f th e HW C MAC T rule , promotio n o f earl y publi c notificatio n an dinterventio n i n thi s par t o f th e rul e i s appropriat e an ddesirabl e give n ou r

genera l policie s i n tha t regar d (see , e.g. , RCR A Expande dPubli c Participatio n Rule , 6 0 F R6341 7 (Dec

. 12 , 1995))

. Therefore , th e Agenc y i s considerin g anotificatio n requirement , base do n an dgrowin g ou t o f idea s tha t wer e presente di n comments , tha t ma y b e applie dt o source s affecte db y th e fina l rule

. Thi s notificatio n requirement , calle dth e Publi c an dRegulator y Notificatio n o f

Inten t t o Compl y (PRNIC) , woul dinvolv e th e facilit y submissio n an dpubli c disclosur e o f a pla n tha t

relate s t o whethe r

an dho w th e facilit y intend s t o com e int o complianc e wit h th e fina l standards

. However , du e t o enforcemen t an d implementatio n issues , th e Agenc y i s concerne dtha t

i t i s no t feasibl e t o us e asubmissio n tha t

identifie s onl y a facility' s futur e "intentions " a s th e lega l basi s t o forc e afacilit y t o terminat e wast e burnin g activitie s befor e th e statutoril y base dcomplianc e perio do f thre e years . Moreover , an y officia l revie w an dapprova l o f suc h submission s coul dconceivabl y slo w dow n th e rat e a t

whic h facilitie s com e int o complianc e wit h th e fina l standards

. Thi s woul dthwar t th e objective s o f

astreamline dpermi t an d complianc e process . T h e Agenc y believe s tha t th e mos t effectiv e applicatio n o f suc h a submissio n i s t o promot e publi c awareness , a s wel l a s discussio n betwee n afacilit y an dit s community , whic h wil l affor dthe ma n opportunit y t o engag e i n discussion s regardin g th e detail s o f

th e facility' s plan s t o compl y wit h th e fina l standards

. However , th e Agenc y doe s no t

inten dfo r

thi s submissio n t o underg o aforma l revie w b y th e regulator y agencie s involved

. T h e Agenc y request s commen t o n thi s optio n whic h require s source s t o prepar e an dsubmi t fo r publi c commen t anotificatio n identifyin g th e source' s intention s t o compl y wit h th e fina l rul e a s wel l a s th e strateg y the y inten dt o follo w t o assur e complianc e b y th e complianc e date

. Thi s notificatio n requiremen t

woul dappl y t o al l source s



# VE S 00034 3

## 2424 2 Federa

l Registe r / Vol

. 62 , No
. 85 /

Friday , Ma

y 2 , 199 7 / Propose dRule s
burnin g wast e o n th e effectiv e dat e o f th e fina l HW C rule , an dwoul drequir e source s t o prepar e adraf t notification , announc e th e availabilit y o f th e draf t notificatio n a s wel l a s afutur e informa l publi c meetin g t o discus s th e draf t notification , hol da n informa l publi c meeting , submi t

th e fina l notificatio n t o a l l appropriat e regulator y agencies , an d updat e th e notificatio n a s necessaiy

. Th e Agenc y intend s fo r th e informatio n containe di n th e draf t notificatio n t o provid e enoug h detai l s o tha t th e publi c ca n engag e i n a meaningfu l revie w o f th e facility' s complianc e strategy
. Fo r example , i f

I n th e draf t

notificatio n afacilit y identifie s an ddescribe s th e type(s ) o f contro l technique(s ) bein g considered , th e facilit y shoul dinclude , a s appropriate , wast e minimizatio n and/o r pollutio n contro l option s tha t ma y hav e bee n evaluated

. E P A als o request s commen t o n a requiremen t

fo r affecte dsource s t o hol d a t leas t on e informa l meetin g wit h th e publi c befor e submittin g th e fina l notificatio n t o th e appropriat e regulator y agencies

. Th e goa l o f thi s informa l meetin g i s t o provid e aforu m t o facilitat e dialogu e betwee n th e affecte dsourc e an dit s community

. Th e meetin g shoul dprovid e a n open , flexibl e an dinforma l occasio n fo r th e facilit y an dth e publi c t o discus s variou s aspect s o f

th e facility' s complianc e strateg y becaus e i t

provide s th e publi c direc t inpu t t o th e facilit y owners / operators
. I n addition , th e meetin g afford s facilit y owner/operator s th e opportunit y t o gai n a n understandin g o f th e public' s expectations , whic h ca n the n b e addresse dan dinclude di n th e facility' s fina l submission

. Th e Agenc y anticipate s tha t

th e facilit y an dth e publi c wil l shar e ideas , educat e eac h other , an dcontinu e t o establis h a framewor k

fo r soun dcommunication

. However , a s suggeste di n comment s receive dfro mCKRC, 6 7 th e Agenc y understand s tha t

th e earl y timin g o f th e meetin g ma y affec t

afacility' s abilit y t o hav e complet e o r

full y accurat e information , bu t

th e Agenc y believe s tha t th e benefit s o f

earl y publi c involvemen t

an dacces s t o informatio n outweig h th e drawback s o f incomplet e information

. Furthermore , th e tim e perio dbetwee n th e effectiv e dat e o f th e H W C rul e an dth e informa l meetin g announcemen t

shoul dprovid e afacilit y sufficien t

tim e t o collect , analyze , select , an dpla n acomplianc e strategy
. However , comment s ar e invite do n othe r appropriat e tim e period s betwee n

6 7Memorandum , fro m Crai g Campbel l (CKRC ) to Matthe w Hal e Jr . (EPA) , regardin g complianc e plan s unde rth e HW C MAC T Rule , date d Marc h 18,1997 . th e publi c notificatio n an dth e informa l publi c meeting , an do n th e tim e perio d necessar y t o collec t th e informatio n require dfo r

th e PRNIC

. Anothe r

timin g issu e relate s t o whe n afacilit y shoul dnotif y th e communit y regardin g th e availabilit y o f th e draf t PRNIC

. A t

thi s stage , th e Agenc y i s considerin g t o requir e tha t th e notificatio n b e mad e o n o r befor e 21 0 day s followin g th e effectiv e dat e o f th e fina l HW C rule

. Thi s woul dnecessitat e tha t a n announcemen t

o f th e informa l publi c meetin g an dth e availabilit y o f th e draf t

PRNI C b e mad e 3 0 day s prio r t o th e meetin g i n amanne r tha t i s likel y t o reac h al l affecte dmember s o f th e community

. Th e Agenc y i s considerin g tha t thi s announcement , o f th e informa l publi c meetin g an ddraf t PRNI C availability , shoul db e require di n thre e ways : A s adispla y advertisemen t i n a newspape r

o f genera l circulation ; a s a clearl y marke dsig n o n th e facilit y property ; an da s aradi o broadcast

. Eac h o f thes e notice s woul dhav e t o includ e th e date , tim e an dlocatio n o f th e meeting , abrie f

descriptio n o f

th e purpose , abrie f

descriptio n o f

th e facility , astatemen t askin g peopl e wh o nee dspecia l acces s t o notif y th e facilit y i n advance , an dastatemen t describin g h o w th e draf t

PRNI C ca n b e obtained

. T h e Agenc y request s commen t o n thi s approac h tha t

require s facilitie s t o hol d a n informa l publi c meetin g prio r t o th e submissio n o f

th e fina l PRNI C t o th e regulator y authorities

. A n additiona l requiremen t o f th e notificatio n approac h bein g considere d involve s th e submission , t o th e appropriat e regulator y agencies , o f th e fina l PRNI C 27 0 day s followin g th e effectiv e dat e o f

th e fina l HW C rule

. Th e submissio n woul dcontai n th e followin g information : Th e nam e an dlocatio n o f th e owne r

operator ; th e locatio n o f th e source ; astatemen t

a s t o whethe r

th e sourc e i s amajo r

o r are asource ; a descriptio n o f

an y wast e minimizatio n an dpollutio n contro l technique(s ) considered ; adescriptio n o f th e emissio n monitorin g techniquels ) considered ; adescriptio n o f th e wast e minimizatio n an dpollutio n contro l technique(s ) effectiveness ; adescriptio n o f th e evaluatio n proces s use dt o selec t th e wast e minimizatio n and/o r pollutio n contro l technique(s) ; an da n outlin e o f

th e ke y date s i n th e proces s tha t th e facilit y plan s t o follo w t o implemen t

th e selecte dwast e minimizatio n and/o r pollutio n contro l technique(s)

. Thi s submitta l shoul dals o captur e th e majo r

comment s o r

idea s tha t wer e discusse di n th e publi c meetin g o r

tha t wer e submitte di n respons e t o th e releas e o f th e draf t PRNIC

. T h e fina l requiremen t o f th e notificatio n approac h bein g considere d involve s update s t o th e fina l PRNI C followin g asignifican t chang e i n th e facility' s implementatio n strategy
. A significan t

chang e woul db e analogou s t o achang e tha t

woul dtrigge r

aRCR A clas s tw o o r

clas s thre e permi t modificatio n request , an dwoul dappl y onl y t o change s tha t depar t fro mth e strateg y describe di n th e fina l PRNIC

. Example s o f

som e change s tha t

ma y b e considere dsignifican t change s ar e a s follows : A chang e i n th e pollutio n contro l techniqu e t o b e implemented ; a reques t fo r permi t modification ; a reques t fo r a n extensio n o f

th e complianc e date ; o r adecisio n t o sto p o r t o continu e burnin g wast e tha t i s contrar y t o th e fina l PRNIC

. Additionally , al l source s coul db e require dt o notif y th e publi c vi aa mailin g t o th e facility' s mailin g lis t withi n 3 0 day s followin g a determinatio n tha t

asignifican t

chang e ha s occurre di n th e facility' s implementatio n strategy
. Th e chang e woul dhav e t o b e describe di n writin g an dmad e availabl e t o requestin g partie s v i aplacemen t

i n a n informatio n repositor y o r

throug h direc t

transmittal

. Thi s requiremen t

woul db e i n keepin g wit h th e spiri t

o f th e PRNIC , whic h i s t o kee p th e publi c informe do f an y significan t

change s i n th e facility' s complianc e an dimplementatio n plan

. T h e Agenc y invite s commen t o n thi s submitta l an dth e submitta l process , an d request s informatio n o n th e benefit s an d burde n associate dwit h suc h aprocess . Th e Agenc y specificall y invite s commen t

o n th e us e o f

permi t modificatio n criteri at o identif y a significan t

chang e tha t

woul d necessitat e a n updat e t o th e PRNIC

. B
. Dat aCompressio n Allowance s T h e Agenc y i s considerin g allowin g th e us e o f

dat acompressio n technique s i n th e recordin g o f

continuousl y monitore dparameter s unde r thi s rule

. Thi s i s i n respons e t o comment s o n th e propose drul e regardin g th e additiona l burde n associate dwit h th e propose d monitorin g an drecordin g requirement s an dspecifi c request s t o allo w dat a compression

. W e ar e als o considerin g revision s t o part s 264 , 26 5 an d26 6 tha t woul db e conformin g revision s t o ensur e tha t

th e RCR A rule s ar e consisten t

wit h simila r

provision s o f

th e propose dpar t

6 3 rules

. Commenter s raise dth e issu e o f a n additiona l burde n b y th e propose d monitorin g an drecordin g requirements

. W e d o no t

agre e tha t

th e propose d requirement s pos e significan t additiona l recor dkeepin g burden s fro mcurren t regulation s (i.e. , BI Frule ) o r existin g



# VE S 00034 4

## Federa l Registe r / Vol

. 62 , No
. 8 5 /

Friday , Ma

y 2 , 199 7 / ProposedRule s 2424 3 permi t requirement s unde r RCRA

. However , w e ar e intereste di n reducin g th e informatio n burden—fo r example , h o w muc h i s recorde di f th e dat ai s automaticall y evaluate dunde r a n establishe dse t

o f specifications , whil e maintainin g th e integrit y o f th e dat afo r complianc e evaluatio n purposes . Briefly , dat acompressio n i s th e proces s b y whic h afacilit y automaticall y evaluate s whethe r a specifi c dat apoin t

need s t o b e recorded

. Dat acompressio n doe s no t represen t

a chang e i n th e continuou s monitorin g requiremen t

propose di n rule

. One

minut e average s wil l continu e t o b e generated

. However , wit h dat a compression , eac h one-minut e averag e wil l b e automaticall y compare dwit h a se t o f specification s t o decid e th e nee d fo r recording

. Ne w dat ai s recorde d whe n th e one-minut e averag e valu e fall s outsid e th e se t

o f specifications

. Thi s optio n shoul dprovid e agoo d opportunit y t o th e regulatin g agencie s t o focu s thei r

revie w o f

operatin g data , becaus e facilitie s usin g dat a compressio n wil l recor ddat atha t i s indicativ e o f

non-stead y stat e operation s mor e frequentl y tha n stead y stat e operations

. Thi s wil l significantl y reduce , u p t o 90% , th e dat asubjec t t o revie w b y th e regulatin g agenc y a s th e facilities ' self-evaluate , unde r a previousl y approve dse t o f specifications , th e dat abein g recorded

. Th e dynamic s o f monitore d parameter s ar e no t

unifor macros s th e regulate duniverse , an destablishin g nationa l specification s fo r dat a compressio n technique s i n thi s rul e ma y no t b e feasible

. Differen t dat a compressio n technique s ca n b e successfull y implemente dfo r a monitore dparamete r t o obtai n compresse ddat atha t reflec t th e performanc e o n afacilit y specifi c basis

. A s aresul t

th e Agenc y i s considerin g allowin g th e source s t o reques t th e regulator y agenc y t o us e dat a compressio n technique s tha t reflec t site

specifi c condition s o f th e monitore d parameter s an destablis h dat a compressio n specification s accordingly

. Upo n approval , source s ma y star t dat a compressio n technique s base do n th e approve dse t

o f specification

. A t aminimum , asourc e implementin g dat acompressio n wil l b e require dt o recor davalu e onc e ever y te n minutes

. I n combinatio n wit h th e appropriat e se t

o f specifications , a recorde dvalu e ever y te n minute s wil l resul t i n apotentia l dat arecordin g reductio n u p t o 90%

. A s aguideline , fo r

th e regulatin g agencie s an dsource s EP A ha s develope databl e t o us e a s aguidelin e developin g site-specifi c specificatio n fo r dat acompressio n techniques

. Thes e ar e th e basi s fo r

th e specificatio n i n th e table : 1

. Data compression limit. Th e closes t leve l t o apermi t

limit/standar da t

whic h reduce drecordin g i s allowed

. Withi n thi s level , minute-by-minut e dat a recordin g i s required

. Th e dat a compressio n limi t

shoul dreflec t

aleve l a t whic h th e specifi c paramete r i s unlikel y t o excee dit s permi t limi t withi n aone-minut e change

. Th e othe r consideratio n i s t o se t adat a compressio n limi t

a t whic h owner s an d operator s ca n practicall y implemen t dat acompression

. 2

. Fluctuation limits. Th e permissibl e deviatio n o f

ne w dat avalu e fro m previousl y generate dvalue

. Thi s paramete r

i s areflectio n o f

toleranc e o f th e agenc y t o allo w aparamete r t o chang e withou t

requirin g th e dat apoin t t o b e recorded

. Th e consideration s t o establis h th e fluctuatio n limit s ar e (1 ) Th e potentia l o f

th e regulate dparamete r t o chang e i n on e minut e an dcaus e a n exceedanc e o f

th e permi t

limi t o n a rollin g averag e basi s and ; (2 ) th e maximu mvariatio n tolerate dfro ma chang e o f

othe r relate doperatin g parameter s (i.e. , fue l an dtemperature , ga s flo w an dAPC D parameters)

. W e invit e commen t o n allowin g dat a compressio n unde r

thi s rule , includin g revisin g part s 264 , 26 5 an d266 , an do n th e followin g table :
FLUCTUATIO N AND DAT A COMPRESSIO N LIMITS EXPRESSE D A S PERCENTAGE S O F TH E PERMIT/STANDAR D LIMITS

Devic e Paramete r Fluctuatio n limi t± Dat

a compressio

n limi t CEM S CEM S CEM S CEM S CEM S Particulat e matte r Carbon monoxid

e 1 hou r Tota l hydrocarbo

n Tota l mercur y 1 0 hou r Multi-meta

l 10 hou

r HC I
Activate d carbo n injectio

n Dioxi n inhibitor... . Catalytic oxidize

r

Goo d combustio

n and APC D efficienc

y Fee d contro

l

We tscrubbe

r.

Ionizin g we tscrubber

Dr y scrubber . Chlorin e Ma x inle ttemperatur

e t o dr y P M APC D Mi n carbo n injectio

n feedrat

e (carbo n feed throug

h injector

) .. . Mi n carrie rflui d flowrat

e o rnozzle pressur

e dro p Mi n inhibito

rfeedrat

e Mi n flu e gas temperatur

e a tentranc

e Ma x flu e ga s temperatur

e a tentranc

e Maximu m wast e feedrat

e Mi n combustio

n chambertemperatur e (exi to f eac h chamber

) Maximu m flu e ga s flowrat

e o rproductio

n rat e Maximu m tota l metal s feedrat e (al l streams) Maximu m pumpabl

e liqui d metal s feedrat

e Maximu m tota l ash feedrat

e (al l streams) Maximu m tota l chlorin e feedrat

e (al l streams) Minimu m pressur

e dro p acros s scrubber Mi n liqui d feed press Minimu m liqui d p H Mi n blowdow

n (liqui d flowrate

) o rma x solid conten

ti n liqui d . . Minimu m liqui d flo w t o ga s flo w rati o Minimu m pressur

e dro p acros s scrubber Minimu m liqui d feed pressur

e Mi n blowdow

n (liqui d flowrate) o

rma x soli d conten

ti n liqui d . . Minimu m liqui d flo w t o ga s flo w rati o Mi n powe r inpu t(kVA : curren

tan d voltage

) Mi n sorben

tfeedrat e 10 % 1 0 pp m . 2 pp m .. . 10 % 10 % 10 % 10 % 10 ° F ... . 5 % 20 % 10 % 20 ° F ... . 20 ° F ... . 10 % 20 ° F ... . 10 % 10 % 60% .

5 0 ppm. 60% . 60% . 60% . 60% . 60% . Limi t-30 ° F . Limi t+20% . Limi t+25% . 60% . Limi t+40 ° F . Limi t-40 ° F . 60% . Limi t+50 ° F . 60% . 60% . 10 % 10 % 0.5 " wate

r . 20 % 0. 5 p H uni t 5 % 10 % 0.5 " wate

r . 20 % 5 % 10 % 5 % 10 % 60% .

60% . Limi t Limi t Limi t Limi t Limi t Limi t Limi t Limi t Limi t Limi t Limi t +2" . +25% . + 1 p H unit . +20% . +30% . +2" water

. +25% . +20% . +30% . +20% . +30% .



# VE S 00034 5

## 2424 4 Federa

l Registe r / Vol

. 62 , No
. 8 5 /

Friday , May 2 , 199

7 / Propose dRule s
FLUCTUATIO N AN D DAT ACOMPRESSIO N LIMIT S EXPRESSE D A S PERCENTAGE S O F TH E PERMIT/STANDAR D LIMITS


### Continue d
Devic e Paramete r Fluctuatio n limi t± Dat

a compressio

n limi t
Fabri c filter E S P Minimu m carrie rflui d flowrat

e o rnozzle pressur

e dro p Minimu m pressur

e dro p acros s devic

e Mi n powe r inpu t(kVA : curren

tan d voltage

) 10 % 1 " wate r 5 % Limi

t+30% . Limi t+2" water

. Limi t+20% .

V. Waste Minimization and Pollution Prevention A

. Overvie w Amendment s t o RCR A i n 1984 , an d th e Pollutio n Preventio n Ac t o f 199 0 establis h aclea r

nationa l polic y preferenc e fo r

pollutio n preventio n an d environmentall y soun drecyclin g a s th e nation' s to p priorit y environmenta l managemen t

methods , ove r

treatment , storag e an ddisposal

. Pollutio n prevention , als o referre dt o a s sourc e reduction , include s an y practic e tha t reduce s th e amoun t o f pollutant s enterin g awast e stream , prio r t o recycling , treatmen t o r disposal

. Wast e minimization , ater mparticula r t o RCR A an dEPA' s hazardou s wast e program , include s pollutio n preventio n (o r sourc e reduction ) an denvironmentall y soun d recycling

. Combustio n fo r treatmen t

o r destructio n i s afor mo f treatment , an d i s no t include di n th e definition s o f pollutio n prevention , sourc e reduction , wast e minimizatio n and/o r environmentall y soun drecycling

. Base do n previou s studies , stringen t limit s o n pollutio n contro l device s generall y provid e astron g incentiv e fo r companie s t o pursu e les s costl y wast e minimizatio n measure s t o achiev e compliance

. Th e implementatio n o f th e Lan dDisposa l Restriction s progra mha s show n thi s t o b e th e cas e i n th e RCR A program . Wast e minimizatio n measure s can , i n man y cases , provid e companie s wit h avariet y o f

benefits , including : improvement s i n productio n yields , reduce dworke r

exposure , reduce d wast e volumes , reduce dwast e managemen t

costs , reduce dliability , an dreduce dcomplianc e burdens

. A s a result , man y companies , includin g thos e affecte db y today' s rulemaking , hav e mad e significan t

progres s identifyin g an dinstallin g wast e minimizatio n measure s tha t

resul t i n on e o r

mor e o f thes e benefits

. I n addition , hazardou s wast e generator s tha t transpor t

wast e off-sit e fo r

treatment , storag e o r disposa l ar e require dt o certif y o n eac h hazardou s wast e manifes t tha t the y hav e awast e minimizatio n progra mi n place

. I n addition , facilitie s tha t hav e aRCR A permi t t o treat , stor e o r

dispos e o f hazardou s waste s ar e require dt o certif y annuall y tha t

the y hav e awast e minimizatio n progra mi n plac e (Se e section s 3002(b ) an d3005(h ) o f RCRA)

. Pas t studie s indicat e tha t existin g regulation s ca n als o contai n inheren t barrier s tha t

preven t

companie s fro m identifyin g an dinstallin g additiona l wast e minimizatio n measure s tha t coul d b e cos t effectiv e an dprovid e a n alternativ e o r

supplementa l mean s t o achiev e compliance

. Potentia l regulator y impediment s ca n include : Tigh t complianc e deadline s tha t preclud e takin g extr atim e t o explor e wast e minimizatio n alternatives , perception s tha t

end-of-pip e technolog y i s preferre db y governmen t agencie s ove r les s wel l know n wast e minimizatio n measure s t o achiev e compliance , atendenc y t o continu e relyin g o n pollutio n contro l technolog y onc e acompan y ha s sun k availabl e capita l int o end-of-pip e controls , an da lac k o f governmen t

willingnes s t o explor e mor e flexibl e complianc e approaches

. Durin g extensiv e interactio n wit h publi c stakeholder s durin g th e developmen t

o f EPA' s Hazardou s Wast e Minimizatio n Nationa l Pla n (release di n 1994) , som e companie s emphasize dtha t shor t complianc e deadline s afte r th e promulgatio n o f

end-of-pip e standard s ar e asignifican t

impedimen t

t o full y identifyin g an dinstallin g wast e minimizatio n measure s tha t coul deithe r replac e o r

supplemen t

end-of-pip e pollutio n contro l measure s tha t ma y stil l b e necessary . A s aresult , companie s ar e likel y t o op t fo r installin g "end-of-pipe " pollutio n control s t o mee t complianc e deadlines , instea do f pursuin g wast e minimizatio n an d pollutio n contro l measure s a s a complianc e approach

. A t larg e comple x manufacturin g facilitie s (suc h a s chemica l manufacturin g plants) , shor t complianc e deadline s ar e aparticula r barrie r sinc e completin g awast e minimizatio n option s assessmen t require s consideratio n o f chemica l reactio n redesign , testin g an d installation

. I n contras t end-of-pip e control s ca n ofte n b e installe dmor e quickl y tha n wast e minimizatio n proces s changes , eve n thoug h the y ma y b e mor e expensive

. I n addition , onc e capita l ha s bee n sun k int o end-of-pip e pollutio n controls , ther e i s littl e incentiv e fo r companie s t o the n spen d mone y explorin g pollutio n prevention / wast e minimizatio n option s tha t woul d offse t th e nee dfo r

th e end-of-pip e controls

. Thi s facto r i s on e o f

th e majo r factor s t o conside r

i n today' s rulemaking

. Thi s i s discusse di n mor e detai l below

. B
. EP A Propose dFlexibl e Wast e Minimizatio n Incentive s E P A wa s aware , i n it s Apri l 199 6 proposa l fo r

thi s rulemaking , tha t promulgatin g MAC T standard s ma y contai n som e inheren t barrier s t o identifyin g an dinstallin g wast e minimizatio n technologie s tha t coul db e mor e cos t

effectiv e fo r

meetin g environmenta l protectio n standard s (i n som e cases ) tha n end-of-pip e ai r pollutio n contro l equipmen t alone

. Consequently , EP A requeste dcommen t o n thre e regulator y incentive s tha t coul d partiall y offse t

potentia l barrier s an d provid e regulate dcompanie s wit h a n increase dopportunit y t o identif y an d instal l wast e minimizatio n technologie s tha t reduc e o r

eliminat e hazardou s wast e enterin g combustio n fee dstream s a s acos t

effectiv e approac h t o compliance

. EPA' s objectiv e i n thi s effor t i s t o promot e flexibilit y i n th e us e o f wast e minimizatio n measure s tha t woul dreduc e th e amoun t and/o r toxicit y o f

hazardou s waste s enterin g combustio n fee dstreams , eithe r a s a n alternativ e t o end-of-pip e combustio n measures , o r

i n combinatio n wit h combustio n measures , t o mee t MAC T standards

. E P A requeste dcommen t o n tw o approache s tha t

us e wast e minimizatio n facilit y plannin g t o identif y cos t effectiv e wast e minimizatio n measure s tha t reduc e hazardou s waste s enterin g combustio n fee dstreams
. Wast e minimizatio n plannin g ha s bee n use di n ove r 2 0 state s a s ametho dt o encourag e companies , particularl y thos e tha t generat e an dmanag e waste s o n site , t o identif y cos t

effectiv e wast e minimizatio n measure s tha t ca n b e use d i n plac e of , o r

i n combinatio n with , end

of-pip e pollutio n contro l measures . O f th e 2 1 commercia l incinerator s an dth e 14 1 on-sit e hazardou s wast e incinerator s facilitie s know n t o b e covere db y today' s rule , 43-4 4 percen t



# VE S 00034 6

## Federa l Registe r / Vol

. 62 , No
. 85 /

Friday , May 2 , 199

7 / Propose dRule s 2424 5

o f th e facilitie s ar e i n state s tha t hav e mandator y wast e minimizatio n plannin g programs ; 1 4 percen t ar e i n state s tha t

hav e voluntar y wast e minimizatio n plannin g programs ; an d 42-4 3 percen t

ar e i n state s tha t

d o no t hav e forma l wast e minimizatio n plannin g programs . Th e firs t

wast e minimizatio n facilit y plannin g approac h propose dfo r commen t

sough t t o encourag e facilitie s t o reduc e th e amoun t o f hazardou s wast e enterin g combustio n fee dstream s a s muc h a s possibl e throug h cos t effectiv e wast e minimizatio n measures . Th e proposa l sough t t o accomplis h thi s objectiv e b y requirin g al l facilitie s covere db y thi s rulemakin g t o provid e t o th e appropriat e EP A o r Stat e permittin g authorit y adequat e informatio n o n wast e minimizatio n measure s tha t woul d reduc e hazardou s waste s enterin g combustio n fee dstreams
. Requirin g facilitie s t o formall y conside r cos t effectiv e wast e minimizatio n option s woul drais e th e likelihoo dtha t hazardou s wast e generatio n coul dmos t cos t effectivel y b e reduce da t th e sourc e o r recycled , a s apreferre dapproac h t o combustion

. Sinc e man y o f thes e facilitie s ar e locate di n state s tha t hav e mandator y o r

voluntar y wast e minimizatio n plannin g programs , EP A hope dt o buil do n aproces s alread y i n place

. State s tha t

hav e mandator y wast e minimizatio n plannin g program s generall y requir e facilitie s t o provid e a descriptio n o f

change s i n proces s equipment , ra w materials , material s handling , recycling , maintenanc e o r othe r change s tha t

woul dreduc e th e amoun t and/o r toxicit y o f

waste s tha t ar e treate do r

disposed

. Non e o f

th e existin g mandator y o r voluntar y Stat e wast e minimizatio n plannin g program s specificall y addres s reduction s o f combuste dhazardou s a s a n objectiv e o f th e plannin g process . EP A requeste d comment s o n thi s approac h t o determin e i f

th e approac h coul dprovid e greate r flexibility fo r

facilitie s t o buil d o n requirement s o f

existin g stat e program s t o achiev e complianc e wit h MAC T standa r

ds

. I n th e secon dwast e minimizatio n plannin g option , EP A propose dt o provid e EP A Region s an dState s wit h th e discretionar y authorit y t o mak e cas e b y cas e determination s regardin g whic h facilitie s woul db e require dt o provid e informatio n o n wast e minimizatio n alternative s t o reduc e hazardou s waste s enterin g combustio n fee dstreams
. Thi s determinatio n coul dtak e int o accoun t severa l factors , including , fo r example , whethe r

a n existin g stat e progra mha d alread y accomplishe dth e equivalen t o f thi s objective , th e exten t t o whic h thi s requiremen t

ma y b e to o burdensom e fo r som e states , an dth e exten t t o whic h facilit y specifi c condition s indicat e emission s coul db e bes t controlle db y fee dstrea mmanagemen t an dwast e minimizatio n a t

th e source . Th e thir dwast e minimizatio n incentiv e EP A propose dfo r commen t allow s facilitie s t o appl y fo r u p t o aon e yea r extensio n t o th e thre e yea r complianc e perio dallowe dunde r th e C A A an d4 0 CF R63.6(i)(4)(i)(A ) i n case s wher e facilitie s nee dadditiona l tim e t o identif y an dinstal l wast e minimizatio n measure s tha t

woul dreduc e hazardou s waste s enterin g combustio n fee d stream s a s ametho d(eithe r alon e o r

i n combinatio n wit h combustio n o r othe r treatmen t

technology ) t o achiev e compliance

. 4 0 CF R63.6(i)(6)(i ) describe s th e requirement s fo r requestin g acomplianc e extension

. A reques t mus t includ e adescriptio n o f th e pollutio n control , proces s change s o r proces s equipmen t t o b e installed , a complianc e schedul e tha t describe s th e date s b y whic h thes e controls , proces s change s an dproces s equipmen t wil l b e initiated , th e date s b y whic h installatio n wil l b e completed , an dth e dat e b y whic h complianc e wil l b e achieved

. Th e Administrato r

o r aStat e tha t

ha s a n approve dPar t

7 0 permi t

progra mo r

ha s bee n delegate dth e authorit y t o implemen t

an denforc e th e emissio n standar dfo r

tha t sourc e ma y gran t

suc h extensions

. Thi s incentiv e would , a t leas t i n part , offse t

som e o f

th e tim e barrier s larg e companie s migh t nee dt o full y explor e an dinstal l wast e minimizatio n option s i n additio n t o an y combustio n equipmen t tha t ma y stil l b e necessary . C

. Comment s Receive d E P A receive dcomment s o n wast e minimizatio n fro m2 2 commenters
. Companie s tha t

operat e on-sit e unit s (man y o f

whic h ar e larg e chemica l plants ) commente dthat , whil e wast e minimizatio n ca n provid e acos t effectiv e approac h t o compliance , neithe r th e thre e yea r

complianc e perio dallowe dfo r

thi s rule , no r

th e thre e year s plu s aon e yea r extensio n i s sufficien t

tim e t o complet e th e tw o trac k tas k o f designing , testin g an dinstallin g wast e minimizatio n proces s change s tha t reduc e hazardou s waste s enterin g combustio n fee dstreams , an ddesignin g an dinstallin g an y combustio n o r othe r treatmen t

equipmen t

tha t ma y nevertheles s b e necessary . Wast e minimizatio n i s a n on-goin g proces s tha t shoul db e continuall y unde r investigatio n i n al l companies

. However , EP A agree s tha t i n case s wher e standard s ar e promulgate dtha t chang e th e economic s o f ho w muc h pollutio n ca n b e emitte dt o th e environment , eve n on-goin g wast e minimizatio n program s ma y no t b e abl e t o anticipat e th e bes t combinatio n o f wast e minimizatio n an dtreatmen t measure s t o achiev e compliance

. EP A agree s tha t

i n som e cases , particularl y a t larg e comple x manufacturin g operations , th e thre e yea r complianc e perio dma y no t

b e sufficien t

tim e t o conside r

wast e minimizatio n measures , an di n othe r

cases , thre e year s plu s a on e yea r

extensio n ma y no t

provid e sufficien t

time

. Commercia l facilitie s continu e t o asser t tha t the y hav e fe w direc t opportunitie s t o pursu e wast e minimizatio n sinc e the y hav e littl e contro l ove r

th e waste s generate db y thei r customers
. Som e commercia l companie s believ e EP A shoul d implemen t

"goo dactor " incentive s fo r companie s tha t

educat e thei r

customer s regardin g availabl e wast e minimizatio n resources . Suc h incentive s coul d includ e reduce dinspectio n frequencies , reduce dperformanc e testing , an da recognitio n program . EP A agree s tha t commercia l combustor s o f hazardou s wast e hav e littl e direc t contro l ove r

th e waste s generate db y thei r customer s an d therefor e wil l experienc e littl e i f an y flexibilit y fro man y th e wast e minimizatio n incentive s propose dfo r comment
. Th e commen t t o implemen t goo dacto r

incentive s a s a n incentiv e fo r commercia l companie s t o educat e thei r customer s o n wast e minimizatio n di d no t contai n sufficien t

informatio n t o determin e th e merit s o f suc h a n approach

. EP A doe s poin t out , however , tha t thi s typ e o f

concept , i.e. , on e i n whic h privat e industr y propose s a n improvemen t

i n environmenta l performanc e throug h an dinnovativ e regulator y approach , i s th e typ e o f approac h tha t

migh t b e appropriat e fo r furthe r exploratio n a t

alate r time

. Thre e state s commented

. Tw o state s believ e EP A shoul dencourag e wast e minimizatio n i n thi s rulemaking

. However , the y believ e thre e year s plu s aon e yea r

extensio n ma y no t

b e enoug h tim e fo r

companie s t o identif y an d instal l wast e minimizatio n measures . T h e thir dstat e sai dtha t wast e minimizatio n incentive s shoul dno t b e necessar y i n thi s rul e becaus e companie s hav e ha dman y year s t o pursu e wast e minimizatio n program s an dshoul dhav e alread y considere d wast e minimizatio n a s a n approac h t o compliance

. EP A agree s wit h th e tw o state s that , i n som e cases , thre e year s plu s aon e yea r

extensio n ma y no t

b e sufficien t

tim e t o identif y an dinstal l wast e minimizatio n measure s tha t achiev e compliance

. EP A agree s wit h th e thir dstat e t o alimite dextent , i n tha t companie s hav e ha dman y year s t o



# VE S 00034 7

## 2424 6 Federa

l Registe r / Vol

. 62 , No
. 85 /

Friday , Ma

y 2 , 199 7 / Propose dRule s implemen t

wast e minimizatio n programs , an dnote s tha t most , i f

no t all , o f th e companie s affecte db y today' s rulemakin g probabl y hav e wast e minimizatio n program s i n place

. However , a s note dearlier , wast e minimizatio n i s a n on-goin g process , an dth e stringen t

requirement s o f

th e MAC T standard s fo r hazardou s wast e burnin g facilitie s ma y shif t th e economic s fo r

particula r

companie s i n a w a y tha t

make s certai n wast e minimizatio n measure s mor e cos t effectiv e tha n the y otherwis e woul d hav e been , an dcompanie s ma y nee d additiona l tim e t o desig n an dinstal l thes e approaches

. EPA' s Interi mFina l Guidanc e t o Hazardou s Wast e Generator s o n th e Element s o f

aWast e Minimizatio n Progra mi n Plac e (Ma y 28,1993 ) recognize s companie s mak e thes e determination s o n acas e b y cas e basis

. EPA' s guidanc e describe s si x genera l progra melement s tha t contribut e t o successfu l corporat e wast e minimizatio n programs . Thes e element s include : (1 ) To p managemen t suppor t tha t emphasize s wast e minimizatio n i n it s corporat e policy , employe e involvemen t

an dreward s fo r

idea s tha t reduc e wast e generation , settin g goal s fo r wast e reduction , an dothe r proactiv e managemen t

steps ; (2 ) characterizatio n o f wast e generatio n an dwast e managemen t

costs , identificatio n o f source s o f

wast e i n th e productio n process , ho w the y wer e generated , th e valu e o f

ra w material s an dlos t product s tha t ar e escapin g a s waste , an dth e cos t o f replacin g an dmanagin g waste d materials ; (3 ) periodi c wast e minimizatio n assessment s tha t ar e tie d int o othe r

effort s t o improv e environmenta l management ; (4 ) acos t allocatio n syste mtha t assign s th e tru e cos t o f generatin g an dmanagin g waste s t o th e activitie s tha t generat e th e wast e i n th e firs t

place ; (5 ) encourag e technolog y transfe r tha t share s idea s an dtechnolog y betwee n part s o f th e organizatio n an dwit h othe r organization s wher e appropriate ; an d(6 ) progra mimplementatio n an devaluatio n tha t evaluate s successe s an dfailures , an dshare s informatio n wit h th e public

. Whil e thes e principle s wer e publishe d i n regar dt o RCRA' s wast e minimizatio n certificatio n requirement , th e principle s ca n b e use da s relevan t guidin g principle s b y companie s wh o wis h t o conside r

usin g wast e minimizatio n measure s a s ametho dt o reduc e hazardou s waste s enterin g combustio n fee dstream s regulate dunde r MAC T standard s an dth e Clea n Ai r Act

. On e compan y argue s i n it s comment s tha t mandator y wast e minimizatio n plannin g shoul db e mad e aMAC T requiremen t s o tha t facilitie s ar e force d t o conside r

sourc e reductio n an d recyclin g alternatives , rathe r tha n simpl y installin g end-of-the-pip e equipmen t

t o contro l HA P emissions

. T h e compan y argue s tha t thi s approac h woul db e particularl y usefu l i n controllin g combustio n fee dstream s t o limi t th e combustio n o f

metal s an d othe r constituent s tha t

ca n no t

b e adequatel y controlle dusin g end-of-pip e measures . E P A ha s examine dthi s issu e closely

. Whil e mandator y facilit y plannin g o n th e surfac e ma y appea r t o forc e facilitie s t o conside r

wast e minimizatio n solutions , providin g appropriat e regulator y incentive s an dharnessin g th e powe r o f publi c dialogu e fo r companie s t o identif y an dinstal l wast e minimizatio n measure s wil l resul t i n mor e wast e minimizatio n measures . Sixtee n state s hav e implemente d mandator y wast e minimizatio n plannin g program s an dsevera l mor e hav e implemente dvoluntar y wast e minimizatio n plannin g program s i n a n effor t t o encourag e facilitie s t o pursu e wast e minimizatio n measure s ove r end

of-pip e measures . A Federa l mandator y an dprescriptivel y detaile dwast e minimizatio n plannin g requiremen t woul dbe , a t

best , marginall y effectiv e i n causin g larg e companie s (whic h mak e u p th e populatio n o f facilitie s affecte d b y today' s regulation ) t o identif y an d instal l wast e minimizatio n measure s beyon dwha t

the y woul dd o unde r curren t requirements

. Larg e companie s generall y alread y hav e th e necessar y staff , information , an dresource s t o pursu e wast e minimizatio n alternative s wher e i t

make s sens e t o d o so . Whethe r larg e companie s choos e wast e minimizatio n solution s ove r end-of-pip e solution s depend s o n avariet y o f economi c an dothe r factor s tha t outweig h attempt s t o identif y additiona l wast e minimizatio n alternatives

. EP A hope s t o encourag e minimizin g impediment s t o wast e minimizatio n b y solicitin g comment s o n th e approache s containe di n today' s NODA

. Furthermore , th e remainin g State s hav e chose n t o no t

implemen t

mandator y o r voluntar y wast e minimizatio n plannin g programs . Som e State s believ e tha t mandator y wast e minimizatio n plannin g doe s no t

improv e wast e minimizatio n results

. I t woul dno t

b e appropriat e fo r

EP A t o eithe r

ad d additiona l burde n t o Stat e wast e minimizatio n program s tha t alread y exis t o r t o State s tha t

hav e chose n no t t o hav e wast e minimizatio n plannin g programs . E P A is , instead , askin g fo r commen t o n arefine dapproac h tha t encourage s facilitie s t o conside r wast e minimizatio n alternatives , use s publi c dialogu e t o advanc e wast e minimizatio n efforts , an dprovide s regulator y incentive s fo r

companie s t o pursu e wast e minimizatio n solutions

. Thi s approac h wil l achiev e man y o f th e sam e end s mor e efficientl y tha n adetaile d an dprescriptiv e mandator y wast e minimizatio n plannin g requirement

. D
. Comment s Requeste do n Additiona l Wast e Minimizatio n Incentive s E P A i s requestin g commen t o n athre e regulator y incentive s tha t ar e intende d t o encourag e companie s t o pursu e wast e minimizatio n measure s t o reduc e o r eliminat e hazardou s waste s enterin g combustio n fee dstreams
. T h e firs t

incentiv e wa s propose di n EPA' s Apri l 19 , 199 6 MAC T proposal , an di s bein g refine di n today' s NODA

. E P A requeste dcomment s o n grantin g regulate dfacilitie s th e opportunit y t o reques t aon e yea r

extensio n t o th e thre e complianc e perio dallowe dunde r th e Clea n Ai r

Ac t i n case s wher e th e additiona l tim e i s clearl y neede dt o identif y an dinstal l wast e minimizatio n measure s tha t

woul dreduc e th e amoun t o f hazardou s wast e combuste da s a mean s o f

achievin g compliance

. I n today' s NODA , EP A i s requestin g commen t

o n severa l clarifyin g factor s tha t wil l promot e consistenc y whil e stil l allowin g flexibilit y i n decision-makin g amon g th e EP A Region s an dauthorize d State s wh o wil l mak e determination s o n whethe r

o r no t t o gran t

on e yea r extension s t o facilitie s wh o apply

. E P A i s als o requestin g commen t o n extendin g th e agency' s curren t audi t an dpenalt y policie s t o allo w som e companie s t o ente r

int o awritte n consen t agreemen t

o r consen t

order s (CA/COs ) i n case s wher e i t i s clea r

tha t longe r tha n fou r

year s (i.e. , longe r

tha n aon e yea r

extension ) i s neede dt o identif y an dinstal l wast e minimizatio n measure s tha t

significantl y reduc e hazardou s waste s enterin g combustio n fee dstreams
. Thes e tw o approache s ar e discusse dmor e below

. 4 0 CF R63. 6 (i ) describe s th e authority , procedure s an drequirement s fo r requestin g aon e yea r complianc e extensio n fo r

meetin g MAC T standards

. Request s mus t

includ e certai n information , including : A descriptio n o f th e pollutio n control , proces s change s o r proces s equipmen t t o b e installed , a complianc e schedul e tha t describe s th e date s b y whic h thes e controls , proces s change s an dproces s equipment , wil l b e initiated , th e date s b y whic h installatio n wil l b e completed , an dth e dat e b y whic h complianc e wil l b e achieved

. Today , EP A i s requestin g commen t o n languag e tha t

clarifie s th e ter m"proces s changes " i n 4 0 CF R63.6(i)(6)(i)(B )



# VE S 00034 8

## Federa l Registe r / Vol

. 62 , No
. 85 /

Friday , May 2 , 199

7 / Propose dRule s 2424 7
solel y wit h respec t

t o hazardou s wast e burnin g incinerators , LWAK s an d cemen t kilns , t o mak e i t

clea r tha t wast e minimizatio n measure s ar e include di n th e meanin g o f

proces s change s fo r meetin g MAC T standards

. B y makin g thi s clarification , EP A hope s t o encourag e th e us e o f wast e minimizatio n measure s t o reduc e th e amoun t o f hazardou s wast e enterin g combustio n fee dstream s a s a n alternativ e t o o r

supplemen t

t o end-of

pip e emissio n controls

. Wit h respec t t o hazardou s wast e burnin g incinerators , LWAK s an dcemen t kilns , EP A include s i n th e definitio n o f

"proces s changes " th e followin g activities : equipmen t o r technolog y modifications , reformulatio n o r redesig n o f

products , substitutio n o f ra w materials , improvement s i n wor k practices , maintenance , inventor y control , an denvironmentall y soun d recyclin g measure s whic h reduc e th e amoun t and/o r toxicit y o f

hazardou s wast e enterin g fee dstream s o f combustio n devices

. Th e ter m environmentall y soun drecyclin g include s on-sit e (includin g closed-loo p recycling ) an doff-sit e recyclin g activitie s tha t

use , reus e o r

reclai m hazardou s material s i n accordanc e wit h E P A regulations

. Burnin g fo r energ y recover y i s no t

include di n th e meanin g o f "proces s change " a s abasi s fo r requestin g aon e yea r extensio n fo r wast e minimizatio n purposes . Thi s propose ddefinitio n woul dappl y onl y t o hazardou s wast e burnin g incinerators , LWAK s an dcemen t kilns

. Th e Administrato r

o r aStat e tha t

ha s a n approve dpar t

7 0 permi t

progra m(o r ha s bee n delegate dth e authorit y t o implemen t

an denforc e th e emissio n standar dfo r

tha t source ) ma y gran t extension s unde r

4 0 CF R63.6(i)(9)

. Unde r thi s approach , decision s t o gran t on e yea r

extension s wil l b e mad e b y E P A Regiona l office s an dapprove do r delegate dstat e programs . EP A recognize s tha t

State s emplo y avariet y o f approache s fo r

requirin g o r encouragin g th e consideratio n o f wast e minimizatio n measure s i n achievin g complianc e wit h regulator y requirements

. I t

i s no t appropriat e fo r E P A t o supersed e Stat e approache s wit h aunifor mse t

o f criteri afo r

evaluatin g wast e minimizatio n request s fo r on e yea r complianc e extensions

. However , E P A believe s i t

i s appropriat e t o encourag e (bu t

no t mandate ) consistenc y i n ho w thes e decision s ar e made

. Therefore , EP A i s requestin g commen t

o n aproposa l t o includ e fou r factor s tha t

must , a t

aminimu mb e considere db y EP A Regiona l office s an d approve do r

delegate dstat e program s i n approvin g o r

denyin g request s fo r on e yea r complianc e extension s fo r hazardou s wast e burnin g incinerators , LWAKs , an dcemen t kilns)

. Thes e factor s include :
• Th e exten t

t o whic h th e proces s change s (includin g wast e minimizatio n measures ) propose da s abasi s fo r th e extensio n reduc e o r eliminat e hazardou s waste s enterin g combustio n fee d stream s an dar e technologicall y an d economicall y feasible

. • Whethe r

th e magnitud e o f

th e reduction s i n hazardou s waste s enterin g combustio n fee dstream s throug h proces s change s ar e significan t enoug h t o warran t

grantin g a n extension

. • A clea r

demonstratio n tha t reduction s o f

hazardou s waste s enterin g combustio n fee dstream s ar e no t shifte d a s increase s i n pollutant s emitte d throug h othe r

regulate dmedia

. • A demonstratio n tha t th e desig n an dinstallatio n o f

proces s changes , whic h includ e wast e minimizatio n measures , an dothe r measure s tha t

ar e necessar y fo r

complianc e canno t otherwis e b e installe dwithi n th e thre e yea r complianc e period

. Thes e factor s wil l provid e adegre e o f consistency , whil e stil l allowin g flexibilit y amon g EP A Regiona l office s an dapprove dStates , i n th e us e o f thi s innovativ e regulator y approach

. EP A wil l als o provid e separat e guidanc e tha t provide s example s o f ho w t o appl y th e factor s t o conside r

an dadditiona l informatio n tha t

wil l b e helpfu l t o governmen t

an dregulate dentities

. Fo r example , th e guidanc e wil l provid e example s tha t

wil l hel p gaug e whethe r th e magnitud e o f

propose drequest s t o reduc e hazardou s waste s enterin g combustio n fee dstream s throug h proces s change s ar e significan t enoug h t o warran t

grantin g a n extension

. Fo r example , companie s tha t commi t

t o a 2 5 % o r greate r reductio n i n hazardou s waste s enterin g combustio n fee d stream s ma y b e mor e likel y t o b e considere dfo r

a n extensio n tha n companie s tha t

commit s t o onl y afiv e percen t reduction

. E P A anticipate s tha t th e guidanc e wil l contai n othe r

example s o n ho w t o evaluat e case s wher e alo w percentag e reductio n ma y actuall y reflect s a significan t

improvemen t

relativ e t o previou s significan t wast e minimizatio n achievements

. Th e guidanc e wil l addres s ho w t o evaluat e shift s fro m combustio n fee dstream s t o othe r regulate dmedia , suc h a s wastewate r effluent s o r

othe r pollutan t

sources . EP A anticipate s th e guidanc e wil l addres s assurin g tha t

th e propose dproces s change s tha t

includ e wast e minimizatio n measure s ar e critica l pat h step s towar dcompliance , an dno t proces s improvement s tha t hav e littl e t o d o wit h reduction s o f hazardou s wast e fee dstreams , an dcoul dotherwis e hav e littl e impac t

o n compliance

. Wast e minimizatio n measure s tha t ar e no t o n acritica l pat h towar dcomplianc e o r tha t d o no t hav e adirec t

impac t o n reducin g o r

eliminatin g hazardou s wast e stream s enterin g combustio n fee d stream s ar e no t

goo dcandidate s fo r a on e yea r

extension

. Finally , EP A anticipate s th e guidanc e wil l includ e a lis t o f state s tha t

hav e approve dpar t 7 0 permi t programs , alis t

o f state s tha t operat e wast e minimizatio n technica l assistanc e programs , an dalis t o f State s tha t hav e mandator y o r voluntar y wast e minimizatio n plannin g programs . E P A als o point s ou t tha t companie s tha t choos e t o appl y fo r aon e yea r extensio n fo r

wast e minimizatio n purpose s ma y wis h t o coordinat e th e developmen t

o f complianc e extensio n application s wit h th e developmen t o f "publi c regulator y notification s o f inten t t o comply, " containe di n today' s rule , sinc e muc h o f

th e developmenta l wor k fo r th e tw o action s shoul db e nearl y identical

. I n th e comment s received , severa l companie s an dstate s sai dthat , i n som e cases , eve n th e thre e yea r complianc e perio dplu s aon e yea r extensio n woul d no t b e adequat e tim e t o design , an d instal l wast e minimizatio n measure s o r additiona l combustio n o r treatmen t measure s necessar y t o ensur e complianc e wit h th e MAC T standards

. I t ma y b e appropriate , unde r th e circumstance s describe dbelow , t o gran t facilitie s wh o demonstrat e tha t longe r tha n thre e year s plu s aon e yea r extensio n i s necessar y t o implemen t wast e minimizatio n measure s tha t significantl y reduc e th e amoun t and/o r toxicit y o f

hazardou s wast e enterin g combustio n fee dstream s additiona l tim e (i.e. , longe r

tha n fou r

years)

. Reducin g th e amoun t o f hazardou s wast e enterin g combustio n fee dstream s provide s greate r

long-ter mlevel s o f protectio n fo r

publi c healt h an dth e environmen t

tha n othe r

non-wast e minimization/pollutio n preventio n measure s tha t

coul db e use dt o compl y wit h th e MAC T standard

. Sinc e facilitie s tha t

nee dlonge r

tha n thre e year s o r

th e thre e yea r

dat e plu s aon e yea r extensio n t o mee t

complianc e ar e technicall y i n violatio n (no t includin g facilitie s tha t

ar e grante daon e yea r complianc e extensio n an dmee t complianc e withi n th e on e yea r extensio n period) , EP A wil l requir e thes e facilitie s t o ente r int o writte n consen t agreements/consen t order s (CA / COs ) t o receiv e thi s additiona l time

. Th e proces s change s tha t includ e wast e minimizatio n measure s mus t clearl y demonstrat e th e facilit y wil l achiev e significan t

reduction s i n th e amoun t o f



# VE S 00034 9

## 2424

8 Federa

l Registe r / Vol

. 62 , No
. 8 5 /

Friday , Ma

y 2 , 199 7 / Propose dRule s
hazardou s waste s enterin g combustio n wast e stream s ove r

wha t woul dhav e otherwis e hav e bee n combuste dove r th e lon g ter musin g combustion-base d complianc e alternative s installe dwithi n th e thre e yea r

complianc e perio d(o r thre e year s plu s aon e yea r complianc e extension)

. EP A encourage s facilitie s t o conside r

undertakin g longer-ter mwast e minimizatio n complianc e approaches , subjec t t o limitation s propose dtoday

. E P A wil l conside r

suc h request s usin g it s enforcemen t

discretio n an dth e principle s articulate di n th e Agency' s "Polic y o n Encouragin g Self-Policin g an dVoluntar y Correction " (6 0 F R 66706 , Decembe r

22 , 1995 ) (i.e. , th e "Audi t Policy")

. Withi n thi s context , E P A may , i n certai n cases , conside r a reductio n o f

penaltie s fo r

facilitie s tha t ar e abl e t o instal l complianc e solution s tha t demonstrat e significan t reduction s i n hazardou s waste s enterin g combustio n fee dstreams , bu t nee d additiona l tim e beyon dtha t allowabl e unde r th e regulations

. T o qualif y fo r

thi s specia l consideratio n fo r

additiona l time , a regulate dentit y woul dhav e t o submi t a writte n reques t

tha t contain s th e informatio n liste dbelow

. Facilitie s mus t submi t request s t o th e EP A Regiona l Offic e tha t

ha s oversigh t

fo r thei r facilit y withi n on e yea r

afte r th e MAC T standard s fo r

thi s rulemakin g ar e promulgated

. Th e reques t woul d include :
• A n explanatio n o f wh y th e facilit y canno t reasonabl y implemen t thei r propose dproces s change s tha t includ e wast e minimizatio n measure s withi n fou r year s fro mth e dat e o f th e promulgatio n o f

th e MAC T standards

. • A n explanatio n o f ho w th e facility' s propose dproces s change s (tha t includ e wast e minimizatio n measures ) wil l achiev e greate r

reduction s i n quantit y and/o r toxicit y o f

hazardou s waste s enterin g combustio n fee dstreams
. Th e propose dreduction s mus t b e significant

. EP A wil l mak e thes e determination s o n acase-by-cas e basis

. • A n explanatio n o f ho w th e wast e minimization/pollutio n preventio n measure s ar e necessar y t o achiev e complianc e wit h th e MAC T standard s (i.e. , wast e minimizatio n measure s whic h reduc e hazardou s waste s enterin g combustio n feedstream s mus t b e show n t o hav e adirec t

impac t o n th e subsequen t

design , installatio n an d testin g o f

combustio n o r

othe r treatmen t measure s necessar y t o achiev e an dg o beyon dcomplianc e standards) , an da schedul e fo r

implementatio n o f th e proposal

. • A wast e minimizatio n facilit y plan

. Thi s pla n mus t

follo w EPA' s "Pollutio n Preventio n Facilit y Plannin g Guide " (May , 1992 ; NTI S #PB92-213206) , or , i f th e facilit y i s locate di n aStat e tha t require s mandator y wast e minimizatio n planning , th e for mo f wast e minimizatio n plannin g require db y tha t State

. Regulate dentitie s mus t demonstrat e a clea r inten t t o achiev e complianc e i n a timel y fashio n b y enterin g int o a consen t agreement/complianc e orde r wit h EP A a s soo n a s the y excee dth e allotte dtim e provide db y th e regulation s (includin g an y regulator y extension)

. EP A woul dthe n exercis e it s enforcemen t

discretio n t o trea t

a facility' s failur e t o achiev e complianc e b y th e regulator y deadlin e a s aviolatio n tha t ca n receiv e penalt y mitigatio n unde r th e Agency' s Audi t Policy

. Unde r th e Audi t

Polic y th e Agenc y ma y giv e u p t o a100 % reductio n i n th e gravit y base dcomponen t

o f potentia l penalties

. T o qualif y fo r

eliminatin g th e gravity

base dpenalt y afacilit y wil l hav e t o sho w tha t

i t ha s acomplianc e managemen t

progra mtha t

meet s th e criteri afo r

du e diligenc e unde r th e Audi t Policy

. Otherwise , th e facilit y ma y qualif y fo r

a75 % reductio n o f th e gravit y componen t

o f th e penalty

. EP A wil l provid e example s o f pas t case s i n th e supplementa l guidanc e note dearlie r i n thi s section

. E P A realize s tha t

som e wast e minimizatio n complianc e measure s ma y b e mor e cos t

effectiv e tha n combustio n base dapproaches

. EP A wil l retai n it s discretio n t o recove r an y economi c benefi t gaine da s aresul t

o f noncompliance

. Thi s wil l ensur e tha t facilitie s tha t

dela y complianc e fo r a specifi c perio do f

tim e d o no t

receiv e a n economi c benefi t

durin g th e perio do f non-complianc e ove r regulate dentitie s tha t d o compl y withi n th e regulator y deadline

. Fo r

example , EP A ma y recove r th e economi c benefi t acompan y receive s b y delayin g capita l expenditure s fo r

modifyin g thei r manufacturin g proces s t o mee t th e ne w complianc e standards

. EP A ma y exercis e it s discretio n i n appropriat e circumstance s t o choos e th e lowe r figur e between : (1 ) th e company' s pollutio n prevention/wast e minimizatio n expenditures , an d(2 ) expenditure s th e compan y woul dhav e incurre dimplementin g othe r method s t o com e int o compliance , whe n calculatin g economi c benefi t durin g th e perio do f

non-complianc e wit h th e ne w regulator y standards

. EP A wil l als o us e it s enforcemen t

discretio n t o waiv e recover y o f

insignifican t

amount s o f

an y economi c benefi t

resultin g fro ma facility' s delaye dcompliance

. E P A i s als o encouragin g companie s t o pursu e wast e minimizatio n measure s i n a n expansio n o f

th e provisio n i n th e Clea n Ai r Ac t regulation s tha t

require s facilitie s t o submi t

a n earl y notificatio n tha t the y inten dt o compl y wit h th e MAC T standard s a s the y becom e effectiv e (usuall y abou t 2- 3 year s afte r th e notificatio n i s submitted)

. Th e expansion , calle dapubli c regulator y notification s o f

inten t t o comply , woul d requir e facilitie s t o includ e substantiall y mor e detai l i n thi s notificatio n on : (1 ) Wha t the y hav e considere ddoin g t o mee t th e MAC T standard s (particularl y wit h respec t

t o wast e minimization) ; an d(2 ) ho w the y hav e decide dt o proceed

. Thi s expande dnotificatio n woul db e sen t

no t onl y t o th e regulator y agency , bu t

woul dals o b e mad e availabl e t o th e loca l community

. I n addition , th e facilit y woul db e require d t o hol da n informa l meetin g wit h th e loca l citizenr y t o discus s th e notification

. However , regulator y agenc y revie w an dapprova l o f th e notificatio n i s neithe r

mandate dno r

expected

. Thi s approac h woul dharnes s th e powe r o f publi c opinio n t o urg e facilitie s t o conside r

wast e minimizatio n alternative s t o end-of-pip e way s o f meetin g th e MAC T standards

. Thi s approac h i s describe di n detai l elsewher e i n today' s NOD A fo r publi c comment
. E P A request s commen t o n th e exten t t o whic h th e propose don e yea r complianc e extension , th e propose d opportunit y fo r

companie s t o ente r int o consen t agreements/consen t order s fo r period s tha t

exten dbeyon dfou r years , an dth e PRNI C approac h provid e companie s wit h appropriat e incentive s t o pursu e wast e minimizatio n measure s t o achiev e compliance

. VI. Permit

Requirements A

. Coordinatio n o f

RCR A an dCA A Permittin g Processe s I n th e NPRM , EP A propose dt o plac e th e fina l MAC T standard s i n 4 0 CF R Par t 6 3 an dreferenc e thos e standard s i n 4 0 CF RPart s 26 4 an d26 6 (6 1 F Ra t 17451)

. Unde r

thi s proposa l th e standard s woul donl y b e writte n ou t i n th e CA A regulations , bu t the y woul d legall y b e par t

o f bot h th e CA A an d RCR A regulations

. Thus , bot h program s woul dhav e a n obligatio n t o addres s th e standard s i n permit s issue dunde r thei r authority

. EP A propose dthi s approac h t o provid e th e maximu mamoun t o f flexibilit y fo r

stat e permittin g authoritie s t o coordinat e th e issuanc e o f permit s an denforcemen t activitie s i n a w a y whic h mos t

effectivel y addresse s thei r particula r

situation

. Afte r reviewin g th e NPR M comments , ther e i s som e questio n o n whethe r th e propose dapproac h wil l provid e th e maximu mamoun t

o f flexibilit y t o th e



# VE S 00035 0

## Federal Registe r / Vol

. 62 , No
. 85 /

Friday , Ma

y 2 , 199 7 / ProposedRule s 2424 9

stat e permittin g authorities

. Th e propose dapproac h woul dstil l requir e i n mos t case s a t

leas t tw o differen t permittin g authoritie s t o revie w th e ai r emissio n standard s i n apermit

. Sinc e unde r th e origina l proposa l th e standard s woul db e i n bot h th e 

## RCR A an dCA A regulations , permi t writer s fro meac h progra mmigh t b e require dt o addres s the mt o som e degre e i n apermi t unde r tha t program , eithe r

b y writin g the mdirectl y i n th e permi t o r b y referencin g the mfro mth e othe r permit

. Th e propose dapproac h migh t no t hav e give n state s th e flexibilit y t o implemen t th e ne w standard s unde r asingl e regulator y program . Thus , th e propose d approac h woul dresul t i n duplicativ e permittin g action s i n man y cases . Commenter s ha dsevera l othe r concern s wit h a n approac h wher e th e ai r emissio n standard s ar e incorporate d int o tw o permits

. On e majo r proble m describe db y commenter s i s tha t th e overlappin g permi t

condition s o f

th e Titl e V an dRCR A permit s woul db e subjec t t o tw o separat e permi t modificatio n procedures , administrativ e appeal s procedures , an dpotentiall y separat e judicia l procedure s a s well

. Th e Agenc y no w believe s tha t thi s outcom e coul db e needlessl y duplicativ e an dunwieldy , an dtherefor e no t consisten t

wit h th e Agency' s inten t t o simplif y permitting

. Additionally , commenter s wer e concerne dtha t

th e propose dapproac h woul dhav e allowe dfo r dua l enforcemen t

scenario s wher e enforcemen t

action s unde r

bot h statute s woul db e brough t

agains t th e facilit y fo r asingl e violation

. I n th e NPRM , EP A state dtha t

th e Agenc y di dno t expec t t o enforc e unde r

bot h permit s (6 1 F Ra t 17452)

. However , commenter s note d tha t thi s statemen t

di dno t

restrai n th e state s fro minitiatin g dua l enforcemen t actions , o r

citizen s fro minitiatin g dua l citize n suits

. Codifyin g th e MAC T standard s i n onl y on e plac e i n th e regulation s (unlik e th e propose dscheme ) ma y actuall y provid e state s th e greates t flexibilit y i n th e wa y the y issu e permit s an dpreven t duplicatio n o f

effort

. Althoug h th e standard s woul db e codifie dunde r on e statute , state s coul ddecid e whic h progra mthe y wan t

implementin g th e standards

. A stat e woul db e fre e t o decide , fo r

example , t o hav e it s RCR A staf f implemen t

ase t o f CA A standards

. Anothe r

approac h woul db e fo r astat e t o decid e unde r

whic h stat e statut e t o adop t th e MAC T standard s base do n whic h par t

o f thei r progra mthe y wis h t o implemen t

th e standards

. Fo r exampl e i f

EP A place s th e MAC T standard s i n par t

6 3 onl y (se e below) , a stat e coul dstil l decid e t o adop t thos e standard s unde r thei r stat e soli dwast e statut e an dimplemen t th e standard s throug h thei r

RCR A hazardou s wast e program , dependin g o n ho w thei r stat e soli dwast e statut e i s written

. Th e basi c premis e i n thi s approac h i s tha t i t i s no t significan t

t o EPA , no r

t o prope r implementatio n o f

RCR A o r

CAA , unde r wha t statut e astat e adopt s aRCR A o r C A A regulation

. E P A particularl y woul dlik e t o tak e commen t

o n thi s issue

. D o state s believ e the y ca n decid e unde r whic h progra mt o implemen t

th e MAC T standard s i f the y ar e onl y place di n Par t 63 ? EP A i s concerne dtha t

state s b e allowe dt o implemen t

th e standard s throug h eithe r thei r CA A o r

thei r RCR A program , whicheve r

work s bes t

fo r thei r particula r

situation

. Currently , EP A i s considerin g placin g th e MAC T standard s onl y i n 4 0 CF R par t 6 3 an drelyin g o n th e ai r progra m implementatio n scheme , includin g th e Titl e V permittin g program , t o brin g facilitie s int o complianc e wit h th e ne w standards

. Thi s approac h (a s oppose dt o th e converse—placin g th e standard s onl y i n th e RCR A regulations ) i s th e onl y approac h tha t

appear s feasibl e t o allo w th e standard s t o b e codifie di n onl y on e plac e i n th e regulations

. Th e Agenc y woul drel y o n th e integratio n provisio n o f

RCR A sectio n 1006(b)(1 ) t o defe r RCR A control s o n thes e ai r emission s t o th e par t 6 3 MAC T standards

. (Th e CA A doe s no t hav e a simila r integratio n provisio n whic h woul dallo w deferra l o f CA A requirement s t o RCR A regulations. ) W e emphasize , however , tha t unde r thi s approach , ther e woul dstil l b e a nee dfo r

aRCR A permi t

a t HW C facilities , t o addres s an y othe r RCR A unit s o n site , an dt o addres s RCR A regulation s whic h appl y t o al l type s o f RCR A facilitie s an dwhic h ar e no t duplicate dunde r

CAA

. Fo r

example , a permi t wil l b e require dt o addres s hazardou s wast e storag e unit s tha t hol d th e wast e prio r

t o combustion

. A s wit h al l RCR A permits , th e permi t woul d requir e complianc e wit h th e standard s i n 4 0 CF Rpar t

26 4 (includin g genera l facilit y standards , preparednes s an d preventio n requirements , contingenc y plannin g an demergenc y procedur e requirements , manifestin g requirements , recordkeepin g an dreportin g requirements , release s fro msoli dwast e managemen t

unit s requirements , closur e an dpost-closur e requirements , financia l requirements , correctiv e actio n requirements , storag e requirements , material s handlin g requirements , an d ai r emission s standard s fo r proces s vents , equipmen t

leaks , tanks , an d containers)

. Th e omnibu s provisio n o f RCR A Sectio n 3005(c)(3) , codifie da t § 270.32(b)(2) , whic h provide s fo r additiona l permi t

condition s a s necessar y a t

aparticula r

sit e t o protec t huma n healt h an dth e environment , woul dals o nee dt o b e addresse di n th e RCR A permit , wit h respec t t o th e combusto r

an dothe r

activitie s a t

th e facility

. (Thi s issu e i s discusse dfurthe r i n th e nex t

section. ) Amon g othe r consequences , thi s mean s tha t th e curren t progra mo f

processin g RCR A H W C permit s wil l continu e unti l EP A finalize s an y progra mchanges

. I t remain s ahig h priorit y t o brin g al l HW C unde r ful l Par t

B permit s a s soo n a s possible

. Althoug h th e RCR A permi t woul dno t nee dt o duplicat e th e MAC T control s containe di n aTitl e V permit , ther e wil l typicall y b e anumbe r o f wast e managemen t

activitie s associate dwit h th e combustio n uni t tha t woul dnee dt o b e addresse di n th e RCR A permi t (an d no t th e Titl e V permit) , suc h a s material s handlin g (fee dan dresidues ) an dcombustor-specifi c (bu t no t MACT

- related ) wast e analysi s requirement s an dfee drestrictions

. If , a s unde r th e origina l proposal , th e Agenc y decide s t o retai n th e DR E standar di n th e RCR A regulations , the n DR E woul dals o nee d t o b e addresse di n th e RCR A permit

. Th e discussio n abov e describe s on e approac h th e Agenc y i s considerin g fo r th e fina l rule

. I f

thi s approac h wer e adopted , i t

woul destablis h ho w EP A woul dimplemen t

th e ne w MAC T standard s wher e th e Agenc y ha s permittin g jurisdiction

. However , i n man y cases , state s ar e delegate dRCR A an dCA A authority

. I t woul dtherefor e b e u p t o th e stat e progra mt o decid e h o w bes t

t o implemen t

th e MAC T standard s give n th e particula r authoritie s o f

th e state
. Th e approac h describe dtoda y ma y b e bette r suite dt o provid e greate r

flexibilit y fo r

stat e approaches , whethe r th e Stat e prefer s t o rel y primaril y o n th e MAC T an dTitl e V permi t proces s o r

th e RCR A permi t proces s t o impos e th e ne w standards

. Th e Agenc y recognize s tha t i n man y case s facilitie s wil l alread y hav e aRCR A permi t i n plac e whe n th e MAC T standard s becom e effective

. Thi s situatio n raise s th e questio n o f wha t happen s t o RCR A permi t condition s relate dt o combusto r ai r emissions

. Fro ma n overal l standpoint , i t i s expecte dtha t

th e MAC T standard s wil l b e mor e stringen t

tha n man y curren t RCR A regulation s an dpermi t conditions

. However , a t som e individua l sites , certai n RCR A permi t condition s ma y b e mor e stringen t tha n th e correspondin g MAC T emission s standards

. Som e potentia l reason s wh y suc h asituatio n woul doccu r ar e becaus e th e RCR A permi t conditio n i s



# VE S 00035 1

## 2425

0 Federa

l Registe r / Vol

. 62 , No
. 85 /

Friday , Ma y 2 , 199

7 / Propose dRule s
base do n asite-specifi c ris k evaluatio n unde r th e BI Frul e o r

th e omnibu s provision ; becaus e th e MAC T standar d i s i n adifferen t

forma t tha n th e permi t conditio n (e.g. , amas s emissio n rat e o r remova l efficienc y forma t i n aRCR A permi t vs . aconcentration-base d standar dfo r

HC I unde r

MACT ) an da t tha t particula r

sit e th e RCR A forma t yield s mor e stringen t control ; because , i n th e cas e o f

C O limit s i n earl y incinerato r

permits , th e RCR A permi t limi t wa s base do n level s durin g th e tria l burn ; o r

becaus e th e facilit y wa s on e o f th e lowe r

emitter s i n th e standard s developmen t MAC T pool

. Th e Agency' s overal l inten t i s fo r th e MAC T standard s t o replac e th e RCR A ai r emission s standard s fo r hazardou s wast e combustors

. Therefore , wher e th e Agenc y ha s permittin g jurisdiction , th e RCR A ai r

emission s permi t

limit s fo r HWCs , wit h th e exceptio n o f site

specifi c risk-base dlimits , woul db e delete dfro mRCR A permit s whe n th e MAC T standard s becom e operational

. I n th e cas e o f

site-specifi c risk-base d limits , base deithe r

o n th e BI Fmetal s an dHC1/C1 2 requirement s o r omnibu s authority , thes e limit s woul dremai n i n RCR A permit s t o satisf y th e protectivenes s requiremen t o f RCR A sectio n 300 4 (a ) an d(q)

. A s wit h EP A issue dpermits , i n authorize dstate s an y site-specifi c risk-base dlimit s woul d nee dt o b e retaine dwher e necessar y t o satisf y RCR A protectivenes s requirements

. Sinc e authorize dstate s ar e allowe dt o b e mor e stringent , state s wil l determine , i n th e proces s o f decidin g whethe r

t o delet e ol dRCRA

- base dregulation s an di n th e permittin g process , whethe r

t o kee p o r

delet e mor e stringen t

permi t condition s whic h ar e no t base do n asite-specifi c ris k finding

. E P A woul dlik e t o tak e commen t o n th e approac h o f

placin g th e MAC T standard s onl y i n th e par t 6 3 regulations , an ddeferrin g th e RCR A standards , a s describe dabove

. B
. Permi t

Proces s Issue s A s discusse dabove , th e Agenc y i s considerin g a n approac h o f placin g th e MAC T standard s onl y i n 4 0 CF Rpar t 6 3 an dusin g RCR A 1006(b ) authorit y t o defe r RCR A permittin g t o th e Titl e V permittin g progra mfo r th e ai r emissio n standard s only

. Thi s approac h raise s th e issue s o f

ho w an dwhe n th e permittin g authoritie s shoul dmodif y existin g RCR A permit s t o remov e th e ai r emissio n standards

. Th e Agency' s curren t thinkin g i s tha t

th e RCR A permi t shoul dcontinu e t o appl y unti l a facilit y complete s it s comprehensiv e performanc e testin g an dit s Titl e V permi t i s issue d(o r

it s existin g Titl e V permi t i s modifie dt o includ e th e MAC T standards)

. Th e RCR A permi t woul d the n b e modifie dt o remov e th e ai r emissio n limitation s whic h ar e covere d i n th e Titl e V permit

. Anothe r optio n i s t o modif y th e RCR A permi t a t th e tim e th e facilit y submit s thei r comprehensiv e performanc e tes t

results

. However , i t i s beneficia l t o wai t

unti l th e tes t

result s ar e reviewed , approved , an dwritte n int o aTitl e V permi t befor e deletin g an y RCR A permi t

condition s becaus e o f th e greate r leve l o f

Agenc y an dpubli c revie w tha t

occur s durin g th e permi t process . Th e Agenc y woul dlik e t o tak e commen t

o n thi s issue

. A t

wha t poin t shoul dth e RCR A permi t b e modifie dt o remov e ai r

emissio n standards ? Ho w shoul dth e switch-ove r t o th e ne w permittin g syste moccur ? Not e tha t irrespectiv e o f

whe n th e Titl e V permi t i s issued/modified , th e MAC T standard s an dassociate doperatin g limit s becom e enforceabl e accordin g t o th e schedul e i n th e fina l rule

. Afte r th e complianc e dat e fo r th e fina l rule , bu t

befor e th e RCR A permi t i s modifie dt o remov e an y ai r emissio n limitations , ther e wil l b e aperio dwher e afacilit y wil l hav e bot h aRCR A permi t tha t addresse s ai r

emission s an deither : (1 ) A precertificatio n o f complianc e documen t

wit h applicabl e operatin g condition s tha t

the y hav e submitted ; o r (2 ) aTitl e V permi t

whic h als o addresse s ai r

emissions

. Note , th e RCR A permi t wil l continu e t o appl y unti l suc h tim e tha t

i t i s modifie dt o remov e an y ai r emissio n limitations

. Th e precertificatio n o f

complianc e documen t

o r Titl e V permi t

wil l no t automaticall y supersed e RCR A permi t condition s a s amatte r o f law

. Th e mor e stringen t

condition s wil l govern . C

. Omnibu s an dRCRA/CA A Testin g Coordinatio n A s discusse di n th e preambl e t o th e propose drul e (6 1 F Ra t 17371) , EP A currentl y ha s anationa l RCR A polic y o f strongl y recommendin g t o al l federa l an dstat e RCR A permi t writer s that , unde r th e omnibu s provisio n o f RCR A sectio n 3005(c)(3) , site-specifi c ris k assessment s (SSRAs ) generall y b e performe da s par t

o f th e RCR A permittin g proces s t o determin e whethe r

additiona l condition s ar e necessar y t o protec t huma n healt h an d th e environment

. Th e result s o f thes e ris k assessment s ar e the n use dt o se t protectiv e permi t

conditions

. Unde r th e ne w permittin g schem e tha t th e Agenc y i s considerin g (placin g th e MAC T standard s onl y i n 4 0 CF Rpar t 63) , th e Agenc y i s considerin g whe n th e RCR A omnibu s provisio n woul dcontinu e t o b e used—fo r

example , t o requir e asite

specifi c ris k

assessment—an dth e timin g o f th e RCR A omnibu s findin g i n relatio n t o th e Titl e V permi t issuance / modification

. A s discusse di n th e NPRM , th e Agenc y ha s indicate dapreferenc e fo r modifyin g ou r

curren t

polic y o f recommendin g tha t asite-specifi c ris k assessmen t

(SSRA ) b e performe ddurin g permittin g a t

hazardou s wast e combustor s i n mos t case s (6 1 F Ra t 17372)

. Dependin g o n th e scop e an d leve l o f th e fina l MAC T standards , thi s polic y ma y nee dt o b e re-evaluated

. Fo r a t leas t som e facilities , ther e migh t stil l b e sufficien t

caus e t o perfor maSSR A unde r th e RCR A omnibu s permittin g authority

. Thus , th e Agenc y i s als o considerin g th e timin g issu e o f

whethe r

aRCR A omnibu s findin g woul db e expecte dt o occu r a t th e sam e tim e a s th e Titl e V permittin g decisio n (o r th e Titl e V permittin g modificatio n decision , i f thi s i s mor e appropriate , sinc e som e o f thes e unit s wil l mos t

likel y alread y hav e Titl e V permits)

. Th e Agenc y expect s tha t man y o f

th e tria l burn s t o suppor t SSRA s wil l alread y b e complete dprio r t o th e effectiv e dat e o f th e MAC T rule , an dwoul dno t

nee dt o b e repeate d provide dnon e o f

th e resultin g emission s limitation s ar e relaxe dbase d o n th e MAC T rule

. Fo r facilitie s wher e tria l burn s fo r

ris k assessment s hav e no t bee n performed , aRCR A omnibu s determinatio n a s t o whethe r aSSR A i s neede dca n b e mad e i n mos t case s befor e th e comprehensiv e tes t protoco l i s finalized

. Thi s situatio n woul dallo w th e MAC T comprehensiv e tes t protoco l an dRCR A tria l bur n pla n t o b e coordinate dwit h respec t t o samplin g an danalysi s procedure s an doperationa l protocols

. However , th e Agenc y doe s no t pla n t o hol du p comprehensiv e performanc e tes t

approva l o r

th e Titl e V permi t proces s (modifie do r ne w permits ) t o accommodat e aRCR A omnibu s finding

. I f i t wer e no t

possibl e t o mak e th e RCR A omnibu s determinatio n i n sufficien t

tim e t o allo w coordinate d emission s testing , the n aseparat e RCR A tria l bur n migh t

b e necessary . Thi s separat e tes t

even t woul dincreas e th e cost s t o th e facilit y an drequir e mor e oversigh t

b y th e permittin g authority

. Afte r allowin g fo r

additiona l tim e t o perfor maSSRA , th e finding s o f th e ris k assessmen t

coul dthe n b e use dt o establis h site-specifi c standard s which , i n turn , migh t

requir e arevie w o f th e Titl e V permi t

an dit s associate d operatin g limits/standards

. I t shoul dals o b e note dtha t i f th e DR E standar di s retaine dunde r RCR A (se e discussio n i n Sectio n III.A.) , thes e sam e testin g coordinatio n issue s appl y t o DR E testing

. (A t

site s wher e SSRA s ar e t o b e performed , i t

i s expecte dtha t

DR E



# VE S 00035 2

## Federa l Registe r / Vol

. 62 , No
. 8 5 /

Friday , May 2 , 199

7 / Propose dRule s 2425 1
testin g an dtestin g necessar y t o provid e dat afo r SSRA s wil l b e occurrin g a t th e sam e time. ) W e invit e commen t o n th e workabilit y o f

thi s approac h fo r achievin g maxima l coordinatio n o f th e RCR A tria l burn s an domnibu s finding s wit h th e initia l MAC T comprehensiv e tes t an dTitl e V permitting

. 

### Par tFour : Miscellaneou s Issue s I. 5000Btu per

Pound Policy for

Kiln Products Curren t Agenc y polic y exempt s cemen t produc t

(clinker ) fro mcemen t kiln s burnin g hazardou s wast e fro m regulatio n a s ahazardou s wast e provide dth e fue l valu e o f th e hazardou s wast e exceed s 500 0 Bt u pe r pound 6 8

. Thi s allow s cemen t kiln s t o bur n high

B t u hazardou s wast e fo r energ y recover y purpose s an dstil l marke t th e clinke r an dth e cemen t

mi x produce dfro mth e clinke r a s commercia l produc t fre e fro m an y Subtitl e C concerns . Th e Agenc y ha s alread y provide daclarificatio n (5 3 F R31198 , Augus t

17 , 1988 ) tha t

th e regulation s fo r

"wast e derive d products " a t

§ 266.2 0 d o no t

appl y t o product s fro mprocesse s usin g hazardou s wast e (HW ) fuels , unles s thes e processe s als o us e hazardou s waste s a s "ingredients " i n aproduc t destine dfo r

lan dapplicatio n (i.e. , th e produc t

mus t "contain " th e H W a s a n ingredien t

t o b e covere db y § 266.20 ) o r bur n hazardou s wast e fo r destruction

. T o implemen t

thi s regulation , th e Agenc y ha s use dBt u value s o f awast e a s aprox y t o determin e whethe r contaminant s i n th e H W fuel s wil l o r wil l no t b e deeme dt o transfe r t o th e produc t

(i.e. , becom e ingredients)

. Ove r time , man y commenter s hav e submitte d dat aan dhav e suggeste dtha t th e hea t conten t o f awast e i s a n indirec t an d imprecis e wa y o f

identifyin g whethe r material s shoul db e subjec t t o th e provision s o f

§ 266.2 0 (hazardou s waste s use di n amanne r constitutin g disposal)

. Th e Agenc y ha s bee n intereste dfo r som e tim e i n considerin g whethe r an d h o w t o chang e th e existin g Bt u approach

. Fo r

example , 6 0 F R737 6 (Februar y 7 , 1995 ) discusse s apossibl e exclusio n o f

clinke r fro mth e derived

fro mrule , eve n whe n cemen t kil n dus t

6 8Waste s wit h energ y valu e greate r tha n 500 0 Bt u ma y generall y b e sai d t o b e burne d fo renerg y recovery , sinc e thi s i s th e Bt u valu e o f lo w grad e fuels . 4 8 F R11157-5 9 (Marc h 16 , 1983) . However , lowe r energ y waste s coul d conceivabl y b e burne d fo renerg y recover y i n industria l furnaces , suc h a s cemen tkilns , o ri n industria l boiler s du e to thes e devices ' genera l efficienc y o f combustion . Id . A t 11158 . Thus , th e 500 0 Bt u leve l i s no ta n absolut e measur e o f

burnin g fo renerg y recover y (i.e. , a rule) , particularl y whe n industria l furnace s an d industria l boiler s ar e involved . i s introduce di n th e feed

. EP A ha s als o discusse dwit h CKR C th e narrowe r issu e o f whethe r

th e 500 0 Btu/l b energ y valu e leve l reliabl y predict s whethe r toxi c contaminant s woul dmor e likel y partitio n t o th e clinke r an dultimatel y th e cemen t

product

. Som e fromindustr y hav e suggeste dtha t afacilit y tha t

agree s t o limi t wast e fee dmetal s t o thei r "histori c average " coul db e exempte d fro mth e 500 0 Btu/h r policy

. Th e rational e i s tha t

eve n i f

th e facilit y too k lowe r Bt u waste , the y woul dno t b e takin g highe r

quantitie s o f

meta l wast e tha n currently , a t

leas t o n th e average . Thi s woul daddres s EPA' s concer n abou t allowin g a n increas e o f metal s i n H Wfuel s burne db y cemen t kiln s i f

th e 500 0 Bt u restrictio n wer e abandoned

. Today , withou t

ou r endorsemen t

a t thi s time , th e Agenc y i s offerin g thi s concep t an dsom e potentia l variation s fo r publi c comment
. Th e Agenc y i s intereste di n th e possibl e ramification s an drequest s comment , particularl y wit h respec t t o limitin g th e concentration s o f metal s i n cemen t

product s fro mcemen t kiln s burnin g hazardou s waste
. T o tak e advantag e o f

suc h apolicy , afacilit y woul dhav e t o establis h abaselin e o f metal s fee di n th e hazardou s wast e (fo r example , th e averag e o f th e previou s thre e years ) an dthe n agre e t o enforceabl e permi t

condition s limitin g metal s feedrat e level s t o tha t averag e plu s on e standar ddeviation

. Presumably , enforceabl e restriction s o n meta l fee drate s shoul dcontro l meta l partitionin g t o clinke r an dCK D muc h mor e effectivel y tha n woul dth e Bt u limi t an densur e tha t

thes e material s woul dno t

contai n a n increas e i n toxi c meta l constituent s fromth e hazardou s wast e use da s fuel

. Also , meta l fee d limit s base do n ahistorica l averag e woul dappea r

t o b e mor e stringen t tha n th e curren t

BI Fmeta l fee dlimits , whic h ar e se t o n ahealt h basi s considerin g direc t inhalatio n o f

metal s emissions

. (I n othe r

words , a s discusse di n earlie r section s o f

thi s notice , cemen t kiln s ar e generall y feedin g metal s fa r belo w allowabl e BI Flimits. ) E P A seek s commen t o n allowin g cemen t kiln s (an dLWAKs ) th e optio n o f complyin g wit h th e following , whic h i s onl y partl y base do n th e suggestion s discusse dwit h cemen t kil n representatives , wit h som e additions :
• A n owne r

o r operato r

o f acemen t kil n burnin g hazardou s wast e woul db e allowe dt o bur n hazardou s wast e wit h an y Bt u content , provide dth e owne r o r operato r

agree s t o enforceabl e hazardou s wast e fee doperatin g limit s o n metal s o f concer n (se e below) ;
• Thes e metal s fee dlimit s woul db e se t a t level s tha t

woul densure , a t

leas t o n a n annua l basis , tha t metal s o n a mas s basi s d o no t increas e ove r

curren t levels , whic h ar e substantiall y les s tha n thos e allowabl e unde r BI F(an dsource s would , o f

course , remai n subjec t t o stac k emissio n standard s t o contro l th e emissio n o f

meta l HAPs) ;
• Fee dlimit s woul dhav e t o b e establishe dfo r

eac h o f

th e followin g twelv e metals : antimony , arsenic , barium , beryllium , cadmium , chromium , cobalt , lead , nickel , selenium , thallium , an dvanadium ;
• Samplin g an danalysi s woul db e conducte da s ofte n a s necessar y t o documen t

tha t th e metal s level s ar e belo w th e limit s an dinclude di n th e facility' s wast e analysi s pla n require d b y 4 0 CF R264.13 ; an d

• Result s o f

th e analysi s woul dhav e t o b e availabl e fo r

publi c inspection

. Also , th e Agenc y i s considerin g a variatio n o f

thi s option , unde r

whic h kil n operator s woul dhav e t o achiev e specifie dpercentag e reduction s o f th e tota l quantit y (o n a n aggregat e basis ) o f th e followin g metal s i n thei r waste s combusted : antimony , arsenic , barium , beryllium , cadmium , chromium , cobalt , lead , nickel , selenium , thallium , an d vanadium

. EP A chos e thes e particula r metal s base do n thei r potentiall y hig h huma n healt h an decologica l ris k i n conjunctio n wit h thei r significan t tendencie s t o persis t i n th e environmen t an daccumulat e i n livin g tissue

. I f generator s reduc e metal s i n waste s ove r time , holdin g kiln s t o th e averag e o f th e pas t thre e year s ma y actuall y allo w increase dburnin g o f certai n metal

bearin g streams
. Thi s i s becaus e othe r stream s ma y contai n les s metals

. I n contrast , commitment s t o reducin g metal s belo w baselin e limit s woul d ensur e tha t

progres s continue s i n wast e minimization

. EP A request s comment s o n thi s option , includin g informatio n about : (1 ) Th e prevalenc e an d distributio n throughou t industr y sector s o f wast e stream s bearin g thes e metal s sen t t o combustion , an d(2 ) opportunitie s fo r

generator s t o reduc e thes e metal s i n waste s sen t t o combustio n b y mean s o f sourc e reductio n durin g generation

. E P A request s commen t o n th e impac t o f imposin g limit s o n metal s concentratio n o n wast e stream s combuste di n cemen t kilns

. EP A raise s thes e questions :
• Ho w muc h hazardou s wast e no w sen t t o cemen t

kiln s fo r

energ y recover y woul db e likel y t o mee t suc h meta l leve l limitations ?

• O f th e fractio n o f

waste s tha t

woul d "fail " ametal s limit , woul dgenerator s o f wast e no w sen t

t o cemen t

kiln s reduc e metal s concentration s i n thes e wastes , usin g wast e minimizatio n an d pollutio n prevention , s o tha t cemen t



# VE S 00035 3

## 2425

2 Federa

l Registe r / Vol

. 62 , No
. 8 5 /

Friday , Ma

y 2 , 199 7 / ProposedRule s
kiln s woul dcontinu e t o receiv e th e sam e amount s o f

waste ?

• I f n o suc h actio n t o reduc e metal s concentration s occurred , woul dcemen t kiln s rejec t

high-metal s hazardou s waste s no w sen t

t o cemen t

kiln s fo r energ y recover y an dwoul dthes e waste s g o instea dt o incinerators ? T h e Agenc y als o request s commen t o n th e relate dissu e o f

appropriat e metal s reductio n goals

. EP A ha s identifie da nationa l goa l fo r

wast e minimizatio n o f th e mos t

persistent , bioaccumulativ e an dtoxi c hazardou s constituent s b y 2 5 percen t b y th e yea r

200 0 an db y 5 0 percen t b y th e yea r

2005

. Se e EPA' s Wast e Minimizatio n Nationa l Pla n (Offic e o f

Soli dWaste , Novembe r 1994)

. Consisten t

wit h thi s nationa l wast e reductio n goa l fo r

metals , EP A request s publi c comment s toda y o n requirin g aggregate percentage reductions fo r th e twelv e metal s i n wast e feed , a s a n alternativ e t o holdin g cemen t kiln s t o th e historica l averag e fee dlimit s ofth e pas t thre e year s an dallowin g n o increase s ove r

baselin e limits

. Thi s approac h woul dals o furthe r wast e minimizatio n plannin g b y offerin g kiln s areaso n t o motivat e th e generator s supplyin g the mwit h hazardou s wast e fo r combustio n t o undertak e wast e minimization

. I n comment s relate dt o th e rol e o f

wast e minimizatio n i n th e MAC T proposal , Molte n Meta l Technologie s (MMT ) state s tha t "withou t

driver s favorin g pollutio n preventio n an dwast e minimizatio n i n th e instan t

rulemaking , onl y minima l progres s wil l b e made. " MM T point s ou t tha t economic s conspir e agains t pollutio n preventio n an dwast e minimizatio n sinc e investmen t fo r complianc e ofte n take s priorit y ove r investmen t

fo r proces s modification s t o reduc e wast e generatio n an dsinc e corporat e rate-of-retur n threshold s ma y "squash " pollutio n preventio n an d wast e minimizatio n initiatives

. Finally , th e Agenc y request s commen t o n whethe r

additiona l nonmeta l constituent s (e.g. , chlorinate dorganics ) shoul dals o b e identifie dfo r simila r reduction s a s par t

o f thi s approach

. II. Foundry Sand

Thermal

Reclamation Units A

. Backgroun d Foundr y operation s ca n generall y b e classifie da s eithe r

ferrou s o r nonferrous , dependin g o n thei r primar y fee dmaterials

. Bot h type s o f foundrie s us e larg e amount s o f sand s fo r

thei r meta l molds

. Ove r

time , th e sand s becom e contaminate dwit h th e metal s bein g used , a s wel l a s wit h certai n binde r materials

. Nonferrou s foundrie s (i.e. , brass , lead , etc. ) sometime s generat e spen t sand s tha t

exhibi t

th e Toxicit y Characteristi c (4 0 CF R261.24 ) fo r lea do r

cadmium

. (Th e Agenc y ha s indicate dconcern s wit h certai n san d treatmen t

methods

. Se e 6 2 F R10004 , Marc h 5 , 1997. ) Thes e sand s ca n b e physicall y processe dt o remov e contaminant s fo r

continue duse , resultin g i n les s san dus e fo r th e foundry , an dles s nee dfo r disposa l o f th e sands

. Interes t

ha s als o bee n expresse di n usin g therma l processin g o r reclamatio n unit s (TRUs ) t o clea n th e san dfo r

continue duse . TRU s ma y represen t

asignifican t

wast e minimizatio n technolog y fo r th e foundr y industry

. Th e TRU s remov e contaminant s primaril y b y combustin g th e organi c binde r material s i n th e sand

. Thes e organi c material s ar e generall y wax-lik e materials , syntheti c o r natura l (e.g. , clays , phenols , etc.)

. Ai r emission s concern s woul dinclud e lead , cadmium , an dparticulat e emissions , a s wel l a s product s o f

incomplet e combustion

. Thes e unit s ar e identifie da s industria l furnace s unde r

4 0 CF R260.1 0 a s atyp e o f "foundr y furnace " an dar e subjec t t o regulatio n unde r

4 0 CF Rpar t

266 , subpar t E (th e "BI Frules" ) whe n the y bur n hazardou s waste. 6 9 Whe n th e Agenc y develope dsubpar t E , however , w e di dno t

conside r

whethe r

TRU s woul db e appropriatel y controlle d unde r thos e standards

. Th e Agenc y create daspecia l exemptio n fo r meta l recover y furnace s unde r § 266.100(c ) an dals o propose daspecia l exemptio n fo r petroleu mcatalys t recover y unit s (se e 6 0 F R57780 ; Novembe r 20 , 1995)

. I n thes e tw o cases , w e foun dtha t th e B I Frule s woul dno t appropriatel y contro l th e unit s i n question , i.e. , an y ai r emission s hazard s migh t b e mor e appropriatel y controlle dunde r standard s speciall y designe dfo r thos e unit s unde r

eithe r RCR A o r

CAA

. Unde r RCR A Sectio n 1006 , a n importan t consideratio n fo r

th e Agenc y i s t o avoi d duplicatio n t o th e exten t practica l betwee n th e tw o Acts

. Also , a s note d above , TRU s ma y achiev e significan t wast e minimizatio n benefits , a n importan t

consideratio n unde r RCRA

.

6 yAnothe rpotentia l readin g o f th e Sectio n 260.1 0 definitio n i s tha t"foundr y furnaces " onl y applie s to a furnac e tha thum s a primaril y metal bearin g material . Unde rthi s reading , TRU s coul d no tb e industria l furnace s becaus e the y bur n san d wit h onl y contaminan tlevel s o f metals . However , sinc e TRU s ar e closel y associated , bot h physicall y an d functionally , wit h th e primar y meta l processin g function s o f

a foundry , the y ar e appropriatel y classifie d a s industria l furnace s subjec tto par t266 , subpar tE . B
. Deferra l an dVarianc e Option s fo r Consideratio n Th e Agenc y i s presentl y developin g MAC T control s unde r th e CA A fo r foundries

. Althoug h a t thi s tim e i t

i s no t clea r t o wha t

exten t TRU s woul db e subjec t t o MAC T controls , representative s fro mth e foundr y industr y hav e suggeste dthat , a s th e ne w MAC T rule s ar e implemented , al l foundrie s wit h TRU s wil l b e required , a s apractica l matter , t o instal l MAC T control s o n th e TRUs
. Amon g th e reason s cite dar e tha t vendor s o f

TR U technolog y wil l hav e t o desig n fo r situation s unde r

MAC T control , an d stat e ai r

official s wil l incorporat e th e MAC T technolog y i n permit s fo r foundrie s a s amatte r o f course . Althoug h EP A ha s n o wa y t o predic t whethe r

thi s scenari o woul dcom e t o pass , ther e ar e obviou s advantage s t o controllin g TRU s processin g sand s tha t exhibi t th e T C unde r

MAC T standards , a s oppose dt o unde r th e BI Frules

. Thes e advantage s includ e administrativ e simplicit y an dmaximu m flexibilit y fo r

implementin g agencies

. E P A request s commen t o n th e followin g tw o approache s t o ensur e appropriat e control s fo r

TRUs : 1

. Deferral

option. Give n th e development s unde r th e CA A discusse d above , an dals o i n ligh t o f th e potentia l wast e minimizatio n benefits , EP A request s comment s o n appropriat e contro l scheme s fo r TRU s burnin g hazardou s foundr y sands

. Specifically , comment s ar e requeste do n adeferra l o f B I Fapplicability , simila r t o th e existin g provisio n fo r

meta l recover y furnace s an dpropose dprovisio n fo r petroleu m catalys t recover y units

. Thi s woul d allo w developmen t

o f th e foundr y MACT , an dpotentiall y th e eventua l applicatio n o f

thes e control s t o TRU s processin g sand s tha t exhibi t

th e TC

. Unde r suc h a n approach , EP A woul d plac e a n exemptio n i n Par t 266 , Subpar t E , identifyin g foundr y TRU s a s a n exemp t BIF , an daone-tim e notic e woul db e require da s i s no w require d fo r meta l recover y furnace s unde r §266.100(c)(l)(I)

. 2

. Variance from definition of solid waste option. TRU s appea r t o b e integra l t o foundr y operations

. The y ar e locate d a t th e foundr y site , operate db y th e foundry , an dth e san dbein g processe d an dreturne dt o th e foundr y operatio n i s essentia l i n th e manufacturin g operation

. Th e tim e period s betwee n whe n aspen t

san di s generate dan d whe n i t i s processe dan dreturne di s typicall y amatte r

o f hours

. I n fact , TRU s ma y reduc e th e nee dt o stor e spen t sand s fo r

processin g an dma y thereb y reduc e fugitiv e emission s o f th e sand s



# VE S 00035 4

## Federa l Registe r / Vol

. 62 , No
. 8 5 /

Friday , Ma

y 2 , 199 7 / ProposedRule s 2425 3
tha t migh t resul t fro mphysica l processing

. Give n tha t asan dappear s integra l t o foundr y operation s an dTRU s c a n greatl y improv e th e efficienc y o f san duse , EP A coul dconclud e tha t eve n withou t

an y rul e changes , foundr y operator s ma y b e eligibl e fo r avarianc e fro mth e RCR A definitio n o f soli dwast e unde r th e varianc e provision s foun da t 4 0 CF R260.30(b) , 260.31(b) , an d260.33

. Unde r thes e varianc e provisions , EP A (o r a n authorize dState ) ma y gran t a varianc e fro mth e definitio n o f soli d wast e fo r

material s tha t

ar e reclaime d an dthe n use da s feedstoc k withi n th e origina l productio n proces s i n whic h th e material s wer e generate di f th e reclamatio n proces s i s a n essentia l par t o f th e productio n process . Thi s evaluatio n i s guide db y anumbe r o f criteri afoun da t

§ 260.31(b)

. Whil e foundrie s certainl y ca n an dd o operat e withou t

thermall y processin g thei r sands , an ds o TRU s ar e no t literall y "essential" , a s summarize dabov e th e unit s d o i n fac t

greatl y increas e efficienc y o f

san duse , whic h i s a n essentia l ra w materia l o f foundr y operations

. Also , th e TRU s ar e physicall y proximate , an dintegrate d int o th e foundry' s operations

. Emission s fro mth e TRU s ar e ofte n ducte dint o emissio n contro l device s use dfo r th e foundries ' mai n productio n activities

. A s such , th e Agenc y coul dvie w sand s bein g processe di n TRU s a s potentiall y eligibl e fo r

th e varianc e unde r 260.31(b ) 70 . EP A (o r th e State ) woul d

7 0Th e Agenc y note s that , typically , a varianc e fro m th e definitio n o f soli d wast e unde r260.31(b ) woul d appl y a tth e poin to f generatio n (e.g. . i n thi s case , th e poin twher e th e spen tsand s ar e remove d fro m th e castin g forms) . Also , typically , whe n suc h a varianc e i s granted , th e varianc e i s onl y applicabl e t o thos e secondar y material s tha tmee t th e condition s o f

di e varianc e (e.g. , th e varianc e woul d no tinclud e secondar y material s tha tar e no t reuse d i n th e productio n process) . Th e norma l an d efficien tflo w o f material s a t facilitie s wit h a TR U ma y involv e th e processin g o f al l o f th e spen tsan d generated . However , afte r recover y o f

th e sand , insubstantia l amount s o f sand s tha tar c processe d b y th e TR U ma y b e foun d t o b e unusabl e agai n a s foundr y sand , an d s o ma y b e discarded . Whil e treatmen tan d disposa l o f th e spen tfoundr y san d i s clearl y no tth e inten to f th e TRU , "treatmen tan d disposal " woul d b e th e regulator y statu s o f an y hazardou s secondar y materia l tha ti s processe d suc h tha ti ti s n o longe r hazardou s an d the n discarded , give n th e mos t straightforwar d readin g o f th e regulations . Nevertheless , th e Agenc y believe s tha tbecaus e th e TR U i s typicall y integrate d int o th e facility' s operations , an d th e flo w o f spen tfoundr y san d int o th e TR U become s a standar d operatin g procedure , th e incidenta l discar d o f a n insubstantia l amoun to f spen tfoundr y san d shoul d no tovershado w th e basi c purpos e o f

§ 260.3 1 (b ) t o gran ta varianc e from th e definitio n o f

soli d wast e to material s tha tar e reclaime d an d reuse d i n th e productio n process , wher e suc h reclamatio n is , i n effect , a n integra l ste p i n th e flo w o f

production . Thus , th e Agenc y assert s that , assumin g al l othe r condition s o f th e § 260.31(b ) varianc e ar e met , th e fac ttha ta relativel y insignifican tamoun to f spen tfoundr y stil l hav e t o weig h th e factor s i n

paragrap h (b ) o n acase-by-cas e basi s t o determin e i f

th e varianc e shoul db e granted

. Fo r

example , paragrap h (b)(3 ) require s a n examinatio n o f ho w th e sand s ar e handle dt o ensur e tha t losse s ar e minimize dbefor e reclamation

. Also , paragrap h (b ) (8 ) allow s consideratio n o f "othe r factors " a s appropriate , an di n thi s case , ai r

emission s control s fo r th e T R U woul db e appropriatel y considere d befor e grantin g avariance

. A s discusse d above , control s ma y b e installe da s par t o f th e MAC T process , o r simpl y du e t o stat e o r loca l ai r

pollutio n laws

. Th e Agenc y woul dexpec t tha t a s a minimum , emission s o f particulat e matte r woul dhav e t o b e limite dt o contro l lea demissions , an dgive n th e organi c binde r

compound s bein g introduce dt o th e units , limit s o n an d continuou s monitorin g o f indicator s o f efficien t

combustion , suc h a s C O and/o r H C , woul dsee mappropriate

. Unde r thi s approach , th e Agenc y migh t o r migh t no t develo p specia l standard s fo r TRU s unde r RCR A o r

th e CAA

. Th e cas e b y cas e approac h migh t enabl e EP A an d th e State s t o overse e th e unit s withou t th e nee dfo r

federa l standards

. III. Status of

Gaseous Fuels Generated From Hazardous Waste Management Activities Th e propose drul e include da propose dexclusio n fro msubtitl e C jurisdictio n fo r

certai n syntheti c ga s fuel s derive dfro mhazardou s wast e treatmen t

activitie s (6 1 F Ra t 17465)

. Som e commenter s state dtha t synthesi s ga s fuel s ar e beyon dEPA' s regulator y authorit y becaus e the y ar e uncontaine d gases , an dfurthe r

state dtha t

EP A ha d faile dt o se t

ou t an y explanatio n fo r it s potentia l jurisdictio n ove r thes e synthesi s ga s fuel s (whic h jurisdictio n E P A propose dt o relinquis h provide d th e synga s me t

designate d specifications)

. Th e typ e o f

synga s discusse di n th e proposa l result s fro mtherma l reactio n o f hazardou s wastes , whic h reactio n i s optimize dt o brea k

organi c bond s an d reformulat e th e organic s int o hydroge n ga s an dcarbo n monoxide

. Id, Thi s resultin g ga s ca n b e use da s afue l a t manufacturin g facilities

. E P A ha s broa dstatutor y authorit y t o regulat e fuel s produce dfro mhazardou s wastes
. RCR A sectio n 3004(q)(l) ; se e als o Horsehead

Resource Development Co. v . Browner, 1 6 F
. 3 d1246 , 126 2 (D.C

. Cir

. 1994 ) (broadl y construin g thi s authority)

. Th e fac t tha t synga s (b y definition ) i s agas , rathe r tha n asoli d

san d i s discarde d woul d no tnegat e a varianc e grante d t o spen tfoundr y sand , o rrequir e a treatmen tpermi tfo rth e TRU . o r liquid , doe s no t

appea r t o rais e jurisdictiona l issues

. I t i s stil l produce d fro mth e hazardou s waste s tha t ar e bein g processe dthermally

. Se e §261.2(c)(2)(A ) an d(B ) (definingsuc h material s a s soli dwastes)

. EP A believe s it s authorit y t o b e clea r unde r thes e provisions , bu t

wil l conside r

furthe r commen t

o n th e issue. 7 1 IV. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Th e Regulator y Flexibilit y Ac t (RFA ) o f 198 0 require s Federa l agencie s t o conside r

impact s o n "smal l entities " throughou t

th e regulator y process . Sectio n 60 3 ofth e RF A call s fo r a n initia l screenin g analysi s t o b e performe dt o determin e whethe r smal l entitie s wil l b e adversel y affecte db y th e regulation

. I f

affecte dsmal l entitie s ar e identified , regulator y alternative s mus t b e considere dt o mitigat e th e potentia l impacts

. Smal l entities , a s describe di n th e Act , ar e onl y thos e "businesses , organization s an dgovernmenta l jurisdiction s subjec t t o regulation. " I n preparatio n o f

th e propose drule , E P A use dinformatio n fro mDun n & Bradstreet , th e America n Busines s Director y an dothe r source s t o identif y smal l businesses

. Base do n th e numbe r o f employee s an dannua l sale s information , EP A identifie d1 3 firm s whic h ma y b e smal l entities

. Tha t analysi s als o determine dtha t th e propose drul e wa s unlikel y t o resul t i n detrimenta l impact s t o smal l businesses

. Thi s conclusio n wa s derive dfro mtw o importan t

findings : First , fe w combustio n unit s ar e owne d b y businesse s tha t

mee t th e SB A definition

. Amon g thos e tha t ar e considere dsmal l (base do n numbe r o f employees) , ove r

one-thir dwer e foun d t o hav e gros s sale s i n exces s o f $5 0 millio n pe r

year . Furthermore , availabl e dat aindicat e a n ongoin g industr y tren d towar dconsolidation , o r marke t exit

. Second , smal l entitie s impacte db y th e rule , wer e foun dt o b e thos e tha t currentl y bur n ver y littl e hazardou s waste , an dhenc e fac e ver y hig h cos t pe r to n burned

. Thes e on-sit e facilitie s ar e likel y t o discontinu e burnin g hazardou s wast e an ddispos e off-site , rathe r tha n compl y wit h th e propose drule

. Base d o n availabl e data , EP A foun dtha t th e incrementa l cos t

o f alternativ e disposa l associate dwit h discontinue dburnin g o f suc h wast e woul dno t excee d0.1 0 t o 0.2 0 percen t

o f annua l corporat e gros s revenues . Furthermore , currentl y viabl e commercia l smal l busines s facilitie s affecte db y th e proposa l wer e foun dt o remai n profitable

.

7 1 Se e als o 5 0 F R49164 , 4917 1 (Nov . 25 . 1985) ; 5 2 F R16982 , 1702 1 (Ma y 6 , 1987) ; an d 5 6 F R7134 , 7203-0 4 (Feb . 21 , 1991 ) whic h discus s thi s question , althoug h inconclusively .



# VE S 00035 5

## 2425 4 Federa

l Registe r / Vol

. 62 , No
. 8 5 /

Friday , Ma

y 2 , 199 7 / ProposedRule s
Th e abov e finding s indicat e tha t th e propose drul e i s expecte dt o hav e overal l negligibl e impact s o n smal l entities

. Th e Agenc y i s currentl y refinin g an dexpandin g it s analysi s o f smal l entitie s an dmake s n o conclusion s beyon dthos e presente dfo r th e Proposal

. Dated : Apri l 22

, 1997 . Elizabeth Cotsworth , Acting Director, Office of Solid Waste. [F RDoc . 97-1115 5 File d 5-1-97 ; 8:4 5 am ] BILLIN G COD E 6560-50-

P



# VE S 00035 6