V E S 000174.pd f 
WASTE ANALYSIS PLAN 

FOR 

TRADE WASTE INCINERATION 
WASTE ANALYSIS PLAN 

OUTLINE 

PAGE 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 3 

2.0 SAMPLING METHODOLOGY 4 

2.1 Materials 5 

2.2 Types of Containment 5 

2.2.1 Containers and Tanks 5 

3.0 ANALYTICAL RATIONALE 7 

3.1 Mandatory Analyses 7 

3.2 Non-hazardous Waste Analyses 9 

3.3 Supplemental Analyses - 9 

4.0 PROFILING PROCEDURES 13 

4.1 Procedural Requirements 13 

4.1.1 Information Provided by Generator 13 

4.1.2 Waste Management Decision 14 

4.1.3 Waste Re-evaluation - 15 

4.1.4 Exceptions to the Foregoing Requirements 15 

4.1.5 Standard Profiles 17 

4.2 Decision Evaluation Logic for Profiling Procedures 17 

5.0 INCOMING WASTE SHIPMENT PROCEDURES 21 

5.1 Receiving Procedures 22 

5.1.1 Exceptions to Incoming Waste Analysis Procedures 23 

5.2 Incoming Waste Shipment Decision Evaluation Logic 25 

5.2.1 Waste Identification 25 

5.2.2 The Need For Additional Analysis 25 

5.2.3 An Evaluation of Whether a Waste is Found 

to be in Conformance or Non-corrforaiance 26 

5.2.4 An Evaluation of Whether Wastes Found to be in 

Nonconformance can be Accepted or will be Rejected 26 

WAP-1 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 

VES 000175 
6.0 PROCESS OPERATIONS PROCEDURES 

6.1 Storage 

6.1.1 Waste in Containers 

6.1.2 Waste in Tanks 

6.1.3 Bulk Solids Storage 

6.2 Decanting 

6.3 Incineration 

6.3.1 Pre-treatment Analyses 

6.3.2 Treatment Residue Evaluation 

29 

29 

29 

29 

30 

30 

30 

31 

32 

7.0 QUALITY CONTROL POLICY 34 

ATTACHMENTS 

APPENDIX WAP-A: 

APPENDIX WAP-B: 

APPENDIX WAP-C 

APPENDIX WAP-D 

APPENDIX WAP-E: 

APPENDIX WAP-F: 

APPENDIX WAP-G: 

ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 

ASH AND DRY SCRUBBER SOLIDS SAMPLING PROTOCOL 

WASTE ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA 

DETERMINATION OF INCOMING WASTE CONFORMANCE/NONCONFORMANCE 

CONTAINERIZED WASTE: SPECIAL SAMPLING PROCEDURE 

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF STANDARD CHEMICAL REFERENCE MATERIALS 

HM-181 COMPARABILITY CLASSES 

WAP-2 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 

VES 000176 
WASTE ANALYSIS PLAN 

In accordance with the regulatory requirements set forth in 40 CFR 264.13 and 35 IAC 

724.113, Chemical Waste Management, Inc. (CWM) has developed this Waste Analysis Plan as an 

integral part of the RCRA Part B Permit Apphcation for its Trade Waste Incineration (TWI) 

facility located in Sauget (St. Clair County), Illinois. The procedures set forth in this plan ensure 

that this facility willbe in compliance with all requirements of 40 CFR 264.13 and 35 IAC 724.113. 

A copy of this plan will be available at the facihty at all times. 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

The purpose of this Waste Analysis Plan (WAP) is to describe and document the necessary sampling 

methodologies, analytical techniques and overall procedures used to determine the acceptability and 

management of all wastes which enter this facility for treatment or storage. These procedures shall apply to 

all hazardous and nonhazardous wastes (hereafter referred to as "waste") received by the facility, except 

samples as identified and defined in 40 CFR 261.4(d), (e), and (f). Specifically, the plan delineates the following: 

Analytical Parameters, Rationale and Techniques to identify wastes or 

determine information so that treatment and storage techniques can be 

utilized. 

Sampling Methodology to ensure that adequate and representative samples are 

taken. 

Profiling Procedures to detennine the acceptability of a particular waste 

stream pursuant to facility permit conditions and operating capabilities prior 

to acceptance of the waste at the facility. 

Incoming Waste Shipment Procedures to identify that the delivered waste 

conforms to the accompanying manifest, profile documents, and the conditions 

of the facility permit. 

Process Operations Procedures to maintain safe and appropriate methods of 

storage, treatment, disposal or movement of wastes within the facility. 

Residue(s) resulting from on-site treatment of land disposal restricted wastes 

will be evaluated, as needed, against the appropriate treatment standard or 

prohibition. 

Quality Control Policy the facility laboratory follows to achieve high quality analytical results. 

The forms shown within this WAP are typical forms currently used by the existing facility. These forms 

may require updating to equivalent or alternate forms based upon changes in regulations, customer needs, 

facility operations, or company policies. TWI will provide notification to the IEPA-DLPC Permit Section as 

required by 35 IAC 703.280. 

WAP-3 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 

VES 000177 
For purposes of implementation and performance of this WAP, "TWI Laboratory" means the TWI 

laboratory or any CWM laboratory, any CWM subsidiary laboratory, or any CWM designated contract 

laboratory, in addition, the use of TWI means CWM or WMX Technologies. 

The Laboratory, Technical, Operations, Environmental, and General Managers or their designees 

hereinafter are collectively referred to as "Facility Management", or individually referred to as the Laboratory, 

Technical, Operations, Environmental, or General Manager. 

All wastes handled by this facility will be subjected to these procedures. This is to help ensure that 

this facility will be in compliance with applicable permits and regulations. 

The company strives to maintain, at all times, complete compliance with the hazardous waste 

regulations. Because new requirements, such as those promulgated under the land disposal restrictions, often 

become effective prior to the time WAP revisions can be formally made and approved by all appropriate 

agencies, it is impossible to have in place an approved WAP meeting all the conditions of immediately effective 

regulatory requirements. 

In light of these facts, the facility will have in place a written protocol specifying the new requirements 

such as testing and frequency prior to receipt and/or processing of the regulated waste. The facility may also 

periodically revise the protocol to reflect scientific advances or additional regulatory requirements. If WAP 

revisions are necessary because of a new regulatory rule, they will be submitted within 60 days after the 

effective date of the rule. 

2.0 SAMPLING METHODOLOGY 

Sampling is performed at the facility to identify waste shipments and by the waste generator to make 

the initial waste determination at their location. Specific sampling procedures are dependent on both the 

nature ofthe material and the type of containment. A full-depth representative sample will be obtained from 

each container and tank truck unless the physical properties (Le., heterogenous debris, extremely hard material, 

or high shear force) preclude obtaining a full-depth representative sample. Exceptions to obtaining full-depth 

samples are noted in Section 2.1 and do not apply to frozen or chilled material. 

This section presents sampling methodologies to be utilized on-site by personnel in accordance with 40 

CFR 264.13(c)(2) and/or 35 IAC 724.113(c)(2). Waste generators are referred to 40 CFR 261, Appendix I 

and/or Appendix A of 35 IAC 721 for sampling procedures. In the case where the generator submits a sample 

for initial profile approval, TWI requires the generator to certify that the sample submitted is representative. 

The sampling equipment and procedures described in this WAP represent the facility's recommended 

sampling protocol for general types of waste material and containment. All methodologies will be updated and 

revised as the references are updated and revised. 

WAP-4 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 
2.1 Materials 

At a minimum, the methodologies utilized for specific materials correspond to those referenced in 40 

CFR 261, Appendix I and/or 35 IAC 721, Appendix A The sampling methods and the equipment utilized for 

these and any different materials are presented in Table 2-1. This table is a simplified summary of data 

excerpted from 40 CFR 261, Appendix I and/or 35 IAC 721, Appendix A. 

Care must be taken when collecting samples to ensure that excessive loss of volatile organic compounds 

does not occur during sample handling and storage. Sample containers must not be left opened except when 

preparing for the addition or removal of the sample, and sample jars must be filled as completely as practicable. 

Certain waste materials will require deviations from the these protocols. When deviations are 

necessary to sample materials which cannot be sampled using the recommended protocol (for example, debris, 

extremely hard materials, or other high shear force materials), the facility will obtain a representative sample, 

based on the circumstances preventing a vertical section, knowledge of the waste, and the container size and 

shape. For example, debris and like material will be sampled with scissors, tongs, hammer and/or chiseL 

Adhesives or other highly elastic substances will be sampled with a scoop or shovel and scissors or tongs. 

Resins and other extremely hard materials will be sampled with a hammer and a chiseL 

(See Appendix WAP-E). 

2.2 Type of Containment 

In addition to American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) and other EPA-approved sampling 

procedures, TWI has instituted specific methodologies for ensuring that samples taken from various types of 

containers are representative. The type of container may be transportable such as drums, portable transport 

units (e.g. small tanks, roll off boxes), and tanker trucks; or stationary (e.g., tanks) and in-process sources. The 

sampling devices are selected, depending on the size and type of containment and on the specific material 

involved 

Because there is a much greater tendency for heterogeneity in a vertical plane rather than a horizontal, 

sampling will be performed to address this concern (e.g., full-depth vertical samples will be taken when 

possible). When samples are collected which consist of multiple phases, analysis will be conducted on the 

sample as a whole. In addition, access to a container (Le., drum bungs, tank truck domes, and large tanks with 

sampling ports) will influence the location from which samples can be taken 

2.2.1 Containers and Tanks 

Sampling of small containers (e.g., drums, cartons, and other small units) varies with the nature of the 

waste material. For flowable materials, the sampling device to be used is either a Coliwasa unit or tube 

sampler to draw a full vertical axis sample of the flowable material (or other appropriate device as listed in 

Table 2-1). For nonflowable wastes, a tube sampler or a trier is used to obtain a sample (or other appropriate 

device as listed in Table 2-1). 

WAP-5 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 
Large containers and tanks for flowable materials and bulk containers for solid materials may be either 

stationary or mobile. Liquids are sampled with a Coliwasa or tube sampler to obtain a vertical section (or other 

appropriate device as listed in Table 2-1). Light, dry powders and granules are sampled with a tube sampler 

to obtain a vertical core (or other appropriate device as listed in Table 2-1). Heavier solids are sampled by trier 

or shovel, or by coring with a tube sampler (or other appropriate device as listed in Table 2-1). Stationary 

tanks for blending of liquids for feeding the incinerator are sampled with a bacon bomb (or other appropriate 

device as listed in Table 2-1). In addition, tanks may be sampled from tank sampling ports or taps through 

tank inlets or outlets. 

TABLE 2-1 

SAMPLING METHODS AND EQUIPMENT 

MATERIAL METHOD EQUIPMENT0 

Extremely viscous liquid ASTM D 140-70a or 

ASTM E 300a 

Tube sampler15, thief, 

or Coliwasa 

Crushed or powdered ASTM D 346-75a

 or 

ASTM E 300a 

Tube samplerd, trier, 

scoop, or shovel 

Soil ASTM D 420-69a or 

ASTM E 300a 

Tube samplerd, trier, 

auger, scoop, or shovel 

Soil-like material ASTM D 1452-65* or 

ASTM E 300a 

Tube sampler3, trier, 

auger, scoop, or shovel 

Fly ash-like material ASTM D 2234-76" or 

ASTM E 300a 

Tube samplerd, trier, 

auger, scoop, or shovel 

Containerized liquids SW-846b or 

ASTM E 300a 

Coliwasa/tube 

samplerd, weighted bottle, 

bomb, or tank sampling ports 

American Society for Testing Materials, 1982. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Philadelphia, PA, 

or most recent edition. 

'Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods". SW-846, Third Edition, 

September 1986 as amended by Update I (July 1992), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office 

of Solid Waste (NTIS, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161) or more recent edition or revision 

(GPO, Supt. of Documents, Washington, DC 20402). 

The specific equipment is dependent on the type of container. See SW-846 for specific examples. See 

also Section 2.2. 

Personal Protection and Safety Training Manual (Cmcinnati, Ohio: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, National Training and Operational Technology Center, 1981) pp. 3-1 and 3-4, or current 

revision. 

WAP-6 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 

VES 000180 
3.0 ANALYTICAL RATIONALE 

In accordance with 40 CFR 264.13(b)(5) and/or 35 IAC 724.113(b)(5), a pre-existing waste 

characterization is supplied to TWI by the waste generator on the Waste Profile Sheet (WPS, Figure 4-1). The 

generator supplies TWI with all the information required to characterize, treat, store or dispose of his waste, 

as defined in 40 CFR 264.13(a)(1) and/or 35 IAC 724.113(a)(1). [ref: 40 CFR 264.13(a)(2) comment and/or 35 

IAC 724.113(a)(2) Board Note}. See Section 4.1 for a discussion regarding the information and data to be 

supplied by the generator. The analyses if necessary, are provided by the generator or TWI's laboratory to 

evaluate the pre-existing waste characterizations and to comply with facility acceptance criteria. 

Analytical methods are classified as Mandatory Analyses, Blend Analyses, and Supplemental Analyses. 

This arrangement allows a tiered approach to waste identification, enabling TWI to structure the analyses to 

adequately identify the waste or to define operational parameters for various treatment processes. 

At a mininiiiTin, all incoming wastes are subjected to the Mandatory Analyses as a" first step in the 

analytical scheme (except as noted in Section 4.1.4). Supplemental Analyses are performed as specified in 

Section 3.3. The Blend Analyses are used to determine the liquid blend characteristics in order to maintain 

a steady state (normal) operation of the incinerator (see Section 6.3). Facility Management will perform 

additional analyses to augment the mandatory screening or to provide operational control as prescribed in 

Section 3.3, Supplemental Analyses. The parameters which constitute these categories are described below. 

The methods to be utilized in deteirnuning these parameters are identified in Appendix WAP-A (as required 

by 40 CFR 264.13(c)(1) and/or 35 IAC 724.113(c)(1)). Facility Management may waive specific Mandatory or 

Supplemental Analyses if performing the analysis presents a safety hazard in the laboratory as specified in 

Section 4.1.4. 

A summary of the analytical parameters within each category and their usage is provided herein. 

Analyses are not repeated for sequential activities or movement of the same waste within the facility unless 

required by changes in the waste's character. See Section 6.0 for a complete description of parameters 

performed in conjunction with process operations. The results of all tests and inspections described below will 

be maintained at the facility as part of its operating record for a minimum of three years after the testing has 

been performed. 

3.1 Mandatory Analyses 

Mandatory Analyses are basic fingerprinting procedures (key parameters) which are used to identify 

a waste and to ensure that the appropriate waste management technique can be utilized In addition, they aid 

in liquid blending decisions and to determine the proper solid waste feed sequence prior to incineration 

Mandatory Analyses: 

Provide the information concerning the waste which is pertinent to the safe storage, processing and 

incineration of the waste; 

WAP-7 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 
Provide Facility Management with data which can be used to evaluate the consistency of information 

provided by the generator. 

Incoming Mandatory Analyses are performed on the incoming waste shipment samples in order to make the 

final decision of whether or not the facility can manage a particular waste stream shipment (except as noted 

in Section 4.1.4) and determine if the waste shipment conforms to the identity of the waste as identified on 

the waste shipment manifest, and to the profile information. 

When necessary for profile purposes, select Mandatory Analyses may also be performed on a generator 

supplied sample if the generator supplied information is not sufficient (See Section 4.1.1). If an incoming waste 

conforms to the information provided in the profile, then the information gathered can be used to safely manage 

the waste. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 264.13(c)(1) and/or 35 IAC 724.113(c)(1), the parameters and associated 

rationale for the Mandatory Analyses are as follows: 

1. Physical Description (appearance) is used to determine the general physical properties 

ofthe waste (color, physical state, layering, turbidity, viscosity). This facilitates visual 

comparison of the sampled waste with prior waste descriptions or samples. 

2. Heating Value (BTU) is used to establish the proper blend characteristics, evaluate 

its suitability for incineration and develop appropriate packaging requirements. There 

are no minimiim or Tna-rimnm acceptance Emits for incoming waste shipments based 

on heating value. Heating value of a particular blend is controlled by the incinerator 

feed blend (see Section 6.3). This testing does not apply to liquid decant drums which 

will be blended prior to incineration. 

3. Chlorine Content (Cl) is used to establish the proper blend characteristics, appropriate 

container packaging requirements and/or evaluate potential impacts on the incinerator 

and/or pollution control equipment. This testing does not apply to liquid decant drums 

which will be blended prior to incineration 

4. Radioactivity Screening is performed to detect radioactive materials above background 

levels (greater than 0.5 millirads per hour) and to ensure that mixed waste, as defined 

in the TWI Part B RCRA Permit is not accepted by the facility. 

5. Flammabilitv Potential Screening is used to indicate the fire-producing potential of the waste. 

This testing can be applied to all wastes, liquids, semi-solids or solids. All mcoming liquid 

material indicating a positive flammability potential will be stored as Class I flammable liquids, 

unless closed cup flash point is performed showing a flash point of greater than 100°F. 

6. Water Mix Screening is used to determine whether the waste has a potential to vigorously 

react when mixed with water, to form gases or other products, or whether it generates 

significant heat. This testing does not apply to wastes that are already in contact with excess 

water. 

WAP-8 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 
7. Gvanides Screening indicates whether the waste has the potential to produce hydrogen cyanide 

upon addiflcation below pH 2.0. It is not required if the pH of the waste is less than or equal 

to 2.0. 

8. Oxidizer Screening is used to indicate the absence or presence of strong oxidizing materiaL 

9. pH Screening is undertaken to indicate the pH and, in general, the corrosive nature of the 

waste. Full range paper is used for the initial screening of wastes. Waste accepted by the 

facility wilL generally, be in the range of 2.0 to 12.5 pH units. Liquid waste outside of this 

range may be analyzed for alkalinity/acidity. Based on the results or the chemical composition, 

the appropriate process code is specified. If the material exhibits corrosive properties as 

identified in technical literature vs. tank farm material of construction, corrosion testing may 

be performed to allow for storage, or it will be accepted as specialty feed material and injected 

directly into the incinerator without blending. 

10. Paint Filter Test is used to determine whether free liquids are present in a waste. It is not 

performed on free flowing materials. 

11. Sulfide Screening indicates whether the waste has the potential to produce hydrogen sulfide 

upon acidification below pH 2.0. It is not required if the pH of the waste is less than or equal 

to 2.0. 

3.2 Non-hazardous Waste Analyses 

Non-hazardous wastes will be sampled as described in Section 5.1 and tested for physical description, 

radioactivity screening, fiammability potential screening, water mix screening, and pH screening (if liquid). 

Non-hazardous solid wastes will be sampled and analyzed, as described above, for heat content and chlorine 

content. Non-hazardous liquid waste streams will be sampled and analyzed, as described above, for 

compatibility testing prior to management in bulk storage tanks. If any of these screens are positive the 

material will be considered discrepant and all mandatory analyses completed (see Mandatory Analysis, Section 

3.1). 

3.3 Supplemental Analyses 

Supplemental Analyses are performed to further identify wastes and will be performed when needed 

as directed by Facility Management or as specified in the following rationale. 

Supplemental Analyses are conducted when the Mandatory Analyses indicate that further information 

is needed to confirm the waste or to properly store and/or process the waste. The analyses are performed as 

directed by Facility Management. The results of these analyses provide Facility Management with another level 

of confidence concerning the proper means of storage and/or processing. 

Some of these additional analyses utilize unique procedures and protocols formulated by TWL which 

have been found to be preferable for waste identification These analyses will meet CWM performance 

standards. Others are standard analytical techniques recognized by the U.S. EPA and ASTM. The parameters 

WAP-9 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 
which constitute the Supplemental Analyses are identified below, the methods to be utilized in determining 

these parameters are in Appendix WAP-A 

1. Containerized Storage Compatibility is used to ensure proper compatibility within containerized 

storage buildings. This testing applies only to containerized wastes which do not pass the paint filter 

test. The testing program will not apply to small quantity packaged chemicals, material repackaged 

or solidified, or other material exempted under 4.1.4 and 5.1.1. In the event that a compatibility is 

performed on materials which are indicated as incompatible per DOT HM181, the compatibility test 

will take precedence over the DOT hazard class grouping. 

2. Tank Farm Compatibility will be assessed by performing a liquid waste compatibility on the liquid 

waste received for bulk storage with a composite of the tanks and storage container within the 

containment system to which the new waste will be added Containment area master composite will 

be made up once per week. The incoming material will be checked against this master composite. 

3. Gas Chromatography Scan is used to separate and identify certain organic compounds. 

4. Metals (e.g.. As. Be. Cd Cr. Ni.KNa.T L Pb. Hg. Se) identifies heavy metals concentrations in 

wastes to determine regulatory status of the waste. Inorganic mercury waste as specified in 35 IAC 

728. Table D, mercury high subcategory streams will be analyzed to ensure the mercury concentration 

is less than the LDR regulatory limit. 

5. Closed Cup Flash Point identifies ignitable liquid wastes for storage purposes. This test will be 

performed when the generator has not provided analytical data with the WPS. This test will also be 

performed to resolve non-conformance issues when; 

a) An incoming waste indicates a positive flanunability potential; and 

b) Profile information indicates that the material should not exhibit a flammabuity potential; 

and 

c) The discrepancy cannot be resolved through discussions with the generator. 

6. Acidity/Alkalinity may be performed on liquid inorganic waste which exhibits a pH greater that 12.5 

or less than 2.0 to evaluate the processability of these wastes. 

7. Apparent Viscosity is an indicator of one of the feed characteristics to the incinerator. It is 

determined during profiling on liquids when the Physical Description indicates the waste is viscous or 

when analytical data is not provided by the generator on the WPS. 

8. Confinement Test is used to measure the magnitude and rate of heat generation from a material 

subjected to a programmed temperature increase under confined conditions. This test will be used 

as an indicator of the waste's explosion potential For materials for which the Facility Management 

lacks explosivity information, either as provided by the generator, through the facility's previous 

experiences with the material, or in a review of standard reference materials (a bibliography of 

standard references available to the site is included as Appendix WAP-F) and Facility Management's 

WAP-10 EE VISION 11 

9/29/94 

VES 000184 
evaluation of the chemical structure of the compound fails to preclude an explosion potential for the 

material, the suspect material will be subjected to a Confinement Test. 

9. Liquid Waste Compatibility is used to determine if waste streams can be blended without causing a 

release to the environment. This test will be performed on all liquid wastes received for bulk storage, 

decant to bulk storage, or blending prior to incineration with all tanks within the containment system 

to which the new waste will be added 

10. PCBs are run to indicate whether PCBs are present in wastes and to ascertain their concentration 

PCB analysis will be provided by the generator or analysis will be performed prior to profile decision 

approval. Incoming waste shipments will be subjected to PCB testing based on the criteria defined 

in CWM's PCB Suspect Analysis Policy. Materials containing PCBs above 50 ppm will not be 

accepted Organic extractions will not be performed on oxidizing wastes because ofthe safety hazard 

involved 

11. Chlorophenoxy Herbicides bv HPLC is used to detennine the presence of dioxin suspect compounds 

Silvex and 2,4,5-T (see Appendix WAP-C) at a level of 0.01% or greater subject to detection 

level/matrix interference. Suspect waste streams are identified by the TWI Dioxin Suspect Analysis 

Policy. 

12. Phenol Screening is used to determine the presence of dioxin suspect compounds pentachlorophenol 

(see Appendix WAP-C) at levels greater than 0.01% or greater, subject to detection level/matrix 

interference. Suspect waste streams are identified by the TWI Dioxin Suspect Analysis Policy. 

13. Ash Content is used to determine the percent ash in waste feeds to the secondary combustion 

chamber. This test is performed on liquid blends for injection in the SCC burners. 

14. Fluorine Content is used to determine the percent fluorine in waste feeds to the secondary combustion 

chamber. This test is performed on liquid blends for injection in the SCC burners. 

15. Bromine Content is used to determine the percent bromine in waste feeds to the secondary 

combustion chamber. This test is performed on liquid blends for injection in the SCC burners. 

16. Specific Gravitv/Density indicates the density of the waste. This information is used to assure that 

the specific gravity of bulk liquids is less than the design specific gravity for the storage tanks (1.5). 

Other parameters not listed here may be added as required by changes in regulations, company policy, etc. 

See Figure 3.1 for a summary of analytical requirements. 

WAP-11 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 

VES 000185 
FIGURE 3-1 

SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS 

INCOMING 

PARAMETER PROFILE WASTE 

3p^ysjc^lEhewsF%^o» r \ ''; _ _; x_-, % 

pH Screen X X 

Cyanide%*ee»^l> * 1 ^ \ - : - ?;\ 

Oxidizer Screen X 

J ^iijac^^iciNemv , ,, , X - ^ '; \ i-> % 

Flammability Potential Screen X 

Sffefegt^$eKef^$> "-, ]. \ & 

Paint Filter Test X 

m^mvmwm.y:[ '•• ' - /. - - • -*-.\ w 

Chlorine Content X(4) 

MiCmtmk. - . - ' S#| 

Specific Gravity S(6) 

fobs m , .. x - & 

GC Scan (3) S 

gfeife 1 T, '.'"v; \ t - % ,-, • ' * 

Acidity/Alkalinity S 

Liquid Waste Compatibility S 

Pentachlorophenol Screening (3) S 

<Mo*Q|&e.w^ * , ' " '' # 

Mercury S 

iFtom&m. /: . „t ^ ^ 1 ' ^ 

Bromine S 

5$Btals, ' - -

 j> "I c^-i'' / , 8 

Confinement Test S 

X = Mandatory Analysis (1) Does not apply to waste with pH < or = 2 

S = Supplemental Analysis (2) Does not apply to waste already in 

contact with excess water. 

(3) Not performed on oxidizing waste. 

(4) Not performed on liquid decant drums. 

(5) Liquids only. 

(6) Bulk liquids only. 

WAP-12 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 
4.0 PROFILING PROCEDURES 

TWI has developed a series of control procedures to determine the acceptability of specific wastes 

for management at the facility. The profiling procedure dictates what information a potential customer must 

provide to enable TWI to carry out its responsibility to obtain information necessary to manage the waste. In 

accordance with 40 CFR 264.13(b)(5) and/or 35 Dl. Adm. Code 724.113(b)(5) this facility requires, at a 

minimum, the generator to supply all the mformation required by 40 CFR 264.13(a)(1) and/or 35 DL Adm. Code 

724.113(a)(1) (see Section 4.1 for a discussion regarding the information and data to be supplied by the 

generator) necessary to characterize, treat, store or dispose of each waste stream. 

Profiling is the mechanism for deciding to reject or accept a particular type of waste-prior to its 

acceptance at the facility-based on the conditions necessary to maintain incinerator operations at a (normal) 

steady state, the limitations of existing permits, and its compatibility with other wastes being treated, stored 

or disposed at the facility. 

Prior to accepting a waste at the TWI facility for treatment, storage or disposal, a determination has 

previously been made by the generator (and reviewed by TWI) that the waste is either: 

o a characteristic waste as denned in subpart C of 40 CFR 261 and/or subpart C, 35 RL Adm. 

Code 721, 

o a listed hazardous waste as denned in subpart D of 40 CFR 261 and/or subpart B, 35 RL 

Adm. Code 721, 

o a solid waste which is not a hazardous waste as defined in 40 CFR 261.4(b) and/or 35 DL 

Adm. Code 721.104(b). 

The generator's supplied characterization (Waste Profile Sheet (WPS), Figure 4-1 in Section 4.1) 

provides TWI with information concerning the distribution of waste components as well as the nature of the 

waste components. 

4.1 Procedural Requirements 

For each new waste stream that is a candidate for delivery to the facility, except for those special 

materials noted below in Section 4.1.4, the following procedures are implemented 

4.1.1 Information Provided by Generator 

The generator will provide TWI with: 

(1) chemical and physical data requested on the Waste Profile Sheet (WPS), typical form shown 

as Figure 4-1. This information will be based on the following: 

o Analytical Data; the generator must provide any available analytical data to support 

the information provided on the WPS. At a minimum, the generator must provide 

the following; 

Flash Point (liquids only) 

WAP-13 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 

VES 000187 
PCB 

Apparent Viscosity (liquids only) 

pH 

Radioactivity Screen 

Where the generator does not provide analytical data, for the above items, the data 

will be developed by TWI prior to waste profile approval 

o For waste code information, existing or published data on the waste or on waste 

generated from similar processes; 

o Process and ingredient information. 

(2) a representative sample; if required (a representative sample may not be required by TWI 

if Facility Management determines that the profile documentation supplied by the generator 

gives sufficient information to maintain compliance with permit and operational constraints 

and that submittal of a sample would not aid in the disposal decision process. Also see 

Sections 4.1.4 and 4.1.5). Non-hazardous waste profiles for which the generator has 

provided analytical data to support this determination will not require a sample. 

(3) Certification that the representative sample when required for approval (see above) has been 

obtained using procedures identified in 40 CFR 261, Appendix I and/or 35 Dl. Adm. Code 

721, Appendix A or equivalent methods. 

(4) Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) Notification/Certification Information and/or Data (40 CFR 

Part 268): 

(5) Material Safety Data Sheets, where available; 

(6) While not specifically required generators are encouraged to provide other supporting 

documentation, including additional analytical results, product ingredients, etc which will 

assist in the approval process. 

CWM mamtains as part of its profiling information generator-supplied and CWM-developed 

information This information may be accessed electronically or via hard copy. 

4.1.2 Waste Management Decision 

After evaluating the data supplied by the generator, Facility Management will determine the 

acceptability of the waste based on: (1) permit conditions; (2) the availability of proper waste management 

techniques and operational conditions necessary to maintain a steady state (normal) operation of the 

incinerator; and (3) storage and compatibility concerns. See Section 4.2 for a detailed discussion ofthe decision 

evaluation logic for profiling procedures. 

WAP-14 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 
4.1.3 Waste Re-evaluation 

In accordance with 40 CPR 264.13 and/or 35 111. Adm. Code 724.113, a waste profile re-evaluation 

will be conducted when one of the following occurs: 

o A generator notifies TWI that the process generating the waste has changed; 

o The results of inspection or analysis indicate that the waste recdved at the facility does not 

match the identity of the waste designated on the accompanying manifest (or shipping paper) 

or profile documentation (See Section 5.2.3); or 

o Every five years. A waste profile re-evaluation along with a vigilant incoming load screening 

program is sufficient to ensure that wastes continue to be properly managed at the facility. 

For bullet items one and three above, this re-evaluation process consists of a review of the paperwork to 

ascertain that the analytical data is accurate and current and that it is sufficient to properly manage the waste 

as intended. The procedure typically involves comparing the current waste profile to the available results of 

routine inspection, sampling, and analysis obtained upon receipt of an incoming load of the waste stream To 

augment this review, if existing analytical is not sufficient, the generator may be asked to review the current 

waste profile, to supply a new profile, and/or to submit a sample for analysis, or TWI may obtain a sample from 

a shipment of the waste. 

4.1.4 Exceptions to the Foregoing Requirements 

Exceptions to the foregoing requirements include the following special materials as determined by 

Facility Management: 

(1) Packaged chemicals and debris (e.g., glassware, syringe, lab coats, etc.), from laboratories, 

hospitals, household clean sweeps, manufacturing facilities, etc., including scintillation vials 

packed in accordance with Small Quantity Chemical Guidelines (SQCG's). Scintillation vials 

as certified by the generator to exhibit less than 0.05 microcurie/gram radioactiviiy 

(scintillation vials at this level may exhibit radioactivity above background but less than 0.5 

rmllirads per hour). For packaged chemicals, the generator will supply a packing list 

(Inventory) for each container (e.g., drums) specifying type and quantity of chemicals 

contained within. Compliance with the SQCG's and accuracy ofthe drum inventory provided 

to TWI for review must be certified by the technician packaging the waste through 

completion ofthe drum inventory sheet. This drum inventory sheet must be reviewed and 

approved for each container by the TWI Facility Management prior to acceptance at the 

facility. TWI will open and inspect the contents of randomly selected direct charge containers 

received from each packing organization to verify that the contents conform to the drum 

inventory. Drums containing scintillation vials will be screened to verify that they are not 

radioactive (as noted above). See Section 5.1.1(1) for a complete description of Incoming 

Waste Shipment procedures for small quantity chemical drums. Occasionally, TWI 

WAP-15 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 

VES 000189 
determines that a particular material is not acceptable and so notifies the customer. If the 

customer agrees with TWI's determination the unacceptable material is removed from the 

container. These drums will be tracked on-site for the purposes of determining waste 

storage compatibility by marjifest/profile/unique drum identification combination 

(2) Empty containers as defined at 35 IAC 721.107(b), (e.g. empty fiber, steel or plastic drums 

or bags). These wastes will be visually inspected upon receipt. In addition to differences in 

physical appearance, these wastes will be determined to be nonconforming when they contain 

material in quantities greater than 3% ofthe total volume of the container or more than one 

inch of residue remains on the bottom of the container. 

(3) Pharmaceutical and other commercial products packaged in consumer quantities in their 

original untampered packaging. 

(4) Commercial products or chemicals: off-specification, outdated unused or banned These 

materials must be received in the original container or packaged as designated by TWI. 

(5) Aerosol cans and Lecture Bottles. 

(6) Controlled substances defined in 21 U.S.C. Section 802 regulated by the Federal 

Government such as cocaine and other drugs. These are typically generated by a 

pharmaceutical company, health care agencies or state or federal agency. 

(7) Potentially Infectious Medical Waste (PLMW) as defined by IEPA 

(8) Wastes which are visually identifiable through an inspection process. Examples of these 

types of wastes are, batteries, cathode ray tubes, crushed glass, piping, filters and filter 

cartridges, wire or tubing, paper products, syringes, metal sheeting and parts, explosive 

components and devises. This list is not meant to be all inclusive, and may be expanded with 

IEPA approval. 

(9) Prior Agency Approvak Materials which do not fall into one of the other exemption 

categories, but present impractical sampling or analysis complications. Use of this exemption 

will be granted on a profile specific basis, with initial review by the LEPA field office 

(Collinsville). Profile approval will be subject to LEPA-DLPC Permit Section written (e.g. 

fax) approval 

The requirement that a generator provide a representative sample is waived for these materials 

because they exhibit unusual or impractical sampling and analytical complications and are of such a nature that 

their contents are known in sufficient and reliable chemical and physical detail that sampling and analysis is 

not warranted For these exceptions, the generator will supply TWI with chemical and physical characteristic 

information necessary for proper management of the waste and sampling is not required The above wastes 

will be described on a WPS as shown in Figure 4-1 and accompanied by supporting documentation (e.g., drum 

inventory, Material Safety Data Sheets (where available), and other data made available by the generator), 

including information as to whether the waste is subject to the Land Disposal Restrictions of 40 CFR Part 268. 

WAP-16 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 
4.1.5 Standard Profiles 

Standard Profiles may be used for waste streams which are similar in physical and chemical 

characteristics, generated by similar industries or processes, consistent with the USEPA approach of assigning 

a listed waste code to similar process wastes. 

An analytical database will be developed for a specific Standard Profile based on analytical data from 

waste streams that are representative of wastes from similar industries, processes or historical data. CWM 

will review the database and determine whether the individual waste streams are sufficiently similar in physical 

and chemical characteristics to an established Standard Profile. The analytical database developed as discussed 

above will replace the requirement for a profiling sample (see Section 4.1.1) for each individual waste stream. 

Specific candidate waste streams which are identified as confonning to an existing IEPA approved 

Standard Profile will be managed under the existing disposal decision specific for that Standard Profile. 

4.2 Decision Evaluation Logic for Profiling Procedures 

The Facility Management is responsible for the profile evaluation decision (e.g., whether to approve 

the candidate waste for acceptance). The data obtained from the WPS (Figure 4-1), any analysis performed 

by the CWM Laboratory, and any other information provided by the generator or developed during the 

assessment of the waste is evaluated by Facility Management. The facility General Manager will designate 

written authority for profile decision approval to qualified mdividuals based on training, experience, and 

supervised decision reviews. See Figure 4-2 for required waste management decision information. 

Facility Management will apply technical experience and judgement to all the available information 

in order to reach a technical profile approval decision At a minimum, the following criteria will be assessed: 

o Management methods available; 

o Conditions or limitations of existing permits and regulations; 

o Capability to manage the waste in a safe and environmentally sound manner; 

o WPS description of the process generating the waste; 

o WPS description of the chemical and physical properties of the waste; 

o Any additional documentation supplied by the generator, including information that the 

waste is subject to a Land Disposal Restriction of 40 CFR Part 268; 

o Results of Mandatory Analyses if applicable (see Section 4.1.1); 

o Results of Supplemental Analyses, as required, 

o MSDS recommendations (when available). 

A surnmary of particular data which, when observed on the WPS or during the Profiling phase, will 

subject the candidate waste stream to restrictions, special packaging requirements, or outright rejection from 

further consideration is provided as Appendix WAP-C. 

WAP-17 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 

VES 000191 
A waste stream will be rejected during the profiling phase for the following reasons: 

o Incomplete or outdated information supplied by the waste generator which cannot be 

supplemented by the generator, 

o WPS information is inconsistent and the discrepancy cannot be resolved with the generator. 

Inconsistent mformation is that which is mutually exclusive based on scientific facts and 

principles (for example, WPS indicates that a waste containing 50% acetone is 

nonflammable). 

o Sample analyses and WPS information are inconsistent and the discrepancy cannot be 

resolved with the generator, 

o The facility is not permitted to treat, store, or dispose ofthe particular waste in question (for 

example, the waste is radioactive), 

o The facility does not have the capacity to treat, store, or dispose of the waste stream in 

question. 

o Facility experience with similar materials or standard reference materials (See Appendix 

WAP-F) indicates that this material cannot safely be incinerated by limiting size of charges 

or other processing controls. See Appendix WAP-C for Waste Acceptability Criteria. 

o Facility Management is not assured of the ability of the facility to safely treat and store the 

waste. 

The profile evaluation is concluded with documentation of the decision regarding the acceptability 

of the waste and the proposed method of management, including such special packaging requirements as may 

be required ofthe generator. The acceptability decision is embodied within the waste management decision. 

A master Waste Beceipt Analysis Document (WBAD) (See Figure 5-1) will also be prepared by completing those 

sections of the form which require iriformation gathered during the profile process (generator name, profile 

number, results of profile analyses, decisions restrictions, etc.). A copy of this master WRAD will be made at 

the time the waste is scheduled to transmit profile information to operations and the laboratory for the 

Incoming Waste Acceptance process. 

WAP-18 REVISION 11 

9/29794 
FIGURE 4-1 

GENERATOR'S WASTE MATERIAL PROFILE SHEET 

WAP . 1 9

 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 

VES 0001 
Za-e ?n.-.ted caeBisa i wast e Matiagsrcsn- . Inc . 

w h S t S PROFIL E 

Check here i f this i s » Secertlficatio n LOCATION OF ORIGINAL 

'.GENERAL INFORMATIO" 

Cenerator Kama: _ Generator USEPA ID : 

2. Generator Address: Billin g Address: 

( ) Sana 

Technica l 

Contact/Phona : 

4. Aitarnat a " Billin g 

contact/Phona: Contact/Phona: 

PROPERTIES ANB COMPOSITION 

5. Process Generating Waste: 

6. Waste Mama: 

7A. I a this a USEPA haiardoua waata (40 CFS Part 261)? Yes (_) No (_) 

B. Identify ALL USEPA listed and characteristic waata coda numbers (D,F,K,P,U|: 

Stete Waata Codaa: 

8. Physical State 9 70F: A. Solid(_) Liquid( J Both(_) Cas(_) B. Single Layer (_) Multilayer (_) C. Free liq . range to » 

9A. pH: Range or Hot applicable (_) B . Strong Odor (_);deacribe _____ _ 

10. Liquid Flaah Point: < 73F ( ) 73-99F (_) 100-139F (_) 140-199F (_) >• 200F (_) II.A. (_) Cloaad Cup (_) Ope* Cup (_) 

11. CHEMICAL COMPOSITIOIl: Lie t ALL conatituanta (lncl . haloganatad organise) preaeot ln any concentration and forward analyaie 

conatituanta Ranga Unit Daaerlption ; 

TOTAL COMPOSITION (MUST EQUAL OK EXCEED 100%): 

12. OTHER: PCBa If yaa, concentration ppa, P~ a regulated by 40 ~ 761 (_). Pyrophorlc (_) Explosive (_) 

Radioactive ( ) Banxana If "yea, concentration _ ^ ppa. Shock Sena it ir e (_) Oxidixar (_) 

carcinogan ( J infactioua ( j other Ai r Reactiv e ( ) Wate r Reactive " ( ) 

13. If waata subject to tha land ban • eeata traataent ataadarda, check nara: _ t aupply analytical results where applicable . 

SHIPPIKC iiiram ~ o a 

14. PAOUkQ_«0» Bulk Soli d (_) I oik Liquid (_) Drua (_) Typa/Slia : ; Other 

15. .AHTICIPA—i AHUM. WOLSMi Units: Shipping Frequency: 

SAKPLIKG ISTOltm—OB Sample Tracking Nuatoar: 

16a. Sample source (drua, lagoon, pond, tank, vat, etc.): ________________________________ _ 

Data Sampled: Sampler's Kama/Company: 

•16b. Generator's Agant Supervising Saapling: 17. (_) Ko sample required (Saa instructions.) 

GENERATOR'3 CESTITICATIOai 

I hereby certif y that al l information subaittad in this and al l attached documents contains trua and accurate descriptions of 

this waste. Any aaapla subaittad i a representative aa deflnad ln 40 era 261 - Appendix X or by using an equivalent method. Al l 

relevant Information regarding known or suspected hazards i n tha possession of tha generator haa baan disclosed. I authorlia 

CWM to obtain a aaapla froa any waata shipment for p m pus ss of recertlfication . 

Signature Raaa and Titl e 

VES 000194 
FIGURE 4-2 

WASTE MANAGEMENT DECISION 

EEVISION 11 

WAP-20 9/29/94 

VES 000195 
Oat* 9/29/94 VASTS MAa_3—«~X DBCISIOH Page 

Time 9)35l57 

Location of origina l __________________ _ 

I. Ganarator and Facilit y Information 

Decision Sit e 

proposed Management Facilit y 

Tracking f i _____ _ Priorit y i 

Profil e I i Date Received i 

Sffactive Date. 

Generator i „ 

Waata Category Codei ________ _ 

Description l ________ _ 

II. Decision t o Danv Approval fo r t—nagensnt of Waste 

Reason fo r Denying Approval 

Initia l Approval _______________ _ ""sua (print) 

Fina l Approval ___________________ _ Heme (print) 

b) Precaution Conditions or Limitations on Approval 

(2) Contracting Conditions 

(3) Sit e and contracting Conditions 

c) Analytica l Requirements fo r Bach Load 

d) Pscleion Baqalratlon Date 

Initia l Approval ____________________ _ Heme (print) 

17. Fina l Deciaion 

Stats any Additional Precautions. Ccnditions. or Limitationa 

Fina l Approval Heme (print) Date 
5.0 INCOMING WASTE SHIPMENT PROCEDURES 

In accordance with 264.13(c) and/or 35 Dl. Adm. Code 724.113(c), each shipment of waste, upon 

arrival at the facility, will be inspected as denned herein before the initiation of any further activity. This 

serves two purposes. First, it compares the actual waste identify with that determined in the profile process 

and that listed on the waste manifest. If the waste conforms to the expected descriptions and properties as 

determined during the profile review, then the information obtained during profiling can reasonably be used 

as the basis for managing the waste which arrives at the facility. Secondly, it provides a second level of 

assurance that the contemplated waste management technique can be utilized Other CWM personnel (or a 

CWM-approved laboratory) can provide the Mandatory and/or Supplemental Analyses required prior to or 

concurrent with the arrival ofthe load Waste shipments that have arrived at the facility are considered to be 

in the receiving process until such time that Facility Management makes a final decision regarding waste 

acceptability; at such time the wastes are considered accepted 

If the waste does not conform to the expected descriptions and properties as determined during the 

profile review (is found to be nonconforming), then the irtformation obtained using the Mandatory Analyses and 

any Supplemental Analyses performed, will be utilized to manage the waste. 

All waste shipments which are subject to the Land Disposal Restrictions of 40 CFR Part 268 and have 

been treated, exempted, varianced, or meet the appropriate treatment standard or prohibition without 

treatment must be accompanied by a form from the treater or generator, certifying that the treated exempted, 

or varianced waste meets the appropriate treatment standard, prohibition, or variance (or that the untreated 

waste naturally meets the treatment standard or prohibition) and includes any applicable analytical data or 

reference to such data or documentation fin accordance with 40 CFR 268). Furthermore, all wastes which are 

subject to the land disposal restrictions and require treatment must be accompanied by a form from the 

generator (or treater) that (1) notifies that the waste contains prohibited constituents; (2) identifies the 

appropriate treatment standards associated with the material; and (3) includes any applicable analytical data 

or reference to such data (in accordance with 40 CFR 268). See Section 4.1.1 for a discussion regarding the 

information and data to be supplied by the generator. 

WAP-21 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 

VES 000197 
5.1 Receiving Procedures 

Incoming waste shipment identification begins upon arrival of the waste at the facility. The 

inspection, sampling and analysis of the incoming waste will be performed in accordance with the 

methods/parameters described in Sections 2.0 and 3.0. 

In the case of container shipments not covered in the exceptions, each container in the shipment will 

have its contents visually inspected by obtaining a full depth vertical sample to verify that the contents are 

similar prior to compositing. The receiving technician will note physical state for each drum on the receiving 

documents (see Figure 5-1, Physical Description Worksheet), which the lab will compare to the profiled physical 

description of the waste, mcoming wastes will have its full depth vertical sample visually inspected for color 

and phase (liquid, solid semi-solid). Drums of packaged chemicals will be randomly opened and inspected to 

verify that the drum is packed as identified in Section 5.1.1. 

Upon delivery, 10 percent of the containers from each waste profile within a shipment, will be 

randomly selected and sampled according to Section 2.0. In the event that a single drum of a specific waste 

profile is received that drum will be sampled. A maximum of five containerized shipment samples from the 

same waste profile may be composited prior to analysis, provided the individual samples are similar in physical 

appearance. ". -

For waste receivers over 80 drums, an additional single drum grab sample will be taken as part of 

the mcoming analysis. The grab sample will be subject to normal receiving mandatory analysis. This grab will 

i 

be compared to the profile data. 

Where containers are to be randomly selected for sampling or inspection (mduding packaged chemical 

drum inspection), the containers to be evaluated will be selected using a random number table, or a random 

number generator on a personal computer or programmable calculator. Drum numbers will be assigned to the 

drums in a shipment upon off-loading prior to inspection or sampling. The random numbers will be generated 

to establish which containers will be evaluated at this time. ~ 

Container samples will be composited only with samples from the same profile which are of siinilar 

color and phase. In addition, if wastes from the same profile exhibit differences in physical appearance during 

the Mandatory Analyses and these cannot be resolved (See 5.2.4) then all remaining containers will be sampled 

to determine which drums are conforming, unless a determination can be made from the container visual 

inspection 

Samples from mcoming waste shipments will be subjected to Mandatory Analyses (see section 3.0). 

All such samples will be retained for a period required to approve the waste for incineration 

The results of the visual inspections and Mandatory Analyses will be documented on the waste 

receipt analysis document (WRAD), typical form attached as Figure 5-1. This form is used to document the 

profile evaluation data, the results of the Mandatory Analyses (see Section 3.1), and the determination of 

conformance/non-conformance (see Section 5.2). 

WAP-22 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 

VES 000198 
5.1.1 Exceptions to Incoming Waste Analysis Procedures 

The following materials, which are defined in Section 4.1.4, will not be sampled upon arrival but, at 

a minimum, will be subjected to a visual inspection as described below. These materials are not sampled 

because they exhibit unusual or impractical sampling and analytical complications and because sufficient 

chemical and physical data has previously been obtained: 

1) Packaged chemicals and debris (see Section 4.1.4 for description). This inspection procedure 

will apply to those drums which are selected for verification of the drum inventory sheets 

(DIS). During the verification, these o^ums will be identified as conforming, non-confcnining 

and processable, or non-confonning and discrepant. The definitions and responses will be 

as follows: 

Conforming Drums: A drum that meets guidelines and all material is identified and 

corresponds with DIS. Conforniing drums will be processed 

Processable Drums; A drum that is not coriforming but sufficient information is available 

to determine its acceptability- The following are examples of processable drums: 

1. Missing DIS but DIS available in approval package; 

2. Material identified on DIS but not present in the drum; 

3. Broken bottle(s) with legible labels(s); 

4. Broken bottle(s) and label(s) destroyed but material identifiable with logical 

deduction and DIS review; 

5. Extra containers of identified material; 

6. Extra identifiable and acceptable material; 

7. Extramaterials corisistdng of PPE and job supplies (e.g., markers, absorbent 

bags, cardboard); 

8. Material on DIS present but quantities are incorrectly identified; 

9. Non-containerized compound but identifiable from DIS; 

10. Missing label but container type/size match DIS. 

Processable drums will be accepted and processed The generator or packer of processable 

drums will be notified of the inaccuracies associated with the processable drum. The 

generator or packer will also be notified that the continued receipt of processable materials 

versus corjforrning, will not be tolerated and will result in the issuance of deterrent 

measures, up to and including banning the generator/packer from sending hazardous waste 

to TWI for treatment. 

WAP-23 EEVISION 11 

9/29/94 

VES 000199 
Discrepant Drums: A drum where insufficient information is available to determine 

acceptability of the drum or the drum contains unacceptable material. The following are 

examples of discrepant drums: 

1. One or more broken bottles where the contents cannot be deteirmined; 

2. Unidentifiable material; 

3. Missing label and container does not match anything on the DIS; 

4. Unacceptable material in drum; 

5. DIS not available. 

The portion of the drum which is discrepant will be rejected All non direct charge drums 

will be inspected during processing in the Specialty Processing Building. 

2) Empty containers as defined at 35 IAC 721.107(b). These wastes will be visually inspected 

upon receipt. In addition to differences in physical appearance, these wastes will be 

determined to be nonconforming when they contain material in quantities greater than 3% 

of the total volume of the container or more than one inch of residue remains on the bottom 

of the container or when the shipping container (overpack) has free liquids in more than the 

above quantities. 

3) Pharmaceutical and other commercial products packaged in consumer quantities in their 

original untampered packaging. TWI will open and visually inspect 5% of the mcoming outer 

containers of these materials to verify that the shipment contains consumer packages. 

4) Commercial products or chemicals. TWI will open 5% but not less than one of the mcoming 

containers of each mcoming profile to ensure that the material is as described on the WPS. 

5) Aerosol cans and Lecture Bottles: These wastes will be visually inspected upon processing 

into burnable charges. 

6) Controlled substances defined in 21 U.S.C. Section 802. These types of materials will not 

be opened or sampled by TWI due to the regulations goverriing these rnaterials. TWI will 

require an inventory from the packer of these materials as specified in the procedures 

outlined in Section 4.1.4. These materials are generated by a pharmaceutical company or 

health care agencies or state or federal agency. 

7) Potentially Infectious Medical Waste (PIMW) as defined by IEPA. 

8) Wastes which are visually identifiable through an inspection process. Wastes in original 

packaging will be subject to 5% inspection as per 5.1.1.4 above. Wastes which are not in 

original packaging will be subject to 100% visual inspection. Examples of these types of 

wastes are, batteries, cathode ray tubes, crushed glass, piping, filters and filter cartridges, 

wire or tubing, paper products, syringes, metal sheeting and parts, explosive components and 

devises. This list is not meant to be all inclusive, and may be expanded with local IEPA 

approval. 

WAP-24 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 

VES 000200 
9) Prior Agency Approval: Materials which do not fall into one of the other exemption 

categories, but present impractical sampling or analysis complications. Use of this exemption 

will be granted on a profile specific basis, with initial review by the IEPA field office 

(Collinoville). Profile approval will be subject to IEPA-DLPC Permit Section written (e.g. 

fax) approval. 

5.2 Incoming Waste Shipment Decision Evaluation Logic 

After a waste has been received by the facility, inspected, sampled, and analyzed in accordance with 

Sections 5.1, 2.0, and 3.0, Faciliiy Management will review the profile mformation, the Mandatory Analyses, 

and the manifest to determine whether the material received conforms with the profile information and the 

manifest, and whether it can be safely managed at the facility. The major functions in the process are as 

follows: ^, 

5.2.1 Waste Identification 

Facility Management will rely on one or more of the following sources of information to deterniine 

the identity of the incoming material together with any other available information: 

o Visual Inspection of the container contents, 

o Sampling. 

o Results of Mandatory Analyses. 

o Appropriate Land Disposal Restriction Notificarion/Certification Form. 

o Waste Manifest. 

The information gathered from the above sources will be compared with irjformation taken from the 

foUowing sources developed during profiling (see Section 4.1): 

o Waste Profile Sheet, 

o Results of any analyses. 

o Any additional documentation supplied by the generator, such as a Material Safety Data 

Sheet, product ingredient, etc. 

Specific criteria for waste comparison are shown on the WRAD (Figure 5-1). Comparisons will be 

documented on the WRAD. Determination of confonnance with specific parameters will be determined as 

described in Appendix WAP-D. 

5.2.2 The Need for Additional Analyses 

Facility Management will perform additional analyses according to the criteria in Section 3.3 when 

manifest information or results of the Mandatory Analyses do not conform or are inconsistent with profile 

information (Le., if a waste is nonconforniing as described in Appendix WAP-D or information gathered is 

mutually exclusive based on scientifir: facts and principles). 

WAP-25 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 

VES 000201 
5.2.3 An Evaluation of Whether a Waste is Found to be in Conformance or Non-conformance 

The Facility Management must classify the waste as being in non-conformance if it is significantly 

different from the uiformation shown in the profile paperwork or on the manifest, or differs in quantity from 

that indicated on the nianifest, in accordance with 40 CFR 264.72 and/or 35 EL Adm. Code 724.172. 

Three major criteria are used to arrive at this decision. They are: 

o For bulk wastes, variations greater than 10% in volume or, 

o For batch wastes (e.g., drums, bags, etc.), any variation in piece count (Le., the 

number of pieces listed on the manifest or drum inventory does not agree with 

the number of pieces received) or, 

o If inspection or analysis of any waste determines significant differences exist 

between the physical properties of the waste and the descriptions on the profile 

and/or shipping paperwork. Significant differences are: 

1) Variations from conformance criteria as described in Appendix WAP-D or; 

2) Analytical results which are mutually exclusive based on scientific facts and 

principles from the waste description on the nianifest or profile paperwork. 

5.2.4 An Evaluation of Whether Wastes Found to be in Non-conformance can be Accepted or 

will be Rejected 

If the information collected in (1) and (2) above indicates that one or more of the mcoming waste 

evaluation criteria is significantly different from the rnanifest or profile irjformation, Facility Management must 

undertake to account for the apparent observed difference. This evaluation will include one or more of the 

following: 

o Review of sampling methods to verify representative sampling; 

o Supplemental Analysis, as specified in Section 3.3; 

o Further evaluation of the waste profile and incoming analytical or discussions with the 

generator. 

If information gathered during this evaluation can resolve the discrepancy, the resolution of the 

discrepancy will be documented on the WRAD along with the results of the mcoming waste analysis. 

If discrepancies in mcoming waste evaluation criteria cannot be resolved, the waste will be considered 

non-conforrning and the results documented on the WRAD along with the results of the mcoming waste 

analyses. 

Wastes found to be in non-conformance will either be rejected or re-profiled for possible acceptance 

by the facility despite the variance. 

Wastes that are rejected during unloading may be placed back on the truck for transportation, as 

arranged with the generator. Wastes that are rejected after the transporter has departed the facility are held 

WAP-26 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 

VES 000202 
in a storage area holding only compatible materials, based on the Mandatory Analyses results. A record is kept 

of the location of all drums on-site at all times. 

Alternatively, TWI may re-evaluate the waste to determine whether the waste material as shipped 

(Le., inconsistent with WPS and/or manifest data) can be handled at the Facility. If the facility determines that 

the waste can be managed consistent with permit requirements, the shipment will be managed The profile 

information will be amended prior to acceptance of the next shipment. Wastes to be re-profiled will be subject 

to the profile process requirements as set forth in Section 4.0. 

If the re-evaluation procedure indicates that the waste can be accepted and the generator concurs, 

a revised waste management decision will be prepared by Facility Management, if the method of management 

changes. 

If a discrepancy cannot be resolved within 15 days of shipment receipt, the IEPA will be notified in 

writing, of the discrepancy and of attempts to reconcile it. Waste will be rejected for the following reasons: 

o Facility Management for any reason determines that it cannot manage the material in 

compliance with all regulations, permit requirements, and standards of health and safely, 

o A nianifest discrepancy (or non-confoniiance) cannot be resolved to the 

generator's and TWI's satisfaction using the procedures outlined above, 

o The generator's/transporter's paperwork is not in order and the problems cannot 

be corrected upon arrival, 

o Storage space in container storage areas or in on-site bulk liquid storage tanks is not 

available to provide segregation of incompatible materials, 

o A liquid waste is not compatible (per the Liquid Waste Compatibility Test) with waste 

already in storage and no segregation or other management method is available. 

Rejected wastes will be picked-up by the generator or by a permitted transporter to be returned to 

the generator's facility or transported to an alternate hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facility. 

WAP-27 EEVISION 11 

9/29/94 
FIGURE 5-1 

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION WORKSHEET 

AND 

WASTE RECEIPT ANALYSIS DOCUMENT 

WAP-28 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 
T WI LABORATORY ANALYSIS REPORT 

PROCESS COOE: 

( ) PCB ANALYSIS REQUIRED 

( ) VERIFY BtlRHABU. CONTAINERS 

( ) VISUAL NSPECTION ONLY 

( ) MERCURY ANALYSIS REQUIRED 

{ ) DtOXflV PRECURSOR ANAL. REQUIRED 

RECEIVER No. , 

DRUM STORAGE COMPATABHJTY 

MANIFEST No. 

PROFILED DOT HAZARD CLASS: 

No. of DRUMS: 

DATE: RESULTS: PASS: FAIL: 

SAMPLER SIGN: 

SAMPLE NUMBER PROFILE CONFORMS 

Drum No. YES NO DATE ANALYST 

No. Of-NTS 

\ - . ^ * -

F R M Ua_d (%) ' -f 

P_t»_*» 

__-= _ 

Cotor 

" r - - :•=• = — 

TirtWy 

_ — 

L= __ 

Accayai. Vawoaiy 

Mw_e_S_ta - .= L _ -mm 

W__ r RoaotMy 

uu-~ &___»_• = z - - :'=•—== : ~S 

R--_-nScrMn 

O-dbvSeraM = 1 = «==•_ = 

Cyanjoa Screan - Is1

^- —~— . -i: _= 

- , = 

F_m. Pot Scraan 

PH SCTMf) 

SDOCMC Gf_i_y P111P I 

. i j • • _ * . . 

BIOIDHnDB ^JDDT 

_____§_§ 

P_ntF_vTMl 

BTUtB z:: m I 

% CMoriM 

PCirtQC 

PCB's Scram 

Maraay 

FMiPcMCCF P 

ACCEPT / REJECT ANALYTICAL COMMENTS: 

PROFILE REVIEWED FOR APPENDIX WAP-C CONSTITUENTS BY: DATE: 

PROFILE & HANDLING COMMENTS: 

71_iiporthM baan praparad far ranck-w um b__l c< Ct_T_ W_ _ _»^— _ < . Noia»«--_«_iiuai *>j -«M'iv__yara - T * B' 

acoreynr u<itaJa» _ « r—^rranaic ayit— |i_iaii_aMiat-i«pon^ Tn»_iiia»>a« _ 
PHYSICA L DESCRIPTIO N WORKSHEE T 

RECEIVER i DiTE 

PROFILE t t OF CONTAINERS 

DRUM # SIZE COLOR/DESCRIPTION %FULL %S0L %LIQ 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 -• 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

VES 000206 
6.0 PROCESS OPERATIONS PROCEDURES 

Each movement of a waste within the facility, during which any change in its characteristics may 

occur, makes it subject to additional inspection, sampling and analyses to determine appropriate handling and 

management ofthe waste. Many of the analyses needed for the treatment, storage, and disposal functions are 

performed during mcoming waste shipment identification. These are not repeated unless it is known or 

believed that the waste characteristics have changed during storage. 

Existing and anticipated operations at the facility, for which current and periodic sampling and 

analyses is important, include the following: 

Storage/Blending 

Decanting 

Incineration 

The analytical procedures for each of these are described separately below. 

6.1 Storage 

Before any wastes are placed into a storage unit, Facility Management will assess the compatibility 

ofthe waste with the storage unit materials of construction and with wastes already stored therein. 

6.1.1 Waste in Containers 

Containerized wastes are stored with respect to ignitibility, reactivity and compatibility. 

Compatibility shall be determined consistent with DOT HM-181 guidelines as summarized in the "Segregation 

Table for Hazardous Materials" listed in 49 CFK 177.848 (see Appendix WAP-G). Based on the initial DOT 

hazard class determination and analysis of the waste, the drummed waste will be segregated according to 

compatibility. These materials will be separated from incompatible materials by storage in segregated bays 

vrithin the drum storage buildings. This is accomplished by the data from the WPS, Mandatory Analyses, and 

Supplementary Analyses requested by the Facility Management. Compatibility segregation will not apply to 

material which have been repackaged, generated or solidified at TWI. 

To further verify that wastes are being properly categorized, TWI will institute a program of 

Containerized Storage Compatibility Testing. Compatibility will be assessed by performing a liquid waste 

compatibility on the waste received for container storage as outlined in Appendix WAP-A. The testing program 

will not apply to small quantity packaged chemicals or other material exempted under 4.1.4 and 5.1.1. In the 

event that a compatibility is performed on materials which are indicated as incompatible per DOT, the 

compatibility test will take precedence over the DOT segregation system. 

6.1.2 Waste in Tanks 

Liquid wastes delivered in bulk form (e.g., tank trucks, railroad tank cars), or pumped from drums, 

are typically placed in bulk storage tanks prior to incineration. Prior to transferring any waste into a storage 

WAP-29 EEVISION 11 

9/29/94 

VES 000207 
tjnfc, the compatibility of the waste with the material already in the tank and the tank materials of construction 

will be detennined by a liquid waste compatibility test (see Appendix WAP-A). In addition, tank farm 

compatibility will be assessed by performing a liquid waste compatibility teat on the liquid waste received for 

bulk storage with a running composite of the tanks within the containment system to which the new waste will 

be added 

6.1.3 Bulk Solids Storage 

Bulk solids will be managed as follows for 'iTilnarfing into the bulk solids pits: 

1) Only material which passes the paint filter test can be placed into the storage pits. 

2) The BTU and chlorine contents used will be either: (a) The higher value of the 

current pit or the mcoming material, or (b) The material will be sampled after 

mixing and the sample will be analyzed for BTU and chlorine. 

6.2 Decanting 

In the decanting process, liquid wastes are decanted from drums or other small containers into larger 

bulk storage units. The applicable Mandatory Analyses will be performed on wastes to be decanted. 

Prior to decanting, a Liquid Waste Compatibility Test and specific gravity test on a volume weighted 

sample will be performed to ensure that wastes to be bulked together are compatible. A volume weighted 

sample is a volume proportionate composite of the intended decant liquids. 

6.3 Incineration 

In the incineration process, liquid, semi-solid and solid wastes are destroyed by high temperature 

thermal oxidation The resulting streams include combustion gases that are scrubbed to remove HQ and 

particulates, and other treatment residues (Le., ash, slag and scrubber sludge, scrubber solids (bag house dust) 

that are further managed 

The treatment samphng/arjalvsis program for incineration may be divided into two segments, each 

with a specific purpose: 

o Pre-treatment analvsea confirm that the waste falls within the facility permit and operating 

constraints and allow fine tuning of the process operational constraints; 

o Treatment Residue Evaluations confirm successful treatment and that the characteristics of 

the process effluent are such that it can be sent to the next step (discharge, disposal, or 

further treatment) based upon permit or process constraints. Residues from on-site 

treatment of land disposal restricted wastes will be analyzed and/or evaluated, as needed, 

against the appropriate treatment standards or prohibitions. Any residues or wastes sent 

off site for storage, further treatment, and/or disposal will have appropriate notification 

forms (in accordance with 40 CFR Part 268). 

The application of these segments is discussed below. 

WAP-30 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 

VES 000208 
The application of these segments is discussed below. 

6.3.1 Pre-treatment Analyses 

AU wastes fed to the incinerator are blended to meet permit constraints and to nuuntain steady state 

(normal) operation of the incinerator. Liquid waste is blended in bulk tanks prior to incineration. Pretreatment Analyses (6.3.1 numbers 1-6) are optional for liquid waste in tanks which wiU undergo further 

blending prior to incineration. Prior to incineration, a sample is drawn from the tank to be fed and analyzed 

for the foUowing parameters: 

1. Heat Value - Heat value is measured to control the feed rates of waste fed into the 

incinerators. The —•a-rmniTn heat value which can be burned per hour is established in the 

operating permit. 

2. Ash Content - Ash content is measured to control percent ash of waste fed into the 

secondary chamber waste burners ofthe incinerators. The maximum ash content for waste 

fed into the secondary chamber is established in the operating permit. Where the permit 

has not established a limit, this analysis will not be performed 

3. Total Chlorine Content - Chlorine content is measured to control the percent chlorine in 

waste fed into the incinerators. The rnfl-yimiim chlorine content for waste fed into the 

incinerator is established in the operating permit. 

4. Fluorine Content is measured and used in conjunction with chlorine and bromine content to 

detennine the halogen content in waste feeds to the secondary chamber waste burners of 

the incinerators. The nwirimiim halogen content for waste fed into the secondary chamber 

is established in the operating permit. 

5. Bromine Content is measured and used in conjunction with chlorine and fluorine content to 

determine the halogen content in waste feeds to the secondary chamber waste burners of 

the incinerators. The mm^^im halogen content for waste fed into the secondary chamber 

is established in the operating permit. 

6. pH Screen is used to protect the integrity of tank farm materials of construction and provide 

management data for proper blending. 

7. Specific Gravity - This information is used to assure that the specific gravity of bulk or 

decant composite liquid is less than the design specific gravity for the storage tanks (s.g. = 

1.5). 

The permit operating values were established through a trial burn. The permit operating values may 

be changed if it is demonstrated through a trial burn that the new permit guidelines allow the incinerator to 

operate within the permit constraint and at a steady state (normal) operation. 

WAP-31 EEVISION 11 

9/29/94 

VES 000209 
The Facility Management will review the blend analyses to assure permit compliance and to assure 

that the blend will allow steady state (normal) operation of the incinerator. The blend will be readjusted 

whenever necessary to meet all permit specifications. This is accomplished through tank-to-tank blending with 

additional wastes. A Liquid Waste Compatibility Test will be performed prior to all tank-to-tank transfers of 

liquid waste. This new blend is then tested for the blend parameters, which are used to detemiine optimum 

blend characteristics as mentioned in the previous paragraph. 

Containerized waste is sequenced for incineration through careful indexing of container feed. The 

parameters necessary for selection of proper feed sequence (Heat Value, Chlorine Content) are evaluated based 

on the Mandatory Analyses. For the materials identified in Section 5.1.1, the values of the above parameters 

are categorized based on physical and chemical composition information obtained per Section 4.1 and 5.1. 

Container feed sequences reflect an ongoing evaluation of operating experience. 

6.3.2 Treatment Residue Evaluation 

Post-treatment analyses and evaluation will confirm successful treatment and that the characteristics 

ofthe process effluent are such that it can be sent to the next step (discharge, disposal or further treatment) 

based on permit or process constraints. In accordance with 40 CFR 268.7(b), residues (or wastes) resulting 

from on-site treatment of land disposal restricted wastes are analyzed and/or evaluated as needed, against the 

appropriate treatment standard (e.g., Constituent Concentration in Waste Extract (CCWE) values) or 

prohibition. The incineration process results in the generation of the following residues: ash, slag and scrubber 

system solids. Each residue has been thoroughly evaluated to develop a sampling frequency that is consistent 

and independent of the original wastes accepted for incineration. Wastes or treatment residues sent off-site 

for further treatment will be accompanied by the appropriate notification (or certification) forms. 

Incinerator ash and slag generated in the rotary kiln and dry scrubber solids generated in 

incineration units numbers 2, 3 or 4 are sampled, analyzed and evaluated on a regular basis (See Appendix 

WAP-B, Section 2.2.1) in accordance with analytical procedures required to analyze against the appropriate 

treatment standard or prohibition (See Appendix WAP-B). 

Incinerator ash generated in the fixed hearth incineration units is either sampled, analyzed and 

evaluated on a load-by-load basis or is retreated and subsequently evaluated 

The Facility Management will review the analytical results and determine the disposition of the 

treatment residue. If the analytical results meet the appropriate treatment standard (e.g., CCWE value), the 

treatment residue is then approved for shipment. Each shipment is accompanied with the following 

documentation: 

Waste Manifest; 

Land Disposal Restriction Treatment Certification; 

Analytical Report or reference to such analytical data. 

WAP-32 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 

VES 000210 
In the event that the analysis does not meet the appropriate treatment standard (Le., CCWE values), 

the Facility Management will investigate the sampling procedure and the analytical procedure to ensure no 

contamination. Two additional samples will be submitted for analysis of the parameters which exceeded 

treatment standards in the first round of analysis. If the second analyses pass, the residue will be approved 

for disposal- If the source of the contamination can be determined it will be documented However, if the 

second analyses does not meet the appropriate treatment standard (Le., CCWE values), TWI will retreat the 

residues in order to meet the appropriate treatment standard (Le., CCWE values). Alternatively, TWI may 

forego additional sampling and analysis and choose to retreat the residue which did not initially meet the 

treatment standard 

WAP-33 EEVISION 11 

9/29/94 
7.0 QUALITY CONTROL POLICY 

TWI has developed a program of quality control practices and procedures to ensure that precision 

and accuracy are maintained throughout all of its laboratories. All site laboratories are required to participate 

in this program Contract laboratories employed by the company are subject to inspection and audit while 

performing analysis for CWM. A review of the contract laboratory is conducted to ensure that the quality 

control of CWM data is maintained. 

The quality control program is based on "Handbook for Analytical Quality Control in Water and 

Wastewater Laboratories" EPA March 1979. Good laboratory practices which encompass sampling, sample 

handling housekeeping and safety are maintained at all laboratories. The following practices must be 

implemented at all site laboratories: 

All instrumentation must be evaluated through the use of an instrument check standard 

Divergence from acceptable benchmark criteria requires correction. The instrument check 

standard results are recorded The record may also contain evaluation parameters, 

benchmark criteria and maintenance records. 

Reagent blanks are typically prepared with each batch of samples and analyzed to ensure 

sample contamination has not occurred If blank analyses do not fall within acceptable Emits, 

modification of reagents or modification of the analytical method is implemented 

A sample is analyzed in duplicate typically for each twenty samples being analyzed for a 

particular parameter. A blind duplicate sample will be submitted to the laboratory on a 

monthly basis. Results of these duplicate analyses will be reviewed for consistency. 

A quality control solution or sample material will be analyzed at least once for each day or 

each batch run to show that calibration and standardization of instrumentation is within 

acceptable limits. This procedure informs the laboratory that prescribed precision and 

accuracy are being maintained Results of these analyses are reported for review. 

Fortifications are employed to monitor recoveries and niaintain extraction and/or 

concentration techniques at acceptable levels. This procedure provides information about 

the effect of the sample matrix on the analyte in question Typically, a ratio of one 

fortification for each twenty samples analyzed will be maintained Usually, the same sample 

used for the duplicate analysis will be fortified. 

WAP-34 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 

VES 000212 
When available, reference materials from the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, or reference materials from any other recognized source, will be obtained and 

analyzed according to normal laboratory methodology to indicate accuracy of the methods. 

These materials will be analyzed at least quarterly if the parameter has been performed 

during that quarter. Reference materials are not required for screening methods. 

All CWM laboratories participate in "round robin" sample analyses. These samples will be 

submitted by the QA/QC Group and will be for the analysis of normal parameters. Results 

must be reported to the group. Digressions from the norms established by the majority of 

laboratories participating will be investigated and corrected 

At least one sample per month is sent to a CWM designated laboratory or a designated and 

approved contract laboratory for parallel analyses. These split samples or a report of both 

results are sent to the Quality Control Unit when an outside laboratory is employed 

Samples sent to the designated laboratory will be logged in and analyzed without analysts' 

knowledge of site lab results. 

- The facility reports the following information on a monthly basis: 

o Number of samples analyzed 

o Number and results of duplicates 

o Number and results of fortifications 

o Instrument used 

o Frequency of occurrence for quality control check sample within acceptable 

limits 

o Mean and standard deviation of analyte in question. 

The facility also reports intra-lab and round robin results as they occur and references 

material analysis at least quarterly. 

A written copy of any third party contract laboratory's quality control procedures is submitted to 

CWM prior to approvaL A quality assurance inspection is conducted to ensure that proper records and 

documents are present and maintained All laboratories are subject to inspection and audit of all procedures 

while under contract to CWM. A review of the contract laboratory is conducted to ensure that the quality 

control is being maintained 

WAP-35 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 
APPENDIX WAP-A 

ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 

VES 000214 
APPENDIX WAP-A 

ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 

The following analytical procedures are designed to identify or screen waste. They are used by CWM, 

based upon its operating experience, as rapid but effective means for establishing key decision parameters 

pertinent to proper waste management. The analyses described in the sections below are based on ASTM and 

"Standard Methods" approved by EPA or are based on procedures and protocol formulated by CWM and meet 

CWM performance standards. Analytical procedures not listed below may be added as necessary with prior 

LEPA approval. 

It should be noted that the information presented in this appendix is generic in character. Therefore, 

certain test methods are discussed which may pertain to treatment or disposal processes that are excluded from 

the facility for which the foregoing waste analysis plan is presented. 

I. UNIQUE ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 

The following analytical procedures have been found by CWM to provide important quantitative information 

pertinent to certain processes. In some cases, these tests have been developed by CWM to provide information 

not available from "Standard Methods" in Section II which follows. In other cases, these tests are substituted 

for "Standard Methods" where they provide sufficient equivalent information. 

Bench-Scale Treatment Evaluation - Samples of wastes are combined with samples of other wastes or reagents 

at predetermined ratios. Further testing may be required in order to confirm that the desired reaction has 

occurred 

Chlorophenoxv Herbicides bv High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) - This method (CWM 92-78) 

is forthe analysis of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic arid (2,4-D), 2,4,5-tricblorophenoxyacetic arid (2,4,5-T), and2,4,5-

trichlorophenoxypropionic acid (Sihrex) in liquids and solids using HPLC/UV. The chlorophenoxy acids and 

esters are hydrolyzed to their respective salts by heating and stirring the sample with aqueous alkali, The salts 

are then converted to their respective acids by the addition of HCL. The aqueous solutions of the free adds 

are then analyzed using HPLC using ultraviolet detection. 

Dissolved Sulfides - An aliquot of waste is mixed with distilled water. The solution/slurry is filtered through 

filter paper and the resultant filtrate is then analyzed for sulfide. Saturated antimony potassium tartrate and 

1:1 hydrochloric acid are added and the color produced is visually compared with standards. 

WAP-A-1 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 

VES 000215 
Heat Value by Near Infrared Reflectance (NLTt) Spectroscopy - Heat of combustion is determined by Near 

Infrared spectroscopy in a diffuse reflectance mode by placing a properly mixed sample in a diffuse reflectance 

cell The instrument produces NUt absorbance spectrum which are converted to a heat of combustion value 

using a previously defined calibration curve. The method first screens for samples to extract qualitative 

spectroscopic features from the NIR spectra and then produces quantitative data for heat of combustion using 

multivariate calibrations. 

Metals Screen by X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) - Waste samples may be prepared if necessary, by grinding to a 

specified mesh size. The prepared sample is placed in a sample holder and positioned for reading. Instrument 

output identifies the presence of several metals for screening purposes. Semi-quantification of selected metals 

is then possible relative to matrix matched standards. 

Microwave Aided Digestion - A portion of sample is weighed into an appropriate microwave digestion vessel and 

digested using a mixture of nitric and hydrochloric acids. The vessel is heated in a microwave oven using 

programmed steps to minimize the possibility of venting. After cooling, the contents are diluted to volume, 

filtered and analyzed by the appropriate method. 

Organics Screen bv TrnTTninoassav - A portion of the waste sample is prepared for immunoassay screening 

(SW-846 4010) by using appropriate separation procedures (e.g., extraction, nitration, and/or thin layer 

chromatography). The extract is then mixed and incubated in a step-wise process inside antibody-coated tubes. 

The mechanics of mixing, incubating and measuring takes about 30 minutes and results in a color change in 

each tube. The color development is inversely proportional to the concentration of the antibody-specific 

anaryte(s) of interest, e.g., herbicides, pentachlorophenol (POP), pesticides, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), 

or total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs). 

PCB Screen by Immunoassay - A portion of the waste sample is prepared for immunoassay screening 

(CWM 93-81 and 94-82) by performing an extraction with methanol followed by filtration The sample extract 

is then mixed and incubated in a step-wise process inside the antibody-coated tubes. The mechanics of mixing, 

incubating and measuring takes about 30 minutes and results in a color change in each tube. The color 

development is inversely proportional to the concentration of PCBs and is detected by a photometer. 

Percent Acidity - Results are reported as percent of CaC03 equivalent or the particular specific species if 

known 

Percent Alkalinity - Results are reported as a percent ofthe specific alkaline species (e.g., CaOH, NaOH, etc.). 

WAP-A-2 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 
Quick Leach Extraction Procedure - A designated amount of sample is mixed with the appropriate extraction 

fluid and stirred for a designated time period After filtration, the pH and/or metals content are detennined 

using the appropriate approved methods. 

Radioactivity Screen - A sample of waste material is passed by a geiger counter or survey meter. Radioactivity 

levels above background are noted, recorded and investigated 

Solvent Screen - Uses "standard methods" tailored to the compound class being analyzed 

Tank Farm Compatibility - Assessed by performing a Liquid Waste Compatibility Test on the liquid waste 

received for bulk storage with a composite sample ofthe tanks within the containment system to which the 

waste will be added Containment area master composite will be made up once per week. The incoming 

material will be checked against this master composite. 

Viscosity - The viscosity of the material is visually evaluated using water as a reference for low viscosity. 

Viscosity is reported as low, medium, high or non-flowable, etc. 

Containerized Storage Compatibility • Will be assessed by performing a Liquid Waste Compatibility Test on 

the waste received for container storage as follows: 

a The test program applies only to material that fails the paint filter test. 

b. A master composite for each of the DOT hazard class categories wfll be maintained at the site. 

c. The master composite will be made up initially by adding 100 mil of each receiver in the category 

to an appropriately sized container. 

d When the need for compatibility verification has been determined a compatibility test will be 

performed with the appropriate DOT hazard class category, 

e. The compatibility test will be performed as follows: 

1. In order to ensure that the master composite represents the actual plant-wide inventory in 

each category, the master composite will be maintained in an appropriately sized container. 

2. A 100 mil sample of the mcoming receiver will be checked with a 100 mil sample of the 

appropriate DOT hazard class master composite using the liquid compatibility test. 

3. If the receiver passes the compatibility test, the entire 200 mil mixture is added to the 

master composite. The receiver is then approved to be stored within any of the existing 

bays containing drums of that DOT hazard class category. 

4. If the receiver fails the compatibility test, the sample will not be added to the master 

composite. 

5. The receiver will be re-tested against one of the remaining DOT hazard class categories. 

WAP-A-3 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 

VES 000217 
6. If the receiver is not compatible with any existing DOT hazard class master composite, the 

drums will be segregated in storage until such time that they can be moved directly to a 

process area for treatment. 

The testing program will not apply to small quantity packaged chemicals, material that has been repackaged 

or sohdified, or other material exempted under 4.1.4 and 5.1.1. In the event that a compatibility is performed 

on materials which are indicated as incompatible per DOT hazard class, the compatibility test will take 

precedence over the DOT hazard class system. 

n. STANDARD ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 

PARAMETER METHOD REFERENCE 

Sample Work Up Techniques: 

Inorganic Techniques 

Acid digestion procedure for flame atomic 

absorption spectroscopy 

Acid digestion procedure for furnace 

absorption spectroscopy 

Acid (Parr) Bomb digestion 

Acid digestion of oils, greases, or waxes 

Dissolution procedure for oils, greases, 

or waxes 

Acid digestion of sludges 

Alkaline digestion (for solids) 

1-3010 

8-84-07; 1-3020 

8-91-61; 3-E886; E926; 6-Bulletin 4745 

1-3030 

1-3040 

8-84-08; 1-3050 

1-3060 

Organic Techniques 

Separatory funnel hquid-liquid extraction 

Continuous liquid-liquid extraction 

Acid-base clean-up extraction 

Soxhlet extraction 

Sonication extraction 

Alumina Column Clean-up and Separation of Petroleum Wastes 

Flurosfl Column Clean-up 

Silica Gel Clean-up 

Sulfur Clean-up 

Inorganic Analytical Methods: 

Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission 

Spectroscopy (ICP) 

Antimony 

Atomic absorption, direct aspiration method 

Atomic absorption, furnace method 

Arsenic 

Atomic absorption, furnace method 

Atomic absorption, gaseous hydride method 

WAP-A-4 

8-84-22; 1-3510 

1-3520 

1-3530 

1-3540 

1-3550 

1-3611 

8-84-22; 1-3620 

1-3630 

8-84-22; 1-3660 

1-6010 

1-7040; 4-204.1 

1-7041; 4-204.2 

8-84-10; 1-7060; 4-206.2 

1-7061; 4-206.3 

REVISION 11 

9/29/94 

VES 000218 
PARAMETER METHOD REFERENCE 

Barium 

Atomic absorption, direct aspiration method 1-7080; 4-208.1 

Atomic absorption, furnace method 1-7081; 4-208.2 

Beryllium 

Atomic absorption, direct aspiration method 1-7090; 4-210.1 

Atomic absorption, furnace method 1-7091; 4-210.2 

Cadmium 

Atomic absorption, direct aspiration method 1-7130; 4-213.1 

Atomic absorption, furnace method 1-7131; 4-213.2 

Calcium 

Atomic absorption, direct aspiration method 1-7140; 4-215.1 

Atomic absorption, furnace method 4-215.2 

Chromium 

Atomic absorption, direct aspiration method 1-7190; 4-218.1 

Atomic absorption, furnace method 1-7191; 4-218.2 

Hexavalent chromium: Co-precipitation 1-7195 

Hexavalent chromium: Colorimetric 1-7196; 2-3500CrD 

Hexavalent chromium: Chelation-extraction 1-7197; 4-218.4 

Copper 

Atomic absorption, direct aspiration method 1-7210; 4-220.1 

Atomic absorption, furnace method 4-220.2 

Iron 

Atomic absorption, direct aspiration method 1-7380; 4-236.1 

Atomic absorption, furnace method 4-236.2 

Phenanthroline method (ferrous) 2-3500FeD 

Lead 

Atomic absorption, direct aspiration method 1-7420; 4-239.1 

Atomic absorption, furnace method 1-7421; 4-239.2 

Magnesium 

Atomic absorption, direct aspiration method 1-7450; 4-242.1 

Manganese 

Atomic absorption, direct aspiration method 1-7460; 4-243.1 

Atomic absorption, furnace method 4-248.2 

Mercury (manual cold-vapor technique) 

In liquid waste 8-84-12; 1-7470 

In solid or semi-solid waste 8-84-05; 8-84-12; 1-7471 

Nickel 

Atomic absorption, direct aspiration method 1-7520; 4-249.1 

Atomic absorption, furnace method 1-7521; 4-249.2 

Selenium 

Atomic absorption, furnace method 8-84-13; 1-7740; 4-270.2 

Atomic absorption, gaseous hydride method 1-7741; 4-270.3 

Silver 

Atomic absorption, direct aspiration method 1-7760; 4-272.1 

Atomic absorption, furnace method 1-7761; 4-272.2 

WAP-A-5 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 
PARAMETER METHOD REFERENCE 

Thallium 

Atomic absorption, direct aspiration method 1-7840; 4-279.1 

Atomic absorption, furnace method 1-7841; 4-279.2 

Zinc 

Atomic absorption, direct aspiration method 1-7950; 4-289.1 

Atomic absorption, furnace method 4-289.2 

Organic Analytical Methods: 

Gas Chromatographic Methods 

Halogenated Volatile Organics 1-8010 

Non-halogenated Volatile Organics 1-8015 

Aromatic Volatile Organics 1-8020 

Acrolein, Acrylonitrile, Acetonitrile 1-8030 

Phenols 1-8040 

Phthalate Esters 1-8060 

Organochlorine Pesticides and PCBs 8-84-22; 1-8080 

Nitroaromatics and Cyclic Ketones 1-8090 

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons 1-8100 

CMorinated Hydrocarbons 1-8120 

Organophospbate Pesticides 1-8140 

CMorinated Herbicides 1-8150 

GC Scans 8-86-02; 3-E260 

Gas Chromatographic/Mass Spectroscopy Methods 

GC/MS Method for Dioxin 1-8280, 8290 

GC/MS Method for Volatile Organics 1-8240; 7-624 

GC/MS Method for Semi-Volatile Organics 1-8250; 8270; 7-625 

Infrared Spectroscopy Methods 3-D2621, D4053; 5-

Screening Methods: 

Physical Description 3-D4979 

Flammability Potential Screen 3-D4982 

Water Compatibility 3-D5058C 

pH Screen 3-D4980 

Sulfide Screen 3-D4978 

Cyanide Screen 3-D5049 

Commingled Waste Compatibility 3-D5058A 

Polymerization Potential 3-D5058B 

Oxidizer Screen 3-D4981 

Paint Filter Test 1-9095 

Bulk Density and Apparent Specific Gravity Screen 3-D5057 

WAP-A-6 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 
PARAMETER METHOD REFERENCE 

Miscellaneous Analytical Methods: 

Acidity 

Alkalinity 

Ammonia 

Anions by Ion Chromatography 

Ash Content 

Bromides 

Chlorides 

Conductivity/Conductance 

Extraction Procedure 

Flash point 

Pensky-Martens closed-cup method 

Setaflash closed-cup method 

Cleveland open-cup 

Fluoride 

Free Cyanides 

Halogen Content 

Heat Value 

Oil and Grease 

Oxidation-Reduction (Redox) Potential (ORP) 

Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Total Recoverable 

Phenols 

pH Measurement 

Phosphates 

Radioactivity Screen 

Solids 

Total (TS) at 103-105°C 

Dissolved (TDS) at 180°C 

Suspended Total (TSS) at 103-105°C 

Fixed and Volatile at 500°C 

Specific Gravity 

Sulfates 

Sulfur 

Total and Amenable Cyanides 

Total Chlorine Content 

Total Organic Carbon 

Total Sulfides 

Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) 

Viscosity 

Water Content 

8-91-68; 2-2310 

2-2320 

4-350.3 

8-87-40; 3-D4327; 4-300.0 

8-91-69; 3-D482, D3174 

2-4500Br-; 4-300.0, 320.1 

2-4500CT; 4-300.0, 325.3 

3-D1125; 4-120.1 

1-1310 

8-84-19; 1-1010; 3-D93 

1- 1020; 3-D3278 

3-D92 

2-4500F"; 4-300.0, 340.2, 340.3 

2- 4500CN-HJ 

3-D808, D236L D4327 

8-87-37; 3-D240, D2015 

2-5520; 4-413.1, 413.2 

3-D1498 

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 

8-87-36 

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, D1429 

2-4500SO4

2

"; 4-300.0, 375.3 

8-87-40; 3-D129, D3177, D4327 

1-9010A; 2-4500CN-C,G; 4-335.1 

3- D808, D4327 

2-5310; 3-D2579 

1-9030; 2-4500S2" 

1-1311 

8-86-35; 3-D88, D446, D2983 

3-D95, D3173, E203 

WAP-A-7 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 

VES 000221 
The above-referenced procedures are described in the foUowing publications. The first digit ofthe 

reference numbers above are keyed to the numbers shown below: 

1- "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chernical Methods", SW-846, Third Edition, 1986 

as amended by Update I (July 1992), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste 

(NTIS, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161) or more recent edition or revision (GPO, Supt. 

of Documents, Washington, DC 20402). 

2- "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater", 18th Edition, American Public 

Health Association (1015 Fifteenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005), American Water Works 

Association, Water Environment Federation, 1992, or more recent edition or update. 

3- "Annual Book of ASTM Standards", American Society for Testing and Materials (1916 Race Street, 

Philadelphia, PA 19013-1187), 1992, or more recent edition or revision. 

4- "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes", EPA-600/4-79-020, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory (Cincinnati, OH 45268), as 

revised March 1983, or more recent revision or technical edition. 

5- Infrared Analysis Method in HSRL-RTP Procedures Manual- Level 1 Environmental Assessment 

(2nd Edition), EPA-600/7-78-201, October, 1978, or more recent edition. 

6- "Acid Digestion Bombs", Bulletin 4745, Parr Instrument Company (Moline, IL 6L265), or more recent 

bulletin. 

7- "Methods for Organic Chemical Analysis of Municipal and Industrial Wastewater", Appendix A of 

Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 136, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Environmental Monitoring and Support Ijaboratory-Cmcinnati, as amended June 1986 or more recent 

revision 

8- "CWM Analytical Methods Manual", Chemical Waste Management, Inc., Analytical Programs, 

September 1992. 

Standard analytical procedures listed here which are revised can be implemented upon the effective date of 

the revision, with notification to the LEPA-DLPC Permit Section 

WAP-A-8 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 
APPENDIX WAP-B 

ASH AND DRY SCRUBBER SOLIDS 

SAMPLING PROTOCOL 

VES 000223 
APPENDIX WAP-B 

ASH AND DRY SCRUBBER SOLIDS 

SAMPLING PROTOCOL 

1.0 PURPOSE 

The TWI Incinerators destroy hazardous wastes in high temperature thermal oxidation processes. This 

procedure provides assurance that a representative sample of ash or dry scrubber solids (DSS) is collected for 

analysis. 

2.0 SAMPLING 

2.1 Sample Identification 

2.1.1 Each sample container is labeled with date, time of day, sampler, and container identification number. 

The samples are logged into the laboratory Production Chain-of-Custody logbook upon delivery to the 

laboratory. 

2.2 Sample Collection 

2.2.1 Ash and DSS samples are collected, analyzed and evaluated on a quarterly basis to ensure the 

residuals met the LDR treatment standards. 

2.2.2 Samples are collected as outlined in Section 2.2.1 of the WAP. An auger is typically used to obtain 

a representative sample of the ash or DSS. Each sample jar must be filled with ash or DSS. 

2.2.3 Tramed operations personnel will collect the sample and subsequently acknowledge custody by 

completing applicable sections of the laboratory Production Chain-of-Custody logbook. Sample 

preparation and analysis will be performed as soon as practicable following which the disposition of 

the ash (Section 4.0) will be determined 

2.3 Sampling Personnel 

2.3.1 It is the responsibility of Facility Management to assign only qualified personnel to perform the ash 

or DSS sampling. Personnel that have been trained in the implementation of this procedure are 

considered to be qualified 

3.0 SAMPLE ANALYSIS 

3.1 Each sample will be sent to a CWM or CWM approved lab for analysis of LDR constituents by the 

appropriate method 

3.2 The tracking of waste codes through the incineration process to the incinerator residuals will be done 

in accordance with TWI Standard Division Practice 1651. 

WAP-B-1 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 

VES 000224 
4.0 DISPOSITION OF ASH AND DRY SCRUBBER SOLIDS (DSS) 

4.1 Any container of ash or DSS that was sampled for testing in accordance to the appropriate treatment 

standard or prohibition, will be retained by the facility until results are available for evaluation. 

4.2 The analysis results are evaluated against the LDR treatment standards for the codes in the container. 

The container is released if all treatment standards are met. 

4.3 The analysis results are evaluated against the LDR treatment standards for all codes accepted by 

TWI. Meeting the treatment standards is demonstrated through the process. 

4.4 When compliance with the LDR standards has been demonstrated the material will be stabilized and 

subsequently disposed of at CWM approved hazardous waste management facilities. The manifest and 

Land Disposal Restriction Treatment Certification will be completed prior to shipment. 

WAP-B-2 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 

VES 000225 
APPENDIX WAP-C 

WASTE ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA 

VES 000226 
APPENDIX WAP-C 

WASTE ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA 

The foUowing restrictions apply to the acceptance of wastes exhibiting certain properties or specific wastes 

at TWI. Prior to acceptance (see Section 5.2), the Mandatory Analyses and the Waste Profile Sheet wiU be 

evaluated against this appendix. Any restrictions identified wiU be documented on the waste management 

decision. The list of items under each of these headings is not meant to be exhaustive. The profiling process 

wiU include a review of the MSDSs and a search of the other bibkograpbic resources (see Appendix WAP-F) 

for synonyms, product names, common names. The nature of the restrictions are as foUows: 

REJECT - These Materials may not be processed at the facility. 

Radioactive Wastes 

Thorium Compounds 

Uranium Compounds 

Radioactive materials as defined by the TWI Part B RCRA Permit, or greater than 0.5 miUirads per hour 

(per Section 3.1.4) 

Permit limited Wastes 

F020 

F021 

F022 

F023 

F026 

F027 

F028 

PCBs > 50 ppm (or other TSCA regulated PCBs) 

WAP-C-1 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 
Ttefnilntnry Specified Treatment Technology other than Incineration 

D006 NiCd Batteries 

D008 Lead acid Batteries 

K069 Non-Calcium Sulfate 

Other Unacceptable Wastes 

Asbestos 

SPECIAL PACKAGING - Wastes exhibiting the properties listed below (water/air 

reactive, malodorous, rapid heat release) during the profiling process may be accepted if they are shipped 

in special packaging, repackaged on site or if the material conforms to specifications allowing processing in 

existing TWI facilities. 

Water/Air Reactive Wastes 

Isocyanates 

Nitrates 

Chlorates 

Perchlorates 

Thionyl chloride 

Metal turnings 

Phosphorous 

Metal hydrides 

Silanes 

Chloroformates 

Methylamine 

Oleum 

Other water or air reactive wastes 

WAP-C-2 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 

VES 000228 
Malodorous Compounds 

Mercaptans 

Sulfides 

Waste which exhibits energetic characteristics 

Waste which exhibits energetic characteristics (e.g., propellants, explosives, pyrotechnics, flammable liquids, 

etc) will either be accepted per the Small Quantity Chemical guidelines or will be accepted per the following 

procedure. 

When the volume of a waste stream or changes in incinerator performance indicates that a larger charge size 

is warranted TWI will follow the following procedure: 

1) The material will be reviewed using reference information, MSDSs where 

available, generator discussions or previous experience. Based on this 

review, TWI will determine if a larger charge size is acceptable. 

2) When it has been determined that a larger charge size is acceptable, 

TWI will either: 

a) Determine if this type of material has been previously processed at TWI in larger charge sizes 

and thereby establish a charge size; or 

b) Conduct a test burn of the material to o^termine what charge size would be acceptable. This 

test burn will start with the quantity specified in the SQCG's ofthe energetic component and 

be increased by no more than double the previous charge from this starting point based on the 

incinerator operations. The incinerator operations parameters which will be evaluated to 

determine if charge size can be increased will be as 

follows: 

> Vacuum decrease in the primary or secondary chamber. 

> Temperature increase in the primary chamber of > 100°F 

> Visual interruption of the primary flame 

> Non-steady state gas flow. 

NOTE: This test protocol may be utilized to establish revised charge sizes for all materials previously limited 

in the SQCG's. Test burn documentation will be provided to the LEPA-DLPC prior to implementing 

larger charge sizes. 

WAP-C-3 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 

VES 000229 
DIOXIN TESTING - Wastes which contain greater than 0.01% of these constituents require dioxin 

analysis at a 1 ppm threshold before acceptance. 

Erbon (2-(2,4,5-tricMorophenoxy)-ethyl 2,2-dichloropropanate)) 

Hexachlorophene (2,2-methylene-bis [3,4,6-trichlorophenol]) 

2.4.5- trichlorophenol 

2.4.6- trichlorophenol 

2,4,5-T (2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy acetic acid) 

2,4,5-TP (2-(2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy) propanoic acid, Silvex) 

2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol 

Pentachlorophenol (PCP) 

Ronnel (0,0-dimethyl 0-(2,4,5-tricblorophenyl)phosphorothioate) 

Debris from fire involving PCBs or the compounds Hsted above 

Some of these wastes (Silvex, 2,4,5-T, and PCP) are detected by the sCTeening tests which willbe employed 

on dioxin suspect waste streams per the TWI Dioxin Suspect Waste Policy. Additional wastes listed above, if 

indicated by the generator on the profile information, will be tested using gas chromatograph techniques; 

The following are brand name products which include the compounds listed above (this list is not intended to 

be all inclusive): 

AMCHE M FARMC O FENC E RIDER SPONTO X 

AMIN E 2,4,5-T FENOPRO P SUPE R D WEEDON E 

AQUA-VE X FOERO N T-NO X 

BRUSH-REA P FRUTTON E T TORMAN A 

BRUSHTO X LNVERTO N 245 TRANSAMN E 

DACLN E KURO N TRLBUTO N 

DED-WEE D KUROSA L TRLNOXO L 

DOUBL E STRENGT H LIN E RIDER U 4 6 

DOWCEOE 3 PENCHLO R VEON24 5 

DOWCLD E 6 PENTAGO N VERTO N 2T 

DOWCLD E 2S PENWA R VISK O RHA P LO W 

DOWCLD E EC-7 PRJLTO X VOLATIL E ESTE R 

DOWCLD E G-ST REDDO N WEEDA R 

ENVERTD T SANTOBRITE WEED-B-GON E 

ENVERT T SANTOPHE N WEEDBEAD S 

EMULSAMTN E B K SILVI-RAP WEEDON E 

ESTERON E STNITUHO 

WAP-C-4 REVISIO N 11 

9/29/94 

VES 000230 
APPENDIX WAP-D 

DETERMINATION OF INCOMING WASTE 

CONFORMANCE/NONCONFORMANCE 
APPENDIX WAP-D 

INCOMING WASTE CONFORMANCE/NON CONFORMANCE 

Incoming waste may vary from the information determined during the profiling phase due to the variability in 

the process generating the waste or in collection of the waste material In order to determine whether a 

particular mcoming waste stream conforms to the profile, the following criteria will be used. All other 

Mandatory and Supplemental analysis data collected will be used to allow TWI to determine the best method 

for processing the waste material 

1. pH Screen: A variation in the pH from the range specified in the profile documents may indicate 

a change in the waste stream. If a pH variation beyond the range specified on the liquid profile 

sheet, the procedures outlined in Section 5.2.4 will be initiated (e.g., a waste which is normally 

neutral is found to be corrosive). Materials will be evaluated for conformance as follows: 

Profiling Analytical Result Acceptable Range 

<2 <2 

2-12.5 2-12.5 

> 12.5 > 12.5 

Wastes profiled as pH 2 to pH 12.5 but shipped with an accompanying LDR form for D002 will be 

considered conforming at pH <2 or pH > 12.5 if supported by the profiled chemical constituents. 

2. Flammability Potential Screen: A variation in the thermal activity from the indicators specified in 

the profile documents will indicate a change in the waste stream If the variation causes a change 

in the hazard class of the waste, the procedures outlined in Section 5.2.4 will be initiated (e.g. a 

material which did not exhibit flammability potential in the profiling phase does during the incoming 

shipment procedures). 

3. PCBs: The unexpected presence of PCBs > 50 ppm contrary to that specified in the profile 

documents will indicate a change in the waste stream, which would initiate the procedures outlined 

in Section 5.2.4. TWI is not permitted to accept PCBs > 50 ppm or TSCA derived PCB wastes. 

4. Radioactivity Screen: The presence of radioactive materials as determined by the radioactivity screen 

(see Section 3.1.4) will initiate the procedures as outlined in Section 5.2.4, leading to rejection of the 

material 

WAP-D-1 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 

VES 000232 
5. Apparent Viscosity: A significant variation in the apparent viscosity from that specified in the profile 

documents will indicate a change in the waste stream that would initiate the procedures outlined in 

Section 5.2.4. 

WAP-D-2 EEVISION 11 

9/29/94 

VES 000233 
APPENDIX WAP-E 

CONTAINERIZED WASTE: SPECIAL SAMPLING PROCEDURES 
APPENDIX WAP-E 

CONTAINERIZED WASTE: SPECIAL SAMPLING PROCEDURES 

1.0 PURPOSE 

This procedure provides assurance that representative samples ofthe following containerized wastes 

are collected for analysis. Specifically, these are containerized wastes of debris and like material, 

adhesives and other highly elastic substances, and resins and other hard materials. Representative 

samples are collected by using multipoint sampling. 

2.0 DEFINITIONS 

2.1 Debris and like material - includes wood bricks, concrete, vegetation, plastic sheeting, 

protective clothing, etc. 

2.2 Adhesives and other highly elastic materials - sticky, glue-like, gummy, stretcbable materials. 

2.3 Resins and other bard materials - plastics and plastic components, epoxies and other physically 

similar materials that have hardened or cured * 

2.4 Multipoint sample - A sample composed of subsamples collected from the same container that 

is representative the contents of the container. 

3.0 INSPECTION 

Each container will be evaluated prior to opening to determine it's integrity. After opening, the 

container's contents will be visually inspected to determine whether or not it conforms with its 

profiled description. 

4.0 PERCENT SAMPLED 

See Waste Analysis Plan Section 5.1. 

5.0 SAMPLING 

Multipoint samples based on inspection will be collected from containers selected for sampling. 

Sampling equipment will be selected based on results of the inspection. Samples will be in CWM 

custody from sample collection until transfer of custody to the analytical laboratory. Sampling 

equipment will be decontaminated prior to and after sampling each waste stream. 

WAP-E-1 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 

VES 000235 
5.1 HIGHLY ELASTIC SUBSTANCES 

Adhesives and other highly elastic substances will be sampled with a scoop or shovel and 

scissors or tongs. The procedure is to: 

5.1.1 dip the shovel or scoop into the material to the depth of the blade and rotate; 

5.1.2 lift the scoop or shovel with the sample and cut with the scissors or tongs, as 

appropriate; 

5.1.3 wind the hanging portion of the sample onto the scoop or shovel and transfer the 

sample to the sample container by scraping the material from the shovel or scoop into 

the sample container. 

5.2 DEBRIS AND LIKE MATERIAL 

Debris and like materials will be sampled with scissors, hammer, chisel and tongs as 

appropriate. The procedure is to: 

5.2.1 use hammer and chisel to collect samples of wood brick or other hard material fronrthe 

top of the container and place in the sample container with tongs; 

5.2.2 use scissors to cut sample of tyvek and other easily cutable materials (padding, rubber, 

plastic sheeting, etc.) and place in sample container with tongs. 

5.3 RESINS AND/OR OTHER HARD MATERIALS 

Resins and/or other hard materials will be sampled with a hammer, chisel and tongs or scoop. 

The procedure is to: 

5.3.1 Use hummer and chisel to reduce material(s) size so that it can easily be placed in a 

sample container and place the sample in the container with tongs or scoop. 

SAMPLING PERSONNEL 

It is the resrjonsibility of Facility Management to assign only qualified personnel to perform 

specialized sampling of containerized waste. Personnel that have been trained in the implementation 

of this procedure are considered to be qualified 

SAMPLE ANALYSIS 

Samples will be analyzed as specified in Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3, and Figure 3-1 of the WAP. 

Additional analysis will be performed at the request of the Facility Management. 

WAP-E-2 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 
APPENDIX WAP-F 

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF STANDARD CHEMICAL REFERENCE MATERIALS 

VES 000237 
APPENDIX WAP-F 

BD3LIOGRAPHY OF STANDARD CHEMICAL REFERENCE MATERIALS 

1. The Merck Index, Current Edition, 1983 Merck & Co. Inc., Rahway, NJ. 

2. Dangerous Properties of Industrial Chemicals, Current Edition 1989, Van Nostrand Reinhold, NY 

NY. 

3. Handbook of Reactive Hazards, Current Edition, 1987, Butterworths, London. 

4. Condensed Chemical Dictionary, Current Edition, 1987 Van Nostrand Reinhold,NY NY. 

5. CWM AS-400 computerized MSDS system, current version. 

6. Farm Chemicals '91, Meister Publishing Co. 

7. Chemical Synonyms & Trade Names, Current Edition, 1987 Gower Technical Press. 

8. Lange's Handbook of Chemistry, Current Edition, 1985 McGraw-Hill. 

9. Handbook of Reactive Chemicals, Current Edition, 1985 L. Bretherick. 

10. Handbook of Chemistry & Physics, Current Edition, 1976 CRC Press. 

WAP-F-1 REVISION 11 

9/29/94 

VES 000238 
APPENDIX WAP-G 

HM-181 COMPATIBILITY CLASSES 

VES 000239 
APPENDIX WAP - G 

HM-181 COMPATIBILTIY CLASSES 

DOT Class NAME 

1.1 -1.6 Explosives 

2.1 - 2.2 Aerosol Cans 

3 Flammable Liquid 

4.1 Flammable Solids 

4.2 Spontaneously Combustibles 

4.3 Dangerous When Wet 

5.1 Oxidizers 

5.2 Organic Peroxides 

2.3 Poisonous Gas Zone A & B 

6.1 Poisonous Liquid Zone A 

8 Corrosives 

9 Miscellaneous N.O.S. Debris 

Non-Hazardous Material 

WAP-G-1 EEVISION 11 

9/29/94 

VES 000240 
CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT 

PCB SCREENING POUCY 

Revision 1 

October 1991 

VES 000241 
CWM PCB SCREENING POUCY 

INTRODUCTION 

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is the primary source of federal 

regulations affecting the management of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). Most 

of the provisions of the TSCA regulations specified in 40 CFR Part 761 apply to 

PCBs only if PCBs are present in concentrations above specified levels. The 40 

CFR Part 761 subpart D Storage and Disposal provisions apply generally to 

material at concentrations of 50 parts per million (ppm) and above. However, no 

provision specifying a PCB concentration may be avoided by diluting PCB 

containing materials unless otherwise specifically provided. 

Furthermore, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) is an 

additional source of federal regulations affecting the management of hazardous 

waste containing PCBs. The land disposal of liquid hazardous wastes containing 

PCBs at concentrations greater than or equal to 50 ppm is prohibited under the 

provisions of 40 CFR Part 268.32 (a)(2). The land disposal of liquid or nonliquid hazardous waste containing halogenated organic compounds (HOCs) 

including PCBs (see 40 CFR Part 268 Appendix III for a listing of HOCs) at 

concentrations equal to or greater than 1000 mg/L or 1000 mg/kg, respectively, 

is prohibited under the provisions of 40 CFR Part 268.32 (a)(3), (e)(1), and (e)(2) 

the "California List." In addition, the management of liquid hazardous waste 

containing PCBs at concentrations of 50 ppm or above as well as liquid or nonliquid hazardous wastes containing HOCs including PCBs (see 40 CFR Part 268 

Appendix III for list of HOCs) in total concentrations equal to or greater than 

1000 mg/L or 1000 mg/kg for liquid or solid, respectively, are specified under the 

provisions of 40 CFR Part 268.42. Finally, the land disposal of hazardous waste 

containing PCBs and identified by the listed hazardous waste code numbers 

K085 and F039 (multi-source leachate) is regulated under Specific Land Disposal 

Restrictions (LDR) provisions under 40 CFR Part 268.43. These regulations 

require PCBs to be treated to the following levels (Table I) prior to land disposal. 

2 

Revision 1 

October 1991 
PCB Screening Policy 

TABLE I 

Waste Water Non-Waste Water 

K085 & F039 mg/L mg/kg 

Aroclor 1016 0.013 0.92 

Aroclor 1221 0.014 0.92 

Aroclor 1232 0.013 0.92 

Aroclor 1242 0.017 0.92 

Aroclor 1248 0.013 0.92 

Aroclor 1254 0.014 1.8 

Aroclor 1260 0.014 1.8 

State and local agencies and permits may also regulate the management of 

PCBs. Compliance with these regulations is required wherever they are more 

stringent than federal regulations (e.g., certain states require that the PCBs be 

reported on a dry weight basis). 

Additionally, TSCA addresses PCBs, not Aroclors. This includes incidentally 

produced PCBs and foreign produced materials that include Clophen*. 

Phenoclor*, Pyralene*. Kanechlor*. and Fenclor* 

In order to assure that the appropriate practices are being applied consistently 

throughout Chemical Waste Management, Inc. (CWM) regarding the management 

of wastes which may potentially contain PCBs, It is important to define 

procedures to be employed throughout the company. Therefore, the following 

Policy and Procedures has been developed. 

3 

Revision 1 

October 1991 
PCB Screening Policy 

//. POUCY 

A. The treatment, storage, and disposal of any TSCA regulated waste shall 

occur only at a TSCA approved treatment, storage, or disposal facility. 

B. All PCB analyses required as a result of the application of this policy shall 

be performed by a CWM laboratory or a CWM approved waste laboratory. 

C. Any waste that will be analyzed for PCBs in accordance with this policy 

shall not be accepted for storage, treatment, or disposal until PCB 

analyses have been completed and evaluated. 

D. Any non-TSCA waste which meets the following criteria shall be treated as 

a PCB suspect waste until demonstrated otherwise, through chemical 

analysis. 

///. PCB SUSPECT WASTE CRITERIA 

The following criteria have been developed by Chemical Waste Management, Inc. 

through its extensive operating experiences as well as through review of various 

sources of literature for defining a waste as being PCB Suspect. These criteria 

are intended to supplement existing requirements which may have been imposed 

through permit conditions, administrative orders, or other agreements with federal 

or state regulatory agencies. 

A. Generator-Defined PCB Waste 

Any waste for which the generator has indicated on the "Generator's Waste 

Material Profile Sheet" or any other supporting documentation that PCBs 

are present below regulated levels. 

4 

Revision 1 

October 1991 
PCB Screening Policy 

B. Oil Bearing Waste 

NOTE:. Dil bearing wastes are defined as any material (liquid, solid, 

organic, or aqueous) containing oil as described on the "Generator's Waste 

Material Profile Sheet" (other supporting documentation) OR any material 

which exhibits the visual presence of oil. The visual presence of oil may 

include, but is not limited to, an oil emulsion, oil film, oil phase, or water 

soluble oil. It is the responsibility of the Laboratory Manager at each 

division to use sound judgment based on their analytical experience to 

make the final determination if a waste stream exhibits the visual presence 

of oil. 

C. Municipal Waste Water Treatment Facility Sludge 

D. Bulk Laboratory Wastes 

E. Baghouse Dusts from Secondary Smelters (e.g., copper, aluminum) 

F. Any Waste as Designated by the Laboratory Manager 

G. All Wastes, Liquids or Solids, from the following: 

1. Electrical Utility Company 

2. Natural Gas Pipeline Transmission Company 

3. Solvent Recovery, Reuse or Recycling Unit 

4. Oil Recovery, Reuse or Recycling Unit 

5. Oil Maintenance Centers 

6. Pond Closures (including Pond Sludges and Dredgings) 

7. Remedial Action Superfund Sites 

8. RCRA Corrective Action Project* 

9. Timber/Lumber Treating Facility 

10. Hydraulic Equipment 

11. ENRAC Remedial Action Projects* 

* Unless demonstrated non-TSCA 

5 

Revision 1 

October 1991 
PCB Screening Policy 

12. Heat Transfer Units 

13. Metal Machining (Cutting) Operations 

14. Pestidde/Herbicide Manufacturing 

15. Ink and Pigment Manufacturing 

16. Oil Based Paint Manufacturing 

17. Paper Recycling Operations 

18. Roofing Felt Manufacturing or Processing 

19. Auto Fluff 

20. Non-WMI Waste Treaters 

21. Chlorobenzene Manufacturing 

IV. PROCEDURES 

A. Pre-Acceptance Samples 

Pre-acceptance samples are to be analyzed for PCBs by a laboratory if 

the waste stream meets any of the criteria specified in section III above. 

B. Incoming Waste Shipment Samples 

The need to analyze incoming waste shipment samples for PCBs will be 

established by the results of the sales sample analysis and evaluation of 

the sales sample Waste Profile Sheet information against this policy. 

Table II describes the overall requirements discussed below. 

If a waste stream does not meet any of the PCB suspect criteria, then 

there is no specific requirement to perform PCB analyses on the incoming 

shipments of this waste stream unless specifically required under a Waste 

Analysis Plan (WAP). 

6 

Revision 1 

October 1991 
PCB Screening Policy 

If a waste stream meets any of the PCB Suspect Criteria and the sales 

sample analysis indicates PCBs are less than 5 ppm1 or the regulatory limit 

(The ERA TSCA office has recently specified concentrations of less than 

2 ppm PCBs in treatment residues for approval and refer to Table I for 

listed code specifications), whichever is lower, then the laboratory/technical 

manager must specify on the Waste Management Decision (WMD) whether 

PCB analyses on incoming waste shipments are required and, if so, the 

frequency of analyses. 

If a waste stream meets any of the PCB Suspect Criteria and the sales 

sample analysis indicates PCBs are above 5 ppm1 or the regulatory limit, 

whichever is lower, then the laboratory/technical manager must specify on 

the WMD that PCB analyses on incoming waste shipments are required 

and the frequency at which that analysis is to be performed. 

If the receipt material demonstrates a change in the waste from the preacceptance sample and it now meets the PCB suspect criteria, then PCB 

analysis must be performed before treatment, storage, or disposal. 

1

 The specific criterion of 5 ppm is the typical laboratory reporting limit for PCB 

analysis. It is a conservative approach to protecting the integrity of non-TSCA facilities. 

7 

Revision 1 

October 1991 
PCB Screening Policy 

WPS 

Not a Suspect 

(WMD) 

No Action 

Required 

TABLE II 

1 

PCB Suspect I 

7 

Lab Data 

CWM or Generator 

( WMD) 

Frequency 

of Testing 

) 

< 5 ppm PCB 

( Yes or No ) 

( WMDW Yes 

Frequency 

of Testing 

Meets PCB Suspect 

Criteria 

*Sales Sample 

PCB Results Receiving Procedures 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

<5 ppm 

>5 ppm 

* or the regulatory limit, whichever is lower. 

No specific actions required. 

Specify in Waste Management Decision 

(WMD) whether PCB analyses on 

incoming waste shipments are required 

and, if so, the frequency of analyses. 

WMD must specify that PCB analyses 

are required on incoming waste shipments 

and must specify the frequency of those 

analyses. 

Revision 1 

October 1991 

VES 000248 
Trade Waste Incineration 

7 Mobile Avenue 

Sauget. IL 62201-1069 

618/271-2804 

TRADK HASTE I MCI HERAT I OW 

DIOXIM SUSPECT AWALTSIS POLICY 

SEPTEMBER 28, 1994 

a division ot 0^ Chemical Waste Management, 

Q Pnrled or feoaea cap 

VES 000249 
TWI DIOXIN ANALYSIS POLICY 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Trade Waste Incineration is implementing this policy for the 

screening of wastes which may contain dioxins. This policy 

will identify the types of wastes which must be analysed for 

dioxins or dioxin precursors prior to approval for acceptance 

as a waste stream at TWI. Implementation of this policy will 

provide a means of ensuring that potentially dioxin 

contaminated wastes are analyzed for dioxin content and 

subsequently managed appropriately according to applicable 

state and federal regulations. The fina l decision to manage 

a dioxin bearing waste must be made according to . the 

conditions and restrictions of the governing facilit y Was£e 

Analysis Plan and operating permits. -> 

II. POLICY 

A. Waste streams contemplated for management at TWI will be 

subjected to the Dioxin Suspect Waste Criteri a during the 

decision evaluation process of the profiling procedure. 

B. Wastes which are determined to meet the Dioxin Suspect 

Waste Criteri a will require analysis for dioxin 

precursors prior to acceptance and management for 

treatment and disposal at the facility . 

C. Wastes which are found to contain dioxin precursors at or 

above the sit e action level for precursors will require 

dioxin analysis prior to acceptance and management for 

treatment and disposal at the facility . 

D. Wastes which are found to contain dioxins at or above the 

sit e action level will not be accepted for management for 

treatment and disposal at the facilit y until such time 

that treatment and disposal are allowed according to the 

conditions and restrictions of the governing facilit y 

Waste Analysis Plan and operating permits. 

VES 000250 
DIOXIN SUSPECT WASTE CRITERIA 

The following criteri a has been developed for defining a waste 

as dioxin suspect. These criteri a are intended to supplement 

existing requirements which may have been imposed through 

permit conditions, administrative orders, or other agreements 

with federal or state authorities. Wastes considered under 

these criteri a remain subject to all existing conditions 

imposed by Chemical Waste Management policie s and 

environmental directives. 

A. Generator Defined Dioxin Waste. 

Any waste for which the generator has indicated on the 

"Generator's Waste Material Profil e Sheet" or any other 

supporting documentation that dioxins or dioxi#i 

precursors are present at any level. ;f 

B. Wastes From the Following: 

These wastes will be considered as suspect i f they may 

have been subject to historica l contamination from 

dioxins or dioxin precursors, or i f the wastes contain a 

known dioxin or dioxin precursor material. 

1. Timber/Lumber Treating Facilities. 

2. Pesticide/Herbicide Manufacturing Facilities. 

3. Manufacturers or Processes Using: 

a) mono-, di- , tri- , or tetrachlorophenols, and 

their chloro-phenoxy derivative acids, esters, 

amine, and other salts. 

b) pentachlorophenol 

c) mono-, di- , tri- , tetra-, penta-, or 

hexachlorobenzenes. 

d) trichlorophenoxypropionic acid (silvex) 

e) trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T) 

f) hexachlorophene 

4. Combustion products from sources outside of the 

CWM/WMX Technologies family of companies where such 

combustion occurred under uncontrolled conditions 

and the formation of dioxins or dioxin related 

compounds is suspected to have occurred (i.e . the 

combustion of PVC, CPVC, etc.). 

C. Wastes bearing EPA hazardous waste numbers F032, F039, 

K001, K015, K016, K030, K042, K043, K085, K099, K105, 

K149, K1S0, and K151. 
IV. PROCEDURES 

A . Precursor Analysis: 

Dioxin precursor analysis may be conducted by HPLC, GC or 

GC/MS, or immunoassay screen techniques following 

approved EPA methods or CWM modifications of such 

methods. 

1. Profil e Approval Samples: Profil e approval samples 

are to be analyzed for dioxin precursors i f the 

waste stream meets any of the criteri a specified-i » 

section III above. Wastes which are being 

reprofiled or recertifie d due to changes i n the 

process generating the waste, or as a result of 

generator information gathered during the noji~ 

conformance resolution during incoming analysis ace 

also subject to the criteri a specified in section 

III. 

2. Incoming Waste Shipment Samples: 

a) The need to analyze incoming waste shipment 

samples for dioxin precursors will be 

established by the results of the profil e 

approval sample analysis and an evaluation of 

the waste profil e sheet information against 

the criteri a established i n this policy . 

b) If a waste stream does not meet any of the 

criteri a established i n section III of this 

policy, then there is no specifi c requirement 

to perform dioxin precursor analysis on the 

incoming shipment samples of the waste stream. 

c) If the receipt material demonstrates a change 

in the waste from the profil e approval sample 

(i.e . information provided by the generator 

during the non-conformance resolution 

process), and it now meets the criteri a 

established i n section III of this policy , 

then dioxin precursor analysis must be 

performed as part of the incoming analysis. 

d) Wastes which meet the criteri a established in 

section III of this policy and which exhibited 

negative screen results for dioxin precursors 

during profil e approval analysis will not be 

screened upon receipt. 

VES 000252 
e) Hastes which meet the criteri a established i n 

section III of this policy and which exhibited 

positive screen results for dioxin precursors 

during profil e approval analysis will be 

screened upon receipt i f the profil e approval 

screen indicated dioxin precursors above the 

precursor threshold value, and subsequent 

dioxin analysis confirmed dioxins below the 

dioxin threshold value (or not present). The 

incoming screen will be limited to only those 

precursors which were detected during profil e 

approval analysis. 

If the incoming screen indicates the presence 

of dioxin precursors, incoming dioxdn 

confirmation analysis will be conducted i f the 

levels of precursors in the incoming screen 

exceed the levels of precursors in the profil e 

approval analysis with the following 

guidelines: I 

i) Profil e approval precursor screen was 

positive , dioxin confirmation analysis 

was negative, none detected. 

- and -

The incoming screen indicates precursor 

levels greater than a factor of 10 times 

above the profil e approval results. 

i i ) Profil e approval precursor screen was 

positive , dioxin confirmation analysis 

was negative, but dioxin was detected 

below threshold value. 

- and -

The incoming screen indicates precursor 

levels greater than a prorated level 

above the profil e approval results. The 

prorated level is determined as follows: 

(DTL / DLD) X PPL 

where: DTL = dioxin threshold level 

DLD = dioxin level detected 

(profil e approval) 

PPL = profil e approval 

precursor level 

B. Dioxin Analysis: 

Dioxin analysis will be performed, with the concurrence 

of the generator of the waste, following a dioxin 

precursor screen which indicates a precursor present at 

or above 0.01% by weight. Detection limits for dioxin 

analysis will be set at a 1 part per million threshold. 

VES 000253 
DEFINITIONS 

A. Dioxin: General family name fo r compounds known as 

polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs). Specifically , 

"dioxin" is typicall y used to refe r to 2,3,7,8-

tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, or 2,3,7,8-TCDD. 

B. Dioxin precursors: Chemicals which when manufactured 

have been shown to contain dioxins as a waste or byproduct. Dioxin precursors are of similar chemical 

composition to dioxins. Some examples .are 2,4,5-

trichlorophenol, silvex, and hexachlorophene. 

C. HPLC: High Pressure Liquid Chromatography. This 

analysis technique is used i n CHM method 192-78, "The 

Analysis of Chlorophenoxy Herbicides using HPLC". 

... * 

0. GC. GC/MS: Gas Chromatography, GC/Mass Spectroscopy. 

Analysis instrumentation used for the specifi c 

identification of numerous organic compounds. Typically , 

the methods for quantification of specifi c dioxins or 

dioxin precursors use GC or GC/MS techniques. 

E. Immunoassay screen: A quick, semi-quantitative method of 

identifying the presence of a specifi c chemical or 

chemical family. Specifically , SH-846 Method 4010, 

Immunoassay Test for the Presence of Pentachlorophenol. 

B:\TWIDIOX.TXT 
POL 1CY REV(EW OF PROF 1LE CONSTITUENTS 

Suspect per po1i cy Not suspect per policy 

i << 1 1

 >> — i 

Conduct dioxin 

precursor 

analysis 

Proceed with decision 

process, no precursor analysis 

Dioxin precursors 

found <<-

Precursors not found 

->>-

Does generator want |No 

to have dioxin test- [—»• 

ing performed? 

T 

_l_ 

Deny 

decision 

1 

No dioxin testing 

No precursor testing 

on incoming waste 

Yes 

Conduct dioxin 

analysis 

I 

Was dioxin 

detected? 

V No 

_ i 

Yes Was th 

level 

dioxin 

> 1 ppm? 

Approve decision, 

conduct precursor 

analysis on incoming 

waste shipments 

I 

Is incoming waste 

shipment precursor 

level > 10 times the 

profile analysis 

pro-cursor level? 

"I 

V Yes 

Yes Deny decision or 

reject shipment 

V No 

Approve decision (or accept 

waste shipments), conduct precursor analysis on incoming 

waste shipments 

->>-

No 

—>> -

Accept the 

waste shipment 

Does the generator 

want to have dioxin 

testing performed? 

No 

V Yes 

i 

Reject the 

waste shipment 

Conduct dioxin 

analysis 

T 

V 

Was dioxin detected? 

V No 

Yes 

->>-

Accept the waste 

shipment 

-<<-

Is the pro> . 

rated Incoming 

waste, shipment 

precursor "•'. 

screen di16x1h 

level •'<•• 1 • 

(see pol icy 

section IV, A, 

2, e, 11T? 

V No 

Modify decision 

analysis results 

for ratio of precursors to dioxihv 

if necessary 

i ... ; V Yaa 

-Ivy «•»••'••• 

Accept 

waste 

shipment 

VES 000255 
VES 000256.pdf 
Draft 

Technical Support Document for 

HWC MACT Standards (NODA) 

Volume III: Evaluation of Metal Emissions Database to Investigate 

Extrapolation and Interpolation Issues 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5305) 

401 M Street, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

April 1997 

VES 000256 
ABSTRACT 

Existing U.S. EPA guidance on using extrapolation or interpolation to project emission 

levels based on measured feed rates and emissions levels is re-evaluated. The evaluation is based 

on theoretical considerations as well as recent compilation of metals feed rate and emission results 

from many hazardous waste combustor trial burn compliance tests as part of the EPA's 

development of revised emissions standards for hazardous waste combustors. 

"Upward" extrapolation (from the origin) is conservative for all metal types and volatilities 

(i.e., emission levels predicted at a higher feed rate based on extrapolation from measured 

emissions levels at a lower feed rate tend to be greater than or equal to the actual emission levels at 

the higher feed rate). This is because the metals system removal efficiency tends to stay the same 

or increase with increasing feed rate. This is supported by theory, as well as analysis of a limited 

data set. Thus, upward extrapolation continues to be recommended as a valid alternative for setting 

metals feed rate limits. "Downward" extrapolation may be appropriate for certain metal types and 

feed rate ranges. However, because theory and limited emissions data analysis indicate that it may 

not produce conservative results in some cases, it can not be generally recommended. Potential 

extrapolation implementation procedures are discussed, including the use of a "universal variability 

factor". 

VES 000257 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

This document was prepared by EPA's Office of Solid Waste, Waste Minimization and 

Management Division. Energy and Environmental Research Corporation (EER) provided technical 

support under EPA contract No. 68-D2-0164. 

ii 

VES 000258 
CONTENTS 

ABSTRACT i 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii 

FIGURES iv 

TABLE vi 

ACRONYMS vii 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 

2.0 CURRENT BOILER AN D INDUSTRIAL FURNACE RULE GUIDANCE 1 

3.0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN METALS FEED RATE AND EMISSION RATE 2 

Theoretical Considerations 2 

Trial Burn Source Testing Evaluations 4 

Individual Metals From the Same Facility . . . : 4 

Groups of Similar Behaving Metals From the Same Facility 7 

Conclusions on Appropriateness of Extrapolation 7 

4.0 DEVELOPMENT OF A N EXTRAPOLATION PROCEDURE 9 

5.0 REFERENCES 13 

iii 

VES 000259 
FIGURES 

1 Basis for Boiler and Industrial Furnace Guidance on extrapolation 15 

2 Theoretical relationship between metals emissions and feed rate 16 

3 Relationship between metals emissions and feed rate for metals groupings 17 

4 Metals emissions and feed rate relationships — Hearth incinerator with SD/VD/PBS 

(Du Pont Experimental Facility Incinerator, Wilmington, DE; ID No. 700) 18 

5 Metals emissions and feed rate relationships — Rotary kiln incinerator with 

WHB/VS/PT/HS (ENSCO, Bridgeport, NJ; ID No. 807) 19 

6 Metals emissions and feed rate relationships — Rotary kiln incinerator with VS 

(Tennessee Eastman, Kingsport, TN; ID No. 809) 20 

7 Metals emissions and feed rate relationship ~ Rotary kiln incinerator with IWS 

(Rollins, Baton Rouge, LA ; ID No. 214) 21 

8a Metals emissions and feed rate relationship — Liquid injection incinerator with 

WHB/FF/VQ/PT (Laidlaw, Roebuck, SC; ID No. 209) 22 

8b Metals emissions and feed rate relationship — Liquid injection incinerator with 

WHB/FF/VQ/PT (Laidlaw, Roebuck, SC; ID No. 209) 23 

9 Metals emissions and feed rate relationships — Rotary kiln incinerator with 

WS/ESP/PT (3M, Cottage Grove, MN ; ID No. 334) 24 

10 Metals emissions and feed rate relationships — Liquid injection incinerator with 

VS/PBS (Tennessee Eastman, Kingsport, TN; ID No. 810) 25 

11 Metals emissions and feed rate relationship — Rotaiy kiln incinerator with 

SD/FF/WS/IWS (Aptus, Coffeyville, KS; ID No. 325) 26 

12 Metal emissions and feed rate relationship ~ Rotary kiln incinerator with 

SD/FF/WS/WESP (Aptus, Aragonite, UT; ID No. 327) 27 

13 Metal emissions and feed rate relationship — Rotary kiln incinerator with HE/FF 

Lake City Army Ammunition Plant, Independence, MO; ID No. 503) 28 

14 Metals emissions and feed rate relationships (EPA IRF, Arkansas, rotary kiln 

incinerator with VS/PB) 29 

15 Metals emissions and feed rate relationships — Cement kilns (Keystone Cement, 

Bath, PA; No. 207/208) 30 

16 Metals emissions and feed rate relationship ~ Cement kilns (Holnam, Holly Hill, SC; 

ID No. 205/206) 31 

17 Metals emissions and feed rate relationships — Cement kiln with FF (Southdown, 

Knoxville, TN; ID No. 316) 32 

18 Metals emissions and feed rate relationships for individual metals and facilities with 

multiple conditions — Cement kilns (Lafarge, Fredonia, KS; ID No. 322/323) 33 

19 Metals emissions and feed rate relationship for individual metals and facilities with 

multiple conditions — Cement kiln (Lone Star Industries, Inc., MO; No. 303) 34 

20 Metals emissions and feed rate relationship for individual metals and facilities with 

multiple conditions — Cement kilns (Ash Grove Cement Company), Chanute, KS; 

ID No. 401/402) 35 

21 Metals emissions and feed rate relationships — Light weight aggregate kilns with 

FF/VS (Norlite, Cohoes, NY ; ID No. 307) 36 

iv 

VES 000260 
22a Selected metals emissions and feed rate relationships 37 

22b Selected metals emissions and feed rate relationships 38 

23a Metals emissions and feed rate relationships for low volatile metals groupings for 

individual facilities (cement kilns) 39 

23b Metals emissions and feed rate relationships for low volatile metals groupings from 

individual facilities (cement kilns) 40 

24 Metals emissions and feed rate relationship for low volatile metals groupings for 

individual facilities (incinerators and boilers) 41 

25 Metals emissions and feed rate relationship for low volatile metals groupings for 

individual facilities 42 

26 Chromium feed rate and emissions relationship for all hazardous waste burning 

combustors 43 

27 Lead feed rate and emissions relationships for all hazardous waste burning 

combustors 44 

28 Options for the trial burn metals extrapolation procedure 45 

29 Residual analysis for semi volatile metals 46 

30 Modified hybrid trial burn metals extrapolation procedure 47 

31 Illustration of the conservative impact of extrapolation off of stack gas detection 

limit trial burn measurement 48 

v 

VES 000261 
TABLE 

1 Metals residual analysis 49 

vi 

VES 000262 
ACRONYMS 

APCD Air pollution control device 

BIF Boilers and industrial furnaces 

dcfm dry standard cubic meter 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ESP Electrostatic precipitator 

FF Fabric filter 

HE Heat exchanger 

HS Hydrosonic eductor scrubber 

IRF Incineration Research Facility 

IWS Ionizing wet scrubber 

MACT Maximum achievable conhol technology 

microgram (10-6 gram) 

ng nanogram (10-9

 gram) 

NODA Notice of data availability 

PB Packed bed 

PBS Packed bed scrubber 

SD Spray dryer 

SRE System removal efficiency 

P M Particulate matter 

PT Packed tower 

U VF Universal variability factor 

VQ Venturi quench 

VS Venturi scrubber 

WESP Wet electrostatic precipitator 

WHB Waste heat boiler 

ws Wet scrubber 

vii 
1.0 INTRODUCTIO N 

This report is the third of three technical support documents for the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency's Notice of Data Availability on updates to the proposed "maximum achievable 

control technology" (MACT) standards for hazardous waste combustors. The three volumes 

include: 

Volume I: MACT Evaluations Based on Revised Database. Re-evaluation of MACT floor 

standards for existing and new sources based on proposed rule comments and data 

submissions. 

Volume II: Evaluation of CO/HC and DRE Database. Evaluation of the behavior of 

principal organic hazardous constituent destruction and removal efficiency with carbon 

monoxide and hydrocarbons emissions, 

• Volume III: Evaluation of Metals Emissions Database to Investigate Extrapolation and 

Interpolation Issues. Re-evaluation of the use of metals extrapolation and interpolation to 

set metals feed rate limits based on compliance testing measurements. 

Volume III: Evaluation of Metals Emissions Database to Investigate Extrapolation and 

Interpolation Issues is a re-evaluation of existing U.S. EPA guidance on using extrapolation or 

interpolation to project emission levels based on measured feed rates and emission levels. This is 

of interest to the hazardous waste combustor community for reasons including: (1) potentially 

eliminating the need to use large quantities of expensive and toxic metals for spiking in future 

compliance tests (e.g., trial burns, MACT performance tests); and (2) potentially avoiding retesting 

requirements brought about by more stringent metals emissions limits as a result of new risk 

assessment procedures and new regulatory requirements. This evaluation is based on theoretical 

considerations as well as recent compilation of metals feed rate and emissions results from many 

recent hazardous waste combustor trial burn compliance tests as part of the Agency's development 

of revised emissions standards for hazardous waste combustors. 

2.0 CURREN T BOILE R AN D INDUSTRIAL FURNAC E RUL E GUIDANC E 

The Boiler and Industrial Furnace Implementation Document (U.S. EPA, 1992) provides 

guidance on conducting trial burn metals feed rate and emissions rate interpolation and 

extrapolation for setting permit limits on metals feed rates which may be summarized as follows: 

• Interpolation ~ Interpolation, based on projecting between two trial burn test series at 

different feed rates, is recommended as long as the test series are conducted over a 

"reasonably limited" feed rate range. 

Extrapolation — Allowances for upward and downward extrapolation are based on metals 

behavior and considerations shown in Figure 1: 

1 

VES 000264 
Upward ~ Upward linear extrapolation is recognized to be conservative in principle, 

conservative in that a linear upward feed rate projection through the origin (i.e., at a metal 

feed and emissions rate of zero) will overestimate the predicted actual emissions due to an 

increase in metal system removal efficiency (SRE) as feed rate is increased, as discussed in 

great detail in the next section. However, it is not generally recommended for setting 

permit limits because of the lack of validation data. Upward extrapolation may be 

appropriate if an adequate "safety factor" is used (in cases where the desired feed rate 

corresponds to an emissions level that is much lower than the emissions limit). A safety 

factor of 10 is suggested as adequate. 

Downward — Downward extrapolation through the origin is not recommended since 

theoretical considerations indicate that it may not produce conservative feed rate limits (i.e., 

emissions are predicted to be higher than those based on a downward linear projection due 

to a decrease in SRE as feed rate is decreased). 

3.0 RELATIONSHI P BETWEE N METAL S FEE D RAT E AN D EMISSIO N 

RAT E 

3.1 THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS 

A variety of parameter impact metals emissions, including metal feed rate, metals species 

and form, waste type and constituents (such as chlorine, sulfur, earth and mineral elements), air 

pollution control system type and operation, facility operational practices (dust recycle rates, soot 

blowing), and combustor system operating parameters (such as temperatures and temperature 

profiles) and design parameters (e.g., rotary kiln, controlled air types). However, for a given 

fixed system with all things remaining equal except metals feed rate, the general relationship 

between metals feed rate and stack gas emissions that is expected based on theoretical 

considerations is shown in Figure 2. There are three distinct regimes, each of which has a linear 

relationship between feed rate and emissions, but a different "slope" which is related to the metal 

removal efficiency: 

• Region A — In the first regime, bounded from the plot's origin (with a metal feed rate input 

and emissions rate of zero) to the upper breakpoint (labeled with a "1"), the metal fully 

vaporizes in the combustor since the vapor pressure of the metal at the combustion 

temperature is high enough to put the entire metal feed into the vapor phase. All of the 

metal feed is carried from the combustor as vapor with the flue gas. In this region, the 

metal remains in the vapor phase throughout the entire system, including the lower 

temperatures of downstream air pollution control. Typically in the Region A for systems 

with traditional air pollution conhol devices designed for removing solid metal containing 

particulate matter and fume such as fabric filters and electrostatic precipitators, metals are 

not being controlled (i.e., what is fed flies entirely to the stack as emissions, with a 

corresponding SRE of zero). For certain metals, control may be achievable through the 

removal of metals vapors with specialized techniques such as absorption (e.g., in wet 

scrubbing solutions) or adsorption (e.g., in activated carbon sieves). 

2 

VES 000265 
Region B ~ As the feed rate of a metal continues to increase in Region A, the metal vapor 

pressure at the air pollution control device temperature becomes "saturated" with the metal 

(the saturated metal vapor pressure is the maximum level of metal that will remain in the 

vapor form; additional metal beyond this point will be in a solid condensed form). At this 

breakpoint "1", metals which fully vaporize in the combustion chamber begins to condense 

out at the lower temperature air pollution control device. Condensation of metal vapor is 

known to take place homogeneously to form fine fume and heterogeneously, preferentially 

also on fine entrained and formed particulate. The removal of the condensed metal 

(typically contained primarily on submicron particulates) is related directly to the ability of 

the air pollution control device to remove this submicron particulate from the flue gas. The 

slope of the curve in Region B is determined by the removal efficiency of the fine 

particulate matter (PM) containing material. A baghouse with a high fine P M removal 

efficiency would be expected to produce a "shallower" slope compared with that from a 

lower efficiency wet scrubber. In the case where no air pollution control device is used, 

the metal system removal efficiency would remain at zero, as in Region A. 

Region C ~ Region C begins and Region B ends when the saturated vapor pressure of the 

metal at the combustion temperature is reached. Note that the saturated or "effective" vapor 

pressure of a metal depends on a variety of factors, among which temperature and the 

concentration of chlorine, oxygen, and sulfur in the gas are some of the most important. 

Additional metals fed beyond this point will remain as condensed solids at the waste 

burning location (contained in the bottom and fly ash of incinerators, or clinker or light 

weight aggregate for industrial process kilns). Metals stack gas emissions and control in 

Region C are attributable to the degree of entrainment and subsequent control of metal 

containing ash particles ("fly ash") out of the combustor. Emissions of metals will 

continue to increase in Region C as the feed rate increases due to the increased 

concenhation of metals in the entrained fly ash, but not as rapidly as in Region B since no 

more additional metals can vaporize and since air pollution conhol devices typically collect 

larger enframed metals containing particles more efficiently than condensed fines and fumes 

of Region B. 

The occurrence and significance of these three regions depends on the metal type (e.g., 

lead, mercury, or chromium), and its volatility characteristics. As shown in Figure 3, for the high 

volatile metals (such as mercury and selenium) which have very high vapor pressures at both the 

combustion and air pollution control device temperatures, Region A may span most typical feed 

rates. Note that for mercury when chlorine is present, saturated vapor pressures are extremely 

high (on the order of millions of ug/dscm) even at wet scrubber temperatures. This has been 

confirmed through detailed source testing work showing very low system removal efficiencies as 

well as the dominance of these metals as vapors in stack gas emissions measurement trains (as 

indicated by the presence of the metals in the "back-half fraction of the multiple metals sampling 

train). Breakpoint "1" may not be reached in conventional practice. Semi-volatile and lowvolatile metals have extremely low vapor pressures at typical air pollution control device 

temperatures (< ng/dscm). This is confirmed through effective removal of these metals in 

3 

VES 000266 
particulate matter air pollution control devices, as well as the major presence of these metals in the 

"front-half ofthe metals sampling train for stack gas measurements. Thus Region A is relatively 

non-existent for semi— and low-volatile metals. For semi-volatile metals (such as lead, cadinium, 

and thallium), Region B dominates over a large range of metals feed rates since the vapor pressure 

of these metals at combustion temperatures is typically extremely high (on the order of millions of 

(ig/dscm). For low-volatile metals (such as chromium, barium, nickel, and beryllium), Region C 

may dominate, since Region B may be small due to the small vapor pressures of low-volatile 

metals at combustion temperatures. 

3.2 TRIAL BURN SOURCE TESTING EVALUATIONS 

Hazardous waste combustor trial burn and compliance test metals feed rate and emissions 

rate data were evaluated in a couple of different ways to assess the relation between metals feed 

rates and emissions. These are discussed below. Note that stack gas emissions test data are 

considered only when measure at levels above the analytical method detection limit; consideration 

of data reported at the method detection limit may provide misleading results. 

3.2.1 Individual Metals From the Same Facility 

Emissions and feed rate data from the same facility (or similar units on the same site) and 

same metal were evaluated in cases where a large range of feed rates were available. This was 

usually true only when multiple test conditions were associated with the same facility. These are 

shown in Figures 4 through 14 for incinerators. More limited data for cement kilns is shown in 

Figures 15 through 20. Data from only one light weight aggregate kiln are shown in Figure 21; 

no examples for boilers were available. 

The data in Figure 4 are of more importance than the others since they are a product of 

testing conducted under very well controlled conditions during the same time period. Additionally, 

they constitute the only testing that was conducted with the intention of directly evaluating the 

relationship between feed rate and stack gas emissions rate (Hinshaw et al., 1993). Testing is 

from the Du Pont Experimental Station at the Wilmington, Delaware unit which includes a 

monohearth incinerator with spray dryer, reverse jet cooler, venturi scrubber, and three stage baffle 

absorber air pollution control system. Liquid and solid wastes were spiked with liquid metals 

solutions containing Be, Cd, As, Cr, and Pb. The tests were conducted at 2,000°F combustion 

temperature with high chlorine levels (4 to 10% by weight). Best fit linear regressions are shown 

on each plot. The relation between stack gas emissions and feed rate is highly linear through the 

origin for Be, Cd, As, and Pb over the entire range of feed rates tested. This would appear to 

support a reasonable extrapolation upward or downward to different feed rates linearly through the 

origin. For Cr however, one may imagine that there are two regions based on theory, where the 

slope of the line at the lower feed rates starts out relatively steep, and levels off as the feed rate is 

increased. Keep in mind that even for this highly controlled set of tests, there is wide data scatter 

at the high feed rates. Also, note that for lower volatile metals of Be, As, and Cr, the maximum 

feed rate that was used was not that high (6000 |ig/dscm for Cr as compared with 500,000 

4 

VES 000267 
u,g/dscm for Pb), thus the point at which the curve begins to flatten out (in particular for Be and 

As) may occur at higher feed rates that were not used in the testing. 

Interestingly, for the semi-volatile metals of Cd and Pb, the system removal efficiencies 

(indicated by the slope of the feed rate and emissions rate curve) are very similar (both at 80%), 

indicating that Cd and Pb may be effective surrogates for each other. Additionally, since they have 

the same SRE, they would fall on the exact same line if shown on the same feed rate and emissions 

plot. This appears to support a linear relationship through the origin for semi-volatile metals over a 

very large range of feed rates. In a similar manner, Be, As, and Cr also have relatively comparable 

SREs (Be of about 93%, Cr also at 93%, and As at 84%). This would indicate that Be and Cr 

could potentially be used as surrogates for each other, but not for As. 

Data from the other incinerator, cement kiln, and light weight aggregate facilities shown in 

Figures 5 through 21 are discussed briefly. Generally, data scatter makes it difficult to determine 

relationships. However, keep in mind the following general trends as the facility data are 

reviewed: 

• Emissions tend to increase as feed rate increases. 

The relationship between emissions rate and feed rate for lower volatile metals tends to be 

very flat (not a strong function of feed rate). This is because SRE strongly tends to 

increase with increasing feed rate (i.e., the curve between metals emissions and feed rate is 

concave in shape since emissions levels increases are not generally proportional to feed rate 

increases). 

The relationship between emissions and feed rate for high- and semi-volatile metals tends to 

be stronger than that for low volatile metals (i.e., there is a more proportional relationship 

between emissions and feed rates). 

Note that for most of these facilities, testing was generally conducted years apart which 

may be contribute to some of the data spread and variability due to changes in facility 

characteristics, conditions, and operating practices. 

Figure 5 (incinerator, ID No. 807) — The feed rate and emissions rate for Pb and Cd is 

fairly proportional, with Pb being fed at much higher feed rates and being controlled about 

twice as effectively. The relationships for Cr, As, and Ba are very "flat" (no strong 

correlation between emissions and feed rate) with lots of data scatter. 

Figure 6 (incinerator, ID No. 809) ~ Data are available from this site at vary low and very 

high feed rates. A proportional fit through the origin appears reasonable for all metals 

except Cr, which may have some type of breakpoint as based on theory (i.e., two linear 

regions with different slopes). Additional data at intermediate feed rates are needed to 

confirm this. 

5 

VES 000268 
Figure 7 (incinerator, ID No. 214) ~ There is no strong relationship (extremely flat) for the 

lower volatile Ba and Cr. There is a slightly stronger relationship for Cd and Pb, which 

both have similar SREs. 

Figures 8a and 8b (incinerator, ID No. 209) — There is no strong relationship (extremely 

flat) for the lower volatile Cr, Sb, As, and Ba. It is also flat for Cd and Pb. There is a 

stronger relationship for Tl. 

Figure 9 (incinerator, ID No. 334) — There is a fairly proportional relationship for As and 

Ba. For Cd and Pb, the data at the low feed rates are suspect since SREs are < 0. Data 

scatter for Cr makes it difficult to assess. 

Figure 10 (incinerator, ID No. 810) - Like Figure 6 (facility ID No. 809), data are 

available from very low and very high feed rates. Unlike ID No. 809, it indicates that a 

linear proportional fit through the origin may not be appropriate. It may support the two 

region break point, where at low feed rates in Region 1 the curve has a large slope, 

followed by flattening off at higher feed rates in Region 2. However, additional 

intermediate feed rate data are needed to confirm this. The low feed rate data may be in 

error. 

Figure 11 (incinerator, ID No. 325) ~ There is no relationship for any of the metals (all 

"flat"). Lots of data scatter. 

Figure 12 (incinerator, ID No. 327) ~ There is no relationship for any ofthe metals except 

possibly for Ba. Lots of data scatter. 

Figure 14 (incinerator) — A series of parametric tests were conducted at the EPA's IRF 

facility to assess As behavior for two different waste types. Emissions increase at higher 

feed rates, although not proportionally through the origin since the SRE at the higher feed 

rate is lower than that ofthe lower feed rate, as opposed to theoretical predictions and most 

of the other facility data. This highlights effects that may be due to differences in waste 

types and arsenic types that may make it difficult to evaluate the feed rate and emissions 

relationship for testing done at different conditions. 

Figure 15 (cement kiln, ID Nos. 207/208) ~ There is a fairly strong relationship for Cd, 

Pb, and Ag. Flat for Cr and Ni. 

Figure 16 (cement kiln, ID Nos. 205/206) — This data set is interesting because it is from 

the same cement kiln during two different testing periods (1992 and 1995). There is 

relatively high variability in the emissions data from the different test series that were 

conducted at similar feed rates; illustrating the difficulty in comparing different trial burn 

results even from the same facility. This is due to a variety of factors associated with 

emissions source testing in full scale systems that effect measurement repeatability, 

6 

VES 000269 
including facility "memory" effects, differences in operating conditions, equipment 

conditions, and a host of sampling and analytical considerations. 

Figures 17 through 21 (cement kilns and one light weight aggregate kiln) ~ There is a 

general increase in emissions with feed rate, typically stronger for Cd and Pb. However, 

with limited feed rate ranges and data scatter, it is not possible to identify regions and 

breakpoints. 

3.2.2 Groups of Similar Behaving Metals From Similar Types of Facilities 

Individual metal data from similar types of facilities were compared. Groupings included: 

(1) different source categories including boilers, incinerators, cement kilns, and light weight 

aggregate kilns; and (2) groups from the same source category using the same type of air pollution 

control device. Examples of these are shown in Figure 26 for chromium and Figure 27 for lead for 

different source categories (each differentiated by a different symbol). This analysis demonshates 

that it is difficult to observe trends in data taken from a number of facilities (even of common type) 

because of the variances produced from differences in control device, feed rates, operating 

parameters, and measurement techniques. However, generally for chromium (and other lowvolatile metals), emissions tend to not be a strong function of feed rate (i.e., system removal 

efficiency tends to increase as the feed rate increases, as might be expected based on theoretical 

considerations). For lead (and other semi-volatile metals), emissions tend to be a stronger function 

of feed rate (increasing with feed rate), although system removal efficiency tends to increase with 

feed rate as it does with low volatile metals. Note that feed rates are shown on log scale; system 

removal efficiency only decreases rapidly at very low feed rates. 

3.3 CONCLUSIONS ON APPROPRIATENESS OF EXTRAPOLATION 

Theoretical volatility predictions indicate that the relationship between feed rate and 

emissions rate is not strictly linear for semi- and low-volatile metals, although it may be linear over 

a generally large range of feed rates for semi-volatiles, and also for very low volatiles. Scatter in 

data and/or lack of feed rate ranges makes it difficult to determine a relationship for much of the 

trial burn data. Inability to determine regions and breakpoints as predicted from theory may be due 

to either insufficient data (not enough spread of feed rates), change in slope being too small to 

notice, or absence of such behavior in actual practice. In any case, the following conclusions are 

drawn: 

• Emissions data generally confirm that for individual facilities, an increase in feed rate 

produces an increase in emissions, as expected. 

For the semi-volatile metals (Cd, Pb, and Tl), most of the available trial burn emissions 

data tend to generally confirm a proportional relation through the origin between emissions 

and feed rates over a large range of feed rate, as based on theory. 

7 

VES 000270 
For lower-volatile metals (Cr, Ba, As, Be, Ni), due to low emissions levels from typically 

high SREs compared with those of semi-volatile metals, the relationship is more "flat" due 

to SRE increasing with increasing feed rate. Note that it is difficult to evaluate the precise 

relationship based on the trial burn data for many of the facilities due to the influence of 

measurement "noise" at the low emissions levels. Theory indicates that the "breakpoint" 

of the relationship may fall within a typically encountered feed rate for metals that have 

"medium" volatility, such as As or Sb. 

• Fairly strong proportional relationships are shown for some limited facilities and metals 

types and feed rate ranges (both semi- and low-volatile metals). This is particularly evident 

from data from one well controlled series of tests designed specifically to evaluate feed rate 

impacts. 

Emissions data from common groups of facilities indicates a general trend for SRE to 

decrease with decreasing feed rates, as expected based on theory, although not until very 

low feed rates. 

Based on these conclusions, the following recommendations are made on the 

appropriateness of upward and downward extrapolation: 

Upward Extrapolation — Upward extrapolation through the origin can be implemented in a 

manner that is conservative for all metal types and volatilities since SRE tends to stay the 

same or increase with increasing feed rate (i.e., emission levels predicted at a higher feed 

rate base on extrapolation from measured emission levels at a lower feed rate tend to be 

greater than or equal to the actual emission levels at the higher feed rate). This is supported 

by theory, as well as limited emissions data analyses. Thus it continues to be 

recommended. 

Downward Extrapolation — Theory and limited emissions data analysis indicates that the 

relationship between metals feed rates and emissions may be proportional over large ranges 

of feed rates; however, breakpoints separating different linear regimes may be present as 

discussed in detail previously. For high- and semi-volatile metals this breakpoint is present 

at extremely high feed rates. Thus, downward extrapolation through the origin may be 

appropriate for semi and high volatile type metals. For lower volatile metals, however, the 

position ofthe regime transition point is not as clear. Based on limited trial burn data, it 

may be reasonable to interpolate linearly through the origin for very low volatile metals 

such as Be. However, theory and other limited data indicate that it may not produce 

conservative results in some cases. Thus, based on the available data and theoretical 

consideration, it can not be generally recommended to extrapolate downward through the 

origin for lower volatile metals. 

8 

VES 000271 
4.0 DEVELOPMEN T O F EXTRAPOLATIO N PROCEDUR E 

A variety of options may be considered for the implementation of metals extrapolation and 

interpolation, including, as shown in Figure 28, projection from the: 

(a) highest compliance test run; 

(b) average of the compliance test runs; 

(c) level based on statistical evaluation of the compliance test runs; or 

(d) level based on the average of the compliance test runs with the consideration of a "universal 

variability factor" applied to the average. 

Although less conservative, option (c) has an advantage over option (d) in that it would not 

penalize facilities that had low within-test condition emissions variability. Under this option, a 

site-specific variability factor could be determined from actual compliance test data, perhaps based 

on the test average emissions plus the standard deviation of the runs multiplied by a confidence tfactor. 

The following discussions pertain to option (d). Under this option, a "universal variability 

factor" (UVF) would be identified. This is done by evaluating the within-test condition variability 

of all available hazardous waste combustor trial burn and BIF certification testing metals stack gas 

emissions measurements. Within condition, individual run "residuals" were evaluated as: 

(1) R, = Q - C a v g 

where Q = log (Xi) 

C a v g = average (Q) 

X i : individual run metals stack gas emissions concentration (within a given condition) 

R;: individual run residual 

Examples of the results of the residual analysis are shown in Figures 29 for semi-volatile 

metals. Residuals are shown both as a function of condition geomean as well as a probability plot 

of the absolute value of the residuals. Note that the residuals are evenly distributed about 0, and 

are not a function of the geomean, as expected after having been fransformed to the log plane. The 

U VF would be established as the 95th percentile residual (meaning the level at which 95 percent of 

the residual population is at or below). The 95th percentile residual was determined based on the 

probability plots as well as with a statistical analysis of the residual data set. Both procedures 

produced very similar results. Table 1 shows the 95th percentile residuals for the various metals 

groupings and individual metals. Residuals tend to be the highest for high-volatile metals, and 

similar and lower for low- and semi-volatile metals. 

9 

VES 000272 
The UVF could be used for extrapolations under several approaches: (1) using a metalspecific UVF, where the multipliers to the average compliance test emissions would range from 

1.9x's to 5.1x's; (2) using a common UVF for all metals as the average of the metal-specific 

UVFs, where the multiplier would be 3.5x's; or (3) using a UV F for each volatility group based 

on either the highest UVF for each metal in the group or the average UVF for metals in the group. 

Under option 3 where the UVF is based on the highest UVF for each metal in the group, the 

multipliers would be 5.1x's for high-volatile metals, 3.6x's for semi-volatile metals, and 4.3x's 

for low-volatile metals. Alternatively, where the UVF is based on the average UVF for metals in 

the group, the multipliers would be 5.0x's for high-volatile metals, 3.1x's for semi-volatile metals, 

and 3.4x's for low-volatile metals. Given that the UVFs are higher for high-volatile metals, and 

that the metal-specific UVFs vary considerably for semi- and low-volatile metals, it may 

appropriate to use the option 3 approach where the UVF is based on the highest UV F for each 

metal in the volatility group. 

Note that the higher UVFs for high-volatile metals may be attributable to the difficulty in 

sampling and analysis for more volatile species due to losses and errors associated with the 

capture, recovery, digestion, analysis, etc. Higher variability may also be attributable to the 

extremely low levels of the high-volatile metals—Hg and Se~that are typically present in 

combustion stack gases. However, this argument is not entirely consistent for low-volatile metals, 

where the variability for Be is lower than that of Cr even though Be is usually only a small fraction 

of the Cr level in the stack gas. In any case, within-test condition variability can be attributable to a 

variety of factors including: 

• Differences in feed rates within condition; 

• Variability in waste types and operating conditions; 

• System non-equilibrium and memory effects; and 

Accuracy and precision ofthe multiple metals train EPA Draft Method 29 (+ 20% according 

to the method developers). 

Extrapolated feed rate and emission limits would be set based on the universal variability 

factor application as: 

E R limit 

(2) FR pr0 J = FR c, x l s — 

where: FRpr o j : Extrapolated/interpolated feed rate limit 

FRct: Compliance test feed rate (average) 

ERct: Compliance test average stack gas emissions rate 

ERiimit: New stack gas emissions limit 

10 

VES 000273 
and: 

(3) E R unv f =

 1 0 

[ C avg+ UVF ] 

Cavg = average (log Xj) 

X ;: individual compliance test stack gas emissions rates 

U VF : Universal variability factor in log plane (95th percentile residual for the metal 

grouping of interest) 

Note that the UVFs (in the log plane) shown in Table 1 have a value of about 0.3 to 0.7. When 

applied to the trial burn condition average emissions level in Equation (3), they increase the level 

by about a factor of about 3 (i.e., ER^ f is about equal to 3 times the compliance test condition 

average emissions level). 

However, strict use of the universal variability factor procedure of Equation (1) would not 

be useful if: (1) the maximum allowable emission rate is close to the compliance test emission rate; 

and (2) the UVF-adjusted emission rate is higher than the highest run (as it will generally be). 

Additionally, the use of the conservative UV F may not be warranted when projecting near the 

compliance test feed rate since the potential errors associated with the compliance test 

measurements (such as those from feed rates and emissions stack gas measurements) will not be 

significantly magnified when projecting near to the compliance test emission level. However, as 

the projection increases significantly beyond that emission level, the magnification of errors may 

become more important. Thus, the use of the UVF approach is warranted at feed rates 

significantly different than that of the trial burn. Note that with the UVF approach, a variance 

factor is used as opposed to a fixed increment; the variance factor acts to magnify the safety margin 

as the projected feed rate increases (i.e., the safety factor remains constant as the feed rate 

increases). 

Based on these considerations, the following UVF implementation approach may be 

appropriate, as illustrated in Figure 30: 

When extrapolating to feed and emission rates significantly beyond that of the compliance 

test, use the UVF. 

When extrapolating to feed and emission rates near that of the compliance test, use a 

combination of extrapolating using the UVF and extrapolating from the highest compliance 

test run. Assuming it would be appropriate to use this less conservative approach to 

extrapolate emissions upward in the range from the highest run of the compliance test to an 

emission level of, for example, 2x's the compliance test average emissions adjusted by the 

UVF, the extrapolation would be based on a line drawn from the highest compliance test 

run to that emission level (i.e., 2x's the compliance test average emissions adjusted by the 

UVF). If it were appropriate to extrapolate emissions downward, the extrapolation line 

11 
could be drawn from the highest compliance test run to an emission level of, for example, 

0.5x's the compliance test average emissions adjusted by the UVF. 

This corresponds to the use of the following equations for the determination of the 

projected feed rate, based on the compliance test feed rate (FRc t) and emissions levels (ERhr), the 

universal variability factor (ERunvf), and the desired stack gas emissions level (ERijr a jt): 

Upward Extrapolation: 

For projecting to desired emissions levels (ERii mjt) between the compliance test highest run 

(ERhr)

 and 2x's the emissions limit based on the universal variability factor (ERunv f) (i.e., 

ERhr < ERiimjt , 2 x ERunv f ): 

F R c t 

(4) FRp r o j = 2ERunvf _ ERh r

 x [ ER limit - 2 ER h r + 2 ER unvf] 

where ER^ : Emissions rate of highest individual run of the compliance test 

condition 

For projecting to desired emissions levels (ERi; mit) greater than 2x's the emissions limit 

based on the universal variability factor (ERunv f): 

use Equation (2) 

Downward Extrapolation: 

For projecting to desired emissions levels (ERiimit) between the compliance test highest run 

(ERhr) and 0.5x's the emissions limit based on the universal variability factor (ERunv f) 

(i.e., 0.5 x ER unv f < ERiimit < ERh r ): 

F R c t 

(

5

)

 FR pro j = 2ER h r -ER uny f X [ ER limit " ER unv f + ER h r] 

For projecting to desired emissions levels (ERii m it) less than 0.5x's the emissions limit 

based on the universal variability factor (ERunv f): 

use Equation (2) 

Note the additional following considerations when extrapolating metals feed rates and 

emissions levels upward and downward: 

12 
If an individual compliance test run is higher than the limit based on the condition average 

plus the UVF, then the highest run is used for the projection. 

Extrapolation (upward or downward) from detection limit stack gas measurements is 

conservative and appears to be appropriate, as shown in Figure 31. 

• As per current practice when determining metals feed rates used during trial bums and BIF 

certifications, non-detects in feed streams (metals measurements at the detection limit) are 

treated as zero. Thus facilities which have non-detect measurements in all feed streams 

would continue to be required to spike metals in order to set meaningful non-zero metal 

feed rate limits. 

• The use of the universal variability factor procedure penalizes facilities with compliance test 

with low data spread. The procedure does not consider the variability of the actual 

emissions data to determine the upper limit. As mentioned above, an alternative, less 

conservative procedure might be considered which would be based on the projection from a 

statistically determined limit based on the actual individual compliance test data (such as the 

condition average of the stack gas emissions measurements plus the standard deviation of 

the runs multiplied by a confidence t-factor, which would be evaluated at the degrees of 

freedom ofthe number of runs and at some confidence level). 

Projection from compliance test feed rates based on metals spiking and/or homogeneous 

metals waste analysis (such as those from liquids) should be encouraged. Feed rates from 

these types of streams are typically much more accurate than those from waste analysis 

measurements from difficult streams such as heterogeneous solid waste and raw material 

and fuel streams. Projection of spiked and liquid metals feed rate data should generally be 

more accurate. Note that solid waste feed rate measurements will typically systematically 

err conservatively on the low side due to extraction problems and others associated with 

losses during sampling and analytical activities. Laboratory contamination (resulting in 

high side errors) are not typically as important for metals for example compared with 

organics. 

Errors associated with the extrapolation procedure are due to inaccurate compliance test 

data. To help prevent this, it is recommended that the quality assurance and quality control 

associated with the compliance test measurements and operations (such as recoveries, 

accuracy, precision, etc.) be conducted as required and documented and reviewed prior to 

the extrapolation. 

5.0 REFERENCES 

Hinshaw, G., P.S. Murowchick, and R.F. Oranzi, "Parametric Testing of Metals Emissions From 

the Du Pont Experimental Station Hazardous Waste Incinerator," Proceedings of the 1993 

Incineration Conference, pp. 823-829, Knoxville, Tennessee, May 3-7, 1993. 

13 

VES 000276 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), "Technical Implementation Document for 

EPA's Boiler and Industrial Furnace Regulations," EPA 530-R-92-01, U.S. EPA Office of Solid 

Waste and Emergency Response (OS-322), March, 1992. 

14 

VES 000277 
Downward Extrapolation 

Upward Extrapolation 

Actual metals 

3 5 

Metal Feed Rate 

Figure 1. Basis for Boiler and Industrial Furnace Guidance on extrapolation. 

15 

VES 000278 
Metal Feed Rate 

Regimes: (A) Slope related to capture of volatile metals 

(B) Slope related to capture of condensed fine fume P M 

(C) Slope related to capture of entrained larger P M 

Breakpoints: (T) Emissions level related to metal saturated vapor level at APC D temperature 

(5) Emissions break related to metal saturated vapor level at the combustion temperature 

Figure 2. Theoretical relationship between metals emissions and feed rate. 
(?) @ Metal Feed Rate 

Figure 3. Relationship between metals emissions and feed rate for metals groupings. 

VES 000280 
CO 

C 

o ^ "w P .<£. o 

sz co 

V Ti LU 

TO 

"5 

120000 

100000 

80000 

60000 

40000 

20000 

0 

X 

Pb y = 0.1943X - 303.37 Pb 

R = 0.8582 X 

— X X 

600 

500 

co c 

f. E 400 .£2 o 

E - g 300 

c o l 200 

| 100 

0 

60 

80 co c 

o „ 

CO £ 

.22 o 

E « 40 

D) 

iS 3 20 

m 

o 

500 

co , 

o _ 400 \ 

'co f= 

.52 5 300 

E

 w 

UJ % 200 

ro 

"5 100 

0 

100000 200000 300000 400000 

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 

500000 

3000 

X 

Be 

y = 0.0734X + 2.5094 

R

2

 = 0.8957 

- — " X 

y = 0.1626x + 3.6335 

2

 = 0.8989 

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 

1000 

CO 

§_80 0 

co p 

<a §600 

E <" 

^ D>400 

ro , i 

| 200 

0 

X 

Cr y = 0.0755X + 121.67 

X 

R

2

 = 0.6071 

X 

X x x 

1000 2000 3000 4000 

Metal Feed Rate MTE C (u.g/dscm) 

5000 6000 

Figure 4. Metals emissions and feed rate relationships ~ Hearth incinerator with SD/VS/PBS 

(Du Pont Experimental Facility Incinerator, Wilmington, DE; ID No. 700). 

VES 000281 
in 

c 

o „ 

c CO LU 5 

co O) 

03 

2 

CO 

c 

o 

co "P 

co E 

E co 

LU 5 

<a 2> 

ID 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

i 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

A 

A s y = -9E-05x + 15.82 

X 

X 

X R

2

 = 0.0028 

X X x X X 

40 

30 

co 

c 

g 

\ £ 

^ 1 20 

_CO 

1 ^ 1 0 

0 

CO 

c 

g 

co 

co b 

E co 

LU 32 tn 

ro 3 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

350 

300 

.250 

CO 

c 

g 

CO rCO C 

c in 

UI 5150 

cn O 

ro 310 0 

50 

0 

5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 

0 

Ba 

X XX _____X-_—X — 

X 

X 

X 

X 

y = 7E-05x + 24.015 

R

2

 = 0.2222 

20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000 180000 

Cr X 

X 

xx 

X 

y = -9E-06x + 22.212 

X X 

R

2

 = 0.0032 

X X 

50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 

Cd X 

X

 x 

y = 0.0018x + 23.783 

R

2

 = 0.067 

X 

X 

X 

X X 

5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 

Pb 

y = 0.0012X + 1.8288 

X 

Pb 

R

2

 = 0.5481 

X 

X 

X 

X 

50000 100000 150000 200000 

Metal Feed Rate MTE C (ug/dscm) 

Figure 5. Metals emissions and feed rate relationships — Rotary kiln incinerator with 

WHB/VS/PT/HS (ENSCO, Bridgeport, NJ; ID No. 807). 

19 

250000 

V E S 000282 
8000 

200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 

5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 

600 

CO 

§ 500 

jg 1400 

i § | 300 

I 2200 -I 

cu 

2 

(0 

c 

g 

CO " p 

co h 

E co 

LU 32 

_co 

_CO 3 

"cu 

100 

0 

0 

2000 

1500 

1000 

500 

0 

50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 450000 

Cd 

X 

X 

X 

0 

25000 

20000 

15000 

5000 10000 15000 20000 

io 

c 

o 

'55 "P 

co c 

E co 

MI xi 

„ TO 10000 

IB ^ 

CU 5000 

0 

Pb X 

X 

X 

50000 100000 150000 200000 

Metal Feed Rate MTEC (ug/dscm) 

250000 

Figure 6. Metals emissions and feed rate relationships 

(Tennessee Eastman, Kingsport, TN; ID No. 809). 

• Rotary kiln incinerator with VS 

20 

VES 000283 
50 

S 40 

g 

"co "P 

•I 5 30 

E CO 

UJ " O 

jo g)20 

CD 3 

1 10 

80 

co 70 

g 60 

1 E 50 

E 

Ba X X 

X X X 

X 

£ | 40 

<a 2> 30 

f ~2 0 

5

 10 

0 

100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 

X 

X 

Cr 

X 

X X X 

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 

CO 

c 

g 

"to " p 

co b 

E co 

LU T3 

JO O ) 

TO 3 

0) 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

Pb 

X 

X 

X X 

X X 

50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 

CO 

c 

g 

"co P* 

co t 

E co 

LU 3£ 

JO O ) 

ca 3 

CD 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 -| 

200 

100 

0 

X A 

Cd 

X 

X 

X 

X 

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 

Metal Feed Rate MTEC (u,g/dscm) 

Figure 7. Metals emissions and feed rate relationship ~ Rotary kiln incinerator with IWS 

(Rollins, Baton Rouge, LA; ID No. 214) 

21 

VES 000284 
35 

CO 30 

I S 20 

|^1 0 

5

 5 

0 

X X 

Sb 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

0 

1.2 

I

 1 

I f °' 8 

LU I 0.6 -j 

2 0.4 _co 

ro 

"55 0.2 

0 

50000 100000 150000 200000 

As 

X 

X 

X x >k X X 

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 

CO 

c 

o 

"co P" 

co E 

E co 

LU 32 

<£ !? 

ro 3 

CD 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Ba X * 

X 

X X X

 x 

100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 

10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 

Metal Feed Rate MTEC (ug/dscm) 

70000 80000 

Figure 8a. Metals emissions and feed rate relationship ~ Liquid injection incinerator 

with WHB/FF/VQ/PT (Laidlaw, Roebuck, SC; ID No. 209). 

22 

VES 000285 
o to 

TJ 

co 

c 

E 

LU 

JO 

CO -t-» 

CD 

2 

18 

?16 

o 

«14 

Il2 

£ 1 0 

g 

" »

 8 

LU 6 

- 4 iS 

as o 

2

 2 

3 -t 

2.5 X 

X 

x

x 

2 

1.5 Cd 

X 

X 

X 

X 

1 

0.5 

0 - i 

20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 

X Pb 

X X 

X 

X X X 

X 

20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000 

30 

I 25 

co 

p 

co 

0 15 

co 

CO 

LU 

JO 

CO 

"8 

10 

5 

0 

Tl x 

x 

X 

X 

X X 

X x 

; : 1 

5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 

Metal Fee d Rate MTE C (ug/dscm) 

Figure 8b. Metals emissions and feed rate relationship - Liquid injection incinerator 

with WHB/FF/VQ/PT (Laidlaw, Roebuck, SC; ID No. 209). 

23 

V E S 000286 
40 

CO 

1-P 30 

£5 t 

LUI 20 

jo g> 

3 — 10 

cu 

2

 0 

0 

1200 

1000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

1000 

800 

As 

X 

X 

X 

X X 

X X 

200 400 600 800 1000 

tn 

o 

co P~ 

CO t 

E CO 

LU 5 

jo 

J2 3 

ti) 

X 

Ba 

X 

X 

X 

50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 

CO 

c 

o 

CO 

co 

^ o) 400 

CO 3 

a 200 

0 

Cr 

X 

M 

X X x 

X 

5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 

14000 

2 12000 

§ -P i 0000 

co b 

E co 8000 

^ 1, 6000 

S * 4000 

I 2000 Jj 

0 

50000 100000 150000 200000 

Metal Feed Rate MTEC (ug/dscm) 

250000 300000 

Figure 9. Metals emissions and feed rate relationships • 

WS/ESP/PT (3M, Cottage Grove, MN ; ID No. 334). 

Rotary kiln incinerator with 

24 

VES 000287 
CO

 80 0 

I f ? 600 

co c. 

L U |40 0 

jo 5> 

B

 3 200 

CD 

5

 0 

CO 

c 

o 

'co P* 

co b 

b co 

LU 32 

jo D) 

iS 3 

Q) 

120 

100 

80 

CO 

c 

g 

I f 

i l l 60 

jo Q> 

TO 

05 

40 

20 

0 

Sb 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000 1400000 

As 

x

 xx 

X 

X 

10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 

X Cr X X 

X X 

X 

0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 

CO 

c 

g 

co 

I °-

200 

150 

i § 5 100 

50 

0 

j2 g> 

ro 3 

Cd V 

X 

X X 

X 

0 

2000 

CO 

o 1500 

co "P 

| 11000 

jo ra 

a

 3 500 

CD 

10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 

100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 

Metal Feed Rate MTEC (Lig/dscm) 

60000 

Pb X 

X 

* 

X 

600000 700000 

Figure 10. Metals emissions and feed rate relationships — Liquid injection incinerator with 

VS/PBS (Tennessee Eastman, Kingsport, TN; ID No. 810). 

25 

VES 000288 
.2 o 

co <2 

O) 

LU - 3 

2 E 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

400 

£ -=300 

! o g 

I ^ I 200 

iS 3 100 

Cd X 

X X x x xM X X 

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 

5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 

5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 

co 

c 

g 

'co "P 

CO fc 

E co 

LU 32 

JCQ g> 

co 3 

0) 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

Cr X 

x

x 

X 

X 

X 

X * 

X 

X 

X 

X 

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 

200 

03 CO T3 IUU 

5

ll5 0 

0 

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 

Metal Feed Rate MTEC (ug/dscm) 

Figure 11. Metals emissions and feed rate relationship ~ Rotary kiln incinerator with 

SD/FFAVS/IWS (Aptus, Coffeyville, KS; ID No. 325). 

26 

VES 000289 
to 

c 

o "to E 

E to 

LU 32 

JO O ) 

ro 3 

"55 

20 

15 

10 

5 

Ba X 

X 

X 

X x 

X 

10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 

to 

c 

g 

'to • p to c 

'E

 0 

E to 

LU 32 

_to ~§> 

ro 3 

"25 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

X X 

Cr 

X 

X 

x x 

10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 

5000 

60 

to 

c 

g 

'to "P to fc 

'E

 0 

E to 

LU 32 

tn 

ro 3 

15 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 n 

0 

X 

Pb 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X X 

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 

Metal Feed Rate MTE C (ug/dscm) 

Figure 12. Metal emissions and feed rate relationships — Rotary kihi incinerator with 

SD/FF/WSAVESP (Aptus, Aragonite, UT; ID No. 327). 

27 
1400 

1200 

E 1000 

o 

co 

~3) 

— 800 

CO 

c 

g 

CO 

to 

E 

LU 

_co 

ro 

600 

400 

200 

A 

O 

X 

XX 

AA 

xSb 

oBa 

APb 

x 

x 

100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 

Metal Feed Rate MTEC (ug/dscm) 

x 

600000 

Figure 13. Metal emissions and feed rate relationship ~ Rotary kiln incinerator with HE/FF 

(Lake City Army Ammunition Plant, Independence, MO; ID No. 503) 

28 

VES 000291 
IRF Testing 

Rotary kiln VS/PB S system 

Combustion temp: 1500-1800°F 

A synthetic matrix 

O superfund soil 

6 350-

. o 

h -

@ 300-

E 

I 250-

200-

o 

'w 

w 

E 150 

LU 

to 

O 100-

o 

CD 

co 50-

g 

'c 

£2 0-

C ) 

O 

O 

n 

A 

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 

Arseni c Fee d Rate MTE C (ug/dscm @ 7% CL) 

Figure 14. Metals emissions and feed rate relationships (EPA IRF, Arkansas, 

rotary kiln incinerator with VS/PB). 

29 
500 

to 

o 400 

to "P 

•| o 300 

200 + 

a) 100 

0 0 

to 

c 

g 

to ' c~ 

to b 

E to 

ui 32 

w "S) 20 

ro A 

"5 

50 

40 

30 

10 4-

o 

0 

350 

c 300 

•§-p25 0 

to b 

E 8 200 

LU 32 

iS —100 

CD 

2 50 

0 

to 

c 

g 

"co 

to 

2 

1.5 

E 

E CO 

LU 32 1 4 

• Facility 207 (condition 1) 

• Facility 207 (condition 2) 

A Facility 208 (condition 1) 

A Facility 208 (condition 2) 

Cd 

• • 

• 

A A 

10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 

• Facility 207 (condition 1) 

• Facility 207 (condition 2) 

A Facility 208 (condition 1) j 

Cr 

• 

A Facility 208 (condition 2) A 

-

• JLA 

A

 k § " 

5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 

Pb • 

• 

• 

• 

• 

A 

• 

A 5 • 

A A A 

A 

A 

• Facility 207 (condition 1) 

• Facility 207 (condition 2) 

A Facility 208 (condition 1) 

A Facility 208 (condition 2) J 

10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 

Ag 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• Facility 207 (condition 1) 

A Facility 208 (condition 1)j 

10 

co -z> 

3 § i 

iS io « 

cu .co 32 LU 

0 

0 

A 

-

 A A 

Ni • Facility 207 (condition 1)j 

A Facility 208 (condition 1) 

A

 D 

• 

i i 1 i 

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 

Metal Feed Rate MTE C (ug/dscm) 

Figure 15. Metals emissions and feed rate relationships — Cement kilns (Keystone 

Cement, Bath, PA; ID No. 207/208). 

30 

V E S 000293 
co 

c 

g 

to p -

to t 

E to 

ui 3J 

JO o> 

CD 

100 

80 + 

60 

40 

20 

0 

• Facility 205 (1992) 

• Facility 205 (1995) 

O Facility 206 (1992) 

• Facility 206 (1995) 

Sb 

10000 20000 30000 

• i • 

40000 

-CD—CU. 

50000 60000 

CO 

g 

'to "p 

CO t 'E ° E co 

til 3J 

jo g> 

co 3> 

J—' 

CD 

CO 

c 

g 

'to 

co E 

E co 

LU "O 

3 

2.5 

2 

1.5 

1 

0.5 -f 

0 

30 

25 

20 

15 

75 I 1 0 

m 5 

0 

0 

^•Facility 205 (1992) 

| • Facility 205 (1995) j 

\ O Facility 206 (1992) 

• Facility 206 (1995) | 

Be • 

• 

• 

o 

..••JU L 

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 

Cr 

• 

• Facility 205 (1992) Cr 

• Facility 205 (1995) 

O Facility 206 (1992) , 

• Facility 206 (1995) 

• 

20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000 180000 

co 200 

c 

§ -P 150 

co c 

i l l 100 

jo g> 3 — 50 

CD 

s

 0 

0 

CO 

c 

g 

co p 

co fc 

E co 

Lu 32 

jo 

ro 3 

0) 

1400 

1200 

1000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

• Facility 205 (1992) j 

• Facility 205 (1995) 

O Facility 206 (1992) j 

• Facility 206 (1995) 

Cd • 

• 

• 

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 

•

 u 

• Facility 205 (1992) 

• Facility 205 (1995) 

O Facility 206 (1992) 

• Facility 206 (1995) 

Pb 

um • 

40000 80000 120000 160000 

Metal Feed Rate MTEC (ug/dscm) 

Figure 16. Metals emissions and feed rate relationship — Cement kilns (Holnam, Holly Hill, 

SC; I D No. 205/206) 

31 

VES 000294 
12 

o 

cn 

•D 

1 

cn 

c 

g 

"to 

cn 

LU 

iS "S 

2 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 4-

0 

Cr • 

• 

• • 

10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 

o 

co 

33 

^ 5 zi. 

cn 

c 

g 

co 

cn 

"E 

LU 

_co 

s 

cn 

c 

g 

co 

cn b 

E in 

LU 32 

tn <S 

co - 3 

cu 

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 

• 

Cd • 

-

• 

• 

-

• • 

-

! 1 ! 

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 

• 

Pb 

• • 

__J 

• 

j 1 

20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 

Metal Feed Rate MTEC (ug/dscm) 

Figure 17. Metals emissions and feed rate relationships ~ Cement kiln with FF 

(Southdown, Knoxville, TN; ID No. 316). 

32 

VES 000295 
50 

40 

co 

c 

o 

"tn 

I S 30 

LU 33 

tn "BJ 20 

cu 10 

0 

As • Facility 322 A 

-

As 

A Facility 323 

A 

i 

A D 

,

 D 

• 

co 

c 

o "co 

co 

"E 

LU 

tn 

"cu 

1.2 

1 -

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 + 

0 

to 

c 

g 

co •P to E 

E co 

LU 32 

_CO D) 

ro 3 

"cu 

0 

100 

80 

60 ] 

40 

20 

0 

60 

1

 5 0 

1 E 4 0 

£ w 30 

LU T3 

w "§> 20 

ro 3 

3 10 

0 

0 

1400 

1200 co 

c 

•55 -P1000 

co fc 

E co 

LU 33 

tn g> 

ro 3 

cu 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 

• Facility 322 

A Facility 323 • 

Be A A 

• • • 

1000 2000 3000 4000 

• Facility 322 

A Facility 323 

Cd 

5000 

A -

6000 

• • 

A 

A 

• 

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 

• Facility 322 ! 

Cr A 

j A Facility 323 \ 

A 

A 

1

 1 1 1 1 

20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000 180000 

- Facility 322 Pb A 

A Facility 323 

A 

-

A 

i 

• • • 

0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000 180000 200000 

Metals Feed Rate MTEC (ug/dscm) 

Figure 18. Metals emissions and feed rate relationship for individual metals and facilities 

with multiple conditions — Cement kilns (Lafarge, Fredonia, KS; ID No. 322/323). 

33 

VES 000296 
co 

c 

o 

in 'P tn fc 

'E ° E to 

LU 32 

jo CJ> 

CD 3 

CU 

3.0 

2.5 -

2.0 

1.5 -

1.0 

0.5 

0.0 

As o -o-

• 

• 

• 

o 

• Condition 1 

O Condition 3 

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 

40 

35 

30 

83 E 25 "E

 0 

E co 

co 

c 

o 

LU 3J 20 

3 % 1 5 

I 10 

5 

0 

• 

D 

Cr 

[•Condition 1 

iO Condition 3 

5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 

CO 

c 

g 

'co "P 

co h 

'E

 0 

E co 

LU 32 

jo ^> 

CD 3 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

-

• Condition 1 

O Condition 3 

Cd 0 

—m~ 1 — i 0—[ 

0 

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 

40 

35 

co 

§ 30 

"8 ?2 5 

'E

 0 

£-§2 0 

3S1 5 

I 10 

5 

0 

• Condition 1 

OCondition 3 

Pb o 

o 

• • • 

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 

Metals Feed Rate MTEC (|i,g/dscm) 

Figure 19. Metals emissions and feed rate relationship for individual metals and facilities 

with multiple conditions — Cement kiln (Lone Star Industries, Inc., MO; ID No. 303). 

34 

VES 000297 
250 

200 

E 

o 

CO 

5 150 

O) ri. 

100 4-

50 

Cd 

• Facility 401 (condition 1) 

• Facility 401 (condition 5) 

A Facility 402 (condition 1) 

A Facility 402 (condition 4) 

A 

• 

A 

• 

1 A 

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 

Metals Feed Rate MTE C (ug/dscm) 

7000 8000 9000 

Figure 20. Metals emissions and feed rate relationship for individual metals and facilities 

with multiple conditions — Cement kilns (Ash Grove Cement Company, Chanute, KS; ID No. 

401/402) 

35 
800 

• 

-

Cr 

-

• 

-

• • 

• • 

i 1 —\ 

20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 

500 

450 

400 

g 350 

CD 

3 300 

tn 

.2 250 tn tn 

LU 200 

tn 

I 150 

100 

50 

0 

U 

-

Ni 

-

• • 

ft • 

-

D

 • • • D 

j 1 • 

r — h 

•—TJQ 

20000 40000 60000 80000 

Metal Feed Rate MTEC (u,g/dscm) 

100000 120000 

Figure 21. Metals emissions and feed rate relationships - Light weight aggregate kiln with 

FF/VS (Norlite, Cohoes, NY; ID No. 307) 

36 
As: LWAK (Solite, FL; 227) 

to 

c 

g 

tn "P tn E 

E to 

LU 32 

_to g> 

co 3 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

-

• 

-

• 

• 

25 

1

 2 0 

to P" 

•g I 15 

E to 

LU 32 

m "§> 10 

JS 3 

2 K 

25 

S 20 

to P -

| § 15 E to 

LU TJ 

jn g 10 

co 3= 

£ 5 

20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 

Pb: CK (National Cement Plant, Lebec, CA; 306) 

- •

D 

-

a

 • 

• • 

I ] 

20000 40000 60000 80000 

Cr: Boiler (Merichem Company, TX; 724) 

100000 

• • 

• 

IIII I 

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 

Cr: Incinerator (Pennwalt Corp., NJ; 824) 

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 

Metals Feed Rate MTEC (|i.g/dscm) 

Figure 22a. Selected metals emissions and feed rate relationships. 

37 

4500 

VES 000300 
Cd: LWAK (Solite, NC; 227) 

-

• 

- • 

• 

I 1 

50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 

Cd: CK (National Cement Plant, Lebec, CA;306) 

- • 

• 

• • 

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

Hg: LWAK (Solite, NC; 224) 

3500 4000 4500 

u 

• • 

5 10 15 20 25 

Hg: LWAK (Solite, KY; 310) 

30 35 

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 

Metals Feed Rate MTEC (ug/dscm) 

Figure 22b. Selected metals emissions and feed rate relationships. 

16 

38 

VES 000301 
20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 

10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 

20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000 180000 

CO 

£= 

g 'co "P 

co t 

E co 

UJ 32 

SU ro 

ro 3 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

Southdown, OH (315) 

^0-

OAs 

XBe 

OCr 

50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 

Metals Feed Rate MTEC (iig/dscm) 

Figure 23 a. Metals emissions and feed rate relationship for low volatile metals 

groupings for individual facilities (cement kilns). 

39 

VES 000302 
12 

10 

CO 

c 

g 

CO ' P 

co t 

E co 

UJ J3 <Q S1 

co 3 

0 i t 

60 

50 

co 

g 40 

CO "P 

co t E to UJ 32 30 

<n g> 

ro 3 

o 20 

10 

0 

Southdown, TN (316) A 

4i 

A 

A A 

XBe 

A O 

10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 

0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000 180000 

50 

45 

40 

£ 35 

1 E 30 

E to oc LU T3 £0 

w g> 

co 3 

CD 

2 15 

20 4 

10 

5 

0 WrAsh Grove Cement Company, KS (401/402) 

o 

o 

ro • 

oo 

5000 10000 15000 20000 

Metals Feed Rate MTEC (u.g/dscm) 

• Sb 

OAs 

ABa 

XBe 

oCr 

25000 

Figure 23b. Metals emissions and feed rate relationships for low volatile metals 

groupings from individual facilities (cement kilns). 

40 

VES 000303 
co 

c 

o 

to "P 

CO t 

E co 

UJ 32 

w g> 

ro 3 

"5 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 X 

• • 

A 

A 

A A A 

• 

Laidlaw Environ., SC (209) 

• • • 

• Sb 

OAs i 

ABa \ 

XBe | 

ACr 

100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 

CO 

c 

g 

CO P" 

co c 

E co 

UJ 32 

jo g) 

ro -3 

-t—' 

cu 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Rollins Environ., LA (214) 

A 

ABa 

ACr 

• 

A 

A^ A 

100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 

10 

co 8 

g 

to P~ „ 

• | I 6 

E co 

UJ 32 

jo g> 4 

ro 3 

Occidental Chem. Corp., NY (348) 

600000 700000 

" o 

OAs 

:ACr 

C Ni 

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 

to 

c 

g 'co 

140 

120 

100 

E o 80 E co 

m a 60 

ro — 

cu 40 

20 

0 R 

Tennessee Eastman Co., TN (716) 

ABa 

XBe 

ACr | 

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 

Metals Feed Rate MTE C (u.g/dscm) 

Figure 24. Metals emissions and feed rate relationship for low volatile metals 

groupings for individual facilities (incinerators and boilers). 

10000 

41 

VES 000304 
80 

70 4-

<o

 6 0 

c 

o 

'co c 

CO t 

•= o 

E

 45 40 

LU 32 

_co g> 

iS — 30 

cu 

50 

20 

10 

0 

Cement Kilns - Holnam Inc., MO (204) 

A 

A 

A 

• Sb 

OAs 

ABa 

XBe 

ACr 

A A_ 

0 

35 -

30 

co 25 

c 

•I § 20 

E co 

LU 32 

10 

5 

0 X -

90 

80 

70 

1 60 

co 

•2 5 50 

E CO 

LU 32 

u, gi 40 

co 3 

| 30 -| 

20 

10 i 

0 

20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000 

A 

Cement Kiln -- National Cement Plant, CA (306) 

A 

A 

A A 

• Sb 

OAs 

ABa 

XBe 

A Cr 

O 

o o o 

100000 200000 

A 

300000 400000 500000 600000 

Incinerator - Pennwalt Corporation, NJ (824) 

O O 

o 

o OAs | 

ABa 

A Cr j 

ONi | 

2000 4000 6000 8000 

Metals Feed Rate MTEC (Ltg/dscm) 

10000 12000 

Figure 25. Metals emissions and feed rate relationship for low volatile metals groupings for 

individual facilities. 

42 

VES 000305 
0.00001 

10 100 1000 10000 100000 

Cr Feed Rate MTE C (|ig/dscm) 

1000000 

1000 H 

co 

T3 

CO 

c 

g 

CO 

CO E 

LU 

1_ 

O 

100 

10 100 1000 10000 100000 

Cr Feed Rate MTE C (|ig/dscm) 

1000000 

Figure 26. Chromium feed rate and emissions relationship for all hazardous waste burning 

combustors. 

43 

VES 000306 
0.00001 

10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 

Pb Feed Rate MTE C (|xg/dscm) 

100000 

— 10000 

E 

o 

CO 

T 3 

1? 1000 

CO 

c 

g 

co 

co 

UJ 

_Q 

CL 

100 

10 

O Boilers 

—| • Cement Kilr 

i \ A LWAKs 

X Incinerators 

is 

x 

v X 

O Boilers 

—| • Cement Kilr 

i \ A LWAKs 

X Incinerators 

is 

xx 

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)Wl £A 

• • x ^< 

TM A 

n 

: O 

X X 

X 

v x • ^ 

O

X

 X 

10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 

Pb Feed Rate MTE C ((xg/dscm) 

Figure 27. Lead feed rate and emissions relationship for all hazardous waste burning 

combustors. 

44 

VES 000307 
Metal Feed Rate 

Figure 28. Options for the trial burn metals extrapolation procedure. 
CD 

C D 

CD 

1_ 

CD 

> 

< 

i 

2 

1.5 

1 

0.5 

Semi Volatile Metals Residuals 

x o 

CO

 u 

o 

--0.5 

CD 2 -1 

CO 

CD 

^-1. 5 

-1 1 2 3 

Average (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 i cPn Q 

o 

2.5 

CD o J3 ^ 

CD 

> 

CD 

= 1.5 

o 

co 

_Q 

§ 1 

CD 

•g 

"co 

£0.5 

Probability Plot for Semi Volatile Metals Residuals 

20 40 60 

Sample Percentile 

80 

Figure 29. Residual analysis for semi volatile metals. 

46 

o 

© 

8 

erz^sis&it -— 

100 

VES 000309 
0.5 * FR t r b r n Trial burn feed rate

 2 * FR trbr n 

(FRtrbrn) 

Metal Feed Rate 

Figure 30. Modified hybrid trial burn metals extrapolation procedure. 

VES 000310 
0 0 

Downward Trial burn Upward 

extrapolated feed feed rate extrapolated 

rates feed rates 

Metal Feed Rate 

Figure 31. Illustration of the conservative impact of extrapolation off of stack gas detection limit trial burn measurement. 

VES 000311 
TABLE 1. METALS RESIDUAL ANALYSIS 

Metal Group/Species Residual (loglO) 

(95th percentile) 

Low Volatile Metals 0.53 

Sb 0.38 

As 0.43 

Ba 0.55 

Be 0.44 

Cr 0.63 

Ni 0.58 

Ag 0.50 

Semi Volatile Metals 0.49 

Cd 0.56 

Pb 0.48 

Tl 0.27 

High Volatile Metals 0.70 

Hg 0.71 

Se 0.62 

A ll Metals Together 0.54 

49 
VES 000313.pdf 
Friday 

May 2, 1997 

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 60, et al. 

Revised Technical Standards for 

Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities; 

Proposed Rule 

24211 

VES 000313 
24212 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 60, 63, 260, 261, 264, 265, 

266, 270, and 271 

[FRL-5818-9] 

Revised Technical Standards for 

Hazardous Waste Combustion 

Facilities 

AGENCY: Environmenta l Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notic e of data availability and 

request for comments. 

under separate cover to: RCR A CBI 

Document Control Officer, Offic e of 

Soli d Waste (5305W), U.S . EPA , 401 M 

Street, SW., Washington, D C 20460. 

Publi c comments and supporting 

materials are available for viewin g i n 

the RCR A Information Center (RIC), 

located at Crystal Gateway One, 1235 

Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor, 

Arlington, Virginia . The RIC is open 

from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monda y through 

Friday, except for Federal holidays. To 

review docket materials, the publi c 

must make an appointment by calling 

703-603-9230. The publi c may copy a 

maximum of 100 pages from any 

regulatory docket at no charge. 

Additiona l copies cost SO. 15 per page. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general information, contact the RCR A 

Hotline at 1-800-424-9346 or TD D 1-

800-553-7672 (hearing impaired). In 

the Washington metropolitan area, call 

703-412-9810 or TD D 703-412-3323. 

The RCR A Hotline is open Monday -

Friday, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., Eastern 

Standard Time . The RCR A Hotline can 

also provide directions o n how to access 

electronically some of the documents 

and data referred to i n this notice vi a 

EPA's Cleanup Information Bulleti n 

Board System (CLU-IN). The CLU-I N 

modem access phone number is 301 -

589-8366, or Telnet to clu-in.epa.gov for 

Internet access. The files posted on 

CLU-I N are i n Portable Document 

Format (PDF) and can be viewe d and 

printed using Acrobat Reader. 

F o r more detailed information on 

specific aspects of this notice, contact 

Larry Denyer, Offic e of Soli d Waste 

(5302W), U.S . Environmenta l Protection 

Agency, 401 M Street, SW. , Washington, 

D C 20460, 703-308-8770, e-mail 

address: denyer.larry@epamail.epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Th e Agenc y specifically solicits 

comment o n the followin g documents: 

(1) Draft Technica l Support Document 

for HW C MAC T Standards (NODA), 

Volume I: MAC T Evaluations Based on 

Revised Database, Apri l 1997. 

(2) Draft Technica l Support Document 

for HW C MAC T Standards (NODA), 

Volume II: Evaluation of CO/H C and 

D R E Database, Apri l 1997. 

(3) Draft Technica l Support Document 

for HW C MAC T Standards (NODA), 

Volume III: Evaluation of Metals 

Emissions Database to Investigate 

Extrapolation and Interpolation Issues, 

Apri l 1997. 

In preparing this notice, the Agency 

considered comments o n the proposed 

rule, includin g those listed below. EP A 

is soliciting responsive comments 

regarding certain data and information 

presented i n these comments: 

(1) Cement Kil n Recycling Coalition 

(2) Chemica l Manufacturers 

Association 

(3) Coalition for Responsible Waste 

Incineration 

(4) Do n Clay Associates 

(5) The Dow Chemica l Company 

(6) Environmenta l Technology 

Counci l 

(7) Holnam Inc. 

(8) Lafarge Corporation 

(9) Molten Meta l Technology, Inc. 

(10) The Natural Resources Defense 

Council, Inc. 

(11) Rollins Environmenta l Services, 

Inc. 

(12) Safety-Kleen Corp. 

(13) Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commissio n 

(14) vonRoll/WTI 

Readers shoul d note that only 

comments about new information 

discussed i n this notice wil l be 

considered by the Agency. Issues related 

solely to the Apri l 19, 1996 proposed 

rule and other subsequent notices that 

are not directly affected by the 

documents or data referenced i n today's 

Notice of Data Availabilit y are not open 

for further comment. 

Glossary of Acronyms 

acfm—Actua l Cubi c Feet per Minut e 

ACI—Activate d Carbon Injection 

APCD—Ai r Pollutio n Control Device 

BIF—Boile r and Industrial Furnace 

BTF—Beyond-the-Floor 

CAA—Clea n Ai r Ac t 

CEMS—Continuou s Emissions 

Monitorin g System 

D/F—Dioxins/Furans 

ESP—Electrostatic Precipitator 

gr/dscf—Grains per Dry Standard Cubi c 

Foot 

HAP—Hazardou s Ai r Pollutant 

HC—Hydrocarbons 

HWC/HWI—Hazardou s Waste 

Combustor/Incinerator 

IWS—Ionizing Wet Scrubber 

LVM—Low-volatil e Metals 

LWAK—Lightweigh t Aggregate Kil n 

MACT—Maximu m Achievabl e Control 

Technology 

MTEC—Maximu m Theoretical Emission 

Concentration 

NESHAPs—Nationa l Emission 

Standards for HAP s 

NODA—Notic e of Data Availabilit y 

NPRM—Notic e of Proposed Rulemaking 

NSPS—Ne w Source Performance 

Standards 

PM—Particulate Matter 

RCRA—Resourc e Conservation and 

Recovery Ac t 

SRE—System Remova l Efficiency 

SVM—Semi-volatil e Metals 

TEQ—Toxi c Equivalent 

Ug/dscm—Micrograms per Dry Standard 

Cubi c Meter 

SUMMARY: This document is a notice of 

availability and invitation for comment 

o n the followin g information pertaining 

to the proposed revised standards for 

hazardous waste combustors (61 FR 

17358 (Apri l 19, 1996)). Report o n the 

status of setting national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(NESHAPS) based o n the revised 

emissions database; Report on the 

selection of pollutants and source 

categories, includin g area and major 

sources; report o n the status of various 

implementation issues, includin g 

compliance dates, compliance 

requirements, performance testing, and 

notification and reporting requirements; 

and report on the status of permit 

requirements, includin g waste 

minimizatio n incentives. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted by June 2, 1997. 

ADDRESSES: Commenters must send an 

original and two copies of their 

comments referencing docket number 

F-97-CS4A-FFFF F to: RCR A Docket 

Information Center, Offic e of Soli d 

Waste (5305G), U.S. Environmenta l 

Protection Agency Headquarters (EPA, 

HQ), 401 M Street, SW., Washington, 

D C 20460. Deliveries of comments 

shoul d be made to the Arlington, 

Virgini a address listed below. 

Comments may also be submitted 

electronically through the Internet to: 

rcra-docket@epamail.epa.gov. 

Comments i n electronic format should 

also be identified by the docket number 

F-97-CS4A-FFFFF . Al l electronic 

comments must be submitted as an 

ASCII fil e avoiding the use of special 

characters and any form of encryption. 

F o r other information regarding 

submitting comments electronically or 

viewin g the comments received or 

supporting information, please refer to 

the proposed rule (61 FR 17358 (Apri l 

19, 1996)). 

Commenters should not submit 

electronically any confidential business 

information (CBI). A n original and two 

copies of the CBI must be submitted 

VES 000314 
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 24213 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Part One: Background and Overview of 

Today's Notice 

I. Background 

II. Overview of Today's Notice 

Part Two: Standards For Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAPs) 

I. Regulation of Area Sources 

A. Approach to Regulate Area Sources, as 

Proposed 

B. Positive Area Source Finding for HWCs 

C. Title V Permitting Requirements for 

Area Sources 

II. Revisions to Proposed Standards Using the 

Revised Emissions Database and Data 

Analysis Methods 

A. Notice of Data Availability on the 

Revised Emissions Database 

B. PM as a Surrogate for Non-Hg Metals 

C. Options for Controlling Emissions of 

Organic HAPs 

D. Accounting for Emissions Variability in 

Establishing Emission Standards 

E. Re-Evaluation of Proposed MACT 

Standards for Incinerators 

F. Re-Evaluation of Proposed MACT 

Standards for Cement Kilns 

G. Re-Evaluation of Proposed MACT 

Standards for Lightweight Aggregate 

Kilns 

Part Three: Implementation 

I. Compliance Date Considerations 

A. Definition of Compliance Date 

B. Pre-Certification of Compliance 

C. Consequences of Non-compliance 

II. Compliance Requirements 

A. Compliance with CO and/or HC 

Emission Standards 

B. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

Plans 

C. Metals Extrapolation and Interpolation 

Considerations 

D. Consideration of Site-Specific Variances 

for Cement Kilns and LWAKs 

E. Emissions Averaging for Cement Kilns 

III. DRE Testing Considerations 

A. Options for Ensuring Compliance with 

a DRE Standard 

B. DRE As a MACT Versus RCRA Standard 

IV. Notification and Reporting Requirement 

Considerations 

A. Public and Regulatory Notification of 

Intent to Comply 

B. Data Compression Allowances 

V. Waste Minimization and Pollution 

Prevention 

A. Overview 

B. EPA Proposed Flexible Waste 

Minimization Incentives 

C. Comments Received 

D. Comments Requested on Additional 

Waste Minimization Incentives 

VI. Permit Requirements 

A. Coordination of RCRA and CAA 

Permitting Processes 

B. Permit Process Issues 

C. Omnibus and RCRA/CAA Testing 

Coordination 

Part Four: Miscellaneous Issues 

I. 5000 Btu per Pound Policy for Kiln 

Products 

II. Foundry Sand Thermal Reclamation Units 

A. Background 

B. Deferral and Variance Options for 

Consideration 

III. Status of Gaseous Fuels Generated from 

Hazardous Waste Management Activities 

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Part One: Background and Overview of 

Today's Notice 

I. Background 

O n Apri l 19, 1996, EP A proposed 

revised standards for three source 

categories of hazardous waste 

combustors (i.e., hazardous waste 

incinerators and hazardous wasteburning cement kilns and lightweight 

aggregate kilns (LWAKs)), 61 FR 17358. 

Afte r an extension, the comment period 

closed o n August 19, 1996. 

The Agenc y subsequently published 

two Notices of Data Availabilit y 

(NODA). The first NODA , published on 

August 23, 1996 (61 FR 43501) invited 

comment o n information pertaining to a 

peer review of three aspects of the 

proposed rule, additional analyses of 

fue l oils that woul d be used to establish 

a comparable fuels exclusion, and 

information on a synthesis gas process. 

The comment period on that NOD A 

closed on September 23, 1996. The 

second NODA , published o n January 7, 

1997 (62 FR 960) provided notice and 

opportunity to comment o n an updated 

hazardous waste combustor database 

containing the emissions and ancillary 

data that the Agency plans to use to 

develop the fina l rule. The comment 

period on that NOD A closed on 

February 6, 1997. 

EPA's proposal to revise standards for 

hazardous waste incinerators and 

hazardous waste-burning cement kilns 

and LWAK s is under joint authority of 

the Clean Ai r Act, as amended, (CAA) 

and the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act, as amended (RCRA). The 

proposed emission standards were 

developed under the CA A provisions 

concerning the maximum level of 

achievable control over hazardous air 

pollutants (HAPs), taking into 

consideration the cost of achieving the 

emission reduction, any non-air quality 

health and environmental impacts, and 

energy requirements. These Maximu m 

Achievabl e Control Technology (MACT) 

standards, also re ferred to as Nationa l 

Emissio n Standards for Hazardous Ai r 

Pollutants (NESHAPs), were proposed 

for the followin g HAPs: dioxins/furans 

(D/F), mercury, two semi-volatile metals 

(lead and cadmium), four low volatility 

metals (antimony, arsenic, beryllium, 

and chromium), particulate matter, and 

hydrochlori c acid/chlorine gas. Other 

toxi c organic emissions were addressed 

by standards for carbon monoxide (CO) 

and hydrocarbons (HC). 

Because of the joint authorities for 

this rule, the proposal also contained an 

implementation scheme to harmonize 

the RCR A and CA A programs to the 

maximum extent permissible by law. In 

pursuing a common-sense approach 

towards this objective, the proposal 

sought to establish a framework that: (1) 

Provides for combined (or at least 

coordinated) CA A and RCR A permitting 

of these facilities; (2) allows maximum 

flexibility for regional, state, and local 

agencies to determine whic h of their 

resources wil l be used for permitting, 

compliance, an d enforcement efforts; 

and (3) integrates the monitoring, 

compliance testing, and record keeping 

requirements of the CA A and RCR A so 

that facilities wil l be able to avoid two 

potentially different regulatory 

compliance schemes. 

//. Overview of Today's Notice 

The Agency received a large number 

of publi c comments i n response to the 

proposal. The Agenc y evaluated the 

publi c comments received and their 

applicability to the proposed rule. In 

those instances where comments 

provided new information or new 

insights, the Agenc y has reevaluated 

certain aspects of the proposal based o n 

this new information. The Agency is 

issuing this NOD A i n an effort to inform 

the publi c of: (1) Significant changes the 

Agency is considering on aspects of the 

proposal based o n publi c comments and 

new information; and (2) the Agency's 

o wn reevaluation (and to some degree 

narrowing) of MAC T standard-setting 

approaches based on new data and (at 

least i n part) on publi c comments. 

Part Two: Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAPs) 

I. Regulation of Area Sources 

In this section, we solicit comment on 

making a positive area source findin g to 

subject hazardous waste combustor area 

sources to the same MAC T standards 

that woul d apply to major sources and 

on whether, under such a finding, area 

sources should be subject to Title V 

permit requirements. 

A . Approac h To Regulate Are a Sources, 

as Proposed 

A major source is a source that has the 

potential to emit (considering controls) 

either 10 tons per year of any hazardous 

air pollutant or 25 tons of any 

combination of HAPs. Are a sources are 

any sources whic h are not major 

sources. 

Th e Agency proposed to subject area 

sources to MAC T standards under 

authority of CA A section 112(c)(6). See 

61 FR at 17365. That section requires 

VES 000315 
24214 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 

the Agency to subject to MAC T 

standards

 1 all sources i n source 

categories that account for not less than 

90 percent of the aggregate emissions of 

each enumerated pollutant. 2 The 

enumerated pollutants emitted by 

hazardous waste combustors (HWCs) 

include mercury (Hg), D/F , and other 

polycycli c organic HAPs. The Agency 

explained at proposal that HWCs were 

significant emitters of D/ F and Hg, and 

that muc h of the human health risk from 

emissions of HAP s from HWC s comes 

from these high priority HAPs, and 

D / F i n particular. 

We received many comments 

pertaining to this part of the proposal, 

and we wil l address those comments i n 

the fina l rule. Th e area source issue is 

discussed i n today's notice because 

commenters said that another, more 

appropriate reading of section 112(c)(6) 

is that this authority could be used to 

appl y MAC T control to area sources 

only for the enumerated HAPs, not the 

ful l array of HAP s that the Agency 

proposed to regulate (e.g., particulate 

matter (PM), semivolatile metals (SVM), 

l o w volatile metals (LVM)). 

Nonetheless, were EP A to adopt this 

reading, the Agency continues to believe 

that area sources need to be regulated 

for this ful l array of HAPs. 

In light of issues commenters raised, 

we solicit comment on an alternative 

approach that woul d subject area 

sources to all of the MAC T standards for 

major sources based on the Agency 

makin g a positive area source finding. 

B. Positive Are a Source Findin g For 

HWC s 

Are a sources must be regulated by 

technology-based standards 3 if the area 

source category is listed pursuant to 

section 112(c)(3) based o n the Agency's 

findin g that these sources (individually 

or i n the aggregate) present a threat of 

adverse effects to human health or the 

environment. Suc h a findin g is termed 

a positive area source finding. The 

Agenc y is today soliciting comment o n 

whether a positive area source findin g is 

appropriate for hazardous waste 

1

 For area sources, section 112(c)(6) requires the 

Agency to establish either MAC T standards under 

section 112(d)(2), or generally available control 

technology (GACT) standards under section 

112(d)(5). Given the similarities between major and 

area source HWCs as discussed in subsequent 

sections of the text, area sources should be subject 

to MACT . 

^Section 112(c)(6) enumerates the following highpriority hazardous pollutants for special regulation: 

alkylated lead compounds, polycyclic organic 

matter, hexachlorobenzene, mercury, 

polychlorinated biphenyls, and 2,3,7,8-

tetrachlorodibenzofurans and p-dioxin. 

3

 That is, MAC T standards under section 

112(d)(2) or GAC T standards under section 

112(d)(5). 

incinerators and hazardous waste 

burning cement kilns and lightweight 

aggregate kilns. 

A positive area source findin g woul d 

be based o n the risk assessment 

performed for the proposed rule and 

ultimately the fina l rule. Even though 

the sources modeled i n support of the 

proposed rule may have met the 

definition of a major source, EP A 

believes their HA P emissions, other 

than HCI, are also representative of area 

source emissions. This is because, as 

discussed below, these example sources 

may be able to reduce their HCI 

emissions to become area sources 

without reducing emissions of D/F , Hg, 

or other metal HAP s that could pose 

significant health risk. 4 

Man y comments were submitted o n 

the risk assessment methodology used 

to support the proposed rule. We are 

considering these comments i n 

development of the fina l rule and are 

making appropriate changes to the risk 

methodology, includin g modeling 

additional facilities, These changes 

coul d affect the Agency's findings for 

both major and area sources. The 

Agenc y is not today reopening the 

comment period on the risk assessment. 

1. Risks that coul d be posed by area 

source incinerators. We showed at 

proposal that baseline emissions from 

incinerators coul d pose high end 

individua l lifetime cancer risks from D / 

F up to 9E-5 . See 61 FR at 17389. In 

addition, although the risk from lo w 

volatile metals (i.e.. As, Be, Cr, and Sb) 

was not estimated to exceed 4E-6, the 

example sites modeled were not 

representative of the short stacks of 

many on-site incinerators. The direct 

inhalation component of the individua l 

cancer risk estimates may increase whe n 

incinerators wit h short stacks are 

include d i n the risk assessment 

supporting the fina l rule. 

2. Risks that coul d Be posed by area 

source cement kilns. The Agency 

showed at proposal that baseline 

emissions from cement kilns could pose 

hig h end individua l lifetime cancer 

risks from D/ F u p to 9E-5 . See 61 FR at 

17402. Althoug h several high D/Femitting cement kilns have recently 

reduced their D/ F emissions 

significantly, a revised risk assessment 

may wel l show that cement kilns (both 

area and major sources) can pose 

significant health risk at current 

emission levels. 

3. Risks that coul d Be posed by area 

source lightweight aggregate kilns. 

4

 From a technical perspective related to the 

nature of common air pollution control devices, 

reducing HCI emissions would not generally reduce 

emissions of other HAPs. 

Althoug h the Agenc y di d not show high 

baseline D/ F cancer risks for LWAK s at 

proposal, the risk assessment assumed 

extremely low D/ F emissions—0.04 ng 

TEQ/dscm—based o n very limited data 

from a single LWAK . However, as 

discussed below i n section II. G, new 

data from two additional LWAK s show 

substantially higher emission levels—up 

to 4.1 ng TEQ/dscm. At these emission 

levels, the high end individua l lifetime 

cancer risk from D/ F could exceed 

1E-5. 

4. Basis for a positive area source 

finding. In evaluating these estimated 

risk levels to determine whether they 

are sufficient to make a positive area 

source finding, the Agency considered 

other factors whic h EP A believes to be 

relevant i n determining ho w to exercise 

its discretion regarding area source 

determinations for these sources: 

a. HW C area sources can pose the 

same hazard to huma n health or the 

environment as major sources. A n area 

source may have the same emission 

rates of HAP s other than hydrogen 

chloride (HCI, the principa l HA P that 

causes a HW C to be a major source) as 

a major source, an d thus pose 

essentially the same hazard to human 

health or the environment. In other 

words, sources coul d have HCI 

emissions low enough to avoid a major 

source classification, but have emissions 

of D/ F that could pose a health risk 

given that there is no direct correlation 

between HCI and D/ F emissions. 5 

In addition, some HWCs that woul d 

currently be classified as major sources 

because of their HCI emissions may be 

able to lower their HCI emissions to 

become area sources. The Agency 

projects that all LWAK s are currently 

major sources principall y because of 

their HCI emissions, and that 

approximately 80 percent of cement 

kilns are major sources, again because of 

HCI. These HWC s may be able to lower 

their HCI emissions to otherwise 

become area sources. 6 

Sources have until the compliance 

date ofth e MAC T standards (i.e., three 

years after publication i n the Federal 

3

 For well-designed and operated combustion 

systems, D/ F emissions are related primarily to 

post-combustion particle surface catalyzed 

reactions and the temperature of the combustion gas 

(the optimum temperature window for formation is 

450-750 °F), virtually irrespective of HCI 

concentrations in the gas. 

6

 Some commercial incinerators may also be able 

to lower their allowable HCI emission levels to 

become area sources. It could be more problematic 

for on-site incinerators to lower their emissions to 

become area sources because facility-wide HA P 

emissions must be considered when making the 

major/area source determination. For example, onsite incinerators located at large chemical 

production facilities would need to reduce HA P 

emissions at a large number of sources. 

VES 000316 
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 24215 

Register) to make a major source 

determination. Man y kilns spiked 

chlorine i n the hazardous waste feed 

during compliance testing to get 

approval to feed chlorine (and emit HCI/ 

C12) at levels ostensibly higher than 

normal. Given that sources "have the 

potential to emit " at these ostensibly 

higher than normal emission rates, these 

emission rates must be used for the 

major source determination. See CA A 

section 112(a)(1), definition of major 

source. These sources may be able to 

operate successfully at lower allowable 

chlorine feedrates and emission rates, 

however. If so, they can elect to retest 

their units and base the major/area 

source determination o n potentially 

lowe r HC1/C12 emission rates. 

b. RCR A sections 3004(o)(2) and 

3004(q) essentially command regulation 

of all HWCs. Unde r this RCR A mandate, 

the Agency has regulated all (i.e., both 

major and area sources) hazardous 

waste incinerators since 1981 (see 46 FR 

7678 (Jan. 23, 1981) as amended at 48 

F R 14295 (Apr. 1, 1983)) and all 

hazardous waste burning cement an d 

lightweight kilns since 1991 (see 56 FR 

7134 (Feb. 21, 1991)). Deferring 

regulation of HWC s to the CA A woul d 

not be appropriate unless all HW C 

sources were covered. In addition, 

although somewhat more than half of 

the commercia l incinerators appear to 

be area sources, the majority of on-site 

incinerators are likel y to be major 

sources. 7 The publi c expectation is that 

a ll HWC s woul d continue to be 

regulated. 8 

c. MAC T controls are reasonable and 

appropriate for both major and area 

sources. The emission control 

equipment (and where applicable, 

feedrate control) defined as floor or 

beyond-the-floor (BTF) control for each 

source category is applicable and 

appropriate to area sources. There is 

nothing unique about the types and 

concentr ations of emissions of HAP s 

fro m area sources versus major sources 

that woul d make MAC T inappropriate 

for an area source. 

d. Are a source HWCs contribute 

significantly to D/ F and Hg emissions. 

Bot h area and major source HWC s 

contribute significantly to aggregate 

emissions of D/ F and Hg, two high 

7

 Only approximately 30 percent of incinerators 

appear to be major sources. This estimate is based 

on only the incinerators' stack emissions, however. 

Given that facility-wide emissions of HAPs are 

considered when making a major source 

determination, many on-site incinerators are likely 

to be classified as major sources because they are 

located at large petrochemical facilities. 

8

 It would be particularly problematic from a 

RCR A perspective for commercial incinerators that 

are area sources to be exempt from MAC T 

standards. 

priority HAPs. See CA A section 

112(c)(6) and proposal discussion at 61 

FR at 17366. 

For these reasons, the Agency is 

taking comment o n making positive area 

source findings for each of the three 

source categories covered by the 

proposal. Again , the effect woul d be to 

subject all sources withi n these 

categories to MAC T standards, whic h 

also woul d be the effect of the original 

proposal. 

C. Title V Permitting Requirements for 

Area Sources 

Unde r § 63.1(c)(2), area sources 

subject to MAC T (or GACT) are subject 

to the requirement to obtain a Titl e V 

permit unless the standard for the 

source category (e.g., Subpart EEE for 

HWCs) specifies that: (1) States wil l 

have the option to exclude area sources 

from Title V permit requirements; or (2) 

States wil l have the option to defer 

permitting of area sources. The Agency 

has determined that if it makes a 

positive area source finding and subjects 

area sources to MAC T standards as 

discussed above, the Agency woul d also 

consider subjecting area sources 

immediately to Titl e V permitting 

requirements, as provided by 

§63.1(c ) (2) (iii). Th e Agency has 

determined that area source compliance 

wit h Title V permit requirements woul d 

not be "impracticable, infeasible, or 

unnecessarily burdensome". See CA A 

section 502(a). A s noted above, area 

sources can be virtually identical to 

major sources wit h respect to size, type 

of combustor, and commercial versus 

on-site status, except that their mass 

emissions of HCI are lower. Thus, 

waiver of Title V permitting woul d not 

be warranted. 

In addition, i f the Agency were to 

waive the Title V permit requirement for 

area sources, we woul d be concerned 

about the confusio n it woul d likel y 

create for the regulated community and 

the publi c if the air emissions standards 

for some hazardous waste combustors 

(even i n the same source category) were 

addressed i n the Title V permitting 

process and the air emissions standards 

for others were addressed i n the RCR A 

permitting process. Since a source can 

make modifications to their emissions 

levels that coul d change their major/ 

area source determination, a source 

coul d move from one permitting 

program to the other, creating 

difficultie s for the permitting agencies 

i n tracking sources and for the publi c i n 

trying to participate i n or follow the 

permitting process. Therefore, it appears 

most appropriate from an 

implementation standpoint to subject 

area sources to Titl e V permitting. In 

this way, all HWC s (both major and area 

sources) woul d be subject to the same 

Title V permitting requirements. 

i7. Revisions to Proposed Standards 

Using the Revised Emissions Database 

and Data Analysis Methods. 

In this section, the Agenc y discusses 

comments o n the revised emissions 

database and the revised standards that 

woul d result from applying an 

engineering evaluation and data 

analysis methods to that revised 

database. In addition, we discuss several 

issues that are generic to the MAC T 

standards for all three source categories: 

(1) Consideration of P M as a surrogate 

for non-Hg metal HAPs; (2) options for 

controlling emissions of organic HAPs; 

and (3) emissions variability. 

A . Notice of Data Availabilit y on the 

Revised Emissions Database 

O n January 7, 1997 the Agenc y 

published a NOD A on an updated 

database of emissions and ancillary 

information. See 62 FR 960. The Agency 

updated the database used at proposal 

to correct errors and include additional 

emissions data. The NOD A explained 

that the updated database woul d be 

used to identify MAC T standards for the 

fina l rule and to evaluate economic 

impacts and, for RCR A purposes, risks 

associated wit h the fina l MAC T 

standards. 

The Agency received comments o n 

the revised database from 16 

stakeholders representing the cement 

industry, lightweight aggregate industiy, 

and on-site and commercia l 

incinerators. The database was revised 

again to accommodate the comments 

received on the database NODA . The 

Agency then re-analyzed the database to 

determine the MAC T floor standards 

discussed below. 

We received several specific 

comments (i.e., as opposed to generic 

and undocumented comments that, for 

example, the Agency's data are 

inconsistent wit h the commenter's) that 

were not accompanied wit h supporting 

documentation. Most of these comments 

pertain to miscellaneous data on 

feedstream feedrates and equipment 

design information that do not have a 

significant impact on developing MAC T 

floor standards under the data analysis 

methods discussed i n today's NODA . 

Where there was a significant possibility 

that the data might affect the Agency's 

determinations, references were rechecked to determine the more accurate 

number to be used. 

The Cement Kil n Recycling Coalition 

(CKRC) provided an extensive run-byrun, HAP-by-HA P comparison of the 

Agency's database wit h theirs. Whil e 

VES 000317 
24216 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 

potentially useful i n some cases, their 

submission unfortunately di d not 

distinguish between significant versus 

insignificant differences; nor di d they 

verif y whic h data were more accurate 

for the purposes i n question. Withi n 

current time constraints, the Agenc y has 

identified whic h appear to us to be 

significant and relevant differences and 

then checked these data to determine 

whic h appear to be more accurate and 

has made necessary changes. The 

current database, as updated and 

revised, is appropriate and sufficient 

considering the engineering and data 

analysis methods discussed below to 

identify MAC T standards. For example, 

although there may still remain 

differences between CKRC's and the 

Agency's database regarding 

electrostatic precipitator (ESP) and 

fabric filter design and performance 

characteristics, those characteristics are 

not germane to the engineering and data 

analysis methods for determining 

relevant MAC T standards, as discussed 

below. In these situations, the Agenc y 

has elected not to revise inconsequential 

data, particularly where it is not clear 

whic h data are more accurate. 

Some overall decisions on data 

quality issues have also been made for 

purposes of revising the database. 

Regarding assigning values to reported 

nondetects, we are assuming that 

nondetected values were present at onehalf the detection limit. We considered 

assuming nondetected values were 

present at the ful l detection limit, but 

foun d i n most cases no significant 

difference i n the MAC T data analysis 

results. It represents a judgment by the 

Agenc y based on its experience that, for 

assessing standards and risk, this more 

conservative approach increases our 

confidence that standards and risk are 

appropriate and acceptable. 

In addition, we are excluding data 

from sources no longer burning 

hazardous waste, as suggested by 

several commenters on the proposed 

rule. Althoug h such data may wel l be 

indicative of the capabilities of control 

equipment and thus relevant, the 

resulting database is still large enough 

to ensure that potential fina l MAC T 

standards can be judged to be 

achievable (or not as the case may be) 

without includin g these more 

controversial data. Regarding older 

emissions data whe n more recent data 

was available for a source, we are 

considering all data sets for sources that 

currently burn hazardous waste. Bot h 

recent and ol d data are instructive i n 

assessing the capabilities of the control 

equipment at these operating facilities. 

Finally, we screened out so-called 

"normal' ' emissions data from the 

MAC T analyses. Althoug h doing so may 

appear counterintuitive at first blush, 

one must consider that facility 

compliance wil l generally be based o n 

operating limits established during the 

MAC T performance test (except if 

compliance is based o n a continuous 

emissions monitoring system (CEMS)). 

During these MAC T performance tests, 

sources wil l likel y operate under the 

same worst-case conditions as they di d 

during trial burns and Boile r and 

Industrial Furnace (BIF) rule 

certification of compliance testing. 

Operating under worst-case conditions 

wit h respect to emissions and operating 

parameters gives operators a wide 

allowable envelope of operating limits 

needed to efficiently and economically 

operate the combustor and yet maintain 

compliance. Considering norma l 

emissions data i n the MAC T analysis 

coul d inappropriately result i n the 

Agenc y establishing a MAC T standard 

based on norma l emissions and 

conditions whil e the source woul d be 

operating under worst-case conditions 

to demonstrate compliance. Thus, 

emissions whil e complying wit h 

operating limits woul d be 

inappropriately constrained to below 

current norma l emission levels, even for 

sources equipped wit h well-designed 

and operated MAC T floor control. 

B. P M as a Surrogate for Non-Hg Metals 

The Agency proposed a MAC T P M 

standard as a surrogate for non-D/F 

organic HAP s (that are adsorbed onto 

the PM) and for the metal HAP s not 

individuall y regulated under the 

proposed metal standards (i.e., Co, Mn , 

N i , and Se). See 61 FR at 17376. 

Since proposal, the Agency has 

reconsidered i n the context of this joint 

RCRA-CA A rulemaking whether a 

MAC T P M emission standard could 

serve as a surrogate for six non-Hg metal 

HAP s for whic h the Agency di d propose 

specific standards—semivolatiles (Cd 

and Pb) and lo w volatiles (As, Be, Cr, 

and Sb). This issue arises, i n part, 

because the risk assessment at proposal 

o n the MAC T standards estimated that 

the high-end individua l lifetime cancer 

risks using 90th percentile metal 

emission levels were wel l below IO - 6 

for cement kilns and LWAKs . For 

incinerators, the highest estimated 

cancer risks exceeded 10-6 but were 

below IO" 5.

9 

To evaluate P M as a surrogate for nonH g metals i n the context of this joint 

'^Note, however, that tile example incinerators 

modeled for the risk assessment had relatively tali 

stacks which may not result in the higher ground 

level concentrations (and thus higher direct 

inhalation risk) that could result from small 

incinerators. 

RCRA-CA A rulemaking, questions that 

must be addressed are: (1) Woul d a 

MAC T P M standard control the six nonHg metals to MAC T emission levels i n 

the special context of hazardous waste 

combustors; and (Z) woul d there be 

significant health risk at MAC T 

emission levels that woul d have to be 

addressed wit h RCR A controls (based at 

least i n part o n site-specific risk 

assessments using omnibus authority)? 

Because, i n the case of hazardous 

waste combustors, there are significant 

levels of metals i n the hazardous wastederived fue l being burned, the Agenc y 

has initiall y concluded that a MAC T P M 

emission standard i n this particular rule 

may not adequately control the six nonH g metals to the nomina l MAC T 

emission levels. The residual risk that 

could result from emissions of some of 

the six non-Hg metals coul d be 

significantl 0, and regulation of these 

problematic metals under RCR A woul d 

therefore be warranted. Fro m an 

implementation standpoint, this result 

of mixe d statutory controls is not 

desirable. Althoug h establishing six 

additional specifi c limits o n the non-Hg 

metals eliminates this particular 

implementation disadvantage, this 

woul d add to the complianc e and 

implementation burdens o n facility and 

regulator alike. Consequently, it does 

not currently appear appropriate to use 

P M as a surrogate for all six toxic, nonHg metals. 

In investigating this issue, however, 

we determined that antimony (Sb), one 

of the four lo w volatile metals, may not 

warrant direct control. That is, the 

MAC T P M standard may serve as an 

adequate surrogate for Sb to ensure that 

it is not emitted at levels that pose a 

health risk. 1 1 We also considered 

whether beryllium (Be), another LVM , 

warranted control given that it is not 

generally present i n significant 

concentrations i n hazardous waste, and 

baseline emissions of Be do not appear 

to be posing a health hazard. Give n that 

Be is a toxic carcinogen, however, direct 

MAC T controls shoul d be provided 

even if current feedrates (and emission 

rates) are low. 

Onl y a preliminary analysis (see 

discussion below) was used to 

investigate whether some of the 

1 0

 This is at least partly because a P M control 

device alone does not give the same targeted degree 

of control for individual metals that a combination 

of metal feed control plus a P M control device does. 

1 1

 Sb is a non-carcinogen with relatively low 

toxicity compared with the other five non-Hg 

metals, and would have to be present in hazardous 

waste (and emitted PM) at extremely high levels 

(perhaps over 1000 times the current levels) to pose 

a health hazard. Current data suggest that metals 

feedrates generally are either not increasing or 

increasing at much lower rates. 

VES 000318 
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 24217 

remaining semivolatile and low volatile 

metals—Cd, Pb, As, and Cr—may 

warrant only indirect control through a 

P M standard fo r any or all of the HW C 

source categories. We continue to 

believe that direct standards are 

warranted for these four metals (either 

individuall y or i n volatility groups). For 

purposes of publi c comment, we have 

identified MAC T standards for these 

individua l metals i n case individua l 

standards are ultimately deemed more 

appropriate than continuing to group 

the metals by relative volatility. 

However, we remain concerned about 

the compliance and implementation 

complexities that woul d be introduced. 

(See the discussion below of revised 

S V M an d LV M standards for each 

source category.) 

We solicit further comment on ho w to 

ensure appropriate and effective control 

of non-Hg metal HAP s whil e ensuring 

that the regulatory scheme and 

associated compliance elements are 

implementable and not unnecessarily 

burdensome. Some of the pertinent 

issues are highlighted below for 

commenter response. 

1. Can PM serve as a surrogate for 

SVM and LVM? A MAC T P M standard 

woul d provide MAC T emissions control 

technology (i.e., the air pollution control 

device) for non-Hg metals. This is 

because stack emissions of non-Hg 

metals i n combustion gases are 

controlled by the P M control device. 

Thus, MAC T control (i.e., the emission 

control device) for P M woul d also be 

MAC T control for non-Hg metals. 

However, emissions of non-Hg metals 

from HWC s are also controlled by the 

feedrate of non-Hg metals (for kilns, the 

feedrate of non-Hg metals i n hazar dous 

waste) i n addition to the P M control 

device. Thus, a MAC T P M standard 

alone may not result i n control of nonHg metals to MAC T emissions levels 

because emissions of non-Hg metals wil l 

vary at a given P M leve l as feedrate 

varies (i.e., emissions of non-Hg metals 

wil l be a greater percentage of P M 

emitted as the feedrate rises). 

Some commenters have argued that 

P M is not a good surrogate for non-Hg 

metals emissions. Whe n sources (within 

a source category) are considered i n the 

aggregate, a poor correlation between 

P M and non-Hg metals emissions 

appears to exist. This is because sources 

have various feedrates of the metals and 

because different types of P M control 

devices have different collection 

efficiencies for these metals. 1 2.

1 3 

Nonetheless, at a given source wit h a 

given non-Hg metal feedrate, metal 

emissions wil l correlate wit h P M 

emission levels. Althoug h the 

correlation wil l be different for more 

volatile versus less volatile metals, 

emissions of these metals wil l increase 

as P M emissions increase. 

In summary, although there is a 

correlation between P M and non-Hg 

metal emissions o n a facility-specific 

basis, and the MAC T P M standard likel y 

woul d ensure use of MAC T emission 

control device for these metals, it may 

not ensure attainment of MAC T 

emission levels of these metals. Given 

the potential for HWC s to emit high 

levels of some of these metals, metalspecific emission controls—MACT 

standards—are warranted either 

individuall y or i n volatility groups. 

2. Whic h non-Hg metals warrant 

specific control by establishing MAC T 

emission standards? A s an alternative to 

establishing MAC T standards for SV M 

and LV M as proposed, we are reevaluating whic h non-Hg metals 

warrant special control an d whether to 

establish individua l MAC T emission 

standards for them. 1 4 A s discussed 

above, our preliminary analysis 

indicates that standards may not be 

warranted for Sb. We are continuing to 

investigate whether any o f the 

remaining metals—As, Be, Cd, Cr, and 

Pb—may not warrant direct emission 

standards but may warrant only indirect 

controls vi a the P M standard. Further, 

we are investigating how the metal 

standards should be structured: (1) 

MAC T standards for individua l metals; 

or (2) MAC T standards for volatility 

groupings (SV M and LVM ) if we 

determine, as currently contemplated, 

that direct standards for all five 

remaining metals are warranted (i.e., as 

proposed). 

For cement kilns and LWAKs , we 

examined a comparison of potentially 

allowable emission levels for non-Hg 

metals under the BIF rule and actual 

allowable (i.e., levels emitted during 

Certificate of Complianc e (CoC) testing) 

emission levels. (Note that the actual 

allowable levels are generally muc h 

higher than normal emission levels 

because sources spiked metals during 

C oC testing.) A wid e margin exists— 

1 2 I n addition, metal collection efficiency ofthe 

P M control device varies at different metal 

feedrates. 

1 3See , for example, comments submitted by 

Chemical Manufacturers Association, RCR A Docket 

* F-96-RCSP-FFFF F comment # RCSP-00128. 

H

 Other metal HAPs (other than Hg and the six 

toxic metals covered at proposal) would be 

controlled indirectly by the P M standard and any 

individual or volatility group metal standards. This 

is essentially unchanged from the proposal. 

generally an order of magnitude or 

greater—between BIF potentially 

allowable emission levels and CoC 

allowable emission levels. This means 

that: (1) Cement kilns and LWAK s are 

not emitting these metals at levels 

posing a risk using BIF risk assessment 

procedures; and (2) cement kilns and 

LWAK s are feeding these metals at rates 

wel l below those that woul d be allowed 

under BIF risk-based limits and, thus, 

indirect P M control under MAC T ma y 

similarly keep feedrates (and emission 

rates) of these metals low. 

We also examined data o n the 

percentage of emitted particulate matter 

that each non-Hg metal woul d have to 

comprise to pose a health risk, assuming 

B IF risk assessment procedures were 

applied. Unde r this analysis, Pb and Sb 

woul d have to comprise from 10-100 

percent of emitted P M to pose a health 

risk. Data suggest that these percentages 

are not approached i n today's 

operations by a wid e margin. 

These preliminary analyses were 

performed assuming BIF risk assessment 

procedures. Thus, our evaluation may 

not be representative of results that wil l 

be forthcoming shortly using updated, 

more detailed procedures for evaluating 

risks under the fina l MAC T standards. 

For example, the risk assessment for this 

rule considers indirect exposure (i.e., 

ingestion and food-chain uptake) whil e 

B IF procedures consider onl y direct 

inhalation. O n the other hand, BIF 

direct inhalation exposure assessment 

procedures are more conservative (i.e., 

result i n a higher estimate of risk) than 

those that wil l be used for the fina l 

MAC T standards because the Agenc y 

has revised those procedures i n part to 

consider more realistic exposure 

scenarios. Nonetheless, the analyses 

discussed above are viewe d as 

suggestive that regulation of each and 

every semivolatile and lo w volatile 

metal as proposed may not be 

warranted. 

We could not perform simila r 

preliminary analyses for incinerators 

because we do not have dispersion 

coefficients readily available that woul d 

be representative of the short stacks 

used by many on-site incinerators. 

However, a review of the emissions 

database indicates that, as expected, 

some incinerators—both commercia l 

and on-site incinerators—emit muc h 

higher levels of these metals than 

cement kilns or LWAKs . Nonetheless, 

we may fin d (as may be the case for 

cement kilns and LWAKs) that Sb may 

not warrant a direct metal-specific 

standard for incinerators as well, either 

as part of the LV M group or an 

individua l standard. 

VES 000319 
24218 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 

C. Options for Controlling Emissions of 

Organic HAP s 

Based o n evaluation ofth e revised 

emissions database, the Agency is 

soliciting comment o n options to 

control emissions of organic HAP s by: 

(1) Establishing MAC T standards for 

carbon monoxide (CO) and/or H C 

emissions as surrogate indicators of 

good combustion conditions: 1 5 and (2) 

ensuring that sources achieve 99.99 

percent destruction and removal 

efficiency (DRE). 1 6 These options are 

presented i n Part Three: 

Implementation, Sections II and III, 

because the DRE issue has 

implementation implications, and the 

CO/H C issue relates to the DRE issue. 

D. Accountin g for Emissions Variability 

i n Establishing Emission Standards 

A t proposal, the Agency used a 

statistical approach to identify an 

emission leve l that MAC T floor control 

coul d achieve routinely considering that 

the emissions database was comprised 

of "short-term" test data. See 61 FR at 

17366. To identify an appropriate 

standard, a computed variability factor 

considering within-test condition 

emissions variability was added to the 

log-mean of the highest test condition 

average for any source using floor 

control. The log-mean of the runs for the 

standard-setting test condition is the 

"design level'—the emission leve l the 

source woul d be designed to meet to 

ensure emissions were less than the 

standard 99 percent of the time, 

assuming a source ha d average within -

test condition emissions variability 

(average based on all sources using floor 

control). 

We are concerned that this computed 

variability factor approach may be 

inappropriate i n this particular 

rulemaking. 1 7 For example, this 

computed variability factor led to 

illogica l results for the P M standards for 

incinerators and LWAKs . In the case of 

P M , the calculated standard using the 

computed variability factor is 50 percent 

higher than the current legallymandated RCR A P M limit for 

incinerators. For LWAKs , using the 

1 5

 The Agency proposed to establish MAC T 

standards for both CO and HC , but solicited 

comment on whether a standard based on one 

surrogate or the other may be sufficient. See 61 F R 

at 17376. 

1 0

 The Agency proposed to retain DR E as a RCR A 

standard because of concerns that it would be 

difficult to self-implement under MAC T 

implementation procedures. See 61 FR at 17447. 

The Agency is reconsidering this issue and solicits 

comment on alternative approaches to ensure 

compliance with the DR E standard, including 

incorporating DR E as a MAC T standard. 

1 7

 See, for example, proposed rule (61 F R at 

17367). 

variability factor results i n a P M 

standard of approximately 0.04 gr/dscf 

(corresponding to a design level of 0.022 

gr/dscf) nearly twice as high as any P M 

emission value i n the entire LWA K 

database. Further, given that floor 

control woul d be a fabric filter, our 

engineering evaluation

 1 8

 (and the 

LWA K database itself) indicates that a 

fabric filter can readily achieve levels of 

0.022 or below, not the calculated 0.04. 

These inappropriate and illogica l 

results may flo w from either the 

variability factor itself or the test 

condition average identified as the 

standard-setting test condition (to whic h 

the variability factor is added). For 

example, the variability factor itself 

(which considers within-test conditions 

emissions variability) could be 

inappropriately high if there are outlier 

runs withi n test conditions that are not 

screened out. Althoug h runs i n many 

test conditions appear to be outliers 

(and analytical tests may show them to 

be outliers) it can be difficult to justify 

screening them out unless there is a 

specific technical explanation (e.g., 

unique design or operation feature or 

inadequacy) that can be identified. 

Unfortunately, this information is often 

not available for many potential outlier 

data. 

A s noted, identifying the standardsetting test condition inappropriately 

could be a factor. We have very limited 

information o n the design, operation, 

and maintenance characteristics of the 

emission control devices and 

combustors. Accordingly , we have had 

to define MAC T floor control very 

generically (e.g., ESP or fabric filter), as 

discussed below, without attempting to 

specify design, operation, and 

maintenance characteristics. 

Give n these concerns and the statute's 

direcUon to establish the maximum but 

achievable floor standard, we request 

comment on a n alternative approach to 

account for emissions variability. This 

alternative has two elements. First, 

whe n a large data set from sources using 

floor control 1 9 exists, the range of 

emission levels from those sources 

should adequately reflect emissions 

variability. That is, a standard 

established as the highest test condition 

average for sources using floor control 

represents an emission leve l that the 

control technology is capable of 

achieving, considering norma l 

i* See USEPA, "Draft Technical Support 

Document for HW C MAC T Standards (NODA), 

Volume I: MAC T Evaluations Based on Revised 

Database", April 1997. 

1 9

 Or, in the case of LWAKs, where the data set 

is essentially complete (i.e., where we have data 

from all or most ofthe sources in the source 

category). 

variability i n combustor operations, 

emission control device operations, and 

test methods. Where these data show 

that many sources using floor control 

can achieve wel l below the standard, 

this demonstrates that additional 

emissions variability considerations are 

not warranted. Source(s) wit h emission 

levels close to the standard should be 

able to determine ho w to emit at levels 

below the standard based o n the specific 

design, operation, and maintenance 

information available to them, 

especially since many other sources 

wit h the same basic equipment are 

doing so. 2 0 Second, where only a small 

set of data from sources using floor 

control exists, the range of emission 

levels from these sources ma y be less 

likely to reflect emissions variability. In 

this case, consideration of an additional 

variability factor (to be added to the 

highest test condition average for a 

MACT-contro l facility) may be 

appropriate. 

Th e impact of this alternative 

approach has been examined. We do not 

have a large data set i n the expanded 

universe for two standards: D/ F 

standards for incinerators equipped 

wit h waste heat recovery boilers and D / 

F standards for LWAKs . In each case, 

we have data from only three sources, 

and consequently floor control is based 

on the suite of controls used by all three 

sources. 2 1 If the data set were large, we 

woul d identify the floor leve l as the test 

condition wit h the highest ru n average. 

But, given the small data set, it is 

reasonable from an engineering vantage 

point to identify the standard as the 

highest single ru n for the highest test 

condition (when the unit was properly 

operated). 

We discuss below engineering and 

data analysis methods and the resulting 

standards for each HA P and source 

category where a computed variability 

factor is not used to establish emission 

standards. 

7 1 1

 No patterns in process design or operation in 

the information we have explain why some sources 

thought to be using floor control had significantly 

higher emissions than other sources thought to be 

using floor control. Where floor control is based on 

an emission control device, these high emitters are 

likely not in fact using floor controls—considering 

the suite of design, operation, and maintenance 

factors that affect performance of the control 

equipment but on which the Agency has no data. 

Where floor control is based on finite control such 

as combustion gas temperature or feedrate control, 

the high emitters may be experiencing emissions 

during the compliance test on the high end of the 

range of emissions variability. 

2 1

 When data are available from fewer than 30 

sources, MAC T floor is defined as the median 

emission limitation achieved by the best five 

performing sources. Thus, the best performing three 

sources (representing the median (and better 

performers)) define MAC T in this case. 

VES 000320 
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 24219 

control and that, as discussed above, the 

large data set of sources using floor 

control and meeting the floor standard 

amply accounts for emissions 

variability, we wil l presume that these 

relatively high emissions for such floorcontrolled sources represent the high 

end ofth e range of emissions variability. 

In other words, whe n these sources 

retest emissions under the same 

conditions, their emissions should meet 

the standard. 

E. Re-Evaluation of Proposed MAC T 

Standards for Incinerators 

We discuss i n this section the basis 

for the revised standards for incinerators 

that result from applying engineering 

and data analysis to the revised 

emissions database. We also discuss 

refinements to analytical approaches 

used i n the proposal for identifying 

floor controls an d levels. 2 2 A 

comparison of the originally proposed 

and potentially revised standards for 

existing and new sources is presented i n 

the table below: 

TABL E II.E.—REVISE D STANDARD S FO R EXISTING AN D NE W INCINERATORS 1 

HAP or HAP surrogate 

Existing sources New sources 

HAP or HAP surrogate Proposed 

standard 

Revised 

standard 

Proposed 

standard 

Revised 

standard 

D/F (ng TEQ/dscm) 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 

Hg (u.g/dscm) 50 40 50 40 

PM (gr/dscf) 0.030 0.015 0.030 0.015 

HCI/CI2 (ppmv) 280 75 67 75 

C O (ppmv) 100 100 100 100 

H C (ppmv) 12 10 12 10 

SVM (ug/dscm) 270 100 62 100 

LVM ((xg/dscm) 210 55 60 55 

1

 All emission levels are cotrected to 7% 0 2 . 

Finally, we are using an engineering 

evaluation to identify a design level for 

each standard for purposes of estimating 

economic impacts and, for RCR A 

purposes, the risk associated wit h the 

design leve l for a given MAC T standard. 

The design leve l is the emission leve l to 

whic h the control equipment must be 

designed to ensure compliance wit h the 

standard. For the RCR A risk analysis of 

the fina l MAC T standards, we wil l 

analyze risks under the more realistic 

assumption that a source is emitting at 

the design level o n average, rather than 

right at the standard all of the time. 

Based on discussions wit h several air 

pollution control device vendors an d 

facility operators, a design level of 70 

percent of the standard is deemed 

appropriate because it is withi n the 

range of reasonable values that may be 

encountered—50 percent to 90 percent. 

To the extent that industry engineering 

experience suggest that a different 

design level assumption woul d be more 

typica l and reasonable, we invite 

commenters to provide that information. 

We also considered whether the 

design level as a percentage of the 

standard (i.e., design factor) should vary 

depending on whether the control is 

finite (e.g., temperature control or 

feedrate control) versus an emission 

control device that is affected by various 

parameters, or the type of emission 

control device (e.g., metals controlled by 

feedrate and an ESP or fabric filter). 

However, we do not have enough 

information to establish suc h tailored 

and case-specific design factors. If 

commenters supply sufficient 

information, we wil l consider using this 

approach. 

A s noted, we wil l use the design 

factor to estimate costs of retrofitting for 

a ll sources wit h emissions exceeding 

the standard. For these sources, we wil l 

estimate the costs of upgrading emission 

control equipment to meet the design 

level. For sources using floor control 

(i.e., sources i n the expanded universe) 

that have emissions greater than the 

design level, however, we wil l not 

attribute retrofit costs for compliance. 

Give n that these sources are using floor 

1. Subcategorization considerations. 

Since proposal, the Agency has refined 

potential options for subdividing the 

incinerator source category to determine 

if subdivided standards woul d be 

appropriate: (1) Small 2 3 versus large 

sources; (2) commercia l versus on-site 

sources; and (3) small on-site sources 

versus large on-site and commercial 

sources. In large part, commenters 

believed that small, on-site incinerators 

shoul d have less stringent standards to 

reduce costs of compliance. However, 

given that our analysis shows that the 

revised standards for the small on-site 

2 2

 Additional details of the engineering and data 

analysis evaluations performed on the revised 

emissions database can be found in the Agency's 

background document: USEPA , "Draft Technical 

Support Document for HW C MAC T Standards 

(NODA), Volume 1: MAC T Evaluations Based on 

Revised Database", Apri l 1997. 

2 3

 A n analysis of gas flowrates in actual cubic feet 

per minute (ACFM) indicated that a maximum 

sources woul d either remain the same or 

be more stringent under these options, 

we continue to believe that subdividin g 

woul d be inappropriate. 2 4 

We also received comments from the 

U S Department of Energy (DOE) 

suggesting that DOE's mixe d waste

 2 5 

incinerators had several unique features 

(discussed below) that woul d warrant 

subcategorization. 2 6 We are 

investigating whether DOE's 

incinerators pose unique 

implementation and compliance 

problems and therefore are considering 

several options for the fina l rule: (1) no 

flowrate of 20,000 acfm would be within the range 

of values that could be selected to designate small 

versus medium incinerators. We performed a 

similar analysis at proposal and selected a flowrate 

of 23,127 to designate small incinerators. See 61 FR 

at 17372. 

2 4

 The Agency requested at proposal comments 

on other means of reducing costs to small, on-site 

incinerators (e.g., waiving requirements for CEMS). 

subcategorization; (2) subcategorization 

for mixe d waste incinerators; and (3) 

deferral of MAC T regulation for mixe d 

waste incinerators (with RCR A rules 

continuing to apply). 

Unde r the No Subcategorization 

Option, we woul d fin d that the MAC T 

controls and emission standards 

applicable to other incinerators are 

appropriate for DOE's mixe d waste 

incinerators. Unde r this option we 

could still define special compliance 

requirements that account for any 

unique features of mixe d waste 

incinerators. 

We will consider all submitted comments on 

options to reduce costs on these units in the final 

rule. 

2 3

 Mixture of low level radioactive waste and 

hazardous waste. 

2

« See summary of DOE/EP A meeting at RCRA 

Docket # F-96-RCSP-FFFF F item # S00270. 

VES 000321 
24220 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 

Unde r the Subcategorization Option, 

we woul d fin d that because of unique 

design or operating features, the MAC T 

controls or emission standards 

identified for other incinerators are not 

appropriate for mixe d waste 

incinerators. MAC T standards unique to 

these incinerators woul d be developed, 

and special compliance requirements 

coul d be defined. 

Unde r the Deferral Option, we woul d 

determine that we do not have the 

resources to make an appropriate MAC T 

determination on mixe d waste 

incinerators i n time to meet the 

schedule for the HW C rulemaking (i.e., 

the Phase I rule establishing MAC T 

standards for incinerators, cement kilns, 

and LWAKs) . Regulation of mixe d waste 

incinerators woul d be deferred to the 

Phase II rule where the Agenc y wil l 

establish MAC T standards for hazardous 

waste burning boilers, halogen acid 

furnaces, and sulfur recovery furnaces. 

The RCR A rules whic h now apply 

woul d continue to do so. 

D O E suggests that its mixe d waste 

incinerators have several unique 

features that woul d require 

subcategorization and special 

compliance standards: 

• Each of DOE's four conventional 

incinerators meet the Agency's 

definition of small incinerators (i.e., 

<20,000 acfm gas flo w rate), and one is 

batch-operated only once or twice a year 

wit h a gas flo w rate of 3,000 acfm. 

• Several mixe d waste thermal 

treatment units meeting the Agency's 

definition of an incinerator are small 

vitrification devices designed to process 

metal bearing wastes and feed wastes 

wit h extremely low organic content. 

• Given that most of the mixe d waste 

incinerators are very small units, a 

mass-based emission limit woul d be 

more appropriate than a concentrationbased emission limit. 

• Approximatel y 95 percent of the 

mixe d waste that is incinerated is 

"legacy waste" generated during 

production of nuclear weapons from 

1943 until 1989 and may contain high 

levels of mercury that cannot be 

lowered by source reduction. 

• Control of mercury emissions using 

activated carbon injection (ACI) woul d 

be problematic because the spent carbon 

woul d be a mixe d waste, and i f it 

contained more than 260 ppm of 

mercury, mercury retorting woul d be 

required under the Agency's land 

disposal restrictions even though there 

are no retorters i n the country that 

manage mixe d waste (and so a variance 

woul d have to be obtained under 

§ 268.44). 

• Given that CEM S are not yet 

demonstrated for multi metals (and a 

CEM S requirement for mercury alone is 

also problematic for the fina l Phase I 

rule), compliance wit h MAC T metal 

emission limits woul d be based o n 

feedrate limits for metals i n feedstreams, 

a potentially unworkable approach for 

mixe d waste since sampling and 

analysis of radioactive feedstreams 

raises serious human health concerns. 

• DO E has negotiated plans and 

agreements wit h States under Site 

Cleanup Agreements mandated by 

RCR A section 3021(b) and CERCL A 

section 120(e), and such plans and 

agreements woul d probably require 

renegotiation (and delay) to compl y 

wit h the proposed MAC T standards. 

The Agenc y is continuing to 

investigate these issues and wil l make a 

determination regarding the appropriate 

regulatory option i n the fina l rule. 

2. Dioxins and Furans (D/F) a. MAC T 

floor for existing sources. We proposed 

a MAC T floor standard of "0.20 ng TEQ / 

dscm or gas temperature at the P M 

control device <400°F" based on floor 

control of temperature at the P M control 

device. Durin g subsequent analysis of 

the revised database, we noticed again 

that incinerators equipped wit h waste 

heat boilers have significantly higher D / 

F emissions than other incinerators. 

This is likel y because the heat recovery 

boiler precludes rapid temperature 

quench of combustion gases to a 

temperature of <400°F (usually wit h a 

wet scrubber), whic h woul d be floor 

control for non-waste heat boilers. Floor 

control for waste heat boilers woul d be 

rapi d quench of combustion gases at the 

exit of the boiler to a temperature of 

<400°F. 

Based o n the revised database, the 

floor standard for waste heat boilers 

woul d be "0.20, or 12 ng TEQ/dsc m and 

a temperature of <400°F at the P M 

control device. " Given that the waste 

heat boiler expanded universe (i.e., the 

entire database) is comprised of onl y 

three sources, the highest single ru n for 

the test condition wit h the highest ru n 

average is a reasonable floor level. (Note 

that if this were a large data set, we 

woul d define the floor level simpl y as 

the highest test condition average.) This 

floor leve l is 50 percent higher than the 

highest test condition average, and thus 

appears to be a level that waste heat 

boilers should be able to meet routinely 

using floor control. 

The floor standard for non-waste heat 

boilers woul d be "0.20, or 0.40 ng TEQ / 

dscm and a temperature of <400°F at the 

P M control device." This standard is 

based on arraying emission levels for 

sources using floor control and 

screening out four test conditions wit h 

anomalously high emissions. Three of 

these test conditions were from sources 

for whic h we had other test conditions 

wit h emissions averages wel l below 0.40 

ng TEQ . 

We di d not originally propose 

separate standards for waste heat boilers 

because the floor standard at proposal 

was "0.20 ng TEQ/dscm or temperature 

at the P M control device of <400°F. " 

Waste heat boilers could meet that 

standard, and moreover, we proposed a 

B T F standard of 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm for 

a ll incinerators (a preference we do not 

depart from i n today's notice). Today, 

however, we are presenting the option 

of stating the standard i n the form of a 

T E Q level combined wit h a maximum 

temperature at the P M control device. 

This form of the standard is consistent 

wit h the revised data, and woul d result 

i n somewhat lowe r emissions. This is 

because, without the TE Q limit, some 

sources could exceed that TE Q level at 

the specified temperature. 

b. BT F considerations for existing 

sources. Incinerators can be equipped 

wit h AC I at temperatures <400 °F to 

achieve D/ F levels below 0.20 ng TEQ / 

dscm. Give n the limited application of 

the technology to control D/ F emissions 

from hazardous waste incinerators and 

given that control efficiency is likel y to 

decrease at D/ F emission levels below 

0.20, a BT F standard of 0.20 ng TEQ / 

dscm woul d continue to be appropriate. 

See proposal for extended discussion, 

61 FR at 17382. 

Anothe r option arising from the 

refinement of our original analysis is to 

establish a BT F standard for waste heat 

boilers at "0.20, or 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm 

and a temperature of <400 °F at the P M 

control device", and to remain at the 

floor standard for non-waste heat 

boilers. These standards woul d ensure 

that most, but not all, sources woul d 

have emissions <0.20 ng TEQ/dscm. 

Give n that only a few sources woul d 

need to take additional measures to get 

their emissions below 0.20, however, it 

woul d be appropriate to establish a 0.20 

B T F standard, assuming this leve l 

remains appropriate after considering 

statutory factors for establishing 

standards more stringent than the floor. 

c. MAC T floor for new sources. A t 

proposal, we identified the same floor 

control for new sources as for existing 

sources: wet scrubbing an d <400 °F at 

the P M device. This is because the 

sources wit h the lowest emissions used 

this control. In re-evaluating the 

database for this NODA , however, an 

engineering evaluation may be more 

appropriate to identify AC I as floor 

control because one source (i.e., the 

single best controlled source) uses it. 

Even though most sources using rapid 

quench by wet scrubbing can achieve D / 

F levels less than 0.20 TEQ , some 

VES 000322 
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 24221 

sources using wet scrubbing have higher 

D / F levels. AC I operated at 400 "F or 

lowe r can universally achieve D/ F levels 

of 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm or less and is thus 

the better performing technology. (Note 

that waste heat boilers cannot use rapid 

quench of combustion gases but can use 

ACI.) 

Althoug h the source equipped wit h 

A C I (Waste Technologies Industries) is 

achieving D/ F levels of 0.07 ng TEQ / 

dscm, we believe that it is appropriate 

to conclude that AC I can routinely 

achieve a standard of 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm 

given the limite d application to date of 

the technology for hazardous waste 

incinerators and the uncertainties about 

h o w muc h AC I control efficiency is 

reduced at extremely lo w D/ F emission 

concentrations. However, we 

specifically invite comment o n the 

potential levels that can be reached wit h 

ACI , and on industry-wide achievability 

of 0.07 ng TEQ/dscm as the floor for 

n ew sources. 

d. BTF considerations for new 

sources. A t proposal, BT F for new 

sources was based on performance of 

A C I given that floor control was based 

on performance of rapid quench. Unde r 

today's analysis, MAC T floor for new 

sources woul d be based on ACI. 

Althoug h carbon beds woul d be able to 

achieve lower emissions, they are not 

thought to be cost-effective (particularly 

if the floor for new sources was wel l 

below 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm), and a BT F 

standard woul d likely not be 

appropriate. 

3. Mercury (Hg). a. MAC T floor for 

existing sources. A t proposal, the 

Agenc y identified floor control as either 

(1) feedrate control of Hg at an 

maximu m theoretical emission 

concentration (MTEC) not to exceed 19 

Ug/dscm, or (2) wet scrubbing wit h 

feedrate control of H g at an MTE C not 

to exceed 51 p,g/dscm. We proposed a 

floor standard of 130 ug/dscm. 

Mercur y emissions from incinerators 

are currently controlled by limitin g the 

feedrate of Hg combined wit h some 

remova l by air pollution control systems 

(APCS). There are two APC S techniques 

currently used by hazardous waste 

incinerators (HWIs) to control Hg: wet 

scrubbers and ACI. Althoug h primarily 

intended for acid gas control, nearly all 

incinerators employ wet scrubbers that 

capture the soluble forms of Hg species 

(e.g., mercury salts). AC I is used by one 

incinerator for control of Hg (and D/Fs). 

T h e Agency also has data from one 

additiona l facility using ACI; however, 

these data were generated during a 

demonstration testing program. 

Review of the updated Hg data i n the 

revised database shows that feedrates 

vary substantially. Generally the higher 

feedrates are the result of Hg spiking. 

We re-evaluated the revised database for 

today's notice using a data analysis 

method simila r to that used at proposal 

to determine floor levels: (1) Rank Hg 

emissions from lowest to highest; (2) 

define as floor control the air pollutio n 

control device (APCD) and associated 

highest Hg MTE C for the 6 percent of 

sources wit h the lowest emissions; and 

(3) define as the floor standard the 

highest test condition average emissions 

of any test condition operated at or 

below the Floor MTEC . Usin g the 

revised database, MAC T control woul d 

be defined as wet scrubbing wit h a 

MTE C of 50 ug/dscm, and the revised 

floor standard woul d be 40 p.g/dscm, 

Nearly 60 percent of HWIs for whic h w e 

have data are achieving this level. 

b. BT F considerations for existing 

sources. The Agency originally 

considered flu e gas temperature 

reduction to 400 °F or less followe d by 

A C I as the BT F option for improved H g 

control. A s discussed at proposal, EP A 

believes that AC I incinerator 

applications can achieve Hg emission 

reductions greater than 90 percent. In 

the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM), the Agency proposed a BT F 

standard of 50 jlg/dscm. 

A s mentioned above for existing 

sources, the Agency has i n its database 

Hg data from one facility (with two test 

conditions) currently employing AC I as 

a permanent application. Both test 

conditions achieved Hg removal 

efficiencies between 97 and 98 percent 

at varying Hg feedrates. The Agenc y also 

has data from a second facility 

generated during a demonstration test 

that show about a 98 percent 

effectiveness at capturing H g though at 

one of the highest feedrates i n the 

database. These data, i n addition to AC I 

applications o n full-scale municipa l 

waste combustors and medica l waste 

incinerators, 2 7 support the Agency's 

assumption that AC I systems can 

readily achieve capture efficiencies of 

90 percent or more on incinerators. 

In light of the revised database, EP A 

can initially identify 4 |ig/dscm as the 

potential BT F standard based o n AC I 

and flue gas temperature reduction to 

400 °F or less. This is based o n a source 

achieving the floor level of 40 |ig/dscm 

and then applying AC I wit h a 90 

percent removal efficiency. However, a 

B T F level of 4 |ig/dscm wil l likel y raise 

significant cost-effectiveness 

considerations. Given that the floor 

leve l discussed today woul d be 

2 7

 USEPA, Section 5 of "Draft Technical Support 

Document For HW C MAC T Standards, Volume III: 

Selection of Proposed MAC T Standards and 

Technologies, ' February 1996. 

substantially lower than the proposed 

floor, a BT F standard of 4 |ig/dscm 

woul d be less cost-effective than the 

B T F levels of 30 p.g/dscm and 5 ug/dscm 

analyzed at proposal. 

c. MAC T floor for new sources. A t 

proposal, the floor control for new 

sources was simila r as for existing 

sources: wet scrubbing wit h feedrate 

control of Hg at an MTE C not to exceed 

51 ug/dscm. We proposed a floor 

standard of 115 (xg/dscm. 

A s discussed for existing sources, 

both wet scrubbing and AC I are used for 

Hg control. The single best performing 

source for Hg control i n our database, 

measured by lowest emissions, is a wet 

scrubber wit h Hg feedrate, expressed as 

a MTEC , of 50 |Xg/dscm. Since MAC T for 

new HWIs is identical to MAC T for 

existing sources, analysis of emissions 

using these or better controls woul d 

result i n a floor leve l for new HWIs of 

40 (ig/dscm. 

The Agency also considered a MAC T 

floor based on ACI, a technology more 

effective at Hg control than typica l wet 

scrubbing applications. Th e three test 

conditions i n the database indicate that 

A C I was effective i n removing over 97 

percent of Hg. However, the Hg feedrate 

during the single best AC I test condition 

was higher than the feedrate associated 

wit h the single best performing wet 

scrubber. In fact, Hg feedrates during the 

A C I test conditions ranged from 5 to 300 

times greater than the wet scrubber 

MTE C level. To determine an emissions 

leve l that AC I coul d routinely achieve, 

we applied a capture efficiency of 90 

percent to a Hg MTE C of 500 ug/dscm, 

a typica l feedrate identified by a MTE C 

breakpoint analysis. Thus, using the 

revised database, the floor leve l for the 

A C I evaluation woul d be 50 (ig/dscm 

whic h is slightly higher than the wet 

scrubber floor analysis. The floor for 

new sources based on the wet scrubber 

evaluation appears to be more 

appropriate because the floor level for 

new sources should be at least as 

stringent as for existing sources. 

d. BT F considerations for new 

sources. A t proposal, BT F for new 

sources was based on ACI. Simila r to 

existing sources, the Agenc y reconsidered the use of AC I as the BT F 

technology. We identified a level of 4 

(ig/dscm as a potential BT F standard for 

new sources based o n AC I an d flue gas 

temperature reduction to 400 °F or less. 

A s discussed for existing sources, this 

B T F level based on AC I wil l likel y raise 

significant cost-effectiveness 

considerations. 

4. Particulate Matter (PM). a. MAC T 

floor for existing sources. A t proposal, 

E P A defined floor control based on 

either (1) a fabric filter wit h an air-toVES 000323 
24222 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 

cloth ratio of 10 acfm/ft 2, or (2) a venturi 

scrubber used wit h an ionizin g wet 

scrubber (IWS). The resulting floor 

level, whic h include d a statisticallyderived variability factor, was 0.107 gr/ 

dscf. Since this level is higher than the 

current federal standard of 0.08 gr/dscf, 

the Agenc y identified the floor leve l as 

0.08 gr/dscf. 

Today, i n light of the revised 

database, EP A is taking comment on two 

refined engineering and data analysis 

methods to identify the P M MAC T floor 

for HWIs. The evaluation technique and 

results from both analyses are presented 

below. 

F or the first (and possibly EPA's 

preferred) data method, EP A woul d use 

the followin g steps to identify the P M 

floor level: (1) Identify all P M control 

equipment currently i n use withi n the 

H W I source category, regardless of 

measured performance; (2) identify as 

MAC T control those P M APC D 

applications used by at least 6 percent 

of sources that coul d be expected to 

routinely and consistently achieve 

superior P M performance relative to all 

control strategies considered; and (3) 

identify an emissions level that welldesigned, operated and maintained 

MAC T controls can readily achieve 

based o n generally-accepted technical 

and engineering information. 

Usin g this approach, MAC T controls 

woul d be fabric filter, IWS, and ESP. 

Based o n the revised database, EPA's 

evaluation of the MAC T floor 

performance leve l readily achievable by 

a wel l designed, operated and 

maintained MAC T control device (fabric 

filter, IWS, ESP) is 0.015 gr/dscf. Note 

that even though the P M MAC T floor is 

based o n fabric filter, IWS and ESP 

APCDs, a source is not required to 

emplo y MAC T floor control but rather 

only achieve the standard. 

Approximately 75 percent of sources 

employing MAC T (measured by 

available test condition data) currently 

are achieving 0.015 gr/dscf. A n 

evaluation of the remaining P M data 

exceeding 0.015 gr/dscf from sources 

ostensibly employing MAC T indicate 

that 20 to 40 percent of these data may 

be inappropriate for inclusion (e.g., an 

incinerator wit h multipl e test 

conditions wel l below and a few above 

0.015 gr/dscf). Generally, over 50 

percent of HWIs, regardless of the P M 

control currently employed, are 

currently achieving a 0.015 gr/dscf 

level. 

T h e second refined data evaluation 

method EP A is considering for P M Floor 

analysis is simila r to the standardsetting process applied at proposal. This 

evaluation is a four-step process: (1) 

Rank all P M emissions data and identify 

the MAC T floor controls used by the 

best performing 6 percent of sources; (2) 

develop the expanded universe to 

include all sources employing MAC T 

control, without further characterizing 

MAC T control (e.g., air-to-cloth ratio of 

the fabric filter, specific collection area 

for an ESP) as done i n the proposal 

because of the absence of reliable 

detailed design, operating, and 

maintenance information i n the 

database; (3) for each P M test condition, 

evaluate the corresponding SV M system 

removal efficiency (SRE) and screen out 

sources that have relatively poor SREs 

(i.e., outliers above a breakpoint i n the 

data array), whic h are indicators of poor 

design, operation, and maintenance 

characteristics of the MAC T controls at 

the source; and (4) identify the MAC T 

floor equal to the highest test condition 

average of all test conditions i n the P M 

expanded universe. 

Usin g this alternative evaluation 

approach as applied to the revised 

database, MAC T woul d be based on any 

of the followin g P M controls: (1) Fabric 

filter, (2) IWS, (3) ESP, or (4) venturi 

scrubber burning liqui d lo w ash wastes. 

T he resultant MAC T floor woul d be 

0.029 gr/dscf. Over 70 percent of HWIs, 

regardless of the P M control equipment 

employed, are currently achieving this 

level. A potential drawback of using this 

second alternative evaluation technique 

is that nearly 75 percent of the available 

incinerator P M data do not have 

corresponding SV M data such that a 

S RE could be calculated. This impacts 

our ability to identify and screen out 

poorer performing MAC T APCD s from 

the expanded universe, a critical step i n 

evaluating an appropriate performance 

leve l achievable by MAC T control. A s a 

result, this evaluation technique may 

not be appropriately identifying a P M 

floor level representative of MACT . For 

these reasons, the first data method 

evaluation appears to be more reliable 

and sound for the Agency's revised 

database. The Agency requests 

comments on the both data analysis 

methods presented. 

In the NPRM , the Agency proposed 

that sources maintain continuous 

compliance wit h the P M standard 

through the use of a P M CEMS . A 

decision whether to require incinerators 

to install a P M CEM S wil l be made at 

the completion of an on-going 

demonstration testing program to 

determine if at least one P M CEM S can 

meet the proposed performance 

specifications. Since the floor standards 

discussed above were based o n manua l 

test method data, the Agency wil l reevaluate at the completion of the CEM S 

testing program whether these P M floor 

standards woul d be appropriate i n the 

event that the fina l rulemaking requires 

continuous compliance wit h a P M 

CEMS . The Agency wil l notice the 

results and conclusions of the 

demonstration test program i n the 

docket for the HW C rule. 

b. BT F considerations for existing 

sources. In the NPRM , the Agency 

proposed a BT F leve l of 0.030 gr/dscf 

and solicited comment on an alternative 

B T F leve l of 0.015 gr/dscf based o n 

improved P M control. 

Based on the revised database, we can 

evaluate a reduced P M emissions level 

lowe r than 0.015 gr/dscf as the BT F 

standard (in conjunction wit h 

corresponding BT F reductions i n SVM s 

and LVMs) for existing HWIs. This 

woul d require an improved P M 

collection technology such as the use of 

more expensive bag material for fabric 

filters or increased plate area or power 

input to an ESP. Give n that the 

alternative floor level analyses 

presented today woul d be substantially 

lowe r than the proposed floor and BT F 

levels, significant cost-effectiveness 

considerations come into play and 

suggest that a BT F standard may not 

ultimately prove to be appropriate. 

c. MAC T floor for new sources. A t 

proposal, the Agenc y defined floor 

control as a fabric filter wit h an air-tocloth ratio of less than 3.8 acfm/ft 2

. The 

proposed floor level was 0.039 gr/dscf. 

Based upon our evaluation o f the 

revised database, the floor control and 

emission level discussed above for 

existing sources woul d also appear to be 

appropriate for new sources. If this 

eventuates, then MAC T floor control 

woul d be a well-designed and properly 

operated P M control device (e.g., fabric 

filter, IWS, or ESP), and the MAC T floor 

for new HWIs woul d be around 0.015 

gr/dscf. 

d. BT F considerations for new 

sources. A t proposal, EP A proposed the 

same BT F standard of 0.030 gr/dscf 

(based o n improved P M control) as that 

proposed for existing sources. 

Today, given the cost-effectiveness 

considerations discussed above for 

existing sources, the Agenc y is incline d 

to thin k that a BT F standard beyond a 

P M floor level of 0.015 gr/dscf (and 

corresponding BT F reductions for SVM s 

and LVMs) woul d not ultimately prove 

to be acceptable. 

5. Semivolatile metals (SVM) 

(cadmium and lead) a. MAC T floor for 

existing sources. A t proposal, EP A 

defined floor control as either (1) a 

venturi scrubber wit h a MTE C not to 

exceed 170 ug/dscm, (2) a combination 

of an ESP and wet scrubber wit h a 

MTE C not to exceed 5,800 ug/dscm, or 

(3) a combination of venturi scrubber 

and IWS wit h a MTE C less than 49,000 

VES 000324 
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 24223 

ug/dscm. The proposed floor level was 

270 ug/dscm. 

HWIs use a combination of good P M 

control and limitin g hazardous waste 

feedrates to control SV M emissions. 

SVMs, whic h typically vaporize at 

combustion chamber temperatures and 

recondense onto small-size particulates 

i n the APCD , are controlled most 

efficiently by technologies that are 

effective at capturing fine PM . EPA's 

revised database shows that SV M 

emissions vary substantially from 2 to 

nearly 30,000 ug/dscm. 

The refined data analysis method 

used by EP A to evaluate and identify a 

MAC T floor woul d be based directly on 

the results from the P M floor analyses 

discussed above. A s mentioned there, a 

floor of 0.015 gr/dscf woul d appear to 

represent the MAC T floor for HWIs 

based on good P M control. Since SVM s 

are controlled, i n part, by a welldesigned and operated P M control 

devices, it follows that sources 

achieving this P M performance level at 

typica l SV M feedrates shoul d also be 

controlling SVM s emissions. 

Therefore, i n its refined SV M analyses 

of the revised database, the Agency first 

considers all SV M data whe n 

corresponding P M measurements are 

below 0.015 gr/dscf. To identify the 

S V M floor from these data, we woul d 

determine either the highest SV M test 

condition average or the leve l that 

excludes sources achieving substantially 

poorer SV M control than the majority of 

sources. It is most likel y appropriate to 

use the latter approach—excluding 

sources wit h significantly poorer SV M 

performance—because their higher SV M 

emissions ma y be the result of 

exceedingly hig h SV M feedrates or some 

other factor that cannot be readily 

identified wit h available information 

(e.g., sampling or analysis anomalies). 

A n SV M emissions breakpoint analysis 

is the approach for excluding these 

poorer performing test conditions. 

Applyin g this evaluation technique to 

the revised HW I SV M database results 

i n a MAC T floor of 100 ug/dscm. 

Approximatel y 53 percent of all HW I 

S V M test condition data, regardless of 

P M emissions level, are currently 

achieving this emissions level. 

A s discussed above for PM , the 

Agenc y is soliciting comment on an 

alternative evaluation of the HWI P M 

data whic h identified a floor of 0.029 gr/ 

dscf. Conducting the same SV M floor 

analysis discussed above whe n P M 

measurements were below 0.029 gr/dscf 

also results i n the same floor of 240 ug/ 

dscm. Approximatel y 60 percent of all 

H W I SV M test condition data, regardless 

of P M emissions level, are currently 

achieving this emissions level. 

Finally, as discussed i n an earlier 

section, a preliminary analysis indicates 

that MAC T standards may not be 

warranted for one HA P metal, antimony. 

Sinc e the number of metals being 

considered for MAC T standards may 

change, we are investigating the 

appropriate structure of metals 

standards (e.g., retain the volatility 

groups or establish individua l metals 

standards). Usin g the refined method 

discussed above for SVM , we analyzed 

the revised database wit h respect to Cd 

and Pb data. The floor analysis 

corresponding to P M measurements 

below 0.015 gr/dscf woul d result i n the 

followin g floor levels: Cd 20 ug/dscm, 

and Pb 95 ug/dscm. The alternative data 

analysis method for individua l metals 

whe n corresponding P M measurements 

were below 0.029 gr/dscf woul d result 

i n the followin g floor levels: Cd 57 ug/ 

dscm, and Pb 95 ug/dscm. 

b. BT F considerations for existing 

sources. In the NPRM , the Agenc y 

considered a BT F standard for SVM s 

based on improved P M control below 

0.030 gr/dscf. However, the Agency 

concluded that a BT F standard woul d 

not be cost-effective given that the floor 

level alone woul d result i n an estimated 

94 percent SV M reduction i n emissions. 

A s discussed for P M BT F 

considerations, we also re-evaluated the 

possible appropriateness of using a 

reduced P M emissions leve l based on 

improved P M control as a BT F standard 

(taking into consideration 

corresponding BT F reductions i n SVMs) 

for existing HWIs. Give n that the 

alternative P M floor level analyses 

presented today woul d be lower than 

the proposed floor and BT F floor levels, 

significant cost-effectiveness 

considerations emerge an d suggest that 

a BT F standard for either SVM s or 

individua l Pb or C d standards based o n 

improved P M control may not 

ultimately prove to be cost-effective. 

If, however, the revised risk 

assessment yet to be conducted woul d 

show significant risk at a SV M floor 

standard of either 100 ug/dscm or 240 

Ug/dscm, whic h are floor levels from the 

two data analysis methods discussed 

above, the Agency wil l determine 

whether a BT F standard based o n 

control of SV M feedrate to levels below 

those at the floor woul d be appropriate. 

This feedrate limitation woul d i n turn 

reduce SV M emissions. The BT F 

standard and the corresponding leve l of 

feedrate control woul d be dictated by 

considerations of cost-effectiveness and 

the need to establish more stringent 

RCRA-related controls. 

c. MAC T floor for new sources. A t 

proposal, the Agenc y defined floor 

control, based on the best performing 

source, as a combination of venturi 

scrubber and IWS wit h a MTE C less 

than 49,000 ug/dscm. The proposed 

floor level for new HWIs was 240 ug/ 

dscm. 

Based upo n our re-evaluation of the 

database, the floor control and emission 

leve l discussed above for existing 

sources for P M and SVM s woul d also 

appear to be appropriate for new 

sources. In this event, MAC T floor 

control woul d be a well-designed, 

operated and maintained P M control 

device (e.g., fabric filter, IWS, or ESP) 

achieving the P M floor leve l of 0.015 gr/ 

dscf, and the MAC T floor woul d be 

around 100 ug/dscm. 

A s discussed above, the Agenc y is 

soliciting comment o n an alternative 

evaluation of the revised SV M database 

whic h concludes that MAC T floor 

control is a wel l designed, operated and 

maintained P M control device (i.e., 

fabric filter, IWS, or ESP) achieving a 

P M level of 0.029 gr/dscf. Th e floor 

analysis considering all revised SV M 

data whe n corresponding P M 

measurements are below 0.029 gr/dscf 

results i n a floor for new sources of 240 

ug/dscm. 

Finally, we have evaluated what 

individua l metal floor levels for new 

sources woul d be. Whe n P M 

measurements are below 0.015 gr/dscf, 

the analysis woul d result i n floo r levels 

for C d of 20 ug/dscm and for Pb 95 ug/ 

dscm. Under the alternative data 

analysis method for individua l metals 

whe n P M measurements were below 

0.029 gr/dscf, floor levels woul d be 57 

ug/dscm for Cd and 95 ug/dscm for Pb. 

d. BT F considerations for new 

sources. In the NPRM , the Agenc y 

proposed a BT F level of 62 ug/dscm 

based on improved P M control below 

0.030 gr/dscf. 

A s discussed for PM , a reduced P M 

emissions level based on improved P M 

control could be considered i n 

evaluating a potential BT F standard 

(considering corresponding BT F 

reductions i n SVM s and LVMs) for new 

HWIs. Because the P M floor level 

presented today woul d be substantially 

lowe r than the proposed floor and 

proposed BT F floor level, costeffectiveness issues are again raised and 

suggest that a BT F standard for either 

SVM s or individua l Pb or C d standards 

based on improved P M control may 

likewis e ultimately prove to be 

inappropriate. 

6. Lo w volatile metals (LVM ) (arsenic, 

beryllium, and chromium), a. MAC T 

Floo r for Existing Sources. A t proposal, 

E P A defined floor control as either (1) 

a venturi scrubber wit h a MTE C not to 

exceed 1,000 ug/dscm, or (2) an IWS 

wit h a MTE C less than 6,200 ug/dscm. 

VES 000325 
24224 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 

The proposed floor leve l was 210 ug/ 

dscm, whic h include d antimony. 

HWIs use a combination of good P M 

control and limitin g hazardous waste 

feedrates to control LV M emissions. 

LVM s are less likel y to vaporize at 

combustion temperatures and therefore 

partition primarily to the residue or 

adsorb onto particles i n the combustion 

gas. EPA's database shows that LV M 

emissions from HWIs vary widel y from 

1 to over 130,000 ug/dscm. 

To identify a LV M MAC T floor, the 

Agency used the same data analysis 

method applied to the revised SV M 

database. A s was determined i n the P M 

analysis of the revised database, a floor 

of 0.015 gr/dscf represents MAC T for 

HWIs based o n good P M control. 

Considering all LV M data from sources 

achieving a P M level 0.015 gr/dscf or 

better, the Agency's evaluation of the 

revised HWI data results i n a LV M floor 

of 55 ug/dscm (excluding sources above 

a breakpoint and therefore achieving 

substantially poorer LV M emissions 

than the majority of sources). Over 70 

percent of HW I LV M test condition data 

are currently achieving this emissions 

level. 

A s discussed earlier, the Agency is 

soliciting comment on an alternative 

evaluation of the revised HWI P M data 

whic h identified a floor of 0.029 gr/dscf. 

Evaluating the revised LV M data using 

this method results i n a LV M floor of 

190 ug/dscm. Approximatel y 90 percent 

of HW I LV M test condition data are 

currently achieving this level. 

Finally, as discussed i n an earlier 

section, a preliminary analysis indicates 

that MAC T standards may not be 

warranted for one HAP , antimony. Since 

the number of metals being considered 

for MAC T standards may change, we are 

investigating the appropriate structure 

of metals standards (e.g., retain the 

volatility groups or establish individua l 

metals standards). Usin g the refined 

method discussed above for LVM , we 

analyzed the revised database wit h 

respect to As, Be , and Cr (hexavalent). 

The floor analysis corresponding to P M 

measurements below 0.015 gr/dscf 

results i n the followin g floor levels: A s 

21 ug/dscm, Be 2 ug/dscm, and Cr 

(hexavalent) 3 ug/dscm. The alternative 

data analysis method for individua l 

metals whe n corresponding P M 

measurements were below 0.029 gr/dscf 

results i n the followin g Floor levels: A s 

21 ug/dscm, Be 2 ug/dscm, and Cr 

(hexavalent) 5.5 ug/dscm. 

The Agency is concerned that some of 

the potential floo r standards for some 

individua l metals (e.g., Be, Cr 

(hexavalent)) may be present at levels 

approaching practical quantitation 

limits (PQLs). PQL s are the lowest level 

of quantification that the Agenc y 

believes a competent analytical 

laboratory can be expected to reliably 

achieve. The Agency wil l investigate 

whether this issue may need to be 

addressed i n the development of any 

individua l metals standards that may be 

considered for the fina l rulemaking. We 

invite comment on the issue of PQLs 

and LV M BT F standards. 

b. BT F considerations for existing 

sources. In the NPRM , the Agency 

considered a BT F standard for LVM s 

based on improved P M control below 

0.030 gr/dscf. However, the Agency 

concluded that a BT F standard woul d 

not be cost-effective given that the floor 

level alone woul d result i n an estimated 

91 percent LV M reduction i n emissions. 

A s discussed for PM , a reduced P M 

emissions level based on improved P M 

control could be considered i n 

evaluating a potential BT F standard 

(taking into consideration 

corresponding BT F reductions i n LVM s 

and SVMs) for existing HWIs. Because 

the P M floor leve l presented today 

woul d be substantially lowe r than the 

proposed floor and BT F floor levels, a 

B T F standard for either LVM s or 

individua l As, Be, and Cr (hexavalent) 

standards based on improved P M 

control woul d raise significant costeffectiveness concerns an d may not be 

appropriate. 

If, however, the revised risk 

assessment yet to be conducted woul d 

show significant risk at a LV M floor 

standard of either 55 ug/dscm or 190 ug/ 

dscm, whic h are floor levels from the 

two data analysis methods discussed 

above, the Agency wil l determine 

whether a BT F standard based o n 

control of LV M feedrate to levels below 

those at the floor woul d be appropriate. 

This feedrate limitation woul d i n turn 

reduce LV M emissions. Th e BT F 

standard and the corresponding leve l of 

feedrate control woul d be dictated by 

considerations of cost-effectiveness and 

the need to establish more stringent 

RCRA-related controls. 

c. MAC T floor for new sources. At 

proposal, the Agency defined floor 

control, based on the best performing 

source, as a venturi scrubber wit h a 

MTE C less than 1,000 ug/dscm. The 

proposed floor level for new HWIs was 

260 ug/dscm. 

Based upon our re-evaluation of the 

database, the floor control and emission 

leve l discussed above for existing 

sources for P M and LVM s woul d also 

appear to be appropriate for new 

sources. MAC T floor control is a welldesigned, operated and maintained P M 

control device (e.g., fabric filter, IWS, or 

ESP) achieving the P M floor leve l of 

0.015 gr/dscf, and analysis of the 

revised data results i n a LV M MAC T 

floor of 55 ug/dscm. 

A s discussed above, the Agency is 

soliciting comment on an alternative 

evaluation of the revised LV M database 

whic h identifies MAC T floor control as 

a well-designed, operated and 

maintained P M control device (e.g., 

fabric filter, IWS, or ESP) achieving a 

P M level of 0.029 gr/dscf. The floor 

analysis considering all revised LV M 

data whe n corresponding P M 

measurements are below 0.029 gr/dscf 

results i n a floor for new sources of 190 

ug/dscm. 

Finally, individua l metal floor levels 

for new sources, when P M 

measurements are below 0.015 gr/dscf, 

are: A s 21 ug/dscm, Be 2 ug/dscm, and 

Cr (hexavalent) 3 ug/dscm. Unde r the 

alternative data analysis method for 

individua l metals when P M 

measurements are below 0.029 gr/dscf, 

the floor levels are: A s 21 ug/dscm, Be 

2 ug/dscm, and Cr (hexavalent) 5.5 ug/ 

dscm. [Note: The same PQ L concerns 

woul d be present here as well.) 

d. BT F considerations for new 

sources. In the NPRM , the Agenc y 

proposed a BT F level of 60 ug/dscm 

based o n improved P M control below 

0.030 gr/dscf. 

A s discussed for P M BT F 

considerations, the Agency considered a 

reduced P M emissions leve l based on 

improved P M control as the BT F 

standard (taking into consideration 

corresponding BT F reductions i n LVM s 

and SVMs) for new (and existing) HWIs. 

Because the alternative P M floor leve l 

presented today is substantially lowe r 

than the proposed floor and BT F floor 

levels, a BT F standard for either LVM s 

or individua l As, Be, or Cr (hexavalent) 

standards based on improved P M 

control may be inappropriate i n light of 

the cost-effectiveness issues inherent i n 

this scenario. 

7. Hydrochloric Acid and Chlorine 

(HC1/C12). a. MAC T Floor for Existing 

Sources. A t proposal, the Agency 

defined floor control as wet scrubbing 

wit h a chlorine MTE C (i.e., maximum 

theoretical emission concentration) up 

to 2.1E7 "ug/dscm and proposed a floor 

standard of 280 ppmv. Whil e evaluating 

the revised database, we investigated 

another data analysis method whereby 

floor control woul d be defined as wet 

scrubbing combined wit h chlorine 

feedrate control to achieve an emission 

leve l of 75 ppmv. 2 8 Unde r this method, 

2 8

 Although a specific feedrate (i.e.. MTEC ) level 

is not used to define MAC T floor, feedrate control 

is part of floor control to achieve the 75 ppmv 

standard using wet scrubbing (i.e., a source would 

probably not be able to feed chlorine at extremely 

high rates and still achieve the standard using wet 

scrubbing). Further, as discussed below in the text, 

VES 000326 
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules Z4225 

emissions data from sources using wet 

or dry scrubbing were arrayed from 

lowest to highest (without explicit 

regard to chlorine feedrate) and sources 

achieving substantially poorer HC1/C12 

control than other sources were 

screened from the analysis. 

Accordingly, after five of 48 test 

conditions were screened from the 

analysis for anomalously high emission 

rates, 2 9 tlie floor standard was 

established as the highest remaining test 

condition average—75 ppmv. 3 0 Nearly 

90 percent of test conditions 3 1 i n the 

revised database have emission levels 

below 75 ppmv. 

The Agency requests comment o n 

whether this alternative approach to 

define floor control and a floor leve l 

woul d be more appropriate than the 

proposed approach. 

b. BT F considerations for existing 

sources. A t proposal, the Agency 

determined that a BT F standard woul d 

not be warranted. Specifically, the 

Agency noted that risk from emissions 

at the floor standard woul d not likel y 

trigger the need for additional control 

under RCRA . 

Althoug h that may prove to be the 

case as wel l for the alternative standard 

discussed i n today's notice (i.e., 75 

ppmv), the risk assessment 

accompanying the fina l rule wil l 

consider incinerators wit h short stacks 

and wil l also consider acute risk from 

H CI and C12 during short-term 

exposures. The risk assessment at 

proposal modeled emissions only from 

incinerators wit h relatively tall stacks, 

and di d not consider acute exposure to 

H CI and C12. If, however, the revised 

risk assessment yet to be conducted 

shows significant risk at a floor standard 

of 75 ppmv, the Agenc y wil l determine 

whether a BT F standard woul d be 

appropriate considering costeffectiveness of such a standard and the 

need to establish more stringent controls 

under RCRA . In that case, BT F control 

coul d be based o n a minimu m system 

removal efficiency (e.g., 99.9 percent) 

and/or control of chlorine feedrate. 

c. MAC T floor for new sources. A t 

proposal, the Agenc y identified floor 

control for new incinerators as wet 

scrubbing wit h an MTE C of 1.7E7 ug/ 

sources with anomalously high emissions were 

screened from consideration. One reason that a 

source may have anomalously high emissions is 

that it may be feeding unusually high levels of 

chlorine. 

2 9

 The anomalously high emissions could have 

been caused by: (1) Poor design, operation, or 

maintenance of the scrubber, and thus the device 

would not represent MAC T (e.g., a dry scrubber was 

screened from the analysis because dry scrubbers 

are generally less efficient than wet scrubbers): (2) 

unusually high chlorine feedrates; or (3) sampling 

or analysis anomalies. 

dcsm See 61 FR at 17388. Althoug h the 

floor control for new sources was based 

o n the single best performing source and 

was more stringent than floor control for 

existing sources, the floor emission leve l 

was the same for new and existing 

sources: 280 ppmv . 

Whe n evaluating the revised 

emissions database considering various 

data analyses methods for today's 

notice, we determined that floor control 

for new sources should be the same as 

for existing sources: Wet scrubbing wit h 

chlorine feedrate control to achieve an 

emission leve l of 75 ppmv. This is stateof-the-art control for these HAPs. 

Accordingly, the floor standard for new 

sources woul d be 75 ppmv under this 

data analysis method. 

d. BT F considerations for new 

sources. The Agenc y proposed BT F 

control for new incinerators as 99 

percent SRE and a BT F standard of 67 

ppmv. This standard was based o n 

applying 99 percent reduction to the test 

condition i n the database wit h the 

highest average emission without an 

emission control device (i.e., 1100 

ppmv). Then, considering other factors 

includin g a computed emissions 

variability factor, the Agenc y 

determined that a BT F standard of 67 

ppmv woul d be appropriate. 

In retrospect, as we discussed above, 

virtually all sources are already 

equipped wit h some form of scrubber 

and 90 percent are achieving emission 

levels of 75 ppmv or below. Thus, this 

woul d be an appropriate floor control 

and standard for new sources. A s 

discussed above for existing sources, a 

B T F standard appears to be 

unnecessary, unless the upcomin g fina l 

risk analysis indicates that more 

stringent controls under RCR A woul d be 

warranted. A BT F standard could be 

based o n a minimu m system removal 

efficiency (e.g., 99.9 percent) and/or 

control of chlorine feedrate. 

8. Carbon Monoxide (CO). A s 

proposed, the Agenc y continues to 

believe that floor control for CO (as a 

surrogate for organic HAPs) for both 

existing and new sources woul d be 

operation under good combustion 

practices. The preponderance of the 

revised emissions data indicate that a 

3 0

 The floor standard under this alternative 

analysis method—75 ppmv—would be substantially 

lower than the proposed floor standard—280 

ppmv—even though feedrate control of chlorine 

would not be used explicitiy to help define floor 

control under this alternative method because, to 

identify the proposed standard, the Agency: (1) 

Selected as the standard-setting test condition the 

highest test condition for sources appearing to be 

using floor control without screening anomalous 

test conditions: and (2) added a computed 

emissions variability factor to emissions from that 

standard-setting test condition. 

floor standard of 100 ppmv over an 

hourly rolling average (HRA) woul d be 

readily achievable, h i addition, the 

Agency continues to believe that a BT F 

standard for CO based on better good 

combustion practices is likel y to raise 

significant cost-effectiveness 

considerations. 

9. Hydrocarbons (HC). The Agency 

proposed that floor control for H C (as a 

surrogate for otherwise unaddressed 

organic HAPs) for both existing and new 

sources woul d be operated under good 

combustion practices and that a floor 

standard of 12 ppmv over an hourly 

rolling average (HRA), woul d be 

appropriate. In evaluating the revised 

emission database for today's notice, we 

used the same general approach for H C 

as at proposal—the entire database was 

arrayed from the lowest to the highest 

emission levels and assumed that test 

conditions beyond a breakpoint were 

not operated under good combustion 

practices. Based on that analysis, a floor 

leve l for H C of 10 ppmv, HRA , results. 

(This 10 ppmv standard does not 

include a variability factor for reasons 

discussed above, unlike the proposed 

standard of 12 ppmv that did.) Not onl y 

does the revised database show that the 

preponderance of the data are below 10 

ppmv, but engineering experience an d 

other engineering information suggests 

that a H C level of 10 ppmv is readily 

achievable using good combustion 

practices. 

A s discussed at proposal, the Agency 

continues to be concerned about costeffectiveness considerations related to 

B T F controls for H C based o n operating 

under better combustion practices. 

F. Re-Evaluation of Proposed MAC T 

Standards for Cement Kiln s 

We discuss i n this section the basis 

for the revised standards for cement 

kiln s that result from applying 

engineering and data analysis to the 

revised emissions database. 3 2 A 

comparison of the proposed and 

potentially revised standards for 

existing and new sources is presented i n 

the table below: 

3 1

 Considering approximately 50 test conditions 

where emissions levels on both HCI and C12 were 

available. 

3 2

 Additional details of the engineering and data 

analysis evaluations performed on the revised 

emissions database can be found i n the Agency's 

background document: USEPA , "Draft Technical 

Support Document for HW C MAC T Standards 

(NODA), Volume I: MAC T Evaluations Based on 

Revised Database ", Apri l 1997. 

VES 000327 
24226 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 

TABL E II.F.—REVISED STANDARD S FO R EXISTING AN D NE W CEMEN T KILNS 

HAP or HAP Surrogate 

Existing sources New sources 

HAP or HAP Surrogate Proposed 

standard 

Revised 

standard 

Proposed 

standard 

Revised 

standard 

D/F (ng TEQ/dscm) 10.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 

Hg (u.g/dscm) 50 72 50 72 

PM (gr/dscf) 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 

HCI/CI2 (ppmv) 630 120 67 120 

C O (ppmv) 100 100 100 100 

H C (ppmv): 

Main Stack 2 20 20 20 20 

By-Pass 6.7 10 6.7 10 

SVM (ug/dscm) 57 670 55 670 

LVM (ug/dscm) 130 63 44 63 

1

 All emission levels are corrected to 7% 0 2 . 

2

 Not applicable to preheater and/or precalciner kilns. 

1. Subcategorization considerations. 

Afte r analyzing comments submitted by 

the Cement Kil n Recycling Coalition 

(CKRC) on the proposed rule, includin g 

information on the types of cement kilns 

that are currently burning hazardous 

waste, we considered whether the 

followin g subcategories woul d be 

appropriate: (1) Short kilns wit h 

separate by-pass and mai n stacks; (2) 

short kilns wit h a single stack that 

handles both by-pass and preheater or 

precalciner emissions; (3) long dry kilns 

that use kil n gas to dry raw meal i n the 

r aw mill ; and (4) others (i.e., wet kilns, 

a n d long dry kiln s not using raw mil l 

drying). Each ofth e first three categories 

is comprised of only one cement kil n 

facility whil e the kilns at the remaining 

19 facilities are i n the fourth category: 

we t kilns or long dry kilns that do not 

use raw mil l drying. We fin d that these 

subcategories shoul d be considered 

because the unique design or operating 

features of these kilns could have a 

significant impact o n emissions of one 

or more HAP s that the Agency proposed 

to regulate. 

To determine whether special 

standards woul d be appropriate for any 

ofth e three unique cement kil n types, 

we identified floor control and emission 

levels considering data only for the 

other kilns (i.e., wet kilns, and long dry 

kiln s not using raw mil l drying). We 

then considered whether the unique 

kil n types coul d apply the those MAC T 

controls and achieve those emission 

standards. It appears that these unique 

kiln s can employ the MAC T controls 

a n d achieve the corresponding emission 

levels identified i n today's notice for the 

other kilns (i.e., wet kilns, an d long dry 

kiln s not using raw mil l drying). Thus, 

subcategorization woul d not appear to 

be needed to determine achievable 

MAC T floors for all cement kilns 

burning hazardous waste. 

2. Dioxins and Furans (D/F). a. MAC T 

Floor for Existing Sources. A t proposal, 

the Agency identified floor control as 

"temperature control at the inlet to the 

E SP or fabric filter at 418 °F" . Th e 

proposed floor emission level was "0.20 

ng TEQ/dscm, or temperature at the 

inlet to the ESP or fabric filter not to 

exceed 418 °F" . 

Upo n re-evaluation of the revised 

database, we have identified an 

alternative data analysis method that 

seems more appropriate to identify floor 

control and the floor emission level. 

Based on an engineering evaluation of 

these data and other available 

information, floor control woul d be 

"temperature control at the inlet to the 

E SP or fabric filter at 400 °F" . This 

results i n a floor emission level of "0.20 

ng TEQ/dscm, or 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm and 

temperature at the inlet to the ES P or 

fabric filter not to exceed 400 °F". 3 3 

Temperature control to 400 °F or 

lowe r is appropriate for floor control 

because, from an engineering 

perspective, it is withi n the range of 

reasonable values that coul d have been 

selected considering that: (1) The 

optimum temperature windo w for 

surface-catalyzed D/ F formation is 450 -

750 °F; and (2) below 350 °F, kil n gas 

can fal l below the dew point whic h can 

increase corrosion i n ESPs and fabric 

filters and reduce performance of the 

control devices. In addition, 

approximately 20 percent of the test 

conditions i n our revised database 

reflect operations at temperatures of 400 

3 3

 The standard would be expressed in the form 

of a TE Q level combined with a maximum 

temperature at the P M control device. This form of 

the standard is consistent with the revised data and 

would result in somewhat lower emissions (i.e., 

because without the TE Q limit, some sources could 

exceed that TE Q level at the specified temperature). 

Thus, expressing the standard in this form better 

achieves the statutory mandate to establish 

standards that provide the maximum degree of 

reduction that is achievable in practice. 

°F or below. Thus, this temperature 

leve l is readily achievable. 

To identify an emission leve l that 

temperature control <400 °F could 

achieve, it is appropriate to poo l the 

available emissions data for hazardous 

waste burning kilns wit h data from 

nonwaste burning kilns. 3 4 This is 

because we are not aware of an 

engineering reason wh y hazardous 

waste burning woul d affect emissions of 

D/F . In fact, whe n the data sets are 

evaluated separately, the highest 

emitting H W cement kil n operating the 

E SP or fabric filte r at temperatures <400 

°F had D/ F emissions of 0.28 ng TEQ / 

dscm. The highest emitting nonwaste 

cement kil n operating at those 

temperatures had D/ F emissions of 0.37 

ng TEQ/dscm. W e believe that the 

difference i n emission levels is simpl y 

a reflection of many design, operation, 

and maintenance factors o n whic h we 

have little or no information, but whic h 

coul d affect D/ F emission levels. A n 

appropriate emission leve l associated 

wit h that operating temperature for al l 

cement kilns woul d be 0.40 ng TEQ / 

dscm. Thus, the floor standard woul d 

be: "0.20 ng TEQ/dscm, or 0.40 ng TEQ / 

dscm and temperature at the inlet to the 

E SP or fabric filter not to exceed 400 

°F" . 

b. BT F considerations for existing 

sources. The Agency proposed a BT F 

standard of 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm based on 

A CI operated at a temperature of <400 

3 4

 We considered whether nonwaste cement kiln 

emission data should be pooled with H W cement 

kiln data for other HAP s and determined that 

emissions of other HAPs, except for PM , could be 

affected by hazardous waste burning. For example, 

hazardous waste can have higher levels of chlorine 

and metals such as Pb. With respect to PM , 

although it appears appropriate to pool the data 

sets, the better-suited data analysis method is based 

on the New Source Performance Standard, not an 

analysis of the emissions database. Thus, pooling of 

data would not affect the standard derived from that 

data analysis method. See discussion on the P M 

standard in the text 

VES 000328 
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 24227 

°F. We continue to believe that this BT F 

standard is appropriate given the 

concerns the Agenc y has expressed 

about the risks posed by D/ F emissions, 

and the H g reductions that AC I woul d 

also provide. See 61 FR at 17392. Onl y 

sources emitting between 0.20 and 0.40 

ng TEQ/dscm wit h temperature control 

alone woul d need to take further 

measures to reduce D/ F levels to 0.20 ng 

under the BT F standard. Althoug h these 

sources coul d achieve D/ F emission 

levels wel l below 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm 

using AC I (i.e., AC I removal efficiency 

should be i n the 95-99 percent range), 

a 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm appears still to be 

appropriate because it may allow some 

sources to meet the standard more costeffectively by lowering gas temperatures 

at the ESP or fabric filter below 400 °F. 

Further, a BT F standard of 0.20 ng TEQ / 

dscm woul d likely avoid the need to 

provide further controls under RCR A 

authority. 

c. MAC T floor for new sources. A t 

proposal, the Agency identified floor 

control for new sources as "temperature 

control at the inlet to the ESP or fabric 

filter at 409 °F" . Th e proposed floor 

emission leve l was "0.20 ng TEQ/dscm, 

or temperature at the inlet to the ESP or 

fabric filter not to exceed 409 °F" . 

Upo n evaluation of the revised 

database, the floor control and emission 

leve l discussed above for existing 

sources woul d also be appropriate for 

new sources (i.e., "temperature control 

at the inlet to the ES P or fabric filter at 

400 °F " corresponding to an emission 

leve l of "0.20 ng TEQ/dscm, or 0.40 ng 

TEQ/dscm and temperature at the inlet 

to the ESP or fabric filter not to exceed 

400 °F" . This is because our engineering 

evaluation of available information and 

facility operating experience indicates 

that the best controlled source is one 

that is controlling temperature control at 

the inlet to the fabric filter at 400 °F. 

d. BT F considerations for new 

sources. The Agency proposed AC I as 

B T F control and a BT F standard of 0.20 

ng TEQ/dscm. We continue to believe 

that this BT F standard is appropriate for 

new sources for the same reasons 

discussed above i n the context of 

existing sources. 

3. Mercury (Hg). a. MAC T floor for 

existing sources. A t proposal, the 

Agency identified floor control as 

hazardous waste feedrate control not to 

exceed an MTE C of 110 ug/dscm. EP A 

proposed a floor standard of 130 ug/ 

dscm. 

A l l cement kilns employ either ESPs 

and fabric filters for P M control. 

However, since Hg is generally i n the 

vapor form i n and downstream of the 

combustion chamber, including the air 

pollution control device, ESPs and 

fabric filters do not achieve good 

mercury control. Mercury emissions 

from cement kilns are currently 

controlled by the BIF rule whic h 

establishes limits on the maximum 

feedrate of Hg i n total feedstreams (e.g., 

hazardous waste, raw materials, coal). 

Thus, MAC T is based on hazardous 

waste feed control. 

Review of the revised database 

indicate that cement kilns only 

infrequently conducted Hg spiking of 

the hazardous wastes (contrary to the 

Agency's initia l information), and thus 

the H g content i n the wastes during 

testing is likel y representative of the Hg 

content during typica l operations. Th e 

revised data also show that raw 

materials can represent a significant 

source H g input to the kil n system. 

Sinc e cement kilns do not employ a 

dedicated device capable of Hg control, 

the Agency believes that the Hg data are 

essentially "normal " even though 

generated during worst case compliance 

testing conditions for other parameters. 

To evaluate these revised data for the 

purpose of determining a MAC T floor, 

the Agenc y used the followin g data 

analysis steps: (1) Rank Hg emissions 

from lowest to highest; (2) conduct a 

breakpoint analysis on the ranked H g 

emissions data, and (3) establish the 

floor standard as the test condition 

average of the breakpoint source. Th e 

breakpoint analysis reflects an 

engineering-based evaluation of the data 

and ensures that the few cement kiln s 

spiking extra Hg do not drive the floor 

leve l to levels higher than the 

preponderance of this "normal " data 

indicates is routinely achievable. Th e 

Agency's analysis results i n a MAC T 

floor leve l of 72 ug/dscm. The revised 

database indicates that approximately 

80 percent of cement kilns are achieving 

this floor level. 

b. BT F considerations for existing 

sources. The Agency proposed a BT F 

standard of 50 ug/dscm based on flue 

gas temperature reduction to 400 °F or 

less followe d by ACI. EP A continues to 

believe that AC I is an appropriate BT F 

technology for cement kilns. Althoug h 

A C I is not employed for Hg control at 

any full-scale H W cement kiln , the 

Agenc y is not aware of any cement kil n 

flue gas conditions that woul d preclude 

the applicability of ACI—whic h has 

been demonstrated for other simila r 

types of combustion applications. A s 

discussed i n the NPRM , EP A assumes 

that cement kilns employing AC I to 

meet a BT F standard woul d install the 

A C I system after the existing ESP or 

fabric filter, and then add on a new 

fabric filter to remove the injected 

carbon wit h the adsorbed Hg. Althoug h 

adding a new fabric filter i n series is an 

expensive approach, it wil l enable 

cement kilns to continue current cement 

kil n dust (CKD) recycling practices by 

avoiding potential internal build-up of 

H g from CK D recycling. 

In the NPRM , the cement kil n BT F 

standard was based on the assumption 

that an AC I system could routinely 

achieve Hg emissions reductions of 80 

to 90 percent. The Agency received 

publi c comments from, among others, 

the cement manufacturing industry 

questioning whether a AC I application 

o n a cement kil n coul d routinely 

achieve capture efficiencies as 

proposed. The commenters went on to 

say that removal efficiencies of 

approximately 60 percent were perhaps 

more realistic. We wil l address these 

comments specifically as part i n the 

fina l rulemaking, but for the purposes of 

today's analysis, EP A has assumed an 

A C I effectiveness of 60 percent i n 

identifying BT F levels for cement kilns. 

Thus, the BT F standard for cement kiln s 

woul d be 30 ug/dscm based on an AC I 

efficiency of 60 percent applied to the 

potential floor level of 72 ug/dscm. 

Ultimately adopting a BT F standard of 

30 ug/dscm for cement kilns wil l likel y 

involve close scrutiny of costeffectiveness and other factors, 

includin g the costs of retrofits that 

sources wil l need to undertake (e.g., 

installing the AC I system, add-on of a 

new fabric filter, managing the captured 

carbon) relative to the emissions 

reductions achieved. Without prejudging this issue, the Agency's 

experience to date suggests that the fina l 

analysis may wel l reveal significant 

drawbacks associated wit h the BT F 

level. 

c. MAC T floor for new sources. A t 

proposal, the Agenc y identified floor 

control for new sources as hazardous 

waste feedrate control not to exceed an 

MTE C of 28 ug/dscm. EP A proposed a 

floor standard of 82 ug/dscm. 

The Agency believes that the floor 

control and emission leve l discussed 

above for existing sources woul d also be 

appropriate for new sources. Thus, the 

MAC T floor for new cement kilns woul d 

be 72 ug/dscm based on the revised 

database. 

d. BT F considerations for new 

sources. At proposal, BT F for new 

sources was based o n ACI and we 

proposed a BT F standard of 50 ug/dscm. 

A s discussed for existing sources, the 

Agency is considering the use of AC I 

and flue gas temperature reduction to 

400 °F as the BT F technology. In 

evaluating the revised database, EP A 

has identified a leve l of 30 ug/dscm as 

the BT F standard for new sources based 

on ACI. This is based on a source 

achieving the MAC T new floor level of 

VES 000329 
24228 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 

72 jig/dscm and then applying AC I wit h 

a 60 percent removal efficiency. For the 

same reasons identified for existing 

sources, the Agenc y is concerned about 

whether this BT F leve l based o n AC I 

wil l ultimately prove to be cost-effective 

for new cement kil n sources. 

4. Particulate Matter (PM). a. MAC T 

floor for existing sources. A t proposal, 

E P A defined floor control as a fabric 

filter wit h an air-to-cloth ratio of 2.3 

acfm/ft 2. The floor analysis led to a leve l 

of 0.065 gr/dscf, but due to concerns 

wit h the appropriateness of using a 

statistically-derived variability factor, 

the Agency instead established the floor 

standard based on the cement kil n Ne w 

Source Performance Standard (NSPS). 

The NSP S is a process emissions rate 

that converts to an approximate flue gas 

concentration of 0.03 gr/dscf. 

Today, EP A is taking comment on two 

data analysis methods to identify the 

P M floor standard for cement kilns. The 

first data analysis method woul d be to 

establish the floor standard equivalent 

to the NSPS, whic h is 0.3 lbs P M per ton 

of dr y raw material feed. Currently, 

approximately 20 percent of H W cement 

kilns are subject to the NSPS . Cement 

kiln s achieve the NSP S wit h welldesigned and properly operated ESPs or 

fabric filters. 

A second data analysis method 

considered and potentially preferred 

woul d be to express the NSP S as a stack 

gas concentration limit as done i n the 

NPRM . The conversion ofth e NSP S to 

a concentration standard wil l vary by 

kil n process type (e.g., wet, dry, 

preheater, preheater/precalciner) 

because the amount of flue gas 

generated per ton of raw material feed 

varies by process type. Based on typica l 

factors of flue gas quantities generated 

per ton of raw material feed and flue gas 

moisture content, the NSP S equates to a 

P M concentration of approximately 0.03 

gr/dscf for wet process kilns (also the 

least energy efficient) and 0.05 gr/dscf 

for preheater kilns (the most energy 

efficient). The total H W cement kil n 

universe is comprised of 41 kilns wit h 

varying process types: 27 wet, 12 long 

dry, one preheater/precalciner, and one 

preheater. O f the cement kilns currently 

subject to the NSP S standard, four are 

wet, two are long dry, one preheater/ 

precalciner, and one preheater. 

Notwithstanding that the 

concentration equivalent of the NSP S 

can vary by process type, establishing 

the floor standard for all cement kilns at 

0.030 gr/dscf appears to be appropriate 

regardless of manufacturing process 

utilized, for the followin g reasons: (1) 

The majority (66 percent) of the cement 

kiln s are wet process kilns for whic h the 

NSP S concentration equivalent is 0.030 

gr/dscf. For these kilns, this floor 

method woul d not differ from the initia l 

NSP S method used i n the proposal. (2) 

O u r database shows non-wet process 

kiln s have at least one test condition (in 

addition to three quarters of all non-wet 

process kil n data) achieving 0.030 gr/ 

dscf. Therefore, achievability of the 

floor appears to be satisfied. (3) Even 

though wet process kilns typically have 

lowe r inlet grain loadings than the nonwet processes, non-wet kilns are 

achieving the 0.030 gr/dscf level. Again , 

the achievability requirement is met. 

Thus, the Agency believes that it is 

appropriate to establish the MAC T floor 

for existing sources at 0.030 gr/dscf. 

In the NPRM , the Agency proposed 

that sources maintain continuous 

complianc e wit h the P M standard 

through the use of a P M CEMS . A 

decision whether to require cement 

kiln s to install a P M CEM S wil l be made 

at the completion of an on-going 

demonstration testing program to 

determine if at least one P M CEM S can 

meet the proposed performance 

specifications. Since the floor standards 

discussed above were based on manua l 

test method data, the Agency wil l reevaluate at the completion of the CEM S 

testing program whether these P M floor 

standards woul d be appropriate i n the 

event that the fina l rulemaking requires 

continuous compliance wit h a P M 

CEMS . The Agency wil l make available 

the results and conclusions of the 

demonstration test program i n the 

docket for the HW C rule. 

b. BT F considerations for existing 

sources. In the NPRM , the Agency 

considered a BT F level of 0.015 gr/dscf 

based o n improved P M control. 

However, we determined that such a 

standard woul d not likely be costeffective. We di d not have adequate data 

to ensure that, given the high inlet grain 

loading caused by entrained raw 

material, cement kilns could routinely 

achieve 0.015 gr/dscf and below wit h a 

single fabric filter or ESP. 

In light of the revised database, the 

Agenc y again considered a BT F P M 

emissions leve l based on improved P M 

control. Because the floor level of 0.030 

gr/dscf presented today is the same as 

the proposed floor, a BT F standard 

lowe r than 0.030 gr/dscf (even wit h 

corresponding BT F reductions for SVM s 

and LVMs) appears not to be costeffective based o n information 

developed at proposal. 

c. MAC T floor for new sources. A t 

proposal, the Agency defined floor 

control as a fabric filter wit h an air-tocloth ratio of less than 1.8 acfm/ft 2

. Th e 

floor analysis lead to a level of 0.065 gr/ 

dscf. Due to concerns wit h the 

appropriateness of the statisticallyderived variability factor, the Agency 

instead established the floor standard 

based on the cement kil n NSPS . The 

NSP S is a process emissions rate that 

the Agency converted to an approximate 

flue gas concentration of 0.030 gr/dscf. 

Upo n evaluation of the revised 

database discussed for existing sources, 

E P A continues to believe that the floor 

standard discussed above for existing 

sources woul d also be appropriate for 

new sources. Therefore, MAC T floor 

control is a well-designed and properly 

operated P M control device (e.g., fabric 

filter, ESP), and the MAC T floor for new 

cement kilns woul d be 0.030 gr/dscf. 

d. BT F considerations for new 

sources. In the NPRM , EP A considered 

a BT F standard based on improved P M 

control to be consistent wit h existing 

sources. However, we found that the 

B T F leve l woul d not be cost-effective. 

Today, as discussed above for existing 

source BT F considerations and based 

upon examining the revised database i n 

light of the findings at proposal, a BT F 

standard beyond a P M leve l of 0.030 gr/ 

dscf (and corresponding BT F reductions 

for SVM s and LVMs) woul d not appear 

to be cost-effective. 

5. Semivolatile Metals (SVM) 

(cadmium and lead), a. MAC T Floor for 

Existing Sources. A t proposal, EP A 

defined floor control as a fabric filter 

wit h an air-to-cloth ratio less than 2.1 

acfm/ft 2 and a H W MTE C of 84,000 ug/ 

dscm. The proposed floor level was 57 

ug/dscm. 

Cement kilns use a combination of 

good P M control and limitin g hazardous 

waste feedrates to control SV M 

emissions. SVM s are controlled most 

efficiently by technologies, such as 

fabric filters, whic h are effective at 

capturing fine PM . EPA's database 

shows that SV M emissions vary 

substantially from 1 to over 6,000 ug/ 

dscm. 

The engineering evaluation and data 

analysis method used by EP A to 

evaluate and identify a MAC T floor 

from the revised database is an 

extension of the P M floor analyses of the 

revised database. A s discussed i n the 

P M analysis, a floor of 0.030 gr/dscf 

could represent MAC T based on good 

P M control. Since SVM s are controlled, 

i n part, by a well-designed and operated 

P M control device, it follows that 

sources achieving this P M performance 

level should also be controlling SV M 

emissions at typical SV M feedrates. 

Therefore, i n its refined SV M analysis of 

the revised database, EP A woul d first 

consider all SV M data whe n 

corresponding P M measurements are 

below 0.030 gr/dscf. To identify the 

S V M floor from these data, we woul d 

identify the floor at the leve l that 

VES 000330 
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 24229 

excludes (by breakpoint analysis) 

sources achieving substantially poorer 

S V M control than the majority of 

sources. A s noted earlier i n the case of 

HWIs, it is appropriate to exclude 

sources wit h significantly poorer SV M 

performance because their higher SV M 

emissions may be the result of 

exceedingly hig h SV M feedrates or some 

other factor that shows the test 

condition di d not actually reflect MAC T 

floor controls. The Agenc y does not 

have available information to otherwise 

screen out these non-MAC T test 

conditions from the expanded universe 

for SVM . 

The Agency's evaluation of the 

revised cement kil n SVM s data results 

i n a MAC T floor of approximately 670 

ug/dscm. Approximatel y 85 percent of 

S V M test condition data are currently 

achieving this emissions level. 

Finally, as discussed i n an earlier 

section, a preliminary analysis indicates 

that MAC T standards may not be 

warranted for one HA P metal, antimony. 

Sinc e the number of metals being 

considered for MAC T standards may 

change, we are investigating the 

appropriate structure of metals 

standards (e.g., retain the volatility 

groups or establish individua l metals 

standards). Usin g the refined method 

discussed above for SVM , we analyzed 

the revised database wit h respect to C d 

and Pb data. Th e floor analysis 

corresponding to P M measurements 

below 0.030 gr/dscf woul d result i n the 

followin g floor levels: Cd 60 ug/dscm, 

and Pb 560 ug/dscm. 

b. BT F considerations for existing 

sources. In the NPRM , the Agency 

considered a BT F standard for SVM s 

based o n improved P M control below 

0.030 gr/dscf. However, the Agency 

concluded that a BT F standard woul d 

not be cost-effective given that the SV M 

Floor leve l of 57 ug/dscm alone woul d 

result i n an estimated 94 percent SV M 

reduction i n emissions. 

A s discussed for P M BT F 

considerations, the Agency also reevaluated the possible appropriateness 

of using a reduced P M emissions leve l 

based o n improved P M control as a BT F 

standard (with corresponding BT F 

reductions i n SVM s and LVMs). Eve n 

though the SV M floor standard is higher 

than at proposal, our preliminary 

judgment is that significant costeffectiveness considerations wil l likel y 

be encountered i n a fina l analysis of 

whether to establish a BT F standard for 

either SVM s or for Pb or C d 

individually . 

If, however, the revised risk 

assessment yet to be conducted woul d 

show significant risk at a SV M floor 

standard of either 670 ug/dscm, the 

Agency wil l determine whether a BT F 

standard based o n control of H W SV M 

feedrate to levels below those at the 

floor woul d be appropriate. This 

feedrate limitation woul d i n turn reduce 

S V M emissions. The BT F standard and 

the corresponding level of feedrate 

control woul d be dictated by 

considerations of cost-effectiveness and 

the need to establish more stringent 

RCRA-related controls. 

c. MAC T floor for new sources. At 

proposal, the Agenc y defined floor 

control, based o n the best performing 

source, as a fabric filter wit h an air-tocloth ratio less than 2.1 acfm/ft 2

 and a 

H W MTE C of 36,000 ug/dscm The 

proposed floor leve l for new cement 

kilns was 55 ug/dscm. 

Upo n evaluation of the revised 

database, EP A believes that the floor 

control and emission leve l discussed 

above for existing sources for SVM s 

woul d also be appropriate for new 

sources. In this event, MAC T floor 

control woul d be a well-designed, 

operated and maintained P M control 

device (i.e., fabric filter or ESP) 

achieving the P M floor leve l of 0.030 gr/ 

dscf. The Agency's evaluation of the 

revised SV M data results i n a MAC T 

floor of 670 ug/dscm. 

Finally , based o n the revised 

database, individua l metal floor levels 

for new sources are identical to those for 

existing sources. Thus, individua l Cd 

and Pb standards are: C d 65 ug/dscm 

and Pb 550 ug/dscm. 

d. BT F Considerations for new 

sources. In the NPRM , the Agency 

considered a SV M BT F level, but 

determined that a BT F standard woul d 

not be cost-effective. 

A s discussed for existing sources, the 

Agency considered a more stringent P M 

emissions leve l for improved control of 

P M , SV M and LV M emissions for new 

cement kilns i n light of the revised 

database. Eve n though the SV M floor 

standard is higher than at proposal, our 

preliminary judgment is that significant 

cost-effectiveness considerations wil l 

likel y be encountered i n a fina l analysis 

of whether to establish a BT F standard 

for either SVM s or for Pb or Cd 

individually . 

6. Low Volatile Metals (LVM) (arsenic, 

beryllium, and chromium), a. MAC T 

floor for existing sources. A t proposal, 

E P A defined floor control as either (1) 

a fabric filter wit h an air-to-cloth ratio 

less than 2.3 acfm/ft 2 and a H W MTE C 

of 140,000 ug/dscm, or (2) an ESP wit h 

a specific collection area of 350 ft 2/ 

kacfm. The proposed floor level was 130 

ug/dscm, whic h include d antimony. 

The engineering and data analysis 

method used by EP A to evaluate the 

revised database and identify a MAC T 

floor for LVM s is also related directly to 

the P M floor analysis. A s was 

determined i n the P M analysis, a floor 

of 0.030 gr/dscf represents MAC T for 

cement kilns based o n good P M control. 

Considering all LV M data from sources 

achieving a P M level 0.030 gr/dscf or 

better, EPA's evaluation of the revised 

cement kil n data woul d result i n a LV M 

floor of 63 ug/dscm (excluding sources 

above a breakpoint and therefore 

excluding those wit h substantially 

poorer LV M emissions than the majority 

of sources). Approximately 90 percent 

of cement kil n LV M test condition data 

are currently achieving this emissions 

level. 

Finally , as discussed for SVMs, EP A 

is continuing to investigate the 

appropriate structure of metals 

standards (e.g., retain the volatility 

groups or establish individua l metals 

standards). The Agency analyzed 

individua l As, Be, and Cr (hexavalent) 

data and established individua l metal 

floor levels consistent wit h the 

engineering evaluation and data 

analysis method. Where P M 

measurements are below 0.030 gr/dscf, 

the result woul d be: A s 10 ug/dscm, Be 

1.1 ug/dscm, and Cr (hexavalent) 4.6 

ug/dscm. 

Th e Agency is concerned that some of 

the potential floor standards for some 

individua l metals (e.g., Be, Cr 

(hexavalent)) may be present at levels 

approaching practical quantitation 

limits (PQLs). PQLs are the lowest level 

of quantification that the Agenc y 

believes a competent analytical 

laboratory can be expected to reliably 

achieve. The Agency wil l investigate 

whether this issue may need to be 

addressed i n the development of any 

individua l metals standards that may be 

considered for the fina l rulemaking. We 

invit e comment o n the issue of PQLs 

and LV M BT F standards. 

b. BT F considerations for existing 

sources. In the NPRM , the Agency 

considered a BT F standard for LVM s 

based on improved P M control below 

0.030 gr/dscf. However, the Agenc y 

concluded that a BT F LV M standard 

woul d not be cost-effective. 

A s discussed for PM , a reduced P M 

emissions leve l based on improved P M 

control coul d be considered i n 

evaluating a potential BT F standard 

(taking into consideration 

corresponding BT F reductions i n LVM s 

and SVMs) for existing CKs. Because 

both the P M and LV M floor levels 

presented today woul d be simila r to the 

proposed floor, a BT F standard for 

either LVM s or individua l As, Be, and 

Cr (hexavalent) standards based o n 

improved P M control woul d likel y raise 

VES 000331 
24230 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 

significant cost-effectiveness concerns 

and may not ultimately be appropriate. 

c. MAC T floor for new sources. A t 

proposal, the Agenc y defined floor 

control, based on the best performing 

source, as a fabric filter wit h an air-tocloth ratio less than 2.3 acfm/ft 2

 and a 

H W MTE C of 25,000 ug/dscm. The 

proposed LV M floor level for new CK s 

was 44 ug/dscm. 

Based upo n our re-evaluation of the 

database, the floor control and emission 

leve l discussed above for existing 

sources for LVM s woul d also appear to 

be appropriate for new sources. MAC T 

floor control is a well-designed and 

properly operated P M control device 

(i.e., fabric filter, ESP) achieving the P M 

floor leve l of 0.030 gr/dscf. The 

Agency's evaluation of the LV M data 

results i n a MAC T floor of 63 ug/dscm. 

Finally, individua l metal floor levels 

for new sources are identical to those fo r 

existing sources. Thus, the standards 

woul d be: A s 10 ug/dscm, Be 1.1 ug/ 

dscm, and Cr (hexavalent) 4.6 ug/dscm. 

d. BT F considerations for new 

sources. In the NPRM , the Agency 

considered a LV M BT F level, but 

determined that a BT F standard woul d 

not be cost-effective. 

A s discussed for existing sources, the 

Agenc y considered a more stringent P M 

emissions leve l for improved control of 

P M , SV M and LV M emissions for new 

CKs. Because both the alternative P M 

an d LV M floor levels presented today 

are lowe r than the proposed floors, a 

B T F standard for either LVM s or 

individua l As, Be, or Cr (hexavalent) 

standards based o n improved P M 

control may be inappropriate i n light of 

the cost-effectiveness concerns inherent 

i n this scenario. 

7. Hydrochloric Acid and Chlorine 

(HCl/Ch). a. MAC T floor for existing 

sources. A t proposal, the Agency 

identified floor control for total chlorine 

(i.e., HCI + Cl 2 ) as feedrate control of 

chlorine i n the hazardous waste at an 

MTE C not to exceed 1.6 g/dscm, and 

proposed a floor standard of 630 ppmv. 

Whe n we evaluated the revised database 

prior to today's notice, we used a data 

analysis method simila r to that used at 

proposal. Th e floor control woul d be 

defined the same way as proposed, but 

the floor standard woul d be 120 ppmv. 

This standard should be readily 

achievable given that 93 percent of the 

test conditions i n the revised database 

are meeting that level. 

W e used the followin g data analysis 

steps for both the proposed standard 

and today's alternative standard: (1) 

Rank emissions from lowest to highest; 

(2) define as floor control the highest 

hazardous waste chlorine MTE C for the 

6 percent of sources

 3 5

 wit h the lowest 

emissions; and (3) define as the floor 

standard the highest test condition 

average emissions of any test condition 

operated at or below the floor MTE C 

(i.e., the expanded universe). We then 

refined the data analysis method i n two 

respects based o n an engineering 

evaluation ofth e revised database: (1) 

We di d not add a computed emissions 

variability factor

 36 ; an d (2) several test 

conditions were deleted from the 

expanded universe where an 

engineering evaluation revealed that 

SREs were significantly worse than the 

majority of other SREs. 

In the case of total chlorine emissions 

for CKs, it appears not to be appropriate 

to use a breakpoint analysis to screen 

from the expanded universe sources that 

are not achieving an appropriate 

removal efficiency. This is because total 

chlorine is removed incidentally by 

reactions wit h the alkaline raw 

materials (e.g., limestone). Thus, it is 

difficult to reason that poor SRE is 

caused by poor design, operation, or 

maintenance of the control system. 

Nonetheless, we believe it is still 

appropriate to screen out clearly 

anomalous SREs because they are likel y 

Indicative of an incorrect MTE C value 

or emission measurement. A n incorrect 

value for either could affect the floor 

standard. 3 7 

b. BT F considerations for existing 

sources. A t proposal, the Agency 

defined BT F control as wet scrubbing 

wit h a 99 percent removal efficiency, 

but determined that a BT F standard 

woul d not be cost-effective. Given that 

the alternative floor leve l presented 

today woul d be substantially lower than 

the proposed floor, a BT F standard 

woul d be less cost-effective. Thus, we 

believe that our fina l analysis is likely 

to conclude that a BT F standard woul d 

not be warranted. 

c. MAC T floor for new sources. A t 

proposal, the Agenc y defined floor 

control for new sources as hazardous 

waste feedrate control for chlorine at an 

MTE C of 1.6 g/dscm or less. The 

proposed floor standard was 630 ppmv, 

the same as the floor standard for 

existing sources. 

3 5

 Or where we had data from fewer than 30 

sources, the three sources with the lowest emissions 

(i.e., 3 represents the median of the five best 

performing sources). 

3 0 S e e previous discussion in the text. As we 

discussed at proposal (61 F R at 17396), the 

computed variability factor for this standard 

resulted in a standard that di d not comport with 

engineering information on Ihe APCDs at issue, 

engineering experience on facility performance 

within this source category, or the emissions 

database. 

3 7

 The floor standard without screening the 

anomalous SREs would have been 160 ppmv. 

Give n that the alternative data 

analysis method discussed above for 

existing sources di d not change the 

expanded universe, except to screen out 

test conditions wit h anomalous SREs, 

MAC T floor control and the floor 

emission level woul d be the same as for 

existing sources: hazardous waste 

feedrate control for chlorine at an MTE C 

of 1.6 g/dscm or less, resulting i n a floor 

standard of 120 ppmv (i.e., after 

screening out test conditions wit h 

anomalous SREs). 

d. BT F considerations for new 

sources. The Agenc y proposed a BT F 

standard for new sources of 67 ppmv 

based o n wet scrubbing. Give n that 

under the revised data analysis method 

discussed today the floor standard 

woul d be muc h lowe r than proposed, 

the Agenc y believes that the economic 

impact analysis being conducted i n 

support ofth e fina l rule is likel y to raise 

significant concerns about costeffectiveness. In that event, the Agenc y 

woul d promulgate the 120 ppmv floor 

standard for new sources. 

8. Carbon Monoxide (CO). The 

Agency proposed the same MAC T floor 

standards for C O for existing and new 

CKs, and determined that BT F controls 

woul d not be cost-effective. Floor 

control was defined for kilns wit h bypass ducts as operation under good 

combustion practices and the standard 

was 100 ppmv, HRA , measured i n the 

by-pass duct. Fo r kilns without a bypass duct (i.e., long wet and dry kilns), 

no C O standard was proposed given that 

CO levels i n the mai n stack woul d not 

be an indicator of combustion 

efficiency. This is because C O can be 

generated by process chemistry (i.e., 

dissociation of C0 2 to form CO) and 

evolution from trace organics i n the raw 

material feedstocks, as wel l as from 

combustion of fuels. 

The Agency continues to believe that 

the proposed C O standard for kiln s 

equipped wit h a by-pass duct woul d be 

appropriate. However, under one option 

being considered for limitin g C O (and 

HC) emissions, kilns without a by-pass 

duct woul d also be required to comply 

wit h a CO limit based on the leve l 

achieved during the performance test 

demonstrating compliance wit h the H C 

limit. See discussion i n Part Two , 

Section ll.C. 

Finally , the Agency continues to 

believe that a BT F standard for C O 

based on better combustion practices is 

likely to raise significant costeffectiveness considerations. 

9. Hydrocarbons (HC). The Agency 

proposed the same MAC T floor 

standards for H C for existing and new 

CKs, and determined that BT F controls 

woul d not be cost-effective. Floor 

VES 000332 
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 24231 

control was defined for kilns wit h bypass ducts as operation under good 

combustion practices and the standard 

was 6.7 ppmv, based on an hourly 

rollin g average (HR A and measured i n 

the by-pass duct. For kilns without a bypass duct (i.e., long wet and dry kilns), 

floor control wa s defined as good 

combustion practices and use of raw 

materials wit h relatively low organic 

content, and the standar d was 20 ppmv, 

HRA , measured i n the main stack. 

In evaluating the revised database for 

today's notice, the 20 ppmv standard 

stil l appears to be appropriate for the 

mai n stack of long kilns 3 8. Whe n 

considering by-pass kilns, however, the 

revised database still lacks H C 

emissions data for the only two CKs 

currently burning hazardous waste i n 

units equipped wit h by-pass ducts. 

These two sources are complying wit h 

the BIF rules by documenting that CO 

levels are below 100 ppmv, HRA. 3 9 

Unde r one attractive option for 

compliance wit h the C O and H C 

standards (i.e., sources woul d have the 

option of complyin g wit h either the C O 

or H C standard; see discussion i n Part 

Two, Section II.C), we woul d expect 

that these two sources woul d continue 

to compl y wit h the CO limit. Thus, it 

may not be necessary to establish a H C 

limit for them. However, given that it 

may be prudent to establish a H C limit 

for these by-pass kilns, we woul d 

transfer the good combustion practicesbased H C standard for incinerators—10 

ppmv, HRA—t o these kilns. This is 

appropriate because: (1) Good 

combustion practices is floor control for 

CO an d H C for these kilns as wel l as for 

incinerators; and (2) given that the good 

combustion practices-based CO 

standard is the same for incinerators 

and by-pass kilns, the good combustion 

practices-based H C standard should also 

be the same. 

A s discussed at proposal, the Agenc y 

continues to be concerned about costeffectiveness considerations related to 

B T F controls for H C based on operating 

under better combustion practices. 

G. Re-Evaluation of Proposed MAC T 

Standards for Lightweight Aggregate 

Kiln s 

We discuss i n this section the basis 

for the revised standards for LWAK s 

that coul d result from applying various 

engineering evaluation and data 

analysis methods to the revised 

emissions database 4 0. A comparison of 

the proposed and potentially revised 

standards for existing and new sources 

is presented i n the table below: 

TABL E II.G:—REVISE D STANDARD S FO R EXISTING AN D NE W LWAKS 1 

HAP or HAP surrogate 

Existing sources New sources 

HAP or HAP surrogate Proposed 

standard 

Revised 

standard 

Proposed 

standard 

Revised 

standard 

D/F (ng TEQ/dscm) 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 

Hg (ug/dscm) 72 47 72 47 

PM (gr/dscf) 0.030 0.022 0.030 0.022 

HCI/CI2 (ppmv) 450 130 62 43 

100 100 100 100 

HC (ppmv) 14 10 14 10 

SVM (ug/dscm) 12 76 5.2 76 

LVM (ug/dscm) 340 37 55 37 

1

 All emission levels are corrected to 7% 0 2 . 

1. Dioxins and Furans (D/F). a. MAC T 

floor for existing sources. At proposal, 

the Agency ha d D/ F emissions for only 

one LWA K an d therefore pooled that 

LWA K data point wit h D/F data for CK s 

to identify MAC T standards. 

Consequently, floor control and the 

floor emission leve l for LWAK s were the 

same as for CKs. The proposed floor 

control was "temperature control at the 

Inlet to the fabric filter 4 1 at 418 °F" , and 

the proposed floor emission level was 

"0.20 ng TEQ/dscm, or temperature at 

the inlet to the fabric filter not to exceed 

418 °F" . The Agenc y reasoned that 

pooling D/ F data for LWAK s and CKs 

coul d be appropriate because both types 

•>* The Agency di d not propose a H C standard for 

the main stack of a preheater or preheater/ 

precalciner kiln. See F E at 17397-8. The Agency is 

currently developing MAC T standards for nonwaste burning cement kilns, however. An y 

standards that the Agency may propose that arc 

applicable to the main stack of a preheater or 

preheater/precalciner non-waste burning kiln may 

also be appropriate for the main stack of such 

hazardous waste burning kilns. 

3 9

 The two kilns operating with by-pass ducts are 

Medusa's facility in Demopolis, AL , and Lone Star's 

facility in Cape Girardeau, MO . We note that 

of devices are designed and operated 

similarl y wit h respect to factors that can 

affect surface-catalyzed D/ F formation. 

Both LWAK s an d CKs have high P M 

inlet loadings comprised primarily of 

entrained raw material and both are 

equipped wit h fabric filters that operate 

withi n the same temperature range. 

Commenters on the proposed rule, 

however, argued that pooling LWA K 

and C K D/ F data was inappropriate for 

purposes of establishing MAC T 

standards for LWAKs . Sinc e proposal, 

the Agenc y has obtained D/ F emissions 

data from two additional LWA K 

facilities. These data are include d i n the 

revised emissions database and are used 

Holnam has a long wet kiln in Clarksville, M O that 

has been retrofitted with a mid-kiln sampling port 

for purposes of monitoring C O in compliance with 

the BIF rule, That monitoring approach would be 

acceptable under the MAC T rule as well. 

4 0

 Additional details ofthe engineering and data 

analysis evaluations performed on the revised 

emissions database can be found in the Agency's 

background document: USEPA , "Draft Technical 

Support Document for HW C MAC T Standards 

(NODA), Volume I: MAC T EvaluaUons Based on 

Revised Database", April 1997. 

to identify the alternative standards 

presented here. 

Based upon evaluation ofth e revised 

LWA K D/ F database, our engineering 

evaluation of the data and other 

information o n LWA K performance 

suggests the floor control can be 

specified as "temperature control at the 

inlet to the fabric filter at 400 °F" . This 

woul d result i n a floor emission leve l of 

"0.20 ng TEQ/dscm, or 4.1 ng TEQ / 

dscm and temperature at the inlet to the 

fabric Alter not to exceed 400 °F'. 4 2 

Give n that the entire revised database 

also comprises the expanded universe 

(all sources using floor control) the 

highest single ru n for the test condition 

4 1

 Al l LWAK s currently burning hazardous waste 

are equipped with fabric filters. 

4 2

 The standard would be expressed in the form 

of a TE Q level combined with a maximum 

temperature at the P M control device. This form of 

die standard is consistent with the revised data and 

would result in somewhat lower emissions (i.e., 

because without the TE Q limit, some sources could 

exceed that TE Q level at the specified temperature). 

Thus, expressing the standard in this form better 

achieves the statutory mandate to establish 

standards that provide the maximum degree of 

reduction that is achievable in practice. 

VES 000333 
24232 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 

wit h the highest ru n average woul d be 

a reasonable floor level from an 

engineering perspective. (Note that if 

this were a large data set, the floor leve l 

coul d be identified simpl y as the 

highest test condition average.) This 

floor leve l is more than 40 percent 

higher than the highest test condition 

average (because of substantial 

variability among the runs for that test 

condition), and thus appears to be a 

leve l that LWAK s shoul d be able to 

meet routinely using floor control. 

A s discussed for CKs, temperature 

control to 400 °F or less is appropriate 

for floor control because, from an 

engineering perspective, it is withi n the 

range of reasonable values that could 

have been selected considering that: (1) 

The optimum temperature windo w for 

surface-catalyzed D/ F formation is 450 -

750 °F; and (2) below 350 °F, kil n gas 

can fall below the dew point whic h can 

increase corrosion i n fabric filters and 

reduce performance of the control 

device. In addition, more than three 

LWAK s i n the revised database were 

operated at temperatures of 400 °F or 

less (even though we do not have D/ F 

emissions data for them). Thus, this 

temperature level appears to be readily 

achievable. 

Althoug h only two of the three 

LWAK s for whic h we have D/ F 

emissions data operated the fabric filter 

at 400 "F or lowe r (the third operated at 

417 °F), we have fabric filter operating 

data for other LWAK s whe n performing 

emissions testing for other HAP s that 

document fabric filter operations at 400 

°F or lower. The LWA K whose fabric 

filter was operated at 417 °F had lower 

D / F emissions than a kil n whose fabric 

filter was operated at 400 °F. Thus, even 

though our engineering evaluation di d 

not explicitly include the LWA K whose 

fabric filter operated at 417 °F, defining 

MAC T floor control as "temperature 

control at the inle t to the fabric filter at 

400 °F " di d not result i n a lower MAC T 

floor emission leve l (i.e., lower than 4.1 

ng TEQ/dscm). Rather, doing so ensures 

that LWAK s wil l be operating at floor 

levels consistent wit h sound operational 

practices for controlling D/F. 

b. BT F considerations for existing 

sources. The Agenc y proposed a BT F 

standard of 0.20 n g TEQ/dscm based on 

A C I operated at a temperature of <400 

°F. 

Upo n evaluation of the revised LWA K 

D / F database, LWAK s appear to be able 

to achieve a 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm standard 

simpl y by rapidly quenching 

combustion gases at the exit of the kil n 

to <400 °F, and insulating the duct-work 

leading to the fabric filter to maintain 

gas temperatures and avoid dew point 

problems. Althoug h the data are not 

conclusive, and further testing is 

warranted to confirm this approach, our 

engineering evaluation of all available 

information indicates that this approach 

shoul d be feasible. 4 3 If this approach 

proves to be less effective than 

anticipated, then AC I can be used to 

achieve the BT F standard. 

We continue to believe that this BT F 

standard is appropriate given the 

concerns the Agency has expressed 

about the risks posed by D/ F emissions. 

See discussion regarding a D/ F BT F 

standard for CK s at 61 FR 17392. 

Further, a BT F standard of 0.20 ng TEQ / 

dscm woul d preclude the need to 

provide further controls under RCR A 

authority. 

c. MAC T floor for new sources. A t 

proposal, the BT F considerations for 

n ew LWAK s were the same as for new 

CKs, and the proposed standards were 

the same. 

Upo n evaluation of the revised LWA K 

D / F database, the floor control and 

emission leve l discussed above for 

existing sources woul d also appear to be 

appropriate for new sources (i.e., 

"temperature control at the inlet to the 

fabric filter at 400 °F" corresponding to 

an emission leve l of "0.20 ng TEQ / 

dscm, or 4.1 ng TEQ/dscm and 

temperature at the inlet to the fabric 

filter not to exceed 400 °F" . Our 

engineering evaluation indicates that 

the best controlled source is one that is 

controlling temperature control at the 

inlet to the fabric filter at 400 °F. 

d. BT F considerations for new 

sources. The Agency proposed AC I as 

B T F control and a BT F standard of 0.20 

ng TEQ/dscm. We continue to believe 

that this BT F standard is appropriate for 

new sources for the same reasons 

discussed above i n the context of 

existing sources. Note that BT F control, 

as for existing sources, woul d be 

defined as rapid quench of kil n gas to 

<400 °F combined wit h duct insulation, 

as required, or AC I operated at <400 °F. 

2. Mercuiy (Hg) a. MAC T Floor for 

existing sources. A t proposal, the 

Agency identified floor control as 

hazardous waste feedrate control not to 

exceed an MTE C of 17 ug/dscm. EP A 

proposed a floor standard of 72 ug/ 

dscm. 

A l l LWAK s employ fabric filters and 

one source uses a fabric filter and 

venturi scrubber to control mercury. 

However, since Hg is generally i n the 

vapor form i n and downstream of the 

combustion chamber, includin g the air 

pollution control device, fabric filters 

« See USEPA , "Draft Technical Support 

Document for HW C MAC T Standards (NODA), 

Volume I: MAC T Evaluations Based on Revised 

Database", Apri l 1997. 

alone do not achieve good mercury 

control. Mercury emissions from 

LWAK s are currently controlled under 

the BIF rule, whic h establishes limits o n 

the maximum feedrate of Hg i n total 

feedstreams (e.g., hazardous waste, raw 

materials). Thus, MAC T is based on 

hazardous waste feed control. 

Review ofth e updated Hg data i n the 

revised database indicate that LWAK s 

d i d not conduct Hg spiking of the 

hazardous wastes wit h the exception of 

one facility, and thus the Hg content i n 

the wastes during testing is likel y 

representative of typica l operations. The 

data from this testing also show that raw 

materials can represent a significant 

source Hg input to the kil n system. 

Since the best performing sources, 

measured by Hg emissions, do not 

employ a dedicated device capable of 

H g control, the Agency believes that the 

Hg data are essentially "normal " even 

though generated during worst case 

compliance testing conditions for other 

parameters. 

To evaluate these revised data for the 

purpose of determining a MAC T floor, 

the Agency used the followin g data 

analysis steps: (1) Rank Hg emissions 

from lowest to highest; (2) conduct a 

breakpoint analysis on the ranked H g 

emissions data, and (3) establish the 

floor standard equal to the test 

condition average of the breakpoint 

source. The breakpoint analysis reflects 

an engineering evaluation of the data 

and ensures that the one source that 

spiked elevated quantities of H g di d not 

drive the floor leve l upward to levels 

higher than the preponderance of this 

"normal " data indicates is routinely 

achievable. The Agency's analysis 

results i n a MAC T floor leve l of 47 ug/ 

dscm. The revised database indicates 

that approximately 75 percent of 

LWAK s are achieving this floor level. 

b. BT F considerations for existing 

sources. The Agency originally 

considered a BT F standard based o n 

flue gas temperature reduction to 400 °F 

or less followed by ACI, but determined 

that a BT F level woul d not be 

warranted. 

E P A continues to believe that flue gas 

temperature reduction to 400 °F 

followed by AC I is the appropriate BT F 

control option for improved H g control 

at LWAKs . A s discussed above for 

existing CKs, we have assumed an AC I 

effectiveness of 60 percent i n 

identifying BT F levels for LWAK s for 

the purposes of today's analysis. Thus, 

the BT F standard is 15 ug/dscm whic h 

is based on a AC I efficiency of 60 

percent applied to the floor leve l of 33 

ug/dscm. Going to a BT F standard of 15 

ug/dscm for mercury is consistent wit h 

the range examined i n the proposal. 

VES 000334 
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 24233 

However, at proposal, significant costeffectiveness issues were raised (and 

commented extensively on). It is likel y 

that those same issues woul d arise here 

wit h respect to a BT F standard of 15 ug/ 

dscm. 

c. MAC T floor for new sources. A t 

proposal, the Agency identified floor 

control as hazardous waste feedrate 

control not to exceed an MTE C of 17 ug/ 

dscm—the same as existing sources. 

Thus, EP A proposed an identical floor 

standard of 72 ug/dscm. 

For the same reasons discussed for 

existing LWAKs , the Agenc y believes 

that the most appropriate engineering 

evaluation and data analysis method to 

identify the floor leve l is identica l to the 

analysis done for existing sources. Thus, 

the MAC T Floor standard woul d be 47 

ug/dscm for new LWAKs . 

d. BT F considerations for new 

sources. The Agency considered a BT F 

standard for new sources based o n ACI, 

but determined that it woul d not be 

cost-effective to adopt the BT F standard. 

The Agency continues to consider the 

use of AC I as the BT F technology. In 

evaluating the revised database, EP A 

has identified a leve l of 15 ug/dscm as 

the BT F standard for new sources based 

o n AC I and flue gas temperature 

reduction to 400 °F or less. This is based 

o n a source achieving the MAC T new 

floor level of 33 ug/dscm and then 

applying ACI wit h a 60 percent removal 

efficiency. Again, i n light of the reasons 

identified for existing sources, the 

Agency has concerns as to whether a 

B T F level based o n AC I wil l ultimately 

be warranted for new LWA K sources. 

3. Particulate Matter (PM). a. MAC T 

Floor for Existing Sources. A t proposal, 

E P A defined floor control as a fabric 

filter wit h an air-to-cloth ratio of 2.8 

acfm/ft 2. The MAC T floor was 0.049 gr/ 

dscf. 

In evaluating the revised database, we 

examined a refined engineering 

evaluation and data analysis method to 

identify a MAC T floor. This evaluation 

was a four-step process: (1) Rank all P M 

emissions data and identify the MAC T 

floor controls used by the best 

performing 6 percent of sources. (2) 

Develop the expanded universe to 

include all sources employing MAC T 

control, without further characterizing 

MAC T control (e.g., air-to-cloth ratio of 

the fabric filter) as done i n the proposal 

because we do not have sufficient data 

o n the detailed design, operating, and 

maintenance characteristics related to 

test conditions i n the revised database. 

Since all LWAK s use fabric filters for 

P M control, all test condition data are 

include d i n the expanded universe. (3) 

F o r each P M test condition, evaluate the 

corresponding SV M SRE and screen out 

sources that have relatively poor SREs 

(i.e., outliers above a breakpoint i n the 

data array), whic h is an indicator of 

poor design, operation, and 

maintenance characteristics of the 

MAC T controls at the source. (4) 

Identify the MAC T floor equal to the 

highest test condition average of all test 

conditions i n the P M expanded 

universe. 

The Agency's evaluation of the LWA K 

P M data results i n a MAC T floor of 

0.022 gr/dscf. Al l LWA K test condition 

data are achieving 0.022 gr/dscf. 

LWAK s typically operate at higher 

stack oxygen concentrations compared 

to other combustion systems due to the 

LWA K manufacturing process (e.g., 

excess air is forced into the kil n to ai d 

i n the expansion of the raw material 

into lightweight aggregate). Typica l 

stack oxygen concentrations range from 

12 to 16 percent, whil e CKs, for 

example, typically range from 3 to 8 

percent. Sinc e the standards are 

expressed at 7 percent oxygen, the floor 

standard of 0.022 gr/dscf woul d be 

equivalent to 0.014 gr/dscf at 12 percent 

oxygen and 0.008 gr/dscf at 16 percent 

oxygen under the conditions that 

LWAK s typically operate. 

In the NPRM , the Agency proposed 

that sources maintain continuous 

compliance wit h the P M standard 

through the use of a P M CEMS . A 

decision whether to require LWAK s to 

install a P M CEM S wil l be made at the 

completion of an on-going 

demonstration testing program to 

determine i f at least one P M CEM S can 

meet the proposed performance 

specifications. Since the floor standard 

discussed above was based on manua l 

test method data, the Agency wil l reevaluate at the completion of the CEM S 

testing program whether these P M floor 

standards woul d be appropriate i n the 

event that the fina l rulemaking requires 

continuous compliance wit h a P M 

CEMS . The Agency wil l notice the 

results and conclusions of the 

demonstration test program i n the 

docket for the HW C rule. 

b. BT F considerations for existing 

sources. In the NPRM , the Agency 

proposed a BT F leve l of 0.030 gr/dscf 

and solicited comment o n an alternative 

B T F level of 0.015 gr/dscf based on 

improved P M control. 

Based on the revised database, we can 

evaluate a reduced P M emissions leve l 

lowe r than 0.022 gr/dscf as the BT F 

standard (in conjunction wit h BT F 

reductions i n SVM s and LVMs) . This 

woul d require an improved P M 

collection technology such as the use of 

more expensive fabric filter bag 

material. Give n that the alternative floor 

leve l analysis presented today woul d be 

substantially lowe r than the proposed 

floor and BT F levels, significant costeffectiveness considerations come into 

play and suggest that BT F levels may 

not ultimately prove to be warranted. 

c. MAC T floor for new sources. A t 

proposal, EP A defined floor control for 

new sources as a fabric filter wit h an airto cloth ratio of 1.5 acfm/ft 2

. The MAC T 

floor was 0.054 gr/dscf. 

Based upon evaluation of the revised 

database, the floor control and emission 

leve l discussed above for existing 

sources woul d also appear to be 

appropriate for new sources. Therefore, 

MAC T floor control is a well-designed 

and properly operated fabric filter, and 

the MAC T floor for new LWAK s is 0.022 

gr/dscf. 

d. BT F considerations for new 

sources. In the NPRM , EP A proposed a 

B T F standard of 0.030 gr/dscf based o n 

improved P M control, whic h was 

consistent wit h existing sources. 

Today, as discussed above for existing 

source BT F considerations and based 

upo n examining the revised database i n 

light of the findings at proposal, a BT F 

standard for new sources beyond 0.022 

gr/dscf (and corresponding BT F 

reductions for SVM s and LVMs) woul d 

not appear to be cost-effective. 

4. Semivolatile Metals (SVM) 

(cadmium and lead), a. MAC T floor for 

existing sources. At proposal, EP A 

defined floor control as either (1) a 

fabric filter wit h an air-to-cloth ratio of 

1.5 acfm/ft 2 wit h a hazardous waste 

(HW) MTE C less than 270,000 ug/dscm, 

or (2) a combination of a fabric filter and 

venturi scrubber wit h an air-to-cloth 

ratio of 4.2 acfm/ft 2 and a H W MTE C 

less than 54,000 ug/dscm. The proposed 

floor level was 12 ug/dscm. 

LWAK s use a combination of good 

P M control and limitin g hazardous 

waste feedrates to control SV M 

emissions. SVM s are controlled most 

efficiently by technologies whic h are 

effective at capturing fine PM , such as 

fabric filters whic h are employed by all 

LWAKs . EPA's revised database shows 

that SV M emissions vary substantially 

from 3 to over 1600 ug/dscm wit h 60 

percent below 80 ug/dscm and the 

remaining 40 percent above 400 ug/ 

dscm. 

The refined data analysis method 

used by EP A to evaluate and identify a 

MAC T floor woul d be based directly o n 

the results from the P M floor analyses 

discussed above. A s mentioned there, 

0.022 gr/dscf woul d appear to represent 

the MAC T floor for LWAK s based on 

good P M control. Since SVM s are 

controlled, i n part, by a well-designed 

and operated P M control devices, it 

follows that sources achieving this P M 

VES 000335 
24234 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 

performance leve l shoul d also be 

controlling SVM s emissions. 

Therefore, i n its refined SV M analyses 

of the revised database, the Agency 

woul d first consider all SV M data whe n 

corresponding P M measurements are 

below 0.022 gr/dscf. To identify the 

S V M floor from these data, we identify 

either at the highest SV M test condition 

average or the leve l that excludes 

sources achieving substantially poorer 

S V M control than the majority of 

sources. It is most likel y appropriate to 

use the latter approach—excluding 

sources wit h significantly poorer SV M 

performance—because their higher SV M 

emissions may be the result of 

exceedingly high SV M feedrates or some 

other factor whic h is not able to be 

discerned from the data available to the 

Agency. A n SV M emissions breakpoint 

analysis is the approach for excluding 

these poorer performing test conditions. 

Applyin g this evaluation technique to 

the revised LWA K SV M database results 

i n a MAC T floor of 76 ug/dscm. 

Approximatel y 62 percent of LWA K 

S V M test Condition data are currently 

achieving this emissions level. 

Finally, as discussed i n an earlier 

section, a preliminary analysis indicates 

that MAC T standards may not be 

warranted for one HA P metal, antimony. 

Sinc e the number of metals being 

considered for MAC T standards may 

change, we are investigating the 

appropriate structure of metals 

standards (e.g., retain the volatility 

groups or establish individua l metals 

standards). Usin g the refined method 

discussed above for SVM , we analyzed 

the revised database wit h respect to C d 

and Pb data. The floor analysis 

corresponding to P M measurements 

below 0.022 gr/dscf woul d result i n the 

followin g floor levels: C d 53 ug/dscm, 

an d Pb 67 ug/dscm. 

b. BT F considerations for existing 

sources. In the NPRM , the Agency 

considered a BT F standard for SVM s 

based o n improved P M control. 

However, the Agency concluded that a 

B T F standard woul d not be costeffective given that the SV M floor level 

of 12 ug/dscm alone woul d result i n an 

estimated 97 percent SV M reduction i n 

emissions. 

A s discussed for P M BT F 

considerations, the Agenc y also reevaluated the possible appropriateness 

of using a reduced P M emissions level 

based o n improved P M control as a BT F 

standard (with corresponding BT F 

reductions i n SVM s and LVMs) . Even 

though the alternative SV M floor 

standard is higher than at proposal, our 

preliminary judgement is that 

significant cost-effectiveness 

considerations wil l be nonetheless 

encountered i n a fina l analysis of 

whether to establish a BT F standard for 

SVM s or for Pb or Cd individually . 

If, however, the revised risk 

assessment yet to be conducted woul d 

show significant risk at a SV M floor 

standard of 76 ug/dscm, whic h woul d 

be the floor leve l resulting from 

application ofth e data analysis method 

discussed above, the Agency wil l 

determine whether a BT F standard 

based o n control of SV M feedrate to 

levels below those at the floor woul d be 

appropriate. This feedrate limitation 

woul d i n turn reduce SV M emissions. 

The BT F standard and the 

corresponding level of feedrate control 

woul d be dictated by considerations of 

cost-effectiveness and the need to 

establish more stringent RCRA-related 

controls. 

c. MAC T floor for new sources. A t 

proposal, EP A defined floor control as a 

fabric filter wit h an air-to-cloth ratio of 

1.5 acfm/ft 2 wit h a hazardous waste 

(HW) MTE C less than 270,000 ug/dscm. 

The proposed floor leve l was 5.2 ug/ 

dscm. 

Upo n evaluation of the revised 

database, EP A believes that the floor 

control and emission leve l discussed 

above for existing sources for SVM s 

woul d also be appropriate for new 

sources. In this event, MAC T floor 

control woul d be a well-designed, 

operated and maintained P M control 

device (e.g., fabric filter) achieving the 

P M floor level o f 0.022 gr/dscf. The 

Agency's evaluation of the SV M data 

results i n a MAC T floor of 76 ug/dscm. 

Finally, based on the revised 

database, individua l metal floor levels 

for new sources are identical to those for 

existing sources. Thus, individua l C d 

and Pb standards are 53 ug/dscm for C d 

and 67 ug/dscm for Pb. 

d. BT F considerations for new 

sources. In the NPRM , the Agency 

considered a SV M BT F level, but 

determined that a BT F standard woul d 

not be cost-effective. 

A s discussed for existing sources, the 

Agency considered a more stringent P M 

emissions leve l for improved control of 

P M , SV M and LV M emissions for new 

LWAK s i n light ofthe revised database. 

Even though the SV M floor standard is 

higher than at proposal, as discussed 

above, cost-effectiveness issues are 

again raised and suggest that a BT F 

standard for either SVM s or for Pb or C d 

individuall y based on improved P M 

control may likewise ultimately prove to 

be inappropriate. 

5. Low Volatile Metals (LVM) (arsenic, 

beryllium, and chromium) a. MAC T 

Floor for Existing Sources. A t proposal, 

E P A defined floor control as a fabric 

filter wit h an air-to-cloth ratio of 1.8 

acfm/ft 2 wit h a H W MTE C less than 

46,000 ug/dscm. 

Th e proposed floor leve l was 340 ug/ 

dscm, whic h include d antimony. 

LWAK s use a combination of good 

P M control and limitin g hazardous 

waste feedrates to control LV M 

emissions. LVM s are less likely to 

vaporize at combustion temperatures 

and therefore partition primarily to the 

residue or adsorb onto particles i n the 

combustion gas. EPA's database shows 

that LV M emissions vary from around 

20 to 285 ug/dscm. 

The engineering evaluation data 

analysis method used by EP A to 

evaluate the revised database and 

identify a MAC T floor for LVM s is also 

related directly to the P M floor analysis. 

A s was determined i n the P M analysis, 

a floor of 0.022 gr/dscf represents MAC T 

for LWAK s based o n good P M control. 

Considering all LV M data from sources 

achieving a P M leve l 0.022 gr/dscf or 

better, EPA's evaluation of the revised 

LWA K data results i n a LV M floor of 37 

ug/dscm (excluding sources above a 

breakpoint and therefore achieving 

substantially poorer LV M emissions 

than the majority of sources). 

Approximately 71 percent of LWA K 

L V M test condition data are currently 

achieving this emissions level. 

Finally , as discussed for SVMs, EP A 

is continuing to investigate the 

appropriate structure of metals 

standards (e.g., retain the volatility 

groups or establish individua l metals 

standards). The Agency analyzed 

individua l As, Be, and Cr (hexavalent) 

data and established individua l metal 

floor levels consistent wit h the 

engineering evaluation and data 

analysis method. Where P M 

measurements are below 0.022 gr/dscf, 

the result woul d be: A s 22 ug/dscm, Be 

3 ug/dscm, and Cr (hexavalent) 6.2 ug/ 

dscm. 

The Agency is concerned that some of 

the potential floor standards for some 

individua l metals (e.g., Be, Cr 

(hexavalent)) may be present at levels 

approaching practical quantitation 

limits (PQLs). PQL s are the lowest level 

of quantification that the Agency 

believes a competent analytical 

laboratory can be expected to reliably 

achieve. The Agenc y wil l investigate 

whether this issue may need to be 

addressed i n the development of any 

individua l metals standards that may be 

considered for the fina l rulemaking. We 

invite comment o n the issue of PQLs 

and LV M BT F standards. 

b. BT F considerations for existing 

sources. In the NPRM , the Agency 

considered a BT F standard for LVM s 

based o n improved P M control. 

However, the Agenc y concluded that a 

VES 000336 
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 24Z35 

B T F standard woul d not be costeffective. 

A s discussed for P M BT F 

considerations, the Agency also reevaluated the possible appropriateness 

of using a reduced P M emissions level 

based o n improved P M control as a BT F 

standard (with corresponding BT F 

reductions i n SVM s and LVMs) . 

Considering that the alternative LV M 

floor standard woul d be lowe r than at 

proposal, our preliminary judgment is 

that significant cost-effectiveness 

considerations wil l likel y be 

encountered i n a fina l analysis of 

whether to establish a BT F standard for 

either LV M or for As, Be, or Cr 

(hexavalent) individually . 

c. MAC T floor for new sources. At 

proposal, EP A defined floor control as a 

fabric filter wit h an air-to-cloth ratio of 

1.3 acfm/ft 2 wit h a hazardous waste 

(HW) MTE C less than 37,000 ug/dscm. 

The proposed floor leve l was 55 ug/ 

dscm. 

Based upon our re-evaluation of the 

database, the floor control and emission 

leve l discussed above for existing 

sources for LVM s woul d also appear to 

be appropriate for new sources. MAC T 

floor control is a well-designed and 

properly operated P M control device 

(i.e., fabric filter) achieving the P M floor 

leve l of 0.022 gr/dscf. Th e Agency's 

evaluation of the LV M data woul d result 

i n a MAC T floor of 37 ug/dscm. 

Finally, individua l metal floor levels 

for new sources are identical to those for 

existing sources. Thus, the standards 

woul d be: A s 22 ug/dscm, Be 3 ug/dscm, 

and Cr (hexavalent) 6.2 ug/dscm. 

d. BT F considerations for new 

sources. In the NPRM , the Agency 

considered a LV M BT F level, but 

determined that a BT F standard woul d 

not be cost-effective. 

A s discussed for existing sources, the 

Agenc y considered a more stringent P M 

emissions leve l for improved control of 

P M , SV M and LV M emissions for new 

LWAKs . Because the alternative P M and 

L V M floor levels presented today are 

lowe r and approximately equivalent, 

respectively, than the proposed floors, a 

B T F standard for either LVM s or 

individua l As, Be, or Cr (hexavalent) 

standards based on improved P M 

control may be inappropriate i n light of 

the cost-effectiveness concerns inherent 

i n this scenario. 

6. Hydrochloric Acid and Chlorine 

(HCl/Ch) a. MAC T floor for existing 

sources. A t proposal, the Agenc y 

identified floor control for total chlorine 

as either: (1) Hazardous waste feedrate 

control of chlorine to a MTE C of 1.5 g/ 

dscm or less; or (2) venturi scrubber 

wit h hazardous waste MTE C of 14 g/ 

dscm or less. The proposed floor 

emission level was 2100 ppmv. 

Upo n evaluation of the revised 

database, the data analysis method used 

at proposal appears still to be 

appropriate and, consequently, floor 

control woul d be defined virtually the 

same as at proposal. However, EP A no 

longer thinks it appropriate to add a 

computed emissions variability factor to 

the standard-setting test condition for 

large data sets

 44

. Thus, the floor 

emission leve l woul d be 1300 ppmv 

rather than 2100 ppmv. 

b. BT F considerations for existing 

sources. A t proposal, the Agency 

defined BT F control as wet or dry lime 

scrubbing wit h a control efficiency of 90 

percent and proposed a BT F standard of 

450 ppmv. 

The Agenc y continues to believe that 

wet or dry lime scrubbing can achieve 

at least 90 percent removal of HC1/C12. 

Therefore, the revised BT F standard 

woul d be 130 ppmv assuming that the 

requisite cost-effectiveness information 

continues to suggest that a BT F standard 

is warranted. Th e two LWAK s that are 

equipped wit h wet scrubbers achieved 

emission levels below 45 ppmv. 

c. MAC T floor for new sources. A t 

proposal, the Agency defined MAC T 

floor control fo r new sources as a 

venturi scrubber wit h a hazardous waste 

MTE C of 14 g/dscm or less, and 

identified a floor level of 62 ppmv. 

A s for existing sources, the data 

analysis method used at proposal for 

new sources is appropriate and, 

consequently, floor control for new 

sources woul d be defined the same as at 

proposal. Excludin g a computed 

emissions variability, the floor emission 

leve l woul d be 43 ppmv rather than 62 

ppmv. 

d. BT F considerations for new 

sources. The Agenc y di d not propose a 

B T F standard for new sources because 

the floor standard was based on best 

available control technology: wet 

scrubbing. We have no new information 

i n the revised database that woul d 

indicate that this conclusion at proposal 

should be revisited. 

7. Carbon Monoxide (CO). The 

Agency proposed a MAC T standard for 

C O of 100 ppmv based on a hourly 

rolling average (HRA). We continue to 

believe that this standard is appropriate 

for the reasons expressed i n the 

preamble to the proposal. 

8. Hydrocarbons (HC). The Agency 

proposed a H C level of 14 ppmv based 

on floor control using good combustion 

practices. Althoug h we continue to 

believe that floor control is good 

combustion practices, our engineering 

4 4

 See discussion i n Part Two, Section ll.D. 

evaluation of the revised database 

suggests that a floor standard of 10 

ppmv, HRA , may be more appropriate. 

The single LWA K facility i n the revised 

emissions database that coul d not 

achieve a H C standard of 10 ppmv 

(perhaps because of trace organics i n the 

raw material) has stopped burning 

hazardous waste. Data from that facility 

have been excluded i n the revised 

analysis. Although the remaining 

LWAK s appear to be able to meet a H C 

standard on the order of 6 ppmv, it may 

be more appropriate to establish the 

standard at 10 ppmv. This is because we 

are not aware of an engineering reason 

that LWAK s using good combustion 

practices should be able to achieve 

lowe r H C emissions than incinerators. 

Give n that the incinerator H C standard 

woul d be 10 ppmv, that standard also 

appears to be appropriate for LWAKs . 

Part Three: Implementation 

I. Compliance Date Considerations 

Th e Agency proposed that all sources 

subject to the fina l rule be i n 

compliance wit h the fina l standards 

three years followin g the effective date 

ofth e rule (61 FR 17416). The proposed 

compliance period is consistent wit h 

the CAA , whic h defines the maximum 

compliance period for sources regulated 

under the statute as three years, wit h the 

possibility of a one-year extension for 

those sources that adequately 

demonstrate a need for additional time 

for the installation of emission controls. 

The Agency proposed the maximum 

compliance period allowed by the Ac t 

because this rule wil l likel y require the 

majority of units, currently operating 

under RCR A regulations, to undergo 

substantial modifications to come into 

compliance wit h the potentially more 

stringent fina l MAC T standards. 

Th e general provisions of 40 CFR Part 

63 do not require a demonstration of 

compliance until 240 days followin g the 

compliance date. This 240 day period 

between the compliance date and the 

demonstration of compliance is clearly 

not appropriate for HWCs because these 

devices are presently regulated under 

RCR A vi a enforceable operating limits, 

and i n this interim period the 

enforceable operating limits woul d be 

undefined (61 FR 17415). 

Therefore, to provide consistency 

wit h the currently-applicable RCR A 

regulatory compliance scheme, the 

Agency departed from the general 

requirements applicable to MAC T 

sources and proposed a revised 

definition of compliance date. The 

proposed definition of compliance date 

woul d require sources to complete 

installation of controls and to 

VES 000337 
24236 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 

successfully complete performance 

testing and certify compliance within 

the three-year compliance period, not by 

a date 240 days after the three-year 

compliance period. Id. In addition to the 

revised definition of compliance date, 

the Agency also proposed a number of 

extra consequences for HW C sources 

that are not i n compliance by the 

compliance date: (1) Immediate 

termination o f waste-burning activities; 

(2) loss of RCR A permit or interim 

status; (3) a requirement to obtain a new 

RCR A permit; and (4) compliance wit h 

MAC T standards for new sources. 

In response to the proposal, the 

Agenc y received comments suggesting 

the three-year compliance period woul d 

be impossible to meet due to a number 

of competing factors, and that more time 

woul d be necessary to comply wit h the 

rule. These factors included permit 

modification, installation of controls, 

and documentation of compliance. 

Furthermore, commenters expressed 

serious concerns about combining these 

factors wit h the consequences of 

missing the compliance date. Industry 

commented that under this proposed 

approach facilities engaged i n legitimate 

efforts to comply wit h the standards 

woul d be forced to terminate wasteburning activities, and be subjected to 

burdensome consequences that are 

unnecessary to protect the environment 

or ensure the public's safety. 

However, EP A has become persuaded 

by commenters concerns regarding the 

ability of HW C sources i n particular to 

compl y wit h the proposed standards by 

the compliance date. Sources wil l have 

to modif y their RCR A permits. Further, 

some sources may choose to pursue 

waste minimizatio n strategies. Fo r these 

reasons, the Agency is considering 

certain actions that may be finalize d i n 

advance of the fina l HW C rule such as, 

the streamlined permit modificatio n 

procedures discussed at 17455 i n the 

proposal; as well as, the waste 

minimizatio n option for extension of the 

compliance date to allow for the 

application of waste minimizatio n 

controls to meet the fina l standards 

discussed at 17417. The streamlined 

permit modification procedures woul d 

reduce the administrative requirements 

and time necessary to begin 

modification procedures required to 

compl y wit h the fina l standards. The 

waste minimizatio n compliance date 

extension option, whic h provides an 

additional avenue for facilities to 

request an extension of the compliance 

date, woul d afford facilities that choose 

to institute waste minimizatio n 

measures an additional year to complete 

these actions. 

However, even wit h the special 

provisions under consideration, sources 

may require the ful l amount of time 

allowed under the CA A to comply. 

Therefore, the Agency is also 

considering a revised implementation 

scheme that wil l allow for a simplifie d 

approach consistent wit h the 

implementation of general CAA-MAC T 

rules. This approach woul d provide 

both additional relief to sources 

complying wit h the fina l rule, and 

information regarding a source's 

compliance status on the compliance 

date for the Agency. The specifics of 

this new option are explained i n greater 

detail i n the followin g paragraphs. 

Comments are requested on this new 

approach to implementing the HW C 

MAC T standards. 

A . Definition of Complianc e Date 

Today, the Agenc y is considering a 

revision to the proposed definition of 

compliance date. Under this revised 

approach, HW C sources woul d follow 

the CAA-MAC T schedule for 

demonstration of compliance, through 

MAC T performance testing and 

submission of test results, contained i n 

§ 63.7. Unde r that section, affected 

sources must conduct performance tests 

withi n 180 days followin g the 

compliance date, and submit the results 

of the tests 60 days followin g the 

completion of the performance test. 4 5 

This CAA-base d approach responds to 

the comments questioning our revised 

definition of complianc e date and 

woul d achieve a more consistent 

implementation framework. However, 

because the Agency is concerned about 

the compliance status of affected 

sources o n the compliance date, the 

Agency also seeks comment on 

provisions to enhance the general 

requirements for HWCs wit h a 

requirement for the submission of a 

"precertification of compliance " i n the 

fina l rule. A precertification of 

compliance woul d require facilities to 

precertify their compliance status o n the 

compliance date. The details ofth e 

precertification of compliance are 

described i n greater detail i n the 

followin g paragraphs. 

B. Pre-Certification of Complianc e 

Today the EP A is seeking comment on 

an option whic h woul d require sources 

to submit a notification to regulatory 

agencies that details the operating limits 

a unit wil l be operated under i n the 

interim period followin g the compliance 

4 5

 In the HW C proposed rule, however, the 

Agency allowed sources 90 days to submit test 

results because D/ F analyses can require more time 

than traditional MAC T analyses. We continue to 

believe that this 90-day allowance is appropriate. 

date but before the results of the initia l 

comprehensive performance test are 

submitted. This notification, the 

precertification of compliance, woul d 

include all of the information necessary 

to determine the compliance status of an 

affected source (e.g., automatic waste 

feed cutoff limits, feedrate limits, 

emission control device operating 

limits, etc.) during the 240 day period 

after the compliance date. A t a 

minimum, the facility woul d be 

required to establish operating limits on 

a ll of the parameters identified i n the 

proposed monitoring requirements 

found i n table V . 2.1 at 17419 ofth e 

proposed rule. This approach is 

appropriate because these facilities are 

already regulated under RCRA . There 

shoul d not be any ambiguity for these 

facilities i n terms of being between 

regulatory regimes at any point i n time. 

T he operating limits i n the 

precertification of compliance woul d be 

enforceable limits. 4 6 However, if 

followin g the initia l comprehensive 

performance test, the facility's 

precertification of compliance 

designated operating limits are foun d to 

have been inadequate to ensure 

compliance wit h the MAC T standards, 

the facility wil l not be deemed out of 

compliance wit h the MAC T emissions 

standards. EP A invites comment on this 

approach, and specifically invites 

comment on the necessity o f 

establishing operating limits on the 

entire set of parameters identified i n 

table V.2.1. 

C. Consequences of Non-complianc e 

A s mentioned earlier, the Agency 

proposed a number of serious 

consequences that woul d befall a source 

that misses the compliance date (61 FR 

17416). The Agency proposed these 

consequences to provide an incentive 

for affected sources to move swiftl y to 

compl y wit h the fina l standards. In 

response to the proposal, through 

written comments from industry and 

during round table discussions wit h 

•"•The Agency notes that under this scheme 

facilities are still subject to the RCR A emission 

limitations, and the associated operating limits and 

enforcement actions until removal of the air 

emission limitations from the RCR A permit. 

However, because on the compliance date all 

facilities must be compliance with the emission 

standards ofthe final MAC T rule, the Pre-COC 

operating limits, which are expected to be more 

stringent than current RCRA emission standards, 

take precedence over the RCR A permit limits except 

where the RCR A permit limits are based on a more 

stringent standard adopted under the Omnibus 

provisions of RCRA section 3005. Furthermore, EP A 

notes that compliance with Pre-COC operating 

limits that are based on standards that are more 

stringent than RCR A emission standards assures 

compliance with the RCRA based emission 

standards. 

VES 000338 
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 24237 

affected parties, the Agency received 

information suggesting that imposition 

of these consequences through 

regulatory language was unnecessary. 

Consequently, the Agency is 

considering deleting those specific 

consequences from the regulatory 

language and relying on the regulating 

agency's polic y regarding enforcement 

response to govern the type of 

enforcement response at a facility that 

fails to meet the compliance deadline. 

Upo n review of this enforcement 

process, the Agenc y is presently 

incline d to apply the norma l CA A 

enforcement procedures to noncompliant sources i n the fina l rule for 

hazardous waste combustors. 

II. Compliance Requirements 

In this section, we discuss several 

compliance issues: (1) Complianc e wit h 

carbon monoxide (CO) and/or H C 

emission standards; (2) compliance wit h 

a startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

pla n whe n not burning hazardous 

waste; (3) metals extrapolation and 

interpolation considerations; (4) sitespecifi c variances for cement kilns and 

LWAK s because of inability to meet the 

standards solely due to metals or 

chlorine i n raw materials; and (5) 

emissions averaging for cement kiln s 

wit h unique design or operating 

features. 

A . Complianc e Wit h CO and/or H C 

Emissio n Standards 

The Agency proposed MAC T 

emission standards for both CO and H C 

for incinerators and LWAK s as 

surrogates to control emissions of 

organic HAPs. Cement kilns woul d be 

required to compl y wit h either a C O or 

H C standard because of raw material 

considerations. See 61 FR at 17375-6. 

The Agency explained that relying o n 

onl y CO or H C alone appeared to have 

drawbacks, and thus proposed that 

incinerators and LWAK s comply wit h 

emissions standards for both. 

Nonetheless, the Agency acknowledged 

that requiring compliance wit h 

standards for both CO and H C may be 

unnecessarily redundant, and requested 

comment on the followin g alternative 

approaches: (1) Givin g sources the 

option of complyin g wit h either CO or 

H C; or (2) establishing a MAC T standard 

for either C O or HC , but not both. 

Althoug h the Agency is continuing to 

evaluate comments and options

 4 7

 o n 

4 7

 We are also evaluating another option whereby 

compliance with the H C limit would be required, 

and a site-specific C O limit (but not lower than 100 

ppmv, the proposed MAC T standard) would also be 

established. This option would provide assurance 

that H C emissions are within allowable levels, and 

by also limiting CO, it would give the operator 

how to limit C O and/or H C to control 

organic HAPs, we invite comment o n an 

additional feature of the first option 

whereby a source can elect to comply 

wit h either the C O or H C standard. 

Unde r this approach, a source that 

elects to comply wit h the C O standard 

(rather than the H C standard) woul d be 

required to document during the 

performance test compliance wit h the 

H C limit. This is necessary because we 

have some (limited) data that show a 

source can have H C levels exceeding the 

standard discussed i n today's notice 

whil e meeting the C O limit. Even 

though the vast majority of the data 

indicate that H C wil l be lo w whe n C O 

levels are low, a requirement to confirm 

this relationship on a site-specific basis 

may be warranted. 

To confirm the relationship during 

the performance test, the source woul d 

use a portable H C monitor to document 

that H C levels are below the MAC T 

standard. This is not expected to be a 

burdensome test. Further, however, to 

ensure that the CO/H C relationship is 

maintained over the range of operating 

conditions that the facility may 

ultimately employ, we are considering 

whether to require the source to 

establish limits on key operating 

parameters than can affect combustion 

efficiency (and thus H C emissions). The 

limits woul d be established based on 

parameter values observed whil e 

demonstrating the CO/H C relationship 

during the performance test. 

We specifically request comment on 

whic h key parameters should be limite d 

to ensure that the CO/H C relationship is 

maintained. Further, we request 

comment on whether these key 

parameters should be identified on a 

national basis or a site-specific basis 

during review ofth e performance test 

protocol. In providing comment, note 

that the Agency has already proposed to 

establish site-specific limits on several 

combustion-related parameters to 

ensure compliance wit h the D/ F 

emission standard (e.g., minimu m 

combustion chamber temperature; 

maximum waste feedrate; and for batch 

fed units, maximum batch size and 

feeding frequency, and minimu m 

oxygen concentration i n the combustion 

gas). In addition, note that it may be 

appropriate to identify as ke y 

parameters (for purposes of ensuring 

that the CO/H C relationship is 

maintained) those parameters for whic h 

limits are currently established during 

destruction and removal efficiency 

(DRE) testing, including: (1) Minimu m 

advance notice of a potential increase in H C levels, 

thus helping to avoid an exceedance of the H C 

standard. 

combustion temperature at each 

combustion chamber or feed location; 

(2) minimu m combustion gas residence 

time (i.e., maximum combustion gas 

velocity, or appropriate surrogate); and 

(3) minimu m combustion gas oxygen 

concentration. If the Agency determines 

that DR E testing is not necessary for 

some types of sources as discussed i n 

Section III below, testing to document 

the CO/H C relationship woul d be used 

to establish limits o n these heretofore 

DRE-limite d parameters. 

B. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctio n 

Plans 

T h e Agency proposed that startup, 

shutdown and malfunction plans are 

not necessary for hazardous waste 

combustion sources because the 

allowances that such plans provide are 

not appropriate for hazardous waste 

combustors (61 FR 17449). Specifically, 

the Agenc y stated that EP A di d not need 

information regarding how quickl y a 

source is able to correct a malfunctio n 

to come back into compliance wit h the 

standards because affected sources 

cannot burn waste unless the source is 

i n complianc e wit h all applicable 

standards. 

However, i n comments, the Agenc y 

was informed of a few situations i n 

whic h it is appropriate for sources to 

compl y wit h a startup, shutdown, and 

malfunctio n plan. These situations 

include those i n whic h sources 

temporarily stop burning hazardous 

waste but intend to resume burning 

hazardous waste i n the near future. Th e 

examples presented to the Agency 

involve production units (i.e., cement 

kilns, LWAKs , and possibly on-site 

incinerators equipped wit h waste heat 

boilers to generate steam or heat at a 

chemica l production facility) that must 

continue operations followin g waste 

feed cutoff to maintain production at the 

facility. Also , commenters cited 

temporary shutdowns necessary for 

planned maintenance to be performed 

on the unit. 

In light of these comments, the 

Agency is rethinking its proposed 

approach and requests comment on a 

requirement for sources to compl y wit h 

the provisions listed i n § 63.7 regarding 

startup, shutdown and malfunction 

plans, includin g the reporting 

requirements of §63.10(d)(5)(I). These 

provisions woul d apply at HWC s whe n 

waste is not being fed or does not 

remain i n the combustor, excluding 

automatic waste feed cutoff events. 

Sources woul d be subject to the 

standards at all times, and the 

malfunction plan woul d only apply 

during times whe n the source is either 

temporarily not burning waste or whe n 

VES 000339 
24238 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 

waste no longer remains i n the 

combustor. For example, if a source is 

temporarily not burning waste and a 

malfunction occurs that is followe d by 

an exceedance of an applicable 

standard, the source wil l not be i n 

violation as long as it is complying wit h 

the procedures outlined i n the 

malfunction plan. O n the other hand, if 

a source is burning waste and a 

malfunction occurs that necessitates an 

automatic waste feed cutoff followed by 

an exceedence of a standard, the source 

woul d be i n violation regardless of 

whether the source is complying wit h 

the malfunction plan. 4 8 

Therefore, under this option, a source 

may develop a malfunction plan that 

details the situations i n whic h the 

source is intentionally not feeding 

waste, or that details the situations 

whe n certain emission control devices 

wil l not be i n operation. 

C. Metals Extrapolation and 

Interpolation Considerations 

In the NPRM , the Agenc y discussed 

the operating conditions under whic h a 

source wil l likel y operate to 

demonstrate complianc e wit h the metals 

emission limits identified i n the 

proposed rule (61 FR at 17428-30). The 

Agency also acknowledged i n the 

proposal that operators wil l likel y want 

to operate their units during 

comprehensive performance tests close 

to the edge of the operating envelope so 

that they can compl y wit h the emission 

standards and still achieve the 

necessary operational flexibility 

required by the facility. EP A further 

stated that, to achieve a sufficient leve l 

of operational flexibility, sources could 

be expected to engage i n the spiking of 

metals into the waste matrix, whic h is 

a practice that concerns the Agency. 

EPA's concern extends to the overall 

metals loading to the environment (for 

example, Hg and Pb), exposure of 

facility employees, and exposure of 

surrounding communit y to higher than 

norma l metals concentrations due to 

testing procedures that are for the 

purposes of developing waste feedrate 

limits and operational flexibility. 

Therefore, the Agenc y has 

investigated approaches that may 

provide a method to afford additional 

metals feedrate flexibility without the 

need of high metals spikin g (otherwise 

necessary to identify a metals feedrate 

for an associated metals emission 

4 8

 This situation would be considered a violation 

unless the source can document that the 

exceedance occurred after waste was no longer in 

the combustor and the residuals of the waste 

combustion process had been treated by the 

pollution control equipment. 

level). 4 9 One promising approach woul d 

use a statistical extrapolation 

methodology. 5 0 

Unde r this approach a source woul d 

use the metal feedrates and emission 

rates associated wit h a MAC T 

performance test to extrapolate to higher 

allowable feedrates and emission rates. 

The Agency believes that the upwar d 

extrapolation procedure developed can 

conservatively be used to allow for 

higher metals feedrate limits, but still 

ensure that the facility is wel l withi n 

any applicable MAC T (or RCRA ) 

emissions limit. 5 1 Althoug h downwar d 

interpolation (i.e., between the 

measured feedrate and emission leve l 

and zero) was also investigated, the 

Agency is concerned that downwar d 

interpolation may not be conservative 

primarily because system remova l 

efficiency decreases as metal feedrate 

decreases. Thus, projected emissions at 

lower feedrates may i n fact be lower 

than actual emissions. Consequently, 

the Agency is not incline d to allow 

downwar d interpolation. 

The Agency expects that any 

extrapolation methodology woul d be 

reviewed and approved by regulatory 

officials. Sources woul d request 

approval to extrapolate feedrates as part 

of the performance test pla n that woul d 

be submitted at least 60 days prior to the 

test date. See § 63.7(b) and (c) and 

4 D Se e USEPA , Draft Technical Support Document 

for HW C MAC T Standards (NODA), Volume 1TJ: 

Evaluation of Metal Emissions Database to 

Investigate Extrapolation and Interpolation Issues, 

Apri l 1997. 

5 0

 Extrapolations would be based on applying a 

conservative "universal variability factor" (UVF) 

multiplier to the test condition average. The UV F 

is based on evaluating within-test condition 

emissions variability for each metal in the Agency's 

trial burn and BIF certification of compliance metal 

emissions database. It represents (in log form) a 

"residual" level that 95 percent of the residual 

population is below, where the residual is defined 

as the difference between the log of the emission 

level for each test condition run and the log of the 

test condition average. The UV F would range from 

3x to 5x depending on the volatility grouping for 

the metal. Given the conservatism of the UVF , a less 

conservative approach would be used (i.e., melding 

extrapolating using the UV F with extrapolating 

from the highest run in a test condition) to 

extrapolate to feedrate and emission levels close to 

levels actually tested. 

5 1

 Under the extrapolation approach, sources 

would be required to feed metals at no less than 

normal rates to narrow the amount of extrapolation 

sought. Further, we expect that some spiking would 

be desired to increase confidence in the measured 

feedrate levels that will be used to project higher 

allowable feedrates (i.e., the errors associated with 

sampling and analyzing heterogeneous 

wastestreams can be minimized by spiking known 

quantities). However, the Agency does not want 

sources to extrapolate to allowable feedrates that are 

significantly higher than their historical range of 

feedrates (i.e., extrapolated feedrates should be 

limited close to the historical levels that a source 

actually fed). This may work to limit the practical 

utility of extrapolation. 

proposed §63.1208 . The review woul d 

consider i n particular whether: (1) 

Performance test metal feedrates were 

appropriate (e.g., whether feedrates 

were at least at norma l levels; 

depending on the heterogeneity of the 

waste, whether some leve l of spiking 

woul d be appropriate; and whether the 

physica l form and species of spiked 

material is appropriate); and (2) whether 

the requested, extrapolated feedrates 

were warranted considering historical 

metal feedrate data. In addition, 

regulatory officials woul d review the 

performance test results i n making a 

rinding of compliance required by 

§ 63.6(f)(3) to ensure that emission test 

results have been interpreted properly 

and that the extrapolation procedure is 

appropriate for the source. 

The Agency is discussing this 

approach wit h some hesitation because 

facilities woul d be able to: (1) Feed 

metals at higher rates without a specific 

compliance demonstration of the 

associated metals emissions; and (2) 

obtain approval to feed metals at higher 

levels than normal, even though all 

combustion facilities should be trying to 

minimiz e metals feedrates. However, 

because the Agency remains concerned 

that sources woul d otherwise continue 

to feed metals during compliance testing 

at high levels, 5 2 to it may be appropriate 

to consider this extrapolation approach 

as a means to reduce unnecessary 

emissions and costs incurred by 

facilities (and the health risk to testing 

personnel) during performance tests. 

E P A invites comment o n this 

extrapolation approach, and i n 

particular, as to whether the approach is 

adequately conservative and practicable. 

D. Consideration of Site-Specific 

Variances for Cement Kiln s and LWAK s 

The Cement Kil n Recycling Coalition 

(CKRC) has provided comments on the 

proposed rule suggesting that two 

variance procedures be incorporated i n 

the fina l rule: (1) Waive r of the Hg, 

SVM , LVM , and/or HCI/C12 standards 

whe n metals or chlorine i n minerals and 

related process materials cause the 

source to exceed the standard even 

though the source is demonstrable using 

MAC T control; and (2) waiver ofth e H C 

standard for the mai n stack of a long 

kil n that does not monitor C O or H C i n 

the by-pass duct when organics 

desorbed solely from minerals and 

related process materials cause the 

source to exceed the standard i n the 

mai n stack. 

5 2

 To achieve operational flexibility due to 

practical testing and compliance restrictions. 

VES 000340 
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 24239 

CKR C notes that the Conference 

Report for the Clean Ai r Amendments of 

1990

 5 3

 states that: 

For categories and subcategories of sources 

of hazardous air pollutants engaged in 

mining, extraction, beneficiation, and 

processing of nonferrous ores, concentrates, 

minerals, metals, and related process 

materials, the Administrator shall not 

consider the substitution of, or other changes 

in, metal- or mineral-bearing raw materials 

that are used as feedstocks or materials 

inputs, * * * in setting emission standards, 

work practice standards, operating standards 

or other prohibitions or requirements or 

limitations under this section for such 

categories and subcategories. 

It should be noted that this language 

is not reflected i n the legislative text, 

whic h states without caveat that MAC T 

standards may be based o n "process 

changes, substitution of materials or 

other modifications. " CA A section 

112(d)(2)(A). 5 4 However, assuming that 

CKRC's request for these variances has 

merit, and if the variances are 

incorporated i n the fina l rule, they 

woul d apply to LWAK s as wel l given 

that LWA K raw materials coul d also 

cause those combustors to exceed the 

standards using MAC T control. We 

solicit comment o n whether these 

variances are appropriate and workable, 

a n d on the potential issues raised 

below. 5 5 

1. Variance for metals or chlorine in 

minerals and related process materials. 

It may be appropriate to waive any 

MAC T standard for a metal or group of 

metals or the standard for HC1/C12 i f the 

source documents that it cannot compl y 

wit h the standard whil e using MAC T 

control solely because of raw material 

feed. A s examples, MAC T control for Hg 

woul d be hazardous waste feedrate 

control at a specified MTEC . MAC T 

control for SV M and LV M woul d also be 

feedrate control at a specified MTE C 

an d compliance wit h the P M standard. 

A condition of the variance could be 

that the source woul d be required to 

document that the concentration of 

metal or chlorine (for whic h it is seeking 

the variance) i n hazardous waste an d 

any non-mineral feedstock is withi n the 

range of normal levels for the industry. 

This woul d ensure that metals and 

chlorine emissions attributable to nonminera l feedstreams are equivalent to 

those from sources meeting MACT . 

5 3

 H.R. Rep. No. 101-952, at p.339, 101st Cong., 

2d Sess. (Oct. 26, 1990). 

5 4

 CKR C cites additional authority i n its letter to 

B. Holloway and F. Behan (USEPA) of March 10, 

1997 addressing these issues. Available in RCR A 

Docket # F-97-CS4A-FFFFF . 

5 5

 To meet its RCR A mandate, the Agency would 

continue to evaluate emissions under the omnibus 

permit authority to ensure that controls were 

adequate to protect human health and the 

environment. 

We therefore request comment on the 

following issues: 

• Ho w woul d norma l levels be 

determined? Wha t statistics should be 

used? What should be the baseline year 

for the determination (e.g., a given year 

(2000, or the compliance date of the 

rule)? 

• Shoul d the variance be granted only 

if the hazardous waste and/or nonmineral feedstreams have lowe r than 

norma l levels of metals or chlorine? 

H o w much lower (e.g., 25th percentile 

levels, 40th percentile levels)? 

• Woul d it be necessary to establish 

the norma l levels i n the rule, or should 

they be established initially, o n a caseby-case basis? 

• Shoul d the Agency be concerned i f 

levels of metals or chlorine i n mineral 

feedstocks decline over time thus 

enabling the source to meet the 

standard? If so, what monitoring 

approach woul d be appropriate to 

identify whe n that occurred? 

• Whe n should variance petitions be 

submitted to the State or EP A regulatory 

officials (e.g., 120 or 180 days prior to 

the compliance date)? 

2. Variance for organics in minerals 

and related process materials. 

Althoug h current BIF regulations 

limit H C levels i n kilns to 20 ppmv 

irrespective of the source of the 

hydrocarbons

 5 6

 and the Agency 

proposed to maintain that standard 

under MACT , CKR C notes that some 

sources have to operate inefficiently to 

meet the standard. For example, a 

source may have to operate back-end 

temperatures at higher than norma l 

levels to oxidiz e enough of the organics 

being desorbed to meet the H C standard. 

This means that more fue l than norma l 

must be fired to provide the extra heat 

at the back-end. 5 7 

CKR C has suggested approaches 

whereby a source can document that 

hazardous waste is being burned i n 

compliance wit h either the C O limit of 

100 ppmv or the H C limit of 10 ppmv. 5 8 

In situations where the kil n can monitor 

a representative sample of combustion 

gas at mid-kil n at least temporarily 

5 6

 The Agency has acknowledged that H C in the 

main stack of a long kiln can be generated by 

desorption of trace organics in raw material 

feedstocks as well as from fuel combustion. 

5 7

 Higher back-end temperatures may be 

associated with higher rates of D/ F formation. 

5 8

 Neither approach would appear to be 

appropriate for kilns that feed hazardous waste at 

locations other than the clinker end. The concern 

is that the kiln gas that is withdrawn for testing at 

the mid-kiln location for compliance with the C O 

or H C limit may not be representative of hazardous 

waste combustion gases (i.e., either because the 

hazardous waste is being fired downstream or, if the 

waste is fired at mid-kiln, the waste combustion 

gases may not be thoroughly mixed at the point of 

kiln gas withdrawal for C O and H C monitoring). 

during a performance test to document 

compliance wit h the C O limit of 100 

ppmv (or a H C limit of 10 ppmv), limits 

on key combustion parameters woul d be 

established based on operations during 

the performance test. The operating 

limits woul d be continuously monitored 

to ensure compliance wit h the CO or H C 

limits. Limits o n the followin g operating 

parameters woul d be established: kil n 

gas oxygen at the kil n outlet; kil n gas 

residence time using raw material 

feedrate as a surrogate; and combustion 

zone temperature, using an appropriate 

surrogate or measured at an appropriate 

location. 

CKR C also suggested that sulfur 

hexafluoride (SF6) could be used as a 

continuously monitored compliance 

parameter i n lie u of limits on other 

parameters, except oxygen. This is 

because SF6 is recognized as a 

temperature labile compound—it is 

more stable than most any other toxic 

compoun d under a temperature-failure 

mode of organics destruction. SF6 is 

not, however, an indicator of oxygendeficient combustion failure modes—it 

is destroyed at high temperatures 

irrespective of oxygen levels. Give n that 

both adequate temperature and oxygen 

are necessary for good combustion, an 

oxygen limit as wel l as an SF6 feed limit 

and emission limit woul d be established 

under this option based on a 

performance test documenting 

compliance wit h either the C O or H C 

limits at mid-kiln . 

Finally, CKR C suggested variance 

approaches for the more problematic 

situation where a kil n is not able to 

sample kil n gas at mid-kil n for 

compliance wit h the C O or H C limit. 

One approach woul d be to allow a kil n 

to document compliance wit h the CO 

limit of 100 ppmv or the H C limit of 10 

ppmv i n the mai n stack whe n burning 

hazardous waste but temporarily 

feeding imported, low organic raw 

material. Unde r this approach, as wit h 

the approaches discussed above, 

operating limits o n oxygen levels i n kil n 

gas at the kil n outlet, residence time of 

combustion gas, and combustion zone 

temperature woul d be established based 

on a performance test using the low 

organic raw material. Also , continuous 

monitoring of limits o n feedrates and 

emission rates (based o n performance 

testing) of SF6 coul d be used i n lieu of 

establishing limits on residence time 

and temperature. 

E. Emissions Averaging for Cement 

Kiln s 

Several cement kilns have unique 

design or operating procedures that 

warrant special consideration i n 

VES 000341 
24240 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 

demonstrating compliance wit h the 

MAC T standards, as discussed below. 

1. Preheater or Preheater/Precalciner 

Kilns with Dual Stacks. Some preheater 

or preheater/precalciner kilns are 

designed wit h separate mai n and alkali 

by-pass stacks. To demonstrate 

compliance wit h the emission standards 

(other than the CO/H C standards where 

compliance is based on emissions i n 

either the mai n or by-pass stack), it is 

appropriate to allow suc h kilns to 

document either that both stacks meet 

the applicable emission limits, or that 

the stacks meet the limits considering 

flow-weighted average emissions. This 

is the approach currently used for 

compliance for the P M NSPS, and it is 

appropriate as well for the MAC T 

standards that the Agenc y has proposed. 

2. Kilns that operate an in-line raw 

mill. Some cement kilns vent the kil n 

gas through the mil l that grinds the raw 

material (i.e., raw mill) to help dry the 

raw material before charging to the kiln . 

Suc h designs are referred to as "in-line 

raw mills" . Whe n the raw mil l is out of 

service for maintenance, approximately 

10% of the time annually, kil n gas bypasses the mil l and is vented to the 

stack after passing through the P M 

control device. (Stored mille d raw 

material is charged during these periods 

of mil l downtime.) The Cement Kil n 

Recycling Coalition indicates that 

emissions of HAP s that the Agency 

proposed to regulate can be different 

whe n gas is vented through the raw mil l 

versus periods of time whe n the mil l is 

out of service. 5 9 

It appears appropriate to base 

compliance wit h the MAC T emission 

standards for such kilns o n a timeweighted average basis. Sources woul d 

use historical information on utilization 

time for the in-line raw mil l to 

document the time-weighted average 

and woul d present this information to 

regulatory officials as part of the test 

plan. Further, sources woul d be 

required to conduct performance testing 

under both operating conditions: wit h 

the raw mil l on-line and off-line. 

III. DRE Testing Considerations 

In the NPRM , the Agency proposed 

that the 99.99 percent destruction and 

remova l efficiency (DRE) standard be 

retained under RCR A authority. See 61 

FR at 17447. Althoug h EP A could have 

proposed the DRE requirement as part of 

the MAC T standards to help control 

organic HAPs, the Agency explained 

that doing so woul d have raised 

significant practical implementation 

concerns. This is because MAC T 

CKR C Comments, August 19, 1996, pp 112-

113, Docket Number RCSP-0170. 

standards are generally selfimplemented by facilities to a large 

degree whereas DRE testing has 

historically involve d a detailed and 

iterative process between a facility an d 

the regulatory agency. 

The Agency received comments that 

raised other concerns, including : (1) 

Whether it is necessary for a source to 

actually perform a DRE test to ensure 

that it is achieving DRE; 6 0 and (2) ho w 

can the Agency ensure that RCR A DR E 

testing is coordinated wit h MAC T 

performance testing. 

The Agency has reconsidered DR E 

testing issues an d is today requesting 

comment on options for ensuring 

compliance wit h a DRE standard, an d 

how to coordinate DRE testing wit h 

MAC T performance testing. 

A . Options for Ensuring Complianc e 

wit h a DRE Standard 

The Agency has investigated whether 

compliance wit h the CO or H C MAC T 

standards woul d ensure that a source is 

achieving 99.99% DRE

 61

. The vast 

preponderance of the data indicate that 

whe n a source is achieving C O levels 

under 100 ppmv or H C levels under 10 

ppmv, it is virtually always also 

achieving 99.99% DRE. 6 2 The Agency's 

investigation noted, however, an 

6 0

 The statutory minimum technology 

requirement for incinerators (see RCR A 3004(o)(B)) 

requires the "attainment" of 99.99 percent 

deshuction and removal efficiency. DR E testing 

could be replaced by an alternative that is equally 

or more stringent (e.g., compliance with stringent 

limits on CO or HC) to ensure attainment of 99.99 

percent DRE. 

6 1

 The Agency evaluated approximately 455 DRE 

test conditions, where CO was less Uian 100 ppmv 

and 273 test conditions where H C was less than 12 

ppmv, to determine if compliance with stringent 

CO and H C limits would ensure that 99.99% DR E 

was being achieved. Ten sources failed DRE even 

though CO or HC levels were below 100 ppmv or 

12 ppmv (on a run average basis), respectively. Nine 

of the failures could be explained by: (1) Selecting 

principal organic hazardous constituents (POHCs) 

that were also common products of incomplete 

combustion; (2) feeding low concentrations of 

POHCs (a phenomenon of DRE testing is that it is 

very difficult to measure 99.99% DR E when POHCs 

arc fed at low concenfrations, even though emission 

concentrations may be trivial); or (3) feeding 

aqueous waste with such low concentrations of 

organics that, even under poor combustion 

conditions, the waste did not generate high levels 

of CO or HC . See USEPA , "Draft Technical Support 

Document for HW C MAC T Standar ds (NODA), 

Volume II: Evaluation of CO/H C and DRE 

Database", April 1997. 

6 2

 It could be argued that this is due to two 

factors: (1) during successful DR E testing many 

sources operated at C O or H C levels that were well 

below the 100/10 levels; and (2) it is not clear that 

those sources would continue to achieve 99.99% 

D RE at higher CO or H C levels (but not exceeding 

the 100/10 levels). This is unlikely to be a major 

concern, however, because combustion devices 

operating at C O levels under 100 ppmv are 

generally considered to be operating under good 

combustion conditions that would ensure 99.99% 

DRE in any event. 

atypical, failure mode for the CO/H C 

versus DRE relationship: whe n low 

organic content waste is fed into a 

region of a combustor other than the 

flame zone (e.g., into an unfired 

afterburner). One test condition ofth e 

approximately 455 investigated failed 

the CO/H C versus DRE relationship for 

this reason. This was a highly unusua l 

test condition, and does not represent 

good combustion practice. C O levels 

were likely low because flame 

combustion was not occurring, and H C 

was likel y low because the waste coul d 

have had only trace levels of toxic 

organics that di d not contribute 

significantly to the H C loading (but 

whic h could nonetheless pose a health 

or environmental hazard). 

Give n the general relationship 

between CO, HC, and DRE an d the 

highly unusual nature of the lone 

exception, the Agency is considering 

whether DRE testing is warranted i n all 

cases for sources complyin g wit h the 

MAC T CO and H C standards. The DRE 

test is a complicated, expensive test. In 

addition, although it can help indirectly 

to ensure that a source is operating 

under good combustion conditions, it 

may not provide the operationally direct 

leve l of assurance of good combustion 

conditions that C O or H C does. The data 

show that sources can be achieving 

99.99% DRE even though C O or H C 

levels exceed values considered to 

represent good combustion (i.e., C O of 

100 ppmv, HRA , and H C of 10 ppmv, 

HRA). " 

Accordingly, the Agency is 

considering three options for reducing 

the DR E testing burden, as discussed 

below. 6 4 Unde r all options where DRE 

testing woul d be waived, a source 

woul d have to be i n compliance wit h 

the fina l MAC T standards for CO/HC , 

whic h wil l be sufficient to show ensure 

compliance wit h the DRE standard as 

well, 6 5 

6 3

 Under an option the Agency is considering for 

establishing MAC T standards for C O and HC , a 

source would be able to elect whether to comply 

with either the CO or H C standard. Although CO 

is not a direct measure of H C emissions, the Agency 

is considering requiring sources that elect to 

comply with the CO standard to document that 

their H C emissions also meet the standard. 

6 4

 The Agency's analysis to date has focused on 

the 99.99% DRE standard. We have not investigated 

whether sources that burn "dioxin-Iisted waste" 

under § 264.343(a)(2) and are required to 

demonstrate 99.9999% DR E are likely to achieve 

that DRE when operating under stringent C O and 

H C levels. Given that there are few HWC s that are 

permitted to manage such wastes and given the 

high toxicity potential of such wastes, the Agency 

is inclined to continue to require DR E testing al 

facilities handling those wastes. 

6 5

 Long cement kilns generally cannot meet the 

stringent C O and H C limits applicable for waste 

combustion (i.e., 100/10 ppmv) because of organics 

in raw materials. Thus, the Agency proposed that 

VES 000342 
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 24241 

B. DR E A s a MAC T Versus RCR A 

Standard 

In investigating approaches to ensure 

coordination of DRE testing wit h MAC T 

performance testing, the Agency has 

reconsidered whether the DRE standard 

coul d be effectively implemented as a 

MAC T standard (to help control organic 

HAPs). To ensure coordination of DR E 

and MAC T performance testing, the 

Agency is considering extending the test 

pla n review period from the proposed 

60 day period (see proposed 

§63.1208(e ) and § 63.7(b)(1)) to one year 

to allow regulatory officials time to 

consider DRE testing i n context wit h 

MAC T testing. Wit h this opportunity for 

coordinating the testing, the Agency's 

concerns expressed at proposal about 

the difficulty of implementing the DR E 

standard under the self-implementing 

regime of MAC T may be largely 

overcome (i.e., if the Agency 

incorporates into the MAC T standards 

opportunity to review and approve the 

D RE test protocol). Thus, the Agency is 

considering incorporating the DRE 

standard as a MAC T standard. 

Sources wishin g to perform a 

combined DR E and comprehensive 

performance test woul d have to submit 

the test pla n one year i n advance ofth e 

test. If the review requires more than 

one year, the Agenc y can extend the 

testing date for coordination purposes 

(assuming the source has made a good 

faith effort to cooperate wit h regulatory 

officials to identify an appropriate test 

protocol). However, there woul d be no 

extensions granted for the initia l 

comprehensive performance test 

because it is imperative that sources 

document complianc e wit h the MAC T 

emission standards (including those for 

the high priority HAPs, D/F, Hg) on 

schedule. Sources wishin g to perform a 

combined initia l comprehensive 

performance and DR E test woul d 

therefore have to be diligent i n workin g 

wit h regulatory officials to ensure that 

such kilns comply with a C O level of 100 ppmv or 

a HC level of 20 ppmv. Notwithstanding the 

inability to document good combustion conditions 

by complying with stringent CO/HC limits, the 

Agency believes dial cement kilns that fire 

hazardous waste into the clinker end of the kiln 

will virtually always achieve 99.99% DRE because, 

to make marketable products, clinker temperatures 

must be approximately 2700 ° F. and combustion gas 

temperatures are typically several hundred degrees 

hotter than the solids temperature. These 

temperatures are theoretically high enough to 

ensure destruction of organic compounds in the 

waste. Consequently, such kilns should not be 

precluded from the waivers discussed in the text. 

If such a kiln were to inject hazardous waste at 

nonflame zone locations such as mid-kiln or at tlie 

raw material end of the kiln, however, we are 

concerned that DR E may not always be achieved. 

The kiln would not be eligible for the DR E waiver. 

the combined test protocol is developed 

and approved i n a timely manner. 6 6 

The Agency invites comment o n these 

issues, includin g whether DRE should 

be incorporated as a MAC T standard, 

an d irrespective of that decision, 

whether a one-year review period 

provides adequate opportunity to 

review a combined DRE test and 

comprehensive performance test 

protocol. 

IV. Notification and Reporting 

Requirement Considerations 

A . Publi c and Regulatory Notification of 

Intent to Compl y 

In the proposed rule, the Agency 

requested comment on strategies to 

encourage or require affected sources to 

compl y wit h the final emissions 

standards at the earliest possible date. 

T he Agency also asked for views o n 

methods that coul d be used to 

determine whe n a source coul d 

realistically conclude whether it wil l 

compl y i n a timely fashion wit h the 

fina l standards (61 FR at 17416). A 

number of commenters argued for the 

Agency to require a submission from 

affected sources that identifies whether 

an d how the facility intends to compl y 

wit h the fina l standards. This 

notification requirement was referred to 

as a "Notification of Intent to Comply. " 

T he purpose of the submission woul d 

be to identify the sources that wil l not 

comply wit h the fina l standards so that 

those sources coul d be forced to 

terminate waste burning activities as 

soon as possible followin g the effective 

date ofth e fina l HW C rule. 

Other commenters, responding to our 

request for comment regarding the 

proposed permit modification options 

(61 FR at 17455), suggested that all 

facilities be required to submit a pla n 

that outlines the procedures each 

facility intends to follow to compl y wit h 

the fina l standards. However, the 

purpose of this submission woul d be to 

begin an early process of 

communication between the publi c and 

the facility through the publi c 

disclosure of the facility's complianc e 

strategy. 

The Agency has reviewed these 

comments and supports the goals an d 

6 6

 The Agency also considered requiring sources 

lo submit draft test protocols one year prior to tlie 

test date, regardless if the comprehensive 

performance test is to be combined with a DR E 

demonstration. We determined that may not be 

appropriate, however, because normal 

comprehensive performance tests should not 

require a review process longer than provided by 

the CAA-MAC T general requirement. Therefore, the 

one-year test review period would only apply for 

those sources that wish lo coordinate the 

comprehensive performance (or confirmatory) test 

with a DRE test. 

purposes of a requirement that compels 

sources to identify their intentions to 

compl y wit h the fina l rule, and to 

describe how they wil l achieve that 

compliance. Furthermore, the Agency 

supports any process that promotes 

publi c notification and interaction wit h 

respect to a hazardous waste 

combustor s future operations. To the 

extent that some limitations on publi c 

participation woul d be the result of a 

streamlined permit modification process 

that may be finalized ahead of the HW C 

MAC T rule, promotion of early publi c 

notification and intervention i n this part 

of the rule is appropriate and desirable 

given our general policies i n that regard 

(see, e.g., RCR A Expanded Publi c 

Participation Rule, 60 FR 63417 (Dec. 

12, 1995)). Therefore, the Agency is 

considering a notification requirement, 

based o n and growing out of ideas that 

were presented i n comments, that may 

be applied to sources affected by the 

fina l rule. This notification requirement, 

called the Publi c and Regulatory 

Notification of Intent to Compl y 

(PRNIC), woul d involve the facility 

submission and public disclosure of a 

plan that relates to whether and ho w the 

facility intends to come into compliance 

wit h the fina l standards. 

However, due to enforcement and 

implementation issues, the Agency is 

concerned that it is not feasible to use 

a submission that identifies only a 

facility's future "intentions" as the legal 

basis to force a facility to terminate 

waste burning activities before the 

statutorily based compliance period of 

three years. Moreover, any officia l 

review and approval of such 

submissions coul d conceivably slow 

dow n the rate at whic h facilities come 

into compliance wit h the fina l 

standards. This woul d thwart the 

objectives of a streamlined permit and 

compliance process. 

T he Agency believes that the most 

effective application of such a 

submission is to promote publi c 

awareness, as wel l as discussion 

between a facility and its community, 

whic h wil l afford them an opportunity 

to engage i n discussions regarding the 

details of the facility's plans to compl y 

wit h the fina l standards. However, the 

Agenc y does not intend for this 

submission to undergo a forma l review 

by the regulatory agencies involved. 

T he Agency requests comment o n this 

option whic h requires sources to 

prepare and submit for publi c comment 

a notification identifying the source's 

intentions to comply wit h the fina l rule 

as wel l as the strategy they intend to 

follo w to assure compliance by the 

compliance date. This notification 

requirement woul d apply to all sources 

VES 000343 
24242 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 

burning waste on the effective date of 

the fina l HW C rule, and woul d require 

sources to prepare a draft notification, 

announce the availability of the draft 

notification as wel l as a future informa l 

publi c meeting to discuss the draft 

notification, hol d an informa l public 

meeting, submit the fina l notification to 

a ll appropriate regulatory agencies, and 

update the notification as necessaiy. 

The Agency intends for the 

information contained i n the draft 

notification to provide enough detail so 

that the publi c can engage i n a 

meaningful review of the facility's 

compliance strategy. For example, if In 

the draft notification a facility identifies 

and describes the type(s) of control 

technique(s) being considered, the 

facility should include, as appropriate, 

waste minimizatio n and/or pollution 

control options that may have been 

evaluated. 

E P A also requests comment o n a 

requirement for affected sources to hol d 

at least one informa l meeting wit h the 

publi c before submitting the fina l 

notification to the appropriate 

regulatory agencies. The goal of this 

informa l meeting is to provide a forum 

to facilitate dialogue between the 

affected source and its community. The 

meeting should provide an open, 

flexible and informa l occasion for the 

facility and the publi c to discuss various 

aspects of the facility's compliance 

strategy because it provides the publi c 

direct input to the facility owners/ 

operators. In addition, the meeting 

affords facility owner/operators the 

opportunity to gain an understanding of 

the public's expectations, whic h can 

then be addressed and include d i n the 

facility's fina l submission. The Agency 

anticipates that the facility and the 

publi c wil l share ideas, educate each 

other, and continue to establish a 

framework for sound communication. 

However, as suggested i n comments 

received from CKRC, 6 7 the Agency 

understands that the early timing of the 

meeting may affect a facility's ability to 

have complete or full y accurate 

information, but the Agency believes 

that the benefits of early publi c 

involvement and access to information 

outweigh the drawbacks of incomplete 

information. Furthermore, the time 

period between the effective date of the 

H W C rule and the informa l meeting 

announcement should provide a facility 

sufficient time to collect, analyze, select, 

and pla n a compliance strategy. 

However, comments are invited o n 

other appropriate time periods between 

6 7

 Memorandum, from Craig Campbell (CKRC) to 

Matthew Hale Jr. (EPA), regarding compliance plans 

under the HW C MAC T Rule, dated March 18,1997. 

the publi c notification and the informa l 

publi c meeting, and on the time period 

necessary to collect the information 

required for the PRNIC. 

Anothe r timing issue relates to whe n 

a facility should notify the communit y 

regarding the availability of the draft 

PRNIC. A t this stage, the Agenc y is 

considering to require that the 

notification be made on or before 210 

days followin g the effective date of the 

fina l HW C rule. This woul d necessitate 

that an announcement of the informa l 

publi c meeting and the availability of 

the draft PRNIC be made 30 days prior 

to the meeting i n a manner that is likel y 

to reach all affected members of the 

community. The Agency is considering 

that this announcement, of the informa l 

publi c meeting and draft PRNIC 

availability, shoul d be required i n three 

ways: A s a display advertisement i n a 

newspaper of general circulation; as a 

clearly marked sign on the facility 

property; and as a radio broadcast. Eac h 

of these notices woul d have to include 

the date, time and location of the 

meeting, a brief description of the 

purpose, a brief description of the 

facility, a statement asking people wh o 

need special access to notify the facility 

i n advance, and a statement describing 

h o w the draft PRNIC can be obtained. 

T he Agency requests comment on this 

approach that requires facilities to hol d 

an informa l publi c meeting prior to the 

submission of the fina l PRNIC to the 

regulatory authorities. 

A n additiona l requirement of the 

notification approach being considered 

involves the submission, to the 

appropriate regulatory agencies, of the 

fina l PRNIC 270 days followin g the 

effective date of the fina l HW C rule. The 

submission woul d contain the followin g 

information: Th e name and location of 

the owner operator; the location of the 

source; a statement as to whether the 

source is a major or area source; a 

description of any waste minimizatio n 

and pollution control technique(s) 

considered; a description of the 

emission monitoring techniquels) 

considered; a description of the waste 

minimizatio n and pollution control 

technique(s) effectiveness; a description 

of the evaluation process used to select 

the waste minimizatio n and/or 

pollutio n control technique(s); and an 

outline of the key dates i n the process 

that the facility plans to follo w to 

implement the selected waste 

minimizatio n and/or pollution control 

technique(s). This submittal shoul d also 

capture the major comments or ideas 

that were discussed i n the publi c 

meeting or that were submitted i n 

response to the release of the draft 

PRNIC. 

T he fina l requirement of the 

notification approach being considered 

involves updates to the fina l PRNIC 

followin g a significant change i n the 

facility's implementation strategy. A 

significant change woul d be analogous 

to a change that woul d trigger a RCR A 

class two or class three permit 

modification request, and woul d apply 

only to changes that depart from the 

strategy described i n the fina l PRNIC. 

Examples of some changes that may be 

considered significant changes are as 

follows: A change i n the pollution 

control technique to be implemented; a 

request for permit modification; a 

request for an extension of the 

compliance date; or a decision to stop 

or to continue burning waste that is 

contrary to the fina l PRNIC. 

Additionally , all sources coul d be 

required to notify the publi c vi a a 

mailing to the facility's mailin g list 

withi n 30 days followin g a 

determination that a significant change 

has occurred i n the facility's 

implementation strategy. The change 

woul d have to be described i n writing 

and made available to requesting parties 

v i a placement i n an information 

repository or through direct transmittal. 

This requirement woul d be i n keeping 

wit h the spirit of the PRNIC, whic h is 

to keep the publi c informed of any 

significant changes i n the facility's 

compliance an d implementation plan. 

T he Agency invites comment o n this 

submittal and the submittal process, and 

requests information on the benefits an d 

burden associated wit h such a process. 

The Agency specifically invites 

comment on the use of permit 

modification criteria to identify a 

significant change that woul d 

necessitate an update to the PRNIC. 

B. Data Compression Allowance s 

T he Agency is considering allowin g 

the use of data compression techniques 

i n the recording of continuously 

monitored parameters under this rule. 

This is i n response to comments on the 

proposed rule regarding the additional 

burden associated wit h the proposed 

monitoring an d recording requirements 

and specific requests to allow data 

compression. We are also considering 

revisions to parts 264, 265 and 266 that 

woul d be conforming revisions to 

ensure that the RCR A rules are 

consistent wit h simila r provisions of the 

proposed part 63 rules. 

Commenters raised the issue of an 

additional burden by the proposed 

monitoring an d recording requirements. 

We do not agree that the proposed 

requirements pose significant additional 

record keeping burdens from current 

regulations (i.e., BIF rule) or existing 

VES 000344 
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 24243 

permit requirements under RCRA . 

However, we are interested i n reducing 

the information burden—for example, 

h o w muc h is recorded if the data is 

automatically evaluated under an 

established set of specifications, whil e 

maintaining the integrity of the data for 

compliance evaluation purposes. 

Briefly, data compression is the 

process by whic h a facility 

automatically evaluates whether a 

specifi c data point needs to be recorded. 

Data compression does not represent a 

change i n the continuous monitoring 

requirement proposed i n rule. Oneminute averages wil l continue to be 

generated. However, wit h data 

compression, each one-minute average 

wil l be automatically compared wit h a 

set of specifications to decide the need 

for recording. Ne w data is recorded 

whe n the one-minute average value falls 

outside the set of specifications. 

This option should provide a good 

opportunity to the regulating agencies to 

focus their review of operating data, 

because facilities using data 

compression wil l record data that is 

indicative of non-steady state operations 

more frequently than steady state 

operations. This wil l significantly 

reduce, up to 90%, the data subject to 

review by the regulating agency as the 

facilities' self-evaluate, under a 

previously approved set of 

specifications, the data being recorded. 

The dynamics of monitored 

parameters are not uniform across the 

regulated universe, and establishing 

national specifications for data 

compression techniques i n this rule may 

not be feasible. Different data 

compression techniques can be 

successfully implemented for a 

monitored parameter to obtain 

compressed data that reflect the 

performance on a facility specific basis. 

A s a result the Agency is considering 

allowin g the sources to request the 

regulatory agency to use data 

compression techniques that reflect sitespecific conditions of the monitored 

parameters an d establish data 

compression specifications accordingly. 

Upo n approval, sources may start data 

compression techniques based o n the 

approved set of specification. 

A t a minimum, a source 

implementing data compression wil l be 

required to record a value once every 

ten minutes. In combination wit h the 

appropriate set of specifications, a 

recorded value every ten minutes wil l 

result i n a potential data recording 

reduction up to 90%. 

A s a guideline, for the regulating 

agencies and sources EP A has 

developed a table to use as a guideline 

developing site-specific specification for 

data compression techniques. These are 

the basis for the specification i n the 

table: 

1. Data compression limit. The closest 

leve l to a permit limit/standard at whic h 

reduced recording is allowed. Withi n 

this level, minute-by-minute data 

recording is required. The data 

compression limit should reflect a level 

at whic h the specifi c parameter is 

unlikel y to exceed its permit limit 

withi n a one-minute change. The other 

consideration is to set a data 

compression limit at whic h owners and 

operators can practically implement 

data compression. 

2. Fluctuation limits. The permissible 

deviation of new data value from 

previously generated value. This 

parameter is a reflection of tolerance of 

the agency to allow a parameter to 

change without requiring the data point 

to be recorded. Th e considerations to 

establish the fluctuation limits are (1) 

The potential of the regulated parameter 

to change i n one minute and cause an 

exceedance of the permit limi t on a 

rolling average basis and; (2) the 

maximum variation tolerated from a 

change of other related operating 

parameters (i.e., fue l and temperature, 

gas flo w and APC D parameters). 

We invite comment on allowin g data 

compression under this rule, includin g 

revising parts 264, 265 and 266, and on 

the followin g table: 

FLUCTUATION AND DATA COMPRESSION LIMITS EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGES OF THE PERMIT/STANDARD LIMITS 

Device Parameter 

Fluctuation 

limit ± 

Data compression 

limit 

CEMS 

CEMS 

CEMS 

CEMS 

CEMS 

Particulate matter 

Carbon monoxide 1 hour 

Total hydrocarbon 

Total mercury 10 hour 

Multi-metal 10 hour 

HCI 

Activated carbon injection 

Dioxin inhibitor.... 

Catalytic oxidizer 

Good combustion and APCD efficiency 

Feed control 

Wet scrubber . 

Ionizing wet scrubber 

Dry scrubber. 

Chlorine 

Max inlet temperature to dry PM APCD 

Min carbon injection feedrate (carbon feed through injector) ... 

Min carrier fluid flowrate or nozzle pressure drop 

Min inhibitor feedrate 

Min flue gas temperature at entrance 

Max flue gas temperature at entrance 

Maximum waste feedrate 

Min combustion chamber temperature (exit of each chamber) 

Maximum flue gas flowrate or production rate 

Maximum total metals feedrate (all streams) 

Maximum pumpable liquid metals feedrate 

Maximum total ash feedrate (all streams) 

Maximum total chlorine feedrate (all streams) 

Minimum pressure drop across scrubber 

Min liquid feed press 

Minimum liquid pH 

Min blowdown (liquid flowrate) or max solid content in liquid .. 

Minimum liquid flow to gas flow ratio 

Minimum pressure drop across scrubber 

Minimum liquid feed pressure 

Min blowdown (liquid flowrate) or max solid content in liquid .. 

Minimum liquid flow to gas flow ratio 

Min power input (kVA: current and voltage) 

Min sorbent feedrate 

10% 

10 ppm . 

2 ppm ... 

10% 

10% 

10% 

10% 

10° F .... 

5% 

20% 

10% 

20° F .... 

20° F .... 

10% 

20° F .... 

10% 

10% 

60%. 

50 ppm. 

60%. 

60%. 

60%. 

60%. 

60%. 

Limit -30 ° F. 

Limit +20%. 

Limit +25%. 

60%. 

Limit +40° F. 

Limit -40 ° F. 

60%. 

Limit +50° F. 

60%. 

60%. 

10% 

10% 

0.5" water . 

20% 

0.5 pH unit 

5% 

10% 

0.5" water . 

20% 

5% 

10% 

5% 

10% 

60%. 

60%. 

Limit 

Limit 

Limit 

Limit 

Limit 

Limit 

Limit 

Limit 

Limit 

Limit 

Limit 

+2". 

+25%. 

+ 1 pH unit. 

+20%. 

+30%. 

+2" water. 

+25%. 

+20%. 

+30%. 

+20%. 

+30%. 

VES 000345 
24244 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 

FLUCTUATION AN D DAT A COMPRESSIO N LIMITS EXPRESSE D AS PERCENTAGE S OF TH E PERMIT/STANDAR D LIMITSContinued 

Device Parameter 

Fluctuation 

limit ± 

Data compression 

limit 

Fabric filter 

E S P 

Minimum carrier fluid flowrate or nozzle pressure drop 

Minimum pressure drop across device 

Min power input (kVA: current and voltage) 

10% 

1" water 

5% 

Limit +30%. 

Limit +2" water. 

Limit +20%. 

V. Waste Minimization and Pollution 

Prevention 

A . Overview 

Amendments to RCR A i n 1984, and 

the Pollution Prevention Ac t of 1990 

establish a clear national polic y 

preference for pollutio n prevention and 

environmentally sound recycling as the 

nation's top priority environmental 

management methods, over treatment, 

storage and disposal. Pollution 

prevention, also referred to as source 

reduction, includes any practice that 

reduces the amount of pollutants 

entering a waste stream, prior to 

recycling, treatment or disposal. Waste 

minimization, a term particular to RCR A 

an d EPA's hazardous waste program, 

includes pollutio n prevention (or source 

reduction) and environmentally sound 

recycling. Combustion for treatment or 

destruction is a form of treatment, and 

is not included i n the definitions of 

pollutio n prevention, source reduction, 

waste minimizatio n and/or 

environmentally sound recycling. 

Based o n previous studies, stringent 

limits o n pollutio n control devices 

generally provide a strong incentive for 

companies to pursue less costly waste 

minimizatio n measures to achieve 

compliance. The implementation of the 

Lan d Disposal Restrictions program has 

shown this to be the case i n the RCR A 

program. Waste minimizatio n measures 

can, i n many cases, provide companies 

wit h a variety of benefits, including: 

improvements i n production yields, 

reduced worker exposure, reduced 

waste volumes, reduced waste 

management costs, reduced liability, 

and reduced complianc e burdens. A s a 

result, many companies, includin g those 

affected by today's rulemaking, have 

made significant progress identifying 

an d installing waste minimizatio n 

measures that result i n one or more of 

these benefits. In addition, hazardous 

waste generators that transport waste 

off-site for treatment, storage or disposal 

are required to certify on each 

hazardous waste manifest that they have 

a waste minimizatio n program i n place. 

In addition, facilities that have a RCR A 

permit to treat, store or dispose of 

hazardous wastes are required to certify 

annually that they have a waste 

minimizatio n program i n place (See 

sections 3002(b) and 3005(h) of RCRA). 

Past studies indicate that existing 

regulations can also contain inherent 

barriers that prevent companies from 

identifying and installing additional 

waste minimizatio n measures that coul d 

be cost effective and provide an 

alternative or supplemental means to 

achieve compliance. Potential 

regulatory impediments can include: 

Tight compliance deadlines that 

preclude taking extra time to explore 

waste minimizatio n alternatives, 

perceptions that end-of-pipe technology 

is preferred by government agencies 

over less wel l know n waste 

minimizatio n measures to achieve 

compliance, a tendency to continue 

relying on pollutio n control technology 

once a company has sunk available 

capital into end-of-pipe controls, and a 

lack of government willingness to 

explore more flexible compliance 

approaches. 

During extensive interaction wit h 

publi c stakeholders during the 

development of EPA's Hazardous Waste 

Minimizatio n Nationa l Pla n (released i n 

1994), some companies emphasized that 

short compliance deadlines after the 

promulgation of end-of-pipe standards 

are a significant impediment to full y 

identifying an d installing waste 

minimizatio n measures that coul d either 

replace or supplement end-of-pipe 

pollution control measures that may 

still be necessary. A s a result, 

companies are likel y to opt for installing 

"end-of-pipe" pollutio n controls to meet 

compliance deadlines, instead of 

pursuing waste minimizatio n and 

pollution control measures as a 

compliance approach. A t large complex 

manufacturing facilities (such as 

chemica l manufacturing plants), short 

compliance deadlines are a particular 

barrier since completing a waste 

minimizatio n options assessment 

requires consideration of chemica l 

reaction redesign, testing and 

installation. In contrast end-of-pipe 

controls can often be installed more 

quickl y than waste minimizatio n 

process changes, even though they may 

be more expensive. In addition, once 

capital has been sunk into end-of-pipe 

pollution controls, there is little 

incentive for companies to then spend 

money exploring pollution prevention/ 

waste minimization options that woul d 

offset the need for the end-of-pipe 

controls. This factor is one of the major 

factors to consider i n today's 

rulemaking. This is discussed i n more 

detail below. 

B. EP A Proposed Flexibl e Waste 

Minimizatio n Incentives 

E P A was aware, i n its Apri l 1996 

proposal for this rulemaking, that 

promulgating MAC T standards may 

contain some inherent barriers to 

identifying and installing waste 

minimization technologies that could be 

more cost effective for meeting 

environmental protection standards (in 

some cases) than end-of-pipe air 

pollution control equipment alone. 

Consequently, EP A requested comment 

on three regulatory incentives that coul d 

partially offset potential barriers and 

provide regulated companies wit h an 

increased opportunity to identify and 

install waste minimizatio n technologies 

that reduce or eliminate hazardous 

waste entering combustion feed streams 

as a cost effective approach to 

compliance. EPA's objective i n this 

effort is to promote flexibilit y i n the use 

of waste minimization measures that 

woul d reduce the amount and/or 

toxicity of hazardous wastes entering 

combustion feed streams, either as an 

alternative to end-of-pipe combustion 

measures, or i n combination wit h 

combustion measures, to meet MAC T 

standards. 

E P A requested comment o n two 

approaches that use waste minimizatio n 

facility planning to identify cost 

effective waste minimizatio n measures 

that reduce hazardous wastes entering 

combustion feed streams. Waste 

minimizatio n planning has been used i n 

over 20 states as a method to encourage 

companies, particularly those that 

generate and manage wastes on site, to 

identify cost effective waste 

minimizatio n measures that can be used 

i n place of, or i n combination with , endof-pipe pollution control measures. O f 

the 21 commercial incinerators and the 

141 on-site hazardous waste 

incinerators facilities know n to be 

covered by today's rule, 43-44 percent 

VES 000346 
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 24245 

of the facilities are i n states that have 

mandatory waste minimizatio n 

planning programs; 14 percent are i n 

states that have voluntary waste 

minimizatio n planning programs; and 

42-43 percent are i n states that do not 

have formal waste minimizatio n 

planning programs. 

The first waste minimizatio n facility 

planning approach proposed for 

comment sought to encourage facilities 

to reduce the amount of hazardous 

waste entering combustion feed streams 

as muc h as possible through cost 

effective waste minimizatio n measures. 

The proposal sought to accomplish this 

objective by requiring all facilities 

covered by this rulemaking to provide to 

the appropriate EP A or State permitting 

authority adequate information o n waste 

minimizatio n measures that woul d 

reduce hazardous wastes entering 

combustion feed streams. Requiring 

facilities to formally consider cost 

effective waste minimizatio n options 

woul d raise the likelihood that 

hazardous waste generation could most 

cost effectively be reduced at the source 

or recycled, as a preferred approach to 

combustion. Since many of these 

facilities are located i n states that have 

mandatory or voluntary waste 

minimizatio n planning programs, EP A 

hoped to buil d on a process already i n 

place. States that have mandatory waste 

minimizatio n planning programs 

generally require facilities to provide a 

description of changes i n process 

equipment, raw materials, materials 

handling, recycling, maintenance or 

other changes that woul d reduce the 

amount and/or toxicity of wastes that 

are treated or disposed. None of the 

existing mandatory or voluntary State 

waste minimizatio n planning programs 

specifically address reductions of 

combusted hazardous as an objective of 

the planning process. EP A requested 

comments o n this approach to 

determine if the approach could provide 

greater flexibility for facilities to buil d 

on requirements of existing state 

programs to achieve compliance wit h 

MAC T standar ds. 

In the second waste minimizatio n 

planning option, EP A proposed to 

provide EP A Regions and States wit h 

the discretionary authority to make case 

by case determinations regarding whic h 

facilities woul d be required to provide 

information o n waste minimizatio n 

alternatives to reduce hazardous wastes 

entering combustion feed streams. This 

determination could take into account 

several factors, including, for example, 

whether an existing state program had 

already accomplished the equivalent of 

this objective, the extent to whic h this 

requirement may be too burdensome for 

some states, and the extent to whic h 

facility specific conditions indicate 

emissions coul d be best controlled by 

feed stream management and waste 

minimizatio n at the source. 

The third waste minimizatio n 

incentive EP A proposed for comment 

allows facilities to apply for up to a one 

year extension to the three year 

compliance period allowed under the 

C A A and 40 CF R 63.6(i)(4)(i)(A) i n cases 

where facilities need additional time to 

identify and install waste minimizatio n 

measures that woul d reduce hazardous 

wastes entering combustion feed 

streams as a method (either alone or i n 

combination wit h combustion or other 

treatment technology) to achieve 

compliance. 40 CFR 63.6(i)(6)(i) 

describes the requirements for 

requesting a compliance extension. A 

request must include a description of 

the pollution control, process changes 

or process equipment to be installed, a 

compliance schedule that describes the 

dates by whic h these controls, process 

changes and process equipment wil l be 

initiated, the dates by whic h installation 

wil l be completed, and the date by 

whic h compliance wil l be achieved. The 

Administrator or a State that has an 

approved Part 70 permit program or has 

been delegated the authority to 

implement and enforce the emission 

standard for that source may grant such 

extensions. This incentive would , at 

least i n part, offset some of the time 

barriers large companies might need to 

full y explore and install waste 

minimizatio n options i n addition to any 

combustion equipment that may stil l be 

necessary. 

C. Comments Received 

E P A received comments on waste 

minimizatio n from 22 commenters. 

Companies that operate on-site units 

(many of whic h are large chemica l 

plants) commented that, whil e waste 

minimizatio n can provide a cost 

effective approach to compliance, 

neither the three year compliance 

period allowed for this rule, nor the 

three years plus a one year extension is 

sufficient time to complete the two track 

task of designing, testing and installing 

waste minimizatio n process changes 

that reduce hazardous wastes entering 

combustion feed streams, and designing 

and installing any combustion or other 

treatment equipment that may 

nevertheless be necessary. Waste 

minimizatio n is an on-going process 

that should be continually under 

investigation i n all companies. 

However, EP A agrees that i n cases 

where standards are promulgated that 

change the economics of how muc h 

pollution can be emitted to the 

environment, even on-going waste 

minimizatio n programs may not be able 

to anticipate the best combination of 

waste minimization and treatment 

measures to achieve compliance. EP A 

agrees that i n some cases, particularly at 

large complex manufacturing 

operations, the three year complianc e 

period may not be sufficient time to 

consider waste minimizatio n measures, 

and i n other cases, three years plus a 

one year extension may not provide 

sufficient time. 

Commercia l facilities continue to 

assert that they have few direct 

opportunities to pursue waste 

minimizatio n since they have little 

control over the wastes generated by 

their customers. Some commercia l 

companies believe EP A shoul d 

implement "good actor" incentives for 

companies that educate their customers 

regarding available waste minimizatio n 

resources. Suc h incentives coul d 

include reduced inspection frequencies, 

reduced performance testing, and a 

recognition program. EP A agrees that 

commercia l combustors of hazardous 

waste have little direct control over the 

wastes generated by their customers and 

therefore wil l experience little i f any 

flexibilit y from any the waste 

minimizatio n incentives proposed for 

comment. The comment to implement 

good actor incentives as an incentive for 

commercia l companies to educate their 

customers on waste minimizatio n di d 

not contain sufficient information to 

determine the merits of suc h an 

approach. EP A does point out, however, 

that this type of concept, i.e., one i n 

whic h private industry proposes an 

improvement i n environmental 

performance through and innovative 

regulatory approach, is the type of 

approach that might be appropriate for 

further exploration at a later time. 

Three states commented. Tw o states 

believe EP A should encourage waste 

minimizatio n i n this rulemaking. 

However, they believe three years plus 

a one year extension may not be enough 

time for companies to identify and 

install waste minimization measures. 

T he third state said that waste 

minimizatio n incentives shoul d not be 

necessary i n this rule because 

companies have had many years to 

pursue waste minimizatio n programs 

and should have already considered 

waste minimization as an approach to 

compliance. EP A agrees wit h the two 

states that, i n some cases, three years 

plus a one year extension ma y not be 

sufficient time to identify an d install 

waste minimization measures that 

achieve compliance. EP A agrees wit h 

the third state to a limite d extent, i n that 

companies have had many years to 

VES 000347 
24246 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 

implement waste minimizatio n 

programs, and notes that most, if not all, 

of the companies affected by today's 

rulemaking probably have waste 

minimizatio n programs i n place. 

However, as noted earlier, waste 

minimizatio n is an on-going process, 

and the stringent requirements of the 

MAC T standards for hazardous waste 

burning facilities may shift the 

economics for particular companies i n a 

w a y that makes certain waste 

minimizatio n measures more cost 

effective than they otherwise woul d 

have been, and companies may need 

additional time to design and install 

these approaches. 

EPA's Interim Fina l Guidance to 

Hazardous Waste Generators on the 

Elements of a Waste Minimizatio n 

Program i n Place (May 28,1993) 

recognizes companies make these 

determinations o n a case by case basis. 

EPA's guidance describes six general 

program elements that contribute to 

successful corporate waste 

minimizatio n programs. These elements 

include: (1) To p management support 

that emphasizes waste minimizatio n i n 

its corporate policy, employee 

involvement and rewards for ideas that 

reduce waste generation, setting goals 

for waste reduction, and other proactive 

management steps; (2) characterization 

of waste generation and waste 

management costs, identification of 

sources of waste i n the production 

process, how they were generated, the 

value of raw materials and lost products 

that are escaping as waste, and the cost 

of replacing and managing wasted 

materials; (3) periodi c waste 

minimizatio n assessments that are tied 

into other efforts to improve 

environmental management; (4) a cost 

allocation system that assigns the true 

cost of generating and managing wastes 

to the activities that generate the waste 

i n the first place; (5) encourage 

technology transfer that shares ideas 

and technology between parts of the 

organization and wit h other 

organizations where appropriate; and (6) 

program implementation and evaluation 

that evaluates successes and failures, 

and shares information wit h the public . 

Whil e these principle s were published 

i n regard to RCRA's waste minimizatio n 

certification requirement, the principle s 

can be used as relevant guiding 

principle s by companies who wis h to 

consider using waste minimization 

measures as a method to reduce 

hazardous wastes entering combustion 

feed streams regulated under MAC T 

standards and the Clean Ai r Act. 

One company argues i n its comments 

that mandatory waste minimizatio n 

planning shoul d be made a MAC T 

requirement so that facilities are forced 

to consider source reduction and 

recycling alternatives, rather than 

simpl y installing end-of-the-pipe 

equipment to control HA P emissions. 

T he company argues that this approach 

woul d be particularly useful i n 

controlling combustion feed streams to 

limi t the combustion of metals and 

other constituents that can not be 

adequately controlled using end-of-pipe 

measures. 

E P A has examined this issue closely. 

Whil e mandatory facility planning on 

the surface may appear to force facilities 

to consider waste minimizatio n 

solutions, providing appropriate 

regulatory incentives an d harnessing the 

power of publi c dialogue for companies 

to identify and install waste 

minimizatio n measures wil l result i n 

more waste minimizatio n measures. 

Sixteen states have implemented 

mandatory waste minimizatio n 

planning programs and several more 

have implemented voluntary waste 

minimizatio n planning programs i n an 

effort to encourage facilities to pursue 

waste minimizatio n measures over endof-pipe measures. A Federal mandatory 

and prescriptively detailed waste 

minimizatio n planning requirement 

woul d be, at best, marginally effective i n 

causing large companies (which make 

up the population of facilities affected 

by today's regulation) to identify and 

install waste minimizatio n measures 

beyond what they woul d do under 

current requirements. Large companies 

generally already have the necessary 

staff, information, and resources to 

pursue waste minimizatio n alternatives 

where it makes sense to do so. Whether 

large companies choose waste 

minimizatio n solutions over end-of-pipe 

solutions depends on a variety of 

economic and other factors that 

outweigh attempts to identify additional 

waste minimizatio n alternatives. EP A 

hopes to encourage minimizin g 

impediments to waste minimizatio n by 

soliciting comments o n the approaches 

contained i n today's NODA . 

Furthermore, the remaining States have 

chosen to not implement mandatory or 

voluntary waste minimizatio n planning 

programs. Some States believe that 

mandatory waste minimizatio n 

planning does not improve waste 

minimizatio n results. It woul d not be 

appropriate for EP A to either add 

additional burden to State waste 

minimizatio n programs that already 

exist or to States that have chosen not 

to have waste minimizatio n planning 

programs. 

E P A is, instead, asking for comment 

o n a refined approach that encourages 

facilities to consider waste 

minimizatio n alternatives, uses publi c 

dialogue to advance waste minimizatio n 

efforts, and provides regulatory 

incentives for companies to pursue 

waste minimizatio n solutions. This 

approach wil l achieve many of the same 

ends more efficiently than a detailed 

and prescriptive mandatory waste 

minimizatio n planning requirement. 

D. Comments Requested on Additiona l 

Waste Minimizatio n Incentives 

E P A is requesting comment on a three 

regulatory incentives that are intended 

to encourage companies to pursue waste 

minimizatio n measures to reduce or 

eliminate hazardous wastes entering 

combustion feed streams. 

T h e first incentive was proposed i n 

EPA's Apri l 19, 1996 MAC T proposal, 

and is being refined i n today's NODA . 

E P A requested comments on granting 

regulated facilities the opportunity to 

request a one year extension to the three 

compliance period allowed under the 

Clean Ai r Ac t i n cases where the 

additional time is clearly needed to 

identify and install waste minimizatio n 

measures that woul d reduce the amount 

of hazardous waste combusted as a 

means of achieving compliance. In 

today's NODA , EP A is requesting 

comment on several clarifying factors 

that wil l promote consistency whil e still 

allowing flexibility i n decision-making 

among the EP A Regions and authorized 

States who wil l make determinations o n 

whether or not to grant one year 

extensions to facilities wh o apply. 

E P A is also requesting comment on 

extending the agency's current audit 

and penalty policies to allow some 

companies to enter into a written 

consent agreement or consent orders 

(CA/COs) i n cases where it is clear that 

longer than four years (i.e., longer than 

a one year extension) is needed to 

identify and install waste minimizatio n 

measures that significantly reduce 

hazardous wastes entering combustion 

feed streams. These two approaches are 

discussed more below. 

40 CFR 63.6 (i) describes the authority, 

procedures an d requirements for 

requesting a one year compliance 

extension for meeting MAC T standards. 

Requests must include certain 

information, including: A description of 

the pollution control, process changes 

or process equipment to be installed, a 

compliance schedule that describes the 

dates by whic h these controls, process 

changes and process equipment, wil l be 

initiated, the dates by whic h installation 

wil l be completed, and the date by 

whic h compliance wil l be achieved. 

Today, EP A is requesting comment o n 

language that clarifies the term "process 

changes" i n 40 CFR 63.6(i)(6)(i)(B) 

VES 000348 
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 24247 

solely wit h respect to hazardous waste 

burning incinerators, LWAK s and 

cement kilns, to make it clear that waste 

minimizatio n measures are included i n 

the meaning of process changes for 

meeting MAC T standards. 

By making this clarification, EP A 

hopes to encourage the use of waste 

minimizatio n measures to reduce the 

amount of hazardous waste entering 

combustion feed streams as an 

alternative to or supplement to end-ofpipe emission controls. Wit h respect to 

hazardous waste burning incinerators, 

LWAK s and cement kilns, EP A includes 

i n the definition of "process changes" 

the followin g activities: equipment or 

technology modifications, reformulation 

or redesign of products, substitution of 

raw materials, improvements i n work 

practices, maintenance, inventory 

control, and environmentally sound 

recycling measures whic h reduce the 

amount and/or toxicity of hazardous 

waste entering feed streams of 

combustion devices. Th e term 

environmentally sound recycling 

includes on-site (including closed-loop 

recycling) and off-site recycling 

activities that use, reuse or reclaim 

hazardous materials i n accordance wit h 

E P A regulations. Burnin g for energy 

recovery is not include d i n the meaning 

of "process change" as a basis for 

requesting a one year extension for 

waste minimizatio n purposes. This 

proposed definitio n woul d apply only 

to hazardous waste burning 

incinerators, LWAK s and cement kilns. 

The Administrator or a State that has 

an approved part 70 permit program (or 

has been delegated the authority to 

implement and enforce the emission 

standard for that source) may grant 

extensions under 40 CF R 63.6(i)(9). 

Unde r this approach, decisions to grant 

one year extensions wil l be made by 

E P A Regional offices and approved or 

delegated state programs. EP A 

recognizes that States employ a variety 

of approaches for requiring or 

encouraging the consideration of waste 

minimizatio n measures i n achieving 

compliance wit h regulatory 

requirements. It is not appropriate for 

E P A to supersede State approaches wit h 

a uniform set of criteria for evaluating 

waste minimizatio n requests for one 

year compliance extensions. However, 

E P A believes it is appropriate to 

encourage (but not mandate) 

consistency i n ho w these decisions are 

made. Therefore, EP A is requesting 

comment on a proposal to include four 

factors that must, at a minimu m be 

considered by EP A Regional offices and 

approved or delegated state programs i n 

approving or denying requests for one 

year compliance extensions for 

hazardous waste burning incinerators, 

LWAKs , and cement kilns). These 

factors include : 

• Th e extent to whic h the process 

changes (including waste minimizatio n 

measures) proposed as a basis for the 

extension reduce or eliminate hazardous 

wastes entering combustion feed 

streams and are technologically and 

economically feasible. 

• Whether the magnitude of the 

reductions i n hazardous wastes entering 

combustion feed streams through 

process changes are significant enough 

to warrant granting an extension. 

• A clear demonstration that 

reductions of hazardous wastes entering 

combustion feed streams are not shifted 

as increases i n pollutants emitted 

through other regulated media. 

• A demonstration that the design 

and installation of process changes, 

whic h include waste minimizatio n 

measures, and other measures that are 

necessary for compliance cannot 

otherwise be installed withi n the three 

year compliance period. 

These factors wil l provide a degree of 

consistency, whil e still allowing 

flexibilit y among EP A Regional offices 

and approved States, i n the use of this 

innovative regulatory approach. EP A 

wil l also provide separate guidance that 

provides examples of how to apply the 

factors to consider and additional 

information that wil l be helpfu l to 

government an d regulated entities. For 

example, the guidance wil l provide 

examples that wil l help gauge whether 

the magnitude of proposed requests to 

reduce hazardous wastes entering 

combustion feed streams through 

process changes are significant enough 

to warrant granting an extension. For 

example, companies that commit to a 

2 5% or greater reduction i n hazardous 

wastes entering combustion feed 

streams may be more likely to be 

considered for an extension than 

companies that commits to only a five 

percent reduction. 

E P A anticipates that the guidance wil l 

contain other examples on how to 

evaluate cases where a low percentage 

reduction may actually reflects a 

significant improvement relative to 

previous significant waste minimizatio n 

achievements. The guidance wil l 

address how to evaluate shifts from 

combustion feed streams to other 

regulated media, such as wastewater 

effluents or other pollutant sources. EP A 

anticipates the guidance wil l address 

assuring that the proposed process 

changes that include waste 

minimizatio n measures are critica l path 

steps toward compliance, and not 

process improvements that have little to 

do wit h reductions of hazardous waste 

feed streams, and could otherwise have 

little impact on compliance. Waste 

minimizatio n measures that are not o n 

a critical path toward compliance or 

that do not have a direct impact o n 

reducing or eliminating hazardous 

waste streams entering combustion feed 

streams are not good candidates for a 

one year extension. Finally, EP A 

anticipates the guidance wil l include a 

list of states that have approved part 70 

permit programs, a list of states that 

operate waste minimizatio n technical 

assistance programs, and a list of States 

that have mandatory or voluntary waste 

minimizatio n planning programs. 

E P A also points out that companies 

that choose to apply for a one year 

extension for waste minimization 

purposes may wis h to coordinate the 

development of compliance extension 

applications wit h the development of 

"publi c regulatory notifications of intent 

to comply, " contained i n today's rule, 

since muc h of the developmental wor k 

for the two actions should be nearly 

identical. 

In the comments received, several 

companies and states said that, i n some 

cases, even the three year compliance 

period plus a one year extension woul d 

not be adequate time to design, and 

install waste minimizatio n measures or 

additional combustion or treatment 

measures necessary to ensure 

compliance wit h the MAC T standards. 

It may be appropriate, under the 

circumstances described below, to grant 

facilities wh o demonstrate that longer 

than three years plus a one year 

extension is necessary to implement 

waste minimizatio n measures that 

significantly reduce the amount and/or 

toxicity of hazardous waste entering 

combustion feed streams additional 

time (i.e., longer than four years). 

Reducing the amount of hazardous 

waste entering combustion feed streams 

provides greater long-term levels of 

protection for publi c health and the 

environment than other non-waste 

minimization/pollutio n prevention 

measures that coul d be used to compl y 

wit h the MAC T standard. Since 

facilities that need longer than three 

years or the three year date plus a one 

year extension to meet compliance are 

technically i n violation (not includin g 

facilities that are granted a one year 

compliance extension and meet 

compliance withi n the one year 

extension period), EP A wil l require 

these facilities to enter into written 

consent agreements/consent orders (CA / 

COs) to receive this additional time. Th e 

process changes that include waste 

minimizatio n measures must clearly 

demonstrate the facility wil l achieve 

significant reductions i n the amount o f 

VES 000349 
24248 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 

hazardous wastes entering combustion 

waste streams over what woul d have 

otherwise have been combusted over the 

long term using combustion-based 

compliance alternatives installed withi n 

the three year complianc e period (or 

three years plus a one year compliance 

extension). EP A encourages facilities to 

consider undertaking longer-term waste 

minimizatio n compliance approaches, 

subject to limitations proposed today. 

E P A wil l consider such requests using 

its enforcement discretion and the 

principle s articulated i n the Agency's 

"Polic y o n Encouraging Self-Policing 

an d Voluntary Correction" (60 FR 

66706, December 22, 1995) (i.e., the 

"Audi t Policy"). Withi n this context, 

E P A may, i n certain cases, consider a 

reduction of penalties for facilities that 

are able to install compliance solutions 

that demonstrate significant reductions 

i n hazardous wastes entering 

combustion feed streams, but need 

additional time beyond that allowable 

under the regulations. 

To qualify for this special 

consideration for additional time, a 

regulated entity woul d have to submit a 

written request that contains the 

information listed below. Facilities must 

submit requests to the EP A Regional 

Offic e that has oversight for their facility 

withi n one year after the MAC T 

standards for this rulemaking are 

promulgated. The request woul d 

include : 

• A n explanation of wh y the facility 

cannot reasonably implement their 

proposed process changes that include 

waste minimizatio n measures withi n 

four years from the date of the 

promulgation of the MAC T standards. 

• A n explanation of how the facility's 

proposed process changes (that include 

waste minimizatio n measures) wil l 

achieve greater reductions i n quantity 

and/or toxicity of hazardous wastes 

entering combustion feed streams. The 

proposed reductions must be 

significant. EP A wil l make these 

determinations on a case-by-case basis. 

• A n explanation of how the waste 

minimization/pollutio n prevention 

measures are necessary to achieve 

compliance wit h the MAC T standards 

(i.e., waste minimizatio n measures 

whic h reduce hazardous wastes entering 

combustion feedstreams must be shown 

to have a direct impact on the 

subsequent design, installation and 

testing of combustion or other treatment 

measures necessary to achieve and go 

beyond compliance standards), and a 

schedule for implementation of the 

proposal. 

• A waste minimizatio n facility plan. 

This plan must follow EPA's "Pollution 

Prevention Facilit y Planning Guide " 

(May, 1992; NTI S #PB92-213206), or, if 

the facility is located i n a State that 

requires mandatory waste minimizatio n 

planning, the form of waste 

minimizatio n planning required by that 

State. 

Regulated entities must demonstrate a 

clear intent to achieve compliance i n a 

timely fashion by entering into a 

consent agreement/compliance order 

wit h EP A as soon as they exceed the 

allotted time provided by the 

regulations (including any regulatory 

extension). EP A woul d then exercise its 

enforcement discretion to treat a 

facility's failure to achieve compliance 

by the regulatory deadline as a violation 

that can receive penalty mitigation 

under the Agency's Audi t Policy. Unde r 

the Audi t Polic y the Agenc y may give 

up to a 100% reduction i n the gravity 

based component of potential penalties. 

To qualify for eliminating the gravitybased penalty a facility wil l have to 

show that it has a compliance 

management program that meets the 

criteria for due diligence under the 

Audi t Policy. Otherwise, the facility 

may qualify for a 75% reduction of the 

gravity component of the penalty. EP A 

wil l provide examples of past cases i n 

the supplemental guidance noted earlier 

i n this section. 

E P A realizes that some waste 

minimizatio n compliance measures may 

be more cost effective than combustion 

based approaches. EP A wil l retain its 

discretion to recover any economic 

benefit gained as a result of 

noncompliance . This wil l ensure that 

facilities that delay compliance for a 

specific period of time do not receive an 

economic benefit during the period of 

non-compliance over regulated entities 

that do compl y withi n the regulatory 

deadline. For example, EP A may 

recover the economic benefit a company 

receives by delaying capital 

expenditures for modifyin g their 

manufacturing process to meet the new 

compliance standards. EP A may 

exercise its discretion i n appropriate 

circumstances to choose the lowe r 

figure between: (1) the company's 

pollutio n prevention/waste 

minimizatio n expenditures, and (2) 

expenditures the company woul d have 

incurred implementing other methods 

to come into compliance, whe n 

calculating economic benefit during the 

period of non-compliance wit h the new 

regulatory standards. EP A wil l also use 

its enforcement discretion to waive 

recovery of insignificant amounts of any 

economic benefit resulting from a 

facility's delayed compliance. 

E P A is also encouraging companies to 

pursue waste minimizatio n measures i n 

an expansion of the provision i n the 

Clean Ai r Ac t regulations that requires 

facilities to submit an early notification 

that they intend to comply wit h the 

MAC T standards as they become 

effective (usually about 2-3 years after 

the notification is submitted). The 

expansion, called a publi c regulatory 

notifications of intent to comply, woul d 

require facilities to include substantially 

more detail i n this notification on: (1) 

Wha t they have considered doing to 

meet the MAC T standards (particularly 

wit h respect to waste minimization); 

and (2) how they have decided to 

proceed. This expanded notification 

woul d be sent not only to the regulatory 

agency, but woul d also be made 

available to the loca l community. In 

addition, the facility woul d be required 

to hol d an informa l meeting wit h the 

loca l citizenry to discuss the 

notification. However, regulatory agency 

review and approval of the notification 

is neither mandated nor expected. This 

approach woul d harness the power of 

publi c opinio n to urge facilities to 

consider waste minimizatio n 

alternatives to end-of-pipe ways of 

meeting the MAC T standards. This 

approach is described i n detail 

elsewhere i n today's NOD A for publi c 

comment. 

E P A requests comment on the extent 

to whic h the proposed one year 

compliance extension, the proposed 

opportunity for companies to enter into 

consent agreements/consent orders for 

periods that extend beyond four years, 

and the PRNIC approach provide 

companies wit h appropriate incentives 

to pursue waste minimizatio n measures 

to achieve compliance. 

VI. Permit Requirements 

A . Coordination of RCR A and CA A 

Permitting Processes 

In the NPRM , EP A proposed to place 

the fina l MAC T standards i n 40 CFR 

Part 63 and reference those standards i n 

40 CF R Parts 264 and 266 (61 FR at 

17451). Unde r this proposal the 

standards woul d onl y be written out i n 

the CA A regulations, but they woul d 

legally be part of both the CA A and 

RCR A regulations. Thus, both programs 

woul d have an obligation to address the 

standards i n permits issued under their 

authority. EP A proposed this approach 

to provide the maximum amount of 

flexibilit y for state permitting 

authorities to coordinate the issuance of 

permits and enforcement activities i n a 

w ay whic h most effectively addresses 

their particular situation. 

Afte r reviewing the NPR M comments, 

there is some question on whether the 

proposed approach wil l provide the 

maximum amount of flexibility to the 

VES 000350 
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 24249 

state permitting authorities. The 

proposed approach woul d still require 

i n most cases at least two different 

permitting authorities to review the air 

emission standards i n a permit. Since 

under the original proposal the 

standards woul d be i n both the RCRA 

and CA A regulations, permit writers 

from each program might be required to 

address them to some degree i n a permit 

under that program, either by writing 

them directly i n the permit or by 

referencing them from the other permit. 

The proposed approach might not have 

given states the flexibility to implement 

the new standards under a single 

regulatory program. Thus, the proposed 

approach woul d result i n duplicative 

permitting actions i n many cases. 

Commenters had several other 

concerns wit h an approach where the 

air emission standards are incorporated 

into two permits. One major problem 

described by commenters is that the 

overlapping permit conditions of the 

Titl e V and RCR A permits woul d be 

subject to two separate permit 

modificatio n procedures, administrative 

appeals procedures, and potentially 

separate judicia l procedures as well . 

The Agenc y no w believes that this 

outcome coul d be needlessly 

duplicative an d unwieldy, and therefore 

not consistent wit h the Agency's intent 

to simplif y permitting. 

Additionally , commenters were 

concerned that the proposed approach 

woul d have allowed for dual 

enforcement scenarios where 

enforcement actions under both statutes 

woul d be brought against the facility for 

a single violation. In the NPRM , EP A 

stated that the Agency di d not expect to 

enforce under both permits (61 F R at 

17452). However, commenters noted 

that this statement di d not restrain the 

states from initiating dua l enforcement 

actions, or citizens from initiating dua l 

citizen suits. 

Codifyin g the MAC T standards i n 

only one place i n the regulations (unlike 

the proposed scheme) may actually 

provide states the greatest flexibility i n 

the wa y they issue permits and prevent 

duplication of effort. Althoug h the 

standards woul d be codified under one 

statute, states could decide whic h 

program they want implementing the 

standards. A state woul d be free to 

decide, for example, to have its RCR A 

staff implement a set of CA A standards. 

Anothe r approach woul d be for a state 

to decide unde r whic h state statute to 

adopt the MAC T standards based on 

whic h part of their program they wis h 

to implement the standards. For 

example if EP A places the MAC T 

standards i n part 63 only (see below), a 

state coul d stil l decide to adopt those 

standards under their state solid waste 

statute and implement the standards 

through their RCR A hazardous waste 

program, depending o n ho w their state 

soli d waste statute is written. The basic 

premise i n this approach is that it is not 

significant to EPA , nor to proper 

implementation of RCR A or CAA , under 

what statute a state adopts a RCR A or 

C A A regulation. 

E P A particularly woul d like to take 

comment o n this issue. Do states believe 

they can decide under whic h program to 

implement the MAC T standards if they 

are only placed i n Part 63? EP A is 

concerned that states be allowe d to 

implement the standards through either 

their CA A or their RCR A program, 

whichever works best for their 

particular situation. 

Currently, EP A is considering placing 

the MAC T standards only i n 40 CFR 

part 63 and relying o n the air program 

implementation scheme, includin g the 

Titl e V permitting program, to bring 

facilities into complianc e wit h the new 

standards. This approach (as opposed to 

the converse—placing the standards 

only i n the RCR A regulations) is the 

only approach that appears feasible to 

allow the standards to be codified i n 

only one place i n the regulations. The 

Agency woul d rely o n the integration 

provision of RCR A section 1006(b)(1) to 

defer RCR A controls on these air 

emissions to the part 63 MAC T 

standards. (The CA A does not have a 

simila r integration provisio n whic h 

woul d allow deferral of CA A 

requirements to RCR A regulations.) 

We emphasize, however, that under 

this approach, there woul d still be a 

need for a RCR A permit at HW C 

facilities, to address any other RCR A 

units on site, and to address RCR A 

regulations whic h apply to all types of 

RCR A facilities and whic h are not 

duplicated under CAA . Fo r example, a 

permit wil l be required to address 

hazardous waste storage units that hol d 

the waste prior to combustion. A s wit h 

all RCR A permits, the permit woul d 

require compliance wit h the standards 

i n 40 CFR part 264 (including general 

facility standards, preparedness and 

prevention requirements, contingency 

planning and emergency procedure 

requirements, manifesting requirements, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements, releases from solid waste 

management units requirements, closure 

and post-closure requirements, financia l 

requirements, corrective action 

requirements, storage requirements, 

materials handling requirements, and 

air emissions standards for process 

vents, equipment leaks, tanks, and 

containers). The omnibus provision of 

RCR A Section 3005(c)(3), codifie d at 

§ 270.32(b)(2), whic h provides for 

additional permit conditions as 

necessary at a particular site to protect 

huma n health and the environment, 

woul d also need to be addressed i n the 

RCR A permit, wit h respect to the 

combustor and other activities at the 

facility. (This issue is discussed further 

i n the next section.) Amon g other 

consequences, this means that the 

current program of processing RCR A 

H W C permits wil l continue until EP A 

finalizes any program changes. It 

remains a high priority to bring all HW C 

under ful l Part B permits as soon as 

possible. 

Althoug h the RCR A permit woul d not 

need to duplicate the MAC T controls 

contained i n a Title V permit, there wil l 

typically be a number of waste 

management activities associated wit h 

the combustion unit that woul d need to 

be addressed i n the RCR A permit (and 

not the Title V permit), such as 

materials handling (feed and residues) 

and combustor-specific (but not MACT -

related) waste analysis requirements 

and feed restrictions. If, as under the 

original proposal, the Agenc y decides to 

retain the DRE standard i n the RCR A 

regulations, then DRE woul d also need 

to be addressed i n the RCR A permit. 

The discussion above describes one 

approach the Agency is considering for 

the fina l rule. If this approach were 

adopted, it woul d establish ho w EP A 

woul d implement the new MAC T 

standards where the Agency has 

permitting jurisdiction. However, i n 

many cases, states are delegated RCR A 

and CA A authority. It woul d therefore 

be up to the state program to decide 

h o w best to implement the MAC T 

standards given the particular 

authorities of the state. The approach 

described today may be better suited to 

provide greater flexibilit y for state 

approaches, whether the State prefers to 

rely primarily o n the MAC T and Title V 

permit process or the RCR A permit 

process to impose the new standards. 

The Agency recognizes that i n many 

cases facilities wil l already have a RCR A 

permit i n place whe n the MAC T 

standards become effective. This 

situation raises the question of what 

happens to RCR A permit conditions 

related to combustor air emissions. 

From an overall standpoint, it is 

expected that the MAC T standards wil l 

be more stringent than many current 

RCR A regulations and permit 

conditions. However, at some 

individua l sites, certain RCR A permit 

conditions may be more stringent than 

the corresponding MAC T emissions 

standards. Some potential reasons wh y 

such a situation woul d occur are 

because the RCR A permit condition is 

VES 000351 
24250 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 

based o n a site-specific risk evaluation 

under the BIF rule or the omnibus 

provision; because the MAC T standard 

is i n a different format than the permit 

condition (e.g., a mass emission rate or 

removal efficiency format i n a RCR A 

permit vs. a concentration-based 

standard for HCI under MACT ) and at 

that particular site the RCR A format 

yields more stringent control; because, 

i n the case of CO limits i n early 

incinerator permits, the RCR A permit 

limi t was based o n levels during the 

tria l burn; or because the facility was 

one of the lowe r emitters i n the 

standards development MAC T pool. 

The Agency's overall intent is for the 

MAC T standards to replace the RCR A 

air emissions standards for hazardous 

waste combustors. Therefore, where the 

Agenc y has permitting jurisdiction, the 

RCR A air emissions permit limits for 

HWCs, wit h the exception of sitespecifi c risk-based limits, woul d be 

deleted from RCR A permits whe n the 

MAC T standards become operational. In 

the case of site-specific risk-based 

limits, based either o n the BIF metals 

and HC1/C12 requirements or omnibus 

authority, these limits woul d remain i n 

RCR A permits to satisfy the 

protectiveness requirement of RCR A 

section 3004 (a) and (q). A s wit h EP A 

issued permits, i n authorized states any 

site-specific risk-based limits woul d 

need to be retained where necessary to 

satisfy RCR A protectiveness 

requirements. Since authorized states 

are allowed to be more stringent, states 

wil l determine, i n the process of 

deciding whether to delete old RCRA -

based regulations an d i n the permitting 

process, whether to keep or delete more 

stringent permit conditions whic h are 

not based on a site-specific risk finding. 

E P A woul d lik e to take comment o n 

the approach of placing the MAC T 

standards onl y i n the part 63 

regulations, an d deferring the RCR A 

standards, as described above. 

B. Permit Process Issues 

A s discussed above, the Agency is 

considering a n approach of placing the 

MAC T standards onl y i n 40 CFR part 63 

and using RCR A 1006(b) authority to 

defer RCR A permitting to the Title V 

permitting program for the air emission 

standards only. This approach raises the 

issues of how and whe n the permitting 

authorities shoul d modif y existing 

RCR A permits to remove the air 

emission standards. The Agency's 

current thinking is that the RCR A 

permit shoul d continue to apply until a 

facility completes its comprehensive 

performance testing and its Title V 

permit is issued (or its existing Title V 

permit is modifie d to include the MAC T 

standards). The RCR A permit woul d 

then be modifie d to remove the air 

emission limitations whic h are covered 

i n the Title V permit. Anothe r option is 

to modif y the RCR A permit at the time 

the facility submits their comprehensive 

performance test results. However, it is 

beneficial to wait until the test results 

are reviewed, approved, and written 

into a Title V permit before deleting any 

RCR A permit conditions because of the 

greater level of Agency an d publi c 

review that occurs during the permit 

process. The Agenc y woul d like to take 

comment on this issue. A t what point 

should the RCR A permit be modifie d to 

remove air emission standards? Ho w 

should the switch-over to the new 

permitting system occur? Note that 

irrespective of whe n the Titl e V permit 

is issued/modified, the MAC T standards 

and associated operating limits become 

enforceable according to the schedule i n 

the fina l rule. 

Afte r the compliance date for the fina l 

rule, but before the RCR A permit is 

modifie d to remove any air emission 

limitations, there wil l be a period where 

a facility wil l have both a RCR A permit 

that addresses air emissions and either: 

(1) A precertification of complianc e 

document wit h applicable operating 

conditions that they have submitted; or 

(2) a Title V permit whic h also 

addresses air emissions. Note, the RCR A 

permit wil l continue to apply until suc h 

time that it is modifie d to remove any 

air emission limitations. The 

precertification of compliance 

document or Titl e V permit wil l not 

automatically supersede RCR A permit 

conditions as a matter of law. The more 

stringent conditions wil l govern. 

C. Omnibus an d RCRA/CA A Testing 

Coordination 

A s discussed i n the preamble to the 

proposed rule (61 FR at 17371), EP A 

currently has a national RCR A policy of 

strongly recommending to all federal 

and state RCR A permit writers that, 

under the omnibus provision of RCR A 

section 3005(c)(3), site-specific risk 

assessments (SSRAs) generally be 

performed as part of the RCR A 

permitting process to determine 

whether additional conditions are 

necessary to protect huma n health and 

the environment. The results of these 

risk assessments are then used to set 

protective permit conditions. Unde r the 

new permitting scheme that the Agency 

is considering (placing the MAC T 

standards only i n 40 CF R part 63), the 

Agency is considering whe n the RCR A 

omnibus provision woul d continue to 

be used—for example, to require a sitespecific risk assessment—and the timing 

of the RCR A omnibus findin g i n relation 

to the Title V permit issuance/ 

modification. 

A s discussed i n the NPRM , the 

Agency has indicated a preference for 

modifyin g our current policy of 

recommending that a site-specific risk 

assessment (SSRA) be performed during 

permitting at hazardous waste 

combustors i n most cases (61 FR at 

17372). Depending o n the scope and 

level of the fina l MAC T standards, this 

policy may need to be re-evaluated. For 

at least some facilities, there might still 

be sufficient cause to perform a SSR A 

under the RCR A omnibus permitting 

authority. 

Thus, the Agency is also considering 

the timin g issue of whether a RCR A 

omnibus findin g woul d be expected to 

occur at the same time as the Titl e V 

permitting decision (or the Title V 

permitting modification decision, i f this 

is more appropriate, since some of these 

units wil l most likel y already have Title 

V permits). The Agency expects that 

many of the trial burns to support 

SSRA s wil l already be completed prior 

to the effective date of the MAC T rule, 

and woul d not need to be repeated 

provided none of the resulting 

emissions limitations are relaxed based 

on the MAC T rule. For facilities where 

trial burns for risk assessments have not 

been performed, a RCR A omnibus 

determination as to whether a SSR A is 

needed can be made i n most cases 

before the comprehensive test protocol 

is finalized. This situation woul d allow 

the MAC T comprehensive test protocol 

and RCR A trial burn plan to be 

coordinated wit h respect to sampling 

and analysis procedures and operational 

protocols. However, the Agency does 

not pla n to hol d u p comprehensive 

performance test approval or the Titl e V 

permit process (modified or new 

permits) to accommodate a RCR A 

omnibus finding. 

If it were not possible to make the 

RCR A omnibus determination i n 

sufficient time to allow coordinated 

emissions testing, then a separate RCR A 

trial burn might be necessary. This 

separate test event woul d increase the 

costs to the facility and require more 

oversight by the permitting authority. 

Afte r allowing for additional time to 

perform a SSRA , the findings of the risk 

assessment coul d then be used to 

establish site-specific standards which , 

i n turn, might require a review of the 

Title V permit and its associated 

operating limits/standards. 

It should also be noted that if the DRE 

standard is retained under RCR A (see 

discussion i n Section III.A.), these same 

testing coordination issues apply to DRE 

testing. (At sites where SSRA s are to be 

performed, it is expected that DR E 

VES 000352 
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 24251 

testing and testing necessary to provide 

data for SSRA s wil l be occurring at the 

same time.) 

We invite comment o n the 

workability of this approach for 

achieving maxima l coordination of the 

RCR A trial burns and omnibus findings 

wit h the initia l MAC T comprehensive 

test and Title V permitting. 

Part Four: Miscellaneous Issues 

I. 5000 Btu per Pound Policy for Kiln 

Products 

Current Agenc y polic y exempts 

cement product (clinker) from cement 

kilns burning hazardous waste from 

regulation as a hazardous waste 

provided the fue l value of the hazardous 

waste exceeds 5000 Btu per pound 6 8. 

This allows cement kilns to burn highB t u hazardous waste for energy recovery 

purposes and stil l market the clinke r 

and the cement mi x produced from the 

clinker as commercia l product free from 

any Subtitle C concerns. The Agency 

has already provided a clarification (53 

FR 31198, August 17, 1988) that the 

regulations for "waste derived 

products" at § 266.20 do not apply to 

products from processes using 

hazardous waste (HW) fuels, unless 

these processes also use hazardous 

wastes as "ingredients" i n a product 

destined for lan d application (i.e., the 

product must "contain" the H W as an 

ingredient to be covered by § 266.20) or 

burn hazardous waste for destruction. 

To implement this regulation, the 

Agency has used Bt u values of a waste 

as a proxy to determine whether 

contaminants i n the H W fuels wil l or 

wil l not be deemed to transfer to the 

product (i.e., become ingredients). Over 

time, many commenters have submitted 

data and have suggested that the heat 

content of a waste is an indirect and 

imprecise wa y of identifying whether 

materials should be subject to the 

provisions of § 266.20 (hazardous 

wastes used i n a manner constituting 

disposal). 

The Agency has been interested for 

some time i n considering whether and 

h ow to change the existing Btu 

approach. For example, 60 FR 7376 

(February 7, 1995) discusses a possible 

exclusion of clinke r from the derivedfrom rule, even whe n cement kil n dust 

6 8

 Wastes with energy value greater than 5000 Btu 

may generally be said to be burned for energy 

recovery, since this is the Btu value of low grade 

fuels. 48 FR 11157-59 (March 16, 1983). However, 

lower energy wastes could conceivably be burned 

for energy recovery in industrial furnaces, such as 

cement kilns, or in industrial boilers due to these 

devices' general efficiency of combustion. Id. At 

11158. Thus, the 5000 Btu level is not an absolute 

measure of burning for energy recovery (i.e., a rule), 

particularly when industrial furnaces and industrial 

boilers are involved. 

is introduced i n the feed. EP A has also 

discussed wit h CKR C the narrower issue 

of whether the 5000 Btu/lb energy value 

leve l reliably predicts whether toxi c 

contaminants woul d more likel y 

partition to the clinke r and ultimately 

the cement product. Some from industry 

have suggested that a facility that agrees 

to limit waste feed metals to their 

"historic average" could be exempted 

from the 5000 Btu/hr policy. The 

rationale is that even if the facility took 

lowe r Bt u waste, they woul d not be 

taking higher quantities of metal waste 

than currently, at least o n the average. 

This woul d address EPA's concern 

about allowin g an increase of metals i n 

H W fuels burned by cement kilns if the 

5000 Bt u restriction were abandoned. 

Today, without our endorsement at 

this time, the Agenc y is offering this 

concept and some potential variations 

for publi c comment. The Agenc y is 

interested i n the possible ramifications 

and requests comment, particularly wit h 

respect to limitin g the concentrations of 

metals i n cement products from cement 

kiln s burning hazardous waste. To take 

advantage of such a policy, a facility 

woul d have to establish a baseline of 

metals feed i n the hazardous waste (for 

example, the average of the previous 

three years) an d then agree to 

enforceable permit conditions limitin g 

metals feedrate levels to that average 

plu s one standard deviation. 

Presumably, enforceable restrictions on 

metal feed rates should control metal 

partitioning to clinker and CK D muc h 

more effectively than woul d the Bt u 

limi t and ensure that these materials 

woul d not contain an increase i n toxic 

metal constituents from the hazardous 

waste used as fuel. Also , metal feed 

limits based on a historical average 

woul d appear to be more stringent than 

the current BIF metal feed limits, whic h 

are set o n a health basis considering 

direct inhalation of metals emissions. 

(In other words, as discussed i n earlier 

sections of this notice, cement kilns are 

generally feeding metals far below 

allowable BIF limits.) 

E P A seeks comment o n allowin g 

cement kilns (and LWAKs) the option of 

complyin g wit h the following, whic h is 

onl y partly based on the suggestions 

discussed wit h cement kil n 

representatives, wit h some additions: 

• A n owner or operator of a cement 

kil n burning hazardous waste woul d be 

allowed to burn hazardous waste wit h 

any Btu content, provided the owner or 

operator agrees to enforceable hazardous 

waste feed operating limits o n metals of 

concern (see below); 

• These metals feed limits woul d be 

set at levels that woul d ensure, at least 

o n an annual basis, that metals on a 

mass basis do not increase over current 

levels, whic h are substantially less than 

those allowable under BIF (and sources 

would , of course, remain subject to 

stack emission standards to control the 

emission of metal HAPs); 

• Feed limits woul d have to be 

established for each of the followin g 

twelve metals: antimony, arsenic, 

barium, beryllium, cadmium, 

chromium, cobalt, lead, nickel, 

selenium, thallium, and vanadium; 

• Sampling and analysis woul d be 

conducted as often as necessary to 

document that the metals levels are 

below the limits and included i n the 

facility's waste analysis plan required 

by 40 CFR 264.13; and 

• Results of the analysis woul d have 

to be available for publi c inspection. 

Also , the Agenc y is considering a 

variation of this option, under whic h 

kil n operators woul d have to achieve 

specified percentage reductions of the 

total quantity (on an aggregate basis) of 

the followin g metals i n their wastes 

combusted: antimony, arsenic, barium, 

beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, 

lead, nickel, selenium, thallium, and 

vanadium. EP A chose these particular 

metals based on their potentially high 

human health and ecological risk i n 

conjunction wit h their significant 

tendencies to persist i n the environment 

and accumulate i n livin g tissue. If 

generators reduce metals i n wastes over 

time, holding kilns to the average of the 

past three years may actually allow 

increased burning of certain metalbearing streams. This is because other 

streams may contain less metals. In 

contrast, commitments to reducing 

metals below baseline limits woul d 

ensure that progress continues i n waste 

minimization. EP A requests comments 

on this option, includin g information 

about: (1) The prevalence and 

distribution throughout industry sectors 

of waste streams bearing these metals 

sent to combustion, and (2) 

opportunities for generators to reduce 

these metals i n wastes sent to 

combustion by means of source 

reduction during generation. 

E P A requests comment o n the impact 

of imposing limits o n metals 

concentration on waste streams 

combusted i n cement kilns. EP A raises 

these questions: 

• Ho w muc h hazardous waste now 

sent to cement kilns for energy recovery 

woul d be likely to meet such metal leve l 

limitations? 

• Of the fraction of wastes that woul d 

"fail " a metals limit, woul d generators 

of waste now sent to cement kilns 

reduce metals concentrations i n these 

wastes, using waste minimizatio n and 

pollution prevention, so that cement 

VES 000353 
24252 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 

kilns woul d continue to receive the 

same amounts of waste? 

• If no suc h action to reduce metals 

concentrations occurred, woul d cement 

kiln s reject high-metals hazardous 

wastes now sent to cement kilns for 

energy recovery and woul d these wastes 

go instead to incinerators? 

T h e Agency also requests comment on 

the related issue of appropriate metals 

reduction goals. EP A has identified a 

national goal for waste minimizatio n of 

the most persistent, bioaccumulative 

and toxic hazardous constituents by 25 

percent by the year 2000 and by 50 

percent by the year 2005. See EPA's 

Waste Minimizatio n Nationa l Pla n 

(Office of Soli d Waste, November 1994). 

Consistent wit h this national waste 

reduction goal for metals, EP A requests 

publi c comments today on requiring 

aggregate percentage reductions for the 

twelve metals i n waste feed, as an 

alternative to holdin g cement kilns to 

the historical average feed limits ofth e 

past three years and allowing no 

increases over baseline limits. This 

approach woul d also further waste 

minimizatio n planning by offering kilns 

a reason to motivate the generators 

supplyin g them wit h hazardous waste 

for combustion to undertake waste 

minimization . In comments related to 

the role of waste minimizatio n i n the 

MAC T proposal, Molte n Meta l 

Technologies (MMT) states that 

"without drivers favoring pollution 

prevention and waste minimizatio n i n 

the instant rulemaking, onl y minima l 

progress wil l be made." MM T points out 

that economics conspire against 

pollutio n prevention and waste 

minimizatio n since investment for 

compliance often takes priority over 

investment for process modifications to 

reduce waste generation and since 

corporate rate-of-return thresholds may 

"squash" pollutio n prevention and 

waste minimizatio n initiatives. 

Finally, the Agency requests comment 

on whether additional nonmetal 

constituents (e.g., chlorinated organics) 

shoul d also be identified for similar 

reductions as part of this approach. 

II. Foundry Sand Thermal Reclamation 

Units 

A . Background 

Foundry operations can generally be 

classified as either ferrous or 

nonferrous, depending o n their primary 

feed materials. Both types of foundries 

use large amounts of sands for their 

metal molds. Over time, the sands 

become contaminated wit h the metals 

being used, as wel l as wit h certain 

binde r materials. Nonferrous foundries 

(i.e., brass, lead, etc.) sometimes 

generate spent sands that exhibit the 

Toxicit y Characteristic (40 CFR 261.24) 

for lead or cadmium. (The Agency has 

indicated concerns wit h certain sand 

treatment methods. See 62 F R 10004, 

Marc h 5, 1997.) These sands can be 

physically processed to remove 

contaminants for continued use, 

resulting i n less sand use for the 

foundry, and less need for disposal of 

the sands. Interest has also been 

expressed i n using thermal processing 

or reclamation units (TRUs) to clean the 

sand for continued use. TRU s may 

represent a significant waste 

minimizatio n technology for the 

foundry industry. 

The TRU s remove contaminants 

primarily by combusting the organic 

binder materials i n the sand. These 

organic materials are generally wax-like 

materials, synthetic or natural (e.g., 

clays, phenols, etc.). Ai r emissions 

concerns woul d include lead, cadmium, 

and particulate emissions, as wel l as 

products of incomplete combustion. 

These units are identified as industria l 

furnaces under 40 CFR 260.10 as a type 

of "foundry furnace" and are subject to 

regulation under 40 CFR part 266, 

subpart E (the "BIF rules") whe n they 

burn hazardous waste. 6 9 Whe n the 

Agenc y developed subpart E, however, 

we di d not consider whether TRU s 

woul d be appropriately controlled 

under those standards. The Agency 

created a special exemption for metal 

recovery furnaces under § 266.100(c) 

and also proposed a special exemption 

for petroleum catalyst recovery units 

(see 60 FR 57780; November 20, 1995). 

In these two cases, we found that the 

B IF rules woul d not appropriately 

control the units i n question, i.e., any 

air emissions hazards might be more 

appropriately controlled under 

standards specially designed for those 

units under either RCR A or CAA . Unde r 

RCR A Section 1006, an important 

consideration for the Agency is to avoid 

duplication to the extent practical 

between the two Acts. Also , as noted 

above, TRU s may achieve significant 

waste minimizatio n benefits, an 

important consideration under RCRA . 

6 y

 Another potential reading of the Section 

260.10 definition is that "foundry furnaces" only 

applies to a furnace that hums a primarily metalbearing material. Under this reading, TRUs could 

not be industrial furnaces because they burn sand 

with only contaminant levels of metals. However, 

since TRUs are closely associated, both physically 

and functionally, with the primary metal processing 

functions of a foundry, they are appropriately 

classified as industrial furnaces subject to part 266, 

subpart E. 

B. Deferral and Variance Options for 

Consideration 

The Agency is presently developing 

MAC T controls under the CA A for 

foundries. Althoug h at this time it is not 

clear to what extent TRUs woul d be 

subject to MAC T controls, 

representatives from the foundry 

industry have suggested that, as the new 

MAC T rules are implemented, all 

foundries wit h TRU s wil l be required, 

as a practical matter, to install MAC T 

controls on the TRUs. Amon g the 

reasons cited are that vendors of TR U 

technology wil l have to design for 

situations under MAC T control, and 

state air officials wil l incorporate the 

MAC T technology i n permits for 

foundries as a matter of course. 

Althoug h EP A has no wa y to predict 

whether this scenario woul d come to 

pass, there are obvious advantages to 

controlling TRU s processing sands that 

exhibit the TC under MAC T standards, 

as opposed to under the BIF rules. 

These advantages include 

administrative simplicit y and maximum 

flexibilit y for implementing agencies. 

E P A requests comment on the followin g 

two approaches to ensure appropriate 

controls for TRUs: 

1. Deferral option. Give n the 

developments under the CA A discussed 

above, and also i n light of the potential 

waste minimization benefits, EP A 

requests comments o n appropriate 

control schemes for TRU s burning 

hazardous foundry sands. Specifically, 

comments are requested o n a deferral of 

B IF applicability, simila r to the existing 

provision for metal recovery furnaces 

and proposed provision for petroleum 

catalyst recovery units. This woul d 

allow development of the foundry 

MACT , and potentially the eventual 

application of these controls to TRU s 

processing sands that exhibit the TC. 

Unde r such an approach, EP A woul d 

place an exemption i n Part 266, Subpart 

E, identifying foundry TRU s as an 

exempt BIF, and a one-time notice 

woul d be required as is no w required 

for metal recovery furnaces under 

§266.100(c)(l)(I). 

2. Variance from definition of solid 

waste option. TRU s appear to be integral 

to foundry operations. The y are located 

at the foundry site, operated by the 

foundry, and the sand being processed 

and returned to the foundry operation is 

essential i n the manufacturing 

operation. The time periods between 

whe n a spent sand is generated and 

whe n it is processed and returned is 

typically a matter of hours. In fact, TRU s 

may reduce the need to store spent 

sands for processing and may thereby 

reduce fugitive emissions of the sands 

VES 000354 
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 24253 

that might result from physica l 

processing. Give n that a sand appears 

integral to foundry operations and TRU s 

c a n greatly improve the efficiency of 

san d use, EP A coul d conclude that even 

without any rule changes, foundry 

operators may be eligible for a variance 

from the RCR A definition of soli d waste 

unde r the variance provisions foun d at 

40 CFR 260.30(b), 260.31(b), and 260.33. 

Unde r these variance provisions, EP A 

(or an authorized State) may grant a 

variance from the definition of solid 

waste for materials that are reclaimed 

an d then used as feedstock withi n the 

origina l production process i n whic h 

the materials were generated i f the 

reclamation process is an essential part 

of the production process. This 

evaluation is guided by a number of 

criteria foun d at § 260.31(b). Whil e 

foundries certainly can and do operate 

without thermally processing their 

sands, and so TRU s are not literally 

"essential", as summarized above the 

units do i n fact greatly increase 

efficiency of sand use, whic h is an 

essential raw material of foundry 

operations. Also , the TRUs are 

physicall y proximate, and integrated 

into the foundry's operations. Emissions 

from the TRU s are often ducted into 

emission control devices used for the 

foundries' main production activities. 

A s such, the Agenc y could vie w sands 

being processed i n TRU s as potentially 

eligible for the variance under 

260.31(b) 70. EP A (or the State) woul d 

7 0

 The Agency notes that, typically, a variance 

from the definition of solid waste under 260.31(b) 

would apply at the point of generation (e.g.. in this 

case, the point where the spent sands are removed 

from the casting forms). Also, typically, when such 

a variance is granted, the variance is only 

applicable to those secondary materials that meet 

the conditions of die variance (e.g., the variance 

would not include secondary materials that are not 

reused in the production process). 

The normal and efficient flow of materials at 

facilities with a TR U may involve the processing of 

all of the spent sand generated. However, after 

recovery of the sand, insubstantial amounts of 

sands that arc processed by the TR U may be found 

to be unusable again as foundry sand, and so may 

be discarded. While treatment and disposal of the 

spent foundry sand is clearly not the intent of the 

TRU , "treatment and disposal" would be the 

regulatory status of any hazardous secondary 

material that is processed such that it is no longer 

hazardous and then discarded, given the most 

straightforward reading of the regulations. 

Nevertheless, the Agency believes that because 

the TR U is typically integrated into the facility's 

operations, and the flow of spent foundry sand into 

the TR U becomes a standard operating procedure, 

the incidental discard of an insubstantial amount of 

spent foundry sand should not overshadow the 

basic purpose of § 260.31 (b) to grant a variance from 

the definition of solid waste to materials that are 

reclaimed and reused in the production process, 

where such reclamation is, i n effect, an integral step 

in the flow of production. Thus, the Agency asserts 

that, assuming all other conditions of the 

§ 260.31(b) variance are met, the fact that a 

relatively insignificant amount of spent foundry 

still have to weigh the factors i n 

paragraph (b) o n a case-by-case basis to 

determine if the variance should be 

granted. For example, paragraph (b)(3) 

requires an examination of how the 

sands are handled to ensure that losses 

are minimize d before reclamation. Also , 

paragraph (b) (8) allows consideration of 

"other factors" as appropriate, and i n 

this case, air emissions controls for the 

T R U woul d be appropriately considered 

before granting a variance. A s discussed 

above, controls may be installed as part 

of the MAC T process, or simpl y due to 

state or loca l air pollution laws. The 

Agenc y woul d expect that as a 

minimum, emissions of particulate 

matter woul d have to be limited to 

control lead emissions, and given the 

organic binder compounds being 

introduced to the units, limits o n and 

continuous monitoring of indicators of 

efficient combustion, such as CO and/or 

H C , woul d seem appropriate. Unde r this 

approach, the Agency might or might 

not develop special standards for TRU s 

under RCR A or the CAA . The case by 

case approach might enable EP A and 

the States to oversee the units without 

the need for federal standards. 

III. Status of Gaseous Fuels Generated 

From Hazardous Waste Management 

Activities 

The proposed rule include d a 

proposed exclusion from subtitle C 

jurisdiction for certain synthetic gas 

fuels derived from hazardous waste 

treatment activities (61 FR at 17465). 

Some commenters stated that synthesis 

gas fuels are beyond EPA's regulatory 

authority because they are uncontained 

gases, and further stated that EP A had 

faile d to set out any explanation for its 

potential jurisdiction over these 

synthesis gas fuels (which jurisdiction 

E P A proposed to relinquish provided 

the syngas met designated 

specifications). 

Th e type of syngas discussed i n the 

proposal results from thermal reaction 

of hazardous wastes, whic h reaction is 

optimized to break organic bonds and 

reformulate the organics into hydrogen 

gas an d carbon monoxide. Id, This 

resulting gas can be used as a fue l at 

manufacturing facilities. 

E P A has broad statutory authority to 

regulate fuels produced from hazardous 

wastes. RCR A section 3004(q)(l); see 

also Horsehead Resource Development 

Co. v. Browner, 16 F. 3d 1246, 1262 

(D.C. Cir. 1994) (broadly construing this 

authority). Th e fact that syngas (by 

definition) is a gas, rather than a soli d 

sand is discarded would not negate a variance 

granted to spent foundry sand, or require a 

treatment permit for the TRU . 

or liquid , does not appear to raise 

jurisdictiona l issues. It is still produced 

from the hazardous wastes that are 

being processed thermally. See 

§261.2(c)(2)(A) and (B) (definingsuch 

materials as solid wastes). EP A believes 

its authority to be clear under these 

provisions, but wil l consider further 

comment on the issue. 7 1 

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

The Regulatory Flexibilit y Ac t (RFA) 

of 1980 requires Federal agencies to 

consider impacts o n "small entities" 

throughout the regulatory process. 

Section 603 ofth e RF A calls for an 

initia l screening analysis to be 

performed to determine whether small 

entities wil l be adversely affected by the 

regulation. If affected small entities are 

identified, regulatory alternatives must 

be considered to mitigate the potential 

impacts. Smal l entities, as described i n 

the Act, are only those "businesses, 

organizations and governmental 

jurisdictions subject to regulation." 

In preparation of the proposed rule, 

E P A used information from Dun n & 

Bradstreet, the America n Business 

Directory and other sources to identify 

small businesses. Based on the number 

of employees and annual sales 

information, EP A identified 13 firms 

whic h may be small entities. That 

analysis also determined that the 

proposed rule was unlikel y to result i n 

detrimental impacts to small businesses. 

This conclusion was derived from two 

important findings: 

First, few combustion units are owned 

by businesses that meet the SB A 

definition. Amon g those that are 

considered small (based on number of 

employees), over one-third were foun d 

to have gross sales i n excess of $50 

millio n per year. Furthermore, available 

data indicate an ongoing industry trend 

toward consolidation, or market exit. 

Second, small entities impacted by 

the rule, were foun d to be those that 

currently burn very little hazardous 

waste, and hence face very hig h cost per 

ton burned. These on-site facilities are 

likel y to discontinue burning hazardous 

waste and dispose off-site, rather than 

compl y wit h the proposed rule. Based 

o n available data, EP A foun d that the 

incremental cost of alternative disposal 

associated wit h discontinued burning of 

such waste woul d not exceed 0.10 to 

0.20 percent of annual corporate gross 

revenues. Furthermore, currently viable 

commercial small business facilities 

affected by the proposal were found to 

remain profitable. 

7 1

 See also 50 FR 49164, 49171 (Nov. 25. 1985); 

52 F R 16982, 17021 (May 6, 1987); and 56 FR 7134, 

7203-04 (Feb. 21, 1991) which discuss this 

question, although inconclusively. 

VES 000355 
24254 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 

The above findings indicate that the 

proposed rul e is expected to have 

overall negligible impacts on small 

entities. The Agency is currently 

refining and expanding its analysis of 

small entities and makes no conclusions 

beyond those presented for the 

Proposal. 

Dated: April 22, 1997. 

Elizabeth Cotsworth, 

Acting Director, Office of Solid Waste. 

[FR Doc. 97-11155 Filed 5-1-97; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 

VES 000356