[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 174 (Tuesday, September 9, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47402-47404]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23843]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[FRL-5890-2]


Revised Technical Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustion 
Facilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of data availability and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document is a notice of data availability and invitation 
for comment on the following information pertaining to the proposed 
revised standards for hazardous waste combustors (61 FR 17358 (April 
19, 1996)): additional data on various fuel oils to be used to 
establish a total halogen specification to exclude comparable fuels 
from the definition of solid waste.
    Readers should note that only comments about new information 
discussed in this notice will be considered during the comment period. 
Issues related to the April 19, 1996 proposed rule and other subsequent 
notices that are not directly affected by the documents or data 
referenced in today's Notice of Data Availability are not open for 
further comment.

DATES: Written comments must be submitted by September 24, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Commenters must send an original and two copies of their 
comments referencing docket number F-97-CS5A-FFFFF to: RCRA Docket 
Information Center, Office of Solid Waste (5305G), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency Headquarters (EPA, HQ), 401 M Street, S.W., 
Washington, DC 20460. Deliveries of comments should be made to the 
Arlington, Virginia address listed below. Comments may also be 
submitted electronically through the Internet to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d4a6b7a6b5f9deb0bbb7bfb1a094b1a4b5b9b5bdb8fab1a4b5fab3bba2">rcra-
<span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="62060d01090716220712030f030b0e4c0712034c050d14">[email protected]</span></a>. Comments in electronic format should also be 
identified by the docket number F-97-CS5A-FFFFF. All electronic 
comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special 
characters and any form of encryption. For other information regarding 
submitting comments electronically or viewing the comments received or 
supporting information, please refer to the proposed rule (61 FR 17358 
(April 19, 1996)).
    Commenters should not submit electronically any confidential 
business information (CBI). An original and two copies of the CBI must 
be submitted under separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control 
Officer, Office of Solid Waste (5305W), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, S.W., 
Washington, DC 20460.
    Public comments and supporting materials are available for viewing 
in the RCRA 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., Monday through Friday, except for 
Federal holidays. To review docket materials, the public must make an 
appointment by calling 703-603-9230. The public may copy a maximum of 
100 pages from any regulatory docket at no charge. Additional copies 
cost $0.15 per page.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the 
RCRA Hotline at 1-800-424-9346 or TDD 1-800-553-7672 (hearing 
impaired). In the Washington metropolitan area, call 703-412-9810 or 
TDD 703-412-3323. The RCRA Hotline is open Monday-Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 
6:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time. The RCRA Hotline can also provide 
directions on how to access electronically some of the documents and 
data referred to in this notice via EPA's Cleanup Information Bulletin 
Board System (CLU-IN). The CLU-IN modem access phone number is 301-589-
8366 or Telnet to clu-in.epa.gov for Internet access. The files posted 
on CLU-IN are in Portable Document Format (PDF) and can be viewed and 
printed using Acrobat Reader.
    For more detailed information on specific aspects of this notice, 
contact Mary Jo Krolewski, Office of Solid Waste (5302W), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 
20460, 703-308-7754, e-mail address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1a716875767f6d69717334777b686370755a7f6a7b777b7376347f6a7b347d756c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="96fde4f9faf3e1e5fdffb8fbf7e4effcf9d6f3e6f7fbf7fffab8f3e6f7b8f1f9e0">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 19, 1996, EPA proposed revised 
standards for hazardous waste combustors (i.e., incinerators and cement 
and lightweight aggregate kilns) that burn hazardous waste. See 61 FR 
17358. After an extension, the comment period closed on August 19, 
1996. In that proposal, EPA included a comparable fuels provision under 
which EPA used a benchmark approach to develop a series of technical 
specifications that would allow hazardous waste similar in composition 
to a commercially available fossil fuel to be excluded under RCRA when 
burned. One of the specifications for comparable fuels was a limit on 
total halogens in comparable fuels. Although total halogens are not 
listed in Appendix VIII, Part 261, EPA proposed a total halogen 
specification to ensure that halogenated products of incomplete 
combustion (PICs) and HCl and Cl<INF>2</INF> generated from burning a 
comparable fuel would not be emitted at higher levels than from burning 
a benchmark fossil fuel. See proposal (61 FR at 17461) and a subsequent 
notice of data availability (61 FR 43501 (August 23, 1996)). PICs 
resulting from the burning of halogenated compounds can pose a 
particular hazard to human health and the environment.
    Using the benchmark approach, EPA initially proposed total halogen 
<SUP>1</SUP> specifications ranging from 10 ppmw to 25 ppmw. These 
initial total halogen specifications included both organic and 
inorganic halogens. However, the total halogen data used by EPA in the 
proposed rule for its No. 4 and No. 6 fuel oils were based on 
analytical methods measuring only total organic halogens, not both 
organic and inorganic halogens. EPA's decision to use a method that 
measured only organic halogens for No. 4 and No. 6 fuel oils was based 
on two factors. First, EPA was concerned about possible method 
interferences and poor matrix recovery when measuring total halogen in 
No. 4 and No. 6 fuel oils and used a method that measures only total 
organic halogen.<SUP>2</SUP> Second, EPA was concerned that No. 4 and 
No. 6 fuel oils

[[Page 47403]]

can contain widely varying levels of inorganic chlorides from 
contamination with emulsified brine during the oil extraction or 
transportation process and used a method that avoided measuring these 
inorganic chlorides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Expressed as chlorine.
    \2\ The Agency has since determined that EPA Method 325.3 for 
total halogens should not result in poor matrix recovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters disagreed with EPA's decision not to include inorganic 
halogens in its total halogen analyses for No. 4 and No. 6 fuel oils. 
Commenters argued that inorganic halogens are normally found in fuel 
oil and that EPA's analysis was not representative of the total halogen 
levels in fuel oil.<SUP>3</SUP> Furthermore, commenters argued that 
comparable fuel specifications should be set at levels that commercial 
fuels could consistently pass, and should be based on levels of 
constituents actually observed in commercial fuels, regardless of their 
derivation. One commenter submitted additional data on total halogen 
content for No. 6 fuel oil.<SUP>4</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See, e.g., RCRA Docket F-97CS5A-FFFFF, number S0001, 
Chemical Manufacturers Association letter dated June 27, 1997.
    \4\ See RCRA Docket F-97-CS5A-FFFFF, number S0002, Rohm & Haas 
letter dated April 14, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is persuaded by commenters' arguments and is inclined to use 
data that reflect measurement of both organic and inorganic halogens to 
establish the total halogen specification. These data better represent 
the typical total halogen content found in benchmark fuels. To set a 
total halogen limit that includes both organic and inorganic halogens, 
EPA has gathered data from its own database (i.e., for Certifications 
of Compliance required by the Boiler and Industrial Furnace Rule) and 
included data submitted by one commenter <SUP>5</SUP> (see Table 1). In 
addition, EPA will continue to use its original gasoline and No. 2 fuel 
oil halogen data, which include both organic and inorganic halogens 
(see Table 2). EPA invites comment on the appropriateness of these data 
for use in determining a total halogen specification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Commenter's data include 6 data points on total halogen in 
No. 6 fuel oil. EPA screened out one of the data points as an 
outlier because it was 170% greater than any data point in the total 
halogen database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As in the proposed rule, EPA has used a nonparametric rank order 
statistical approach to determine the total halogen specification. See 
61 FR at 17463. Using this methodology under the composite fuel 
approach, the total halogen specification would be 25 ppmw for the 50th 
percentile composite, 260 ppmw for the 90th percentile composite, and 
500 ppmw for the 99th percentile composite. The Agency is not inviting 
additional comment on the various percentiles in this notice. Rather, 
this information is provided to enable interested persons to inspect 
EPA's use of the total halogen data and to comment thereon, including 
the practical impacts of a total halogen specification of 25, 260, or 
500 ppmw.
    In addition to new total halogen data, EPA received comment on an 
equivalency determination to qualify for the comparable fuels 
exemption. One commenter argued that the Agency should consider the 
commenter's candidate comparable fuel as a comparable fuel even though 
it cannot meet the comparable fuel specification for total halogens 
(see Fina Oil comments, docket number RCSP-00204). The commenter's 
candidate comparable fuel has an average halogen content of 1145 ppmw, 
with a standard deviation of 2400 ppmw. The commenter submitted the 
results of an emissions testing program to demonstrate that emissions 
of toxic, Appendix VIII, Part 261, compounds from burning its candidate 
comparable fuel are similar or lower than emissions from this same 
facility when burning No. 2 fuel oil.
    The Agency considered this situation and the attendant test data 
carefully, but continues to maintain that an emissions-based 
equivalency determination to the total halogen specification on a 
national regulatory basis would be inappropriate and infeasible at this 
time. EPA has consistently declined to adopt an alternative national 
approach that is based on an extensive comparison of either emissions 
or the risk from emissions because of the inherent technical complexity 
and our current inability to adequately model the risks from all 
potential burners of an unregulated hazardous waste fuel. EPA also 
expects that other commenters may well ask EPA to create emissions-
based equivalency determinations for other individual and less 
problematic compounds. This would again put EPA administratively in the 
position of attempting to create, on a national level, a defensible and 
consistent set of equivalency determinations based on considerations of 
comparative emissions and risk, a position that EPA has indicated is 
infeasible at this time.
    Finally, if the Agency were to develop an equivalency determination 
for total halogens, the implementation details needed in a national 
regulation to ensure proper combustion of halogenated wastes would be 
numerous including, for example, provisions on operating parameters, 
performance testing, and monitoring. These details would almost 
certainly result in a complicated conditional exclusion from the 
definition of solid waste. This eventuality is viewed as both 
potentially unworkable and very difficult to implement and enforce on a 
national basis. However, there remains some discretion for EPA, through 
a separate rulemaking, to classify individual fuels as non-wastes based 
on individual circumstances.<SUP>6</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 61 FR 9396-97 (March 8, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, EPA is not inclined at this time to consider developing 
any national equivalency determination to the total halogen 
specification as part of its final deliberations on the comparable fuel 
exclusion. At some future point, perhaps as our understanding of cause-
and-effect relationships regarding emissions from a wider variety of 
sources grows, EPA may be able to address aspects of the commenter's 
recommendations if appropriate and feasible.

                                     Table 1: Additional Total Halogen Data                                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Heat Value
             Fuel type                         Facility                 Total Halogen  (ppmw)          (Btu/lb) 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 2 fuel oil.....................  Dupont, Wilmington.........  16...............................       19,200
No. 2 fuel oil.....................  Dupont, Wilmington.........  429..............................       19,200
No. 2 fuel oil.....................  Dupont, Wilmington.........  461..............................       19,200
No. 2 fuel oil.....................  Dupont, Wilmington.........  470..............................       19,200
No. 2 fuel oil.....................  Dupont, Wilmington.........  490..............................       19,200
No. 2 fuel oil.....................  Dupont, Wilmington.........  523..............................       19,200
No. 2 fuel oil.....................  Dow Chem., Gales Ferry.....  83...............................       19,587
No. 2 fuel oil.....................  Dow Chem., Gales Ferry.....  93...............................       19,587
No. 2 fuel oil.....................  Dow Chem., Gales Ferry.....  137..............................       19,380
No. 6 fuel oil.....................  American Cyan., Kalamazoo..  <45 (non-detect).................       18,571

[[Page 47404]]

                                                                                                                
No. 6 fuel oil.....................  American Cyan., Kalamazoo..  <45 (non-detect).................       18,571
No. 6 fuel oil.....................  American Cyan., Kalamazoo..  <45 (non-detect).................       18,571
No. 6 fuel oil.....................  Huntsman Poly, Woodbury....  <100 (non-detect)................       18,500
No. 6 fuel oil.....................  Huntsman Poly, Woodbury....  <100 (non-detect)................       18,500
No. 6 fuel oil.....................  Huntsman Poly, Woodbury....  <100 (non-detect)................       18,500
No. 6 fuel oil.....................  Huntsman Poly, Woodbury....  <100 (non-detect)................       18,500
No. 6 fuel oil.....................  Huntsman Poly, Woodbury....  <100 (non-detect)................       18,500
No. 6 fuel oil.....................  Huntsman Poly, Woodbury....  <100 (non-detect)................       18,500
No. 6 fuel oil.....................  Rohm & Haas, Philadelphia..  109..............................       18,967
No. 6 fuel oil.....................  Rohm & Haas, Philadelphia..  110..............................       18,881
No. 6 fuel oil.....................  Rohm & Haas, Philadelphia..  171..............................       18,976
No. 6 fuel oil.....................  Rohm & Haas, Bristol.......  180..............................       18,400
No. 6 fuel oil.....................  Rohm & Haas, Philadelphia..  840..............................       18,300
No. 6 fuel oil.....................  Rohm & Haas, Philadelphia..  840..............................       18,600
No. 6 fuel oil.....................  Rohm & Haas, Philadelphia..  590..............................       18,400
No. 6 fuel oil.....................  Rohm & Haas, Philadelphia..  660..............................       18,300
No. 6 fuel oil.....................  Rohm & Haas, Philadelphia..  1000.............................       18,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                 Table 2: Total Halogen Data From Proposed Rule                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 2 fuel oil.....................  EPA sample 8835-001........  <25 (non-detect).................       19,583
No. 2 fuel oil.....................  EPA sample 8835-002........  <25 (non-detect).................       19,610
No. 2 fuel oil.....................  EPA sample 8835-003........  <25 (non-detect).................       19,823
No. 2 fuel oil.....................  EPA sample 8835-004........  <25 (non-detect).................       19,755
No. 2 fuel oil.....................  EPA sample 8835-005........  <25 (non-detect).................       19,763
No. 2 fuel oil.....................  EPA sample 8835-006........  <25 (non-detect).................       19,891
No. 2 fuel oil.....................  EPA sample 8835-007........  <25 (non-detect).................       19,570
No. 2 fuel oil.....................  EPA sample 8835-008........  <25 (non-detect).................       19,865
No. 2 fuel oil.....................  EPA sample 8835-009........  <25 (non-detect).................       19,942
No. 2 fuel oil.....................  EPA sample 8835-010........  <25 (non-detect).................       20,000
No. 2 fuel oil.....................  EPA sample 8835-011........  <25 (non-detect).................       19,745
Gasoline...........................  EPA sample 8835-001........  <25 (non-detect).................       19,506
Gasoline...........................  EPA sample 8835-002........  <25 (non-detect).................       19,394
Gasoline...........................  EPA sample 8835-003........  <25 (non-detect).................       19,687
Gasoline...........................  EPA sample 8835-004........  <25 (non-detect).................       19,420
Gasoline...........................  EPA sample 8835-005........  <25 (non-detect).................       19,189
Gasoline...........................  EPA sample 8835-006........  <25 (non-detect).................       19,924
Gasoline...........................  EPA sample 8835-007........  <25 (non-detect).................       19,373
Gasoline...........................  EPA sample 8835-008........  <25 (non-detect).................       19,552
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: August 25, 1997.
Elizabeth A. Cotsworth,
Acting Director Office of Solid Waste.
[FR Doc. 97-23843 Filed 9-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>