Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022-0239
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2004-04-28T04:00Z

April
26,
2004
NOTE
SUBJECT:
Meeting
w/
CRWI
Re
Proposed
MACT
Rule
FROM:
Bob
Holloway,
OSW/
OSWER,
USEPA
TO:
Docket
ID
No.
OAR­
2004­
0022
On
April
20,
2004,
Mike
Galbraith,
Sasha
Gerhard,
and
Bob
Holloway,
EPA,
met
with
the
Coalition
for
Responsible
Waste
Incineration
to
respond
to
questions
clarifying
provisions
of
the
MACT
rule
for
HWCs
proposed
on
March
31,
2004.
CRWI
members
raised
several
issues
and
OSW
staff
provided
several
responses.

1.
FF
Bag
Leak
Detector
Response
as
an
Operating
Limit.
Establishing
an
operating
limit
for
FFs
as
the
average
bag
leak
detector
response
during
the
performance
test
is
too
stringent
given
that
it
is
difficult
to
maximize
PM
emissions
during
performance
test
for
a
source
equipped
w/
a
FF.

Response.
Agree
that
this
is
a
concern.

2.
Compliance
w/
Thermal
Emission
Concentration­
Based
Standards.
Compliance
with
a
thermal
emission
concentration­
based
standard
will
be
difficult
for
sources
that
burn
wastes
with
a
relatively
low
heating
value.
Once
a
source
documents
compliance
with
the
thermal
emission
concentration,
could
the
feedrate
limit
be
expressed
as
a
mass
feedrate
(
lb/
hr)
rather
than
a
thermal
feedrate
(
lb/
MM
Btu)?

Response.
Agree
that
complying
with
a
thermal
concentration­
based
feedrate
may
be
problematic
for
wastes
with
relatively
low
heating
value.
Allowing
compliance
with
a
thermal
emission
standard
based
on
a
the
mass
feedrate
achieved
during
the
performance
test
would
not,
however,
ensure
compliance
with
the
emission
standard.

3.
Handling
Nondetect
Emissions
under
a
Thermal
Emission
Standard.
Allowable
emission
concentrations
under
the
thermal
emission
standards
can
be
extremely
low,
below
detection
limits,
for
sources
burning
wastes
at
low
firing
rates
or
with
low
heating
value.
The
Agency
proposed
to
address
the
issue
of
a
source
not
being
able
to
document
compliance
b/
c
emissions
are
below
detection
limits
by
determining
a
source
to
be
in
compliance
if:
(
1)
the
sample
time
for
each
run
was
at
least
3
hours;
(
2)
the
laboratory
achieved
the
analytical
detection
limits
for
the
method;
and
(
3)
the
analyte
was
not
detected
during
any
run.
If
the
analyte
is
detected
in
one
run
but
not
the
other
2
runs,
the
proposal
would
require
that
the
source
assume
the
analyte
was
present
at
the
detection
limit
for
those
runs.
This
is
inconsistent
with
allowing
averaging
of
runs
to
demonstrate
compliance,
and
could
result
in
failure
to
comply.
But,
the
source
may
not
be
able
to
further
control
emissions
(
and
the
rationale
for
doing
so
seems
dubious)
given
that
emissions
are
generally
already
below
detection
limits.

Response:
Understand
the
concern.

4.
PM
Standard
for
Liquid
Fuel
Boilers.
The
PM
standard
for
existing
and
new
sources
is
different
in
the
summary
table
presenting
standards
for
all
sources
than
in
the
preamble
discussions
specific
to
liquid
fuel
boilers.

Response.
The
standards
presented
in
the
liquid
fuel
boiler
section
of
the
preamble
are
likely
to
be
correct
and
should
match
the
numbers
in
the
engineering
support
documents.
We
will
notify
CRWI
which
numbers
are
correct.

5.
Bypassing
Prior
Approvals.
Certain
provisions
of
the
rule
(
e.
g.,
alternative
monitoring
provisions
of
existing
63.1209(
g)(
1)
and
proposed
approval
of
the
112(
d)(
4)
risk
demonstration)
require
prior
approval
before
the
source
can
undertake
an
action
such
as
conducting
the
performance
test
or
beginning
compliance
with
alternative
standards.
Region
and
state
permitting
resources
are
stretched
so
thin,
however,
that
permitting
officials
frequently
do
not
respond
to
information
provided
by
sources
in
time
to
grant
or
deny
approvals
of
a
requested
action.
Facilities
can
waste
money
by
having
to
install
equipment
that
would
otherwise
be
waived
by
their
alternative
monitoring
petition.
In
addition,
they
can
face
scheduling
problems.
Can
such
provisions
be
revised
to
allow
the
source
to
undertake
the
action
without
approval
but
with
the
knowledge
that
the
source's
prior
actions
may
be
deemed
not
be
in
compliance
with
the
standards.
Sources
would
use
this
provision
only
when
comfortable
that
they
are
taking
a
reasonable
and
supportable
action.

Response.
Understand
the
issue
and
will
consider
how
to
address.

6.
Site­
Specific
Risk
Assessments
(
SSRAs)

Does
the
codification
of
omnibus
authority
change
the
way
SSRA
policy
is
currently
implemented?

Response.
Nothing
is
changed;
only
codified
existing
statutory
authority
for
regulatory
clarity
and
in
response
to
CKRC's
petition.

Why
not
include
the
SSRA
policy
in
the
codification?

Response.
EPA
does
not
feel
it
is
appropriate
because
it
would
remove
the
flexibility
for
permitting
authorities
in
their
determinations.
Also,
we
do
not
want
the
policy
to
be
misconstrued
as
requiring
SSRAs.

How
will
the
new
regulations
be
implemented
in
authorized
versus
non­
authorized
states?

Response.
It
would
depend
on
whether
your
unit
is
HSWA
or
non­
HSWA.
The
new
regulations
are
proposed
under
HSWA
and
are
considered
to
be
no
more
stringent
than
the
existing
federal
regulations
which
means
authorized
states
do
not
have
to
pick
them
up.

Why
did
EPA
propose
this
codification?

Response.
Mainly,
to
respond
to
CKRC's
petition
requesting
that,
if
EPA
does
not
repeal
the
SSRA
policy
and
guidance
and
but
believes
that
SSRA's
continue
to
be
necessary,
then
EPA
should
promulgate
the
authority
using
notice
and
comment
procedure.

7.
CPT
Plan
and
Public
Notice.
Why
include
a
notice
of
at
least
60
days
prior
to
initiation
of
the
test
­
it
was
not
in
the
regulations
before?
(
CRWI
pointed
out
that
the
60
days
advance
notice
creates
problems
when
regulatory
authorities
have
not
approved
the
CPT
plan
until
the
last
minute
­
it
would
push
back
the
test
date
which
would
be
very
costly.)

Response.
When
we
added
more
detail
to
the
public
notice
requirements,
we
sought
to
fashion
them
after
the
RCRA
public
notice
requirements
for
the
trial
burn
plan.
We
thought
the
60
days
was
a
reasonable
period
of
time
to
allow
the
public
to
view
the
plan.
We
now
understand
that
many
facilities'
CPT
plans
are
not
being
approved
before
the
deadline
and
will
reconsider
whether
the
60
day
requirement
is
warranted.

8.
New
Streamline
Permit
Modification
Procedure.
Can
EPA
include
language
that
will
deem
the
permit
modification
request
approved
if
the
permit
authority
does
not
respond
within
the
allotted
time
frame?

Response.
As
discussed
in
"
5"
above,
we
understand
the
issue
and
will
consider
how
best
to
address
it.