burning of hazardous waste in boilers and industrial ... · by-case risk assessment for all...

Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 87 / Wednesday, May 6, 1987 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Parts 260, 261, 264, 265, 266,

270, and 271

[FRL-3153-51

Burning of Hazardous Waste In Boilersand Industrial Furnaces

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency.ACTION: Proposed rule and request forcomment.

SUMMARY: Under this proposal, theEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA)would expand controls on hazardouswaste combustion to regulate theburning of hazardous waste fuels inboilers and industrial furnaces.Currently, only the burning of hazardouswaste in incinerators is subject toregulation although burning hazardouswaste fuels in boilers and industrialfurnaces can pose similar hazards tohuman health and the environment.Boilers and industrial furnaces havebeen exempt from regulation pendingAgency efforts to determine whetherregulations for burning in these devicesshould differ from those for incinerationin light of the different scope ofpractices and the different combustiondevices and wastes involved. TheAgency has completed those efforts andtoday proposes to control emissions oftoxic organic compounds, toxic metals,and hydrogen chloride from boilers andindustrial furnaces burning hazardouswaste. In addition, today's proposalwould subject owners and operators ofthese devices to the general facilitystandards applicable to hazardouswaste treatment, storage, and disposal-facilities. Further, today's proposalwould subject hazardous waste fuelstorage units at burner facilities to Part264 permit standards. Burner storageoperations at existing facilities aregenerally now subject only to interimstatus standards under Part 265.

Finally, today's rule proposes actionon two petitions. Based on a petition byDow Chemical Corporation, the Agencyis proposing to classify halogen acidfurnaces as industrial furnaces under§ 260.10. Based on a petition by theAmerican Iron and Steel Institute, EPAis proposing to classify coke and coal tarfuels produced by recycling coal tardecanter sludge, EPA Hazardous WasteNo. K087, as products rather than solidwaste.DATES: EPA will accept publiccomments on this proposed rule untilJuly 6, 1987, except that comments onthe proposal to regulate hazardous

waste fuel blending tanks will beaccepted until June 5, 1987.

Public hearings are scheduled asfollows:

1. Chicago, May 27, 1987.2. San Francisco, May 28, 1987.3. Arlington, VA, June 5,1987.Requests to present oral testimony

must be received by 10 days before eachpublic hearing.ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposedrule should be sent to RCRA DocketSection (WH-562), U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, 401 M Street SW.,Washington, DC 20460 [Attn: Docket No.F-87-BBFP-FFFFFJ. The public docket islocated in Rm. S-212 and is available forviewing from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Mondaythrough Friday, excluding legal holidays.The hearings will be held at thefollowing locations:

1. Holiday Inn--O'Hare, 5440 N. RiverRoad, Rosemont, Illinois 60018, May 27,1987.

2. Holiday Inn-Fisherman's Wharf,1300 Columbus Avenue, San Francisco,California 94133, May 28, 1987.

3. Sheraton-National Hotel, ColumbiaPike and Washington Blvd., Arlington,VA 22204, June 5, 1987.The hearings will begin at 9 a.m. withregistration at 8:30 a.m. and will rununtil 4:30 p.m. unless concluded earlier.The meetings may be adjourned earlierthan the scheduled time if there are noremaining comments. Anyone wishing tomake a statement at the hearing shouldnotify, in writing, Mr. WilliamRichardson, Public Participation Office,Office of Solid Waste (WH-5621,Environmental Protection Agency, 401 MStreet SW., Washington, DC 20460.Persons wishing to make oralpresentations must restrict them to 15minutes and are encouraged to havewritten copies of their completecomments for inclusion in the officialrecord.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:RCRA HOTLINE, toll free, at (800) 424-9346 or at (202) 382-3000. Single copiesof the proposed rule are available bycalling the RCRA Hotline. For technicalinformation, contact Dwight Hlustick,Waste Combustion Section, WasteManagement Division, Office of SolidWaste, WH-565A, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, 401 M Street SW.,Washington, DC 20460, Telephone: (202)382-7917.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Preamble OutlinePart One: Background1. Legal Authority11. Overview of the Proposed RuleIll. Relationship of the Proposed Rule to

Other Rules

A. May 19, 1980, rulesB. January 4,1985, redefinition of solid

wasteC. November 29, 1985, administrative

controlsD. TSCA waste PCB rulesE. Proposed rules for burners of off-

specification used oil fuelsIV. Need for Controls

A. BoilersB. Industrial furnaces

1. Cement kilns.2. Light-weight aggregate kilns.3. Lime kilns.4. Blast furnace systems.5. Sulfur recovery furnaces.

C. Risks posed by improper burning

Part Two: Major Regulatory Approaches

1. Use of National Performance Standardswith Risk-based Options Versus Case-by-Case Risk Assessment for AllFacilities

II. Regulation of Burning for Either EnergyRecovery or Destruction

Ill. Regulation of Burning Solely for MaterialsRecovery in An Industrial Furnace

Part Three: Discussion of Proposed Controls

I. OverviewII, Overview of EPA's Risk Assessment

A. Identification of reasonable, worst casefacilities1. Flat terrain modeling.2. Complex terrain modeling.

B. Reference air concentrations forsystemic toxicants

C. Risk from CarcinogensD. Assumptions Used in the Risk

AssessmentIII. Proposed Controls for Emissions of Toxic

Organic CompoundsA. Hazard posed by combustion of toxic

organic compoundsB. Basis for the DRE and CO performance

standards for toxic organic compounds1. Results of emissions testing.2. Overview of test program.3. Interpretation of test results.4. Basis for the DRE standard.5. Basis for the CO standard.

C. Waiver of trial burn for boilers operatedunder special operating requirements1. A minimum of 50 percent of the fuelfired to the boiler must be gas, oil, orcoal.2. Boiler load must be at least 25 percent.3. The hazardous waste fuel, as fired,must have a heating value of at least8,000 Btu/lb.4. The hazardous waste fuel must befired with an atomization firing system.

D. Start-up and shut-down operationsE. Waiver of trial bum and CO limits for

low risk wasteIV. Proposed Controls for Emissions of Toxid

MetalsA. Hazard posed by combustion of metal-

bearing wastesB. Basis for the metals standards

1. Overview.2. Identification of metals of concern.3. Basis for the standards.4. Tier I-Tier 111 standards.5. Tier IV standards.6. Implementation of the metals controls.

Ill16982

HeinOnline -- 52 Fed. Reg. 16982 1987

This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.


C. Impacts of the metals standards on theregulated community

V. Proposed Controls for Emissions ofHydrogen Chloride

A. Hazard posed by combustion of highly-chlorinated waste

B. Basis for the standardsVI. Nontechnical RequirementsVII. Proposed Exemption of Small Quantity

On-site BurnersA. ScopeB. RationaleC. Basis for selecting quantity limits

1. Composition of hazardous wastestream.2. Toxicity of hazardous constituents.3. Destruction efficiency.4. Clustering and size of sources.5. Dispersion.6. Assumptions regarding metals andchlorine in waste fuels.

D. Exemption of associated storageVIII. Regulation of Combustion Residuals

A. Residuals from boilersB. Residuals from industrial furnaces

Part Four: Interim Status Standards andPermit ProceduresI. Interim Status Standards

A. General facility standardsB. Operating requirements

1. Metals and hydrogen chloridestandards.2. Carbon monoxide limits.

C. Monitoring and inspectionsD. Waste analysis and closureE. Prohibition on burning dioxin-containing

wastesF. Exemption of small quantity on-site

burnersII. Permit Procedures

A. Proposed § 270.22: specific Part Binformation1. Boilers operated under specialconditions for conformance with organicemission standard.2. Waiver of a trial burn to demonstrateconformance with the metals emissionstandard.3. Waiver of a trial burn to demonstrateconformance with the HC1 emissionstandard.4. Data in lieu of a trial burn.

B. Proposed § 270.65: Special forms ofpermits1. Permits for new boilers exempt fromtrial burn requirements.2. Permits for new boilers and industrialfurnaces subject to a trial burn.3. Permit procedures for interim statusfacilities.

Part Five: Storage Standards, Halogen AcidFurnaces, and Other Issues1. Storage

A. Standards for storage tanksB. Proposal to regulate hazardous waste

fuel blending tanksI1. Proposed Designation of Halogen Acid

Furnaces as Industrial FurnacesA. Dow's petitionB. Bases for classification as an industrial

furnace1. HAFs are integral components ofmanufacturing process.2. HAFs recover materials and energy.3. HAFs meet industrial furnace criteria.

C. Proposed designationD. Regulations applicable to HAFs

I1. Proposed Classification of Coke and By-Product Coal Tar Containing TarDecanter Sludge (EPA Hazardous WasteK087) as a Product

A. AISI petitionB. Process descriptionC. Basis for proposed approval of the AISI

petitionIV. Notice of Intent to Amend the Subpart 0

Incinerator StandardsV. Boilers, Industrial Furnaces, and

Incinerators are BDAT for HOCsVI. Classification of Pickle LiquorVII. Landfill GasPart Six: Administrative, Economic, andEnvironmental Impacts, and List of SubjectsI. State Authority

A. Applicability of rules in authorizedstates

B. Effect on state authorizationII. Regulatory Impact Analysis

A. PurposeB. Affected populationC. Cost analysis

1. Methodology.2. Results.

D. Economic impacts1. Methodology.2. Screening analysis results.3. Facility level analysis results.

E. Risk analysis1. Methodology.2. Results.

F. Regulatory flexibility analysis1. Methodology.2. Results.

G. Paperwork reduction actIll. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 260, 261,

264, 265, 266. 270, and 271Appendix A-Reference Air Concentrations

(RACs) for Threshold ConstituentsAppendix B-Risk-Specific Doses for

Carcinogenic Constituents at 10- 5 RiskLevel

Appendix C-Example Tier I and Tier I1Calculations

Today's preamble is organized intosix major parts. Part One containsbackground information thatsummarizes major provisions of the rule.It also describes how today's rule fitsinto the Agency's strategy for regulatingall burning of hazardous waste. Finally,this part identifies the combustion unitsthat would be regulated-boilers andindustrial furnaces-and describes thehazard that may be posed by theuncontrolled burning of hazardouswaste.

Part Two discusses why the proposedcontrols are based on nationalperformance standards rather thanentirely on case-by-case riskassessments. This part also discusseswhy the rules would apply to theburning of hazardous waste in boilers orindustrial furnaces irrespective of theheating value of the waste. Thus, theserules would supercede the shamrecycling enforcement policy that

heretofore applied the hazardous wasteincinerator standards of Subpart 0 ofParts 264 or 265 to the burning of lowheating value hazardous waste inboilers or industrial furnaces. Undertoday's rules, the incinerator standardsof Subpart 0 would never apply toboilers and industrial furnaces. This partalso explains that today's rules wouldapply to the burning of hazardous wastein an industrial furnace solely for thepurpose of materials recovery, but alsoexplains when such burning is deemednot to involve RCRA solid wastes.

Part Three discusses the proposedcontrols on burning. It explains whyemissions of toxic organic compoundsare controlled with a 99.99 percentdestruction and removal efficiency(DRE) performance standard coupledwith limits on flue gas carbon monoxide(CO) levels. The DRE standard wouldensure destruction of organicconstituents in the hazardous waste fueland the CO limits would ensure thedevice continuously operates at highcombustion efficiency and, thus, is notlikely to emit incompletely burnedorganics at levels that pose significantrisk. This part also discusses theproposed automatic waiver of a trialburn for boilers operated under specialconditions. The special conditions weredeveloped to ensure that the boilercontinuously operates at highcombustion efficiency when burninghazardous waste and, thus, achieves atleast a 99.99 percent DRE forconstituents in the feed, and hasminimal emission of incompletelyburned organic compounds. In addition,this part discusses the proposed waiverof a trial burn and the flue gas carbonmonoxide limits for boilers andindustrial furnaces demonstrated toburn low risk waste. The demonstrationis based on projected reasonable, worst-case emission rates absent thosecontrols, site-specific dispersionmodeling, and comparison of predictedground level concentrations ofpollutants to reference levels. Part Threealso discusses the basis for the proposedlimits on metals and hydrogen chlorideemissions, and the four-tiered approachto implement those limits: Tier I-demonstration of compliance withmetals and chlorine specification levelsin the hazardous waste itself, or in thehazardous waste as fuel (i.e., afterblending); Tier I--demonstration thatthe feed rate of metals and chlorine,considering levels in the hazardouswaste, other fuels, and industrialfurnace feedstocks, does not exceedprescribed limits; Tier III-demonstration that prescribed emissionrates are not exceeded; and Tier IV-

16M8




demonstration that reference airconcentrations are not exceeded. Anowner or operator would be incompliance by demonstratingconformance with any of the tiers. Inaddition, this part discusses theproposed exemption of small quantityonsite burners and the regulation ofcombustion residuals.

Part Four discusses proposed interimstatus standards and permit standardsand procedures. In particular, this partdiscusses how the CO limits and metalsand HCI standards would apply duringinterim status.

Part Five discusses subjecting existingburner storage units currently in interimstatus to the Part 264 permit standardsat the same time the boiler or industrialfurnace is permitted. On-site burnerswho accumulate hazardous waste forless than 90 days, however, willcontinue to be subject to the specialrequirements under § 262.34. This partalso discusses a proposal to designatehalogen acid furnaces as industrialfurnaces and attempts to distinguishclearly between such furnaces andincinerators burning halogenatedhazardous waste. In addition, this partdiscusses a proposal to classify cokeand coal tar fuels produced by recyclingcoal tar decanter sludge, EPAHazardous Waste No. KO87, asproducts rather than solid (andhazardous) waste because the recyclingdoes not significantly increase the levelsof toxic constituents in the materials.Further, Part Five discusses theAgency's intent to develop conformingamendments to the incineratorstandards of Subpart 0 of Parts 264 and265 to control metals emissions directlyand to ensure that incineratorscontinuously operate at high combustionefficiency to help minimize emissions ofincompletely burned organiccompounds. Finally, this part addressestwo unrelated issues: (1) A proposal toclarify that the pickle liquor listing,Hazardous Waste No. K062, applies topickle liquor generated by plants in theiron and steel industry, not just to plantsthat actually produce iron and steel: and(2) a proposal to amend an exemptionprovided in the November 29, 1985,burning and blending final rule for gasrecovered from hazardous wastelandfills to extend the exemption toinclude gas recovered from solid wastelandfills.

Part Six discusses how the ruleswould operate immediately uponpromulgation, even in States authorizedto operate the hazardous wasteprogram. This part also discusses theeconomic impacts the rule would haveon'the regulated community. EPA notes

that any final rules would be codifieddifferently from today's proposal. TheAgency intends to codify these finalrules in a new subpart of Part 266.Part One: Background

I. LegalAuthorityThese regulations are proposed under

the authority of Section 1006, 2002(a),3001, 3004, 3005, and 3007 of the SolidWaste Disposal Act as amended by theResource Conservation and RecoveryAct of 1976, the Quiet Communities Actof 1978, the Solid Waste Disposal ActAmendments of 1980, and theHazardous and Solid WasteAmendments of 1984, 42 U.S.C. 6905,6912(a), 6921, 6924, 6925, and 6927.

II. Overview of the Proposed RuleEPA is proposing today to expand

controls on burning hazardous waste toregulate burning in boilers andindustrial furnaces. These proposedrules are similar to the Agency'sstandards for owners and operators ofhazardous waste incinerators underParts 264 and 265. Owners andoperators of boilers and industrialfurnaces would be subject to the generalfacility standards for hazardous wastetreatment, storage, and disposalfacilities, including requirementsconcerning emergency procedures,closure, and financial assurance. Permitrequirements would be similar to thosefor incinerators' in that controls wouldlimit the emission of toxic organiccompounds, toxic metals, and hydrogenchloride. However, these rules woulddiffer from the controls for incineratorsin several important ways. In addition torequiring a 99.99 percent destruction andremoval efficiency (DRE) of principalorganic hazardous constituents (POHCs)in the hazardous waste feed, these ruleswould attempt to minimize the emissionof incompletely burned organiccompounds by limiting the flue gasconcentration of carbon monoxide, thusensuring the device operatescontinuously at high combustionefficiency. These rules would alsoprovide direct control of metalsemissions, and would control metalsand hydrogen chloride emissions withrisk-based standards. In addition, trialburns would be automatically waivedfor boilers meeting special operatingrequirements. Finally, to make the rulesas cost-effective as possible, we areproposing discretionary alternative

IThe incinerator standards of Subpart 0, 40 CFRPart 264, control em~issions of organic constituentsin the waste with a technology-based 99.99%destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) standard,and control particulate and hydrogen chlorideemissions with technology-based emission limits.

standards based on a commonprinciple-ground level concentrationsof pollutants emitted from the facilitymust protect public health and theenvironment. Thus, today's rules wouldhave optional requirements, some ofwhich require site specific riskassessment

These proposed rules would apply toburning of hazardous waste in boilersand industrial furnaces irrespective ofwhether the waste has minimal energyvalue. In addition, these rules wouldalso apply to the burning of hazardouswaste in an industrial furnace solely forthe purpose of materials recovery.

These rules would also apply to theburning of hazardous waste innonindustrial as well as industrialboilers. Thus, these rules wouldsupercede the November 29, 1985,Administrative Controls that requireowners and operators of nonindustrialboilers burning hazardous waste fuel tocomply with the incinerator standards ofSubpart 0 of Parts 264 or 265.

In addition, these rules would exempton-site burners of small quantities ofhazardous waste on the basis that theextremely small quantities of hazardouswaste involved are not likely to posesignificant risks.

Finally, today's proposal wouldsubject existing hazardous wastestorage facilities used by burners tofinal permit standards. Currently,existing storage operations (in existenceon May 29, 1985) at burner facilities aresubject generally only to interim statusstorage standards. On-site burners whoaccumulate hazardous waste for lessthan 90 days, however, will continue tobe subject to the special requirementsunder § 262.34.

III. Relationship of the Proposed Rule toOther Rules

A. May 19, 1980, Rules

The initial hazardous wastemanagement facility standardspromulgated on May 19, 1980, controlledthe burning of hazardous waste inincinerators, but exempted the burningof hazardous waste for the purpose ofenergy recovery. EPA did notpromulgate controls for the burning ofhazardous waste for energy recovery inboilers and other devices at that timebecause the Agency had notinvestigated the extent of the practice,the risks that may be posed to humanhealth or the environment, or regulatory'alternatives. Since that time, EPA hasbeen considering what controls on theburning of hazardous waste for energyrecovery may be needed. The Agencyaccelerated those efforts when the

16984




Hazardous and Solid WasteAmendments of 1984 explicitly requiredthe Agency to address the issue.

Although the 1980 rules exempted theburning of hazardous waste for energyrecovery, the storage and transportationof certain hazardous wastes destined forenergy recovery were regulated prior torecycling. The storage andtransportation of hazardous wastes thatwere listed wastes or sludges wereregulated when the wastes were burnedon-site or sent directly from thegenerator to the burner. When thesewastes were sent to an intermediateprocessor or blender, however, theywere considered to be recycled oncethey were processed or blended and,thus, exempt from further regulation.Wastes that were hazardous solelybecause they exhibited a characteristic(and that were not a sludge) were totallyexempt from regulation when destinedto be burned for energy recovery.

To ensure that hazardous wastetypically destined for incinerationbecause of its low heating value was notburned in a boiler or industrial furnace,ostensibly for energy recovery butactually to avoid the cost ofincineration, the Agency developed asham recycling policy in 1983 which wasof questionable effect. See 48 FR 11157(March 16, 1983). That policy held that ifa hazardous waste having less that 5,000to 8,000 Btu/lb heating value wereburned in a boiler or industrial furnace,it was not burned for its fuel value butrather to avoid the cost of incineration.As discussed in Section II of Part Two,that policy would be superceded bytoday's proposed rule. Hazardous waste,irrespective of its heating value, wouldbe subject to today's proposed rulewhen burned in a boiler or industrialfurnace.B. January 4,1985, Redefinition of SolidWaste

On January 4,1985, EPA promulgatedrevisions to the definition of a solidwaste (50 FR 665) that established, inPart 266, a Subpart D for "HazardousWaste Burned for Energy Recovery."With one exception explained below,that subpart did not change thesubstantive controls established by the1980 rules for hazardous waste fuels.The rule made it clear that listed wastesand sludges are subject totransportation and storage controls priorto burning and prior to processing orblending to produce a waste-derivedfuel by a person who neither generatedthe waste nor burns the fuel. Thus, agenerator could no longer engage inminimal or incidental processing andblending of a listed waste or sludge andclaim that he produced hazardous

waste-derived fuel exempt fromtransportation and storage controls.

C. November 29, 1985, Administrative,Controls

On November 29,1985, EPApromulgated administrative controls formarketers and burners of hazardouswaste fuels. See 50 FR 49164-49211. Thatrule revised the controls on hazardouswaste fuels substantially as follows: (1)The rule applied storage, transportation,and certain administrative (paperwork)controls to all hazardous wastes used asfuels or used to produce a fuel, and to allhazardous waste-derived fuels (i.e.,wastes that were hazardous solelybecause they exhibited a characteristicwere no longer exempt, and hazardouswaste-derived fuels produced by third-party processors and blenders were nolonger exempt); and (2) the ruleprohibited the burning of hazardouswaste fuel in nonindustrial boilers,unless the boiler complied with thestandards for hazardous wasteincinerators under Subpart 0 of Parts264 and 265. Today's proposed rulewould change the November 29 rule byestablishing technical controls forburners, by allowing nonindustrialboilers to burn hazardous waste fuelsunder those controls, and by eliminatinga paperwork requirement (one-timenotice from a burner to the marketercertifying that the burner has notifiedEPA of his activities and will burn thehazardous waste fuel only inunrestricted boilers).

D. TSCA Waste PCB Rules

EPA controls the disposal of wastescontaining PCBs (polychlorinatedbiphenyls) under authority of the ToxicSubstances Control Act. Standards forPCB disposal are promulgated at 40 CFRPart 761 and apply to managementpractices including incineration andburning in boilers.

Although the Agency is in the processof integrating the TSCA PCB disposalrules with the RCRA hazardous wasterules, that .effort has not beencompleted. Thus, today's rules do notapply to waste PCBs, with one importantexception. If a waste PCB is also aRCRA hazardous waste (e.g., because itexhibits a characteristic or because it ismixed with a RCRA-listed hazardouswaste), any fuel that contains or isderived from the waste would be subjectto today's rule as well as the TSCA PCBrules. In practice, this means that thepermitting official would apply the morestringent of the TSCA or RCRA rules.

E. Proposed Rules for Burners of Off-Specification Used Oil Fuels

The Agency will in the future beproposing management-standards forowners and operators of boilers andindustrial furnaces burning off-specification used oil fuels. Any metalsand hydrogen chloride controls deemednecessary for off-specification used oilmay be patterned after the rulesproposed here. If the Agency isconcerned about organic emissions fromthe burning of certain off-specificationused oil fuels, the Agency may proposeto subject some used oil fuels to thedestruction and removal efficiency andcarbon monoxide standards proposedhere for hazardous wastes.

Today's rules would apply to used oilonly if the used oil is mixed with ahazardous waste. Used oil that containsmore than 1000 ppm total halogens ispresumed to be mixed with hazardouswaste unless the presumption isrebutted. See 50 FR 49164 (November 29,1985).

IV. Need for Controls

Today's proposed rule would apply toboilers and industrial furnaces that burnhazardous waste.2 EPA has definedboiler, industrial furnace, andincinerator in 40 CFR 260.10: Underthose definitions, enclosed devices usingcontrolled flame combustion areconsidered to be incinerators if they donot meet the definition of a boiler and ifthey are not designated as an industrialfurnace. Incinerators are regulatedunder Subpart 0 of Parts 264 and 265.Boilers and industrial furnaces would beregulated under today's rule.

In this section, we summarizehazardous waste burning practices inboilers and industrial furnaces anddescribe the risks that can be posed byimproper burning.

A. BoilersEPA defines a boiler in 260.10 as an

enclosed device using controlled flamecombustion and having the followingcharacteristics: (1) the combustionchamber and primary energy recoverysection must be of integral design (e.g.,facilities with waste heat recoveryboilers attached to incinerators are notconsidered boilers); (2) thermal energyrecovery efficiency must be at least 60percent; and (3) at least 75 percent of the'

2 As discussed in Section Ii of Part Two of thetext, today's rule would apply to the burning ofhazardous wastes in boilers and industrial furnacesirrespective of the heating value of the hazardouswaste. Thus, these rules would regulate burning inthese devices for energy recovery as well as for theburning of low heating value wastes (i.e., less than5,000 Btu/lb) for the purpose of destruction.

16985



6Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 87 / Wednesday, May 6, 1987 / Proposed Rules

recovered energy must be "exported"(i.e., not used for internal uses likepreheating of combustion air or fuel, ordriving combustion air fans or feedwaterpumps).

Today's rule would apply to all boilersburning hazardous wastes: 3nonindustrial (residential, commercial,and institutional), industrial, and utilityboilers. Currently, nonindustrial boilersare prohibited from burning hazardouswastes unless they are operated inconformance with the incineratorstandards of Subpart 0 of Parts 264 or265. See 50 FR 49192. EPA wasconcerned about the special risks posedby the uncontrolled burning ofhazardous waste in nonindustrialboilers given their typical location, size,and operating practices. Given thattoday's proposed rule would establishstandards designed to be protectivewhen hazardous waste is burned in anyboiler, the rule would eliminate thedistinction between nonindustrialboilers on the one hand and industrialand utility boilers on the other. Oncetoday's rule is promulgated (andeffective), any nonindustrial boilersburning hazardous waste under Subpart0 of Parts 264 or 265 would be subject tothe final standards for boilers.

Based on a mail questionnairesurvey,4 1' EPA believes thatapproximately 900 boilers burnhazardous waste fuels. The boilersrange in size from very small boilerswith a heat input capacity of less than 5million (MM) Btu/hr to huge utility-classboilers with a heat input capacity ofseveral thousand MM Btu/hr. Thehazardous wastes burned in boilers aregenerally organic by-products fromchemical manufacturing and spentsolvents either generated on-site or by asimilar facility, and have heating valuesranging from 8,000 to 15,000 Btu/Ib, withaverage values of approximately 10,000Btu/lb. Many, perhaps 25 percent, of theboilers burn very small quantities ofhazardous waste-less than 50 gallons/month. Some boilers, however, burnhazardous waste as the sole fuel.Typically, hazardous waste is burnedwith fuel oil or natural gas and providesless than 50 percent of the boiler's fuelrequirements. Less often, hazardouswastes are cofired with pulverized coal,stoker coal, or other fuels.

Based on available data andinformation from industryrepresentatives, hazardous wastesburned in boilers usually have lowmetals and chlorine content. This is

5Except certain hazardous waste exempted by

I 266.30(b) (50 FR 49204 (November 29,1985)).4 15

WESTAT, Final Report for the Survey ofWaste As Fuel. Track I. November, 1985.

fortuitous because boilers cofiringhazardous waste with oil or gas aregenerally not equipped with emissionscontrol equipment because theregenerally is no need to controlparticulate emissions from oil or gasfired boilers. To meet today's proposedcontrols on metals and hydrogenchloride emissions, boilers burningmetals or chlorine-bearing wastes mayhave to cofire with oil or gas at lowwaste firing rates, blend the metal orchlorine-bearing wastes with otherwastes or fuels, or employ emissionscontrol devices to remove metals andhydrogen chloride from exhaust gases.

B. Industrial FurnacesEPA defines industrial furnaces in

§ 260.10 as those devices that EPA hasdetermined are enclosed devices usingcontrolled flame combustion to recover(or produce) materials or energy as anintegral component of a manufacturingprocess. EPA has designated 11 devicesas industrial furnaces and hasdeveloped criteria and procedures for sodesignating additional devices. To date,the Agency has designated the followingdevices as industrial furnaces: cementkilns; lime kilns; aggregate kilns(including light-weight aggregate kilnsand aggregate drying kilns used in theasphaltic concrete industry); phosphatekilns; coke ovens; blast furnaces;smelting, melting, and refining furnaces;titanium dioxide chloride processoxidation reactors; methane reformingfurnaces; pulping liquor recoveryfurnaces; and combustion devices usedin the recovery of sulfur values fromspent sulfuric acid. In addition, EPA isproposing today to amend § 260.10 todesignate halogen acid furnaces asindustrial furnaces. See Section II ofPart Five.

Any hazardous waste burned in theseindustrial furnaces would be regulatedunder today's rule, except those wastesexempted by § 266.30(b) (e.g., smallquantity generator hazardous waste andwaste excluded from regulation under§ 261.4]. (Furnaces which burnhazardous wastes solely for materialsrecovery are also regulated in today'srule. See discussion in Section II.B ofPart Two for which materials would beconsidered to be solid and hazardouswastes when so burned.)

Based on the Westat report (seefootnote 4] and information receivedfrom industry, EPA estimates thatapproximately 50 industrial furnacesbum 100 to 150 million gallons ofhazardous waste as fuel annually.Cement and light-weight aggregate kilnsappear to burn the bulk of the wastes,although sulfur recovery furnaces arebelieved to burn some hazardous waste

as fuel. In addition, blast furnaces haveburned on the order of 25 million gallonsannually in the past. Finally, lime kilnshave been tested to determine that theycan successfully burn hazardous Wastefuels.

Industrial furnaces (particularlycement kilns, light-weight aggregatekilns, and blast furnaces) typically burnblended solvents and solvent recoverydistillation bottoms generated off-site.As opposed to most boilers, industrialfurnaces typically act as commercialfacilities, handling for a fee wastesgenerated by others. After blending, thehazardous waste fuel typically has'aheating value of 10,000 Btu/lb or more, achlorine content of 1 to 3 percent, andvery high levels of metals. Levels ofcadmium and chromium can be as highas several hundred ppm, and lead levelscan range'from several hundred ppm tomore than 4,000 ppm. Notwithstandingthe high levels of metals and chlorine inthe hazardous waste fuel, industrialfurnaces can generally be expected toemit low levels of metals and hydrogenchloride because the metals andchlorine are removed from thecombustion gases by process reactionsor by stack emissions controlequipment. Industrial furnaces aregenerally ideally suited to burn metaland chlorine-bearing hazardous wastes(e.g., ignitable and chlorinated spentsolvents and solvent recoverydistillation bottoms) and are expected tobe readily able to comply with themetals and hydrogen chloride emissionlimits proposed today.6

Each of the industrial furnaces knownto be burning or to have been tested forburning hazardous waste fuels isdescribed below.

1. Cement kilns. Cement kilns arehorizontal inclined rotating cylinders,refractory lined and internally fired, tocalcine a blend of 80 percent limestoneand 20 percent shale to producePortland cement.

There is a wet process and a dryprocess for producing cement. In the wetprocess, the limestone and shale areground wet, whereas in the dry processkiln they are ground dry. Wet processkilns are longer than dry process kilns inorder to facilitate water evaporationfrom the wet feed. Otherwise, the twoprocesses are basically identical, withsimilar process chemistry andequipment.

6 Industrial furnaces, e.g., light-weight aggregatekilns equipped with low pressure wet scrubbersmay not be able to burn metal-bearinghazardouswaste fuels under today's proposed rule unless airpollution control equipment is upgraded.

16986




Kilns are operated counterflow withsolids flow counter-current tocombustion gases and traveling downthe slight incline of the kiln (i.e.. rawmaterials are fed into the upper end ofthe kiln, fuel is fired at the lower end,and the raw materials get progressivelyhotter as they travel the length of thekiln).

Combustion gases, leaving the kilntypically contain 6-30% of the feedsolids as dust, water vapor, up to 30%CO2 10-1000 ppm CO, 10-2000 ppm SO2and 100-1500 ppm NO.. The gases aretransported to pollution controlequipment by an induced draft fan.Combustion in the kiln supplies heat atthe rate of about 3-6 million Btu per tonof product by burning fossil fuel,primarily coal. Coal ash and fly ash arechemically similar to cement and remainwith the cement product (i.e., fly ash isremoved from exhaust gases asdiscussed below and is often returned tothe kiln).

Cement kilns are major sources ofparticulate emissions and are regulatedby EPA and the States. Kiln emissionsare controlled by multistage cyclonesand electrostatic precipitators (ESP) orfabric filters. Kiln dust collected fromprimary cyclones and ESPs are generally,recycled to the kiln feed.

Cement kilns are typically controlledby controlling the fuel firing rate andcombustion air to maintain temperaturesbetween 2,250 to 2,700 'F forcementation to clinker formation, Gasresidence time ranges from greater thantwo seconds for dry process kilns to 10seconds for wet process kilns.

There are approximately 275 cementkilns operating in the United Statestoday, of which on the order of 20 to 30are burning hazardous waste fuel. Giventhat hazardous waste fuel is oftencofired with coal at a 50 percent firingrate, and that the typical cement kilnhas a total heat input requirement of 160million Btu/hr. EPA estimates that 30million gallons of hazardous waste areburned in cement kilns annually. *

2. Light-weight aggregate kilns. Light-weight aggregate (LWA) describes aspecial use aggregate with a specificgravity much less than sand and gravel,which is used to produce insulation, andnonstructural and lightweight structuralconcrete. LWA is produced much likecement, but the feedstocks are specialclays, pumice, scoria, shale, or slate.

The LWA kiln is configured much likea cement kiln. The raw material iscrushed and introduced at the upper endof a rotary kiln. In passing through thekiln, the materials reach temperatures of1,900 to 2,100 'F. Heat is provided by aburner at the lower kiln end whereclinker is discharged. Heat requiremen~ts

may iange from 3 to 6 million Btu perton of thruput. Fuels include natural gas.oil, and coal with a trend towardincreasing coal use.. LWA kilns are also major sources ofparticulate emissions and are equippedwith wet scrubbers, fabric filters, orelectrostatic precipitators (ESPs}. Wetscrubbers dominate the industry, withfabric filters following.

'There are some 30 LWA plants in 24States, each with two or more kilns.Approximately 25 LWA kilns areburning 30 million gallons of hazardouswaste annually, usually as the sole fuel.

3. Lime kilns. Lime kilns calcinelimestone in direct-fired furnaces thatcan be rotary kilns, fluidized bed kilns,vertical shaft kilns or rotary hearthkilns. Ninety percent of lime productionin the U.S., however, is produced fromlimestone in horizontal rotary kilnssimilar in configuration to cement kilns.The calcination reaction is adecomposition to calcium oxide andC0 2 and occurs between 1,350 to 1,650'F, with dolomitic limestonesdecomposing at the lower temperatures.Lime kilns operate at 1,800 to 2,300 *Fand require a heat rate of about 7million Btu per ton of thruput. Coalaccounts for almost 70 percent of thefuel used in lime production and naturalgas is used for some 23 percent ofproduction. Oil and other fuels comprisethe remaining percentage of fuel use.

Feedstocks are limestones withvarying amounts of dolomite(magnesium carbonates) and othercompounds similar to those used incement manufacture. The limestones arecrushed and dried before feeding. Kilngases exit between 500 to 1,400 *F andkiln emissions are controlled with fabricfilters, ESPs, Venturi scrubbers, andgravel bed filters.

Although test burns with lime kilnshave demonstrated that they can.effectively bum hazardous waste fuels,EPA is not aware of any lime kilnscurrently burning hazardous waste. EPAbelieves, however, that there isconsiderable interest within the industryand that commercial hazardous wastefuel burning operations may be initiatedin'the near future.4. Blast furnace systems. A blastfurnace is a vertical shaft furnace thatuses carbon in the form of coke toreduce iron oxide ores to iron in achemically-reducing atmosphere by theaction of carbon monoxide (CO). CO isformed primarily by oxidizing carbon'(i.e., coke) to CO with preheated air(blast air).

"Solid raw materials (ore, coke, flux]are charged into the top of the blastfurnace and preheated air is "blasted"through. tuyeres near the bottom of the

furnace, Frequently, hydrocarbonadditives (gas, liquid, or solid) or oxygenare also injected through the tuyeres.Present practice typically includesinjecting fuel oil through the tuyeres.

The gases exiting from the top of thefurnace (top gas) have high CO levels.The top gas from the blast furnace isgenerally cleaned of particulates bycyclones and'wet scrubbers and thenused as fuel primarily in air preheatingstoves and on-site boilers.

The stoves are vertical furnaces thatpreheat the blast air by indirect heatingof the air conveying chambers in thestoves to approximately 1,600 *F. Thestoves are equipped with burnerscapable of efficiently utilizing blastfurnace top gas for fuel.

The boilers are conventionalstationary steam raising facilities whichare equipped with fuel burners that arealso capable of efficiently utilizing blastfurnace top gas for fuel.

The top gas is also typically used asfuel in coke ovens, reheat furnaces, andinternal combustion engines. Some ofthe top gas is also wasted by flaring.EPA has received data on 18 blastfurnace system facilities operated byseven companies that show that themean top gas utilization at thesefacilities is as follows:

Blast Furnace Top Gas Utilization asFuel

Percent

Stoves ......................... 41.33Boilers ..... ................... 52.20Coke Ovens ............................................... 2.03Reheat Furnaces ................. 1.16I/C Engines ............ ; ................... 025Venting or Flaring .................... 3.03

Source: Letter from Robert L. Chnmpbell. Campbell &Pryor Assoc. inc;., to Robert Holloway, EPA, lune 2. 198.

Until recently, hazardous waste wasblended with fuel oil in about a 50/50blend and used'as a fuel injectant by theLTV Steel Company. Before thecompany stopped accepting hazardouswaste fuels in the spring of 1986,approximately 25 million gallons ofhazardous wastes were burned annuallyin five blastfurnaces.7 Although EPA isnot aware of blast furnace systemsburning hazardous waste fuels at thistime, the Agency believes that blastfurnace systems can comply with therequirements proposed today, and, thus,safely burn hazardous waste fuels.8

7 EPA understands that the LTV Steel Companychose not to comply wbith the hazardous waste fuelstorage standards thatbecame effective onMay 29.1980, and thus terminated'their hazardous waste•fuel activitieq.

6 Radian Corporation. Destruction and Removalof POHCs In Iron t;Maing bst Furnraces. Decenber31 ,.

II I16987




5. Sulfur recovery furnaces. Sulfurrecovery furnaces are used by sulfuricacid plants to process spent (used)sulfuric acid and other sulfur bearingwastes. The spent acid is contaminatedwith water, organics, inorganics, andother materials from prior acid use.

In the sulfur recovery furnace, spentacid, elemental sulfur, hydrogen sulfide,and other sulfur-bearing wastes arethermally decomposed at elevatedtemperatures into sulfur dioxide (SO),carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide(CO2 ), and water vapor. SO2concentrations are generally up to 14volume percent and temperatures areusually controlled to 2,000 °F in order toreduce formati6n and emissions ofnitrogen oxides.

The furnace is generally a horizontal,cylindrical, refractory-lined chamberand the feed sulfur, spent acid and/orother sulfur-bearing wastes are sprayedinto the furnace where they arecontacted with dried combustion air.Waste feed rates are controlled toachieve 8 to 14 percent SO2 in furnaceexhaust gases. After cleaning, exhaustgases are passed through convertedcatalyst beds to recover the sulfur.

When large quantities of spent acidcomprise the feedstock, the reactionwith oxygen in air is endothermic andsupplementary fuel firing is-required. Aconventional fuel burner system isgenerally installed and combustioncontrol is typically based on reactiontemperature and excess oxygen. Thisconventional burner system may beused for firing combustible hazardouswastes.

Sulfur recovery plants use emissioncontrol devices to clean the gas streamprior to entering the converted catalystbeds to remove particulates, metals, andhydrogen chloride (HCI) to avoidcontaminating or plugging the catalystbeds. Downstream of the converterbeds, the exit gases are controlled tolimit emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2]and acid mist. Preconverter controls canbe cyclones, scrubbers, electrostaticprecipitators, or gas dryers. Post-converter controls can be: (1] For SOcontrol, alkali absorption systems,sodium sulfate to bisulfate scrubbers,and ammonia scrubbers; and (2) for acidmist control, electrostatic precipitators,packed bed scrubbers, and molecularsieves.

C. Risks Posed by Improper BurningThe burning of hazardous waste in

boilers and industrial furnaces can posethe same risks as burning inincinerators. Emissions of incompletelyburned toxic organic constituents in thewaste, emissions of toxic metalconstituents in the waste, and emissions

of hydrochloric acid (HC1) resultingfrom burning highly-chlorinated wastescan pose significant risk to humanhealth. As discussed in Part Three ofthis preamble, emissions of toxic organiccompounds from poorly-operated boilersand industrial furnaces could result inan increased lifetime cancer risk of 10- 4

(i.e., 1 in 10,000) to persons exposed tothe maximum annual average groundlevel concentration. Similarly, emissionsof toxic metals from devices burningmetal bearing wastes without adequateemission controls could pose risks atthose levels. Finally, emissions ofhydrogen chloride (HC1] from devicesburning highly-chlorinated wasteswithout adequate emission controls (orwithout sufficient removal by industrialfurnace process chemistry) could resultin ground level concentrations of HCIthat exceed reference air concentrationsconsidered to be acceptable targets forregulatory purposes.Part Two: Major Regulatory Approaches

We discuss in this part of thepreamble why we are proposing to basepermit requirements on nationalperformance standards with provisionfor risk-based variances, rather thansolely on site-specific risk assessmentsfor every facility. We also explain herewhy the proposed rules would apply tothe burning of hazardous waste inboilers and industrial furnacesirrespective of the heating value of thewaste. This is significant becausecurrent regulations subject the burningof low heating value waste in boilersand industrial furnaces to the standardsfor incinerators in Subpart 0 of Parts284 or 265.. Use of National Performance

Standards with Risk-Based OptionsVersus Case-by-Case Risk Assessmentfor All Facilities

Under today's proposed rule, permitrequirements for owners and operatorsof boilers and industrial furnaces wouldbe established as necessary to ensureconformance with national performancestandards for the destruction of organiccompounds and emissions of metals andhydrogen chloride. The Agency has usedrisk assessments of reasonable, worst-case scenarios to develop the standardsand to show that the standards areprotective (i.e., the metals and HCIstandards are entirely risk-based andthe technology-based DRE standard fororganic compounds has been shown byrisk assessment to be protective in mostcases).

National performance standards, bydesign, can be conservative and maytend to overregulate many facilities.Today's rule would also provide a

waiver of the national performancestandard based on site-specific riskassessments. The destruction andremoval efficiency (DRE) and flue gascarbon monoxide standards that controlemissions of organic compounds wouldbe waived for low risk waste. Under thewaiver, the owner or operator mustdemonstrate by projecting emissionrates and dispersion modeling that,absent controls, emissions of organiccompounds would not result in groundlevel concentrations that pose adversehealth effects. The metals and hydrogenchloride (HC1) emissions limits wouldalso be waived for owners andoperators that demonstrate bydispersion modeling that reference airconcentrations for the metals and HC1would not be exceeded. Finally, today'sproposal uses risk assessment to showthat the exemption of small quantityburners is not likely to pose significantrisk.

Although the Agency proposes to relyheavily on the use of risk assessment todevelop, support, and implement therule, we are not proposing to use case-by-case risk assessments as the solebasis to determine Permit requirementsfor every facility for the reasonsdiscussed below.

National performance standards thatare based on the risk posed byreasonable, worst-case scenarios (orthat are technology-based and shown tobe protective under reasonable, worst-case scenarios allow permittingofficials and the applicant to avoid thecost and time required for emissionstesting requisite for a site-specific riskassessment. The national performancestandards proposed today ensure thecost-effective control of emissions by:(1) Waiving emissions testing for organiccompounds, metals, and HC1 for boilersoperating under special operatingrequirements; (2) waiving emissionstesting for metals and HC1 for boilersand industrial furnaces burning wastewith metals and chlorine levels withinspecification levels or waste with metalsand chlorine levels such that the massfeed rate of metals and chlorine from allfuels and industrial furnace feedstockswill not result in an exceedance of themetals or HC1 emission limits, assumingall metals are emitted (e.g., no emissioncontrols) and all chlorine is emitted asHC1; and (3) exempting burners of smallquantities of waste from virtually allrequirements. We estimate that smallquantity burners burn less than onepercent of the hazardous waste beingburned as fuel.

Using national performance standardsis also more cost-effective than site-specific risk assessments to establish

16988




permit conditions even when emissionstesting is required because it avoids theadded time and cost of dispersionmodeling and estimating health effectsfrom resulting exposures.

Not only do national performancestandards allow for cost-effectivevariances and exemptions, but a site-specific, risk-based permitting approachto control organic emissions would beimpractical given the state-of-the-art ofhuman health and environmental effectsassessments and sampling and analysistechniques for organic compounds thatmay be emitted. We simply do not haveat this time the tools to characterizefully the emissions from combustionsources (e.g., incinerators, boilers,automobiles) and the health andenvironmental effects data to assesstheir impacts. For example, we are abletoday to estimate human-health effectsfor only about 150 of over 400compounds identified in Appendix VIIIas toxic constituents of hazardouswaste. Further, the types of organiccompounds that can be synthesized inan improperly-operated combustiondevice are not limited to the AppendixVIII list. Thus, the technology-basedDRE standard is needed to ensure a highlevel of destruction that reasonable,worst-case risk assessment has shownto be protective.s

In addition, even if the analytical andhealth effects tools were in place toconsider the impacts of emissions fromall organic compounds, a riskassessment that supported the use of alower DRE (e.g., 99.9% or 99.95%) maynot be of value to the regulatedcommunity. The 99.99% DRE standardand the carbon monoxide limitsproposed today can be met readily.These standards would ensure thatboilers and industrial furnaces operateat high combustion efficiency, which isan efficient, economical operatingpractice for most devices.'0 Further, toensure that a sufficient degree ofdestruction is achieved above the bare-bones 99% DRE, which is assumed forthe low risk waste exemption (seeSection III.D of Part Three), continuous

' We note that the proposed waiver of the DREstandard (and CO limits) for low risk waste is onlyapplicable to wastes containing Appendix VIIIconstituents for which the Agency has establishedreference air concentrations (for thresholdcompounds) or unit risk estimates ifor carcinogens).Further, the waiver provision requires aconservative estimate of health effects resultingfrom emissions of products of incompletecombustion (PICa).

SnThose few boilers already operating withsophisticated combustion controls may have tooperate at lower boiler (i.e. thermal) efficiency tooperate at the higher combustion efficiency requiredby the proposed carbon monoxide limits. Fuel costfor these boilers may increase somewhat because ofthese regulations.

monitoring of carbon monoxide andoxygen would probably be required(albeit the limits would not be asstringent as those proposed today).Thus, even if a risk assessmentapproach were workable for all organicwastes, it may not prove to be cost-effective to the regulated community.

It should be noted that the proposedsite-specific, risk-based waivers formetals, HC1, and low risk waste arebased on an emissions dispersionanalysis under several conservativeassumptions. The analysis does notconsider issues such as the followingthat would result in a less conservativeanalysis: (1) Current and futurepopulation exposure; (2) less thanlifetime exposure to carcinogens; (3)whether the site of maximum groundlevel concentration is habitable; (4) totalcancer incidents resulting fromexposure; and (5) microenvironmental ormultimedia exposure (e.g. outdoorversus indoor air). Addressing thesecomplex issues in the context of publichearings would be difficult, expensive,and time-consuming. Accordingly, the"risk analyses" and the risk-basedstandards described in today's proposedrule are based on the followingconservative assumptions: (1) The pointof maximum annual average groundlevel concentration of an emission isused to access potential health impact,irrespective of whether a person residesat that point of maximum exposuretoday; (2) a 70 year lifetime exposure tothat maximum concentration I ; and (3)indoor air contains the equivalentconcentrations of pollutants as outdoorair.

I. Regulation of Burning for EitherEnergy Recovery or Destruction

Today's proposed rules wouldregulate the burning of hazardous wastein boilers and industrial furnacesirrespective of the heating value of thehazardous waste. This proposed rulewould, therefore, supersede theAgency's current policy of regulating theburning of low heating value wastes inthese devices as incineration, subject tothe applicable hazardous wasteincinerator standards of Subpart 0 ofParts 264 or 265.

As discussed in Section III of PartOne, EPA's May 19, 1980, rules regulatethe incineration of hazardous waste butexempt the burning of hazardous wastefor energy recovery. To ensure thathazardous waste typically destined forincineration because of its low heatingvalue is not burned in a boiler or

I I Except that the 3-minute maximum averageground level concentration is used to access healtheffects from exposure to HCl.

industrial furnace, ostensibly for energyrecovery but actually to avoid the costof incineration, the Agency developed asham recycling policy. The policy waspublished in the March 16, 1983, FederalRegister and states that EPA considersany hazardous waste that has less than5,000 to 8,000 Btu/lb heating value, asgenerated, to have minimal heatingvalue relative to commercial fuels. Thus,when such low heating value waste isburned in any enclosed device usingcontrolled flame combustion-includingboilers and industrial furnaces-it isconsidered to be incinerated and thedevice is subject to regulation under theincinerator standards of Subpart 0 ofParts 264 or 265. This is the caseirrespective of whether the low heatingvalue waste is mixed with higherheating value waste or virgin fuels suchthat the mixture has substantial heatingvalue (i.e., greater than 5,000 to 8,000Btu/lb).

Now that EPA is prepared to proposecontrols for boilers and industrialfurnaces burning hazardous waste, webelieve these proposed controls shouldapply irrespective of the purpose of suchburning. Normally, the purpose forwhich a material is burned makes nodifference in environmental effect.Accordingly, today's proposed rules aredesigned to be protective irrespective ofthe heating value of the hazardouswaste.

Ill. Regulation of Burning Solely forMaterials Recovery in an IndustrialFurnace

Today's rule also proposes to regulatehazardous waste burned in industrialfurnaces for the sole purpose of materialrecovery (i.e., reclamation).' 2 Thisrequires the Agency to define moreprecisely the circumstances whensecondary materials reclaimed inindustrial furnaces (i.e., burned inindustrial furnaces for the sole purposeof material recovery) are solid andhazardous wastes.

Under current regulations, hazardousspent materials, listed sludges, andlisted by-products are hazardous wasteswhen reclaimed. See § 261.2(c)(3). AsEPA has explained in a number ofFederal Register notices, however, thesematerials may cease being solid wastesat the point of burning for materialrecovery in industrial furnacesdepending on the type of secondarymaterial involved. See 50 FR 630-1

12 EPA has explained (50 FR 49167) that ahazardous waste is subject to regulation whenburned in an industrial furnace for both energyrecovery and some other purpose, e.g.. for materialsrecovery. The Issue here is that EPA is proposing toregulate burning solely for materials recovery.

16989




(January 4, 1985) and 50 FR 49167(November 29, 1985). The reason for thisdistinction is that regulation of the act ofburning in an industrial furnace couldlead, in some cases, to an impermissibleintrusion into the production processand so be beyond EPA's authority underRCRA. Id.

To date, EPA has indicated thatburning for material recovery ofsecondary materials is "indigenous" tothe process in which the industrialfurnace is used and is beyond theAgency's RCRA jurisdiction. Burning of"non indigenous" wastes remains withinRCRA authority. Id.

EPA has suggested that indigenoussecondary materials are those generatedby the process in which the industrialfurnace is normally used, and also mightinclude secondary materials containingthe same types and concentrations ofAppendix VIII constituents as the rawmaterials normally burned in theindustrial furnace. Id. EPA is proposingin today's rules that only materialsgenerated by a process using the sametype of industrialfurnace as that inwhich burning occurs will be consideredto be indigenous, and so are outside theAgency's authority when burned(subject to one exception for secondarymaterials burned in secondary smeltingfurnaces discussed below). Thus, byway of example, if a primary leadsmelter were to burn a listed wastegenerated by another smelting process(for example, primary zinc), the materialwould be considered to be indigenous tosmelting furnaces and hence not a solidwaste at the point of burning.

EPA is proposing this approach forseveral reasons. First, deferringregulation could create a regulatoryloophole whereby clearly nonindigenouswastes are burned outside the RCRAframework. Examples are listedelectroplating wastes being burned insmelting furnaces. These electroplatingwastes come from processes unrelatedto smelting, and may contain different'types of hazardous constituents (forexample, cyanides and hexavalentchromium) or the same constituents athigher concentrations than those•normally found in virgin materialsnormally burned in the smelting furnace(and so in many cases would not beaddressed or contemplated in Clean AirAct regulations applicable to thosefurnaces).

Second, establishing rules relating toRCRA jurisdiction (i.e., defining "solidwaste") has proven to be a difficult task.Therefore, where possible, EPA will .attempt to indicate jurisdictional limitsunambiguously. EPA believes thatlimiting jurisdiction over this type.ofburning to wastes generated by different

types of furnaces is a clear test. Thesewastes will all be manifested to theburning site, and so either the origin ofthe waste will be known from themanifest description, or at least themanifest will state who the generator ofthe waste is, and hence allow easyidentification of the origin of the waste.A more sophisticated test, such asrequiring comparison of Appendix VIIIconstituents in customary virginmaterials and in the waste to be burned,appears to the Agency to be overlycumbersome to administer. (As statedbelow, however, the EPA is specificallysoliciting comment on this alternative.)

Finally, EPA believes that the types ofwastes that are nonindigenous underthis approach are those most likely topose environmental threats by virtue ofbeing different from the type of materialnormally burned in the industrialfurnace. The electroplating wastesmentioned above are an example. Forthe same reason, these wastes are theones most likely to be unrelated tomaterials normally burned, and so theleast likely to raise jurisdictional issuesrelating to interference with normalproduction.

As noted earlier, a further requirementof the jurisdictional test is needed forsecondary smelting furnaces, Theseindustrial furnaces burn not only wastegenerated by other industrial furnaces,but other types of wastes such as scrapmetal or battery plates as well. Thesematerials are indigenous to secondarysmelting processes: they are in fact theprincipal feed material to secondarysmelting processes. The proposed ruleconsequently indicates that secondarysmelting furnaces burn indigenousmaterials not only when they burnmaterials generated by smelting'furnaces, but also when they burn scrapmetal and (for secondary lead smelters)battery plates.. EPA anticipates the impact of thisproposal to be minimal. This is becausethe Agency is aware of very few typesof industrial furnaces that burn non-indigenous hazardous wastesexclusively for material recovery. Forexample, kilns normally burn hazardouswastes for a dual purpose, as do cokeovens and blast furnaces. In fact, theonly type of furnaces we have Identifiedthat engage in exclusive reclamation ofnon-indigenous wastes are smeltingfurnaces burning electroplating wastes,a situation seemingly deserving ofregulatory control. However, the Agencyexplicitly solicits comment on whetherthere are other operations that involveburning of hazardous waste solely formaterial recovery in anindustrialfurnace-including information on thetypes and numbers of facilities,

quantities and types of wastes burned,and combustion and emission controlpractices.

The Agency also solicits comment onalternative jurisdictional approacheshere. One alternative is to state thatmaterials are indigenous only ifgenerated by the same type of processas that in which the industrial furnace isused (rather than the same type offurnace). For example, a primary leadsmelter burning secondary materialsfrom primary lead smelting would not beconsidered to be burning wastes: aprimary smelter burning secondarymaterials from primary zinc productioncould be considered to be burningwastes. A second alternative wouldinvolve comparing concentrations ofmetal to be recovered and of AppendixVIII constituents in the virgin materialfeed and the secondary material feed toan industrial furnace. We requestcommenters addressing thesealternatives to present data showingthese types of comparisons. Anotherpossibility is to combine inquiry into thewaste with a test based on whether thematerial being burned is being bought orif the furnace operator is paid to burn it.

The following examples illustrate howtoday's proposal would operate. (Theexamples assume that wastes fromprimary smelting can be Subtitle Chazardous wastes.)

1. A primary lead smelter receives anunlisted by-product from primary zincproduction which it smelts to recovercontained metal values.

The by-product is not a solid wasteeither before or during burning. Unlistedby-products are not solid wastes whenreclaimed.

2. A primary lead smelter burns ametal bearing hazardous solvent as apartial energy source.

The solvent is a hazardous waste andthe'burning is within the Agency'sjurisdiction. This situation involvesburning wastes as fuel, not for exclusivematerial recovery. Industrial furnacesburning hazardous wastes solely orpartially for energy recovery are withinthe Agency's RCRA jurisdiction. 50 FRat 49171 (November 29, 1985).

3. An incinerator (i.e., an encloseddevice using controlled flamecombustion that is not a boiler and isnot designated as an industrial furnacein § 260.10) burns an unlisted hazardousby-product to recover contained metals.

The by-product is a hazardous wasteand the incinerator is subject to theexisting regulatorystandards in subpart0 of Parts 264 and 265. Incinerators arealways deemed to incinerate and not torecycle. 50 FR 625/3 (January 4, 1985):

16990




§ § 261.2(b)(2), 264.340(a)(1), and265.340(a)(1).

4. A primary lead smelter receives alisted by-product from a differentprimary lead smelter and resmelts it.

The listed by-product ceases to be awaste when it is burned, but is ahazardous waste up until that point.Thus, it must be manifested to thesmelter and must be stored inaccordance with RCRA standards(including permit standards). Theresmelting activity is beyond theAgency's RCRA jurisdiction. Since thematerial, when burned, is not ahazardous waste, the derived-from rule(§ 261.3(c)(2)(i)) would not apply to theresidue from burning. 50 FR 49167 n.4(November 29, 1985).

5. A primary lead smelter receives alisted waste from a nonsmelting processfor metals recovery and resmelts it.

The material is a hazardous wastethroughout burning as well as beforeburning. The burning consequently iscontrolled by today's proposed rules.

6. A primary lead smelter receives ahazardous waste from another smeltingprocess which it burns in order todestroy contained contaminants.

The material being burned is ahazardous waste and the burning isregulated as incineration under subpart0 because the waste is being burned inorder to destroy it. § § 264.340(a)(2),265.340(a)(2).

7. A primary lead smelter generatesan emission control dust which itresmelts.

The emission control dust is not asolid waste because such continuous in-house activities are defined as closedloop reclamation and are excluded fromthe regulatory definition of solid waste.§ 261.2(e)(1)(iii).

Part Three: Discussion of ProposedControls1. Overview

Today's proposed rule wouldestablish national performancestandards to control stack emissions oforganic compounds, metals, andhydrogen chloride (HCI) from boilersand industrial furnaces burninghazardous waste. The rule would alsoapply to these facilities the generalstandards applicable to all hazardouswaste treatment, storage, and disposalfacilities (e.g., closure requirements,financial requirements, preparednessand prevention requirements).

Emissions of organic compoundswould be controlled by a percentreduction standard for organicconstituents in the waste. A destructionand removal efficiency (DRE) forprincipal organic hazardous constituents

(POHCs) of 99.99% would be requiredfor all wastes except that a 99.9999%DRE would be required for dioxin-containing listed hazardous wastes.'Organic emissions would also becontrolled by limiting flue gas carbonmonoxide levels to levels indicative ofhigh combustion efficiency to ensurehazardous waste is not burned duringupset conditions. Although the DREperformance standard is a percentreduction standard and does not directlylimit the mass emission rate of unburnedconstituents-the emission rateincreases as the feed rate increases-- arisk-assessment of reasonable, worst-case scenarios shows that the standardwould be protective in virtually all ofthe scenarios of which EPA is aware. 14

The trial burn to demonstratedestruction and removal efficiency(DRE) would be waived for boilersoperating under special operatingrequirements designed to ensure that theboiler achieves a minimum DRE of99.99%.15 In addition, both the trial burnand the carbon monoxide flue gas limitswould be waived for low risk waste.Under this waiver, the applicant mustdemonstrate that, absent these controls,emissions from the facility would notpose significant risk to public health.

Emissions of the metals arsenic,cadmium, chromium, and lead and ofhydrogen chloride (HCI) would becontrolled by a risk-based, four-tieredstandard. Tiers I-Il are nationalstandards back-calculated fromreference air concentrations (RACs)using dispersion modeling of reasonable,worst-case facilities. (We havedeveloped hypothetical model boilersand industrial furnaces of each typeknown or thought likely to burnhazardous waste and conducteddispersion modeling of scenariosconsidered to be reasonable worst-caserelative to ambient air impacts.) Tier I isa hazardous waste specification formetals and chlorine levels. Theconcentration limits apply to the wasteeither before or after blending withother wastes or fuels (i.e., the limits canbe met by blending). The limits areconservatively established assuming thedevice burns the hazardous waste (orblended waste) as the sole fuel, and thatall metals in the waste are emitted andthat all chlorine is emitted as HCI. TheTier II standards limit the total feed

" The following wastes are listed in 40 CRF261.31 because they contain chlorinated dioxins andfurans: EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F020, F021,F022 F023. F02, and F027.

14 EPA will provide guidance to the permit writterto identify situations where the nationalperformance standards may not be fully protective.

"o Boilers burning dioxin-containing listed wastesare not eligible for the trial burn waiver.

rates of metals and chlorine to thedevice, considering metals and chlorinelevels and feed rates of the hazardouswaste, other fuel, and industrial furnacefeedstock. Thus, the Tier II standardsallow a waste exceeding the Tier Imetals or chlorine limits to be cofiredwith relatively clean fuels provided thattotal metals or chlorine emissions do notexceed the Tier Il risk-based emissionlimits. Like the Tier I limits, the Tier Hlimits assume that all metals andchlorine are emitted (i.e., no credit isprovided for emissions controlequipment). The Tier Ill standards areemission limits for metals and HCI forwhich conformance is demonstrated byemissions testing. Tier IV allowsemissions exceeding the Tier III limitsbased on site-specific dispersionmodeling that demonstrates thatemissions from the facility will notresult in exceedances of reference" airconcentrations (RACs) established forlead and HCL, or an aggregateincremental risk to the maximumexposed individual (MEI] of 10- (i.e., 1in 100,000) for the carcinogenic metalsarsenic, cadmium, and chromium.

Finally, boilers and industrialfurnaces burning small quantities ofwaste relative to the fuel requirementsof the device would be exempt fromvirtually all requirements given that therisk posed by such burning would beinsignificant.

II. Overview of EPA 's Risk Assessment

The Agency has used risk assessmentto: (1) Show that, absent controls,emissions of organic compounds, certainmetals, and hydrogen chloride (HCI) canpose serious health effects; (2) show thatthe 99.99% destruction or removalefficiency (DRE) standard would beprotective in virtually all scenarios ofwhich the Agency is aware; and (3)establish risk-based emission limits formetals and HCI. The risk assessmentmethodology is discussed in detail in thebackground document supporting thisproposed rule-Background InformationDocument for the Development ofRegulations to Control the Burning ofHazardous Waste in Boilers andIndustrial Furnaces, Volume III: RiskAssessment, Engineering-Sciences,February 1987.16 The methodology issummarized below for the convenienceof the reader.

The general approach involvedidentifying a reasonable, worst-casefacility with respect to potential ambientair impacts for a boiler and each type of

16 The background document is available fromthe National Technical Information Service,Springfield, VA. Order No. PB 87 173845.

16991




industrial furnace known or believedlikely to burn hazardous waste (e.g.,cement kiln, light-weight aggregate kiln,blast furnace). The identified facilitiesare considered to produce reasonable,worst-case ground level concentrationsof pollutants when burning hazardouswaste. To show that, absent regulatorycontrols, serious health effects could beposed by burning hazardous waste andto show thata 99.99% DRE standard isprotective, we estimated emissions fromthe reasonable, worst-case facilities andused dispersion modeling 17 to predictground level concentrations. Forthreshold (noncarcinogenic) compounds,we then compared predicted groundlevel concentrations to reference airconcentrations (RACs). For carcinogeniccompounds, we estimated the aggregaterisk to a person residing for a lifetime atthe point of maximum annual averageground level concentration. To developemission limits for lead and HCI, weback- calculated from the RACs usingthe dispersion factors (i.e., ug/ma perg/s emissions) for the reasonable, worst-case facilities. Emission limits for thecarcinogenic metals arsenic, cadmium,and chromium are established by anequation that relates the emission ofeach metal to the emissioncorresponding to an incremental risk of10- . The emission corresponding to anincremental risk of 10- 5 is establishedby back- calculating from the risk-specific dose (RSD) at a 10- 5 risk levelfor each metal using the dispersionfactors for the reasonable, worst-casefacilities. The equation sums the ratiosfor all three metals and requires that thesum not exceed 1.0.

We describe below how we identifiedreasonable, worst-case facilities, howwe developed the RACs, how we areaddressing the risk posed bycarcinogens, and the assumptions usedin the risk assessment.A. Identification of Reasonable, Worst-Case Facilities

In developing reasonable, worst-casefacilities, we considered: (1) Actualboilers according to informationobtained from our mail survey; (2) eight

I? The ISCLT (Industrial Source Complex, LongTerm) model was used to predict maximum annualaverage ground level concentrations for flat terrain.The ISCST model was used to predict maximum 3-minute concentrations for HCi in fiat terrain. Inaddition, the OAQPS Guideline Models LONGZ andSHORTZ were used for complex modeling for theselected worst-case sites in complex terrain topredict maximum annual average and maximum 3-minute concentrations. Maximum quarterly averageconcentrations for lead were computed from themaximum annual average concentrations bymultiplying by a factor of 1.6$ which represents atypical ratio of maximum quarterly to maximumannual average concentrations.

hypothetical model boilers ranging insize from 0.4 MM Btu/hr to 400MM Btu/hr; (3) hypothetical model industrialfurnaces for each type of furnace knownor considered most likely to burnhazardous waste; (4) the impact of flatversus complex terrain on ambientground level concentrations Is; and (5)the impact of tip downwash for deviceswith short stacks (e.g., small boilers,asphalt plants, sulfur recovery plants).

1. Flat terrain modeling. To identifyreasonable, worst-case facilities of eachtype being considered in flat terrain weidentified the boiler site representing the95th percentile worst meteorologicalsituation with respect to potentialambient air impacts. This site wasidentified assuming that a given stackwith fixed release properties (i.e.,factors that affect effective stack heightsuch as stack height and stack gas flowrate and temperature) was located ateach of the 114 facility sites identifiedby the mail questionnaire survey. Eachsite was then modeled using ISCLT andthe site having the 95th percentile worstdispersion factor (ug/m 3 round levelconcentration per 1 g/s emission rate)was selected as the reasonable, worst-case site.

The reasonable, worst-case facility ofeach type under consideration was thenidentified by: (1) for boilers, modelingthe actual boiler and the model boilerwith the greatest potential for adverseambient impacts (considering capacityand stack height) at the reasonable,worst-case site (using ISCLT) andidentifying which boiler had the greatestpotential adverse impact on groundlevel concentrations of pollutants; and(2) for industrial furnaces, locating eachmodel furnace at the reasonable, worst-case site. Devices with short stackswhere tip downwash could cause highground level concentrations close to thestack were modeled assuming that arelatively large building was locatedadjacent to the stack,

1s We note that we have established the Tier 1-111standards for metals and HCI for two topographicregimes: flat and complex terrain. EPA has definedan intermediate terrain, however, that isnoncomplex and nonflat (i.e.. rolling). EPA hasrecommended dispersion medels to address suchterrain. Unless the plume from a source drops toground level a short distance from the stackbecause of. for example, tip downwash, maximumground level concentrations would be expected toincrease as a given source were moved from flatterrain to nonflat, noncomplex terrain and, finally,to complex terrain. Given that the flat terrainstandards proposed today may not be protective fornonflat, noncomplex terrain (and that flat terrainstandards would apply to facilities not located incomplex terrain), EPA is considering developingstandards for the final rule for the third type ofterrain: nonflat. noncomplex. EPA specificallyrequests comments on this issue.

I Devices that had approximately thesame potential ambient air impacts werethen grouped together in categories. Oneset of categories is based on maximumannual average concentrations, andanother set is based on maximum 3-minute concentrations (for HCI). TheTier l-Ill metals and HCI standardsdiscussed below were then establishedfor each category. The device typewithin each category that posed thegreatest potential adverse air impactswas used to establish the limits for thatcategory.

2. Complex terrain modeling. Of the114 sites identified in the mailquestionnaire survey, we determinedthat 68 were located in areas where thesurrounding terrain within 20 kilometersof the stack exceeded the stack height,and were, therefore, considered to be incomplex terrain. (Ground levelconcentrations can be much higher incomplex terrain than in flat terrainbecause receptors can be elevated bythe terrain to levels closer to thecenterline of the stack emissions plume.)Thus, standards for facilities in complexterrain were developed to address thehazard posed to receptors elevated byterrain.

To identify reasonable, worst-casefacilities in complex terrain, we rankedthe 114 boiler facilities by potential tocause high ground level concentrations(irrespective of topography ormeteorological conditions) by using anindex that considered facility capacity(MM Btu/hr heat input) and stackheight. We then identified the sevenboiler sites with the greatest potentialfor high ambient concentrations thatwere also located in complex terrain(i.e., terrain within 20 kilometers of thestack exceeded the stack height). Ateach of these seven sites, we used theLONGZ and SHORTZ models to predictmaximum annual average and maximum3-minute concentrations to model: (1)The actual boiler located at the site; (2)the model boiler with the greatestpotential for adverse ambient impacts(considering capacity and stack height);and (3) each model furnace.

The reasonable, worst-case facility foreach type of device was then identifiedas the site associated with the highestground level concentrations.

As with the flat terrain analysis,devices having approximately the samepotential ambient air impacts weregrouped together in categories. One setof categories was developed formaximum annual averageconcentrations and another set formaximum 3-minute concentrations. Tier1-11 standards were developed for eachcategory and the device within each

16992




category that posed the greatestpotential adverse air impacts was usedto establish the limits for that category.

We estimate that approximately 15-20percent of the facilities burninghazardous wastes are located in terrainwhich will require that the facilitiesmeet the complex terrain limits.

B. Reference Air Concentrations forSystemic Toxicants

For toxic substances not known todisplay carcinogenic properties, thereappears to be an identifiable exposurethreshold below which adverse healtheffects usually do not occur.Noncarcinogenic effects are manifestedwhen these pollutants are present inconcentrations great enough toovercome the homeostatic,compensating, and adaptivemechanisms of the organism. Thus,protection against the adverse healtheffects of a toxicant is likely to beachieved by preventing exposure levelsfrom exceeding the threshold dose, orthe "reference air concentration."

Reference air concentrations (RACs)have been derived from oral RDs forthose threshold compounds listed inAppendix VIII of 40 CFR Part 261 forwhich the Agency has adequate healtheffects data (see Appendix A of thispreamble). These oral-based RACs aresubject to change, and RACs foradditional compounds are likely to bedeveloped in the near future given thatthe Agency has recently established aninternal workgroup (the Inhalation RiDWorkgroup) to develop inhalationreference doses for use in Agencyprograms. That workgroup is expectedto develop a methodology andinhalation references doses for anumber of chemicals by late 1987. In theinterest of time, the Agency has decidedto propose the oral-based RACs forpurposes of today's rule rather than towait until the internal workgroupcompletes its efforts.

The Agency's reasoning for proposingRAC's derived from oral RDs is asfollows:

1. EPA has developed verified RfDsand is committed to establishing RDsfor all constituents of Agency interest.The verification process is conducted byan EPA workgroup, and the conclusionsand reasoning for these decisions arepublicly available.

2. The verification process assuresthat the critical study is of appropriatelength and quality to derive a healthlimit for long-term, life-term protection.

3. RfDs are based on the bestavailable information that meetminimum scientific criteria and maycome from experimental animal studiesor human studies.

4. RfDs are designed to give long-termprotection for all members of thepopulation, including persons uniquelyat risk, such as pregnant women,growing children, and older men andwomen.

5. RDs are designated by the Agencyas being of high, medium, or lowconfidence depending on the quality ofthe information and the amount of thesupporting data. The criteria for theconfidence rating is discussed in the RIDdecision.

The Agency used the followingstrategy to derive the inhalationexposure limits proposed today:i. Where a verified oral RD has been

based on an inhalation study, theinhalation exposure limit will becalculated directly from the study.

2. Where a verified oral RD has beenbased on an oral study, we will use aconversion factor of 1 for route-to-routeextrapolation in deriving an inhalationlimit.

3. Where there exists appropriate EPAhealth documents, such as the HealthEffects Assessments (HEAs) and theHealth Effects and Envfronmental - -

Profiles (HEEPs), containing relevantinhalation toxicity data, the data will beused in deriving an inhalation exposurelimit. Other agency health documents(e.g., NIOSH's criteria documents) willalso be considered.

4. If RDs or other toxicity data fromagency health documents are notavailable, then other sources of toxicityinformation will be considered. Thecalculation will be in accordance withthe RD methodology.

The Agencyrecognizes the limitationsof route-to-route conversions used toderive the RACs and is in the process ofexamining confounding factors affectingthe conversion such as: (a) theappropriateness of extrapolating when aportal of entry is the critical targetorgan; (b) first pass effects; and (c)effect of route upon dosimetry. TheAgency, through its Inhalation RDWorkgroup, is developing referencedose values for inhalation exposure, andmany are expected to be available thisyear. The Agency will use the availableinhalation RiDs when this rule ispromulgated. If, however, the workgroupdevelops inhalation reference dosesprior to promulgation of today's rule thatare substantially different from theRAC's proposed today and if the revisedinhalation reference dose could beexpected to have a significant adverseimpact on the regulated community, theAgency will take public comment on therevised RACs after notice in the FederalRegister.

As previously stated, the RACs arederived from oral Reference Doses

(RfDs) for the compounds. An oral RiDis an estimate of a daily exposure (viaingestion) for the human population thatis likely to be without an appreciablerisk of deleterious effects even ifexposure occurs daily during alifetime. 9 The RD for a specificchemical is calculated by dividing theexperimentally-determined no-observed-adverse-effect-level by theappropriate uncertainty factor(s).

The Agency is proposing to use thefollowing equation to convert oral RFDsto RACs:

RAC (mg/ml} =

RfD (mg/kg-bw/day) x body

weightx correctionfactor x apportionment

factor

m3 air breathed/day

where:" RfD is the oral reference dose" Body weight is assumed to be 70 kg for an

adult male" Volume of air breathed by an adult male is

assumed to be 20 m3/day" Correction factor for route-to-route

extrapolation (going from the oral routeto the inhalation route) is 1.0

" Factor to apportion the RID to the intakeresulting from direct inhalation of thecompound emitted from the source is 0.25(i.e., an Individual is assumed to beexposed to 75% of the RID from thecombination of other sources).

In today's proposed rule, the RACsare used to determine if adverse healtheffects are likely to result from exposureto stack emissions by comparingmaximum annual average ground levelconcentrations of a pollutant to thepollutant's RAC. If the RAC is notexceeded, adverse health effects are notanticipated. The Agency, however, isalso concerned about the impacts ofshort-term (less than 24-hour) exposures.The ground level concentration of anemitted pollutant can be an order ofmagnitude greater during a 1-minute or15-minute period of exposure than themaximum annual average exposure.This is because, during the annualexposure, the periods of exposure tohigh concentrations are balanced byperiods of exposure to lowconcentrations as wind speed anddirection varies. Thus, maximum annual.average concentrations are always

1s Current scientiftc'understanding. however,does not consider this demarcation to be rigid. Forbrief periods and for small excursions above theRf. adverse effects are unlikely in most of thepopulation. On the other hand, several ,circumstances can be cited In which. particularlysensitive members of the population suffer adverseresponses at levels well below the RiD. See 51 FR1627 (January 14,1988).

16N93i I




much lower than short-term exposureconcentrations. On the other hand, theshort-term exposure RAC is alsogenerally much higher than the life-timeexposure RAC. Nonetheless, in somecases, short-term exposure may pose agreater health threat than annualexposure. Unfortunately, the use of RiDslimits the development of short-termacute exposure limits since noacceptable methodology exists for thederivation of less than life-timeexposures from RiDs. 20 However,despite this limitation, we are proposinga short-term (i.e., 3-minute) RAC for HCIof 150 mg/m3 based on limited datadocumenting a no-observed-effect-levelin animals exposed to HC1 viainhalation.2 1 We do anticipate,however, that short-term RACs for othercompounds will be developed by theAgency.

C. Risk From Carcinogens

EPA policy suggests that no thresholddose can be demonstratedexperimentally for carcinogens. Thisleads to the assumption that anexposure theoretically would representsome finite level of risk for carcinogens.EPA's Carcinogen Assessment Group(CAG) has estimated the carcinogenicpotency for humans exposed to lowdose levels of carcinogens (both knownand suspected human carcinogens). Thepotency factors have been used toestimate the unit risk of carcinogenicconstituents on Appendix VIII. The unitrisk is the incremental risk to anindividual exposed for a life-time toambient air containing one microgram ofthe compound per cubic meter of air. Wehave used the available unit risk valuesto calculate risk-specific doses (RSDs)for an incremental risk of 10- 5 (i.e., I in100,000). See Appendix B of thispreamble.

For purposes of this regulation, theAgency is proposing that an incrementallifetime risk to the most exposedindividual (MEl) of I X 10- 5 (1 in 100,000)is a reasonable risk. Accordingly, therisk based standards proposed todayensure that the incremental risk fromdirect inhalation of carcinogenic stackemissions does not exceed 1x 10 - . Therisks from the individual carcinogensare summed to develop an aggregate

20 Memo from Clara Chow thru Reva Rubenstein.Characterization and Assessment Division, EPA toRobert Holloway, Waste Management Division,EPA, entitled "Use of RiDs Versus TI.Vs for I lealthCriteria," January 13,1987.

91 Memo from Characterization and AssessmentDivision to Waste Management Division, October 2.1986. interpreting results from Kirsch. V.H,; DrabkeP. {1982). Assessinq the Bioloqicol Effects ofHydrogen Chloride. Z. Gesamte Ifyg. lhre.Grenzgeb. 28:107-109.

MEl risk. Thus, the aggregate risk to theMEl is calculated by predicting themaximum annual average ground levelconcentration for each carcinogenicemission, calculating the ratio of thatconcentration to the RSD (See AppendixB), and summing the ratios for allcarcinogenic compounds. The sumcannot exceed 1 in order for the risk notto exceed 1X10-5.2 2

We are proposing that a 1x 10- 5lifetime incremental risk level isreasonable for this regulation becausethe MEl risk posed by coal and oil-firedboilers is generally in the range of1X10-5.23

The Agency specifically requestscomment on whether aggregatepopulation risk or cancer incidence (i.e.,cancer incidents/year) should also beconsidered in developing the nationalemission limits and in the site-specificrisk assessments under the variouswaivers proposed. Thus, both the risk tothe MET and increased cancer incidencecould be considered. This approachcould be more conservative thanconsidering only MET risk because, evenif the "acceptable" MET risk level werenot exceeded, large population centersmay be exposed to emissions such thatthe increased cancer incidence could besignificant. An incremental cancerincidence in the range of 0.1 to 0.5cancers per year could be consideredsignificant. Based on public commentand further thought on how toimplement this dual approach (i.e.,considering both MET risk and cancerincidence), the final rule couldincorporate both approaches.Alternatively, EPA may provideguidance to the permit writer on whenand how to consider cancer incidenceon a case-by-case basis under authorityof Section 3005(c) of HSWA.

22 We note that the ground level concentrationsof interest are the off-site concentrations. The riskposed by emissions on-site are more appropriatelyaddressed as an occupational hazard by theOccupational Safety and Health Administration.Thus the Tier IV and low risk waste riskassessments are based on off-site ambientconcentrations. EPA specifically requestscomments, however, on whether on-siteconcentrations should be considered for facilitieswhere people reside on-site (e.g., military bases,colleges and universities). (The Tier 1-ll standardsare conservatively based on dispersion modelingthat did not consider whether the maximumconcentrations were located on-site or off-site.) Wenote further that the MEt concentration used for thisregulation is more correctly the potential MEIconcentration in that it represents the maximumannual average ground level concentrationirrespective of whether a person actually resides atthat location.

23 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,EPA, Coal and Oil Combustion Study. Summaryand Results. September 198a Draft Report.

D. Assumptions Used in the RiskAssessment

A number of assumptions, someconservative and othersnonconservative, have been used in therisk assessment to simplify the analysisor to address issues where definitivedata do not exist.

Conservative assumptions include thefollowing:

9 Individuals reside at the point ofmaximum annual average and maximumshort-term ground level concentration(for HCI). Further, the risk estimates forcarcinogens assume the individualresides at the point of maximum annualaverage concentration for a 70 yearlifetime.

• Indoor air contains the same levelsof pollutants as outdoor air.

* For noncarcinogenic healthdeterminations, background exposurealready amounts to 75% of the RfD. Thisincludes other routes of exposureincluding ingestion and dermal. Thus,the boiler or industrial furnace is onlyallowed to contribute 25% of the RfD viadirect inhalation. The only exception islead where the allowed contribution is10% of the NAAQS. We are allowing alower contribution for lead becauseambient lead levels in urban areasalready represent a substantial portion(e.g., one third or more) of the leadNAAQS. In addition, the Agency isparticularly concerned about the healthrisks from lead in light of health effectsdata available since the NAAQS wasestablished. The Agency is currentlyreviewing the lead NAAQS to determineif it should be lowered.

Note.-We have not attempted to quantifyindirect exposure through the food chain,ingestion of water contaminated bydeposition, and dermal exposure because themethodology has not yet been developed andapproved for use in assessing risk fromcombustion sources. We note, however, thatallowing the source to contribute only 25% ofthe RiD accounts for indirect exposure byassuming a person is exposed to 75% of theRfD from other sources and other exposurepathways. (The Agency has developed such amethodology for application to wastecombustion sources and the Agency'sScience Advisory Board has reviewed thismethodology. Assuming Agency-wideprocedures are developed, a more detailedanalysis may be applied to boilers andfurnaces burning hazardous wastes.)

* Risks are considered both forpollutants that are known humancarcinogens and those that are knownanimal carcinogens and therefore, aresuspected human carcinogens.

Nonconservative assumptions includethe following:

16994




B. Basisfor the DRE and COPerformance Standards for ToxicOrganic Compounds.

- Although emissions are complexmixtures, additive effects of thresholdcompounds and interactive effects ofthreshold or carcinogenic compounds -The Agency is proposing to controlhave not been considered given the lack the emission of toxic organic compoundsof information, from boilers and industrial furnaces

Note.-Additive effects of carcinogenic burning hazardous waste with twocompounds are considered by summing the performance standards. A 99.99 percent

risks for all carcinogens to estimate the destruction and removal efficiencyaggregate risk to the most exposed individual, (DRE) standard for principal organic,(MEI). hazardous-constituents (POHCs) inthe

waste feed would ensure thatEcological effects (i.e., effects on constituents in the waste would not be-

plants and animals) have not been emitted at levels. that could'poseconsidered given the lack of significant risk in -virtually all scenariosinformation. Adverse effects on plants of which the Agency is aware.2 5 In-and animals may occur at doses lower addition, flue gas carbon monoxide (CO)than the levels that cause adverse levels would be limited to ensure theeffects in humans. (The Agency is also device. operates continuously at highdeveloping procedures and requesting combustion efficiency. Thus, whenScience Advisory Board review to burning hazardous waste, these devicesconsider ecological effects resulting • cannot operate under upset'conditions,from emissions from waste combustion. which could lead to significantfacilities.) - emissions of products of incomplete

combustion (PICs), typically evidencedIII. Proposed Controls for Emissions of by smoke emissions. The basis for theseToxic Organic Compounds standards-is discussed below.

A. Hazard Posed by Combustion of 1.,Results of Emissions Testing. The

Toxic Organic Compounds Agency conducted field tests on 11 full-scale industrial 'boilers and 12 industrial

The burning of hazardous waste -furnaces. The test results indicate that:containing toxic organic compounds * .Boilers and industrial furnaces can(i.e..'organic compounds'listed in be operated to achieve 99.99 percentAppendix VIII of 40 CFR Part 261) under DRE of POHCs considered difficult to'poor combustion conditions can result in destry- carbon tetrachloride,substantial emissions of the original chlorobenzene, trichloroethylene, andcompounds which were not burned and tetrachloroethylene.compounds that result from the partial -• Boilers cofiring hazardous wastebut incomplete combustion of fuels with fossil fuels where theconstituents in the waste. The quantity hazardous waste provides less than 50of toxic organic compounds emitted percent of the boiler's fuel requirementsdepends on the concentration of the can achieve 99.99 percent DRE ofcompounds in the waste, the waste POHCs under a wide range of operatingcompnds ein, the wtenthe w a conditions (e.g., load changes, wastefiring rate (i.e.. the percentage of total feed rate changes, excess air rateboiler or industrial furnace fuel provided changes).by the hazardous waste), and the s When boilers and industrialcombustion conditions under which the furnaces are operated at highwaste is burned. The risk posed by the combustion efficiency, as evidenced byemissions depends on the toxicity of the flue gas carbon monoxide (CO) levels ofcompounds emitted, and the ambient less than 100 ppm, DREs exceed 99.99levels to which persons are exposed. percent. Although the tests showed thisHypothetical risk assessments show relationship between CO and DRE, therethat under poor combustion conditions was no direct correlation between COthat achieve only 99 percent or 99.9 (an indicator of combustion efficiency)percent destruction efficiency of organic and DRE. Devices clearly operatingcompounds, risks to the maximum under poor combustion conditions, asexposed individual from unburned evidenced, for example, by smokecarcinogenic organics found in . emissions, still achieved 99.99 percenthazardous waste can result in increased DRE. It appears that POHCs arelifetime cancer risks of 10-4.24 immediately destroyed in the flame

zone. , •- *Emissions of products of incomplete

._combustion (PICs) (i.e., quantitated

2,Engineering-Science, ,oekground Documentfor Appendix VIII pollutants that are notthe Development of Regulations To Control theBurning of Hazardous Wa'oste in Boilers and-, 26 Except that a 99:9999% DRE would be requiredIndustrial Furnaces, Volume uI. February 1987. for dioxin-containing listed waste.,.

16995

POHCs) generally ranged from 0.5 to 5times POHC emission rates.

* * Emissions of PICa appearedgenerally to increase as combustionefficiency decreased as evidenced byincreased flue.gas CO levels.

* Emission of total unburnedhydrocarbons (i.e., quantified AppendixVIII pollutants as well as unburnedPOHCs and other unburned organiccompounds) clearly increase'ascombustion efficiency decreases asevidenced by an increase in flue gas COlevels..2. Overview of test program. Theboiler'testing program had two primarypurposes: (1) To determine if boilersoperated under steady-state conditionsto achieve maximum combustionefficiency could achieve 99.99 percentdestruction and removal efficiency(DRE) of principal organic hazardousconstituents (POHCs) in the waste: and(2) to determine how changes inoperating conditions (e.g., waste firingrates, boiler load, excess flue gasoxygen levels) would affect the boiler'sability to achieve 99.99 percent DRE ofPOHCs-so-called nonsteady-statetesting.

To meetthe first objective (steady-state testing), EPA tested'ten boilersthat represented a wide variety of boilertypes and sizes and that burned avariety of hazardous wastes andauxiliary fuels. The boilers ranged intype and size from a small 8 million Btu/hr fire tube boiler to a 250 million Btu/hrwater tube boiler. The hazardous wastesburned ranged from methanol andtoluene wastes with a 18,500 Btu/lbheating'value similar to that of No. 6 fueloil (and which was spikedwithchlorinated organics for test purposes)to a methyl acetate waste with a heatingvalue of less than half that of No. B fueloil (and which also was spiked withchlorinated organics for test purposes).Waste firing rates ranged from 100percent of the boiler's fuel requirements(for a waste having a heating value of9,000 Btu/jlb and containing 43 percentchlorine, by weight) to less than 10percent of the boiler's fuel requirementson a heat'input basis. Boiler auxiliaryfuels (if any were natural gas, No. 6 fueloil, pulverized coal, and waste wood.I EPA conducted nonsteady-statetesting on three boilers, one of whichwas also tested under steady-state .conditions. One boiler was a 140 millionBtu/hr capacity water. tube boiler thatcould cofire hazardous waste with eithernatural gas or No. 6 fuel oil. This boilerwas cofired with a methyl methacrylatedistillation bottom with a heating valueof about 11,500 Btu/lb that was spikedwith carbon tetrachloride and




monochlorobenzene in concentrationsranging from 0.4 to 4.5 percent. Thesecond boiler was a 450 million Btu/hrcapacity water tube boiler also designedto cofire hazardous waste with naturalgas. This boiler typically operated at acapacity of 250 million Btu/hr and wascofired with liquid organic heavy endsfrom a butanol/propanol productionunit. The waste had a heating value ofabout 12,800 Btu/lb and was spiked withup to 16 percent carbon tetrachloride,monochlorobenzene, andtrichlorobenzene. The third boiler was a170 million Btu/hr capacity water tube,stoker fired boiler designed to handle anaqueous sludge for disposal (i.e.,incineration or destruction). Theaqueous sludge had virtually no heatingvalue and was fired with pressure-atomized guns into the combustion zonejust above the coal grate at rates of 12 to20% of the volume of total boiler feed(i.e., sludge plus coal fuel). The sludgewas spiked with 5 to 10%trichloroethylene or trichlorobenzene astracer compounds to determinedestruction and removal efficiencies.

More than 100 individual stackemission tests were conducted todetermine the effect on DRE andemissions of products of incompletecombustion (PICs) of: (1) Burning-hazardous waste under conditions ofhigh and low boiler loads, high and lowexcess air rates, high and low wastefiring rates (up to about 50 percent of theboiler's fuel requirements), and duringsoot blowing: (2) burning hazardouswaste while boiler load, excess air rates,and waste firing rates were changed;and (3) start-up of waste firingoperations.

The following industrial furnaceswere tested: five cement productionkilns, both dry and wet process types:two asphalt aggregate kilns: two light-weight aggregate production kilns, alime production kiln; and a pig iron blastfurnace. The results of these tests shouldbe indicative of the ability of industrialfurnaces to burn hazardous wastesefficiently.2a The hazardous wastes

26 The only other industrial furnaces known tobum hazardous waste as fuel (or to have beentested at full scale) are sulfur recovery furnaces andhalogen acid furnaces. Although EPA has notconducted emissions testing of a sulfur recoveryfurnace and has tested only one type of halogenacid furnace (a hydrogen chloride productionfurnace), the Agency believes such furnaces shouldbe able to comply with the standards proposedtoday and, thus, could safely burn hazardous waste.The Agency, however, specifically requestsinformation on sulfur recovery furnaces, halogenacid furnaces, and other industrial furnaces thatburn hazardous waste, including the types andquantities of wastes burned. The Agency alsorequests comments on whether the proposedstandards would be protective for Industrial

burned in these industrial furnacesduring the tests ranged from used oilspiked with several thousand ppm ofchlorinated solvents to hazardous wastemixtures containing halogenated andnonhalogenated solvent recoverydistillation bottoms and spent solventsfrom manufacturing processes (e.g.,paint manufacturing) where chlorinelevels ranged from I to 5 percent. Theheating value of the waste fuels rangedfrom 10,000 to 18,000 Btu/Ib and thehazardous waste firing rate ranged from100 percent for the asphalt aggregatekilns, light-weight aggregate kilns, andlime kiln to about 5 percent of the heatinput to the blast furnace.

EPA did not conduct nonsteady-statetesting of industrial furnaces todetermine the range of operatingconditions under which they could beexpected to achieve 99.99 percent DRE.Given that there are five differentcategories of industrial furnaces that areburning (or have burned) hazardouswaste and that some categories havesubstantially different types of devices(e.g., wet versus dry process cementkilns, drum mix versus batch mixasphalt operations), EPA believes thatthe cost of nonsteady-state testing foreach type of industrial furnace would beprohibitive, Moreover, the primarypurpose for the boiler nonsteady-state,testing was to determine if operatingconditions could be specified such thatthe device could be assumed to beachieving 99.99 percent DRE without theneed for a trial bum to demonstrateDRE. Based on the boiler testing, EPA isproposing an automatic waiver of thetrial burn for owners and operators whooperate the boiler under specialoperating requirements. The basis forthat approach is discussed in SectionIII.C below. EPA believes that thisapproach may allow many of the 900boilers burning hazardous waste toavoid the expense of conducting trialburns. Given that EPA believes thatthere may be only about 50 industrialfurnaces burning hazardous waste andgiven the cost of testing five to seven ormore industrial furnaces operated undernonsteady-state conditions, EPA doesnot believe that such a testing programfor industrial furnaces would be cost-effective. Thus, as discussed below, EPAis proposing that owners and operatorsof all industrial furnaces, as well asthose boilers not operated under theproposed special conditions, conducttrial burns to demonstrate conformancewith the DRE standard.

furnaces not explicitly Identified in proposed§§ 266.34-4 (b) and (c).

3. Interpretation of test results. Theboilers tested under nonsteady-stateconditions achieved 99.99 percent DREof POHCs under nearly all operatingconditions tested. It would not beappropriate, however, to assume thatany boiler burning any hazardous wastefuel under any waste firing and boileroperating conditions will achieve 99.99percent DRE. Although the nonsteady-state tests varied a number ofparameters over a wide range, someparameters could not be tested at thethree test sites and other parameterscould not be tested over their full range.As examples, hazardous waste was notfired with nonfossil fuels like wastewood, the maximum waste firing ratetested was 56 percent on a heat inputbasis, the boilers were not operated atloads below about 25 percent, andexcess oxygen levels in the flue gas didnot exceed 10 percent. Parameters suchas these can affect boiler combustionefficiency and, thus, destruction of toxicorganic constituents in the hazardouswaste and emissions of incompletelyburned organics. (See discussion below.)Although most of the appropriateparameters were tested at the"extremes" during one or more of the 11steady-state tests discussed above, theboilers were operated during these testsunder constant conditions in an attemptto achieve peak combustion efficiency.Thus, we do not know how narrow theenvelope of operating conditions may beto ensure peak combustion efficiencyand 99.99 percent DRE for a boileralready operating at the "extremes"(e.g., burning hazardous waste with aheating value of 1,000-8,000 Btu/lb asprimary fuel; burning 100 percenthazardous waste with a heating value ofless than 9,000 Btu/lb: or operating at avery low load).

4. Basis for the DRE standard. EPA isproposing a 99.99 percent DREperformance standard for POHCs 27

because it is protective, it can be readilyachieved by boilers and industrialfurnaces as discussed above, and itwould ensure that the Agency's controlsare consistent for all combustiondevices-boilers, industrial furnaces,and incinerators-- that pose similarrisks.

Hypothetical risk assessments haveshown that a 99.99 percent DREstandard for POHCs is protective invirtually every scenario of which the

27 Except that, as required for incinerators, a99.99 percent DRE would be required for the dioxIn-containing wastes: EPA Hazardous Wastes F020,F021, F022, F023. F026, and F027. See § 254.343(a)(2).

16996




Agency is aware.28 Increased lifetimecancer risks to the maximum exposedindividual would generally be 10 or less.Threshold (i.e., noncarcinogenic) organiccompounds as well would not beexpected in hazardous waste burned inthese devices at levels that could pose ahealth hazard under the 99.99 percentDRE standard.

It should be noted, however, that theDRE standard does not directly controlthe mass emission rate (e.g., pounds perhour) of unburned POHC. Althoughthere could be hypothetical situationswhere risks from POHCs could besignificant upder a 99.99 percent DREstandard (e.g., boilers or industrialfurnaces located in urban areas burninghigh volumes of waste with highconcentrations of highly potentcarcinogenic organics), the Agency isnot aware of any such situations. (SeeSection I of Part Two of this preamble.)If, however, during the permit process, itappears that high risk scenarios exist,permit officials can use the omnibusprovision of Section 3005(c) of HSWA todevelop permit requirements, asnecessary, to protect human health andthe environment (e.g., by requiring a99.9999 percent DRE, by limiting the feedrate of particularly toxic compounds, orby setting a mass emission rate).

EPA specifically requests commentson using surrogate compounds in lieu ofPOHCs (actual constituents in thewaste) to demonstrate DRE during atrial burn. To be useful as universalsurrogates, such compounds must bemore difficult to destroy than anyprincipal organic constituent in thewaste. Thus, the surrogates should havea low heat of combustion (e.g., carbontetrachloride), the conventional indexfor predicting incinerability. In addition,in light of work conducted by theUniversity of Dayton ResearchInstitute,2 9 the surrogates should alsohave a high gas phase thermal stabilityunder low oxygen conditions (e.g.,monochlorobenzene, trichloroethylene).Further, the surrogates need not belimited to toxic compounds listing inAppendix VIII of Part 261. Othercompounds, notably SF6, appear to havevery high thermal stability and may beuseful as a universal surrogate.3 0 To be

20 Engineering Science, Background InformationDocument for the Development of Regulations toControl the Burning of Hazardous Waste in Boilersand Industrial Furances. Volume III, January 1987.

29 Dr. Barry Dellinger. Michael D. Graham, andDebra A. Tiney. University of Dayton, Research -Institute, "Predicting Emissions from the ThermalProcessing of Hazardous Wastes", HazardousWaste and Hazardous Materials. Volume 3.Number 3,1986.

M Dr. Philip H. Taylor and Dr. John Chadbourne,"SY.; as a Surrogate for Measuring HazardousWaste Incinerator Performance", submitted for

conservative, it appears appropriate toselect several compounds assurrogates-one or two compounds thathave low heat of combustion, and one ortwo compounds that have high thermalstability. Such compounds could be usedas a universal mixture of surrogates, or"POHC soup". EPA specifically requestscomments on this approach to simplifyand standardize DRE testing.

5. Basis for the CO standard. EPA isproposing to limit flue gas carbonmonoxide (CO) levels to ensure thatboilers and industrial furnaces areoperated at high combustion efficiencywhen burning hazardous waste. Thus,emissions of incompletely burnedorganic compounds are expected to beminimized to levels that would not posesignificant risk.

a. PIG Emissions. EPA evaluatedemissions of products of incompletecombustion (PICs) by quantifyingemissions of priority pollutants thatwere not constituents in the waste (andevaluated as POHCs). PIC emissionrates varied from about 0.1 to over 100times POHC emission rates, butgenerally ranged from 0.5 to 5 timesPOHC emission rates. Semivolatile PICemissions were nearly always-insignificant compared to the levels ofvolatile PICs. Thus, large molecularweight (semivolatile) compoundsapparently were not being synthesized.(We note, however, that laboratorystudies have shown that singlechlorinated organic compounds canproduce several chlorinated PICs. ThesePICs were not limited to simplefragments of the parent POHC butincluded higher order chlorinatedorganics.)

Typical chlorinated PICs found duringthe full scale boiler testing included,chloroform, trichloroethane,tetrachloroethylene, dichloromethane,chloromethane, and carbontetrachloride. In addition, twononchlorinated PIGs were nearly alwaysfound-benzene and toluene.

EPA also evaluated dioxin emissionsfrom boilers cofired with hazardouswaste fuel. Emission of chlorinateddioxins and chlorinated furans, theirtetra, penta, hexa, hepta and octahomologs, as well as the highly toxicisomer, 2,3,7,8-TCDD were quantifiedduring steady-state testing of fiveboilers 3 1 Four of the boilers were oil,

publication to journal of Air Pollution ControlAssociation, March 1987.

31 Acurex Corporation, Dioxin Emissions fromIndustrial Boilers Burning Hazardous Materials,April 1985.

gas, or pulverized coal boilers typical ofthose that burn hazardous waste fuels.These boilers ranged in capacity from100 to 340 MM Btu/hr and firedhazardous waste generally at rates of 20to 47 percent of total heat input.Emissions of total PCDD(polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins)ranged from less than 0.08 to 1.1nanograms/cubic meter of flue gas(0.0048--0.066 ppt) 32 and emissions oftotal PCDF (polychlorinated dibenzo-furan) ranged from 0.14 to 5.5nanograms/cubic meter (0.0084-0.33ppt). The highly toxic isomer, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, was found in the emission fromonly one boiler and at a level equal tothe detection limit of 0.OOZ nanograms/cubic meter.

The fifth test boiler was a 100 MMBtu/hr wood-fired stoker boiler. Theboiler cofired creosote sludge at a 40percent heat input firing rate with woodchips, bark, and sawdust. As is typicalof batch-feed wood-fired stokers, largeand frequent fluctuations in excess airand carbon monoxide emissions wereindicative of erratic combustionconditions. Emissions of total PCDDwere 76 nanograms/cubic meter of fluegas (4.56 ppt). PCDF emissions were notdetermined. Emissions of 2,3,7,8-TCDDwere not detected at a detection limit of0.002 nanograms/cubic meter (0.00014ppt).

We note that there is a substantialdegree of uncertainty associated withquantifying the emission of unburnedorganics. The test results can over orunderestimate the emission of unburnedorganics attributed to burning hazardouswaste fuels. Hazardous wastes werecofired with fossil fuels during most ofthe test bums. Any fossil fuel PIC wasincluded as a PIC generated by thehazardous waste. Fossil fuel combustionis known typically to generate the PICsbenzene and toluene and, if the fossilfuel contains chlorine (e.g., coal), manyof the hazardous waste chlorinated PICslisted above could also be generated bythe fossil fuel. In addition, some of theorganic compounds. identified duringEPA's testing as PICs may, in fact, resultfrom contamination from sampling trainabsorbent, laboratory solvents, or fromsuch sources as freon leaks from arefrigerator used to store samples priorto analysis.

PIC emissions could also beunderestimated because only thoseorganic compounds listed as toxicconstituents of hazardous waste inAppendix VIII of Part 261 werequantified and designated as PICs.Although GC/MS analysis was used to

32 ppt: parts per trillion.

MII I II I I I I I II III I

IL6997



Federal Register / Vol. 52; No. 87 / Wednesday, May 6, 1987 / Proposed Rules

quantify about 100 of these compounds,many other unburned organiccompounds were undoubtedly emitted.Some of these compounds areundoubtedly toxic even though they arenot listed in Appendix VIII.

Although additional research isneeded to understand combustionreactions where organic constituents inhazardous waste are first "destroyed"and where intermediate products ofcombustion are formed until ultimately,and ideally, all hydrocarbons areconverted to carbon dioxide and water,the available data lead the Agency toconclude: (1) the risk posed by PIGemissions is probably not significantwhen combustion devices achieve 99.99percent DRE of POHCs even though theymay operate at less than maximumcombustion efficiency; and (2)nonetheless, given the uncertainties asto the types and quantities of PICs thatmay be emitted when a combustiondevice is not operated at highcombustion efficiency, it is prudent toprovide controls that ensure that boilersand industrial furnaces are operated athigh combustion efficiency whenburning hazardous waste. Both of thesepoints are discussed below.

b. Risk from PIC emissions. Asdiscussed above, test data indicate thatPICs are generally emitted at rates offrom 0.5 to 5 times the rate of POHCs.Given that the preponderence of thePICs were relatively low molecularweight, volatile compounds even whenthe POHCs were high molecular weight,semivolatile compounds, and, given thatthe carcinogenic PICs have potenciessimilar to the POHCs. As discussedabove, the increased lifetime cancer riskfrom unburned POHC emissions at a99.99 percent DRE is on the order of 10- 6or less. Thus, PICs emitted at a rate of0.5 to 5 times POHC rates wouldincrease risks by less than half an orderof magnitude-to 10- 5 or less.

Although some dioxins (e.g., 2,3,7,8-TCDD) are orders of magnitude morepotent than the other PICs (and POHCs)identified during the testing program, theemission of dioxins and furans werefound to be virtually insignificant.Emission rates for all dioxin and furanhomologs were converted to 2,3,7,8-TCDD emissions equivalents to estimatethe increased lifetime cancer risk to themaximum exposed individual underreasonable, worst case scenarios. Therisk from dioxin and furan emissionsappears on the order of 10-.

c. Use of CO limits to ensure highcombustion conditions. Generallyaccepted combustion theory holds thatlow CO (carbon monoxide) flue gaslevels are indicative of a boiler,industrial furnace, or incinerator

operating at high combustion efficiency.Operating at high combustion efficiencyconditions helps ensure minimumemissions of unburned (or incompletelyburned) organics.33 In the first stage ofcombustion of hazardous waste fuel, thePOHCs are immediately thermallydecomposed in the flame to form other,usually smaller, compounds termed PICs(products of incomplete combustion). Inthis first stage of combustion, these PICsare also rapidly decomposed to formCO.

The second stage of combustioninvolves the oxidation of CO to CO2

(carbon dioxide). The CO to CO2 step isthe slowest (rate controlling) step in thecombustion process because CO isconsidered to be more thermally stable(difficult to oxidize) than otherintermediate products of combustion ofhazardous waste constituents. Since fuelis continuously being fired, bothcombustion stages are occurringsimultaneously.

Using this view of waste combustion,the "destruction" of a POHC, andperhaps even the destruction of PICs, isindependent of flue gas CO levels. Thus,CO flue gas levels cannot be correlatedto DRE for POHCs and may notcorrelate well with PIC destruction. (Asdiscussed above, test data show nocorrelation between CO and DRE, aslight apparent correlation between COand chlorinated PICs, and a faircorrelation between CO and totalunburned hydrocarbons.) Low CO is anindicator of the status of the CO to CO2conversion process, the last, rate-limiting oxidation process. Sinceoxidation of CO to CO2 occurs afterdestruction of the POHC and its (other)intermediates (PICs], the absence of COis a useful indication of POHC and PICdestruction. The presence of high levelsof CO in the flue gas is a usefulindication of inefficient combustion and,at some level of elevated CO flue gasconcentration, an indication of failure ofthe PIC and POHC destruction process.We believe it is necessary to limit COlevels to levels indicative of highcombustion efficiency because we donot know the precise CO level that isindicative of significant failure of thePIC and POHC destruction process. Infact, that critical CO level may be

3 Given that CO is a gross indicator ofcombustion performance, limiting CO may notabsolutely minimize PIC emissions. This is becausePICs can result from small pockets within thecombustion zone where adequate time, temperature,and turbulence have not been provided to oxidizecompletely the combustion products of the POtiCs.Available data. however, indicate that PICemissions do not pose significant risk whencombustion devices are operated at highcombustion efficiency. EPA is conducting additionalfield and pilot scale testing to address this issue.

dependent on site-specific and event-specific factors (e.g., fuel type, fuel mix,air to fuel ratios, rate and extent ofchange of these and other factors thataffect combustion efficiency). Webelieve limiting CO levels is alsoreasonable because: (1) it is a widelypracticed approach to monitoringcombustion efficiency-many boilersand industrial furnaces are alreadyequipped with flue gas oxygenmonitors 34 and some are equipped withCO monitors: (2) although theannualized cost of oxygen and COmonitoring is estimated to be $20,000(see Section II of Part Six), the monitorsmay in part pay for themselves in fuelsavings resulting from operating theboiler or industrial furnace closer tomaximum combustion efficiency; and (3)well designed and operated boilers andindustrial furnaces can easily beoperated in conformance with theproposed CO limits.

d. Proposed CO limits. The Agency isproposing the following limits on fluegas carbon monoxide (CO) levels,corrected to a 7 percent flue gas oxygencontent.

cO limits Consequence of exceeding

C. Ii~t limit

If >100 ppm average forany 60 minute period(tolling average).

If >500 ppm average forany 10 minute period(rolling average),

Waste feed shutoff within tOminutes.

Immediate waste feed shut6tf.

Both limits would apply. Test burndata and discussions with owners andoperators of boilers and industrialfurnaces indicate that these CO limitsare readily achievable.35

34 Oxygen monitoring would be required inconjunction with CO monitoring to adjust CO levelsto a common excess air rate indicated by excessoxygen content in the flue gas. Correcting CO levelsto a common flue gas oxygen content avoids theproblem of having (otherwise) high CO levelsdiluted by large quantities of excess air. This issueis discussed further in the next section of the text.

*16 We note, however, that boilers that are well-operated (and typically equipped with CO monitors)may operate at CO levels of 150 to 250 ppm tomaximize boiler efficiency, To optimize boilerefficiency (i.e., minimize the fuel required togenerate 1.000 lbs. of steam), boilers are operatedunder slightly fuel-rich conditions. The energy lostfrom the relatively high stack gas CO levels is morethan offset by the energy that would be required toheat ambient air fed to the combustion zone toincrease fuel burnout (i.e.. CO combustion, andcombustion of carbon in coal and oil ash). Thus, tomeet the proposed CO standards, some well-operated, finely-tuned boilers may have to operateat a lower boiler efficiency to operate at the high.combustion efficiency required by the proposed COlimits. EPA believes that few boilers burninghazardous waste are currently equipped with COmonitors and would be required to operate underless thermally efficient conditions under thisproposal. Nonetheless, the Agency specificallyrequests comments on this issue.

16998



Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 87 / Wednesday. May 6, 1987 / Proposed Rules

The 100 ppm limit is indicative ofsteady-state (i.e., normal), efficientcombustion conditions. The higher limitof 500 ppm and the time weightedaverage for both limits are provided toaccommodate the CO spikes thatinevitably occur when hazardous wastefuel firing starts or when, for example,there is a load change on an industrialboiler. Test burn data and discussionswith owners and operators indicate thatthe proposed limits and duration ofexceedences will enable owners andoperators to bring combustionconditions back to maximum efficiencyafter normal, routine "upsets" caused byinitiating waste firing, load changes, etc.

Given that CO is a sensitive indicatorof overall combustion conditions andmay be a conservative indicator ofPOC and PIC destruction, we areproposing time-weighted averages ofexceedences rather than fixed limits.Fixed limits that do not acknowledgeinevitable CO spikes and that do notgive owners and operators time toretune combustion conditions couldactually result in greater emission ofincompletely burned organics. This isbecause each time hazardous wastefiring is interrupted, CO will spike andemission of incompletely burnedorganics may increase. Thus, anycontrols on CO must strike a balancebetween the organic emissions thatresult from an overly-stringent CO limitthat requires frequent waste feedinterruptions versus the emissions thatresult from less stringent controls thatacknowledge inevitable CO spikes.

We are proposing that the CO limitsbe based on a flue gas oxygen content of7 percent. It is necessary to correct COlevels for flue gas oxygen contentbecause (otherwise) high CO flue gasconcentrations could be diluted by highrates of excess air. Although a boiler orindustrial furnace may be operatingunder conditions that result in poorcombustion efficiency and a high COmass emission rate per unit of time, COflue gas concentrations could be dilutedto levels that meet the proposed limits ifthe device were operated at high excessair rates (which in itself could reducecombustion efficiency and increase theCO mass emission rate 36 ).

We are proposing that CO becorrected to a flue gas oxygen content of7 percent because we believe that themajority of boilers and industrialfurnaces require flue gas oxygen levelsof about 7 percent when burninghazardous waste at high combustion

36 High excess air rates can decrease combustionefficiency by "quenching" the flame with coolerambient air resulting in lower combustion zonetemperatures, and, ultimately, an unstable flame.

efficiency. We are aware, however, thatoptimum flue gas oxygen levels mayrange from 3 percent to 10 percent forthese devices. Further, the optimumoxygen level to achieve high combustionefficiency for a given device will varydepending on factors such as fuel mixand boiler load. Although largecombustion devices generally haveoptimum oxygen requirements on thelow end of the range and smaller unitson the upper end of the range, webelieve that a level of 7 percent isreasonable given that it is in the middleof the range and that the majority ofdevices burning hazardous waste fuelshave moderate heat input capacities(e.g., 20-150 MM Btufhr).

We should note that, for the smallerdevices with optimum oxygenrequirements greater than 7 percent, asthe gap widens between their optimumoxygen level and the 7 percent oxygenlevel selected for correcting CO levels,the CO limits effectively become morestringent. Even though these smallerdevices may be operating at optimumexcess air levels (i.e., at greater than 7percent excess oxygen levels) andachieving high combustion efficiencyand minimum CO levels, the proposedcorrection factor of 7 percent oxygen ineffect presumes they should beoperating at a lower excess air level.Thus, this approach presumes their COlevels have been diluted and requires acorrection to the lower excess oxygenrate. For purposes of determiningcompliance with the proposed CO limits,their actual CO levels would beincreased to those that would resultfrom the "optimum" excess oxygen levelof 7 percent.

Larger devices with optimum oxygenlevels lower than 7 percent would not beadversely affected, since correcting to 7percent oxygen would lower theirmeasured CO levels.

EPA specifically requests commentson whether the proposed approach forlimiting CO levels is appropriate,including the proposed limits, averagingtimes, and the requirement to correctCO levels to 7 percent flue gas oxygenlevels. We also specifically requestcomment on whether a limit is neededon the number of CO spikes per unit oftime in addition to the proposed time-weighted average limits. A device couldbe operating during an extended periodof frequent combustion upsets withoutnecessarily exceeding the proposedtime-weighted averages. Comments arerequested on this option, including onappropriate CO trigger spike level (e.g.,300 ppm) and an appropriate limit on thefrequency (e.g., no more than 10 spikesper 15 minutes). Comments should

include supporting documentation ordata for any of the above issues.

EPA is specifically requestingcomments on the appropriateness ofthese CO limits for cement kilns.Recently, it has come to the Agency'sattention that cement kilns may have aproblem meeting the proposed COlimits. Apparently, trace organicmaterials in the feedstock are burned-offas the feedstock moves through the kilnfrom the feed end to the hot end wherefuels are fired. The burning of thesetrace organic materials apparentlycauses cement kilns to have a highbaseline CO emission rate (e.g., 200-350ppm) that is unrelated to the combustionof fuels in the hot end of the kiln.Therefore, EPA is requesting commentson: (1) Whether a different set of COlimits should be implemented for thesedevices (e.g., the proposed limitssuperimposed on a baseline COemission rate); or (2) whether anothermonitoring method (e.g., nitrogenoxides) should be used for thesedevices. Commenters should documenttheir positions keeping in mind that theAgency's goal is to provide forcontinuous monitoring of combustionefficiency to minimize PIC emissionsfrom the burning of hazardous wastes.

EPA is proposing that if the 100 ppmtime-weighted average limit is exceeded,the hazardous waste feed must beshutoff within 10 minutes. This allowsthe operator time to effect a controlledwaste shutoff and to switch to anotherfuel. If, however, the 500 ppm time-weighted average limit is exceeded, weare proposing that the hazardous wastefeed be shutoff immediately given thatthe device is in a major upset conditionand is not operating anywhere close tohigh combustion efficiency.8 7 Further,we are proposing that the hazardouswaste feed cannot be restarted after arequired shutoff until the operatordemonstrates that the device canoperate at maximum combustionefficiency for a reasonable period oftime. Thus, we are proposing thathazardous waste firing cannot resumeuntil the device is operated withoutexceeding a time-weighted average COlevel of 100 ppm for an averaging periodof not less than 10 minutes nor morethan 60 minutes. We are proposing the60 minute maximum averaging time

37 EPA specifically requests comments onwhether a controlled waste feed shutoff (e.g., over a2-minute period) would be more appropriate than animmediate shutoff requirement when the 500 ppmlimit is exceeded. A controlled shutoff may result inlower emissions of unburned organic compounds byallowing the operator to replace gradually thehazardous waste with other fuels, thus reducing"shock" to the combustion process.

16999



Federal Register / Vol. 52, No.,87 / Wednesday, May 6, 1987 / Proposed Rules

period given that it is the basic COperformance standard indicating highcombustion efficiency. If an operatorcan retune his boiler quickly, however.we do not believe he should have towait the 60 minutes required under thebasic CO standard to demonstrate thathis CO levels do not exceed 100 ppm onaverage. Given that shorter averagingperiods are actually more stringentbecause the operator has less time tooffset CO levels greater than 100 ppmwith levels lower than 100 ppm, webelieve that shorter periods should beallowed. A 10 minute minimumaveraging period is proposed because itis short enough to allow operators toresume burning hazardous wastequickly once they retune combustioncontrols and long enough to demonstratethat low CO levels can be maintained.

We are proposing that, if the COlimits are exceeded an aggregate of 10times in a calendar month, the owner oroperator must cease burning hazardouswaste and notify the RegionalAdministrator in writing within 5calendar days. In addition, the owner oroperator may not resume burninghazardous waste unless and untilwritten permission is received from theRegional Administrator. Depending on *the circumsiances, the RegionalAdministrator may modify the permitrequirements (or place specialconditions on interim status operations]to ensure that the device can beoperated within the COlimits or tominimize the risks from emissions ofincompletely burned organics if thedevice continues to exceed the limits:Those special conditions could includelimits on waste firing rates and the typesof waste that may be burned to ensure.that the CO standard can be met. EPAspecifically requests comments on thisapproach.

Finally, EPA is proposing to apply theCO (and DRE) requirements for blastfurnace systems burning hazardouswaste only to the stoves and boilersburning the blast furnace off-gas. Thesedevices use approximately 93 percent ofthe off-gas generated (see' Part One,Section IV.B:4 of this preamble). Theremaining off-gas is burned inmiscellaneous devices such as cokeovens, reheat furnaces, flares, -etc. EPAis'proposing not to limit CO (and DRE)from these burners since they burn sucha small percentage of the off-gas. EPAspecifically requests comments onwhether this approach is appropriate.C. Waiver of Trial Burns for BoilersOperated Under Special OperatingRequirements

The DRE performance standard wouldbe implemented for boilers andindustrial furnaces very much as it iscurrently implemented for incineratorsunder Subpart 0 of Part 264, with onemajor exception for certain boilers, asdiscussed below. Industrial furnacesand boilers not operated under certainspecial conditions would demonstrateby conducting a trial burn that they canachieve the required DRE (99.9999percent for dioxin-containing wastesand 99.99 percent for all other wastes)for specific organic compoundsidentified in the hazardous waste feed.

As a result of the nonsteady-stateboiler testing discussed above, EPAbelieves that boilers operated under thespecial operating requirementsdiscussed below will maintain a hot,stable, primarily fossil fuel flameconducive to maintaining highcombustion, efficiency, and resulting inmaximum destruction of organicconstituents in the hazardous wastefuel. EPA believes that these boilers willachieve at least a 99.99 percent DRE oforganic constituents in the waste, and,therefore, a trial burn to demonstrateDRE is not necessary. Thus, EPA isproposing to waive automatically therequirement to conduct a trial burn todemonstrate DRE for boilers operatedunder the special operatingrequirements.5 5

Although the steady-state boiler tests'indicate that boilers operating outside ofthe envelope of the special operatingrequirements identified below can alsobe operated to achieve maximumcombustion efficiency and at least 99.99percent DRE, the less the boiler operatesas a primarily fossil fuel burner thegreater the uncertainty that a hot, stable,and efficient flame can be maintainedcontinuously. Thus, case-by-case trialburns would be required for thoseboilers (and all industrial furnaces) todetermine that set of operatingconditions necessary to ensure 99.99percent DRE.

The special operating requirementsrequisite to an automatic waiver of atrial burn to demonstrate DRE requirethat: (1) The boiler must burn at least 50percent of the fossil fuels oil, gas, or

3s Emissions testing for boilers operating underthe special operating requirements would beavoided entirely if the hazardous waste meets theproposed specification levels for certain'metals andchlorine, as discussed in Sections III and IV of PartThree of the preamble. We note that even whenemissions testing would not be required undertoday's proposed rule, a permit under the normalpermitting procedures (e.g., Part A and Part B permitapplications, opportunity for public hearings) wouldstill be required. See Section I.A.Z of Part Four ofthe preamble for an explanation.

coal; (2) the boiler must be operated at aload of at least 25 percent of its ratedcapacity; (3) the hazardous waste fuelmust have a heating value of at least8,000 Btu/lb; and (4) the hazardouswaste fuel must be fired with anatomization firing system. In addition tothese special conditions for the waiverof a trial burn, these boilers, like otherboilers and all industrial furnaces,would be subject to the carbonmonoxide flue gas limits (implementedby continuous monitoring of CO andoxygen) discussed above, and could notburn hazardous waste during boilerstart-up or shut-down operations. Thebasis for these requirements isdiscussed below.

1. A minimum of 50 percent of the fuelfired to the boiler must be gas, oil orcoal. Cofiring with fossil fuels (or fuelsderived from fossil fuels) as the primaryfuel is required to ensure a hot, stableflame conducive to destruction oforganic constituents in the waste. Otherfuels (e.g.,'wood waste may not providehot, stable combustion zone conditions.

A minimum fossil fuel firing of 50percent, on a total heat input or volumeinput basis, whichever results in thegreater volume of fossil fuel, would berequired to ensure a hot, stable flame.We are proposing a minimum 50 percentfossil fuel burning requirement becausenearly all of the nonsteady-state boilertests were conducted with hazardouswaste cofired with oil or gas at less thana 50 percent firing rate. We specificallyrequest comments and any relevantsupporting data on whether theproposed 50 percent minimum firing rateis appropriate.

2. Boiler load must be at least 25percent. We are proposing to limit boilerload when burning hazardous waste fuelto 25 percent of the boiler's rated heatinput capacity because the combustionflame can be cooler and less stable atvery low load factors. At low loads,higher excess air rates are used toimprove fuel/air mixing. The increasedexcess air rates, however, can also coolthe flame zone and even make the flameunstable (e.g., as a candle flame flickersin a breeze. These conditions can resultin reduced combustion efficiency anddestruction of organic constituents inthe waste. Finally, EPA's nonsteady-state boiler tests were conducted atboiler loads of greater than 25 percent.

We specifically request comment andsupporting documentation on whetherthe minimum 25 percent limit on boilerload is appropriate,

3. The hazardous waste fuel, as fired,must have o heating value of at least

17000



Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 87 / Wednesday,, 'May 6, 1987 / Proposed Rules

8,000 Btu/lb. We are proposing theminimum heating value of 8,000 Btu/lbbecause: (1) It represents the lowerrange of heating values of fossil fuels; (2)hazardous waste with a lower heatingvalue is not generally burned inboilers 39; and (3) few boilers burninghazardous waste with a lower heatingvalue have been field-tested todetermine if they can achieve 99.99percent DRE and low CO emissions.

This heating value limit is imposed onthe waste on an as-fired basis. 40 Thus,hazardous waste with low heating valuemay be mixed with other wastes or fuelsto meet the 8,000 Btu/lb limit for themixture. We are allowing mixing to meetthis heating value limit even thoughheretofore mixing was not allowed toincrease heating value to avoid shamrecycling because our concern here ishow the material will burn in aregulated and controlled device. Ourconcern with heating value previouslyhas been to prevent the sham recyclingof wastes with de minimis heating valueby burning in unregulated boilers andindustrial furnaces to avoid the cost ofincineration.

Although our survey data 4' anddiscussions with industryrepresentatives 4 2 indicate thathazardous waste fuels are typicallycofired through separate firing nozzlesrather than blended with fossil fuels(except when burned in de minimisquantities), some hazardous waste fuelsmay be blended with fuel oil so that theblend is the boiler's sole fuel. In thosecases where hazardous waste with aheating value of less than 8,000 Btu/lb isblended with fuel oil or other fossil fueland where the blend is the boiler's solefuel, the owner or operator must showby calculation that, after considering thequantity of fossil fuel required to raisethe heating value of the waste/fuelmixture to 8,000 Btu/lb, the remainingvolume of fossil fuel provides a

30 As discussed in Section II of Part Two of thepreamble. EPA has heretofore considered theburning of hazardous waste with an as-generatedheating value of less than 5,000-80o Btu/lb inboilers or industrial furnaces to be sham recyclingsubject to regulation as incineration.

40 We are aware that hazardous waste with aheating value less than 8.000 Btu/hr is sometimescofired in the same burner (i.e., firing nozzle) asfossil fuel. Although the waste is not physicallyblended before firing, the waste is blended with thefossil (or other) fuel in the flame envelope from theburner. We specifically request comment onwhether such mixing with high heating value fuelsafter firing meets the objectives of the minimumwaste heating value requirement, and how anallowance for such mixing could be struciured inimplementable and enforceable regulatory language.

41 WESTAT. Final Report for the Survey ofWaste as Fuel: Track / November 1985.

42 Keystone Center Workshop, February 11. 1985:Meetings with the Council of Industrial BoilerOwners on December 5, 1985. and October 9, 1980.

minimum of 50 percent of the boiler'sheat input (or volume input whicheverresults in the greater volume input). Thiswill ensure that the boiler meets boththe waste heating value specialcondition and the fossil fuel firingspecial condition. Thus, this prevents asituation, albeit remote, where a 45/55percent, waste/fossil fuel blend is firedas the sole fuel where the blend hasheating value of just greater thin 8,000Btu/Ib because of the very low heatingvalue of the waste. We want to precludethis situation because such a lowheating value mixture may not burn withthe hot, stable flame that the fossil fuelfiring condition is intended to provide.

We specifically request comment onwhether the proposed minimum 8,000Btu/lb heating value is appropriate.

4. The hazardous waste fuel must befired with an Atomization firing system.Only liquid wastes fired with an air or*steam atomizer, a mechanical atomizer,or a rotary cup atomizer are eligible forthe automatic trial burn waiver.Hazardous wastes that are solids, orliquids fired with a lance (i.e.,essentially a pipe that fires a stream ofliquid rather than small droplets into thecombustion zone) are not eligible.

An organic compound must bevaporized and mixed with air beforecombustion can occur. The quicker thewaste and its constituents are vaporizedand the more completely the volatilizedcompounds are mixed with air, the morerapid and efficient the combustion anddestruction of organic constituents.Firing systems that atomize liquidwastes to form small droplets increasethe rate of vaporization by providing alarger surface area per volume of wasteto absorb heat from the flame.

We are proposing to allow the use ofvirtually all atomization systemscommonly used to fire hazardous waste.We are, however, for some types ofatomizers, proposing to restrict theviscosity and maximum size of solids forthe as-fired hazardous waste to ensurethat the appropriate droplet size isachieved 43 and to minimize plugging ofthe firing nozzle. The acceptableatomization systems and restrictions onwaste viscosity and maximum size ofsolids are proposed as follows:

43 The maximum viscosity is limited to ensurethat resulting droplets will not be too large foroptimum volatilization. Minimum viscosity is alsolimited to ensure that the droplet size is not toosmall-to ensure that a "fog" is not formed whichcould slow the rate of volatilization and, thus,combustion by reducing the radiant heat absorptionof the droplets within the "fog."

TABLE 1.-VISCOSTY AND PARTICLESIZE LIMITS FOR ATOMIZATION SYS-TEMS

'Maxi-Atomization Waste mum

viscosity limits size ofsystems (SSUI solids(mesh)

High pressure air 150 to 5,000 ...... 200or steamatomization(>30 psig).

Low pressure air 200 to 1,500 ...... 200atomization.

Mechanical <150 .................. 200atomization.

Rotary cup 175 to 300 ......... 100atomization.

I SSU: Seconds, Saybolt Universal.

a. Air or steam atomization. Air orsteam atomization systems use air'orsteam to break up the fuel into smalldroplets. Under ordinary operations,high pressure steam or air provided at 30to 150 psig produces much smallerdroplets than other atomization systems.Because of the cost of providing highpressure air and where steam is notreadily available, low pressure (1-5psig) burners are sometimes used. Lowpressure air atomization burners cannoteffectively handle the wide range ofviscosities that the high pressuresystems can handle.

b. Mechanical atomization.Mechanical atomizers break up the fuelinto small droplets by forcing it througha small, fixed orifice. A strong cyclonicor whirling velocity is imparted to thefuel before it is released through theorifice. Combustion air is providedaround the periphery of the conicalspray of fuel. The combination ofcombustion air introduced tangentiallyinto the burner and the action of theswirling fuel produces effectiveatomization.

The size of the droplets produced bymechanical atomization is a functionprincipally of the fuel viscosity and thefuel pressure at the atomizing nozzle.Because of the dependence of thedroplet size on viscosity, mechanicalatomizers are not applicable aboveviscosities of about 150 SSU. Thepressure required to produce a dropletsize conducive to optimum combustionefficiency depends on the volatility ofthe fuel. Highly volatile materials canvolatilize rapidly even from largerdroplets and, thus, can be fired atpressures of 75 to 150 psig. Less volatilefuels may require an atomizationpressure of about 1,000 psig to form

17001



Federal Register / Vol. 52, NO. 87 / Wednesday, May 6, 1987 / Proposed Rules

droplets small enough to rapidlyvolatilize.

Given that fuel pressure is animportant factor in determining dropletsize, we believe it would be prudent toplace requirements on minimum fuelpressure.44 Optimum fuel pressure toproduce an optimum droplet size,however, is a function of fuel volatilityand fuel/air mixing. Thus, it is notpracticable to propose specific limits onminimum fuel pressure. Rather, we areproposing that the boiler owner oroperator be required to maintain fuelpressure within the atomization systemdesign range considering the viscosityand volatility of the waste fuel, the fuel/air mixing system, and other appropriateparameters. Although this approachwould entrust the atomization systemmanufacturer or designer (e.g., ifdesigned and fabricated on-site) withdetermining an acceptable fuel pressureconsidering the specifics of the situation,we believe it is an acceptable approach.If fuel pressure is not maintained atappropriate levels to ensure smalldroplet size and optimum combustionefficiency or, if for any other reason theboiler does not achieve maximumcombustion efficiency, the boiler willnot be able to meet the combustionefficiency performance standard-theCO flue gas limits discussed above.45

Finally, to minimize erosion andplugging of the firing nozzle, we areproposing to limit the maximum particlesize of solids in the as-fired waste to 200mesh.

c. Rotary cup atomization. The rotarycup atomizer uses centrifugal force tobreak up the fuel into droplets. Itconsists of an open cup mounted on ahollow shaft. The fuel is pumped at lowpressure through the hollow shaft to thecup which is rotating at several

41 Mechanical atomizers are susceptible toerosion of the orifices in the firing nozzle. Erosioncan increase the size of the orifice resulting indecreased fuel pressure and increased droplet size,Limits on minimum fuel pressure, thus, wouldensure that droplet size remains optimized during.the course of operations by either increasing fuelpressure as the nozzle erodes and, more likely,replacing an eroded firing nozzle.

4r As a matter of fact, it could be argued that anyrequirements other than the combustion efficiencyperformance standard (i.e., the CO limits) areunnecessary given that DRE is maximized andemission of incompletely burned organics aregenerally minimized at high combustion efficiency.EPA is proposing additional controls because webelieve it is prudent to be conservative given thattrial bums are automatically waived for boilersmeeting these conditions and that the Agency hasnever before used flue gas CO as the sole test ofcombustion efficiency and adequacy of destructionof organic constituents in a Waste. Further, thespecial conditions do not pose a significant burdenon the regulated community, in that Industryrepresentatives have indicated that they agree thatlimiting CO to ensure high combustion efficiency isreasonable.

thousand revolutions per minute. A thinfilm of the fuel is centrifugally torn fromthe tip of the cup. As centrifugal forcedrives the fuel off the cup, combustionair is admitted in a rotation counter tothe direction of the cup. This countermotion of the air breaks up the conicalsheets of fuel into droplets and providesturbulence for mixing the droplets withair.

Rotary cup atomizers are typicallyused on smaller boilers (e.g., less than 30MM Btu/hr heat input) because themaximum capacity of the largest unit is1,400 pounds of fuel per hour. Inaddition, rotary cup atomizers are notoften installed on new boilers because itis difficult to achieve optimum fuel/airmixing over a wide range of fuel flowrates. Rotary cup atomizers are usedbecause they are relatively inexpensive,they can handle fuels with viscositiesranging from 170 to 300 SSU, and theyare relatively insensitive to solidimpurities in the fuel and can handlewastes with solids that can pass througha 100 mesh screen.

Droplet size is related primarily to theviscosity and flow rate of the waste androtational speed of the cup. Resultingcombustion efficiency is related tovolatility of the waste and fuel/airmixing. Although it is impracticable tocontrol these variables in a regulatorycontext, manufacturers and boilerowners and operators have ampleexperience with rotary cup atomizers todesign units that achieve efficientcombustion. Thus, we are proposing torequire that owners and operatorsdemonstrate that the as-fired waste hasa viscosity and volatility within thedesign parameters of the firing systemand limit waste flow rates consistentwith the design parameters of the firingsystem. As discussed above, relative tomechanical atomization systems, if, infact, the device does not produce dropletsizes and fuel/air ratios conducive tomaintaining high combustion efficiency,the boiler will not be able to meet thecombustion efficiency performancestandard implemented by limiting fluegas CO levels.

D. Start-Up and Shut-Down OperationsCombustion devices do not burn fuels

efficiently during start-up or shut-downoperations, as evidenced by smokeemissions and high flue gas CO levels.Thus, we are proposing to prohibit theburning of hazardous waste fuels atthese times. 46 (We note that EPA's

40 Except that small quantity burners may burnhazardous waste during start-up and shut-downbecause. (1) they burn extremely small quantities ofwaste (i.e.. less than 1 percent of fuel requirements)and, thus, the risk posed by PIC emissions resulting

incinerator regulations at 40 CFR 264and 40 CFR 265 also prohibit the burningof hazardous waste during start-up andshut down operations.) Boilers operatedunder the special conditions for theautomatic waiver of a trial burn as wellas all other boilers and all industrialfurnaces would be subject to thisprohibition.

We are proposing to allow hazardouswaste firing once the boiler reachessteady-state combustion conditions andis achieving maximum combustionefficiency. We believe the requirementsproposed for when a boiler may resumehazardous waste firing after a requiredwaste shutoff because of a COexceedance should also apply here. SeeSection IIL.B.5.d of this part of thepreamble. Thus, hazardous waste firingcould begin after start-up once theoperator demonstrates that the boiler isoperating without exceeding a time-weighted average CO level of 100 ppmfor either 10 minutes or 60 minutes.

With respect to shut-down operations,boilers operated under the specialconditions for the automatic waiver ofthe trial burn could not burn hazardouswaste when boiler load is less than 25percent of the boiler's rated heat inputcapacity. Shut-down conditions forboilers conducting trial burns would bedetermined individually. Thus, thoseboilers would be allowed to firehazardous waste fuel at loads of lessthan 25 percent if they demonstrateduring the trial burn that they can meetthe DRE performance standard and theCO limits when operating at low loads.

E. Waiver of Trial Burn and CO Limitsfor Low Risk Waste

A number of hazardous wastes maypose a risk of 10 -6 or less to humanhealth even if burned under poorcombustion conditions-wastescontaining only relatively low toxicityorganic compounds like toluene,chloromethane, phthalates, benzene,methylene chloride, formaldehyde,trichloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,trichlorophenol, or vinylchloride, andwastes containing relatively moderatetoxicity organic compounds burned atlow firing rates. In either case, suchwastes may pose insignificant healthrisk absent the organic emissionscontrols and, thus, should be exemptfrom those controls.

To address this issue, EPA isproposing a site-specific, risk-based

from burning the hazardous waste would berelatively small compared to the risk posed by PICemissions resulting from the primary fuel; and (2) aprohibition on such burning would be impracticalfor small quantity burners given that they typicallymix their hazardous waste with their primary fuel.

17M0




waiver of the destruction and removalefficiency (DRE) standard, the trial burn,and the flue gas CO limits. Under thewaiver, an owner or operator mustdevelop a reasonable, worst-caseestimate of emissions of organiccompounds and use dispersion modelingto predict maximum annual averageground level concentrations. Proceduresfor conducting the risk assessment willbe provided in a guidance manual forpermit writers entitled "Guidelines fofPermit Writers: Permitting HazardousWaste Combustion Facilities Using RiskAssessment." That guidance manual isreferred to as the Risk AssessmentGuideline or RAG. Those procedures arediscussed below. For thresholdcompounds, the predictedconcentrations must be compared toreference air concentrations identified inthe RAG. For carcinogenic compounds,the predicted concentrations must beused to estimate the increased riskresulting from a lifetime exposure to themaximum annual average ground levelconcentration. The incremental riskcannot exceed an aggregate risk to theMEI from all carcinogenic compounds of10- . Risk-specific doses (RSDs)corresponding to a 10- 5 risk areprovided in Appendix B to this preambleand will be included in the RAG.

To be eligible for the waiver, EPAmust have identified in the RAG either areference air concentration (RAC) (forthreshold compounds) or a risk-specificdoses (RSD) (for carcinogeniccompounds) for every organic compoundlisted in Appendix VIII of 40 CFR Part261 that is a constituent of the waste.Clearly, without adequate health effectsdata for a compound, a risk assessmentcannot be conducted. Unfortunately,EPA currently has data adequate forestablishing RACs and RSDs for onlyabout 150 of the over 400 compounds onAppendix VIII. A number of wastesshould nonetheless be eligible for thewaiver because health effects data areavailable for many of the more commonconstituents. As additional data becomeavailable and the Agency establishesRACs or RSDs for additional compounds(or changes RACs or RSDs alreadyestablished), the RAG will be revised toincorporate the information. Given thatthe RAG is incorporated by reference intoday's proposed rule, any revisions willbe noticed in the Federal Register asrequired by I 270.6(b).

The requirements for estimatingemissions, dispersion modeling, andevaluating health effects are discussedbelow. These requirements will bediscussed in detail in the RAG.

1. Estimating emissions. To estimatereasonable, worst-case emissions ofcombined constituents in the waste, theowner or operator must: (1) Identifyevery Appendix VIII organic constituentthat could reasonably be expected to befound in the waste; (21 assume areasonable, worst-case DRE (destructionand removal efficiency) for eachconstituent of 99%; and (3) assume areasonable, worst-case emission rate ofPICs (products of incompletecombustion) using a PICIPOHCemissions ratio of 5 to 1 (i.e., 5 grams ofPICs are emitted per gram of unburnedPOHC at 99% DRE). For purposes of thiswaiver, a POHC is any Appendix VIIIconstituent found in the waste atdetectable levels using analyticalprocedures specified by "Test Methodsfor Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods", EPA PublicationSW-846 (See § 260.11).

A DRE of 99% is considered veryconservative given that we nevermeasured a DRE of less than 99.9%during the nonsteady-state testing ofthree boilers that were intentionallyoperated during upset conditions asevidenced by high CO and smokeemissions. A DRE of just less than 99.9%(but greater than 99%) was recordedduring one of the 11 other steady-stateboiler tests. That situation, however, isconsidered both atypical and suspectbecause: (1) the boiler burned wastewood mixed with creosote sludge on agrate; and (2) the DRE calculation issuspect because there is reason tobelieve that some POHC may have beena constituent of the waste wood (whichwas not analyzed) as well as the sludge.

A PIC to POHC ratio of 5 also appearsto be conservative given that the ratiowas generally 0.5 to 5. Although higherratios were recorded, there is reason todoubt many of the higher values. Seediscussion in Section III.B.5.

2. Dispersion modeling. Dispersionmodeling of emissions is to beconducted in conformance with"Guideline on Air Quality Models(Revised)," EPA Publication Number450/2-7B-027R, July 1986. The guidelineis available from the National TechnicalInformation Service, Springfield,Virginia (Order No. PB 86-245248). 4

Although the guideline is not a"cookbook" approach to conducting

47 EPA specifically requests comments onwhether the Guideline models are appropriate forpredicting dispersion of organic compounds, metals,and HCI emitted from boiler and industrial furnacestacks to establish the national standards proposedtoday and to conduct case-by-case dispersionmodeling to develop alternate, site-specificstandards.

dispersion modeling, EPA, the States,and the regulated community have usedthe guideline for a number of years toselect dispersion models to determinecompliance with a number of Clean AirAct standards (e.g., particulate and leadNational Ambient Air QualityStandards, regulations for thePrevention of Significant Deterioration(PSD)). Owners and operators seeking awaiver under this provision must submita dispersion modeling plan with Part Bof their permit application. The Directorwill determine if the proposed plan is inconformance with the Guideline andmay require alternative orsupplementary modeling.

Owners and operators of interimstatus facilities seeking a waiver underthis provision, however, must submitwith Part B of their permit applicationthe results of their dispersion modeling.Further, the Part B application must besubmitted six months after promulgationof the final rule (which would be sixmonths before the effective date of theflue gas CO limits for interim statusfacilities). In effect, submission of Part Bof the permit application seeking thiswaiver is required in lieu of compliancewith the CO limits. The schedule forsubmission of the Part B with the resultsof dispersion modeling based on theabove schedule will allow the Directorsix months to review the application foradequacy and reasonableness prior tothe CO monitoring requirements cominginto effect. This schedule is intended toassure that only those facilities that arequalified for the waiver will seek it andto discern those facilities merely tryingto avoid CO monitoring requirements.

3. Evaluation of health effects. Forcompounds associated withnoncarcinogenic health risks, thepredicted ground level concentrationmust be less than the RACs identified inthe RAG. If the RAG identifies RACs forboth short-term and annual exposures(e.g., HCI), predicted ground levelconcentrations must be lower thaneither RAC.

For carcinogenic compounds, thepredicted maximum annual averageground level concentration and the risk-specific doses (RSDs) provided by theRAG must be used to estimate theincreased lifetime risk from eachcarcinogenic organic constituent in thewaste. In addition, a reasonable, worst-case estimate of risk posed by PICs mustbe developed by assuming all PICs arecarcinogens with a unit risk of 6.9X10 -6

17003



Federal Register / Vol. 52, No., 87 / Wednesday, May 6, 1987 / Proposed Rules

This corresponds to a risk-specific doseof 1 g/m s at a 1 X10 - 5 level of risk.That level for the PIC unit riskrepresents the weighted average unitrisk of all chlorinated PICs identifiedduring those nonsteady-state field tests

where the boilers were intentionallyoperated under upset conditions.4 8

Given that EPA policy considers therisk from carcinogens to be additive, therisk from all the carcinogenic POHCsmust be summed along with the cancerrisk from PICs. The risks fromcarcinogenic organic emissions wouldnot be considered significant if theaggregate risk did not exceed 1X 10- 5

(i.e., 1 in 100,000). This means that riskson the order of 10 - 6 would be allowed.EPA believes that this level of risk isreasonable for this purpose given theconservatism of the analysis and thecomparable risk likely to be posed byburning only fossil fuels.4 9 / 0IV. Proposed Controls for Emissions ofToxic MetalsA. Hazard Posed by Combustion ofMetal-Bearing Wastes

In Appendix VIII of 40 CFR Part 261,the Agency has identified 12 metals that,if present in a solid waste, might be thebasis for determining that the waste is alisted hazardous waste: antimony,arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium,chromium, lead, mercury, nickel,selenium, silver, and thallium. Five ofthese metals (or their compounds) areknown or suspected humancarcinogens--arsenic, beryllium,cadmium, chromium, and nickel.

Hazardous wastes used as fuel inboilers and industrial furnaces can havehigh metal levels relative to those foundin No. 6 fuel oil as shown in the tablebelow. Metal-bearing wastes typicallyburned as fuel (usually in industrialfurnaces) include spent nonhalogenateddegreasing solvents used for'metalscleaning and spent halogenateddegreasing solvents mixed with spentoils or other high heating value organicliquid wastes. Metals emissions fromburning these wastes are not currentlycontrolled for boilers and the types ofindustrial furnaces that burn hazardouswastes and can result in increasedlifetime cancer risks of 1 X10 - 4 (i.e., 1 in10.000).

48 Engineering-Science, Background Document forthe Development of Regulations to Control theBurning of Hazardous Wastes in Boilers andIndustrial Furnoces. Volume lI, February 1987.

4150 Radian Corporation, Summary of TraceEmissions from and Recommendations of RiskAssessment Methodologies for Coal and OilComhustion Sources, July 1988.

TABLE 2.-COMPARISON OF METALSLEVELS IN HAZARDOUS WASTEFUELS AND No. 6 FUEL OIL

Fuel oil (ppm) Hazardouswaste fuel

Metal Mean Worst 50th 90thper- per-

centile centile

Arsenic ..... 0.36 5 <0.5 18Cadmium.. 1.2 2 <0.5 10Chromi-

um ......... 0.4 10 <5.0 300Lead ......... 3.5 10 8 572Beryllium.. 0.08 0.38 ...... .............Nickel ....... 24 73 <2 25Barium ...... 1.3 3.2 <5 251Mercury .... 0.006 10 <0.05 < 1.0

Source: Engineering-Science, BackgroundDocument for the Development of Regulationsto Control the Burning of Hazardous Wastesin Boilers and Industrial Furnaces, Volume III,February 1987. ,

Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPAhas established emission standards forberyllium and mercury for certaincategories of sources (40 CFR Part 61),and has recently promulgated standards(for particular emissions) to controlarsenic emissions from certaincategories of sources (51 FR 27956(August 4,1986)). These emissionstandards were developed consideringthe quantities and types of metalemissions, current control practices, therisks posed by current practices, and theeconomic impacts on the industry ofreducing emissions. Therefore, theseemissions standards are not necessarilyprotective when applied to boilers orindustrial furnaces burning hazardouswaste fuel.

In addition to these metals emissionsstandards under the CAA, EPA hasestablished National Ambient AirQuality Standards (NAAQS) for leadand particulates. These ambientstandards are implemented by theStates under the State Implementation

Plan (SIP) program, and control majorsources of lead and particulateemissions. Lead emission standardshave not been established under theSIPs for any boilers and the EPA isunaware of any lead standard forindustrial furnaces that burn hazardouswaste fuel.

Particulate emission standards,however, established under the SIPs inconformance with the particulateNAAQS, or by EPA as New SourcePerformance Standards (NSPS), doapply to some boilers and virtually allindustrial furnaces burning hazardouswaste. The particulate standards limitmetals emissions generally to the extentstate-of-the-art particulate controltechnology will allow-high efficiencyelectrostatic precipitators (ESPs) orfabric filters are usually required tomeet the standards. These particulatestandards may not, however, adequatelycontrol metals emissions from burninghazardous waste fuels in boilers andindustrial furnaces for a number ofreasons: (1) the standards do not applyto gas and oil-fired boilers thatrepresent a large number of hazardouswaste fuel burners; (2) smaller coal-firedboilers are not subject to NSPSstandards and may not be requiredunder the SiPs to be equipped with ESPsor fabric filters; (3) large volumes ofhazardous waste fuel are burned bylight-weight aggregate kilns that areequipped with low pressure wetscrubbers that may not be highlyefficient at collecting particules in the<1 micron range, the size rangecontaining the bulk of the metals; and(4) the risks posed by metals emissionsfrom these boilers and industrialfurnaces that are equipped with ESPs,fabric filters, and wet scrubbers canincrease substantially when hazardouswaste fuel is burned given that thelevels of some metals, particularlychromium and lead, can be much higherin hazardous waste than in coal asshown in the table below:

Bituminous coal Hazardous(ppm) waste fuel

Metal Aver- Range 50th 90thage perper-

centile centile

Arsenic ........................................ 20.3 0.02-357 <0.5 18Cadmium ................................................................................ 0.91" 0.02-100 <0.5 10Chromium .............................................................................. 20.5 0.5-70 <5.0 300Lead ..................................................................................... NA 0.7-220 8 572Nickel .................................................................................... 16.9 1.5-7300 <2 25Barium .................................................................................. NA NA < 5 251Mercury ........ ....................................................................... 0.21 <0.01-3.3 <0.05 < 1.0

17004



Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 87 / Wednesday,'May 6, 1987 / Proposed Rules

Sources: Engineering-Science, Background Document for the Development of Regulations toControl the Burning of Hazardous Wastes in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces, Volume Ill,February 1987; Radian Corporation, Summay of Trace Emissions and Recommendations ofRisk Assessment Methodologies for Coal and Oil Combustion Sources, July 1986.

NA= Not available.

B. Basis for the Metals Standards

1. Overview. EPA is proposing tocontrol emissions of particular metalsfound to pose a significant health hazardby establishing a four-tiered regulation.Each tier is a standard that is protectiveon its own-a demonstration ofcompliance with any tier is sufficient.Tiers I-Il are risk-based nationalstandards that are back-calculated froma reference air concentration for leadand the 10 - 1 risk-specific dose forarsenic, cadmium, and chromium, usingdispersion factors (i.e., pjg/m 3 per g/s ofemission) for reasonable, worst-casefacilities. Tier I is a specificationestablishing maximum allowable metalslevels for the hazardous waste or thehazardous waste as-fired (i.e., afterblending). Tier I provides limits on thefeed rate of metals to the device takinginto account metals levels in thehazardous waste, other fuel, andindustrial furnace feedstocks. Tier Illprovides emission limits for individualmetals expressed as lb of metal permillion Btu of heat input to the device.The Tier I and II limits are identical tothe Tier III limits, but they are appliedsomewhat differently. The Tier Ispecification levels are expressed as lbof metal per million Btu of waste heatingvalue. The Tier II feed rate limits are

-expressed as lb if metal per million Btuof total heat input to the device.

Given that the Tier I-Ill standards arenational standards based on reasonable,worst-case facilities, in some instancesthey may be more stringent thannecessary to protect human health andthe environment. 5 ' Thus, to add

51 We note. again, that the Tier 1-ill standardsmay not be fully protective in unusual scenarios(e.g.. situations where tip downwash. complextopography, or highly unusual meteorologicalconditions affect ambient levels greater thanconsidered in the reasonable, worst-case scenariosl.We will provide guidance to permit writers toenable them to identify these situations and applyappropriate controls under authority of HSWASection 3005tc). Moreover. given that the Tier I-Illstandards add substantial complexity to an alreadycomplex rule and that the permit writers mustensure in each situation (but particularly in complexterrain situations) that the Tier 1-Ill standards areappropriate (i.e.. that the site being permitted doesnot have highly unusual topographic, meteorologic,or stack release properties (including severe tipdownwash)). EPA specifically requests commentson whether (1) for complex terrain situations, site-specific dispersion modeling should be required inall cases in lieu of the Tier I-Ill standards; and (21site-specific dispersion modeling should be requiredin all cases for all terrain types in lieu of the Tier I-Ill standards.

flexibility to the regulations while stillensuring protection of human health andthe environment, we are proposing asTier IV the use of site-specificdispersion modeling to show that leademissions from the facility will notresult in an exceedance of the leadreference air concentration (RAG), andthat emissions of arsenic, cadmium, andchromium will not result in anincremental lifetime cancer risk greaterthan IX10-1.

2. Identification of metals of concern.The Agency's risk assessment indicatesthat the following metals are likely to befound in hazardous waste fuels at levelsthat could pose adverse health effects:arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and lead.Nickel, if present in its suspected humancarcinogenic forms--nickel carbonyland nickel subsulfide-could also posesignificant health risk. However, webelieve that burning in boilers andindustrial furnaces under the conditionsrequired for compliance with these rules(a highly oxidizing environment) will notprovide the proper conditions (reducingenvironment) to create thesecompounds. Thus, nickel is not beingincluded in these proposed standards(see also 51 FR 34135 (September 25,1986)). The EPA is continuing to studyother nickel compounds with respect tocarcinogenic potency and will proposecontrols for these nickel compounds ifdata indicate that standards arenecessary. EPA specifically requestsemissions data on the presence orabsence of nickel carbonyl and nickelsubsulfide from boilers and industrialfurnaces burning hazardous waste.

The risk assessment used reasonable,worst-case assumptions for emissionrates, dispersion of emissions, exposure,and health effects. From reference airconcentrations (RACs] fornoncarcinogenic metals and 10- 5 risk-specific doses (RSDs) for carcinogenicmetals, we back-calculated emissionrates for several reasonable, worst-casefacilities (a light-weight aggregate kilnfacility, boiler facility, and cement kilnfacility). See Section II for a descriptionof these facilities and our exposureassumptions. We then back-calculatedfurther to identify concentration levelsof concern in the hazardous wasteassuming the devices burned 100%hazardous waste with a heating value of8,000 Btu/lb. The boilers were assumedto have no emissions control equipment,the light-weight aggregate kiln was

assumed to be equipped with a lowpressure wet scrubber, and the cementkiln was assumed to be equipped withan ESP.

Although the Agency does not believethat hazardous wastes are likely tocontain levels of the other metals-antimony, beryllium, mercury, selenium,silver, and thallium-at levels that couldpose adverse health effects, a particularwaste may in fact contain those metalsat levels of concern. To enable thepermit writer to determine if thesemetals may be present at levels thatpose significant risk, facility owners andoperators would be required to providewith Part B of their permit applicationsan analysis for these metals if theycould reasonably be expected to beconstituents of the waste. EPA willprovide guidance to permitting officialsto enable them to conduct riskscreenings to determine if these metalsmay pose a hazard. If so, more detailedemissions and dispersion modeling willbe conducted under authority of theomnibus provision of section 3005(c) ofHSWA. If necessary, appropriatecontrols on those metals will beincluded in the permit.

A number of conservative healtheffects assumptions were used in therisk assessment. These sameassumptions have been used to developthe Tier I-III standards and the Tier IVRACs for noncarcinogens. In addition tothe assumptions discussed in Section I,we made the following assumptions forchromium and lead.

We assumed that chromium is emittedin its most potent carcinogenic form,hexavalent chromium. We believe thisassumption is conservative, butreasonable for the purpose bfdetermining whether chromiumemissions could pose significant risk.

Chromium is likely to be emitted ineither the highly carcinogenic,hexavalent state or in the relativelynontoxic trivalent state. (The dataavailable to EPA at this time areinadequate to classify the trivalentchromium compounds as to theircarcinogenicity.) Although thehexavalent state could be expected toresult from combustion because itrepresents the more oxidized state,some investigators speculate that mostof the chromium is likely to be emittedin the trivalent state given that thehexavalent state is highly reactive andthus likely to be reduced to the trivalentstate. Although preliminaryinvestigations indicate that 99 percent ofchromium emissions from fossil fuel,municipal waste, and sewage sludgecombustion sources may be in thetrivalent state, the7Agency is not now

17005




able to conclude that hexavalentchromium emissions from hazardouswaste combustion facilities alsorepresent only 1% of total chromiumemissions. This is because of thepossibility that hexavalent chromiummay be a constituent of hazardouswaste and may be emitted withoutchanging valence. Until EPA completeson-going studies on the risk posed bychromium emissions from hazardouswaste combustion sources, the Agencyproposes to assume chromium is emittedin the hexavalent state for purposes ofthis rule. Emission controls, however,under Tier III and Tier IV options, whichare based on actual emission testing, areto be based on hexavalent chromium ifthe emissions testing is capable ofreliably determining whether thechromium exists in the hexavalent state.Otherwise, the Tier III and IV standardsshall be applied to the total chromiumemission. (Of course, the Tier I and IIstandards apply to the total chromiumpresent in the waste.)

As additional data become availableon the health effects of chromiumemissions from combustion sources, theAgency will consider what, if any,amendments would be appropriate tothe rule proposed today. The Agencyspecifically requests emissions datadocumenting the presence or absence ofhexavalent chrome from boilers andindustrial furnaces burning hazardouswaste.

To consider the health effects fromlead emissions, we adjusted the leadNational Ambient Air Quality Standard(NAAQS) by a factor of one-tenth toaccount for background ambient levels.Thus, although the lead NAAQS is 1.5

g/m3. the lead RAC for purposes ofthis regulation is 0.15 gg/m 3 .52 (Asdiscussed in Section I1, the RACs for theother threshold compounds were basedon 25 percent of the RfDs to account forother routes of exposure and exposurefrom other sources (e.g., background airlevels).)

Finally, the risk-specific doses (RSDs)for the carcinogens were based on theunit risk estimates developed by EPA'sCancer Assessment Group andassuming an incremental lifetime cancerrisk of 1 x 10-'1.

3. Basis for the standards. Rather thanestablishing risk-based standards, theAgency considered limiting metalsemissions to the levels that could beemitted from burning No. 6 fuel oil.Hazardous waste fuel is often cofiredwith fuel oil in boilers without emission

52 This level represents a quarterly average. Porthe purposes of this regulation, an adjusted annualaverage of 0.094 iig/mO is being used. See footnote17.

control equipment. Virtually allhazardous waste fuels currently burnedare organic liquids (derived frompetroleum) and are typically comprisedof spent organic solvents, distilledbottoms from solvent recovery, and by-products from organic chemicalsmanufacturing. Thus, hazardous wastefuels typically displace fuel oils andthey are stored, pumped, and fired verymuch like fuel oils.

There are a number of problems,however, with this approach. Hazardouswaste is also cofired with, or in lieu of,coal and gas. In particular, mostindustrial furnaces that burn hazardouswaste would otherwise be burningpulverized coal. The question then iswhether the hazardous waste metalcontrols should be based on coal or oil.If it is to be based on coal, we mustaddress the following issues: (1) shouldthe comparison be to the mean, 95thpercentile, or highest levels found incoal; and (2) should the coal burningdevice be assumed to be controlled withan ESP, a wet scrubber, or uncontrolled.

Another problem with basing themetals limits on levels that could beemitted from burning either fuel oil orcoal is that, if 95th percentile or worst-case metals levels in the fuel oil or coalare used, risk levels could besignificant-on the order of 1X10- 4 (i.e.,I in 10,000). (The health risks fromburning oil or coal with mean levels ofmetals, however, would generally notresult in significant health risk evenunder reasonable, worst-casescenarios.)

Because of these problems withbasing metals limits for hazardouswaste on levels resulting from theburning of fuel oil or coal, the Agency isproposing standards that are entirelyrisk-based.

4. Tier I-Tier I standards. The TierI-Tier III standards are nationalstandards back-calculated from a RACfor lead, and from 10- 1 RSDs for arsenic,cadmium and chromium 5 3 usingdispersion factors for reasonable, worst-case facilities. Given that the effects onambient air concentration were differentfor each type of device (e.g., reasonable,worst-case boiler facility, cement kilnfacility, lightweight aggregate kilnfacility), we grouped the various devicesinto categories. See detailed discussionin Section II. There are two groups ofcategories, one for flat terrain and onefor those devices in complex terrain.Each category has its own set of Tier I-III standards. The categories were

53 The Tier I-Ill standards for arsenic, cadmium.and chromium are actually expressed as equationsthat ensure that the aggregate risk to the MEl fromall three metals does not exceed I XiO-

selected based on similar health riskeffects for the devices, i.e., impact onambient air concentrations.

The flat terrain group of Tier I-Illstandards consists of three categories.Category I applies to sulfur recoveryfurnaces, asphalt kilns, halogen acidfurnaces, and blast furnaces. Limits inthis category are based on sulfurrecovery furnaces since, for thiscategory, this device has the greatesteffect on ambient air concentrations.

Category 2 consists of light-weightaggregate kilns, lime kilns, and boilers.In this case, light-weight aggregate kilnsare the basis for the limits for thiscategory.

Category 3 consists of the wet and dryprocess cement kilns. These deviceshave the least effect on ambient airconcentrations based on the ISCLT airdispersion modeling. Dry cement kilnsare the basis for the limits in thiscategory.

The limits for those devices incomplex terrain are more stringent thanif the devices are located in flat terrain.In addition, the categories for complexterrain are different from those for flatterrain in that there are four categoriesfor complex terrain instead of three.

The Tier I-Ill levels for Category I incomplex terrain apply only to blastfurnaces. Emissions from these deviceshave the greatest impact in complexterrain. However, these devices shouldeasily meet the Tier IllI requirements dueto the type of process and air pollutioncontrols required by existing airpollution regulations.

Category 2 for complex terrainconsists only of sulfur recoveryfurnaces. Limits for these devices areabout two times higher than forCategory 1.

Category 3 for complex terrainconsists of the majority of devices. Thiscategory includes asphalt kilns, light-weight aggregate kilns, lime kilns,halogen acid furnaces, and boilers. TheTier 1-Ill limits are based on asphaltkilns since this device has the greatestimpact on annual ambient airconcentrations for this category.

Category 4 for complex terrainconsists of cement kilns. These deviceshave the smallest effect on ground levelconcentrations, as was the case for flatterrain. Limits are based on dry processcement kilns.

All the limitations for Tiers I-llI incomplex and flat terrain are based onone device per site. If there is more thanone device on a site, the limits for thelargest device would have to beapportioned among all devices based onthe thermal capacity of eacl device.However, permit conditions established

17006




under Tier IV would consider all deviceson the site (i.e., by multiple sourcedispersion modeling) in determiningsite-specific standards.

In addition, we note that the proposedTier 1-I1 standards may tend tooverregulate some of the devices in eachcategory. For example, Category 3 forcomplex terrain tends to overregulate alldevices except asphalt kilns. Thisincludes lime kilns, light-weightaggregate kilns, halogen acid furnaces,and boilers. The amount ofoverregulation is not very large, but ifowners of such devices wish, they cancomply with the site-specific, risk-basedTier IV standard which is, in effect, awaiver of the Tier I-Ill standards.

The Tier I standards are metalsspecification levels that apply to thehazardous waste on an as-fired basis(i.e., the levels apply to the wastedirectly or-after any blending with otherwaste or fuel]. The specification levelsare expressed as lb of metal per millionBtu of hazardous waste heating valueand are equivalent to the valuescontained in the Tier III (and Tier II)standards. The Tier I specification levelsare back-calculated from Tier IIIemission limits assuming the deviceburns 100% waste and all metalconstituents are emitted.

The Tier I standards for lead would bea fixed limit (for each category). Seeproposed § 266.34-4(b)(1). The limits forthe carcinogens arsenic, cadmium, andchromium, however, are not fixed, butrather are inter-related. The limits foreach carcinogen depend on the levels ofthe others present. This is because thestandards limit the aggregate (i.e.,summed) risk to the ME1 to I X 10- .Thus, a waste with a high concentrationof one carcinogen must have relativelylow concentrations of the othercarcinogens so that the aggregate riskdoes not exceed the limit.

To demonstrate compliance with theTier I standard, the owner or operatorwould simply analyze the waste. Forlead, the waste would be in complianceif the lead level is no greater than thatspecified for the appropriate devicecategory. For arsenic, cadmium, andchromium, the owner or operator wouldbe required to. use the Tier II equationfor the appropriate category and showthat the equation is satisfied (i.e., thatthe aggregate risk does not exceedIX 10-). The Tier I (and Tier II) limits'are numerically equivalent to the Tier IIIlimits. Only the units are different. SeeAppendix C for example calculations toapply the Tier I (and Tier II) standard.

The Tier II standards are metals feedrate limits expressed as lb of metal permillion Btu of total heat input to thedevice. Feed rate limits would be

established for arsenic, cadmium,chromium, and lead for all categories ofdevices. See proposed § 266.34-4(b)(Z).The feed rate limits are implemented byan equation that computes the feed rateof each metal (in lbs/MM Btu)considering the metals levels and feedrates of other fuels and industrialfurnace feedstocks. Compliance withTier 11 is demonstrated by analysis ofthe hazardous waste, other fuels, andindustrial furnace feedstocks for metals,documentation of feed rates, and ashowing that the total metals feed ratedoes not exceed the Tier III metalsemission limits. (Owners and operatorswould sample nonwaste feed materialsonly for the same metals found in thehazardous waste feed.] Thus, the Tier 11standards are conservative in that it isassumed that all metals in all feedmaterials are emitted.

The Tier Ill standards are emissionlimits expressed as lb of metal permillion Btu of total heat input to thedevice. The emission limits are back-calculated from the lead RAC and the10- 5 RSDs for arsenic. cadmium, andchromium using dispersion factors forthe worst-case facility in each category.Compliance with Tier Ill isdemonstrated by emissions testing.

5. Tier IV standards. The Tier IVstandards require site-specificdispersion modeling that predicts thatmetals emissions will not result in anexceedance of the lead RAC and anaggregate risk (from arsenic, cadmium,and chromium) to the MEl of 1X 10- .The RAC for lead (and othernoncarcinogenic compounds) and theRSDs for the carcinogens will beidentified in the Risk AssessmentGuideline (RAG).54 The RSDs are basedon the unit risk estimates provided byEPA's Cancer Assessment Group and anaggregate increased lifetime risk to anindividual exposed to the maximumannual average ground levelconcentration of I X 10 -5 (I in 100,000).See proposed § 266.34-4(b](4). This isthe same basis on which the Tier 1-Illstandards were developed.

As discussed in Section Il.D,dispersion modeling is to be conductedin conformance with EPA's Guideline onAir Quality Models. In addition, stackheights used to determine dispersionfactors shall not exceed GoodEngineering Practice as defined.in 40CFR Part 51.

EPA specifically requests commentson how many facilities are likely to electto comply with the Tier IV standard (for

44 Risk Assessment Guideline is the short title for"Guideline for Permit Writers: Permitting HazardousWaste Combustion Facilities Using RiskAssessment." (To be developed)

metals or HCI) and, if the Tier IVstandard were not available, thechanges to equipment and operationsthat would be required to comply withthe Tier I III standards.

6. Implementation of the metalscontrols. The Tier I limits would beimplemented by permit conditions thatlimit concentrations of the regulatedmetals in the waste, and waste fuelrates, and that specify waste samplingand analysis procedures. We are

,proposing that the concentration limits(as well as the limits developed underTiers II-IV) represent maximum limitsthat can never be exceeded. Weconsidered whether the limits shouldrepresent average values (e.g., hourly,daily, weekly, monthly, or' even yearlyaverages). An argument could be madethat a yearly average would beappropriate because the health effectsdata used to support the standards arebased on maximum annual averageexposures (except for HCI where a 3-minute maximum exposure drives thehealth risk). We believe, however, thatallowing averaging would complicateoperator recordkeeping and EPAinspection and enforcement activities.We specifically request comment onwhether and how averaging should beallowed for compliance with the metals(and H) standards.

The Tier It standard would beimplemented by permit conditions thatlimit concentrations and feed rates ofthe regulated metals in the waste, fuels,and industrial furnace feedstocks.Permit conditions would also specifysampling and analysis procedures for allfeed materials.

The Tier III standard would beimplemented by emission testing andpermit conditions that: (1) Establishemission limits for each metal (includingcarcinogenic metals); (2) specifyoperating and maintenancerequirements for any emission controlequipment; (3) specify operatingrequirements for the system, asnecessary, that relate to metalsemissions rates (e.g., chlorine content ofthe waste); (4) limit concentrations ofthe regulated metals in the waste andlimit waste feed rates; and (5) specifywaste sampling and analysisprocedures.

C. Impacts of the Metals Standards onthe Regulated Community

Regulatory impacts and an analysis ofthe cost-effectiveness of the proposedrules are discussed in detail in Section11 of Part Six. This section presentsinformation on the ability of owners andoperators to comply with the proposedmetals controls.

17007




Based on conversations with ownersand operators of industrial boilers andour analyses of hazardous waste fuels, itappears that industrial boilers canreadily meet these proposed standardseven though oil and gas fired industrialboilers are not equipped with emissionscontrol devices. Industrial boilerstypically burn waste generated onsiteand the facilities that burn the largestvolumes of wastes are organicchemicals manufacturing plants. Thesefacilities burn relatively large quantitiesof organic liquid by-products thatgenerally do not contain high levels ofmetals.

On the other hand, industrialfurnaces, principally cement and light-weight aggregate kilns, accept hugevolumes (e.g., 5 to 20 million gallonsperyear per facility) of hazardous wastegenerated off-site. These wastes aretypically comprised of spent organicsolvents and organic solvent recoverydistillation bottoms. Many of the metalsof concern to EPA do not interfere withthe production of quality cement clinkeror light-weight aggregate even atconcentrations of several hundred orseveral thousand ppm, as evidenced bywaste fuel specifications developed byindustrial furnace operators. (Industrialfurnace operators frequently obtain theirhazardous waste fuels through a broker,responsible for collecting hazardouswaste from generators and blending thewastes to meet the operator'sspecifications.)

Although industrial furnaces typicallyburn hazardous waste fuels with veryhigh metals levels, they are virtuallyalways equipped with particulate*emissions control devices because of thelarge quantities of particulatesgenerated by processing the feedstocks(e.g., limestone in cement kilns, clay orshale in light-weight aggregate kilns).Not incidentally, these industrialfurnaces are subject to Federal and/orState regulations for particulateemissions. Given that industrialfurnaces arealready equipped withparticulate collection equipment andgiven that these devices can achievesubstantial removal of metals as well(see Table 3), industrial furnaces ingeneral, and cement kilns in particular,are expected to be able to meet theproposed metals standards readily.Cement kilns are equipped withelectrostatic precipitators (ESPs) orfabric filters (FFs) that are expected toremove 98 to 99%-of metals from stackgases.

Most light-weight aggregate kilns maynot be able to burn hazardous wastefuels with high metals levels becausethey are typically equipped with low

pressure wet scrubbers to controlparticulate emissions. Based onconversations with industryrepresentatives, several light-weightaggregate kilns, however, are equippedwith high pressure, relatively efficientventuri scrubbers with estimated metalscollection efficiencies comparable toESPs. Owners and operators would havea number of options if current collection

efficiencies would not be adequate tomeet the standards: (1) increase thepressure drop across the device toincrease its collection efficiency; (2)blend wastes with very high metalslevels with wastes with lower metalslevels; and (3) stop accepting thoseparticular wastes with extremely highmetals levels.

TABLE 3. ESTIMATED METALS COLLECTION EFICIENCES OF VARIOUS CONTROL DEVICES

Venturi SprayESP FF 1 scrubber towerMetal (per- (per-cent) cent) (per- (per-

cent) cent)

Arsenic ........................................................................... 98 99 98 50Cadmium ........ ..... ......... .0 ................. 99 99 98 93Chromium ......................... 98 99 98 93Lead .................................................................. ....................... 98 99 97 50

a Electrostatic precipitator.

b Fabric filter.

Source: Engineering-Science, Background Information Document for the Development olRegulations to Control the Burning of Hazardous Wastes in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces,Volume 111, February 1987.

V. Proposed Controls for Emissions ofHydrogen Chloride

A. Hazard Posed by Combustion ofHighly-Chlorinated Waste

Highly-chlorinated wastes from themanufacturing of organic chemicals andhighly-chlorinated spent solvents andsolvent recovery distillation bottoms areroutinely used as fuels in industrialfurnaces and some specially-designedboilers. Chlorine in hazardous wastefuel produces hydrochloric acid (HCI)upon combustion which can havebeneficial effects on industrial furnaceprocess chemistry 55 or can allow forefficient recovery Of HCI fromcombustion gases from speciallydesigned boilers. 66 Some industrialboiler operators are also investigatingwhether the cofiring of hazardous wastefuels containing on the order of 3%chlorine with oil and natural gas instandard boilers will cause acceleratedcorrosion of boiler parts.

5 Chlorine-bearing materials are sometimescharged to cement kilns to neutralize the highlyalkaline conditions in the kiln. Hazardous wastefuel containing 3 to 5% chlorine has thus been usedfor the dual purpose of providing heat and chlorinefor the neutralization reactions. Hazardous wastefuels with similar chlorine levels have also beenfired in blast furnaces for both their heating valueand the beneficial effect of the chlorine (the chlorineis believed to improve the flow of the blast furnacecharge down through the furnace by minimizingcharge "hangups.")

66 Dow Chemical Company uses modified boilersfor the dual purpose of recovering energy andproducing HCI (by scrubbing combustion gases)from highly-chlorinated process streams (e.g.. 45%chlorine).

The burning of highly-chlorinatedhazardous waste fuel can pose a serioushealth hazard if the resulting HCI is notcontrolled by reacting with industrialfurnace feedstocks, recovered for use asa by-product, or otherwise removed withflue gas cleaning equipment (e.g., wetscrubbers). Risk assessment using thereasonable, worst-case facilitiesdiscussed previously indicates thathazardous waste chlorine levels as lowas 530 ppm could pose exceedances ofthe HCI reference air concentrations(RACs) (where the device burned 100%hazardous waste with a low heatingvalue and all chlorine in the waste wasemitted as HCI). The RAC for annualexposure to HCI is 15 ,g/m 3 and isbased on the threshold of respiratoryeffects. Background levels wereconsidered to be insignificant given thatthere are not many large sources of HCI(as compared to sulfur oxides) and thepollutant generally should not betransported over long distances in thelower atmosphere. The RAC for 3-minute exposures is 150 pg/m . BothRACs will be identified in the RiskAssessment Guideline (RAG).

We note that there is the remotepossibility that a chlorinated waste maynot have sufficient available hydrogen(i.e., from other hydrocarbon compoundsor water vapor) to react with all of thechlorine in the waste. In this case, thereis the potential for emission of freechlorine which has toxic properties.Although this issue could be addressedby the permit writer under the omnibus

17008



Federal Register / Vol.,52, No. 87 / Wednesday, kMay 6, 1987' / Proposed Rules

authority of HSWA section 3005(c), wespecifically request comment on theextent to which this phenomenon mayoccur and whether explicit standards foremissions of free chlorine should beprovided.

B. Basis for the Standards

EPA is proposing to regulate HCIunder the same risk-based regulatorystructure proposed for metals and forthe same reasons. As with the metals,there are two groups of standards; onefor complex terrain, and the other forflat terrain. Each group is broken up intocategories based on the effect ofambient air concentration from eachdevice. The limits for HCI are based onshort term modeling for the 150 lkg/m 3,

3-minute RAC level since short-termexposure rather than annual exposure isthe limiting factor.

The HCI limits in flat terrain consist offour categories. The first categoryconsists of sulfur recovery furnaces andhalogen acid furnaces. Category 2consists of blast furnaces and asphaltplants (limits based on blast furnaces).Category 3 consists of light-weightaggregate kilns, boilers, and lime kilns.The limits for Category 3 are based onlight-weight aggregate kilns since this isthe worst case for this category. Finally,Category 4 consists of the cement kilns.

The HCI limits for complex terrainconsist of three categories. The first isblast furnaces. Category 2 consists ofthe majority of devices, and includessulfur recovery furnaces, light-weightaggregate kilns, asphalt kilns, halogenacid furnaces, and lime kilns. Sulfurrecovery furnaces are the basis of limitsfor this category. Category 3 consists ofthe cement kilns.

There is also a Tier IV standard for alldevices (see proposed 266.34-4(c)(1-4))which allows site-specific dispersionmodeling to demonstrate that HCIemissions do not exceed the RACs.Although the equation for computing theallowable chlorine concentration inhazardous waste under the Tier Istandards is somewhat different fromthe Tier H approach proposed formetals, the principle is the same. Thefeed rate of chlorine from hazardouswaste, other fuels, and industrialfurnace feedstock (for Tiers I and I) isback-calculated from the Tier IIIemission limits.

We note that the Tier IV standardrequires compliance with both themaximum annual average and themaximum 3-minute RACs, whereas theTier 1-Ill standards are based' solely onthe 3-minute RAC. This is because the 3-minute RAC is more stringent in themodeling used to support the Tier I-Illstandards, but cannot be assumed to be

more stringent under the Tier IVstandard that requires site-specificmodeling.

We also note that there are no Tier.or Tier II standards for halogen acidfurnaces since these devices, bydefinition, burn wastes with very highhalogen levels. Halogen acid furnaceswould, therefore, comply with Tier Ill orTier IV standards.

VI. Nontechnical RequirementsIn addition to the technical stack

emission standards discussed above,EPA is also proposing to apply thenontechnical standards applicable toother hazardous waste treatment,storage, and disposal facilities to boilersand industrial furnaces burninghazardous waste. These nontechnicalstandards address the potential hazardsfrom spills, fires, explosives, andunintended egress: require compliancewith the manifest system to completethe cradle to grave tracking system;ensure that hazardous wastes (andhazardous residues) are removed fromthe site upon closure; and ensure thatthe owners and operators are financiallycapable of complying with thestandards.

The nontechnical standards thatwould apply under today's rule toboilers and industrial furnaces burninghazardous waste are identical to thosethat currently apply to hazardous wasteincineration facilities. The Part 264permit standards applicable toincinerators would apply to permittedboilers and industrial furnaces and thePart 265 standards applicable toincinerators would apply to boilers andindustrial furnaces in interim status.Those standards are prescribed inproposed § 26.34-1(c) for permittedfacilities and § 266.35-1(d) for interimstatus facilities.VII. Proposed Exemption of SmallQuantity On-Site Burners

Section 3004(q)(2)(B) of RCRAprovides EPA with explicit authority toexempt from regulation facilities whichburn de minimis quantities of their ownhazardous wastes. The Administrator isto ensure that such waste fuels areburned in devices designed andoperated in a manner sufficient toensure adequate destruction andremoval to protect human health and theenvironment. The Agency has carefullyevaluated the risks posed by smallquantity burning, and concluded that aconditional exemption for small quantityburners should be allowed because anexemption can be structured to exemptfacilities whose practices poseinsignificant risk. The scope of theexemption, rationale for the exemption,

and a brief description of the methodsused to develop eligibility conditions arediscussed below.

A. ScopeBurner eligibility for the exemption

will be determined by two principalfactors: device size and the quantity ofwaste burned per month. The Agency isproposing to set different volume cut-offs for different device sizes. Seeproposed § 266.34-1(b). These volumeswere calculated using a series ofconservative assumptions about devicelocation, waste composition, anddestruction efficiency of organicconstituents. These volumes, if burned,are expected to pose insignificant healthrisks. While the Agency recognizes thatcalculations based on less conservativeassumptions would result in much largervolume estimates, EPA believes that thevariation within burning practicesjustifies the use of the selectedassumptions-especially since eligibleburners will be exempt from all of thepermitting standards otherwiseapplicable to waste-as-fuel activities.The only requirements that would applyto such small quantity burners are thatthey notify EPA within 30 days of finalpromulgation of this rule that they areburning small quantities of hazardouswaste and that they keep records todemonstrate conformance with thequantity and firing rate limits.

With two exceptions discussed below,any device regulated by these standardsburning hazardous waste fuel at a ratelower than the applicable volume cut-offis eligible for the de minimis burnerexemption from permitting standards.This exemption is intended to apply toany boiler, including residential,institutional, commercial, industrial andutility boilers. The exemption alsoapplies to all blast furnaces, asphaltkilns, lime kilns, sulfur recoveryfurnaces, light-weight aggregate kilns,and cement kilns burning hazardouswastes. 7 The Agency has performedconservative evaluations of the potentialrisks posed by these small quantityburners, and has determined that noregulatory controls (other thannotification and recordkeepingrequirements and a limit on themaximum firing rate) are necessary toensure protection of human health andthe environment.

For the most part, the exemptionwould be limited to the types of

rOther industrial furnaces are not eligible forthe exemption because they were not included inthe risk assessment developed to support thisprovision. We specifically request information onthe burning of small quantities of hazardous wasteIn other Industrial furnaces.

17009




situations described in the statutoryprovisions. Thus, only burners who burnhazardous waste fuels they generate on-site would be eligible for theexemption.5" Although wastesgenerated off-site may not pose greaterrisks when burned than those generatedon-site, as a practical matter, burnersaccepting waste from off-site are notlikely to be able to meet the de minimisquantity limits. In addition, facilitieswhich bum de minimis quantities ofhazardous wastes must notify EPA thatthey are burning hazardous wastes andmaintain records of the waste quantitiesburned. Also, in order to ensure thatlarge quantities of wastes are notburned within a short period of time thatcould result in lower destructionefficiencies than assumed in theanalysis (e.g., lower than 99%), exemptburning would be conditioned on a limiton the waste burning rate. Hazardouswastes could not be fired at greater than1 percent of the boiler firing rate at anypoint in time. Thus, the rule wouldrequire that burners keep records todocument that they are not exceedingthe 1 percent firing rate limit.

Boilers and furnaces burninghazardous waste fuels containing orderived from any of the following acutehazardous wastes are not eligible for theexemption: EPA Hazardous Waste Nos.F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, and F027.Given the toxicity of these wastes, EPAdoes not believe it is appropriate toexempt them from regulation.Hazardous waste fuels containing orderived from these acutely hazardouswastes must be burned at a 99.9999percent destruction and removalefficiency (DRE) under today's proposedrules. We cannot expect boilers andfurnaces to achieve that level of DREwhen operating outside of the Agency'sregulatory system.

Finally, there are limits on the numberof sources allowed under this exemptiondue to the limitations of the risk analysisas discussed below. In addition, no morethan one type of device may burn wasteunder this exemption at a given site.

50 Boilers and furnaces that burn their ownhazardous waste fuels as well as hazardous wastefuels generated by small quantity generators andexempt from regulation under 40 CFR 261.5 areeligible for the proposed small quantity burnerexemption because such small quantity generatorhazardous waste fuels are exempt from theseproposed rules.-Those exempt small quantitygenerator hazardous waste fuels must, however, becounted in the small quantity burner volumedetermination because the volume limits are risk-based. When larger volumes of hazardous wastefuels are burned outside of today's proposedcontrols, the risk could be significant, irrespective ofthe source of generation of the waste.

B. Rationale

The Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA)developed in support of this rule 59indicates that a large number of devices,especially boilers, burn very smallquantities of hazardous waste fuel-approximately 25 percent of all burners(250 devices) burn less than 50 gallonsper month. The RIA concludes that itwould not be cost-effective for thesedevices to comply with the proposedcontrols since alternative managementpractices would be less expensive. TheRIA also concludes that the risks posedby these devices are insignificant. Thus,the proposed small quantity exemptionis designed to avoid disturbance of acommon waste recycling practice whichthe Agency recognizes as protective ofhuman health and the environment.

C. Basis for Selecting Quantity Limits

A detailed description of themethodology used to calculate volumecut-offs for the exemption is availablefor public review and comment6 0 Asummary of the methodology ispresented here for the reader'sconvenience.

EPA evaluated the risks posed byemissions of organic compounds, metals,and hydrogen chloride, the parameterscontrolled in the substantive regulations.The analysis demonstrates that the risksposed by organic emissions from waste-as-fuel activities are overwhelminglydominated by the risks posed bycarcinogenic (as opposed tononcarcinogenic) waste constituents.Accordingly, the initial evaluationperformed in support of the de minimisexemption focused exclusively oncarcinogenic risks, on the assumptionthat controls ensuring insignificant risksfrom organic carcinogens will ensureprotection against non-carcinogenicreleases. This assumption wasconfirmed by evaluating the potentialrisks from metals and hydrogen chloridewhich could result when thosequantities of waste indicated by the riskanalysis for organic carcinogens wereburned.

The risks from burning smallquantities of hazardous waste in boilersare determined primarily by thefollowing factors:

o Composition of the waste streambeing burned;

59 Industrial Economics incorporated. RegulatoryAnalysis for Waste as Fuel Technical Standards.October 1986 and addendum. January 1987.0 Versar Inc., Analysis for Calculating a DeMinimis Risk Exemption for Burning SmallQuantities of Wastes in Boilers and IndustrialFurnaces, January 1987.

& Toxicity and concentration ofhazardous constituents in the wastestream;

* Destruction efficiency achieved bythe device;

* Local meteorology, whichdetermines the amount of dispersion ofstack emissions;

* Clustering and size of sources, i.e.,number of boilers at a specific location.

* The type of device in which thewaste is being burned.

The values of these parameters canand do vary widely. Therefore, in orderto perform the risk analysis, the Agencyduplicated a hypothetical situationwhich would be considered areasonable, worst-case scenario. Thismethodology was used to calculate thevolume cutoffs for the various boilersizes which would result in less than a 1in 100,000 risk of cancer to an individualresiding for 70 years at the ground levelpoint of maximum exposure toreasonable, worst-case stack emissions.Separate calculations were made foreach of the device sizes evaluated,resulting in differing quantity limits foreach device size. The rationale for theassumptions used in the risk analysis isdiscussed below.

1. Composition of hazardous wastestream. Composition data on hazardouswaste-derived fuels is scarce.Information gathered by the mailquestionnaire survey and other industrycontacts indicates that most of thematerials burned are organic solventsthat are usually classified as hazardousbased on ignitability plus toxicity. Inaddition, analysis of past tests andongoing studies indicate that the burningof most hazardous wastes may showrisks which are very similar to the risksof burning fossil fuels. The actualconcentrations of carcinogens in wastesburned by 21 facilities during EPA's fieldtesting program for boilers and .industrial furnaces ranged from zero to17 percent with an average ofapproximately 4 percent. For thepurposes of this risk assessment, thewaste streams were assumed to contain50 percent carcinogenic compounds.

2. Toxicity of hazardous constituents.In addition to assuming that the wastestream contained 50 percentcarcinogenic compounds, we assumedthat the carcinogens had a potencyequivalent to a Q* (slope of the doseresponse relationship) of 1. This potencyis comparable to the potency of PCBs,DDT, chlordane, and toxaphene.Further, the assumed potency of thecarcinogenic compounds is 15 timesgreater than the average potency of thecircinogens found in the wastes at the21 field test facilities.

17010




3. Destruction efficiency. The burnerdestruction efficiency determines thequantity of unburned hazardous wasteswhich will be emitted from the stack.Assumed values for boiler and furnaceperformance were selected based upona review of test data generated insupport of this rule and based on theprofessional judgment of.Agency stafffamiliar with the destruction andremoval efficiencies (DRE) typicallyachieved by boilers. It was assumedthat, in the worst-case, boilers andfurnaces would only achieve 99 percentDRE of organic constituents. Thisrepresents a very poorly performingcombustion device. In fact, as explainedpreviously, most boilers and furnacescan be expected to achieve 99.99 percentDRE of organic waste constituents evenwhen operated under less than optimalconditions.

In addition to the incompletecombustion of the organic hazardouswaste constituents {POHCs), there arealso products of incomplete combustion(PICs) present in the emissions fromburning hazardous wastes (and anyother fuel). These PICs can make asignificant contribution with respect tothe risks from a source. A PIC to POHCratio of 5.0 was selected for the riskanalysis based on a review of test datafor the unsteady state tests discussedpreviously. The carcinogenic potencyassumed for PICs is the same as thatassumed.for the incompletely burnedhazardous waste or POHCs (QStar=1.0). This is considered a veryconservative assumption.

4. Clustering and size of sources. Thesize of the sources and the number ofemission points which exist at a locationhave a major impact on ambient airconcentrations of the variousconstituents from stack emissions. TheAgency's mail questionnaire survey ofboilers burning hazardous wastes showsthat more than two-thirds of the boilersare located on sites which have morethan one boiler burning hazardouswastes. Therefore, for the purposes ofthis analysis, a site was assumed tohave two boilers. In addition, for thereasonable, worst-case scenario, it wasassumed that there would be twofacilities adjacent to each other. Finally,to simplify the modeling analysis, theconservative assumption was made thatall four boilers were emitting at a singlepoint. This conservatism was furtherreinforced by the assumption that thesources were simultaneously burninghazardous wastes. Various sizes ofboilers were modeled using typicalphysical characteristics (e.g., stackheight, flue gas rates and temperatures).The descriptions of the devices modeled

are provided in the support documentfor this provision: Versar Inc., Analysisfor Calculating De Minimis RiskExemption for Burning Small Quantitiesof Hazardous Waste in Boilers andIndustrial Furnaces. January 1987. As aresult of this limitation in the riskanalysis, the number of boilers burninghazardous wastes under the smallquantity burner exception is limited totwo per site. The quantity limit for eachwould apply according to its size (i.e.,one boiler could not burn the quantityallocated to both). The EPA requestscomments on whether this limitation isreasonable and, if not, what method ofapportionment should be used for siteswith more than two boilers burninghazardous wastes under this exemption.

For the industrial furnaces a similaranalysis was made to determine theclustering of furnaces at a location. As aresult of this review, it was determinedthat the following worst case clusteringwould be used:

Blast Furnaces-2Asphalt Kilns-1Sulfur Recovery Furnaces-4Light Weight Aggregate Kilns-3Lime Kilns--2Wet Cement Plants-3Dry Cement Plants-3As a result of this analysis, the

number of furnaces burning hazardouswaste under this exemption is limited tothat on the above list. In addition, onlyone type of device may burn hazardouswastes under this exemption. This isbecause the risk analysis supporting theexemption did not take into accountmixed categories or types of devices at asite. As with boilers, the EPA requestscomments on whether this limitationisreasonable and, if not, what method ofapportionment should be used for siteswith more furnaces burning hazardouswastes under this exemption than isallowed on the above list.

5. Dispersion. For purposes of thereasonable, worst-case analysis, EPAassumed that the devices were locatedin areas of complex terrain, and usedappropriate dispersion models (the sameused to develop the Tier I-11 values forcomplex terrain) to evaluate pollutantdispersion. The assumption of complexterrain is generally conservative since itis the situation generally leading to theleast dispersion. t

01 We note that the devices were also modeledassuming they were located in flat terrain. In somecases, the flat terrain modeling resulted in poorerdispersion than the complex terrain modelingbecause of unusual meteorologic or stack tipdownwash conditions. The modeling that resultedin the poorer dispersion was used to establish thesequantity limits.

6. Assumptions regarding metals andchlorine in waste fuels. A similarreasonable, worst case analysis wasperformed to evaluate the potential risksposed by emissions of toxic metals(including carcinogens) and hydrogenchloride from de minimis burners. As aresult, it was determined that, at thevolume cut-offs specified by theexemption, metals emissions caused bycofiring of hazardous wastes containingmetals at the 90th percentile level (seeTable 1) would not pose a significantrisk. The analysis also consideredhydrogen chloride emissions andassumed a chlorine content of 50percent in the hazardous waste fuel. Thechlorine content in actual hazardouswastes seldom exceeds 3 percent:however, the highest chlorine contentmeasured in a hazardous waste fuelfired in a boiler of which EPA is awarewas 43 percent. Predicted ground levelconcentrations of HCI also did notexceed the reference air concentrations.

D. Exemption of Associated Storage

Hazardous waste fuel storagepractices prior to burning vary from siteto site. Many facilities burning relativelylarge quantities of hazardous wastefuels hold the fuels in a storage systemand then pump the waste fuels through adedicated line into the combustion zoneof the boiler. Other facilities mixhazardous waste fuels with other fuels(typically virgin fuel oil) in a storage/mixing tank prior to burning the blendedmaterial. These tanks are not feasiblyemptied of hazardous waste every 90days and so are in most cases ineligiblefor the generator accumulationprovisions in § 262.34.

Under the rule being proposed today,facilities storing unmixed hazardouswaste fuels would be responsible forcomplying with all applicable standardsfor the storage of the hazardous wastefuel. Owners and operators that areeligible for the small quantity burnerexemption and who mix toxic hazardouswaste fuels with other fuels would,however, be exempt from the storagestandards after such mixing. The basisfor this exemption is discussed below.

The Agency is proposing anexemption for storage of such storage/mixing tanks (for small quantityburners) in order for the de minimisexemption in Section 3004(q)(2)(B tohave practical application. Congressevidently envisioned a class of facilitiescapable of burning small amounts ofhazardous wastes safely absentregulation, and viewed such burning asa superior means of managing thesesmall amounts of waste. Furthermore,assuming that de minimis quantity

1701




waste storage is conducted safely, theAgency assumes that Congress alsoenvisioned exemption of the storagesince permitting storage woulddiscourage safe on-site burning just asmuch as regulating the burning itself.

We believe that storage of de minimisamounts of hazardous wastes mixedwith virgin fuels would pose nosignificant incremental risks overstorage of virgin fuels. The monthlyvolumes of hazardous waste fuelcovered by the de minimis exemption,for example, represent less than 0.1percent of the fuel flow rate throughthese tanks. Under these circumstances,we think the statutory exemption canreasonably be read to encompass thislimited class of storage practices aswell.

We note further that the Agency isstudying systematically other situationswhere hazardous waste containingmixtures may not be appropriatelysubject to regulation, and intends toissue comprehensive rules addressingthe issue generically. It appears to usjustifiable to address the question forthe limited class of burning facilities inadvance of other types of situationsbecause Congress has singled out smallquantity burning facilities for exemptionwhere appropriate. We note further thatto the extent these de minimis waste-virgin fuel tanks are undergroundstorage tanks (as defined in section9001(1]), they would be subject toregulation under Subtitle I because theycontain petroleum.VIII. Regulation of CombustionResiduals

Residuals generated by thecombustion of hazardous waste inboilers and individual furnaces includebottom ash, fly ash (collectedparticulates), scrubber water and blastfurnace slag. As discussed below,although most residuals are exempt fromregulation, some are subject toregulation either by virtue of the"derived-from" rule of § 261.3(c)(2) (i.e.,residues generated by the treatment oflisted hazardous waste remainhazardous waste until delisted) orbecause they exhibit a characteristic ofhazardous waste identified in Subpart Cof Part 261.

We are not proposing today to revisethe regulation of combustion residuals.We are, however, proposing aninterpretation of how residuals would be,regulated when generated by industrialfurnaces involving extraction,beneficiation, and processing of oresand minerals (and cement kilns). Thefollowing discussion summarizes thecurrent situation and the basis for theproposed interpretation.

A. Residuals from BoilersResiduals generated primarily by the

combustion of fossil fuels are not RCRAhazardous waste. See § 261.4(b)(4). Asdiscussed at 50 FR 49190 (November 29,1985), the Agency has interpreted thisexclusion to apply to boilers cofiringhazardous waste with fossil fuel asfollows: (1) residuals are exempt if thehazardous waste is cofired with coaland the coal provides at least 50% of theboiler's fuel requirement on a volume orheat input basis, whichever results inthe larger volume of coal; and (2)residuals are not exempt if thehazardous waste is cofired with oil orgas, or with coal where the coalprovides less than 50% of the boiler'sfuel requirements. The Agency hastaken this approach because whenhazardous waste is cofired with largevolumes of coal, any contaminants fromthe hazardous waste would be largelydiluted by coal ash. This may not be thecase with oil or gas combustion givenlow volumes of ash generally producedby combustion of these fuels.

Residuals that are not exempt arehazardous waste if the hazardous wasteburned contains (or is derived from) alisted hazardous waste, or if the residualexhibits a characteristic of hazardouswaste. If the residual is hazardous byvirtue of the "derived-from" rule, anowner or operator can petition theAdministrator under provisions of§ 260.20 to demonstrate that the residualno longer meets the criteria for listingand should be "delisted."

After considering the limited dataavailable on the carryover ofconstituents from the hazardous wasteto the residuals,62 the Agency is notproposing to change the interpretationdiscussed above. The Agency, however,specifically requests data on the organicconstituents of boiler residualsattributable to burning hazardous waste.

B. Residuals from industrial furnacesThe residuals from most industrial

furnaces involved in burning hazardouswaste are not RCRA hazardous waste.Residuals from blast furnaces, primarysmelting furnaces, light-weight aggregatekilns, and lime kilns are exempt underthe exemption provided by § 261.4(b)(7)for solid waste generated by thebeneficiation and processing of ores andminerals. Cement kiln dust waste isexempt under § 261.4(b)(8).

These regulatory provisionsimplement RCRA section

62 Accurex Corp.. Engineering AssessmentReports: Hazardous Waste Cofirinq in IndustrialBoilers August 1984; Accurex Corp.. HazardousWaste Cofiring in Industrial Boilers UnderNonstody Operating Conditions, August 1986.

3001(b)(3)Affii)-(iii). These provisionsexclude from Subtitle C regulationwastes from certain processes, namelyfrom the extraction, beneficiation, andprocessing of ores and minerals, andfrom cement kilns. In evaluating theburning processes that are encompassedby the exclusion, the natural focus ofinquiry is on the materials processed inthe industrial furnace: are they ores orminerals (e.g., limestone, shale)? If not,what are the percentages of othermaterials (i.e., nonores or nonmineralssuch as solid or hazardous wastes)burned, and are they sufficient toindicate that the furnace is essentiallyengaged in a different type of process?Put another way, the ultimate questionis whether the industrial furnace isengaged in a process whose wastes areexcluded from regulation, and thequestion is answered by examining thetypes and proportions of materialsactually being processed.

Under this logic, the Agency viewsthese statutory provisions as applying inthe following ways when an industrialfurnace processing an ore or mineral orgenerating cement kiln dust waste alsoburns a hazardous waste. First, if thedevice is burning the hazardous wastesolely for energy recovery, the Agencyin all cases considers the residues to befrom processing an ore or mineral (or tobe cement kiln dust waste) and henceexcluded. This is because the hazardouswaste fuels are not being processeddirectly, in the sense of contributing anymaterial values to the product beingproduced by the device. Consequently,the device is processing an ore ormineral (or producing cement) and thusgenerating an excluded waste. In thisregard, we note that Congress in section3004(q) indicated specifically that thenew RCRA waste-as-fuel provisions donot affect regulatory determinationsunder section 3001(b)(3). See also 50 FR49190 n. 89 (Nov. 29, 1985) noting thatthese residues remain excluded.

When one of these devices burns ahazardous waste for material recovery,the analysis differs somewhat. This isbecause the wastes are actually beingprocessed. At some point, therefore, thedevice would no longer be considered tobe processing an ore or mineral if thegreater volume of material feed is ahazardous waste (or other secondarymaterial). Thus, if a majority of materialfeed processed in a device is not an oreor mineral (for cement kilns, limestoneor shale), then resulting residues are notdeemed to be from processing an ore ormineral (e.g., a cement kiln dust waste).An example would be a smeltingfurnace which burns secondarymaterials (rather than ore concentrate)

17012




as the majority of its feedstock. In fact,EPA has consistently taken the positionthat wastes from secondary smelting donot qualify for the exclusion. See 50 FR40293 (October 1985).

Finally, we caution that theseprinciples do not apply when a deviceburns wastes to destroy them, or wheredestruction is a dominant purpose ofburning. Such a device would not beperforming the type of process indicatedin section 3001(b)(3), but would really beincinerating wastes. (Cf. existing§ 264.340(a)(2) which states thatindustrial furnaces and boilers burninghazardous wastes to destroy themoperate as incinerators and are subjectto the same standards.) For example, if acement kiln were to burn hazardouswaste fuels in quantities greatly inexcess of those needed to fire the kiln,the device could not be deemed to befunctioning to produce cement but todestroy hazardous waste, and residueswould not be excluded. If a blastfurnace or aggregate kiln were to burnlarge volumes of hazardous waste whichdid not contribute to the production ofiron or aggregate, residues from burningwould not be excluded. Relevant factorsin making the determination include therevenues derived from burning wastes(either solid or hazardous) versusproducing a product, the types andrange of wastes burned in the deviceand what they contribute to the process,and the purpose for which the device isheld out to the public.

The Agency solicits comment on theseinterpretations. If commenters disagreewith any point, they are requested todescribe particular situations that theybelieve the Agency's reading fails toaccommodate. EPA notes as well thatalternative readings of section 3001(b)(3)are possible. One could argue, forexample, that Congress contemplated atemporary exclusion for wastes whosecharacter was determined by theprocessing of an ore or mineral. To theextent an industrial furnace processedwastes along with ores or minerals andthese processed wastes determined thecharacter of the resulting wasteresidues, one thus could maintain thatCongress did not intend to exclude theresidual wastes. The Agency indeed hasexpressed this position with regard towastes from utility boilers cofiring oil orgas and hazardous wastes (50 FR 49190and n. 87-89 (Nov. 29, 1985) citing 1981correspondence between the Director ofthe Office of Solid Waste and the UtilitySolid Waste Activities Group), wherewe reasoned that resulting fly ash wouldreflect the nonfossil fuel componentburned in the boiler. Applied to anindustrial furnace, if furnace residues

exhibited a hazardous wastecharacteristic when processing non-oreor mineral feed, but did not whenprocessing only ores and minerals, thoseresidues could be considered to be non-exempt hazardous wastes. Although thisreading may reflect the literal statutorylanguage less well than the one givenabove, we solicit comment on thispossible approach. Commenterslikewise are requested to describeparticular situations whenever possible.Part Four: Interim Status Standards andPermit Procedures

This part describes the procedures forissuing permits for facilities that operatein conformance with the proposedcontrols discussed in Part Three. Thispart also describes standards thatwould apply to existing facilities untilthey are closed or a permit is issued.L Interim Status Standards

Interim status standards apply toowners and operators of boilers andindustrial furnaces burning hazardouswaste on or before the effective date ofthese standards. Such boilers orindustrial furnaces are referred to asbeing "in existence." A boiler orindustrial furnace is also considered tobe in existence if it is under constructionthat would enable it to burn hazardouswaste on or before the effective date ofthese standards. A facility hascommenced construction if it meets theconditions provided by paragraphs (1)and (2) of the definition of "Existinghazardous waste management (HWM)facility" in 40 CFR 260.10 and 270.2.Those conditions require that all permitsnecessary to begin physical constructionbe obtained, and that either continuousphysical construction be underway orthat the owner or operator be undercontractual obligations for physicalconstruction that cannot be cancelled ormodified without substantial loss. Wealso note that, if the facility already hasother units which have interim status,§ 270.70(c)(2) allows addition of newtreatment processes (e.g., a boilerexisting at a storage facility) wherenecessary to comply with new Federalregulations. Under existing rules,however, such changes shall not amountto reconstruction of the facility. See§ 270.70(e). EPA is proposing to amendthe rules to state that this reconstructionban does not apply to situations wherechanges in interim status are needed tocomply with new Federal rules. EPA,thus, intends that the reconstruction bannot apply where boilers and industrialfurnaces operate at existing interimstatus facilities.

Interim status standards apply toexisting facilities until they are closed

under the provisions of those standardsor until a permit is issued.

EPA is proposing to apply thefollowing standards to boilers andindustrial furnaced burning hazardouswaste during interim status: (1) General(nontechnical) facility standards; (2)operating requirements, including metalsand hydrogen chloride standards andcarbon monoxide limits; (3) monitoringand inspection requirements; (4) wasteanalysis and closure requirements; and(5) prohibition on burning dioxin-containing waste. The basis for theseprovisions is discussed below.

A. General Facility Standards

EPA is proposing to apply the existingnontechnical interim status standardsapplicable to hazardous wasteincinerators and other storage,treatment, and disposal facilities toboilers and industrial furnaces. Thosestandards are necessary to ensure thatgeneral facility operations areconducted in a safe manner bytechnically and financially competentowners and operators. The standardsare codified in Subparts A, B, C, D, E, G,and H of Part 265 and addressnontechnical aspects of safe operationssuch as facility security; inspections;personnel training; emergencyequipment, plans, and procedures; use ofthe manifest system; closure; andfinancial responsibility requirements.The standards in those subpartsrelevant to combustion devices areincorporated by reference in today'sproposed rule in § 266.35-1(d).B. Operating Requirements

EPA is proposing that two substantivestandards apply during interim status:(1) metals and hydrogen chloridecontrols; and (2) flue gas carbonmonoxide limits. The basis for theserequirements is discussed below.

1. Metals and hydrogen chloridestandards. To minimize the effects ofmetals and hydrogen chloride emissionson affected populations, these proposedregulations would require faciliiesunder interim status to meet thestandards set forth in § 266.34-4(3) (b)and (c). The facility may meet any oneof the Tier 1-111 standards. But thefatility must meet the chosen standardwithin 12 months of final promulgationof this rule. (The Agency believes that itis reasonable to allow 12 months forcompliance with the metals andhydrogen chloride (and CO) standardsgiven that significant physicalmodification (e.g., improvements toemissions control devices) may berequired.) In addition, the owner oroperator of a facility may apply for risk-

I703




based standards underTier IV.However, if a permit applicant choosesthis route, he must submit his Part Bapplication along with the riskassessment for his site-specificstandards within 6 months of finalpromulgation of this rule. The approachrequired for the risk assessment isdiscussed elsewhere in today's proposaland will be included in the RiskAssessment Guideline. Site specific airdispersion modeling will be required forthe Tier IV standard as well asemissions testing, where applicable (i.e.,to obtain credit for air pollution controlequipment).

The owner or operator must conductsampling and analysis as necessary and,under Tier IV, emissions testing to showthat he is meeting the metals and HCIstandards, and maintain such records soas to show his compliance with thestandards until a permit is issued.

2. Carbon monoxide limits. To ensurethat boilers and industrial furnacesburning hazardous waste during interimstatus operate at high combustionefficiency, we are proposing to requirecompliance with flue gas carbonmonoxide (CO) limits and to prohibitburning hazardous waste during start-upand shut-down. The rationale and basisfor these requirements has beendiscussed in section II.B of Part Three ofthis preamble, The CO limits applicableto permitted facilities would also applyto interim status facilities within 12months of promulgation of this rule.Thus, continuous monitoring of CO andoxygen flue gas levels would berequired. We believe that limiting COlevels will, in most cases, ensure thatthe device is achieving 99.99 percentdestruction efficiency and is minimizingemissions of incompletely burnedhydrocarbons. A 12-month effective dateis provided to enable the owner andoperator to install and shake-down theCO monitoring/recording equipment.

We are also proposing optionalstandards for boilers that would bepermitted without a trial burn. Thesestandards are discussed in section 1I-Cof Part Three of this preamble andwould be codified in proposed § 266.34--6(b)(4) of the permit standards andproposed § 266.35-3(c) of the interimstatus standards. Not only would boilersoperated under these special conditionsbe permitted without a trial burn todemonstrate conformance with the DREstandard,63 but-permit officials could

"3 No emissions testing would be required if themetals and chlorine waste specification levels orcalculated allowable feed rates were not exceeded.See proposed §§ 266 34-8(c) (2) and 13) and 266.34-6(d) (2) and (3).

consider the fact that such boilers arealready operating virtually incompliance with these permit standardsin setting priorities for permittinginterim status facilities. To determinewhether boilers are operating inconformance with the optionalstandards, permit officials can requestwritten certifications from boiler ownersand operators submitting Part A permitapplications.

The Agency considered whetherboilers for which emissions testingwould not be required under the permitstandards could be deemedautomatically to have a permit withoutcomplying with the formal permitprocedures (e.g., submission of Part Aand Part B permit applications;opportunity for public hearings). Boilerowners and operators could avoidemissions testing under today'sproposed rules by: (1) Complying withthe special operating conditions toensure conformance with theperformance standards for the control oforganic emissions; and (2) complyingwith the metals and chlorine wastespecification levels or calculated massfeed rate limits to ensure compliancewith the metals and chlorineperformance standards. Given that suchboilers are already in compliance withthe technical permit standards, theywould be in "interim status" in nameonly. If the Agency could be sure thatsuch owners and operators were, in fact,complying with the standards, theformal permitting process would beunnecessary and such'facilities could beconsidered automatically to have apermit.

Although the special operatingconditions proposed today in lieu oforganic emissions testing have not beendeveloped to make them completelyself-implementing, we believe they couldbe. Unfortunately, however, the Agencydoes not believe that RCRA provides thestatutory authority to waive formalpermitting procedures for facilities thatwould be subject to substantivecontrols. The Agency interprets RCRAas unambiguously requiring formalpermitting of regulated treatment,storage, and disposal facilities. Permitscould be waived only when a facility isunconditionally exempt from regulationor exempt with minimal substantiveconditions. Corrective action forreleases of hazardous constituents fromsolid waste management units is tieddirectly to the permitting process aswell. Thus, we believe that boilersoperating under the proposed standardsin lieu of emissions testing requireformal permitting because they mustcomply with substantive controls. (On

the other hand, we believe that theproposed conditional exemption forburners of small quantities of hazardouswastes meets the test of minimalsubstantive controls-and moreover isdirectly sanctioned by statute. Thus, webelieve that an exemption from thepermit procedures for small quantityburners is consistent with the intent ofHSWA.}

C. Monitoring and Inspections

Like permitted facilities, facilities ininterim status would be required toinstall, operate, and maintain, within 12months of this rule's promulgation,continuous flue gas monitors for carbonmonoxide (CO) and oxygen inaccordance with Guideline forContinuous Monitoring of CarbonMonoxide at Hazardous WasteIncinerators, Appendix D, PES, January1987 (Draft Report).

In addition, we are proposing torequire other monitoring and inspectionsvirtually identical to that required forinterim status incinerators under§ 265.347. Existing instruments thatrelate to combustion and emissioncontrol would have to be monitored atleast every 15 minutes and appropriatecorrections to maintain steady-statecombustion conditions and emissioncontrol would have to be madeimmediately. Instruments that relate tocombustion and emission control wouldnormally include those measuringhazardous waste feed rate, feed rate ofother fuels, feed rate of industrialfurnace feedstocks, hazardous wastefiring system pressure, scrubber waterflow rate and pH, electrostaticprecipitator spark rate, and fabric filterpressure drop.

The boiler or industrial furnace andassociated equipment (pumps, valves,pipes, etc.) would also have to besubjected to thorough visual inspectionat least daily when hazardous waste isburned, for leaks, spills, fugitiveemissions, and signs of tampering. Itshould be noted that some of theseassociated devices would be"equipment in VHAP (volatilehazardous air pollutant) service" withinthe meaning of EPA's recent proposal tocontrol air emissions at certain RCRAfacilities, 52 FR 3748 (Feb. 5,1987), andwould be controlled by the standardsproposed in that rule.

Finally, the emergency hazardouswaste feed cutoff system and associatedalarms would have to be tested at leastweekly when hazardous waste is burnedto verify operability, unless the owner oroperator has written documentation thatweekly inspections will unduly restrictor upset operations and that less

17014




frequent inspections will be adequate.At a minimum, however, operationaltesting would be required at leastmonthly.

D. Waste Analysis and Closure

In addition to the general wasteanalysis requirements of 1 265.13 andthe general closure requirements of§§ 265.111-265.115, all of which wouldbe incorporated in these standards byreference, we are proposing additionalrequirements specific to burninghazardous waste in boilers andindustrial furnaces. These specificrequirements are similar to thoserequired for incinerators operatingunder interim status. See § § 265.341 and265.351.

Owners or operators of boilers andindustrial furnaces burning hazardouswaste would have to analyze the wastesufficiently to determine the type ofpollutants that might be emitted. At aminimum, the analyses must determinethe concentrations of organic andinorganic compounds (including metals)identified in Appendix VIII that mayreasonably be expected to be in thewaste, and chlorine in the waste, on anas-fired basis (i.e., either in the waste orafter any blending with other wastes orfuels), unless the owner or operator haswritten, documented data that show thatthe element is not present. Analyses ofthese elements would be required eitherbecause their emissions would becontrolled under the proposed standardsor because the permit writer could usethe authority of HSWA Section 3005(c)to control emissions as necessary toprotect public health and theenvironment. In addition, the heatingvalue of the waste must be determinedto enable the owner and operator toconsider how completely the materialmay burn considering the waste firingrate, firing system, waste/air mixing,combustion gas temperatures, andretention time at those temperatures.Finally, the owner or operator would berequired to analyze sufficiently anyhazardous waste he has not previouslyburned in his boiler or industrial furnaceto enable him to establish steady-state(normal) operating conditions and tocomply with the stack gas carbonmonoxide (CO) and metals and HCIstandards provided by proposed§ 266.35-3.

With respect to closure, the owner oroperator would be required to removeall hazardous waste and hazardouswaste residues (including, but notlimited to, ash, scrubber water, andscrubber sludges) from the boiler orindustrial furnace site.

E. Prohibition on Burning Dioxin-Containing Wastes

Hazardous waste containing orderived from any of the followingdioxin-containing wastes could not beburned in a boiler or industrial furnaceoperating under interim status: EPAHazardous Waste Nos. F020, F021, F022,F023, F026, and F027. Burning thesedioxin-containing wastes during interimstatus is prohibited because boilers andindustrial furnaces could not beassumed to achieve the 99.9999 percentDRE (Destruction and RemovalEfficiency) required for these wastes toprotect human health adequately underthe permit standards. The prohibition onburning dioxin-containing wastes wouldbe codified in proposed § 266.35-1(c),and the requirement for permittedfacilities to demonstrate 99.9999 percentDRE for these wastes would be codifiedin proposed § 266.34-4(a)(1)(iii).F. Exemption of Small Quantity On-SiteBurners

The burning of extremely smallquantities of hazardous waste (e.g., 7gallons per month for small boilers andup to 300 gallons per month for largeboilers) absent regulatory control (i.e.,assuming poor combustion conditions)poses negligible risks. See discussion inSection V of Part Three of this preamble.Therefore, a conditional exemption forburners of small quantities of hazardouswaste generated on-site would becodified in proposed § 266.35-1(b)(1)(interim status standards), and § 266.34-1(b)(permit standards). The exemptionwould be conditioned as follows: (1) Thewastes must be generated on-site; (2) thetotal quantity of waste burned in acalendar month as a function of boilersize and the quantity burned at anypoint in time must not exceed 1% ofboiler feed on a heat or volume inputbasis; and (3] the waste must notcontain or be derived from dioxin-containing wastes.

II. Permit ProceduresBoilers and industrial furnaces

burning hazardous waste would besubject to the permit procedures of Part270 for hazardous waste treatment,storage, and disposal facilities. Inparticular, existing facilities would berequired to submit Part A of the permitapplication containing the informationidentified in existing § 270.13 within sixmonths of the effective date of finalrules promulgated subsequent to today'sproposal. When requested by permitofficials, owners and operators ofinterim status facilities must submit PartB of the permit application. Generalinformation on the contents of Part B of

the application is provided in existing§ 270.14. Specific information for Part Bof the application for boilers andindustrial furnaces is provided inproposed § 270.22. In addition,information on the special types ofpermits for boilers and industrialfurnaces and trial burn procedures isprovided in proposed § 270.65.

New facilities would be required tosubmit Part A and Part B of the permitapplication at least 180 days beforephysical construction is expected tocommence. See existing § 270.1(b).

Proposed § § 270.22 and 270.65 arepatterned after the permit proceduresfor hazardous waste incinerators in§ § 270.19 and 270.62. The proposedsections are discussed below.

A. Proposed § 270.22: Specific Part BInformation

Proposed § 270.22 provides specificinformation requirements for Part B ofthe permit application. Paragraph (a)requires a trial burn to demonstrateconformance with the performancestandards, unless the documentation tosupport the waiver of a trial burnrequired in proposed paragraph (c) isprovided. Paragraph (b) requires ownersand operators required to conduct a trialburn to submit a burn plan or the resultsof a trial burn in accordance withproposed § 270.65.

Paragraph (c) requires documentationto support a waiver of a trial burn underthe following exemptions:

1. Boilers operated under the specialconditions for conformance with theorganic emission standard. Whenseeking the exemption for a trial burn todemonstrate that the boiler is inconformance with the organic emissionstandard in proposed § 266.34-4(a), theowner or operator must submitdocumentation that the boiler operatesin conformance with the specialconditions provided by proposed§ 266.34-6(b)(4).

2. Waiver of a trial burn todemonstrate conformance with themetals emission standard. Whenseeking the exemption for emissionstesting to demonstrate conformancewith the metals emissions performancestandards in proposed § 266.34-4(b), theowner or operator must either: (a)Document by analysis that thehazardous waste itself or, as fired, (i.e.,after any blending with other wastes orfuels) does not contain metals at levelshigher than allowed in the Tier I metalsspecification inproposed § 266.34-4(b)(1); or (b) document by analysis ofthe hazardous waste, other fuels, andindustrial furnace feedstocks and byrecords of operating procedures (for

17015




existing facilities) or by plannedoperating procedures (for new facilities)that the metals concentrations in thewaste will not exceed the Tier II levelsallowed by the equations in proposed§ 206.34-4(b)(2), considering the metalslevels in the hazardous waste itself or,as fired, other fuels, and industrialfurnace feedstocks, and the feed rate ofthe hazardous waste, other fuels, andindustrial furnace feedstocks.

If neither the Tier I nor Tier IIstandards are met for a metal, emissiontesting to demonstrate conformancewith the metals performance standardsis required for all metals.

3. Waiver of a trial burn todemonstrate conformance with the HCemission standard. When seeking theexemption for emissions testing todemonstrate conformance with thehydrogen chloride (HCI) emissionsperformance standard in proposed§ 266.34-4(c), the owner or operatormust either: (a) Document by analysisthat the chlorine content of thehazardous waste itself, or as fired, doesnot exceed the Tier I level allowed inthe chlorine specification in proposed§ 266.34-4(c)(1); or (b) document byanalysis of the hazardous waste, otherfuels, and industrial furnace feedstocksand by records of operating procedures(for existing facilities) or by plannedoperating procedures (for new facilities)that the allowable Tier II chlorineconcentration in the waste computed bythe equation in proposed § 266.34-4(c)(2)will not be exceeded, considering thechlorine level in the hazardous waste, asfired, other fuels, and industrial furnacefeedstocks, the heating value of thehazardous waste and other fuels, andthe feed rate of the hazardous waste,other fuels, and industrial furnacefeedstocks.

4. Data in lieu of a trial burn. Theowner or operator of a boiler orindustrial furnace may seek anexemption from the trial burn byproviding information from trial oroperational burns of similar boilers orindustrial furnaces burning similarwaste under similar conditions. TheDirector shall approve a permitapplication without a trial burn if hefinds that the hazardous wastes aresufficiently similar, the devices aresufficiently similar, and the data fromother trial burns are adequate to specify(under proposed § 266.34-6) operatingconditions that will ensure conformancewith the performance standards inproposed § 266.34-4.

The information requirements tosupport this exemption are patternedafter the existing requirements forhazardous waste incinerators submittingdata in lieu of a trial burn. See existing

§ 270.19(c). The requirements for boilersand industrial furnaces would, however,require information on the metals andchlorine levels of materials feed to thedevices, and design and operationalinformation on metals and HCI flue gascontrol equipment to ensureconformance with the proposed metalsand HCl emission standards.

B. Proposed § 270.65: Special Forms ofPermits

Proposed § 270.65 establishes specialforms of permits for new boilers thatwill be operated under the specialconditions for waiver of the trial burnand for all other new boilers and newindustrial furnaces where a trial burn isrequired. This section also establishestrial burn procedures. Finally, thissection discusses special procedures forpermitting existing facilities. Theseprovisions are discussed below.

1. Permits for new boilers exemptfrom the trial burn requirements.Owners and operators of boilers areexempt from the requirement to conducta trial burn provided that the boileroperates as follows: (a) the boiler mustoperate in conformance with the specialconditions provided by proposed§ 266.34-6(b)(4) to ensure conformancewith the performance standard fororganic emissions; and (b) the boilermust burn hazardous waste that eithermeets the Tier I metals and chlorinespecification levels of proposed§§ 266.34-4 (b)(1) and (c)(1) or meets theTier II limits provided by proposed§§ 266.34-4 (b)(21 and (c)(2). Theserequirements in aggregate are termed"Special Operating Requirements."

Proposed § 270.65(b) establishes thefollowing permits for boilers operatedunder the Special OperatingRequirements: Predemonstration,Demonstration, and Final Permits. APredemonstration Permit would coverthe period beginning with initialintroduction of hazardous waste into theboiler and extend for the minimum timerequired, not to exceed a duration of 720hours operating time 64 when hazardouswaste is burned to bring the boiler to apoint of operation readiness to conducta demonstration that the boiler canoperate under the Special OperatingRequirements. In practice, the primarypurpose of this period is to determinewhether the hazardous waste firingsystem and boiler combustion controlscan be operated to achieve flue gascarbon monoxide levels that meet thelimits in proposed § 266.34-4(a)(2) and

e4 This Is the same period of time allowed foratart-up and shake-down of hazardous wasteincinerators under existing § 270.62(a) prior toconducting a trial burn.

that are incorporated by reference inproposed § 266.34-6(b)(4)(v). During thisperiod, the boiler must be operated inconformance with the StandardOperating Requirements. The Directormay extend the period of thePredemonstration Permit once for up to720 additional hours when good causefor the extension is demonstrated by theapplicant. Any such extension would behandled as a minor modification ofpermits under existing § 270.42.

The Demonstration Permit covers theperiod immediately after completion ofthe predemonstration period andextends only for the minimum timesufficient to allow sample analysis, datacomputation, and submission of theresults by the applicant demonstratingconformance with the StandardOperating Requirements. During thisperiod, the boiler must be operated inconformance with the StandardOperating Requirements. TheDemonstration Permit is an extension ofthe Predemonstration Permit andconstitutes a minor modification ofpermits under existing § 270.42.

After successful completion of thedemonstration period, the boileroperates under a Final Permit inconformance with the StandardOperating Requirements. In the FinalPermit, the Director will specify changesto the limitations, as appropriate, on themetals and chlorine content, heatingvalue, and feed rates of the hazardouswaste, other fuels, and industrialfurnace feedstocks, and requirementsfor the operation and maintenance ofemission control equipment necessary toensure compliance with the StandardOperating Requirements. The FinalPermit is an extension and modificationto the demonstration permit andconstitutes a minor modification ofpermits under existing § 270.42.

2. Permits for new boilers andindustrialfurnaces subject to a trialburn. Proposed § 270.65(c) establishesthe following permits for new boilersand industrial furnaces required toconduct a trial burn: Pretrial BurnPermit, Trial Burn Permit, Post-TrialBurn Permit, and Final Permit. A PretrialBurn Permit would cover the periodbeginning with initial introduction ofhazardous waste into the boiler orindustrial furnace and extend for theminimum time required, not to exceed aduration of 720 hours operating timewhen hazardous waste is burned, tobring the device to a point of operationreadiness to conduct a trial burn. TheDirector may extend duration of thisoperational period once, for up to 720additional hours, at the request of theapplicant when good cause is shown.

.17016




* Applicants must submit a statementwith Part B of the permit applicationthat suggests the conditions necessaryto operate in conformance with theperformance standards of proposed§ 266.34-4. This statement shouldinclude, at a minimum, restrictions onhazardous waste constituents includingarsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, andchlorine, hazardous waste heating valueand feed rates, and the operatingparameters identified in proposed§ 266.34-6. The Director will review thisstatement and other relevantinformation and use his engineeringjudgment to specify requirements forthis period sufficient to meet theperformance standards of § 266.34-4. ATrial Burn Permit covers the periodduring the conduct of the trial burn. Forthe duration of the trial burn, theDirector must establish conditions in thepermit for the purposes of determiningfeasibility of compliance with the *performance standards of proposed§ 266.34-4 and of determining adequateoperating conditions under proposed§ 266.34-6. The procedures fordeveloping and conducting a trial burnprogram already in place for hazardouswaste incinerators in § 270.62(b) wereused as a guide to develop proposed§ 270.65(c)(2). The applicant mustpropose a trial burn plan with Part B ofthe application that includes: (1)Comprehensive analysis of eachhazardous waste, as fired; (2) a detailedengineering description of the boiler orindustrial furnace; (3) a detaileddescription of sampling and monitoringprocedures; (4] a detailed test schedulefor each hazardous waste for which atrial burn is planned; (5) a detailed testprotocol; (6) a description of, andplanned operating conditions for, anyemission control equipment that will beused; (7) procedures for rapidly stoppingthe hazardous waste feed andcontrolling emissions in the event of anequipment malfunction; and (8) suchother information as the Directorreasonably finds necessary to determinewhether to approve the trial burn plan.

The Director will review the trial burnplan and may require the applicant tosupplement this information, ifnecessary.

Based on the hazardous wasteanalysis data in the trial burn plan, theDirector will specify as trial PrincipalOrganic Hazardous Constituents(POHCs) those constituents for whichdestruction and removal efficienciesmust be calculated during the trial burn.The trial POHCs will be specified by theDirector based on his estimate of thedifficulty of destruction of constituentsin the waste, their concentration or mass

in the waste, and for wastes listed inSubpart D of Part 261, the constituentsidentified in Appendix VII of that partas the basis for listing.

The Director shall approve a trial burnplan if-he finds that the trial burn islikely to determine whether the devicecan meet the performance standards ofproposed § 266.34-4, the trial burn itselfwill not present an imminent healthhazard, the trial burn will help him todetermine operating requirements to bespecified under proposed § 266.34--6, andthe operating requirements necessary toensure conformance with theperformance standards cannotreasonably be developed through othermeans.

The Director shall extend and modifythe Pretrial Burn Permit as necessary toaccommodate the approved trial burnplan. The permit modification shallproceed as a minor modificationaccording to existing § 270.42.

During each approved trial burn (or assoon after the burn as is practicable),the applicant must make the followingdeterminations: (1) A quantitativeanalysis of the trial POHCs and arsenic,cadmium, chromium, lead, and chlorinein the hazardous waste; (2) aquantitative analysis of the exhaust gasfor the concentration and massemissions of the trial POHCs; (3) forhazardous waste that is off-specificationfor arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, orchlorine, either a quantitative analysisof the hazardous waste, other fuels, andindustrial furnace feedstocks sufficientto demonstrate that the level of the off-specification element in the hazardouswaste does not exceed the Tier II limitsprovided by proposed § § 266.34-4 (b)(2)or (c)(2), or a quantitative analysis of theexhaust gas for the concentration andmass emission of the regulated metalsand HCI, and a computation showingconformance with the Tier I emissionsstandards in proposed § § 266.34-4 (b](3)and (c)(3) or, site-specific dispersionmodeling in conformance with the TierIV procedures provided by proposed§§ 270.22 (d) and (e); (4) a quantitativeanalysis of the scrubber water (if any),ash residues, and other residues, for thepurpose of estimating the fate of the trialPOHCs and any metal or chlorine forwhich emissions testing was used todemonstrate conformance with theemission standards; (5) a computation ofdestruction and removal efficiency; (6)an identification of sources of fugitiveemissions and their means of control; (7)a continuous measurement of carbonmonoxide and oxygen in the exhaustgas; and [8) such other information asthe Director may specify as necessary todevelop the operating conditions

required by proposed § 266.34-6 toensure compliance with the performancestandards in proposed § 266.34-4.

The applicant must submit to theDirector a certification that theapproved trial burn program has beencarried out and must submit results ofthe determinations identified abovewithin 90 days'of completion of the trialburn, or later if approved by theDirector. All data collected during anytrial burn must be submitted to theDirector following completion of thetrial burn. All submissions must becertified on behalf of the applicant bythe signature of the person authorized tosign a permit application or a reportunder § 270.11.

Until the Final Permit based on thetrial burn results can be developed, theDirector will use his engineeringjudgment to extend and modify asnecessary the Trial Burn Permit toensure compliance with the performancestandards of proposed § 266.34-4. Thedevelopment of the Post-Trial Burnpermit shall proceed as a minormodification according to existing§ 270.42. The duration of the Post-TrialBurn Permit Will be only for theminimum period sufficient to allowanalysis, data computation, andsubmission of the trial burn results bythe applicant, and review of the trialburn results and modification of thepermit by the Director to develop theFinal Permit that reflects the trial burnresults. The modification of the Post-Trial Burn Permit to develop the FinalPermit shall also proceed as a minormodification under existing § 270.42.

3. Permit procedures for interim statusfacilities. Applicants owning oroperating existing boilers or industrialfurnaces would be permitted underproposed § 270.65(d). Applicants owningor operating interim status boilers thatare or will be operating under theSpecial Operating Requirements 65 forwhich the trial burn is waived mustsubmit with Part B of the permitapplication documentation that theboiler is operated in accordance withthe Special Operating Requirements.The statement must include, at aminimum, the operating recorddocumenting continuous measurementof carbon monoxide and oxygen in theexhaust gas. Further, if the hazardouswaste is off-specification for metals orchlorine, the statement must alsoinclude limitations, as appropriate, onthe metals and chlorine content, heatingvalue, and feed rates of the hazardous

00 Boilers operated in conformance with proposed§§ 266.34-8fb)(4). 266.34-4b) (i) or (2), and§ 268.34-4(c) (1) or (2).

17017




waste, other fuels. and industrialfurnace feedstocks to demonstrateconformance with the proposed Tier IIstandards provided by §§ 266.34-4 (b)(2)and (c)(2).

Applicants owning or operatingindustrial or boiler furnaces that will bepermitted with a trial burn must prepareand submit a trial burn plan and performa trial burn as discussed above relativeto new facilities.

Part Five: Storage Standards, HalogenAcid Furnaces, and Other IssuesI Storage Standards

A. Standards for Storage Tanks

Under the Administrative Controls forhazardous waste burners and blenderspromulgated on November 29,1985, andcodified in Subpart D of Part 266, EPAsubjected existing burner storagefacilities, newly regulated by that rule,only to the interim status standards ofPart 265. See § 266.35(c)(2). The permitstandards of Part 264 were not appliedto these storage facilities to avoid two-stage permitting given that today'sproposed rules for permitting boiler andindustrial furnace facilities was underdevelopment at that time. The Agencywanted to avoid requiring a boiler orindustrial furnace owner or operator toget a permit for this hazardous wastefuel storage facility and to soonthereafter get another permit (under apromulgation of today's rule) foroperation of his boiler or industrialfurnace.

Today's rule would, therefore, subjectsuch existing burner storage facilities tothe permit standards of Part 264.

B. Proposal To Regulate HazardousWaste Fuel Blending Tanks

EPA recently issued a clarifyingnotice indicating that the Agencyinterpreted existing regulations asrequiring hazardous waste fuel blendingtanks to be covered by RCRA storagestandards. We have decided, however,that the rules could be drafted to makethis point more clearly and so haveincluded more precise language intoday's proposed regulation. The reasonfor regulating blending tanks is the sameas that underlying the present rules:blending tanks pose the same risks asother hazardous waste storage tanks,posing no types of special considerationthat might warrant different regulatorystandards. It also makes no sense forEPA to regulate hazardous waste fuelscradle-to-grave but not to regulate fuelblending tanks. Such a regulatory gaphas no foundation in environmentalpolicy and invites abuse throughfacilities evading regulation by claimingthat their only activities are fuel

blending and consequently that noRCRA storage standards (and attendantpermitting standards) apply to them. Weare thus proposing to amend thehazardous waste fuel regulations tostate explicitly that fuel blending tanksare subject to RCRA storage standards.The comment period on this part oftoday's proposal is 30 days.

We note that since these rules wouldregulate all hazardous wastes beingburned in boilers and industrialfurnaces, there no longer would be anyneed for the hazardous waste fuelmarketer classification in the currentrules. Such intermediaries wouldcontinue to be regulated as hazardouswaste storage facilities and beresponsible for complying withapplicable administrative requirementssuch as manifest and recordkeepingresponsibilities.I. Proposed Designation of HalogenAcid Furnaces as Industrial Furnaces

The DOW Chemical Company (DOW)filed a rulemaking petition with EPA onMarch 31, 1986, in accordance with theprovisions of 40 CFR 260.20 requestingEPA to designate their halogen acidfurnaces (HAFs) as industrial furnaces.EPA is today proposing to grant thepetition by classifying as industrialfurnaces those HAFs that meet thecriteria discussed below.

A. DOW's PetitionWe understand from the petition and

subsequent communication withDOW 66 that DOW operates about 27HAFs that are fire-tube boilers modifiedto produce hydrogen chloride (HCI) fromchlorine-bearing secondary streams byscrubbing HCI from combustion gases.The secondary waste streams typicallyhave a chlorine content of 20 to 70percent and an as-fired heating value ofapproximately 9,000 Btu/Ib. Thus, thesecondary streams are highlychlorinated and have substantialheating value.67 The HAFs are locatedon the site of DOW's chemicalmanufacturing operations and thesecondary materials burned aregenerated on-site.

Approximately half of the HAFsproduce and export steam and meetEPA's definition of a boiler under§ 260.10. Those HAFs that meet thedefinition of a boiler would be regulated

60 Letter from Byron Cary. DOW, to Marcia E.Williams, EPA. dated July 8, 1980: letter from MarciaE. Williams, EPA, to Byron Cary, DOW. datedAugust 28, 1986.

67 EPA considers wastes with more than 5.000-8,000 Btu/lb heating value to have substantialheating value and may be legitimately burned forenergy recovery in boilers and industrial furnaces.See Section Vt of Part Two of this preamble.

as boilers. The remaining HAFs,although modified fire-tube boilers, donot generate steam and do not meetEPA's definition of a boiler. EPA isproposing to classify the nonboilerHAFs as industrial furnaces for thereasons discussed below.

B. Bases for Classification as anIndustrial Furnace

EPA has defined an industrial furnaceat § 260.10 as any of the specifically-designated enclosed devices that areintegral components of a manufacturingprocess and that use controlled flamedevices to accomplish recovery ofmaterials or energy. Eleven types ofdevices have been designated asindustrial furnaces to date. Thedefinition also provides criteria foradding devices to the list.

EPA believes that DOW's nonboilerHAFs 68 are integral components of amanufacturing process and that theymeet two of the criteria for designationas an industrial furnace.

1. HAFs are integral components of amanufacturing process. Industrialfurnaces normally process rawmaterials, and. thus, there is no questionthat they are integral components of amanufacturing process. For the reasonspresented below, EPA believes thatDOW's HAFs are also integralcomponents of a manufacturing processeven though they process secondarystreams: (1) The HAFs are located onthe site of the manufacturing process(i.e., production of organic chemicals)and the only secondary streams theyprocess are generated by thatmanufacturing process; (2) the HCIproduced is a bona fide product becauseit has a HCI content of 6-20 percent 69;and (3) the HCl product is used on-sitein the manufacturing process.

2. HAFs recover materials and energy.EPA believes that DOW's HAFs recovermaterials and energy. Production of HCI(i.e., a 6-20 percent HCI concentratesolution) from the combustion ofchlorine-bearing secondary materialsconstitutes materials recovery in thecontext of designation as an industrialfurnace. We note, however, that for thepurposes of determining theapplicability of RCRA regulations to theprocess, the secondary streams should

08 For the remainder of this discussion, the termHAF refers to the nonboiler HAFs.

69 The H(CI content of the effluent from wetscrubbers used to control HC emissions from theincineration of chlorine-bearing waste is normallyon the order of 1 percent or less. Such low HCIcontent scrubber water is not considered a bonafide product for purposes of designation as anindustrial furnace even if the scrubber water isbeneficially used in a manner that specificallyrelates to its HC) content.

17018



Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 87 / Wednesday, May -6, 1987 / Proposed Rules

be more precisely considered to be usedas an ingredient in the production of theHCI product. The implication of thisissue is discussed later in this section.

The HAFs also accomplish energyrecovery in the context of determiningthe applicability of RCRA regulations.The secondary materials are burnedpartially for energy recovery becausesubstantial, usable heat energy isreleased by the materials duringcombustion, The materials typicallyhave an as-fired heating value ofapproximately 9,000 Btu/lb, and the heatreleased results in the thermaldegradation of chlorinated organiccompounds to form HCI. Althoughenergy recovery in a boiler under EPA'sdefinitions is characterized by therecovery and export of energy, energyrecovery in an industrial furnace neednot involve such recovery and export ofenergy. Rather, the test for energyrecovery in industrial furnaces is basedon the burning of materials withsubstantial heating value (i.e., greaterthan 5,000 Btu/lb) in a manner thatresults in the release of substantialusable heat energy. See 50 FR 49171-49174 (November 29, 1985).

3. HAFs meet industrial furnacecriteria. EPA has established criteria in§ 260.10 for designating additionaldevices as industrial furnaces. Devicescan be designated as industrial furnaceson the basis of one or more of thecriteria. EPA believes that DOW's HAFsmeet two of the criteria as describedabove (see a and b) and, thus, isproposing to classify them as industrialfurnaces.

DOW's HAFs appear to be designedand used primarily to accomplish therecovery of material products. TheHAFs are specially designed andoperated fire-tube boilers (that are notoperated to produce steam). Theirdesign features enable them to accepthighly-chlorinated feedstocks withoutunacceptable corrosion and to maximizeHCl production and recovery. DOW haspatents on its HAFs as evidence that theHAFs are specially designed and differfrom typical incinerators.

The HAFs can also be considered toburn secondary materials as ingredientsin an industrial process to make amaterial product. As discussed above,chlorine-bearing secondary streamsfrom chemical manufacturing operationsare burned on-site to produce an HClproduct for use in the manufacturingoperation.

C. Proposed DesignationEPA is proposing to add a new

category of industrial furnaces to readas follows: Halogen Acid Furnaces forthe production of acid from halogenated

secondary materials generated atchemical production facilities where thefurnace is located on-site and the acidproduct has a halogen acid content of atleast 6 percent.

The designation limits theclassification to those devices used on-site by a chemical production facility toprocess its halogenated secondarystreams and where the acid productcontains at least 6 percent halogen acidto distinguish clearly between industrialfurnaces used to produce bona fide acidproduct and incinerators, either off- oron-site, used to destroy halogenatedwaste and equipped with halogenemissions removal devices. Suchemission control devices, such as spraytowers and venturi scrubbers, producehalogen acid-bearing scrubber water.The halogen acid content of suchscrubber water, however, would besubstantially less that the 6 percentproposed minimum achieved byspecially designed and operated acidproduction operations. Thus, suchhalogenated waste incineratorsequipped with wet scrubbers could notmeet the proposed definition for theHAFs even if the halogen acid-bearingscrubber water were claimed to be aproduct.

EPA specifically requests commentson whether the proposed definition ofHalogen Acid Furnaces is: (1) Restrictiveenough to distinguish clearly betweenfurnaces used for bona fide acidproduction and incinerators equippedwith conventional wet scrubbers foracid gas emissions control; and (2) notso restrictive as to preclude bona fideacid production operations from beingclassified as industrial furnaces.

EPA also requests information on theburning in HAFs of wastes to producehalogen acids other than HCl (e.g., HBr),including whether the proposed HAFdefinition is appropriate for thosedevices and whether the proposedcontrols would adequately protectpublic health and the environment.

D. Regulations Applicable to HAFs

HAFs burn halogenated secondarymaterials for the production of halogenacids. Thus, the secondary materials areused as an ingredient in an industrialprocess and would not be a solid wasteunder the provisions of § 261.2(e)(1)(i)unless: (1) The materials were alsoburned partially for energy recovery(see § 261.2(e)(2)(ii)); or EPA determinesthe secondary streams are inherentlywaste-like and adds the secondarystreams to the list of inherently waste-like materials under § 261.2(d) that aresolid wastes when recycled in anymanner.

As discussed above, DOW'ssecondary streams are burned partiallyfor energy recovery because thematerials have substantial as-firedheating value (9,000 Btu/lb) andsubstantial, useful energy is released bythe combustion of the materials. Theenergy is used to produce halogen acidfrom halogenated hydrocarbons.Therefore, DOW's HAFs would besubject to today's proposed rules forindustrial furnaces.

In addition, EPA considers DOW'ssecondary streams to be inherentlywaste-like and subject to listing under§ 261.2(d) as a material that is a solidwaste when recycled in any manner orcertainly in the manner utilized byDOW. Listed wastes burned in DOW'sHAFs include EPA Hazardous WasteNos. F002, F024, K016, K017, and K020.These wastes not only are typicallydisposed of, but contain highconcentrations of Appendix VIIIconstituents not normally found in rawmaterials used in acid production. EPAis, however, not proposing today to listDOW's secondary streams as inherentlywaste-like under § 261.2(d). Given thatthe materials are burned partially forenergy recovery, the materials are solidwaste, and because they are listed oridentified under Part 261 as hazardouswaste, DOW's HAFs would be subjectto today's proposed rules for industrialfurnaces. Thus, there is no need toundertake a designation under § 261.2(d)at this time.

Il. Proposed Classification of Coke andBy-Product Coal Tar Containing TarDecanter Sludge (EPA HazardousWaste K087) as a Product

A. AISI Petition

The American Iron and Steel Institute(AISI) has petitioned the EPA withrespect to the practice of recycling tardecanter sludge by the following means:

1. Applying the sludge to coal prior toor just after charging the coal into thecoke oven and;

2. Combining the sludge with coal tarprior to its being sold.

The coke and the coal tar are oftenused as fuel and so are presentlyclassified as solid wastes and hazardouswastes since they are fuels produced orotherwise containing hazardous waste-EPA Hazardous Waste No. K087, tardecanter sludge. See § 261.2(c)(2)(i)(B).These hazardous waste fuels presentlyare exempt from regulation§ 261.6(a}(z}{vii and 50 FR 49170-171(Nov. 29, 1985). The AISI has requestedthat EPA not classify such coke or coaltar as solid wastes. AISI submits thatrecycling the decanter sludge does not

17019




significantly affect the concentration oftoxic metal and organic constituents ofthe coke or coal tar. EPA has indicatedthat waste-derived fuels could beclassified as products under suchcircumstances, "since the more waste-derived fuels from a process are likeproducts from the same processproduced by virgin materials, the lesslikely EPA is to classify the waste-derived fuel as a waste." 50 FR 49169(Nov. 29, 1985). To support its request,the AISI has submitted data on themetals and organic constituents in doke,coal tar, and tar decanter sludge bothwith and without sludge recycling.

B. Process Description

Coke used for making iron ismanufactured through the destructivedistillation of coal in ovens. A typicaloven holds approximately 13 tons ofcoal which is heated to a temperature ofabout 2000 'F. Generally 20 to 100 ovensare located adjacent to each other in a"coke oven battery." The destructivedistillation or "coking" process takesabout 15-18 hours. During that timeperiod, about 20-35 percent of the coal isconverted to coke oven gas (COG)consisting of water vapor, tar, light oils,heavy hydrocarbons, and other chemicalcompounds. The COG is collected fromthe top of the coke oven and, in mostcases, sent to the by-product plant viathe coke battery main. The COG is thencleaned by removing wastes and by-products prior to being burned, generallyin the-coke oven under-firing system. Asa first step in the COG cleaning process,the coal tars, consisting of heavyhydrocarbons, are condensed from thegas. In addition, most of the particulatesthat escape from the ovens is collectedin the tar. These particulates arebelieved to consist principally of coalfines. The particulates or solids are thenremoved from the tar in the tar decanter.The coal tar is then burned as fuel orsold for use in various products such asroofing cement. The sludge has beenlisted as EPA Hazardous Waste No.K087 and is either disposed of orrecycled either by mixing with the coalprior to being charged to the coke ovenor mixing directly with the coal tar afterphysical processing (grinding prior tosale.

Approximately 8-12 gallons 70 of taris produced per ton of coke. In addition,approximately one pound of tardecanter sludge is produced for every 40pounds of tar produced.

The Making, Shaping, and Treating of Steel,10th Edition, Association of Iron and SteelEngineers. 1985.

C. Basis for Proposed Approval of theAISI Petition

The AISI has submitted data onmetals and organic chemical analysisfor the coke, coal tar, and tar decantersludge for four plants. 71 Specifically, thedata included analyses for the followingconstituents:

Metals Oiganic ConstituentsArsenic

Cadmium

ChromiumMercury

Anthracene andPhenanthrene

Benzolajanthraceneand Chrysene

Benzo(a)pyreneFluoranthenePyreneNapthalenePhenol

The results of 34 samples weresubmitted by AISI. The Agencyreviewed these results and determinedthe following:

1. The recycle of the tar decantersludge by application to the coal chargedoes not appear to have a significanteffect on the chemical make-up of coke.

2. The organic chemical make-up ofthe tar decanter sludge.does not appearto be significantly different from thecoal tar.

3. The concentration of one metal,lead, in the sludge appears to be slightlyhigher than in the coal tar. The increasedoes not appear to be statisticallysignificant, however, due to the highvariability of the concentration values.

Based on the above and the fact thatthere is such a small quantity of sludgerelative to the quality of coke and coaltar produced by the coking process, EPAbelieves that sludge recycling asdescribed here does not significantlyaffect the concentration of toxic metalsand organic constituents in coal tar orcoke. Furthermore, coke, coal tar, andthe decanter tank tar sludge arise from asingle process, are similar materials, andcontain the same contaminants.Therefore, EPA is proposing that thesematerials be classified as products, notwastes. We note that only the waste-derived fuels would be excluded fromjurisdiction; the decanter tank tar sludgewould remain a regulated hazardouswaste prior to combining with coke orcoal tar. See 50 FR 49171 (Nov. 29, 1985).

IV. Notice of Intent to Amend theSubpart 0 Incinerator Standards

Today's proposed rules for boilers andindustrial furnaces burning hazardouswaste would be more comprehensivethan the current Subpart 0 standardsfor hazardous waste incinerators. First,the proposed CO limits would ensure

7 "Correspondence from E.F. Young, Jr., AISI, toSteven E. Silverman, Esq., EPA. dated July 25,1986;correspondence from Earl F. Young. Jr., AISI. toDwight 1-flustick, EPA, dated December 2.196.

that devices continuously operate athigh combustion efficiencies whenburning hazardous waste. Thus, thiswould help ensure the devices achievehigh destructive efficiencies of organiccompounds with minimal PIC (productsof incomplete combustion) emissionsover the life of the permit. CO limits forincinerators, however, are currentlybased on levels achieved during the trialburn. Given that field tests demonstratethat boilers can achieve 99.99% DREduring upset condition as evidenced byhigh CO levels and smoke emissions,incinerator CO limits may be set atlevels that in some cases representupset conditions. Incinerators operatedat elevated CO levels may emit higherlevels of PICs than they would ifoperated at levels representative of highcombustion efficiency. Thus, EPAintends to propose to amend the SubpartO standards to prescribe CO limitsapplicable during the life of the permitand to require that conformance withthe limits be demonstrated during thetrial burn.

Second, today's rule proposes risk-based metals emissions limits. Metalsemissions from incinerators arecurrently controlled with a technology-based and outdated particulate standarddeveloped for municipal solid wastecombustors. 7 2 That standard, 0.08grains/standard cubic foot, may not, incertain situations, be fully protectivewith respect to metals emissions.Therefore, the Agency is consideringwhether additional particulate controlsor controls on individual metals areneeded to make the standards fullyprotective.

Finally, today's rule also proposes arisk-based emission limit for HCI. HCIemissions from incinerators arecontrolled with a technology-basedstandard that limits HCI emissions to 4lb/hr unless the emissions are controlledwith a device having at least a 99% HCIremoval efficiency. That standard mayover-regulate some situations (e.g., largeincinerators with tall stacks) and under-regulate others. Therefore, the Agency isconsidering whether a risk basedstandard should be developed forincinerators to ensure that fullyprotective and cost-effective controlsare applied.

The Agency plans to proposeamendments to the Subpart 0 standardsas necessary in Fall 1987. The final rule

72 The Agency is currently evaluating the risk

posed by emissions of metals, unburned organics(including dioxins). and acid gases (e.g., HCI) frommunicipal waste combustors (MWCs) and Isreviewing applicable regulatory and nonregulatoryapproaches.

17020




is scheduled to be promulgated in Spring1988.

In the interim, until the amendmentsare promulgated and effective, permitofficials will be encouraged to use theomnibus provision of section 3005(c) ofHSWA to prescribe permit conditions asnecessary to protect human health andthe environment.V. Boilers, Industrial Furnaces, andIncinerators are BDAT for HOCs

The Agency notes that it recentlyproposed to establish incineration inaccordance with sections 264.343 and265.343 as Best Demonstrated AvailableTechnology (BDAT) for certainhazardous wastes containingHalogenated Organic Compounds(HOC) at concentrations exceeding 1000ppm. See 51 FR 44726 (December 11,1986). EPA believes that burning HOCwastes in boilers and industrial furnacespursuant to permit or interim statusstandards (or burning in small quantityburning devices) would be equallyeffective and also should constituteBDAT for these wastes. Accordingly,should the Agency adopt the standardsproposed today (or comparablestandards), the Agency would amendproposed § 268.42(a)(2) (51 FR 44740) toindicate that HOCs must be burned inincinerators, boilers, or industrialfurnaces.

VI. Classification of Pickle LiquorAlthough not related directly to

today's proposal, the Agency isproposing one additional action today. Itinvolves the scope of the listing ofHazardous Waste K062. This listingapplies to pickle liquor from steelfinishing operations at facilities withinthe iron and steel industry (SIC Codes331 and 332). When EPA firstpromulgated this amendment in May1986, the Agency erroneously describedthe scope of the listing as applying toplants that actually produce iron andsteel. 51 FR 19320 (May 28,1986). Thiserror was inadvertent and obviouslyunintended given that EPA had neverproposed such a change, no commenterever suggested such a change, and, inthe relevant preambles, the Agencyrepeatedly described its action asapplying to all plants in the iron andsteel industry (50 FR 38966/1, 36967/1,36967/2 (Sept. 20, 1985) and 51 FR 19320/2, 19321/1 (May 28, 1986)). In addition, ifthe listing was to apply only to facilitiesactually producing iron and steel, thenthe listing would be narrower than aparallel exclusion from listing of sludgegenerated from treatment of "spentpickle liquor from the iron and steelindustry (SIC Codes 331 and 332)"(§ 261.2(c)(2(ii)}-a facial contradiction

since one cannot exclude more than onehas listed.

For these reasons, EPA corrected theerror by means of a technical correction(51 FR 33612 (Sept. 22, 1986)). Oneperson questioned this change arguingthat it was in fact substantiverulemaking requiring prior notice andcomment. Although we think thispetition is without merit for the reasonsgiven above, to avoid further dispute wewill propose the change. Until this.proposal is finalized, the scope of thelisting is as stated in the correctionnotice, namely pickle liquor generatedby plants in the iron and steel industry(SIC Codes 331 and 332).

VII. Landfill Gas

In the November 29, 1985, final rules,we indicated that gas recovered fromhazardous waste landfills was notpresently regulated under the waste asfuel rules. 50 FR 49171. EPA took thisaction in order to study further theextent to which these might bejurisdictional limits on the Agency'sRCRA authority. Id. We are proposing toamend this language slightly byindicating that it applies as well to gasrecovered from solid waste landfills. Seeproposed § 266.30(a). This allows for thepossibility of the gas itself exhibiting acharacteristic of hazardous waste. Weare continuing to consider thejurisdictional issued, including theimplications of section 124(b) of therecent Superfund Amendments andReauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA)(which addresses the regulatory statusof methane recovered from any type oflandfill).

The Agency also solicits comment onwhether the hydrocarbon phase of thecondensate removed from recovered gasshould also be exempt when burned asfuel. There do not appear to bejurisdictional issues for this material; thehydrocarbon phase appears to beclassified as solid and hazardous wasteby the SARA provision cited above, aswell as by existing EPA rules (as ahazardous secondary material burnedfor energy recovery). EPA is notprecluded, however, from promulgatingan exemption if regulation isunnecessary to protect human healthand the environment, and wouldconsider doing so if shown that thehydrocarbon phase is chemically similarto normal fossil fuels, or if burning andstorage of the hydrocarbon phaseotherwise poses insufficient hazard towarrant regulation. Commenters shouldaddress these points explicitly, andprovide supporting data.

Part Six: Administrative, Economic, andEnvironmental Impacts, and List ofSubjects

L State Authority

A. Applicability of the Rules inAuthorized States

Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPAmay authorize qualified States toadminister and enforce the RCRAprogram within the State. (See 40 CFRPart 271 for the standards andrequirements for authorization.)Following authorization, EPA retainsenforcement authority under sections3008, 7003, and 3013 of RCRA, althoughauthorized States have primaryenforcement responsibility.

Prior to the Hazardous and SolidWaste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), aState with final authorizationadministered its hazardous wasteprogram entirely in lieu of EPAadministering the Federal program inthat State. The Federal requirements nolonger applied in the authorized State,and EPA could not issue permits for anyfacilities in the State which the Statewas authorized to permit. When new,more stringent Federal requirementswere promulgated or enacted, the Statewas obliged to enact equivalentauthority within specified time frames.New Federal requirements did not takeeffect in an authorized State until theState adopted the requirements as Statelaw.

In contrast, under section 3006(g) ofRCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(g), newrequirements and prohibitions imposedby the HSWA take effect in authorizedStates at the same time that they takeeffect in nonauthorized States. EPA isdirected to carry out those requirementsand prohibitions in authorized States,including the issuance of permits, untilthe State is granted authorization to doso. While States must still adoptHSWA-related provisions as State lawto retain final authorization, the HSWAapplies in authorized States in theinterim.

Today's proposed rule will bepromulgated pursuant to section 3004(q)of RCRA, a provision added by HSWA.Therefore, this rulemaking would beadded to Table I in § 271.1(j) whichidentifies the Federal programrequirements that are promulgatedpursuant to HSWA and that take effectin all States, regardless of theirauthorization status. States may applyfor either interim or final authorizationfor the HSWA provisions identified inTable 1 as discussed below.

17021



17022 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 87 / Wednesday, May 6, 1987 / Proposed Rules

B. Effect on State Authorization

As noted above, EPA wouldimplement today's rule in authorizedStates until they modify their programsto adopt these rules and themodification is approved by EPA.Because the rule would be promulgatedpursuant to HSWA, a State submitting aprogram modification may apply toreceive either interim or finalauthorization under section 3006(g)(2) or3006(b), respectively, on the basis ofrequirements that are substantiallyequivalent or equivalent to EPA's. Theprocedures and schedule for Stateprogram modifications under section3006(b) are described in 40 CFR 271.21.See 49 FR at 21678 (May 22, 1984). Thesame procedures should be followed forsection 3006(g)(2).

40 CFR 271.21(e)(2) requires thatStates that have final authorization mustmodify their programs to reflect Federalprogram changes, and mustsubsequently submit the modificationsto EPA for approval. The deadlines forthe State to modify its program for thisproposed regulation will be determinedby the date of promulgation of the finalrule in accordance with § 271.21(e).These deadlines can be extended inexceptional cases (40 CRF 271.21(e)(3)).Once EPA approves the modification,the State requirements become SubtitleC RCRA requirements.

States with authorized RCRAprograms may already haverequirements similar to those in today'srule. These State regulations have notbeen assessed against the Federalregulations being proposed today todetermine whether they meet the testsfor authorization. Thus, a State is notauthorized to implement theserequirements in lieu of EPA until theState program modification is approved.Of course, States with existingstandards may continue to administerand enforce their standards as a matterof State law. In implementing theFederal program EPA will work withStates under cooperative agreements tominimize duplication of efforts. In manycases EPA will be able to defer to theStates in their efforts to implement theirprograms, rather than take separateactions under Federal authority.

States that submit official applicationsfor final authorization less than 12months after promulgation of EPA'sregulations may be approved withoutincluding standards equivalent to thosepromulgated. However, once authorized,a State must modify its program toinclude standards substantiallyequivalent or equivalent to EPA's withinthe time periods discussed above.

II. Regulatory Impact Analysis

A. Purpose

The Agency is required underExecutive Order 12291 to prepare aRegulatory Impact.Analysis thatprovides estimates of compliance costs,economic imp'acts, and the riskreduction associated with the proposedregulation. The results of these analysesare used to determine whether theregulation is "major" as defined by E.O.12291. The Agency is also requiredunder the Regulatory Flexibility Act toassess small business impacts resultingfrom the proposed rule.

The results of the above analysesindicate that today's proposedregulation is neither a major rule, norwill it significantly impact small entities.This section of the preamble discussesthe results of the cost, impact, and riskanalyses of the proposed rule asdetailed in the draft Regulatory Analysisfor Waste-as-Fuel Technical Standards:Proposed Rule, October, 1986. The draftRIA is available in the public docket.

The regulatory impact analysis results(i.e., costs, impacts, risks) presented inthis section do not fully reflect today'sproposed rule. Specifically, the RIA doesnot fully assess the effects of the riskbased standards for metals and chlorine.The RIA does not assess the effect ofvarying the standards with the type andnumber of devices at a given facility,and on the type of surrounding terrain(flat or complex). Other components ofthe rule that are not analyzed in the RIAinclude the Tier IV standard, currentquantity limits for the small quantityburner exemption, variance for low riskwastes, eligibility of stoker coal devicesfor the trial burn waiver, therequirement of a redundant carbonmonoxide monitoring system, andburning solely for the purpose ofmaterials recovery. These newcomponents of the rule, and how theymay affect the analysis presented in theRIA, are discussed in the draft Effects ofRecent Changes on the Estimated Costsand Benefits of the Proposed Waste asFuel Technical Standards, January 1987.This report is an addendum to the RIAand is available in the public docket.

It is unclear how these components ofthe rule would affect the absoluteresults of the cost, economic impact, andrisk analyses presented in the RIA.However, the Agency believes that thebasic conclusions presented in thissection should be applicable to today'srule. Moreover, the Agency believes thatthe rule would remain a non-majorregulation as defined by the $100 millionannual criteria of E.O. 12291.

B. Affected Population

The characteristics of the burners thatwould be potentially affected by today'sproposed rule were obtained from theWaste-as-Fuel Survey of 1984. 7 3 Thesample design and general surveyresults are described in the Final Reportfor the Survey of Waste-as-Fuel: TrackII, November 1985, conducted for EPAby Westat, Inc. This report is availablein the public docket.

The Waste-as-Fuel (WAF) Survey wasdesigned to collect information ohburners of waste derived fuel material(WDFM) and used'or waste oil that arenot regulated as incinerators underRCRA Subtitle C. The subset ofthosedevices burning hazardous wastederived fuel material (HWDFM) forenergy recovery was identified from theset of all WDFM burners.

The baseline for this analysis consistsof burners who currently fire HWDFMfor energy recovery. The WAF Surveycharacterized burning practices in 1983.Several rules have been imposed sincethen that would affect the decision toburn HWDFM. The results from thesurvey were adjusted, to the extent.possible, to account for these rules: theDefinition of Solid Waste promulgatedJanuary 4,1985 (50 FR 614), the Phase IAdministrative Standards promulgatedNovember 29, 1985 (50 FR 49164), andthe Standards for Hazardous WasteStorage and Treatment Tank Systemsand Generators promulgated July 14,1986 (51 FR 25422). The adjusted set ofhazardous waste burners represents thepopulation potentially affected bytoday's proposed rule.

EPA estimated the cost, impact, andrisks on facilities that are estimated tobe burning HWDFM when today'sproposed rule becomes effective. EPAdid not estimate the net effect of variousincentives (or disincentives) that willexist in the future on burning HWDFMand are independent of today'sproposed rule. Generally, cost increasesfor alternative waste managementpractices will act as an incentive forburning, while lowering of energy priceswill serve as a disincentive to burnHWDFM. New restrictions on landdisposal generator wastes serve asincentives for increased burning ofHWDFM. The net effect will likely beincreased incentives for burniinghazardous waste. An increase in futureburning of HWDFM would result in

73 The survey sample design did not include SIC14 for which the Agency is aware of light-weightaggregate kilns that are fired with hazardous wastederived fuel material (HWDFM). The Agencyadjusted the survey results to account for thesedevices. "




greater costs and changes in risk whencompared to the estimates presented inthis analysis. However, at present, theAgency is unable to determine the neteffect of these factors on future burnersof hazardous waste, the characteristicsof future burners, and the subsequentresponses to the proposed requirements.Thus, the analysis presented hereconcerns only current burners ofHWDFM as reported in the WAF Surveyand as adjusted to include lightweightaggregate kilns.

The affected population consists ofapproximately 895 boilers burning 115million gallons of HWDFM per year and57 industrial furnaces burning 114million gallons of HWDFM per year.Industrial boilers represent 94 percent ofall devices burning HWDFM and burn50 percent of all HWDFM.

The majority of the HWDFM isburned by a few facilities.Approximately three percent of thefacilities burp 44 percent of all HWDFM.Moreover, the WAF Survey indicatesthat although the burning of HWDFM iswidespread across many industries, it isnot prevalent within any one industry.Based on the WAF Survey and the 1982Census of Manufacturers, only SIC 2611(pulp mills) and SIC 2865 (cyclic crudesand intermediate organic chemicals)have reported burning of HWDFM ingreater than 10 percent of the industry(11.2 and 11.1 percent respectively).

The chemicals industry (SIC 28)contains 17 percent of the facilities thatburn 54 percent (or 123 million gallonsannually) of the HWDFM. Thus,typically large quantities of HWDFM(986,511 gallons annually) are burnedper facility in this industry. Mostfacilities in the chemicals industry burnwastes that are generated on-site,

Other industries that burn largequantities of HWDFM annually (greaterthan 10 million gallons) are: non-metallicminerals, except fuels (SIC 14); paperand allied products (SIC 26); chemicalsand allied products (SIC 28); petroleumand related products (SIC 29); and stone,clay, glass, and concrete (SIC 32).Similar to the chemicals industry,relatively few facilities are reported inthese industries indicating that, onaverage, large quantities of HWDFM areburned per facility.

Two industries, in addition to SIC 28,have more than 100 facilities burningHWDFM: furnitures and fixtures (SIC25); and auto repair and service (SIC 75).These industries burn less than onepercent of all HWDFM. On average,relatively small quantities of HWDFM(i.e., 6,000 gallons annually) are burnedper facility within these industries.

C. Cost Analysis

1. Methodology. To obtain theincremental regulatory costs,7 4 it is firstnecessary to determine the net savingsachieved in the baseline from firingHWDFM. Burning HWDFM for energyrecovery results in reducedrequirements for primary (conventional)fuels. The savings are a function of thequantity and price of primary fueldisplaced. Relative heat content must beconsidered when determining quantityof primary fuel displaced with HWDFM.

Savings also include the avoidedalternative disposal costs for on-siteburners. The alternative method ofdisposal was considered to beincineration at a cost of $0.34 per gallonof HWDFM burned. This figure includesa component for transporting the wastesoff-site. The actual alternative disposalcost will depend on what options areavailable to the facility operator, and onthe characteristics of the divertedwastes (i.e., suitability of wastes forburning). More precise estimates ofdisposal costs were not possible due tolimited information on available optionsand waste characteristics for thespecific burners.

The above net savings were notadjusted to account for increasedoperating and maintenance costs due tofiring hazardous waste fuel. It ispossible that burners would encounterincreased costs due to corrosion, fouling,ash disposal, or pretreatment of thewastes. These costs would vary with thedevice and waste type. Detailedinformation was not available toestimate these costs. Net savings tend tobe overstated by not including thesecosts.

The level of net savings for a givenburner was used to predict the responseto the proposed rule. The methodologyassumes that burners will discontinueburning HWDFM if their potentialcompliance costs exceed net savings.Thus, the total net savings for allburners represents an upper bound oncompliance costs reflecting the worstcase scenario where all burners woulddiscontinue firing HWDFM.

To derive compliance costs, theAgency developed unit costs ofcompliance for the proposed rule andengineering costs for model devices. 7

74 All cost figures are in 1985 dollars. A sevenpercent real rate and a five percent inflation ratewere used to discount future cash flows.

7 , Engineering-Science. Background InformationDocument for the Development of Regulations toControl Burning of Hazardous Waste in Boilers andIndustrial Furnaces, Volumes I and 11, January1987, NTIS Order Nos. PB 87 173829 and PB 87173837.

Compliance activities includeinstallation of carbon monoxide andoxygen monitors, trial burns, reductionin quantity of HWDFM fired to meetemissions limits, prohibiting firing ofHWDFM at start-up and shut-down, trialburns, installation of air pollutioncontrol equipment, and administrativerequirements.

Each of the devices that reportedburning HWDFM in the WAF Surveywas assigned to a model device. Theleast-cost option was determined foreach device reported in the survey tocomply with the regulation (ordiscontinue burning if compliance costsexceed net savings). The costs for theindividual survey respondents were thenextrapolated to estimate national costs.

The characteristics of each device asreported in the WAF Survey representthe current design and operatingpractices from which the Agencyestimated incremental costs. The WAFSurvey provided detailed information onthe burners that included device type,device size, annual quantity of HWDFMburned, use of monitoring and airpollution control devices, source ofwaste (on-/off-site), method of firingwastes into the combustion device, andcurrent regulatory status under RCRA.

Although the survey requested wastecode and a description of the wasteburned, it did not ask for wasteconstituent data. Since costs (and risks)can vary considerably with wasteconstituent levels, a sensitivity analysiswas performed to account for variouswaste levels (e.g., POHCs, metals,chlorine).

Costs and risks also vary withassumptions on the levels of devicedestruction and removal efficiency(DRE) of organics and air pollutioncontrol device removal efficiencies(REs) achieved in the baseline. (Alldevices are assumed to meet the targetlevel of 99.99 percent DRE afterimposition of the proposedrequirements.) The DRE and RE levelswere varied in the baseline to test thesensitivity of these assumptions to costsand risks. Results of varying DRE andRE levels are not presented in thispreamble although the results aredetailed in the RIA. Wastecharacteristics tend to vary acrossburners more so than DRE or RE, andthe waste sensitivity analysis that hasbeen conducted has the greatest affecton costs and risks.

Costs were estimated for two types ofwastes: a base case waste and a highrisk waste. A waste database (formetals levels) was assembled fromwastes that are currently being burned

17023




or could potentially be combusted.7"The base case waste was assumed tocontain metals levels at the 50thpercentile and 'typical' POHC andchlorine levels. 77 The high risk wastewas assumed to contain 90th percentilemetals levels and 'high' POHC andchlorine levels.

The actual cost of the proposed rule ismore likely to be near the cost for thebase case waste scenario. The base casewaste is assumed to be a morerepresentative waste (containing 50thpercentile metals levels and typicallevels of POHCs and chlorine) than thehigh risk waste. However, an exactestimate of compliance costs cannot bemade due to the lack of wasteconstituent data for specific burners.

Facility operators have severaloptions for complying with the proposedrule. These options consist of conductinga trial burn to prove 99.99 percentdestruction and removal efficiency (4-9's DRE); waiying the trial burn ifspecial design and operating conditionsare met (for boilers only); qualifying forthe small quantity burner exemption ifquantity limits are met for a givendevice size and wastes are burned on-site; and discontinue burning HWDFM ifcompliance costs exceed net savings.Estimates of costs presented in thissection assume that the facility operatorwill choose the least-cost option incomplying with the proposed rule.

2. Results. The Agency determinesthat the proposed rule will result in asocial cost between 8.2 and 77.0 milliondollars on an annualized basis.7 8 Thus,based on the $100 million annual costthreshold established in E.O. 12291,today's proposed rule is non-major.

The $8.2 million figure is the socialcost for the base case waste scenario;the $77.0 million figure represents the

70 Engineering-Science, Background InformationDocument for the Development of Regulations toControl Burning of Hazardous Waste in Boilers andIndustrial Furnaces. Volume 1. January 1987, NTISOrder No. PB 87 173029.

17 POIC and Cl levels obtained from the RCRARisk-Cost Analysis Model Waste Stream Data,.SCSEngineers, July 1984.

78 The social cost is the cost to society,independent of any transfer payments (e.g., taxes).The social cost of the proposed rule does notinclude lost fuel savings to the original burner fordisplaced wastes. Thus, the social cost for displacedwastes is only the alternative disposal cost assumedto be $0,34 per gallon. The lost conventional (e.g.,fossil) fuel savings for a burner who reduces thequantity fired or stops burning HWDFM areassumed to be transferred to the burner who hasexcess capacity to accept the displaced wastes.

However. the lost fuel savings are included whenestimating the before and after-tax private costs toindividual facilities. The after-tax annualized cost toIndustry for the base case waste scenario is $5,2million, $30.6 million for the high risk waste, and $63million for the worst case scenario (where alldevices discontinue burning HWDFM).

worst case scenario where all devicesdiscontinue burning HWDFM. (Althoughthe Agency does not believe that theworst case scenario is the likelyoutcome of the proposed rule, it does* provide an upper bound on the cost oftoday's rule.) The social cost associatedwith the high risk waste scenario is$37.3 million annually.

Table 5 presents the estimatedaverage compliance cost per device typeand the anticipated response of deviceowner/operators to the proposed rule.Also listed is the percent of wasteburned (or displaced) for each option.Sixty-five percent of the boilers areestimated to qualify for the smallquantity burner exemption; however,

less than one percent of all HWDFM isburned under this exemption. Thisreflects the WAF Survey finding that alarge number of boilers fire very smallquantities of waste. These boilers wouldmost likely discontinue burningHWDFM if not allowed to continueunder the small quantity burnerexemption. Approximately 40 percent ofthe boilers that elect the small quantityburner exemption do so while firing thesame quantity of HWDFM as in thebaseline. The other 60 percent of theboilers reduce the amount of HWDFMfired (and incur lost savings) in order tomeet the small quantity burnerexemption quantity limits.

TABLE 5. AVERAGE COMPLIANCE COST PER DEVICE AND ESTIMATED RESPONSE TOREGULATION

[Base Case Waste]

SmallAverage quantity Trial burn Trial Discontin-

cost per burner waiver, burn, ur

device exemp- (percent) (percent) (percent)(percent)

Boilers ........................................... $8,942 65 11 2 22Kilns ..................................................... $47,754 5 N/A 95 0Other furnaces ................................... $34,314 13 N/A 87 0Percent of waste burned/dis-

placed .......... ..................... < 1 44 53 3

'Dollars are before-tax, annualized.N/A-not applicable as device type is not eligible for trial burn waiver.

The weighted average annualizedbefore-tax cost for boilers of $8,942consists of: an average cost of $5,490 forboilers operating under the smallquantity burner exemption (representinglost savings to meet the quantity limits);an average cost of $40,260 for boilersthat elect the trial burn waiver; anaverage cost of $42,650 for boilers thatconduct a trial burn; and an averagecost of $161 for boilers that discontinueburning HWDFM. The majority ofboilers that stop burning HWDFM arespace heaters and are not eligible for the-small quantity burner exemptionbecause their design heat input is lessthan the minimum allowed for the smallquantity burner exemption. These spaceheaters are operated'in the services(non-manufacturing) industry and burnvery small quantities of hazardouswaste as reflected by the low averageannualized compliance cost.

Kilns and other industrial furnacescan incur substantial compliance costs

and continue burning HWDFM due tothe large quantities of waste fired perdevice. The average annualized before-tax compliance cost for kilns (i.e.,cement, lime, lightweight aggregate) is$47,754 and the average cost for otherfurnaces (e.g., blast furnaces) is $34,314.

Almost all of the waste (97 percent) isburned by devices that conduct a trialburn or satisfy the trial burn waiverconditions. Approximately three percentof the HWDFM burned in the baseline isdisplaced'from devices that discontinueburning or devices that continue to burnbut at a reduced quantity. As statedpreviously, less than one percent of thewaste is burned under the smallquantity burner exemption.

Table 6 presents similar informationfor the high risk waste (i.e.. 90thpercentile metals levels, "high" POHCand C1 levels). The device response tothe proposed rule is similar to the basecase waste although the average costper device is significantly higher for alldevices.

17024




TABLE 6. AVERAGE COMPLIANCE COST PER DEVICE AND ESTIMATED RESPONSE TOREGULATION

(High Risk Waste]

SmallAverage quai Trial burn Trial Discontin-cotpr burner Tilbr bun uscost P exemp- waiver, burn,device (percent) (percent) burning,

(percent)

Boilers ................................................ $58,400 66 10 3 22Kilns ..................................................... $160,428 5 N/A 81 14Other furnaces ................................... $149,763 13 N/A 87 0Percent of waste burned/dis-

placed .................................................................... <1 15 51 33

Dollars are before-tax, annualized.N/A-not applicable as device type is not eligible for trial burn waiver.

Table 7 shows the components of theaggregate compliance costs for the basecase and high risk waste scenarios. Themajor component under each wastescenario is lost savings from burnerswho must reduce the quantity ofHWDFM fired in order to meet the limitsfor organics, metals, and chlorine.Boilers will reduce tne HWDFMquantity fired under either wastescenario. Boilers are more likely toreduce the quantity of HWDFM buirnedrather than install expensive airpollution control equipment. The Agencyestimates that no boilers will beinstalled with new air pollution controlunder the base case waste scenario andonly 10 boilers will be equipped with airpollution control under the high riskwaste scenario. These 10 boilers firelarge quantities of HWDFM (greaterthan I million gallons annually) and athigh feed rates (greater than 25 percenttotal heat input). Thus, for these boilers,the potential lost savings in displacedwastes required by blending to meet thelimits would exceed the cost to installair pollution control. The differencebetween the two scenarios for the COand 02 monitors reflects the greaternumber of devices that discontinueburning HWDFM under the high riskwaste scenario.

TABLE 7.-COMPONENTS OF COMPLIANCECOSTS

[Dollars in millions, annualized, after-tax]

Scenario

Base High Worstcase risk case (allstopwaste waste firing)

Type of cost

TABLE 7.-COMPONENTS OF COMPLIANCECosTS-Continued

[Dollars in millions, annualized, after-tax]

Scenario

Base High Worstcase risk case (allwaste waste firin)

CO monitoring ........ 1.5 1.3 .............Air pollution

control ................. 0.0 2.9 ......Trial bums .............. 0.4 0.4 .................Administrative

requirements..;... 0.6 0.6 .............Testing .................... < 0.1 0.1 .................

Total costs.. 5.2 30.6 63.0

Industrial furnaces are currently -installed with some form of air pollutioncontrol equipment that will allow forcompliance with the emissions limits,without reducing the quantity ofHWDFM fired, under the base casewaste scenario. However, in certaincases under the high risk wastescenario, the air pollution controlequipment must be supplemented with areduction in quantity in order to meetthe limits.

Carbon monoxide (CO) monitoring isalso a significant component ofcompliance costs. The WAF Surveyindicates that only a few boilers (mostlythose burning large quantities ofHWDFM) are currently monitoring forCO. Although most kilns and otherfurnaces currently monitor for CO, theAgency believes that these monitors arenot sensitive enough to show

-compliance with the limits establishedin today's proposed rule. A total of 104boilers, 30 kilns, and 22 other furnaces(about 16 percent of all devicescurrently burning HWDFM) areestimated to install CO monitors under

the base case waste scenario. A total of95 boilers, 26 kilns, and,22 otherfurnaces (15 percent of all devicesburning HWDFM) are estimated toinstall CO monitors under the high riskwaste scenario. The annualized before-tax cost for CO monitoring isapproximately $20,000 per year.

D. Economic Impacts1. Methodology. The economic

analysis focused on facility levelimpacts. Industry level impacts were notconsidered since the results of the WAFSurvey suggest that burning HWDFM ispracticed by only a small percentage offacilities in any one industry. (Althoughthe burning of HWDFM is practicedacross a wide range of industries.)Industry-wide impacts would not besignificant where only a smallpercentage of facilities incur regulatorycosts.

The percentage of facilities firingHWDFM also influences whethercompliance costs, resulting from theproposed rule, are absorbed by thefacility or are passed through as priceincreases. Since few facilities withinany industry burn HWDFM, they aremore likely to absorb regulatory costsand thus face reduced profitability orpossibly plant closure.

If the facilities were to pass throughthe compliarce costs in the form ofhigher prices, the facilities might then beat a competitive disadvantage withother facilities that did not incurincreased costs. Therefore, potentialeconomic impacts of this rule are morelikely to take the form of reducedprofitability and possibly plant closure.

Little information was availableregarding the profitability of affectedburners in the baseline. Facilitiesburning HWDFM might be experiencingreturns that are below or above ,theindustry average. The lack ofuncertainty on the financial strength ofthe affected burners prohibits predictingimpacts with certainty. Thus, theeconomic analysis presented willidentify industries where facilities aremost likely to experience impacts, basedon average financial measures ofstrength for that industry and employeesize range.

A two stage analysis was conductedin determining impacts. First, ascreening analysis was performed toidentify those facilities that may besignificantly impacted. The totalcompliance cost for all devices burningHWDFM at a facility was compared tothe total baseline operating andmaintenance (O&M) cost for thosedevices. Operating and maintenancecosts include net fuel savings from

Lost savings ..........0% Monitoring .......

$25 $63.00.3 ................

17025




burning HWDFM. As stated previously,net savings have not been adjusted dueto increased costs for pretreatment,corrosion maintenance, or ash disposal.Overstating net savings will understatetotal O&M costs; thus, the percentincrease in O&M costs due to thecompliance costs may be overstated.

Facilities were considered to facepotentially significant impacts if thetotal cost of compliance exceeded thetotal O&M cost for all devices by fivepercent or greater. Generally, anincrease in facility costs will be lessthan the increase in device O&M costs.Similarly, it is unlikely that significantimpacts would be imposed on a facilityif one segment of its operations incurredan increase of less than five percent.Thus, a five percent increase in deviceO&M costs represents a conservativescreen for potential facility impacts.

The screening analysis was conductedon boilers only. No baseline deviceO&M costs were available for kilns andother furnaces. However, all kilns andother furnaces burning HWDFM wereincluded in the second stage of theanalysis.

The second stage consisted of ananalysis to assess impacts on the facilitylevel. All devices were analyzed forfacility level impacts. The facility's costof compliance was compared to threemeasures of plant financial strength:cash from operations (CFO), cost ofproduction (COP), and value ofshipments (VOS). Plant-specificfinancial information was not availablefor the affected burner population. Thethree measures of plant financialstrength that were used in the analysisare representative facility values for agiven four digit SIC code and employeesize range. A facility is considered toface a significant impact if the cost ofcompliance for all devices at the facilityexceeds 5 percent of any of the threefinancial measures.

The ratio of compliance costs to COPreflects the price increase required torecover the compliance costs andmaintain the facility's profit margin;comparing costs to VOS represents therequired price increase to recover costs,without any mark-up for profit margin;the ratio of compliance costs to CFOrepresents the decrease in profitability ifthe facility absorbs the regulatory costs.As stated previously, it is probable thatcosts will be absorbed where fewfacilities within an industry incurcompliance costs from today's proposedrule and, thus, compliance costs as apercentage of CFO is the most relevantparameter.

Moreover, the cost of compliancerelative to CFO is often the mostconservative indicator of potential

impacts. Cash from operations is thedifference between the value ofshipments (VOS) and the cost ofproduction (COP), CFO is always lessthan VOS and often smaller than COP.Thus, costs as a percentage of CFO isusually greater than costs as apercentage of VOS or COP and willtypically represent the mostconservative indicator.

2. Screening analysis results. For thebase case waste scenario, 14 facilities

(representing 15 boilers), from a total of708 facilities with boilers burningHWDFM, incur compliance costs thatexceed 5 percent of total baseline O&Mcosts. Table 8 presents these figures.These facilities mostly operate in thechemicals industry (SIC 28) and tend tofire HWDFM at greater percentages ofthe heat input than other facilitieswhose compliance costs are less than 5percent of baseline O&M costs.

TABLE 8.-OVERVIEW OF SCREENING ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR BOILERS BASE CASEWASTE

AnnualaverageNumber Percent MNubr Number of all W M

Increase in O&M costs (percent) of Nber. perfaiiis of boilers boilers ericfacilities device

(percent) (percenttotal Btu)

< 5 ............................................................................. 694 880 98.3 1.525-9 ................................... .9 10 1.2 9.2610-24 ....................................................................... 0 0 0.0 NA25-74 ........................................................................ 5 5 0.5 38.1775-99 ........................................................................ 0 0 0.0 NA100+ ....................................................................... 0 0 0.0 NA

All boilers ................. I .................................... 708 895 100.0 1.79

The Agency estimates that all of theseboilers will continue burning HWDFMafter implementation of the proposedrule. The Agency also believes that thisscenario is the most likely outcome ofthe proposed rule.

Table 9 provides screening analysisresults for the high risk waste scenario.Sixty-two facilities (representing 102

boilers) incur compliance costs thatexceed 5 percent of baseline O&M costs.The boilers at these facilities also tendto be fired with HWDFM at higher ratesthan boilers at other facilities. All ofthese boilers are estimated to continueburning HWDFM as a result of theproposed rule.

TABLE 9.-OVERVIEW OF SCREENING ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR BOILERS HIGHRISK WASTE SCENARIO

AnnualPercent vera

Number Number of allincrease in O&M costs (percent) of of boilers boilers per

facilities device(percent) (percenttotal Btu)

<5 ............................................................................. 646 793 88.6 0.695-9 .................................... 19 39 4.3 5.0310--24 .................................................................... 26 30 3.4 9.7225-74 ....................................................... ............ 17 33 3.7 17.1575-99 ...................................................................... 0 0 0.0 NA100 + ....................................................................... 0 0 0.0 NAAll boilers ................................................................. 708 895 100.0 1.79

Under the worst case scenario, whereall devices discontinueburningHWDFM, 71 facilities (representing 116boilers) are estimated to incurcompliance costs exceeding 5 percent of

baseline O&M costs. The Agency doesnot believe this scenario is the likelyoutcome of the proposed rule, especiallyfor those boilers firing large quantities ofHWDFM that are likely to incur

1706




compliance costs that are well belownet savings. However, these results doprovide an upper-bound estimate of costincreases and impacts from theproposed rule.

3. Facility level analysis results.Under the base case scenario, one WAFSurvey respondent (representing 14facilities with one boiler each operatingin SIC 7399) is estimated to incurcompliance costs exceeding 5 percent ofCFO. This respondent does not incurcompliance costs greater than 5 percentof baseline O&M costs in the screeninganalysis. The Agency believes that the

industry average financial measuresmay understate the true financial healthof this facility, and that the result fromthe screening analysis is a betterindicator of potential impacts for thisfacility. These 14 facilities are reportedas operating in the services industry assolvent recyclers and are estimated tocontinue burning HWDFM under thetrial burn waiver (for both the base caseand high risk waste scenarios). TheAgency, therefore, believes it is unlikelythat there will be significant impacts onany facilities under the base case wastescenario.

Table 10 presents estimates offacilities experiencing significantimpacts for any of the three financialmeasures under the high risk wastescenario. Of the twenty-three facilitiesestimated to face potentially significantimpacts, only two facilities (with twokilns each), operating in SIC 3241, areestimated to discontinue firing HWDFM.The 23 facilities operate in SICs: 1422-Crushed and Broken Limestone; 2800-h-Chemicals Manufacturing; 2861-Gumand Wood Chemicals; 3241-Cement,Hydraulic; and 7399--Business Services,Not Elsewhere Classified.

TABLE 10.--OVERVIEW OF IMPACTS BY INDUSTRY I UNDER THE HIGH RISK WASTE SCENARIO PROPOSED RULE

Average cost Average cost Average costAverage of of ofA era Average HWDFM compliance/ compliance/ compliance/SIC Number umber number of device size burned per cost of value of cash fromfcte of employees (MMBtu/hour) device production per shipments per operation perper facility (gallon/hour) facility facility facility

(percent) (percent) (percent)

Crushed and BrokenLimestone

1422 ............................................ 1 2 60 50.0 4,000,000 29.12 61.88 j9.80

Chemicals and AlliedProducts

2800 ............................................ 2 10 1450 497.7 4,513,880 3.16 2.01 5.51

Gum and Wood Chemicals2861 ......................... 5 11 221 73.8 623,698 2.34 1.99 13.48

Cement, Hydraulic3241 ............................................ 2 5 165 180.0 2,372,486 4.15 2.79 8.50

Business Service, NEC7399 ......................................... 14 14 45 20.0 190,000 16.39 13.12 65.58

T o tals 2 ........................... 2 3 4 1.0 ...................... .......................... ......................... .......................... .......................... I ......... .

Includes only facilities with cost of compliance greater than 5 percent of O&M Cost (when available) and greater than 5 percent of Cashfrom Operations, Cost of Production, or Value of Shipments, except for SIC 7399 where compliance costs are less than 5 percent of device O&Mcost.

2 Totals may not equal sum of rows due to rounding.

Under the worst case scenario, 33facilities are estimated to incursignificant impacts as a result of theproposed rule. In addition to the fiveindustries impacted under the high riskwaste scenario, facilities in SIC 2631-Paperboard Mills, SIC 2819---4ndustrialInorganic Chemicals, Not ElsewhereClassified; SIC 2869-Industrial OrganicChemicals, Not Elsewhere Classified;and SIC 3312-Blast Furnaces,Steelworks, and Rolling Mills are alsoestimated to incur significant impacts.As stated previously, the Agency doesnot believe this scenario to be the likelyoutcome of the proposed rule.

E. Risk Analysis

1. Methodology. For each of theboilers and industrial furnaces, EPAestimated the quantity and compositionof stack releases; atmospheric transport,

resulting ground level concentration andexposure to the stack releaseconstituents; and, the doses received bythe most exposed individual (MEI) andby human populations within 50kilometers of each device. Estimateswere made for each device burningHWDFM in the baseline and afterimposition of the proposed rule. Thisallowed for a determination of theincremental risk reduction achieved bythe proposed requirements.

The Agency estimated carcinogenichealth effects (i.e., cancer cases) fromemissions of principal organichazardous constituents (POHCs),products of incomplete combustion(PICs), and metals (i.e., arsenic,cadmium and chromium). The Agencyalso determined exposure levels (but notcases) from emissions of the thresholdcompounds lead, hydrogen chloride, and

toluene. EPA considered air emissionsand exposure due to inhalation but didnot address other types of releases (e.g.,spills from storage or transportation,fugitive emissions) .and routes ofexposure (e.g., ingestion ofcontaminated crops or animals).

Changes in health risk may resultfrom the upgraded performance of adevice due to achieving compliance withthe proposed rule. Improvedperformance may result from theinstallation (or upgrading) of APCDs, theinstallation of CO and 02 monitors toensure optimum combustion efficiency,and prohibiting firing of HWDFM atstart-up and shut-down.

Alternative management of displacedwastes will also affect changes in risk.Displaced HWDFM-from devices thatstop burning or that reduce the quantityfired was assumed to be burned in

17027




industrial furnaces that accept off-sitewastes and continue to burn HWDFM(but not reduce the quantity fired) afterimposition of the proposed rule. Resultsfrom the WAF Survey indicate thatindustrial furnaces, especially kilns,tend to burn large quantities of HWDFMthat are generated off-site. Boilers tendto fire smaller quantities of HWDFMthat are often generated on-site. Thus,industrial furnaces are more likely thanboilers to accept off-site wastes.Inherent in this scenario is theassumption that the displaced wastescontain sufficient heat content so thatthey are attractive for burning for energyrecovery.

The waste scenarios used in the riskanalysis are identical to those used inthe cost analysis. The composition andfiring rate of the HWDFM determinesthe amount of hazardous constituentspotentially released from the stack. TheHWDFM firing rate for devices in thebaseline is that reported in the WAFSurvey. The firing rate for post-regulation is the level associated withthe least-cost compliance method perdevice.

The level of destruction and removalefficiency (DRE) for organics and APCDremoval efficiency (RE) for metalsdetermines the actual stack releases ofthe constituents,

Devices operating in the baselinewere assumed to be equipped with airpollution control devices (APCDs) asreported in the WAF Survey. EachAPCD was assumed to achieve a levelof removal efficiency that wasconsidered typical for that APCD type,

Various DRE levels were assigned tothe devices based on the reportedpresence of CO and 02 monitors,charging of solid or liquid wastes intothe device, and whether HWDFMrepresented more or less than 50 percentof the total fuel input. Although thestack tests conducted by EPA revealthat boilers can readily achieve 99.99percent DRE, the range of design andoperating conditions in the stack testsdid not cover the wide range ofconditions reported in the WAF Survey.Thus, respondent devices from the WAFSurvey were assigned to DRE categories.All devices burning HWDFM afterimposition of the proposed rule wereassumed to achieve the target level of99.99 percent DRE.

The location of each device asreported in the WAF Survey was usedas an input for dispersion modeling thatestimated the resulting exposure tohuman populations. Incorporating thelocation of each of the WAF Surveyrespondents allows for dispersionmodeling that accounts for the

climatology and general populationsurrounding the specific device.

Once the exposure estimates weredetermined, the dosage and resultingincreased risk received by the humanpopulation (and most exposedindividual) were calculated. Humanswere assumed to breathe 22 cubicmeters of air per day, absorb 100 percentof the hazardous material inhaled, weigh70 kilograms, and be of "average"susceptability. No antagonistic orsynergistic affects among the variouscompounds were analyzed. Stackreleases were assumed to continue for70 years, and all other factors alsoremained constant over this period (e.g.,human population, weather). Finally,each incidence of risk for a devicereported in the WAF Survey wasextrapolated to obtain nationalestimates for the total population ofdevices burning HWDFM.

Health effects were also assessedfrom emissions of the non-carcinogenic(threshold) compounds lead, hydrogenchloride (HCI), and toluene. Toluenewas chosen to represent a non-carcinogenic POHC since it is acompound often present in organichazardous wastes.

The Agency calculated the ratio ofpredicted exposure (for both the ME1and average population) to the referencedose for each of the three thresholdcompounds. The sum of the three ratioswas also calculated. Although the risksfrom threshold compounds may not beadditive, the sum of the ratios does ,serve as an indicator of potential effectsfrom exposure to multiple contaminants.

No information was available on theambient (background) levels of the threecompounds surrounding each specificdevice. This lack of data prohibits ananalysis of how the exposure fromburning HWDFM contributes to totalambient levels, If the resulting exposurefrom all sources of threshold compoundsis less than the reference dose, then theburning of HWDFM produces noincremental health risk for thesecompounds. However, if the exposurefrom baseline burning of HWDFM andother sources exceed the reference dose,then the reduced exposure resultingfrom today's rule may reduce the healthrisk from any or all of these threecompounds.

In order to consider the potential forsignificant ambient levels, EPA assumedthat other sources could account for upto 90 percent of the reference does. Thiswould allow for the burning of HWDFMto pose no health risk from each of thethreshold compounds if the resultingexposure was less than 10 percent of thereference dose. Thus, a screeninganalysis was done to identify thenumber of devices burning HWDFM thatproduced emisisons of thresholdcompounds, in the baseline and afterimposition of the proposed rule, thatexceeded 10 percent or more of thereference dose.

2. Results. Table 11 presents estimatesof the lifetime (i.e., 70 year) cancer casepfor the base case waste scenario.Estimates are provided for devicesoperating in the baseline and those thatcontinue to burn HWDFM (or burndisplaced wastes) after imposition of theproposed rule.

TABLE 11 .- EXPECTED LIFETIME CANCER CASES

[Base case waste scenario]

POHC's PIC's Metals Total

Baseline .......................................................................................... 1 1 16 18Post-regulation ............................................................................... 0 0 15 15

Cases avoided ........................................................... 1 1 1 3

Cases avoided from devices that continue to burn ........................... 3Cases avoided from devices that discontinue burning ......................... 0Cases from burning of displaced wastes ............................... (< 1

Net cases avoided .......................................... 3

The base case waste scenario resultsin 3 cases avoided from the 759 devicesthat continue to burn HWDFM afterimposition of the proposed rule. Thereare no cases avoided from the 193devices that discontinue burningHWDFM because over 95 percent ofthese devices are space heaters that arefired with very low quantities (100

gallons annually) of HWDFM. Theburning of displaced HWDFM inindustrial furnaces results in less thanone lifetime cancer case. Thus, the netreduction in 70-year cases isapproximately three. Under this wastescenario, all of the after-regulation riskand the majority of the baseline risk isfrom metals (i.e., arsenic, cadmium,

17028




chromium) emissions, It is likely thatmany wastes will not have all threemetals at the assumed levels. The aboveresults may overstate risks for thesetypes of wastes.

Table 12 presents the risks to the mostexposed individual (MEI); the Agencyestimates that there are no devicesburning HWDFM in the baseline thatpose a lifetime risk equal to or greaterthan one in ten thousand. Ten devicesproduce a risk to the MEI in the one inone hundred thousand range. Theremaining 942 devices are estimated toproduce a MEI risk in the one in onemillion range or less. After compliancewith the proposed rule, no devices thatwere burning HWDFM in the baselinewould generate incremental lifetimerisks in the one in ten thousand range.Forty-eight devices are estimated toproduce a ME! risk in the one in onemillion range, while the remaining 706devices burning HWDFM generate risksin the one in ten million range or less.

TABLE 12.-RISKS TO THE MEI

(Base case waste scenario]

Per-Num- cent

Risk ber of de-level de- de-

vices vice

lation

Baseline ...................... >10 -4 0 0

Do ........................ 10-' 0 0Do ........................ 10- 5 10 1DO ........................ 10 - 61 6Do ....................... 10-' 103 11DO ........................ <10-7 778 82

Total ............... 952 100

Post-regulation ........... > 10-4 0 0

Do ........................ 10-' 0 0Do ....................... 10- i 6 1Do ........................ 10- 6 48 5Do ........................ 10- 7 56 6Do ........................ <10-7 650 68

Total ............... 759 80

Devices thatdiscontinueburning ................ 193 20

For noncarcinogenic effects under thebase case waste scenario, EPAestimates that there are no devicesproducing MEI or average populationexposures, in the baseline or after-

I II II I

regulation, exceeding 10 percent of anyof the reference doses. The sum of theratios is also less than 10 percent. Thus,if other sources produce exposure levelsless than 90 percent of the referencedoses, then the proposed rule achievesno benefits from reduced emissions ofthreshold compounds.

The Agency estimates that, under thehigh risk waste scenario, there are 391cases avoided from the 755 devices thatcontinue to burn and no cases avoidedfrom the 197 devices that discontinueburning HWDFM. Table 13 presentsthese results. Alternative managementof the displaced HWDFM produces 74cases. Thus, there is a net reduction of317 lifetime cases. Similar to the basecase waste results, metals emissionsaccount for the majority of the baselineand post-regulation risks.

TABLE 13.-EXPECTED LIFETIME CANCERCASES

[High risk waste scenario]

POHC's PIC's Metals Total

Baseline ..... 25 4 582 611Post-

regula-tion ......... 2 0 218 220

Casesavoid-ed. 23 4 364 391

Casesavoidedfromdevicesthatcontin-ue toburn ......................... 391

Casesavoidedfromdevicesthatdiscon-tinueburning .......................... 0

Casesfromburningofdis-placedwastes .......................... (74)

Netcasesavoid-ed . ....................... 317

Table 14 presents estimates oif M8!risk for the high risk waste scenario. Inthe baseline, 19 devices produce an MEIrisk in the one in ten thousand range,100 devices produce an MEI risk in theone in one hundred thousand range, andthe remaining 833 devices produce anMEI risk in the one in one million rangeor less. After imposition of the proposedrule, no devices produce an MEI risk inthe one in ten thousand range, 73devices produce an MEl risk in the onein one hundred thousand range, and 682devices produce an ME1 risk in the onein one million range or less (197 devicesdiscontinue burning HWDFM).

TABLE 14.-RISKS TO THE MEI

[High risk waste scenario]

Risk Number Percent oflevel of device

devices population

Baseline ....... >10-' 0 0Do ......... 10-' 19 2Do ......... 10 - s 100 11Do ....... 10-6 167 17Do ......... 10-7 198 21Do. <10' 468 49

Total ................ 952 100

Post-regula-tion ............ > 10-4 0 0

Do ......... 10-' 0 0Do ......... 10- 5 73 8Do ......... 10-6 52 5Do ......... 10-7 35 4Do ......... <10-' 595 62

Total ................ 755 79

Devicesthatdiscontin-ueburning ..... ....... 197 21

For the high risk waste scenario,Table 15 shows that 45 devices wouldproduce exposures exceeding 10 percentof the HCI threshold level in thebaseline. A total of 58,838 people wouldbe exposed to this HC1 level. The sum ofthe ratios for the three compoundsexceeds 10 percent at 47 devices (5percent of all devices burning HWDFM)in the baseline. For these devices, theproposed rule eliminates all exposuresgreater than 10 percent of the threshold.

17029




TABLE 15.-CHANGES IN NON-CANCER HEALTH RISK

[High risk waste scenario, average ratio of exposure to RFD >0.1]

Baseline Post-regulation

Constituent Number of Total Number of Totaldevices population population

w/in 50 km devices w/in 50 km

Noncarcinogenic POHC's .................... 0 0 0 0HCL .......................................................... 0 0 0 0Lead ......................................................... 0 0 0 0Sum of ratios ............................. 0 0 0 0

MEI RATIO OF EXPOSURETO RFD >0.1

Baseline Post-regulation

Constituent Number of Total Number of Totalpopulation es populationwfin 50 km w/in 50 km

Noncarcinogenic POHC's .......... ....... 0 0 0 0HCL ..................................... ;45 58,838 0 0Lead ....... ....... .............. "0 0. 0 0Sum of ratios ......................... 47 64,915 0 0

F. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

- The Regulatory Flexibility 4ct (RFA)requires Federal regulatory agencies toevaluate the impacts of regulations onsmall entities. The RFA requires aninitial screening analysis to determinewhether the proposed rule will have asignificant impact on a substantialnumber of small businesses.

This section discusses themethodology and results of the Agency'sRFA screening analysis. Based on thisanalysis, the Agency has determinedthat today's rule will not have asubstantial impact on a substantialnumber of small firms.

1. Methodology. The facility financialmeasures used in the overall economicanalysis were used for the RFAscreening analysis. A small entity wasconsidered to be significantly impactedwhen the cost of compliance for one ormore devices exceeded by five percentany of the three financial -measures (i.e.,cost of production, value of shipments,cash from operations).

The RFA defines small entities assmall businesses, small organizations,and small governmental jurisdictions.The Small Business Administration's

"EPA. Guidelines for implementing theRegulatory Flexibility Act. pp. 6-7.

(SBA) definition of "small" ranges from*100 to 500 employees depending on thejStandird Industrial Classification (SIC)code.

The cost and impact analyses were-conducted at the facility rather than atthe firm level due to lack of informationon firm size. Neither the RFA nor theSBA defines "small" establishments,although for single-establishment firmsthe SBA's small business standardswould apply. All facilities areconsidered to be single establishmentfirms for the impact assessment.

For purposes of this analysis, smallentities were defined to be thosefacilities with fewer than 100 employees.Four size categories (i.e., less than 10, 10to 50, 51 to 100, greater than 100employees) were used to compareimpacts between small and largeestablishments and the relative burdenimposed on small businesses.

The Agency has defined "substantialnumber" as twenty percent of the .affected small entities.7 9 The populationof affected small facilities as reported inthe WAF Survey (and as adjusted toinclude lightweight aggregate kilns) wasused for the analysis. If twenty percent

of all facilities with less than 100employees are significantly affected,then the proposed rule is •considered tohave a significant impact on asubstantial number of small entities.

2. Results. The assessment of smallbusiness impacts was conducted for alldevices burning HWDFM in thebaseline.

As stated in Section D-EconomicImpacts, the Agency estimates that nofacilities will incur compliance coststhat exceed 5 percent of any of the threefinancial measures for the base casewaste scenario. Although, as identifiedabove, 14 facilities operating in SIC 7399are estimated to incur costs greater than5 percent of CFO, EPA believes that theindustry financial data on which thisfinding is based are not reliable for

'these facilities. Thus, EPA believes thatthese facilities will not experiencesignificant impacts. Moreover, althoughthese 14 facilities represent 49 percent ofall facilities in the 10 to 49 employee sizerange, they represent only 5 percent ofall small facilities (facilities with lessthan 100 employees). Thus, the Agencyestimates that a substantial number ofsmall entities will not be significantlyinlp'acted under the base case wastescenario. The Agency believes thisscenario to be the most likely outcomeof the proposed rule.

Table 16 shows an overview ofimpacts for the high risk waste scenario.Excluding the 14 facilities in SIC 7399,whose industry financial information isbelieved to be inappropriate, one"small" facility (in the 50 to 99 employeesize range) is estimated to incursignificant impacts. This facilityoperates in SIC 1422 and burns HWDFMin two kilns. Eight facilities (operating inSICs 2800,2861 and 3241) with greater-than 100 employees are also estimatedto face significant impacts. The one"small" facility represents less than onepercent of all facilities with less than100 employees. (Including the 14facilities in SIC 7399 would bring thetotal of significantly impacted smallfacilities to 6 percent of all facilitieswith less than 100 employees.) Thus,under the high risk waste scenario, itappears that a significant number ofsmall entities will not be significantlyimpacted by today's rule.

17030




TABLE 16.--OVERVIEW OF IMPACTS FOR SMALL ESTABLISHMENTS

(High risk waste scenariol

Average cost Average cost Average cost Facilities experiencingoof f of significant impacts

Establishment size (number of Total Total compliance/ compliance/ compliance/emplyees) number of number of cost of value of cash fromemployees) facilities devices production per shipments per operations per (Number) (Percent of

facility facility facility total)(percent) (percent) (percent)

<10 ..................................................... 193 193 0,24 0.29 1.13 0 0.0010 to 49 ............................................... 28 33 8.21 6.53 32.38 14 48.8750 to 99 ............................................... 38 42 0.91 1.73 0.98 1 2.62100+ ................................................... 480 685 0.12 0.09 0.35 8 1.76

Totals ..................................... 738 952 0.50 0.47 0.60 23

In summary, the Agency believes thatit is unlikely that small entities willexperience significant impacts under thebase case scenario. Although onefacility does experience significantimpacts under the high risk wastescenario, it does not represent a"substantial number" of the affectedsmall entities. Therefore, the proposedrule does not meet the RegulatoryFlexibility Act criteria requiring that afull Regulatory Flexibility Analysis becompleted.

The Agency solicits public commentsand additional data regarding theassumptions, costs, risks, and possibleimpacts identified in the regulatoryanalysis.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collectionrequirements in this proposed rule havebeen submitted for approval to theOffice of Management and Budget(OMB) under the Paperwork ReductionAct, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. AnInformation Collection Requestdocument has been prepared by EPA(ICR No. 1361) and a copy may beobtained from Rick Westlund,Information Policy Branch; EPA; 401 MStreet, SW., (PM-223); Washington, DC20460 or by calling (202) 382-2745.Submit comments on these requirementsto EPA and: Office of Information andRegulatory Affairs; OMB; 726 JacksonPlace, NW.; Washington, DC 20503marked "Attention: Desk Officer forEPA." The final rule will respond to anyOMB or public comments on theinformation collection requirements.

Ill, List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 260,261, 264, 265, 266, 270, and 271

Administrative practices andprocedures, Confidential businessinformation, Hazardous materialstransportation, Hazardous waste, Indianlands, Insurance, Intergovernmentalrelations, Packaging and containers,

Penalties, Recycling, Reporting andrecordkeeping requirements, Securitymeasures, Security bonds, Waterpollution control, Water supply.

Dated: April 17, 1987.Lee M. Thomas,Administrator.

APPENDIX, A.-REFERENCE AIR CON-CENTRATIONS (RAC's) FORTHRESHOLD CONSTITUENTS

Maximumannual

averageConstituent ground level

concentra-tion fl.

____________ M)

Acetonitrile .....................................Acetophenone ...............................Acrolein ..........................................Aluminum phosphide ....................Allyl alcohol ....................................Antim ony ........................................Barium ............................................Barium cyanide ..............................Benzidine ........................................Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate ............Brom om ethane ..............................Calcium cyanide ............................Carbon disultide ..........................Chlordane .......................................2-chloro-1,3-butadiene .................Chlorom ethane ..............................Chrom ium III ..................................Copper cyanide .............................Cresols ...........................................Cyanide(free) .................................Cyanogen .......................................Di-n-butyl phthalate .......................O -dichlorobenzene ........................Dichlorodifluoromethane ..............2,4-dichlorophenol .......................1,3-dichloropropene .....................Diethyl phthalate ...........................Dim ethoate .....................................2,4-dinitrophenol ............................Diphenylamine .... ............Endosulfan ........ ...........Endrin ......................Flourine ..........................................

105000.250.25

50.25

5050

0.5 x 10-517

0.725

2005 X 10-3

2.50.7

1,00050

10017251010

1702.5

0.25101.01.0

2250.010.0550

APPENDIX A.-REFERENCE AIR CON-CENTRATIONS (RAC's) FORTHRESHOLD CONSTITUENTs-Con-tinued

Maximumannualaverage

Constituent ground levelconcentra-tion (tI

Formaldehyde ................................Formic acid ....................................Heptachlor .....................................Hexachlorocycolepentadiene ......Hydrocyanic acid ...........................Hydrogen chloride ........... I ...Hydrogen sulfide ...........................Isobutyl alcohol .............................Lead .................... .....................Mercury .......................................Metholmyl ........................Methoxychlor ..............Methly ethyl ketone ...................Methyl hydrazine ...........................Methyl parathion ...........................Nickel ..............................................Nickel cyanide ...............................Nitric oxide .....................................Nitrobenzene .................................Pentachlorobenzene .....................Pentachlorophenol ..................Phenol ............................................M-phenylenediamine .....................Phenylmercudc acetate ................Phosphine ......................................PCBs ...............................................Potassium cyanide ........................Potassium silver cyanide ..............Pyridine ...........................................Selenious acid ..............................Selenourea .....................................Silver ...............................................Silver cyanide ................................Sodium cyanide .............................Strychnine ......................................1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene ..........2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-

dioxin ........................................2,3,7,8-tetrachlorophenol ............Tetraethyl lead ...............................Thallic oxide ...................

2 X 10- 3

17000.1

517(1)2.5250

0.091.7235075

7x10 " 32.51017250.51.725

1005

0.080.025

2 X 10-45o

1705

2.555

10025

0.250.25

5 X 10- 9

10I X 10-4

0.25

:17031




APPENDIX A.-REFERENCE AIR CON-CENTRATIONS (RAC'S) FOR,THRESHOLD CONSTITUENTS-Con-tinued

Maximumannualaverage

Constituent ground levelconcentra-tion (g/m&

)

Thallium ..................................... 500Thallium (I) acetate ...................... 0.5Thallium (I) carbonate .................. 0.25Thallium (I) chloride ...................... 0.5Thallium (I) nitrate ......................... 0.5Thallium selenite ........................... 0.5Thallium (I) sulfate ........................ 0.5Toluene .......................................... 5001,2,4-trichlorobenzene .................. 17Trichloromonofluoromethane ...... 2502,4,5-trichlorophenot .................... 100Vandium pentoxide .................... 17Vinyl chloride ...................... ...... 0.05

Maximum of 150 for three minute average.

APPENDIX B.-RISK SPECIFIC DOSES FORCARCINOGENIC CONSTITUENTS AT 10- 5Risk Level

RiskConstituent specific

dose (pglml

Acrylamide .....................................Acrylonitrile ....................Aldrin ..............................................Aniline.............................................Arsenic ..........................................Benz(a)anthracene ........................Benzene .....................Benzo(a)pyrene .............................Beryllium .........................................Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether .................Bis(2-chloromethyl)ether ..............Cadmium ........................................Carbon tetrachloride .............1 -Chloro-2,3-epoxypropane.Chloroform .............................Chloromethyl methyl ether ...Chromium (hexavalent) ................DDT .................................................Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ................1,2-Dibromo-e-chloropropane ......1,2-Dibromoethane .......................1,4-Dichlorobenzene ....................1,2-Dichloroethane .......................1,1.-Dichloroethylene ....................Dieldrin ...........................................Diethylstilbestrol ............................Dimethynitrosamine ....................2,4-Dinitrotoluene ..........................Dioxane ..........................................Ethylene oxide ..................Hexachlorobenzene ...................Hexachlorobutadiene ...............Hydrazine .......................................Hydrazine Sulfate .........................3-Methylchlolanthrene...............

9X10 - 3

l1i10-'

2X10-31

2x10-31 X,10 -

13x10

- 3

4 X10-33x10-24x10-36x10-37x10 - 18

4x10-1

4 x 10- 3

8X10-1

3 x10-27x 10

- 4

2x10-38x10-42

4x10- t

2x10-

2x10-37X10 - 61 X10 - 4

1 X10 - 17

1 X 0 "1

25x10-'3x10-33x10

- 3

4X-10 3

APPENDIX B.-RISK SPECIFIC DOSES FORCARCINOGENIC CONSTITUENTS AT 10- 5Risk Level-Continued

RiskspecificConstituent dose (Jtg/ml)

Methylene chloride ........................ .. 24,4-Methylene-bis-2-

chloroaniline ................ : .............. 2x 10-'Nickel (carbonyl and Subsul-

fide) ..................... 3x10 -2

2-Nitropropane ............................... 4x 10-3N-Nitroso-n-methylurea ............... I X 10-5N-Nitrosopyrrolidine ...................... 2 x I0-2Pentachloronitrobenzene ............. x 10-1Pronamide ................... 2Reserpine ....................................... 3x 10- 31,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ............ 2 x 10-6Tetrachloroethylene .................... 21Thiourea .................. 2x10

- 2

Trichloroethylene .......................... . 8

Appendix C.-Example Tier I and Tier I1Calculations

Example #1 (Tier 1)

A 10 MM Btu/hr (heat input) boiler isburning hazardous waste at a rate of 150 lbs/hr along with 400 lbs/hr of heating oil. Theboiler is located in flat terrain. The waste hasa heating value of 10,000 Btu/lb and containsthe metal concentrations

Arsenic=0.5 ppmCadmium*=1.0 ppmChromiUm =0.4 ppmLead =1.0 ppm

Question: Is the waste in compliance withTier I standards?

For this case the following equation fromproposed § 266.34-4(b)(3)(i)(B) applies:

(As) (Cd) (Cr+6)(1) + - 1.0

3.9X10- 4 9,8X10 4 1.4X10-

4

Note-For.Tier 1, all chromium in thewaste is treated as hexavalent chromium(Cr+6J.

First (As), (Cd), and (Cr) in units of lb/MMBtu, must be determined for the waste usingthe following equation(s):

(M) = Cm (106 Btu)(10-6 lbs/ppm)

Hw

which simplifjies to:

Cm(2) (M)=-

Hw

where:(M) is the metal feedrate in the waste in lb/

MM Btu.Cm is the metal concentration in the waste in

ppm.Hw is the heat content of the waste in Btu/lb.

Therefore:

(As)= -0.5 =5X10 5 lb/MM Btu104

(Cd)= 1 =1X10-4 lb/MM Btu104

0.4(Cr)= - =4X10

- 5 lb/MM Btu104

Substituting in equation #1:

5X10- 1X10- 4 4XIO-1+ + -

3.9X10 - 4 9.8X10 - 4 1.4X10 - 4

0.13+010+0.28=0.52<1.0Therefore, the facility is in compliance with

Tier I standards for arsenic, cadmium, andchromium.

As for lead, using equation #2:

10,(Pb)= - =ixi0- Ib/MM Btu

104

From proposed § 266.34-4(b){3)(i)(B).maximum lead levels are 1.6X 10- lb/MMBtu. Therefore, the facility is in compliancewith the all Tier I metal standards. Note: It isproposed that the specific levels' for themetals will be fixed in the final permit basedon the characteristics of the waste andequation #1.

17032




Example #2 (Tier II)

The above boiler is burning a hazardouswaste under the same conditions as example#1 except the hazardous waste has thefollowing metals concentrations:

Arsenic= 2.0 ppm

Cadmium =1.0 ppmChromium=0.4 ppmLead= 20 ppm

Question: Would the boiler be incompliance with Tier II standards whenburning fuel oil containing the followingmetals:

Arsenic=0.5 ppmCadmium =0.2 ppmChromium= 0.2 ppmLead=l.0 ppm

In this case, the following equation for TierU (from proposed § 266.34-4(b)(2)) must beused to calculate the metal feed rate (MFR):

N

Mw x Rw +i=1

N

MFi x RFi + MFSJ x RFSji~1

For this case the equation can be simplifiedto the following:

(4) MFR= MwxRw+MIxRr, X10_6

where:MFR means the individual metal feed rate in

pounds/million Btu of total heat input tothe device.

Mw means individual metal concentration inthe hazardous waste in ppm.

Rw means the hazardous waste feed rate inpounds/hour.

Mn means the concentration of metal in theother fuel, P1, in ppm.

I Rn means the feed rate for the other fuel, F1,in pounds/hour.

HT means the total heat input to the device inmillion Btu/hour.

Therefore, substituting in equation #4

2.0X150 lbs/hr+O.5x400 lbs/hr

10 million Btu/hr

=5X10 - lb/MM Btu(Cd)=2.1 X 10-s lb/MM Btu(Cr) =1.4 x 1 l- b/MM Btuand then substituting in equation #1:

5.0×10 - 0 2.1X10 - s 1AX10- 11+ + --

3.9X10 - 4 9.8X1 - 4 1AX10 4

0.128+0.02+0.10=0.25<1.0

The facility is in compliance with the Tier11 requirements for arsenic, chromium, andcadmium.

For lead, using equation #4

2.0X150+0.5X4(Pb)= 00 X10- 6

10

3.4 X 10- 4 lb/MM Btuwhich is also in compliance with the1.6x 10- 2 lb/MM Btu lead standard.'

For the reasons set out in thePreamble, it is proposed to amend Title40 of the Code of Federal Regulations asfollows:

X10-6

PART 260-HAZARDOUS WASTE ,MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL

I. In Part 260:1. The authority citation for Part 260

continues to read as follows:Authority: Secs. 1006, 2002, 3001 through

3007, 3010, and 7004, Solid Waste DisposalAct, as amended by the ResourceConversation and Recovery Act of 1976, asamended, 42 U.S.C. 6905,6912,6921 through6927, 6930, and 6974.

2. It is proposed to amend thedefinition of "Industrial Furnace" in§ 260.10 by redesignating paragraph (12)as (13) and by adding a new paragraph(12) to read as follows:

§ 260.10 Definition.

"Industrial furnace" *(12) Halogen acid furnaces for the

production of acid from halogenatedsecondary materials generated atchemical production facilities where thefurnace is located on-site and the acidproduct has a halogen acid content of atleast 6%.ft t t ft ft

3. It is proposed to amend paragraph(a) of § 260.11 by adding followingreference in alphabetical order:

§ 260.11 References.(a) * **"Guidelines for Permit Writers:

Permitting Hazardous WasteCombustion Facilities Using RiskAssessment".ft * * *

PART 261-IDENTIFICATION ANDLISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

II. In Part 261:1. The authority citation for Part 261

continues to read as follows:Authority: Seacs. 1006, 2002(a), 3001, and

3002 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, asamended by the Resource Conservation andRecovery Act of 1976, as amended (42 U.S.C.6905. 6912(a), 6921, and 6922).

2. Section 261.32 is amended byrevising the entry under "iron and steel"for the hazardous waste listing K062 toread as follows:

§ 261.32 Hazardous wastes from specificsources.• ft * * ft

Industry andEPA Hazadous WOW Hazard

hazardous codewaste No.

Iron and Spent pickle ikwtor generated by (C, T)Steek. stee tinishing operations of t-

ci.. tia within the iron and steelK 0 h2. industry (SIC Codes 331 and

332).

3. It is proposed to amend § 261.4 byadding paragraph (a)(9) to read asfollows: §261.4 Exclusions.

(a) * *

(9) Coke and coal tar from the ironand steel industry that contains or is

MFR , X 10

1L7033



Federal Register I Vol. 52, No. 87 / Wednesday, May 6, 1987 / Proposed Rules

produced from decanter tank tar sludge,EPA Hazardous Waste K087.

PART 264-STANDARDS FOROWNERS AND OPERATORS OFHAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,STORAGE, AND DISPOSALFACILITIES

-II. In Part 264:1. The authority citation for Part 264

continues to read as follows:Authority: Secs. 1006, 2002(a), 3004, 3005 of

the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended bythe Resource Conservation and Recovery Actof 1976, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a),6924, and 6925).

2. It is proposed to amend § 264.340 byrevising paragraph (a) to read asfollows:

§ 264.340 Applicability.(a) The regulations of this subpart

apply to owners and operators ofhazardous waste incinerators (asdefined in § 260.10 of this chapter),except as § 264.1 provides otherwise.

PART 265-INTERIM STATUSSTANDARDS FOR OWNERS ANDOPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTETREATMENT, STORAGE, ANDDISPOSAL FACILITIES

IV. In Part 265:1. The authority citation for Part 265

continues to read as follows:Authority: Secs. 1006, 2002(a), 3004, and

3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, asamended by the Resource Conservation andRecovery Act of 1976, as amended (42 U.S.C.6905, 6924, and 6925).

2. It is proposed to amend § 265,340 byrevising paragraph (a) to read asfollows:


apply to owners and operators ofhazardous waste incinerators (asdefined in § 260.10 of this chapter),except as § 265.1 provides otherwise.

PART 266-STANDARDS FOR THEMANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC WASTESAND SPECIFIC TYPES OF WASTEMANAGEMENT FACILITIES

V. In Part 266:1. The authority citation for Part 266

continues to read as follows:Authority: Secs. 1006, 2002(a), 3004, and

3014 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, asamended by the Resource Conservation andRecovery Act of 1976, as amended (42 U.S.C.6905, 6912(a), 6924, and 6934).

2. It is proposed to revise Subpart D toread as follows:

Subpart D-4lazardous Waste Burned inBoilers and Industrial Furnaces

Sec.266.30 Applicability.266.31 Standards for generators.266.32 Standards for transporters.266.33 Standards for owners and operators

of treatment or storage facilities.266.34 Standards for owners and operators

of facilities that burn hazardous waste ina boiler or industrial furnace.

266.34-1 Applicability.266.34-2 Hazardous waste analysis.266.34-4 Standards to control emissions.266.34-5 Permits.266.34-6 Operating requirements.266.34-7 Monitoring and inspections.266.34-8 Closure.266.35 Interim status standards for owners

and operators of facilities that burnhazardous waste in a boiler or industrialfurnace,

266,35-1 Applicability.266.35-2 Hazardous waste analysis.266.35-3 Operating requirements.266.35-4 Monitoring and inspections.266.35-5 Closure.


apply to hazardous waste burned in aboiler or industrial furnace (as definedin § 260.10 of this chapter), except asprovided by paragraph (b) of thissection. A secondary material burned inan industrial furnace exclusively formaterials recovery is not a solid (and ifhazardous, hazardous) waste, however,if it is indigenous to the process in whichthe industrial furnace is used, in thesense of being generated by the sametype of industrial furnace as that inwhich burning occurs, or, for secondarysmelting furnaces, the material is scrapmetal or battery plates and groups.These regulations also do not apply togas recovered from hazardous (or solid)waste landfills when such gas is burnedfor energy recovery.

(b) The following hazardous wastesand facilities are not subject toregulation under this subpart:

(1) Used oil burned for energyrecovery that is also a hazardous wastesolely because it exhibits acharacteristic of hazardous wasteidentified in Subpart C of Part 261 of thischapter. Such used oil is subject toregulation under Subpart E of Part 266rather than this subpart; and

(2) Hazardous wastes that are exemptfrom regulation under I § 261.4 and 261.6(a)(3)(v)-(ix) of this chapter, andhazardous wastes that are subject to thespecial requirements for small quantitygenerators under § 261.5 of this chapter.

§ 266.31 Standards for generators.Generators of hazardous waste that is

burned in a boiler or industrial furnaceare subject to Part 262 of this chapter.Generators who burn such hazardouswaste also are subject to § § 266.34 and266.35.

§ 266.32 Standards for transpOrters.Transporters of hazardous waste that

is burned in a boiler or industrialfurnace are subject to Part 263 of thischapter.

§ 266.33 Standards for owners andoperators of treatment or storage facilities.

(a) Owners and operators of facilitiesthat treat or store hazardous waste thatis burned in a boiler or industrialfurnace are subject to the applicableprovision of Subparts A through L ofPart 264, Subparts A through L of Part265, and Part 270 of this chapter, exceptas provided by paragraph (b) of thissection. These standards apply tostorage by the burner as well as tostorage and treatment facilities operatedby intermediaries (processors, blenders,distributors, etc.) between the generatorand the burner.

(b) Owners and operators of facilitiesthat burn, in an on-site boiler orindustrial furnace exempt fromregulation under the small quantityburner provisions of § 266.34-1(b),hazardous waste that they generate areexempt from regulation under SubpartsA through L of Part 264, Subparts Athrough L of Part 265, and Part 270 ofthis chapter with respect to the storageof mixtures of hazardous waste and theboiler or industrial furnace primary fuelin tanks that feed the fuel mixturedirectly to the boiler. Storage ofhazardous waste prior to mixing withthe primary fuel is subject to regulationas prescribed in paragraph (a) of thissection.

§ 266.34 Standards for owners andoperators of facilities that burn hazardouswaste In a boiler or industrial furnace.

§ 266.34-1 Applicability.(a) General. Owners and operators of

facilities that burn hazardous waste in aboiler or industrial furnace are subjectto this section except as provided by§ 266.30 and paragraphs (b) and (c) ofthis section.

(b) Small quantity on-site burnerexemption. Owners and operators offacilities that burn hazardous waste thatthey generate in an on-site boiler, blastfurnace, sulfur recovery furnace, light-weight aggregate kiln, asphaltic concretekiln, lime kiln, or cement kiln areexempt from the requirements of thissection provided that:

17034




(1) The quantity of hazardous wasteburned in a calendar month does notexceed the limits provided below as afunction of device size. No more thanone type of device may burn hazardouswaste at a given site under thisexemption, and the number of devices ofeach type that can burn waste at a givensite are limited (i.e., hazardous wastemay be burned at a given site underonly one of the following paragraphs,(b)(1) (i) through (viii) of this section,and only in the maximum number ofdevices precribed for that paragraph].The size of the boiler or industrialfurnace means maximum rated heatinput capacity.

(i) Boilers:

Quantity

Boiler size (million Btu/hr) (glm/month)

0.4 to 1.5 . .................... 7> 1.S to M ---............. ................ 13>10 to 50 ............. ................. 26>50 to 150 ... ............ .. 55> 150 to 400 .......... ................... t0>400 ................................. 300

No more than two boilers may burnhazardous wastes under this exemptionat a site.

(ii) Blast furnaces:

Quantity

Blast furnace size (million Btu/hr) 1ld=n(gallon/month)

500 to 1400 .. ................. ............... .. 250> 1,400 ............. -.- . .... ... 420

No more than two blast furnaces mayburn hazardous wastes under thisexemption at a site.

(iii) Sulfur recovery furnaces:

QuantityFurnace size (million Btu/hr) ('itl /

month)

> 50----............ ....................... 40

No more than four sulfur recoveryfurnaces may burn hazardous wastesunder this exemption at a site.

(iv) Asphaltic concrete kilns:

CQuantityKiln size-(million Btumrh) . . . llatlt/devce(gallon/

month)

>1 ......... .. ... ......... ............... 110

No more than one asphaltic concretekiln may burn hazardous wastes underthis exemption at a site.

(v) Lime kilns:

Kiln size (million Btu/hr lmonth)

>60 ......... 200

No more than two lime kilns may burnhazardous wastes under this exemptionat a site.

(vi) Light-weight aggregate kilns:

Quan~t

Kiln size (million Btu/hr) gl lon.(gallon-month)

>45 ............ ................................ 110

No more than three light weightaggregate kilns may bum hazardouswastes under this exemption at a site.

(vii) Wet cement kilns:

QuantityKiln size (million Btu/hr) limi1device

(gallon/month)

90 to 200...................... 170>200- ....................... ........................... 420

No more than three wet cement kilnsmay burn hazardous wastes under thisexemption at a site.

(viii) Dry cement kilns:

Kiln size (million Btu/hr) (galon.month)

60 tO 160 ............. ...... 140> 16D0... . ...... ...... ........... 280

No more than three dry cement kilnsmay burn hazardous wastes under thisexemption at a site.

(2) The hazardous waste fuel does notcontain (and is not derived from) EPAHazardous Waste Nos. F020, F021, F022,F023, F026, or F027.

(3] The maximum hazardous wastefiring rate cannot exceed at any time 1percent of the total boiler or industrialfurnace fuel (hazardous waste plus otherfuel) on a volume basis.

Note.-Hazardous wastes that are subjectto the special requirements for small quantitygenerators under § 261.5 of this chapter maybe burned in an off-site device under theexemption provided by § 266.34-1(b), butmust be included in the quantitydetermination of the exemption.

(4) Notification requirements, Theowner/operator of facilities qualifyingfor the on-site small quantity burnerexemption under paragraphs (b) (1), (2),and (3) of this section must provide aone-time written notice to EPAindicating the following: is

(i) The combustion- unit is operating aga small quantity burner of hazardouswaste;

(ii) The requirements of § 266.34-1 andany other applicable standardsproviding for their status as a smallquantity burner will be complied with atall times; and

(iii) Hazardous waste generated off-site (other than small quantity generatorhazardous waste exempt under § 261.5of this chapter will not be burned;

(5)_Recordkeeping requirements. Theowner or operator must maintain thefollowing records at the site to showcompliance with this subsection:

(i] Sufficient records to showcompliance with the hazardous wastequantity and firing rate limits must bemaintained at the facility for threeyears;

(ii) These records, at a minimum, mustindicate the device capacity size and thequantity of hazardous waste and otherfuel burned in each unit per month.

(c) Applicability of Part 264standards. Owners and operators ofboilers and industrial furnaces that burnhazardous waste are subject to thefollowing provisions of Part 264 of thischapter, except as provided otherwiseby this section:

(1) In Subpart A (General), § 264.4;(2) In Subpart B (General facility

standards), §§ 264.11-264.18;(3) In Subpart C (Preparedness and

prevention), § § 204.31-264.37;(4] In Subpart D (Contingency plan

and emergency procedures), § § 264.51-264.56;

(5) In Subpart E (Manifest system,recordkeeping, and reporting),§ § 264.71-264.77, except that § § 264.71,264.72, and 264.76 do not apply toowners and operators of on-sitefacilities that do not receive anyhazardous waste from off-site sources;

(6] In Subpart F (Corrective Action),§§ 264.90 and 264.101.

(7) In Subpart G (Closure and post-closure), § § 24.111-264.115; and

(8) In Subpart H (Financialrequirements), §§ 264.141, 264.142,264.143, and 264.147-264.151, except thatStates and the Federal government areexempt from the requirements ofSubpart H.

§ 266.34-2 Hazardous waste analysis.(a) The owner or operator must

provide an analysis of thehazardous waste that quantifies, theconcentration of any constituentidentified in Appendix VIII of Part 261 ofthis chapter that may reasonably beexpected to be in the waste. Suchconstituents must be identified andqlantified if present, at levels detectable

•-by analytical procedures prescribed byEPA Publication SW-846 referenced in§ 260.11 of this chapter. This analysis

I I II IIII

17035




will be used to provide all informationrequired by this section and §§ 270.22and 270.65 of this chapter and to enablethe permit writer to prescribe suchpermit conditions as necessary toprotect human health and theenvironment under authority of section3005(c) of the Hazardous and SolidWaste Amendment (HSWA). Suchanalysis must be included as a portionof the Part B permit application, or, forfacilities operating under the interim "status standards of § 266.35, as a portionof the trial burn plan that may besubmitted before the Part B applicationunder provisions of § 270.65(d) of thischapter as well as any other analysisrequired by the permit authority inpreparing the permit. Owners andoperators of boilers and industrialfurnaces not operating under the interimstatus standards of § 266.35 mustprovide the information required by§ § 270.22 or 270.65(c) of this chapter tothe greatest extent possible.

(b) Throughout normal operation, theowner or operator must conductsufficient analyses to ensure that thehazardous waste fired to the boiler orindustrial furnace is within the physicaland chemical composition limitsspecified in his permit.

§ 266.34-4 Standards to controlemissions.

A boiler or industrial furnace burninghazardous waste must be designed,constructed, and maintained so that,when operated in accordance withoperating requirements specified under§ 266.34-6, it will meet the followingstandards:

(a) Organic emissions. A boiler orindustrial furnace burning hazardouswaste must meet the DRE performancestandard of paragraph(a)(1) of thissubsection and the stack gas carbonmonoxide standard of paragraph (a)(2)of this section, except as provided byparagraph(a)(3) of this section. A boileroperated under the special conditionsprovided by paragraph (a)(4) of thissection is deemed to be in compliancewith the DRE performance standard ofparagraph (a)(1) of this section withoutconducting a trial burn.

(1) DRE standard. (i) Except asprovided in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of thissection, a boiler or industrial furnaceburning hazardous waste must achieve adestruction and removal efficiency(DRE) of 99.99% for each principalorganic hazardous constituent (POHC)designated (underparagraph (a)(1)(ii) of

this section) in its permit for eachhazardous equation:

Win - WoutDRE = x10o%

Win

where:W10=Mass feed rate of one principal organic

hazardous constituent (POHC) in thehazardous waste fired to the boiler orindustrial furnace, and

Wo.t=Mass emission rate of the same POHCpresent in exhaust emissions prior torelease to the atmosphere.

(ii) Principal organic hazardousconstituents (POHCs) are designated asfollows: .

(A) One or more POHCs will bespecified in the facility's permit, fromamong those constituents listed in Part261, Appendix VIII of this chapter, foreach hazardous waste to be burned.This specification will be based on thedegree of difficulty of combustion of theorganic constituents in the hazardouswaste and on their concentration ormass in the hazardous waste,considering the results of hazardouswaste analyses and trial burns oralternative data submitted with Part B ofthe facility's permit application. Organicconstituents which represent thegreatest degree of difficulty ofcombustion will be those most likely tobe designated as POHCs. Constituentsare more likely to be designated asPOHCs if they are present in largequantities or concentrations in thewaste.

(B) Trial POHCs will be designated forperformance of trial burns in accordancewith the procedure specified in § 270.65of this chapter for obtaining trial burnpermits.

(iii) A boiler or industrial furnaceburning hazardous waste containing (orderived from) EPA hazardous wastesF020, F021, F022, F023, F026, or F027must achieve a destruction and removalefficiency (DRE) of 99.9999% for eachprincipal organic hazardous constituent(POHC) designated (under paragraph(a)(1)(ii) of this section) in its permit.This performance must be demonstratedon POHCs that are more difficult to burnthan tetra-, penta-, andhexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins anddibenzofurans. DRE is determined foreach POHC from the equation inparagraph (a)(1) of this section. Inaddition, the owner or operator of theboiler or industrial furnace must notifythe Regional Administrator of his intentto burn EPA Hazardous Waste Nos.F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, or F027.

(2) Carbon monoxide standard. (i) Aboiler or industrial furnace burninghazardous waste must be operated so

that carbon monoxide (CO) levels in thestack gas do not exceed the time-weighted average limits provided below.If a limit is exceeded, the hazardouswaste feed must be shutoff within thetime specified:

if m 7 percent, If exeeded, shutffCimi azro hazardous waste bn eidm

100 ppm average any Within 10 minutesminute period. o

500 ppm average over any 10 Immediately.mingte period. o

When the stack gas oxygen contentdiffers from 7 percent, measured COlevels must be corrected t hose levelsthat would result if the stack gas oxygencontent were 7 percent.

(ii) Hazardous waste burning may notresume until the device has resumedsteady-state (normal operations asevidenced by maintaining a time-weighted average carbon monoxide{CO) level not to exceed 100 ppm for anaveraging period of not less than 10

minutes nor more than 60 minutes.(iii) If the CO limits provided by

paragraph a2d{i} of this section areexceeded a aggregate of 10 times in acalendar month, the owner or5operator

CA Must cease burning hazardouswaste:

aBp Must notify the RegionalAdministrator in writing within 5calendar days: and

[C) May not resume burning

hazardous waste unless and untilwritten authorization is received from

the Regional Administrator.iv Carbon monoxide and oxygen

levels in the stack gas must bemonitored in accordance with § 266.34-7.

(v The boiler or industrial furnacemust be operated with a functioningsystem that automatically cuts off thehazardous waste feed when the s00ppm, 10 minute time-weighted averageCO limit is exceeded.

(3) Provision for low risk waste. TheDRE and CID standards of paragraphs(a)(1) and (a){2) of this section do not

apply if the boiler or industrial furnaceis operated in conformance withparagraph {a){3}[i} of this section, andthe owner or operator demonstrates byemissions modeling in conformance withparagraph {a).{3}{ii} of this section thatthe burning will not result in significantadverse health effects.

[i) The device is operated as follows:(A) A minimum of 50 percent of the

fuel fired to the device is one or more ofthe fossil fuels: oil, natural gas, or coal,or fuels derived from those fossil fuels.The fossil fuel firing rate must bedetermined on a total heat or volume

17036



Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 87 /Wednesday, May 0, 1987 / Proposed Rules

input basis, whichever results in thesmaller volume of fossil fuel fired:

(B) The hazardous waste has an as-fired heating value of at least 8,000 Btu/lb; and

(C) The hazardous waste is fireddirectly into the flame zone of thecombustion chamber.

ii) The burning will be considered toresult in insignificant adverse healtheffects if the owner or operator conductsthe following demonstrations inconformance with the proceduresprescribed in "Guidelines for PermitWriters: Permitting Hazardous WasteCombustion Facilities Using RiskAssessment" (incorporated byreference, see § 260.11 of this chapter).This document is herein referred to asthe Risk Assessment Guideline (RAG).

(A) Identify and quantify thoseorganic constituents listed in AppendixVIII of 40 CFR Part 261 thatcouldreasonably be expected to be in the

hazardous waste. To be eligible for thewaiver, every Appendix VIII organicconstituent identified in the waste mustbe listed in the RAG where a referenceair concentration (RAC] fornoncarcinogenic compounds or a riskspecific dose (RSD) carcinogeniccompound is provided. (The owner oroperator may petition the Administratorunder provisions provided by § 260.20 ofthis chapter to list other hazardousconstituents in the RAG or to reviseRACs or RSDs for compounds listed inthe RAG. Such petitions must includesupporting health effects data.)

(B) Calculate reasonable, worst-caseemission rates for each constituentidentified in paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(A) ofthis section by assuming the deviceachieves a 99 percent destruction andremoval efficiency:

(C) Calculate reasonable, worst caseemission rates of products of incompletecombustion (PICs) for each constituent

identified in paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(A) ofthis section under procedures prescribedin the RAG.

(D) For noncarcinogenic constituents,use emissions modeling in conformancewith § 270.22 of this chapter todemonstrate that emissions do not resultin an exceedance of the reference airconcentrations (RACs) established bythe RAG.

(E) For carcinogenic constituents, useemission modeling in conformance with§ 270.22 of this chapter and the risk-specific doses identified in the RAG todemonstrate that emissions of thecarcinogenic constituents and emissionsof PICs estimated in conformance withparagraphs (a)(3)(ii) (B) and (C) of thissection do not result in maximum off-site annual average ground levelconcentrations that would pose anaggregate risk to an exposed individualof greater than I X 10- 5 (1 in 100,000)using the following equation:

Cci

RSDci

Cp+ C <1

RSDp

where:

N means the sum of all values for all carcinogenic constituents,E from the first constituent, 1, to the Nth constituent, N.i=l

Cci means predicted maximum annual average ground levelconcentration of constituent, i, in ug/mi .

RSDci means risk-specific dose at 10.5 risk for constituent, i, inug/m .

Cp means predicted maximum annual average ground levelconcentration of PICs, in ug/m3 .

means risk-specific dose at 10- 5 risk for PICs, in ug/m 3 .

(4) Boilers operated under specialoperatinq requirements in lieu of a trialburn. Boilers operated under thefollowing special operatingrequirements, and that do not burnhazardous waste containing (or derivedfrom) EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F020,F021, F022, F023, F026, or F027, areconsidered to be in conformance withthe organic emissions performancestandard of § 266.34-4(a), and a trialburn to demonstrate DRE is waived.When burning hazardous waste:

(i) A minimum of 50% of the fuel firedto the boiler is any of the followingfossil fuels: oil, natural gas, or coal, orfuels derived from those fossil fuels. Thefossil fuel firing rate must be determinedon a total heat or volume input basis,whichever results in the smaller volumeof fossil-fuel fired;

(ii) Boiler load is equal to or greaterthan 25%. Boiler load is the ratio at anytime of the total heat input to themaximum design heat input;

(iii) The hazardous waste has an as-fired heating value of at least 8,000 Btu/lb; and

(iv) The hazardous waste is fireddirectly into the flame zone of thecombustion chamber with an air orsteam atomization firing system, amechanical atomization system, or arotary cup atomization system under thefollowing restrictions on the as-firedviscosity and maximum particle size ofthe hazardous waste:

RSDp

I7




HazardousAtomnization syster Hazardous waste wastemaximumviscosity imits particle size

(mesh)

High pressurealr or 150 to 5,000 SSU 200steam atomizati6n(>30 psig),

Low pressure air or 200 to 1,500 SSU 200steam atomization(30 psig).

Mechanical <150 SSU ..................... 200atornzation.

Rotary cup 175 to 300 SSU.. 100atomizatio

SSU: Seconds. Saybolt Universal,

(A) Mechanical atomization systems.,Fuel-pressure within a mechanicalatomization system and fuel flow ratemust be maintained within the designrange taking into account the viscosityand volatility of the fuel.

(B) Rotary cup atomization systems.Fuel flow rate through a rotary cup.atomization system must be maintainedwithin the design range taking intoaccount the viscosity and volatility ofthe fuel.

(v) Stack gas carbon monoxide levelsdo not exceed the standard provided by§ 266.34-4(a)(2).

(b) Metals. The owner or operatormust comply-with the metals controlsprovided by paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2),

(b)(3), or (b)(4) of this section. Standardsare provided in each of thoseparagraphs according to the type andlocation of the device. Devices locatedwhere any part of the surroundingterrain within 20 kilometers of the stackequals or exceeds the elevation of thestack are considered to be in complexterrain and the complex terrainstandards apply. For the purpose of thisdetermination, the stack may not exceedgood engineering practice as specified in40 CFR Part 51. All other devices areconsidered to be in flat terrain and flatterrain standards apply. The standardsapply to a single site and are not to beexceeded at any time. If there is morethan one device on a site, the limits forthe largest device must be apportionedamong the devices based on the thermalcapacity of the devices at the site. Thefollowing definitions apply:

(As) Means level of total arsenic inpounds/million Btu;

( {Cd) Means level of total cadmium inpounds/million Btu;

(Cr+6) Means level of hexavalentchromium in pounds/million Btu'; and

(Pb) Means level of lead in pounds/million Btu

(1) Tier I. The hazardous waste mustnot contain arsenic, cadmium,

chromium, and lead at levels greaterthan allowed by paragraphs (b)(3) (i) or(ii) of this section. The concentrationlimits are based on the heating value ofthe hazardous waste in terms of poundsof metal per million Btu of waste heatingvalue (lb/MM Btu). The limits apply tothe hazardous waste directly or as-firedafter any blending with other waste orfuel. Hazardous waste exceeding anyspecification. level is "off-specification".For purposes of compliance with thisparagraph with respect to chromium,total chromium levels rather thanhexavalent chromium levels must beconsidered in applying the limitsprovided by paragraphs (b)(3) (i) and (ii)of this section; or

(2) Tier II. The feed rate of arsenic,cadmium, chromium, and lead to thedevice considering the metals containedin the hazardous waste, other fuels, andindustrial furnace feedstocks shall notexceed limits resulting from applying thelimits provided by paragraphs (b)(3) (i)or (ii) of this section as follows:

(i) For each metal, use the followingequation to determine the feed rate ofthe metal to the device in terms of lb/MM Btu of total heat input:

1703



Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 87 / Wednesday, May 6. 1987 / Proposed Rules

N

Mw x Rw +i =1

MFi x RFi MFSj x RFSj

Where:

MFR means the individual metal feed rate in pounds/million Btu oftotal heat input to the device.

Mw means individual metal concentration in the hazardous waste in ppm.

Rw means the hazardous waste feed rate in pounds/hour.

N means the sum of all values for the other fuels (other thanE hazardous waste) from, i=1, to the Nth fuel.i=1

MHi means the concentration of metal in the other fuel, Fi, in ppm.

RFi means the feed rate for the other fuel, Fi, in pounds/hour.

NZ

j=1

MFSj

means, for industrial furnaces, the sum of all the values for allfeedstocks from the first, j=1, to the Nth feedstock.

means the concentration of metal in the feedstock, FSj, in ppm.

RFS j means the quantity of feedstock, FSj, charged to the industrialfurnace in pounds/hour.

HT means the total heat input to the device in million Btu/hour.

and(ii) Use the feed rates determined by

paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section in lieuof metals emission rates to show thatthe limits provided by paragraphs (b)3)(i) and (ii) of this section are notexceeded. For purposes of compliancewith this paragraph with respect to

chromium, the total chromium feed ratedetermined by this paragraph is to beconsidered in lieu of hexavalentchromium when applying the limitsprovided by paragraphs (b)(3) (i) and(ii).;or

(3) Tier III. Stack emission rates of

each of the following metals must notexceed the limits specified below. Thelimits are based on the instantaneoustotal heat input to the device.

(i) Flat terrain standards:(A) Category 1: Sulfur recovery

furnaces, asphaltic concrete kilns, blastfurnaces, and halogen acid furnaces:

MFR = x 10

III

1709



Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 87 / Wednesday, May 6, 1987 / Proposed Rules - -

(As) + (Cd) + (Cr+6) < 1.0

1.0 x 10-4 2.5 x 1074 3.7 x 10' 5

(Pb) shall not exceed 4.1x 10-2 pounds/million Btu.

(As)

3.9 x 10- 4

( [B) Category 2: Light-weight aggregatekilns, lime kilns, and boilers:

+ (Cd) + (Cr+6) < 1.0

9.8 x 10 4 1.4 x 10' 4

(Pb) shall not exceed 1.6X10- 2 pounds/million Btu.

(As)

1.7 x 103+ (Cd)

4.3 x 10 3

(Pb) shall not exceed 6.7 X 10- 2 pounds/million Btu.

(As) +

1.3 x 10- 5

(Cd) +

3.3 x 105

(C) Category 3: Cement kilns, wet anddry:

(Cr+6) < 1.0

6.3 x 10-4

(ii) Complex terrain standards:(A) Category 1: Blast furnaces:

(Cr+6) < 1.0

4.9 x 10 5

(Pb) shall not exceed 5.3 X 10- 4 pounds/million Btu.

(As)

3.9 x 105

(B) Category 2: Sulfur recoveryfurnaces:

+ (Cd) + (Cr+6) < 1.0

9.9 x 10" 1.4 x 104

(Pb) shall not exceed 1.6x10 -3 pounds/million Btu.

(C) Category 3. Asphatic concretekilns, boilers, light-weight aggregate

kilns, lime kilns, and halogen acidfurnaces:

17040




(As) + (Cd)

5.9 x 10 5 1.6 x 10 4

(Pb) shall not exceed 2.4 x 10- 3 pounds/million Btu.

(As)

1.2 x 10-4

+ (cd)

3.0 x 10.4

(Pb) shall not exceed 4.7X10"3 pounds/million Btu.

;or

(4) Tier IV. For arsenic, cadmium, andchromium, the sum of the products of thepredicted maximum off-site annualaverage ground level concentrationtimes the unit risk for each metal shallnot exceed 1.0. Unit risk values areprovided in the RAG. For lead, thepredicted maximum quarterly averageground level concentration shall notexceed 0.15 Jkg/m. Conformance withthis standard is demonstrated bydispersion modeling of stack emissionsin conformance with § 270.22(d) of this

+ (Cr+6) < L.2.2 x 10

-4 .

(D) Category 4: Cement kilns, wet anddry processes:

(Cr+6) < 1.0

4.5 x 10 4

chapter. All boilers and furnaces notspecifically identified in paragraphs(b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3) of this sectionmust comply with the requirements ofthis paragraph.

(c) Hydrogen chloride (HU!). Theowner or operator must comply with thehydrogen chloride (HCI) controlsprovided by paragraphs (c)(1), (c)[2),(c)(3), or (c)(4) of this section. Standardsare provided in each of thoseparagraphs according to the type andlocation of the device. Devices locatedwhere any part of the surrounding

(1) Tier!L The hazardous waste mustnot contain chlorine at levels. greater

terrain within 20 kilometers of the stackequals or exceeds the elevation of thestack are considered to be in complexterrain and the complex terrainstandards apply. For the purpose of thisdetermination, the stack may not exceedgood engineering practice as specified in40 CFR Part 51. All other devices areconsidered to be in flat terrain and flatterrain standards apply. The standardsapply to a single site and are not to beexceeded at any time. If there is morethan one device on a site, the limits forthe largest device must be apportionedamong the devices based on the thermalcapacity of the devices at the site,than allowed by paragraph (c)(3) (i) or(ii) of this subsection. The concentrationlimits are based on the heating value ofthe hazardous waste in terms of poundsof chlorine pdr million Btu of wasteheating value (lb/MM Btu). The limitsapply to the hazardous waste directly oras-fired after any blending with otherwaste or fuel. Hazardous wasteexceeding the specification level is "off-specification".

(2) Tier Il. The feed rate of chlorine tothe device considering the chlorinecontained in the hazardous waste, otherfuels, and industrial furnace feedstockshall not exceed limits provided byparagraphs (c)(3) (i) and (ii) of thissection as follows:

(ij Use the following equation todetermine the feed rate of chlorine tothe device in terms of lb/MM Btu oftotal heat input:

- - II 1704117041




N N

Cwx Rw+) CFix RFi+ ) CSix R Sii=I i=1

Where:

CFR means total chlorine feed rate in pounds/Mf Btu of totalinput to the device.

Cw means chlorine concentration in the hazardous waste in pp

Rw means the hazardous waste feed rate in pounds/hour.

N means the sum of all values for the other fuels (other thanE hazardous waste) from, i-1, to the Nth fuel.i=l

CFi 'means the chlorine concentration in the other fuel, Fi, in ppm.

RFi means the feed rate of the other fuel, Fi, in pounds/hour.

N means, for industrial furnaces, the sum of all of the values forE all feedstocks from the first, j=1, to the Nth feedstock.

CFSi means the chlorine concentration in feedstock, FSi, in ppm.

RFSi means the quantity of feedstock, FSi, charged to the industrialfurnace in pounds/hour.

HT means the total heat input to the device in million Btu/hr.

and(ii) Use the feed rates determined by

paragraph (c)(2](i) of this section in lieuof the chlorine emission rates to showthat the limits provided by paragraphs(c)(3) (i) or (ii) of this section are notexceeded.

or(3) Tier III. The stack emission rate of

HCI must not exceed the limits specifiedbelow. The limits are based on theinstantaneous total heat input to thedevice.

(i) Flat terrain standards:(A) Category 1: Sulfur recovery

furnaces and halogen acid furnaces: 0.18lb/million BTU.

(B) Category 2: Blast furnaces andasphaltic concrete kilns: 0.32 lb/millionBTU.

(C) Category 3. Light-weight aggregatekilns, boilers, and lime kilns: 0.70 lb/million BTU.

(D) Category 4: Cement kilns, wet anddry: 1.8/million BTU.

(ii) Complex terrain standards:(A) Category 1: Blast furnaces:

2.5 X 10- 2 lb/million BTU.(B) Category 2: Sulfur recovery

furnaces: 4.1 X 10- 2 lb/million BTU.(C) Category 3: Asphaltic concrete

kilns, light-weight aggregate kilns,boilers, halogen acid furnaces, and limekilns: 7.3 X 10- 2 lb/million BTU.

(D) Category 4: Cement kilns, wet anddry processes: 0.21 lb/million BTU.

(4) Tier IV. The predicted maximumoff-site annual average and maximumoff-site 3-minute ground levelconcentrations of HCl attributable tostack emissions from the boiler orindustrial furnace must not exceed 15jg/m3 and 150 Ig/m 3, respectively.Conformance with this standard isdemonstrated by dispersion modeling ofstack emission in conformance with§ 270.22(e) of this chapter, All boilersand industrial furnaces not specifically

identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), or(c)(3) of this section must comply withthe requirements of this paragraph.

X 10 (d) For purposes of permitenforcement, compliance with theoperating requirements specified in thepermit (under § 266.34-6) will beregarded as compliance with thissubsection. However, evidence that

heat compliance with those permit conditionsis insufficient to ensure compliance withthe requirements of this subsection maybe "information" justifying modification,revocation, or reinsurance of a permitunder § 270.41 of this chapter.

§ 266.34-5 Permits.(a) The owner or operator of a boiler

or industrial furnace may burn onlyhazardous wastes specified in his permitand only under the operating conditionsspecified for those hazardous wastesunder § 266.34.6, except in approvedtrial burns under the conditionsspecified in § 270.65 of this chapter.

(b) Other hazardous wastes may beburned only under a new permit orpermit modification, as applicable, thatspecifies the operating requirements asprovided by § 266.34 6.

(c) Boilers and industrial furnacesoperating under the interim statusstandards of § 266.35 are permittedunder procedures provided by § 270.65of this chapter.

(d) A permit for new boitersandindustrial furnaces (those boilers andindustrial furnaces not operating underthe interim status standards of § 266.35)must establish appropriate conditionsfor each of the applicable requirementsof this subsection, including but notlimited to allowable hazardous wastefiring rates and operating conditionsnecessary to meet the requirements of§ 266.34-6, sufficient to comply with thefollowing standards:

(1) Boilers that will be permittedwithout conducting a trial burn becausethey operate under the special operatingconditions provided by § 266.34-4(a)(4)(that ensure compliance with the organicemissions standard), and burnhazardous waste containing metals andchlorine at concentrations- inconformance with the limits provided by§ § 266.34-4(b) (1) or (2) and 266.34-4(c)(1) or (2) (that ensure compliance withthe metals and hydrogen chloridestandards) are subject to the followingpermits and are said to be operatingunder Special Operating Requirements:

CFR =

17042




(i) For the period beginning withinitial introduction of hazardous wasteto the boiler and for the minimum timerequired, not to exceed a duration of 720hours operating time when burninghazardous waste, to bring the boiler to apoint of operational readiness, the boilermust be operated in conformance withthe Standard Operating Requirements.The Regional Administrator may extendthe duration of this period once for up to720 additional hours when good causefor the extension is demonstrated by theaplicant.

(ii) For the period immediately aftercompletion of the first period ofoperation and only for the minimumperiod sufficient to allow sampleanalysis, data computation, andsubmission of the results by theapplicant demonstrating conformancewith the Special OperatingRequirements, the boiler is subject to theSpecial Operating Requirements.

(iii) For the remaining duration of thepermit, the boiler is subject to theSpecial Operating Requirements. If thehazardous waste is off-specification formetals or chlorine, the RegionalAdministrator will specify limitations,as appropriate, on the metals andchlorine content, heating value, and feedrates of the hazardous waste, and otherfuels necessary to ensure compliancewith §§ 266.34-4(b)(2) or 266.34(c)(2).

(2) For boiler and industrial furnacesthat will be permitted withoutconducting a trial burn under theprovision for low risk provided by§ 266.34-4(a)(3) and which burnhazardous waste containing metals andchlorine at concentrations inconformance with the limits provided by§ § 266.34-4(b) (1) or (2) and 266.34-4(c)(1) or (2), the permit must:

(i) Incorporate the special operatingrequirements provided by § 266.34-4(a){3)(i); and

(ii) Specify feed rate limits (lb/hr) foreach Appendix VIII organic constituentin the hazardous waste consistent withthe requirements of § 266.34-4(a)3)(ii).

(3) For boilers and industrial furnacesthat will be permitted based on a trialburn:

(i) For the period beginning withinitial introduction of hazardous wasteand ending with initiation of the trialburn, and only for the minimum timerequired to bring the device'to a point ofoperational readiness to conduct a trialburn, not to exceed a duration of 720hours operating time when burninghazardous waste the operatingrequirements must be those most likelyto ensure compliance with the standardsof § 266.34-4, based on the RegionalAdministrator's engineering judgment.The Regional Administrator may extend

the duration of this period for up to 720additional hours when good cause forthe extension is demonstrated by theapplicant.

(ii) For the duration of the trial burn,the operating requirements must besufficient to demonstrate compliancewith the standards of 1 266.34-4 andmust be in accordance with theapproved trial burn plan;

(iii) For the period immediatelyfollowing completion of the trial burn,and only for the minimum periodsufficient to allow sample analysis, datacomputation, and submission of the trialburn results by the applicant, andreview of the trial burn results andmodification of the facility permit by theRegional Administrator to reflect thetrial burn results, the operatingrequirements must be those most likelyto ensure compliance with the standardsof § 266.34-4, based on the RegionalAdministrator's engineering judgment.

(iv) For the remaining duration of thepermit, the operating requirements mustbe those demonstrated in a trial burn orby alternative data specified in § 270.22of this chapter, as sufficient to ensurecompliance with the standards of§ 266.34-4.

§ 266.34-6 Operating requirements.(a) General. A boiler or industrial

furnace burning hazardous waste mustbe operated in accordance with the.operating requirements specified in thepermit.

(b) Specific requirements to ensurecompliance with the organic emissionsstandards--1 Carbon monoxidestandard. The permit must incorporatethe stack gas carbon monoxide (CO)standard provided by § Z66.34-4(a)(2).

(2) DRE standard. Operatingconditions will be specified on a case-by-case basis for each hazardous wasteburned as those demonstrated (in a trialburn or by alternative data as specifiedin § 270.22) to be sufficient to complywith the destruction and removalefficiency (DRE) performance standardof § 266.34-4(a)(1), except as providedby paragraph (b)(4) of this subsection.Each set of operating requirements willspecify the composition of thehazardous waste (including acceptable'variations in the physical or chemicalproperties of the hazardous waste whichwill not affect compliance with the DREperformance standard] to which theoperating requirements apply. For eachsuch hazardous waste, the permit willspecify acceptable operating limitsincluding the following conditions asappropriate:

(i) Hazardous waste feed rate;

(ii) Type and feed rate of other fuelswith which the hazardous waste iscofired;

(iii) Type and feed rate of industrialfurnace feedstocks when hazardouswaste is burned;

(iv) Minimum boiler load or industrialfurnace production rate;

(v) Appropriate controls on operationand maintenance of the hazardouswaste firing system;

(vi) Allowable variation in boiler andindustrial furnace system design oroperating procedures; and

(vii) Such other operatingrequirements as are necessary to ensurethat the DRE performance standard of§ 266.34-4(a)(1) is met.

(3) Start-up and shut-down.(i) A boiler or industrial furnace may

not burn hazardous waste during start-up. Hazardous waste may be burnedafter the device has reached steady-state (normal) operations as evidencedby maintaining a time-weighted averagecarbon monoxide (CO) level in the fluegas not to exceed 100 ppm for anaveraging period of not less than 10minutes nor more than 60 minutes.

(ii) A boiler or industrial furnace maynot burn hazardous waste during shut-down.

(4) For boilers that will be permittedwithout conducting a trial burn becausethey operate under the special operatingrequirements provided by § 266.34-4(a)(4) (that ensure compliance with theorganic emission standard) and burnhazardous waste containing metals andchlorine at concentrations inconformance with the limits provided by§ § 266.34-4(b) (1), (2), or (3) and 266.34-4(c) (1), (2), or (3), the permit mustinclude operating requirements thatensure conformance with each specialoperating requirement provided by§ 266.34-4(a)(4) and the metals andchlorine limits of § § 266.34-4(b) (1) or (2)and 266.34-4(c) (1) or (2).

(5) For boilers and industrial furnacesthat will be permitted withoutconducting a trial burn under theprovision for low risk waste provided by§ 266.34-4(a)(3) and which burnhazardous waste'containing metals andchlorine at concentrations inconformance with the limits provided by§ § 266.34-4(b) (1) or (2) and 266.34-4(c)(1) or (2), the permit must includeoperating requirements that ensureconformance with each specialcondition provided by § 266.34-4(a)(3)(i)and the metals and chlorine limits of§ § 266.34-4(b) (1) or (2) and 266.34-4(c)(1) or (2).

(c) Specific operating requirements toensure conformance with the metalsstandards provided by §266.34-4(b). (1)

17043




For conformance with the Tier I metalsspecification standard provided by§ 266.34-4(b)(1), the permit will specifythe following operating requirements:

(i) Hazardous waste feed rate;(ii) Metals levels in the hazardous

waste; andiii) A hazardous waste sampling and

metals analysis program.(2) For conformance with the Tier II

metals feed rate standard provided by§ 266.34-4(b)(2), the permit will specifythe following operating requirements:

i} Hazardous waste feed rate;(ii) Type and feed rate of other fuels

and industrial furnace feedstocks withwhich the hazardous waste is burned;

(iii) Levels of metals in the hazardouswaste, other fuels, and industrialfurnace feedstocks; and

(iv) A sampling and metals analysisprogram for the hazardous waste, otherfuels, and industrial furnace feedstocks.

(3) For conformance with the Tier IIImetals emission rates provided by§ 266.34-4(b)(3), and the Tier IV metalsground level concentrations provided by§ 266.34-4(b)(4), the permit will specifythe following operating requirements:

(i) The requirements provided byparagraphs (c)(2)(i)-(iv) of this section;

(ii) Operation and maintenance ofemissions control equipment sufficientto maintain removal efficienciesachieved during the trial burn; and

(iii) Such other operating requirementsas are necessary to ensure that themetals standard is met.

(d) Specific operating requirements to.ensure conformance with the hydrogenchloride standards provided by§26&34-4(c. (1) For conformance withthe Tier I chlorine specification standardprovided by § 266.34.4(c)(1), the permitwill specify the following requirements:

(i) Hazardous waste feed rate;(ii) Total chlorine level in the

hazardous waste; and(iii) A hazardous waste sampling and

chlorine analysis program.(2) For conformance with the Tier II

chlorine feed rate standard provided by§ 266.34-4(c)(2), the permit will specifythe following operating requirements:

(i) Hazardous waste feed rate;(ii) Type and feed rate of other fuels

and industrial furnace feedstocks withwhich the hazardous waste is burned;

(iii) Levels of chlorine in thehazardous waste, other fuels, andindustrial furnace feedstocks; and

(iv) A sampling and chlorine analysisprogram for the hazardous waste, otherfuels, and industrial furnace feedstocks,

(3) For conformance with the Tier Illhydrogen chloride (HCI] emissions ratesprovided by § 266.34-4(b)(3), and theTier IV HCI ground level concentrationsprovided by § 266.34-4(c)(4), the permit

will specify the following operatingrequirements:

(i) The requirements provided byparagraphs (d](2)(i)-{iv) of this section;

(ii) Operation and maintenance ofemissions control equipment sufficientto maintain removal efficienciesachieved during the trial burn; and

(iii) Such other operating requirementsas are necessary to ensure that the HCIstandards are met; and

(e) General requirements-(1) Fugitiveemissions. Fugitive emissions from thecombustion zone when burninghazardous waste must be controlled by:

(i) Keeping the combustion zonetotally sealed against fugitive emissions;

(ii) Maintaining a combustion zonepressure lower than atmosphericpressure; or

(iii) An alternate means of controldemonstrated (with Part B of the permitapplication) to provide fugitiveemissions control equivalent tomaintenance of combustion zonepressure lower than atmosphericpressure.

(2) Automatic cutoff. A boiler orindustrial furnace must be operated witha functioning system that automaticallycuts off the hazardous waste feed whenoperating conditions deviate from thoseestablished under this subsection.

(3) Changes. A boiler or industrialfurnace must cease burning hazardouswaste when changes in composition,properties, or feed rates of thehazardous waste, other fuels, orindustrial furnace feedstocks, orchanges in the boiler or industrialfurnace design or operating conditionsexceed the limits designated in itspermit.

§ 266.34-7 Monitoring and Inspections.(a) The owner or operator must

monitor and record the following, as aminimum, while burning hazardouswaste:

(1) Hazardous waste feed rate, and, ifrequired by the permit, the feed rate ofother fuels and industrial furnacefeedstocks.

(2) Carbon monoxide (CO) andoxygen on a continuous basis at acommon point in the boiler or industrialfurnace downstream of the combustionzone and prior to release of stack gasesto the atmosphere. CO and oxygenmonitors must be installed, operated,and maintained in accordance withGuideline for Continuous Monitorinq ofCarbon Monoxide at Hazardous WasteIncinerators, Appendix D, PES, January1987.

(3) Upon the request of the RegionalAdministrator, sampling and analysis ofthe hazardous waste (and other fuelsand industrial furnace feedstocks as

appropriate) and exhaust emissionsmust be conducted to verify that theoperating requirements established inthe permit achieve the standards of§ 266,34-4.

(b) The boiler or industrial furnaceand associated equipment (pumps,valves, pipes, fuel storage tanks whenthey contain hazardous waste, etc.) mustbe subjected to thorough visualinspection, at least daily whenhazardous waste is burned, for leaks,spills, fugitive emissions, and signs oftampering.

(cJ The emergency hazardous wastefeed cutoff system and associatedalarms must be tested at least weeklywhen hazardous waste is burned toverify operability, unless the applicantdemonstrates to the RegionalAdministrator that weekly inspectionswill unduly restrict or upset operationsand that less frequent inspections willbe adequate. At a minimum, operationaltesting must be conducted at leastmonthly.

(d) These monitoring and inspectiondata must be recorded and the recordsmust be placed in the operating logrequired by § 264.73 of this chapter.

§ 266.34-8 Closure.At closure, the owner or operator

must remove all hazardous waste andhazardous waste residues (including,but not limited to, ash, scrubber waters,and scrubber sludges] from the boiler orindustrial furnace site.

§ 266.35 Interim status standards forowners and operators of facilities that burnhazardous waste In a boiler or industrialfurnace.

§ 266.35-1 Applicability.(a) General. The purpose of this

section is to establish minimum nationalstandards for owners and operators offacilities that burn hazardous waste inboilers or industrial furnaces wheresuch standards define the acceptablemanagement of hazardous waste duringthe period of interim status and untilcertification of final closure, Thestandards of this section apply toowners and operators of facilities thatare in existence on the effective date ofthis section until either a permit isissued under § 266.34 or until the closureresponsibilities identified in this sectionare fulfilled.

Note.-A boiler or industrial furnace is "inexistence" if it was burning hazardous wasteor was under construction that would enableit to burn hazardous waste on or before theeffective date of § 206.35. A facility hascommenced construction if it meets theconditions provided by paragraphs (1) and (2)of the definition of "Existing hazardous waste

17044




management (HWM) facility" in § 260.10 ofthis chapter. If the boiler or industrial furnaceis located at a facility that already has apermit or interim status, then the facility mustcomply with the applicable regulationsdealing with modifications in § 270.41 and42 of this chapter.

(b) Exemptions. The requirements ofthis section do not apply to:

(1) Hazardous waste exempt under§ 266.30(b); and

(2) Small quantity on-site burners.Owners and operators of facilities thatburn hazardous waste that theygenerate in an on-site boiler andindustrial furnace are exempt from therequirements of this section providedthat they meet the requirements of§ 266.34-1(b).

(c) Prohibition on burning dioxin-containing wastes. Hazardous wastecontaining or derived from any of thefollowing dioxin-containing waste maynot be burned in a boiler or industrialfurnace operating under the interimstatus standards of this section: EPAHazardous Waste Nos. F02, F021, F022,F023, F026, and F027.

(d) Applicability of Part 265standards. Owners and operators ofboilers and industrial furnaces that burnhazardous waste are subject to thefollowing provisions of Part 265 of thischapter, except as provided otherwiseby this subsection:

(1) In Subpart A (General), § 265.4:(2) In Subpart B (General facility

standards), § § 265.11-265.17;(3) In Subpart C (Preparedness and

prevention), § § 265.31-265.37;(4) In Subpart D (Contingency plan

and emergency procedures), §§ 265.51-265.56;

(5) In Subpart E (Manifest system,recordkeeping, and reporting),§ § 265.71-265.77, except that § § 265.71,265.72, and 265.76 do not apply toowners and operators of on-sitefacilities that do not receive anyhazardous waste from off-site sources;

(6) In Subpart G (Closure and post-closure), §§ 265.111-265.115; and

(7) In Subpart H (Financialrequirements), §§ 265.141, 265.143, and265.147-265.151, except that States andthe Federal government are exempt fromthe requirements of Subpart H.

§ 266.35-2 Hazardous waste analysis.(a) In addition to the waste analyses

required by § 265.13 of this chapter, theowner or operator must sufficientlyanalyze any hazardous waste that hehas not previously burned in his boileror industrial furnace to enable him toestablish steady-state (normal)operating conditions and to comply withthe stack gas carbon monoxide standard

and metals and hydrogen chloridestandards provided by § 266.35-3.

(b) The owner or operator mustsufficiently analyze the hazardouswaste that he burns to determine thetype of pollutants that might be emitted.At a minimum, the analysis mustdetermine:

(1) Heating value of the hazardouswaste, as fired;

(2) Concentrations in the hazardouswaste itself, or, as fired after blendingwith other waste or fuel, of arsenic,cadmium, chromium, and lead, unlessthe owner or operator has written,documented data that show that themetal is not present; and

(3) Chlorine content of the hazardouswaste itself, or, as fired.

Note.-As required by § 265.73 of thischapter, the owner or operator must place theresults from each waste analysis, or thedocumented information in the operatingrecord of the facility.

§ 266.35-3 Operating requirements.(a) A boiler or industrial furnace

burning hazardous wastes under thissubsection shall meet and demonstratecompliance with the metals andhydrogen chloride standards provided in§ 266.34-4 (b) and (c).

(b) Carbon monoxide standard. (1)Except as provided by paragraph (b)(2)of this subjection, a boiler or industrialfurnace burning hazardous waste mustbe operated in conformance with thecarbon monoxide (CO) standardsprovided by § 266.34-4(a)(2).

(2) Owners and operators who submita Part B application six months prior tothe effective date of the carbonmonoxide monitoring requirement ofthis paragraph and who claim todemonstrate that the hazardous waste isa low risk waste under provisions of§ 266.34-4(a)(3) (and not subject to COmonitoring or the DRE performancestandard) are not subject to the COmonitoring requirements of thisparagraph.

(b) Start-up and shut-down. (1) Aboiler or industrial furnace may not burnhazardous waste during start-up.Hazardous waste may be burned afterthe device has reached steady-state(normal) operations as evidenced bymaintaining a time-weighted averagecarbon monoxide (CO) level in the fluegas not to exceed 100 ppm for anaveraging period of not less than 10minutes nor more than 60 minutes.

(2) A boiler or industrial furnace maynot burn hazardous waste during shut-down.

§ 266.35-4 Monitoring and Inspections.(a) The owner or operator must

conduct, at a minimum, the following

monitoring while burning hazardouswaste:

(1) Except as provided by § 266.35-3[b)(2), carbon monoxide (CO) andoxygen must be monitored on acontinuous basis at a common point inthe boiler or industrial furnacedownstream of the combustion zone andprior to release of stack gases to theatmosphere. CO and oxygen monitorsmust be installed, operated, andmaintained in accordance with:Guideline for Continuous Monitoring ofCarbon Monoxide at Hazardous WasteIncinerators. Appendix D. PES, January1987.

(2) Other existing instruments thatrelate to combustion and emissioncontrol must be monitored at least every15 minutes. Appropriate corrections tomaintain steady state combustionconditions and normal emission controloperations must be made immediatelyeither automatically or by the operator.Instruments that relate to combustionand emission control would normallyinclude those measuring hazardouswaste feed rates, feed rate of other fuels,feed rate of industrial furnacefeedstocks, hazardous waste firingsystem pressure, scrubber flow andscrubber water pH, electrostaticprecipitator spark rate, and fabric filterpressure drop.

(b) The boiler or industrial furnaceand associated equipment (pumps,valves, pipes, etc.) must be subjected tothorough visual inspection, at least dailywhen hazardous waste is burned, forleaks, spills, fugitive emissions, andsigns of tampering.

(c) The emergency hazardous wastefeed cutoff system and associatedalarms must be tested at least weeklywhen hazardous waste is burned toverify operability, unless the owner oroperator has written documentation thatweekly inspections will unduly restrictor upset operations and that lessfrequent inspections will be adequate.At a minimum, operational testing mustbe conducted at least monthly.

§ 266.35-5 Closure.At closure, the owner or operator

must remove all hazardous waste andhazardous waste residues (including,but not limited to, ash, scrubber water,and scrubber sludges) from the boiler orindustrial furnace site.

PART 270-EPA ADMINISTEREDPERMIT PROGRAMS: THEHAZARDOUS WASTE PERMITPROGRAM.

VI. In Part 270:1. The authority citation for Part 270

continues to read as follows:

17045




Authority: Secs. 1006, 2002, 3005, 3007, and7004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, asamended by the Resource Conservation andRecovery Act of 1976, as amended by theHazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of1984 (42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912, 6925, 6927, and6974).

2. It is proposed to amend paragraph(a) of § 270.6 by adding the following:

§ 270.6 References(a) * * *"Guideline on Air Quality Models

(Revised)", July 1986, EPA PublicationNumber 450/2-78-027R (OAQPSGuideline No. 1.2-080), available fromNational Technical Information Service,Springfield, Virginia, Order No. PB 86-245286.

"Guidelines for Permit Writers:Permitting Hazardous WasteCombustion Facilities Using RiskAssessment".

3. It is proposed to add § 270.22 toSubpart B to read as follows:

§ 270.22 Specific Part B Informationrequirements for boilers and Industrialfurnaces burning hazardous waste.

(a) Except as provided otherwise by§ 266.30(d) (exemption of certainhazardous waste) and § 266.34-1(b)(exemption of small quantity on-siteburners) of this chapter, owners andoperators of boilers and industrialfurnaces that burn hazardous wastemust conduct a trial burn in accordancewith § 270.65 to demonstrateconformance with the standards in§ 266.34-4 of this chapter, unless a trialburn is not required under provisions ofthat section and the owner or operatordemonstrates compliance with thoseprovisions as provided by paragraph (c)of this section.

(b) Owners and operators not seekingto be permitted under provisions that donot require a trial burn must submit atrial burn plan or the results of a trialburn, including all requireddeterminations, in accordance with§ 270.65.

(c) Owners and operators seeking tobe permitted under provisions of§ 266.34-4 of this chapter that do notrequire a trial burn must submitdocumentation as follows:

(1) Boilers operated under specialoperating requirements for conformancewith the orqanic emissions standard.When seeking to be permitted under§ 266.34-4(a)(4) of this chapter, theowner or operator of a boiler mustsubmit documentation that the boileroperates under the special operatingrequirements provided by thatparagraph,

(2) Boilers and inddstrial furnacesburning low risk waste. When seekingto be permitted under the provisions for

low risk waste provided by § 266.34-4(a)(3) of this chapter so that neither thetrial burn nor carbon monoxide (CO)monitoring are required, the owner oroperator of a boiler or industrial furnacemust submit:

(i) Documentation that the device isoperated in conformance with therequirements of § 266.34-4(a)(3}(i) of thischapter.

(ii) Results of analyses documentingthe concentration of organic compoundslisted in Appendix VIII of Part 261 ofthis chapter that could reasonably beexpected to be constituents of eachhazardous waste to be burned.

(iii) Documentation of hazardouswaste firing rates and calculations ofreasonable, worst-case emission rates ofeach constituent identified in paragraph(c)(3)(ii) of this section assuming thedevice achieves a 99% destructionefficiency for each constituent asprovided by § 266.34-4(a)(3)(ii)(B) of thischapter.

(iv) Calculations of reasonable, worst-case emission rates of products ofincomplete combustion (PICs) for eachconstituent identified in paragraph(c)(3)(ii) of this section using proceduresestablished in "Guidelines for PermitWriters: Permitting Hazardous WasteCombustion Facilities Using RiskAssessment" (incorporated byreference, see § 270.6). This document isherein termed the Risk AssessmentGuideline or RAG.

(v) Results of emissions modeling foremissions identified in paragraphs(c)(2)(iii) and (iv) of this section usingmodeling Procedures provided by"Guideline on Air Quality Models(Revised)" (incorporated by reference,see § 270.6). This document is hereintermed the GAQM. The Director willreview the emission modeling conductedby the applicant to determineconformance with the GAQM. TheDirector will either approve themodeling or determine that alternate orsupplementary modeling is appropriate.

(vi) For each noncarcinogenicconstituent identified in paragraph(c)(2)(ii) of this section, providedocumentation that emissions will notresult in exceedances of the referenceair concentrations (RACs) identified inthe RAG.

(vii) For each carcinogenic constituentidentified in paragraph (c}(2)(ii) of thissection and for products of incompletecombustion (PICs) quantified Inconformance with paragraph (c)(2)(iii) ofthis section, results of the computationrequired by § 266;34-4(a)(3)(ii)(E) of thischapter.

(3) Boilers and industrial furnacesmeetinq the Tier I or Tier Il metalscontrols. When seeking to be permitted

under the provisions of § 266.34-4(b)(1)(Tier I) or § 266.34-4(b)(2) (Tier II) thatcontrol metals emissions withoutrequiring a trial burn, the owner oroperator of a boiler or industrial furnacemust submit:

(i) For conformance with the Tier Imetal specification provided by§ 266.34-4(b)(1) of this chapter:

(A) Documentation of the hazardouswaste feed rate;

(B) Documentation of metals levels inthe hazardous waste;

(C) Documentation of the heat inputcapacity (MM Btu/hr) of the device: and

(D) Proposed hazardous wastesampling and metals analysis plan.

(ii) For conformance with the Tier IImetals feed rate standard provided by§ 266.34-4(b)(2) of this chapter:


(B) Documentation of the type andfeed rate of other fuels and industrialfurnace feedstocks with which thehazardous waste is burned;

(C) Documentation of the levels ofmetals in the hazardous waste, otherfuels, and industrial furnace feedstocks;

(D) Documentation of the heat inputcapacity (MM Btu/hr) of the device; and

(E) Proposed sampling and metalsanalysis plan for the hazardous waste,other fuels, and industrial furnacefeedstocks.

(4) Boilers and industrial furnacesmeeting the Tier I or Tier I1 HC control.When seeking to be permitted under theprovision of § 266.34-4(c)(1) (Tier I) or§ 266.34-4(c)(2) (Tier II) that controlhydrogen chloride (HCl) emissionswithout requiring a trial burn, the owneror operator of a boiler or industrialfurnace must submit:

(i) For conformance with the Tier Ichlorine specification provided by§ 266.34-4(c)(1) of this chapter


(B) Documentation of the chlorinelevel in the hazardous waste;

(C) Documentation of the heat inputcapacity (MM Btu/hr) of the device; and

(D) Proposed hazardous wastesampling and chlorine analysis plan.

(ii) For conformance with the Tier IIchlorine feed rate standard provided by§ 266.34-4(c)(2) of this chapter:


(B) Documentation of the type andfeed rate of other fuels and industrialfurnace feedstocks with which thehazardous waste is burned;

(C) Documentation of the levels ofchlorine in the hazardous waste, otherfuels, and industrial furnace feedstocks;

1704




(D) Documentation of the heat inputcapacity (MM Btu/hr) of the device; and

(E) Proposed sampling and chlorineanalysis plan for the hazardous waste,other fuels, and industrial furnacefeedstocks.

(5] Data in lieu of a trial burn. Theowner or operator of a boiler orindustrial furnace may seek anexemption from the trial burn byproviding information from trial oroperational burns of similar boilers orindustrial furnaces burning similarhazardous wastes under similarconditions. The Director shall approve apermit application without a trial burn ifhe finds that the hazardous wastes aresufficiently similar, the devices aresufficiently similar, and the data fromother trial burns are adequate to specify(under § 266.34-6 of this chapter)operating conditions that will ensureconformance with the standards in§ 266.34-4 of this chapter. In seeking thisexemption, the applicant must submitthe following information:

(i) An analysis of each hazardouswaste to be burned including:

(A) Heating value, levels of arsenic,cadmium, chromium, lead, and chlorineand the composition of the hazardouswaste, as fired (after blending);

(B) Viscosity and maximum particlesize (if applicable), or a description ofthe physical form of the hazardouswaste;

(C] An identification of any hazardousorganic and inorganic constituents listedin Part 261, Appendix VIII, of thischapter, which are present in thehazardous waste, except that theapplicant need not analyze forconstituents listed in Appendix VIIIwhich would reasonably not beexpected to be found in the hazardouswaste. The constituents excluded fromanalysis must be identified and thebasis for their exclusion explained. Theanalysis must rely on analyticaltechniques specified in "Test Methodsfor the Evaluation of Solid Waste,Physical/Chemical Methods"(incorporated by reference, see § 270.6and referenced in 40 CFR Part 261,Appendix Ill, or their equivalent];

(D) An appropriate quantification ofthe hazardous constituents identified inthe hazardous waste, within theprecision produced by the analyticalmethods specified in "Test Methods forthe Evaluation of Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods" (incorporated byreference, see § 270.6); and

(E) A quantification of thosehazardous constituents in the hazardouswaste that may be designated as POHCsbased on data submitted from other trialor operational burns which demonstrate

compliance with the performancestandards in § 266.34 4 of this chapter;

(ii) A detailed engineering descriptionof the boiler or industrial furnace,including:

(A) Manufacturer's name and modelnumber of boiler or industrial furnace;

(B] Type of boiler or industrialfurnace;

(C) Description of feed system forhazardous waste, other fuel, andindustrial furnace feedstocks;

(D) Capacity of hazardous waste feedsystem;

(E) Description of automatichazardous waste feed cutoff system(s);

(F) Description of any emissioncontrol system(s); and

(G) Description of stack gasmonitoring and any pollution controlmonitoring systems;

(iii) A description and analysis of thehazardous Waste to be burned comparedwith the hazardous waste for whichdata from operational or trial burns areprovided to support the contention thata trial burn is not needed. The datashould include those items listed inparagraph (c(5)(i)of this section. Thisanalysis should specify the POHCs thatthe applicant has identified in thehazardous waste for which a permit issought, and any differences from thePOHCs in the hazardous waste forwhich burn data are provided;

(iv) The design and operatingconditions of the boiler or industrialfurnace to be used, compared with thatfor which comparative burn data areavailable, including:

(A) Feed rate of the hazardous waste;(B) The type, feed rate, and heating

value of other fuels fired whenhazardous waste is burned, and, if thelevels of arsenic, cadmium, chromium,lead, or chlorine in the hazardous wasteexceed the specification levels providedby § § 266.34-6(c)(3) and 266.39-6(d)(3) ofthis chapter, the levels of thoseconstituents in the other fuels; and

(C) The type and feed rate ofindustrial furnace feedstocks, and, if thelevels of arsenic, cadmium, chromium,lead, or chlorine in the hazardous wasteexceed the specification levels providedby § § 266.34-6(c)(3) and Z66,34-6(d)(3) ofthis chapter, the levels of thoseconstituents in the feedstocks;

(v) A description of the resultssubmitted from any previouslyconducted trial burn(s) including:

(A) Sampling and analysis techniquesused to calculate conformance withperformance standards in § 266.34-4 ofthis chapter; and

(B) Methods and results of monitoringfeed rates of hazardous waste and, asappropriate, other fuels and industrialfurnace feedstocks;

(vi) The expected boiler or industrialfurnace operation information todemonstrate compliance with §§ 266.34-4 and 266.34-6 of this chapter, including:

(A) Hazardous waste feed rate, and,as appropriate, feed rate of other fuelsand industrial furnace feedstocks;

(B) Expected removal efficiency forarsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, andhydrogen chloride;

(C) Expected fugitive emissions andtheir control procedures; and

[D) Proposed allowable hazardouswaste feed variations including feedrate, composition, metals, and chlorinelevels;

(vi) Such supplemental information asthe Director finds necessary to achievethe purposes of this paragraph.

(vii) Hazardous waste analysis data,including that submitted in paragraph(c)(5)(i) of this section, sufficient toallow the Director to specify in thepermit the Principle Organic HazardousConstituents (permit POHCs) for whichdestruction and removal efficiencies willbe required.

(d) Owners and operators seeking tobe permitted under Tiers 1, II, or III formetals and chlorine under theprovisions of § 266.34-4(b)(1)-(3) and§ 266.34-4(c)(I)-(3) of this chapter mustsubmit the documentation needed todetermine whether the permitted deviceis sited in complex or flat terrain asdefined in the aforementionedprovisions. The applicant must give themethodology for the determinationincluding such information as the stackheight and topographical data includingmaps used in making the determination.

(e) Owners and operators seeking tobe permitted under the Tier IV metalsprovision of § 266.34-4(b)(4) of thischapter must submit a dispersionmodeling plan with Part B of the permitapplication. The Director will review theplan for conformance with the"Guideline for Air Quality Monitoring"(incorporated by reference, see § 270.6).The Director will either approve themodeling plan or determine that analternate or supplementary plan isappropriate. After completion of the trialburn to measure metals emission rates,the owner or operator must conductdispersion modeling according to theapproved plan and submit the results tothe Director. The Director will determinewhether the results are in conformancewith the requirements of § 266.34-4(b)(4)of this chapter and will establishappropriate operating requirements asrequired by § 266.34-4(c)(3) of thischapter.

(f) Owners and operators seeking tobe permitted under the Tier IV hydrogenchloride (HCI} provisions of § 266.34-

IL7047




4(c)(4) of this chapter must submit adispersion modeling plan with Part B ofthe permit application. The Director willreview the plan for conformance withthe "Guideline for Air QualityMonitoring (Revised)" (incorporated byreference, see § 270.6). The Director willeither approve the modeling plan ordetermine that an alternative orsupplementary plan is appropriate. Aftercompletion of the trial burn to measureHCI emission rates, the owner oroperator must conduct dispersionmodeling according to the approvedplan and submit the results to theDirector. The Director will determinewhether the results are in conformancewith the requirements of § 266.34-4(c)(4)of this chapter and will establishappropriate operating requirements asrequired by § 266.34-6(d)(3) of thischapter.

Subpart F- Specal Forms of Permits

4. It is proposed to add § 270.66 toSubpart F to read as follows:

§ 270.66 Permits for boilers and Industrialfurnaces burning hazardous waste.

(a) General. New boilers (thoseboilers not operating under the interimstatus standards of § 266.35 of thischapter) are subject to paragraph (b) ofthis section if they will be permittedwithout a trial burn under § 266.34.5-(d)(1) of this chapter. New boilers andindustrial furnaces that will bepermitted based on a trial burn under§ 266,34-5(d)(3) of this chapter aresubject to paragraph (c) of this section.Boilers and industrial furnaces operatingunder the interim status standards of§ 266.35 of this chapter are subject toparagraph (d) of this section.

Note.-New boilers and industrial furnacespermitted without a trial burn under theprovision for low risk waste provided by§ 266.34-4(a)(3) of this chapter are not subjectto the special permits of this section if a trialburn is not required to demonstratecompliance with the Tier III or Tier IV metalsor HCI controls. Such facilities are awardedan operating permit after the Directorestablishes that the facility is in conformancewith § 266.344(a)(3) of this chapter and theTier I or Tier I1 metals and HCI controls.

(b) New boilers permitted without atrial burn. New boilers that.will bepermitted without a trial burn under§ 266.34-5(d)(1) of this chapter aresubject to the operating requirements in§ § 266.34-6(b)(4) (to control organicemissions), 266.34-6(c) (2) or (3) (tocontrol metals emissions], and 266.34-6(d) (2] or (3] (to control HCI emissions)of this chapter. These requirements aretermed "Special OperatingRequirements." New boilers that operateunder the Special Operating

Requirements are subject to thefollowing permits:

(1) Predemonstration period. Thepredemonstration period begins withinitial introduction of hazardous wasteto the boiler and extends for theminimum time required, not to exceed aduration of 720 hours operating timewhen burning hazardous waste, to bringthe boiler to a point of operationreadiness to conduct a demonstrationthat the boiler can operate under theStanding Operating Requirements.During this period, the boiler must beoperated in conformance with theStandard Operating Requirements. TheRegional Administrator may extend theduration of this period once for up to 720additional hours when good cause forthe extension is demonstrated by theapplicant. The permit may be modifiedto reflect the extension according to§ 270.42 (minor modifications ofpermits].

(i) Applicants must submit astatement with Part B of the permitapplication demonstrating how they willcomply with the Standard OperatingRequirements. If the hazardous waste isoff-specification for metals or chlorine,the statement should include limitations,as appropriate, on the metals andchlorine content, heating value, and feedrates of the hazardous waste, other fuel,and industrial furnace feedstocks todemonstrate conformance with§§ 66.34-6(c)(Z) and Z66.34-6(d)[2) ofthis chapter,

(ii) The Director will review thisstatement and any other relevantinformation submitted with Part B of thepermit application and determinewhether the applicant is likely to be ableto comply with the Standard OperatingRequirements.

(2] Demonstration period. For theperiod immediately after completion ofthe first period of operation and only forthe minimum period sufficient to allowsample analysis, data computation, andsubmission of the results by theapplicant demonstrating conformancewith the Standard OperatingRequirements, the boiler is subject to theStandard Operating Requirements.During this period, the applicant isoperating under a Demonstration Permit.The Demonstration Perrit is anextension of the PredemonstrationPermit and constitutes a minormodification of permits under § 270.42.

(3) Post-demonstration period. Aftersuccessful completion of thedemonstration period, the boileroperates under a Final Permit inconformance with the StandardOperating Requirements. If thehazardous waste is off-specification formetals or chlorine, the Director will

specify changes to limitations, as "appropriate, on the metals and chlorinecontent, heating value, and feed rates ofthe hazardous waste, other fuels, andindustrial furnace feedstocks andrequirements for the operation andmaintenance of emissions controlequipment necessary to ensurecompliance with § § 266.34-6(c)(2) or266.34-6(d)(2) of this chapter. The FinalPermit is an extension of, andmodification to, as necessary, theDemonstration Permit and constitutes aminor modification of permits under§ 270.42.

(c) New boilers and industrialfurnaces permitted with a trial burn.New boilers and industrial furnaces thatwill be permitted with a trial burn under§ 266.34-5(d)(2) of this chapter aresubject to the following permits:

(1) Pretrial burn period. For the periodbeginning with initial introduction ofhazardous waste and ending withinitiation of the trial burn, and only forthe minimum time required to bring theboiler or industrial furnace to a point ofoperation readiness to conduct a trialbum, not to exceed 720 hours operatingtime when burning hazardous waste, theDirector must establish in a PretrialBum Permit conditions, including butnot limited to, allowable hazardouswaste feed rates and operatingconditions. The Director may extend theduration of this operational period once,for up to 720 additional hours, at therequest of the applicant when- goodcause is shown. The permit may bemodified to reflect the extensionaccording to § 270.42 (minormodifications of permits].

(i) Applicants must submit astatement, with Part B of the permitapplication, that suggests the conditionsnecessary to operate in compliance withthe standards of § 266.34-4 of thischapter during this period. Thisstatement should include, at a minimum,restrictions on hazardous wasteconstituents including arsenic, cadmium,chromium, lead, and chlorine, hazardouswaste heating value and feed rates, andthe operating parameters identified in§ 266.34-6 of this chapter.

(ii) The Director will review thisstatement and any other relevantinformation submitted with Part B of thepermit application and specifyrequirements for this period sufficient tomeet the performance standards of§ 266.34-4 of this chapter based on hisengineering judgment.

(2] Trial burn period. For the durationof the trial burn, the Director mustestablish conditions in the permit for thepurposes of determining feasibility ofcompliance with the performance

17048




standards of § 266.34-4 of this chapterand of determining adequate operatingconditions under § 266.34-6 of thischapter.

(i) Applicants must propose a trialburn plan, prepared under paragraph(c[2)(ii) of this section, to be submittedwith Part B of the permit application.

(ii) The trial burn plan must includethe following information:

(A) An analysis of each hazardouswaste, as fired, that includes:

(1) Heating value, levels of arsenic,cadmium, chromium, lead, and chlorine,and composition of the hazardouswaste;

(2) Viscosity and maximum particlesize (if applicable), or description of thephysical form of the hazardous waste;

(3) An identification of any hazardousorganic constituents listed in Part 261,Appendix VIII of this chapter that arepresent in the hazardous waste, exceptthat the applicant need not analyze forconstituents listed in Appendix VIII thatwould reasonably not be expected to befound in the hazardous waste. Theconstituents excluded from analysismust be identified and the basis for theirexclusion explained. The analysis mustrely on analytical techniques specifiedin "Test Methods for the Evaluation ofSolid Waste, Physical/ChemicalMethods" (incorporated by reference,see § 270.6), or their equivalent.

(4) An approximate quantification ofthe hazardous constituents identified inthe hazardous waste, within theprecision produced by the analyticalmethods specified in "Test Methods forthe Evaluation of Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods" (incorporated byreference, see § 270.6), or otherequivalent.

(5) A description of blendingprocedures, if applicable, prior to firingthe hazardous waste, including adetailed analysis of the hazardouswaste prior to blending, an analysis ofarsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, andchlorine levels in the fuel with which thehazardous waste is blended, andblending ratios.

(B) A detailed engineering descriptionof the boiler or industrial furnace,including:

(1) Manufacturer's name and modelnumber of the boiler or industrialfurnace;

(2) Type of boiler or industrialfurnace;

(3) Maximum rated heat input;(4) Description of the feed system for

the hazardous waste, and, asappropriate, other fuels and industrialfurnace feedstocks;

(5) Capacity of hazardous waste feedsystem:

(6) Description of automatichazardous waste feed cutoff system(s):

(7) Description of any emissioncontrol system(s); and

(8) Description of stack gas monitoringand any pollution control monitoringsystems.

(C) A detailed description of samplingand monitoring procedures includingsampling and monitoring locations in thesystem, the equipment to be used,sampling and monitoring frequency, andplanned analytical procedures forsample analysis.

(D) A detailed test schedule for eachhazardous waste for which the trial bumis planned, including date(s), duration,quantity of hazardous waste to beburned, and other factors relevant to theDirector's decision under paragraph(c)(2)(v) of this section.

(E) A detailed test protocol, including,for each hazardous waste identified, theranges of hazardous waste feed rate,and, as appropriate, the feed rates ofother fuels and industrial furnacefeedstocks, and any other relevantparameters that will be varied and thatmay affect the ability of the boiler orindustrial furnace to meet theperformance standards in § 266.34-4 ofthis chapter.

(F) A description of, and plannedoperating conditions for, any emissioncontrol equipment that will be used.

(G) Procedures for rapidly stoppingthe hazardous waste feed andcontrolling emissions in the event of anequipment malfunction.

(H) Such other information as theDirector reasonably finds necessary todetermine whether to approve the trialburn plan in light of the purposes of thisparagraph and the criteria in paragraph(c)(2)(v) of this section.

(iii) The Director, in reviewing thetrial burn plan, shall evaluate thesufficiency of the information providedand may require the applicant tosupplement this information, ifnecessary, to achieve the purposes ofthis paragraph.

(iv) Based on the hazardous wasteanalysis data in the trial burn plan, theDirector will specify as trial PrincipalOrganic Hazardous Constituents(POHCs), those constituents for whichdestruction and removal efficienciesmust be calculated during the trial burn.These trial POHCs will be specified bythe Director based on his estimate of thedifficulty of destroying the constituentsidentified in the hazardous wasteanalysis, their concentration or mass inthe hazardous waste feed, and, forhazardous waste containing or derivedfrom wastes listed in Part 261, Subpart Dof this chapter, the hazardous wasteorganic constituent(s) identified in

Appendix VII of that part as the basisfor listing.

(v) The Director shall approve a trialburn plan if he finds that:

(A) The trial burn is likely todetermine whether the boiler orindustrial furnace can meet theperformance standards in § 266.34-4 ofthis chapter,

I (B) The trial burn itself will notpresent an imminent hazard to humanhealth and the environment:

(C) The trial burn will help theDirector to determine operatingrequirements to be specified under§ 266.34-6 of this chapter; and

(D) The information sought inparagraphs (c)(2)(v) (A) and (C) of thissection cannot reasonably be developedthough other means.

(vi) The Director shall extend andmodify the Pretrial Burn Permit asnecessary to accommodate theapproved trial burn plan. The permitmodification shall proceed as a minormodification according to § 270.42.

(vii) During each approved trial burn(or as soon after the burn as ispracticable), the applicant must makethe following determinations:

(A) A quantitative analysis of the trialPOHCs and of arsenic, cadmium,chromium, lead, and chlorine, in thehazardous waste feed to the boiler orincinerator:

(B) A quantitative analysis of theexhaust gas for the concentration andmass emissions of the trial POHCs:

(C) If the hazardous waste is off-specification for arsenic, cadmium,chromium, lead, or chlorine, for eachelement for which the hazardous wasteis off-specification:

(1) A quantitative analysis of levels ofthe element(s) in other fuels andindustrial furnace feedstocks, theheating value of the hazardous wasteand other fuels, and the feed rates of thehazardous waste, other fuels, andindustrial furnace feedstocks todemonstrate conformance with thecomputed allowable concentrations ofmetals and chlorine provided in§ § 266.34-6 (c)(2) and (d)(2) of thischapter, or

(2) A quantitative analysis of theexhaust gas for the concentration andmass emission of the metal(s) orhydrogen chloride (HCI), and acomputation showing conformance withthe metals or HCl emission performance.standard in § 266.34-4 (c) and (d) of thischapter;• (E) A quantitative analysis of thescrubber water (if any), ash residues,and other residues, for the purpose ofestimating the fate of the trial POHCs,the fate of any metal subject to

17049




emissions testing under paragraph(c)(vi)(C)(2) of this section, and the fateof chlorine if subject to emission testingunder paragraph (c)(vi)(D)(2) of thissection;

(F) A computation of destruction andremoval efficiency (DRE), in accordancewith the DRE formula specified in§ 266.34-4(a)(1) of this chapter;

(G) An identification of sources offugitive emissions and their means.ofcontrol;

(H) A continuous measurement ofcarbon monoxide (CO) and oxygen inthe exhaust gas; and

(1) Such other information as theDirector may specify as necessary toensure that the trial burn will determinecompliance with the performancestandards in § 266.34-4 of this chapterand to establish the operating conditionsrequired by § 266.34-6 of this chapter asnecessary to meet those performancestandards.

(viii) The applicant must submit to theDirector a certification that the trialburn has been carried out in accordancewith the approved trial burn plan, andmust submit the results of all thedeterminations required in paragraph(c){2)(vi) of this section. This submissionshall be made within 90 days ofcompletion of the trial burn, or later ifapproved by the Director.

(ix) All data collected during any trialburn must be submitted to the Directorfollowing completion of the trial burn.

(x) All submissions required by thisparagraph must be certified on behalf ofthe applicant by the signature of aperson authorized to sign a permitapplication or a report under § 270.11.

(xi) Based on the results of the trialburn, the Director shall set the operatingrequirements in the Final Permitaccording to § 266,34-6 of this chapter.The permit modification shall proceedas a minor modification according to§ 270.42.

(3) Post-trial burn period. For theperiod immediately followingcompletion of the trial burn, and only forthe minimum period sufficient to allowsample analysis, data computation, andsubmission of the trial burn results bythe applicant, and review of the trialburn results and modification of thefacility permit by the Director to reflectthe trial burn results, the Director willestablish the operating requirementsmost likely to ensure compliance withthe performance standards of § 266.34-4of this chapter based on his engineeringjudgment. The Director shall so extendand modify the Trial Burn Permit todevelop the Post-Trial Bum Permit. The

permit modification shall proceed as aminor modification according to§ 270.42.

(i) Applicants must submit astatement, with Part B of the permitapplication, that identifies theconditions necessary to operate incompliance with the performancestandards of § 266.34-4 of this chapter,during this period. This statementshould include, at a minimum,restrictions on hazardous wasteconstituents, including arsenic,cadmium, chromium, lead, and chlorine,hazardous waste feed rates, and theoperating parameters identified in§ 266.34-6 of this chapter.

(ii) The Director will review thisstatement and any other relevantinformation submitted with Part B of thepermit application and specifyrequirements for this period sufficient tomeet the performance standards of§ 266.34-4 of this chapter based on hisengineering judgment.

(4) Final permit. After review of thetrial burn results, the Director willmodify the permit as necessary todevelop the Final Permit that will ensurecompliance with the performancestandards of § 266.34-4 of this chapter.The permit modification shall proceedas a minor modification according to§ 270.42.

(d) Interim status boilers andindustrialfurnaces-1) Existing boilersto be permitted without a trial burn.Applicants owning or operating existingboilers operated under the interim statusstandards of § 266.35 of this chapter andthat will be permitted withoutconducting a trial burn because theyoperate under the Standard OperatingRequirements in § § 266.34-6(b)(4),266.34-6(c) (2) or (3), and 266.34-6(d) (2)or (3) of this chapter must submit withPart B of the permit applicationdocumentation that the boiler isoperated in accordance with theStandard Operating Requirements. Thestatement must include, at a minimum,the operating record documentingcontinuous measurement of carbonmonoxide (CO) and oxygen in theexhaust gas. If the hazardous waste isoff-specification for metals or chlorine,the statement must also includelimitations, as appropriate, on themetals and chlorine content, heatingvalue, and feed rates of the hazardouswaste, other fuel, and industrial furnacefeedstocks to demonstrate conformancewith § § 266.34-6(c](2) and 266.34-6(d)(2)of this chapter.

(2) Existing industrial furnaces andboilers that will be permitted with a

trial burn, Applicants owning oroperating existing boilers or industrialfurnaces operated under the interimstatus standards of § 266.35 of thischapter and that will be permitted witha trial burn for the purposes ofdetermining compliance with theperformance standards of § 266.34-4 ofthis chapter and of determiningadequate operating conditions under§ 266.34-6 of this chapter, must prepareand submit a trial burn plan and performa trial burn in accordance withparagraphs (c)(2)(ii) through (c)(2)(ix) ofthis section. Applicants who submit atrial burn plan and receive approvalbefore submission of the Part B permitapplication must complete the trial burnand submit the results specified inparagraph (c)(2)(vi) of this section withthe Part B permit application. Ifcompletion of this process conflicts withthe date set for submission of the Part Bapplication, the applicant must contactthe Director to establish a later date forsubmission of the Part B application orthe trial burn results. If the applicantsubmits a trial burn plan with Part B ofthe permit application, the trial burnmust be conducted and the resultssubmitted within a time period to bespecified by the Director.

PART 271-REQUIREMENTS FORAUTHORIZATION OF STATEHAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS

VII. In Part 271:1. The authority citation for Part 271

continues to read as follows:Authority: Sees. 1006, 2002(a), and 3006 of

the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended bythe Resource Conservation and Recovery Actof 1976, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6905. 6912(a).and 692.6).

§ 271.1 [Amended)2. It is proposed to amend § 271.1(j) by

adding the following entry to Table I inchronological order by date ofpublication:

TABLE 1.-REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THEHAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMEND-MENTS OF 1984

Date 01 publication in Tide at regulation

SFEDERAL REGISTER

(Insert promugation Standards for Owners Od Opera-date]. tors of Boders and Industrial

Furnaces

[FR Doc. 87-9769 Filed 5-5-87; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 656-0-W

17050



burning of hazardous waste in boilers and industrial ... · by-case risk assessment for all...

Documents