 Coalition for
Responsible Waste Incineration
June 7, 1999
Mr. Donald Arbuckle
Acting Administrator
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Office of Management and Budget
725 17th Street, NW, Room 10201
Washington, DC 20503
Re: Hazardous Waste Combustor MACT Rule
The Coalition for Responsible Waste Incineration (CRWI)
represents nine companies with either captive or commercial hazardous
waste incineration interests. These companies account for a significant
portion of the U.S. capacity for hazardous waste incineration. In
addition, CRWI is advised by a number of academic members with research
interests in hazardous waste incineration. Since its inception, CRWI
has encouraged its members to reduce the generation of hazardous waste.
However, for certain hazardous waste streams, CRWI believes that
incineration is a safe and effective method of treatment, reducing both
the volume and toxicity of the waste treated. CRWI seeks to help its
member companies both to improve their incineration operations and to
provide lawmakers and regulators helpful data and comments.
CRWI would like the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs to consider two points during its review of the NESHAPS: Final
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors.
1. Requiring PM CEMs.
Based on the recently signed portland cement kiln MACT rule,
it appears that particulate matter continuous emission monitors (PM
CEMs) will be required in the hazardous waste combustor MACT rule
although we also understand that a specific compliance deadline for
installing the PM CEMs is deferred pending a future rulemaking. We
disagree that such a requirement should be included in the final rule.
CRWI has worked closely with EPA on demonstration projects
that have evaluated the performance of several PM CEMs. In fact, CRWI
was one of the sponsors (with Eli Lilly and Company and the Chemical
Manufacturers Association) of an industry funded demonstration project.
Enclosed are copies of the studies, as well as the briefing materials
presented to EPA on this project. The results of the studies that have
been finished indicate that while it is possible to develop calibration
relationships for PM CEMs, an examination of the daily operations of
these instruments show significant problems (See the briefing
materials, slides 20-23, presented to the Office of Solid Waste on May
20, 1999, for a list of issues still to be addressed). As an example of
one of the problems encountered, the instruments, when compared over
time, did not give the same PM concentration in the stack. In other
words, properly calibrated and properly functioning instruments did not
give the same PM concentration when sampling similar stack gases (see
slides 17-19 of the May 20, 1999 presentation). This discrepancy has
enormous implications if these instruments are to be used as a
compliance tool, since one instrument could indicate non-compliance
while another could indicate compliance. In addition, the instruments
are only now being tested on cement kilns. Results from this test will
not be available until late in 1999. Thus, CRWI has serious concerns on
whether PM CEMs are ready for use as a compliance tool. We particularly
take issue with the Agency's characterization that the use of PM CEMs
in Europe is the basis for proceeding with a PM CEMs requirement since
the compliance and enforcement schemes in Europe are much different
than in the United States.
The Office of Solid Waste is aware of these issues and we
thought had initially indicated that the requirement for PM CEMs would
be postponed until data from the cement kiln test were completed and
additional data could be obtained on the long-term operations of these
instruments. If the results from ongoing tests were positive, EPA would
initiate a separate rulemaking to require PM CEMs for hazardous waste
combustors and to develop appropriate performance specifications. CRWI
agreed with this approach since it would allow all parties to examine
the ability of these instruments for function properly on a cement kiln
and gather additional data on long-term operations. In addition, it
would not make a decision on requiring PM CEMs until both the
calibration issues and the compliance issues for these instruments
could be addressed.
Now it appears that EPA has made the decision to require PM
CEMs without properly addressing the many technical problems with using
the instruments in a compliance mode and the applicability of the
instruments to cement kilns. In addition, the rule does not appear to
have any performance specifications or a timetable for installing the
instruments. CRWI believes that PM CEMs should not be required in any
rulemaking until the technical questions are adequately addressed.
Placing a requirement in the HWC MACT rule with no installation date or
performance specification does nothing except force industry to
litigate the rule upon promulgation. Should EPA want to send a message
that it plans to require PM CEMs when they can be proven as compliance
tools, this can easily be done in preamble language without including
the requirement in the rule. CRWI suggests that this is a better
approach than requiring installation and deferring the date. It
achieves the same goal at less post-promulgation cost to all parties.
However, if the requirement remains in the rule, CRWI would recommend
that the language in the rule be modified to make it clear that there
is no requirement to "install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a PM
CEMs" until further rulemaking is undertaken.
2. Timing of Trial Burns (Comprehensive Performance Tests).
It is CRWI's understanding that EPA will require that a trial
burn plan be submitted to the appropriate regulatory entity one year
prior to when the facility plans to conduct their trial burn. The
agency then has nine months in which to approve the plan. The facility
then has six months to conduct the trial burn and an additional three
months to report the results to the agency. In a perfect world, CRWI
members believe that this schedule can be met. However, our concerns
with this timetable rest with the ability of the regulating entity to
approve a trial burn plan within nine months and the ability to obtain
laboratory results in three months, particularly since 150 plus
facilities will be requesting such approval in about the same time
period. These concerns are not only based on logistics but on the
historical evidence of the agency's ability to approve trial burn
plans. The following table will give some indication of past
experiences with obtaining approval of trial burn plans.
| Facility |
Date submitted |
Date approved |
| LWD |
10/94 |
12/98 |
| TWI |
07/98 |
Not yet approved |
| Lilly |
07/98 |
Not yet approved |
| Kodak |
05/91 |
05/92 |
| Kodak |
03/95 |
Not yet approved |
| 3M |
11/98 |
Not yet approved |
| DOE |
05/96 |
Not yet approved |
| Rubicon |
01/97 |
08/97 |
| Reynolds |
12/97 |
11/98 |
| Dow |
12/88 |
04/89 |
| Dow |
08/90 |
12/91 |
| Dow |
04/98 |
Not yet approved |
While these data are incomplete and do not include requests
for additional information and the amount of negotiations between the
company and the regulatory entity, it does show that the regulatory
agencies have traditionally not approved trial burns in nine months.
This will be further complicated, as noted above, in that most
facilities will be submitting trial burn plans at about the same time.
While this may not be a big concern for states and EPA Regions with
only a few hazardous waste combustors, states with multiple combustors
will be hard pressed to properly review these plans. Since each trial
burn plan will be used to set site-specific operating parameters, each
plan has to be reviewed on its own merits. This will put tremendous
pressure on the regulatory entity.
As CRWI understands the current version of the rule, failure
by the regulatory entity to approve a trial burn plan in the time frame
allotted does not relieve the facility of the burden to conduct the
trial burn by a certain date. Being forced to conduct a trial burn
without an approved trial burn plan is not a situation in which either
the facility or the regulatory agency wants to be placed. One potential
solution is to leave the timetable as is but add a provision that if
the regulatory entity does not complete its review of the trial burn
plan in the allotted nine months, the facility still has six months to
conduct the trial burn after receiving an approved trial burn plan.
Another place where timetables could easily be compromised is
in the analysis of test results, especially for dioxins. All hazardous
waste combustors will be required to test for dioxins during their
trial burns. It is CRWI's understanding that there are a limited number
of laboratories that are certified to analyze stack gas samples for
dioxin. With 150 plus facilities testing for dioxin in a six month
period and expecting results in three month, these laboratories may be
hard pressed to deliver the results on time. One potential solution to
this timing problem is to allow facilities to submit results one month
after receiving laboratory results.
Hopefully, industry will stagger submission of their trial
burn plans in a manner that will allow existing regulatory entities and
laboratories to perform their work on a timely basis. However, should
this not occur, CRWI believes that the ability to alter the timetable
based on actions not controlled by facilities should be allowed and
will make for a more orderly compliance with the new standards.
Should you need additional information on these two issues or
would like to meet with CRWI for additional details, please contact me
at 202-775-9869.
Sincerely yours,
Melvin E. Keener, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Return to Comments
Return to Main Page
|