The Army operates a submerged quench incinerator (SQI) at
the Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA) for destruction of wastes from clean-up
activities at Basin F, a former waste disposal site. The Army was not required
to pursue a State RCRA permit as it was approved under a four party agreement
as a CERCLA Interim Response Action (IRA), for which EPA was lead regulatory
Agency. The State of Colorado reviewed the project for compliance with the
technical requirements of RCRA, such as 40 CFR Part 264 , Subpart O, under a
CERCLA "ARAR" process. The SQI was constructed by Army contractors, operated by
Army contractors under applicable requirements, and regulatory oversight is
provided by the Department and EPA. It is not expected that these amended
regulations will significantly affect operation of this facility, since a
thorough site specific risk assessment, very similar to that required by these
amendments, was conducted and emissions from the SQI met acceptable target
levels. In addition, the SQI will not operate for an extended period of time.
Its mission, which began in mid-1993, is to treat a specific volume of on-site
wastes and is nearly complete.
A number of sources were utilized in preparing these
amendments to regulations for hazardous waste incineration. The following list
contains the major sources of information on which the amendments are based,
and these documents are available at the Division's records center for review
upon request:
15.
40 CFR Part
761 -Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Manufacturing, Processing,
Distribution in Commerce, and use Prohibitions, Subpart D-Storage and Disposal
(40 CFR
761.65(d)(3));.
AMENDMENTS
Each significant amendment to the existing regulations for
hazardous waste incineration is listed in the following sections. A brief
description of the revision, the basis for the revision, and a discussion of
the background and purpose of the revision is provided.
THE FOLLOWING REVISIONS ARE INCORPORATED INTO 6 CCR
1007-3. PART 100
(1) REVISION:
Addition of Pre- and Post- Trial Burn Risk Assessment requirements
to application process (§
§100.22(c)(5) and (6)): These
amendments require that facilities which submit an
application to operate a
hazardous waste incineration (HWL)
facility provide a two phase assessment of
risk for stack emissions from the
facility.
BASIS: References # 4, 5, 6, 9.
DISCUSSION: The EPA has
implemented the use of pre- and post-trial burn risk assessments at combustion
facilities as national policy through its combustion strategy, and many state
regulatory agencies are following this strategy. Under these amendments, a two
phase process to implement such a strategy has been codified. Phase I is a
pre-trial burn multi-pathway health risk assessment (MPHRA), conducted on the
estimated emissions from the facility operation. Air dispersion modeling must
be conducted by the applicant to estimate the ambient concentrations of
hazardous constituents due to facility emissions. This phase projects whether
emissions from the facility operation as proposed would exceed health risk
based levels in the ambient environment, and identifies the location of highest
estimated concentrations. Phase I serves as a screening tool to identify
whether risk based performance standards of Part 264-Subpart O are met based on
design estimates of emissions, using conservative screening protocols, and
identifies where site specific air dispersion modeling and risk assessment
procedures are needed. Alternatively, the facility could conduct a thorough
site specific risk assessment in Phase I using the best emissions estimates
available.
The second phase is a site specific post-trial burn MPHRA
conducted on the measured emissions from the facility after permitting and
construction, during interim operations. Phase II utilizes measured emissions
from the facility operation obtained during the trial burn to assess whether
health risk based performance standards will be exceeded in the ambient
environment. Both Phase I and II require that the applicant utilize air
dispersion models approved by the Department, and a risk assessment methodology
subject to the Department's approval as part of the application. Both phases
include an assessment of both direct inhalation and indirect health risk
through deposition of constituents in the environment and uptake through media,
such as surface water, and through ingestion of locally grown plant and animal
matter. The exposure scenarios and toxicological data consider sensitive
subpopulations such as children in the risk assessment process.
The risk assessment methodology in these amendments
requires summation of carcinogenic risk across all major exposure pathways, for
all identified compounds, resulting in a cumulative risk from operation of the
hazardous waste incineration facility. (In contrast, the procedure in the BIF
rule handled carcinogenic risk from metals and dioxins and furans separately.)
In addition, a target risk level of one in a million (1 E-6) added lifetime
cancer risk (ALCR), also referred to as "increased lifetime cancer risk", has
been established for the hypothetical "most exposed individual" (MEI) due to
facility emissions. In contrast, the federal BIF rule uses 1 in 100,000 (1
E-5), a target risk level which the Department does not currently accept as an
initial target level for protection of human health as a policy matter in its
Hazardous Waste Control Program. This revision is otherwise consistent with the
combustion strategy, and reflects current practice of EPA and many states
conducting risk assessments at hazardous waste combustion facilities.
The MEI is the hypothetical person at a site determined
through air dispersion modelling as the location of highest average ground
level ambient concentration of the constituents of concern, and therefore the
location of high-end potential individual health risk, regardless of whether
anyone lives or works at this location. The dispersion modelling identifies
whether the MEI is located on-site or off-site, which in turn affects the
exposure scenario(s) and risk management alternatives. This combination of
estimated exposure levels and location may also be referred to as the location
of "reasonable maximum exposure" (RME).
The Commission recognizes that risk assessment and
management is an evolving science as well as a policy matter. These amendments
require that facilities utilize risk assessment methodology and procedures
approved by the Department. If advances in the science or site specific
considerations dictate changes to the assessment procedures, these must be
implemented and documented in the administrative record for a permit decision.
For a given site, there may be a spectrum of ways to conduct a risk assessment
for a situation as complicated as a HWI facility, some being more comprehensive
than others. Available published guidance documents may be utilized as
necessary to determine the most appropriate methodology and protocols for
conducting risk assessments. For example, the documents "Revised Draft of Risk
Assessment Implementation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities"
(EPA, OSW, April 22, 1994, and referred to as the Implementation Guidance),
"Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to
Combustor Emissions" (EPA/600/6-90/003; ORD 1990 and referred to as the
Indirect Exposure Document), and the "Draft Addendum" (EPA 1993) to that
document, provide valuable information in preparation of indirect risk
assessments. It is recommended that the applicant work closely with the
Department in designing the Phase I and II risk assessments.
There may be cases where ecological receptors are more
sensitive than humans. If the information obtained during the Phase I and II
MPHRAs indicates that an evaluation of risk to ecological receptors is needed,
or would be beneficial in determining appropriate and environmentally
protective permit conditions, the Director may require the applicant/permittee
(as appropriate) to perform an ecological risk assessment. An ecological risk
assessment, if required, will be conducted in accordance with procedures and
methodologies approved by the Director to ensure protection of human health and
the environment.
(2)
REVISION:
Comparison of measured rates of emissions of Appendix
VIII compounds to performance standards (e.g., RACs and RSDs) in estimated
emissions and trial burn results (§ 100.22(c)(7)). These
amendments require that facilities which submit an
application to operate a HWI
facility perform a comparison of estimated (pre-trial burn) and measured
(post-trial burn) emissions with the published Reference Air Concentration
(RACs) and Risk Specific
Dose (RSDs) for each compound.
BASIS: References # 1, 4, 6.
DISCUSSION: These amendments have
been added for several technical reasons:
(a) to evaluate if health-risk based levels
of Appendix VIII compounds are exceeded in the ambient air for a hypothetical
high end exposure scenario (similar to worst case MEI);
(b) to determine if a facility may pursue
interim operations during preparation and evaluation of a site specific risk
assessment; and
(c) to serve as a
check on the risk assessment results. Under the existing Subpart O regulations
and the federal BIF rule, facilities are not specifically required to perform a
comparison of ambient levels of organic compounds detected in the stack
emissions during the trial burn with the RACs and RSDs of Appendix IV and V to
determine if health based emissions levels have been exceeded for these
compounds. Conformance with the destruction and remove efficiency (DRE)
standard for POHCs is the only explicit standard for organic compounds. These
amendments provide an additional level of specificity and protection not
contained in existing Subpart O or the federal BIF rule, and provides a more
enforceable method to evaluate compliance with performance standards. A more
detailed discussion on specific performance standards is provided later in this
document addressing amendments to Part 264-Subpart O.
(3) REVISION:
Notification of
intent to submit a Part B permit application (§
100.41(b)(5)): These amendments add a requirement that the
facility publish a notification in a major local newspaper which identifies
that an
application will be submitted for a HWI
facility. Criteria for the
notification is specified in the amendments.
BASIS: References # 4, 12
DISCUSSION: Based on testimony
provided to the Commission, public participation and community involvement were
identified as key elements in an effective approach to managing HWI and
combustion projects. EPA policy clearly points to public participation as an
important aspect of the combustion strategy. These amendments require that the
applicant of a proposed HWI facility notify the community that a permit
application will be submitted to the Department. In the past, the Department
has issued a press release and handled inquiries regarding an application upon
submittal. Requiring the facility to initiate the notification would ensure
timely notification of the public, and would place more responsibility on the
applicant for handling community involvement issues.
(4) REVISION:
Notification of
Receipt of a permit application and opening of public comment period on an
application § 100.506): These amendments require that the
Department publish a notification of submission of an
application in a major
local newspaper, and requires the
Department to open a public comment period
during the
application stage, prior to the
Department's final approval of the
trial burn plan and prior to issuance of a notice of completeness or a draft
permit. A requirement to establish an information repository has been added in
order to ensure that all major documents relevant to the project are available
for review near the local community.
BASIS: References # 4, 14.
DISCUSSION: Under the Colorado hazardous waste regulations
and federal RCRA regulations, the only formal public comment period is held
upon issuance of a draft permit decision by the Department. Although nothing
prevents any member of the public from commenting on a pending application, the
Department's experience is that it is rarely done. In fact, the Department
appreciates any relevant information that can be provided prior to the
preparation of a draft permit decision. These amendments explicitly require the
Director to solicit comments on the application prior to the issuance of a
notice of completeness on the application or the formal comment period on a
draft permitting decision. In particular, the Department encourages comments on
the trial burn plan and Phase I risk assessment prior to final approval, as
these are key documents related to the operation of the proposed facility.
These amendments also require that the Department publish a notice at the time
that the trial burn plan has been approved and dates for conducting the trial
burn. Additional public participation will be handled under a community
involvement plan (see amendment # 5 of this section), and will include
informational meetings focused on particular issues related to the application
under review. Addition of the application phase comment period results in the
following three distinct comment periods:
1. Application stage, including trial burn
and Phase I risk assessment (New requirement.)
2. Draft permit issuance (or denial) stage.
(Existing requirement.)
3. Final
permit modification stage, to incorporate trial burn results and Phase II risk
assessment information. (Revision to existing requirement; see also revision #
6.)
Nothing prevents the Department from extending a comment
period or holding additional comment periods during the permitting process for
a treatment, storage, or disposal facility. These amendments do not affect
existing procedures for appeal of the Department's final permit decisions under
§ 100.514.
(5)
REVISION:
Development of a Community Involvement Plan (§
100.41(b)(5)): These amendments require that facilities which have
submitted an
application for a HWI
permit develop a Community Involvement Plan
(CIP) and include it with the
application for the
Department's review and
approval.
BASIS: References # 4, 12, 14.
DISCUSSION: The purposes of the
CIP are:
(a) to ensure that the local
community is informed regarding technical and regulatory matters related to the
proposed HWI facility,
(b) ensure
that a mechanism is in place for the community to obtain information related to
the proposed facility, and
(c)
provide a forum for the community to voice their comments and concerns to the
facility and regulatory agencies as these concerns arise. This approach places
more responsibility on the owner/operator of the proposed facility to handle
public participation, but also is intended to increase access to the Department
and local governmental authorities. Guidance for development of a CIP is
available, including the "RCRA Public Involvement Manual'
(EPA/530-R-93-006).
(6)
REVISION:
Final permit modification stage to incorporate trial burn
results and Phase II risk assessment information (§ 100.63-Appendix
I): These amendments revise the classification of final
permit
modifications to incorporate trial burn results and establish final operating
conditions.
BASIS: References # 4, 12, 14.
DISCUSSION: These amendments
revise the classification of final permit modifications to incorporate trial
burn results and establish final operating conditions so that all modifications
are either Class 2 or Class 3, rather than retain a category for Class 1
modifications with prior approval. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure
that there is a public comment period for all modifications of hazardous waste
incinerator permits at the time the permit is finalized to incorporate trial
burn and Phase II risk assessment results, and a Class 1 with prior approval
does not require a comment period. Reorganization of this section has been done
to be consistent with EPA's June 2, 1994 proposed regulations for enhanced
public participation, but no other substantive changes were made.
(7) REVISION:
Addition
of disclosure requirements for a permit to operate a hazardous waste
incineration facility (§ 100.40(b)): These amendments provide
explicit requirements for disclosure of past compliance history by an
applicant(s) for a
permit to operate a
hazardous waste incineration
facility.
BASIS: References # 2, 5, 14, 15.
DISCUSSION: Under existing
regulations, applicants for a hazardous waste treatment storage or disposal
facility permit are not required to provide a disclosure to the Department
regarding their past environmental compliance history. These amendments provide
explicit requirements for disclosure of past compliance history by an
applicant(s) for a permit to operate a hazardous waste incineration faculty.
The compliance history is important information for both the Department and the
public in evaluating an applicant's commitment and ability to manage an
incineration facility safely and in accordance with all applicable
environmental regulations to ensure protection of human health and the
environment. The Commission also identified a need for legislative action to
clarify the Department's authority to consider an applicant's compliance
history in a permit decision.
(8) REVISION:
Minor amendments to ensure that
§
§ 100.22 and 100.41 are consistent with the revisions to Part 264,
such as revised citations, formatting, and overall organization of these
sections.
BASIS: These amendments ensure consistency between
amendments to Part 100 and Part 264.
THE FOLLOWING REVISIONS ARE INCORPORATED INTO 6 CCR
1007-3. PART 264- SUBPART O:
(9) REVISION:
Part 264-Subpart O
Performance Standards (§ 264.342): These amendments contain a
two level approach to establishing Part 264-Subpart O performance standards for
emissions from an incinerator burning
hazardous waste:
LEVEL I. A human health, risk based, target level that
cannot be exceeded based on a full Multi-Pathway Health Risk Assessment (MPHRA)
which considers both direct and indirect exposure pathways for the full suite
of compounds examined during the approved trial burn. The MPHRA is subject to
review and approval by the Department. The acceptable performance standard for
the MPHRA is an ALCR target level of 1 E-6 (1 x
10-6), and a hazard index (or quotient, as
appropriate) of < 0.25 for noncarcinogens. (See also the discussion of the
Phase II risk assessment requirements under revision #1 to Part 100.)
LEVEL II: A human health, risk based performance standard
that cannot be exceeded at anytime as a result of the emissions from the
permitted hazardous waste incinerator. Level II performance standards are used
during the operational period as a tool to assess whether levels of stack
emissions of specified metals and organic compounds exceed the health based
standards of Tables IV and V of this Subpart. Periodic compliance stack
testing, including those tests required under amended § 264.347(e), is
utilized to make this assessment.
BASIS: References # 1, 4, 9,
14.
DISCUSSION: These amendments
establish performance standards and a two level approach to evaluating
compliance with the performance standards of Subpart O. During the facility's
permit application process, and prior to a final decision on permit issuance,
the facility will be required to perform two MPHRAs under these amendments. The
first (Phase I pre-trial bun) MPHRA is performed on the design (estimated)
emissions from the facility to determine if a unacceptable human health risk
exists, and establish whether or not to proceed with a permit. If a draft
permit is prepared, the information is utilized by the Department to determine
applicable permit conditions for the facility. The second (Phase II) MPHRA is
performed using the actual measured (trial burn) emissions data from the
facility to determine whether the calculated health risk from the facility
meets the performance standards established in Level I. If those performance
standards are met, this information will be used to establish final permit
conditions for the facility.
The Phase II (post-trial burn) MPHRA establishes a
conservative, estimated, overall high end individual risk from exposure to
emissions from the incineration device, and is best performed in conjunction
with a trial burn. It does not provide a straightforward quantitative measure
of compliance during the operational period. Performing a MPHRA is both
complicated and potentially costly, and it is likely to be a cumbersome
procedure for conducting periodic compliance tests when applied to normal
operating conditions. Using the MPHRA as a compliance test would best be done
concurrently with a repeated trial burn. For Level I, the established target
risk level is a 1 E-6 upper-end ALCR, and a hazard index (or quotient, as
appropriate) of < 0.25 for noncarcinogens. This ALCR target level is
currently used by the Department for its CHWA regulatory programs in assessing
high-end human health estimates of risk from environmental exposures. Use of a
hazard index of 0.25 is designed to account for background exposure to the same
or other compounds with the same health effects from other sources.
These amendments establish compound specific numerical
performance standards (Level II) for the compounds listed in Appendices IV and
V of the BIF Rule against which to compare the emissions from the HWI facility.
These are quantitative ambient air standards which must be met by the stack
emissions under approved operating conditions. The Level II standards are
linked to health based inhalation standards promulgated by EPA in the BIF Rule,
published in Appendices IV and V of the BIF Rule as the Reference Air
Concentration (RAC) and the Risk Specific Dose (RSD), respectively, and are at
least as protective. For carcinogenic compounds, these amendments establish a
more conservative target level for the ALCR of 1 E-6 (as opposed to 1 E-5),
implemented by dividing each RSD in the BIF rule by 10. Level II assesses only
direct inhalation risk, but requires a consideration of the relative
contribution of each exposure pathway to the risk which was calculated under
Phase II. Lowering the target risk level, and taking into consideration the
relative percentage contribution of each major exposure pathway, compensates
for the indirect portion of the potential risk not taken into account using
only a direct inhalation pathway, and is consistent with target risk levels
utilized in the Department's hazardous waste control program for protection of
human health and the environment.
These amendments set an acceptable target level of 1 E-6
for each carcinogen, which is ten times more conservative than the RSD values
in the BIF rule (i.e., RSD/10). The RACs have not been revised, as they are
conservatively based on 25% of the Reference Dose (RfD) (see BIF rule preamble
discussion, Feb. 21, 1991). A more detailed discussion of specific standards
for each category of compounds (i.e., metals, particulate matter, hydrogen
chloride gas and chlorine, and organic compounds) is provided elsewhere in this
Statement of Basis.
The Commission concluded that trial burn data is designed
to represent extremes of normal operating conditions, and does not reflect
operation at upset conditions. Using a conservative ALCR target for the Level
II standards is considered a valid approach to estimate the high end direct
inhalation risk without performing a MPHRA for routine compliance
activities.
Compliance with the numerical standards established in the
BIF rule was determined by the Commission to provide sufficiently conservative
and protective standards, and is a more useful and enforceable method for
assessing routine compliance than reliance upon a MPHRA. As health based
standards are revised, or additional standards developed, the Commission will
promulgate appropriate revisions to these regulations. These amendments
establish that non-compliance with Level II performance standards would be a
violation of the facility's permit, and would be information which would be
assessed by the Department in determining whether a Level I MPHRA would be
required during the operational period.
Under the BIF rule, the allowable ALCR for metals is 1 E-5,
and organic products of incomplete combustion (PICs) are not factored into the
risk equation if DRE is met, except that risk from polychlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (PCDD/F) is calculated for facilities
utilizing certain air pollution control devices. PCDD/F risk is then added at a
1 E-5 ALCR level, resulting in total allowable risk under the BIF rule of 2
E-5. The published RSDs (and RACs) for other compounds are applied only to the
low risk waste exemption under
40 CFR
266.109, and are therefore not required to be
examined for all cases. Therefore, these amendments result in a more stringent
regulation for incineration facilities than the BIF Rule or existing Subpart O
regulations.
For Level II, these amendments require a summation of ALCR
from metals, PCDD and organic PICs, (i.e., ALCRtotal = ALCRmetals + ALCRpcdd/f
+ ALCRpic) based on a comparison of emissions (estimated and actual) with the
RSD (see Equations in § 264.342). The performance standard for this
comparison is ALCR [LESS THAN EQUAL TO] 1 E-6. This standard is more
conservative than that under the BIF rule (i.e., 1 E-5).
(10) REVISION:
Particulate matter
standard (§ 264.343). These amendments revise the particulate
matter (PM) standard from 0.08 to 0.010 grains per dry standard cubic foot
(gr/dscf) in the stack emissions from a HWI
facility.
BASIS: References # 4, 5, 6, 10, 13, 14.
DISCUSSION: These amendments
establish a PM standard of 0.010 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)
(23 mg/dscm) in the emissions from all units subject to these revised Subpart O
standards. This limit replaces the standard of 0.08 gr/dscf found in both Part
264- Subpart O, and in the federal BIF rule. Information presented to the
Commission by the Department, the Sierra Club, and that located in EPA
documents, indicates that the existing 0.08 standard is not representative of
best operating practice (BOP) or maximum achievable control technology (MACT)
for hazardous waste incinerators. Based on EPA documents, the 0.010 standard
represents good combustion practice, is consistent with the CETRED BOP values
and the proposed federal new source performance standard (NSPS) for municipal
waste combustors.
Control of PM in emissions from combustion devices is
considered an essential aspect in control of certain metals, polychlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (PCDD/Fs), and other semi-volatile organic
compounds. This amended PM standard will require owners and operators of
Subpart O units to use the emissions control technology necessary to
effectively limit participate emissions and the inorganic and organic compounds
associated with these emissions.
(11) REVISION:
Total Hydrocarbon
standard (§ 264.342(d)): These amendments establish a total
unburned hydrocarbon (HC) standard of 20 parts per million volume (ppmv) basis.
Continuous
monitoring of HC in stack emissions is required.
BASIS: References # 1, 4, 5, 6.
DISCUSSION: These amendments
establish a total hydrocarbon (HC) standard to ensure that all Subpart O units
operate under conditions indicative of efficient combustion. An HC standard and
continuous emissions monitoring is to be used in addition to the carbon
monoxide standard of 100 ppm, to provide a second indicator of combustion
efficiency. In the BIF rule, HC monitoring is implemented with an alternative
CO standard in the BIF Rule, and would be set in the final permit based on the
results of the trial burn. No alternate HC standard is proposed based on
characteristics of the feed to the unit, as in the BIF rule.
The Commission has determined that a 100 ppm CO standard in
combination with a HC standard and monitoring represents more effective control
of organic emissions which might otherwise pass undetected into the atmosphere.
The utility of HC limits is discussed in the preamble to the BIF rule (Feb. 21,
1991), and a 20 ppm limit is considered representative of good combustion
conditions. Good combustion conditions are also correlated with low emissions
of PICs.
The HC monitoring proposed is not compound specific, rather
the requirement is added to monitor and control those parameters which will be
used to achieve the performance standard for POHCs and other organic compounds,
and minimize formation of PICs.
(12) REVISION:
Carbon Monoxide
(CO) standard (§ 264.342(c)): These amendments establish a CO
standard of 100 ppmv, applicable to the emissions from all Subpart O units.
BASIS: References# 1, 4.
DISCUSSION: Under existing Subpart
O regulations, the CO limit was established during the trial burn. These
amendments establish a CO standard of 100 ppmv, applicable to the emissions
from all Subpart O units. Although the Commission agreed that CO is not
conclusively correlated to DRE, CO is indicative of efficient combustion
conditions and CO is a PIC. Since results of trial burns show that the DRE is
routinely met when CO is below 100 ppm, this standard has been implemented in a
number of incinerator permits nationwide by state agencies and EPA. No
alternative (higher) CO limit is allowed under these amendments as it is in the
BIF rule.
(13) REVISION:
Metals emissions standards (§ 264.344): These
amendments establish metals feed rate and emissions standards for
hazardous
waste incineration facilities.
BASIS: References # 1, 4, 5, 6.
DISCUSSION: These amendments
incorporate metals emissions standards (and feed rate limitations) developed
under the federal BIF rule. Values for acceptable ambient levels of
carcinogenic compounds, (i.e., the risk specific dose (RSD) in Appendix V of
the BIF rule) have been lowered by a factor of ten to provide a more
conservative limit corresponding to a added lifetime cancer risk to the MEI of
one in a million (1E -6). The values for acceptable ambient levels of
non-carcinogenic compounds (i.e. reference air concentrations (RACs)) were not
modified as they are based on 25% of the reference dose (RfD), which considers
threshold health effects. These limits are health based standards and therefore
provide an additional level of protection over the existing Subpart O
regulations.
(14) REVISION:
Hydrochloric acid/chlorine gas standard (§
264.345): These amendments incorporate the emissions standards for
hydrochloric acid gas and chlorine developed under the federal BIF rule into
these revised Subpart O regulations.
BASIS: References # 1, 4, 5.
DISCUSSION: These amendments
incorporate the emissions standards for hydrochloric acid gas and chlorine
developed under the federal BIF rule into these revised Subpart O regulations,
a change which is consistent with EPA's national policy.
(15) REVISION:
Controls for
dioxins and furans (§ 264.342(e)): These amendments establish
an emissions standard of 13 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter of gas
(ng/dscm) total congeners, and 0.17 ng/dscm toxicity equivalency (TEQ) for
dioxins and furans. These amendments specify that the Director may set a lower
standard in a
permit if these values are not protective based on the Phase I or
Phase II MPHRA.
BASIS: References # 4, 10, 13.
DISCUSSION: These amendments
establish an emissions limit of 13 ng/dscm (based on the sum of all tetra
through octa dioxin and furan congeners) for the TCDD (tetra-CDD) equivalents,
and a 0.17 ng/dscm TEQ of 2, 3, 7, 8-tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin (NATO
1989 international criteria). A requirement is included that PCDDs/Fs be
sampled and analyzed for in any trial burns for Subpart O units. The BIF rule
addresses only those combustion devices using certain types of air pollution
control devices. A similar requirement is being implemented under the
combustion strategy. A great deal of controversy and uncertainty surrounds
PCDDs/Fs as products of incomplete combustion or their reformation in exhaust
gas from HWI facilities and other combustion devices. An initial PCDD/Fs stack
test during the trial burn provides a baseline demonstration of the emissions
rate of these compounds, and allows a determination whether target health risk
levels (i.e., Level I or Level II performance standards) are exceeded by the
emissions levels.
Alternative stack gas emissions limits (i.e., if 13 ng/dscm
and 0.17 ng/dscm TEQ is not protective based on the risk assessment), and
ongoing requirements for emissions monitoring will be based on the levels
demonstrated during the trial burn. Without these data, no basis will exist for
determining if PCDD/Fs emissions are present at levels which pose a health
risk. Further, no state air emission limit currently exists for these compounds
from hazardous waste incineration or combustion devices, so stack testing for
PCDD/Fs is not likely to be required under an air emissions permit at this
time. A document entitled "Combustion Emissions Technical Resource Document",
EPA530-R-94-014, June 1994, performed calculations to generate BOP levels,
using a MACT-type analysis, and this information supports use of a specific
emissions standard very close to the one adopted in these amendments. EPA has
published proposed revisions to the NSPS for municipal waste combustors which
supports a total dioxin standard of 13 ng/dscm.
(16) REVISION:
For all Appendix
VIII organic compounds: These amendments incorporate language into
§
§ 264.342 and 100.22(c) to explicitly require:
(a) facilities report results of all
compounds sampled and analyzed during the trial burn, not just POHCs, including
PICs identified in the analysis of stack gas;
(b) facilities calculate maximum ambient air
concentrations with an approved dispersion model using measured values from the
trial burn stack test; and
(c)
facilities perform a comparison of calculated values from item (b) with health
based values of RACs and RSDs from 40 CFR Part
266 appendices IV and V.
BASIS: References # 1, 4, 9, 14.
DISCUSSION: Under existing Subpart
O and the federal BIF rule, facilities are not required to perform a comparison
of levels of organic compounds detected in the stack emissions during the trial
burn with the RACs and RSDs of Appendix IV and V to determine if health based
emissions levels have been exceeded for these compounds. Conformance with the
DRE standard for POHCs is the only standard for organic compounds. These
amendments provide an additional level of specificity and protection not
contained in the federal BIF rule. The procedure could also be used to
back-calculate compound specific emissions limits. This requirement will not
place any significant financial burden on the facility performing the stack
test, as the emissions sampling and analyses will have already been performed
under the analytical methods required for DRE determination for the POHCs. The
facility must then use the measured levels of organic compounds in a
conservative or site specific emissions dispersion model to determine maximum
ambient air concentration levels. This effort will quantify those PICs which
are identified by the specific analytical method used, such as volatile organic
compounds using method 8240 (or equivalent).
(17) REVISION:
Periodic sampling
and analyses of environmental media (air, soil, surface water) in proximity to
the incineration facility (§ 264.347(d)): These amendments
provide the explicit authority to the
Department to require ambient
monitoring
of environmental media in a
facility's
permit, or prior to receiving a final
operating
permit, under certain circumstances.
BASIS: References # 2, 5, 6, 14.
DISCUSSION: Under these
amendments, if the results of the air dispersion modeling and risk assessments
conducted under revised § 100.22(c), or other information obtained by the
Director, indicate that ambient levels of Appendix VIII constituents may pose a
risk to human health or the environment (by exceeding performance standards),
the Director will require the Permittee to sample environmental media and
analyze it for the constituents of concern. An example would be emissions of
metals which could accumulate in soils at some distance from the facility's
stack if these were identified at significant levels in the stack
emissions.
This requirement could include initial sampling conducted
prior to operation of a hazardous waste incinerator, which would be used to
establish baseline levels of the constituents of concern at selected locations.
This background information is necessary in order to make comparisons before
and after the facility goes into operation. Locations of sampling would be
based upon the air dispersion modeling results, and an assessment of the
surrounding area, including land use patterns. Periodic monitoring of the media
of concern for these compounds would be required in the facility's operating
permit to provide for comparison with the baseline levels of the constituents
of concern. This determination would be based on information available to
indicate whether a potential for significant deposition and accumulation exists
for the compounds of concern.
If sampling of environmental media is required, these
amendments require a Permittee to develop a sampling and analysis plan for the
Director's review and approval. Following the Director's approval of the
sampling and analysis plan and its subsequent implementation, the Permittee
would prepare a report containing the results of such sampling and analyses to
the Director. The Director would review the results and provide comments to the
Permittee. Based on these results, the Director may require the Permittee to
perform revised and/or additional site specific risk assessments. If the
results of sampling of any environmental media indicate that levels of any
Appendix VIII constituents released as a result of hazardous waste incineration
activities may pose a risk to human health or the environment, these amendments
specify that the Director would modify, revoke and reissue, or terminate the
State RCRA permit for the incineration facility.
The Commission recognizes that a number of uncertainties
exist in designing and performing ambient monitoring of air, soil, water or
vegetation, as well as interpreting the results obtained. In addition, is
likely to be an economically significant effort. The benefits, costs, and
uncertainties would need to be examined in making site specific decisions
regarding such a requirement. The Commission determined that implementation of
such a requirement will aid in addressing both technical issues and certain
citizen concerns, such as contamination of food crops and local ambient air
quality issues as a result of the incineration activity. It would also provide
data with which to evaluate and compare risk assessment estimates.
(18)
REVISION:
Periodic stack emissions test (§ 264347(e)): These amendments
clarify the
Department's authority to incorporate a periodic stack emissions
sampling and analysis frequency in an incineration
facility's operating
permit.
BASIS: References # 5, 6, 14.
DISCUSSION: Under the current
Subpart O regulations (§ 264.347(a)(3)), the Department had the authority
to require the Permittee to conduct sampling and analysis, and report the
results. However, the Commission considered the requirement too vague as a
basis for establishing permit conditions. These amendments clarify the
authority to explicitly require periodic testing in accordance with procedures
specified in the facility's permit to demonstrate compliance with applicable
performance standards. This testing may be similar to a repeat of the trial
burn, or may examine only certain compounds of concern. It is not intended that
the Department would require DRE to be calculated at each sampling event.
However, the facility may be required to reaffirm compliance with the DRE
standard during the operational life of the permit, particularly if information
indicates that this performance standard is not being met These amendments also
require that a report containing the results of the periodic stack test would
be prepared in accordance with the permit, generally within 90 days of
completion of the testing.
(19) REVISION:
Compound specific
emissions monitoring (§ 264.347(f)): These amendments
explicitly provide the authority to the
Department to incorporate compound
specific emissions
monitoring requirements into the
facility's operating
permit.
BASIS: Clarification of existing regulations, References #
6, 14.
DISCUSSION: These amendments
clarify the Department's authority to address compound specific emissions
monitoring in the facility's operating permit for those compounds that are of
major concern, and the technology exists to monitor these compounds. These
amendments require the Permittee to assess the available technology for
monitoring the required emissions. If the Permittee cannot locate commercially
available technology that meets the requirements for monitoring required by the
Director, the Permittee would be required to submit a certified statement to
the Director explaining the facility's efforts to meet the requirement.
Currently, continuous emissions monitors (CEMs) are available for O2, CO, HC,
CO2, HCl, SOx, NOx, opacity, certain chemical warfare agents (e.g., mustard),
but not for a wide variety of organic compounds (i.e., PICs) which may be
present at low levels in the stack emissions. However, industry and academic
organizations are working on development of commercially available monitoring
devices for organic and metallic compounds. The appropriate devices would be
specified in an operating permit, once commercially available.
(20)
REVISION: Remote
data acquisition for continuously monitored operating conditions and emissions
(§264.347(g)): These amendments require the Permittee to
provide a system to the
Department for remote data acquisition of periodically
or continuously monitored operating conditions and emissions.
BASIS: References # 5, 6, 14.
DISCUSSION: Remote monitoring
generally consists of real-time electronic data transfer from an operating
facility to the regulatory agency(s). These amendments require that the general
performance characteristics of a remote monitoring system would be proposed in
the facility's permit application, or specified by the Director in an operating
permit, to improve real time monitoring of facility emissions and assess
compliance with permit standards. The system would be used by the Director to
monitor the operating conditions and the periodically and continuously
monitored emissions of the incineration facility. For example, such a system is
in use for the RMA-SQ1. The system would typically be located at the
Department's office, but the technology exists to place a monitor at other
locations, such as a local health department
(21) REVISION:
Additional
personnel training requirements (§ 264.347(h)): These
amendments add personnel training requirements specific to operators of
hazardous waste incineration faculties and provide a more explicit set of
requirements for incineration facilities than contained in § 264.16.
BASIS: References # 13, 14.
DISCUSSION: Under existing
regulations, owners and operators of all hazardous waste treatment storage or
disposal faculties are required to develop a personnel training plan as part of
the facility's permit application. These amendments expand on the existing
requirements by adding language specific to training for operators and
maintenance personnel at incineration facilities. In particular, operators will
be required to complete a training program to ensure that they are qualified to
operate an incineration facility or certain aspects of one for which the
operator is responsible. Maintenance personnel must be trained in their area of
responsibility, and all personnel must receive training in contingency plan and
emergency response procedures. The Commission also identified a need for
legislative action to clarify the Department's authority to require operators
of hazardous waste incineration facilities to complete a certification program
to demonstrate their qualifications, similar to that required by EPA for
operators of municipal waste combustors or publicly owned treatment
works.
(22) REVISION:
Additional requirements for contingency plans at hazardous waste
incineration facilities § 264.347(i)): These amendments
provide a more explicit set of contingency plan and
emergency response
requirements for incineration facilities than contained in Part 264-Subparts C
and D.
BASIS: Reference # 14.
DISCUSSION: Under existing
regulations, owners and operators of all hazardous waste treatment storage or
disposal facilities are required to develop plans and procedures to prepare
for, prevent, and respond to emergencies involving waste management operations
as part of the facility's permit application. These amendments expand on the
existing requirements by adding language specific to owners and operators of
incineration facilities. In particular, these amendments require development of
more sophisticated evaluation procedures for emergencies and accident involving
hazardous waste, and place more responsibility on the owner or operator to
coordinate off-site emergency response efforts with the local emergency
response authorities.
Final Note: An applicant should be
aware that the owner or operator of a proposed hazardous waste incineration
facility is required to obtain a certificate of designation under 25-15-Part 5
C.R.S., for a facility applying for a permit to burn hazardous waste under the
requirements of 6 CCR 1007-3, Part 264-Subpart O.
Statement of Basis and Purpose - Rule-making Hearing
of August 22, 1995
