GCI TECH NOTES ©
Since the Revised Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors (HWC) was released in draft form to the public on or about March 21, 1996 many interested people have begun to review and prepare comments on this proposed rule. Among many significant questions about this rule was one which asks how does this set of regulations compare to those of BIF? The BIF rule, which significantly further regulated the burning of hazardous waste in boilers and industrial furnaces, was published as a final rule February 21, 1991. Subsequent to that publication, several amendments have altered some aspects of the rule, such as the removal of the alternative hydrocarbon Tier III compliance method. Now, with the release of the proposed HWC rules, not just amendments to BIF but very fundamental changes are being proposed for those same boilers and industrial furnaces as well as for most other hazardous waste burners.
One of the general areas of the proposed rule under review by GCI is that of assessing the change proposed to 40 CFR regulations. To summarize, the basic sections changed are found in Parts 60, 63, 260, 261, 264, 265, 266, 270, and 271. This article will focus more on some key aspects of the impact of Part 63. What is key about this Part is that subpart EEE replaces many of the most significant areas in Part 266 which establishes the BIF regulations. Of major importance is the change proposed to the continuous monitoring requirements which includes continuous emission monitoring (CEM) and other process monitoring systems.
To anyone who has read some or all of the published documents describing and supporting the HWC rules, it has become very clear that the proposed rule is at least very complex. To aid in solving some the complexity, GCI has prepared a table which makes a comparison of continuous monitoring systems (CMS) required by the BIF rules to the CMS requirements of the proposed HWC rules. This table will help with understanding the impact on some of the required compliance operating activities proposed in this rule. It can also provide a framework to begin to estimate the additional capital and operational costs as compared to the current monitoring costs. These issues should be relevant to those who will make official comment on these proposed rules as well as to those whose job is to manage and operate a facility potentially regulated by them.
Among the most significant impacts is that of the proposed use of CEMs for control of emissions not previously monitored on a continuous basis, such as particulate matter. Also significant is the fact that the proposed rule calls for different and additional averaging periods to the continuous monitoring requirements.
Some other issues from the table that concern CMSs, and are important to briefly discuss, are changes to the automatic waste fuel cut-off system (AWFCOs) and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program. These two items were included in the BIF regulations, but have been expanded under the proposed rule. AWFCOs are being linked to more activities than under BIF, such as the monitoring of combustion zone pressures. AWFCOs which do occur are requiring much more documentation and reporting than under BIF. This includes a definition for excessive AWFCOs and a requirement to specifically report them to EPA. The appendix to Part 63, subpart EEE requires the development and implementation of a QA/QC program for the CMSs. It should be noted that the rule specifically includes any associated equipment (thermocouples, pressure transducers, etc.) along with the monitor for inclusion in the QA/QC program. QA/QC requirements under the proposed rule include by reference sections of part 63.8 in addition to those of the appendix. QA/QC requirements also include a linkage between routine QA/QC check activities and AWFCOs. This, in essence, requires an AWFCO for certain routine adjustments. All operators currently have some level of QA/QC that they use for their CMS now; but the issue is, will it conform with the proposed rule requirements?
These issues, those of reduced emission levels, and others which involve the routine monitoring activities should make this table a valuable resource in considering the impacts of the proposed rule. We encourage all that are impacted by this proposed rule to carefully evaluate it and comment to EPA.
CMS Item | BIF Compliance Method | BIF Compliance Standard Setting | BIF Compliance Monitoring | HWC Compliance Methods | HWC Compliance Standard Setting | HWC Compliance Monitoring |
PM | No Continuous Emission Monitoring of PM required | Continuous Emission Monitoring of PM Required | ||||
Compliance/ Trial Burn Test:
Emission Sampling |
Standard by Rule:
180 mg/dscm
|
Two Methods:
Compre. Perform. Test PM Standard
|
Standard by Rule:
69 mg/dscm
|
|
||
Site -Specific PM Limit (see SVM, LVM, and D/F)
|
Standard Set by Test:
(two limit values)
|
|
||||
Operating Limits:
|
|
|
Operating Limits:
None, specific for PM (PM is an operating limit under HWC) |
|||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
PM
(cont.) |
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
Max. Combust chamber Pressure |
No CMS required
|
Standard by Rule:
|
No requirement |
CMS required
|
Standard by Rule:
|
|
CO
(Main Stack) |
Compliance/Trial Burn Test
|
Standard by Rule:
100 ppm |
|
Compre./Confir. Performance Test
No CO required |
||
CO
(Main Stack) (Cont.) (Bypass Duct Only) |
or
|
Standard by Test:
test ave. value
|
|
|||
Compliance/Trial Burn Test
|
Standard by Rule:
100 ppm |
|
Compre./Confir. Performance Test
|
Standard by Rule:
100 ppm CO |
|
|
or
|
Standard by Test:
test ave. value
|
|
or
|
Standard by Rule:
6.7 ppm HC |
|
|
HC |
Compliance/Trial Burn Test
|
Standard by Rule:
20 ppm |
|
Compre./Confir. Performance test
|
(for main stack)
Standard by Rule: 20 ppm |
|
O2 |
Compliance/Trial Burn Test
|
No standard
|
|
Compre./Confir. Performance test
|
No standard
|
|
Max. temp. @ dry PM device
(APCD) |
Compliance/Trial Burn Test
|
Standard by Test:
test ave. value
|
|
Compre./Confir. Performance Test
|
Standard by Test:
test ave. values
|
|
D/F | Conditionally required for Compliance or Trial Burn Test |
Standard by Rule:
Risk Assessment |
Required for Compre./Confir. Performance Test |
Standard by Rule:
0.2 ng/dscm, TEQ |
||
No CEM | No CEM | |||||
Operating Limits
(no specific limits beyond the risk assessment) |
Operating Limits:
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
BATCH or CONTAINERS ONLY
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
D/F
(Cont.) |
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
||||
|
1. ave. over all runs of the max. 10 min. rolling ave. for each run 2. ave. of all one min. ave. over all runs |
|
||||
Confirmatory Performance Test
|
. | |||||
D/F
(cont.) |
(optional)
|
|||||
Hg |
Compliance/Trial
Burn Test |
Standard by Site-Specific Conditions | Comprehensive Performance Test |
Standard by Rule:
50 ug/dscm |
||
No CEM | CEM |
|
||||
Operating Limits:
|
|
|
or (Waiver of CEMs)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not given. |
|
|
|
|
|
No requirement. | |||
|
|
|
No requirement. | |||
|
|
|
No requirement. | |||
|
|
|
No requirement. | |||
|
|
|
No requirement. | |||
Hg
(Cont.) |
|
|
|
No requirement. | ||
SVM
(Cd, Pb) |
Compliance/Trial
Burn Test |
Standard by Site-Specific Conditions
(separate metals) |
Comprehensive Performance Test: |
Standard by Rule:
57 ug/dscm combined |
||
No CEM | CEM |
|
||||
Operating limits:
No PM limit |
or
Operating Limits: PM limit
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No requirement | |||
|
|
|
No requirement | |||
SVM
(Cd, Pb) (Cont.) |
|
|
|
No requirement | ||
|
|
|
No requirement | |||
LVM
(As, Be, Cr, Sb) |
Compliance/Trial
Burn Test |
Standard by Site-Specific Conditions
(separate metals) |
Comprehensive Performance Test: |
Standard by Rule:
130 ug/dscm combined |
||
No CEM | CEM |
|
||||
Operating Limits:
No PM Limits |
or
Operating Limits: PM limits
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LVM
(As, Be, Cr, Sb) (cont.) |
|
|
|
No requirement | ||
|
|
|
No requirement | |||
|
|
|
No requirement | |||
|
|
|
No requirement | |||
HCl/Cl2 |
Compliance/Trial
Burn Test: |
Standard by Site-Specific Conditions | Comprehensive Performance Test: |
Standard by Rule:
630 ppm combined |
||
No CEM | CEM |
|
||||
Operating Limits:
|
|
|
or
Operating Limits:
|
|
|