A. Boiler and Industrial Furnace Regulations under RCRA
The Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and its regulations establish national minimum standards for the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. The EPA can authorize State or even local governments to regulate hazardous waste handling activities, but only if their standards are at least as stringent as RCRA. Most states have been authorized to enforce some or all RCRA standards through state-level laws and regulations, with the USEPA retaining an oversight role. As a general rule, persons needing information about hazardous waste laws and regulations or permitting information should initially contact their state environmental agency.
Burning hazardous waste for energy recovery is considered "treatment" under RCRA. Boilers and industrial furnaces burning hazardous waste are therefore subject to RCRA standards and permitting requirements.
The boiler and industrial furnace (BIF) regulations were published in the Federal Register on February 21, 1991 (56 Fed. Reg. 7134) and became effective on August 27, 1991 (56 Fed. Reg. 42504). Performance standards for permitted and interim status BIFs are found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 40 C.F.R. part 266, subpart H. BIF permitting requirements are found at 40 C.F.R. part 270.
Regulatory agencies utilize two basic approaches for setting emissions requirements: technology-based standards and risk-based standards.
Technology-based standards are developed on the basis of what the best operating units can achieve at the time the standard is established in reduced emissions to the environment, efficiency of emission control, lowered stack gas pollutant emission concentrations and/or reduced emissions per unit of production or process parameter. Lowered emissions concentrations, restrictions or limitations are generally achieved through a combination of emissions control technology, process controls and limitations, operating practices (good combustion practices) and feed stock/fuel quality controls. Technology-based standards may either specify a particulate emissions control device, a process change to achieve pollution prevention or a performance standard that reflects the best that technology can achieve.
Because a rule provides for a technology-based standard, it does not necessary mean that the technology standard provided represents state-of-the-art emission control or best available control technology. For example, the technology based standard for particulate emissions in the BIF rule in cement kilns is far out of date from what can be achieved in practice today with the best emission controls.
Risk-based standards seek to evaluate the effect of emissions of pollutants on human health and the environment and to set limitations on the basis of a decision on tolerable/permissible effects. Using data regarding an existing or proposed facility's emissions, permitting authorities develop estimates of increased incidences of cancer or other diseases and environmental degradation likely to be caused by the emissions based on a worst case scenario. If the anticipated health or environmental impact is less than the level deemed acceptable under risk guidelines, the permit or emission is approved.
The BIF rules embody both technology-based and risk-based approaches. BIF regulations establish destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) requirements for principal organic hazardous constituents (POHCs); stack emissions limitations for PICs (regulated as volatile organic compounds and carbon monoxide), metals, hydrogen chloride, chlorine, and particulate matter, and limitations on fugitive emissions. Other requirements include testing and risk assessments for dioxins and furans when emissions potential is high, restrictions on waste feed for interim status facilities, and alternative approaches to meet the metals emissions limits. The specific performance standards are discussed below.
1. Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) for Principle Organic Hazardous Constituents (POHC):
BIFs are required to demonstrate a 99.99% destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) for principal organic hazardous constituents to obtain permits. POHCs are selected from an EPA list on an ad-hoc, case specific basis, and are generally representative of the toxic organic compounds in the waste stream that could be the most difficult to destroy. Since the technology does not exist to continuously monitor toxic organic compounds in the exhaust gas stream, the DRE is established in a trial burn using a series of stack tests.
2. Products of Incomplete Combustion (PICs) :
Products of Incomplete Combustion (PICs) are not regulated directly. Carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions are used as surrogates for regulating PICs because they are generally good indicators of combustion efficiency.
Under the rules, BIFs have the option of complying with any of the following tiered emission limitations:
100 parts per million by volume (ppmv) limit for carbon monoxide;
20 ppmv for hydrocarbons with continuous emissions monitoring and a trial burn determined limit for CO; or
An alternative hydrocarbon limit established on a case-by-case basis for facilities using raw kiln feed materials containing significant amounts of hydrocarbons.
In February 1994, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the Tier III provision was illegal because this mode of operation had been included in the BIF rule without notice and comment. (Horsehead Resource Development Co Inc. v. EPA, CA DC 91-1221, 2/22/94.) The waste-burning cement industry had sought the Tier III provision because some of their waste-burning facilities would have been unable to comply with the Tier I and II standards. Later in 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review the lower appeals court ruling and the EPA has apparently decided not to re-promulgate Tier III provisions for BIFs. As a result of these developments, facilities previously operated under the Tier III provision will have to modify the raw material feed stocks they use or change operating parameters to lower hydrocarbon emissions to Tier I or Tier II levels. These facility may not burn hazardous waste until compliance with Tier II levels is demonstrated.
3. Metals, Hydrogen Chloride and Chlorine:
With the exception of lead, limitations for these pollutants are site specific and risk-based. In other words, the facility owner must establish that emissions of these pollutants will not cause unacceptable health risks. The EPA risk standard for these pollutants is a lifetime risk of cancer to the hypothetical maximum exposed individual from exposure to the sum of all carcinogens from the facility not to exceed 1 in 100,000. The non-carcinogenic risk standard is based on oral reference doses or observed inhalation effects below which no adverse health effects have been observed. Calculating risk estimates requires analysis of a variety of data to determine the amount of the pollutant the hypothetical individual will be exposed to, then determining the chances the individual will develop cancer from that exposure based on available scientific and medical information. Exposure levels can be calculated using actual emissions test data from the facility or generic emissions models.
The facility owner or operator can currently choose from three sets of risk values in performing its risk analysis for metals. Tier I limits are limits on the rate of metals in all fuel feed stocks, set with reference to terrain-adjusted stack height and terrain and land use in the vicinity of the facility. Tier I risk values are all default values (i.e, based on generic models rather than actual emissions tests at the facility) and represent the most conservative approach. Tier II limits are metals emission rate limits based on mixed default values and site-specific values. The facility submits emissions test data but uses the EPA's air dispersion modeling to complete the risk analysis.
Tier III limits are based entirely on site specific risk values, including emissions test data and site specific air modeling. The Tier III regulations were promulgated to allow some wet process cement kilns to achieve interim status even though they could not comply with Tier I or II standards.
4. Particulate Matter:
The BIF emission limit for particulate matter is 0.08 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) corrected to 7% oxygen. This is a technology-based, rather than risk-based standard, and is the same as the current hazardous waste incinerator limit. It is fair to say that this standard does not represent the state-of-the-art in particulate matter control, however. That is more probably represented by the standard applicable to municipal solid waste incinerators - 0.015 grains/dscf. EPA has asked its regional offices to apply the more stringent standard to hazardous waste combustors through the omnibus permitting authority, as part of its hazardous waste combustion strategy.
5. Dioxin-Listed Wastes:
A BIF must demonstrate a DRE of 99.9999% for "dioxin-listed wastes" (40 C.F.R. 261 App. VII) in a trial burn. Because they are interim status facilities, no cement kilns are authorized to burn dioxin listed wastes at present.
6. Other Requirements:
An automatic cut-off must be installed on the waste fuel line and connected to the continuous emissions and process monitors so that waste fuel can be cut-off in the event of emissions exceedances and upset conditions.
B. Interim Status Requirements:
Owners and operators of BIFs seeking interim status were required to certify compliance with all applicable interim standards within one year of the effective date of the BIF rule (by August 21, 1992). Facilities conduct their own certification testing. Interim standards include all BIF performance standards except DRE standards. The EPA concluded that DRE standards were too complicated to be implemented for interim status facilities because the interim status standards are supposed to be self implementing.
Waste feeding restrictions and operating conditions are set based on compliance certification tests and must be complied with during interim status. Interim status cement kilns must feed hazardous waste directly into the kiln. They are prohibited from burning hazardous waste in a pre-calcinator due to lack of EPA test data on this method.
C. Permit approvals:
Existing BIF's must conduct a trial burn before obtaining a permit. Either a trial burn plan or trial burn data must be submitted with a RCRA Part B permit application. EPA discourages applicants from submitting trial burn data. As a practical matter, most permit applicants submit a trial burn plan to assure full compliance with approved trial burn protocols.
D. Level of Compliance with the BIF rule:
A 1992 review of results of BIF inspections by EPA Office of Solid Waste Enforcement staff found that 56% of BIFs inspected were violating BIF waste analysis requirements. 62% were violating waste feed rate requirements. At least 20% were violating air emission standards of general interim status requirements. The EPA review also showed that many BIF personnel were not receiving adequate training.
The reasons for these relatively high levels of non-compliance are uncertain. It is worth speculating, however, that many interim-status BIFs may not be operated as carefully as commercial incinerators because they have not been required to obtain permits. Many BIF facilities are old and most were not originally designed to handle hazardous waste. BIF operators may not have acquired the same familiarity with regulatory standards or operational expertise they would have if they had been subjected to the rigors of the permitting process. The net result may be that reliance on self-certification under the BIF rule may not be enough. The EPA may have to bring BIFs under permitting controls to assure that BIF operators have strong enough incentives to upgrade operations at their facilities.
E. Other Regulations:
As noted above, the USEPA has directed that regional administrators use the "omnibus" permitting authority of RCRA section 3005(c) to upgrade particulate emissions standards, metal emissions controls, and dioxin and furan standards as necessary to protect human health and the environment on a case-by-case basis. Thus, it is possible that BIF standards may under certain circumstances be supplemented or superseded by more stringent standards.
F. Overview of Rule-making - the "MACT" process:
A key aspect of EPA's combustion strategy is the review and strengthening of BIF standards. This rule-making proceeding comes about in part as a result of the national combustion strategy and in part as the result of a consent decree entered in a lawsuit challenging the 1991 BIF rules (Horsehead Resources Development Co., Inc. et al., Petitioners, v. EPA, U.S. District Court Case No. 91-1221). The consent decree requires EPA to revise existing BIF standards for particulate matter, dibenzodioxins, dibenzofurans, toxic metals and possibly other standards.
EPA intends to employ a "MACT" analysis to set revised BIF standards. MACT means maximum available control technology. It is defined as the maximum achievable decrease in emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) taking into account costs, non-air environmental impacts and energy consumption impacts.
The MACT standard comes from the Federal Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 establish MACT requirements for major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) (Clean Air Act Sec. 112(j)). Since many of the pollutants emitted by hazardous waste combustors are subject to the requirements of both RCRA and Sec. 112 of the Clean Air Act, the EPA currently intends to promulgate one set of rules which would meet the requirements of both laws. The projected MACT standards for BIFs are intended to comply with the current requirements of both the Clean Air Act and RCRA. The EPA's tentative timetable for the MACT rule-making calls for a proposed rule to be issued by September, 1995, with a final rule published by December, 1996.
MACT determinations involve setting emissions standards based on what the best performing similar units can achieve. For new sources, the MACT emissions standard is no less stringent than the average control achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source. A MACT analysis for existing sources involves determining the performance of the top twelve percent of units or an average of the top five performing units. MACT analyses are performed separately for each regulated pollutant. The MACT comparative analysis establishes a baseline standard: the other factors - costs, non-air impacts and energy impacts - are considered only if more stringent control than the MACT baseline is under consideration.
As the first preliminary step towards developing new MACT regulations for hazardous waste combustors, the EPA has prepared the Draft Combustion Emissions Technical Resource Document (CETRED). The purpose of the Draft CETRED is to characterize and evaluate particulate matter and dioxin/furan emissions levels from hazardous waste combustors with the aim of identifying the best-controlled hazardous waste combustor sources or groups of sources. It is important to note that CETRED is an evolving document. The EPA intends to expand CETRED to include evaluations of toxic metals and other hazardous air pollutants, and to include other types of hazardous waste combustors. It also intends to revise CETRED as new information about emissions becomes available.
G. Major Issues Involved in New BIF Regulations:
EPA faces a number of important decisions in carrying out its plan to upgrade the BIF rules. The following subsections discuss the key issues involved in formulating standards which adequately protect human health and the environment.
1. Classification of Hazardous Waste Combustors - General Rules vs. Specific Standards for Cement Kilns
EPA must determine whether to set generic emissions standards applicable to all hazardous waste combustors or to establish separate standards for commercial incinerators and BIFs. This determination is basic to the MACT process, as it will determine the number and type of combustion units which will be compared to each other in determining maximum achievable control technology. Proponents of generic standards argue that the toxicity of hazardous materials combusted must be the critical factor in setting standards. They assert that available emissions data shows that the top performing cement kilns can perform as efficiently as the top commercial incinerators. Opponents argue among other things that metals standards for cement kilns should be different than for incinerators to account for the metals content of raw materials; that metals standards are not justified because most metals emitted are bound up in kiln dust; and that the operational parameters of cement kilns justify different carbon monoxide standards for kilns.
The fact that emissions and PICs from cement kilns burning hazardous waste are considerably different than those from non-hazardous waste burning kilns supports treating hazardous waste burning kilns differently from other kilns. Cement kilns do not have to burn hazardous waste: they do so for economic gain. It would seem environmentally and economically sound to require all units burning waste as a business proposition to be subject to the same environmental standards. Requiring waste-burning kilns to meet the same standards as other waste combustors would tend to create more incentives for pollution prevention and source control initiatives, as the cost of burning waste would increase. At this time the EPA has not made a final determination whether to require the same standards for all hazardous waste combustors. However, EPA has apparently made a tentative decision to impose uniform dioxin emission stack gas concentration standards on a generic waste combustor basis.
2. Risk-based Standards vs Technology-Based Standards:
Another major issue associated with setting MACT standards is the relative roles of technology-based standards versus risk based standards in the new rules.
Except for particulate matter, the current BIF rule is risk based. The rule relies primarily on generic risk assessment methodology, as opposed to site-specific risk assessments.
Risk assessment is controversial. Criticism focuses on lack of scientific certainty in the assumptions used to extrapolate carcinogenic data from animal tests to make predictions as to the effects of exposure on human population groups; failure to account for all potential exposure pathways; failure to account for synergistic and cumulative effects of exposure to multiple substances; lack of verifiability; and, perhaps most importantly, inappropriate or misleading use of risk assessment results in debating the environmental impact of regulated activities. It is also useful to remember that risk assessment is narrowly focused on the issue of human health. It ignores overall environmental impacts of activities.
Those who support the use of risk assessment stress that risk assessment is useful for evaluating relative risks; in other words, determining which risks are the greatest in a relative sense so that pollution control efforts can be focused on the right problems. Risk assessment may also be useful as a fail safe device to assure that technology-based controls are adequate in specific cases.
Technology-based standards are set on the basis of what has been demonstrated as achievable by pollution control equipment. Their chief advantage is that they afford a degree of certainty as to the level of pollution control. There are some drawbacks to this approach, however. Technology-based standards are difficult to apply when attempting to control a multitude of pollutants. Maximum control of one pollutant may in certain circumstances lead to increased emissions of other pollutants. Also, requiring state of the art controls can be very expensive and may drive financially weaker units out of business and thus discourage competition.
The MACT process is a technology-based approach to standard setting. The EPA is leaning to requiring generic risk assessments as a supplement to technology based standards. EPA has also directed that site specific risk assessment be used at BIFs during the permitting process, in accordance with the Agency's draft indirect risk assessment guidance.
3. Development of technology-based standards:
Toxic metals emissions standards might be achieved either by setting a particulate emissions standard to serve as a surrogate for non-volatile metal emissions; or promulgating specific standards for individual metals.
It can be argued that controlling particulate will result in control of most metals and toxic organic compounds adsorbed onto the particulate matter, since the primary health risk posed by metals emissions arise from inhaling particulate. The American Lung Association has filed a lawsuit to force EPA to review the adequacy of the existing health-related National Ambient Air Quality Standard for inhalable particulate standard based on increasing scientific evidence that the existing standard is not protective of human health.
At this time EPA seems to be leaning toward using a particulate emissions standard as a surrogate for separate metals emissions limits in the revised regulations, which is similar to the approach EPA has taken to control metal emissions from municipal solid waste incinerators.
Another issue is whether particulate or metals emissions limits should be either a total mass emission rate or a stack gas concentration limit. Stack gas concentration limits represent, in part, a risk-oriented approach based on a dilution strategy to the extent that such limits ignore the total amounts of metal toxicants emitted over time and the total burden on the environment from the discharge of contaminants. In addition, stack gas concentration limits do not adequately account for source categories with widely varying stack gas discharge volumes (i.e. relatively low volumes from hazardous waste incinerators vs. high volumes from large cement plants.
Maximum hourly emission rates, on the other hand, are generally technology-based and control overall emissions. Emission limitations that are written as a maximum mass emission per unit of waste burned may offer the greatest protection when such limitations are applied to across the board to all waste combustors.
A rulemaking petition filed by the Hazardous Waste Treatment Council (now known as the Environmental Technology Council) in support of the EPA's rulemaking proceedings proposes the following standards for all hazardous waste combustors: a minimum destruction and removal efficiency of DRE of 99.99 percent; maximum stack emissions of 0.032 pounds per hour of total metals emissions for 9 of the 10 metals regulated under BIF. A separate limit of 0.08 pounds per hour within the above limit would apply to carcinogens (arsenic, beryllium, cadmium and chromium). A 0.1 pound per hour limit would apply to mercury. A particulate standard of 0.015 gr/dscf was also proposed.
The EPA preliminary data indicate dioxin/furan emissions levels achievable is 0.12 ng/dscm corrected to 7% oxygen on a toxic equivalency basis. The HWTC petition proposes dioxins and furans limits of 0.1 ng/dscm TEQ based on 11% excess oxygen and use of toxic equivalencies. This is the current European standard. To control PICs, the HWTC proposes a carbon monoxide limit of 100 ppm or 20 ppm total hydrocarbons.
Verification of compliance with particulate limits can be difficult because such compliance tests rely on short term stack tests. At this time, continuous monitoring of particulate mass emissions rates is not technically feasible. Moreover, particulate emissions stack limits do not address fugitive dust problems that arise from emissions at points other than stacks, which can be problematic at cement and aggregate kilns. An opacity (i.e., visibility emission) limit can address this problem and serve as a valuable adjunct to particulate control, particularly with the installation of continuous opacity monitors in kiln and incinerator stacks.
4. Classification of cement kiln dust as a hazardous waste:
The EPA Cement Kiln Dust report reached no conclusion with respect to the need for more stringent regulation. However, it did identify 5 regulatory options, ranging from retaining the Bevill exemption to regulating only CKD generated by hazardous waste burning kilns or promulgating separate regulations for all CKD.
Hazardous waste industry groups and environmental organizations have endorsed eliminating the Bevill amendment and regulating CKD from both hazardous waste burning facilities and non-hazardous waste burning facilities under RCRA. Regulating CKD as a hazardous waste would require both compliance with RCRA Land Disposal Regulations and disposal in a RCRA licensed landfill. These requirements would greatly increase protection of groundwater from disposal of toxic metal and organic chemical laden waste by permitting disposal of only minimum toxicity CKD in double-lined landfills with leachate collection and groundwater monitoring systems.
While EPA's February 7, 1995 decision did determine that environmental damage would continue to occur in the absence of new regulation of CKD, and that additional regulation of CKD was warranted, the agency's decision will probably mean that CKD will ultimately escape many of the provisions now applying to hazardous waste disposal of other waste types. However, EPA's decision may also mean that some existing CKD sites may become subject to EPA corrective action orders for demonstrable problems with air and water pollution since the Bevill exclusion will ultimately be removed by the agency's decision.
5. Regulation of Hazardous Waste Fuel Blenders:
The waste fuel received by BIFs are typically prepared by fuel blenders. Fuel blenders accept solid and liquid hazardous wastes from generators and create waste derived fuel by grinding, blending, decanting, settling, and suspension of solids methods to meet the burner's fuel specifications.
Some fuel blenders argue that they are exempt from RCRA permitting requirements because they are engaged in recycling operations. RCRA provides that the fuel blender becomes the "generator" of hazardous waste and requires the blender to prepare a new manifest indicating the type of waste. These manifests may be very vague and general in nature. As a result, the BIF is often unaware of the specific waste codes or origin which were combined to make up the content of the kiln fuel that is delivered.
Federal regulations (40 CFR Part 266.103(a)(6)) for interim status BIFs require hazardous waste fuel to have an energy content of at least 5,000 Btu per pound as fired. Once BIFs certify compliance with emission standards under 266.103(c), however, they may burn hazardous waste irrespective of its heating value. BIF certification supersedes a "sham recycling" policy which EPA adopted in 1983 which generally prohibits burning waste for fuel of less than 5,000 BTU/lb in a BIF without an incinerator permit. At this time, there is nothing in RCRA or its regulations to prohibit cement kilns or other BIFs from burning hazardous waste purely for treatment purposes.
The major environmental problem with blending low BTU value metal-containing waste for use as fuel is that the metals may partition into the final product and pose a hazard to human health and the environment. Indeed, if waste of less than 5,000 BTU value is burned, RCRA may require that the resulting product (clinker, cement) coming in contact with the ground be regulated as a hazardous waste.
EPA's recent clarification banning combustion of certain metal bearing wastes, combined with EPA's policy decision to require more stringent "indirect" risk assessment standards for lead, cadmium, chromium, and arsenic emissions from kilns under EPA's omnibus permitting authority, may redress this problem. It should be remembered, however, that the ban only applies to a very limited number of wastes, and there will continue to be a large volume of organic wastes available to kilns even if the practice of mixing non-combustible metal bearing wastes is discontinued. It should also be remembered that the ban merely represents EPA's interpretation of the law, not a new, clearly enforceable requirement.
In the long run, lax regulation of fuel blending operations discourages genuine recycling by keeping the cost of waste disposal low, since regulatory compliance is costly.
6. Waste minimization and recycling requirements:
The number one goal of the EPA's national hazardous waste strategy is to establish a strong preference for source reduction over waste management, thereby reducing dependance on combustion in hazardous waste incinerators or BIFs.
The cement industry argues that incineration of hazardous waste in cement kilns for recovery of its BTU value is a form of recycling which conserves energy by reducing consumption of coal and petroleum products. Critics argue that more energy could be saved if cement production in the wet process kilns which use most of the hazardous waste fuel consumed by the cement industry was simply shifted to more energy-efficient dry-process kilns.
EPA has published its interim final guidelines for waste minimization programs in place. RCRA requires hazardous waste generators to certify hazardous waste minimization programs. The interim final guidelines constitute EPA's advice to generators on the technical, administrative, and financial elements of a certifiable program.
EPA will ask processors to accept waste from only those generators which have conducted waste minimization audits and comply with the waste minimization guidance. EPA will also ask large generators to voluntarily disclose their waste minimization programs to the public. EPA intends to prioritize inspection and enforcement at those generators which supply most of the combustible hazardous waste, and will seek to negotiate waste minimization audit requirements as part of consent orders, corrective action orders, or permits.
7. Siting requirements:
RCRA requires that cement kilns burning hazardous waste which are located in cities of greater than 500,000 population must comply with hazardous waste incinerator regulations. 42 U.S.C. 6924(q)(2)(C)(i). This is a rare example of a federal siting restriction.
The EPA has traditionally steered clear of siting regulations. There is a strong tradition of local control of land use matters in the United States, and the Agency has been reluctant to preempt state and local authority in this area. While the EPA is considering siting requirements as part of its hazardous waste initiative, the Agency can be expected to proceed with caution on this issue.
Some environmentalists believe that buffer zones around RCRA facilities should be required as a fail safe measure in the event of emergencies. Others believe siting restrictions should include non-emission factors such as facility size, other facilities in the area, or whether the facility is transporting waste to the site to burn on a commercial basis.
Environmental justice is an issue that has been much in the news lately. Some academic studies have concluded that hazardous waste facilities are more likely to be located in communities consisting of racial and ethnic minorities than in predominately white communities, even when adjustments are made for income and other factors. In an Executive Order issued on February 11, 1994, President Clinton ordered each Federal agency to develop an environmental justice strategy that identifies and addresses disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low income populations. The objectives of the strategy are to promote enforcement of health and environmental statutes in minority and low income areas; insure greater public participation; improve research and data collection; identify differential patterns of consumption of natural resources among minority and low income populations. The agency strategies are supposed to be developed within 12 months and reported to the President by an inter-agency coordinating group within 14 months.
The EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response has established a task force to review RCRA hazardous waste facilities siting concerns. The task force will address siting options ranging from buffer zones or set-back requirements to enhancing public information and input. The Office of Solid Waste is also developing a methodology for assessing the racial and ethnic makeup of neighborhoods where RCRA facilities are located to help the Agency address environmental justice issues.
8. Enforcement Issues:
a. Trial burns:
Trial burns are used to test compliance of hazardous waste combustors with permit conditions because technology does not yet exist to continuously monitor emissions of all regulated pollutants, such as dioxin/furan and metal emissions.
Some argue that trial burns should not be used to establish permit limits because they represent ideal operating conditions. Industry representatives argue that trial burns are deliberately designed to represent a worst case scenario. EPA is exploring developing the technology to continuously monitor emissions. Some state environmental permits now require continuous monitoring information on emissions (opacity, carbon monoxide or other pollutants) and process parameters (such as combustion oxygen, temperature, etc) to be telemetered via telephone line to enforcement agencies at their request and discretion.
EPA has urged its regional offices to upgrade trial burn requirements pending adoption of new permitting requirements by requiring agency approval of trial burn plans prior to the actual burn; by limiting post-burn operations to only those operating conditions that the facility successfully passed; and by requiring public notice of trial burn conditions and scheduling.
b. Monitoring and Recordkeeping:
EPA's proposed public participation rule requires hazardous waste operators to maintain information repositories in certain circumstances. Advocates of increased public participation have urged legislation requiring hazardous waste operators to maintain records regarding environmental compliance and fuel composition for five years.
c. Operations during "upset" conditions:
The EPA is considering requirements for immediate suspension of operations and notification of authorities in the event of exceedances of permit limits for pollutants. Others have proposed automatic shutdown provisions after a given number of exceedances with reopening conditioned upon submission of an acceptable compliance plan by the facility.
d. Penalties:
The amount of administrative and judicial fines are discretionary under RCRA. Sometimes, penalties that have been accepted in consent judgment proceedings at RCRA regulated sites for serious violations have been a small fraction of penalties that were proposed or which were permissible for serious violations. Amending the law to impose mandatory fines might increase compliance rates.
e. Operator Training:
The EPA is considering imposing additional training and certification requirements on BIF operating personnel.
|
To
send us your comments, questions, and suggestions click
here |