November
15,
2005
NOTE
SUBJECT:
Summary
of
Nov.
15,
2005
Meeting
w/
ACC
Re
Potential
Revisions
to
the
Comparable
Fuels
Exclusion
FROM:
Bob
Holloway,
OSW/
EPA
TO:
The
Docket
On
November
15,
2005,
Shiva
Garg,
OSW,
and
I
met
with
Bob
Elam
and
Leslie
Hulse,
American
Chemistry
Council
(
ACC),
and
several
ACC
members
to
discuss
potential
revisions
to
the
comparable
fuels
exclusion.
See
attachment.

Under
Option
A
(
Correcting
Nondetect
Specs
for
Volatile
Hydrocarbons
and
Oxygenates),
we
discussed
whether
the
nondetect
level
(
e.
g.,
3300
mg/
kg)
should
be
corrected
to
10,000
Btu/
lb.
We
also
discussed
the
disparity
in
nondetect
levels
for
volatiles
in
the
eight
gasoline
samples,
as
presented
in
Appendix
A
of
USEPA,
"
Final
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Standards,
Volume
VI:
Development
of
Comparable
Fuels
Specifications,"
May
1998.

Under
Option
B
(
Removing
MEK
and
IBA
from
the
Spec),
ACC
explained
that
these
compounds
are
found
at
relatively
high
levels
in
many
waste
fuels
that
could
otherwise
meet
the
comparable
fuel
exclusion,
and
that
the
compounds
are
fuel
additives
that
enhance
combustion.
We
also
discussed
that,
although
these
compounds
have
relatively
low
toxicity,
they
are
relatively
difficult
to
destroy
according
to
EPA's
thermal
stability
index.
These
compounds
are
listed
in
Class
3
of
eight
classes
of
incinerability,
where
compounds
in
Class
8
are
the
least
difficult
to
destroy.
Finally,
we
discussed
that
the
other
three
options
would
also
provide
some
regulatory
relief
for
wastes
containing
these
compounds,
and
that
it
may
be
more
appropriate
to
consider
deleting
these
compounds
as
a
suboption
to
option
C.

Under
Option
C
(
Conditional
Alternate
Demonstration
of
Eligibility
for
Waste
Fuels
that
Are
Off­
Spec
for
Hydrocarbons
or
Oxygenates),
ACC
explained
that
allowing
off­
site
burning
at
a
nonaffiliated
facility
would
be
reasonable
because
it
is
consistent
with
other
RCRA
exclusions
(
e.
g.,
characteristic
sludges
and
by­
products
that
are
reclaimed)
where
the
hazard
the
waste
may
pose
during
storage
and
transportation
to
an
off­
site
facility
is
not
addressed
by
the
exclusion.
We
also
discussed
whether
the
restriction
on
waste
firing
rate
when
a
waste
containing
an
off­
spec
hydrocarbon
or
oxygenate
at
a
concentration
greater
than
1%
in
a
burner
that
is
not
a
RCRA­
permitted
combustor
should
be
linked
to
the
heating
value
of
the
waste
fuel.
For
example,
if
the
heating
value
of
the
waste
fuel
is
below
10,000,
should
the
firing
rate
be
limited
to
10%
rather
than
30%?

There
was
no
substantive
discussion
of
Option
D
(
Conditional
Blending
to
Meet
the
Spec
for
Hydrocarbons
and
Oxygenates).
2
ATTACHMENT
COMPARABLE
FUELS:
REVISIONS
UNDER
CONSIDERATION
ACC
Suggestions,
11­
14­
05
EPA/
OSW
is
considering
revisions
to
the
comparable
fuel
exclusion
at
40
CFR
261.38
as
part
of
the
Resource
Conservation
Challenge.
These
revisions
would
allow
certain
candidate
fuels
containing
hydrocarbons
and
oxygenates
to
use
an
alternate
demonstration
of
eligibility
for
the
existing
exclusion.
Any
proposed
alternate
eligibility
demonstration
would
be
in
addition
to
the
eligibility
demonstration
permitted
under
the
current
exclusion.
In
other
words,
it
is
EPA's
intent
not
to
change
in
any
way
the
application
of
the
provisions
of
261.38
to
wastes
that
meet
the
specifications
as
now
promulgated.
EPA
is
considering
the
following
revisions:

 
Correcting
and
Revising
Non­
Detect
Specification
Levels
in
Table
1
of
the
Current
Rule
for
Volatile
Hydrocarbons
and
Oxygenates
Based
on
Gasoline
Detection
Limits
Rather
than
Fuel
Oil
Detection
Limits
 
Removing
Two
Specific
Fuel
Additive
Oxygenates,
Methyl
Ethyl
Ketone
(
MEK)
and
Isobutyl
Alcohol
(
IBA),
from
the
List
of
Constituents
in
Table
1
 
Allowing
for
a
Conditional
Alternate
Demonstration
of
Eligibility
(
Based
on
Efficiency
of
Combustion)
for
the
Comparable
Fuels
Exclusion
for
Candidate
Fuels
that
Exceed
the
Threshold
Levels
Only
for
Hydrocarbons
and/
or
Oxygenates
 
Allowing
Conditional
Blending
to
Meet
the
Specification
Levels
for
Hydrocarbons
and
Oxygenates
A.
Correcting
and
Revising
Non­
Detect
Specification
Levels
in
Table
1
of
the
Current
Rule
for
Volatile
Hydrocarbons
and
Oxygenates
Based
on
Gasoline
Detection
Limits
Rather
than
Fuel
Oil
Detection
Limits
Issue:
Due
to
analytical
limitations,
non­
detect
specification
limits
for
volatile
compounds
are
unachievable
in
a
large
number
of
candidate
fuels
that
would
otherwise
qualify
for
the
comparable
fuels
exclusion.

Background:

The
non­
detect
specification
limits
for
volatile
compounds
were
based
on
fuel
oil
analyses.
Because
most
candidate
fuel
matrices
are
more
similar
to
gasoline
than
fuel
oil
(
i.
e.,
candidate
fuels
contain
volatiles
while
fuel
oils
do
not),
the
nondetect
specification
limits
for
volatiles
should
have
been
based
on
gasoline
analyses.
3
The
non­
detect
specification
limits
for
volatiles
would
increase
to
3300
mg/
kg
at
10,000
Btu/
lb,
versus
the
current
non­
detect
levels
of
approximately
30
mg/
kg.

Volatiles
in
gasoline
generally
have
molecular
weights
up
to
a
C12
compound,
or
170
g/
mol.

Revision
under
Consideration:

Establish
non­
detect
specification
limits
for
volatile
hydrocarbons
and
oxygenates 
compounds
with
molecular
weights
up
to
170
g/
mol­­
based
on
quantitation
limits
in
gasoline
rather
than
quantitation
limits
in
fuel
oil.

Restrict
revisions
to
hydrocarbons
and
oxygenates
because
other
compounds
(
e.
g.,
halogenated,
sulfonated,
nitrogenated)
not
expected
to
be
in
gasoline
and
higher
detection
limits
would
not
be
appropriate.

B.
Removing
Two
Specific
Fuel
Additive
Oxygenates,
Methyl
Ethyl
Ketone
(
MEK)
and
Isobutyl
Alcohol
(
IBA),
from
the
List
of
Constituents
in
Table
1
Rationale:
For
additional
discussion
with
EPA
C.
Allowing
for
a
Conditional
Alternate
Demonstration
of
Eligibility
(
Based
on
Efficiency
of
Combustion)
for
the
Comparable
Fuels
Exclusion
for
Candidate
Fuels
that
Exceed
the
Threshold
Levels
Only
for
Hydrocarbons
and/
or
Oxygenates
Rationale:

Excluding
candidate
fuels
that
cannot
meet
the
current
specification
levels
only
for
hydrocarbons
and/
or
oxygenates
would
not
result
in
emissions
greater
than
burning
a
candidate
fuel
that
meets
the
existing
specification
if
the
combustion
unit
operates
under
good
combustion
practices
(
GCP)
to
ensure
destruction
of
the
hydrocarbon
and/
or
oxygenated
organics.

Excluding
candidate
fuels
that
do
not
meet
current
specifications
for
halogenated,
sulfonated,
or
nitrogenated
organics
would
not
be
appropriate
because
benchmark
fuels
are
not
expected
to
contain
these
compounds.
Thus,
even
with
GCP,
emissions
(
albeit
trace
emissions)
would
be
higher
than
from
burning
benchmark
fuels.
In
addition,
these
compounds
contribute
to
other
emissions
of
concern 
acid
gases,
SOx,
and
NOx.

Conditions:

1.
On­
Site
and
Off­
Site
Burning
a.
The
candidate
fuel
may
be
burned
on­
site
or
at
an
affiliated
off­
site
facility
4
subject
to
the
following
existing
regulatory
oversight
and
compliance
requirements
(
see
40
CFR
Part
261.38(
C)):
i.
Notices
and
requisite
certifications
to
Regional
or
State
RCRA
and
CAA
Directors
and
to
the
public,
specifically:
1.
Name,
address
and
RCRA
ID
number
or
the
generator
2.
Applicable
RCRA
waste
codes
3.
Name
and
address
of
the
receiving
combustion
unit
4.
Fulfillment
of
official
certification
and
public
notice
requirements
ii.
Combustion
requirements,
including:
1.
Information
on
the
receiving
combustion
unit
2.
Information
on
any
allowable
blending
or
treatment
performed
3.
Information
on
syngas
generation
4.
Compliance
with
the
dilution
prohibition
5.
Development
of
waste
analysis
plans
6.
Sampling
and
analysis
7.
Compliance
with
the
speculative
accumulation
test
8.
Compliance
with
recordkeeping
and
record
retention
requirements;
and
9.
Certification
by
the
burner
b.
The
candidate
fuel
may
be
burned
off­
site
at
a
non­
affiliated
facility
subject
to
all
of
the
compliance
conditions
that
limit
the
existing
exclusion
described
in
(
a)
above
plus
the
additional
requirement
of
annual
reporting
to
the
Regional
or
State
RCRA
and
CAA
permitting
authorities
by
the
generator
of
actual
fuel
quantity
shipped
and
by
the
combustor
of
actual
fuel
quantity
received
and
combusted.

2.
CO/
HC
Emissions.
The
burner
using
this
alternate
demonstration
must
install,
calibrate,
maintain,
and
continuously
operate
a
Carbon
Monoxide
(
CO)
or
Hydrocarbon
(
HC)
Continuous
Emissions
Monitoring
System
(
CEMS)
in
compliance
with
Performance
Specifications
4B
(
CO
and
O2)
or
8A
(
HC)
in
Appendix
B
of
40
CFR
Part
60.

a.
Conditionally
excluded
comparable
fuel
may
not
be
burned
if
CO
levels
exceed
100
ppmv,
dry
basis
and
corrected
to
7%
O2,
or
if
HC
levels
exceed
10
ppmv,
dry
basis
and
corrected
to
7%
O2.

b.
The
CO
or
HC
limits
must
be
interlocked
with
an
automatic
feed
cutoff
system
for
the
conditionally
excluded
comparable
fuel;

EPA
notes
that
the
American
Chemistry
Council
(
ACC),
which
has
provided
significant
technical
information
to
support
revision
of
the
existing
exclusion
for
comparable
fuels,
believes
that
alternative
monitoring
of
CO/
HC
emissions
and/
or
monitoring
other
process
parameters
(
e.
g.,
excess
oxygen
5
levels)
is
sufficient
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
100ppmv/
10ppmv
CO/
HC
emissions
requirements.
EPA
intends
to
solicit
additional
input
on
this
issue
as
the
regulatory
development
process
proceeds.

3.
Minimum
Heating
Value.
Candidate
fuel
must
have
an
as­
fired
heating
value
of
8,000
Btu/
lb
to
ensure
proper
combustion;

4.
Maximum
Firing
Rate
for
Certain
Candidate
Fuels
Combusted
in
Units
Not
Subject
to
RCRA
Part
B.
For
candidate
fuels
combusted
in
units
not
subject
to
RCRA
Part
B
Permitting
Standards
for
Hazardous
Waste
Incinerators
or
Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnaces,
a
maximum
candidate
fuel
firing
rate
of
30%
(
on
an
as­
fired,
total
heat
input
to
the
combustion
unit
basis)
applies
when:

a.
The
candidate
fuel
exceeds
the
threshold
specification
limits
for
hydrocarbons
and/
or
oxygenates
specified
in
the
current
comparable
fuels
exclusion,
and
b.
The
hydrocarbon
or
oxygenate
constituent
is
present
in
the
candidate
fuel
at
a
concentration
greater
than
1%.

D.
Allowing
Conditional
Blending
to
Meet
the
Specification
for
Hydrocarbons
and
Oxygenates
Rationale:

Blending
of
candidate
fuel
that
exceeds
the
threshold
specification
for
hydrocarbons
and/
or
oxygenates
with
comparable
fuel
or
fuel
oil
to
meet
the
specification
would
not
increase
the
environmental
loading
because
the
organics
would
be
treated
by
combustion.

Special
conditions
are
not
needed
to
ensure
good
combustion
practices
(
GCP)
because
these
organics
would
be
present
at
the
same
levels
as
may
be
found
in
benchmark
fuels,
and
thus
would
be
destroyed
comparably.

Blending
to
meet
the
specification
for
halogenated,
sulfonated,
or
nitrogenated
organics
would
not
be
appropriate
because
these
organics
are
not
expected
to
be
found
in
benchmark
fuels.
Their
specification
level
is
nondetect
at
a
minimum
detection
limit.
It
would
not
be
appropriate
to
meet
the
specification
by
blending
a
detected
quantity
of
these
organics
to
a
level
below
the
minimum
detection
limit.

Conditions:

On­
site
Blending.
To
facilitate
regulatory
oversight
(
e.
g.,
to
ensure
that
blending
is
used
to
meet
the
specification
only
for
hydrocarbons
and
oxygenates),
the
original
generator
must
perform
the
blending
and
claim
the
exclusion.
6
App.
VII
Compounds
Without
a
Specification.
The
comparable
fuel
cannot
be
listed
for
an
Appendix
VII
compound
that
is
not
a
hydrocarbon
or
oxygenate
for
which
we
do
not
have
a
specification
because
there
is
no
analytical
method.
Although
there
are
no
specifications
for
such
compounds,
the
compounds
are
likely
to
be
in
the
candidate
fuel,
but
would
not
likely
be
found
in
benchmark
fuels.
EPA
would
allow
generators
to
determine
and
document
that
the
applicable
Appendix
VII
constituent(
s)
of
a
candidate
fuel,
based
on
testing
or
knowledge,
are
not
expected
to
be
present.
Such
a
determination
would
be
consistent
with
the
current
requirements
o
