Back to Library Page

Gossman Consulting, Inc

GCI TECH NOTES ©


Volume 8, Number 5    A Gossman Consulting, Inc. Publication    May 2003


Adopt-A-MACT Conference

by Jim Woodford, Gossman Consulting, Inc.

 

Introduction

Denise Stotler of AWMA introduced Steve Holt, the Environmental Director for Giant Cement. Steve welcomed the crowd to Charleston, SC and then in turn, introduced Mike Benoit of CKRC.   Mike explained that he was filling in for Michelle Lusk who could not make it.   

Session 1 – HWC MACT Regulatory Update

The first session of the “Adopt a MACT Conference” was to be a panel discussion that included Mike Galbraith of USEPA, David Case of ETC, Bob Elam of the American Chemistry Council and Mike Benoit.  The Panel discussion was entitled “Perspectives on the HWC MACT Replacement Standards”.  Mike Galbraith was the first speaker.  While Mike started off in USEPA Region V, he has worked the last five years on the waste combustor MACT.  Mike started his persentation with a brief historical overview whereby he mentioned the NODA in July 2002, the need for initial comprehensive performance tests (ICPTs) yet this year and pointed out that the court order was to get replacement standards out by 2005 and he expected them to be proposed by late this year or early 2004.  Mike went on to discuss three methodology options being considered in developing the replacement standards; 1) emission concentration, 2) SRE approach and 3) emission control.  He explained that options 2 & 3 had been put on hold because the powers that be felt that these two options did not directly assess feed control and it was felt that there had been a basic commitment to keep feed control in the replacement standards.  It is interesting to note here that a paper presented at the conference later that day in Session 3 included some references to the USEPA and industry debate over feed controls.  Industry argued that the Conference Report for the 1990 Clean Air Act standards had made it pretty clear that controls on feed material were not to be part of MACT for mineral processing facilities, USEPA argued (footnote 2; FR64 31917) that the statute did not reflect this legislative history. Then, oddly enough, USEPA went on to note that they were rejecting such controls in beyond the floor considerations.  Mike then provided additional detail for all three options; 1) best aggregate emissions based upon simultaneous achievability including a thermal emissions approach per MMBTU hazardous waste burned, 2) combined front end and back end controls ranking each kiln from highest to lowest on both ends and then adding them together & 3) APCD back end control approach. He also noted that there were other compliance issues that needed to be addressed as well.

The next speaker was lawyer David Case of ETC, a trade group representing hazardous waste incinerators. David started off his talk with a story about when he first started with the incinerator group. He called Bob Holloway of USEPA (BIF cement kilns will remember Bob) and requested the guidance document for setting MACT standards.  There was a pause on the other end of the phone and Bob replied, "You've got to be kidding."  Undeterred he set up a meeting with OAQPS at Research Triangle Park and repeated his request, again there was a pause on the other side of the table and then came the reply, "You've got to be kidding." David concluded his story by saying, “And now that I have heard Mike Galbraith's presentation, all I can say is, you've got to be kidding!"  David then started his presentation by pointing out his opinion that congressional intent for MACT was that it was technology based rather than health risk based and that cost was not to be a consideration. He also pointed out that the statutory language was fraught with ambiguity and provided some examples; does “emission limitation” mean a regulatory limitation or a stack test data limitation; what is a “reasonable estimate” (a number of court rulings have apparently ruled that this is engineering based) and felt that there was substantial data out there to support what might be “reasonable.” David also said that he could explain the combustion argument put forth in the last court battle to his 14-year-old daughter but that for some reason the judge just did not get it.  It is of interest to note that Dick Stohl, CKRC legal representative, said pretty much the same thing at the previous                waste combustor MACT conference                   (see http://gcisolutions.com/gcitn0902.htm).  Dave did feel that the court affirmed “under worst reasonably foreseeable circumstances.” He also pointed out that ETC believes that a straight emission method can work for all sources.

Bob Elam of the American Chemistry Council spoke next. The ACC wants to see achievable and defensible standards and stated that “achievability” needs to be long term and not just one compliance test. Data was presented whereby straight emissions, MTEC/SRE and a technology based industrial boiler approach had been considered. He mentioned that the industrial boiler MACT had been proposed in January of 2003 and that he thought the rule was workable.  

Mike Benoit finished the presentations prior to the panel discussion. Mike explained that the MACT standards needed to be based upon data that was technically correct, legally supportable and achievable in practice and should definitely not include anticipation of reduced participation by regulated parties. It is CKRC opinion that “performance” is not ambiguous.  The first part of the process is to define performance and then demonstrate performance.  SRE actually defines performance and BIFs have lots of test data. Mike was also adamant that feedrate in no way equalled performance. He explained that feedrate control is a confusing factor and did not see how it could possibly be an indicator of performance. In addition, he felt that some within the agency believe that “feedrate need not and perhaps ought not be considered” as part of the MACT process. EPA should “define and measure performance” and forget about feedrate for non-mercury metals. The Panel discussion followed Mike’s presentation. 

One question from the audience was from Mike Harrell of Ash Grove Cement asking if there was any attempt to have consistency between and across MACT rules? Mike Galbraith paused for quite a while and then started off with, ‘It certainly would be nice...” at which time the attendees broke into laughter.  Another question was from Mike Benoit who inquired as to why feedrate control was not being discussed under the emissions concentration option. Mike Galbraith responded that it was inherently included. Following such a thought provoking conference kick off, it was time for a break.

Session 2 – HWC MACT Technical Studies & Approaches

Session 2, HWC MACT Technical Studies & Approaches, was chaired by Bob Schreiber of Schreiber and Yonley Associates. Unfortunately, the first presenter, Mark J. Wejkszner of the Pennsylvania DEP was unable to make it to the conference.  His paper was entitled “Compliance with the Interim Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors”. In the for-what-it-is-worth department, even heard a couple of people express disappointment over not being able to hear Mark’s presentation. PADEP has been a pretty regular presenter at recent waste combustor MACT conferences. Therefore the first presenter of the session was Zhengtain Xu, W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., presenting “Destruction of PCDD/F by a Catalytic Filter System: Current Experience in Hazardous Waste Incinerators”. Zhengtain mentioned that he goes by “Zack” at work and that the Gore filters were an “end of pipe” solution. He noted that while carbon injection is being used extensively around the world that it has its limitations and then explained the Gore catalytic filter system but recommended an operating temperature of 180 – 250 degrees centigrade. His presentation included data from an incinerator in the UK, France and Japan. All the facilities had bag houses and PM removal alone had not worked. In the end they concluded that the filters were easy, simple and effective.

The next paper was entitled “A Review of Potential Solutions to Control Dioxin Emissions” and presented by Dave Gossman of Gossman Consulting, Inc. Dave gave some examples of cement plants that had conducted pre-MACT testing indicating they would meet the MACT limits only to get the big surprise of non-compliance upon actually performing their compliance test. Dave’s presentation focused on raw material problems and raw material testing programs. The question was posed about sulfur control of D/F to which Dave responded that he was aware of data where sulfur dioxide was doubled in cement kilns but only reduced D/F by one half. More often than not, D/F needs to be reduced by a factor of ten therefore cutting them in half is not really effective for cement kilns. 

Yves Tondeur of Alta Analytical Perspectives gave the next presentation entitled “Insights Into the Proposed Revisions of Method 23”. Yves gave a very interesting presentation about proposed changes to Method 23 for D/F testing. His overall goal is to return the responsibility for the quality of the work to the laboratory rather than try to include it in the method. Making the method responsible for quality also severely limits being able to apply new techniques. One of his most interesting comments, which should have gotten the attention of all in attendance, concerned the current version of Method 23 having the capability of producing dioxins through the extraction process. Yves’ presentation gave additional support to a long standing Gossman Consulting, Inc. argument that SOPs should never be included in facility permits as it makes it much too difficult, time consuming and costly to update those SOPs as new techniques become available. Yves also mentioned an upcoming dioxin conference in August 2003. As an attempted clarification question, session chair Bob Schreiber asked if Yves proposal increased internal activities to make the method better. Yves responded with a blunt “No”. Presenter Dave Gossman then followed this exchange by asking if the improved sample clean up was intended to address the current inadequate sample clean-up which results in more EMPC values which in turn lowers TEQs since they are not counted. Yves responded with a blunt “yes”. This excellent technical presentation was then followed by lunch.  

The luncheon speaker was Jimmy Palmer, USEPA Region 4 Regional Administrator. He spoke of many issues coming to the fore in 2003. Some items of note are the “anti-degradation” process that will likely affect facility NPDES permits in one way or another. He also noted that a method change associated with the Clean Water Act has resulted in a court challenge that this method change will alter water quality significantly. The biggest overall item, he thought, was that 2003 can rightfully be called the year of air with new source review (NSR) and PM 2.5 coming into play. He did get a little political, mentioning “The President” a few times and what President Bush is trying to do with his programs. Regional Administrator Palmer even went so far as touting the much ballyhooed  (even by some in industry) “Clean Sky” initiative. Lunch was well attended as you might expect. But up to this point, all the presentations had been well attended by the over 140 pre-registered attendees. For what it may be worth, most of the regulators attending the conference sat at a lunch table by themselves.  

Session 3 – Implementation of HWC MACT Regulations

Mike Deyo of Giant Cement chaired Session 3, Implementation of HWC MACT Regulations. Mike explained to attendees that SSMP was a big topic for paper ideas and now that the final program and attendees list included many regulators who were here to find out what industry was recommending, Mike was canceling all papers and pointing out that SSMPs should be no more than two pages long and as general as possible.

The first paper of Session 3 was “HWC MACT Plan Templates” presented by Elizabeth M. Drake of Compliance Strategies & Solutions, Inc. Elizabeth pointed out that MACT compliance was required by 9-30-03 and that her firm had developed a comprehensive MACT template for all required activities. A couple of the templates she briefly discussed were the O & M Plan and feed stream analysis plan (FAP). Their template takes into account all regulatory references and tracks them back for use in compliance activities. She also commented concerning the FAP that even though sample handling and preservation were not required by HWC MACT, it should be included since it was required by SW-846.  The next speaker was Curtis Leslie of Trinity Consultants who talked about “Creating a Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction Plan that Really Works”. Curtis started off by telling how last year he had relied entirely on his power point presentation with no accompanying notes and then lost his presentation right in the middle of his talk, thus qualifying as a malfunction. He had since analyzed the problem and taken corrective action and now had back up notes in the event that the malfunction occurred again. Probably the primary message of his presentation was that if you appropriately tag your start-ups and shut-downs that you should be able to greatly reduce and maybe even avoid the 2 day, 7 day, 45 day reporting associated with malfunctions. An emission exceedance during a start-up should not be interpreted as a violation. He also pointed out that “not all exceedances are caused by malfunctions and not all malfunctions result in exceedances.”  

The next presentation was entitled “So What is the Real Definition of Startup and Shutdown?” By Paul A. Sadler of Focus Environmental, Inc. His talk focused on hazardous waste incinerators. His primary point was that a facility should define the beginning and the end of both a start-up and a shutdown. Paul also stated that in some instances you may be able to have a start-up without having a shutdown precede that start-up. {this comment generated some lively discussion in the Q & A period but more on that later} Thomas G. Busmann, also of Focus Environmental, was the next presenter talking about “Using Fault Tree Analysis to Identify Malfunctions for SSMP”. He spoke of fault tree analysis because it was specifically mentioned in the preamble to the rule and following an overview of the process using Boolean logic, he noted that there were numerous computer programs out there that can assist in this analysis however keep in mind that there are limitations. The final paper of the session was given by Jim Woodford of Gossman Consulting, Inc. and was entitled “MACT Implications of Alternative Raw Materials”. Jim’s paper stressed that even though the rule(s) can be interpreted to suggest a new compliance test every time you make a change in your process, a raw material analysis program should put facilities in a defensible position to avoid additional compliance testing.  

Bob Holloway of USEPA commented that there is no such thing as a “partial” shutdown or a “partial” start-up. It is either shutting down or it is shut down. These interpretations are not what was anticipated when the rule was written (imagine that, a rule that gets interpreted in a way that is different than it was intended) and gave his opinion that you can’t have multiple start-ups with one shut down. Industry representatives in the audience and the presenters on the dais defended their positions vigorously and Bob Holloway and Mike Galbraith were just as adamant in their point(s). It was almost as if industry was arguing for what might have been predicted as the regulator side and the regulators were arguing the usual simplicity approach put forth by industry. This was the most animated discussion of the conference and seemed to suggest that industry had thought this thing through, anticipated the usual enforcement twisting of the regulatory intent and intended to have their guns loaded for the inevitable audit/enforcement battle. Very interesting. After all that, it was a good thing a break was scheduled.  

Session 4 – RCRA Trends & Implementation

Session 4, RCRA Trends & Implementation, was chaired by Scott Munk of Bayer Corporation. The first presentation, entitled “Alternative Treatment Standards for Disposal of Contaminated Soils Under RCRA” was presented by Richard Rocha with Bayer Crop Science. It was the type of paper that hasn’t been heard that often in this conference but with so much talk about SWMUs over the past couple of years it seemed to be appropriate. His main point was that the mere detection of a compound does not automatically make it a hazardous waste. There are many mitigating circumstances and if you do get to the point of treatment, land disposal regulations call for a 90% removal that is capped at ten times the UTL found in 40CFR Part 268.  The next presentation was given by Terry J. Satterlee of Lathrop & Gage LLC, “RCRA Corrective Actions: Implementation and Changing Interpretation”.  As usual, Terry has so many war stories and presents them in such a rapid manner that it is almost impossible to keep up with her, at least in the note-taking arena. The focus of her talk was the need to understand the law you are dealing with and know what you are trying to accomplish. Concerning new CAMU regulations she did point out the need to consider the type of waste managed, design standards, treatment requirements, application for CAMUs, release response and public participation. One generally important point Terry made was that when you are doing your permit you need to include language that will allow you to challenge SWMUs that EPA will try to stick in your permit at later dates.  Otherwise, you have no other recourse but to comply with whatever they later stick in your permit.  Michael J. Harrell, of Ash Grove Cement next spoke about “Hazardous Waste Derived Fuel – What is it?” Mike had an impressive array of data collected and collated over many years. And the data demonstrated what hazardous waste combusting cement kilns have been saying for many, many years, that hazardous waste fuels have not changed that much over the years. There seems to be lower levels of components of concern. Mike hinted that maybe EPA’s program of waste minimization could actually have worked but he chose not to punctuate that fleeting thought. After a full day of really great attendance it might be added a reception was just what the doctor (regulator?) ordered.  

Day 2 – Session 1 – HWC MACT Regulatory Update (continued from Day 1)

Oddly enough (and I am not exactly sure how you can continue the first session of the first day into the first session of the second day but ….), the second day began with a continuation of the first session from Day 1; HWC MACT Regulatory Update, again chaired by Mike Benoit filling in for Michelle Lusk. The first paper of the day was “HWC MACT Replacement Standards: Legal Issues” presented by Jeremiah J. Jewett, III, Ellis Thorp & Jewett, PLLC (probably better known as Jon Jewett).  Jon represented Solite in the now infamous Horsehead case (see  http://gcisolutions.com/GCINOTES897.htm) and argued for CKRC when the waste combustor MACT was challenged the first time around. Jon started off by stating that as he listened to David Case do his presentation yesterday he realized that not only did David Case have a law degree from the same school but that David also gave Jon’s paper. But even giving the “same paper” readers will note that there was a definite difference. He focused on the Sierra Club settlement and noted that “emission limitation” can be found in 302(k) and is not set by testing but rather by state limits. He pointed out that the court sidestepped the issue by not ruling on it since it had not been raised in the comment period. However, the issue is not dead and is still a possible argument regarding the replacement standards. Other meritorious arguments of note were test data versus day-to-day, failure to use variability factor, improper use of feed rate data to indicate performance and exceedances doing SSMP should not be violations (if you have read this Adopt a MACT summary from the beginning you will remember that this last issue was addressed in Session 3 as well). Some of the issues that CKRC managed to get resolved including the idea of an expanded pool, is dead.  EPA can use worst case data as long as it reflects reasonably foreseeable worst circumstances and ETC does not have standing to directly challenge cement kiln MACT. Jon’s overall conclusion was that the replacement standards would likely be challenged. 

Melvin E. Keener of the Coalition for Responsible Waste Incineration next gave”A Brief History of Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction Plans”. The SSM concept started in early 70s as part of state SIPs. It created a hodgepodge of policies and then EPA finally adopted the SSM policy in 1978 that excess emissions during SSM were a violation. Through a series of clarification memos in 1994, 1996 and 1999 SSM interpretation bounced around. The 1999 memo shifted the bouncing around back to the concept of putting SSMs in state SIPs and reaffirmed the original memo from 1982. General provision amendments were published April 5, 2002 and Sierra Club had sued over those amendments by April 25, 2002. The Sierra Club position was that the SSMPs could serve as a giant loophole for emission violations. Ultimately there was a settlement agreement which “set off a state firestorm” and then there was a February 24, 2003 direct final rule for the state of Michigan which determined that SSM plans are not part of a Title V permit and the plans do not have to be approved. However, facilities still have to report excess emissions even under start-up and shutdown. The final scheduled panel speaker, Bob Bessette, President, CIBO, was unable to attend the conference.  His title was “Exploring the Details of the Far-Reaching Industrial Boiler and Process Heater MACT Rule”.  Following some questions and answers the conference took a break. 

Session 5 - Permitting

After the break, the regulators took over the conference under the guise of Session 5 Permitting. The Chairperson was Beth Antley from USEPA Region IV. Longtime attendees of this specialty conference will remember that at a previous BIF conference Beth Antley essentially threatened all BIFs across the country by letting them know that “we are coming to get you” and then didn’t show up at the subsequent conference when all of those audits did not happen as she had threatened  (http://gcisolutions.com/HWFN0392.htm).  I will say that a number of Region IV facilities were commenting about how they had been getting numerous regulatory and compliance issues resolved with Beth Antley in Region IV so maybe a new leaf has been turned (or maybe a new administration has turned).  

On with the conference. The first two speakers of this session were also regulators, Rosemary L. Workman and Sasha Lucas-Gerhard who gave a “Hazardous Waste Combustion MACT Implementation and Permitting Update”. Workman noted that Mike Galbraith started off his presentation the day before with “four score and many years ago,” David Case had used his “You’ve got to be kidding” story and that she felt as if the waste combustor MACT process had been “a long and winding road.”  (At this point in the summary it seems appropriate to give room lighting control credit to Lafarge, notably Tim Weible of Paulding and Paul Peters of Fredonia, for dimming and raising the lights at speaker request.  Heck of a job.)  She also gave a brief overview of the waste combustor MACT process and let everyone know that the updated timeline used in her presentation can be found on the USEPA MACT web site http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/combust/toolkit/milestne.htm. Workman also pointed out that even though comprehensive performance test (CPT) plans had to be submitted by March 30, 2003 only 40% of those plans had been submitted. Tag team partner Sasha Gerhard took over from here. All Phase I sources should have Title V permits by now and they must include the February 2002 interim standards. Following completion of the CPT, the Title V permit must be updated with a notice of compliance (NOC). However, don’t forget about that RCRA permit either.  

The next presentation was about “RCRA Permitting in the HWC MACT World” and was presented by Cynthia J. Kaleri of USEPA Region 6. Kaleri explained that the goal of Region VI was protectiveness and that was accomplished through risk based compliance limits but she also pointed out that this did not take the place of technology standards. She also raised the laughable issue of “worst case” scenarios possibly taking a facility outside their normal operating window and that MACT requires “normal operating conditions” that are more “representative.” (The MACT rule itself provides some double speak mumbo-jumbo trying to somehow resolve “worst case” scenarios as being allowed as long as they are “representative” of “normal operating” conditions.  Those whom have read the 1999 HWC MACT rule will remember that EPA finally recognized the safety issues associated with spiking metals only to turn the table on facilities by discouraging metals spiking because of those safety issues. That’s great isn’t it? Write some rules that force facilities to push the operating envelope through metals spiking and then suggest that they should try to avoid such spiking because of safety issues.)  In fact, the overall tone of this presentation came across as condescending and making fun of the very regulated entities that need help with compliance by telling them they didn’t know what they were doing.  However, in the question and answer period following all presentations, Cynthia Kaleri did answer questions and put forth the general impression that Region VI desired to work with all regulated entities.  

The next presenter was Chuck Kellett of S&Y Associates talking about “Facility RCRA Permitting and HWC MACT Overlap”.  Chuck spoke briefly about three successful permitting efforts, two of which appeared to be in Region IV even though facilities were not identified. In one of those situations the facility had been taking waste since 1993 had a state air permit.  Region IV was handling the RCRA Part B for which the facility had interim status, and the final permit was not issued before MACT.  The NOC was submitted before the final RCRA permit, so there were no BIF conditions. The next speaker was another regulator, Ken Herstowski of Region VII, who spoke about “A Successful Strategy for Issuing RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion Permits”. Mel Keener of CRWI had previously mentioned an enforcement initiative by USEPA and Ken recognized that this initiative did in fact take  place, but that the entire compliance  situation suggested the need for more communication to him and therefore a Region VII work group was implemented. Ken also mentioned a health study in   Kansas due to 3 cement kilns and an incinerator in close proximity. This study    has been briefly discussed at a previous incarnation (2001) of this conference (see http://gcisolutions.com/gcitn0501.htm) and Ken expects the results to be released later this summer. The final presenter of this session was not a regulator, Kristen Epstein of Golder Associates, Inc., who spoke about “A Successful RCRA Part B Permitting at a Facility Under Stringent Regulatory Scrutiny”.  Golder was brought into this project and ended up working almost as a mediator between client and the state. This paid off eventually because the state worked to allay fears of the community. There had been many changes over the 10 years of the facility RCRA permit and the agency used this opportunity to essentially re-review the permit. There was extensive interaction with the state yet when the first draft of the permit came out for public comment, the facility felt like it was the first time they had ever seen this particular permit. This motivated an immediate second meeting with the state. Golder Associates requested of the state that they take a copy of the permit, redline it with explanations and then give back to the agency for ease of working. State took right to the proposal. There were two additional draft versions within a three-month period before the permit was to expire and this resulted in a final permit being issued.  

In the question and answer period following the session presentations, long time combustion proponent, Charles Lamb asked the Region VI representative about “normal operating range,” which she had mentioned. Her response was that it was “up to the facility.” Clearly, the onus is on the facility to make a case for “normal operating range” as they push the envelope for operating flexibility. Another question concerned the conflicting guidance between RCRA trial burns and MACT comprehensive performance testing concerning risk assessments. The Region VI response was that they recommend spiking for compliance testing but no spiking for risk assessment determinations as the “community won’t understand.” This questioner prefaced his follow-up comment by pointing out that he had previously worked with David Weeks (self proclaimed “jack booted thug” of Region VI before he became a risk assessment consultant) and that he likes the tone from Kaleri a lot better than he had the tone of David Weeks. But the questioner seemed even more frustrated by that answer and politely commented that he found that very hard to believe at which point Kaleri of Region VI said to work with the permitting person for the facility. Once the Q&A session was terminated it was time for lunch.  

The luncheon speaker was Bart Cassidy, a partner in Manko, Gold, Katcher & Fox, LLP. He spoke rapidly but knowledgeably about the recent new source review (NSR) standards. One particularly important issue concerns a facility now being able to go back 10 years to choose an appropriate 24-month period. This helps address industry concerns about having to pick a 24 month period that might have been during an economic down cycle and consequently, lower emissions. The “test” also excludes emissions resulting from increased demand but within the capacity of the unit.  

Session 6 – Emissions Testing

The afternoon was kicked off with Session 6 Emissions Testing chaired by John Egan of All4, Inc. The first paper of the session was “Emissions Testing to Demonstrate Compliance with the Hazardous Waste Combustor MACT-Interim Standards”, presented by Jim Serne of TRC. Jim pointed out that HWC MACT is the first rule to dictate significant figures in calculations, 3 significant figures for the data but can round to 2 significant figures to demonstrate compliance. It was again mentioned that CPTs had to have been submitted by 3-30-03. The CPT must be conducted within 6 months of the compliance date, March 30, 2004. Method 5i, for low PM concentration gas streams, was promulgated with the 1999 Phase 1 MACT. PS-11 for PM is expected to be promulgated within the next year so expectation is that PM CEMs will be required in the final rule. Jim Serne did reference back to Workman’s comment about the “ long and winding road” but added that there hadn’t been enough signs on that road. The next paper was “Hydrogen Chloride Emissions Testing by EPA Methods 320: Procedures and Results” presented by Maxwell Lee, Koogler & Associates. As most attendees probably already knew, Method 320 was promulgated with the 1999 waste combustor MACT. He pointed out that the interferometer design is a critical component to FTIR. Serne also pointed out that condensed water is the bane of FTIR testing for HCl and HF and a long stack sample line is a problem. He also explained that a lot of the sources tested by his firm were on the border of area and major source. (Hmmmm, now let’s recap. The interferometer design is critical to FTIR, long stack lines won’t work, condensed water is the bane to FTIR testing and many tested sources were on the border of area and major source. Sounds like a suspicious combination, especially if your facility just barely popped over into the major source range.) 

Mike Krall of TRC next spoke about “Practical Experience Using the Emission Testing Methods Included in the Hazardous Waste Combustor MACT”. While he touched on all basic aspects of a testing program, Mike’s talk focused on sample handling and shipping issues. The next paper was “Program and Resource Efficiencies Realized Through the Consolidation of Multiple Regulatory Programs into a Single Test Program” presented by Michael Werner and Wes Fritz of Weston Solutions (the new name for Roy F. Weston). This presentation addressed how a simple project can turn into a multi-faceted and much more complex project. The project started off simple enough but as things progressed they learned that they were thinking about a new stack, and they thought it might be good to upgrade their baghouse(s) and in the process take a few things off line from the current system. There was also an anticipated waste stream change and “oh, by the way, Friday is my last day.” announcement from the facility project manager. They addressed all the needs by starting off with a risk assessment target and working backwards. This approach resulted in the most cost effective testing and as is often the case, the stack testing firm ended up being the most critical factor as they set the restrictions on what could be tested for and what detection limits were possible. Following this presentation attendees took their last exhibitors break of the conference.  

Session 7 – Combustion Risk Assessments

Mark Neally of the International Center for Toxicology and Medicine chaired the final session of the day, Session 7, Combustion Risk Assessments. The first paper of the final conference session was “Hazardous Waste Combustors; Reviewing Risk Protocols and Reports for Regulatory Agencies” presented by Michael Smith of TechLaw.  It should also be noted that even though this was the last session of the conference, and flights out of Charleston were interestingly scheduled, there were still over 50 people still in attendance of the session. Mike stressed the need to describe the environmental setting and system design and operation, justification of site-specific parameters used and deviation from regulatory methodologies, including uncertainty analysis and communicating early in the process with regulators.

Attempting to reach some sort of consensus before putting pen to paper is the ideal goal. In a last minute switching of the presentation order (due to those interestingly scheduled flights out of Charleston), the next speaker was Benjing Sun of Exponent who talked about “The Significance of MACT Standards Implementation for MPRA for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities”. Benjing stressed how the MACT rule is technology based and considered “generally protective” but in his opinion, this did not take the place of risk assessments. In particular, he encouraged such assessments for mercury, a metal that he felt is generally not controlled by MACT. It would probably be safe to say that most industrial facilities try to avoid risk assessments like the plague so Benjing’s presentation was interesting given it was a industrial conference. Maybe he was addressing his sales job to the regulators in attendance.

Next was “Improvements in Air Dispersion Models & Their Impact on Risk Assessments” presented by Dan Holland, All4Inc. This was an interesting presentation because Dan is a meteorologist. A perusing of conference archives did not turn up any other presentation in the specialty conference 13 year history where a meteorologist gave a presentation, lucky 13 maybe. Dan’s talk discussed various air dispersion models, applicability, and what is coming down the pike (or maybe that would be coming down the jet stream). Several air dispersion models were addressed, three of which were AERMOD, CALPUFF and the familiar ISC3. While AERMOD is still under development, it is expected to become the workhorse of the air dispersion modeling world in the future since it has more sophisticated algorithms (but it does not currently contain deposition algorithms).  Dan gave a price range of 5 – 10,000 dollars for ISC3 and 7-13,000 for AERMOD, so looks like cost of risk assessment will be going up but he also pointed out that a “better” model does not always give lower results.

In the coveted final speaker of the day AND the conference slot was Mike Ames of Cambridge Environmental who spoke about “HWC Risk Assessments: Ruled by Uncertainty”. Mike started off his presentation by explaining that uncertainty sections are always the last section of any risk assessment so it was probably appropriate that his paper on uncertainty be at the end of the conference. The HHRAP recommends evaluating reasonable potential risk. Use of site-specific information tends to give better results and can improve a facility risk situation. One example of “lots of uncertainty” was default mercury data. Another was dioxins in chickens and eggs. “I mean, how much dirt DOES a chicken eat?” The default data was off by a factor of 1000 originally but did get addressed in errata, yet still off by a factor of ten. (Long time BIF people will remember eating 1000 grams of cement kiln dust and the resulting correction that negated that part of the boiler and industrial furnace rule).  The issue was commented upon a lot in the 2000 comments so maybe it will get appropriately addressed eventually. Mike pointed out that hexavalent chromium was a driver in subsistence farmers but that when it came to organics, there were so many organics that he felt were unnecessarily included, “anything with a liver ought to break down organics.” This comment was one of several from Mike that elicited laughter from the crowd. For a final presenter AND a presentation on risk assessment (not normally a humorous subject), Mike’s presentation was informative AND entertaining.  Speaking of organics, di-n-octyl phthalate was one that turned up with more going out than was going in. And so ended the Adopt-a-MACT specialty conference of 2003.