HWF NOTES ©
In February of 1992, OSHA issued the final standard for a Process Safety Management regulation. It was officially designated 29CFR 1910.119 Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals. This rule contains requirements for preventing or minimizing the consequences of catastrophic releases of toxic, reactive, flammable, or explosive chemicals.
Any facility that processed or stored more than 10,000 pounds of a flammable liquid except for "hydrocarbon fuel used solely for workplace consumption as a fuel...if such fuels are not part of a process containing another highly hazardous chemical covered by this standard." Additionally, the standard specifies that these liquids be stored in atmospheric tanks at a temperature below their normal boiling point without benefit of chilling or refrigeration.
At first reading, it would appear that this would exempt kiln fuels storage facilities at the cement kiln. However, GCI was concerned with 1910.119(a)1(i) which said: "A process which involves a chemical at or above the specified threshold quantities listed in Appendix A...." Our concern was that concentrations of some of these chemicals as low as 100 ppm could trip the threshold quantity in a facility that had 250,000 gallons of kiln fuel. Please understand most of these "highly hazardous chemicals" are gases, or low boiling point liquids. Others are extremely reactive with organics or water, so it is unlikely that the blending facility could have accepted them as fuel candidates. However, there is the possibility that at the 100 to 1,000 ppm level that they could be present.
To clarify this, GCI asked OSHA to clarify that the threshold quantities (TQ) were for pure materials. We have received a letter from Region VI OSHA stating that this is indeed the case.
In short, the provisions of the 29 CFR 1910.119 standard do not appear to apply to the storage and use on-site of kiln fuels at cement production facilities.
Gossman Consulting, Inc. recently became aware of a draft EPA
manual on Waste Analysis Plans. We have prepared and submitted a set of
comments to EPA on this draft document. Because of the potential
of this type of guidance, if you have not already reviewed a copy and
comments we encourage you to do so. The comments we provided are found
below. Please call GCI if you would like a copy of the draft guidance
sent to you.
COMMENTS ON DRAFT REVISIONS TO THE WASTE ANALYSIS PLAN GUIDANCE
MANUAL (OSWER Directive Number 9938.4-03)
A more clearly differentiation between waste analysis performed to determine regulatory status versus that used to manage a waste would be helpful.
The document needs to identify and address one of the most crucial reasons for a commercial TSD WAP - protection of worker health and safety. Since OSHA saw fit to exempt hazardous waste from worker right-to-know, it is imperative that EPA take the lead in ensuring that enough information is gathered on each waste stream to allow it to be safely handled. We see no way to do this but to take all reasonable steps necessary to identify the broad base of hazardous constituents in a waste above a reasonable threshold concentration (perhaps 0.1-1.0%).
Page 2-5; The facility description guidance in Section 2.1 exceeds the waste analysis plan requirements found in 40CFR 264.13, 265.13, and/or 268.7. Meticulous reading and re-reading of these parts do not reveal even a brief mention of a facility description. See Appendix D of the WAP guidance document. This is a separate section of the Part B application. There is no clear need for it to be part of the WAP.
Table 2-5; The table does not include parameters needed to protect human health and safety such as the identification of hazardous volatile and semivolatile organic constituents in organic waste streams.
Table 2-5; The table does not include testing for generally prohibited materials such as PCBs or radio- actives.
Page 2-16; Particulate requirements found in Table 2.5 for Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (BIF) has been mislabeled under media type. It should be St for stack gases rather than L, Sl, or So. In the event that this media labeling is intentional, this has little use at commercial facilities since viscosity is the overriding concern. In addition, although heat content (not BTU value) is a concern BIFs are allowed to burn < 5,000 BTU/lb (not BTU/hr) materials.
Page 2-16; Ash content is applicable to non-cement kiln BIFs only.
Page 2-17; Reference to applicable ASTM standards on waste compatibility testing should be provided.
Page 2-19 through 2-37; This part of Section 2.3 was written for waste clean-up operations and "field" work, not a TSD or waste generator. The operational requirements of an on site lab performing the same analyses on the same matrices day after day is significantly different than that regarded "field work". This section needs a complete re-write.
Section 2.4.2; It should be specifically pointed out in this section that SW-846 was not written with many sample matrices or procedures for management and treatment in mind. It was written primarily for trace analysis and hazard designation. See the preamble to the third edition SW-846 published in the federal register. Figure 2-9 is erroneous since many of the procedures indicated cannot be reliably used on streams which are primarily an organic matrix.
Page 2-43; In the first paragraph, there is an implication that SW-846 is required unless equivalence is proven for all WAP determinations. This is not true. Only determinations used to show whether a waste is or is not hazardous require an equivalence determination. See the preamble to the third edition SW-846.
Page 2-44; In the fourth paragraph, the implication that shipment by shipment analyses cannot be performed is erroneous. Many facilities perform remarkably complete analyses on every shipment received and do so in less than one hour.
Page 2-45; For the sake of regulatory clarity "if applicable" should be added after Part 268 - Treatment Standards.
Page 2-46; There is an implication here that screening procedures are available for dioxins. Either identify such procedures, detection limits, and applicable matrices; or remove this reference.
Page 2-51; The symbol for potassium is "K" not "P".
Page 2-52; Initials for Chemical Waste Management (CWM) appear in the Waste Profile Sheet Accountability Statement. Hopefully, this was inadvertent rather than deliberate. Also, will inspectors now look for each piece of information that is found in the Waste Profile Sheet example found in Table 2-11? Utilizing a specific company's form rather than something truly generic in this document could have legal implications even if all references have been removed.
Page 3-1; Section 1 of the Part Three: Checklist is not applicable in a Waste Analysis Plan as pointed out in the page 2-5 comments.
Page 3-3; 40CFR 264.13, 265.13 and 268.7 all refer to special procedure requirements "where applicable". It would seem prudent to add this phrase, perhaps in parenthesis, beside the Section 6 title of Part Three: Checklist, Special Procedural Requirements.
Page 4-5; While the use of the fictitious landfill name of Rottaway may have been intended to be humorous, it implies disrespect for a legal and viable disposal option. It is also generally unprofessional in nature. Is the WAP guidance document intended to be humorous?
Pages 4-7, 4-23, 4-31, 4-43, and 4-64; the five sample waste analysis plans presented in this part all include sections on a facility description. As pointed out in comments provided on page 2-5 and 3-1, facility descriptions are not applicable in a waste analysis plan. In addition, none of them are examples for a commercial BIF, which incidentally handle more wastes than commercial incinerators.
Page 4-46; TCLP metals is irrelevant for an incinerator. Total metals (for metals of real concern) should be determined on each batch of waste incinerated prior to incineration to insure that metal feedrate limits are not exceeded.
Page 4-46; Most incinerators and BIFs handle all waste as flammable, therefore flammability and flashpoint are irrelevant parameters.
Page 4-46; A broad based identification of volatile and semivolatile constituents is technically feasible and should be included to protect worker health and safety.
Page 4-46; The suggestion that odor will be used as a screening technique is archaic and in direct conflict with good health and safety practices.
Page 4-46; Heat content, not BTU value, is the appropriate parameter.
Page 4-46; Ash is a typical "fingerprint" parameter.
The guidance for incinerators (and BIFs) seems, in general, to confuse a WAP with a Trial Burn Plan. The two are separate and distinct. A more clear separation of relevant issues throughout the document would be useful.
Page 4-56; Page 4-46 indicates PCB determinations are required for every shipment, yet there is no mention of dioxins. Now (pg.4-56) both are to be checked randomly. This is inconsistent. If dioxins are to be included, a method should be provided. (We are aware of no direct method for high organic content streams.)
Page 4-60; It should read "1,000 BTU/lb minimum", not "1,000 BTU minimum".
Page 4-60; The suggestion that .01 ppm PCBs can reliably be determined during a "fingerprint" analysis on organic wastes reflects complete unfamiliarity with analytical techniques. Try 50 ppm, the TSCA lower limit for contamination determination.
Page 4-60; It is not clear if those parameters apply to incoming waste or outgoing waste. LDR values suggest outgoing. PCBs and heat of combustion suggest incoming. This requires significant clarification.
Page 4-63; This is part of a Trial Burn Plan, not a WAP.