Faxback 11885
9498.1994(12)
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Office of Solid Waste
November 8, 1994
Mr. Joseph A. Kotlinski
Corporate Compliance Manager
CleanHarbors Environmental Services, Inc.
1200 Crown Colony Drive, P.O. Box 9137
Quincy, MA 02269-9137
Dear Mr. Kotlinski:
This is in response to your letter of June 24, 1994 requesting
regulatory interpretations under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) concerning certain fuel blending scenarios.
Your letter presents four scenarios from which you ask several
questions regarding fuel blending-related activities.
I want to emphasize at the outset that, unlike the situation
prior to adoption of the Boiler and Industrial Furnace (BIF) rules
in 1991, the 5,000 Btu/lb (as-generated) heating value criterion no
longer determines the regulatory status of the boiler or industrial
furnace (see 56 FR 7134, February 21, 1991). Currently, a fuel
blender can blend wastes of any Btu value for burning in a BIF;
however, there are consequences in doing so for industrial furnaces
that use such blended wastes.
Specifically, the 5,000 Btu/lb value, as generated, is used as
a reasonable yardstick to distinguish between waste fuels being
burned for energy recovery versus those burned for destruction or,
potentially, as an ingredient, unless the facility can demonstrate
that the waste with less than 5000 Btu/lb is being burned for
legitimate energy recovery. Thus, if an industrial furnace
produces a product that is used in a manner constituting disposal
(e.g., cement or light-weight aggregate kiln) and uses a blended
fuel with a portion that has an as generated heating value of less
than 5,000 Btu/lb, the Agency will generally assume that the waste
is being burned for destruction. In such cases, the resulting
product will be considered waste-derived (i.e., subject to
regulation as hazardous waste), unless the facility can document
that the low heating value waste is being burned for legitimate
energy recovery.
Scenario 1
In this scenario, a waste stream containing 4,000 Btu/lb as
generated is sent to a permitted TSDF for storage and treatment.
While in storage at the TSDF, the waste stream separates (by
gravity) into two (2) distinct phases: an organic layer with a heat
content of 6,000 Btu/lb; and an aqueous layer containing 3,000
Btu/lb.
(a) You ask whether a RCRA treatment permit is
needed under 40 CFR Part 264 to decant the two
(2) phases.
Based on the information provided, the unit(s) at the TSDF
need a permit since the storage of hazardous waste is occurring,
and the specific requirements of Part 264 would apply. Since the
storage activity establishes the need for a permit, it is not
necessary to determine whether treatment is occurring in the
unit(s), although in this example decanting would be considered
treatment under RCRA. Enclosed is a recent EPA memorandum dated
October 17, 1994 which provides guidance on the regulation of fuel
blending and related treatment and storage activities.
(b) You ask that if the decanting does not
constitute treatment, can the decanted layer
with a heat content of 6,000 Btu/lb be blended
with other wastes destined for energy
recovery, even though the decant originated
from a waste with less than 5,000 Btu/lb as
generated. You also ask if the
separation/decanting results in a new point of
generation making the blending of the high Btu
layer legitimate.
If the decanting of the phases results in a concentrated
stream containing 6,000 Btu/lb, the concentrated decant fraction
would be considered high BTU "as generated," and can be used as a
fuel accordingly.
Scenario 2
A waste stream containing greater than 5,000 Btu/lb as
generated is sent to a TSDF for storage and treatment. The waste
stream contains a high concentration of acetone. Low Btu waste
streams at the plant are mixed with the acetone stream to
concentrate and separate the acetone. The resulting more
concentrated acetone layer contains greater than 5,000 Btu/lb.
(a) You ask if the mixing of the acetone waste
stream that contains greater than 5,000 Btu/lb
with the low Btu waste stream is considered
"sham recycling" if the waste stream is
managed as a hazardous waste fuel.
(b) You ask if the resulting concentrated acetone
phase can be used for hazardous waste fuels
blending.
Since the 1991 BIF rules superseded the sham recycling policy,
the question for an industrial furnace customer that produces a
product that is used in a manner constituting disposal is whether
they can document that the less than 5,000 Btu/lb hazardous waste
is being burned for energy recovery. Note also that, based on the
information provided, it is not clear to us why adding a low Btu
waste stream to the "greater than 5,000 Btu/lb" waste stream would
be beneficial, when the end result is separating off a waste stream
that also has "greater than 5,000 Btu/lb". Is the reason for adding
the low Btu waste stream to acquire acetone for recycling purposes?
Additional information would be needed for us to fully understand
and reply to your question.
Scenario 3
A 6,000 Btu/lb waste stream as generated is sent to a TSDF for
storage and treatment. While in storage at the TSDF, the waste
stream separates into a 8,000 Btu/lb organic phase and a 3,000
Btu/lb aqueous phase.
(a) You ask if the two phases can-be re-mixed and
fuels blended, or if the re-mixing of the two
phases and subsequent blending would be
considered "sham recycling".
Again, the sham recycling portion of your question is not
relevant, since the blender can blend wastes irrespective of their
heating value. The question is what the consequences are for the
products of an industrial furnace using the blended hazardous waste
fuel. However, the remixing of the two phases would not be
considered treatment under RCRA (40 CPR 260.10) or a new point of
generation because the original composition of the waste stream, as
generated, is not changed.
(b) You also ask that, if the decanting is not
treatment, can the phases be decanted and the
3,000 Btu/lb phase be blended, since the waste
stream had not been treated, and originally
came from a greater than 3,000 Btu/lb source
as generated.
As discussed for scenario 1, the decanting of the separate
phases results in two separate phases of the waste stream. Just as
the 5,000 Btu/lb could be used as a fuel as explained in Scenario
2, the 3,000 Btu waste stream carries the consequences that when
burned in an industrial furnace the facility must document that the
low heating value waste is burned for legitimate energy recovery or
the resulting product will be considered waste-derived.
Scenario 4
A high Btu load of gasoline and water from a tank clean-out
arrives at a TSDF in fifty 55-gallon drums. The generator has
certified that the waste stream contains greater than 5,000 Btu/lb
as generated. Samples are collected from each drum and analyzed
individually. Ten (10) of the drums are found to have a heat
content less than 5,000 Btu/lb.
(a) You ask if the contents of the ten (10) drums
can be blended for use as fuel because they
originated from a source that has greater than
5,000 Btu/lb.
In this example, you have documentation that questions the
generator's determination that the waste had an as-generated
heating value greater than 5,000 Btu/lb. Thus, unless you document
by analysis or mathematical calculation, that the total volume had
a heating value greater than 5,000 Btu/lb, you cannot assume that
the ten drums in question contain waste that have an as-generated
heating value greater than 5,000 Btu/lb.
(b) You ask whether the point of generation is the
point at which the material was placed in each
drum, and if so, should the generator have
provided analysis to the TSDF for each drum in
the load to verify its Btu content.
This question regarding the point of generation for clean out
wastes streams raises complex issues that require detailed site-
specific evaluations. EPA is currently examining whether the
Agency should develop additional national guidance or regulatory
changes to address the point of generation for clean out waste
stream. We intend to raise this issue for public comment in Phase
III of our land disposal restrictions rulemaking. Currently,
decisions on these matters are being made by the appropriate
permitting authorities on a case-by-case basis.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your questions
regarding hazardous waste fuel blending. If you have any questions
on the applicability of the regulations and permitting requirements
for fuel blending activities, please call Jeffrey Gaines of my
staff at (703) 308-8655.
Sincerely,
Michael H. Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
CC: RCRA Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X, Enforcement Section Chiefs,
Regions I-X, Waste Combustion Permit Writers' Workgroup
------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment
------------------------------------------------------------
CleanHarbors Environmental Services, Inc.
1200 Crown Colony Drive
P.O. Box 9137
Quincy, MA 02269-9137
(617) 849-1800
June 24, 1994
Mr. Michael Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste (5301)
United State Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re: Fuels blending
Dear Mr. Shapiro:
This letter requests a regulatory interpretation concerning certain
fuels blending scenarios.
(1). A wastestream containing 4,000 BTU/lb as generated is
sent to a permitted TSDF for storage and treatment.
While in storage at the TSDF, the wastestream separates
(by gravity) into two (2) distinct phases: an organic
layer with a heat content of 6,000 BTU/lb; and an aqueous
layer containing 3,000 BTU/lb.
a. While State hazardous waste regulations may
vary, is a RCRA treatment permit needed under
40 CFR Part 264 to decant the two (2) phases?
b. If decanting does not constitute treatment,
can the decanted high BTU layer be blended
with other high BTU wastes destined for energy
recovery even though the decant came from a
waste with less than 5,000 BTU/lb as initially
generated? Does the separation/decanting
result in a new point of generation, thereby
making fuels blending of the high BTU layer
legitimate?
(2) A wastestream containing greater than 5,000 BTU/lb as
generated is sent to a TSDF for storage and treatment.
The wastestream contains a high concentration of acetone.
Low BTU wastestreams at the plant are mixed with the high
BTU acetone stream to concentrate and separate the
acetone. The resulting more concentrated acetone layer
contains greater than 5,000 BTUs/lb.
a. Is the mixing of the high BTU wastestream with
the low BTU wastestream considered "sham
recycling" if this wastestream is managed as a
hazardous waste fuel?
b. Can the resulting concentrated acetone phase
be used for hazardous waste fuels blending?
(3) A 6,000 BTU/lb wastestream as generated is sent to a TSDF
for storage and treatment. While in storage at the TSDF,
the wastestream separates into an 8,000 BTU/lb organic
phase and a 3,000 BTU/lb aqueous phase.
a. Can the two (2) phases be re-mixed and fuels
blended, or is the re-mixing of the high and
low BTU phases and subsequent blending
considered "sham recycling"?
b. If decanting is not treatment, can the phases
be decanted, and the 3,000 BTU/lb phase fuels
blended since the wastestream has not been
"treated" and it originally came from a
greater than 5,000 BTU/lb source as generated?
(4) A high BTU load of gasoline and water from a tank
cleanout arrives at a TSDF in fifty (50) 55-gallon drums.
The generator has certified that the wastestream contains
greater than 5,000 BTU/lb as generated. Samples are
collected from each drum and analyzed individually. Ten
(10) of the drums are found to have a heat content less
than 5,000 BTU/lb.
(a) Can the contents of the ten (10)
drums be fuels blended because they
originated from a source that was
greater than 5,000 BTU/lb?
(b) Is the point of generation the point
at which the material was placed in
each drum? If so, should the
generator have provided analysis to
the TSDF for each drum in the load
to verify its BTU content?
I appreciate your attention to these questions. Should you or your
staff require clarification or additional information, please
contact me at 617-849-1800, extension 4049.
Sincerely,
Joseph A. Kotlinski
Corporate Compliance Manager