NESHAP: Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors (Final Amendments Rule)

Related Material

Other Related Documents

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: February 14, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 31)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 6967-6996]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14fe02-29]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63, 266, and 270
[FRL-7143-4]
RIN 2050-AE79

NESHAP: Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous
Waste Combustors (Final Amendments Rule)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA established standards for hazardous waste-burning cement
kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, and incinerators on September 30,
1999 (NESHAP: Final Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Hazardous Waste Combustors) pursuant to section 112(d) of the Clean Air
Act (CAA). This rule included not only the standards themselves, but a
battery of provisions setting out the means by which the standards
would be implemented. Following promulgation of this final rule, the
regulated community, through informal comments, raised numerous issues
on specific requirements of the rule relating to provisions
implementing the emission standards. In response to these concerns, we
proposed and requested comment on changes to discrete provisions in the
final rule on July 3, 2001. Today's action finalizes some of the
amendments proposed in that notice. These amendments do not change the
numerical emission standards, but rather focus on improvements to the
implementation of the emission standards, primarily in the areas of
compliance, testing and monitoring. A related final rule establishing
interim emission standards was published in the Federal Register on
February 13, 2002.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on February 14, 2002. The
incorporation by reference of a publication listed in this rule is
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of February 14,
2002.

ADDRESSES: You may view the docket to this rulemaking in the RCRA
Information Center (RIC), located at Crystal Gateway I, First Floor,
1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The docket number is F-
2002-RC6F-FFFFF. The RIC is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. To review docket materials, we
recommend that you make an appointment by calling (703) 603-9230. You
may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no
charge. Additional copies cost $0.15/page.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, call the RCRA
Call Center at 1-800-424-9346 or TDD 1-800-553-7672 (hearing impaired).
Callers within the Washington Metropolitan Area must dial 703-412-9810
or TDD 703-412-3323 (hearing impaired). The RCRA Call Center is open
Monday-Friday, 9 am to 4 pm, Eastern Standard Time. For more
information, contact Frank Behan at 703-308-8476, behan.frank@epa.gov,
or Michael Galbraith at 703-605-0567, galbraith.michael@epa.gov, or
write to them at the Office of Solid Waste, 5302W, U.S. EPA, Ariel Rios
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Acronyms Used in the Rule

APCD--Air pollution control device
ASME--American Society of Mechanical Engineers
CAA--Clean Air Act
CEMS--Continuous emissions monitors/monitoring system
COMS--Continuous opacity monitoring system
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
DOC--Documentation of Compliance
DRE--Destruction and removal efficiency
dscf--Dry standard cubic feet
dscm--Dry standard cubic meter
EPA/USEPA--United States Environmental Protection Agency
gr--Grains
HAP--Hazardous air pollutant
HWC--Hazardous waste combustor
MACT--Maximum Achievable Control Technology
NESHAP--National Emission Standards for HAPs
ng--Nanograms
NIC--Notice of Intent to Comply
NOC--Notification of compliance
OPL--Operating parameter limit
PM--Particulate matter
POHC--Principal organic hazardous constituent
ppmv--Parts per million by volume
psig--Pounds per square inch gage
RCRA--Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
TEQ--Toxicity equivalence

Official Record. The official record is the paper record maintained
at the address in ADDRESSES above.
Supporting Materials Availability on the Internet. Supporting
materials are available on the Internet. To access the information
electronically from the World Wide Web (WWW), type website http://
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/combust.

Table of Contents

Part One--What Events Led Up to This Rule?

I. What Is the Background of This Rule?
A. What Is the Phase I Rule?
B. How Did the Court's Opinion To Vacate the Rule and
Petitioners Joint Motion To Stay the Mandate Affect Phase I and
Today's Rule?
II. Which Proposed Amendments Are Included in This Rule?

Part Two--What Revisions, Proposed in the Parallel Proposal, Are We
Making Today?

I. What Previous DRE Test Results May You Use To Demonstrate
Compliance With the MACT DRE Standard?
II. What Are the Hydrocarbon Monitoring Requirements for Short
Cement Kilns Burning Hazardous Waste at Locations Other Than the
``Hot'' End of the Kiln?
III. Why Are We Deleting the Baghouse Inspection Requirements?
IV. What Are the Requirements for Feedstream Analysis of Organic
HAPs?

Part Three--What Revisions, Proposed in the Technical Amendments
Proposal, Are We Making in Today's Rule?

I. What Revisions Are We Making to the Combustion System Leak
Provisions?
A. What Did We Propose to Change?
B. What Were Commenters' Reactions to the Proposed Amendments?
C. What Were Commenters' Objections to Instantaneous Pressure
Limits?
II. What Revisions Are We Making to the Operator Training and
Certification Requirements?
III. What Time Extensions for Testing Are Available If the
Comprehensive Performance Test Plan Has Not Been Approved?
IV. What Flexibility Is Provided in Operations During Confirmatory
Testing for Dioxin/Furans?
V. How Can You Waive Operating Parameter Limits During Performance
Testing and Pretesting?
A. How Can You Waive OPLs during the Initial Comprehensive
Performance Test?
B. How Can You Waive OPLs During Subsequent Comprehensive
Performance Tests?
VI. What Are the Calibration Requirements for Temperature
Measurement Devices?
VII. What Changes Are We Making to the Particulate Matter Operating
Requirements for Sources Using Activated Carbon Injection and Carbon
Beds?
VIII. How May You Comply Temporarily With Alternative, Otherwise
Applicable MACT Standards?
A. What Are the Implications of Being an Affected Source Only
Under Subpart EEE?
B. How Are Rolling Averages Calculated When Changing Modes of
Operation?
IX. What Are the Procedures for Allowing Use of Less Sensitive Bag
Leak Detection Systems?

Part Four--What Technical Corrections Are Being Made in Today's
Rule?

I. What Corrections Are We Making to part 63, Subpart EEE?
A. Several Typographical Errors Are Corrected
B. Several Citations Are Corrected
II. What Correction Are We Making to Sec. 266.100?
III. What Correction Are We Making to Sec. 270.42(j)(1): Combustion
Facility

[[Page 6969]]

Changes to Meet part 63 MACT Standards?
IV. What Correction Are We Making to Table 1 to Subpart EEE--General
Provisions Applicable to Subpart EEE?

Part Five--What Are the Analytical and Regulatory Requirements?

I. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
II. What Economic and Equity Analyses Were Completed in Support of
the Proposed Rule?
III. What Substantive Comments Were Received on the Cost/Economic
Aspects of Proposed Rule?
IV. What Are the Potential Costs and Benefits of Today's Final Rule?
V. What Consideration Was Given to Small Entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC 601 et.
seq.?
VI. Was the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Considered in this Final
Rule?
VII. Were Equity Issues and Children's Health Considered in this
Final Rule?
VIII. What Consideration Was Given to Tribal Governments in this
Final Rule?
IX. Were Federalism Implications Considered in Today's Final Rule?
X. Were Energy Impacts Considered?
XI. Paperwork Reduction Act
XII. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
XIII. The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as Added
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996)

Part Six--Delegation Implications

I. What Is the Authority for the Final Amendment Rule?
II. Why Should I Apply for Delegation of this Rule?

Part One--What Events Led up to This Rule?

I. What Is the Background of This Rule?

A. What Is the Phase I Rule?

Today's notice finalizes specific changes to the NESHAP: Final
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors
(Phase I) rule, published September 30, 1999 (64 FR 52828). In the
Phase I final rule, we adopted National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants to control emissions of hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs) from burning hazardous waste in incinerators, cement
kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns pursuant to section 112(d) of
the Clean Air Act (CAA), which provisions require that the emission
standards reflect the performance of best available control technology.
Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F. 3d 855, 857 (D.C. Cir.
2001). This level of control is usually referred to as MACT, maximum
available control technology. Id. at 859. These standards apply to the
three major categories of hazardous waste burners--incinerators, cement
kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns. For purposes of today's rule,
we refer to these three categories collectively as hazardous waste
combustors (HWC).
More information on the Phase I HWC MACT rule is available
electronically from the World Wide Web at www.epa.gov/hwcmact.

B. How Did the Court's Opinion To Vacate the Rule and Petitioners Joint
Motion To Stay the Mandate Affect Phase I and Today's Rule?

A number of parties, representing interests of both industrial
sources and of the environmental community, sought judicial review of
the emission standards and certain related provisions. Petitions for
review have also been filed challenging certain of the implementation
provisions of the rule, but these petitions have been severed from the
litigation dealing with the emission standards, and all litigation on
these challenges has been stayed by consent of the parties.
As described in the ``interim standards'' final rule in yesterday's
Federal Register, the D.C. Circuit, in the case challenging emission
standards, found that EPA had failed to explain adequately how its
methodology for calculating so-called MACT floors satisfied the
requirements of section 112(d)(3). Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition, 255
F. 3d 855 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
On October 19, 2001, we, together with all other petitioners that
challenged the hazardous waste combustor emission standards, filed a
joint motion asking the Court to stay the issuance of its mandate for
four months to allow us time to develop interim standards. Although
neither the opinion, nor the litigation, deals with the implementation
provisions at issue in this rulemaking,\1\ these issues became a part
of post-July 24 discussions between EPA and the petitioners. As part of
the joint agreement and joint motion to the court which resulted from
those discussions, we agreed to promulgate by February 14, 2002 several
of the compliance and implementation amendments to the rule which we
proposed on July 3, 2001 (66 FR 35126). Further information on this
process is found in the ``interim standards'' final rule in yesterday's
Federal Register, and the joint motion can be viewed and/or downloaded
from EPA's Hazardous Waste Combustion website http://www.epa.gov/
epaoswer/hazwaste/combust/preamble.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ As noted above, virtually all issues involving
implementation provisions were severed and assigned separate case
numbers, and so were not before the panel which decided Cement Kiln
Recycling Coalition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Which Proposed Amendments Are Included in This Rule?

After promulgation of the Phase I rule, commenters (primarily the
regulated community) raised numerous potential issues through informal
comments, during EPA-conducted implementation workshops (which are open
to the general public), and during litigation settlement discussions.
After considering the issues raised, we proposed 33 amendments to the
Phase I rule on July 3, 2001 (66 FR 35126, 35087, and 35124). Nine of
these proposed amendments were promulgated in a Direct Final rule,\2\
and 14 are being finalized today. Ten amendments will be considered as
we proceed with a rulemaking on the final replacement standards
scheduled to be promulgated by June 14, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Thirteen amendments were promulgated on July 3, 2001 in a
direct final rule contingent upon the Agency not receiving adverse
comment on the amendments. See 66 FR 35087. The Agency received
adverse comment on four amendments, and issued a partial withdrawal
of the direct final rule on October 15, 2001 (66 FR 52361) that
withdrew promulgation of those four amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a separate notice published in the Federal Register on July 3,
2001, we took direct final action on certain amendments to the Sept.
1999 Phase I rule (66 FR 35087). We published the direct final rule
without prior proposal because we viewed those amendments as being
noncontroversial. We stated that we would withdraw any amendments from
the direct final rulemaking that received adverse comments and instead,
would seek comment on those amendments through the ``parallel''
proposal that was published on July 3, 2001 (66 FR 35124).
The following tables include information on all the amendments from
the July 3, 2001 proposals.

[[Page 6970]]

Combustion Mact Amendments: Direct Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approach to address
No. Title of amendment amendment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I................... Hazardous Waste No adverse comments
Residence Time. received. The amendment
became effective on
Oct. 16, 2001.
II.................. Deletion of One-time No adverse comments
Notification of received. The amendment
Compliance with became effective on
Alternative Clean Air Oct. 16, 2001.
Act Standards.
III................. Use of DRE Data in Lieu Adverse comments were
of Testing. received, thus the
amendment was proposed
in the ``parallel''
proposal, and is being
promulgated in this
rule.
IV.................. Time Extension for No adverse comments
Waiving PM and Opacity received.The amendment
Standards to Correlate became effective on
PM CEMs. Oct. 16, 2001.
V................... Alternative Hydrocarbon Adverse comments were
Monitoring Location for received, thus the
Short Cement Kilns amendment was proposed
Burning Hazardous Waste in the ``parallel''
at Locations Other Than proposal, and is being
the ``Hot'' End of the promulgated in this
Kiln. rule.
VI.................. Alternative to the No adverse comments
Particulate Matter received. The amendment
Standard for became effective on
Incinerators Feeding Oct. 16, 2001.
Low Levels of Metals.
VII................. Deletion of Baghouse Adverse comments were
Inspection Requirements. received, thus the
amendment was proposed
in the ``parallel''
proposal, and is being
promulgated in this
rule.
VIII................ Feedstream Analysis for Adverse comments were
Organic HAPs. received, thus the
amendment was proposed
in the ``parallel''
proposal, and is being
promulgated in this
rule.
IX.................. Revisions to the Metals No adverse comments
Feedrate Extrapolation received. The amendment
Procedures. became effective on
Oct. 16, 2001.
X................... Feedrate Limits for No adverse comments
Undetectable received. The amendment
Constituents. became effective on
Oct. 16, 2001.
XI.................. Revisions to Assist No adverse comments
Early Compliance. received. The amendment
became effective on
Oct. 16, 2001.
XII................. Accuracy Requirements No adverse comments
for Weight Measurement received. The amendment
Devices. became effective on
Oct. 16, 2001.
XIII................ Deletion of Requirement No adverse comments
for Establishing a received. The amendment
Scrubber Liquid Minimum became effective on
pH Operator Parameter Oct. 16, 2001.
Limit for Mercury
Control for Wet
Scrubbers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Combustion MACT Amendments
Proposed Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approach to address
No. Title of amendment amendment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I................... Definition of Research, The amendment will be
Development, and addressed in a future
Demonstration Sources. MACT rule.
II.................. Identification of an The amendment is will be
Organics Residence Time addressed in a future
That Independent From MACT rule.
and Shorter Than the
Hazardous Waste
Residence Time.
III................. Controls on APCDs After The amendment will be
the Hazardous Waste addressed in a future
Residence Time Has MACT rule.
Expired.
IV.................. Instantaneous Monitoring The amendment is
of Combustion Zone promulgated in today's
Pressure. rule.
V................... Operator Training and The amendment is
Certification. promulgated in today's
rule.
VI.................. Bag Leak Detection The amendment is
System. promulgated in today's
rule.
VII................. Time Extensions for The amendment is
Performance Testing If promulgated in today's
the Test Plan Has Not rule.
Been Approved.
VIII................ Flexibility in The amendment is
Operations During promulgated in today's
Confirmatory rule.
Performance Testing for
Dioxin/Furans.
IX.................. Waiving Operating The amendment is
Parameter Limits During promulgated in today's
Performance Testing. rule.
X................... Method 23 as an The amendment will be
Alternative to Method addressed in a future
0023A for Dioxin/Furans. MACT rule.
XI.................. Calibration Requirements The amendment is
for Thermocouples. promulgated in today's
rule.
XII................. Alternative Approach to The amendment will be
Establish Operating addressed in a future
Parameter Limits. MACT rule.
XIII................ Extrapolation of The amendment will be
Operating Parameter addressed in a future
Limits. MACT rule.
XIV................. Limit on Minimum The amendment will be
Combustion Chamber addressed in a future
Temperature for Cement MACT rule.
Kilns.
XV.................. Revisions to Operating The amendment is
Requirements for promulgated in today's
Activated Carbon rule.
Injection and Carbon
Bed Systems.
XVI................. Clarification of Amendment is promulgated
Requirements to Confirm in today's rule.
Carbon Bed Age.
XVII................ Revisions to Operating The amendment will be
Parameter Limits for addressed in a future
Wet Scrubbers. MACT rule.
XVIII............... Reproposal of kVA Limits The amendment will be
for Electrostatic addressed in a future
Precipitators and MACT rule.
Request for Comment on
Approaches to Ensure
Baghouse Performance.
XIX................. How to Comply Amendment is promulgated
Temporarily with in today's rule.
Alternative, Otherwise
Applicable MACT
Standards.

[[Page 6971]]

XX.................. RCRA Permitting The amendment will be
Requirements for addressed in a future
Sources Entering the MACT rule.
RCRA Process Post-Rule
Promulgation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part Two--What Revisions, Proposed in the Parallel Proposal, Are We
Making Today?

I. What Previous DRE Test Results May You Use To Demonstrate
Compliance With the MACT DRE Standard

A. Why Are We Deleting the Age Restriction for Using Data in Lieu of
Performing a DRE Test?

Today we are revising the September 1999 final rule to allow
sources that inject hazardous waste only in the flame zone to use any
previous destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) test results to
document compliance with the DRE standard, provided the data meet our
quality assurance/quality control requirements. These revisions do not
affect sources that inject hazardous waste in places other than the
normal flame zone.
Prior to today's change, we allowed data that were no older than
five years to be used to document compliance with the DRE standard.
However, stakeholders observed that sources that inject hazardous waste
only in the flame zone need only document compliance with the DRE
requirement once for the life of the source under September 1999 final
rule, provided the test continues to be representative of current
design and operating conditions. Stakeholders reasoned that, given that
a single test is acceptable to document compliance with the DRE
standard for the life of the source, the rule should allow use of DRE
data older than five years to document compliance with the standard. We
agree with stakeholders' concerns. Accordingly, in the parallel
proposal to the direct final rule, we proposed to allow any DRE results
(that meet QA/QC requirements and that continue to represent the design
and operation of the source), irrespective of how old the tests are, to
be used in lieu of having the source perform a new DRE test. All
comments we received on this issue were favorable.
This change does not apply to sources that inject hazardous waste
outside of the flame zone because the September 1999 final rule
requires that these sources document compliance with the DRE standard
every five years. These sources may use DRE test results that are no
older than five years old to document compliance with the initial DRE
test, and are required to perform a new test every five years. Although
we explained in the preamble to the July 3, 2001 proposal that the
revision discussed above applies only to sources that feed hazardous
waste in the flame zone, one commenter notes that the proposed rule did
not make a distinction between sources that feed waste in the flame
zone versus other sources. We agree with this commenter and have
corrected this oversight in today's amendment.

B. Why Are We Expanding the Type of Allowable DRE Test Results To
Include Any Results That Pass QA/QC?

The September 1999 final rule restricts the DRE test data that can
be used in lieu of performing a new test to data obtained in support of
a previous RCRA permit issuance or reissuance. We did this because we
wanted to ensure that the DRE data used met the quality assurance/
quality control requirements applicable to data used to demonstrate
compliance with the standards under the RCRA permit process.
Stakeholders, however, expressed concerns that data meeting EPA's
quality requirements can be generated outside the RCRA permit process.
For example, a source might perform some type of CAA performance
testing. This testing potentially could have the same level of
oversight, and the same quality, as data obtained during the RCRA
permit process.
We agree with stakeholders' concerns. In the parallel proposal to
the direct final rule, we proposed to allow other DRE data provided
that the data were obtained with the same level of oversight and
quality as those data obtained during the RCRA permitting process. All
commenters agree with this proposal and we are promulgating this
amendment as proposed.

II. What Are the Hydrocarbon Monitoring Requirements for Short
Cement Kilns Burning Hazardous Waste at Locations Other Than the
``Hot'' End of the Kiln?

We are revising the requirements of Sec. 63.1206(b)(13) to allow
short, dry process cement kilns to continuously monitor hydrocarbons in
both the alkali by-pass duct and at a ``preheater tower combustion gas
monitoring location'' as an alternative to hydrocarbon monitoring in
the main stack. These revisions are identical to those proposed (in the
parallel proposal to the direct final rule (66 FR 35124 and 35092)).
Accordingly, we are revising the requirements of Sec. 63.1206(b)(13)(i)
and adding the definition for a ``preheater tower combustion gas
monitoring location'' to Sec. 63.1201(a) as proposed.
Prior to today's action, Sec. 63.1206(b)(13)(i) required new and
existing cement kilns to comply with a main stack hydrocarbon standard
of 20 ppmv if hazardous waste is fed at a location other than the kiln
end where fuels are normally fired and products are normally discharged
(this is also described as the ``hot'' end of the kiln). These other
locations can include firing hazardous waste at midkiln, at the upper
end of the kiln where raw materials are fed, or in the calciner. As
explained in the final rule promulgated on September 30, 1999, we
concluded that it would not be appropriate for cement kilns to comply
with a hydrocarbon standard in the by-pass duct if hazardous waste is
fed at a location downstream (relative to the direction of flue gas
flow) of the by-pass sampling location. We stated that such operation
would result in combustion of hazardous waste that would not be
monitored by a hydrocarbon monitor (64 FR 52971).
Today's rule establishes an alternative to the main stack
hydrocarbon standard of 20 ppmv for short, dry process cement kilns.
Specifically, we are finalizing an alternative hydrocarbon standard of
10 ppmv measured continuously both in the alkali by-pass duct and at a
preheater tower combustion gas monitoring location. This alternative
monitoring approach satisfies our concern that the combustion of
hazardous waste is monitored continuously by a hydrocarbon monitor.
One commenter opposed the proposed revisions to the hydrocarbon
monitoring requirements and stated that the provision inappropriately
establishes a separate category for short, dry process cement kilns and
weakens the hydrocarbon standard by allowing for an increase in
emissions. Three other

[[Page 6972]]

commenters supported the proposed changes to allow short, dry process
cement kilns to continuously monitor hydrocarbons in the alkali by-pass
duct and at the preheater tower combustion gas monitoring location.
We disagree with the commenter that this hydrocarbon monitoring
alternative establishes a separate subcategory for short, dry process
cement kilns. The final rule promulgated on September 30, 1999 (64 FR
at 52885-52888) established different hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide
standards for cement kilns with and without by-pass sampling systems.
See Secs. 63.1204(a)(5)(i) and (ii). All the existing short, dry
process cement kilns burning hazardous waste are equipped with a by-
pass duct and are subject to the hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide
standards of Sec. 63.1204(a)(5)(i). Today's final rule thus does not
create a new subcategory for short, dry process cement kilns.
We also disagree with the commenter that the alternative
hydrocarbon monitoring requirements weaken the hydrocarbon standard
resulting in increased hydrocarbon emissions. We note that the
hydrocarbon emission standard for the hydrocarbon monitoring
alternative (10 ppmv) is more stringent than the hydrocarbon standard
in the main stack (20 ppmv). All hydrocarbon emissions from the
combustion of hazardous wastes would be reflected in the hydrocarbon
measurements in the by-pass duct and at the preheater tower monitoring
location and would decrease with improved combustion efficiency. As a
result, this reflects MACT control or better because the hydrocarbon
standard under the alternative is more stringent. As a result, one
likely outcome of the alternative is that sources may burn hazardous
waste under more efficient conditions.
We recognize, however, that a source electing the hydrocarbon
monitoring alternative could substitute for its normal raw materials
with other raw materials containing higher trace levels of organics.
This monitoring alternative wouldn't detect higher concentrations of
hydrocarbons emitted from the main stack (associated with the new raw
materials) even though hydrocarbon concentrations originating from the
combustion of hazardous waste remains the same. This substitution
scenario is unlikely to occur for cement kilns because these facilities
are sited near the primary raw material source to avoid transportation
costs. Transporting large quantities of an alternative sources of raw
material(s) is likely to be prohibitively costly. Moreover, we
anticipate that any potential concerns associated with such raw
material substitutions can be addressed in a site-specific risk
assessment conducted as part of the RCRA permitting process. See
Horsehead Resource Development Co. v. Browner, 16 F.3d 1246, 1262-63
(D.C. Cir. 1994) (EPA may permissibly regulate combined emissions from
burning both hazardous wastes and non-wastes from boilers and
industrial furnaces pursuant to its RCRA authority).
Accordingly, we are revising the requirements of
Sec. 63.1206(b)(13)(i) and adding the definition for a ``preheater
tower combustion gas monitoring location'' to Sec. 63.1201(a).

III. Why Are We Deleting the Baghouse Inspection Requirements?

As proposed (66 FR 35124 and 35096), we are deleting the prescribed
baghouse inspection requirements of Sec. 63.1206(c)(7)(ii)(B)(1-10)
applicable to incinerators and lightweight aggregate kilns. We find
that the general operation and maintenance plan requirements under
Sec. 63.1206(c)(7)(i) and the use of a bag leak detector are adequate
to ensure proper operation and maintenance of the baghouse. We believe
that generic, prescriptive requirements (e.g., monthly inspection of
bags, bag connections and the interior of the baghouse for physical
integrity) may impose burdensome cost without commensurate benefits
because such requirements may be inappropriate for the particular
source. In lieu of complying with generic requirements, each source is
required to develop monitoring and inspection procedures and to include
those procedures in the general operation and maintenance plan.
We are also deleting the requirements of Sec. 63.1206(c)(7)(ii)(A)
and Sec. 63.1207(f)(1)(xv) requiring submittal of the baghouse
operations and maintenance plans to the Administrator. We had already
determined that the general operation and maintenance plan required
under Sec. 63.1206(c)(7)(i) need not be submitted to the Administrator
for review and approval. Therefore, we find no need to now single out
the baghouse operation and maintenance plan for review and approval,
since sources must continuously operate a bag leak detector system that
identifies baghouse malfunctions.
Most comments favored the revision. One commenter, however, favors
retaining the inspection provisions, and states that inspections
trigger preventive maintenance, prevent malfunctions, and identify
sources of fugitive emissions. We believe that site-specific baghouse
inspection and monitoring provisions included in the operation and
maintenance plan, coupled with a bag leak detector system, will ensure
proper operation and maintenance of the baghouse because a bag leak
detection system is a state-of-the-art monitoring system that ensures
that the baghouse continues to operate in a manner consistent with good
air pollution control practices. See also 64 FR 52908, September 30,
1999. The operation and maintenance plan must be included in the
operating record and is subject to review by the inspectors to
determine whether it is adequate to ensure the baghouse is operated and
maintained in a manner consistent with good air pollution control
practices for minimizing emissions at least to the levels required by
all relevant standards. Secs. 63.1206(c)(7) and 63.6(e). We do not
regard further requirements as necessary to assure proper baghouse
operation and maintenance.

IV. What Are the Requirements for Feedstream Analysis of Organic
HAPs?

In the parallel proposal to the direct final rule (66 FR 35124 and
35096), we intended to clarify the requirements for feedstream analysis
of organic HAPs for compliance with the DRE standard. Section
63.1207(f) requires you to obtain ``an analysis of each feedstream,
including hazardous waste, other fuels, and industrial feedstocks, as
fired, that includes: * * * an identification of such organic hazardous
air pollutants that are present in the feedstream, except that you need
not analyze for organic hazardous air pollutants that would reasonably
not be expected to be found in the feedstream.'' Following promulgation
of the rule, stakeholders expressed concern about whether we had sought
to require an analysis of all waste feedstreams or only the hazardous
waste feedstreams. Stakeholders also brought to our attention that
there were certain implications of requiring an analysis of CAA HAPs
rather than RCRA Appendix VIII organic compounds, and stated that the
requirement for continued analysis of organic HAPs every five years for
the comprehensive performance test is overly burdensome if a source
qualifies to comply with the DRE standard with a one-time emissions
test.
We addressed stakeholders' concerns in the proposed rule as
follows. First, we addressed the implications of selecting POHCs from
the list of organic CAA HAPs rather than from the list of RCRA organic
compounds for demonstrating compliance with the DRE standard. One
stakeholder questioned whether RCRA DRE test data can be used in lieu
of MACT DRE testing if the

[[Page 6973]]

POHCs selected during the RCRA test are not organic HAPs under the CAA.
Another question was how to ensure DRE of those organic HAPs for which
thermal stability data are not available. In response, we stated that,
to satisfy the MACT DRE standard, sources must ensure that the POHCs
used to demonstrate compliance are representative of the most difficult
to destroy organic compounds in their hazardous waste feedstream. For
instance, the most difficult to destroy POHCs used for RCRA DRE testing
would also be representative of the most difficult to destroy CAA
organic HAPs. See 66 FR 35097.
Second, we responded to questions on the frequency for analyzing
organic HAP compounds in hazardous waste feedstreams. Stakeholders had
questioned why analysis of waste streams for organic HAP compounds must
be included with the site-specific test plan for comprehensive
performance testing every five years once a source has demonstrated
compliance with the DRE standard with a one-time test under the
conditions of Sec. 63.1206(b)(7)(i). In the proposal, we agreed with
stakeholders that the comprehensive analysis required by
Sec. 63.1207(f)(1)(ii)(A) is not necessary in all cases. As a result,
we proposed to add Sec. 63.1207(f)(1)(ii)(D) to allow regulatory
officials to waive the comprehensive analysis of organic compounds,
provided that the POHCs used to demonstrate compliance with the DRE
standard continue to be representative of the organic HAPs being fed to
the combustor. See 66 FR 35097.
Third, we clarified that we intended to require analysis of organic
HAPs in the hazardous waste feedstreams only. Section
63.1207(f)(1)(ii)(A) could be read to imply that sources must analyze
all feedstreams for organic HAPs. We proposed to amend this section to
reflect our true intent not to require analysis for all feedstreams.
See 66 FR 35097.
The majority of commenters on the proposal agree with the
clarifications. However, one commenter asserts that POHCs should be
selected considering organic HAPs in all feedstreams, not just
hazardous waste feedstreams. The commenter reasons that approval of a
comprehensive performance test plan without knowledge of the organic
HAPs in all feedstreams could result in selecting POHCs that do not
represent the most difficult to destroy organic compounds in all
feedstreams. Thus, the DRE test may not ensure destruction of the most
difficult to destroy compounds fed to the combustor. The commenter also
suggests that the analysis for HAPs in all waste streams should be
required because one or more of the POHCs selected based on hazardous
waste feedstream analysis may also be present in nonhazardous waste
streams. If the feedrate of POHCs in nonhazardous waste feedstreams are
not accounted for during DRE testing, the DRE calculation will be
conservatively low because more POHCs will be fed than accounted for in
the calculation. In summary, the commenter's first concern addresses
the analysis of feedstreams for HAPs for POHC selection prior to
conducting the performance test, while the second concern addresses the
analysis of feedstreams for HAPs that are chosen as POHCs for purposes
of calculating DRE during the performance test.
With respect to commenter's first concern, we disagree with the
need to consider organic HAPs in all feedstreams for POHC selection. We
adopted the DRE requirement from existing RCRA requirements where it
applies only to hazardous waste feeds,\3\ and did so to satisfy section
3004 (o)(1)(B) of RCRA, which requires EPA to retain a DRE requirement
for hazardous waste. Also, repromulgation of the RCRA requirement as a
CAA standard saves the administrative burden of separate RCRA DRE
permitting. See 64 FR at 52847. In addition, even if all feedstreams
were considered for POHC selection, we conclude that organic HAPs in
fossil fuels and raw materials would not be selected as the POHCs of
greatest concern considering the types and concentration of those
organic HAPs relative to the types and concentration of organic HAPs in
hazardous waste feedstreams. Finally, we note that owners and operators
typically select the same POHCs to demonstrate DRE regardless of the
hazardous waste present. These POHCs are among the most difficult
compounds to destroy of any organic compounds. Thus, presence of
organic HAPs in nonhazardous waste feedstreams is generally moot
because they would not suggest any different POHCs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ For example, the DRE requirements of Sec. 266.104 for cement
kilns and lightweight aggregate kilns apply to hazardous waste
feedstreams only, not fossil fuel or raw material feedstreams.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

With respect to the commenter's second concern, we agree that the
DRE calculation will be conservatively low if POHCs are present in
nonhazardous waste feedstreams and not accounted for in the
calculation. However, we are not aware that this has been a problem for
sources trying to show compliance with DRE. Therefore, based upon the
commenter's two concerns, we think the proposed clarifications are
appropriate.

Part Three--What Revisions, Proposed in the Technical Amendments
Proposal, Are We Making in Today's Rule?

I. What Revisions Are We Making to the Combustion System Leak
Provisions?

We are making several revisions to the combustion system leak
provisions. First, we are amending the definition of an instantaneous
pressure monitor to better clarify that the intent of the combustion
system leak requirements is to prevent fugitive emissions from the
combustion of hazardous waste rather than from nonhazardous
feedstreams. The revised definition also clarifies that instantaneous
pressure monitors must detect and record pressure at a frequency
adequate to detect combustion system leak events, as determined on a
site-specific basis. See Sec. 63.1201(a) and Sec. 63.1209(p). Second,
you must specify the method that you plan to use to control combustion
system leaks in the performance test workplan and Notification of
Compliance. See Sec. 1206(c)(5)(ii). Finally, in response to numerous
comments, today's rule also adopts a provision that will allow you,
upon prior written approval of the Administrator, to use other
techniques to monitor pressure that can be demonstrated to prevent
fugitive emissions without the use of instantaneous pressure limits.
See Sec. 63.1206(c)(5)(i)(D).
A. What Did We Propose To Change?
The September 1999 final rule requires you to control combustion
system leaks by either: (1) Keeping the combustion zone sealed; (2)
maintaining the maximum combustion zone pressure lower than the ambient
pressure using an instantaneous monitor; or (3) using an alternative
means to provide control of system leaks. After publication of the
final rule, stakeholders expressed concern that the requirement to
maintain the combustion zone pressure lower than ambient pressure
(option 2 above) could result in an overly prescriptive requirement.
Stakeholders believe this regulatory language can be interpreted to
require you to monitor and record combustion zone pressure at a
frequency of every 50 milliseconds. Stakeholders also requested that we
clarify that combustion system leaks refer to fugitive emissions
resulting from the combustion of hazardous waste, and not fugitive
emissions that originate from nonhazardous process streams

[[Page 6974]]

(e.g., the clinker product at a cement kiln).
In response to the above concerns, we proposed several amendments
to the combustion system leak provisions. 66 FR at 35132. First, we
proposed to modify the definition of an instantaneous pressure monitor
to read as follows: ``Instantaneous monitoring for combustion system
leak control means detecting and recording pressure without use of an
averaging period, at a frequency adequate to detect combustion system
leak events from hazardous waste combustion.''
Second, we proposed to revise the automatic waste feed cutoff
regulatory language to read as follows: ``If you comply with the
requirements for combustion system leaks under Sec. 63.1206(c)(5) by
maintaining the maximum combustion chamber zone pressure lower than
ambient pressure to prevent combustion system leaks from hazardous
waste combustion, you must perform instantaneous monitoring of pressure
and the automatic waste feed cutoff system must be engaged when
negative pressure is not adequately maintained.''
Third, we proposed that you must specify the method used to control
combustion system leaks in the performance test workplan and
notification of compliance. If you control combustion system leaks by
maintaining the combustion zone pressure lower than ambient pressure
using an instantaneous monitor, we also proposed that you must specify
the monitoring and recording frequency of the pressure monitor, and
specify how the monitoring approach will be integrated into the
automatic waste feed cutoff system.
Stakeholders also suggested that we allow averaging of the pressure
readings over short periods of time, e.g., a 5-second rolling average
updated every second, in demonstrating the combustion system is
maintained below ambient pressure. As result, we requested comment on
whether such a monitoring approach is appropriate.
B. What Were Commenters' Reactions to the Proposed Amendments?
We received no adverse comments on the proposed amendments that:
(1) Require you to specify the method that will be used to control
combustion system leaks in the performance test workplan and
notification of compliance; and (2) revise the automatic waste feed
cutoff provision that addresses combustion system leak events. We are
finalizing these proposed amendments in today's rulemaking.
The majority of commenters supported the proposed amendment to the
definition of instantaneous monitoring. Many of those supporting this
amendment, however, were opposed to the concept of requiring
instantaneous pressure limits altogether (see discussion below). One
commenter expressed concern that the definition of instantaneous
monitoring can still be interpreted to require you to monitor pressure
as often as once every 50 milliseconds. Although the proposed
definition of instantaneous monitoring clarifies that monitoring
frequency should be adequate to detect combustion system leaks, the
language does not specify what is considered to be an appropriate
frequency. We conclude that such specificity in regulations would not
be appropriate because sources differ substantially in design and
operation such that different monitoring frequencies may be needed to
prevent fugitive emissions. As a result, we are adopting, unchanged,
the proposed revision to the definition of instantaneous monitoring.
Rather than specify a minimum monitoring frequency in the
regulations, we clarify here that we do not intend for the
instantaneous monitoring requirements to require a pressure monitoring
frequency as often as once as every 50 milliseconds. We believe a
reasonable pressure monitoring frequency that could meet the intent of
the instantaneous monitoring definition is once every second, and a
reasonable pressure recording frequency could be once every minute,
provided that: (1) the automatic waste feed cutoff is engaged when a
one-second reading exceeds ambient pressure; (2) you record in the
operating record when any such event occurs; and (3) the pressure
reading that is recorded every minute represents the highest one-second
observation during the previous minute.
C. What Were Commenters' Objections to Instantaneous Pressure Limits?
Commenters disagree with the premise that a positive pressure event
equates to a release of fugitive emissions, citing examples of positive
pressure events that, based on system design and operation, do not
result in fugitive emissions. They claim the rule as currently written
will discourage innovative engineering solutions that would minimize
fugitive emissions (e.g., installation of new kiln seals) because of
the presumption that any positive pressure excursion results in an
automatic waste feed cutoff.
We acknowledge that positive pressure events do not necessarily
result in fugitive emissions. For example, there are state-of-the-art
rotary kiln seal designs (such as shrouded and pressurized seals) which
are capable of handling positive pressures without fugitive releases.
Specifically, we are aware of rotary kilns operated at the U.S.
Department of Energy (USDOE) Savannah River Site and USDOE Oak Ridge
Site that have been used for radioactive and hazardous waste treatment
which are designed to prevent the release of radioactive materials. The
Savannah River kiln uses multiple graphite seals with pressurized
chambers between the seals to prevent out-leakage at kiln pressures up
to the pressure in the seal chamber (10 psig). The Oak Ridge kiln uses
overlapping spring plate seals to form an air seal, and is designed to
withstand positive pressures up to 2 psig. See Support Document for
Fugitive Emission Control, February, 2002 for more information.
However, we believe these kilns are highly unusual, and that other
conventional rotary kilns used in the hazardous waste combustion
industry may not have seals which are designed for such positive
pressure operation. In fact, we believe that, for most rotary kilns in
current service, positive pressure events can result in fugitive
releases. The level of such fugitive releases will be dependent on
factors including the magnitude of the pressure excursion and the
design and operation of the kiln.
Nonetheless, we agree that explicit restrictions on positive
pressure events could discourage you from implementing innovative
methods to prevent fugitive emissions, and we agree that instantaneous
negative pressure limits may be not warranted for all hazardous waste
combustion sources. A solution that was recommended by several
commenters would amend the pressure monitoring requirements by
including a provision that will, upon prior written approval of the
Administrator, allow you to use other techniques to monitor pressure
which can be demonstrated to prevent fugitive emissions without the use
of instantaneous pressure limits. Such a provision would clarify that
you can use a compliance approach that does not require pressure to be
maintained below ambient on an instantaneous basis provided you
demonstrate that the method prevents fugitive emissions. We agree that
this recommended amendment is reasonable and appropriate. Today's rule
adopts this revision to the combustion system leak provisions.
Many commenters believe instantaneous pressure monitoring

[[Page 6975]]

requirements will increase the number of automatic waste feed cutoffs,
resulting in rapid switching between use of supplementary fuel and
hazardous waste fuel. The instantaneous pressure monitoring
requirements could thus have a negative impact, resulting in increased
use of fossil fuel and, because of the non-steady-state nature of
combustion conditions associated with the rapid switching of fuels,
increased pollutant emissions. Commenters claim the use of short
averaging periods, time delays, or damping of the transmitter response
times would allow properly designed facilities to handle these types of
pressure changes while still minimizing fugitive emissions.
We believe automatic waste feed cutoffs are appropriate non-
compliance deterrents, and are necessary whenever you exceed an
emission standard or operating requirement (e.g., when fugitive
emissions occur). If you repeatedly exceed the emission standards you
should modify your operating practices and/or design of the unit to
minimize the number of exceedances. However, we agree that needless
triggering of automatic waste feed cutoffs when you are not exceeding
an emission standard may provide less environmental protection, not
more. As previously discussed, there may be instances when positive
pressure events do not result in combustion system leaks. We believe
the provision we are adopting that will allow you to use other
techniques to monitor pressure that can be demonstrated to prevent
fugitive emissions adequately addresses these commenters' concerns.
Several commenters suggest we abandon the instantaneous pressure
monitoring requirement altogether and use the existing RCRA fugitive
emission regulatory language in Sec. 264.345.\4\ One commenter agrees
that there are some units where instantaneous negative pressure limits
are desirable to minimize fugitive emissions. Other commenters claim we
should abandon the instantaneous monitoring requirements because we
require different levels of protection across different regulations.
Specifically, the instantaneous pressure monitoring requirements in the
Hazardous Waste Combustor MACT rule appear to reflect a zero tolerance
for combustion system leaks while the requirements of the RCRA Subpart
BB regulations covering air emissions for equipment leaks are less
restrictive for the same types of wastes. One commenter states that the
instantaneous pressure monitoring requirements should be abandoned
because we have not demonstrated combustion system leaks present health
risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ We note the Sec. 264.345 language does not explicitly
require instantaneous pressure monitoring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We believe that combustion system leaks must be prevented whenever
it is reasonably possible. This is the approach currently required by
existing RCRA hazardous waste incinerator and boiler and industrial
furnace rules. See Secs. 264.345(d)(2) and 266.103(h)(2). Instantaneous
pressure monitoring without the use of averaging periods is an
appropriate, demonstrated compliance strategy option that achieves this
goal. As a result, we cannot agree to drop the instantaneous monitoring
requirements for all facilities. However, as previously stated,
instantaneous pressure monitoring requirements may not be warranted for
all hazardous waste combustion sources to prevent combustion system
leaks and we are including a provision that allows you to use other
techniques to monitor pressure which can be demonstrated to prevent
fugitive emissions.
We acknowledge the differences between the RCRA Subpart BB and MACT
combustion system leak requirements. The MACT provisions are designed
to assure compliance with the hazardous waste combustor emission
standards and to assure that you operate in a manner consistent with
good air pollution control practices. CAA Section 112(d) MACT emission
standards and good air pollution control practices are generally
technology specific and dependent on the type of regulated unit--they
are not risk-based standards. Fugitive emissions from open tanks, pumps
and valves will not be regulated the same as fugitive emissions from
hazardous waste combustors because they are different devices that
practically must use different pollution abatement systems.\5\
Therefore, we do not agree with the commenters' assertions that there
is an inappropriate disparity between the Subpart BB and MACT
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ For example, fugitive emissions from combustors are
generally controlled by maintaining a negative combustion chamber
pressure to ensure the organic wastes remain in the unit at the
elevated temperatures to achieve organic destruction. Fugitive
emissions from tanks and valves are generally controlled with
containment systems (tank covers or vapor recovery systems),
periodic leak inspections, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

One commenter believes that a five second pressure averaging or
delay period is adequate for most sources, but for systems with high
performance or double seals, a longer time could be warranted and for
systems with less effective seals, a shorter period could be
appropriate. Another commenter believes that we should allow you to
average the positive pressure events over a time period not to exceed
15 seconds. A third comment recommends that the averaging period be no
longer than a half of a second.
We disagree that a pressure averaging time not to exceed either
five or fifteen seconds would be appropriate for all sources. The
pressure monitoring technique that adequately prevents combustion
system leaks is site-specific and will be dependent on many factors,
including combustion chamber type and design, kiln seal design,
hazardous waste feed practices, etc. If you choose to implement a
pressure averaging compliance approach, today's adopted amendment
requires you, on a site-specific basis, to demonstrate that the
averaging period adequately prevents fugitive emissions.
Finally, one commenter states that EPA should not require chemical
demilitarization facilities to maintain negative pressures in the
combustion chamber at all times due to the energetic nature of the
feedstream. The commenter states that although it is not possible to
eliminate all transient pressure spikes in chemical demilitarization
furnaces, the commenter believes the engineering features of the units
and the air containment systems address environmental concerns.
Furthermore, the commenter asserts that fugitive emissions that are
released from these units into the containment rooms are controlled to
better than a 99.9999% destruction removal efficiency, and suggests
this meets or exceeds the control level that would be achieved if those
same emissions had passed through the air pollution control system.
The chemical demilitarization facilities are unique because: (1)
They thermally treat chemical agents; and (2) the combustion units are
located in enclosed rooms where the air is exhausted through a bank of
carbon filters specifically designed to control fugitive emissions. We
are convinced that combustion system leaks should be prevented whenever
it is reasonably possible, even considering the fact that the fugitive
emissions are controlled by a secondary device. We consider this
necessary because of the toxicity of these wastes, and because we
believe such an approach is consistent with current good air pollution
control practices.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ We believe minimizing fugitive emissions whenever reasonably
possible to be consistent with good air pollution practices because
this best ensures the organic waste remains in the combustion unit
for a duration of time, and at an elevated temperature, necessary to
achieve adequate organic destruction.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 6976]]

Because it appears that these facilities may be designed to
adequately control the fugitive emissions that are released from the
combustion units, a pressure monitoring scheme that does not include
the use of instantaneous limits may be warranted.\7\ We note that there
are two existing regulatory mechanisms that allow you to implement a
fugitive emission control compliance approach other than one that uses
instantaneous pressure limits. First, Sec. 63.1206(c)(5)((i)(C) allows
you to use an alternative means to provide control of combustion system
leaks equivalent to maintenance of combustion zone pressure lower than
ambient pressure, upon prior written approval of the Administrator.
Also, the alternative monitoring provisions of Sec. 63.1209(g)(1) allow
you to petition the regulatory official for approval to use alternative
monitoring methods. As previously discussed, we are amending the
pressure monitoring requirements to include a provision that will, upon
prior written approval of the Administrator, allow the use of other
techniques to monitor pressure which can be demonstrated to prevent
fugitive emissions without the use of instantaneous pressure limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ The information provided by the commenter that describes the
control efficiency for released fugitive emissions does not contain
the level of detail that would allow us to conclusively evaluate the
commenter's assertions. For example, no information was provided
explaining whether comparable carbon removal efficiencies would be
achieved for such low organic concentration levels that result after
the fugitive emissions are diluted by the containment room air (as
compared to the destruction and removal efficiency in the
combustor). The level of review is more appropriately conducted by
the local regulatory official.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What Revisions Are We Making to the Operator Training and
Certification Requirements ?

On July 3, 2001 (see 66 FR 35132-34), we proposed changes to the
operator training and certification requirements of Sec. 63.1206(c)(6).
Today we are finalizing those changes as proposed. These changes revise
the rule to: (1) Allow incinerator control room operators to be trained
and certified under either a site-specific, source-developed and
implemented program; or the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME) program; or a state program; (2) for sources that choose to use
the ASME program, require only provisional ASME certification by the
compliance date for existing facilities, and by the date of assuming
duties for new employees; (3) delete the requirement to provide control
room operator training and certification for shift supervisors; (4)
require control room operators to complete an annual review or
refresher course covering prescribed topics to maintain certification;
and (5) clarify that a certified control room operator must be on duty
at the source at all times the source is in operation.
As explained at proposal, the ASME program comprises of testing in
two parts. The ASME administers a comprehensive, generic, written test
addressing operations of various types of incinerators and their
pollution control systems, and awards provisional certification to
operators passing this test. Full certification is awarded later after
an operator with provisional certification passes an on-site, site-
specific oral examination. The ASME does not implement any training
programs for these tests, and also does not require any annual review
or refresher course to maintain certification. Under today's rule, each
source is required to impart requisite training to its operators to
pass the tests administered either by the ASME, or by the source
itself; and also to implement an annual review or refresher course,
described in detail at proposal.
Most commenters strongly favor all the revisions. One commenter,
however, states that deleting certification requirements for shift
supervisors is unwise and can lead to increased emissions, and that the
certified supervisors can fill in during absences of the operator. We
were not persuaded by this comment. Today's revision mandates the
presence of a certified operator at all times the source is in
operation. Because there will always be some periods of absence of any
particular operator (due to vacation time, sickness etc.), the source
will prepare plans for such periods and record them in the training and
certification program, that is a part of the operating record. Since
many sources are operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and there is
more than one operator in the control room (with one being the chief or
head operator), we believe each source will train and certify several
operators, and plan their rotational assignments according to their
needs. It is the responsibility of each source to plan whether to
utilize the shift supervisor, or a deputy of the chief control room
operator during any absences. Of course, if a shift supervisor is used
for such occasions, the shift supervisor must be trained and certified
as a control room operator.
One commenter states that no state programs for control room
operators are available. We agree that state programs may not be
available, but believe that some states are either considering
developing their own operator programs, or actively review, approve and
oversee the facility-developed site-specific training programs. We do
not want to foreclose any opportunity either to the sources, or to the
states in this matter.
Another commenter states that the preamble to the proposal
stipulates a written test, and does not mention use of equivalent
techniques such as a computerized test. We agree that a computerized
test or other testing approach equivalent to a written test may be
appropriate and note that the regulation does not require use of a
written test. If you plan to use an alternative to a written test,
however, you should describe the testing approach in your training and
certification program.

III. What Time Extensions for Testing Are Available If the
Comprehensive Performance Test Plan Has Not Been Approved?

As proposed on July 3, 2001 (66 FR at 35135), we are revising the
September 1999 rule to allow you to perform your comprehensive
performance test later than you otherwise must if the permitting
authority has not approved your test plan. To get a time extension, you
must petition the permitting authority for a time period not to exceed
six months. This petition may be renewed for a total time extension of
one year. Permitting authorities should grant these extensions if the
source has acted in good faith. You must, however, perform your test no
later than one year after the test date (or sooner if your time
extension expires before one year) that would have applied if the test
plan had been approved in a timely manner.
In the final rule, we made no provision for having the test date
delayed. We stated that sources would have to perform their
comprehensive performance test within 6 months of the compliance date
regardless of whether the test plan had been approved. At the time we
stated that ``if permit officials nevertheless fail to act within the
nine month review and approval period, a source could argue that this
failure is tacit approval of the plan and that later `second guessing'
is not allowed.'' See 64 FR at 52912. However, stakeholders noted that
there is nothing to prohibit a permitting official from disapproving a
plan after the actual test had been performed. If this occurs, the
source

[[Page 6977]]

would be required to rerun a test based on the revised test plan.
Combustion source owners are very concerned about this potential
scenario. They point out that comprehensive performance tests are very
expensive, often several hundreds of thousands of dollars for a
commercial source, and possibly more than a million dollars at a
government installation due to the unique circumstances encountered
while burning munitions or mixed waste. Therefore, we agree with
stakeholders that a comprehensive performance test should not have to
be rerun when circumstances prevent the permitting official from
approving the test plan in a timely manner.
We proposed an amendment to the final rule that we believe
addresses stakeholders' concerns. The proposed amendment specifically
allowed sources to petition the Administrator under Sec. 63.7(h) to
waive the test requirement for up to six months if the test plan is not
approved. This will give the permitting official an additional six
months to act on the test plan. The source also could request a second
waiver of up to six months if the plan is not approved following the
initial six month period. You would qualify for this waiver if you
submitted your test and evaluation plans on time, and made a good faith
effort to accommodate any comments you received on those plans. The
proposed amendment also describes the procedures for obtaining the
waiver, what documentation you must include in the waiver, and how to
involve the public.
We are promulgating this amendment as proposed. All but two
commenters support the amendment. The commenters opposing the amendment
are concerned that, despite as much as a 12-month respite from testing,
the source might still have to perform a test after those 12 months
without an approved test plan. Many commenters that support the
proposed amendment also mention this concern. However, while we are
sympathetic to the legitimate need for a time extension due to
circumstances preventing the permitting authority to approve or deny
the test plan, we continue to ``believe that an open-ended test date
will not provide an incentive for either sources or regulatory
officials to resolve differences related to a test plan, thereby
unnecessarily delaying testing.'' See 66 FR at 35135 for our previous
discussion on this issue. None of the commenters provide information on
this issue beyond what was available at the time the final rule was
promulgated. Therefore, our belief at the time of the final rule that
the test date should not be open-ended, has not changed, nor do we have
any basis to believe that any extension beyond one year is needed.

IV. What Flexibility Is Provided in Operations During Confirmatory
Testing for Dioxin/Furans?

On July 3, 2001 (see 66 FR at 35136), we proposed changes to the
requirements for confirmatory performance testing for dioxin/furan to
provide flexibility in operations during confirmatory testing. Today we
are finalizing those changes as proposed, and are making an additional
revision to clarify which historical data are used to calculate normal
operating values. These changes to Sec. 63.1207(g)(2) revise the rule
to: (1) Allow approval in the test plan of operations under a wider
range for a particular parameter based on information justifying that
operating within the required range may be problematic; and (2) allow
the Administrator to accept test results based on operations outside of
the range specified in the confirmatory test plan. Under the existing
rule, sources are required to operate so that carbon monoxide or
hydrocarbon levels, and operating parameter limits associated with the
dioxin/furan emission standard, are within the range of the average
values over the previous 12 months up to the maximum or minimum value,
as appropriate, that is allowed. Stakeholders expressed concern that it
was difficult to control operation of the combustor to the required
range for each operating parameter simultaneously. In particular, they
stated it will be difficult to operate within a potentially narrow
range of carbon monoxide levels for sources that normally operate close
to the 100 ppmv limit, because carbon monoxide levels are dependent on
many combustion-related factors and cannot be directly ``dialed in'' as
can be done for other parameters (e.g., activated carbon injection
feedrate).
Today's amendment to Sec. 63.1207(g)(2) also allows the
Administrator to accept test results based on operations outside of the
range specified in the test plan when a source did not anticipate a
problem in maintaining the operating levels within the required range
(and therefore did not request advance approval to do so), but because
of unforeseen factors, was unable to maintain the required range. This
provision would give permit writers discretion to accept emissions data
obtained when operating outside of the prescribed range so that sources
would not have to incur the costs of an additional confirmatory test.
In determining whether to accept test results from operations outside
of the range specified in the test plan, permit writers would consider
factors including: (1) the magnitude and duration of the deviation from
the required range; (2) the historical range of the parameter (e.g.,
the range between the 10th and 90th percentile time-weighted average
values for the parameter); (3) the proximity of the emission test
results to the standard; and (4) the reason for not maintaining the
required range. These factors determine whether the operations are
reasonably representative of normal operations and how important it may
be that test operations are truly representative of normal operations.
Most commenters support the proposed amendment, and we are revising
Sec. 63.1207(g)(2) as proposed with one minor change. The September
1999 final rule required you to exclude data pertaining to
malfunctions, monitor calibrations, and nonhazardous waste operations
when calculating normal operating levels. Today we are also requiring
you to exclude data pertaining to startup and shutdown operations as
well when calculating these averages. We did not propose to explicitly
exclude you from using startup and shutdown data because you were
previously not allowed to burn hazardous waste during these events. We
conclude this change is now necessary given that some sources may, in
limited circumstances, burn hazardous waste during startup and shutdown
as a result of the changes to the startup, shutdown, and malfunction
compliance requirements.
One commenter suggests that we should not require sources to
exclude data pertaining to nonhazardous waste operations when
calculating these averages. The commenter states that the amount of
time sources operate while not burning hazardous waste is negligible
and would not affect the calculated average values. We acknowledge that
the time you operate while not burning hazardous waste (while also not
in startup, shutdown, or malfunction mode) may be negligible, and thus
may not significantly affect the calculated average values. However, we
believe the data acquisition systems in use today are readily capable
of omitting these data when calculating the averages, and excluding
nonhazardous waste operating data is preferable. As a result, we
conclude no change is necessary.

[[Page 6978]]

V. How Can You Waive Operating Parameter Limits During Performance
Testing and Pretesting?

Section 63.1207(h) automatically waives operating parameter limits
(OPLs) during subsequent comprehensive performance tests under an
approved performance test plan. Stakeholders raised two concerns that
we addressed in the proposed rule: (1) OPLs defined in the
Documentation of Compliance should be waived during the initial
comprehensive performance test and associated pretesting; and (2) OPLs
should be waived during testing and pretesting irrespective of whether
the test plan has been approved. 66 FR at 35136-37.

A. How Can You Waive OPLs During the Initial Comprehensive Performance
Test?

We explained in the proposed rule why the rule need not be revised
to waive OPLs during the initial comprehensive performance, or
associated pretesting. This is because the OPLs are defined in the
Documentation of Compliance (DOC) prior to the initial comprehensive
performance test, and you may revise the DOC at any time prior to
submitting the Notification of Compliance. To widen the operating
envelope by making the OPLs less stringent, you need only provide
information in the operating record justifying why operating under the
less stringent OPLs is likely to ensure compliance with the emission
standards. You would revise the DOC accordingly, and record the DOC in
the operating record. Review and approval by regulatory officials is
not required.
An industry commenter states the rule should be revised to
explicitly waive the OPLs defined in the DOC during the initial
performance test because revising the DOC and providing support that
the revised OPLs ensure compliance with the emission standards may not
be a simple process. We do not agree, and the commenter did not
elaborate on why revising the DOC would be burdensome. Moreover, we
note that the supporting information required for DOC modification must
be developed and included in the performance test plan as justification
to deviate from the current OPLs when the plan is submitted for review
and approval.
We conclude that it is not necessary to revise the rule to waive
OPLs during the initial comprehensive performance test and associated
pretesting because you may revise the OPLs in the Documentation of
Compliance at any time.

B. How Can You Waive OPLs During Subsequent Comprehensive Performance
Tests?

Section 63.1207(h) waives operating parameter limits (OPLs) during
subsequent comprehensive performance tests under an approved
performance test plan. In our proposal, we addressed the potential
situation where you are facing the deadline for conducting the
comprehensive performance test but the test plan has not been approved
and regulatory officials have not extended the compliance date. We
proposed to revise the rule to waive OPLs during subsequent
comprehensive performance testing and associated pretesting, provided
that you record the emission test results of the pretesting. We
reasoned that the emission test results would confirm whether you were
in compliance with the emission standards when operating under the less
stringent OPLs.
Most commenters agree with the proposal but noted that: (1) We
revised Sec. 63.1207(h)(2) to waive OPLs during pretesting provided
that emission test results are recorded but neglected to revise
Sec. 63.1207(h)(1) that waives OPLs under the performance test only
when there is an approved test plan; and (2) in revising
Sec. 63.1207(h)(2), we excluded a phrase added in a technical
correction (see 65 FR at 42293 (July 10, 2000)) allowing the
Administrator to renew the 720 hour limit on pretesting. Both omissions
were inadvertent, and we include them in today's final rule.
One commenter states that OPLs should not be waived if the test
plan is not approved by EPA. We disagree. The OPLs are waived only
during pretesting or performance testing where the source is conducting
emissions testing and recording the results of the tests. This
documentation of compliance or noncompliance with the emission
standards serves as an incentive to operate the source under
alternative OPLs that ensure compliance with the standards.
We conclude it is appropriate to revise the rule as proposed to
waive OPLs during subsequent comprehensive performance testing and
pretesting (provided that emissions test results during pretesting are
recorded) and to allow the Administrator to renew the 720 hour limit on
pretesting as promulgated in the July 10, 2000 technical correction.
See revised Secs. 63.1207(h).

VI. What Are the Calibration Requirements for Temperature
Measurement Devices?

The September 1999 final rule requires that thermocouples and other
temperature measurement devices, such as pyrometers, must be
recalibrated every three months. However, stakeholders are concerned
that recalibrating these devices every three months can be particularly
burdensome and offers little environmental benefit (i.e., among other
things, no better assurance of compliance with the actual emission
standards) over a less frequent calibration interval. In the July 2001
proposal, we discussed stakeholders' concerns and requested more
information on the need for, and burden associated with, calibrating
temperature measurement devices. See 66 FR at 35138. We also indicated
that analysis of comments may lead us to conclude that
Sec. 63.1209(b)(2)(i) should be deleted in lieu of a requirement that
each source develop an appropriate calibration procedure and frequency
and include that information in the evaluation plan required by
Sec. 63.8(e)(3)(i).
Nearly all commenters agree with the need to provide flexibility in
calibration frequency. Rather than delete Sec. 63.1209(b)(2)(i),
however, commenters suggest that we revise that provision to require
calibration of temperature measurement devices using the manufacturer's
procedures and calibration frequency. Also, commenters suggest that the
calibration be performed at least once a year, unless a less frequent
optical pyrometer calibration interval is approved by the
Administrator.
We agree with commenters' suggestions and are revising
Sec. 63.1209(b)(2)(i) accordingly.

VII. What Changes Are We Making to the Particulate Matter Operating
Requirements for Sources Using Activated Carbon Injection and
Carbon Beds?

We are amending two provisions that apply to activated carbon
injection and carbon bed operating systems. First, we are deleting the
regulatory language that requires sources using activated carbon
injection systems to limit the particulate matter emissions to levels
achieved during the comprehensive performance test. We instead are
requiring these sources to establish operating limits on the
particulate matter control device to assure compliance with both the
mercury and dioxin/furan emission standards. Second, we are deleting
the requirement for sources equipped with carbon beds to establish
particulate

[[Page 6979]]

matter operating parameter limits for purposes of ensuring compliance
with dioxin/furan and mercury emission standards.
We explained at proposal that it is inappropriate to explicitly
require a site-specific particulate matter limit if a carbon injection
system is used because the rule does not require continuous monitoring
of particulate matter emissions. 66 FR at 35141. The use of a site-
specific particulate matter limit was originally thought to go in
tandem with a requirement to use particulate matter continuous emission
monitors. Because we do not require sources to use particulate matter
CEMS for compliance purposes, however, we concluded these site-specific
particulate matter limits were inappropriate, and proposed to delete
this requirement. We instead proposed to require these sources to
establish operating limits on the particulate matter control device
consistent with the approach used to control particulate emissions for
compliance assurance with the semivolatile and low volatile metals
emission standards.
The proposal also explained that particulate matter control
downstream of a carbon bed is not needed to ensure compliance with the
dioxin/furan and mercury emission standards. We noted that most, if not
all, carbon bed systems in use today are positioned downstream from
particulate matter control devices to minimize particulate buildup in
the carbon bed. Carbon beds are also designed so that carbon leakage
into the flue gas is minimized. As a result, we proposed to delete the
language that requires sources equipped with carbon beds to control
particulate matter emissions to ensure compliance with the dioxin/furan
and mercury standards.
We received no adverse comments on these proposed amendments. We
are, therefore, adopting the proposed revisions in today's rulemaking.

VIII. How May You Comply Temporarily With Alternative, Otherwise
Applicable MACT Standards?

Section 63.1206(b)(1)(ii), as revised (66 FR 35087 (July 3, 2001)),
allows you to stop complying with the emission standards and operating
requirements of Subpart EEE temporarily after the hazardous waste
residence time has expired and to comply with otherwise applicable
Clean Air Act requirements promulgated under Sections 112 and 129,
provided you document in the operating record that you are complying
with those alternative standards. If the Agency has not promulgated
Clean Air Act Section 112 or 129 MACT standards for the nonhazardous
waste burning class of sources in a particular source category, there
are no otherwise applicable MACT standards for the source.
Stakeholders asked for clarification on the procedures during a
transition between Subpart EEE standards and the otherwise applicable
Section 112 or 129 MACT standards. In the July 3, 2001 proposed rule
(66 FR at 35145-46) we explained that: (1) sources are affected sources
only under Subpart EEE with respect to stack emissions, even when
complying with the otherwise applicable MACT standards under an
alternative mode of operation under Sec. 63.1209(q); and (2) sources
that elect to comply with otherwise applicable MACT standards after the
hazardous waste residence time has expired must include all
requirements of those MACT standards, not just operating limits, in the
operating record, the Documentation of Compliance, the Notification of
Compliance, and the title V permit application. We also proposed a
revised approach to calculate rolling averages for compliance with
operating parameter limits when changing modes of operation. We discuss
these issues below, including comments received and our final
determinations.

A. What Are the Implications of Being an Affected Source Only Under
Subpart EEE?

At proposal, we explained that sources that invoke
Sec. 63.1206(b)(1)(ii) to become temporarily exempt from the emission
standards and operating requirements of Subpart EEE remain an affected
source under Subpart EEE (and only Subpart EEE) with respect to stack
emissions requirements until the source meets the requirements
specified in Table 1 to Sec. 63.1200 for no longer being an affected
source. To implement this clarification, we proposed to require you to
define the period of compliance with the otherwise applicable Clean Air
Act requirements promulgated under Sections 112 and 129 as an
alternative mode of operation under Sec. 63.1209(q). Thus, during this
mode of operation, you would be exempt from the emission standards and
operating requirements of Subpart EEE, except the requirements for the
otherwise applicable Section 112 and 129 MACT standards you specify
under Sec. 63.1209(q).
We also proposed to revise the rule to clarify that otherwise
applicable Section 112 and 129 MACT standards are ``applicable
requirements'' under Subpart EEE if you elect to operate under that
mode of operation after the hazardous waste residence time has expired.
Because the source is an affected source only under Subpart EEE, those
alternative, otherwise applicable MACT standards must be specified in a
manner that is enforceable under Subpart EEE. Consequently, you must
specify those alternative, otherwise applicable MACT standards,
including not only the operating parameter limits under the Section 112
and 129 standards, but also the associated monitoring and compliance
requirements and notification, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements, in the operating record under Sec. 63.1209(q), the
Documentation of Compliance (DOC) under Sec. 63.1211(d), the
Notification of Compliance (NOC) under Sec. 63.1207(j), and the title V
permit application.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ We also noted in the proposal that, under Sec. 70.6(a)(9),
the title V permit must contain terms and conditions for all
reasonably anticipated modes of operation, and thus, must contain
the alternative, otherwise applicable MACT requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenters generally agree with our proposed approach to implement
the alternative, otherwise applicable Section 112 and 129 MACT
requirements after the hazardous waste residence time has expired. One
commenter suggests, however, that we clarify that, if the Agency has
not promulgated Section 112 or 129 MACT requirements applicable to the
source, the source is exempt from operating requirements during that
mode of operation. We agree with the commenter and addressed this
situation in the proposal in footnote 37 (66 FR at 35145). If the
Agency has not promulgated Section 112 or 129 MACT requirements
applicable to the source, the source is exempt from operating
requirements under the alternative, otherwise applicable MACT standards
mode of operation provided that: (1) The hazardous waste residence time
has expired; and (2) the source establishes this mode of operation
under Sec. 63.1209(q) and notes in the operating record when it enters
and leaves this mode of operation. The source must nonetheless identify
this mode of operation (i.e., where it is exempt from operating
requirements) in the DOC, NOC, and title V permit application to assist
compliance assurance.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ Please note such source could conceivably be subject to
case-by-case permitting under section 112(j)(2) or 112(g)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

One commenter also suggests that the rule should be revised to
waive the automatic waste feed cutoff requirements under
Sec. 63.1206(c)(3) when a source elects to continue operating under the
Subpart EEE emission standards and operating requirements even though
the hazardous waste residence time has

[[Page 6980]]

expired (i.e., the source elects not to comply with the alternative,
otherwise applicable MACT standards). The commenter reasons that,
because the hazardous waste residence time has expired, there is no
need to require compliance with the hazardous waste feed cutoff
requirements. We conclude that no regulatory revisions are needed
because it is self-evident which provisions are applicable after the
hazardous waste residence time has expired. For example, it is self-
evident that the general requirements of Sec. 63.1209(c)(3)(i) for the
automatic waste feed cutoff system to cutoff the hazardous waste feed
are not applicable, because hazardous waste is not being fed. Other
requirements continue to be applicable, however. For example,
Sec. 63.1206(c)(3)(iii) continues to apply because it requires you to
continue monitoring operating parameter limits after a cutoff and
prohibits you from restarting the hazardous waste feed until the
operating parameters and emission levels are within the specified
limits.
After considering comments on the proposed rule, we conclude that,
as proposed, Sec. 63.1209(q) should be revised to add paragraph (q)(1)
to provide requirements for operating under otherwise applicable
Section 112 and 129 MACT standards.

B. How Are Rolling Averages Calculated When Changing Modes of
Operation?

Section 63.1209(q) as originally promulgated requires you to begin
calculating rolling averages anew (i.e., without considering previous
recordings) when you begin complying with the operating parameter
limits for an alternative mode of operation. We now believe this
approach is problematic as it was to be implemented. As you change
modes of operation, you would not be able to calculate a 60-minute
rolling average, for example, until you had collected 60 one-minute
average recordings for the parameter. Thus, for the initial hour after
changing a mode of operation, you would not be able to document
compliance with the operating parameter limits. To address this
concern, we proposed that you would use the most recent continuous
monitoring system recordings when operating under a mode of operation
to calculate rolling averages when renewing operations under that same
mode. Under this approach, to calculate an hourly rolling average when
you changed to an alternative mode of operation, you would add the
first one-minute average recording to the 59 one-minute average
recordings when you last operated under that mode of operation. Thus,
rolling averages could be calculated after the first minute of renewing
operations under a mode of operation.
Several commenters express concern that the proposed approach of
retrieving one-minute average recordings from when you last operated
under that mode of operation to calculate a rolling average can place a
significant burden on a source's data acquisition system. The data
acquisition system would be required to store and retrieve 59 minutes
from a mode of operation under which the source may operate only
infrequently. This approach would increase the memory requirements of a
source's data acquisition system and increase programming efforts and
costs because of the increased number of data registers used for
storage.
Commenters suggest two alternative approaches to calculate rolling
averages when changing modes of operation. One alternative, the ``Start
Anew'' approach, is the currently promulgated approach, but it would be
implemented differently. The other alternative approach, the ``Seamless
Transition'' approach, is an approach that we discussed in a footnote
in the July 3, 2001 proposed rule. We agree with commenters' concerns
about allowing only one approach to calculate rolling averages after a
transition to a new mode of operation (i.e., the ``Retrieval
Approach''), and have promulgated all three approaches, as discussed
below, because they are equally effective. You may use any of these
approaches.
1. How Does the Retrieval Approach Work?
The retrieval approach works as described above and in the July 3,
2001 proposed rule. You use the most recent continuous monitoring
system recordings when operating under a mode of operation to calculate
rolling averages when renewing operations under that mode. Although
this approach may be burdensome in some situations as commenters state,
it may be preferable in some situations to the other two approaches
discussed below. See new Sec. 63.1209(q)(2)(i).
2. How Does the Start Anew Approach Work?
Under the start anew approach, you calculate rolling averages anew
without considering previous recordings. This is the currently
promulgated approach. See old Sec. 63.1209(q) and new
Sec. 63.1209(q)(2)(ii).
Under today's rule, however, you are required to implement the
approach differently. As discussed above, this approach is problematic
if implemented as currently required because you are not able to
calculate an hourly rolling average, for example, until you record 60
one-minute average values for a parameter under the new mode of
operation. During that hiatus, you cannot document compliance with the
OPLs. Under today's rule, to calculate an hourly rolling average after
changing a mode of operation, you must calculate the hourly rolling
average as the average of the available one-minute values for the
parameter until enough one-minute values are available to calculate an
hourly rolling average. Similarly, to calculate a 12-hour rolling
average immediately after changing a mode of operation, you must
calculate the 12-hour rolling average as the average of the available
one-minute values for the parameter until enough one-minute values are
available to calculate a 12-hour rolling average. See new
Sec. 63.1209(q)(2)(ii). This is a conservative approach to calculating
rolling averages because you are not able to use the full averaging
period to lessen the impact of abnormally high one-minute recordings
until you accumulate, for example, 60 one-minute averages for the
hourly rolling average.
You may not transition to a new mode of operation using this
approach if the most recent operation in that mode resulted in an
exceedance of an applicable emission standard measured with a CEMS or
operating parameter limit prior to the hazardous waste residence time
expiring. This condition ensures that sources cannot avoid compliance
with Sec. 63.1206(c)(3)(iii) after an automatic waste feed cutoff by
ignoring the parameter recordings that occurred when hazardous waste
was in the combustion chamber and the OPLs were exceeded, and then
quickly restarting the hazardous waste feed once the operating
parameters and emission levels are within the specified limits.\10\ The
purpose of this provision is to provide an additional incentive to
avoid exceedances when hazardous waste is in the combustion chamber by
delaying restart of the hazardous waste feed until the operating
parameters (and emissions measured with a CEMS) are within the limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ See letter form Jim Berlow, USEPA, to Michelle Luck, Cement
Kiln Recycling Coalition, dated June 21, 2001 (in the docket for
this rulemaking).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. How Does the Seamless Transition Approach Work?
Several commenters recommend the seamless transition approach that
we discussed in footnote 41 in the July 3, 2001 proposal. 66 FR at
35146. Under this approach, you continue calculating

[[Page 6981]]

rolling averages using data from the previous operating mode provided
that both the operating limits and the averaging period for the
parameter are the same for both modes of operation. We agree that this
approach is an appropriate alternative and finalize it as new
Sec. 63.1209(q)(2)(iii). Note, however, that if parameter recordings
from a previous mode of operation where you may not be burning
hazardous waste contribute to an exceedance in the new mode of
operation when you are burning hazardous waste and hazardous waste
remains in the combustion chamber, you have nonetheless exceeded an
emission standard or operating limit when hazardous waste is in the
combustion chamber.

IX. What Are the Procedures for Allowing Use of Less Sensitive Bag
Leak Detection Systems?

In the July 2001 proposed rule, we requested comment on whether the
bag leak detection system requirements should be revised to explicitly
allow sources to petition the Administrator to use bag leak detection
monitors that have detection limits higher than 1.0 milligrams per
actual cubic meter as required by the September 1999 final rule. See 66
FR at 35134. We reasoned that less sensitive bag leak detectors would
be acceptable in situations where the detector could nonetheless detect
subtle changes in baseline, normal mass emissions of particulate
matter. In determining whether the detector is sensitive enough to
detect subtle changes in baseline, normal mass emissions, the
permitting authority could consider information such as results of
site-specific tests that document the detector provides a measurable
and repeatable change in opacity output with an increase in particulate
matter mass emissions at normal emission levels.
All commenters support this revision, saying that we should
explicitly allow a source to petition the Agency using the alternative
monitoring provisions under Sec. 63.1209(g)(1) to use a less sensitive
bag leak detector. Therefore, we are revising new
Sec. 63.1206(c)(7)(ii)(A)(1) by appending it with the following phrase:
``* * * unless a source demonstrates, pursuant to the procedures in
Sec. 63.1209(g)(1), that a higher sensitivity would adequately detect
bag leaks.''

Part Four-What Technical Corrections Are Being Made in Today's
Rule?

I. What Corrections Are We Making to Part 63, Subpart EEE?

We are making several corrections to 40 CFR part 63, Subpart EEE,
published on September 30, 1999.

A. Several Typographical Errors Are Corrected

In today's rule, we correct a typographical error shown in entry
(2) in Table 1 to Sec. 63.1200 by replacing the word ``extent'' with
``extend.''
We also revise by italicizing several paragraph numbers and
headings that will make the regulatory text easier to read. The
paragraphs revised include Secs. 63.1206(b)(5)(i)(C)(1),
63.1209(g)(1)(B)(1) through (3), 63.1209(g)(1)(C)(1) and (2),
63.1209(l)(1), 63.1209(m)(3), 63.1209(n)(4), and 63.1209(o)(1).
We also correct several typographical errors. We correct
Sec. 63.1207(f)(1)(x) by removing an extra '')'' from the paragraph.
Section 63.1207(m)(4)(i) is corrected by capitalizing ``Notification of
Compliance.'' We correct a typographical error in the first sentence of
Sec. 63.1209(b)(5)(iii)(A) by removing the word ``to'' before the word
``monitoring.'' The typographical error in the heading of paragraph
Sec. 63.1209(k)(8)(ii) is also corrected. We revise the paragraph
heading from ``mum time in-use'' to ``Maximum time in-use.'' Finally,
we correct a typographical error in the first sentence of
Sec. 63.1213(a) by replacing the word ``data'' with ``date.''

B. Several Citations Are Corrected

In the May 14, 2001 rule, we removed the Notice of Intent to Comply
(NIC) provisions that were vacated in Chemical Manufacturers
Association v. EPA, 217 F.3d 861 (D.C. Cir. 2000). When we removed the
NIC requirements from Secs. 63.1210 and 63.1211 and redesignated
follow-on paragraphs in those sections, we did not also revise several
references to the redesignated paragraphs of Secs. 63.1210 and 63.1211.
The paragraphs revised include Secs. 63.1206(b)(11), 63.1206(c)(1)(i),
63.1207(j)(1)(ii), 63.1207(j)(3), 63.1209(a)(1)(ii)(A), 63.1209(f)(1),
and 266.100(b)(1).
In the May 14, 2001 rule, we also made changes to the compliance
dates provisions of Sec. 63.1206(a). However, when we redesignated
paragraph (a)(3) to (a)(2) in that rule, we inadvertently failed also
to revise a cite within old paragraph (a)(3). Today's rule corrects the
reference in Sec. 63.1206(a)(2) from paragraph (a)(3)(ii) to
(a)(2)(ii).
We also correct an incorrect citation in Sec. 63.1207(f)(1)(xvii).
This paragraph inadvertently refers to Sec. 63.1209(m)(5)(i) instead of
Sec. 63.1209(n)(5)(i). We make that correction today.
Finally, we correct an incorrect citation in
Sec. 63.1207(m)(4)(ii). This paragraph inadvertently refers to
Sec. 63.1207(m)(3)(iv) instead of Sec. 63.1207(m)(4)(i). We make that
correction today.

II. What Correction Are We Making to Sec. 266.100?

We are making two corrections to Sec. 266.100(d) to correct errors
made when we promulgated the September 30, 1999 final rule. When we
added Sec. 266.100(b) to address integration of the MACT standards and
redesignated paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f), as (c), (d), (e),
(f), and (g), respectively, we did not revise several references within
these paragraphs. Today's rule revises the reference to old paragraph
(c)(2) in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B) to (d)(2); the reference to old
paragraph (c)(1)(iii) in paragraph (d)(2)(i) to (d)(1)(iii); the
reference to old paragraph (c)(1)(iii) in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) to
(d)(1)(iii); the reference to old paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(3) in
paragraph (d)(3) to (d)(1) and (d)(3), respectively; the reference to
old paragraph (c)(1) in paragraph (d)(3)(i) to (d)(1); and the
reference to old paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(1)(ii) in paragraph
(d)(3)(i)(D) to (d)(3) and (d)(1)(ii), respectively.
In addition, when we added Sec. 266.100(h) in the September 30,
1999 final rule to provide reduced sampling and analysis and
notification and recordkeeping requirements for secondary lead smelters
complying with the Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP, we inadvertently
deleted regulatory language in old paragraph (c)(3) that was
redesignated paragraph (d)(3). We restore that regulatory language in
(d)(3) today.
Finally, we correct a reference in Sec. 266.100(a) from paragraphs
(b), (c), (d), and (f) to paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (g), and (h).

III. What Correction Are We Making to Sec. 270.42(j)(1): Combustion
Facility Changes To Meet Part 63 MACT Standards?

We are correcting an error in the RCRA permitting regulations
relating to the vacature of the Notification of Intent to Comply (NIC)
and its associated requirements. On October 11, 2000, the D.C. Circuit
issued a mandate to vacate the Notification of Intent to Comply
provisions of 40 CFR part 63, Subpart EEE (Chemical Manufacturers
Association v. EPA, 217 F. 3d 861, D.C.

[[Page 6982]]

Cir. 2000). We subsequently directed the Office of the Federal Register
to remove those provisions from the Code of Federal Regulations on May
14, 2001 (66 FR 24270). Since sources were required to comply with the
NIC requirements in order to be eligible for the RCRA Streamlined
Permit Modification procedure, we also modified Sec. 270.42(j)(1) to
address the court's mandate.
Previously, Sec. 270.42(j)(1) required owners or operators to first
comply with the NIC requirements of Sec. 63.1210 before requesting a
streamlined RCRA permit modification. Sources were required to submit
their final NICs by October 2, 2000. Since the court's mandate was not
issued until after existing sources were required to submit their NICs,
we determined that the court's action did not impact the sources'
eligibility for a streamlined RCRA permit modification, provided, of
course, that they submitted their NICs by October 2, 2000, as required
by the rule. To clarify this in the regulatory language, we revised
Sec. 270.42(j)(1) to state that owners or operators must have complied
with the Notification of Intent to Comply requirements of Sec. 63.1210
that were in effect prior to May 14, 2001 in order to request a
streamlined permit modification. In doing so, we incorrectly referred
to the date that we removed the NIC provisions from the federal
regulations (May 14, 2001) as the date on which those provisions were
no longer in effect. Instead, we should have referenced the date of the
court's mandate (October 11, 2000). The removal of the requirements
from the federal regulations was only a ministerial action in
acknowledgment of the court's October 11, 2000 order to vacate. Thus,
in today's rulemaking, we are correcting the referenced date in
Sec. 270.42(j)(1) from May 14, 2001 to October 11, 2000.

IV. What Correction Are We Making to Table 1 to Subpart EEE--
General Provisions Applicable to Subpart EEE?

Table 1 to Subpart EEE identifies which General Provisions provided
under Subpart A, Part 63, are not applicable to hazardous waste
combustors. We are amending that table to: (1) conform to revisions to
Subpart EEE promulgated in a related final rule establishing interim
emission standards and which was published in the Federal Register on
February 13, 2002; (2) to make several other technical corrections; and
(3) to clarify the explanation of the applicability of the General
Provisions.
We are making the following specific corrections to Table 1 to
Subpart EEE:
a. The applicability explanations for Secs. 63.6(e), (f), and (h),
and 63.7(e) are corrected to acknowledge that the emission standards
and operating requirements of Subpart EEE do not apply during startup,
shutdown, and malfunctions;
b. The applicability explanation for Sec. 63.7(a) is clarified to
note that Sec. 63.1207(e)(3) allows you to petition the Administrator
under Sec. 63.7(h) to provide an extension of time to conduct a
performance test;
c. The applicability explanation for Sec. 63.8(c) is revised to
correct the reference to Sec. 63.1211(c) rather than Sec. 63.1211(d);
d. The applicability explanations for Secs. 63.8(c) and (g) are
revised to delete the reference to applicability only to cement kilns
because it is self-evident that only cement kilns are subject to an
opacity emission standard under Subpart EEE. Further, if other sources
were to use a COMS under alternative monitoring or other provisions,
those sources would be required to comply with Sec. 63.8(c); and
e. The applicability explanation for Sec. 63.9(f) is corrected to
require compliance with that paragraph for sources that are allowed
under Sec. 63.1209(a)(1)(v) to use visible determinations of opacity
for compliance in lieu of a COMS.

Part Five--What Are the Analytical and Regulatory Requirements?

I. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866, EPA must determine whether a
regulatory action is significant and, therefore, subject to
comprehensive review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and
the other provisions of the Executive Order. A significant regulatory
action is defined by the Order as one that may:
Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;

--Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action
taken or planned by another agency;
--Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user
fees, or loan programs or rights and obligations or recipients thereof;
or
--Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in Executive Order
12866.

Today's final action was submitted to OMB for review and
confirmation. Pursuant to the terms of the Executive Order, the Agency,
in conjunction with OMB has determined that today's final amendments
rule does not represent a ``significant regulatory action.'' Today's
final action does not meet any of the criteria identified above.
Changes to this section of the Preamble made in response to OMB
suggestions or recommendations are documented in the public record.
The aggregate annualized social cost for this final rule are less
than $100 million. Furthermore, this rule is not expected to adversely
effect, in a material way, the economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. The
benefits to human health and the environment resulting from today's
final rule have not been monetized but are believed to be less than
$100 million per year.

II. What Economic and Equity Analyses Were Completed in Support of
the Proposed Rule?

We prepared two economic support documents for the July 3, 2001
proposed rule: Assessment of Potential Costs, Benefits and Other
Impacts, NESHAP: Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous
Waste Combustors--Technical Amendments to the Final Rule: NESHAP: Final
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors,
September 30, 1999, dated May, 2001, and Regulatory Flexibility
Screening Analysis (RFSA) For NESHAP: Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors Technical Amendments to the
Final Rule: NESHAP: Final Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Hazardous Waste Combustors, September 30, 1999, dated May, 2001. Both
documents are available in the docket established for the July 3, 2001
action.
The Assessment document addressed both the thirteen direct final
amendments and the twenty proposed amendments. Three of the proposed
amendments in the direct final rule are finalized in today's rule and
are projected to result in cost savings. Our analysis found that the
amendment revising the alternative to the particulate matter standard
for incinerators resulted in the single most significant projected cost
savings. This amendment accounted for an estimated 77 percent, or
$707,500, of the total quantifiable annual cost savings of $918,500.
The direct final amendment addressing

[[Page 6983]]

feedstream analysis was projected to result in annual cost savings of
$180,000, while the amendment on deletion of one-time notification of
compliance accounted for the remaining cost savings. The total
projected cost burden associated with the July 3, 2001 direct final
amendments was estimated at $8,700 per year. The analysis found that
most of the cost burdens are easily quantifiable, whereas many of the
cost savings were not readily quantifiable and, are therefore not
included in the aggregate estimate.
We were able to develop a quantified cost savings estimate for only
one of the twenty proposed amendments in the Assessment. The amendment
addressing method 23 as an alternative to method 0023A for dioxin/
furans was projected to result in cost savings of $102,600 per year.
Five of the twenty proposed amendments were projected to result in an
aggregate quantifiable cost burden of $361,100 per year. Approximately
45 percent of this increased cost burden would be on the government.
The proposed amendment revising the operator training and certification
provisions was estimated to account for 84 percent of the total
estimated cost burden.
No measurable impacts were projected in any of the following
categories related to equity and regulatory concerns: environmental
justice; children's health protection; unfunded mandates; tribal
governments; and regulatory takings.
The RFSA document prepared in support of the July 3, 2001 actions
analyzed potential impacts to small entities associated with both the
direct final and proposed amendments. Based on our worst-case scenario,
we found that there would not be a significant economic impact on any
of the small business combustor companies subject to rule (amendment)
requirements.

III. What Substantive Comments Were Received on the Cost/Economic
Aspects of Proposed Rule?

We received no substantive comments on the cost/economic issues
associated with either the direct final or proposed amendments.
Selected commenters, however, incorporated minor references to cost
issues as part of their comments on other issues. One commenter
indicated that unnecessary testing cost increases and complications
would result without the flexibility to use DRE data in lieu of
testing. The incorporation of this amendment into today's final rule
relieves this cost concern. Two commenters indicated support for the
Agency's proposed amendment that would allow use of site-specific
operator training and certification programs. This flexibility was
supported as a means of avoiding the burden and complications
associated with training requirements established under the final rule.
The incorporation of this amendment into today's final rule addresses
this cost concern.
Four commenters referenced cost issues associated with the
amendment addressing the time extension for performance testing. These
commenters generally supported the amendment but felt, in some cases,
that it did not go far enough to address unforeseen circumstances and
to mitigate the concerns associated with the potential for unnecessary
performance testing and related costs. We are sensitive to these
concerns; however, we continue to believe that an open-ended test date
will not provide an incentive for either sources or regulatory
officials to resolve differences related to the test plan. We believe
that this stimulus will help mitigate unnecessary cost impacts.

IV. What Are the Potential Costs and Benefits of Today's Final
Rule?

The value of any regulatory action is traditionally measured by the
net change in social welfare that it generates. A rule that generates
positive net welfare would be advantageous to society and should be
promulgated. A rule that results in negative net welfare to society
should be avoided, assuming all other factors are equal.
We have assessed the impacts of this final rule in our economic
support document: Assessment of Potential Costs, Benefits and Other
Impacts, and, Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis (RFSA) for
NESHAP: Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste
Combustors; Final Rule--Amendments to the NESHAP: Final Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors: Final Rule,
September 30, 1999, dated January 2, 2002. This document is available
in the docket established in support of today's action. A brief summary
of findings is presented below.
Today's rule revises several requirements promulgated in the
September 30, 1999 rule. Cost impacts associated with the final
amendments are not fully quantifiable. All amendments, however, are
projected to result in zero cost impacts or national annual net cost
savings to industry, as projected from the baseline of the September
30, 1999 rule. The total cost burden to government associated with the
final amendments is estimated at $160,000 per year. No quantifiable
benefits and/or environmental implications have been identified.

V. What Consideration Was Given to Small Entities Under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601
et. seq.?

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the
impacts of today's final rule on small entities, a small entity is
defined either by the number of employees or by the annual dollar
amount of sales/revenues. The level at which an entity is considered
small is determined for each NAICS code by the Small Business
Administration (SBA).
The Agency has examined the potential effects today's final rule
may have on small entities, as required by the RFA/SBREFA. We have
found that four of the final amendments are projected to result in
measurable cost impacts. The amendment addressing feedstream analysis
for organic HAPs would result in cost savings but we expect that only
larger operations would be impacted. The other three final amendments
are projected to result in a measurable cost burden. Of these three,
only the amendment addressing operator training and certification may
potentially result in a cost burden to small hazardous waste
combustors. Under an assumed worst-case, or high end cost scenario, we
estimate maximum total costs on each ``small'' hazardous waste
combustor company to average $25,700 ($154,000/6 = $25,700 per
``small'' source). Based on this high cost scenario, impacts on an
individual small company basis would be no more than 0.71 percent of
the annual gross sales. This figure is less than our threshold of 1
percent for determination of potentially significant economic impact.
This amendment, however, was designed to ultimately provide regulatory
relief. The lack of available data prevented us from quantifying cost
savings potentially associated with this amendment. Overall impacts are
likely to be considerably less than the 0.71 percent ``high-end''
estimate presented here. Based on this analysis we believe that it is
reasonable to conclude that

[[Page 6984]]

there would not be a significant economic impact to any of the small
business combustor companies potentially subject to rule requirements.
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Full details of the small entity analysis are presented in our
report: Assessment of Potential Costs, Benefits and Other Impacts, and,
Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis (RFSA) for NESHAP: Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors; Final
Rule--Amendments to the NESHAPS: Final Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors: Final Rule, September 30,
1999, dated January 2, 2002. This document is available in the docket
established in support of today's action.

VI. Was the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Considered In This Final
Rule?

Executive Order 12875, ``Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership'' (October 26, 1993), calls on federal agencies to provide
a statement supporting the need to issue any regulation containing an
unfunded federal mandate and describing prior consultation with
representatives of affected state, local, and tribal governments.
Signed into law on March 22, 1995, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) supersedes Executive Order 12875, reiterating the previously
established directives while also imposing additional requirements for
federal agencies issuing any regulation containing an unfunded mandate.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
single year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome
alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an
explanation why that alternative was not adopted.
Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
Today's final rule is not subject to the requirements of UMRA.
Today's final rule will not result in $100 million or more in
expenditures. The aggregate annualized social costs for today's final
rule are projected to be less than one million dollars. Furthermore,
today's rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA.
Section 203 requires agencies to develop a small government Agency plan
before establishing any regulatory requirements that may significantly
or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments. We
have determined that this rule will not significantly or uniquely
affect small governments.

VII. Were Equity Issues and Children's Health Considered In This
Final Rule?

By applicable executive order, we are required to consider the
impacts of today's rule with regard to environmental justice and
children's health.

(1) Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'

``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O.
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA
has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate
the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered
by the Agency. Today's final rule is not subject to the Executive Order
because it is not economically significant, as defined in Executive
Order 12866.

(2) Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population'' (February
11, 1994), is designed to address the environmental and human health
conditions of minority and low-income populations. EPA is committed to
addressing environmental justice concerns and has assumed a leadership
role in environmental justice initiatives to enhance environmental
quality for all citizens of the United States. The Agency's goals are
to ensure that no segment of the population, regardless of race, color,
national origin, income, or net worth bears disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental impacts as a result of EPA's
policies, programs, and activities. In response to Executive Order
12898, and to concerns voiced by many groups outside the Agency, EPA's
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) formed an
Environmental Justice Task Force to analyze the array of environmental
justice issues specific to waste programs and to develop an overall
strategy to identify and address these issues (OSWER Directive No.
9200.3-17). We have no data indicating that today's final rule would
result in disproportionately negative impacts on minority or low income
communities.

VIII. What Consideration Was Given to Tribal Governments In This
Final Rule?

Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
Today's final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on

[[Page 6985]]

the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in the Order. Today's rule
will not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian
tribal governments, nor impose substantial direct compliance costs on
them.

IX. Were Federalism Implications Considered in Today's Final Rule?

Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' are defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
Today's final rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in the Order. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this rule.

X. Were Energy Impacts Considered?

Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (May 18, 2001), addresses the
need for regulatory actions to more fully consider the potential energy
impacts of the proposed rule and resulting actions. Under the Order,
agencies are required to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects when a
regulatory action may have significant adverse effects on energy
supply, distribution, or use, including impacts on price and foreign
supplies. Additionally, the requirements obligate agencies to consider
reasonable alternatives to regulatory actions with adverse affects and
the impacts the alternatives might have upon energy supply,
distribution, or use.
Today's final rule is not likely to have any significant adverse
impact on factors affecting energy supply. We believe that Executive
Order 13211 is not relevant to this action.

XI. Paperwork Reduction Act

We have prepared an Information Collection Request (ICR) document
(ICR No. 1773.07) listing the information collection requirements of
this final rule, and have submitted it for approval to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. OMB has assigned a control number
2050-0171 for this ICR. A copy of this ICR may be obtained from Sandy
Farmer, OPIA Regulatory Information Division, U.S. Environment
Protection Agency (2137), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC
20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740.
The public burden associated with this final rule (which is under
the Clean Air Act) is projected to affect approximately 171 HWC units
and is estimated to average 7.6 hours per respondent annually. The
reporting and recordkeeping cost burden is estimated to average $440
per respondent annually. Burden means total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose,
or provide information to or for a Federal agency. That includes the
time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and
utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting,
validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining
information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

XII. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Pub L. No. 104-113, Sec. 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This final rule does not require the implementation of technical
standards, as defined above; thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of
the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply.

XIII. The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as Added
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996)

Is Today's Final Action Subject to Congressional Review?

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 801 et seq., as added
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A Major Rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
Sec. 804(2). This final rule will become effective on February 14,
2002.

Part Six--Delegation Implications

I. What Is the Authority for the Final Amendment Rule?

Unlike the September 30, 1999 Final HWC NESHAP rule, this rule does
not include any significant changes or additions affecting the RCRA
program. This Final Amendment Rule amends the promulgated standards
located in 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE. Therefore, this discussion
pertains only to delegation of amendments to State, Local, and Tribal
(S/L/T) agencies pursuant to the CAA program.
Section 112(l) of the CAA allows us to delegate the authority to S/
L/T programs to implement and enforce emission standards for pollutants
subject to section 112 regulations. Thus, a S/L/T agency that receives
112(l) delegation can implement and enforce the amendments being made
today. A S/L/T agency also can implement the amendments for Title V
major sources (see 40 CFR 70.2) via their Title V authority because it
is independent of their delegation status. By having an approved Title
V program, the S/L/T agency has demonstrated that it has the legal
authority, resources, and expertise to implement and enforce standards
for section 112 pollutants.
As before, we encourage S/L/T agencies to apply for and receive
112(l) delegation for this rule. The key advantages afforded to S/L/T
agencies

[[Page 6986]]

who receive delegation are that they become the primary enforcement
authority and can exercise delegable provision authorities.
Additionally, it ensures clear and consistent requirements for affected
sources and regulators. For example, a source need only report
compliance assurance monitoring to its primary enforcement authority.
State, Local, and Tribal agencies still have the ability to choose
which delegation options to use when applying for delegation of Federal
authorities for this rule. The 112(l) delegation process begins when
the S/L/T agency applies for delegation of a section 112 rule without
changes (straight delegation), by rule adjustment, substitution of
requirements, state program approval (SPA), or equivalency by permit
(EBP).\11\ Also, the partial approval option is available for any S/L/T
who cannot or chooses not to take full delegation of an entire
standard. The drawback to this option is that it can create
inconsistent requirements since the S/L/T agency will enforce portions
of the standard, while we will enforce the remaining portions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ Refer to Hazardous Air Pollutants: Amendments to the
Approval of State Programs and Delegation of Federal Authorities;
Final Rule at 65 FR 55810 or the CAA Delegation for the HWC NESHAP
fact sheet at www.epa.gov/combustion/toolkit/caadelg.pdf
for further information on delegation procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Why Should I Apply for Delegation of This Rule?

This rule will be effective upon promulgation. As with the Phase I
NESHAP, a S/L/T agency will need to incorporate the amendments of this
rule into a major source's new, renewed, or revised Title V permit
regardless of whether it has received delegation. However, by receiving
delegation of 112(l), a S/L/T agency can approve minor changes to a
Federal NESHAP. For instance, it can substitute an emission limitation
that is more stringent than a Federal standard.
In light of the benefits afforded to a
S/L/T agency if it receives 112(l) delegation, we recognize that the
process of applying for and receiving delegation can be a lengthy one.
This may be especially true for those agencies that do not have
established agreements in place to receive automatic delegation of
unchanged standards. There are agencies who choose to utilize the
delegation options provided under 112(l), which are not as
straightforward as the unchanged standards. In these cases, the review
period required when applying for one of the delegation options
combined with a state's legislative proceedings, are factors that can
prolong the delegation process. Therefore, we encourage the S/L/T
agency to do what makes sense given circumstances relevant to timing
issues and resource needs.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 63

Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 266

Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous waste,
Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 270

Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous materials
transportation, Hazardous waste, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water pollution control, Water supply.

Dated: February 7, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSIONS STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

2. Section 63.14 is amended by adding paragraph (i) to read as
follows:

Sec. 63.14 Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
(i) ASME standard number QHO-1-1994 and QHO-1a-1996 Addenda. This
standard is titled as ``Standard for the Qualification and
Certification of Hazardous Waste Incinerator Operators.'' The Director
of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a
copy of this document from the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, 345 East 47th Street, New York, N.Y. 10017. You may inspect
a copy at the RCRA Information Center, Crystal Gateway One, 1235
Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202, or at the Office of the
Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington,
DC.
3. Section 63.1200 is amended by revising entry (2) in Table 1 in
paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec. 63.1200 Who is subject to these regulations?

* * * * *
(b) * * *

Table 1 to Sec. 63.1200.--Hazardous Waste Combustors Exempt From Subpart EEE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If * * * And If * * * Then * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
(2) You are a research, development, You operate for no longer than one year You are not subject to this
and demonstration source. after first burning hazardous waste (Note subpart (Subpart EEE). This
that the Administrator can extend this exemption applies even if
one-year restriction on a case-by-case there is a hazardous waste
basis upon your written request combustor at the plant site
documenting when you first burned that is regulated under this
hazardous waste and the justification for subpart. You still, however,
needing additional time to perform remain subject to Sec.
research, development, or demonstration 270.65 of this chapter.
operations).

* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 6987]]

* * * * *

4. Section 63.1201 is amended by adding the definition of
``Preheater tower combustion gas monitoring location'' to paragraph (a)
in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Sec. 63.1201 Definitions and acronyms used in this subpart.

(a) * * *
Preheater tower combustion gas monitoring location means a location
within the preheater tower of a dry process cement kiln downstream (in
terms of gas flow) of all hazardous waste firing locations and where a
representative sample of combustion gas to measure combustion
efficiency can be monitored.
* * * * *

5. Section 63.1204 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(1)(iii) to
read as follows:

Sec. 63.1204 What are the standards for hazardous waste burning cement
kilns?

* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) You must calculate rolling averages for operating parameter
limits as provided by Sec. 63.1209(q)(2).
* * * * *

6. Section 63.1206 is amended by:
a. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (a)(2)(i).
b. Redesignating paragraph (a)(4) as (a)(3).
c. Revising paragraphs (b)(5)(i)(C)(1), (b)(6)(i) and (b)(6)(ii),
(b)(7), (b)(11), and (b)(13)(i).
d. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(i) introductory text, (c)(5)(i)(C),
(c)(6), and (c)(7)(ii).
e. Adding paragraph (c)(5)(i)(D).
The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec. 63.1206 When and how must you comply with the standards and
operating requirements?

(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) If you commenced construction or reconstruction of your
hazardous waste combustor after April 19, 1996, you must comply with
this subpart by the later of September 30, 1999 or the date the source
starts operations, except as provided by paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this
section. * * *
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(5) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) * * *
(1) Except as provided by paragraph (b)(5)(i)(C)(2) of this
section, after the change and prior to submitting the notification of
compliance, you must not burn hazardous waste for more than a total of
720 hours (renewable at the discretion of the Administrator) and only
for the purposes of pretesting or comprehensive performance testing.
Pretesting is defined at Sec. 63.1207(h)(2)(i) and (ii).
* * * * *
(6) * * *
(i) If a DRE test performed pursuant to Sec. 63.1207(c)(2) is
acceptable as documentation of compliance with the DRE standard, you
may use the highest hourly rolling average hydrocarbon level achieved
during the DRE test runs to document compliance with the hydrocarbon
standard. An acceptable DRE test is any test for which the data and
results are determined to meet quality assurance objectives (on a site-
specific basis) such that the results adequately demonstrate compliance
with the DRE standard.
(ii) If during this acceptable DRE test you did not obtain
hydrocarbon emissions data sufficient to document compliance with the
hydrocarbon standard, you must either:
(A) Perform, as part of the performance test, an ``equivalent DRE
test'' to document compliance with the hydrocarbon standard. An
equivalent DRE test is comprised of a minimum of three runs each with a
minimum duration of one hour during which you operate the combustor as
close as reasonably possible to the operating parameter limits that you
established based on the initial DRE test. You must use the highest
hourly rolling average hydrocarbon emission level achieved during the
equivalent DRE test to document compliance with the hydrocarbon
standard; or
(B) Perform a DRE test as part of the performance test.
(7) Compliance with the DRE standard. (i) Except as provided in
paragraphs (b)(7)(ii) and (b)(7)(iii) of this section:
(A) You must document compliance with the Destruction and Removal
Efficiency (DRE) standard under Secs. 63.1203 through 63.1205 only once
provided that you do not modify the source after the DRE test in a
manner that could affect the ability of the source to achieve the DRE
standard.
(B) You may use any DRE test data that documents that your source
achieves the required level of DRE provided:
(1) You have not modified the design or operation of your source in
a manner that could effect the ability of your source to achieve the
DRE standard since the DRE test was performed; and,
(2) The DRE test data meet quality assurance objectives determined
on a site-specific basis.
(ii) Sources that feed hazardous waste at a location in the
combustion system other than the normal flame zone must demonstrate
compliance with the DRE standard during each comprehensive performance
test;
(iii) For sources that do not use DRE previous testing to document
conformance with the DRE standard pursuant to Sec. 63.1207(c)(2), you
must perform DRE testing during the initial comprehensive performance
test.
* * * * *
(11) Calculation of hazardous waste residence time. You must
calculate the hazardous waste residence time and include the
calculation in the performance test plan under Sec. 63.1207(f) and the
operating record. You must also provide the hazardous waste residence
time in the Documentation of Compliance under Sec. 63.1211(c) and the
Notification of Compliance under Secs. 63.1207(j) and 63.1210(b).
* * * * *
(13) * * *
(i) Cement kilns that feed hazardous waste at a location other than
the end where products are normally discharged and where fuels are
normally fired must comply with the carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon
standards of Sec. 63.1204 as follows:
(A) For existing sources, you must not discharge or cause
combustion gases to be emitted into the atmosphere that contain either:
(1) Hydrocarbons in the main stack in excess of 20 parts per
million by volume, over an hourly rolling average (monitored
continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis,
corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and reported as propane; or
(2) Hydrocarbons both in the by-pass duct and at a preheater tower
combustion gas monitoring location in excess of 10 parts per million by
volume, at each location, over an hourly rolling average (monitored
continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis,
corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and reported as propane; or
(3) If the only firing location of hazardous waste upstream (in
terms of gas flow) of the point where combustion gases are diverted
into the bypass duct is at the kiln end where products are normally
discharged, then both hydrocarbons at the preheater tower combustion
gas monitoring location in excess of 10 parts per million by volume,
over an hourly rolling average

[[Page 6988]]

(monitored continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring system),
dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and reported as propane, and
either hydrocarbons in the by-pass duct in excess of 10 parts per
million by volume, over an hourly rolling average (monitored
continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis,
corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and reported as propane, or carbon
monoxide in excess of 100 parts per million by volume, over an hourly
rolling average (monitored continuously with a continuous emissions
monitoring system), dry basis, and corrected to 7 percent oxygen. If
you comply with the carbon monoxide standard of 100 parts per million
by volume in the by-pass duct, then you must also not discharge or
cause combustion gases to be emitted into the atmosphere that contain
hydrocarbons in the by-pass duct in excess of 10 parts per million by
volume, over an hourly rolling average (monitored continuously with a
continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis, corrected to 7
percent oxygen, and reported as propane, at any time during the
destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) test runs or their equivalent
as provided by Sec. 63.1206(b)(7).
(B) For new sources, you must not discharge or cause combustion
gases to be emitted into the atmosphere that contain either:
(1) Hydrocarbons in the main stack in excess of 20 parts per
million by volume, over an hourly rolling average (monitored
continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis,
corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and reported as propane; or
(2)(i) Hydrocarbons both in the by-pass duct and at a preheater
tower combustion gas monitoring location in excess of 10 parts per
million by volume, at each location, over an hourly rolling average
(monitored continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring system),
dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and reported as propane, and
(ii) Hydrocarbons in the main stack, if construction of the kiln
commenced after April 19, 1996 at a plant site where a cement kiln
(whether burning hazardous waste or not) did not previously exist, to
50 parts per million by volume, over a 30-day block average (monitored
continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis,
corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and reported as propane; or
(3)(i) If the only firing location of hazardous waste upstream (in
terms of gas flow) of the point where combustion gases are diverted
into the bypass duct is at the kiln end where products are normally
discharged, then both hydrocarbons at the preheater tower combustion
gas monitoring location in excess of 10 parts per million by volume,
over an hourly rolling average (monitored continuously with a
continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis, corrected to 7
percent oxygen, and reported as propane, and either hydrocarbons in the
by-pass duct in excess of 10 parts per million by volume, over an
hourly rolling average (monitored continuously with a continuous
emissions monitoring system), dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen,
and reported as propane, or carbon monoxide in excess of 100 parts per
million by volume, over an hourly rolling average (monitored
continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis,
and corrected to 7 percent oxygen. If you comply with the carbon
monoxide standard of 100 parts per million by volume in the by-pass
duct, then you must also not discharge or cause combustion gases to be
emitted into the atmosphere that contain hydrocarbons in the by-pass
duct in excess of 10 parts per million by volume, over an hourly
rolling average (monitored continuously with a continuous emissions
monitoring system), dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and
reported as propane, at any time during the destruction and removal
efficiency (DRE) test runs or their equivalent as provided by
Sec. 63.1206(b)(7).
(ii) If construction of the kiln commenced after April 19, 1996 at
a plant site where a cement kiln (whether burning hazardous waste or
not) did not previously exist, hydrocarbons are limited to 50 parts per
million by volume, over a 30-day block average (monitored continuously
with a continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis, corrected to
7 percent oxygen, and reported as propane.
* * * * *
(c)* * * (1) * * * (i) You must operate only under the operating
requirements specified in the Documentation of Compliance under
Sec. 63.1211(c) or the Notification of Compliance under
Secs. 63.1207(j) and 63.1210(b), except:
* * * * *
(5) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) Upon prior written approval of the Administrator, an
alternative means of control to provide control of combustion system
leaks equivalent to maintenance of combustion zone pressure lower than
ambient pressure; or
(D) Upon prior written approval of the Administrator, other
technique(s) which can be demonstrated to prevent fugitive emissions
without use of instantaneous pressure limits; and
* * * * *
(6) Operator training and certification. (i) You must establish
training programs for all categories of personnel whose activities may
reasonably be expected to directly affect emissions of hazardous air
pollutants from the source. Such persons include, but are not limited
to, chief facility operators, control room operators, continuous
monitoring system operators, persons that sample and analyze
feedstreams, persons that manage and charge feedstreams to the
combustor, persons that operate emission control devices, and ash and
waste handlers. Each training program shall be of a technical level
commensurate with the person's job duties specified in the training
manual. Each commensurate training program shall require an examination
to be administered by the instructor at the end of the training course.
Passing of this test shall be deemed the ``certification'' for
personnel, except that, for control room operators, the training and
certification program shall be as specified in paragraphs (c)(6)(iii)
through (c)(6)(vi) of this section.
(ii) You must ensure that the source is operated and maintained at
all times by persons who are trained and certified to perform these and
any other duties that may affect emissions of hazardous air pollutants.
A certified control room operator must be on duty at the site at all
times the source is in operation.
(iii) Hazardous waste incinerator control room operators must:
(A) Be trained and certified under a site-specific, source-
developed and implemented program that meets the requirements of
paragraph (c)(6)(v) of this section; or
(B) Be trained under the requirements of, and certified under, the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers Standard Number QHO-1-1994 and
QHO-1a-1996 Addenda (incorporated by reference--see Sec. 63.14(e)). If
you choose to use the ASME program:
(1) Control room operators must, prior to the compliance date,
achieve provisional certification, and must submit an application to
ASME and be scheduled for the full certification exam. Within one year
of the compliance date, control room operators must achieve full
certification;
(2) New operators and operators of new sources must, before
assuming their

[[Page 6989]]

duties, achieve provisional certification, and must submit an
application to ASME, and be scheduled for the full certification exam.
Within one year of assuming their duties, these operators must achieve
full certification; or
(C) Be trained and certified under a State program.
(iv) Cement kiln and lightweight aggregate kiln control room
operators must be trained and certified under:
(A) A site-specific, source-developed and implemented program that
meets the requirements of paragraph (c)(6)(v) of this section; or
(B) A State program.
(v) Site-specific, source developed and implemented training
programs for control room operators must include the following
elements:
(A) Training on the following subjects:
(1) Environmental concerns, including types of emissions;
(2) Basic combustion principles, including products of combustion;
(3) Operation of the specific type of combustor used by the
operator, including proper startup, waste firing, and shutdown
procedures;
(4) Combustion controls and continuous monitoring systems;
(5) Operation of air pollution control equipment and factors
affecting performance;
(6) Inspection and maintenance of the combustor, continuous
monitoring systems, and air pollution control devices;
(7) Actions to correct malfunctions or conditions that may lead to
malfunction;
(8) Residue characteristics and handling procedures; and
(9) Applicable Federal, state, and local regulations, including
Occupational Safety and Health Administration workplace standards; and
(B) An examination designed and administered by the instructor; and
(C) Written material covering the training course topics that may
serve as reference material following completion of the course.
(vi) To maintain control room operator qualification under a site-
specific, source developed and implemented training program as provided
by paragraph (c)(6)(v) of this section, control room operators must
complete an annual review or refresher course covering, at a minimum,
the following topics:
(A) Update of regulations;
(B) Combustor operation, including startup and shutdown procedures,
waste firing, and residue handling;
(C) Inspection and maintenance;
(D) Responses to malfunctions or conditions that may lead to
malfunction; and
(E) Operating problems encountered by the operator.
(vii) You must record the operator training and certification
program in the operating record.
(7) * * *
(ii) Bag leak detection system requirements for baghouses at
lightweight aggregate kilns and incinerators. If you own or operate a
hazardous waste incinerator or hazardous waste burning lightweight
aggregate kiln equipped with a baghouse (fabric filter), you must
continuously operate a bag leak detection system that meets the
specifications and requirements of paragraph (c)(7)(ii)(A) of this
section and you must comply with the corrective measures requirements
of paragraph (c)(7)(ii)(B) of this section:
(A) Bag leak detection system specification and requirements. (1)
The bag leak detection system must be certified by the manufacturer to
be capable of continuously detecting and recording particulate matter
emissions at concentrations of 1.0 milligrams per actual cubic meter
unless you demonstrate, pursuant to procedures in Sec. 63.1209(a)(1),
that a higher sensitivity would adequately detect bag leaks;
(2) The bag leak detection system shall provide output of relative
particulate matter loadings;
(3) The bag leak detection system shall be equipped with an alarm
system that will sound an audible alarm when an increase in relative
particulate loadings is detected over a preset level;
(4) The bag leak detection system shall be installed and operated
in a manner consistent with available written guidance from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency or, in the absence of such written
guidance, the manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations
for installation, operation, and adjustment of the system;
(5) The initial adjustment of the system shall, at a minimum,
consist of establishing the baseline output by adjusting the
sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the device, and
establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time;
(6) Following initial adjustment, you must not adjust the
sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm
delay time, except as detailed in the operation and maintenance plan
required under paragraph (c)(7)(i) of this section. You must not
increase the sensitivity by more than 100 percent or decrease the
sensitivity by more than 50 percent over a 365 day period unless such
adjustment follows a complete baghouse inspection which demonstrates
the baghouse is in good operating condition;
(7) For negative pressure or induced air baghouses, and positive
pressure baghouses that are discharged to the atmosphere through a
stack, the bag leak detector shall be installed downstream of the
baghouse and upstream of any wet acid gas scrubber; and
(8) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's
instrumentation and alarm system may be shared among the detectors.
(B) Bag leak detection system corrective measures requirements. The
operating and maintenance plan required by paragraph (c)(7)(i) of this
section must include a corrective measures plan that specifies the
procedures you will follow in the case of a bag leak detection system
alarm. The corrective measures plan must include, at a minimum, the
procedures used to determine and record the time and cause of the alarm
as well as the corrective measures taken to correct the control device
malfunction or minimize emissions as specified below. Failure to
initiate the corrective measures required by this paragraph is failure
to ensure compliance with the emission standards in this subpart.
(1) You must initiate the procedures used to determine the cause of
the alarm within 30 minutes of the time the alarm first sounds; and
(2) You must alleviate the cause of the alarm by taking the
necessary corrective measure(s) which may include, but are not to be
limited to, the following measures:
(i) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken filter
elements, or any other malfunction that may cause an increase in
emissions;
(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media;
(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media, or otherwise
repairing the control device;
(iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse compartment;
(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or otherwise
repairing the bag leak detection system; or
(vi) Shutting down the combustor.

7. Section 63.1207 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (c)(2)(i).
b. Adding paragraph (c)(2)(iv).
c. Adding paragraph (e)(3).
d. Revising paragraphs (f)(1)(ii)(A), (f)(1)(ii)(B), (f)(1)(ii)(C),
(f)(1)(x) introductory text, and (f)(1)(xvii).
e. Adding paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(D).
f. Removing and reserving paragraph (f)(1)(xv).

[[Page 6990]]

g. Revising paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii).
h. Adding paragraph (g)(2)(v).
i. Revising paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) introductory text.
j. Revising paragraphs (j)(1)(ii) and (j)(3).
k. Revising paragraphs (m)(4)(i) and (m)(4)(ii).
The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec. 63.1207 What are the performance testing requirements?

* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * * (i) You may request that previous emissions test data
serve as documentation of conformance with the emission standards of
this subpart provided that the previous testing:
(A) Was initiated after 54 months prior to the compliance date,
except as provided by paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) or (c)(2)(iv) of this
section;
(B) Results in data that meet quality assurance objectives
(determined on a site-specific basis) such that the results demonstrate
compliance with the applicable standards;
(C) Was in conformance with the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of
this section; and
(D) Was sufficient to establish the applicable operating parameter
limits under Sec. 63.1209.
* * * * *
(iv) The data in lieu test age restriction provided in paragraph
(c)(2)(i)(A) of this section does not apply to DRE data provided you do
not feed hazardous waste at a location in the combustion system other
than the normal flame zone.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(3) Petitions for time extension if Administrator fails to approve
or deny test plans. You may petition the Administrator under
Sec. 63.7(h) to obtain a ``waiver'' of any performance test--initial or
periodic performance test; comprehensive or confirmatory test. The
``waiver'' would be implemented as an extension of time to conduct the
performance test at a later date.
(i) Qualifications for the waiver. (A) You may not petition the
Administrator for a waiver under this section if the Administrator has
issued a notification of intent to deny your test plan(s) under
Sec. 63.7(c)(3)(i)(B);
(B) You must submit a site-specific emissions testing plan and a
continuous monitoring system performance evaluation test plan at least
one year before a comprehensive performance test is scheduled to begin
as required by paragraph (c)(1) of this section, or at least 60 days
before a confirmatory performance test is scheduled to begin as
required by paragraph (d) of this section. The test plans must include
all required documentation, including the substantive content
requirements of paragraph (f) of this section and Sec. 63.8(e); and
(C) You must make a good faith effort to accommodate the
Administrator's comments on the test plans.
(ii) Procedures for obtaining a waiver and duration of the waiver:
(A) You must submit to the Administrator a waiver petition or request
to renew the petition under Sec. 63.7(h) separately for each source at
least 60 days prior to the scheduled date of the performance test;
(B) The Administrator will approve or deny the petition within 30
days of receipt and notify you promptly of the decision;
(C) The Administrator will not approve an individual waiver
petition for a duration exceeding 6 months;
(D) The Administrator will include a sunset provision in the waiver
ending the waiver within 6 months;
(E) You may submit a revised petition to renew the waiver under
Sec. 63.7(h)(3)(iii) at least 60 days prior to the end date of the most
recently approved waiver petition;
(F) The Administrator may approve a revised petition for a total
waiver period up to 12 months.
(iii) Content of the waiver. (A) You must provide documentation to
enable the Administrator to determine that the source is meeting the
relevant standard(s) on a continuous basis as required by
Sec. 63.7(h)(2). For extension requests for the initial comprehensive
performance test, you must submit your Documentation of Compliance to
assist the Administrator in making this determination.
(B) You must include in the petition information justifying your
request for a waiver, such as the technical or economic infeasibility,
or the impracticality, of the affected source performing the required
test, as required by Sec. 63.7(h)(3)(iii).
(iv) Public notice. You must notify the public (e.g., distribute
public mailing list) of your petition to waive a performance test.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) Except as provided by paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(D) of this section,
an identification of such organic hazardous air pollutants that are
present in each hazardous waste feedstream. You need not analyze for
organic hazardous air pollutants that would reasonably not be expected
to be found in the feedstream. You must identify any constituents you
exclude from analysis and explain the basis for excluding them. You
must conduct the feedstream analysis according to Sec. 63.1208(b)(8);
(B) An approximate quantification of such identified organic
hazardous air pollutants in the hazardous waste feedstreams, within the
precision produced by analytical procedures of Sec. 63.1208(b)(8); and
(C) A description of blending procedures, if applicable, prior to
firing the hazardous waste feedstream, including a detailed analysis of
the materials prior to blending, and blending ratios.
(D) The Administrator may approve on a case-by-case basis a
hazardous waste feedstream analysis for organic hazardous air
pollutants in lieu of the analysis required under paragraph
(f)(1)(ii)(A) of this section if the reduced analysis is sufficient to
ensure that the POHCs used to demonstrate compliance with the
applicable DRE standard of Sec. 63.1203, Sec. 63.1204, or Sec. 63.1205,
continue to be representative of the organic hazardous air pollutants
in your hazardous waste feedstreams;
* * * * *
(x) If you are requesting to extrapolate metal feedrate limits from
comprehensive performance test levels under Secs. 63.1209(l)(1)(i) or
63.1209(n)(2)(ii)(A):
* * * * *
(xvii) If you propose to use a surrogate for measuring or
monitoring gas flowrate, you must document in the comprehensive
performance test plan that the surrogate adequately correlates with gas
flowrate, as required by paragraph (m)(7) of this section, and
Sec. 63.1209(j)(2), (k)(3), (m)(2)(i), (n)(5)(i), and (o)(2)(i).
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Carbon monoxide (or hydrocarbon) CEMS emissions levels must be
within the range of the average value to the maximum value allowed,
except as provided by paragraph (g)(2)(iv) of this section. The average
value is defined as the sum of the hourly rolling average values
recorded (each minute) over the previous 12 months, divided by the
number of rolling averages recorded during that time. The average value
must not include calibration data, startup data, shutdown data,
malfunction data, and data obtained when not burning hazardous waste;
(ii) Each operating limit (specified in Sec. 63.1209) established
to maintain

[[Page 6991]]

compliance with the dioxin/furan emission standard must be held within
the range of the average value over the previous 12 months and the
maximum or minimum, as appropriate, that is allowed, except as provided
by paragraph (g)(2)(iv) of this section. The average value is defined
as the sum of the rolling average values recorded over the previous 12
months, divided by the number of rolling averages recorded during that
time. The average value must not include calibration data, startup
data, shutdown data, malfunction data, and data obtained when not
burning hazardous waste;
* * * * *
(v) The Administrator may approve an alternative range to that
required by paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section if you
document in the confirmatory performance test plan that it may be
problematic to maintain the required range during the test. In
addition, when making the finding of compliance, the Administrator may
consider test conditions outside of the range specified in the test
plan based on a finding that you could not reasonably maintain the
range specified in the test plan and considering factors including
whether the time duration and level of the parameter when operations
were out of the specified range were such that operations during the
confirmatory test are determined to be reasonably representative of
normal operations. In addition, the Administrator will consider the
proximity of the emission test results to the standard.
* * * * *
(h) * * * (1) Current operating parameter limits established under
Sec. 63.1209 are waived during subsequent comprehensive performance
testing.
(2) Current operating parameter limits are also waived during
pretesting prior to comprehensive performance testing for an aggregate
time not to exceed 720 hours of operation (renewable at the discretion
of the Administrator) under an approved test plan or if the source
records the results of the pretesting. Pretesting means:
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Upon postmark of the Notification of Compliance, you must
comply with all operating requirements specified in the Notification of
Compliance in lieu of the limits specified in the Documentation of
Compliance required under Sec. 63.1211(c).
* * * * *
(3) See Secs. 63.7(g), 63.9(h), and 63.1210(b) for additional
requirements pertaining to the Notification of Compliance (e.g., you
must include results of performance tests in the Notification of
Compliance).
* * * * *
(m) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) Identify in the Notification of Compliance a minimum gas
flowrate limit and a maximum feedrate limit of mercury, semivolatile
metals, low volatile metals, and/or total chlorine and chloride from
all feedstreams that ensures the MTEC as calculated in paragraph
(m)(2)(iii) of this section is below the applicable emission standard;
and
(ii) Interlock the minimum gas flowrate limit and maximum feedrate
limit of paragraph (m)(4)(i) of this section to the AWFCO system to
stop hazardous waste burning when the gas flowrate or mercury,
semivolatile metals, low volatile metals, and/or total chlorine and
chloride feedrate exceeds the limits of paragraph (m)(4)(i) of this
section.
* * * * *

8. Section 63.1209 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A).
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (b)(5)(iii)(A).
c. Revising paragraph (f)(1).
d. Revising paragraphs (g)(1)(iii)(B)(1), (g)(1)(iii)(B)(2),
(g)(1)(iii)(B)(3), (g)(1)(iii)(C)(1), and (g)(1)(iii)(C)(2).
e. Revising paragraphs (k)(5) and (k)(8)(ii).
f. Revising paragraphs (l)(1) introductory text, (l)(3), and
(l)(4).
g. Revising paragraph (m)(3).
h. Revising paragraph (n)(4).
i. Revising paragraph (o)(1).
j. Revising paragraph (q).
The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 63.1209 What are the monitoring requirements?

(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) You must maintain and operate each COMS in accordance with the
requirements of Sec. 63.8(c) except for the requirements under
Sec. 63.8(c)(3). The requirements of Sec. 63.1211(c) shall be complied
with instead of Sec. 63.8(c)(3); and
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Calibration of thermocouples and pyrometers. The calibration of
thermocouples must be verified at a frequency and in a manner
consistent with manufacturer specifications, but no less frequent than
once per year. You must operate and maintain optical pyrometers in
accordance with manufacturer specifications unless otherwise approved
by the Administrator. You must calibrate optical pyrometers in
accordance with the frequency and procedures recommended by the
manufacturer, but no less frequent than once per year, unless otherwise
approved by the Administrator. And,
* * * * *
(5) * * *
(iii) * * * (A) Except as provided by paragraph (b)(5)(iii)(B) of
this section, you must continue monitoring operating parameter limits
with a CMS when the hazardous waste feed is cutoff if the source is
operating. You must not resume feeding hazardous waste if an operating
parameter exceeds its limit.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) Section 63.8(c)(3). The requirements of Sec. 63.1211(c), that
requires CMSs to be installed, calibrated, and operational on the
compliance date, shall be complied with instead of section 63.8(c)(3);
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) * * *
(B) * * *
(1) Data or information justifying your request for an alternative
monitoring requirement (or for a waiver of an operating parameter
limit), such as the technical or economic infeasibility or the
impracticality of using the required approach;
(2) A description of the proposed alternative monitoring
requirement, including the operating parameter to be monitored, the
monitoring approach/technique (e.g., type of detector, monitoring
location), the averaging period for the limit, and how the limit is to
be calculated; and
(3) Data or information documenting that the alternative monitoring
requirement would provide equivalent or better assurance of compliance
with the relevant emission standard, or that it is the monitoring
requirement that best assures compliance with the standard and that is
technically and economically practicable.
(C) * * *
(1) Notice of the information and findings on which the intended
disapproval is based; and
(2) Notice of opportunity for you to present additional information
to the Administrator before final action on the request. At the time
the Administrator notifies you of intention to disapprove the request,
the Administrator will specify how much time you will have after being
notified of the intended

[[Page 6992]]

disapproval to submit the additional information.
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(5) Particulate matter operating limit. If your combustor is
equipped with an activated carbon injection system, you must establish
operating parameter limits on the particulate matter control device as
specified by paragraph (m)(1) of this section;
* * * * *
(8) * * *
(ii) Maximum time in-use. You must replace a catalytic oxidizer
with a new catalytic oxidizer when it has reached the maximum service
time specified by the manufacturer.
* * * * *
(l) * * *
(1) Feedrate of total mercury. You must establish a 12-hour rolling
average limit for the total feedrate of mercury in all feedstreams as
the average of the test run averages, unless mercury feedrate limits
are extrapolated from performance test feedrate levels under the
following provisions.
* * * * *
(3) Activated carbon injection. If your combustor is equipped with
an activated carbon injection system, you must establish operating
parameter limits prescribed by paragraphs (k)(5) and (k)(6) of this
section.
(4) Activated carbon bed. If your combustor is equipped with an
activated carbon bed system, you must comply with the requirements of
(k)(7) of this section to assure compliance with the mercury emission
standard.
(m) * * *
(3) Maximum ash feedrate. Owners and operators of hazardous waste
incinerators must establish a maximum ash feedrate limit as the average
of the test run averages.
(n) * * *
(4) Maximum total chlorine and chloride feedrate. You must
establish a 12-hour rolling average limit for the feedrate of total
chlorine and chloride in all feedstreams as the average of the test run
averages.
* * * * *
(o) * * *
(1) Feedrate of total chlorine and chloride. You must establish a
12-hour rolling average limit for the total feedrate of chlorine
(organic and inorganic) in all feedstreams as the average of the test
run averages.
* * * * *
(q) Operating under different modes of operation. If you operate
under different modes of operation, you must establish operating
parameter limits for each mode. You must document in the operating
record when you change a mode of operation and begin complying with the
operating limits for an alternative mode of operation.
(1) Operating under otherwise applicable standards after the
hazardous waste residence time has transpired. As provided by
Sec. 63.1206(b)(1)(ii), you may operate under otherwise applicable
requirements promulgated under sections 112 and 129 of the Clean Air
Act in lieu of the substantive requirements of this subpart.
(i) The otherwise applicable requirements promulgated under
sections 112 and 129 of the Clean Air Act are applicable requirements
under this subpart.
(ii) You must specify (e.g., by reference) the otherwise applicable
requirements as a mode of operation in your Documentation of Compliance
under Sec. 63.1211(c), your Notification of Compliance under
Sec. 63.1207(j), and your title V permit application. These
requirements include the otherwise applicable requirements governing
emission standards, monitoring and compliance, and notification,
reporting, and recordkeeping.
(2) Calculating rolling averages under different modes of
operation. When you transition to a different mode of operation, you
must calculate rolling averages as follows:
(i) Retrieval approach. Calculate rolling averages anew using the
continuous monitoring system values previously recorded for that mode
of operation (i.e., you ignore continuous monitoring system values
subsequently recorded under other modes of operation when you
transition back to a mode of operation); or
(ii) Start anew. Calculate rolling averages anew without
considering previous recordings.
(A) Rolling averages must be calculated as the average of the
available one-minute values for the parameter until enough one-minute
values are available to calculate hourly or 12-hour rolling averages,
whichever is applicable to the parameter.
(B) You may not transition to a new mode of operation using this
approach if the most recent operation in that mode resulted in an
exceedance of an applicable emission standard measured with a CEMS or
operating parameter limit prior to the hazardous waste residence time
expiring; or
(iii) Seamless transition. Continue calculating rolling averages
using data from the previous operating mode provided that both the
operating limit and the averaging period for the parameter are the same
for both modes of operation.

9. Section 63.1210 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec. 63.1210 What are the notification requirements?

(a) Summary of requirements. (1) You must submit the following
notifications to the Administrator:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference Notification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.9(b)................................ Initial notifications that you
are subject to Subpart EEE of
this Part.
63.9(d)................................ Notification that you are
subject to special compliance
requirements.
63.9(j)................................ Notification and documentation
of any change in information
already provided under Sec.
63.9.
63.1206(b)(5)(i)....................... Notification of changes in
design, operation, or
maintenance.
63.1207(e), 63.9(e), 63.9(g)(1) and (3) Notification of performance
test and continuous monitoring
system evaluation, including
the performance test plan and
CMS performance evaluation
plan.\1\
63.1210(b), 63.1207(j), 63.1207(k), Notification of compliance,
63.1207(l), 63.9(h), 63.10(d)(2), including results of
63.10(e)(2). performance tests and
continuous monitoring system
performance evaluations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ You may also be required on a case-by-case basis to submit a
feedstream analysis plan under Sec. 63.1209(c)(3).

(2) You must submit the following notifications to the
Administrator if you request or elect to comply with alternative
requirements:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification, request,
Reference petition, or application
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.9(i)................................ You may request an adjustment
to time periods or postmark
deadlines for submittal and
review of required
information.

[[Page 6993]]

63.10(e)(3)(ii)........................ You may request to reduce the
frequency of excess emissions
and CMS performance reports.
63.10(f)............................... You may request to waive
recordkeeping or reporting
requirements.
63.1204(d)(2)(iii)..................... Notification that you elect to
comply with the emission
averaging requirements for
cement kilns with in-line raw
mills.
63.1204(e)(2)(iii)..................... Notification that you elect to
comply with the emission
averaging requirements for
preheater or preheater/
precalciner kilns with dual
stacks.
63.1206(b)(4), 63.1213, 63.6(i), You may request an extension of
63.9(c). the compliance date for up to
one year.
63.1206(b)(5)(i)(C).................... You may request to burn
hazardous waste for more than
720 hours and for purposes
other than testing or
pretesting after making a
change in the design or
operation that could affect
compliance with emission
standards and prior to
submitting a revised
Notification of Compliance.
63.1206(b)(8)(iii)(B).................. If you elect to conduct
particulate matter CEMS
correlation testing and wish
to have federal particulate
matter and opacity standards
and associated operating
limits waived during the
testing, you must notify the
Administrator by submitting
the correlation test plan for
review and approval.
63.1206(b)(8)(v)....................... You may request approval to
have the particulate matter
and opacity standards and
associated operating limits
and conditions waived for more
than 96 hours for a
correlation test.
63.1206(b)(9).......................... Owners and operators of
lightweight aggregate kilns
may request approval of
alternative emission standards
for mercury, semivolatile
metal, low volatile metal, and
hydrochloric acid/chlorine gas
under certain conditions.
63.1206(b)(10)......................... Owners and operators of cement
kilns may request approval of
alternative emission standards
for mercury, semivolatile
metal, low volatile metal, and
hydrochloric acid/chlorine gas
under certain conditions.
63.1206(b)(14)......................... Owners and operators of
incinerators may elect to
comply with an alternative to
the particulate matter
standard.
63.1206(b)(15)......................... Owners and operators of cement
and lightweight aggregate
kilns may request to comply
with the alternative to the
interim standards for mercury.
63.1206(c)(2)(ii)(C)................... You may request to make changes
to the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan.
63.1206(c)(5)(i)(C).................... You may request an alternative
means of control to provide
control of combustion system
leaks.
63.1206(c)(5)(i)(D).................... You may request other
techniques to prevent fugitive
emissions without use of
instantaneous pressure limits.
63.1207(c)(2).......................... You may request to base initial
compliance on data in lieu of
a comprehensive performance
test.
63.1207(d)(3).......................... You may request more than 60
days to complete a performance
test if additional time is
needed for reasons beyond your
control.
63.1207(e)(3), 63.7(h)................. You may request a time
extension if the Administrator
fails to approve or deny your
test plan.
63.1207(h)(2).......................... You may request to waive
current operating parameter
limits during pretesting for
more than 720 hours.
63.1207(f)(1)(ii)(D)................... You may request a reduced
hazardous waste feedstream
analysis for organic hazardous
air pollutants if the reduced
analysis continues to be
representative of organic
hazardous air pollutants in
your hazardous waste
feedstreams.
63.1207(g)(2)(v)....................... You may request to operate
under a wider operating range
for a parameter during
confirmatory performance
testing.
63.1207(i)............................. You may request up to a one-
year time extension for
conducting a performance test
(other than the initial
comprehensive performance
test) to consolidate testing
with other state or federally-
required testing.
63.1207(j)(4).......................... You may request more than 90
days to submit a Notification
of Compliance after completing
a performance test if
additional time is needed for
reasons beyond your control.
63.1207(l)(3).......................... After failure of a performance
test, you may request to burn
hazardous waste for more than
720 hours and for purposes
other than testing or
pretesting.
63.1209(a)(5), 63.8(f)................. You may request: (A.) Approval
of alternative monitoring
methods for compliance with
standards that are monitored
with a CEMS; and (B.) approval
to use a CEMS in lieu of
operating parameter limits.
63.1209(g)(1).......................... You may request approval of:
(A.) Alternative monitoring
methods, except for standards
that you must monitor with a
continuous emission monitoring
system (CEMS) and except for
requests to use a CEMS in lieu
of operating parameter limits;
or (B.) a waiver of an
operating parameter limit.
63.1209(l)(1).......................... You may request to extrapolate
mercury feedrate limits.
63.1209(n)(2)(ii)...................... You may request to extrapolate
semivolatile and low volatile
metal feedrate limits.
63.1211(d)............................. You may request to use data
compression techniques to
record data on a less frequent
basis than required by Sec.
63.1209.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *

10. Section 63.1211 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)
to read as follows:

[[Page 6994]]

Sec. 63.1211 What are the recordkeeping and reporting requirements?

(a) Summary of reporting requirements. You must submit the
following reports to the Administrator:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference Report
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.10(d)(4)............................ Compliance progress reports, if
required as a condition of an
extension of the compliance
date granted under Sec.
63.6(i).
63.10(d)(5)(i)......................... Periodic startup, shutdown, and
malfunction reports.
63.10(d)(5)(ii)........................ Immediate startup, shutdown,
and malfunction reports.
63.10(e)(3)............................ Excessive emissions and
continuous monitoring system
performance report and summary
report.
63.1206(c)(2)(ii)(B)................... Startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan.
63.1206(c)(3)(vi)...................... Excessive exceedances reports.
63.1206(c)(4)(iv)...................... Emergency safety vent opening
reports.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Summary of recordkeeping requirements. You must retain the
following in the operating record:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference Document, data, or information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1200, 63.10(b) and (c).............. General. Information required
to document and maintain
compliance with the
regulations of Subpart EEE,
including data recorded by
continuous monitoring systems
(CMS), and copies of all
notifications, reports, plans,
and other documents submitted
to the Administrator.
63.1204(d)(1)(ii)...................... Documentation of mode of
operation changes for cement
kilns with in-line raw mills.
63.1204(d)(2)(ii)...................... Documentation of compliance
with the emission averaging
requirements for cement kilns
with in-line raw mills.
63.1204(e)(2)(ii)...................... Documentation of compliance
with the emission averaging
requirements for preheater or
preheater/precalciner kilns
with dual stacks.
63.1206(b)(1)(ii)...................... If you elect to comply with all
applicable requirements and
standards promulgated under
authority of the Clean Air
Act, including Sections 112
and 129, in lieu of the
requirements of Subpart EEE
when not burning hazardous
waste, you must document in
the operating record that you
are in compliance with those
requirements.
63.1206(b)(5)(ii)...................... Documentation that a change
will not adversely affect
compliance with the emission
standards or operating
requirements.
63.1206(b)(11)......................... Calculation of hazardous waste
residence time.
63.1206(c)(2).......................... Startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan.
63.1206(c)(2)(v)(A).................... Documentation of your
investigation and evaluation
of excessive exceedances
during malfunctions.
63.1206(c)(3)(v)....................... Corrective measures for any
automatic waste feed cutoff
that results in an exceedance
of an emission standard or
operating parameter limit.
63.1206(c)(3)(vii)..................... Documentation and results of
the automatic waste feed
cutoff operability testing.
63.1206(c)(4)(ii)...................... Emergency safety vent operating
plan.
63.1206(c)(4)(iii)..................... Corrective measures for any
emergency safety vent opening.
63.1206(c)(5)(ii)...................... Method used for control of
combustion system leaks.
63.1206(c)(6).......................... Operator training and
certification program.
63.1206(c)(7)(i)(D).................... Operation and maintenance plan.
63.1209(c)(2).......................... Feedstream analysis plan.
63.1209(k)(6)(iii), 63.1209(k)(7)(ii), Documentation that a substitute
63.1209(k)(9)(ii), 63.1209(o)(4)(iii). activated carbon, dioxin/furan
formation reaction inhibitor,
or dry scrubber sorbent will
provide the same level of
control as the original
material.
63.1209(k)(7)(i)(C).................... Results of carbon bed
performance monitoring.
63.1209(q)............................. Documentation of changes in
modes of operation.
63.1211(c)............................. Documentation of compliance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

11. Section 63.1213 is amended by revising the first sentence of
paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec. 63.1213 How can the compliance date be extended to install
pollution prevention or waste minimization controls?

(a) Applicability. You may request from the Administrator or State
with an approved title V program an extension of the compliance date of
up to one year. * * *
* * * * *

12. Table 1 to Subpart EEE is amended to read as follows:

Table 1 to Subpart EEE.--General Provisions Applicable to Subpart EEE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference Applies to subpart EEE Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1................................... Yes.
63.2................................... Yes.
63.3................................... Yes.
63.4................................... Yes....................................
63.5................................... Yes.

[[Page 6995]]

63.6(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e)........ Yes.
63.6(f)................................ Yes.................................... Except that the performance
test requirements of Sec.
63.1207 apply instead of Sec.
63.6(f)(2)(iii)(B).
63.6(g) and (h)........................ Yes.
63.6(i)................................ Yes.................................... Section 63.1213 specifies that
the compliance date may also
be extended for inability to
install necessary emission
control equipment by the
compliance date because of
implementation of pollution
prevention or waste
minimization controls.
63.6(j)................................ Yes.
63.7(a)................................ Yes.................................... Except Sec. 63.1207(e)(3)
allows you to petition the
Administrator under Sec.
63.7(h) to provide an
extension of time to conduct
a performance test.
63.7(b)................................ Yes.................................... Except Sec. 63.1207(e)
requires you to submit the
site-specific test plan for
approval at least one year
before the comprehensive
performance test is scheduled
to begin.
63.7(c)................................ Yes.................................... Except Sec. 63.1207(e)
requires you to submit the
site-specific test plan
(including the quality
assurance provisions under
Sec. 63.7(c)) for approval
at least one year before the
comprehensive performance
test is scheduled to begin.
63.7(d)................................ Yes.
63.7(e)................................ Yes.................................... Except Sec. 63.1207
prescribes operations during
performance testing and Sec.
63.1209 specifies operating
limits that will be
established during
performance testing (such
that testing is likely to be
representative of the extreme
range of normal performance).
63.7(f)................................ Yes.
63.7(g)................................ Yes.................................... Except Sec. 63.1207(j)
requiring that you submit the
results of the performance
test (and the notification of
compliance) within 90 days of
completing the test, unless
the Administrator grants a
time extension, applies
instead of Sec. 63.7(g)(1).
63.7(h)................................ Yes.................................... Except Sec. 63.1207(c)(2)
allows data in lieu of the
initial comprehensive
performance test, and Sec.
63.1207(m) provides a waiver
of certain performance tests.
You must submit requests for
these waivers with the site-
specific test plan.
63.8(a) and (b)........................ Yes.
63.8(c)................................ Yes.................................... Except: (1) Sec. 63.1211(c)
that requires you to install,
calibrate, and operate CMS by
the compliance date applies
instead of Sec. 63.8(c)(3);
and (2) the performance
specifications for CO, HC,
and O2 CEMS in subpart B, of
this chapter requiring that
the detectors measure the
sample concentration at least
once every 15 seconds for
calculating an average
emission level once every 60
seconds apply instead of Sec.
63.8(c)(4)(ii).
63.8(d)................................ Yes.
63.8(e)................................ Yes.................................... Except Sec. 63.1207(e)
requiring you to submit the
site-specific comprehensive
performance test plan and the
CMS performance evaluation
test plan for approval at
least one year prior to the
planned test date applies
instead of Secs. 63.8(e)(2)
and (3)(iii).
63.8(f) and (g)........................ Yes.
63.9(a)................................ Yes.
63.9(b)................................ Yes.................................... Note: Section 63.9(b)(1)(ii)
pertains to notification
requirements for area sources
that become a major source,
and Sec. 63.9(b)(2)(v)
requires a major source
determination. Although area
sources are subject to all
provisions of this subpart
(Subpart EEE), these sections
nonetheless apply because the
major source determination
may affect the applicability
of part 63 standards or title
V permit requirements to
other sources (i.e., other
than a hazardous waste
combustor) of hazardous air
pollutants at the facility.
63.9(c) and (d)........................ Yes.
63.9(e)................................ Yes.................................... Except Sec. 63.1207(e) which
requires you to submit the
comprehensive performance
test plan for approval one
year prior to the planned
performance test date applies
instead of Sec. 63.9(e).
63.9(f)................................ Yes.................................... Section 63.9(f) applies if you
are allowed under Sec.
63.1209(a)(1)(v) to use
visible determination of
opacity for compliance in
lieu of a COMS.
63.9(g)................................ Yes.................................... Except Sec. 63.9(g)(2)
pertaining to COMS does not
apply.
63.9(h)................................ Yes.................................... Except Sec. 63.1207(j)
requiring you to submit the
notification of compliance
within 90 days of completing
a performance test unless the
Administrator grants a time
extension applies instead of
Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(iii). Note:
Even though area sources are
subject to this subpart, the
major source determination
required by Sec.
63.9(h)(2)(i)(E) is
applicable to hazardous waste
combustors for the reasons
discussed above.
63.9(i) and (j)........................ Yes.
63.10.................................. Yes.................................... Except reports of performance
test results required under
Sec. 63.10(d)(2) may be
submitted up to 90 days after
completion of the test.
63.11.................................. No.
63.12-63.15............................ Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 6996]]

PART 266--STANDARDS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC HAZARDOUS WASTES
AND SPECIFIC TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES

1. The authority citation for part 266 continues to read as
follows:

Authority: Secs. 1006, 2002(a), 3004, 6905, 6906, 6912, 6922,
6924, 6925, and 6937.

2. Section 266.100 is amended by:
a. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (a).
b. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (b)(1).
c. Revising paragraphs (d)(1)(i)(B), (d)(2)(i), (d)(2)(ii), (d)(3)
introductory text, (d)(3)(i) introductory text, and (d)(3)(i)(D).
The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 266.100 Applicability.

(a) The regulations of this subpart apply to hazardous waste burned
or processed in a boiler or industrial furnace (as defined in
Sec. 260.10 of this chapter) irrespective of the purpose of burning or
processing, except as provided by paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (g), and
(h) of this section.* * *
* * * * *
(b) * * * (1) Except as provided by paragraph (b)(2) of this
section, the standards of this part no longer apply when an affected
source demonstrates compliance with the maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) requirements of part 63, subpart EEE, of this chapter
by conducting a comprehensive performance test and submitting to the
Administrator a Notification of Compliance under Secs. 63.1207(j) and
63.1210(b) of this chapter documenting compliance with the requirements
of part 63, subpart EEE, of this chapter.* * *
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) The hazardous waste is burned solely for metal recovery
consistent with the provisions of paragraph (d)(2) of this section;
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(i) The hazardous waste has a total concentration of organic
compounds listed in part 261, appendix VIII, of this chapter exceeding
500 ppm by weight, as-fired, and so is considered to be burned for
destruction. The concentration of organic compounds in a waste as-
generated may be reduced to the 500 ppm limit by bona fide treatment
that removes or destroys organic constituents. Blending for dilution to
meet the 500 ppm limit is prohibited and documentation that the waste
has not been impermissibly diluted must be retained in the records
required by paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this section; or
(ii) The hazardous waste has a heating value of 5,000 Btu/lb or
more, as-fired, and so is considered to be burned as fuel. The heating
value of a waste as-generated may be reduced to below the 5,000 Btu/lb
limit by bona fide treatment that removes or destroys organic
constituents. Blending for dilution to meet the 5,000 Btu/lb limit is
prohibited and documentation that the waste has not been impermissibly
diluted must be retained in the records required by paragraph
(d)(1)(iii) of this section.
(3) To be exempt from Secs. 266.102 through 266.111, an owner or
operator of a lead or nickel-chromium or mercury recovery furnace
(except for owners or operators of lead recovery furnaces subject to
regulation under the Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP) or a metal
recovery furnace that burns baghouse bags used to capture metallic
dusts emitted by steel manufacturing, must provide a one-time written
notice to the Director identifying each hazardous waste burned and
specifying whether the owner or operator claims an exemption for each
waste under this paragraph or paragraph (d)(1) of this section. The
owners or operator must comply with the requirements of paragraph
(d)(1) of this section for those wastes claimed to be exempt under that
paragraph and must comply with the requirements below for those wastes
claimed to be exempt under this paragraph (d)(3).
(i) The hazardous wastes listed in appendices XI, XII, and XIII,
part 266, and baghouse bags used to capture metallic dusts emitted by
steel manufacturing are exempt from the requirements of paragraph
(d)(1) of this section, provided that:
* * * * *
(D) The owner or operator certifies in the one-time notice that
hazardous waste is burned under the provisions of paragraph (d)(3) of
this section and that sampling and analysis will be conducted or other
information will be obtained as necessary to ensure continued
compliance with these requirements. Sampling and analysis shall be
conducted according to paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section and records
to document compliance with paragraph (d)(3) of this section shall be
kept for at least three years.
* * * * *

PART 270--EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE HAZARDOUS WASTE
PERMIT PROGRAM

1. The authority citation for part 270 continues to read as
follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912, 6924, 6925, 6927, 6939, and
6974.

2. Section 270.42 is amended by revising paragraph (j)(1) to read
as follows:

Sec. 270.42 Permit modifications at the request of the permittee.

* * * * *
(j) * * *
(1) Facility owners or operators must have complied with the
Notification of Intent to Comply (NIC) requirements of 40 CFR 63.1210
that were in effect prior to October 11, 2000, (See 40 CFR Part 63
Revised as of July 1, 2000) in order to request a permit modification
under this section.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 02-3373 Filed 2-13-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

NESHAP: Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors (Final Amendments Rule)

Related Material

Local Navigation