NESHAP: Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous
Waste Combustors--Proposed Amendments
Related Material
[Federal Register: July 3, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 128)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 35126-35155]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03jy01-17]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 63, 264, 265, 266, and 270
[FRL-7001-9]
RIN 2050-AE79
NESHAP: Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous
Waste Combustors--Proposed Amendments
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA established new emissions
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).
Following promulgation of this final rule, the regulated community,
through informal comments and through litigation, raised numerous
issues related to specific requirements of the final rule. In response
to relevant concerns, we are proposing and taking comment on certain
targeted changes to the final rule. These regulatory changes do not
propose to amend 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.
DATES: Comments must be submitted by August 17, 2001.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment on this proposed rule, you must send
an original and two copies of the comments referencing Docket Number F-
2001-RC5P-FFFFF to: RCRA Information Center (RIC), Office of Solid
Waste (5305G), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters (EPA
HQ), Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington,
D.C. 20460-0002; or, (2) if using special delivery, such as overnight
express service: RIC, Crystal Gateway One, 1235 Jefferson Davis
Highway, First Floor, Arlington, VA 22202. You may also submit comments
electronically following the directions in the Supplementary
Information section below.
You may view public comments and supporting materials in the RIC.
The RIC is open from 9 am to 4 pm 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 up to 100
pages from any regulatory document at no charge. Additional copies cost
$ 0.15 per page. For information on accessing an electronic copy of the
data base, see the Supplementary Information section.
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 on specific aspects of this proposed rule, contact Mr.
Frank Behan at 703-308-8476, behan.frank@epa.gov, or write him at the
Office of Solid Waste, 5302W, U.S. EPA, Ariel Rios Building, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Submittal of Comments
You may submit comments electronically by sending electronic mail
through the Internet to: rcra-docket@epamail.epa.gov. You should
identify comments in electronic format with the docket number F-2001-
RC5P-FFFFF. You must submit all electronic comments as an ASCII (text)
file, avoiding the use of special characters or any type of encryption.
The official record for this action will be kept in the paper form.
Accordingly, we will transfer all comments received electronically into
paper form and place them in the official record which will also
include all comments submitted directly in writing. The official record
is the paper record maintained at the RIC as described above. We may
seek clarification of electronic comments that are garbled in
transmission or during conversion to paper form.
You should not electronically submit any confidential business
information (CBI). You must submit an original and two copies of CBI
under separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, Office of
Solid Waste (5305W), U.S. EPA, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.
If you do not submit comments electronically, we are asking
prospective commenters to voluntarily submit one additional copy of
their comments on labeled personal computer diskettes in ASCII (text)
format or a word processing format that can be converted to ASCII
(text). It is essential that you specify on the disk label the word
processing software and version/edition as well as the commenter's
name. This will allow us to convert the comments into one of the word
processing formats used by the Agency. Please use mailing envelopes
designed to protect the diskettes. We emphasize that submission of
diskettes is not mandatory, nor will it result in any advantage or
disadvantage to any commenter.
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
RCRA--Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
TEQ--Toxicity equivalence
[[Page 35127]]
Table of Contents
Part One: Overview and Background for This Proposed Rule
I. What Is the Purpose of This Proposed Rule?
II. What Is the Phase I Rule?
III. What Related Actions Have Been Taken Since Publication of the
Phase I Rule?
IV. How Can I Influence EPA's Thinking on this Rule?
Part Two: NESHAP--Proposed Amendments to the HWC Final Rule
I. Definition of Research, Development, and Demonstration Sources
II. Identification of an Organics Residence Time that is Independent
of and Shorter than the Hazardous Waste Residence Time
III. Controls on APCDs after the Hazardous Waste Residence Time Has
Expired
IV. Instantaneous Monitoring of Combustion Zone Pressure
V. Operator Training and Certification
VI. Bag Leak Detection System
VII. Time Extensions For Performance Testing if the Test Plan Has
Not Been Approved
VIII. Flexibility in Operations During Confirmatory Performance
Testing for Dioxin/Furan
IX. Waiving Operating Parameter Limits during Performance Testing
X. Method 23 as an Alternative to Method 0023A for Dioxin/Furans
XI. Calibration Requirements for Thermocouples
XII. Alternative Approach to Establish Operating Parameter Limits
XIII. Extrapolation of Operating Parameter Limits
XIV. Limit on Minimum Combustion Chamber Temperature for Cement
Kilns
XV. Revisions to Operating Requirements for Activated Carbon
Injection and Carbon Bed Systems
XVI. Clarification of Requirements to Confirm Carbon Bed Age
XVII. Revisions to Operating Parameter Limits for Wet Scrubbers
XVIII. Reproposal of kVA Limits for Electrostatic Precipitators and
Request for Comment on Approaches to Ensure Baghouse Performance
XIX. How to Comply Temporarily with Alternative, Otherwise
Applicable MACT Standards
XX. RCRA Permitting Requirements for Sources Entering the RCRA
Process Post-Rule Promulgation
Part Three: Analytical and Regulatory Requirements
I. Executive Order 12866
II. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5
U.S.C. 601 et. seq.
III. Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks''
IV. Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898
V. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VI. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
VII. Consultation with Tribal Governments
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act
IX. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
Part Four: State Authority
Part One: Overview and Background for This Proposed Rule
I. What Is the Purpose of This Proposed Rule?
Today's notice proposes 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). After
promulgation, commenters (primarily the regulated community) raised
numerous potential issues through informal comments and during
litigation settlement discussions. After considering the issues raised,
we have decided to propose for comment twenty amendments to the final
rule, most of the proposed changes relating to compliance and
implementation of the rule.
The ability of facilities to meet the September 30, 2002 compliance
date may be dependent upon when these proposed changes are made final.
While we expect to complete the rulemaking process and publish final
amendments in a timely manner, we request comments on how the timing of
these rule changes could impact compliance. In addition, we solicit
comments on solutions to address compliance problems should they arise
(e.g., use of Sec. 63.1206(b)(4) to obtain an extension of compliance
with the emission standards of up to one year).
In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of the Federal Register,
we are taking direct final action on thirteen additional amendments to
the Phase I rule. If you wish to comment on those amendments, you must
submit comments following the directions in the Addresses section of
that action.
The remaining sections of this part provide additional background
information on the Phase I final rule.
II. What Is the Phase I Rule?
In the Phase I final rule, we adopted National Emissions Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants to control toxic emissions from the
burning of hazardous waste in incinerators, cement kilns, and
lightweight aggregate kilns. These emission standards created a
technology-based national cap for hazardous air pollutant emissions
from the combustion of hazardous waste in these devices. Additional
risk-based conditions necessary to protect human health and the
environment may be imposed (assuming a proper, site-specific
justification) under section 3005(c)(3) of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Section 112 of the CAA requires emissions standards for hazardous
air pollutants to be based on the performance of the Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT). These standards apply to the three major
categories of hazardous waste burners--incinerators, cement kilns, and
lightweight aggregate kilns. For purposes of today's proposal, we refer
to these three categories collectively as hazardous waste combustors
(HWC). Hazardous waste combustors burn about 80% of the hazardous waste
combusted annually within the United States. The Phase I HWC MACT
standards are expected to achieve significant reductions in the amount
of hazardous air pollutants being emitted each year.
Additionally, the Phase I HWC MACT rule satisfies our obligation
under RCRA (the main statute regulating hazardous waste management) to
ensure that hazardous waste combustion is conducted in a manner
protective of human health and the environment. By using both CAA and
RCRA authorities in a harmonized fashion, we consolidate regulatory
control of hazardous waste combustion into a single set of regulations,
thereby minimizing the potential for conflicting or duplicative federal
requirements.
More information on the Phase I HWC MACT rule is available
electronically from the World Wide Web at www.epa.gov/hwcmact.
III. What Related Actions Have Been Taken Since Publication of the
Phase I Rule?
On November 19, 1999, we issued a technical correction to the Phase
I HWC MACT final rule (64 FR 63209). It clarified our intent with
respect to certain aspects of the Notification of Intent to Comply and
Progress Report requirements of the 1998 ``Fast Track'' final rule (63
FR 33783). Additionally, specific to the Phase I HWC MACT final rule,
we corrected several typographical errors and omissions.
On July 10, 2000, we issued a second technical correction to the
Phase I HWC MACT final rule (65 FR 42292). This action corrected
additional typographical errors and clarified several issues to make
the Phase I rule easier to understand and implement. This action also
supplied one omission from the technical correction published on
November 19, 1999, and made one correction to the related June 19, 1998
``Fast Track'' final rule (63 FR 33783).
On July 25, 2000, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
decided Chemical Manufacturers Association v. EPA, 217 F. 3d 861 (D.C.
Cir. No. 99-1236). The court held that EPA had the legal authority to
[[Page 35128]]
promulgate a requirement of early cessation of hazardous waste burning
activity for those sources not intending to comply with the MACT
emission standards. However, the court also held that we had not
adequately explained our reasons for imposing the early cessation
requirement. As a result, the court vacated the early cessation
requirement and the related Notice of Intent to Comply (NIC) and
Progress Report requirements. This vacature took effect on October 11,
2000. Since the requirements were not vacated until after sources were
required to submit their NICs (on October 2, 2000), we determined that
the court's action does not impact a source's ability to request a RCRA
permit modification using the streamlined procedures of 40 CFR
270.42(j)(1). As long as a source complied with the NIC provisions
(including filing the NIC before the provision was vacated), the source
has met the requirements in 40 CFR 270.42(j)(1) and is therefore
eligible for the streamlined RCRA permit modification process. The
court's decision does not impact the emission standards or compliance
schedule for the other requirements of the HWC NESHAP Subpart EEE.
On November 9, 2000, we issued a third technical correction to the
Phase I HWC MACT final rule (65 FR 67268). It clarified our intent with
respect to the applicability of new source versus existing source
standards for hazardous waste incinerators. This action also clarified
three issues to make the Phase I rule easier to understand and
implement.
On May 14, 2001, we issued a final rule implementing two court
orders that removed affected provisions of the Phase I HWC MACT final
rule from the Code of Federal Regulations (66 FR 24270). This action
removed the Notice of Intent to Comply provisions (discussed above) and
certain operating parameter limits of baghouses and electrostatic
precipitators.
IV. How Can I Influence EPA's Thinking on This Rule?
In developing this proposal, we tried to address the concerns of
all our stakeholders. Your comments will help us improve this rule. We
invite you to provide different views on options we propose, new
approaches we haven't considered, new data, how this rule may effect
you, or other relevant information. We welcome your views on all
aspects of this proposed rule. Your comments will be most effective if
you follow the suggestions below:
Explain your views as clearly as possible and why you feel
that way.
Provide solid technical and cost data to support your
views.
If you estimate potential costs, explain how you arrived
at the estimate.
Tell us which parts you support, as well as those you
disagree with.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
Offer specific alternatives.
Refer your comments to specific sections of the proposal,
such as the units or page numbers of the preamble, or the regulatory
sections.
Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this
notice.
Be sure to include the name, date, and docket number with
your comments.
Part Two: NESHAP--Proposed Amendments to the HWC Final Rule
I. Definition of Research, Development, and Demonstration Sources
Section 63.1200, Table 1, exempts research, development, and
demonstration sources from the Part 63, Subpart EEE, hazardous waste
combustor MACT standards.\1\ We explained at promulgation that the
hazardous waste combustor emission standards and compliance assurance
requirements may not be appropriate for these sources because of their
typically intermittent operations and small size. See 64 FR at 52839.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Hazardous waste research, development, and demonstration
sources remain subject to RCRA permit requirements under
Sec. 270.65. See 64 FR at 52839.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rule defines research, development, or demonstration sources as
those sources engaged in laboratory, pilot plant, or prototype
demonstration operations: (1) Whose primary purpose is to conduct
research, development, or short-term demonstration of an innovative and
experimental hazardous waste treatment technology or process; and (2)
where the operations are under the close supervision of technically-
trained personnel.
Stakeholders express concern that the definition of demonstration
source and the provision to allow unlimited one-year time extensions to
the exemption may result in commercial, production sources taking
inappropriate advantage of the exemption. We request comment on
approaches to preclude inappropriate use of the exemption for
demonstration sources. Approaches that we are considering include: (1)
Clearly distinguishing between research and development sources versus
demonstration sources, and limiting the exemption for demonstration
sources to one year or less; or (2) requiring documentation of how a
source's demonstration of an innovative or experimental hazardous waste
treatment technology or process is different from the waste management
services provided by a commercial hazardous waste combustor.
II. Identification of an Organics Residence Time That Is
Independent of and Shorter Than the Hazardous Waste Residence Time
``Hazardous waste residence time'' is defined at Sec. 63.1201(a) as
the time elapsed from cutoff of the flow of hazardous waste into the
combustor (including, for example, the time required for liquids to
flow from the cutoff valve into the combustor) until solid, liquid, and
gaseous materials from the hazardous waste, excluding residues that may
adhere to combustion chamber surfaces, exit the combustion chamber. As
stakeholders recognize, hazardous waste residence time has significant
regulatory and enforcement implications. For example, if a source were
to exceed an operating requirement or emission standard after the
hazardous waste residence time has expired, it is not a violation if
the exceedance occurred during start-up or shut-down, or because of a
malfunction provided that the source follows the procedures and
corrective measures prescribed in the start-up, shut-down, and
malfunction plan. In addition, after the hazardous waste residence time
has expired, sources may elect to comply with emission standards the
Agency has promulgated under sections 112 and 129 of the Clean Air Act
for source categories that do not burn hazardous waste in lieu of the
hazardous waste combustor standards of Subpart EEE, Part 63. See
Sec. 63.1206(b)(1). \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ As discussed in Section XIX, if sources elect to comply
temporarily with alternative section 112 or 129 MACT standards after
the hazardous waste residence time has expired, sources nonetheless
remain an affected source only under Subpart EEE for hazardous waste
combustors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since promulgation of the hazardous waste combustor rule,
stakeholders have raised the issue of whether a hazardous waste
organics residence time should be defined that is independent of and
shorter than the bulk solids residence time.
Industry stakeholders recommend an approach to calculate a
hazardous waste organics residence time that defines when organic
constituents in solid materials have been destroyed. \3\ Although the
concept has merit, several
[[Page 35129]]
issues must be addressed prior to revising the rule to allow sources to
petition the Administrator for case-by-case determinations of an
organics residence time. We therefore are not proposing a change at
this time but are requesting comment on the concept and implementation
of an organic residence time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Email from David Case, Environmental Treatment Council, to
Bob Holloway, EPA, with attachment entitled ``Proposed Method for
Calculation of Hazardous Constituents Retention Time,'' dated June
7, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As contemplated by stakeholders, the hazardous waste organics
residence time would be independent of and considerably shorter than
the bulk hazardous waste residence time discussed above. As with the
bulk hazardous waste residence time, an organics residence time would
have significant regulatory and enforcement implications. After the
hazardous waste organics residence time has expired, an exceedance of
the carbon monoxide or hydrocarbon emission standard or an operating
parameter limit associated with the destruction and removal efficiency
(DRE) or dioxin/furan emission standards would not be a violation if
the exceedance occurred during start-up or shut-down or were caused by
a malfunction and sources comply with the procedures and corrective
measures prescribed in the start-up, shut-down, and malfunction plan.
In addition, it seems appropriate to allow sources to elect to comply
with standards the Agency has promulgated under sections 112 or 129 of
the Clean Air Act to control organic emissions for source categories
that do not burn hazardous waste in lieu of the hazardous waste
combustor standards of Subpart EEE, Part 63. As discussed in Section
III below, however, providing only a partial transition from the
hazardous waste combustor MACT standards of Subpart EEE may be
problematic.
A. What Is the Approach Stakeholders Recommend to Calculate Hazardous
Waste Organics Residence Time?
Stakeholders suggest that a hazardous waste organics residence time
can be calculated as the sum of: (1) The time for the solid matrix
containing the organic constituents to reach the target temperature
required to destroy the organics; (2) the time for the organic
constituent to be destroyed at the target temperature; and (3) the time
for the gas to pass through the combustion chamber and exit the air
pollution control system. The time required for the organic
constituents within the solid matrix to reach the target temperature
would be calculated using standard heat transfer equations which are
available in chemical engineering references. \4\ Stakeholders state
that these equations can be applied to various materials, assuming the
thermal conductivity of the material. These equations also can be
applied easily to various geometries, such as a 55 gallon drum (right
circular cylinder), or to irregular shaped items resulting from
shredder feed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Geankoplis, C.J., ``Transport Processes and Unit
Operations,'' Chapters 3 and 4, Allyn and Bacon, Inc., Boston, 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stakeholders state that once the solid is at the target temperature
the time for the hazardous constituent to be destroyed can be
calculated using equations that are readily available from Dr.
Dellinger's work on developing the low oxygen thermal stability index
for hazardous organic compound incinerability. \5\ Using Dellinger's
kinetic models under low oxygen conditions, the destruction time for
hazardous constituents can be calculated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ B. Dellinger, et al, ``Development of a Thermal Stability
Based Index of Hazardous Waste Incinerability,'' University of
Dayton Research Institute Final Report Under EPA Cooperative
Agreement CR-813938, November 15, 1991. Also, B. Dellinger, et al,
``Development of a Thermal Stability Based Index of Hazardous
Organic Compound Incinerability,'' Environmental Science and
Technology, 24, p.316, March 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To implement this approach to calculate a hazardous waste organics
residence time, stakeholders suggest that sources should include the
retention time evaluation and calculations in a report developed by an
independent Professional Engineer with combustion engineering
expertise. Sources would submit the report to the Administrator for
review and approval.
B. How Would Site-Specific Factors Be Addressed?
Stakeholders state that the general approach can be readily applied
to various scenarios as necessary on a site-specific basis.
Stakeholders have considered how some scenarios could be addressed, as
discussed below, and believe that approaches to address other scenarios
would become apparent as the approach is applied to the site-specific
situation.
1. How Would Various Geometric Shapes and Sizes of Solids Be Addressed?
Stakeholders acknowledge that an incineration process can have
several types of solid feed such as bulk solids, direct drum feed in
various sizes, shredded waste feed, and other mechanisms. Each of these
solid feed scenarios can be evaluated for the heat transfer step by
assigning an appropriate geometry to the solid for use in the heat flux
equations. Heat transfer will take place more rapidly in shredded waste
feed, in which the particle size of the solids is reduced. At the other
extreme is a monolith in a 55 gallon drum, which will require a longer
time for the center point to reach the target temperature. The center
point of the monolith can be considered the point where the organic
constituent is located for ensuring a worst case for the heat transfer
step. Site-specific feed can be modeled by evaluating the actual
geometry and size of solid feed and post-shredder feed.
2. How Would the Thermal Conductivity of the Solid Be Determined?
The time for the solid mass to reach temperature will depend on the
thermal conductivity of the solid mass. The thermal conductivity is a
key parameter in the heat transfer equation. The types of solid feed
managed at a particular site can be used to select a worst case
material for thermal conductivity. Stakeholders present as an example a
facility that feeds certain polymeric monolithic materials in 55 gallon
drums. Certain polymers may have a low thermal conductivity that can be
used as a worst case. References such as Perry's Chemical Engineering
Handbook can be consulted to provide a range of thermal conductivities
for consideration. For example, stakeholders note that polypropylene
has one of the lower thermal conductivities of 0.08 BTU/hr-sq.ft.-
deg.F (see Table 23-10 in Perry's Handbook). This might provide a good
worst case value to use for the solid mass thermal conductivity for
this source.
3. How Would a Worst-Case Organic Constituent Be Selected?
Stakeholders suggest that a worst-case hazardous organic
constituent could be selected on the basis of its ranking in various
incinerability indices, just as principal organic hazardous
constituents (POHCs) are selected for demonstrating destruction and
removal efficiency (DRE). A constituent that ranks high in both the
heat of combustion and low oxygen thermal stability indices could be
used. In addition, a few compounds with complex structures that would
be expected to yield various decomposition byproducts could be modeled.
Examples of such compounds are pentachlorophenol, perchloroethylene,
and certain pesticides. Stakeholders suggest that Dr. Dellinger's work,
cited above, can be consulted to select additional worst case
constituents.
[[Page 35130]]
4. How Would the Target Destruction Temperature Be Selected?
Stakeholders suggest that target destruction temperatures can be
selected based on the kinetic studies of Dr. Dellinger. Stakeholders
state that Dellinger has generally found that any organic chemical and
its organic byproducts can be completely destroyed at 800 deg.C.\6\
Also, the range of destruction temperatures published by Dellinger can
be consulted to select a target temperature on a site-specific basis
for the types of wastes that are managed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Attachment 5 of ETC's Comments to the MACT Rule, Docket
F-96-RCSP-FFFFF, filed August 19, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. How Would Paralytic and Starved Air Conditions Be Addressed?
Stakeholders acknowledge that certain solid geometries may result
in the organic constituent being isolated from combustion air, such
that pyrolytic conditions must be assumed. Nonetheless, stakeholders
state that a destruction time can still be calculated and the low
oxygen conditions can be incorporated into the kinetic model. Dellinger
has published such calculations in developing the low oxygen thermal
stability index for incinerability.\7\ Stakeholders state that
pyrolytic conditions would likely be required to be assumed for
monolithic feed. They note that shredder-feed, however, substantially
reduces the particle size of the solid feed, and mixing with combustion
air is achieved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Dellinger, B. et al, ``PIC Formation Under Pyrolytic and
Starved Air Conditions,'' EPA Publication No. EPA/600/S2-86/006,
July 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. How Would Heat Sink and Other Heat Consuming Factors Be Addressed?
Stakeholders acknowledge that other factors in a given waste may
consume energy, requiring another step or two to the retention time
calculation. For example, a solid waste monolith that is a low melting
point solid will go through a melting transition that will consume heat
before the temperature of the mass rises past the transition point.
Stakeholders state that this step can be easily added to the retention
time calculation, if necessary. Similarly, a waste may contain a pocket
of water or other low boiling point material, and a step for enthalpy
of vaporization may need to be added. Stakeholders note that these
calculations can also be performed as a form of sensitivity analysis to
determine how conservative the retention time calculation is.
B. What Are the Unresolved Issues About Stakeholders' Recommended
Approach?
We acknowledge that the residence time for organic constituents in
a solid matrix is generally less than the residence time for the bulk
hazardous waste residue. Thus, ideally, sources should be eligible for
the reduced regulatory and enforcement burden discussed above once the
organics residence time has expired. One promising feature of the
stakeholders' approach is that it would conservatively predict how long
it takes the waste monolith to heat up to volatilize the organic
constituent. We are concerned, however, that their approach does not
explicitly address how long it would take for: (1) The generated
volatiles or their potentially toxic intermediates to diffuse to the
surface of the monolith where oxygen is present for destruction; or (2)
alternatively for oxygen in the bulk gas to diffuse from the surface of
the monolith to reach the volatiles. In lieu of accounting for the time
required to destroy organic constituents under oxidative conditions,
stakeholders' approach assumes that destruction would occur within
solid matrices under pyrolytic conditions. Further, stakeholders
believe that calculations developed by Dellinger while developing the
low oxygen thermal stability index could be used to model those
pyrolytic reactions. We request comments on whether Dellinger's work on
low oxygen destruction would adequately model destruction under the
pyrolytic conditions that occur within solid matrices, with respect to
either the time required for destruction of the initial organic
constituent or the types of intermediates that would be formed and the
time required to destroy the intermediates. Finally, we request
comments on whether it is practicable to perform valid engineering
calculations for multiple waste streams that are not homogenous and
that contain multiple organic constituents of concern.
We request comment on stakeholders' approach to calculate an
organics residence time and specifically whether it can be revised to
address our concerns.
III. Controls on APCDs After the Hazardous Waste Residence Time Has
Expired
For sources equipped with a dry particulate matter control device,
we propose to maintain the semivolatile metal, low volatile metal, and
particulate matter \8\ emission standards and the associated
particulate matter control device operating requirements after the
hazardous waste residence time has expired and until the control device
undergoes a complete cleaning cycle (e.g., for all compartments of a
baghouse; for all fields of an electrostatic precipitator).\9\ For
sources equipped with activated carbon injection, the dioxins/furans
and mercury emission standards would also continue to apply after the
hazardous waste residence time has expired until the control device
undergoes a complete cleaning cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The particulate matter emission standard is included because
particulate matter is a surrogate for metal hazardous air pollutants
other than mercury, the enumerated semivolatile metals, and the
enumerated low volatile metals.
\9\ If sources comply with the semivolatile and low volatile
metal emission standards without emissions testing by assuming all
metals in feedstreams are emitted, and therefore do not rely on the
particulate matter control device to comply with the emission
standards for these metals, the proposed requirements to maintain
compliance with the semivolatile and low volatile metals emission
standards and control device operating parameter limits would not
apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. What Concern Would This Requirement Address?
Dry particulate matter emission control devices such as
electrostatic precipitators and baghouses retain collected particulate
matter in the device until the sections of the device are cleaned
sequentially, e.g., rapping of electrostatic precipitator plates, bag
cleaning. This retained particulate matter contains metal hazardous air
pollutants other than mercury due to its volatility. In addition, if
the source is equipped with activated carbon injection, the collected
particulate matter also will contain mercury and dioxins/furans. Our
concern is that these pollutants could be emitted at levels exceeding
the hazardous waste combustor emission standards after the hazardous
waste residence time has expired.
After the hazardous waste residence time has expired, sources may
choose to comply with MACT standards the Agency has promulgated under
sections 112 and 129 of the Clean Air Act for source categories that do
not burn hazardous waste in lieu of the Subpart EEE standards. See
Sec. 63.1206(b)(1). \10\ If sources choose to comply with those
[[Page 35131]]
otherwise applicable MACT standards, we are concerned that these
standards may not adequately ensure that the hazardous waste-derived
pollutants remaining in the dry particulate matter control device are
controlled to the level required by the hazardous waste combustor rules
of Subpart EEE. For example, if the alternative particulate matter
standard were substantially higher than the hazardous waste combustor
MACT standard, sources may be able to operate the control device under
less stringent operating levels (e.g., lower power to a field of an
electrostatic precipitator) which could cause the accumulated
particulate matter (containing hazardous waste-derived pollutants)
retained within the device to be reentrained in the stack gas. This
could allow hazardous waste-derived pollutants to be emitted at levels
exceeding the hazardous waste combustor MACT emission standards. When
the particulate matter control device undergoes a complete cleaning
cycle, the accumulated hazardous waste-derived pollutants are removed,
thus precluding an exceedance of the hazardous waste combustor emission
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ As discussed in Section XIX of the text, if sources choose
to comply with otherwise applicable section 112 or 129 requirements
(e.g., Subpart LLL for cement kilns) after the hazardous waste
residence time has expired, sources remain an affected source under
Subpart EEE only. Sources would comply with those otherwise
applicable MACT standards under an alternative mode of operation
that sources would specify under Sec. 63.1209(q).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Is It Necessary To Require Continued Compliance With the Limit on
Gas Temperature at the Inlet to the Dry Particulate Matter Control
Device?
We considered whether increasing the gas temperature at the inlet
to the dry particulate matter control device, absent a requirement to
maintain the temperature operating limit, could cause hazardous waste-
derived semivolatile metals (and mercury and dioxins/furans if sources
use activated carbon injection) contained in the accumulated
particulate matter to volatilize and be emitted at levels that exceed
an emission standard.
We initially conclude that, absent a gas inlet temperature limit,
gas temperatures are not likely to increase to the levels necessary to
volatilize enough semivolatile metals to cause an exceedance of the
emission standards. This is particularly true if we consider that many
sources should be able to complete a cleaning cycle of their
electrostatic precipitator or baghouse within 30 minutes after the
hazardous waste residence time has expired. We are concerned, however,
that, for sources equipped with activated carbon injection, increases
in inlet gas temperatures above the operating limit may potentially
revolatilize captured mercury and dioxins/furans. We request comment on
the extent to which mercury and dioxins/furans may revolatilize and be
emitted because of increased gas temperatures in the short period after
the hazardous waste residence time has expired and the cleaning cycle
for the dry particulate matter control device has been completed.
C. Would the Proposed Requirement Increase Cleaning Cycle Frequency and
Potentially Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants?
As discussed above, we propose to require continued compliance with
the semivolatile metal, low volatile metal, and particulate matter
standards (and the dioxin/furan and mercury standards if sources use
carbon injection) after the hazardous waste residence time has expired
until the dry particulate matter control device undergoes a complete
cleaning cycle. However, we are concerned, that unless additional
controls are applied, this requirement could potentially result in an
increase in particulate emissions and associated hazardous air
pollutants.
When a dry particulate matter control device is cleaned, collection
efficiency is temporarily degraded. For example, when the plates in the
last field of an electrostatic precipitator are rapped, some of the
resuspended particulate matter is unavoidably emitted. For baghouses,
when the bags are cleaned, typically using a pulse of air, the
collection efficiency of the cleaned bags is reduced until a layer of
particulate matter reforms on the bags. Thus, increasing the cleaning
frequency of a baghouse decreases its collection efficiency.
To comply with the proposed requirement to clean the particulate
matter control device before the Subpart EEE metals and particulate
matter standards are waived in lieu of other standards, sources may
want to initiate a cleaning cycle immediately after the hazardous waste
residence time has expired. Further, they may want to restart the
timing of the cleaning cycle beginning with the cleaning that occurs
after the hazardous waste residence time has expired. Increasing the
cleaning cycle frequency could potentially result in an exceedance of
the emission standards, however, if compliance with the standards has
not been demonstrated during performance testing at that cleaning cycle
frequency. To ensure that the emission standards are not exceeded due
to increased cleaning cycle frequency, sources may not increase the
cleaning cycle frequency beyond the frequency used during the
comprehensive performance test.
D. How Would This Requirement Be Implemented?
If sources elect to comply temporarily with the otherwise
applicable section 112 or 129 Clean Air Act standards after the
hazardous waste residence time has expired, sources would remain
subject to certain Subpart EEE standards and associated compliance
requirements until sources completed a cleaning cycle of the dry
particulate matter control device: Particulate matter, semivolatile
metals, low volatile metals, and, if sources use activated carbon
injection, dioxin/furan and mercury. Given that sources remain an
affected source only under Subpart EEE when sources elect to comply
temporarily with otherwise applicable MACT standards, sources would
identify this operating scenario as an alternative mode of operation
under Sec. 63.1209(q).\11\ Consequently, sources would specify the
applicable emission standards and compliance requirements for this
alternative mode of operation as: (1) Those standards and compliance
requirements of Subpart EEE that remain in effect; and (2) those
otherwise applicable standards and compliance requirements established
under section 112 or 129 (e.g., Subpart LLL for cement kilns). If an
otherwise applicable section 112 or 129 standard or compliance
requirement were more stringent than a Subpart EEE standard or
compliance requirement that remains in effect, sources would comply
with the more stringent standard or compliance requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Section XIX below in the text for additional discussion
on using Sec. 63.1209(q) to specify operations under otherwise
applicable section 112 or 129 MACT standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exceedance of a Subpart EEE operating parameter limit (OPL) for a
dry particulate matter control device after the hazardous waste
residence time has expired but before a cleaning cycle of the device
has been completed would be evidence of failure to maintain compliance
with the Subpart EEE emission standards. Given that the hazardous waste
residence time has expired, however, the exceedance need not be
considered for the excessive exceedance reporting requirement under
Sec. 63.1206(c)(vi). Similarly, if the exceedance occurs because of a
malfunction, the exceedance would not be evidence of failure to
maintain compliance with an emission standard if the source followed
the corrective measures prescribed in its startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan. Thus, the consequences of an exceedance would be the
same after the hazardous waste residence time has expired whether the
exceedance occurs before or
[[Page 35132]]
after the cleaning cycle has been completed if the source chose to
continue to comply with the Subpart EEE emission standards (i.e., in
lieu of otherwise applicable MACT standards under a different mode of
operation). Having equivalent consequences of an exceedance of an OPL
after the hazardous waste residence time has expired irrespective of
whether the cleaning cycle has been completed is appropriate. Our
objective is simply to ensure that the Subpart EEE OPLs for the dry
particulate matter control device are maintained until the cleaning
cycle is completed to minimize emissions of hazardous waste-derived
HAPs to below the Subpart EEE emissions standards. Our intent is not to
penalize a source for exceedances that may be attributable to
unavoidable malfunctions after the source has taken the preventative
measures to minimize emissions of HAPs by cutting off the hazardous
waste feed and allowing the hazardous waste residence time to expire.
Some stakeholders have expressed initial concern with the technical
feasibility of these proposed requirements. We will be considering
these concerns prior to issuing a final rule.
IV. Instantaneous Monitoring of Combustion Zone Pressure
The final rule requires sources 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
measured using an instantaneous monitor; or (3) using an alternative
means to provide control of system leaks. See Secs. 63.1201(a),
63.1206(c)(5)(ii), and 63.1209(p). The rule defines an ``instantaneous
monitor'' as one that continuously samples, detects and records the
regulated parameter without use of an averaging period. In today's
notice, we propose to revise the combustion system leak requirements to
better clarify the intent of this provision, and we are taking comment
on whether we should allow sources to average pressure readings over
short periods of time when demonstrating that their combustion system
is maintained below ambient pressure.
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 sources to monitor and record combustion
zone pressure at a frequency of every 50 milliseconds.\12\ Stakeholders
state such an interpretation would be problematic because of the
enormous number of data points that must be recorded and because such a
frequent monitoring frequency would greatly increase the number of
automatic waste feed cutoffs. 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 (e.g., the
clinker product at a cement kiln).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The final rule preamble states that typical pressure
transducers in use today are capable of responding to pressure
changes once every 50 milliseconds. See 64 FR 52920.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After careful review of the regulatory language and after
considering our original intent, we agree that the final rule is
ambiguous and may be conservatively interpreted to require sources to
monitor and record combustion zone pressure at a frequency of every 50
milliseconds. Therefore, in today's notice, we clarify that our intent
is to require sources to use a pressure monitor and recording frequency
that is adequate to detect combustion system leak events. We also
clarify that the intent of the combustion system leak requirement is to
prevent fugitive emissions from the combustion of hazardous waste, not
fugitive emissions that originate from nonhazardous process streams.
To make these clarifications, we propose to modify the
Sec. 63.1201(a) 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'' (emphasis added).\13\ We
also propose to revise the Sec. 63.1209(p) 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, sources must perform instantaneous monitoring of
pressure and the automatic waste feed cutoff system must be engaged
when negative pressure is not maintained'' (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Note that this newly proposed definition removes the word
``sampling'' from the definition of instantaneous pressure monitor
because a pressure monitor is not thought to physically withdraw a
combustion gas sample.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We do not specify the monitoring and recording frequencies in the
regulations, however, because sources differ in design and operation
such that different monitoring and recording frequencies may be needed
to ensure that fugitive emissions do not occur. Rather, sources and
permit officials should determine on a site-specific basis what
frequency of monitoring and recording would be appropriate. Each source
should describe in the comprehensive performance test workplan and
Notification of Compliance how their compliance method will ensure that
fugitive emissions will not occur. We propose that this description
specify the monitoring and recording frequency and how the monitoring
approach will be integrated into the automatic waste feed cutoff
system.
Stakeholders also suggest 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. Averaging of pressure readings is
less stringent than the current final rule instantaneous monitoring
requirements. We request comment on whether such a monitoring approach
is appropriate, and specifically, whether averaging pressure readings
can adequately detect pressure excursion events that result in
combustion system leaks.
V. Operator Training and Certification
On July 10, 2000, we issued a technical correction to the operator
training and certification requirements of Sec. 63.1206(c)(6) to
clarify which employees are subject to the training and certification
requirements and to note that the training and certification program
should be tailored to the responsibilities of the employee. See 65 FR
at 42295. Subsequent to this technical correction, incinerator
stakeholders raised concerns about the requirement for incinerator
control room operators and shift supervisors to be trained and
certified under the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
Standard Number QHO-1-1994. Although the rule allows incinerator
control room operators to be trained and certified under either a State
program or ASME's program, stakeholders note that they are required to
use the ASME program because there are no State programs at this time.
Stakeholders raise the following concerns: (1) The scope of the ASME
training and certification program is too broad; (2) the ASME
certification
[[Page 35133]]
program is problematic for new sources and newly hired operators
because it requires 6 months of operating experience at the source
before full certification may be awarded; (3) the ASME control room
operator training and certification program is not necessary for shift
supervisors; and (4) the ASME training and certification program cannot
be implemented by the regulatory compliance date.
We provide below our reasons for preferring the ASME training and
certification program over site-specific, source-implemented programs,
but acknowledge stakeholders' concerns that the program may be more
comprehensive than necessary to ensure compliance with the requirements
of Subpart EEE. Accordingly, we propose to allow incinerator control
room operators to be trained and certified under: (1) A site-specific,
source-developed and implemented program; (2) the ASME program; or (3)
a State program. We also conclude that it may be difficult for sources
that choose to use the ASME program to fully certify their control room
operators by the compliance date. Therefore, we propose to require only
provisional certification by the compliance date for such sources. In
addition, for sources that choose to use the ASME program, only
provisional certification would be required for new employees and
employees at new facilities prior to their assuming duties. Finally, we
propose that control room operator training and certification is not
necessary for shift supervisors to help ensure that the source operates
within the limits established under the rule and that emissions of
hazardous air pollutants are minimized.
A. How Do We Address Concerns About the ASME Training and Certification
Program?
1. Is the Scope of the ASME Program Too Broad?
Incinerator stakeholders state that the scope of the ASME training
and certification program for incinerator control room operators is too
broad to apply generically to all control room operators. They prefer a
tailored, site-specific, source-developed and implemented training and
certification program.
The ASME program requires that control room operators be trained
and certified to ensure a broad knowledge of operational, preventive
maintenance, safety procedures, and practices for various types of
incineration systems, emission control systems, and continuous
emissions monitoring systems. Incinerator stakeholders state that there
is no obvious benefit of requiring a broad knowledge of incineration
issues; knowledge of only the equipment and operations at the
operator's site are important. They question the benefit of, for
example, an operator of a small liquid waste incinerator equipped with
a wet scrubber knowing how to operate a rotary kiln incinerator
equipped with a baghouse. They note further that it is unnecessarily
time-consuming and stressful for operators that are unfamiliar with
equipment they have never operated to undergo a rigorous training and
certification program for that equipment. In addition, they note that
the ASME standard was developed as a voluntary standard. Finally, they
note that cement kiln and lightweight aggregate kiln control room
operators may be trained and certified under a site-specific program.
The ASME program is comprised of a broad training curriculum that
is implemented by each source followed by a provisional certification
that is administered by ASME. Provisional certification is awarded
after the operator passes a comprehensive, generic written test
addressing operations of various types of incinerators and control
systems. Operators with provisional certification may apply to ASME for
full certification. Full certification is awarded after passing an on-
site, site-specific oral examination.
We continue to believe that a broad training and certification
program can be beneficial. A broad training program may enable control
room operators to recommend modifications to existing equipment or make
recommendations for new equipment, which may reduce HAP emissions. In
addition, certification under a broad training curriculum would avoid
the retraining and recertification that would be required if the source
modifies the design or operation of the unit in a manner that could
affect compliance with the emission standards and operating
requirements of Subpart EEE.
Nonetheless, we agree with incinerator stakeholders that the broad
scope of the ASME program may not be necessary to ensure compliance
with the provisions of Subpart EEE. Accordingly, we propose to allow
sources to use site-specific, source-developed and implemented training
and certification programs, as discussed under Section B below.
2. Full Certification Under the ASME Program Cannot Be Achieved by the
Compliance Date
The rule currently requires full ASME (or State) certification by
the compliance date. We agree with stakeholders that this is not
workable because ASME does not have the resources to implement the
site-specific oral examination requisite for full certification by the
compliance date. After passing the written examination and achieving
provisional certification, control room operators must apply to ASME
for the oral examination. Stakeholders indicate that it will take one
half day per control room operator to administer the site-specific oral
examination. For many facilities, the ASME oral examination team \14\
will require approximately one week, including travel time, to
administer the exam to all control room operators. Although ASME may
train several examination teams, it is unlikely that full certification
examinations can be implemented at all 149 hazardous waste incineration
facilities prior to the compliance date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The examination team is comprised of representatives from
ASME, the hazardous waste industry, the operator's facility, and/or
the regulatory agency or jurisdictional authority applicable to the
facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address this concern, we propose to require only provisional
certification by the compliance date for sources that choose to use the
ASME certification program. In addition, the operator would be required
to submit an application to ASME for full certification and be
scheduled for the certification examination. Finally, the operator
would be required to achieve full certification within 1 year of the
compliance date. We hope that providing this flexibility in the
deadline for full certification will encourage use of the ASME program.
We specifically request comment on whether the proposed deadlines for
implementing the ASME certification program are appropriate.
3. Requiring Six Months of Operating Experience at the Source Before
Full Certification Is Problematic
The ASME standard requires that control room operators have six
months of operating experience at the source before they can be fully
certified. This is a problem for new sources and for newly hired
operators. We propose to preclude this problem by requiring only
provisional certification before operators at new sources and newly
hired operators could assume their duties. Also, we would require that
[[Page 35134]]
provisionally certified operators apply to ASME for, and be scheduled
for, full certification before they assume their duties. In addition,
we would require that they achieve full certification within one year
of assuming their duties. This will ensure that full certification will
be achieved in a timely manner.
B. What Would Be the Requirements for Site-Specific, Source-Developed
and Implemented Training and Certification Programs?
Under today's proposed rule, a source could choose to develop and
implement a site-specific training and certification program in lieu of
the ASME program or a State program. Certification under a site-
specific program would be required by the compliance date given that
the source will implement both the training and certification (i.e.,
written examination at a minimum). We note that cement and lightweight
aggregate kiln sources are currently allowed to use site-specific
training and certification programs because there is no ASME or other
standard for these sources that addresses their hazardous waste burning
activities. Because the requirements discussed below are appropriate
for these sources as well, we propose to require that the requirements
also apply to cement and lightweight aggregate kilns.
We propose to specify a training curriculum to ensure that the
scope of the training is sufficient to ensure the control room operator
can maintain compliance with the requirements of Subpart EEE. The
certification program (i.e., written examination at a minimum) would be
required to address the topics in the training curriculum. The training
curriculum would be required to include the following topics: (1)
Environmental concerns, including types of emissions; (2) basic
combustion principals, 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 malfunctions; (8) residue
characteristics and handling procedures; and (9) applicable Federal,
state, and local regulations, including Occupational Safety and Health
Administration workplace standards. This training curriculum is modeled
after the requirements the Agency recently promulgated for commercial
and industrial solid waste incinerators. See 65 FR 75338 (December 1,
2000). We believe this training is also appropriate for hazardous waste
combustors.
To maintain certification, an operator would be required to
complete an annual review or refresher course covering, at a minimum,
the following topics: (1) Update of regulations; (2) combustor
operation, including startup and shutdown procedures, waste firing, and
residue handling; (3) inspection and maintenance; (4) responses to
malfunctions or conditions that may lead to malfunction; and (5)
operating problems encountered by the operator. These are the same
requirements the Agency recently promulgated for commercial and
industrial solid waste incinerators at Sec. 60.2085, and we believe
they are also appropriate for hazardous waste combustors.
C. Control Room Operator Training and Certification Would Not Be
Required for Shift Supervisors
The final rule requires the same level of training and
certification for shift supervisors and control room operators.
Incinerator stakeholders question whether shift supervisors need to
meet these training and certification requirements. Stakeholders note
that shift supervisors often have administrative duties that are not
closely related to the technical knowledge required to operate and
maintain a combustor.
After reconsideration, we agree with stakeholders' reasons for not
requiring that shift supervisors be trained and certified to the level
of a control room operator. Accordingly, we propose to require that
shift supervisors, like personnel other than control room operators, be
trained and certified to the technical level commensurate with the
employee's job duties.
D. A Certified Control Room Operator Must Be on Duty At All Times
We propose to revise the rule to clarify that a certified control
room operator must be on duty at the source at all times the source is
in operation. Having a certified operator present at all times is
necessary to ensure compliance with the emission standards and
operating requirements, and to take appropriate corrective measures
when malfunctions occur.
VI. Bag Leak Detection System
Section 63.1206(c)(7)(ii) of the hazardous waste combustor rule
prescribes baghouse operation and maintenance requirements for
incinerators and lightweight aggregate kilns, including a requirement
for the continuous operation of a bag leak detection system as a
continuous monitor. Since promulgation of the rule, stakeholders have
raised two issues: (1) Can less sensitive bag leak detectors be
approved under the alternative monitoring provisions; and (2) why did
we conclude that opacity monitors meeting revised Performance
Specification 1 are not likely to be acceptable bag leak detectors.
A. Can Less Sensitive Bag Leak Detectors Be Approved Under the
Alternative Monitoring Provisions?
Section 63.1206(c)(7)(ii)(D)(1) requires the bag leak detector
system to be capable of continuously detecting and recording mass
changes in particulate matter emissions at concentrations of 1.0
milligrams per actual cubic meter or less. Stakeholders state that
monitors with higher detection limits are able to detect subtle changes
in baseline, normal emissions as well as catastrophic events, and
question whether these monitors can be approved under the alternative
monitoring petitioning procedures of Sec. 63.1209(g)(1).
We support the use of monitors with higher detection limits
provided the monitor is sensitive enough to detect subtle increases in
baseline, normal emissions, and we plan to develop guidance
recommendations on this issue. We request comment on whether
Sec. 63.1206(c)(7)(ii)(D)(1) should be revised to explicitly allow the
use of monitors with higher detection limits, or whether the existing
alternative monitoring provisions coupled with guidance recommendations
is sufficient. In addition, we request comment on how a source would
document that a bag leak detection system, with a detection level
higher than 1.0 milligrams per actual cubic meter, can detect subtle
changes in baseline, normal mass emissions of particulate matter. For
example, should we require site-specific tests to document that
alternative detectors provide a measurable and repeatable change in
opacity output with an increase in particulate matter mass emissions?
B. Why Did We Conclude That Opacity Monitors Meeting Revised
Performance Specification 1 Are Not Likely To Be Acceptable Bag Leak
Detectors?
EPA promulgated a significantly improved Performance Specification
1 (PS1) for opacity monitors on August 10, 2000. See 65 FR at 48914. We
considered whether to allow use of
[[Page 35135]]
opacity monitors meeting PS1 as bag leak detectors, but conclude that
they are not likely to be sensitive enough to detect subtle increases
in mass particulate matter emissions from a source equipped with a well
designed and operated baghouse.
Revised PS1 includes additional design and performance
specifications as well as new test procedures that provide a profound
improvement on opacity data accuracy and precision. Collectively, the
additional measures provide a comprehensive, in-depth functional test
of the complete measurement procedure, thereby eliminating many of the
performance problems associated with previous opacity monitors.
The revisions go far beyond the previous version of PS1, drawing on
recent technological advancements in optics, electronics, and
information transfer. There are similar specifications for such
monitors in Europe. The stipulation of automatic self-diagnosing
capability is one of the many modern features incorporated into the new
PS1. Taken together, the additional measures reflect a distinct new
generation in the state-of-the-art of opacity monitors.
Notwithstanding the improvements that revised PS1 requires, opacity
monitors are generally not acceptable for use as a bag leak detector
because they are not sensitive enough to detect subtle increases in
baseline, normal emissions. Baghouse emission opacity levels are very
nearly zero at particulate matter concentrations below emission
standards and are very near the lower detection limits of a continuous
opacity monitoring system (COMS). COMS manufacturers have collectively
raised the concern about COMS sensitivity limitations at low opacity
levels. (See ASTM D-6216-98, Standard Practices for Opacity Monitor
Manufacturers to Certify Conformance with Design and Performance
Specifications.) Although the increase in particulate matter mass
emissions that would trigger a measurable opacity change that a COMS
could detect is usually site-specific and would depend on the particle
size and reflective and refractive properties. We are concerned that
particulate matter emission concentrations may have to double or triple
before a COMS could detect a significant opacity change at the low
opacity levels associated with baghouse emissions. For these reasons,
we conclude that COMS meeting Performance Specification 1 are not
likely to be suitable as bag leak detectors. Nonetheless, as discussed
above, we request comment on whether an approach could be developed to
allow use of bag leak detectors that have detection limits above 1.0
milligrams per actual cubic meter.
Moreover, we note that electrodynamic and triboelectric bag leak
detectors have proven to be much more sensitive and cost about the same
or less than COMS to install and operate. In addition, some particulate
matter continuous emissions monitors (CEMS) have been shown to be able
to detect very small changes in particulate matter mass emissions at
low emission levels. If sources were to use a particulate matter CEMS
as a bag leak detector, sources need not correlate the detector to
particulate matter emission concentrations. Rather, sources would be
required to document that the CEMS provides a measurable and repeatable
change in output with an increase in particulate matter mass emissions.
VII. Time Extensions For Performance Testing if the Test Plan Has
Not Been Approved
During the comment period of the final rule and after promulgation,
stakeholders raised the concern that the rule requires sources to
commence performance testing within 180 days after September 30, 2002,
even if the test plan has not been approved. Although the rule requires
submittal of the test plan 12 months prior to the scheduled test date
to provide a nine-month review period, stakeholders are concerned that
the test plan may not be approved at the conclusion of that review
period. Stakeholders state that they may spend hundreds of thousands of
dollars to conduct a test under an unapproved test plan, only to learn
after the test that EPA or the state may not accept the results as a
valid demonstration of compliance with the emission standards due to
differences of opinion on test design. In the preamble to the final
rule, we address this issue by stating 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 allowable.'' See 64 FR
at 52912. However, stakeholders are concerned that this preamble
language does not guarantee that they will not have to repeat the test.
Stakeholders recommend revising the rule to allow sources to wait until
a test plan has been approved before conducting a performance test.
We are reluctant to deviate from the Part 63 General Provision's
six-month deadline after the compliance date for conducting the initial
comprehensive performance test. 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. Nonetheless, we acknowledge
that there may be situations where a source and regulatory officials
are making genuine efforts to complete review of the test plan, but for
reasons beyond their control, the review cannot be completed prior to
the testing deadline. Accordingly, we propose to revise the rule to
address these particular situations.
Under today's proposal, a source may petition the Administrator,
under the authority of Sec. 63.7(h), to obtain a ``waiver'' of any
performance test--initial or periodic performance test; comprehensive
or confirmatory test. The ``waiver'' would not eliminate the test, but
would be used to grant an extension of time to conduct the performance
test. To qualify for the waiver, a source must make a good faith effort
to comply with the testing requirements in a timely manner. First, as
currently required, sources 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 (see Sec. 63.1207(c)(1)), or at least 60 days before
a confirmatory performance test is scheduled to begin (see
Sec. 63.1207(d)). Sources also must submit all other documentation
required by Subpart EEE to be included with the performance test plans.
The submitted test plans must fulfill the substantive content
requirements of Secs. 63.1207(f) and 63.8(e). Second, a source must
make a good faith effort to accommodate the Administrator's comments on
the test plans. Finally, the Administrator must not take final action,
through a notification of intent to deny (see Sec. 63.7(c)(3)(i)(B)),
to deny the source's test plan(s).
Under today's proposal, sources 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. The Administrator would approve or deny
the petition within 30 days of receipt and promptly notify the source
of the decision. The Administrator would not approve extensions of the
test date for a duration exceeding 6 months, and the Administrator
would include in granted petitions a sunset provision to end the waiver
within 6 months.
To renew a waiver, we are proposing that sources must submit a
revised petition under Sec. 63.7(h)(3)(iii) at least 60 days prior to
the end date of the most recently approved waiver petition. The
Administrator could approve a revised
[[Page 35136]]
petition for a total waiver period up to 12 months. A performance test
could not be delayed more than a total of 12 months, irrespective of
the status of approval of the test plan.
If the Administrator denies a Sec. 63.7(h) waiver petition, we are
proposing that the source must commence the performance test, with or
without approved test plans, by either the deadline provided by Subpart
EEE or by the expiration date of their most recently approved waiver
petition, whichever is later.
Sources would also need to address, in the waiver petition, the
following requirements of Sec. 63.7(h). A source must provide
documentation to enable the Administrator to determine if ``the source
is meeting the relevant standard(s) on a continuous basis * * *.'' See
Sec. 63.7(h)(2). For extension requests of the initial comprehensive
performance test, a source must submit the Documentation of Compliance
to assist the Administrator in making this determination. In addition,
Sec. 63.7(h)(3)(iii) requires sources to ``include information
justifying the owner or operator's request for a waiver, such as the
technical or economic infeasibility, or the impracticality, of the
affected source performing the required test.''
In order to continue to keep the public informed of the source's
compliance status, the source would need to notify the public (i.e.,
the source's public mailing list) of their Sec. 63.7(h) petition to
``waive'' a performance test.
The following is an example time line indicating how the proposed
Sec. 63.7(h) waiver petitioning process would work for the initial
comprehensive performance test. All end dates should be read as ``no
later than'' X number of months. The time line assumes the source has
submitted its performance test plans (i.e., for emissions testing and
continuous monitoring system evaluation) on the deadline date--one year
before the performance test must be conducted (i.e., sources submit the
test plans 6 months prior to the compliance date).
0 time--Submittal of performance test plans for review (1 year prior to
test date; 6 months prior to compliance date).
9 months--Administrator does not approve or deny test plans, even
though the source has acted in good faith to obtain approval
10 months--Submittal of performance test waiver petition and notify
public (2 months prior to test date).
11 months--Administrator approves or denies the performance test waiver
(1 month after receipt of waiver).
12 months--Commence performance test if the Administrator denies
waiver.
12 months + £6months--Extended performance test commencement
date if the Administrator approves waiver.
16 months--If needed, submit performance test waiver renewal petition
and notify public (2 months prior to sunset of latest approved waiver).
17 months--Administrator approves or denies renewal petition (1 month
after receipt of renewal petition).
18 months--Maximum extension of test date for unrenewed performance
test waivers.
18 months + £6months--Extended performance test commencement
date with renewed waiver.
24 months--Maximum extension of test date for renewed performance test
waivers.
VIII. Flexibility in Operations During Confirmatory Performance
Testing for Dioxin/Furan
During the confirmatory performance test, the final rule requires
sources 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. Sources also must stay within the maximum or minimum value,
as appropriate, that is allowed. See Sec. 63.1207(g)(2). These
requirements ensure that during the confirmatory performance test,
dioxin/furan emissions are within the range of the normal to the
highest allowable emissions.
Stakeholders express concern that it may be difficult to ``dial
in'' operation of the combustor to the required range for each
operating parameter simultaneously. Sources are particularly concerned
about having to operate within a potentially narrow range of carbon
monoxide levels for sources that normally operate close to the 100 ppmv
limit. This is 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
federate).
Although this is not likely to be a widespread problem, we
acknowledge there may be a problem in some situations. Accordingly, we
propose today to revise the rule to: (1) Allow approval in the test
plan for operations under a wider operating 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 during the finding of compliance based on
operations outside of the range specified in the confirmatory test
plan.
Allowing the Administrator to accept test results based on
operations outside of the range specified in the test plan would
address 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,
were 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 be truly representative of normal operations.
IX. Waiving Operating Parameter Limits During Performance Testing
Section 63.1207(h) automatically waives the operating parameter
limits (OPLs) during subsequent comprehensive performance tests under
an approved performance test plan. After promulgation, stakeholders
raised two concerns. They believe that: (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.
A. Should We Waive OPLs During the Initial Comprehensive Performance
Test?
Section 63.1211(d) requires sources to include in the operating
record a Documentation of Compliance (DOC) that establishes limits on
the operating parameters under Sec. 63.1209 that, based
[[Page 35137]]
on an engineering evaluation, will ensure compliance with the emission
standards. The DOC may be revised at any time prior to submitting the
Notification of Compliance. If additional engineering information
becomes available that leads sources to conclude that they can operate
under less stringent OPLs during the initial comprehensive performance
test and demonstrate compliance with the emission standards, the DOC
may be revised accordingly. Therefore, we do not believe that
additional regulatory language is needed to enable source to operate
during pretesting or the initial comprehensive performance test under
OPLs less stringent than those identified in the DOC. We specifically
request comment on this issue.
B. Should We Allow the OPLs To Be Waived if the Test Plan Has Not Been
Approved?
Section 63.1207(h) waives the OPLs during performance testing under
an approved test plan. We required pretesting and testing operations to
be conducted under an approved test plan as a prerequisite for the
waiver. This will ensure that operations, when the OPLs are waived, are
likely to remain in compliance with the emission standards. In
retrospect, however, we acknowledge that stack emissions measurements
will be taken during both pretesting (see Sec. 63.1207(h)(2)) and
testing. Given that there will be documentation of any exceedance of an
emissions standard during a performance test, potentially indicating a
violation during such testing, it is not necessary to require that the
test plan be approved before the OPLs can be waived. Similarly, if a
source records the results of pretesting, the OPLs should be waived
without approval of the test plan. Accordingly, we propose to revise
the rule to waive the OPLs during pretesting (if the source records the
results of the pretest) and performance testing. See proposed
Sec. 63.1207(h).
Although stakeholders have raised concerns about testing under an
unapproved test plan (see Section VII above), there may be instances
where a source may choose to test under such conditions. Consequently,
the regulatory revision appears to be warranted.
X. Method 23 as an Alternative to Method 0023A for Dioxin/Furans
The final rule requires use of Method 0023A to determine compliance
with the dioxin and furan emission standard. See Sec. 63.1208(b)(1).
Based on discussions with stakeholders after promulgation of the final
rule, we believe it is appropriate to request comment on amending the
final rule to allow petitions for the use of Method 23 in lieu of
Method 0023A.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Sources can currently petition EPA to use alternative test
methods pursuant to Sec. 63.7(f). The petition process that we are
requesting comment on would not require sources to submit the
results of a Method 301 validation process as is required under
Sec. 63.7(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Method 23 is the Clean Air Act dioxin/furan air emission test
method found in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A. Method 0023A is the RCRA
dioxin/furan air emission test method found in SW-846.\16\ The final
rule requires use of Method 0023A because this method is the updated
version of Method 23. At the time of final rule publication, we
believed that the improvements to the updated method warranted use of
Method 0023A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Method 0023A was proposed on July 25, 1995 (see 60 FR
37974). EPA received comments on Method 0023A and later incorporated
the method into SW 846 in a final rule on June 13, 1997 (see 62 FR
at 32451).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stakeholders request that we give sources the option to use Method
23 or Method 0023A because: (1) The dioxin/furan standard is based on
emissions data that was collected using Method 23 procedures; (2)
Method 0023A is more expensive because of additional analytical costs;
and (3) Method 0023A results in higher detection limits.
Method 23 and Method 0023A are similar methods. Method 23 combines
the front half of the filter and probe rinse with the back half of the
sorbent and rinses to perform a single extraction and analysis.
Recovery of spiked standards into the sorbent are used to serve as an
indicator of overall recovery. Method 0023A differs from Method 23,
primarily in that Method 0023A uses the addition of standards to both
the filter (front half) and sorbent (back half), and then separates the
front half and back half for analysis in order to determine the
recovery from each half. They are separated in order to better quantify
recoveries for both the back half and front half fractions. This is
important, because low recoveries in Method 23 are sometimes associated
with dioxin/furan contained in solid phase particulate that may go
unnoticed due to the combined front half and back half analysis. This
may be of particular importance for sources that use activated carbon
injection, or sources whose particulate matter contains significant
levels of carbonaceous material. In other words, Method 0023A was
designed as an improvement to Method 23 by incorporating separate
recovery, spiking, and analysis of front half and back half samples to
improve the quality assurance of the front half and back half analysis.
The benefits of Method 0023A compared to Method 23 include accurate
recovery data and known data quality. The downsides to Method 0023A
include higher analytical costs and possibly higher detection limits.
Although the detection limits of Method 0023A may be higher than
Method 23 detection limits, we do not believe that these higher
detection limits will adversely affect a source's ability to adequately
demonstrate compliance with the dioxin/furan standard, as we explained
in the technical support document to the final rule.\17\ This is true
because analytical detection limits have decreased over recent years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See ``Final Technical Support Document for HWC Standards,
Volume IV: Compliance with HWC MACT Standards,'' Chapter 16, July
1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We request comment on whether we should amend the final rule to
give the option to use Method 23 in lieu of Method 0023A. We are
considering allowing sources to petition the authorized regulatory
agency to use Method 23 in lieu of Method 0023A. Under such an
approach, a source would have to justify why the use of Method 23 is
warranted. Factors that could be considered by the regulatory official
in reviewing these petitions include: (1) The carbonaceous content of
the particulate that is emitted from the source; (2) analytical costs;
(3) data quality; and (4) detection limits. For example, under this
approach, we believe that a source could address Method 23 data quality
concerns by submitting previous Method 0023A results to the regulatory
official that document: (1) The recovery percentages of the front and
back half of the analysis; and (2) the amount of dioxin and furans
present in the front half. Method 0023A results that indicate good
front half recoveries could support a source's claim that Method 23 is
an appropriate method to demonstrate compliance with the dioxin/furan
emission standard.\18\ The added data quality checks associated with
Method 0023A may not be needed if the results of previous Method 0023A
analyses indicate good front half recovery percentages. Method 23 may
also be warranted if dioxin and furans are not detected, or are
detected at low levels in the front half of Method 0023A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ This assumes, however, that method recoveries do not
significantly vary at a source for different emissions tests. Any
petition to use Method 23 should address whether method recoveries
are expected to change from one emission test to another.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 35138]]
XI. Calibration Requirements for Thermocouples
Section 63.1209(b)(2)(i) of the final rule requires verification of
the calibration of each thermocouple or other temperature sensor at
least once every three months. Stakeholders express concern that
recalibration of each temperature measurement device every three months
is a significant undertaking. Stakeholders explain that, for example,
temperature measurement devices on the air pollution control train are
typically flanged onto the process piping and/or vessels. To
recalibrate these devices without shutting the combustor down is an
involved process. Removing these measurement devices for recalibration
would require the operator to enter a static value in the automatic
waste feed cutoff system to avoid a cutoff, and have a technician
equipped with appropriate personal protective equipment receive the
appropriate line and equipment opening permits, and then try to safely
remove the instrument from the process while the combustor is still
running. For configurations that have pressurized portions of the air
pollution control train, the combustor would be required to shut down
to avoid release of fugitive emissions. Stakeholders question whether
the benefits outweigh the burden of recalibrating each temperature
device every three months.
Stakeholders also state that recalibration of pyrometers is
particularly problematic. Optical pyrometers are often sealed at the
factory to prevent adjustment of the calibration. To check calibration
on an optical pyrometer is difficult and stakeholders believe it is not
a task that should be undertaken every three months unless there are
clear benefits.
It is not clear to us that recalibration of all types of
temperature measurement devices every three months is as burdensome an
undertaking as stakeholders suggest. Thermocouples are the most common
temperature measurement device used for compliance assurance. We
believe that their calibration can generally be confirmed without
removing them from the combustor. Thermocouples may malfunction either
by a failure in the circuit (e.g., the junction between the two wires
at the bead may break) or the electronics may drift. If the circuit
fails, the thermocouple will give clearly erroneous readings. Drift in
the electronics can be corrected without removing the thermocouple. We
specifically request comment on whether thermocouples can be
recalibrated without removing them from the combustor.
Although it may be impractical to calibrate the internal operations
of a pyrometer every three months, as stakeholders suggest, there are
other maintenance activities such as cleaning of the optics and
alignment checks that will help ensure that the pyrometer is performing
correctly. We specifically request comment on whether the rule should
require that these and other maintenance activities should be performed
every three months.
If based on review of comments to this notice and reevaluation we
determine that recalibration of temperature monitoring devices every
three months is not practicable, we would revise the rule to delete
Sec. 63.1209(b)(2)(i). In lieu of a generic recalibration requirement
that applies to all temperature monitors, we would require that you
develop an appropriate calibration procedure and frequency and include
that information in the evaluation plan required by Sec. 63.8(e)(3)(i).
XII. Alternative Approach To Establish Operating Parameter Limits
The rule requires sources to establish most operating parameter
limits as the average of the test run averages of the comprehensive
performance test. Each test run average is calculated by summing all
the one-minute readings within the test run and dividing that sum by
the number of one-minute readings. See 64 FR at 52922.
Stakeholders state that this is an unreasonably conservative
approach to establish operating parameter limits in that sources would
not be allowed to operate in the way that they did 50% of the time
during the performance test (when demonstrating compliance with the
emission standards). This may overstate the conservatism inherent in
this approach.\19\ Nevertheless, we believe that a conservative
approach is warranted because: (1) These parameters can have a
significant effect on emissions; and (2) the approach is consistent
with how manual method emissions results are determined (i.e., manual
method emission test results for each run represent average emissions
over the entire run).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ For example, if the duration of each run of the performance
test were 60 minutes, establishing parameter limits based on the
average of the run averages allow sources to continue to operate as
during the performance test. This is because 1-minute values that
are higher than the average would be off-set by 1-minute values that
are correspondingly lower than the average. Because most performance
test runs have a duration longer than 60 minutes, however, the
``average of the run averages'' approach coupled with an hourly
rolling average averaging period for most parameter limits, will
require that sources operate more conservatively than during the
performance test as a practical matter.
\20\ Petitioners in litigation challenging the underlying rule
have maintained that the one-hour averaging time to demonstrate
compliance with the dioxin standard effectively amends the standard.
The argument goes that the one-hour averaging period is shorter than
that used in the source's performance test. EPA disagrees; the
dioxin standard does not prescribe any particular averaging time, or
other monitoring regime, for achieving a temperature level, so that
using a one-hour averaging time does not amend the standard.
However, even if (against our view) the temperature monitoring
requirement is considered to change the emission standard, it
appears justifiable as a beyond the floor standard under CAA section
112(d)(2). First, the standard is readily achievable technically.
Spray quenching, the means of control, merely requires turning of a
control valve to allow quenching. USEPA, ``Final Technical Support
Document for Hazardous Waste Combustor MACT Standards, Volume IV:
Compliance with the Hazardous Waste Combustor Standards,'' July
1999, p. 2-16. Operators can readily determine when quenching is
needed, since thermocouples report instantaneous temperature
changes, allowing immediate reaction to temperature changes. Ibid,
p. 2-10. Second, EPA has already considered this cost (i.e., the
cost of quenching) in determining the standards for HWCs. EPA does
not believe that there would be any incremental cost associated with
the one-hour averaging requirement, because it is based on the same
spray quenching technology which is the basis for the standards
already adopted. See also 64 FR at 52892 (finding that the cost of
spray quenching technology for lightweight aggregate kilns is
reasonable, in adopting the beyond-the-floor standard for dioxin/
furans). In addition, the one-hour averaging requirement is needed
to prevent exceedances of the emission standard itself, see Ibid, at
2-8 to 2-9 and 3-8 to 3-9 (documenting how net dioxin/furan
emissions would increase over the amounts allowed by the emission
standard without this requirement, but further explaining why the
ten-minute averaging time that EPA initially proposed is not
essential). See also EPA's Brief in CKRC v. EPA, no. 99-1457 (D.C.
Cir. 2001) at pp. 113-120 (a copy of this brief is part of the
record for this proposal). Finally, we do not believe there are any
adverse non-air or energy impacts associated with the averaging
requirement (and again, EPA has already assessed energy impacts and
waste generation impacts of the standard when promulgating the
standard in the first place). See generally USEPA, ``Final Technical
Support Document for Hazardous Waste Combustor MACT Standards,
Volume V: ``Emissions Estimates and Engineering Costs,'' July 1999
(RC2F-S0011) chapter 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stakeholders also maintain that it is not technically practicable
to establish some operating parameter limits using the average of the
test run averages. Stakeholders present examples including cement kiln
minimum combustion chamber temperature (see discussion in Section XIV
below), and secondary power input to an ionizing wet scrubber or wet
electrostatic precipitator.
In light of stakeholders' concerns, we are considering an
alternative approach to establish operating parameter limits that
provides assurance of compliance with the emission standard:
establishing multiple limits for a given parameter that ensures that
the profile of the
[[Page 35139]]
parameter does not exceed the profile documented during the
comprehensive performance test. We call this the ``matching-the-
profile'' approach.
Under the matching-the-profile approach, a source would establish
multiple limits for a given parameter that ensure that the profile of
the parameter does not exceed the profile documented during the
comprehensive performance test. This approach has the advantage of
allowing operations at parameter levels above the average level of the
performance test for the same period of time and at the same levels, as
shown during the performance test. Provided that the source operates
below the average level of the performance test for the same period of
time, and at the same levels, as during the performance test. One
disadvantage is that, to effectively implement the approach, sources
would be required to establish multiple operating limits for a single
parameter.
As an example of how this matching-the-profile approach would work
for establishing the gas temperature operating limit at the inlet to an
electrostatic precipitator, consider the following hypothetical gas
temperature data for three runs of a comprehensive performance test.
The individual run times are presented, and the total of the run times
is nine hours.
Table 1.--Alternative Approach To Establish an OPL Whereby the Parameter Profile Documented During the Comprehensive Performance Test Cannot Be Exceeded
[Example Parameter: Gas temperature at the inlet to an ESP.]
[Assume Run Times as Follows: Run 1-180 minutes; Run 2-150 minutes; Run 3-210 minutes. Total time of 540 minutes (9 hrs).]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-Min avg temperature that was not exceeded the specified % Time that avg run
of Time ( deg.F) Average of run avg can be
Percent of time --------------------------------------------------------------- averages exceeded in any 9-
Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 hr block
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100% (max T).................................... 405 415 425 415 0 min
90%............................................. 395 398 390 394 54 min
50%............................................. 375 380 375 377 270 min
25%............................................. 370 350 360 360 405 min
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this example, we have assumed that four operating limits would
be needed to ensure adequately that the performance test profile is not
exceeded: a maximum temperature that could not be exceeded, and three
temperature limits that could be exceeded for prescribed periods of
time during each 9-hour block average. In practice, the number of
parameter limits would be established on a site-specific basis and
would be a function of factors including: (1) The variability of the
parameter during the test (i.e., range from the high to low value
\21\); (2) whether the performance test emission levels were close to
or well below the emission standard; and (3) the relationship between
the parameter and emission levels. \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The greater the range of values for a parameter within a
percentile, the less certain we can be that the performance test
profile (and emission levels) will be maintained. This is because a
source could theoretically operate for extended periods of time
(i.e., longer than during the performance test) at the upper end of
the range (or the lower end for parameters for which minimum limits
are established).
\22\ For example, more rather than fewer parameter limits would
be appropriate to characterize the profile for gas temperature at
the inlet to an electrostatic precipitator given that dioxin/furan
emissions relate exponentially to inlet gas temperature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the example presented above, 1-minute average temperature levels
are ranked from highest to lowest for each run, and the temperature
associated with various time percentiles (i.e., 100%, 90%, 50%, and
25%) are identified. In Run 1, for example, temperatures below
395 deg.F were achieved 90% of the time. Then, a time-weighted average
temperature across the runs is calculated for each of the percentiles.
Finally, the time percentiles are converted to the number of minutes in
a block period of time (corresponding to the time required to conduct
all runs of the performance test). We now have a series of temperature
limits that can be exceeded only for a specified period of time.
Compliance with these time/temperature limits should ensure that the
temperature profile of the performance test is not exceeded during
normal operations, and that the emission standard is not exceeded.
We request comment on whether this approach to establish operating
parameter limits as an alternative to calculating the limit as the
average of the test run averages would be less burdensome for regulated
sources while ensuring compliance with the emission standards. We also
note that sources can request alternative monitoring approaches under
Sec. 63.1209(g)(1) and may request to use this (or other) alternative
approach whether or not EPA finalizes this proposal. We request comment
on whether we should explicitly include this approach in the rule, or
use this discussion as guidance recommendations. Explicitly defining
the approach in the rule may better facilitate efforts by sources to
adopt the approach to their needs, and review and approval of the
approach by regulatory officials.
XIII. Extrapolation of Operating Parameter Limits
Stakeholders suggest that the rule inappropriately penalizes
sources that achieve comprehensive performance test emission levels
well below the standard by establishing operating parameter limits
based on performance test operations at those low emission levels.
Operating under conditions to artificially increase emissions during
testing (e.g., by detuning emission control equipment) may not be
feasible or desirable from a worker/public health and cost perspective.
To address this concern, we request comment on whether the rule
should allow extrapolation of an operating parameter limit \23\
established as currently required to a higher limit (or lower limit if
the parameter limit is a minimum limit) using a site-specific,
empirically-derived relationship between the parameter and emissions of
the pollutant in question.\24\ An example is extrapolation of the gas
temperature limit at the inlet to the dry particulate matter control
device to a higher limit based on the relationship between gas
temperature and dioxin/furan emissions. To use this approach, a source
must document the relationship
[[Page 35140]]
empirically for their source. To remain in compliance with the emission
standard, however, the temperature limit could be extrapolated to
levels higher than 400 deg.F only if the extrapolated dioxin/furan
emissions were below 0.2 ng TEQ/dscm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Requests to extrapolate metal feedrates would continue to
be considered under Sec. 63.1209(n)(2)(ii).
\24\ In addition to using site-specific, empirically-derived
relationships, we also request comment on whether the rule should
allow use of established engineering principles that define the
relationship between operating parameters and emissions to
extrapolate operating limits and emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources could not take advantage of this extrapolated gas
temperature limit in this example without also extrapolating the gas
temperature limit for compliance assurance with the semivolatile and
low volatile metals standards.\25\ This is because gas inlet
temperature is a compliance parameter for both dioxin/furans and
semivolatile and low volatile metals. We would also consider allowing
extrapolation of the metals compliance assurance inlet gas temperature
limit using engineering calculations to a temperature limit that would
correspond to metals levels close to the emission standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ A gas inlet temperature limit is not required, however, if
the source feeds low levels of metals and complies with the
semivolatile and low volatile metals standards without emissions
testing by documenting compliance with the emissions standards
assuming all metals that are fed are emitted. In addition, even if
the source were required to comply with a lower gas temperature
limit for compliance assurance for metals, there may still be
advantages to establishing an extrapolated temperature limit for
compliance with the dioxin/furan standard. For example, if the
source had a performance test-based temperature limit (i.e., metals
temperature limit) exceedance that did not exceed the extrapolated
dioxin/furan-based limit, the temperature exceedance would not
represent failure to maintain compliance with the dioxin/furan
emission standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe that extrapolated limits should be less than 100% of the
standard. Such conservatism is important because sources would not have
actually demonstrated compliance with the emission standards at the
extrapolated operating parameter limit. We request comment on what
upper level of extrapolation would be appropriate (e.g., 75%, 80%) and
whether the upper level of extrapolation should vary depending on the
level of confidence in the empirical relationship or other approach
that is used to calculate the extrapolation.
The Administrator would grant (or deny) a petition to extrapolate
an operating parameter limit on a case-by-case basis considering
factors including whether: (1) The operating parameter values during
the performance test were at the upper (or lower for minimum limits)
range of historical, normal levels; (2) the extrapolated level sources
request is warranted considering historical levels of the parameter;
(3) it is impracticable to demonstrate compliance with the emission
standard when operating at the desired (i.e., extrapolated) operating
limit during the performance test; and (4) the extrapolation procedure
will conservatively predict the relationship between the operating
parameter and emissions. To determine if the extrapolation procedure
conservatively relates the operating parameter to emissions, the
Administrator would consider factors including how far the source
requests to extrapolate the limit beyond the value calculated from the
performance test and how close the emissions during the performance
test were to the standard.
We also note that sources can request alternative monitoring
approaches under Sec. 63.1209(g)(1) and may request to use this (or
other) alternative approach prior to promulgation of a final rule. We
request comment on whether we should explicitly include this approach
in the rule, or use this discussion as guidance recommendations.
Explicitly defining the approach in the rule may better facilitate
efforts by sources to adopt the approach to their needs, and review and
approval of the approach by regulatory officials.
XIV. Limit on Minimum Combustion Chamber Temperature for Cement
Kilns
Stakeholders have expressed concern that it is technically
impracticable for cement kilns to establish a minimum combustion
chamber temperature based on the average of the test run averages for
each run of the comprehensive performance test. Stakeholders state that
combustion chamber temperatures cannot be maintained at low enough
levels for the duration of the comprehensive performance test to
establish workable operating limits that would allow them to burn
hazardous waste fuels economically without frequent waste feed cutoffs
because of potential exceedences of the limit. Stakeholders indicate
that combustion chamber temperature levels are fairly constant within a
narrow range and note that there is a very narrow range of temperatures
and feed composition in which a cement kiln must operate in order to
produce quality clinker and a marketable product.
Stakeholders further note that they must take extreme actions under
the current RCRA requirements to establish an economically viable
minimum combustion chamber limit based on the average of the lowest
hourly rolling averages for each run. Stakeholders relate that during
one hour of each run of the RCRA compliance test, they must take
unusual and potentially equipment-damaging steps to lower temperatures.
\26\ Those problems are compounded by the requirement in the MACT rule
to establish the limit based on the average temperature level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ We note that allowing sources to establish operating limits
under current RCRA regulations based on the average minimum or
maximum hourly rolling average (rather than the average of the
average values as required under Subpart EEE) is intended to address
routine deviations that can occur even though steady-state operating
conditions are maintained. Modifying operating conditions during
compliance testing to induce temporary, artificial perturbations is
inappropriate. Such operations are not representative of operations
under the test condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, stakeholders note that it is difficult to accurately
monitor combustion chamber temperature in a cement kiln. We already
acknowledge this concern and, accordingly, the rule allows measurement
of the temperature at a location that best represents, as practicable,
the bulk gas temperature in the combustion zone. See
Sec. 63.1209(j)(1)(i). The rule also allows sources to petition the
permit writer to request approval of an alternative temperature
monitoring approach. See Sec. 63.1209(g)(1).
We have responded, in the final rule Comment Response Document, to
stakeholder's questions about the need for monitoring combustion
chamber temperature by noting that combustion chamber temperature is a
principal factor in ensuring combustion efficiency and destruction of
toxic organic compounds. Although we acknowledge that a cement kiln
inherently controls the kiln temperature to produce clinker, this
inherent control may not be adequate to assure compliance with the
dioxin/furan and destruction and removal efficiency emission standards.
For example, we understand that cement kilns occasionally undergo
upsets and produce substandard clinker. If lower than normal combustion
chamber temperatures can result from an upset, we do not know how
compliance with the emission standards can be assured.
Notwithstanding these reservations, and in light of stakeholders'
continued concerns, we request comment on whether the rule should
continue to require cement kilns to establish and comply with a minimum
combustion chamber temperature limit. Stakeholders have indicated that
they have produced additional data supporting their views. We also
request comment on whether the alternative approaches discussed above
which can be used to establish alternative operating parameter limits
(i.e., match-the-profile and extrapolation) would address some of
stakeholders' concerns with establishing a minimum
[[Page 35141]]
combustion chamber temperature limit for cement kilns. We note, again,
that sources may use Sec. 63.1209(g)(1) to request alternative
monitoring approaches and need not wait for the Agency's final
determinations subsequent to this notice.
XV. Revisions to Operating Requirements for Activated Carbon
Injection and Carbon Bed Systems
The final rule requires sources using carbon beds or activated
carbon injection systems to limit particulate matter emissions to the
level achieved during the comprehensive performance test. See
Secs. 63.1209(k)(5) and 63.1209(l)(3). We have since determined that:
(1) It is inappropriate to explicitly require a site-specific
particulate matter limit if a carbon injection system is used; and (2)
particulate matter control downstream of a carbon bed is not a critical
operating parameter to ensure compliance with the dioxin/furan and
mercury emission standards. We propose, therefore, to delete the site-
specific particulate matter limit requirement for activated carbon
injection systems. We also propose to delete the requirement for
sources equipped with carbon beds to establish particulate matter
operating parameter limits to ensure compliance with the dioxin/furan
and mercury emission standards.
Dioxin/furan and mercury will adhere to the solid carbon used in an
activated carbon injection systems. The final rule requires a site-
specific particulate matter limit for this type of control system
because an increase in particulate matter emissions could also
correspond to an increase in dioxin/furan and mercury emissions. After
considering stakeholder comments, we believe 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 with a continuous emission
monitor. The use of a site-specific particulate matter limit was
originally thought to go in tandem with the requirement to use
particulate matter CEMS. Since we do not require sources to use
particulate matter CEMS for compliance purposes, we believe it is
inappropriate to require site-specific particulate matter limits.\27\
Particulate matter emissions are instead controlled by complying with
operating limits on the particulate matter control devices (e.g.,
minimum power to an electrostatic precipitator). Therefore, we propose
to revise Sec. 63.1209(k)(5) to require 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ The issue of the use of site-specific particulate matter
limits to assure compliance with metal and dioxin/furan standards,
when sources use a particulate matter CEM, will likely be addressed
in any future particulate matter CEM proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also believe that particulate matter control downstream of a
carbon bed is not a critical operating parameter to ensure compliance
with the dioxin/furan and mercury emission standards. We note 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.\28\ We, therefore,
propose to delete the language in Sec. 63.1209(k)(5) that requires
control of particulate matter emissions to ensure compliance with the
dioxin/furan and mercury standards for sources with a carbon bed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See memo from S. Schliesser to M. Galbraith, June 7, 2000,
regarding ``Carbon Bed Reentrainment Issue'' for more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
XVI. Clarification of Requirements to Confirm Carbon Bed Age
When demonstrating compliance with the dioxin/furan (and mercury)
emission standard during the initial comprehensive performance test,
sources may use the manufacturer's specification for the limit on
carbon bed age rather than the actual age of the bed during the
performance test. If using the manufacturer's specification for carbon
bed age, Sec. 63.1209(k)(7)(i)(C) requires sources to recommend in the
initial comprehensive performance test plan a schedule for subsequent
dioxin/furan emissions testing, prior to the confirmatory performance
test, that will be used to document to the Administrator that the
initial limit on maximum bed age ensures compliance with the dioxin/
furan emission standard.
Stakeholders express several concerns with these requirements: (1)
How much testing and what type of testing is required to confirm bed
life; (2) if the manufacturer's specification for bed life is such that
it extends beyond the deadline to conduct the dioxin/furan confirmatory
test, testing to confirm bed life should not be required before that
dioxin/furan confirmatory test; and (3) given that a carbon bed
controls mercury as well as dioxin/furan, testing to confirm bed life
should be required to demonstrate compliance with both the dioxin/furan
and mercury emission standards. We address each of these issues below.
A. How Much Testing and What Type of Testing Is Required to Confirm Bed
Life?
We intended that testing equivalent to the dioxin/furan
confirmatory test would be required to confirm the life of the carbon
bed. Therefore, a test comprised of at least three runs would be
required. The operating conditions would be the same as required for
the dioxin/furan confirmatory test under Sec. 63.1207(g)(2).\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Given that carbon bed removal efficiency is closely related
to combustion gas temperature at the inlet to the bed system, we
request comment on whether the carbon bed life confirmatory test
should be conducted at inlet gas temperatures at or near the maximum
allowed (i.e., rather than at levels within the range of normal
levels to the maximum allowed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What Happens If Bed Life Extends Beyond the Deadline for Dioxin/
Furan Confirmatory Testing?
If the manufacturer's specification calls for a bed life beyond the
deadline for confirmatory testing, the source must conduct the dioxin/
furan confirmatory test by the deadline and also conduct the bed life
confirmatory test at any time prior to the manufacturer's specification
for bed life. We are proposing to revise the rule so that in this
situation bed life confirmatory testing would not be required prior to
dioxin/furan confirmatory testing.
If, for example, the manufacturer's specification for bed life was
3.5 years and the bed was installed just prior to the comprehensive
performance test, the source must conduct the dioxin/furan confirmatory
test within 2.5 years after the comprehensive performance test. In
addition, the source must conduct a bed life confirmatory test within
3.5 years of the comprehensive performance test. Of course, sources may
elect to forgo the additional year of bed life to avoid the expense of
conducting the carbon bed life confirmatory test.
C. Should Bed Life Confirmatory Testing Include Testing To Confirm
Compliance With Both the Dioxin/Furan and Mercury Emission Standards?
Given that carbon beds control both dioxin/furan and mercury
emissions, bed life confirmatory testing must document compliance with
both the dioxin/furan and mercury emissions standards. Not requiring
mercury testing during bed life confirmatory testing was an oversight
when we promulgated the rule. We are proposing to revise the rule
accordingly. See proposed revision to Sec. 63.1209(l)(4).
[[Page 35142]]
The bed life confirmatory testing for mercury must be conducted
under normal conditions for the operating parameters used to control
mercury emissions. See Sec. 63.1209(l). This is the same concept that
is used to confirm bed life for dioxins/furans, and for the dioxin/
furan confirmatory test. Thus, the parameters specified under
Sec. 63.1209(l) 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.
XVII. Revisions to Operating Parameter Limits for Wet Scrubbers
The final rule controls mercury emissions from hazardous waste
combustors by: (1) Controlling the feedrate of mercury; (2) wet
scrubbing to remove soluble mercury (e.g., mercuric chloride); and (3)
carbon adsorption. See Sec. 63.1209(l). There are specific operating
parameter limits that apply to each control technology.
For hazardous waste combustors using wet scrubbers to control
mercury, the operating parameter limits are identical to those that are
required to assure compliance with the hydrochloric acid/chlorine gas
emission standard. Specifically, those requirements include
establishing hourly rolling average limits on minimum pH of the
scrubber water based on operations during the comprehensive performance
test. The hourly rolling average is established as the average of the
test run averages. The pH of the scrubber water is an important
parameter for chlorine control because, at low pH, the scrubber
solution is more acidic and removal efficiency of hydrochloric acid and
chlorine gas decreases.
A. What Is the Issue With the Minimum Operating Parameter Limit
Requirement for Wet Scrubbers With Regard to Mercury Control?
Since promulgation of the rule, we've become aware of evidence that
the scrubber liquid pH can have an important effect on the control and
fate of mercury in wet scrubbers. In particular, various wet scrubber
manufacturers and operators have observed that low pH (acidic) scrubber
liquid solutions improve the control of mercury in hazardous waste
combustor stack gases. There also is some recent work supporting the
idea that scrubber liquid pH is an important factor in mercury capture
and removal. In addition to low pH liquids increasing the control of
elemental mercury, there's also evidence that high pH liquids may tend
to reduce the captured soluble mercury back to the elemental form of
mercury, which would then be re-released with the liquid during the
liquid recycle. This line of thinking suggests that it may be necessary
to establish a maximum scrubber liquid pH during the compliance test to
ensure sufficient mercury control. However, a maximum scrubber liquid
pH is opposite to the minimum liquid pH limit that is set and used to
control chlorine emissions.
B. How Would a Low pH Scrubber Liquid Improve Mercury Control?
There are a number of reasons why a low pH scrubber liquid is
thought to improve mercury control:
--Most elemental mercury formed in combustion is thought to favor
conversion (or oxidation) to ionic mercury, such as HgCl2,
mercuric chloride, under typical air pollution control device
conditions on hazardous and other waste combustors (e.g., see Lee and
Kilgroe (1998), Hall (1991)).
--Oxidized mercury is very soluble in low pH scrubbing solutions
(e.g., see Siret et al. (1997)). Also, strong reducing agents in
scrubber liquid (which are more likely in higher pH scrubbing liquids)
will reduce and revolatilize captured mercury.
--Scrubber liquids with high pH (i.e., added NaOH) may inhibit the
oxidation of elemental mercury, and its subsequent absorption into the
scrubber liquid (i.e., the ability to be controlled by the scrubber),
see Soelberg (1998).
--In high pH reducing liquids, captured soluble ionic mercury may
be reduced back to elemental forms in the scrubber liquid and then re-
released during the liquid during recycle. The use of low pH solutions
minimizes this possibility by favoring the formation of stable
HgCl4 (e.g., see Krivanek (1993)). Ionic mercury with a
(Hg+2) oxidation state is very soluble in water, especially
in low pH scrubbing solutions. This enables the mercury to be readily
absorbed from the flue gases. Elemental mercury has a low solubility
and would typically pass through a wet scrubbing system unabsorbed.
Without some way to avoid mercury revolatilization, it has been
observed that elemental mercury emissions downstream of a wet scrubber
can actually be higher than the inlet loading (see Siret et al. (1997),
DeVito and Rosenhoover (undated).
Alternatively, there is some work on mercury control in coal fired
utility power plants with limestone-based wet scrubbers indicating that
changes in scrubber liquid pH in the range of 5 to 7 does not impact
mercury control (see Miller, (undated), McDermott Technology
(undated)). However, these data may not be directly applicable to the
case of hazardous waste combustors due to the following: Basic scrubber
liquids of pH greater than 7 were not evaluated; the use of limestone
in these data, which is uncommon in hazardous waste combustor wet
scrubbers; high levels of sulfur and lower levels of chlorine in coal
stack gases; very low levels of mercury measured both upstream and
downstream of the scrubber; and conflicting data on the predominant
mercury species being emitted (whether it is elemental mercury or ionic
mercury).
C. When Should a Maximum pH Limit Be Considered for Mercury Control?
The use of a operating parameter limits on maximum scrubber liquid
pH may be appropriate to ensure that mercury emissions are minimized.
In particular, there are several cases where requiring this as an
operating parameter limit for mercury control may be desirable when:
--The scrubber is relied upon for achieving a certain mercury
control efficiency in order to achieve the mercury emission standard.
--The facility has a history of a wide range of mercury
concentrations in the feed waste streams.
--The facility has a history of a wide range of variations in
scrubber liquid pH, oxidation potential, or composition.
--There is a wide range of HCl, NOX, and SO2
emission levels expected in the flue gas based on waste composition.
D. How Would We Set a Maximum pH Limit in the Scrubber Liquid?
If it is determined to be necessary to achieve a high level of
mercury control, it may be appropriate to establish both an upper and a
lower pH operating range. The lower pH limit maybe set based on either
(1) manufacturer/designer recommendations (which would have to be
reviewed and approved by the Agency and contained in the performance
test plan), or (2) with a separate compliance test required for
determining the lower pH operating parameter limit for chlorine. At
that time, an operating range could be specified which would also
consider the upper end of pH allowable for the desired mercury control.
If the wet scrubber is staged, or if two wet scrubbers are operated in
series, it may be appropriate to establish during the same performance
test, a maximum pH limit on one scrubber for mercury control and a
minimum pH limit on the other scrubber for chlorine control.
If a ``total species'' mercury continuous emissions monitor is
used, then no monitoring of operating
[[Page 35143]]
parameters related to mercury is required. However, if only an
elemental mercury monitor is used, wet scrubber operating parameters
may also need to be monitored.
E. What Are Other Factors Affecting a Wet Scrubber's Ability to Control
Mercury?
In addition to pH, there are a number of factors affecting the wet
scrubber's ability to control mercury. For instance, it is well
documented that the oxidizing potential of the scrubber solution has a
direct impact on the control of elemental mercury. The recent use of
scrubber liquid oxidizing additives such as NaClO2,
acidified KMnO3, Na2S, and Cl2 has
been shown to enhance elemental mercury control. Other factors
influencing mercury control include: scrubber design, chloride
concentration, mercury concentration and speciation at the inlet to the
scrubber, and the use of special reagents (as mentioned above) to
chemically convert and capture some of the elemental mercury.
F. What Are the Agency's Options To Ensure That the Scrubber Liquid pH
Is Appropriate for Mercury Control?
We request comment on requiring sources with wet scrubbers to
establish a maximum pH operating parameter limit for mercury control.
This maximum pH level could be based on manufacturer specifications,
compliance test results, or specified by the permit writer on a case-
by-case basis. Another option is to require a scrubber liquid oxidation
meter be used to comply with a minimum liquid oxidation potential
limit. If chlorine is a concern, a pH range could be specified, or, as
mentioned earlier, if two scrubbers are used, one could have a maximum
pH specified for mercury control and a minimum pH specified for
chlorine control.
XVIII. Reproposal of kVA Limits for Electrostatic Precipitators and
Request for Comment on Approaches To Ensure Baghouse Performance
The final rule establishes operating parameter limits for
electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) and baghouses: (1) Minimum kVA per
field of an ESP; and (2) minimum and maximum pressure drop (delta P or
dP) for each cell of a baghouse. See Sec. 63.1209(m)(1)(ii and iii). At
EPA's request, however, the D.C. Circuit has vacated these provisions
in order that EPA repropose and seek additional comment on them. See 66
FR 24270. Today, we repropose the requirement to establish minimum
limits on each field of an ESP and request comment on alternative
approaches to ensure such performance. For baghouses, we request
comment on alternative approaches to ensure performance.
A. Requirements To Ensure Electrostatic Precipitator Performance
Stakeholders express concern that limiting the kVA to each field of
an electrostatic precipitator is problematic because: (1) It precludes
the flexibility to shut down one or more fields of a multi-field
electrostatic precipitator for maintenance while continuing hazardous
waste burning; (2) it is difficult to establish minimum kVA limits on
each field of the ESP during the comprehensive performance test that
provide a wide enough operating envelop for economical operations; and
(3) kVA to the first few fields of a multi-field ESP are not that
important and should not be limited.
We respond to these concerns by noting that power distribution
across the fields of an ESP is very important to performance. EPA
testing at a cement kiln showed that individual field power level
distribution was critical to performance.\30\ When power input to the
last field of a four-field ESP was decreased while total power input
was held constant (i.e., by slightly increasing the power to the second
and third fields), emissions of particulate matter doubled from 0.06 to
0.12 gr/dscf. In addition, recent comparisons of the results from
predictive emission models to actual emissions indicate that power
input by field is an important refinement to the code predictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See memorandum from Bruce Springsteen, EER-GC, to Bob
Holloway, US EPA, entitled ``Relationship Between PM Emissions and
ESP Total kVA Vs Field kVA'', dated November 21, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, we do not believe that limits on kVA to each field of
the ESP are as burdensome as stakeholders state. For example, we do not
believe it is a common problem to have a situation where a single field
is down for repair and, thus, not operating at its minimum kVA, while
the ESP is kept on line. Generally, when an ESP field needs repair, the
ESP is taken off line. In addition, the comprehensive performance test
may be structured to provide operational flexibility as needed. For
example, a source seeking flexibility to continue burning hazardous
waste with one field down could conduct the performance test under that
mode of operation. Alternatively, the source could simulate the
operational flexibility during the comprehensive performance test. For
example, the source could conduct each run of the performance test with
all fields operational 90% of the time, and with one field down 10% of
the time. Then, the source would need to limit the time of operation
with one field down to 10% of each block period of time (i.e., block
average) equivalent to the time required to conduct the performance
test.
Finally, another remedy may be to use the authority of
Sec. 63.1209(g)(1) to petition the permit writer for an alternative
monitoring approach to ensure performance of the ESP is maintained.
Given that we believe that power distribution across the ESP is
important to ensure performance and that minimum limits on power input
to each field would not be overly burdensome, we today repropose the
kVA limits originally promulgated at Sec. 63.1209(m)(1)(iii).
Notwithstanding this proposal, however, we request comment on
several alternatives to limiting kVA to each field of the ESP (which
may ultimately serve as alternatives which can be pursued under
Sec. 63.1209(g)(1)), as discussed below. Note that several of these
alternatives are not mutually exclusive. After considering comments and
further evaluation, we also may decide to promulgate several
alternatives.
1. Require an Increasing KVA Pattern Across the ESP
Under this approach, sources would be required to establish a
minimum limit on total kVA to the ESP based on the performance test,
and to assure that kVA levels increase from the inlet to outlet fields.
In addition, we would require establishment of a minimum limit on total
kVA to the ESP.
Maintaining a minimum total kVA with a pattern of progressively
increasing kVA from the inlet fields to the outlet field is generally a
good indicator that the entire ESP, as well as each field, is
performing adequately. The rationale for this approach is that the
power suppression effect from high particle concentrations
progressively diminishes from the inlet field to the outlet field.
Implementation of this approach would mean that the actual kVA levels
for each field, or the absolute or relative difference in kVA from
field to field that was achieved during the performance test, would not
be considered in compliance assurance.
2. Limit KVA on Only the Back \1/3\ of Fields
This approach would require establishment of minimum kVA to each of
the last \1/3\ of the fields in the ESP, as well as a minimum limit on
total kVA
[[Page 35144]]
to the ESP based on the performance test.\31\ The rationale for this
approach has a similar basis to the approach in paragraph 1, but with
an altered interpretation. Given that high particle concentration
suppresses ESP power levels, the outlet fields can only achieve high
power levels when the inlet fields are performing adequately. If the
inlet fields are not performing well (as well as during the performance
test), then the minimum kVA on the last few fields cannot be
maintained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Stakeholders also suggest another approach whereby limits
would be established on minimum total kVA to the ESP, and minimum
kVA only to the last field of the ESP. We request comment on this
alternative approach as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under this approach, if the source has a 2 or 3-field ESP, they
would establish a minimum kVA limit on the last field. If it's a 4, 5,
or 6-field ESP, then establish minimum kVA limits on the last 2 fields.
If it's a 7, 8, or 9-field ESP, then establish minimum kVA limits on
the last 3 fields.
3. Use a Continuous Monitor That Measures Relative Particulate Matter
Loadings
Under this approach, sources would use a continuous monitor that
can detect relative particulate matter loadings. The device must be
sensitive enough to detect subtle increases in baseline, normal
emissions. The monitor could be a baghouse leak detector, an opacity
monitor, or a particulate matter continuous emissions monitoring
system. Given that the source would be continuously monitoring relative
particulate matter emissions under this approach, they would not need
to establish kVA limits on the ESP.
To implement this approach, the source would establish an operating
parameter limit that is based on the response from the continuous
monitor during the comprehensive performance test. In addition, we
would require interconnection of the limit to the automatic waste feed
cutoff system. The source would also be required to take corrective
measures as prescribed in the operations and maintenance plan if there
was an increase in the baseline, normal response (i.e., generally well
below the response during the performance test). This would be similar
to how a bag leak detector is used to ensure that performance of a
baghouse is maintained.
4. Use of Predictive Emission Monitoring Systems
This approach would use one of the available ESP performance models
to characterize and correlate ESP performance with particulate matter
emissions as a predictive emission monitoring system (PEMS). There are
three personal-computer models (Electric Power Research Institute, EPA,
and Southern Research Institute) that use the same first-principle
equations. These models attest to using field-by-field electrical data,
or similarly derived approaches, for compliance assurance. In
combination with particulate matter measurements, each of these models
has produced results with correlation coefficients greater than 0.98.
Once adequately demonstrated to predict emissions, the model results
would then serve as a compliance monitoring protocol able to account
for any combination of power distribution levels and other contributing
factors. If a source were to use this PEMS approach, they would have
the flexibility to operate with a field out of operation and without
the need for limits on field or total kVA while giving regulatory
officials a means for ensuring compliance. This PEMS approach is based
on a similar methodology advanced by industry that is undergoing review
by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards as a compliance
assurance method (CAM).
Implementation of the PEMS could follow a two-pronged procedure:
a. Operations under the Green Zone. When particulate matter
emissions are expected to be well below the particulate matter
limit,\32\ referred to as the ``green zone,'' the source would use a
secondary indicator (e.g., opacity) to monitor compliance. For example,
the green zone could be defined as when the secondary indicator is
below 75% of the level predicted by the model when operating at the
particulate matter limit. There would be no need to apply the model
when the secondary indicator (i.e., and therefore emissions) remains in
the green zone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ The particulate matter limit would be the PM emission
standard or a lower PM emission level that is extrapolated from
comprehensive performance test emission levels to a level that
ensures compliance with the semivolatile and low volatile emission
standards (and the dioxin/furan emission standards if sources use
activated carbon injection). For example, if during the performance
test the PM emissions were 50% of the PM standard, but the
semivolatile metal emissions were 75% of the semivolatile metal
standard, the source's PM compliance limit to ensure compliance with
the semivolatile metal standard would be 75% of the particulate
matter standard. This compliance assurance approach is based on the
reasonable assumption that for a percentage increase in PM
emissions, emissions of metals (and dioxin/furan when activated
carbon injection is used) will increase by that percentage or less.
This is because low volatile metals are evenly distributed over the
range of PM particle sizes, while semivolatile metals and dioxin/
furan on adsorbed carbon, are enriched on the smaller particulates.
As the performance of the PM control device degrades and PM
emissions increase, some of the larger particles that were being
captured would be emitted while the smaller particulates continue to
be emitted as before.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Operations under the Red Zone. When the secondary indicator
value exceeds 75% of the level predicted by the model when operating at
the particulate matter limit, the source would be in the ``red zone.''
During a red zone episode, they would apply the model at prescribed
intervals (e.g., every 4 to 8 hours). Representative data (e.g.,
secondary voltage and current for each field, and gas temperature and
flowrate) would be collected during the interval, averaged, and input
to the model. Model results would predict the emission level and serve
as the regulatory emission monitor for determining compliance.
Depending on the model results, the source would respond appropriately.
If the results indicate that the particulate matter limit has not
been exceeded, the source would continue to operate. If the source were
still in the red zone, they would either continue to apply the model at
the prescribed interval, or perform corrective measures (e.g.,
remedying the ESP performance problem) to return to the green zone. If
the model results indicate that emissions exceeded the PM limit, then
the source has failed to comply with one or more of the emission
standards.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ For example, if the predicted emissions were higher than
the PM standard and the extrapolated PM emission levels associated
with the semivolatile and low volatile metal standards, as well as
the dioxin/furan standard if sources use activated carbon injection,
the model results would be evidence that the source has exceeded all
four emission standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Requirements To Ensure Baghouse Performance
The final rule required sources to establish limits on minimum and
maximum pressure drop (delta P or dP) across each cell of the baghouse
based on manufacturer specifications and to interconnect the limits
with the automatic waste feed cutoff system. See
Sec. 63.1209(m)(1)(ii). The rule also required incinerators and
lightweight aggregate kilns to install a bag leak detector and cement
kilns to install opacity monitors. As noted earlier, this provision was
vacated by the D.C. Circuit at EPA's request so that EPA could
repropose and seek further comment on the issue.
We promulgated the requirement to establish dP limits because dP
may provide an indication of adequate filter cake build-up to ensure
performance. In addition, low dP may indicate the presence of filter
holes or leakage between sections of the filter housing
[[Page 35145]]
while high dP may indicate the potential to create pinhole leaks, or
bag blinding or plugging. We acknowledge, however, the minimum dP may
not effectively detect fabric holes, especially in large facilities
with multiple chamber filter housing units that operate in
parallel.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ US EPA, ``Final Technical Support Document for Hazardous
Waste Combustor MACT Standards, Volume IV: Compliance with the
Hazardous Waste Combustor Standard,'' July 1999, p. 4-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, since promulgation of the rule, stakeholders state
that system or manifold dP is the same as the dP for each cell or
compartment. Therefore, monitoring dP for each cell is redundant and
unnecessary. Stakeholders also state that baghouses for sources with
large gas flowrates (e.g., a cement kiln) can have 30 or more cells and
because of the large number of cells, establishing limits on, or even
monitoring, dP is impracticable.
Finally, stakeholders recently submitted data confirming our
concern that cell dP is not sensitive to substantial increases in
opacity for large baghouses.\35\ Stakeholders conducted experimentation
at a cement kiln with a baghouse where dP was monitored for a cell in
which collection performance was intentionally degraded. The baghouse
has 32 cells and each cell is comprised of 56 bags. Prior to degrading
the cell's performance, cell dP was monitored for several hours. The
detector appeared to be responding appropriately to pressure changes as
the pressure dropped to zero each time the cell was cleaned on a 25-
minute cycle and then rapidly increased to approximately 3.5 inches
water column. The pressure then gradually increased to 4 to 5 inches
water column prior to the next cleaning cycle. While performance of one
cell was artificially degraded, opacity was also monitored. There was
no discernable change in cell dP during the episode while opacity
increased dramatically from baseline levels of 4 to 5 percent to 10 to
12 percent. These opacity levels represent particulate matter emissions
on the order of 0.01 gr/dscf at 5 percent opacity to 0.02 gr/dscf at 10
to 12 percent opacity. Although this experiment indicates that dP is
not always sensitive to significant changes in opacity, it also shows
that an opacity monitor can detect significant changes in mass
particulate matter emissions at concentrations in the 0.01 to 0.02 gr/
dscf range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Data submitted by Norris Johnson, Lone Star Industries,
Inc., to Bob Holloway, US EPA, on November 16, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We generally disagree with many of stakeholders' views on the value
of monitoring cell dP. System or manifold dP is usually higher than
cell dPs because of the dP contributed by plenums (including dust
buildup) and compartment isolation valving. Many baghouses operate with
uneven cell dP because of complex factors.\36\ For example, inlet flow
design factors lead to gas flow imbalance among cells and to uneven
cell dPs. Also, bag cleaning mechanisms degrade over time leading to
varying levels of cleaning among cells and varying cell flow and dP. In
addition, monitoring cell and system dPs is recommended by virtually
all baghouse manufacturers and consultants because of the cost-
effectiveness in preventing small problems from escalating into large
ones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See H.H. Nierman and A.M.Hood, ``How to Monitor Pulse Jet
Baghouses,'' Chemical Engineering, March 1996, pp. 114-119
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We acknowledge again, however, that minimum cell dP may not
effectively ensure performance of a large baghouse. Consequently, we
are not reproposing limits on cell dP. Rather, we request comment on
whether decisions to require monitoring of cell dP should be made on a
site-specific basis (pursuant to Sec. 63.1209(g)(1) or (g)(2))
considering factors such as: (1) Whether the baghouse is equipped with
a device (e.g., bag leak detector) that is properly tuned and has the
sensitivity to detect both broken bags (i.e., emission spikes) and
gradual increases in baseline, normal emissions that may be caused by
small holes; and (2) the approach that would used to identify the
poorly performing cell when the detector notes a gradual degradation in
performance; and (3) size of the baghouse. In addition, in situations
where commenters believe that monitoring cell dP should be required, we
request comment on whether cell dP should be monitored as an operating
parameter limit that is interconnected to the automatic waste feed
cutoff system, or whether cell dP monitoring should simply be one
component of the source's operation and maintenance plan (under which
appropriate corrective measures would be taken if cell dP were to fall
below or above manufacturer specifications).
Pending final action on this notice, regulatory officials should
use the authority of Sec. 673.1209(g)(2) to determine on a site-
specific basis what operating requirements may be appropriate to ensure
that baghouse performance is maintained at levels that ensure
compliance with the particulate matter, semivolatile metals, and low
volatile metals emission standards (and the dioxin/furan and mercury
standards if activated carbon injection is used).
XIX. How To Comply Temporarily with Alternative, Otherwise
Applicable MACT Standards
Section 63.1206(b)(1)(ii) allows sources 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,\37\ provided the source: (1) Submits a one-
time notice to the Administrator documenting compliance with those
alternative standards; \38\ and (2) documents in the operating record
that they are complying with those alternative standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ If the Agency has not promulgated CAA Section 112 or 129
MACT standards for the non-hazardous waste burning class of sources
in a particular source category, there are no ``otherwise
applicable'' MACT standards for the source. For example, the Agency
has not yet promulgated Section 129 standards for non-hazardous
waste incinerators. In these cases, the source would not be subject
to any MACT standards for stack emissions after the hazardous waste
residence time has expired. The source must define such operations
as a mode of operation under Sec. 63.1209(q), and must note in the
operating record when they begin this mode of operation.
\38\ Note that, in a separate rulemaking, EPA would delete the
requirement for the one-time notification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stakeholders have asked how the transition between the Subpart EEE
standards and the otherwise applicable Section 112 or 129 MACT
standards would work. Specifically, stakeholders question: (1) whether
sources would alternate as affected sources under different MACT
standards for stack emissions, or become affected sources under
different MACT standards concurrently; \39\ and (2) whether they should
use Sec. 63.1209(q) to identify operations under the alternative
Section 112 or 129 MACT standards as an alternative mode of operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ For example, the hazardous waste burning cement kiln MACT
standards of Part 63, Subpart EEE and the Portland Cement
manufacturing MACT standards of Part 63, Subpart LLL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Hazardous Waste Combustors Are Affected Sources Only Under Subpart
EEE
Even though sources may invoke Sec. 63.1206(b)(1)(ii) to become
temporarily exempt from the substantive requirements of Subpart EEE,
they remain an affected source under Subpart EEE, and only Subpart EEE
(with respect to stack emissions requirements \40\), until the source
meets
[[Page 35146]]
the requirements specified in Table 1 to Sec. 63.1200 for no longer
being an affected source. Because those requirements include being in
compliance with the RCRA closure requirements of Subpart G, Parts 264
or 265, they remain an affected source until it is determined they no
longer burn hazardous waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Note, however, that sources may be an affected source under
different MACT standards concurrently for control of HAPs from
different sources at the facility. For example, all hazardous waste
burning cement kilns are affected sources under Subpart EEE for
stack emissions, and Subpart LLL for other sources of HAP emissions
(e.g., clinker handling).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To implement this clarification, we propose revising the rule to
require that, if a source becomes temporarily exempt from the
substantive requirements of Subpart EEE by halting hazardous waste
burning activities, they must comply, during that temporary period,
with all otherwise applicable Section 112 or 129 MACT standards. We use
the term ``otherwise applicable'' because, after the hazardous waste
residence time has expired, and if the source was not an affected
source only under Subpart EEE, they would be subject to any and all
Section 112 and 129 MACT standards we have promulgated for sources in
the particular source category that do not burn hazardous waste (e.g.,
the MACT standards for Portland cement kilns in Part 63, Subpart LLL).
In addition, we propose revising the rule to clarify that otherwise
applicable Section 112 and 129 MACT standards are applicable
requirements under Subpart EEE, if the source elects to comply with
those requirements after the hazardous waste residence time has
expired. This term has significant implications in that applicable
requirements are implemented and enforced under Subpart EEE as
discussed below.
B. How Are Otherwise Applicable Requirements Implemented and Enforced
Under Subpart EEE
Section 63.1209(q) requires establishment of operating requirements
under different modes of operation. When electing to comply with the
otherwise applicable MACT requirements (promulgated under Section 112
or 129 of the CAA) after the hazardous waste residence time has
transpired, the source must use Sec. 63.1209(q) to identify operating
parameter limits that apply during that mode of operation. Section
63.1209(q) also requires documentation in the operating record when
changing a mode of operation and beginning to comply with a different
set of operating limits. In addition, that paragraph requires sources
to begin calculating rolling averages anew (i.e., without considering
previous recordings) when changing modes of operation.
Upon reevaluation of the requirement to begin calculating rolling
averages anew when sources change modes of operation, we now believe
that it would be more appropriate to 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.\41\ For example, if operating a hazardous waste burning cement
kiln and electing to switch to the Part 63, Subpart LLL, requirements
after the hazardous waste residence time has expired, the first rolling
hourly average value for gas temperature at the inlet to the
electrostatic precipitator would be calculated after the first minute
of compliance with the Subpart LLL requirements based on the last 59
minutes of operations under the Subpart LLL requirements and the first
minute of renewed operations under the Subpart LLL requirements. This
would be the case regardless of how long ago the source last operated
under the mode of operation in question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Note, however, that may average operating parameter values
continuously across various modes of operation provided that the
averaging periods and limits for the parameter are the same under
the various modes of operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Documentation of Compliance (DOC) under Sec. 63.1211(d) and
the Notification of Compliance (NOC) under Sec. 63.1207(j) the source
must specify the operating parameter limits that apply when operating
under the mode of operation when complying with otherwise applicable
requirements.\42\ This requirement applies to all other modes of
operation as well. For the mode of operation when complying with
otherwise applicable requirements, however, the source must specify in
the DOC and NOC any otherwise applicable Section 112 or 129 MACT
standards and requirements that apply, including monitoring and
compliance requirements and notification, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements. We limit this requirement to otherwise applicable Section
112 or 129 MACT standards because the source may be subject to other
Clean Air Act standards while being an affected source under Subpart
EEE, but it is not an affected source under any Section 112 or 129 MACT
standards other than Subpart EEE. Thus, the source would not be subject
to any otherwise applicable Section 112 or 129 MACT requirements that
were not included in the DOC, NOC, and, ultimately, title V permit for
that mode of operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Furthermore, the title V permit must contain terms and
conditions for all reasonably anticipated modes of operation (see 40
CFR 70.6(a)(9)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Exemption From All Substantive Requirements of Subpart EEE During
the Mode of Operation When Complying With Otherwise Applicable Section
112 or 129 MACT Standards
Section 63.1206(b)(1) exempts sources from the emission standards
and operating requirements of Subpart EEE when operating under
otherwise applicable Section 112 or 129 MACT standards after the
hazardous waste residence time has expired. We propose to revise this
requirement to exempt sources from all substantive Subpart EEE
standards during this mode of operation such that the source would only
be subject to the Sec. 63.1209(q) provisions that it specifies for this
mode of operation. This is appropriate because, as discussed above,
sources must specify under Sec. 63.1209(q) that, during this mode of
operation, they will comply with all requirements of the otherwise
applicable requirements of Section 112 or 129 MACT standards.
Accordingly, we propose to exempt sources during this mode of operation
from the emission standards of Secs. 63.1203-63.1205; the monitoring
and compliance standards of Secs. 63.1206-63.1209, except the modes of
operation requirements of Sec. 63.1209(q); and the notification,
reporting, and recordkeeping requirements of Secs. 63.1210-63.1212.
XX. RCRA Permitting Requirements for Sources Entering the RCRA
Process Post-Rule Promulgation
A. What Are We Proposing To Amend?
We are proposing to amend the language in 40 CFR 270.19, 270.22,
270.62, 270.66, 266.100, 265.340, and 264.340 regarding the
applicability of those sections to hazardous waste burning
incinerators, cement kilns and lightweight aggregate kilns. In
particular, we want to clarify that any of these types of sources newly
entering the RCRA permitting process or the hazardous waste burning
universe after promulgation of the hazardous waste combustor MACT rule
on September 30, 1999 are not subject to certain specified RCRA permit
requirements, or to the RCRA combustor performance standards.
Since we are revisiting these sections to clarify their
applicability, we are taking this opportunity to clarify a point about
the Notification of Compliance, as referenced in these sections. Under
Sec. 63.1207(j), sources must postmark within 90 days of completing a
comprehensive performance test an NOC documenting compliance or
noncompliance with the emissions standards. We are clarifying that in
[[Page 35147]]
order for the part 270 requirements to no longer apply, the NOC must
document compliance.
1. How Had We Changed Part 270 in the HWC Rule?
In the final rule, we amended language in part 270 to accommodate
the permit transition from RCRA to the CAA. In Sec. 270.19, we added
new paragraph (e) and in Secs. 270.22, 270.62, and 270.66 we added
similar language as introductory text (with slight variations in 270.22
and 270.66 to specify cement kilns and lightweight aggregate kilns). In
brief, the amended language in these sections said that once a source
demonstrates compliance with the standards in 40 CFR part 63 subpart
EEE, the requirements in the specified part 270 sections would no
longer apply. In order to retain a procedural framework for any risk
burns \43\ that might prove to be necessary under RCRA, we also
included a provision allowing the Director to apply the provisions of
those sections, on a case-by-case basis, for purposes of information
collection in accordance with Secs. 270.10(k) and 270.32(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ A risk burn is any emissions testing performed for the
purpose of collecting data for subsequent evaluation in a site-
specific risk assessment. The testing may occur in conjunction with
a RCRA trial burn or MACT performance test, or the risk burn may
consist of a completely separate test effort.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Why Do We Need To Revisit these Sections in Part 270?
As they were written for the final rule, these sections will
continue to apply until a source demonstrates compliance with the
standards in 40 CFR part 63 subpart EEE. This approach makes sense for
sources who were currently in the RCRA permitting process at the time
we published the final rule. Our primary concern at that time was on
the transition from the RCRA process to the CAA. Since sources do not
have to complete performance testing until May 2003, it is appropriate
for sources already in the RCRA permitting process to continue the
combustor portions of the process, including the trial burn
requirements. We did not want the new rule to result in unnecessarily
delayed testing, particularly if the testing is needed to ensure
performance and to generate data for a risk assessment. In the preamble
to the final rule, we discussed how sources already in the process of
obtaining a RCRA permit could be transitioned to a title V permits (see
64 FR 52989, September 30, 1999). We identified some factors to be
considered, as well as some examples to assist permit writers and
facility owners or operators in developing a sound approach. We
neglected to consider, however, what this approach would mean for new
sources that did not exist at the time the final rule was promulgated.
Under RCRA, new sources must obtain a permit (or permit
modification) before they may start construction of a new unit. Since
new sources subject to the final rule will not be able to demonstrate
compliance with the part 63 standards until after the units are built
and they conduct performance testing, the part 270 language as
currently promulgated would force them to complete the entire RCRA
permitting process (including combustion portions) beforehand. For new
facilities, this means they would have to submit a trial burn plan with
their RCRA permit application and also submit suggested conditions for
the various phases of operation--start-up/shake-down, trial burn, post-
trial burn, and final operations. The permit writer would have to
review this information and write conditions into the RCRA permit
governing all phases of combustor operations.
It is our intent that new sources subject to the HWC final rule not
follow the traditional RCRA combustion permitting process. Although new
sources still must obtain a RCRA permit (or permit modification) prior
to construction, our intent was that the permit instead focus on the
other RCRA requirements applicable to all units (i.e., general facility
standards, corrective action, financial responsibility, and closure),
any non-emissions related combustor-specific concerns (i.e., materials
handling), and requirements related to other RCRA units on site. In
addition, if the alternative to the particulate matter standard
revisions proposed today are promulgated, incinerators that comply with
these alternative requirements would need to have the RCRA particulate
matter performance standard and related operating conditions included
in their RCRA permits. Also, if the permit writer determines that
additional risk-based conditions for the combustion unit are necessary
to supplement the MACT requirements, those conditions will be part of
the RCRA permit.\44\ We would not expect new sources to follow the RCRA
requirements governing development and submittal of trial burn plans
and setting of operating conditions for the various phases of
operation, because these activities implement RCRA performance
standards which are being replaced by the HWC NESHAP standards. We
included requirements in the HWC NESHAP governing implementation of the
MACT performance standards. For example, sources must submit
performance test plans and must identify operating parameters that they
anticipate will ensure compliance with the emission limits in their
Documentation of Compliance. The CAA process, not RCRA, is the
appropriate mechanism to ensure compliance with the MACT standards.
Under the CAA permitting programs, these sources will be subject to New
Source Review permits prior to construction as well as to title V
operating permits which will incorporate the applicable requirements
from the HWC NESHAP.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ We expect that, in most cases, any additional risk-based
conditions imposed under RCRA omnibus authority will reside in RCRA
permits. However, a state regulatory agency may choose to
incorporate those conditions into the title V permit as a matter of
convenience or as part of developing a multi-media permit. In this
situation, the conditions would still remain under RCRA authority
and the permit would have to be signed by all appropriate officials
(unless the state has omnibus-type authority in its air statute).
\45\ Only those sources that meet the definition of a major
source under the New Source Review permitting program are subject to
federal New Source Review permits. The definition of ``major''
within the context of New Source Review permitting is different from
that used when establishing MACT standards. Therefore, a new source
subject to the Phase I MACT standards may not be required to obtain
a federal New Source Review permit prior to construction. However,
since all states have minor New Source Review permitting programs,
it is likely that the source would still have to obtain a minor New
Source Review permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. What Are We Proposing To Amend in Parts 264, 265, 266?
In today's notice, we also propose to make conforming changes in
parts 264, 265, and 266 for the above mentioned reasons. Specifically,
we propose to revise 40 CFR 264.340(b), 265.340(b), and 266.100(b) to
specify that hazardous waste burning incinerators, cement kilns, and
lightweight aggregate kilns that are newly constructed, reconstructed,
or modified such that they become affected sources following September
30, 1999 are not subject to the RCRA combustor treatment standards
(except as noted) of parts 264, 265, and 266.
Part Three: Analytical and Regulatory Requirements
I. Executive Order 12866
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
[[Page 35148]]
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.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action''
because it may be considered significant under point four above:
``Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in Executive Order
12866.'' As such, this action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes
made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be
documented in the public record.
The aggregate annualized compliance costs for this rule, as
proposed, are estimated to be less than $100 million. Furthermore, this
proposed rule is not expected to 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. The benefits to human health and the
environment resulting from today's proposed action have not been
monetized but are deemed to be less than $100 million per year.
We have prepared two economic support documents for this proposed
action. These are: Assessment of Potential Costs, Benefits and Other
Impacts NESHAP: Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous
Waste Combustors--Technical Amendments (Assessment), and, Regulatory
Flexibility Screening Analysis (RFSA) For NESHAP: Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors--Technical
Amendments. The Assessment addresses economic impacts of the twenty
proposed amendments to the Phase I MACT final rule. The Assessment also
briefly examines equity considerations and other impacts. The
Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis (RFSA) briefly examines small
entity impacts potentially resulting from this proposed action. This
Part presents a summary of findings from the Assessment and the RFSA
documents. The complete Assessment and RFSA documents are available in
the RCRA docket established for this action. Interested readers are
encouraged to read and comment on these documents.
A. Why Is This Proposed Rule Necessary?
The environmental regulations promulgated by EPA seek to correct
market failures through the internalization of negative environmental
externalities. That is not the case with today's proposed rule. This
action is necessary in order to clarify and improve compliance,
testing, and monitoring requirements associated with the final rule
NESHAP: Final Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous
Waste Combustors. See 64 FR 52828.
B. Were Non-Regulatory Alternatives First Considered?
Section 1(b)(3) of Executive Order 12866 instructs Executive Branch
Agencies to consider and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation prior to making a determination for regulation. This
regulatory determination assessment should be considered, ``to the
extent permitted by law, and where applicable.'' The ultimate purpose
of the regulatory determination assessment is to ensure that the most
efficient tool, regulation, or other type of action is applied in
meeting the targeted statutory objective(s).
We have already employed education and outreach programs designed
to accomplish the objectives of the amendments proposed in this rule.
We believe that technical clarification and improved implementation
efficiency will be best accomplished through a regulatory approach in
order to fully accomplish our objectives.
C. What Regulatory Options Were Considered?
For this action we considered the proposed regulatory approach for
all the technical amendments as a group, or in some cases, for an
amendment that was presented for comment only. We also considered the
``no action'' option, which would result in zero cost impacts beyond
the baseline established in the final rule.
D. What Are the Potential Costs or Cost Savings of This Proposed Rule?
The twenty proposed amendments presented in today's action vary
considerably in scope and substance. Nearly all of the amendments,
however, are anticipated to result in minor to negligible incremental
cost impacts (savings or increases) to both the regulated community and
the Agency. Two or three of the amendments may result in more
substantive cost impacts. These findings are briefly summarized below.
The complete Assessment document presents a detailed review of our
methodology, data, findings, and analytical limitations.
Cost Savings:
The amendments resulting in projected minor cost savings to the
regulated community are generally associated with the increased
compliance and administrative flexibility, technical clarifications,
time extensions, and reduced monitoring/testing requirements. One
amendment, however, may result in significant net incremental cost
savings to the regulated community. Amendment number X (Method 23 as an
Alternative to Method 0023A for Dioxin/Furans), is designed to provide
flexibility in selection of test methods for dioxins and furans. To
test for dioxins and furans under the CAA, Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 60
prescribes Method 23. This method combines the front half of the filter
and probe rinse with the back half of the sorbent and rinses to perform
a single extraction and analysis. Recovery of spiked standards into the
sorbent are used to serve as an indicator of overall recovery.
Method 0023A is the RCRA dioxins/furans air emission test method
found in SW-846 (incorporated within SW-846 in June, 1997). The updated
Method 0023A differs from Method 23 primarily in that the former uses
the addition of spike standards to both the filter (front half) and
sorbent (back half), and then separates the front half and back half
for analysis in order to determine the recovery from each half. While
more expensive, this process helps to quantify recoveries more
accurately for both the back half and front half fractions.
The final rule requires sources to use Method 0023A. At that time
we believed the improvements method 0023A offered over Method 23
warranted a requirement that all sources use the new method. By
incorporating separate recovery, spiking, and analysis of front half
and back half samples the new method helps better quantify recoveries
for both the back half and front half fractions thereby improving
quality
[[Page 35149]]
assurance. The benefits of Method 0023A compared to Method 23 thus
include more accurate recovery data and improved data quality. The
downside to Method 0023A is its higher analytical cost and, possibly
higher detection limits. Furthermore, we have not documented the
potential magnitude of the incremental benefits of Method 0023A.
We estimate that potentially significant cost savings may result
from the reduced analytical expenses of using Method 23 as an
alternative to Method 23A for dioxin/furans. The difference in unit
cost between the methods is approximately $3,000 per source. Industry
estimates indicate that about half of all facilities are likely to make
use of this alternative. However, this test is only required to be
performed every two and a half years. Based on these factors, we
estimate total cost savings to the regulated community at about
$102,600 per year.
Cost Increases:
There may be cost increases associated with some of the proposed
amendments. Many of the amendments associated with potential cost
increases, however, propose alternatives that a source may voluntarily
choose to apply. Cost increases would occur to both the regulated
community and the regulatory agency and/or states. Most of these cost
increases are expected to be minor, resulting from development and
submission of alternative plans and/or test data. There may also be
some minor additional cost burdens associated with potential increases
in violations.
We estimate that five of the proposed amendments may result in
measurable incremental cost burdens to industry and the regulatory
agency. These amendments are projected to result in aggregate cost
increases to industry of $199,300 per year. The government cost
increase is estimated at $161,800 per year. Amendment V (Operator
Training and Certification) is the single largest cost contributor to
the cost increase for both industry and government. This amendment is
projected to result in an aggregate incremental cost increase of nearly
$154,000 to industry and $150,700 to the regulatory agency.
We estimate a net cost increase of $258,500 per year from all
proposed amendments for which we were able to developed quantified cost
impact estimates. This cost impact estimate will marginally increase
the total annual social cost projection of $50 to $63 million \46\
estimated for compliance with the final rule. We believe that our net
cost impact (increase) estimate of $258,500 may be high because it was
not feasible to quantify some of the potential cost savings that are
likely to result from many of the proposed amendments. All cost impacts
are dependant upon the regional enforcement regime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste, Addendum to the Assessment of the Potential Costs, Benefits,
and Other Impacts of the Hazardous Waste Combustion MACT Standards:
Final Rule, July 23, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regualtory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5
USC 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 proposed rule on
small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that
has fewer than 750, or 500 employees per firm depending upon the SIC
code the firm is primarily classified in; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; or
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We have
determined that only amendment X (Method 23 as an Alternative to Method
0023A for Dioxin/Furans) is likely to impact one or more of the six
small hazardous waste combustors. Under our assumed worst-case scenario
where the maximum cost impacts of this amendment ($102,600 savings) are
attributed to only these six small sources, we find that no source
would experience impacts beyond 0.48 percent of annual gross revenues
\47\. This does not represent a significant economic impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Based on July 1999 Assessment, we found that the smallest
annual firm revenue associated with the six small facilities were
$3.6 million. Dividing $102,600 by the six facilities results in
$17,100 maximum impact per small facility. ($17,100/$3.6 million =
0.48 percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, we nonetheless tried
to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. Although not
specifically directed toward small business outreach, we have met with
industry representatives during the developmental phase and requested
comment and suggestions on all aspects of this proposed rulemaking. No
small business concerns were brought up by these industry
representatives. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts
of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues
related to such impacts.
We have completed the analysis: Regulatory Flexibility Screening
Analysis (RFSA) For NESHAP: Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Hazardous Waste Combustors--Technical Amendments, in support of the
proposed rule. This RFSA document is available for review in the docket
established for today's action.
III. 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
Executive Order 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. This proposed rule is not
subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically
significant as defined in Executive Order 12866. Furthermore, we do not
have reason to believe that environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
In addition, these amendments, as part of the HWC MACT standards,
are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13045 because the
rule is a technology-based regulation rather than a risk-based one.
Nevertheless, the proposed amendments would not result in any
incremental environmental harm that would affect children's health.
[[Page 35150]]
IV. Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898
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 proposal would result in
disproportionately negative impacts on minority or low income
communities. The public is invited to comment and submit data related
to environmental justice issues potentially associated with today's
proposal.
V. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 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.
We have determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any single year. The amendments, as proposed, may result in
increased costs to all states (or the Agency) of no more than
approximately $160,000 per year. Thus, today's rule is not subject to
the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
VI. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
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.''
This proposed 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 Executive Order 13132. This rule, as proposed, is
projected to result in economic impacts to privately owned hazardous
waste combustion facilities. Marginal administrative burden impacts may
occur to selected States an/or EPA Regional Offices if these entities
experience increased administrative needs, enforcement requirements, or
information requests. However, this rule, as proposed, will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, intergovernmental
relationships, or the distribution of power and responsibilities. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, we specifically solicit comment on this proposed rule from
State and local officials.
VII. Consultation With Tribal Governments
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.''
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on 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 Executive Order 13175.
Today's proposal would not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments, nor would it impose
substantial direct compliance costs on them. Tribal communities are not
known to own or operate any hazardous waste combustion facilities, nor
are these communities disproportionately located adjacent to or near
such facilities. Finally, tribal governments will not be required to
assume any administrative or permitting responsibilities associated
with this proposed rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and tribal governments, we
specifically request comment on this proposed rule from tribal
officials.
[[Page 35151]]
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act
We have prepared an Information Collection Request (ICR) document
(ICR No. 1773.03) listing the information collection requirements of
this proposed 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.
Some of the amendments proposed today pertain to RCRA provisions of
the rule (i.e. to 40 CFR parts 260 thru 271), and were covered under an
earlier ICR No. 1361.08. Today's amendments to these RCRA provisions
are all de-regulatory, and do not impose any burden on the regulated
community. They only reduce the existing burden shown in that ICR. The
ICR No. 1361.08 will be revised to show the reduced burden when the
final rule is promulgated. The public burden associated with other
provisions of this proposed rule (which are under the Clean Air Act) is
projected to affect approximately 171 HWC units and is estimated to
average 8.7 hours per respondent annually. The reporting and
recordkeeping cost burden is estimated to average $511 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.
Comments are requested on the need of this information, accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
the respondent burden. Send comments to Sandy Farmer at the address
given above, and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th St. NW, Washington, DC 20503,
marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' The final rule will respond
to all OMB and public comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.
We note that the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are
specifically authorized by section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All
information submitted to the EPA for which a claim of confidentiality
is made will be safeguarded according to EPA policies in 40 CFR part 2,
subpart B, Confidentiality of Business Information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. The EPA
will amend the table in 40 CFR part 9 of currently approved information
collection request (ICR) control numbers issued by OMB upon
finalization of this rule and list the information collection
requirements contained in the final rule.
IX. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 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 proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, we are not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards. We welcome comments on this aspect of the proposed
rulemaking and, specifically, invite the public to identify potentially
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such
standards should be used in this regulation.
Part Four: State Authority
States can implement and enforce the new MACT standards through
their delegated 112(l) CAA program and/or by having title V authority.
A State's title V authority is independent of whether it has been
delegated section 112(l) of the CAA. Additional information on state
authority under the CAA may be found in the HWC MACT rule (64 FR at
52991).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 264
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous waste,
Insurance, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures, Surety bonds
40 CFR Part 265
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous waste,
Insurance, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures, Surety bonds, Water supply.
40 CFR Part 266
Environmental protection, Energy, Hazardous waste, Recycling,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
40 CFR Part 270
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous materials transportation,
Hazardous waste, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water
pollution control, Water supply.
Dated: June 18, 2001.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, it is proposed that title
40 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. This standard is available from the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, 345 East 47th Street, New York, N.Y.
10017: Standard for the Qualification and Certification of Hazardous
Waste Incinerator Operators, ASME QHO-1-1994.
[[Page 35152]]
3. Section 63.1201 is amended by revising the definition of
``Instantaneous monitoring'' in paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1201 Definitions and acronyms used in this subpart.
(a) * * *
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.
* * * * *
4. Section 63.1206 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(5)(ii) and
(c)(6) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1206 When and how must you comply with the standards and
operating requirements?
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(5) * * *
(ii) You must specify in the performance test workplan and
Notification of Compliance the method that will be used to control
combustion system leaks. If you control combustion system leaks by
maintaining the combustion zone pressure lower than ambient pressure
using an instantaneous monitor, you must also specify in the
performance test workplan and Notification of Compliance 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.
(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
(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 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.
* * * * *
5. Section 63.1207 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii).
b. Revising paragraph (h)(2) introductory text.
c. Revising paragraph (j)(1)(i).
d. Adding paragraph (e)(3).
e. Adding paragraph (g)(2)(iv).
f. Adding paragraph (j)(5).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.1207 What are the performance testing requirements?
* * * * *
(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.
[[Page 35153]]
(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 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 documentation required to be included, 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.
* * * * *
(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;
(ii) Each operating limit (specified in Sec. 63.1209) established
to maintain 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,
malfunction data, and data obtained when not burning hazardous waste;
* * * * *
(iv) 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) * * *
(2) Current operating parameters limits are also waived during
pretesting prior to comprehensive performance testing for an aggregate
time not to exceed 720 hours of operation under an approved test plan
or if the source records the results of the pretesting. Pretesting
means:
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Except as provided by paragraphs (j)(4) and (j)(5) of this
section, within 90 days of completion of a comprehensive performance
test, you must postmark a Notification of Compliance documenting
compliance or noncompliance with the emission standards and continuous
monitoring system requirements, and identifying operating parameter
limits under Sec. 63.1209.
* * * * *
(5) Early compliance. If you conduct the initial comprehensive
performance test prior to September 30, 2002 (or a later compliance
date approved under Sec. 63.6(i)), you need not postmark the
Notification of Compliance within 90 days of completion of the
performance test.
* * * * *
6. Section 63.1209 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraphs (k)(5) and (k)(7)(i)(C).
b. Revising paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(4).
c. Revising paragraph (p).
d. Revising paragraph (q).
e. Adding paragraph (k)(6)(iv).
These revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.1209 What are the monitoring requirements?
* * * * *
(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;
(6) * * *
(iv) Control device operating parameter limits (OPLs). You must
establish operating parameter limits on the particulate matter control
device as specified by paragraph (m)(1) of this section.
(7) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) For the initial comprehensive performance test, you may base
the initial limit on maximum bed age of the carbon in each segment of
the bed on manufacturer's specifications. If you use manufacturer's
specifications rather than actual bed age to establish the initial
limit, you must also conduct a bed life confirmatory test prior to the
manufacturer's specification of bed age. That bed life confirmatory
test must be conducted under the procedures required for a dioxin/furan
confirmatory test as specified by Sec. 63.1207(g)(2). The purpose of
the bed life confirmatory test is to document to the Administrator that
[[Page 35154]]
the initial limit on maximum bed age ensures compliance with the
dioxin/furan emission standard. If you fail to confirm compliance with
the dioxin/furan emission standard during this testing, you must
conduct additional testing as necessary to document that a revised
lower limit on maximum bed age ensures compliance with the dioxin/furan
standard.
* * * * *
(l) * * *
(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 a
carbon bed system, you must establish operating parameter limits
prescribed by paragraph (k)(7) of this section. In addition, if you
elect to establish the initial limit on carbon bed age based on the
manufacturer's specification, you must:
(i) Operate the combustor during the bed life confirmatory test
required by paragraph (k)(7)(i)(C) of this section such that each
operating limit specified in paragraph (l) of this section is held
within the range of the average value over the previous 12 months and
the maximum or minimum, as appropriate, that is allowed. The term
``average value'' is defined in Sec. 63.1207(g)(2)(ii); and
(ii) Conduct mercury emissions testing to document compliance with
the mercury emission standard. If you fail to confirm compliance with
the mercury emission standard during this testing, you must conduct
additional testing as necessary to document that a revised lower limit
on maximum bed age ensures compliance with the standard.
* * * * *
(p) Maximum combustion chamber pressure. 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.
(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(d), 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 anew using the continuous monitoring
system values previously recorded for that mode of operation (i.e., you
ignore continuous monitoring system values recorded under other modes
of operations when you transition back to a mode of operation).
PART 264--STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
7. The authority citation for part 264 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924, and 6925.
8. Section 264.340 is amended by redesignating paragraph (b)(2) as
paragraph (b)(3); revising the first sentence in paragraph (b)(1); and
adding new paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 264.340 Applicability.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Except as provided by paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the
standards of this part no longer apply when an owner or operator
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(d) of this chapter documenting compliance with the requirements
of part 63, subpart EEE of this chapter. * * *
(2) Except as provided by paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the
standards of this section do not apply to an owner or operator of a
hazardous waste incinerator (as defined at Sec. 63.1201 of this
chapter) that begins construction, reconstruction, or becomes an
affected source of part 63, subpart EEE of this chapter, after
September 30, 1999.
* * * * *
PART 265--INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
9. The authority citation for part 265 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6906, 6912, 6922, 6923, 6924, 6925,
6935, 6936, and 6937.
10. Section 265.340 is amended by redesignating paragraph (b)(2) as
paragraph (b)(3); revising the first sentence in paragraph (b)(1); and
adding a new paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 265.340 Applicability.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Except as provided by paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the
standards of this part no longer apply when an owner or operator
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(d) of this chapter documenting compliance with the requirements
of part 63, subpart EEE of this chapter. * * *
(2) Except as provided by paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the
standards of this section do not apply to an owner or operator begins
construction, reconstruction, or becomes an affected source of part 63,
subpart EEE of this chapter, after September 30, 1999.
* * * * *
[[Page 35155]]
PART 266--STANDARDS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC HAZARDOUS WASTES
AND SPECIFIC TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
11. The authority citation for part 266 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 1006, 2002(a), 3004, 6905, 6906, 6912, 6922,
6925, and 6937.
12. Section 266.100 is amended by redesignating paragraph (b)(2) as
paragraph (b)(3); revising the first sentence of paragraph (b)(1); and
adding new paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 266.100 Applicability.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Except as provided by paragraph (b)(3) 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(d) of this chapter documenting compliance with the requirements
of subpart EEE. * * *
(2) Except as provided by paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the
standards of this section do not apply to an owner or operator of a
hazardous waste burning cement kiln, or hazardous waste lightweight
aggregate kiln (as defined at Sec. 63.1201 of this chapter) that begins
construction, reconstruction, or becomes an affected source of part 63,
subpart EEE of this chapter, after September 30, 1999.
* * * * *
PART 270--EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE HAZARDOUS WASTE
PERMIT PROGRAM
13. The authority citation for part 270 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912, 6924, 6925, 6927, 6939, and
6974.
14. Section 270.19 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 270.19 Specific part B information requirements for incinerators.
* * * * *
(e) When an owner or operator who submitted a permit application
under this part before September 30, 1999, demonstrates compliance with
the air emission standards and limitations in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
EEE (i.e., by conducting a comprehensive performance test and
submitting a Notification of Compliance documenting compliance with all
applicable requirements of part 63, subpart EEE), the requirements of
this section do not apply. When an owner or operator submits a permit
application under this part on or after September 30, 1999, the
requirements of this section do not apply. Nevertheless, the Director
may apply the provisions of this section, on a case-by-case basis, for
purposes of information collection in accordance with Secs. 270.10(k)
and 270.32(b)(2).
15. Section 270.22 is amended by revising the introductory text to
read as follows:
Sec. 270.22 Specific part B information requirements for boilers and
industrial furnaces burning hazardous waste.
When an owner or operator of a cement or lightweight aggregate kiln
demonstrates compliance with the air emission standards and limitations
in 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE (i.e., by conducting a comprehensive
performance test and submitting a Notification of Compliance
documenting compliance with all applicable requirements of part 63,
subpart EEE), the requirements of this section do not apply. When an
owner or operator of a cement or lightweight aggregate kiln submits a
permit application under this part on or after September 30, 1999, the
requirements of this section do not apply. Nevertheless, the Director
may apply the provisions of this section, on a case-by-case basis, for
purposes of information collection in accordance with Secs. 270.10(k)
and 270.32(b)(2).
* * * * *
16. Section 270.62 is amended by revising the introductory text to
read as follows:
Sec. 270.62 Hazardous waste incinerator permits.
When an owner or operator who submitted a permit application under
this part before September 30, 1999, demonstrates compliance with the
air emission standards and limitations in 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE
(i.e., by conducting a comprehensive performance test and submitting a
Notification of Compliance documenting compliance with all applicable
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE), the requirements of this
section do not apply. When an owner or operator submits a permit
application under this part on or after September 30, 1999, the
requirements of this section do not apply. Nevertheless, the Director
may apply the provisions of this section, on a case-by-case basis, for
purposes of information collection in accordance with Secs. 270.10(k)
and 270.32(b)(2).
* * * * *
17. Section 270.66 is amended by revising the introductory text to
read as follows:
Sec. 270.66 Permits for boilers and industrial furnaces burning
hazardous waste.
When an owner or operator of a cement or lightweight aggregate kiln
who submitted a permit application under this part before September 30,
1999, demonstrates compliance with the air emission standards and
limitations in 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE (i.e., by conducting a
comprehensive performance test and submitting a Notification of
Compliance documenting compliance with all applicable requirements of
40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE), the requirements of this section do not
apply. When an owner or operator of a cement or lightweight aggregate
kiln submits a permit application under this part on or after September
30, 1999, the requirements of this section do not apply. Nevertheless,
the Director may apply the provisions of this section, on a case-by-
case basis, for purposes of information collection in accordance with
Secs. 270.10(k) and 270.32(b)(2).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-16426 Filed 7-2-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U
![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}