![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
NESHAP: Interim Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors (Interim Standards Rule)
Related Material
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: February 13, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 30)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 6791-6818]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13fe02-20]
[[Page 6792]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 63, 264, 265, 266, 270, and 271
[FRL-7143-3]
RIN 2050-AE79
NESHAP: Interim Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Hazardous Waste Combustors (Interim Standards Rule)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On September 30, 1999, EPA promulgated standards to control
emissions of hazardous air pollutants from incinerators, cement kilns
and lightweight aggregate kilns that burn hazardous wastes. A number of
parties sought judicial review of the rule. On July 24, 2001, the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(the Court) granted the Sierra Club's petition for review and vacated
the challenged portions of the rule. In its decision, the Court invited
EPA or any of the parties that challenged the regulations to file a
motion with the Court to request either that the current standards
remain in place, or that EPA be allowed time to develop interim
standards, pending further time in which EPA develops standards
complying with the Court's opinion. On October 19, 2001, EPA, together
with all other petitioners, jointly moved the Court to stay the
issuance of its mandate for four months to allow EPA time to develop
interim standards. The motion contemplates that EPA will issue final
standards by June 14, 2005. The joint motion also details other actions
EPA intends to take. These actions include promulgating, by February
14, 2002, a rule with amended interim emission standards and several
compliance and implementation amendments to the rule which EPA proposed
on July 3, 2001. The Court has granted this motion and stayed issuance
of its mandate until February 14, 2002.
Today's rule amends the September 1999 emission standards, with
certain provisions amended as set out in the parties' joint motion. The
rule also adopts the compliance and implementation amendments described
in that motion. Although this Interim Standards Rule results in
emission reductions that are less stringent than those of the September
1999 rule, we believe it achieves most of the emission gains of that
rule. Promulgation of the rule now, before the Court issues its
mandate, also avoids the severe problems relating to developing the
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) on a source-by-source
basis pursuant to section 112(j)(2) of the Clean Air Act, which applies
if there are no national standards in place. We believe that adopting
this Interim Standards Rule now best fulfills the statutory requirement
to have national emission standards in place by a specified time, while
avoiding unnecessary disruption and burden to regulated industry and
affected state and federal administrative agencies.
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on February 13, 2002.
Compliance Date: You are required to comply with these promulgated
standards by September 30, 2003.
ADDRESSES: You may view the docket to this rulemaking in the RCRA
Information Center (RIC), located at Crystal Gateway I, First Floor,
1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The docket number is F-
2002-RC7F-FFFFF. The RIC is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding federal holidays. To review docket materials, we
recommend that you make an appointment by calling (703) 603-9230. You
may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no
charge. Additional copies cost $0.15/page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, call the RCRA
Call Center at 1-800-424-9346 or TDD 1-800-553-7672 (hearing impaired).
Callers within the Washington Metropolitan Area must dial 703-412-9810
or TDD 703-412-3323 (hearing impaired). The RCRA Call Center is open
Monday-Friday, 9 am to 4 pm, Eastern Standard Time. For more
information, contact Frank Behan at 703-308-8476, behan.frank@epa.gov,
or Michael Galbraith at 703-605-0567, galbraith.michael@epa.gov, or
write to them at the Office of Solid Waste, 5302W, U.S. EPA, Ariel Rios
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Acronyms Used in the Rule
APCD--Air pollution control device
ASME--American Society of Mechanical Engineers
CAA--Clean Air Act
CEMS--Continuous emissions monitors/monitoring system
COMS--Continuous opacity monitoring system
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
DOC--Documentation of Compliance
DRE--Destruction and removal efficiency dscf--Dry standard cubic feet
dscm--Dry standard cubic meter
EPA/USEPA--United States Environmental Protection Agency gr--Grains
HAP--Hazardous air pollutant
HWC--Hazardous waste combustor
MACT--Maximum Achievable Control Technology
NESHAP--National Emission Standards for HAPs ng--Nanograms
NIC--Notice of Intent to Comply
NOC--Notification of compliance
OPL--Operating parameter limit
PM--Particulate matter
POHC--Principal organic hazardous constituent ppmv--Parts per million
by volume
RCRA--Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
TEQ--Toxicity equivalence
Official Record. The official record is the paper record maintained
at the address in ADDRESSES above.
Supporting Materials Availability on the Internet. Supporting
materials are available on the Internet. To access the information
electronically from the World Wide Web, type
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/combust.
Table of Contents
Part One--What Events Led Up to This Rule?
I. What Is the Background?
A. What Is the Phase I Rule?
B. How Did the Court's Opinion To Vacate Challenged Portions of
the Rule and the Parties' Joint Motion To Stay the Mandate Affect
Phase I and Today's Rule?
II. Good Cause for Issuing the Rule
A. Failure to Control Area Sources
B. No National Standards for Major Sources for a Long Period
C. Case-by-Case Permit Standards Delaying Compliance With More
Stringent National Standards
D. Inconsistent Permit Standards
E. Adverse Consequences to Regulated Sources
F. Administrative Burdens
III. What Is Included in This Rule?
Part Two--What Revisions Are We Making in This Rule?
I. What Are the Interim Standards?
A. New and Existing Incinerators
B. New and Existing Cement Kilns
C. New and Existing Lightweight Aggregate Kilns
II. What Are the Revisions to the Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
Requirements?
A. What Are the Revised Requirements for Malfunctions?
B. Why Does the Revised Rule Require You To Include the
Automatic Waste Feed Cutoff Requirements in the Startup, Shutdown,
and Malfunction Plan?
[[Page 6793]]
C. What Are the Revised Requirements for Burning Hazardous Waste
During Startup and Shutdown?
D. What Are the Conforming Revisions to the Emergency Safety
Vent Opening Requirements?
III. What Changes Are We Making to the Performance Testing
Requirements for the Interim Standards Rule?
A. Why Are We Revising the Data in Lieu Provisions?
B. Why Are We Waiving Periodic Comprehensive Performance Testing
Under the Interim Standards?
C. Why Are We Waiving the Dioxin/Furan Confirmatory Test Under
the Interim Standards?
IV. Why Are We Deleting the Minimum Power Requirement for Ionizing
Wet Scrubbers?
V. What Are the Monitoring Requirements for Carbon Beds?
VI. Can a Source Be Granted an Extension of Compliance for the
Interim Standards?
VII. Why Are We Repromulgating the Hourly Rolling Average
Temperature Limit at a Dry Particulate Matter Control Device To
Control Dioxin/Furan Emissions?
Part Three--What Are the Analytical and Regulatory Requirements?
I. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
II. What Are the Potential Costs and Benefits of Today's Final Rule?
III. What Consideration Was Given to Small Entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.?
IV. Was the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Considered in This Final Rule?
V. Were Equity Issues and Children's Health Considered in This Final Rule?
VI. What Consideration Was Given to Tribal Governments in This Final Rule?
VII. Were Federalism Implications Considered in Today's Final Rule?
VIII. Were Energy Impacts Considered?
IX. Paperwork Reduction Act
X. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
XI. Is Today's Rule Subject to Congressional Review?
Part Four--What Are the State Authorization and Delegation Implications?
I. What Is the Authority for the Interim Standards Rule?
II. How Is This Rule Delegated Under the CAA?
III. How Would States Become Authorized Under RCRA?
Part One--What Events Led Up to This Rule?
I. What Is the Background?
A. What Is the Phase I Rule?
Today's notice finalizes specific changes to the NESHAP: Final
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors
(Phase I) rule, published September 30, 1999 (64 FR 52828). In the
Phase I final rule, we adopted National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants, pursuant to section 112(d) of the Clean Air
Act (CAA) 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 presently
(assuming a proper, site-specific justification) under section
3005(c)(3) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (and may
ultimately be imposed under section 112(f) of the Clean Air Act as well).
Section 112(d) 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 rule,
we refer to these three categories collectively as hazardous waste
combustors (HWC).
B. How Did the Court's Opinion To Vacate Challenged Portions of the
Rule and the Parties' Joint Motion To Stay the Mandate Affect Phase I
and Today's Rule?
A number of parties, representing interests of both industrial
sources and of the environmental community, sought judicial review of
the Phase I rule. On July 24, 2001, the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) granted the Sierra
Club's petition for review and vacated the challenged portions of the
rule. Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F. 3d 855 (D.C. Cir.
2001). The Court held that EPA had not demonstrated that the standards
met the statutory requirement of being no less stringent than (1) the
average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent
of existing sources and (2) the emission control achieved in practice
by the best controlled similar source for new sources. 255 F.3d at 861,
865-66. As a remedy, the Court, after declining to rule on most of the
issues presented in the Industry petitions for review, vacated the
``challenged regulations,'' stating that: ``[W]e have chosen not to
reach the bulk of industry petitioners'' claims, and leaving the
regulations in place during remand would ignore petitioners'
potentially meritorious challenges.'' Id. at 872. Examples of the
specific challenges the Court indicated might have merit were
provisions relating to compliance during start up/shut down and
malfunction events, including emergency safety vent openings, the
dioxin standard for lightweight aggregate kilns, and the semi-volatile
metal standard for cement kilns. Id. However, the Court stated,
``[b]ecause this decision leaves EPA without standards regulating
[hazardous waste combustor] emissions, EPA (or any of the parties to
this proceeding) may file a motion to delay issuance of the mandate to
request either that the current standards remain in place or that EPA
be allowed reasonable time to develop interim standards.'' Id.
Acting on this invitation, all parties moved the Court jointly to
stay the issuance of its mandate for four months to allow EPA time to
develop interim standards. The interim standards will replace the
vacated standards temporarily, until final standards are promulgated.
The motion indicates that EPA would issue final standards which
fully comply with the Court's opinion by June 14, 2005, and it
indicates that EPA and Petitioner Sierra Club intend to enter into a
settlement agreement requiring us to promulgate final rules by that
date, and that date be judicially enforceable. The joint motion also
details other actions we agreed to take, including issuing a one-year
extension to the September 30, 2002 compliance date (66 FR 63313,
December 6, 2001), and promulgating by February 14, 2002 several of the
compliance and implementation amendments to the rule which we proposed
on July 3, 2001 (66 FR 35126). These final amendments will be published
in tomorrow's Federal Register. The joint motion can be viewed and
downloaded from EPA's Hazardous Waste Combustion Website:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/combust/preamble.htm.
We believe that implementation of today's interim standards will be
beneficial to the regulated community, the state implementing programs,
and the environment. Compliance with these interim standards will
result in emissions reductions sooner than if the hazardous waste
combustion standards were vacated. It also provides a more orderly
transition to final standards than if the current rules were vacated
without replacement standards being in place due to the operation of
the so-called hammer provisions of section 112(j)(2) and 112(g)(2) of
the CAA. These hammer provisions are discussed in the next section.
[[Page 6794]]
II. Good Cause for Issuing the Rule
Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that
notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary
to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing
notice and an opportunity for public comment.\1\ EPA so finds here.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act does apply
here, even though issues of rulemaking procedure under the Clean Air
Act are normally controlled by CAA section 307(d). See CAA section
307(d)(1) final sentence, indicating that the CAA provisions do not
apply to rules covered by section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative
Procedure Act.
\2\ EPA notes as well that certain of the provisions adopted
today (those dealing with the revised standards and compliance
provisions) are the subject of prior notice and opportunity for
comment, so that no good cause finding is required for such
provisions. In addition, for all of the provisions of the rule which
we are repromulgating in existing form, notice and opportunity for
comment is unnecessary since these provisions have already been the
subject of exhaustive notice and comment rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, the regulated community and environmental community have had
actual notice of the contents of this rule, and opportunity to comment
upon it, due to the exhaustive negotiations leading to filing of the
joint motion on October 19, 2001, which motion recited the projected
contents of this Interim Standards Rule. It is well-settled that actual
notice satisfies all obligations to provide notice and opportunity for
comment as to those persons. Small Refiner Lead Phase-Down Task Force
v. EPA, 705 F. 2d 506, 548 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
Second, with respect to entities that were not part of this
negotiating process, EPA finds that there is good cause to issue the
rule without prior proposal in order to avoid the consequences of not
having a standard in place. The consequence of vacating the present
rule before EPA promulgates a replacement rule is that the statutory
``hammer'' provisions would operate with respect to major sources, and
that there would be no CAA standards for area sources.\3\ Congress
required that EPA promulgate national standards to control emissions of
hazardous air pollutants by designated dates. Congress also added the
hammer provisions to create a strong incentive to assure that those
standards are adopted and go into force. Section 112(j)(2) of the Act
thus provides that ``[i]n the event that the Administrator fails to
promulgate a standard for a category * * * of major sources by the date
established pursuant to subsection (e)(1) and (3) of this section,''
prescribed consequences occur. 42 U.S.C. 7412(j)(2). The first of these
is that ``18 months after such date, the owner or operator of any major
source in such category * * * shall submit a permit application.'' Id.
Permit writers (either federal or state) must then establish emission
limitations for each major source which they ``determin[e], on a case-
by-case basis, to be equivalent to the limitation that would apply to
such source if an emission standard had been promulgated in a timely
manner under subsection (d).'' Id. 42 U.S.C. 7412(j)(5). These site-
specific permit limitations can be superseded by subsequently
promulgated national standards. Should such a standard be promulgated,
the permitting authority ``shall revise such permit upon the next
renewal to reflect the standard * * * providing such a reasonable time
to comply, but no longer than 8 years after such standard is
promulgated or 8 years after the date on which the source is first
required to comply with the [site-specific emission standard],
whichever is earlier.'' Id. Sec. 7412(j)(6). Thus there could be
considerable delay before sources are subject to a national CAA section
112(d) standard once a section 112(j)(5) permit is issued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ EPA's interpretation that the hammer provisions apply is
based on the statutory language and evident Congressional purpose to
create a default mechanism whenever there are no national Clean Air
Act section 112(d) standards in place on or after the hammer date.
See also Steel Mfr's Ass'n v. EPA, 27 F. 3d 642, 647-48 (D.C. Cir.
1994) holding that EPA reasonably construed analogous hammer
provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act to apply if
a rule is issued but vacated so as not to be in place on the hammer date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are significant adverse consequences of vacating the existing
rule and allowing the section 112(j) hammer to operate:
A. Failure To Control Area Sources
The hammer requirement applies only to major sources of hazardous
air pollutants. We determined, pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3),
however, that regulation of all hazardous waste combustor area sources
(i.e., sources below the major source threshold) is necessary because
of the threat of potential adverse effects to human health or the
environment posed by these sources. 64 FR at 52837-52838. If this
Interim Standards Rule is not adopted now, before the mandate issues,
these area sources would not be subject to any CAA standards for hazardous
air pollutants until the compliance date for the projected 2005 rule.
B. No National Standards for Major Sources for a Long Period
If this Interim Standards Rule is not issued now, major hazardous
waste combustor sources would not be subject to national CAA MACT
standards for a prolonged period. Even if the case-by-case permitting
process goes smoothly, permitting authorities have up to 18 months to
issue such permits after a complete application is filed. See 40 CFR
70.4(b)(6). The permitting authority could then allow up to a 3-year
compliance date (42 U.S.C. 7412(j)(5)), so that sources may not be
subject to emission standards until 2006. Yet these sources were to
have been subject to national standards no later than November 2003.
CAA sections 112(e)(1) and (i)(3).
C. Case-by-Case Permit Standards Delaying Compliance With More
Stringent National Standards
Case-by-case permit limitations do not have to be modified to
reflect more stringent subsequent national standards until the permit
is renewed or until 8 years from the date the national standard is
promulgated or 8 years from the time the permit is issued, whichever is
earlier. CAA section 112(j)(6). A scenario thus could result where
major sources receive case-by-case permits in 2004 before EPA issues a
national rule, and then might not have to comply with a national
standard until 2012. This result is again far later than the expected
2003 date for compliance with national section 112(d) standards.
D. Inconsistent Permit Standards
The case-by-case permitting process, with its hundreds of separate
determinations, necessarily raises the prospect of potentially
inconsistent determinations. The general statutory scheme, however, is
that sources in a category or subcategory will be subject to a common
standard. Such inconsistency could also lessen the degree of emission
reduction Congress contemplated in requiring that sources be subject to
national technology-based standards developed pursuant to section 112(d).
E. Adverse Consequences to Regulated Sources
The case-by-case permitting process also poses adverse consequences
for regulated sources. The immediate burden is to submit permit
applications to federal or state permit-writing authorities. Some
industry sources may also face the possibility that individual permit
limits could be so inconsistent with later national standards that the
source will have to develop a new strategy for achieving emission
reductions (with consequent loss of investment in the equipment needed
to comply with the case-by-case permit), and the prospect of continuing
to comply with Resource Conservation and
[[Page 6795]]
Recovery Act (RCRA) permit conditions for air emissions.
F. Administrative Burdens
The administrative burdens on EPA and on States administering CAA
permit programs likewise will be significant if a case-by-case
permitting process is triggered if this rule is not promulgated by the
mandate issuance date. Processing many permit applications from
hazardous waste combustors, and trying to develop standards equivalent
to maximum achievable control technology on a case-by-case basis, can
only further complicate an already exceedingly difficult permit-
issuance task.
EPA notes further that in the scarce time between the Court issuing
an order staying its mandate and the present, we have used best efforts
to provide notice of this projected Interim Standards Rule. We posted
the joint motion and appendices on websites, and also solicited comment
on these documents in the section 112(g) settlement notice published in
the Federal Register on November 16, 2001. 66 FR 57715. We have
responded to all of the comments received on that notice. However, it
has proved impossible to provide further notice and opportunity for
comment given the lack of time before issuance of the mandate, and the
need for EPA to focus on development of the 2005 final standards, which
will implement MACT for these sources.
Therefore, in light of the fact that Congress intended for national
standards to already be in place for hazardous waste combustors, and
that a case-by-case permitting regime for those combustors could have
adverse consequences for regulated sources, state and federal
permitting authorities, and for the environment, we believe that there
is good cause for this rule to issue without additional notice and
opportunity for comment. Small Refiner Lead Phase-Down Task Force, 705
F.2d at 545-46 (inviting EPA to issue an interim standards rule to
avoid a regulatory gap and noting that there probably exists ``good
cause'' under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to issue the rule without prior notice
and opportunity for comment). EPA also finds that good cause exists
under U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for making this rule effective less than 30 days
after publication in the Federal Register.
III. What Is Included in This Rule?
In this rulemaking, we are retaining the existing Part 63, Subpart
EEE, regulations, except for the following changes:
We are revising certain emission standards as follows: (a)
The semi-volatile metals standard for new incinerators; (b) the semi-
volatile metals standard for existing cement kilns; (c) the mercury
standard for new cement kilns; (d) the dioxin standard for new and
existing lightweight aggregate kilns; (e) the mercury standard for new
and existing lightweight aggregate kilns; (f) the hydrochloric acid/
chlorine gas standard for new and existing lightweight aggregate kilns.
We are providing an alternative means for lightweight
aggregate kilns and cement kilns to comply with the mercury standard to
allow sources to comply with a hazardous waste mercury feedrate limit
in lieu of complying with an emission standard. Sources electing to
comply with this option will be required to notify the RCRA permitting
authority that they are complying with this option.
We are revising the startup, shutdown and malfunction
(``SSM'') provisions to provide that emission standards and operating
requirements set forth in the rule apply at all times except during
periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction. The revised rule subjects
hazardous waste combustors to the same general MACT SSM provisions that
apply to most sources, except that revised automatic waste feed cutoff
requirements continue to apply during most SSM events, and sources must
determine whether the SSM plan should be revised if excessive
exceedances of operating requirements when hazardous waste is in the
system occur during these events. Such exceedances will not constitute
violations of the operating requirements. In addition, owners and
operators of hazardous waste combustors must select either RCRA option
or a CAA option to control emissions from startup, shutdown, and
malfunctions. Under the RCRA options, operating conditions in the RCRA
permit will minimize emissions during these events. Under the CAA
option, the SSM plan must be proactive in minimizing emissions from
these events, and must be submitted to the delegated CAA authority for
review and approval. Finally, we are revising the emergency safety vent
(``AESV'') opening provisions to provide that if there is hazardous
waste in the combustion chamber, and there is an ESV opening that is
not a malfunction, the source must document whether it remains in
compliance with applicable standards, and file a report if there is
noncompliance.
In addition, we are making the following regulatory revisions to
compensate for the possibility that sources may be required to comply
with permanent replacement emission standards (i.e., the final
standards that comply with the Court's opinion and that must be
promulgated by June 14, 2005) that are significantly different than the
Interim Standards in today's rulemaking. Such an outcome could result
in loss of capital investment. As a result, we believe these provisions
are appropriate since they could lessen this potentially negative
financial impact.
Amending the performance testing requirements of 40 CFR
63.1207 to allow previously collected data, regardless of age, to serve
as documentation of compliance with the interim emission standards
provided that these data meet quality assurance requirements and are
sufficient to establish operating parameter limits;
Amending the performance testing provisions such that all
subsequent comprehensive performance tests (that is, those after the
initial comprehensive performance test) for the interim standards are
automatically waived; and,
Amending the confirmatory performance testing provisions
to eliminate the requirement to conduct confirmatory performance
testing during the period that the interim standards are in effect.
Part Two--What Revisions Are We Making in This Rule?
I. What Are the Interim Standards?
In today's rulemaking, we are replacing the vacated emission
standards temporarily until final standards are promulgated by June 14,
2005.\4\ EPA notes that this Interim Standards Rule does not respond to
the Court's mandate regarding the need to demonstrate that EPA's
methodology reasonably predicts the performance of the average of the
best performing twelve percent of sources (or best-performing source).
EPA intends to address those issues in a subsequent rule, which will
necessarily require a longer time to develop, propose, and finalize.
However, some type of Interim Standards Rule is needed now, for the
reasons explained in Part One, Section II above. These standards, to
some degree, represent negotiated interim levels agreed to by the
parties to the Joint Motion (both industry and environmental, as well
as EPA). In EPA's view, these standards preserve critical parts of the
September 30, 1999
[[Page 6796]]
rule unchanged, and achieve approximately 93 percent of the emissions
reductions for existing sources which the original rule would have
attained. Given the need to expeditiously adopt an Interim Standards
Rule to avoid outright vacature (with the attendant adverse
consequences described in the previous section), and the fact that the
Court indicated that some of the industry challenges had potential
merit (so that repromulgating all of the September 30,1999 rule was not
a realistic possibility), EPA believes that this rule represents a
reasonable interim measure. The numerical values of most existing
emission standards are being retained except for the changes outlined
above and discussed below. Given that the emission standards will be
vacated when the Court issues an order called a mandate (expected on or
after February 14, 2002), we are repromulgating the emissions standards
of Secs. 63.1203 through 63.1205, not just those standards that are
being revised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In a final rule published on December 6, 2001, we extended
for one year the compliance date requirement of Sec. 63.1206(a) for
the interim emission standards until September 30, 2003. See 66 FR 63313.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. New and Existing Incinerators
The interim emission standards for new and existing hazardous waste
incinerators are identical to the standards promulgated on September
30, 1999, except that the semivolatile metals standard for new
incinerators is revised to 120 µg/dscm. We are revising
Sec. 63.1203(b)(3) and repromulgating Sec. 63.1203 accordingly.
We are also correcting two typographic errors in
Sec. 63.1203(c)(2). In the second sentence of this paragraph, we are
replacing the word ``tetro-'' with the word ``tetra-.'' We are also
inserting the word ``to'' before the word ``calculate'' in the third
sentence of the paragraph.
The interim emission standards are summarized below.
Interim Standards for Existing and New Incinerators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim emission standard \1\
Hazardous air pollutant or hazardous --------------------------------------------------------------------------
air pollutant surrogate Existing sources New sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dioxin/Furan......................... 0.20 ng TEQ \2\ dscm; or 0.40 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm.
ng TEQ/dscm and temperature
at inlet to the initial
particulate matter control
device £400 deg. F.
Mercury.............................. 130 µg/dscm.......... 45 µg/dscm.
Particulate Matter................... 34mg/dscm (0.015gr/dscf)..... 34mg/dscm (0.015gr/dscf).
Semivolatile Metals.................. 240 µg/dscm.......... 120 µg/dscm.
Low Volatile Metals.................. 97 µg/dscm........... 97 µg/dscm.
Hydrochloric Acid/Chlorine Gas....... 77 ppmv...................... 21 ppmv.
Hydrocarbons \3\ \4\................. 10 ppmv (or 100 ppmv carbon 10 ppmv (or 100 ppmv carbon monoxide).
monoxide).
Destruction and Removal Efficiency... For existing and new sources, Same as for existing incinerators.
99.99% for each principal
organic hazardous
constituent (POHC)
designated. For sources
burning hazardous wastes
F020, F021, F022, F023,
F026, or F027, 99.9999% for
each POHC designated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All emission levels are corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
\2\ Toxicity equivalent quotient, the international method of relating the toxicity of various dioxin/furan
congeners to the toxicity of 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
\3\ Hourly rolling average. Hydrocarbons are reported as propane.
\4\ Incinerators that elect to continuously comply with the carbon monoxide standard must demonstrate compliance
with the hydrocarbon standard of 10 ppmv during the comprehensive performance test.
B. New and Existing Cement Kilns
The interim emission standards for new and existing hazardous waste
burning cement kilns are identical to the standards promulgated on
September 30, 1999, with two exceptions. The semivolatile metals
standard for existing cement kilns and the mercury standard for new
cement kilns are revised to 330 µg/dscm and 120 µg/dscm, respectively.
In today's rule, we are revising Secs. 63.1204(a)(3) and (b)(2) and
repromulgating Sec. 63.1204 accordingly.
We are also correcting two typographic errors in
Sec. 63.1204(c)(2). In the second sentence of this paragraph, we are
replacing the word ``tetro-'' with the word ``tetra-.'' We are also
inserting the word ``to'' before the word ``calculate'' in the third
sentence of the paragraph.
Finally, we are providing an alternative means for new and existing
cement kilns to comply with the interim mercury standard. Under this
alternative, new and existing cement kilns are allowed to comply with a
hazardous waste maximum theoretical emissions concentration \5\ of
mercury of 120 µg/dscm. This new operating requirement for
mercury from cement kilns is conceptually similar to the alternative
mercury standard provisions that we promulgated in the September 30,
1999 rule. See Sec. 63.1206(b)(10) (alternative standard where source
demonstrates that it cannot meet emission standard as a result of
mercury levels in raw material feedstocks). The feedrate operating
requirement alternative ensures that the hazardous waste mercury
contribution to emissions--MACT control for cement kilns as promulgated
in the final rule--will always be below the mercury standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Maximum theoretical emissions concentration or MTEC is a
term to compare metals and chlorine feedrates across sources of
different sizes. MTEC is defined as the metals or chlorine feedrate
divided by the gas flow rate and is expressed in units of µg/dscm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The alternative to the interim mercury standard is based on the
combined hazardous waste feedstreams to the kiln and may be expressed
either as a maximum theoretical emissions concentration or as a
restriction on maximum hazardous waste mercury mass feedrate and
minimum gas flow rate. Sources must account for each hazardous waste
feedstream when determining compliance with the maximum theoretical
emissions concentration limit. In addition, sources are not required to
monitor for mercury in their raw material for compliance purposes.
Sources are also required to notify the RCRA permitting authority that
they are electing to comply with this option. See Sec. 63.1206(b)(15).
The RCRA permitting authority may determine on a case-by-case basis
under Sec. 270.32(b)(2) that additional operating requirements may be
needed to ensure protection of human health and the environment.
The interim emission standards are summarized below.
[[Page 6797]]
Interim Standards for Existing and New Cement KILNS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous air pollutant or Interim emission standard \1\
hazardous air pollutant -------------------------------------------
surrogate Existing sources New sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dioxin and Furan............ 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm; or 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm; or
0.40 ng TEQ/dscm 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm
and control of flue and control of flue
gas temperature not gas temperature not
to exceed 400 deg.F to exceed 400 deg.F
at the inlet to the at the inlet to the
particulate matter particulate matter
control device. control device.
Mercury..................... 120 µg/dscm. 120 µg/dscm.
Particulate Matter \2\...... 0.15 kg/Mg dry feed 0.15 kg/Mg dry feed
and 20% opacity. and 20% opacity.
Semivolatile Metals......... 330 µg/dscm. 180 µg/dscm.
Low Volatile Metals......... 56 µg/dscm.. 54 µg/dscm.
Hydrochloric Acid and 130 ppmv............ 86 ppmv.
Chlorine Gas.
Hydrocarbons: Kilns without 20 ppmv (or 100 ppmv Greenfield kilns: 20
By-pass 3 6. carbon monoxide) ppmv (or 100 ppmv
\3\. carbon monoxide and
50 ppmv \5\
hydrocarbons).
All others:
20 ppmv (or 100 ppmv
carbon monoxide)
\3\.
Hydrocarbons: Kilns with By- No main stack 50 ppmv \5\.
pass; Main Stack.4 6 standard.
Hydrocarbons: Kilns with By- 10 ppmv (or 100 ppmv 10 ppmv (or 100 ppmv
pass; By-pass Duct and carbon monoxide). carbon monoxide).
Stack.3 4 6
Destruction and Removal For existing and new sources, 99.99% for
Efficiency. each principal organic hazardous
constituent (POHC) designated. For
sources burning hazardous wastes F020,
F021, F022, F023, F026, or F027, 99.9999%
for each POHC designated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All emission levels are corrected to 7% O2, dry basis.
\2\ If there is an alkali by-pass stack associated with the kiln or in-
line kiln raw mill, the combined particulate matter emissions from the
kiln or in-line kiln raw mill and the alkali by-pass must be less than
the particulate matter emissions standard.
\3\ Cement kilns that elect to comply with the carbon monoxide standard
must demonstrate compliance with the hydrocarbon standard during the
comprehensive performance test.
\4\ Measurement made in the by-pass sampling system of any kiln (e.g.,
alkali by-pass of a preheater and/or precalciner kiln; midkiln
sampling system of a long kiln).
\5\ Applicable only to newly-constructed cement kilns at greenfield
sites (see discussion in Part Four, Section VII.D.9). The 50 ppmv
standard is a 30-day block average limit. Hydrocarbons are reported as
propane.
\6\ Hourly rolling average. Hydrocarbons are reported as propane.
C. New and Existing Lightweight Aggregate Kilns
The interim emission standards for new and existing hazardous waste
burning lightweight aggregate kilns are identical to the standards
promulgated on September 30, 1999, with the following exceptions. The
dioxin and furan standard for both new and existing lightweight
aggregate kilns is revised to 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm or rapid quench of the
combustion gas temperature at the exit of the (last) combustion chamber
(or exit of any waste heat recovery system) to 400 deg.F or lower. This
interim emission standard for dioxin and furans preserves the intent of
the standard promulgated on September 30, 1999. That is, the
temperature limitation of 400 deg.F ensures that each lightweight
aggregate kiln will be operating, at a minimum, consistent with sound
operational practices for controlling dioxin and furan emissions.
Accordingly, we are revising Secs. 63.1205(a)(1) and (b)(1). We are
also revising the mercury standard for new and existing sources of
Secs. 63.1205(a)(2) and (b)(2) to 120 µg/dscm. Finally, we are
revising the hydrochloric acid/chlorine gas standard for new and
existing lightweight aggregate kilns to 600 ppmv. See revised
Secs. 63.1205(a)(6) and (b)(6).
We are also correcting two typographic errors in
Sec. 63.1205(c)(2). In the second sentence of this paragraph, we are
replacing the word ``tetro-'' with the word ``tetra-.'' We are also
inserting the word ``to'' before the word ``calculate'' in the third
sentence of the paragraph.
Finally, we are providing the same alternative means for new and
existing lightweight aggregate kilns to comply with the interim mercury
standard as finalized in today's rule for cement kilns (discussed
above). Under this alternative, new and existing lightweight aggregate
kilns are allowed to comply with a hazardous waste maximum theoretical
emissions concentration of mercury of 120 µg/dscm. See
Sec. 63.1206(b)(15).
We are today repromulgating Sec. 63.1205 with these changes, as
summarized below.
Interim Standards for Existing and New Lightweight Aggregate Kilns
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous air pollutant or Interim emission standard \1\
hazardous air pollutant -------------------------------------------
surrogate Existing sources New sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dioxin/Furan................ 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm; or 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm; or
rapid quench of the rapid quench of the
flue gas at the flue gas at the
exit of the kiln to exit of the kiln to
less than 400 deg.F. less than 400
deg.F.
Mercury..................... 120 µg/dscm. 120 µg/dscm.
Particulate Matter.......... 57 mg/dscm (0.025 gr/ 57 mg/dscm (0.025 gr/
dscf). dscf).
Semivolatile Metals \2\..... 250 µg/dscm. 43 µg/dscm.
Low Volatile Metals \3\..... 110 µg/dscm. 110 µg/dscm.
Hydrochloric Acid/Chlorine 600 ppmv............ 600 ppmv.
Gas.
Hydrocarbons 2 3............ 20 ppmv (or 100 ppmv 20 ppmv (or 100 ppmv
carbon monoxide). carbon monoxide).
[[Page 6798]]
Destruction and Removal For existing and new sources, 99.99% for
Efficiency. each principal organic hazardous
constituent (POHC) designated. For
sources burning hazardous wastes F020,
F021, F022, F023, F026, or F027, 99.9999%
for each POHC designated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All emission levels are corrected to 7% O2, dry basis.
\2\ Hourly rolling average. Hydrocarbons are reported as propane.
\3\ Lightweight aggregate kilns that elect to continuously comply with
the carbon monoxide standard must demonstrate compliance with the
hydrocarbon standard of 20 ppmv during the comprehensive performance
test.
II. What Are the Revisions to the Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
Requirements?
The September 1999 final rule requires compliance with the emission
standards and operating requirements at all times that hazardous waste
is in the combustion system (i.e., before the hazardous waste residence
time has transpired), including during startup, shutdown, and
malfunctions. See Sec. 63.1206(b)(1)(i). This requirement was intended
to create an incentive to minimize exceedances when burning hazardous
waste during startup, shutdown, and malfunctions. For example, to
minimize the frequency and severity of exceedances during malfunctions,
you could take various measures including providing for spare parts and
redundant systems.
Industry stakeholders note that requiring compliance with emission
standards and operating requirements during startup, shutdown, and
malfunctions is inconsistent with the General Provisions of Subpart A,
Part 63, that apply to MACT sources.\6\ Although requirements for
particular source categories can be more or less stringent than the
General Provisions (which provisions serve as a default), stakeholders
state that requiring compliance with emission standards and operating
requirements during malfunctions is not appropriate. The purpose of the
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan required under
Sec. 63.1206(c)(2), and by reference Sec. 63.6(e)(3), is: (1) To ensure
that the combustor, including emission control equipment, is operated
and maintained in a manner consistent with good air pollution control
practices for minimizing emissions at least to the levels required by
the standards; (2) to ensure that owners and operators are prepared to
correct malfunctions as soon as practicable; and (3) to minimize the
reporting burden associated with excess emissions. Stakeholders
conclude that it is inappropriate to penalize a source for exceeding
emission standards and operating requirements during malfunctions
because some exceedances are unavoidable and they are already required
to take the corrective measures prescribed in the startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan to minimize emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Joint Brief of Industry Petitioners, US Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 99-1457 et al, Cement Kiln
Recycling Coalition, et al., v. USEPA, Aug. 16, 2000, p. 86.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to stakeholder concerns, today's rule: (1) Exempts you
from the Subpart EEE emission standards and operating requirements
during startup, shutdown, and malfunctions; (2) continues to subject
sources to RCRA requirements during malfunctions, unless they comply
with alternative MACT requirements including expanding the startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan to minimize the frequency and severity
of malfunctions, and submit the plan to the delegated CAA authority for
review and approval; (3) continues to subject sources that burn
hazardous waste during startup and shutdown to RCRA requirements for
startup and shutdown, unless they comply with alternative MACT
requirements, and requires them to include waste feed restrictions and
operating conditions and limits in the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan; (4) requires sources to include in the startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan a requirement to comply with the
automatic hazardous waste feed cutoff system during startup, shutdown,
and malfunctions; and (5) makes conforming revisions to the emergency
safety vent opening requirements.
A. What Are the Revised Requirements for Malfunctions?
We agree with stakeholders that the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan should minimize emissions during malfunctions and are
revising the rule to conform with the General Provisions. The revised
rule exempts you from the MACT emission standards and operating
requirements during startup, shutdown, and malfunctions, even if
hazardous waste is in the combustion system during such events. See
revised Sec. 63.1206(b)(1)(i).
We are concerned, however, that even though following the
corrective measures in response to malfunctions that you prescribe in
the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan should minimize emissions
during these events, the plan may not minimize the frequency and
severity\7\ of exceedances, and thus may not minimize emissions from
these events. In other words, the startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan is largely reactive to malfunctions rather than proactive. Thus,
we are concerned that our RCRA mandate to ensure protection of human
health and the environment may not be achieved without additional
controls. In fact, existing RCRA regulations require compliance with
emission standards and operating requirements at all times that
hazardous waste is in the combustion chamber (see Sec. 264.345(a) for
incinerators and Sec. 266.102(e)(1) for cement and lightweight
aggregate kilns), and EPA has found that this provision is necessary to
protect human health and the environment.\8\ Thus, any replacement to
the existing standards must (at a minimum) provide an equivalent degree
of protection to satisfy RCRA requirements. Accordingly, today's rule
gives you the option of complying with RCRA requirements or CAA
requirements that achieve the equivalent objective of minimizing
emissions during malfunctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The duration and magnitude of excess emissions from a particular
type of malfunction can be minimized by proactive as well as reactive
measures.
\8\ Specific hazardous wastes under specific conditions may be
exempt from the emission standards and operating requirements,
however. See Sec. 264.340(c) for incinerators, and Secs. 266.108 and
266.109 for cement and lightweight aggregate kilns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We discuss below how these options work for various RCRA permitting
situations.
1. Facilities With Existing RCRA Permits
When a source with a RCRA permit for the combustion unit documents
[[Page 6799]]
compliance with the MACT standards and requests that duplicative permit
conditions be removed from the permit, the source must comply with one
of the following options to minimize emissions during malfunctions: (1)
The requirements of Sec. 264.345(a) for incinerators and
Sec. 266.102(e)(1) for cement and lightweight aggregate kilns; or (2)
revised RCRA permit conditions that minimize emissions from
malfunctions; or (3) the procedures you prescribe in a startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan that is expanded to be proactive as well
as reactive to minimize emissions from malfunctions,\9\ and that is
subject to review and approval by the delegated CAA authority. See new
Sec. 270.235(a)(1). We have also made conforming revisions to
Secs. 264.340(b)(1), 265.340(b)(1), 266.100(b)(2)(i), 270.19(e), 270.22
(introductory text), 270.62 (introductory text), and 270.66
(introductory text) to require compliance with Secs. 264.345(a) and
266.102(e)(1) only during malfunctions and only if you elect the option
that requires compliance with those provisions (i.e.,
Sec. 270.235(a)(1)(i)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ That is, the plan must identify actions you are taking to
minimize the frequency and severity of malfunctions as well as the
corrective measures you will take during a malfunction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, the rule requires sources that are being reissued a RCRA
permit for the combustion unit (and that have documented compliance
with the MACT standards) to comply with options that parallel those
discussed above to minimize emissions during malfunctions. See new
Secs. 270.235(a)(2).
a. How Does the RCRA Option Work to Minimize Emissions during
Malfunctions? Under the RCRA option to minimize emissions during
malfunctions, a source with a RCRA permit (and that has documented
compliance with the MACT standards) and that is requesting that
duplicative RCRA permit conditions be removed from the permit must
either: (1) Remain subject to the RCRA permit conditions implementing
Sec. 264.345(a) for incinerators and Sec. 266.102(e)(1) for cement and
lightweight aggregate kilns during malfunctions \10\ while hazardous
waste is in the combustion chamber; or (2) request that the current
RCRA permit conditions be revised to provide alternative means of
ensuring that emissions from malfunctions are minimized.\11\ \12\ See
new Secs. 270.235(a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ When using the term ``malfunction'' with respect to RCRA
requirements, we mean the definition of malfunction provided by Sec. 63.2.
\11\ Please note a change to the design or operation of the
combustor that could increase emissions of toxic compounds from
burning hazardous waste during malfunctions must be approved through
a permit modification under Secs. 270.41(a) or 270.42. Under the
permit modification, RCRA permit officials will determine whether
the permit conditions relevant to controlling emissions from
malfunction must be revised.
\12\ When retaining or revising RCRA permit conditions to
control emissions during malfunctions, the delegated RCRA authority
will ensure that the permit contains only those conditions relevant
to controlling emissions during malfunctions. For example, under the
option where RCRA permit conditions are revised, the permit could
retain a subset of the RCRA emission standards and operating limits
necessary to comply with Secs. 264.345(a) and 266.102(e)(1) during
malfunctions. But, permit officials could also consider whether the
RCRA monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements should be
revised to be more consistent with the MACT requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rule allows you to revise the current RCRA permit conditions to
control emissions during malfunctions because, for example, you may
want to request to comply with a subset of your existing permit
conditions, or you may want to request to comply with a limit on the
number of exceedances during malfunctions when hazardous waste is in
the combustion chamber in lieu of complying with all of the RCRA
emission standards and associated operating limits during malfunctions.
Under this option when you request to revise your RCRA permit
conditions, the permit writer will consider information including
whether your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is both proactive
and reactive, and the source's design and operating history. Because
the permit writer's decision to revise your permit conditions
addressing emissions from malfunctions is based, in part, on review of
the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and the design of the
source, the rule also requires that you notify the delegated RCRA
authority in writing within 5 days of making a change to the plan or
design of the source that may significantly increase emissions of toxic
compounds \13\ from malfunctions. In addition, you must recommend
revisions to permit conditions necessary as a result of the change to
minimize emissions of toxic compounds from malfunctions. The delegated
RCRA authority may revise the permit conditions as a result of these
changes to ensure that emissions of toxic compounds are minimized from
malfunctions upon permit renewal, or if warranted, by modifying the
permit under Secs. 270.41(a) or 270.42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Compounds listed in Appendix VIII to Part 261.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A source that is being reissued a permit for the combustor (and
that has documented compliance with the MACT standards) must address
RCRA permit conditions to control emissions during malfunctions under
any of three options that parallel those discussed above for a
permitted source that is requesting that duplicative RCRA permit
conditions be removed from the permit. See new Sec. 270.235(a)(2).
Under ``RCRA Option A,'' the delegated RCRA authority will include in
the (reissued) permit conditions that ensure compliance with
Sec. 264.345(a) for incinerators and Sec. 266.102(e)(1) for cement and
lightweight aggregate kilns during malfunctions. See
Sec. 270.235(a)(2)(i). Under ``RCRA Option B,'' the delegated RCRA
authority will include in the permit conditions that ensure emissions
of toxic compounds are minimized from malfunctions. These permit
conditions could be a subset of the permit conditions that would be
required to comply with Secs. 264.345(a) or 266.102 (e)(1). Because
permit officials will consider information including the startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan, you must notify the delegated RCRA
authority of changes to the plan that may significantly increase
emissions of toxic compounds from malfunctions. The notification
procedures and consideration of permit revisions as a result of changes
to the plan are identical to those discussed above. See
Sec. 270.235(a)(2)(ii).
b. How Does the CAA Option Work to Minimize Emissions during
Malfunctions? Under the CAA option, you must develop a proactive
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and submit the plan to the
delegated CAA authority for review and approval. Because the plan is
both proactive and reactive, it is equivalent to the incentive provided
by the RCRA options discussed above (i.e., exceedances of RCRA emission
standards or associated operating limits while hazardous waste is in
the combustion chamber is a violation) to minimize emissions of
hazardous air pollutants from malfunctions when hazardous waste is in
the combustion chamber.\14\ Accordingly, for a source with a RCRA
permit (and that has documented compliance with the MACT standards)
that selects this option to address emissions during malfunctions, the
delegated RCRA authority will remove relevant permit conditions
addressing malfunctions when the source requests that duplicative RCRA
permit conditions be removed from the permit. See Sec. 270.235(a)(1)(iii).
Similarly, for a source that is in a permit reissuance
[[Page 6800]]
proceeding (and that has documented compliance with the MACT standards)
and that selects this option to address emissions during malfunctions,
the delegated RCRA authority will omit from the permit conditions
addressing malfunctions upon permit reissuance. See Sec. 270.235(a)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Please note RCRA permit writers also generally require
owners and operators to take proactive measures to minimize
emissions from malfunctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To implement this option, you include in the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan a description of potential causes of malfunctions and
actions you are taking to minimize the frequency and severity of
malfunctions. See revised Sec. 63.1206(c)(2)(ii). You may develop a
fault tree analysis, for example, to identify malfunctions and develop
measures to minimize the frequency and severity of those malfunctions.
Examples of measures would be providing spare parts and redundant systems.
In addition, you must submit the startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan to the delegated CAA authority for review and approval to ensure
that it is complete and both proactive and reactive to minimize
emissions of hazardous air pollutants from malfunctions. The delegated
CAA authority also will ensure that the potential malfunctions
identified in the plan are bona fide malfunctions. Malfunctions are
events that are a sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable
failure of air pollution control equipment, process equipment, or a
process to operate in a normal or usual manner. Failures that are
caused, in part, by poor maintenance or careless or improper operation
(including improper or inadequate characterization of feedstreams) are
not malfunctions.\15\ See definition of malfunction in Sec. 63.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Operations during a failure that are not malfunctions are
subject to the applicable emission standards and operating
requirements of Subpart EEE. See Sec. 63.1206(b)(1)(i). Thus, an
exceedance of an applicable emission standard or operating limit as
a result of a failure that is not a malfunction is a violation
irrespective of whether hazardous waste is in the combustion chamber.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The procedures for approving the startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan provide you the opportunity to revise the plan if the delegated
CAA authority intends to disapprove the plan. The delegated CAA
authority will notify you of approval or intention to deny approval
within 90 calendar days after receipt of the approval request, and
within 60 calendar days after receipt of any supplemental information
that you submit. Before disapproving the plan, the delegated CAA
authority will notify you of the intention to disapprove the plan
together with the basis for intending to disapprove the plan and notice
of opportunity for you to present additional information before final
action on disapproval of the plan.
Further, if you change the plan in a manner that may significantly
increase emissions of hazardous air pollutants from malfunctions, you
must request approval from the delegated CAA authority within 5 days
after making the change, under the same procedures described above for
initial approval of the plan.
2. Interim Status Facilities
Sources operating under the interim status standards of Part 265,
Subpart O, or Sec. 266.103 must comply with either of the following
options to minimize emissions during malfunctions after they document
compliance with the MACT standards by conducting a comprehensive
performance test and submitting a Notification of Compliance: (1) A
RCRA option where the source continues to comply with the interim
status emission standards and operating requirements relevant to
control of emissions from malfunctions and where those standards and
requirements apply only during malfunctions; or (2) a CAA option where
the owner or operator is exempt from the interim status standards
relevant to control of emissions of toxic compounds during malfunctions
upon submittal of written notification and documentation to the
delegated RCRA authority that the startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan has been approved by the Administrator. See new
Sec. 270.235(b)(1). These options parallel the options discussed above
and work as discussed above.
When a source operating under the interim status standards of Part
265, Subpart O, or Sec. 266.103 (and that has documented compliance
with the MACT standards) submits a RCRA permit application, the source
must comply with one of the three options provided for sources that are
being reissued a RCRA permit, as discussed above. See new
Sec. 270.235(b)(2). These situations are analogous because the source
is being issued a new permit in both cases.
B. Why Does the Revised Rule Require You To Include the Automatic Waste
Feed Cutoff Requirements in the Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan?
We are revising the rule to require compliance with the automatic
waste feed cutoff requirements during malfunctions. You must include
the automatic waste feed cutoff requirements in the startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan by reference. This requirement applies
irrespective of whether you choose the RCRA or CAA approach under
Sec. 270.235 to minimize emissions from malfunctions, as discussed above.
We conclude that compliance with the automatic waste feed cutoff
requirements is necessary to comply with Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(i)(A) which
requires you to operate in a manner consistent with good air pollution
control practices for minimizing emissions at least to the levels
required by all relevant standards. Good operating practices during a
malfunction includes cutting off the hazardous waste feed.
An exceedance of a Subpart EEE emission standard or operating
requirement during a malfunction identified in your startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan would not be a violation, however, provided that
you followed the corrective measures prescribed in a plan that meets
the requirements of Sec. 63.6(e)(3).
In addition, today's rule requires you to reevaluate your startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan if you experience 10 exceedances of a
Subpart EEE emission standard or operating parameter limit during
malfunctions in a 60-day block period while hazardous waste remains in
the combustion chamber (i.e., when the hazardous waste residence time
has not transpired). You must complete, within 45 days of the 10th
exceedance, an investigation of the cause of each exceedance and
evaluation of approaches to minimize the frequency, duration, and
severity of each exceedance, and revise the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan as warranted by the evaluation. Finally, you must
record the results of the investigation and evaluation in the operating
record and include a summary of the findings, and any changes to the
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, in the excess emissions report
required under Sec. 63.10(e)(3).
C. What Are the Revised Requirements for Burning Hazardous Waste During
Startup and Shutdown?
As discussed above, the revised rule exempts you from the MACT
emission standards and operating requirements during startup, shutdown
and malfunctions. See revised Sec. 63.1206(b)(1)(i). We are concerned,
however, that burning hazardous waste during startup and shutdown can
be problematic. During startup and shutdown, a combustor is not
operating under steady-state conditions. For example, the combustion
chamber temperature fluctuates during startup and shutdown and at times
will be lower than required to achieve good combustion and minimize
emissions of
[[Page 6801]]
organic hazardous pollutants. Because hazardous waste combustors can
burn fuels that are not hazardous wastes (e.g., fossil fuel) during
startup and shutdown, it generally is not appropriate to burn hazardous
waste at these times. Accordingly, RCRA regulations require compliance
with the RCRA emission standards and operating limits during startup
and shutdown (which, as a practical matter, prohibits burning hazardous
waste at these times), except for only one or two narrow exemptions.
See Sec. 264.345(c) for incinerators and Sec. 266.102(e)(2)(iii) for
cement and lightweight aggregate kilns.
By exempting you from the MACT emission standards and operating
requirements during startup and shutdown (and malfunctions), today's
revised rule allows you to continue burning those specific hazardous
wastes that are currently allowed under RCRA to be burned during
startup and shutdown. This is reasonable because there may be
situations where burning hazardous wastes containing low levels of
toxic compounds during startup and shutdown may result in equivalent or
lower emissions of hazardous air pollutants than burning fossil fuels.
For example, hazardous spent solvents may combust more completely
during startup and shutdown than coal or No. 6 fuel oil which is the
alternative fuel for many combustors. In these situations, you may be
able to burn hazardous waste during startup and shutdown while meeting
the requirements of Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(i)(A) (which requires you to
operate at all times in a manner consistent with good air pollution
control practices for minimizing emissions at least to levels required
by all relevant standards).
Given that today's rule exempts you from the MACT emission
standards and operating requirements during startup and shutdown, the
rule provides the following alternative requirements for sources that
burn hazardous waste during startup and shutdown. When a source with a
RCRA permit for the combustion unit documents compliance with the MACT
standards and requests that duplicative permit conditions be removed
from the permit, the source must comply with one of the following
options to minimize emissions during startup and shutdown: (1) the
requirements of Sec. 264.345(c) for incinerators and
Sec. 266.102(e)(2)(iii) for cement and lightweight aggregate kilns
restricting the types of hazardous waste that can be burned during
startup and shutdown; or (2) revised RCRA permit conditions that meet
the objective of those provisions (i.e., to minimize emissions during
startup and shutdown); or (3) the waste feed restrictions (e.g., type
and quantity) and other operating conditions and limits that you
include in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, which is
subject to review and approval by the delegated CAA authority. See new
Sec. 270.235(a)(1).\16\ We have made conforming revisions to
Secs. 264.340(b)(1), 265.340(b)(1), 266.100(b)(2)(i), 270.19(e), 270.22
(introductory text), 270.62 (introductory text), and 270.66
(introductory text) to require compliance with Secs. 265.345(c) and
266.102(e)(1) only during startup and shutdown and only if you elect
the option that requires compliance with those provisions (i.e.,
Sec. 270.235(a)(1)(i)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Please note Sec. 63.1206(c)(2)(v)(B) requires sources that
feed hazardous waste during startup or shutdown to include waste
feed restrictions and other appropriate operating conditions and
limits in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan irrespective
of which option the source selects to minimize emissions during
those events. Under the RCRA options for controlling emissions
during startup and shutdown, however, you are not required to submit
the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan to the delegated CAA
authority for review and approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, similar to the requirements for malfunctions, today's rule
gives you the option of using either a RCRA or CAA approach to ensure
that you minimize emissions from startup and shutdown. These options
work as discussed above for malfunctions. You may retain or revise your
RCRA permit requirements that control emissions during startup and
shutdown, or, under the CAA option, you may request that the RCRA
permit requirements be deleted.
The rule also requires you to comply with the automatic waste feed
cutoff system to minimize emissions during startup and shutdown. See
Sec. 63.1206(c)(2)(v)(B). You must interlock operating limits you
establish to minimize emissions during startup and shutdown with the
automatic waste feed cutoff system. To implement this requirement, you
must include the waste feed restrictions (e.g., type and quantity) and
other operating conditions and limits that are necessary to minimize
emissions while feeding waste during startup and shutdown. See
Sec. 63.1206(c)(2)(v)(B)(1).
Finally, the rule allows sources in other RCRA permitting
situations to comply with RCRA options or a CAA option to minimize
emissions during startup and shutdown after they document compliance
with the MACT standards. These situations are: (1) Permit reissuance;
(2) complying with MACT while operating under RCRA interim status; and
(3) interim status sources submitting a RCRA permit application. The
RCRA and CAA options for these situations are identical to those
discussed above to control emissions during malfunctions.
D. What Are the Conforming Revisions to the Emergency Safety Vent
Opening Requirements?
Emergency safety vents are designed to allow combustion gases to
bypass the emission control system during emergencies to preclude
catastrophic consequences such as explosions or fires in the emission
control equipment. We are revising the emergency safety vent opening
requirements under Sec. 63.1206(c)(4) to conform to the revisions to
the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan requirements. Under today's
revision, the MACT emission standards and operating requirements do not
apply to openings that occur as a result of a malfunction. See revised
Sec. 63.1206(b)(1)(i).
In addition, we are revising the rule to no longer presume that an
emergency safety vent opening under operations other than a malfunction
defined in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (i.e., when the
emission standards and operating requirements continue to apply) is
evidence of failure to comply with an emission standard. See revised
Sec. 63.1206(c)(4)(i). For example, if feedrates of metals and chlorine
were well below their limits when the safety vent opened under
operations other than a malfunction, the metals and chlorine emission
standards may not be exceeded. Rather, the revised rule places the
burden on you to document in the operating record whether you remain in
compliance with the emission standards when the emergency safety vent
opens. In addition, as required by the current rule, you must submit to
the delegated CAA authority a written report within 5 days of an ESV
opening that results in failure to meet the emission standard
documenting the result of the investigation of the cause of the opening
and corrective measures taken. See Secs. 62.1206(c)(4)(iii) and (iv).
III. What Changes Are We Making to the Performance Testing Requirements
for the Interim Standards Rule?
We are amending three performance test provisions in today's rule.
First, we are revising the ``data in lieu of the initial comprehensive
performance test'' provision to allow you to submit test data
irrespective of when the test was conducted. Second, we are amending
the comprehensive performance testing frequency provisions such that
you will only be required to conduct one comprehensive performance test
for the interim standards. Third, we are not requiring you to conduct
dioxin/furan
[[Page 6802]]
confirmatory tests for the interim standards. See revised
Sec. 63.1207(c) and (d).
A. Why Are We Revising the Data in Lieu Provisions?
The September 1999 final rule allows you to request that previous
emissions test data serve as documentation of conformance with the
emission standards provided that the previous testing was initiated
after March 30, 1998 and provided the data is sufficient to establish
appropriate operating parameter limits. This date was subsequently
changed to March 30, 1999 as a result of extending the compliance date
one year. See 66 FR 63313. Today we are amending this requirement to
allow you to submit test data even though the testing was initiated
prior to March 30, 1999, i.e., prior to four years and eight months
before the compliance date.
Stakeholders indicated that some sources have emissions data that
were collected before March 30, 1999 that could be used to demonstrate
compliance with the MACT standards and establish appropriate operating
limits. Stakeholders reason that the age restriction on data-in-lieu
emissions tests should be waived for the initial test in order to
counter the additional costs associated with having to comply with two
potentially different sets of emission standards at different times. We
agree, noting that these sources were in compliance with the MACT
standards well before the compliance date. However, we emphasize that,
consistent with the existing requirements, these data must: (1) meet
the appropriate quality assurance objectives; (2) originate from
testing conditions that satisfy the operating condition requirements of
Sec. 63.1207(g)(1); and (3) be sufficient to establish all appropriate
operating parameter limits required pursuant to Sec. 63.1209.
B. Why Are We Waiving Periodic Comprehensive Performance Testing Under
the Interim Standards?
The September 1999 final rule requires you to begin subsequent
comprehensive testing no later than 61 months after the date of
commencing the initial comprehensive performance test. Today we are
waiving the requirement to conduct periodic comprehensive performance
testing for the interim standards. You are required to conduct only one
comprehensive performance test for the duration of the interim
standards. See new Sec. 63.1207(d)(4)(i).
Pursuant to the settlement agreement with the Sierra Club (see 66
FR 57715, November 16, 2001), EPA must promulgate permanent standards
that replace today's interim standards no later than June 14, 2005.
Following this schedule, your new compliance date for the replacement
standards could be approximately June of 2008, in which case you would
have to conduct your test to demonstrate compliance with these
replacement standards no later than June of 2009.\17\ This would
roughly coincide with the deadline for conducting your second comprehensive
performance test under today's interim standards, absent today's revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ This assumes sources will be allowed to conduct the
comprehensive performance test not later than one year after the
compliance date for the permanent replacement standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We conclude that a second interim standards comprehensive test
would not be needed given that, by that time, the interim standards
will have already been replaced with the permanent replacement
standards. It would not be appropriate to require you to prepare (e.g.,
submit a performance test plan a year in advance of the scheduled test
date) to conduct a second compliance test under today's interim
standards that no longer apply while also requiring you to prepare to
conduct the initial compliance test for the replacement standards
shortly thereafter. We conclude this amendment is necessary to assure a
smooth transition between the interim standards and the permanent
replacement standards.
C. Why Are We Waiving the Dioxin/Furan Confirmatory Test Under the
Interim Standards?
The September 1999 final rule requires you to begin your initial
dioxin/furan confirmatory test no later than 31 months after the date
of commencing your initial comprehensive performance test. Today we are
waiving the dioxin/furan confirmatory performance testing requirement
under the interim standards. See new Sec. 63.1207(d)(4)(ii). You are
not required to conduct a confirmatory compliance test while the
interim standards are in effect.
Absent this amendment, you would have to commence your first
confirmatory compliance test under the interim standards no later than
October of 2006. As discussed above, we project that the compliance
date for the standards that will replace today's interim standards
could be about June of 2008. Some sources may be in process of
upgrading their facility in October of 2006 to comply with the
permanent replacement standards. We conclude that it would be
problematic to require sources to simultaneously upgrade their facility
and conduct a dioxin/furan confirmatory compliance test under the
interim standards. Thus, to conclude that exempting sources from the
confirmatory compliance test requirements while the interim standards
are in effect is reasonable and appropriate.
IV. Why Are We Deleting the Minimum Power Requirement for Ionizing Wet
Scrubbers?
Today's rule deletes the limit on minimum total power to an
ionizing wet scrubber. See Sec. 63.1209(m)(1)(i)(D). Until we
promulgate compliance assurance procedures for ionizing wet scrubbers,
sources and permitting officials should use the alternative monitoring
provisions of Sec. 63.1209(g) to identify appropriate controls on a
site-specific basis.
On May 14, 2001, we issued a final rule implementing, among other
things, a court order to vacate operating parameter limits for
electrostatic precipitators and baghouses. 66 FR at 24272. The Agency
voluntarily requested that the Court vacate the operating parameter
limits at Secs. 63.1209(m)(1)(ii) and (m)(1)(iii) because the Agency
inadvertently did not provide opportunity for public comment on
revisions to the proposed operating parameter limits.
One of the vacated operating parameter limits was a limit on
minimum secondary power to each field of an electrostatic precipitator.
We had proposed a minimum limit on only total secondary power to the
precipitator in May 1996. But, we determined after review of comments
and further investigation that a limit on minimum total power will not
ensure that collection efficiency of a multistage electrostatic
precipitator is maintained. Rather, we concluded that a limit on
minimum secondary power to each field of the precipitator is needed.
Consequently, we declined to replace the vacated minimum limit on power
to each field of the precipitator with a limit on total power to the
precipitator, as originally proposed. Subsequently, in July 2001, we
proposed to reinstate the limit on minimum secondary power to each
field of the precipitator, but also discussed other compliance
assurance alternatives that may provide equivalent or better compliance
assurance, and requested comment on those alternatives.
66 FR at 35143-35144.
In the July 3, 2001 proposal regarding compliance assurance
approaches for electrostatic precipitators, we
[[Page 6803]]
inadvertently neglected to propose to delete the minimum total power
operating parameter limit for ionizing wet scrubbers at
Sec. 63.1209(m)(1)(i)(D) and propose those same compliance assurance
alternatives for ionizing wet scrubbers. An ionizing wet scrubber is
essentially an electrostatic precipitator integrated with a packed bed
scrubber where particulate matter is collected on both the plates of
the precipitator and the bed packing material.
Today's final rule simply deletes the requirement to establish an
operating limit on minimum total power to an ionizing wet scrubber at
Sec. 63.1209(m)(1)(i)(D). We are not replacing the total power limit
with a limit on minimum power to each field of the ionizing wet
scrubber, as we proposed on July 3, 2001 for electrostatic
precipitators, because we need additional time to review and evaluate
comments received on the compliance assurance alternatives we discussed
in that proposal. Until we promulgate compliance assurance requirements
for ionizing wet scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators, sources and
regulatory officials should use the alternative monitoring provisions
under Sec. 63.1209(g) to establish appropriate compliance requirements
on a site-specific basis.
V. What Are the Monitoring Requirements for Carbon Beds?
We are deleting the requirement to establish a limit on the useful
life of a carbon bed or bed segment and associated requirements to
verify compliance with the dioxin/furan (and mercury) emission standard
prior to the end of the life of the bed. See (deleted)
Sec. 63.1209(k)(7)(i). In lieu of that requirement, the revised rule
requires you to monitor performance of the bed according to
manufacturer's specifications to ensure that the bed has not reached
the end of its useful life.
The existing rule allowed you to use the manufacturer's
specification to establish the limit on carbon bed age rather than the
actual age of the bed during the performance test when demonstrating
compliance with the dioxin/furan (and mercury) emission standard during
the initial comprehensive performance test. If you used the
manufacturer's specification for bed age, you were required to
recommend in the initial comprehensive performance test plan a schedule
for subsequent dioxin/furan emissions testing to demonstrate that the
initial limit on maximum bed age ensures compliance with the dioxin/
furan (and mercury) emission standard.
In response to stakeholders' concerns with the existing rule, we
proposed amendments to these provisions to clarify our intent regarding
confirmatory testing to verify compliance with the dioxin/furan
emission standard prior to the end of the bed's life. See 66 FR at
35141-35142 (July 3, 2001).
Several commenters state that the proposed requirement to perform
confirmatory testing to verify that the source is in compliance with
emission standards at the manufacturer's recommended bed age may be
burdensome and unnecessary. Emissions testing to confirm bed age may
either require testing in addition to periodic comprehensive
performance testing and dioxin/furan confirmatory testing or that a
source replace the bed on the anniversary of the comprehensive
performance test or the dioxin/furan confirmatory test, even though the
manufacturer may recommend a longer bed life.
In addition, one commenter is concerned that infrequent (e.g., once
every several years) emissions testing to confirm compliance with the
dioxin/furan and mercury emissions standards does not ensure the carbon
bed is operated and maintained ``in a manner consistent with good air
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions at least to the
levels required by all relevant standards,'' as required by
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(i)(A). The commenter recommends use of manufacturer's
specifications and recommendations for periodic, frequent monitoring to
ensure the bed is performing as designed.
We agree with commenters and are deleting the requirement to
establish a limit on maximum bed life and the associated requirement to
conduct emissions testing to confirm compliance with the dioxin/furan
and mercury standards.\18\ Instead, we are substituting the following
requirements consistent with the comments we received. You must: (1)
Monitor performance of the carbon bed consistent with manufacturer's
specifications to ensure the carbon bed (or bed segment for beds with
multiple segments) has not reached the end of its useful life to
minimize dioxin/furan and mercury emissions at least to the levels
required by the emission standards; (2) document the monitoring
procedures in the operation and maintenance plan; (3) record results of
the performance monitoring in the operating record; and (4) replace the
bed or bed segment before it has reached the end of its useful life.
See revised Sec. 63.1209(k)(7)(i) and conforming revisions to
Sec. 63.1209(l)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Note that this amendment does not alter the requirement to
demonstrate compliance with all emission standards every five years
(i.e., comprehensive performance testing), and the requirement to
confirm compliance with the dioxin/furan emission standard midway
between comprehensive performance tests (i.e., confirmatory
performance testing). The amendment simply deletes the potentially
additional dioxin/furan (and mercury) emission test prior to the end
of the manufacturer's recommended life of the carbon bed to verify
compliance with those emission standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Can a Source Be Granted an Extension of Compliance for the Interim
Standards?
As a result of the uncertainty created by the Court's opinion, we
previously determined that it was not appropriate to require sources to
comply with the regulatory schedule promulgated in the September 30,
1999 rule. Accordingly, we recently extended the compliance date
requirement of Sec. 63.1206(a) for one year until September 30, 2003.
See 66 FR 63313 (December 6, 2001). We are clarifying today that the
recent change to the compliance date requirements of Sec. 63.1206(a) do
not preclude a source from requesting an extension of compliance with
the emission standards as provided in Secs. 63.6(i) and 63.1213. See
Sec. 63.1206(b)(4). Sections 63.6(i) and 63.1213 allow the
Administrator or State with an approved title V program to grant an
extension of compliance of up to one year for a source that cannot
complete system retrofits or pollution prevention and waste
minimization measures by the compliance date despite a good faith
effort to do so.
VII. Why Are We Repromulgating the Hourly Rolling Average Temperature
Limit at a Dry Particulate Matter Control Device To Control Dioxin/
Furan Emissions?
The provision finalized in the September 1999 rule that requires
you to maintain compliance with the dioxin/furan emission standard by
operating under a maximum temperature limit at the inlet to the dry
particulate matter control device based on a one-hour rolling average
was challenged and briefed by Industry in the Cement Kiln Recycling
Coalition litigation. \19\ Given that the challenged provisions will be
vacated when the Court issues its mandate, we are repromulgating this
compliance provision, consistent with our approach of repromulgating
the challenged emissions standards that were not revised. See
Sec. 63.1209(k)(1) and preamble discussion in Part Two, Section I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Joint Brief of Industry Petitioners, US Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 99-1457 et al, Cement Kiln
Recycling Coalition, et al., v. USEPA, Aug. 16, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we explained in detail in the record to the September 1999 rule, this
[[Page 6804]]
monitoring requirement is needed to assure that the emission standard
is not exceeded. It is well-established that the relationship between
dioxin/furan formation and temperature at the inlet to a dry
particulate matter control device (e.g., fabric filter, electrostatic
precipitator) is non-linear and exponential; that is, dioxin formation
increases at a faster rate than temperature. Thus, an increase in
temperature above the site-specific limit will increase formation of
dioxin more than an equal reduction below the limit will reduce dioxin
formation (and consequently emissions at lowered temperature will not
balance out those emitted at the higher temperature). See generally
Technical Support Document Vol. 4 chapters 2 and 3.\20\ We consequently
view the monitoring requirement as a form of enhanced monitoring
required by section 114 (a)(3) of the Act to ``provide a reasonable
assurance of compliance with emission standards.'' NRDC v. EPA, 194 F.
3d 130, 136 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ In light of this documented non-linear increase in CDD
emissions, RCRA permit writers are cautioned to take this phenomenon
into account in making risk determinations pursuant to the RCRA
omnibus permitting provision. Cf. 64 FR at 52839-843 (description of
the site specific risk assessment policy which implements the RCRA
omnibus permitting provision, and its relationship to sources
subject to the Hazardous Waste Combustor NESHAP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We noted in the July 3, 2001 proposed rule that we do not view the
temperature monitoring requirement as being an amendment to the
standard. See 66 FR at 35138 n. 20. One commenter, however, reiterated
claims briefed in the Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition litigation
maintaining that requiring sources to establish a limit on maximum
temperature at the inlet to a dry particulate matter control device to
control dioxin/furan emissions on an hourly rolling average effectively
amends the standard. We disagree.
Compliance with dioxin/furan emission standard is demonstrated by
stack emissions testing. Neither the standard nor the stack test method
prescribes any particular averaging time, or other monitoring regime,
for achieving a temperature level. Therefore, using a one-hour
averaging time does not amend the standard.
However, even if (against our view) the requirement to monitor
temperature on an hourly rolling average is considered a change to the
emission standard, it can be justified 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. 4 TSD at 2-16.
Operators can readily determine when quenching is needed, since
thermocouples report instantaneous temperature changes, allowing
immediate reaction to temperature changes. 4 TSD at 2-10. Second, we
have already considered this cost (i.e., the cost of spray quenching)
in determining the standards for HWCs. We do 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. We also included
the cost of controlling spray quenching to meet the one-hour monitoring
requirement in assessing costs of the September 1999 rule, and regard
these costs as reasonable. See generally Technical Support Document
Volumes III, IV, and V. 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). In
addition, as explained above, the one-hour averaging requirement is
needed to prevent exceedances of the emission standard itself, see 4
TSD at 2-8 to 2-9 and 3-8 to 3-9. Given dioxin/furan's extreme
toxicity, costs are justified to assure that the emission limit is not
exceeded. Finally, we do not believe there are any adverse non-air or
energy impacts associated with the averaging requirement (and again, we
have already assessed energy impacts and waste generation impacts of
the standard when promulgating the standard in the first place). See
generally Technical Support Document Vol. 5, ``Emissions Estimates and
Engineering Costs'' (RC2F-S0011) chapter 10.
Part Three--What Are the Analytical and Regulatory Requirements?
I. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866, EPA must determine whether a
regulatory action is significant and, therefore, subject to
comprehensive review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and
the other provisions of the Executive Order. A significant regulatory
action is defined by the Order as one that may:
--Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
--Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action
taken or planned by another agency;
--Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user
fees, or loan programs or rights and obligations or recipients thereof;
or
--Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in Executive Order
12866.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action''
because it raises novel legal or policy issues. 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 social costs for this final rule are less
than $100 million. Furthermore, this rule is not expected to adversely
effect, in a material way, the economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. The
benefits to human health and the environment resulting from today's
final action have not been fully monetized but are believed to be less
than $100 million per year. Overall, the costs and benefits associated
with this final Interim Standards Rule are essentially the same as
those estimated for the September 30, 1999 rule. These impacts are
discussed below in more detail.
II. What Are the Potential Costs and Benefits of Today's Final Rule?
The value of any regulatory action is traditionally measured by the
net change in social welfare that it generates. This assumes full
monetization of all relevant components. All other factors being equal,
a rule that generates positive net welfare would be advantageous to
society and should be promulgated, while a rule that results in
negative net welfare to society should be avoided. In this Part we
discuss the estimated costs and benefits of the interim standards.
Today's rule revises some emission standards and various other
requirements promulgated in the September 30, 1999 rule. As discussed
in Part Two, Section I of this action, while some of the emission
standards are revised; most are retained as promulgated in that rule.
In addition to modification of some standards, this rule provides
cement and lightweight aggregate kiln sources the alternative to comply
with the mercury standard by limiting the mercury content in the
[[Page 6805]]
hazardous waste to a certain level. Today's rule also includes
revisions intended to reduce the potential for forfeited capital
investments. This could occur if the future standards (i.e., the
standards that will replace the interim standards) are substantially
different (more stringent) than those established by this Interim
Standards Rule. These changes include eliminating the requirement for
confirmatory testing for dioxin and furans during the period that the
interim standards are in effect; allowing the use of previously
collected data to serve as documentation of compliance with the interim
standards; and waiving all subsequent comprehensive performance tests
(i.e., those after the initial comprehensive performance test) for the
period that the interim standards are in effect. Finally, we are
revising the startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) provisions and
emergency safety vent opening provisions.
In support of today's final rule we have developed preliminary cost
and benefit estimates for the interim standards. These estimates, as
presented below, are generalized quantified projections based on our
findings as presented in the July 1999 Assessment\21\, and the July 23
1999 Addendum\22\. We have not quantified impacts potentially
associated with the other aspects of today's rule. Impacts associated
with today's final rule will be fully characterized, modeled in detail,
and incorporated as the baseline scenario in our analysis for the
upcoming rule that will establish final standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, ``Assessment of the
Potential Costs, Benefits, & Other Impacts of the Hazardous Waste
Combustion MACT Standards: Final Rule'', July 1999.
\22\ U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, ``Addendum to the
Assessment of the Potential Costs, Benefits, & Other Impacts of the
Hazardous Waste Combustion MACT Standards: Final Rule,'' July 23, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost impacts (savings and increases) of the emission standards vary
by source category. The interim standards for existing incinerators are
identical to the standards promulgated in the September 30, 1999 rule.
As a result, estimated impacts to existing incinerators are equivalent
to the impacts presented in the Addendum to the September 30, 1999
rule. The interim emission standards for existing cement kilns are
equivalent to the September 30, 1999 rule standards, except for
semivolatile metals. The semivolatile metals emission standard in this
Interim Standards Rule is increased from 240 µg/dscm to 330
µg/dscm. This change is estimated to result in a 5 percent
decrease in total annual compliance costs for this source, as compared
to costs presented in the Addendum. The interim emission standards for
existing hazardous waste burning lightweight aggregate kilns are
modified from the final rule standards for dioxin and furan, mercury,
and hydrochloric acid/chlorine gas. Projected from the 1999 final rule
baseline, these changes are estimated to reduce per system and aggregate
annual compliance costs by about one-third for this source category.
The aggregate annualized social cost impacts associated with the
interim standards reflect only a marginal reduction from the impacts
associated with the September 30, 1999 rule. The total annualized
social costs resulting from today's interim standards are estimated to
range from $47 million to $60 million, with a high-end estimate of $74
million. The annualized social cost impacts of the September 30, 1999
rule were estimated to range from $50 to $61 million, with a high-end
estimate of $75 million (See Addendum tables ADD-6, ADD-7, and ADD-8).
All benefits associated with today's final rule have not been
monetized. The Addendum estimated average monetized human health
benefits of approximately $20 million per year \23\ for selected
primary pollutants. Approximately 90 percent of this total was derived
from reductions in particulate matter emission levels. Since the
particulate matter emission standard for each source category for the
interim standards is unchanged, these estimated average monetized human
health benefits are retained. Although not monetized, reduced lead
exposure to children was another projected benefit. Ecological and
waste minimization benefits were also anticipated as a result of the
September 30, 1999 final rule \24\. While full monetization of all
benefits (human health, ecological, waste minimization) is not
feasible, we believe that these benefits justify the aggregate social
costs. Overall, when projected from the September 30, 1999 baseline,
aggregate annualized social costs for all sources are projected to
decline by no more than 6 percent, while annual monetized plus non-
monetized benefits may be only marginally reduced \25\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Undiscounted estimate for future cases avoided.
\24\ See the July 1999 ``Assessment'' for a full discussion of
these benefits.
\25\ The majority of the cancer risk reductions were linked to
the consumption of dioxin-contaminated agricultural products. The
dioxin and furan standards in the Interim Standards Rule remain the
same for incinerators and cement kilns and are modified slightly for
lightweight aggregate kilns. Because baseline emissions of dioxin
and furans from incinerators and cement kilns represent
approximately 95 percent of the emissions from the three source
categories combined, we estimate that most benefits discussed in the
1999 Assessment are retained.
Semivolatile metals are comprised of lead and cadmium. Lead
exposure above certain levels has been linked to childhood IQ
reductions and high blood pressure in adults. Potential benefits
from reduced lead exposure were discussed but not monetized in the
Addendum. Because approximately 70 percent of total semivolatile
metals reductions (from all three source categories) were from
incinerators, we estimate the semivolatile standard in today's
Interim Standards Rule may correlate to marginally reduced lead
benefits for children and/or adults.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These findings are presented in more detail in the economic support
document: Preliminary Impacts Assessment--Interim Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors. This document
is available in the docket established for today's action.
III. What Consideration Was Given to Small Entities Under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC 601 et. seq.?
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the
impacts of today's final rule on small entities, a small entity is
defined either by the number of employees or by the annual dollar
amount of sales/revenues. The level at which an entity is considered
small is determined for each NAICS code by the Small Business
Administration (SBA).
The Agency has examined the potential effects today's final rule
may have on small entities, as required by the RFA/SBREFA. We have
determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. This is evidenced by the
fact that the small entity analysis conducted in support of the
September 30, 1999 final rule \26\ concluded that significant impacts
would not occur on a substantial number of potentially impacted small
entities. Today's action results in marginally reduced cost
[[Page 6806]]
impacts, as measured from the September 30, 1999 findings. As such, it
is logical to presume that impacts to small entities subject to rule
requirements may be equivalent to the final rule impacts, or marginally
reduced. After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule
on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, Assessment of the
Potential Costs, Benefits, & Other Impacts of the Hazardous Waste
Combustion MACT Standards: Final Rule, July 1999. Appendix G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Was the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Considered in This Final Rule?
Executive Order 12875, ``Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership'' (October 26, 1993), calls on federal agencies to provide
a statement supporting the need to issue any regulation containing an
unfunded federal mandate and describing prior consultation with
representatives of affected state, local, and tribal governments.
Signed into law on March 22, 1995, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) supersedes Executive Order 12875, reiterating the previously
established directives while also imposing additional requirements for
federal agencies issuing any regulation containing an unfunded mandate.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 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.
Today's final action is not subject to the relevant requirements of
UMRA. This rule will not result in $100 million or more in
expenditures. Applying the pre final rule baseline, total social costs
for today's final action are estimated to range from $47 million to $60
million per year. Furthermore, today's rule is not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of UMRA. Section 203 requires agencies to
develop a small government Agency plan before establishing any
regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments. We have determined that this
rule will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
V. Were Equity Issues and Children's Health Considered in This Final Rule?
By applicable executive order, we are required to consider the
impacts of today's rule with regard to environmental justice and
children's health.
(1) Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks''
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under
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. Today's final rule is not
subject to the Executive Order (EO) because it is not economically
significant, as defined by EO 12866.
(2) Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population'' (February
11, 1994), is designed to address the environmental and human health
conditions of minority and low-income populations. EPA is committed to
addressing environmental justice concerns and has assumed a leadership
role in environmental justice initiatives to enhance environmental
quality for all citizens of the United States. The Agency's goals are
to ensure that no segment of the population, regardless of race, color,
national origin, income, or net worth bears disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental impacts as a result of EPA's
policies, programs, and activities. In response to Executive Order
12898, and to concerns voiced by many groups outside the Agency, EPA's
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) formed an
Environmental Justice Task Force to analyze the array of environmental
justice issues specific to waste programs and to develop an overall
strategy to identify and address these issues (OSWER Directive No.
9200.3-17). We have no data indicating that today's final action would
result in disproportionately negative impacts on minority or low income
communities.
VI. What Consideration Was Given to Tribal Governments in This Final Rule?
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
Today's final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in the Order. Today's rule
will not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal
[[Page 6807]]
governments, nor impose substantial direct compliance costs on them.
VII. Were Federalism Implications Considered in Today's Final Rule?
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' are defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
Today's final rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in the Order. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this rule.
VIII. Were Energy Impacts Considered?
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (May 18, 2001), addresses the
need for regulatory actions to more fully consider the potential energy
impacts of the proposed rule and resulting actions. Under the Order,
agencies are required to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects when a
regulatory action may have significant adverse effects on energy
supply, distribution, or use, including impacts on price and foreign
supplies. Additionally, the requirements obligate agencies to consider
reasonable alternatives to regulatory actions with adverse affects and
the impacts the alternatives might have upon energy supply,
distribution, or use.
Today's final rule is not likely to have any significant adverse
impact on factors affecting the national energy supply. We believe that
Executive Order 13211 is not relevant to this action.
IX. Paperwork Reduction Act
We have prepared an Information Collection Request (ICR) document
(ICR No. 1773.06) listing the information collection requirements of
this final rule, and have submitted it for approval to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. OMB has assigned a control number
2050-0171 for this ICR. A copy of this ICR may be obtained from Sandy
Farmer, OPIA Regulatory Information Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (2137), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC
20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740.
The public burden associated with this final rule (which is under
the Clean Air Act) is projected to affect approximately 171 HWC units
and is estimated to average 4.3 hours per respondent annually. The
reporting and recordkeeping cost burden is estimated to average $252
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.
X. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 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 final rule does not require the implementation of new
technical standards; thus, the requirements of section 12 (d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) do not apply.
XI. Is Today's Rule Subject to Congressional Review?
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to make a rule
effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes
a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable,
unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This determination must
be supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As stated
previously, EPA has made such a good cause finding, including the
reasons therefore, and established an effective date of February 13,
2002. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Part Four--What Are the State Authorization and Delegation Implications?
I. What Is the Authority for the Interim Standards Rule?
This rule revises the promulgated standards located at 40 CFR part
63, subpart EEE. As in the September 30, 1999 Final HWC NESHAP, we
encourage State, Local, and Tribal (S/L/T) agencies to apply for
delegation under CAA section 112. Additionally, this rule adds a new
section (40 CFR 270.235) to the RCRA regulations to provide options for
minimizing hazardous waste combustion emissions during startup,
shutdown, and malfunction events.
II. How Is This Rule Delegated Under the CAA?
Section 112(l) of the CAA allows us to delegate authority to S/L/T
programs to implement and enforce emission standards for pollutants
subject to section 112 regulations. Thus, a S/L/T agency that receives
112(l) delegation can implement and enforce the revised emission
standards and other revisions being made today. A S/L/T agency also can
implement the revisions for Title V major sources (40 CFR 70.2) via
their Title V authority because it is independent of their delegation
status. By having an approved Title V program, the S/L/T agency has
demonstrated that it has the legal authority, resources, and expertise
to implement and enforce standards for section 112 pollutants.
[[Page 6808]]
As before, we encourage S/L/T agencies to apply for and receive
112(l) delegation for this rule. The key advantages afforded to S/L/T
agencies who receive delegation are that they become the primary
enforcement authority and can exercise delegable provision authorities.
Additionally, it ensures clear and consistent requirements for affected
sources and regulators. For example, a source need only report
compliance assurance monitoring to its primary enforcement authority.
State, Local, and Tribal agencies still have the ability to choose
which delegation options to use when applying for delegation of Federal
authorities for this rule. The 112(l) delegation process begins when
the S/L/T agency applies for delegation of a section 112 rule without
changes (straight delegation), by rule adjustment, substitution of
requirements, state program approval (SPA), or equivalency by permit
(EBP).\27\ Also, the partial approval option is available for any S/L/T
who cannot or chooses not to take full delegation of an entire
standard. The drawback to this option is that it can create
inconsistent requirements since the S/L/T agency will enforce portions
of the standard, while we will enforce the remaining portions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Refer to Hazardous Air Pollutants: Amendments to the
Approval of State Programs and Delegation of Federal Authorities;
Final Rule at 65 FR 55810 or the CAA Delegation for the HWC NESHAP
fact sheet at http://www.epa.gov/combustion/toolkit/caadelg.pdf
for further information on delegation procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This rule will be effective upon promulgation. As with the Phase I
NESHAP, a S/L/T agency will need to incorporate the Federal standards
and provisions of this rule into a major source's new, renewed, or
revised Title V permit regardless of whether it has received
delegation. However, by receiving delegation of 112(l), a S/L/T agency
can approve minor changes to a Federal NESHAP. For instance, it can
substitute an emission limitation that is more stringent than a Federal
standard.
In light of the benefits afforded to a S/L/T agency if it receives
112(l) delegation, we recognize that the process of applying for and
receiving delegation can be a lengthy one. This may be especially true
for those agencies that do not have established agreements in place to
receive automatic delegation of unchanged standards. There are agencies
who choose to utilize the delegation options provided under 112(l),
which are not as straightforward as the unchanged standards. In these
cases, the review period required when applying for one of the
delegation options combined with a state's legislative proceedings, are
factors that can prolong the delegation process. Therefore, we
encourage the S/L/T agency to do what makes sense given circumstances
relevant to timing issues and resource needs.
III. How Would States Become Authorized Under RCRA?
Under section 3006 of RCRA, we may authorize qualified States to
administer the RCRA hazardous waste program within the State. A State
may receive authorization by following the approval process described
under part 271. See 40 CFR part 271 for the overall standards and
requirements for authorization. Following authorization, the State
requirements authorized by us apply in lieu of equivalent Federal
requirements and become Federally enforceable as requirements of RCRA.
We maintain independent authority to bring enforcement actions under
RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003. Authorized States also have
independent authority to bring enforcement actions under State law.
Authorized States are required to modify their programs when we
promulgate Federal requirements that are more stringent or broader in
scope than existing Federal requirements. RCRA section 3009 allows
States to impose standards more stringent than those in the Federal
program. See also Sec. 271.1(i). Therefore, authorized States are not
required to adopt Federal regulations, both HSWA \28\ and non-HSWA,
that are considered less stringent than the existing requirements. The
requirements in today's amendment are considered to be neither more nor
less stringent than the current emission regulations because they
provide equivalent protection. Thus, States are not required to adopt
today's amendments to maintain an equivalent program, although we
strongly encourage them to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ HSWA refers to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's amendment in 40 CFR 270.235 is promulgated under both HSWA
and non-HSWA statutory authority, depending on the waste management
unit to which the standards apply. The authority to apply the
provisions of 40 CFR 270.235 to cement and lightweight aggregate kilns
is under RCRA 3004(q), which is a provision added by HSWA. Therefore,
the Agency is adding this rule to Table 1 in Sec. 271.1(j), which
identifies the Federal program requirements that are promulgated
pursuant to HSWA. If a State is not authorized to implement the RCRA
program for these units, EPA will implement today's amendments. If a
State has such authorization, today's amendments will not become
effective under RCRA until States adopt and become authorized for the
revisions. The authority to apply the provisions of 40 CFR 270.235 to
incinerators is under section 3004(a) of RCRA, a non-HSWA provision.
Therefore, today's amendments as they apply to incinerators will not
become effective under RCRA until States adopt and become authorized
for the revisions.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference, 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.
40 CFR Part 266
Environmental protection, Energy, Hazardous waste, Recycling,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 270
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidenetial business information, Hazardous materials transportation,
Hazardous waste, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 271
Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous materials
transportation, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: February 7, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
[[Page 6809]]
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 63.1203 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1203 What are the standards for hazardous waste incinerators?
(a) Emission limits for existing sources. You must not discharge or
cause combustion gases to be emitted into the atmosphere that contain:
(1) For dioxins and furans:
(i) Emissions in excess of 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm corrected to 7 percent
oxygen; or
(ii) Emissions in excess of 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm corrected to 7 percent
oxygen provided that the combustion gas temperature at the inlet to the
initial particulate matter control device is 400 deg.F or lower based
on the average of the test run average temperatures. (For purposes of
compliance, operation of a wet particulate control device is presumed
to meet the 400 deg.F or lower requirement);
(2) Mercury in excess of 130 µg/dscm corrected to 7 percent oxygen;
(3) Lead and cadmium in excess of 240 µg/dscm, combined
emissions, corrected to 7 percent oxygen;
(4) Arsenic, beryllium, and chromium in excess of 97 µg/
dscm, combined emissions, corrected to 7 percent oxygen;
(5) For carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons, either:
(i) Carbon monoxide in excess of 100 parts per million by volume,
over an hourly rolling average (monitored continuously with a
continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis and corrected to 7
percent oxygen. If you elect to comply with this carbon monoxide
standard rather than the hydrocarbon standard under paragraph
(a)(5)(ii) of this section, you must also document that, during the
destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) test runs or their equivalent
as provided by Sec. 63.1206(b)(7), hydrocarbons do not exceed 10 parts
per million by volume during those runs, over an hourly rolling average
(monitored continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring system),
dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and reported as propane; or
(ii) Hydrocarbons in excess of 10 parts per million by volume, over
an hourly rolling average (monitored continuously with a continuous
emissions monitoring system), dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen,
and reported as propane;
(6) Hydrochloric acid and chlorine gas in excess of 77 parts per
million by volume, combined emissions, expressed as hydrochloric acid
equivalents, dry basis and corrected to 7 percent oxygen; and
(7) Particulate matter in excess of 34 mg/dscm corrected to 7
percent oxygen.
(b) Emission limits for new sources. You must not discharge or
cause combustion gases to be emitted into the atmosphere that contain:
(1) Dioxins and furans in excess of 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm, corrected to
7 percent oxygen;
(2) Mercury in excess of 45 µg/dscm corrected to 7 percent oxygen;
(3) Lead and cadmium in excess of 120 µg/dscm, combined
emissions, corrected to 7 percent oxygen;
(4) Arsenic, beryllium, and chromium in excess of 97 µg/
dscm, combined emissions, corrected to 7 percent oxygen;
(5) For carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons, either:
(i) Carbon monoxide in excess of 100 parts per million by volume,
over an hourly rolling average (monitored continuously with a
continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis and corrected to 7
percent oxygen. If you elect to comply with this carbon monoxide
standard rather than the hydrocarbon standard under paragraph
(b)(5)(ii) of this section, you must also document that, during the
destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) test runs or their equivalent
as provided by Sec. 63.1206(b)(7), hydrocarbons do not exceed 10 parts
per million by volume during those runs, over an hourly rolling average
(monitored continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring system),
dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and reported as propane; or
(ii) Hydrocarbons in excess of 10 parts per million by volume, over
an hourly rolling average (monitored continuously with a continuous
emissions monitoring system), dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen,
and reported as propane;
(6) Hydrochloric acid and chlorine gas in excess of 21 parts per
million by volume, combined emissions, expressed as hydrochloric acid
equivalents, dry basis and corrected to 7 percent oxygen; and
(7) Particulate matter in excess of 34 mg/dscm corrected to 7
percent oxygen.
(c) Destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) standard. (1) 99.99%
DRE. Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, you must
achieve a destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) of 99.99% for each
principle organic hazardous constituent (POHC) designated under
paragraph (c)(3) of this section. You must calculate DRE for each POHC
from the following equation:
DRE = [1-(Wout / Win)]
x 100%
Where:
Win = mass feedrate of one principal organic hazardous
constituent (POHC) in a waste feedstream; and
Wout = mass emission rate of the same POHC present in
exhaust emissions prior to release to the atmosphere.
(2) 99.9999% DRE. If you burn the dioxin-listed hazardous wastes
F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, or F027 (see Sec. 261.31 of this
chapter), you must achieve a destruction and removal efficiency (DRE)
of 99.9999% for each principle organic hazardous constituent (POHC)
that you designate under paragraph (c)(3) of this section. You must
demonstrate this DRE performance on POHCs that are more difficult to
incinerate than tetra-, penta-, and hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins and
dibenzofurans. You must use the equation in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section to calculate DRE for each POHC. In addition, you must notify
the Administrator of your intent to incinerate hazardous wastes F020,
F021, F022, F023, F026, or F027.
(3) Principal organic hazardous constituents (POHCs). (i) You must
treat the Principal Organic Hazardous Constituents (POHCs) in the waste
feed that you specify under paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section to the
extent required by paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section.
(ii) You must specify one or more POHCs from the list of hazardous
air pollutants established by 42 U.S.C. 7412(b)(1), excluding
caprolactam (CAS number 105602) as provided by Sec. 63.60, for each
waste to be burned. You must base this specification on the degree of
difficulty of incineration of the organic constituents in the waste and
on their concentration or mass in the waste feed, considering the
results of waste analyses or other data and information.
(d) Significant figures. The emission limits provided by paragraphs
(a) and (b) of this section are presented with two significant figures.
Although you must perform intermediate calculations using at least
three significant figures, you may round the resultant emission levels
to two significant figures to document compliance.
3. Section 63.1204 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1204 What are the standards for hazardous waste burning cement
kilns?
(a) Emission limits for existing sources. You must not discharge or
[[Page 6810]]
cause combustion gases to be emitted into the atmosphere that contain:
(1) For dioxins and furans:
(i) Emissions in excess of 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm corrected to 7 percent
oxygen; or
(ii) Emissions in excess of 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm corrected to 7 percent
oxygen provided that the combustion gas temperature at the inlet to the
initial dry particulate matter control device is 400 deg.F or lower
based on the average of the test run average temperatures;
(2) Mercury in excess of 120 µg/dscm corrected to 7 percent oxygen;
(3) Lead and cadmium in excess of 330 µg/dscm, combined
emissions, corrected to 7 percent oxygen;
(4) Arsenic, beryllium, and chromium in excess of 56 µg/
dscm, combined emissions, corrected to 7 percent oxygen;
(5) Carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. (i) For kilns equipped with a
by-pass duct or midkiln gas sampling system, either:
(A) Carbon monoxide in the by-pass duct or mid-kiln gas sampling
system in excess of 100 parts per million by volume, over an hourly
rolling average (monitored continuously with a continuous emissions
monitoring system), dry basis and corrected to 7 percent oxygen. If you
elect to comply with this carbon monoxide standard rather than the
hydrocarbon standard under paragraph (a)(5)(i)(B) of this section, you
must also document that, during the destruction and removal efficiency
(DRE) test runs or their equivalent as provided by Sec. 63.1206(b)(7),
hydrocarbons in the by-pass duct or mid-kiln gas sampling system do not
exceed 10 parts per million by volume during those runs, over an hourly
rolling average (monitored continuously with a continuous emissions
monitoring system), dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and
reported as propane; or
(B) Hydrocarbons in the by-pass duct or midkiln gas sampling system
in excess of 10 parts per million by volume, over an hourly rolling
average (monitored continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring
system), dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and reported as propane;
(ii) For kilns not equipped with a by-pass duct or midkiln gas
sampling system, either:
(A) Hydrocarbons in the main stack in excess of 20 parts per
million by volume, over an hourly rolling average (monitored
continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis,
corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and reported as propane; or
(B) Carbon monoxide in the main stack in excess of 100 parts per
million by volume, over an hourly rolling average (monitored
continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis
and corrected to 7 percent oxygen. If you elect to comply with this
carbon monoxide standard rather than the hydrocarbon standard under
paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(A) of this section, you also must document that,
during the destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) test runs or their
equivalent as provided by Sec. 63.1206(b)(7), hydrocarbons in the main
stack do not exceed 20 parts per million by volume during those runs,
over an hourly rolling average (monitored continuously with a
continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis, corrected to 7
percent oxygen, and reported as propane.
(6) Hydrochloric acid and chlorine gas in excess of 130 parts per
million by volume, combined emissions, expressed as hydrochloric acid
equivalents, dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen; and
(7) Particulate matter in excess of 0.15 kg/Mg dry feed and opacity
greater than 20 percent.
(i) You must use suitable methods to determine the kiln raw
material feedrate.
(ii) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(7)(iii) of this section,
you must compute the particulate matter emission rate, E, from the
following equation:
E = (Cs x Qsd) / P
Where:
E = emission rate of particulate matter, kg/Mg of kiln raw material feed;
Cs = concentration of particulate matter, kg/dscm;
Qsd = volumetric flowrate of effluent gas, dscm/hr; and
P = total kiln raw material feed (dry basis), Mg/hr.
(iii) If you operate a preheater or preheater/precalciner kiln with
dual stacks, you must test simultaneously and compute the combined
particulate matter emission rate, Ec, from the following equation:
Ec = (Csk x Qsdk + Csb x
Qsdb) / P
Where:
Ec = the combined emission rate of particulate matter from
the kiln and bypass stack, kg/Mg of kiln raw material feed;
Csk = concentration of particulate matter in the kiln
effluent, kg/dscm;
Qsdk = volumetric flowrate of kiln effluent gas, dscm/hr;
Csb = concentration of particulate matter in the bypass
stack effluent, kg/dscm;
Qsdb = volumetric flowrate of bypass stack effluent gas,
dscm/hr; and
P = total kiln raw material feed (dry basis), Mg/hr.
(b) Emission limits for new sources. You must not discharge or
cause combustion gases to be emitted into the atmosphere that contain:
(1) For dioxins and furans:
(i) Emissions in excess of 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm corrected to 7 percent
oxygen; or
(ii) Emissions in excess of 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm corrected to 7 percent
oxygen provided that the combustion gas temperature at the inlet to the
initial dry particulate matter control device is 400 deg.F or lower
based on the average of the test run average temperatures;
(2) Mercury in excess of 120 µg/dscm corrected to 7 percent oxygen;
(3) Lead and cadmium in excess of 180 µg/dscm, combined
emissions, corrected to 7 percent oxygen;
(4) Arsenic, beryllium, and chromium in excess of 54 µg/
dscm, combined emissions, corrected to 7 percent oxygen;
(5) Carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. (i) For kilns equipped with a
by-pass duct or midkiln gas sampling system, carbon monoxide and
hydrocarbons emissions are limited in both the bypass duct or midkiln
gas sampling system and the main stack as follows:
(A) Emissions in the by-pass or midkiln gas sampling system are
limited to either:
(1) Carbon monoxide in excess of 100 parts per million by volume,
over an hourly rolling average (monitored continuously with a
continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis and corrected to 7
percent oxygen. If you elect to comply with this carbon monoxide
standard rather than the hydrocarbon standard under paragraph
(b)(5)(i)(A)(2) of this section, you also must document that, during
the destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) test runs or their
equivalent as provided by Sec. 63.1206(b)(7), hydrocarbons do not
exceed 10 parts per million by volume during those runs, over an hourly
rolling average (monitored continuously with a continuous emissions
monitoring system), dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and
reported as propane; or
(2) Hydrocarbons in the by-pass duct or midkiln gas sampling system
in excess of 10 parts per million by volume, over an hourly rolling average
[[Page 6811]]
(monitored continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring system),
dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and reported as propane; and
(B) Hydrocarbons in the main stack are limited, if construction of
the kiln commenced after April 19, 1996 at a plant site where a cement
kiln (whether burning hazardous waste or not) did not previously exist,
to 50 parts per million by volume, over a 30-day block average
(monitored continuously with a continuous monitoring system), dry
basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and reported as propane.
(ii) For kilns not equipped with a by-pass duct or midkiln gas
sampling system, hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide are limited in the
main stack to either:
(A) Hydrocarbons not exceeding 20 parts per million by volume, over
an hourly rolling average (monitored continuously with a continuous
emissions monitoring system), dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen,
and reported as propane; or
(B)(1) Carbon monoxide not exceeding 100 parts per million by
volume, over an hourly rolling average (monitored continuously with a
continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis, corrected to 7
percent oxygen; and
(2) Hydrocarbons not exceeding 20 parts per million by volume, over
an hourly rolling average (monitored continuously with a continuous
monitoring system), dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and
reported as propane at any time during the destruction and removal
efficiency (DRE) test runs or their equivalent as provided by
Sec. 63.1206(b)(7); and
(3) If construction of the kiln commenced after April 19, 1996 at a
plant site where a cement kiln (whether burning hazardous waste or not)
did not previously exist, hydrocarbons are limited to 50 parts per
million by volume, over a 30-day block average (monitored continuously
with a continuous monitoring system), dry basis, corrected to 7 percent
oxygen, and reported as propane.
(6) Hydrochloric acid and chlorine gas in excess of 86 parts per
million, combined emissions, expressed as hydrochloric acid
equivalents, dry basis and corrected to 7 percent oxygen; and
(7) Particulate matter in excess of 0.15 kg/Mg dry feed and opacity
greater than 20 percent.
(i) You must use suitable methods to determine the kiln raw
material feedrate.
(ii) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(7)(iii) of this section,
you must compute the particulate matter emission rate, E, from the
equation specified in paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of this section.
(iii) If you operate a preheater or preheater/precalciner kiln with
dual stacks, you must test simultaneously and compute the combined
particulate matter emission rate, Ec, from the equation
specified in paragraph (a)(7)(iii) of this section.
(c) Destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) standard. (1) 99.99%
DRE. Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, you must
achieve a destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) of 99.99% for each
principle organic hazardous constituent (POHC) designated under
paragraph (c)(3) of this section. You must calculate DRE for each POHC
from the following equation:
DRE = [1-(Wout / Win)]
x 100%
Where:
Win = mass feedrate of one principal organic hazardous
constituent (POHC) in a waste feedstream; and
Wout = mass emission rate of the same POHC present in
exhaust emissions prior to release to the atmosphere.
(2) 99.9999% DRE. If you burn the dioxin-listed hazardous wastes
F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, or F027 (see Sec. 261.31 of this
chapter), you must achieve a destruction and removal efficiency (DRE)
of 99.9999% for each principle organic hazardous constituent (POHC)
that you designate under paragraph (c)(3) of this section. You must
demonstrate this DRE performance on POHCs that are more difficult to
incinerate than tetra-, penta-, and hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins and
dibenzofurans. You must use the equation in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section to calculate DRE for each POHC. In addition, you must notify
the Administrator of your intent to incinerate hazardous wastes F020,
F021, F022, F023, F026, or F027.
(3) Principal organic hazardous constituents (POHCs). (i) You must
treat the Principal Organic Hazardous Constituents (POHCs) in the waste
feed that you specify under paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section to the
extent required by paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section.
(ii) You must specify one or more POHCs from the list of hazardous
air pollutants established by 42 U.S.C. 7412(b)(1), excluding
caprolactam (CAS number 105602) as provided by Sec. 63.60, for each
waste to be burned. You must base this specification on the degree of
difficulty of incineration of the organic constituents in the waste and
on their concentration or mass in the waste feed, considering the
results of waste analyses or other data and information.
(d) Cement kilns with in-line kiln raw mills. (1) General. (i) You
must conduct performance testing when the raw mill is on-line and when
the mill is off-line to demonstrate compliance with the emission
standards, and you must establish separate operating parameter limits
under Sec. 63.1209 for each mode of operation, except as provided by
paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of this section.
(ii) You must document in the operating record each time you change
from one mode of operation to the alternate mode and begin complying
with the operating parameter limits for that alternate mode of operation.
(iii) You must establish rolling averages for the operating
parameter limits anew (i.e., without considering previous recordings)
when you begin complying with the operating limits for the alternate
mode of operation.
(iv) If your in-line kiln raw mill has dual stacks, you may assume
that the dioxin/furan emission levels in the by-pass stack and the
operating parameter limits determined during performance testing of the
by-pass stack when the raw mill is off-line are the same as when the
mill is on-line.
(2) Emissions averaging. You may comply with the mercury,
semivolatile metal, low volatile metal, and hydrochloric acid/chlorine
gas emission standards on a time-weighted average basis under the
following procedures:
(i) Averaging methodology. You must calculate the time-weighted
average emission concentration with the following equation:
Ctotal = {Cmill-off x (Tmill-off /
(Tmill-off + Tmill-on ))} + {Cmill-on
x (Tmill-on /(Tmill-off + Tmill-on))}
Where:
Ctotal = time-weighted average concentration of a regulated
constituent considering both raw mill on time and off time;
Cmill-off = average performance test concentration of
regulated constituent with the raw mill off-line;
Cmill-on = average performance test concentration of
regulated constituent with the raw mill on-line;
Tmill-off = time when kiln gases are not routed through the
raw mill; and
Tmill-on = time when kiln gases are routed through the raw mill.
(ii) Compliance. (A) If you use this emission averaging provision,
you must document in the operating record compliance with the emission
standards on an annual basis by using the equation provided by
paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(B) Compliance is based on one-year block averages beginning on the
day you
[[Page 6812]]
submit the initial notification of compliance.
(iii) Notification. (A) If you elect to document compliance with
one or more emission standards using this emission averaging provision,
you must notify the Administrator in the initial comprehensive
performance test plan submitted under Sec. 63.1207(e).
(B) You must include historical raw mill operation data in the
performance test plan to estimate future raw mill down-time and
document in the performance test plan that estimated emissions and
estimated raw mill down-time will not result in an exceedance of an
emission standard on an annual basis.
(C) You must document in the notification of compliance submitted
under Sec. 63.1207(j) that an emission standard will not be exceeded
based on the documented emissions from the performance test and
predicted raw mill down-time.
(e) Preheater or preheater/precalciner kilns with dual stacks. (1)
General. You must conduct performance testing on each stack to
demonstrate compliance with the emission standards, and you must
establish operating parameter limits under Sec. 63.1209 for each stack,
except as provided by paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of this section for dioxin/
furan emissions testing and operating parameter limits for the by-pass
stack of in-line raw mills.
(2) Emissions averaging. You may comply with the mercury,
semivolatile metal, low volatile metal, and hydrochloric acid/chlorine
gas emission standards specified in this section on a gas flowrate-
weighted average basis under the following procedures:
(i) Averaging methodology. You must calculate the gas flowrate-
weighted average emission concentration using the following equation:
Ctot = {Cmain x (Qmain /
(Qmain + Qbypass))} + {Cbypass x
(Qbypass / (Qmain + Qbypass))}
Where:
Ctot = gas flowrate-weighted average concentration of the
regulated constituent;
Cmain = average performance test concentration demonstrated
in the main stack;
Cbypass = average performance test concentration
demonstrated in the bypass stack;
Qmain = volumetric flowrate of main stack effluent gas; and
Qbypass = volumetric flowrate of bypass effluent gas.
(ii) Compliance. (A) You must demonstrate compliance with the
emission standard(s) using the emission concentrations determined from
the performance tests and the equation provided by paragraph (e)(1) of
this section; and
(B) You must develop operating parameter limits for bypass stack
and main stack flowrates that ensure the emission concentrations
calculated with the equation in paragraph (e)(1) of this section do not
exceed the emission standards on a 12-hour rolling average basis. You
must include these flowrate limits in the Notification of Compliance.
(iii) Notification. If you elect to document compliance under this
emissions averaging provision, you must:
(A) Notify the Administrator in the initial comprehensive
performance test plan submitted under Sec. 63.1207(e). The performance
test plan must include, at a minimum, information describing the
flowrate limits established under paragraph (e)(2)(ii)(B) of this
section; and
(B) Document in the Notification of Compliance submitted under
Sec. 63.1207(j) the demonstrated gas flowrate-weighted average
emissions that you calculate with the equation provided by paragraph
(e)(2) of this section.
(f) Significant figures. The emission limits provided by paragraphs
(a) and (b) of this section are presented with two significant figures.
Although you must perform intermediate calculations using at least
three significant figures, you may round the resultant emission levels
to two significant figures to document compliance.
(g) [Reserved].
(h) When you comply with the particulate matter requirements of
paragraphs (a)(7) or (b)(7) of this section, you are exempt from the
New Source Performance Standard for particulate matter and opacity
under Sec. 60.60 of this chapter.
4. Section 63.1205 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1205 What are the standards for hazardous waste burning
lightweight aggregate kilns?
(a) Emission limits for existing sources. You must not discharge or
cause combustion gases to be emitted into the atmosphere that contain:
(1) For dioxins and furans:
(i) Emissions in excess of 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm corrected to 7 percent
oxygen; or
(ii) Rapid quench of the combustion gas temperature at the exit of
the (last) combustion chamber (or exit of any waste heat recovery
system) to 400 deg.F or lower based on the average of the test run
average temperatures. You must also notify in writing the RCRA
authority that you are complying with this option;
(2) Mercury in excess of 120 µg/dscm corrected to 7 percent oxygen;
(3) Lead and cadmium in excess of 250 µg/dscm, combined
emissions, corrected to 7 percent oxygen;
(4) Arsenic, beryllium, and chromium in excess of 110 µg/
dscm, combined emissions, corrected to 7 percent oxygen;
(5) Carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. (i) Carbon monoxide in excess
of 100 parts per million by volume, over an hourly rolling average
(monitored continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring system),
dry basis and corrected to 7 percent oxygen. If you elect to comply
with this carbon monoxide standard rather than the hydrocarbon standard
under paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of this section, you also must document
that, during the destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) test runs or
their equivalent as provided by Sec. 63.1206(b)(7), hydrocarbons do not
exceed 20 parts per million by volume during those runs, over an hourly
rolling average (monitored continuously with a continuous emissions
monitoring system), dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and
reported as propane; or
(ii) Hydrocarbons in excess of 20 parts per million by volume, over
an hourly rolling average, dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen,
and reported as propane;
(6) Hydrochloric acid and chlorine gas in excess of 600 parts per
million by volume, combined emissions, expressed as hydrochloric acid
equivalents, dry basis and corrected to 7 percent oxygen; and
(7) Particulate matter in excess of 57 mg/dscm corrected to 7
percent oxygen.
(b) Emission limits for new sources. You must not discharge or
cause combustion gases to be emitted into the atmosphere that contain:
(1) For dioxins and furans:
(i) Emissions in excess of 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm corrected to 7 percent
oxygen; or
(ii) Rapid quench of the combustion gas temperature at the exit of
the (last) combustion chamber (or exit of any waste heat recovery
system) to 400 deg.F or lower based on the average of the test run
average temperatures. You must also notify in writing the RCRA
authority that you are complying with this option;
(2) Mercury in excess of 120 µg/dscm corrected to 7 percent oxygen;
[[Page 6813]]
(3) Lead and cadmium in excess of 43 µg/dscm, combined
emissions, corrected to 7 percent oxygen;
(4) Arsenic, beryllium, and chromium in excess of 110 µg/
dscm, combined emissions, corrected to 7 percent oxygen;
(5) Carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. (i) Carbon monoxide in excess
of 100 parts per million by volume, over an hourly rolling average
(monitored continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring system),
dry basis and corrected to 7 percent oxygen. If you elect to comply
with this carbon monoxide standard rather than the hydrocarbon standard
under paragraph (b)(5)(ii) of this section, you also must document
that, during the destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) test runs or
their equivalent as provided by Sec. 63.1206(b)(7), hydrocarbons do not
exceed 20 parts per million by volume during those runs, over an hourly
rolling average (monitored continuously with a continuous emissions
monitoring system), dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and
reported as propane; or
(ii) Hydrocarbons in excess of 20 parts per million by volume, over
an hourly rolling average, dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen,
and reported as propane;
(6) Hydrochloric acid and chlorine gas in excess of 41 parts per
million by volume, combined emissions, expressed as hydrochloric acid
equivalents, dry basis and corrected to 7 percent oxygen; and
(7) Particulate matter in excess of 57 mg/dscm corrected to 7
percent oxygen.
(c) Destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) standard. (1) 99.99%
DRE. Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, you must
achieve a destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) of 99.99% for each
principal organic hazardous constituent (POHC) designated under
paragraph (c)(3) of this section. You must calculate DRE for each POHC
from the following equation:
DRE = [1--(Wout / Win)]
x 100%
Where:
Win = mass feedrate of one principal organic hazardous
constituent (POHC) in a waste feedstream; and
Wout = mass emission rate of the same POHC present in
exhaust emissions prior to release to the atmosphere.
(2) 99.9999% DRE. If you burn the dioxin-listed hazardous wastes
F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, or F027 (see Sec. 261.31 of this
chapter), you must achieve a destruction and removal efficiency (DRE)
of 99.9999% for each principal organic hazardous constituent (POHC)
that you designate under paragraph (c)(3) of this section. You must
demonstrate this DRE performance on POHCs that are more difficult to
incinerate than tetra-, penta-, and hexachlorodibenzo-dioxins and
dibenzofurans. You must use the equation in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section to calculate DRE for each POHC. In addition, you must notify
the Administrator of your intent to burn hazardous wastes F020, F021,
F022, F023, F026, or F027.
(3) Principal organic hazardous constituents (POHCs). (i) You must
treat the Principal Organic Hazardous Constituents (POHCs) in the waste
feed that you specify under paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section to the
extent required by paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section.
(ii) You must specify one or more POHCs from the list of hazardous
air pollutants established by 42 U.S.C. 7412(b)(1), excluding
caprolactam (CAS number 105602) as provided by Sec. 63.60, for each
waste to be burned. You must base this specification on the degree of
difficulty of incineration of the organic constituents in the waste and
on their concentration or mass in the waste feed, considering the
results of waste analyses or other data and information.
(d) Significant figures. The emission limits provided by paragraphs
(a) and (b) of this section are presented with two significant figures.
Although you must perform intermediate calculations using at least
three significant figures, you may round the resultant emission levels
to two significant figures to document compliance.
5. Section 63.1206 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(i).
b. Adding paragraph (b)(15).
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(2)(i), (c)(2)(ii), (c)(4)(i), and (c)(4)(iv).
d. Adding paragraph (c)(2)(v).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.1206 When and how must you comply with the standards and
operating requirements?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) During periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction; and
* * * * *
(15) Alternative to the interim standards for mercury for cement
and lightweight aggregate kilns. (i) General. In lieu of complying with
the applicable mercury standards of Secs. 63.1204(a)(2) and (b)(2) for
existing and new cement kilns and Secs. 63.1205(a)(2) and (b)(2) for
existing and new lightweight aggregate kilns, you may instead elect to
comply with the alternative mercury standard described in paragraphs
(b)(15)(ii) through (b)(15)(v) of this section.
(ii) Operating requirement. You must not exceed a hazardous waste
feedrate corresponding to a maximum theoretical emission concentration
(MTEC) of 120 µg/dscm on a twelve-hour rolling average.
(iii) To document compliance with the operating requirement of
paragraph (b)(15)(ii) of this section, you must:
(A) Monitor and record the feedrate of mercury for each hazardous
waste feedstream according to Sec. 63.1209(c);
(B) Monitor with a CMS and record in the operating record the gas
flowrate (either directly or by monitoring a surrogate parameter that
you have correlated to gas flowrate);
(C) Continuously calculate and record in the operating record a
MTEC assuming mercury from all hazardous waste feedstreams is emitted;
(D) Interlock the MTEC calculated in paragraph (b)(15)(iii)(C) of
this section to the AWFCO system to stop hazardous waste burning when
the MTEC exceeds the operating requirement of paragraph (b)(15)(ii) of
this section.
(iv) In lieu of the requirement in paragraph (b)(15)(iii) of this
section, you may:
(A) Identify in the Notification of Compliance a minimum gas
flowrate limit and a maximum feedrate limit of mercury from all
hazardous waste feedstreams that ensures the MTEC calculated in
paragraph (b)(15)(iii)(C) of this section is below the operating
requirement of paragraph (b)(15)(ii) of this section; and
(B) Interlock the minimum gas flowrate limit and maximum feedrate
limits in paragraph (b)(15)(iv)(A) of this section to the AWFCO system
to stop hazardous waste burning when the gas flowrate or mercury
feedrate exceeds the limits in paragraph (b)(15)(iv)(A) of this section.
(v) Notification requirement. You must notify in writing the RCRA
authority that you intend to comply with the alternative standard.
(c) * * *
(2) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. (i) You are subject to
the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan requirements of Sec. 63.6(e)(3).
(ii) If you elect to comply with Secs. 270.235(a)(1)(iii),
270.235(a)(2)(iii), or 270.235(b)(1)(ii) of this chapter to address
RCRA concerns that you minimize emissions of toxic compounds from
startup, shutdown, and malfunction events (including releases from
emergency safety vents):
(A) The startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan must include a
[[Page 6814]]
description of potential causes of malfunctions, including releases
from emergency safety vents, that may result in significant releases of
hazardous air pollutants, and actions the source is taking to minimize
the frequency and severity of those malfunctions.
(B) You must submit the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan to
the Administrator for review and approval.
(1) Approval procedure. The Administrator will notify you of
approval or intention to deny approval of the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan within 90 calendar days after receipt of the original
request and within 60 calendar days after receipt of any supplemental
information that you submit. Before disapproving the plan, the
Administrator will notify you of the Administrator's intention to
disapprove the plan together with:
(i) Notice of the information and findings on which intended
disapproval is based; and
(ii) Notice of opportunity for you to present additional
information to the Administrator before final action on disapproval of
the plan. At the time the Administrator notifies you of intention to
disapprove the plan, the Administrator will specify how much time you
will have after being notified on the intended disapproval to submit
additional information.
(2) Responsibility of owners and operators. You are responsible for
ensuring that you submit any supplementary and additional information
supporting your plan in a timely manner to enable the Administrator to
consider whether to approve the plan. Neither your submittal of the
plan, nor the Administrator's failure to approve or disapprove the
plan, relieves you of the responsibility to comply with the provisions
of this subpart.
(C) Changes to the plan that may significantly increase emissions.
(1) You must request approval in writing from the Administrator within
5 days after making a change to the startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan that may significantly increase emissions of hazardous air
pollutants.
(2) To request approval of such changes to the startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan, you must follow the procedures provided by
paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(B) of this section for initial approval of the plan.
* * * * *
(v) Operating under the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
(A) Compliance with AWFCO requirements during malfunctions. (1) During
malfunctions, the automatic waste feed cutoff requirements of
Sec. 63.1206(c)(3) continue to apply, except for paragraphs (c)(3)(v)
and (c)(3)(vi) of this section. If you exceed a part 63, Subpart EEE,
of this chapter emission standard monitored by a CEMS or COMs or
operating limit specified under Sec. 63.1209, the automatic waste feed
cutoff system must immediately and automatically cutoff the hazardous
waste feed, except as provided by paragraph (c)(3)(viii) of this
section. If the malfunction itself prevents immediate and automatic
cutoff of the hazardous waste feed, however, you must cease feeding
hazardous waste as quickly as possible.
(2) Although the automatic waste feed cutoff requirements continue
to apply during a malfunction, an exceedance of an emission standard
monitored by a CEMS or COMS or operating limit specified under
Sec. 63.1209 is not a violation of this subpart if you take the corrective
measures prescribed in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
(3) Excessive exceedances during malfunctions. For each set of 10
exceedances of an emission standard or operating requirement while
hazardous waste remains in the combustion chamber (i.e., when the
hazardous waste residence time has not transpired since the hazardous
waste feed was cutoff) during a 60-day block period, you must:
(i) Within 45 days of the 10th exceedance, complete an
investigation of the cause of each exceedance and evaluation of
approaches to minimize the frequency, duration, and severity of each
exceedance, and revise the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan as
warranted by the evaluation to minimize the frequency, duration, and
severity of each exceedance; and
(ii) Record the results of the investigation and evaluation in the
operating record, and include a summary of the investigation and
evaluation, and any changes to the startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan, in the excess emissions report required under Sec. 63.10(e)(3).
(B) Compliance with AWFCO requirements when burning hazardous waste
during startup and shutdown. (1) If you feed hazardous waste during
startup or shutdown, you must include waste feed restrictions (e.g.,
type and quantity), and other appropriate operating conditions and
limits in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
(2) You must interlock the operating limits you establish under
paragraph (c)(2)(v)(B)(1) of this section with the automatic waste feed
cutoff system required under Sec. 63.1206(c)(3), except for paragraphs
(c)(3)(v) and (c)(3)(vi) of this section.
(3) When feeding hazardous waste during startup or shutdown, the
automatic waste feed cutoff system must immediately and automatically
cutoff the hazardous waste feed if you exceed the operating limits you
establish under paragraph (c)(2)(v)(B)(1) of this section, except as
provided by paragraph (c)(3)(viii) of this section.
(4) Although the automatic waste feed cutoff requirements of this
paragraph apply during startup and shutdown, an exceedance of an
emission standard or operating limit is not a violation of this subpart
if you comply with the operating procedures prescribed in the startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan.
* * * * *
(4) * * * (i) Failure to meet standards. If an emergency safety
vent (ESV) opens when hazardous waste remains in the combustion chamber
(i.e., when the hazardous waste residence time has not expired) during
an event other than a malfunction as defined in the startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan such that combustion gases are not treated as
during the most recent comprehensive performance test (e.g., if the
combustion gas by-passes any emission control device that was operating
during the performance test), you must document in the operating record
whether you remain in compliance with the emission standards of this
subpart considering emissions during the ESV opening event.
* * * * *
(iv) Reporting requirements. You must submit to the Administrator a
written report within 5 days of an ESV opening that results in failure
to meet the emission standards of this subpart (as determined in
paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section) documenting the result of the
investigation and corrective measures taken.
* * * * *
6. Section 63.1207 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A).
b. Adding paragraph (c)(2)(iii).
c. Revising paragraphs (d) introductory text, (d)(1), and (d)(2).
d. Adding paragraph (d)(4).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.1207 What are the performance testing requirements?
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
[[Page 6815]]
(A) Initiated after 54 months prior to the compliance date, except
as provided by paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section;
* * * * *
(iii) The data in lieu of test age restriction provided in
paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this section does not apply for the duration
of the interim standards (i.e., the standards published in the Federal
Register on February 13, 2002. Paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this section
does not apply until EPA promulgates permanent replacement standards
pursuant to the Settlement Agreement noticed in the Federal Register on
November 16, 2001.
* * * * *
(d) Frequency of testing. Except as otherwise specified in
paragraph (d)(4) of this section, you must conduct testing periodically
as prescribed in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(3) of this section. The
date of commencement of the initial comprehensive performance test is
the basis for establishing the deadline to commence the initial
confirmatory performance test and the next comprehensive performance
test. You may conduct performance testing at any time prior to the
required date. The deadline for commencing subsequent confirmatory and
comprehensive performance testing is based on the date of commencement
of the previous comprehensive performance test. Unless the
Administrator grants a time extension under paragraph (i) of this
section, you must conduct testing as follows:
(1) Comprehensive performance testing. Except as otherwise
specified in paragraph (d)(4) of this section, you must commence
testing no later than 61 months after the date of commencing the
previous comprehensive performance test. If you submit data in lieu of
the initial performance test, you must commence the subsequent
comprehensive performance test within 61 months of commencing the test
used to provide the data in lieu of the initial performance test.
(2) Confirmatory performance testing. Except as otherwise specified
in paragraph (d)(4) of this section, you must commence confirmatory
performance testing no later than 31 months after the date of
commencing the previous comprehensive performance test. If you submit
data in lieu of the initial performance test, you must commence the
initial confirmatory performance test within 31 months of the date six
months after the compliance date. To ensure that the confirmatory test
is conducted approximately midway between comprehensive performance
tests, the Administrator will not approve a test plan that schedules
testing within 18 months of commencing the previous comprehensive
performance test.
* * * * *
(4) Applicable testing requirements under the interim standards.
(i) Waiver of periodic comprehensive performance tests. Except as
provided by paragraph (c)(2) of this section, you must conduct only an
initial comprehensive performance test under the interim standards
(i.e., the standards published in the Federal Register on February 13,
2002; all subsequent comprehensive performance testing requirements are
waived under the interim standards. The provisions in the introductory
text to paragraph (d) and in paragraph (d)(1) of this section do not
apply until EPA promulgates permanent replacement standards pursuant to
the Settlement Agreement noticed in the Federal Register on November
16, 2001.
(ii) Waiver of confirmatory performance tests. You are not required
to conduct a confirmatory test under the interim standards (i.e., the
standards published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2002. The
confirmatory testing requirements in the introductory text to paragraph
(d) and in paragraph (d)(2) of this section are waived until EPA
promulgates permanent replacement standards pursuant to the Settlement
Agreement noticed in the Federal Register on November 16, 2001.
* * * * *
7. Section 63.1209 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraphs (k) introductory text, (k)(1), and
(k)(7)(i).
b. Removing paragraph (m)(1)(i)(D).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.1209 What are the monitoring requirements?
* * * * *
(k) Dioxins and furans. You must comply with the dioxin and furans
emission standard by establishing and complying with the following
operating parameter limits. You must base the limits on operations
during the comprehensive performance test, unless the limits are based
on manufacturer specifications.
(1) Gas temperature at the inlet to a dry particulate matter
control device. (i) For hazardous waste burning incinerators and cement
kilns, if the combustor is equipped with an electrostatic precipitator,
baghouse (fabric filter), or other dry emissions control device where
particulate matter is suspended in contact with combustion gas, you
must establish a limit on the maximum temperature of the gas at the
inlet to the device on an hourly rolling average. You must establish
the hourly rolling average limit as the average of the test run averages.
(ii) For hazardous waste burning lightweight aggregate kilns, you
must establish a limit on the maximum temperature of the gas at the
exit of the (last) combustion chamber (or exit of any waste heat
recovery system) on an hourly rolling average. The limit must be
established as the average of the test run averages;
* * * * *
(7) * * *
(i) Monitoring bed life. You must:
(A) Monitor performance of the carbon bed consistent with
manufacturer's specifications and recommendations to ensure the carbon
bed (or bed segment for sources with multiple segments) has not reached
the end of its useful life to minimize dioxin/furan and mercury
emissions at least to the levels required by the emission standards;
(B) Document the monitoring procedures in the operation and
maintenance plan;
(C) Record results of the performance monitoring in the operating
record; and
(D) Replace the bed or bed segment before it has reached the end of
its useful life to minimize dioxin/furan and mercury emissions at least
to the levels required by the emission standards.
* * * * *
PART 264--STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
1. The authority citation for part 264 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924, and 6925.
2. Section 264.340 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) and
adding paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 264.340 Applicability.
* * * * *
(b) * * * (1) Except as provided by paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), and
(b)(4) 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(b) of this chapter documenting compliance
with the requirements of part 63, subpart EEE, of this chapter.
Nevertheless, even after this
[[Page 6816]]
demonstration of compliance with the MACT standards, RCRA permit
conditions that were based on the standards of this part will continue
to be in effect until they are removed from the permit or the permit is
terminated or revoked, unless the permit expressly provides otherwise.
* * * * *
(4) The following requirements remain in effect for startup,
shutdown, and malfunction events if you elect to comply with
Sec. 270.235(a)(1)(i) of this chapter to minimize emissions of toxic
compounds from these events:
(i) Section 264.345(a) requiring that an incinerator operate in
accordance with operating requirements specified in the permit; and
(ii) Section 264.345(c) requiring compliance with the emission
standards and operating requirements during startup and shutdown if
hazardous waste is in the combustion chamber, except for particular
hazardous wastes.
* * * * *
PART 265--INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
1. 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, unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 265.340 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) and
adding paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 265.340 Applicability.
* * * * *
(b) * * * (1) Except as provided by paragraphs (b)(2) and (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(b) of this chapter documenting compliance with the requirements
of part 63, subpart EEE, of this chapter.
* * * * *
(3) Section 265.345 generally prohibiting burning of hazardous
waste during startup and shutdown remains in effect if you elect to
comply with Sec. 270.235(b)(1)(i) of this chapter to minimize emissions
of toxic compounds from startup and shutdown.
* * * * *
PART 266--STANDARDS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC HAZARDOUS WASTES
AND SPECIFIC TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
1. The authority citation for part 266 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1006, 2002(a), 3004, and 3014, 6905, 6906,
6912, 6922, 6924, 6925, and 6937.
2. Section 266.100 is amended by redesignating paragraphs
(b)(2)(i), (b)(2)(ii), (b)(2)(iii), and (b)(2)(iv) as paragraphs
(b)(2)(ii), (b)(2)(iii), (b)(2)(iv), and (b)(2)(v), respectively, and
adding new paragraph (b)(2)(i) to read as follows:
Sec. 266.100 Applicability.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) If you elect to comply with Sec. 270.235(a)(1)(i) of this
chapter to minimize emissions of toxic compounds from startup,
shutdown, and malfunction events, Sec. 266.102(e)(1) requiring
operations in accordance with the operating requirements specified in
the permit at all times that hazardous waste is in the unit, and
Sec. 266.102(e)(2)(iii) requiring compliance with the emission
standards and operating requirements during startup and shutdown if
hazardous waste is in the combustion chamber, except for particular
hazardous wastes. These provisions apply only during startup, shutdown,
and malfunction events;
* * * * *
PART 270--EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE HAZARDOUS WASTE
PERMIT PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for part 270 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912, 6924, 6925, 6927, 6939, and 6974.
2. Section 270.19 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 demonstrates compliance with the air
emission standards and limitations in part 63, subpart EEE, of this
chapter (i.e., by conducting a comprehensive performance test and
submitting a Notification of Compliance), the requirements of this
section do not apply, except those provisions the Director determines
are necessary to ensure compliance with Secs. 264.345(a) and 264.345(c)
of this chapter if you elect to comply with Sec. 270.235(a)(1)(i) to
minimize emissions of toxic compounds from startup, shutdown, and
malfunction events. 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).
3. Section 270.22 is amended by revising 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 part 63, subpart EEE, of this chapter (i.e., by conducting a
comprehensive performance test and submitting a Notification of
Compliance), the requirements of this section do not apply, except
those provisions the Director determines are necessary to ensure
compliance with Secs. 266.102(e)(1) and 266.102(e)(2)(iii) of this
chapter if you elect to comply with Sec. 270.235(a)(1)(i) to minimize
emissions of toxic compounds from startup, shutdown, and malfunction
events. 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).
* * * * *
4. Section 270.62 is amended by revising introductory text to read
as follows:
Sec. 270.62 Hazardous waste incinerator permits.
When an owner or operator demonstrates compliance with the air
emission standards and limitations in part 63, subpart EEE, of this
chapter (i.e., by conducting a comprehensive performance test and
submitting a Notification of Compliance), the requirements of this
section do not apply, except those provisions the Director determines
are necessary to ensure compliance with Secs. 264.345(a) and 264.345(c)
of this chapter if you elect to comply with Sec. 270.235(a)(1)(i) to
minimize emissions of toxic compounds from startup, shutdown, and
malfunction events. 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).
* * * * *
[[Page 6817]]
5. Section 270.66 is amended by revising 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
demonstrates compliance with the air emission standards and limitations
in part 63, subpart EEE, of this chapter (i.e., by conducting a
comprehensive performance test and submitting a Notification of
Compliance), the requirements of this section do not apply, except
those provisions the Director determines are necessary to ensure
compliance with Secs. 266.102(e)(1) and 266.102(e)(2)(iii) of this
chapter if you elect to comply with Sec. 270.235(a)(1)(i) to minimize
emissions of toxic compounds from startup, shutdown, and malfunction
events. 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).
* * * * *
6. Part 270 is amended by adding Subpart I to read as follows:
Subpart I--Integration with Maximum Achievable Control Technology
(MACT) Standards
Sec. 270.235 Options for incinerators and cement and lightweight
aggregate kilns to minimize emissions from startup, shutdown, and
malfunction events.
(a) Facilities with existing permits. (1) Revisions to permit
conditions after documenting compliance with MACT. The owner or
operator of a RCRA-permitted incinerator, cement kiln, or lightweight
aggregate kiln may request that the Director address permit conditions
that minimize emissions from startup, shutdown, and malfunction events
under any of the following options when requesting removal of permit
conditions that are no longer applicable according to Secs. 264.340(b)
and 266.100(b) of this chapter:
(i) Retain relevant permit conditions. Under this option, the
Director will:
(A) Retain permit conditions that address releases during startup,
shutdown, and malfunction events, including releases from emergency
safety vents, as these events are defined in the facility's startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan required under Sec. 63.1206(c)(2) of
this chapter; and
(B) Limit applicability of those permit conditions only to when the
facility is operating under its startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
(ii) Revise relevant permit conditions. (A) Under this option, the
Director will:
(1) Identify a subset of relevant existing permit requirements, or
develop alternative permit requirements, that ensure emissions of toxic
compounds are minimized from startup, shutdown, and malfunction events,
including releases from emergency safety vents, based on review of
information including the source's startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan, design, and operating history.
(2) Retain or add these permit requirements to the permit to apply
only when the facility is operating under its startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan.
(B) Changes that may significantly increase emissions. (1) You must
notify the Director in writing of changes to the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan or changes to the design of the source that may
significantly increase emissions of toxic compounds from startup,
shutdown, or malfunction events, including releases from emergency
safety vents. You must notify the Director of such changes within five
days of making such changes. You must identify in the notification
recommended revisions to permit conditions necessary as a result of the
changes to ensure that emissions of toxic compounds are minimized
during these events.
(2) The Director may revise permit conditions as a result of these
changes to ensure that emissions of toxic compounds are minimized
during startup, shutdown, or malfunction events, including releases
from emergency safety vents either:
(i) Upon permit renewal, or, if warranted;
(ii) By modifying the permit under Secs. 270.41(a) or 270.42.
(iii) Remove permit conditions. Under this option:
(A) The owner or operator must document that the startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan required under Sec. 63.1206(c)(2) of this chapter
has been approved by the Administrator under Sec. 63.1206(c)(2)(ii)(B)
of this chapter; and
(B) The Director will remove permit conditions that are no longer
applicable according to Secs. 264.340(b) and 266.100(b) of this chapter.
(2) Addressing permit conditions upon permit reissuance. The owner
or operator of an incinerator, cement kiln, or lightweight aggregate
kiln that has conducted a comprehensive performance test and submitted
to the Administrator a Notification of Compliance documenting
compliance with the standards of part 63, subpart EEE, of this chapter
may request in the application to reissue the permit for the combustion
unit that the Director control emissions from startup, shutdown, and
malfunction events under any of the following options:
(i) RCRA option A. (A) Under this option, the Director will:
(1) Include, in the permit, conditions that ensure compliance with
Secs. 264.345(a) and 264.345(c) or Secs. 266.102(e)(1) and
266.102(e)(2)(iii) of this chapter to minimize emissions of toxic
compounds from startup, shutdown, and malfunction events, including
releases from emergency safety vents; and
(2) Specify that these permit requirements apply only when the facility
is operating under its startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.; or
(ii) RCRA option B. (A) Under this option, the Director will:
(1) Include, in the permit conditions, that ensure emissions of
toxic compounds are minimized from startup, shutdown, and malfunction
events, including releases from emergency safety vents, based on review
of information including the source's startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan, design, and operating history; and
(2) Specify that these permit requirements apply only when the
facility is operating under its startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
(B) Changes that may significantly increase emissions. (1) You must
notify the Director in writing of changes to the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan or changes to the design of the source that may
significantly increase emissions of toxic compounds from startup,
shutdown, or malfunction events, including releases from emergency
safety vents. You must notify the Director of such changes within five
days of making such changes. You must identify in the notification
recommended revisions to permit conditions necessary as a result of the
changes to ensure that emissions of toxic compounds are minimized
during these events.
(2) The Director may revise permit conditions as a result of these
changes to ensure that emissions of toxic compounds are minimized
during startup, shutdown, or malfunction events, including releases
from emergency safety vents either:
(i) Upon permit renewal, or, if warranted;
(ii) By modifying the permit under Secs. 270.41(a) or 270.42; or
(iii) CAA option. Under this option:
(A) The owner or operator must document that the startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan required under Sec. 63.1206(c)(2) of this chapter
has been
[[Page 6818]]
approved by the Administrator under Sec. 63.1206(c)(2)(ii)(B) of this
chapter; and
(B) The Director will omit from the permit conditions that are not
applicable under Secs. 264.340(b) and 266.100(b) of this chapter.
(b) Interim status facilities. (1) Interim status operations. In
compliance with Secs. 265.340 and 266.100(b), the owner or operator of
an incinerator, cement kiln, or lightweight aggregate kiln that is
operating under the interim status standards of part 265 or 266 of this
chapter may control emissions of toxic compounds during startup,
shutdown, and malfunction events under either of the following options
after conducting a comprehensive performance test and submitting to the
Administrator a Notification of Compliance documenting compliance with
the standards of part 63, subpart EEE, of this chapter:
(i) RCRA option. Under this option, the owner or operator continues
to comply with the interim status emission standards and operating
requirements of part 265 or 266 of this chapter relevant to control of
emissions from startup, shutdown, and malfunction events. Those
standards and requirements apply only during startup, shutdown, and
malfunction events; or
(ii) CAA option. Under this option, the owner or operator is exempt
from the interim status standards of part 265 or 266 of this chapter
relevant to control of emissions of toxic compounds during startup,
shutdown, and malfunction events upon submission of written
notification and documentation to the Director that the startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan required under Sec. 63.1206(c)(2) of
this chapter has been approved by the Administrator under
Sec. 63.1206(c)(2)(ii)(B) of this chapter.
(2) Operations under a subsequent RCRA permit. When an owner or
operator of an incinerator, cement kiln, or lightweight aggregate kiln
that is operating under the interim status standards of parts 265 or
266 of this chapter submits a RCRA permit application, the owner or
operator may request that the Director control emissions from startup,
shutdown, and malfunction events under any of the options provided by
paragraphs (a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(ii), or (a)(2)(iii) of this section.
PART 271--REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTHORIZATION OF STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS
7. The authority citation for part 271 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9605, 6912(2), and 6926.
8. Section 271.1(j) is amended by adding the following entry to
Table 1 in chronological order by date of publication (``Promulgation
date'') in the Federal Register, to read as follows:
Sec. 271.1 Purpose and scope.
* * * * *
(j) * * *
Table 1.--Regulations Implementing the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Register
Promulgation date Title of regulation reference Effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
February 13, 2002................ Interim Standards for [Insert page No.]... February 13, 2002.
Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Hazardous Waste
Combustors.
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 02-3346 Filed 2-12-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P