National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Proposed Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste
Combustors (Phase I Final Replacement Standards and Phase II) [[pp. 21347-21385]]
[Federal Register: April 20, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 76)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 21347-21385]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20ap04-28]
[[pp. 21347-21385]]
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Proposed Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste
Combustors (Phase I Final Replacement Standards and Phase II)
[[Continued from page 21346]]
[[Page 21347]]
standards \285\). Consequently, we propose to require that cement kilns
comply with the bag leak detection requirements (as proposed to be
revised) under Sec. 63.1206(c)(7)(ii).\286\ We note that, although
triboelectric detectors are generally used as bag leak detectors given
their ability to detect very low loadings of particulate matter, cement
kilns may use the transmissometers they currently use for opacity
monitoring provided that the transmissometer is sensitive enough to
detect subtle increases in particulate matter loading over normal (not
performance test) loadings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\285\ Because controlling particulate matter also controls
semivolatile and low volatile metals (and dioxin/furan if you use
activated carbon injection), exceeding the particulate matter
loadings achieved during the performance test is also evidence of
failure to ensure compliance with the emission standards for those
pollutants.
\286\ Because the proposed bag leak detection requirements are
more stringent than the opacity standard, exempting cement kilns
from the New Source Performance Standards for particulate matter and
opacity under Sec. 60.60 continues to be appropriate. See
Sec. Sec. 63.1204(h) and 63.1220(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, we request comment on whether it is practicable to
establish the alarm set-point for the back leak detection system based
on the detector response achieved during the performance test rather
than as recommended in the Agency's guidance document.\287\ The
guidance document recommends that you establish the alarm set-point at
a level that is twice the detector response achieved during bag
cleaning. Although establishing the set-point at this level would avoid
frequent exceedances due to normal bag cleaning, we are concerned that
it may not be low enough to detect gradual degradation in fabric filter
performance that, for example, can be caused by pinholes in the bags.
Moreover, establishing the set-point at a detector response that is
twice the response achieved during bag cleaning may not be low enough
to require you to take corrective measures if particulate matter
loadings increase above the levels achieved during the performance
test, and thus at loadings that may indicate an exceedance of the
particulate matter emission standard. To avoid alarms caused by bag
cleaning cycles, the alarm set-point would be established as the
average detector response of the test run averages during the
particulate matter performance test, and would be established as a 6-
hour rolling average updated each hour with a one-hour block average.
This is the time that could be required to conduct three runs of a
particulate matter performance test. The one-hour block average would
be the average of the detector responses over each 15-minute block.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\287\ USEPA, ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,''
September 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. What Is the Rationale for Proposing to Revise the Compliance
Requirements for Electrostatic Precipitators and Ionizing Wet Scrubbers?
We propose a two-tiered approach to ensure performance of
electrostatic precipitators and ionizing wet scrubbers: (1) Use of a
particulate matter continuous emissions detector for process monitoring
to signal when you must take corrective measures to address maintenance
or other factors causing relative or absolute mass particulate matter
loadings to be higher than the levels achieved during the performance
test; or (2) use of site-specific operating parameter limits. You could
choose to comply with either tier.
a. How Would Tier I Work? Under Tier I, you would use a particulate
matter continuous emissions detector for process monitoring to signal
when you must take corrective measures to address maintenance or other
factors causing relative or absolute mass particulate matter loadings
to be higher than the levels achieved during the performance test. You
would establish an alarm set-point as the average detector response
achieved during the particulate matter emissions performance test. The
limit would be applied as a 6-hour rolling average updated each hour
with a one-hour block average to correspond to the time it could take
to conduct three runs of a performance test. The one-hour block average
would be the average of the detector responses over each 15-minute block.
If you exceed the alarm set-point, you must immediately take the
corrective measures you specify in your operation and maintenance plan
to bring the response below the set-point. To ensure that you take both
corrective and proactive measures to minimize the frequency and
duration of exceedances, you would be required to operate and maintain
the electrostatic precipitator and ionizing wet scrubber to ensure that
the alarm set-point is not exceeded more than 5 percent of the
operating time during a 6-month period.\288\ This is consistent with
the proposed requirement to limit the period of time that a fabric
filter may be operating under conditions of poor performance. If you
exceed the alarm set-point more than 5 percent of the time during a 6-
month period, you would be required to notify the delegated regulatory.
This notification would alert the regulatory authority of the excessive
exceedances so that they may take corrective measures, such as
requiring you to revise the operation and maintenance plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\288\ Periods of time when the combustor is operating but the
bag leak detection system is malfunctioning must be considered
exceedances of the set-point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
You may use any detector as a particulate matter continuous monitor
provided that the detector response correlates with relative or
absolute particulate matter mass emissions and that it can detect small
changes in particulate matter loadings.\289\ You would include in the
performance test plan a description of the particulate matter detector
you select and information documenting that the detector response
correlates with relative or absolute particulate matter loadings and
that the detector can detect small changes in particulate matter
loadings above the levels anticipated during the comprehensive
performance test. For example, if you anticipate to achieve a
particulate matter emission level of 0.010 gr/dscf during the
comprehensive performance test, your detector should be able to
distinguish between particulate matter loadings of 0.010 gr/dscf and
0.011 gr/dscf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\289\ Please note that, for the purpose of process monitoring
proposed here, you need not correlate the particulate matter
detector to particulate matter emission concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. How Would Tier II Work? Under Tier II, you would comply with
site-specific operating parameter limits you establish under Sec.
63.1209(m)(1)(iv). As currently required, the operating limits would be
linked to the automatic waste feed cutoff system. Exceedance of an
operating limit would be a violation and is evidence of failure to
ensure compliance with the particulate matter, semivolatile metal, and
low volatile metal emission standards.
IV. Other Proposed Compliance Revisions
A. What Is the Proposed Clarification to the Public Notice Requirement
for Approved Test Plans?
We are proposing in today's notice to add clarifying language to
the section 1207(e)(2) public notification requirement for approved
performance test and CMS performance evaluation test plans. The Agency
believes that adequate public involvement is an essential element to
the continuing and successful management of hazardous waste. Providing
opportunities for timely and adequate public notice is necessary to
fully inform nearby communities of a source's plans to initiate
important waste management
[[Page 21348]]
activities. In 1995, we expanded the RCRA public participation
requirements for hazardous waste combustion sources to require that the
State Director issue a public notice prior to a source conducting a
RCRA trial burn emission test. See 60 FR 63417, 40 CFR 270.62(b)(6) and
40 CFR 270.66(d)(3). The purpose of this notification requirement was
to inform the public of an upcoming trial burn should an individual be
interested in reviewing the results of the test. When we promulgated
the Phase I hazardous waste combustion NESHAP in 1999, we included a
similar requirement in subpart EEE for the same general purpose.
Section 1207(e)(2) of subpart EEE requires that sources issue a public
notice announcing the approval of site-specific performance test plans
and CMS performance evaluation test plans and provide the location
where the plans will be made available to the public for review. We
neglected, however, to include direction regarding how and when sources
should notify the public, what the notification should contain, or
where and for how long the test plans should be made available. As a
result, we are proposing to add clarifying language to the section
1207(e)(2) public notification requirement. We are using the RCRA trial
burn notification requirements as a foundation for the proposed
clarifications.
1. How Should Sources Notify the Public?
The source must make a reasonable effort to provide adequate
notification of the approval of their site-specific performance test
and CMS performance evaluation test plans. Because this notification is
intended for informational purposes only, we are proposing that sources
use their facility/public mailing list. We expect that by the time a
source receives approval of its subpart EEE test plans, a facility/
public mailing list already would have been developed in response to
the source's RCRA and CAA permitting activities. As such, we are
proposing that sources use the facility/public mailing list developed
under 40 CFR 70.7(h)(1), 71.11(d)(3)(i)(E) and 124.10(c)(1)(ix), for
purposes of this notification. Sources may voluntarily choose to use
other mechanisms in addition to a distribution to the facility/public
mailing list, if previous experience has shown that such additional
mechanisms are necessary to reach all interested segments of the
community. For example, sources may consider using press releases,
advertisements, visible signs, and outreach to local community,
professional, and interest groups in addition to the required
distribution to the facility/public mailing list.
2. When Should Sources Notify the Public of Approved Test Plans?
The existing regulations require that sources issue a public notice
after the Administrator has approved the site-specific performance test
and CMS performance evaluation test plans. It is important to remember
that the purpose of this notification is similar to that required under
RCRA for trial burn tests. See 60 FR 63417, 40 CFR 270.62(b)(6) and 40
CFR 270.66(d)(3). The notification is intended to provide information
to the public regarding the upcoming performance test. It is not
intended to solicit comment on the performance test plan. We considered
proposing that the notification occur within 30 days of the source's
receipt of test plan approval. However, we chose not to proceed with
this option because we were concerned that the notification would not
be as meaningful to the public if too much time elapses between the
test plan approval notification and the actual initiation of the
performance test. In order to provide the public with adequate notice
of the upcoming test and a reasonable period of time to review the
approved plans prior to the test, we are proposing that the source
issue its notice after test plan approval, but no later than 60 days
prior to conducting the test. We believe that this also will allow the
source sufficient time to prepare its public notice and corresponds to
the 40 CFR 63.1207(e)(1)(i)(B) requirement for a source to notify the
Administrator of its intention to initiate the test.
3. What Should the Notification Include?
Similar to the public involvement requirements for RCRA trial burn
tests, we are proposing that the notification contain the following
information:
(1) The name and telephone number of the source's contact person;
(2) The name and telephone number of the regulatory agency's
contact person;
(3) The location where the approved performance test and CMS
performance evaluation test plans and any necessary supporting
documentation can be reviewed and copied;
(4) The time period for which the test plans will be available for
public review, and;
(5) An expected time period for commencement and completion of the
performance test and CMS performance evaluation test.
4. Where Should the Plans Be Made Available and for How Long?
The site-specific performance test and CMS performance evaluation
test plans must be made available at an unrestricted location which is
accessible to the public during reasonable hours and provides a means
for the public to obtain copies of the plans if needed. To provide for
adequate time for the public to review the test plans, we are proposing
that the plans be made available for a total of 60 days, beginning on
the date that the source issues its public notice.
B. What Is the Proposed Clarification to the Public Notice Requirement
for the Petition To Waive a Performance Test?
Sources that petition the Administrator for an extension of time to
conduct a performance test (in other words, obtain a performance test
waiver), are required under section 1207(e)(3)(iv) to notify the public
of their petition. Although the regulatory language does provide some
direction regarding how the source may notify the public (e.g., using a
public mailing list), it does not provide any direction regarding when
this notice must be issued or what it must contain. As a result, we are
proposing in today's notice to add clarifying language to the Section
1207(e)(3)(iv) public notice requirement.
1. When Should Sources Notify the Public of a Petition To Waive a
Performance Test?
We are proposing that a source notify the public of a petition to
waive a performance test at the same time that the source submits its
petition to the Administrator. Although not explicitly stated in
section 1207(e)(3)(iv), this was our original intent. In the July 3,
2001, preamble to the subpart EEE proposed technical amendments, we
provided a time line of the waiver petitioning process for an initial
Comprehensive Performance Test.\290\ In that time line, we indicated
that the submittal of the petition and the public notification should
occur at the same time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\290\ It should be noted that the petition for waiver of a
performance test applies to both the initial test and all subsequent
tests. See 40 CFR 1207(e)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. What Should the Notification Include?
The notification of a petition to waive a performance test is an
informational notification. As such, we are proposing that it include
the same level of information as that provided by a source for the
notification of an approved test plan:
[[Page 21349]]
(1) The name and telephone number of the source's contact person;
(2) The name and telephone number of the regulatory agency's
contact person;
(3) The date the source submitted its site-specific performance
test plan and CMS performance evaluation test plans; and
(4) The length of time requested for the waiver.
Part Four: Impacts of the Proposed Rule
I. What Are the Air Impacts?
Table 1 of this preamble shows the emissions reductions achieved by
the proposed rule for all existing hazardous waste combustor sources.
For Phase I sources--incinerators, cement kilns, and lightweight
aggregate kilns--the emission reductions represent the difference in
emissions between sources controlled to the proposed standards and
estimated emissions when complying with the interim MACT standards
promulgated on February 13, 2002. For Phase II sources--industrial/
commercial/institutional boilers and process heaters and hydrochloric
acid production facilities--the reductions represent the difference in
emissions between the proposed standards and the current baseline of
control provided by 40 CFR part 266, subpart H.
Nationwide baseline HAP emissions from hazardous waste combustors
are estimated to be approximately 13,000 tons per year at the current
level of control. Today's proposed standards would reduce emissions of
hazardous air pollutants and particulate matter by approximately 3,300
tons per year.
Nationwide emissions of dioxin/furans from all hazardous waste
combustors will be reduced by 4.7 grams TEQ per year. Emissions of HAP
metals from all hazardous waste combustors will be reduced by 23 tons
per year, including one ton per year of mercury. We estimate that
particulate matter itself, a surrogate for HAP metals will be reduced
by over 1,700 tons per year. Finally, emissions of hydrogen chloride
and chlorine gas from all hazardous waste combustors will reduced by
nearly 1,500 tons and over 100 tons per year, respectfully.\291\ A
discussion of the emission estimates methodology and results is
presented in ``Draft Technical Support Document for HWC MACT
Replacement Standards, Volume V: Emission Estimates and Engineering
Costs'' (Chapter 3) in the docket for today's proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\291\ We are, however, proposing to establish alternative risk-
based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(4), which could be
elected by the source in lieu of the MACT emission standards for
total chlorine. The emission limits would be based on national
exposure standards that ensure protection of public health with an
ample margin of safety. See Part Two, Section XIII for additional
details.If we were to adopt alternative risk-based standards, then
the national annual emissions reductions for total chlorine are
overstated.
Table 1.--Nationwide Annual Emissions Reductions of HAPs and Other
Pollutants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
emission
Pollutant reductions (tons
per year) \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dioxin/furans........................................ 0.3
Mercury.............................................. 0.93
Cadmium.............................................. 0.50
Lead................................................. 3.30
Arsenic.............................................. 1.27
Beryllium............................................ 0.31
Chromium............................................. 8.97
Antimony............................................. 1.18
Cobalt............................................... 0.42
Nickel............................................... 1.57
Selenium............................................. 0.28
Manganese............................................ 4.50
Hydrogen Chloride.................................... 1470
Chlorine Gas......................................... 107
Particulate Matter................................... 1727
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Dioxin/furan emissions reductions and reductions expressed as grams
TEQ.
II. What Are the Water and Solid Waste Impacts?
We estimate that water usage would increase by 4.8 billion gallons
per year if the proposed MACT standards were adopted. In addition to
the increased water usage, an additional 4.6 billion gallons per year
of wastewater would be produced. We estimate the additional solid waste
that would need to be treated as a result of the proposed standards to
be 10,400 tons per year. The costs associated with these hazardous
waste treatment/disposal and water requirements are accounted for in
the national annualized compliance cost estimates. A discussion of the
methodology used to estimate impacts is presented in ``Draft Technical
Support Document for HWC MACT Replacement Standards, Volume V: Emission
Estimates and Engineering Costs' (Chapters 4 and 5) that is available
in the docket.
III. What Are the Energy Impacts?
We estimate an increase of approximately 133 million kilowatt hours
(kWh) in national annual energy usage as a result of the proposed
standards. The increase results from the electricity required to
operate air pollution control devices installed to meet the proposed
standards, such as baghouses and wet scrubbers.
IV. What Are the Control Costs?
Control costs, as presented in this section, refer only to
engineering, operation, and maintenance costs associated with unit/
system upgrades necessary to meet the proposed replacement standards.
These costs do not incorporate any market-based adjustments. All costs
presented in this section are annualized estimates in 2002 dollars.
We estimate there are a total of 276 sources \292\ that may be
subject to requirements of the proposed rule. Liquid and solid fuel
boilers represent approximately 43 percent of this total, followed by
on-site incinerators at 33 percent, and cement and lightweight
aggregate kilns at 12 percent. Commercial incinerators and hydrochloric
acid production furnaces make up the remaining 12 percent of the total.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\292\ For purposes of this discussion, a source is defined as
the air pollution control system associated with the hazardous waste
combustion unit(s). A source may contain one or more combustion
units, and a facility may operate one or more sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total national engineering costs for the proposed standards are
estimated to range from $57.7 million to $77.9 million per year. The
low end of this range reflects total upgrade costs excluding controls
to meet the total chlorine standard.\293\ All Phase II sources combined
represent about 66 percent or 80 percent of this total, depending upon
section 112(d)(4) scenario. The average cost per source is expected to
be highest for lightweight aggregate kilns and solid fuel boilers,
ranging from $329,000 to $400,000 and $217,000 to $283,000,
respectively. Average liquid fuel boiler costs range from $378,000 to
$419,000 per system. Hydrochloric acid production furnaces were found
to have average system costs of about $200,000 under both section
112(d)(4) scenarios. On-site incinerators and commercial incinerators
were found to generally have the lowest average cost ranges. Average
annualized engineering costs for on-site incinerators are estimated to
range from $16,300 to $139,000 per source, while average annual per
source engineering costs for commercial incinerators are estimated to
range from $67,000 to $247,000. For all Phase I sources (140 sources;
commercial incinerators, on-site incinerators, cement kilns, and
[[Page 21350]]
lightweight aggregate kilns), average annualized engineering costs are
estimated to range from $76,000 to $184,000 per source. The combined
Phase II sources (136 sources; solid and liquid fuel-fired boilers and
hydrochloric acid production furnaces) had average annualized
engineering costs ranging from $341,000 to $380,000 per source. Across
all sectors covered by today's proposal (Phase I and Phase II sources),
average annualized costs were found to range from $209,000 to $282,000
per source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\293\ We are proposing using section 112(d)(4) of the Clean Air
Act to establish risk-based standards for total chlorine for
hazardous waste combustors (except for hydrochloric acid production
furnaces). The low-end of this cost range assumes all facilities
emit total chlorine levels below risk-based levels of concern. Under
this scenario, no total chlorine controls are assumed to necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engineering compliance (control) costs have also been assessed on a
per ton of waste burned basis. Captive energy recovery sources
(includes solid and liquid fuel-fired boilers, and hydrochloric acid
production furnaces), burning a total of 1,001,500 tons of hazardous
waste per year, are projected to experience the highest average
incremental costs, ranging from $46 to $52 per ton. Commercial energy
recovery sources (cement kilns and LWAKs), burning approximately
1,093,800 tons per year, may see incremental control costs ranging from
$7.50 to $8.50 per ton. Captive (on-site) and commercial incinerators
burn an estimated 1,010,600 tons and 452,200 tons per year,
respectively. These sources are estimated to experience average
incremental engineering costs ranging from $1.50 to $12.70 per ton for
captive and $2.20 to $8.20 per ton for commercial sources.
The aggregate control costs presented in this section do not
reflect the anticipated real world cost burden on the economy. Any
market disruption, such as the implementation of hazardous waste MACT
or risk-based standards will cause a short-tem disequilibrium in the
hazardous waste burning market. Following the implementation of the
replacement standards, market adjustments will occur in a natural
economic process designed to reach a new market equilibrium. Actual
cost impacts to society are more accurately measured by taking into
account market adjustments. These costs are commonly termed Social
Costs, and are generally less than total engineering costs due to cost
efficiencies implemented during the market adjustment process. Social
Costs theoretically represent the total real world costs of all goods
and services society must give up in order to gain the added protection
to human health and the environment. Social Costs are presented in Part
VIII of this Section.
V. Can We Achieve the Goals of the Proposed Rule in a Less Costly Manner?
Section 1(b)(3) of Executive Order 12866 instructs Executive Branch
Agencies to consider and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation prior to making a determination for regulation. This
regulatory determination assessment should be considered, ``to the
extent permitted by law, and where applicable.'' The ultimate purpose
of the regulatory determination assessment is to ensure that the most
efficient tool, regulation, or other type of action is applied in
meeting the targeted objective(s). Requirements for MACT standards
under the Clean Air Act, as mandated by Congress, have compelled us to
select today's regulatory approach. Furthermore, we are under legal
obligation to meet the targeted objectives of today's proposal through
a regulatory action. As a result, alternatives to direct regulatory
action were not evaluated.
In addition to the statutory and legal mandates necessitating
today's proposed rulemaking, we believe that federal regulation is the
most efficient approach for helping to correct market failures leading
to the negative environmental externalities resulting from the
combustion of hazardous waste. The complex nature of the pollutants,
waste feeds, waste generators, and the diverse nature of the combustion
market would limit the effectiveness of a non-regulatory approach such
as taxes, fees, or an educational-outreach program.
The hazardous waste combustion industry operates in a dynamic
market. Several combustion facilities and systems have closed or
consolidated over the past several years and this trend is likely to
continue. These closures and consolidations may lead to reduced air
pollution, in the aggregate, from hazardous waste facilities. However,
the ongoing demand for hazardous waste combustion services will
ultimately result in a steady equilibrium as the market adjusts over
the long-term. We therefore expect that air pollution problems from
these facilities, and the corresponding threats to human health and
ecological receptors, will continue if a regulatory action was not
implemented.
We believe that the market has generally failed to correct the air
pollution problems resulting from the combustion of hazardous wastes
for several reasons. First, there exists no natural market incentive
for hazardous waste combustion facilities to incur additional costs
implementing control measures. This occurs because the individuals and
entities who bear the negative human health and ecological impacts
associated with these actions have no direct control over waste burning
decisions. This environmental externality occurs because the private
industry costs of combustion do not fully reflect the human health and
environmental costs of hazardous waste combustion. Second, the parties
injured by the combusted pollutants are not likely to have the
resources or technological expertise to seek compensation from the
damaging entity (combustion source) through legal or other means.\294\
Finally, emissions from hazardous waste combustion facilities directly
affect a ``public good,'' the air. Improved air quality benefits human
health and the environment. The absence of government intervention,
therefore, will perpetuate a market that fails to fully internalize key
negative externalities, resulting in a sub-optimal quantity and quality
of public goods, such as air.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\294\ Some economists consider this a failure of full and proper
enforcement of property rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have assessed several regulatory options designed to mitigate
the unacceptable levels of risk to human health and the environment
resulting from the combustion of hazardous waste in the targeted units.
We believe, based on available data, that our preferred regulatory
approach,\295\ as presented in today's proposed rule, is the most cost-
efficient method for reducing the level of several hazardous air
pollutants. These include: dioxin and furan, mercury, semivolatile and
low volatile metals, and total chlorine emissions (i.e., hydrogen
chloride and chlorine). Carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and particulate
matter will also be reduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\295\ Including our proposal to apply section 112(d)(4) to
establish risk-based standards for total chlorine for all sources,
except hydrochloric acid production furnaces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We evaluated seven alternative methodologies in the development of
today's proposed approach. These were: system removal efficiency plus
feed control, straight emission-based, modified emission-based,
exclusive technology approach, simultaneous achievability, using the
CAA section 112(d)(4) to establish risk-based standards for total
chlorine, and beyond-the-floor. Numerous different combinations of
these methodologies were assessed. Selection of the Agency preferred
approach was based, in part on methodological clarity, implementation
simplicity, cost and economic impacts, stakeholder input, and necessary
protectiveness to human health and the environment.
[[Page 21351]]
VI. What Are the Economic Impacts?
Various market adjustments (i.e., economic impacts) are expected in
response to the changes in hazardous waste combustion costs anticipated
as a result of the replacement standards, as proposed. Economic impacts
may be measured through several factors. This section presents
estimated economic impacts relative to market exits, waste
reallocations, and employment impacts. Economic impacts presented in
this section are distinct from social costs, which correspond only to
the estimated monetary value of market disturbances.
A. Market Exit Estimates
The hazardous waste combustion industry operates in a dynamic
market, with systems entering and exiting the market on a routine
basis. Our analysis defines ``market exit'' as ceasing to burn
hazardous waste. We have projected post-rule hazardous waste combustion
system market exits based on economic feasibility only. Market exit
estimates are derived from a breakeven analysis designed to determine
system viability. This analysis is subject to several assumptions,
including: engineering cost data on the baseline costs of waste
burning, cost estimates for pollution control devices, prices for
combustion services, and assumptions about the waste quantities burned
at these facilities. It is important to note that, for most sectors,
exiting the hazardous waste combustion market is not equivalent to
closing a plant. (Actual plant closure would only be expected in the
case of an exit from the hazardous waste combustion market of a
commercial incinerator closing all its systems.)
Under the Agency's proposed approach, we estimate there may be
anywhere from 51 to 58 systems (sources) that stop burning hazardous
waste. This represents anywhere from 18 percent to 21 percent of the
total number of systems affected by the rule. The range is based on the
inclusion or exclusion of total chlorine controls.\296\ At the high-end
of this range, onsite incinerators represent about 55 percent of the
total number of market exits. Liquid and solid fuel boilers (includes
process heaters) account for 41 percent, and commercial incinerators
account for the remaining. No cement kilns, lightweight aggregate
kilns, or hydrochloric acid production furnaces are projected to exit
the market as a result of the rule. Market exits are estimated to
change only slightly under the alternative regulatory options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\296\ Even though we are proposing to allow sources (except
hydrochloric acid production furnaces) to invoke section 112(d)(4)
in lieu of MACT chlorine control requirements, we have not attempted
to estimate the following: (1) The total number of sources that may
elect to implement this provision, and, (2) what level of control
may be necessary following a section 112(d)(4) risk-based
determination, since this would vary on a site-by-site basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Quantity of Waste Reallocated
Some combustion systems (sources) may no longer be able to cover
their hazardous waste burning costs as a result of rule requirements,
as proposed. These sources are expected to divert or reroute their
wastes to alternative burners.\297\ For multiple system facilities,
this diversion may include on-site (non-commercial) waste consolidation
among fewer systems at the same facility. A certain portion of this
waste may also be reallocated to waste management alternatives (e.g.,
solvent reclamation). Combustion, however, is likely to remain the
lowest cost option. Thus, we expect that the vast majority of
reallocated waste will continue to be managed at combustion facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\297\ This analysis includes the cost of waste transport to
alternative combustion sources, burning fees, and purchase of
alternative fuels (if appropriate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our economic model indicates that, in response to today's rule,
approximately 87,500 to 120,900 tons of hazardous waste may be
reallocated, representing up to 3.4 percent of the total 1999 estimated
quantity of hazardous waste burned at all sources. This estimate
includes on-site consolidations and off-site diversions. Off-site
diversions alone represent no more than 1.5 percent of the total waste
burned. About 56 percent to 65 percent of the total reallocated waste
quantity is expected to be consolidated among fewer systems at the same
non-commercial facility. Commercial incinerators and commercial energy
recovery (cement kilns and lightweight aggregate kilns) facilities are
projected to receive all hazardous waste that is rerouted off-site.
Onsite incinerators and boilers are the primary source of all off-site
diverted waste. Based on the high estimate for total waste reallocated
(120,900 tons), commercial incinerators and cement kilns are projected
to receive 37 percent and 7 percent, respectively. The remainder, as
mentioned above, is projected to be consolidated on-site. Currently,
there is more than adequate capacity to accommodate all off-site waste
diversions.
C. Employment Impacts
Today's rule is likely to cause employment shifts across all of the
hazardous waste combustion sectors. These shifts may occur as specific
combustion facilities find it no longer economically feasible to keep
all of their systems running, or to stay in the hazardous waste market
at all. When this occurs, workers at these locations may lose their
jobs or experience forced relocations. At the same time, the rule may
result in employment gains, as new purchases of pollution control
equipment stimulate additional hiring in the pollution control
manufacturing sector, and as additional staff are required at selected
combustion facilities to accommodate reallocated waste and/or various
compliance activities.
1. Employment Impacts--Dislocations (losses)
Primary employment dislocations (losses) in the combustion industry
are likely to occur when combustion systems consolidate the waste they
are burning into fewer systems or when a facility exits the hazardous
waste combustion market altogether. Operation and maintenance labor
hours are expected to be reduced for each system that stops burning
hazardous waste. For each facility that completely exits the market,
employment losses will likely also include supervisory and
administrative labor.
Total incremental employment dislocations potentially resulting
from the proposed replacement standards are estimated to range from 308
to 387 full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs. Depending upon the scenario,
on-site incinerators and boilers are responsible for anywhere from
about 85 to 100 percent all potential job dislocations. Their
significant share of the losses is a function of both the large number
of systems affected, and the number of expected exits within these sectors.
2. Employment Impacts--Gains
In addition to employment dislocations, today's rule is also
expected to result in job gains. These gains are projected to occur to
both the air pollution control industry and to combustion firms as they
hire personnel to accommodate reallocated waste and/or comply with the
various requirements of the rule. Hazardous waste combustion sources
are projected to need additional operation and maintenance personnel
for the new pollution control equipment and other compliance
activities, such as new reporting and record keeping requirements.
The total annual employment gains associated with the proposed
standards are estimated to range from 407 to 525 FTEs. Job gains to the
air pollution
[[Page 21352]]
control industry \298\ represent about 31 percent of this total. Among
all combustors, boilers are projected to experience the greatest number
of job gains, followed by cement and lightweight aggregate kilns. Job
gains in these sectors alone represent about 55 percent to 61 percent
of total projected gains, depending upon regulatory scenario.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\298\ Manufacturers and distributers of air pollution control
devices are expected to increase sales as a result of this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While it may appear that this analysis suggests overall net job
creation, such a conclusion would be inappropriate. Because the gains
and losses occur in different sectors of the economy, they should not
be added together. Doing so would mask important distributional effects
of the rule. In addition, the employment gain estimates reflect within
sector impacts only and therefore do not account for potential job
displacement across sectors. This may occur if investment funds are
diverted from other areas of the larger economy.
VII. What Are the Benefits of Reductions in Particulate Matter Emissions?
For the 1999 rule, we estimated the avoided incidence of mortality
and morbidity associated with reductions in particulate matter (PM)
emissions.\299\ Estimates of cases of mortality and morbidity avoided
were made for children and the elderly, as well as the general
population, using concentration-response functions derived from human
epidemiological studies. Morbidity effects included respiratory and
cardiovascular illnesses requiring hospitalization, as well as other
illnesses not requiring hospitalization, such as acute and chronic
bronchitis and acute upper and lower respiratory symptoms. Decreases in
particulate matter-related minor restricted activity days (MRADs) and
work loss days (WLDs) were also estimated. Rates of avoided incidence,
work days lost, and days of restricted activity were estimated for each
of 16 sectors surrounding a facility using the concentration-response
functions and sector-specific estimates of the corresponding population
and model-derived ambient air concentration, either annual mean
PM10 or PM2.5 concentrations or distributions of
daily PM10 or PM2.5 concentrations, depending on
the concentration-response function. The sectors were defined by 4
concentric rings out to a distance of 20 kilometers (about 12 miles),
each of which was divided into 4 quadrants. The sector-specific rates
were weighted by facility-specific sampling weights and then summed to
give the total incidence rates for a given source category.\300\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\299\ See ``Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Support
to the Development of Technical Standards for Emissions from
Combustion Units Burning Hazardous Wastes: Background Document,'' July 1999.
\300\ It should be noted that the avoided incidence estimates
were based entirely on the incremental decrease in ambient air
concentrations associated with emission controls on the hazardous
waste sources subject to the 1999 rule. Background levels of
particulate matter were assumed to be sufficiently high to exceed
any possible threshold of effect but ambient background levels of
particulate matter were not otherwise considered in the analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since performing the risk assessment for the 1999 Assessment, the
Agency has updated its benefits methodology to reflect recent advances
in air quality modeling and human health benefits modeling. To estimate
PM exposure for the 1999 risk assessment, the Agency used the
Industrial Source Complex Model-Short Term Version 3 (ISCST3). More
recent EPA benefits analyses have used more advanced air-quality
models. For example, the Agency's assessment of the industrial boilers
and process heaters NESHAP used the Climatological Regional Dispersion
Model (CRDM), which uses a national source-receptor matrix to estimate
exposure associated with PM emissions.\301\ Similarly, the Agency's
analysis of the proposed Inter-state Air Quality Rule used the Regional
Modeling System for Aerosols and Deposition (REMSAD), which also
accounts for the long-range transport of particles.\302\ In contrast,
ISCST3 modeled exposure within a 20-kilometer radius of each emissions
source for the 1999 risk assessment.\303\ To the extent that PM is
transported further than 20 km from each emissions source, the 1999
risk assessment may underestimate PM exposure. In addition, to estimate
exposure in the 1999 risk assessment, EPA used block-group-level data
from the 1990 Census. More recent studies use data from the 2000 Census.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\301\ U.S. EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis of The Final
Industrial Boilers and Process Heaters NESHAP: Final Report,
February 2004.
\302\ U.S. EPA, Benefits of the Proposed Inter-State Air Quality
Rule, January 2004.
\303\ Research Triangle Institute, Human Health and Ecological
Risk Assessment Support to The Development of Technical Standards
for Emissions from Combustion Units Burning Hazardous Wastes:
Background Document, prepared for U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste,
July 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More recent EPA benefits analyses also apply a different
concentration-response function for PM mortality than that used for the
1999 risk assessment. In 1999, EPA used the concentration-response
function published by Pope, et al. in 1995.\304\ Since that time,
health scientists have refined estimates of the concentration-response
relationship, and EPA has updated its methodology for estimating
benefits to reflect these more recent estimates. In the regulatory
impact analysis of the non-hazardous boiler MACT standards, EPA used
the Krewski, et al. re-analysis of the 1995 Pope study to estimate
avoided premature mortality.\305\ Since the relative risk estimated in
the Krewski study (1.18) is nearly the same as that presented in Pope
et al. (1.17), the Agency assumes that updating the 1999 risk
assessment to reflect the results of the 2000 Krewski study would have
minimal impact on the estimated benefits associated with the proposed
HWC MACT replacement standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\304\ Pope, C.A., III, M.J. Thun, M.M. Namboodiri, D.W. Dockery,
J.S. Evans, F.E. Speizer, and C.W. Heath, Jr. 1995. Particulate air
pollution as a predictor of mortality in a prospective study of U.S.
adults. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care
Medicine151:669-674, as cited in Research Triangle Institute, op. cit.
\305\ Krewski D, Burnett RT, Goldbert MS, Hoover K, Siemiatycki
J, Jerrett M, Abrahamowicz M, White WH. 2000. Reanalysis of the
Harvard Six Cities Study and the American Cancer Society Study of
Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality. Special Report to the
Health Effects Institute, Cambridge, MA, July 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the current proposal, we took the avoided incidence estimates
from the September 1999 final rule and adjusted them to reflect the
particulate matter emission reductions projected to occur under the
proposed standards and the reduction in the numbers of facilities
burning hazardous wastes since the analysis for the final rule was
completed. For cement kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, and
incinerators, the estimates were made by adjusting the respective
estimates at the source category level by the ratio of emission
reductions (for today's proposed rule vs. the 1999 final rule) and the
ratio of the number of facilities affected by the rules (facilities
currently burning hazardous wastes vs. facilities burning hazardous
wastes in the analysis for the September 1999 final rule).\306\ For
liquid and solid fuel-fired boilers and hydrochloric acid production
furnaces, we extrapolated the avoided incidence from the incinerator
source category using a similar approach except that the ratios of the
exposed populations were used (corresponding to the concentration-
[[Page 21353]]
response functions from the 1999 analysis), instead of the number of
facilities. We estimated the exposed populations for hazardous waste-
burning boilers and hydrochloric acid production furnaces using the
same GIS methods as the September 1999 final rule (i.e., a 16 sector
overlay). Nonetheless, the extrapolated estimates are subject to some
uncertainty. The estimates of avoided incidence of mortality and
morbidity are shown in Table 2. The estimates of days of restricted
activity and days of work lost are shown in Table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\306\ To account for the increase in population since the 1990
census was taken, for the Phase I sources we also adjusted the
avoided incidence estimates by the ratio of the population at the
national level (corresponding to the concentration-response
function) for the year 2000 census vs. the 1990 census. For Phase II
source, we used the year 2000 census to develop source category-
specific population estimates for use in the extrapolations.
Table 2.--PM-Related Avoided Incidence of Mortality and Morbidity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hospital admissions Respiratory Illnesses
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category Respiratory Chronic Acute Lower Upper
Mortality illness Cardiovascular bronchitis bronchitis respiratory respiratory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cement Kilns............................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Lightweight Aggregate Kilns............. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Incinerators............................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Solid Fuel Boilers...................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.1
HCl Production Furnaces................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Liquid Fuel Boilers..................... 0.3 0.9 0.4 5.5 4.2 37.2 4.3
Total............................... 0.3 0.9 0.4 5.6 4.3 38.0 4.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3.--PM-Related Restricted Activity and Work Loss Days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Restricted
Source category restricted activity days Work loss days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cement Kilns................................................. 3.1 1.0 0.4
Lightweight Aggregate Kilns.................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0
Incinerators................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0
Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers..................................... 59.0 19.4 7.1
HCl Production Furnaces...................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0
Liquid Fuel-Fired Boilers.................................... 3692.2 1215.9 443.2
------------------
Total.................................................... 3754.4 1236.4 450.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also conducted an analysis of key factors that influence the PM-
related health benefits by statistically comparing attributes of the
sources subject to today's proposed rule versus the sources subject to
the 1999 rule. The greater the similarities between the sources covered
by today's proposal and the sources subject to the 1999 rule, the more
confidence we have in the extrapolated incidence estimates. The more
the dissimilarities, the greater is the uncertainty in the estimates.
The comparative analysis is discussed in a separate background document
for today's rule.\307\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\307\ See ``Inferential Risk Analysis in Support of Standards
for Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Hazardous Waste
Combustors,'' prepared under contract to EPA by Research Triangle
Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIII. What are the Social Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Rule?
The value of any regulatory action is traditionally measured by the
net change in social welfare that it generates. Our economic assessment
for today's rule evaluates compliance costs, social costs, benefits,
economic impacts, selected other impacts (e.g., children's health,
unfunded mandates), and small entity impacts. To conduct this analysis,
we examined the current combustion market and practices, developed and
implemented a methodology for examining compliance and social costs,
applied an economic model to analyze industry economic impacts (results
discussed above), examined benefits, and followed appropriate
guidelines and procedures for examining equity considerations,
children's health, and other impacts. The data we used in this analysis
were the most recently available at the time of the analysis. Because
our data were limited, the findings from these analyses are more
accurately viewed as national estimates.
A. Combustion Market Overview
The hazardous waste industry consists of three key segments:
hazardous waste generators, fuel blenders/intermediaries, and hazardous
waste burners. Hazardous waste is combusted at four main types of
facilities: commercial incinerators, on-site incinerators, waste
burning kilns (cement kilns and lightweight aggregate kilns), and
industrial boilers. Commercial incinerators are generally larger in
size and designed to manage virtually all types of solids, as well as
liquid wastes. On-site incinerators are more often designed as liquid-
injection systems that handle liquids and pumpable solids. Waste
burning kilns and boilers generally burn hazardous wastes to generate
heat and power for their manufacturing processes.
As discussed above, we have identified a total of 276 sources
(systems) permitted to burn hazardous waste in the United States.
Liquid fuel-fired boilers account for 107 sources, followed by on-site
incinerators at 92 sources. Cement kilns, hydrochloric acid production
furnaces, and commercial incinerators account for 26, 17, and 15
sources, respectively. Solid fuel-fired boilers and lightweight
aggregate kilns make up the remaining, at 12 and seven systems,
respectively. These 276 sources are operated by a total of 150
different facilities. On-site incinerators account for 69 facilities,
or 46 percent of this total, followed by all boiler facilities at 45
percent (67 facilities). There are 14 cement kilns, 10 commercial
incineration facilities and three lightweight aggregate kilns. A single
facility may have one or more combustion systems. Facilities with
multiple systems may have the same or different types. Thus, the
numbers presented above will not sum to 150 facilities.
[[Page 21354]]
The number of sources per facility in the combustion universe
ranges from one to 12. On average, boilers, hydrochloric acid
production furnaces, and lightweight aggregate kilns, with an average
of 2.0 sources per facility, contain more waste burning combustion
systems per facility than do incinerators and cement kilns, with an
average of 1.4 sources per facility. On-site incinerators, with 1.3
sources per facility, have the lowest average among all types of
combustion devices in the universe.
Combustion systems operating at chemical and allied product
facilities represent 72 percent (199 sources) of the total number of
hazardous waste burning systems. Stone, clay, and glass production
accounts for 12 percent (34 sources), followed by electric, gas, and
sanitation services at 8 percent (22 sources).
The EPA Biennial Reporting System (BRS) reports a total demand for
all combusted hazardous waste, across all facilities, at 3.56 million
tons (U.S. ton) in 1999. Commercial energy recovery (cement kilns and
lightweight aggregate kilns) burned about 31 percent of this total,
followed by on-site incinerators at just over 28 percent, captive
energy recovery (all boilers) at 28 percent, and commercial
incineration at nearly 13 percent. About 62 percent of all waste burned
in 1999 was organic liquids. This is followed by inorganic liquids (15
percent), sludges (13 percent), and solids (9 percent). Hazardous gases
represent about 0.1 percent of the total annual quantity burned. In
terms of waste source, the industrial organic chemicals sector
generates approximately a third of all hazardous waste burned, followed
by pesticides and agricultural chemicals, business services, organic
fibers, medicinal chemicals, pharmaceuticals, plastics materials and
resins, petroleum, and miscellaneous.
Companies that generate large quantities of uniform hazardous
wastes generally find it more economical and efficient to combust these
wastes on-site using their own noncommercial systems. Commercial
incineration facilities manage a wide range of waste streams generated
in small to medium quantities by diverse industries. Cement kilns,
lightweight aggregate kilns, and boilers derive heat and energy by
combining clean burning (solvents and organics) high-Btu liquid
hazardous wastes \308\ with conventional fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\308\ Many cement kilns are also able to burn a certain level of
solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory requirements, liability concerns, and economics
influence the demand for combustion services. Regulatory forces
influence the demand for combustion by mandating certain hazardous
waste treatment standards (land disposal restriction requirements,
etc.). Liability concerns of waste generators affect combustion demand
because combustion, by destroying organic wastes, greatly reduces the
risk of future environmental problems. Finally, if alternative waste
management options are more expensive, hazardous waste generators will
likely choose to send their wastes to combustion facilities in order to
increase their overall profitability.
Throughout much of the 1980s, hazardous waste combustors enjoyed a
strong competitive position and generally maintained a high level of
profitability. During this period, EPA regulations requiring combustion
greatly expanded the waste tonnage for this market. In addition,
federal permitting requirements, as well as powerful local opposition
to siting of new incinerators, constrained the entry of new combustion
systems. As a result, combustion prices rose steadily, ultimately
reaching record levels in 1987. The high profits of the late 1980s
induced many firms to enter the market, in spite of the difficulties
and delays anticipated in the permitting and siting process. Hazardous
waste markets have changed significantly since the late 1980s. In the
early 1990s, substantial overcapacity resulted in fierce competition,
declining prices, poor financial performance, numerous project
cancellations, system consolidations, and facility closures. Since the
mid 1990s, several additional combustion facilities have closed, while
many of those that have remained open have consolidated, or further
consolidated their operations. Available excess capacity is currently
estimated at about 20 percent of the total 1999 quantity combusted.
B. Baseline Specification
Proper and consistent baseline specification is vital to the
accurate assessment of incremental costs, benefits, and other economic
impacts associated with today's proposed rule. The baseline essentially
describes the world absent the proposed rule. The incremental impacts
of today's rule are evaluated by predicting post MACT compliance
responses with respect to the baseline. The baseline, as applied in
this analysis, is the point at which today's rule is promulgated. Thus,
incremental cost and economic impacts are projected beyond the
standards established in the February 13, 2002, Interim Standards Final
Rule.
C. Analytical Methodology and Findings--Social Cost Analysis
Total social costs include the value of resources used to comply
with the standards by the private sector, the value of resources used
to administer the regulation by the government, and the value of output
lost due to shifts of resources away from the current market
equilibrium. To evaluate these shifts in resources and changes in
output requires predicting changes in behavior by all affected parties
in response to the regulation, including responses of directly-affected
entities, as well as indirectly-affected private parties.
For this analysis, social costs are grouped into two categories:
economic welfare (changes in consumer and producer surplus), and
government administrative costs. The economic welfare analysis
conducted for today's rule uses a simplified partial equilibrium
approach to estimate social costs. In this analysis, changes in
economic welfare are measured by summing the changes in consumer and
producer surplus. This simplified approach bounds potential economic
welfare losses associated with the rule by considering two scenarios:
compliance costs assuming no market adjustments, and market adjusted
compliance costs. The private sector compliance costs of $57.7 million
to $77.9 million per year, as presented in Section IV, assume no market
adjustments. These costs may be considered to represent the high-end of
total social costs. Our best estimate of social costs assume rational
market adjustments. Under this scenario, increased compliance costs are
examined in the context of likely incentives combustion facilities
would have to continue burning hazardous wastes, and the competitive
balance in different combustion sectors.
For all sectors to meet the proposed replacement standards, total
annualized market-adjusted costs are estimated to range from $41 to $50
million. The low end of this range assumes no chlorine control
costs.\309\ The Phase II sources represent about 83 percent of the
high-end total. Our economic model indicates that two sectors as a
whole, commercial incinerators and cement kilns, would experience net
gains following all market adjustments. This occurs due to marginally
higher prices,
[[Page 21355]]
increased waste receipts, and relatively low upgrade costs. Total
annual government costs are approximately one-half million dollars for
the proposed approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\309\ We are proposing using section 112(d)(4) of the Clean Air
Act to establish risk-based standards for total chlorine for
hazardous waste combustors (except for hydrochloric acid production
furnaces). The low-end of this cost range assumes all facilities
emit total chlorine levels below risk-based levels of concern. Under
this scenario, no total chlorine controls are assumed to be necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Analytical Methodology and Findings--Benefits Assessment
This section discusses the monetized and non-monetized benefits to
human health and the environment potentially associated with today's
rule. Monetized human health benefits are derived from reductions in PM
and dioxin/furan exposure and are based on a Value of Statistical Life
(VSL) estimate of $5.5 million.\10\ Monetized environmental benefits
are estimated from visibility improvements expected in response to
reduced air pollution. Non-monetized benefits are associated with human
health, ecological, and waste minimization factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\310\ Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4. September
17, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Monetized Benefits
Particulate Matter--We developed monetized estimates of human
health benefits associated with reduced emissions of particulate matter
(PM). We also estimated the value of improved visibility associated
with reduced PM emissions.
Results from our risk assessment extrapolation procedure, as
discussed under Section VII above, are used to evaluate incremental
human health benefits potentially associated with particulate matter
emission reductions at hazardous waste combustion facilities. This
analysis used avoided cost factors from the July 1999 Assessment
document, combined with the updated estimates of avoided adverse health
effects related only to particulate matter emissions.
Under the Agency preferred approach, reduced PM emissions are
estimated to result in monetized human health benefits of approximately
$4.18 million per year. This is an undiscounted figure. Avoided PM
morbidity cases account for $2.34 million of this total and include:
respiratory illness, cardiovascular disease, chronic bronchitis, work
loss days, and minor restricted activity. Chronic bronchitis accounts
for approximately 90 percent of the total morbidity cases. All
morbidity cases are assumed to be avoided within the first year
following reduced PM emissions and are not discounted under any scenario.
Avoided premature deaths (mortality) account for the remaining
$1.84 million per year. Assuming a discount rate of three and seven
percent, PM mortality benefits would be $1.70 million and $1.54
million, respectively. Our discounted analysis of PM mortality benefits
assumes that 25 percent of premature mortalities occur during the first
year, 25 percent occur during the second year, and 16.7 percent occur
in each of the three subsequent years after exposure. This methodology
is consistent with the Agency's analysis of the proposed Clear Skies
Act of 2003. Total monetized PM benefits, therefore, are estimated to
range from $4.24 million/year to $4.52 million per year. These findings
appear to indicate that particulate matter reductions from the interim
baseline to the replacement standards are small relative to the
reductions achieved in going to the interim standards. This assessment
does not consider corresponding health benefits associated with the
reduction of metals carried by the PM.
Dioxin/furan--Dioxin/furan emissions are projected to be reduced by
a total of 4.68 grams per year under the Agency Preferred Approach. Of
this total, 0.42 grams/year are derived in going from the interim
standards baseline to the floor levels. The remaining 4.26 grams/year
are derived by going from the floor to beyond-the-floor (BTF)
standards. In the July 23, 1999 Addendum to the Assessment, cancer risk
reductions linked to consumption of dioxin-contaminated agricultural
products accounted for the vast majority of the 0.36 cancer cases per
year that were expected to be avoided due to the 1999 standards. Cancer
risk reductions associated with the replacement standards are expected
to be less than 0.36 cases per year, but greater than zero.
Assuming that the proportional relationship between dioxin/furans
emissions and premature cancer deaths is constant, we estimate that
approximately 0.058 premature cancer deaths will be avoided on an
annual basis under the Agency Preferred Approach because of reduced
dioxin/furans emissions. This estimate reflects a cancer risk slope
factor of 1.56 x 105 [mg/kg/day]-1. This cancer
slope factor is derived from the Agency's 1985 health assessment
document for polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins \311\ and represents an
upper bound 95th percentile confidence limit of the excess cancer risk
from a lifetime exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\311\ USEPA, 1985. Health Assessment Document for
Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins. EPA/600/8-84/014F. Final Report.
Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. Washington, DC.
September, 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the past 12 years the Agency has been conducting a reassessment
of the human health risks associated with dioxin and dioxin-like
compounds. This reassessment \312\ will soon be under review at the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS), as specified by Congress in the
Conference Report accompanying EPA's fiscal year 2003 appropriation
(Title IV of Division K of the Conference Report for the Consolidated
Appropriations Resolution of 2003). Evidence compiled from this draft
reassessment indicates that the carcinogenic effects of dioxin/furans
may be six times as great as believed in 1985, reflecting an upper
bound cancer risk slope factor of 1 x 106 [mg/kg/day]-1 for
some individuals. Agency scientists' more likely (central tendency)
estimates (derived from the ED01 rather than the
LED01) result in slope factors and risk estimates that are
within 2-3 times of the upper bound estimates (i.e., between 3 x
105 [mg/kg/day]-1 and 5 x 105 [mg/kg/
day]-1) based on the available epidemiological and animal
cancer data. Risks could be as low as zero for some individuals. Use of
the alternative upper bound cancer risk slope factor would result in up
to 0.35 premature cancer deaths avoided in response to the proposed
replacement standards for dioxin/furans. The assessment of upper bound
cancer risk using this alternative slope factor should not be
considered Agency policy. The proposed standards for dioxin in today's
rule were not based on this draft reassessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\312\ U.S.EPA, Exposure and Human Health Reassessment of
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds,
September 2000. Note: Toxicity risk factors presented in this
document should not be considered EPA's official estimate of dioxin
toxicity, but rather reflect EPA's ongoing effort to reevaluate
dioxin toxicity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total non-discounted human health benefits associated with
projected dioxin reductions are estimated at $0.32 million/year. Total
benefits are estimated to range from $0.12 million/year to $0.17
million/year at a 3 percent discount rate, and $0.03 million/year to
$0.08 million/year at a 7 percent rate. The two figures under each
discount scenario reflect an assumed latency period of 21 or 34 years.
Visibility Benefits--In addition to the human health benefits
discussed above, we also assessed visibility improvements. Particulate
matter emissions are a primary cause of reduced visibility. Changes in
the level of ambient particulate matter caused by the reduction in
emissions associated with the Agency preferred approach are expected to
increase the level of visibility in some parts of the United States. We
derived upper and lower bound benefits estimates associated with
particulate matter emissions
[[Page 21356]]
reductions using two different methodologies, each comparing reductions
to those associated with the Clean Air Act. The first approach assumes
a linear relationship between particulate matter reductions and
visibility improvements. Under this approach, the Agency preferred
replacement standards may result in a visibility benefit of
approximately $5.78 million per year. Our second approach is to assume
a linear relationship between health benefits and visibility benefits
associated with reduction in particulate matter emissions. Under this
approach, the proposed replacement standards could result in a
visibility benefit of approximately $0.11 million/year. This method
represents our lower bound estimate of visibility benefits.
2. Non-Monetized Benefits
We examined, but did not monetize human health benefits potentially
associated with reduced exposure to lead, mercury, and total chlorine.
Non monetized ecological benefits potentially associated with
reductions in dioxin/furan, selected metals, total chlorine, and
particulate matter were also examined. Finally, waste minimization is
examined as a non-monetized benefit.
Lead--The proposed replacement standards are expected to reduce
lead emissions by approximately five tons per year. In comparison, the
1999 standards were expected to reduce lead emissions by 89 tons per
year, and were expected to reduce cumulative lead exposures for two
children age 0-5 to less than 10 [mu]g/dL. The lead benefits associated
with the proposed replacement standards are therefore expected to be
modest, reducing the cumulative lead exposures for less than two
children age 0-5, less than 10 [mu]g/dL annually. The proposed
replacement standards will also result in reduced lead levels for
children of sub-populations with especially high levels of exposure.
Children of subsistence fishermen, commercial beef farmers, and
commercial dairy farmers who face the greatest levels of cumulative
lead exposure will also experience comparable reductions in overall
exposure as a result of the MACT standards.
Mercury--Mercury emitted from hazardous waste burning incinerators,
kilns, boilers, and other natural and man-made sources is carried by
winds through the air and eventually is deposited to water and land.
Recent estimates (which are highly uncertain) of annual total global
mercury emissions from all sources (natural and anthropogenic) are
about 5,000 to 5,500 tons per year (tpy). Of this total, about 1,000
tpy are estimated to be natural emissions and about 2,000 tpy are
estimated to be contributions through the natural global cycle of re-
emissions of mercury associated with past anthropogenic activity.
Current anthropogenic emissions account for the remaining 2,000 tpy.
Point sources such as fuel combustion; waste incineration; industrial
processes; and metal ore roasting, refining, and processing are the
largest point source categories on a world-wide basis. Given the global
estimates noted above, U.S. anthropogenic mercury emissions are
estimated to account for roughly 3 percent of the global total, and
U.S. hazardous waste burning incinerators, kilns, and boilers are
estimated to account for about 0.0045 percent of total global emissions.
Mercury exists in three forms: elemental mercury, inorganic mercury
compounds (primarily mercuric chloride), and organic mercury compounds
(primarily methylmercury). Mercury is usually released in an elemental
form and later converted into methylmercury by bacteria. Methylmercury
may be more toxic to humans than other forms of mercury, in part
because it is more easily absorbed in the body.\313\ If the deposition
is directly to a water body, then the processes of aqueous fate,
transport, and transformation begin. If deposition is to land, then
terrestrial fate and transport processes occur first and then aqueous
fate and transport processes occur once the mercury has cycled into a
water body. In both cases, mercury may be returned to the atmosphere
through resuspension. In water, mercury is transformed to methylmercury
through biological processes and for exposures affected by this
rulemaking. Methylmercury is considered to be the form of greatest
concern. Once mercury has been transformed into methylmercury, it can
be ingested by the lower trophic level organisms where it can
bioaccumulate in fish tissue (i.e., concentrations of mercury remain in
the fish's system for a long period of time and accumulates in the fish
tissue as predatory fish consume other species in the food chain). Fish
and wildlife at the top of the food chain can, therefore, have mercury
concentrations that are higher than the lower species, and they can
have concentrations of mercury that are higher than the concentration
found in the water body itself. In addition, when humans consume fish
containing methylmercury, the ingested methylmercury is almost
completely absorbed into the blood and distributed to all tissues
(including the brain); it also readily passes through the placenta to
the fetus and fetal brain.\314\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\313\ Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Final Industrial Boilers
and Process Heaters NESHAP: Final Report, February 2004.
\314\ Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Final Industrial Boilers
and Process Heaters NESHAP: Final Report, February 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the findings of the National Research Council, EPA has
concluded that benefits of Hg reductions would be most apparent at the
human consumption stage, as consumption of fish is the major source of
exposure to methylmercury. At lower levels, documented Hg exposure
effects may include more subtle, yet potentially important,
neurodevelopmental effects.
Some subpopulations in the U.S., such as: Native Americans,
Southeast Asian Americans, and lower income subsistence fishers, may
rely on fish as a primary source of nutrition and/or for cultural
practices. Therefore, they consume larger amounts of fish than the
general population and may be at a greater risk to the adverse health
effects from Hg due to increased exposure. In pregnant women,
methylmercury can be passed on to the developing fetus, and at
sufficient exposure may lead to a number of neurological disorders in
children. Thus, children who are exposed to low concentrations of
methylmercury prenatally may be at increased risk of poor performance
on neurobehavioral tests, such as those measuring attention, fine motor
function, language skills, visual-spatial abilities (like drawing), and
verbal memory. The effects from prenatal exposure can occur even at
doses that do not result in effects in the mother. Mercury may also
affect young children who consume fish containing mercury. Consumption
by children may lead to neurological disorders and developmental
problems, which may lead to later economic consequences.
In response to potential risks of mercury-containing fish
consumption, EPA and FDA have issued fish consumption advisories which
provide recommended limits on consumption of certain fish species for
different populations. EPA and FDA have developed a new joint advisory
that was released in March 2004. This new FDA-EPA fish advisory
recommends that women and young children reduce the risks of Hg
consumption in their diet by moderating their fish consumption,
diversifying the types of fish they consume, and by checking any local
advisories that may exist for local rivers and streams. This
collaborative FDA-EPA effort will greatly assist in
[[Page 21357]]
educating the most susceptible populations. Additionally, the
reductions of Hg from this regulation may potentially lead to fewer
fish consumption advisories (both from federal or state agencies),
which will benefit the fishing community. Currently 44 states have
issued fish consumption advisories for non-commercial fish for some or
all of their waters due to contamination of mercury. The scope of FCA
issued by states varies considerably, with some warnings applying to
all water bodies in a state and others applying only to individual
lakes and streams. Note that the absence of a state advisory does not
necessarily indicate that there is no risk of exposure to unsafe levels
of mercury in recreationally caught fish. Likewise, the presence of a
state advisory does not indicate that there is a risk of exposure to
unsafe levels of mercury in recreationally caught fish, unless people
consume these fish at levels greater than those recommended by the fish
advisory.
Reductions in methylmercury concentrations in fish should reduce
exposure, subsequently reducing the risks of mercury-related health
effects in the general population, to children, and to certain
subpopulations. Fish consumption advisories (FCA) issued by the States
may also help to reduce exposures to potential harmful levels of
methylmercury in fish. To the extent that reductions in mercury
emissions reduces the probability that a water body will have a FCA
issued, there are a number of benefits that will result from fewer
advisories, including increased fish consumption, increased fishing
choices for recreational fishers, increased producer and consumer
surplus for the commercial fish market, and increased welfare for
subsistence fishing populations.
There is a great deal of variability among individuals in fish
consumption rates; however, critical elements in estimating
methylmercury exposure and risk from fish consumption include the
species of fish consumed, the concentrations of methylmercury in the
fish, the quantity of fish consumed, and how frequently the fish is
consumed. The typical U.S. consumer eating a wide variety of fish from
restaurants and grocery stores is not in danger of consuming harmful
levels of methylmercury from fish and is not advised to limit fish
consumption. Those who regularly and frequently consume large amounts
of fish, either marine or freshwater, are more exposed. Because the
developing fetus may be the most sensitive to the effects from
methylmercury, women of child-bearing age are regarded as the
population of greatest interest. The EPA, Food and Drug Administration,
and many States have issued fish consumption advisories to inform this
population of protective consumption levels.
The EPA's 1997 Mercury Study RTC supports a plausible link between
anthropogenic releases of Hg from industrial and combustion sources in
the U.S. and methylmercury in fish. However, these fish methylmercury
concentrations also result from existing background concentrations of
Hg (which may consist of Hg from natural sources, as well as Hg which
has been re-emitted from the oceans or soils) and deposition from the
global reservoir (which includes Hg emitted by other countries). Given
the current scientific understanding of the environmental fate and
transport of this element, it is not possible to quantify how much of
the methylmercury in locally-caught fish consumed by the U.S.
population is contributed by U.S. emissions relative to other sources
of Hg (such as natural sources and re-emissions from the global pool).
As a result, the relationship between Hg emission reductions from Phase
I and Phase II sources assessed in this rule, and methylmercury
concentrations in fish cannot be calculated in a quantitative manner
with confidence. In addition, there is uncertainty regarding over what
time period these changes would occur.
Given the present understanding of the Hg cycle, the flux of Hg
from the atmosphere to land or water at one location is comprised of
contributions from: the natural global cycle; the cycle perturbed by
human activities; regional sources; and local sources. Recent advances
allow for a general understanding of the global Hg cycle and the impact
of the anthropogenic sources. It is more difficult to make accurate
generalizations of the fluxes on a regional or local scale due to the
site-specific nature of emission and deposition processes. Similarly,
it is difficult to quantify how the water deposition of Hg leads to an
increase in fish tissue levels. This will vary based on the specific
characteristics of the individual lake, stream, or ocean.
Total Chlorine--We were not able to quantify the benefits
associated with reductions in total chlorine emissions. Total chlorine
is a combination of hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas. The replacement
standards proposed today are expected to reduce total chlorine
emissions by 2,638 tons. Hydrogen chloride is corrosive to the eyes,
skin, and mucous membranes. Acute inhalation can cause eye, nose, and
respiratory tract irritation and inflamation, and pulmonary edema.
Chronic occupational inhalation has been reported to cause gastritis,
bronchitis, and dermatitis in workers. Long term exposure can also
cause dental discoloration and erosion. No information is available on
the reproductive or developmental effects in humans. Chlorine gas
inhalation can cause bronchitis, asthma and swelling of the lungs,
headaches, heart disease, and meningitis. Acute exposure causes more
severe respiratory and lung effects, and can result in fatalities in
extreme cases. No information is available on the reproductive or
developmental effects in humans. The proposed replacement standards are
expected to reduce chlorine exposure for people in close proximity to
hazardous waste combustion facilities, and are therefore likely to
reduce the risk of all associated health effects.
Ecological Benefits--We examined ecological benefits through a
comparison of the 1999 Assessment and the proposed replacement
standards. Ecological benefits in the 1999 Assessment were based on
reductions of approximately 100 tons per year in dioxin/furans and
selected metals. Lead was the only pollutant of concern for aquatic
ecosystems, while mercury appeared to be of greatest concern for
terrestrial ecosystems. Dioxin/furan and lead emission reductions also
provided some potential benefits for terrestrial ecosystems. The
proposed replacement standards are expected to reduce dioxin/furan and
selected metal emissions by about 15 to 20 percent of the 1999
estimate. The proposed replacement standards will produce fewer
incremental benefits than those estimated for the 1999 Assessment (and
later, for the 2002 Interim Standards). However, the 1999 Assessment
did not estimate the ecological benefits of MACT standards for
industrial boilers and industrial furnaces. These systems were excluded
from the universe in 1999 but are part of the universe addressed by the
proposed replacement standards. As a result, while the total ecological
benefits of the proposed rule are likely to be modest, areas near
facilities with boilers may enjoy more significant ecological benefits
under the proposed replacement standards than areas near facilities
that have already complied with the 2002 Interim standards.
Mercury, lead, and chlorides are among the HAPs that can cause
damage to the health and visual appearance of
[[Page 21358]]
plants.\315\ While the total value of forest health is difficult to
estimate, visible deterioration in the health of forests and plants can
cause a measurable change in recreation behavior. Several studies that
measure the change in outdoor recreation behavior according to forest
health are available to place a value on aesthetic degradation of
forests.\316\ Although these studies are available, additional research
is needed to fully understand the effects of these HAPs on the forest
ecosystem. Thus, these benefits are not quantified in this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\315\ Although the primary pollutants which are detrimental to
vegetation aesthetics and growth are tropospheric ozone, sulfur
dioxide, and hydrogen fluoride, three pollutants which are not
regulated in the MACT standards, some literature exists on the
relationship between metal deposition and vegetation health.
(Mercury Study Report to Congress Volume VI, 1997) (Several studies
are cited in this report.)
\316\ See, for example, Brown, T.C. et al. 1989, Scenic Beauty
and Recreation Value: Assessing the Relationship, In J. Vining, ed.,
Social Science and Natural Resources Recreation Management, Westview
Press, Boulder, Colorado; this work studies the relationship between
forest characteristics and the value of recreational participation.
Also see Peterson, D.G. et al. 1987, Improving Accuracy and Reducing
Cost of Environmental Benefit Assessments. Draft Report to the U.S.
EPA, by Energy and Resource Consultants, Boulder, Colorado; Walsh et
al. 1990, Estimating the public benefits of protecting forest
quality, Journal of Forest Management, 30:175-189., and Homes et al.
1992, Economic Valuation of Spruce-Fir Decline in the Southern
Appalachian Mountains: A comparison of Value Elicitation Methods.
Presented at the Forestry and the Environment: Economic Perspectives
Conference, March 9-11, 1992 Jasper, Alberta, Canada for estimates
of the WTP of visitors and residents to avoid forest damage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions that are sufficient to cause structural and aesthetic
damage to vegetation are likely to affect growth as well. Little
research has been done on the effects of compounds such as chlorine,
heavy metals (as air pollutants), and PM on agricultural
productivity.\317\ Even though the potential for visible damage and
production decline from metals and other pollutants suggests the
proposed replacement standards could increase agricultural
productivity, these changes cannot be quantified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\317\ MacKenzie, James J., and Mohamed T. El-Ashry, Air
Pollution's Toll on Forests and Crops (New Haven, Yale University
Press, 1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Waste Minimization Benefits
Facilities that burn hazardous waste and remain in operation
following implementation of the replacement standards are expected to
experience marginally increased costs as a result of the MACT
standards. This will result in an incentive to pass these increased
costs on to their customers in the form of higher combustion prices. In
the 1999 Assessment we conducted a waste minimization analysis to
inform the expected price change. The analysis concluded that the
demand for combustion is relatively inelastic. While a variety of waste
minimization alternatives are available for managing hazardous waste
streams that are currently combusted, the costs of these alternatives
generally exceed the cost of combustion. When the additional costs of
compliance with the MACT standards are taken into account, waste
minimization alternatives still tend to exceed the higher combustion
costs. This inelasticity suggests that, in the short term, large
reductions in waste quantities are not likely. However, over the longer
term (i.e., as production systems are updated), companies may continue
to seek alternatives to expensive waste-management (i.e., source
reduction). To the extent that increases in combustion prices provide
additional incentive to adopt more efficient processes, the proposed
replacement standards may contribute to the longer term process based
waste minimization efforts.
No waste minimization impacts are captured in our quantitative
analysis of costs and benefits. A quantitative assessment of the
benefits associated with waste minimization may result in double-
counting of some of the benefits described earlier. For example, waste
minimization may reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants and
therefore have a positive effect on public health. Furthermore,
emission reductions beyond those necessary for compliance with the
replacement standards are not addressed in the benefits assessment. In
addition, waste minimization is likely to result in specific types of
benefits not captured in this Assessment. For example, waste generators
that engage in waste minimization may experience a reduction in their
waste handling costs and could also reduce the risk related to waste
spills and waste management. Finally, waste minimization procedures
potentially stimulated by today's action, as proposed, may result in
additional costs to facilities that implement these technologies. These
have not been assessed in our analysis but are likely to at least
partially offset corresponding benefits.
4. Conclusion
Total non-discounted monetized benefits are estimated to range from
$$4.6 million/year to $10.3 million/year. It is important to emphasize
that monetized benefits represent only a portion of the total benefits
associated with this rule. A significant portion of the benefits are
not monetized. Specifically, ecological benefits, and human health
benefits associated with reductions in chlorine, mercury, and lead are
not quantified or monetized. In some locations these benefits may be
significant. In addition, specific sub-populations near combustion
facilities, including children and minority populations, may be
disproportionately affected by environmental risks and may therefore
enjoy more significant benefits. For a complete discussion of the
methodology, data, findings, and limitations associated with our
benefits analysis the reader is encouraged to review the Assessment and
Addendum documents, as identified under Part Five, Section I.
IX. How Does the Proposed Rule Meet the RCRA Protectiveness Mandate?
As discussed in more detail below, we believe today's proposed
standards, based on evaluating estimated emissions from sources, are
generally protective. We therefore propose that these standards apply
in lieu of RCRA air emission standards in most instances.
A. Background
Section 3004(a) of RCRA requires the Agency to promulgate standards
for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities as
necessary to protect human health and the environment. The standards
for hazardous waste incinerators generally rest on this authority. In
addition, section 3004(q) requires the Agency to promulgate standards
for emissions from facilities that burn hazardous waste fuels (e.g.,
cement and lightweight aggregate kilns, boilers, and hydrochloric acid
production furnaces) as necessary to protect human health and the
environment. Using RCRA authority, the Agency has historically
established emission (and other) standards for hazardous waste
combustors that are either entirely risk-based (e.g., site-specific
standards for metals under the Boiler and Industrial Furnace rule), or
are technology-based but determined by a generic risk assessment to be
protective (e.g., the DRE standard for incinerators and BIFs).
The MACT standards proposed today implement the technology-based
regime of CAA section 112. There is, however, a residual risk component
to air toxics standards. Section 112(f) of the Clean Air Act requires
the Agency to impose, within eight years after promulgation of the
technology-based standards promulgated under section 112(d) (i.e., the
authority for today's proposed standards), additional controls if
needed to protect public health with an ample
[[Page 21359]]
margin of safety or to prevent adverse environmental effect.
RCRA section 1006 directs that EPA ``integrate all provisions of
[RCRA]
for purposes of administration and enforcement and . . . avoid
duplication, to the maximum extent possible, with the appropriate
provisions of the Clean Air Act. . . .'' Thus, although considerations
of risk are not ordinarily part of the MACT process, in order to avoid
duplicative standards where possible, we have evaluated the
protectiveness of the standards proposed today.
As noted above, under RCRA, EPA must promulgate standards ``as may
be necessary to protect human health and the environment.'' RCRA
section 3004(a) and (q). Technology-based standards developed under CAA
section 112 do not automatically satisfy this requirement, but may do
so in fact. See 59 FR at 29776 (June 6, 1994) and 60 FR at 32593 (June
23, 1995) (RCRA regulation of secondary lead smelter emissions
unnecessary at this time given stringency of technology-based standard
and pendency of section 112(f) determination). If the MACT standards,
as a factual matter, are sufficiently protective to also satisfy the
RCRA mandate, then no independent RCRA standards are required.
Conversely, if MACT standards are inadequate, the RCRA authorities
would have to be used to fill the gap.
B. Assessment of Risks
The Agency has conducted an evaluation, for the purposes of
satisfying the RCRA statutory mandates, of the degree of protection
afforded by the MACT standards being proposed today. We have not
conducted a comprehensive risk assessment for this proposal; however, a
comprehensive risk assessment for incinerators, cement kilns, and
lightweight aggregate kilns was conducted for the 1999 MACT rule. For
this proposed rule, we are instead comparing characteristics of the
sources covered by the 1999 rule to the sources covered by the
replacement rule that are related to risk (e.g., emissions\318\, stack
characteristics, meteorology, and population). In the 1999 rule we
concluded that the promulgated standards were sufficiently protective
and the existing RCRA standards for incinerators, cement kilns, and
lightweight aggregate kilns need not be retained. Based on the results
of statistical comparisons, we infer whether risks for incinerators,
cement kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, boilers, and hydrochloric
acid production furnaces will be about the same, less than, or greater
than the risks estimated for the 1999 rule. We think the comparative
analysis lends additional support to our view regarding the
protectiveness of the proposed standards.\319\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\318\ We estimated emissions for each facility based on site-
specific stack gas concentrations and flow rates measured during
trial burn or compliance tests. For sources where stack gas
measurements were unavailable, data were imputed by random selection
from a pool of measurements for similar units. We assumed that
sources would design their systems to meet an emission level below
the proposed standard. (In the case of dioxin/furan for sources that
would not be subject to a numerical emission standard, we assumed
liquid boilers without dry air pollution control systems and solid
fuel-fired boilers were emitting at their baseline emissions level
as portrayed in the data base.) We called this the ``design level.''
If available test data in our data base indicate that the source was
emitting below the design level, we assumed that the source would
continue to emit at the levels measured in test. For sources
emitting above the design level of a standard, we assumed they would
need to reduce emissions to the design level. In the 1999 rule, the
design level was taken as 70% of the standard. For today's proposed
standards, the design level is generally the lower of: (1) 70% of
the standard; or (2) the arithmetic average of the emissions data of
the best performing sources.
\319\ See ``Inferential Risk Analysis in Support of Standards
for Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Hazardous Waste
Combustors,'' prepared under contract to EPA by Research Triangle
Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe today's proposed standards provide a substantial degree
of protection to human health and the environment. We therefore do not
believe that we need to retain the existing RCRA standards for boilers
and hydrochloric acid production furnaces (just as we found that
existing RCRA standards for incinerators, cement kilns, and lightweight
aggregate kilns were no longer needed after the 1999 rule). However, as
previously discussed in more detail in Part Two, Section XVII.D, site-
specific risk assessments may be warranted on an individual source
basis to ensure that the MACT standards provide adequate protection in
accordance with RCRA.
Part Five: Administrative Requirements
I. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)], the
Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) 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;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action''
because this action may raise novel legal or policy issues due to the
standards development methodology applied in development of the
proposed replacement standards. 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 rule are under $100
million (ranging from $41 to $50 million/yr). We have prepared an
economic assessment in support of today's action. This document is
entitled: Assessment of the Potential Costs, Benefits, and Other
Impacts of the Hazardous Waste Combustion MACT Replacement Standards--
Proposed Rule, March 2004. This Assessment is designed to adhere to
analytical requirements established under Executive Order 12866, and
corresponding Agency and OMB guidance; subject to data, analytical, and
resource limitations. An Addendum entitled: Addendum to the Assessment
of the Potential Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts of the Hazardous
Waste Combustion MACT Replacement Standards--Proposed Rule, March 2004,
has also been prepared. This Addendum addresses belated changes made to
the final proposed standards that were not captured in the Assessment.
The RCRA docket established for today's rulemaking maintains a copy of
the Assessment and Addendum documents for public review. Interested
persons are encouraged to read both documents for a full understanding
of the analytical methodology, findings, and limitations associated
with this report. Comments and supporting data are encouraged and welcomed.
II. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
[[Page 21360]]
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR)
document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 1773.07.
EPA is proposing today's regulations under section 112 of the CAA,
to protect and enhance the quality of our nation's air resources, and
to promote public health and welfare and the productive capacity of the
population. See CAA section 101(b)(1). To this end, CAA sections 112(a)
and (d) direct EPA to set standards for stationary sources emitting the
hazardous air pollutants. The records and reports required by the
information collection under this proposal will be used to show
compliance with the requirements of the rule. EPA believes that if
these minimum requirements specified under the regulations are not met,
EPA will not fulfill its Congressional mandate to protect public health
and the environment.
The information collection required under this ICR is mandatory for
the regulated sources as it is essential to properly enforce the
emission limitation requirements of the rule and will be used to
further the proper performance of the functions of EPA. EPA has made
extensive efforts to integrate the monitoring, compliance testing and
recordkeeping requirements of the CAA and RCRA, so that the burden on
the sources is kept to a minimum, and the facilities are able to avoid
duplicate and unnecessary submissions. We also ensure, to the fullest
extent of the law, the confidentiality of the submitted information.
The projected annual burden under today's proposal is estimated at
70,199 hours at a total cost of $5.1 millions. For the hour burden, we
estimate a total of 2,612 responses from 243 respondents, or an average
of 27 hours per response, or 289 hours per respondent. The cost burden
to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of
information includes a total capital and start-up cost component, a
total operation and maintenance component and a purchase of services
component. The capital and start-up cost component is estimated at
$36,184 annualized over its expected useful life, and the operation and
maintenance component is estimated at $488,947 annualized over its
expected useful life. The frequency of different responses varies and
is monthly or annually for some and on occasion for others.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This 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.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection
techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this rule, which
includes this ICR, under Docket ID number RCRA-2003-0016. Submit any
comments related to the ICR for this proposed rule to EPA and OMB. See
Addresses section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit
comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is
required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days
after April 20, 2004, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its
full effect if OMB receives it by May 20, 2004. The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.
III. Regulatory Flexibility Act
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. 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. This analysis must be completed unless the agency is
able to certify that the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
We have determined that hazardous waste combustion facilities are
not owned by small entities (local governments, tribes, etc.) other
than businesses. Therefore, only businesses were analyzed for small
entity impacts. For the purposes of the impact analyses, small entity
is defined either by the number of employees or by the dollar amount of
sales. The level at which a business is considered small is determined
for each North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code
by the Small Business Administration.
Affected individual waste combustors (incinerators, cement kilns,
lightweight aggregate kilns, solid and liquid fuel-fired boilers, and
hydrochloric acid production furnaces) will bear the impacts of today's
rule. These units will incur direct economic impacts as a result of
today's rule. Few of the hazardous waste combustion facilities affected
by this proposed rule were found to be owned by small businesses, as
defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA). From our universe
of 150 facilities, we identified six facilities that are currently
owned by small businesses. Three of these are liquid boilers, one is an
on-site incinerator, one is a cement kiln, and one is an LWAK.
Annualized economic impacts of the proposed replacement standards were
found to range from 0.01 percent to 2.23 percent of gross annual
corporate revenues. Economic impacts to five of the companies were
found to be less than one percent, while the sixth company was found to
experience potential impacts between one and 3 percent (2.23 percent).
These findings reflect worst-case cost estimates under the Agency
Preferred Approach. Actual economic impacts are likely to be less as
market adjustments take effect (see appendix H of the Assessment and
Assessment of Small Entity Impacts in the Addendum).
Based on the above findings we believe that one small company with
potential impacts between one and 3 percent of gross revenues does not
reflect a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
potentially affected small entities. Therefore, after considering the
economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify
that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The reader is encouraged to
review and comment on our regulatory flexibility screening analysis
prepared in support of this determination: Regulatory Flexibility
Screening Analysis for the Proposed Hazardous Waste Combustion MACT
Replacement Standards. This
[[Page 21361]]
document is incorporated as Appendix H of the Assessment document.
IV. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Signed into law on March 22, 1995, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) calls on all 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.
Today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202, 204 and 205 of UMRA. In general, a rule is subject to the
requirements of these sections if it contains ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in
any one year. Today's final rule does not result in $100 million or
more in expenditures. The aggregate annualized social cost for today's
rule is estimated to range from $41 to $50 million.
V. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is 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.''
Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that
has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation.
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in the Order. The proposed rule focuses on requirements
for facilities burning hazardous waste, without affecting the
relationships between Federal and State governments. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. Although section 6 of
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule, EPA did include
three State representatives on our Agency workgroup. These
representatives participated in the development of this proposed rule.
State officials were contacted concerning the methodology used in
standards development.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.
VI. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175 \320\: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments (59 FR 22951, November 9, 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.'' Our Agency workgroup for this
rulemaking includes Tribal representation. We have determined that this
rule, as proposed, does not have tribal implications, as specified in
the Order. No Tribal governments are known to own or operate hazardous
waste combustors subject to the requirements of this proposed rule.
Furthermore, this proposed rule focuses on requirements for all
regulated sources without affecting the relationships between tribal
governments in its implementation, and applies to all regulated
sources, without distinction of the surrounding populations affected.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA
specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from
tribal officials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\320\ Executive Order 13084 is revoked by this Executive Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR. 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health
or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. Today's
final rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not
economically significant as defined under point one of the Order, and
because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children.
VIII. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)). This rule, as
proposed will not seriously disrupt energy supply, distribution
patterns, prices, imports or exports. Furthermore, this rule is not an
economically significant action under Executive Order 12866.
IX. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rulemaking involves environmental monitoring or
measurement. Consistent with the Agency's Performance Based Measurement
System (``PBMS''), EPA proposes not to require the use of specific,
prescribed analytic methods. Rather, the Agency plans to allow the use
of any method that meets the prescribed performance criteria. The PBMS
approach is intended to be more flexible and cost-effective for the
regulated community; it is also intended to encourage innovation in
analytical technology and improved data quality. EPA is not precluding
the use of any method, whether it constitutes a
[[Page 21362]]
voluntary consensus standard or not, as long as it meets the
performance criteria specified.
EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such
standards should be used in this regulation.
X. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (February
11, 1994) requires us to complete an analysis of today's rule with
regard to equity considerations. The Order is designed to address the
environmental and human health conditions of minority and low-income
populations. This section briefly discusses potential impacts (direct
or disproportional) today's rule may have in the area of environmental
justice.
To comply with the Executive Order, we have assessed whether
today's rule may have negative or disproportionate effects on minority
or low-income populations. We have recently analyzed demographic data
from the U.S. Census. Previously we examined data from two other
reports: ``Race, Ethnicity, and Poverty Status of the Populations
Living Near Cement Plants in the United States'' (EPA, August 1994) and
``Race, Ethnicity, and Poverty Status of the Populations Living Near
Hazardous Waste Incinerators in the United States'' (EPA, October
1994). These reports examine the number of low-income and minority
individuals living near a relatively large sample of cement kilns and
hazardous waste incinerators and provide county, state, and national
population percentages for various sub-populations. The demographic
data in these reports provide several important findings when examined
in conjunction with the risk reductions projected from today's rule.
We find that combustion facilities, in general, are not located in
areas with disproportionately high minority and low-income populations.
However, there is evidence that hazardous waste burning cement kilns
are somewhat more likely to be located in areas that have relatively
higher low-income populations. Furthermore, there are a small number of
commercial hazardous waste incinerators located in highly urbanized
areas where there is a disproportionately high concentration of
minorities and low-income populations within one and five mile radii.
The reduced emissions at these facilities due to today's rule could
represent meaningful environmental and health improvements for these
populations. Overall, today's rule should not result in any adverse or
disproportional health or safety effects on minority or low-income
populations. Any impacts on these populations are likely to be positive
due to the reduction in emissions from combustion facilities near
minority and low-income population groups. The Assessment document
available in the RCRA docket established for today's rule presents the
full Environmental Justice Analysis.
XI. Congressional Review
The Congressional Review Act (CRA), 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. Prior to publication of the final rule in
the Federal Register, we will submit all necessary information to the
U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States. Under the CRA, a major rule cannot take
effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. As
proposed, this action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
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,
Confidential 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: March 31, 2004.
Michael O. Leavitt,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of
the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION 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 63.1200 is amended by revising the introductory text and
paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1200 Who is subject to these regulations?
The provisions of this subpart apply to all hazardous waste
combustors: incinerators that burn hazardous waste, cement kilns that
burn hazardous waste, lightweight aggregate kilns that burn hazardous
waste, solid fuel-fired boilers that burn hazardous waste, liquid fuel-
fired boilers that burn hazardous waste, and hydrochloric acid
production furnaces that burn hazardous waste. Hazardous waste
combustors are also subject to applicable requirements under parts 260-
270 of this chapter.
(a) * * *
(2) Both area sources and major sources subject to this subpart,
but not previously subject to title V, are immediately subject to the
requirement to apply for and obtain a title V permit in all States, and
in areas covered by part 71 of this chapter.
* * * * *
3. Section 63.1201 is amended in paragraph (a) by revising the
definition of ``New source'', and adding definitions for ``Hydrochloric
acid production furnace'', ``Liquid fuel-fired boiler'', and ``Solid
fuel-fired boiler'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1201 Definitions and acronyms used in this subpart.
(a) * * *
[[Page 21363]]
Hydrochloric acid production furnace and HCl production furnace
mean a halogen acid furnace defined in Sec. 260.10 of this chapter
that produces aqueous hydrochloric acid (HCl) product and that burns
hazardous waste at any time.
* * * * *
Liquid fuel-fired boiler and liquid boiler mean a boiler defined in
Sec. 260.10 of this chapter that does not burn solid fuels and that
burns hazardous waste at any time. Liquid fuel-fired boiler includes
boilers that only burn gaseous fuels.
* * * * *
New source means any affected source the construction or
reconstruction of which is commenced after the dates specified under
Sec. Sec. 63.1206(a)(1)(i)(B), (a)(1)(ii)(B), and (a)(2)(ii).
* * * * *
Solid fuel-fired boiler and solid boiler mean a boiler defined in
Sec. 260.10 of this chapter that burns a solid fuel and that burns
hazardous waste at any time.
* * * * *
4. Section 63.1206 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a).
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(ii), (b)(6) introductory text,
(b)(7)(i)(A), (b)(9)(i) introductory text, (b)(10)(i) introductory
text, (b)(11), (b)(13)(i) introductory text, and (b)(3)(ii).
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(i) introductory text and (c)(7)(ii)
introductory text.
d. Adding paragraphs (c)(7)(ii)(C) and (c)(7)(iii).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.1206 When and how must you comply with the standards and
operating requirements?
(a) Compliance dates. (1) Compliance dates for incinerators, cement
kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns that burn hazardous waste--(i)
Compliance date for standards under Sec. Sec. 63.1203, 63.1204, and
63.1205--(A) Compliance dates for existing sources. You must comply
with the emission standards under Sec. Sec. 63.1203, 63.1204, and
63.1205 and the other requirements of this subpart no later than the
compliance date, September 30, 2003, unless the Administrator grants
you an extension of time under Sec. 63.6(i) or Sec. 63.1213.
(B) New or reconstructed sources. (1) If you commenced construction
or reconstruction of your hazardous waste combustor after April 19,
1996, you must comply with the emission standards under Sec. Sec.
63.1203, 63.1204, and 63.1205 and the other requirements of this
subpart by the later of September 30, 1999 or the date the source
starts operations, except as provided by paragraph (a)(1)(i)(B)(2) of
this section. The costs of retrofitting and replacement of equipment
that is installed specifically to comply with this subpart, between
April 19, 1996 and a source's compliance date, are not considered to be
reconstruction costs.
(2) For a standard under Sec. Sec. 63.1203, 63.1204, and 63.1205
that is more stringent than the standard proposed on April 19, 1996,
you may achieve compliance no later than September 30, 2003 if you
comply with the standard proposed on April 19, 1996 after September 30,
1999. This exception does not apply, however, to new or reconstructed
area source hazardous waste combustors that become major sources after
September 30, 1999. As provided by Sec. 63.6(b)(7), such sources must
comply with the standards under Sec. Sec. 63.1203, 63.1204, and
63.1205 at startup.
(ii) Compliance date for standards under Sec. Sec. 63.1219,
63.1220, and 63.1221--(A) Compliance dates for existing sources. You
must comply with the emission standards under Sec. Sec. 63.1219,
63.1220, and 63.1221 and the other requirements of this subpart no
later than the compliance date, [date three years after date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], unless the
Administrator grants you an extension of time under Sec. 63.6(i) or
Sec. 63.1213.
(B) New or reconstructed sources. (1) If you commenced construction
or reconstruction of your hazardous waste combustor after April 20,
2004, you must comply with the emission standards under Sec. Sec.
63.1219, 63.1220, and 63.1221 and the other requirements of this
subpart by the later of [date of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register]
or the date the source starts operations, except as
provided by paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B)(2) of this section. The costs of
retrofitting and replacement of equipment that is installed
specifically to comply with this subpart, between April 20, 2004, and a
source's compliance date, are not considered to be reconstruction costs.
(2) For a standard under Sec. Sec. 63.1219, 63.1220, and 63.1221
that is more stringent than the standard proposed on April 20, 2004,
you may achieve compliance no later than [date three years after date
of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register]
if you comply
with the standard proposed on April 20, 2004, after [date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register]. This exception
does not apply, however, to new or reconstructed area source hazardous
waste combustors that become major sources after [date three years
after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register].
As provided by Sec. 63.6(b)(7), such sources must comply with the
standards under Sec. Sec. 63.1219, 63.1220, and 63.1221 at startup.
(2) Compliance dates for solid fuel-fired boilers, liquid fuel-
fired boilers, and hydrogen chloride production furnaces that burn
hazardous waste for standards under Sec. Sec. 63.1216, 63.1217, and
63.1218.--(i) Compliance date for existing sources. You must comply
with the standards of this subpart no later than the compliance date,
[date three years after date of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register], unless the Administrator grants you an extension of
time under Sec. 63.6(i) or Sec. 63.1213.
(ii) New or reconstructed sources. (A) If you commenced
construction or reconstruction of your hazardous waste combustor after
April 20, 2004, you must comply with this subpart by the later of [date
of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register]
or the date
the source starts operations, except as provided by paragraph
(a)(2)(ii)(B) of this section. The costs of retrofitting and
replacement of equipment that is installed specifically to comply with
this subpart, between April 20, 2004, and a source's compliance date,
are not considered to be reconstruction costs.
(B) For a standard in the subpart that is more stringent than the
standard proposed on April 20, 2004, you may achieve compliance no
later than [date three years after date of publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register]
if you comply with the standard proposed
on April 20, 2004, after [date of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register]. This exception does not apply, however, to new or
reconstructed area source hazardous waste combustors that become major
sources after [date three years after date of publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register]. As provided by Sec. 63.6(b)(7), such
sources must comply with this subpart at startup.
(3) Early compliance. If you choose to comply with the emission
standards of this subpart prior to the dates specified in paragraphs
(a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section, your compliance date is the earlier
of the date you postmark the Notification of Compliance under Sec.
63.1207(j)(1) or the dates specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of
this section.
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) When hazardous waste is not in the combustion chamber (i.e.,
the hazardous waste feed to the combustor has been cut off for a period
of time not less than the hazardous waste residence
[[Page 21364]]
time) and you have documented in the operating record that you are
complying with all otherwise applicable requirements and standards
promulgated under authority of sections 112 (e.g., subparts LLL, NNNNN,
DDDDD) or 129 of the Clean Air Act in lieu of the emission standards
under Sec. Sec. 63.1203, 63.1204, 63.1205, 63.1215, 63.1216, 63.1217,
63.1218, 63.1219, and 63.1220; the monitoring and compliance standards
of this section and Sec. Sec. 63.1207 through 63.1209, except the
modes of operation requirements of Sec. 63.1209(q); and the
notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements of Sec. Sec.
63.1210 through 63.1212.
* * * * *
(6) Compliance with the carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emission
standards. This paragraph applies to sources that elect to comply with
the carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions standards of this subpart
by documenting continuous compliance with the carbon monoxide standard
using a continuous emissions monitoring system and documenting
compliance with the hydrocarbon standard during the destruction and
removal efficiency (DRE) performance test or its equivalent.
* * * * *
(7) * * * (i) * * *
(A) You must document compliance with the Destruction and Removal
Efficiency (DRE) standard under this subpart only once provided that
you do not modify the source after the DRE test in a manner that could
affect the ability of the source to achieve the DRE standard.
* * * * *
(9) * * * (i) You may petition the Administrator to recommend
alternative semivolatile metal, low volatile metal, mercury, or
hydrogen chloride/chlorine gas emission standards under Sec. 63.1205
if:
* * * * *
(10) * * * (i) You may petition the Administrator to recommend
alternative semivolatile metal, low volatile metal, mercury, or
hydrogen chloride/chlorine gas emission standards under Sec. 63.1204
if:
* * * * *
(11) Calculation of hazardous waste residence time. You must
calculate the hazardous waste residence time and include the
calculation in the performance test plan under Sec. 63.1207(f) and the
operating record. You must also provide the hazardous waste residence
time in the Documentation of Compliance under Sec. 63.1211(d) and the
Notification of Compliance under Sec. Sec. 63.1207(j) and 63.1210(d).
* * * * *
(13) * * *
(i) Cement kilns that feed hazardous waste at a location other than
the end where products are normally discharged and where fuels are
normally fired must comply with the carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon
standards of this subpart as follows:
* * * * *
(ii) Lightweight aggregate kilns that feed hazardous waste at a
location other than the end where products are normally discharged and
where fuels are normally fired must comply with the hydrocarbon
standards of this subpart as follows:
(A) Existing sources must comply with the 20 parts per million by
volume hydrocarbon standard of this subpart;
(B) New sources must comply with the 20 parts per million by volume
hydrocarbon standard of this subpart.
* * * * *
(c) * * * (1) * * * (i) You must operate only under the operating
requirements specified in the Documentation of Compliance under Sec.
63.1211(d) or the Notification of Compliance under Sec. Sec.
63.1207(j) and 63.1210(d), except:
* * * * *
(7) * * *
(ii) Bag leak detection system requirements. If your combustor is
equipped with a baghouse (fabric filter), you must continuously operate
a bag leak detection system that meets the specifications and
requirements of paragraph (c)(7)(ii)(A) of this section and you must
comply with the corrective measures requirements of paragraph
(c)(7)(ii)(B) of this section.
* * * * *
(C) Excessive exceedances notification. If you operate the
combustor when the detector response exceeds the alarm set-point more
than 5 percent of the time during any 6-month block time period, you
must submit a notification to the Administrator within 5 days that
describes the causes of the exceedances and the revisions to the
design, operation, or maintenance of the combustor or baghouse you are
taking to minimize exceedances.
(iii) Particulate matter detection system requirements for
electrostatic precipitators and ionizing wet scrubbers. If your
combustor is equipped with an electrostatic precipitator or ionizing
wet scrubber, and you elect not to establish under Sec.
63.1209(m)(1)(iv) site-specific operating parameter limits that are
linked to the automatic waste feed cutoff system under paragraph (c)(3)
of this section, you must continuously operate a particulate matter
detection system that meets the specifications and requirements of
paragraph (c)(7)(iii)(A) of this section and you must comply with the
corrective measures requirements of paragraph (c)(7)(iii)(B) of this
section.
(A) Particulate matter detection system requirements.--(1) The
particulate matter detection system must be certified by the
manufacturer to be capable of continuously detecting and recording
particulate matter emissions at the loadings you expect to achieve
during the comprehensive performance test;
(2) The particulate matter detector shall provide output of
relative or absolute particulate matter loadings;
(3) The particulate matter detection system shall be equipped with
an alarm system that will sound an audible alarm when an increase in
relative or absolute particulate loadings is detected over the set-point
(4) You must install and operate the particulate matter detection
system in a manner consistent with available written guidance from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or, in the absence of such written
guidance, the manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations
for installation, operation, and adjustment of the system;
(5) You must establish the alarm set-point as the average detector
response of the test run averages achieved during the comprehensive
performance test demonstrating compliance with the particulate matter
emission standard. You must comply with the alarm set-point on a 6-hour
rolling average, updated each hour with a one-hour block average that
is the average of the detector responses over each 15-minute block.
(6) Where multiple detectors are required to monitor multiple
control devices, the system's instrumentation and alarm system may be
shared among the detectors.
(B) Particulate matter detection system corrective measures
requirements. The operating and maintenance plan required by paragraph
(c)(7)(i) of this section must include a corrective measures plan that
specifies the procedures you will follow in the case of a particulate
matter detection system alarm. The corrective measures plan must
include, at a minimum, the procedures used to determine and record the
time and cause of the alarm as well as the corrective measures taken to
correct the control device malfunction or minimize emissions as
[[Page 21365]]
specified below. Failure to initiate the corrective measures required
by this paragraph is failure to ensure compliance with the emission
standards in this subpart.
(1) You must initiate the procedures used to determine the cause of
the alarm within 30 minutes of the time the alarm first sounds; and
(2) You must alleviate the cause of the alarm by taking the
necessary corrective measure(s) which may include shutting down the
combustor.
(C) Excessive exceedances notification. If you operate the
combustor when the detector response exceeds the alarm set-point more
than 5 percent of the time during any 6-month block time period, you
must submit a notification to the Administrator within 5 days that
describes the causes of the exceedances and the revisions to the
design, operation, or maintenance of the combustor or electrostatic
precipitator or ionizing wet scrubber you are taking to minimize
exceedances.
5. Section 63.1207 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (b)(1).
b. Adding paragraph (b)(3).
c. Revising paragraph (c)(1).
d. Adding paragraph (c)(3).
e. Revising paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3)(iv).
f. Revising paragraphs (f)(1)(ii)(D ), (f)(1)(xiii), and
(f)(1)(xiv).
g. Adding paragraph (f)(1)(xv).
h. Revising paragraphs (j)(1)(ii) and (j)(3).
i. Revising paragraph (l)(1) introductory text.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.1207 What are the performance testing requirements?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Comprehensive performance test. You must conduct comprehensive
performance tests to demonstrate compliance with the emission standards
provided by the subpart, establish limits for the operating parameters
provided by Sec. 63.1209, and demonstrate compliance with the
performance specifications for continuous monitoring systems.
* * * * *
(3) One-Time Dioxin/Furan Test for Boilers Not Subject to a
Numerical Dioxin/Furan Standard. For boilers that are not subject to a
numerical dioxin/furan emission standard under Sec. Sec. 63.1216 and
63.1217--solid fuel-fired boilers, and those liquid fuel-fired boilers
that are not equipped with a dry particulate matter control device--you
must conduct a one-time emission test for dioxin/furan under feed and
operating conditions that are most likely to maximize dioxin/furan
emissions, similar to a dioxin/furan compliance test.
(i) You must conduct the dioxin/furan emissions test no later than
the deadline for conducting the initial comprehensive performance test.
(ii) You may use dioxin/furan emissions data from previous testing
to meet this requirement, provided that:
(A) The testing was conducted under feed and operating conditions
that are most likely to maximize dioxin/furan emissions, similar to a
dioxin/furan compliance test;
(B) You have not changed the design or operation of the boiler in a
manner that could significantly affect stack gas dioxin/furan emission
concentrations; and
(C) The data meet quality assurance objectives that may be
determined on a site-specific basis.
(iii) You may use dioxin/furan emissions data from a boiler to
represent emissions from another on-site boiler in lieu of testing
(i.e., data in lieu of testing) if the design and operation, including
fuels and hazardous waste feed, of the boilers are identical.
(iv) You must include the results of the one-time dioxin/furan
emissions test with the results of the initial comprehensive
performance test in the Notification of Compliance.
(v) You must repeat the dioxin/furan emissions test if you change
the design or operation of the source in a manner that may increase
dioxin/furan emissions.
(c) * * * (1) Test date. Except as provided by paragraphs (c)(2)
and (c)(3) of this section, you must commence the initial comprehensive
performance test not later than six months after the compliance date.
* * * * *
(3) For incinerators, cement kilns, and lightweight aggregate
kilns, you must commence the initial comprehensive performance test to
demonstrate compliance with the standards under Sec. Sec. 63.1219,
63.1220, and 63.1221 not later than 12 months after the compliance date.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) After the Administrator has approved the site-specific test
plan and CMS performance evaluation test plan, but no later than 60
calendar days before initiation of the test, you must make the test
plans available to the public for review. You must issue a public
notice to all persons on your facility/public mailing list (developed
pursuant to 40 CFR 70.7(h), 71.11(d)(3)(i)(E) and 124.10(c)(1)(ix))
announcing the approval of the test plans and the location where the
test plans are available for review. The test plans must be accessible
to the public for 60 calendar days, beginning on the date that you
issue your public notice. The location must be unrestricted and provide
access to the public during reasonable hours and provide a means for
the public to obtain copies. The notification must include the
following information at a minimum:
(i) The name and telephone number of the source's contact person;
(ii) The name and telephone number of the regulatory agency's
contact person;
(iii) The location where the approved test plans and any necessary
supporting documentation can be reviewed and copied;
(iv) The time period for which the test plans will be available for
public review; and
(v) An expected time period for commencement and completion of the
performance test and CMS performance evaluation test.
(3) * * *
(iv) Public notice. At the same time that you submit your petition
to the Administrator, you must notify the public (e.g., distribute a
notice to the facility/public mailing list developed pursuant to 40 CFR
70.7(h), 71.11(d)(3)(i)(E) and 124.10(c)(1)(ix)) of your petition to
waive a performance test. The notification must include all of the
following information at a minimum:
(A) The name and telephone number of the source's contact person;
(B) The name and telephone number of the regulatory agency's
contact person;
(C) The date the source submitted its site-specific performance
test plan and CMS performance evaluation test plans; and
(D) The length of time requested for the waiver.
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(D) The Administrator may approve on a case-by-case basis a
hazardous waste feedstream analysis for organic hazardous air
pollutants in lieu of the analysis required under paragraph
(f)(1)(ii)(A) of this section if the reduced analysis is sufficient to
ensure that the POHCs used to demonstrate compliance with the
applicable DRE standards of this subpart continue to be representative
of the organic hazardous air pollutants in your hazardous waste
feedstreams;
* * * * *
[[Page 21366]]
(xiii) For cement kilns with in-line raw mills, if you elect to use
the emissions averaging provision of this subpart, you must notify the
Administrator of your intent in the initial (and subsequent)
comprehensive performance test plan, and provide the information
required by the emission averaging provision;
(xiv) For preheater or preheater/precalciner cement kilns with dual
stacks, if you elect to use the emissions averaging provision of this
subpart, you must notify the Administrator of your intent in the
initial (and subsequent) comprehensive performance test plan, and
provide the information required by the emission averaging provision;
(xv) If you request to use Method 23 for dioxin/furan you must
provide the information required under Sec. 63.1208(b)(1)(i)(B);
* * * * *
(j) * * * (1) * * *
(ii) Upon postmark of the Notification of Compliance, you must
comply with all operating requirements specified in the Notification of
Compliance in lieu of the limits specified in the Documentation of
Compliance required under Sec. 63.1211(d).
* * * * *
(3) See Sec. Sec. 63.7(g), 63.9(h), and 63.1210(d) for additional
requirements pertaining to the Notification of Compliance (e.g., you
must include results of performance tests in the Notification of
Compliance).
* * * * *
(l) Failure of performance test--(1) Comprehensive performance
test. The provisions of this paragraph do not apply to the initial
comprehensive performance test if you conduct the test prior to your
compliance date.
* * * * *
6. Section 63.1208 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and
(b)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1208 What are the test methods?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * * (i) To determine compliance with the emission standard
for dioxins and furans, you must use:
(A) Method 0023A, Sampling Method for Polychlorinated Dibenzp-p-
Dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans emissions from Stationary
Sources, EPA Publication SW-846, as incorporated by reference in
paragraph (a) of this section; or
(B) Method 23, provided in appendix A, part 60 of this chapter,
except that for coal-fired boilers, sources equipped with an activated
carbon injection system, and other sources that the Administrator
determines may emit carbonaceous particulate matter that may bias
Method 23 results, you may use Method 23 only upon the Administrator's
approval. In determining whether to grant approval to use Method 23,
the Administrator may consider factors including whether dioxin/furan
are detected at levels substantially below the emission standard, and
whether previous Method 0023 analyses detected low levels of dioxin/
furan in the front half.
* * * * *
(5) Hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas--(i) Compliance with MACT
standards. To determine compliance with the emission standard for
hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas (combined), you must use:
(A) Method 26/26A as provided in appendix A, part 60 of this
chapter; or
(B) Methods 320 or 321 as provided in appendix A, part 60 of this
chapter, or ASTM D 6735-01, Test Method for Measurement of Gaseous
Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources--
Impinger Method to measure emissions of hydrogen chloride, and Method
26/26A to measure emissions of chlorine gas.
(ii) Compliance with risk-based limits under Sec. 63.1215. To
demonstrate compliance with emission limits established under Sec.
63.1215, you must use Methods 26/26A, 320,or 321, or ASTM D 6735-01,
Test Method for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from
Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources--Impinger Method, except:
(A) For cement kilns and sources equipped with a dry acid gas
scrubber, you must use Methods 320 or 321, or ASTM D 6735-01 to measure
hydrogen chloride, and the back-half, caustic impingers of Method 26/
26A to measure chlorine gas; and
(B) For incinerators, boilers, and lightweight aggregate kilns, you
must use Methods 320 or 321, or ASTM D 6735-01 to measure hydrogen
chloride, and Method 26/26A to measure total chlorine, and calculate
chlorine gas by difference if:
(1) The bromine/chlorine ratio in feedstreams is greater than 5
percent; or
(2) The sulfur/chlorine ratio in feedstreams is greater than 50 percent.
* * * * *
7. Section 63.1209 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)(A), (a)(1)(iv)(D), and
(a)(1)(v)(D).
b. Revising paragraph (f)(1).
c. Revising the heading of paragraph (g)(1) introductory text and
paragraph (g)(1)(i).
d. Revising paragraphs (k)(1)(i) and (k)(2)(i).
e. Revising paragraph (l)(1).
f. Revising paragraph (m)(1)(iv) introductory text.
g. Revising paragraph (n)(2).
h. Revising paragraph (o)(1).
i. Revising paragraph (q)(1)(ii).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.1209 What are the monitoring requirements?
(a) * * * (1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) You must maintain and operate each COMS in accordance with the
requirements of Sec. 63.8(c) except for the requirements under Sec.
63.8(c)(3). The requirements of Sec. 63.1211(d) shall be complied with
instead of Sec. 63.8(c)(3); and
* * * * *
(iv) * * *
(D) To remain in compliance, all six-minute block averages must not
exceed the opacity standard.
(v) * * *
(D) To remain in compliance, all six-minute block averages must not
exceed the opacity standard.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) Section 63.8(c)(3). The requirements of Sec. 63.1211(d), that
requires CMSs to be installed, calibrated, and operational on the
compliance date, shall be complied with instead of Sec. 63.8(c)(3).
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) Requests to use alternatives to operating parameter monitoring
requirements. (i) You may submit an application to the Administrator or
State with an approved Title V program under this paragraph for
approval of alternative operating parameter monitoring requirements to
document compliance with the emission standards of this subpart. For
requests to use additional CEMS, however, you must use paragraph (a)(5)
of this section and Sec. 63.8(f).
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(1) * * * (i) For sources other than a lightweight aggregate kiln,
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.
* * * * *
(2) * * * (i) For sources other than cement kilns, you must measure the
[[Page 21367]]
temperature of each combustion chamber at a location that best
represents, as practicable, the bulk gas temperature in the combustion
zone. You must document the temperature measurement location in the
test plan you submit under Sec. Sec. 63.1207(e) and (f);
* * * * *
(l) * * *
(1) Feedrate of mercury. (i) For incinerators, cement kilns, and
lightweight aggregate kilns, when complying with the mercury emission
standards under Sec. Sec. 63.1203, 63.1204, and 63.1205, and for solid
fuel-fired boilers, you must establish a 12-hour rolling average limit
for the total feedrate of mercury in all feedstreams as the average of
the test run averages.
(ii) For incinerators, cement kilns, and lightweight aggregate
kilns, when complying with the mercury emission standards under
Sec. Sec. 63.1219, 63.1220, and 63.1221, you must establish an annual
rolling average limit for the total feedrate of mercury in all
feedstreams as follows:
(A) You must calculate a mercury system removal efficiency for each
test run as [1--mercury emission rate (g/s) / mercury feedrate (g/s)],
and calculate the average system removal efficiency of the test run
averages, except if your source is not equipped with a control system
that consistently and reproducibly controls mercury emissions, you must
assume zero system removal efficiency. If emissions exceed the mercury
emission standard, it is not a violation because compliance with these
mercury emission standards, which are derived from normal emissions
data, is based on compliance with the mercury feedrate limit on an
annual rolling average.
(B) You must calculate the annual average mercury feedrate limit as
the mercury emission standard ([mu]g/m \3\) divided by the system
removal efficiency. The feedrate limit is expressed as an emission
concentration, [mu]g mercury/m \3\ of stack gas.
(C) You must comply with the emission concentration-based annual
average mercury feedrate limit by measuring the mercury feedrate (g/s)
and the stack gas flowrate (m \3\/s) at least once a minute to
calculate a 60-minute average emission concentration-based feedrate as
[mercury feedrate (g/s) / gas flowrate (m \3\/s)].
(D) You must calculate an annual rolling average mercury feedrate
that is updated each hour.
(iii) For liquid fuel-fired boilers, you must establish an annual
rolling average hazardous waste mercury thermal concentration limit, as
follows:
(A) You must calculate a mercury system removal efficiency for each
test run as [1--mercury emission rate (g/s) / mercury feedrate (g/s)],
and calculate the average system removal efficiency of the test run
averages, except if your source is not equipped with a control system
that consistently and reproducibly controls mercury emissions, you must
assume zero system removal efficiency. If emissions exceed the mercury
emission standard, it is not a violation because compliance with the
mercury emission standard, which is derived from normal emissions data,
is based on compliance with the hazardous waste mercury thermal
concentration limit on an annual rolling average.
(B) You must calculate the annual average hazardous waste mercury
thermal concentration limit as the mercury emission standard (lb/MM
Btu) divided by the system removal efficiency. The hazardous waste
thermal concentration limit is expressed as: lb mercury in hazardous
waste feedstreams per million Btu of hazardous waste.
(C) You must comply with the annual average hazardous waste mercury
thermal concentration limit by measuring the feedrate of mercury in all
hazardous waste feedstreams (lb/s) and the hazardous waste thermal
feedrate (MM Btu/s) at least once a minute to calculate a 60-minute
average thermal emission concentration as [hazardous waste mercury
feedrate (g/s) / hazardous waste thermal feedrate (MM Btu/s)].
(D) You must calculate an annual rolling average hazardous waste
mercury thermal concentration that is updated each hour.
(iv) Extrapolation of feedrate levels. (A) In lieu of establishing
mercury feedrate limits as specified in paragraphs (l)(1)(i) through
(iii) of this section, you may request as part of the performance test
plan under Sec. Sec. 63.6(b) and (c) and Sec. Sec. 63.1207 (e) and
(f) to use the mercury feedrates and associated emission rates during
the comprehensive performance test to extrapolate to higher allowable
feedrate limits and emission rates. The extrapolation methodology will
be reviewed and approved, as warranted, by the Administrator. The
review will consider in particular whether:
(1) Performance test metal feedrates are appropriate (i.e., whether
feedrates are at least at normal levels; depending on the heterogeneity
of the waste, whether some level of spiking would be appropriate; and
whether the physical form and species of spiked material is
appropriate); and
(2) Whether the extrapolated feedrates you request are warranted
considering historical metal feedrate data.
(B) The Administrator will review the performance test results in
making a finding of compliance required by Sec. Sec. 63.6(f)(3) and
63.1206(b)(3) to ensure that you have interpreted the performance test
results properly and the extrapolation procedure is appropriate for
your source.
* * * * *
(m) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) Other particulate matter control devices. For each particulate
matter control device that is not a fabric filter or high energy wet
scrubber, or is not an electrostatic precipitator or ionizing wet
scrubber for which you elect to monitor particulate matter loadings
under Sec. 63.1206(c)(7)(iii) of this chapter for process control, you
must ensure that the control device is properly operated and maintained
as required by Sec. 63.1206(c)(7) and by monitoring the operation of
the control device as follows:
* * * * *
(n) * * *
(2) Maximum feedrate of semivolatile and low volatile metals--(i)
General. You must establish feedrate limits for semivolatile metals
(cadmium and lead) and low volatile metals (arsenic, beryllium, and
chromium) as follows, except as provided by paragraph (n)(2)(vii) of
this section.
(ii) For incinerators, cement kilns, and lightweight aggregate
kilns, when complying with the emission standards under Sec. Sec.
63.1203, 63.1204, 63.1205, and 63.1219 and for solid fuel-fired
boilers, you must establish 12-hour rolling average limits for the
total feedrate of semivolatile and low volatile metals in all
feedstreams as the average of the test run averages and as specified in
paragraph (n)(2)(iv) of this section.
(iii) For cement kilns, when complying with the emission standards
under Sec. 63.1220, you must establish 12-hour rolling average
feedrate limits for semivolatile and low volatile metals as the thermal
concentration of semivolatile metals or low volatile metals in all
hazardous waste feedstreams. You must calculate hazardous waste thermal
concentrations for semivolatile metals and low volatile metals for each
run as the total mass feedrate of semivolatile metals or low volatile
metals for all hazardous waste feedstreams divided by the total heat
input rate for all hazardous waste feedstreams. The 12-hour rolling
average feedrate limits for semivolatile metals and low volatile metals
are the
[[Page 21368]]
average of the hazardous waste thermal concentrations for the runs.
(iv) Lightweight aggregate kilns under Sec. 63.1221--(A) Existing
sources. When complying with the emission standards under Sec.
63.1221, you must establish semivolatile metal and low volatile metal
feedrate limits as 12-hour rolling average feedrate limits and 12-hour
rolling average hazardous waste thermal concentrations as specified in
paragraphs (n)(2)(ii) and (iii). You must comply with both feedrate
limits for semivolatile metals and low volatile metals.
(B) New sources. When complying with the emission standards under
Sec. 63.1221, you must establish semivolatile metal and low volatile
metal feedrate limits as 12-hour rolling average hazardous waste
thermal concentrations as specified in paragraphs (n)(2)(ii) and (iii).
(v) Liquid fuel-fired boilers. (A) For semivolatile metals, you
must establish an annual rolling average hazardous waste thermal
concentration limit, as follows:
(1) You must calculate a semivolatile metals system removal
efficiency for each test run as [1--semivolatile metals emission rate
(g/s) / semivolatile metals feedrate (g/s)], and calculate the average
system removal efficiency of the test run averages, except if your
source is not equipped with a control system that consistently and
reproducibly controls semivolatile metals emissions, you must assume
zero system removal efficiency. If emissions exceed the semivolatile
metals emission standard, it is not a violation because compliance with
the semivolatile metals emission standard, which is derived from normal
emissions data, is based on compliance with the semivolatile metals
hazardous waste thermal concentration limit on an annual rolling average.
(2) You must calculate the annual average hazardous waste
semivolatile metals thermal concentration limit as the semivolatile
metals emission standard (lb/MM Btu) divided by the system removal
efficiency. The hazardous waste thermal concentration limit is
expressed as: pounds semivolatile metals in hazardous waste feedstreams
per million Btu of hazardous waste.
(3) You must comply with the annual average hazardous waste
semivolatile metals thermal concentration limit by measuring the
feedrate of semivolatile metals in all hazardous waste feedstreams (lb/
s) and the hazardous waste thermal feedrate (MM Btu/s) at least once a
minute to calculate a 60-minute average thermal emission concentration
as [hazardous waste semivolatile metals feedrate (g/s) / hazardous
waste thermal feedrate (MM Btu/s)].
(4) You must calculate an annual rolling average hazardous waste
semivolatile metals thermal concentration that is updated each hour.
(B) For low volatile metals, you must establish 12-hour rolling
average feedrate limits for chromium as the thermal concentration of
chromium in all hazardous waste feedstreams. You must calculate a
hazardous waste thermal concentration for chromium for each run as the
total mass feedrate of chromium for all hazardous waste feedstreams
divided by the total heat input rate for all hazardous waste
feedstreams. The 12-hour rolling average feedrate limit for chromium is
the average of the hazardous waste thermal concentrations for the runs.
(vi) LVM limits for pumpable wastes. You must establish separate
feedrate limits for low volatile metals in pumpable feedstreams using
the procedures prescribed above for total low volatile metals. Dual
feedrate limits for both pumpable and total feedstreams are not
required, however, if you base the total feedrate limit solely on the
feedrate of pumpable feedstreams.
(vii) Extrapolation of feedrate levels. In lieu of establishing
feedrate limits as specified in paragraphs (l)(1)(i) through (iii) of
this section, you may request as part of the performance test plan
under Sec. Sec. 63.6(b) and (c) and 63.1207(e) and (f) to use the
semivolatile metal and low volatile metal feedrates and associated
emission rates during the comprehensive performance test to extrapolate
to higher allowable feedrate limits and emission rates. The
extrapolation methodology will be reviewed and approved, as warranted,
by the Administrator. The review will consider in particular whether:
(A) Performance test metal feedrates are appropriate (i.e., whether
feedrates are at least at normal levels; depending on the heterogeneity
of the waste, whether some level of spiking would be appropriate; and
whether the physical form and species of spiked material is
appropriate);
(B) Whether the extrapolated feedrates you request are warranted
considering historical metal feedrate data; and
(C) Whether you have interpreted the performance test results
properly and the extrapolation procedure is appropriate for your source.
* * * * *
(o) * * *
(1) Feedrate of total chlorine and chloride--(i) Incinerators,
cement kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, solid fuel-fired boilers,
and hydrochloric acid production furnaces. You must establish 12-hour
rolling average limit for the total feedrate of chlorine (organic and
inorganic) in all feedstreams as the average of the test run averages.
(ii) Liquid fuel-fired boilers. You must establish a 12-hour
rolling average limit for the feedrate of chlorine (organic and
inorganic) as the thermal concentration of chlorine in all hazardous
waste feedstreams. You must calculate a hazardous waste thermal
concentration for chlorine for each run as the total mass feedrate of
chlorine for all hazardous waste feedstreams divided by the total heat
input rate for all hazardous waste feedstreams. The 12-hour rolling
average feedrate limit chlorine is the average of the hazardous waste
thermal concentrations for the runs.
* * * * *
(q) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) You must specify (e.g., by reference) the otherwise applicable
requirements as a mode of operation in your Documentation of Compliance
under Sec. 63.1211(d), your Notification of Compliance under Sec.
63.1207(j), and your title V permit application. These requirements
include the otherwise applicable requirements governing emission
standards, monitoring and compliance, and notification, reporting, and
recordkeeping.
* * * * *
8. Section 63.1210 is amended by:
a. Revising the table in paragraph (a)(1) and the table in
paragraph (a)(2).
b. Redesignating paragraph (b) as (d).
c. Adding new paragraph (b).
d. Adding new paragraph (c).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.1210 What are the notification requirements?
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference Notification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.9(b)........................... Initial notifications that you are
subject to subpart EEE of this
part.
63.9(d)........................... Notification that you are subject to
special compliance requirements.
[[Page 21369]]
63.9(j)........................... Notification and documentation of
any change in information already
provided under Sec. 63.9.
63.1206(b)(5)(i).................. Notification of changes in design,
operation, or maintenance.
63.1206(c)(7)(ii)(C).............. Notification of excessive bag leak
detection system exceedances.
63.1207(e), 63.9(e), 63.9(g)(1) Notification of performance test and
and (3). continuous monitoring system
evaluation, including the
performance test plan and CMS
performance evaluation plan.\1\
63.1210(d), 63.1207(j), Notification of compliance,
63.1207(k), 63.1207(l), 63.9(h), including results of performance
63.10(d)(2), 63.10(e)(2). tests and continuous monitoring
system performance evaluations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ You may also be required on a case-by-case basis to submit a
feedstream analysis plan under Sec. 63.1209(c)(3).
(2) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification, request, petition, or
Reference application
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.9(i)........................... You may request an adjustment to
time periods or postmark deadlines
for submittal and review of
required information.
63.10(e)(3)(ii)................... You may request to reduce the
frequency of excess emissions and
CMS performance reports.
63.10(f).......................... You may request to waive
recordkeeping or reporting
requirements.
63.1204(d)(2)(iii), Notification that you elect to
63.1220(d)(2)(iii). comply with the emission averaging
requirements for cement kilns with
in-line raw mills.
63.1204(e)(2)(iii), Notification that you elect to
63.1220(e)(2)(iii). comply with the emission averaging
requirements for preheater or
preheater/precalciner kilns with
dual stacks.
63.1206(b)(4), 63.1213, 63.6(i), You may request an extension of the
63.9(c). compliance date for up to one year.
63.1206(b)(5)(i)(C)............... You may request to burn hazardous
waste for more than 720 hours and
for purposes other than testing or
pretesting after a making a change
in the design or operation that
could affect compliance with
emission standards and prior to
submitting a revised Notification
of Compliance.
63.1206(b)(8)(iii)(B)............. If you elect to conduct particulate
matter CEMS correlation testing and
wish to have federal particulate
matter and opacity standards and
associated operating limits waived
during the testing, you must notify
the Administrator by submitting the
correlation test plan for review
and approval.
63.1206(b)(8)(v).................. You may request approval to have the
particulate matter and opacity
standards and associated operating
limits and conditions waived for
more than 96 hours for a
correlation test.
63.1206(b)(9)..................... Owners and operators of lightweight
aggregate kilns may request
approval of alternative emission
standards for mercury, semivolatile
metal, low volatile metal, and
hydrochloric acid/chlorine gas
under certain conditions.
63.1206(b)(10).................... Owners and operators of cement kilns
may request approval of alternative
emission standards for mercury,
semivolatile metal, low volatile
metal, and hydrochloric acid/
chlorine gas under certain
conditions.
63.1206(b)(14).................... Owners and operators of incinerators
may elect to comply with an
alternative to the particulate
matter standard.
63.1206(b)(15).................... Owners and operators of cement and
lightweight aggregate kilns may
request to comply with the
alternative to the interim
standards for mercury.
63.1206(c)(2)(ii)(C).............. You may request to make changes to
the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan.
63.1206(c)(5)(i)(C)............... You may request an alternative means
of control to provide control of
combustion system leaks.
63.1206(c)(5)(i)(D)............... You may request other techniques to
prevent fugitive emissions without
use of instantaneous pressure
limits.
63.1207(c)(2)..................... You may request to base initial
compliance on data in lieu of a
comprehensive performance test.
63.1207(d)(3)..................... You may request more than 60 days to
complete a performance test if
additional time is needed for
reasons beyond your control.
63.1207(e)(3), 63.7(h)............ You may request a time extension if
the Administrator fails to approve
or deny your test plan.
63.1207(h)(2)..................... You may request to waive current
operating parameter limits during
pretesting for more than 720 hours.
63.1207(f)(1)(ii)(D).............. You may request a reduced hazardous
waste feedstream analysis for
organic hazardous air pollutants if
the reduced analysis continues to
be representative of organic
hazardous air pollutants in your
hazardous waste feedstreams.
63.1207(g)(2)(v).................. You may request to operate under a
wider operating range for a
parameter during confirmatory
performance testing.
63.1207(i)........................ You may request up to a one-year
time extension for conducting a
performance test (other than the
initial comprehensive performance
test) to consolidate testing with
other state or federally-required
testing.
63.1207(j)(4)..................... You may request more than 90 days to
submit a Notification of Compliance
after completing a performance test
if additional time is needed for
reasons beyond your control.
63.1207(l)(3)..................... After failure of a performance test,
you may request to burn hazardous
waste for more than 720 hours and
for purposes other than testing or
pretesting.
63.1209(a)(5), 63.8(f)............ You may request: (1) Approval of
alternative monitoring methods for
compliance with standards that are
monitored with a CEMS; and (2)
approval to use a CEMS in lieu of
operating parameter limits.
63.1209(g)(1)..................... You may request approval of: (1)
Alternatives to operating parameter
monitoring requirements, except for
standards that you must monitor
with a continuous emission
monitoring system (CEMS) and except
for requests to use a CEMS in lieu
of operating parameter limits; or
(2) a waiver of an operating
parameter limit.
63.1209(l)(1)..................... You may request to extrapolate
mercury feedrate limits.
63.1209(n)(2)..................... You may request to extrapolate
semivolatile and low volatile metal
feedrate limits.
63.1211(e)........................ You may request to use data
compression techniques to record
data on a less frequent basis than
required by Sec. 63.1209.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 21370]]
(b) Notification of intent to comply (NIC). (1) You must prepare a
Notification of Intent to Comply that includes all of the following
information:
(i) General information:
(A) The name and address of the owner/operator and the source;
(B) Whether the source is a major or an area source;
(C) Waste minimization and emission control technique(s) being
considered;
(D) Emission monitoring technique(s) you are considering;
(E) Waste minimization and emission control technique(s)
effectiveness;
(F) A description of the evaluation criteria used or to be used to
select waste minimization and/or emission control technique(s); and
(G) A general description of how you intend to comply with the
emission standards of this subpart.
(ii) As applicable to each source, information on key activities
and estimated dates for these activities that will bring the source
into compliance with emission control requirements of this subpart. You
must include all of the following key activities and dates in your NIC:
(A) The dates by which you will develop engineering designs for
emission control systems or process changes for emissions;
(B) The date by which you will commit internal or external
resources for installing emission control systems or making process
changes for emission control, or the date by which you will issue
orders for the purchase of component parts to accomplish emission
control or process changes.
(C) The date by which you will submit construction applications;
(D) The date by which you will initiate on-site construction,
installation of emission control equipment, or process change;
(E) The date by which you will complete on-site construction,
installation of emission control equipment, or process change; and
(F) The date by which you will achieve final compliance. The
individual dates and milestones listed in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(A)
through (F) of this section as part of the NIC are not requirements and
therefore are not enforceable deadlines; the requirements of paragraphs
(b)(1)(ii)(A) through (F) of this section must be included as part of
the NIC only to inform the public of your how you intend to comply with
the emission standards of this subpart.
(iii) A summary of the public meeting required under paragraph (c)
of this section;
(iv) If you intend to cease burning hazardous waste prior to or on
the compliance date, you must include in your NIC a schedule of key
dates for the steps to be taken to stop hazardous waste activity at
your combustion unit. Key dates include the date for submittal of RCRA
closure documents required under subpart G, part 264 of this chapter.
(2) You must make a draft of the NIC available for public review no
later than 30 days prior to the public meeting required under paragraph
(c)(1) of this section.
(3) You must submit the final NIC to the Administrator no later
than one year following the effective date of the emission standards of
this subpart.
(c) NIC public meeting and notice. (1) Prior to the submission of
the NIC to the permitting agency, and no later than 10 months after the
effective date of the emission standards of this subpart, you must hold
at least one informal meeting with the public to discuss anticipated
activities described in the draft NIC for achieving compliance with the
emission standards of this subpart. You must post a sign-in sheet or
otherwise provide a voluntary opportunity for attendees to provide
their names and addresses;
(2) You must submit a summary of the meeting, along with the list
of attendees and their addresses developed under paragraph (b)(1) of
this section, and copies of any written comments or materials submitted
at the meeting, to the Administrator as part of the final NIC, in
accordance with paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section;
(3) You must provide public notice of the NIC meeting at least 30
days prior to the meeting. You must provide public notice in all of the
following forms:
(i) Newspaper advertisement. You must publish a notice in a
newspaper of general circulation in the county or equivalent
jurisdiction of your facility. In addition, you must publish the notice
in newspapers of general circulation in adjacent counties or equivalent
jurisdiction where such publication would be necessary to inform the
affected public. You must publish the notice as a display
advertisement.
(ii) Visible and accessible sign. You must post a notice on a
clearly marked sign at or near the source. If you place the sign on the
site of the hazardous waste combustor, the sign must be large enough to
be readable from the nearest spot where the public would pass by the
site.
(iii) Broadcast media announcement. You must broadcast a notice at
least once on at least one local radio station or television station.
(iv) Notice to the facility mailing list. You must provide a copy
of the notice to the facility mailing list in accordance with Sec.
124.10(c)(1)(ix) of this chapter.
(4) You must include all of the following in the notices required
under paragraph (c)(3) of this section:
(i) The date, time, and location of the meeting;
(ii) A brief description of the purpose of the meeting;
(iii) A brief description of the source and proposed operations,
including the address or a map (e.g., a sketched or copied street map)
of the source location;
(iv) A statement encouraging people to contact the source at least
72 hours before the meeting if they need special access to participate
in the meeting;
(v) A statement describing how the draft NIC (and final NIC, if
requested) can be obtained; and
(vi) The name, address, and telephone number of a contact person
for the NIC.
9. Section 63.1211 is amended by:
a. Revising the table in paragraph (b).
b. Redesignating paragraphs (c) and (d) as (d) and (e).
c. Adding new paragraph (c).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.1211 What are the recordkeeping and reporting requirements?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference Document, data, or information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1200, 53.10 (b) and (c)........ General. Information required to
document and maintain compliance
with the regulations of subpart
EEE, including data recorded by
continuous monitoring systems
(CMS), and copies of all
notifications, reports, plans, and
other documents submitted to the
Administrator.
63.1204(d)(1)(ii), Documentation of mode of operation
63.1220(d)(1)(ii). changes for cement kilns with in-
line raw mills.
63.1204(d)(2)(ii), Documentation of compliance with the
63.1220(d)(2)(ii). emission averaging requirements for
cement kilns with in-line raw
mills.
63.1204(e)(2)(ii), Documentation of compliance with the
63.1220(e)(2)(ii). emission averaging requirements for
preheater or preheater/precalciner
kilns with dual stacks.
[[Page 21371]]
63.1206(b)(1)(ii)................. If you elect to comply with all
applicable requirements and
standards promulgated under
authority of the Clean Air Act,
including sections 112 and 129, in
lieu of the requirements of subpart
EEE when not burning hazardous
waste, you must document in the
operating record that you are in
compliance with those requirements.
63.1206(b)(5)(ii)................. Documentation that a change will not
adversely affect compliance with
the emission standards or operating
requirements.
63.1206(b)(11).................... Calculation of hazardous waste
residence time.
63.1206(c)(2)..................... Startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan.
63.1206(c)(2)(v)(A)............... Documentation of your investigation
and evaluation of excessive
exceedances during malfunctions.
63.1206(c)(3)(v).................. Corrective measures for any
automatic waste feed cutoff that
results in an exceedance of an
emission standard or operating
parameter limit.
63.1206(c)(3)(vii)................ Documentation and results of the
automatic waste feed cutoff
operability testing.
63.1206(c)(4)(ii)................. Emergency safety vent operating
plan.
63.1206(c)(4)(iii)................ Corrective measures for any
emergency safety vent opening.
63.1206(c)(5)(ii)................. Method used for control of
combustion system leaks.
63.1206(c)(6)..................... Operator training and certification
program.
63.1206(c)(7)(i)(D)............... Operation and maintenance plan.
63.1209(c)(2)..................... Feedstream analysis plan.
63.1209(k)(6)(iii), Documentation that a substitute
63.1209(k)(7)(ii), activated carbon, dioxin/furan
63.1209(k)(9)(ii), formation reaction inhibitor, or
63.1209(o)(4)(iii). dry scrubber sorbent will provide
the same level of control as the
original material.
63.1209(k)(7)(i)(C)............... Results of carbon bed performance
monitoring.
63.1209(q)........................ Documentation of changes in modes of
operation.
63.1211(d)........................ Documentation of compliance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Compliance progress reports associated with the notification of
intent to comply--(1) General. Not later than two years following the
effective date of the emission standards of this subpart, you must
comply with the following, unless you comply with paragraph (c)(2)(ii)
of this section:
(i) Develop engineering design for any physical modifications to
the source needed to comply with the emission standards of this
subpart;
(ii) Submit applicable construction applications to the
Administrator; and
(iii) Document an internal or external commitment of resources,
i.e., funds or personnel, to purchase, fabricate, and install any
equipment, devices, and ancillary structures needed to comply with the
emission standards and operating requirements of this subpart.
(2) Progress report. (i) You must submit to the Administrator a
progress report not later than two years following the effective date
of the emission standards of this subpart, which contains information
documenting that you have met the requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of
this section and updates the information you previously provided in
your NIC. This information will be used by the Administrator to
determine if you have made adequate progress towards compliance with
the emission standards of this subpart. In any evaluation of adequate
progress, the Administrator may consider any delays in a source's
progress caused by the time required to obtain necessary permits (e.g.,
operating and construction permits or licenses) from governmental
regulatory agencies when the sources have submitted timely and complete
permit applications.
(ii) If you can comply with the emission standards and operating
requirements of this subpart, without undertaking any of the activities
described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, you must submit a
progress report documenting either:
(A) That you, at the time of the progress report, are in compliance
with the emission standards and operating requirements; or
(B) The steps you will take to comply, without undertaking any of
the activities listed in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(iii) of
this section.
(3) Schedule. (i) You must include in the progress report a
detailed schedule that lists key dates for all projects that will bring
the source into compliance with the emission standards and operating
requirements of this subpart for the time period between submission of
the progress report and the compliance date of the emission standards
and operating requirements of this subpart.
(ii) The schedule must contain anticipated or actual dates for all
of the following:
(A) Bid and award dates, as necessary, for construction contracts
and equipment supply contractors;
(B) Milestones such as ground breaking, completion of drawings and
specifications, equipment deliveries, intermediate construction
completions, and testing;
(C) The dates on which applications will be submitted for operating
and construction permits or licenses;
(D) The dates by which approvals of any operating and construction
permits or licenses are anticipated; and
(E) The projected date by which you expect to comply with the
emission standards and operating requirements of this subpart.
(4) Sources that intend to cease burning hazardous waste prior to
or on the compliance date. (i) If you indicated in your NIC your intent
to cease burning hazardous waste and do so prior to submitting a
progress report, you are exempt from the requirements of paragraphs
(c)(1) through (c)(3) of this section. However, you must submit and
include in your progress report the date on which you stopped burning
hazardous waste and the date(s) you submitted, or plan to submit RCRA
closure documents.
(ii) If you signify in the progress report, submitted not later
than two years following the effective date of the emission standards
of this subpart, your intention to cease burning hazardous waste, you
must stop burning hazardous waste on or before the compliance date of
the emission standards of this subpart.
* * * * *
10. Section 63.1212 is added to subpart EEE to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1212 What are the other requirements pertaining to the NIC
and associated progress report?
(a) Certification of intent to comply. (1) The Notice of Intent to
Comply (NIC) and Progress Report must contain the following
certification signed and dated by an authorized representative of the
source: ``I certify under penalty of law that I have personally
examined and am
[[Page 21372]]
familiar with the information submitted in this document and all
attachments and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals
immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe that
the information is true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there
are significant penalties for submitting false information, including
the possibility of fine and imprisonment''.
(2) An authorized representative should be a responsible corporate
officer (for a corporation), a general partner (for a partnership), the
proprietor (of a sole proprietorship), or a principal executive officer
or ranking elected official (for a municipality, State, Federal, or
other public agency).
(b) Sources that begin burning hazardous waste after the effective
date of the emission standards of this subpart. (1) If you begin to
burn hazardous waste after the effective date of the emission standards
of this subpart, but prior to nine months after the effective date of
the emission standards of this subpart, you must comply with the
requirements of Sec. Sec. 63.1206(a)(2), 63.1210(b) and (c),
63.1211(c), and paragraph (a) of this section, and associated time
frames for public meetings and document submittals.
(2) If you intend to begin burning hazardous waste more than nine
months after the effective date of the emission standards of this
subpart, you must comply with the requirements of Sec. Sec.
63.1206(a)(2), 63.1210(b) and (c), 63.1211(c), and paragraph (a) of
this section prior to burning hazardous waste. In addition:
(i) You must make a draft NIC available to the public, notice the
public meeting, conduct a public meeting, and submit a final NIC prior
to burning hazardous waste; and
(ii) You must submit your progress report at the time you submit
your final NIC.
11. Section 63.1214 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1),
(c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1214 Implementation and enforcement.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Approval of alternatives to requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.1200,
63.1203, 63.1204, 63.1205, 63.1206(a), 63.1215, 63.1216, 63.1217,
63.1218, 63.1219, 63.1220, and 63.1221.
(2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under Sec. Sec.
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f), 63.1208(b), and 63.1209(a)(1), as defined in
Sec. 63.90, and as required in this subpart.
(3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec. Sec.
63.8(f) and 63.1209(a)(5), as defined in Sec. 63.90, and as required
in this subpart.
(4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting
under Sec. Sec. 63.10(f) and 63.1211(a) through (d), as defined in
Sec. 63.90, and as required in this subpart.
12. Section Sec. 63.1215 is added to subpart EEE to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1215 What are the alternative risk-based standards for total
chlorine?
(a) General. You may establish and comply with site-specific, risk-
based emission limits for total chlorine under the procedures
prescribed in this section. You may comply with these risk-based
emission limits in lieu of the emission standards for total chlorine
provided under Sec. Sec. 63.1216, 63.1217, 63.1219, 63.1220, and
63.1221 of this chapter after review and approval by the permitting
authority. To identify and comply with the limits, you must:
(1) Identify hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas emission rates for
each on-site hazardous waste combustor. You may select hydrogen
chloride and chlorine gas emission rates as you choose to demonstrate
eligibility for the total chlorine standards under this section, except
as provided by paragraph (b)(4) of this section;
(2) Perform an eligibility demonstration to determine if your HCl-
equivalent emission rate limits meet the national exposure standards,
as prescribed by paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section;
(3) Submit your eligibility demonstration for review and approval,
as prescribed by paragraph (d) of this section;
(4) Demonstrate compliance with the HCl-equivalent emission rate
limits, as prescribed by the testing and monitoring requirements under
paragraph (e) of this section; and
(5) Comply with the requirements for changes, as prescribed by
paragraph (f) of this section.
(b) HCl-equivalent emission rates. (1) You must establish a total
chlorine limit for each hazardous waste combustor as an HCl-equivalent
emission rate.
(2) You must calculate the toxicity-weighted HCl-equivalent
emission rate for each combustor as follows:
ERtw = [sum](ERi x (RfCHCl/
RfCi))
Where:
ERtw is the HCl-equivalent emission rate, lb/hr
ERi is the emission rate of HAP i in lbs/hr
RfCi is the reference concentration of HAP i
RfCHCl is the reference concentration of HCl
(3) You must use the RfC values for hydrogen chloride and chlorine
gas found at http://epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html.
(4) The hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas emission rates you use
to calculate the HCl-equivalent emission rate limit for incinerators,
cement kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns must not result in total
chlorine emission concentrations exceeding the standards provided by
Sec. Sec. 63.1203, 63.1204, and 63.1205.
(c) Eligibility demonstration--(1) General. You must perform an
eligibility demonstration to determine whether your selected hydrogen
chloride and chlorine gas emission rates meet the national exposure
standards using either a look-up table analysis prescribed by paragraph
(c)(3) of this section, or a site-specific compliance demonstration
prescribed by paragraph (c)(4) of this section.
(2) Definition of eligibility. Your facility is eligible for the
alternative risk-based standards for total chlorine if either:
(i) The sum of the calculated HCl-equivalent emission rates for all
on-site hazardous waste combustors is below the appropriate value in
the look-up table; or
(ii) Your site-specific compliance demonstration indicates that
your maximum Hazard Index for hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas
emissions from all on-site hazardous waste combustors at a location
where people live is less than or equal to 1.0, rounded to the nearest
tenths decimal place (0.1).
(3) Look-up table analysis. (i) The look-up table is provided as
Table 1 to this section.
(ii) To determine the correct HCl-equivalent emission rate value
from the look-up table, you must use the average stack height for your
hazardous waste combustors (i.e., the mean of the stack height of all
on-site hazardous waste combustors) and the minimum distance between
any hazardous waste combustor stack and the property boundary.
(iii) If one or both of these values for stack height and distance
to nearest property boundary do not match the exact values in the look-
up table, you would use the next lowest table value.
(iv) You are not eligible for the look-up table analysis if your
facility is located in complex terrain.
(v) If the sum of the calculated HCl-equivalent emission rates for
all on-site hazardous waste combustors is below the appropriate value
in the look-up
[[Page 21373]]
table, the emission limit for total chlorine for each combustor is the
HCl-equivalent emission rate you calculated.
(4) Site-specific compliance demonstration. (i) You may use any
scientifically-accepted peer-reviewed risk assessment methodology for
your site-specific compliance demonstration. An example of one approach
for performing the demonstration for air toxics can be found in the
EPA's ``Air Toxics Risk Assessment Reference Library, Volume 2, Site-
Specific Risk Assessment Technical Resource Document,'' which may be
obtained through the EPA's Air Toxics Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw.
(ii) Your facility is eligible for the alternative risk-based total
chlorine emission limit if your site-specific compliance demonstration
shows that the maximum Hazard Index for hydrogen chloride and chlorine
gas emissions from each on-site hazardous waste combustor is less than
or equal to 1.0 rounded to the nearest tenths decimal place (0.1).
(iii) At a minimum, your site-specific compliance demonstration must:
(A) Estimate long-term inhalation exposures through the estimation
of annual or multi-year average ambient concentrations;
(B) Estimate the inhalation exposure for the actual individual most
exposed to the facility's emissions from hazardous waste combustors;
(C) Use site-specific, quality-assured data wherever possible;
(D) Use health-protective default assumptions wherever site-
specific data are not available, and:
(E) Contain adequate documentation of the data and methods used for
the assessment so that it is transparent and can be reproduced by an
experienced risk assessor and emissions measurement expert.
(iv) Your site-specific compliance demonstration need not:
(A) Assume any attenuation of exposure concentrations due to the
penetration of outdoor pollutants into indoor exposure areas;
(B) Assume any reaction or deposition of the emitted pollutants
during transport from the emission point to the point of exposure.
(v) If your site-specific compliance demonstration documents that
the maximum Hazard Index for hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas
emissions from your hazardous waste combustors is less than or equal to
1.0, you would establish a maximum HCl-equivalent emission rate limit
for each combustor based on the hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas
emission rates used in this site-specific compliance demonstration.
(d) Review and approval of eligibility demonstrations--(1) Content
of the eligibility demonstration--(i) General. The eligibility
demonstration must include the following information, at a minimum:
(A) Identification of each hazardous waste combustor combustion gas
emission point (e.g., generally, the flue gas stack);
(B) The maximum capacity at which each combustor will operate, and
the maximum rated capacity for each combustor, using the metric of
stack gas volume emitted per unit of time, as well as any other metric
that is appropriate for the combustor (e.g., million Btu/hr heat input
for boilers; tons of dry raw material feed/hour for cement kilns);
(C) Stack parameters for each combustor, including, but not limited
to stack height, stack area, stack gas temperature, and stack gas exit
velocity;
(D) Plot plan showing all stack emission points, nearby residences,
and property boundary line;
(E) Identification of any stack gas control devices used to reduce
emissions from each combustor;
(F) Identification of the RfC values used to calculate the HCl-
equivalent emissions rate;
(G) Calculations used to determine the HCl-equivalent emission rate;
(H) For incinerators, cement kilns, and lightweight aggregate
kilns, calculations used to determine that the HCl-equivalent emission
rate limit for each combustor does not exceed the standards for total
chlorine at Sec. Sec. 63.1203, 63.1204, and 63.1205; and
(I) The HCl-equivalent emission rate limit for each hazardous waste
combustor that you will certify in the Documentation of Compliance
required under Sec. 63.1211(d) that you will not exceed, and the
limits on the operating parameters specified under Sec. 63.1209(o)
that you will establish in the Documentation of Compliance.
(ii) Additional content of look-up table demonstration. If you use
the look-up table analysis, your eligibility demonstration must also
contain, at a minimum, the following:
(A) Calculations used to determine the average stack height of on-
site hazardous waste combustors;
(B) Identification of the combustor stack with the minimum distance
to the property boundary of the facility; and
(C) Comparison of the values in the look-up table to your maximum
HCl-equivalent emission rate.
(iii) Additional content of a site-specific compliance
demonstration. If you use a site-specific compliance demonstration,
your eligibility demonstration must also contain, at a minimum, the
following:
(A) Identification of the risk assessment methodology used;
(B) Documentation of the fate and transport model used;
(C) Documentation of the fate and transport model inputs, including
the stack parameters listed in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(C) of this section
converted to the dimensions required for the model;
(D) As applicable:
(1) Meteorological data;
(2) Building, land use, and terrain data;
(3) Receptor locations and population data; and
(4) Other facility-specific parameters input into the model;
(E) Documentation of the fate and transport model outputs;
(F) Documentation of any exposure assessment and risk
characterization calculations; and,
(G) Documentation of the predicted Hazard Index for HCl-equivalents
and comparison to the limit of less than 1.0.
(2) Review and approval--(i) Existing sources. (A) If you operate
an existing source, you must be in compliance with the emission
standards on the compliance date. If you elect to comply with the
alternative risk-based emission rate limit for total chlorine, you must
have completed the eligibility demonstration and received approval from
your delegated permitting authority by the compliance date.
(B) You must submit the eligibility demonstration to your
permitting authority for review and approval not later than 12 months
prior to the compliance date. You must submit a separate copy of the
eligibility demonstration to: U.S. EPA, Risk and Exposure Assessment
Group, Emission Standards Division (C404-01), Attn: Group Leader,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.
(C) Your permitting authority will notify you of approval or intent
to disapprove your eligibility demonstration within 6 months after
receipt of the original demonstration, and within 3 months after
receipt of any supplemental information that you submit. A notice of
intent to disapprove your eligibility demonstration will identify
incomplete or inaccurate information or noncompliance with prescribed
procedures and specify how much time you will have to submit additional
information.
(D) If your permitting authority has not approved your eligibility
demonstration to comply with a risk-based HCl-equivalent emission
rate(s) by the compliance date, you must comply with the MACT emission
[[Page 21374]]
standards for total chlorine gas under Sec. Sec. 63.1216, 63.1217,
63.1219, 63.1220, and 63.1221 of this chapter.
(ii) New sources. General. (A) If you operate a source that is not
an existing source and that becomes subject to subpart EEE, you must
comply with the MACT emission standards for total chlorine unless and
until your eligibility demonstration has been approved by the
permitting authority.
(B) If you operate a new or reconstructed source that starts up
before the effective date of the emission standards proposed today, or
a solid fuel-fired boiler or liquid fuel-fired boiler that is an area
source that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that
it becomes a major source of HAP before the effective date of
Sec. Sec. 63.1216 and 63.1217, you would be required to comply with
the emission standards under Sec. Sec. 63.1216 and 63.1217 until your
eligibility demonstration is approved by your permitting authority.
(C) If you operate a new or reconstructed source that starts up
after the effective date of the emission standards proposed today, or a
solid fuel-fired boiler or liquid fuel-fired boiler that is an area
source that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that
it becomes a major source of HAP after the effective date of Sec. Sec.
63.1216 and 63.1217, you would be required to comply with the emission
standards under Sec. Sec. 63.1216 and 63.1217 until your eligibility
demonstration is approved by your permitting authority.
(e) Testing and monitoring requirements--(1) General. You must
document compliance during the comprehensive performance test under
Sec. 63.1207 with the HCl-equivalent emission rate limit established
in an approved eligibility demonstration for each hazardous waste
combustor.
(2) Test methods. (i) If you operate a cement kiln or a combustor
equipped with a dry acid gas scrubber, you must should use EPA Method
320/321 or ASTM D 6735-01, or an equivalent method, to measure hydrogen
chloride, and the back-half (caustic impingers) of Method 26/26A, or an
equivalent method, to measure chlorine gas.
(ii) If you operate an incinerator, boiler, or lightweight
aggregate kiln, you must use EPA Method 320/321 or ASTM D 6735-01, or
an equivalent method, to measure hydrogen chloride, and Method 26/26A,
or an equivalent method, to measure total chlorine, and calculate
chlorine gas by difference if:
(A) The bromine/chlorine ratio in feedstreams is greater than 5
percent; or
(B) The sulfur/chlorine ratio in feedstreams is greater than 50 percent.
(3) Operating parameter limits. (i) You must establish limits on
the same operating parameters that apply to sources complying with the
MACT standard for total chlorine under Sec. 63.1209(o), except that
feedrate limits on total chlorine and chloride must be established as
specified under paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this section.
(ii) Annual rolling average feedrate. You must establish an annual
rolling average feedrate limit for total chlorine and chloride as the
average of the test run averages during the comprehensive performance
test.
(A) To document compliance with the feedrate limit, you must know
the total chlorine and chloride concentration of feedstreams at all
times and continuously monitor the flowrate of all feedstreams.
(B) You must measure the flowrate of each feedstream at least once
each minute and update the annual rolling average hourly based on the
average of the 60 previous 1-minute measurements.
(f) Changes--(1) Changes over which you have control. (i) Changes
in design, operation, or maintenance of a hazardous waste combustor
that may affect the rate of emissions of HCl-equivalents from the
combustor are subject to the requirements of Sec. 63.1206(b)(5).
(ii) If you change the information documented in the demonstration
of eligibility for the HCl-equivalent emission rate limit and which is
used to establish the HCl-equivalent emission rate limit, you are
subject to the following requirements:
(A) Changes that would decrease the allowable HCl-equivalent
emission rate limit. If you plan to make a change that would decrease
the allowable HCl-equivalent emission rate limit documented in your
eligibility demonstration, you must comply with Sec.
63.1206(b)(5)(i)(A)-(C);
(B) Changes that would not decrease the allowable HCl-equivalent
emission rate limit. (1) If you determine that a change would not
decrease the allowable HCl-equivalent emission rate limit documented in
your eligibility demonstration, you must document the change in the
operating record upon making such change.
(2) If the change would increase your allowable HCl-equivalent
emission rate limit and you elect to establish a higher HCl-equivalent
limit, you must submit a revised eligibility demonstration for review
and approval. Upon approval of the revised eligibility demonstration,
you must comply with Sec. 63.1206(b)(5)(i)(A)(2), (B), and (C).
(2) Changes over which you do not have control. (i) You must review
the documentation you use in your eligibility demonstration every five
years on the anniversary of the comprehensive performance test and
submit for review and approval with the comprehensive performance test
plan either a certification that the information used in your
eligibility demonstration has not changed in a manner that would
decrease the allowable HCl-equivalent emission rate limit, or a revised
eligibility demonstration for a revised HCl-equivalent emission rate
limit.
(ii) If you determine that you cannot demonstrate compliance with a
lower allowable HCl-equivalent emission rate limit during the
comprehensive performance test because you cannot complete changes to
the design or operation of the source prior to the test, you may
request that the permitting authority grant you additional time as
necessary to make those changes, not to exceed three years.
Table 1. to Sec. 63.1215.--Allowable Toxicity-Weighted Emission Rate Expressed in HCL Equivalents (lb/hr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance to property boundary (m)
Stack ht (m) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 30 50 100 200 500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2........................... 0.0244 0.0322 0.0338 0.0627 0.173 0.766
5........................... 0.0475 0.0612 0.0881 0.168 0.309 0.881
10.......................... 0.165 0.187 0.216 0.336 0.637 1.59
20.......................... 0.661 1.01 1.01 1.2 1.87 4.31
35.......................... 2.02 2.02 4.04 4.11 5.08 10.4
50.......................... 4.11 4.11 4.11 9.74 10.8 18.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 21375]]
13. Section 63.1216 and an undesignated center heading are added to
subpart EEE to read as follows:
Emissions Standards and Operating Limits for Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers,
Liquid Fuel-Fired Boilers, and Hydrochloric Acid Production Furnaces
Sec. 63.1216 What are the standards for solid fuel-fired boilers that
burn hazardous waste?
(a) Emission limits for existing sources. You must not discharge or
cause combustion gases to be emitted into the atmosphere that contain:
(1) For dioxin and furan, either carbon monoxide or hydrocarbon
emissions in excess of the limits provided by paragraph (a)(5) of this
section;
(2) Mercury in excess of 10 ug/dscm corrected to 7 percent oxygen;
(3) Except for an area source as defined in Sec. 63.2, cadmium and
lead in excess of 170 ug/dscm, combined emissions, corrected to 7
percent oxygen;
(4) Except for an area source as defined in Sec. 63.2, arsenic,
beryllium, and chromium in excess of 210 ug/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) Except for an area source as defined in Sec. 63.2, hydrogen
chloride and chlorine gas in excess of 440 parts per million by volume,
combined emissions, expressed as a chloride (Cl(-))
equivalent, dry basis and corrected to 7 percent oxygen; and
(7) Except for an area source as defined in Sec. 63.2, particulate
matter in excess of 68 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 dioxin and furan, either carbon monoxide or hydrocarbon
emissions in excess of the limits provided by paragraph (b)(5) of this
section;
(2) Mercury in excess of 10 [mu]g/dscm corrected to 7 percent oxygen;
(3) Except for an area source as defined in Sec. 63.2, cadmium and
lead in excess of 170 [mu]g/dscm, combined emissions, corrected to 7
percent oxygen;
(4) Except for an area source as defined in Sec. 63.2, arsenic,
beryllium, and chromium in excess of 190 [mu]g/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. 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) Except for an area source as defined in Sec. 63.2, hydrogen
chloride and chlorine gas in excess of 73 parts per million by volume,
combined emissions, expressed as a chloride (Cl(-))
equivalent, dry basis and corrected to 7 percent oxygen; and
(7) Except for an area source as defined in Sec. 63.2, 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 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 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 DRE of 99.9999% for each 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 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.
14. Section 63.1217 is added to subpart EEE to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1217 What are the standards for liquid fuel-fired boilers
that burn hazardous waste?
(a) Emission limits for existing sources. You must not discharge or
cause combustion gases to be emitted into the atmosphere that contain:
[[Page 21376]]
(1)(i) Dioxin and furan in excess of 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm corrected to
7 percent oxygen for incinerators equipped with either a waste heat
boiler or dry air pollution control system; or
(ii) Either carbon monoxide or hydrocarbon emissions in excess of
the limits provided by paragraph (a)(5) of this section for sources not
equipped with either a waste heat boiler or dry air pollution control
system;
(iii) A source equipped a wet air pollution control system followed
by a dry air pollution control system is not considered to be a dry air
pollution control system, and a source equipped with a dry air
pollution control system followed a wet air pollution control system is
considered to be a dry air pollution control system for purposes of
this emission limit;
(2) Mercury in excess of 3.7 x 10-6 lbs mercury
emissions attributable to the hazardous waste per million British
thermal unit heat input from the hazardous waste;
(3) Except for an area source as defined in Sec. 63.2, in excess
of 1.1 x 10-5 lbs combined emissions of cadmium and lead
attributable to the hazardous waste per million British thermal unit
heat input from the hazardous waste;
(4) Except for an area source as defined in Sec. 63.2, in excess
of 1.1 x 10-4 lbs chromium emissions attributable to the
hazardous waste per million British thermal unit heat input from the
hazardous waste;
(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) Except for an area source as defined in Sec. 63.2, in excess
of 2.5 x0-2 lbs combined emissions of hydrogen chloride and
chlorine gas attributable to the hazardous waste per million British
thermal unit heat input from the hazardous waste; and
(7) Except for an area source as defined in Sec. 63.2 or as
provided by paragraph (e)(2) of this section, particulate matter in
excess of 59 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)(i) Dioxin and furan in excess of 0.015 ng TEQ/dscm corrected to
7 percent oxygen for incinerators equipped with either a waste heat
boiler or dry air pollution control system; or
(ii) Either carbon monoxide or hydrocarbon emissions in excess of
the limits provided by paragraph (a)(5) of this section for sources not
equipped with either a waste heat boiler or dry air pollution control
system;
(iii) A source equipped a wet air pollution control system followed
by a dry air pollution control system is not considered to be a dry air
pollution control system, and a source equipped with a dry air
pollution control system followed a wet air pollution control system is
considered to be a dry air pollution control system for purposes of
this emission limit;
(2) In excess of 3.8 x 10-7 lbs mercury emissions
attributable to the hazardous waste per million British thermal unit
heat input from the hazardous waste;
(3) Except for an area source as defined in Sec. 63.2, in excess
of 4.3 x 10-6 lbs combined emissions of cadmium and lead
attributable to the hazardous waste per million British thermal unit
heat input from the hazardous waste;
(4) Except for an area source as defined in Sec. 63.2, in excess
of 3.6 x 10-5 lbs chromium emissions attributable to the
hazardous waste per million British thermal unit heat input from the
hazardous waste;
(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) Except for an area source as defined in Sec. 63.2, in excess
of 7.2 x 10-4 lbs combined emissions of hydrogen chloride
and chlorine gas attributable to the hazardous waste per million
British thermal unit heat input from the hazardous waste; and
(7) Except for an area source as defined in Sec. 63.2 or as
provided in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, particulate matter in
excess of 9.8 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 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 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 DRE of 99.9999% for each 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 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
[[Page 21377]]
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.
(e) Alternative to the particulate matter standard for liquid fuel-
fired boilers. (1) General. In lieu of complying with the applicable
particulate matter standards of paragraphs (a)(7) and (b)(7) of this
section, you may elect to comply with the following alternative metal
emission control requirements:
(2) Alternative metal emission control requirements for existing
sources. (i) You must not discharge or cause combustion gases to be
emitted into the atmosphere that contain in excess of 1.1 x
10-5 lbs combined emissions of cadmium, lead, and selenium
attributable to the hazardous waste per million British thermal unit
heat input from the hazardous waste, corrected to 7 percent oxygen;
and,
(ii) You must not discharge or cause combustion gases to be emitted
into the atmosphere that contain in excess of 7.7 x 10-5 lbs
combined emissions of antimony, arsenic, beryllium, chromium, cobalt,
manganese, and nickel attributable to the hazardous waste per million
British thermal unit heat input from the hazardous waste, corrected to
7 percent oxygen.
(3) Alternative metal emission control requirements for new
sources. (i) You must not discharge or cause combustion gases to be
emitted into the atmosphere that contain in excess of 4.3 x
10-6 lbs combined emissions of cadmium, lead, and selenium
attributable to the hazardous waste per million British thermal unit
heat input from the hazardous waste, corrected to 7 percent oxygen; and,
(ii) You must not discharge or cause combustion gases to be emitted
into the atmosphere that contain in excess of 3.6 x 10-5 lbs
combined emissions of antimony, arsenic, beryllium, chromium, cobalt,
manganese, and nickel attributable to the hazardous waste per million
British thermal unit heat input from the hazardous waste, corrected to
7 percent oxygen.
15. Section 63.1218 is added to subpart EEE to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1218 What are the standards for hydrochloric acid production
furnaces that burn hazardous waste?
(a) Emission limits for existing sources. You must not discharge or
cause combustion gases to be emitted into the atmosphere that contain:
(1) Dioxin and furan emissions in excess of 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm,
corrected to 7 percent oxygen;
(2) For mercury, hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas emissions in
excess of the levels provided by paragraph (a)(6) of this section;
(3) For lead and cadmium, hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas
emissions in excess of the levels provided by paragraph (a)(6) of this
section;
(4) For arsenic, beryllium, and chromium, hydrogen chloride and
chlorine gas emissions in excess of the levels provided by paragraph
(a)(6) of this section;
(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) For hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas, either:
(i) Emission in excess of 14 parts per million by volume, combined
emissions, expressed as a chloride (Cl(-) equivalent, dry
basis and corrected to 7 percent oxygen; or
(ii) Emissions greater than the levels that would be emitted if the
source is achieving a system removal efficiency (SRE) of less than
99.9927 percent for total chlorine and chloride fed to the combustor.
You must calculate SRE from the following equation:
SRE = [1-(Cl out / Cl in)]
X 100%
Where:
Clin = mass feedrate of total chlorine or chloride in all
feedstreams, reported as chloride; and
Clout = mass emission rate of hydrogen chloride and chlorine
gas, reported as chloride, in exhaust emissions prior to release to the
atmosphere.
(7) For particulate matter, hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas
emissions in excess of the levels provided by paragraph (a)(6) of this
section.
(b) Emission limits for new sources. You must not discharge or
cause combustion gases to be emitted into the atmosphere that contain:
(1) Dioxin and furan emissions in excess of 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm,
corrected to 7 percent oxygen;
(2) For mercury, hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas emissions in
excess of the levels provided by paragraph (a)(6) of this section;
(3) For lead and cadmium, hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas
emissions in excess of the levels provided by paragraph (a)(6) of this
section;
(4) For arsenic, beryllium, and chromium, hydrogen chloride and
chlorine gas emissions in excess of the levels provided by paragraph
(a)(6) of this section;
(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) For hydrochloric acid and chlorine gas, either:
(i) Emission in excess of 1.2 parts per million by volume, combined
emissions, expressed as a chloride
[[Page 21378]]
(Cl (-)) equivalent, dry basis and corrected to 7 percent
oxygen; or
(ii) Emissions greater than the levels that would be emitted if the
source is achieving a system removal efficiency (SRE) of less than
99.99937 percent for total chlorine and chloride fed to the combustor.
You must calculate SRE from the following equation:
SRE = [1-(Cl out / Cl in)]
x 100%
Where:
Cl in = mass feedrate of total chlorine or chloride in all
feedstreams, reported as chloride; and
Cl out = mass emission rate of hydrogen chloride and
chlorine gas, reported as chloride, in exhaust emissions prior to
release to the atmosphere.
(7) For particulate matter, hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas
emissions in excess of the levels provided by paragraph (a)(6) 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 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 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 DRE of 99.9999% for each 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 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.
16. Section 63.1219 and a new undesignated center heading are added
to subpart EEE to read as follows:
Replacement Emissions Standards and Operating Limits for Incinerators,
Cement Kilns, and Lightweight Aggregate Kilns
Sec. 63.1219 What are the replacement 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)(i) Dioxin and furan in excess of 0.28 ng TEQ/dscm corrected to
7 percent oxygen for incinerators equipped with either a waste heat
boiler or dry air pollution control system; or
(ii) Dioxin and furan in excess of 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm corrected to 7
percent oxygen for sources not equipped with either a waste heat boiler
or dry air pollution control system;
(iii) A source equipped a wet air pollution control system followed
by a dry air pollution control system is not considered to be a dry air
pollution control system, and a source equipped with a dry air
pollution control system followed a wet air pollution control system is
considered to be a dry air pollution control system for purposes of
this emission limit;
(2) Mercury in excess of 130 [mu]g/dscm corrected to 7 percent oxygen;
(3) Cadmium and lead in excess of 59 [mu]g/dscm, combined
emissions, corrected to 7 percent oxygen;
(4) Arsenic, beryllium, and chromium in excess of 84 [mu]g/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) Hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas (total chlorine) in excess
of 1.5 parts per million by volume, combined emissions, expressed as a
chloride (Cl(-)) equivalent, dry basis and corrected to 7
percent oxygen; and
(7) Except as provided by paragraph (e)(2) of this section,
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)(i) Dioxin and furans in excess of 0.11 ng TEQ/dscm corrected to
7 percent oxygen for incinerators equipped with either a waste heat
boiler or dry air pollution control system; or
(ii) Dioxin and furans in excess of 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm corrected to 7
percent oxygen for sources not equipped with either a waste heat boiler
or dry air pollution control system;
(iii) A source equipped a wet air pollution control system followed
by a dry air pollution control system is not considered to be a dry air
pollution control system, and a source equipped with a dry air
pollution control system followed a wet air pollution control system is
considered to be a dry air pollution control system for purposes of
this standard;
(2) Mercury in excess of 8 [mu]g/dscm corrected to 7 percent oxygen;
(3) Cadmium and lead in excess of 6.5 [mu]g/dscm, combined
emissions, corrected to 7 percent oxygen;
(4) Arsenic, beryllium, and chromium in excess of 8.9 [mu]g/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
[[Page 21379]]
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) Hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas in excess of 0.18 parts per
million by volume, combined emissions, expressed as a chloride
(Cl(-)) equivalent, dry basis and corrected to 7 percent
oxygen; and
(7) Except as provided by paragraph (e)(3) of this section,
particulate matter in excess of 1.6 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 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 DRE of 99.9999% for each 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 constituent (POHC). (i) You must
treat each POHC 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.
(e) Alternative to the particulate matter standard for
incinerators--(1) General. In lieu of complying with the applicable
particulate matter standards of paragraphs (a)(7) and (b)(7) of this
section, you may elect to comply with the following alternative metal
emission control requirements:
(2) Alternative metal emission control requirements for existing
sources. (i) You must not discharge or cause combustion gases to be
emitted into the atmosphere that contain cadmium, lead, and selenium in
excess of 59 [mu]g/dscm, combined emissions, corrected to 7 percent
oxygen; and,
(ii) You must not discharge or cause combustion gases to be emitted
into the atmosphere that contain antimony, arsenic, beryllium,
chromium, cobalt, manganese, and nickel in excess of 84 [mu]g/dscm,
combined emissions, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(3) Alternative metal emission control requirements for new
sources. (i) You must not discharge or cause combustion gases to be
emitted into the atmosphere that contain cadmium, lead, and selenium in
excess of 6.5/dscm, combined emissions, corrected to 7 percent oxygen; and,
(ii) You must not discharge or cause combustion gases to be emitted
into the atmosphere that contain antimony, arsenic, beryllium,
chromium, cobalt, manganese, and nickel in excess of 8.9 [mu]g/dscm,
combined emissions, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
17. Section 63.1220 is added to subpart EEE to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1220 What are the replacement standards for hazardous waste
burning cement kilns?
(a) Emission limits for existing sources. You must not discharge or
cause combustion gases to be emitted into the atmosphere that contain:
(1)(i) Dioxin and furan in excess of 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm corrected to
7 percent oxygen; or
(ii) Dioxin and furan 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 64 [mu]g/dscm corrected to 7 percent oxygen;
(3) In excess of 4.0 x 10-4 lbs combined emissions of
cadmium and lead attributable to the hazardous waste per million
British thermal unit heat input from the hazardous waste;
(4) In excess of 1.4 x 10-5 lbs combined emissions of
arsenic, beryllium, and chromium attributable to the hazardous waste
per million British thermal unit heat input from the hazardous waste;
(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
[[Page 21380]]
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) Hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas in excess of 110 parts per
million by volume, combined emissions, expressed as a chloride
(Cl(-)) equivalent, dry basis, corrected to 7 percent
oxygen; and
(7) Particulate matter in excess of 65 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)(i) Dioxin and furan in excess of 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm corrected to
7 percent oxygen; or
(ii) Dioxin and furan 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 35 [mu]g/dscm corrected to 7 percent oxygen;
(3) In excess of 6.2 x 10-5 lbs combined emissions of
cadmium and lead attributable to the hazardous waste per million
British thermal unit heat input from the hazardous waste;
(4) In excess of 1.4 x 10-5 lbs combined emissions of
arsenic, beryllium, and chromium attributable to the hazardous waste
per million British thermal unit heat input from the hazardous waste;
(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 (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) Hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas in excess of 78 parts per
million, combined emissions, expressed as a chloride (Cl(-))
equivalent, dry basis and corrected to 7 percent oxygen; and
(7) Particulate matter in excess of 13 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 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 DRE of 99.9999% for each 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.
[[Page 21381]]
(3) Principal organic hazardous constituent (POHC). (i) You must
treat each POHC 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. The provisions of
Sec. 63.1204(d) apply.
(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)){time} +
{Cmill-on x (Tmill-on/(Tmill-off +
Tmill-on )){time}
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 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)){time} + {Cbypass x
(Qbypass/(Qmain + Qbypass)){time}
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.
[[Page 21382]]
18. Section 63.1221 is added to subpart EEE to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1221 What are the replacement 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) Dioxins and furans in excess of 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm corrected to 7
percent oxygen;
(2) Mercury in excess of 67 [mu]g/dscm corrected to 7 percent oxygen;
(3)(i) In excess of 3.1 x 10-\4\ lbs combined emissions
of cadmium and lead attributable to the hazardous waste per million
British thermal unit heat input from the hazardous waste; and
(ii) Lead and cadmium in excess of 250 [mu]g/dscm, combined
emissions, corrected to 7 percent oxygen;
(4)(ii) In excess of 9.5 x 10-\5\ lbs combined emissions
of arsenic, beryllium, and chromium attributable to the hazardous waste
per million British thermal unit heat input from the hazardous waste; and
(ii) Arsenic, beryllium, and chromium in excess of 110 [mu]g/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) Hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas in excess of 600 parts per
million by volume, combined emissions, expressed as a chloride
(Cl(-)) equivalent, 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) Dioxins and furans in excess of 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm corrected to 7
percent oxygen;
(2) Mercury in excess of 67 [mu]g/dscm corrected to 7 percent oxygen;
(3)(i) In excess of 2.4 x 10-\5\ lbs combined emissions
of cadmium and lead attributable to the hazardous waste per million
British thermal unit heat input from the hazardous waste; and
(ii) Lead and cadmium in excess of 43 [mu]g/dscm, combined
emissions, corrected to 7 percent oxygen;
(4)(i) In excess of 3.2 x 10-\5\ lbs combined emissions
of arsenic, beryllium, and chromium attributable to the hazardous waste
per million British thermal unit heat input from the hazardous waste; and
(ii) Arsenic, beryllium, and chromium in excess of 110 [mu]g/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) Hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas in excess of 600 parts per
million by volume, combined emissions, expressed as a chloride
(Cl-) equivalent, dry basis and corrected to 7 percent
oxygen; and
(7) Particulate matter in excess of 23 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 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 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 each POHC 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.
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, 6925, 6927, 6928(h), and 6974.
[[Page 21383]]
2. Section 264.340 is amended by revising the first sentence of
paragraph (b)(1) and adding paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 264.340 Applicability.
* * * * *
(b) * * * (1) Except as provided by paragraphs (b)(2) through
(b)(5) 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
Sec. Sec. 63.1207(j) and 63.1210(d) of this chapter documenting
compliance with the requirements of part 63, subpart EEE, of this
chapter. * * *
* * * * *
(5) The particulate matter standard of Sec. 264.343(c) remains in
effect for incinerators that elect to comply with the alternative to
the particulate matter standard of Sec. 63.1219(e) of this chapter.
* * * * *
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.
2. Section 265.340 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) 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 Sec. Sec. 63.1207(j)
and 63.1210(d) of this chapter documenting compliance with the
requirements of part 63, subpart EEE, of this chapter.
* * * * *
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), 3001-3009, 3014, 6905, 6906,
6912, 6921, 6922, 6924-6927, 6934, and 6937.
2. Section 266.100 is amended by revising the first sentence of
paragraph (b)(1) and adding paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 266.100 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 Sec. Sec. 63.1207(j)
and 63.1210(d) of this chapter documenting compliance with the
requirements of part 63, subpart EEE, of this chapter. * * *
* * * * *
(3) If you own or operate a boiler or hydrochloric acid furnace
that is an area source under Sec. 63.2 of this chapter and you elect
not to comply with the emission standards under Sec. Sec. 63.1216,
63.1217, and 63.1218 of this chapter for particulate matter,
semivolatile and low volatile metals, and total chlorine, you also
remain subject to:
(i) Section 266.105--Standards to control particulate matter;
(ii) Section 266.106--Standards to control metals emissions, except
for mercury; and
(iii) Section 266.107--Standards to control hydrogen chloride and
chlorine gas.
* * * * *
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 270.10 is amended by adding paragraph (l) to read as follows:
Sec. 270.10 General application requirements.
* * * * *
(l) If the Director concludes that there is reason to believe that
compliance with the standards in 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE alone may
not be protective of human health or the environment, the Director
shall require additional information or assessment(s) that the Director
determines are necessary to ensure protection of human health and the
environment. The Director also may require a permittee or an applicant
to provide information necessary to determine whether such an
assessment(s) should be required.
3. 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 under Sec. Sec. 63.1207(j) and
63.1210(d) of this chapter documenting compliance with all applicable
requirements of part 63, subpart EEE, of this chapter), the
requirements of this section do not apply, except those provisions the
Director determines are necessary to ensure compliance with Sec. Sec.
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 Sec. Sec.
270.10(k), 270.10(l), 270.32(b)(2), and 270.32(b)(3) of this chapter.
3. Section 270.22 is amended by revising the introductory text to
read as follows:
Sec. 270.22 Specific part B information requirements for boilers and
industrial furnaces burning hazardous waste.
When an owner or operator of a cement kiln, lightweight aggregate
kiln, solid fuel-fired boiler, liquid fuel-fired boiler, or
hydrochloric acid production furnace 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 under Sec. Sec. 63.1207(j) and
63.1210(d) of this chapter documenting compliance with all applicable
requirements of part 63, subpart EEE, of this chapter), the
requirements of this section do not apply. The requirements of this section
[[Page 21384]]
do apply, however, if the Director determines certain provisions are
necessary to ensure compliance with Sec. Sec. 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; or if you are an area source and
elect to comply with the Sec. Sec. 266.105, 266.106, and 266.107
standards and associated requirements for particulate matter, hydrogen
chloride and chlorine gas, and non-mercury metals; or the Director
determines certain provisions apply, on a case-by-case basis, for
purposes of information collection in accordance with Sec. Sec.
270.10(k), 270.10(l), 270.32(b)(2), and 270.32(b)(3).
* * * * *
4. Section 270.32 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(3) to read as
follows:
Sec. 270.32 Establishing permit conditions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) If, as the result of an assessment(s) or other information, the
Administrator or Director determines that conditions are necessary in
addition to those required under 40 CFR parts 63, subpart EEE, 264 or
266 to ensure protection of human health and the environment, he shall
include those terms and conditions in a RCRA permit for a hazardous
waste combustion unit.
* * * * *
5. Section 270.42 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (j)(1).
b. Redesignating paragraph (j)(2) as (j)(3).
c. Adding new paragraph (j)(2).
d. Adding new paragraph (k); and
e. Adding a new entry 10 in numerical order in the table under
section L of Appendix I.
The revisions and additions reads as follows:
Sec. 270.42 Permit modification at the request of the permittee.
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(1) Facility owners or operators must have complied with the
Notification of Intent to Comply (NIC) requirements of 40 CFR 63.1210
that were in effect prior to October 11, 2000, (See 40 CFR part 63
Sec. Sec. 63.1200-63.1499 revised as of July 1, 2000) in order to
request a permit modification under this section for the purpose of
technology changes needed to meet the 40 CFR 63.1203, 63.1204, and
63.1205 standards.
(2) Facility owners or operators must comply with the Notification
of Intent to Comply (NIC) requirements of 40 CFR 63.1210(b) and 63.1212
before a permit modification can be requested under this section for
the purpose of technology changes needed to meet the 40 CFR 63.1215,
63.1216, 63.1217, 63.1218, 63.1219, 63.1220, and 63.1221 standards
promulgated on [date of publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register].
* * * * *
(k) Waiver of RCRA permitting requirements in support of transition
to the part 63 MACT standards. (1) You may request to have specific
RCRA operating and emissions limits waived by submitting a Class 1
permit modification request under Appendix I of this section, section
L(10). You must:
(i) Identify the specific RCRA permit operating and emissions
limits which you are requesting to waive;
(ii) Provide an explanation of why the changes are necessary in
order to minimize or eliminate conflicts between the RCRA permit and
MACT compliance; and
(iii) Discuss how the revised provisions will be sufficiently
protective.
(2) To request this modification in conjunction with MACT
performance testing where permit limits may only be waived during
actual test events and pretesting, as defined under 40 CFR
63.1207(h)(2)(i) and (ii), for an aggregate time not to exceed 720
hours of operation (renewable at the discretion of the Administrator)
you must:
(i) Demonstrate that your site-specific emissions test plan and
continuous monitoring system performance evaluation test plan have been
submitted and approved by the Administrator as required in 40 CFR
63.1207(e), and
(ii) Submit your modification request upon approval of your test plan.
(3) The Director shall approve or deny the request within 30 days
of receipt of the request. The Director may, at his or her discretion,
extend this 30 day deadline one time for up to 30 days by notifying the
facility owner or operator.
* * * * *
Appendix I to Sec. 270.42--Classification of Permit Modification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modifications Class
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
10. Changes to RCRA permit provisions needed to support \1\ 1
transition to 40 CFR part 63 (Subpart EEE--National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Hazardous Waste
Combustors), provided the procedures of Sec. 270.42(k) are
followed.......................................................
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Class 1 modifications requiring prior Agency approval.
6. Section 270.62 is amended by revising the introductory text to
read as follows:
Sec. 270.62 Hazardous waste incinerator permits.
When an owner or operator 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 under Sec. Sec. 63.1207(j) and
63.1210(d) of this chapter documenting compliance with all applicable
requirements of part 63, subpart EEE, of this chapter), the
requirements of this section do not apply, except those provisions the
Director determines are necessary to ensure compliance with Sec. Sec.
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 Sec. Sec.
270.10(k), 270.10(l), 270.32(b)(2), and 270.32(b)(3) of this chapter.
* * * * *
7. Section 270.66 is amended by revising the introductory text to
read as follows:
Sec. 270.66 Permits for boilers and industrial furnaces burning
hazardous waste.
When an owner or operator of a cement kiln, lightweight aggregate
kiln, solid fuel-fired boiler, liquid fuel-fired boiler, or
hydrochloric acid production furnace 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 under Sec. Sec. 63.1207(j) and
63.1210(d) of this chapter documenting compliance with all applicable
requirements of part 63, subpart EEE, of this chapter), the
requirements of this section do not apply. The requirements of this
section do apply, however, if the Director determines certain
provisions are necessary to ensure compliance with Sec. Sec.
266.102(e)(1) and 266.102(e)(2)(iii) of
[[Page 21385]]
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; or if you are an area source and elect to comply
with the Sec. Sec. 266.105, 266.106, and 266.107 standards and
associated requirements for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride and
chlorine gas, and non-mercury metals; or the Director determines
certain provisions apply, on a case-by-case basis, for purposes of
information collection in accordance with Sec. Sec. 270.10(k),
270.10(l), 270.32(b)(2), and 270.32(b)(3).
* * * * *
8. Section 270.235 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) introductory text and (a)(2)
introductory text.
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(1) introductory text and (b)(2).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 270.235 Options for incinerators, cement kilns, lightweight
aggregate kilns, solid fuel-fired boilers, liquid fuel-fired boilers
and hydrochloric acid production furnaces to minimize emissions from
startup, shutdown, and malfunction events.
(a) * * * (1) Revisions to permit conditions after documenting
compliance with MACT. The owner or operator of a RCRA-permitted
incinerator, cement kiln, lightweight aggregate kiln, solid fuel-fired
boiler, liquid fuel-fired boiler, or hydrochloric acid production
furnace 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 Sec. Sec.
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, lightweight aggregate kiln,
solid fuel-fired boiler, liquid fuel-fired boiler, or hydrochloric acid
production furnace 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:
* * * * *
(b) * * * (1) Interim status operations. In compliance with
Sec. Sec. 265.340 and 266.100(b), the owner or operator of an
incinerator, cement kiln, lightweight aggregate kiln, solid fuel-fired
boiler, liquid fuel-fired boiler, or hydrochloric acid production
furnace 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.
* * * * *
(2) Operations under a subsequent RCRA permit. When an owner or
operator of an incinerator, cement kiln, lightweight aggregate kiln,
solid fuel-fired boiler, liquid fuel-fired boiler, or hydrochloric acid
production furnace 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
1. The authority citation for part 271 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), and 6926.
2. Section 271.1(j) is amended by adding the following entry to
Table 1 in chronological order by date of publication 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Insert date of publication of final Standards for Hazardous [Insert FR page numbers [Insert date of
rule in the Federal Register (FR)]. Air Pollutants for of final rule]. publication of final
Hazardous Waste rule].
Combustors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 04-7858 Filed 4-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090513044355im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}