35126 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

• Make sure to submit your

comments by the deadline in this

notice.

• Be sure to include the name, date,

and docket number with your

comments.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 63

Air pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 264

Air pollution control, Environmental

Protection Agency, Hazardous waste,

Insurance, Packaging and containers,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Security measures, Surety

bonds.

Dated: June 18, 2001.

Christine Todd Whitman,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 01–16427 Filed 7–2–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 63, 264, 265, 266, and 270

[FRL–7001–9]

RIN 2050–AE79

NESHAP: Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants for Hazardous Waste

Combustors—Proposed Amendments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act

(CAA), EPA established new emissions

standards for hazardous waste burning

cement kilns, lightweight aggregate

kilns, and incinerators on September 30,

1999 (NESHAP: Final Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous

Waste Combustors). Following

promulgation of this final rule, the

regulated community, through informal

comments and through litigation, raised

numerous issues related to specific

requirements of the final rule. In

response to relevant concerns, we are

proposing and taking comment on

certain targeted changes to the final

rule. These regulatory changes do not

propose to amend the numerical

emission standards, but rather focus on

improvements to the implementation of

the emission standards, primarily in the

areas of compliance, testing and

monitoring.

DATES: Comments must be submitted by

August 17, 2001.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment on

this proposed rule, you must send an

original and two copies of the comments

referencing Docket Number F–2001–

RC5P–FFFFF to: RCRA Information

Center (RIC), Office of Solid Waste

(5305G), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency Headquarters (EPA HQ), Ariel

Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20460–

0002; or, (2) if using special delivery,

such as overnight express service: RIC,

Crystal Gateway One, 1235 Jefferson

Davis Highway, First Floor, Arlington,

VA 22202. You may also submit

comments electronically following the

directions in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section below.

You may view public comments and

supporting materials in the RIC. The RIC

is open from 9 am to 4 pm Monday

through Friday, excluding Federal

holidays. To review docket materials,

we recommend that you make an

appointment by calling 703–603–9230.

You may copy up to 100 pages from any

regulatory document at no charge.

Additional copies cost $ 0.15 per page.

For information on accessing an

electronic copy of the data base, see the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

general information, call the RCRA Call

Center at 1–800–424–9346 or TDD 1–

800–553–7672 (hearing impaired).

Callers within the Washington

Metropolitan Area must dial 703–412–

9810 or TDD 703–412–3323 (hearing

impaired). The RCRA Call Center is

open Monday–Friday, 9 am to 4 pm,

Eastern Standard Time. For more

information on specific aspects of this

proposed rule, contact Mr. Frank Behan

at 703–308–8476, behan.frank@epa.gov,

or write him at the Office of Solid

Waste, 5302W, U.S. EPA, Ariel Rios

Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,

NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Submittal of Comments

You may submit comments

electronically by sending electronic

mail through the Internet to: rcradocket@epamail.epa.gov. You should

identify comments in electronic format

with the docket number F–2001–RC5P–

FFFFF. You must submit all electronic

comments as an ASCII (text) file,

avoiding the use of special characters or

any type of encryption. The official

record for this action will be kept in the

paper form. Accordingly, we will

transfer all comments received

electronically into paper form and place

them in the official record which will

also include all comments submitted

directly in writing. The official record is

the paper record maintained at the RIC

as described above. We may seek

clarification of electronic comments that

are garbled in transmission or during

conversion to paper form.

You should not electronically submit

any confidential business information

(CBI). You must submit an original and

two copies of CBI under separate cover

to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer,

Office of Solid Waste (5305W), U.S.

EPA, Ariel Rios Building, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington,

D.C. 20460.

If you do not submit comments

electronically, we are asking prospective

commenters to voluntarily submit one

additional copy of their comments on

labeled personal computer diskettes in

ASCII (text) format or a word processing

format that can be converted to ASCII

(text). It is essential that you specify on

the disk label the word processing

software and version/edition as well as

the commenter’s name. This will allow

us to convert the comments into one of

the word processing formats used by the

Agency. Please use mailing envelopes

designed to protect the diskettes. We

emphasize that submission of diskettes

is not mandatory, nor will it result in

any advantage or disadvantage to any

commenter.

Acronyms Used in the Rule

APCD—Air pollution control device

ASME—American Society of

Mechanical Engineers

CAA—Clean Air Act

CEMS—Continuous emissions

monitors/monitoring system

COMS—Continuous opacity monitoring

system

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations

DOC—Documentation of Compliance

DRE—Destruction and removal

efficiency

dscf—Dry standard cubic feet

dscm—Dry standard cubic meter

EPA/USEPA—United States

Environmental Protection Agency

gr—Grains

HAP—Hazardous air pollutant

HWC—Hazardous waste combustor

MACT—Maximum Achievable Control

Technology

NESHAP—National Emission Standards

for HAPs

ng—Nanograms

NIC—Notice of Intent to Comply

NOC—Notification of compliance

OPL—Operating parameter limit

PM—Particulate matter

POHC—Principal organic hazardous

constituent

ppmv—Parts per million by volume

RCRA—Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act

TEQ—Toxicity equivalence

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 35127

Table of Contents

Part One: Overview and Background for

This Proposed Rule

I. What Is the Purpose of This Proposed Rule?

II. What Is the Phase I Rule?

III. What Related Actions Have Been Taken

Since Publication of the Phase I Rule?

IV. How Can I Influence EPA’s Thinking on

this Rule?

Part Two: NESHAP—Proposed Amendments

to the HWC Final Rule

I. Definition of Research, Development, and

Demonstration Sources

II. Identification of an Organics Residence

Time that is Independent of and Shorter

than the Hazardous Waste Residence

Time

III. Controls on APCDs after the Hazardous

Waste Residence Time Has Expired

IV. Instantaneous Monitoring of Combustion

Zone Pressure

V. Operator Training and Certification

VI. Bag Leak Detection System

VII. Time Extensions For Performance

Testing if the Test Plan Has Not Been

Approved

VIII. Flexibility in Operations During

Confirmatory Performance Testing for

Dioxin/Furan

IX. Waiving Operating Parameter Limits

during Performance Testing

X. Method 23 as an Alternative to Method

0023A for Dioxin/Furans

XI. Calibration Requirements for

Thermocouples

XII. Alternative Approach to Establish

Operating Parameter Limits

XIII. Extrapolation of Operating Parameter

Limits

XIV. Limit on Minimum Combustion

Chamber Temperature for Cement Kilns

XV. Revisions to Operating Requirements for

Activated Carbon Injection and Carbon

Bed Systems

XVI. Clarification of Requirements to

Confirm Carbon Bed Age

XVII. Revisions to Operating Parameter

Limits for Wet Scrubbers

XVIII. Reproposal of kVA Limits for

Electrostatic Precipitators and Request

for Comment on Approaches to Ensure

Baghouse Performance

XIX. How to Comply Temporarily with

Alternative, Otherwise Applicable

MACT Standards

XX. RCRA Permitting Requirements for

Sources Entering the RCRA Process PostRule Promulgation

Part Three: Analytical and Regulatory

Requirements

I. Executive Order 12866

II. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as

Amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq.

III. Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks’’

IV. Environmental Justice Executive Order

12898

V. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

VI. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

VII. Consultation with Tribal Governments

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act

IX. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995

Part Four: State Authority

Part One: Overview and Background

for This Proposed Rule

I. What Is the Purpose of This Proposed

Rule?

Today’s notice proposes specific

changes to the NESHAP: Final

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

for Hazardous Waste Combustors (Phase

I) rule, published September 30, 1999

(64 FR 52828). After promulgation,

commenters (primarily the regulated

community) raised numerous potential

issues through informal comments and

during litigation settlement discussions.

After considering the issues raised, we

have decided to propose for comment

twenty amendments to the final rule,

most of the proposed changes relating to

compliance and implementation of the

rule.

The ability of facilities to meet the

September 30, 2002 compliance date

may be dependent upon when these

proposed changes are made final. While

we expect to complete the rulemaking

process and publish final amendments

in a timely manner, we request

comments on how the timing of these

rule changes could impact compliance.

In addition, we solicit comments on

solutions to address compliance

problems should they arise (e.g., use of

§ 63.1206(b)(4) to obtain an extension of

compliance with the emission standards

of up to one year).

In the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’

section of the Federal Register, we are

taking direct final action on thirteen

additional amendments to the Phase I

rule. If you wish to comment on those

amendments, you must submit

comments following the directions in

the ADDRESSES section of that action.

The remaining sections of this part

provide additional background

information on the Phase I final rule.

II. What Is the Phase I Rule?

In the Phase I final rule, we adopted

National Emissions Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants to control

toxic emissions from the burning of

hazardous waste in incinerators, cement

kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns.

These emission standards created a

technology-based national cap for

hazardous air pollutant emissions from

the combustion of hazardous waste in

these devices. Additional risk-based

conditions necessary to protect human

health and the environment may be

imposed (assuming a proper, sitespecific justification) under section

3005(c)(3) of the Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act (RCRA).

Section 112 of the CAA requires

emissions standards for hazardous air

pollutants to be based on the

performance of the Maximum

Achievable Control Technology

(MACT). These standards apply to the

three major categories of hazardous

waste burners—incinerators, cement

kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns.

For purposes of today’s proposal, we

refer to these three categories

collectively as hazardous waste

combustors (HWC). Hazardous waste

combustors burn about 80% of the

hazardous waste combusted annually

within the United States. The Phase I

HWC MACT standards are expected to

achieve significant reductions in the

amount of hazardous air pollutants

being emitted each year.

Additionally, the Phase I HWC MACT

rule satisfies our obligation under RCRA

(the main statute regulating hazardous

waste management) to ensure that

hazardous waste combustion is

conducted in a manner protective of

human health and the environment. By

using both CAA and RCRA authorities

in a harmonized fashion, we consolidate

regulatory control of hazardous waste

combustion into a single set of

regulations, thereby minimizing the

potential for conflicting or duplicative

federal requirements.

More information on the Phase I HWC

MACT rule is available electronically

from the World Wide Web at

www.epa.gov/hwcmact.

III. What Related Actions Have Been

Taken Since Publication of the Phase I

Rule?

On November 19, 1999, we issued a

technical correction to the Phase I HWC

MACT final rule (64 FR 63209). It

clarified our intent with respect to

certain aspects of the Notification of

Intent to Comply and Progress Report

requirements of the 1998 ‘‘Fast Track’’

final rule (63 FR 33783). Additionally,

specific to the Phase I HWC MACT final

rule, we corrected several typographical

errors and omissions.

On July 10, 2000, we issued a second

technical correction to the Phase I HWC

MACT final rule (65 FR 42292). This

action corrected additional

typographical errors and clarified

several issues to make the Phase I rule

easier to understand and implement.

This action also supplied one omission

from the technical correction published

on November 19, 1999, and made one

correction to the related June 19, 1998

‘‘Fast Track’’ final rule (63 FR 33783).

On July 25, 2000, the Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia

decided Chemical Manufacturers

Association v. EPA, 217 F. 3d 861 (D.C.

Cir. No. 99–1236). The court held that

EPA had the legal authority to

35128 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

1Hazardous waste research, development, and

demonstration sources remain subject to RCRA

permit requirements under § 270.65. See 64 FR at

52839.

2As discussed in Section XIX, if sources elect to

comply temporarily with alternative section 112 or

129 MACT standards after the hazardous waste

residence time has expired, sources nonetheless

remain an affected source only under Subpart EEE

for hazardous waste combustors.

3Email from David Case, Environmental

Treatment Council, to Bob Holloway, EPA, with

attachment entitled ‘‘Proposed Method for

Calculation of Hazardous Constituents Retention

Time,’’ dated June 7, 2000.

promulgate a requirement of early

cessation of hazardous waste burning

activity for those sources not intending

to comply with the MACT emission

standards. However, the court also held

that we had not adequately explained

our reasons for imposing the early

cessation requirement. As a result, the

court vacated the early cessation

requirement and the related Notice of

Intent to Comply (NIC) and Progress

Report requirements. This vacature took

effect on October 11, 2000. Since the

requirements were not vacated until

after sources were required to submit

their NICs (on October 2, 2000), we

determined that the court’s action does

not impact a source’s ability to request

a RCRA permit modification using the

streamlined procedures of 40 CFR

270.42(j)(1). As long as a source

complied with the NIC provisions

(including filing the NIC before the

provision was vacated), the source has

met the requirements in 40 CFR

270.42(j)(1) and is therefore eligible for

the streamlined RCRA permit

modification process. The court’s

decision does not impact the emission

standards or compliance schedule for

the other requirements of the HWC

NESHAP Subpart EEE.

On November 9, 2000, we issued a

third technical correction to the Phase I

HWC MACT final rule (65 FR 67268). It

clarified our intent with respect to the

applicability of new source versus

existing source standards for hazardous

waste incinerators. This action also

clarified three issues to make the Phase

I rule easier to understand and

implement.

On May 14, 2001, we issued a final

rule implementing two court orders that

removed affected provisions of the

Phase I HWC MACT final rule from the

Code of Federal Regulations (66 FR

24270). This action removed the Notice

of Intent to Comply provisions

(discussed above) and certain operating

parameter limits of baghouses and

electrostatic precipitators.

IV. How Can I Influence EPA’s

Thinking on This Rule?

In developing this proposal, we tried

to address the concerns of all our

stakeholders. Your comments will help

us improve this rule. We invite you to

provide different views on options we

propose, new approaches we haven’t

considered, new data, how this rule may

effect you, or other relevant information.

We welcome your views on all aspects

of this proposed rule. Your comments

will be most effective if you follow the

suggestions below:

• Explain your views as clearly as

possible and why you feel that way.

• Provide solid technical and cost

data to support your views.

• If you estimate potential costs,

explain how you arrived at the estimate.

• Tell us which parts you support, as

well as those you disagree with.

• Provide specific examples to

illustrate your concerns.

• Offer specific alternatives.

• Refer your comments to specific

sections of the proposal, such as the

units or page numbers of the preamble,

or the regulatory sections.

• Make sure to submit your

comments by the deadline in this

notice.

• Be sure to include the name, date,

and docket number with your

comments.

Part Two: NESHAP—Proposed

Amendments to the HWC Final Rule

I. Definition of Research, Development,

and Demonstration Sources

Section 63.1200, Table 1, exempts

research, development, and

demonstration sources from the Part 63,

Subpart EEE, hazardous waste

combustor MACT standards.1 We

explained at promulgation that the

hazardous waste combustor emission

standards and compliance assurance

requirements may not be appropriate for

these sources because of their typically

intermittent operations and small size.

See 64 FR at 52839.

The rule defines research,

development, or demonstration sources

as those sources engaged in laboratory,

pilot plant, or prototype demonstration

operations: (1) Whose primary purpose

is to conduct research, development, or

short-term demonstration of an

innovative and experimental hazardous

waste treatment technology or process;

and (2) where the operations are under

the close supervision of technicallytrained personnel.

Stakeholders express concern that the

definition of demonstration source and

the provision to allow unlimited oneyear time extensions to the exemption

may result in commercial, production

sources taking inappropriate advantage

of the exemption. We request comment

on approaches to preclude

inappropriate use of the exemption for

demonstration sources. Approaches that

we are considering include: (1) Clearly

distinguishing between research and

development sources versus

demonstration sources, and limiting the

exemption for demonstration sources to

one year or less; or (2) requiring

documentation of how a source’s

demonstration of an innovative or

experimental hazardous waste treatment

technology or process is different from

the waste management services

provided by a commercial hazardous

waste combustor.

II. Identification of an Organics

Residence Time That Is Independent of

and Shorter Than the Hazardous Waste

Residence Time

‘‘Hazardous waste residence time’’ is

defined at § 63.1201(a) as the time

elapsed from cutoff of the flow of

hazardous waste into the combustor

(including, for example, the time

required for liquids to flow from the

cutoff valve into the combustor) until

solid, liquid, and gaseous materials from

the hazardous waste, excluding residues

that may adhere to combustion chamber

surfaces, exit the combustion chamber.

As stakeholders recognize, hazardous

waste residence time has significant

regulatory and enforcement

implications. For example, if a source

were to exceed an operating

requirement or emission standard after

the hazardous waste residence time has

expired, it is not a violation if the

exceedance occurred during start-up or

shut-down, or because of a malfunction

provided that the source follows the

procedures and corrective measures

prescribed in the start-up, shut-down,

and malfunction plan. In addition, after

the hazardous waste residence time has

expired, sources may elect to comply

with emission standards the Agency has

promulgated under sections 112 and

129 of the Clean Air Act for source

categories that do not burn hazardous

waste in lieu of the hazardous waste

combustor standards of Subpart EEE,

Part 63. See § 63.1206(b)(1). 2

Since promulgation of the hazardous

waste combustor rule, stakeholders have

raised the issue of whether a hazardous

waste organics residence time should be

defined that is independent of and

shorter than the bulk solids residence

time.

Industry stakeholders recommend an

approach to calculate a hazardous waste

organics residence time that defines

when organic constituents in solid

materials have been destroyed. 3

Although the concept has merit, several

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 35129

4 Geankoplis, C.J., ‘‘Transport Processes and Unit

Operations,’’ Chapters 3 and 4, Allyn and Bacon,

Inc., Boston, 1978.

5B. Dellinger, et al, ‘‘Development of a Thermal

Stability Based Index of Hazardous Waste

Incinerability,’’ University of Dayton Research

Institute Final Report Under EPA Cooperative

Agreement CR–813938, November 15, 1991. Also,

B. Dellinger, et al, ‘‘Development of a Thermal

Stability Based Index of Hazardous Organic

Compound Incinerability,’’ Environmental Science

and Technology, 24, p.316, March 1990.

issues must be addressed prior to

revising the rule to allow sources to

petition the Administrator for case-bycase determinations of an organics

residence time. We therefore are not

proposing a change at this time but are

requesting comment on the concept and

implementation of an organic residence

time.

As contemplated by stakeholders, the

hazardous waste organics residence

time would be independent of and

considerably shorter than the bulk

hazardous waste residence time

discussed above. As with the bulk

hazardous waste residence time, an

organics residence time would have

significant regulatory and enforcement

implications. After the hazardous waste

organics residence time has expired, an

exceedance of the carbon monoxide or

hydrocarbon emission standard or an

operating parameter limit associated

with the destruction and removal

efficiency (DRE) or dioxin/furan

emission standards would not be a

violation if the exceedance occurred

during start-up or shut-down or were

caused by a malfunction and sources

comply with the procedures and

corrective measures prescribed in the

start-up, shut-down, and malfunction

plan. In addition, it seems appropriate

to allow sources to elect to comply with

standards the Agency has promulgated

under sections 112 or 129 of the Clean

Air Act to control organic emissions for

source categories that do not burn

hazardous waste in lieu of the

hazardous waste combustor standards of

Subpart EEE, Part 63. As discussed in

Section III below, however, providing

only a partial transition from the

hazardous waste combustor MACT

standards of Subpart EEE may be

problematic.

A. What Is the Approach Stakeholders

Recommend to Calculate Hazardous

Waste Organics Residence Time?

Stakeholders suggest that a hazardous

waste organics residence time can be

calculated as the sum of: (1) The time

for the solid matrix containing the

organic constituents to reach the target

temperature required to destroy the

organics; (2) the time for the organic

constituent to be destroyed at the target

temperature; and (3) the time for the gas

to pass through the combustion chamber

and exit the air pollution control

system. The time required for the

organic constituents within the solid

matrix to reach the target temperature

would be calculated using standard heat

transfer equations which are available in

chemical engineering references. 4

Stakeholders state that these equations

can be applied to various materials,

assuming the thermal conductivity of

the material. These equations also can

be applied easily to various geometries,

such as a 55 gallon drum (right circular

cylinder), or to irregular shaped items

resulting from shredder feed.

Stakeholders state that once the solid

is at the target temperature the time for

the hazardous constituent to be

destroyed can be calculated using

equations that are readily available from

Dr. Dellinger’s work on developing the

low oxygen thermal stability index for

hazardous organic compound

incinerability. 5 Using Dellinger’s

kinetic models under low oxygen

conditions, the destruction time for

hazardous constituents can be

calculated.

To implement this approach to

calculate a hazardous waste organics

residence time, stakeholders suggest

that sources should include the

retention time evaluation and

calculations in a report developed by an

independent Professional Engineer with

combustion engineering expertise.

Sources would submit the report to the

Administrator for review and approval.

B. How Would Site-Specific Factors Be

Addressed?

Stakeholders state that the general

approach can be readily applied to

various scenarios as necessary on a sitespecific basis. Stakeholders have

considered how some scenarios could

be addressed, as discussed below, and

believe that approaches to address other

scenarios would become apparent as the

approach is applied to the site-specific

situation.

1. How Would Various Geometric

Shapes and Sizes of Solids Be

Addressed?

Stakeholders acknowledge that an

incineration process can have several

types of solid feed such as bulk solids,

direct drum feed in various sizes,

shredded waste feed, and other

mechanisms. Each of these solid feed

scenarios can be evaluated for the heat

transfer step by assigning an appropriate

geometry to the solid for use in the heat

flux equations. Heat transfer will take

place more rapidly in shredded waste

feed, in which the particle size of the

solids is reduced. At the other extreme

is a monolith in a 55 gallon drum,

which will require a longer time for the

center point to reach the target

temperature. The center point of the

monolith can be considered the point

where the organic constituent is located

for ensuring a worst case for the heat

transfer step. Site-specific feed can be

modeled by evaluating the actual

geometry and size of solid feed and

post-shredder feed.

2. How Would the Thermal

Conductivity of the Solid Be

Determined?

The time for the solid mass to reach

temperature will depend on the thermal

conductivity of the solid mass. The

thermal conductivity is a key parameter

in the heat transfer equation. The types

of solid feed managed at a particular site

can be used to select a worst case

material for thermal conductivity.

Stakeholders present as an example a

facility that feeds certain polymeric

monolithic materials in 55 gallon

drums. Certain polymers may have a

low thermal conductivity that can be

used as a worst case. References such as

Perry’s Chemical Engineering Handbook

can be consulted to provide a range of

thermal conductivities for

consideration. For example,

stakeholders note that polypropylene

has one of the lower thermal

conductivities of 0.08 BTU/hr-sq.ft.-°F

(see Table 23–10 in Perry’s Handbook).

This might provide a good worst case

value to use for the solid mass thermal

conductivity for this source.

3. How Would a Worst-Case Organic

Constituent Be Selected?

Stakeholders suggest that a worst-case

hazardous organic constituent could be

selected on the basis of its ranking in

various incinerability indices, just as

principal organic hazardous

constituents (POHCs) are selected for

demonstrating destruction and removal

efficiency (DRE). A constituent that

ranks high in both the heat of

combustion and low oxygen thermal

stability indices could be used. In

addition, a few compounds with

complex structures that would be

expected to yield various decomposition

byproducts could be modeled. Examples

of such compounds are

pentachlorophenol, perchloroethylene,

and certain pesticides. Stakeholders

suggest that Dr. Dellinger’s work, cited

above, can be consulted to select

additional worst case constituents.

35130 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

6See Attachment 5 of ETC’s Comments to the

MACT Rule, Docket F–96–RCSP–FFFFF, filed

August 19, 1996.

7 Dellinger, B. et al, ‘‘PIC Formation Under

Pyrolytic and Starved Air Conditions,’’ EPA

Publication No. EPA/600/S2–86/006, July 1986.

8The particulate matter emission standard is

included because particulate matter is a surrogate

for metal hazardous air pollutants other than

mercury, the enumerated semivolatile metals, and

the enumerated low volatile metals. 9 If sources comply with the semivolatile and low

volatile metal emission standards without

emissions testing by assuming all metals in

feedstreams are emitted, and therefore do not rely

on the particulate matter control device to comply

with the emission standards for these metals, the

proposed requirements to maintain compliance

with the semivolatile and low volatile metals

emission standards and control device operating

parameter limits would not apply. 10As discussed in Section XIX of the text, if

sources choose to comply with otherwise applicable

section 112 or 129 requirements (e.g., Subpart LLL

for cement kilns) after the hazardous waste

residence time has expired, sources remain an

affected source under Subpart EEE only. Sources

would comply with those otherwise applicable

MACT standards under an alternative mode of

operation that sources would specify under

§ 63.1209(q).

4. How Would the Target Destruction

Temperature Be Selected?

Stakeholders suggest that target

destruction temperatures can be

selected based on the kinetic studies of

Dr. Dellinger. Stakeholders state that

Dellinger has generally found that any

organic chemical and its organic

byproducts can be completely destroyed

at 800°C.6 Also, the range of destruction

temperatures published by Dellinger can

be consulted to select a target

temperature on a site-specific basis for

the types of wastes that are managed.

5. How Would Paralytic and Starved Air

Conditions Be Addressed?

Stakeholders acknowledge that

certain solid geometries may result in

the organic constituent being isolated

from combustion air, such that pyrolytic

conditions must be assumed.

Nonetheless, stakeholders state that a

destruction time can still be calculated

and the low oxygen conditions can be

incorporated into the kinetic model.

Dellinger has published such

calculations in developing the low

oxygen thermal stability index for

incinerability.7 Stakeholders state that

pyrolytic conditions would likely be

required to be assumed for monolithic

feed. They note that shredder-feed,

however, substantially reduces the

particle size of the solid feed, and

mixing with combustion air is achieved.

6. How Would Heat Sink and Other

Heat Consuming Factors Be Addressed?

Stakeholders acknowledge that other

factors in a given waste may consume

energy, requiring another step or two to

the retention time calculation. For

example, a solid waste monolith that is

a low melting point solid will go

through a melting transition that will

consume heat before the temperature of

the mass rises past the transition point.

Stakeholders state that this step can be

easily added to the retention time

calculation, if necessary. Similarly, a

waste may contain a pocket of water or

other low boiling point material, and a

step for enthalpy of vaporization may

need to be added. Stakeholders note that

these calculations can also be performed

as a form of sensitivity analysis to

determine how conservative the

retention time calculation is.

B. What Are the Unresolved Issues

About Stakeholders’ Recommended

Approach?

We acknowledge that the residence

time for organic constituents in a solid

matrix is generally less than the

residence time for the bulk hazardous

waste residue. Thus, ideally, sources

should be eligible for the reduced

regulatory and enforcement burden

discussed above once the organics

residence time has expired. One

promising feature of the stakeholders’

approach is that it would conservatively

predict how long it takes the waste

monolith to heat up to volatilize the

organic constituent. We are concerned,

however, that their approach does not

explicitly address how long it would

take for: (1) The generated volatiles or

their potentially toxic intermediates to

diffuse to the surface of the monolith

where oxygen is present for destruction;

or (2) alternatively for oxygen in the

bulk gas to diffuse from the surface of

the monolith to reach the volatiles. In

lieu of accounting for the time required

to destroy organic constituents under

oxidative conditions, stakeholders’

approach assumes that destruction

would occur within solid matrices

under pyrolytic conditions. Further,

stakeholders believe that calculations

developed by Dellinger while

developing the low oxygen thermal

stability index could be used to model

those pyrolytic reactions. We request

comments on whether Dellinger’s work

on low oxygen destruction would

adequately model destruction under the

pyrolytic conditions that occur within

solid matrices, with respect to either the

time required for destruction of the

initial organic constituent or the types

of intermediates that would be formed

and the time required to destroy the

intermediates. Finally, we request

comments on whether it is practicable

to perform valid engineering

calculations for multiple waste streams

that are not homogenous and that

contain multiple organic constituents of

concern.

We request comment on stakeholders’

approach to calculate an organics

residence time and specifically whether

it can be revised to address our

concerns.

III. Controls on APCDs After the

Hazardous Waste Residence Time Has

Expired

For sources equipped with a dry

particulate matter control device, we

propose to maintain the semivolatile

metal, low volatile metal, and

particulate matter 8 emission standards

and the associated particulate matter

control device operating requirements

after the hazardous waste residence time

has expired and until the control device

undergoes a complete cleaning cycle

(e.g., for all compartments of a

baghouse; for all fields of an

electrostatic precipitator).9 For sources

equipped with activated carbon

injection, the dioxins/furans and

mercury emission standards would also

continue to apply after the hazardous

waste residence time has expired until

the control device undergoes a complete

cleaning cycle.

A. What Concern Would This

Requirement Address?

Dry particulate matter emission

control devices such as electrostatic

precipitators and baghouses retain

collected particulate matter in the

device until the sections of the device

are cleaned sequentially, e.g., rapping of

electrostatic precipitator plates, bag

cleaning. This retained particulate

matter contains metal hazardous air

pollutants other than mercury due to its

volatility. In addition, if the source is

equipped with activated carbon

injection, the collected particulate

matter also will contain mercury and

dioxins/furans. Our concern is that

these pollutants could be emitted at

levels exceeding the hazardous waste

combustor emission standards after the

hazardous waste residence time has

expired.

After the hazardous waste residence

time has expired, sources may choose to

comply with MACT standards the

Agency has promulgated under sections

112 and 129 of the Clean Air Act for

source categories that do not burn

hazardous waste in lieu of the Subpart

EEE standards. See § 63.1206(b)(1). 10 If

sources choose to comply with those

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 35131

11See Section XIX below in the text for additional

discussion on using § 63.1209(q) to specify

operations under otherwise applicable section 112

or 129 MACT standards.

otherwise applicable MACT standards,

we are concerned that these standards

may not adequately ensure that the

hazardous waste-derived pollutants

remaining in the dry particulate matter

control device are controlled to the level

required by the hazardous waste

combustor rules of Subpart EEE. For

example, if the alternative particulate

matter standard were substantially

higher than the hazardous waste

combustor MACT standard, sources may

be able to operate the control device

under less stringent operating levels

(e.g., lower power to a field of an

electrostatic precipitator) which could

cause the accumulated particulate

matter (containing hazardous wastederived pollutants) retained within the

device to be reentrained in the stack gas.

This could allow hazardous wastederived pollutants to be emitted at

levels exceeding the hazardous waste

combustor MACT emission standards.

When the particulate matter control

device undergoes a complete cleaning

cycle, the accumulated hazardous

waste-derived pollutants are removed,

thus precluding an exceedance of the

hazardous waste combustor emission

standards.

B. Is It Necessary To Require Continued

Compliance With the Limit on Gas

Temperature at the Inlet to the Dry

Particulate Matter Control Device?

We considered whether increasing the

gas temperature at the inlet to the dry

particulate matter control device, absent

a requirement to maintain the

temperature operating limit, could cause

hazardous waste-derived semivolatile

metals (and mercury and dioxins/furans

if sources use activated carbon

injection) contained in the accumulated

particulate matter to volatilize and be

emitted at levels that exceed an

emission standard.

We initially conclude that, absent a

gas inlet temperature limit, gas

temperatures are not likely to increase

to the levels necessary to volatilize

enough semivolatile metals to cause an

exceedance of the emission standards.

This is particularly true if we consider

that many sources should be able to

complete a cleaning cycle of their

electrostatic precipitator or baghouse

within 30 minutes after the hazardous

waste residence time has expired. We

are concerned, however, that, for

sources equipped with activated carbon

injection, increases in inlet gas

temperatures above the operating limit

may potentially revolatilize captured

mercury and dioxins/furans. We request

comment on the extent to which

mercury and dioxins/furans may

revolatilize and be emitted because of

increased gas temperatures in the short

period after the hazardous waste

residence time has expired and the

cleaning cycle for the dry particulate

matter control device has been

completed.

C. Would the Proposed Requirement

Increase Cleaning Cycle Frequency and

Potentially Emissions of Hazardous Air

Pollutants?

As discussed above, we propose to

require continued compliance with the

semivolatile metal, low volatile metal,

and particulate matter standards (and

the dioxin/furan and mercury standards

if sources use carbon injection) after the

hazardous waste residence time has

expired until the dry particulate matter

control device undergoes a complete

cleaning cycle. However, we are

concerned, that unless additional

controls are applied, this requirement

could potentially result in an increase in

particulate emissions and associated

hazardous air pollutants.

When a dry particulate matter control

device is cleaned, collection efficiency

is temporarily degraded. For example,

when the plates in the last field of an

electrostatic precipitator are rapped,

some of the resuspended particulate

matter is unavoidably emitted. For

baghouses, when the bags are cleaned,

typically using a pulse of air, the

collection efficiency of the cleaned bags

is reduced until a layer of particulate

matter reforms on the bags. Thus,

increasing the cleaning frequency of a

baghouse decreases its collection

efficiency.

To comply with the proposed

requirement to clean the particulate

matter control device before the Subpart

EEE metals and particulate matter

standards are waived in lieu of other

standards, sources may want to initiate

a cleaning cycle immediately after the

hazardous waste residence time has

expired. Further, they may want to

restart the timing of the cleaning cycle

beginning with the cleaning that occurs

after the hazardous waste residence time

has expired. Increasing the cleaning

cycle frequency could potentially result

in an exceedance of the emission

standards, however, if compliance with

the standards has not been

demonstrated during performance

testing at that cleaning cycle frequency.

To ensure that the emission standards

are not exceeded due to increased

cleaning cycle frequency, sources may

not increase the cleaning cycle

frequency beyond the frequency used

during the comprehensive performance

test.

D. How Would This Requirement Be

Implemented?

If sources elect to comply temporarily

with the otherwise applicable section

112 or 129 Clean Air Act standards after

the hazardous waste residence time has

expired, sources would remain subject

to certain Subpart EEE standards and

associated compliance requirements

until sources completed a cleaning cycle

of the dry particulate matter control

device: Particulate matter, semivolatile

metals, low volatile metals, and, if

sources use activated carbon injection,

dioxin/furan and mercury. Given that

sources remain an affected source only

under Subpart EEE when sources elect

to comply temporarily with otherwise

applicable MACT standards, sources

would identify this operating scenario

as an alternative mode of operation

under § 63.1209(q).11 Consequently,

sources would specify the applicable

emission standards and compliance

requirements for this alternative mode

of operation as: (1) Those standards and

compliance requirements of Subpart

EEE that remain in effect; and (2) those

otherwise applicable standards and

compliance requirements established

under section 112 or 129 (e.g., Subpart

LLL for cement kilns). If an otherwise

applicable section 112 or 129 standard

or compliance requirement were more

stringent than a Subpart EEE standard or

compliance requirement that remains in

effect, sources would comply with the

more stringent standard or compliance

requirement.

Exceedance of a Subpart EEE

operating parameter limit (OPL) for a

dry particulate matter control device

after the hazardous waste residence time

has expired but before a cleaning cycle

of the device has been completed would

be evidence of failure to maintain

compliance with the Subpart EEE

emission standards. Given that the

hazardous waste residence time has

expired, however, the exceedance need

not be considered for the excessive

exceedance reporting requirement under

§ 63.1206(c)(vi). Similarly, if the

exceedance occurs because of a

malfunction, the exceedance would not

be evidence of failure to maintain

compliance with an emission standard

if the source followed the corrective

measures prescribed in its startup,

shutdown, and malfunction plan. Thus,

the consequences of an exceedance

would be the same after the hazardous

waste residence time has expired

whether the exceedance occurs before or

35132 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

12The final rule preamble states that typical

pressure transducers in use today are capable of

responding to pressure changes once every 50

milliseconds. See 64 FR 52920.

13Note that this newly proposed definition

removes the word ‘‘sampling’’ from the definition

of instantaneous pressure monitor because a

pressure monitor is not thought to physically

withdraw a combustion gas sample.

after the cleaning cycle has been

completed if the source chose to

continue to comply with the Subpart

EEE emission standards (i.e., in lieu of

otherwise applicable MACT standards

under a different mode of operation).

Having equivalent consequences of an

exceedance of an OPL after the

hazardous waste residence time has

expired irrespective of whether the

cleaning cycle has been completed is

appropriate. Our objective is simply to

ensure that the Subpart EEE OPLs for

the dry particulate matter control device

are maintained until the cleaning cycle

is completed to minimize emissions of

hazardous waste-derived HAPs to below

the Subpart EEE emissions standards.

Our intent is not to penalize a source for

exceedances that may be attributable to

unavoidable malfunctions after the

source has taken the preventative

measures to minimize emissions of

HAPs by cutting off the hazardous waste

feed and allowing the hazardous waste

residence time to expire.

Some stakeholders have expressed

initial concern with the technical

feasibility of these proposed

requirements. We will be considering

these concerns prior to issuing a final

rule.

IV. Instantaneous Monitoring of

Combustion Zone Pressure

The final rule requires sources to

control combustion system leaks by

either: (1) Keeping the combustion zone

sealed; (2) maintaining the maximum

combustion zone pressure lower than

the ambient pressure measured using an

instantaneous monitor; or (3) using an

alternative means to provide control of

system leaks. See §§ 63.1201(a),

63.1206(c)(5)(ii), and 63.1209(p). The

rule defines an ‘‘instantaneous monitor’’

as one that continuously samples,

detects and records the regulated

parameter without use of an averaging

period. In today’s notice, we propose to

revise the combustion system leak

requirements to better clarify the intent

of this provision, and we are taking

comment on whether we should allow

sources to average pressure readings

over short periods of time when

demonstrating that their combustion

system is maintained below ambient

pressure.

After publication of the final rule,

stakeholders expressed concern that the

requirement to maintain the combustion

zone pressure lower than ambient

pressure (option 2 above) could result in

an overly prescriptive requirement.

Stakeholders believe this regulatory

language can be interpreted to require

sources to monitor and record

combustion zone pressure at a

frequency of every 50 milliseconds.12

Stakeholders state such an

interpretation would be problematic

because of the enormous number of data

points that must be recorded and

because such a frequent monitoring

frequency would greatly increase the

number of automatic waste feed cutoffs.

Stakeholders also requested that we

clarify that combustion system leaks

refer to fugitive emissions resulting from

the combustion of hazardous waste, and

not fugitive emissions that originate

from nonhazardous process streams

(e.g., the clinker product at a cement

kiln).

After careful review of the regulatory

language and after considering our

original intent, we agree that the final

rule is ambiguous and may be

conservatively interpreted to require

sources to monitor and record

combustion zone pressure at a

frequency of every 50 milliseconds.

Therefore, in today’s notice, we clarify

that our intent is to require sources to

use a pressure monitor and recording

frequency that is adequate to detect

combustion system leak events. We also

clarify that the intent of the combustion

system leak requirement is to prevent

fugitive emissions from the combustion

of hazardous waste, not fugitive

emissions that originate from

nonhazardous process streams.

To make these clarifications, we

propose to modify the § 63.1201(a)

definition of an instantaneous pressure

monitor to read as follows:

‘‘Instantaneous monitoring for

combustion system leak control means

detecting and recording pressure

without use of an averaging period, at

a frequency adequate to detect

combustion system leak events from

hazardous waste combustion’’

(emphasis added).13 We also propose to

revise the § 63.1209(p) automatic waste

feed cutoff regulatory language to read

as follows: ‘‘If you comply with the

requirements for combustion system

leaks under § 63.1206(c)(5) by

maintaining the maximum combustion

chamber zone pressure lower than

ambient pressure to prevent combustion

system leaks from hazardous waste

combustion, sources must perform

instantaneous monitoring of pressure

and the automatic waste feed cutoff

system must be engaged when negative

pressure is not maintained’’ (emphasis

added).

We do not specify the monitoring and

recording frequencies in the regulations,

however, because sources differ in

design and operation such that different

monitoring and recording frequencies

may be needed to ensure that fugitive

emissions do not occur. Rather, sources

and permit officials should determine

on a site-specific basis what frequency

of monitoring and recording would be

appropriate. Each source should

describe in the comprehensive

performance test workplan and

Notification of Compliance how their

compliance method will ensure that

fugitive emissions will not occur. We

propose that this description specify the

monitoring and recording frequency and

how the monitoring approach will be

integrated into the automatic waste feed

cutoff system.

Stakeholders also suggest that we

allow averaging of the pressure readings

over short periods of time, e.g., a 5-

second rolling average updated every

second, in demonstrating the

combustion system is maintained below

ambient pressure. Averaging of pressure

readings is less stringent than the

current final rule instantaneous

monitoring requirements. We request

comment on whether such a monitoring

approach is appropriate, and

specifically, whether averaging pressure

readings can adequately detect pressure

excursion events that result in

combustion system leaks.

V. Operator Training and Certification

On July 10, 2000, we issued a

technical correction to the operator

training and certification requirements

of § 63.1206(c)(6) to clarify which

employees are subject to the training

and certification requirements and to

note that the training and certification

program should be tailored to the

responsibilities of the employee. See 65

FR at 42295. Subsequent to this

technical correction, incinerator

stakeholders raised concerns about the

requirement for incinerator control

room operators and shift supervisors to

be trained and certified under the

American Society of Mechanical

Engineers (ASME) Standard Number

QHO–1–1994. Although the rule allows

incinerator control room operators to be

trained and certified under either a State

program or ASME’s program,

stakeholders note that they are required

to use the ASME program because there

are no State programs at this time.

Stakeholders raise the following

concerns: (1) The scope of the ASME

training and certification program is too

broad; (2) the ASME certification

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 35133

14The examination team is comprised of

representatives from ASME, the hazardous waste

industry, the operator’s facility, and/or the

regulatory agency or jurisdictional authority

applicable to the facility.

program is problematic for new sources

and newly hired operators because it

requires 6 months of operating

experience at the source before full

certification may be awarded; (3) the

ASME control room operator training

and certification program is not

necessary for shift supervisors; and (4)

the ASME training and certification

program cannot be implemented by the

regulatory compliance date.

We provide below our reasons for

preferring the ASME training and

certification program over site-specific,

source-implemented programs, but

acknowledge stakeholders’ concerns

that the program may be more

comprehensive than necessary to ensure

compliance with the requirements of

Subpart EEE. Accordingly, we propose

to allow incinerator control room

operators to be trained and certified

under: (1) A site-specific, sourcedeveloped and implemented program;

(2) the ASME program; or (3) a State

program. We also conclude that it may

be difficult for sources that choose to

use the ASME program to fully certify

their control room operators by the

compliance date. Therefore, we propose

to require only provisional certification

by the compliance date for such sources.

In addition, for sources that choose to

use the ASME program, only

provisional certification would be

required for new employees and

employees at new facilities prior to their

assuming duties. Finally, we propose

that control room operator training and

certification is not necessary for shift

supervisors to help ensure that the

source operates within the limits

established under the rule and that

emissions of hazardous air pollutants

are minimized.

A. How Do We Address Concerns About

the ASME Training and Certification

Program?

1. Is the Scope of the ASME Program

Too Broad?

Incinerator stakeholders state that the

scope of the ASME training and

certification program for incinerator

control room operators is too broad to

apply generically to all control room

operators. They prefer a tailored, sitespecific, source-developed and

implemented training and certification

program.

The ASME program requires that

control room operators be trained and

certified to ensure a broad knowledge of

operational, preventive maintenance,

safety procedures, and practices for

various types of incineration systems,

emission control systems, and

continuous emissions monitoring

systems. Incinerator stakeholders state

that there is no obvious benefit of

requiring a broad knowledge of

incineration issues; knowledge of only

the equipment and operations at the

operator’s site are important. They

question the benefit of, for example, an

operator of a small liquid waste

incinerator equipped with a wet

scrubber knowing how to operate a

rotary kiln incinerator equipped with a

baghouse. They note further that it is

unnecessarily time-consuming and

stressful for operators that are

unfamiliar with equipment they have

never operated to undergo a rigorous

training and certification program for

that equipment. In addition, they note

that the ASME standard was developed

as a voluntary standard. Finally, they

note that cement kiln and lightweight

aggregate kiln control room operators

may be trained and certified under a

site-specific program.

The ASME program is comprised of a

broad training curriculum that is

implemented by each source followed

by a provisional certification that is

administered by ASME. Provisional

certification is awarded after the

operator passes a comprehensive,

generic written test addressing

operations of various types of

incinerators and control systems.

Operators with provisional certification

may apply to ASME for full

certification. Full certification is

awarded after passing an on-site, sitespecific oral examination.

We continue to believe that a broad

training and certification program can

be beneficial. A broad training program

may enable control room operators to

recommend modifications to existing

equipment or make recommendations

for new equipment, which may reduce

HAP emissions. In addition,

certification under a broad training

curriculum would avoid the retraining

and recertification that would be

required if the source modifies the

design or operation of the unit in a

manner that could affect compliance

with the emission standards and

operating requirements of Subpart EEE.

Nonetheless, we agree with

incinerator stakeholders that the broad

scope of the ASME program may not be

necessary to ensure compliance with the

provisions of Subpart EEE. Accordingly,

we propose to allow sources to use sitespecific, source-developed and

implemented training and certification

programs, as discussed under Section B

below.

2. Full Certification Under the ASME

Program Cannot Be Achieved by the

Compliance Date

The rule currently requires full ASME

(or State) certification by the

compliance date. We agree with

stakeholders that this is not workable

because ASME does not have the

resources to implement the site-specific

oral examination requisite for full

certification by the compliance date.

After passing the written examination

and achieving provisional certification,

control room operators must apply to

ASME for the oral examination.

Stakeholders indicate that it will take

one half day per control room operator

to administer the site-specific oral

examination. For many facilities, the

ASME oral examination team 14 will

require approximately one week,

including travel time, to administer the

exam to all control room operators.

Although ASME may train several

examination teams, it is unlikely that

full certification examinations can be

implemented at all 149 hazardous waste

incineration facilities prior to the

compliance date.

To address this concern, we propose

to require only provisional certification

by the compliance date for sources that

choose to use the ASME certification

program. In addition, the operator

would be required to submit an

application to ASME for full

certification and be scheduled for the

certification examination. Finally, the

operator would be required to achieve

full certification within 1 year of the

compliance date. We hope that

providing this flexibility in the deadline

for full certification will encourage use

of the ASME program. We specifically

request comment on whether the

proposed deadlines for implementing

the ASME certification program are

appropriate.

3. Requiring Six Months of Operating

Experience at the Source Before Full

Certification Is Problematic

The ASME standard requires that

control room operators have six months

of operating experience at the source

before they can be fully certified. This

is a problem for new sources and for

newly hired operators. We propose to

preclude this problem by requiring only

provisional certification before

operators at new sources and newly

hired operators could assume their

duties. Also, we would require that

35134 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

provisionally certified operators apply

to ASME for, and be scheduled for, full

certification before they assume their

duties. In addition, we would require

that they achieve full certification

within one year of assuming their

duties. This will ensure that full

certification will be achieved in a timely

manner.

B. What Would Be the Requirements for

Site-Specific, Source-Developed and

Implemented Training and Certification

Programs?

Under today’s proposed rule, a source

could choose to develop and implement

a site-specific training and certification

program in lieu of the ASME program or

a State program. Certification under a

site-specific program would be required

by the compliance date given that the

source will implement both the training

and certification (i.e., written

examination at a minimum). We note

that cement and lightweight aggregate

kiln sources are currently allowed to use

site-specific training and certification

programs because there is no ASME or

other standard for these sources that

addresses their hazardous waste burning

activities. Because the requirements

discussed below are appropriate for

these sources as well, we propose to

require that the requirements also apply

to cement and lightweight aggregate

kilns.

We propose to specify a training

curriculum to ensure that the scope of

the training is sufficient to ensure the

control room operator can maintain

compliance with the requirements of

Subpart EEE. The certification program

(i.e., written examination at a minimum)

would be required to address the topics

in the training curriculum. The training

curriculum would be required to

include the following topics: (1)

Environmental concerns, including

types of emissions; (2) basic combustion

principals, including products of

combustion; (3) operation of the specific

type of combustor used by the operator,

including proper startup, waste firing,

and shutdown procedures; (4)

combustion controls and continuous

monitoring systems; (5) operation of air

pollution control equipment and factors

affecting performance; (6) inspection

and maintenance of the combustor,

continuous monitoring systems, and air

pollution control devices; (7) actions to

correct malfunctions or conditions that

may lead to malfunctions; (8) residue

characteristics and handling procedures;

and (9) applicable Federal, state, and

local regulations, including

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration workplace standards.

This training curriculum is modeled

after the requirements the Agency

recently promulgated for commercial

and industrial solid waste incinerators.

See 65 FR 75338 (December 1, 2000).

We believe this training is also

appropriate for hazardous waste

combustors.

To maintain certification, an operator

would be required to complete an

annual review or refresher course

covering, at a minimum, the following

topics: (1) Update of regulations; (2)

combustor operation, including startup

and shutdown procedures, waste firing,

and residue handling; (3) inspection and

maintenance; (4) responses to

malfunctions or conditions that may

lead to malfunction; and (5) operating

problems encountered by the operator.

These are the same requirements the

Agency recently promulgated for

commercial and industrial solid waste

incinerators at § 60.2085, and we believe

they are also appropriate for hazardous

waste combustors.

C. Control Room Operator Training and

Certification Would Not Be Required for

Shift Supervisors

The final rule requires the same level

of training and certification for shift

supervisors and control room operators.

Incinerator stakeholders question

whether shift supervisors need to meet

these training and certification

requirements. Stakeholders note that

shift supervisors often have

administrative duties that are not

closely related to the technical

knowledge required to operate and

maintain a combustor.

After reconsideration, we agree with

stakeholders’ reasons for not requiring

that shift supervisors be trained and

certified to the level of a control room

operator. Accordingly, we propose to

require that shift supervisors, like

personnel other than control room

operators, be trained and certified to the

technical level commensurate with the

employee’s job duties.

D. A Certified Control Room Operator

Must Be on Duty At All Times

We propose to revise the rule to

clarify that a certified control room

operator must be on duty at the source

at all times the source is in operation.

Having a certified operator present at all

times is necessary to ensure compliance

with the emission standards and

operating requirements, and to take

appropriate corrective measures when

malfunctions occur.

VI. Bag Leak Detection System

Section 63.1206(c)(7)(ii) of the

hazardous waste combustor rule

prescribes baghouse operation and

maintenance requirements for

incinerators and lightweight aggregate

kilns, including a requirement for the

continuous operation of a bag leak

detection system as a continuous

monitor. Since promulgation of the rule,

stakeholders have raised two issues: (1)

Can less sensitive bag leak detectors be

approved under the alternative

monitoring provisions; and (2) why did

we conclude that opacity monitors

meeting revised Performance

Specification 1 are not likely to be

acceptable bag leak detectors.

A. Can Less Sensitive Bag Leak

Detectors Be Approved Under the

Alternative Monitoring Provisions?

Section 63.1206(c)(7)(ii)(D)(1) requires

the bag leak detector system to be

capable of continuously detecting and

recording mass changes in particulate

matter emissions at concentrations of

1.0 milligrams per actual cubic meter or

less. Stakeholders state that monitors

with higher detection limits are able to

detect subtle changes in baseline,

normal emissions as well as

catastrophic events, and question

whether these monitors can be approved

under the alternative monitoring

petitioning procedures of

§ 63.1209(g)(1).

We support the use of monitors with

higher detection limits provided the

monitor is sensitive enough to detect

subtle increases in baseline, normal

emissions, and we plan to develop

guidance recommendations on this

issue. We request comment on whether

§ 63.1206(c)(7)(ii)(D)(1) should be

revised to explicitly allow the use of

monitors with higher detection limits,

or whether the existing alternative

monitoring provisions coupled with

guidance recommendations is sufficient.

In addition, we request comment on

how a source would document that a

bag leak detection system, with a

detection level higher than 1.0

milligrams per actual cubic meter, can

detect subtle changes in baseline,

normal mass emissions of particulate

matter. For example, should we require

site-specific tests to document that

alternative detectors provide a

measurable and repeatable change in

opacity output with an increase in

particulate matter mass emissions?

B. Why Did We Conclude That Opacity

Monitors Meeting Revised Performance

Specification 1 Are Not Likely To Be

Acceptable Bag Leak Detectors?

EPA promulgated a significantly

improved Performance Specification 1

(PS1) for opacity monitors on August

10, 2000. See 65 FR at 48914. We

considered whether to allow use of

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 35135

opacity monitors meeting PS1 as bag

leak detectors, but conclude that they

are not likely to be sensitive enough to

detect subtle increases in mass

particulate matter emissions from a

source equipped with a well designed

and operated baghouse.

Revised PS1 includes additional

design and performance specifications

as well as new test procedures that

provide a profound improvement on

opacity data accuracy and precision.

Collectively, the additional measures

provide a comprehensive, in-depth

functional test of the complete

measurement procedure, thereby

eliminating many of the performance

problems associated with previous

opacity monitors.

The revisions go far beyond the

previous version of PS1, drawing on

recent technological advancements in

optics, electronics, and information

transfer. There are similar specifications

for such monitors in Europe. The

stipulation of automatic self-diagnosing

capability is one of the many modern

features incorporated into the new PS1.

Taken together, the additional measures

reflect a distinct new generation in the

state-of-the-art of opacity monitors.

Notwithstanding the improvements

that revised PS1 requires, opacity

monitors are generally not acceptable

for use as a bag leak detector because

they are not sensitive enough to detect

subtle increases in baseline, normal

emissions. Baghouse emission opacity

levels are very nearly zero at particulate

matter concentrations below emission

standards and are very near the lower

detection limits of a continuous opacity

monitoring system (COMS). COMS

manufacturers have collectively raised

the concern about COMS sensitivity

limitations at low opacity levels. (See

ASTM D–6216–98, Standard Practices

for Opacity Monitor Manufacturers to

Certify Conformance with Design and

Performance Specifications.) Although

the increase in particulate matter mass

emissions that would trigger a

measurable opacity change that a COMS

could detect is usually site-specific and

would depend on the particle size and

reflective and refractive properties. We

are concerned that particulate matter

emission concentrations may have to

double or triple before a COMS could

detect a significant opacity change at the

low opacity levels associated with

baghouse emissions. For these reasons,

we conclude that COMS meeting

Performance Specification 1 are not

likely to be suitable as bag leak

detectors. Nonetheless, as discussed

above, we request comment on whether

an approach could be developed to

allow use of bag leak detectors that have

detection limits above 1.0 milligrams

per actual cubic meter.

Moreover, we note that

electrodynamic and triboelectric bag

leak detectors have proven to be much

more sensitive and cost about the same

or less than COMS to install and

operate. In addition, some particulate

matter continuous emissions monitors

(CEMS) have been shown to be able to

detect very small changes in particulate

matter mass emissions at low emission

levels. If sources were to use a

particulate matter CEMS as a bag leak

detector, sources need not correlate the

detector to particulate matter emission

concentrations. Rather, sources would

be required to document that the CEMS

provides a measurable and repeatable

change in output with an increase in

particulate matter mass emissions.

VII. Time Extensions For Performance

Testing if the Test Plan Has Not Been

Approved

During the comment period of the

final rule and after promulgation,

stakeholders raised the concern that the

rule requires sources to commence

performance testing within 180 days

after September 30, 2002, even if the test

plan has not been approved. Although

the rule requires submittal of the test

plan 12 months prior to the scheduled

test date to provide a nine-month review

period, stakeholders are concerned that

the test plan may not be approved at the

conclusion of that review period.

Stakeholders state that they may spend

hundreds of thousands of dollars to

conduct a test under an unapproved test

plan, only to learn after the test that

EPA or the state may not accept the

results as a valid demonstration of

compliance with the emission standards

due to differences of opinion on test

design. In the preamble to the final rule,

we address this issue by stating that ‘‘If

permit officials nevertheless fail to act

within the nine-month review and

approval period, a source could argue

that this failure is tacit approval of the

plan and that later ‘‘second-guessing’’ is

not allowable.’’ See 64 FR at 52912.

However, stakeholders are concerned

that this preamble language does not

guarantee that they will not have to

repeat the test. Stakeholders recommend

revising the rule to allow sources to wait

until a test plan has been approved

before conducting a performance test.

We are reluctant to deviate from the

Part 63 General Provision’s six-month

deadline after the compliance date for

conducting the initial comprehensive

performance test. We continue to

believe that an open-ended test date will

not provide an incentive for either

sources or regulatory officials to resolve

differences related to a test plan, thereby

unnecessarily delaying testing.

Nonetheless, we acknowledge that there

may be situations where a source and

regulatory officials are making genuine

efforts to complete review of the test

plan, but for reasons beyond their

control, the review cannot be completed

prior to the testing deadline.

Accordingly, we propose to revise the

rule to address these particular

situations.

Under today’s proposal, a source may

petition the Administrator, under the

authority of § 63.7(h), to obtain a

‘‘waiver’’ of any performance test—

initial or periodic performance test;

comprehensive or confirmatory test. The

‘‘waiver’’ would not eliminate the test,

but would be used to grant an extension

of time to conduct the performance test.

To qualify for the waiver, a source must

make a good faith effort to comply with

the testing requirements in a timely

manner. First, as currently required,

sources must submit a site-specific

emissions testing plan and a continuous

monitoring system performance

evaluation test plan at least one year

before a comprehensive performance

test is scheduled to begin (see

§ 63.1207(c)(1)), or at least 60 days

before a confirmatory performance test

is scheduled to begin (see § 63.1207(d)).

Sources also must submit all other

documentation required by Subpart EEE

to be included with the performance test

plans. The submitted test plans must

fulfill the substantive content

requirements of §§ 63.1207(f) and

63.8(e). Second, a source must make a

good faith effort to accommodate the

Administrator’s comments on the test

plans. Finally, the Administrator must

not take final action, through a

notification of intent to deny (see

§ 63.7(c)(3)(i)(B)), to deny the source’s

test plan(s).

Under today’s proposal, sources must

submit to the Administrator a waiver

petition or request to renew the petition

under § 63.7(h), separately for each

source, at least 60 days prior to the

scheduled date of the performance test.

The Administrator would approve or

deny the petition within 30 days of

receipt and promptly notify the source

of the decision. The Administrator

would not approve extensions of the test

date for a duration exceeding 6 months,

and the Administrator would include in

granted petitions a sunset provision to

end the waiver within 6 months.

To renew a waiver, we are proposing

that sources must submit a revised

petition under § 63.7(h)(3)(iii) at least 60

days prior to the end date of the most

recently approved waiver petition. The

Administrator could approve a revised

35136 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

petition for a total waiver period up to

12 months. A performance test could

not be delayed more than a total of 12

months, irrespective of the status of

approval of the test plan.

If the Administrator denies a § 63.7(h)

waiver petition, we are proposing that

the source must commence the

performance test, with or without

approved test plans, by either the

deadline provided by Subpart EEE or by

the expiration date of their most

recently approved waiver petition,

whichever is later.

Sources would also need to address,

in the waiver petition, the following

requirements of § 63.7(h). A source must

provide documentation to enable the

Administrator to determine if ‘‘the

source is meeting the relevant

standard(s) on a continuous

basis * * *.’’ See § 63.7(h)(2). For

extension requests of the initial

comprehensive performance test, a

source must submit the Documentation

of Compliance to assist the

Administrator in making this

determination. In addition,

§ 63.7(h)(3)(iii) requires sources to

‘‘include information justifying the

owner or operator’s request for a waiver,

such as the technical or economic

infeasibility, or the impracticality, of the

affected source performing the required

test.’’

In order to continue to keep the

public informed of the source’s

compliance status, the source would

need to notify the public (i.e., the

source’s public mailing list) of their

§ 63.7(h) petition to ‘‘waive’’ a

performance test.

The following is an example time line

indicating how the proposed § 63.7(h)

waiver petitioning process would work

for the initial comprehensive

performance test. All end dates should

be read as ‘‘no later than’’ X number of

months. The time line assumes the

source has submitted its performance

test plans (i.e., for emissions testing and

continuous monitoring system

evaluation) on the deadline date—one

year before the performance test must be

conducted (i.e., sources submit the test

plans 6 months prior to the compliance

date).

0 time—Submittal of performance test

plans for review (1 year prior to test

date; 6 months prior to compliance

date).

9 months—Administrator does not

approve or deny test plans, even

though the source has acted in good

faith to obtain approval

10 months—Submittal of performance

test waiver petition and notify

public (2 months prior to test date).

11 months—Administrator approves or

denies the performance test waiver

(1 month after receipt of waiver).

12 months—Commence performance

test if the Administrator denies

waiver.

12 months + ≤6months—Extended

performance test commencement

date if the Administrator approves

waiver.

16 months—If needed, submit

performance test waiver renewal

petition and notify public (2

months prior to sunset of latest

approved waiver).

17 months—Administrator approves or

denies renewal petition (1 month

after receipt of renewal petition).

18 months—Maximum extension of test

date for unrenewed performance

test waivers.

18 months + ≤6months—Extended

performance test commencement

date with renewed waiver.

24 months—Maximum extension of test

date for renewed performance test

waivers.

VIII. Flexibility in Operations During

Confirmatory Performance Testing for

Dioxin/Furan

During the confirmatory performance

test, the final rule requires sources to

operate so that carbon monoxide or

hydrocarbon levels, and operating

parameter limits associated with the

dioxin/furan emission standard, are

within the range of the average values

over the previous 12 months. Sources

also must stay within the maximum or

minimum value, as appropriate, that is

allowed. See § 63.1207(g)(2). These

requirements ensure that during the

confirmatory performance test, dioxin/

furan emissions are within the range of

the normal to the highest allowable

emissions.

Stakeholders express concern that it

may be difficult to ‘‘dial in’’ operation

of the combustor to the required range

for each operating parameter

simultaneously. Sources are particularly

concerned about having to operate

within a potentially narrow range of

carbon monoxide levels for sources that

normally operate close to the 100 ppmv

limit. This is because carbon monoxide

levels are dependent on many

combustion-related factors and cannot

be directly ‘‘dialed in’’ as can be done

for other parameters (e.g., activated

carbon injection federate).

Although this is not likely to be a

widespread problem, we acknowledge

there may be a problem in some

situations. Accordingly, we propose

today to revise the rule to: (1) Allow

approval in the test plan for operations

under a wider operating range for a

particular parameter based on

information justifying that operating

within the required range may be

problematic; and (2) allow the

Administrator to accept test results

during the finding of compliance based

on operations outside of the range

specified in the confirmatory test plan.

Allowing the Administrator to accept

test results based on operations outside

of the range specified in the test plan

would address when a source did not

anticipate a problem in maintaining the

operating levels within the required

range (and therefore did not request

advance approval to do so), but because

of unforeseen factors, were unable to

maintain the required range. This

provision would give permit writers

discretion to accept emissions data

obtained when operating outside of the

prescribed range so that sources would

not have to incur the costs of an

additional confirmatory test. In

determining whether to accept test

results from operations outside of the

range specified in the test plan, permit

writers would consider factors

including: (1) The magnitude and

duration of the deviation from the

required range; (2) the historical range

of the parameter (e.g., the range between

the 10th and 90th percentile timeweighted average values for the

parameter); (3) the proximity of the

emission test results to the standard;

and (4) the reason for not maintaining

the required range. These factors

determine whether the operations are

reasonably representative of normal

operations and how important it may be

that test operations be truly

representative of normal operations.

IX. Waiving Operating Parameter

Limits During Performance Testing

Section 63.1207(h) automatically

waives the operating parameter limits

(OPLs) during subsequent

comprehensive performance tests under

an approved performance test plan.

After promulgation, stakeholders raised

two concerns. They believe that: (1)

OPLs defined in the Documentation of

Compliance should be waived during

the initial comprehensive performance

test and associated pretesting; and (2)

OPLs should be waived during testing

and pretesting irrespective of whether

the test plan has been approved.

A. Should We Waive OPLs During the

Initial Comprehensive Performance

Test?

Section 63.1211(d) requires sources to

include in the operating record a

Documentation of Compliance (DOC)

that establishes limits on the operating

parameters under § 63.1209 that, based

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 35137

15Sources can currently petition EPA to use

alternative test methods pursuant to § 63.7(f). The

petition process that we are requesting comment on

would not require sources to submit the results of

a Method 301 validation process as is required

under § 63.7(f).

16Method 0023A was proposed on July 25, 1995

(see 60 FR 37974). EPA received comments on

Method 0023A and later incorporated the method

into SW 846 in a final rule on June 13, 1997 (see

62 FR at 32451).

17See ‘‘Final Technical Support Document for

HWC Standards, Volume IV: Compliance with HWC

MACT Standards,’’ Chapter 16, July 1999.

18This assumes, however, that method recoveries

do not significantly vary at a source for different

emissions tests. Any petition to use Method 23

should address whether method recoveries are

expected to change from one emission test to

another.

on an engineering evaluation, will

ensure compliance with the emission

standards. The DOC may be revised at

any time prior to submitting the

Notification of Compliance. If additional

engineering information becomes

available that leads sources to conclude

that they can operate under less

stringent OPLs during the initial

comprehensive performance test and

demonstrate compliance with the

emission standards, the DOC may be

revised accordingly. Therefore, we do

not believe that additional regulatory

language is needed to enable source to

operate during pretesting or the initial

comprehensive performance test under

OPLs less stringent than those identified

in the DOC. We specifically request

comment on this issue.

B. Should We Allow the OPLs To Be

Waived if the Test Plan Has Not Been

Approved?

Section 63.1207(h) waives the OPLs

during performance testing under an

approved test plan. We required

pretesting and testing operations to be

conducted under an approved test plan

as a prerequisite for the waiver. This

will ensure that operations, when the

OPLs are waived, are likely to remain in

compliance with the emission

standards. In retrospect, however, we

acknowledge that stack emissions

measurements will be taken during both

pretesting (see § 63.1207(h)(2)) and

testing. Given that there will be

documentation of any exceedance of an

emissions standard during a

performance test, potentially indicating

a violation during such testing, it is not

necessary to require that the test plan be

approved before the OPLs can be

waived. Similarly, if a source records

the results of pretesting, the OPLs

should be waived without approval of

the test plan. Accordingly, we propose

to revise the rule to waive the OPLs

during pretesting (if the source records

the results of the pretest) and

performance testing. See proposed

§ 63.1207(h).

Although stakeholders have raised

concerns about testing under an

unapproved test plan (see Section VII

above), there may be instances where a

source may choose to test under such

conditions. Consequently, the regulatory

revision appears to be warranted.

X. Method 23 as an Alternative to

Method 0023A for Dioxin/Furans

The final rule requires use of Method

0023A to determine compliance with

the dioxin and furan emission standard.

See § 63.1208(b)(1). Based on

discussions with stakeholders after

promulgation of the final rule, we

believe it is appropriate to request

comment on amending the final rule to

allow petitions for the use of Method 23

in lieu of Method 0023A.15

Method 23 is the Clean Air Act

dioxin/furan air emission test method

found in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A.

Method 0023A is the RCRA dioxin/

furan air emission test method found in

SW–846.16 The final rule requires use of

Method 0023A because this method is

the updated version of Method 23. At

the time of final rule publication, we

believed that the improvements to the

updated method warranted use of

Method 0023A.

Stakeholders request that we give

sources the option to use Method 23 or

Method 0023A because: (1) The dioxin/

furan standard is based on emissions

data that was collected using Method 23

procedures; (2) Method 0023A is more

expensive because of additional

analytical costs; and (3) Method 0023A

results in higher detection limits.

Method 23 and Method 0023A are

similar methods. Method 23 combines

the front half of the filter and probe

rinse with the back half of the sorbent

and rinses to perform a single extraction

and analysis. Recovery of spiked

standards into the sorbent are used to

serve as an indicator of overall recovery.

Method 0023A differs from Method 23,

primarily in that Method 0023A uses

the addition of standards to both the

filter (front half) and sorbent (back half),

and then separates the front half and

back half for analysis in order to

determine the recovery from each half.

They are separated in order to better

quantify recoveries for both the back

half and front half fractions. This is

important, because low recoveries in

Method 23 are sometimes associated

with dioxin/furan contained in solid

phase particulate that may go unnoticed

due to the combined front half and back

half analysis. This may be of particular

importance for sources that use

activated carbon injection, or sources

whose particulate matter contains

significant levels of carbonaceous

material. In other words, Method 0023A

was designed as an improvement to

Method 23 by incorporating separate

recovery, spiking, and analysis of front

half and back half samples to improve

the quality assurance of the front half

and back half analysis. The benefits of

Method 0023A compared to Method 23

include accurate recovery data and

known data quality. The downsides to

Method 0023A include higher analytical

costs and possibly higher detection

limits.

Although the detection limits of

Method 0023A may be higher than

Method 23 detection limits, we do not

believe that these higher detection

limits will adversely affect a source’s

ability to adequately demonstrate

compliance with the dioxin/furan

standard, as we explained in the

technical support document to the final

rule.17 This is true because analytical

detection limits have decreased over

recent years.

We request comment on whether we

should amend the final rule to give the

option to use Method 23 in lieu of

Method 0023A. We are considering

allowing sources to petition the

authorized regulatory agency to use

Method 23 in lieu of Method 0023A.

Under such an approach, a source

would have to justify why the use of

Method 23 is warranted. Factors that

could be considered by the regulatory

official in reviewing these petitions

include: (1) The carbonaceous content

of the particulate that is emitted from

the source; (2) analytical costs; (3) data

quality; and (4) detection limits. For

example, under this approach, we

believe that a source could address

Method 23 data quality concerns by

submitting previous Method 0023A

results to the regulatory official that

document: (1) The recovery percentages

of the front and back half of the

analysis; and (2) the amount of dioxin

and furans present in the front half.

Method 0023A results that indicate

good front half recoveries could support

a source’s claim that Method 23 is an

appropriate method to demonstrate

compliance with the dioxin/furan

emission standard.18 The added data

quality checks associated with Method

0023A may not be needed if the results

of previous Method 0023A analyses

indicate good front half recovery

percentages. Method 23 may also be

warranted if dioxin and furans are not

detected, or are detected at low levels in

the front half of Method 0023A.

35138 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

19For example, if the duration of each run of the

performance test were 60 minutes, establishing

parameter limits based on the average of the run

averages allow sources to continue to operate as

during the performance test. This is because 1-

minute values that are higher than the average

would be off-set by 1-minute values that are

correspondingly lower than the average. Because

most performance test runs have a duration longer

than 60 minutes, however, the ‘‘average of the run

averages’’ approach coupled with an hourly rolling

average averaging period for most parameter limits,

will require that sources operate more

conservatively than during the performance test as

a practical matter.

20Petitioners in litigation challenging the

underlying rule have maintained that the one-hour

averaging time to demonstrate compliance with the

dioxin standard effectively amends the standard.

The argument goes that the one-hour averaging

period is shorter than that used in the source’s

performance test. EPA disagrees; the dioxin

standard does not prescribe any particular

averaging time, or other monitoring regime, for

achieving a temperature level, so that using a onehour averaging time does not amend the standard.

However, even if (against our view) the temperature

monitoring requirement is considered to change the

emission standard, it appears justifiable as a beyond

the floor standard under CAA section 112(d)(2).

First, the standard is readily achievable technically.

Spray quenching, the means of control, merely

requires turning of a control valve to allow

quenching. USEPA, ‘‘Final Technical Support

Document for Hazardous Waste Combustor MACT

Standards, Volume IV: Compliance with the

Hazardous Waste Combustor Standards,’’ July 1999,

p. 2–16. Operators can readily determine when

quenching is needed, since thermocouples report

instantaneous temperature changes, allowing

immediate reaction to temperature changes. Ibid, p.

2–10. Second, EPA has already considered this cost

(i.e., the cost of quenching) in determining the

standards for HWCs. EPA does not believe that

there would be any incremental cost associated

with the one-hour averaging requirement, because

it is based on the same spray quenching technology

which is the basis for the standards already

adopted. See also 64 FR at 52892 (finding that the

cost of spray quenching technology for lightweight

aggregate kilns is reasonable, in adopting the

beyond-the-floor standard for dioxin/furans). In

addition, the one-hour averaging requirement is

needed to prevent exceedances of the emission

standard itself, see Ibid, at 2–8 to 2–9 and 3–8 to

3–9 (documenting how net dioxin/furan emissions

would increase over the amounts allowed by the

emission standard without this requirement, but

further explaining why the ten-minute averaging

time that EPA initially proposed is not essential).

See also EPA’s Brief in CKRC v. EPA, no. 99–1457

(D.C. Cir. 2001) at pp. 113–120 (a copy of this brief

is part of the record for this proposal). Finally, we

do not believe there are any adverse non-air or

energy impacts associated with the averaging

requirement (and again, EPA has already assessed

energy impacts and waste generation impacts of the

standard when promulgating the standard in the

first place). See generally USEPA, ‘‘Final Technical

Support Document for Hazardous Waste Combustor

MACT Standards, Volume V: ‘‘Emissions Estimates

and Engineering Costs,’’ July 1999 (RC2F–S0011)

chapter 10.

XI. Calibration Requirements for

Thermocouples

Section 63.1209(b)(2)(i) of the final

rule requires verification of the

calibration of each thermocouple or

other temperature sensor at least once

every three months. Stakeholders

express concern that recalibration of

each temperature measurement device

every three months is a significant

undertaking. Stakeholders explain that,

for example, temperature measurement

devices on the air pollution control train

are typically flanged onto the process

piping and/or vessels. To recalibrate

these devices without shutting the

combustor down is an involved process.

Removing these measurement devices

for recalibration would require the

operator to enter a static value in the

automatic waste feed cutoff system to

avoid a cutoff, and have a technician

equipped with appropriate personal

protective equipment receive the

appropriate line and equipment opening

permits, and then try to safely remove

the instrument from the process while

the combustor is still running. For

configurations that have pressurized

portions of the air pollution control

train, the combustor would be required

to shut down to avoid release of fugitive

emissions. Stakeholders question

whether the benefits outweigh the

burden of recalibrating each

temperature device every three months.

Stakeholders also state that

recalibration of pyrometers is

particularly problematic. Optical

pyrometers are often sealed at the

factory to prevent adjustment of the

calibration. To check calibration on an

optical pyrometer is difficult and

stakeholders believe it is not a task that

should be undertaken every three

months unless there are clear benefits.

It is not clear to us that recalibration

of all types of temperature measurement

devices every three months is as

burdensome an undertaking as

stakeholders suggest. Thermocouples

are the most common temperature

measurement device used for

compliance assurance. We believe that

their calibration can generally be

confirmed without removing them from

the combustor. Thermocouples may

malfunction either by a failure in the

circuit (e.g., the junction between the

two wires at the bead may break) or the

electronics may drift. If the circuit fails,

the thermocouple will give clearly

erroneous readings. Drift in the

electronics can be corrected without

removing the thermocouple. We

specifically request comment on

whether thermocouples can be

recalibrated without removing them

from the combustor.

Although it may be impractical to

calibrate the internal operations of a

pyrometer every three months, as

stakeholders suggest, there are other

maintenance activities such as cleaning

of the optics and alignment checks that

will help ensure that the pyrometer is

performing correctly. We specifically

request comment on whether the rule

should require that these and other

maintenance activities should be

performed every three months.

If based on review of comments to

this notice and reevaluation we

determine that recalibration of

temperature monitoring devices every

three months is not practicable, we

would revise the rule to delete

§ 63.1209(b)(2)(i). In lieu of a generic

recalibration requirement that applies to

all temperature monitors, we would

require that you develop an appropriate

calibration procedure and frequency

and include that information in the

evaluation plan required by

§ 63.8(e)(3)(i).

XII. Alternative Approach To Establish

Operating Parameter Limits

The rule requires sources to establish

most operating parameter limits as the

average of the test run averages of the

comprehensive performance test. Each

test run average is calculated by

summing all the one-minute readings

within the test run and dividing that

sum by the number of one-minute

readings. See 64 FR at 52922.

Stakeholders state that this is an

unreasonably conservative approach to

establish operating parameter limits in

that sources would not be allowed to

operate in the way that they did 50% of

the time during the performance test

(when demonstrating compliance with

the emission standards). This may

overstate the conservatism inherent in

this approach.19 Nevertheless, we

believe that a conservative approach is

warranted because: (1) These parameters

can have a significant effect on

emissions; and (2) the approach is

consistent with how manual method

emissions results are determined (i.e.,

manual method emission test results for

each run represent average emissions

over the entire run).20

Stakeholders also maintain that it is

not technically practicable to establish

some operating parameter limits using

the average of the test run averages.

Stakeholders present examples

including cement kiln minimum

combustion chamber temperature (see

discussion in Section XIV below), and

secondary power input to an ionizing

wet scrubber or wet electrostatic

precipitator.

In light of stakeholders’ concerns, we

are considering an alternative approach

to establish operating parameter limits

that provides assurance of compliance

with the emission standard: establishing

multiple limits for a given parameter

that ensures that the profile of the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 35139

21The greater the range of values for a parameter

within a percentile, the less certain we can be that

the performance test profile (and emission levels)

will be maintained. This is because a source could

theoretically operate for extended periods of time

(i.e., longer than during the performance test) at the

upper end of the range (or the lower end for

parameters for which minimum limits are

established).

22For example, more rather than fewer parameter

limits would be appropriate to characterize the

profile for gas temperature at the inlet to an

electrostatic precipitator given that dioxin/furan

emissions relate exponentially to inlet gas

temperature.

23Requests to extrapolate metal feedrates would

continue to be considered under § 63.1209(n)(2)(ii).

24 In addition to using site-specific, empiricallyderived relationships, we also request comment on

whether the rule should allow use of established

engineering principles that define the relationship

between operating parameters and emissions to

extrapolate operating limits and emissions.

parameter does not exceed the profile

documented during the comprehensive

performance test. We call this the

‘‘matching-the-profile’’ approach.

Under the matching-the-profile

approach, a source would establish

multiple limits for a given parameter

that ensure that the profile of the

parameter does not exceed the profile

documented during the comprehensive

performance test. This approach has the

advantage of allowing operations at

parameter levels above the average level

of the performance test for the same

period of time and at the same levels, as

shown during the performance test.

Provided that the source operates below

the average level of the performance test

for the same period of time, and at the

same levels, as during the performance

test. One disadvantage is that, to

effectively implement the approach,

sources would be required to establish

multiple operating limits for a single

parameter.

As an example of how this matchingthe-profile approach would work for

establishing the gas temperature

operating limit at the inlet to an

electrostatic precipitator, consider the

following hypothetical gas temperature

data for three runs of a comprehensive

performance test. The individual run

times are presented, and the total of the

run times is nine hours.

TABLE 1.—ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO ESTABLISH AN OPL WHEREBY THE PARAMETER PROFILE DOCUMENTED DURING

THE COMPREHENSIVE PERFORMANCE TEST CANNOT BE EXCEEDED

[Example Parameter: Gas temperature at the inlet to an ESP.]

[Assume Run Times as Follows: Run 1–180 minutes; Run 2–150 minutes; Run 3–210 minutes. Total time of 540 minutes (9 hrs).]

Percent of time

1-Min avg temperature that was not exceeded the specified %

of Time (°F) Average of run

averages

Time that avg run

avg can be exceeded in any 9-hr block Run 1 Run 2 Run 3

100% (max T) .............................. 405 415 425 415 0 min

90% .............................................. 395 398 390 394 54 min

50% .............................................. 375 380 375 377 270 min

25% .............................................. 370 350 360 360 405 min

In this example, we have assumed

that four operating limits would be

needed to ensure adequately that the

performance test profile is not exceeded:

a maximum temperature that could not

be exceeded, and three temperature

limits that could be exceeded for

prescribed periods of time during each

9-hour block average. In practice, the

number of parameter limits would be

established on a site-specific basis and

would be a function of factors

including: (1) The variability of the

parameter during the test (i.e., range

from the high to low value 21); (2)

whether the performance test emission

levels were close to or well below the

emission standard; and (3) the

relationship between the parameter and

emission levels. 22

In the example presented above, 1-

minute average temperature levels are

ranked from highest to lowest for each

run, and the temperature associated

with various time percentiles (i.e.,

100%, 90%, 50%, and 25%) are

identified. In Run 1, for example,

temperatures below 395°F were

achieved 90% of the time. Then, a timeweighted average temperature across the

runs is calculated for each of the

percentiles. Finally, the time percentiles

are converted to the number of minutes

in a block period of time (corresponding

to the time required to conduct all runs

of the performance test). We now have

a series of temperature limits that can be

exceeded only for a specified period of

time. Compliance with these time/

temperature limits should ensure that

the temperature profile of the

performance test is not exceeded during

normal operations, and that the

emission standard is not exceeded.

We request comment on whether this

approach to establish operating

parameter limits as an alternative to

calculating the limit as the average of

the test run averages would be less

burdensome for regulated sources while

ensuring compliance with the emission

standards. We also note that sources can

request alternative monitoring

approaches under § 63.1209(g)(1) and

may request to use this (or other)

alternative approach whether or not

EPA finalizes this proposal. We request

comment on whether we should

explicitly include this approach in the

rule, or use this discussion as guidance

recommendations. Explicitly defining

the approach in the rule may better

facilitate efforts by sources to adopt the

approach to their needs, and review and

approval of the approach by regulatory

officials.

XIII. Extrapolation of Operating

Parameter Limits

Stakeholders suggest that the rule

inappropriately penalizes sources that

achieve comprehensive performance

test emission levels well below the

standard by establishing operating

parameter limits based on performance

test operations at those low emission

levels. Operating under conditions to

artificially increase emissions during

testing (e.g., by detuning emission

control equipment) may not be feasible

or desirable from a worker/public health

and cost perspective.

To address this concern, we request

comment on whether the rule should

allow extrapolation of an operating

parameter limit 23 established as

currently required to a higher limit (or

lower limit if the parameter limit is a

minimum limit) using a site-specific,

empirically-derived relationship

between the parameter and emissions of

the pollutant in question.24 An example

is extrapolation of the gas temperature

limit at the inlet to the dry particulate

matter control device to a higher limit

based on the relationship between gas

temperature and dioxin/furan

emissions. To use this approach, a

source must document the relationship

35140 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

25A gas inlet temperature limit is not required,

however, if the source feeds low levels of metals

and complies with the semivolatile and low volatile

metals standards without emissions testing by

documenting compliance with the emissions

standards assuming all metals that are fed are

emitted. In addition, even if the source were

required to comply with a lower gas temperature

limit for compliance assurance for metals, there

may still be advantages to establishing an

extrapolated temperature limit for compliance with

the dioxin/furan standard. For example, if the

source had a performance test-based temperature

limit (i.e., metals temperature limit) exceedance

that did not exceed the extrapolated dioxin/furanbased limit, the temperature exceedance would not

represent failure to maintain compliance with the

dioxin/furan emission standard.

26We note that allowing sources to establish

operating limits under current RCRA regulations

based on the average minimum or maximum hourly

rolling average (rather than the average of the

average values as required under Subpart EEE) is

intended to address routine deviations that can

occur even though steady-state operating conditions

are maintained. Modifying operating conditions

during compliance testing to induce temporary,

artificial perturbations is inappropriate. Such

operations are not representative of operations

under the test condition.

empirically for their source. To remain

in compliance with the emission

standard, however, the temperature

limit could be extrapolated to levels

higher than 400 °F only if the

extrapolated dioxin/furan emissions

were below 0.2 ng TEQ/dscm.

Sources could not take advantage of

this extrapolated gas temperature limit

in this example without also

extrapolating the gas temperature limit

for compliance assurance with the

semivolatile and low volatile metals

standards.25 This is because gas inlet

temperature is a compliance parameter

for both dioxin/furans and semivolatile

and low volatile metals. We would also

consider allowing extrapolation of the

metals compliance assurance inlet gas

temperature limit using engineering

calculations to a temperature limit that

would correspond to metals levels close

to the emission standards.

We believe that extrapolated limits

should be less than 100% of the

standard. Such conservatism is

important because sources would not

have actually demonstrated compliance

with the emission standards at the

extrapolated operating parameter limit.

We request comment on what upper

level of extrapolation would be

appropriate (e.g., 75%, 80%) and

whether the upper level of extrapolation

should vary depending on the level of

confidence in the empirical relationship

or other approach that is used to

calculate the extrapolation.

The Administrator would grant (or

deny) a petition to extrapolate an

operating parameter limit on a case-bycase basis considering factors including

whether: (1) The operating parameter

values during the performance test were

at the upper (or lower for minimum

limits) range of historical, normal levels;

(2) the extrapolated level sources

request is warranted considering

historical levels of the parameter; (3) it

is impracticable to demonstrate

compliance with the emission standard

when operating at the desired (i.e.,

extrapolated) operating limit during the

performance test; and (4) the

extrapolation procedure will

conservatively predict the relationship

between the operating parameter and

emissions. To determine if the

extrapolation procedure conservatively

relates the operating parameter to

emissions, the Administrator would

consider factors including how far the

source requests to extrapolate the limit

beyond the value calculated from the

performance test and how close the

emissions during the performance test

were to the standard.

We also note that sources can request

alternative monitoring approaches

under § 63.1209(g)(1) and may request

to use this (or other) alternative

approach prior to promulgation of a

final rule. We request comment on

whether we should explicitly include

this approach in the rule, or use this

discussion as guidance

recommendations. Explicitly defining

the approach in the rule may better

facilitate efforts by sources to adopt the

approach to their needs, and review and

approval of the approach by regulatory

officials.

XIV. Limit on Minimum Combustion

Chamber Temperature for Cement Kilns

Stakeholders have expressed concern

that it is technically impracticable for

cement kilns to establish a minimum

combustion chamber temperature based

on the average of the test run averages

for each run of the comprehensive

performance test. Stakeholders state that

combustion chamber temperatures

cannot be maintained at low enough

levels for the duration of the

comprehensive performance test to

establish workable operating limits that

would allow them to burn hazardous

waste fuels economically without

frequent waste feed cutoffs because of

potential exceedences of the limit.

Stakeholders indicate that combustion

chamber temperature levels are fairly

constant within a narrow range and note

that there is a very narrow range of

temperatures and feed composition in

which a cement kiln must operate in

order to produce quality clinker and a

marketable product.

Stakeholders further note that they

must take extreme actions under the

current RCRA requirements to establish

an economically viable minimum

combustion chamber limit based on the

average of the lowest hourly rolling

averages for each run. Stakeholders

relate that during one hour of each run

of the RCRA compliance test, they must

take unusual and potentially

equipment-damaging steps to lower

temperatures. 26 Those problems are

compounded by the requirement in the

MACT rule to establish the limit based

on the average temperature level.

In addition, stakeholders note that it

is difficult to accurately monitor

combustion chamber temperature in a

cement kiln. We already acknowledge

this concern and, accordingly, the rule

allows measurement of the temperature

at a location that best represents, as

practicable, the bulk gas temperature in

the combustion zone. See

§ 63.1209(j)(1)(i). The rule also allows

sources to petition the permit writer to

request approval of an alternative

temperature monitoring approach. See

§ 63.1209(g)(1).

We have responded, in the final rule

Comment Response Document, to

stakeholder’s questions about the need

for monitoring combustion chamber

temperature by noting that combustion

chamber temperature is a principal

factor in ensuring combustion efficiency

and destruction of toxic organic

compounds. Although we acknowledge

that a cement kiln inherently controls

the kiln temperature to produce clinker,

this inherent control may not be

adequate to assure compliance with the

dioxin/furan and destruction and

removal efficiency emission standards.

For example, we understand that

cement kilns occasionally undergo

upsets and produce substandard clinker.

If lower than normal combustion

chamber temperatures can result from

an upset, we do not know how

compliance with the emission standards

can be assured.

Notwithstanding these reservations,

and in light of stakeholders’ continued

concerns, we request comment on

whether the rule should continue to

require cement kilns to establish and

comply with a minimum combustion

chamber temperature limit.

Stakeholders have indicated that they

have produced additional data

supporting their views. We also request

comment on whether the alternative

approaches discussed above which can

be used to establish alternative

operating parameter limits (i.e., matchthe-profile and extrapolation) would

address some of stakeholders’ concerns

with establishing a minimum

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 35141

27The issue of the use of site-specific particulate

matter limits to assure compliance with metal and

dioxin/furan standards, when sources use a

particulate matter CEM, will likely be addressed in

any future particulate matter CEM proposal.

28See memo from S. Schliesser to M. Galbraith,

June 7, 2000, regarding ‘‘Carbon Bed Reentrainment

Issue’’ for more information.

29 Given that carbon bed removal efficiency is

closely related to combustion gas temperature at the

inlet to the bed system, we request comment on

whether the carbon bed life confirmatory test

should be conducted at inlet gas temperatures at or

near the maximum allowed (i.e., rather than at

levels within the range of normal levels to the

maximum allowed).

combustion chamber temperature limit

for cement kilns. We note, again, that

sources may use § 63.1209(g)(1) to

request alternative monitoring

approaches and need not wait for the

Agency’s final determinations

subsequent to this notice.

XV. Revisions to Operating

Requirements for Activated Carbon

Injection and Carbon Bed Systems

The final rule requires sources using

carbon beds or activated carbon

injection systems to limit particulate

matter emissions to the level achieved

during the comprehensive performance

test. See §§ 63.1209(k)(5) and

63.1209(l)(3). We have since determined

that: (1) It is inappropriate to explicitly

require a site-specific particulate matter

limit if a carbon injection system is

used; and (2) particulate matter control

downstream of a carbon bed is not a

critical operating parameter to ensure

compliance with the dioxin/furan and

mercury emission standards. We

propose, therefore, to delete the sitespecific particulate matter limit

requirement for activated carbon

injection systems. We also propose to

delete the requirement for sources

equipped with carbon beds to establish

particulate matter operating parameter

limits to ensure compliance with the

dioxin/furan and mercury emission

standards.

Dioxin/furan and mercury will adhere

to the solid carbon used in an activated

carbon injection systems. The final rule

requires a site-specific particulate

matter limit for this type of control

system because an increase in

particulate matter emissions could also

correspond to an increase in dioxin/

furan and mercury emissions. After

considering stakeholder comments, we

believe it is inappropriate to explicitly

require a site-specific particulate matter

limit if a carbon injection system is used

because the rule does not require

continuous monitoring of particulate

matter emissions with a continuous

emission monitor. The use of a sitespecific particulate matter limit was

originally thought to go in tandem with

the requirement to use particulate

matter CEMS. Since we do not require

sources to use particulate matter CEMS

for compliance purposes, we believe it

is inappropriate to require site-specific

particulate matter limits.27 Particulate

matter emissions are instead controlled

by complying with operating limits on

the particulate matter control devices

(e.g., minimum power to an electrostatic

precipitator). Therefore, we propose to

revise § 63.1209(k)(5) to require sources

to establish operating limits on the

particulate matter control device

consistent with the approach used to

control particulate emissions for

compliance assurance with the

semivolatile and low volatile metals

emission standards.

We also believe that particulate matter

control downstream of a carbon bed is

not a critical operating parameter to

ensure compliance with the dioxin/

furan and mercury emission standards.

We note that most, if not all, carbon bed

systems in use today are positioned

downstream from particulate matter

control devices to minimize particulate

buildup in the carbon bed. Carbon beds

are also designed so that carbon leakage

into the flue gas is minimized.28 We,

therefore, propose to delete the language

in § 63.1209(k)(5) that requires control

of particulate matter emissions to ensure

compliance with the dioxin/furan and

mercury standards for sources with a

carbon bed.

XVI. Clarification of Requirements to

Confirm Carbon Bed Age

When demonstrating compliance with

the dioxin/furan (and mercury)

emission standard during the initial

comprehensive performance test,

sources may use the manufacturer’s

specification for the limit on carbon bed

age rather than the actual age of the bed

during the performance test. If using the

manufacturer’s specification for carbon

bed age, § 63.1209(k)(7)(i)(C) requires

sources to recommend in the initial

comprehensive performance test plan a

schedule for subsequent dioxin/furan

emissions testing, prior to the

confirmatory performance test, that will

be used to document to the

Administrator that the initial limit on

maximum bed age ensures compliance

with the dioxin/furan emission

standard.

Stakeholders express several concerns

with these requirements: (1) How much

testing and what type of testing is

required to confirm bed life; (2) if the

manufacturer’s specification for bed life

is such that it extends beyond the

deadline to conduct the dioxin/furan

confirmatory test, testing to confirm bed

life should not be required before that

dioxin/furan confirmatory test; and (3)

given that a carbon bed controls

mercury as well as dioxin/furan, testing

to confirm bed life should be required

to demonstrate compliance with both

the dioxin/furan and mercury emission

standards. We address each of these

issues below.

A. How Much Testing and What Type of

Testing Is Required to Confirm Bed Life?

We intended that testing equivalent to

the dioxin/furan confirmatory test

would be required to confirm the life of

the carbon bed. Therefore, a test

comprised of at least three runs would

be required. The operating conditions

would be the same as required for the

dioxin/furan confirmatory test under

§ 63.1207(g)(2).29

B. What Happens If Bed Life Extends

Beyond the Deadline for Dioxin/Furan

Confirmatory Testing?

If the manufacturer’s specification

calls for a bed life beyond the deadline

for confirmatory testing, the source must

conduct the dioxin/furan confirmatory

test by the deadline and also conduct

the bed life confirmatory test at any time

prior to the manufacturer’s specification

for bed life. We are proposing to revise

the rule so that in this situation bed life

confirmatory testing would not be

required prior to dioxin/furan

confirmatory testing.

If, for example, the manufacturer’s

specification for bed life was 3.5 years

and the bed was installed just prior to

the comprehensive performance test, the

source must conduct the dioxin/furan

confirmatory test within 2.5 years after

the comprehensive performance test. In

addition, the source must conduct a bed

life confirmatory test within 3.5 years of

the comprehensive performance test. Of

course, sources may elect to forgo the

additional year of bed life to avoid the

expense of conducting the carbon bed

life confirmatory test.

C. Should Bed Life Confirmatory Testing

Include Testing To Confirm Compliance

With Both the Dioxin/Furan and

Mercury Emission Standards?

Given that carbon beds control both

dioxin/furan and mercury emissions,

bed life confirmatory testing must

document compliance with both the

dioxin/furan and mercury emissions

standards. Not requiring mercury testing

during bed life confirmatory testing was

an oversight when we promulgated the

rule. We are proposing to revise the rule

accordingly. See proposed revision to

§ 63.1209(l)(4).

35142 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

The bed life confirmatory testing for

mercury must be conducted under

normal conditions for the operating

parameters used to control mercury

emissions. See § 63.1209(l). This is the

same concept that is used to confirm

bed life for dioxins/furans, and for the

dioxin/furan confirmatory test. Thus,

the parameters specified under

§ 63.1209(l) must be held within the

range of the average value over the

previous 12 months and the maximum

or minimum, as appropriate, that is

allowed.

XVII. Revisions to Operating Parameter

Limits for Wet Scrubbers

The final rule controls mercury

emissions from hazardous waste

combustors by: (1) Controlling the

feedrate of mercury; (2) wet scrubbing to

remove soluble mercury (e.g., mercuric

chloride); and (3) carbon adsorption.

See § 63.1209(l). There are specific

operating parameter limits that apply to

each control technology.

For hazardous waste combustors

using wet scrubbers to control mercury,

the operating parameter limits are

identical to those that are required to

assure compliance with the

hydrochloric acid/chlorine gas emission

standard. Specifically, those

requirements include establishing

hourly rolling average limits on

minimum pH of the scrubber water

based on operations during the

comprehensive performance test. The

hourly rolling average is established as

the average of the test run averages. The

pH of the scrubber water is an important

parameter for chlorine control because,

at low pH, the scrubber solution is more

acidic and removal efficiency of

hydrochloric acid and chlorine gas

decreases.

A. What Is the Issue With the Minimum

Operating Parameter Limit Requirement

for Wet Scrubbers With Regard to

Mercury Control?

Since promulgation of the rule, we’ve

become aware of evidence that the

scrubber liquid pH can have an

important effect on the control and fate

of mercury in wet scrubbers. In

particular, various wet scrubber

manufacturers and operators have

observed that low pH (acidic) scrubber

liquid solutions improve the control of

mercury in hazardous waste combustor

stack gases. There also is some recent

work supporting the idea that scrubber

liquid pH is an important factor in

mercury capture and removal. In

addition to low pH liquids increasing

the control of elemental mercury, there’s

also evidence that high pH liquids may

tend to reduce the captured soluble

mercury back to the elemental form of

mercury, which would then be rereleased with the liquid during the

liquid recycle. This line of thinking

suggests that it may be necessary to

establish a maximum scrubber liquid

pH during the compliance test to ensure

sufficient mercury control. However, a

maximum scrubber liquid pH is

opposite to the minimum liquid pH

limit that is set and used to control

chlorine emissions.

B. How Would a Low pH Scrubber

Liquid Improve Mercury Control?

There are a number of reasons why a

low pH scrubber liquid is thought to

improve mercury control:

—Most elemental mercury formed in

combustion is thought to favor

conversion (or oxidation) to ionic

mercury, such as HgCl2, mercuric

chloride, under typical air pollution

control device conditions on hazardous

and other waste combustors (e.g., see

Lee and Kilgroe (1998), Hall (1991)).

—Oxidized mercury is very soluble in

low pH scrubbing solutions (e.g., see

Siret et al. (1997)). Also, strong reducing

agents in scrubber liquid (which are

more likely in higher pH scrubbing

liquids) will reduce and revolatilize

captured mercury.

—Scrubber liquids with high pH (i.e.,

added NaOH) may inhibit the oxidation

of elemental mercury, and its

subsequent absorption into the scrubber

liquid (i.e., the ability to be controlled

by the scrubber), see Soelberg (1998).

—In high pH reducing liquids,

captured soluble ionic mercury may be

reduced back to elemental forms in the

scrubber liquid and then re-released

during the liquid during recycle. The

use of low pH solutions minimizes this

possibility by favoring the formation of

stable HgCl4 (e.g., see Krivanek (1993)).

Ionic mercury with a (Hg∂2) oxidation

state is very soluble in water, especially

in low pH scrubbing solutions. This

enables the mercury to be readily

absorbed from the flue gases. Elemental

mercury has a low solubility and would

typically pass through a wet scrubbing

system unabsorbed. Without some way

to avoid mercury revolatilization, it has

been observed that elemental mercury

emissions downstream of a wet scrubber

can actually be higher than the inlet

loading (see Siret et al. (1997), DeVito

and Rosenhoover (undated).

Alternatively, there is some work on

mercury control in coal fired utility

power plants with limestone-based wet

scrubbers indicating that changes in

scrubber liquid pH in the range of 5 to

7 does not impact mercury control (see

Miller, (undated), McDermott

Technology (undated)). However, these

data may not be directly applicable to

the case of hazardous waste combustors

due to the following: Basic scrubber

liquids of pH greater than 7 were not

evaluated; the use of limestone in these

data, which is uncommon in hazardous

waste combustor wet scrubbers; high

levels of sulfur and lower levels of

chlorine in coal stack gases; very low

levels of mercury measured both

upstream and downstream of the

scrubber; and conflicting data on the

predominant mercury species being

emitted (whether it is elemental

mercury or ionic mercury).

C. When Should a Maximum pH Limit

Be Considered for Mercury Control?

The use of a operating parameter

limits on maximum scrubber liquid pH

may be appropriate to ensure that

mercury emissions are minimized. In

particular, there are several cases where

requiring this as an operating parameter

limit for mercury control may be

desirable when:

—The scrubber is relied upon for

achieving a certain mercury control

efficiency in order to achieve the

mercury emission standard.

—The facility has a history of a wide

range of mercury concentrations in the

feed waste streams.

—The facility has a history of a wide

range of variations in scrubber liquid

pH, oxidation potential, or composition.

—There is a wide range of HCl, NOX,

and SO2 emission levels expected in the

flue gas based on waste composition.

D. How Would We Set a Maximum pH

Limit in the Scrubber Liquid?

If it is determined to be necessary to

achieve a high level of mercury control,

it may be appropriate to establish both

an upper and a lower pH operating

range. The lower pH limit maybe set

based on either (1) manufacturer/

designer recommendations (which

would have to be reviewed and

approved by the Agency and contained

in the performance test plan), or (2) with

a separate compliance test required for

determining the lower pH operating

parameter limit for chlorine. At that

time, an operating range could be

specified which would also consider the

upper end of pH allowable for the

desired mercury control. If the wet

scrubber is staged, or if two wet

scrubbers are operated in series, it may

be appropriate to establish during the

same performance test, a maximum pH

limit on one scrubber for mercury

control and a minimum pH limit on the

other scrubber for chlorine control.

If a ‘‘total species’’ mercury

continuous emissions monitor is used,

then no monitoring of operating

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 35143

30See memorandum from Bruce Springsteen,

EER–GC, to Bob Holloway, US EPA, entitled

‘‘Relationship Between PM Emissions and ESP

Total kVA Vs Field kVA’’, dated November 21,

2000.

parameters related to mercury is

required. However, if only an elemental

mercury monitor is used, wet scrubber

operating parameters may also need to

be monitored.

E. What Are Other Factors Affecting a

Wet Scrubber’s Ability to Control

Mercury?

In addition to pH, there are a number

of factors affecting the wet scrubber’s

ability to control mercury. For instance,

it is well documented that the oxidizing

potential of the scrubber solution has a

direct impact on the control of

elemental mercury. The recent use of

scrubber liquid oxidizing additives such

as NaClO2, acidified KMnO3, Na2S, and

Cl2 has been shown to enhance

elemental mercury control. Other factors

influencing mercury control include:

scrubber design, chloride concentration,

mercury concentration and speciation at

the inlet to the scrubber, and the use of

special reagents (as mentioned above) to

chemically convert and capture some of

the elemental mercury.

F. What Are the Agency’s Options To

Ensure That the Scrubber Liquid pH Is

Appropriate for Mercury Control?

We request comment on requiring

sources with wet scrubbers to establish

a maximum pH operating parameter

limit for mercury control. This

maximum pH level could be based on

manufacturer specifications, compliance

test results, or specified by the permit

writer on a case-by-case basis. Another

option is to require a scrubber liquid

oxidation meter be used to comply with

a minimum liquid oxidation potential

limit. If chlorine is a concern, a pH

range could be specified, or, as

mentioned earlier, if two scrubbers are

used, one could have a maximum pH

specified for mercury control and a

minimum pH specified for chlorine

control.

XVIII. Reproposal of kVA Limits for

Electrostatic Precipitators and Request

for Comment on Approaches To Ensure

Baghouse Performance

The final rule establishes operating

parameter limits for electrostatic

precipitators (ESPs) and baghouses: (1)

Minimum kVA per field of an ESP; and

(2) minimum and maximum pressure

drop (delta P or dP) for each cell of a

baghouse. See § 63.1209(m)(1)(ii and

iii). At EPA’s request, however, the D.C.

Circuit has vacated these provisions in

order that EPA repropose and seek

additional comment on them. See 66 FR

24270. Today, we repropose the

requirement to establish minimum

limits on each field of an ESP and

request comment on alternative

approaches to ensure such performance.

For baghouses, we request comment on

alternative approaches to ensure

performance.

A. Requirements To Ensure Electrostatic

Precipitator Performance

Stakeholders express concern that

limiting the kVA to each field of an

electrostatic precipitator is problematic

because: (1) It precludes the flexibility

to shut down one or more fields of a

multi-field electrostatic precipitator for

maintenance while continuing

hazardous waste burning; (2) it is

difficult to establish minimum kVA

limits on each field of the ESP during

the comprehensive performance test

that provide a wide enough operating

envelop for economical operations; and

(3) kVA to the first few fields of a multifield ESP are not that important and

should not be limited.

We respond to these concerns by

noting that power distribution across

the fields of an ESP is very important to

performance. EPA testing at a cement

kiln showed that individual field power

level distribution was critical to

performance.30 When power input to

the last field of a four-field ESP was

decreased while total power input was

held constant (i.e., by slightly increasing

the power to the second and third

fields), emissions of particulate matter

doubled from 0.06 to 0.12 gr/dscf. In

addition, recent comparisons of the

results from predictive emission models

to actual emissions indicate that power

input by field is an important

refinement to the code predictions.

Furthermore, we do not believe that

limits on kVA to each field of the ESP

are as burdensome as stakeholders state.

For example, we do not believe it is a

common problem to have a situation

where a single field is down for repair

and, thus, not operating at its minimum

kVA, while the ESP is kept on line.

Generally, when an ESP field needs

repair, the ESP is taken off line. In

addition, the comprehensive

performance test may be structured to

provide operational flexibility as

needed. For example, a source seeking

flexibility to continue burning

hazardous waste with one field down

could conduct the performance test

under that mode of operation.

Alternatively, the source could simulate

the operational flexibility during the

comprehensive performance test. For

example, the source could conduct each

run of the performance test with all

fields operational 90% of the time, and

with one field down 10% of the time.

Then, the source would need to limit

the time of operation with one field

down to 10% of each block period of

time (i.e., block average) equivalent to

the time required to conduct the

performance test.

Finally, another remedy may be to use

the authority of § 63.1209(g)(1) to

petition the permit writer for an

alternative monitoring approach to

ensure performance of the ESP is

maintained.

Given that we believe that power

distribution across the ESP is important

to ensure performance and that

minimum limits on power input to each

field would not be overly burdensome,

we today repropose the kVA limits

originally promulgated at

§ 63.1209(m)(1)(iii).

Notwithstanding this proposal,

however, we request comment on

several alternatives to limiting kVA to

each field of the ESP (which may

ultimately serve as alternatives which

can be pursued under § 63.1209(g)(1)),

as discussed below. Note that several of

these alternatives are not mutually

exclusive. After considering comments

and further evaluation, we also may

decide to promulgate several

alternatives.

1. Require an Increasing KVA Pattern

Across the ESP

Under this approach, sources would

be required to establish a minimum

limit on total kVA to the ESP based on

the performance test, and to assure that

kVA levels increase from the inlet to

outlet fields. In addition, we would

require establishment of a minimum

limit on total kVA to the ESP.

Maintaining a minimum total kVA

with a pattern of progressively

increasing kVA from the inlet fields to

the outlet field is generally a good

indicator that the entire ESP, as well as

each field, is performing adequately.

The rationale for this approach is that

the power suppression effect from high

particle concentrations progressively

diminishes from the inlet field to the

outlet field. Implementation of this

approach would mean that the actual

kVA levels for each field, or the absolute

or relative difference in kVA from field

to field that was achieved during the

performance test, would not be

considered in compliance assurance.

2. Limit KVA on Only the Back 1⁄3 of

Fields

This approach would require

establishment of minimum kVA to each

of the last 1⁄3 of the fields in the ESP,

as well as a minimum limit on total kVA

35144 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

31Stakeholders also suggest another approach

whereby limits would be established on minimum

total kVA to the ESP, and minimum kVA only to

the last field of the ESP. We request comment on

this alternative approach as well.

32The particulate matter limit would be the PM

emission standard or a lower PM emission level

that is extrapolated from comprehensive

performance test emission levels to a level that

ensures compliance with the semivolatile and low

volatile emission standards (and the dioxin/furan

emission standards if sources use activated carbon

injection). For example, if during the performance

test the PM emissions were 50% of the PM

standard, but the semivolatile metal emissions were

75% of the semivolatile metal standard, the source’s

PM compliance limit to ensure compliance with the

semivolatile metal standard would be 75% of the

particulate matter standard. This compliance

assurance approach is based on the reasonable

assumption that for a percentage increase in PM

emissions, emissions of metals (and dioxin/furan

when activated carbon injection is used) will

increase by that percentage or less. This is because

low volatile metals are evenly distributed over the

range of PM particle sizes, while semivolatile

metals and dioxin/furan on adsorbed carbon, are

enriched on the smaller particulates. As the

performance of the PM control device degrades and

PM emissions increase, some of the larger particles

that were being captured would be emitted while

the smaller particulates continue to be emitted as

before.

33For example, if the predicted emissions were

higher than the PM standard and the extrapolated

PM emission levels associated with the semivolatile

and low volatile metal standards, as well as the

dioxin/furan standard if sources use activated

carbon injection, the model results would be

evidence that the source has exceeded all four

emission standards.

to the ESP based on the performance

test.31 The rationale for this approach

has a similar basis to the approach in

paragraph 1, but with an altered

interpretation. Given that high particle

concentration suppresses ESP power

levels, the outlet fields can only achieve

high power levels when the inlet fields

are performing adequately. If the inlet

fields are not performing well (as well

as during the performance test), then the

minimum kVA on the last few fields

cannot be maintained.

Under this approach, if the source has

a 2 or 3-field ESP, they would establish

a minimum kVA limit on the last field.

If it’s a 4, 5, or 6-field ESP, then

establish minimum kVA limits on the

last 2 fields. If it’s a 7, 8, or 9-field ESP,

then establish minimum kVA limits on

the last 3 fields.

3. Use a Continuous Monitor That

Measures Relative Particulate Matter

Loadings

Under this approach, sources would

use a continuous monitor that can

detect relative particulate matter

loadings. The device must be sensitive

enough to detect subtle increases in

baseline, normal emissions. The

monitor could be a baghouse leak

detector, an opacity monitor, or a

particulate matter continuous emissions

monitoring system. Given that the

source would be continuously

monitoring relative particulate matter

emissions under this approach, they

would not need to establish kVA limits

on the ESP.

To implement this approach, the

source would establish an operating

parameter limit that is based on the

response from the continuous monitor

during the comprehensive performance

test. In addition, we would require

interconnection of the limit to the

automatic waste feed cutoff system. The

source would also be required to take

corrective measures as prescribed in the

operations and maintenance plan if

there was an increase in the baseline,

normal response (i.e., generally well

below the response during the

performance test). This would be similar

to how a bag leak detector is used to

ensure that performance of a baghouse

is maintained.

4. Use of Predictive Emission

Monitoring Systems

This approach would use one of the

available ESP performance models to

characterize and correlate ESP

performance with particulate matter

emissions as a predictive emission

monitoring system (PEMS). There are

three personal-computer models

(Electric Power Research Institute, EPA,

and Southern Research Institute) that

use the same first-principle equations.

These models attest to using field-byfield electrical data, or similarly derived

approaches, for compliance assurance.

In combination with particulate matter

measurements, each of these models has

produced results with correlation

coefficients greater than 0.98. Once

adequately demonstrated to predict

emissions, the model results would then

serve as a compliance monitoring

protocol able to account for any

combination of power distribution

levels and other contributing factors. If

a source were to use this PEMS

approach, they would have the

flexibility to operate with a field out of

operation and without the need for

limits on field or total kVA while giving

regulatory officials a means for ensuring

compliance. This PEMS approach is

based on a similar methodology

advanced by industry that is undergoing

review by EPA’s Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards as a compliance

assurance method (CAM).

Implementation of the PEMS could

follow a two-pronged procedure:

a. Operations under the Green Zone.

When particulate matter emissions are

expected to be well below the

particulate matter limit,32 referred to as

the ‘‘green zone,’’ the source would use

a secondary indicator (e.g., opacity) to

monitor compliance. For example, the

green zone could be defined as when

the secondary indicator is below 75% of

the level predicted by the model when

operating at the particulate matter limit.

There would be no need to apply the

model when the secondary indicator

(i.e., and therefore emissions) remains

in the green zone.

b. Operations under the Red Zone.

When the secondary indicator value

exceeds 75% of the level predicted by

the model when operating at the

particulate matter limit, the source

would be in the ‘‘red zone.’’ During a

red zone episode, they would apply the

model at prescribed intervals (e.g., every

4 to 8 hours). Representative data (e.g.,

secondary voltage and current for each

field, and gas temperature and flowrate)

would be collected during the interval,

averaged, and input to the model. Model

results would predict the emission level

and serve as the regulatory emission

monitor for determining compliance.

Depending on the model results, the

source would respond appropriately.

If the results indicate that the

particulate matter limit has not been

exceeded, the source would continue to

operate. If the source were still in the

red zone, they would either continue to

apply the model at the prescribed

interval, or perform corrective measures

(e.g., remedying the ESP performance

problem) to return to the green zone. If

the model results indicate that

emissions exceeded the PM limit, then

the source has failed to comply with one

or more of the emission standards.33

B. Requirements To Ensure Baghouse

Performance

The final rule required sources to

establish limits on minimum and

maximum pressure drop (delta P or dP)

across each cell of the baghouse based

on manufacturer specifications and to

interconnect the limits with the

automatic waste feed cutoff system. See

§ 63.1209(m)(1)(ii). The rule also

required incinerators and lightweight

aggregate kilns to install a bag leak

detector and cement kilns to install

opacity monitors. As noted earlier, this

provision was vacated by the D.C.

Circuit at EPA’s request so that EPA

could repropose and seek further

comment on the issue.

We promulgated the requirement to

establish dP limits because dP may

provide an indication of adequate filter

cake build-up to ensure performance. In

addition, low dP may indicate the

presence of filter holes or leakage

between sections of the filter housing

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 35145

34US EPA, ‘‘Final Technical Support Document

for Hazardous Waste Combustor MACT Standards,

Volume IV: Compliance with the Hazardous Waste

Combustor Standard,’’ July 1999, p. 4–6.

35 Data submitted by Norris Johnson, Lone Star

Industries, Inc., to Bob Holloway, US EPA, on

November 16, 2000.

36See H.H. Nierman and A.M.Hood, ‘‘How to

Monitor Pulse Jet Baghouses,’’ Chemical

Engineering, March 1996, pp. 114–119

37 If the Agency has not promulgated CAA

Section 112 or 129 MACT standards for the nonhazardous waste burning class of sources in a

particular source category, there are no ‘‘otherwise

applicable’’ MACT standards for the source. For

example, the Agency has not yet promulgated

Section 129 standards for non-hazardous waste

incinerators. In these cases, the source would not

be subject to any MACT standards for stack

emissions after the hazardous waste residence time

has expired. The source must define such

operations as a mode of operation under

§ 63.1209(q), and must note in the operating record

when they begin this mode of operation.

38Note that, in a separate rulemaking, EPA would

delete the requirement for the one-time notification.

39For example, the hazardous waste burning

cement kiln MACT standards of Part 63, Subpart

EEE and the Portland Cement manufacturing MACT

standards of Part 63, Subpart LLL.

40Note, however, that sources may be an affected

source under different MACT standards

concurrently for control of HAPs from different

sources at the facility. For example, all hazardous

waste burning cement kilns are affected sources

Continued

while high dP may indicate the

potential to create pinhole leaks, or bag

blinding or plugging. We acknowledge,

however, the minimum dP may not

effectively detect fabric holes, especially

in large facilities with multiple chamber

filter housing units that operate in

parallel.34

In addition, since promulgation of the

rule, stakeholders state that system or

manifold dP is the same as the dP for

each cell or compartment. Therefore,

monitoring dP for each cell is redundant

and unnecessary. Stakeholders also state

that baghouses for sources with large gas

flowrates (e.g., a cement kiln) can have

30 or more cells and because of the large

number of cells, establishing limits on,

or even monitoring, dP is impracticable.

Finally, stakeholders recently

submitted data confirming our concern

that cell dP is not sensitive to

substantial increases in opacity for large

baghouses.35 Stakeholders conducted

experimentation at a cement kiln with a

baghouse where dP was monitored for a

cell in which collection performance

was intentionally degraded. The

baghouse has 32 cells and each cell is

comprised of 56 bags. Prior to degrading

the cell’s performance, cell dP was

monitored for several hours. The

detector appeared to be responding

appropriately to pressure changes as the

pressure dropped to zero each time the

cell was cleaned on a 25-minute cycle

and then rapidly increased to

approximately 3.5 inches water column.

The pressure then gradually increased

to 4 to 5 inches water column prior to

the next cleaning cycle. While

performance of one cell was artificially

degraded, opacity was also monitored.

There was no discernable change in cell

dP during the episode while opacity

increased dramatically from baseline

levels of 4 to 5 percent to 10 to 12

percent. These opacity levels represent

particulate matter emissions on the

order of 0.01 gr/dscf at 5 percent opacity

to 0.02 gr/dscf at 10 to 12 percent

opacity. Although this experiment

indicates that dP is not always sensitive

to significant changes in opacity, it also

shows that an opacity monitor can

detect significant changes in mass

particulate matter emissions at

concentrations in the 0.01 to 0.02 gr/

dscf range.

We generally disagree with many of

stakeholders’ views on the value of

monitoring cell dP. System or manifold

dP is usually higher than cell dPs

because of the dP contributed by

plenums (including dust buildup) and

compartment isolation valving. Many

baghouses operate with uneven cell dP

because of complex factors.36 For

example, inlet flow design factors lead

to gas flow imbalance among cells and

to uneven cell dPs. Also, bag cleaning

mechanisms degrade over time leading

to varying levels of cleaning among cells

and varying cell flow and dP. In

addition, monitoring cell and system

dPs is recommended by virtually all

baghouse manufacturers and

consultants because of the costeffectiveness in preventing small

problems from escalating into large

ones.

We acknowledge again, however, that

minimum cell dP may not effectively

ensure performance of a large baghouse.

Consequently, we are not reproposing

limits on cell dP. Rather, we request

comment on whether decisions to

require monitoring of cell dP should be

made on a site-specific basis (pursuant

to § 63.1209(g)(1) or (g)(2)) considering

factors such as: (1) Whether the

baghouse is equipped with a device

(e.g., bag leak detector) that is properly

tuned and has the sensitivity to detect

both broken bags (i.e., emission spikes)

and gradual increases in baseline,

normal emissions that may be caused by

small holes; and (2) the approach that

would used to identify the poorly

performing cell when the detector notes

a gradual degradation in performance;

and (3) size of the baghouse. In addition,

in situations where commenters believe

that monitoring cell dP should be

required, we request comment on

whether cell dP should be monitored as

an operating parameter limit that is

interconnected to the automatic waste

feed cutoff system, or whether cell dP

monitoring should simply be one

component of the source’s operation

and maintenance plan (under which

appropriate corrective measures would

be taken if cell dP were to fall below or

above manufacturer specifications).

Pending final action on this notice,

regulatory officials should use the

authority of § 673.1209(g)(2) to

determine on a site-specific basis what

operating requirements may be

appropriate to ensure that baghouse

performance is maintained at levels that

ensure compliance with the particulate

matter, semivolatile metals, and low

volatile metals emission standards (and

the dioxin/furan and mercury standards

if activated carbon injection is used).

XIX. How To Comply Temporarily with

Alternative, Otherwise Applicable

MACT Standards

Section 63.1206(b)(1)(ii) allows

sources to stop complying with the

emission standards and operating

requirements of Subpart EEE

temporarily after the hazardous waste

residence time has expired and to

comply with otherwise applicable Clean

Air Act requirements promulgated

under Sections 112 and 129,37 provided

the source: (1) Submits a one-time

notice to the Administrator

documenting compliance with those

alternative standards; 38 and (2)

documents in the operating record that

they are complying with those

alternative standards.

Stakeholders have asked how the

transition between the Subpart EEE

standards and the otherwise applicable

Section 112 or 129 MACT standards

would work. Specifically, stakeholders

question: (1) whether sources would

alternate as affected sources under

different MACT standards for stack

emissions, or become affected sources

under different MACT standards

concurrently; 39 and (2) whether they

should use § 63.1209(q) to identify

operations under the alternative Section

112 or 129 MACT standards as an

alternative mode of operation.

A. Hazardous Waste Combustors Are

Affected Sources Only Under Subpart

EEE

Even though sources may invoke

§ 63.1206(b)(1)(ii) to become

temporarily exempt from the

substantive requirements of Subpart

EEE, they remain an affected source

under Subpart EEE, and only Subpart

EEE (with respect to stack emissions

requirements 40), until the source meets

35146 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

under Subpart EEE for stack emissions, and Subpart

LLL for other sources of HAP emissions (e.g.,

clinker handling).

41Note, however, that may average operating

parameter values continuously across various

modes of operation provided that the averaging

periods and limits for the parameter are the same

under the various modes of operation.

42Furthermore, the title V permit must contain

terms and conditions for all reasonably anticipated

modes of operation (see 40 CFR 70.6(a)(9)).

the requirements specified in Table 1 to

§ 63.1200 for no longer being an affected

source. Because those requirements

include being in compliance with the

RCRA closure requirements of Subpart

G, Parts 264 or 265, they remain an

affected source until it is determined

they no longer burn hazardous waste.

To implement this clarification, we

propose revising the rule to require that,

if a source becomes temporarily exempt

from the substantive requirements of

Subpart EEE by halting hazardous waste

burning activities, they must comply,

during that temporary period, with all

otherwise applicable Section 112 or 129

MACT standards. We use the term

‘‘otherwise applicable’’ because, after

the hazardous waste residence time has

expired, and if the source was not an

affected source only under Subpart EEE,

they would be subject to any and all

Section 112 and 129 MACT standards

we have promulgated for sources in the

particular source category that do not

burn hazardous waste (e.g., the MACT

standards for Portland cement kilns in

Part 63, Subpart LLL).

In addition, we propose revising the

rule to clarify that otherwise applicable

Section 112 and 129 MACT standards

are applicable requirements under

Subpart EEE, if the source elects to

comply with those requirements after

the hazardous waste residence time has

expired. This term has significant

implications in that applicable

requirements are implemented and

enforced under Subpart EEE as

discussed below.

B. How Are Otherwise Applicable

Requirements Implemented and

Enforced Under Subpart EEE

Section 63.1209(q) requires

establishment of operating requirements

under different modes of operation.

When electing to comply with the

otherwise applicable MACT

requirements (promulgated under

Section 112 or 129 of the CAA) after the

hazardous waste residence time has

transpired, the source must use

§ 63.1209(q) to identify operating

parameter limits that apply during that

mode of operation. Section 63.1209(q)

also requires documentation in the

operating record when changing a mode

of operation and beginning to comply

with a different set of operating limits.

In addition, that paragraph requires

sources to begin calculating rolling

averages anew (i.e., without considering

previous recordings) when changing

modes of operation.

Upon reevaluation of the requirement

to begin calculating rolling averages

anew when sources change modes of

operation, we now believe that it would

be more appropriate to use the most

recent continuous monitoring system

recordings when operating under a

mode of operation to calculate rolling

averages when renewing operations

under that mode.41 For example, if

operating a hazardous waste burning

cement kiln and electing to switch to

the Part 63, Subpart LLL, requirements

after the hazardous waste residence time

has expired, the first rolling hourly

average value for gas temperature at the

inlet to the electrostatic precipitator

would be calculated after the first

minute of compliance with the Subpart

LLL requirements based on the last 59

minutes of operations under the Subpart

LLL requirements and the first minute

of renewed operations under the

Subpart LLL requirements. This would

be the case regardless of how long ago

the source last operated under the mode

of operation in question.

In the Documentation of Compliance

(DOC) under § 63.1211(d) and the

Notification of Compliance (NOC) under

§ 63.1207(j) the source must specify the

operating parameter limits that apply

when operating under the mode of

operation when complying with

otherwise applicable requirements.42

This requirement applies to all other

modes of operation as well. For the

mode of operation when complying

with otherwise applicable requirements,

however, the source must specify in the

DOC and NOC any otherwise applicable

Section 112 or 129 MACT standards and

requirements that apply, including

monitoring and compliance

requirements and notification,

reporting, and recordkeeping

requirements. We limit this requirement

to otherwise applicable Section 112 or

129 MACT standards because the source

may be subject to other Clean Air Act

standards while being an affected source

under Subpart EEE, but it is not an

affected source under any Section 112

or 129 MACT standards other than

Subpart EEE. Thus, the source would

not be subject to any otherwise

applicable Section 112 or 129 MACT

requirements that were not included in

the DOC, NOC, and, ultimately, title V

permit for that mode of operation.

C. Exemption From All Substantive

Requirements of Subpart EEE During the

Mode of Operation When Complying

With Otherwise Applicable Section 112

or 129 MACT Standards

Section 63.1206(b)(1) exempts sources

from the emission standards and

operating requirements of Subpart EEE

when operating under otherwise

applicable Section 112 or 129 MACT

standards after the hazardous waste

residence time has expired. We propose

to revise this requirement to exempt

sources from all substantive Subpart

EEE standards during this mode of

operation such that the source would

only be subject to the § 63.1209(q)

provisions that it specifies for this mode

of operation. This is appropriate

because, as discussed above, sources

must specify under § 63.1209(q) that,

during this mode of operation, they will

comply with all requirements of the

otherwise applicable requirements of

Section 112 or 129 MACT standards.

Accordingly, we propose to exempt

sources during this mode of operation

from the emission standards of

§§ 63.1203–63.1205; the monitoring and

compliance standards of §§ 63.1206–

63.1209, except the modes of operation

requirements of § 63.1209(q); and the

notification, reporting, and

recordkeeping requirements of

§§ 63.1210–63.1212.

XX. RCRA Permitting Requirements for

Sources Entering the RCRA Process

Post-Rule Promulgation

A. What Are We Proposing To Amend?

We are proposing to amend the

language in 40 CFR 270.19, 270.22,

270.62, 270.66, 266.100, 265.340, and

264.340 regarding the applicability of

those sections to hazardous waste

burning incinerators, cement kilns and

lightweight aggregate kilns. In

particular, we want to clarify that any of

these types of sources newly entering

the RCRA permitting process or the

hazardous waste burning universe after

promulgation of the hazardous waste

combustor MACT rule on September 30,

1999 are not subject to certain specified

RCRA permit requirements, or to the

RCRA combustor performance

standards.

Since we are revisiting these sections

to clarify their applicability, we are

taking this opportunity to clarify a point

about the Notification of Compliance, as

referenced in these sections. Under

§ 63.1207(j), sources must postmark

within 90 days of completing a

comprehensive performance test an

NOC documenting compliance or

noncompliance with the emissions

standards. We are clarifying that in

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 35147

43A risk burn is any emissions testing performed

for the purpose of collecting data for subsequent

evaluation in a site-specific risk assessment. The

testing may occur in conjunction with a RCRA trial

burn or MACT performance test, or the risk burn

may consist of a completely separate test effort.

44We expect that, in most cases, any additional

risk-based conditions imposed under RCRA

omnibus authority will reside in RCRA permits.

However, a state regulatory agency may choose to

incorporate those conditions into the title V permit

as a matter of convenience or as part of developing

a multi-media permit. In this situation, the

conditions would still remain under RCRA

authority and the permit would have to be signed

by all appropriate officials (unless the state has

omnibus-type authority in its air statute).

45Only those sources that meet the definition of

a major source under the New Source Review

permitting program are subject to federal New

Source Review permits. The definition of ‘‘major’’

within the context of New Source Review

permitting is different from that used when

establishing MACT standards. Therefore, a new

source subject to the Phase I MACT standards may

not be required to obtain a federal New Source

Review permit prior to construction. However,

since all states have minor New Source Review

permitting programs, it is likely that the source

would still have to obtain a minor New Source

Review permit.

order for the part 270 requirements to

no longer apply, the NOC must

document compliance.

1. How Had We Changed Part 270 in the

HWC Rule?

In the final rule, we amended

language in part 270 to accommodate

the permit transition from RCRA to the

CAA. In § 270.19, we added new

paragraph (e) and in §§ 270.22, 270.62,

and 270.66 we added similar language

as introductory text (with slight

variations in 270.22 and 270.66 to

specify cement kilns and lightweight

aggregate kilns). In brief, the amended

language in these sections said that once

a source demonstrates compliance with

the standards in 40 CFR part 63 subpart

EEE, the requirements in the specified

part 270 sections would no longer

apply. In order to retain a procedural

framework for any risk burns 43 that

might prove to be necessary under

RCRA, we also included a provision

allowing the Director to apply the

provisions of those sections, on a caseby-case basis, for purposes of

information collection in accordance

with §§ 270.10(k) and 270.32(b)(2).

2. Why Do We Need To Revisit these

Sections in Part 270?

As they were written for the final rule,

these sections will continue to apply

until a source demonstrates compliance

with the standards in 40 CFR part 63

subpart EEE. This approach makes sense

for sources who were currently in the

RCRA permitting process at the time we

published the final rule. Our primary

concern at that time was on the

transition from the RCRA process to the

CAA. Since sources do not have to

complete performance testing until May

2003, it is appropriate for sources

already in the RCRA permitting process

to continue the combustor portions of

the process, including the trial burn

requirements. We did not want the new

rule to result in unnecessarily delayed

testing, particularly if the testing is

needed to ensure performance and to

generate data for a risk assessment. In

the preamble to the final rule, we

discussed how sources already in the

process of obtaining a RCRA permit

could be transitioned to a title V permits

(see 64 FR 52989, September 30, 1999).

We identified some factors to be

considered, as well as some examples to

assist permit writers and facility owners

or operators in developing a sound

approach. We neglected to consider,

however, what this approach would

mean for new sources that did not exist

at the time the final rule was

promulgated.

Under RCRA, new sources must

obtain a permit (or permit modification)

before they may start construction of a

new unit. Since new sources subject to

the final rule will not be able to

demonstrate compliance with the part

63 standards until after the units are

built and they conduct performance

testing, the part 270 language as

currently promulgated would force

them to complete the entire RCRA

permitting process (including

combustion portions) beforehand. For

new facilities, this means they would

have to submit a trial burn plan with

their RCRA permit application and also

submit suggested conditions for the

various phases of operation—start-up/

shake-down, trial burn, post-trial burn,

and final operations. The permit writer

would have to review this information

and write conditions into the RCRA

permit governing all phases of

combustor operations.

It is our intent that new sources

subject to the HWC final rule not follow

the traditional RCRA combustion

permitting process. Although new

sources still must obtain a RCRA permit

(or permit modification) prior to

construction, our intent was that the

permit instead focus on the other RCRA

requirements applicable to all units (i.e.,

general facility standards, corrective

action, financial responsibility, and

closure), any non-emissions related

combustor-specific concerns (i.e.,

materials handling), and requirements

related to other RCRA units on site. In

addition, if the alternative to the

particulate matter standard revisions

proposed today are promulgated,

incinerators that comply with these

alternative requirements would need to

have the RCRA particulate matter

performance standard and related

operating conditions included in their

RCRA permits. Also, if the permit writer

determines that additional risk-based

conditions for the combustion unit are

necessary to supplement the MACT

requirements, those conditions will be

part of the RCRA permit.44 We would

not expect new sources to follow the

RCRA requirements governing

development and submittal of trial burn

plans and setting of operating

conditions for the various phases of

operation, because these activities

implement RCRA performance

standards which are being replaced by

the HWC NESHAP standards. We

included requirements in the HWC

NESHAP governing implementation of

the MACT performance standards. For

example, sources must submit

performance test plans and must

identify operating parameters that they

anticipate will ensure compliance with

the emission limits in their

Documentation of Compliance. The

CAA process, not RCRA, is the

appropriate mechanism to ensure

compliance with the MACT standards.

Under the CAA permitting programs,

these sources will be subject to New

Source Review permits prior to

construction as well as to title V

operating permits which will

incorporate the applicable requirements

from the HWC NESHAP.45

3. What Are We Proposing To Amend in

Parts 264, 265, 266?

In today’s notice, we also propose to

make conforming changes in parts 264,

265, and 266 for the above mentioned

reasons. Specifically, we propose to

revise 40 CFR 264.340(b), 265.340(b),

and 266.100(b) to specify that hazardous

waste burning incinerators, cement

kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns

that are newly constructed,

reconstructed, or modified such that

they become affected sources following

September 30, 1999 are not subject to

the RCRA combustor treatment

standards (except as noted) of parts 264,

265, and 266.

Part Three: Analytical and Regulatory

Requirements

I. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866, EPA

must determine whether a regulatory

action is significant and, therefore,

subject to comprehensive review by the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB), and the other provisions of the

Executive Order. A significant

35148 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

regulatory action is defined by the Order

as one that may:

—Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more, or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

—Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

—Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or rights and

obligations or recipients thereof; or

—Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive

Order 12866, it has been determined

that this rule is a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ because it may be considered

significant under point four above:

‘‘Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in Executive Order 12866.’’ As

such, this action was submitted to OMB

for review. Changes made in response to

OMB suggestions or recommendations

will be documented in the public

record.

The aggregate annualized compliance

costs for this rule, as proposed, are

estimated to be less than $100 million.

Furthermore, this proposed rule is not

expected to adversely affect, in a

material way, the economy, a sector of

the economy, productivity, competition,

jobs, the environment, public health or

safety, or State, local, or tribal

governments or communities. The

benefits to human health and the

environment resulting from today’s

proposed action have not been

monetized but are deemed to be less

than $100 million per year.

We have prepared two economic

support documents for this proposed

action. These are: Assessment of

Potential Costs, Benefits and Other

Impacts NESHAP: Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous

Waste Combustors—Technical

Amendments (Assessment), and,

Regulatory Flexibility Screening

Analysis (RFSA) For NESHAP:

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

for Hazardous Waste Combustors—

Technical Amendments. The

Assessment addresses economic

impacts of the twenty proposed

amendments to the Phase I MACT final

rule. The Assessment also briefly

examines equity considerations and

other impacts. The Regulatory

Flexibility Screening Analysis (RFSA)

briefly examines small entity impacts

potentially resulting from this proposed

action. This Part presents a summary of

findings from the Assessment and the

RFSA documents. The complete

Assessment and RFSA documents are

available in the RCRA docket

established for this action. Interested

readers are encouraged to read and

comment on these documents.

A. Why Is This Proposed Rule

Necessary?

The environmental regulations

promulgated by EPA seek to correct

market failures through the

internalization of negative

environmental externalities. That is not

the case with today’s proposed rule.

This action is necessary in order to

clarify and improve compliance, testing,

and monitoring requirements associated

with the final rule NESHAP: Final

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

for Hazardous Waste Combustors. See

64 FR 52828.

B. Were Non-Regulatory Alternatives

First Considered?

Section 1(b)(3) of Executive Order

12866 instructs Executive Branch

Agencies to consider and assess

available alternatives to direct

regulation prior to making a

determination for regulation. This

regulatory determination assessment

should be considered, ‘‘to the extent

permitted by law, and where

applicable.’’ The ultimate purpose of the

regulatory determination assessment is

to ensure that the most efficient tool,

regulation, or other type of action is

applied in meeting the targeted statutory

objective(s).

We have already employed education

and outreach programs designed to

accomplish the objectives of the

amendments proposed in this rule. We

believe that technical clarification and

improved implementation efficiency

will be best accomplished through a

regulatory approach in order to fully

accomplish our objectives.

C. What Regulatory Options Were

Considered?

For this action we considered the

proposed regulatory approach for all the

technical amendments as a group, or in

some cases, for an amendment that was

presented for comment only. We also

considered the ‘‘no action’’ option,

which would result in zero cost impacts

beyond the baseline established in the

final rule.

D. What Are the Potential Costs or Cost

Savings of This Proposed Rule?

The twenty proposed amendments

presented in today’s action vary

considerably in scope and substance.

Nearly all of the amendments, however,

are anticipated to result in minor to

negligible incremental cost impacts

(savings or increases) to both the

regulated community and the Agency.

Two or three of the amendments may

result in more substantive cost impacts.

These findings are briefly summarized

below. The complete Assessment

document presents a detailed review of

our methodology, data, findings, and

analytical limitations.

Cost Savings:

The amendments resulting in

projected minor cost savings to the

regulated community are generally

associated with the increased

compliance and administrative

flexibility, technical clarifications, time

extensions, and reduced monitoring/

testing requirements. One amendment,

however, may result in significant net

incremental cost savings to the

regulated community. Amendment

number X (Method 23 as an Alternative

to Method 0023A for Dioxin/Furans), is

designed to provide flexibility in

selection of test methods for dioxins and

furans. To test for dioxins and furans

under the CAA, Appendix A of 40 CFR

Part 60 prescribes Method 23. This

method combines the front half of the

filter and probe rinse with the back half

of the sorbent and rinses to perform a

single extraction and analysis. Recovery

of spiked standards into the sorbent are

used to serve as an indicator of overall

recovery.

Method 0023A is the RCRA dioxins/

furans air emission test method found in

SW–846 (incorporated within SW–846

in June, 1997). The updated Method

0023A differs from Method 23 primarily

in that the former uses the addition of

spike standards to both the filter (front

half) and sorbent (back half), and then

separates the front half and back half for

analysis in order to determine the

recovery from each half. While more

expensive, this process helps to quantify

recoveries more accurately for both the

back half and front half fractions.

The final rule requires sources to use

Method 0023A. At that time we believed

the improvements method 0023A

offered over Method 23 warranted a

requirement that all sources use the new

method. By incorporating separate

recovery, spiking, and analysis of front

half and back half samples the new

method helps better quantify recoveries

for both the back half and front half

fractions thereby improving quality

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 35149

46U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office

of Solid Waste, Addendum to the Assessment of the

Potential Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts of the

Hazardous Waste Combustion MACT Standards:

Final Rule, July 23, 1999.

47Based on July 1999 Assessment, we found that

the smallest annual firm revenue associated with

the six small facilities were $3.6 million. Dividing

$102,600 by the six facilities results in $17,100

maximum impact per small facility. ($17,100/$3.6

million = 0.48 percent).

assurance. The benefits of Method

0023A compared to Method 23 thus

include more accurate recovery data and

improved data quality. The downside to

Method 0023A is its higher analytical

cost and, possibly higher detection

limits. Furthermore, we have not

documented the potential magnitude of

the incremental benefits of Method

0023A.

We estimate that potentially

significant cost savings may result from

the reduced analytical expenses of using

Method 23 as an alternative to Method

23A for dioxin/furans. The difference in

unit cost between the methods is

approximately $3,000 per source.

Industry estimates indicate that about

half of all facilities are likely to make

use of this alternative. However, this

test is only required to be performed

every two and a half years. Based on

these factors, we estimate total cost

savings to the regulated community at

about $102,600 per year.

Cost Increases:

There may be cost increases

associated with some of the proposed

amendments. Many of the amendments

associated with potential cost increases,

however, propose alternatives that a

source may voluntarily choose to apply.

Cost increases would occur to both the

regulated community and the regulatory

agency and/or states. Most of these cost

increases are expected to be minor,

resulting from development and

submission of alternative plans and/or

test data. There may also be some minor

additional cost burdens associated with

potential increases in violations.

We estimate that five of the proposed

amendments may result in measurable

incremental cost burdens to industry

and the regulatory agency. These

amendments are projected to result in

aggregate cost increases to industry of

$199,300 per year. The government cost

increase is estimated at $161,800 per

year. Amendment V (Operator Training

and Certification) is the single largest

cost contributor to the cost increase for

both industry and government. This

amendment is projected to result in an

aggregate incremental cost increase of

nearly $154,000 to industry and

$150,700 to the regulatory agency.

We estimate a net cost increase of

$258,500 per year from all proposed

amendments for which we were able to

developed quantified cost impact

estimates. This cost impact estimate will

marginally increase the total annual

social cost projection of $50 to $63

million 46 estimated for compliance

with the final rule. We believe that our

net cost impact (increase) estimate of

$258,500 may be high because it was

not feasible to quantify some of the

potential cost savings that are likely to

result from many of the proposed

amendments. All cost impacts are

dependant upon the regional

enforcement regime.

II. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as

amended by the Small Business

Regualtory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC 601 et. seq.

The RFA generally requires an agency

to prepare a regulatory flexibility

analysis of any rule subject to notice

and comment rulemaking requirements

under the Administrative Procedure Act

or any other statute, unless the agency

certifies that the rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small organizations, and small

governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts

of today’s proposed rule on small

entities, a small entity is defined as: (1)

A small business that has fewer than

750, or 500 employees per firm

depending upon the SIC code the firm

is primarily classified in; (2) a small

governmental jurisdiction that is a

government of a city, county, town,

school district or special district with a

population of less than 50,000; or (3) a

small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently

owned and operated and is not

dominant in its field.

After considering the economic

impacts of today’s proposed rule on

small entities, I certify that this action

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. We have determined that only

amendment X (Method 23 as an

Alternative to Method 0023A for

Dioxin/Furans) is likely to impact one

or more of the six small hazardous

waste combustors. Under our assumed

worst-case scenario where the

maximum cost impacts of this

amendment ($102,600 savings) are

attributed to only these six small

sources, we find that no source would

experience impacts beyond 0.48 percent

of annual gross revenues 47. This does

not represent a significant economic

impact.

Although this proposed rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities,

we nonetheless tried to reduce the

impact of this rule on small entities.

Although not specifically directed

toward small business outreach, we

have met with industry representatives

during the developmental phase and

requested comment and suggestions on

all aspects of this proposed rulemaking.

No small business concerns were

brought up by these industry

representatives. We continue to be

interested in the potential impacts of the

proposed rule on small entities and

welcome comments on issues related to

such impacts.

We have completed the analysis:

Regulatory Flexibility Screening

Analysis (RFSA) For NESHAP:

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

for Hazardous Waste Combustors—

Technical Amendments, in support of

the proposed rule. This RFSA document

is available for review in the docket

established for today’s action.

III. Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection

of Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks’’

‘‘Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)

applies to any rule that: (1) Is

determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency. This

proposed rule is not subject to the

Executive Order because it is not

economically significant as defined in

Executive Order 12866. Furthermore,

we do not have reason to believe that

environmental health or safety risks

addressed by this action present a

disproportionate risk to children.

In addition, these amendments, as

part of the HWC MACT standards, are

exempt from the requirements of

Executive Order 13045 because the rule

is a technology-based regulation rather

than a risk-based one. Nevertheless, the

proposed amendments would not result

in any incremental environmental harm

that would affect children’s health.

35150 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

IV. Environmental Justice Executive

Order 12898

Executive Order 12898, ‘‘Federal

Actions to Address Environmental

Justice in Minority Populations and

Low-Income Population’’ (February 11,

1994), is designed to address the

environmental and human health

conditions of minority and low-income

populations. EPA is committed to

addressing environmental justice

concerns and has assumed a leadership

role in environmental justice initiatives

to enhance environmental quality for all

citizens of the United States. The

Agency’s goals are to ensure that no

segment of the population, regardless of

race, color, national origin, income, or

net worth bears disproportionately high

and adverse human health and

environmental impacts as a result of

EPA’s policies, programs, and activities.

In response to Executive Order 12898,

and to concerns voiced by many groups

outside the Agency, EPA’s Office of

Solid Waste and Emergency Response

(OSWER) formed an Environmental

Justice Task Force to analyze the array

of environmental justice issues specific

to waste programs and to develop an

overall strategy to identify and address

these issues (OSWER Directive No.

9200.3–17).

We have no data indicating that

today’s proposal would result in

disproportionately negative impacts on

minority or low income communities.

The public is invited to comment and

submit data related to environmental

justice issues potentially associated

with today’s proposal.

V. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any single year. Before

promulgating an EPA rule for which a

written statement is needed, section 205

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule.

The provisions of section 205 do not

apply when they are inconsistent with

applicable law. Moreover, section 205

allows EPA to adopt an alternative other

than the least costly, most cost-effective

or least burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes

any regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in

the development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

We have determined that this rule

does not contain a Federal mandate that

may result in expenditures of $100

million or more for State, local, and

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or

the private sector in any single year. The

amendments, as proposed, may result in

increased costs to all states (or the

Agency) of no more than approximately

$160,000 per year. Thus, today’s rule is

not subject to the requirements of

sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

VI. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

Executive Order 13132, entitled

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999), requires EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ are defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.’’

This proposed rule does not have

federalism implications. It will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132. This rule, as

proposed, is projected to result in

economic impacts to privately owned

hazardous waste combustion facilities.

Marginal administrative burden impacts

may occur to selected States an/or EPA

Regional Offices if these entities

experience increased administrative

needs, enforcement requirements, or

information requests. However, this

rule, as proposed, will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

intergovernmental relationships, or the

distribution of power and

responsibilities. Thus, Executive Order

13132 does not apply to this rule.

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132,

and consistent with EPA policy to

promote communications between EPA

and State and local governments, we

specifically solicit comment on this

proposed rule from State and local

officials.

VII. Consultation With Tribal

Governments

Executive Order 13175, entitled

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR

67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA

to develop an accountable process to

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by

tribal officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have tribal

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal

implications’’ is defined in the

Executive Order to include regulations

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on

one or more Indian tribes, on the

relationship between the Federal

government and the Indian tribes, or on

the distribution of power and

responsibilities between the Federal

government and Indian tribes.’’

This proposed rule does not have

tribal implications. It will not have

substantial direct effects on tribal

governments, on the relationship

between the Federal government and

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities between the

Federal government and Indian tribes,

as specified in Executive Order 13175.

Today’s proposal would not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments, nor would it impose

substantial direct compliance costs on

them. Tribal communities are not

known to own or operate any hazardous

waste combustion facilities, nor are

these communities disproportionately

located adjacent to or near such

facilities. Finally, tribal governments

will not be required to assume any

administrative or permitting

responsibilities associated with this

proposed rule.

In the spirit of Executive Order 13175,

and consistent with EPA policy to

promote communications between EPA

and tribal governments, we specifically

request comment on this proposed rule

from tribal officials.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 35151

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act

We have prepared an Information

Collection Request (ICR) document (ICR

No. 1773.03) listing the information

collection requirements of this proposed

rule, and have submitted it for approval

to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq. OMB has assigned a control

number 2050–0171 for this ICR. A copy

of this ICR may be obtained from Sandy

Farmer, OPIA Regulatory Information

Division, U.S. Environment Protection

Agency (2137), 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, or

by calling (202) 260–2740.

Some of the amendments proposed

today pertain to RCRA provisions of the

rule (i.e. to 40 CFR parts 260 thru 271),

and were covered under an earlier ICR

No. 1361.08. Today’s amendments to

these RCRA provisions are all deregulatory, and do not impose any

burden on the regulated community.

They only reduce the existing burden

shown in that ICR. The ICR No. 1361.08

will be revised to show the reduced

burden when the final rule is

promulgated. The public burden

associated with other provisions of this

proposed rule (which are under the

Clean Air Act) is projected to affect

approximately 171 HWC units and is

estimated to average 8.7 hours per

respondent annually. The reporting and

recordkeeping cost burden is estimated

to average $511 per respondent

annually. Burden means total time,

effort, or financial resources expended

by persons to generate, maintain, retain,

disclose, or provide information to or

for a Federal agency. That includes the

time needed to review instructions;

develop, acquire, install, and utilize

technology and systems for the purposes

of collecting, validating, and verifying

information, processing and

maintaining information, and disclosing

and providing information; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able

to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

Comments are requested on the need

of this information, accuracy of the

provided burden estimates, and any

suggested methods for minimizing the

respondent burden. Send comments to

Sandy Farmer at the address given

above, and to the Office of Information

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget, 725 17th St.

NW, Washington, DC 20503, marked

‘‘Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.’’ The

final rule will respond to all OMB and

public comments on the information

collection requirements contained in

this proposal.

We note that the recordkeeping and

reporting requirements are specifically

authorized by section 114 of the CAA

(42 U.S.C. 7414). All information

submitted to the EPA for which a claim

of confidentiality is made will be

safeguarded according to EPA policies

in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B,

Confidentiality of Business Information.

An agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to, a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. The OMB control

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed

in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

The EPA will amend the table in 40 CFR

part 9 of currently approved information

collection request (ICR) control numbers

issued by OMB upon finalization of this

rule and list the information collection

requirements contained in the final rule.

IX. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law

104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272

note) directs EPA to use voluntary

consensus standards in its regulatory

activities unless to do so would be

inconsistent with applicable law or

otherwise impractical. Voluntary

consensus standards are technical

standards (e.g., materials specifications,

test methods, sampling procedures, and

business practices) that are developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus

standards bodies. The NTTAA directs

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,

explanations when the Agency decides

not to use available and applicable

voluntary consensus standards.

This proposed rulemaking does not

involve technical standards. Therefore,

we are not considering the use of any

voluntary consensus standards. We

welcome comments on this aspect of the

proposed rulemaking and, specifically,

invite the public to identify potentially

applicable voluntary consensus

standards and to explain why such

standards should be used in this

regulation.

Part Four: State Authority

States can implement and enforce the

new MACT standards through their

delegated 112(l) CAA program and/or by

having title V authority. A State’s title

V authority is independent of whether

it has been delegated section 112(l) of

the CAA. Additional information on

state authority under the CAA may be

found in the HWC MACT rule (64 FR at

52991).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 264

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous waste,

Insurance, Packaging and containers,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Security measures, Surety

bonds

40 CFR Part 265

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous waste,

Insurance, Packaging and containers,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Security measures, Surety

bonds, Water supply.

40 CFR Part 266

Environmental protection, Energy,

Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements

40 CFR Part 270

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Confidential business information,

Hazardous materials transportation,

Hazardous waste, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Water

pollution control, Water supply.

Dated: June 18, 2001.

Christine Todd Whitman,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, it is proposed that title 40 of

the Code of Federal Regulations is

amended as follows:

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSIONS

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR

POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE

CATEGORIES

1. The authority citation for part 63

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 63.14 is amended by

adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:

§ 63.14 Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *

(i) ASME standard. This standard is

available from the American Society of

Mechanical Engineers, 345 East 47th

Street, New York, N.Y. 10017: Standard

for the Qualification and Certification of

Hazardous Waste Incinerator Operators,

ASME QHO–1–1994.

35152 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

3. Section 63.1201 is amended by

revising the definition of ‘‘Instantaneous

monitoring’’ in paragraph (a) to read as

follows:

§ 63.1201 Definitions and acronyms used

in this subpart.

(a) * * *

Instantaneous monitoring for

combustion system leak control means

detecting and recording pressure,

without use of an averaging period, at a

frequency adequate to detect

combustion system leak events from

hazardous waste combustion.

* * * * *

4. Section 63.1206 is amended by

revising paragraph (c)(5)(ii) and (c)(6) to

read as follows:

§ 63.1206 When and how must you comply

with the standards and operating

requirements?

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(5) * * *

(ii) You must specify in the

performance test workplan and

Notification of Compliance the method

that will be used to control combustion

system leaks. If you control combustion

system leaks by maintaining the

combustion zone pressure lower than

ambient pressure using an

instantaneous monitor, you must also

specify in the performance test

workplan and Notification of

Compliance the monitoring and

recording frequency of the pressure

monitor, and specify how the

monitoring approach will be integrated

into the automatic waste feed cutoff

system.

(6) Operator training and certification.

(i) You must establish training programs

for all categories of personnel whose

activities may reasonably be expected to

directly affect emissions of hazardous

air pollutants from the source. Such

persons include, but are not limited to,

chief facility operators, control room

operators, continuous monitoring

system operators, persons that sample

and analyze feedstreams, persons that

manage and charge feedstreams to the

combustor, persons that operate

emission control devices, and ash and

waste handlers. Each training program

shall be of a technical level

commensurate with the person’s job

duties specified in the training manual.

Each commensurate training program

shall require an examination to be

administered by the instructor at the

end of the training course. Passing of

this test shall be deemed the

‘‘certification’’ for personnel, except

that, for control room operators, the

training and certification program shall

be as specified in paragraphs (c)(6)(iii)

through (c)(6)(vi) of this section.

(ii) You must ensure that the source

is operated and maintained at all times

by persons who are trained and certified

to perform these and any other duties

that may affect emissions of hazardous

air pollutants. A certified control room

operator must be on duty at the site at

all times the source is in operation.

(iii) Hazardous waste incinerator

control room operators must:

(A) Be trained and certified under a

site-specific, source-developed and

implemented program that meets the

requirements of paragraph (c)(6)(v) of

this section; or

(B) Be trained under the requirements

of, and certified under, the American

Society of Mechanical Engineers

Standard Number QHO–1–1994

(incorporated by reference—see

§ 63.14(e)). If you choose to use the

ASME program:

(1) Control room operators must, prior

to the compliance date, achieve

provisional certification, and must

submit an application to ASME and be

scheduled for the full certification

exam. Within one year of the

compliance date, control room operators

must achieve full certification;

(2) New operators and operators of

new sources must, before assuming their

duties, achieve provisional certification,

and must submit an application to

ASME, and be scheduled for the full

certification exam. Within one year of

assuming their duties, these operators

must achieve full certification; or

(C) Be trained and certified under a

State program.

(iv) Cement kiln and lightweight

aggregate kiln control room operators

must be trained and certified under:

(A) A site-specific, source-developed

and implemented program that meets

the requirements of paragraph (c)(6)(v)

of this section; or

(B) A State program.

(v) Site-specific, source developed

and implemented training programs for

control room operators must include the

following elements:

(A) Training on the following

subjects:

(1) Environmental concerns,

including types of emissions;

(2) Basic combustion principles,

including products of combustion;

(3) Operation of the specific type of

combustor used by the operator,

including proper startup, waste firing,

and shutdown procedures;

(4) Combustion controls and

continuous monitoring systems;

(5) Operation of air pollution control

equipment and factors affecting

performance;

(6) Inspection and maintenance of the

combustor, continuous monitoring

systems, and air pollution control

devices;

(7) Actions to correct malfunctions or

conditions that may lead to

malfunction;

(8) Residue characteristics and

handling procedures; and

(9) Applicable Federal, state, and

local regulations, including

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration workplace standards;

and

(B) An examination designed and

administered by the instructor; and

(C) Written material covering the

training course topics that may serve as

reference material following completion

of the course.

(vi) To maintain control room

operator qualification under a sitespecific, source developed and

implemented training program as

provided by paragraph (c)(6)(v) of this

section, control room operators must

complete an annual review or refresher

course covering, at a minimum, the

following topics:

(A) Update of regulations;

(B) Combustor operation, including

startup and shutdown procedures, waste

firing, and residue handling;

(C) Inspection and maintenance;

(D) Responses to malfunctions or

conditions that may lead to

malfunction; and

(E) Operating problems encountered

by the operator.

(vii) You must record the operator

training and certification program in the

operating record.

* * * * *

5. Section 63.1207 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and

(g)(2)(ii).

b. Revising paragraph (h)(2)

introductory text.

c. Revising paragraph (j)(1)(i).

d. Adding paragraph (e)(3).

e. Adding paragraph (g)(2)(iv).

f. Adding paragraph (j)(5).

The revisions and additions read as

follows:

§ 63.1207 What are the performance

testing requirements?

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(3) Petitions for time extension if

Administrator fails to approve or deny

test plans. You may petition the

Administrator under § 63.7(h) to obtain

a ‘‘waiver’’ of any performance test—

initial or periodic performance test;

comprehensive or confirmatory test. The

‘‘waiver’’ would be implemented as an

extension of time to conduct the

performance test at a later date.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 35153

(i) Qualifications for the waiver. (A)

You may not petition the Administrator

for a waiver under this section if the

Administrator has issued a notification

of intent to deny your test plan(s) under

§ 63.7(c)(3)(i)(B).

(B) You must submit a site-specific

emissions testing plan and a continuous

monitoring system performance

evaluation plan at least one year before

a comprehensive performance test is

scheduled to begin as required by

paragraph (c)(1) of this section, or at

least 60 days before a confirmatory

performance test is scheduled to begin

as required by paragraph (d) of this

section. The test plans must include all

documentation required to be included,

including the substantive content

requirements of paragraph (f) of this

section and § 63.8(e); and

(C) You must make a good faith effort

to accommodate the Administrator’s

comments on the test plans.

(ii) Procedures for obtaining a waiver

and duration of the waiver: (A) You

must submit to the Administrator a

waiver petition or request to renew the

petition under § 63.7(h) separately for

each source at least 60 days prior to the

scheduled date of the performance test.

(B) The Administrator will approve or

deny the petition within 30 days of

receipt and notify you promptly of the

decision.

(C) The Administrator will not

approve an individual waiver petition

for a duration exceeding 6 months;

(D) The Administrator will include a

sunset provision in the waiver ending

the waiver within 6 months;

(E) You may submit a revised petition

to renew the waiver under

§ 63.7(h)(3)(iii) at least 60 days prior to

the end date of the most recently

approved waiver petition;

(F) The Administrator may approve a

revised petition for a total waiver period

up to 12 months.

(iii) Content of the waiver. (A) You

must provide documentation to enable

the Administrator to determine that the

source is meeting the relevant

standard(s) on a continuous basis as

required by § 63.7(h)(2). For extension

requests for the initial comprehensive

performance test, you must submit your

Documentation of Compliance to assist

the Administrator in making this

determination.

(B) You must include in the petition

information justifying your request for a

waiver, such as the technical or

economic infeasibility, or the

impracticality, of the affected source

performing the required test, as required

by § 63.7(h)(3)(iii).

(iv) Public notice. You must notify the

public (e.g., distribute public mailing

list) of your petition to waive a

performance test.

* * * * *

(g) * * *

(2) * * *

(i) Carbon monoxide (or hydrocarbon)

CEMS emissions levels must be within

the range of the average value to the

maximum value allowed, except as

provided by paragraph (g)(2)(iv) of this

section. The average value is defined as

the sum of the hourly rolling average

values recorded (each minute) over the

previous 12 months divided by the

number of rolling averages recorded

during that time;

(ii) Each operating limit (specified in

§ 63.1209) established to maintain

compliance with the dioxin/furan

emission standard must be held within

the range of the average value over the

previous 12 months and the maximum

or minimum, as appropriate, that is

allowed, except as provided by

paragraph (g)(2)(iv) of this section. The

average value is defined as the sum of

the rolling average values recorded over

the previous 12 months divided by the

number of rolling averages recorded

during that time. The average value

must not include calibration data,

malfunction data, and data obtained

when not burning hazardous waste;

* * * * *

(iv) The Administrator may approve

an alternative range to that required by

paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (ii) of this

section if you document in the

confirmatory performance test plan that

it may be problematic to maintain the

required range during the test. In

addition, when making the finding of

compliance, the Administrator may

consider test conditions outside of the

range specified in the test plan based on

a finding that you could not reasonably

maintain the range specified in the test

plan and considering factors including

whether the time duration and level of

the parameter when operations were out

of the specified range were such that

operations during the confirmatory test

are determined to be reasonably

representative of normal operations. In

addition, the Administrator will

consider the proximity of the emission

test results to the standard.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

(2) Current operating parameters

limits are also waived during pretesting

prior to comprehensive performance

testing for an aggregate time not to

exceed 720 hours of operation under an

approved test plan or if the source

records the results of the pretesting.

Pretesting means:

* * * * *

(j) * * *

(1) * * *

(i) Except as provided by paragraphs

(j)(4) and (j)(5) of this section, within 90

days of completion of a comprehensive

performance test, you must postmark a

Notification of Compliance

documenting compliance or

noncompliance with the emission

standards and continuous monitoring

system requirements, and identifying

operating parameter limits under

§ 63.1209.

* * * * *

(5) Early compliance. If you conduct

the initial comprehensive performance

test prior to September 30, 2002 (or a

later compliance date approved under

§ 63.6(i)), you need not postmark the

Notification of Compliance within 90

days of completion of the performance

test.

* * * * *

6. Section 63.1209 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraphs (k)(5) and

(k)(7)(i)(C).

b. Revising paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(4).

c. Revising paragraph (p).

d. Revising paragraph (q).

e. Adding paragraph (k)(6)(iv).

These revisions and additions read as

follows:

§ 63.1209 What are the monitoring

requirements?

* * * * *

(k) * * *

(5) Particulate matter operating limit.

If your combustor is equipped with an

activated carbon injection system, you

must establish operating parameter

limits on the particulate matter control

device as specified by paragraph (m)(1)

of this section;

(6) * * *

(iv) Control device operating

parameter limits (OPLs). You must

establish operating parameter limits on

the particulate matter control device as

specified by paragraph (m)(1) of this

section.

(7) * * *

(i) * * *

(C) For the initial comprehensive

performance test, you may base the

initial limit on maximum bed age of the

carbon in each segment of the bed on

manufacturer’s specifications. If you use

manufacturer’s specifications rather

than actual bed age to establish the

initial limit, you must also conduct a

bed life confirmatory test prior to the

manufacturer’s specification of bed age.

That bed life confirmatory test must be

conducted under the procedures

required for a dioxin/furan confirmatory

test as specified by § 63.1207(g)(2). The

purpose of the bed life confirmatory test

is to document to the Administrator that

35154 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

the initial limit on maximum bed age

ensures compliance with the dioxin/

furan emission standard. If you fail to

confirm compliance with the dioxin/

furan emission standard during this

testing, you must conduct additional

testing as necessary to document that a

revised lower limit on maximum bed

age ensures compliance with the dioxin/

furan standard.

* * * * *

(l) * * *

(3) Activated carbon injection. If your

combustor is equipped with an

activated carbon injection system, you

must establish operating parameter

limits prescribed by paragraphs (k)(5)

and (k)(6) of this section.

(4) Activated carbon bed. If your

combustor is equipped with a carbon

bed system, you must establish

operating parameter limits prescribed by

paragraph (k)(7) of this section. In

addition, if you elect to establish the

initial limit on carbon bed age based on

the manufacturer’s specification, you

must:

(i) Operate the combustor during the

bed life confirmatory test required by

paragraph (k)(7)(i)(C) of this section

such that each operating limit specified

in paragraph (l) of this section is held

within the range of the average value

over the previous 12 months and the

maximum or minimum, as appropriate,

that is allowed. The term ‘‘average

value’’ is defined in § 63.1207(g)(2)(ii);

and

(ii) Conduct mercury emissions

testing to document compliance with

the mercury emission standard. If you

fail to confirm compliance with the

mercury emission standard during this

testing, you must conduct additional

testing as necessary to document that a

revised lower limit on maximum bed

age ensures compliance with the

standard.

* * * * *

(p) Maximum combustion chamber

pressure. If you comply with the

requirements for combustion system

leaks under § 63.1206(c)(5) by

maintaining the maximum combustion

chamber zone pressure lower than

ambient pressure to prevent combustion

system leaks from hazardous waste

combustion, you must perform

instantaneous monitoring of pressure

and the automatic waste feed cutoff

system must be engaged when negative

pressure is not adequately maintained.

(q) Operating under different modes

of operation. If you operate under

different modes of operation, you must

establish operating parameter limits for

each mode. You must document in the

operating record when you change a

mode of operation and begin complying

with the operating limits for an

alternative mode of operation.

(1) Operating under otherwise

applicable standards after the

hazardous waste residence time has

transpired. As provided by

§ 63.1206(b)(1)(ii), you may operate

under otherwise applicable

requirements promulgated under

sections 112 and 129 of the Clean Air

Act in lieu of the substantive

requirements of this subpart.

(i) The otherwise applicable

requirements promulgated under

sections 112 and 129 of the Clean Air

Act are applicable requirements under

this subpart.

(ii) You must specify (e.g., by

reference) the otherwise applicable

requirements as a mode of operation in

your Documentation of Compliance

under § 63.1211(d), your Notification of

Compliance under § 63.1207(j), and

your title V permit application. These

requirements include the otherwise

applicable requirements governing

emission standards, monitoring and

compliance, and notification, reporting,

and recordkeeping.

(2) Calculating rolling averages under

different modes of operation. When you

transition to a different mode of

operation, you must calculate rolling

averages anew using the continuous

monitoring system values previously

recorded for that mode of operation (i.e.,

you ignore continuous monitoring

system values recorded under other

modes of operations when you

transition back to a mode of operation).

PART 264—STANDARDS FOR

OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF

HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,

STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL

FACILITIES

7. The authority citation for part 264

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924,

and 6925.

8. Section 264.340 is amended by

redesignating paragraph (b)(2) as

paragraph (b)(3); revising the first

sentence in paragraph (b)(1); and adding

new paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:

§ 264.340 Applicability.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) Except as provided by paragraph

(b)(3) of this section, the standards of

this part no longer apply when an

owner or operator demonstrates

compliance with the maximum

achievable control technology (MACT)

requirements of part 63, subpart EEE of

this chapter by conducting a

comprehensive performance test and

submitting to the Administrator a

Notification of Compliance under

§§ 63.1207(j) and 63.1210(d) of this

chapter documenting compliance with

the requirements of part 63, subpart EEE

of this chapter. * * *

(2) Except as provided by paragraph

(b)(3) of this section, the standards of

this section do not apply to an owner or

operator of a hazardous waste

incinerator (as defined at § 63.1201 of

this chapter) that begins construction,

reconstruction, or becomes an affected

source of part 63, subpart EEE of this

chapter, after September 30, 1999.

* * * * *

PART 265—INTERIM STATUS

STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND

OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND

DISPOSAL FACILITIES

9. The authority citation for part 265

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6906, 6912,

6922, 6923, 6924, 6925, 6935, 6936, and

6937.

10. Section 265.340 is amended by

redesignating paragraph (b)(2) as

paragraph (b)(3); revising the first

sentence in paragraph (b)(1); and adding

a new paragraph (b)(2) to read as

follows:

§ 265.340 Applicability.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) Except as provided by paragraph

(b)(3) of this section, the standards of

this part no longer apply when an

owner or operator demonstrates

compliance with the maximum

achievable control technology (MACT)

requirements of part 63, subpart EEE of

this chapter by conducting a

comprehensive performance test and

submitting to the Administrator a

Notification of Compliance under

§§ 63.1207(j) and 63.1210(d) of this

chapter documenting compliance with

the requirements of part 63, subpart EEE

of this chapter. * * *

(2) Except as provided by paragraph

(b)(3) of this section, the standards of

this section do not apply to an owner or

operator begins construction,

reconstruction, or becomes an affected

source of part 63, subpart EEE of this

chapter, after September 30, 1999.

* * * * *

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 35155

PART 266—STANDARDS FOR THE

MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC

HAZARDOUS WASTES AND SPECIFIC

TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

MANAGEMENT FACILITIES

11. The authority citation for part 266

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 1006, 2002(a), 3004, 6905,

6906, 6912, 6922, 6925, and 6937.

12. Section 266.100 is amended by

redesignating paragraph (b)(2) as

paragraph (b)(3); revising the first

sentence of paragraph (b)(1); and adding

new paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:

§ 266.100 Applicability.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) Except as provided by paragraph

(b)(3) of this section, the standards of

this part no longer apply when an

affected source demonstrates

compliance with the maximum

achievable control technology (MACT)

requirements of part 63, subpart EEE, of

this chapter by conducting a

comprehensive performance test and

submitting to the Administrator a

Notification of Compliance under

§§ 63.1207(j) and 63.1210(d) of this

chapter documenting compliance with

the requirements of subpart EEE. * * *

(2) Except as provided by paragraph

(b)(3) of this section, the standards of

this section do not apply to an owner or

operator of a hazardous waste burning

cement kiln, or hazardous waste

lightweight aggregate kiln (as defined at

§ 63.1201 of this chapter) that begins

construction, reconstruction, or

becomes an affected source of part 63,

subpart EEE of this chapter, after

September 30, 1999.

* * * * *

PART 270—EPA ADMINISTERED

PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE

HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT

PROGRAM

13. The authority citation for part 270

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912, 6924,

6925, 6927, 6939, and 6974.

14. Section 270.19 is amended by

revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:

§ 270.19 Specific part B information

requirements for incinerators.

* * * * *

(e) When an owner or operator who

submitted a permit application under

this part before September 30, 1999,

demonstrates compliance with the air

emission standards and limitations in

40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE (i.e., by

conducting a comprehensive

performance test and submitting a

Notification of Compliance

documenting compliance with all

applicable requirements of part 63,

subpart EEE), the requirements of this

section do not apply. When an owner or

operator submits a permit application

under this part on or after September 30,

1999, the requirements of this section

do not apply. Nevertheless, the Director

may apply the provisions of this section,

on a case-by-case basis, for purposes of

information collection in accordance

with §§ 270.10(k) and 270.32(b)(2).

15. Section 270.22 is amended by

revising the introductory text to read as

follows:

§ 270.22 Specific part B information

requirements for boilers and industrial

furnaces burning hazardous waste.

When an owner or operator of a

cement or lightweight aggregate kiln

demonstrates compliance with the air

emission standards and limitations in

40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE (i.e., by

conducting a comprehensive

performance test and submitting a

Notification of Compliance

documenting compliance with all

applicable requirements of part 63,

subpart EEE), the requirements of this

section do not apply. When an owner or

operator of a cement or lightweight

aggregate kiln submits a permit

application under this part on or after

September 30, 1999, the requirements of

this section do not apply. Nevertheless,

the Director may apply the provisions of

this section, on a case-by-case basis, for

purposes of information collection in

accordance with §§ 270.10(k) and

270.32(b)(2).

* * * * *

16. Section 270.62 is amended by

revising the introductory text to read as

follows:

§ 270.62 Hazardous waste incinerator

permits.

When an owner or operator who

submitted a permit application under

this part before September 30, 1999,

demonstrates compliance with the air

emission standards and limitations in

40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE (i.e., by

conducting a comprehensive

performance test and submitting a

Notification of Compliance

documenting compliance with all

applicable requirements of 40 CFR part

63, subpart EEE), the requirements of

this section do not apply. When an

owner or operator submits a permit

application under this part on or after

September 30, 1999, the requirements of

this section do not apply. Nevertheless,

the Director may apply the provisions of

this section, on a case-by-case basis, for

purposes of information collection in

accordance with §§ 270.10(k) and

270.32(b)(2).

* * * * *

17. Section 270.66 is amended by

revising the introductory text to read as

follows:

§ 270.66 Permits for boilers and industrial

furnaces burning hazardous waste.

When an owner or operator of a

cement or lightweight aggregate kiln

who submitted a permit application

under this part before September 30,

1999, demonstrates compliance with the

air emission standards and limitations

in 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE (i.e., by

conducting a comprehensive

performance test and submitting a

Notification of Compliance

documenting compliance with all

applicable requirements of 40 CFR part

63, subpart EEE), the requirements of

this section do not apply. When an

owner or operator of a cement or

lightweight aggregate kiln submits a

permit application under this part on or

after September 30, 1999, the

requirements of this section do not

apply. Nevertheless, the Director may

apply the provisions of this section, on

a case-by-case basis, for purposes of

information collection in accordance

with §§ 270.10(k) and 270.32(b)(2).

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01–16426 Filed 7–2–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration

49 CFR Part 171

[Docket No. RSPA–99–5013 (HM–229)]

RIN 2137–AD21

Hazardous Materials: Revisions to

Incident Reporting Requirements and

the Hazardous Materials Incident

Report Form

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs

Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: RSPA is proposing revisions

to the current incident reporting

requirements of the Hazardous Materials

Regulations and the hazardous materials

incident report form, DOT Form F

5800.1. The major changes proposed by

RSPA in this NPRM include: collecting

more specific information on the

incident reporting form; expanding

reporting exceptions; expanding

reporting requirements to persons other