[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 3, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35087-35107]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16425]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 63 and 264

[FRL-7001-8]
RIN 2050


NESHAP: Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous 
Waste Combustors

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action on targeted amendments to 
the regulations for hazardous waste burning cement kilns, lightweight 
aggregate kilns, and incinerators promulgated on September 30, 1999 
(NESHAP: Final

[[Page 35088]]

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors). 
The revisions make improvements to the implementation of the emission 
standards, primarily in the areas of compliance, testing and 
monitoring. We are approving these revisions to make it easier to 
comply with the September 30, 1999 final rule.

DATES: This rule is effective on October 16, 2001 without further 
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by August 17, 2001. If we 
receive such comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the 
Federal Register informing the public that this rule will not take 
effect.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment on this direct final rule, you must 
send an original and two copies of the comments referencing Docket 
Number F-2001-RC4F-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, DC 20460-0002; or, 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.

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 the NESHAP portion of this direct 
final rule, contact Mr. Frank Behan at 703-308-8476, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#86e4e3eee7e8a8e0f4e7e8edc6e3f6e7a8e1e9f0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6a080f020b04440c180b04012a0f1a0b440d051c">[email protected]</span></a>, or write him at the Office of Solid Waste, 5302W, 
U.S. EPA, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is publishing this rule without prior 
proposal because we view these as noncontroversial amendments. We 
anticipate no adverse comment because we have worked with the 
interested parties in their development. However, in the ``Proposed 
Rules'' section of today's Federal Register publication, we are 
publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to amend 
the emissions standards for hazardous waste burning cement kilns, 
lightweight aggregate kilns, and incinerators promulgated on September 
30, 1999, if adverse comments are filed. This direct final rule will be 
effective on October 16, 2001 without further notice unless we receive 
adverse comment by August 17, 2001. If EPA receives adverse comment on 
one or more distinct amendments of this rulemaking, we will publish a 
timely withdrawal in the Federal Register indicating which provisions 
will become effective and which provisions are being withdrawn due to 
adverse comment. Any of the distinct amendments in today's rulemaking 
for which we do not receive adverse comment will become effective on 
the date set above. We will address all public comments in a subsequent 
final rule based on the proposed rule, including any adverse comment on 
any distinct amendment, paragraph, or section of today's rule. We will 
not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties 
interested in commenting on any amendment must do so at this time.

Electronic Submittal of Comments

    You may submit comments electronically by sending electronic mail 
through the Internet to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#493b2a3b28642d262a222c3d092c392824282025672c3928672e263f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="37455445561a5358545c5243775247565a565e5b1952475619505841">[email protected]</span></a>. You should 
identify comments in electronic format with the docket number F-2001-
RC4F-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, DC 20460.

Acronyms Used in the Rule

BIF--Boilers and industrial furnaces
CAA--Clean Air Act
CEMS--Continuous emissions monitors/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
MTEC--Maximum theoretical emissions concentration
NESHAP--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NIC--Notice of Intent to Comply
NOC--Notification of compliance
NODA--Notice of data availability
OPL--Operating parameter limit
PM--Particulate matter
POHC--Principal organic hazardous constituent
ppmv--Parts per million by volume
RCRA--Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SVM--Semivolatile metals (lead and cadmium)
<greek-m>g--Microgram

Table of Contents

Part One: Overview and Background for This Direct Final Rule

I. What Is the Purpose of This Direct Final Rule?
II. What Is the Phase I Rule?
III. What Related Actions Have Been Taken Since Publication of the 
Phase I Rule?

Part Two: NESHAP--Amendments to the HWC Final Rule

I. Hazardous Waste Residence Time
II. Deletion of One-Time Notification of Compliance with Alternative 
Clean Air Act Standards
III. Use of DRE Data in Lieu of Testing
IV. Time Extension for Waiving PM and Opacity Standards to Correlate 
PM CEMS
V. Alternative Hydrocarbon Monitoring Location for Short Cement 
Kilns Burning Hazardous Waste at Locations Other Than the ``Hot'' 
End of the Kiln
VI. Alternative to the Particulate Matter Standard for Incinerators 
Feeding Low Levels of Metals
VII. Deletion of Baghouse Inspection Requirements
VIII. Feedstream Analysis for Organic HAPs
IX. Revisions to the Metals Feedrate Extrapolation Procedures
X. Feedrate Limits for Undetectable Constituents
XI. Revisions to Assist Early Compliance
XII. Accuracy Requirements for Weight Measurement Devices
XIII. Deletion of Requirement for Establishing a Scrubber Liquid 
Minimum pH Operating Parameter Limit for Mercury Control for Wet 
Scrubbers

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.

[[Page 35089]]

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

Part Four: State Authority

Part One: Overview and Background for This Direct Final Rule

I. What Is the Purpose of This Direct Final Rule?

    Today's notice makes 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 promulgate a limited number of changes to the final 
rule, most of them relating to compliance and implementation.
    In a separate action today, we are proposing and soliciting comment 
on several additional amendments to the Phase I rule. If you wish to 
comment on those amendments, you must submit comments following the 
directions in the Addresses section of that action.
    The remaining sections of this part provide additional background 
information on the Phase I final rule.

II. What Is the Phase I Rule?

    In the Phase I final rule, we adopted National Emissions Standards 
for Hazardous Air Pollutants to control toxic emissions from the 
burning of hazardous waste in incinerators, cement kilns, and 
lightweight aggregate kilns. These emission standards created a 
technology-based national cap for hazardous air pollutant emissions 
from the combustion of hazardous waste in these devices. Additional 
risk-based conditions necessary to protect human health and the 
environment may be imposed (assuming a proper, site-specific 
justification) under section 3005(c)(3) of the Resource Conservation 
and Recovery Act (RCRA).
    Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (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 
notice, 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 
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.

Part Two: NESHAP--Amendments to the HWC Final Rule

I. Hazardous Waste Residence Time

    ``Hazardous waste residence time'' is defined at Sec. 63.1201(a) as 
the time elapsed from cutoff of the flow of hazardous waste into the 
combustor (including, for example, the time required for liquids to 
flow from the cutoff valve into the combustor) until solid, liquid, and 
gaseous materials from the hazardous waste, excluding residues that may 
adhere to combustion chamber surfaces, exit the combustion chamber. As 
stakeholders recognize, hazardous waste residence time has significant 
regulatory and enforcement implications. For example, if sources

[[Page 35090]]

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 because of a start-up, shut-down, or 
malfunction and sources follow 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. They would comply with these 
standards in lieu of the hazardous waste combustor standards of Subpart 
EEE, Part 63. See Sec. 63.1206(b)(1).
    Since promulgation of the hazardous waste combustor rule, 
stakeholders have raised an issue: what is the hazardous waste 
residence time for sources that continuously recycle hazardous waste-
derived materials?
    We are taking direct final action so that recycled hazardous waste-
derived materials should not be considered when calculating hazardous 
waste residence time.\1\ See revision to the definition of hazardous 
waste residence time at Sec. 63.1201(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Another special case for addressing residence time is 
vitrification melter units, where certain inorganic waste components 
are incorporated into the vitrified melt, and where it is not 
desirable to remove the entire melt (i.e., the melt is removed from 
the chamber at lengthy, infrequent intervals). In these cases, it 
may be appropriate for sources to recommend an alternative 
``effective waste treatment'' residence time under 
Sec. 63.1209(g)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. What Causes Recycle Loops and What Is the Potential Consequence?
    Cement kilns, and possibly other hazardous waste combustors, 
continuously volatilize and condense toxic constituents derived from 
hazardous waste in recycle loops within the kiln. For example, chlorine 
and semivolatile metal hazardous air pollutants, such as lead and 
cadmium, will volatilize in the kiln and partition to the combustion 
gas. A portion of these waste-derived, toxic materials will condense 
before the combustion gas exits the kiln and will partition back into 
the raw material bed. Thus, these waste-derived, toxic materials are 
recycled internally within the kiln.
    In addition, cement kilns generally recycle a portion of their 
collected particulate matter, known as cement kiln dust, back into the 
kiln. This cement kiln dust contains toxic constituents derived from 
hazardous waste fuel, including metals that are hazardous air 
pollutants.
    Stakeholders request that these recycle loops not be considered 
when calculating hazardous waste residence time. Stakeholders note that 
if the hazardous waste-derived materials in these recycle loops were to 
be considered in calculating residence time, then: (1) It would be very 
problematic to document when the recycled waste constituents finally 
exit the kiln; and (2) the hazardous waste residence time would not 
elapse for an unnecessarily protracted period of time.
B. How Are We Addressing This Issue?
    We conclude that recycle loops need not be considered in 
calculating hazardous waste residence time to ensure compliance with 
the emission standards. Emissions of semivolatile metals, low volatile 
metals, and particulate matter immediately prior to a waste feed cutoff 
will typically be well below levels demonstrated during the performance 
test and thus below the emission standard. This is because sources 
typically spike metals (add extra metals to the waste fuel) during 
performance testing to establish a wide envelope of operating limits to 
reflect the maximum operating variability they are likely to encounter 
in actual operation, providing sufficient operating flexibility for 
unexpected situations. We do not believe, though, that conditions will 
invariably reflect this maximum variability before a waste feed cutoff. 
In addition, notwithstanding recycle loops, hazardous waste-derived 
metals emissions will begin to decrease upon waste feed cutoff. The 
levels will continue to decrease while the hazardous waste residence 
time elapses and will decrease to very low levels after the 
electrostatic precipitator or baghouse undergoes a cleaning cycle. 
Therefore, the metal emission standards should not be exceeded due to 
recycle loops containing hazardous waste-derived materials.
    For these reasons, we are revising the definition of hazardous 
waste residence time at Sec. 63.1201(a).

II. Deletion of One-Time Notification of Compliance With Alternative 
Clean Air Act Standards

    If a source is not feeding hazardous waste and the hazardous waste 
residence time has expired, the source may elect to comply temporarily 
with alternative, otherwise applicable standards promulgated under the 
authority of sections 112 and 129 of the Clean Air Act. If a source 
makes this election, Sec. 63.1206(b)(1)(ii)(A) currently requires the 
source to submit to the Administrator a written, one-time notification 
documenting compliance with those requirements and standards.
    The rule requires this notice to alert regulatory officials that a 
source claims to have met the regulatory requirements for the otherwise 
applicable standards (i.e., section 112 and 129 standards the source 
would be subject to if the source did not burn hazardous waste). For 
example, a hazardous waste burning cement kiln may elect to comply with 
the MACT standards and operating requirements applicable to Portland 
cement manufacturing facilities provided under Subpart LLL after the 
hazardous waste residence time has transpired. The notice enables 
regulatory officials to know which sources claim to be in full 
compliance with such otherwise applicable standards and will assist 
those officials in establishing source inspection priorities.
    Stakeholders have raised two issues since promulgation, however, 
that have led us to conclude that this notification requirement is 
unnecessary. First, stakeholders have indicated that virtually all 
sources are likely to want to have the option to switch temporarily to 
compliance under otherwise applicable section 112 or 129 standards at 
some point during their operations. Thus, the notice would not have the 
intended effect of singling out those sources that chose to do so for 
the purpose of establishing inspection priorities.
    Stakeholders also point out that this notification requirement is 
duplicative of the title V compliance certification requirement of 
Sec. 70.5(c)(9) that requires permit applicants to include in their 
application a detailed description of the source's compliance status 
and a certification by a responsible official of compliance with all 
applicable requirements. In addition, stakeholders state that title V 
sources must submit annual certifications of compliance with all 
applicable requirements. See Sec. 70.6(c)(5). Thus, stakeholders note 
that the only scenario where the Sec. 63.1206(b)(1)(ii)(A) notification 
requirement is not duplicative is for sources that have not yet been 
required to submit a certification under title V.
    In addition, if sources anticipate complying temporarily with the 
alternative standards for nonhazardous waste combustors after the 
hazardous waste residence time has expired, sources may include 
appropriate terms and conditions in the title V permit using the 
``reasonably anticipated operating scenario'' provisions of

[[Page 35091]]

Sec. 70.6(a)(9).\2\ Once both scenarios (i.e., for burning hazardous 
waste and not burning hazardous waste) are included in the permit, 
sources simply document in the operating record when they switch from 
one scenario to another.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Note that Subpart EEE incorporates this provision as 
Sec. 63.1209(q), operating under different modes of operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, we also note that this notification requirement has been 
targeted for deletion under the Office of Solid Waste Burden Reduction 
Project. See 64 FR 32859 for the goals and objectives of this project.
    For these reasons, we are deleting the notification requirement of 
Sec. 63.1206(b)(1)(ii)(A).

III. Use of DRE Data in Lieu of Testing

    We are revising two provisions associated with the allowance to use 
previously collected data in lieu of the initial performance test or 
the Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) test under 
Secs. 63.1206(b)(6), 63.1206(b)(7), and 63.1207(c)(2). We are taking 
final action to: (1) Remove the existing restriction preventing the use 
of DRE test data collected prior to March 1998 to document compliance 
with the DRE standard \3\; and (2) eliminate the requirement limiting 
previous data to only RCRA permit issuance or reissuance testing 
results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ If hazardous waste is fed at a location other than the 
normal flame zone, sources must conduct periodic DRE testing. See 
Sec. 63.1206(b)(7)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Why Are We Allowing DRE Data Obtained Prior to March 1998 To Be Used 
in Lieu of a New DRE Test?
    Stakeholders question why the rule restricts the age of DRE data 
for sources required to conduct only one DRE test for the life of the 
source. For DRE testing, the rule states that if you fire hazardous 
waste in the flame zone, and the system is not modified, then you are 
only required to demonstrate compliance with the MACT DRE emissions 
standard once over the operational life of the device. However, as part 
of the final rule data in lieu provisions, we limit the use of previous 
test data submitted for the initial comprehensive performance test to 
data collected after March 1998. Stakeholders believe that this limit 
substantially reduces the number of sources that can submit previous 
DRE test data in lieu of conducting an additional DRE test. They say 
that most sources conducted their RCRA trial burns before March 1998 
and therefore would be ineligible to submit these tests. Stakeholders 
point out that if a one-time test is sufficient for the life of the 
source, then we should not place a limit on previous RCRA data. We 
agree with this logic and are revising the rule today to require 
testing only for those sources that are modified or that fire at a 
location other than the flame zone.
B. Why Are We Allowing the Use of Data Obtained for Purposes Other Than 
RCRA Permit Issuance or Reissuance?
    Stakeholders also express concern about the restrictions the rule 
places on the type of data that can substitute for a MACT performance 
test. The rule now stipulates that only data collected for the purpose 
of RCRA permit issuance or re-issuance can be submitted as in lieu 
data. Our primary concern with in lieu data submittals is to ensure 
data quality. Upon reevaluation, we believe data that is not associated 
with RCRA permit issuance or re-issuance can be reviewed by the 
regulatory authority to determine whether they are suitable for 
demonstrating compliance with the DRE standard and for setting MACT 
operating limits. We now understand that several sources engage in 
other types of CAA performance testing with oversight and quality 
assurance requirements comparable to RCRA testing. This modification 
will allow sources to coordinate CAA and RCRA testing that may 
facilitate early compliance. In today's direct final rule, we are 
modifying the current data in lieu provisions to allow sources to 
submit any test data in lieu of conducting a MACT performance test 
provided that the data meet our quality assurance requirements (except 
for DRE, as discussed above). We emphasize that a data in lieu of 
request must provide adequate quality assurance and quality control 
documentation. In most cases, tests conducted without significant 
regulatory oversight (and particularly without a reasonable opportunity 
for significant oversight) would not be considered to be of 
sufficiently known quality for use as data in lieu of testing.
    For these reasons, we are revising the requirements of 
Secs. 63.1206(b)(6), 63.1206(b)(7), and 63.1207(c)(2).

IV. Time Extension for Waiving PM and Opacity Standards To Correlate PM 
CEMS

    For facilities voluntarily using a particulate matter (PM) 
continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS), the final rule allows 
the particulate matter standard and operating parameter limits used to 
ensure compliance with that standard to be waived for up to a 96-hour 
period during a PM CEMS correlation test. (See 64 FR 53046). This 
waiver period is necessary because PM CEMS outputs must be correlated 
to manual method results and during this time it is sometimes necessary 
to exceed the applicable operating parameter limits to produce an 
accurate correlation. The correlation is most accurate over the range 
of particulate matter emissions tested, so correlation tests should be 
performed over the full range of expected particulate matter emissions 
for the particular facility. We determined that allowing a facility to 
operate above the particulate matter standard for a 96-hour period is 
reasonable because this is a sufficient amount of time to: (1) Increase 
emissions to the desired level and reach system equilibrium; (2) 
perform correlation tests at the equilibrium condition; (3) return to 
normal equipment settings indicative of compliance with emissions 
standards and operating parameter limits; and (4) achieve equilibrium 
at normal conditions. (64 FR 52929).
    Stakeholders contend that 96 hours may be too short of a time 
period to fulfill the testing requirements and that the regulations 
should allow for a longer time period. From the limited information 
available on the time required for PM CEMS correlation, they believe 
that 96 hours may be insufficient to complete the testing, particularly 
for HWCs that burn a variety of solid wastes. Petitioners suggest we 
change this provision to allow periods longer than 96 hours with the 
Administrator's approval.
    In a March 2, 2000 letter to EPA, stakeholders describe the time 
necessary to complete PM CEMS correlation tests at an Eli Lilly 
incinerator as an indication of the need for additional time beyond the 
existing 96 hours. In Phase II of Eli Lilly's CEMS tests, Eli Lilly 
needed approximately 54 hours to achieve a successful correlation (Eli 
Lilly collected 34 data points requiring approximately three hours per 
data point above the particulate matter standard). This 54 hours only 
represented the testing time and did not include pre-and post-testing 
adjustments or the time before and after the tests when the incinerator 
was reaching equilibrium. The petitioners also point out that Eli Lilly 
had personnel with extensive experience in adjusting their incinerator 
to achieve desired HWC MACT particulate matter concentrations. 
Facilities with personnel who do not have this experience will go 
through a lengthy learning process and may need even more time. 
Therefore, stakeholders believe the current 96-hour allowance is not 
adequate to correlate a PM CEMS device in an accurate manner.

[[Page 35092]]

    Based on the Eli Lilly experience and discussions with PM CEMS 
testing personnel, we agree that the 96-hour period may not be 
sufficient for hazardous waste combustors to correlate their PM CEMS. 
Furthermore, we do not want a 96-hour time limit to be a disincentive 
to use of PM CEMS. We conclude a site specific extension is the 
appropriate mechanism to ensure accurate calibrations and to encourage 
the use of particulate matter continuous emissions monitoring systems. 
Therefore, we are adding the phrase ``unless more time is approved by 
the Administrator'' to Sec. 63.1206(b)(8)(v).

V. Alternative Hydrocarbon Monitoring Location for Short Cement Kilns 
Burning Hazardous Waste at Locations Other Than the ``Hot'' End of the 
Kiln

    Section 63.1206(b)(13)(i) requires new and existing cement kilns to 
comply with a main stack hydrocarbon standard of 20 ppmv if hazardous 
waste is fed at a location other than the kiln end where fuels are 
normally fired and products are normally discharged (this is also 
described as the ``hot'' end of the kiln). These other locations can 
include firing hazardous waste at midkiln, at the upper end of the kiln 
where raw materials are fed, or in the calciner. In addition, if 
hazardous waste is fed at these other locations, the rule does not give 
a cement kiln the option to comply with a carbon monoxide standard in 
the main stack in lieu of the hydrocarbon standard.
    After promulgation of the final rule, stakeholders provided 
additional information supporting an alternative to the mandatory 
monitoring location for hydrocarbons in the main stack for short, dry 
process cement kilns. In today's notice, we are revising the 
requirements of Sec. 63.1206(b)(13) to allow short, dry process cement 
kilns to continuously monitor hydrocarbons in both the alkali by-pass 
duct and at a ``preheater tower combustion gas monitoring location'' as 
an alternative to hydrocarbon monitoring in the main stack.\4\ In 
addition, we are revising the requirements of Sec. 63.1206(b)(13) to 
allow short dry process cement kilns to continuously monitor both 
carbon monoxide in the alkali by-pass duct and hydrocarbons at a 
``preheater tower combustion gas monitoring location'' under limited 
circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In today's action, we are defining ``preheater tower 
combustion gas monitoring location.'' See definition in 
Sec. 63.1201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Why Are We Finalizing an Alternative to Hydrocarbon Monitoring in 
the Main Stack for Certain Cement Kilns?
    At the time of the final rule, we were not aware of any short, dry 
process cement kilns firing hazardous waste at other locations than the 
kiln end where clinker product is discharged. As a result, we adopted 
the approach used in the Boiler and Industrial Furnace (BIF) rule \5\ 
to control emissions of organic hazardous air pollutants from cement 
kilns that fire hazardous waste at these other locations as the best 
regulatory model. The BIF rule requires cement kilns that fire 
hazardous waste at locations other than the kiln end where clinker 
product is normally discharged to comply with a hydrocarbon limit in 
the main stack. Since promulgation of the rule, however, stakeholders 
submitted information about a new precalciner \6\ cement kiln that will 
fire hazardous waste at locations other than the kiln end where clinker 
is normally discharged. One stakeholder also indicated that the main 
stack hydrocarbon standard may not be achievable due to hydrocarbons 
released from the raw materials in the upper stages of the preheater 
tower. Therefore, we are finalizing an alternative to main stack 
hydrocarbon monitoring that addresses a hazardous waste firing scenario 
not specifically considered during the development of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 56 FR at 7158.
    \6\ See ``Final Technical Support Document for Hazardous Waste 
Combustor MACT Standards, Volume I: Description of Source 
Categories,'' July 1999, for a process description of precalciner 
cement kilns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What Alternative to Hydrocarbon Monitoring in the Main Stack Are We 
Finalizing for Cement Kilns?
    As an alternative to hydrocarbon monitoring in the main stack,\7\ 
we are allowing short, dry process cement kilns to continuously comply 
with a hydrocarbon limit, and, under limited circumstances, a carbon 
monoxide limit at two separate locations within the kiln system. The 
two monitoring locations are: (1) In the alkali by-pass duct; and (2) 
in the upper stages of the preheater tower. The latter location is 
termed a ``preheater tower combustion gas monitoring location.'' These 
two locations are located downstream (in terms of gas flow) of all 
hazardous waste firing locations. In addition, all combustion gases 
pass one of these two locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The alternative hydrocarbon standard would not replace the 
hydrocarbon standard of 20 ppmv in the main stack as provided in 
Sec. 63.1206(b)(13)(i). Cement kilns would continue to have the 
option to monitor hydrocarbons in the main stack.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The stakeholders claim that continuously monitoring hydrocarbons at 
both locations provides the best assessment of the quality of 
combustion and offers the same level of assurance that hazardous waste 
is effectively combusted as does a main stack hydrocarbon standard. 
Monitoring for efficient combustion of the hazardous wastes at these 
two locations also avoids the potential problem of hydrocarbons 
generated from organics in the raw materials and entrained in the gas 
stream.
1. Why Is Hydrocarbon Monitoring in the Alkali By-Pass Duct 
Appropriate?
    Short, dry process cement kilns may be equipped with an alkali by-
pass system where 10-30 percent of the rotary kiln combustion gas is 
diverted to a separate air pollution control device and sometimes to a 
separate stack. These kiln gases are diverted to avoid a build-up of 
metal salts that can adversely affect cement manufacturing operations. 
Hydrocarbon levels in the by-pass duct are indicative of the combustion 
efficiency of hazardous waste and fossil fuels fired in the rotary 
kiln. This is because the by-pass duct draws off combustion gases from 
the kiln prior to the point that hydrocarbons generated by organic 
materials in the raw material can be problematic.
    We are finalizing a hydrocarbon standard of 10 ppmv in the by-pass 
duct (in addition to the preheater tower combustion gas monitoring 
location standards discussed below) for new and existing cement kilns 
that fire hazardous waste at a location other than the kiln end that 
clinker product is discharged because this level is indicative of good 
combustion conditions in the rotary kiln. Limiting hydrocarbons to 10 
ppmv in the by-pass is identical to how a cement kiln with a by-pass 
duct or midkiln sampling system that only feeds hazardous waste at the 
kiln end where clinker product is normally discharged is regulated in 
the final rule. See Secs. 63.1204(a)(5)(i)(B) and (b)(5)(i)(A)(2). For 
the same reasons a hydrocarbon standard of 10 ppmv was adopted in the 
rule, we likewise believe a hydrocarbon standard of 10 ppmv is 
appropriate in this situation. See 64 FR at 52887.
    In today's direct final rule, with the exception discussed below, 
we are not allowing new and existing short, dry process cement kilns 
the option to comply with a carbon monoxide standard in the alkali by-
pass duct when feeding hazardous wastes at any point in the rotary kiln 
downstream (in terms of gas flow) of the kiln end where

[[Page 35093]]

clinker product is normally discharged. We do not allow this option 
because we do not have sufficient emissions data, using this 
alternative hazardous waste firing scenario, to fully evaluate the 
impacts. We are concerned that organic compounds in the hazardous waste 
could be thermally cracked to form pyrolysis by-products rather than be 
completely combusted. If so, little carbon monoxide may be generated by 
the process and monitoring carbon monoxide alone would not ensure that 
hydrocarbons were minimized. Without these emissions data, we believe 
hydrocarbon monitoring is a more conservative, direct surrogate for 
control of organic hazardous air pollutants than are carbon monoxide 
emissions.
2. Under What Circumstances Is Monitoring of Carbon Monoxide in the 
Alkali By-Pass Appropriate?
    There may be limited circumstances where carbon monoxide monitoring 
(as an option to hydrocarbon monitoring) in the alkali by-pass duct may 
be appropriate. An example would be a cement kiln whose only hazardous 
waste firing location upstream (in terms of gas flow) of the point 
where combustion gases are diverted into the alkali by-pass duct is at 
the kiln end where products are normally discharged. Another example 
would be a cement kiln that only fires hazardous waste at a location(s) 
downstream (in terms of gas flow) of the point where combustion gases 
are diverted into the alkali by-pass duct. Firing hazardous waste under 
these circumstances reduces our concern that organic compounds in the 
hazardous waste could be thermally cracked to form pyrolysis by-
products rather than be completely combusted.
    We are finalizing a carbon monoxide standard of 100 ppmv (as an 
option to hydrocarbon monitoring) in the by-pass duct (in addition to 
the preheater tower combustion gas monitoring location standards 
discussed below) for new and existing cement kilns whose only hazardous 
waste firing location upstream of the point where combustion gases are 
diverted into the alkali by-pass duct is at the kiln end where products 
are normally discharged. Thus, if sources feed hazardous waste at the 
upper end of the kiln where raw materials are fed, or any other 
location upstream of where gases enter the by-pass duct other than the 
kiln end where products are discharged, then a cement kiln would not be 
eligible for this option to monitor carbon monoxide instead of 
hydrocarbons.
    We are finalizing a carbon monoxide standard of 100 ppmv for 
control of organic hazardous air pollutants. A level of 100 ppmv is the 
same level that we established in the rule for cement kilns that only 
fire hazardous waste at the kiln end where products are normally 
discharged. See Secs. 63.1204(a)(5)(i)(A) and (b)(5)(i)(A)(1). For the 
same reasons a carbon monoxide standard of 100 ppmv was adopted in the 
rule, we likewise believe the same carbon monoxide standard of 100 ppmv 
is appropriate in this situation. See 64 FR at 52887.
    In addition, if a source elects to comply with the carbon monoxide 
standard in the by-pass duct, we are requiring the source to 
demonstrate compliance with a hydrocarbon standard of 10 ppmv in the 
by-pass duct during the comprehensive performance test. This is 
consistent with the requirements for cement kilns that comply with a 
carbon monoxide standard in the by-pass duct when only firing hazardous 
wastes at the kiln end where clinker is normally discharged. See 
Secs. 63.1204(a)(5)(i)(A) and (b)(5)(i)(A)(1).
3. Why Is Hydrocarbon Monitoring at the ``Preheater Tower Combustion 
Gas Monitoring Location'' Appropriate?
    Since only 10-30 percent of combustion gas is routed through the 
alkali by-pass duct, most short, dry process cement kilns' combustion 
gas travels through the cyclone stages of the preheater tower. 
Typically, raw material is introduced at the top of the preheater 
tower, which is a series of cyclones. Hot kiln flue gases move counter-
current through the downward-moving raw material prior to introduction 
into the cement kiln. The cyclones are used to separate the raw 
material from the combustion gases and collected raw material 
sequentially is dropped into the next lower stage. Fossil and hazardous 
waste fuels can be fired in a calciner burner prior to the series of 
cyclones to further increase the raw material temperatures prior to 
introduction into the cement kiln.
    A stakeholder identified a flue gas sampling location within the 
preheater tower where they believe a representative sample of 
combustion gas can be continuously monitored for hydrocarbons to 
demonstrate efficient combustion of the hazardous wastes. The 
stakeholder states that the preheater tower combustion gas monitoring 
location allows for continuous monitoring of hydrocarbons at a location 
downstream of the last point of hazardous waste fuel combustion, yet 
upstream of where non-fuel hydrocarbons from organics in the raw 
materials are generated and entrained in the gas stream. This location 
is termed a ``preheater tower combustion gas monitoring location.''
    We are finalizing a hydrocarbon standard of 10 ppmv at the 
preheater tower combustion gas monitoring location (in addition to the 
alkali by-pass duct standards above) as an alternative to the main 
stack standard of 20 ppmv. Monitoring of hydrocarbons at the preheater 
tower combustion gas monitoring location is necessary to control 
emissions of organic hazardous air pollutants. We are finalizing a 
hydrocarbon standard of 10 ppmv for the same reasons discussed above 
for monitoring in the alkali by-pass duct. In addition, we are not 
allowing carbon monoxide monitoring at the preheater tower combustion 
gas monitoring location as an alternative to hydrocarbon monitoring for 
the same reasons discussed above for monitoring in the alkali by-pass 
duct.

VI. Alternative to the Particulate Matter Standard for Incinerators 
Feeding Low Levels of Metals

    The final rule establishes a particulate matter emissions standard 
of 0.015 gr/dscf for new and existing incinerators as a surrogate to 
control non-mercury, CAA metal hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).\8\ The 
rule also offers an alternative particulate matter emissions standard 
of 0.03 gr/dscf for incinerators that demonstrate the use of superior 
feedrate control of HAP metals in their hazardous waste feed. See 
Sec. 63.1206(b)(14). Today, we are eliminating the alternative 
particulate matter emissions standard and replacing it with an 
alternative metal emissions control requirement. An incinerator source 
may elect to comply with this alternative requirement in lieu of 
complying with the 0.015 gr/dscf particulate matter standard. This 
source would remain subject to the existing standard for particulate 
matter in RCRA rules of 0.08 gr/dscf (a standard which would remain in 
the source's RCRA permit, should a source elect to comply with the 
alternative standard). See Sec. 264.343(c). We are finalizing this 
option because we conclude that the alternative metal emissions control 
requirements control metal HAP emissions to levels based on MACT absent 
a particulate matter standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Particulate matter is not a CAA HAP. The HWC MACT rule 
establishes a particulate matter standard to control non-mercury CAA 
HAP metals that are not directly controlled with an emission 
standard. See 64 FR at 52846-47.

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

[[Page 35094]]

A. Why Is EPA Eliminating the Alternative Particulate Matter Standard 
and Replacing It With Alternative Metal Emission Control Requirements?
    We included the alternative particulate matter standard in the 
final rule after receiving comments that a particulate matter standard 
of 0.015 gr/dscf is not an appropriate surrogate to control metal 
hazardous air pollutants in situations where the particulate matter 
does not contain significant levels of metal HAPs. For example, this 
would include situations where the hazardous waste does not contain 
metals, and the resulting ash contains only relatively benign salts. 
(See Sec. 63.1206(b)(14) and 64 FR 52972 for further discussion). To be 
eligible for the original alternative standard, incinerators must 
demonstrate that: (1) Non-mercury, metal HAPs are not detected in any 
feedstream; and (2) the maximum theoretical emission concentrations 
(MTEC) \9\ for semivolatile and low volatile HAP metals are lower than 
the corresponding semivolatile and low volatile metal emission 
standards, assuming that non-detect metals are present at one-half the 
detection limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ We developed the term ``Maximum Theoretical Emissions 
Concentration'' to compare metals feedrates across sources of 
different sizes. MTEC is defined as the metals feedrate divided by 
the gas flowrate, and is expressed in <greek-m>g/dscm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on additional information from stakeholders, we have 
determined that this approach did not provide the intended relief to 
incinerators with low levels of hazardous air pollutant metals in their 
feedstreams for two reasons. First, even for incinerators with very low 
levels of these metals in their feeds, over time metals measurements 
above detection limits will occasionally occur. This can occur as a 
result of trace metal contamination due to corrosion and/or inherent 
impurities in raw materials, as well as potential anomalies and 
variability of the analytical measurement method. Second, high 
detection limits that occur as a result of complex feedstream matrices 
may prevent a source from demonstrating that the MTECs are less than 
the low volatile or semivolatile metal emission standards. Because this 
original approach did not provide the intended relief, we are 
finalizing a more effective alternative to the particulate matter 
emission standard.
B. What Alternative Is EPA Finalizing?
    In today's notice, we are allowing a source to operate under 
alternative HAP metal emission control requirements reflecting MACT in 
lieu of complying with the 0.015 gr/dscf particulate emission standard. 
Under the alternative, no particulate matter emission standard will 
apply to the incinerator under Subpart EEE; however, the incinerator 
will remain subject to the RCRA particulate matter standard of 0.08 gr/
dscf pursuant to Sec. 264.343(c). This is because without a 
sufficiently protective particulate matter standard under Subpart EEE, 
we cannot defer our RCRA obligation to provide for a particulate matter 
requirement to Subpart EEE.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Sources electing to comply with these alternative 
requirements will be subject to the RCRA PM standard in their RCRA 
permit. The RCRA permit must include applicable operating limits 
that ensure compliance with the RCRA PM limit. Permit writers can 
impose a lower PM limit where necessary pursuant to the omnibus 
authority under section 3005(c)(3) of RCRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The alternative to the particulate matter standard has three 
components. The first component is simply to meet metal emission 
standards for semivolatile and low volatile metals. The level of the 
standard is the same as that which applies to other incinerators, but 
the standard would apply to all HAP metals, not just those enumerated 
in the present semi-and low volatile metal standards. The second 
component is a requirement for the incinerator to demonstrate that it 
is using reasonable hazardous waste metal feedrate control, i.e., a 
defined metal feedrate that is better than the MACT-defining metal 
feedrate floor control level. \11\ The third component is a requirement 
for the incinerator to demonstrate that its air pollution control 
system achieves, at a minimum, a 90 percent system removal efficiency 
for semivolatile metals. These components, which are described 
separately below, should provide for adequate control of non-mercury 
HAP metals in lieu of a particulate matter standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ These MACT defining feedrates are set out in ``Final 
Technical Support Document for HWC Standards, Volume III: Selection 
of MACT Standards and Technologies,'' Chapter 6, July 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. What Emission Limitation Must the Incinerator Comply With Under This 
Alternative?
    Incinerators must comply with the same semivolatile and low 
volatile metal emission limitations that are specified in the final 
rule; however, the emission limitations apply to both enumerated and 
non-enumerated metal HAPs, excluding mercury. As discussed in the rule, 
enumerated metals are those metals that are directly controlled with a 
numerical emission standard, i.e., cadmium, lead, arsenic, beryllium, 
chromium. Non-enumerated metals are those metals, i.e., antimony, 
cobalt, manganese, nickel, and selenium that are not controlled 
directly with an emission standard, but are controlled through the 
surrogate particulate matter standard. For purposes of these 
alternative requirements, the non-enumerated metals are classified as 
either a semivolatile or a low volatile metal, and included in the 
calculation of compliance with the corresponding emissions limit.
    For existing incinerators, the resulting emissions limits are: (1) 
A semivolatile emission limitation of 240 <greek-m>g/dscm for the 
combined emissions of lead, cadmium, and selenium; and (2) a low 
volatile emission limitation of 97 <greek-m>g/dscm for combined 
emissions of arsenic, beryllium, chromium, antimony, cobalt, manganese, 
and nickel (all emissions corrected to 7% oxygen).
    For new sources, the resulting emissions limits are: (1) A 
semivolatile emission limitation of 24 <greek-m>g/dscm for combined 
emissions of lead, cadmium, and selenium; and (2) a low volatile 
emission limitation of 97 <greek-m>g/dscm for emissions of arsenic, 
beryllium, chromium, antimony, cobalt, manganese, and nickel (all 
emissions corrected to 7% oxygen).
    We conclude it is appropriate to incorporate both the enumerated 
and non-enumerated metals into the semivolatile and low volatile metal 
emissions limits because this, in combination with the other two 
requirements discussed below, provides a reasonable approach to 
directly assure that the non-enumerated metal emissions are controlled 
to levels representative of MACT, in lieu of a particulate matter 
standard. This approach, in effect, lowers the existing semivolatile 
and low volatile metal emissions limits because the contribution of 
non-enumerated metals must be accounted for when achieving the same 
numerical semivolatile and low volatile emission limits. We believe 
this is appropriate because this effectively lower emissions limit for 
enumerated metals compensates for the lower emission levels that would 
have been achieved if the source used a particulate matter control 
device capable of achieving 0.015 gr/dscf, i.e., a control device that 
is an integral part of MACT control for semivolatile and low volatile 
metals. Put another way, we regard this emission limitation as an 
equivalent means of meeting the floor standard for HAP metals (except 
mercury) already established in the rule.

[[Page 35095]]

2. What Hazardous Waste Metal Feedrate Control Requirement Must the 
Incinerator Comply With Under This Alternative?
    Each incinerator that elects to operate under these alternative 
requirements must demonstrate that it is using reasonable hazardous 
waste metal feedrate control, i.e., it complies with a defined 
hazardous waste metal feedrate limit that is significantly lower than 
the MACT-defining metal feedrate floor control level. We define 
``reasonable hazardous waste metal feedrate control'' as a hazardous 
waste metal HAP feedrate that does not exceed 25 percent of the MACT 
defining MTEC level.\12\ Consistent with the above discussed emission 
standards, the hazardous waste metal feedrate limits apply to both 
enumerated and non-enumerated metal HAPs. The non-enumerated metal HAPs 
are categorized as either semivolatile or low volatile, and are 
incorporated into a corresponding semivolatile or low volatile 
hazardous waste metal feedrate limit.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ I.e., the MTEC level that was determined as a result of the 
aggregate feedrate analysis that was used to determine metal 
feedrate floor control levels in the September 30, 1999 rule.
    \13\ Thus, unlike the current rule where sources can choose 
whatever means they wish to comply with the emissions standard and 
so are not required to control feedrates below a regulatory level 
(so long as they achieve the emission standard), sources are 
required to comply with a specified metal feedrate limit under the 
alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For existing incinerators, the resulting hazardous waste metal 
feedrate limits are: (1) The twelve-hour rolling average of the maximum 
theoretical emissions concentration for lead, cadmium, and selenium, 
combined, for the combined hazardous waste feedstreams to the 
incinerator, must not exceed 1,325 <greek-m>g/dscm; and (2) the twelve-
hour rolling average of the maximum theoretical emissions concentration 
for arsenic, beryllium, chromium, antimony, cobalt, manganese, and 
nickel, combined, for the combined hazardous waste feedstreams to the 
incinerator, must not exceed 6,000 <greek-m>g/dscm.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ These metal feedrate limits correspond to 25 percent of the 
MACT-defining MTEC levels. These MACT defining feedrates are set out 
in ``Final Technical Support Document for HWC Standards, Volume III: 
Selection of MACT Standards and Technologies,'' Chapter 6, July 
1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For new sources, the resulting hazardous waste metal feedrate 
limits are: (1) The twelve-hour rolling average of the maximum 
theoretical emissions concentration for lead, cadmium, and selenium, 
combined, for the combined hazardous waste feedstreams to the 
incinerator, must not exceed 875 <greek-m>g/dscm; and (2) the twelve-
hour rolling average of the maximum theoretical emissions concentration 
for arsenic, beryllium, chromium, antimony, cobalt, manganese, and 
nickel, combined, for the combined hazardous waste feedstreams to the 
incinerator, must not exceed 3250 <greek-m>g/dscm.
    We believe hazardous waste metal feedrate limits are essential 
parts of these alternative requirements. As discussed in the final rule 
preamble and in comment response documents, particulate matter control 
is an integral part of controlling both the enumerated and non-
enumerated semivolatile and low volatile metals.\15\ Therefore, any 
source that uses a particulate matter control technique that is less 
efficient than the MACT particulate floor standard should be required 
to use a ``better than MACT'' hazardous waste metal feedrate control 
(i.e., a level of feedrate control that compensates for the inefficient 
particulate control collection so that actual emissions of HAP metals 
reflect MACT). We believe that 25 percent of the MACT feedrate control 
levels for the combined enumerated and non-enumerated metal HAPs is 
within a reasonable range of values that are significantly lower than 
the MACT feedrate control levels. This feedrate control requirement, 
when combined with the emissions limit and system removal efficiency 
requirement, provides adequate control of metal HAPs (control 
equivalent to promulgated MACT).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See, for example, Table 8-1, pages 2 and 3, ``Final 
Technical Document for HWC Standards, Volume III: Selection of MACT 
Standards and Technologies,'' Chapter 3, July 1999, showing that 
sources with SVM feedrates below the MACT defining level but lacking 
proper PM control (i.e., emitting more PM than allowed by the PM 
standard) were unable to achieve the SVM emission standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. How Efficient Must the Incinerator's Air Pollution Control Equipment 
Operate in Order To Comply With This Alternative?
    If you elect to operate under these alternative requirements, you 
must demonstrate that the air pollution control system achieves at 
least a 90 percent system removal efficiency for semivolatile metals. 
Metal removal efficiency--whether measured by control of the surrogate 
particulate matter or directly through control of HAP metals--remains 
an essential element (along with feedrate control of HAP metals) of 
MACT for the non-mercury HAP metals, as demonstrated by the performance 
achievable by (and achieved by) the average of the best performing 
sources. In making this demonstration, you may spike semivolatile 
metals above 25 percent of the MACT defining MTEC level provided the 
emissions limits discussed above are achieved during the test. You may 
perform this test independently of the comprehensive performance test; 
however, you must use this test to establish applicable operating 
parameter limits as described in Sec. 63.1209(n), excluding the 
Sec. 63.1209(n)(2) metal feedrate limit requirements. These operating 
limits are needed to assure that a 90 percent semivolatile metal system 
removal efficiency is achieved during normal operations at the metal 
feedrates demonstrated during the test.
    The 90 percent system removal efficiency requirement is based on 
the use of a well designed and well operated high energy venturi type 
wet scrubber. An analysis of hazardous waste incinerator trial burn 
data shows that systems with well operated and well designed venturi 
scrubbers have semivolatile metal system removal efficiencies ranging 
from approximately 90 percent to greater than 99.9 percent.\16\ Thus, 
we are finalizing a semivolatile metal system removal efficiency of 90 
percent as a conservative representation of control using a well 
designed and well operated high energy venturi scrubber. This method to 
select an appropriate control level is similar to the approach we used 
to develop the alternative particulate matter standard 0.03 gr/dscf 
that also was based on the use of well designed and well operated high 
energy venturi scrubbers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Figure 4-3, ``Draft Technical Support Document for HWC 
MACT Standards (NODA), Volume 1: MACT Evaluations Based on Revised 
Database,'' April 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    System removal efficiency provides a direct indicator of the non-
mercury metal HAP control efficiency of the hazardous waste incinerator 
system. The shift away from the use of a direct particulate matter 
emission standard to control non-mercury metal HAPs is a result, in 
part, of the reduced need for low metal feeding facilities to control 
particulate matter. For low metals feeding facilities, particulate 
matter may be composed primarily of non-metal HAP constituents such as 
silica, alumina, iron, etc., or HAP metals not present in hazardous 
waste. Thus, the control of particulate matter is not as strongly 
related to the control of HAP metals contributed by the hazardous waste 
compared with facilities which have feeds containing higher levels of 
those metals.
    We also believe it is appropriate to require a 90 percent 
semivolatile metal system removal efficiency as part of these 
alternative requirements because,

[[Page 35096]]

absent a particulate matter standard, there would be no explicit 
requirement for sources to use an air pollution control method that 
effectively removes metal HAPs from the exhaust emissions.\17\ This 
provision therefore requires sources that operate under these 
alternative requirements to use a particulate matter control device. 
Even though this control device does not have to be a MACT particulate 
matter control device (i.e., a control device that achieves 0.015 gr/
dscf) we believe that this requirement to achieve a 90 percent system 
removal efficiency, when combined with the hazardous waste metal 
feedrate limits and emissions limits, provides for an adequate level of 
control for HAP metals--that is, a level of control reflecting the 
level of performance achieved by, and achievable by, the average of the 
best performing 12 percent of sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Absent a metal system removal efficiency requirement under 
these alternative requirements, an incinerator could comply with the 
emission limitations with feedrate control only without the use of 
particulate matter control. This would not be appropriate if metals 
are present in the feedstreams because particulate matter control is 
an integral part of controlling metal HAP emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. What Operating Requirements Are Associated With This Alternative?
    Semivolatile and low volatile metal operating parameter limits will 
be established to ensure compliance with the alternative emissions 
limits pursuant to Sec. 63.1209(n), except that the semivolatile and 
low volatile metal feedrate limits apply to both the enumerated and 
non-enumerated HAP metals as previously discussed. We believe this 
approach is consistent with the final rule methodology to assure 
compliance with the semivolatile and low volatile metal emission 
standards and should be applied here. Note that the metal feedrate 
limits established to ensure compliance with the alternative emissions 
limit are mass feedrate limits for all feedstreams, including 
nonhazardous feeds. This is in contrast to the hazardous waste metal 
feedrate limits discussed below that are based only on hazardous waste 
metal MTEC levels.
    You must also establish operating parameter limits to ensure 
compliance with the 90 percent system removal efficiency requirement. 
Consistent with the operating limits to ensure compliance with the 
alternative metal emission limitations, these operating limits would be 
established pursuant to Sec. 63.1209(n), except that metal feedrate 
limits are not required for purposes of ensuring compliance with system 
removal efficiency provision.
    The twelve-hour rolling average hazardous waste metal feedrate 
limits are based on the combined hazardous waste feedstreams to the 
incinerator and may be expressed either as a maximum theoretical 
emission concentration limit or as a restriction on maximum hazardous 
waste metals mass feedrate and minimum gas flow rate. In doing so, 
sources must account for each hazardous waste feedstream when 
determining compliance with the maximum theoretical emission 
concentration limits. Metal constituents not detected in hazardous 
waste feedstreams would be assumed to be present at one-half the 
detection limit when calculating the maximum theoretical emission 
concentration for compliance purposes, applicable to each hazardous 
waste feedstream.

VII. Deletion of Baghouse Inspection Requirements

    Section 63.1206(c)(7)(ii) of the final rule prescribes baghouse 
operation and maintenance requirements for incinerators and lightweight 
aggregate kilns. These requirements are not applicable to cement kilns 
equipped with baghouses because cement kilns must continuously monitor 
opacity and comply with an opacity standard. Nonetheless, cement kilns 
are required to address baghouse operation and maintenance in the 
operation and maintenance plan required under Sec. 63.1206(c)(7)(i).
    The operation and maintenance requirements under 
Sec. 63.1206(c)(7)(ii): (1) Prescribe the frequency of inspection of 
specific baghouse operations; and (2) require the use of a bag leak 
detector as a continuous monitor. We are today deleting the prescribed 
baghouse inspection requirements of Sec. 63.1206(c)(7)(ii)(B)(1-10). 
Instead we will rely on the general operation and maintenance plan 
requirements under Sec. 63.1206(c)(7)(i) and the use of a bag leak 
detector to ensure proper operation and maintenance of the baghouse.
    Stakeholders question the rationale for prescribing generic 
inspection frequencies for various baghouse operations, given that each 
baghouse must be equipped with a bag leak detector. Stakeholders 
believe that each source should identify appropriate, site-specific 
inspection intervals for baghouse operations in the facility operations 
and maintenance plan required under Sec. 63.1206(c)(7)(i). In 
particular, they highlight two burdensome inspection requirements: (1) 
Monthly visual inspection of the interior of the baghouse for physical 
integrity; and (2) monthly inspection of bags and bag connections.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Letter from Michelle Lusk, CKRC, Thomas Nilan, CMA, and 
Melvin Keener, CRWI, to Elizabeth Cotsworth, EPA, Re. Multi-Industry 
HWC MACT Concerns and Solutions, dated March 2, 2000, p. 29 of the 
attachment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We agree with stakeholders that these generic provisions are 
unnecessary and therefore are deleting the inspection requirements of 
Sec. 62.1206(c)(7)(ii)(B)(1-10). We plan to develop guidance 
recommendations on baghouse inspection procedures that can be used to 
develop appropriate inspection procedures for the operation and 
maintenance plan required by Sec. 63.1206(c)(7)(i). In addition, we are 
deleting the requirements of Sec. 63.1206(c)(7)(ii)(A) requiring 
submittal of the baghouse operations and maintenance plan to the 
Administrator. Given that the operation and maintenance plan required 
under Sec. 63.1206(c)(7)(i) is not submitted to the Administrator for 
review and approval, we do not see the need to single out the baghouse 
operation and maintenance plan for review and approval, particularly 
given that sources must continuously operate a bag leak detector 
system.

VIII. Feedstream Analysis for Organic HAPs

    Section 63.1207(f)(1)(ii) of the final rule requires sources to 
include in their site-specific comprehensive performance test plan an 
analysis of all CAA hazardous air pollutants that could reasonably be 
present in their feedstreams. Regulatory officials will use this 
analysis to ensure compliance with the destruction and removal (DRE) 
standards of Secs. 63.1203 through 63.1205. Stakeholders raised three 
questions about this requirement after promulgation: (1) Did we 
consider the implications of requiring analysis of HAPs rather than the 
RCRA organic compounds on Appendix VIII, Part 261; (2) why must the 
test plan for periodic comprehensive performance testing include an 
analysis of organic HAP compounds for sources that comply with the DRE 
standard with a one-time test; and (3) did we intend to require 
analysis of organic compounds for all feedstreams or just the hazardous 
waste feedstreams.
A. What Are the Implications of Requiring Analysis of CAA HAPs Rather 
than RCRA Appendix VIII, Part 261 Organic Compounds?
    For the DRE standard, the final rule requires demonstration of 
compliance with one or more principal organic hazardous pollutants 
(POHCs) selected

[[Page 35097]]

from the list of HAPs established by 42 U.S.C. 7412(b)(1), excluding 
caprolactam. The basis for the HWC MACT DRE standard is the current 
RCRA requirement to ensure destruction of Appendix VIII, Part 261, 
organic compounds. In demonstrating compliance under RCRA, sources must 
select POHCs from the Appendix VIII list of organic compounds.
    Stakeholders note that selecting POHCs from the list of organic CAA 
HAPs rather than RCRA organic compounds has several implications. 
Stakeholders question whether RCRA DRE test data can be used in lieu of 
MACT DRE testing if the POHCs selected during the RCRA test are not 
organic HAPs under the CAA. Stakeholders also question how to ensure 
DRE of organic HAPs for which thermal stability data (e.g., low oxygen 
thermal stability; heat of combustion) are not available. In response, 
we note that, to satisfy the MACT DRE standard, sources must ensure 
that the POHCs used to demonstrate compliance are representative of the 
most difficult to destroy organic compounds in their feedstream. For 
example, if the most difficult to destroy POHCs for RCRA DRE testing 
were used, those POHCs are also representative of the most difficult to 
destroy organic HAPs (irrespective of whether thermal stability data 
are available for a HAP).
B. For Sources That Comply With the DRE Standard With a One-Time Test, 
Why Must Their Periodic Comprehensive Performance Test Plan Include an 
Analysis of Organic HAP Compounds?
    Section 63.1206(b)(7) allows demonstration of compliance with the 
DRE standard only once for the life of the source provided the source: 
(1) Is not modified in a manner than could affect achievability of the 
DRE standard; and (2) does not feed hazardous waste at a location other 
than the normal flame zone. Once a source has demonstrated compliance 
with the DRE standard, stakeholders question why analysis of waste 
streams for organic HAP compounds must be included with the site-
specific test plan for comprehensive performance testing every five 
years.
    The rule requires continued analyses of organic compounds with each 
comprehensive performance test plan to enable regulatory officials to 
determine whether the POHCs selected for the original DRE test continue 
to represent the organic HAPs being fed to the combustor. POHCs are 
representative of the organic HAPs fed to the combustor if they are 
equally or more difficult to destroy than those organic HAPs. In 
addition, POHCs are selected based on factors including the 
concentration of the organic compound in the feedstream and the 
toxicity of particular organic compounds.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ In cases where an organic HAP is fed at particularly high 
concentrations, or where an organic HAP in the feedstream is 
particularly toxic, it is prudent to select such compounds as POHCs 
rather than relying only on surrogates that are considered to be 
equally or more difficult to destroy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In retrospect, however, we do not believe that the comprehensive 
analysis required by Sec. 63.1207(f)(1)(ii)(A) \20\ is necessary in all 
cases to ensure that the POHCs continue to be representative of the 
organic HAPs being fed to the combustor. For example, if a source 
demonstrates compliance with the DRE standard with POHCs that represent 
the most difficult to destroy organic compounds, a less rigorous 
feedstream analysis may be appropriate to address other concerns, e.g., 
whether the feedstream has changed to include additional organic HAPs 
that are fed at high concentrations or that are particularly toxic. It 
may also be appropriate to waive the comprehensive analysis for organic 
compounds based on the generator's knowledge or on a combination of 
waste knowledge and sampling and laboratory analysis that the POHCs 
selected represent the most difficult to destroy organic compounds in 
the waste. Accordingly, we are amending Sec. 63.1207(f)(1)(ii) to allow 
regulatory officials to waive the comprehensive analysis of organic 
compounds if a source documents that the POHCs used to demonstrate 
compliance with the DRE standard continue to be representative of the 
organic HAPs in hazardous waste feedstreams.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ That is, all organic HAPs except those that would not 
reasonably be expected to be found in the feedstream. Further, 
sources must identify any constituents excluded from the analysis 
and explain the basis for excluding them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. We Intended To Require Analysis of Organic HAPs in Hazardous Waste 
Feedstreams Only
    Section 63.1207(f)(1)(ii) implies that sources must analyze all 
feedstreams for organic HAPs. The rule should have required analysis 
for hazardous waste feedstreams only. Regulatory officials will use the 
analysis to ensure that the POHCs used to demonstrate compliance with 
the DRE standard continue to be representative of the organic HAPs in 
hazardous waste feedstreams. We are amending Sec. 63.1207(f)(1)(ii) 
accordingly.

IX. Revisions to the Metals Feedrate Extrapolation Procedures

    For sources using the metal extrapolation procedures, the final 
rule requires documentation that the levels of metal spiking (adding 
metals to the waste feed) be sufficient to demonstrate that the 
extrapolation procedures are as accurate and precise as if full spiking 
(no extrapolation) were used. See Sec. 63.1207(f)(1)(x)(C). Today we 
are amending this provision to require documentation that spiking 
levels result in an extrapolation procedure that adequately assures 
compliance with the emission standard.
    We included this requirement in the final rule to address the 
uncertainties that may be associated with extrapolating low metal 
feedrates, as demonstrated during testing, to higher metal feedrate 
limits. This documentation ensures that the uncertainties associated 
with the procedure are adequately addressed and that the extrapolated 
metal feedrate limits ensure compliance with the emission standard(s).
    After discussions with stakeholders, we determined that the final 
rule regulatory language is too prescriptive and does not directly 
address our goal of assuring compliance with the emission standard. 
Stakeholders believe that it may not be possible to spike metals to 
levels such that the extrapolation procedures are as accurate and 
precise as if full spiking were used. They also question the accuracy 
and precision of the ``fully spiked'' feedstream and emissions 
analyses.
    To address these concerns, we are requiring that sources document a 
level of spiking that ensures the extrapolation methodology is adequate 
to demonstrate compliance with the emission standard. The content and 
scope of this documentation should be determined on a site-specific 
basis, and should consider the uncertainties involved with 
extrapolating the tested low metal feedrates to higher metal feedrate 
limits. Examples of types of information that can document that the 
extrapolation methodology adequately assures compliance with the 
emission standards may include: (1) A description of the uncertainties 
associated with the extrapolation procedure, such as a description of 
the linearity of metal feedrates as compared to metal emission rates; 
(2) a description of the uncertainties associated with the data to be 
used in the extrapolation procedure; \21\ and (3) the extent that

[[Page 35098]]

these uncertainties are multiplied by the extrapolation procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ For example, a description of the accuracy of the 
feedstream metal analysis considering the representativeness 
(whether the feedstream is homogenous) of the feedstream samples if 
actual, unspiked feedstream metal levels are used to calculate metal 
feedrates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

X. Feedrate Limits for Undetectable Constituents

    The final rule requires sources to establish separate feedrate 
limits during the comprehensive performance test for semivolatile 
metals, low volatile metals, mercury, total chlorine, and/or ash for 
each feedstream that does not contain detectable levels of these 
constituents. See Sec. 63.1207(n). The rule specifies that these 
separate feedrate limits must be established as ``non-detect'' feedrate 
limits. Under this approach, during normal operations, the feed 
locations that have ``non-detect'' limits cannot be fed detectable 
levels of the constituents unless certain criteria are met. Today, we 
are deleting this provision and, instead, are requiring sources to 
document, on a site-specific basis, the method they will use to account 
for non-detects when establishing feedrate limits.
    We included this ``non-detect feedrate limit'' provision in the 
rule so sources would use a consistent methodology when establishing 
feedrate limits that best assures compliance with the emission 
standards. After discussions with stakeholders, we conclude that our 
approach to addressing detection limits when establishing feedrate 
limits is too prescriptive and that there are possibly alternative 
approaches that adequately assure compliance with the emission 
standards. Therefore, we are eliminating the requirements of 
Sec. 63.1207(n) that require use of a specific method to address non-
detects when establishing feedrate limits. As a replacement, we are 
requiring sources, on a site-specific basis, to specify in the 
comprehensive performance test workplan the method they will use to 
account for non-detects when establishing their feedrate limits. This 
will allow the method to be reviewed and approved by the regulatory 
official on a site-specific basis.
    We continue to believe that the approach outlined in the final rule 
can be used to account for non-detects during the performance test. 
However, as previously mentioned, there may be alternative approaches 
that can be used that adequately assure compliance with the 
standards.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ For example, separate limits for each location may not be 
needed to assure compliance with the standards if the detection 
limits are low. In this situation, a source could assume the 
constituent is not present in the non-detect feedstreams, or perhaps 
assume it is present at one-half the detection limit, and establish 
one total system feedrate limit instead of separate limits. This 
would be accomplished by adding these assumed non-detect feedrate 
values to the other known feedrates from the other feed locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe today's amendments to address non-detects on a site-
specific basis will simplify the operating requirements for many 
combustors. We anticipate that regulatory officials will evaluate these 
site-specific approaches in part by considering: (1) Proximity of test 
results to the regulatory emission standard(s); (2) site-specific 
detection limit levels; and (3) the method or approach to address 
feedstream non-detects on a daily basis to demonstrate feedrate 
compliance. Accordingly, we are removing the requirements of 
Sec. 63.1207(n) and adding Sec. 63.1207(f)(xxvi).

XI. Revisions To Assist Early Compliance

    In the final rule, we did not fully consider situations where 
sources would conduct performance testing prior to the compliance date. 
This ``early compliance'' prior to the September 30, 2002 deadline, is 
likely to occur to coordinate CAA and RCRA testing or to ensure the 
deadline for conducting the initial comprehensive performance test 
(i.e. 180 days after the compliance date) is met. We are particularly 
concerned that the regulation may inadvertently impede sources that 
would like to come into early compliance. Therefore, we are eliminating 
two impediments identified by stakeholders: (1) The requirement to stop 
burning hazardous waste if a source fails the comprehensive performance 
test; and (2) the requirement for the Documentation of Compliance.
A. When Is the Compliance Date for Sources that Comply Early?
    Sources that choose to comply early are establishing a compliance 
date for themselves prior to the regulatory compliance date of 
September 30, 2002. On their compliance date, the source becomes 
subject to the substantive requirements of Subpart EEE. For example, on 
the compliance date, an exceedance of an emission standard (e.g., 
carbon monoxide) is a violation of the standard, and an exceedance of 
an operating parameter limit is evidence of failure to ensure 
compliance with an emission standard.
    After considering the implications of early compliance, we are 
identifying the point at which the early complying source becomes 
subject to the substantive requirements of Subpart EEE as the postmark 
date for the Notification of Compliance (NOC). This is an appropriate 
point because the NOC is a legally enforceable document that contains 
all of the standards and operating parameters for a source complying 
with Subpart EEE.\23\ See new Sec. 63.1206(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Sources will want to delete RCRA permit requirements that 
have been superseded by the Subpart EEE standards. See 64 FR at 
52988. Modifying the RCRA permit precludes concerns about dual 
enforcement of emission standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Sources That Fail a Comprehensive Performance Test Prior to the 
Compliance Date Are Not Required To Stop Burning Hazardous Waste
    Section 63.1207(l) requires sources that fail a performance test 
for a mode of operation to stop burning hazardous waste immediately 
under that mode of operation. In retrospect, we conclude that this 
requirement is not appropriate for sources that conduct the performance 
test prior to the compliance date, including early complying sources, 
because compliance with the substantive requirements Subpart EEE is not 
yet triggered. Therefore, we are revising the rule accordingly. See 
revised Sec. 63.1207(l)(1).
C. Early Complying Sources Would Be Exempt From the Documentation of 
Compliance Requirements
    Section 63.1211(d) requires sources to place their Documentation of 
Compliance (DOC) in the operating record by the regulatory compliance 
date. The DOC identifies the applicable emission standards under 
Subpart EEE and the limits on the operating parameters under 
Sec. 63.1209 that ensure compliance with those emission standards. In 
addition, the DOC identifies enforceable operating requirements from 
the compliance date until postmark of the Notification of Compliance. 
Given that the compliance date for early complying sources is the date 
the NOC is postmarked, the DOC would serve no purpose. Therefore, we 
are exempting early complying sources from the DOC requirement. See 
revised Sec. 63.1211(d).
D. Notification of Testing for Sources That Choose To Comply Early
    As with all Subpart EEE sources, those that comply early must 
notify permit officials of the scheduled performance test date and 
submit for review and approval the emissions test plan and continuous 
monitoring system evaluation test plan. See Sec. 63.1207(e). Review and 
approval of test plans is appropriate for sources that comply early for 
the same reasons it is

[[Page 35099]]

appropriate for other sources--to ensure that the source's performance 
test plans will effectively determine whether the source is in 
compliance with the requirements of Subpart EEE. We encourage permit 
officials to review performance test plans expeditiously for sources 
that elect to comply early.

XII. Accuracy Requirements for Weight Measurement Devices

    Section 63.1209(b)(2)(ii) specifies that the accuracy of weight 
measurement devices used to monitor flowrate of a feedstream must be 
<plus-minus> 1 percent of the weight being measured. In addition, 
sources are required to verify the calibration of the device at least 
once every three months.
    Stakeholders express concerns about these requirements. We concur 
with many of stakeholders' concerns about the accuracy requirement for 
weight measurement devices and are revising the rule to specify an 
accuracy requirement only for activated carbon feedrate measurement 
devices.
    Stakeholders state that the <plus-minus> 1 percent accuracy 
requirement is not appropriate for all weight measurement devices. This 
accuracy requirement is the same as we used in another rulemaking where 
it is applied only to the device used to measure carbon feedrate in an 
activated carbon injection system. Stakeholders state that the 
<plus-minus> 1 percent accuracy is not achievable by many weight 
measurement devices, such as devices that measure the weight of raw 
materials.\24\ Stakeholders also note that the implementation document 
for the boiler and industrial furnace standards under Part 266, Subpart 
H, lists acceptable measurement devices than cannot achieve this level 
of accuracy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ For example, a clamshell bucket cannot achieve this level 
of accuracy for the feedstock because of the large weight of the 
clamshell relative to the feedstock and because some of the 
feedstream will stick to the bucket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We agree with the stakeholders' concerns and are revising 
Sec. 63.1209(b)(2)(ii) so that the accuracy requirement applies only to 
a carbon injection weight measurement device. Nonetheless, sources must 
include in the continuous monitoring system evaluation test plan the 
accuracy and calibration procedures for each monitor required under 
Sec. 63.1209. This evaluation test plan must be submitted along with 
the comprehensive performance test plan for review and approval. See 
Sec. 63.1207(e).

XIII. Deletion of Requirement for Establishing a Scrubber Liquid 
Minimum pH Operating Parameter Limit for Mercury Control for Wet 
Scrubbers

    The final rule states that mercury emissions from hazardous waste 
combustors are controlled by: (1) Controlling the feedrate of mercury; 
(2) wet scrubbing to remove soluble mercury (e.g., mercuric chloride); 
and (3) carbon adsorption. There are specific operating parameter 
limits (OPL) that apply to each control technology.
    For hazardous waste combustors using wet scrubbers to control 
mercury the OPLs are identical to those that are required to assure 
compliance with the hydrochloric acid/chlorine gas emission standard. 
See Secs. 63.1209(l)(2) and (o)(3). We inadvertently established an 
inappropriate OPL requirement for mercury in developing the final rule. 
While a minimum pH of the scrubber water is an important parameter for 
chlorine control as required by Sec. 63.1209(o)(3)(iv), it is not an 
appropriate OPL for mercury control. The Agency is amending the final 
rule by deleting the requirement for establishing a scrubber liquid 
minimum pH as an OPL for mercury control. Today's action does not 
change the requirements for hydrochloric acid and chlorine, however.

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 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, we have 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 are 
estimated to be less than $100 million. Furthermore, this 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 final 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 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 thirteen 
direct final amendments to the September 30, 1999 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 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 these documents.
A. Why Is This Direct Final 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 rule. This action is 
necessary in order to clarify and improve compliance, testing and 
monitoring requirements, and general

[[Page 35100]]

implementation efficiency associated with the final rule NESHAP: Final 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors 
(64 FR 52828, September 30, 1999).
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 help accomplish the objectives of the amendments in this rule. We 
believe that, at this point, a regulatory approach will ensure 
appropriate technical clarification and the necessary implementation 
efficiency designed to fully accomplish our objectives.
C. What Regulatory Options Were Considered?
    This is a direct final action that does not facilitate the 
assessment of alternative regulatory options.
D. What Are the Potential Costs or Cost Savings of This Direct Final 
Rule?
    The thirteen direct final amendments presented in today's action 
vary considerably in scope and substance. Many of the amendments are 
anticipated to result in minor to negligible incremental cost impacts 
(savings or increases) to both the regulated community and the Agency. 
Three of the amendments are expected to result in more substantive cost 
impacts to the regulated community. These findings are briefly 
summarized below. The Assessment document presents a detailed review of 
our methodology, data, findings, and analytical limitations.
1. Deletion of One-Time Notification of Compliance with Alternative 
Clean Air Act Standards (Amendment II)
    In the final rule, a source that is not feeding hazardous waste 
when the hazardous waste residence time expires may elect to comply 
temporarily with alternative standards promulgated under the authority 
of sections 112 and 129 of the Clean Air Act. If a source chooses this 
option, Sec. 63.1206(b)(1)(ii)(A) requires the source to submit to the 
Administrator a written, one-time notification documenting compliance 
with those requirements and standards. Since this stipulation 
duplicates requirements under title V of the CAA, such a requirement is 
redundant.
    A deletion of this requirement reduces the administrative costs 
associated with compliance notification. Estimates of labor costs and 
administrative time spent on such a task suggest that about three hours 
per respondent would be saved. Out of this, two hours are estimated to 
be technical time (costed at a rate of $55 per hour), and one hour is 
likely to be management time (costed at $71 per hour). All facilities 
are likely to benefit from this exemption, thus leading to aggregate 
industry-wide cost savings of approximately $31,000 per year.
2. Alternative to the PM Standard for Incinerators Feeding Low Levels 
of Metals (Amendment VI)
    The final rule established a particulate matter emission standard 
of 0.015 gr/dscf for new and existing sources as a surrogate for 
control of non-mercury CAA metal hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). The 
rule also offered an alternative particulate matter emission standard 
of 0.03 gr/dscf for sources that demonstrate the use of superior 
federate control of metals in their hazardous waste. Today, we are 
eliminating the alternative particulate matter emission standard and 
replacing it with metal emissions control requirements. As a result of 
this amendment, no particulate matter emissions standard would apply to 
the incinerator under Subpart EEE. However, the incinerator would 
remain subject to the RCRA particulate matter standard of 0.08 gr/dscf 
pursuant to Sec. 264.343(c). In addition to the 0.08 gr/dscf standard, 
the alternative standard requires sources to comply with the following 
four requirements: (1) A metal emissions limitation for semivolatile 
and low volatile metals that applies to all CAA HAP metals, excluding 
mercury; (2) A requirement for the incinerator to demonstrate that it 
is using reasonable hazardous waste metal feedrate control, i.e., a 
defined metal feedrate that is better than the MACT defining metal 
feedrate floor control level; (3) A requirement for the incinerator to 
demonstrate that its air pollution control system achieves, at a 
minimum, a 90 percent system removal efficiency for semivolatile 
metals; and (4) A set of operating requirements pursuant to 
Sec. 63.1209(n).
    These four components collectively provide for MACT control of non-
mercury CAA metal HAPs in the absence of a MACT particulate matter 
standard. Hence, we believe that while this amendment would provide 
some reduced regulatory requirements to industry, there would be no 
adverse impact on the environment or any associated social costs.
    The cost savings resulting from this amendment will have two 
components: Savings in up-front capital costs and operation and 
maintenance cost savings. The capital cost savings would be a result of 
not needing a control device that meets MACT PM control standards 
(i.e., a control device that achieves 0.015 gr/dscf). The unit capital 
cost savings for the five sources that are expected to avail themselves 
of this standard in a given year are estimated to be $150,000. 
Annualizing this amount over ten years, using a discount rate of 7 
percent, gives an annual savings of approximately $21,500 for capital 
costs per facility.
    Operation and maintenance costs for a less complex system would 
amount to approximately $120,000 per year per facility. These savings 
arise from reductions in energy usage (pressure drop devices can be 
very energy intensive); lower solid waste handling costs, and reduced 
baghouse maintenance costs. Assuming that five facilities are able to 
take advantage of this alternative, the total cost savings per year 
associated with this amendment would be approximately $707,500. It is 
important to note that the exact number of facilities that will take 
advantage of this standard is difficult to determine and is likely to 
change over time.
3. Feedstream Analysis Requirements for Organic HAPs (Amendment VIII)
    Section 63.1207(f)(1)(ii) requires sources to include in their 
site-specific plan for a comprehensive performance test an analysis of 
all Clean Air Act hazardous air pollutants that could reasonably be 
present in ``the feedstream.'' Regulators would use these analyses to 
ensure compliance with the destruction and removal efficiency standards 
of Secs. 63.1203 through 63.1205.
    However, upon further review, we believe that the comprehensive 
analyses required by Sec. 63.1206(f)(1)(ii)(A) are not necessary in all 
cases to ensure compliance with the DRE standard. For example, if the 
source can demonstrate compliance with the DRE standard using POHCs 
that represent the most persistent organic compounds, a less rigorous 
analysis may be appropriate to address other concerns, such as whether

[[Page 35101]]

feedstream has changed to include additional organic HAPs that are fed 
at high concentrations or that are particularly toxic.
    We are, therefore, amending Sec. 63.1207(f)(1)(ii) to allow 
regulatory officials to waive the comprehensive analysis of organic 
compounds if sources can document that the POHCs used to demonstrate 
compliance with the DRE standard continue to be representative of the 
organic HAPs in hazardous waste feedstreams. This amendment will result 
in cost savings in operation and maintenance expenses, estimated at 
$4,000 per facility per year. With 45 facilities expected to be 
affected by this amendment per year, the total annual cost savings from 
this effort amount to approximately $180,000.
    In addition to the cost savings of $918,500 identified above we 
estimate that two of the thirteen amendments would result in 
quantifiable cost burdens to industry and the regulatory agency and/or 
states. These amendments are projected to result in aggregate cost 
increases of approximately $8,700 per year. The net aggregate cost 
impact associated with the thirteen amendments is estimated to be 
$909,800 per year. This cost impact estimate will marginally decrease 
the total annual social cost projection of $50 to $63 million \25\ 
estimated for compliance with the final rule. All cost impacts are 
dependant upon the regional enforcement regime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid 
Waste, ``Addendum to the Assessment of the Potential Costs, 
Benefits, and Other Impacts of the Hazardous Waste Combustion MACT 
Standards: Final Rule,'' July 23, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, 
and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's direct final rule 
on small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business 
that has fewer than 750, or 500 employees per firm depending upon the 
SIC code the firm is primarily classified in; (2) a small governmental 
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school 
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; or 
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's 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 II 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 ($31,000 
savings) are attributed to only these six small sources, we find that 
no source would experience impacts beyond 0.14 percent of annual gross 
revenues.\26\ This does not represent a significant economic impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Based on the July 1999 Assessment, we found that the 
smallest annual firm revenue associated with the six small 
facilities was $3.6 million. Dividing $31,000 by the six facilities 
results in approximately $5,200 maximum impact per small facility. 
($5,200/$3.6 million = 0.14 percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although this 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 rulemaking. No small business 
concerns were brought up by these industry representatives.
    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 
direct final 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 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 
final rule is a technology-based regulation rather than a risk-based 
one. Nevertheless, the amendments would not result in any incremental 
environmental harm that would affect children's health.

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 rule would result in 
disproportionately negative impacts on minority or low income 
communities.

V. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L. 
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

[[Page 35102]]

EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal 
mandates'' that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any single year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for 
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally 
requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory 
alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least 
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The 
provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with 
applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an 
alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least 
burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final 
rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA 
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it 
must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government 
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected 
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to 
have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory 
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and 
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with 
the regulatory requirements.
    We have determined that this rule does not contain a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private 
sector in any single year. It is estimated that the direct final 
amendments will result in increased costs to all states (or the Agency) 
of approximately $2,100 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 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 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 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.

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 final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
Today's action will not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, nor will 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 rule.

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act

    We have prepared an Information Collection Request (ICR) document 
(ICR No. 1773.03) listing the information collection requirements of 
this direct final rule, and have submitted it for approval to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. OMB has assigned a 
control number 2050-0171 for this ICR. A copy of this ICR may be 
obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPIA Regulatory Information Division, U.S. 
Environment Protection Agency (2137), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 
Washington DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740.
    Some of the amendments finalized today pertain to RCRA provisions 
of the rule (i.e., to 40 CFR parts 260 thru 271), and were covered 
under an earlier ICR No. 1361.08. Today's amendments to these RCRA 
provisions are all de-regulatory, and do not impose any burden on the 
regulated community. They only reduce the existing burden shown in that 
ICR. The ICR No. 1361.08 will be revised to show the reduced burden 
when the direct final rule is promulgated. The public burden associated 
with other provisions of this direct final rule (which are under the 
Clean Air Act) is projected to affect approximately 171 HWC units and 
is estimated to average 1.7 hours per respondent annually. The 
reporting and recordkeeping cost burden is estimated to average $118 
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.

IX. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Pub. L. No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary

[[Page 35103]]

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 rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, we 
are not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

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

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A Major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). This direct final rule will be effective on October 16, 2001 
unless EPA receives adverse comment by August 17, 2001.

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.

    Dated: June 18, 2001.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 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 63.1201 is amended by revising the definition of 
``Hazardous waste residence time'' and adding the definition of 
``Preheater tower combustion gas monitoring location'' to paragraph (a) 
in alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec. 63.1201  Definitions and acronyms used in this subpart.

    (a) * * *
    Hazardous waste residence time means 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 and excluding waste-derived recycled materials such as 
cement kiln dust and internally recycled metals) exit the combustion 
chamber. For combustors with multiple firing systems whereby the 
residence time may vary for the firing systems, the hazardous waste 
residence time for purposes of complying with this subpart means the 
longest residence time for any firing system in use at the time of the 
waste cutoff.
* * * * *
    Preheater tower combustion gas monitoring location means a location 
within the preheater tower of a dry process cement kiln downstream (in 
terms of gas flow) of all hazardous waste firing locations and where a 
representative sample of combustion gas to measure combustion 
efficiency can be monitored.
* * * * *

    3. Section 63.1206 is amended by:
    a. Adding paragraph (a)(4).
    b. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(ii), (b)(6)(i), (b)(7)(i)(B), 
(b)(7)(ii)(B), (b)(8)(v), (b)(13)(i), and (b)(14).
    c. Revising paragraph (c)(7)(ii).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


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

    (a) * * *
    (4) Early compliance. If you choose to comply with the emission 
standards of this subpart prior to September 30, 2002, your compliance 
date is the date you postmark the Notification of Compliance under 
Sec. 63.1207(j)(1).
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) When hazardous waste is not in the combustion chamber (i.e., 
the hazardous waste feed to the combustor has been cut off for a period 
of time not less than the hazardous waste residence time) and you have 
documented in the operating record that you are complying with all 
otherwise applicable requirements and standards promulgated under 
authority of sections 112 (e.g., subpart LLL of this part for cement 
kilns) or 129 of the Clean Air Act in lieu of the emission standards of 
Secs. 63.1203 through 63.1205; the monitoring and compliance standards 
of this section and Secs. 63.1207 through 63.1209, except the modes of 
operation requirements of Sec. 63.1209(q); and the notification, 
reporting, and recordkeeping requirements of Secs. 63.1210 through 
63.1212.
* * * * *
    (6) * * *
    (i) If a DRE test performed prior to the compliance date is 
acceptable as documentation of compliance with the DRE standard, you 
may use the highest hourly rolling average hydrocarbon level achieved 
during the DRE test runs to document compliance with the hydrocarbon 
standard. An acceptable DRE test is any test for which the data and 
results are determined to meet quality assurance objectives (on a site-
specific basis) such that the results adequately demonstrate compliance 
with the DRE standard.
* * * * *
    (7) * * *
    (i) * *  *
    (B) You may use any DRE test data that documents that your source 
achieves the required level of DRE provided:
    (1) You have not modified the design or operation of your source in 
a manner that could effect the ability of your source to achieve the 
DRE standard since the DRE test was performed; and,
    (2) The DRE test data meet quality assurance objectives determined 
on a site-specific basis.
    (ii) * * *

[[Page 35104]]

    (B) You may use any DRE test data that documents that your source 
achieves the required level of DRE provided:
    (1) You have not modified the design or operation of your source in 
a manner that could affect the ability of your source to achieve the 
DRE standard since the DRE test was performed; and,
    (2) The DRE test data meet the quality assurance objectives 
determined on a site-specific basis.
* * * * *
    (8) * * *
    (v) The particulate matter and opacity standards and associated 
operating limits and conditions will not be waived for more than 96 
hours, in the aggregate, for a correlation test, including all runs of 
all test conditions, unless more time is approved by the Administrator.
* * * * *
    (13) * * *
    (i) Cement kilns that feed hazardous waste at a location other than 
the end where products are normally discharged and where fuels are 
normally fired must comply with the carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon 
standards of Sec. 63.1204 as follows:
    (A) For existing sources, you must not discharge or cause 
combustion gases to be emitted into the atmosphere that contain either:
    (1) Hydrocarbons in the main stack in excess of 20 parts per 
million by volume, over an hourly rolling average (monitored 
continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis, 
corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and reported as propane; or
    (2) Hydrocarbons both in the by-pass duct and at a preheater tower 
combustion gas monitoring location in excess of 10 parts per million by 
volume, at each location, over an hourly rolling average (monitored 
continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis, 
corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and reported as propane; or
    (3) If the only firing location of hazardous waste upstream (in 
terms of gas flow) of the point where combustion gases are diverted 
into the bypass duct is at the kiln end where products are normally 
discharged, then both hydrocarbons at the preheater tower combustion 
gas monitoring location in excess of 10 parts per million by volume, 
over an hourly rolling average (monitored continuously with a 
continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis, corrected to 7 
percent oxygen, and reported as propane, and either hydrocarbons in the 
by-pass duct in excess of 10 parts per million by volume, over an 
hourly rolling average (monitored continuously with a continuous 
emissions monitoring system), dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, 
and reported as propane, or carbon monoxide in excess of 100 parts per 
million by volume, over an hourly rolling average (monitored 
continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis, 
and corrected to 7 percent oxygen. If you comply with the carbon 
monoxide standard of 100 parts per million by volume in the by-pass 
duct, then you must also not discharge or cause combustion gases to be 
emitted into the atmosphere that contain hydrocarbons in the by-pass 
duct in excess of 10 parts per million by volume, over an hourly 
rolling average (monitored continuously with a continuous emissions 
monitoring system), dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and 
reported as propane, at any time during the destruction and removal 
efficiency (DRE) test runs or their equivalent as provided by 
Sec. 63.1207(b)(7).
    (B) For new sources, you must not discharge or cause combustion 
gases to be emitted into the atmosphere that contain either:
    (1) Hydrocarbons in the main stack in excess of 20 parts per 
million by volume, over an hourly rolling average (monitored 
continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis, 
corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and reported as propane; or
    (2)(i) Hydrocarbons both in the by-pass duct and at a preheater 
tower combustion gas monitoring location in excess of 10 parts per 
million by volume, at each location, over an hourly rolling average 
(monitored continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring system), 
dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and reported as propane, and
    (ii) Hydrocarbons in the main stack, if construction of the kiln 
commenced after April 19, 1996 at a plant site where a cement kiln 
(whether burning hazardous waste or not) did not previously exist, to 
50 parts per million by volume, over a 30-day block average (monitored 
continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis, 
corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and reported as propane; or
    (3)(i) If the only firing location of hazardous waste upstream (in 
terms of gas flow) of the point where combustion gases are diverted 
into the bypass duct is at the kiln end where products are normally 
discharged, then both hydrocarbons at the preheater tower combustion 
gas monitoring location in excess of 10 parts per million by volume, 
over an hourly rolling average (monitored continuously with a 
continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis, corrected to 7 
percent oxygen, and reported as propane, and either hydrocarbons in the 
by-pass duct in excess of 10 parts per million by volume, over an 
hourly rolling average (monitored continuously with a continuous 
emissions monitoring system), dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, 
and reported as propane, or carbon monoxide in excess of 100 parts per 
million by volume, over an hourly rolling average (monitored 
continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis, 
and corrected to 7 percent oxygen. If you comply with the carbon 
monoxide standard of 100 parts per million by volume in the by-pass 
duct, then you must also not discharge or cause combustion gases to be 
emitted into the atmosphere that contain hydrocarbons in the by-pass 
duct in excess of 10 parts per million by volume, over an hourly 
rolling average (monitored continuously with a continuous emissions 
monitoring system), dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and 
reported as propane, at any time during the destruction and removal 
efficiency (DRE) test runs or their equivalent as provided by 
Sec. 63.1207(b)(7).
    (ii) If construction of the kiln commenced after April 19, 1996 at 
a plant site where a cement kiln (whether burning hazardous waste or 
not) did not previously exist, hydrocarbons are limited to 50 parts per 
million by volume, over a 30-day block average (monitored continuously 
with a continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis, corrected to 
7 percent oxygen, and reported as propane.
* * * * *
    (14) Alternative to the particulate matter standard for 
incinerators. (i) General. In lieu of complying with the applicable 
particulate matter standard of Sec. 63.1203(a)(7) or (b)(7), existing 
and new incinerators may elect to instead comply with the alternative 
metal emission control requirements described in paragraph (b)(14)(ii) 
or (b)(14)(iii) of this section, respectively.
    (ii) Alternative metal emission control requirements for existing 
incinerators. (A) You must not discharge or cause combustion gases to 
be emitted into the atmosphere that contain lead, cadmium, and selenium 
in excess of 240 <greek-m>g/dscm, combined emissions, corrected to 7 
percent oxygen; and,
    (B) You must not discharge or cause combustion gases to be emitted 
into the

[[Page 35105]]

atmosphere that contain arsenic, beryllium, chromium, antimony, cobalt, 
manganese, and nickel in excess of 97 <greek-m>g/dscm, combined 
emissions, corrected to 7 percent oxygen; and,
    (C) You must comply with the provisions specified in paragraph 
(b)(14)(iv) of this section.
    (iii) Alternative metal emission control requirements for new 
incinerators. (A) You must not discharge or cause combustion gases to 
be emitted into the atmosphere that contain lead, cadmium, and selenium 
in excess of 24 <greek-m>g/dscm, combined emissions, corrected to 7 
percent oxygen; and,
    (B) You must not discharge or cause combustion gases to be emitted 
into the atmosphere that contain arsenic, beryllium, chromium, 
antimony, cobalt, manganese, and nickel in excess of 97 <greek-m>g/
dscm, combined emissions, corrected to 7 percent oxygen; and,
    (C) You must comply with the provisions specified in paragraph 
(b)(14)(iv) of this section.
    (iv) Other requirements. Existing and new incinerators must 
document in the operating record that they meet the requirements of 
paragraph (b)(14)(iv)(A) through (C) of this section.
    (A) The twelve-hour rolling average of the maximum theoretical 
emissions concentration for lead, cadmium, and selenium, combined, for 
the combined hazardous waste feedstreams to the incinerator, must not 
exceed:
    (1) For existing incinerators, 1,325 <greek-m>g/dscm.
    (2) For new incinerators, 875 <greek-m>g/dscm.
    (B) The twelve-hour rolling average of the maximum theoretical 
emissions concentration for arsenic, beryllium, chromium, antimony, 
cobalt, manganese, and nickel, combined, for the combined hazardous 
waste feedstreams to the incinerator, must not exceed:
    (1) For existing incinerators, 6,000 <greek-m>g/dscm.
    (2) For new incinerators, 3250 <greek-m>g/dscm.
    (C) You must document that your air pollution control system 
achieves at least a 90 percent system removal efficiency for 
semivolatile metals. In making this demonstration, you may spike 
semivolatile metals above the applicable levels of paragraph 
(b)(14)(iv)(A) or (B) of this section provided that the applicable 
alternative emission limitation of paragraph (b)(14)(ii)(A) or (iii)(A) 
of this section is attained during the test. This test may be performed 
independently of the comprehensive performance test and must be used to 
establish applicable operating parameter limits as described in 
Sec. 63.1209(n), not including Sec. 63.1209(n)(2), to ensure that a 90 
percent semivolatile metal system removal efficiency is achieved during 
normal operations.
    (v) Operating limits. (A) Semivolatile and low volatile metal 
operating parameter limits must be established to ensure compliance 
with the alternative emission limitations described in paragraphs 
(b)(14)(ii) and (iii) of this section pursuant to Sec. 63.1209(n), 
except that semivolatile metal feedrate limits would apply to lead, 
cadmium, and selenium, combined, and low volatile metal feedrate limits 
would apply to arsenic, beryllium, chromium, antimony, cobalt, 
manganese, and nickel, combined.
    (B) Twelve-hour rolling average hazardous waste metal feedrate 
limits required pursuant to paragraphs (b)(14)(iv)(A) and (B) of this 
section are based on the combined hazardous waste feedstreams to the 
incinerator and may be expressed either as an maximum theoretical 
emission concentration limit or as a restriction on maximum hazardous 
waste metals mass feedrate and minimum gas flow rate.
    (C) For purposes of complying with the twelve-hour rolling average 
hazardous waste metal feedrate limits of paragraphs (b)(14)(iv)(A) and 
(B) of this section, non-detectable metal constituents in each 
hazardous waste feed must be assumed to be present at one-half the 
detection limit.
    (c) * * *
    (7) * * *
    (ii) Bag leak detection system requirements for baghouses at 
lightweight aggregate kilns and incinerators. If you own or operate a 
hazardous waste incinerator or hazardous waste burning lightweight 
aggregate kiln equipped with a baghouse (fabric filter), you must 
continuously operate a bag leak detection system that meets the 
specifications and requirements of paragraph (c)(7)(ii)(A) of this 
section and you must comply with the corrective measures requirements 
of paragraph (c)(7)(ii)(B) of this section:
    (A) Bag leak detection system specification and requirements. (1) 
The bag leak detection system must be certified by the manufacturer to 
be capable of continuously detecting and recording particulate matter 
emissions at concentrations of 1.0 milligram per actual cubic meter or 
less;
    (2) The bag leak detection system shall provide output of relative 
particulate matter loadings;
    (3) The bag leak detection system shall be equipped with an alarm 
system that will sound an audible alarm when an increase in relative 
particulate loadings is detected over a preset level;
    (4) The bag leak detection system shall be installed and operated 
in a manner consistent with available written guidance from the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency or, in the absence of such written 
guidance, the manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations 
for installation, operation, and adjustment of the system;
    (5) The initial adjustment of the system shall, at a minimum, 
consist of establishing the baseline output by adjusting the 
sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the device, and 
establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time;
    (6) Following initial adjustment, you must not adjust the 
sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm 
delay time, except as detailed in the operation and maintenance plan 
required under paragraph (c)(7)(i) of this section. You must not 
increase the sensitivity by more than 100 percent or decrease the 
sensitivity by more than 50 percent over a 365 day period unless such 
adjustment follows a complete baghouse inspection which demonstrates 
the baghouse is in good operating condition;
    (7) For negative pressure or induced air baghouses, and positive 
pressure baghouses that are discharged to the atmosphere through a 
stack, the bag leak detector shall be installed downstream of the 
baghouse and upstream of any wet acid gas scrubber; and
    (8) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's 
instrumentation and alarm system may be shared among the detectors.
    (B) Bag leak detection system corrective measures requirements. The 
operating and maintenance plan required by paragraph (c)(7)(i) of this 
section must include a corrective measures plan that specifies the 
procedures you will follow in the case of a bag leak detection system 
alarm. The corrective measures plan must include, at a minimum, the 
procedures used to determine and record the time and cause of the alarm 
as well as the corrective measures taken to correct the control device 
malfunction or minimize emissions as specified in this paragraph. 
Failure to initiate the corrective measures required by this paragraph 
is failure to ensure compliance with the emission standards in this 
subpart.
    (1) You must initiate the procedures used to determine the cause of 
the alarm within 30 minutes of the time the alarm first sounds; and
    (2) You must alleviate the cause of the alarm by taking the 
necessary corrective

[[Page 35106]]

measure(s) which may include, but are not to be limited to, the 
following measures:
    (i) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken filter 
elements, or any other malfunction that may cause an increase in 
emissions;
    (ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media;
    (iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media, or otherwise 
repairing th control device;
    (iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse compartment;
    (v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or otherwise 
repairing the bag leak detection system; or
    (vi) Shutting down the combustor.

    4. Section 63.1207 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (c)(2)(i).
    b. Revising paragraphs (f)(1)(ii)(A), (f)(1)(ii)(B), (f)(1)(ii)(C), 
and (f)(1)(x)(C).
    c. Revising paragraph (l)(1) introductory text.
    d. Redesignating paragraph (f)(1)(xxvi) as (f)(1)(xxvii).
    e. Adding paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(D).
    f. Adding new paragraph (f)(1)(xxvi).
    g. Removing paragraph (n).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec. 63.1207  What are the performance testing requirements?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) You may request that previous emissions test data serve as 
documentation of conformance with the emission standards of this 
subpart provided that the previous testing:
    (A) Results in data that meet quality assurance objectives 
(determined on a site-specific basis) such that the results adequately 
demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards;
    (B) Was in conformance with the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of 
this section; and,
    (C) Was sufficient to establish the applicable operating parameter 
limits under Sec. 63.1209.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) Except as provided by paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(D) of this section, 
an identification of such organic hazardous air pollutants that are 
present in each hazardous waste feedstream. You need not analyze for 
organic hazardous air pollutants that would reasonably not be expected 
to be found in the feedstream. You must identify any constituents you 
exclude from analysis and explain the basis for excluding them. You 
must conduct the feedstream analysis according to Sec. 63.1208(b)(8);
    (B) An approximate quantification of such identified organic 
hazardous air pollutants in the hazardous waste feedstreams, within the 
precision produced by analytical procedures of Sec. 63.1208(b)(8); and
    (C) A description of blending procedures, if applicable, prior to 
firing the hazardous waste feedstream, including a detailed analysis of 
the materials prior to blending, and blending ratios.
    (D) The Administrator may approve on a case-by-case basis a 
hazardous waste feedstream analysis for organic hazardous air 
pollutants in lieu of the analysis required under paragraph 
(f)(1)(ii)(A) of this section if the reduced analysis is sufficient to 
ensure that the POHCs used to demonstrate compliance with the 
applicable DRE standard of Sec. 63.1203, Sec. 63.1204, or Sec. 63.1205, 
continue to be representative of the organic hazardous air pollutants 
in your hazardous waste feedstreams;
* * * * *
    (x) * * *
    (C) Documentation that the level of spiking recommended during the 
performance test will mask sampling and analysis imprecision and 
inaccuracy to the extent that the extrapolated feedrate limits 
adequately assure compliance with the emission standards;
* * * * *
    (xxvi) For purposes of calculating semivolatile metal, low volatile 
metal, mercury, and total chlorine (organic and inorganic), and ash 
feedrate limits, a description of how you will handle performance test 
feedstream analytical results that determines these constituents are 
not present at detectable levels.
* * * * *
    (l) * * *
    (1) Comprehensive performance test. The provisions of this 
paragraph do not apply to the initial comprehensive performance test if 
you conduct the test prior to September 30, 2002 (or a later compliance 
date approved under Sec. 63.6(i).
* * * * *

    5. Section 63.1209 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(ii).
    b. Revising paragraph (l)(2).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec. 63.1209  What are the monitoring requirements?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Accuracy and calibration of weight measurement devices for 
activated carbon injection systems. If you operate a carbon injection 
system the accuracy of the weight measurement device must be 
<plus-minus>1 percent of the weight being measured. The calibration of 
the device must be verified at least once every three months.
* * * * *
    (1) * * *
    (2) Wet scrubber. If your combustor is equipped with a wet 
scrubber, you must establish operating parameter limits prescribed by 
paragraph (o)(3) of this section, except for paragraph (o)(3)(iv).
* * * * *

    6. Section 63.1211 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 63.1211  What are the record keeping and reporting requirements?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) By the compliance date, you must develop and include in the 
operating record a Documentation of Compliance. You are not subject to 
this requirement, however, if you submit a Notification of Compliance 
under Sec. 63.1207(j) prior to the compliance date.
* * * * *

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 revising the first sentence of 
paragraph (b)(1) and adding paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:


Sec. 264.340  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Except as provided by paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this 
section, the standards of this part no longer apply when an owner or 
operator demonstrates compliance with the maximum achievable control 
technology (MACT) requirements of part 63, subpart EEE of this chapter 
by conducting a comprehensive performance test and submitting to the 
Administrator a Notification of Compliance under Secs. 63.1207(j) and 
63.1210(d) of this chapter documenting compliance with the requirements 
of part 63, subpart EEE of this chapter. * * *
    (3) The particulate matter standard of Sec. 264.343(c) remains in 
effect for incinerators that elect to comply with

[[Page 35107]]

the alternative to the particulate matter standard of 
Sec. 63.1206(b)(14) of this chapter.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01-16425 Filed 7-2-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>