Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
230
XIII.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
Proposing
An
Alternative
Risk­
Based
Standards
for
Hydrogen
Chloride
andTotal
Chlorine
Gas
in
Lieu
of
the
MACT
Standard?
Under
authority
of
CAA
Section
112(
d)(
4),
we
propose
standard
procedures
to
allow
you
to
establish
a
risk­
based
emission
limit
for
total
chlorine
in
lieu
of
compliance
with
the
section
112(
d)(
2)
MACT
emission
standard.
See
proposed
§
63.1215.
The
risk­
based
approach
would
be
applicable
to
all
hazardous
waste
combustors
except
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces.
Because
we
are
proposing
to
use
the
MACT
standard
for
total
chlorine
as
a
surrogate
to
control
metal
HAP
for
the
hydrogen
chloride
production
furnace
source
category,
we
cannot
allow
any
variance
from
the
standard.
For
the
other
hazardous
waste
combustor
source
categories,
we
are
proposing
the
section
112
(
d)
(
4)
standard
as
an
alternative
to
the
MACT
standard.
Sources
could
choose
which
of
these
two
standards
they
would
prefer
to
apply.
The
alternative
risk­
based
emission
limit
for
total
chlorine
would
be
based
on
national
exposure
standards
established
by
EPA
that
ensure
protection
of
public
health
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety.
The
standard
would
consist
of
a
nationally­
applicable,
uniform
algorithm
that
would
be
used
to
establish
site­
specific
emission
limitations
based
on
site­
specific
input
from
each
source
choosing
to
utilizeuse
this
approach.
Thus,
these
standards
would
provide
a
uniform
level
of
risk
reduction,
consistent
with
the
requirement
of
section
112(
d)(
4)
that
EPA
establish
"
emission
standards",
i.
e.
a
requirement
established
by
EPA
which
limits
quantity,
rate
or
concentration
of
air
emissions
(
see
CAA
section
302(
k)).
We
also
request
comment
on
an
alternative
approach
to
implement
section
112(
d)(
4)
for
cement
kilns
in
which
we
establish
a
national
risk­
based
emission
standard
for
total
chlorine
that
would
be
applicable
to
all
cement
kilns.
Under
this
approach,
EPA
would
issue
a
single
total
chlorine
emission
standard
using
an
emission
level
that
meets
our
national
exposure
standards
if
each
cement
kiln
were
to
emit
at
that
level.
We
believe
that
most
hazardous
waste
combustors
are
likely
to
consider
establishing
riskbased
standards
for
total
chlorine
because
the
MACT
standards
proposed
today
are
more
stringent,
and
in
some
cases
substantially
more
stringent,
than
currently
applicable
standards
(
e.
g.,
the
total
chlorine
standard
for
incinerators
is
currently
77
ppmv
while
we
propose
today
a
MACT
standard
of
1.4
ppmv).

A.
What
Is
the
Legal
Authority
to
Establish
Risk­
Based
Standards?
Under
the
authority
of
section
112(
d)(
4),
the
Administrator
may
establish
emission
standards
based
on
risk,
in
lieu
of
the
technology­
based
MACT
standards,
when
regulating
HAP
for
which
health
threshold
levels
have
been
established.
Under
section
112(
d)(
4),
Congress
gave
EPA
the
discretion
to
consider
the
health
threshold
of
any
HAP
and
to
use
that
health
threshold,
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety,
to
set
emission
standards
for
the
source
category
or
subcategory.
In
the
legislative
history
accompanying
this
provision,
the
Senate
Report
stated,
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
1
The
Agency
also
proposed
to
use
Section
112(
d)(
4)
authority
in
two
other
MACT
rulemakings­­
the
Combustion
Turbine
MACT
(
68
FR
1888,
January
14,
2003),
and
the
Chlorine
Production
MACT
(
67
FR
44671)­­
but
determined
that
MACT
standards
for
those
source
categories
are
not
warranted
and
delisted
the
source
categories
from
the
Section
112(
c)
list
of
major
sources
pursuant
to
the
authority
in
Section
112(
c)(
9).

231
"
To
avoid
expenditures
by
regulated
entities
that
secure
no
public
health
or
environmental
benefit,
the
Administrator
is
given
discretionary
authority
to
consider
the
evidence
for
a
health
threshold
higher
than
MACT
at
the
time
the
standard
is
under
review.
The
Administrator
is
not
required
to
take
such
factors
into
account;
that
would
jeopardize
the
standard­
setting
schedule
imposed
under
this
section
with
the
kind
of
lengthy
study
and
debate
that
has
crippled
the
current
program.
But
where
health
thresholds
are
well
established,
for
instance
in
the
case
of
ammonia,
and
the
pollutant
presents
no
risk
of
other
adverse
health
effects,
the
Administrator
may
use
the
threshold
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety
(
and
not
considering
cost)
to
set
emissions
limitations
for
sources
in
the
category
or
subcategory."
(
S.
Rep.
No.
228,
101st
Cong.
1st
Sess.
at
171
(
1989);
see
also
id.
at
175­
176
(
1989).)

EPA
has
previously
used
section
112(
d)(
4)
authority
in
the
Industrial
Boiler
and
Process
Heater
MACT
Final
Rule
signed
Feb.
26,
2004,
the
Pulp
and
Paper
MACT
Phase
II
(
66
FR
3180,
January
12,
2001)
and
the
Lime
Manufacturing
MACT
(
69
FR
394,
January
5,
2004),
and
has
proposed
to
use
it
in
a
different
manner
in
several
other
MACT
rulemakings
(
e.
g.,
the
Reciprocating
Internal
Combustion
Engine
MACT
(
67
FR
77830,
December
19,
2002).
1
The
approach
we
propose
today
is
nearly
identical
to
the
approach
EPA
recently
adopted
for
the
Industrial
Boiler
and
Process
Heater
MACT
source
category,
which
allows
a
source
to
establish
a
site­
specific
risk­
based
emission
limit
for
threshold
HAP
using
prescribed
procedures.
This
approach
differs
from
the
previous
MACT
rules
where
EPA
simply
determined,
on
a
national
basis,
what
level
of
exposure
from
each
source
in
the
category
would
be
protective
of
public
health
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety,
and
did
not
pose
significant
adverse
environmental
impacts.
This
previous
approach
resulted
in
a
determination
that
no
standard
was
necessary
because
no
source
in
the
category
could
exceed
such
a
risk­
based
standard.
Today's
proposal
varies
in
that
the
level
of
protection
afforded
by
the
standard
is
uniform,
but
the
limits
for
individual
sources
differ
due
to
site­
specific
factors.
As
explained
later
in
this
section
of
the
preamble,
EPA
is,
however,
also
considering
for
cement
kilns
applying
the
single
national
standard
approach
adopted
in
earlier
rules.
B.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
National
Exposure
Standards?
We
identify
as
national
exposure
standards
threshold
levels
that
are
protective
of
human
health
from
both
chronic
and
acute
exposure.
In
addition,
because
EPA
has
discretion
whether
or
not
to
promulgate
risk­
based
standards
pursuant
to
section
112(
d)(
4),
we
would
not
allow
an
alternative
standard
where
emission
levels
may
result
in
adverse
environmental
effects
that
would
otherwise
be
reduced
or
eliminated.
We
would
not
issue
the
alternative
standard
even
though
it
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
2
EPA
conducted
an
assessment
of
the
carcinogenicity
of
chlorine
gas
and
concluded
that
it
is
not
likely
to
be
a
human
carcinogen
(
see
EPA's
June
22,
1999
Risk
Assessment
Issue
Paper
for
Derivation
of
a
Provisional
Chronic
Inhalation
RfC
for
Chlorine,
p.
12).
The
International
Agency
for
Research
on
Cancer
(
IARC)
concluded
that
hydrochloric
acid
is
not
classifiable
as
to
its
carcinogenicity
to
humans
(
see
IARC
Monographs,
Vol.
54:
Occupational
Exposures
to
Mists
and
Vapours
from
Strong
Inorganic
Acids;
and
Other
Industrial
Chemicals
(
1992)
p.
189).

3
See
EPA's
externally
peer­
reviewed
"
Risk
Assessment
Issue
Paper
for
Derivation
of
a
Provisional
Chronic
Inhalation
RfC
for
Chlorine"
(
June
22,
1999)
that
can
be
found
in
the
docket
for
today's
proposal.

232
may
be
shown
that
emissions
do
not
approach
or
exceed
levels
requisite
to
protect
public
health
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety
because
we
believe
the
statute
requires
that
we
consider
effects
on
terrestrial
animals,
plants,
and
aquatic
ecosystems
in
addition
to
public
health
in
establishing
a
standard
pursuant
to
section
112(
d)(
4).
See
S.
Rep.
228
at
176:
"
Employing
a
health
threshold
or
safety
level
rather
than
the
MACT
criteria
to
set
standards
shall
not
result
in
adverse
environmental
effects
which
would
otherwise
be
reduced
or
eliminated."
1.
What
Are
the
Human
Health
Threshold
Levels?
a.
Chronic
Exposure.
Hydrogen
chloride
is
corrosive
to
the
eyes,
skin,
and
mucous
membranes.
Chronic
exposure
may
cause
gastritis,
bronchitis,
dermatitis,
and
dental
discoloration
and
erosion.
Chronic
exposure
to
chlorine
gas
can
cause
respiratory
effects
including
eye
and
throat
irritation
and
airflow
obstruction.
See
discussion
in
Part
One,
Section
I.
E
of
this
preamble.
Given
that
neither
hydrogen
chloride
nor
chlorine
gas
is
known
to
produce
a
carcinogenic
response2,
we
use
reference
air
concentrations
(
RfC)
to
assess
the
likelihood
of
non­
cancer
health
effects
in
humans.
The
RfC
is
an
estimate
of
a
continuous
inhalation
exposure
to
the
human
population,
including
sensitive
subgroups,
that
is
likely
to
be
without
an
appreciable
risk
of
deleterious
effects
over
a
lifetime.
We
use
an
RfC
for
hydrogen
chloride
of
20
ug/
m3,
as
presented
in
EPA's
Integrated
Risk
Information
System
(
IRIS).
We
propose
to
use
an
RfC
for
chlorine
gas
of
0.2
ug/
m3
based
on
a
provisional
assessment
prepared
by
EPA
on
inhalation
hazards
from
chlorine.
3
This
is
the
same
as
the
value
for
chlorine
used
by
the
State
of
California's
Office
of
Environmental
Health
Hazard
Assessment,
which
they
refer
to
as
a
chronic
"
Reference
Exposure
Level"
(
REL).
3
Because
RfCs
can
change
over
time
based
on
new
information,
the
rule
would
require
you
to
use
the
current
RfC
value
found
at
http://
epa.
gov/
ttn/
atw/
toxsource/
sumnmary.
html.
We
considered
how
to
account
for
the
fact
that
chlorine
gas
photolyzes
in
the
atmosphere
in
bright
sunlight
to
chlorine
ions
and
then
quickly
reacts
with
hydrogen
or
methane
to
form
hydrogen
chloride.
The
half­
life
of
chlorine
due
to
photolysis
in
bright
sunlight
is
estimated
to
be
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
4
As
determined
by
a
modeling
analysis
done
by
the
Air
Pollution
Research
Center
at
the
University
of
California
at
Riverside,
as
reported
in
a
California
Air
Resources
Board
fact
sheet,
"
Toxic
Air
Contaminant
Identification
List
Summaries
­
ARB/
SSD/
SES,"
p.
231,
September
1997.
See
also
http://
www.
arb.
ca.
gov/
toxics/
tac/
factshts/
chlorine.
pdf.

5
The
full
definitions
of
the
AEGL
values
are
more
nuanced.
AEGL
1:
The
airborne
concentration
of
a
substance
above
which
it
is
predicted
that
the
general
population,
including
susceptible
individuals,
could
experience
notable
discomfort,
irritation,
or
certain
233
10
minutes.
4
Nonetheless,
this
is
generally
sufficient
time
for
the
plume
to
reach
nearby
groundlevel
receptors
without
significant
transformation.
In
addition,
such
transformation
is
possible
only
a
portion
of
the
time.
Photolysis
does
not
occur
at
night
and
is
reduced
on
overcast
or
cloudy
days.
Generally
speaking,
the
rate
of
photolysis
depends
on
the
particular
wavelength
and
intensity
of
solar
radiation
reaching
the
earth's
surface
which
varies
greatly
depending
on
the
solar
angle
which
changes
with
the
time
of
day,
the
season
of
the
year,
and
the
latitude
at
a
given
location.
While
the
ideal
approach
would
be
explicit
modeling
of
photolysis
rates
as
a
function
of
solar
insolation,
sky
conditions,
absorption
cross­
section,
quantum
yield,
and
subsequent
transformation
to
hydrogen
chloride,
to
our
knowledge
no
such
regulatory
air
dispersion
model
currently
exists.
Because
it
is
reasonable
to
believe
that
receptors
will
be
exposed
to
chlorine
gas
before
appreciable
transformation
occurs
due
to
the
variability
and
complexity
of
the
transformation
and
the
fact
that
chlorine
gas
is
considerably
more
toxic
than
hydrogen
chloride,
we
conclude
that,
for
the
purpose
of
protection
of
public
health,
it
is
prudent
to
assume
that
chlorine
gas
is
not
transformed
to
hydrogen
chloride.
b.
Acute
Threshold
Levels.
Short­
term
exposure
to
hydrogen
chloride
may
cause
eye,
nose,
and
respiratory
tract
irritation
and
inflamation
and
pulmonary
edema.
Short­
term
exposure
to
high
levels
of
chlorine
gas
can
result
in
chest
pain,
vomiting,
toxic
pneumonitis,
and
pulmonary
edema.
At
lower
levels,
chlorine
gas
is
a
potent
irritant
to
the
eyes,
the
upper
respiratory
tract,
and
lungs.
See
Part
One,
Section
I.
E
To
assess
effects
from
acute
exposure,
we
propose
towould
use
the
acute
exposure
guideline
level
(
AEGL).
AEGL
toxicity
values
are
estimates
of
adverse
health
effects
due
to
a
single
exposure
lasting
8
hours
or
less.
Consensus
toxicity
values
for
effects
of
acute
exposures
have
been
developed
by
several
different
organizations.
EPA,
in
conjunction
with
the
National
Research
Council
and
National
Academy
of
Sciences,
is
in
the
process
of
setting
acute
exposure
guideline
levels.
A
national
advisory
committee
organized
by
EPA
has
developed
AEGLs
for
priority
chemicals
for
10­
minute,
30­
minute,
1­
hour,
4­
hour,
and
8­
hour
airborne
exposures.
They
have
also
determined
for
each
exposure
duration
the
levels
of
these
chemicals
that
will
protect
against
notable
discomfort
(
AEGL­
1),
serious
effects
(
AEGL­
2),
and
life­
threatening
effects
or
death
(
AEGL­
3).
5
To
be
protective
of
public
health,
we
propose
to
use
the
AEGL­
1
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
asymptomatic
nonsensory
effects.
However,
the
effects
are
not
disabling
and
are
transient
and
reversible
upon
cessation
of
exposure.
AEGL
2:
The
airborne
concentration
of
a
substance
above
which
it
is
predicted
that
the
general
population,
including
susceptible
individuals,
could
experience
irreversible
or
other
serious,
long­
lasting
adverse
health
effects
or
an
impaired
ability
to
escape.
AEGL
3:
The
airborne
concentration
of
a
substance
above
which
it
is
predicted
that
the
general
population,
including
susceptible
individuals,
could
experience
life­
threatening
health
effects
or
death.

6
For
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
(
individually),
the
AEGL­
1
values
for
10­
minute,
30­
minute,
1­
hour,
and
8­
hour
exposures
are
the
same.
Therefore,
when
comparing
predicted
ambient
levels
of
exposure
to
the
AEGL­
1
value,
we
believe
it
is
reasonable
to
evaluate
maximum
1­
hour
ground
level
concentrations.

7
See
US
EPA
Glossary
of
Key
Terms
for
National
Air
Toxics
Assessment,
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
atw/
nata/
gloss1.
html.

234
values
to
assess
acute
exposure:
2.7
mg/
m3
(
1.8
ppm)
for
hydrogen
chloride,
and
1.4
mg/
m3
(
0.5
ppm)
for
chlorine
gas.
6
Airborne
concentrations
of
a
substance
above
the
AEGL­
1
could
cause
notable
discomfort,
irritation,
or
certain
asymptomatic
nonsensory
effects
in
the
general
population,
including
susceptible
individuals.
Please
note,
however,
that
airborne
concentrations
below
the
AEGL­
1
could
produce
mild
odor,
taste,
or
other
sensory
irritations.
Effects
above
the
AEGL­
1
(
but
below
the
AEGL­
2)
are
not
disabling
and
are
transient
and
reversible
upon
cessation
of
exposure.
2.
What
Exposures
Would
You
Be
Required
to
Assess?
We
discuss
below
the
following
issues:
(
1)
use
of
the
Hazard
Index
to
assess
exposure
to
both
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas;
(
2)
exposure
to
emissions
of
respiratory
irritant
HAP
other
than
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas;
(
3)
exposure
to
emissions
of
respiratory
irritant
HAP
from
collocated
sources;
(
4)
exposure
to
ambient
background
levels
of
respiratory
irritant
HAP;
and
(
5)
whetherour
conclusion
that
acute
exposure
needs
to
not
be
assessed
ifto
establish
emission
limits
because
the
Hazard
Index
for
chronic
exposure
is
expected
to
be
higher
in
all
situations.
a.
Hazard
Index.
Noncancer
risk
assessments
typically
use
a
metric
called
the
Hazard
Quotient
(
HQ)
to
assess
risks
of
exposures
to
noncarcinogens.
The
HQ
is
the
ratio
of
a
receptor's
potential
exposure
(
or
modeled
concentration)
to
the
health
reference
value
or
threshold
level
(
e.
g.,
RfC
or
AEGL)
for
an
individual
pollutant.
HQ
values
less
than
1.0
indicate
that
exposures
are
below
the
health
reference
value
or
threshold
level
and,
therefore,
that
such
exposures
are
without
appreciable
risk
of
adverse
effects
in
the
exposed
population.
HQ
values
above
1
do
not
necessarily
imply
that
adverse
effects
will
occur,
but
that
the
likelihood
of
such
effects
in
a
given
population
increases
as
HQ
values
exceed
1.0.7
When
the
risk
of
noncancer
effects
from
exposure
to
more
than
one
pollutant
to
the
same
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
235
target
organ
must
be
assessed,
the
effects
are
generally
considered
to
be
additive
and
the
HQ
values
for
each
pollutant
are
summed
to
form
an
analogous
metric
called
the
Hazard
Index
(
HI).
Assuming
additivity,
HI
values
less
than
1.0
indicate
that
exposures
to
the
mixtures
are
likely
to
be
without
appreciable
risk
of
adverse
effects
in
the
exposed
population.
HI
values
above
1.0
do
not
necessarily
imply
that
adverse
effects
from
exposure
to
the
mixture
will
occur,
but
that
the
likelihood
of
such
effects
in
a
given
population
increases
as
HI
values
exceed
1.0.
For
purposes
of
establishing
risk­
based
emission
limits
for
total
chlorine,
we
propose
to
allow
a
maximum
HI
value
of
not
greater
than
1.0.
b.
Exposure
to
Emissions
of
Respiratory
Irritant
HAP
other
than
Hydrogen
Chloride
and
Chlorine
Gas
.
We
have
identified
in
the
table
below
40
HAP
that
are
respiratory
irritants,
including
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas.
See
Table
XX.
Because
these
HAP
affect
the
same
target
exposure
to
these
HAP
must
be
considered
when
determining
that
the
HI
is
less
than
or
equal
to
1.0.

Text
Moved
Here:
1
Respiratory
Irritant
HAP
1,2­
Epoxybutane
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
1,3­
dichloropropene
Hexamethylene
1,6­
diisocyanate
2,4­
Toluene
diisocyanate
Hydrochloric
acid
2­
Chloroacetophenone
Maleic
anhydride
Acetaldehyde
Methyl
bromide
Acrolein
Methyl
isocyanate
Acrylic
acid
Methyl
methacrylate
Acrylonitrile
Methylene
diphenyl
diisocyanate
N­
hexane
Antimony
Naphthalene
Beryllium
Nickel
Bis(
2­
ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Nitrobenzene
Chlorine
Phosgene
Chloroprene
Phthalic
anhydride
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
8
Betty
Willis,
et
al,
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry,
US
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services,
"
Public
Health
Reviews
of
Hazardous
Waste
Thermal
236
Chromium
Propylene
dichloride
Cobalt
Propylene
oxide
Diethanolamine
Styrene
oxide
Epichlorohydrin
Titanium
tetrachloride
Ethylene
glycol
Toluene
Formaldehyde
Triethylamine
Vinyl
acetate
End
Of
Moved
Text
WIn
making
this
determination,
we
would
consider
only
those
respiratory
irritants
that
are
HAP
(
as
opposed
to
also
considering
respiratory
irritants
that
are
criteria
pollutants)
not
only
because
Ssection
112
deals
with
control
of
emissions
of
HAP,
but
also
because
ambient
levels
of
criteria
pollutants
that
target
the
respiratory
with
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
(
e.
g.,
SO
x,
NO
x,,
PM,
ozone)
are
controlled
through
the
applicable
State
Implementation
Plans
demonstrating
compliance
with
the
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
for
these
pollutants.

In
addition
to
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas,
several
of
the
respiratory
irritant
HAP
listed
in
Tthe
table
XXabove
may
be
emitted
by
hazardous
waste
combustors,
including
the
metals
antimony
trioxide,
beryllium,
chromium
(
VI),
cobalt,
and
nickel,
and
the
organic
compounds
Bis(
2­
ethylhexyl)
phthalate,
formaldehyde,
napthalene,
and
toluene.
8
We
do
not
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
Treatment
Technologies:
A
Guidance
Manual
for
Public
Health
Assessors,"
March
2002,
Table
4.

237
believe,
however,
that
these
respiratory
irritant
HAP
would
be
emitted
by
hazardous
waste
combustors
at
levels
that
would
result
in
significant
Hazard
Quotient
values.
Beryllium
and
chromium
would
be
controlled
by
emission
standards
for
low
volatile
metals
and
the
remaining
metal
HAP
would
be
controlled
by
a
particulate
matter
standard.
Emissions
of
the
respiratory
irritant
organic
HAP
would
be
controlled
to
trace
levels
by
the
MACT
standards
for
carbon
monoxide
or
hydrocarbons
and
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE).
Accordingly,
we
propose
to
require
you
to
quantify
and
assess
emissions
from
the
hazardous
waste
combustor
of
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
only;
you
would
not
be
required
to
account
for
these
other
respiratory
irritant
HAP
because
they
would
not
contribute
substantially
to
the
Hazard
Index.

Table
XX
c.
Exposure
to
Emissions
of
Text
Was
Moved
From
Here:
1
d.
Exposure
to
Ambient
Background
Levels
of
Respiratory
Irritant
HAP.
Background
levels
of
respiratory
irritant
HAP
attributable
to
emissions
from
off­
site
sources
would
not
be
considered
when
establishing
risk­
based
limits
for
total
chlorine
under
section
112(
d)(
4).
Rather,
these
background
levels
will
be
addressed
(
as
may
be
necessary)
through
other
CAA
programs
such
as
the
urban
air
toxics
program.
e.
Acute
Exposure
Need
Not
Be
Assessed.
We
have
determined
that
you
need
not
assess
acute
exposure
to
establish
an
emission
limit
for
total
chlorine.
You
would
not
be
required
to
model
maximum
1­
hour
average
off­
site
ground
level
concentrations
to
calculate
a
Hazard
Index
(
HI)
based
on
acute
exposure
for
purposes
of
establishing
an
emission
limit
for
total
chlorine.
We
conclude
that
the
chronic
exposure
Hazard
Index
(
HI)
for
the
hazardous
waste
combustor(
s)
would
always
exceed
the
acute
exposure
HI.
Thus,
the
emission
limit
for
total
chlorine
based
on
chronic
exposure
would
always
be
more
stringent
thatn
the
limit
based
on
acute
exposure.
As
an
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
9
See
Trinity
Consultants,
"
Analysis
of
HCl/|
Cl2
Emissions
from
Cement
Kilns
for
112(
d)(
4)
Consideration
in
the
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,"
September
17,
2003.

10
See
USEPA,
"
Human
Health
and
Ecological
Risk
Assessment
Support
to
the
Development
of
Technical
Standards
for
Emissions
from
Combustion
Units
Burning
Hazardous
Wastes:
Background
Document,"
July
1999.

238
example,
the
Cement
Kiln
Recycling
Coalition
evaluated
both
chronic
and
acute
exposure
to
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
for
the
14
cement
facilities
that
burn
hazardous
waste.
9
In
all
cases,
the
chronic
HI
exceeded
the
acute
HI.
In
addition,
we
determined
that
the
Hazard
Quotient
(
HQ)
for
chronic
exposure
was
always
higher
than
the
HQ
for
acute
exposure
for
the
HAP
we
evaluated
in
the
risk
assessment
we
used
to
support
the
1999
Final
MACT
Rule
for
hazardous
waste
combustors.
10
Not
requiring
an
acute
exposure
analysis
reduces
the
burden
on
both
the
regulated
community
and
regulatory
officials
to
develop
and
review
an
analysis
that
would
be
superseded
by
the
chronic
exposure
analysis
when
establishing
an
emission
limit
for
total
chlorine.
Please
note
that
this
discussion
relates
to
evaluating
acute
exposure
in
establishing
an
emission
limit
for
total
chlorine.
Although
we
conclude
that
the
chronic
exposure
Hazard
Index
would
always
be
higher
than
the
acute
exposure
Hazard
Index,
and
thus
would
be
the
basis
for
the
total
chlorine
emission
rate
limit,
this
relates
to
acute
versus
chronic
exposure
to
a
constant,
maximum
average
(
e.
g.,
a
maximum
annual
average)
emission
rate
of
total
chlorine
from
a
hazardous
waste
combustor.
Acute
exposure
must
be
considered,
however,
when
establishing
operating
requirements
(
e.
g.,
feedrate
limit
for
total
chlorine
and
chloride)
to
ensure
that
shortterm
emissions
do
not
result
in
an
acute
exposure
Hazard
Index
of
1.0
or
greater
even
though
long­
term
(
e.
g.,
annual
average)
emissions
do
not
exceed
the
limit.
See
discussion
in
Section
FG.
1
below.
3.
Does
the
Proposed
Approach
Ensure
an
Ample
Margin
of
Safety?
Section
112(
d)(
4)
allows
EPA
to
develop
risk­
based
standards
for
HAP
"
for
which
a
health
threshold
has
been
established",
and
the
resulting
standard
is
to
provide
an
"
ample
margin
of
safety."
The
"
ample
margin
of
safety"
standard,
at
least
as
applied
to
nonthreshold
pollutants,
typically
connotes
a
two­
step
process
(
based
on
the
standard
first
announced
in
the
so­
called
Vinyl
Chloride
decision
(
NRDC
v.
EPA,
824
F.
2d
at
1146
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1987)),
whereby
EPA
"
first
[
determines]
...
a
`
safe'
or
`
acceptable'
level
of
risk
considering
only
health
factors,
followed
by
a
second
step
to
set
a
standard
that
provides
an
`
ample
margin
of
safety',
in
which
costs,
feasibility,
and
other
relevant
factors
in
addition
to
health
may
be
considered."
54
FR
at
38045.
It
is
not
clear
that
Congress
intended
this
analysis
to
apply
to
Section
112(
d)(
4)
standards,
since
the
principal
legislative
history
to
the
provision
indicates
that
costs
are
not
to
be
considered
in
setting
standards
under
Section
112(
d)(
4)
(
S.
Rep.
228
at
173),
whereas
cost
normally
is
a
relevant
consideration
in
the
second
part
of
the
ample
margin
of
safety
process,
as
described
above.
Further,
if
issues
of
feasibility,
cost,
and
other
non­
health
factors
are
to
be
taken
into
account
in
establishing
Section
112(
d)(
4)
standards,
it
would
be
exceedingly
difficult,
if
not
practically
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
11
Indeed,
using
the
classic
two­
step
approach
to
"
ample
margin
of
safety"
could
result
in
the
same
standards
we
are
proposing
as
MACT
for
HCl
and
Cl
2
for
all
of
the
affected
source
categories
(
if
one
assumes
that
all
of
the
standards
would
be
below
protective
risk­
based
levels
for
all
sources),
since
we
believe
that
the
proposed
technology­
based
standards
would
be
justifiable
based
on
considerations
of
technical
feasibility
and
cost,
and
so
would
provide
a
reasonable
margin
of
safety
beyond
the
risk­
based
level
considered
protective.

239
impossible,
to
do
so
on
a
site­
specific
basis,
undermining
the
approach
we
are
proposing
here.
Nor
is
it
clear
that
the
two­
step
approach
is
necessarily
warranted
when
considering
threshold
pollutants,
since
there
is
greater
certainty
regarding
levels
at
which
adverse
health
effects
occur.
See
Vinyl
Chloride,
824
F.
2d
at
1165
n.
11.11
We
specifically
request
comment
on
how
to
ensure
that
the
emission
limits
calculated
using
the
health
threshold
values
(
e.
g.,
RfCs
and
AEGL­
1
values),
and
after
considering
collocated
sources
of
emissions
of
respiratory
irritant
HAP
from
collocated
hazardous
waste
combustors,
achieve
an
ample
margin
of
safety.
4.

5.
How
Are
Effects
on
Terrestrial
Animals
Addressed?
We
believe
the
RfC
values
for
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
should
be
generally
protective
for
chronic
effects
in
most,
if
not
all,
fauna.
We
note
that
the
RfC
values
are
based
on
animal
studies.
Although
the
AEGL­
1
values
for
acute
exposure
are
based
on
human
data,
we
nonetheless
expect
that
they
too
would
be
generally
protective
of
most
fauna,
absent
information
to
the
contrary.
65.
How
Are
Effects
on
Plants
Addressed?
EPA
has
not
established
ecotoxicity
values
that
are
protective
of
vegetation.
Nonetheless,
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
12
EPA
published
the
final
rule
at
69
FR
394,
January
5,
2004.

240
for
the
reasons
discussed
below
we
do
not
believe
that
ambient
concentrations
of
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
that
meet
the
human
health
threshold
values
discussed
above
will
pose
adverse
effects
on
plants.
As
discussed
in
the
preamble
to
the
Lime
Manufacturing
NESHAP
proposed
rule
(
67
FR
78056)
12,
chronic
exposure
to
about
600
µ
g/
m3
can
be
expected
to
result
in
discernible
effects,
depending
on
the
plant
species.
Effects
of
acute,
20­
minute
exposures
of
6,500
to
27,000
g/
m3
include
leaf
injury
and
decrease
in
chlorophyll
levels
in
various
species.
The
hydrogen
chloride
RfC
of
20
µ
g/
m3
is
well
below
the
600
µ
g/
m3
effect
level,
and
the
AEGL­
1
value
for
hydrogen
chloride
of
2,700
µ
g/
m3
is
far
below
the
6500
µ
g/
m3
acute
effect
level.
Therefore,
no
adverse
exposure
effects
are
anticipated.
We
specifically
request
additional
information
on
ecotoxicity
for
both
acute
and
chronic
exposure
of
vegetation
to
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas.
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
241
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
13
Rather
than
establishing
emission
rate
limits
for
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas,
or
for
total
chlorine,
for
each
combustor,
you
would
actually
establish
an
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
for
each
combustor,
as
discussed
below
in
the
text.

242
C.
How
Would
You
Determine
if
Your
Total
Chlorine
Emission
Rate
Meets
the
Eligibility
Requirements
Defined
by
the
National
Exposure
Standards?
Under
the
risk­
based
approach
to
establish
an
alternative
to
the
MACT
standard
for
your
total
chlorine
emission
limit,
you
would
have
to
demonstrate
that
emissions
of
total
chlorine
from
on­
site
hazardous
waste
combustors
result
in
exposure
to
the
actual
most­
exposed
individual
residing
off
site
of
a
Hazard
Index
of
less
than
or
equal
to
1.0.
(
Put
another
way,
we
are
proposing
to
establish
this
level
of
risk
as
the
national
emission
limitation,
with
the
rule
further
establishing
the
mechanisms
by
which
this
demonstration
can
be
made,
such
demonstrations
yielding
a
site­
specific
limit
for
total
chlorine.)
13
The
rule
would
also
establish
two
ways
by
which
you
could
make
this
demonstration:
by
a
look­
up
table
analysis
or
by
a
site­
specific
compliance
demonstration
(
as
explained
below).
The
look­
up
table
is
much
simpler
to
use,
but
establishes
emission
rates
that
are
quite
conservative
because
there
are
few
site­
specific
parameters
considered
and
therefore
the
model's
default
assumptions
are
conservative.
If
you
elect
not
to
comply
with
those
conservative
emission
rates,
you
may
perform
a
site­
specific
compliance
demonstration.
The
look­
up
table
identifies
the
total
chlorine
emission
limit
in
terms
of
a
toxicity­
weighted
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate.
Under
the
site­
specific
compliance
demonstration
alternative,
the
total
chlorine
limit
would
also
be
expressed
as
a
toxicity
weighted
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
even
though
you
would
model
emissions
of
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
from
each
on­
site
hazardous
waste
combustor.
We
define
the
toxicity­
weighted
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
below..
1.
Toxicity­
Weighted
HCl­
Equivalent
Emission
Rates
Although
the
MACT
emission
standards
for
total
chlorine
are
expressed
as
a
stack
gas
emission
concentration­­
ppmv­­
we
must
use
an
emission
rate
(
e.
g.,
lb/
hr)
format
for
risk­
based
standards.
This
is
because
health
and
environmental
risk
is
related
to
the
mass
rate
of
emissions
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
14
HCl
production
furnaces
are
not
eligible
for
the
risk­
based
total
chlorine
emission
limits
because
we
are
proposing
that
the
MACT
standard
for
total
chlorine
would
be
used
as
a
surrogate
to
control
metal
HAP.
Nonetheless,
if
you
operate
an
HCl
production
furnace
at
a
facility
where
you
would
establish
risk­
based
emission
limits
for
total
chlorine
for
other
hazardous
waste
combustors,
you
would
account
for
total
chlorine
emissions
from
the
HCl
production
243
over
time.
In
addition,
we
propose
to
use
a
toxicity­
weighted
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
(
HClequivalents
as
the
metric
for
the
combined
emissions
of
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas.
The
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
considers
the
RfCs
of
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
when
calculating
the
combined
emission
rate
according
to
this
equation:

ER
tw
=

(
ER
i
x
(
RfCHCl/
RfCi))
where:
ER
tw
is
the
HC1­
equivalent
emission
rate,
lb/
hr
ER
i
is
the
emission
rate
of
HAP
i
in
lbs/
hr
RfC
i
is
the
reference
concentration
of
HAP
i
RfC
HCl
is
the
reference
concentration
of
HCl
Expressing
the
risk­
based
emission
limit
as
HCl­
equivalents
enables
you
to
use
the
equation
to
apportion
the
emission
rate
limit
between
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
as
you
choose.
Thus,
you
need
to
be
concerned
with
ensuring
compliance
with
the
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
only,
rather
than
with
emission
rates
for
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
individually.
Under
the
look­
up
table
analysis
discussed
below,
you
would
use
the
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
emission
rates
you
choose
for
each
on­
site
hazardous
waste
combustor
to
calculate
the
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
for
the
combustor.
You
would
sum
the
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rates
for
your
hazardous
waste
combustors.
If
you
elect
to
use
the
site­
specific
compliance
demonstration
to
document
eligibility,
you
would
model
emission
rates
of
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
that
you
choose
for
each
on­
site
hazardous
waste
combustor
to
document
that
the
facility
Hazard
Index
is
less
than
or
equal
to
1.0.
You
would
then
use
the
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
emission
rates
you
model
to
establish
an
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
for
each
combustor.
2.
How
Would
You
Conduct
a
Look­
Up
Table
Analysis?
You
would
sum
the
HCl­
equivalent
rates
for
all
combustors,
and
compare
the
sum
to
the
appropriate
allowable
emission
rate
in
Table
XX1
of
Subpart
EEEproposed
§
63.1215.
Emission
rates
are
provided
as
a
function
of
stack
height
and
distance
to
the
nearest
property
boundary.
If
you
have
more
than
one
hazardous
waste
combustor
at
your
facility,
you
would
use
the
average
value
for
stack
height
(
i.
e.,
the
averaged
stack
heights
of
the
different
hazardous
waste
combustors
at
your
facility),
and
the
minimum
distance
between
any
hazardous
waste
combustor
stack
and
the
property
boundary.
14
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
furnace
in
your
risk­
based
eligibility
demonstration
for
the
other
combustors.
If,
for
example,
you
use
the
look­
up
table
to
demonstrate
eligibility,
you
would
include
the
stack
height
of
the
HCl
production
furnace
in
the
calculation
of
average
stack
height
for
your
combustors,
and
you
would
consider
whether
the
HCl
production
furnace
stack
is
the
closest
hazardous
waste
combustor
stack
to
the
property
boundary.

244
If
one
or
both
of
these
values
for
stack
height
and
distance
to
nearest
property
boundary
do
not
match
the
exact
values
in
the
look­
up
table,
you
would
use
the
next
lowest
table
value.
This
would
ensure
that
the
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limits
are
protective.
You
would
not
be
eligible
for
the
look­
up
table
analysis
if
your
facility
is
located
in
complex
terrain
because
the
plume
dispersion
models
used
to
calculate
the
emission
rates
are
not
applicable
to
sources
in
complex
terrain.
You
would
be
eligible
to
comply
with
the
risk­
based
alternative
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limits
you
calculate
for
each
combustor
if
the
facility
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
(
i.
e.,
the
sum
of
the
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rates
for
all
hazardous
waste
combustors)
does
not
exceed
the
appropriate
value
specified
in
the
look­
up
table.
Please
note,
however,
that
we
also
propose
to
cap
the
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limits
for
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
at
a
level
that
ensures
that
the
current
total
chlorine
emission
standards
are
not
exceeded.
See
discussion
below
in
Section
D.
Please
note
that
the
emission
rates
provided
in
Table
XX1
are
different
from
those
provided
for
industrial
boilers
in
the
Industrial
Boiler
and
Process
Heater
MACT
rule
recently
promulgated.
This
is
because
the
key
parameters
used
by
the
SCREEN3
atmospheric
dispersion
model
to
predict
the
normalized
air
concentrations
that
EPA
used
to
establish
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rates
as
a
function
of
stack
height
and
distance
to
property
boundary
for
industrial
boilers­­
stack
diameter,
stack
exit
gas
velocity,
and
stack
exit
gas
temperature­­
are
substantially
different
for
hazardous
waste
burning
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
Thus,
the
maximum
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rates
for
hazardous
waste
combustors
would
generally
be
lower
than
those
EPA
established
for
industrial
boilers.
To
ensure
that
the
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limits
in
a
look­
up
table
analysis
for
hazardous
waste
combustors
would
not
result
in
a
Hazard
Index
of
more
than
1.0,
we
propose
to
establish
limits
based
on
the
maximum
annual
average
normalized
air
concentrations
in
US
EPA,
"
A
Tiered
Modeling
Approach
for
Assessing
the
Risk
Due
to
Sources
of
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants,"
March
1992,
Table
1.
Those
normalized
air
concentrations
are
based
on
conservative
simulations
of
toxic
pollutant
sources
with
Gaussian
plume
dispersion
models.
The
simulations
are
conservative
regarding
factors
such
as
meteorology,
building
downwash,
plume
rise,
etc.
We
specifically
request
comment
on
whether
the
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rates
in
Table
XX1
are
too
conservative
and
thus
have
limited
utility
because
they
apply
to
all
hazardous
waste
combustors
generically.
Alternatively,
we
could
establish
less
conservative
emission
rates
in
lookup
tables
specific
to
various
classes
of
hazardous
waste
combustors
(
e.
g.,
cement
kilns,
incinerators)
that
have
similar
stack
properties
that
affect
predicted
emissions.
We
request
comment
on
whether
industry
stakeholders
would
be
likely
to
use
the
proposed
look­
up
table
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
15
When
calculating
Hazard
Index
values,
the
final
HI
value
should
be
rounded
to
one
decimal
place
given
the
uncertainties
in
the
analyses.
For
example,
an
HI
calculated
to
be
0.94
would
be
presented
as
0.9,
while
an
HI
calculated
to
be
0.96
would
be
presented
as
1.0
(
which
would
pass
the
eligibility
demonstration).
Intermediate
calculations
should
use
as
many
significant
figures
as
appropriate.

245
eligibility
demonstration
or
revised
look­
up
tables
tailored
to
specific
classes
of
hazardous
waste
combustors,
in
lieu
of
the
site­
specific
compliance
eligibility
demonstration.
3.
How
Would
You
Conduct
a
Site­
Specific
Compliance
Demonstration?
If
you
fail
to
demonstrate
that
your
facility
is
able
to
comply
with
the
alternative
riskbased
emission
limit
using
the
look­
up
table
approach,
you
may
choose
to
perform
a
site­
specific
compliance
demonstration.
We
are
proposing
that
you
may
use
any
scientifically­
accepted
peerreviewed
risk
assessment
methodology
for
your
site­
specific
compliance
demonstration.
An
example
of
one
approach
for
performing
the
demonstration
for
air
toxics
can
be
found
in
the
EPA's
"
Air
Toxics
Risk
Assessment
Reference
Library,
Volume
2,
Site­
Specific
Risk
Assessment
Technical
Resource
Document,",
which
may
be
obtained
through
the
EPA's
Air
Toxics
Website
at
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
atw.
Your
facility
would
be
eligible
for
the
alternative
risk­
based
total
chlorine
emission
limit
if
your
site­
specific
compliance
demonstration
shows
that
the
maximum
Hazard
Index
for
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
emissions
from
all
on­
site
hazardous
waste
combustors
at
a
location
where
people
live
(
i.
e.,
the
maximum
actual
most
exposed
individual)
is
less
than
or
equal
to
1.0,
rounded
to
the
nearest
tenths
decimal
place
(
0.1).
15
You
would
estimate
long­
term
inhalation
exposures
for
this
individual
most
exposed
to
the
facility's
emissions
through
the
estimation
of
annual
or
multi­
year
average
ambient
concentrations.
You
would
use
site­
specific,
qualityassured
data
wherever
possible,
and
health­
protective
default
assumptions
wherever
site­
specific
data
are
not
available.
You
would
document
the
data
and
methods
used
for
the
assessment
so
that
it
is
transparent
and
can
be
reproduced
by
an
experienced
risk
assessor
and
emissions
measurement
expert.
Your
site­
specific
compliance
demonstration
need
not
assume
any
attenuation
of
exposure
concentrations
due
to
the
penetration
of
outdoor
pollutants
into
indoor
exposure
areas.
In
addition,
we
are
proposing
that
the
demonstration
need
not
assume
any
reaction
or
deposition
of
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
from
the
emission
point
to
the
point
of
exposure.
In
particular,
you
would
assume
that
chlorine
gas
is
not
photolyzed
to
hydrogen
chloride,
as
discussed
in
Section
B.
1
above.
If
your
site­
specific
compliance
demonstration
documents
that
the
maximum
Hazard
Index
from
your
hazardous
waste
combustors
is
less
than
or
equal
to
1.0,
you
would
establish
a
maximum
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
for
each
combustor
using
the
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
emission
rates
you
modeled
in
the
site­
specific
compliance
demonstration.
Please
note,
however,
that
we
also
propose
to
cap
the
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limits
for
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
at
a
level
that
ensures
that
the
current
total
chlorine
emission
standards
are
not
exceeded.
See
discussion
below
in
Section
D.
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
246
D.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
Caps
on
the
Risk­
Based
Emission
Limits?
The
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limits
would
be
capped
for
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
at
a
level
that
ensures
total
chlorine
emissions
do
not
exceed
the
interim
standards
provided
by
§
§
63.1203,
63.1204,
and
63.1205.
These
caps
on
the
risk­
based
emission
limits
would
ensure
that
emission
levels
do
not
increase
above
the
emission
levels
that
sources
are
currently
required
to
achieve,
thus
precluding
"
back­
sliding."
Given
the
discretionary
nature
of
section
112
(
d)
(
4),
and
the
general
purpose
of
the
section
112
(
d)
standard­
setting
process
to
lock­
in
performance
of
current
emission
control
technology,
we
think
it
appropriate
to
invoke
the
provision
in
a
manner
that
does
not
result
in
emission
increases
over
current
regulatory
levels.
We
considered
whether
to
propose
emission
caps
for
boilers
at
the
levels
allowed
by
the
RCRA
emission
standards
under
§
266.107
but
conclude
that
this
would
be
inappropriate.
This
is
because
the
RCRA
emission
standards
are
also
risk­
based
standards
but
are
based
on
risk
criteria
that
we
considered
appropriate
in
1987
when
we
proposed
those
rules.
The
risk
criteria
we
propose
today
are
substantially
different
from
those
used
to
implement
§
266.107.
For
example,
the
RfC
for
hydrogen
chloride
is
higher
now
while
the
RfC
for
chlorine
gas
is
lower.
In
addition,
we
considered
a
Hazard
Index
of
0.25
acceptable
under
the
RCRA
rule,
while
we
propose
today
a
Hazard
Index
limit
of
less
than
or
equal
to
1.0.
Because
the
risk
criteria
for
the
current
RCRA
rules
are
substantially
different
from
the
risk
criteria
we
propose
today
for
invoking
Section
112(
d)(
4),
we
do
not
believe
it
is
appropriate
to
use
the
RCRA
standards
as
a
cap
for
establishing
risk­
based
standards
under
Section
112(
d)(
4).
Capping
risk­
based
emission
limits
for
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
at
an
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
corresponding
to
the
MACT
interim
standards
would
not
increase
compliance
costs
(
by
definition).
Thus,
the
cap
would
help
ensure
that
emissions
are
protective
of
public
health
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety,
and
that
there
are
no
significant
adverse
environmental
impacts.
To
implement
the
cap,
you
would
ensure
that
the
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
emission
rates
you
use
to
calculate
the
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
for
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
would
not
result
in
total
chlorine
emission
concentrations
exceeding
the
standards
provided
by
§
§
63.1203,
63.1204,
and
63.1205.
E.
What
Would
Your
Risk­
Based
Eligibility
Demonstration
Contain?
To
enable
regulatory
officials
to
review
and
approve
the
results
of
your
risk­
based
demonstration,
you
would
include
the
following
information,
at
a
minimum:
(
1)
identification
of
each
hazardous
waste
combustor
combustion
gas
emission
point
(
e.
g.,
generally,
the
flue
gas
stack);
(
2)
the
maximum
capacity
at
which
each
combustor
will
operate,
and
the
maximum
rated
capacity
for
each
combustor,
using
the
metric
of
stack
gas
volume
emitted
per
unit
of
time,
as
well
as
any
other
metric
that
is
appropriate
for
the
combustor
(
e.
g.,
million
Btu/
hr
heat
input
for
boilers;
tons
of
dry
raw
material
feed/
hour
for
cement
kilns);
(
3)
stack
parameters
for
each
combustor,
including,
but
not
limited
to
stack
height,
stack
area,
stack
gas
temperature,
and
stack
gas
exit
velocity;
(
4)
plot
plan
showing
all
stack
emission
points,
nearby
residences,
and
property
boundary
line;
(
5)
identification
of
any
stack
gas
control
devices
used
to
reduce
emissions
from
each
combustor;
(
6)
identification
of
the
RfC
values
used
to
calculate
the
HCl­
equivalent
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
16
Since
the
Title
V
permitting
authority
is
delegated
to
States
in
virtually
all
instances,
the
permit
limit
would
thus
be
issued
as
a
matter
of
State
authority
(
generally
in
parallel
with
a
delegation
of
Section
112
authority
pursuant
to
CAA
Section
112(
l)),
and
be
reviewable
only
in
State
courts.

247
emissions
rate;
(
7)
calculations
used
to
determine
the
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
as
prescribed
above;
(
8)
for
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
calculations
used
to
determine
that
the
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
for
each
combustor
does
not
exceed
the
standards
for
total
chlorine
at
§
§
63.1203,
63.1204,
and
63.1205;
and
(
9)
the
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
for
each
hazardous
waste
combustor
that
you
will
certify
in
the
Documentation
of
Compliance
required
under
§
63.1211(
d)
that
you
will
not
exceed,
and
the
limits
on
the
operating
parameters
specified
under
§
63.1209(
o)
that
you
will
establish
in
the
Documentation
of
Compliance.
If
you
use
the
look­
up
table
analysis
to
demonstrate
that
your
facility
is
eligible
for
the
risk­
based
alternative
for
the
total
chlorine
emission
limit,
your
eligibility
demonstration
would
also
contain,
at
a
minimum,
the
following:
(
1)
calculations
used
to
determine
the
average
stack
height
of
on­
site
hazardous
waste
combustors;
(
2)
identification
of
the
combustor
stack
with
the
minimum
distance
to
the
property
boundary
of
the
facility;
(
3)
comparison
of
the
values
in
the
look­
up
table
to
your
maximum
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate.
If
you
use
a
site­
specific
compliance
demonstration
to
demonstrate
that
your
facility
is
eligible
for
the
risk­
based
alternative
for
the
total
chlorine
emission
limit,
your
eligibility
demonstration
would
also
contain,
at
a
minimum,
the
following:
(
1)
identification
of
the
risk
assessment
methodology
used;
(
2)
documentation
of
the
fate
and
transport
model
used;
and
(
3)
documentation
of
the
fate
and
transport
model
inputs,
including
the
stack
parameters
listed
above
converted
to
the
dimensions
required
for
the
model.
In
addition,
you
would
include
all
of
the
following
that
apply:
(
1)
meteorological
data;
(
2)
building,
land
use,
and
terrain
data;
(
3)
receptor
locations
and
population
data;
and
(
4)
other
facility­
specific
parameters
input
into
the
model.
Your
demonstration
would
also
include:
(
1)
documentation
of
the
fate
and
transport
model
outputs;
(
2)
documentation
of
any
exposure
assessment
and
risk
characterization
calculations;
and
(
3)
documentation
of
the
predicted
Hazard
Index
for
HCl­
equivalents
and
comparison
to
the
limit
of
less
than
or
equal
to
1.0.
F.
When
Would
You
Complete
and
Submit
Your
Eligibility
Demonstration
You
would
be
required
to
submit
your
eligibility
demonstration
to
the
permitting
authority
for
review
and
approval.
16
In
addition
you
would
submit
an
electronic
copy
of
the
demonstration
to
REAG@
EPA.
GOV
(
preferably)
or
a
hard
copy
to:
U.
S.
EPA,
Risk
and
Exposure
Assessment
Group,
Emission
Standards
Division
(
C404­
01),
Attn:
Group
Leader,
Research
Triangle
Park,
North
Carolina
27711.
Requiring
prior
approval
of
these
eligibility
demonstrations
is
warranted
because
hazardous
waste
combustor
may
feed
chlorine
at
high
feedrates
which
may
result
in
emissions
of
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
that
approach
or
exceed
the
RfCs
(
i.
e.,
absent
compliance
with
either
the
MACT
standards
or
the
section
112(
d)(
4)
risk­
based
standards).
Thus,
prior
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
17
Please
note
that,
if
your
eligibility
demonstration
is
not
approved
prior
to
the
compliance
date,
a
request
to
extend
the
compliance
date
to
enable
you
to
undertake
measures
to
comply
with
the
MACT
standards
for
total
chlorine
will
not
be
approved
unless
you
made
a
good
faith
effort
to
submit
a
complete,
accurate,
and
timely
eligibility
demonstration
and
to
respond
to
concerns
raised
by
the
permitting
authority
or
U.
S.
EPA.

248
approval
of
alternative
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limits
is
warranted
to
ensure
that
emissions
are
protective
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety.
1.
Existing
Sources
If
you
operate
an
existing
source,
you
must
be
in
compliance
with
the
emission
standards
on
the
compliance
date.
Consequently,
if
you
elect
to
comply
with
the
alternative
risk­
based
emission
rate
limit
for
total
chlorine,
you
must
have
completed
the
eligibility
demonstration
and
received
approval
from
your
delegated
permitting
authority
by
the
compliance
date.
You
would
submit
documentation
supporting
your
eligibility
demonstration
not
later
than
12
months
prior
to
the
compliance
date.
Your
permitting
officials
will
notify
you
of
approval
or
intent
to
disapprove
your
eligibility
demonstration
within
6
months
after
receipt
of
the
original
demonstration,
and
within
3
months
after
receipt
of
any
supplemental
information
that
you
submit.
A
notice
of
intent
to
disapprove
your
eligibility
demonstration
will
identify
incomplete
or
inaccurate
information
or
noncompliance
with
prescribed
procedures
and
specify
how
much
time
you
will
have
to
submit
additional
information.
If
your
permitting
authority
has
not
approved
your
eligibility
demonstration
to
comply
with
a
risk­
based
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate(
s)
by
the
compliance
date,
you
must
comply
with
the
MACT
emission
standards
for
total
chlorine
gas
under
§
§
63.1203A,
63.1204(
A),
63.1205A,
63.1216,
and
63.1217.17
2.
New
Sources
If
you
operate
a
source
that
is
not
an
existing
source
and
that
becomes
subject
to
Subpart
EEE,
you
must
comply
with
the
MACT
emission
standards
for
total
chlorine
unless
and
until
your
eligibility
demonstration
has
been
approved
by
the
permitting
authority.
If
you
operate
a
new
or
reconstructed
source
that
starts
up
before
the
effective
date
of
the
emission
standards
proposed
today,
or
a
solid
fuel­
fired
boiler
or
liquid
fuel­
fired
boiler
that
is
an
area
source
that
increases
its
emissions
or
its
potential
to
emit
such
that
it
becomes
a
major
source
of
HAP
before
the
effective
date
of
the
emission
standards
proposed
today
(
and
thus
becomes
subject
to
emission
standards
applicable
to
major
sources,
including
the
standard
for
total
chlorine),
you
would
be
required
to
comply
with
the
emission
standards
under
§
§
63.1216
and
63.1217
until
your
eligibility
demonstration
is
completed,
submitted,
and
approved
by
your
permitting
authority.
If
you
operate
a
new
or
reconstructed
source
that
starts
up
after
the
effective
date
of
the
emission
standards
proposed
today,
or
a
solid
fuel­
fired
boiler
or
liquid
fuel­
fired
boiler
that
is
an
area
source
that
increases
its
emissions
or
its
potential
to
emit
such
that
it
becomes
a
major
source
of
HAP
after
the
effective
date
of
the
emission
standards
proposed
today
(
and
thus
becomes
subject
to
emission
standards
applicable
to
major
sources
including
the
standard
for
total
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
249
chlorine),
you
would
be
required
to
comply
with
the
emission
standards
under
§
§
63.1216
and
63.1217
until
your
eligibility
demonstration
is
completed,
submitted,
and
approved
by
your
permitting
authority.
FG.
How
Would
the
Risk­
Based
HCl­
Equivalent
Emission
Rate
Limit
Be
Implemented?
Upon
approval
by
the
permitting
authority
of
your
eligibility
demonstration,
the
HClequivalent
emission
rate
limit
established
in
the
demonstration
for
your
hazardous
waste
combustor(
s)
becomes
the
applicable
emission
limit
for
total
chlorine
in
lieu
of
the
MACT
standard
for
total
chlorine.
1.
What
Are
the
Testing
and
Monitoring
Requirements?
To
ensure
compliance
with
the
alternative
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
for
your
combustor(
s),
you
would
conduct
performance
testing
as
required
for
the
MACT
standards
and
establish
limits
on
the
same
operating
parameters
that
apply
to
sources
complying
with
the
MACT
standards
for
total
chlorine
under
§
63.1209(
o).
You
would
establish
and
comply
with
these
operating
parameter
limits
just
as
you
would
establish
and
comply
with
the
limits
for
the
MACT
emission
standard
for
total
chlorine,
with
the
exception
of
the
chlorine
feedrate
limit,
as
discussed
below.
For
example,
existing
sources
would
establish
these
limits
in
the
Documentation
of
Compliance
required
under
§
63.1211(
c)
and
begin
complying
with
them
not
later
than
the
compliance
date.
Existing
sources
would
also
revise
the
operating
limits
as
necessary
based
on
the
initial
comprehensive
performance
test
and
begin
complying
with
the
revised
operating
limits
not
later
than
when
the
Notification
of
Compliance
is
postmarked,
as
required
under
§
§
63.1207(
j)
and
63.1210(
b).
The
limit
on
chlorine
feedrate
required
under
§
63.1209(
o)(
1)
would
be
established
differently
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
rather
than
the
total
chlorine
emission
standard.
To
ensure
that
facility­
wide
hazardous
waste
combustor
emissions
of
HCl­
equivalents
result
in
exposures
equivalent
to
a
Hazard
Index
of
less
than
or
equal
to
1.0,
the
feedrate
limit
for
chlorine
would
be
established
as
the
average
of
the
test
run
averages
and
the
averaging
period
for
compliance
would
be
one
year.
A
yearly
rolling
average
is
appropriate
for
risk­
based
emission
limits
rather
than
the
12­
hour
rolling
average
applicable
to
the
MACT
standards
because
the
risk­
based
emission
limit
is
based
on
chronic
exposure.
As
discussed
in
Section
B.
2.
e
above,
although
we
conclude
that
the
chronic
exposure
Hazard
Index
would
always
be
higher
and
thus
be
the
basis
for
the
total
chlorine
emission
rate
limit,
we
still
must
be
concerned
about
acute
exposure
attributable
to
short­
term
emission
rates
higher
than
the
maximum
average
emission
rate
limit.
For
example,
the
annual
average
limit
on
chlorine
(
i.
e.,
total
chlorine
and
chloride)
feedrate
would
allow
a
source
to
feed
very
high
levels
of
chlorine
for
short
periods
of
time,
potentially
resulting
in
exceedances
of
the
acute
exposure
Hazard
Index
based
the
AEGL­
1
values
for
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas.
We
specifically
request
comment
on
how
a
short­
term
limit
on
chlorine
feedrate
could
be
established
for
each
hazardous
waste
combustor
to
ensure
that
the
acute
exposure
Hazard
Index
is
less
than
or
equal
to
1.0.
One
approach
would
be
for
you
to
extrapolate
from
the
chlorine
feedrate
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
to
the
feedrate
projected
to
achieve
emission
rates
of
hydrogen
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
18
We
also
request
comment
on
whether
extrapolation
of
the
chlorine
feedrate
should
be
allowed
to
100%
of
the
Hazard
Index
limit
of
1.0,
or
whether
a
more
conservative
approach
of
limited
extrapolation
to
a
fraction
of
the
Hazard
Index
(
e.
g.,
0.8)
would
be
warranted,
given
the
uncertainties
inherent
in
projecting
emissions
from
extrapolated
feedrates.

19
We
request
comment
on
whether
the
system
removal
efficiency
a
cement
kiln
demonstrates
during
a
performance
test
because
of
the
alkalinity
of
the
raw
material
is
reasonably
indicative
of
the
system
removal
efficiency
it
routinely
achieves
(
i.
e.,
is
the
system
removal
efficiency
reasonably
reproducible).

20
We
would
use
the
normalized
maximum
1­
hour
average
concentrations
in
US
EPA,
"
A
Tiered
Modeling
Approach
for
Assessing
the
Risk
Due
to
Sources
of
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants,"
March
1992,
Table
2.

250
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
that
result
in
an
acute
exposure
Hazard
Index
of
1.0.18
This
feedrate
would
be
a
1­
hour
average
feedrate
limit.
This
approach
uses
the
reasonable
assumption
that
there
is
a
proportional
relationship
between
chlorine
feedrate
and
the
emission
rate
of
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas.
To
extrapolate
feedrates,
you
would
consider
the
system
removal
efficiency
achieved
during
the
performance
test
for
sources
equipped
with
wet
or
dry
acid
gas
scrubbers
and
for
cement
kilns.
19
Other
sources
would
assume
a
zero
system
removal
efficiency
because
any
removal
efficiency
that
may
be
measured
would
be
incidental
and
not
reproducible.
The
approach
discussed
above
would
be
applicable
if
you
use
the
site­
specific
compliance
eligibility
demonstration.
If
you
use
the
look­
up
table
for
your
eligibility
demonstration,
an
alternative
approach
would
be
needed
to
establish
a
short­
term
chlorine
feedrate
limit.
One
approach
would
be
to
establish
a
look­
up
table
for
maximum
1­
hour
average
HCl­
equivalents
based
on
acute
exposure.
Acute
exposure
HCl­
equivalents
would
be
calculated
using
the
AEGL­
1
values
for
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas,
and
the
look­
up
table
of
acute
exposure
maximum
emission
rate
limits
would
be
based
on
normalized
air
concentrations
for
maximum
1­
hour
average
ground
level
concentrations.
20
You
would
extrapolate
the
chlorine
feedrate
from
the
level
achieved
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
to
a
level
that
would
not
exceed
the
acute
exposure
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
for
each
combustor
provided
in
the
look­
up
table.
This
feedrate
would
be
a
1­
hour
average
feedrate
limit.
We
specifically
request
comment
on
these
approaches
to
establish
a
short­
term
limit
on
the
feedrate
of
total
chlorine
and
chloride
to
ensure
that
the
acute
exposure
Hazard
Index
for
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
is
less
than
or
equal
to
1.0.
2.
What
Test
Methods
Would
You
Use?
Although
you
would
comply
with
the
MACT
standard
for
total
chlorine
using
stack
Method
26/
26A,
certain
sources
would
not
be
allowed
to
use
that
method
to
demonstrate
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
21
Even
though
Method
26/
26A
may
bias
total
chlorine
emission
measurements
low
for
cement
kilns
for
reasons
discussed
in
the
text,
it
is
appropriate
to
allow
compliance
with
the
technology­
based
MACT
emission
standards
for
total
chlorine
using
that
method.
Because
the
MACT
standards
are
developed
using
data
obtained
using
Method
26/
26A,
allowing
that
method
for
compliance
will
achieve
reductions
in
total
chlorine
emissions.
For
the
same
reason,
it
would
be
inappropriate
to
require
compliance
with
unbiased
methods
because
the
average
of
the
best
performing
sources
might
not
be
able
to
achieve
the
standard.

22
USEPA,
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards
and
Technologies,"
March
2004.

251
compliance
with
the
risk­
based
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit.
21
Cement
kilns
and
sources
equipped
with
a
dry
acid
gas
scrubber
should
use
EPA
Method
320/
321
or
ASTM
D
6735­
01
to
measure
hydrogen
chloride,
and
the
back­
half
(
caustic
impingers)
of
Method
26/
26A
to
measure
chlorine
gas.
Incinerators,
boilers,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
should
use
EPA
Method
320/
321
or
ASTM
D
6735­
01
to
measure
hydrogen
chloride,
and
Method
26/
26A
to
measure
total
chlorine,
and
calculate
chlorine
gas
by
difference
if:
(
1)
the
bromine/
chlorine
ratio
in
feedstreams
is
greater
than
5
percent;
or
(
2)
the
sulfur/
chlorine
ratio
in
feedstreams
is
greater
than
50
percent.
a.
Method
26/
26A
Has
a
Low
Bias
for
Hydrogen
Chloride
in
Certain
Situations.
Method
26/
26A
has
a
low
bias
for
hydrogen
chloride
for
sources
that
emit
particulate
matter
than
can
adsorb
hydrogen
chloride:
cement
kilns
and
sources
equipped
with
a
dry
acid
gas
scrubber.
Particulate
matter
caught
by
the
Method
26/
26A
filter
scrubs
hydrogen
chloride
from
the
sample
gas,
and
can
result
in
measurements
that
are
biased
low
by
2
to
30
times.
22
Chlorine
gas
is
not
adsorbed
so
that
chlorine
gas
emissions
are
not
biased
by
this
mechanism.
b.
Method
26/
26A
Can
Have
a
Low
Bias
for
Chlorine
Gas
and
a
High
Bias
for
Hydrogen
Chloride,
but
Has
No
Bias
for
Total
Chlorine.
Method
26/
26A
also
has
a
low
bias
for
chlorine
and
a
high
bias
for
hydrogen
chloride
when
bromine
is
present
at
significant
levels.
Bromine
has
a
strong
effect
on
the
bias.
Although
the
various
interhalogen
reactions
are
extremely
complex
and
may
depend
on
a
variety
of
system
parameters,
it
appears
that
each
bromine
molecule
can
react
with
a
chlorine
molecule
in
the
acidic
impingers
of
Method
26/
26A
where
hydrogen
chloride
is
captured,
converting
the
chlorine
to
chloride
ions
which
are
reported
as
hydrogen
chloride.
Total
chlorine
measurements
(
i.
e.,
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas,
combined,
reported
as
HCl
equivalents),
however,
are
not
affected.
To
minimize
this
bias,
we
propose
to
require
sources
that
have
a
bromine/
chlorine
feedrate
exceeding
5
percent
to
use
alternative
methods
discussed
below.
Given
the
strong
bias
that
bromine
can
have
on
M26/
26A
measurements,
we
believe
a
5
percent
limit
on
the
ratio
is
within
the
range
of
reasonable
values
that
we
could
select.
We
specifically
request
comment
on
this
or
other
approaches
to
minimize
the
bromine
bias.
Method
26/
26A
also
has
a
low
bias
for
chlorine
and
a
high
bias
for
hydrogen
chloride
when
sulfur
is
present
at
substantial
levels
relative
to
the
levels
of
chlorine.
The
capture
of
chlorine
in
the
acidic
impingers
that
collect
hydrogen
chloride
has
been
shown
to
rapidly
increase
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
252
when
the
ratio
of
SO2/
HCl
(
both
expressed
in
ppmv)
exceeds
0.5.
Again,
total
chlorine
measurements
are
not
biased.
To
minimize
this
bias,
we
believe
that
a
50
percent
limit
on
the
ratio
of
the
sulfur/
chlorine
feedrate
is
within
the
range
of
reasonable
values
that
we
could
select.
We
specifically
request
comment
on
this
or
other
approaches
to
minimize
the
sulfur
dioxide
bias.
c.
Unbiased
Methods
Are
Available.
The
Agency
recently
developed
three
methods
for
hydrogen
chloride
in
the
context
of
the
Portland
Cement
MACT
rule
for
purposes
of
area
source
determinations:
Methods
320,
321,
and
322.
Although
M322
(
GFCIR,
Gas
Filter
Correlation
Infra­
Red)
is
easier
to
use
and
less
expensive
than
M320/
M321
(
FTIR,
Fourier
Transform
Infra­
Red),
the
Agency
did
not
promulgated
M322
in
the
final
Portland
Cement
MACT
rule
because
of
accuracy
concerns
resulting
from
emissions
sampling
of
lime
manufacturing
kilns
in
the
context
of
developing
the
Lime
Manufacturing
MACT
rule.
The
Agency
has
also
adopted
an
American
Society
of
Testing
and
Materials
(
ASTM)
standard
for
measuring
hydrogen
chloride
emissions:
ASTM
D
6735­
01.
This
method
(
and
M321)
is
allowed
for
area
source
determinations
under
the
Lime
Manufacturing
MACT
rule.
69
FR
394
(
Jan.
5,
2004).
The
method
is
an
impinger
method,
like
M26/
26A,
but
with
several
improvements.
For
example,
the
method
uses
a
rejection
probe
(
i.
e.,
the
probe
is
directed
counter
to
the
gas
flow),
the
filter
is
heated
to
minimize
adsorption
of
hydrogen
chloride
on
particulate
matter
that
may
catch
on
the
filter,
glassware
must
be
conditioned,
and
improved
quality
assurance/
quality
control
procedures
are
prescribed.
GH.
How
Would
You
Ensure
that
Your
Facility
Remains
Eligible
for
the
Risk­
Based
Emission
Limit?
1.
Changes
Over
Which
You
Have
Control
Changes
in
design,
operation,
or
maintenance
of
a
hazardous
waste
combustor
that
may
affect
the
rate
of
emissions
of
HCl­
equivalents
from
the
combustor
are
subject
to
the
requirements
of
§
63.1206(
b)(
5).
If
you
change
the
information
documented
in
the
demonstration
of
eligibility
for
the
HClequivalent
emission
rate
limit
which
is
used
to
establish
the
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit,
you
would
be
subject
to
the
following
procedures.
a.
Changes
that
Would
Decrease
the
Allowable
HCl­
Equivalent
Emission
Rate
Limit.
If
you
plan
to
make
a
change
that
would
decrease
the
allowable
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
documented
in
your
eligibility
demonstration,
you
would
comply
with
§
63.1206(
b)(
5)(
i)(
A­
C)
regarding
notifying
the
permitting
authority
of
the
change,
submitting
a
comprehensive
performance
test
schedule
and
test
plan,
comprehensive
performance
testing,
and
restriction
on
burning
hazardous
waste
prior
to
submitting
a
revised
Notification
of
Compliance.
An
example
of
a
change
that
would
decrease
the
allowable
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
is
location
of
the
property
boundary
closer
to
the
nearest
hazardous
waste
combustor
stack
when
using
the
look­
up
table
to
make
the
eligibility
demonstration.
b.
Changes
that
Would
Not
Decrease
the
Allowable
HCl­
Equivalent
Emission
Rate
Limit.
If
you
determine
that
a
change
would
not
decrease
the
allowable
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
documented
in
your
eligibility
demonstration,
you
would
document
the
change
in
the
operating
record
upon
making
such
change.
If
the
change
would
increase
your
allowable
HClequivalent
emission
rate
limit
and
you
elect
to
establish
a
higher
HCl­
equivalent
limit,
you
must
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
253
submit
a
revised
eligibility
demonstration
for
review
and
approval.
Upon
approval
of
the
revised
eligibility
demonstration,
you
must
comply
with
§
63.1206(
b)(
5)(
i)(
A)(
2),
(
B),
and
(
C)
regarding
submitting
a
comprehensive
performance
test
schedule
and
test
plan,
comprehensive
performance
testing,
and
restriction
on
burning
hazardous
waste
prior
to
submitting
a
revised
Notification
of
Compliance.
2.
Changes
Over
Which
You
Do
Not
Have
Control
Over
time,
factors
and
information
over
which
you
do
not
have
control
and
which
you
use
to
make
your
eligibility
demonstration
may
change.
For
example,
if
you
use
a
site­
specific
compliance
demonstration,
individuals
may
locate
within
the
area
impacted
by
emissions
such
that
the
most
exposed
individual
may
be
exposed
to
higher
ground
level
concentrations
than
previously
estimated.
This
could
lower
your
allowable
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit.
Consequently,
you
would
be
required
to
review
the
documentation
you
use
in
your
eligibility
demonstration
every
five
years
on
the
anniversary
of
the
comprehensive
performance
test
and
submit
for
review
with
the
test
plan
either
a
certification
that
the
information
used
in
your
eligibility
demonstration
has
not
changed
in
a
manner
that
would
decrease
the
allowable
HClequivalent
emission
rate
limit,
or
a
revised
eligibility
demonstration
for
a
revised
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit.
H
I.
Request
for
Comment
on
an
Alternative
Approach:
Risk­
Based
National
Emission
Standards
As
noted
earlier,
another
approach
to
implement
section
112(
d)(
4)
 
and
one
EPA
has
used
in
past
MACT
rules
 
would
be
to
establish
national
emission
standards
for
each
source
category
to
ensure
that
the
emissions
from
each
source
within
the
category
are
protective
of
public
health
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety
(
and
do
not
pose
adverse
environmental
impacts).
Under
this
approach,
dispersion
modeling
of
representative
worst­
case
sources
(
or
all
sources)
within
a
category
would
be
used
to
identify
an
emission
level
that
meets
the
section
112(
d)(
4)
criteria
for
all
sources
within
the
category.
Thus,
the
same
risk­
based
national
emission
standard
would
be
established
for
each
source
in
each
source
category
under
this
approach,
rather
than
the
approach
we
discuss
above
of
establishing
a
national
exposure
standard
based
on
a
uniform
level
of
protection
that
you
would
use
to
establish
a
site­
specific
emission
limit.
The
approach
of
establishing
a
risk­
based
national
emission
standard
for
a
source
category
has
the
advantage
of
being
less
burdensome
to
implement
both
for
the
regulated
community
and
regulatory
authorities
.
It
has
the
disadvantage,
however,
of
requiring
documentation
"
up
front"
to
support
the
proposed
emission
standards.
EPA
does
not
have
the
time,
data,
or
resources
to
conduct
the
analyses
required
to
support
this
approach.
The
Cement
Kiln
Recycling
Coalition
(
CKRC),
however,
has
submitted
documentation
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
23
Trinity
Consultants,
"
Analysis
of
HCl/|
Cl2
Emissions
from
Cement
Kilns
for
112(
d)(
4)
Consideration
in
the
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,"
September
17,
2003.

254
supporting
a
national
risk­
based
emission
standard
for
total
chlorine
for
cement
kilns.
23
CKRC
uses
normalized
air
concentrations
from
ISC­
PRIME
and
ISCST3
to
estimate
maximum
annual
average
and
maximum
1­
hour
average
off­
site
ground
level
concentrations
of
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
for
each
source.
CKRC
assumes
that
each
kiln
emits
total
chlorine
at
130
ppmv,
the
current
Interim
Standard,
and
that
emissions
of
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
partition
at
the
same
ratio
as
measured
during
the
most
recent
compliance
test.
The
analysis
indicates
that
the
facility
Hazard
Index
for
1­
hour
exposures
was
below
0.2
for
the
kilns
at
all
facilities,
and
the
facility
Hazard
Index
for
long­
term
exposures
was
below
0.2
for
the
kilns
at
8
of
14
facilities.
Emissions
from
kilns
at
the
remaining
6
facilities
can
potentially
result
in
facility
Hazard
Index
values
up
to
0.7.
Notwithstanding
that
CKRC
followed
the
guidance
we
suggested
to
identify
a
section
112(
d)(
4)
risk­
based
emission
standard
for
a
source
category,
we
conclude
that
establishing
a
stack
gas
concentration­
based
total
chlorine
standard
of
130
ppmv
may
not
be
protective
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety.
Even
though
the
highest
Hazard
Index
for
any
facility
in
the
category
is
below
the
maximum
HI
of
less
than
1.0,
the
Hazard
Index
value
for
a
facility
could
increase
even
though
sources
do
not
exceed
an
emission
standard
of
130
ppmv.
This
is
because
the
Hazard
Index
is
affected
by
the
mass
emission
rate
(
e.
g.,
lb/
hr)
of
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
individually.
Thus
the
Hazard
Index
could
increase
from
the
values
CKRC
has
calculated
even
though
each
source
complies
with
a
130
ppmv
total
chlorine
emission
standard
given
that:
(
1)
the
RfC
for
chlorine
gas
is
100
times
lower
than
the
RfC
for
hydrogen
chloride;
(
2)
the
partitioning
of
total
chlorine
between
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
could
change
so
that
a
greater
portion
is
emitted
as
chlorine;
and
(
3)
the
mass
emission
rate
of
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
would
increase
if
the
stack
gas
flowrate
increases.
Because
of
these
concerns,
the
more
appropriate
metric
for
a
risk­
based
standard
for
total
chlorine
would
be
the
toxicity­
weighted
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
discussed
above
in
Section
C.
1.
To
achieve
our
dual
objective
of
establishing
a
protective
risk­
based
emission
standard
expressed
as
a
toxicity­
weighted
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
(
lb/
hr)
and
ensuring
that
the
standard
does
not
allow
total
chlorine
emission
concentrations
(
ppmv)
higher
than
the
current
interim
standard
of
130
ppmv,
we
propose
that
thean
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
be
established
as
follows:
that
is
achievable
by
all
cement
facilities.
(
1)
calculate
theThis
would
be
an
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
for
each
source
assuming
stack
gas
concentrations
for
total
chlorine
of
130
ppmv
and
partitioning
betweenwhich
on­
site
cement
kiln
emissions
of
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
and
maximum
stack
gas
flowrates
achieveddo
not
exceed
a
Hazard
Index
of
1.0.
To
make
this
determination,
facilities
would
assume
that
emissions
of
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
partition
at
the
same
ratio
as
measured
during
the
most
recent
compliance
test;
and
(
2)
establish
the
national
emission
standard
as
the
lowest
toxicity­
weighted
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
for
any
source
in
the
category.
Calculating.
Finally,
the
HCl­
equivalent
emission
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
24
See
63
FR
at
14196
(
March
24,
1998).

25
For
the
same
reasons,
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rates
that
CRRC
may
use
in
an
eligibility
demonstration
for
the
source
category
would
be
biased
conservatively
high.

255
rate
for
each
source
assuminglimit
would
be
capped,
if
necessary,
at
a
stack­
gas
concentration
forlimit
that
ensures
that
total
chlorine
of
130
ppmv
is
appropriate
in
the
first
step
because
CKRC
has
already
apportioned
total
chlorine
between
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
for
each
source
and
determined
that
a
facility
Hazard
Index
of
less
than
or
equal
to
1.0
would
not
be
exceeded
at
an
emission
concentration
ofs
for
each
kiln
do
not
exceed
130
ppmv
for
total
chlorine.
.
If
this
information
and
supporting
documentation
is
provided
to
us,
we
would
promulgate
a
toxicity­
weighted
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
that
would
be
applicable
to
cement
kilns.

.
On
a
related
matter,
we
evaluated
whether
using
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
emissions
data
obtained
with
stack
sampling
Method
26/
26A
to
project
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
emissions
in
CKRC's
analysis
compromised
the
results.
Method
26/
26A
is
known
to
underestimate
hydrogen
chloride
emissions
from
cement
kilns.
24
We
discuss
above
in
Section
F.
2
concerns
about
Method
26/
26A
and
the
rationale
for
proposing
to
require
sources
to
use
methods
other
than
Method
26/
26A
to
measure
emissions
of
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
for
compliance
with
risk­
based
standards.
Briefly,
Method
26/
26A
results
for
hydrogen
chloride
are
biased
low
for
cement
kilns,
although
results
for
chlorine
gas
are
unaffected.
Even
though
CKRC
used
Method
26A
results
to
apportion
the
130
ppmv
total
chlorine
assumed
emissions
between
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
for
each
source,
the
calculated
Hazard
Index
values
are
not
compromised.
Given
that
the
hydrogen
chloride
emission
levels
are
biased
low,
the
chlorine
gas/
hydrogen
chloride
ratio
that
CKRC
used
to
apportion
the
130
ppmv
total
chlorine
emissions
between
chlorine
gas
and
hydrogen
chloride
emissions
for
each
source
is
biased
high.
Thus,
CKRC
projected
chlorine
gas
emissions
that
are
biased
high
and
hydrogen
chloride
emissions
that
are
biased
low.
These
biases
result
in
calculating
conservative
(
i.
e.,
higher
than
actual)
Hazard
Index
values
because
the
health
threshold
values
are
lower
for
chlorine
gas
than
for
hydrogen
chloride.
25
Thus,
actual
Hazard
Index
values
at
an
emission
level
of
130
ppmv
total
chlorine
would
be
lower
than
those
that
CKRC
calculated.

XIV.
How
Did
EPA
Determine
Testing
and
Monitoring
Requirements
for
the
Proposed
Rule?
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
26
Please
note
that
we
also
propose
to
revise
the
existing
schedule
for
the
initial
comprehensive
performance
test
for
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
Under
the
proposed
revised
schedule,
owners
and
operators
of
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
would
be
required
to
conduct
the
initial
comprehensive
performance
test
to
document
compliance
with
the
replacement
standards
proposed
today
(
§
§
63.1203A1219,
63.1204A1220,
and
63.1205A1221)
within
12
months
of
the
compliance
date.
See
discussion
in
Part
Three,
Section
I.
F.

27
For
this
reason,
in
the
technical
support
documents
for
today's
proposed
rule
we
also
refer
extensively
to
the
technical
support
documents
for
the
Phase
I
rule.

28
Those
boilers
that
would
be
subject
to
a
numerical
dioxin/
furan
standard
(
i.
e.,
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
equipped
with
an
electrostatic
precipitator
or
fabric
filter)
would
be
required
to
conduct
periodic
comprehensive
and
confirmatory
testing.
Other
boilers
would
be
256
The
CAA
requires
us
to
develop
regulations
that
include
monitoring
and
testing
requirements.
CAA
section
114
(
a)
(
3).
The
purpose
of
these
requirements
is
to
allow
us
to
determine
whether
an
affected
source
is
operating
in
compliance
with
the
rule.
We
propose
testing
and
monitoring
requirements
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
liquid
fuelfired
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
that
are
identical
to
those
applicable
to
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
under
§
§
63.1207,
63.1208,
and
63.120926
Please
note,
however,
that
we
discuss
below
a
proposed
requirement
for
boilers
that
would
not
be
subject
to
a
numerical
dioxin/
furan
emission
standard
to
conduct
a
one­
time
test
for
dioxin/
furan
emissions.
In
addition,
in
Part
Three
of
today's
preamble,
we
request
comment
on,
or
propose
revisions
to,
several
compliance
requirements.
Any
amendments
to
the
compliance
requirements
that
we
promulgate
would
be
applicable
to
all
hazardous
waste
combustors.
In
addition,
we
discuss
below
in
this
section
proposed
compliance
procedures
for
emission
standards
that
would
be
based
on
normal
rather
than
compliance
test
data
and
that
would
be
applicable
to
all
hazardous
waste
combustors
subject
to
such
a
standard.
Finally,
we
discuss
below
in
this
section
proposed
compliance
procedures
for
emission
standards
based
on
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
that
would
be
applicable
to
all
hazardous
waste
combustors.
The
rationale
for
the
testing
and
monitoring
requirements,
and
implementation
of
the
requirements,
is
the
same
as
discussed
in
the
rulemakings
promulgating
those
requirements
for
hazardous
waste­
burning
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
and
as
discussed
in
Part
Three
of
today's
preamble.
See
61
FR
43501
(
August
23,
1996),
62
FR
24212
(
May
2,
1997),
67
FR
6791
(
February
13,
2002),
and
67
FR
6967
(
February
14,
2002).
For
this
reason,
we
only
summarize
those
identical
requirements
and
our
rationale
for
them
in
today's
notice.
27
A.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Testing
Requirements?
The
proposed
rule
requires
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
and
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
to
perform
an
initial
comprehensive
performance
test
for
dioxin/
furan28,
mercury,
particulate
matter,
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
required
to
conduct
a
one­
time
test
for
dioxin/
furan
emissions
under
the
conditions
discussed
below
in
the
text.

29
Because
the
dioxin/
furan
confirmatory
test
is
conducted
under
operating
conditions
that
are
within
the
range
of
normal
operations
rather
than
at
the
upper
end
of
the
range
of
normal
operations
as
during
a
comprehensive
performance
test,
you
would
not
reestablish
operating
conditions
for
dioxin/
furan
based
on
the
confirmatory
performance
test.

257
semivolatile
metals,
low
volatile
metals,
and
total
chloride
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
emission
standards.
Hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
would
be
required
to
perform
an
initial
comprehensive
performance
test
for
dioxin/
furan
and
total
chloride
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
emission
standards.
All
three
source
categories
are
also
subject
to
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
standard.
Compliance
with
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
standard,
however,
is
based
on
a
one­
time
emissions
test,
and
previous
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
testing
under
RCRA
requirements
may
be
used
for
that
demonstration
if
design,
operation,
or
maintenance
of
the
source
has
not
changed
in
a
manner
that
could
adversely
affect
combustion
efficiency
and,
thus,
destruction
and
removal
efficiency.
Finally,
all
three
source
categories
would
be
required
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
carbon
monoxide/
hydrocarbon
emission
standard
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
(
and
at
all
other
times).
The
comprehensive
performance
test
would
be
conducted
every
five
years
to
ensure
that
the
performance
of
the
air
pollution
control
device
has
not
deteriorated
and
that
other
factors
that
may
affect
emissions
have
not
caused
an
increase
in
emissions
above
the
standards.
The
proposed
rule
also
requires
confirmatory
testing
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
dioxin/
furan
emission
standards,
the
test
to
be
conducted
mid­
way
between
comprehensive
performance
tests
when
operating
under
typical
conditions
rather
than
at
performance
test
conditions.
More
frequent
confirmatory
testing
for
dioxin/
furan
is
needed
because
dioxin/
furan
emissions
can
be
affected
by
various
and
interrelated
factors,
some
of
which
are
not
fully
understood,
and
because
of
the
particular
health
hazard
posed
by
emissions
of
dioxin/
furan.
To
ensure
continuous
compliance
with
the
emissions
standards,
you
would
be
required
to
establish
limits
on
key
operating
parameters
susceptible
to
continuous
monitoring.
The
limits
would
be
based
on
operating
values
achieved
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
when
the
source
successfully
demonstrates
compliance.
29
Because
operating
limits
are
calibrated
based
on
operations
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test,
sources
generally
operate
at
the
upper
end
of
the
range
of
normal
operations
during
these
tests.
These
proposed
requirements
are
discussed
below
in
Section
XII.
C.
B.
What
Are
the
Dioxin/
Furan
Testing
Requirements
for
Boilers
that
Would
Not
Be
Subject
to
a
Numerical
Dioxin/
Furan
Emission
Standard?
As
explained
earlier,
we
are
not
proposing
numerical
dioxin/
furan
emission
standards
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
and
for
those
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
that
are
equipped
with
wet
scrubbers
or
no
particulate
control
device.
Rather,
those
boilers
would
be
subject
to
the
carbon
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
30
Incinerators
equipped
with
waste
heat
recovery
boilers
are
known
to
emit
high
levels
of
dioxin/
furan,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
with
waste
heat
recovery
boilers
can
also
emit
high
levels
of
dioxin/
furan.
Because
the
mechanisms
that
affect
formation
and
control
of
dioxin/
furan
are
complex
and
not
fully
understood,
we
are
concerned
that
some
of
the
factors
that
cause
high
dioxin/
furan
emissions
from
incinerators
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
equipped
with
waste
heat
recovery
boilers
may
also
affect
dioxin/
furan
emissions
from
boilers.

258
monoxide/
hydrocarbon
emission
standard
and
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
standard
to
help
minimize
dioxin/
furan
emissions.
See
discussion
in
Part
Two,
Sections
X.
A
and
XI.
A.
We
propose
that
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
and
those
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
that
would
not
be
subject
to
a
numerical
dioxin/
furan
emission
standard
conduct
a
one­
time
dioxin/
furan
emission
test
to
quantify
the
effectiveness
of
today's
proposed
surrogate
dioxin/
furan
emission
controls.
This
test
would
be
performed
no
later
than
the
initial
comprehensive
performance
test
required
under
the
proposed
standards.
The
results
of
this
one­
time
test
would
be
reported
with
the
test
results
for
the
first
comprehensive
performance
test.
See
proposed
§
63.1207(
b)(
3).
1.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
Requiring
the
Test?
We
are
adopting
this
provision
pursuant
to
our
authority
in
CAA
Section
114
(
a)(
1)(
D),
which
allows
EPA
to
require
"
any
person
...
who
is
subject
to
any
requirement
of
this
chapter"
(
which
includes
Section
112)
on
a
one­
time,
periodic
or
continuous
basis,
to
"
sample
such
emissions
(
in
accordance
with
such
procedures
or
methods,
at
such
locations,
at
such
intervals,
during
such
periods
and
in
such
manner
as
the
Administrator
shall
prescribe)".
The
purpose
of
such
monitoring
is
"
developing
or
assisting
in
the
development
of"
standards
under
various
provisions
of
the
Act,
including
Section
112.
In
this
case,
monitoring
will
assist
in
making
determinations
under
both
Section
112(
d)(
6)
and
Section
112(
f),
which
could
lead
to
development
of
standards
under
either
or
both
of
these
provisions.
Section
112(
d)(
6)
of
the
Act
requires
us
to
"
review,
and
revise
as
necessary
emission
standards
promulgated
under
this
section
no
less
than
every
eight
years."
We
believe
testing
that
results
from
compliance
with
today's
proposed
standards
will,
in
nearly
all
cases,
establish
an
adequate
database
for
us
to
perform
this
review.
However,
we
would
not
have
sufficient
dioxin/
furan
emissions
data
for
those
boilers
that
are
subject
to
the
carbon
monoxide/
hydrocarbon
standard
and
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
standard
in
lieu
of
a
numerical
dioxin/
furan
standard.
We
have
data
from
approximately
one­
third
of
the
boilers
that
are
not
subject
to
a
numerical
dioxin/
furan
standard.
Although
those
data
indicate
that
these
sources
emit
low
concentrations
of
dioxin/
furan
despite
the
absence
of
any
dioxin/
furan
control
equipment,
we
are
concerned
about
extrapolating
this
performance
to
the
entire
universe
of
the
subject
boilers
because
our
data
set
may
not
be
statistically
random
and
the
potential
hazard
posed
by
dioxin/
furan
is
high.
In
fact,
the
design
of
these
sources
would
seem
to
have
the
potential
for
formation
of
significant
dioxin/
furan
concentrations.
30
We
think
this
proposed
testing
would
add
a
one­
time
cost
of
approximately
$
10,000
for
each
source
for
which
dioxin/
furan
test
data
are
not
already
available,
and
the
cost
appears
reasonable
to
enable
us
to
meet
our
Section
112(
d)(
6)
and
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
31
Lee,
C.
W.;
Kilgroe,
J.
D.;
Raghunathan,
K.
Environ.
Eng.
Sci.
1998,
15(
1),
71­
84.

32
Gullett,
B.
K.;
Touati,
A.;
Lee,
C.
W.
Environ.
Sci.
Technol.
2000,
34,
2069­
2074.

259
112(
f)
mandates.
Section
112
(
d)
(
6)
requires
EPA,
at
specified
times,
to
determine
if
further
technology­
based
emission
reductions
are
warranted.
Quantified
dioxin/
furan
emission
information
from
these
sources
will
assist
in
this
determination.
Section
112(
f)
requires
EPA
(
among
other
things)
to
determine
if
emissions
from
all
sources
subject
to
Section
112(
d)
standards
must
be
further
reduced
in
order
to
assure
an
ample
margin
of
safety
to
protect
public
health.
Having
actual
emission
data
from
these
sources
obviously
will
assist
in
making
the
required
Section
112(
f)
determinations
for
these
sources.
2.
What
Are
the
Operating
Requirements
for
the
Test?
You
must
perform
the
dioxin
/
furan
test
under
feed
and
operating
conditions
that
are
most
likely
to
maximize
dioxin/
furan
emissions,
similar
to
a
dioxin/
furan
comprehensive
performance
test.
Based
on
currently
available
research,
the
following
factors
should
be
considered
for
the
testing:
(
1)
dioxin/
furan
testing
should
be
conducted
at
the
point
in
the
maintenance
cycle
for
the
boiler
when
the
boiler
tubes
are
more
fouled
and
soot­
laden,
and
not
after
maintenance
involving
soot
or
ash
removal
from
the
tubes;
(
2)
dioxin/
furan
testing
should
be
performed
following
(
or
during)
a
period
of
feeding
normal
or
greater
quantities
of
metals;
(
3)
dioxin/
furan
testing
should
be
performed
while
feeding
normal
or
greater
quantities
of
chlorine;
(
4)
the
flue
gas
temperature
in
some
portion
of
the
heat
recovery
section
of
the
boiler
should
be
within
the
dioxin
formation
temperature
window
of
750
to
400
F
during
the
testing;
(
5)
the
testing
should
not
be
conducted
under
optimal
combustion
conditions;
(
6)
for
units
equipped
with
wet
air
pollution
control
systems,
the
testing
should
be
conducted
after
a
high
solids
loading
has
developed
in
the
scrubber
system;
and
(
7)
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
the
sulfur
content
of
the
coal
should
be
equivalent
to
or
lower
than
normal
coal
sulfur
levels,
and
the
gas
temperature
at
the
inlet
to
the
electrostatic
precipitator
or
fabric
filter
should
be
close
to
the
operating
limit.
In
addition,
unless
sulfur
compounds
are
routinely
fed
to
the
unit,
dioxin/
furan
testing
should
not
be
performed
after
a
period
of
firing
high
sulfur
fuel
or
injection
of
sulfur
additives.
The
majority
of
these
recommendations
are
based
on
research
demonstrating
that
soot
deposits
can
enhance
dioxin/
furan
formation
in
the
presence
of
chlorine
and
catalytic
metal
contaminants,
with
formation
continuing
even
after
cessation
of
those
contaminant
feeds
to
the
system.
31,32
The
boiler
tube
deposits
serve
as
a
sink
and
source
for
dioxin/
furan
reactants
(
catalytic
metals
and
chlorine),
and
combined
soot­
copper
deposits
have
been
shown
to
cause
more
dioxin/
furan
formation
than
a
deposit
of
soot
or
copper
alone.
From
analysis
of
soot
deposits
taken
from
different
sections
of
a
firetube
boiler,
the
highest
measured
dioxin/
furan
concentrations
were
found
in
those
deposits
containing
the
highest
concentrations
of
copper
and
chloride.
Those
same
deposits
were
removed
from
the
boiler
passages
where
flue
gas
temperatures
ranged
from
600­
300
C,
which
is
within
the
often­
cited
optimal
temperature
region
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
33
Takaoka,
M.;
Liao,
P.;
Takeda,
N.;
Fujiwara,
T.;
Oshita,
K.
Chemosphere
2003,
53,
153­
161.

34
Please
note
that
we
discuss
in
Section
XIII
of
the
preamble
above
concerns
with
the
accuracy
of
M26/
26A
for
measuring
emissions
of
total
chlorine
for
cement
kilns.
As
we
explain
there,
although
M26/
26A
is
appropriate
for
demonstrating
compliance
with
the
MACT
standards
for
cement
kilns,
it
is
not
acceptable
for
demonstrating
compliance
with
risk­
based
standards
developed
under
authority
of
Section
112(
d)(
4)
of
the
Act.

260
for
dioxin/
furan
formation.
Tube
deposits
have
also
been
shown
to
have
a
negative
effect
on
dioxin
emissions
when
those
deposits
have
been
affected
by
sulfur
dioxide,
which
is
why
dioxin/
furan
testing
is
not
recommended
following
a
period
of
feeding
higher­
than­
normal
levels
of
sulfur
to
the
boiler.
The
recommendation
not
to
test
under
optimal
combustion
conditions
has
been
explained
previously
in
the
September
1999
Final
Rule
preamble
discussion.
See
64
FR
at
52937.
Good
combustion
practices
minimize
dioxin/
furan
emissions
by:
(
1)
destroying
trace
dioxins/
furans
that
may
be
present
in
feed
streams;
(
2)
minimizing
gas­
phase
formation
of
dioxins/
furans;
and
(
3)
minimizing
dioxin/
furan
precursors
that
may
enhance
post­
combustion
formation.
For
units
equipped
with
wet
air
pollution
control
systems,
it
is
also
recommended
that
testing
be
conducted
after
a
high
solids
loading
has
developed
in
the
scrubber
system.
Research
conducted
to
explore
the
phenomenon
of
increased
dioxin/
furan
flue
gas
concentrations
across
some
wet
scrubber
systems
has
shown
differing
flue
gas
outlet
dioxin/
furan
homologue
profiles
than
flue
gas
inlet
profiles
to
the
scrubber,
but
similar
flue
gas
outlet
homologue
profiles
to
scrubber
suspended
solids
and
sludge
profiles.
33
This
result
suggests
that
some
type
of
memory
effect
may
be
associated
with
suspended
solids
in
a
scrubber
system
which
can
cause
higher
dioxin/
furans
emissions.
You
may
use
data­
in­
lieu
of
testing
to
document
dioxin/
furan
emissions
for
similar
on­
site
boilers.
In
addition,
dioxin/
furan
emission
data
from
previous
testing
would
be
acceptable,
provided
the
test
was
performed
in
a
manner
likely
to
maximize
dioxin/
furan
emissions.
C.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Test
Methods?
The
proposed
emission
standards
are
method­
based
standards,
meaning
that
the
stack
test
methods
used
for
compliance
must
be
the
same
as
those
used
to
generate
the
emissions
data
we
used
to
calculate
the
standards.
Because
alternative
stack
methods
may
report
lower
emissions,
it
is
appropriate
to
require
use
of
the
same
methods
for
compliance
as
sources
used
to
generate
the
emissions
data
in
our
data
base.
For
this
reason,
you
would
be
required
to
use
the
following
stack
test
methods
for
compliance:
(
1)
Method
29
for
mercury,
semivolatile
metals,
and
low
volatile
metals;
and
(
2)
Method
26/
26A
for
total
chlorine.
34
For
dioxin/
furan,
the
rule
would
require
use
of
Method
0023A
unless
you
receive
approval
to
use
Method
23.
We
discuss
the
rationale
for
allowing
sitespecific
approvals
to
use
Method
23
in
Part
Three,
Section
II.
D
of
today's
preamble.
In
addition,
for
particulate
matter,
you
would
be
required
to
use
either
Method
5,
the
method
used
to
generate
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
35
Method
0023A,
however,
is
included
in
"
Test
Methods
for
Evaluating
Solid
Waste,
Physical/
Chemical
Methods,"
EPA
Publication
sw­
846
Third
Edition
(
November
1986),
as
amended.

36
Except
that
some
parameters
are
limited
based
on
the
recommendations/
specifications
of
the
manufacturer
of
the
control
device.

37
If
you
elect
to
comply
with
the
carbon
monoxide
standard
rather
than
the
hydrocarbon
standard,
you
would
be
required
to
document
that
hydrocarbon
emissions
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
meet
the
standard.

261
the
data
in
our
data
base
or
Method
5i.
We
allow
use
of
Method
5i
because
it
is
more
precise
than
Method
5
at
lower
particulate
matter
loadings.
These
test
methods
are
codified
in
40
CFR
Part
60,
Appendix
A.
35
D.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Continuous
Monitoring
Requirements?
The
most
direct
means
of
ensuring
compliance
with
emissions
limits
is
the
use
of
continuous
emission
monitoring
systems
(
CEMS).
We
consider
other
options
when
CEMS
are
not
available
or
when
we
consider
the
impacts
of
including
such
requirements
unreasonable.
When
monitoring
options
other
than
CEMS
are
considered,
it
is
often
necessary
for
us
to
balance
more
reasonable
costs
against
the
quality
or
accuracy
of
the
emissions
monitoring
data.
Although
monitoring
operating
parameters
cannot
provide
a
direct
measurement
of
emissions,
it
is
often
a
suitable
substitute
for
CEMS.
The
information
provided
can
be
used
to
ensure
that
air
pollution
control
equipment
is
operating
properly.
Because
most
parameter
requirements
are
calibrated
during
comprehensive
performance
testing,
36
they
provide
a
reasonable
surrogate
for
direct
monitoring
of
emissions.
This
information
reasonably
assures
the
public
that
the
reductions
envisioned
by
the
proposed
rule
are
being
achieved.
1.
What
CEMS
Requirements
Did
EPA
Consider?
To
comply
with
the
carbon
monoxide
or
hydrocarbon
emission
limits,
you
would
be
required
to
use
a
carbon
monoxide
or
hydrocarbon
CEMS
as
well
as
an
oxygen
CEMS
to
correct
the
carbon
monoxide
or
hydrocarbon
values
to
7%
oxygen.
See
§
63.1209(
a).
Because
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
are
currently
required
to
use
these
CEMS
to
comply
with
existing
RCRA
emission
standards
for
carbon
monoxide
or
hydrocarbons,
there
would
be
a
minimal
incremental
compliance
cost.
37
We
also
evaluated
the
cost
of
applying
hydrogen
chloride
CEMS
to
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces.
We
estimate
the
capital
costs
for
hydrogen
chloride
CEMS
to
be
$
88,000
per
unit
and
annualized
costs
to
be
$
33,000
per
unit.
We
determined
these
costs
would
be
unreasonably
high
considering:
(
1)
the
CEMS
detects
hydrogen
chloride
but
not
chlorine
gas,
so
that
compliance
with
the
total
chlorine
emission
standard
could
not
be
monitored;
(
2)
the
effectiveness
of
operating
parameter
limits
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
emission
standard
for
total
chlorine;
and
(
3)
the
relatively
low
level
of
hazard
posed
by
emissions
of
total
chlorine.
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
262
Finally,
we
conclude
that
toxic
metals
are
not
directly
measurablethe
use
of
CEMS
to
document
compliance
with
CEMS,
and
that
CEMS
for
particulate
matter
or
metal
HAP
emission
standards
haves
not
been
demonstrated
on
hazardous
waste
combustors
in
the
United
States
for
the
purpose
of
determining
compliance.
2.
What
Operating
Parameter
Limits
Would
Be
Required?
To
ensure
continuous
compliance
with
the
proposed
emission
limits,
you
would
be
required
to
establish
limits
on
key
operating
parameters
and
continuously
monitor
the
parameters
including:
feedrate
of
metals,
chlorine,
and,
for
some
source
categories,
ash;
key
combustor
operating
parameters;
and
key
operating
parameters
of
the
control
device.
See
§
63.1209(
j­
o).
You
would
also
be
required
to
document
monitoring
by
recordkeeping
and
reporting.
We
selected
the
following
requirements
based
on
reasonable
cost,
ease
of
execution,
and
usefulness
of
the
resulting
data
to
both
owners
and
operators
and
EPA
for
ensuring
continuous
compliance
with
the
emission
limits.
To
ensure
continuous
compliance
with
the
dioxin/
furan
emission
limit,
you
would
be
required
to
establish:
(
1)
a
limit
on
maximum
gas
temperature
at
the
inlet
to
a
dry
particulate
matter
control
device;
(
2)
a
limit
on
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature;
(
3)
a
limit
on
maximum
flue
gas
flowrate
or
production
rate;
(
4)
a
limit
on
maximum
waste
feedrate;
(
5)
if
your
combustor
is
equipped
with
an
activated
carbon
injection
system:
limits
on
the
particulate
matter
control
device,
as
discussed
below;
a
limit
on
minimum
carbon
injection
rate;
a
limit
on
minimum
carrier
fluid
flowrate
or
pressure
drop;
and
you
must
specify
and
use
the
brand
(
i.
e.,
manufacturer)
and
type
of
carbon
used
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test,
unless
you
document
key
parameters
that
affect
adsorption
and
establish
limits
on
those
parameters
based
on
the
carbon
used
in
the
comprehensive
performance
test;
(
6)
if
your
combustor
is
equipped
with
a
carbon
bed:
you
must
monitor
the
bed
life
to
ensure
that
it
has
not
reached
the
end
of
its
useful
life
to
minimize
dioxin/
furan
(
and
mercury)
emissions
at
least
to
the
levels
required
by
the
emission
standards;
you
must
replace
the
bed
or
bed
segment
before
it
has
reached
the
end
of
its
useful
life;
you
must
specify
and
use
the
brand
(
i.
e.,
manufacturer)
and
type
of
carbon
used
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test,
unless
you
document
key
parameters
that
affect
adsorption
and
establish
limits
on
those
parameters
based
on
the
carbon
used
in
the
comprehensive
performance
test;
and
you
must
establish
a
limit
on
maximum
gas
temperature
either
at
the
bed
inlet
or
outlet;
(
7)
if
your
combustor
is
equipped
with
a
catalytic
oxidizer:
limits
on
minimum
and
maximum
gas
temperature
at
the
inlet
to
the
catalyst;
you
must
replace
the
oxidizer
when
it
has
reached
the
maximum
service
time
specified
by
the
manufacturer;
and
when
replacing
the
catalyst,
the
new
catalyst
must
be
equivalent
to
or
better
than
the
one
used
during
the
previous
comprehensive
performance
test
as
measured
by
catalytic
metal
loading
for
each
metal,
space
time,
and
substrate
construction;
(
8)
if
you
feed
a
dioxin/
furan
inhibitor
into
the
combustion
system:
a
limit
on
minimum
inhibitor
feedrate;
and
you
must
specify
and
use
the
brand
(
i.
e.,
manufacturer)
and
type
of
inhibitor
used
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test,
unless
you
document
key
parameters
that
affect
the
effectiveness
of
the
inhibitor
and
establish
limits
on
those
parameters
based
on
the
inhibitor
used
in
the
comprehensive
performance
test.
See
§
63.1209(
k).
To
ensure
continuous
compliance
with
the
mercury
emission
limit,
owners
and
operators
of
boilers
would
be
required
to
establish:
(
1)
a
limit
on
the
total
feedrate
of
mercury
in
all
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
38
This
is
because
the
mercury
emission
standard
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
is
a
hazardous
waste
thermal
emission
concentration.
Liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
would
also
be
required
to
monitor
the
heating
value
of
hazardous
waste
feeds
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
hazardous
waste
thermal
emission
concentration.

39
The
mercury
feedrate
limit
would
be
based
on
levels
fed
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
unless
the
regulatory
authority
approves
a
request
for
you
to
extrapolate
to
a
higher
allowable
feedrate
(
and
emission
rate)
limit.

263
feedstreams
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
and
a
limit
on
mercury
in
hazardous
waste
feedstreams
per
million
Btu
of
hazardous
waste
fired
for
liquid­
fuel­
fired
boilers;
38,39
(
2)
if
your
boiler
is
equipped
with
a
wet
scrubber,
limits
prescribed
for
control
of
total
chlorine
with
a
wet
scrubber,
except
for
a
limit
on
minimum
pH
of
the
scrubber
water;
(
3)
if
your
boiler
is
equipped
with
an
activated
carbon
injection
system,
limits
on
the
particulate
matter
control
device
as
discussed
below,
and
limits
on
the
activated
carbon
injection
system
as
discussed
above
for
dioxin/
furan;
and
(
4)
if
your
boiler
is
equipped
with
an
activated
carbon
bed,
limits
on
the
carbon
bed
as
discussed
above
for
dioxin/
furan.
You
may
comply
with
mercury
feedrate
limits
only,
however,
if
you
elect
to
assume
that
all
mercury
in
the
feed
is
emitted.
For
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
you
would
assume
that
all
mercury
in
all
feedstreams
is
emitted
under
this
alternative
approach.
You
would
also
establish
a
limit
on
minimum
flue
gas
flowrate
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
mercury
emission
standard.
For
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
where
the
mercury
emission
standard
is
expressed
as
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions,
you
would
assume
that
all
mercury
in
all
hazardous
waste
feedstreams
is
emitted.
Under
this
alternative
compliance
approach,
you
would
also
establish
a
limit
on
minimum
flue
gas
flowrate
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
mercury
emission
standardYou
would
have
to
comply
with
a
hazardous
waste
thermal
feed
concentration
that
would
be
expressed
as
the
mass
of
mercury
in
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
contributed
by
the
hazardous
waste.
Also,
please
note
that
these
compliance
requirements
would
not
apply
to
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces,
,
because
(
as
explained
earlier)
we
propose
to
use
the
total
chlorine
standard
as
a
surrogate
for
the
mercury,
particulate
matter,
semivolatile
metal,
and
low
volatile
metal
standards
for
these
sources.
See
§
63.1209(
l).
To
ensure
continuous
compliance
with
the
particulate
matter
emission
limit,
you
would
be
required
to
establish:
(
1)
limits
on
the
control
device
operating
parameters;
(
2)
a
limit
on
maximum
flue
gas
flowrate
or
production
rate;
and
a
limit
on
maximum
ash
feedrate.
If
your
boiler
is
equipped
with
a
wet
scrubber,
you
would
establish
limits
on:
(
1)
for
high
energy
scrubbers
only,
minimum
pressure
drop
across
the
scrubber
and
either
minimum
liquid
to
gas
ratio
or
minimum
scrubber
water
flowrate
and
maximum
flue
gas
flowrate;
and
(
2)
for
all
scrubbers,
the
solids
content
of
the
scrubber
liquid
or
a
minimum
blowdown
rate.
If
your
boiler
is
equipped
with
an
electrostatic
precipitator,
ionizing
wet
scrubber,
or
fabric
filter,
please
note
that
we
discuss
in
Part
Three,
Section
II.
I.
below
proposed
compliance
parameters
for
these
control
devices.
Briefly,
if
your
boiler
is
equipped
with
a
fabric
filter,
you
must
comply
with
bag
leak
detection
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
40
This
is
because
the
semivolatile
metal
and
low
volatile
metal
emission
standards
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
are
hazardous
waste
thermal
emission
concentrations.
You
would
also
be
required
to
monitor
the
heating
value
of
hazardous
waste
feedstreams
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
hazardous
waste
thermal
emission
concentration.

41
The
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metal
feedrate
limits
would
be
based
on
levels
fed
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
unless
the
regulatory
authority
approves
a
request
for
you
to
extrapolate
to
higher
allowable
feedrate
(
and
emission
rate)
limits.
Please
note
that
the
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metal
feed
limits
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
are
hazardous
waste
thermal
concentration
limits
(
pounds
of
metal
per
million
Btu),
not
mass
feedrate
limits,
given
that
the
emission
standards
are
expressed
as
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions.

264
system
requirements.
If
your
boiler
is
equipped
with
an
electrostatic
precipitator
or
ionizing
wet
scrubber,
you
must
either:
(
1)
install
and
operate
a
particulate
matter
loading
detector
as
a
process
monitor
to
indicate
when
you
must
take
corrective
measures;
or
(
2)
establish
limits
on
key
operating
parameters,
on
a
site­
specific
basis,
that
are
representative
and
reliable
indicators
that
the
control
device
is
operating
within
the
same
range
of
conditions
as
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test,
and
link
those
operating
limits
to
the
automatic
waste
feed
cutoff
system.
Please
note
that
the
particulate
matter
compliance
requirements
would
not
apply
to
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces,
as
discussed
above.
See
§
63.1209(
m).
To
ensure
continuous
compliance
with
the
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metal
emission
limits,
you
would
be
required
to
establish:
(
1)
a
limit
on
the
maximum
inlet
temperature
to
the
primary
dry
particulate
matter
control
device;
(
2)
a
limit
on
maximum
feedrate
of
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metals
from
all
feedstreams
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
and
a
limit
on
semivolatile
metals
and
low
volatile
metals
in
hazardous
waste
feedstreams
per
million
Btu
of
hazardous
waste
fired
for
liquid­
fuel­
fired
boilers;
40,41;
(
3)
limits
(
or
process
monitors)
on
the
particulate
matter
control
device
as
discussed
above;
(
4)
a
limit
on
maximum
feedrate
of
total
chlorine
or
chloride
in
all
feedstreams;
and
(
5)
a
limit
on
maximum
flue
gas
flowrate
or
production
rate.
You
may
comply
with
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metal
feedrate
limits
only,
however,
if
you
elect
to
assume
that
all
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metals
in
the
feed
is
emitted.
For
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
you
would
assume
that
all
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metals
in
all
feedstreams
are
emitted
under
this
alternative
approach.
You
would
also
establish
a
limit
on
minimum
flue
gas
flowrate
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
semi­
and
low
volatile
metals
emission
standard.
For
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
where
the
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metals
emission
standards
are
expressed
as
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions,
you
would
assume
that
all
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metals
in
all
hazardous
waste
feedstreams
are
emitted.
Under
this
alternative
compliance
approach,
you
would
also
establish
a
limit
on
minimum
flue
gas
flowrate
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metal
emission
standardsYou
would
have
to
comply
with
a
hazardous
waste
thermal
feed
concentration
that
would
be
expressed
as
the
mass
of
semivolatile
(
or
low
volatile)
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
contributed
by
the
hazardous
waste.
Also,
please
note
that
the
semivolatile
metal
and
low
volatile
metal
compliance
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
42
This
is
because
the
total
chlorine
emission
standard
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
is
a
hazardous
waste
thermal
emission
concentration.
You
would
also
be
required
to
monitor
the
heating
value
of
hazardous
waste
feedstreams
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
hazardous
waste
thermal
emission
standard.

265
requirements
would
not
apply
to
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces,
as
discussed
above.
See
§
63.1209(
n).
To
ensure
continuous
compliance
with
the
total
chlorine
emission
limit,
you
would
be
required
to
establish:
(
1)
a
limit
on
maximum
feedrate
of
total
chlorine
and
chloride
from
all
feedstreams
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
and
a
limit
on
total
chlorine
and
chloride
in
hazardous
waste
feedstreams
per
million
Btu
of
hazardous
waste
fired
for
liquid­
fuel­
fired
boilers;
42
(
2)
a
limit
on
maximum
flue
gas
flowrate
or
production
rate;
(
3)
if
your
combustor
is
equipped
with
a
high
or
low
energy
wet
scrubber:
a
limit
on
minimum
pH
of
the
scrubber
water;
a
limit
on
either
the
minimum
liquid
to
gas
ratio
or
the
minimum
scrubber
water
flowrate
and
maximum
flue
gas
flowrate;
(
4)
if
your
combustor
is
equipped
with
a
high
energy
wet
scrubber,
a
limit
on
minimum
pressure
drop
across
the
scrubber;
(
5)
if
your
combustor
is
equipped
with
a
low
energy
wet
scrubber:
a
limit
on
minimum
pressure
drop
across
the
scrubber;
and
a
limit
on
minimum
liquid
feed
pressure
to
the
scrubber;
and
(
6)
if
your
combustor
is
equipped
with
a
dry
scrubber:
a
limit
on
minimum
sorbent
feedrate;
a
limit
on
minimum
carrier
fluid
flowrate
or
nozzle
pressure
drop;
and
you
must
specify
and
use
the
brand
(
i.
e.,
manufacturer)
and
type
of
sorbent
used
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test,
unless
you
document
key
parameters
that
affect
the
effectiveness
of
the
sorbent
and
establish
limits
on
those
parameters
based
on
the
sorbent
used
in
the
comprehensive
performance
test.
If
your
combustor
is
equipped
with
an
ionizing
wet
scrubber,
please
note
that
we
discuss
in
Part
Three,
Section
II.
I.
below
proposed
compliance
parameters
for
this
control
device.
Briefly,
if
your
combustor
is
equipped
with
an
ionizing
wet
scrubber,
you
must
either:
(
1)
install
and
operate
a
particulate
matter
loading
detector
as
a
process
monitor
to
indicate
when
you
must
take
corrective
measures;
or
(
2)
establish
limits
on
key
operating
parameters,
on
a
site­
specific
basis,
that
are
representative
and
reliable
indicators
that
the
control
device
is
operating
within
the
same
range
of
conditions
as
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test,
and
link
those
operating
limits
to
the
automatic
waste
feed
cutoff
system.
You
may
comply
with
a
total
chlorine
and
chloride
feedrate
limit
only,
however,
if
you
elect
to
assume
that
all
chlorine
in
the
feed
is
emitted.
For
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
you
would
assume
that
all
chlorine
in
all
feedstreams
is
emitted
under
this
alternative
approach.
You
would
also
establish
a
limit
on
minimum
flue
gas
flowrate
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
total
chlorine
standard.
For
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
where
the
total
chlorine
emission
standard
is
expressed
as
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions,
you
would
assume
that
all
chlorine
in
all
hazardous
waste
feedstreams
is
emitted.
Under
this
alternative
compliance
approach,
you
would
also
establish
a
limit
on
minimum
flue
gas
flowrate
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
total
chlorine
standardYou
would
have
to
comply
with
a
hazardous
waste
thermal
feed
concentration
that
would
be
expressed
as
the
mass
of
chlorine
in
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
contributed
by
the
hazardous
waste.
See
§
63.1209(
o).
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
43
Please
note,
however,
that
we
request
comment
on
the
appropriateness
of
these
combustion
system
leak
requirements
in
Part
Three
of
today's
preamble.

266
To
ensure
continuous
compliance
with
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
standard,
you
would
be
required
to:
(
1)
establish
a
limit
on
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature;
(
2)
establish
a
limit
on
maximum
flue
gas
flowrate
or
production
rate;
(
3)
establish
a
limit
on
maximum
hazardous
waste
feedrate;
and
(
4)
specify
operating
parameters
and
limits
to
ensure
that
good
operation
of
each
hazardous
waste
firing
system
is
maintained.
See
§
63.1209(
j).
E.
What
Are
the
Averaging
Periods
for
the
Operating
Parameter
Limits,
and
How
Are
Performance
Test
Data
Averaged
to
Calculate
the
Limits?
Except
as
discussed
in
Section
XIV.
F
below,
we
propose
that
owners
and
operators
of
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
establish
averaging
periods
for
the
operating
parameter
limits
and
calculate
the
limits
from
comprehensive
performance
test
data
under
the
same
approaches
required
currently
for
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
A
detailed
discussion
of
how
those
approaches
work,
and
the
rationale
for
them,
are
provided
at
64
FR
at
52919­
22
(
September
30,
1999).
That
discussion
is
summarized
below.
We
propose
the
following
averaging
periods:
(
1)
no
averaging
period
(
i.
e.,
instantaneous
monitoring)
for
maximum
combustion
chamber
pressure
to
control
combustion
system
leaks43;
(
2)
12­
hour
rolling
averages
for
maximum
feedrate
of
mercury,
semivolatile
metals,
low
volatile
metals,
total
chlorine
and
chloride,
and
ash;
and
(
3)
one­
hour
rolling
averages
for
all
other
operating
parameters.
We
propose
a
12­
hour
rolling
average
for
metal,
total
chlorine
and
chloride,
and
ash
feedrate
limits
to
correspond
to
the
potential
duration
of
three
runs
of
a
comprehensive
performance
test,
considering
that
feedrate
and
emissions,
are,
for
the
most
part,
linearly
related.
We
propose
an
hourly
rolling
average
limit
for
all
parameters
that
are
based
on
operating
data
from
the
comprehensive
performance
test,
except
combustion
chamber
pressure
and
metal,
chlorine,
and
ash
feedrate
limits.
Hourly
rolling
averages
are
appropriate
for
these
parameters
rather
than
averaging
periods
based
on
the
duration
of
the
performance
test
because
we
are
concerned
that
there
may
be
a
nonlinear
relationship
between
operating
parameter
levels
and
emission
levels
of
HAP
or
HAP
surrogates.
We
propose
two
approaches
to
calculate
limits
for
operating
parameters:
(
1)
calculate
the
limit
as
the
average
of
the
maximum
(
or
minimum,
as
specified)
rolling
averages
for
each
run
of
the
test;
or
(
2)
calculate
the
limit
as
the
average
of
the
test
run
averages
for
each
run
of
the
test.
Hourly
rolling
averages
for
two
parameters­­
combustion
gas
flowrate
or
production
rate
and
hazardous
waste
feedrate
 
would
be
based
on
the
average
of
the
maximum
hourly
rolling
averages
for
each
run.
Hourly
rolling
average
and
12­
hour
rolling
average
limits
for
all
other
parameters,
however,
would
be
based
on
the
average
level
occurring
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test.
We
conclude
that
this
more
conservative
approach
is
appropriate
for
these
parameters
because
they
can
have
a
greater
effect
on
emissions,
and
because
it
is
consistent
with
how
manual
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
44
Manual
method
emission
test
results
for
each
run
represent
average
emissions
over
the
entire
run.

45
These
are
maximum
emissionsCompliance
test
emissions
represent
the
upper
range
of
emissions
from
a
source
because
operating
parameter
limits
for
the
HAP
or
HAP
surrogate
are
established
based
on
this
compliance
test.

267
emissions
results
are
determined.
44
We
also
conclude
that
limits
based
on
the
average
level
occurring
during
the
comprehensive
performance
are
readily
achievable.
This
is
because
sources
generally
conduct
performance
testing
at
the
extreme
upper
end
of
the
range
of
normal
operations
to
provide
the
operating
flexibility
needed
after
establishing
operating
parameter
limits.
Because
sources
can
readily
control
(
during
the
performance
test
and
thereafter)
the
parameters
for
which
limits
are
established,
the
operating
limits
based
on
the
average
of
the
performance
test
runs
should
be
readily
achievable
under
routine
operations.
F.
How
Would
Sources
Comply
with
Emissions
Standards
Based
on
Normal
Emissions?
Several
proposed
emission
standards
would
be
based
on
emissions
that
are
within
the
normal
range
of
operations
for
the
source
rather
than
on
compliance
test
emissions
that
represent
the
extreme
upper
end
of
the
range
of
normal
emissions:
45
mercury
standards
for
cement
kilns,
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
and
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
and
semivolatile
metal
emissions
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers.
To
ensure
compliance
with
emission
standards
based
on
normal
emissions
data,
you
would
document
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
a
system
removal
efficiency
for
the
metals
and
back­
calculate
from
the
emission
standard
a
maximum
metal
feedrate
limit
that
must
not
be
exceeded
on
an
annual
rolling
average.
If
your
source
is
not
equipped
with
an
emission
control
system
(
such
as
activated
carbon
to
control
mercury)
for
the
metals
in
question,
however,
you
must
assume
zero
system
removal
efficiency.
This
is
because
a
source
that
is
not
equipped
with
an
emission
control
system
may
be
able
to
document
a
positive
system
removal
efficiency,
but
it
is
not
likely
to
be
reproducible.
It
is
likely
to
be
an
artifact
of
the
calculation
of
emissions
and
feeds
rather
than
a
removal
efficiency
that
is
reliable
and
reproducible.
To
ensure
that
you
can
calculate
a
valid,
reproducible
system
removal
efficiency
for
sources
equipped
with
a
control
system
that
effectively
controls
the
metal
in
question,
you
may
need
to
spike
metals
in
the
feed
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
at
levels
that
may
result
in
emissions
that
are
higher
than
the
standard.
This
would
be
acceptable
because
compliance
with
an
emission
standard
derived
from
normal
emissions
data
is
based
on
compliance
with
an
annual
average
feedrate
limit
calculated
as
prescribed
here,
rather
than
compliance
with
the
emission
standard
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test.
We
propose
a
one­
year
averaging
period
for
the
metal
feedrate
limit
because
the
emission
standard
represents
normal,
average
emissions.
Although
the
averaging
period
could
be
substantially
shorter
or
longer,
a
one­
year
averaging
period
is
within
the
range
of
reasonable
averaging
periods
and
would
be
readily
achievable
for
a
standard
based
on
normal
emissions.
The
annual
rolling
average
metal
feedrate
would
be
updated
each
hour
based
on
the
average
of
the
60
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
46
If
the
hazardous
waste
thermal
emission
standard
is
derived
from
normal
rather
than
compliance
test
emissions
data,
however,
the
hazardous
waste
thermal
feed
concentration
would
be
calculated
as
discussed
above
in
Section
F
of
the
preamble.

268
previous
1­
minute
averages.
We
propose
to
retain
the
hourly
rolling
average
requirement
for
the
other
operating
parameter
limits,
however,
for
the
reasons
discussed
above
(
i.
e.,
to
be
conservative
given
the
nonlinear
relationship
between
the
operating
parameter
and
emissions,
and
because
the
limits
would
be
readily
achievable).
G.
How
Would
Sources
Comply
with
Emission
Standards
Expressed
as
Hazardous
Waste
Thermal
Emissions?
Several
proposed
emission
standards
would
be
expressed
as
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions:
mass
of
pollutant
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
feed
per
million
Btu
of
hazardous
waste
fed
to
the
combustor.
To
demonstrate
compliance
with
a
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions­
based
standard
during
a
comprehensive
performance
test,
you
would
calculate
the
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
by
apportioning
mass
emissions
of
mercury,
semivolatile
metals,
low
volatile
metals,
or
total
chlorine
according
to
the
ratio
of
the
mass
feedrate
of
mercury,
semivolatile
metals,
low
volatile
metals,
or
total
chlorine
and
chloride
from
hazardous
waste
feedstreams
to
the
feedrate
for
all
feedstreams
and
dividing
by
the
heat
input
rate
(
i.
e.,
million
Btu/
hr)
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste.
To
ensure
continuous
compliance
with
the
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions­
based
standard,
you
would
calculate
an
operating
limit
based
on
the
hazardous
waste
thermal
feed
concentration
during
the
performance
test.
46
The
hazardous
waste
thermal
feed
concentration
limit
would
be
calculated
as
the
mass
feedrate
(
lb/
hr)
of
mercury,
semivolatile
metals,
low
volatile
metals,
or
total
chlorine
and
chloride
from
hazardous
waste
feedstreams
divided
by
the
heat
input
rate
(
million
Btu/
hr)
from
hazardous
waste
feedstreams.
For
compliance,
you
would
continuously
monitor
the
feedrate
of
hazardous
waste
on
a
12­
hour
rolling
average
updated
each
minute
or,
for
standards
based
on
normal
emissions,
on
a
annual
rolling
average
updated
each
hour.
You
must
know
the
concentration
of
mercury,
semivolatile
metals,
low
volatile
metals,
or
total
chlorine
and
chloride
in
the
hazardous
waste
at
all
times,
and
the
heating
value
of
the
hazardous
waste
at
all
times.
Using
this
information,
you
would
calculate
and
record
the
hazardous
waste
thermal
feed
concentration
on
a
12­
hour
rolling
average,
or
for
standards
based
on
normal
emissions,
on
a
annual
rolling
average
updated
each
hour.
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
269
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
270
What
Are
the
Other
Proposed
Compliance
Requirements?
We
propose
other
compliance
requirements
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
that
are
the
same
as
those
currently
in
place
at
§
63.1206
for
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
The
rationale
for
the
requirements
is
the
same
as
discussed
in
previous
rulemakings
for
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
and
compliance
procedures
would
be
the
same
as
currently
required
for
those
sources.
The
other
compliance
requirements
include
provisions
for:
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plans;
operation
and
maintenance
plans
including
a
requirement
for
bag
leak
detector
systems
for
fabric
filters;
automatic
hazardous
waste
feed
cutoff
systems,
including
a
requirement
for
exceedance
reporting;
combustion
system
leak
requirements;
changes
in
design,
operation,
or
maintenance
that
could
adversely
affect
compliance
with
emission
standards;
operator
training
and
certification
requirements;
and
requirements
for
sources
that
elect
to
comply
with
the
carbon
monoxide
standard
to
document
one­
time
that
hydrocarbons
also
meet
the
hydrocarbon
standard;
and
provisions
allowing
a
one­
time
demonstration
of
compliance
with
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
standard.
Please
note
that
we
propose
revisions
to,
or
request
comment
on,
some
of
these
compliance
requirements
in
Part
Three
of
the
preamble.
Any
revisions
to
these
requirements
that
we
might
make
in
the
final
rule
would
be
applicable
to
all
hazardous
waste
combustors.

XV.
How
Did
EPA
Determine
Compliance
Times
for
this
Proposed
Rule?
Section
112
of
the
CAA
specifies
the
dates
by
which
affected
sources
must
comply
with
the
emission
standards.
New
or
reconstructed
units
must
be
in
compliance
with
the
proposed
rule
immediately
upon
startup
or
[
DATE
THE
FINAL
RULE
IS
PUBLISHED
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER],
whichever
is
later.
A
new
or
reconstructed
unit
for
purposes
of
complying
with
this
proposed
rule
is
one
that
begins
construction
after
[
DATE
THE
PROPOSED
RULE
IS
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
47
Please
note
that
a
new
or
reconstructed
unit
for
purposes
of
complying
with
the
Interim
Standards
applicable
to
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
is
a
unit
that
began
operation
after
September
30,
1999.

271
PUBLISHED
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER].
47
Existing
sources
are
allowed
up
to
three
years
to
comply
with
the
final
rule.
See
proposed
§
63.1206(
a)(
1)(
ii)
and
(
a)(
2).
This
is
the
maximum
period
allowed
by
the
CAA.
We
believe
that
three
years
for
compliance
is
necessary
to
allow
adequate
time
to
design,
install,
and
test
control
systems
that
will
be
retrofitted
onto
existing
units.

XVI.
How
Did
EPA
Determine
the
Required
Records
and
Reports
for
the
Proposed
Rule?
We
propose
notification,
reporting,
and
recordkeeping
requirements
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
that
are
identical
to
those
already
in
place
at
§
§
63.1210
and
63.1211
and
applicable
to
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
Please
note,
however,
that
we
are
proposing
a
new
requirement
applicable
to
all
hazardous
waste
combustors
that
would
require
you
to
submit
a
Notification
of
Intent
to
Comply
and
a
Compliance
Progress
Report.
A.
Summary
of
Requirements
Currently
Applicable
to
Incinerators,
Cement
Kilns,
and
Lightweight
Aggregate
Kilns
and
that
Would
Be
Applicable
to
Boilers
and
Hydrochloric
Acid
Production
Furnaces
Owners
and
operators
of
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
would
be
required
to
submit
the
following
notifications
to
the
Administrator
in
addition
to
those
required
by
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions,
subpart
A
of
40
CFR
part
63:
(
1)
notification
of
changes
in
design,
operation,
or
maintenance
(
§
63.1206(
b)(
5)(
i));
(
2)
notification
of
performance
test
and
continuous
monitoring
system
evaluation,
including
the
performance
test
plan
and
continuous
monitoring
system
performance
evaluation
plan
(
§
§
63.1207(
e));
and
(
3)
notification
of
compliance,
including
results
of
performance
tests
and
continuous
monitoring
system
evaluations
(
§
§
63.1210(
b),
63.1207(
j);
63.1207(
k),
and
63.1207(
l)).
You
would
also
be
required
to
submit
notifications
to
the
Administrator
if
you
request
or
elect
to
comply
with
various
alternative
requirements.
Those
notifications
are
listed
at
§
63.1210(
a)(
2).
Owners
and
operators
of
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
would
be
required
to
submit
the
following
reports
to
the
Administrator
in
addition
to
those
required
by
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions,
Subpart
A
of
40
CFR
Part
63:
(
1)
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
(
if
electing
to
comply
with
§
63.1206(
c)(
2)(
ii)(
B));
(
2)
excessive
exceedances
report
(
§
63.1206(
c)(
3)(
vi));
and
(
3)
emergency
safety
vent
opening
reports
(
§
63.1206(
c)(
4)(
iv)).
Owners
and
operators
of
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
would
be
required
to
keep
records
documenting
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
Subpart
EEE.
Recordkeeping
requirements
are
prescribed
in
§
63.1211(
b),
and
include
requirements
under
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions,
subpart
A
of
40
CFR
Part
63.
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
272
B.
Why
Is
EPA
Proposing
Notification
of
Intent
to
Comply
and
Compliance
Progress
Report
Requirements?
1.
What
Is
the
Notification
of
Intent
to
Comply?
In
the
June
1998
"
fast
track"
rule
(
63
FR
33782),
we
required
that
sources
subject
to
the
Phase
I
Subpart
EEE
standards
complete
a
Notification
of
Intent
to
Comply
(
NIC)
no
later
than
October
2,
2000
and
conduct
a
NIC
public
meeting
no
later
than
July
31,
2000.
The
NIC
and
its
associated
public
meeting
served
four
primary
purposes
during
the
early
implementation
and
compliance
phases
of
the
Phase
I
Subpart
EEE
requirements
which
we
believe
were
of
benefit
to
regulators,
sources
and
the
public
alike.
First,
the
NIC
served
as
a
compliance
planning
tool
for
Phase
I
sources
because
it
required
you
to
develop
an
outline
of
the
key
activities
that
needed
to
be
completed
in
order
to
meet
the
Subpart
EEE
standards
by
the
compliance
date.
It
also
required
that
you
include
the
estimated
dates
for
each
of
those
key
activities.
Because
the
NIC
was
required
to
be
completed
within
the
first
year
of
implementing
the
Phase
I
requirements,
it
also
may
have
had
the
added
and
important
benefit
of
encouraging
sources
to
reduce
their
HAP
emissions
early.
By
focusing
a
source's
attention
on
the
means
by
which
it
would
achieve
compliance
well
before
the
actual
compliance
date,
the
NIC
may
have
prompted
some
sources
to
upgrade
their
combustion
design
and
operations
earlier,
thereby
yielding
an
early
reduction
in
HAP
emissions.
The
NIC
also
may
have
prompted
earlier
waste
minimization
efforts
for
the
same
reason.
Second,
the
NIC
also
served
as
a
planning
tool
for
regulatory
authorities.
Based
on
the
information
provided
in
the
NIC,
regulators
could
determine
what
activities
were
likely
to
occur
and
when
over
the
course
of
the
three­
year
compliance
period.
For
example,
they
could
estimate
how
many
sources
needed
to
modify
their
combustion
units
and
existing
RCRA
permits
prior
to
performance
testing,
how
many
sources
intended
to
stop
burning
hazardous
waste,
and
how
many
sources
intended
to
apply
for
the
comparable
fuels
exclusion.
Using
this
information,
regulators
could
plan
how
to
most
efficiently
allocate
their
resources
in
response
to
the
forthcoming
compliance
activities
of
the
sources.
Third,
the
NIC
promoted
early
public
involvement
by
fostering
an
open
dialogue
between
sources
and
the
public
regarding
compliance
strategies
for
meeting
the
Phase
I
Subpart
EEE
standards.
Experience
has
shown
that
members
of
the
public
are
interested
in
being
kept
adequately
informed
of
and
having
input
into
the
compliance
and
permitting
activities
of
hazardous
waste
combustion
facilities.
The
NIC
and
its
associated
public
meeting
provided
an
opportunity
for
the
public
to
share
their
views,
thereby
allowing
the
source
to
develop
a
final
compliance
strategy
that
met
the
goals
of
both
the
source
and
the
surrounding
community.
Fourth,
the
public
involvement
aspect
of
the
NIC
also
offset
any
public
participation
opportunities
that
may
have
been
"
lost"
if
sources
chose
to
take
advantage
of
the
RCRA
streamlined
permit
modification
process.
Many
Phase
I
sources
had
to
modify
their
combustion
systems'
design
and/
or
operations
in
order
to
comply
with
the
MACT
standards.
Sources
that
were
already
operating
under
RCRA
combustion
permits
needed
to
first
modify
those
permits
before
initiating
any
MACT
compliance
related
changes.
Normally,
a
Class
2
or
3
modification
would
be
necessary
to
incorporate
into
a
RCRA
permit
the
types
of
changes
we
expected
would
be
necessary
for
sources
complying
with
Phase
I
standards.
Given
that
Class
2
and
3
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
48
Under
the
Early
Cessation
provision,
we
required
sources
that
did
not
intend
to
comply
with
the
Phase
I
standards
to
stop
burning
hazardous
waste
within
two
years
of
the
effective
date
of
the
Phase
I
rule.
Under
the
Compliance
Progress
Report
provision,
we
required
sources
to
report
to
their
regulatory
agencies
the
status
of
their
progress
toward
compliance
with
the
standards.

273
modifications
could
have
consumed
a
year
or
more
of
a
source's
three­
year
Subpart
EEE
compliance
period,
we
developed
a
streamlined
permit
modification
process
solely
for
the
purpose
of
implementing
Subpart
EEE
upgrades.
Under
the
streamlined
process,
you
could
request
a
Class
1
modification
with
prior
Agency
approval
to
address
and
incorporate
any
necessary
MACT
upgrades
into
your
RCRA
permit.
To
be
eligible
to
use
the
streamlined
permit
modification,
however,
you
first
must
have
complied
with
the
NIC
requirements,
including
those
related
to
public
involvement.
2.
What
Happened
to
the
NIC
Provisions?
We
promulgated
the
NIC
on
June
19,
1998
(
63
FR
33782)
along
with
several
other
requirements
related
to
the
Phase
I
NESHAP.
On
May
14,
2001,
we
removed
the
NIC
and
two
other
provisions
from
the
federal
regulations
in
response
to
a
court
mandate
to
vacate.
See
66
FR
24270.
In
Chemical
Manufacturers
Ass'n
v
EPA,
217
F.
3d
861
(
D.
C.
Cir.
2000),
the
court
vacated
three
provisions
of
the
Phase
I
rule:
the
Early
Cessation
requirement,
the
NIC
and
the
Compliance
Progress
Report.
48
While
the
panel
majority
held
that
we
possessed
the
legal
authority
to
impose
an
Early
Cessation
requirement,
the
panel
also
held
that
we
had
claimed
the
authority
to
do
so
without
making
a
showing
of
a
health
and
environmental
benefit
(
such
as
reduced
HAP
emissions
or
less
hazardous
waste
generated)
and
that
this
was
an
impermissible
statutory
interpretation.
See
217
F.
3d
at
865­
67.
The
panel
majority
further
held
that
because
it
could
not
determine
whether
we
would
have
promulgated
the
NIC
and
Progress
Report
requirements
absent
the
Early
Cessation
provision,
both
the
NIC
and
Progress
Report
requirements
should
be
vacated
as
well.
However,
the
panel
did
agree
to
issue
a
stay
of
its
mandate
for
a
long
enough
period
of
time
to
allow
sources
to
submit
their
NICs
so
that
they
would
be
eligible
for
the
RCRA
streamlined
permit
modification.
As
discussed
above,
the
NIC
was
intended
to
serve
as
a
compliance
planning
and
communication
tool.
We
did
not
intend
the
NIC
to
serve
as
the
basis
for
requiring
a
source
to
cease
burning
hazardous
waste.
However,
as
a
planning
and
communication
tool
we
expected
sources
that
did
not
intend
to
comply
with
the
standards
to
state
this
in
their
NIC
and
include
a
schedule
of
activities
that
the
source
would
need
to
complete
in
order
to
stop
burning
hazardous
waste
within
the
two­
year
Early
Cessation
time
frame.
We
believe
that
the
court
recognized
this
interpretation
as
our
original
intent
in
their
agreement
to
stay
their
issuance
of
the
mandate
until
after
sources
had
submitted
their
final
NICs
on
October
1,
2000.
By
allowing
the
Phase
I
sources
to
complete
the
NIC
process,
the
court
provided
sources
with
the
opportunity
to
effectively
plan
their
compliance
strategies
and
take
advantage
of
the
RCRA
streamlined
permit
modification.
It
also
provided
the
public
with
the
opportunity
for
a
level
of
participation
that
they
may
not
have
had
otherwise.
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
49
If
a
major
title
V
source
has
a
remaining
permit
term
of
three
or
more
years
on
the
date
the
Replacement
standards
are
promulgated,
the
title
V
permitting
authority
must
complete
a
reopening
of
the
source's
title
V
permit
to
incorporate
the
requirements
of
these
standards
not
later
than
18
months
after
promulgation.
Major
sources
having
remaining
permit
terms
of
less
than
three
years
on
the
date
the
Replacement
standards
are
promulgated
may
wait
until
permit
renewal
to
incorporate
the
new
standards.
Area
sources
with
title
V
permits
likewise
may
wait
until
permit
renewal.
Permitting
authorities
must
follow
the
same
public
notice
procedures
for
title
V
permit
reopenings
and
renewals
as
is
required
for
initial
permit
issuance
under
title
V,
including
providing
public
notice
of
the
action,
providing
a
public
comment
period
of
at
least
30
days,
and
providing
an
opportunity
for
a
public
hearing.
See
40
CFR
§
§
70.7
and
71.7.

274
3.
Why
Is
EPA
Proposing
to
Re­
Institute
the
NIC
for
Phase
I
Sources?
As
stated
above,
we
believe
that
the
NIC
was
a
valuable
planning
and
communication
tool
for
sources,
regulators,
and
the
public
during
the
early
implementation
and
compliance
stages
of
the
1999
Phase
I
Subpart
EEE
requirements.
The
NIC
also
provided
an
additional
benefit
to
sources
upgrading
their
combustion
systems
by
compensating
for
any
"
lost"
public
participation
opportunities
when
using
the
RCRA
streamlined
permit
modification
process.
As
discussed
in
Part
One,
I.
B
and
D,
we
are
proposing
in
today's
notice
to
supplant
the
existing
Phase
I
standards
with
final
Replacement
standards.
We
anticipate
that
a
significant
number
of
Phase
I
sources
may
need
to
conduct
additional
upgrades,
or
in
some
cases
upgrade
for
the
first
time,
to
comply
with
the
Replacements
standards.
See
§
§
63.1203A1219,
63.1204A1220,
and
63.1205A1221.
Re­
instituting
the
NIC
for
these
sources
could
provide
the
same
planning
and
communication
benefits
during
the
initial
Replacement
standards
compliance
period
that
it
did
for
the
original
Phase
I
standards.
Specifically,
we
expect
that
by
focusing
attention
early
on
the
necessary
tasks
and
strategies
for
achieving
compliance,
Phase
I
sources
will
be
in
a
better
position
to
meet
the
Replacement
standards
by
the
compliance
date.
Regulators
will
gain
insight
from
the
information
provided
in
the
NIC
to
effectively
allocate
their
resources
to
accommodate
future
regulatory
activities.
And,
the
NIC
will
provide
the
public
with
the
opportunity
and
mechanism
to
keep
abreast
of
any
significant
changes
an
existing
source
might
need
to
make
as
a
result
of
the
Replacement
standards.
We
do
not
believe
that
the
same
planning
and
communication
opportunities
gained
from
completing
the
NIC
process
are
available
from
other
portions
of
the
air
regulatory
program.
For
example,
although
the
public
will
be
notified
of
a
source's
obligation
to
comply
with
the
Replacement
standards
during
the
reopening
or
renewal
of
the
source's
title
V,
this
notification,
in
most
cases,
will
not
occur
as
early
in
the
three­
year
Subpart
EEE
compliance
period,
nor
is
it
likely
to
include
the
specific
information
regarding
the
source's
compliance
strategy.
49
In
addition,
while
we
believe
that
there
will
be
fewer
Phase
I
sources
in
the
position
of
having
RCRA
combustion
permit
conditions
after
demonstrating
compliance
with
the
Interim
standards,
for
those
that
do
and
wish
to
use
the
streamlined
permit
modification
process
to
allow
any
necessary
Replacement
standards
upgrades,
a
second
NIC
would
provide
the
same
public
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
50
Once
a
source
conducts
its
CPT
and
submits
an
Notification
of
compliance
documenting
compliance
with
the
Subpart
EEE
standards,
the
source
may
request
that
its
RCRA
permit
be
modified
to
remove
any
duplicative
limits
or
conditions.
Only
those
risk­
based
provisions
that
are
more
stringent
than
the
MACT
requirements
as
specified
in
the
Notification
of
compliance
or
that
address
other
emission
hazards
will
remain
in
the
RCRA
permit.
We
expect
that
many
sources
will
document
compliance
with
the
Phase
I
Interim
standards
between
2003
and
2004
and
will
request
the
removal
of
any
duplicative,
less
stringent
provisions
from
their
RCRA
permits
shortly
thereafter.

275
participation
benefits
as
did
the
first
NIC.
50
40
CFR
270.42(
j)
currently
allows
a
source
to
use
the
RCRA
streamlined
modification
process
provided
that
the
source
first
complied
with
the
NIC
requirements
that
were
in
place
prior
to
October
11,
2000.
Since
many
sources
complied
with
those
NIC
requirements
in
1999
and
2000,
the
existing
regulatory
language
would
allow
those
same
sources
to
further
modify
their
RCRA
permits
for
Replacement
standards
upgrades.
The
regulatory
language
does
not
make
any
distinction
regarding
when
the
upgrades
are
to
take
place
in
relation
to
when
the
NIC
requirements
were
to
have
been
fulfilled.
We
do
not
believe
that
it
is
appropriate
for
a
source
to
rely
on
previous
informational
and
public
participation
activities
carried
out
to
comply
with
the
earlier
NIC
requirements
and
emission
standards
to
address
upgrades
occurring
years
later
in
response
to
a
different
set
of
standards
any
more
than
it
would
be
appropriate
to
allow
the
public
participation
activities
of
a
previous
RCRA
modification
to
suffice
for
a
later
modification.
By
requiring
sources
that
choose
to
use
the
RCRA
streamlined
permit
modification
process
for
Replacement
standards
upgrades
to
first
complete
a
NIC,
including
its
associated
public
meeting,
that
specifically
addresses
those
Replacement
standards
upgrades,
the
community
will
be
kept
better
informed
of
additional
changes
to
the
combustion
system
and
the
impact
on
the
RCRA
permit.
4.
Why
Is
EPA
Proposing
to
Require
the
NIC
for
Phase
II
Sources?
We
believe
that
the
NIC
would
provide
the
same
benefits
with
respect
to
communication
and
compliance
strategy
planning
for
the
Phase
II
sources
that
it
has
for
Phase
I
sources.
In
addition,
without
completing
the
NIC
process,
Phase
II
sources
will
not
be
eligible
to
take
advantage
of
the
RCRA
streamlined
permit
modification
when
upgrading
their
combustion
systems.
We
are
proposing
that
Phase
II
sources
comply
with
the
same
NIC
requirements
as
their
Phase
I
counterparts.
5.
How
Will
the
NIC
Process
Work?
We
are
proposing
to
apply
a
similar
NIC
process
to
that
which
we
promulgated
in
the
June
19,
1998
"
fast
track"
rule
(
63
FR
33782).
The
following
is
a
general
description
of
that
process.
Within
nine
months
of
the
promulgation
of
the
final
Phase
I
Replacement
standards
and
Phase
II
standards,
you
would
develop
and
make
publically
available
a
draft
NIC.
The
draft
NIC
would
contain
general
information
such
as
whether
you
are
a
major
or
an
area
source
and
what
waste
minimization,
emission
control
techniques,
and
emission
monitoring
techniques
you
might
be
considering.
At
the
same
time,
you
would
also
provide
a
notice
to
the
public
of
at
least
one
informal
NIC
public
meeting.
Within
ten
months,
you
would
hold
this
public
meeting
to
discuss
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
276
the
activities
you
described
in
the
draft
NIC
for
achieving
compliance
with
the
Subpart
EEE
standards.
The
meeting
provides
an
opportunity
for
a
mutual
understanding
between
you
and
the
public
regarding
compliance
options,
including
consideration
of
both
technical
(
e.
g.,
equipment
changes
to
upgrade
air
pollution
control
devices)
and
operational
(
e.
g.,
process
changes
to
minimize
waste
generation)
alternatives.
We
expect
the
exchange
between
you
and
the
community
at
the
meeting
to
be
similar
to
that
which
would
occur
at
RCRA
pre­
application
meetings.
That
is,
we
intend
for
the
meeting
to
provide
an
open,
flexible
and
informal
occasion
for
you
and
the
public
to
discuss
various
aspects
of
your
compliance
strategy,
provide
an
opportunity
for
sharing
ideas
and
provide
an
opportunity
for
building
a
framework
for
a
solid
and
positive
working
relationship.
Lastly,
you
would
submit
a
final
NIC
to
your
regulatory
authority
that
would
include
the
information
provided
in
the
draft
NIC
(
revised
as
necessary
after
the
public
meeting)
as
well
as
a
summary
of
the
public
meeting.
This
final
NIC
would
be
submitted
to
your
regulatory
authority
within
one
year
of
the
promulgation
of
the
final
Phase
I
Replacement
standards
and
Phase
II
standards.
In
summary,
we
believe
that
the
NIC
would
provide
important
planning
and
communication
opportunities
for
both
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
sources.
It
also
would
allow
all
Phase
I,
as
needed,
and
Phase
II
sources
to
take
advantage
of
the
RCRA
streamlined
permit
modification
procedure.
Thus,
we
are
proposing
NIC
requirements
for
both
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
sources.
6.
What
Is
the
Compliance
Progress
Report?
In
addition
to
the
NIC,
we
also
promulgated
Compliance
Progress
Report
requirements
in
the
1998
"
fast
track"
rule.
See
63
FR
33782.
The
purpose
of
the
Progress
Report
was
to
help
regulatory
agencies
determine
if
sources
were
making
reasonable
headway
in
their
efforts
to
come
into
compliance.
The
Progress
Report
was
required
to
be
submitted
at
the
midpoint
of
the
threeyear
compliance
period
and
contain
information
that
essentially
built
on
the
information
you
previously
provided
in
the
NIC.
For
example,
if
you
indicated
in
the
NIC
that
you
needed
to
make
specific
physical
modifications
to
your
combustion
system
in
order
to
comply
with
the
standards,
you
would
be
expected
to
describe
your
progress
in
making
those
modifications
in
your
Compliance
Progress
Report.
Although
the
Progress
Report
was
primarily
intended
as
a
tool
for
the
regulatory
agencies,
we
believe
it
also
may
have
been
beneficial
to
sources
as
well.
For
example,
the
Progress
Report
could
have
been
used
by
sources
as
a
mechanism
to
review
and
make
any
necessary
changes
to
their
original
strategy
for
achieving
compliance.
As
discussed
in
the
previous
section,
the
Court
vacated
the
early
cessation,
NIC
and
Compliance
Progress
Report
provisions
of
the
Phase
I
rule
in
Chemical
Manufacturers
Ass'n
v
EPA,
217
F.
3d
861
(
D.
C.
Cir.
2000).
Although
the
Court's
primary
focus
was
the
early
cessation
provision,
it
also
vacated
the
Progress
Report
requirements
because
it
could
not
determine
whether
we
would
have
promulgated
those
requirements
absent
the
early
cessation
provision.
7.
Why
Is
EPA
Requesting
Comment
on
Requiring
the
Compliance
Progress
Report
for
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
Sources?
We
believe
that
the
Progress
Report
would
be
a
useful
tool
for
both
regulators
and
sources
in
measuring
progress
toward
achieving
compliance
with
the
Subpart
EEE
standards
and
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
51
For
example,
if
you
reported
in
your
NIC
that
you
intended
to
upgrade
your
existing
unit,
but
later
determined
that
it
was
more
appropriate
to
replace
the
unit
with
a
new
unit,
we
would
expect
you
to
inform
your
regulatory
agency
of
this
change
in
your
compliance
plan
in
your
Compliance
Progress
Report.

277
determining
if
any
revisions
to
a
source's
compliance
strategy
are
necessary.
Unlike
the
NIC,
however,
we
do
not
have
practical
experience
with
the
application
of
the
Compliance
Progress
Report,
because
the
Court
vacated
its
requirements
prior
to
their
implementation.
As
a
result,
we
are
requesting
comment
on
whether
or
not
the
Compliance
Progress
Report
should
be
required
for
Phase
I
or
Phase
II
sources.
8.
How
Would
the
Compliance
Progress
Report
Requirement
Work?
The
Compliance
Progress
Report
requirements
would
be
similar
to
those
promulgated
for
Phase
I
sources
in
the
June
19,
1998
"
fast
track"
rule
(
63
FR
33782).
Within
two
years
of
the
promulgation
of
the
final
standards,
you
would
develop
and
submit
to
your
regulatory
authority
a
Compliance
Progress
Report.
The
Report
would
include
information
which
demonstrates
your
progress
toward
compliance.
This
could
include,
for
example,
completed
engineering
designs
for
any
physical
modifications
to
the
combustion
unit
that
are
needed
to
comply
with
the
standards;
copies
of
construction
applications;
and
binding
contractual
commitments
to
purchase,
fabricate,
and
install
any
necessary
equipment,
devices,
and
ancillary
structures.
In
addition,
you
would
be
expected
to
include
a
detailed
schedule
that
lists
the
dates
for
all
remaining
key
activities
and
projects
that
will
bring
you
into
compliance
with
the
standards.
For
example,
you
would
include
bid
and
award
dates
for
construction
contracts,
milestones
for
groundbreaking,
and
dates
for
the
approval
of
permits
and
licenses.
We
would
also
expect
you
to
include
in
your
report
any
updates
or
changes
to
the
information
you
previously
provided
in
your
NIC,
including
if
you
have
changed
your
compliance
plan
based
on
engineering
studies
or
evaluations
that
you
have
conducted
since
your
NIC
submittal.
51
Sources
that
intend
to
cease
burning
hazardous
waste
prior
to
or
on
the
compliance
date
would
still
be
expected
to
submit
a
report
describing
key
activities
and
projected
dates
for
initiating
RCRA
closure
and
discontinuing
hazardous
waste
activities
at
the
combustion
unit.

XVII.
What
Are
the
Title
V
and
RCRA
Permitting
Requirements
for
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
Sources?
In
today's
notice
of
proposed
rulemaking,
we
are
maintaining
the
same
general
approach
we
took
in
the
1999
rule
with
respect
to
title
V
and
RCRA
permitting
requirements
and
the
Phase
I
sources.
We
feel
that
this
approach,
to
place
the
MACT
air
emissions
and
related
operating
requirements
in
the
title
V
permit
and
to
continue
to
require
RCRA
permits
for
all
other
aspects
of
the
combustion
unit
and
the
facility
that
are
governed
by
RCRA,
is
still
the
most
appropriate
method
to
meet
our
obligations
under
both
statutes.
In
1999,
our
goal
in
developing
a
permitting
scheme
to
accommodate
both
statutes
with
respect
to
air
emission
limitations
and
standards,
was
to
avoid
duplication
to
the
extent
practicable
and
to
streamline
requirements.
We
remain
committed
to
that
goal,
as
we
revise
and
refine
the
permitting
approach
we
finalized
in
1999.
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
52
There
is
no
change
to
our
decision
to
subject
Phase
I
area
sources
to
the
same
MACT
standards
and
title
V
permitting
requirements
as
the
major
sources.
For
Phase
II
sources,
area
sources
are
required
to
meet
the
same
MACT
standards
as
major
sources,
but
only
for:
dioxin/
furan,
mercury,
carbon
monoxide/
hydrocarbons,
and
destruction
and
removal
efficiency.
See
Part
Two,
Section
I.
A.
for
more
information
on
regulation
of
area
sources.
Therefore,
Phase
II
area
sources
will
be
required
to
obtain
a
title
V
permit
only
for
those
MACT
standards
as
discussed
later
in
Paragraph
C.
4.
of
this
section.

278
A.
What
Is
the
General
Approach
to
Permitting
Hazardous
Waste
Combustion
Sources?
In
the
September
1999
rule,
we
finalized
a
permitting
approach
that
places
the
MACT
air
emissions
and
related
operating
requirements
in
the
title
V
permit
and
retains
all
other
RCRA
related
requirements
(
e.
g.,
corrective
action,
general
facility
standards,
other
combustor
specific
concerns
such
as
material
handling,
risk­
based
emission
limits
and
operating
requirements,
and
other
hazardous
waste
management
units)
in
the
RCRA
permit.
See
64
FR
52828,
52833­
52834
(
September
30,
2000).
Under
this
approach,
sources
comply
with
their
RCRA
emission
limits
and
operating
requirements
until
they
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
MACT
standards
by
conducting
a
comprehensive
performance
test
and
submitting
a
Notification
of
Compliance
(
NOC)
to
the
Administrator
(
or
authorized
State)
that
documents
compliance.
52
Upon
documenting
compliance
through
the
NOC,
sources
may
begin
the
transition
from
RCRA
permitting
to
title
V
permitting.
We
believe
that
this
approach
still
makes
the
most
sense
in
terms
of
providing
flexibility
and
minimizing
duplication
between
the
two
permitting
programs,
while
ensuring
that
there
is
no
break
in
regulatory
coverage.
It
is
also
appropriate
given
where
sources
will
be
in
the
transition
process
of
complying
with
the
MACT
Interim
Standards
upon
promulgation
of
the
Phase
I
Replacement
standards
and
the
Phase
II
standards.
The
majority
of
Phase
I
sources
will
have
initiated
a
significant
modification
of
their
title
V
permits
to
include
the
operating
requirements
of
their
NOC
and
a
modification
of
their
RCRA
permits
to
remove
duplicative
conditions.
By
this
time,
permitting
authorities
and
sources
are
familiar
with
the
current
permitting
approach
and
have
worked
through
many
issues
to
make
compliance
with
the
Interim
Standards
and
the
ensuing
transition
successful.
We
feel
that
permitting
authorities
and
sources
would
prefer
to
draw
upon
their
experiences
and
utilize
the
expertise
they
have
developed,
rather
than
exploring
ways
to
implement
a
new
permitting
scheme.
Therefore,
we
are
retaining
the
same
general
approach
to
permitting
for
Phase
I
sources
and
are
proposing
to
apply
this
same
general
approach
to
Phase
II
sources
in
today's
Notice
of
proposed
rulemaking:
to
place
the
MACT
emission
standards
only
in
the
CAA
regulation
at
40
CFR
part
63
Subpart
EEE,
and
rely
on
implementation
through
the
air
program
and
operating
permit
programs
developed
under
title
V.
4.
What
Is
the
Authority
for
the
Proposals
Discussed
In
this
Section?
EPA
is
issuing
these
proposals
to
modify
RCRA
permits
under
the
authority
of
sections
1006(
b),
2002,
3004,
3005
and
7004(
b)
of
RCRA.
With
regard
to
the
regulatory
framework
that
would
result
from
today's
proposal,
we
are
proposing
to
eliminate
the
existing
RCRA
stack
emissions
national
standards
for
hazardous
air
pollutants
for
hazardous
waste
combustors.
That
is,
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
279
after
submittal
of
the
NOC
established
by
today's
rule
and,
where
applicable,
RCRA
permit
modifications
at
individual
facilities,
RCRA
national
stack
emission
standards
will
no
longer
apply
to
these
hazardous
waste
combustors.
We
originally
issued
emission
standards
under
the
authority
of
section
3004(
a)
and
(
q)
of
RCRA,
which
calls
for
EPA
to
promulgate
standards
``
as
may
be
necessary
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.''
We
believe
that
the
proposed
MACT
standards
are
generally
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment,
and
that
separate
RCRA
emission
standards
are
not
needed
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
Refer
to
Part
Four,
Section
IX.
How
Does
the
Proposed
Rule
Meet
the
RCRA
Protectiveness
Mandate?
for
a
discussion
on
this
topic.
In
addition,
RCRA
section
1006(
b)
directs
EPA
to
integrate
the
provisions
of
RCRA
for
purposes
of
administration
and
enforcement
and
to
avoid
duplication,
to
the
maximum
extent
practicable,
with
the
appropriate
provisions
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
and
other
federal
statutes).
This
integration
must
be
done
in
a
way
that
is
consistent
with
the
goals
and
policies
of
these
statutes.
Therefore,
section
1006(
b)
provides
further
authority
for
EPA
to
eliminate
the
existing
RCRA
stack
emissions
standards
to
avoid
duplication
with
the
new
MACT
standards.
We
are
not
proposing,
however,
that
RCRA
permit
conditions
to
control
emissions
from
these
sources
will
never
be
necessary,
only
that
the
national
RCRA
standards
appear
to
be
unnecessary.
Under
the
authority
of
RCRA's
``
omnibus''
clause
section
3005(
c)(
3);
see
40
CFR
270.32(
b)(
2)),
RCRA
permit
writers
may
impose
additional
terms
and
conditions
on
a
sitespecific
basis
as
may
be
necessary
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
Thus,
if
MACT
standards
are
not
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment
in
an
individual
instance,
RCRA
permit
writers
will
establish
permit
limits
that
are
protective.
In
RCRA,
Congress
gave
EPA
broad
authority
to
provide
for
public
participation
in
the
RCRA
permitting
process.
Section
7004(
b)
of
RCRA
requires
EPA
to
provide
for,
encourage,
and
assist
public
participation
in
the
development,
revision,
implementation,
and
enforcement
of
any
regulation,
guideline,
information,
or
program
under
the
Act.
2.
Is
EPA
Proposing
a
Different
Permitting
Approach
for
New
Sources?
As
discussed
above,
we
are
maintaining
the
same
general
permitting
approach
as
before.
However,
we
are
proposing
to
eliminate
the
unintended
result
of
the
previous
regulatory
construct,
which
caused
new
sources
to
initially
be
subject
to
the
RCRA
air
emission
and
operating
requirements.
In
particular,
we
want
to
specify
that
any
hazardous
waste
burning
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
boilers,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
newly
entering
the
RCRA
permitting
process
(
e.
g.,
sources
that
are
seeking
an
initial
RCRA
permit
or
permit
modification
to
include
a
new
hazardous
waste
combustion
unit)
after
promulgation
of
the
Phase
I
Replacement
standards
and
Phase
II
standards
are
not
subject
to
certain
specified
RCRA
permit
requirements
or
performance
standards.
The
approach
we
are
proposing
today
is
similar
to
the
one
we
proposed
in
the
July
3,
2001
proposed
amendment
rule
(
see
66
FR
35146),
but
was
not
finalized.
The
amendment
was
not
finalized
due
to
several
unresolved
issues
and
thus,
it
was
agreed
(
during
litigation
settlement
discussions),
that
we
would
revisit
and
address
the
issues
in
the
Phase
I
Replacement
standards
and
Phase
II
standards
rulemaking.
a.
Why
Is
EPA
Proposing
a
Different
Permitting
Approach
for
New
Sources?
In
the
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
280
September
1999
rule,
we
had
amended
language
in
40
CFR
§
§
264.340,
265.340,
266.100,
270.19,
270.22,
270.62,
and
270.66
to
accommodate
the
permit
transition
from
RCRA
to
the
CAA.
To
summarize,
the
amended
language
in
these
sections
says
that
once
a
source
demonstrates
compliance
with
the
standards
in
40
CFR
part
63
subpart
EEE,
the
requirements
in
specified
part
264,
265,
266,
and
part
270
sections
would
no
longer
apply.
However,
the
amended
language
neglected
to
specifically
address
if,
how,
or
when
new
sources
would
make
the
transition
from
RCRA
permitting
requirements
to
CAA
MACT
requirements.
As
we
discussed
in
the
preamble
to
the
July
3,
2001
proposed
amendments,
under
RCRA,
new
sources
must
obtain
a
permit
or
a
permit
modification
before
they
may
start
construction
of
a
new
source/
unit.
The
way
the
current
part
270
language
reads,
new
sources
subject
to
the
1999
rule
and
the
Interim
Standards
rule
are
not
able
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
part
63
standards
until
after
a
RCRA
permit
is
issued,
the
source
is
built,
and
they
conduct
performance
testing.
This
means
they
would
have
to
submit
a
trial
burn
plan
with
their
RCRA
permit
application
and
also
submit
suggested
conditions
for
the
various
phases
of
operation
 
startup
shake­
down,
trial
burn,
and
post­
trial
burn.
Likewise,
RCRA
permitted
facilities
that
are
adding
a
new
combustion
source
would
have
to
provide
the
same
information
with
their
permit
modification
request.
Whether
the
source
is
new
or
adding
a
new
combustion
source,
the
permit
writer
would
have
to
review
this
information
and
write
conditions
into
the
RCRA
permit
governing
all
phases
of
combustor
operations.
This
expenditure
of
resources,
on
the
part
of
the
source
and
the
permitting
agency,
is
unnecessary
given
that
the
conditions
will
become
inactive
or
be
removed
from
the
RCRA
permit
upon
compliance
with
the
MACT
standards.
For
new
sources,
compliance
with
the
MACT
standards
is
upon
start­
up.
Therefore,
today
we
are
proposing
that
new
sources
(
whether
a
new
source
or
a
new
source
at
an
existing
permitted
source)
who
will
be
subject
to
the
Phase
I
Replacement
standards
and
Phase
II
standards
upon
start­
up,
not
follow
the
RCRA
permitting
process
for
establishing
combustor
emissions
and
operating
requirements
(
i.
e.,
submission
of
a
trial
burn
plan
with
the
RCRA
permit
application,
submission
of
suggested
conditions
for
the
various
phases
of
operation
 
start­
up/
shake­
down,
trial
burn,
and
post­
trial
burn,
and
ultimately
obtaining
a
permit
with
operating
and
emission
standards).
b.
How
Is
EPA
Proposing
to
Change
the
Current
Requirements
for
New
Sources?
In
the
July
3,
2001
proposal,
we
developed
regulatory
language
to
clarify
our
intent
not
to
require
new
sources
to
obtain
a
RCRA
permit
with
respect
to
combustor
operations
and
emissions.
In
response
to
that
proposal,
we
received
comments
from
the
Sierra
Club
expressing
concerns
that
the
increased
opportunities
for
public
participation
established
in
the
RCRA
Expanded
Public
Participation
Rule
(
60
FR
63417,
December
11,
1995)
would
be
lost.
This
rule
involves
communities
earlier
in
the
permitting
process,
provides
more
opportunities
for
participation,
expands
public
access
to
information,
and
offers
guidance
on
how
facilities
can
improve
public
participation.
In
a
follow­
up
discussion
with
the
Sierra
Club,
they
specifically
expressed
interest
in
being
able
to
influence
decisions
on
the
construction
of
hazardous
waste
combustors.
186
Upon
consideration,
we
agree
with
the
Sierra
Club
that
in
our
previous
effort
to
streamline
the
RCRA
permitting
process
for
new
sources,
we
did
not
fully
consider
that
important
opportunities
for
public
participation
may
be
lost.
Although
we
still
believe
that
new
sources,
whether
a
new
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
281
source
or
an
existing
source
adding
a
new
source,
should
not
be
required
to
follow
the
RCRA
permitting
process,
we
also
believe
that
the
Sierra
Club's
concerns
have
merit.
It
makes
sense
to
afford
the
public
the
same
(
or
as
close
as
possible)
public
participation
opportunities
for
new
units
under
the
HWC
MACT/
CAA
framework
that
they
had
under
the
RCRA
regulations.
Therefore
we
are
modifying
our
earlier
proposal
as
discussed
in
the
paragraphs
below,
to
consider
several
options
that
will
attempt
to
address
these
concerns,
as
well
as
provide
a
means
to
improve
the
existing
regulatory
requirements
for
new
sources.
The
RCRA
Expanded
Public
Participation
Rule
implemented
four
new
requirements
for
facilities
and
permitting
agencies
that
enable
communities
to
become
more
active
participants
throughout
the
permitting
process.
They
are:
1)
permit
applicants
must
hold
an
informal
public
meeting
before
applying
for
a
permit;
2)
permitting
agencies
must
announce
the
submission
of
a
permit
application
which
will
tell
community
members
where
they
can
view
the
application
while
the
agency
reviews
it;
3)
permitting
agencies
may
require
a
facility
to
set
up
an
information
repository
at
any
point
during
the
permitting
process
if
warranted;
and
4)
permitting
agencies
must
notify
the
public
prior
to
a
trial
(
or
test)
burn.
187
Consequently,
we
will
focus
on
each
of
these
and
propose
mechanisms
that
mirror
or
fulfill
the
RCRA
public
participation
requirements.
We
stated
earlier
in
this
section
that
under
RCRA,
new
sources
must
obtain
a
permit
(
or
a
permit
modification
at
an
existing
source)
before
they
may
start
construction
of
a
new
source.
This
holds
true
regardless
of
whether
we
finalize
an
approach
that
does
not
require
new
sources
to
obtain
a
RCRA
permit
that
contains
the
combustor
operating
and
emissions
standards
(
i.
e.,
a
RCRA
permit
will
still
be
required
to
address
all
other
activities
at
the
facility
including
corrective
action,
general
facility
standards,
other
combustor
specific
concerns
such
as
material
handling,
risk­
based
emission
limits
and
operating
requirements,
and
other
hazardous
waste
management
units).
So,
in
applying
for
a
RCRA
permit,
new
hazardous
waste
facilities/
sources
will
still
be
required
to
meet
the
public
participation
requirements.
However,
the
problem
arises
if
new
sources
are
not
required
to
provide
information
relative
to
the
combustor
(
i.
e.,
sources
were
formerly,
at
this
point
in
the
process,
required
to
submit
a
trial
burn
plan),
but
only
for
the
other
proposed
hazardous
waste
management
activities
at
the
source.
Thus,
the
source
would
not
be
required
to
discuss
the
proposed
combustor­
specific
operations
and
emissions
at
the
informal
public
meeting,
nor
would
the
permit
application
that
is
made
available
to
the
public
to
review,
contain
information
regarding
the
combustor
operations
or
emissions.
In
an
effort
to
provide
an
opportunity
for
public
participation
equivalent
to
RCRA,
we
believe
that
the
Notification
of
Intent
to
Comply
(
NIC)
requirements,
as
proposed
in
Part
Two,
Section
XVI.
B.,
serve
in
place
of
the
first
two
RCRA
public
participation
requirements.
The
primary
functions
of
the
NIC
are
to
serve
as
a
compliance
planning
tool
and
to
promote
early
public
involvement
in
the
permitting
process.
In
terms
of
compliance
planning,
the
draft
NIC
must
contain
general
information
including
the
waste
minimization,
emission
control,
and
emission
monitoring
techniques
that
are
being
considered
and
how
the
source
intends
to
comply
with
the
emission
standards.
With
regard
to
early
public
involvement,
a
draft
of
the
NIC
must
be
made
available
to
the
public
for
review
within
9
months
of
the
effective
date
of
the
final
Replacement
Standards
and
Phase
II
Standards
rule.
One
month
later,
the
source
must
hold
an
informal
public
meeting
to
discuss
the
activities
described
in
the
NIC.
The
NIC
requirements
apply
to
new
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
53
Note
that
new
sources
must
have
prepared
and
included
their
documentation
of
compliance
in
the
operating
record
upon
start­
up.
New
sources
then
have
6
months
from
the
date
of
start­
up
to
begin
their
comprehensive
performance
test.

54
If
necessary,
concerns
raised
regarding
the
regulation
of
the
combustor
can
be
addressed
through
application
of
RCRA's
omnibus
provision
(
RCRA
Section
3005(
c)(
3)).

282
sources
as
well
(
see
§
63.1212(
b)(
1)
in
today's
Notice),
but
the
timing
will
vary
according
to
the
date
a
new
source
begins
burning
hazardous
waste.
For
example,
if
a
new
source
begins
burning
3
months
after
the
rule's
effective
date,
then
it
will
have
only
6
months
before
it
must
prepare
and
make
a
draft
NIC
available
for
public
review.
53
More
significantly,
according
to
40
CFR
§
63.1212(
b)(
2),
as
proposed
in
today's
Notice,
new
sources
that
are
to
begin
burning
more
than
9
months
after
the
effective
date
of
the
final
rule
will
be
required
to
meet
all
of
the
NIC
and
Compliance
progress
report
requirements
in
§
§
63.1210(
b)
and
(
c),
63.1211(
c),
and
63.1212(
a)
prior
to
burning
hazardous
waste.
We
feel
that
the
NIC
requirements
are
commensurate
with
the
public
participation
requirements
to
hold
an
informal
public
meeting
to
inform
the
community
of
the
proposed
combustor
operations
and
to
make
the
compliance
information
available
for
public
review
and
comment.
On
the
other
hand,
we
also
recognize
that
there
are
a
few
gaps.
For
instance,
the
NIC
requirements
are
not
associated
with
a
permit
action
and
the
regulatory
agency
is
not
required
to
be
present
at
the
NIC
public
meeting.
We
would,
however,
expect
the
source
to
consider
any
comments
raised
during
the
NIC
process
as
it
develops
its
final
compliance
strategy
and
final
NIC.
54
Also,
if
a
new
source
begins
burning
after
the
effective
date
of
today's
rule,
but
prior
to
9
months
after
the
effective
date,
the
NIC
is
not
required
to
be
made
available
for
public
review
before
a
new
source
begins
burning.
In
other
words,
the
public
is
not
provided
information
relative
to
the
combustor's
operations,
emissions,
and
compliance
schedule
prior
to
it
beginning
operations.
Given
these
gaps,
we
are
proposing
a
scenario
in
which
the
NIC
requirements
for
new
sources
under
MACT,
could
be
crafted
to
achieve
a
comparable
level
of
public
participation
as
under
RCRA.
We
are
proposing
to
require
that
all
new
sources
prepare
a
draft
NIC
and
make
it
available
to
the
public
at
the
same
time
as
their
RCRA
pre­
application
meeting
notice.
We
also
propose
that
new
sources
submit
their
comprehensive
performance
test
plan
at
this
time.
By
submitting
the
NIC
and
CPT
plan
together,
the
public
would
be
provided
with
compliance­
related
information
relevant
to
the
combustor
as
well
as
the
proposed
combustor
operations
and
emissions
(
i.
e.,
the
public
is
provided
testing
information
through
the
CPT
that
they
would
have
received
via
the
trial
burn
plan).
Lastly,
as
part
of
this
option
we
propose
that
the
NIC
public
meeting
coincide
with
the
informal
public
meeting
for
the
RCRA
permit.
By
holding
a
simultaneous
meeting,
the
public
is
given
the
opportunity
to
inquire
and
comment
on
both
the
source's
proposed
activities
and
the
combustor's
proposed
operations
with
regulatory
officials
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
55
Since
the
public
participation
requirements
of
40
CFR
§
§
124.31
and
124.32
only
apply
to
initial
RCRA
permits
and
renewals
with
significant
changes,
a
corresponding
regulatory
amendment
would
need
to
be
made
to
the
applicability
paragraphs
to
include
modifications
to
RCRA
permits
only
for
new
combustion
sources
that
will
comply
with
Part
63,
subpart
EEE
upon
start­
up.
Also,
63.1212(
b)
would
need
to
be
amended
to
reference
§
§
124.31
and
124.32.

56
40
CFR
§
70.7(
h)(
2)
requires
that
information
including
the
draft
Title
V
permit,
the
application,
all
relevant
supporting
materials,
and
other
materials
available
to
the
permitting
authority
that
are
relevant
to
the
permit
decision,
be
made
available
to
interested
persons.

283
from
both
the
Air
and
RCRA
programs
present.
We
request
comment
on
this
discussion.
55
With
respect
to
the
information
repository
regulations
at
40
CFR
§
124.33,
the
purpose
of
the
information
repository
is
to
make
information
(
i.
e.,
documents,
reports,
data,
and
information
deemed
necessary)
available
to
the
public
during
the
permit
issuance
process
and
during
the
life
of
a
permit.
While
the
Title
V
permit
procedures
specify
that
information
relevant
to
the
permitting
decision
be
made
available
to
the
public,
56
this
information
would
not
be
accessible
prior
to
construction
or
operation
of
the
combustor.
Under
RCRA,
the
information
repository
would
be
established
some
time
after
submission
of
the
permit
application,
but
before
construction
and
operation
of
the
combustor.
Even
though
an
information
repository
is
not
a
required
component
of
the
RCRA
permit
process,
the
regulations
provide
a
permitting
agency
with
the
discretion
to
evaluate
the
need
for
and
require
a
source
to
establish
and
maintain
one.
Therefore,
so
that
the
public
is
afforded
the
same
opportunities
to
view
and
copy
information
such
as
the
NIC,
test
plans,
draft
Title
V
permit
and
application,
reports
and
so
forth
under
MACT,
we
are
considering
two
options.
We
could
include
a
provision
similar
to
§
124.33
in
the
NIC
regulations
for
new
sources.
It
would
allow
a
regulatory
agency,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
to
require
a
source
to
establish
an
information
repository
specific
to
the
combustor.
We
believe
the
NIC
regulations
are
a
suitable
location
to
place
such
a
provision,
since
the
NIC
is
the
first
opportunity
for
the
public
to
discuss
the
combustor
operations
and
emissions.
Alternatively,
rather
than
incorporate
provisions
for
an
information
repository
in
the
NIC
regulations,
the
applicability
language
in
§
124.33
could
be
amended
to
include
new
combustion
sources
that
will
comply
with
Part
63,
subpart
EEE
upon
start­
up.
We
request
comment
on
this
discussion.
The
last
RCRA
public
participation
requirement
requires
the
permitting
agency
to
notify
the
public
prior
to
a
trial
burn
or
test
burn
at
a
combustion
facility.
If
new
sources
are
not
required
to
follow
the
RCRA
permitting
process
with
respect
to
combustor
emissions
and
operations,
they
also
would
not
be
required
to
submit
a
trial
burn
plan
with
their
permit
application
or
conduct
a
trial
burn.
However,
under
MACT,
new
(
and
existing)
combustion
sources
are
required
to
submit
performance
test
and
continuous
monitoring
system
(
CMS)
performance
evaluation
test
plans
for
approval.
The
MACT
performance
test
serves
the
same
purpose
as
the
RCRA
trial
burn
test:
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
relevant
emission
standards
and
to
collect
data
to
determine
at
what
levels
the
corresponding
operating
conditions
should
be
set.
Similar,
but
not
identical
to
the
RCRA
requirements
at
40
CFR
§
§
270.62
and
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
57
This
approach
does
not
eliminate
the
possibility
that
some
combustor­
specific
requirements
may
be
retained
in
the
RCRA
permit
such
as:
risk­
based
conditions,
compliance
with
an
alternative
MACT
standard,
compliance
with
startup,
shutdown
and
malfunction
events
under
RCRA
rather
than
the
CAA,
etc.
See
section
XVII,
D.
2.
for
a
more
complete
discussion.
Consequently,
sources
would
be
expected
to
include
the
applicable
RCRA
conditions
in
their
RCRA
permit
application.

284
270.66
requiring
the
permitting
agency
to
notify
the
public
prior
to
a
trial/
test
burn,
the
MACT
performance
test
regulations
(
see
§
63.1207(
e)(
2)),
specify
that
a
source
must
issue
a
public
notice
announcing
the
approval
of
the
test
plans
and
provide
a
location
where
the
public
may
view
them.
Although
the
timing
of
the
public
notices
are
slightly
different,
the
regulations
both
provide
notice
to
the
public
about
testing.
Under
RCRA,
notice
is
given
to
the
public
prior
(
usually
30
days)
to
commencement
of
the
trial
burn,
whereas
under
MACT,
notice
is
given
when
the
test
plans
are
approved.
The
newly
amended
regulations
of
§
63.1207(
e)(
2)
proposed
in
this
Notice,
specify
that
sources
must
make
the
test
plans
available
for
review
at
least
60
days
prior
to
commencement
of
the
test
and
must
provide
the
expected
time
period
for
commencing
(
and
completing)
the
test.
Thus,
the
public
is
informed
of
the
test
and
provided
estimates
of
test
dates
through
public
notice
of
the
approved
test
plan.
Thus
far,
the
approach
we
have
proposed
is
intended
to
ensure
that
the
public
will
have
the
same
opportunities
for
participation
and
access
to
information
as
they
would
if
new
sources
continued
to
be
subject
to
the
RCRA
permit
process
to
include
the
combustor
emission
and
operating
requirements.
By
proposing
that
new
sources
not
be
required
to
obtain
a
RCRA
permit
with
combustor
emission
and
operating
requirements,
it
provides
for
the
smoothest
and
most
practical
transition
from
RCRA
requirements
to
MACT
requirements.
57
Aside
from
the
approach
we
have
focused
on,
there
are
others
that
may
be
worthy
of
consideration.
We
can
also
look
at
the
option
of
a
transition
point
for
new
sources
that
would
specify
how
far
a
new
source
would
proceed
down
the
RCRA
permit
path
before
it
could
"
transition"
over
to
compliance
with
the
MACT
standards
and
CAA
permitting.
There
are
three
additional
options
we
can
consider
relative
to
a
transition
point:
1)
after
the
RCRA
Part
B
application
is
submitted;
2)
after
the
RCRA
permit
is
issued;
and
3)
after
the
source
places
its
Documentation
of
Compliance
(
DOC)
in
the
operating
record.
Beginning
with
the
first
option,
each
successive
one
moves
in
the
direction
toward
the
way
new
sources
currently
make
the
transition
from
RCRA
to
MACT
and
includes
modifications
to
the
RCRA
information
requirements.
We
envision
each
of
these
options
to
be
a
variation
of
the
current
RCRA
permit
process.
Under
the
first
option,
the
transition
point
would
occur
after
the
source
submits
its
RCRA
Part
B
application.
The
key
to
this
option
is
that
the
source
would
be
subject
to
the
public
participation
requirements
of
40
CFR
§
§
124.31
and
124.32,
to
hold
an
informal
public
meeting
and
to
have
the
submission
of
the
permit
application
noticed.
However,
new
sources
would
not
be
required
to
include
the
combustor's
operation
and
emission
information
in
the
Part
B
application.
Rather,
the
source
would
only
be
required
to
discuss
the
compliance­
related
activities
related
to
the
combustor
as
part
of
the
informal
public
meeting.
For
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
285
the
second
option,
the
transition
point
would
be
after
the
permitting
agency
issues
the
RCRA
permit.
The
source
would
not
only
discuss
the
combustor's
compliance­
related
activities
as
part
of
the
RCRA
informal
public
meeting
as
in
the
first
option,
but
it
would
also
address
the
operations
and
emissions
through
development
of
a
trial
burn
plan,
or
a
CPT
plan
in
lieu
of
the
trial
burn
plan,
or
even
a
coordinated
CPT/
RCRA
trial
burn
plan,
if
it
is
likely
that
the
source
will
require
some
RCRA
permit
conditions
(
i.
e.,
risk­
based
conditions).
With
this
option,
even
though
all
activities
pre­
permit
issuance
must
address
the
source
and
the
combustor's
operations
and
emissions,
the
approved
permit
would
not
contain
the
operating
and
emission
requirements
(
with
the
exception
of
risk­
based
or
alternative
standards).
For
the
third
option,
the
transition
point
would
be
after
the
source
places
its
DOC
in
the
operating
record,
which
indicates
the
source's
compliance
with
the
MACT
standards.
Basically,
the
source
would
proceed
down
the
RCRA
permit
path
as
in
option
two
by
complying
with
the
public
participation
requirements,
submitting
a
trial
burn
plan/
CPT
plan/
coordinated
plan,
suggesting
conditions
for
the
various
phases
of
operation,
and
receiving
a
RCRA
permit.
However,
in
this
option,
the
permit
would
need
to
address
combustor
operations
and
emissions
to
the
extent
that
it
would
cover
the
construction
and
start­
up/
shakedown
periods.
With
respect
to
the
public
participation
requirements,
all
three
options
automatically
factor
in
the
first
two
RCRA
public
participation
requirements
(
by
virtue
of
where
the
transition
would
be
made).
However,
we
did
not
discuss
how
we
would
account
for
the
remaining
two
public
participation
requirements.
We
believe
that
the
information
repository
and
the
notification
of
a
trial
burn
requirements
can
be
addressed
in
the
same
manner
as
we
discussed
in
our
proposed
approach.
So,
for
these
options,
we
would
incorporate
an
appropriate
requirement,
either
through
the
NIC
regulations
or
the
public
participation
regulations,
that
would
allow
for
an
information
repository
to
be
established.
Regarding
the
notice
of
a
trial
burn,
we
believe
that
the
notice
of
the
performance
test
is
equivalent.
In
summary,
our
proposed
approach
involves
modifying
the
NIC
provisions
to
include
RCRA
public
participation
requirements.
The
second
group
of
options
consider
a
range
of
transition
points
that
are
also
worthy
of
consideration.
We
invite
comment
on
this
discussion.
3.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Changes
to
the
RCRA
Permitting
Requirements
that
Will
Facilitate
the
Transition
to
MACT?
To
alleviate
potential
conflicts
between
the
RCRA
permit
requirements
and
MACT,
we
are
proposing
an
additional
streamlined
permit
modification
provision,
requiring
prior
Agency
approval,
which
would
allow
an
existing
RCRA
permit
to
be
better
aligned
with
specific
provisions
contained
in
the
Subpart
EEE
requirements.
The
intent
of
this
provision
is
to
reduce
potential
burdens
associated
with
compliance
with
overlapping
RCRA
and
MACT
requirements,
while
still
maintaining
the
overall
integrity
of
the
RCRA
permit.
a.
How
Will
the
Overlap
During
Performance
Testing
Be
Addressed?
When
we
finalized
the
performance
test
requirements
and
the
changes
to
the
RCRA
permitting
requirements
in
the
September
30,
1999
rule,
we
did
not
consider
how
sources
would
conduct
their
performance
tests
while
at
the
same
time,
maintain
compliance
with
their
RCRA
permit
requirements.
For
instance,
during
the
performance
test,
a
source
will
likely
want
to
conduct
testing
at
the
edge
of
the
operating
envelope
or
the
worst
case
for
certain
parameters
to
ensure
operating
flexibility.
This
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
58
For
subsequent
performance
tests,
we
anticipate
that
this
modification
would
be
useful
for
sources
that
may
have
risk­
based
or
alternative
requirements
in
their
RCRA
permits.

286
could
conflict
with
established
operating
and
emissions
limits
required
in
the
source's
RCRA
permit
and
consequently,
prevent
the
source
from
optimizing
its
testing
range.
Currently,
sources
have
three
options
that
would
allow
them
to
resolve
any
potential
conflicts
between
their
performance
test
and
their
RCRA
permit
requirements.
One
option
would
be
for
a
source
to
submit
a
RCRA
Class
2
or
3
permit
modification
request
to
temporarily
change
or
waive
specific
RCRA
permit
requirements
during
the
MACT
performance
test
(
see
§
270.42,
Appendix
I,
L.
5).
Another
option
would
be
for
a
source
to
request
approval
for
such
changes
through
its
RCRA
trial
burn
plan
or
coordinated
MACT
/
RCRA
test
plan
(
see
§
270.42,
Appendix
I,
L.
7.
a.
or
d.).
In
this
case,
a
source
could
include
proposed
test
conditions
in
its
plan
to
temporarily
waive
specific
RCRA
permit
requirements
during
the
test.
The
last
option
would
be
for
a
source
to
request
a
temporary
authorization
that
would
allow
specific
RCRA
permit
requirements
to
be
waived
for
a
period
of
180
days
(
see
§
270.42(
e)).
We
do
not
believe
that
any
of
the
options
discussed
above
provide
an
optimal
solution
to
resolving
conflicts
between
a
source's
performance
test
protocol
and
its
RCRA
permit
operating
and
emissions
limits.
A
Class
2
or
3
RCRA
permit
modification
may
not
be
an
option
for
many
sources
due
to
the
time
typically
involved
in
processing
these
requests.
Sources
that
choose
to
modify
their
permits
would
need
to
do
so
well
in
advance
of
conducting
their
performance
test
to
ensure
that
the
modification
would
be
processed
in
time
to
conduct
the
test
on
schedule.
This
may
result
in
sources
submitting
modification
requests
prior
to
approval
of
their
performance
test
plans.
We
believe
that
RCRA
permit
writers
are
unlikely
to
approve
any
modifications
to
RCRA
permit
requirements
without
the
assurance
that
the
source
will
be
operating
under
an
approved
test
plan.
Resolving
conflicts
using
a
trial
burn
or
coordinated
test
plan
is
not
a
viable
option
for
a
source
that
has
already
completed
its
trial
burn/
risk
burn
testing.
Lastly,
while
a
temporary
authorization
is
relatively
streamlined,
it
is
meant
to
be
used
in
unique
cases
affecting
an
individual
facility.
We
believe
that
it
is
most
logical
and
easily
implemented
to
propose
a
modification
that
can
be
used
consistently
to
remedy
a
common
problem
affecting
an
entire
group
of
facilities
with
similar
operations
(
e.
g.,
hazardous
waste
burning
combustors
facing
barriers
to
testing
due
to
RCRA
permit
requirements).
Therefore,
in
today's
Notice,
we
are
proposing
to
allow
sources
to
waive
specific
RCRA
permit
operating
and
emissions
limits
during
pretesting,
initial,
and
subsequent
performance
testing
through
a
new
streamlined
permit
modification
procedure.
58
We
believe
that
a
process
for
waiving
specific
RCRA
permit
requirements
during
performance
testing
is
consistent
with
our
objectives
to
streamline
requirements
and
minimize
conflicts
between
the
RCRA
and
CAA
programs
without
sacrificing
the
protections
afforded
by
RCRA.
Moreover,
we
view
this
new
permit
modification
to
be
complementary
to
the
provisions
of
§
63.1207(
h)
for
waiving
operating
parameter
limits
(
OPLs)
during
performance
testing.
In
the
February
14,
2002
final
amendments
rule,
we
reiterated
that
OPLs
in
the
Documentation
of
Compliance
(
DOC)
may
be
revised
at
any
time
to
reflect
testing
parameters
for
the
initial
performance
test
prior
to
submission
of
the
NOC
and
so,
in
effect,
are
automatically
waived.
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
287
Also,
we
revised
the
language
in
§
63.1207(
h)(
1)
and
(
2)
to
not
require
that
subsequent
performance
test
plans
be
approved
in
order
to
waive
OPLs,
but
rather
that
sources
only
record
the
emission
test
results
of
the
pretesting.
b.
Are
There
Other
Instances
Where
the
New
Streamlined
Permit
Modification
Can
Be
Used?
In
addition
to
our
efforts
today
to
minimize
overlapping
permit
requirements
during
performance
testing,
we
are
also
proposing
to
allow
the
new
streamlined
permit
modification
to
address
other
potential
conflicts.
In
implementing
the
1999
rule,
it
has
become
clear
that
there
are
several
other
instances
when
conflicts
may
arise
where
RCRA
permit
requirements
overlap
with
MACT
requirements.
For
example,
the
required
averaging
period
for
an
operating
parameter
might
be
slightly
different
between
MACT
and
the
RCRA
permit,
requiring
two
different
data
acquisition
schemes
during
the
interim
period
between
submittal
of
the
Documentation
of
Compliance
(
DOC)
and
the
final
modification
of
the
RCRA
permit
after
receipt
of
the
NOC.
Or,
if
a
RCRA
permit
requires
periodic
emissions
testing,
the
specified
test
schedule
in
the
permit
might
not
be
aligned
with
the
required
test
schedule
for
MACT,
causing
a
facility
to
perform
duplicate
testing
instead
of
allowing
a
single
coordinated
RCRA/
MACT
test
event.
Conflicts
in
operating
limitations,
monitoring
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
and
scheduling
provisions
can
be
especially
prevalent
during
this
interim
period.
Consequently,
we
believe
the
new
streamlined
permit
modification
procedure
would
be
appropriate
to
address
these
probable
overlaps.
c.
Why
Is
a
New
Streamlined
Permit
Modification
Procedure
Being
Proposed?
This
new
streamlined
modification
differs
from
the
one
we
finalized
in
the
June
1998
"
fast
track"
rule
(
63
FR
33782).
In
1998,
we
provided
for
a
streamlined
RCRA
permit
modification
process
whereby
you
could
request
a
Class
1
modification
with
prior
Agency
approval
to
address
and
incorporate
any
necessary
MACT
upgrades
into
your
RCRA
permit
(
see
40
CFR
§
270.42,
Appendix
I,
L(
9)).
The
streamlined
permit
modification
provision,
which
was
intended
solely
for
the
purpose
of
implementing
physical
or
operating
upgrades,
allowed
sources
that
were
already
operating
under
RCRA
combustion
permits
to
modify
their
combustion
systems'
design
and/
or
operations
in
order
to
comply
with
the
MACT
standards
without
having
to
obtain
a
Class
2
or
3
RCRA
permit
modification.
Thus,
L(
9)
was
not
intended
to
account
for
overlapping
requirements.
Further,
to
be
eligible
to
use
L(
9),
you
first
must
have
complied
with
the
NIC
requirements,
including
those
related
to
public
involvement.
Refer
to
Part
Two,
Section
XVI
for
a
discussion
of
the
NIC.
However,
similar
to
the
streamlined
modification
we
finalized
as
L(
9),
we
feel
that
this
new
streamlined
modification
warrants
a
Class
1
modification
with
prior
Agency
approval.
We
feel
that
a
Class
1
is
appropriate
considering
that:
we
do
not
expect
that
there
would
be
significant
changes
when
requesting
certain
RCRA
permit
requirements
to
be
waived;
it
would
be
applicable
for
a
relatively
short
period
of
time;
regulatory
oversight
is
incorporated
via
approval
of
the
modification
request
and;
the
intended
goal
of
the
modification
is
to
achieve
environmental
improvement
ultimately
through
implementation
of
more
protective
standards.
d.
How
Will
the
New
Streamlined
Permit
Modification
Work?
Our
proposed
approach
allows
for
a
waiver
of
specific
RCRA
permit
requirements
provided
that
you:
1)
submit
a
Class
1
permit
modification
request
specifying
the
requested
changes
to
the
RCRA
permit,
with
an
accompanying
explanation
of
why
the
changes
are
necessary
and
how
the
revised
provisions
will
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
59
Refer
to
the
new
section
in
the
RCRA
permit
modification
table
in
40
CFR
270.42,
Appendix
I,
L(
10)
and
new
regulatory
language
in
270.42(
k),
that
must
be
used
to
waive
specified
permit
requirements.

60
See
40
CFR
63.1207(
e)(
3)
for
performance
test
time
extension
requirements.

61
Some
sources
will
receive
extensions
of
up
to
one
year
to
conduct
their
initial
comprehensive
performance
test
(
see
40
CFR
63.1207(
e)(
3)).
Therefore,
their
transition
point
will
occur
at
a
later
time
designated
by
the
extension.

288
be
sufficiently
protective,
and
2)
obtain
Agency
approval
prior
to
implementing
the
changes.
59
When
utilized
to
waive
permit
requirements
during
the
performance
test,
you
also
must
have
an
approved
performance
test
plan
prior
to
submitting
your
modification
request.
(
We
believe
that
the
Class
1
modification
with
prior
Agency
approval
will
ensure
that
your
proposed
test
conditions
are
reasonable
with
respect
to
your
existing
permit
limits
(
i.
e.
that
they
are
sufficiently
protective);
and
that
an
approved
performance
test
plan
confirms
that
you
have
met
the
regulatory
requirements
for
performance
test
plans.)
We
propose
that
you
submit
your
streamlined
modification
request
in
sufficient
time
to
allow
the
Director
a
minimum
of
30
days
(
with
the
option
to
extend
the
deadline
for
another
30
days)
to
review
and
approve
your
request.
For
purposes
of
performance
testing,
we
propose
that
you
submit
your
request
at
the
time
you
receive
approval
of
your
performance
test
plan,
which
is
90
days
in
advance
of
the
test
and
coincides
with
the
time
limitations
imposed
on
the
Director
for
approval.
Additionally,
we
are
requiring
that
the
waiver
of
permit
limits
only
be
relevant
during
the
actual
testing
events
and
during
pretesting
for
an
aggregate
period
of
up
to
720
hours
of
operation.
In
other
words,
it
would
not
apply
for
the
duration
of
time
allotted
to
begin
and
complete
the
test
(
i.
e.,
the
entire
60
days).
As
a
side
note,
we
realize
that
some
sources
may
not
have
an
approved
performance
test
plan
by
the
date
their
test
is
scheduled
to
begin
because
the
Administrator
failed
to
approve
(
or
deny)
it
within
the
specified
time
period,
which
could
render
this
new
streamlined
modification
impractical.
However,
we
expect
that
sources
would
petition
the
Administrator
to
waive
their
performance
test
date
for
up
to
6
months,
with
an
additional
6
months
possible,
rather
than
to
proceed
with
the
performance
test
without
the
surety
of
an
approved
test
plan.
60
B.
How
Will
the
Replacement
Standards
Affect
Permitting
for
Phase
I
Sources?
1.
Where
Will
Phase
I
Sources
Be
in
their
Transition
to
MACT
with
Respect
to
Their
RCRA
Permits?
We
discussed
earlier
that
by
the
time
the
Phase
I
Replacement
standards
and
Phase
II
standards
are
finalized,
most
Phase
I
sources
will
have
completed
their
initial
comprehensive
performance
test
and
submitted
their
NOC
documenting
compliance
with
the
MACT
Interim
Standards.
61
This
marks
the
point
at
which
sources
will
begin
to
transition
from
RCRA
permitting
requirements
to
CAA
requirements
and
title
V
permitting.
For
sources
with
RCRA
permits,
they
must
continue
to
comply
with
the
operating
standards
and
emission
limits
in
their
permits
until
any
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
62
A
streamlined
permit
modification
was
developed
in
the
1999
rule
to
allow
the
removal
of
duplicative
conditions
from
RCRA
permits
(
see
270.42,
Appendix
I,
Section
A.
8).

63
Only
major
sources
are
required
to
reopen
their
title
V
permits
when
3
or
more
years
remain
in
the
permit
term.
Even
though
area
sources
were
subject
to
the
same
standards
and
title
V
permit
requirements,
they
can
wait
until
renewal
regardless
of
the
time
remaining
to
incorporate
new
or
revised
standards.
The
reopening
provisions
of
40
CFR
70.7(
f)
and
71.7(
f)
only
apply
to
major
sources.

289
duplicative
requirements
are
either
removed
through
a
permit
modification,
expire,
or
are
automatically
inactivated
via
a
sunset
clause
contained
in
the
permit.
For
sources
operating
under
interim
status,
they
must
comply
with
the
RCRA
interim
status
requirements
until
they
demonstrate
and
document
compliance
with
the
MACT
Interim
Standards.
We
anticipate
that
sources
who
are
in
the
process
of
renewing
their
RCRA
permits
would
work
with
their
permit
writers
to
include
sunset
clauses
to
inactivate
duplicative
requirements
upon
compliance
with
the
MACT
Interim
Standards.
Given
the
permit
actions
taken
during
the
transition
period
leading
up
to
compliance
with
the
Interim
Standards,
we
believe
that
many
sources
will
have
had
duplicative
requirements
removed
from
their
permits
by
the
time
the
Replacement
Standards
are
promulgated.
For
sources
that
have
not
had
their
RCRA
permits
modified,
we
expect
that
they
will
proceed
with
a
modification
to
remove
duplicative
requirements.
62
2.
Where
Will
Phase
I
Sources
Be
in
Their
Transition
to
MACT
with
Respect
to
Their
Title
V
Permits?
With
regard
to
title
V
permits,
Phase
I
major
and
area
sources
were
required
to
submit
a
title
V
permit
application
12
months
after
the
effective
date
of
the
1999
rule
­
or
were
required
to
reopen
existing
title
V
permits
with
3
or
more
years
remaining
in
the
permit
term,
18
months
after
the
effective
date
­
to
include
the
MACT
standards.
Sources
with
less
than
3
years
remaining
could
wait
until
renewal
to
incorporate
the
1999
standards.
63
Upon
promulgation
of
the
Interim
Standards
on
February
13,
2002,
major
sources
were
required
to
reopen
their
permits
or
could
wait
until
renewal
to
include
the
revised
standards
according
to
the
same
time
frames
mentioned
above.
Therefore,
we
expect
that
all
Phase
I
sources
would
have
title
V
permits
containing
the
MACT
Interim
Standards
and
potentially,
operating
standards
in
accordance
with
their
DOC,
at
the
time
the
Replacement
Standards
rule
is
promulgated.
Furthermore,
most
sources
will
have
initiated
a
significant
modification
to
their
permits
to
include
the
revised
operating
requirements
of
their
NOC.
Regardless
of
these
required
compliance
activities
leading
up
to
the
promulgation
date
of
the
Replacement
Standards
rule,
Phase
I
sources
will
again
need
to
reopen
within
18
months
or
wait
until
renewal
to
incorporate
the
MACT
Replacement
standards.
3.
What
Is
Different
with
Respect
to
Permitting
in
Today's
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking?
Based
upon
our
decision
to
utilize
the
same
general
permitting
approach
as
in
the
1999
and
Interim
Standards
rules,
we
expect
sources
to
follow
the
same
transition
scheme
as
it
relates
to
RCRA
permit
requirements
and
the
CAA
requirements
and
title
V
permitting
for
the
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
290
Replacement
Standards
rule.
One
aspect,
however,
that
was
not
addressed
in
those
rules
was
how
the
permitting
of
new
sources
would
be
affected.
Hence,
we
discuss
approaches
in
this
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
(
see
Section
A.
1.
above)
that
would
require
them
to
obtain
RCRA
permits
only
for
corrective
action,
general
facility
standards,
other
combustor
specific
concerns
such
as
material
handling,
risk­
based
emission
limits
and
operating
requirements,
and
other
hazardous
waste
management
units
at
the
source.
Should
the
approach
we
are
proposing
be
finalized,
there
may
not
be
any
operating
requirements
and
emission
standards
to
remove
from
their
RCRA
permits.
We
also
discussed
a
new
streamline
permit
modification
procedure
in
section
A.
2.
"
What
Are
the
Proposed
Changes
to
the
RCRA
Permitting
Requirements
that
Will
Facilitate
the
Transition
to
MACT?".
This
new
procedure
allows
sources
to
waive
specific
RCRA
permit
operating
and
emission
limits
during
pretesting,
performance
testing,
and
other
instances
where
there
may
be
conflicts
during
the
interim
period
between
submission
of
the
Documentation
of
Compliance
and
final
RCRA
permit
modification.
Another
important
difference
is
our
proposal
to
codify
the
authority
for
permit
writers
to
evaluate
the
need
for
and,
where
appropriate,
require
SSRAs.
We
are
also
proposing
to
codify
the
authority
for
permit
writers
to
add
conditions
to
RCRA
permits
that
they
determine,
based
on
the
results
of
an
SSRA,
are
necessary
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
In
doing
so,
our
intent
is
to
change
the
regulatory
mechanism
that
is
the
basis
for
SSRAs,
while
retaining
the
same
SSRA
policy
from
a
substantive
standpoint.
Under
this
approach,
permitting
authorities
continue
to
have
the
responsibility
to
ensure
the
protectiveness
of
RCRA
permits.
Next,
we
have
proposed
to
re­
institute
the
NIC
(
see
Part
Two,
Section
XVI
for
a
discussion
of
the
NIC)
for
Phase
I
sources
and
to
require
the
NIC
for
Phase
II
sources.
While
the
NIC
serves
as
a
compliance
planning
tool
and
to
promote
early
public
involvement,
it
is
also
a
requirement
before
the
streamlined
permit
modification
procedure
in
40
CFR
§
270.42(
j)
and
270.42,
Appendix
I,
Section
L.
9,
can
be
utilized
to
make
changes
to
either
the
combustor
design
or
operations,
in
order
to
comply
with
the
final
Replacement
Standards.
Thus,
sources
who
have
not
yet
made
the
transition
from
their
RCRA
permits
to
title
V
permits
must
comply
with
the
NIC
requirements
to
take
advantage
of
the
streamlined
permit
modification.
Last,
a
subtle
difference
pertaining
to
the
transition
scheme
stems
from
the
time
span
between
compliance
with
the
Interim
Standards
and
the
effective
date
of
the
Replacement
Standards
relative
to
RCRA
permits.
Sources
who
received
extensions
to
the
date
for
commencing
their
initial
comprehensive
performance
test,
whether
a
6
month
or
12
month
extension,
will
not
be
required
to
submit
an
NOC
until
either
a
few
months
before
or
just
after
the
effective
date
of
the
final
Replacement
Standards
rule.
Therefore,
these
sources
would
be
modifying
their
RCRA
permits
just
before
or
after
the
effective
date
of
the
final
rule.
Nevertheless,
we
anticipate
that
sources
will
proceed
with
modification
of
their
RCRA
permits
to
remove
duplicative
requirements.
C.
What
Permitting
Requirements
Is
EPA
Proposing
for
Phase
II
Sources?
Phase
II
sources
are
presently
subject
to
the
RCRA
permitting
requirements
for
hazardous
waste
combustors
provided
in
40
CFR
§
§
270.22
and
270.66.
We
are
proposing
in
today's
Notice
to
apply
the
same
approach
to
permitting
Phase
II
sources
that
we
did
for
Phase
I
sources
in
the
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
64
Even
though
the
RCRA
air
emission
standards
for
combustors
will
no
longer
apply
once
compliance
is
demonstrated
with
MACT
(
except
in
certain
cases),
other
RCRA
air
emission
standards
will
continue
to
apply
to
other
hazardous
waste
management
units
at
the
facility.
For
example,
part
264,
subpart
CC,
still
applies
to
air
emissions
from
tanks,
surface
impoundments,
and
containers.

291
September
1999
rule.
Specifically,
we
propose
to:
(
4)
place
the
new
Phase
II
emission
standards
only
in
the
CAA
regulations
at
40
CFR
Part
63,
Subpart
EEE,
and
rely
on
their
implementation
through
the
air
program,
(
5)
specify
that,
with
few
exceptions,
the
analogous
standards
in
the
RCRA
regulations
no
longer
apply
once
a
facility
demonstrates
compliance
with
the
MACT
standards
in
Subpart
EEE,
and
(
6)
require
that
the
new
standards
be
incorporated
into
operating
permits
issued
under
title
V
of
the
CAA
rather
than
be
incorporated
into
RCRA
permits.
Our
goal
with
regard
to
permitting
Phase
II
sources
remains
the
same
as
the
goal
that
we
had
for
Phase
I
sources
 
to
accommodate
the
requirements
of
both
the
RCRA
and
CAA
statutes,
while
at
the
same
time
avoiding
duplication
between
the
two
programs
to
the
extent
practicable.
The
permitting
approach
we
developed
for
Phase
I
sources
in
the
September
1999
rule
enables
us
to
achieve
this
goal.
In
that
rule,
we
amended
the
applicability
of
40
CFR
§
§
270.19,
270.22,
270.62,
and
270.66
so
that
once
a
source
demonstrates
compliance
with
the
MACT
standards,
it
is
no
longer
subject
to
the
full
array
of
RCRA
combustion
permitting
activities,
unless
the
Director
of
the
permitting
agency
decides
to
apply
specific
RCRA
regulatory
provisions,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
for
purposes
of
information
collection
in
accordance
with
§
§
270.10(
k)
and
270.32(
b)(
2).
We
are
proposing
to
make
a
similar
change
to
40
CFR
§
§
270.22
and
270.66
for
Phase
II
sources.
In
addition,
we
are
proposing
for
Phase
II
sources,
as
we
are
for
Phase
I
sources,
that
new
sources
not
follow
the
RCRA
permitting
process
for
establishing
combustor
emissions
and
operating
requirements.
Of
course,
as
for
Phase
I
sources,
Phase
II
sources
would
remain
subject
to
the
RCRA
permitting
requirements
for
all
other
aspects
of
their
combustion
unit
and
facility
operations,
including
general
facility
standards,
corrective
action,
other
combustorspecific
concerns
such
as
materials
handling,
risk­
based
emission
limits
and
operating
requirements,
as
appropriate,
and
other
hazardous
waste
management
units
at
the
site.
64
Also,
some
sources
will
retain
specific
RCRA
permitting
requirements
if
they
choose
to
comply
with
an
alternative
MACT
standard;
address
startup,
shutdown
and
malfunction
events
under
RCRA
rather
than
the
CAA;
or,
if
an
area
source,
comply
with
the
RCRA
metals,
particulate
matter,
or
chlorine
standards
and
associated
requirements.
It
is
also
important
to
note
that
if
you
later
decide
to
add
a
new
combustion
unit
to
your
facility,
you
must
first
modify
your
RCRA
permit
to
include
the
new
unit.
This
is
because
your
RCRA
permit
must
reflect
all
hazardous
waste
management
units
at
the
facility.
Although
the
emissions
from
the
new
unit
will
be
regulated
under
the
CAA
MACT
standards,
as
noted
above,
your
RCRA
permit
must
address
any
other
related
requirements
for
the
new
unit.
1.
What
Other
Permitting
Requirements
Are
We
Proposing
to
Apply
to
Phase
II
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
65
It
is
important
to
note
that
you
only
may
request
the
removal
of
duplicative
combustion
limits
and
conditions
from
your
RCRA
permit.
Any
risk­
based
conditions
that
are
more
stringent
than
the
MACT
requirements
would
be
retained.

66
Section
270.72(
b)
imposes
a
limit
on
the
extent
of
the
changes,
stating
that
they
cannot
amount
to
"
reconstruction"
(
defined
in
the
regulation
as
"
when
the
capital
investment
in
the
changes
to
the
facility
exceeds
50
percent
of
the
capital
cost
of
a
comparable
entirely
new
hazardous
waste
management
facility").
Although
we
did
not
expect
the
individual
costs
to
perform
changes
required
to
comply
with
the
MACT
standards
to
exceed
this
50
percent
limit,
the
limit
is
cumulative
for
all
changes
at
an
interim
status
facility.
Thus,
conceivably
there
could
be
situations
where
MACT­
related
changes
would
cause
a
source
to
exceed
the
limit.
To
ensure
that
the
limit
would
not
be
a
hindrance
to
MACT
compliance,
we
added
an
exemption
to
paragraph
(
b)
of
that
section
for
changes
necessary
to
comply
with
standards
under
40
CFR
Part
63,
Subpart
EEE.

292
Sources?
As
part
of
the
Phase
I
rule,
we
promulgated
additional
specific
changes
to
the
RCRA
permitting
requirements
in
40
CFR
Part
270
to
facilitate
implementation
of
the
new
standards
and
permit
transition
from
RCRA
to
the
CAA.
First,
we
added
a
streamlined
RCRA
permit
modification
process
to
allow
sources
to
make
changes
to
either
their
combustor
design
or
operations,
as
necessary,
in
order
to
comply
with
the
Phase
I
standards.
This
modification
process,
a
Class
1
with
prior
Agency
approval,
was
promulgated
in
the
June
19,
1998
"
Fast
Track"
rule
and
is
provided
in
40
CFR
§
270.42(
j)
and
270.42,
Appendix
I,
Section
L.
9.
See
63
FR
33785.
Second,
we
further
amended
the
Section
270.42,
Appendix
I
permit
modification
table
to
add
a
new
line
item
that
streamlines
modification
procedures
for
removing
conditions
from
a
permit
that
are
no
longer
applicable
(
e.
g.,
because
the
standards
upon
which
they
are
based
are
no
longer
applicable
to
the
source).
This
new
line
item
is
a
Class
1
modification
requiring
prior
Agency
approval
and
is
provided
in
Section
A.
8
of
Appendix
I.
65
Third,
we
added
a
new
section,
40
CFR
§
270.235,
to
the
RCRA
permitting
requirements
that
address
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
events
and
the
integration
of
those
requirements
between
the
RCRA
program
and
the
CAA
program.
Fourth,
we
amended
the
requirements
in
40
CFR
§
270.72
governing
changes
that
facilities
can
make
while
they
are
operating
under
interim
status.
66
We
believe
that
each
of
the
above
changes
that
we
made
to
the
RCRA
permitting
regulations
for
Phase
I
sources
are
also
appropriate
for
Phase
II
sources
and
thus,
are
proposing
that
these
same
features
apply
to
Phase
II
sources.
They
will
serve
to
ease
implementation
of
the
new
standards
and
transition
combustion
sources
from
RCRA
to
the
CAA.
We
did
not
amend
any
title
V
regulations
in
40
CFR
Parts
70
or
71
for
Phase
I
sources.
It
was
our
intent
during
the
Phase
I
rulemaking,
and
continues
to
be
our
intent
for
Phase
II,
to
rely
on
the
existing
air
program
to
implement
the
new
MACT
requirements,
including
their
incorporation
into
a
title
V
operating
permit.
Thus,
we
are
proposing
that
all
current
CAA
title
V
requirements
governing
permit
applications,
permit
content,
permit
issuance,
renewal,
reopenings
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
293
and
revisions
will
apply
to
air
emissions
from
Phase
II
sources.
In
addition,
the
requirements
of
other
CAA
permitting
programs,
such
as
air
construction
permits,
likewise
will
continue
to
apply,
as
appropriate.
We
also
included
provisions
in
the
Subpart
EEE
requirements
that
address
the
relationship
between
the
standards
and
title
V
permits.
Specifically,
we
stated
in
40
CFR
§
63.1206(
c)(
1)(
iv)
and
(
v)
that
the
operating
requirements
in
the
Notification
of
Compliance
are
applicable
requirements
for
purposes
of
Parts
70
and
71,
and
that
these
operating
requirements
will
be
incorporated
into
title
V
permits.
We
are
proposing
the
same
approach
for
the
interface
between
the
Phase
II
standards
and
title
V
permits.
2.
What
Other
Permitting
Requirements
Are
We
Proposing
in
Today's
Notice
that
Would
Also
Be
Applicable
to
Phase
II
Sources?
In
today's
notice,
we
are
proposing
three
changes
to
the
general
permitting
approach
for
all
sources
subject
to
Part
63,
Subpart
EEE,
including
Phase
II
sources.
First,
we
are
proposing
to
allow
sources
to
waive
specific
RCRA
permit
operating
and
emission
limits
using
a
streamlined
permit
modification
procedure.
This
would
apply
for
pretesting,
performance
testing,
and
other
instances
where
there
may
be
conflicts
during
the
interim
period
between
submittal
of
the
DOC
and
final
RCRA
permit
modification.
Second,
we
are
proposing
that
new
units
not
be
required
to
obtain
a
RCRA
permit
that
includes
emission
limits
or
conditions,
with
certain
exceptions
(
e.
g.,
more
stringent
risk­
based
limits).
Third,
we
are
proposing
to
codify
the
authority
for
permit
writers
to
evaluate
the
need
for
and,
where
appropriate,
require
SSRAs.
We
are
also
proposing
to
codify
the
authority
for
permit
writers
to
add
conditions
to
RCRA
permits
that
they
determine,
based
on
the
results
of
an
SSRA,
are
necessary
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
We
believe
that
each
of
the
above
proposals
are
appropriate
for
Phase
II
as
well
as
Phase
I
sources
and,
therefore,
are
applying
them
to
all
hazardous
waste
combustors
subject
to
Part
63,
Subpart
EEE.
See
the
discussions
provided
in
A.
1
and
A.
2
of
this
section.
3.
How
Will
the
Permitting
Approach
Work
for
Phase
II
Sources?
In
the
preamble
to
the
September
1999
rule,
we
discussed
at
length
how
to
implement
the
new
permitting
approach,
including
aspects
such
as
when
and
how
to
transition
sources
from
RCRA
permitting
to
title
V.
See
64
FR
52981.
We
have
also
provided
a
fact
sheet
on
permit
transition
in
our
Hazardous
Waste
Combustion
NESHAP
Toolkit,
which
is
available
at
the
following
Internet
address:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
combust/
toolkit/
index.
htm.
The
information
provided
in
the
above­
mentioned
preamble
and
the
fact
sheet
is
appropriate
for
Phase
II
as
well
as
Phase
I
sources.
Below
is
a
summary
of
this
information
for
sources
that
already
have
RCRA
permits
and
for
sources
that
are
currently
operating
under
RCRA
Interim
Status.
The
permitting
approach
for
new
sources
is
discussed
earlier
in
A.
1
of
this
section.
a.
Implementing
the
New
Permitting
Approach
for
Phase
II
Sources
that
Already
Have
RCRA
Permits.
If
you
already
have
a
RCRA
permit,
you
must
continue
to
comply
with
the
conditions
in
your
permit
until
either
they
expire
or
your
permitting
authority
modifies
your
permit
to
remove
them.
You
can
request
a
permit
modification,
using
line
item
A.
8
provide
in
Appendix
I
of
Section
270.42,
to
request
that
your
permitting
authority
remove
any
duplicative
conditions
once
you
have
conducted
your
comprehensive
performance
test
and
submitted
a
Notification
of
Compliance
documenting
compliance
to
your
CAA
regulatory
agency.
The
appropriate
CAA
regulatory
agency
in
most
cases
will
be
the
state
environmental
agency.
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
294
When
you
submit
your
RCRA
permit
modification
request
you
should
identify
the
conditions
in
your
RCRA
permit
that
you
believe
should
be
removed.
We
recommend
that
you
also
attach
a
copy
of
your
Notification
of
Compliance.
This
information
will
help
the
RCRA
permit
writer
determine
whether
there
are
any
risk­
based
conditions
that
need
to
remain
in
your
RCRA
permit.
For
example,
any
conditions
imposed
under
RCRA
omnibus
authority,
or
similar
state
authority,
based
on
the
results
of
a
site­
specific
risk
assessment
that
are
more
stringent
than
the
corresponding
MACT
standard
or
limitation
documented
in
the
Notification
of
Compliance
would
have
to
remain
in
the
RCRA
permit.
You
should
also
inform
your
RCRA
permit
writer
if
you
intend
to
comply
with
any
specific
RCRA
requirements
in
lieu
of
those
provided
in
Part
63,
Subpart
EEE,
such
as
the
RCRA
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
requirements.
Providing
this
information
to
the
RCRA
permit
writer
likely
will
expedite
review
of
your
permit
modification
request.
We
expect
that
in
some
situations
RCRA
permit
writers
may
not
approve
a
request
to
remove
conditions
until
they
know
that
their
counterparts
in
the
Air
program
have
reviewed
the
Notification
of
Compliance
and
verified
that
the
facility
has
successfully
demonstrated
compliance
with
the
MACT
standards.
This
may
happen,
for
example,
with
facilities
that
have
historically
generated
a
lot
of
interest
or
concern
from
the
community
or
that
have
had
previous
problems
in
maintaining
compliance
with
performance
standards.
If
you
have
received
confirmation
that
the
regulatory
agency
has
made
a
Finding
of
Compliance
based
on
your
Notification
of
Compliance,
we
recommend
you
include
that
with
your
RCRA
permit
modification
request
as
well.
Once
people
in
the
Air
program
responsible
for
reviewing
the
Notification
of
Compliance
have
completed
their
evaluation
of
the
documentation
and
test
results,
we
encourage
them
to
inform
their
RCRA
counterparts.
This
courtesy
will
help
RCRA
permit
writers
complete
their
review
of
the
RCRA
permit
modification
requests,
thereby
facilitating
the
permit
transition.
b.
Implementing
the
New
Permitting
Approach
for
Sources
that
Are
Operating
under
RCRA
Interim
Status.
If
you
are
currently
operating
under
RCRA
interim
status,
you
must
continue
to
meet
RCRA
performance
standards
governing
emissions
of
hazardous
air
pollutants
in
40
CFR
Part
266
until
you
conduct
your
comprehensive
performance
test
and
submit
your
Notification
of
Compliance
documenting
compliance
with
the
MACT
standards
to
the
regulatory
agency.
The
RCRA
combustion
permitting
procedures
in
40
CFR
part
270
also
continue
to
apply
until
you
demonstrate
compliance.
There
is
not
a
"
one
size
fits
all"
answer
to
how
facilities
operating
under
RCRA
interim
status
should
make
the
transition.
RCRA
permit
writers,
in
coordination
with
facility
owners
or
operators,
should
map
out
the
most
appropriate
route
to
follow
in
each
case.
In
mapping
out
sitespecific
approaches
to
transition,
both
the
regulators
and
the
facility
owners
or
operators
should
keep
in
mind
the
goal
we
mentioned
earlier
of
minimizing
the
amount
of
time
a
facility
might
be
subject
to
duplicative
requirements
under
the
two
programs.
Factors
they
should
take
into
consideration
include,
but
are
not
limited
to
the
following.
(
1)
The
status
of
the
facility
in
the
RCRA
permitting
process
at
the
time
the
final
MACT
rule
is
promulgated.
For
example
 
If
a
facility
is
on
the
verge
of
conducting
a
RCRA
trial
burn,
it
should
proceed
with
the
trial
burn
and
continue
through
the
RCRA
permitting
process.
(
2)
The
facility's
anticipated
schedule
for
demonstrating
compliance
with
the
MACT
standards.
For
example
 
If
the
facility
plans
to
come
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
295
into
compliance
with
the
standards
early,
it
may
make
sense
to
transition
before
completing
the
RCRA
permitting
process.
(
3)
The
priorities
and
schedule
of
the
regulatory
agency.
For
example
 
A
state
agency
may
have
made
certain
commitments
(
e.
g.,
to
the
public
or
to
its
state
legislature)
regarding
their
RCRA
or
CAA
programs
that
might
impact
its
decisions
regarding
the
transition.
(
4)
The
level
of
environmental
concern
at
a
given
site.
For
example
 
To
make
sure
that
the
facility
is
being
operated
in
a
manner
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment,
the
regulatory
agency
may
decide
to
proceed
with
RCRA
permitting,
including
the
site­
specific
risk
assessment,
rather
than
delay
the
RCRA
process
to
coordinate
with
testing
under
MACT.
If
after
evaluating
all
the
relevant
factors
a
decision
is
made
to
proceed
with
a
RCRA
permit
in
advance
of
a
source's
MACT
compliance
demonstration,
we
suggest
including
language
to
facilitate
the
eventual
transition.
Regulators
can
attach
"
sunset"
provisions
to
those
conditions
that
will
no
longer
apply
once
a
source
demonstrates
compliance
with
the
Part
63
Subpart
EEE
standards.
In
making
the
transition
from
one
program
to
the
other,
testing
under
one
program
should
not
be
unnecessarily
delayed
in
order
to
coordinate
with
testing
required
under
the
other.
As
proposed
for
Phase
II,
sources
would
be
conducting
periodic
performance
testing
(
every
five
years)
anyway,
just
as
the
Phase
I
sources
are
required
to
do.
In
both
our
Hazardous
Waste
Minimization
and
Combustion
Strategy
and
in
the
September
1999
Phase
I
rule,
we
emphasized
the
importance
of
bringing
hazardous
waste
combustion
units
under
enforceable
controls
that
have
been
demonstrated
to
achieve
compliance
with
performance
standards.
Stack
testing
is
essentially
the
way
to
make
this
demonstration,
whether
it
is
performed
under
the
RCRA
or
CAA
regulatory
schemes,
and
so
should
be
performed
as
expeditiously
as
possible.
4.
How
Do
We
Propose
Regulating
Phase
II
Area
Sources?
In
today's
Notice,
we
are
not
making
a
positive
area
source
finding
as
we
have
with
the
Phase
I
area
sources.
However,
we
are
using
the
"
specific
pollutants"
authority
in
§
112section
112(
c)(
6)
of
the
CAA
to
propose
that
area
sources
be
subject
to
MACT
standards
only
for
certain
hazardous
air
pollutants.
Thus,
area
sources
will
be
subject
to
title
V
permitting
requirements
for
those
pollutants
specified
per
CAA
§
112section
112(
c)(
6).
Under
40
CFR
§
6363.1(
c)(
2),
area
sources
subject
to
MACT
standards
are
also
subject
to
title
V
permitting,
unless
the
standards
for
the
source
category
specifies
that:
(
1)
states
will
have
the
option
to
exclude
area
sources
from
title
V
permit
requirements;
or
(
2)
states
will
have
the
option
to
defer
permitting
of
area
sources.
We
did
not
allow
the
states
these
options
in
the
September
1999
rule
for
Phase
I
sources,
and
we
are
not
proposing
to
offer
them
for
Phase
II
sources
either.
Since
the
RCRA
program
does
not
make
a
distinction
between
regulating
major
and
area
sources
and
would
no
longer
be
able
to
address
the
pollutants
covered
by
MACT
(
because
the
underlying
RCRA
standards
in
40
CFR
parts
264,
265,
and
266
would
no
longer
be
applicable
once
the
source
demonstrates
compliance
with
Subpart
EEE),
we
believe
that
area
sources
should
not
be
exempt
from
the
title
V
permitting
requirements.
It
is
important
that
there
not
be
a
gap
in
permitting
coverage
as
we
implement
the
deferral
from
regulation
under
RCRA
to
regulation
under
the
CAA.
In
addition,
Section
502(
a)
of
the
CAA
requires
that
any
area
source
exemptions
from
the
title
V
permitting
requirements
be
predicated
on
a
finding
that
compliance
with
the
requirements
is
impracticable,
infeasible,
or
unnecessarily
burdensome.
We
do
not
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
67
We
provided
further
clarification
of
the
appropriate
use
of
the
SSRA
policy
and
technical
guidance
in
an
April
10,
2003
memorandum
from
Marianne
Lamont
Horinko,
Assistant
Administrator
for
OSWER,
to
the
EPA
Regional
Administrators
titled
Use
of
the
Site­
Specific
Risk
Assessment
Policy
and
Guidance
for
Hazardous
Waste
Combustion
Facilities.
This
document
is
available
in
the
docket
(
Docket
#
RCRA­
2003­
0016)
established
for
today's
proposed
action.

296
believe
that
the
title
V
permitting
requirements
will
be
impracticable,
infeasible,
or
unnecessarily
burdensome
for
Phase
II
area
sources,
because
these
sources
are
already
complying
with
RCRA
permitting
requirements.
As
explained
above,
we
are
using
the
"
specific
pollutants"
authority
to
propose
that
area
sources
be
subject
to
MACT
standards
only
for
certain
hazardous
air
pollutants:
dioxin/
furans,
mercury,
DRE
and
carbon
monoxide/
hydrocarbons.
(
See
Part
Two,
Section
II.
C.)
For
particulate
matter,
chlorine
and
HAP
metals
other
than
mercury,
we
are
proposing
that
area
sources
have
the
option
of
complying
with
the
MACT
standards
for
Phase
II
major
sources
or
continuing
to
comply
with
the
RCRA
emission
standards
and
requirements.
Those
Phase
II
area
sources
that
choose
to
comply
with
the
RCRA
standards
and
requirements
will
be
subject
to
title
V
permits
for
some
of
their
emissions
and
RCRA
permits
for
others.
In
summary,
regardless
of
whether
an
area
source
elects
to
comply
with
all
or
only
the
pollutants
pursuant
to
CAA
§
112section
112(
c)(
6),
a
title
V
permit
will
be
required.
D.
How
Would
this
Proposal
Affect
the
RCRA
Site­
Specific
Risk
Assessment
Policy?
1.
What
Is
the
Site­
Specific
Risk
Assessment
Policy?
In
the
September
30,
1999
Phase
I
rule,
we
articulated
a
revised
Site­
Specific
Risk
Assessment
(
SSRA)
policy
recommendation
for
hazardous
waste
burning
incinerators,
cement
kilns
and
light­
weight
aggregate
kilns.
Specifically,
we
recommended
that
for
hazardous
waste
combustors
subject
to
the
Phase
I
MACT
standards,
permitting
authorities
should
evaluate
the
need
for
an
SSRA
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
We
further
stated
that
while
SSRAs
are
not
anticipated
to
be
necessary
for
every
facility,
they
should
be
conducted
where
there
is
some
reason
to
believe
that
operation
in
accordance
with
the
MACT
standards
alone
may
not
be
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
If
the
permitting
authority
concludes
that
a
risk
assessment
is
necessary
for
a
particular
combustor,
the
permitting
authority
must
provide
the
factual
and
technical
basis
for
its
decision
in
the
facility's
administrative
record.
Should
the
SSRA
demonstrate
that
supplemental
requirements
are
needed
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment,
additional
conditions
and
limitations
should
be
included
in
the
facility's
RCRA
permit
pursuant
to
the
omnibus
authority.
The
basis
and
supporting
information
for
those
supplemental
requirements
also
must
be
documented
in
the
facility's
administrative
record.
For
hazardous
waste
combustors
not
subject
to
the
Phase
I
standards,
we
continued
to
recommend
that
SSRAs
be
conducted
as
part
of
the
RCRA
permitting
process.
See
64
FR
52841.67
2.
Are
SSRAs
Likely
to
be
Necessary
After
Sources
Comply
with
the
Phase
I
Replacement
Standards
and
Phase
II
Standards?
As
explained
earlier,
all
Phase
I
replacement
standards
must
be
equivalent
to
or
more
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
68
The
1999­
promulgated
total
chlorine
standard
for
new
LWAKs
was
41
ppmv.
The
proposed
replacement
standard
is
150
ppmv.
We
do
not
view
the
total
chlorine
replacement
standard
as
a
concern
because
the
1999­
promulgated
total
chlorine
standard
for
existing
sources
was
higher
(
230
ppmv)
and
found
to
be
generally
protective
in
the
national
risk
assessment
conducted
for
that
rulemaking.
With
respect
to
risk
from
mercury
for
LWAKs,
see
"
Inferential
Risk
Analysis
in
Support
of
Standards
for
Emissions
of
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
from
Hazardous
Waste
Combustors,"
prepared
under
contract
to
EPA
by
Research
Triangle
Institute,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC.

69
See
Human
Health
and
Ecological
Risk
Assessment
Support
to
the
Development
of
Technical
Standards
for
Emissions
from
Combustion
Units
Burning
Hazardous
Wastes:
Background
Document,
July
1999.

297
stringent
than
the
negotiated
interim
standards.
Many
of
the
replacement
standards
proposed
in
today's
notice
would
be
more
stringent
than
the
interim
standards
(
e.
g.,
64
ug/
dscm
as
opposed
to
120
ug/
dscm
for
the
existing
source
cement
kiln
mercury
standard).
And,
with
the
exception
of
the
mercury
standard
for
both
new
and
existing
LWAKs
and
the
total
chlorine
standard
for
new
LWAKs,
they
are
also
equivalent
to
or
more
stringent
than
the
1999­
promulgated
standards,
which
EPA
determined
to
be
generally
protective
in
a
national
risk
assessment
conducted
for
that
rulemaking.
68,69
For
today's
proposed
action,
we
conducted
a
comparative
risk
analysis
of
the
Phase
I
replacement
standards
to
the
1999­
promulgated
Phase
I
standards.
Specifically,
we
compared
certain
characteristics
of
the
Phase
I
source
universe
as
it
exists
today
to
the
1999
Phase
I
source
universe
to
determine
if
there
were
any
significant
differences
that
might
influence
or
impact
the
potential
risk.
We
focused
on
the
following
four
key
characteristics:
emission
rates,
stack
gas
characteristics,
meteorological
conditions,
and
exposed
populations.
Based
on
the
results
of
our
comparative
analysis,
we
believe
that
the
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment
from
Phase
I
sources
complying
with
the
proposed
replacement
standards
will
be,
for
the
most
part,
the
same
or
less
than
the
estimated
risk
from
sources
complying
with
the
1999­
promulgated
standards.
See
Part
Four,
Section
IX,
How
Does
the
Proposed
Rule
Meet
the
RCRA
Protectiveness
Mandate?.
Although
the
replacement
standards
are
generally
equivalent
to
or
more
stringent
than
both
the
interim
and
1999­
promulgated
standards,
we
cannot
assess
to
what
extent
this
may
change
the
frequency
with
which
SSRAs
are
determined
to
be
necessary.
In
the
end,
the
MACT
standards
are
technology­
based
and
so,
risk
analysis
notwithstanding,
cannot
assure
that
emissions
from
each
affected
source
will
be
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
For
example,
a
particular
source
could
emit
types
and
concentrations
of
non­
dioxin
PICs
different
from
those
we
modeled,
and
so
could
continue
to
pose
risk
not
accounted
for
in
our
analysis.
Sources'
emissions
of
criteria
pollutants,
which
are
non­
HAPs
and
so
are
beyond
the
direct
scope
of
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
70
See
56
FR
at
7145
(
Feb.
21,
1991)
explaining
why
there
can
be
circumstances
where
a
risk­
based
standard
for
particulate
matter
(
a
criteria
pollutant)
for
hazardous
waste
combustion
sources
may
be
needed,
and
how
such
a
standard
could
be
integrated
into
the
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standard
implementation
process.

71
Particulate
matter
is
an
appropriate
surrogate
to
control
metal
emissions
in
nonhazardous
waste
fuels
and
raw
material
in
lieu
of
a
numerical
metal
emission
limit
because
a
numerical
metal
emission
standard
may
inappropriately
control
feedrate
of
HAP
metals
in
the
raw
materials
and
fossil
fuels
(
since
such
control
would
be
neither
replicable
nor
duplicable,
and
is
not
justified
as
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard).

298
MACT,
also
could
possibly
pose
risk
which
could
necessitate
site
specific
risk
assessment.
70
Another
potential
example
involves
emissions
of
nonmercury
metal
HAP
by
cement
kilns
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
The
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metal
thermal
emission
standards
directly
address
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste,
as
opposed
to
a
source's
total
HAP
metal
emissions.
Thus,
although
these
proposed
limits
reflect
MACT,
by
normalizing
the
standards
to
thermal
firing
rate
(
for
the
appropriate
reasons
explained
earlier),
they
do
not
create
a
HAP
metal
"
emissions
cap".
HAP
metal
emission
contributions
from
nonhazardous
waste
fuels
and
raw
materials
are
not
directly
regulated
by
this
type
of
emission
standard,
but
are
rather
controlled
appropriately
with
the
particulate
matter
standard.
71
In
contrast,
RCRA
permits
can
address
the
total
emissions
from
the
combustion
unit,
assuming
an
appropriate
nexus
with
hazardous
waste
combustion.
Thus,
for
those
combustors
that
must
comply
with
a
thermal
emission
standard
and
that
feed
materials
other
than
hazardous
waste,
the
permitting
authority
may
decide
that
an
SSRA
is
appropriate
to
determine
if
additional
limits
(
i.
e.,
a
total
emissions
cap)
are
necessary
to
ensure
that
all
metal
HAP
emissions
from
the
combustion
unit
remain
at
a
level
that
is
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
With
respect
to
Phase
II
sources,
the
standards
we
are
proposing
in
today's
notice
are
significantly
more
stringent
than
the
existing
technical
standards
required
under
RCRA
(
40
CFR
Part
266,
Subpart
H).
To
evaluate
the
protectiveness
of
the
proposed
Phase
II
standards,
we
conducted
the
same
comparative
risk
analysis
for
Phase
II
sources
that
we
conducted
for
Phase
I
sources.
Specifically,
we
evaluated
the
differences
between
the
1999
Phase
I
source
universe
and
the
existing
Phase
II
source
universe
with
respect
to
the
four
key
source
characteristics
mentioned
above
to
determine
if
there
were
any
significant
differences
that
might
influence
or
impact
the
potential
risk.
As
discussed
in
the
background
document,
("
Inferential
Risk
Analysis
in
Support
of
Standards
for
Emissions
of
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
from
Hazardous
Waste
Combustors,")
we
estimated
emissions
for
each
facility
based
on
site­
specific
stack
gas
concentrations
and
flow
rates
measured
during
trial
burn
or
compliance
tests.
We
then
assumed
that
sources
would
design
their
systems
to
meet
an
emission
level
below
the
proposed
standard.
For
today's
proposed
standards,
the
design
level
is
generally
the
lower
of:
(
1)
70%
of
the
standard;
or
(
2)
the
arithmetic
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
72
If
available
test
data
in
our
data
base
indicate
that
the
source
was
emitting
below
the
design
level,
we
assumed
that
the
source
would
continue
to
emit
at
the
levels
measured
in
test.

299
average
of
the
emissions
data
of
the
best
performing
sources.
72
The
comparative
analysis
results
indicate
that
the
standards
for
Phase
II
sources
are
generally
protective.
For
a
detailed
discussion
of
the
comparative
risk
analysis
methodology
and
results,
see
the
background
document
entitled
"
Inferential
Risk
Analysis
in
Support
of
Standards
for
Emissions
of
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
from
Hazardous
Waste
Combustors,"
prepared
under
contract
to
EPA
by
Research
Triangle
Institute,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC.
As
with
the
Phase
I
sources,
we
cannot
reliably
predict
to
what
extent
SSRAs
will
continue
to
be
necessary
for
Phase
II
sources
once
they
have
complied
with
the
MACT
standards.
In
view
of
the
standards
alone
there
are
at
least
three
possible
scenarios
for
which
SSRAs
may
continue
to
be
needed.
First,
we
are
proposing
thermal
emission
standards
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers.
Thus,
similar
to
cement
kilns
and
LWAKs,
permitting
authorities
may
determine
that
an
SSRA
is
necessary
to
ensure
that
all
emissions
from
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
are
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
Second,
we
are
proposing
that
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
with
wet
APCD
or
no
APCD
and
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
comply
with
a
CO
or
total
hydrocarbon
limit
as
a
surrogate
for
the
dioxin/
furan
emission
standard.
Permitting
authorities
may
determine
that
an
SSRA
is
necessary
for
these
sources
if
there
is
some
concern
that
the
CO
or
total
hydrocarbon
limit
alone
may
not
be
adequately
protective.
Third,
we
are
not
proposing
standards
for
all
HAPs
emitted
by
Phase
II
area
sources.
Instead,
consistent
with
CAA
§
112(
c)(
6),
we
are
proposing
MACT
standards
only
for
dioxin/
furans,
mercury,
carbon
monoxide
and
hydrocarbons,
and
DRE.
For
the
remaining
metals,
particulate
matter
and
TCl,
we
are
providing
area
sources
with
the
option
of
complying
with
the
MACT
standards
for
major
sources
or
continuing
to
comply
with
the
existing
RCRA
technical
standards.
Sources
that
choose
to
comply
with
the
RCRA
standards
may
need
to
consider
an
SSRA,
because
the
RCRA
standards
alone
may
not
be
sufficiently
protective
(
i.
e.,
since
they
do
not
address
the
potential
risk
from
indirect
exposures
to
long­
term
deposition
of
metals
onto
soils
and
surface
waters).
To
date,
we
have
identified
only
three
area
sources
in
the
Phase
II
universe.
Thus,
the
number
of
sources
that
could
decide
to
continue
complying
with
the
above­
mentioned
RCRA
standards
is
expected
to
be
very
limited.
It
is
useful
to
note
that
there
are
other
site­
specific
factors
or
circumstances
beyond
the
standards
themselves
that
can
be
important
to
the
SSRA
decision
making
process
for
an
individual
combustor.
For
example,
a
source's
proximity
to
a
water
body
or
an
endangered
species
habitat,
repeated
occurrences
of
contaminant
advisories
for
nearby
water
bodies,
the
number
of
hazardous
air
pollutant
emission
sources
within
a
facility
and
the
surrounding
community,
whether
or
not
the
waste
feed
to
the
combustor
is
comprised
of
persistent,
bioaccumulative
or
toxic
contaminants,
and
sensitive
receptors
with
potentially
significantly
different
exposure
pathways,
such
as
Native
Americans,
will
likely
influence
a
permitting
authority's
decision
of
whether
or
not
an
SSRA
is
necessary.
In
addition,
uncertainties
inherent
in
our
comparative
risk
analysis
and
the
national
risk
assessment
conducted
in
support
of
the
1999­
promulgated
standards
also
may
influence
a
permitting
authority's
decision.
For
example,
the
1999
national
risk
assessment
contained
some
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
300
uncertainties
regarding
the
fate
and
transport
of
mercury
in
the
environment
and
the
biological
significance
of
mercury
exposures
in
fish.
Another
example
relates
to
nondioxin
products
of
incomplete
combustion.
Due
to
insufficient
emissions
data
and
parameter
values,
the
1999
national
risk
assessment
did
not
include
an
evaluation
of
risk
posed
by
nondioxin
products
of
incomplete
combustion.
See
64
FR
52840
and
52841
for
additional
discussion
of
uncertainties
regarding
the
national
risk
assessment.
Also,
the
comparative
risk
analysis
conducted
in
support
of
today's
action
did
not
account
for
cumulative
emissions
at
a
source
or
background
exposures
from
other
sources.
3.
What
Changes
Is
EPA
Proposing
With
Respect
To
the
Site­
Specific
Risk
Assessment
Policy?
As
stated
earlier
in
this
section,
we
recommended
in
the
preamble
to
the
1999
rulemaking
that
permitting
authorities
evaluate
the
need
for
an
SSRA
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
for
hazardous
waste
combustors
subject
to
the
Phase
I
MACT
standards.
For
hazardous
waste
combustors
not
subject
to
the
Phase
I
standards,
we
continued
to
recommend
that
SSRAs
be
conducted
as
part
of
the
RCRA
permitting
process
if
necessary
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
We
indicated
that
the
RCRA
omnibus
provision
authorized
permit
writers
to
require
applicants
to
submit
SSRA
results
where
an
SSRA
was
determined
to
be
necessary.
Today,
we
are
proposing
to
codify
the
authority
for
permit
writers
to
evaluate
the
need
for
and,
where
appropriate,
require
SSRAs.
We
are
also
proposing
to
codify
the
authority
for
permit
writers
to
add
conditions
to
RCRA
permits
that
they
determine,
based
on
the
results
of
an
SSRA,
are
necessary
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
In
doing
so,
our
intent
is
to
change
the
regulatory
mechanism
that
is
the
basis
for
SSRAs,
while
retaining
the
same
SSRA
policy
from
a
substantive
standpoint.
Under
this
approach,
permitting
authorities
continue
to
have
the
responsibility
to
ensure
the
protectiveness
of
RCRA
permits.
We
are
requesting
comment
on
this
proposal.
RCRA
Sections
3004(
a)
and
(
q)
require
that
we
promulgate
standards
for
hazardous
waste
treatment,
storage
and
disposal
facilities
and
hazardous
waste
energy
recovery
facilities
as
may
be
necessary
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
RCRA
section
1006(
b)
directs
us
to
integrate
the
provisions
of
RCRA
with
the
appropriate
provisions
of
the
CAA
and
other
federal
statutes
to
the
maximum
extent
practicable.
Thus,
to
the
extent
that
the
RCRA
emission
standards
and
associated
requirements
promulgated
under
Section
3004(
a)
or
(
q)
are
duplicative
of
the
CAA
MACT
standards,
Section
1006(
b)
provides
us
with
the
authority
to
eliminate
duplicative
RCRA
standards
and
associated
requirements.
For
this
reason,
we
have
provided
that
most
RCRA
emission
standards
and
associated
requirements
no
longer
apply
to
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
once
these
sources
demonstrate
compliance
with
MACT
requirements.
As
explained
earlier,
we
are
proposing
to
do
the
same
in
today's
notice
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
and
HCl
production
furnaces.
Although
the
Phase
I
replacement
and
Phase
II
standards
provide
a
high
level
of
protection
to
human
health
and
the
environment,
thereby
allowing
us
to
nationally
defer
the
RCRA
emission
requirements
to
MACT,
additional
controls
may
be
necessary
on
an
individual
source
basis
to
ensure
that
adequate
protection
is
achieved
in
accordance
with
RCRA.
We
believe
that
this
will
continue
to
be
the
case
even
after
the
Phase
I
replacement
and
Phase
II
standards
are
promulgated
as
discussed
earlier
in
this
section.
Up
to
this
point
in
time,
we
have
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
301
relied
exclusively
on
RCRA
Section
3005(
c)(
3)
and
its
associated
regulations
(
e.
g.,
40
CFR
270.10(
k))
when
conducting
or
requiring
a
risk
assessment
on
a
site­
specific
basis.
Because
risk
assessments
are
likely
to
continue
to
be
necessary
at
some
facilities,
we
are
proposing
to
explicitly
codify
the
authority
to
require
them
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
and
add
conditions
to
RCRA
permits
based
on
SSRA
results
under
the
authority
of
Sections
3004(
a)
and
(
q)
and
3005
of
RCRA.
We
continue
to
believe
that
section
3005(
c)(
3)
and
its
associated
regulations
provide
the
authority
to
require
and
perform
SSRAs
and
to
write
permit
conditions
based
on
SSRA
results.
Indeed,
as
explained
below,
EPA
will
likely
continue
to
include
permit
conditions
based
on
the
omnibus
authority
in
some
circumstances
when
conducting
these
activities,
and
state
agencies
in
states
with
authorized
programs
will
continue
to
rely
on
their
own
authorized
equivalents,
at
least
for
some
period
of
time.
However,
since
we
foresee
that
SSRAs
will
likely
continue
to
be
necessary
at
some
hazardous
waste
combustion
facilities,
we
are
proposing
to
expressly
codify
these
authorities
for
the
convenience
of
both
regulators
and
the
regulated
community.
We
are
not
proposing
that
SSRAs
automatically
be
conducted
for
hazardous
waste
combustion
units,
because
we
continue
to
believe
that
the
decision
of
whether
or
not
a
risk
assessment
is
necessary
must
be
made
based
upon
relevant
site­
specific
factors
associated
with
an
individual
combustion
unit
and
that
there
are
combustion
units
for
which
an
SSRA
will
not
be
necessary.
We
further
believe
that
it
is
the
permitting
authority,
with
information
provided
by
hazardous
waste
combustion
facilities,
that
is
best
equipped
to
make
this
decision.
4.
How
Would
the
New
SSRA
Regulatory
Provisions
Work?
The
SSRA
regulatory
provisions
are
proposed
under
both
base
program
authority
(
sections
3004(
a)
and
3005(
b))
and
HSWA
authority
(
section
3004(
q)).
Thus,
where
EPA
or
a
state
regulator
has
determined
that
a
risk
assessment
is
necessary,
the
applicability
of
the
new
provisions
will
vary
according
to
the
nature
of
the
combustion
unit
in
question
(
whether
it
is
regulated
under
3004(
q),
or
only
3004(
a)
and
3005(
b)),
and
the
authorization
status
of
the
state.
Depending
on
the
facts,
the
new
authority
would
be
applicable,
or
the
omnibus
provision
would
remain
the
principal
authority
for
requiring
site­
specific
risk
assessments
and
imposing
risk­
based
conditions
where
appropriate.
As
explained
in
the
state
authorization
section
of
this
preamble
(
see
Part
Two,
Section
XIX.
C),
EPA
does
not
consider
these
provisions
to
be
either
more
or
less
stringent
than
the
preexisting
federal
program,
since
they
simply
make
explicit
an
authority
that
has
been
and
remains
available
under
the
omnibus
authority
and
its
implementing
regulations.
Thus,
states
with
authorized
equivalents
to
the
federal
omnibus
authority
will
not
be
required
to
adopt
these
provisions,
so
long
as
they
interpret
their
omnibus
authority
broadly
enough
to
require
risk
assessments
where
necessary.
Nonetheless,
we
encourage
states
to
adopt
these
provisions
to
promote
regulatory
transparency.
We
are
proposing
to
add
a
paragraph
to
the
general
permit
application
requirements
of
40
CFR
§
270.10
to
specifically
allow
a
permit
writer
to
require
that
a
permittee
or
an
applicant
submit
an
SSRA
or
the
information
necessary
for
the
regulatory
agency
to
conduct
an
SSRA,
if
one
is
determined
to
be
necessary.
The
permit
writer
may
decide
that
an
SSRA
is
needed
if
there
is
some
reason
to
believe
that
additional
controls
beyond
those
required
pursuant
to
40
CFR
Parts
63,
264
or
266
may
be
needed
to
ensure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
under
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
302
RCRA.
We
are
also
proposing
to
allow
the
permit
writer
to
require
that
the
applicant
provide
information,
if
needed,
to
make
the
decision
of
whether
a
risk
assessment
should
be
required.
In
addition,
we
are
proposing
to
amend
the
applicability
language
of
40
CFR
§
§
270.19,
270.22,
270.62,
and
270.66
to
allow
a
permit
writer
that
has
determined
that
an
SSRA
is
necessary
for
a
specific
combustion
unit
to
continue
to
apply
the
relevant
requirements
of
these
sections
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
and
as
they
relate
to
the
performance
of
the
SSRA
after
the
source
has
demonstrated
compliance
with
the
MACT
standards.
The
basis
for
the
decision
to
conduct
the
risk
assessment
must
be
included
in
the
administrative
record
for
the
facility
and
made
available
to
the
public
during
the
comment
period
for
the
draft
permit.
If
the
facility,
or
any
other
party,
files
comments
on
a
draft
permit
decision
objecting
to
the
permitting
authority's
conclusions
regarding
the
need
for
a
risk
assessment,
the
authority
must
respond
fully
to
the
comments.
In
addition,
the
risk
assessment
itself
also
must
be
included
in
the
administrative
record
and
made
available
to
the
public
during
the
comment
period
for
the
permit.
Any
resulting
permit
conditions
from
the
SSRA
also
must
be
documented
and
supported
in
the
administrative
record.
We
are
proposing
to
add
a
paragraph
to
40
CFR
§
270.32
to
address
the
inclusion
of
conditions
and
limitations
in
RCRA
permits
as
a
result
of
the
findings
of
an
SSRA.
5.
Why
Is
EPA
Not
Providing
National
Criteria
for
Determining
when
an
SSRA
Is
or
Is
Not
Necessary?
We
are
not
proposing
national
criteria
for
determining
when
an
SSRA
is
necessary.
In
the
preamble
to
the
April
1996
Phase
I
NPRM,
we
provided
a
list
of
guiding
factors
which
we
later
updated
and
modified
in
the
preamble
to
the
September
1999
final
rulemaking.
See
61
FR
17372
and
64
FR
52842.
We
view
these
guiding
factors
as
items
that,
because
they
may
be
relevant
to
the
potential
risk
from
a
hazardous
waste
combustion
unit,
could
be
considered
by
a
permitting
authority
when
deciding
if
an
SSRA
is
necessary.
We
did
not,
and
do
not,
intend
for
them
to
be
definitive
criteria
from
which
permitting
authorities
would
make
their
decision.
As
we
stated
in
1999,
we
believed
that
the
complexity
of
multi­
pathway
risk
assessments
precluded
the
conversion
of
these
qualitative
guiding
factors
into
more
definitive
criteria.
Since
that
time,
we
have
reaffirmed
our
belief
that
the
decision
process
regarding
SSRAs
does
not
lend
itself
to
the
application
of
required
national
criteria.
Most
combustors
may
be
characterized
using
one
or
more
of
the
qualitative
guiding
factors
we
provided
in
1999,
but
not
all.
These
factors
were
not
intended
to
be
an
exclusive
list
of
considerations,
nor
do
we
believe
that
this
decision
is
necessarily
susceptible
to
an
exclusive
list
of
factors.
The
decision
whether
to
require
a
risk
assessment
is
inherently
site
specific,
and
permitting
authorities
need
to
have
the
flexibility
to
evaluate
a
range
of
factors
that
can
vary
from
facility
to
facility.
In
addition,
it
is
useful
to
recognize
that
as
risk
assessment
science
continues
to
mature,
the
factors
may
change
in
terms
of
relative
importance
and
it
may
not
be
prudent
to
obligate
permitting
authorities
to
an
exclusive
list
that
could
not
be
easily
adjusted
to
keep
pace
with
scientific
advancements.
In
a
study
conducted
by
U.
S.
EPA
Region
4,
the
guiding
factors
were
used
to
rank
13
hazardous
waste
combustion
facilities
into
high,
medium
and
low
risk
potential
groupings
to
ascertain
if
the
factors
could
be
used
as
a
prioritization
tool
for
determining
whether
or
not
an
SSRA
was
necessary.
The
region
found
that
all
facilities
evaluated
exhibited
a
"
high"
level
of
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
303
concern
with
respect
to
at
least
one
or
more
site­
specific
characteristics
relating
to
the
guiding
factors
and
that
further
analysis
was
required
before
the
region
could
be
assured
that
the
source
would
operate
in
a
manner
that
is
adequately
protective
under
RCRA.
As
a
result,
the
region
concluded
that
the
guiding
factors
alone
could
not
be
used
to
make
a
protectiveness
finding.
The
region's
study,
which
is
entitled
Technical
Support
Assistance
of
MACT
Implementation
Qualitative
Risk
Check
is
available
in
the
docket
(
Docket
#
RCRA­
2003­
0016)
established
for
today's
notice.
Moreover,
simply
determining
whether
a
combustor
fits
a
particular
guiding
factor
does
not
address
the
complex
interplay
that
may
exist
between
the
guiding
factors.
Nor,
does
it
measure
the
level
of
relative
importance
of
one
factor
over
another.
For
example,
is
the
proximity
of
potentially
sensitive
receptors
more
important
than
multiple
on­
site
emission
points?
For
all
of
these
reasons,
we
believe
that
codification
of
a
list
of
factors
would
not
be
appropriate
here.
6.
What
Is
the
Cement
Kiln
Recycling
Coalition's
SSRA
Rulemaking
Petition?
On
February
28,
2002,
the
Cement
Kiln
Recycling
Coalition
(
CKRC)
submitted
a
petition
for
rulemaking
"
Petition
Under
RCRA
§
7004(
a)
For
(
1)
Repeal
of
Regulations
Issued
Without
Proper
Legal
Process
and
(
2)
Promulgation
of
Regulations
If
Necessary
With
Proper
Legal
Process"
to
the
Administrator
containing
two
independent
requests
with
respect
to
SSRAs.
First,
CKRC
requested
that
we
repeal
the
existing
SSRA
policy
and
technical
guidance
because
it
believes
that
the
policy
and
guidance
"
are
regulations
issued
without
appropriate
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
procedures."
Second,
CKRC
requested
that
after
we
repeal
the
policy
and
guidance,
"
should
EPA
believe
it
can
establish
the
need
to
require
SSRAs
in
certain
situations,
CKRC
urges
EPA
to
undertake
an
appropriate
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
process
seeking
to
promulgate
regulations
establishing
such
requirements."
As
stated
in
the
petition,
"
CKRC
does
not
believe
that
these
SSRA
requirements
are
in
any
event
necessary
or
appropriate."
In
addition,
CKRC
disagrees
with
our
use
of
the
RCRA
omnibus
provision
as
the
authority
to
conduct
SSRAs
or
to
collect
the
information
and
data
necessary
to
conduct
SSRAs
and
further
contends
that
the
regulations
associated
with
the
omnibus
provision
are
insufficient
in
detail.
CKRC
asserts
that
we
have
chosen
to
establish
SSRA
requirements
through
guidance
documents.
CKRC
also
raised
the
following
three
general
concerns:
(
1)
Whether
an
SSRA
is
needed
for
hazardous
waste
combustors
that
will
be
receiving
a
RCRA
permit
when
the
combustor
is
in
full
compliance
with
the
RCRA
boiler
and
industrial
furnace
regulations
and/
or
with
the
MACT
regulations;
(
2)
How
an
SSRA
should
be
conducted;
and
(
3)
What
is
the
threshold
level
for
a
"
yes"
or
"
no"
decision
that
additional
risk­
based
permit
conditions
are
necessary.
In
support
of
its
petition,
CKRC
refers
to
Appalachian
Power
Co.
v.
EPA,
208
F.
3d
1015
(
D.
C.
Cir.
2000),
GE
v.
EPA,
290
F.
3d
377
(
D.
C.
Cir.
2002),
and
Ethyl
Corporation
v.
EPA,
306
F.
3d
1144
(
D.
C.
Cir.
2002).
The
petition
is
available
in
the
docket
established
for
today's
proposed
action.
CKRC
filed
the
petition
filed
under
RCRA
Section
7004(
a),
which
provides
that:
"
Any
person
may
petition
the
Administrator
for
the
promulgation,
amendment,
or
repeal
of
any
regulation
under
this
Act.
Within
a
reasonable
time
following
receipt
of
such
a
petition,
the
Administrator
shall
take
action
with
respect
to
the
petition
and
shall
publish
notice
of
such
action
in
the
Federal
Register,
together
with
the
reasons
therefor."
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
73
EPA
does
not
consider
the
request
to
repeal
EPA's
guidance
documents
to
be
a
valid
petition
under
this
section,
since
the
documents
are
guidance
documents,
not
regulations.
Nonetheless,
because
CKRC
has
also
petitioned
the
Agency
to
issue
regulations,
and
to
be
responsive
to
issues
raised
by
the
regulated
community,
EPA
has
decided
to
use
the
procedure
established
in
40
CFR
§
260.20
for
section
7004
petitions
to
respond
to
both
of
CKRC's
requests.
EPA
does
not
concede
by
relying
on
the
section
7004(
a)
procedure
that
its
guidance
documents
are
regulations.

304
Shortly
after
receiving
the
petition,
we
conducted
a
preliminary
evaluation
of
CKRC's
concerns
as
stated
in
the
petition.
73
We
determined
that
any
decision
regarding
the
petition
should
be
made
in
coordination
with
our
development
of
the
proposed
Replacement
MACT
standards
for
Phase
I
sources
and
the
proposed
new
MACT
standards
for
Phase
II
sources.
Thus,
we
decided
that
today's
notice
was
the
most
appropriate
vehicle
to
announce
and
request
comment
on
our
tentative
decision
concerning
the
petition.
In
the
meantime,
we
believed
that
it
was
important
to
take
certain
measures
to
ensure
that
the
SSRA
policy
and
guidance
were
being
used
in
the
manner
that
we
had
intended.
In
an
April
10,
2003
memorandum
from
Marianne
Lamont
Horinko,
Assistant
Administrator
of
the
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response,
to
the
U.
S.
EPA
Regional
Administrators,
we
took
two
of
these
measures.
First,
we
requested
that
the
regions
review
certain
documents
(
e.
g.,
regional
memoranda,
policy
and
guidance
documents,
Memoranda
of
Agreement
of
Grant
Workplans
with
the
states)
to
determine
if
any
contained
misleading
or
incorrect
information
concerning
the
SSRA
policy
and
technical
guidance.
If
any
were
found
to
contain
misleading
or
incorrect
information,
we
requested
that
the
region
take
immediate
measures
to
clarify
or
correct
the
information.
Second,
we
reiterated,
in
detail,
the
appropriate
use
of
the
SSRA
policy
and
guidance
for
hazardous
waste
combustors,
as
well
as
the
appropriate
use
of
the
RCRA
omnibus
authority
as
it
relates
to
SSRAs.
In
a
May
15,
2002
memoranda
from
Robert
Springer,
Director
of
the
Office
of
Solid
Waste,
to
the
RCRA
Senior
Policy
Advisors,
we
took
the
third
measure
to
ensure
proper
application
of
the
SSRA
policy
by
our
regional
permit
writers.
In
this
memorandum,
we
instituted
an
EPA
headquarters
review
process
of
future
regional
decisions
concerning
the
need
for
an
SSRA
for
hazardous
waste
combustion
units
seeking
a
RCRA
permit
determination.
Specifically,
we
requested
that
the
regions
provide
us
with
a
written
summary
of
the
basis
for
any
future
decisions
to
conduct
or
not
conduct
an
SSRA.
It
is
our
intention
that
the
review
process
focus
on
whether
or
not
permit
writers
have
adequately
supported
their
decisions.
It
is
important
to
point
out
that
because
many
of
the
decisions
regarding
SSRAs
are
now
being
made
at
the
state
level,
we
do
not
yet
know
how
many
regional
SSRA
decision
summaries
will
be
submitted
for
our
review.
Both
the
April
10,
2003
and
May
15,
2003
memoranda
are
provided
in
the
docket
established
for
today's
proposed
action.
EPA
is
in
the
process
of
an
additional
effort
to
ensure
proper
use
of
the
guidance:
we
are
reviewing
the
guidance
documents
themselves,
and,
to
the
extent
we
find
language
that
could
be
construed
as
limiting
discretion,
we
intend
to
revise
the
documents
to
make
clear
that
they
are
non­
binding.
CKRC
indicated
in
its
petition
that,
in
its
view,
the
documents
contain
language
that
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
305
could
be
construed
as
mandatory.
While
EPA
does
not
necessarily
agree,
and
believes
that,
in
context,
it
is
clear
that
the
guidance
in
the
documents
is
discretionary,
EPA
is
nonetheless
reviewing
the
documents
to
ensure
that
they
are
carefully
drafted.
After
consideration
of
the
petition,
we
have
made
a
tentative
decision
to
partially
grant
and
partially
deny
CKRC's
requests.
Specifically,
we
are
proposing
to
deny
CKRC's
request
that
we
repeal
the
SSRA
policy
and
guidance
and
we
are
proposing
to
grant
CKRC's
request
in
part
by
promulgating
an
explicit
authority
to
require
SSRAs
on
a
site­
specific
basis
using
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
procedures.
We
are
requesting
comment
on
our
tentative
decision.
With
respect
to
CKRC's
first
request
that
we
repeal
the
SSRA
policy
and
guidance,
and
in
response
to
their
specific
concern
of
whether
an
SSRA
is
necessary
for
combustors
that
are
in
full
compliance
with
the
RCRA
and/
or
MACT
regulations,
we
believe
that
SSRAs
do
serve
a
useful
purpose
and
can
be
necessary
even
if
a
facility
is
in
full
compliance
with
the
existing
RCRA
and/
or
MACT
technical
standards.
RCRA
requires
that
all
hazardous
waste
permits
be
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
As
discussed
in
the
preamble
to
the
1999
Phase
I
rulemaking,
the
existing
RCRA
incinerator
and
Boiler
and
Industrial
Furnace
(
BIF)
regulations
do
not
address
the
potential
risk
that
may
be
posed
from
indirect
exposures
to
combustor
emissions.
See
64
FR
52828,
52839­
52842
(
September
30,
1999).
Further,
the
technical
requirements
associated
with
the
RCRA
standards
have
not
been
updated
to
reflect
changes
in
technology
or
science
for
a
decade
or
more
and,
thus,
may
not
be
sufficiently
protective
with
respect
to
the
potential
risk
from
direct
exposures
either.
For
example,
our
knowledge
regarding
the
formation,
control
and
toxicity
of
dioxin/
furans
has
vastly
improved
since
the
promulgation
of
the
RCRA
standards.
Therefore,
until
such
time
that
hazardous
waste
combustors
comply
with
the
MACT
standards,
SSRAs
can
serve
a
useful
function
in
ensuring
that
RCRA
combustor
permits
will
be
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
Moreover,
even
once
the
MACT
standards
are
fully
implemented
for
incinerators
and
BIFs,
we
believe
that
there
may
continue
to
be
instances
in
which
the
permitting
authority
determines
that
additional
protections
are
necessary
(
e.
g.,
where
site­
specific
conditions
indicate
that
there
may
be
a
potential
risk
to
a
sensitive
ecosystem
or
population),
as
was
explained
above
in
Section
2,
Are
SSRAs
Likely
to
be
Necessary
After
Sources
Comply
with
the
Phase
I
Replacement
Standards
and
Phase
II
Standards?.
See
also,
the
explanations
at
64
FR
52840­
52841.
Because
there
may
continue
to
be
a
need
for
SSRAs
at
some
level,
we
agree
with
CKRC
that
it
would
be
appropriate
to
explicitly
codify
the
authority
to
require
SSRAs
and
SSRA­
based
permit
conditions,
for
the
sake
of
regulatory
clarity
and
transparency
(
although
we
continue
to
believe
that
the
RCRA
omnibus
provision
provides
sufficient
authority
to
conduct
SSRAs).
EPA
requests
comment
on
the
variety
of
site­
specific
circumstances
that
might
give
rise
to
the
need
for
an
SSRA,
and
whether
other
mechanisms
might
exist
to
address
those
circumstances.
As
stated
earlier,
CKRC
raised
three
general
concerns,
the
first
of
which
we
discussed
in
the
preceding
paragraphs.
The
second
concern
relates
to
the
technical
recommendations
that
EPA
has
offered
for
conducting
an
SSRA.
CKRC
disagrees
with
our
use
of
guidance,
instead
arguing
that
EPA's
recommendations
should
have
been
issued
through
the
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
process.
We
disagree
that
the
Agency's
technical
recommendations
either
must
or
should
be
issued
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
74
Permitting
authorities,
in
some
cases,
have
developed
their
own
guidance
methodologies
responsive
to
the
specific
needs
associated
with
their
facilities.
For
example,
North
Carolina,
Texas,
and
New
York
have
each
developed
their
own
risk
assessment
methodologies.
We
think
this
flexibility
employed
in
the
field
supports
our
judgment
that
risk
assessment
methodologies
should
not
be
codified.

75
IRIS
is
a
collection
of
continuously
updated
chemical
files
which
contain
descriptive
and
quantitative
information
with
respect
to:
oral
reference
doses
and
inhalation
reference
concentrations
(
RfDs
and
RfCs,
respectively)
for
chronic
noncarcinogenic
health
effects;
and
hazard
identification,
oral
slope
factors,
and
oral
and
inhalation
unit
risks
for
carcinogenic
306
as
a
regulation.
Risk
assessment
 
especially
multi­
pathway,
indirect
exposure
assessment
 
is
a
highly
technical
and
evolving
field.
Any
regulatory
approach
EPA
might
codify
in
this
area
is
likely
to
become
outdated,
or
at
least
artificially
constraining,
shortly
after
promulgation
in
ways
that
EPA
cannot
anticipate
now.
In
EPA's
view,
this
is
an
area
that
is
uniquely
fitted
for
a
guidance
approach,
rather
than
regulation.
In
fact,
across
Agency
programs,
EPA
has
generally
adopted
a
guidance
approach
to
risk
assessment
for
exactly
this
reason.
See,
e.
g.,
Guidelines
for
Reproductive
Toxicity
Risk
Assessment,
61
FR
56274
(
October
31,
1996).
EPA's
Superfund
program
has
not
promulgated
regulations
specifying
risk
assessment
methods.
Instead,
the
program
uses
site­
specific
approaches
for
determining
risk,
employing
methods
offered
in
EPA
guidance
as
appropriate.
The
same
is
true
for
the
RCRA
corrective
action
program.
Although
we
have
attempted
to
provide
our
guidance
recommendations
in
a
form
that
responds
to
or
encompasses
many
of
the
issues
that
can
arise
when
conducting
an
SSRA,
we
recognize
that
the
flexibility
to
apply
other
methodologies,
assumptions,
or
recommendations
has
been
important
to
both
regulators
and
the
regulated
community
in
terms
of
developing
an
appropriate
site­
specific
protocol.
74
For
example,
some
of
EPA's
technical
recommendations
may
not
be
appropriate
for
the
combustion
device
in
question,
and
risk
assessors
must
have
the
flexibility
to
make
adjustments
for
the
specific
conditions
present
at
the
source,
and
the
state
of
risk
assessment
science
at
the
time
that
the
SSRA
is
being
performed.
As
an
obvious
example,
sources
that
are
located
in
a
dry,
desert
climate
with
no
nearby
permanent
or
temporary
water
bodies
of
concern
should
not
be
required
to
include
a
fisher
exposure
scenario
in
an
SSRA.
In
addition,
risk
assessors
should
be
free
to
use
the
most
recent
air
modeling
tools
and
toxicity
values
available
rather
than
be
limited
to
those
that
may
be
out­
of­
date
because
a
regulation
has
not
been
revised
following
the
development
of
the
new
tools
or
values.
Guidance
allows
for
this
flexibility.
CKRC
points
out
the
EPA
codified
certain
parameters
for
BIF
risk
assessments,
to
show
that
it
is
possible
to
do
so.
While
EPA
agrees
it
is
possible,
the
codification
in
the
BIF
area
is
the
exception,
not
the
rule.
It
has
been
our
experience
in
implementing
the
BIF
regulations
that
codification
of
certain
risk
parameters
has
proven
to
be
overly
constraining
because
risk
science
is
a
continually
changing
field.
For
example,
by
codifying
the
toxicity
values,
risk
managers
were
not
able
to
utilize
more
recent
values
available
through
EPA's
Integrated
Risk
Information
System
(
IRIS)
75
and
other
resources.
Also,
shortly
after
we
codified
the
air
modeling
guidelines
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
effects.
For
more
information,
see
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
iris/
index.
html.

76
USEPA.
"
Human
Health
Risk
Assessment
Protocol
for
Hazardous
Waste
Combustion
Facilities"
EPA­
520­
D­
98­
001A,
B&
C.
External
Peer
Review
Draft,
1998.
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
combust/
risk.
htm)

77
We
are
not
responding
to
the
specific
comments
here,
but
will
respond
to
them
as
part
of
the
public
process
for
developing
the
final
guidance
documents.

307
in
support
of
the
risk
parameters
and
procedures,
the
Air
program
revised
their
air
modeling
guidelines,
rendering
some
of
the
BIF
air
modeling
guidelines
inconsistent
and
so,
they
were
removed.
Further,
it
is
important
to
note
that
at
the
time
of
codification,
BIF
risk
assessments
were
not
intended
to
address
indirect
routes
of
exposure,
thus
making
the
parameters
easier
to
implement.
Today,
however,
risk
assessments
are
more
complex
due
to
the
necessary
inclusion
of
multi­
pathway
and
indirect
exposure
routes.
Given
the
complexity
of
multi­
pathway
and
indirect
exposure
assessments
and
the
fact
that
risk
science
is
continuously
evolving,
it
would
be
difficult
and
again,
overly
constraining,
to
codify
risk
parameters
today.
We
also
believe
that
a
guidance
approach
is
consistent
with
the
fact
that
permit
writers
must
make
site­
specific
decisions
whether
to
do
risk
assessments
at
all.
We
expect
that
permit
writers
will
reach
their
decisions
based
on
different
factors
and
concerns
 
in
some
cases,
factors
and
concerns
that
we
may
not
have
identified
at
this
time.
We
think
that
it
makes
little
sense
to
allow
this
kind
of
flexibility
regarding
whether
to
do
a
risk
assessment
and
for
what
purposes,
while
prescribing
how
one
must
be
conducted
if
one
is
required.
CKRC
further
contends
that
the
guidance
is
overly
conservative
and
constitutes
"
a
confusing
pattern
of
drafts
over
a
number
of
years
in
a
seemingly
endless
fashion"
that
has
resulted
in
their
members
incurring
significant
costs.
Because
of
the
variability
in
the
many
factors
that
influence
the
risk
from
hazardous
waste
combustors,
the
guidance
contains
some
conservative
recommendations
and
assumptions
in
order
to
address
this
wide
range.
However,
based
on
input
from
users
of
the
guidance,
we
have
attempted
to
correct
the
recommendations
and
assumptions
that
we
consider
to
be
overly
conservative
and,
as
stated
previously,
because
they
are
guidance
recommendations
and
not
requirements,
the
risk
assessor
may
choose
not
to
follow
them.
More
recently,
we
have
solicited
public
and
peer
review
comments
on
the
1998
guidance76,
and
are
in
the
process
of
revising
it
based
on
the
comments
received.
This
includes
comments
CKRC
submitted
related
to
the
components
of
the
guidance
they
contended
were
overly
conservative.
77
With
respect
to
CKRC's
assertion
that
the
guidance
is
"
a
confusing
pattern
of
drafts
over
a
number
of
years",
we
acknowledge
that
we
have
issued
a
number
of
guidance
documents
since
1990.
However,
we
disagree
that
this
has
resulted
in
a
confusing
pattern
of
drafts.
The
development
and
release
of
the
guidance
documents
correspond
to
three
specific
regulatory
time
periods
in
the
area
of
hazardous
waste
combustion.
In
addition,
the
issuance
of
subsequent
versions
relates
to
the
fact
that
the
Agency
has
repeatedly
solicited
public
and
peer
review
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
78
USEPA.
"
Guidance
for
Performing
Screening
Level
Risk
Analyses
at
Combustion
Facilities
Burning
Hazardous
Wastes"
Draft,
April
1994.
USEPA.
"
Implementation
of
Exposure
Assessment
Guidance
for
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Combustion
Facilities"
Draft,
1994.

79
We
noted
earlier
that
the
1998
guidance
is
currently
being
revised
in
consideration
of
public
and
peer
review
comments
received.
With
respect
to
the
1999
guidance
(
USEPA.
"
Screening
Level
Ecological
Risk
Assessment
Protocol
for
Hazardous
Waste
Combustion
Facilities"
EPA­
530­
D­
99­
001A,
B&
C.
Peer
Review
Draft,
1999),
we
solicited
public
comment
and
plan
to
conduct
a
peer
review.
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
combust/
ecorisk.
htm)

308
comments
on
its
technical
guidance,
and
has
built
upon
the
experience
of
regulators
and
facilities
in
using
earlier
guidance.
In
1990,
EPA
developed
its
initial
guidance
document
during
the
same
time
period
as
the
RCRA
BIF
emission
standards.
In
1993,
we
released
an
addendum
to
the
1990
guidance
in
response
to
the
draft
Hazardous
Waste
Minimization
and
Combustion
Strategy
and
our
increasing
concerns
about
the
potential
impacts
from
indirect
routes
of
exposure,
and
solicited
comments
from
the
public
and
the
Science
Advisory
Board.
A
revised
document
taking
into
account
these
comments
was
issued
one
year
later.
78
At
the
time
that
we
were
developing
the
Phase
1
MACT
standards,
we
again
updated
our
combustion
risk
assessment
guidance
by
releasing
a
document
specifically
addressing
human
health
risk
in
1998
and
one
addressing
ecological
risk
in
1999,
again
soliciting
public
input
and
peer
review
on
these
documents.
79
For
purposes
of
clarity,
both
of
these
documents
refer
to
all
earlier
guidance
where
appropriate
and
discuss
briefly
the
progression
of
the
guidance.
Although
the
1998
human
health
guidance
and
the
1999
ecological
guidance
provide
our
current
thinking
regarding
SSRA
methodology
for
hazardous
waste
combustors,
we
noted
to
our
permit
writers
that
we
recommended
that
they
should
continue
to
use
the
1994
guidance
for
those
SSRAs
that
were
in
progress.
Although
CKRC
claims
to
find
these
guidance
documents
confusing,
EPA's
judgment
is
that
most
interested
parties
 
both
regulators
and
the
regulated
community
 
have
found
the
guidance
to
be
useful,
and
that
the
documents
have
substantially
reduced
the
uncertainty
and
confusion
that
surrounded
multi­
pathway
risk
assessments
a
decade
ago.
As
stated
above,
no
one
is
obligated
to
follow
this
guidance,
and
regulators
often
depart
from
it;
but
EPA
believes
it
has
been
extremely
helpful
on
the
whole,
rather
than
confusing.
CKRC
has
alleged
that
SSRA's
typically
cost
between
$
200,000
and
$
1,000,000
for
an
individual
facility.
We
are
aware
that
prior
to
the
release
of
the
1998
guidance,
combustion
risk
assessments
were
more
costly
than
we
understand
them
to
be
today.
For
an
individual
facility,
we
do
not
know
to
what
extent
these
costs
are
attributed
to
the
act
of
conducting
a
risk
assessment,
to
recommendations
provided
in
our
guidance,
to
changes
that
the
facility
chose
to
make
during
the
risk
assessment,
or
the
facility's
desire
to
develop
its
own
site­
specific
protocol.
Not
including
the
collection
and
analysis
of
emission
risk
data,
we
have
been
advised
that
the
cost
of
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
80
The
cost
ranges
for
CKRC
include
both
the
cost
of
risk
assessments
and
emission
data
collection.
In
its
petition,
CKRC
provided
a
range
of
costs
($
100,000
to
$
500,000
for
risk
assessments
and
$
100,000
to
$
500,000
for
emission
data
collection),
but
also
provided
an
upper
bound
cost
($
728,297
for
a
risk
assessment
and
$
588,790
for
emission
data
collection,
plus
additional
permit
costs
to
equate
to
$
1.3M).

309
an
average
SSRA
today
is
approximately
$
84,000.
(
See
document
entitled
Hazardous
Waste
Combustion
MACT
­
Replacement
Standards:
Proposed
Rule.
Preliminary
Cost
Assessment
for
Site
Specific
Risk
Assessment,
October
29November,
2003,
as
provided
in
the
docket
for
today's
action.)
The
emission
risk
data
is
projected
to
add
on
average
between
$
57,000
(
if
the
facility
collects
its
emission
risk
data
at
the
same
time
as
its
emission
standards
performance
data)
and
$
285,000
(
if
the
facility
must
conduct
a
separate
emission
test
solely
for
the
purpose
of
collecting
data
for
the
SSRA).
Therefore,
including
emission
data
collection,
the
average
cost
of
an
SSRA
is
between
$
141,000
and
$
370,000.
This
is
considerably
less
than
the
cost
range
provided
by
CKRC
of
$
200,000
to
$
1,000,000.
Additionally,
EPA's
upper
bound
cost
of
$
370,000
is
significantly
less
than
the
upper
bound
cost
of
$
1,300,000,
as
reported
by
CKRC
in
their
petition
(
and
the
attached
affidavit).
80
We
believe
that
the
cost
of
SSRAs
has
decreased
over
time,
particularly
since
the
release
of
the
1998
guidance.
This
may
be
in
large
part
because
the
1998
guidance
is
much
more
comprehensive
than
previous
guidance
documents
and
because
private
software
companies
have
developed
computer
programs
based
on
the
guidance,
which
can
further
decrease
costs
associated
with
the
risk
calculations
for
each
exposure
scenario.
CKRC
also
expressed
specific
concern
that
it
and
its
members
have
been
denied
an
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
combustion
risk
assessment
guidance
documents.
We
strongly
disagree
with
this
assertion.
We
have
repeatedly
sought
public
comment
on
the
guidance
documents.
For
the
1998
human
health
guidance
we
not
only
requested
public
comment,
but
also
submitted
the
document
for
an
external
peer
review
and
held
a
peer
review
meeting
which
was
open
to
the
public.
Since
the
peer
review
meeting,
we
have
been
incorporating
both
the
public
and
peer
review
comments
into
the
human
health
guidance.
While
we
have
not
yet
completed
this
task
and
released
a
final
document,
any
member
of
the
public
may
at
any
time
discuss
any
concerns
that
they
have
with
our
recommendations.
In
addition,
regardless
of
whether
a
risk
assessor
uses
the
recommendations
provided
in
our
guidance
or
not,
we
have
encouraged
the
permit
writer
and
facility
representatives
to
meet
prior
to
any
analysis
to
discuss
the
appropriate
risk
methodology
and
data
input
needs
for
an
SSRA.
Such
a
meeting
allows
both
the
permitting
authority
and
the
facility
the
opportunity
to
raise
questions
and
objections
concerning
the
appropriateness
of
different
methodologies,
assumptions,
or
default
values
and
their
application
to
the
hazardous
waste
combustor.
Facility
representatives
and
any
member
of
the
public
also
may
comment
on
the
risk
assessment
methodology
as
part
of
the
public
comment
process
associated
with
the
RCRA
permit.
The
third
general
concern
raised
by
CKRC
in
its
petition
was
that
we
had
not
provided
a
threshold
level
for
a
"
yes"
or
"
no"
decision
to
trigger
the
need
for
additional
risk­
based
permit
conditions.
EPA
agrees
that
its
guidance
does
not
establish
a
bright­
line
threshold
level
for
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
81
Particulate
matter
is
not
a
listed
HAP
pursuant
to
CAA
112(
b).

82
"
Enumerated"
metals
are
those
HAP
metals
that
are
directly
controlled
with
an
emission
limit,
i.
e.,
lead,
cadmium,
arsenic,
beryllium,
and
chromium.
The
remaining
nonmercury
metal
HAP
are
controlled
using
particulate
matter
as
a
surrogate.

310
determining
whether
to
impose
additional
permit
conditions;
such
a
binding
requirement
would
only
be
appropriately
established
through
rulemaking.
However,
EPA
has
provided
recommendations
about
the
overall
targets
for
acceptable
risk
levels.
See
USEPA.
Implementation
of
Exposure
Assessment
Guidance
for
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Combustion
Facilities,
Draft,
1994.
Moreover,
we
do
not
intend
to
codify
our
recommended
target
levels
for
some
of
the
same
reasons
that
we
are
not
proposing
to
codify
the
risk
assessment
technical
guidance.
Our
recommended
target
levels
provide
risk
managers
with
a
starting
point
from
which
to
determine
if
a
combustor's
potential
risk
may
or
may
not
be
acceptable.
However,
we
believe
that
it
is
important,
and
indeed
essential,
that
risk
managers
be
afforded
sufficient
flexibility
to
apply
different
target
levels
as
dictated
by
the
circumstances
surrounding
the
combustor.
For
example,
a
risk
manager
may
wish
to
apply
a
more
stringent
carcinogenic
target
level
for
a
combustor
that
is
located
in
a
densely
populated
area
with
a
high
concentration
of
industrial
emission
sources.
In
summary,
we
have
made
a
tentative
decision
to
deny
CKRC's
request
that
we
repeal
the
SSRA
policy
and
guidance
and
to
grant
CKRC's
request
in
part
by
proposing
to
codify
the
authority
to
require
SSRAs.
We
are
not
proposing
to
codify
the
SSRA
guidance
or
our
recommended
risk
methodology
for
hazardous
waste
combustors.
We
are
requesting
comment
on
our
tentative
decision.

XVIII.
What
Alternatives
to
the
Particulate
Matter
Standard
Is
EPA
Proposing
or
Requesting
Comment
On?
As
discussed
in
Part
Two,
Section
IV.
C,
we
are
proposing
particulate
matter
standards
as
surrogates
to
control
metal
HAP.
81
We
are
not
proposing
numerical
metal
HAP
emission
standards
that
would
have
accounted
for
all
metal
HAP
because
we
generally
do
not
have
as
much
compliance
test
emissions
information
in
our
database
for
the
nonenumerated
metal
HAP
compared
to
the
enumerated
metal
HAP,
82
and
because
we
believe
that
a
particulate
matter
standard,
in
lieu
of
emission
standards
that
directly
regulate
all
the
metals
in
all
feedstreams,
simplifies
compliance
activities.
Nonetheless,
we
are
today
proposing
an
alternative
to
the
particulate
matter
standard
for
incinerators,
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
and
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
that
is
conceptually
similar
to
the
alternative
metal
emission
control
requirements
that
were
previously
promulgated
for
incinerators.
We
are
also
requesting
comment
on
another
alternative
to
the
particulate
matter
standard
that
would
apply
to
all
source
categories
that
would
be
subject
to
particulate
matter
standards
(
i.
e.,
all
source
categories
except
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces).
We
discuss
these
two
different
alternatives
below.
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
83
Sources
electing
to
comply
with
these
alternative
requirements
thus
remain
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.

84
Please
note
that
the
particulate
matter
standard
is
not
redundant
to
the
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metal
standards.
Although
controlling
particulate
matter
also
controls
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metals
in
combustion
gas,
these
metals
can
also
be
controlled
by
feedrate
control.
Thus,
sources
can
achieve
the
emission
standard
for
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metals
primarily
by
feedrate
control.
In
such
cases,
the
particulate
matter
standard
would
be
controlling
nonenumerated
metals
primarily.

311
A.
What
Alternative
to
the
Particulate
Matter
Standard
Is
EPA
Proposing
for
Incinerators,
Liquid
Fuel­
Fired
Boilers,
and
Solid
Fuel­
Fired
Boilers?
We
promulgated
an
alternative
to
the
particulate
matter
standard
for
incinerators
feeding
low
levels
of
metals
in
the
July
3,
2001
direct
final
rule.
See
66
FR
at
35093.
Today
we
propose
a
simplified
alternative
to
the
particulate
matter
standard
for
incinerators,
and
we
propose
to
expand
the
provision
to
also
apply
to
liquid
and
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers.
Below,
we
first
describe
the
alternative
that
was
originally
promulgated
for
incinerators,
after
which
we
describe
the
simplified
approach
and
our
rationale
for
proposing
it.
The
July
3,
2001
final
rule
allows
incinerators
to
operate
under
alternative
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
applies
to
incinerators
under
Subpart
EEE;
however,
the
incinerator
remains
subject
to
the
RCRA
particulate
matter
standard
of
0.08
gr/
dscf
pursuant
to
§
264.343(
c).
This
is
because
Clean
Air
Act
standards
can
supplant
RCRA
standards
only
when
the
CAA
standard
is
sufficiently
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment
to
make
the
RCRA
standard
duplicative
(
within
the
meaning
of
RCRA
section
1006
(
b)
(
3)).
83
See
Part
Two,
Section
XVII.
D.
This
previously
promulgated
alternative
to
the
particulate
matter
standard
has
three
components.
The
first
component
is
simply
to
meet
metal
emission
limitations
for
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metals.
The
emission
limitations
apply
to
both
enumerated
and
non­
enumerated
metal
HAP,
excluding
mercury.
Enumerated
semivolatile
metals
are
those
metals
that
are
directly
controlled
with
the
numerical
semivolatile
emission
standard,
i.
e.,
cadmium
and
lead.
Enumerated
low
volatile
metals
are
those
metals
that
are
directly
controlled
with
the
numerical
low
volatile
metals
emission
standard,
i.
e.,
arsenic,
beryllium
and
chromium.
Non­
enumerated
metals
are
those
remaining
metal
HAP:
antimony,
cobalt,
manganese,
nickel,
and
selenium
that
are
not
controlled
directly
with
an
emission
standard,
but
are
rather
controlled
through
the
surrogate
particulate
matter
standard.
84
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.
The
level
of
the
standard
is
the
same
as
that
which
applies
to
other
incinerators,
but
the
standard
would
apply
to
all
metal
HAP,
not
just
those
enumerated
in
the
present
low
volatile
metal
and
semivolatile
metal
standards.
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
312
The
second
component
is
a
requirement
for
the
incinerator
to
demonstrate
that
it
is
using
reasonable
hazardous
waste
metal
feed
control,
i.
e.,
a
defined
metal
federatefeedrate
that
is
better
than
the
MACT­
defining
metal
feed
floor
control
level.
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.
Today
we
propose
a
simplified
version
of
the
above
described
alternative
in
that
we
propose
to
require
you
to
comply
only
with
the
first
component
described
above,
which
is
to
achieve
metal
emission
standards
for
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metals.
As
discussed
above,
the
level
of
the
proposed
standard
is
the
same
as
that
which
applies
to
other
sources,
but
the
standard
would
apply
to
all
metal
HAP,
not
just
those
enumerated
in
the
present
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metal
standards.
As
with
the
previously
promulgated
alternative,
no
particulate
matter
emission
standard
would
apply
to
these
sources
under
Subpart
EEE;
however,
sources
would
remain
subject
to
the
RCRA
particulate
matter
standard
of
0.08
gr/
dscf
pursuant
to
§
§
264.343(
c)
or
266.105.
We
propose
to
eliminate
the
requirements
for
you
to
demonstrate
that:
(
1)
you
are
using
reasonable
hazardous
waste
metal
feed
control,
i.
e.,
a
defined
metal
feed
control
that
is
better
than
the
MACT­
defining
feed
control
level;
and
(
2)
your
source
is
equipped
with
an
air
pollution
control
system
that
achieves
at
least
a
90
percent
system
removal
efficiency
for
semivolatile
metals.
We
believe
these
two
requirements
are
not
necessary
to
ensure
you
are
in
fact
controlling
metals
below
MACT
levels
given
that
all
sources
electing
to
comply
with
this
alternative
must
limit
both
the
enumerated
metals
and
non­
enumerated
metals
to
levels
below
the
proposed
levels
that
apply
only
to
enumerated
metals.
Today's
proposed
approach,
in
effect,
lowers
the
existing
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metal
emissions
limits
because
the
contribution
of
nonenumerated
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
the
particulate
matter
standard.
Put
another
way,
we
regard
this
emission
limitation
as
an
equivalent
means
of
meeting
the
standard
for
HAP
metals
(
except
mercury)
already
established
in
the
rule.
As
discussed
above,
the
approach
we
promulgated
on
July
3,
2001
required
you,
in
practice,
to
feed
low
levels
of
metals
on
a
continuous
basis
in
order
to
qualify
for
the
alternative.
The
rule
required
that
the
source's
feed
control
level
must
be
equivalent
to
or
lower
than
25%
of
the
MACT­
defining
hazardous
waste
feed
control
level.
We
considered
whether
it
would
be
appropriate
to
also
apply
such
a
qualification
requirement
to
today's
proposed
alternative.
Unfortunately,
the
methodology
used
to
calculate
today's
proposed
emission
standards
does
not
base
the
standards
on
a
specific
MACT­
defining
feed
control
level.
Thus,
we
do
not
have
a
MACT
feed
control
level
that
we
can
readily
use
to
define
an
appropriate
low
feed
control
level.
We
request
comment
on
whether
it
is
appropriate
and/
or
necessary
to
establish
a
minimum
feed
control
level,
and
if
so,
how
it
could
be
determined.
1.
What
Emission
Limitation
Must
Incinerators
Comply
With
under
this
Alternative?
For
existing
incinerators,
the
emissions
limits
under
this
alternative
would
be:
(
1)
a
semivolatile
metal
emission
limit
of
59
g/
dscm
for
the
combined
emissions
of
lead,
cadmium,
and
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
313
selenium;
and
(
2)
a
low
volatile
metal
emission
limit
of
84
g/
dscm
for
combined
emissions
of
arsenic,
beryllium,
chromium,
antimony,
cobalt,
manganese,
and
nickel
(
all
emissions
corrected
to
7%
oxygen).
For
new
sources,
the
emissions
limits
would
be:
(
1)
a
semivolatile
emission
limit
of
7
g/
dscm
for
combined
emissions
of
lead,
cadmium,
and
selenium;
and
(
2)
a
low
volatile
emission
limit
of
9
g/
dscm
for
emissions
of
arsenic,
beryllium,
chromium,
antimony,
cobalt,
manganese,
and
nickel
(
all
emissions
corrected
to
7%
oxygen).
2.
What
Emission
Limitation
Must
Liquid
Fuel­
Fired
Boilers
Comply
With
under
this
Alternative?
For
existing
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
the
emissions
limits
under
this
alternative
would
be:
(
1)
a
semivolatile
metal
emission
limit
of
1.1E­
5
lb/
MM
BTU
for
the
combined
emissions
of
lead,
cadmium,
and
selenium;
and
(
2)
a
low
volatile
metal
emission
limit
of
7.7E­
5
lb/
MM
BTU
for
combined
emissions
of
arsenic,
beryllium,
chromium,
antimony,
cobalt,
manganese,
and
nickel
(
all
emissions
corrected
to
7%
oxygen).
For
new
sources,
the
emissions
limits
would
be:
(
1)
a
semivolatile
metal
emission
limit
of
4.3E­
6
lb/
MM
BTU
for
combined
emissions
of
lead,
cadmium,
and
selenium;
and
(
2)
a
low
volatile
metal
emission
limit
of
3.6E­
5
lb/
MM
BTU
for
emissions
of
arsenic,
beryllium,
chromium,
antimony,
cobalt,
manganese,
and
nickel
(
all
emissions
corrected
to
7%
oxygen).
3.
What
Emission
Limitation
Must
Solid
Fuel­
Fired
Boilers
Comply
With
under
this
Alternative?
For
existing
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
the
emissions
limits
under
this
alternative
would
be:
(
1)
a
semivolatile
metal
emission
limit
of
170
g/
dscm
for
the
combined
emissions
of
lead,
cadmium,
and
selenium;
and
(
2)
a
low
volatile
metal
emission
limit
of
210
g/
dscm
for
combined
emissions
of
arsenic,
beryllium,
chromium,
antimony,
cobalt,
manganese,
and
nickel
(
all
emissions
corrected
to
7%
oxygen).
For
new
sources,
the
emissions
limits
would
be:
(
1)
a
semivolatile
metal
emission
limit
of
170
g/
dscm
for
combined
emissions
of
lead,
cadmium,
and
selenium;
and
(
2)
a
low
volatile
metal
emission
limit
of
190
g/
dscm
for
emissions
of
arsenic,
beryllium,
chromium,
antimony,
cobalt,
manganese,
and
nickel
(
all
emissions
corrected
to
7%
oxygen).
4.
Why
Don't
We
Offer
this
Alternative
to
Lightweight
Aggregate
Kilns
and
Cement
Kilns?
This
alternative
is
intended
to
apply
to
sources
that
feed
de
minimis
levels
of
metal
HAP.
We
do
not
believe
hazardous
waste
burning
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
and
cement
kilns
feed
these
metals
at
de
minimis
levels
primarily
because
raw
materials
and
coal
that
is
co­
fired
may
contain
these
metal
HAP,
and
because
hazardous
waste
that
is
combusted
by
sources
that
receive
off­
site
hazardous
waste
shipments
(
i.
e.,
commercial
hazardous
waste
combustors)
typically
contain
these
metal
HAP.
Thus,
we
think
that
allowing
this
alternative
would
not
be
of
practical
significance
because
we
do
not
believe
these
sources
could
meet
the
standard.
As
a
result,
we
are
not
proposing
this
alternative
for
these
source
categories.
B.
What
Alternative
to
the
Particulate
Matter
Standard
Is
EPA
Requesting
Comment
On?
As
previously
discussed,
we
do
not
have
sufficient
metal
HAP
compliance
data
to
calculate
MACT
floors
that
would
account
for
all
the
nonmercury
metal
HAP
in
all
feedstreams.
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
314
We
discuss
below,
however,
an
alternative
approach
to
the
particulate
matter
standard
that
could
be
implemented
if
sources
monitor
and
collect
nonmercury
metal
HAP
feed
concentration
data
prior
to
the
compliance
date.
Such
an
approach,
if
promulgated,
would
result
in
site­
specific
metal
HAP
emission
limits
that
would
be
dependent,
in
part,
on
each
source's
average
feed
concentration
levels
of
metal
HAP
in
their
hazardous
and
nonhazardous
waste
feedstreams,
and,
for
energy
recovery
units,
each
source's
hazardous
waste
firing
rate.
We
discuss
this
alternative
below,
and
we
request
comment
as
to
whether
this
approach
is
appropriate
given
the
complexities
associated
with
its
implementation.
Also
see
USEPA,
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
IIIV:
Selection
ofCompliance
With
MACT
Standards
and
Technologies",,"
March
2004,
Chapter
23.9,
for
more
discussion.
1.
What
Are
the
Components
of
the
Total
Metal
Emissions
Limitations?
This
total
metal
emission
limitation
would
regulate
all
nonmercury
metal
HAP
with
separate
semivolatile
HAP
metal
and
low
volatile
HAP
metal
emission
limits.
Each
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metal
limit
would
have
separate
MACT
components
that
would
control
and
limit
enumerated
and
nonenumerated
metal
HAP
emissions
that
are
attributable
to:
(
1)
hazardous
waste
feedstreams;
(
2)
nonhazardous
waste,
non­
fuel
feedstreams
(
e.
g.,
cement
kiln
raw
material);
and
(
3)
nonhazardous
waste
fuels
(
e.
g.,
coal).
Some
of
these
components
may
or
may
not
apply
depending
on
the
source
category.
Each
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metal
component
is
converted
to
a
mass
emission
limitation,
and
each
source's
resultant
total
metal
emissions
would
be
limited
to
the
summation
of
each
of
the
applicable
components.
We
describe
these
MACT
components
below.
a.
Energy
Recovery
Units:
Allowable
Enumerated
Semivolatile
and
Low
Volatile
Metal
Emissions
Attributable
to
the
Hazardous
Waste.
This
first
component
limits
enumerated
metal
emissions
attributable
to
hazardous
waste
feedstreams
from
energy
recovery
units,
i.
e.,
liquid
boilers,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
and
is
equivalent
to
the
enumerated
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metal
mass
emission
rate
that
would
be
allowed
by
today's
proposed
standards.
Each
source's
allowable
mass
emission
rate
limit
for
this
component
would
be
equivalent
to
its
associated
hazardous
waste
thermal
feed
rate
(
expressed
as
million
Btu
hazardous
waste
per
hour)
multiplied
by
the
proposed
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metal
thermal
emission
standard.
b.
Solid
Fuel­
Fired
Boilers
and
Incinerators:
Allowable
Enumerated
Semivolatile
and
Low
Volatile
Metal
Emissions
Attributable
to
All
Feedstreams.
This
second
component
applies
only
to
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
and
incinerators,
and
limits
enumerated
metal
mass
emissions
attributable
to
all
feedstreams
,
i.
e.,
hazardous
waste,
nonhazardous
waste,
and
nonhazardous
waste
fuels.
This
component
limit
is
equivalent
to
the
enumerated
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metal
mass
emission
rate
that
would
be
allowed
by
today's
proposed
standards.
Today's
proposed
standards
for
incinerators
and
solid­
fuel­
fired
boilers
limits
total
emissions
from
all
feedstreams,
and
are
expressed
as
stack
gas
concentration
limits.
Each
source's
allowable
mass
emission
rate
limit
for
this
component
would
be
equivalent
to
its
gas
flowrate
multiplied
by
the
proposed
standard.
c.
All
Source
Categories:
Allowable
Nonenumerated
Semivolatile
and
Low
Volatile
Metal
Emissions
Attributable
to
the
Hazardous
Waste.
This
third
component
limits
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
85
We
request
comment
on
how
such
an
approach
would
work
for
new
sources,
given
that
new
sources
may
not
have
historical
feed
concentration
data
at
the
time
they
begin
operations.

86
Each
source
would
be
required
to
calculate
its
associated
three
year
average
nonenumerated
metal
hazardous
waste
concentrations
for
both
semivolatile
metals
(
lead,
cadmium,
and
selenium)
and
low
volatile
metals
(
arsenic,
beryllium,
chromium,
antimony,
cobalt,
manganese,
and
nickel)
expressed
in
either
hazardous
waste
thermal
concentrations,
i.
e.,
pounds
per
million
Btus
(
for
energy
recovery
units)
or
maximum
theoretical
emissions
concentrations,
i.
e.,
pounds
per
dry
standard
cubic
feet
(
for
incinerators
and
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers).

87
Sources
would
not
be
required
to
collect
three
years
of
data
if
the
nonhazardous
waste
fuels
such
as
natural
gas
do
not
contain
metal
HAP.

315
nonenumerated
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metal
emissions
attributable
to
hazardous
waste
feedstreams,
and
is
applicable
to
all
source
categories.
We
currently
do
not
have
sufficient
data
to
calculate
a
MACT
emission
limitation
for
nonenumerated
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste.
As
a
result,
sources
complying
with
this
alternative
would
be
required
to
collect
three
years
of
nonenumerated
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metal
hazardous
waste
feed
control
concentrations.
85
Incinerators
and
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
would
be
required
to
collect
hazardous
waste
maximum
theoretical
emissions
concentrations,
and
energy
recovery
units
would
be
required
to
collect
three
years
of
hazardous
waste
thermal
feed
concentration
data
for
these
metal
groups.
86
Each
incinerator
and
solid
fuel­
fired
boiler's
allowable
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metal
mass
emission
rate
for
this
component
would
be
equivalent
to
its
associated
three
year
average
hazardous
waste
maximum
theoretical
emissions
concentrations
for
each
metal
group
multiplied
by:
(
1)
1
minus
the
MACT
system
removal
efficiency;
and
(
2)
its
associated
volumetric
gas
flow
rate.
Each
energy
recovery
unit's
allowable
mass
emission
rate
for
this
component
would
be
equivalent
to
its
associated
three
year
average
hazardous
waste
thermal
feed
concentration
for
each
metal
group
multiplied
by:
1
minus
the
MACT
system
removal
efficiency;
and
(
2)
its
associated
hazardous
waste
thermal
federatefeedrate
(
expressed
as
million
Btu
hazardous
waste
per
hour).
The
MACT
system
removal
efficiency
that
would
be
applied
separately
for
semivolatile
metals
and
low
volatile
metals
would
be
determined
as
described
in
Part
Two,
Section
VI.
G.
5
for
each
source
category.
d.
Energy
Recovery
Units:
Enumerated
and
Nonenumerated
Metal
HAP
Emissions
Attributable
to
Nonhazardous
Waste
Fuels.
The
fourth
component
limits
enumerated
and
nonenumerated
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metal
mass
emissions
attributable
to
nonhazardous
waste
fuels
(
e.
g.,
coal)
and
is
applicable
to
energy
recovery
units,
i.
e.,
cement
kilns,
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
and
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers.
Energy
recovery
units
complying
with
this
alternative
would
be
required
to
collect
three
years
of
enumerated
and
nonenumerated
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metal
nonhazardous
waste
fuel
thermal
feed
concentration
levels.
87
Each
source's
allowable
mass
emission
rate
for
this
component
would
be
equivalent
to
its
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
88
Each
source
would
be
required
to
calculate
its
associated
three
year
average
metal
concentrations
in
their
coal
for
both
semivolatile
metals
(
lead,
cadmium,
and
selenium)
and
low
volatile
metals
(
arsenic,
beryllium,
chromium,
antimony,
cobalt,
manganese,
and
nickel)
expressed
in
pounds
per
million
Btu
of
coal.

89
This
would
be
equivalent
to
a
kiln's
coal
feedrate
expressed
in
million
Btus
per
hour.

90
Each
source
would
be
required
to
calculate
its
associated
three
year
average
nonenumerated
metal
concentrations
in
their
nonhazardous
waste
fuel
for
both
semivolatile
metals
(
selenium)
and
low
volatile
metals
(
antimony,
cobalt,
manganese,
and
nickel)
expressed
in
pounds
per
million
Btu.

316
associated
three
year
average
metal
nonhazardous
waste
fuel
thermal
feed
concentration
for
each
metal
group88
multiplied
by:
(
1)
one
minus
the
MACT
system
removal
efficiency
for
the
specified
metal
group;
and
(
2)
its
associated
nonhazardous
waste
thermal
federatefeedrate.
89
As
discussed
above,
the
MACT
system
removal
efficiency
that
would
be
applied
separately
for
semivolatile
metals
and
low
volatile
metals
would
be
determined
as
described
in
Part
Two,
Section
VI.
G.
5
for
each
source
category.
e.
Incinerators
and
Solid
Fuel­
Fired
Boilers:
Nonenumerated
Metal
HAP
Emissions
Attributable
to
Nonhazardous
Waste
Fuels.
The
fifth
component
limits
nonenumerated
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metal
mass
emissions
attributable
to
nonhazardous
waste
fuels
(
e.
g.,
coal,
fuel
oil)
and
is
applicable
to
incinerators
and
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers.
Sources
complying
with
this
alternative
would
be
required
to
collect
three
years
of
nonenumerated
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metal
nonhazardous
waste
fuel
thermal
feed
concentrations.
Each
source's
allowable
mass
emission
rate
for
this
component
would
be
equivalent
to
its
associated
three
year
average
metal
nonhazardous
waste
fuel
thermal
feed
concentration
for
each
metal
group90
multiplied
by:
(
1)
one
minus
the
MACT
system
removal
efficiency
for
the
specified
metal
group;
and
(
2)
its
associated
nonhazardous
waste
fuel
thermal
federatefeedrate
(
expressed
as
million
btu
per
hour).
As
discussed
above,
the
MACT
system
removal
efficiency
that
would
be
applied
separately
for
semivolatile
metals
and
low
volatile
metals
would
be
determined
as
described
in
Part
Two,
Section
VI.
G.
5
for
each
source
category.
f.
Incinerators
and
Solid
Fuel­
Fired
Boilers:
Nonenumerated
Metal
HAP
Emissions
Attributable
to
Nonfuel
Nonhazardous
Waste.
The
sixth
component
limits
nonenumerated
metal
HAP
emissions
attributable
to
nonfuel
nonhazardous
waste
feedstreams
from
incinerators
and
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers.
Sources
complying
with
this
alternative
would
be
required
to
collect
three
years
of
nonenumerated
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metal
nonfuel
nonhazardous
waste
feedstream
concentration
data,
expressed
as
mass
of
metal
fed
in
its
nonfuel
nonhazardous
waste
feedstream
per
total
thermal
input
into
the
combustor.
Each
source's
allowable
mass
emission
rate
for
this
component
would
be
equivalent
to
its
associated
three
year
average
metal
nonfuel
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
91
Each
source
would
be
required
to
calculate
its
associated
three
year
average
nonenumerated
metal
thermal
feed
concentrations
in
their
nonfuel
nonhazardous
waste
feedstreams
for
both
semivolatile
metals
(
selenium)
and
low
volatile
metals
(
antimony,
cobalt,
manganese,
and
nickel)
expressed
in
pounds
per
million
Btu.

92
Total
thermal
input
to
kiln
would
include
both
hazardous
and
nonhazardous
fuel
thermal
input.

93
Each
source
would
be
required
to
calculate
its
associated
three
year
average
metal
thermal
feed
concentrations
in
their
raw
material
for
both
semivolatile
metals
(
lead,
cadmium,
and
selenium)
and
low
volatile
metals
(
arsenic,
beryllium,
chromium,
antimony,
cobalt,
manganese,
and
nickel)
expressed
in
pounds
per
million
Btus.

317
nonhazardous
waste
thermal
feed
concentration
for
each
metal
group91
multiplied
by:
(
1)
one
minus
the
MACT
system
removal
efficiency
for
the
specified
metal
group;
and
(
2)
its
associated
total
thermal
feedrate
(
expressed
as
million
Btus
per
hour).
As
discussed
above,
the
MACT
system
removal
efficiency
that
would
be
applied
separately
for
semivolatile
metals
and
low
volatile
metals
would
be
determined
as
described
in
Part
Two,
Section
VI.
G.
5
for
each
source
category.
g.
Cement
Kilns
and
Lightweight
Aggregate
Kilns:
Enumerated
and
Nonenumerated
Metal
HAP
Emissions
Attributable
to
Raw
Materials.
The
seventh
component
limits
enumerated
and
nonenumerated
metal
HAP
emissions
attributable
to
raw
material
from
cement
kilns
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
Cement
kilns
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
complying
with
this
alternative
would
be
required
to
collect
three
years
of
enumerated
and
nonenumerated
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metal
raw
material
feed
concentration
data,
expressed
as
mass
of
metal
fed
in
raw
material
per
total
thermal
input
into
the
kiln.
92
Each
cement
kiln
and
lightweight
aggregate
kiln's
allowable
mass
emission
rate
for
this
component
would
be
equivalent
to
its
associated
three
year
average
metal
raw
material
thermal
feed
concentration
for
each
metal
group93
multiplied
by:
(
1)
one
minus
the
MACT
system
removal
efficiency
for
the
specified
metal
group;
and
(
2)
its
associated
total
thermal
federatefeedrate.
As
discussed
above,
the
MACT
system
removal
efficiency
that
would
be
applied
separately
for
semivolatile
metals
and
low
volatile
metals
would
be
determined
as
described
in
Part
Two,
Section
VI.
G.
5
for
each
source
category.
2.
Would
Sources
Still
Be
Required
to
Comply
with
a
Particulate
Matter
Standard
if
They
Comply
with
this
Alternative?
As
previously
discussed
in
Part
Two,
Section
VI.
F,
we
conclude
that
today's
proposed
floor
levels
can
be
no
higher
than
the
interim
standards
because
all
sources,
not
just
the
best
performing
sources,
are
achieving
the
interim
standards.
It
is
not
clear
whether
this
alternative
total
metal
emission
limitation
is
less
stringent
than
the
current
interim
particulate
matter
standard
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
94
There
is
not
a
direct
correlation
between
particulate
matter
emissions
and
metal
emissions
given
that
metal
emission
levels
are
both
a
function
of
feed
control
and
particulate
matter
control.

95
As
previously
discussed,
this
is
because
Clean
Air
Act
standards
can
supplant
RCRA
standards
only
when
the
CAA
standard
is
sufficiently
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment
to
make
the
RCRA
standard
duplicative
(
within
the
meaning
of
RCRA
section
1006
(
b)
(
3)).

318
for
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
94
As
a
result,
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
complying
with
this
alternative
would
also
be
required
to
comply
with
the
interim
standard
for
particulate
matter.
Liquid
and
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
complying
with
this
alternative
would
remain
subject
to
the
RCRA
particulate
matter
standard
of
0.08
gr/
dscf
pursuant
to
§
264.343(
c).
95
3.
How
Would
Sources
Demonstrate
Compliance
with
this
Alternative?
Sources
complying
with
this
alternative
would
be
required
to
calculate
its
site­
specific
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metal
mass
emission
rate
limitation
as
described
above.
Each
source's
emission
limitation
would
not
only
be
a
function
of
its
average
three
years
of
metal
concentration
data
collected,
but
also
would
be
a
function
of
either
its
gas
flowrate
(
for
incinerators
and
solid
fuel
fired
boilers),
hazardous
waste
thermal
firing
rate
(
for
cement
kilns,
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
and
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers),
and
total
thermal
input
rate
(
for
all
sources).
As
a
result
each
source's
mass
emission
limitation
would
vary
over
time
as
the
dependent
variables
change
(
e.
g.,
a
cement
kiln's
allowable
mass
emission
limitation
would
increase
if
its
hazardous
waste
thermal
firing
rate
increases).
Sources
would
demonstrate
compliance
with
these
site­
specific
metal
emission
rate
limitations
during
its
comprehensive
performance
test
and
would
establish
operating
parameter
limits
on
its
air
pollution
control
device
to
ensure
that
the
source
achieves
the
metal
system
removal
efficiency
that
was
demonstrated
during
the
test
during
normal
day­
to­
day
operations.
Sources
would
then
establish
total
metal
federatefeedrate
limits
that
would
assure
compliance
with
this
site­
specific
metal
emission
limitation.
Given
that
these
metal
emission
limitations
may
vary
over
time,
we
request
comment
as
to
whether
these
emission
limitations
(
and
associated
federatefeedrate
operating
limits)
should
be
instantaneous
limits
based
on
each
source's
current
operating
levels
(
e.
g.,
hazardous
waste
thermal
input
rate
for
energy
recovery
units,
or
gas
flowrate
for
incinerators),
or
rather
12
hour
rolling
average
limits
that
would
be
updated
each
minute.

XIX.
What
Are
the
Proposed
RCRA
State
Authorization
and
CAA
Delegation
Requirements?
A.
What
Is
the
Authority
for
this
Rule?
Today's
rule
amends
the
promulgated
standards
located
at
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
EEE.
It
amends
the
standards
for
the
Phase
I
source
categories­­
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
96
Accordingly,
S/
L/
T
agencies
are
required
to
reopen
existing
title
V
permits
that
have
3
or
more
years
remaining
in
the
permit
term
to
include
the
promulgated
standards.
If
there
are
less
than
3
years
remaining,
S/
L/
T
agencies
may
wait
until
renewal
to
incorporate
the
standards.
Provided
that
a
source
is
not
required
to
reopen
its
title
V
permit,
it
must
still
fully
comply
with
the
promulgated
standards
(
40
CFR
§
70.7(
f)(
1)(
i)).

319
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
that
burn
hazardous
waste,
and
it
also
amends
subpart
EEE
to
establish
MACT
standards
for
the
Phase
II
source
categories­­
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
that
burn
hazardous
waste.
Additionally,
this
rule
amends
several
RCRA
regulations
located
in
40
CFR
part
270
to
reflect
changes
in
applicability,
addition
of
a
new
permit
modification
procedure
and
additions
related
site­
specific
risk
assessments
and
permitting.
1.
How
Is
this
Rule
Delegated
under
the
CAA?
Consistent
with
the
September
1999
rule,
we
recommend
that
state,
local,
and
tribal
(
S/
L/
T)
air
pollution
control
agencies
apply
for
delegation
of
this
subpart
(
and
all
NESHAP)
under
section
112(
l)
of
the
CAA,
if
they
have
not
done
so
already,
so
that
they
can
exercise
delegable
authorities
for
the
final
Phase
I
Replacement
standards
and
Phase
II
standards.
Delegable
authorities
are
the
discretionary
activities,
such
as
approving
changes
to
the
reporting
schedule,
that
are
part
of
each
NESHAP.
EPA
retains
some
of
those
authorities,
but
allows
most
to
be
implemented
by
those
S/
L/
T
agencies
who
accept
straight
delegation
of
the
NESHAP;
in
this
case,
subpart
EEE.
The
delegable
authorities,
those
that
can
and
cannot
be
delegated,
are
described
in
section
63.1214
of
this
subpart.
(
For
more
information
on
delegation
of
part
63
provisions,
see
65
FR
55810
­
55846.)
All
major
sources
of
air
pollutants,
such
as
all
sources
subject
to
this
subpart,
must
have
a
title
V
operating
permit
which
would
contain
all
applicable
requirements,
including
those
for
this
subpart.
(
For
more
information,
please
see
40
CFR
part
70.)
While
S/
L/
T
agencies
can
implement
and
enforce
MACT
standards
through
their
approved
title
V
programs,
approval
of
title
V
programs
alone
do
not
allow
S/
L/
T
authorities
to
be
the
primary
enforcement
authority
and
they
cannot
exercise
delegable
provisions'
authorities.
An
approved
title
V
program
means
that
S/
L/
T
agencies
commit
to
incorporating
all
MACT
standards
into
title
V
permits
as
permit
conditions
and
to
enforcing
all
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
permit.
96
Having
an
approved
title
V
program,
for
instance,
does
not
automatically
allow
S/
L/
T
agencies
to
approve
test
plans,
requests
for
(
minor
and
intermediate)
changes
to
monitoring,
performance
test
waivers,
document
notifications,
or
other
Category
I
Authorities
(
see
40
CFR
63.91(
g)(
1)(
i)).
For
those
S/
L/
T
agencies
who
have
been
previously
delegated
authority
for
the
MACT
standards
under
40
CFR
part
63
subpart
EEE,
we
encourage
you
to
request
approval
of
the
revisions
to
emission
standards
and
various
other
compliance
requirements
of
today's
proposal
when
promulgated.
B.
Are
There
Any
Changes
to
the
CAA
Delegation
Requirements
for
Phase
I
Sources?
With
regard
to
CAA
delegation
requirements
for
Phase
I
sources,
we
intend
to
clarify
which
provisions
in
40
CFR
part
63
subpart
EEE
are
delegable
and
those
that
are
not
in
today's
Notice
of
proposed
rulemaking.
We
recently
published
a
final
rule,
Clarifications
to
Existing
National
Emissions
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
Delegations'
Provisions
on
June
23,
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
97
EPA
Regions
may
choose
whether
they
will
or
will
not
delegate
authority
to
S/
L/
T
agencies
to
approve
minor
and
intermediate
changes.

320
2003
(
see
68
FR
37334),
that
clarifies
and
streamlines
delegable
provisions
for
each
existing
NESHAP.
Prior
to
finalization
of
this
rule,
many
permitting
authorities
and
sources
alike
were
left
to
interpret
which
Category
I
authorities
were
delegable
according
to
provisions
specific
to
one
NESHAP
versus
another.
In
light
of
this
final
rule,
which
outlines
the
non­
delegable
provisions
for
subpart
EEE,
some
confusion
remains
today
as
to
which
actions
can
be
taken
by
a
delegated
S/
L/
T
agency.
Therefore,
we
intend
to
clarify
specific
actions
in
subpart
EEE
that
can
or
cannot
be
taken
by
permitting
agencies
who
have
received
delegation
under
112(
l)
of
the
CAA
for
subpart
EEE.
2.
What
Are
the
Clarifications
and
Changes
to
CAA
Delegable
Authorities
for
this
Rule?
Sections
63.91(
g)(
1)(
i)
and
(
g)(
2)(
i)
list
authorities
that
are
generally
delegable
to
S/
L/
T
agencies
and
those
that
are
not,
respectively.
These
apply
to
all
NESHAP.
Similar
information
contained
in
§
63.1214
explains
that
some
of
the
discretionary
authorities,
such
as
approval
of
alternative
reporting
schedules,
under
subpart
EEE,
can
be
implemented
and
enforced
by
a
delegated
authority.
It
also
lists
the
authorities
that
are
retained
by
EPA
and
are
not
delegable
to
S/
L/
T
agencies
even
if
they
have
received
delegation
for
subpart
EEE.
These
non­
delegable
authorities
are:
(
1)
approval
of
alternatives
to
requirements
in
§
§
63.1200,
63.1203
through
63.1205,
and
63.1206(
a);
(
2)
approval
of
major
alternatives
to
test
methods
under
§
63.7(
e)(
2)(
ii)
and
(
f);
(
3)
approval
of
major
alternatives
to
monitoring
under
§
63.8(
f)
and;
(
4)
approval
of
major
alternatives
to
recordkeeping
and
reporting
under
§
63.10(
f).
It
is
important
to
note
that
if
the
alternatives
mentioned
in
items
(
2)
through
(
4)
are
determined
to
be
minor
or
intermediate
according
to
the
definitions
in
§
63.90(
a),
then
they
are
considered
delegable
and
can
be
approved
by
a
S/
L/
T
agency
who
has
been
granted
authority
for
subpart
EEE.
97
To
aid
in
the
determination
of
whether
a
request
is
major,
intermediate,
or
minor,
we
recommend
that
you
consult
the
September
14,
2000
final
rule,
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants:
Amendments
to
the
Approval
of
State
Programs
and
Delegation
of
Federal
Authorities
(
65
FR
55810).
The
preamble
to
this
rule
provides
examples,
as
well
as
the
regulatory
definitions
as
they
exist
today
in
40
CFR
§
63.90(
a).
Additionally,
you
may
consult
a
guidance
document
entitled,
How
to
Review
and
Issue
Clean
Air
Act
Applicability
Determinations
and
Alternative
Monitoring
(
EPA
305­
B­
99­
004,
February
1999).
While
§
63.1214(
c)
and
§
63.90(
a)
provide
which
authorities
are
not
delegable
for
subpart
EEE
sources
and
define
degrees
of
changes,
they
may
not
be
clear
in
certain
applications.
We
will
address
specific
sections
in
subpart
EEE,
through
the
following
preamble
discussion
and
through
regulatory
amendments,
where
we
believe
there
is
a
need
for
clarity
based
upon
our
experiences
with
the
implementation
of
the
Phase
I
standards
thus
far.
Also,
there
are
some
alternatives
in
subpart
EEE
that
were
inadvertently
left
out
of
§
63.1214(
c)
which
we
are
adding
through
this
Notice
of
proposed
rulemaking.
Beginning
with
test
methods,
major
alternatives
are
not
delegable.
(
See
40
CFR
63.90(
a)
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
98
Send
requests
to:
Conniesue
B.
Oldham,
Ph.
D.,
Group
Leader,
Source
Measurement
Technology
Group
(
D205­
02),
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards,
US
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711
321
for
definitions
of
major,
intermediate,
and
minor
changes
to
test
methods.)
We
noted
in
§
63.1214(
c)(
2)
that
major
alternatives
to
the
test
methods
as
addressed
in
the
general
provisions
at
§
63.7(
e)(
2)(
ii)
and
(
f)
were
not
delegable,
however,
we
did
not
specifically
include
test
methods
relevant
to
subpart
EEE.
Section
63.1208(
b)
specifies
the
test
methods
sources
must
use
to
determine
compliance
with
emission
standards
in
subpart
EEE.
This
section
is
delegable
in
its
entirety
to
S/
L/
T
agencies
who
have
been
delegated
authority
for
subpart
EEE,
as
long
as
the
request
is
not
a
major
change.
Additionally,
the
CEMS
required
in
§
63.1209(
a)(
1),
although
a
monitoring
requirement,
is
considered
to
be
a
test
method
since
it
serves
as
the
benchmark
measurement
method
for
demonstrating
compliance
with
emission
standards.
The
authority
to
approve
changes
to
the
CEMS­
related
requirements
is
also
delegable
to
S/
L/
T
agencies
as
long
as
the
request
is
not
a
major
change.
To
summarize,
if
a
source
proposes
a
major
change
to
a
test
method
specified
in
§
§
63.1208(
b)
and
63.1209(
a)(
1),
it
must
send
the
request
to
the
appropriate
EPA
Region
and
EPA's
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards,
98
since
major
changes
to
test
methods
are
not
delegable.
We
are
adding
§
§
63.1208(
b)
and
63.1209(
a)(
1),
to
the
authorities
in
§
63.1214(
c)(
2)
that
are
not
delegable
for
major
changes.
Consistent
with
the
major
alternatives
to
test
methods,
major
alternatives
to
monitoring
are
not
delegable.
(
See
40
CFR
63.90(
a)
for
definitions
of
major,
intermediate,
and
minor
changes
to
test
methods.)
We
noted
in
§
63.1214(
c)(
2)
that
major
alternatives
to
monitoring
as
addressed
in
the
general
provisions
in
§
63.8(
f)
were
not
delegable,
but
we
did
not
specifically
address
the
relevant
monitoring
requirements
in
subpart
EEE.
Section
63.1209
specifies
the
monitoring
requirements
sources
must
use
to
determine
compliance
with
emission
standards
in
EEE.
Depending
upon
the
pollutant
to
be
monitored,
either
a
CEMS
or
COMS
is
required.
Before
discussing
whether
changes
to
monitoring
in
subpart
EEE
are
delegable,
it
is
important
first
to
review
how
requests
for
changes
to
monitoring
are
handled
under
the
general
provisions
of
§
63.8(
f).
In
general,
requests
for
alternative
monitoring
follow
the
same
approach,
with
respect
to
delegation
authority,
as
requests
for
alternative
test
methods
discussed
above;
requests
that
are
defined
as
major
should
be
sent
to
the
appropriate
EPA
Region
and
requests
that
are
intermediate
or
minor
should
be
sent
to
the
delegated
S/
L/
T
agency.
A
request
to
use
other
monitoring
in
lieu
of
a
CEMS
is
always
considered
a
major
change.
However,
if
a
source
proposes
to
use
a
CEMS
in
lieu
of
an
operating
parameter,
the
request
may
be
considered
an
intermediate
change,
so
long
as
the
CEMS
to
be
used
is
regarded
as
a
"
proven
technology"
and
could
be
submitted
to
a
S/
L/
T
agency
for
approval.
The
rationale
for
this
is
that
the
use
of
a
CEMS,
rather
than
monitoring
via
an
operating
parameter,
provides
a
better
measure
of
compliance
and
thus,
we
want
encourage
the
use
of
CEMS
when
possible.
While
we
want
to
encourage
the
use
of
CEMS,
we
recognize
that
S/
L/
T
agencies
may
not
always
have
the
technical
resources
to
review
these
applications,
particularly
when
there
are
no
federally
promulgated
performance
specifications
for
the
CEMS.
In
such
cases,
we
expect
that
the
S/
L/
T
agency
will
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
322
rely
on
EPA
Regions
for
approval.
In
subpart
EEE,
§
63.1209,
there
are
two
alternative
approaches
to
monitoring
that
sources
may
use.
One
is
located
at
§
63.1209(
a)(
5),
Petitions
to
use
CEMS
for
other
standards,
and
the
other
is
at
§
63.1209(
g)(
1),
Alternative
monitoring
requirements
other
than
continuous
emissions
monitoring
systems.
Section
63.1209(
a)(
5)
allows
sources
to
request
to
use
CEMS
to
monitor
particulate
matter,
mercury,
semivolatile
metals,
low
volatile
metals,
and/
or
hydrochloric
acid/
chlorine
gas
in
lieu
of
compliance
with
operating
parameter
limits.
In
these
cases,
a
source
would
be
monitoring
the
pollutant
of
concern
and
comparing
the
emissions
measurements
directly
against
an
emission
limitation
rather
than
comparing
the
measurements
to
an
operating
parameter.
We
consider
a
request
under
§
63.1209(
a)(
5)
to
be
major
change
to
monitoring
and
consequently,
it
is
not
delegable.
We
classify
§
63.1209(
a)(
5)
to
be
a
major
change
(
rather
than
an
intermediate
change
which
can
be
delegable)
mainly
because
we
have
not
yet
promulgated
Performance
Specifications
for
the
CEMS
that
may
be
used.
In
other
words,
it
could
be
argued
that
these
CEMS
do
not
yet
qualify
as
fully
"
proven
technology".
We
understand
that
it
could
be
argued
either
way,
but
for
the
reasons
discussed
in
the
previous
paragraph
and
as
an
added
measure
of
consistency,
requests
to
use
CEMS
in
lieu
of
operating
parameters
should
be
submitted
to
the
EPA
Region
for
approval.
Therefore,
we
are
adding
§
63.1209(
a)(
5)
to
the
authorities
in
§
63.1214(
c)(
2)
that
are
not
delegable
for
major
changes.
The
other
alternative
monitoring
provision,
§
63.1209(
g)(
1),
allows
sources
to
use
alternative
monitoring
methods,
with
the
exception
of
the
standards
that
must
be
monitored
with
a
CEMS,
and
to
request
a
waiver
of
an
operating
parameter
limit.
Section
63.1209(
g)(
1)
applies
to
requests
for
alternative
parameter
monitoring
that
involve
the
use
of
a
different
detector
(
i.
e.,
thermocouple,
pressure
transducer,
or
flow
meter),
a
different
monitoring
location,
a
different
method
as
recommend
by
the
manufacturer,
or
a
different
averaging
period
that
is
more
stringent
than
the
applicable
standard.
For
example,
sources
equipped
with
wet
scrubbers
are
required
to
establish
a
minimum
pressure
drop
limit
to
assure
adequate
contact
between
the
gas
and
liquid.
A
source
may
petition
to
have
this
monitoring
requirement
waived
if
the
manufacturer
does
not
recommend
pressure
drop
as
a
critical
control
parameter
that
affects
the
unit's
operating
efficiency.
Depending
upon
the
type
of
wet
scrubber,
an
appropriate
minimum
limit
may
be
specified
for
steam
injection
rate,
disk
spin
rate,
or
a
maximum
temperature
limit
on
liquid
and
flue
gas,
rather
than
pressure
drop.
Also,
sources
could
request
more
stringent
averaging
periods
in
order
to
"
mirror"
the
averaging
periods
required
under
RCRA.
This
may
facilitate
an
easier
transition
from
RCRA
to
MACT
during
the
time
period
sources
may
need
to
comply
with
both
sets
of
requirements.
Since
we
do
not
consider
these
changes
to
be
major,
requests
under
§
63.1209(
g)(
1)
should
be
sent
to
the
delegated
S/
L/
T
agency
for
approval.
Accordingly,
we
are
amending
the
language
in
§
63.1209(
g)(
1)
to
specify
that
a
source
may
submit
an
application
to
the
Administrator
or
a
State
with
an
approved
Title
V
program.
Also,
we
are
revising
the
title
under
§
63.1209(
g)(
1)
so
that
it
is
more
specific
regarding
its
intended
use.
Lastly,
major
alternatives
to
recordkeeping
and
reporting
also
are
not
delegable.
(
See
40
CFR
63.90(
a)
for
definitions
of
major,
intermediate,
and
minor
changes
to
test
methods.)
We
noted
in
§
63.1214(
c)(
2)
that
major
alternatives
to
the
general
provisions
of
§
63.10(
f)
were
not
delegable,
but
we
did
not
specifically
address
any
relevant
recordkeeping
and
reporting
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
323
requirements
in
subpart
EEE.
Section
63.1211
specifies
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
sources
must
comply
with
in
subpart
EEE.
This
section
is
delegable
in
its
entirety
to
S/
L/
T
agencies
who
have
been
delegated
authority
to
implement
and
enforce
subpart
EEE,
as
long
as
the
request
is
not
a
major
change.
It
is
worthwhile
to
note
that
paragraph
(
e),
Data
compression,
may
be
incorrectly
interpreted
as
a
major
change
itself
to
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements,
because
it
appears
as
though
there
are
no
criteria
to
define
fluctuation
or
data
compression
limits.
However,
this
is
not
the
case.
In
the
preamble
to
the
September
1999
final
rule
(
see
64
FR
52961
and
52962),
we
provided
guidance
for
preparing
a
request
to
use
data
compression
techniques
and
recommended
fluctuation
and
data
compression
limits.
This
guidance
was
not
affected
by
the
court's
vacatur
of
portions
of
this
rule,
so
it
remains
in
effect.
Consequently,
this
allows
permitting
authorities
to
be
consistent
in
their
evaluation
of
requests.
We
view
paragraph
(
e)
to
be
a
minor
change
itself
and
so
a
written
request
to
use
data
compression
techniques
can
be
submitted
to
a
delegated
S/
L/
T
agency.
We
are
adding
§
63.1211(
a)
­
(
d)
to
the
authorities
in
§
63.1214(
c)(
2)
that
are
not
delegable
for
major
changes.
In
addition
to
the
clarifications
and
amendments
addressed
above,
there
are
two
important
delegation
issues
we
would
like
to
emphasize.
The
first
is
simply
to
remind
sources
and
permitting
authorities
alike
that,
if
a
provision
in
this
subpart
specifies
that
you
may
petition
or
request
that
the
"
Administrator
or
State
with
an
approved
Title
V
program
...,"
then
a
state
that
has
not
been
delegated
for
that
requirement,
but
has
an
approved
Title
V
program,
does
have
the
authority
to
approve
or
disapprove
the
request.
For
instance,
§
63.6(
i)(
1)
and
§
63.1213(
a)
both
specify
that
the
"
Administrator
(
or
a
State
with
an
approved
permit
program)"
can
grant
a
compliance
extension
request.
The
second
is
that
EPA
Regions
can
decide
whether
or
not
to
delegate
the
authority
to
approve
intermediate
changes
to
state
and
local
agencies.
In
some
cases,
a
state
may
have
received
delegation
to
approve
only
minor
changes.
Where
there
is
uncertainty,
we
recommend
that
sources
try
to
determine
if
a
request
is
major,
intermediate,
or
minor
based
on
the
definitions
in
40
CFR
§
63.90(
a),
and
then
consult
with
their
S/
L/
T
agency
and/
or
EPA
Region
to
determine
where
to
submit
the
request.
Or,
sources
may
submit
requests
to
the
S/
L/
T
agency
or
EPA
Region
who
will
then
determine
where
it
should
go
for
approval.
C.
What
Are
the
Proposed
CAA
Delegation
Requirements
for
Phase
II
Sources?
With
respect
to
CAA
delegation
requirements
for
Phase
II
sources,
they
are
the
same
as
those
for
Phase
I
sources.
Since
both
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
MACT
standards
are
located
in
the
same
subpart,
EEE,
the
same
delegation
provisions
apply
to
both.
Generally
speaking,
authority
to
approve
alternatives
to
standards
or
major
changes
to
test
methods,
monitoring,
and
recordkeeping
and
reporting
are
not
delegated
to
S/
L/
T
agencies.
Authority
to
approve
intermediate
and
minor
changes
to
test
methods,
monitoring,
and
recordkeeping
and
reporting
are
delegated
to
S/
L/
T
agencies
who
have
been
delegated
authority
to
implement
subpart
EEE.
All
other
subpart
EEE
implementation
requirements
may
be
handled
by
the
delegated
S/
L/
T
agency.
For
specific
information,
please
refer
to
the
previous
section,
A.
1.
What
are
the
clarifications
and
changes
to
CAA
delegable
authorities
for
this
rule?
How
Would
States
Become
Authorized
under
RCRA
for
this
Rule?
Under
section
3006
of
RCRA,
EPA
may
authorize
qualified
states
to
administer
their
own
hazardous
waste
programs
in
lieu
of
the
federal
program
within
the
state.
Following
authorization,
EPA
retains
enforcement
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
324
authority
under
sections
3008,
3013,
and
7003
of
RCRA,
although
authorized
states
have
primary
enforcement
responsibility.
The
standards
and
requirements
for
state
authorization
are
found
at
40
CFR
Part
271.
Prior
to
enactment
of
the
Hazardous
and
Solid
Waste
Amendments
of
1984
(
HSWA),
a
State
with
final
RCRA
authorization
administered
its
hazardous
waste
program
entirely
in
lieu
of
EPA
administering
the
federal
program
in
that
state.
The
federal
requirements
no
longer
applied
in
the
authorized
state,
and
EPA
could
not
issue
permits
for
any
facilities
in
that
state,
since
only
the
state
was
authorized
to
issue
RCRA
permits.
When
new,
more
stringent
federal
requirements
were
promulgated,
the
state
was
obligated
to
enact
equivalent
authorities
within
specified
time
frames.
However,
the
new
federal
requirements
did
not
take
effect
in
an
authorized
state
until
the
state
adopted
the
federal
requirements
as
state
law.
In
contrast,
under
RCRA
section
3006(
g)
(
42
U.
S.
C.
6926(
g)),
which
was
added
by
HSWA,
new
requirements
and
prohibitions
imposed
under
HSWA
authority
take
effect
in
authorized
states
at
the
same
time
that
they
take
effect
in
unauthorized
states.
EPA
is
directed
by
the
statute
to
implement
these
requirements
and
prohibitions
in
authorized
states,
including
the
issuance
of
permits,
until
the
state
is
granted
authorization
to
do
so.
While
states
must
still
adopt
HSWA
related
provisions
as
state
law
to
retain
final
authorization,
EPA
implements
the
HSWA
provisions
in
authorized
states
until
the
states
do
so.
Authorized
states
are
required
to
modify
their
programs
only
when
EPA
enacts
federal
requirements
that
are
more
stringent
or
broader
in
scope
than
existing
federal
requirements.
RCRA
section
3009
allows
the
states
to
impose
standards
more
stringent
than
those
in
the
federal
program
(
see
also
40
CFR
271.1).
Therefore,
authorized
states
may,
but
are
not
required
to,
adopt
federal
regulations,
both
HSWA
and
non­
HSWA,
that
are
considered
less
stringent
than
previous
federal
regulations.
The
amendments
to
the
RCRA
regulations
proposed
today
in
sections
40
CFR
270.10,
270.22,
270.32,
270.42,
270.66,
and
270.235
are
considered
to
be
either
less
stringent
or
equivalent
to
the
existing
Federal
program.
Thus,
states
are
not
required
to
modify
their
programs
to
adopt
and
seek
authorization
for
these
provisions,
although
we
strongly
encourage
them
to
do
so
to
facilitate
the
transition
from
the
RCRA
program
to
the
CAA
program
and
to
promote
national
consistency.
Additionally,
EPA
will
not
implement
those
provisions
promulgated
under
HSWA
authority
that
are
not
more
stringent
than
the
previous
federal
regulations
in
States
that
have
been
authorized
for
those
previous
federal
provisions.
The
amendments
in
sections
40
CFR
270.22
and
270.66
in
today's
notice
are
proposed
under
the
HSWA
amendments
to
RCRA.
Further,
today's
proposed
amendment
in
40
CFR
270.235
to
apply
this
provision
to
solid
and
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
and
HCL
production
furnaces,
is
proposed
under
HSWA
statutory
authority.
The
amendments
to
the
RCRA
regulations
proposed
today
in
sections
40
CFR
270.10
and
270.32
are
proposed
under
both
non­
HSWA
and
HSWA
authority,
depending
on
the
type
of
unit
to
which
these
amendments
are
applied
(
under
HSWA
authority
if
applied
to
BIFs
or
non­
HSWA
authority
if
applied
to
incinerators).
Refer
to
Part
Two,
Section
XVII.
D.
4
for
a
more
detailed
discussion
of
the
implementing
authorities
for
proposed
regulations
in
40
CFR
270.10
and
270.32.
The
following
RCRA
sections,
enacted
as
part
of
HSWA,
apply
to
today's
rule:
3004(
o),
3004(
q),
and
3005
(
c)(
3).
As
a
part
of
HSWA,
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
99
See
discussion
in
Part
One,
Section
I.
B.
1.

100
These
stakeholders
assumed,
correctly,
that
today's
proposed
replacement
emission
standards
would
be
substantially
more
stringent
than
the
current
(
September
1999
Final
Rule)
standards.

101
Please
note
that
this
does
not
affect
the
compliance
date.
You
must
be
in
compliance
with
the
replacement
standards
on
the
compliance
date,
and
certify
in
the
325
these
RCRA
provisions
are
federally
enforceable
in
an
authorized
State
until
the
necessary
changes
to
a
State's
authorization
are
approved
by
us.
See
RCRA
§
3006,
42
U.
S.
C.
§
6926.
The
Agency
is
adding
these
requirements
to
Table
1
in
271.1(
j),
which
identifies
rulemakings
that
are
promulgated
pursuant
to
HSWA.

Part
Three:
Proposed
Revisions
to
Compliance
Requirements
In
this
section,
we
discuss
proposed
revisions
to
compliance
requirements
that
may
affect
all
hazardous
waste
combustors.
We
also
request
comment
on
whether
we
should
make
revisions
to
other
compliance
requirements,
and
explain
why
we
conclude
not
to
make
revisions
to
other
compliance
requirements
that
we
proposed
(
or
requested
comment
on)
previously.

I.
Why
Is
EPA
Proposing
to
Allow
Phase
I
Sources
to
Conduct
the
Initial
Performance
Test
to
Comply
with
the
Replacement
Rules
12
Months
After
the
Compliance
Date?
We
propose
to
allow
owners
and
operators
of
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
to
commence
the
initial
comprehensive
performance
test
to
comply
with
the
replacement
standards
proposed
at
§
§
63.11203A1219,
63.1204A1220,
and
63.1205A1221
within
12
months
of
the
compliance
date
rather
than
within
six
months
of
the
compliance
date.
See
proposed
§
63.1207(
c)(
3).
Owners
and
operators
of
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces,
however,
must
commence
the
initial
comprehensive
performance
test
within
six
months
of
the
compliance
date.
During
development
of
the
joint
motion
by
petitioners
to
the
United
States
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
District
of
Columbia
Circuit
that
resulted
in
the
Agency
promulgating
the
Interim
Standards
Rule
on
February
13,
2002,99
stakeholders
representing
owners
and
operators
of
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
requested
that
we
propose
to
allow
them
12
months
after
the
compliance
date
to
commence
the
initial
comprehensive
performance
test.
These
stakeholders
request
a
12
month
window
rather
than
the
six
month
window
currently
required
under
§
63.1207(
c)
to
give
them
longer
to
amortize
the
cost
of
the
comprehensive
performance
test
demonstrating
compliance
with
the
Interim
Standards
before
having
to
retest
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
replacement
standards
proposed
today.
100
We
believe
this
request
has
merit
and
so
are
proposing
to
allow
them
to
commence
the
initial
comprehensive
performance
test
within
12
months
after
the
compliance
date.
101
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
Documentation
of
Compliance
that
you
have
established
operating
parameter
limits
that
you
believe
will
ensure
compliance
with
the
standards.
You
must
record
the
Documentation
of
Compliance
in
the
operating
record
by
the
compliance
date.

326
II.
Why
Is
EPA
Requesting
Comment
on
Requirements
Promulgated
as
Interim
Standards
or
as
Final
Amendments?
As
discussed
in
Part
One,
Section
I.
B.,
EPA
promulgated
interim
standards
(
called
the
Interim
Standards
Rule)
on
February
13,
2002
that
amended
compliance
and
implementation
provisions
of
the
September
1999
Final
Rule.
The
amended
provisions
were
specified
in
a
joint
motion
by
petitioners
to
the
United
States
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
District
of
Columbia
Circuit
(
the
Court).
Although
petitioners
agreed
that
the
amendments
should
be
promulgated
(
see
67
FR
at
6794),
petitioners
requested
that
EPA
reopen
certain
amended
provisions
for
public
comment.
Also
as
discussed
in
Part
One,
Section
I.
B,
EPA
promulgated
amendments
(
called
Final
Amendments)
to
the
September
1999
Final
Rule
on
February
14,
2002
that
revised
certain
implementation
and
compliance
requirements.
These
amendments
were
also
specified
in
the
joint
motion
to
the
Court,
and
petitioners
requested
that
EPA
reopen
specific
amended
provisions
for
public
comment.
We
discuss
these
provisions
in
this
section,
and
reopen
them
for
public
comment.
(
We
note,
however,
that
we
are
not
reopening
for
comment
any
RCRA
rules,
and
are
not
soliciting
comment
on
any
aspect
of
those
rules,
or
otherwise
reconsidering
or
reexaming
any
such
rules.
Any
references
to
RCRA
rules
in
the
discussion
which
follows
is
solely
as
an
aid
to
readers.)
Although
we
are
not
proposing
additional
revisions
to
these
provisions,
we
may
determine
after
review
of
public
comments
on
the
issues
we
raise
that
revisions
are
appropriate.
If
so,
we
would
promulgate
those
amendments
in
the
Replacement
Rule.
Although
these
provisions
currently
apply
only
to
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
we
are
proposing
today
to
apply
them
to
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
as
well.
(
See
Part
Two,
Sections
XIII­
XV.)
Accordingly,
any
amendments
to
these
requirements
that
we
may
promulgate
would
also
apply
to
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces.
A.
Interim
Standards
Amendments
to
the
Startup,
Shutdown,
and
Malfunction
Plan
Requirements
The
September
1999
Final
Rule
required
compliance
with
the
emission
standards
and
operating
requirements
at
all
times
that
hazardous
waste
is
in
the
combustion
system,
including
during
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunctions.
Industry
stakeholders
noted
that
requiring
compliance
with
emission
standards
and
operating
requirements
during
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunctions
is
inconsistent
with
the
General
Provisions
of
Subpart
A,
Part
63,
that
apply
to
MACT
sources
(
unless
alternative
requirements
are
prescribed
for
a
source
category).
Stakeholders
stated
that
it
is
inappropriate
to
penalize
a
source
for
exceeding
emission
standards
and
operating
requirements
during
malfunctions
because
some
exceedances
are
unavoidable
and
sources
are
already
required
to
take
corrective
measures
prescribed
in
the
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
(
SSMP)
to
minimize
emissions.
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
102
These
requirements
are
needed
to
minimize
emissions
of
HAP
during
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunctions
and,
thus,
help
meet
our
RCRA
mandate
to
ensure
that
emissions
from
hazardous
waste
combustors
do
not
pose
a
hazard
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
Sources
may
elect
either
to
remain
under
RCRA
control
during
these
events
or
to
comply
under
MACT
with
requirements
to
develop
and
implement
a
comprehensive
and
proactive
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
that
is
reviewed
and
approved
by
the
delegated
regulatory
authority.

103
We
also
request
comment
on
whether
the
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
should
be
expanded
beyond
the
scope
required
under
§
63.6(
e)(
3)
(
requiring
appropriate
corrective
measures
in
reaction
to
a
malfunction)
to
address
specific,
proactive
measures
that
the
owner
and
operator
have
considered
and
are
taking
to
minimize
the
frequency
and
severity
of
malfunctions.

327
In
response
to
industry
stakeholder
concerns,
the
Interim
Standards
Rule
amended
the
SSMP
requirements
to:
(
1)
exempt
sources
from
the
Subpart
EEE
emission
standards
and
operating
requirements
during
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunctions;
(
2)
continue
to
subject
sources
to
RCRA
requirements
during
malfunctions,
unless
they
comply
with
alternative
MACT
requirements
including
expanding
the
SSMP
to
minimize
the
frequency
and
severity
of
malfunctions,
and
submit
the
plan
to
the
delegated
CAA
authority
for
review
and
approval102;
(
3)
continue
to
subject
sources
that
burn
hazardous
waste
during
startup
and
shutdown
to
RCRA
requirements
for
startup
and
shutdown,
unless
they
comply
with
alternative
MACT
requirements,
and
require
sources
to
include
waste
feed
restrictions
and
operating
conditions
and
limits
in
the
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan;
(
4)
require
sources
to
include
in
the
SSMP
a
requirement
to
comply
with
the
automatic
hazardous
waste
feed
cutoff
system
during
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunctions;
and
(
5)
make
conforming
revisions
to
the
emergency
safety
vent
opening
requirements.
See
67
FR
at
6798­
6802.
In
response
to
Sierra
Club's
request
during
development
of
the
joint
motion
to
the
Court,
we
specifically
request
comment
on
the
following
issues.
Notwithstanding
the
rationale
for
revising
the
September
1999
Final
Rule
to
exempt
sources
from
the
Subpart
EEE
emission
standards
and
operating
requirements
during
malfunctions,
would
it
be
appropriate
to
require
compliance
with
those
standards
and
operating
requirements
during
malfunctions
to
ensure
that
owners
and
operators
have
an
incentive
to
minimize
the
frequency
and
duration
of
malfunctions
that
result
in
exceedances
of
the
standards
or
operating
requirements.
Given
that
most
excess
emissions
would
occur
during
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunctions,
should
the
SSMP
be
submitted
for
review
by
the
delegated
regulatory
authority
and
made
available
for
public
review
under
all
options
for
controlling
emissions
during
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunctions?
Providing
a
mechanism
for
public
review
may
help
ensure
that
the
SSMP
is
complete,
proactive,
and
provides
appropriate
corrective
measures.
103
And
finally,
should
the
final
rule
clarify
the
definitions
of
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunctions
to
preclude,
for
example,
an
owner
or
operator
incorrectly
classifying
an
exceedance
of
an
operating
limit
while
hazardous
waste
remains
in
the
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
104
EPA
voluntarily
vacated
operating
parameter
limits
for
electrostatic
precipitators
(
and
fabric
filters)
on
May
14,
2001.
See
66
FR
at
24272.
Until
new
operating
parameter
limits
are
promulgated,
sources
and
delegated
CAA
authorities
will
use
§
63.1209(
g)
to
establish
operating
parameter
limits
for
electrostatic
precipitators
(
and
fabric
filters)
on
a
site­
specific
basis.

328
combustion
chamber
as
a
malfunction
when,
in
fact,
the
exceedance
occurred
because
of
a
not
infrequent
event
that
could
have
been
prevented
by
proper
operation
and
maintenance
of
equipment?
B.
Interim
Standards
Amendments
to
the
Compliance
Requirements
for
Ionizing
Wet
Scrubbers
The
September
1999
Final
Rule
required
sources
to
establish
a
limit
on
minimum
total
power
to
an
ionizing
wet
scrubber.
The
Interim
Standards
Rule
deleted
that
requirement
to
conform
with
the
requirements
for
electrostatic
precipitators
given
that
an
ionizing
wet
scrubber
is
essentially
an
ESP
integrated
with
a
packed
bed
scrubber.
See
67
FR
at
6802­
03.104
In
lieu
of
establishing
a
limit
on
the
minimum
total
power
requirement
to
an
ionizing
wet
scrubber,
sources
and
delegated
CAA
authorities
will
use
the
alternative
monitoring
provisions
of
§
63.1209(
g)
to
identify
appropriate
controls
for
an
ionizing
wet
scrubber
on
a
site­
specific
basis.
This
is
the
same
approach
that
is
used
for
electrostatic
precipitators.
Please
note
that
we
are
requesting
comment
today
on
compliance
requirements
for
electrostatic
precipitators
and
fabric
filters.
In
that
discussion
(
see
Section
III.
I
below),
we
explain
that
we
are
proposing
to
apply
the
same
compliance
requirements
to
both
electrostatic
precipitators
and
ionizing
wet
scrubbers.
C.
Why
Is
EPA
Requesting
Comment
on
the
Fugitive
Emission
Requirements?
The
September
1999
Final
Rule
required
sources
to
control
combustion
system
leaks
by
either:
(
1)
keeping
the
combustion
zone
sealed;
(
2)
maintaining
the
maximum
combustion
zone
pressure
lower
than
ambient
pressure
using
an
instantaneous
monitor;
or
(
3)
using
an
alternative
means
to
provide
control
of
system
leaks
equivalent
to
maintaining
the
maximum
combustion
zone
pressure
lower
than
ambient.
After
publication
of
the
September
1999
Final
Rule,
stakeholders
expressed
concern
that
the
option
to
maintain
combustion
zone
pressure
lower
than
ambient
pressure
(
option
2
above)
could
result
in
overly
prescriptive
requirements.
Stakeholders
believed
that
this
regulatory
language
could
be
interpreted
to
require
sources
to
monitor
and
record
combustion
zone
pressure
at
a
frequency
of
every
50
milliseconds.
Stakeholders
also
requested
that
we
clarify
that
combustion
system
leaks
refers
to
fugitive
emissions
resulting
from
the
combustion
of
hazardous
waste,
and
not
fugitive
emissions
that
originate
from
nonhazardous
process
streams.
In
response
to
these
concerns,
we
proposed
amendments
to
the
combustion
system
leak
provisions
on
July
3,
2001.
See
66
FR
at
35132.
We
promulgated
several
revisions
in
the
Final
Amendments
Rule
after
considering
stakeholder
comments.
See
67
FR
at
6973.
The
amended
provisions
that
we
are
reopening
for
public
comment
today
are
discussed
below.
First,
we
amended
the
definition
of
an
instantaneous
pressure
monitor
to
better
clarify
that
the
intent
of
the
combustion
system
leak
requirements
is
to
prevent
fugitive
emissions
from
the
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
329
combustion
of
hazardous
waste
rather
than
from
nonhazardous
feedstreams.
The
revised
definition
also
clarifies
that
instantaneous
pressure
monitors
must
detect
and
record
pressure
at
a
frequency
adequate
to
detect
combustion
system
leak
events,
as
determined
on
a
site­
specific
basis.
See
§
63.1201(
a)
and
§
63.1209(
p).
Second,
we
added
a
provision
that
requires
sources
to
specify
the
method
used
to
control
combustion
system
leaks
in
the
performance
test
workplan
and
Notification
of
Compliance.
See
§
63.1206(
c)(
5)(
ii).
Finally,
in
response
to
numerous
comments,
we
added
a
provision
that
will
allow
sources,
upon
prior
written
approval
of
the
Administrator,
to
use
other
techniques
that
can
be
demonstrated
to
prevent
fugitive
emissions
without
the
use
of
instantaneous
pressure
limits.
See
§
63.1206(
c)(
5)(
i)(
D).
The
provision
allowing
sources,
upon
prior
written
approval,
to
use
other
techniques
that
are
demonstrated
to
prevent
fugitive
emissions
without
the
use
of
instantaneous
pressure
limits
was
the
most
controversial.
Specifically,
some
stakeholders
believe
this
revised
regulatory
language
is
inappropriate
because
it
suggests
sources
can
sustain
a
positive
pressure
event
and
still
prevent
fugitive
emissions.
We
believe
that
all
positive
pressure
events
do
not
necessarily
result
in
fugitive
emissions.
As
discussed
in
detail
in
the
Final
Amendments
Rule,
there
are
stateof
the­
art
rotary
kiln
seal
designs
(
such
as
shrouded
and
pressurized
seals)
which
are
capable
of
handling
positive
pressures
without
fugitive
releases.
However,
we
believe
these
kilns
are
highly
unusual,
and
that
other
conventional
rotary
kilns
used
in
the
hazardous
waste
combustion
industry
may
not
have
seals
which
are
designed
for
such
positive
pressure
operation.
In
fact,
we
believe
that,
for
most
rotary
kilns
in
use
today,
positive
pressure
events
can
result
in
fugitive
releases.
The
level
of
such
fugitive
releases
will
be
dependent
on
factors
including
the
magnitude
and
duration
of
the
pressure
excursion
and
the
design
and
operation
of
the
kiln.
Furthermore,
one
commenter
recommends
that
sources
should
be
allowed
to
petition
the
regulatory
official
to
use
an
alternative
approach,
i.
e.
an
approach
that
does
not
require
instantaneous
pressure
limits,
only
if
they
meet
specific
combustor
design
criteria.
For
example,
it
may
be
appropriate
to
apply
this
provision
only
to
sources
that
we
know
are
designed
in
manner
that
would
not
necessitate
use
of
instantaneous
pressure
limits
to
prevent
fugitive
emissions
(
e.
g.,
kilns
with
multiple
graphite
seals
with
pressurized
chambers
between
the
seals
to
prevent
outleakage
or
overlapping
spring
plate
seals
to
form
an
air
seal).
We
request
comment
on
whether
this
specificity
is
necessary,
or
whether
it
is
more
appropriate
to
determine
this
on
a
site­
specific
basis
(
as
is
currently
required).
We
also
request
comment
on
whether
all
the
previously
discussed
combustion
system
leak
regulatory
revisions
are
appropriate.
D.
Why
Is
EPA
Requesting
Comment
on
Bag
Leak
Detector
Sensitivity?
The
September
1999
Final
Rule
required
sources
equipped
with
fabric
filters
to
install
a
bag
leak
detection
system
where
the
detector
has
the
capability
to
detect
PM
emissions
at
concentrations
of
1.0
milligrams
per
actual
cubic
meter,
or
less.
In
response
to
industry
stakeholder
concerns
that
a
detector
need
not
be
able
to
detect
levels
as
low
as
1.0
mg/
acfm
to
detect
subtle
changes
in
baseline,
normal
emissions
of
PM,
we
proposed
in
the
July
3,
2001
proposed
rule
(
66
FR
at
35134­
35)
to
allow
sources
to
use
detectors
with
less
sensitivity
provided
that
the
detector
could
detect
subtle
increases
in
normal
emissions
(
e.
g.,
caused
by
pinhole
leaks
in
the
bags).
The
stakeholders
noted
that
sources
equipped
with
well
designed
and
operated
fabric
filters
can
have
normal,
baseline
emissions
well
above
1.0
mg/
acfm
and
be
in
compliance
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
330
with
the
particulate
matter
emission
standards.
Stakeholders
recommended
that
we
revise
the
bag
leak
detection
requirements
to
explicitly
allow
detectors
with
lower
sensitivity
in
lieu
of
source's
having
to
petition
the
delegated
regulatory
authority
under
the
alternative
monitoring
provisions
of
§
63.1209(
g)(
2)
to
receive
case­
by­
case
approval.
All
commenters
on
the
proposed
amendment
supported
the
revision,
and
we
finalized
the
amendment
in
the
February
14,
2002
Final
Amendments.
See
67
FR
at
6981.
In
response
to
a
petitioner's
request
during
development
of
the
joint
motion
to
the
Court,
however,
we
specifically
request
additional
comment
on
whether
allowing
detectors
that
have
a
level
of
detection
that
is
higher
than
1.0
mg/
acfm
will
enable
the
detector
to
detect
subtle
increases
in
normal
emissions.
The
petitioner
is
concerned
that
a
detector
with
a
level
of
detection
higher
than
1.0
mg/
acfm
may
not
have
the
same
sensitivity
as
a
detector
that
can
detect
PM
at
1.0
mg/
acfm.
Thus,
petitioner
is
concerned
that
the
less
sensitive
detector
may
not
be
able
to
detect
subtle
increases
in
PM
emissions
due
to
bag
degredation
as
readily
as
a
detector
that
can
detect
at
1.0
mg/
acfm.
We
specifically
request
comment
on
this
issue.
We
reopen
this
issue
for
comment
without
prejudice
to
the
existing
regulations
which
allow
for
less
sensitive
bag
leak
detectors.
You
may
use
less
sensitive
bag
leak
detectors
until
the
compliance
date
for
any
change
we
may
make
in
the
final
rule.
E.
Final
Amendments
Waiving
Operating
Parameter
Limits
during
Testing
without
an
Approved
Test
Plan
The
September
1999
Final
Rule
waived
operating
parameter
limits
during
subsequent
performance
testing
under
an
approved
performance
test
plan.
In
response
to
stakeholder
concerns,
we
addressed
two
issues
in
the
Final
Amendments:
(
1)
applicability
of
operating
parameter
limits,
established
in
the
Documentation
of
Compliance,
during
an
initial
performance
test
conducted
without
an
approved
test
plan;
and
(
2)
applicability
of
operating
parameter
limits,
established
in
the
Notification
of
Compliance,
during
subsequent
performance
tests
conducted
without
an
approved
test
plan.
See
67
FR
at
6978.
Regarding
the
initial
performance
test,
we
explained
that
a
source
can
revise
the
operating
parameter
limits
specified
in
the
Documentation
of
Compliance
at
any
time
based
on
supporting
information.
This
information
would
also
be
included
in
the
performance
test
plan
to
support
deviating
from
the
operating
limits
established
in
the
previous
Documentation
of
Compliance.
Given
that
sources
operate
after
the
compliance
date
until
the
Notification
of
Compliance
is
submitted
under
operating
limits
established
in
the
Documentation
of
Compliance,
and
that
the
technical
support
for
the
operating
limits
established
in
the
Documentation
of
Compliance
is
the
same
as
would
be
included
in
the
test
plan,
it
is
appropriate
to
allow
initial
performance
testing
and
associated
pretesting
without
an
approved
test
plan.
Regarding
subsequent
performance
testing,
we
amended
the
rule
to
waive
the
operating
parameter
limits
during
performance
testing
and
associated
pretesting
even
when
testing
without
an
approved
test
plan.
We
reasoned
that
stack
emissions
data
obtained
during
the
testing
would
document
whether
the
source
maintained
compliance
with
the
emission
standards.
(
Please
note
that
during
testing,
including
pretesting,
stack
emissions
must
be
documented
for
any
emissions
standard
for
which
the
source
waives
an
operating
parameter
limit.)
Absent
approval
of
the
test
plan,
documentation
of
potential
violation
of
an
emission
standard
is
nonetheless
an
ample
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
105
Hazardous
waste
research,
development,
and
demonstration
sources
remain
subject
to
RCRA
permit
requirements
under
§
270.65,
which
direct
the
Administrator
to
establish
permit
terms
and
conditions
that
will
assure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.

331
incentive
to
operate
within
the
emission
standards.
In
response
to
a
petitioner's
request
during
development
of
the
joint
motion
to
the
Court,
however,
we
request
comment
on
whether
documentation
of
stack
emissions
during
subsequent
performance
testing
and
associated
pretesting
is
adequate
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
emission
standards
absent
an
approved
test
plan.

III.
Why
Is
EPA
Requesting
Comment
on
Issues
and
Amendments
that
Were
Previously
Proposed?
In
a
July
3,
2001
proposed
rule,
EPA
proposed
several
revisions
to
implementation
and
compliance
requirements,
and
discussed
other
implementation
and
compliance
issues.
See
66
FR
35126.
We
promulgated
several
of
those
amendments
in
the
February
14,
2002
Final
Amendments
Rule,
and
we
stated
in
that
rule
that
we
would
address
the
remaining
proposed
amendments
and
other
issues
in
a
future
rulemaking.
See
67
FR
at
6970­
71.
We
discuss
below
those
remaining
proposed
amendments
and
issues.
Although
these
issues
and
proposed
amendments
originally
pertained
only
to
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
any
amendments
that
we
may
promulgate
subsequent
to
this
notice
would
also
apply
to
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces.
A.
Definition
of
Research,
Development,
and
Demonstration
Source.
In
response
to
industry
stakeholder
concerns,
EPA
requested
comment
in
the
July
3,
2001
proposed
rule
on
approaches
to
preclude
inappropriate
use
of
the
exemption
for
research,
development,
and
demonstration
sources.
See
66
FR
at
35128.
We
indicated
we
were
considering
two
approaches:
(
1)
clearly
distinguishing
between
research
and
development
sources,
and
limiting
the
exemption
for
demonstration
sources
to
one
year
or
less;
or
(
2)
requiring
documentation
of
how
a
source's
demonstration
of
an
innovative
or
experimental
hazardous
waste
treatment
technology
or
process
is
different
from
the
waste
management
services
provided
by
a
commercial
hazardous
waste
combustor.
Two
stakeholders
provided
comments,
and
both
recommended
that
EPA
not
revise
the
definition
of
research,
development,
and
demonstration
source.
One
commenter
suggested
that
EPA
should
be
able
to
determine
if
a
source
is
inappropriately
claiming
the
exemption
for
research,
development,
and
demonstration
source
without
amending
the
regulation.
The
other
commenter
suggested
that,
rather
than
amend
the
regulation,
EPA
should
reiterate
that
RCRA
regulations
continue
to
apply
to
exempt
research,
development,
and
demonstration
sources.
105
We
concur
with
the
commenters
and
are
not
proposing
to
amend
the
definition
of
research,
development,
and
demonstration
source.
B.
Identification
of
an
Organics
Residence
Time
that
Is
Independent
of,
and
Shorter
than,
the
Hazardous
Waste
Residence
Time
In
response
to
industry
stakeholder
recommendations,
EPA
requested
comment
in
the
July
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
106
Stakeholders
also
wanted
the
hazardous
waste
residence
time
(
for
organics)
to
expire
as
soon
as
possible
to
avoid
violations
associated
with
exceedances
of
an
organics
emission
standard
or
associated
operating
requirement
during
malfunctions
when
hazardous
waste
remained
in
the
combustion
chamber.
The
rule
has
been
amended,
however,
to
state
that
an
exceedance
of
an
emission
standard
or
operating
requirement
during
a
malfuncation
is
not
a
violation
provided
that
the
source
has
developed
an
appropriate
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfuncation
plan,
and
follows
the
corrective
measures
provided
by
the
plan.
See
67
FR
at
6798­
6801.

107
We
questioned
whether
available
information
on
low
oxygen
destruction
would
adequately
model
destruction
under
the
pyrolytic
conditions
that
occur
within
solid
matrices
and
whether
it
is
practicable
to
perform
valid
engineering
calculations
for
multiple
waste
streams
that
are
not
homogeneous
and
that
contain
multiple
organic
constituents
of
concern.

332
3,
2001
proposed
rule
on
whether
it
is
practicable
to
calculate
a
hazardous
waste
organics
residence
time
that
defines
when
organic
constituents
in
solid
materials
have
been
destroyed.
See
66
FR
at
35128­
30.
Under
stakeholders'
recommendation,
after
the
hazardous
waste
organics
residence
time
expires,
sources
could
comply
with
standards
the
Agency
has
promulgated
under
sections
112
or
129
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
to
control
organic
emissions
for
source
categories
that
do
not
burn
hazardous
waste
in
lieu
of
the
hazardous
waste
combustor
standards
and
associated
compliance
requirements
under
Subpart
EEE,
Part
63,
for
dioxin/
furan,
destruction
and
removal
efficiency,
and
carbon
monoxide
or
hydrocarbon
emissions.
106
In
the
July
3,
2001
proposed
rule,
we
raised
several
concerns
regarding
the
approach
recommended
by
stakeholders
to
calculate
an
organics
residence
time,
and
specifically
requested
comment
on
how
these
concerns
could
be
addressed.
See
66
FR
at
35130.
Although
several
stakeholders
provided
comment
on
the
discussion
we
presented
in
the
July
3,
2001
proposed
rule,
commenters
did
not
address
the
concerns
we
raised.
Rather,
commenters
generally
note
that
calculation
of
an
organics
residence
time
for
solid
waste
streams
would
be
difficult
to
characterize
generically.
Accordingly,
commenters
suggest
that
the
rule
be
amended
to
specifically
allow
calculation
of
an
organics
residence
time
on
a
site­
specific
basis.
We
are
reluctant
to
encourage
site­
specific
petitions
to
calculate
an
organics
residence
time,
however,
given
that
the
concerns
we
raised
in
the
July
3,
2001
proposal
have
not
been
addressed.
107
Moreover,
we
believe
that
stakeholders'
primary
motive
for
identifying
an
organics
residence
time
has
been
eliminated
by
the
February
13,
2002
amendment
to
the
rule
stating
that
an
exceedance
of
an
emission
standard
or
operating
requirement
during
a
malfunction
when
hazardous
waste
remains
in
the
combustion
chamber
is
not
a
violation
provided
that
the
source
follows
the
corrective
measures
provided
by
an
appropriate
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan.
For
these
reasons,
we
are
not
proposing
an
organics
residence
time
or
explicitly
encouraging
sources
to
petition
the
delegated
CAA
authority
on
a
site­
specific
basis
to
identify
an
organics
residence
time.
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
108
Please
note
that
you
are
subject
to
the
standards
under
Subpart
EEE
at
all
times,
including
after
the
hazardous
waste
residence
time
has
expired,
unless
you
have
established
an
alternative
mode
of
operation
under
§
63.1209(
q)(
1).

333
C.
Why
Is
EPA
Not
Proposing
to
Extend
APCD
Controls
after
the
Residence
Time
Has
Expired
when
Sources
Operate
under
Alternative
Section
112
or
129
Standards?
In
the
July
3,
2001
proposed
rule,
we
proposed
to
extend
applicability
of
operating
requirements
for
dry
particulate
matter
emission
control
devices
before
you
could
switch
modes
of
operation
and
become
subject
to
Section
112
or
129
standards
for
sources
that
do
not
burn
hazardous
waste.
See
66
FR
at
35130­
32.
We
proposed
to
require
you
to
maintain
compliance
with
applicable
emission
standards
for
semivolatile
metals,
low
volatile
metals,
and
particulate
matter,
including
the
operating
parameter
limits
for
dry
control
systems,
after
the
hazardous
waste
residence
time
has
expired
until
the
control
device
undergoes
a
complete
cleaning
cycle.
We
were
concerned
that
dry
particulate
matter
control
devices
such
as
electrostatic
precipitators
and
baghouses
retain
collected
particulate
matter
contaminated
with
waste­
derived
metals;
and
dioxin/
furan
when
activated
carbon
injection
is
used.
In
such
cases,
we
were
concerned
that
waste­
derived
metals
and
dioxin/
furan
may
be
emitted
at
levels
exceeding
the
hazardous
waste
combustor
emission
standards
if
you
were
to
switch
modes
of
operation
and
comply
with
potentially
less
stringent
alternative
MACT
standards
for
sources
that
do
not
burn
hazardous
waste
(
e.
g.,
Subpart
LLL
for
cement
kilns,
Section
129
standards
the
Agency
is
developing
for
commercial
and
industrial
solid
waste
incinerators,
and
MACT
standards
the
Agency
is
developing
for
boilers).
108
Commenters
raised
several
concerns
about
the
practicability
of
maintaining
compliance
with
the
semivolatile
metals,
low
volatile
metals,
and
particulate
matter
standards
after
the
hazardous
waste
residence
time
has
expired
until
the
particulate
matter
device
undergoes
a
complete
cleaning
cycle.
Commenters
explained
that
it
is
difficult
to
determine
when
a
cleaning
cycle
has
been
completed
for
multi­
field
electrostatic
precipitators
and
multi­
compartment
fabric
filters
because
fabric
filter
cleaning
is
typically
a
continuous
process,
and
electrostatic
precipitator
plate
cleaning
frequency
varies
significantly
depending
on
the
plate
position
within
the
electrostatic
precipitator.
Commenters
also
stated
that
the
proposed
requirement
would
encourage
more
frequent
cleaning
of
electrostatic
precipitators
and
fabric
filters
than
normal,
which
could
increase
emissions
of
HAP
and
adversely
affect
bag
life.
After
review
of
comments
and
further
consideration,
we
conclude
that
it
is
not
necessary
to
revise
the
standards
to
extend
applicability
of
the
operating
requirements
for
dry
particulate
matter
control
devices
before
you
could
switch
modes
of
operation
and
become
subject
to
MACT
standards
for
sources
that
do
not
burn
hazardous
waste.
We
now
believe
that
it
is
highly
unlikely
that
entrained
particulate
matter
contaminated
with
hazardous
waste
derived
metals
would
be
released
from
the
electrostatic
precipitator
or
fabric
filter
at
rates
higher
than
when
feeding
hazardous
waste
when
the
source
begins
operating
under
the
alternative
MACT
(
or
Section
129)
standards
for
sources
that
do
not
burn
hazardous
waste.
In
addition,
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
solid­
fuel­
fired
boilers
would
be
subject
to
alternative
standards
and
operating
limits
for
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
109
The
Agency
determined
that
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
that
do
not
burn
hazardous
waste
are
not
a
significant
source
of
HAP
emissions
and,
thus,
that
MACT
standards
are
not
necessary
for
that
source
category.

110
The
Agency
did
not
propose
PM
standards
for
existing
liquid
fuel­
fired
industrial,
commercial,
and
institutional
boilers
and
process
heaters.
See
68
FR
1660.

334
particulate
matter.
Although
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
would
not
be
subject
to
alternative
standards
for
particulate
matter,
109
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
that
burn
hazardous
waste
are
equipped
with
fabric
filters
where
their
performance
is
not
highly
sensitive
to
operating
conditions.
And,
although
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
would
not
be
subject
to
alternative
Section
129
standards
for
particulate
matter,
110
over
80%
of
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
that
burn
hazardous
waste
are
not
equipped
with
a
control
device,
and
only
about
one
third
of
those
with
a
control
device
are
equipped
with
an
electrostatic
precipitator
or
fabric
filter.
Thus,
the
absence
of
particulate
matter
controls
under
the
alternative
Section
129
standards
is
not
a
significant
concern.

For
these
reasons,
we
are
not
proposing
to
extend
applicability
of
the
operating
requirements
for
dry
particulate
matter
control
devices
before
you
could
switch
modes
of
operation
and
become
subject
to
MACT
standards
for
sources
that
do
not
burn
hazardous
waste
D.
Why
Is
EPA
Proposing
to
Allow
Use
of
Method
23
as
an
Alternative
to
Method
0023A
for
Dioxin/
Furan?
The
September
1999
Final
Rule
requires
use
of
Method
23A
for
stack
sampling
of
dioxin/
furan
emissions.
In
response
to
industry
stakeholder
requests,
we
proposed
in
the
July
3,
2001
proposed
rule
to
allow
you
to
petition
the
delegated
regulatory
authority
to
use
Method
23
found
in
40
CFR
Part
60,
Appendix
A,
instead
of
Method
0023A.
See
66
FR
at
35137.
We
are
revising
the
proposal
today
to
allow
you
to
use
Method
23
in
lieu
of
Method
0023A
after
justifying
use
of
Method
23
as
part
of
your
performance
test
plan
that
must
be
reviewed
and
approved
by
the
delegated
regulatory
authority.
See
proposed
§
63.1208(
b)(
1)(
i)(
B).
This
approach
would
achieve
the
same
objectives
as
a
petition,
but
would
be
simpler
to
implement
because
it
would
not
require
a
separate
petition/
document.
In
the
July
3,
2001
proposed
rule,
we
explain
that
Method
0023A
is
an
improved
version
of
Method
23
in
that
it
can
improve
the
quality
assurance
of
the
method.
By
analyzing
the
sampling
train
front
half
catch
(
filter
and
probe
rinse)
separately
from
the
back
half
catch
(
sorbent
and
rinses),
Method
0023A
provides
quality
assurance
of
recovery
of
dioxin/
furan
contained
in
solid
phase
particulate
and
collected
on
the
filter
and
probe.
Under
Method
23,
poor
recovery
of
dioxin/
furan
contained
in
solid
phase
particulate
may
go
unnoticed
because
the
front
half
catch
and
back
half
catch
are
combined
before
analysis.
This
may
be
of
particular
importance
for
sources
that
use
activated
carbon
injection
or
sources
that
have
carbonaceous
material
in
particulate
matter.
Although
Method
0023A
can
improve
quality
assurance,
it
is
slightly
more
expensive
than
Method
23
and,
in
many
situations,
quality
assurance
may
not
be
improved.
For
example,
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
335
Method
0023A
may
not
be
warranted
in
the
future
if
Method
0023A
analyses
document
that
dioxin/
furan
are
not
detected,
are
detected
at
low
levels
in
the
front
half
of
Method
0023A,
or
are
detected
at
levels
well
below
the
emission
standard,
and
the
design
and
operation
of
the
combustor
has
not
changed
in
a
manner
that
could
increase
dioxin/
furan
emissions.
Environmental
stakeholders
comment
that
use
of
Method
23
would
allow
sources
to
emit
dioxin/
furan
in
excess
of
the
standards
without
being
detected.
We
disagree.
Owners
and
operators
seeking
to
use
Method
0023A
would
be
required
to
document
using
data
or
information
that
Method
23
would
provide
front
half
recoveries
comparable
to
Method
0023A.
Industry
stakeholders
comment
that
we
should
simply
revise
the
rule
to
allow
use
of
either
method,
rather
than
requiring
a
petitioning
process
to
use
Method
23.
As
discussed
above
(
and
in
the
July
3,
2001
proposal),
we
believe
that
there
are
situations
where
the
quality
assurance
and
added
cost
of
Method
0023A
may
be
warranted,
and,
so,
are
not
proposing
to
allow
use
of
Method
23
without
justification
and
prior
approval.
We
agree,
however,
that
the
formal
petitioning
process
that
we
proposed
is
not
necessary.
Rather,
we
propose
today
to
require
you
to
justify
use
of
Method
23A
as
part
of
the
performance
test
plan
that
you
submit
to
the
delegated
regulatory
authority
for
review
and
approval.
See
proposed
§
63.1207(
f)(
1)(
xxv).
In
the
interim,
you
may
request
to
use
Method
23
in
lieu
of
Method
0023A
under
§
63.7(
e)(
2)(
i)
which
allows
use
of
a
test
method
with
minor
changes
in
methodology.
You
should
submit
your
request
and
the
supporting
justification
to
the
delegated
regulatory
authority.
E.
Why
Is
EPA
Not
Proposing
the
"
Matching
the
Profile"
Alternative
Approach
to
Establish
Operating
Parameter
Limits?
In
response
to
stakeholder
concerns
about
the
stringency
of
calculating
most
operating
parameter
limits
as
the
average
of
the
test
run
averages
of
the
comprehensive
performance
test,
EPA
requested
comment
in
the
July
3,
2001
proposed
rule
on
an
alternative
approach
to
establish
operating
parameter
limits.
See
66
FR
at
35138­
39.
The
alternative
approach,
called
"
matching
the
profile",
was
intended
to
allow
sources
to
identify
limits
for
operating
parameters
that
would
allow
the
operating
parameters
to
have
the
same
average
variability
as
experienced
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test.
The
parameter
could
exceed
the
average
achieved
during
the
performance
test
for
a
period
of
time,
provided
that
it
was
equivalently
lower
than
the
average
for
the
same
duration
of
time.
Commenters
generally
note
that
the
matching
the
profile
approach
has
a
significant
disadvantage
in
that
multiple
limits
would
be
established
for
each
parameter.
Accordingly,
commenters
recommend
that
we
not
include
this
approach
in
the
regulation,
but
rather
continue
to
offer
it
as
guidance.
Moreover,
commenters
note
that
sources
can
request
approval
of
alternative
monitoring
approaches
under
§
63.1209(
g)(
1),
and
they
are
concerned
that
codification
of
only
one
approach,
and
particularly
an
approach
with
potentially
limited
utility,
could
lead
the
delegated
CAA
authority
to
conclude
incorrectly
that
other
approaches
may
not
be
appropriate.
We
believe
that
this
matter
is
best
dealt
with
on
a
site­
specific
basis,
but
note
that
by
specifying
one
approach
in
the
rule,
we
do
not
mean
to
preclude
use
of
a
different
approach
pursuant
to
§
63.1209(
g)(
1).
Sources
thus
may
request
approval
of
the
profiling
approach,
or
another
approach,
to
establish
operating
limits
on
a
site­
specific
basis
under
§
63.1209(
g)(
1).
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
111
Please
note
that
the
rule
already
allows
extrapolation
of
mercury
feedrates
(
§
63.1209(
l)(
1)(
i))
and
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metal
feedrates
(
§
63.1209(
n)(
2)(
ii)).

336
F.
Why
Is
EPA
Not
Proposing
to
Allow
Extrapolation
of
OPLs?
In
response
to
industry
stakeholder
concerns,
we
requested
comment
in
the
July
3,
2001
proposed
rule
on
whether
the
rule
should
allow
extrapolation
of
an
operating
parameter
limit
to
a
higher
limit
using
a
site­
specific,
empirically­
derived
relationship
between
the
parameter
and
emissions
of
the
pollutant
in
question.
111
See
66
FR
at
35139­
40.
We
also
requested
comment
on
whether
the
rule
should
allow
use
of
established
engineering
principles
that
define
the
relationship
between
operating
parameter
and
emissions
to
extrapolate
operating
limits
and
emissions
in
lieu
of
a
site­
specific,
empirically­
derived
relationship.
Industry
stakeholders
are
concerned
that
the
rule
inappropriately
penalizes
sources
that
achieve
comprehensive
performance
test
emission
levels
well
below
the
standard
by
requiring
them
to
establish
operating
limits
based
on
performance
test
operations
at
those
low
emission
levels.
They
note
that
operating
under
conditions
to
artificially
increase
emissions
during
testing
(
e.
g.,
by
detuning
emission
control
equipment)
may
not
be
feasible
or
desirable
from
a
worker/
public
health
and
cost
perspective.
Although
stakeholders
acknowledge
that
they
may
request
such
extrapolation
as
an
alternative
monitoring
approach
under
§
63.1209(
g)(
2),
they
note
that
explicitly
defining
an
extrapolation
approach
in
the
rule
may
better
facilitate
their
efforts
to
obtain
approval
from
the
delegated
regulatory
authority.
Several
industry
stakeholders
agreed
with
the
principle
of
extrapolation
as
we
discussed
it
in
the
July
3,
2001
notice,
but
disagreed
with
the
requirements
for,
and
limits
on,
extrapolation
that
we
recommended.
Several
other
stakeholders
oppose
the
use
of
extrapolation
generally
because
of
concern
that
it
is
difficult
to
define
completely
and
accurately
the
relationship
between
an
operating
parameter
and
emissions.
Given
the
extent
of
the
issues
associated
with
explicitly
providing
for
extrapolation
of
operating
parameter
limits,
particularly
on
a
categorical
rather
than
a
site­
specific
level,
and
given
that
you
already
have
the
ability
to
request
approval
of
extrapolation
procedures
under
§
63.1209(
g)(
2),
we
are
not
proposing
to
revise
the
rule
to
explicitly
allow
extrapolation.
We
believe
that
extrapolation
must
be
justified
by
a
site­
specific
analysis.
G.
Why
Is
EPA
Proposing
to
Delete
the
Limit
on
Minimum
Combustion
Chamber
Temperature
for
Dioxin/
Furan
for
Cement
Kilns?
In
response
to
stakeholder
concerns
that
it
is
technically
impracticable
for
cement
kilns
to
establish
a
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature
based
on
the
average
of
the
test
run
averages
for
each
run
of
the
comprehensive
performance
test,
EPA
requested
comment
in
the
July
3,
2001
proposed
rule
on
whether
the
rule
should
continue
to
require
cement
kilns
to
establish
and
comply
with
a
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature
limit.
See
66
FR
at
35140.
We
received
a
total
of
five
comments
to
the
July
3,
2001
proposed
rule.
Three
commenters
opposed
deleting
the
requirement
for
cement
kilns
to
establish
and
comply
with
a
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature.
Currently,
cement
kilns
are
required
to
establish
a
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
337
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature
as
an
operating
parameter
limit
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
and
dioxin/
furan
standards.
See
§
§
63.1209(
j)(
1)
and
(
k)(
2).
These
commenters
generally
cited
the
need
for
monitoring
combustion
chamber
temperature
by
noting
that
combustion
chamber
temperature
is
a
principal
factor
in
ensuring
combustion
efficiency
and
destruction
of
toxic
organic
compounds.
Two
commenters
support
deleting
the
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature
requirements.
Commenters
state
that
a
cement
kiln
inherently
controls
the
kiln
temperature
to
produce
clinker
because
the
required
material
temperatures
must
exceed
approximately
2,500
°
F
with
combustion
gas
temperatures
higher
still.
These
commenters
note
that
a
cement
kiln
operates
well
above
minimum
temperatures
required
to
destroy
the
organic
compounds
in
the
hazardous
waste,
and,
therefore,
a
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature
limit
is
not
necessary
to
control
organic
hazardous
air
pollutant
emissions.
Commenters
also
state
that
combustion
chamber
temperatures
cannot
be
maintained
at
low
enough
levels
for
the
duration
of
the
comprehensive
performance
test
to
establish
workable
operating
limits
that
would
allow
them
to
burn
hazardous
waste
fuels
economically
without
frequent
waste
feed
cutoffs
because
of
potential
exceedences
of
the
limit.
Commenters
indicate
that
combustion
chamber
temperature
levels
are
fairly
constant
within
a
narrow
range
and
note
that
there
is
a
very
narrow
range
of
temperatures
and
feed
composition
in
which
a
cement
kiln
must
operate
in
order
to
produce
quality
clinker
and
a
marketable
product.
Moreover,
commenters
state
that
cement
kiln
operators
must
take
extreme
actions,
including
potentially
equipment­
damaging
steps,
to
lower
kiln
temperatures
to
establish
an
economically
viable
minimum
combustion
chamber
limit.
Finally,
commenters
indicate
that
these
problems
are
compounded
by
the
requirement
in
the
MACT
rule
to
establish
the
hourly
rolling
limit
based
on
the
average
of
the
test
run
averages
(
§
§
63.1209(
j)(
1)(
ii)
and
(
k)(
2)(
ii)).
We
are
not
proposing
to
delete
the
requirement
for
cement
kilns
to
establish
and
comply
with
a
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature
to
help
ensure
compliance
with
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
standard.
Even
though
we
remain
reluctant
to
delete
this
requirement,
commenters
may,
if
they
choose,
provide
additional
comments
on
whether
the
rule
should
continue
to
require
cement
kilns
to
establish
a
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature
limit
as
specified
in
§
63.1209(
j)(
1).
We
are,
however,
proposing
to
delete
the
requirement
to
establish
a
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature
limit
for
dioxin/
furan
under
§
63.1209(
k)(
2).
As
mentioned
above,
sources
are
currently
required
to
establish
a
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature
as
an
operating
parameter
limit
for
both
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
and
dioxin/
furan
standards.
This
proposed
amendment
would
not
affect
the
requirement
for
cement
kilns
to
establish
a
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature
under
§
63.1209(
j)(
1)
during
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
demonstration.
Currently,
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
demonstration
need
be
made
only
once
during
the
operational
life
of
a
source
provided
that
the
design,
operation,
and
maintenance
features
do
not
change
in
a
manner
that
could
reasonably
be
expected
to
affect
the
ability
to
meet
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
standard.
See
§
63.1206(
b)(
7).
If
a
facility
wishes
to
operate
under
new
operating
parameter
limits
that
could
be
expected
to
affect
the
ability
to
meet
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
standard,
then
the
source
will
need
to
conduct
Redline­
strikeout
highlighting
changes
made
during
OMB
review
338
another
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
test.
In
addition,
if
a
source
feeds
hazardous
waste
at
locations
other
than
the
flame
zone,
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
demonstration
must
be
verified
during
each
comprehensive
performance
test
and
new
operating
parameter
limits
must
be
established.
Sources
that
fire
hazardous
waste
only
at
the
flame
zone
(
i.
e.,
the
kiln
end
where
clinker
product
is
normally
discharged)
are
required
to
make
only
one
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
demonstration
test
during
the
operational
life
of
the
kiln.
During
this
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
demonstration
test,
the
source
would
set
a
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature
limit
under
§
63.1209(
j)(
1)
that
would
be
the
limit
for
the
operational
life
of
the
kiln.
However,
as
the
rule
is
currently
written,
such
sources
would
need
to
establish
a
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature
limit
during
subsequent
comprehensive
performance
tests
for
the
dioxin/
furan
test
under
§
63.1209(
k)(
2).
The
source
would
be
required
to
comply
with
the
more
stringent
(
higher)
of
two
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature
limits,
which
could
lead
to
a
situation
where
the
controlling
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature
limit
is
based
on
the
dioxin/
furan
test
rather
than
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
demonstration.
We
believe
that
this
may
be
an
inappropriate
outcome
given
that
the
operating
limit
for
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature
is
a
more
important
parameter
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
standard
than
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
dioxin/
furan
standard.
Our
data
indicate
that
limiting
the
gas
temperature
at
the
inlet
to
the
particulate
matter
control
device,
an
operating
parameter
limit
established
during
each
comprehensive
performance
test
(
§
63.1209(
k)(
1)),
is
a
critical
dioxin/
furan
control
parameter.
We
are,
therefore,
inviting
comment
on
deleting
the
requirement
to
establish
a
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature
limit
when
complying
with
the
dioxin/
furans
standard.
This
proposed
amendment
does
not
affect
the
other
operating
parameter
limits
under
§
63.1209(
k)
that
must
be
established
for
dioxin/
furan
such
as
establishing
a
limit
on
the
gas
temperature
at
the
inlet
to
the
particulate
matter
control
device.
For
cement
kilns
that
fire
hazardous
wastes
at
locations
other
than
the
flame
zone,
the
current
requirements
would
effectively
remain
the
same.
Given
that
a
source
conducts
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
demonstration
and
dioxin/
furan
test
simultaneously
and
that
a
source
is
also
required
to
establish
a
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature
limit
when
demonstrating
compliance
with
and
establishing
operating
parameter
limits
for
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
standard,
the
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature
limits
is
effectively
retained.
