*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

339
H.
Why
Is
EPA
Not
ProposingRequesting
Additional
Comment
on
Whether
to
Add
a
Maximum
pH
Limit
for
Wet
Scrubbers
to
Control
Mercury
Emissions?
We
requested
comment
in
the
July
3,
2001
proposed
rule
as
to
whether
it
is
appropriate
to
establish
a
limit
on
maximum
pH
to
control
mercury.
See
66
FR
at
35142­
43.
We
also
requestedare
requesting
additional
comment
on
an
alternative
option
of
requiring
scrubber
liquid
oxidation
meter
to
comply
with
minimum
liquid
oxidation
potential
limit.
today
on
this
issue
given
the
results
of
a
recent
study
indicating
that
increasing
the
pH
of
scrubber
liquor
can
increase
mercury
emissions.
1.
What
Were
the
Major
Comments
on
the
Discussion
in
the
July
3,
2001
Proposed
Rule?
One
commenter
supports
placing
limits
on
the
maximum
pH
of
wet
scrubber
liquids
for
mercury
control,
but
did
not
provide
any
additional
rationale
on
the
technical
validity
of
the
limit.
Other
commenters
oppose
the
imposition
of
a
maximum
pH
limit.
One
commenter
wants
to
see
stronger
evidence
that
pH
has
an
impact,
and
suggests
a
reproposal
is
needed.
Another
suggests
that
EPA
conduct
source
testing
to
confirm
that
pH
has
an
impact.
Others
suggest
that
if
EPA
continues
to
believe
that
wet
scrubber
operating
parameter
limits
are
important
for
mercury
control,
then
the
wet
scrubber
mercury
operating
parameter
limits
should
be
determined
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
because
the
relationship
between
mercury
control
and
wet
scrubber
pH
is
not
well
established
and
there
are
numerous
other
factors
whichthat
affect
mercury
control
in
wet
scrubbers,
especially
for
facilities
that
burn
waste
with
various
chemical
compositions.
We
have
considered
the
comments
and
believe
that,
at
this
time,
there
is
not
enough
evidence
to
support
the
requirement
for
a
maximum
limit
on
the
pH
of
wet
scrubber
liquid
for
the
control
of
mercury.
2.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
Considering
a
Maximum
pH
Limit
to
Control
Mercury?
The
use
of
a
low
pH
liquid
scrubber
solution
has
been
suggested
to
be
beneficial
for
mercury
control
because
it
helps
prevent
the
re­
release
of
captured
mercury.
Ionic
mercury
(
Hg+
2)
is
highly
soluble
in
wet
scrubber
liquid;
as
opposed
to
Hgo,
which
has
a
very
low
solubility
in
a
typical
water/
alkali
scrubber
solution.
Once
absorbed,
Hg+
2
can
be
reduced
to
Hgo
by
reducing
agentscompounds
in
the
liquid
scrubber
solution
such
as
SO
2
and
H
2
SO
4
HSO
3.
Hgo
may
then
be
revolatilized
back
into
the
stack
gas.
This
is
supported
by
numerous
observations
of
Hgo
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

1
Siret
and
S.
Eagleson,
"
A
New
Wet
Scrubbing
Technology
for
Control
of
Elemental
(
Metallic)
and
Ionic
Mercury
Emissions,"
1997
Incineration
Conference,
pp.
821­
824,
1997.

2
G.
T.
Amrhein,
G.
Kudlac,
D.
Madden,
"
Full­
Scale
Testing
of
Mercury
Control
for
Wet
FGD
Systems,"
Presented
at
the
27th
International
Technical
Conference
on
Coal
Utilization
and
Fuel
Systems,
Clearwater,
Fl,
March
4­
7,
2002.

3
C.
S.
Krivanek,
"
Mercury
Control
Technologies
for
MWCs:
The
Unanswered
Questions,"
1993
Air
and
Waste
Management
Sponsored
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Combustor
Specialty
Conference,
1993.

4
W.
Linak,
J.
Ryan,
B.
Ghorishi,
and
J.
Wendt,
"
Issues
Related
to
Solution
Chemistry
in
Mercury
Sampling
Impingers,"
Journal
or
Air
and
Waste
Management
Association,
Vol.
51,
pp.
688­
698,
May
2001.

5
For
example,
McDermott
Technology
(
McDermott
Technology,
internet
wet
page
at
www.
mtiresearch.
com
on
"
Mercury
Emission
Results,"
date
unknown)
report
no
impact,
while
DeVito
and
Rosenhoover
(
M.
DeVito
and
W.
Rosenhoover,
CONSOL
Coal
Inc.,
"
Flue
Gas
Hg
Measurements
from
Coal­
fired
Boilers
Equipped
with
Wet
Scrubbers,"
date
unknown)
observe
that
mercury
control
efficiency
appears
to
increase
with
increasing
pH.

6
J.
Chang
and
S.
Ghorishi,
"
Simulation
and
Evaluation
of
Elemental
Mercury
Concentration
Increase
in
Flue
Gas
Across
a
Wet
Scrubber,"
Environmental
Science
and
Technology,
Vol
37,
No.
24,
2003,
pp.
5763­
5766.

340
at
the
wet
scrubber
outlet
which
are
higher
than
Hgo
at
the
scrubber
inlet1,2,3.
These
studies
suggest
that
the
low
scrubber
liquid
pH
prevents
captured
mercury
from
revolatilizing
from
the
scrubber
liquid
by:
(
1)
limiting
the
capture
of
reducing
agents
such
as
SO
2;
and
(
2)
favoring
the
formation
of
stable
mercury­
chlorine
compounds
such
as
HgCl
2
due
to
available
Cl­.
In
contrast,
other
studies
postulate
that
a
high
scrubber
liquid
pH
might
actually
be
beneficial
for
the
control
of
mercury,
particularly
elemental
Hg4.
Basic,
high
pH
solutions
have
the
increased
ability
to
absorb
chlorine
gas.
Dissolved
chlorine
gas
is
suggested
to
enhance
the
scrubber's
ability
to
oxidize
and
capture
Hgo
(
specifically,
dissolved
chlorine
gas
dissociates
in
basic
solutions
to
produce
OCl­
ions
which
oxidize
Hgo
to
soluble
Hg+
2).
WhereasIn
contrast,
the
presence
of
hydrogen
chloride
or
sulfur
as
SO
2
or
H
2
SO
43
in
the
scrubber
solution
reduces
the
liquid
scrubber
pH,
reduces
OCl­,
and
reduces
the
Hgo
oxidative
potential
of
the
scrubber
liquid.
Further,
Although
limited
test
data
from
full­
scale
coal
fired
boiler
evaluations
indicate
an
inconsistent
impact
of
scrubber
liquid
pH
on
mercury
control.
For
example,
McDermott
Technology251
report
no
impact;
while
DeVito
and
Rosenhoover252
observe
that
mercury
control
efficiency
appears
to
increase
with
increasing
pH,
5
a
recent
study6
confirms
that
ionic
mercury
(
e.
g.,
HgCl
2)
that
is
initially
captured
in
the
scrubber
can
be
reduced
in
the
liquor
to
elemental
Hg
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

341
(
i.
e.,
Ho)
and
then
revolatilized
to
the
stack
gas.
The
study
concludes
that
the
reduction
of
ionic
mercury
in
the
liquor
is
likely
due
to
dissolved
sulfur
compounds
and
that
decreasing
the
pH
of
the
liquor
will
decrease
the
reduction
process
and
subsequently
decrease
mercury
emissions.
This
new
work
is
additional
evidence
that
a
maximum
pH
limit
might
be
appropriate,
especially
if
sulfur
is
present
in
feeds.
Other
recent
work
indicates
that
there
are
numerous
factors
that
influence
the
control
of
mercury
in
wet
scrubbers.
Mercury
speciation
in
the
flue
gas
is
vitally
important
to
the
ability
to
control
mercury
in
wet
scrubbers.
In
hazardous
waste
combustor
flue
gases,
mercury
tends
to
be
predominately
in
two
forms:
(
1)
elemental
(
Hgo);
and
(
2)
ionic
(
Hg+
2,
typically
as
HgCl
2).
Speciation
depends
on
numerous
factors
including
the
presence
of
chlorine
or
sulfur,
both
of
which
are
reactive
with
mercury
For
example,
increased
levels
of
chlorine
may
increase
the
amount
of
HgCl
2
and
reduce
the
amount
of
Hgo.
This
might
suggest
that
a
minimum
chlorine
feedrate
limit
is
needed
to
ensure
Hg
scrubber
efficiency
is
maintained,
which
is
counter
to
the
maximum
chlorine
feedrate
limit
used
to
control
emissions
of
total
chlorine
and
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metals.
Speciation
is
also
affected
by
the
flue
gas
temperature
cooling
profile,
which
can
impact
mercury
reaction
kinetics.
For
example,
rapid
cooling
may
limit
the
equilibrium
formation
of
HgCl
2
(
i.
e.,
super
equilibrium
levels
of
Hgo
can
survive
from
rapid
cooling).
This
might
suggest
that
a
maximum
flue
gas
cooling
limit
is
needed,
which
is
counter
to
that
for
controlling
dioxin/
furan.
Control
of
mercury
in
wet
scrubbers
is
also
affected
by
the
scrubber
liquid
chemical
composition.
As
discussed
above,
scrubber
liquid
composition
has
a
dramatic
impact
on
the
control
of
mercury.
Specifically,
the
generally
negative
presence
of
reducing
compounds
such
as
SO
2,
NO
x,
and
HCl;
as
well
as
positive
presence
of
and
HSO
3
can
lead
to
increased
mercury
emission
by
reducing
soluble
HgCl
2
to
insoluble
Hgo
which
can
be
desorbed
while
oxidative
compounds
such
as
chlorine
gas,
and
special
oxidation
additives
such
as
NaClO
2,
acidified
KMnO
3,
Na
2
S,
and
TMT
(
tri­
mercapto­
triazine)
would
generally
help
control
mercury
emissions
by
inhibiting
reduction
of
HgCl
2
to
Hgo
and/
or
enhancing
the
capture
of
Hgo.
Finally,
control
of
mercury
in
wet
scrubbers
is
affected
by
the
scrubber
liquid
to
gas
ratio.
Given
the
state
of
the
science
asrecent
study
discussed
above,
we
conclude
that
there
is
not
enough
evidence
to
support
the
requirement
for
indicating
that
increasing
the
pH
of
scrubber
liquor
can
increase
mercury
emissions,
we
request
additional
comment
on
whether
it
would
be
appropriate
to
establish
a
limit
on
the
maximum
pH
of
wet
scrubber
liquid
for
the
control
of
mercury.
Nonetheless,
we
note
thatliquor
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
mercury
emission
standard.
We
also
request
comment
on
issues
relative
to
establishing
and
complying
with
both
a
maximum
limit
on
pH
to
control
mercury
emissions
and
a
minimum
limit
on
pH
to
control
total
chlorine.
For
example,
you
would
establish
the
maximum
and
minimum
pH
limits
under
separate
performance
tests.
You
would
establish
the
minimum
pH
limit
during
a
performance
test
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
total
chlorine
standard
while
you
would
establish
the
maximum
pH
limit
during
a
performance
test
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
mercury
standard.
In
addition,
we
request
comment
on
the
anticipated
range
of
pH
levels
between
the
maximum
and
minimum
limits
and
whether
the
range
could
potentially
be
small
enough
to
inhibit
operations
substantially.
For
example,
if
the
pH
required
to
achieve
your
desired
scrubber
control
efficiency
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

7
As
discussed
below
in
the
text,
we
propose
to
revise
the
current
rules
to
delete
the
exemption
for
cement
kilns
from
the
bag
leak
detection
system
requirements.

8
Please
note
that
§
63.1209(
m)(
1)(
iv)
inadvertently
indicates
that
the
requirement
to
establish
site­
specific
operating
limits
applies
to
control
devices
other
than
ionizing
wet
scrubbers,
baghouses,
and
electrostatic
precipitators.
We
should
have
revised
that
paragraph
to
require
site­
specific
operating
parameter
limits
for
those
control
devices
when
we
revised
paragraph
(
m)(
1)
to
delete
the
operating
parameter
limits
for
those
devices.
The
delegated
regulatory
authority
can
use
§
63.1209(
g)(
2)
to
require
you
to
establish
site­
specific
operating
parameter
limits
for
those
control
devices
prior
to
the
effective
date
of
the
final
rule
based
on
today's
proposed
rule.

342
for
total
chlorine
(
i.
e.,
the
minimum
pH
limit)
is
just
below
the
pH
level
required
to
achieve
your
desired
control
efficiency
for
mercury
(
i.
e.,
the
maximum
pH
limit),
you
may
have
limited
operating
flexibility.
Finally,
we
note
that,
in
the
interim
until
we
determine
whether
to
promulgate
a
maximum
pH
limit
to
control
mercury
emissions,
site­
specific
or
other
information
may
lead
the
delegated
regulatory
authority
to
conclude
under
§
63.1209(
g)(
2)
that
a
limit
on
the
maximum
pH
of
wet
scrubber
liquid
may
be
warranted
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
mercury
emission
standard..
I.
How
Is
EPA
Proposing
to
Ensure
Performance
of
Electrostatic
Precipitators,
Ionizing
Wet
Scrubbers,
and
Fabric
Filters?
If
your
combustor
is
equipped
with
a
fabric
filter,
you
would
be
required
to
use
the
bag
leak
detection
system
required
under
§
63.1206(
c)(
7)(
ii)
to
ensure
performance
of
the
fabric
filter
is
maintained
in
lieu
of
operating
parameter
limits.
7
In
addition,
we
propose
to
revise
the
bag
leak
requirements
under
§
63.1206(
c)(
7)(
ii)
to
require
you
to
operate
and
maintain
the
fabric
filter
such
that
the
bag
leak
detection
system
alarm
does
not
sound
more
than
5
percent
of
the
operating
time
during
a
6­
month
period.
If
your
combustor
is
equipped
with
an
electrostatic
precipitator
or
ionizing
wet
scrubber,
we
propose
to
give
you
the
option
of:
(
1)
using
a
particulate
matter
continuous
emissions
detector
for
process
monitoring
to
signal
when
you
must
take
corrective
measures
to
address
maintenance
or
other
factors
causing
relative
or
absolute
mass
particulate
matter
loadings
to
be
higher
than
the
levels
achieved
during
the
performance
test;
or
(
2)
establishing
site­
specific
operating
parameter
limits.
If
you
choose
to
use
a
continuous
emissions
detector,
you
must
not
exceed
the
alarm
set­
point
you
establish
based
on
the
performance
test
more
than
5
percent
of
the
operating
time
during
a
6­
month
period.
If
you
choose
to
establish
site­
specific
operating
parameter
limits,
you
must
link
each
limit
to
the
automatic
waste
feed
cutoff
system.
1.
What
Is
the
Background
of
this
Issue?
The
current
regulations
require
you
to
establish
site­
specific
operating
parameter
limits
to
ensure
performance
of
electrostatic
precipitators,
ionizing
wet
scrubbers,
and
fabric
filters.
See
§
63.1209(
m)(
1)(
iv).
8
Regulatory
officials
review
and
approve
those
operating
parameter
limits
and
may
require
additional
or
alternative
limits
under
§
63.1209(
g)(
2).
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

9
USEPA,
"
Response
to
Comments
on
July
2001
Proposed
Rule,"
March
2004.

10
Periods
of
time
when
the
combustor
is
operating
but
the
bag
leak
detection
system
is
malfunctioning
must
be
considered
exceedances
of
the
set­
point.

343
In
the
July
3,
2001
proposed
rule,
we
requested
comment
on
how
to
establish
prescriptive
requirements
to
ensure
performance
of
these
control
devices.
See
66
FR
at
35143­
45.
We
requested
comment
on
four
approaches
to
ensure
performance
of
electrostatic
precipitators:
(
1)
requiring
an
increasing
kVA
pattern
across
the
electrostatic
precipitator;
(
2)
limiting
kVA
on
only
the
back
1/
3
of
fields;
(
3)
use
of
a
CMS
that
measures
relative
particulate
matter
loadings;
and
(
4)
use
of
predictive
emission
monitoring
systems.
These
approaches
would
also
be
applicable
to
ionizing
wet
scrubbers.
We
also
requested
comment
on
whether
and
how
cell
pressure
drop
should
be
used
to
ensure
performance
of
fabric
filters.
We
received
comments
in
favor
of
and
opposing
most
of
these
approaches.
9
Some
stakeholders
also
recommend
other
approaches.
One
commenter
favors
use
of
specific
power
as
an
operating
parameter
for
electrostatic
precipitator
performance.
Specific
power
is
the
secondary
power/
gas
flow
rate.
Another
commenter
suggests
continuing
with
establishing
sitespecific
operating
parameter
limits.
2.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
Proposing
to
Revise
the
Compliance
Requirements
for
Fabric
Filters?
After
reviewing
comments
and
further
investigation,
we
conclude
that
controls
in
addition
to
a
bag
leak
detection
system
are
not
needed
to
ensure
performance
of
fabric
filters.
Use
of
pressure
drop
to
ensure
performance
is
problematic
for
reasons
we
discussed
in
the
July
3,
2001
proposed
rule.
Moreover,
the
bag
leak
detection
system
provides
a
direct
measure
of
small
(
and
greater)
increases
in
particulate
matter
loading
that
enable
you
to
take
immediate
corrective
measures.
We
conclude,
however,
that
the
bag
leak
detection
system
requirements
under
§
63.1206(
c)(
7)(
ii)
are
not
prescriptive
enough
to
ensure
proper
operation
and
maintenance
of
the
fabric
filter.
Current
provisions
require
you
to
take
immediate
corrective
measures
when
the
bag
leak
detection
system
alarm
sounds,
indicating
that
particulate
loadings
exceed
the
set­
point.
There
is
no
limit
on
the
duration
of
time,
however,
that
the
bag
house
may
be
operating
under
these
conditions.
To
ensure
that
you
take
both
corrective
and
proactive
measures
to
minimize
the
frequency
and
duration
of
bag
leak
detection
system
alarms,
you
must
operate
and
maintain
the
fabric
filter
to
ensure
that
the
bag
leak
detection
system
alarm
does
not
sound
more
than
5
percent
of
the
operating
time
during
a
6­
month
period.
10
We
note
that
the
Agency
also
proposed
this
requirement
for
boilers
and
process
heaters
that
do
not
burn
hazardous
waste.
See
68
FR
at
1708
(
January
13,
2003).
If
you
exceed
the
alarm
set­
point
more
than
5
percent
of
the
time
during
a
6­
month
period,
you
would
be
required
to
notify
the
delegated
regulatory
authority
within
5
days.
In
the
notification,
you
must
describe
the
causes
of
the
excessive
exceedances
and
the
revisions
to
the
design,
operation,
or
maintenance
of
the
combustor
or
baghouse
you
are
taking
to
minimize
exceedances.
This
notification
would
alert
the
regulatory
authority
of
the
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

11
Because
controlling
particulate
matter
also
controls
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metals
(
and
dioxin/
furan
if
you
use
activated
carbon
injection),
exceeding
the
particulate
matter
loadings
achieved
during
the
performance
test
is
also
evidence
of
failure
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
emission
standards
for
those
pollutants.

12
Because
the
proposed
bag
leak
detection
requirements
are
more
stringent
than
the
opacity
standard,
exempting
cement
kilns
from
the
New
Source
Performance
Standards
for
particulate
matter
and
opacity
under
§
60.60
continues
to
be
appropriate.
See
§
§
63.1204(
h)
and
63.1204A1220(
h).

13
USEPA,
"
Fabric
Filter
Bag
Leak
Detection
Guidance,"
September
1997.

344
excessive
exceedances
so
that
they
may
review
and
confirm
the
corrective
measures
you
are
undertaking.
See
proposed
§
63.1206(
c)(
7)(
ii)(
C).
We
also
conclude
that
the
current
exemption
from
the
bag
leak
detection
system
requirements
for
cement
kilns
should
be
eliminated.
We
did
not
require
bag
leak
detection
systems
for
cement
kilns
in
the
September
1999
Final
Rule
because
cement
kilns
are
subject
to
an
opacity
standard
and
must
monitor
opacity
with
a
continuous
monitor.
As
a
practical
matter,
however,
the
opacity
levels
achieved
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
will
be
lower,
often
substantially
lower,
than
the
opacity
standard.
Thus,
absent
effective
operating
parameter
limits
on
the
fabric
filter
based
on
performance
test
operations,
we
cannot
ensure
that
performance
is
maintained
at
the
level
achieved
during
the
performance
test
(
and
that
you
remain
in
compliance
with
the
particulate
matter
and
other
standards11).
Consequently,
we
propose
to
require
that
cement
kilns
comply
with
the
bag
leak
detection
requirements
(
as
proposed
to
be
revised)
under
§
63.1206(
c)(
7)(
ii).
12
We
note
that,
although
triboelctric
detectors
are
generally
used
as
bag
leak
detectors
given
their
ability
to
detect
very
low
loadings
of
particulate
matter,
cement
kilns
may
use
the
transmissometers
they
currently
use
for
opacity
monitoring
provided
that
the
transmissometer
is
sensitive
enough
to
detect
subtle
increases
in
particulate
matter
loading
over
normal
(
not
performance
test)
loadings.
Finally,
we
request
comment
on
whether
it
is
practicable
to
establish
the
alarm
set­
point
for
the
back
leak
detection
system
based
on
the
detector
response
achieved
during
the
performance
test
rather
than
as
recommended
in
the
Agency's
guidance
document.
13
The
guidance
document
recommends
that
you
establish
the
alarm
set­
point
at
a
level
that
is
twice
the
detector
response
achieved
during
bag
cleaning.
Although
establishing
the
set­
point
at
this
level
would
avoid
frequent
exceedances
due
to
normal
bag
cleaning,
we
are
concerned
that
it
may
not
be
low
enough
to
detect
gradual
degradation
in
fabric
filter
performance
that,
for
example,
can
be
caused
by
pinholes
in
the
bags.
Moreover,
establishing
the
set­
point
at
a
detector
response
that
is
twice
the
response
achieved
during
bag
cleaning
may
not
be
low
enough
to
require
you
to
take
corrective
measures
if
particulate
matter
loadings
increase
above
the
levels
achieved
during
the
performance
test,
and
thus
at
loadings
that
may
indicate
an
exceedance
of
the
particulate
matter
emission
standard.
To
avoid
alarms
caused
by
bag
cleaning
cycles,
the
alarm
set­
point
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

14
Periods
of
time
when
the
combustor
is
operating
but
the
bag
leak
detection
system
is
malfunctioning
must
be
considered
exceedances
of
the
set­
point.

345
would
be
established
as
the
average
detector
response
of
the
test
run
averages
during
the
particulate
matter
performance
test,
and
would
be
established
as
a
6­
hour
rolling
average
updated
each
hour
with
a
one­
hour
block
average.
This
is
the
time
that
could
be
required
to
conduct
three
runs
of
a
particulate
matter
performance
test.
The
one­
hour
block
average
would
be
the
average
of
the
detector
responses
over
each
15­
minute
block.
3.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
Proposing
to
Revise
the
Compliance
Requirements
for
Electrostatic
Precipitators
and
Ionizing
Wet
Scrubbers?
We
propose
a
two­
tiered
approach
to
ensure
performance
of
electrostatic
precipitators
and
ionizing
wet
scrubbers:
(
1)
use
of
a
particulate
matter
continuous
emissions
detector
for
process
monitoring
to
signal
when
you
must
take
corrective
measures
to
address
maintenance
or
other
factors
causing
relative
or
absolute
mass
particulate
matter
loadings
to
be
higher
than
the
levels
achieved
during
the
performance
test;
or
(
2)
use
of
site­
specific
operating
parameter
limits.
You
could
choose
to
comply
with
either
tier.
a.
How
Would
Tier
I
Work?
Under
Tier
I,
you
would
use
a
particulate
matter
continuous
emissions
detector
for
process
monitoring
to
signal
when
you
must
take
corrective
measures
to
address
maintenance
or
other
factors
causing
relative
or
absolute
mass
particulate
matter
loadings
to
be
higher
than
the
levels
achieved
during
the
performance
test.
You
would
establish
an
alarm
set­
point
as
the
average
detector
response
achieved
during
the
particulate
matter
emissions
performance
test.
The
limit
would
be
applied
as
a
6­
hour
rolling
average
updated
each
hour
with
a
one­
hour
block
average
to
correspond
to
the
time
it
could
take
to
conduct
three
runs
of
a
performance
test.
The
one­
hour
block
average
would
be
the
average
of
the
detector
responses
over
each
15­
minute
block.
If
you
exceed
the
alarm
set­
point,
you
must
immediately
take
the
corrective
measures
you
specify
in
your
operation
and
maintenance
plan
to
bring
the
response
below
the
set­
point.
To
ensure
that
you
take
both
corrective
and
proactive
measures
to
minimize
the
frequency
and
duration
of
exceedances,
you
would
be
required
to
operate
and
maintain
the
electrostatic
precipitator
and
ionizing
wet
scrubber
to
ensure
that
the
alarm
set­
point
is
not
exceeded
more
than
5
percent
of
the
operating
time
during
a
6­
month
period.
14
This
is
consistent
with
the
proposed
requirement
to
limit
the
period
of
time
that
a
fabric
filter
may
be
operating
under
conditions
of
poor
performance.
If
you
exceed
the
alarm
set­
point
more
than
5
percent
of
the
time
during
a
6­
month
period,
you
would
be
required
to
notify
the
delegated
regulatory.
This
notification
would
alert
the
regulatory
authority
of
the
excessive
exceedances
so
that
they
may
take
corrective
measures,
such
as
requiring
you
to
revise
the
operation
and
maintenance
plan.
You
may
use
any
detector
as
a
particulate
matter
continuous
monitor
provided
that
the
detector
response
correlates
with
relative
or
absolute
particulate
matter
mass
emissions
and
that
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

15
Please
note
that,
for
the
purpose
of
process
monitoring
proposed
here,
you
need
not
correlate
the
particulate
matter
detector
to
particulate
matter
emission
concentrations.

346
it
can
detect
small
changes
in
particulate
matter
loadings.
15
You
would
include
in
the
performance
test
plan
a
description
of
the
particulate
matter
detector
you
select
and
information
documenting
that
the
detector
response
correlates
with
relative
or
absolute
particulate
matter
loadings
and
that
the
detector
can
detect
small
changes
in
particulate
matter
loadings
above
the
levels
anticipated
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test.
For
example,
if
you
anticipate
to
achieve
a
particulate
matter
emission
level
of
0.010
gr/
dscf
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test,
your
detector
should
be
able
to
distinguish
between
particulate
matter
loadings
of
0.010
gr/
dscf
and
0.011
gr/
dscf.
b.
How
Would
Tier
II
Work?
Under
Tier
II,
you
would
comply
with
site­
specific
operating
parameter
limits
you
establish
under
§
63.1209(
m)(
1)(
iv).
As
currently
required,
the
operating
limits
would
be
linked
to
the
automatic
waste
feed
cutoff
system.
Exceedance
of
an
operating
limit
would
be
a
violation
and
is
evidence
of
failure
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
particulate
matter,
semivolatile
metal,
and
low
volatile
metal
emission
standards.

IV.
Other
Proposed
Compliance
Revisions
A.
What
Is
the
Proposed
Clarification
to
the
Public
Notice
Requirement
for
Approved
Test
Plans?
We
are
proposing
in
today's
notice
to
add
clarifying
language
to
the
Section
1207(
e)(
2)
public
notification
requirement
for
approved
performance
test
and
CMS
performance
evaluation
test
plans.
The
Agency
believes
that
adequate
public
involvement
is
an
essential
element
to
the
continuing
and
successful
management
of
hazardous
waste.
Providing
opportunities
for
timely
and
adequate
public
notice
is
necessary
to
fully
inform
nearby
communities
of
a
source's
plans
to
initiate
important
waste
management
activities.
In
1995,
we
expanded
the
RCRA
public
participation
requirements
for
hazardous
waste
combustion
sources
to
require
that
the
State
Director
issue
a
public
notice
prior
to
a
source
conducting
a
RCRA
trial
burn
emission
test.
See
60
FR
63417,
40
CFR
270.62(
b)(
6)
and
40
CFR
270.66(
d)(
3).
The
purpose
of
this
notification
requirement
was
to
inform
the
public
of
an
upcoming
trial
burn
should
an
individual
be
interested
in
reviewing
the
results
of
the
test.
When
we
promulgated
the
Phase
I
hazardous
waste
combustion
NESHAP
in
1999,
we
included
a
similar
requirement
in
Subpart
EEE
for
the
same
general
purpose.
Section
1207(
e)(
2)
of
Subpart
EEE
requires
that
sources
issue
a
public
notice
announcing
the
approval
of
site­
specific
performance
test
plans
and
CMS
performance
evaluation
test
plans
and
provide
the
location
where
the
plans
will
be
made
available
to
the
public
for
review.
We
neglected,
however,
to
include
direction
regarding
how
and
when
sources
should
notify
the
public,
what
the
notification
should
contain,
or
where
and
for
how
long
the
test
plans
should
be
made
available.
As
a
result,
we
are
proposing
to
add
clarifying
language
to
the
Section
1207(
e)(
2)
public
notification
requirement.
We
are
using
the
RCRA
trial
burn
notification
requirements
as
a
foundation
for
the
proposed
clarifications.
1.
How
Should
Sources
Notify
the
Public?
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

347
The
source
must
make
a
reasonable
effort
to
provide
adequate
notification
of
the
approval
of
their
site­
specific
performance
test
and
CMS
performance
evaluation
test
plans.
Because
this
notification
is
intended
for
informational
purposes
only,
we
are
proposing
that
sources
use
their
facility/
public
mailing
list.
We
expect
that
by
the
time
a
source
receives
approval
of
its
Subpart
EEE
test
plans,
a
facility/
public
mailing
list
already
would
have
been
developed
in
response
to
the
source's
RCRA
and
CAA
permitting
activities.
As
such,
we
are
proposing
that
sources
use
the
facility/
public
mailing
list
developed
under
40
CFR
§
§
70.7(
h)(
1),
71.11(
d)(
3)(
i)(
E)
and
124.10(
c)(
1)(
ix),
for
purposes
of
this
notification.
Sources
may
voluntarily
choose
to
use
other
mechanisms
in
addition
to
a
distribution
to
the
facility/
public
mailing
list,
if
previous
experience
has
shown
that
such
additional
mechanisms
are
necessary
to
reach
all
interested
segments
of
the
community.
For
example,
sources
may
consider
using
press
releases,
advertisements,
visible
signs,
and
outreach
to
local
community,
professional,
and
interest
groups
in
addition
to
the
required
distribution
to
the
facility/
public
mailing
list.
2.
When
Should
Sources
Notify
the
Public
of
Approved
Test
Plans?
The
existing
regulations
require
that
sources
issue
a
public
notice
after
the
Administrator
has
approved
the
site­
specific
performance
test
and
CMS
performance
evaluation
test
plans.
It
is
important
to
remember
that
the
purpose
of
this
notification
is
similar
to
that
required
under
RCRA
for
trial
burn
tests.
See
60
FR
63417,
40
CFR
270.62(
b)(
6)
and
40
CFR
270.66(
d)(
3).
The
notification
is
intended
to
provide
information
to
the
public
regarding
the
upcoming
performance
test.
It
is
not
intended
to
solicit
comment
on
the
performance
test
plan.
We
considered
proposing
that
the
notification
occur
within
30
days
of
the
source's
receipt
of
test
plan
approval.
However,
we
chose
not
to
proceed
with
this
option
because
we
were
concerned
that
the
notification
would
not
be
as
meaningful
to
the
public
if
too
much
time
elapses
between
the
test
plan
approval
notification
and
the
actual
initiation
of
the
performance
test.
In
order
to
provide
the
public
with
adequate
notice
of
the
upcoming
test
and
a
reasonable
period
of
time
to
review
the
approved
plans
prior
to
the
test,
we
are
proposing
that
the
source
issue
its
notice
after
test
plan
approval,
but
no
later
than
60
days
prior
to
conducting
the
test.
We
believe
that
this
also
will
allow
the
source
sufficient
time
to
prepare
its
public
notice
and
corresponds
to
the
40
CFR
63.1207(
e)(
1)(
i)(
B)
requirement
for
a
source
to
notify
the
Administrator
of
its
intention
to
initiate
the
test.
3.
What
Should
the
Notification
Include?
Similar
to
the
public
involvement
requirements
for
RCRA
trial
burn
tests,
we
are
proposing
that
the
notification
contain
the
following
information:
(
3)
The
name
and
telephone
number
of
the
source's
contact
person;
(
4)
The
name
and
telephone
number
of
the
regulatory
agency's
contact
person;
(
5)
The
location
where
the
approved
performance
test
and
CMS
performance
evaluation
test
plans
and
any
necessary
supporting
documentation
can
be
reviewed
and
copied;
(
6)
The
time
period
for
which
the
test
plans
will
be
available
for
public
review,
and;
(
7)
An
expected
time
period
for
commencement
and
completion
of
the
performance
test
and
CMS
performance
evaluation
test.
4.
Where
Should
the
Plans
Be
Made
Available
and
for
How
Long?
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

16
It
should
be
noted
that
the
petition
for
waiver
of
a
performance
test
applies
to
both
the
initial
test
and
all
subsequent
tests.
See
40
CFR
Section
1207(
e)(
3).

348
The
site­
specific
performance
test
and
CMS
performance
evaluation
test
plans
must
be
made
available
at
an
unrestricted
location
which
is
accessible
to
the
public
during
reasonable
hours
and
provides
a
means
for
the
public
to
obtain
copies
of
the
plans
if
needed.
To
provide
for
adequate
time
for
the
public
to
review
the
test
plans,
we
are
proposing
that
the
plans
be
made
available
for
a
total
of
60
days,
beginning
on
the
date
that
the
source
issues
its
public
notice.
B.
What
Is
the
Proposed
Clarification
to
the
Public
Notice
Requirement
for
the
Petition
to
Waive
a
Performance
Test?
Sources
that
petition
the
Administrator
for
an
extension
of
time
to
conduct
a
performance
test
(
in
other
words,
obtain
a
performance
test
waiver),
are
required
under
Section
1207(
e)(
3)(
iv)
to
notify
the
public
of
their
petition.
Although
the
regulatory
language
does
provide
some
direction
regarding
how
the
source
may
notify
the
public
(
e.
g.,
using
a
public
mailing
list),
it
does
not
provide
any
direction
regarding
when
this
notice
must
be
issued
or
what
it
must
contain.
As
a
result,
we
are
proposing
in
today's
notice
to
add
clarifying
language
to
the
Section
1207(
e)(
3)(
iv)
public
notice
requirement.
1.
When
Should
Sources
Notify
the
Public
of
a
Petition
to
Waive
a
Performance
Test?
We
are
proposing
that
a
source
notify
the
public
of
a
petition
to
waive
a
performance
test
at
the
same
time
that
the
source
submits
its
petition
to
the
Administrator.
Although
not
explicitly
stated
in
Section
1207(
e)(
3)(
iv),
this
was
our
original
intent.
In
the
July
3,
2001
preamble
to
the
Subpart
EEE
proposed
technical
amendments,
we
provided
a
time
line
of
the
waiver
petitioning
process
for
an
initial
Comprehensive
Performance
Test.
16
In
that
time
line,
we
indicated
that
the
submittal
of
the
petition
and
the
public
notification
should
occur
at
the
same
time.
2.
What
Should
the
Notification
Include?
The
notification
of
a
petition
to
waive
a
performance
test
is
an
informational
notification.
As
such,
we
are
proposing
that
it
include
the
same
level
of
information
as
that
provided
by
a
source
for
the
notification
of
an
approved
test
plan:
(
5)
The
name
and
telephone
number
of
the
source's
contact
person;
(
6)
The
name
and
telephone
number
of
the
regulatory
agency's
contact
person;
(
7)
The
date
the
source
submitted
its
site­
specific
performance
test
plan
and
CMS
performance
evaluation
test
plans;
and
(
8)
The
length
of
time
requested
for
the
waiver.

Part
Four:
Impacts
of
the
Proposed
Rule
I.
What
Are
the
Air
Impacts?
Tables
1
and
2
of
this
preamble
shows
the
emissions
reductions
achieved
by
the
proposed
rule
for
all
existing
hazardous
waste
combustor
sources.
For
Phase
I
sources
 
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
 
the
emission
reductions
represent
the
difference
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

17
We
are,
however,
proposing
to
establish
alternative
risk­
based
standards,
pursuant
to
CAA
section
112(
d)(
4),
which
could
be
elected
by
the
source
in
lieu
of
the
MACT
emission
standards
for
total
chlorine.
The
emission
limits
would
be
based
on
national
exposure
standards
that
ensure
protection
of
public
health
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety.
See
Part
Two,
Section
XIII
for
additional
details.
If
we
were
to
adopt
alternative
risk­
based
standards,
then
the
national
annual
emissions
reductions
for
total
chlorine
are
overstated.

349
in
emissions
between
sources
controlled
to
the
proposed
standards
and
estimated
emissions
when
complying
with
the
interim
MACT
standards
promulgated
on
February
13,
2002.
For
Phase
II
sources
 
industrial/
commercial/
institutional
boilers
and
process
heaters
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
facilities
 
the
reductions
represent
the
difference
in
emissions
between
the
proposed
standards
and
the
current
baseline
of
control
provided
by
40
CFR
part
266,
subpart
H.
Nationwide
baseline
HAP
emissions
from
hazardous
waste
combustors
are
estimated
to
be
over
approximately
13,000
tons
per
year
at
the
current
level
of
control.
Today's
proposed
standards
would
reduce
emissions
of
hazardous
air
pollutants
and
particulate
matter
by
over
approximately
43,300
tons
per
year.
Nationwide
emissions
of
dioxin/
furans
from
all
hazardous
waste
combustors
will
be
reduced
by
4.7
grams
TEQ
per
year.
Emissions
of
HAP
metals
from
all
hazardous
waste
combustors
will
be
reduced
by
23
tons
per
year,
including
one
ton
per
year
of
mercury.
We
estimate
that
particulate
matter
itself,
a
surrogate
for
HAP
metals
will
be
reduced
by
2over
1,200700
tons
per
year.
Finally,
emissions
of
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
from
all
hazardous
waste
combustors
will
reduced
by
nearly
1,500
tons
and
over
1,700100
tons
per
year,
respectfully.
17
A
discussion
of
the
emission
estimates
methodology
and
results
is
presented
in
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
V:
Emission
Estimates
and
Engineering
Costs"
(
Chapter
3)
in
the
docket
for
today's
proposal.

Table
1:
Nationwide
Annual
Emissions
Reductions
of
HAPs
and
Other
Pollutants
from
Phase
I
Sources
CategoryPollutant
Baseline
Emissions
(
tons
per
year)
1Estimated
Emission
Reductions
(
tons
per
year)
1
IncineratorsDioxin/
furans
0.3
Mercury
0.93
Cadmium
0.50
Lead
3.30
Arsenic
1.627
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

350
Beryllium
0.31
Chromium
HAP
metals6.38.97
Antimony
1.18
Cobalt
0.42
Nickel
1.57
Selenium
0.28
Manganese
4.50
Hydrogen
Chloride
1470
Chlorine
Gas
107
Particulate
mMatter
1070HCl/
Cl
2
296283Organic
HAPs280Cement
KilnsDioxin/
furans4.50HAP
metals7.91.5Particulate
matter86543HCl/
Cl
2
1,84562Organic
HAPs5890Lightweight
Aggregate
KilnsDioxin/
furans2.11.9HAP
metals2.50.02Particulate
matter220HCl/
Cl
2
406268Organic
HAPs3.201
Dioxin/
furan
emissions
reductions
and
reductions
expressed
as
grams
TEQ.

Table
2:
Nationwide
Annual
Emissions
of
HAPs
and
Other
Pollutants
from
Phase
II
Sources
CategoryPollutantBaseline
Emissions
(
tons
per
year)
1Emission
Reductions
(
tons
per
year)
1Solid
Fuel­
Fired
BoilersDioxin/
furans0.90HAP
metals13.96.8Particulate
matter887437HCl/
Cl
2
1,9271727
1,172Organic
HAPs6.30Liquid
Fuel­
Fired
BoilersDioxin/
furans1.10.2HAP
metals27.714.5Particulate
matter2,5011,247HCl/
Cl
2
3,289641Organic
HAPs250Hydrochloric
Acid
Production
FurnacesDioxin/
furans2.62.3HAP
metals0.540Particulate
matter400HCl/
Cl
2
149141Organic
HAPs0.901
Dioxin/
furan
emissions
reductions
and
reductions
expressed
as
grams
TEQ.

II.
What
Are
the
Water
and
Solid
Waste
Impacts?
We
estimate
that
water
usage
would
increase
by
nearly
54.8
billion
gallons
per
year
if
the
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

18
For
purposes
of
this
discussion,
a
source
is
defined
as
athe
air
pollution
control
system
associated
with
the
hazardous
waste
combustion
unit(
s)
that
operates
with
a
single
air
pollution
control
system.
A
source
may
contain
one
or
more
than
one
combustion
units,
and
a
facility
may
operate
one
or
more
sources.

351
proposed
MACT
standards
were
adopted.
In
addition
to
the
increased
water
usage,
an
additional
4.6
billion
gallons
per
year
of
wastewater
would
be
produced.
We
estimate
the
additional
solid
waste
that
would
need
to
be
treated
as
a
result
of
the
proposed
standards
to
be
5210,000400
tons
per
year.
The
costs
associated
with
these
hazardous
waste
treatment/
disposal
and
water
requirements
are
accounted
for
in
the
national
annualized
compliance
cost
estimates.
A
discussion
of
the
methodology
used
to
estimate
impacts
is
presented
in
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
V:
Emission
Estimates
and
Engineering
Costs"
(
Chapters
4
and
5)
that
is
available
in
the
docket.

III.
What
Are
the
Energy
Impacts?
We
estimate
an
increase
of
approximately
16033
million
kilowatt
hours
(
kWh)
in
national
annual
energy
usage
as
a
result
of
the
proposed
standards.
The
increase
results
from
the
electricity
required
to
operate
air
pollution
control
devices
installed
to
meet
the
proposed
standards,
such
as
baghouses
and
wet
scrubbers.

IV.
What
are
the
Control
Costs?

Note
to
Reader:
As
a
result
of
recent
changes
to
the
particulate
matter
emission
standard,
efforts
to
update
compliance
cost,
social
cost,
economic
impacts,
and
monetized
benefits
are
currently
under
way.
The
revised
figures
are
not
yet
available
and
are
expected
to
be
slightly
lower
than
those
presented
in
Sections
IV,
VI,
and
VIII
of
this
Part.

Control
costs,
as
presented
in
this
section,
refer
only
to
all
engineering
and
related
requirements
associated
with
meeting
the
proposed
MACT
replacement
standards.
Control
costs
represent
engineering
and
Operating
&
Maintenance
(
O&
M)
engineering,
operation,
and
maintenance
costs
associated
with
unit/
system
upgrades
necessary
to
meet
the
proposed
replacement
standards.
These
costs
do
not
incorporate
any
market­
based
adjustments.
All
costs
presented
in
this
section
are
annualized
estimates
We
estimate
there
are
a
total
of
276
sources18
that
may
be
subject
to
requirements
of
the
proposed
rule.
Liquid
and
solid
fuel
boilers
represent
approximately
43
percent
of
this
total,
followed
by
on­
site
incinerators
at
33
percent,
and
cement
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
at
12
percent.
Commercial
incinerators
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
make
up
the
remaining
12
percent
of
the
total.
Total
national
engineering
costs
for
the
proposed
standards
are
estimated
to
range
from
.
The
low
end
of
this
range
reflects
total
upgrade
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

19
We
are
proposing
using
section
§
112(
d)(
4)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
to
establish
riskbased
standards
for
total
chlorine
for
hazardous
waste
combustors
(
except
for
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces).
The
low­
end
of
this
cost
range
assumes
all
facilities
emit
total
chlorine
levels
below
risk­
based
levels
of
concern.
Under
this
scenario,
no
total
chlorine
controls
are
assumed
to
necessary.

352
costs
excluding
controls
to
meet
the
total
chlorine
standard.
19
All
Phase
II
sources
combined
represent
about
,
reflecting
aggregate
costs
with
or
without
chlorine
controlsdepending
upon
§
112(
d)(
4)
scenario.
The
average
cost
per
source
is
expected
to
be
highest
for
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
and
solid
fuel
boilers
(
non­
process),
ranging
from
.
Average
liquid
fuel
boiler
costs
range
from
$
378,000
to
$
419,000
per
system.
Hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
were
found
to
have
average
system
costs
of
about
$
188$
200,000
under
both
section
112(
d)(
4)
scenarios.
On­
site
incinerators,
process
heater
boilers,
and
commercial
incinerators
were
found
to
generally
have
the
lowest
average
cost
ranges.
Average
annualized
engineering
costs
for
on­
site
incinerators
are
estimated
to
range
from
$
32,000$
16,300
to
$
153$
139,000
per
source,
average
per
source
costs
for
process
heaters
ranged
from
$
149,000
to
$
174,000,
and
average
annualizedwhile
average
annual
per
source
engineering
costs
for
commercial
incinerators
are
estimated
to
range
from
$
86$
67,000
to
$
26047,000
per
source.
For
all
Phase
I
sources
(
140
sources;
commercial
incinerators,
on­
site
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns),
average
annualized
engineering
costs
are
estimated
to
range
from
.
The
combined
Phase
II
sources
(
136
sources;
solid
and
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces)
had
average
annualized
engineering
costs
ranging
from
$
33241,000
to
Across
all
source
categoriessectors
covered
by
today's
proposal
(
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
sources),
average
annualized
costs
were
found
to
range
from
$
21609,000
to
Engineering
compliance
(
control)
costs
arehave
also
been
assessed
on
a
per
ton
of
waste
burned
basis.
Captive
energy
recovery
sources
(
includes
solid
and
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces),
136
sources)
burning
a
total
of
1,001,500
tons
of
hazardous
waste
per
year,
are
projected
to
experience
the
highest
average
per
unit
engineeringincremental
costs,
ranging
from
$
456
to
.
Commercial
energy
recovery
(
cement
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns)
sources
are
estimated
to
have
averagesources
(
cement
kilns
and
LWAKs),
burning
approximately
1,093,800
tons
per
year,
may
see
incremental
control
costs
ranging
from
$
9$
7.50
to
$
11$
8.50
per
ton.
Captive
(
on­
site)
and
commercial
incinerators
burn
an
estimated
1,010,600
tons
and
452,200
tons
per
year,
respectively.
These
sources
are
projectedestimated
to
experience
average
per
unitincremental
engineering
costs
ranging
from
approximately
$
3
to
$
14,
and
$
3
to
$
9
per
ton,
respectively.
$
1.50
to
$
12.70
per
ton
for
captive
and
$
2.20
to
$
8.20
per
ton
for
commercial
sources.
The
aggregate
control
costs
presented
in
this
section
do
not
reflect
the
anticipated
real
world
cost
burden
on
the
economy.
Any
market
disruption,
such
as
the
implementation
of
hazardous
waste
MACT
or
risk­
based
standards
will
cause
a
short­
tem
disequilibrium
in
the
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

353
hazardous
waste
burning
market.
Following
the
implementation
of
the
replacement
standards,
market
adjustments
will
occur
in
a
natural
economic
process
designed
to
reach
a
new
market
equilibrium.
Actual
cost
impacts
to
society
are
more
accurately
measured
in
response
to
allby
taking
into
account
market
adjustments.
These
costs
are
commonly
termed
as
Social
Costs,
and
are
generally
less
than
total
engineering
costs
due
to
cost
efficiencies
implemented
during
the
market
adjustment
process.
Social
Costs
theoretically
represent
the
total
real
world
costs
of
all
goods
and
services
society
must
give
up
in
order
to
gain
the
added
protection
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
Social
Costs
are
presented
in
Part
VIII
of
this
Section.

V.
Can
We
Achieve
the
Goals
of
the
Proposed
Rule
in
a
Less
Costly
Manner?
Section
1(
b)(
3)
of
Executive
Order
12866
instructs
Executive
Branch
Agencies
to
consider
and
assess
available
alternatives
to
direct
regulation
prior
to
making
a
determination
for
regulation.
This
regulatory
determination
assessment
should
be
considered,
"
to
the
extent
permitted
by
law,
and
where
applicable."
The
ultimate
purpose
of
the
regulatory
determination
assessment
is
to
ensure
that
the
most
efficient
tool,
regulation,
or
other
type
of
action
is
applied
in
meeting
the
targeted
objective(
s).
Requirements
for
MACT
standards
under
the
Clean
Air
Act,
as
mandated
by
Congress,
have
compelled
us
to
select
today's
regulatory
approach.
Furthermore,
we
are
under
legal
obligation
to
meet
the
targeted
objectives
of
today's
proposal
through
a
regulatory
action.
As
a
result,
alternatives
to
direct
regulatory
action
were
not
evaluated.
In
addition
to
the
statutory
and
legal
mandates
necessitating
today's
proposed
rulemaking,
we
believe
that
federal
regulation
is
the
most
efficient
approach
for
helping
to
correct
market
failures
leading
to
the
negative
environmental
externalities
resulting
from
the
combustion
of
hazardous
waste.
The
complex
nature
of
the
pollutants,
waste
feeds,
waste
generators,
and
the
diverse
nature
of
the
combustion
market
would
limit
the
effectiveness
of
a
non­
regulatory
approach
such
as
taxes,
fees,
or
an
educational­
outreach
program.
The
hazardous
waste
combustion
industry
operates
in
a
dynamic
market.
Several
combustion
facilities
and
systems
have
closed
or
consolidated
over
the
past
several
years
and
this
trend
is
likely
to
continue.
These
closures
and
consolidations
may
lead
to
reduced
air
pollution,
in
the
aggregate,
from
hazardous
waste
facilities.
However,
the
ongoing
demand
for
hazardous
waste
combustion
services
will
ultimately
result
in
a
steady
equilibrium
as
the
market
adjusts
over
the
long­
term.
We
therefore
expect
that
air
pollution
problems
from
these
facilities,
and
the
corresponding
threats
to
human
health
and
ecological
receptors,
will
continue
if
a
regulatory
action
was
not
implemented.
TWe
believe
that
the
market
has
generally
failed
to
correct
the
air
pollution
problems
resulting
from
the
combustion
of
hazardous
wastes
for
several
reasons.
First,
there
exists
no
natural
market
incentive
for
hazardous
waste
combustion
facilities
to
incur
additional
costs
implementing
control
measures.
This
occurs
because
the
individuals
and
entities
who
bear
the
negative
human
health
and
ecological
impacts
associated
with
these
actions
have
no
direct
control
over
waste
burning
decisions.
This
environmental
externality
occurs
because
the
private
industry
costs
of
combustion
do
not
fully
reflect
the
human
health
and
environmental
costs
of
hazardous
waste
combustion.
Second,
the
parties
injured
by
the
combusted
pollutants
are
not
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

20
Some
economists
consider
this
a
failure
of
full
and
proper
enforcement
of
property
rights.

21
Including
our
proposal
to
apply
section
112(
d)(
4)
to
establish
risk­
based
standards
for
total
chlorine
for
all
sources,
except
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces.

354
likely
to
have
the
resources
or
technological
expertise
to
seek
compensation
from
the
damaging
entity
(
combustion
source)
through
legal
or
other
means.
20
Finally,
emissions
from
hazardous
waste
combustion
facilities
directly
affect
a
"
public
good,"
the
air.
Improved
air
quality
benefits
human
health
and
the
environment.
The
absence
of
government
intervention,
therefore,
will
perpetuate
a
market
that
fails
to
fully
internalize
key
negative
externalities,
resulting
in
a
suboptimal
quantity
and
quality
of
public
goods,
such
as
air.
We
have
assessed
several
regulatory
options
designed
to
mitigate
the
unacceptable
levels
of
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment
resulting
from
the
combustion
of
hazardous
waste
in
the
targeted
units.
We
believe,
based
on
available
data,
that
our
preferred
regulatory
approach21,
as
presented
in
today's
proposed
rule,
is
the
most
cost­
efficient
method
for
reducing
the
level
of
several
hazardous
air
pollutants.
These
include:
dioxin
and
furan,
mercury,
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metals,
and
total
chlorine
emissions
(
i.
e.,
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine).
Carbon
monoxide,
hydrocarbons,
and
particulate
matter
will
also
be
reduced.
We
evaluated
seven
alternative
methodologies
in
the
development
of
today's
proposed
approach.
These
were:
system
removal
efficiency
plus
feed
control,
straight
emission­
based,
modified
emission­
based,
exclusive
technology
approach,
simultaneous
achievability,
using
the
CAA
section
112(
d)(
4)
to
establish
risk­
based
standards
for
total
chlorine,
and
beyond­
the­
floor.
Numerous
different
combinations
of
these
methodologies
were
assessed.
Selection
of
the
Agency
preferred
approach
was
based,
in
part
on
methodological
clarity,
implementation
simplicity,
cost
and
economic
impacts,
stakeholder
input,
and
necessary
protectiveness
to
human
health
and
the
environment.

VI.
What
are
the
Economic
Impacts?

Note
to
Reader:
As
a
result
of
recent
changes
to
the
particulate
matter
emission
standard,
efforts
to
update
compliance
cost,
social
cost,
economic
impacts,
and
monetized
benefits
are
currently
under
way.
The
revised
figures
are
not
yet
available
and
are
expected
to
be
slightly
lower
than
those
presented
in
Sections
IV,
VI,
and
VIII
of
this
Part.

Various
market
adjustments
(
i.
e.,
economic
impacts)
are
expected
in
response
to
the
changes
in
hazardous
waste
combustion
costs
anticipated
as
a
result
of
the
replacement
standards,
as
proposed.
Economic
impacts
may
be
measured
through
several
factors.
This
section
presents
estimated
economic
impacts
relative
to
market
exits,
waste
reallocations,
and
employment
impacts.
Economic
impacts
presented
in
this
section
are
distinct
from
social
costs,
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

22
Even
though
we
are
proposing
to
allow
sources
(
except
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces)
to
invoke
§
112(
d)(
4)
in
lieu
of
MACT
chlorine
control
requirements,
we
have
not
attempted
to
estimate
the
following:
1)
the
total
number
of
sources
that
may
elect
to
implement
this
provision,
and,
2)
what
level
of
control
may
be
necessary
following
a
§
112(
d)(
4)
risk­
based
determination,
since
this
would
vary
on
a
site­
by­
site
basis.

23
This
analysis
includes
the
cost
of
waste
transport
to
alternative
combustion
sources,
burning
fees,
and
purchase
of
alternative
fuels
(
if
appropriate).

355
which
correspond
only
to
the
estimated
monetary
value
of
market
disturbances.
A.
Market
Exit
Estimates
The
hazardous
waste
combustion
industry
operates
in
a
dynamic
market,
with
systems
entering
and
exiting
the
market
on
a
routine
basis.
Our
analysis
defines
"
market
exit"
as
ceasing
to
burn
hazardous
waste.
We
have
projected
post­
rule
hazardous
waste
combustion
system
market
exits
based
on
economic
feasibility
only.
Market
exit
estimates
are
derived
from
a
breakeven
analysis
designed
to
determine
system
viability.
This
analysis
is
subject
to
several
assumptions,
including:
engineering
cost
data
on
the
baseline
costs
of
waste
burning,
cost
estimates
for
pollution
control
devices,
prices
for
combustion
services,
and
assumptions
about
the
waste
quantities
burned
at
these
facilities.
It
is
important
to
note
that,
for
most
sectors,
exiting
the
hazardous
waste
combustion
market
is
not
equivalent
to
closing
a
plant.
(
Actual
plant
closure
would
only
be
expected
in
the
case
of
an
exit
from
the
hazardous
waste
combustion
market
of
a
commercial
incinerator
closing
all
its
systems.)
Under
the
Agency's
proposed
approach,
we
estimate
there
may
be
anywhere
from
531
to
6058
systems
(
sources)
that
stop
burning
hazardous
waste.
This
represents
anywhere
from
198
percent
to
221
percent
of
the
total
number
of
systems
affected
by
the
rule.
The
range
is
based
on
the
inclusion
or
exclusion
of
total
chlorine
controls22.
At
the
high­
end
of
this
range,
onsite
incinerators
represent
about
575
percent
of
the
total
number
of
market
exits.
Liquid
and
solid
fuel
boilers
(
includes
three
to
four
process
heaters)
account
for
the
remaining
sources
projected
to
exit
the
market.
No41
percent,
and
commercial
incinerators,
account
for
the
remaining.
No
cement
kilns,
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
or
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
are
projected
to
exit
the
market
as
a
result
of
the
rule.
Market
exits
are
estimated
to
change
only
slightly
under
the
alternative
regulatory
options.
B.
Quantity
of
Waste
Reallocated
CSome
combustion
systems
(
sources)
that,
in
response
to
rule
requirements,
aremay
no
longer
be
able
to
cover
their
hazardous
waste
burning
costs
as
a
result
of
rule
requirements,
as
proposed.
These
sources
are
projectedexpected
to
divert
or
reroute
theseir
wastes
to
alternative
combustion
sourcesburners23.
For
multiple
system
facilities,
this
diversion
may
include
on­
site
(
non­
commercial)
waste
consolidation
among
fewer
systems
at
the
same
facility.
A
certain
portion
of
this
waste
may
also
be
reallocated
to
waste
management
alternatives
(
e.
g.,
solvent
reclamation).
Combustion,
however,
is
likely
to
remain
the
lowest
cost
option.
Thus,
we
expect
that
the
vast
majority
of
reallocated
waste
will
continue
to
be
managed
at
combustion
facilities.
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

356
Our
economic
model
indicates
that,
in
response
to
today's
rule,
approximately
95,00087,500
to
132120,000
U.
S.
900
tons
of
hazardous
waste
may
be
reallocated,
representing
up
to
3.74
percent
of
the
total
1999
estimated
quantity
of
hazardous
waste
burned
at
all
sources.
This
estimate
includes
on­
site
consolidations
and
off­
site
diversions.
Off­
site
diversions
alone
represent
no
more
than
1.85
percent
of
the
total
waste
burned.
About
5056
percent
to
605
percent
of
the
total
reallocated
waste
quantity
wouldis
expected
to
be
consolidated
among
fewer
systems
at
the
same
non­
commercial
facility.
Commercial
incinerators
and
commercial
energy
recovery
(
cement
kilns
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns)
facilities
are
projected
to
receive
all
hazardous
waste
that
is
rerouted
off­
site.
Onsite
incinerators
and
boilers
are
the
primary
source
of
all
off­
site
diverted
waste.
AssumingBased
on
the
high
estimate
for
total
waste
reallocated
(
132120,000900
tons),
commercial
incinerators
and
cement
kilns
are
projected
to
receive
4237
percent
and
7
percent,
respectively.
The
remainder,
as
mentioned
above,
is
projected
to
be
consolidated
on­
site.
Currently,
there
is
more
than
adequate
capacity
to
accommodate
all
off­
site
waste
diversions.
C.
Employment
Impacts
Today's
rule
is
likely
to
cause
employment
shifts
across
all
of
the
hazardous
waste
combustion
sectors.
These
shifts
willmay
occur
as
specific
combustion
facilities
find
it
no
longer
economically
feasible
to
keep
all
of
their
systems
running,
or
to
stay
in
the
hazardous
waste
market
at
all.
When
this
occurs,
workers
at
these
locations
may
lose
their
jobs
or
experience
forced
relocations.
At
the
same
time,
the
rule
may
result
in
employment
gains,
as
new
purchases
of
pollution
control
equipment
stimulate
additional
hiring
in
the
pollution
control
manufacturing
sector,
and
as
additional
staff
are
required
at
selected
combustion
facilities
to
accommodate
reallocated
waste
and/
or
various
compliance
activities.
1.
Employment
Impacts
­
Dislocations
(
losses)
Primary
employment
dislocations
(
losses)
in
the
combustion
industry
are
likely
to
occur
when
combustion
systems
consolidate
the
waste
they
are
burning
into
fewer
systems
or
when
a
facility
exits
the
hazardous
waste
combustion
market
altogether.
Operation
and
maintenance
labor
hours
are
expected
to
be
reduced
for
each
system
that
stops
burning
hazardous
waste.
For
each
facility
that
completely
exits
the
market,
employment
losses
will
likely
also
include
supervisory
and
administrative
labor.
Total
incremental
employment
dislocations
potentially
resulting
from
the
proposed
replacement
standards
are
estimated
to
range
from
32408
to
403387
full­
time­
equivalent
(
FTE)
jobs.
Depending
upon
the
scenario,
on­
site
incinerators
and
boilers
are
responsible
for
anywhere
from
about
885
to
100
percent
all
potential
job
dislocations.
Their
significant
share
of
the
losses
is
a
function
of
both
the
large
number
of
systems
affected,
and
the
number
of
expected
exits
within
these
sectors.
2.
Employment
Impacts
­
Gains
In
addition
to
employment
dislocations,
today's
rule
is
also
expected
to
result
in
job
gains.
These
gains
are
projected
to
occur
to
both
the
air
pollution
control
industry
and
to
combustion
firms
as
they
hire
personnel
to
accommodate
reallocated
waste
and/
or
comply
with
the
various
requirements
of
the
rule.
Hazardous
waste
combustion
sources
are
projected
to
need
additional
operation
and
maintenance
personnel
for
the
new
pollution
control
equipment
and
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

24
Manufacturers
and
distributers
of
air
pollution
control
devices
are
expected
to
increase
sales
as
a
result
of
this
action.

25
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.

26
It
should
be
noted
that
the
avoided
incidence
estimates
were
based
entirely
on
the
incremental
decrease
in
ambient
air
concentrations
associated
with
emission
controls
on
the
357
other
compliance
activities,
such
as
new
reporting
and
record
keeping
requirements.
The
total
annual
employment
gains
associated
with
the
proposed
standards
are
estimated
to
range
from
Job
gains
to
the
air
pollution
control
industry24
represent
about
331
percent
of
this
total.
Among
all
combustors,
boilers
are
projected
to
experience
the
greatest
number
of
job
gains,
followed
by
cement
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
Job
gains
in
these
sectors
alone
represent
about
585
percent
to
641
percent
of
total
projected
gains,
depending
upon
regulatory
scenario.
While
it
may
appear
that
this
analysis
suggests
overall
net
job
creation,
such
a
conclusion
would
be
inappropriate.
Because
the
gains
and
losses
occur
in
different
sectors
of
the
economy,
they
should
not
be
added
together.
Doing
so
would
mask
important
distributional
effects
of
the
rule.
In
addition,
the
employment
gain
estimates
reflect
within
sector
impacts
only
and
therefore
do
not
account
for
potential
job
displacement
across
sectors.
This
may
occur
if
investment
funds
are
diverted
from
other
areas
of
the
larger
economy.

VII.
What
Are
the
Benefits
of
Reductions
in
Particulate
Matter
Emissions?
For
the
1999
rule,
we
estimated
the
avoided
incidence
of
mortality
and
morbidity
associated
with
reductions
in
particulate
matter
(
PM)
emissions.
25
Estimates
of
cases
of
mortality
and
morbidity
avoided
were
made
for
children
and
the
elderly,
as
well
as
the
general
population,
using
concentration­
response
functions
derived
from
human
epidemiological
studies.
Morbidity
effects
included
respiratory
and
cardiovascular
illnesses
requiring
hospitalization,
as
well
as
other
illnesses
not
requiring
hospitalization,
such
as
acute
and
chronic
bronchitis
and
acute
upper
and
lower
respiratory
symptoms.
Decreases
in
particulate
matter­
related
minor
restricted
activity
days
(
MRADs)
and
work
loss
days
(
WLDs)
were
also
estimated.
Rates
of
avoided
incidence,
work
days
lost,
and
days
of
restricted
activity
were
estimated
for
each
of
16
sectors
surrounding
a
facility
using
the
concentration­
response
functions
and
sector­
specific
estimates
of
the
corresponding
population
and
model­
derived
ambient
air
concentration,
either
annual
mean
PM
10
or
PM
2.5
concentrations
or
distributions
of
daily
PM
10
or
PM
2.5
concentrations,
depending
on
the
concentration­
response
function.
The
sectors
were
defined
by
4
concentric
rings
out
to
a
distance
of
20
kilometers
(
about
12
miles),
each
of
which
was
divided
into
4
quadrants.
The
sector­
specific
rates
were
weighted
by
facility­
specific
sampling
weights
and
then
summed
to
give
the
total
incidence
rates
for
a
given
source
category.
26
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

hazardous
waste
sources
subject
to
the
1999
rule.
Background
levels
of
particulate
matter
were
assumed
to
be
sufficiently
high
to
exceed
any
possible
threshold
of
effect
but
ambient
background
levels
of
particulate
matter
were
not
otherwise
considered
in
the
analysis.

27
U.
S.
EPA,
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis
of
The
Final
Industrial
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
NESHAP:
Final
Report,
February
2004.

28
U.
S.
EPA,
Benefits
of
the
Proposed
Inter­
State
Air
Quality
Rule,
January
2004.

29
Research
Triangle
Institute,
Human
Health
and
Ecological
Risk
Assessment
Support
to
The
Development
of
Technical
Standards
for
Emissions
from
Combustion
Units
Burning
Hazardous
Wastes:
Background
Document,
prepared
for
U.
S.
EPA,
Office
of
Solid
Waste,
July
1999.

30Pope,
C.
A.,
III,
M.
J.
Thun,
M.
M.
Namboodiri,
D.
W.
Dockery,
J.
S.
Evans,
F.
E.
Speizer,
and
C.
W.
Heath,
Jr.
1995.
Particulate
air
pollution
as
a
predictor
of
mortality
in
a
prospective
study
of
U.
S.
adults.
American
Journal
of
Respiratory
and
Critical
Care
Medicine151:
669­
674,
as
cited
in
Research
Triangle
Institute,
op.
cit.

31
Krewski
D,
Burnett
RT,
Goldbert
MS,
Hoover
K,
Siemiatycki
J,
Jerrett
M,
Abrahamowicz
M,
White
WH.
2000.
Reanalysis
of
the
Harvard
Six
Cities
Study
and
the
American
Cancer
Society
Study
of
Particulate
Air
Pollution
and
Mortality.
Special
Report
to
the
Health
Effects
Institute,
Cambridge
MA,
July
2000.

358
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

32
To
account
for
the
increase
in
population
since
the
1990
census
was
taken,
for
the
Phase
I
sources
we
also
adjusted
the
avoided
incidence
estimates
by
the
ratio
of
the
population
at
the
national
level
(
corresponding
to
the
concentration­
response
function)
for
the
year
2000
census
vs.
the
1990
census.
For
Phase
II
source,
we
used
the
year
2000
census
to
develop
source
category­
specific
population
estimates
for
use
in
the
extrapolations.

359
For
the
current
proposal,
we
took
the
avoided
incidence
estimates
from
the
September
1999
final
rule
and
adjusted
them
to
reflect
the
particulate
matter
emission
reductions
projected
to
occur
under
the
proposed
standards
and
the
reduction
in
the
numbers
of
facilities
burning
hazardous
wastes
since
the
analysis
for
the
final
rule
was
completed.
For
cement
kilns,
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
and
incinerators,
the
estimates
were
made
by
adjusting
the
respective
estimates
at
the
source
category
level
by
the
ratio
of
emission
reductions
(
for
today's
proposed
rule
vs.
the
1999
final
rule)
and
the
ratio
of
the
number
of
facilities
affected
by
the
rules
(
facilities
currently
burning
hazardous
wastes
vs.
facilities
burning
hazardous
wastes
in
the
analysis
for
the
September
1999
final
rule).
32
For
liquid
and
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces,
we
extrapolated
the
avoided
incidence
from
the
incinerator
source
category
using
a
similar
approach
except
that
the
ratios
of
the
exposed
populations
were
used
(
corresponding
to
the
concentration­
response
functions
from
the
1999
analysis),
instead
of
the
number
of
facilities.
We
estimated
the
exposed
populations
for
hazardous
waste­
burning
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
using
the
same
GIS
methods
as
the
September
1999
final
rule
(
i.
e.,
a
16
sector
overlay).
Nonetheless,
the
extrapolated
estimates
are
subject
to
some
uncertainty.
The
estimates
of
avoided
incidence
of
mortality
and
morbidity
are
shown
in
Table
3.
The
estimates
of
days
of
restricted
activity
and
days
of
work
lost
are
shown
in
Table
4.

Table
3:
PM­
Related
Avoided
Incidence
of
Mortality
and
Morbidity
(
cases
per
year)

Hospital
Admissions
Respiratory
Illnesses
Source
Category
Mortality
Respiratory
Illness
Cardiovascular
Disease
Chronic
Bronchitis
Acute
Bronchitis
Lower
Respiratory
Symptoms
Upper
Respiratory
Symptoms
Cement
Kilns
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
Lightweight
Aggregate
Kilns
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

Table
3:
PM­
Related
Avoided
Incidence
of
Mortality
and
Morbidity
(
cases
per
year)

Hospital
Admissions
Respiratory
Illnesses
Source
Category
Mortality
Respiratory
Illness
Cardiovascular
Disease
Chronic
Bronchitis
Acute
Bronchitis
Lower
Respiratory
Symptoms
Upper
Respiratory
Symptoms
360
Incinerators
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Solid
Fuel
Boilers
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.7
0.1
HCl
Production
Furnaces
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Liquid
Fuel
Boilers
0.3
0.9
0.4
5.5
4.2
37.2
4.3
Total
0.3
0.9
0.4
5.6
4.3
38.0
4.4
Table
4:
PM­
Related
Restricted
Activity
and
Work
Loss
Days
(
days
per
year)

Source
Category
Minor
Restricted
Activity
Days
Restricted
Activity
Days
Work
Loss
Days
Cement
Kilns
3.1
1.0
0.4
Lightweight
Aggregate
Kilns
0.0
0.0
0.0
Incinerators
0.0
0.0
0.0
Solid
Fuel­
Fired
Boilers
59.0
19.4
7.1
HCl
Production
Furnaces
0.0
0.0
0.0
Liquid
Fuel­
Fired
Boilers
3692.2
1215.9
443.2
Total
3754.4
1236.4
450.7
We
also
conducted
an
analysis
of
key
factors
that
influence
the
PM­
related
health
benefits
by
statistically
comparing
attributes
of
the
sources
subject
to
today's
proposed
rule
versus
the
sources
subject
to
the
1999
rule.
The
greater
the
similarities
between
the
sources
covered
by
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

33
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.

361
today's
proposal
and
the
sources
subject
to
the
1999
rule,
the
more
confidence
we
have
in
the
extrapolated
incidence
estimates.
The
more
the
dissimilarities,
the
greater
is
the
uncertainty
in
the
estimates.
The
comparative
analysis
is
discussed
in
a
separate
background
document
for
today's
rule.
33
VIII.
What
are
the
Social
Costs
and
Benefits
of
the
Proposed
Rule?

Note
to
Reader:
As
a
result
of
recent
changes
to
the
particulate
matter
emission
standard,
efforts
to
update
compliance
cost,
social
cost,
economic
impacts,
and
monetized
benefits
are
currently
under
way.
The
revised
figures
are
not
yet
available
and
are
expected
to
be
slightly
lower
than
those
presented
in
Sections
IV,
VI,
and
VIII
of
this
Part.

The
value
of
any
regulatory
action
is
traditionally
measured
by
the
net
change
in
social
welfare
that
it
generates.
Our
economic
assessment
for
today's
rule
evaluates
compliance
costs,
social
costs,
benefits,
economic
impacts,
selected
other
impacts
(
e.
g.,
children's
health,
unfunded
mandates),
and
small
entity
impacts.
To
conduct
this
analysis,
we
examined
the
current
combustion
market
and
practices,
developed
and
implemented
a
methodology
for
examining
compliance
and
social
costs,
applied
an
economic
model
to
analyze
industry
economic
impacts
(
results
discussed
above),
examined
benefits,
and
followed
appropriate
guidelines
and
procedures
for
examining
equity
considerations,
children's
health,
and
other
impacts.
The
data
we
used
in
this
analysis
were
the
most
recently
available
at
the
time
of
the
analysis.
Because
our
data
were
limited,
the
findings
from
these
analyses
are
more
accurately
viewed
as
national
estimates.
A.
Combustion
Market
Overview
The
hazardous
waste
industry
consists
of
three
key
segments:
hazardous
waste
generators,
fuel
blenders
and
intermediariesblenders/
intermediaries,
and
hazardous
waste
burners.
Hazardous
waste
is
combusted
at
four
main
types
of
facilities:
commercial
incinerators,
on­
site
incinerators,
waste
burning
kilns
(
cement
kilns
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns),
and
industrial
boilers.
Commercial
incinerators
are
generally
larger
in
size
and
designed
to
manage
virtually
all
types
of
solids,
as
well
as
liquid
wastes.
On­
site
incinerators
are
more
often
designed
as
liquid­
injection
systems
that
handle
liquids
and
pumpable
solids.
Waste
burning
kilns
and
boilers
generally
burn
hazardous
wastes
to
generate
heat
and
power
for
their
manufacturing
processes.
As
discussed
above,
we
have
identified
a
total
of
276
sources
(
systems)
permitted
to
burn
hazardous
waste
in
the
United
States.
Liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
account
for
107
sources,
followed
by
on­
site
incinerators
at
92
sources.
Cement
kilns,
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces,
and
commercial
incinerators
account
for
26,
17,
and
15
sources,
respectively.
Solid
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

34
Many
cement
kilns
are
also
able
to
burn
a
certain
level
of
solid
waste.

362
fuel­
fired
boilers
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
make
up
the
remaining,
at
12
and
seven
systems,
respectively.
ThereThese
276
sources
are
operated
by
a
total
of
150
separatedifferent
facilities
potentially
affected
by
the
proposed
action.
On­
site
incinerators
account
for
69
facilities,
or
46
percent
of
this
total,
followed
by
all
boiler
facilities
at
45
percent
(
67
facilities).
There
are
14
cement
kilns,
10
commercial
incineration
facilities
and
three
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
A
single
facility
may
have
one
or
more
combustion
systems.
Facilities
with
multiple
systems
may
have
the
same
or
different
types.
Thus,
the
numbers
presented
above
will
not
sum
to
150
facilities.
The
number
of
sources
per
facility
in
the
combustion
universe
ranges
from
one
to
12.
On
average,
boilers,
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
with
an
average
of
2.0
sources
per
facility,
contain
more
waste
burning
combustion
systems
per
facility
than
do
incinerators
and
cement
kilns,
with
an
average
of
1.4
sources
per
facility.
On­
site
incinerators,
with
1.3
sources
per
facility,
have
the
lowest
average
among
all
types
of
combustion
devices
in
the
universe.
Combustion
systems
operating
at
chemical
and
allied
product
facilities
represent
72
percent
(
199
sources)
of
the
total
number
of
hazardous
waste
burning
systems.
Stone,
clay,
and
glass
production
accounts
for
12
percent
(
34
sources),
followed
by
electric,
gas,
and
sanitation
services
at
8
percent
(
22
sources).
The
EPA
Biennial
Reporting
System
(
BRS)
reports
a
total
demand
for
all
combusted
hazardous
waste,
across
all
facilities,
at
3.56
million
tons
(
U.
S.
ton)
in
1999.
Commercial
energy
recovery
(
cement
kilns
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns)
burned
about
31
percent
of
this
total,
followed
by
on­
site
incinerators
at
just
over
28
percent,
captive
energy
recovery
(
all
boilers)
at
28
percent,
and
commercial
incineration
at
nearly
13
percent.
About
62
percent
of
all
waste
burned
in
1999
was
organic
liquids.
This
is
followed
by
inorganic
liquids
(
15
percent),
sludges
(
13
percent),
and
solids
(
9
percent).
Hazardous
gases
represent
about
0.1
percent
of
the
total
annual
quantity
burned.
In
terms
of
waste
source,
the
industrial
organic
chemicals
sector
generates
approximately
a
third
of
all
hazardous
waste
burned,
followed
by
pesticides
and
agricultural
chemicals,
business
services,
organic
fibers,
medicinal
chemicals,
pharmaceuticals,
plastics
materials
and
resins,
petroleum,
and
miscellaneous.
Companies
that
generate
large
quantities
of
uniform
hazardous
wastes
generally
find
it
more
economical
and
efficient
to
combust
these
wastes
on­
site
using
their
own
noncommercial
systems.
Commercial
incineration
facilities
manage
a
wide
range
of
waste
streams
generated
in
small
to
medium
quantities
by
diverse
industries.
Cement
kilns,
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
and
boilers
derive
heat
and
energy
by
combining
clean
burning
(
solvents
and
organics)
high­
Btu
liquid
hazardous
wastes34
with
conventional
fuels.
Regulatory
requirements,
liability
concerns,
and
economics
influence
the
demand
for
combustion
services.
Regulatory
forces
influence
the
demand
for
combustion
by
mandating
certain
hazardous
waste
treatment
standards
(
land
disposal
restriction
requirements,
etc.).
Liability
concerns
of
waste
generators
affect
combustion
demand
because
combustion,
by
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

363
destroying
organic
wastes,
greatly
reduces
the
risk
of
future
environmental
problems.
Finally,
if
alternative
waste
management
options
are
more
expensive,
hazardous
waste
generators
will
likely
choose
to
send
their
wastes
to
combustion
facilities
in
order
to
increase
their
overall
profitability.
Throughout
much
of
the
1980s,
hazardous
waste
combustors
enjoyed
a
strong
competitive
position
and
generally
maintained
a
high
level
of
profitability.
During
this
period,
EPA
regulations
requiring
combustion
greatly
expanded
the
waste
tonnage
for
this
market.
In
addition,
federal
permitting
requirements,
as
well
as
powerful
local
opposition
to
siting
of
new
incinerators,
constrained
the
entry
of
new
combustion
systems.
As
a
result,
combustion
prices
rose
steadily,
ultimately
reaching
record
levels
in
1987.
The
high
profits
of
the
late
1980s
induced
many
firms
to
enter
the
market,
in
spite
of
the
difficulties
and
delays
anticipated
in
the
permitting
and
siting
process.
Hazardous
waste
markets
have
changed
significantly
since
the
late
1980s.
In
the
early
1990s,
substantial
overcapacity
resulted
in
fierce
competition,
declining
prices,
poor
financial
performance,
numerous
project
cancellations,
system
consolidations,
and
facility
closures.
Since
the
mid
1990s,
several
additional
combustion
facilities
have
closed,
while
many
of
those
that
have
remained
open
have
consolidated,
or
further
consolidated
their
operations.
Available
excess
capacity
is
currently
estimated
at
about
20
percent
of
the
total
1999
quantity
combusted.
B.
Baseline
Specification
Proper
and
consistent
baseline
specification
is
vital
to
the
accurate
assessment
of
incremental
costs,
benefits,
and
other
economic
impacts
associated
with
today's
proposed
rule.
The
baseline
essentially
describes
the
world
absent
the
proposed
rule.
The
incremental
impacts
of
today's
rule
are
evaluated
by
predicting
post
MACT
compliance
responses
with
respect
to
the
baseline.
The
baseline,
as
applied
in
this
analysis,
is
the
point
at
which
today's
rule
is
promulgated.
Thus,
incremental
cost
and
economic
impacts
are
projected
beyond
the
standards
established
in
the
February
13,
2002
Interim
Standards
Final
Rule.
C.
Analytical
Methodology
and
Findings
­
Social
Cost
Analysis
Total
social
costs
include
the
value
of
resources
used
to
comply
with
the
standards
by
the
private
sector,
the
value
of
resources
used
to
administer
the
regulation
by
the
government,
and
the
value
of
output
lost
due
to
shifts
of
resources
away
from
the
current
market
equilibrium.
To
evaluate
these
shifts
in
resources
and
changes
in
output
requires
predicting
changes
in
behavior
by
all
affected
parties
in
response
to
the
regulation,
including
responses
of
directly­
affected
entities,
as
well
as
indirectly­
affected
private
parties.
For
this
analysis,
social
costs
are
grouped
into
two
categories:
economic
welfare
(
changes
in
consumer
and
producer
surplus),
and
government
administrative
costs.
The
economic
welfare
analysis
conducted
for
today's
rule
uses
a
simplified
partial
equilibrium
approach
to
estimate
social
costs.
In
this
analysis,
changes
in
economic
welfare
are
measured
by
summing
the
changes
in
consumer
and
producer
surplus.
This
simplified
approach
bounds
potential
economic
welfare
losses
associated
with
the
rule
by
considering
two
scenarios:
compliance
costs
assuming
no
market
adjustments,
and
market
adjusted
compliance
costs.
The
private
sector
compliance
costs
of
million
per
year,
as
presented
in
Section
VIIV,
assume
no
market
adjustments.
These
costs
may
be
considered
to
represent
the
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

35
We
are
proposing
using
section
112(
d)(
4)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
to
establish
riskbased
standards
for
total
chlorine
for
hazardous
waste
combustors
(
except
for
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces).
The
low­
end
of
this
cost
range
assumes
all
facilities
emit
total
chlorine
levels
below
risk­
based
levels
of
concern.
Under
this
scenario,
no
total
chlorine
controls
are
assumed
to
be
necessary.

36
Office
of
Management
and
Budget.
Circular
A­
4.
September
17,
2003.

364
high­
end
of
total
social
costs.
SOur
best
estimate
of
social
costs
presented
in
this
section
assume
normalrational
market
adjustments.
Under
this
scenario,
increased
compliance
costs
are
examined
in
the
context
of
likely
incentives
combustion
facilities
would
have
to
continue
burning
hazardous
wastes,
and
the
competitive
balance
in
different
combustion
sectors.
For
all
sectors
to
meet
the
proposed
replacement
standards,
total
annualized
marketadjusted
costs
are
estimated
to
range
from
.
The
low
end
of
this
range
assumes
no
chlorine
control
costs.
35
The
Phase
II
sources
represent
about
7883
percent
of
the
high­
end
total.
Our
economic
model
indicates
that
two
sectors
as
a
whole,
commercial
incinerators
and
cement
kilns,
would
experience
net
gains
following
all
market
adjustments.
This
occurs
due
to
marginally
higher
prices,
increased
waste
receipts,
and
relatively
low
upgrade
costs.
Total
annual
government
costs
are
approximately
one­
half
million
dollars
for
the
proposed
approach.
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

37
USEPA,
1985.
Health
Assessment
Document
for
Polychlorinated
Dibenzo­
p­
Dioxins.
EPA/
600/
8­
84/
014F.
Final
Report.
Office
of
Health
and
Environmental
Assessment.
Washington,
DC.
September,
1985.

365
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

38
U.
S.
EPA,
Exposure
and
Human
Health
Reassessment
of
2,3,7,8­
Tetrachlorodibenzo­
p­
Dioxin
(
TCDD)
and
Related
Compounds,
September
2000.
Note:
Toxicity
risk
factors
presented
in
this
document
do
should
not
reflect
be
considered
EPA's
official
estimate
of
dioxin
toxicity,
but
rather
reflect
EPA's
ongoing
effort
to
reevaluate
dioxin
toxicity.

39
These
figures
reflects
the
cancer
risk
factor
of
1.56
x
105
[
mg/
kg/
day]­
1.
However,
as
previously
discussed,
the
Agency's
ongoing
effort
to
refine
its
estimate
of
dioxin
toxicity
suggests
that
dioxin
may
be
six
times
as
toxic
as
previously
believed.
Assuming
this
higher
risk
factor,
estimated
baseline
to
beyond­
the­
floor
benefits
of
reduced
dioxin
emissions
are
$
1.92
million
(
non­
discounted),
$
1.03
(
discounted
at
3
percent,
assuming
a
21­
year
latency
period),
and
$
0.19
million
(
discounted
at
7
percent,
assuming
a
34­
year
latency
period).

366
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

367
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

40
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis
of
the
Final
Industrial
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
NESHAP:
Final
Report,
February
2004.

368
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

41
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis
of
the
Final
Industrial
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
NESHAP:
Final
Report,
February
2004.

369
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

370
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

371
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

42
Although
the
primary
pollutants
which
are
detrimental
to
vegetation
aesthetics
and
growth
are
tropospheric
ozone,
sulfur
dioxide,
and
hydrogen
fluoride,
three
pollutants
which
are
not
regulated
in
the
MACT
standards,
some
literature
exists
on
the
relationship
between
metal
deposition
and
vegetation
health.
(
Mercury
Study
Report
to
Congress
Volume
VI,
1997)
(
Several
studies
are
cited
in
this
report.)

43
See,
for
example,
Brown,
T.
C.
et
al.
1989,
Scenic
Beauty
and
Recreation
Value:
Assessing
the
Relationship,
In
J.
Vining,
ed.,
Social
Science
and
Natural
Resources
Recreation
Management,
Westview
Press,
Boulder,
Colorado;
this
work
studies
the
relationship
between
forest
characteristics
and
the
value
of
recreational
participation.
Also
see
Peterson,
D.
G.
et
al.
1987,
Improving
Accuracy
and
Reducing
Cost
of
Environmental
Benefit
Assessments.
Draft
Report
to
the
US
EPA,
by
Energy
and
Resource
Consultants,
Boulder,
Colorado;
Walsh
et
al.
1990,
Estimating
the
public
benefits
of
protecting
forest
quality,
Journal
of
Forest
Management,
30:
175­
189.,
and
Homes
et
al.
1992,
Economic
Valuation
of
Spruce­
Fir
Decline
in
the
Southern
Appalachian
Mountains:
A
comparison
of
Value
Elicitation
Methods.
Presented
at
the
Forestry
and
the
Environment:
Economic
Perspectives
Conference,
March
9­
1,
1992
Jasper,
Alberta,
Canada
for
estimates
of
the
WTP
of
visitors
and
residents
to
avoid
forest
damage.

44
MacKenzie,
James
J.,
and
Mohamed
T.
El­
Ashry,
Air
Pollution's
Toll
on
Forests
and
Crops
(
New
Haven,
Yale
University
Press,
1989).

372
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

373
IX.
How
Does
the
Proposed
Rule
Meet
the
RCRA
Protectiveness
Mandate?
As
discussed
in
more
detail
below,
we
believe
today's
proposed
standards,
based
on
evaluating
estimated
emissions
from
sources,
are
generally
protective.
We
therefore
propose
that
these
standards
apply
in
lieu
of
RCRA
air
emission
standards
in
most
instances.
A.
Background
Section
3004(
a)
of
RCRA
requires
the
Agency
to
promulgate
standards
for
hazardous
waste
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
as
necessary
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
The
standards
for
hazardous
waste
incinerators
generally
rest
on
this
authority.
In
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

45
We
estimated
emissions
for
each
facility
based
on
site­
specific
stack
gas
concentrations
and
flow
rates
measured
during
trial
burn
or
compliance
tests.
For
sources
where
stack
gas
measurements
were
unavailable,
data
were
imputed
by
random
selection
from
a
pool
of
measurements
for
similar
units.
We
assumed
that
sources
would
design
their
systems
to
meet
an
374
addition,
§
3004(
q)
requires
the
Agency
to
promulgate
standards
for
emissions
from
facilities
that
burn
hazardous
waste
fuels
(
e.
g.,
cement
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
boilers,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces)
as
necessary
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
Using
RCRA
authority,
the
Agency
has
historically
established
emission
(
and
other)
standards
for
hazardous
waste
combustors
that
are
either
entirely
risk­
based
(
e.
g.,
sitespecific
standards
for
metals
under
the
Boiler
and
Industrial
Furnace
rule),
or
are
technologybased
but
determined
by
a
generic
risk
assessment
to
be
protective
(
e.
g.,
the
DRE
standard
for
incinerators
and
BIFs).
The
MACT
standards
proposed
today
implement
the
technology­
based
regime
of
CAA
§
112.
There
is,
however,
a
residual
risk
component
to
air
toxics
standards.
Section
112(
f)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
requires
the
Agency
to
impose,
within
eight
years
after
promulgation
of
the
technology­
based
standards
promulgated
under
§
112(
d)
(
i.
e.,
the
authority
for
today's
proposed
standards),
additional
controls
if
needed
to
protect
public
health
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety
or
to
prevent
adverse
environmental
effect.
RCRA
§
1006
directs
that
EPA
"
integrate
all
provisions
of
[
RCRA]
for
purposes
of
administration
and
enforcement
and
...
avoid
duplication,
to
the
maximum
extent
possible,
with
the
appropriate
provisions
of
the
Clean
Air
Act...."
Thus,
although
considerations
of
risk
are
not
ordinarily
part
of
the
MACT
process,
in
order
to
avoid
duplicative
standards
where
possible,
we
have
evaluated
the
protectiveness
of
the
standards
proposed
today.
As
noted
above,
under
RCRA,
EPA
must
promulgate
standards
"
as
may
be
necessary
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment."
RCRA
§
3004(
a)
and
(
q).
Technology­
based
standards
developed
under
CAA
§
112
do
not
automatically
satisfy
this
requirement,
but
may
do
so
in
fact.
See
59
FR
at
29776
(
June
6,
1994)
and
60
FR
at
32593
(
June
23,
1995)
(
RCRA
regulation
of
secondary
lead
smelter
emissions
unnecessary
at
this
time
given
stringency
of
technology­
based
standard
and
pendency
of
§
112(
f)
determination).
If
the
MACT
standards,
as
a
factual
matter,
are
sufficiently
protective
to
also
satisfy
the
RCRA
mandate,
then
no
independent
RCRA
standards
are
required.
Conversely,
if
MACT
standards
are
inadequate,
the
RCRA
authorities
would
have
to
be
used
to
fill
the
gap.
B.
Assessment
of
Risks
The
Agency
has
conducted
an
evaluation,
for
the
purposes
of
satisfying
the
RCRA
statutory
mandates,
of
the
degree
of
protection
afforded
by
the
MACT
standards
being
proposed
today.
We
have
not
conducted
a
comprehensive
risk
assessment
for
this
proposal;
however,
a
comprehensive
risk
assessment
for
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
was
conducted
for
the
1999
MACT
rule.
For
this
proposed
rule,
we
are
instead
comparing
characteristics
of
the
sources
covered
by
the
1999
rule
to
the
sources
covered
by
the
replacement
rule
that
are
related
to
risk
(
e.
g.,
emissions45,
stack
characteristics,
meteorology,
and
population).
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

emission
level
below
the
proposed
standard.
(
In
the
case
of
dioxin/
furan
for
sources
that
would
not
be
subject
to
a
numerical
emission
standard,
we
assumed
liquid
boilers
without
dry
air
pollution
control
systems
and
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
were
emitting
at
their
baseline
emissions
level
as
portrayed
in
the
data
base.)
We
called
this
the
"
design
level."
If
available
test
data
in
our
data
base
indicate
that
the
source
was
emitting
below
the
design
level,
we
assumed
that
the
source
would
continue
to
emit
at
the
levels
measured
in
test.
For
sources
emitting
above
the
design
level
of
a
standard,
we
assumed
they
would
need
to
reduce
emissions
to
the
design
level.
In
the
1999
rule,
the
design
level
was
taken
as
70%
of
the
standard.
For
today's
proposed
standards,
the
design
level
is
generally
the
lower
of:
(
1)
70%
of
the
standard;
or
(
2)
the
arithmetic
average
of
the
emissions
data
of
the
best
performing
sources.

46
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.

375
In
the
1999
rule
we
concluded
that
the
promulgated
standards
were
sufficiently
protective
and
the
existing
RCRA
standards
for
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
need
not
be
retained.
Based
on
the
results
of
statistical
comparisons,
we
infer
whether
risks
for
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
boilers,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
will
be
about
the
same,
less
than,
or
greater
than
the
risks
estimated
for
1999
rule.
We
think
the
comparative
analysis
lends
additional
support
to
our
view
regarding
the
protectiveness
of
the
proposed
standards.
46
We
believe
today's
proposed
standards
provide
a
substantial
degree
of
protection
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
We
therefore
do
no
believe
that
we
need
to
retain
the
existing
RCRA
standards
for
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
(
just
as
we
found
that
existing
RCRA
standards
for
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
were
no
longer
needed
after
the
1999
rule).
However,
as
previously
discussed
in
more
detail
in
Part
Two,
Section
XVII.
D,
site­
specific
risk
assessments
may
be
warranted
on
an
individual
source
basis
to
ensure
that
the
MACT
standards
provide
adequate
protection
in
accordance
with
RCRA.

Note
to
Reader:
We
are
currently
reevaluating
the
comparative
risk
analysis
methodology
originally
used
to
lend
additional
support
to
our
conclusion
that
these
proposed
technology­
based
standards
are
generally
protective.
This
preamble
section,
and
associated
background
document,
will
be
updated
in
the
near
future
if
in
fact
this
reevaluation
results
in
a
revised
methodology
to
assess
risks
from
these
hazardous
waste
combustors.
We
are
confident
any
changes
to
this
comparative
risk
methodology
will
not
result
in
changes
to
our
original
conclusion
that
these
proposed
standards
are
generally
protective
for
the
following
reasons:

(
1)
As
discussed
in
Part
Two,
Section
XVII.
D,
all
Phase
I
replacement
standards
must
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

376
be
equivalent
to
or
more
stringent
than
the
negotiated
interim
standards.
Many
of
the
replacement
standards
proposed
in
today's
notice
would
be
more
stringent
than
the
interim
standards.
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
more
stringent
than
the
1999­
promulgated
standards,
which
EPA
determined
to
be
generally
protective
in
a
national
risk
assessment
conducted
for
that
rulemaking.

(
2)
The
proposed
standards
for
Phase
II
sources
are
significantly
more
stringent
than
the
existing
standards
currently
required
under
RCRA
(
40
CFR
Part
266,
Subpart
H)
and
are
similar
to
the
emission
standards
promulgated
in
the
1999
rule
which
EPA
determined
to
be
generally
protective
in
a
national
risk
assessment
conducted
for
that
rulemaking.

Part
Five:
Administrative
Requirements
I.
Executive
Order
12866:
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
Under
Executive
Order
12866
[
58
FR
51735
(
October
4,
1993)],
the
Agency
must
determine
whether
a
regulatory
action
is
"
significant"
and
therefore
subject
to
OMB
review
and
the
requirements
of
the
Executive
Order.
The
Order
defines
"
significant
regulatory
action"
as
one
that
is
likely
to
result
in
a
rule
that
may:
(
1)
Have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$
100
million
or
more
or
adversely
affect
in
a
material
way
the
economy,
a
sector
of
the
economy,
productivity,
competition,
jobs,
the
environment,
public
health
or
safety,
or
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments
or
communities;
(
2)
Create
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
interfere
with
an
action
taken
or
planned
by
another
agency;
(
3)
Materially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
of
entitlements,
grants,
user
fees,
or
loan
programs
or
the
rights
and
obligations
of
recipients
thereof;
or
(
4)
Raise
novel
legal
or
policy
issues
arising
out
of
legal
mandates,
the
President's
priorities,
or
the
principles
set
forth
in
the
Executive
Order."
Pursuant
to
the
terms
of
Executive
Order
12866,
it
has
been
determined
that
this
rule
is
a
"
significant
regulatory
action"
because
this
action
may
raise
novel
legal
or
policy
issues
due
to
the
standards
development
methodology
applied
in
development
of
the
proposed
replacement
standards.
As
such,
this
action
was
submitted
to
OMB
for
review.
Changes
made
in
response
to
OMB
suggestions
or
recommendations
will
be
documented
in
the
public
record.
The
aggregate
annualized
social
costs
for
this
rule
are
under
$
100
million
(
ranging
from
$
421
to
$
570
million/
yr).
We
have
prepared
an
economic
assessment
in
support
of
today's
action.
This
document
is
entitled:
Assessment
of
the
Potential
Costs,
Benefits,
and
Other
Impacts
of
the
Hazardous
Waste
Combustion
MACT
Replacement
Standards
­
Proposed
Rule,
March
2004.
This
Assessment
is
designed
to
adhere
to
analytical
requirements
established
under
Executive
Order
12866,
and
corresponding
Agency
and
OMB
guidance;
subject
to
data,
analytical,
and
resource
limitations.
An
Addendum
entitled:
Addendum
to
the
Assessment
of
the
Potential
Costs,
Benefits,
and
Other
Impacts
of
the
Hazardous
Waste
Combustion
MACT
Replacement
Standards
­
Proposed
Rule,
March
2004,
has
also
been
prepared.
This
Addendum
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

377
addresses
belated
changes
made
to
the
final
proposed
standards
that
were
not
captured
in
the
Assessment.
The
RCRA
docket
established
for
today's
rulemaking
maintains
a
copy
of
the
Assessment
and
Addendum
documents
for
public
review.
Interested
persons
are
encouraged
to
read
and
comment
on
this
document.
both
documents
for
a
full
understanding
of
the
analytical
methodology,
findings,
and
limitations
associated
with
this
report.
Comments
and
supporting
data
are
encouraged
and
welcomed.

II.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
The
information
collection
requirements
in
this
proposed
rule
have
been
submitted
for
approval
to
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.
The
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
document
prepared
by
EPA
has
been
assigned
EPA
ICR
number
1773.07.
EPA
is
proposing
today's
regulations
under
section
112
of
the
CAA,
to
protect
and
enhance
the
quality
of
our
nation's
air
resources,
and
to
promote
public
health
and
welfare
and
the
productive
capacity
of
the
population.
See
CAA
section
101(
b)(
1).
To
this
end,
CAA
sections
112(
a)
and
(
d)
direct
EPA
to
set
standards
for
stationary
sources
emitting
the
hazardous
air
pollutants.
The
records
and
reports
required
by
the
information
collection
under
this
proposal
will
be
used
to
show
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
the
rule.
EPA
believes
that
if
these
minimum
requirements
specified
under
the
regulations
are
not
met,
EPA
will
not
fulfill
its
Congressional
mandate
to
protect
public
health
and
the
environment.
The
information
collection
required
under
this
ICR
is
mandatory
for
the
regulated
sources
as
it
is
essential
to
properly
enforce
the
emission
limitation
requirements
of
the
rule
and
will
be
used
to
further
the
proper
performance
of
the
functions
of
EPA.
EPA
has
made
extensive
efforts
to
integrate
the
monitoring,
compliance
testing
and
recordkeeping
requirements
of
the
CAA
and
RCRA,
so
that
the
burden
on
the
sources
is
kept
to
a
minimum,
and
the
facilities
are
able
to
avoid
duplicate
and
unnecessary
submissions.
We
also
ensure,
to
the
fullest
extent
of
the
law,
the
confidentiality
of
the
submitted
information.
The
projected
annual
burden
under
today's
proposal
is
estimated
at
70,199
hours
at
a
total
cost
of
$
5.1
millions.
For
the
hour
burden,
we
estimate
a
total
of
2,612
responses
from
243
respondents,
or
an
average
of
27
hours
per
response,
or
289
hours
per
respondent.
The
cost
burden
to
respondents
or
recordkeepers
resulting
from
the
collection
of
information
includes
a
total
capital
and
start­
up
cost
component,
a
total
operation
and
maintenance
component
and
a
purchase
of
services
component.
The
capital
and
start­
up
cost
component
is
estimated
at
$
36,184
annualized
over
its
expected
useful
life,
and
the
operation
and
maintenance
component
is
estimated
at
$
488,947
annualized
over
its
expected
useful
life.
The
frequency
of
different
responses
varies
and
is
monthly
or
annually
for
some
and
on
occasion
for
others.
Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

378
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
An
agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
in
40
CFR
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9.
To
comment
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques,
EPA
has
established
a
public
docket
for
this
rule,
which
includes
this
ICR,
under
Docket
ID
number
RCRA­
2003­
0016.
Submit
any
comments
related
to
the
ICR
for
this
proposed
rule
to
EPA
and
OMB.
See
`
Addresses'
section
at
the
beginning
of
this
notice
for
where
to
submit
comments
to
EPA.
Send
comments
to
OMB
at
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
Street,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20503,
Attention:
Desk
Office
for
EPA.
Since
OMB
is
required
to
make
a
decision
concerning
the
ICR
between
30
and
60
days
after
[
Insert
date
of
publication
in
the
FEDERAL
REGISTER],
a
comment
to
OMB
is
best
assured
of
having
its
full
effect
if
OMB
receives
it
by
[
Insert
date
30
days
after
publication
in
the
FEDERAL
REGISTER].
The
final
rule
will
respond
to
any
OMB
or
public
comments
on
the
information
collection
requirements
contained
in
this
proposal.

III.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
The
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA)
as
amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996
(
SBREFA),
5
USC
601
et.
seq.
generally
requires
an
agency
to
prepare
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
of
any
rule
subject
to
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
requirements
under
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act,
or
any
other
statute.
This
analysis
must
be
completed
unless
the
agency
is
able
to
certify
that
the
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
Small
entities
include
small
businesses,
small
not­
for­
profit
enterprises,
and
small
governmental
jurisdictions.
We
have
determined
that
hazardous
waste
combustion
facilities
are
not
owned
by
small
entities
(
local
governments,
tribes,
etc.)
other
than
businesses.
Therefore,
only
businesses
were
analyzed
for
small
entity
impacts.
For
the
purposes
of
the
impact
analyses,
small
entity
is
defined
either
by
the
number
of
employees
or
by
the
dollar
amount
of
sales.
The
level
at
which
a
business
is
considered
small
is
determined
for
each
North
American
Industrial
Classification
System
(
NAICS)
code
by
the
Small
Business
Administration.
Affected
individual
waste
combustors
(
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
solid
and
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces)
will
bear
the
impacts
of
today's
rule.
These
units
will
incur
direct
economic
impacts
as
a
result
of
today's
rule.
Few
of
the
hazardous
waste
combustion
facilities
affected
by
this
proposed
rule
were
found
to
be
owned
by
small
businesses,
as
defined
by
the
Small
Business
Administration
(
SBA).
From
our
universe
of
150
facilities,
we
identified
six
facilities
that
are
currently
owned
by
small
businesses.
Three
of
these
are
liquid
boilers,
one
is
an
on­
site
incinerator,
one
is
a
cement
kiln,
and
one
is
an
LWAK.
Annualized
economic
impacts
of
the
proposed
replacement
standards
were
found
to
range
from
0.01
percent
to
2.213
percent
of
gross
annual
corporate
revenues.
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

379
Economic
impacts
to
five
of
the
companies
were
found
to
be
less
than
one
percent,
while
the
sixth
company
was
found
to
experience
potential
impacts
between
one
and
3
percent
(
2.213
percent).
These
findings
reflect
worst­
case
cost
estimates
under
the
Agency
Preferred
Approach.
Actual
economic
impacts
are
likely
to
be
less
as
market
adjustments
take
effect
(
see
the
regulatory
flexibility
screening
analysisAppendix
H
of
the
Assessment
and
Assessment
of
Small
Entity
Impacts
in
the
Addendum).
Based
on
the
above
findings
we
believe
that
one
small
company
with
potential
high­
end
impacts
between
one
and
3
percent
of
gross
revenues
does
not
reflect
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
potentially
affected
small
entities.
Therefore,
after
considering
the
economic
impacts
of
today's
proposed
rule
on
small
entities,
I
certify
that
this
action
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
The
reader
is
encouraged
to
review
and
comment
on
our
regulatory
flexibility
screening
analysis
prepared
in
support
of
this
determination:
Regulatory
Flexibility
Screening
Analysis
for
the
Proposed
Hazardous
Waste
Combustion
MACT
Replacement
Standards.
This
document
is
available
inincorporated
as
Appendix
H
of
the
public
docketAssessment
document.

IV.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
Signed
into
law
on
March
22,
1995,
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
(
UMRA)
calls
on
all
federal
agencies
to
provide
a
statement
supporting
the
need
to
issue
any
regulation
containing
an
unfunded
federal
mandate
and
describing
prior
consultation
with
representatives
of
affected
state,
local,
and
tribal
governments.
Today's
proposed
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
sections
202,
204
and
205
of
UMRA.
In
general,
a
rule
is
subject
to
the
requirements
of
these
sections
if
it
contains
"
Federal
mandates"
that
may
result
in
the
expenditure
by
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
by
the
private
sector,
of
$
100
million
or
more
in
any
one
year.
Today's
final
rule
does
not
result
in
$
100
million
or
more
in
expenditures.
The
aggregate
annualized
social
cost
for
today's
rule
is
estimated
atto
range
from
$
41
to
$
570
million
under
the
proposed
standards.

V.
Executive
Order
13132:
Federalism
Executive
Order
13132,
entitled
"
Federalism"
(
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
"
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
State
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications."
"
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications"
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
"
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government."
Under
Executive
Order
13132,
EPA
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
has
federalism
implications,
that
imposes
substantial
direct
compliance
costs,
and
that
is
not
required
by
statute,
unless
the
Federal
government
provides
the
funds
necessary
to
pay
the
direct
compliance
costs
incurred
by
State
and
local
governments,
or
EPA
consults
with
State
and
local
officials
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
proposed
regulation.
This
proposed
rule
does
not
have
federalism
implications.
It
will
not
have
substantial
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

47
Executive
Order
13084
is
revoked
by
this
Executive
Order
380
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government,
as
specified
in
the
Order.
The
proposed
rule
focuses
on
requirements
for
facilities
burning
hazardous
waste,
without
affecting
the
relationships
between
Federal
and
State
governments.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13132
does
not
apply
to
this
rule.
Although
section
6
of
Executive
Order
13132
does
not
apply
to
this
rule,
EPA
did
include
three
State
representatives
on
our
Agency
workgroup.
These
representatives
participated
in
the
development
of
this
proposed
rule.
State
officials
were
contacted
concerning
the
methodology
used
in
standards
development.
In
the
spirit
of
Executive
Order
13132,
and
consistent
with
EPA
policy
to
promote
communications
between
EPA
and
State
and
local
governments,
EPA
specifically
solicits
comment
on
this
proposed
rule
from
State
and
local
officials.
VI.
Executive
Order
13175:
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
Executive
Order
1317547:
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
(
65
FR
67249,
November
9,
2000),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
"
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
tribal
implications."
Our
Agency
workgroup
for
this
rulemaking
includes
Tribal
representation.
We
have
determined
that
this
rule,
as
proposed,
does
not
have
tribal
implications,
as
specified
in
the
Order.
No
Tribal
governments
are
known
to
own
or
operate
hazardous
waste
combustors
subject
to
the
requirements
of
this
proposed
rule.
Furthermore,
this
proposed
rule
focuses
on
requirements
for
all
regulated
sources
without
affecting
the
relationships
between
tribal
governments
in
its
implementation,
and
applies
to
all
regulated
sources,
without
distinction
of
the
surrounding
populations
affected.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply
to
this
rule.
EPA
specifically
solicits
additional
comment
on
this
proposed
rule
from
tribal
officials.

VII.
Executive
Order
13045:
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
and
Safety
Risks
Executive
Order
13045:
"
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks"
(
62
FR.
19885,
April
23,
1997)
applies
to
any
rule
that:
(
1)
is
determined
to
be
"
economically
significant"
as
defined
under
E.
O.
12866,
and
(
2)
concerns
an
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
may
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,
the
Agency
must
evaluate
the
environmental
health
or
safety
effects
of
the
planned
rule
on
children,
and
explain
why
the
planned
regulation
is
preferable
to
other
potentially
effective
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives
considered
by
the
Agency.
Today's
final
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
Executive
Order
because
it
is
not
economically
significant
as
defined
under
point
one
of
the
Order,
and
because
the
Agency
does
not
have
reason
to
believe
the
environmental
health
or
safety
risks
addressed
by
this
action
present
a
disproportionate
risk
to
children.
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

381
VIII.
Executive
Order
13211:
Actions
that
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
This
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13211,
"
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use"
(
66
Fed.
Reg.
28355
(
May
22,
2001)).
This
rule,
as
proposed
will
not
seriously
disrupt
energy
supply,
distribution
patterns,
prices,
imports
or
exports.
Furthermore,
this
rule
is
not
an
economically
significant
action
under
Executive
Order
12866.

IX.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
Section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
("
NTTAA"),
Public
Law
No.
104­
113,
12(
d)
(
15
U.
S.
C.
272
note)
directs
EPA
to
use
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
its
regulatory
activities
unless
to
do
so
would
be
inconsistent
with
applicable
law
or
otherwise
impractical.
Voluntary
consensus
standards
are
technical
standards
(
e.
g.,
materials
specifications,
test
methods,
sampling
procedures,
and
business
practices)
that
are
developed
or
adopted
by
voluntary
consensus
standards
bodies.
The
NTTAA
directs
EPA
to
provide
Congress,
through
OMB,
explanations
when
the
Agency
decides
not
to
use
available
and
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards.
This
proposed
rulemaking
involves
environmental
monitoring
or
measurement.
Consistent
with
the
Agency's
Performance
Based
Measurement
System
("
PBMS"),
EPA
proposes
not
to
require
the
use
of
specific,
prescribed
analytic
methods.
Rather,
the
Agency
plans
to
allow
the
use
of
any
method
that
meets
the
prescribed
performance
criteria.
The
PBMS
approach
is
intended
to
be
more
flexible
and
cost­
effective
for
the
regulated
community;
it
is
also
intended
to
encourage
innovation
in
analytical
technology
and
improved
data
quality.
EPA
is
not
precluding
the
use
of
any
method,
whether
it
constitutes
a
voluntary
consensus
standard
or
not,
as
long
as
it
meets
the
performance
criteria
specified.
EPA
welcomes
comments
on
this
aspect
of
the
proposed
rulemaking
and,
specifically,
invites
the
public
to
identify
potentially­
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards
and
to
explain
why
such
standards
should
be
used
in
this
regulation.

X.
Executive
Order
12898:
Federal
Actions
to
Address
Environmental
Justice
in
Minority
Populations
and
Low­
Income
Populations
Executive
Order
12898,
"
Federal
Actions
to
Address
Environmental
Justice
in
Minority
Populations
and
Low­
Income
Populations"
(
February
11,
1994)
requires
us
to
complete
an
analysis
of
today's
rule
with
regard
to
equity
considerations.
The
Order
is
designed
to
address
the
environmental
and
human
health
conditions
of
minority
and
low­
income
populations.
This
section
briefly
discusses
potential
impacts
(
direct
or
disproportional)
today's
rule
may
have
in
the
area
of
environmental
justice.
To
comply
with
the
Executive
Order,
we
have
assessed
whether
today's
rule
may
have
negative
or
disproportionate
effects
on
minority
or
low­
income
populations.
We
have
recently
analyzed
demographic
data
from
the
U.
S.
Census.
Previously
we
examined
data
from
two
other
reports:
"
Race,
Ethnicity,
and
Poverty
Status
of
the
Populations
Living
Near
Cement
Plants
in
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

382
the
United
States"
(
EPA,
August
1994)
and
"
Race,
Ethnicity,
and
Poverty
Status
of
the
Populations
Living
Near
Hazardous
Waste
Incinerators
in
the
United
States"
(
EPA,
October
1994).
These
reports
examine
the
number
of
low­
income
and
minority
individuals
living
near
a
relatively
large
sample
of
cement
kilns
and
hazardous
waste
incinerators
and
provide
county,
state,
and
national
population
percentages
for
various
sub­
populations.
The
demographic
data
in
these
reports
provide
several
important
findings
when
examined
in
conjunction
with
the
risk
reductions
projected
from
today's
rule.
We
find
that
combustion
facilities,
in
general,
are
not
located
in
areas
with
disproportionately
high
minority
and
low­
income
populations.
However,
there
is
evidence
that
hazardous
waste
burning
cement
kilns
are
somewhat
more
likely
to
be
located
in
areas
that
have
relatively
higher
low­
income
populations.
Furthermore,
there
are
a
small
number
of
commercial
hazardous
waste
incinerators
located
in
highly
urbanized
areas
where
there
is
a
disproportionately
high
concentration
of
minorities
and
low­
income
populations
within
one
and
five
mile
radii.
The
reduced
emissions
at
these
facilities
due
to
today's
rule
could
represent
meaningful
environmental
and
health
improvements
for
these
populations.
Overall,
today's
rule
should
not
result
in
any
adverse
or
disproportional
health
or
safety
effects
on
minority
or
lowincome
populations.
Any
impacts
on
these
populations
are
likely
to
be
positive
due
to
the
reduction
in
emissions
from
combustion
facilities
near
minority
and
low­
income
population
groups.
The
Assessment
document
available
in
the
RCRA
docket
established
for
today's
rule
presents
the
full
Environmental
Justice
Analysis.

XI.
Congressional
Review
The
Congressional
Review
Act
(
CRA),
5
U.
S.
C.
§
801
et
seq.,
as
added
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996,
generally
provides
that
before
a
rule
may
take
effect,
the
agency
promulgating
the
rule
must
submit
a
rule
report,
which
includes
a
copy
of
the
rule,
to
each
House
of
the
Congress
and
to
the
Comptroller
General
of
the
United
States.
Prior
to
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register,
we
will
submit
all
necessary
information
to
the
U.
S.
Senate,
the
U.
S.
House
of
Representatives,
and
the
Comptroller
General
of
the
United
States.
Under
the
CRA,
a
major
rule
cannot
take
effect
until
60
days
after
it
is
published
in
the
Federal
Register.
As
proposed,
this
action
is
not
a
"
major
rule"
as
defined
by
5
U.
S.
C.
§
804(
2).
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

383
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants:
Final
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
for
Hazardous
Waste
Combustors
(
Phase
I
Final
Replacement
Standards
and
Phase
II)
Page
__
of
___
Pages.

List
of
Subjects
40
CFR
Part
63
Environmental
protection,
Air
pollution
control,
Hazardous
substances,
Incorporation
by
reference,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

40
CFR
Part
264
Environmental
protection,
Air
pollution
control,
Hazardous
waste,
Insurance,
Packaging
and
containers,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Security
measures,
Surety
bonds.

40
CFR
Part
265
Environmental
protection,
Air
pollution
control,
Hazardous
waste,
Insurance,
Packaging
and
containers,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

40
CFR
Part
266
Environmental
protection,
Energy,
Hazardous
waste,
Recycling,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

40
CFR
Part
270
Environmental
protection,
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Confidential
business
information,
Hazardous
materials
transportation,
Hazardous
waste,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

40
CFR
Part
271
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Hazardous
materials
transportation,
Hazardous
waste,
Intergovernmental
relations,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

_______________________
______________________
Michael
O.
Leavitt
Dated:
Administrator
6560­
50­
P
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

384
For
the
reasons
set
out
in
the
preamble,
title
40,
chapter
I,
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
is
proposed
to
be
amended
as
follows:

PART
63
 
NATIONAL
EMISSION
STANDARDS
FOR
HAZARDOUS
AIR
POLLUTANTS
FOR
SOURCE
CATEGORIES
1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
63
continues
to
read
as
follows:
Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
7401
et
seq.
2.
The
table
of
contents
of
part
63,
subpart
EEE,
is
amended
by
revising
to
read
as
follows:
Subpart
EEE
 
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
from
Hazardous
Waste
Combustors
GENERAL
Sec.
63.1200
Who
is
subject
to
these
regulations?
63.1201
Definitions
and
acronyms
used
in
this
subpart.
63.1202
[
Reserved]

EMISSIONS
STANDARDS
AND
OPERATING
LIMITS
FOR
INCINERATORS,
CEMENT
KILNS,
AND
LIGHTWEIGHT
AGGREGATE
KILNS
63.1203
What
are
the
standards
for
hazardous
waste
incinerators?
63.1203A
What
are
the
replacement
standards
for
hazardous
waste
incinerators?
63.1204
What
are
the
standards
for
hazardous
waste
burning
cement
kilns?
63.1204A
What
are
the
replacement
standards
for
hazardous
waste
burning
cement
kilns?
63.1205
What
are
the
standards
for
hazardous
waste
burning
lightweight
aggregate
kilns?
63.1205A
What
are
the
replacement
standards
for
hazardous
waste
burning
lightweight
aggregate
kilns?

MONITORING
AND
COMPLIANCE
PROVISIONS
63.1206
When
and
how
must
you
comply
with
the
standards
and
operating
requirements?
63.1207
What
are
the
performance
testing
requirements?
63.1208
What
are
the
test
methods?
63.1209
What
are
the
monitoring
requirements?

NOTIFICATION,
REPORTING
AND
RECORDKEEPING
63.1210
What
are
the
notification
requirements?
63.1211
What
are
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements?
63.1212
What
are
the
other
requirements
pertaining
to
the
NIC
and
associated
progress
reports?

OTHER
63.1213
How
can
the
compliance
date
be
extended
to
install
pollution
prevention
or
waste
minimization
controls?
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

385
63.1214
Implementation
and
enforcement.
63.1215
What
are
the
alternative
risk­
based
standards
for
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas?

EMISSIONS
STANDARDS
AND
OPERATING
LIMITS
FOR
SOLID
FUEL­
FIRED
BOILERS,
LIQUID
FUEL­
FIRED
BOILERS,
AND
HYDROCHLORIC
ACID
PRODUCTION
FURNANCES
63.1216
What
are
the
standards
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers?
63.1217
What
are
the
standards
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers?
63.1218
What
are
the
standards
for
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces?

TABLE
1
TO
SUBPART
EEE
OF
PART
63
 
GENERAL
PROVISIONS
APPLICABLE
TO
SUBPART
EEE
APPENDIX
A
TO
SUBPART
EEE
 
QUALITY
ASSURANCE
PROCEDURES
FOR
CONTINUOUS
EMISSIONS
MONITORS
USED
FOR
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
COMBUSTORS
32.
Section
63.1200
is
amended
by
revising
the
introductory
text
and
paragraph
(
a)(
2)
to
read
as
follows:
§
63.1200
Who
is
subject
to
these
regulations?
The
provisions
of
this
subpart
apply
to
all
hazardous
waste
combustors:
incinerators
that
burn
hazardous
waste,
cement
kilns
that
burn
hazardous
waste,
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
that
burn
hazardous
waste,
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
that
burn
hazardous
waste,
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
that
burn
hazardous
waste,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
that
burn
hazardous
waste.
Hazardous
waste
combustors
are
also
subject
to
applicable
requirements
under
parts
260­
270
of
this
chapter.
(
a)
*
*
*
(
2)
Both
area
sources
and
major
sources
subject
to
this
subpart,
but
not
previously
subject
to
title
V,
are
immediately
subject
to
the
requirement
to
apply
for
and
obtain
a
title
V
permit
in
all
States,
and
in
areas
covered
by
part
71
of
this
chapter.
*
*
*
*
*

43.
Section
63.2011201
is
amended
in
paragraph
(
a)
by
revising
the
definition
of
"
New
source",
and
adding
the
definition
ofs
for
"
Hydrochloric
acid
production
furnace",
"
Liquid
fuelfired
boiler",
and
"
Solid
fuel­
fired
boiler"
to
paragraph
(
a)
in
alphabetical
order
to
read
as
follows:
§
63.1201
Definitions
and
acronyms
used
in
this
subpart.
(
a)
*
*
*
Hydrochloric
acid
production
furnace
and
HCl
production
furnace
mean
a
halogen
acid
furnace
defined
in
§
260.10
of
this
chapter
that
produces
aqueous
hydrochloric
acid
(
HCl)
product
and
that
burns
hazardous
waste
at
any
time.
*
*
*
*
*
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

386
Liquid
fuel­
fired
boiler
and
liquid
boiler
mean
a
boiler
defined
in
§
260.10
of
this
chapter
that
does
not
burn
solid
fuels
and
that
burns
hazardous
waste
at
any
time.
Liquid
fuelfired
boiler
includes
boilers
that
only
burn
gaseous
fuels.
*
*
*
*
*
New
source
means
any
affected
source
the
construction
or
reconstruction
of
which
is
commenced
after
the
dates
specified
under
§
§
63.1206(
a)(
1)(
i)(
B),
(
a)(
1)(
ii)(
B),
and
(
a)(
2)(
ii).
*
*
*
*
*
Solid
fuel­
fired
boiler
and
solid
boiler
mean
a
boiler
defined
in
§
260.10
of
this
chapter
that
burns
a
solid
fuel
and
that
burns
hazardous
waste
at
any
time.
*
*
*
*
*
5.
Section
63.1203A
is
added
to
read
as
follows:

Text
Was
Moved
From
Here:
1
(
ii)
Hydrocarbons
in
excess
of
10
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane;
(
6)
Hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
in
excess
of
0.18
parts
per
million
by
volume,
combined
emissions,
expressed
as
a
chloride
(
Cl(­))
equivalent,
dry
basis
and
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
and
(
7)
Except
as
provided
by
paragraph
(
e)(
3),
particulate
matter
in
excess
of
1.6
mg/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
(
c)
Destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
standard.
(
1)
99.99%
DRE.
Except
as
provided
in
paragraph
(
c)(
2)
of
this
section,
you
must
achieve
a
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
of
99.99%
for
each
principle
organic
hazardous
constituent
(
POHC)
designated
under
paragraph
(
c)(
3)
of
this
section.
You
must
calculate
DRE
for
each
POHC
from
the
following
equation:
DRE
=
[
1
­
(
W
out
/
W
in)]
x
100%
Where:
W
in
=
mass
feedrate
of
one
POHC
in
a
waste
feedstream;
and
W
out
=
mass
emission
rate
of
the
same
POHC
present
in
exhaust
emissions
prior
to
release
to
the
atmosphere.
(
2)
99.9999%
DRE.
If
you
burn
the
dioxin­
listed
hazardous
wastes
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,
F026,
or
F027
(
see
§
261.31
of
this
chapter),
you
must
achieve
a
DRE
of
99.9999%
for
each
POHC
that
you
designate
under
paragraph
(
c)(
3)
of
this
section.
You
must
demonstrate
this
DRE
performance
on
POHCs
that
are
more
difficult
to
incinerate
than
tetra­,
penta­,
and
hexachlorodibenzo­
p­
dioxins
and
dibenzofurans.
You
must
use
the
equation
in
paragraph
(
c)(
1)
of
this
section
to
calculate
DRE
for
each
POHC.
In
addition,
you
must
notify
the
Administrator
of
your
intent
to
incinerate
hazardous
wastes
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,
F026,
or
F027.
(
3)
Principal
organic
hazardous
constituent
(
POHC).
(
i)
You
must
treat
each
POHC
in
the
waste
feed
that
you
specify
under
paragraph
(
c)(
3)(
ii)
of
this
section
to
the
extent
required
by
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
and
(
c)(
2)
of
this
section.
(
ii)
You
must
specify
one
or
more
POHCs
from
the
list
of
hazardous
air
pollutants
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

387
established
by
42
U.
S.
C.
7412(
b)(
1),
excluding
caprolactam
(
CAS
number
105602)
as
provided
by
§
63.60,
for
each
waste
to
be
burned.
You
must
base
this
specification
on
the
degree
of
difficulty
of
incineration
of
the
organic
constituents
in
the
waste
and
on
their
concentration
or
mass
in
the
waste
feed,
considering
the
results
of
waste
analyses
or
other
data
and
information.
(
d)
Significant
figures.
The
emission
limits
provided
by
paragraphs
(
a)
and
(
b)
of
this
section
are
presented
with
two
significant
figures.
Although
you
must
perform
intermediate
calculations
using
at
least
three
significant
figures,
you
may
round
the
resultant
emission
levels
to
two
significant
figures
to
document
compliance.
(
e)
Alternative
to
the
particulate
matter
standard
for
incinerators.
(
i)
General.
In
lieu
of
complying
with
the
applicable
particulate
matter
standards
of
paragraphs
(
a)(
7)
and
(
b)(
7)
of
this
section,
you
may
elect
to
comply
with
the
following
alternative
metal
emission
control
requirements:
(
ii)
Alternative
metal
emission
control
requirements
for
existing
sources.
(
A)
You
must
not
discharge
or
cause
combustion
gases
to
be
emitted
into
the
atmosphere
that
contain
cadmium,
lead,
and
selenium
in
excess
of
59
ug/
dscm,
combined
emissions,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
and,
(
B)
You
must
not
discharge
or
cause
combustion
gases
to
be
emitted
into
the
atmosphere
that
contain
antimony,
arsenic,
beryllium,
chromium,
cobalt,
manganese,
and
nickel
in
excess
of
84
ug/
dscm,
combined
emissions,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
(
iii)
Alternative
metal
emission
control
requirements
for
new
sources.
(
A)
You
must
not
discharge
or
cause
combustion
gases
to
be
emitted
into
the
atmosphere
that
contain
cadmium,
lead,
and
selenium
in
excess
of
6.5/
dscm,
combined
emissions,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
and,
(
B)
You
must
not
discharge
or
cause
combustion
gases
to
be
emitted
into
the
atmosphere
that
contain
antimony,
arsenic,
beryllium,
chromium,
cobalt,
manganese,
and
nickel
in
excess
of
8.9
ug/
dscm,
combined
emissions,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
6.
Section
63.1204A
is
added
to
read
as
follows:
§
63.1204A
What
are
the
replacement
standards
for
hazardous
waste
burning
cement
kilns?
(
a)
Emission
limits
for
existing
sources.
You
must
not
discharge
or
cause
combustion
gases
to
be
emitted
into
the
atmosphere
that
contain:
(
1)(
i)
Dioxin
and
furan
in
excess
of
0.20
ng
TEQ/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
or
(
ii)
Dioxin
and
furan
in
excess
of
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen
provided
that
the
combustion
gas
temperature
at
the
inlet
to
the
initial
dry
particulate
matter
control
device
is
400
°
F
or
lower
based
on
the
average
of
the
test
run
average
temperatures;
(
2)
Mercury
in
excess
of
64
ug/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
(
3)
In
excess
of
4.0
x
10­
4
lbs
combined
emissions
of
cadmium
and
lead
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
British
thermal
unit
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste;
(
4)
In
excess
of
1.4
x
10­
5
lbs
combined
emissions
of
arsenic,
beryllium,
and
chromium
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
British
thermal
unit
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste;
(
5)
Carbon
monoxide
and
hydrocarbons.
(
i)
For
kilns
equipped
with
a
by­
pass
duct
or
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

388
midkiln
gas
sampling
system,
either:
(
A)
Carbon
monoxide
in
the
by­
pass
duct
or
mid­
kiln
gas
sampling
system
in
excess
of
100
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis
and
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
If
you
elect
to
comply
with
this
carbon
monoxide
standard
rather
than
the
hydrocarbon
standard
under
paragraph
(
a)(
5)(
i)(
B)
of
this
section,
you
must
also
document
that,
during
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
test
runs
or
their
equivalent
as
provided
by
§
63.1206(
b)(
7),
hydrocarbons
in
the
by­
pass
duct
or
mid­
kiln
gas
sampling
system
do
not
exceed
10
parts
per
million
by
volume
during
those
runs,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane;
or
(
B)
Hydrocarbons
in
the
by­
pass
duct
or
midkiln
gas
sampling
system
in
excess
of
10
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane;
(
ii)
For
kilns
not
equipped
with
a
by­
pass
duct
or
midkiln
gas
sampling
system,
either:
(
A)
Hydrocarbons
in
the
main
stack
in
excess
of
20
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane;
or
(
B)
Carbon
monoxide
in
the
main
stack
in
excess
of
100
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis
and
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
If
you
elect
to
comply
with
this
carbon
monoxide
standard
rather
than
the
hydrocarbon
standard
under
paragraph
(
a)(
5)(
ii)(
A)
of
this
section,
you
also
must
document
that,
during
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
test
runs
or
their
equivalent
as
provided
by
§
63.1206(
b)(
7),
hydrocarbons
in
the
main
stack
do
not
exceed
20
parts
per
million
by
volume
during
those
runs,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane.
(
6)
Hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
in
excess
of
110
parts
per
million
by
volume,
combined
emissions,
expressed
as
a
chloride
(
Cl(­))
equivalent,
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
and
(
7)
Particulate
matter
in
excess
of
65
mg/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
(
b)
Emission
limits
for
new
sources.
You
must
not
discharge
or
cause
combustion
gases
to
be
emitted
into
the
atmosphere
that
contain:
(
1)(
i)
Dioxin
and
furan
in
excess
of
0.20
ng
TEQ/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
or
(
ii)
Dioxin
and
furan
in
excess
of
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen
provided
that
the
combustion
gas
temperature
at
the
inlet
to
the
initial
dry
particulate
matter
control
device
is
400
°
F
or
lower
based
on
the
average
of
the
test
run
average
temperatures;
(
2)
Mercury
in
excess
of
35
ug/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
(
3)
In
excess
of
6.2
x
10­
5
lbs
combined
emissions
of
cadmium
and
lead
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
British
thermal
unit
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste;
(
4)
In
excess
of
1.4
x
10­
5
lbs
combined
emissions
of
arsenic,
beryllium,
and
chromium
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

389
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
British
thermal
unit
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste;
(
5)
Carbon
monoxide
and
hydrocarbons.
(
i)
For
kilns
equipped
with
a
by­
pass
duct
or
midkiln
gas
sampling
system,
carbon
monoxide
and
hydrocarbons
emissions
are
limited
in
both
the
bypass
duct
or
midkiln
gas
sampling
system
and
the
main
stack
as
follows:
(
A)
Emissions
in
the
by­
pass
or
midkiln
gas
sampling
system
are
limited
to
either:
(
1)
Carbon
monoxide
in
excess
of
100
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis
and
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
If
you
elect
to
comply
with
this
carbon
monoxide
standard
rather
than
the
hydrocarbon
standard
under
paragraph
(
b)(
5)(
i)(
A)(
2)
of
this
section,
you
also
must
document
that,
during
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
test
runs
or
their
equivalent
as
provided
by
§
63.1206(
b)(
7),
hydrocarbons
do
not
exceed
10
parts
per
million
by
volume
during
those
runs,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane;
or
(
2)
Hydrocarbons
in
the
by­
pass
duct
or
midkiln
gas
sampling
system
in
excess
of
10
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane;
and
(
B)
Hydrocarbons
in
the
main
stack
are
limited,
if
construction
of
the
kiln
commenced
after
April
19,
1996
at
a
plant
site
where
a
cement
kiln
(
whether
burning
hazardous
waste
or
not)
did
not
previously
exist,
to
50
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
a
30­
day
block
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane.
(
ii)
For
kilns
not
equipped
with
a
by­
pass
duct
or
midkiln
gas
sampling
system,
hydrocarbons
and
carbon
monoxide
are
limited
in
the
main
stack
to
either:
(
A)
Hydrocarbons
not
exceeding
20
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane;
or
(
B)(
1)
Carbon
monoxide
not
exceeding
100
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
and
(
2)
Hydrocarbons
not
exceeding
20
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane
at
any
time
during
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
test
runs
or
their
equivalent
as
provided
by
§
63.1206(
b)(
7);
and
(
3)
If
construction
of
the
kiln
commenced
after
April
19,
1996
at
a
plant
site
where
a
cement
kiln
(
whether
burning
hazardous
waste
or
not)
did
not
previously
exist,
hydrocarbons
are
limited
to
50
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
a
30­
day
block
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane.
(
6)
Hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
in
excess
of
78
parts
per
million,
combined
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

390
emissions,
expressed
as
a
chloride
(
Cl(­))
equivalent,
dry
basis
and
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
and
(
7)
Particulate
matter
in
excess
of
13
mg/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
(
c)
Destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
standard.
(
1)
99.99%
DRE.
Except
as
provided
in
paragraph
(
c)(
2)
of
this
section,
you
must
achieve
a
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
of
99.99%
for
each
principle
organic
hazardous
constituent
(
POHC)
designated
under
paragraph
(
c)(
3)
of
this
section.
You
must
calculate
DRE
for
each
POHC
from
the
following
equation:
DRE
=
[
1
­
(
W
out
/
W
in)]
x
100%
Where:
W
in
=
mass
feedrate
of
one
POHC
in
a
waste
feedstream;
and
W
out
=
mass
emission
rate
of
the
same
POHC
present
in
exhaust
emissions
prior
to
release
to
the
atmosphere.
(
2)
99.9999%
DRE.
If
you
burn
the
dioxin­
listed
hazardous
wastes
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,
F026,
or
F027
(
see
§
261.31
of
this
chapter),
you
must
achieve
a
DRE
of
99.9999%
for
each
POHC
that
you
designate
under
paragraph
(
c)(
3)
of
this
section.
You
must
demonstrate
this
DRE
performance
on
POHCs
that
are
more
difficult
to
incinerate
than
tetra­,
penta­,
and
hexachlorodibenzo­
p­
dioxins
and
dibenzofurans.
You
must
use
the
equation
in
paragraph
(
c)(
1)
of
this
section
to
calculate
DRE
for
each
POHC.
In
addition,
you
must
notify
the
Administrator
of
your
intent
to
incinerate
hazardous
wastes
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,
F026,
or
F027.
(
3)
Principal
organic
hazardous
constituent
(
POHC).
(
i)
You
must
treat
each
POHC
in
the
waste
feed
that
you
specify
under
paragraph
(
c)(
3)(
ii)
of
this
section
to
the
extent
required
by
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
and
(
c)(
2)
of
this
section.
(
ii)
You
must
specify
one
or
more
POHCs
from
the
list
of
hazardous
air
pollutants
established
by
42
U.
S.
C.
7412(
b)(
1),
excluding
caprolactam
(
CAS
number
105602)
as
provided
by
§
63.60,
for
each
waste
to
be
burned.
You
must
base
this
specification
on
the
degree
of
difficulty
of
incineration
of
the
organic
constituents
in
the
waste
and
on
their
concentration
or
mass
in
the
waste
feed,
considering
the
results
of
waste
analyses
or
other
data
and
information.
(
d)
Cement
kilns
with
in­
line
kiln
raw
mills.
The
provisions
of
§
63.1204(
d)
apply.
(
1)
General.
(
i)
You
must
conduct
performance
testing
when
the
raw
mill
is
on­
line
and
when
the
mill
is
off­
line
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
emission
standards,
and
you
must
establish
separate
operating
parameter
limits
under
§
63.1209
for
each
mode
of
operation,
except
as
provided
by
paragraph
(
d)(
1)(
iv)
of
this
section.
(
ii)
You
must
document
in
the
operating
record
each
time
you
change
from
one
mode
of
operation
to
the
alternate
mode
and
begin
complying
with
the
operating
parameter
limits
for
that
alternate
mode
of
operation.
(
iii)
You
must
establish
rolling
averages
for
the
operating
parameter
limits
anew
(
i.
e.,
without
considering
previous
recordings)
when
you
begin
complying
with
the
operating
limits
for
the
alternate
mode
of
operation.
(
iv)
If
your
in­
line
kiln
raw
mill
has
dual
stacks,
you
may
assume
that
the
dioxin/
furan
emission
levels
in
the
by­
pass
stack
and
the
operating
parameter
limits
determined
during
performance
testing
of
the
by­
pass
stack
when
the
raw
mill
is
off­
line
are
the
same
as
when
the
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

391
mill
is
on­
line.
(
2)
Emissions
averaging.
You
may
comply
with
the
mercury,
semivolatile
metal,
low
volatile
metal,
and
hydrochloric
acid/
chlorine
gas
emission
standards
on
a
time­
weighted
average
basis
under
the
following
procedures:
(
i)
Averaging
methodology.
You
must
calculate
the
time­
weighted
average
emission
concentration
with
the
following
equation:
C
total
=
{
C
mill­
off
x
(
T
mill­
off
/(
T
mill­
off
+
T
mill­
on
))}
+
{
C
mill­
on
x
(
T
mill­
on
/(
T
mill­
off
+
T
mill­
on
))}
Where:
C
total
=
time­
weighted
average
concentration
of
a
regulated
constituent
considering
both
raw
mill
on
time
and
off
time;
C
mill­
off
=
average
performance
test
concentration
of
regulated
constituent
with
the
raw
mill
offline
C
mill­
on
=
average
performance
test
concentration
of
regulated
constituent
with
the
raw
mill
online
T
mill­
off
=
time
when
kiln
gases
are
not
routed
through
the
raw
mill;
and
T
mill­
on
=
time
when
kiln
gases
are
routed
through
the
raw
mill.
(
ii)
Compliance.
(
A)
If
you
use
this
emission
averaging
provision,
you
must
document
in
the
operating
record
compliance
with
the
emission
standards
on
an
annual
basis
by
using
the
equation
provided
by
paragraph
(
d)(
2)
of
this
section.
(
B)
Compliance
is
based
on
one­
year
block
averages
beginning
on
the
day
you
submit
the
initial
notification
of
compliance.
(
iii)
Notification.
(
A)
If
you
elect
to
document
compliance
with
one
or
more
emission
standards
using
this
emission
averaging
provision,
you
must
notify
the
Administrator
in
the
initial
comprehensive
performance
test
plan
submitted
under
§
63.1207(
e).
(
B)
You
must
include
historical
raw
mill
operation
data
in
the
performance
test
plan
to
estimate
future
raw
mill
down­
time
and
document
in
the
performance
test
plan
that
estimated
emissions
and
estimated
raw
mill
down­
time
will
not
result
in
an
exceedance
of
an
emission
standard
on
an
annual
basis.
(
C)
You
must
document
in
the
notification
of
compliance
submitted
under
§
63.1207(
j)
that
an
emission
standard
will
not
be
exceeded
based
on
the
documented
emissions
from
the
performance
test
and
predicted
raw
mill
down­
time.
(
e)
Preheater
or
preheater/
precalciner
kilns
with
dual
stacks.
(
1)
General.
You
must
conduct
performance
testing
on
each
stack
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
emission
standards,
and
you
must
establish
operating
parameter
limits
under
§
63.1209
for
each
stack,
except
as
provided
by
paragraph
(
d)(
1)(
iv)
of
this
section
for
dioxin/
furan
emissions
testing
and
operating
parameter
limits
for
the
by­
pass
stack
of
in­
line
raw
mills.
(
2)
Emissions
averaging.
You
may
comply
with
the
mercury,
semivolatile
metal,
low
volatile
metal,
and
hydrochloric
acid/
chlorine
gas
emission
standards
specified
in
this
section
on
a
gas
flowrate­
weighted
average
basis
under
the
following
procedures:
(
i)
Averaging
methodology.
You
must
calculate
the
gas
flowrate­
weighted
average
emission
concentration
using
the
following
equation:
C
tot
=
{
C
main
x
(
Q
main
/(
Q
main
+
Q
bypass))}
+
{
C
bypass
x
(
Q
bypass
/
(
Q
main
+
Q
bypass))}
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

392
Where:
C
tot
=
gas
flowrate­
weighted
average
concentration
of
the
regulated
constituent;
C
main
=
average
performance
test
concentration
demonstrated
in
the
main
stack;
C
bypass
=
average
performance
test
concentration
demonstrated
in
the
bypass
stack;
Q
main
=
volumetric
flowrate
of
main
stack
effluent
gas;
and
Q
bypass
=
volumetric
flowrate
of
bypass
effluent
gas.
(
ii)
Compliance.
(
A)
You
must
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
emission
standard(
s)
using
the
emission
concentrations
determined
from
the
performance
tests
and
the
equation
provided
by
paragraph
(
e)(
1)
of
this
section;
and
(
B)
You
must
develop
operating
parameter
limits
for
bypass
stack
and
main
stack
flowrates
that
ensure
the
emission
concentrations
calculated
with
the
equation
in
paragraph
(
e)(
1)
of
this
section
do
not
exceed
the
emission
standards
on
a
12­
hour
rolling
average
basis.
You
must
include
these
flowrate
limits
in
the
Notification
of
Compliance.
(
iii)
Notification.
If
you
elect
to
document
compliance
under
this
emissions
averaging
provision,
you
must:
(
A)
Notify
the
Administrator
in
the
initial
comprehensive
performance
test
plan
submitted
under
§
63.1207(
e).
The
performance
test
plan
must
include,
at
a
minimum,
information
describing
the
flowrate
limits
established
under
paragraph
(
e)(
2)(
ii)(
B)
of
this
section;
and
(
B)
Document
in
the
Notification
of
Compliance
submitted
under
§
63.1207(
j)
the
demonstrated
gas
flowrate­
weighted
average
emissions
that
you
calculate
with
the
equation
provided
by
paragraph
(
e)(
2)
of
this
section.
(
f)
Significant
figures.
The
emission
limits
provided
by
paragraphs
(
a)
and
(
b)
of
this
section
are
presented
with
two
significant
figures.
Although
you
must
perform
intermediate
calculations
using
at
least
three
significant
figures,
you
may
round
the
resultant
emission
levels
to
two
significant
figures
to
document
compliance.
(
g)
[
Reserved].
(
h)
When
you
comply
with
the
particulate
matter
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
a)(
7)
or
(
b)(
7)
of
this
section,
you
are
exempt
from
the
New
Source
Performance
Standard
for
particulate
matter
and
opacity
under
§
60.60
of
this
chapter.
7.
Section
63.1205A
is
added
to
read
as
follows:
§
63.1205A
What
are
the
replacement
standards
for
hazardous
waste
burning
lightweight
aggregate
kilns?
(
a)
Emission
limits
for
existing
sources.
You
must
not
discharge
or
cause
combustion
gases
to
be
emitted
into
the
atmosphere
that
contain:
(
1)
Dioxins
and
furans
in
excess
of
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
(
2)
Mercury
in
excess
of
67
ug/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
(
3)(
i)
In
excess
of
3.1
x
10­
4
lbs
combined
emissions
of
cadmium
and
lead
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
British
thermal
unit
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste;
and
(
ii)
Lead
and
cadmium
in
excess
of
250
ug/
dscm,
combined
emissions,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
(
4)(
ii)
In
excess
of
9.5
x
10­
5
lbs
combined
emissions
of
arsenic,
beryllium,
and
chromium
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
British
thermal
unit
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

393
waste;
and
(
ii)
Arsenic,
beryllium,
and
chromium
in
excess
of
110
ug/
dscm,
combined
emissions,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
(
5)
Carbon
monoxide
and
hydrocarbons.
(
i)
Carbon
monoxide
in
excess
of
100
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis
and
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
If
you
elect
to
comply
with
this
carbon
monoxide
standard
rather
than
the
hydrocarbon
standard
under
paragraph
(
a)(
5)(
ii)
of
this
section,
you
also
must
document
that,
during
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
test
runs
or
their
equivalent
as
provided
by
§
63.1206(
b)(
7),
hydrocarbons
do
not
exceed
20
parts
per
million
by
volume
during
those
runs,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane;
or
(
ii)
Hydrocarbons
in
excess
of
20
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average,
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane;

(
7)
Particulate
matter
in
excess
of
57
mg/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
(
b)
Emission
limits
for
new
sources.
You
must
not
discharge
or
cause
combustion
gases
to
be
emitted
into
the
atmosphere
that
contain:
(
1)
Dioxins
and
furans
in
excess
of
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
(
2)
Mercury
in
excess
of
67
ug/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
(
3)(
i)
In
excess
of
2.4
x
10­
5
lbs
combined
emissions
of
cadmium
and
lead
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
British
thermal
unit
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste;
and
(
ii)
Lead
and
cadmium
in
excess
of
43
ug/
dscm,
combined
emissions,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
(
4)(
i)
In
excess
of
3.2
x
10­
5
lbs
combined
emissions
of
arsenic,
beryllium,
and
chromium
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
British
thermal
unit
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste;
and
(
ii)
Arsenic,
beryllium,
and
chromium
in
excess
of
110
ug/
dscm,
combined
emissions,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
(
5)
Carbon
monoxide
and
hydrocarbons.
(
i)
Carbon
monoxide
in
excess
of
100
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis
and
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
If
you
elect
to
comply
with
this
carbon
monoxide
standard
rather
than
the
hydrocarbon
standard
under
paragraph
(
b)(
5)(
ii)
of
this
section,
you
also
must
document
that,
during
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
test
runs
or
their
equivalent
as
provided
by
§
63.1206(
b)(
7),
hydrocarbons
do
not
exceed
20
parts
per
million
by
volume
during
those
runs,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane;
or
(
ii)
Hydrocarbons
in
excess
of
20
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average,
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane;
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

394
(
6)
Hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
in
excess
of
150
parts
per
million
by
volume,
combined
emissions,
expressed
as
a
chloride
(
Cl(­))
equivalent,
dry
basis
and
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
and
(
7)
Particulate
matter
in
excess
of
23
mg/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
(
c)
Destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
standard.
(
1)
99.99%
DRE.
Except
as
provided
in
paragraph
(
c)(
2)
of
this
section,
you
must
achieve
a
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
of
99.99%
for
each
principal
organic
hazardous
constituent
(
POHC)
designated
under
paragraph
(
c)(
3)
of
this
section.
You
must
calculate
DRE
for
each
POHC
from
the
following
equation:
DRE
=
[
1
­
(
W
out
/
W
in)]
x
100%
Where:
W
in
=
mass
feedrate
of
one
POHC
in
a
waste
feedstream;
and
W
out
=
mass
emission
rate
of
the
same
POHC
present
in
exhaust
emissions
prior
to
release
to
the
atmosphere.
(
2)
99.9999%
DRE.
If
you
burn
the
dioxin­
listed
hazardous
wastes
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,
F026,
or
F027
(
see
§
261.31
of
this
chapter),
you
must
achieve
a
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
of
99.9999%
for
each
POHC
that
you
designate
under
paragraph
(
c)(
3)
of
this
section.
You
must
demonstrate
this
DRE
performance
on
POHCs
that
are
more
difficult
to
incinerate
than
tetra­,
penta­,
and
hexachlorodibenzo­
dioxins
and
dibenzofurans.
You
must
use
the
equation
in
paragraph
(
c)(
1)
of
this
section
to
calculate
DRE
for
each
POHC.
In
addition,
you
must
notify
the
Administrator
of
your
intent
to
burn
hazardous
wastes
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,
F026,
or
F027.
(
3)
Principal
organic
hazardous
constituents
(
POHCs).
(
i)
You
must
treat
each
POHC
in
the
waste
feed
that
you
specify
under
paragraph
(
c)(
3)(
ii)
of
this
section
to
the
extent
required
by
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
and
(
c)(
2)
of
this
section.
(
ii)
You
must
specify
one
or
more
POHCs
from
the
list
of
hazardous
air
pollutants
established
by
42
U.
S.
C.
7412(
b)(
1),
excluding
caprolactam
(
CAS
number
105602)
as
provided
by
§
63.60,
for
each
waste
to
be
burned.
You
must
base
this
specification
on
the
degree
of
difficulty
of
incineration
of
the
organic
constituents
in
the
waste
and
on
their
concentration
or
mass
in
the
waste
feed,
considering
the
results
of
waste
analyses
or
other
data
and
information.
(
d)
Significant
figures.
The
emission
limits
provided
by
paragraphs
(
a)
and
(
b)
of
this
section
are
presented
with
two
significant
figures.
Although
you
must
perform
intermediate
calculations
using
at
least
three
significant
figures,
you
may
round
the
resultant
emission
levels
to
two
significant
figures
to
document
compliance.
84.
Section
63.1206
is
amended
by:
a.
Revising
paragraph
(
a).
b.
Revising
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)(
ii),
(
b)(
6)
introductory
text,
(
b)(
7)(
i)(
A),
(
b)(
9)(
i)
introductory
text,
(
b)(
10)(
i)
introductory
text,
(
b)(
11),
(
b)(
13)(
i)
introductory
text,
and
(
b)(
13)(
ii).
c.
Revising
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)(
i)
introductory
text
and
(
c)(
7)(
ii)
introductory
text.
d.
Adding
paragraphs
(
c)(
7)(
ii)(
C)
and
(
c)(
7)(
iii).
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

395
The
revisions
and
additions
read
as
follows:
§
63.1206
When
and
how
must
you
comply
with
the
standards
and
operating
requirements?
(
a)
Compliance
dates.
(
1)
Compliance
dates
for
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
that
burn
hazardous
waste.
(
i)
Compliance
date
for
standards
under
§
§
63.1203,
63.1204,
and
63.1205.
(
A)
Compliance
dates
for
existing
sources.
You
must
comply
with
the
emission
standards
under
§
§
63.1203,
63.1204,
and
63.1205
and
the
other
requirements
of
this
subpart
no
later
than
the
compliance
date,
September
30,
2003,
unless
the
Administrator
grants
you
an
extension
of
time
under
§
63.6(
i)
or
§
63.1213.
(
B)
New
or
reconstructed
sources.
(
1)
If
you
commenced
construction
or
reconstruction
of
your
hazardous
waste
combustor
after
April
19,
1996,
you
must
comply
with
the
emission
standards
under
§
§
63.1203,
63.1204,
and
63.1205
and
the
other
requirements
of
this
subpart
by
the
later
of
September
30,
1999
or
the
date
the
source
starts
operations,
except
as
provided
by
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
i)(
B)(
2)
of
this
section.
The
costs
of
retrofitting
and
replacement
of
equipment
that
is
installed
specifically
to
comply
with
this
subpart,
between
April
19,
1996
and
a
source's
compliance
date,
are
not
considered
to
be
reconstruction
costs.
(
2)
For
a
standard
under
§
§
63.1203,
63.1204,
and
63.1205
that
is
more
stringent
than
the
standard
proposed
on
April
19,
1996,
you
may
achieve
compliance
no
later
than
September
30,
2003
if
you
comply
with
the
standard
proposed
on
April
19,
1996
after
September
30,
1999.
This
exception
does
not
apply,
however,
to
new
or
reconstructed
area
source
hazardous
waste
combustors
that
become
major
sources
after
September
30,
1999.
As
provided
by
§
63.6(
b)(
7),
such
sources
must
comply
with
the
standards
under
§
§
63.1203,
63.1204,
and
63.1205
at
startup.
(
ii)
Compliance
date
for
standards
under
§
§
63.1203A1219,
63.1204A1220,
and
63.1205A1221.
(
A)
Compliance
dates
for
existing
sources.
You
must
comply
with
the
emission
standards
under
§
§
63.1203A1219,
63.1204A1220,
and
63.1205A1221
and
the
other
requirements
of
this
subpart
no
later
than
the
compliance
date,
[
insert
date
three
years
after
date
of
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register],
unless
the
Administrator
grants
you
an
extension
of
time
under
§
63.6(
i)
or
§
63.1213.
(
B)
New
or
reconstructed
sources.
(
1)
If
you
commenced
construction
or
reconstruction
of
your
hazardous
waste
combustor
after
[
insert
date
of
publication
of
theis
proposed
rule
in
the
Federal
Register],
you
must
comply
with
the
emission
standards
under
§
§
63.1203A1219,
63.1204A1220,
and
63.1205A1221
and
the
other
requirements
of
this
subpart
by
the
later
of
[
insert
date
of
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register]
or
the
date
the
source
starts
operations,
except
as
provided
by
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
ii)(
B)(
2)
of
this
section.
The
costs
of
retrofitting
and
replacement
of
equipment
that
is
installed
specifically
to
comply
with
this
subpart,
between
[
insert
date
of
publication
of
this
proposed
rule
in
the
Federal
Register]
and
a
source's
compliance
date,
are
not
considered
to
be
reconstruction
costs.
(
2)
For
a
standard
under
§
§
63.1203A1219,
63.1204A1220,
and
63.1205A1221
that
is
more
stringent
than
the
standard
proposed
on
[
insert
date
of
publication
of
this
proposed
rule
in
the
Federal
Register],
you
may
achieve
compliance
no
later
than
[
insert
date
three
years
after
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

396
date
of
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register]
if
you
comply
with
the
standard
proposed
on
[
insert
date
of
publication
of
this
proposed
rule
in
the
Federal
Register]
after
[
insert
date
of
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register].
This
exception
does
not
apply,
however,
to
new
or
reconstructed
area
source
hazardous
waste
combustors
that
become
major
sources
after
[
insert
date
three
years
after
date
of
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register].
As
provided
by
§
63.6(
b)(
7),
such
sources
must
comply
with
the
standards
under
§
§
63.1203A1219,
63.1204A1220,
and
63.1205A1221
at
startup.
(
2)
Compliance
dates
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
and
hydrogen
chloride
production
furnaces
that
burn
hazardous
waste
for
standards
under
§
§
63.1216,
63.1217,
and
63.1218.
(
i)
Compliance
date
for
existing
sources.
You
must
comply
with
the
standards
of
this
subpart
no
later
than
the
compliance
date,
[
insert
date
three
years
after
date
of
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register],
unless
the
Administrator
grants
you
an
extension
of
time
under
§
63.6(
i)
or
§
63.1213.
(
ii)
New
or
reconstructed
sources.
(
A)
If
you
commenced
construction
or
reconstruction
of
your
hazardous
waste
combustor
after
[
insert
date
of
publication
of
theis
proposed
rule
in
the
Federal
Register],
you
must
comply
with
this
subpart
by
the
later
of
[
insert
date
of
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register]
or
the
date
the
source
starts
operations,
except
as
provided
by
paragraph
(
a)(
2)(
ii)(
B)
of
this
section.
The
costs
of
retrofitting
and
replacement
of
equipment
that
is
installed
specifically
to
comply
with
this
subpart,
between
[
insert
date
of
publication
of
theis
proposed
rule
in
the
Federal
Register]
and
a
source's
compliance
date,
are
not
considered
to
be
reconstruction
costs.
(
B)
For
a
standard
in
the
subpart
that
is
more
stringent
than
the
standard
proposed
on
[
insert
date
of
publication
of
theis
proposed
rule
in
the
Federal
Register],
you
may
achieve
compliance
no
later
than
[
insert
date
three
years
after
date
of
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register]
if
you
comply
with
the
standard
proposed
on
[
insert
date
of
publication
of
theis
proposed
rule
in
the
Federal
Register]
after
[
insert
date
of
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register]
This
exception
does
not
apply,
however,
to
new
or
reconstructed
area
source
hazardous
waste
combustors
that
become
major
sources
after
[
insert
date
three
years
after
date
of
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register].
As
provided
by
§
63.6(
b)(
7),
such
sources
must
comply
with
this
subpart
at
startup.
(
3)
Early
compliance.
If
you
choose
to
comply
with
the
emission
standards
of
this
subpart
prior
to
the
dates
specified
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
and
(
a)(
2)
of
this
section,
your
compliance
date
is
the
earlier
of
the
date
you
postmark
the
Notification
of
Compliance
under
§
63.1207(
j)(
1)
or
the
dates
specified
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
and
(
a)(
2)
of
this
section.
(
b)
*
*
*
(
1)
*
*
*
(
ii)
When
hazardous
waste
is
not
in
the
combustion
chamber
(
i.
e.,
the
hazardous
waste
feed
to
the
combustor
has
been
cut
off
for
a
period
of
time
not
less
than
the
hazardous
waste
residence
time)
and
you
have
documented
in
the
operating
record
that
you
are
complying
with
all
otherwise
applicable
requirements
and
standards
promulgated
under
authority
of
sections
112
(
e.
g.,
subparts
LLL,
NNNNN,
DDDDD)
or
129
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
in
lieu
of
the
emission
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

397
standards
under
§
§
63.1203,
63.1203A,
63.1204,
63.1204A,
63.1205,
63.1205A,
63.1215,
63.1216,
63.1217,
63.1218,
63.1219,
and
63.121820;
the
monitoring
and
compliance
standards
of
this
section
and
§
§
63.1207
through
63.1209,
except
the
modes
of
operation
requirements
of
§
63.1209(
q);
and
the
notification,
reporting,
and
recordkeeping
requirements
of
§
§
63.1210
through
63.1212.
*
*
*
*
*
(
6)
Compliance
with
the
carbon
monoxide
and
hydrocarbon
emission
standards.
This
paragraph
applies
to
sources
that
elect
to
comply
with
the
carbon
monoxide
and
hydrocarbon
emissions
standards
of
this
subpart
by
documenting
continuous
compliance
with
the
carbon
monoxide
standard
using
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system
and
documenting
compliance
with
the
hydrocarbon
standard
during
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
performance
test
or
its
equivalent.
*
*
*
*
*
(
7)
*
*
*
(
i)
*
*
*
(
A)
You
must
document
compliance
with
the
Destruction
and
Removal
Efficiency
(
DRE)
standard
under
this
subpart
only
once
provided
that
you
do
not
modify
the
source
after
the
DRE
test
in
a
manner
that
could
affect
the
ability
of
the
source
to
achieve
the
DRE
standard.
*
*
*
*
*
(
9)
*
*
*
(
i)
You
may
petition
the
Administrator
to
recommend
alternative
semivolatile
metal,
low
volatile
metal,
mercury,
or
hydrogen
chloride/
chlorine
gas
emission
standards
under
§
63.1205
if:
*
*
*
*
*
(
10)
*
*
*
(
i)
You
may
petition
the
Administrator
to
recommend
alternative
semivolatile
metal,
low
volatile
metal,
mercury,
or
hydrogen
chloride/
chlorine
gas
emission
standards
under
§
63.1204
if:
*
*
*
*
*
(
11)
Calculation
of
hazardous
waste
residence
time.
You
must
calculate
the
hazardous
waste
residence
time
and
include
the
calculation
in
the
performance
test
plan
under
§
63.1207(
f)
and
the
operating
record.
You
must
also
provide
the
hazardous
waste
residence
time
in
the
Documentation
of
Compliance
under
§
63.1211(
d)
and
the
Notification
of
Compliance
under
§
§
63.1207(
j)
and
63.1210(
d).
*
*
*
*
*
(
13)
*
*
*
(
i)
Cement
kilns
that
feed
hazardous
waste
at
a
location
other
than
the
end
where
products
are
normally
discharged
and
where
fuels
are
normally
fired
must
comply
with
the
carbon
monoxide
and
hydrocarbon
standards
of
this
subpart
as
follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(
ii)
Lightweight
aggregate
kilns
that
feed
hazardous
waste
at
a
location
other
than
the
end
where
products
are
normally
discharged
and
where
fuels
are
normally
fired
must
comply
with
the
hydrocarbon
standards
of
this
subpart
as
follows:
(
A)
Existing
sources
must
comply
with
the
20
parts
per
million
by
volume
hydrocarbon
standard
of
this
subpart;
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

398
(
B)
New
sources
must
comply
with
the
20
parts
per
million
by
volume
hydrocarbon
standard
of
this
subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
(
c)
*
*
*
(
1)
*
*
*
(
i)
You
must
operate
only
under
the
operating
requirements
specified
in
the
Documentation
of
Compliance
under
§
63.1211(
d)
or
the
Notification
of
Compliance
under
§
§
63.1207(
j)
and
63.1210(
d),
except:
*
*
*
*
*
(
7)
*
*
*
(
ii)
Bag
leak
detection
system
requirements.
If
your
combustor
is
equipped
with
a
baghouse
(
fabric
filter),
you
must
continuously
operate
a
bag
leak
detection
system
that
meets
the
specifications
and
requirements
of
paragraph
(
c)(
7)(
ii)(
A)
of
this
section
and
you
must
comply
with
the
corrective
measures
requirements
of
paragraph
(
c)(
7)(
ii)(
B)
of
this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
(
C)
Excessive
exceedances
notification.
If
you
operate
the
combustor
when
the
detector
response
exceeds
the
alarm
set­
point
more
than
5
percent
of
the
time
during
any
6­
month
block
time
period,
you
must
submit
a
notification
to
the
Administrator
within
5
days
that
describes
the
causes
of
the
exceedances
and
the
revisions
to
the
design,
operation,
or
maintenance
of
the
combustor
or
baghouse
you
are
taking
to
minimize
exceedances.
(
iii)
Particulate
matter
detection
system
requirements
for
electrostatic
precipitators
and
ionizing
wet
scrubbers.
If
your
combustor
is
equipped
with
an
electrostatic
precipitator
or
ionizing
wet
scrubber,
and
you
elect
not
to
establish
under
§
63.1209(
m)(
1)(
iv)
site­
specific
operating
parameter
limits
that
are
linked
to
the
automatic
waste
feed
cutoff
system
under
paragraph
(
c)(
3)
of
this
section,
you
must
continuously
operate
a
particulate
matter
detection
system
that
meets
the
specifications
and
requirements
of
paragraph
(
c)(
7)(
iii)(
A)
of
this
section
and
you
must
comply
with
the
corrective
measures
requirements
of
paragraph
(
c)(
7)(
iii)(
B)
of
this
section.
(
A)
Particulate
matter
detection
system
requirements­­(
1)
The
particulate
matter
detection
system
must
be
certified
by
the
manufacturer
to
be
capable
of
continuously
detecting
and
recording
particulate
matter
emissions
at
the
loadings
you
expect
to
achieve
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test;
(
2)
The
particulate
matter
detector
shall
provide
output
of
relative
or
absolute
particulate
matter
loadings;
(
3)
The
particulate
matter
detection
system
shall
be
equipped
with
an
alarm
system
that
will
sound
an
audible
alarm
when
an
increase
in
relative
or
absolute
particulate
loadings
is
detected
over
the
set­
point
(
4)
You
must
install
and
operate
the
particulate
matter
detection
system
in
a
manner
consistent
with
available
written
guidance
from
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
or,
in
the
absence
of
such
written
guidance,
the
manufacturer's
written
specifications
and
recommendations
for
installation,
operation,
and
adjustment
of
the
system;
(
5)
You
must
establish
the
alarm
set­
point
as
the
average
detector
response
of
the
test
run
averages
achieved
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
demonstrating
compliance
with
the
particulate
matter
emission
standard.
You
must
comply
with
the
alarm
set­
point
on
a
6­
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

399
hour
rolling
average,
updated
each
hour
with
a
one­
hour
block
average
that
is
the
average
of
the
detector
responses
over
each
15­
minute
block.
(
6)
Where
multiple
detectors
are
required
to
monitor
multiple
control
devices,
the
system's
instrumentation
and
alarm
system
may
be
shared
among
the
detectors.
(
B)
Particulate
matter
detection
system
corrective
measures
requirements.
The
operating
and
maintenance
plan
required
by
paragraph
(
c)(
7)(
i)
of
this
section
must
include
a
corrective
measures
plan
that
specifies
the
procedures
you
will
follow
in
the
case
of
a
particulate
matter
detection
system
alarm.
The
corrective
measures
plan
must
include,
at
a
minimum,
the
procedures
used
to
determine
and
record
the
time
and
cause
of
the
alarm
as
well
as
the
corrective
measures
taken
to
correct
the
control
device
malfunction
or
minimize
emissions
as
specified
below.
Failure
to
initiate
the
corrective
measures
required
by
this
paragraph
is
failure
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
emission
standards
in
this
subpart.
(
1)
You
must
initiate
the
procedures
used
to
determine
the
cause
of
the
alarm
within
30
minutes
of
the
time
the
alarm
first
sounds;
and
(
2)
You
must
alleviate
the
cause
of
the
alarm
by
taking
the
necessary
corrective
measure(
s)
which
may
include
shutting
down
the
combustor.
(
C)
Excessive
exceedances
notification.
If
you
operate
the
combustor
when
the
detector
response
exceeds
the
alarm
set­
point
more
than
5
percent
of
the
time
during
any
6­
month
block
time
period,
you
must
submit
a
notification
to
the
Administrator
within
5
days
that
describes
the
causes
of
the
exceedances
and
the
revisions
to
the
design,
operation,
or
maintenance
of
the
combustor
or
electrostatic
precipitator
or
ionizing
wet
scrubber
you
are
taking
to
minimize
exceedances.
95.
Section
63.1207
is
amended
by:
a.
Revising
paragraph
(
b)(
1).
b.
Adding
paragraph
(
b)(
3).
c.
Revising
paragraph
(
c)(
1).
d.
Adding
paragraph
(
c)(
3).
e.
Revising
paragraphs
(
e)(
2)
and
(
e)(
3)(
iv).
df.
Revising
paragraphs
(
f)(
1)(
ii)(
D
),
(
f)(
1)(
xiii),
and
(
f)(
1)(
xiv).
e.
Revising
paragraphs
(
j)(
1)(
ii)
and
(
j)(
3).
f.
Revising
paragraph
(
l)(
1).
g.
Adding
paragraph
(
b)(
3).
hg.
Adding
paragraph
(
cf)(
1)(
xv).
h.
Revising
paragraphs
(
j)(
1)(
ii)
and
(
j)(
3).
i.
AddingRevising
paragraph
(
fl)(
1)(
xv)
introductory
text.
The
revisions
and
additions
read
as
follows:
§
63.1207
What
are
the
performance
testing
requirements?
*
*
*
*
*
(
b)
*
*
*
(
1)
Comprehensive
performance
test.
You
must
conduct
comprehensive
performance
tests
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
emission
standards
provided
by
the
subpart,
establish
limits
for
the
operating
parameters
provided
by
§
63.1209,
and
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

400
performance
specifications
for
continuous
monitoring
systems.
*
*
*
*
*
(
3)
One­
Time
Dioxin/
Furan
Test
for
Boilers
Not
Subject
to
a
Numerical
Dioxin/
Furan
Standard.
For
boilers
that
are
not
subject
to
a
numerical
dioxin/
furan
emission
standard
under
§
§
63.1216
and
63.1217­­
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
and
those
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
that
are
not
equipped
with
a
dry
particulate
matter
control
device­­
you
must
conduct
a
one­
time
emission
test
for
dioxin/
furan
under
feed
and
operating
conditions
that
are
most
likely
to
maximize
dioxin/
furan
emissions,
similar
to
a
dioxin/
furan
compliance
test.
(
i)
You
must
conduct
the
dioxin/
furan
emissions
test
no
later
than
the
deadline
for
conducting
the
initial
comprehensive
performance
test.
(
ii)
You
may
use
dioxin/
furan
emissions
data
from
previous
testing
to
meet
this
requirement,
provided
that:
(
A)
The
testing
was
conducted
under
feed
and
operating
conditions
that
are
most
likely
to
maximize
dioxin/
furan
emissions,
similar
to
a
dioxin/
furan
compliance
test;
(
B)
You
have
not
changed
the
design
or
operation
of
the
boiler
in
a
manner
that
could
significantly
affect
stack
gas
dioxin/
furan
emission
concentrations;
and
(
C)
The
data
meet
quality
assurance
objectives
that
may
be
determined
on
a
site­
specific
basis.
(
iii)
You
may
use
dioxin/
furan
emissions
data
from
a
boiler
to
represent
emissions
from
another
on­
site
boiler
in
lieu
of
testing
(
i.
e.,
data
in
lieu
of
testing)
if
the
design
and
operation,
including
fuels
and
hazardous
waste
feed,
of
the
boilers
are
identical.
(
iv)
You
must
include
the
results
of
the
one­
time
dioxin/
furan
emissions
test
with
the
results
of
the
initial
comprehensive
performance
test
in
the
Notification
of
Compliance.
(
v)
You
must
repeat
the
dioxin/
furan
emissions
test
if
you
change
the
design
or
operation
of
the
source
in
a
manner
that
may
increase
dioxin/
furan
emissions.
(
c)
*
*
*(
1)
Test
date.
Except
as
provided
by
paragraphs
(
c)(
2)
and
(
c)(
3)
of
this
section,
you
must
commence
the
initial
comprehensive
performance
test
not
later
than
six
months
after
the
compliance
date.
*
*
*
*
*
(
3)
For
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
you
must
commence
the
initial
comprehensive
performance
test
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
standards
under
§
§
63.1203A1219,
63.1204A1220,
and
63.1205A1221
not
later
than
12
months
after
the
compliance
date.
*
*
*
*
*
(
e)
*
*
*
(
2)
After
the
Administrator
has
approved
the
site­
specific
test
plan
and
CMS
performance
evaluation
test
plan,
but
no
later
than
60
calendar
days
before
initiation
of
the
test,
you
must
make
the
test
plans
available
to
the
public
for
review.
You
must
issue
a
public
notice
to
all
persons
on
your
facility/
public
mailing
list
(
developed
pursuant
to
40
CFR
§
§
70.7(
h),
71.11(
d)(
3)(
i)(
E)
and
124.10(
c)(
1)(
ix))
announcing
the
approval
of
the
test
plans
and
the
location
where
the
test
plans
are
available
for
review.
The
test
plans
must
be
accessible
to
the
public
for
60
calendar
days,
beginning
on
the
date
that
you
issue
your
public
notice.
The
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

401
location
must
be
unrestricted
and
provide
access
to
the
public
during
reasonable
hours
and
provide
a
means
for
the
public
to
obtain
copies.
The
notification
must
include
the
following
information
at
a
minimum:
(
i)
The
name
and
telephone
number
of
the
source's
contact
person;
(
ii)
The
name
and
telephone
number
of
the
regulatory
agency's
contact
person;
(
iii)
The
location
where
the
approved
test
plans
and
any
necessary
supporting
documentation
can
be
reviewed
and
copied;
(
iv)
The
time
period
for
which
the
test
plans
will
be
available
for
public
review;
and
(
v)
An
expected
time
period
for
commencement
and
completion
of
the
performance
test
and
CMS
performance
evaluation
test.
(
3)
*
*
*
(
iv)
Public
notice.
At
the
same
time
that
you
submit
your
petition
to
the
Administrator,
you
must
notify
the
public
(
e.
g.,
distribute
a
notice
to
the
facility/
public
mailing
list
developed
pursuant
to
40
CFR
§
§
70.7(
h),
71.11(
d)(
3)(
i)(
E)
and
124.10(
c)(
1)(
ix))
of
your
petition
to
waive
a
performance
test.
The
notification
must
include
all
of
the
following
information
at
a
minimum:
(
A)
The
name
and
telephone
number
of
the
source's
contact
person;
(
B)
The
name
and
telephone
number
of
the
regulatory
agency's
contact
person;
(
C)
The
date
the
source
submitted
its
site­
specific
performance
test
plan
and
CMS
performance
evaluation
test
plans;
and
(
D)
The
length
of
time
requested
for
the
waiver.
(
f)
*
*
*
(
1)
*
*
*
(
ii)
*
*
*
(
D)
The
Administrator
may
approve
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
a
hazardous
waste
feedstream
analysis
for
organic
hazardous
air
pollutants
in
lieu
of
the
analysis
required
under
paragraph
(
f)(
1)(
ii)(
A)
of
this
section
if
the
reduced
analysis
is
sufficient
to
ensure
that
the
POHCs
used
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
applicable
DRE
standards
of
this
subpart
continue
to
be
representative
of
the
organic
hazardous
air
pollutants
in
your
hazardous
waste
feedstreams;
*
*
*
*
*
(
xiii)
For
cement
kilns
with
in­
line
raw
mills,
if
you
elect
to
use
the
emissions
averaging
provision
of
this
subpart,
you
must
notify
the
Administrator
of
your
intent
in
the
initial
(
and
subsequent)
comprehensive
performance
test
plan,
and
provide
the
information
required
by
the
emission
averaging
provision;
(
xiv)
For
preheater
or
preheater/
precalciner
cement
kilns
with
dual
stacks,
if
you
elect
to
use
the
emissions
averaging
provision
of
this
subpart,
you
must
notify
the
Administrator
of
your
intent
in
the
initial
(
and
subsequent)
comprehensive
performance
test
plan,
and
provide
the
information
required
by
the
emission
averaging
provision;
(
xv)
If
you
request
to
use
Method
23
for
dioxin/
furan
you
must
provide
the
information
required
under
§
63.1208(
b)(
1)(
i)(
B);
*
*
*
*
*
(
j)
*
*
*
(
1)
*
*
*
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

402
(
ii)
Upon
postmark
of
the
Notification
of
Compliance,
you
must
comply
with
all
operating
requirements
specified
in
the
Notification
of
Compliance
in
lieu
of
the
limits
specified
in
the
Documentation
of
Compliance
required
under
§
63.1211(
d).
*
*
*
*
*
(
3)
See
§
§
63.7(
g),
63.9(
h),
and
63.1210(
d)
for
additional
requirements
pertaining
to
the
Notification
of
Compliance
(
e.
g.,
you
must
include
results
of
performance
tests
in
the
Notification
of
Compliance).
*
*
*
*
*
(
l)
Failure
of
performance
test­­(
1)
Comprehensive
performance
test.
The
provisions
of
this
paragraph
do
not
apply
to
the
initial
comprehensive
performance
test
if
you
conduct
the
test
prior
to
your
compliance
date.
*
*
*
*
*
106.
Section
63.1208
is
amended
by
revising
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)(
i)
and
(
b)(
5)
to
read
as
follows:
§
63.1208
What
are
the
test
methods?
*
*
*
*
*
(
b)
*
*
*
(
1)
*
*
*
(
i)
To
determine
compliance
with
the
emission
standard
for
dioxins
and
furans,
you
must
use:
(
A)
Method
0023A,
Sampling
Method
for
Polychlorinated
Dibenzp­
p­
Dioxins
and
Polychlorinated
Dibenzofurans
emissions
from
Stationary
Sources,
EPA
Publication
SW­
846,
as
incorporated
by
reference
in
paragraph
(
a)
of
this
section;
or
(
B)
Method
23,
provided
in
appendix
A,
part
60
of
this
chapter,
except
that
for
coal­
fired
boilers,
sources
equipped
with
an
activated
carbon
injection
system,
and
other
sources
that
the
Administrator
determines
may
emit
carbonaceous
particulate
matter
that
may
bias
Method
23
results,
you
may
use
Method
23
only
upon
the
Administrator's
approval.
In
determining
whether
to
grant
approval
to
use
Method
23,
the
Administrator
may
consider
factors
including
whether
dioxin/
furan
are
detected
at
levels
substantially
below
the
emission
standard,
and
whether
previous
Method
0023
analyses
detected
low
levels
of
dioxin/
furan
in
the
front
half.
*
*
*
*
*
(
5)
Hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas­­(
i)
Compliance
with
MACT
standards.
To
determine
compliance
with
the
emission
standard
for
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
(
combined),
you
must
use:
(
A)
Method
26/
26A
as
provided
in
appendix
A,
part
60
of
this
chapter;
or
(
B)
Methods
320
or
321
as
provided
in
appendix
A,
part
60
of
this
chapter,
or
ASTM
D
6735­
01,
Test
Method
for
Measurement
of
Gaseous
Chlorides
and
Fluorides
from
Mineral
Calcining
Exhaust
Sources­­
Impinger
Method
to
measure
emissions
of
hydrogen
chloride,
and
Method
26/
26A
to
measure
emissions
of
chlorine
gas.
(
ii)
Compliance
with
risk­
based
limits
under
§
63.1215.
To
demonstrate
compliance
with
emission
limits
established
under
§
63.1215,
you
must
use
Methods
26/
26A,
320,
or
321,
or
ASTM
D
6735­
01,
Test
Method
for
Measurement
of
Gaseous
Chlorides
and
Fluorides
from
Mineral
Calcining
Exhaust
Sources­­
Impinger
Method,
except:
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

403
(
A)
For
cement
kilns
and
sources
equipped
with
a
dry
acid
gas
scrubber,
you
must
use
Methods
320
or
321,
or
ASTM
D
6735­
01
to
measure
hydrogen
chloride,
and
the
back­
half,
caustic
impingers
of
Method
26/
26A
to
measure
chlorine
gas;
and
(
B)
For
incinerators,
boilers,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
you
must
use
Methods
320
or
321,
or
ASTM
D
6735­
01
to
measure
hydrogen
chloride,
and
Method
26/
26A
to
measure
total
chlorine,
and
calculate
chlorine
gas
by
difference
if:
(
1)
The
bromine/
chlorine
ratio
in
feedstreams
is
greater
than
5
percent;
or
(
2)
The
sulfur/
chlorine
ratio
in
feedstreams
is
greater
than
50
percent.
*
*
*
*
*
117.
Section
63.1209
is
amended
by:
a.
Revising
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)(
ii)(
A),
(
a)(
1)(
iv)(
D),
and
(
a)(
1)(
v)(
D).
b.
Revising
paragraph
(
f)(
1).
c.
Revising
paragraph
(
g)(
1).
d.
Revising
paragraphs
(
k)(
1)(
i)
and
(
k)(
2)(
i).
e.
Revising
paragraph
(
l)(
1).
f.
Revising
paragraph
(
m)(
1)(
iv)
introductory
text.
g.
Revising
paragraphs
(
n)
introductory
text
and
(
n)(
2).
h.
Revising
paragraph
(
o)
introductory
text
and
(
o)(
1).
i.
Revising
paragraph
(
q)(
1)(
ii).
The
revisions
read
as
follows:
§
63.1209
What
are
the
monitoring
requirements?
(
a)
*
*
*
(
1)
*
*
*
(
ii)
*
*
*
(
A)
You
must
maintain
and
operate
each
COMS
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
of
§
63.8(
c)
except
for
the
requirements
under
§
63.8(
c)(
3).
The
requirements
of
§
63.1211(
d)
shall
be
complied
with
instead
of
§
63.8(
c)(
3);
and
*
*
*
*
*
(
iv)
*
*
*
(
D)
To
remain
in
compliance,
all
six­
minute
block
averages
must
not
exceed
the
opacity
standard.
(
v)
*
*
*
(
D)
To
remain
in
compliance,
all
six­
minute
block
averages
must
not
exceed
the
opacity
standard.
*
*
*
*
*
(
f)
*
*
*
(
1)
Section
63.8(
c)(
3).
The
requirements
of
§
63.1211(
d),
that
requires
CMSs
to
be
installed,
calibrated,
and
operational
on
the
compliance
date,
shall
be
complied
with
instead
of
§
63.8(
c)(
3).
*
*
*
*
*
(
g)
*
*
*
(
1)
Requests
to
use
alternatives
to
operating
parameter
monitoring
requirements.
(
i)
You
may
submit
an
application
to
the
Administrator
or
State
with
an
approved
Title
V
program
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

404
under
this
paragraph
for
approval
of
alternative
operating
parameter
monitoring
requirements
to
document
compliance
with
the
emission
standards
of
this
subpart.
For
requests
to
use
additional
CEMS,
however,
you
must
use
paragraph
(
a)(
5)
of
this
section
and
§
63.8(
f).
*
*
*
*
*
(
k)
*
*
*
(
1)
*
*
*
(
i)
For
sources
other
than
a
lightweight
aggregate
kiln,
if
the
combustor
is
equipped
with
an
electrostatic
precipitator,
baghouse
(
fabric
filter),
or
other
dry
emissions
control
device
where
particulate
matter
is
suspended
in
contact
with
combustion
gas,
you
must
establish
a
limit
on
the
maximum
temperature
of
the
gas
at
the
inlet
to
the
device
on
an
hourly
rolling
average.
You
must
establish
the
hourly
rolling
average
limit
as
the
average
of
the
test
run
averages.
*
*
*
*
*
(
2)
*
*
*
(
i)
For
sources
other
than
cement
kilns,
you
must
measure
the
temperature
of
each
combustion
chamber
at
a
location
that
best
represents,
as
practicable,
the
bulk
gas
temperature
in
the
combustion
zone.
You
must
document
the
temperature
measurement
location
in
the
test
plan
you
submit
under
§
§
63.1207(
e)
and
(
f);
*
*
*
*
*
(
l)
Mercury.
*
*
*
(
1)
Feedrate
of
mercury.
(
i)
For
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
when
complying
with
the
mercury
emission
standards
under
§
§
63.1203,
63.1204,
and
63.1205,
and
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
you
must
establish
a
12­
hour
rolling
average
limit
for
the
total
feedrate
of
mercury
in
all
feedstreams
as
the
average
of
the
test
run
averages.
(
ii)
For
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
when
complying
with
the
mercury
emission
standards
under
§
§
63.1203A1219,
63.1204A1220,
and
63.1205A1221,
you
must
establish
an
annual
rolling
average
limit
for
the
total
feedrate
of
mercury
in
all
feedstreams
as
follows:
(
A)
You
must
calculate
a
mercury
system
removal
efficiency
for
each
test
run
as
[
1
­
mercury
emission
rate
(
g/
s)
/
mercury
feedrate
(
g/
s)],
and
calculate
the
average
system
removal
efficiency
of
the
test
run
averages,
except
if
your
source
is
not
equipped
with
a
control
system
that
consistently
and
reproducibly
controls
mercury
emissions,
you
must
assume
zero
system
removal
efficiency.
If
emissions
exceed
the
mercury
emission
standard,
it
is
not
a
violation
because
compliance
with
these
mercury
emission
standards,
which
are
derived
from
normal
emissions
data,
is
based
on
compliance
with
the
mercury
feedrate
limit
on
an
annual
rolling
average.
(
B)
You
must
calculate
the
annual
average
mercury
feedrate
limit
as
the
mercury
emission
standard
(
ug/
m3)
divided
by
the
system
removal
efficiency.
The
feedrate
limit
is
expressed
as
an
emission
concentration,
ug
mercury/
m3
of
stack
gas.
(
C)
You
must
comply
with
the
emission
concentration­
based
annual
average
mercury
feedrate
limit
by
measuring
the
mercury
feedrate
(
g/
s)
and
the
stack
gas
flowrate
(
m3/
s)
at
least
once
a
minute
to
calculate
a
60­
minute
average
emission
concentration­
based
feedrate
as
[
mercury
feedrate
(
g/
s)
/
gas
flowrate
(
m3/
s)].
(
D)
You
must
calculate
an
annual
rolling
average
mercury
feedrate
that
is
updated
each
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

405
hour.
(
iii)
For
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
you
must
establish
an
annual
rolling
average
hazardous
waste
mercury
thermal
concentration
limit,
as
follows:
(
A)
You
must
calculate
a
mercury
system
removal
efficiency
for
each
test
run
as
[
1
­
mercury
emission
rate
(
g/
s)
/
mercury
feedrate
(
g/
s)],
and
calculate
the
average
system
removal
efficiency
of
the
test
run
averages,
except
if
your
source
is
not
equipped
with
a
control
system
that
consistently
and
reproducibly
controls
mercury
emissions,
you
must
assume
zero
system
removal
efficiency.
If
emissions
exceed
the
mercury
emission
standard,
it
is
not
a
violation
because
compliance
with
the
mercury
emission
standard,
which
is
derived
from
normal
emissions
data,
is
based
on
compliance
with
the
hazardous
waste
mercury
thermal
concentration
limit
on
an
annual
rolling
average.
(
B)
You
must
calculate
the
annual
average
hazardous
waste
mercury
thermal
concentration
limit
as
the
mercury
emission
standard
(
lb/
MM
Btu)
divided
by
the
system
removal
efficiency.
The
hazardous
waste
thermal
concentration
limit
is
expressed
as:
lb
mercury
in
hazardous
waste
feedstreams
per
million
Btu
of
hazardous
waste.
(
C)
You
must
comply
with
the
annual
average
hazardous
waste
mercury
thermal
concentration
limit
by
measuring
the
feedrate
of
mercury
in
all
hazardous
waste
feedstreams
(
lb/
s)
and
the
hazardous
waste
thermal
feedrate
(
MM
Btu/
s)
at
least
once
a
minute
to
calculate
a
60­
minute
average
thermal
emission
concentration
as
[
hazardous
waste
mercury
feedrate
(
g/
s)
/
hazardous
waste
thermal
feedrate
(
MM
Btu/
s)].
(
D)
You
must
calculate
an
annual
rolling
average
hazardous
waste
mercury
thermal
concentration
that
is
updated
each
hour.
(
iv)
Extrapolation
of
feedrate
levels.
(
A)
In
lieu
of
establishing
mercury
feedrate
limits
as
specified
in
paragraphs
(
l)(
1)(
i­
iiii)
through
(
iii)
of
this
section,
you
may
request
as
part
of
the
performance
test
plan
under
§
§
63.6(
b)
and
(
c)
and
§
§
63.1207
(
e)
and
(
f)
to
use
the
mercury
feedrates
and
associated
emission
rates
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
to
extrapolate
to
higher
allowable
feedrate
limits
and
emission
rates.
The
extrapolation
methodology
will
be
reviewed
and
approved,
as
warranted,
by
the
Administrator.
The
review
will
consider
in
particular
whether:
(
A1)
Performance
test
metal
feedrates
are
appropriate
(
i.
e.,
whether
feedrates
are
at
least
at
normal
levels;
depending
on
the
heterogeneity
of
the
waste,
whether
some
level
of
spiking
would
be
appropriate;
and
whether
the
physical
form
and
species
of
spiked
material
is
appropriate);
and
(
B2)
Whether
the
extrapolated
feedrates
you
request
are
warranted
considering
historical
metal
feedrate
data;
and.
(
C)
WhetherB)
The
Administrator
will
review
the
performance
test
results
in
making
a
finding
of
compliance
required
by
§
§
63.6(
f)(
3)
and
63.1206(
b)(
3)
to
ensure
that
you
have
interpreted
the
performance
test
results
properly
and
the
extrapolation
procedure
is
appropriate
for
your
source.
*
*
*
*
*
(
m)
*
*
*
(
1)
*
*
*
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

406
(
iv)
Other
particulate
matter
control
devices.
For
each
particulate
matter
control
device
that
is
not
a
fabric
filter
or
high
energy
wet
scrubber,
or
is
not
an
electrostatic
precipitator
or
ionizing
wet
scrubber
for
which
you
elect
to
monitor
particulate
matter
loadings
under
§
63.1206(
c)(
7)(
iii)
of
this
chapter
for
process
control,
you
must
ensure
that
the
control
device
is
properly
operated
and
maintained
as
required
by
§
63.1206(
c)(
7)
and
by
monitoring
the
operation
of
the
control
device
as
follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(
n)
Semivolatile
metals
and
low
volatile
metals.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
(
2)
Maximum
feedrate
of
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metals.
(
i)
General.
You
must
establish
feedrate
limits
for
semivolatile
metals
(
cadmium
and
lead)
and
low
volatile
metals
(
arsenic,
beryllium,
and
chromium)
as
follows,
except
as
provided
by
paragraph
(
n)(
2)(
vii)
of
this
section.
(
ii)
For
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
when
complying
with
the
emission
standards
under
§
§
63.1203,
63.1203A4,
63.12045,
and
63.1205,19
and
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
you
must
establish
12­
hour
rolling
average
limits
for
the
total
feedrate
of
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metals
in
all
feedstreams
as
the
average
of
the
test
run
averages
and
as
specified
in
paragraph
(
n)(
2)(
iv)
of
this
section.
(
iii)
For
cement
kilns,
when
complying
with
the
emission
standards
under
§
63.1204A1220,
you
must
establish
12­
hour
rolling
average
feedrate
limits
for
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metals
as
the
thermal
concentration
of
semivolatile
metals
or
low
volatile
metals
in
all
hazardous
waste
feedstreams.
You
must
calculate
hazardous
waste
thermal
concentrations
for
semivolatile
metals
and
low
volatile
metals
for
each
run
as
the
total
mass
feedrate
of
semivolatile
metals
or
low
volatile
metals
for
all
hazardous
waste
feedstreams
divided
by
the
total
heat
input
rate
for
all
hazardous
waste
feedstreams.
The
12­
hour
rolling
average
feedrate
limits
for
semivolatile
metals
and
low
volatile
metals
are
the
average
of
the
hazardous
waste
thermal
concentrations
for
the
runs.
(
iv)
Lightweight
aggregate
kilns
under
§
63.1205A1221.
(
A)
Existing
sources.
When
complying
with
the
emission
standards
under
§
63.1205A1221,
you
must
establish
semivolatile
metal
and
low
volatile
metal
feedrate
limits
as
12­
hour
rolling
average
feedrate
limits
and
12­
hour
rolling
average
hazardous
waste
thermal
concentrations
as
specified
in
paragraphs
(
n)(
2)(
ii)
and
(
iii).
You
must
comply
with
both
feedrate
limits
for
semivolatile
metals
and
low
volatile
metals.
(
B)
New
sources.
When
complying
with
the
emission
standards
under
§
63.1205A1221,
you
must
establish
semivolatile
metal
and
low
volatile
metal
feedrate
limits
as
12­
hour
rolling
average
hazardous
waste
thermal
concentrations
as
specified
in
paragraphs
(
n)(
2)(
ii)
and
(
iii).
(
v)
Liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers.
(
A)
For
semivolatile
metals,
you
must
establish
an
annual
rolling
average
hazardous
waste
thermal
concentration
limit,
as
follows:
(
1)
You
must
calculate
a
semivolatile
metals
system
removal
efficiency
for
each
test
run
as
[
1
­
semivolatile
metals
emission
rate
(
g/
s)
/
semivolatile
metals
feedrate
(
g/
s)],
and
calculate
the
average
system
removal
efficiency
of
the
test
run
averages,
except
if
your
source
is
not
equipped
with
a
control
system
that
consistently
and
reproducibly
controls
semivolatile
metals
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

407
emissions,
you
must
assume
zero
system
removal
efficiency.
If
emissions
exceed
the
semivolatile
metals
emission
standard,
it
is
not
a
violation
because
compliance
with
the
semivolatile
metals
emission
standard,
which
is
derived
from
normal
emissions
data,
is
based
on
compliance
with
the
semivolatile
metals
hazardous
waste
thermal
concentration
limit
on
an
annual
rolling
average.
(
2)
You
must
calculate
the
annual
average
hazardous
waste
semivolatile
metals
thermal
concentration
limit
as
the
semivolatile
metals
emission
standard
(
lb/
MM
Btu)
divided
by
the
system
removal
efficiency.
The
hazardous
waste
thermal
concentration
limit
is
expressed
as:
lb
semivolatile
metals
in
hazardous
waste
feedstreams
per
million
Btu
of
hazardous
waste.
(
3)
You
must
comply
with
the
annual
average
hazardous
waste
semivolatile
metals
thermal
concentration
limit
by
measuring
the
feedrate
of
semivolatile
metals
in
all
hazardous
waste
feedstreams
(
lb/
s)
and
the
hazardous
waste
thermal
feedrate
(
MM
Btu/
s)
at
least
once
a
minute
to
calculate
a
60­
minute
average
thermal
emission
concentration
as
[
hazardous
waste
semivolatile
metals
feedrate
(
g/
s)
/
hazardous
waste
thermal
feedrate
(
MM
Btu/
s)].
(
4)
You
must
calculate
an
annual
rolling
average
hazardous
waste
semivolatile
metals
thermal
concentration
that
is
updated
each
hour.
(
B)
For
low
volatile
metals,
you
must
establish
12­
hour
rolling
average
feedrate
limits
for
chromium
as
the
thermal
concentration
of
chromium
in
all
hazardous
waste
feedstreams.
You
must
calculate
a
hazardous
waste
thermal
concentration
for
chromium
for
each
run
as
the
total
mass
feedrate
of
chromium
for
all
hazardous
waste
feedstreams
divided
by
the
total
heat
input
rate
for
all
hazardous
waste
feedstreams.
The
12­
hour
rolling
average
feedrate
limit
for
chromium
is
the
average
of
the
hazardous
waste
thermal
concentrations
for
the
runs.
(
vi)
LVM
limits
for
pumpable
wastes.
You
must
establish
separate
feedrate
limits
for
low
volatile
metals
in
pumpable
feedstreams
using
the
procedures
prescribed
above
for
total
low
volatile
metals.
Dual
feedrate
limits
for
both
pumpable
and
total
feedstreams
are
not
required,
however,
if
you
base
the
total
feedrate
limit
solely
on
the
feedrate
of
pumpable
feedstreams.
(
vii)
Extrapolation
of
feedrate
levels.
In
lieu
of
establishing
feedrate
limits
as
specified
in
paragraphs
(
l)(
1)(
i­
iiii)
through
(
iii)
of
this
section,
you
may
request
as
part
of
the
performance
test
plan
under
§
§
63.6(
b)
and
(
c)
and
§
§
63.1207
(
e)
and
(
f)
to
use
the
semivolatile
metal
and
low
volatile
metal
feedrates
and
associated
emission
rates
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
to
extrapolate
to
higher
allowable
feedrate
limits
and
emission
rates.
The
extrapolation
methodology
will
be
reviewed
and
approved,
as
warranted,
by
the
Administrator.
The
review
will
consider
in
particular
whether:
(
A)
Performance
test
metal
feedrates
are
appropriate
(
i.
e.,
whether
feedrates
are
at
least
at
normal
levels;
depending
on
the
heterogeneity
of
the
waste,
whether
some
level
of
spiking
would
be
appropriate;
and
whether
the
physical
form
and
species
of
spiked
material
is
appropriate);
(
B)
Whether
the
extrapolated
feedrates
you
request
are
warranted
considering
historical
metal
feedrate
data;
and
(
C)
Whether
you
have
interpreted
the
performance
test
results
properly
and
the
extrapolation
procedure
is
appropriate
for
your
source.
*
*
*
*
*
(
o)
Hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas.
*
*
*
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

408
(
1)
Feedrate
of
total
chlorine
and
chloride.
(
i)
Incinerators,
cement
kilns,
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces.
You
must
establish
12­
hour
rolling
average
limit
for
the
total
feedrate
of
chlorine
(
organic
and
inorganic)
in
all
feedstreams
as
the
average
of
the
test
run
averages.
(
ii)
Liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers.
You
must
establish
a
12­
hour
rolling
average
limit
for
the
feedrate
of
chlorine
(
organic
and
inorganic)
as
the
thermal
concentration
of
chlorine
in
all
hazardous
waste
feedstreams.
You
must
calculate
a
hazardous
waste
thermal
concentration
for
chlorine
for
each
run
as
the
total
mass
feedrate
of
chlorine
for
all
hazardous
waste
feedstreams
divided
by
the
total
heat
input
rate
for
all
hazardous
waste
feedstreams.
The
12­
hour
rolling
average
feedrate
limit
chlorine
is
the
average
of
the
hazardous
waste
thermal
concentrations
for
the
runs.
*
*
*
*
*
(
q)
*
*
*
(
1)
*
*
*
(
ii)
You
must
specify
(
e.
g.,
by
reference)
the
otherwise
applicable
requirements
as
a
mode
of
operation
in
your
Documentation
of
Compliance
under
§
63.1211(
d),
your
Notification
of
Compliance
under
§
63.1207(
j),
and
your
title
V
permit
application.
These
requirements
include
the
otherwise
applicable
requirements
governing
emission
standards,
monitoring
and
compliance,
and
notification,
reporting,
and
recordkeeping.
*
*
*
*
*
128.
Section
63.1210
is
amended
by:
a.
Revising
the
table
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)
and
the
table
in
paragraph
(
a)(
2).
b.
Redesignating
paragraph
(
b)
as
(
d).
c.
Adding
new
paragraph
(
b).
d.
Adding
new
paragraph
(
c).
The
revisions
and
additions
read
as
follows:
§
63.1210
What
are
the
notification
requirements?
*
*
*
*
*
(
a)
*
*
*
(
1)
*
*
*

Reference
Notification
(
1)
63.9(
b)
Initial
notifications
that
you
are
subject
to
Subpart
EEE
of
this
Part.

(
2)
63.9(
d)
Notification
that
you
are
subject
to
special
compliance
requirements.

(
3)
63.9(
j)
Notification
and
documentation
of
any
change
in
information
already
provided
under
§
63.9.

(
4)
63.1206(
b)(
5)(
i)
Notification
of
changes
in
design,
operation,
or
maintenance.
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

409
(
5)
63.1206(
c)(
7)(
ii)(
C)
Notification
of
excessive
bag
leak
detection
system
exceedances.

(
6)
63.1207(
e),
63.9(
e)
63.9(
g)(
1)
and
(
3)
Notification
of
performance
test
and
continuous
monitoring
system
evaluation,
including
the
performance
test
plan
and
CMS
performance
evaluation
plan.
1
(
7)
63.1210(
d),
63.1207(
j),
63.1207(
k),
63.1207(
l),
63.9(
h),
63.10(
d)(
2),
63.10(
e)(
2)
Notification
of
compliance,
including
results
of
performance
tests
and
continuous
monitoring
system
performance
evaluations.

1
You
may
also
be
required
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
to
submit
a
feedstream
analysis
plan
under
§
63.1209(
c)(
3).

(
2)
*
*
*

Reference
Notification,
Request,
Petition,
or
Application
(
1)
63.9(
i)
You
may
request
an
adjustment
to
time
periods
or
postmark
deadlines
for
submittal
and
review
of
required
information.

(
2)
63.10(
e)(
3)(
ii)
You
may
request
to
reduce
the
frequency
of
excess
emissions
and
CMS
performance
reports.

(
3)
63.10(
f)
You
may
request
to
waive
recordkeeping
or
reporting
requirements.

(
4)
63.1204(
d)(
2)(
iii)
63.1204A1220(
d)(
2)(
i
ii)
Notification
that
you
elect
to
comply
with
the
emission
averaging
requirements
for
cement
kilns
with
in­
line
raw
mills.

(
5)
63.1204(
e)(
2)(
iii),
63.1204A1220(
e)(
2)(
i
ii)
Notification
that
you
elect
to
comply
with
the
emission
averaging
requirements
for
preheater
or
preheater/
precalciner
kilns
with
dual
stacks.

(
6)
63.1206(
b)(
4),
63.1213,
63.6(
i),
63.9(
c)
You
may
request
an
extension
of
the
compliance
date
for
up
to
one
year.

(
7)
63.1206(
b)(
5)(
i)(
C)
You
may
request
to
burn
hazardous
waste
for
more
than
720
hours
and
for
purposes
other
than
testing
or
pretesting
after
a
making
a
change
in
the
design
or
operation
that
could
affect
compliance
with
emission
standards
and
prior
to
submitting
a
revised
Notification
of
Compliance.

(
8)
63.1206(
b)(
8)(
iii)(
B)
If
you
elect
to
conduct
particulate
matter
CEMS
correlation
testing
and
wish
to
have
federal
particulate
matter
and
opacity
standards
and
associated
operating
limits
waived
during
the
testing,
you
must
notify
the
Administrator
by
submitting
the
correlation
test
plan
for
review
and
approval.
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

410
(
9)
63.1206(
b)(
8)(
v)
You
may
request
approval
to
have
the
particulate
matter
and
opacity
standards
and
associated
operating
limits
and
conditions
waived
for
more
than
96
hours
for
a
correlation
test.

(
10)
63.1206(
b)(
9)
Owners
and
operators
of
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
may
request
approval
of
alternative
emission
standards
for
mercury,
semivolatile
metal,
low
volatile
metal,
and
hydrochloric
acid/
chlorine
gas
under
certain
conditions.

(
11)
63.1206(
b)(
10)
Owners
and
operators
of
cement
kilns
may
request
approval
of
alternative
emission
standards
for
mercury,
semivolatile
metal,
low
volatile
metal,
and
hydrochloric
acid/
chlorine
gas
under
certain
conditions.

(
12)
63.1206(
b)(
14)
Owners
and
operators
of
incinerators
may
elect
to
comply
with
an
alternative
to
the
particulate
matter
standard.

(
13)
63.1206(
b)(
15)
Owners
and
operators
of
cement
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
may
request
to
comply
with
the
alternative
to
the
interim
standards
for
mercury.

(
14)
63.1206(
c)(
2)(
ii)(
C)
You
may
request
to
make
changes
to
the
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan.

(
15)
63.1206(
c)(
5)(
i)(
C)
You
may
request
an
alternative
means
of
control
to
provide
control
of
combustion
system
leaks.

(
16)
63.1206(
c)(
5)(
i)(
D)
You
may
request
other
techniques
to
prevent
fugitive
emissions
without
use
of
instantaneous
pressure
limits.

(
17)
63.1207(
c)(
2)
You
may
request
to
base
initial
compliance
on
data
in
lieu
of
a
comprehensive
performance
test.

(
18)
63.1207(
d)(
3)
You
may
request
more
than
60
days
to
complete
a
performance
test
if
additional
time
is
needed
for
reasons
beyond
your
control.

(
19)
63.1207(
e)(
3),
63.7(
h)
You
may
request
a
time
extension
if
the
Administrator
fails
to
approve
or
deny
your
test
plan.

(
20)
63.1207(
h)(
2)
You
may
request
to
waive
current
operating
parameter
limits
during
pretesting
for
more
than
720
hours.

(
21)
63.1207(
f)(
1)(
ii)(
D)
You
may
request
a
reduced
hazardous
waste
feedstream
analysis
for
organic
hazardous
air
pollutants
if
the
reduced
analysis
continues
to
be
representative
of
organic
hazardous
air
pollutants
in
your
hazardous
waste
feedstreams.

(
22)
63.1207(
g)(
2)(
v)
You
may
request
to
operate
under
a
wider
operating
range
for
a
parameter
during
confirmatory
performance
testing.

(
23)
63.1207(
i)
You
may
request
up
to
a
one­
year
time
extension
for
conducting
a
performance
test
(
other
than
the
initial
comprehensive
performance
test)
to
consolidate
testing
with
other
state
or
federally­
required
testing.
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

411
(
24)
63.1207(
j)(
4)
You
may
request
more
than
90
days
to
submit
a
Notification
of
Compliance
after
completing
a
performance
test
if
additional
time
is
needed
for
reasons
beyond
your
control.

(
25)
63.1207(
l)(
3)
After
failure
of
a
performance
test,
you
may
request
to
burn
hazardous
waste
for
more
than
720
hours
and
for
purposes
other
than
testing
or
pretesting.

(
26)
63.1209(
a)(
5),
63.8(
f)
You
may
request:
(
1)
approval
of
alternative
monitoring
methods
for
compliance
with
standards
that
are
monitored
with
a
CEMS;
and
(
2)
approval
to
use
a
CEMS
in
lieu
of
operating
parameter
limits.

(
27)
63.1209(
g)(
1)
You
may
request
approval
of:
(
1)
alternatives
to
operating
parameter
monitoring
requirements,
except
for
standards
that
you
must
monitor
with
a
continuous
emission
monitoring
system
(
CEMS)
and
except
for
requests
to
use
a
CEMS
in
lieu
of
operating
parameter
limits;
or
(
2)
a
waiver
of
an
operating
parameter
limit.

(
28)
63.1209(
l)(
1)
You
may
request
to
extrapolate
mercury
feedrate
limits.

(
29)
63.1209(
n)(
2)
You
may
request
to
extrapolate
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metal
feedrate
limits.

(
30)
63.1211(
e)
You
may
request
to
use
data
compression
techniques
to
record
data
on
a
less
frequent
basis
than
required
by
§
63.1209.

(
b)
Notification
of
intent
to
comply
(
NIC).
(
1)
You
must
prepare
a
Notification
of
Intent
to
Comply
that
includes
all
of
the
following
information:
(
i)
General
information:
(
A)
The
name
and
address
of
the
owner/
operator
and
the
source;
(
B)
Whether
the
source
is
a
major
or
an
area
source;
(
C)
Waste
minimization
and
emission
control
technique(
s)
being
considered;
(
D)
Emission
monitoring
technique(
s)
you
are
considering;
(
E)
Waste
minimization
and
emission
control
technique(
s)
effectiveness;
(
F)
A
description
of
the
evaluation
criteria
used
or
to
be
used
to
select
waste
minimization
and/
or
emission
control
technique(
s);
and
(
G)
A
general
description
of
how
you
intend
to
comply
with
the
emission
standards
of
this
subpart.
(
ii)
As
applicable
to
each
source,
information
on
key
activities
and
estimated
dates
for
these
activities
that
will
bring
the
source
into
compliance
with
emission
control
requirements
of
this
subpart.
You
must
include
all
of
the
following
key
activities
and
dates
in
your
NIC:
(
A)
The
dates
by
which
you
will
develop
engineering
designs
for
emission
control
systems
or
process
changes
for
emissions;
(
B)
The
date
by
which
you
will
commit
internal
or
external
resources
for
installing
emission
control
systems
or
making
process
changes
for
emission
control,
or
the
date
by
which
you
will
issue
orders
for
the
purchase
of
component
parts
to
accomplish
emission
control
or
process
changes.
(
C)
The
date
by
which
you
will
submit
construction
applications;
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

412
(
D)
The
date
by
which
you
will
initiate
on­
site
construction,
installation
of
emission
control
equipment,
or
process
change;
(
E)
The
date
by
which
you
will
complete
on­
site
construction,
installation
of
emission
control
equipment,
or
process
change;
and
(
F)
The
date
by
which
you
will
achieve
final
compliance.
The
individual
dates
and
milestones
listed
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)(
ii)(
A)
through
(
F)
of
this
section
as
part
of
the
NIC
are
not
requirements
and
therefore
are
not
enforceable
deadlines;
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)(
ii)(
A)
through
(
F)
of
this
section
must
be
included
as
part
of
the
NIC
only
to
inform
the
public
of
your
how
you
intend
to
comply
with
the
emission
standards
of
this
subpart.
(
iii)
A
summary
of
the
public
meeting
required
under
paragraph
(
c)
of
this
section;
(
iv)
If
you
intend
to
cease
burning
hazardous
waste
prior
to
or
on
the
compliance
date,
you
must
include
in
your
NIC
a
schedule
of
key
dates
for
the
steps
to
be
taken
to
stop
hazardous
waste
activity
at
your
combustion
unit.
Key
dates
include
the
date
for
submittal
of
RCRA
closure
documents
required
under
subpart
G,
part
264
of
this
chapter.
(
2)
You
must
make
a
draft
of
the
NIC
available
for
public
review
no
later
than
30
days
prior
to
the
public
meeting
required
under
paragraph
(
c)(
1)
of
this
section.
(
3)
You
must
submit
the
final
NIC
to
the
Administrator
no
later
than
one
year
following
the
effective
date
of
the
emission
standards
of
this
subpart.
(
c)
NIC
public
meeting
and
notice.
(
1)
Prior
to
the
submission
of
the
NIC
to
the
permitting
agency,
and
no
later
than
10
months
after
the
effective
date
of
the
emission
standards
of
this
subpart,
you
must
hold
at
least
one
informal
meeting
with
the
public
to
discuss
anticipated
activities
described
in
the
draft
NIC
for
achieving
compliance
with
the
emission
standards
of
this
subpart.
You
must
post
a
sign­
in
sheet
or
otherwise
provide
a
voluntary
opportunity
for
attendees
to
provide
their
names
and
addresses;
(
2)
You
must
submit
a
summary
of
the
meeting,
along
with
the
list
of
attendees
and
their
addresses
developed
under
paragraph
(
b)(
1)
of
this
section,
and
copies
of
any
written
comments
or
materials
submitted
at
the
meeting,
to
the
Administrator
as
part
of
the
final
NIC,
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
b)(
1)(
iii)
of
this
section;
(
3)
You
must
provide
public
notice
of
the
NIC
meeting
at
least
30
days
prior
to
the
meeting.
You
must
provide
public
notice
in
all
of
the
following
forms:
(
i)
Newspaper
advertisement.
You
must
publish
a
notice
in
a
newspaper
of
general
circulation
in
the
county
or
equivalent
jurisdiction
of
your
facility.
In
addition,
you
must
publish
the
notice
in
newspapers
of
general
circulation
in
adjacent
counties
or
equivalent
jurisdiction
where
such
publication
would
be
necessary
to
inform
the
affected
public.
You
must
publish
the
notice
as
a
display
advertisement.
(
ii)
Visible
and
accessible
sign.
You
must
post
a
notice
on
a
clearly
marked
sign
at
or
near
the
source.
If
you
place
the
sign
on
the
site
of
the
hazardous
waste
combustor,
the
sign
must
be
large
enough
to
be
readable
from
the
nearest
spot
where
the
public
would
pass
by
the
site.
(
iii)
Broadcast
media
announcement.
You
must
broadcast
a
notice
at
least
once
on
at
least
one
local
radio
station
or
television
station.
(
iv)
Notice
to
the
facility
mailing
list.
You
must
provide
a
copy
of
the
notice
to
the
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

413
facility
mailing
list
in
accordance
with
§
124.10(
c)(
1)(
ix)
of
this
chapter.
(
4)
You
must
include
all
of
the
following
in
the
notices
required
under
paragraph
(
c)(
3)
of
this
section:
(
i)
The
date,
time,
and
location
of
the
meeting;
(
ii)
A
brief
description
of
the
purpose
of
the
meeting;
(
iii)
A
brief
description
of
the
source
and
proposed
operations,
including
the
address
or
a
map
(
e.
g.,
a
sketched
or
copied
street
map)
of
the
source
location;
(
iv)
A
statement
encouraging
people
to
contact
the
source
at
least
72
hours
before
the
meeting
if
they
need
special
access
to
participate
in
the
meeting;
(
v)
A
statement
describing
how
the
draft
NIC
(
and
final
NIC,
if
requested)
can
be
obtained;
and
(
vi)
The
name,
address,
and
telephone
number
of
a
contact
person
for
the
NIC.
139.
Section
63.1211
is
amended
by:
a.
Revising
the
table
in
paragraph
(
b).
b.
Redesignating
paragraphs
(
c)
and
(
d)
as
(
d)
and
(
e).
c.
Adding
new
paragraph
(
c).
The
revisions
and
additions
read
as
follows:
§
63.1211
What
are
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements?
*
*
*
*
*
(
b)
*
*
*

Reference
Document,
Data,
or
Information
(
1)
63.1200,
63.10(
b)
and
(
c)
General.
Information
required
to
document
and
maintain
compliance
with
the
regulations
of
Subpart
EEE,
including
data
recorded
by
continuous
monitoring
systems
(
CMS),
and
copies
of
all
notifications,
reports,
plans,
and
other
documents
submitted
to
the
Administrator.

(
2)
63.1204(
d)(
1)(
ii),
63.1204A1220(
d)(
1
)(
ii)
Documentation
of
mode
of
operation
changes
for
cement
kilns
with
in­
line
raw
mills.

(
3)
63.1204(
d)(
2)(
ii),
63.1204A1220(
d)(
2
)(
ii)
Documentation
of
compliance
with
the
emission
averaging
requirements
for
cement
kilns
with
in­
line
raw
mills.

(
4)
63.1204(
e)(
2)(
ii),
63.1204A1220(
e)(
2)
(
ii)
Documentation
of
compliance
with
the
emission
averaging
requirements
for
preheater
or
preheater/
precalciner
kilns
with
dual
stacks.
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

414
(
5)
63.1206(
b)(
1)(
ii)
If
you
elect
to
comply
with
all
applicable
requirements
and
standards
promulgated
under
authority
of
the
Clean
Air
Act,
including
Sections
112
and
129,
in
lieu
of
the
requirements
of
Subpart
EEE
when
not
burning
hazardous
waste,
you
must
document
in
the
operating
record
that
you
are
in
compliance
with
those
requirements.

(
6)
63.1206(
b)(
5)(
ii)
Documentation
that
a
change
will
not
adversely
affect
compliance
with
the
emission
standards
or
operating
requirements.

(
7)
63.1206(
b)(
11)
Calculation
of
hazardous
waste
residence
time.

(
8)
63.1206(
c)(
2)
Startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan.

(
9)
63.1206(
c)(
2)(
v)(
A)
Documentation
of
your
investigation
and
evaluation
of
excessive
exceedances
during
malfunctions.

(
10)
63.1206(
c)(
3)(
v)
Corrective
measures
for
any
automatic
waste
feed
cutoff
that
results
in
an
exceedance
of
an
emission
standard
or
operating
parameter
limit.

(
11)
63.1206(
c)(
3)(
vii)
Documentation
and
results
of
the
automatic
waste
feed
cutoff
operability
testing.

(
12)
63.1206(
c)(
4)(
ii)
Emergency
safety
vent
operating
plan.

(
13)
63.1206(
c)(
4)(
iii)
Corrective
measures
for
any
emergency
safety
vent
opening.

(
14)
63.1206(
c)(
5)(
ii)
Method
used
for
control
of
combustion
system
leaks.

(
15)
63.1206(
c)(
6)
Operator
training
and
certification
program.

(
16)
63.1206(
c)(
7)(
i)(
D)
Operation
and
maintenance
plan.

(
17)
63.1209(
c)(
2)
Feedstream
analysis
plan.

(
18)
63.1209(
k)(
6)(
iii),
63.1209(
k)(
7)(
ii),
63.1209(
k)(
9)(
ii),
63.1209(
o)(
4)(
iii)
Documentation
that
a
substitute
activated
carbon,
dioxin/
furan
formation
reaction
inhibitor,
or
dry
scrubber
sorbent
will
provide
the
same
level
of
control
as
the
original
material.

(
19)
63.1209(
k)(
7)(
i)(
C)
Results
of
carbon
bed
performance
monitoring.

(
20)
63.1209(
q)
Documentation
of
changes
in
modes
of
operation.
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

415
(
21)
63.1211(
d)
Documentation
of
compliance.

*
*
*
*
*
(
c)
Compliance
progress
reports
associated
with
the
notification
of
intent
to
comply.
(
1)
General.
Not
later
than
two
years
following
the
effective
date
of
the
emission
standards
of
this
subpart,
you
must
comply
with
the
following,
unless
you
comply
with
paragraph
(
c)(
2)(
ii)
of
this
section:
(
i)
Develop
engineering
design
for
any
physical
modifications
to
the
source
needed
to
comply
with
the
emission
standards
of
this
subpart;
(
ii)
Submit
applicable
construction
applications
to
the
Administrator;
and
(
iii)
Document
an
internal
or
external
commitment
of
resources,
i.
e.,
funds
or
personnel,
to
purchase,
fabricate,
and
install
any
equipment,
devices,
and
ancillary
structures
needed
to
comply
with
the
emission
standards
and
operating
requirements
of
this
subpart.
(
2)
Progress
report.
(
i)
You
must
submit
to
the
Administrator
a
progress
report
not
later
than
two
years
following
the
effective
date
of
the
emission
standards
of
this
subpart,
which
contains
information
documenting
that
you
have
met
the
requirements
of
paragraph
(
c)(
1)
of
this
section
and
updates
the
information
you
previously
provided
in
your
NIC.
This
information
will
be
used
by
the
Administrator
to
determine
if
you
have
made
adequate
progress
towards
compliance
with
the
emission
standards
of
this
subpart.
In
any
evaluation
of
adequate
progress,
the
Administrator
may
consider
any
delays
in
a
source's
progress
caused
by
the
time
required
to
obtain
necessary
permits
(
e.
g.,
operating
and
construction
permits
or
licenses)
from
governmental
regulatory
agencies
when
the
sources
have
submitted
timely
and
complete
permit
applications.
(
ii)
If
you
can
comply
with
the
emission
standards
and
operating
requirements
of
this
subpart,
without
undertaking
any
of
the
activities
described
in
paragraph
(
c)(
1)
of
this
section,
you
must
submit
a
progress
report
documenting
either:
(
A)
That
you,
at
the
time
of
the
progress
report,
are
in
compliance
with
the
emission
standards
and
operating
requirements;
or
(
B)
The
steps
you
will
take
to
comply,
without
undertaking
any
of
the
activities
listed
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)(
i)
through
(
c)(
1)(
iii)
of
this
section.
(
3)
Schedule.
(
i)
You
must
include
in
the
progress
report
a
detailed
schedule
that
lists
key
dates
for
all
projects
that
will
bring
the
source
into
compliance
with
the
emission
standards
and
operating
requirements
of
this
subpart
for
the
time
period
between
submission
of
the
progress
report
and
the
compliance
date
of
the
emission
standards
and
operating
requirements
of
this
subpart.
(
ii)
The
schedule
must
contain
anticipated
or
actual
dates
for
all
of
the
following:
(
A)
Bid
and
award
dates,
as
necessary,
for
construction
contracts
and
equipment
supply
contractors;
(
B)
Milestones
such
as
ground
breaking,
completion
of
drawings
and
specifications,
equipment
deliveries,
intermediate
construction
completions,
and
testing;
(
C)
The
dates
on
which
applications
will
be
submitted
for
operating
and
construction
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

416
permits
or
licenses;
(
D)
The
dates
by
which
approvals
of
any
operating
and
construction
permits
or
licenses
are
anticipated;
and
(
E)
The
projected
date
by
which
you
expect
to
comply
with
the
emission
standards
and
operating
requirements
of
this
subpart.
(
4)
Sources
that
intend
to
cease
burning
hazardous
waste
prior
to
or
on
the
compliance
date.
(
i)
If
you
indicated
in
your
NIC
your
intent
to
cease
burning
hazardous
waste
and
do
so
prior
to
submitting
a
progress
report,
you
are
exempt
from
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
through
(
c)(
3)
of
this
section.
However,
you
must
submit
and
include
in
your
progress
report
the
date
on
which
you
stopped
burning
hazardous
waste
and
the
date(
s)
you
submitted,
or
plan
to
submit
RCRA
closure
documents.
(
ii)
If
you
signify
in
the
progress
report,
submitted
not
later
than
two
years
following
the
effective
date
of
the
emission
standards
of
this
subpart,
your
intention
to
cease
burning
hazardous
waste,
you
must
stop
burning
hazardous
waste
on
or
before
the
compliance
date
of
the
emission
standards
of
this
subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
140.
Section
63.1212
is
added
to
subpart
EEE
to
read
as
follows:
§
63.1212
What
are
the
other
requirements
pertaining
to
the
NIC
and
associated
progress
report?
(
a)
Certification
of
intent
to
comply.
(
1)
The
Notice
of
Intent
to
Comply
(
NIC)
and
Progress
Report
must
contain
the
following
certification
signed
and
dated
by
an
authorized
representative
of
the
source:
I
certify
under
penalty
of
law
that
I
have
personally
examined
and
am
familiar
with
the
information
submitted
in
this
document
and
all
attachments
and
that,
based
on
my
inquiry
of
those
individuals
immediately
responsible
for
obtaining
the
information,
I
believe
that
the
information
is
true,
accurate,
and
complete.
I
am
aware
that
there
are
significant
penalties
for
submitting
false
information,
including
the
possibility
of
fine
and
imprisonment.
(
2)
An
authorized
representative
should
be
a
responsible
corporate
officer
(
for
a
corporation),
a
general
partner
(
for
a
partnership),
the
proprietor
(
of
a
sole
proprietorship),
or
a
principal
executive
officer
or
ranking
elected
official
(
for
a
municipality,
State,
Federal,
or
other
public
agency).
(
b)
Sources
that
begin
burning
hazardous
waste
after
the
effective
date
of
the
emission
standards
of
this
subpart.
(
1)
If
you
begin
to
burn
hazardous
waste
after
the
effective
date
of
the
emission
standards
of
this
subpart,
but
prior
to
nine
months
after
the
effective
date
of
the
emission
standards
of
this
subpart,
you
must
comply
with
the
requirements
of
§
§
63.1206(
a)(
2),
63.1210(
b)
and
(
c),
63.1211(
c),
and
paragraph
(
a)
of
this
section,
and
associated
time
frames
for
public
meetings
and
document
submittals.
(
2)
If
you
intend
to
begin
burning
hazardous
waste
more
than
nine
months
after
the
effective
date
of
the
emission
standards
of
this
subpart,
you
must
comply
with
the
requirements
of
§
§
63.1206(
a)(
2),
63.1210(
b)
and
(
c),
63.1211(
c),
and
paragraph
(
a)
of
this
section
prior
to
burning
hazardous
waste.
In
addition:
(
i)
You
must
make
a
draft
NIC
available
to
the
public,
notice
the
public
meeting,
conduct
a
public
meeting,
and
submit
a
final
NIC
prior
to
burning
hazardous
waste;
and
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

417
(
ii)
You
must
submit
your
progress
report
at
the
time
you
submit
your
final
NIC.
151.
Section
63.1214
is
amended
by
revising
paragraphs
(
c)(
1),
(
c)(
2),
(
c)(
3),
and
(
c)(
4)
to
read
as
follows:
§
63.1214
Implementation
and
enforcement.
*
*
*
*
*
(
c)
*
*
*
(
1)
Approval
of
alternatives
to
requirements
in
§
§
63.1200,
63.1203,
63.1203A,
63.1204,
63.1204A,
63.1205,
63.1205A,
63.1206(
a),
63.1215,
63.1216,
63.1217,
63.1218,
63.1219,
63.1220,
and
63.12181221.
(
2)
Approval
of
major
alternatives
to
test
methods
under
§
§
63.7(
e)(
2)(
ii)
and
(
f),
63.1208(
b),
and
63.1209(
a)(
1),
as
defined
in
§
63.90,
and
as
required
in
this
subpart.
(
3)
Approval
of
major
alternatives
to
monitoring
under
§
§
63.8(
f)
and
63.1209(
a)(
5),
as
defined
in
§
63.90,
and
as
required
in
this
subpart.
(
4)
Approval
of
major
alternatives
to
recordkeeping
and
reporting
under
§
§
63.10(
f)
and
63.1211(
a)
through
(
d),
as
defined
in
§
63.90,
and
as
required
in
this
subpart.
162.
Section
§
63.1215
is
added
to
subpart
EEE
to
read
as
follows:
§
63.1215
What
are
the
alternative
risk­
based
standards
for
total
chlorine?
(
a)
General.
You
may
establish
and
comply
with
site­
specific,
risk­
based
emission
limits
for
total
chlorine
under
the
procedures
prescribed
in
this
section.
You
may
comply
with
these
risk­
based
emission
limits
in
lieu
of
the
emission
standards
for
total
chlorine
provided
under
§
§
63.1216,
63.1217,
63.1219,
63.1220,
and
63.1221
of
this
chapter
after
review
and
approval
by
the
permitting
authority.
To
identify
and
comply
with
the
limits,
you
must:
(
1)
Identify
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas?
[
To
be
added]

17
emission
rates
for
each
on­
site
hazardous
waste
combustor.
You
may
select
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
emission
rates
as
you
choose
to
demonstrate
eligibility
for
the
total
chlorine
standards
under
this
section,
except
as
provided
by
paragraph
(
b)(
4)
of
this
section;
(
2)
Perform
an
eligibility
demonstration
to
determine
if
your
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limits
meet
the
national
exposure
standards,
as
prescribed
by
paragraphs
(
b)
and
(
c)
of
this
section;
(
3)
Submit
your
eligibility
demonstration
for
review
and
approval,
as
prescribed
by
paragraph
(
d)
of
this
section;
(
4)
Demonstrate
compliance
with
the
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limits,
as
prescribed
by
the
testing
and
monitoring
requirements
under
paragraph
(
e)
of
this
section;
and
(
5)
Comply
with
the
requirements
for
changes,
as
prescribed
by
paragraph
(
f)
of
this
section.
(
b)
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rates.
(
1)
You
must
establish
a
total
chlorine
limit
for
each
hazardous
waste
combustor
as
an
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate.
(
2)
You
must
calculate
the
toxicity­
weighted
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
for
each
combustor
as
follows:
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

418
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
(
3)
You
must
use
the
RfC
values
for
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
found
at
http://
epa.
gov/
ttn/
atw/
toxsource/
sumnmary.
html.
(
4)
The
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
emission
rates
you
use
to
calculate
the
HClequivalent
emission
rate
limit
for
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
must
not
result
in
total
chlorine
emission
concentrations
exceeding
the
standards
provided
by
§
§
63.1203,
63.1204,
and
63.1205.
(
c)
Eligibility
demonstration.
(
1)
General.
You
must
perform
an
eligibility
demonstration
to
determine
whether
your
selected
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
emission
rates
meet
the
national
exposure
standards
using
either
a
look­
up
table
analysis
prescribed
by
paragraph
(
c)(
3)
of
this
section,
or
a
site­
specific
compliance
demonstration
prescribed
by
paragraph
(
c)(
4)
of
this
section.
(
2)
Definition
of
eligibility.
Your
facility
is
eligible
for
the
alternative
risk­
based
standards
for
total
chlorine
if
either:
(
i)
The
sum
of
the
calculated
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rates
for
all
on­
site
hazardous
waste
combustors
is
below
the
appropriate
value
in
the
look­
up
table;
or
(
ii)
Your
site­
specific
compliance
demonstration
indicates
that
your
maximum
Hazard
Index
for
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
emissions
from
all
on­
site
hazardous
waste
combustors
at
a
location
where
people
live
is
less
than
or
equal
to
1.0,
rounded
to
the
nearest
tenths
decimal
place
(
0.1).
(
3)
Look­
up
table
analysis.
(
i)
The
look­
up
table
is
provided
as
Table
1
to
this
section.
(
ii)
To
determine
the
correct
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
value
from
the
look­
up
table,
you
must
use
the
average
stack
height
for
your
hazardous
waste
combustors
(
i.
e.,
the
mean
of
the
stack
height
of
all
on­
site
hazardous
waste
combustors)
and
the
minimum
distance
between
any
hazardous
waste
combustor
stack
and
the
property
boundary.
(
iii)
If
one
or
both
of
these
values
for
stack
height
and
distance
to
nearest
property
boundary
do
not
match
the
exact
values
in
the
look­
up
table,
you
would
use
the
next
lowest
table
value.
(
iv)
You
are
not
eligible
for
the
look­
up
table
analysis
if
your
facility
is
located
in
complex
terrain.
(
v)
If
the
sum
of
the
calculated
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rates
for
all
on­
site
hazardous
waste
combustors
is
below
the
appropriate
value
in
the
look­
up
table,
the
emission
limit
for
total
chlorine
for
each
combustor
is
the
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
you
calculated.
(
4)
Site­
specific
compliance
demonstration.
(
i)
You
may
use
any
scientifically­
accepted
peer­
reviewed
risk
assessment
methodology
for
your
site­
specific
compliance
demonstration.
An
example
of
one
approach
for
performing
the
demonstration
for
air
toxics
can
be
found
in
the
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

419
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.
(
ii)
Your
facility
is
eligible
for
the
alternative
risk­
based
total
chlorine
emission
limit
if
your
site­
specific
compliance
demonstration
shows
that
the
maximum
Hazard
Index
for
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
emissions
from
each
on­
site
hazardous
waste
combustor
is
less
than
or
equal
to
1.0
rounded
to
the
nearest
tenths
decimal
place
(
0.1).
(
iii)
At
a
minimum,
your
site­
specific
compliance
demonstration
must:
(
A)
Estimate
long­
term
inhalation
exposures
through
the
estimation
of
annual
or
multiyear
average
ambient
concentrations;
(
B)
Estimate
the
inhalation
exposure
for
the
actual
individual
most
exposed
to
the
facility's
emissions
from
hazardous
waste
combustors;
(
C)
Use
site­
specific,
quality­
assured
data
wherever
possible;
(
D)
Use
health­
protective
default
assumptions
wherever
site­
specific
data
are
not
available,
and:
(
E)
Contain
adequate
documentation
of
the
data
and
methods
used
for
the
assessment
so
that
it
is
transparent
and
can
be
reproduced
by
an
experienced
risk
assessor
and
emissions
measurement
expert.
(
iv)
Your
site­
specific
compliance
demonstration
need
not:
(
A)
Assume
any
attenuation
of
exposure
concentrations
due
to
the
penetration
of
outdoor
pollutants
into
indoor
exposure
areas;
(
B)
Assume
any
reaction
or
deposition
of
the
emitted
pollutants
during
transport
form
the
emission
point
to
the
point
of
exposure.
(
v)
If
your
site­
specific
compliance
demonstration
documents
that
the
maximum
Hazard
Index
for
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
emissions
from
your
hazardous
waste
combustors
is
less
than
or
equal
to
1.0,
you
would
establish
a
maximum
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
for
each
combustor
based
on
the
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
emission
rates
used
in
this
site­
specific
compliance
demonstration.
(
d)
Review
and
approval
of
eligibility
demonstrations.
(
1)
Content
of
the
eligibility
demonstration.
(
i)
General.
The
eligibility
demonstration
must
include
the
following
information,
at
a
minimum:
(
A)
Identification
of
each
hazardous
waste
combustor
combustion
gas
emission
point
(
e.
g.,
generally,
the
flue
gas
stack);
(
B)
The
maximum
capacity
at
which
each
combustor
will
operate,
and
the
maximum
rated
capacity
for
each
combustor,
using
the
metric
of
stack
gas
volume
emitted
per
unit
of
time,
as
well
as
any
other
metric
that
is
appropriate
for
the
combustor
(
e.
g.,
million
Btu/
hr
heat
input
for
boilers;
tons
of
dry
raw
material
feed/
hour
for
cement
kilns);
(
C)
Stack
parameters
for
each
combustor,
including,
but
not
limited
to
stack
height,
stack
area,
stack
gas
temperature,
and
stack
gas
exit
velocity;
(
D)
Plot
plan
showing
all
stack
emission
points,
nearby
residences,
and
property
boundary
line;
(
E)
Identification
of
any
stack
gas
control
devices
used
to
reduce
emissions
from
each
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

420
combustor;
(
F)
Identification
of
the
RfC
values
used
to
calculate
the
HCl­
equivalent
emissions
rate;
(
G)
Calculations
used
to
determine
the
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate;
(
H)
For
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
calculations
used
to
determine
that
the
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
for
each
combustor
does
not
exceed
the
standards
for
total
chlorine
at
§
§
63.1203,
63.1204,
and
63.1205;
and
(
I)
The
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
for
each
hazardous
waste
combustor
that
you
will
certify
in
the
Documentation
of
Compliance
required
under
§
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.
(
ii)
Additional
content
of
look­
up
table
demonstration.
If
you
use
the
look­
up
table
analysis,
your
eligibility
demonstration
must
also
contain,
at
a
minimum,
the
following:
(
A)
Calculations
used
to
determine
the
average
stack
height
of
on­
site
hazardous
waste
combustors;
(
B)
Identification
of
the
combustor
stack
with
the
minimum
distance
to
the
property
boundary
of
the
facility;
and
(
C)
Comparison
of
the
values
in
the
look­
up
table
to
your
maximum
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate.
(
iii)
Additional
content
of
a
site­
specific
compliance
demonstration.
If
you
use
a
sitespecific
compliance
demonstration,
your
eligibility
demonstration
must
also
contain,
at
a
minimum,
the
following:
(
A)
Identification
of
the
risk
assessment
methodology
used;
(
B)
Documentation
of
the
fate
and
transport
model
used;
(
C)
Documentation
of
the
fate
and
transport
model
inputs,
including
the
stack
parameters
listed
in
paragraph
(
d)(
1)(
i)(
C)
of
this
section
converted
to
the
dimensions
required
for
the
model;
(
D)
As
applicable:
(
1)
Meteorological
data;
(
2)
Building,
land
use,
and
terrain
data;
(
3)
Receptor
locations
and
population
data;
and
(
4)
Other
facility­
specific
parameters
input
into
the
model;
(
E)
Documentation
of
the
fate
and
transport
model
outputs;
(
F)
Documentation
of
any
exposure
assessment
and
risk
characterization
calculations;
and
(
G)
Documentation
of
the
predicted
Hazard
Index
forHCl­
equivalents
and
comparison
to
the
limit
of
less
than
1.0.
(
2)
Review
and
approval.
(
i)
Existing
sources.
(
A)
If
you
operate
an
existing
source,
you
must
be
in
compliance
with
the
emission
standards
on
the
compliance
date.
If
you
elect
to
comply
with
the
alternative
risk­
based
emission
rate
limit
for
total
chlorine,
you
must
have
completed
the
eligibility
demonstration
and
received
approval
from
your
delegated
permitting
authority
by
the
compliance
date.
(
B)
You
must
submit
the
eligibility
demonstration
to
your
permitting
authority
for
review
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

421
and
approval
not
later
than
12
months
prior
to
the
compliance
date.
You
must
submit
a
separate
copy
of
the
eligibility
demonstration
to:
U.
S.
EPA,
Risk
and
Exposure
Assessment
Group,
Emission
Standards
Division
(
C404­
01),
Attn:
Group
Leader,
Research
Triangle
Park,
North
Carolina
27711.
(
C)
Your
permitting
authority
will
notify
you
of
approval
or
intent
to
disapprove
your
eligibility
demonstration
within
6
months
after
receipt
of
the
original
demonstration,
and
within
3
months
after
receipt
of
any
supplemental
information
that
you
submit.
A
notice
of
intent
to
disapprove
your
eligibility
demonstration
will
identify
incomplete
or
inaccurate
information
or
noncompliance
with
prescribed
procedures
and
specify
how
much
time
you
will
have
to
submit
additional
information.
(
D)
If
your
permitting
authority
has
not
approved
your
eligibility
demonstration
to
comply
with
a
risk­
based
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate(
s)
by
the
compliance
date,
you
must
comply
with
the
MACT
emission
standards
for
total
chlorine
gas
under
§
§
63.1216,
63.1217,
63.1219,
63.1220,
and
63.1221
of
this
chapter.
(
ii)
New
sources.
General.
(
A)
If
you
operate
a
source
that
is
not
an
existing
source
and
that
becomes
subject
to
Subpart
EEE,
you
must
comply
with
the
MACT
emission
standards
for
total
chlorine
unless
and
until
your
eligibility
demonstration
has
been
approved
by
the
permitting
authority.
(
B)
If
you
operate
a
new
or
reconstructed
source
that
starts
up
before
the
effective
date
of
the
emission
standards
proposed
today,
or
a
solid
fuel­
fired
boiler
or
liquid
fuel­
fired
boiler
that
is
an
area
source
that
increases
its
emissions
or
its
potential
to
emit
such
that
it
becomes
a
major
source
of
HAP
before
the
effective
date
of
§
§
63.1216
and
63.1217,
you
would
be
required
to
comply
with
the
emission
standards
under
§
§
63.1216
and
63.1217
until
your
eligibility
demonstration
is
approved
by
your
permitting
authority.
(
C)
If
you
operate
a
new
or
reconstructed
source
that
starts
up
after
the
effective
date
of
the
emission
standards
proposed
today,
or
a
solid
fuel­
fired
boiler
or
liquid
fuel­
fired
boiler
that
is
an
area
source
that
increases
its
emissions
or
its
potential
to
emit
such
that
it
becomes
a
major
source
of
HAP
after
the
effective
date
of
§
§
63.1216
and
63.1217,
you
would
be
required
to
comply
with
the
emission
standards
under
§
§
63.1216
and
63.1217
until
your
eligibility
demonstration
is
approved
by
your
permitting
authority.
(
e)
Testing
and
monitoring
requirements.
(
1)
General.
You
must
document
compliance
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
under
§
63.1207
with
the
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
established
in
an
approved
eligibility
demonstration
for
each
hazardous
waste
combustor.
(
2)
Test
methods.
(
i)
If
you
operate
a
cement
kiln
or
a
combustor
equipped
with
a
dry
acid
gas
scrubber,
you
must
should
use
EPA
Method
320/
321
or
ASTM
D
6735­
01,
or
an
equivalent
method,
to
measure
hydrogen
chloride,
and
the
back­
half
(
caustic
impingers)
of
Method
26/
26A,
or
an
equivalent
method,
to
measure
chlorine
gas.
(
ii)
If
you
operate
an
incinerator,
boiler,
or
lightweight
aggregate
kiln,
you
must
use
EPA
Method
320/
321
or
ASTM
D
6735­
01,
or
an
equivalent
method,
to
measure
hydrogen
chloride,
and
Method
26/
26A,
or
an
equivalent
method,
to
measure
total
chlorine,
and
calculate
chlorine
gas
by
difference
if:
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

422
(
A)
The
bromine/
chlorine
ratio
in
feedstreams
is
greater
than
5
percent;
or
(
B)
The
sulfur/
chlorine
ratio
in
feedstreams
is
greater
than
50
percent.
(
3)
Operating
parameter
limits.
(
i)
You
must
establish
limits
on
the
same
operating
parameters
that
apply
to
sources
complying
with
the
MACT
standard
for
total
chlorine
under
§
63.1209(
o),
except
that
feedrate
limits
on
total
chlorine
and
chloride
must
be
established
as
specified
under
paragraph
(
e)(
3)(
ii)
of
this
section.
(
ii)
Annual
rolling
average
feedrate.
You
must
establish
an
annual
rolling
average
feedrate
limit
for
total
chlorine
and
chloride
as
the
average
of
the
test
run
averages
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test.
(
A)
To
document
compliance
with
the
feedrate
limit,
you
must
know
the
total
chlorine
and
chloride
concentration
of
feedstreams
at
all
times
and
continuously
monitor
the
flowrate
of
all
feedstreams.
(
B)
You
must
measure
the
flowrate
of
each
feedstream
at
least
once
each
minute
and
update
the
annual
rolling
average
hourly
based
on
the
average
of
the
60
previous
1­
minute
measurements.
(
f)
Changes.
(
1)
Changes
over
which
you
have
control.
(
i)
Changes
in
design,
operation,
or
maintenance
of
a
hazardous
waste
combustor
that
may
affect
the
rate
of
emissions
of
HCl­
equivalents
from
the
combustor
are
subject
to
the
requirements
of
§
63.1206(
b)(
5).
(
ii)
If
you
change
the
information
documented
in
the
demonstration
of
eligibility
for
the
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
and
which
is
used
to
establish
the
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit,
you
are
subject
to
the
following
requirements:
(
A)
Changes
that
would
decrease
the
allowable
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit.
If
you
plan
to
make
a
change
that
would
decrease
the
allowable
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
documented
in
your
eligibility
demonstration,
you
must
comply
with
§
63.1206(
b)(
5)(
i)(
A­
C);
(
B)
Changes
that
would
not
decrease
the
allowable
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit.
(
1)
If
you
determine
that
a
change
would
not
decrease
the
allowable
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
documented
in
your
eligibility
demonstration,
you
must
document
the
change
in
the
operating
record
upon
making
such
change.
(
2)
If
the
change
would
increase
your
allowable
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
and
you
elect
to
establish
a
higher
HCl­
equivalent
limit,
you
must
submit
a
revised
eligibility
demonstration
for
review
and
approval.
Upon
approval
of
the
revised
eligibility
demonstration,
you
must
comply
with
§
63.1206(
b)(
5)(
i)(
A)(
2),
(
B),
and
(
C).
(
2)
Changes
over
which
you
do
not
have
control.
(
i)
You
must
review
the
documentation
you
use
in
your
eligibility
demonstration
every
five
years
on
the
anniversary
of
the
comprehensive
performance
test
and
submit
for
review
and
approval
with
the
comprehensive
performance
test
plan
either
a
certification
that
the
information
used
in
your
eligibility
demonstration
has
not
changed
in
a
manner
that
would
decrease
the
allowable
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit,
or
a
revised
eligibility
demonstration
for
a
revised
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit.
(
ii)
If
you
determine
that
you
cannot
demonstrate
compliance
with
a
lower
allowable
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
because
you
cannot
complete
changes
to
the
design
or
operation
of
the
source
prior
to
the
test,
you
may
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

423
request
that
the
permitting
authority
grant
you
additional
time
as
necessary
to
make
those
changes,
not
to
exceed
three
years.

TABLE
1
to
Section
63.1215.
Allowable
toxicity­
weighted
emission
rate
expressed
in
HCl
equivalents
(
lb/
hr)

Stack
Ht
(
m)
Distance
to
Property
Boundary
(
m)
10
30
50
100
200
500
2
0.0244
0.0322
0.0338
0.0627
0.173
0.766
5
0.0475
0.0612
0.0881
0.168
0.309
0.881
10
0.165
0.187
0.216
0.336
0.637
1.59
20
0.661
1.01
1.01
1.2
1.87
4.31
35
2.02
2.02
4.04
4.11
5.08
10.4
50
4.11
4.11
4.11
9.74
10.8
18.0
13.
Section
63.1216
is
added
to
subpart
EEE
to
read
as
follows:
EMISSIONS
STANDARDS
AND
OPERATING
LIMITS
FOR
SOLID
FUEL­
FIRED
BOILERS,
LIQUID
FUEL­
FIRED
BOILERS,
AND
HYDROCHLORIC
ACID
PRODUCTION
FURNACES
§
63.1216
What
are
the
standards
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
that
burn
hazardous
waste?
(
a)
Emission
limits
for
existing
sources.
You
must
not
discharge
or
cause
combustion
gases
to
be
emitted
into
the
atmosphere
that
contain:
(
1)
For
dioxin
and
furan,
either
carbon
monoxide
or
hydrocarbon
emissions
in
excess
of
the
limits
provided
by
paragraph
(
a)(
5)
of
this
section;
(
2)
Mercury
in
excess
of
10
ug/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
(
3)
Except
for
an
area
source
as
defined
in
§
63.2,
cadmium
and
lead
in
excess
of
170
ug/
dscm,
combined
emissions,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
(
4)
Except
for
an
area
source
as
defined
in
§
63.2,
arsenic,
beryllium,
and
chromium
in
excess
of
210
ug/
dscm,
combined
emissions,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
(
5)
For
carbon
monoxide
and
hydrocarbons,
either:
(
i)
Carbon
monoxide
in
excess
of
100
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis
and
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
If
you
elect
to
comply
with
this
carbon
monoxide
standard
rather
than
the
hydrocarbon
standard
under
paragraph
(
a)(
5)(
ii)
of
this
section,
you
must
also
document
that,
during
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
test
runs
or
their
equivalent
as
provided
by
§
63.1206(
b)(
7),
hydrocarbons
do
not
exceed
10
parts
per
million
by
volume
during
those
runs,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane;
or
(
ii)
Hydrocarbons
in
excess
of
10
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane;
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

424
(
6)
Except
for
an
area
source
as
defined
in
§
63.2,
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
in
excess
of
440
parts
per
million
by
volume,
combined
emissions,
expressed
as
a
chloride
(
Cl(­))
equivalent,
dry
basis
and
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
and
(
7)
Except
for
an
area
source
as
defined
in
§
63.2,
particulate
matter
in
excess
of
68
mg/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
(
b)
Emission
limits
for
new
sources.
You
must
not
discharge
or
cause
combustion
gases
to
be
emitted
into
the
atmosphere
that
contain:
(
1)
For
dioxin
and
furan,
either
carbon
monoxide
or
hydrocarbon
emissions
in
excess
of
the
limits
provided
by
paragraph
(
b)(
5)
of
this
section;
(
2)
Mercury
in
excess
of
10
ug/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
(
3)
Except
for
an
area
source
as
defined
in
§
63.2,
cadmium
and
lead
in
excess
of
170
ug/
dscm,
combined
emissions,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
(
4)
Except
for
an
area
source
as
defined
in
§
63.2,
arsenic,
beryllium,
and
chromium
in
excess
of
190
ug/
dscm,
combined
emissions,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
(
5)
For
carbon
monoxide
and
hydrocarbons,
either:
(
i)
Carbon
monoxide
in
excess
of
100
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis
and
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
If
you
elect
to
comply
with
this
carbon
monoxide
standard
rather
than
the
hydrocarbon
standard
under
paragraph
(
b)(
5)(
ii)
of
this
section,
you
must
also
document
that,
during
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
test
runs
or
their
equivalent
as
provided
by
§
§
63.1206(
b)(
7),
hydrocarbons
do
not
exceed
10
parts
per
million
by
volume
during
those
runs,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane;
or
(
ii)
Hydrocarbons
in
excess
of
10
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane;
(
6)
Except
for
an
area
source
as
defined
in
§
63.2,
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
in
excess
of
73
parts
per
million
by
volume,
combined
emissions,
expressed
as
a
chloride
(
Cl(­))
equivalent,
dry
basis
and
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
and
(
7)
Except
for
an
area
source
as
defined
in
§
63.2,
particulate
matter
in
excess
of
34
mg/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
(
c)
Destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
standard.
(
1)
99.99%
DRE.
Except
as
provided
in
paragraph
(
c)(
2)
of
this
section,
you
must
achieve
a
DRE
of
99.99%
for
each
principle
organic
hazardous
constituent
(
POHC)
designated
under
paragraph
(
c)(
3)
of
this
section.
You
must
calculate
DRE
for
each
POHC
from
the
following
equation:
DRE
=
[
1

(
Wout
/
Win)]
X
100%
Where:
Win
=
mass
feedrate
of
one
POHC
in
a
waste
feedstream;
and
Wout
=
mass
emission
rate
of
the
same
POHC
present
in
exhaust
emissions
prior
to
release
to
the
atmosphere.
(
2)
99.9999%
DRE.
If
you
burn
the
dioxin­
listed
hazardous
wastes
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,
F026,
or
F027
(
see
§
261.31
of
this
chapter),
you
must
achieve
a
DRE
of
99.9999%
for
each
POHC
that
you
designate
under
paragraph
(
c)(
3)
of
this
section.
You
must
demonstrate
this
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

425
DRE
performance
on
POHCs
that
are
more
difficult
to
incinerate
than
tetra­,
penta­,
and
hexachlorodibenzo­
p­
dioxins
and
dibenzofurans.
You
must
use
the
equation
in
paragraph
(
c)(
1)
of
this
section
to
calculate
DRE
for
each
POHC.
In
addition,
you
must
notify
the
Administrator
of
your
intent
to
incinerate
hazardous
wastes
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,
F026,
or
F027.
(
3)
Principal
organic
hazardous
constituents
(
POHCs).
(
i)
You
must
treat
the
POHCs
in
the
waste
feed
that
you
specify
under
paragraph
(
c)(
3)(
ii)
of
this
section
to
the
extent
required
by
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
and
(
c)(
2)
of
this
section.
(
ii)
You
must
specify
one
or
more
POHCs
from
the
list
of
hazardous
air
pollutants
established
by
42
U.
S.
C.
7412(
b)(
1),
excluding
caprolactam
(
CAS
number
105602)
as
provided
by
§
63.60,
for
each
waste
to
be
burned.
You
must
base
this
specification
on
the
degree
of
difficulty
of
incineration
of
the
organic
constituents
in
the
waste
and
on
their
concentration
or
mass
in
the
waste
feed,
considering
the
results
of
waste
analyses
or
other
data
and
information.
(
d)
Significant
figures.
The
emission
limits
provided
by
paragraphs
(
a)
and
(
b)
of
this
section
are
presented
with
two
significant
figures.
Although
you
must
perform
intermediate
calculations
using
at
least
three
significant
figures,
you
may
round
the
resultant
emission
levels
to
two
significant
figures
to
document
compliance.
184.
Section
63.1217
is
added
to
subpart
EEE
to
read
as
follows:
§
63.1217
What
are
the
standards
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
that
burn
hazardous
waste?
(
a)
Emission
limits
for
existing
sources.
You
must
not
discharge
or
cause
combustion
gases
to
be
emitted
into
the
atmosphere
that
contain:
(
1)(
i)
Dioxin
and
furan
in
excess
of
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen
for
incinerators
equipped
with
either
a
waste
heat
boiler
or
dry
air
pollution
control
system;
or
(
ii)
Either
carbon
monoxide
or
hydrocarbon
emissions
in
excess
of
the
limits
provided
by
paragraph
(
a)(
5)
of
this
section
for
sources
not
equipped
with
either
a
waste
heat
boiler
or
dry
air
pollution
control
system;
(
iii)
A
source
equipped
a
wet
air
pollution
control
system
followed
by
a
dry
air
pollution
control
system
is
not
considered
to
be
a
dry
air
pollution
control
system,
and
a
source
equipped
with
a
dry
air
pollution
control
system
followed
a
wet
air
pollution
control
system
is
considered
to
be
a
dry
air
pollution
control
system
for
purposes
of
this
emission
limit;
(
2)
Mercury
in
excess
of
3.7
x
10­
6
lbs
mercury
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
British
thermal
unit
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste;
(
3)
Except
for
an
area
source
as
defined
in
§
63.2,
in
excess
of
1.1
x
10­
5
lbs
combined
emissions
of
cadmium
and
lead
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
British
thermal
unit
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste;
(
4)
Except
for
an
area
source
as
defined
in
§
63.2,
in
excess
of
1.1
x
10­
4
lbs
chromium
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
British
thermal
unit
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste;
(
5)
For
carbon
monoxide
and
hydrocarbons,
either:
(
i)
Carbon
monoxide
in
excess
of
100
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis
and
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

426
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
If
you
elect
to
comply
with
this
carbon
monoxide
standard
rather
than
the
hydrocarbon
standard
under
paragraph
(
a)(
5)(
ii)
of
this
section,
you
must
also
document
that,
during
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
test
runs
or
their
equivalent
as
provided
by
§
63.1206(
b)(
7),
hydrocarbons
do
not
exceed
10
parts
per
million
by
volume
during
those
runs,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane;
or
(
ii)
Hydrocarbons
in
excess
of
10
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane;
(
6)
Except
for
an
area
source
as
defined
in
§
63.2,
in
excess
of
2.5
x
10­
2
lbs
combined
emissions
of
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
British
thermal
unit
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste;
and
(
7)
Except
for
an
area
source
as
defined
in
§
63.2
or
as
provided
by
paragraph
(
e)(
2)
of
this
section,
particulate
matter
in
excess
of
59
mg/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
(
b)
Emission
limits
for
new
sources.
You
must
not
discharge
or
cause
combustion
gases
to
be
emitted
into
the
atmosphere
that
contain:
(
1)(
i)
Dioxin
and
furan
in
excess
of
0.015
ng
TEQ/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen
for
incinerators
equipped
with
either
a
waste
heat
boiler
or
dry
air
pollution
control
system;
or
(
ii)
Either
carbon
monoxide
or
hydrocarbon
emissions
in
excess
of
the
limits
provided
by
paragraph
(
a)(
5)
of
this
section
for
sources
not
equipped
with
either
a
waste
heat
boiler
or
dry
air
pollution
control
system;
(
iii)
A
source
equipped
a
wet
air
pollution
control
system
followed
by
a
dry
air
pollution
control
system
is
not
considered
to
be
a
dry
air
pollution
control
system,
and
a
source
equipped
with
a
dry
air
pollution
control
system
followed
a
wet
air
pollution
control
system
is
considered
to
be
a
dry
air
pollution
control
system
for
purposes
of
this
emission
limit;
(
2)
In
excess
of
3.8
x
10­
7
lbs
mercury
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
British
thermal
unit
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste;
(
3)
Except
for
an
area
source
as
defined
in
§
63.2,
in
excess
of
4.3
x
10­
6
lbs
combined
emissions
of
cadmium
and
lead
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
British
thermal
unit
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste;
(
4)
Except
for
an
area
source
as
defined
in
§
63.2,
in
excess
of
3.6
x
10­
5
lbs
chromium
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
British
thermal
unit
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste;
(
5)
For
carbon
monoxide
and
hydrocarbons,
either:
(
i)
Carbon
monoxide
in
excess
of
100
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis
and
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
If
you
elect
to
comply
with
this
carbon
monoxide
standard
rather
than
the
hydrocarbon
standard
under
paragraph
(
a)(
5)(
ii)
of
this
section,
you
must
also
document
that,
during
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
test
runs
or
their
equivalent
as
provided
by
§
63.1206(
b)(
7),
hydrocarbons
do
not
exceed
10
parts
per
million
by
volume
during
those
runs,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane;
or
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

427
(
ii)
Hydrocarbons
in
excess
of
10
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane;
(
6)
Except
for
an
area
source
as
defined
in
§
63.2,
in
excess
of
7.2
x
10­
4
lbs
combined
emissions
of
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
British
thermal
unit
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste;
and
(
7)
Except
for
an
area
source
as
defined
in
§
63.2
or
as
provided
in
paragraph
(
e)(
3)
of
this
section,
particulate
matter
in
excess
of
9.8
mg/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
(
c)
Destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
standard.
(
1)
99.99%
DRE.
Except
as
provided
in
paragraph
(
c)(
2)
of
this
section,
you
must
achieve
a
DRE
of
99.99%
for
each
principle
organic
hazardous
constituent
(
POHC)
designated
under
paragraph
(
c)(
3)
of
this
section.
You
must
calculate
DRE
for
each
POHC
from
the
following
equation:
DRE
=
[
1

(
Wout
/
Win)]
X
100%
Where:
Win
=
mass
feedrate
of
one
POHC
in
a
waste
feedstream;
and
Wout
=
mass
emission
rate
of
the
same
POHC
present
in
exhaust
emissions
prior
to
release
to
the
atmosphere.
(
2)
99.9999%
DRE.
If
you
burn
the
dioxin­
listed
hazardous
wastes
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,
F026,
or
F027
(
see
§
261.31
of
this
chapter),
you
must
achieve
a
DRE
of
99.9999%
for
each
POHC
that
you
designate
under
paragraph
(
c)(
3)
of
this
section.
You
must
demonstrate
this
DRE
performance
on
POHCs
that
are
more
difficult
to
incinerate
than
tetra­,
penta­,
and
hexachlorodibenzo­
p­
dioxins
and
dibenzofurans.
You
must
use
the
equation
in
paragraph
(
c)(
1)
of
this
section
to
calculate
DRE
for
each
POHC.
In
addition,
you
must
notify
the
Administrator
of
your
intent
to
incinerate
hazardous
wastes
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,
F026,
or
F027.
(
3)
Principal
organic
hazardous
constituents
(
POHCs).
(
i)
You
must
treat
the
POHCs
in
the
waste
feed
that
you
specify
under
paragraph
(
c)(
3)(
ii)
of
this
section
to
the
extent
required
by
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
and
(
c)(
2)
of
this
section.
(
ii)
You
must
specify
one
or
more
POHCs
from
the
list
of
hazardous
air
pollutants
established
by
42
U.
S.
C.
7412(
b)(
1),
excluding
caprolactam
(
CAS
number
105602)
as
provided
by
§
63.60,
for
each
waste
to
be
burned.
You
must
base
this
specification
on
the
degree
of
difficulty
of
incineration
of
the
organic
constituents
in
the
waste
and
on
their
concentration
or
mass
in
the
waste
feed,
considering
the
results
of
waste
analyses
or
other
data
and
information.
(
d)
Significant
figures.
The
emission
limits
provided
by
paragraphs
(
a)
and
(
b)
of
this
section
are
presented
with
two
significant
figures.
Although
you
must
perform
intermediate
calculations
using
at
least
three
significant
figures,
you
may
round
the
resultant
emission
levels
to
two
significant
figures
to
document
compliance.
(
e)
Alternative
to
the
particulate
matter
standard
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers.
(
1)
General.
In
lieu
of
complying
with
the
applicable
particulate
matter
standards
of
paragraphs
(
a)(
7)
and
(
b)(
7)
of
this
section,
you
may
elect
to
comply
with
the
following
alternative
metal
emission
control
requirements:
(
2)
Alternative
metal
emission
control
requirements
for
existing
sources.
(
i)
You
must
not
discharge
or
cause
combustion
gases
to
be
emitted
into
the
atmosphere
that
contain
in
excess
of
1.1
x
10­
5
lbs
combined
emissions
of
cadmium,
lead,
and
selenium
attributable
to
the
hazardous
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

428
waste
per
million
British
thermal
unit
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
and,
(
ii)
You
must
not
discharge
or
cause
combustion
gases
to
be
emitted
into
the
atmosphere
that
contain
in
excess
of
7.7
x
10­
5
lbs
combined
emissions
of
antimony,
arsenic,
beryllium,
chromium,
cobalt,
manganese,
and
nickel
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
British
thermal
unit
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
(
3)
Alternative
metal
emission
control
requirements
for
new
sources.
(
i)
You
must
not
discharge
or
cause
combustion
gases
to
be
emitted
into
the
atmosphere
that
contain
in
excess
of
4.3
x
10­
6
lbs
combined
emissions
of
cadmium,
lead,
and
selenium
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
British
thermal
unit
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
and,
(
ii)
You
must
not
discharge
or
cause
combustion
gases
to
be
emitted
into
the
atmosphere
that
contain
in
excess
of
3.6
x
10­
5
lbs
combined
emissions
of
antimony,
arsenic,
beryllium,
chromium,
cobalt,
manganese,
and
nickel
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
British
thermal
unit
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
195.
Section
63.1218
is
added
to
subpart
EEE
to
read
as
follows:
§
63.1218
What
are
the
standards
for
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
that
burn
hazardous
waste?
(
a)
Emission
limits
for
existing
sources.
You
must
not
discharge
or
cause
combustion
gases
to
be
emitted
into
the
atmosphere
that
contain:
(
1)
Dioxin
and
furan
emissions
in
excess
of
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
(
2)
For
mercury,
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
emissions
in
excess
of
the
levels
provided
by
paragraph
(
a)(
6)
of
this
section;
(
3)
For
lead
and
cadmium,
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
emissions
in
excess
of
the
levels
provided
by
paragraph
(
a)(
6)
of
this
section;
(
4)
For
arsenic,
beryllium,
and
chromium,
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
emissions
in
excess
of
the
levels
provided
by
paragraph
(
a)(
6)
of
this
section;
(
5)
For
carbon
monoxide
and
hydrocarbons,
either:
(
i)
Carbon
monoxide
in
excess
of
100
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis
and
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
If
you
elect
to
comply
with
this
carbon
monoxide
standard
rather
than
the
hydrocarbon
standard
under
paragraph
(
a)(
5)(
ii)
of
this
section,
you
must
also
document
that,
during
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
test
runs
or
their
equivalent
as
provided
by
§
63.1206(
b)(
7),
hydrocarbons
do
not
exceed
10
parts
per
million
by
volume
during
those
runs,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane;
or
(
ii)
Hydrocarbons
in
excess
of
10
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane;
(
6)
For
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas,
either:
(
i)
Emission
in
excess
of
14
parts
per
million
by
volume,
combined
emissions,
expressed
as
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

429
a
chloride
(
Cl(­))
equivalent,
dry
basis
and
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
or
(
ii)
Emissions
greater
than
the
levels
that
would
be
emitted
if
the
source
is
achieving
a
system
removal
efficiency
(
SRE)
of
less
than
99.9927
percent
for
total
chlorine
and
chloride
fed
to
the
combustor.
You
must
calculate
SRE
from
the
following
equation:
SRE
=
[
1

(
Cl
out
/
Cl
in)]
X
100%
Where:
Cl
in
=
mass
feedrate
of
total
chlorine
or
chloride
in
all
feedstreams,
reported
as
chloride;
and
Cl
out
=
mass
emission
rate
of
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas,
reported
as
chloride,
in
exhaust
emissions
prior
to
release
to
the
atmosphere.
(
7)
For
particulate
matter,
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
emissions
in
excess
of
the
levels
provided
by
paragraph
(
a)(
6)
of
this
section.
(
b)
Emission
limits
for
new
sources.
You
must
not
discharge
or
cause
combustion
gases
to
be
emitted
into
the
atmosphere
that
contain:
(
1)
Dioxin
and
furan
emissions
in
excess
of
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
(
2)
For
mercury,
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
emissions
in
excess
of
the
levels
provided
by
paragraph
(
a)(
6)
of
this
section;
(
3)
For
lead
and
cadmium,
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
emissions
in
excess
of
the
levels
provided
by
paragraph
(
a)(
6)
of
this
section;
(
4)
For
arsenic,
beryllium,
and
chromium,
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
emissions
in
excess
of
the
levels
provided
by
paragraph
(
a)(
6)
of
this
section;
(
5)
For
carbon
monoxide
and
hydrocarbons,
either:
(
i)
Carbon
monoxide
in
excess
of
100
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis
and
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
If
you
elect
to
comply
with
this
carbon
monoxide
standard
rather
than
the
hydrocarbon
standard
under
paragraph
(
b)(
5)(
ii)
of
this
section,
you
must
also
document
that,
during
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
test
runs
or
their
equivalent
as
provided
by
§
63.1206(
b)(
7),
hydrocarbons
do
not
exceed
10
parts
per
million
by
volume
during
those
runs,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane;
or
(
ii)
Hydrocarbons
in
excess
of
10
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane;
(
6)
For
hydrochloric
acid
and
chlorine
gas,
either:
(
i)
Emission
in
excess
of
1.2
parts
per
million
by
volume,
combined
emissions,
expressed
as
a
chloride
(
Cl(­))
equivalent,
dry
basis
and
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
or
(
ii)
Emissions
greater
than
the
levels
that
would
be
emitted
if
the
source
is
achieving
a
system
removal
efficiency
(
SRE)
of
less
than
99.99937
percent
for
total
chlorine
and
chloride
fed
to
the
combustor.
You
must
calculate
SRE
from
the
following
equation:
SRE
=
[
1

(
Cl
out
/
Cl
in)]
X
100%
Where:
Cl
in
=
mass
feedrate
of
total
chlorine
or
chloride
in
all
feedstreams,
reported
as
chloride;
and
Cl
out
=
mass
emission
rate
of
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas,
reported
as
chloride,
in
exhaust
emissions
prior
to
release
to
the
atmosphere.
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

430
(
7)
For
particulate
matter,
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
emissions
in
excess
of
the
levels
provided
by
paragraph
(
a)(
6)
of
this
section.
(
c)
Destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
standard.
(
1)
99.99%
DRE.
Except
as
provided
in
paragraph
(
c)(
2)
of
this
section,
you
must
achieve
a
DRE
of
99.99%
for
each
principle
organic
hazardous
constituent
(
POHC)
designated
under
paragraph
(
c)(
3)
of
this
section.
You
must
calculate
DRE
for
each
POHC
from
the
following
equation:
DRE
=
[
1

(
Wout
/
Win)]
X
100%
Where:
Win
=
mass
feedrate
of
one
POHC
in
a
waste
feedstream;
and
Wout
=
mass
emission
rate
of
the
same
POHC
present
in
exhaust
emissions
prior
to
release
to
the
atmosphere.
(
2)
99.9999%
DRE.
If
you
burn
the
dioxin­
listed
hazardous
wastes
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,
F026,
or
F027
(
see
§
261.31
of
this
chapter),
you
must
achieve
a
DRE
of
99.9999%
for
each
POHC
that
you
designate
under
paragraph
(
c)(
3)
of
this
section.
You
must
demonstrate
this
DRE
performance
on
POHCs
that
are
more
difficult
to
incinerate
than
tetra­,
penta­,
and
hexachlorodibenzo­
p­
dioxins
and
dibenzofurans.
You
must
use
the
equation
in
paragraph
(
c)(
1)
of
this
section
to
calculate
DRE
for
each
POHC.
In
addition,
you
must
notify
the
Administrator
of
your
intent
to
incinerate
hazardous
wastes
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,
F026,
or
F027.
(
3)
Principal
organic
hazardous
constituents
(
POHCs).
(
i)
You
must
treat
the
POHCs
in
the
waste
feed
that
you
specify
under
paragraph
(
c)(
3)(
ii)
of
this
section
to
the
extent
required
by
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
and
(
c)(
2)
of
this
section.
(
ii)
You
must
specify
one
or
more
POHCs
from
the
list
of
hazardous
air
pollutants
established
by
42
U.
S.
C.
7412(
b)(
1),
excluding
caprolactam
(
CAS
number
105602)
as
provided
by
§
63.60,
for
each
waste
to
be
burned.
You
must
base
this
specification
on
the
degree
of
difficulty
of
incineration
of
the
organic
constituents
in
the
waste
and
on
their
concentration
or
mass
in
the
waste
feed,
considering
the
results
of
waste
analyses
or
other
data
and
information.
(
d)
Significant
figures.
The
emission
limits
provided
by
paragraphs
(
a)
and
(
b)
of
this
section
are
presented
with
two
significant
figures.
Although
you
must
perform
intermediate
calculations
using
at
least
three
significant
figures,
you
may
round
the
resultant
emission
levels
to
two
significant
figures
to
document
compliance.
16.
Section
63.1219
is
added
to
subpart
EEE
to
read
as
follows:
REPLACEMENT
EMISSIONS
STANDARDS
AND
OPERATING
LIMITS
FOR
INCINERATORS,
CEMENT
KILNS,
AND
LIGHTWEIGHT
AGGREGATE
KILNS
Text
Moved
Here:
1
§
63.1203A1219
What
are
the
replacement
standards
for
hazardous
waste
incinerators?
(
a)
Emission
limits
for
existing
sources.
You
must
not
discharge
or
cause
combustion
gases
to
be
emitted
into
the
atmosphere
that
contain:
(
1)(
i)
Dioxin
and
furan
in
excess
of
0.28
ng
TEQ/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen
for
incinerators
equipped
with
either
a
waste
heat
boiler
or
dry
air
pollution
control
system;
or
(
ii)
Dioxin
and
furan
in
excess
of
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen
for
sources
not
equipped
with
either
a
waste
heat
boiler
or
dry
air
pollution
control
system;
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

431
(
iii)
A
source
equipped
a
wet
air
pollution
control
system
followed
by
a
dry
air
pollution
control
system
is
not
considered
to
be
a
dry
air
pollution
control
system,
and
a
source
equipped
with
a
dry
air
pollution
control
system
followed
a
wet
air
pollution
control
system
is
considered
to
be
a
dry
air
pollution
control
system
for
purposes
of
this
emission
limit;
(
2)
Mercury
in
excess
of
130
ug/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
(
3)
Cadmium
and
lead
in
excess
of
59
ug/
dscm,
combined
emissions,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
(
4)
Arsenic,
beryllium,
and
chromium
in
excess
of
84
ug/
dscm,
combined
emissions,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
(
5)
For
carbon
monoxide
and
hydrocarbons,
either:
(
i)
Carbon
monoxide
in
excess
of
100
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis
and
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
If
you
elect
to
comply
with
this
carbon
monoxide
standard
rather
than
the
hydrocarbon
standard
under
paragraph
(
a)(
5)(
ii)
of
this
section,
you
must
also
document
that,
during
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
test
runs
or
their
equivalent
as
provided
by
§
63.1206(
b)(
7),
hydrocarbons
do
not
exceed
10
parts
per
million
by
volume
during
those
runs,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane;
or
(
ii)
Hydrocarbons
in
excess
of
10
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane;
(
6)
Hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
(
total
chlorine)
in
excess
of
1.5
parts
per
million
by
volume,
combined
emissions,
expressed
as
a
chloride
(
Cl(­))
equivalent,
dry
basis
and
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
and
(
7)
Except
as
provided
by
paragraph
(
e)(
2)
of
this
section,
particulate
matter
in
excess
of
34
mg/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
(
b)
Emission
limits
for
new
sources.
You
must
not
discharge
or
cause
combustion
gases
to
be
emitted
into
the
atmosphere
that
contain:
(
1)(
i)
Dioxin
and
furans
in
excess
of
0.11
ng
TEQ/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen
for
incinerators
equipped
with
either
a
waste
heat
boiler
or
dry
air
pollution
control
system;
or
(
ii)
Dioxin
and
furans
in
excess
of
0.20
ng
TEQ/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen
for
sources
not
equipped
with
either
a
waste
heat
boiler
or
dry
air
pollution
control
system;
(
iii)
A
source
equipped
a
wet
air
pollution
control
system
followed
by
a
dry
air
pollution
control
system
is
not
considered
to
be
a
dry
air
pollution
control
system,
and
a
source
equipped
with
a
dry
air
pollution
control
system
followed
a
wet
air
pollution
control
system
is
considered
to
be
a
dry
air
pollution
control
system
for
purposes
of
this
standard;
(
2)
Mercury
in
excess
of
8
ug/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
(
3)
Cadmium
and
lead
in
excess
of
6.5
ug/
dscm,
combined
emissions,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
(
4)
Arsenic,
beryllium,
and
chromium
in
excess
of
8.9
ug/
dscm,
combined
emissions,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
(
5)
For
carbon
monoxide
and
hydrocarbons,
either:
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

432
(
i)
Carbon
monoxide
in
excess
of
100
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis
and
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
If
you
elect
to
comply
with
this
carbon
monoxide
standard
rather
than
the
hydrocarbon
standard
under
paragraph
(
b)(
5)(
ii)
of
this
section,
you
must
also
document
that,
during
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
test
runs
or
their
equivalent
as
provided
by
§
63.1206(
b)(
7),
hydrocarbons
do
not
exceed
10
parts
per
million
by
volume
during
those
runs,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane;
or
End
Of
Moved
Text
(
ii)
Hydrocarbons
in
excess
of
10
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane;
(
6)
Hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
in
excess
of
0.18
parts
per
million
by
volume,
combined
emissions,
expressed
as
a
chloride
(
Cl(­))
equivalent,
dry
basis
and
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
and
(
7)
Except
as
provided
by
paragraph
(
e)(
3)
of
this
section,
particulate
matter
in
excess
of
1.6
mg/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
(
c)
Destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
standard.
(
1)
99.99%
DRE.
Except
as
provided
in
paragraph
(
c)(
2)
of
this
section,
you
must
achieve
a
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
of
99.99%
for
each
principle
organic
hazardous
constituent
(
POHC)
designated
under
paragraph
(
c)(
3)
of
this
section.
You
must
calculate
DRE
for
each
POHC
from
the
following
equation:
DRE
=
[
1
­
(
W
out
/
W
in)]
x
100%
Where:
W
in
=
mass
feedrate
of
one
POHC
in
a
waste
feedstream;
and
W
out
=
mass
emission
rate
of
the
same
POHC
present
in
exhaust
emissions
prior
to
release
to
the
atmosphere.
(
2)
99.9999%
DRE.
If
you
burn
the
dioxin­
listed
hazardous
wastes
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,
F026,
or
F027
(
see
§
261.31
of
this
chapter),
you
must
achieve
a
DRE
of
99.9999%
for
each
POHC
that
you
designate
under
paragraph
(
c)(
3)
of
this
section.
You
must
demonstrate
this
DRE
performance
on
POHCs
that
are
more
difficult
to
incinerate
than
tetra­,
penta­,
and
hexachlorodibenzo­
p­
dioxins
and
dibenzofurans.
You
must
use
the
equation
in
paragraph
(
c)(
1)
of
this
section
to
calculate
DRE
for
each
POHC.
In
addition,
you
must
notify
the
Administrator
of
your
intent
to
incinerate
hazardous
wastes
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,
F026,
or
F027.
(
3)
Principal
organic
hazardous
constituent
(
POHC).
(
i)
You
must
treat
each
POHC
in
the
waste
feed
that
you
specify
under
paragraph
(
c)(
3)(
ii)
of
this
section
to
the
extent
required
by
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
and
(
c)(
2)
of
this
section.
(
ii)
You
must
specify
one
or
more
POHCs
from
the
list
of
hazardous
air
pollutants
established
by
42
U.
S.
C.
7412(
b)(
1),
excluding
caprolactam
(
CAS
number
105602)
as
provided
by
§
63.60,
for
each
waste
to
be
burned.
You
must
base
this
specification
on
the
degree
of
difficulty
of
incineration
of
the
organic
constituents
in
the
waste
and
on
their
concentration
or
mass
in
the
waste
feed,
considering
the
results
of
waste
analyses
or
other
data
and
information.
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

433
(
d)
Significant
figures.
The
emission
limits
provided
by
paragraphs
(
a)
and
(
b)
of
this
section
are
presented
with
two
significant
figures.
Although
you
must
perform
intermediate
calculations
using
at
least
three
significant
figures,
you
may
round
the
resultant
emission
levels
to
two
significant
figures
to
document
compliance.
(
e)
Alternative
to
the
particulate
matter
standard
for
incinerators.
(
1)
General.
In
lieu
of
complying
with
the
applicable
particulate
matter
standards
of
paragraphs
(
a)(
7)
and
(
b)(
7)
of
this
section,
you
may
elect
to
comply
with
the
following
alternative
metal
emission
control
requirements:
(
2)
Alternative
metal
emission
control
requirements
for
existing
sources.
(
i)
You
must
not
discharge
or
cause
combustion
gases
to
be
emitted
into
the
atmosphere
that
contain
cadmium,
lead,
and
selenium
in
excess
of
59
ug/
dscm,
combined
emissions,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
and,
(
ii)
You
must
not
discharge
or
cause
combustion
gases
to
be
emitted
into
the
atmosphere
that
contain
antimony,
arsenic,
beryllium,
chromium,
cobalt,
manganese,
and
nickel
in
excess
of
84
ug/
dscm,
combined
emissions,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
(
3)
Alternative
metal
emission
control
requirements
for
new
sources.
(
i)
You
must
not
discharge
or
cause
combustion
gases
to
be
emitted
into
the
atmosphere
that
contain
cadmium,
lead,
and
selenium
in
excess
of
6.5/
dscm,
combined
emissions,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
and,
(
ii)
You
must
not
discharge
or
cause
combustion
gases
to
be
emitted
into
the
atmosphere
that
contain
antimony,
arsenic,
beryllium,
chromium,
cobalt,
manganese,
and
nickel
in
excess
of
8.9
ug/
dscm,
combined
emissions,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
17.
Section
63.1220
is
added
to
subpart
EEE
to
read
as
follows:
§
63.1220
What
are
the
replacement
standards
for
hazardous
waste
burning
cement
kilns?
(
a)
Emission
limits
for
existing
sources.
You
must
not
discharge
or
cause
combustion
gases
to
be
emitted
into
the
atmosphere
that
contain:
(
1)(
i)
Dioxin
and
furan
in
excess
of
0.20
ng
TEQ/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
or
(
ii)
Dioxin
and
furan
in
excess
of
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen
provided
that
the
combustion
gas
temperature
at
the
inlet
to
the
initial
dry
particulate
matter
control
device
is
400
°
F
or
lower
based
on
the
average
of
the
test
run
average
temperatures;
(
2)
Mercury
in
excess
of
64
ug/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
(
3)
In
excess
of
4.0
x
10­
4
lbs
combined
emissions
of
cadmium
and
lead
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
British
thermal
unit
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste;
(
4)
In
excess
of
1.4
x
10­
5
lbs
combined
emissions
of
arsenic,
beryllium,
and
chromium
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
British
thermal
unit
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste;
(
5)
Carbon
monoxide
and
hydrocarbons.
(
i)
For
kilns
equipped
with
a
by­
pass
duct
or
midkiln
gas
sampling
system,
either:
(
A)
Carbon
monoxide
in
the
by­
pass
duct
or
mid­
kiln
gas
sampling
system
in
excess
of
100
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis
and
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
If
you
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

434
elect
to
comply
with
this
carbon
monoxide
standard
rather
than
the
hydrocarbon
standard
under
paragraph
(
a)(
5)(
i)(
B)
of
this
section,
you
must
also
document
that,
during
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
test
runs
or
their
equivalent
as
provided
by
§
63.1206(
b)(
7),
hydrocarbons
in
the
by­
pass
duct
or
mid­
kiln
gas
sampling
system
do
not
exceed
10
parts
per
million
by
volume
during
those
runs,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane;
or
(
B)
Hydrocarbons
in
the
by­
pass
duct
or
midkiln
gas
sampling
system
in
excess
of
10
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane;
(
ii)
For
kilns
not
equipped
with
a
by­
pass
duct
or
midkiln
gas
sampling
system,
either:
(
A)
Hydrocarbons
in
the
main
stack
in
excess
of
20
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane;
or
(
B)
Carbon
monoxide
in
the
main
stack
in
excess
of
100
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis
and
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
If
you
elect
to
comply
with
this
carbon
monoxide
standard
rather
than
the
hydrocarbon
standard
under
paragraph
(
a)(
5)(
ii)(
A)
of
this
section,
you
also
must
document
that,
during
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
test
runs
or
their
equivalent
as
provided
by
§
63.1206(
b)(
7),
hydrocarbons
in
the
main
stack
do
not
exceed
20
parts
per
million
by
volume
during
those
runs,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane.
(
6)
Hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
in
excess
of
110
parts
per
million
by
volume,
combined
emissions,
expressed
as
a
chloride
(
Cl(­))
equivalent,
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
and
(
7)
Particulate
matter
in
excess
of
65
mg/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
(
b)
Emission
limits
for
new
sources.
You
must
not
discharge
or
cause
combustion
gases
to
be
emitted
into
the
atmosphere
that
contain:
(
1)(
i)
Dioxin
and
furan
in
excess
of
0.20
ng
TEQ/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
or
(
ii)
Dioxin
and
furan
in
excess
of
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen
provided
that
the
combustion
gas
temperature
at
the
inlet
to
the
initial
dry
particulate
matter
control
device
is
400
°
F
or
lower
based
on
the
average
of
the
test
run
average
temperatures;
(
2)
Mercury
in
excess
of
35
ug/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
(
3)
In
excess
of
6.2
x
10­
5
lbs
combined
emissions
of
cadmium
and
lead
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
British
thermal
unit
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste;
(
4)
In
excess
of
1.4
x
10­
5
lbs
combined
emissions
of
arsenic,
beryllium,
and
chromium
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
British
thermal
unit
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste;
(
5)
Carbon
monoxide
and
hydrocarbons.
(
i)
For
kilns
equipped
with
a
by­
pass
duct
or
midkiln
gas
sampling
system,
carbon
monoxide
and
hydrocarbons
emissions
are
limited
in
both
the
bypass
duct
or
midkiln
gas
sampling
system
and
the
main
stack
as
follows:
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

435
(
A)
Emissions
in
the
by­
pass
or
midkiln
gas
sampling
system
are
limited
to
either:
(
1)
Carbon
monoxide
in
excess
of
100
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis
and
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
If
you
elect
to
comply
with
this
carbon
monoxide
standard
rather
than
the
hydrocarbon
standard
under
paragraph
(
b)(
5)(
i)(
A)(
2)
of
this
section,
you
also
must
document
that,
during
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
test
runs
or
their
equivalent
as
provided
by
§
63.1206(
b)(
7),
hydrocarbons
do
not
exceed
10
parts
per
million
by
volume
during
those
runs,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane;
or
(
2)
Hydrocarbons
in
the
by­
pass
duct
or
midkiln
gas
sampling
system
in
excess
of
10
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane;
and
(
B)
Hydrocarbons
in
the
main
stack
are
limited,
if
construction
of
the
kiln
commenced
after
April
19,
1996
at
a
plant
site
where
a
cement
kiln
(
whether
burning
hazardous
waste
or
not)
did
not
previously
exist,
to
50
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
a
30­
day
block
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane.
(
ii)
For
kilns
not
equipped
with
a
by­
pass
duct
or
midkiln
gas
sampling
system,
hydrocarbons
and
carbon
monoxide
are
limited
in
the
main
stack
to
either:
(
A)
Hydrocarbons
not
exceeding
20
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane;
or
(
B)(
1)
Carbon
monoxide
not
exceeding
100
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
and
(
2)
Hydrocarbons
not
exceeding
20
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane
at
any
time
during
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
test
runs
or
their
equivalent
as
provided
by
§
63.1206(
b)(
7);
and
(
3)
If
construction
of
the
kiln
commenced
after
April
19,
1996
at
a
plant
site
where
a
cement
kiln
(
whether
burning
hazardous
waste
or
not)
did
not
previously
exist,
hydrocarbons
are
limited
to
50
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
a
30­
day
block
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane.
(
6)
Hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
in
excess
of
78
parts
per
million,
combined
emissions,
expressed
as
a
chloride
(
Cl(­))
equivalent,
dry
basis
and
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
and
(
7)
Particulate
matter
in
excess
of
13
mg/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
(
c)
Destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
standard.
(
1)
99.99%
DRE.
Except
as
provided
in
paragraph
(
c)(
2)
of
this
section,
you
must
achieve
a
destruction
and
removal
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

436
efficiency
(
DRE)
of
99.99%
for
each
principle
organic
hazardous
constituent
(
POHC)
designated
under
paragraph
(
c)(
3)
of
this
section.
You
must
calculate
DRE
for
each
POHC
from
the
following
equation:
DRE
=
[
1
­
(
W
out
/
W
in)]
x
100%
Where:
W
in
=
mass
feedrate
of
one
POHC
in
a
waste
feedstream;
and
W
out
=
mass
emission
rate
of
the
same
POHC
present
in
exhaust
emissions
prior
to
release
to
the
atmosphere.
(
2)
99.9999%
DRE.
If
you
burn
the
dioxin­
listed
hazardous
wastes
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,
F026,
or
F027
(
see
§
261.31
of
this
chapter),
you
must
achieve
a
DRE
of
99.9999%
for
each
POHC
that
you
designate
under
paragraph
(
c)(
3)
of
this
section.
You
must
demonstrate
this
DRE
performance
on
POHCs
that
are
more
difficult
to
incinerate
than
tetra­,
penta­,
and
hexachlorodibenzo­
p­
dioxins
and
dibenzofurans.
You
must
use
the
equation
in
paragraph
(
c)(
1)
of
this
section
to
calculate
DRE
for
each
POHC.
In
addition,
you
must
notify
the
Administrator
of
your
intent
to
incinerate
hazardous
wastes
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,
F026,
or
F027.
(
3)
Principal
organic
hazardous
constituent
(
POHC).
(
i)
You
must
treat
each
POHC
in
the
waste
feed
that
you
specify
under
paragraph
(
c)(
3)(
ii)
of
this
section
to
the
extent
required
by
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
and
(
c)(
2)
of
this
section.
(
ii)
You
must
specify
one
or
more
POHCs
from
the
list
of
hazardous
air
pollutants
established
by
42
U.
S.
C.
7412(
b)(
1),
excluding
caprolactam
(
CAS
number
105602)
as
provided
by
§
63.60,
for
each
waste
to
be
burned.
You
must
base
this
specification
on
the
degree
of
difficulty
of
incineration
of
the
organic
constituents
in
the
waste
and
on
their
concentration
or
mass
in
the
waste
feed,
considering
the
results
of
waste
analyses
or
other
data
and
information.
(
d)
Cement
kilns
with
in­
line
kiln
raw
mills.
The
provisions
of
§
63.1204(
d)
apply.
(
1)
General.
(
i)
You
must
conduct
performance
testing
when
the
raw
mill
is
on­
line
and
when
the
mill
is
off­
line
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
emission
standards,
and
you
must
establish
separate
operating
parameter
limits
under
§
63.1209
for
each
mode
of
operation,
except
as
provided
by
paragraph
(
d)(
1)(
iv)
of
this
section.
(
ii)
You
must
document
in
the
operating
record
each
time
you
change
from
one
mode
of
operation
to
the
alternate
mode
and
begin
complying
with
the
operating
parameter
limits
for
that
alternate
mode
of
operation.
(
iii)
You
must
establish
rolling
averages
for
the
operating
parameter
limits
anew
(
i.
e.,
without
considering
previous
recordings)
when
you
begin
complying
with
the
operating
limits
for
the
alternate
mode
of
operation.
(
iv)
If
your
in­
line
kiln
raw
mill
has
dual
stacks,
you
may
assume
that
the
dioxin/
furan
emission
levels
in
the
by­
pass
stack
and
the
operating
parameter
limits
determined
during
performance
testing
of
the
by­
pass
stack
when
the
raw
mill
is
off­
line
are
the
same
as
when
the
mill
is
on­
line.
(
2)
Emissions
averaging.
You
may
comply
with
the
mercury,
semivolatile
metal,
low
volatile
metal,
and
hydrochloric
acid/
chlorine
gas
emission
standards
on
a
time­
weighted
average
basis
under
the
following
procedures:
(
i)
Averaging
methodology.
You
must
calculate
the
time­
weighted
average
emission
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

437
concentration
with
the
following
equation:
C
total
=
{
C
mill­
off
x
(
T
mill­
off
/(
T
mill­
off
+
T
mill­
on
))}
+
{
C
mill­
on
x
(
T
mill­
on
/(
T
mill­
off
+
T
mill­
on
))}
Where:
C
total
=
time­
weighted
average
concentration
of
a
regulated
constituent
considering
both
raw
mill
on
time
and
off
time;
C
mill­
off
=
average
performance
test
concentration
of
regulated
constituent
with
the
raw
mill
offline
C
mill­
on
=
average
performance
test
concentration
of
regulated
constituent
with
the
raw
mill
online
T
mill­
off
=
time
when
kiln
gases
are
not
routed
through
the
raw
mill;
and
T
mill­
on
=
time
when
kiln
gases
are
routed
through
the
raw
mill.
(
ii)
Compliance.
(
A)
If
you
use
this
emission
averaging
provision,
you
must
document
in
the
operating
record
compliance
with
the
emission
standards
on
an
annual
basis
by
using
the
equation
provided
by
paragraph
(
d)(
2)
of
this
section.
(
B)
Compliance
is
based
on
one­
year
block
averages
beginning
on
the
day
you
submit
the
initial
notification
of
compliance.
(
iii)
Notification.
(
A)
If
you
elect
to
document
compliance
with
one
or
more
emission
standards
using
this
emission
averaging
provision,
you
must
notify
the
Administrator
in
the
initial
comprehensive
performance
test
plan
submitted
under
§
63.1207(
e).
(
B)
You
must
include
historical
raw
mill
operation
data
in
the
performance
test
plan
to
estimate
future
raw
mill
down­
time
and
document
in
the
performance
test
plan
that
estimated
emissions
and
estimated
raw
mill
down­
time
will
not
result
in
an
exceedance
of
an
emission
standard
on
an
annual
basis.
(
C)
You
must
document
in
the
notification
of
compliance
submitted
under
§
63.1207(
j)
that
an
emission
standard
will
not
be
exceeded
based
on
the
documented
emissions
from
the
performance
test
and
predicted
raw
mill
down­
time.
(
e)
Preheater
or
preheater/
precalciner
kilns
with
dual
stacks.
(
1)
General.
You
must
conduct
performance
testing
on
each
stack
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
emission
standards,
and
you
must
establish
operating
parameter
limits
under
§
63.1209
for
each
stack,
except
as
provided
by
paragraph
(
d)(
1)(
iv)
of
this
section
for
dioxin/
furan
emissions
testing
and
operating
parameter
limits
for
the
by­
pass
stack
of
in­
line
raw
mills.
(
2)
Emissions
averaging.
You
may
comply
with
the
mercury,
semivolatile
metal,
low
volatile
metal,
and
hydrochloric
acid/
chlorine
gas
emission
standards
specified
in
this
section
on
a
gas
flowrate­
weighted
average
basis
under
the
following
procedures:
(
i)
Averaging
methodology.
You
must
calculate
the
gas
flowrate­
weighted
average
emission
concentration
using
the
following
equation:
C
tot
=
{
C
main
x
(
Q
main
/(
Q
main
+
Q
bypass))}
+
{
C
bypass
x
(
Q
bypass
/
(
Q
main
+
Q
bypass))}
Where:
C
tot
=
gas
flowrate­
weighted
average
concentration
of
the
regulated
constituent;
C
main
=
average
performance
test
concentration
demonstrated
in
the
main
stack;
C
bypass
=
average
performance
test
concentration
demonstrated
in
the
bypass
stack;
Q
main
=
volumetric
flowrate
of
main
stack
effluent
gas;
and
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

438
Q
bypass
=
volumetric
flowrate
of
bypass
effluent
gas.
(
ii)
Compliance.
(
A)
You
must
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
emission
standard(
s)
using
the
emission
concentrations
determined
from
the
performance
tests
and
the
equation
provided
by
paragraph
(
e)(
1)
of
this
section;
and
(
B)
You
must
develop
operating
parameter
limits
for
bypass
stack
and
main
stack
flowrates
that
ensure
the
emission
concentrations
calculated
with
the
equation
in
paragraph
(
e)(
1)
of
this
section
do
not
exceed
the
emission
standards
on
a
12­
hour
rolling
average
basis.
You
must
include
these
flowrate
limits
in
the
Notification
of
Compliance.
(
iii)
Notification.
If
you
elect
to
document
compliance
under
this
emissions
averaging
provision,
you
must:
(
A)
Notify
the
Administrator
in
the
initial
comprehensive
performance
test
plan
submitted
under
§
63.1207(
e).
The
performance
test
plan
must
include,
at
a
minimum,
information
describing
the
flowrate
limits
established
under
paragraph
(
e)(
2)(
ii)(
B)
of
this
section;
and
(
B)
Document
in
the
Notification
of
Compliance
submitted
under
§
63.1207(
j)
the
demonstrated
gas
flowrate­
weighted
average
emissions
that
you
calculate
with
the
equation
provided
by
paragraph
(
e)(
2)
of
this
section.
(
f)
Significant
figures.
The
emission
limits
provided
by
paragraphs
(
a)
and
(
b)
of
this
section
are
presented
with
two
significant
figures.
Although
you
must
perform
intermediate
calculations
using
at
least
three
significant
figures,
you
may
round
the
resultant
emission
levels
to
two
significant
figures
to
document
compliance.
(
g)
[
Reserved].
(
h)
When
you
comply
with
the
particulate
matter
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
a)(
7)
or
(
b)(
7)
of
this
section,
you
are
exempt
from
the
New
Source
Performance
Standard
for
particulate
matter
and
opacity
under
§
60.60
of
this
chapter.
18.
Section
63.1221
is
added
to
subpart
EEE
to
read
as
follows:
§
63.1221
What
are
the
replacement
standards
for
hazardous
waste
burning
lightweight
aggregate
kilns?
(
a)
Emission
limits
for
existing
sources.
You
must
not
discharge
or
cause
combustion
gases
to
be
emitted
into
the
atmosphere
that
contain:
(
1)
Dioxins
and
furans
in
excess
of
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
(
2)
Mercury
in
excess
of
67
ug/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
(
3)(
i)
In
excess
of
3.1
x
10­
4
lbs
combined
emissions
of
cadmium
and
lead
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
British
thermal
unit
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste;
and
(
ii)
Lead
and
cadmium
in
excess
of
250
ug/
dscm,
combined
emissions,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
(
4)(
ii)
In
excess
of
9.5
x
10­
5
lbs
combined
emissions
of
arsenic,
beryllium,
and
chromium
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
British
thermal
unit
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste;
and
(
ii)
Arsenic,
beryllium,
and
chromium
in
excess
of
110
ug/
dscm,
combined
emissions,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
(
5)
Carbon
monoxide
and
hydrocarbons.
(
i)
Carbon
monoxide
in
excess
of
100
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

439
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis
and
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
If
you
elect
to
comply
with
this
carbon
monoxide
standard
rather
than
the
hydrocarbon
standard
under
paragraph
(
a)(
5)(
ii)
of
this
section,
you
also
must
document
that,
during
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
test
runs
or
their
equivalent
as
provided
by
§
63.1206(
b)(
7),
hydrocarbons
do
not
exceed
20
parts
per
million
by
volume
during
those
runs,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane;
or
(
ii)
Hydrocarbons
in
excess
of
20
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average,
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane;
(
6)
Hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
in
excess
of
parts
per
million
by
volume,
combined
emissions,
expressed
as
a
chloride
(
Cl(­))
equivalent,
dry
basis
and
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
and
(
7)
Particulate
matter
in
excess
of
57
mg/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
(
b)
Emission
limits
for
new
sources.
You
must
not
discharge
or
cause
combustion
gases
to
be
emitted
into
the
atmosphere
that
contain:
(
1)
Dioxins
and
furans
in
excess
of
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
(
2)
Mercury
in
excess
of
67
ug/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
(
3)(
i)
In
excess
of
2.4
x
10­
5
lbs
combined
emissions
of
cadmium
and
lead
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
British
thermal
unit
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste;
and
(
ii)
Lead
and
cadmium
in
excess
of
43
ug/
dscm,
combined
emissions,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
(
4)(
i)
In
excess
of
3.2
x
10­
5
lbs
combined
emissions
of
arsenic,
beryllium,
and
chromium
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
British
thermal
unit
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste;
and
(
ii)
Arsenic,
beryllium,
and
chromium
in
excess
of
110
ug/
dscm,
combined
emissions,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
(
5)
Carbon
monoxide
and
hydrocarbons.
(
i)
Carbon
monoxide
in
excess
of
100
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis
and
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
If
you
elect
to
comply
with
this
carbon
monoxide
standard
rather
than
the
hydrocarbon
standard
under
paragraph
(
b)(
5)(
ii)
of
this
section,
you
also
must
document
that,
during
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
test
runs
or
their
equivalent
as
provided
by
§
63.1206(
b)(
7),
hydrocarbons
do
not
exceed
20
parts
per
million
by
volume
during
those
runs,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average
(
monitored
continuously
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system),
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane;
or
(
ii)
Hydrocarbons
in
excess
of
20
parts
per
million
by
volume,
over
an
hourly
rolling
average,
dry
basis,
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen,
and
reported
as
propane;
(
6)
Hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
in
excess
of
parts
per
million
by
volume,
combined
emissions,
expressed
as
a
chloride
(
Cl(­))
equivalent,
dry
basis
and
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen;
and
(
7)
Particulate
matter
in
excess
of
23
mg/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
(
c)
Destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
standard.
(
1)
99.99%
DRE.
Except
as
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

440
provided
in
paragraph
(
c)(
2)
of
this
section,
you
must
achieve
a
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
of
99.99%
for
each
principal
organic
hazardous
constituent
(
POHC)
designated
under
paragraph
(
c)(
3)
of
this
section.
You
must
calculate
DRE
for
each
POHC
from
the
following
equation:
DRE
=
[
1
­
(
W
out
/
W
in)]
x
100%
Where:
W
in
=
mass
feedrate
of
one
POHC
in
a
waste
feedstream;
and
W
out
=
mass
emission
rate
of
the
same
POHC
present
in
exhaust
emissions
prior
to
release
to
the
atmosphere.
(
2)
99.9999%
DRE.
If
you
burn
the
dioxin­
listed
hazardous
wastes
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,
F026,
or
F027
(
see
§
261.31
of
this
chapter),
you
must
achieve
a
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
of
99.9999%
for
each
POHC
that
you
designate
under
paragraph
(
c)(
3)
of
this
section.
You
must
demonstrate
this
DRE
performance
on
POHCs
that
are
more
difficult
to
incinerate
than
tetra­,
penta­,
and
hexachlorodibenzo­
dioxins
and
dibenzofurans.
You
must
use
the
equation
in
paragraph
(
c)(
1)
of
this
section
to
calculate
DRE
for
each
POHC.
In
addition,
you
must
notify
the
Administrator
of
your
intent
to
burn
hazardous
wastes
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,
F026,
or
F027.
(
3)
Principal
organic
hazardous
constituents
(
POHCs).
(
i)
You
must
treat
each
POHC
in
the
waste
feed
that
you
specify
under
paragraph
(
c)(
3)(
ii)
of
this
section
to
the
extent
required
by
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
and
(
c)(
2)
of
this
section.
(
ii)
You
must
specify
one
or
more
POHCs
from
the
list
of
hazardous
air
pollutants
established
by
42
U.
S.
C.
7412(
b)(
1),
excluding
caprolactam
(
CAS
number
105602)
as
provided
by
§
63.60,
for
each
waste
to
be
burned.
You
must
base
this
specification
on
the
degree
of
difficulty
of
incineration
of
the
organic
constituents
in
the
waste
and
on
their
concentration
or
mass
in
the
waste
feed,
considering
the
results
of
waste
analyses
or
other
data
and
information.
(
d)
Significant
figures.
The
emission
limits
provided
by
paragraphs
(
a)
and
(
b)
of
this
section
are
presented
with
two
significant
figures.
Although
you
must
perform
intermediate
calculations
using
at
least
three
significant
figures,
you
may
round
the
resultant
emission
levels
to
two
significant
figures
to
document
compliance.

PART
264
 
STANDARDS
FOR
OWNERS
AND
OPERATORS
OF
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
TREATMENT,
STORAGE,
AND
DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
264
continues
to
read
as
follows:
Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
6905,
6912(
a),
6924,
6925,
6927,
6928(
h),
and
6974.
2.
Section
264.340
is
amended
by
revising
the
first
sentence
of
paragraph
(
b)(
1)
and
adding
paragraph
(
b)(
5)
to
read
as
follows:
§
264.340
Applicability.
*
*
*
*
*
(
b)
*
*
*
(
1)
Except
as
provided
by
paragraphs
(
b)(
2)
through
(
b)(
5)
of
this
section,
the
standards
of
this
part
no
longer
apply
when
an
owner
or
operator
demonstrates
compliance
with
the
maximum
achievable
control
technology
(
MACT)
requirements
of
part
63,
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

441
subpart
EEE,
of
this
chapter
by
conducting
a
comprehensive
performance
test
and
submitting
to
the
Administrator
a
Notification
of
Compliance
under
§
§
63.1207(
j)
and
63.1210(
d)
of
this
chapter
documenting
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
part
63,
subpart
EEE,
of
this
chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
(
5)
The
particulate
matter
standard
of
§
264.343(
c)
remains
in
effect
for
incinerators
that
elect
to
comply
with
the
alternative
to
the
particulate
matter
standard
of
§
63.1203A1219(
e)
of
this
chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
PART
265
 
INTERIM
STATUS
STANDARDS
FOR
OWNERS
AND
OPERATORS
OF
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
TREATMENT,
STORAGE,
AND
DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
265
continues
to
read
as
follows:
Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
6905,
6906,
6912,
6922,
6923,
6924,
6925,
6935,
6936,
and
6937.
2.
Section
265.340
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
b)(
1)
to
read
as
follows:
§
265.340
Applicability.
*
*
*
*
*
(
b)
*
*
*
(
1)
Except
as
provided
by
paragraphs
(
b)(
2)
and
(
b)(
3)
of
this
section,
the
standards
of
this
part
no
longer
apply
when
an
owner
or
operator
demonstrates
compliance
with
the
maximum
achievable
control
technology
(
MACT)
requirements
of
part
63,
subpart
EEE,
of
this
chapter
by
conducting
a
comprehensive
performance
test
and
submitting
to
the
Administrator
a
Notification
of
Compliance
under
§
§
63.1207(
j)
and
63.1210(
d)
of
this
chapter
documenting
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
part
63,
subpart
EEE,
of
this
chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
PART
266
 
STANDARDS
FOR
THE
MANAGEMENT
OF
SPECIFIC
HAZARDOUS
WASTES
AND
SPECIFIC
TYPES
OF
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
MANAGEMENT
FACILITIES
1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
266
continues
to
read
as
follows:
Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
1006,
2002(
a),
3001­
3009,
3014,
6905,
6906,
6912,
6921,
6922,
6924­
6927,
6934,
and
6937.
2.
Section
266.100
is
amended
by
revising
the
first
sentence
of
paragraph
(
b)(
1)
and
adding
paragraph
(
b)(
3)
to
read
as
follows:
§
266.100
Applicability.
*
*
*
*
*
(
b)
*
*
*
(
1)
Except
as
provided
by
paragraphs
(
b)(
2)
and
(
b)(
3)
of
this
section,
the
standards
of
this
part
no
longer
apply
when
an
owner
or
operator
demonstrates
compliance
with
the
maximum
achievable
control
technology
(
MACT)
requirements
of
part
63,
subpart
EEE,
of
this
chapter
by
conducting
a
comprehensive
performance
test
and
submitting
to
the
Administrator
a
Notification
of
Compliance
under
§
§
63.1207(
j)
and
63.1210(
d)
of
this
chapter
documenting
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
part
63,
subpart
EEE,
of
this
chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
(
3)
If
you
own
or
operate
a
boiler
or
hydrochloric
acid
furnace
that
is
an
area
source
under
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

442
§
63.2
of
this
chapter
and
you
elect
not
to
comply
with
the
emission
standards
under
§
§
63.1216,
63.1217,
and
63.1218
of
this
chapter
for
particulate
matter,
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metals,
and
total
chlorine,
you
also
remain
subject
to:
(
i)
Section
266.105­­
Standards
to
control
particulate
matter;
(
ii)
Section
266.106­­
Standards
to
control
metals
emissions,
except
for
mercury;
and
(
ii)
Section
266.107­­
Standards
to
control
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas.
*
*
*
*
*
PART
270
 
EPA
ADMINISTERED
PERMIT
PROGRAMS:
THE
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
PERMIT
PROGRAM
1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
270
continues
to
read
as
follows:
Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
6905,
6912,
6924,
6925,
6927,
6939,
and
6974.
2.
Section
270.10
is
amended
by
adding
paragraph
(
l)
to
read
as
follows:
§
270.10
General
application
requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(
l)
If
the
Director
concludes
that
there
is
reason
to
believe
that
compliance
with
the
standards
in
40
CFR
Parts
63,
Subpart
EEE
alone
may
not
be
protective
of
human
health
or
the
environment,
the
Director
shall
require
additional
information
or
assessment(
s)
that
the
Director
determines
are
necessary
to
ensure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
The
Director
also
may
require
a
permittee
or
an
applicant
to
provide
information
necessary
to
determine
whether
such
an
assessment(
s)
should
be
required.
3.
Section
270.19
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
e)
to
reads
as
follows:
§
270.19
Specific
part
B
information
requirements
for
incinerators.
*
*
*
*
*
(
e)
When
an
owner
or
operator
demonstrates
compliance
with
the
air
emission
standards
and
limitations
in
part
63,
subpart
EEE,
of
this
chapter
(
i.
e.,
by
conducting
a
comprehensive
performance
test
and
submitting
a
Notification
of
Compliance
under
§
§
63.1207(
j)
and
63.1210(
d)
of
this
chapter
documenting
compliance
with
all
applicable
requirements
of
part
63,
subpart
EEE,
of
this
chapter),
the
requirements
of
this
section
do
not
apply,
except
those
provisions
the
Director
determines
are
necessary
to
ensure
compliance
with
§
§
264.345(
a)
and
264.345(
c)
of
this
chapter
if
you
elect
to
comply
with
§
270.235(
a)(
1)(
i)
to
minimize
emissions
of
toxic
compounds
from
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
events.
Nevertheless,
the
Director
may
apply
the
provisions
of
this
section,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
for
purposes
of
information
collection
in
accordance
with
§
§
270.10(
k),
270.10(
l),
270.32(
b)(
2),
and
270.32(
b)(
3)
of
this
chapter.
3.
Section
270.22
is
amended
by
revising
the
introductory
text
to
read
as
follows:
§
270.22
Specific
part
B
information
requirements
for
boilers
and
industrial
furnaces
burning
hazardous
waste
When
an
owner
or
operator
of
a
cement
kiln,
lightweight
aggregate
kiln,
solid
fuel­
fired
boiler,
liquid
fuel­
fired
boiler,
or
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnace
demonstrates
compliance
with
the
air
emission
standards
and
limitations
in
part
63,
subpart
EEE,
of
this
chapter
(
i.
e.,
by
conducting
a
comprehensive
performance
test
and
submitting
a
Notification
of
Compliance
under
§
§
63.1207(
j)
and
63.1210(
d)
of
this
chapter
documenting
compliance
with
all
applicable
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

443
requirements
of
part
63,
subpart
EEE,
of
this
chapter),
the
requirements
of
this
section
do
not
apply.
The
requirements
of
this
section
do
apply,
however,
if
the
Director
determines
certain
provisions
are
necessary
to
ensure
compliance
with
§
§
266.102(
e)(
1)
and
266.102(
e)(
2)(
iii)
of
this
chapter
if
you
elect
to
comply
with
§
270.235(
a)(
1)(
i)
to
minimize
emissions
of
toxic
compounds
from
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
events;
or
if
you
are
an
area
source
and
elect
to
comply
with
the
§
§
266.105,
266.106,
and
266.107
standards
and
associated
requirements
for
particulate
matter,
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas,
and
non­
mercury
metals;
or
the
Director
determines
certain
provisions
apply,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
for
purposes
of
information
collection
in
accordance
with
§
§
270.10(
k),
270.10(
l),
270.32(
b)(
2),
and
270.32(
b)(
3).
*
*
*
*
*
4.
Section
270.32
is
amended
by
adding
paragraph
(
b)(
3)
to
read
as
follows:
§
270.32
Establishing
permit
conditions.
*
*
*
*
*
(
b)
*
*
*
(
3)
If,
as
the
result
of
an
assessment(
s)
or
other
information,
the
Administrator
or
Director
determines
that
conditions
are
necessary
in
addition
to
those
required
under
40
CFR
Parts
63,
Subpart
EEE,
264
or
266
to
ensure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment,
he
shall
include
those
terms
and
conditions
in
a
RCRA
permit
for
a
hazardous
waste
combustion
unit.
*
*
*
*
*
5.
Section
270.42
is
amended
by:
a.
Revising
paragraph
(
j)(
1).
b.
Redesignating
paragraph
(
j)(
2)
as
(
j)(
3).
c.
Adding
new
paragraph
(
j)(
2).
d.
Adding
new
paragraph
(
k);
and
e.
Adding
a
new
entry
10
in
numerical
order
in
the
table
under
section
L
of
Appendix
I.
The
revisions
and
additions
reads
as
follows:
§
270.42
Permit
modification
at
the
request
of
the
permittee.
*
*
*
*
*
(
j)
*
*
*
(
1)
Facility
owners
or
operators
must
have
complied
with
the
Notification
of
Intent
to
Comply
(
NIC)
requirements
of
40
CFR
63.1210
that
were
in
effect
prior
to
October
11,
2000,
(
See
40
CFR
Part
63
Revised
as
of
July
1,
2000)
in
order
to
request
a
permit
modification
under
this
section
for
the
purpose
of
technology
changes
needed
to
meet
the
40
CFR
63.1203,
63.1204,
and
63.1205
standards.
(
2)
Facility
owners
or
operators
must
comply
with
the
Notification
of
Intent
to
Comply
(
NIC)
requirements
of
40
CFR
63.1210(
b)
and
63.1212
before
a
permit
modification
can
be
requested
under
this
section
for
the
purpose
of
technology
changes
needed
to
meet
the
40
CFR
63.1203A,
63.1204A,
63.1205A,
63.1215,
63.1216,
63.1217,
63.1218,
63.1219,
63.1220,
and
63.12181221
standards
promulgated
on
[
insert
date
of
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register].
*
*
*
*
*
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

444
(
k)
Waiver
of
RCRA
permitting
requirements
in
support
of
transition
to
the
part
63
MACT
standards.
(
1)
You
may
request
to
have
specific
RCRA
operating
and
emissions
limits
waived
by
submitting
a
Class
1
permit
modification
request
under
Appendix
I
of
this
section,
section
L(
10).
You
must:
(
i)
Identify
the
specific
RCRA
permit
operating
and
emissions
limits
which
you
are
requesting
to
waive;
(
ii)
Provide
an
explanation
of
why
the
changes
are
necessary
in
order
to
minimize
or
eliminate
conflicts
between
the
RCRA
permit
and
MACT
compliance;
and
(
iii)
Discuss
how
the
revised
provisions
will
be
sufficiently
protective.
(
2)
To
request
this
modification
in
conjunction
with
MACT
performance
testing
where
permit
limits
may
only
be
waived
during
actual
test
events
and
pretesting,
as
defined
under
40
CFR
63.1207(
h)(
2)(
i)
and
(
ii),
for
an
aggregate
time
not
to
exceed
720
hours
of
operation
(
renewable
at
the
discretion
of
the
Administrator)
you
must:
(
i)
Demonstrate
that
your
site­
specific
emissions
test
plan
and
continuous
monitoring
system
performance
evaluation
test
plan
have
been
submitted
and
approved
by
the
Administrator
as
required
in
40
CFR
63.1207(
e),
and
(
ii)
Submit
your
modification
request
upon
approval
of
your
test
plan.
(
3)
The
Director
shall
approve
or
deny
the
request
within
30
days
of
receipt
of
the
request.
The
Director
may,
at
his
or
her
discretion,
extend
this
30
day
deadline
one
time
for
up
to
30
days
by
notifying
the
facility
owner
or
operator.
*
*
*
*
*
Appendix
I
to
§
270.42­­
Classification
of
Permit
Modification.

Modifications
Class
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
10.
Changes
to
RCRA
permit
provisions
needed
to
support
transition
to
40
CFR
part
63
(
Subpart
EEE
 
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
From
Hazardous
Waste
Combustors),
provided
the
procedures
of
§
270.42(
k)
are
followed.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
\
1\
1
*
*
*
*
*
6.
Section
270.62
is
amended
by
revising
the
introductory
text
to
read
as
follows:
§
270.62
Hazardous
waste
incinerator
permits.
When
an
owner
or
operator
demonstrates
compliance
with
the
air
emission
standards
and
limitations
in
part
63,
subpart
EEE,
of
this
chapter
(
i.
e.,
by
conducting
a
comprehensive
performance
test
and
submitting
a
Notification
of
Compliance
under
§
§
63.1207(
j)
and
63.1210(
d)
of
this
chapter
documenting
compliance
with
all
applicable
requirements
of
part
63,
subpart
EEE,
of
this
chapter),
the
requirements
of
this
section
do
not
apply,
except
those
provisions
the
Director
determines
are
necessary
to
ensure
compliance
with
§
§
264.345(
a)
and
264.345(
c)
of
this
chapter
if
you
elect
to
comply
with
§
270.235(
a)(
1)(
i)
to
minimize
emissions
of
toxic
compounds
from
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
events.
Nevertheless,
the
Director
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

445
may
apply
the
provisions
of
this
section,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
for
purposes
of
information
collection
in
accordance
with
§
§
270.10(
k),
270.10(
l),
270.32(
b)(
2),
and
270.32(
b)(
3)
of
this
chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
7.
Section
270.66
is
amended
by
revising
the
introductory
text
to
read
as
follows:
§
270.66
Permits
for
boilers
and
industrial
furnaces
burning
hazardous
waste
When
an
owner
or
operator
of
a
cement
kiln,
lightweight
aggregate
kiln,
solid
fuel­
fired
boiler,
liquid
fuel­
fired
boiler,
or
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnace
demonstrates
compliance
with
the
air
emission
standards
and
limitations
in
part
63,
subpart
EEE,
of
this
chapter
(
i.
e.,
by
conducting
a
comprehensive
performance
test
and
submitting
a
Notification
of
Compliance
under
§
§
63.1207(
j)
and
63.1210(
d)
of
this
chapter
documenting
compliance
with
all
applicable
requirements
of
part
63,
subpart
EEE,
of
this
chapter),
the
requirements
of
this
section
do
not
apply.
The
requirements
of
this
section
do
apply,
however,
if
the
Director
determines
certain
provisions
are
necessary
to
ensure
compliance
with
§
§
266.102(
e)(
1)
and
266.102(
e)(
2)(
iii)
of
this
chapter
if
you
elect
to
comply
with
§
270.235(
a)(
1)(
i)
to
minimize
emissions
of
toxic
compounds
from
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
events;
or
if
you
are
an
area
source
and
elect
to
comply
with
the
§
§
266.105,
266.106,
and
266.107
standards
and
associated
requirements
for
particulate
matter,
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas,
and
non­
mercury
metals;
or
the
Director
determines
certain
provisions
apply,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
for
purposes
of
information
collection
in
accordance
with
§
§
270.10(
k),
270.10(
l),
270.32(
b)(
2),
and
270.32(
b)(
3).
*
*
*
*
*
8.
Section
270.235
is
amended
by:
a.
Revising
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
introductory
text
and
(
a)(
2)
introductory
text.
b.
Revising
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
introductory
text
and
(
b)(
2).
The
revisions
read
as
follows:
*
*
*
*
*
§
270.235
Options
for
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
solid
fuelfired
boilers,
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
to
minimize
emissions
from
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
events.
(
a)
*
*
*
(
1)
Revisions
to
permit
conditions
after
documenting
compliance
with
MACT.
The
owner
or
operator
of
a
RCRA­
permitted
incinerator,
cement
kiln,
lightweight
aggregate
kiln,
solid
fuel­
fired
boiler,
liquid
fuel­
fired
boiler,
or
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnace
may
request
that
the
Director
address
permit
conditions
that
minimize
emissions
from
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
events
under
any
of
the
following
options
when
requesting
removal
of
permit
conditions
that
are
no
longer
applicable
according
to
§
§
264.340(
b)
and
266.100(
b)
of
this
chapter:
*
*
*
*
*
(
2)
Addressing
permit
conditions
upon
permit
reissuance.
The
owner
or
operator
of
an
incinerator,
cement
kiln,
lightweight
aggregate
kiln,
solid
fuel­
fired
boiler,
liquid
fuel­
fired
boiler,
or
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnace
that
has
conducted
a
comprehensive
performance
test
and
submitted
to
the
Administrator
a
Notification
of
Compliance
documenting
compliance
with
the
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

446
standards
of
part
63,
subpart
EEE,
of
this
chapter
may
request
in
the
application
to
reissue
the
permit
for
the
combustion
unit
that
the
Director
control
emissions
from
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
events
under
any
of
the
following
options:
*
*
*
*
*
(
b)
*
*
*
(
1)
Interim
status
operations.
In
compliance
with
§
§
265.340
and
266.100(
b),
the
owner
or
operator
of
an
incinerator,
cement
kiln,
lightweight
aggregate
kiln,
solid
fuel­
fired
boiler,
liquid
fuel­
fired
boiler,
or
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnace
that
is
operating
under
the
interim
status
standards
of
part
265
or
266
of
this
chapter
may
control
emissions
of
toxic
compounds
during
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
events
under
either
of
the
following
options
after
conducting
a
comprehensive
performance
test
and
submitting
to
the
Administrator
a
Notification
of
Compliance
documenting
compliance
with
the
standards
of
part
63,
subpart
EEE,
of
this
chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
(
2)
Operations
under
a
subsequent
RCRA
permit.
When
an
owner
or
operator
of
an
incinerator,
cement
kiln,
lightweight
aggregate
kiln,
solid
fuel­
fired
boiler,
liquid
fuel­
fired
boiler,
or
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnace
that
is
operating
under
the
interim
status
standards
of
parts
265
or
266
of
this
chapter
submits
a
RCRA
permit
application,
the
owner
or
operator
may
request
that
the
Director
control
emissions
from
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
events
under
any
of
the
options
provided
by
paragraphs
(
a)(
2)(
i),
(
a)(
2)(
ii),
or
(
a)(
2)(
iii)
of
this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
PART
271­­
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
AUTHORIZATION
OF
STATE
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
PROGRAMS
1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
271
continues
to
read
as
follows:
Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
6905,
6912(
a),
and
6926.
2.
Section
271.1(
j)
is
amended
by
adding
the
following
entriesentry
to
Table
1
in
chronological
order
by
date
of
publication
in
the
Federal
Register,
to
read
as
follows:
§
271.1
Purpose
and
scope.
*
*
*
*
*
(
j)
*
*
*
TABLE
1.
­­
REGULATIONS
IMPLEMENTING
THE
HAZARDOUS
AND
SOLID
WASTE
AMENDMENTS
OF
1984
Promulgation
date
Title
of
Regulation
Federal
Register
reference
Effective
date
*
*
*
*
*
[
Insert
date
of
publication
of
final
rule
in
the
FEDERAL
REGISTER
(
FR)].
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
for
Hazardous
Waste
Combustors
[
Insert
FR
page
numbers
of
final
rule].
[
Insert
date
of
publication
of
final
rule].
*
Internal
Agency
Staff
Draft
(
Deliberative)
­
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote,
or
Distribute*

447
