C.
Analysis
of
Variance
Procedures
to
Assess
Subcategorization
We
use
analysis
of
variance
(
ANOVA)
to
determine
whether
subcategories
of
sources
have
significantly
different
emissions.
For
two
subsets
of
emissions,
the
variance
of
the
data
between
the
two
subsets
is
compared
to
the
variance
within
the
subsets.
The
ratio
of
these
two
variances
is
called
the
F­
statistic.
The
larger
the
F­
statistic
the
more
likely
the
underlying
data
distributions
are
different.
To
make
a
decision
regarding
the
difference
between
the
two
subsets,
we
compare
this
calculated
F­
statistic
to
an
F­
value
associated
with
a
particular
confidence
level.
One
commenter
has
raised
several
concerns
with
our
use
of
the
ANOVA
procedure
in
the
selection
of
incinerator
subcategories.
Comment:
The
ANOVA
procedure
is
based
upon
the
assumption
that
the
underlying
distribution
of
both
data
sets
has
a
normal
shape.
For
incinerator
emissions
data
this
assumption
is
not
valid.
A
log­
probability
plot
shows
that
particulate
emission
data
is
better
described
by
a
lognormal
distribution.
Prior
to
conducting
the
ANOVA
procedure,
the
data
should
be
log­
transformed.
Response:
We
use
probability
plots,
Skewness
Coefficients,
and
Correlation
Coefficient/
Shapiro­
Wilks
testing
to
evaluate
whether
it
is
more
appropriate
to
analyze
emissions
data
for
ANOVA
and
floor
calculations
assuming
the
data
represent
a
normal
or
lognormal
distribution.
We
believe
it
is
reasonable
to
assume
the
data
represent
a
normal
distribution
for
several
reasons.
The
purpose
of
the
ANOVA
subcategorization
analysis
is
to
determine
if
there
is
a
significant
difference
in
emission
levels
between
potential
subcategories
to
warrant
establishing
separate
floors
for
the
subcategories.
Although
in
some
cases
it
may
appear
that
a
data
set
in
its
entirety
may
be
better
represented
by
a
lognormal
distribution,
the
high
emissions
data
causing
the
right­
hand
skew
will
be
truncated
when
we
identify
the
best
performing
sources
 
those
with
the
lowest
emissions
 
to
calculate
floors.
This
moves
the
appearance
of
a
skewed
distribution
toward
one
that
is
more
symmetric
and
thus,
more
representative
of
a
normal
distribution.
In
addition,
our
analyses
showed:
(
1)
the
probability
plots
do
not
suggest
that
either
assumed
distribution
is
significantly
or
consistently
better;
(
2)
the
data
set
arithmetic
averages
tend
to
be
in
the
neighborhood
of
the
medians,
indicating
the
data
sets
are
not
significantly
skewed
and
more
closely
normal
than
lognormal;
and
(
3)
in
some
cases,
neither
assumed
distribution
could
be
statistically
rejected.
1
Comment:
Some
of
the
data
sets
used
for
comparison
have
very
few
members.
This
means
that
the
within­
group
variance
for
a
small
data
set
would
have
to
be
very
low
for
the
two
groups
to
be
judged
as
separate.
Response:
We
agree,
but
note
that
as
the
sample
sizes
change,
the
critical
values
are
also
changing
depending
on
the
degrees
of
freedom.
Comment:
Only
emissions
data
were
considered
in
the
ANOVA
tests.
Feed
rate
and
removal
efficiency
should
have
been
considered
as
well.
Response:
Differences
between
subcategories
in
feedrates
or
system
removal
efficiency
are
irrelevant
if
there
is
no
significant
difference
in
emissions
between
the
subcategories.
The
purpose
of
considering
subcategorization
is
to
determine
if
there
are
1
USEPA,
"
Technical
Support
Document
for
the
HWC
MACT
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards,"
September
2005,
Section
8.2.
2
design,
operation,
or
maintenance
differences
between
subcategories
that
could
affect
the
type
or
concentration
of
HAP
emissions
and
thus
sources'
ability
to
achieve
the
floor
absent
subcategorization.
Consequently,
it
is
appropriate
to
consider
emissions
only
when
evaluating
subcategorization.
Comment:
The
confidence
level
used
by
EPA
for
the
F­
statistic
in
all
cases
was
95
percent.
If
the
calculated
F­
statistic
were
equal
to
this
95
percent
confidence
value,
it
would
mean
that
there
is
only
a
5
percent
chance
that
data
for
the
two
subsets
were
drawn
from
the
same
parent
distribution.
A
less
stringent
(
lower)
confidence
level
would
be
more
appropriate
for
this
analysis.
The
commenter
evaluated
particulate
emissions
for
specialty
incinerators
(
i.
e.,
munitions,
chemical
weapons
and
mixed
waste
incinerators)
and
non­
specialty
incinerators
(
all
others).
The
commenter
log­
transformed
the
data
and
determined
that
there
was
only
a
30
percent
chance
that
the
two
data
sets
could
come
from
the
same
parent
distribution.
This
result,
together
with
the
vastly
different
operating
characteristics
for
the
two
types
of
incinerators,
argues
for
their
being
treated
as
separate
categories,
according
to
the
commenter.
Response:
A
confidence
level
of
95%
assigns
a
probability
of
0.95
of
accepting
the
hypothesis
when
there
is
no
difference
between
subcategories
and
hence
a
probability
of
0.05
of
rejecting
a
true
hypothesis.
This
reduces
the
probability
to
5%
of
rejecting
a
true
hypothesis.
A
less
stringent
confidence
level
would
increase
the
chances
of
rejecting
a
true
hypothesis.
The
farther
apart
the
averages
of
the
two
potential
subcategories
are,
the
more
likely
they
are
to
be
statistically
different
and
the
more
likely
you
are
to
be
wrong
if
you
hypothesize
that
they
are
not
different.
A
95%
confidence
level
is
most
often
used
for
ANOVA
because
it
is
generally
believed
that
being
wrong
one
time
out
of
20
is
an
acceptable
risk
for
purposes
of
ANOVA.
In
addition,
statisticians
are
comfortable
with
a
95%
confidence
level
because,
in
a
normal
distribution,
95%
of
the
data
fall
within
2
(
actually
1.96)
standard
deviations
of
the
mean.
Other
confidence
levels
could
be
used
for
ANOVA
 
99%
or
90%­­
if
there
is
a
good
reason
to
deviate
from
the
general
default
of
95%.
A
99%
confidence
level
is
the
second
most
commonly
used
confidence
level
and
is
generally
used
when
it
is
very
important
that
you
be
sure
that
you
are
right
(
i.
e.,
where
you
can
only
accept
the
risk
of
being
wrong
1
time
out
of
100)
before
you
classify
the
populations
(
in
this
case
subcategories)
as
different.
Occasionally,
but
much
less
frequently,
confidence
levels
of
90%
or
less
are
used.
But,
we
note
that
these
situations
are
so
infrequent
that
some
statistics
books
provide
tables
for
the
ANOVA
F­
statistic
only
at
the
95%
and
99%
confidence
levels.
For
these
reasons,
we
believe
that
the
95%
confidence
level
is
an
appropriate
level
among
those
we
could
have
reasonably
selected.

VI.
Emission
Standards
A.
Incinerators
Comment:
A
commenter
states
that
EPA's
subcategorization
(
and
assignment
of
differing
dioxin/
furan
standards
as
a
result)
between
incinerators
with
wet
or
no
air
pollution
control
device
and
incinerators
equipped
with
dry
air
pollution
control
devices
or
waste
heat
boilers
is
unlawful
because
incinerators
equipped
with
a
given
type
of
3
pollution
control
equipment
are
not
different
"
classes,"
"
types,"
or
"
sizes"
of
source.
The
commenter
implies
that
EPA
justifies
this
subcategorization
by
stating
that
these
sources
have
different
emission
characteristics,
which
is
no
less
unlawful
and
arbitrary
than
subcategorizing
based
on
the
pollution
control
devices
they
use.
Response:
We
agree
that
it
would
not
be
appropriate
to
subcategorize
source
categories
based
on
a
given
air
pollution
control
technique.
See
69
FR
at
403
(
Jan.
4,
2004).
As
stated
at
proposal,
we
do
not
subcategorize
incinerators
with
respect
to
dioxin/
furans
based
on
the
type
of
air
pollution
control
device
used.
69
FR
at
21214.
For
example,
with
respect
to
dioxin/
furans,
it
would
not
be
appropriate
subcategorize
based
on
whether
a
source
is
using:
1)
good
combustion
practices;
2)
a
carbon
bed;
3)
an
activated
carbon
injection
system;
or
4)
temperature
control
at
the
inlet
to
its
dry
air
pollution
control
device.
These
devices
and
practices
are
what
control
dioxin/
furan
emissions.
Today's
final
rule
does
not
subcategorize
based
on
these
control
devices
and
practices.
Instead,
our
subcategorization
approach
recognizes
the
potential
of
some
emission
control
equipment
to
create
pollutant
emissions
that
subsequently
must
be
addressed.
2
Dioxin/
furans
are
unique
in
that
these
pollutants
are
not
typically
present
in
the
process
inputs,
but
rather
are
formed
in
the
combustor
or
in
post
combustion
equipment.
The
primary
cause
of
dioxin/
furan
emissions
from
incinerators
not
equipped
with
waste
heat
boilers
is
post
combustion
formation
by
surface­
catalyzed
reactions
that
occur
within
the
dry
air
pollution
system.
3
This
is
evidenced
by
the
statistically
significant
higher
dioxin
furan
emissions
for
incinerators
with
dry
air
pollution
control
systems
compared
to
those
without
dry
systems.
Incinerators
with
dry
air
pollution
systems
are
designed
to
effectively
control
metal
and
particulate
matter
emissions
through
use
of
baghouses,
electrostatic
precipitators,
etc.
Incinerators
that
are
designed
in
this
manner
have
the
potential
for
elevated
dioxin/
furan
emissions
because
dry
air
pollution
control
systems
provide
locations
where
surface­
catalyzed
reactions
can
occur
(
e.
g.,
on
particles
on
fabric
filter
bags
or
electrostatic
precipitator
plates).
Thus,
for
purposes
of
dioxin/
furan
formation
and
control,
incinerators
equipped
with
dry
air
pollution
systems
are
in
fact
different
"
types"
of
incinerators
because
of
their
unique
pollutant
generation
characteristics.
On
the
other
hand,
incinerators
with
wet
air
pollution
control
systems
are
generally
designed
to
effectively
reduce
total
chlorine
emissions
(
with
the
use
of
wet
scrubbers)
and
metals
and
particulate
matter
emissions.
There
generally
is
a
tradeoff,
however,
in
that
these
types
of
incinerators
may
not
be
as
efficient
in
reducing
particulate
matter
and
metal
emissions
compared
to
incinerators
that
are
equipped
with
baghouses
and
dry
electrostatic
precipitators.
These
types
of
incinerators
generally
do
not
have
the
potential
to
have
elevated
dioxin/
furan
emissions
because
they
do
not
provide
locations
2
Although
we
subcategorize
between
incinerators
with
wet
or
no
air
pollution
control
device
and
incinerators
equipped
with
dry
air
pollution
control
devices
or
waste
heat
boilers
for
the
floor
analysis,
the
calculated
dioxin
furan
floors
for
both
subcategories
for
existing
sources
were
determined
to
be
less
stringent
than
the
current
interim
standard.
Subsequently,
the
final
rule
emission
limitations
for
both
subcategories
are,
for
the
most
part,
identical,
and
equivalent
to
the
interim
standard.
See
USEPA,
"
Technical
Support
Document
for
the
HWC
MACT
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards,"
September
2005,
Section
10.1,
for
further
discussion.
3
See
USEPA,
"
Technical
Support
Document
for
the
HWC
MACT
Standards,
Volume
IV:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards,"
September
2005,
Section
3,
for
further
discussion.
4
where
surface
catalyzed
reactions
can
occur.
For
purposes
of
dioxin/
furan
emission
formation
and
control,
sources
with
wet
air
pollution
control
systems
are
thus
likewise
different
types
of
incinerators.
4
Subcategorizing
dry
air
pollution
systems
and
wet
air
pollution
control
systems
for
purposes
of
establishing
a
dioxin/
furan
standard
is
no
different
than
subcategorizing
incinerators
equipped
with
waste
heat
boilers.
The
waste
heat
boiler
is
the
origin
of
the
dioxin/
furan
that
is
generated.
These
incinerators
are
designed
to
efficiently
recover
heat
from
the
flue
gas
to
produce
useful
energy.
A
result
of
this
type
of
incinerator
design,
however,
is
that
it
also
provides
a
location
where
surface
catalyzed
reactions
can
occur
(
i.
e.,
the
boiler
tubes),
potentially
resulting
in
elevated
dioxin/
furan
formation
(
and
emissions
if
not
properly
controlled).
An
alternative
approach
that
does
not
subcategorize
these
sources,
but
rather
identifies
best
performing
sources
as
those
sources
with
the
lowest
emissions
irrespective
of
whether
they
have
a
wet
or
dry
air
pollution
control
device,
would
yield
floors
that
would
not
be
achievable
unless
all
the
sources,
including
the
best
performers,
adopted
beyond­
the­
floor
technology.
The
calculated
dioxin/
furan
floor
for
existing
incinerators
and
liquid
fuel
boilers
using
such
an
approach
would
be
0.008
and
0.009
ng
TEQ/
dscm,
respectively.
5
All
of
the
best
performing
sources
for
these
calculated
floors
had
either
wet
air
pollution
systems
or
no
air
pollution
control
systems.
The
floor
technology
used
by
these
sources
is
good
combustion
practices.
As
a
result,
these
floor
levels
would
not
be
replicable
by
these
best
performing
sources
nor
duplicable
by
other
sources
through
use
of
the
same
good
combustion
practices
because
of
the
uncertainties
associated
with
dioxin/
furan
generation
mechanisms
and
rates
that
can
vary
both
within
sources
and
across
sources,
potentially
leading
to
significant
variability
in
emission
levels.
6
Sources
equipped
with
wet
or
no
air
pollution
systems
would
thus
likely
be
required
to
install
carbon
systems
to
comply
with
these
standards,
a
technology
used
by
only
four
incinerators
(
none
of
which
were
best
performers
in
the
above
discussed
floor
analysis).
Such
an
outcome
should
be
viewed
as
a
beyond­
the­
floor
technology
and
therefore
assessed
pursuant
to
the
factors
enumerated
in
section
112
(
d)
(
2).
Furthermore,
it
is
unclear,
and
perhaps
doubtful,
that
these
floors
would
be
achievable
by
these
sources
even
if
they
were
to
install
beyond­
the­
floor
controls
such
as
activated
carbon
systems
because
no
sources
using
activated
carbon
are
currently
achieving
those
floor
levels.
We
therefore
conclude
that
it
is
appropriate,
and
necessary,
to
subcategorize
these
types
of
incinerators
for
purposes
of
calculating
dioxin/
furan
floor
standards.

4
A
similar
analogy
applies
to
incinerators
that
are
not
equipped
with
air
pollution
systems.
These
incinerators
are
not
designed
to
control
emissions
of
metals,
chlorine,
and
particulate
matter
(
perhaps
because
emission
levels
are
low
due
to
low
HAP
feed
levels).
Similar
to
incinerator
types
with
wet
systems,
this
design
does
not
provide
the
locations
for
surface
catalyzed
reactions
to
occur,
which
leads
us
to
conclude
that
these
are
different
types
of
incinerator
with
respect
to
dioxin/
furan
control.
5
See
USEPA,
"
Technical
Support
Document
for
the
HWC
MACT
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards,"
September
2005,
Section
20
and
Appendix
C,
tables
labeled
"
E­
INC­
all­
DF"
and
"
E­
LFB­
all­
DF".
6
Dioxin/
furan
formation
mechanisms
are
complex.
Sources
equipped
with
wet
or
no
air
pollution
control
systems
cannot
rely
on
good
combustion
practices
alone
to
achieve
these
floor
levels
because
they
cannot
"
dial
in"
to
a
specific
emission
level,
as
is
the
case
with
typical
back­
end
control
systems
that
control
particulate
matter
and
metals,
for
example.
See
Part
Four,
Section
IV.
B.
5
B.
Cement
Kilns
1.
Hg
Standard
Comment:
Several
commenters
recommend
that
EPA
use
a
commenter­
submitted
dataset,
which
includes
three
years
of
data
documenting
day­
to­
day
levels
of
mercury
in
hazardous
waste
fuels
fired
to
all
hazardous
waste
burning
cement
kilns,
to
identify
a
MACT
floor
for
existing
and
new
cement
kilns.
Several
commenters
state
that
existing
cement
kilns
should
have
the
option
to
comply
with
either
of
the
following
mercury
standards:
(
1)
a
hazardous
waste
feed
concentration
limit,
expressed
in
ppmw,
based
on
an
evaluation
of
the
five
best
performing
sources
within
the
commenter­
submitted
dataset
(
documenting
day­
to­
day
levels
of
mercury
in
the
hazardous
waste
over
a
three
year
period);
or
(
2)
a
hazardous
waste
maximum
theoretical
emissions
concentration
(
MTEC),
expressed
in
units
of
ug/
dscm,
developed
by
projecting
emissions
of
the
best
performing
sources
assuming
mercury
concentrations
in
the
hazardous
waste
were
at
the
source's
99th
percentile
level
in
the
commenter­
submitted
dataset.
To
identify
the
best
performing
sources,
the
commenter
suggests
selecting
the
five
sources
with
the
lowest
median
mercury
concentrations
in
the
dataset.
For
existing
sources,
the
commenters'
evaluation
yields
a
hazardous
waste
feed
concentration
limit
of
3.3
ppmw
and
a
stack
concentration
emission
limit
of
150
ug/
dscm
(
rounded
to
two
significant
figures
and
considering
mercury
contributions
only
from
the
hazardous
waste).
For
new
cement
kilns,
the
commenters
recommend
a
mercury
standard
in
the
format
of
a
hazardous
waste
feed
concentration
limit
only,
expressed
in
ppmw,
based
on
the
single
source
with
the
lowest
99th
percentile
level
of
mercury
in
hazardous
waste.
The
commenters
recommend
a
mercury
standard
of
1.9
ppmw
for
new
sources.
Response:
We
agree
with
commenters
that
the
commenter­
submitted
dataset
documenting
the
day­
to­
day
levels
of
mercury
in
hazardous
waste
fuels
fired
to
all
hazardous
waste
burning
cement
kilns
is
the
best
available
data
to
identify
floor
levels
for
existing
and
new
cement
kilns.
See
discussion
in
Part
Four,
Section
I.
D.
However,
we
disagree
with
the
commenters'
suggested
format
of
the
mercury
standard
for
existing
sources.
Establishing
the
mercury
standard
as
the
commenters'
suggest
(
i.
e.,
3.3
ppmw
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed
or
150
ug/
dscm
as
a
hazardous
waste
MTEC)
fails
to
consider
the
interim
mercury
standards.
As
discussed
in
Part
Four,
Section
III.
E,
there
can
be
no
backsliding
from
the
levels
of
performance
established
in
the
interim
standards.
While
not
every
source
feeding
hazardous
waste
with
a
maximum
mercury
concentration
of
3.3
ppmw
would
exceed
the
interim
standard,
most
sources
using
more
than
50
percent
hazardous
waste
as
fuel
(
i.
e.,
replacing
at
least
half
its
fossil
fuel
with
hazardous
waste)
would
exceed
the
interim
standard,
emitting
mercury
higher
than
the
levels
allowed
under
§
§
63.1204(
a)(
2)
and
63.1206(
b)(
15)
of
the
interim
standards.
7
The
hazardous
waste
MTEC
of
150
ug/
dscm
calculated
by
the
commenters
is
also
higher
than
the
level
currently
allowed
under
§
63.1206(
b)(
15)
of
the
interim
standards.
Since
sources
cannot
backslide
from
the
levels
of
the
interim
standards,
if
we
were
to
accept
the
commenters'
floor
analysis
results
as
presented
(
which
we
are
not),
then
we
would
"
cap"
each
calculated
standard
(
i.
e.,
3.3
ppmw
hazardous
waste
feed
concentration
and
150
ug/
dscm
in
stack
emissions)
at
the
interim
standard
level.
This
would
result
in
a
mercury
standard
for
existing
sources
of
3.3
ppmw
hazardous
waste
feed
and
a
hazardous
waste
feed
7
USEPA,
"
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards,"
Section
23.4,
September
2005.
6
MTEC
of
120
ug/
dscm
or
120
ug/
dscm
as
a
stack
gas
concentration
limit.
We
note
this
is
similar
to
the
mercury
standard
adopted
today:
a
hazardous
waste
feed
concentration
limit
of
3.0
ppmw
and
a
hazardous
waste
feed
MTEC
of
120
ug/
dscm
or
120
ug/
dscm
as
a
stack
gas
concentration
limit.
For
an
explanation
of
why
we
derived
a
level
of
3.0
ppmw
from
the
data,
see
Section
7.5.3
of
Volume
III
of
the
Technical
Support
Document.
The
commenters'
suggested
new
source
mercury
standard
of
1.9
ppmw
in
the
hazardous
waste
has
the
same
deficiency.
New
sources
with
a
hazardous
waste
fuel
replacement
rate
of
approximately
75%
could
emit
mercury
at
levels
higher
than
currently
allowed
under
the
interim
standards.
After
capping
the
calculated
standard
at
the
interim
standard
level,
we
would
identify
the
mercury
standard
for
new
sources
as
a
hazardous
waste
concentration
limit
of
1.9
ppmw
in
the
hazardous
waste
and
a
hazardous
waste
feed
MTEC
of
120
ug/
dscm
or
120
ug/
dscm
as
a
stack
gas
concentration
limit.
For
reasons
discussed
in
Section
7.5.3
of
Volume
III
of
the
Technical
Support
Document,
this
is
indeed
the
mercury
standard
we
are
promulgating
for
new
cement
kilns.
The
commenters
also
suggest
that
the
best
performing
sources
should
be
identified
as
those
with
the
lowest
three­
year
median
concentration
of
mercury
in
hazardous
waste.
Although
this
approach
would
be
permissible,
we
conclude
that
it
is
more
appropriate
to
identify
the
best
performers
(
or
single
best
performer
for
new
sources)
by
selecting
those
with
the
lowest
99th
percentile
upper
level
mercury
concentrations.
(
This
is
not
a
statistically
determined
upper
prediction
limit;
there
is
sufficient
data
for
an
arithmetically
calculated
99th
percentile
to
reliably
reflect
sources'
performance.)
We
believe
that
this
approach
best
accounts
for
the
variability
experienced
by
best
performing
sources
over
time.
A
detailed
discussion
of
the
MACT
floor
analysis
for
existing
and
new
cement
kilns
is
presented
in
Section
7.5.3
of
Volume
III
of
the
Technical
Support
Document.
In
summary,
the
mercury
standard
for
existing
cement
kilns
is
3.0
ppmw
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed
and
120
ug/
dscm
as
a
hazardous
waste
maximum
theoretical
emission
concentration
feed
limit
or
120
ug/
dscm
as
a
stack
gas
concentration
limit.
For
new
sources
the
mercury
standard
is
1.9
ppmw
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed
and
120
ug/
dscm
as
a
hazardous
waste
maximum
theoretical
emission
concentration
feed
limit
or
120
ug/
dscm
as
a
stack
gas
concentration
limit.
8
Comment:
Two
commenters
oppose
EPA's
proposed
approach
to
base
compliance
with
the
mercury
standard
on
averaged
annual
emissions.
The
commenters
state
an
annual
average
would
allow
mercury
emissions
to
exceed
the
interim
standard
because
a
source
could
burn
high
concentrations
of
mercury
waste
over
a
short
period
and
still
comply
with
an
annual
limit
by
burning
low
concentration
wastes
at
other
times.
These
commenters
support
the
concept
of
a
12­
hour
rolling
average
feedrate
limit
(
i.
e.,
the
current
requirement
under
the
interim
standards)
in
conjunction
with
an
emission
standard
no
less
stringent
than
the
interim
standard.
Response:
We
agree
with
these
comments.
Cement
kilns
must
establish
a
12­
hour
rolling
average
feedrate
limit
of
mercury
to
comply
with
these
standards.
The
mercury
standards
for
cement
kilns
are
"
capped"
at
the
interim
standard
level
to
prevent
backsliding
from
the
current
level
of
performance.
This
is
accomplished
by
expressing
8
Please
note
that
we
do
not
regard
this
standard
as
a
work
practice
standard
under
section
112(
h)(
1)
of
the
Act,
because
part
of
the
standard
includes
an
emission
limit
which
is
measured
at
the
stack.
EPA
believes
the
special
requirements
of
section
112(
h)(
1)
apply
when
a
work
practice
is
the
exclusive
standard.
7
the
standard
as
a
limit
on
the
mercury
concentration
in
the
hazardous
waste
(
with
the
rolling
average)
and
either
an
emission
concentration
limit
or
hazardous
waste
maximum
theoretical
emission
concentration
feed
limit.
See
§
63.1209(
l)(
1)(
iii).
2.
Total
Chlorine
Comment:
One
commenter
states
that
the
proposed
MACT
floor
approach
is
inconsistent
with
the
statutory
definition
of
MACT
because
EPA's
selection
of
a
routinely
achievable
system
removal
efficiency
(
SRE)
was
arbitrary
and
not
representative
of
the
best
performing
sources.
Instead,
the
commenter
suggests
EPA
identify
a
MACT
SRE
based
on
the
five
sources
with
the
best
SREs
and
apply
that
SRE
to
the
MACT
chlorine
feed
level.
Later,
in
supplemental
comments,
the
same
commenter
suggests
two
alternative
approaches
to
identify
a
floor
level.
One
approach
applies
a
ranking
methodology
based
on
emissions
and
chlorine
feed,
and
the
second
suggested
approach
applies
a
triple
ranking
method
based
on
emissions,
feed,
and
chlorine
SRE.
Other
commenters,
however,
supported
EPA's
proposed
approach.
Response:
We
are
adopting
the
same
approach
we
proposed
at
69
FR
at
21259.
As
we
explained,
this
is
a
variant
of
the
SRE/
Feed
approach,
the
variant
involving
the
degree
of
system
removal
efficiency
achieved
by
the
best
performing
sources.
In
summary,
to
determine
the
floor
level
we
first
identify
the
best
performing
sources
according
to
their
hazardous
waste
chlorine
feedrate.
The
best
performing
sources
are
those
that
have
the
lowest
maximum
theoretical
emissions
concentration
(
MTEC),
considering
variability.
We
then
apply
an
SRE
of
90
percent
(
the
specific
point
in
contention)
to
the
best
performing
sources'
total
MTEC
(
i.
e.,
thus
evaluating
removal
of
total
chlorine
across
the
entire
system,
including
chlorine
contributions
to
emissions
from
all
feedstreams
such
as
raw
materials
and
fossil
fuels)
to
identify
the
MACT
floor,
which
is
expressed
as
a
stack
gas
emissions
concentration
in
parts
per
million
by
volume.
This
approach
defines
the
MACT
floor
as
an
emission
level
that
the
best
performing
sources
could
achieve
if
the
source
limits
the
feedrate
of
chlorine
in
the
hazardous
waste
to
the
MACT
level
(
i.
e.,
the
level
achieved
by
the
average
of
the
best
performing
five
sources)
while
also
achieving
an
SRE
that
accounts
for
the
inherent
variability
in
raw
material
alkalinity
and
(
to
a
lesser
degree)
cement
kiln
dust
recycle
rates,
and
production
requirements.
69
FR
at
21259.
Under
this
approach,
we
are
evaluating
hazardous
waste
feed
control
as
we
do
for
other
sources.
One
commenter
objects
to
our
determination
that
an
SRE
of
90
percent
is
representative
of
the
best
performing
sources
because
we
have
not
established
a
MACT
SRE
 
the
average
SRE
achieved
by
the
best
performing
sources.
There
is
no
doubt
that
the
cement
manufacturing
process
is
capable
of
capturing
significant
quantities
of
chlorine
when
favorable
conditions
exist
within
the
kiln
system.
Our
usual
approach
of
establishing
an
SRE
by
ranking
the
most
efficient
SREs
taken
from
individual
compliance
tests,
however,
would
result
in
a
standard
that
would
not
be
achievable
because
it
may
not
be
duplicable
by
the
best
performers
or
certainly
would
not
be
replicable
by
others,
given
that
it
is
a
function
of
various
highly
variable
parameters,
especially
levels
of
alkali
metals
(
e.
g.,
sodium
and
potassium)
and
volatile
compounds
(
e.
g.,
chlorine
and
sulfur)
in
the
raw
materials.
Alkalis
and
volatiles
vary
at
a
given
best
performer
facility
(
in
fact,
at
all
facilities)
as
different
strata
are
mined
in
the
quarry,
and
across
facilities
due
to
different
sources
of
raw
materials.
Raw
material
substitution
is
8
infeasible
and
counter
to
the
objective
of
producing
quality
product
(
i.
e.,
a
product
with
low
alkali
content).
Cement
kilns
thus
are
not
able
to
design
or
operate
to
achieve
a
specific
SRE
at
the
high
(
most
efficient)
end
of
the
range
of
test
conditions.
This
is
demonstrated
by
our
calculations
of
system
removal
efficiency
data,
which
is
essentially
a
collection
of
performance
"
snapshots."
See
SRE
data
summarized
in
Table
1
at
the
end
of
this
response;
see
also
Mossville,
370
F.
3d
at
1242
(
maximum
emission
variability
associated
with
raw
material
variability
needs
to
be
accounted
for
in
MACT
floor
determination
since
the
standard
must
be
met
at
all
times
under
all
operating
conditions).
The
performance
data
of
the
"
apparent"
best
performers
 
upwards
of
99
percent
­­
identified
by
the
commenter
are
simply
a
snapshot
in
the
possible
range
of
performance
and
are
not
replicable
in
the
future
due
to
factors
which
are
uncontrollable
by
the
source,
as
just
explained.
In
confirmation,
cement
kilns
achieving
this
level
of
removal
in
one
test
proved
incapable
of
replicating
their
own
result
in
other
tests
even
though
individual
sources
each
have
their
own
proprietary
source
of
raw
materials.
See
results
in
table
for
Giant
(
SC),
Essroc
(
IN),
Holcim
(
MO),
Giant
(
PA),
and
LaFarge
(
KS)
all
of
whom
would
violate
a
99+
percent
standard
based
on
their
own
operating
results.

Table
1
 
Summary
of
System
Removal
Efficiency
Data
for
Wet
Process
Cement
Kilns9
Facility
No.
Runs
in
Data
Base
Low
SRE
Run
(%)
High
SRE
Run
(%)
Average
SRE
of
All
Runs
(%)
LaFarge
(
OH)
3
99.1
99.4
99.3
Giant
(
SC)
24
95.5
99.8
99.0
Essroc
(
IN)
13
97.3
99.9
98.7
Holcim
(
MO)
6
96.4
99.9
98.4
LaFarge
(
KS)
12
95.7
99.3
98.1
Giant
(
PA)
17
87.7
99.4
97.1
Continental
(
MO)
3
95.7
97.0
96.5
Ash
Grove
(
AR)
37
85.1
98.8
95.1
Texas
Industries
(
TX)
6
88.8
97.0
93.6
Holcim
(
MS)
9
76.5
99.2
90.0
However,
the
data
indicate
that
SRE
is
reasonably
quantifiable
to
a
point.
Based
on
our
data
base
of
system
removal
efficiency
information
from
130
test
conditions
where
total
chlorine
was
evaluated,
we
conclude
that
a
system
removal
efficiency
of
90
percent
is
a
reasonable
estimate
of
MACT
SRE.
10
We
also
reject
the
commenter's
three
suggested
alternative
approaches
to
identify
a
MACT
SRE
to
apply
to
the
MACT
feed
level.
The
commenter's
methods
all
suffer
a
common
flaw:
they
fail
to
recognize
and
take
into
account
the
limitations
of
the
total
9
See
Section
3.6
of
Volume
II
(
Specific
MACT
Standards)
of
Comment
Response
Document,
September
2005.
10
As
discussed
a
number
of
times
earlier,
we
are
not
basing
any
standards
on
feed
control
of
HAP
in
raw
material
and
fossil
fuel
input.
We
instead
are
controlling
HAP
attributable
to
those
inputs
by
means
of
end­
of­
stack
emission
standards
which
reflect
removal
of
HAP
by
some
type
of
control
device.
This
approach
is
consistent
with
the
discussion
above,
since
we
are
not
basing
the
cement
kiln
chlorine
standard
on
control
of
any
raw
material
input,
but
rather
on
some
type
of
back­
end
removal
efficiency.
9
chlorine
SRE
data.
For
example,
as
just
demonstrated,
available
data
show
that
considering
the
SRE
data
associated
with
the
most
recent
compliance
test
as
a
ranking
factor
will
result
in
unachievable
standards
due
to
the
varying
effectiveness
of
chlorine
capture
(
which
impacts
emissions)
depending
on
the
raw
material
mix
characteristics.
Considering
only
the
most
recent
compliance
test
data
as
suggested
yields
results
that
are
unachievable
because
the
best
performer's
SRE
data
are
likely
biased
high
(
e.
g.,
sources
that
happen
to
test
under
favorable
conditions
are
likely
to
be
identified
as
best
performers),
which
would
not
be
replicable
by
even
that
source
on
a
day­
to­
day
basis.
3.
Semivolatile
and
Low
Volatile
Metals
Comment:
Commenters
oppose
EPA's
proposed
approach
to
treat
each
kiln
as
a
separate
and
unique
source
in
the
SRE/
Feed
MACT
floor
analysis
for
cement
kilns.
11
Commenters
state
that
the
approach
is
an
improper
way
to
perform
a
statistical
analysis
and
reduces
the
variability
in
emissions
that
otherwise
would
be
observed
in
a
MACT
pool
of
five
unique
sources.
Variability
is
reduced
because
co­
located
kilns
at
the
same
plant
share
many
of
the
factors
that
comprise
front­
end
and
back­
end
controls.
As
a
result,
the
calculated
MACT
floors
for
SVMs
and
LVMs
for
cement
kilns
are
too
stringent.
The
commenters'
recommended
solution
(
in
instances
where
co­
located
kilns
are
among
the
top
five
performers)
is
to
use
only
the
data
from
the
best
performing
colocated
kiln,
exclude
any
lesser
performing
kilns
at
the
plant
site,
and
then
include
the
next­
best
performing
non­
co­
located
kiln
in
the
MACT
pool.
Implementing
their
recommendation,
the
commenters
state
that
the
MACT
floor
for
SVMs
increases
from
4.0
x
10­
4
to
7.4
x
10­
4
lbs/
MMBtu
and
the
floor
for
LVMs
increases
from
1.4
x
10­
5
to
1.8
x
10­
5
lbs/
MMBtu.
Another
commenter
generally
supports
EPA's
approach
noting
that
the
variability
factor
applied
to
the
emissions
data
already
accounts
for
variability.
Response:
We
consider
sources
that
are
not
identical
as
unique
sources
and
emissions
data
and
information
from
unique
sources
are
considered
separate
sources
in
the
floor
analyses.
An
example
of
an
"
identical"
source
in
our
data
base
is
compliance
test
data
from
a
similar
on­
site
combustion
unit
used
in
place
of
a
compliance
test
for
another
unit
(
i.
e.,
emissions
testing
of
an
identical
unit
was
not
conducted).
These
sources
and
their
associated
data
are
called
"
data
in
lieu
of"
sources
in
our
data
based
on
the
RCRA
provisions
under
§
266.103(
c)(
3)(
i).
We
acknowledge
that
co­
located
sources
may
in
fact
share
certain
similar
operation
features
(
e.
g.,
use
of
raw
material
from
the
same
quarry,
use
of
the
same
coal
and
hazardous
waste
burn
tank
to
fire
the
kilns);
however,
given
that
the
co­
located
sources
(
except
those
designated
as
data
in
lieu
of)
are
not
designed
identically,
and
given
their
hazardous
waste
feed
control
levels
were
not
identical
during
testing,
we
conclude
we
must
consider
each
source
as
a
unique
source
in
the
floor
analyses.
12
Comment:
Commenter
states
that
EPA's
proposed
standards
for
new
cement
kilns
are
unachievable
due
to
problems
with
its
accounting
for
variability,
in
part
because
EPA
did
not
consider
geographic
differences
when
assessing
feed
control
levels.
The
concentrations
of
hazardous
constituents
in
the
waste
in
a
particular
region
are
likely
to
be
different
than
in
the
waste
from
another
geographical
region
due
to
types
of
industrial
11
It
is
common
for
cement
manufacturing
plants
to
operate
multiple
cement
kilns
at
the
same
plant.
12
Nonetheless,
we
analyzed
the
SVM
and
LVM
floors
for
cement
kilns
as
suggested
by
the
commenter.
Results
of
the
analysis
are
presented
in
"
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards,"
Section
8.8,
September
2005.
10
sectors
located
within
each
region.
Sources
cannot
reasonably
arrange
for
transportation
of
lower
HAP
wastes
generated
across
the
country
and
cannot
treat
the
hazardous
waste
to
remove
or
reduce
HAP
concentrations.
The
commenter
cites
several
court
decisions
that
support
their
assertions.
Commenter
believes
that
while
this
represents
a
problem
for
developing
both
the
new
and
existing
source
floors,
it
is
a
greater
predicament
for
the
new
source
floor
because
this
floor
level
is
based
on
test
data
for
only
one
source.
Response:
We
are
not
obligated
to
account
for
varying
hazardous
waste
feed
control
levels
occurring
because
of
differing
HAP
generation
rates
in
different
locations
(
for
commercial
sources),
or
because
different
production
process
types
generate
higher
or
lower
levels
HAP
concentration
wastes.
Hazardous
waste
feed
control
is
a
legitimate
control
technology.
The
commenter
seems
to
suggest
that
we
should
subcategorize
low
feeding
sources
and
high
feeding
sources
based
on
their
hazardous
waste
feed
control
level.
This
would
inappropriately
subcategorize
sources
based
on
differing
levels
of
controls,
which
we
do
not
do.
See
69
FR
at
403
(
January
5,
2004).
Nonetheless,
as
previously
discussed,
the
SRE/
Feed
methodology
lessens
the
impact
of
feed
control
variations
across
commercial
units
because
it
results
in
fewer
situations
where
best
performing
back­
end
controlled
sources
(
from
a
particulate
matter
emissions
perspective)
cannot
achieve
the
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metal
design
levels
and
floors.
For
new
source
standards,
the
single
best
performing
cement
kiln
sources
for
semivolatile
metals
and
low
volatile
metals
were
not
the
lowest
hazardous
waste
feed
controlled
source
(
both
floors
were
based
on
sources
with
the
fourth
best,
i.
e.,
lowest,
hazardous
waste
feed
control
level).
We
therefore
do
not
believe
these
sources
are
atypically
low
hazardous
waste
feeders
relative
to
the
other
best
performing
sources
in
the
existing
source
MACT
pools.

C.
Lightweight
Aggregate
Kilns
1.
Mercury
Standard
Comment:
One
commenter,
an
operator
of
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
subject
to
this
rule,
recommends
that
EPA
establish
the
mercury
standard
for
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
at
a
hazardous
waste
feed
concentration
limit
of
3.3
ppmw
for
existing
sources
and
1.9
ppmw
for
new
sources,
which
is
the
same
standard
suggested
in
public
comments
by
a
trade
organization
representing
hazardous
waste
burning
cement
kilns.
The
commenter
notes
that
these
mercury
limits
are
appropriate
for
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
because
the
commenter's
two
lightweight
aggregate
manufacturing
facilities
participate
in
the
same
hazardous
waste
fuel
market
as
the
majority
of
cement
kilns.
Moreover,
the
commenter
maintains
that
its
parent
company
also
owns
and
operates
two
cement
kilns
and
that
its
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
receive
hazardous
waste
from
many
of
the
same
generators
that
provide
hazardous
waste
fuel
to
the
cement
kilns.
Consequently,
the
commenter
states
that
the
cement
industry's
data
set
of
actual
mercury
feed
concentrations
in
the
hazardous
waste
best
represents
the
full
range
of
hazardous
waste
fuel
concentrations
that
exist
in
the
waste
fuel
market
(
see
also
Part
Four,
Sections
I.
D
and
E).
Response:
We
disagree
with
the
commenter.
Although
the
cement
industry's
set
of
mercury
feed
concentration
data
in
the
hazardous
waste
may
represent
the
full
range
of
concentrations
for
the
cement
kiln
source
category,
we
cannot
conclude
the
same
for
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
because
the
commenter
states
that
the
mercury
dataset
are
11
only
applicable
to
its
kilns.
13
Further,
the
commenter
provides
no
specific
information
or
data
to
support
the
conclusion
that
its
suggested
approach
is
justified
for
the
other
lightweight
aggregate
kiln
facility.
We
also
disagree
with
the
commenter
as
to
the
appropriateness
of
establishing
the
mercury
standard
in
the
format
of
a
hazardous
waste
feed
concentration
(
i.
e.,
3.3
ppmw
for
existing
sources
and
1.9
ppmw
for
new
sources)
for
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
A
hazardous
waste
feed
concentration
standard
is
improper
for
this
source
category
because
one
lightweight
aggregate
kiln
facility's
sources
(
although
not
the
commenter's)
controls
mercury
emissions
using
wet
scrubbing.
Thus,
a
hazardous
waste
feed
concentration
standard
would
inappropriately
limit
the
mercury
concentration
in
hazardous
waste
for
sources
that
use
control
equipment
capable
of
capturing
mercury.
A
source
with
control
equipment
should
not
be
restricted
to
a
hazardous
waste
feed
concentration
standard
that
is
based
on
sources
that
can
only
control
mercury
emissions
through
limiting
the
amount
of
mercury
in
the
hazardous
waste.
In
any
case,
as
explained
earlier
in
our
discussion
of
cement
kiln
mercury
standard,
we
believe
that
it
is
preferable
to
establish
an
emission
standard
to
assure
that
the
actual
amount
of
mercury
emitted
by
these
sources
is
controlled
by
means
of
a
numerical
standard
for
stack
emissions.
Comment:
One
commenter
agrees
that
a
source
may
not
be
able
to
achieve
the
mercury
standard
due
to
raw
material
contributions
that
might
cause
an
exceedance
of
the
emission
standard
in
spite
of
a
source
using
properly
designed
and
operated
MACT
floor
control
technologies,
including
controlling
the
levels
of
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste.
The
commenter
opposes
the
proposed
alternative
standard
of
42
ug/
dscm,
which
is
expressed
as
a
hazardous
waste
maximum
theoretical
emissions
concentration.
Instead,
the
commenter
suggests
that
EPA
maintain
the
alternative
standard
options
of
§
§
63.1206(
b)(
15)
or
63.1206(
b)(
9).
Response:
We
agree
with
the
commenter
that
the
mercury
standard
should
address
the
concern
of
raw
material
contributions
causing
an
exceedance
of
the
emission
standard.
We
also
agree
that
the
proposed
alternative
standard
of
a
hazardous
waste
maximum
theoretical
emissions
concentration
of
42
ug/
dscm
is
an
improper
standard
because
the
underlying
data
are
unrepresentative.
See
discussion
in
Part
Four,
Section
I.
E.
We
note
that
the
mercury
standard
promulgated
today
is
120
ug/
dscm
as
a
stack
gas
concentration
limit
or
120
ug/
dscm
as
a
hazardous
waste
maximum
theoretical
emission
concentration
feed
limit.
The
alternative
mercury
standard
sought
by
the
commenter
under
§
63.1206(
b)(
15)
is
a
limit
of
120
ug/
dscm
as
a
hazardous
waste
maximum
theoretical
emission
concentration,
which
is
included
in
the
mercury
standard
promulgated
today.
This
should
address
the
commenter's
concern.
Comment:
One
commenter
supports
a
mercury
standard
with
short­
term
compliance
limits
(
e.
g.,
12­
hour
rolling
average
feedrate
limits)
as
opposed
to
the
annual
limit
proposed.
Response:
For
reasons
discussed
in
Part
Four,
Section
I.
E,
we
are
using
a
different
mercury
dataset
than
at
proposal.
We
solicited
comment
on
a
floor
approach
13
We
note
that
the
commenter­
submitted
dataset
is
not
amenable
for
use
in
establishing
standards
expressed
in
a
thermal
emission
format
because
sufficient
information
on
the
characteristics
of
the
hazardous
waste
(
e.
g.,
heating
value
of
hazardous
waste)
were
not
provided.
12
using
these
data
in
a
notice14
sent
directly
to
certain
commenters.
We
are
adopting
that
approach
today.
The
monitoring
requirements
of
the
mercury
standard
for
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
includes
short­
term
averaging
periods
(
i.
e.,
not
to
exceed
a
12­
hour
rolling
average),
as
recommended
by
the
commenter.
2.
Total
Chlorine
Standard
Comment:
One
commenter
supports
excluding
from
the
floor
analysis
all
lightweight
aggregate
kiln
sources
that
lack
air
pollution
control
devices
for
chlorine,
such
as
scrubbing
technology.
The
floor
analysis
should
simply
exclude
sources
without
back­
end
controls
according
to
the
commenter.
Response:
We
disagree.
For
the
final
rule,
we
are
using
the
SRE/
Feed
MACT
floor
approach
which
defines
best
performers
as
those
sources
with
the
best
combined
front­
end
hazardous
waste
feed
control
and
back­
end
air
pollution
control
efficiency.
The
commenter's
suggestion
would
exclude
emissions
data
from
two
of
the
three
facilities
in
this
source
category
even
though
valid
emissions
data
from
these
sources
are
available
(
and
therefore
ordinarily
to
be
used,
see
CKRC,
255
F.
3d
at
867),
and
these
sources
achieved
the
best
front­
end
hazardous
waste
feed
control
in
the
category.
We
note
that
the
best
feedrate
controlled
sources
have
hazardous
waste
thermal
feed
levels
that
are
approximately
one­
fifth
the
level
of
the
source's
with
back­
end
controls.
These
data
describe
the
level
of
performance
of
sources
in
the
category
and
must
be
evaluated
in
the
MACT
floor
analysis.
We
also
note
that
even
if
we
were
to
implement
the
commenter's
suggestion,
the
MACT
floor
results
would
not
change
for
existing
and
new
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
because
the
total
chlorine
emissions
data
of
the
source
with
back­
end
air
pollution
controls
(
after
considering
variability)
are
higher
than
the
standards
promulgated
today.
Thus,
the
commenter's
suggestion
also
would
result
in
a
standard
that
would
be
capped
by
the
interim
standard.
3.
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
Comment:
One
commenter
opposes
EPA's
proposed
decision
to
promulgate
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
for
dioxin/
furans
for
existing
and
new
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
based
on
performance
of
activated
carbon
injection.
Response:
For
the
final
rule,
we
conclude
that
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
for
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
is
not
warranted.
The
Clean
Air
Act
requires
us
to
consider
costs
and
non­
air
quality
impacts
and
energy
requirements
when
considering
more
stringent
requirements
than
the
MACT
floor.
In
the
proposed
rule,
we
estimated
that
the
incremental
annualized
compliance
costs
for
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
to
achieve
the
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
would
be
approximately
$
1.8
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
dioxin/
furan
emissions
of
1.9
grams
TEQ
per
year
(
see
69
FR
at
21262).
At
proposal
we
judged
costs
of
approximately
$
950,000
per
additional
gram
of
dioxin/
furan
TEQ
removed
as
justified,
and,
therefore,
we
proposed
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard.
Since
proposal,
we
made
several
changes
to
the
dioxin/
furan
data
base
as
the
result
of
public
comments.
One
implication
of
these
changes
is
a
lower
national
emissions
estimate
for
dioxin/
furans
for
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
We
now
estimate
an
incremental
reduction
in
dioxin/
furan
emissions
of
1.06
grams
TEQ
per
year
with
costs
ranging
between
$
1.6
and
$
2.2
million
per
additional
gram
of
dioxin/
furan
TEQ
removed.
Based
on
these
costs
and
consideration
of
the
non­
air
quality
impacts
and
energy
requirements
(
including
more
waste
generated
in
the
form
of
spent
activated
14
See
docket
item
OAR­
2004­
0022­
0370.
13
carbon,
and
more
energy
consumed),
we
conclude
that
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
for
existing
and
new
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
is
no
longer
justified.
For
an
explanation
of
the
beyond­
the­
floor
analysis,
see
Section
12.1.2
of
Volume
III
of
the
Technical
Support
Document.
We
note
that
EPA
also
retains
its
authority
under
RCRA
section
3005(
c)
(
the
so­
called
omnibus
permitting
authority)
by
which
permit
writers
can
adopt
more
stringent
emission
standards
in
RCRA
permits
if
they
determine
that
today's
standards
are
not
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.

D.
Liquid
Fuel
Boilers
1.
Mercury
Standard
Not
Achievable
when
Burning
Legacy
Mixed
Waste
Comment:
One
commenter
states
that
the
proposed
liquid
fuel
boiler
mercury
standard
is
not
achievable
by
a
commercial
boiler,
DSSI
(
Diversified
Scientific
Services,
Inc.)
that
burns
mercury­
bearing
low
level
radioactive
waste
that
is
also
a
hazardous
waste
(
so­
called
`
mixed
waste')
that
was
generated
years
ago
(
so­
called,
legacy
waste).
The
waste
is
an
organic
liquid
containing
high
concentrations
of
mercury.
The
boiler
is
equipped
with
a
wet
scrubber
which
provides
good
mercury
control
 
93%,
system
removal
efficiency
according
to
the
commenter.
The
commenter
states
that
the
proposed
liquid
fuel
boiler
mercury
standard
is
not
achievable
using
feedrate
control
and/
or
additional
back­
end
control.
Waste
minimization
is
not
an
option
because
the
waste
has
already
been
generated.
Further,
available
national
treatment
capacity
for
mercury­
bearing,
low­
level
radioactive
organic
hazardous
waste
is
very
limited.
The
only
other
hazardous
waste
combustion
facility
authorized
to
treat
such
waste
is
the
Department
of
Energy
incinerator
at
Oak
Ridge,
Tennessee.
Waste
treatment
volumes
at
that
facility
are
restricted
by
the
mercury
feed
rate
limitation
for
the
incinerator.
In
addition,
the
feedrate
of
the
waste
cannot
be
practicably
reduced
because
of
the
large
back­
log
of
waste
that
must
be
treated.
The
commenter
suggests
that
their
boiler
be
subject
to
the
incinerator
mercury
standard
because
the
mixed
waste
has
far
higher
concentrations
of
mercury
than
wastes
burned
by
other
boilers
and,
as
a
consequence,
the
boiler
is
more
incinerator­
like
with
respect
to
the
feedrate
of
mercury.
Response.
We
agree
with
the
commenter's
suggestion.
The
final
rule
subjects
this
commercial
liquid
fuel
boiler
to
the
mercury
standard
for
incinerators.
We
are
classifying
this
source
as
a
separate
type
of
source
for
purposes
of
the
mercury
standard,
because
the
type
of
mercury­
containing
waste
it
processes
is
dramatically
different
from
that
processed
by
other
liquid
fuel
boilers,
effectively
making
this
a
different
type
of
source
for
purposes
of
a
mercury
standard15.
The
source
thus
feeds
mercury
at
concentrations
exceeding
that
of
any
boiler
but
at
concentrations
within
the
range
processed
by
hazardous
waste
incinerators.
The
maximum
test
condition
average
MTEC16
for
mercury
for
the
remaining
liquid
fuel
boilers
is
20
ug/
dscm.
All
the
liquid
fuel
boiler
mercury
data
represent
"
normal"
data,
i.
e.,
data
that
were
not
spiked.
(
The
lack
of
spiked
data
in
the
liquid
fuel
boiler
data
base,
in
and
of
itself,
indicates
that
these
sources
do
not
process
mercury­
bearing
waste
and
do
not
need
the
operational
flexibility
15
See
CAA
section
112
(
d)
(
1)),
authorizing
EPA
to
distinguish
among
different
"
types...
of
sources
within
a
category
or
subcategory"
in
developing
MACT
standards.
16
Maximum
theoretical
emission
concentration
is
the
feedrate
normalized
by
gas
flowrate
assuming
zero
system
removal
efficiency.
14
gained
by
spiking
to
account
for
occasional
higher
concentration
mercury
wastes.)
DSSI's
2002
mercury
test
condition
average
MTEC
was
spiked
to
3500
ug/
dscm.
In
other
words,
DSSI
needs
the
operational
flexibility
to
feed
175
times
more
mercury
than
any
other
liquid
fuel
boiler.
Incinerators,
on
the
other
hand,
had
mercury
MTECs
that
ranged
to
110,000
ug/
dscm
in
2002.
In
fact,
DSSI's
mercury
feed
rate
is
the
eighth
highest
of
the
40
incinerators,
including
DSSI,
for
which
we
have
2002
mercury
feed
rate
data.
DSSI's
process
feed
is
thus
within
the
upper
range
of
mercury
feed
found
at
incinerators.
We
believe
it
is
well
within
the
broad
discretion
accorded
us
in
section
112(
d)(
1)
to
subcategorize
among
"
types"
and
"
classes"
of
sources
within
a
category.
See
also
Weyerhaeuser
v.
Costle,
590
F.
2d
at
254,
n.
70
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1978)
(
similar
raw
waste
characteristics
justify
common
classification)
and
Chemical
Manufacturers
Ass'n
v.
EPA,
870
F.
2d
177,
253­
54
and
n.
340
(
5th
Cir.
1989)
(
same).
We
note
that
this
boiler
will
be
subject
to
the
liquid
fuel
boiler
standards
for
all
HAP
other
than
mercury
(
the
only
HAP
where
the
issue
of
appropriate
classification
arises).
Not
surprisingly,
given
the
disparity
in
waste
concentration
levels,
the
DSSI
boiler,
even
though
equipped
with
back
end
control
comparable
to
best
performing
commercial
incinerators,
achieves
mercury
emission
levels
less
than
an
order
of
magnitude
higher
than
the
other
hazardous
waste­
burning
liquid
fuel
boilers,
few
of
which
use
back
end
control
that
is
effective
for
mercury.
17
This
emission
disparity
likewise
indicates
that
DSSI
is
treating
a
different
type
of
waste
than
other
liquid
fuel
boilers.
The
nature
of
the
mercury­
bearing
waste
further
confirms
that
it
is
of
a
different
type
than
that
processed
by
other
hazardous
waste
burning
liquid
fuel
boilers.
The
waste
is
a
remediation
waste,
a
type
of
waste
burned
routinely
by
commercial
hazardous
waste
incinerators
but
almost
never
by
a
liquid
fuel
boiler.
Moreover,
the
waste
is
a
legacy,
mixed
waste
generated
decades
ago
in
support
of
the
United
States'
strategic
nuclear
arsenal.
It
is
not
amenable
to
the
types
of
control
all
other
liquid
fuel
boilers
use
to
reduce
mercury
emissions
 
some
type
of
feed
control
or
other
minimization
technique.
We
investigated
whether
any
waste
minimization
options
are
feasible
for
this
waste,
and
find
that
they
are
not.
Normally,
waste
minimization
is
accomplished
by
one
of
three
means:
eliminating
the
use
of
mercury
in
the
process
to
prevent
it
from
being
in
the
waste;
pretreating
the
waste
before
burning
to
remove
the
mercury;
or
sending
it
to
another
facility
better
suited
to
handle
the
waste.
Changing
the
production
process
to
eliminate
or
reduce
the
mercury
content
of
the
waste
is
not
an
option
because
this
waste
has
already
been
generated.
Pretreatment
is
already
practiced
to
the
maximum
extent
feasible
by
settling
out
and
separating
the
heavier
mercury
from
the
liquid
components
after
thermal
desorbtion.
The
remaining
organic
liquid
that
is
burned
by
the
mixed
waste
boiler
contains
concentrations
of
mercury
(
in
organo­
mercury
and
other
organic
soluble
forms)
that
are
orders
of
magnitude
higher
than
burned
by
other
liquid
fuel
boilers.
Much
of
the
waste
cannot
be
feasibly
pretreated
to
remove
mercury
because
this
legacy,
mixed
waste
comes
from
many
highly
diverse
sources.
It
is
not
practical
or
feasible
to
investigate
how
to
remove
the
mercury
from
wastes
of
such
varied
and
unique
origins.

17
USEPA,
"
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Standards,
Volume
I:
Description
of
Source
Categories,"
September
2004,
Section
2.4.4.
15
Only
one
other
facility
could
potentially
treat
this
mixed
waste,
DOE's
incinerator
at
Oak
Ridge,
Tennessee,
whose
permit
allows
the
incinerator
to
manage
mixed
waste.
However,
waste
treatment
volumes
for
mercury­
bearing
wastes
at
that
facility
are
restricted
by
the
mercury
feed
rate
limitation
in
the
incinerator's
permit.
The
DOE
incinerator
alone
cannot
assure
national
capacity
for
mercury­
bearing,
low­
level
radioactive
organic
hazardous
waste.
In
addition,
the
back­
end
emission
controls
of
the
mixed
waste
boiler
are
superior
to
those
used
by
most
incinerators,
including
the
Oak
Ridge
incinerator.
This
boiler
uses
a
highly
effective
wet
scrubbing
system­­
the
principal
MACT
floor
back­
end
control
for
mercury
used
by
incinerators­­
that
achieves
over
93%
system
removal
efficiency.
This
is
superior
control
compared
to
most
incinerators,
including
the
one
at
Oak
Ridge
which
achieves
75
to
85%
removal.
18
Thus,
this
mixed
waste
boiler
is
reasonably
classified
a
different
type
of
source
with
respect
to
mercury
waste
than
other
hazardous
waste­
burning
liquid
fuel
boilers,
based
on
the
nature
of
the
waste
burned
and
confirmed
by
the
source's
mercury
emissions.
We
note
that,
although
the
final
rule
subjects
only
the
DSSI
mixed
waste
boiler
to
the
incinerator
mercury
standard,
we
would
conclude
that
any
other
liquid
fuel
boiler
with
the
same
fact
pattern
(
i.
e.,
that
met
the
same
criteria
as
the
DSSI
boiler
as
discussed
above)
should
also
be
subject
to
the
incinerator
mercury
standard
rather
than
the
liquid
fuel
boiler
mercury
standard.
Comment.
One
commenter
states
that
EPA's
standards
for
all
sources
must
reflect
the
actual
emission
levels
achieved
by
the
relevant
best
sources.
If
EPA
wishes
to
subject
the
boiler
source
and
incinerators
to
the
same
emission
standards,
however,
it
is
entirely
within
the
Agency's
power
to
do
so.
Response.
We
agree.
There
is
no
functional
difference
between
this
boiler
and
incinerators
with
respect
to
mercury
feed
rate
and
the
type
of
waste
processed
(
incinerators
often
treat
remediation
wastes).
Therefore,
the
most
relevant
sources
for
the
purposes
of
clarification
in
this
case
are
incinerators,
not
liquid
fuel
boilers.
Accordingly,
we
have
classified
DSSI
as
an
incinerator
for
purposes
of
a
mercury
standard
(
i.
e.,
made
it
subject
to
the
mercury
standard
for
incinerators),
and
have
included
the
DSSI
mercury
data
with
the
incinerator
data
when
assessing
mercury
standards
for
incinerators.
Comment.
In
something
of
a
contradiction,
the
same
commenter
argues
that
the
mixed
waste
boiler
source
(
DSSI)
does
not
claim
that
it
cannot
meet
the
relevant
mercury
standard
for
liquid
fuel
boilers,
but
only
that
it
cannot
do
so
"
using
either
feedrate
control
or
MACT
floor
back
end
emission
control."
Floors
must
reflect
the
emission
levels
that
the
relevant
best
sources
actually
achieve,
not
what
is
achievable
through
the
use
of
a
chosen
emission
control
technology.
It
is
flatly
unlawful­­
and
essentially
contemptuous
of
court­­
for
EPA
even
to
entertain
the
source's
argument
that
the
source
should
be
subject
to
a
less
stringent
emission
standard
based
on
the
levels
they
believe
would
be
achievable
through
the
use
of
one
chosen
control
technology.
The
commenter
also
states
that
the
source
acknowledges
that
it
could
achieve
a
better
emission
level,
and
apparently
meet
the
relevant
standards,
by
using
activated
carbon.
Their
argument
that
doing
so
would
generate
large
quantities
of
spent
18
For
more
explanation
concerning
mixed
waste
sources,
limitations
on
the
concentrations
of
mercury
fed
to
these
sources,
and
the
system
removal
efficiency
achieved,
see
USEPA,
"
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
Standards,"
September
2005,
Section
8.7.
16
radioactive
carbon
does
not
support
its
attempt
to
avoid
Clean
Air
Act
requirements;
the
alternative
to
the
source
accumulating
large
quantities
of
radioactive
carbon
is
releasing
large
quantities
of
radioactive
and
toxic
pollution
into
the
environment.
Response.
DSSI
cannot
meet
the
liquid
boiler
mercury
standard
because
it
burns
a
unique
waste
that
resembles
wastes
processed
by
hazardous
waste
incinerators
(
in
terms
of
mercury
concentration
and
provenance)
and
is
unlike
any
mercury­
containing
waste
burned
by
the
remaining
liquid
fuel
boilers.
See
the
earlier
discussion
showing
that
DSSI
needs
the
operational
flexibility
to
feed
175
times
more
mercury
than
any
other
liquid
fuel
boiler,
but
that
DSSI's
process
feed
is
within
the
upper
range
of
mercury
feed
found
at
incinerators.
We
agree
that
DSSI
is
processing
different
types
of
mercury­
bearing
wastes
than
those
combusted
by
all
other
liquid
fuel
boilers.
We
believe
that
establishing
a
different
mercury
standard
for
DSSI
is
warranted,
as
it
would
for
any
source
with
demonstrably
unique,
unalterable
feedstock
which
is
more
difficult
to
treat
than
that
processed
by
other
sources
otherwise
in
the
same
category.
How
DSSI
chooses
to
comply
with
the
incinerator
mercury
standard
(
for
example,
whether
it
must
use
some
other
type
of
emissions
control
technology)
is
not
germane
to
this
decision.
We
note
that
today's
mercury
standard
for
incinerators
will
force
this
source
to
lower
its
mercury
emissions,
since
it
is
unlikely
that
it
can
meet
today's
120
ug/
dscm
standard
at
all
times
without
some
changes
in
operations.
Comment.
The
source
argues
that
waste
minimization
is
not
feasible
for
legacy
mixed
waste
that
has
already
been
generated.
It
is
not
possible
to
travel
back
in
time
and
unmake
mixed
legacy
waste
that
already
has
been
created.
That
obvious
fact,
however,
lends
no
support
to
their
argument
that
it
should
be
allowed
to
burn
mixed
legacy
waste
with
less
stringent
emission
standards,
according
to
one
commenter.
Response.
As
discussed
above,
the
mercury
standard
for
liquid
fuel
boilers
is
not
achievable
for
this
source
because
it
is
a
different
type
and
class
of
boiler,
based
on
the
type
of
mercury­
containing
hazardous
waste
it
processes.
Because
this
boiler
has
mercury
feed
rates
that
resemble
those
of
incinerators­­
not
liquid
fuel
boilers­­
and
waste
minimization
is
not
possible,
subjecting
the
boiler
to
the
mercury
incinerator
standard
is
a
reasonable
means
of
sub­
categorization
pursuant
to
the
discretionary
authority
provided
us
by
section
112(
d)(
1)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
Comment.
The
commenter
states
that
it
is
entirely
possible
to
dispose
of
mixed
legacy
waste
without
burning
it.
Specifically,
currently
available
technologies
such
as
chemical
oxidation
and
precipitation
can
be
used
to
treat
mixed
legacy
waste
without
burning
it­­
and
without
releasing
mercury
into
the
air.
Therefore,
mixed
legacy
waste
should
not
be
burned
at
all;
it
should
be
disposed
of
safely
through
the
application
of
one
of
these
more
advanced
technologies.
Response.
First,
these
wastes
must
be
treated
before
they
can
be
land
disposed.
RCRA
sections
3004(
d),
(
g)(
5),
and
(
m).
They
also
must
meet
a
standard
of
0.025
mg/
l
measured
by
the
Toxicity
Characteristic
Leaching
Procedure
before
land
disposal
is
permissible.
40
CFR
section
268.40
(
standard
for
"
all
other
nonwastewaters
that
exhibit
the
characteristic
of
toxicity
for
mercury").
19
EPA's
technical
judgment
is
that
it
would
19
Although
the
legacy
waste
that
DSSI
is
burning
is
nominally
classified
as
a
nonwastewater
due
to
its
high
organic
content,
it
is
in
fact
a
liquid
matrix,
meaning
that
the
treatment
standard
of
0.025
ug/
l
is
effectively
a
total
standard.
17
be
very
difficult
to
meet
this
standard
by
any
means
other
than
combustion.
Moreover,
as
an
organic
liquid,
the
waste
is
readily
amenable
to
treatment
by
combustion.
In
addition,
combustion
is
a
legal
form
of
treatment
for
the
waste.
EPA
did
not
propose
to
change
or
otherwise
reconsider
these
treatment
standards
in
this
rulemaking,
and
is
not
doing
so
here.
We
note,
however,
that
40
CFR
268.42
and
268.44
provide
means
by
which
generators
and
treatment
facilities
can
petition
the
Agency
to
seek
different
treatment
standards
from
those
specified
by
rule,
and
set
out
requirements
for
evaluating
such
petitions.
We
note
further
that,
because
this
waste
is
radioactive,
exceptional
precautions
need
to
be
taken
in
its
handling.
The
nonthermal
treatment
alternatives
mentioned
by
the
commenter
ignore
the
potential
for
radiation
exposure
if
nonthermal
treatment
is
used.
Concerns
(
some
of
which
are
mentioned
in
DSSI's
comment)
include:
nonthermal
treatment
would
(
or
could)
increase
worker
exposure;
desire
to
reduce
handling
of
radioactive
materials
in
general;
need
to
avoid
contaminating
equipment
that
subsequently
requires
decontamination
or
handling
as
radioactive
material;
minimizing
the
generation
of
additional
radioactive
waste
residues;
reducing
the
amount
of
analysis
of
radioactive
materials,
which
causes
potential
exposure,
generation
of
radioactive
wastes
and
equipment;
wastes
are
varied
and
often
of
small
volumes,
which
makes
it
difficult
to
develop
routine
procedures.
Nonthermal
treatment
alternatives
are
also
not
currently
available
to
DOE
to
manage
the
diversity
and
volume
of
DOE
mixed
waste.
It
is
thus
our
belief
that
the
commenter
has
not
fully
explored
the
implications
of
its
position,
especially
with
regard
to
radiation
exposure.
If
the
commenter
wishes
to
pursue
this
issue,
EPA
believes
the
appropriate
context
is
through
the
Land
Disposal
Restriction
mechanisms
described
above.
Comment.
The
commenter
states
that
the
source
argues
that
feedrate
control
is
not
"
practical."
There
appears
to
be
no
record
evidence
indicating
what
would
make
feedrate
control
impractical
and
why
any
such
obstacle
could
not
be
overcome.
Response.
Feedrate
control
to
the
extent
necessary
to
achieve
the
liquid
fuel
boiler
standards
is
not
practical
for
reasons
just
discussed.
This
source
is
one
of
two
available
sources
that
is
authorized
to
treat
mixed
waste,
and
the
other
source
is
not
likely
to
have
the
ability
to
burn
mercury­
bearing
organic
waste
in
the
future
due
to
permit
limitations
and
size
constraints.
Comment.
The
commenter
states
that
mixed
legacy
waste
should
not
be
burned
at
all.
If
there
are
truly
no
other
facilities
that
are
currently
permitted
to
dispose
of
mixed
legacy
waste,
such
waste
should
be
stored
until
a
facility
that
can
treat
such
waste
safely­­
e.
g.,
through
chemical
oxidation­­
can
be
permitted.
Response.
The
commenter's
suggestion
is
beyond
the
scope
of
today's
rulemaking.
The
suggestion
is
also
illegal,
since
RCRA
prohibits
the
storage
of
hazardous
waste
for
extended
periods.
See
RCRA
section
3004(
j);
and
Edison
Electric
Inst.
v.
EPA,
996
F.
2d
326,
335­
37
(
DC
Cir.
1993)
(
illegal
under
RCRA
section
3004(
j)
to
store
hazardous
waste
pending
development
of
a
treatment
technology).
EPA
also
notes
that
it
retains
authority
under
RCRA
section
3005(
c)
(
the
so­
called
omnibus
permitting
authority)
by
which
permit
writers
can
adopt
more
stringent
emission
standards
in
RCRA
permits
if
they
determine
that
today's
standards
are
not
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
18
2.
Different
Mercury,
Semivolatile
Metals,
Chromium,
and
Total
Chlorine
Standards
for
Liquid
Fuel
Boilers
Depending
on
the
Heating
Value
of
the
Hazardous
Waste
Burned.
Comment.
Several
commenters
state
that
liquid
fuel
boilers
should
have
an
alternative
concentration­
based
standard
in
addition
to
the
thermal
emission­
based
standard.
Liquid
fuel
boilers
are
typically
"
captive"
units
that
burn
waste
fuels
generated
from
on­
site
or
nearby
manufacturing
operations,
rather
than
accepting
wastes
from
a
wide
variety
of
other
sources.
Because
they
have
captive
fuel
sources,
operators
generally
do
not
have
fuel
blending
capabilities.
Liquid
fuel
boilers
"
burn
what
they
have,"
and
as
such
have
very
limited
operational
flexibility.
EPA
should
not
penalize
boilers
that
have
the
same
mass
concentrations
of
metals
or
chlorine
in
their
waste
compared
to
other
boilers,
but
which
wastes
have
a
lower
heating
value
than
wastes
burned
by
other
boilers.
(
The
"
penalty"
is
that
emissions
limits
that
are
normalized
by
the
heating
value
of
the
hazardous
waste
require
that
less
volume
of
lower
heating
value
waste
can
be
burned
compared
to
higher
heating
value
fuel.)
This
problem
is
made
worse
by
the
limited
data
base
for
liquid
fuel
boilers,
the
lack
of
historical
data
to
verify
that
these
standards
are
achievable
over
time,
and
having
most
or
all
of
the
measured
emissions
below
detection
limits.
In
addition,
most
of
the
mercury
and
semivolatile
metal
data
EPA
has
in
the
data
base
were
obtained
during
normal
operations
and
while
the
source
demonstrated
compliance
with
RCRA's
chromium
standard
 
the
other
metals
data
were
available
only
because
stack
method
Method
29
reports
data
for
all
RCRA
metals,
even
ones
that
are
not
at
issue
for
the
compliance
test.
(
Sources
generally
elected
to
comply
with
the
BIF
Tier
I
metals
emissions
levels,
but
Tier
III
for
chromium.
Thus,
the
Method
29
test
for
chromium
will
give
emissions
results
for
all
the
metals
 
even
those
not
subjected
to
stack
testing
 
not
just
chromium.)
Response.
As
explained
earlier
in
Part
Four,
Section
V.
A.,
EPA
has
selected
normalizing
parameters
that
best
fit
the
input
to
the
combustion
device.
A
thermal
normalizing
parameter
(
i.
e.,
expressing
the
standards
in
terms
of
amount
of
HAP
contributed
by
hazardous
waste
per
thermal
content
of
hazardous
waste)
is
appropriate
where
hazardous
waste
is
being
used
in
energy­
recovery
devices
as
a
fuel,
since
the
waste
serves
as
a
type
of
fuel.
Using
a
thermal
normalizing
parameter
in
such
instances
avoids
the
necessity
of
subcategorizing
based
on
unit
size.
The
commenters
raise
the
other
side
of
the
same
issue.
As
the
commenters
point
out,
some
liquid
fuel
boilers
burn
lower
Btu
hazardous
waste
because
that
is
the
waste
available
to
them,
and
those
with
waste
that
has
a
low
heating
value
are,
in
their
words,
"
penalized,"
compared
to
those
with
a
high(­
er)
heating
value.
Also,
since
these
are
not
commercial
combustion
units,
they
normally
lack
the
opportunity
to
blend
wastes
of
different
heating
values
to
result
in
as­
fired
high
heating
value
fuels.
If
boiler
standards
are
normalized
by
hazardous
waste
heating
value,
sources
with
lower
heating
value
waste
must
either
reduce
the
mass
concentration
of
HAP
or
increase
the
waste
fuel
heating
value
(
or
increase
the
system
removal
efficiency)
compared
to
sources
with
wastes
having
the
same
mass
concentration
of
HAP
but
higher
heating
value.
Moreover,
the
thermal
normalizing
parameter
is
not
well
suited
for
a
hazardous
waste
that
is
not
burned
entirely
for
its
fuel
value.
In
cases
where
the
lower
heating
value
waste
is
burned,
the
boiler
is
serving
 
at
least
in
part
 
as
a
treatment
device
for
the
lower
heating
value
hazardous
waste.
When
this
occurs,
the
better
normalizing
parameter
is
the
unit's
gas
flow
(
a
different
means
of
accounting
for
sources
of
different
size),
19
where
the
standard
is
expressed
as
amount
of
HAP
per
volume
of
gas
flow
(
the
same
normalizing
parameter
used
for
most
of
the
other
standards
promulgated
in
today's
final
rule.)
The
commenters
requested
that
liquid
fuel
boilers
be
able
to
select
the
applicable
standard
(
i.
e.,
to
choose
between
normalizing
parameters)
and
further
requested
that
we
assess
the
performance
of
these
units
(
for
the
purpose
of
establishing
concentration­
based
MACT
floor
levels)
by
using
the
same
MACT
pool
of
best
performing
sources
expressed
on
a
thermal
emissions
basis.
Neither
of
these
suggestions
is
appropriate.
Choice
of
normalizing
parameter
is
not
a
matter
of
election,
but
rather
reflects
an
objective
determination
of
what
parameter
is
reasonably
related
to
the
activity
conducted
by
the
source.
Moreover,
the
commenter's
suggestion
to
use
thermal
emissions
to
measure
best
performance
for
a
concentrationbased
standard
does
not
make
sense.
It
arbitrarily
assumes
that
the
best
performers
with
respect
to
low
and
high
heating
value
wastes
are
identical.
Instead,
we
have
established
two
subcategories
among
the
liquid
fuel
boilers:
those
burning
high
and
those
burning
low
heating
value
hazardous
waste.
The
normalizing
parameter
for
sources
burning
lower
energy
hazardous
waste
is
that
used
for
the
other
hazardous
waste
treatment
devices,
gas
flow
rate,
so
that
the
standard
is
expressed
as
concentration
of
HAP
per
volume
of
gas
flow
(
a
concentration­
based
form
of
the
standard.)
The
normalizing
parameter
for
sources
burning
higher
energy
content
hazardous
waste
is
the
thermal
parameter
used
for
energy
recovery
devices,
such
as
cement
kilns
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
For
the
purposes
of
calculating
MACT
floors,
the
best
performers
are
then
drawn
from
those
liquid
fuel
boilers
burning
lower
energy
hazardous
waste
for
the
lower
heating
value
subcategory,
and
from
those
liquid
fuel
boilers
burning
higher
energy
hazardous
waste
for
the
higher
heating
value
subcategory20.
(
See
Section
23.2
of
Volume
III
of
the
Technical
Support
Document
for
more
information.)
Moreover,
liquid
fuel
boilers
are
not
irrevocably
placed
in
one
or
the
other
of
these
subcategories.
Rather,
the
source
is
subject
to
the
standard
for
one
or
the
other
of
these
subcategories
based
on
the
as­
fired
heating
value
of
the
hazardous
waste
it
burns
at
a
given
time.
Thus,
when
the
source
is
burning
for
energy
recovery,
then
the
thermal
emissions­
based
standard
would
apply.
When
the
source
is
burning
at
least
in
part
for
thermal
destruction,
then
the
concentration
based
standard
would
apply.
This
approach
is
similar
to
how
we
have
addressed
the
issue
of
normalization
in
other
rules
where
single
sources
switch
back
and
forth
among
inputs
which
are
sufficiently
different
to
warrant
separate
classification.
21
20
We
also
agree
that
liquid
fuel
boilers
present
several
unique
circumstances,
namely:
they
are
often
unable
to
blend
fuel
and
have
limited
operational
flexibility
as
a
result;
our
data
base
on
these
sources'
performance
is
relatively
small;
much
of
our
mercury
and
semivolatile
metals
data
is
at
or
near
detection
limits;
and
much
of
the
mercury
and
semivolatile
metals
data
was
obtained
for
other
purposes,
namely
from
risk
burns
or
as
a
result
of
Method
29
testing
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
a
RCRA
chromium
standard.
While
not
immediately
important
to
the
topic
at
hand
 
namely
that
not
all
liquid
fuel
boilers
burn
for
energy
recovery
 
they
are
secondary
issues
that
we
need
to
closely
consider
to
make
sure
we
do
not
estimate
what
the
best
performing
12%
of
sources
are
achieving
in
an
unreasonable
manner.
21
See
NESHAP
for
Stationary
Combustion
Turbines,
40
CFR
section
63.6175
(
definitions
of
"
diffusion
flame
gas­
fired
stationary
combustion
turbine",
"
diffusion
flame
oil­
fired
stationary
combustion
20
We
next
considered
what
an
appropriate
as­
fired
heating
value
would
be
for
each
liquid
fuel
boiler
subcategory.
Although
we
have
used
5000
Btu/
lb
(
the
heating
value
of
lowest
grade
fuels
such
as
scrap
wood)
in
past
RCRA
actions
as
a
presumptive
measure
of
when
hazardous
waste
is
burned
for
destruction
(
see,
e.
g.
48
FR
11159
(
March
16,
1983)),
we
do
not
think
that
measure
is
appropriate
here.
We
used
the
5,000
Btu/
lb
level
to
delineate
burning
for
destruction
from
burning
for
energy
recovery
at
a
time
when
that
determination
meant
the
difference
between
regulation
and
nonregulation.
See
50
FR
49166­
167
(
Nov.
29,
1985).
This
is
a
different
issue
from
choosing
the
most
reasonable
normalizing
parameter
for
regulated
units
(
i.
e.,
units
which
will
be
subject
to
a
standard
in
either
case).
Instead,
we
are
adopting
a
value
of
10,000
Btu/
lb
as
the
threshold
for
subcategorization.
This
is
approximately
the
heating
value
of
commercial
liquid
fossil
fuels.
63
FR
33782,
33788
(
June
19,
1998)
It
is
also
typical
of
current
hazardous
waste
burned
for
energy
recovery.
Id.
Moreover,
EPA
has
used
this
value
in
its
comparable
fuel
specification
as
a
means
of
differentiating
fuels
from
waste.
See
id.
and
Table
1
to
40
CFR
section
261.38,
showing
that
EPA
normalizes
all
constituent
concentrations
to
a
10,000
Btu/
lb
level
in
its
specification
for
differentiating
fuels
from
wastes.
We
next
examined
the
waste
fuel
being
burned
at
cement
kilns
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
which
burn
hazardous
waste
fuels
to
drive
the
process
chemistry
to
produce
products22,
to
cross­
check
whether
10,000
Btu/
lb
is
a
reasonable
demarcation
value
for
subcategorizing.
10,000
Btu/
lb
is
the
minimum
heating
value
found
in
burn
tank
and
test
report
data
we
have
for
cement
kilns
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns23.
We
believe
the
cement
kiln
and
light
weight
aggregate
kiln
data
confirm
that
this
is
an
appropriate
cutpoint,
since
these
sources
are
energy
recovery
devices
that
blend
hazardous
wastes
into
a
consistent,
high
heating
value
fuel
for
energy
recovery
in
their
manufacturing
process.
We
then
separated
the
liquid
fuel
boiler
emissions
data
we
had
into
two
groups,
sources
burning
hazardous
waste
fuel
with
less
than
10,000
Btu/
lb
and
all
other
liquid
fuel
boilers,
and
performed
separate
MACT
floor
analyses.
(
See
Sections
13.4,
13.6,
13.7,
13.8,
and
22
of
Volume
III
of
the
Technical
Support
Document.)
We
calculated
concentration­
based
MACT
standards
for
these
sources
from
their
respective
mercury,
semivolatile
metals,
chromium,
and
total
chlorine
data.
Liquid
fuel
boilers
will
need
to
determine
which
of
the
two
subcategories
the
source
belongs
in
at
any
point
in
time.
Thus,
you
must
determine
the
as­
fired
heating
value
of
each
batch
of
hazardous
waste
fired
so
that
you
know
the
heating
value
of
the
hazardous
waste
fired
at
all
times.
24
If
the
as­
fired
heating
value
of
hazardous
wastes
turbine",
"
lean
pre­
mix
gas­
fired
stationary
combustion
turbine"
and
"
lean
premix
oil­
fired
stationary
combustion
turbine").
22
The
Norlite
light­
weight
aggregate
kiln
was
not
included
in
this
analysis
because
they
claim
they
are
not
burning
for
energy
recovery.
The
waste
Norlite
burns
is
4,860
Btu/
lb
or
lower.
This
is
indicative
of
a
source
burning
solely
for
thermal
treatment
of
the
waste
and
not,
at
least
in
part,
for
energy
recovery.
See
40
CFR
266.100(
d)(
2)(
ii).
23
The
cement
kiln
burn
tank
data
and
test
report
data
shows
the
minimum
heating
values
of
9,900
and
10,000
Btu/
lb,
respectively,
for
the
hazardous
waste.
The
minimum
lightweight
aggregate
kiln
heating
values
for
hazardous
waste
was
10,000
Btu/
lb,
excluding
the
Norlite
source.
24
If
you
burn
hazardous
waste
in
more
than
one
firing
nozzle,
you
must
determine
the
massweighted
average
heating
value
of
the
as­
fired
hazardous
waste
across
all
firing
nozzles.
21
varies
above
and
below
the
cutpoint
(
i.
e.,
10,000
Btu/
lb)
at
times,
you
are
subject
to
the
thermal
emissions
standards
when
the
heating
value
is
not
less
than
10,000
Btu/
lb
and
the
mass
concentration
standards
when
the
heating
value
is
less
than
10,000
Btu/
lb.
To
avoid
the
administrative
burden
of
frequently
switching
applicable
operating
requirements
between
the
subcategories,
you
may
elect
to
comply
with
the
more
stringent
operating
requirements
that
ensure
compliance
with
the
standards
for
both
subcategories.
Comment.
EPA's
attempt
to
give
actual
performance
two
different
meanings
within
a
single
floor
approach
is
unlawful,
unexplained,
internally
inconsistent,
and
arbitrary.
If
EPA
believes
that
mass­
based
emissions
constitute
sources'
actual
performance,
the
best
performing
sources
must
be
those
with
the
best
mass
based
emissions
 
not
thermal
emissions.
Response.
As
just
explained,
we
agree
with
this
comment,
and
have
developed
MACT
floors
independently
for
the
two
subcategories
of
liquid
fuel
boilers.
Thus,
we
have
defined
two
separate
MACT
pools
based
on
the
thermal
input
of
the
waste
fuel
and
derived
two
separate
and
consistent
MACT
standards
for
sources
when
they
burn
solely
for
energy
recovery,
and
when
they
do
not.
We
also
note
that
a
source
cannot
"
pick
and
choose"
the
less
stringent
of
the
two
standards
and
comply
with
those.
The
source
must
be
in
compliance
with
the
set
of
standards
that
apply.
3.
Alternative
Particulate
Matter
Standard
for
Liquid
Fuel
Boilers
Comment:
A
commenter
requested
that
EPA
establish
standards
that
allow
boilers
the
option
to
comply
with
either
a
concentration­
based
particulate
matter
standard
or
thermal
emissions­
based
particulate
matter
standard.
Response:
We
determined
that
it
is
appropriate
to
express
the
particulate
matter
emission
standard
as
a
concentration­
based
standard
consistently
across
source
categories
and
not
to
give
boilers
the
option
to
comply
with
a
thermal
emissions­
based
particulate
matter
standard.
As
discussed
in
Part
Four,
Section
III.
D
as
well
as
the
preceding
section,
metal
and
chlorine
concentration­
based
emission
standards
can
be
biased
against
sources
that
process
more
hazardous
waste
(
from
an
energy
demand
perspective),
in
part
because
the
SRE/
Feed
methodology
assesses
feed
control
of
each
source
when
identifying
the
best
performing
sources;
the
ranking
procedure
thus
favors
sources
with
lower
percentage
hazardous
waste
firing
rates
(
keeping
all
other
assessment
factors
equal).
The
thermal
emission
standard
format
eliminates
this
firing
rate
bias,
which
amounts
to
a
limitation
on
the
amount
of
raw
material
(
hazardous
waste
fuel
to
an
energy
recovery
device)
that
may
be
processed,
when
identifying
best
performing
sources.
The
methodology
we
use
to
identify
best
performing
sources
for
particulate
matter
emissions
is
not
affected
by
the
firing
rate
bias
in
the
manner
that
metal
and
chlorine
emissions
are.
This
is
primarily
because
we
define
best
performing
sources
as
those
with
the
best
back­
end
air
pollution
control
technology;
feed
control
is
not
assessed
(
specifically
ash
feed
control)
for
raw
materials,
fossil
fuel,
or
unenumerated
HAP
metal
in
the
hazardous
waste.
The
hazardous
waste
firing
rate
bias
is
therefore
not
present
when
we
identify
the
best
performing
particulate
matter
sources
because
a
source's
hazardous
waste
firing
rate
is
not
a
direct
factor
in
the
ranking
procedure.
We
also
note
that
four
of
the
nine
best
performing
liquid
fuel
boilers
for
particulate
matter
are
equipped
with
fabric
filters.
Particulate
matter
emissions
from
sources
equipped
with
fabric
filters
are
not
significantly
affected
by
ash
inlet
loading.
22
This
is
not
true
for
metals
and
chlorine,
given
metal
and
chlorine
emissions
from
fabric
filters
tend
to
increase
at
increased
feed
rates.
See
Volume
III
of
the
Technical
Support
Document,
Sections
5.3
and
7.4.
We
conclude
that
the
hazardous
waste
firing
rate
issue
is
not
a
concern
for
these
sources
given
their
particulate
matter
emissions
would
not
be
significantly
affected
by
increased
hazardous
waste
firing
rates.
4.
Long­
term,
Annual
Averaging
Is
Impermissible
Comment:
Standards
expressed
as
long­
term
limits
are
legally
impermissible
because
those
levels,
by
definition,
would
sometimes
be
greater
than
the
average
emission
levels
achieved
by
the
best
performing
sources.
Compliance
also
must
be
measured
on
a
continuous
basis,
under
section
302(
k)
of
the
Act.
Thus,
floor
levels
(
and
standards)
for
mercury
expressed
as
long­
term
limits
are
illegal.
Response:
The
commenter
maintains
that
the
statutory
command
in
section
112(
d)(
3)(
A)
to
base
floor
standards
for
existing
sources
on
"
the
average
emission
limitation
achieved
by
the
best
performing
12
percent
of
...
existing
sources"
precludes
establishing
standards
expressed
as
long
term
averages
because
certain
daily
values
could
be
higher.
We
do
not
accept
this
position.
The
statute
does
not
state
what
type
of
"
average"
performance
EPA
must
assess.
Long
term,
i.
e.,
annual,
averaging
of
performance
is
quite
evidently
a
type
of
average,
and
so
is
permissible
under
the
statutory
text.
Moreover,
it
is
reasonable
to
establish
standards
on
this
basis
(
the
standards
being
the
average
of
the
best
performing
sources,
expressed
as
a
long­
term
average),
where
sufficient
data
exist.
Indeed,
since
the
principal
health
concern
posed
by
the
emitted
HAP
is
from
chronic
exposure
(
i.
e.
cumulative
exposure
over
time),
long­
term
standards
(
which
reduce
the
long­
term
distribution
of
emitted
HAP)
arguably
would
be
preferable
in
addressing
the
chief
risks
posed
by
these
sources'
emissions.
We
establish
standards
with
long­
term
averaging
limits
whenever
we
use
normal
data
to
estimate
long­
term
performance.
We
do
this
in
the
few
instances
where
there
are
insufficient
data
(
whether
normal
data
or
compliance
test
data)
to
estimate
each
source's
short
term
emission
levels
(
e.
g.,
mercury
and
semivolatile
metal
standards
for
liquid
fuel
boilers).
25
One
or
two
snapshot
data
based
on
normal
operations
are
not
likely
to
reflect
a
source's
short­
term
operating
levels
in
part
because
feed
control
levels
can
vary
over
time.
26
See
Mossville,
370
F.
3d
at
1242
(
varying
feed
rates
lead
to
different
emission
levels,
and
this
variability
must
be
encompassed
within
the
floor
standard
because
the
standard
must
be
met
at
all
times).
As
a
result,
snapshot
normal
emissions,
when
averaged
together,
better
reflect
a
source's
long
term
average
emissions.
An
emission
standard
based
on
normal
data
that
is
averaged
together,
but
expressed
as
a
short­
term
limit,
would
not
be
achievable
by
the
best
performing
sources
because
it
would
not
25
Two
emission
standards
in
this
rulemaking
are
based
on
normal
data
but
are
expressed
as
short
term
limits
(
the
mercury
standards
for
lightweight
aggregate
and
cement
kilns).
However,
in
these
instances
we
had
enough
normal
data
to
reasonably
estimate
each
source's
maximum
emissions,
thus
allowing
us
to
express
the
standard
as
a
short
term
limit.
See
USEPA,
"
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards,"
September
2005,
Sections
11.2
and
12.2.
26
This
is
not
the
case
for
floors
that
are
based
on
compliance
tests
because
sources
spiked
their
hazardous
wastes
to
account
for
variability
in
hazardous
waste
feedrate.
See
Part
Four,
Section
III.
C
above.
Normal
data,
however,
are
a
snapshot
of
what
occurred
on
that
day
and
are
not
likely
to
be
representative
over
the
long
term,
especially
for
mercury
and
semivolatile
metals
for
liquid
fuel
boilers,
where
these
limited
data
were
almost
entirely
below
the
analytic
detection
limit.
23
adequately
account
for
their
emissions
variability.
See
National
Wildlife
Federation
v.
EPA,
286
F.
3d
at
572­
73
("[
c]
ontinuous
operation
at
or
near
the
daily
maximum
would
in
fact
result
in
discharges
that
exceed
the
long­
term
average.
Likewise,
setting
monthly
limitations
at
the
99th
percentile
would
not
insure
that
the
long­
term
average
is
met").
Long­
term
limits
better
account
for
this
variability
because
such
limits
allow
sources
to
average
their
varying
feed
control
levels
over
time
while
still
assuring
average
emissions
over
this
period
are
below
the
levels
demonstrated
by
the
best
performing
sources.
Indeed,
under
the
commenter's
approach
where
no
averaging
of
intra­
source
data
would
be
allowed,
sources
would
not
be
in
compliance
with
the
standards
during
the
performance
tests
themselves.
The
tests
consist
of
the
average
of
three
data
runs,
so
half
of
the
emissions­
weighted
data
points
would
be
impermissibly
higher
than
the
average
during
the
test
used
to
derive
today's
emission
standards.
EPA
also
does
not
see
that
section
302(
f)
of
the
Act,
cited
by
the
commenter,
supports
its
position.
That
provision
indicates
that
the
emission
standards
EPA
establishes
must
limit
the
quantity,
rate,
or
concentration
of
air
pollutants
on
a
continuous
basis.
A
standard
expressed
as
a
long­
term
average
does
so
by
constraining
the
overall
distribution
of
emissions
to
meet
a
long­
term
average.
Also,
long
term
limits
result
in
emission
standards
that
are
lower
than
those
that
otherwise
would
be
implemented
on
a
short­
term
basis.
The
short­
term
limit
would
have
to
reflect
the
best
performing
sources'
short
term
emissions
variability
(
i.
e.,
the
maximum
amount
of
variability
a
source
could
experience
during
a
single
test
period).
National
Wildlife
Federation,
286
F.
3d
at
571­
73.
Comment.
Other
commenters
argued
the
opposite
point,
that
ERA
has
no
data
to
show
that
an
annual
average
is
achievable,
and
EPA
should
establish
a
longer
averaging
period.
Response.
We
believe
that
all
sources
can
achieve
the
mercury
and
semivolatile
metals
standards
for
liquid
fuel
boilers
on
an
annual
basis
using
some
combination
of
MACT
controls,
i.
e.,
feed
control,
back
end
control,
or
some
combination
of
both.
We
agree
that
we
have
a
small
data
set
for
these
standards,
but
also
believe
that
it
is
intuitive
that
a
liquid
fuel
boiler
can
meet
these
standards
on
an
annual
basis,
because
one
year
is
sufficiently
more
than
any
seasonal
(
i.
e.,
several
month
long)
production
of
certain
items
that
may
not
be
represented
by
the
tests
we
have.
This
informs
us
that
an
average
of
less
than
a
year
may
not
be
achievable.
It
does
not
inform
us
that
averaging
of
more
than
a
year
is
required,
since
variations
that
occur
with
a
year
are
averaged
together.
An
annual
average
is
sufficient
for
a
source
to
determine
whether
an
individual
waste
stream
impacts
negatively
on
the
compliance
of
the
liquid
fuel
boiler
and
take
measures
to
address
the
issue.
5.
Gas
Fuel
Boilers
Comment.
How
can
a
boiler
burning
only
gaseous
waste
also
be
burning
hazardous
waste?
Uncontained
gases
are
not
considered
hazardous
waste
under
RCRA.
Why
are
boilers
that
burn
only
gasses
part
of
the
liquid
fuel
boiler
subcategory?
Response.
We
agree
with
the
commenter
that
boilers
that
burn
gasses
are
unlikely
to
burn
hazardous
wastes.
However,
gas
fuel
hazardous
waste
boilers
have
existed
in
the
past27,
and
we
believe
we
need
to
define
a
MACT
standard
for
them.
Therefore,
we
27
For
example,
sources
2014
and
2015
owned
by
Environmental
Purification
Industries
in
Toledo,
Ohio,
were
considered
hazardous
waste
boilers
at
the
time
the
Phase
II
data
base
was
noticed
in
the
June
24
included
gas
fuel
boilers
in
the
liquid
fuel
boiler
subcategory
for
reasons
cited
in
the
proposed
rule.
See
69
FR
at
21216.

E.
General
1.
Alternative
to
the
Particulate
Matter
Standards
Comment:
Commenters
state
that
some
incinerators
are
currently
complying
with
the
alternative
to
the
particulate
matter
standard
provision
pursuant
to
the
interim
standards.
See
§
63.1206(
b)(
14).
The
eligibility
and
operating
requirements
for
the
alternative
to
the
particulate
matter
standard
in
the
Interim
Standards
are
different
than
the
proposed
alternative
to
the
particulate
matter
standard
in
the
replacement
rule.
Specifically,
the
proposed
alternative
to
the
particulate
matter
standard
would
no
longer
require
sources
to
demonstrate
a
90%
system
removal
efficiency
or
a
minimum
hazardous
waste
metal
feed
control
level
to
be
eligible
for
the
alternative.
Commenters
request
that
EPA
clarify
in
the
final
rule
that
the
proposed
alternative
to
the
particulate
matter
standard
supersedes
the
requirements
in
the
Interim
Standards.
Response:
We
are
finalizing
the
alternative
to
the
particulate
matter
standard
for
incinerators
as
proposed,
with
the
exception
that
the
alternative
metal
emission
limitations
have
been
revised
as
a
result
of
database
changes
since
proposal.
See
§
1219(
e)
and
part
three,
section
II.
A.
We
considered
superseding
the
interim
standard
alternative
to
the
particulate
matter
standard
requirements
(
63.1206(
b)(
14))
immediately
(
upon
promulgation)
by
replacing
it
with
the
revised
alternative
standard
provisions
finalized
in
today's
rule.
Although
the
eligibility
requirements
for
the
alternative
to
the
particulate
matter
standard
finalized
today
are
less
stringent
than
the
interim
standard
requirements,
the
metal
emission
limitations
that
are
also
required
by
the
alternative
finalized
today
are
by
definition
equivalent
to
or
more
stringent
than
the
metal
limitations
in
the
interim
standard
alternative.
We
therefore
cannot
completely
supersede
the
interim
standard
provisions
immediately
(
upon
promulgation)
because
sources
have
three
years
to
comply
with
more
stringent
standards.
We
are
instead
revising
the
interim
standard
provisions
of
§
63.1206(
b)(
14)
to
only
reflect
the
revised
alternative
standard
eligibility
criteria
(
specifically,
we
have
removed
the
requirements
to
achieve
a
given
system
removal
efficiency
and
hazardous
waste
metal
HAP
feed
control
level).
28
These
eligibility
criteria
revisions
become
effective
immediately
with
respect
to
the
interim
standards
because
they
are
less
stringent
than
the
current
requirements.
Sources
should
modify
existing
Notifications
of
Compliance
and
permit
requirements
as
necessary
prior
to
implementing
these
revised
procedures.
Comment:
One
commenter
is
opposed
to
the
alternative
to
the
particulate
matter
standard
because
it
ignores
the
health
effects/
benefits
that
are
attributable
to
particulate
matter.
Response:
Particulate
matter
is
not
defined
as
a
hazardous
air
pollutant
pursuant
the
NESHAP
program.
See
CAA
112(
b)(
1).
We
control
particulate
matter
as
a
surrogate
for
metal
HAP.
See
part
four,
section
IV.
A.
As
a
result,
a
particulate
matter
standard
is
27,
2000,
despite
the
fact
that
these
boilers
burned
only
gasses.
These
boilers
have
since
stopped
burning
hazardous
waste.
28
Sources
can
only
use
§
63.1206(
b)(
14)
for
purposes
of
complying
with
the
interim
standards.
After
the
compliance
date
for
today's
rule,
incinerators
electing
to
comply
with
the
alternative
to
the
particulate
matter
standard
must
comply
with
the
provisions
found
in
§
63.1219(
e).
25
not
necessary
in
instances
where
metal
HAP
emission
standards
can
alternatively
and
effectively
control
the
nonmercury
metal
HAP
that
is
intended
be
controlled
with
the
surrogate
particulate
matter
standard.
The
alternative
to
the
particulate
matter
standard
in
the
final
rule
accomplishes
this.
We
acknowledge
that
particulate
matter
emission
reductions
result
in
health
benefits.
That
in
itself
does
not
give
EPA
the
authority
under
§
112(
d)(
2)
to
directly
regulate
particulate
matter,
however.
2.
Assessing
Risk
as
Part
of
Consideration
of
Nonair
Environmental
Impacts
Comment:
Commenter
states
that
EPA
has
inappropriately
failed
to
consider
emissions
of
persistent
bioaccumulative
pollutants
in
its
beyond­
the­
floor
analysis
despite
EPA's
acknowledgment
that
these
HAPs
have
non­
air
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts.
Response:
EPA
has
taken
the
consistent
position
that
considerations
of
risk
from
air
emissions
have
no
place
when
setting
MACT
standards,
but
rather
are
to
be
considered
as
part
of
the
residual
risk
determination
and
standard­
setting
process
made
under
section
112
(
f)
of
the
statute.
EPA
thus
interprets
the
requirement
in
section
112
(
d)
(
2)
that
we
consider
"
non­
air
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts"
as
applying
to
the
by­
product
outputs
from
utilization
of
the
pollution
control
technology,
such
as
additional
amount
of
waste
generated,
and
water
discharged.
29
EPA's
interpretation
was
upheld
as
reasonable
in
Sierra
Club
v.
EPA,
353
F.
3d
976,
990
(
D.
C.
Cir.
2004)
(
Roberts,
J.).

VII.
Health­
Based
Compliance
Alternative
for
Total
Chlorine
A.
Authority
for
Health­
Based
Compliance
Alternatives
Comment:
One
commenter
states
there
is
no
established
health
threshold
for
either
HCl
or
chlorine.
Response:
Although
EPA
has
not
developed
a
formal
evaluation
of
the
potential
for
HCl
or
chlorine
carcinogenicity
(
e.
g.,
for
IRIS),
the
evaluation
by
the
International
Agency
for
Research
on
Cancer
stated
that
there
was
inadequate
evidence
for
carcinogenicity
in
humans
or
experimental
animals
and
thus
concluded
that
HCl
and
chlorine
are
not
classifiable
as
to
their
carcinogenicity
to
humans
(
Group
3
in
their
categorization
method).
Therefore,
for
the
purposes
of
this
rule,
we
have
evaluated
HCl
and
chlorine
only
with
regard
to
non­
cancer
effects.
In
the
absence
of
specific
scientific
evidence
to
the
contrary,
it
has
been
our
policy
to
classify
non­
carcinogenic
effects
as
threshold
effects.
RfC
development
is
the
default
approach
for
threshold
(
or
nonlinear)
effects.
Comment:
One
commenter
states
that
the
proposal
is
an
inappropriate
forum
for
bringing
forward
such
a
significant
change
in
the
way
that
MACT
standards
are
established
under
Section
112(
d)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
A
precedent­
setting
change
of
the
magnitude
that
EPA
has
raised
should
be
discussed
openly
and
carefully
with
all
affected
parties,
rather
than
being
buried
in
several
individual
proposed
standards.
Response:
Including
health­
based
compliance
alternatives
for
hazardous
waste
combustors
does
not
mean
that
EPA
will
automatically
provide
such
alternatives
for
other
29
See
USEPA,
"
Technical
Support
Document
for
the
HWC
MACT
Standards,
Volume
V:
Emission
Estimates
and
Engineering
Costs,"
September
2005,
Section
6,
for
a
discussion
of
the
non­
air
impact
that
were
assessed
for
this
final
rule.
26
source
categories.
Rather,
as
has
been
the
case
throughout
the
MACT
rule
development
process,
EPA
will
undertake
in
each
individual
rule
to
determine
whether
it
is
appropriate
to
exercise
its
discretion
to
use
its
authority
under
CAA
section
112(
d)(
4)
in
developing
applicable
emission
standards.
Stakeholders
for
those
affected
rules
will
have
ample
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
Agency's
proposals.
Comment:
One
commenter
states
that
the
proposed
approach
is
contrary
to
the
intent
of
the
CAA
which
explicitly
calls
for
a
general
reduction
in
HAP
emissions
from
all
major
sources
nationwide
through
the
establishment
of
MACT
standards
based
on
technology,
rather
than
risk,
as
a
first
step.
Response:
For
pollutants
for
which
a
health
threshold
has
been
established,
CAA
section
112(
d)(
4)
allows
the
Administrator
to
consider
such
threshold
level,
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety,
to
establish
emission
standards.
Comment:
One
commenter
states
that
the
proposed
approach
would
take
the
national
air
toxics
program
back
to
the
time­
consuming
NESHAP
process
that
existed
prior
to
the
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments
of
1990.
Response:
We
disagree
that
allowing
a
health­
based
compliance
alternative
in
the
final
rule
will
alter
the
MACT
program
or
affect
the
schedule
for
promulgation
of
the
remaining
MACT
standards.
Today's
rule
is
the
last
MACT
rule
to
be
promulgated,
and
the
health­
based
compliance
alternative
did
not
delay
promulgation
of
the
rule.
Comment:
A
commenter
is
concerned
that
the
proposal
would
remove
the
benefit
of
the
"
level­
playing
field"
that
would
result
from
the
proper
implementation
of
technology­
based
MACT
standards.
Response:
Providing
health­
based
compliance
alternatives
in
the
final
rule
for
sources
that
can
meet
them
will
assure
the
application
of
a
uniform
set
of
requirements
across
the
nation.
The
final
rule
and
its
criteria
for
demonstrating
eligibility
for
the
health­
based
compliance
alternatives
apply
uniformly
to
all
hazardous
waste
combustors
except
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces.
The
final
rule
establishes
two
baseline
levels
of
emission
reduction
for
total
chlorine,
one
based
on
a
traditional
MACT
analysis
and
the
other
based
on
EPA's
evaluation
of
the
health
threat
posed
by
emissions
of
HCl
and
chlorine.
All
hazardous
waste
combustor
facilities
must
meet
one
of
these
baseline
levels,
and
all
facilities
have
the
same
opportunity
to
demonstrate
that
they
can
meet
the
alternative
health­
based
emission
standards.
We
also
note
that
additional
uniformity
is
provided
by
limiting
the
health­
based
compliance
alternatives
for
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
to
the
emission
levels
allowed
by
the
Interim
Standards.
Comment:
Several
commenters
state
that
site­
specific
emission
limits
are
inappropriate
under
section
112(
d)(
4)
because
they
are
not
emission
standards.
One
commenter
asserts
that
the
Agency's
position
that
the
limits
are
based
on
uniform
procedures
is
flawed
because
the
process
allows
"
any
scientifically­
accepted,
peerreviewed
risk
assessment
methodology
for
your
site­
specific
compliance
demonstration."
This
is
not
a
"
uniform"
procedure,
according
to
the
commenter.
There
are
a
host
of
variables
that
influence
the
results
of
an
accepted
methodology.
The
commenter
reasons
that,
without
some
standardization
of
those
variables,
there
is
no
uniform
or
standard
analysis.
Each
permitting
authority
could
establish
its
view
of
appropriate
variables;
there
would
be
no
national
consistency.
27
Several
other
commenters
assert
that
EPA
has
the
authority
to
establish
an
exposure­
based
emission
limit
for
total
chlorine.
One
commenter
notes
that
one
issue
that
often
arises
when
considering
risk­
based
standards
is
whether
EPA
has
authority
under
section
112
to
establish
an
exposure­
based
emission
limit.
The
commenter
states
that
the
concern
seems
to
be
that
some
stakeholders
construe
the
Act's
statutory
provisions
as
requiring
uniform
emission
limitations
at
all
facilities,
rather
than
emissions
that
are
measured
at
places
away
from
the
source
and
that
vary
from
facility
to
facility.
The
commenter
does
not
see
any
legal
impediment
to
establishing
exposure­
based
limits.
The
commenter
notes
that,
first,
under
section
112,
EPA
has
authority
to
establish
"
emission
standards."
Emission
standards
are
defined
to
be
a
requirement
established
by
the
State
or
the
Administrator
which
limits
the
quantity,
rate
or
concentration
of
emissions
of
air
pollutants
on
a
continuous
basis
.
.
.
to
assure
continuous
emission
reduction,
and
any
design,
equipment,
work
practice
or
operational
standard
promulgated
under
this
chapter.
EPA's
alternate
risk­
based
emission
standard
will
limit
the
quantity,
rate
or
concentration
of
the
emissions.
The
commenter
states
that
there
is
no
requirement
in
the
definition
that
specifies
where
the
emission
standard
is
to
be
measured,
nor
is
there
such
a
requirement
anywhere
in
the
statute.
Second,
the
commenter
notes
that
EPA's
proposed
exposure­
based
limit
will
result
in
facilities
establishing
operating
parameter
limitations,
or
OPLs.
These
OPLs
qualify
as
emission
limitations
because
they
are
"
operational
standards"
being
promulgated
under
section
112,
according
to
the
commenter.
They
will
be
measured
at
the
facility,
not
at
the
point
of
exposure.
Finally,
the
commenter
reasons
that
the
limitations
EPA
is
establishing
are
uniform.
They
uniformly
protect
the
individual
most
exposed
to
emission
levels
no
higher
than
a
hazard
index
of
1.0.
Consequently,
the
commenter
believes
that
there
is
nothing
in
the
statute
that
prevents
the
Agency
from
promulgating
exposure­
based
emission
standards.
Response:
We
agree
with
the
commenters
who
believe
the
Agency
has
the
authority
to
establish
health­
based
compliance
alternatives
under
a
national
exposure
standard.
In
particular,
we
agree
with
the
commenter
that
the
health­
based
compliance
alternatives
are
national
standards
since
they
provide
a
uniform
and
national
measure
of
risk
control,
and
also
that
the
health­
based
compliance
alternatives
are
"
emission
standards"
because
they
limit
the
quantity,
rate
or
concentration
of
total
chlorine
emissions.
Section
112(
d)(
4)
authorizes
EPA
to
bypass
the
mandate
in
section
112(
d)(
3)
in
appropriate
circumstances.
Those
circumstances
are
present
for
hazardous
waste
combustors
other
than
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces.
Section
112(
d)(
4)
provides
EPA
with
authority,
at
its
discretion,
to
develop
health­
based
compliance
alternatives
for
HAP
``
for
which
a
health
threshold
has
been
established,''
provided
that
the
standard
reflects
the
health
threshold
``
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety.''
Both
the
plain
language
of
section
112(
d)(
4)
and
the
legislative
history
indicate
that
EPA
has
the
discretion
under
section
112(
d)(
4)
to
develop
health­
based
compliance
alternatives
for
some
source
categories
emitting
threshold
pollutants,
and
that
those
standards
may
be
less
stringent
than
the
corresponding
MACT
standard
(
including
floor
standards)
would
be.
30
EPA's
use
of
such
standards
is
not
limited
to
situations
where
30
See
also
Legislative
History
at
876
(
section
112
(
d)
(
4)
standard
may
be
less
stringent
than
MACT).
28
every
source
in
the
category
or
subcategory
can
comply
with
them.
As
with
technologybased
standards,
a
particular
source's
ability
to
comply
with
a
health­
based
standard
will
depend
on
its
individual
circumstances,
as
will
what
it
must
do
to
achieve
compliance.
In
developing
health­
based
compliance
alternatives
under
section
112(
d)(
4),
EPA
seeks
to
ensure
that
the
concentration
of
the
particular
HAP
to
which
an
individual
exposed
at
the
upper
end
of
the
exposure
distribution
is
exposed
does
not
exceed
the
health
threshold.
The
upper
end
of
the
exposure
distribution
is
calculated
using
the
``
high
end
exposure
estimate,''
defined
as
``
a
plausible
estimate
of
individual
exposure
for
those
persons
at
the
upper
end
of
the
exposure
distribution,
conceptually
above
the
90th
percentile,
but
not
higher
than
the
individual
in
the
population
who
has
the
highest
exposure''
(
EPA
Exposure
Assessment
Guidelines,
57
FR
22888,
May
29,
1992).
Assuring
protection
to
persons
at
the
upper
end
of
the
exposure
distribution
is
consistent
with
the
``
ample
margin
of
safety''
requirement
in
section
112(
d)(
4).
We
agree
with
the
view
of
several
commenters
that
section
112(
d)(
4)
is
appropriate
for
establishing
health­
based
compliance
alternatives
for
total
chlorine
for
hazardous
waste
combustors
other
than
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces.
Therefore,
we
have
established
such
compliance
alternatives
for
affected
sources
in
those
categories.
Affected
sources
which
believe
that
they
can
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
health­
based
compliance
alternatives
may
choose
to
comply
with
those
compliance
alternatives
in
lieu
of
the
otherwise
applicable
MACT­
based
standard.
Comment:
One
commenter
states
that
the
risk
assessments
would
not
provide
an
ample
margin
of
safety
because
background
exposures
are
not
taken
into
account.
There
is
no
accounting
for
other
chlorine
compounds
from
other
sources
at
the
facility,
or
from
other
neighboring
facilities.
The
commenter
believes
that
there
is
no
evidence
in
the
section
112(
f)
residual
risk
assessments
produced
thus
far
that
emissions
from
collocated
sources
will
actually
be
pursued
by
EPA.
The
commenter
also
notes
that
the
Urban
Air
Toxics
program
cannot
be
relied
upon
to
address
ambient
background.
This
program,
required
under
section
112(
k),
was
to
be
completed
by
1999.
However,
the
strategy
has
not
been
finalized
and
the
small
amount
of
activity
in
this
area
is
focused
on
voluntary
emission
reductions
rather
than
federal
requirements.
Finally,
the
commenter
notes
that
control
of
criteria
pollutants
via
State
Implementation
Plans
to
achieve
compliance
with
the
NAAQS
is
problematic.
For
particulate
matter
(
PM)
and
ozone,
new
NAAQS
were
set
in
1997
and
seven
years
later
the
nonattainment
designations
are
still
being
determined.
The
designation
process
will
be
followed
by
a
3
year
period
to
prepare
State
Implementation
Plans
and
several
more
years
to
carry
out
those
plans.
In
the
meantime,
there
will
be
high
levels
of
PM
and
ozone
in
the
air
near
many
hazardous
waste
combustors
in
New
Jersey
which
will
exacerbate
exposures
to
chlorine
and
hydrogen
chloride.
Response:
Total
chlorine
missions
from
collocated
hazardous
waste
combustors
must
be
considered
in
establishing
health­
based
compliance
alternatives
under
§
63.1215.
Ambient
levels
of
HCl
or
chlorine
attributable
to
other
on­
site
sources,
as
well
as
off­
site
sources,
are
not
considered,
however.
As
we
indicated
in
the
Residual
Risk
Report
to
Congress
and
in
the
recent
residual
risk
rule
for
Coke
Ovens,
the
Agency
intends
to
consider
facility­
wide
HAP
emissions
as
part
of
the
ample
margin
of
safety
determination
for
CAA
section
112(
f)
residual
risk
actions.
70
FR
at
19996­
998
(
April
15,
2005);
see
also,
54
Fed.
Reg.
at
38059
(
Sept.
14,
1989)
(
benzene
NESHAP).
29
Comment:
Several
commenters
state
that
acute
exposure
guideline
levels
(
AEGLs)
are
once­
in­
a­
lifetime
exposure
levels.
They
assert
that,
because
short
term
exposures
at
a
Hazard
Index
greater
than
1.0
may
occur
more
than
once
in
a
lifetime,
using
AEGLs
for
the
purpose
of
setting
risk­
based
short­
term
limits
for
HCl
and
chlorine
does
not
provide
an
"
ample
margin
of
safety."
Response:
To
assess
acute
exposure,
we
proposed
to
use
acute
exposure
guideline
levels
for
1­
hour
exposures
(
AEGL­
1)
as
health
thresholds.
We
have
investigated
commenters'
concerns,
however,
and
conclude
that
AEGLs
are
not
likely
to
be
protective
of
human
health
because
individuals
may
be
subject
to
multiple
acute
exposures
at
a
Hazard
Index
greater
than
1.0
from
hazardous
waste
combustors.
Consequently,
we
use
acute
Reference
Exposure
Levels
(
aRELs)
rather
than
acute
exposure
guideline
levels
(
AEGLs)
as
acute
exposure
thresholds
for
the
final
rule.
See
also
Part
Two,
Section
IX.
D
above.
Acute
RELs
are
health
thresholds
below
which
there
would
be
no
adverse
health
effects
while
AEGL­
1
values
are
health
thresholds
below
which
there
may
be
mild
adverse
effects.
Acute
exposures
are
relevant
(
in
addition
to
chronic
exposures)
and
the
acute
exposure
hazard
index
of
1.0
could
be
exceeded
multiple
times
over
an
individual's
lifetime.
Although
we
concluded
at
proposal
that
the
chronic
exposure
Hazard
Index
would
always
be
higher
than
the
acute
exposure
Hazard
Index,
and
thus
would
be
the
basis
for
the
total
chlorine
emission
rate
limit,
this
conclusion
relates
to
acute
versus
chronic
exposure
to
a
constant,
maximum
average
emission
rate
of
total
chlorine
from
a
hazardous
waste
combustor.
See
69
FR
at
21300.
We
explained
that
acute
exposure
must
nonetheless
be
considered
when
establishing
operating
requirements
to
ensure
that
short­
term
emissions
do
not
result
in
an
acute
exposure
Hazard
Index
of
greater
than
1.0.
This
is
because
total
chlorine
and
chloride
feedrates
to
a
hazardous
waste
combustor
(
e.
g.,
commercial
incinerator)
can
vary
substantially
over
time.
Although
a
source
may
remain
in
compliance
with
a
feedrate
limit
with
a
long­
term
averaging
period
(
e.
g.,
12­
hour,
monthly,
or
annual)
based
on
the
chronic
Hazard
Index,
the
source
could
feed
chlorine
during
short
periods
of
time
that
substantially
exceed
the
long­
term
feedrate
limit.
This
could
result
potentially
in
emissions
that
exceed
the
one­
hour
(
i.
e.,
acute
exposure)
Hazard
Index.
Consequently,
we
discussed
at
proposal
the
need
to
establish
both
short­
term
and
long­
term
total
chlorine
and
chloride
feedrate
limits
to
ensure
that
neither
the
chronic
exposure
nor
the
acute
exposure
Hazard
Index
exceeds
1.0.31
We
conclude
that
1­
hour
Reference
Exposure
Levels
(
aRELs)
are
a
more
appropriate
health
threshold
metric
than
AEGL­
1
values
for
hazardous
waste
combustors
given
that
the
acute
Hazard
Index
limit
of
1.0
may
be
exceeded
multiple
times
over
an
individual's
lifetime,
albeit
resulting
from
uncontrollable
factors.
The
California
Office
of
Health
Hazard
Assessment
has
developed
acute
health
threshold
levels
that
are
intended
to
be
protective
for
greater
than
once
in
a
lifetime
exposures.
The
acute
exposure
levels
are
called
acute
Reference
Exposure
Levels
and
are
available
at
http://
www.
oehha.
ca.
gov/
air/
acute_
rels/
acuterel.
html.

31
Note
that
we
conclude
for
the
final
rule
that
most
sources
are
not
likely
to
exceed
the
acute
Hazard
Index
because
they
will
establish
a
12­
hour
rolling
average
chlorine
feedrate
limit
and
their
chlorine
feedrates
are
not
likely
to
vary
substantially
over
that
averaging
period.
Thus,
we
believe
that
most
sources
will
not
be
required
to
establish
an
hourly
rolling
average
chlorine
feedrate
limit.
The
owner/
operator
must
determine
whether
the
hourly
rolling
average
chloride
feedrate
limit
can
be
waived
under
§
63.1215(
d).
30
The
1­
hour
REL
values
for
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
are
2.1
mg/
m3
and
0.21
mg/
m3,
respectively.
The
AEGL­
1
values
for
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
are
2.7
mg/
m3
and
1.4
mg/
m3,
respectively.
Although
there
is
little
difference
between
the
1­
hour
REL
and
AEGL­
1
values
for
hydrogen
chloride,
the
1­
hour
REL
for
chlorine
is
substantially
lower
than
the
AEGL­
1
value.
In
summary,
we
believe
that
aRELs
are
a
more
appropriate
health
threshold
metric
than
AEGL­
1
values
for
establishing
health­
based
compliance
alternatives
for
hazardous
waste
combustors
because
aRELs
are
"
no
adverse
effect"
threshold
levels
that
are
intended
to
be
protective
for
multiple
exposures.
Comment:
One
commenter
states
that
the
health­
based
compliance
alternative
is
unlawful
because
the
proposal
does
not
address
ecological
risks
that
may
result
from
uncontrolled
HAP
emissions,
including
risks
posed
to
those
areas
where
few
people
currently
live,
but
sensitive
habitats
exist.
Response:
An
ecological
assessment
is
normally
required
under
CAA
section
112(
d)(
4)
to
assess
the
presence
or
absence
of
"
adverse
environmental
effects"
as
that
term
is
defined
in
CAA
section
112(
a)(
7).
To
identify
potential
multimedia
and/
or
environmental
concerns,
EPA
has
identified
HAP
with
significant
potential
to
persist
in
the
environment
and
to
bioaccumulate.
This
list
does
not
include
hydrogen
chloride
or
chlorine.
We
also
note
that
health­
based
total
chlorine
emission
limits
for
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
cannot
be
higher
than
the
current
Interim
Standards.
See
§
63.1215(
b)(
7).
Thus,
the
ecological
risk
from
total
chlorine
emissions
from
these
sources
will
not
be
increased
under
the
health­
based
limits.
In
addition,
we
note
that
only
2
of
12
solid
fuel
boilers
have
total
chlorine
emissions
higher
than
180
ppmv,
and
only
1
liquid
fuel
boiler
has
emissions
higher
than
170
ppmv.
Thus,
boilers
generally
have
low
total
chlorine
emissions
which
would
minimize
ecological
risk.
Consequently,
we
do
not
believe
that
emissions
of
hydrogen
chloride
or
chlorine
from
hazardous
waste
boilers
will
pose
a
significant
risk
to
the
environment,
and
facilities
attempting
to
comply
with
the
health­
based
alternatives
for
these
HAP
are
not
required
to
perform
an
ecological
assessment.

B.
Implementation
of
the
Health­
Based
Standards
Comment:
Several
commenters
are
concerned
that
the
health­
based
compliance
alternative
will
place
an
intensive
resource
demand
on
state
and
local
agencies
to
review
and
approve
facilities'
eligibility
demonstrations,
and
State
and
local
agencies
may
not
have
adequate
expertise
to
review
and
approve
the
demonstrations.
One
commenter
states
that
permitting
authorities
do
not
have
the
expertise
to
review
eligibility
demonstrations
that
are
based
on
procedures
other
than
those
included
in
EPA's
Reference
Library,
as
would
be
allowed.
The
commenter
also
states
that,
if
the
healthbased
compliance
alternative
is
promulgated,
EPA
should
establish
one
standard
method
for
the
analyses
so
there
is
consistency
nationwide.
If
EPA
offers
more
than
one
method,
EPA
should
do
all
of
the
risk
assessment
reviews,
instead
of
passing
the
responsibility,
without
clear
direction,
to
the
permitting
authorities,
according
to
the
commenter.
Response:
The
health­
based
compliance
alternatives
for
total
chlorine
that
EPA
has
adopted
in
the
final
rule
should
not
impose
significant
resource
burdens
on
states.
31
The
required
compliance
demonstration
methodology
is
structured
in
such
a
way
as
to
avoid
the
need
for
states
to
have
significant
expertise
in
risk
assessment
methodology.
We
have
considered
the
commenters'
concerns
in
developing
the
criteria
defining
eligibility
for
these
compliance
alternatives,
and
the
approach
that
is
included
in
the
final
rule
provides
clear,
flexible
requirements
and
enforceable
compliance
parameters.
The
final
rule
provides
two
ways
that
a
facility
may
demonstrate
eligibility
for
complying
with
the
health­
based
compliance
alternatives.
First,
look­
up
tables
allow
facilities
to
determine,
using
a
limited
number
of
site­
specific
input
parameters,
whether
emissions
from
their
sources
might
cause
the
Hazard
Index
limit
to
be
exceeded.
Second,
if
a
facility
cannot
demonstrate
eligibility
using
a
look­
up
table,
a
modeling
approach
can
be
followed.
The
final
rule
presents
the
criteria
for
performing
this
modeling.
Only
a
portion
of
hazardous
waste
combustors
will
submit
eligibility
demonstrations
for
the
health­
based
compliance
alternatives.
Of
these
sources,
several
should
be
able
to
demonstrate
eligibility
based
on
simple
analyses­­
using
the
look­
up
tables.
However,
some
facilities
will
require
more
detailed
modeling.
The
criteria
for
demonstrating
eligibility
for
the
compliance
alternatives
are
clearly
defined
in
the
final
rule.
Moreover,
under
authority
of
RCRA
section
3005(
c)(
3),
multi­
pathway
risk
assessments
will
typically
have
already
been
completed
for
many
hazardous
waste
combustors
to
document
that
emissions
of
toxic
compounds,
including
total
chlorine,
do
not
pose
a
hazard
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
Thus,
state
permitting
officials
have
already
reviewed
and
approved
detailed
modeling
studies
for
many
hazardous
waste
combustors.
The
results
of
these
studies
could
be
applied
to
the
eligibility
demonstration
required
by
this
final
rule.
Because
these
requirements
are
clearly
defined,
and
because
any
standards
or
requirements
created
under
CAA
section
112
are
considered
applicable
requirements
under
40
CFR
part
70,
the
compliance
alternatives
would
be
incorporated
into
title
V
programs,
and
states
would
not
have
to
overhaul
existing
permitting
programs.
Finally,
with
respect
to
the
burden
associated
with
ongoing
assurance
that
facilities
that
opt
to
do
so
continue
to
comply
with
the
health­
based
compliance
alternatives,
the
burden
to
states
will
be
minimal.
In
accordance
with
the
provisions
of
title
V
of
the
CAA
and
part
70
of
40
CFR
(
collectively
``
title
V''),
the
owner
or
operator
of
any
affected
source
opting
to
comply
with
the
health­
based
compliance
alternatives
is
required
to
certify
compliance
with
those
standards
every
five
years
on
the
anniversary
of
the
comprehensive
performance
test.
In
addition,
if
the
facility
has
reason
to
know
of
changes
over
which
the
facility
does
not
have
control,
and
these
changes
could
decrease
the
allowable
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit,
the
facility
must
submit
a
revised
eligibility
demonstration.
Further,
before
changing
key
parameters
that
may
impact
an
affected
source's
ability
to
continue
to
meet
the
health­
based
emission
standards,
the
source
is
required
to
evaluate
its
ability
to
continue
to
comply
with
the
health­
based
compliance
alternatives
and
submit
documentation
to
the
permitting
authority
supporting
continued
eligibility
for
the
compliance
alternative.
Thus,
compliance
requirements
are
largely
self­
implementing
and
the
burden
on
states
will
be
minimal.
Comment:
One
commenter
suggests
that
the
look­
up
tables
would
have
more
utility
if
EPA
developed
tables
for
each
source
category
to
ensure
the
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limits
reflected
stack
parameters
representative
of
each
source
category.
Similarly,
another
commenter
notes
that
a
look­
up
table
designed
to
be
applicable
to
all
32
hazardous
waste
combustors
is
very
conservative
and
will
have
limited
utility.
This
commenter
does
not
suggest
that
EPA
develop
look­
up
tables
for
each
class
of
hazardous
waste
combustors,
however.
Rather,
the
commenter
suggests
that
since
look­
up
tables
have
already
been
developed
for
industrial
boilers
that
do
not
burn
hazardous
waste32
hazardous
waste
combustors
should
be
allowed
to
use
those
look­
up
tables
instead
of
the
look­
up
tables
proposed
for
hazardous
waste
combustors.
Response:
We
noted
at
proposal
that
the
emission
rates
provided
in
the
look­
up
table
for
hazardous
waste
combustors
are
more
stringent
than
those
promulgated
for
solid
fuel
industrial
boilers
that
do
not
burn
hazardous
waste.
This
is
because
the
key
parameters
used
by
the
SCREEN3
atmospheric
dispersion
model
(
i.
e.,
stack
diameter,
stack
exit
gas
velocity,
and
stack
exit
gas
temperature)
to
predict
the
normalized
air
concentrations
that
EPA
used
to
establish
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rates
for
solid
fuel
industrial
boilers
that
do
not
burn
hazardous
waste
are
substantially
different
for
hazardous
waste
combustors.
Thus,
the
maximum
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rates
for
hazardous
waste
combustors
would
generally
be
lower
than
those
EPA
established
for
solid
fuel
industrial
boilers
that
do
not
burn
hazardous
waste.
Nonetheless,
we
agree
with
the
commenter's
concerns
that
the
look­
up
tables
would
have
more
utility
if
they
better
reflected
the
range
of
stack
properties
representative
of
hazardous
waste
combustors.
Accordingly,
we
examined
the
stack
parameters
for
all
hazardous
waste­
burning
sources
in
our
data
base
(
except
for
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
that
are
not
eligible
for
the
health­
based
emission
standards).
After
analyzing
the
relationships
among
the
various
stack
parameters
(
i.
e.,
stack
height,
stack
diameter,
stack
gas
exhaust
volume,
and
exit
temperature),
we
concluded
that
the
look­
up
table
should
be
modified
to
treat
both
stack
diameter
and
stack
height
as
independent
variables
rather
than
relying
on
stack
height
alone.
We
developed
separate
tables
for
short­
term
(
i.
e.,
1­
hour)
HCl­
equivalent
emissions
limits
to
protect
against
acute
health
effects
and
long­
term
(
i.
e.,
annual)
emission
limits
to
protect
against
chronic
effects
from
exposures
to
chlorine
and
hydrogen
chloride.
As
discussed
above,
we
used
the
acute
Reference
Exposure
Level
(
aREL)
developed
by
Cal­
EPA
as
the
benchmark
for
acute
health
effects.
We
used
EPA's
Reference
Concentrations
(
RfC)
as
the
benchmark
for
chronic
health
effects
from
exposures
occurring
over
a
lifetime.
Emission
limits
in
the
look­
up
table
are
expressed
in
terms
of
HCl­
toxicity
equivalent
emission
rates
(
lbs/
hr).
To
convert
your
total
chlorine
emission
rate
(
lb/
hr)
to
an
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate,
you
must
adjust
your
chlorine
emission
rate
by
a
multiplicative
factor
representing
the
ratio
of
the
HCl
health
risk
benchmark
to
the
chlorine
health
risk
benchmark.
For
1­
hour
average
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rates,
the
ratio
is
the
ratio
of
the
aREL
for
HCl
(
2100
micrograms
per
cubic
meter)
to
the
aREL
for
chlorine
(
210
micrograms
per
cubic
meter),
or
a
factor
of
10.33
For
annual
average
emissions,
the
ratio
is
the
ratio
of
the
RfC
for
HCl
(
20
micrograms
per
cubic
meter)
to
the
RfC
of
chlorine
(
0.2
micrograms
per
cubic
meter),
or
a
factor
of
100.
See
§
63.1215(
b).

32
See
Table
2
of
Appendix
A
to
Subpart
DDDDD,
Part
63.
33
We
note
that
this
factor
of
10
ratio
of
the
aRELs
of
HCl
to
chlorine
is
based
on
current
aREL
values
and
is
subject
to
change.
You
must
use
current
aREL
(
and
RfC)
values
when
you
conduct
your
eligibility
demonstration.
See
§
63.1215(
b)(
4
and
5).
33
We
used
the
SCREEN3
air
dispersion
model
to
develop
the
emission
limits
in
the
look­
up
tables.
SCREEN3
is
a
screening
model
that
estimates
air
concentrations
under
a
wide
variety
of
meteorological
conditions
in
order
to
identify
the
meteorological
conditions
under
which
the
highest
ambient
air
concentrations
are
likely
to
occur
and
what
the
magnitude
of
the
ambient
air
concentrations
are
likely
to
be.
The
SCREEN3
model
implements
the
procedures
in
EPA's
"
Screening
Procedures
for
Estimating
the
Air
Quality
Impact
of
Stationary
Sources,
Revised"
(
EPA­
454/
R­
92­
019,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC,
October
1992).
Included
are
options
for
estimating
ambient
air
concentrations
in
simple
elevated
terrain
and
complex
terrain.
Simple
elevated
terrain
refers
to
terrain
elevations
below
stack
top.
We
did
not
use
the
complex
terrain
option
in
the
development
of
the
look­
up
tables
because
of
the
site­
specific
nature
of
plume
impacts
in
areas
of
complex
terrain.
Therefore,
the
look­
up
tables
cannot
be
used
in
areas
of
complex
terrain
(
which
we
define
generally
as
terrain
that
rises
above
stack
top).
Sources
located
in
complex
terrain
(
i.
e.,
as
a
practical
matter,
sources
other
than
those
that
are
located
in
flat
or
simple
elevated
terrain
as
discussed
below
and
thus
cannot
use
the
lookup
tables)
must
use
site­
specific
modeling
procedures
to
establish
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rates.
We
looked
at
two
generic
terrain
scenarios
for
purposes
of
the
look­
up
table.
In
one
we
assumed
the
terrain
rises
at
a
rate
of
5
meters
for
every
100
meter
run
(
i.
e.,
a
slope
of
5
percent)
and
that
terrain
is
"
chopped
off"
above
stack
top
(
following
the
convention
for
such
analyses
in
simple
elevated
terrain).
In
the
other
we
assumed
flat
terrain.
As
can
be
seen
from
the
tables
in
§
63.1215,
the
emission
limits
with
flat
terrain
are
significantly
higher
than
those
with
simple
elevated
terrain.
To
reasonably
ensure
that
the
emission
limits
are
not
substantially
over­
stated
(
e.
g.,
by
a
factor
of
2),
the
simple
elevated
terrain
table
must
be
used
whenever
terrain
rises
to
an
elevation
of
one
half
(
1/
2)
the
stack
height
within
a
distance
of
50
stack
heights.
For
both
the
simple
elevated
terrain
and
flat
terrain
scenarios,
we
performed
model
runs
for
urban
and
rural
dispersion
conditions,
with
and
without
building
downwash.
We
selected
the
highest
(
ambient
air
concentration)
values
at
each
distance
from
among
the
four
runs
for
each
of
the
terrain
scenarios.
As
can
be
seen
from
the
tables
in
§
63.1215,
the
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limits
range
from
0.13
pounds
per
hour
on
an
annual
average
(
for
a
0.3
meter
diameter
stack
that
is
5
meters
tall
that
lies
within
30
meters
of
the
property
boundary)
to
340
pounds
per
hour
(
for
a
4.0
meter
diameter
stack
that
is
100
meters
tall
that
lies
5000
meters
from
the
property
boundary)
when
located
in
simple
elevated
terrain.
In
flat
terrain,
the
range
is
from
0.37
to
1100
pounds
per
hour
on
an
annual
average.
This
contrasts
with
the
look­
up
table
at
proposal,
where
the
comparable
range
was
from
0.0612
pounds
per
hour
(
for
a
5
meter
stack
height
at
a
distance
of
30
meters)
to
a
maximum
of
18
pounds
per
hour
(
for
stack
heights
of
50
meters
or
greater,
at
distances
of
500
meters
or
greater).
If
you
have
more
than
one
hazardous
waste
combustor
on
site,
the
sum
of
the
ratios
for
all
combustors
of
the
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
to
the
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
cannot
exceed
1.0.
See
§
63.1215
(
c)(
3)(
v).
This
will
ensure
that
the
Hazard
Index
of
1.0
is
not
exceeded
considering
emissions
from
all
on­
site
combustors.
Comment:
Several
commenters
state
that
facilities
should
be
allowed
to
establish
34
an
averaging
period
for
the
total
chlorine
and
chloride
feedrate
limit
that
is
shorter
than
an
annual
rolling
average.
Commenters
are
referring
to
the
feedrate
limit
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
annual
average
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit.
Commenters
are
concerned
with
the
data
handling
issues
that
could
arise
from
calculating,
recording,
and
reporting
an
annual
rolling
average
feedrate
level
that
is
updated
hourly,
and
note
that
a
shorter
averaging
period
would
make
the
limit
more
stringent.
Response:
We
agree
with
commenters,
and
conclude,
moreover,
that
a
12­
hour
averaging
period
rather
than
an
annual
averaging
period
will
be
imposed
on
the
vast
majority
of
sources
as
a
practical
matter.
This
is
because
sources
must
establish
a
limit
on
the
feedrate
of
total
chlorine
and
chloride
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
semivolatile
metals
emission
standards.
See
§
63.1209(
n).
The
feedrate
limit
for
total
chlorine
and
chloride
is
established
under
§
63.1209(
n)
as
the
average
of
the
hourly
rolling
averages
for
each
test
run,
and
the
averaging
period
is
12
hours.
Thus,
the
averaging
period
for
the
feedrate
limit
for
semivolatile
metals
 
12­
hour
rolling
average
updated
hourly
 
trumps
the
annual
rolling
average
averaging
period
that
would
otherwise
apply
here.
34
Sources
may
also
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
semivolatile
metals
standard
by
assuming
all
semivolatile
metals
in
feedstreams
are
emitted.
See
§
63.1207(
m)(
2).
Sources
that
do
not
have
emission
control
equipment,
such
as
most
liquid
fuel
boilers,
are
particularly
likely
to
use
this
approach.
Under
this
approach,
there
is
no
concern
regarding
increased
volatility
of
metals
as
chlorine
feedrates
increase,
and
such
sources
are
not
subject
to
a
feedrate
limit
for
chlorine
for
compliance
assurance
with
the
semivolatile
metal
standard.
These
sources
may
establish
an
averaging
period
for
the
feedrate
of
total
chlorine
and
chloride
for
compliance
with
the
health­
based
compliance
alternative
for
total
chlorine
of
not
to
exceed
one
year.
35
Comment:
Several
commenters
offered
suggestions
on
whether
a
short­
term
feedrate
limit
was
needed
for
total
chlorine
and
chloride
(
i.
e.,
chlorine)
as
EPA
suggested,
and
if
EPA
continues
to
consider
it
necessary,
how
the
limit
should
be
established.
One
commenter
states
that
it
is
not
necessary
to
set
short­
term
limits
for
chlorine
feedrates.
If
EPA
concludes
that
short­
term
limits
are
necessary,
however,
the
commenter
recommended
these
options:
(
1)
cap
the
feedrate
at
a
level
that
is
extrapolated
up
to
the
feedrate
associated
with
Interim
Standard
for
incinerators;
(
2)
if
the
facility
uses
the
site­
specific
option
to
set
emission
limits,
the
dispersion
models
can
easily
be
used
to
set
a
1­
hour
(
or
longer)
limit;
and
(
3)
if
the
facility
uses
the
look
up
table
(
which
at
proposal
provided
only
annual
average
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limits),
a
short­
term
limit
can
be
set
based
on
a
multiplier
of
the
annual
limit
 
10
times
the
annual
limit
as
recommended
by
documents
in
EPA's
Air
Toxics
Risk
Assessment
Reference
Library.

34
To
also
ensure
compliance
with
the
annual
average
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit,
however,
the
numerical
value
of
the
feedrate
limit
established
during
the
semivolatile
metals
performance
test
cannot
exceed
the
value
calculated
as
the
annual
average
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
divided
by
[
1
 
system
removal
efficiency],
where
you
demonstrate
the
total
chlorine
system
removal
efficiency
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test.
35
We
note
that
we
have
also
applied
this
"
not­
to­
exceed"
approach
to
establishing
the
duration
of
averaging
periods
for
the
limits
on
all
operating
parameters
established
under
§
63.1209.
See
new
§
63.1209(
r)
and
USEPA,
"
Final
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Standards,
Volume
IV:
Compliance
with
HWC
MACT
Standards,
September
2005,
Section
2.4.6.
35
Another
commenter
states
that,
if
EPA
were
to
promulgate
a
short­
term
feedrate
limit,
the
EPA­
endorsed
factor
of
0.08
employed
to
translate
maximum
hourly
concentrations
to
annual
concentrations
could
be
used
to
identify
the
maximum
hourly
feedrate
limit.
Finally,
another
commenter
states
that
extrapolation
of
the
chlorine
feedrate
(
from
the
level
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
when
the
source
documents
compliance
with
the
annual
average
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit)
should
be
allowed
to
100%
of
the
1­
hour
average
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
because
numerous
safety
factors
have
already
been
included
in
the
health
risk
threshold
values,
look­
up
tables,
and
modeling
demonstration.
Response:
At
proposal,
we
explained
that
sources
would
establish
an
annual
average
feedrate
limit
on
chlorine
as
the
feedrate
level
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
demonstrating
compliance
with
the
annual
average
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit.
36
Only
long­
term
exposures
 
maximum
annual
average
exposures
 
need
be
considered
when
confirming
that
the
chlorine
feedrate
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
(
i.
e.,
average
of
the
hourly
rolling
averages
for
each
run)
is
acceptable
because
the
annual
exposure
Hazard
Index
limit
(
i.
e.,
not
to
exceed
1.0)
would
always
be
exceeded
before
the
1­
hour
Hazard
Index
limit
(
i.
e.,
not
to
exceed
1.0).
Thus,
the
feedrate
limit
associated
with
annual
exposures
would
always
be
more
stringent
than
the
feedrate
limit
associated
with
1­
hour
exposures.
See
69
FR
at
21299.
We
further
explained
at
proposal,
however,
the
need
to
establish
a
short­
term
feedrate
limit
for
chlorine
to
ensure
that
the
1­
hour
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
did
not
exceed
the
1­
hour
average
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
due
to
variability
in
the
chlorine
feedrate
during
the
annual
averaging
period
for
the
feedrate
limit.
We
requested
comment
on
approaches
to
establish
this
1­
hour
chlorine
feedrate
limit,
including
extrapolating
feedrates
to
100%
of
the
1­
hour
average
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit.
See
69
FR
at
21304.
In
the
final
rule
we
have
corrected
and
refined
these
procedures.
The
final
rule
requires
you
to
establish
a
long­
term
chlorine
feedrate
limit
to
maintain
compliance
with
the
annual
average
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
as
either:
(
1)
the
chlorine
feedrate
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
if
you
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
semivolatile
metals
emission
standard
during
the
test
(
see
§
63.1209(
o));
or
(
2)
if
you
comply
with
the
semivolatile
metals
emission
standard
under
§
63.1207(
m)(
2)
by
assuming
all
metals
in
the
feed
to
the
combustor
are
emitted,
the
annual
average
HClequivalent
emission
rate
limit
divided
by
[
1
 
system
removal
efficiency]
where
you
demonstrate
the
system
removal
efficiency
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test.
See
discussion
in
Part
Two,
Section
IX.
H,
of
this
preamble.
If
you
establish
the
chlorine
feedrate
limit
based
on
the
feedrate
during
the
performance
test
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
semivolatile
metals
emission
standard,
the
averaging
period
for
the
feedrate
limit
is
a
12­
hour
rolling
average.
If
you
establish
the
chlorine
feedrate
limit
36
We
discussed
at
proposal
that
the
feedrate
limit
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
long­
term
Hazard
Index
limit
of
not
to
exceed
1.0
would
be
the
average
of
the
hourly
rolling
averages
for
each
test
run,
with
compliance
based
on
an
annual
average.
Note
that,
under
the
final
rule
however,
the
long­
term
chlorine
feedrate
limit
is
established
as
the
annual
average
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
divided
by
[
1
 
system
removal
efficiency].
See
§
63.1215(
g)(
2).
36
based
on
the
system
removal
efficiency
during
the
performance
test,
the
averaging
period
is
up
to
an
annual
rolling
average.
The
final
rule
also
requires
you
to
establish
an
hourly
rolling
average
chlorine
feedrate
limit
if
you
determine
under
§
63.1215(
d)(
3)
that
the
1­
hour
average
HClequivalent
emission
rate
limit
may
be
exceeded.
That
feedrate
limit
is
established
as
the
1­
hour
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
divided
by
[
1
 
system
removal
efficiency].
Under
§
63.1215(
d)(
3),
you
must
establish
an
hourly
rolling
average
chlorine
feedrate
limit
unless
you
determine
considering
specified
criteria
that
your
chlorine
feedrates
will
not
increase
over
the
averaging
period
for
the
long­
term
chlorine
feedrate
limit
(
i.
e.,
12­
hour
rolling
average
or
(
up
to)
annual
rolling
average)
to
a
level
that
may
result
in
an
exceedance
of
the
1­
hour
average
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit.
The
criteria
that
you
must
consider
are:
(
1)
the
ratio
of
the
1­
hour
average
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
based
on
the
total
chlorine
emission
rate
you
select
for
each
combustor
to
the
1­
hour
average
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
for
the
combustor;
and
(
2)
the
potential
for
the
source
to
vary
chlorine
feedrates
substantially
over
the
averaging
period
for
the
long­
term
chlorine
feedrate
limit.
For
example,
if
a
source's
primary
chlorine­
bearing
feedstreams
have
a
relatively
constant
chlorine
concentration
over
the
averaging
period
for
the
chlorine
feedrate
limit
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
annual
average
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
(
e.
g.,
generally
12­
hours),
as
may
be
the
case
for
commercial
sources
feeding
from
large
burn
tanks
or
on­
site
sources
where
chlorine
levels
in
wastes
are
fairly
constant,
you
may
conclude
that
there
is
little
probability
that
1­
hour
feedrates
would
vary
substantially
over
the
averaging
period.
Thus,
a
1­
hour
rolling
average
chlorine
feedrate
limit
may
not
be
warranted.
Even
if
chlorine
feedrates
could
vary
substantially
over
the
long­
term
feedrate
averaging
period,
however,
an
hourly
rolling
average
feedrate
limit
still
may
not
be
warranted
if
the
source's
1­
hour
average
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
is
well
below
the
1­
hour
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit.
See
Part
Two,
Section
IX.
H,
of
this
preamble
for
a
discussion
of
the
relationship
between
emission
rates,
emission
rate
limits,
and
feedrate
limits
We
disagree
with
the
commenter
who
states
that
short­
term
chlorine
feedrate
limits
are
not
necessary.
The
1­
hour
average
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
could
potentially
be
exceeded
for
sources
with
highly
variable
chlorine
feedrates
and
where
the
1­
hour
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
is
relatively
high
compared
to
the
1­
hour
HClequivalent
emission
rate
limit.
The
1­
hour
average
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
could
be
exceeded
even
though
the
source
remains
in
compliance
with
the
annual
average
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
(
and,
moreover,
the
12­
hour
rolling
average
or
(
up
to)
annual
rolling
average
chlorine
feedrate
limit).
We
agree
with
commenters
that
suggest
that
the
hourly
rolling
average
chlorine
feedrate
limit
should
be
extrapolated
from
performance
test
feedrates
up
to
100%
of
the
1­
hour
average
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit.
The
final
rule
requires
you
to
establish
the
hourly
rolling
average
feedrate
limit
(
if
a
limit
is
required
under
§
63.1215(
d)(
3))
as
the
1­
hour
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
divided
by
[
1
 
system
removal
efficiency].
Establishing
the
hourly
rolling
average
feedrate
in
this
manner
ensures
that
the
1­
hour
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
is
not
exceeded,
and
thus
that
the
aREL­
based
Hazard
Index
of
1.0
is
not
exceeded.
37
We
also
agree
in
principle
with
commenters
that
suggest
that
the
hourly
rolling
average
feedrate
limit
be
based
on
the
1­
hour
average
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
which
is
based
on
emissions
modeling.
These
commenters
suggested
that
we
use
a
multiplier
of
10
or
12.5
(
i.
e.,
1/
0.08)
to
project
1­
hour
average
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limits
from
the
annual
average
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limits.
Rather
than
use
these
approaches
to
project
1­
hour
average
emissions
from
annual
average
emissions,
however,
we
use
emissions
modeling
to
develop
look­
up
tables
for
both
1­
hour
average
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limits
and
annual
average
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limits.
For
sources
that
use
site­
specific
risk
assessment
to
demonstrate
eligibility,
they
will
use
the
same
models
to
estimate
1­
hour
average
maximum
ambient
concentrations.
Thus,
the
final
rule
uses
modeling
to
establish
directly
1­
hour
average
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limits
rather
than
approximating
those
limits
from
annual
average
HClequivalent
emission
rate
limits
as
commenters
suggest.
In
summary,
the
final
rule
requires
you
to
establish
the
1­
hour
average
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
by
either
using
Tables
3
or
4
in
§
63.1215
to
look­
up
the
limit,
or
conducting
a
site­
specific
risk
analysis.
Under
the
site­
specific
risk
analysis
option,
the
1­
hour
average
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
would
be
the
highest
emission
rate
that
the
risk
assessment
estimates
would
result
in
an
aREL­
based
Hazard
Index
not
exceeding
1.0
at
any
off­
site
receptor
location.
We
do
not
agree
that
the
short­
term
feedrate
limit
should
be
capped
at
the
level
corresponding
to
the
Interim
Standards
for
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
The
final
rule
caps
the
total
chlorine
emission
rate
and
the
annual
average
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
at
the
level
equivalent
to
the
Interim
Standard
for
total
chlorine.
Thus,
the
long­
term
chlorine
feedrate
limit
(
12­
hour
rolling
average
or
(
up
to)
an
annual
rolling
average)
is
capped
at
the
level
corresponding
to
the
Interim
Standards
for
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
The
hourly
rolling
average
feedrate
limit
to
maintain
compliance
with
the
1­
hour
average
HClequivalent
emission
rate
limit,
however,
can
exceed
the
numerical
value
of
the
long­
term
chlorine
feedrate
limit
because
the
1­
hour
average
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
is
substantially
higher
than
the
annual
average
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit.
Thus,
capping
at
the
interim
standard
level
is
inappropriate
unless
the
interim
standard
were
somehow
re­
expressed
as
a
1­
hour
limit.
Comment:
Many
commenters
state
that
requiring
prior
approval
of
the
eligibility
demonstration
would
be
unworkable.
Commenters
are
concerned
that
the
permitting
authority
may
not
approve
the
demonstration
prior
to
the
compliance
date
even
though
the
source
has
submitted
complete
and
accurate
information
and
has
responded
to
any
requests
for
additional
information
in
good
faith.
Commenters
are
also
concerned
that
the
permitting
authority
may
disapprove
the
demonstration
too
late
for
the
source
to
take
other
measures
to
comply
with
the
total
chlorine
MACT
standard.
Once
commenter
recommends
the
following
alternative
approach:
(
1)
if
the
regulatory
agency
does
not
act
on
a
risk
demonstration
within
the
6­
month
period,
it
is
conditionally
deemed
approved;
and
(
2)
if
a
risk
demonstration
is
disapproved,
the
source
would
have
to
comply
with
the
MACT
emission
standards
no
later
than
three
years
after
notice
of
disapproval
and,
in
the
interim,
sources
would
comply
with
current
emission
limits
for
total
chlorine.
Another
commenter
suggests
that,
if
the
permitting
authority
has
neither
approved
nor
disapproved
the
eligibility
demonstration
by
the
compliance
date,
the
source
may
38
begin
complying
on
the
compliance
date
with
the
alternative
health­
based
limits
specified
in
the
eligibility
demonstration.
Finally,
another
commenter
states
that
facilities
should
be
granted
a
three­
year
extension
of
the
compliance
date
if
the
Agency
denies
a
good­
faith
eligibility
demonstration.
The
commenter
is
concerned
that
sources
will
not
have
time
to
install
additional
controls
or
take
other
measures
after
a
denial
is
issued
but
prior
to
the
compliance
date.
Response:
We
agree
with
commenters
that
requiring
prior
approval
of
the
eligibility
demonstration
may
be
unworkable
for
the
reasons
commenters
suggest.
We
also
agree
with
commenters
that
sources
who
make
a
good­
faith
eligibility
demonstration
but
whose
demonstration
is
denied
by
the
permitting
authority
may
need
additional
time
to
install
controls
or
take
other
measures
to
comply
with
the
MACT
emission
standards.
Accordingly,
the
final
rule
does
not
require
prior
approval
of
the
eligibility
demonstration
for
existing
sources.
If
your
permitting
authority
has
not
approved
your
eligibility
demonstration
by
the
compliance
date,
and
has
not
issued
a
notice
of
intent
to
disapprove
your
demonstration,
you
may
nonetheless
begin
complying,
on
the
compliance
date,
with
the
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limits
and
associated
chlorine
feedrate
limits
you
present
in
your
eligibility
demonstration.
In
addition,
the
final
rule
states
that
the
permitting
authority
should
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,
whether
before
or
after
the
compliance
date,
will
identify
incomplete
or
inaccurate
information
or
noncompliance
with
prescribed
procedures
and
specify
how
much
time
you
will
have
to
submit
additional
information
or
comply
with
the
total
chlorine
MACT
standards.
The
permitting
authority
may
extend
the
compliance
date
of
the
total
chlorine
MACT
standards
to
allow
you
to
make
changes
to
the
design
or
operation
of
the
combustor
or
related
systems
as
quickly
as
practicable
to
enable
you
to
achieve
compliance
with
the
total
chlorine
MACT
standards.
Comment:
One
commenter
states
that
proposed
§
63.1215(
f)(
1)(
A)
should
have
required
sources
to
conduct
a
new
comprehensive
performance
test
only
if
there
are
changes
that
would
decrease
the
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
below
the
HClequivalent
emission
rate
demonstrated
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test.
Similarly,
the
commenter
suggests
that
a
retest
should
not
be
required
if
a
change
increases
the
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
but
the
source
elects
to
maintain
the
current
feedrate
limit.
Another
commenter
states
that
the
Agency
should
clarify
that
if
there
are
any
changes
that
are
not
controlled
by
the
facility
owner/
operator,
and
the
facility
is
required
to
change
its
design
or
operation
to
lower
chlorine
emissions
to
address
the
changes,
the
facility
may
request
up
to
three
years
to
make
such
changes.
Response:
We
generally
agree
with
the
commenters
and
have
revised
the
rule
as
follows:
(
1)
a
new
comprehensive
performance
test
is
required
to
reestablish
the
system
removal
efficiency
for
total
chlorine
only
if
you
change
the
design,
operation,
or
maintenance
of
the
source
in
a
manner
that
may
decrease
the
system
removal
efficiency
(
e.
g.,
the
emission
control
system
is
modified
in
a
manner
than
may
decrease
total
chlorine
removal
efficiency);
and
(
2)
if
you
use
the
site­
specific
risk
analysis
option
for
39
your
eligibility
demonstration
and
changes
beyond
your
control
(
e.
g.,
off­
site
receptors
newly
residing
or
congregating
at
locations
exposed
to
higher
ambient
levels
than
originally
estimated)
dictate
a
lower
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limit
and
you
must
make
changes
to
the
design,
operation,
or
maintenance
of
the
combustor
or
related
systems
to
comply
with
the
lower
limit,
you
may
request
that
the
permitting
authority
grant
you
additional
time
to
make
those
changes
as
quickly
as
practicable.
Comment:
Several
commenters
state
that
the
proposed
approach
for
calculating
chlorine
emissions
to
address
the
potential
bias
using
Method
26/
26A
attributable
to
high
bromine
or
sulfur
levels
in
feedstreams
is
not
statistically
valid.
They
indicate
that
the
approach
could
lead
to
collection
of
total
chlorine,
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
data
that
are
contradictory
and
difficult
to
apply
in
a
compliance
situation.
One
commenter
suggests
that
using
Method
26/
26A
results
for
sources
with
bromine
and
sulfur
dioxide,
while
recognizing
that
there
is
bias
in
the
sampling
method,
will
result
in
a
valid
compliance
approach.
Response:
We
agree
with
commenters
that
the
proposed
approach
to
avoid
the
bias
when
feedstreams
contain
high
levels
of
bromine
or
sulfur
(
bromine/
chlorine
ratio
in
feedstreams
of
greater
than
5
percent,
or
sulfur/
chlorine
ratio
in
feedstreams
of
greater
than
50
percent)
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
may
be
problematic.
The
proposed
approach
would
have
required
you
to
use
Method
320/
321
or
ASTM
D
6735
 
01
for
hydrogen
chloride
measurements,
to
use
Method
26/
26A
for
total
chlorine
(
i.
e.,
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
combined)
measurements,
and
to
calculate
chlorine
levels
by
difference.
The
potential
problem
is
that
chlorine
emission
levels
are
generally
a
very
small
portion
of
total
chlorine
measurements,
and
variability
in
the
hydrogen
chloride
or
total
chlorine
measurements
due
to
method
imprecision
or
other
factors
could
result
in
inaccurate
estimations
of
chlorine
emission
levels.
We
do
not
agree,
however,
that
using
Method
26/
26A
for
chlorine
measurements
for
combustors
feeding
high
levels
of
bromine
or
sulfur
is
acceptable
 
the
chlorine
measurement
may
be
biased
low.
Chlorine
emission
levels
must
be
determined
as
accurately
as
possible
given
that
the
long­
term
health
threshold
for
chlorine
is
100
times
the
threshold
for
HCl,
and
the
short­
term
health
threshold
for
chlorine
is
10
times
the
threshold
for
HCl
(
i.
e.,
using
current
RfCs
and
aRELs).
To
ensure
that
a
conservative
estimate
of
the
chlorine
emission
rate
is
used
to
establish
the
alternative
health­
based
emission
limits
and
to
address
commenters'
concerns,
the
final
rule
requires
that
you
determine
chlorine
emissions
to
be
the
higher
of:
(
1)
the
chlorine
value
measured
by
Method
26/
26A,
or
an
equivalent
method;
or
(
2)
the
chlorine
value
calculated
by
difference
between
the
combined
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
levels
measured
by
Method
26/
26A,
or
an
equivalent
method,
and
the
hydrogen
chloride
measurement
from
EPA
Method
320/
321
or
ASTM
D
6735­
01,
or
an
equivalent
method.
Comment:
Several
commenters
state
the
procedures
for
calculating
HClequivalent
emission
rates
cannot
merely
reference
an
outside
source,
such
as
a
website,
unless
that
reference
specifies
that
the
contents
of
the
source
are
as
of
a
date
certain.
To
specify
use
of
health
threshold
values
that
can
change
over
time
provides
inadequate
opportunity
for
notice
and
comment
on
the
regulation.
Response:
We
believe
that
the
best
available
sources
of
health
effects
information
should
be
used
for
risk
or
hazard
determinations.
To
assist
us
in
identifying
the
most
scientifically
appropriate
toxicity
values
for
our
analyses
and
decisions,
the
website
to
be
40
used
for
RfCs
identifies
pertinent
toxicity
values
using
a
default
hierarchy
of
sources,
with
EPA's
Integrated
Risk
Information
System
(
IRIS)
being
the
preferred
source.
The
IRIS
process
contains
internal
and
external
peer
review
steps
and
IRIS
toxicity
values
represent
EPA
consensus
values.
When
adequate
toxicity
information
is
not
available
in
IRIS,
however,
we
consult
other
sources
in
a
default
hierarchy
that
recognizes
the
desirability
of
these
qualities
in
ensuring
that
we
have
consistent
and
scientifically
sound
assessments.
Furthermore,
where
the
IRIS
assessment
substantially
lags
the
current
scientific
knowledge,
we
have
committed
to
consider
alternative
credible
and
readily
available
assessments
(
e.
g.,
the
acute
Relative
Exposure
Levels
established
by
the
California
Office
of
Health
Hazard
Assessment).
For
our
use,
these
alternatives
need
to
be
grounded
in
publicly
available,
peer­
reviewed
information.
We
agree
with
the
commenter
that
the
issue
of
changing
toxicity
values
is
a
general
challenge
in
setting
health­
based
regulations.
However,
we
are
committed
to
establishing
such
regulations
that
reflect
current
scientific
understanding,
to
the
extent
feasible.

C.
National
Health­
Based
Standards
for
Cement
Kilns.

Comment:
One
commenter
states
that
our
suggestion
at
proposal
that
it
would
be
appropriate
to
establish
a
single
national
emission
rate
type
standard
applicable
to
all
cement
kilns
based
on
the
worst­
case
scenario
cement
kiln
is
unduly
burdensome
as
it
discounts
the
benefits
of
improved
dispersion
realized
by
facilities
that
have
invested
in
taller
stacks
that
minimize
downwash
effects.
The
commenter
recommends
a
dual
limit
for
cement
kilns
such
that
the
HCl
equivalent
emission
rate
is
limited
to
both:
(
1)
a
130
ppmv
total
chlorine
emission
standard
(
the
Interim
Standard)
coupled
with
a
chlorine
feedrate
limit
based
on
a
12­
hour
rolling
average;
and
(
2)
a
Hazard
Index
of
1.0.
Response:
We
have
decided
not
to
include
a
separate
national
standard
for
cement
kilns
in
the
final
rule
for
several
reasons:
(
1)
we
have
no
assurance
that
the
Cl2/
HCl
volumetric
ratio
exhibited
during
the
most
recent
compliance
test,
and
that
was
the
basis
for
the
commenter
documenting
in
a
study37
that
the
Hazard
Index
of
1.038
was
not
exceeded,
is
representative
of
ratios
in
the
past
or
future;
(
2)
the
commenter's
recommended
emission
standard
for
cement
kilns
 
130
ppmv
total
chlorine
emission
limit
and
a
Hazard
Index
of
1.0
 
is
equivalent
to
the
requirements
under
§
63.1215
applicable
to
other
hazardous
waste
combustors
to
establish
site­
specific
emission
limits;
(
3)
the
MACT
standard
for
total
chlorine
for
cement
kilns
is
120
ppmv
such
that
the
health­
based
standard
that
the
commenter
recommends­­
130
ppmv,
the
Interim
Standard
 
would
provide
little
compliance
relief;
and
(
4)
even
though
the
final
rule
does
not
provide
a
separate
national
health­
based
standard
for
cement
kilns,
cement
kilns
may
apply
for
the
health­
based
compliance
alternatives
applicable
to
other
hazardous
waste
combustors.
Prior
to
publication
of
the
proposed
rule,
the
commenter
submitted
results
of
sitespecific
risk
assessments
for
all
cement
kiln
facilities
showing
that
both
the
long­
term
and
short
term
Hazard
Index
of
1.0
would
not
be
exceeded
at
any
facility
assuming:
(
1)

37
See
Trinity
Consultants,
``
Analysis
of
HCl/
Cl2
Emissions
from
Cement
Kilns
for
112(
d)(
4)
Consideration
in
the
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,''
September
17,
2003.
38
The
HCl/
Cl2
ratio
for
the
total
chlorine
measurement
is
important
because
the
current
RfC
for
chlorine
is
0.2
ug/
m3
while
the
current
RfC
for
HCl
is
20
ug/
m3.
Thus,
when
calculating
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
limits,
chlorine
emissions
are
currently
multiplied
by
a
factor
of
100.
41
sources
emit
total
chlorine
at
the
Interim
Standard
level
of
130
ppmv;
and
(
2)
total
chlorine
emissions
are
apportioned
between
HCl
and
chlorine
according
to
the
apportionment
exhibited
during
the
most
recent
compliance
test.
At
proposal,
we
requested
comment
on
how
to
ensure
that
the
130
ppmv
concentration­
based
standard
would
ensure
that
total
chlorine
emission
rates
(
lb/
hr)
would
not
increase
to
levels
that
may
exceed
the
Hazard
Index
limit
of
1.0
given
that:
(
1)
the
partitioning
ratio
between
HCl
and
chlorine
could
change
over
time
such
that
a
larger
fraction
of
total
chlorine
could
be
emitted
as
chlorine,
which
has
a
much
lower
health
risk
threshold;
and
(
2)
the
mass
emission
rate
of
total
chlorine
could
increase.
See
69
FR
at
21306.
The
commenter
has
addressed
the
concern
about
the
mass
emission
rate
of
total
chlorine
potentially
increasing
by
suggesting
that
the
health­
based
standard
include
a
limit
on
the
feedrate
of
total
chlorine
and
chloride
at
the
level
used
in
their
risk
assessment
supporting
a
separate
national
standard
for
cement
kilns.
The
commenter
has
also
addressed
the
concern
about
the
HCl
and
chlorine
apportionment
ratio
changing
over
time
by
suggesting
that
the
standard
also
include
a
requirement
that
the
Hazard
Index
of
1.0
not
be
exceeded.
We
agree
that
sources
need
to
account
for
variability
in
the
chlorine
to
HCl
ratio
(
see
§
63.1215(
b)(
6))
and
that
periodic
checks
to
ensure
that
the
Hazard
Index
of
1.0
is
not
exceeded
are
needed.
We
believe
the
best
way
to
ensure
that
the
health­
based
compliance
alternatives
for
total
chlorine
for
cement
kilns
are
protective
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety
is
through
the
procedures
of
§
63.1215
where
site­
specific
emission
rate
limits
are
established
rather
than
under
a
separate
national
standard
for
cement
kilns.

VIII.
Implementation
and
Compliance
A.
Compliance
Assurance
Issues
for
both
Fabric
Filters
and
Electrostatic
Precipitators
(
and
Ionizing
Wet
Scrubbers)

1.
Implementation
Issues
Comment:
Several
commenters
state
that
design
and
performance
specifications
and
explicit
detailed
test
procedures
to
determine
conformance
with
the
specifications
are
needed
so
that
manufacturers
can
certify
that
their
bag
leak
detection
systems
and
particulate
matter
detection
systems
meet
applicable
criteria.
Absent
design
and
performance
specifications
and
test
procedures,
commenters
assert
that
the
"
manufacturer's
certification"
cannot
ensure
the
performance
capabilities
of
the
devices.
Response:
In
general,
we
believe
adherence
to
manufacturer's
written
specifications
and
recommendations
is
an
appropriate
approach
to
reasonably
ensure
performance
of
a
bag
leak
detection
system
or
particulate
matter
detection
system,
and
we
have
retained
that
provision
in
the
final
rule.
We
agree,
however,
that
there
may
be
cases
where
other
procedures
are
more
appropriate
than
the
manufacturer's
recommendations
to
ensure
performance
of
a
bag
leak
detection
system
or
particulate
matter
detection
system.
Consequently,
the
rule
allows
you
to
request
approval
for
alternative
monitoring
procedures
under
§
63.1209(
g)(
1).
39
We
note
that
you
may
use
39
See
discussion
in
Part
Five,
Section
III.
C,
for
an
explanation
of
how
the
alternative
monitoring
provisions
of
§
63.1209(
g)(
1)
relate
to
those
of
§
63.8(
f).
42
references
other
than
EPA's
Guidance
Document,
"
Fabric
Filter
Bag
Leak
Detection
Guidance,"
September
1997
to
identify
appropriate
performance
specifications
for
the
bag
leak
detection
system
or
particulate
matter
detection
system,
including:
PS­
11
for
PM
CEMS;
PS­
1
for
opacity
monitors;
and
CPS­
001
for
opacity
monitoring
below
10%
opacity.
You
may
use
these
references
to
support
your
request
for
additions
to,
or
deviations
from,
manufacturer's
specifications.
Comment:
One
commenter
states
that
bag
leak
detection
systems
and
particulate
matter
detection
systems
should
have
a
detection
limit
of
1.0
mg/
acm
to
ensure
peak
performance
is
maintained
rather
than
explicitly
allowing
sources
to
request
approval
for
a
detection
limit
on
a
site­
specific
basis
as
the
rule
currently
allows.
Several
other
commenters
state
that
the
bag
leak
detection
system
or
particulate
matter
detection
system
need
not
have
a
detection
limit
as
low
as
1.0
mg/
acm
to
detect
increases
in
normal
emissions.
One
commenter
believes
that
bag
leak
detection
systems
installed
on
cement
kilns
should
be
allowed
to
have
a
detection
limit
of
10
mg/
acm
because:
(
1)
a
detection
limit
requirement
of
10
mg/
acm
is
more
than
sufficient
to
protect
the
particulate
matter
emission
limit
and
to
detect
increases
in
particulate
matter
concentration
given
that
the
current
particulate
matter
emission
limit
for
existing
kilns
is
63
mg/
dscm;
(
2)
a
detection
limit
requirement
of
10
mg/
acm
is
consistent
with
the
requirement
for
bag
leak
detection
systems
in
Subpart
LLL,
Part
63,
for
cement
plants
that
choose
to
install
bag
leak
detection
systems
on
finish
mills
and
raw
mills,
for
bag
leak
detection
systems
and
particulate
matter
detection
systems
installed
on
lime
kilns
under
Subpart
AAAAAA,
and
for
industrial
boilers
under
Subpart
DDDDD;
(
3)
a
10
mg/
acm
detection
limit
is
achievable
using
state­
of­
the­
art
transmissometers
(
the
actual
instrument
used
in
a
continuous
opacity
monitoring
system
(
COMS)
at
cement
plants
having
kiln
stack
diameters
of
2­
3
meters,
or
greater;
and
(
4)
it
is
unclear
if
any
bag
leak
detection
system
device
can
actually
be
demonstrated
to
achieve
a
1.0
mg/
acm
detection
limit
except
by
extrapolation
from
tests
conducted
at
higher
dust
loadings
and
theoretical
arguments
based
on
signal­
to­
noise
ratios
or
other
parameters.
This
commenter
also
recommends
that
EPA
establish
a
10
mg/
am3
detection
limit
for
all
cement
kilns
rather
than
provide
for
site­
specific
determinations
because
allowing
site­
specific
determinations
is
likely
to
create
confusion
in
the
selection
of
monitoring
devices
and
further
complicate
the
manufacturer's
certification
of
performance
requirements.
Response:
The
current
requirement
for
the
bag
leak
detection
system
sensitivity/
detection
limit
applicable
to
incinerators
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
is
1.0
mg/
acm
unless
you
demonstrate
under
§
63.1209(
g)(
1)
that
a
lower
sensitivity
(
i.
e.,
higher
detection
limit)
would
detect
bag
leaks.
We
proposed
to
apply
the
bag
leak
detection
system
requirements
to
all
hazardous
waste
combustors
equipped
with
fabric
filters
and
promulgate
that
requirement
today.
Although
we
also
requested
comment
whether
detection
limits
higher
than
1.0
mg/
acm
should
be
allowed,
none
of
the
comments
has
convinced
us
to
alter
our
view
that
the
rule
should
allow
higher
detection
limits
on
a
sitespecific
basis.
Similarly,
we
believe
that
the
same
detection
limit
requirement
should
apply
to
particulate
matter
detection
systems
that
you
may
elect
to
use
for
compliance
monitoring
for
your
electrostatic
precipitator
or
ionizing
wet
scrubber
in
lieu
of
sitespecific
operating
parameter
limits.
Both
bag
leak
detection
systems
and
particulate
matter
detection
systems
must
be
able
to
detect
particulate
emission
in
the
range
of
normal
concentrations.
For
example,
to
43
establish
the
alarm
level
for
the
bag
leak
detection
system,
you
must
first
adjust
detector
gain/
sensitivity
and
response
time
based
on
normal
operations.
Although
the
alarm
level
for
particulate
matter
detection
systems
will
be
established
based
on
operations
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
or
higher
(
see
discussion
below),
the
detector
must
be
responsive
within
the
range
of
normal
operations
for
you
to
effectively
minimize
exceedances
of
the
alarm
level.
The
range
of
normal
emission
concentrations
will
generally
be
well
below
both
the
particulate
matter
standard
and
emissions
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test.
Consequently,
we
disagree
with
commenters
that
believe
the
detection
limit
need
only
be
within
the
range
of
emissions
at
the
particulate
matter
emission
standard.
On
the
other
hand,
normal
emissions
may
be
well
above
1.0
mg/
acm
such
that
a
higher
detection
limit
(
e.
g.,
10
mg/
acm)
may
be
appropriate
on
a
site­
specific
basis.
We
also
disagree
with
the
comment
that
bag
leak
detection
systems
(
or
particulate
matter
detection
systems)
may
not
be
able
actually
to
achieve
a
1.0
mg/
acm
detection
limit.
EPA
is
aware
of
bag
leak
detection
system
instruments
certified
to
meet
levels
of
0.2
mg/
m3
and
particulate
matter
detection
systems
can
readily
achieve
detection
limits
well
below
1.0
mg/
acm.
40
Comment:
One
commenter
states
that
a
continuous
opacity
monitoring
system
(
COMS)
that
can
achieve
a
detection
level
of
10
mg/
acm
or
less
can
be
used
to
monitor
electrostatic
precipitator
performance.
The
commenter
believes
that
allowing
a
COMS
for
compliance
under
Subpart
EEE
is
also
appropriate
because
cement
kilns
will
be
operating
under
the
requirements
of
Subpart
LLL
(
for
cement
kilns
that
do
not
burn
hazardous
waste)
at
times,
which
requires
compliance
with
an
opacity
standard
using
a
COMS.
Response:
You
may
use
a
COMS
(
i.
e.,
transmissometer)
that
meets
the
detection
limit
requirement
as
discussed
above
(
i.
e.,
1.0
mg/
acm
or
a
higher
detection
limit
that
you
document
under
an
alternative
monitoring
petition
under
§
63.1209(
g)(
1)
would
routinely
detect
particulate
matter
loadings
during
normal
operations)
as
the
detector
for
your
bag
leak
detection
system
or
particulate
matter
detection
system.
2.
Compliance
Issues
Comment:
One
commenter
states
that,
if
the
bag
leak
detection
system
or
particulate
matter
detection
system
exceeds
the
alarm
level
or
an
operating
parameter
limit
(
OPL)
is
exceeded,
the
automatic
waste
feed
cutoff
(
AWFCO)
system
must
be
initiated.
Allowing
a
source
to
exceed
the
alarm
level
for
5%
of
the
time
in
a
6­
month
period
does
not
ensure
continuous
compliance.
Response:
Although
the
AWFCO
system
must
be
initiated
if
an
OPL
is
exceeded,
we
believe
that
allowing
exceedances
of
the
bag
leak
detection
system
or
particulate
matter
detection
system
alarm
level
up
to
5%
of
the
time
in
a
6­
month
period
is
reasonable.
Requiring
initiation
of
the
AWFCO
for
an
exceedance
of
an
OPL
is
reasonable
because
sources
generally
can
control
directly
the
parameter
that
is
limited.
Examples
are
the
feedrate
of
metals
or
chlorine,
or
pressure
drop
across
a
wet
scrubber.
Bag
leak
detection
systems
and
particulate
matter
detection
systems,
however,
measure
mass
emissions
of
particulate
matter,
a
parameter
that
is
affected
by
many
interrelated
factors
and
that
is
not
directly
controllable.
We
believe
that
the
5
percent
alarm
rate
is
a
40
USEPA,
"
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Standards,
Volume
IV:
Compliance
with
the
HWC
MACT
Standards,"
September
2005,
Appendix
C,
Section
4.0.
44
reasonable
allowance
for
sources
due
to
difficult­
to­
control
variations
in
particulate
matter
emissions.
More
important,
although
the
bag
leak
detection
system
and
particulate
matter
detection
system
measure
mass
emissions
of
particulate
matter,
the
detector
response
is
not
correlated
to
particulate
matter
emission
concentrations
to
the
extent
necessary
for
compliance
monitoring.
41
Thus,
triggering
the
alarm
level
is
not
evidence
that
the
particulate
matter
emission
standard
has
been
exceeded.
The
purpose
of
a
BLDS
or
PMDS
is
to
alert
the
operator
that
the
PM
control
device
is
not
functioning
properly
and
that
corrective
measures
must
be
undertaken.
We
believe
that
using
a
BLDS
or
PMDS
for
compliance
assurance
better
minimizes
emissions
of
PM
(
and
metal
HAP)
than
use
of
operating
parameter
limits
(
which
are
linked
to
the
automatic
waste
feed
cutoff
system).
APCD
operating
parameters
often
have
an
uncertain
relationship
to
PM
emissions
while
the
BLDS
and
PMDS
provide
realtime
information
on
actual
PM
mass
emission
levels.
42
Comment:
One
commenter
states
that
requiring
a
notification
if
the
bag
leak
detection
system
or
particulate
matter
detection
system
set
point
is
exceeded
more
than
5%
of
the
time
in
a
6­
month
period
is
not
cost­
effective.
Sources
using
bag
leak
detection
systems
have
not
linked
exceedances
to
the
data
logging
system
and
would
incur
an
expense
to
do
so.
Response:
We
continue
to
believe
that
limiting
the
aggregate
duration
of
exceedances
in
a
6­
month
period
is
a
reasonable
approach
to
gage
the
effectiveness
of
the
operation
and
maintenance
procedures
for
the
combustor.
We
note
that
recent
MACT
standards
for
several
other
source
categories
use
this
approach,
including
standards
for
industrial
boilers
and
process
heaters
and
standards
for
lime
kilns.
Comment:
One
commenter
states
that
EPA
did
not
present
a
rationale
for
requiring
a
notification
within
5
working
days
if
the
bag
leak
detection
system
or
particulate
matter
detection
system
set
point
is
exceeded
more
than
5%
of
the
time
during
a
6­
month
period.
The
commenter
notes
that
this
notice
is
not
required
under
the
Subpart
DDDDD
boiler
and
process
heater
MACT.
The
commenter
also
notes
that
the
source
is
required
to
take
corrective
measures
under
both
the
operation
and
maintenance
plan
and
bag
leak
detection
systems
and
particulate
matter
detection
systems
requirements.
The
commenter
believes
that
requiring
a
report
to
the
permitting
authority
is
duplicative,
unnecessary,
and
increases
the
burden
on
regulated
facilities
without
providing
additional
protection
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
Response:
If
a
source
exceeds
the
alarm
set
point
more
than
5%
of
the
time
in
a
6­
month
period,
it
is
an
indication
that
the
operation
and
maintenance
plan
may
need
to
be
revised.
Requiring
the
source
to
report
the
excess
exceedances
to
the
permitting
authority
serves
as
a
notification
that
the
authority
may
need
to
review
the
operation
and
maintenance
plan
with
the
source
to
determine
if
changes
are
warranted.
We
agree
with
the
commenter,
however,
that
it
is
not
necessary
to
require
that
the
report
be
submitted
within
five
working
days
of
the
end
of
the
6­
month
block
period.

41
Actually,
the
BLDS
is
not
correlated
at
all
to
PM
concentrations,
and
the
alarm
level
for
a
PMDS
may
or
may
not
be
approximately
correlated
to
PM
concentrations.
See
§
63.1206(
c)(
9).
42
Moreover,
for
FFs,
we
are
not
aware
of
any
APCD
operating
parameters
that
correlate
well
with
PM
emissions.
Thus,
sources
must
use
a
BLDS
or
PMDS
for
compliance
assurance.
For
ESPs
and
IWSs,
we
are
not
aware
of
generic
APCD
parameters
that
correlate
well
with
PM
emissions.
See
discussion
below
in
Section
VIII.
C
of
the
text.
Consequently,
although
the
rule
allows
sources
with
ESPs
and
IWSs
to
establish
site­
specific
operating
parameter
limits,
sources
are
encouraged
to
use
a
PMDS.
45
Consequently,
the
final
rule
requires
you
to
submit
the
report
within
30
days
of
the
end
of
the
6­
month
block
period.
Allowing
30
days
to
submit
the
report
rather
than
5
days
as
proposed
is
reasonable.
We
are
concerned
that
5
days
may
not
be
enough
time
to
complete
the
report
given
that
several
exceedances
toward
the
end
of
the
6­
month
block
period
may
cause
you
to
exceed
the
5%
time
limit
and
that
there
may
be
many
individual
exceedances
that
need
to
be
included
in
the
report.
We
acknowledge
that
it
may
take
some
time
to
prepare
the
report
given
that
you
must
describe
the
causes
of
each
exceedance
and
the
revisions
to
the
operation
and
maintenance
plan
you
have
made
to
mitigate
the
exceedances.
Comment:
One
commenter
notes
that
there
is
no
guidance
on
how
to
calculate
when
the
set­
point
has
been
exceeded
more
than
5
percent
of
the
operating
time
within
a
6
month
period.
The
commenter
notes
that
the
MACT
for
industrial
boilers
and
process
heaters
provides
minimal
instruction
on
how
this
is
to
be
done,
but
it
is
not
specific
enough
to
enable
facilities
to
ensure
that
they
are
in
compliance
with
this
requirement.
Response:
For
the
final
rule,
we
have
adopted
the
procedures
specified
in
the
industrial
boiler
and
process
heater
MACT
for
calculating
the
duration
of
exceedances
of
the
set
point.
Those
procedures
are
as
follows:
1.
You
must
keep
records
of
the
date,
time,
and
duration
of
each
alarm,
the
time
corrective
action
was
initiated
and
completed,
and
a
brief
description
of
the
cause
of
the
alarm
and
the
corrective
action
taken.
2.
You
must
record
the
percent
of
the
operating
time
during
each
6­
month
period
that
the
alarm
sounds.
3.
In
calculating
the
operating
time
percentage,
if
inspection
of
the
fabric
filter,
electrostatic
precipitator,
or
ionizing
wet
scrubber
demonstrates
that
no
corrective
action
is
required,
no
alarm
time
is
counted.
4.
If
corrective
action
is
required,
each
alarm
shall
be
counted
as
a
minimum
of
1
hour.
Although
the
commenter
indicates
that
these
procedures
are
not
specific
enough
to
ensure
that
sources
are
in
compliance
with
the
requirements,
the
commenter
did
not
indicate
the
deficiencies
or
suggest
additional
requirements.
If
you
need
additional
guidance
on
compliance
with
this
provision,
you
should
contact
the
permitting
authority.
Comment:
One
commenter
supports
the
approach
of
listing
the
shutting
down
of
the
combustor
as
a
potential
 
but
not
mandatory
 
corrective
measure
in
response
to
exceeding
an
alarm
set
point.
Several
commenters
suggest,
however,
that
EPA
should
specify
that
corrective
measures
could
include
shutting
off
the
hazardous
waste
feed
rather
than
shutting
down
the
combustor.
Other
commenters
state
that
it
is
inappropriate
to
imply
that
shutting
down
the
combustor
must
be
part
of
a
corrective
measures
program
for
responding
to
exceedance
of
a
set
point.
These
commenters
believe
that
the
requirement
to
take
corrective
action
upon
the
alarm
is
sufficiently
protective.
The
facility
should
determine
if
shutting
down
the
combustor
is
a
necessary
response
to
avoid
noncompliance
with
a
standard.
Response:
You
must
operate
and
maintain
the
fabric
filter,
electrostatic
precipitator,
or
ionizing
wet
scrubber
to
ensure
continuous
compliance
with
the
particulate
matter,
semivolatile
metals,
and
low
volatile
metals
emission
standards.
Your
response
to
exceeding
the
alarm
set
point
should
depend
on
whether
you
may
be
close
to
exceeding
an
operating
parameter
limit
(
e.
g.,
ash
feedrate
limit
for
an
incinerator
or
liquid
46
fuel
boiler
equipped
with
an
electrostatic
precipitator)
or
an
emission
standard.
If
so,
corrective
measures
should
include,
as
commenters
suggest,
cutting
off
the
hazardous
waste
feed.
Corrective
measures
could
also
include,
however,
shutting
down
the
combustor
as
the
ultimate
immediate
corrective
measure
if
an
emission
standard
may
otherwise
be
exceeded.
Consequently,
the
final
rule
continues
to
require
you
to
alleviate
the
cause
of
the
alarm
by
taking
the
necessary
corrective
measure(
s)
which
may
include
shutting
down
the
combustor.
This
provision
does
not
imply
that
shutting
down
the
combustor
is
the
default
corrective
measure.
Rather,
it
implies
that
the
ultimate
immediate
response,
absent
other
effective
corrective
measures,
would
be
to
shut
down
the
combustor.
Comment:
One
commenter
states
that
periods
of
time
when
the
combustor
is
operating
but
the
bag
leak
detection
system
or
particulate
matter
detection
system
is
malfunctioning
should
not
be
considered
exceedances
of
the
set­
point.
Response:
If
the
bag
leak
detection
system
or
particulate
matter
detection
system
is
malfunctioning,
the
source
cannot
determine
whether
it
is
operating
within
the
alarm
set
point.
Accordingly,
it
is
reasonable
to
consider
periods
when
the
bag
leak
detection
system
or
particulate
matter
detection
system
is
malfunctioning
as
exceedances
of
the
set
point.

B.
Compliance
Assurance
Issues
for
Fabric
Filters
Comment:
One
commenter
states
that
establishing
the
set
point
for
the
bag
leak
detection
system
at
twice
the
detector
response
achieved
during
bag
cleaning
as
recommended
by
EPA
guidance
would
not
be
sensitive
enough
to
detect
gradual
degradation
of
the
fabric
filter,
nor
would
it
be
low
enough
to
require
the
operator
of
the
source
to
take
corrective
measures
that
would
ensure
effective
operation
of
the
baghouse
over
time.
Response:
The
commenter
expresses
the
same
concern
that
EPA
raised
at
proposal.
See
69
FR
at
21347.
We
have
concluded,
however,
that
it
may
be
problematic
to
establish
an
alarm
set
point
for
fabric
filters
based
on
operations
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test.
This
is
because,
as
noted
in
earlier
responses
and
at
69
FR
at
21233,
it
is
much
more
difficult
to
"
detune"
a
fabric
filter
than
an
electrostatic
precipitator
to
maximize
emissions
during
the
performance
test.
43
Consequently,
emissions
from
fabric
filters
that
have
not
been
detuned
during
the
performance
test
may
not
be
representative
of
the
range
of
normal
emissions
caused
by
factors
such
as
bag
aging.
Baghouse
performance
degrades
over
time
as
bags
age.
In
addition,
establishing
the
alarm
set
point
based
on
operations
during
the
performance
test
for
baghouses
that
have
not
been
detuned
would
establish
more
stringent
compliance
requirements
on
sources
that
perform
the
best
 
the
lower
the
emissions,
the
lower
the
alarm
set
point.
This
would
unfairly
penalize
the
best
performing
sources.
For
these
reasons,
the
final
rule
requires
you
to
establish
the
alarm
set­
point
for
bag
house
detection
systems
using
principles
provided
in
USEPA,
"
Fabric
Filter
Bag
Leak
Detection
Guidance,"
(
EPA­
454/
R­
98­
015,
September
1997).
Comment:
One
commenter
states
that
the
bag
leak
detection
system
requirement
43
One
approach
to
detune
a
fabric
filter
to
simulate
the
extreme
high
range
of
normal
operations
would
be
to
install
a
butterfly
valve
that
allows
a
portion
of
the
combustion
gas
to
by­
pass
a
section
of
the
baghouse.
47
should
not
apply
to
the
coal
mill
baghouse
for
cement
kilns
with
indirect­
fired
coal
mill
systems
where
a
fraction
of
kiln
gas
is
taken
from
the
preheater
and
routed
to
the
coal
mill
and
subsequently
to
a
baghouse
before
entering
the
stack.
The
commenter
notes
that
the
PM
in
this
gas
is
nearly
exclusively
coal
dust,
and
the
baghouse
is
substantially
smaller
than
the
baghouse
for
the
kiln.
Response:
We
believe
that
a
bag
leak
detection
system
is
a
reasonable
approach
to
monitor
emissions
for
the
coal
mill
baghouse
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
particulate
matter
(
and
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metals)
emission
standards.
These
systems
are
inexpensive
to
install
and
operate.
Annualized
costs
are
approximately
$
24,000.44
Although
the
commenter
did
not
suggest
an
alternative
monitoring
approach,
and
we
are
not
aware
of
a
less
expensive
and
effective
approach,
we
note
that
sources
may
petition
the
permitting
authority
under
§
63.1209(
g)(
1)
to
request
an
alternative
monitoring
approach.

C.
Compliance
Issues
for
Electrostatic
Precipitators
and
Ionizing
Wet
Scrubbers
Comment:
Several
commenters
believe
that
a
particulate
matter
detection
system
may
not
be
necessary
for
monitoring
of
electrostatic
precipitators
and
ionizing
wet
scrubbers.
Commenters
state
that
site­
specific
operating
parameter
limits
linked
to
the
automatic
waste
feed
cutoff
system
can
effectively
monitor
and
ensure
the
performance
of
electrostatic
precipitators
and
ionizing
wet
scrubbers.
Particulate
matter
detection
systems
on
cement
kilns
would
have
to
operate
in
a
high
moisture
stack
environment
(
all
kilns
burning
hazardous
waste
that
are
equipped
with
electrostatic
precipitators
are
wet
process
kilns),
with
the
potential
for
condensation
and/
or
water
droplet
interference.
Commenters
state
that
when
water
droplets
are
present,
many
of
these
devices
are
not
applicable.
Response:
The
final
rule
provides
sources
equipped
with
electrostatic
precipitators
or
ionizing
wet
scrubbers
the
alternative
of
using
a
particulate
matter
detection
system
or
establishing
site­
specific
operating
parameter
limits
for
compliance
assurance.
If
a
particulate
matter
detection
system
is
used,
corrective
measures
must
be
taken
if
the
alarm
set
point
is
exceeded.
If
the
source
elects
to
establish
site­
specific
operating
parameter
limits,
the
limits
must
be
linked
to
the
automatic
waste
feed
cutoff
system.
In
response
to
commenters'
concern
that
high
moisture
stack
gas
may
be
problematic
for
particulate
matter
detection
systems,
we
note
that
extractive
lightscattering
detectors
and
beta
gauge
detectors
can
effectively
operate
in
high
moisture
environments.
We
acknowledge,
however,
that
the
cost
of
these
extractive
detector
systems
is
substantially
higher
than
transmissometers
or
in
situ
light­
scattering
detectors.
Comment:
One
commenter
states
that
EPA
must
set
minimum
total
power
requirements
for
both
ionizing
wet
scrubbers
and
electrostatic
precipitators
because
allowing
permit
officials
to
establish
compliance
operating
parameters
on
a
site­
specific
basis
frustrates
the
intention
of
the
CAA
by
obviating
the
requirements
for
federal
standards.
The
commenter
asserts
that
a
minimum
total
power
requirement
is
monitorable,
recordable,
and
reportable,
three
requirements
that
are
necessary
for
these
facilities
to
come
into,
and
remain
in
compliance
with,
their
Title
V
operating
permits.

44
USEPA,
"
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Standards,
Volume
IV:
Compliance
with
the
HWC
MACT
Standards,"
September
2005,
Appendix
C.
48
Other
commenters
state
that
electrostatic
devices
are
not
easily
characterized
by
operating
parameters
in
a
"
one­
size­
fits­
all"
fashion.
The
significant
operating
parameters
for
electrostatic
devices
are
secondary
voltage,
secondary
current,
and
secondary
power
(
the
product
of
the
first
two
items).
The
relationship
between
these
parameters
and
performance
of
the
unit
differ
between
applications
and
unit
types.
For
example,
inlet
field
power
can
increase
as
unit
performance
appears
to
decrease.
In
this
case,
an
operating
parameter
other
than
secondary
power
by
field
would
be
more
appropriate.
The
commenter
notes
that,
in
its
various
proposals
over
the
years,
EPA
has
discussed
a
number
of
approaches
to
establish
operating
parameter
limits
for
electrostatic
devices,
including:
minimum
total
secondary
power;
minimum
secondary
power
by
field;
pattern
of
increasing
power
from
inlet
to
outlet
field;
and
minimum
secondary
power
of
the
last
1/
3
of
fields
(
or
the
last
field).
Commenters
have
also
proposed:
minimum
specific
power
(
secondary
power
divided
by
flue
gas
flow
rate);
minimum
secondary
voltage
and/
or
secondary
current;
and
total
secondary
voltage
and/
or
secondary
current.
The
commenter
concludes
that
it
is
not
surprising
that
there
is
so
little
agreement
on
the
right
approach,
because
different
units
and
applications
respond
differently.
EPA's
proposal
to
let
facilities
and
local
regulators
determine
the
best
approach
is
far
wiser
than
regulating
from
a
distance.
Response:
We
agree
with
the
commenters
that
state
that
it
is
not
practicable
to
establish
operating
parameter
limits
that
would
effectively
ensure
performance
of
all
electrostatic
devices.
Accordingly,
the
final
rule
continues
to
allow
sources
to
establish
site­
specific
operating
parameter
limits
for
these
devices.
We
disagree
with
the
commenter's
assertion
that
site­
specific
operating
parameter
limits
obviate
the
requirements
for
federal
standards.
The
site­
specific
operating
parameter
limits
merely
reflect
the
truism
that
no
two
sources
are
identical
and
so
what
each
needs
to
do
to
comply
with
the
uniform
standards
may
differ.
The
final
rule
provides
consistent,
federally­
enforceable
emission
standards.
Necessary
flexibility
in
compliance
assurance
for
those
emission
standards
does
not
undermine
the
uniformity
of
those
standards.
In
addition,
we
disagree
with
the
commenter's
concern
that
without
a
minimum
power
limit,
there
will
be
no
monitorable,
recordable,
and
reportable
Title
V
permit
limits
for
electrostatic
devices.
To
the
contrary,
site­
specific
operating
parameter
limits
can
and
will
be
monitored,
recorded,
reported,
and
linked
to
the
automatic
waste
feed
cut­
off
system.
And,
if
a
source
elects
to
use
a
particulate
matter
detection
system
in
lieu
of
establishing
site­
specific
operating
parameter
limits,
the
detector
response
will
be
monitored,
recorded,
reported,
and
linked
to
requirements
to
take
corrective
measures
if
the
alarm
set
point
is
exceeded.
Comment:
One
commenter
asserts
that
the
use
of
electrostatic
precipitator
total
power
input
data
(
sum
of
the
product
of
kilovolts
times
milliamps
for
each
electrostatic
precipitator
field)
is
one
acceptable
approach
as
a
site­
specific
parameter
to
monitor
electrostatic
precipitator
performance.
Limits
on
power
input
for
each
field
(
or
particular
fields)
are
not
warranted.
Response:
A
limit
on
total
power
input
to
a
multifield
electrostatic
device
is
generally
not
an
acceptable
operating
parameter
for
compliance
assurance.
We
have
documented
that
when
total
power
input
was
held
constant
for
a
four­
field
electrostatic
precipitator
while
the
power
input
to
the
fourth
field
was
decreased,
emissions
of
particulate
matter
doubled
from
0.06
gr/
dscf
to
0.12
gr/
dscf.
See
66
FR
at
35143
(
July
3,
49
2001).
Thus,
if
the
total
power
input
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
were
used
as
the
operating
parameter
limit,
particulate
matter
emissions
could
exceed
the
emission
standard
because
of
changes
in
other
parameters
that
were
not
limited
even
though
total
power
input
did
not
exceed
the
parametric
limit.
Notwithstanding
our
concern
that
a
limit
on
total
power
input
to
a
multifield
electrostatic
device
is
generally
not
an
effective
operating
parameter
for
compliance
assurance,
this
does
not
preclude
you
from
documenting
to
the
permitting
authority
that
total
power
input
is
an
effective
compliance
assurance
parameter
for
your
source.
See
§
63.1209(
m)(
1)(
iv).
Comment:
Several
commenters
suggest
that
the
rule
should
offer
various
approaches
to
establish
an
achievable
particulate
matter
detection
system
alarm
level
on
a
site­
specific
basis
in
lieu
of
the
approach
we
proposed
(
i.
e.,
average
detector
response
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test):
(
1)
use
the
2
times
the
maximum
peak
height
or
3
times
the
baseline
concepts
developed
in
EPA's
bag
leak
detection
guidance
documents;
(
2)
allow
spiking
to
set
the
alarm
set
point
given
that
PS
11
allows
for
spiking
as
a
way
to
calibrate
PM
CEMs;
(
3)
establish
the
limit
as
the
99th
percentile
upper
prediction
limit
of
the
average
response
during
each
performance
test
run
instead
of
the
average
of
the
test
run
averages;
(
4)
allow
upward
extrapolation
from
the
average
of
the
test
run
averages
to
some
percentage
of
the
particulate
matter
emissions
standard
(
fraction
could
be
variable
depending
upon
how
close
to
the
standard
the
facility
is
during
the
compliance
test);
or
(
5)
set
the
alarm
point
at
the
maximum
test
run.
Response:
We
agree
with
several
of
the
commenters'
suggestions:
explicitly
allowing
spiking
(
and
emission
control
device
detuning)
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
to
maximize
controllable
operating
parameters
to
simulate
the
full
range
of
normal
operations;
and
upward
extrapolation
of
the
detector
response.
See
discussion
below.
The
final
rule
is
consistent
with
commenters'
suggestion
to
establish
the
alarm
level
for
particulate
matter
detection
systems
on
fabric
filters
based
on
the
concepts
in
the
Agency's
guidance
document
on
bag
leak
detection
systems.
Commenters
made
this
suggestion
in
response
to
our
request
for
comments
on
requiring
particulate
matter
detection
systems
on
fabric
filters
and
establishing
the
alarm
level
based
on
the
detector
response
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test.
See
69
FR
at
21347.
The
final
rule
requires
bag
leak
detection
systems
on
all
fabric
filters
and
suggests
that
you
establish
the
alarm
level
using
concepts
in
the
bag
leak
detection
system
guidance.
45
45
Note
that
a
bag
leak
detection
system
is
a
type
of
particulate
matter
detection
system
for
purposes
of
this
discussion.
A
triboelectric
detector
is
normally
used
for
a
bag
leak
detector
system
because
it
is
very
inexpensive
and
has
a
low
detection
limit.
A
triboelectric
detector
meets
the
criterion
for
a
particulate
matter
detector
in
a
particulate
matter
detection
system
in
that
it
detects
relative
mass
emissions
of
particulate
matter
within
the
range
of
normal
emission
concentrations.
(
Note
further,
however,
that
a
triboelectric
detector
cannot
be
correlated
to
particulate
matter
concentrations
and
thus
cannot
be
used
as
a
particulate
matter
CEMS.
Note
also
that
a
triboelectric
detector
cannot
be
used
on
sources
equipped
with
electronic
control
devices.)
The
alarm
level
for
a
bag
leak
detection
system
would
be
established
using
the
concepts
discussed
in
the
Agency's
guidance
document
on
bag
leak
detection
systems.
The
alarm
level
for
a
particulate
matter
detection
system
used
on
a
fabric
filter,
however,
(
preferable
with
a
detector
other
than
a
tribolectric
device
that
could
be
correlated
to
PM
concentrations)
would
be
established
based
on
the
detector
response
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test.
50
Neither
the
suggestion
to
establish
the
alarm
level
at
the
99th
percentile
upper
prediction
limit
(
UPL99)
based
on
the
average
response
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
runs
nor
the
suggestion
to
establish
the
alarm
level
at
the
maximum
test
run
response
would
control
PM
emissions
at
the
level
achieved
during
the
performance
test
or
provide
some
assurance
that
the
PM
standard
was
not
being
exceeded,
unless
the
detector
response
is
correlated
to
PM
concentrations.
For
example,
if
the
detector
response
does
not
relate
linearly
to
PM
concentration
(
or
if
the
response
changes
w/
changes
in
particulate
characteristics),
the
UPL99
detector
response
could
relate
to
a
much
higher
(
e.
g.,
99.9th
percentile)
PM
concentration.
In
addition,
even
if
the
detector
response
were
correlated
to
PM
concentration,
there
is
no
assurance
that
the
correlation
would
be
consistent
over
the
range
of
the
average
detector
response
during
the
performance
test
to
the
UPL99
detector
response.
Note
that
under
PS­
11
for
PM
CEMS,
even
after
complying
with
rigorous
procedures
to
correlate
the
detector
response
to
PM
concentrations,
the
detector
response
may
be
extrapolated
only
to
125%
of
the
highest
PM
concentration
used
for
the
correlation.
Thus,
the
final
rule
does
not
use
these
approaches
to
establish
the
alarm
level.
If
you
elect
to
use
a
particulate
matter
detection
system
in
lieu
of
site­
specific
operating
parameters
for
your
electrostatic
precipitator
or
ionizing
wet
scrubber,
you
must
establish
the
alarm
level
using
either
of
two
approaches.
See
Appendix
C
of
USEPA,
"
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Standards,
Volume
IV:
Compliance
with
the
HWV
MACT
Standards,"
September
2005.
Under
either
approach,
you
may
maximize
controllable
operating
parameters
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
to
simulate
the
full
range
of
normal
operations
(
e.
g.,
by
spiking
the
ash
feedrate
and/
or
detuning
the
electrostatic
device).
46
You
may
establish
the
alarm
set­
point
as
the
average
detector
response
of
the
test
condition
averages
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test.
Alternatively,
you
may
establish
the
alarm
set
point
by
extrapolating
the
detector
response.
Under
the
extrapolation
approach,
you
must
approximate
the
correlation
between
the
detector
response
and
particulate
matter
emission
concentrations
during
an
initial
correlation
test.
You
may
extrapolate
the
detector
response
achieved
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
(
i.
e.,
average
of
the
test
condition
averages)
to
the
higher
of:
(
1)
a
response
that
corresponds
to
50%
of
the
particulate
matter
emission
standard;
or
(
2)
a
response
that
correlates
to
125%
of
the
highest
particulate
matter
concentration
used
to
develop
the
correlation.
To
establish
an
approximate
correlation
of
the
detector
response
to
particulate
matter
emission
concentrations,
you
should
use
as
guidance
Performance
Specification­
11
for
PM
CEMS
(
40
CFR
Part
60,
Appendix
B),
except
that
you
need
only
conduct
only
5
runs
to
establish
the
initial
correlation
rather
than
a
minimum
of
15
runs
required
by
PS­
11.
In
addition,
the
final
rule
requires
you
to
conduct
an
annual
Relative
Response
Audit
(
RRA)
for
quality
assurance
as
required
by
Procedure
2
 
Quality
Assurance
Requirements
for
Particulate
Matter
Continuous
Emission
Monitoring
Systems
at
46
Note,
however,
that
bypassing
or
detuning
an
emission
control
system
could
cause
PM
stratification
and
could
make
it
difficult
to
pass
the
PS­
11
performance
criteria
you
use
as
guidelines
for
a
PMDS.)
51
Stationary
Sources,
Appendix
F,
Part
60.47
The
RRA
is
required
on
only
a
3­
year
interval,
however,
after
you
pass
two
sequential
annual
RRAs.
The
rule
requires
only
minimal
correlation
testing
because
the
particulate
matter
detection
system
is
used
for
compliance
assurance
only
 
as
an
indicator
for
reasonable
assurance
that
an
emission
standard
is
not
exceeded.
The
particulate
matter
detection
system
is
not
used
for
compliance
monitoring
 
as
an
indicator
of
continuous
compliance
with
an
emission
standard.
Because
particulate
matter
detection
system
correlation
testing
and
quality
assurance
is
much
less
rigorous
than
the
requirements
of
PS­
11
for
a
PM
CEMS,
the
particulate
matter
detection
system
response
cannot
be
used
as
credible
evidence
of
exceedance
of
the
emission
standard.

D.
Fugitive
Emissions
Comment:
A
commenter
does
not
support
EPA's
proposed
approach
to
allow
alternative
techniques
that
can
be
demonstrated
to
prevent
fugitive
emissions
without
the
use
of
instantaneous
pressure
limits
given
that
the
CAA
requires
continuous
compliance
with
the
standards
and
given
positive
pressure
events
can
result
in
fugitive
emissions,
irrespective
of
facility
design.
Response:
Rotary
kilns
can
be
designed
to
prevent
fugitive
emissions
during
positive
pressure
events.
As
stated
in
the
February
14,
2002
final
rule,
and
subsequently
in
the
April
20,
2004
proposed
rule,
there
are
state­
of­
the­
art
rotary
kiln
seal
designs
(
such
as
those
with
shrouded
and
pressurized
seals)
which
are
capable
of
handling
positive
pressures
without
fugitive
releases.
See
67
FR
at
6973
and
69
FR
at
21340.
We
have
included
documentation
of
such
kiln
designs
in
the
docket.
48
Instantaneous
combustion
zone
pressure
limits
thus
may
not
be
necessary
to
assure
continuous
compliance
with
these
fugitive
emission
control
requirements.
Our
approach
to
allow
alternative
techniques
that
have
been
demonstrated
to
prevent
fugitive
emissions
is
therefore
reasonable
and
appropriate.
We
note
that
these
alternative
techniques
must
be
reviewed
and
approved
by
the
appropriate
delegated
regulatory
official.
49
Comment:
A
commenter
disagrees
with
EPA's
clarification
that
fugitive
emission
control
requirements
apply
only
to
fugitives
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste,
given
that
the
CAA
does
not
distinguish
between
HAP
emissions
that
come
from
hazardous
waste
streams
and
other
HAP
emissions.
Response:
The
fugitive
emission
control
requirements
in
today's
final
rule
originated
from
the
RCRA
hazardous
waste
combustion
fugitive
emission
control
requirements
for
incinerators
and
boilers
and
industrial
furnaces.
50
The
primary
focus
of
these
RCRA
requirements
is
to
ensure
hazardous
waste
treatment
operations
are
47
You
perform
an
RRA
by
collecting
three
simultaneous
reference
method
PM
concentration
measurements
and
PM
CEMS
measurements
at
the
as­
found
source
operating
conditions
and
PM
concentration.

48
See
USEPA,
"
Technical
Support
Document
for
the
HWC
MACT
Standards,
Volume
IV:
Compliance
With
the
HWC
MACT
Standards,"
September
2005,
Section
10.
49
See
§
63.1206(
c)(
5)(
i)(
C)
and
(
D).
50
See
§
266.102(
e)(
7)
and
§
264.345(
d).
52
conducted
in
a
manner
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
51
It
is
therefore
appropriate
to
clarify
that
the
intent
of
this
requirement
is
to
control
fugitive
emission
releases
from
the
combustion
of
hazardous
waste.
Furthermore,
MACT
requirements
for
source
categories
that
do
not
combust
hazardous
waste
(
e.
g.,
industrial
boilers,
Portland
cement
kilns,
and
commercial
and
industrial
solid
waste
incinerators)
do
not
have
combustion
chamber
fugitive
emission
control
requirements
for
the
non­
hazardous
waste
inputs
or
outputs
(
e.
g.,
clinker
product
for
cement
kilns
or
coal
and
natural
gas
fuels
for
industrial
boilers).
We
have
previously
taken
the
position
that
emissions
not
affected
by
the
combustion
of
hazardous
waste
(
e.
g.,
clinker
coolers,
raw
material
handling
operations,
etc.)
are
regulated
pursuant
to
the
applicable
nonazardous
waste
MACT
rules.
52,
53
We
conclude
the
clarification
that
the
fugitive
emission
control
requirements
applies
only
to
fugitive
emissions
that
result
from
the
combustion
of
hazardous
waste
is
appropriate
because
it
regulates
emissions
attributable
to
nonhazardous
waste
streams
to
the
same
level
of
stringency
that
otherwise
would
apply
if
the
source
did
not
combust
hazardous
waste.
54
Comment:
A
commenter
states
that
the
instantaneous
monitoring
requirements
are
inappropriate
because
1)
EPA
has
not
demonstrated
that
the
average
of
the
top
12%
of
boilers
are
capable
of
operating
with
no
instantaneous
deviations
from
the
negative
pressure
requirements;
and
2)
these
requirements,
though
not
standards
themselves,
effectively
increase
the
stringency
of
the
standard
itself
beyond
what
even
the
best
available
technology
can
achieve.
Response:
As
previously
discussed,
the
fugitive
emission
control
requirements
included
in
today's
rule
originated
from
the
RCRA
hazardous
waste
combustion
chamber
fugitive
emission
control
requirements.
These
provisions
allow
sources
to
control
fugitive
emissions
by
"
maintaining
the
combustion
zone
pressure
lower
than
atmospheric
pressure,
or
an
alternative
means
of
control
equivalent
to
maintenance
of
combustion
zone
pressure
lower
than
atmospheric
pressure."
All
sources
that
must
comply
with
the
provisions
of
this
rule
are,
or
were,
required
to
control
fugitive
emissions
from
the
combustion
unit
pursuant
to
RCRA.

51
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.
§
3004(
q)
of
RCRA
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.
52
See
69
FR
at
21203
and
64
FR
at
52871,
and
§
63.1206(
b)(
1)(
ii)
53
Portland
cement
manufacturing
facilities
that
combust
hazardous
waste
are
subject
to
both
Subpart
EEE
and
Subpart
LLL,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
facilities
that
combust
hazardous
waste
may
be
subject
to
both
Subpart
EEE
and
Subpart
NNNNN.
In
these
instances
Subpart
EEE
controls
HAP
emissions
from
the
cement
kiln
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnace
stack
(
and
also
fugitive
emissions
from
the
combustion
chamber),
while
Subparts
LLL
and
NNNNN
would
control
HAP
emissions
from
other
operations
that
are
not
directly
related
to
the
combustion
of
hazardous
waste
(
e.
g.,
clinker
cooler
emissions
for
cement
production
facilities,
and
hydrochloric
acid
product
transportation
and
storage
for
hydrochloric
acid
production
facilities).
54
This
issue
has
little
relevance
given
that
the
measures
taken
to
control
the
fugitive
emissions
from
the
combustion
of
hazardous
waste
will
also
control
the
fugitive
emission
associated
with
other
feedstreams.
53
The
monitoring
requirements
in
today's
rule
do
not
increase
the
stringency
of
the
standard
beyond
what
the
best
available
technology
can
achieve.
Although
we
do
not
have
data
that
confirm
negative
pressure
is
being
maintained
on
an
instantaneous
basis
(
as
we
define
it)
55
for
at
least
12
percent
of
the
boilers,
we
believe
this
is
current
practice
and
readily
achievable
by
most
sources.
56
These
requirements
have
been
in
force
for
many
years,
and
there
is
no
basis
for
stating
that
they
are
unachievable
(
EPA
is
not
aware
of
industrywide
noncompliance
with
these
provisions,
the
necessary
premise
of
the
comment).
First,
maintaining
negative
pressure
is
the
option
that
most
boilers
elect
to
implement
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
RCRA
fugitive
emission
control
requirements.
Second,
negative
pressure
is
readily
achieved
on
an
instantaneous
basis
in
boilers
through
use
of
induced
draft
fans.
Third,
the
requirements
we
are
finalizing
today
for
boilers
are
identical
to
the
fugitive
emission
control
requirements
that
hazardous
waste
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
are
currently
complying
with
pursuant
to
the
EEE
interim
standard
regulations.
See
§
63.1206(
c)(
5).
Most
of
these
sources
maintain
negative
combustion
chamber
pressure
through
use
of
induced
draft
fans,
providing
further
evidence
that
continuously
maintaining
combustion
zone
pressure
lower
than
ambient
pressure
is
readily
achievable
by
well
designed
and
operated
boilers.
57
We
note
that
use
of
instantaneous
pressure
monitoring
is
not
a
requirement.
A
source
can
elect
to
implement
any
of
the
four
compliance
options
to
control
combustion
system
leaks
as
well
as
request
to
use
alternative
monitoring
approaches.
See
§
§
63.1206(
c)(
5)
and
63.1209(
g).
The
instantaneous
pressure
monitoring
option
offers
sources
a
method
that
satisfies
the
intent
of
the
rule
that
can
be
applied
at
numerous
sources.
The
inclusion
of
this
requirement
in
today's
rule
is
thus
an
attempt
to
simplify
the
review
process
for
both
regulators
and
affected
sources;
the
absence
of
prescriptive
compliance
options
in
this
case
may
likely
result
in
time­
consuming
sitespecific
negotiations
that
would
prolong
the
review
and
approval
of
comprehensive
performance
test
workplans.
Comment:
A
commenter
believes
that
requiring
an
instantaneous
waste­
feed
cutoff
when
these
pressure
excursions
occur
is
short­
sighted
and
will
result
in
greater
HAP
emissions.
The
commenter
recommends
EPA
instead
allow
the
use
of
reasonable
pressure
averaging
periods
in
lieu
of
instantaneous
pressure
requirements.
Response:
As
discussed
in
the
February
14,
2002
Final
Amendments
Rule,
automatic
waste
feed
cutoffs
are
appropriate
non­
compliance
deterrents,
and
are
necessary
whenever
an
operating
limit
is
exceeded.
See
67
FR
at
6973.
Pressure
excursions
that
result
in
combustion
system
leaks
(
and
subsequently
lead
to
automatic
waste
feed
cutoffs)
should
be
prevented
by
maintaining
negative
pressure
in
the
combustion
zone.
We
agree
that
needless
triggering
of
automatic
waste
feed
cutoffs
due
to
short
term
pressure
fluctuations
that
do
not
result
in
combustion
system
leaks
would
provide
less
environmental
protection,
not
more.
Today's
rule
offers
three
alternative
55
The
February
14,
2002
Final
Amendments
Rule
clarifies
that
that
a
reasonable
pressure
monitoring
frequency
that
could
meet
the
intent
of
"
instantaneous"
would
be
once
every
second.
See
67
FR
at
6974.
56
Commenters
did
not
provide
data
to
the
contrary.
57
The
commenter
did
not
provide
information
that
would
lead
us
to
conclude
that
these
requirements
are
harder
to
implement
for
boilers
than
for
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
54
options
that
do
not
require
the
use
of
instantaneous
pressure
monitoring
to
control
combustion
system
leaks.
See
§
63.1206(
c)(
5).
The
use
of
averaging
periods
in
these
alternatives
is
not
prohibited.
Sources
that
elect
to
use
an
alternative
compliance
option
must
demonstrate
that
the
alternative
method
is
equivalent
to
maintaining
combustion
zone
pressure
lower
than
ambient
pressure
or,
that
the
alternative
approach
prevents
fugitive
emissions.

E.
Notification
of
Intent
to
Comply
and
Compliance
Progress
Report
1.
Notice
of
Intent
to
Comply
In
the
NPRM,
we
proposed
to
re­
institute
the
Notification
of
Intent
to
Comply
(
NIC)
because
we
felt
that
it
offered
many
benefits
in
the
early
stages
of
MACT
compliance.
As
discussed
in
the
1998
"
fast
track"
rule
(
63
FR
33782)
and
in
the
proposal,
the
NIC
serves
several
purposes:
as
a
planning
and
communication
tool
in
the
early
implementation
stages,
to
compensate
for
lost
public
participation
opportunities
when
using
the
RCRA
streamlined
permit
modification
procedure
to
make
upgrades
for
MACT
compliance,
and
as
a
means
to
share
information
and
provide
public
participation
opportunities
that
would
be
lost
when
new
units
are
not
required
to
comply
with
certain
RCRA
permit
requirements
and
performance
standards.
Please
refer
to
the
proposal
at
69
FR
21313­
21316
for
additional
discussion
of
the
regulatory
history,
purpose,
and
implementation
of
the
NIC
provisions.
Overall,
most
commenters
supported
our
decision
to
finalize
NIC
provisions.
However,
they
also
feel
that
the
NIC
should
only
be
required
for
sources
that
have
not
completed
a
NIC
previously
(
i.
e.,
Phase
2
sources
or
Phase
1
sources
that
did
not
meet
the
previous
NIC
deadline)
and
for
sources
that
need
to
make
upgrades
to
comply
with
the
final
standards
(
i.
e.,
either
Phase
1
or
Phase
2).
They
suggest
that
if
sources
do
not
need
to
make
upgrades,
then
they
should
not
be
required
to
complete
the
NIC
process,
if
they
had
done
so
previously.
To
require
a
second
NIC
would
only
add
to
the
administrative
burden
and
is
not
in
line
with
Agency
efforts
to
reduce
reporting
burdens.
We
agree
that
if
Phase
1
sources
do
not
need
to
make
upgrades
to
comply
with
the
Replacement
Standards
and
if
they
completed
the
NIC
process
before,
then
it
is
not
necessary
to
do
so
again.
In
addition
to
the
comment
discussed
above,
a
few
commenters
proposed
that
for
sources
who
must
still
comply
with
the
NIC
because
they
wish
to
make
upgrades,
that
the
NIC
public
notice
be
combined
with
the
Title
V
re­
opening
or
renewal
public
notice.
They
point
out
that
sources
with
existing
Title
V
permits
will
have
their
permits
reopened
or
renewed
to
incorporate
the
new
applicable
requirements
(
i.
e.,
Phase
1
Replacement
or
even
Phase
2
Standards)
shortly
after
the
NIC
public
notice
and
meeting
are
to
occur.
Title
V
permit
re­
openings
and
renewals
require:
public
notice,
a
minimum
of
30
days
for
comment,
and
an
opportunity
to
request
a
hearing.
While
we
do
agree
that
the
Title
V
re­
opening
and
renewal
requirements
provide
adequate
information
to
the
public
and
an
opportunity
for
the
public
to
comment
and
request
a
hearing,
we
are
concerned
that
the
timing
requirements
for
the
NIC
may
not
correspond
with
the
timing
requirements
for
title
V
permit
reopenings,
revisions,
and
renewals.
The
public
review
of
the
draft
NIC
and
subsequent
public
meeting
are
scheduled
to
occur
9
and
10
months,
respectively,
after
the
rule's
effective
date.
On
the
other
hand,
Title
V
permits
for
major
sources
that
have
a
remaining
permit
term
of
55
greater
than
3
years
from
the
rule's
promulgation
date
will
need
to
be
re­
opened,
but
this
re­
opening
may
not
occur
until
18
months
beyond
the
promulgation
date
of
the
rule.
Also,
Title
V
permits
that
have
a
remaining
permit
term
of
less
than
3
years
from
the
rule's
promulgation
date
will
need
to
be
renewed,
but
the
timing
of
the
renewal
is
contingent
upon
the
individual
permit
term,
not
the
timing
requirements
for
public
review
of
the
draft
NIC
and
public
meeting.
Thus,
we
do
not
believe
there
is
ample
opportunity
to
combine
the
requirements
of
the
NIC
and
Title
V
process
for
the
vast
majority
of
sources.
58
Also,
those
sources
that
need
to
make
upgrades
to
comply
with
the
final
standards
and
that
need
to
modify
any
applicable
conditions
in
their
RCRA
permit
will
not
be
able
to
request
the
streamlined
modification
procedure
(
see
40
CFR
270.42(
j))
until
they
meet
the
NIC
requirements.
So
the
earlier
they
comply
with
the
NIC
requirements,
the
earlier
they
can
begin
upgrading
their
combustion
units.
Another
commenter
suggested
a
change
to
the
regulations
at
§
63.1210(
c)(
1)
to
account
for
sources
that
will
cease
burning
hazardous
waste
prior
to
or
on
the
compliance
date.
The
regulations,
as
proposed,
require
sources
to
hold
an
informal
public
meeting
to
discuss
anticipated
activities
described
in
the
draft
NIC
even
if
they
plan
to
cease
burning
hazardous
waste.
The
commenter
also
suggested
a
similar
change
to
§
63.1210(
b)(
2)
that
requires
the
draft
NIC
be
made
available
for
public
review
no
later
than
30
days
prior
to
the
public
meeting.
We
agree
with
the
commenter
that
it
does
not
make
sense
to
require
sources
that
intend
to
cease
burning
hazardous
waste
to
submit
a
NIC
that
discusses
anticipated
activities
that
will
allow
them
to
achieve
compliance
with
the
standards.
We
also
agree
that
it
is
not
necessary
for
those
sources
to
hold
an
informal
public
meeting,
since
there
are
no
MACT
compliance
activities
to
discuss.
However,
we
believe
that
the
public
should
be
provided
notice
of
the
draft
NIC
so
that
they
are
aware
of
the
source's
intentions
to
cease
burning
and
the
steps
(
and
key
dates)
the
source
will
undertake
to
stop
hazardous
waste
combustion
activities.
With
regard
to
Phase
2
sources,
we
had
proposed
that
all
Phase
2
sources
comply
with
the
same
NIC
requirements
as
the
Phase
1
sources.
Commenters
did
not
express
opinions
in
favor
or
against
the
NIC
for
Phase
2
sources.
We
believe
that
the
NIC
is
beneficial
in
several
respects.
As
mentioned
previously,
it
serves
as
a
planning
and
communication
tool
in
the
early
implementation
stages,
it
compensates
for
lost
public
participation
opportunities
when
using
the
RCRA
streamlined
permit
modification
procedure
to
make
upgrades
for
MACT
compliance,
and
it
is
a
tool
to
share
information
and
provide
public
participation
opportunities
that
would
be
lost
when
new
units
are
not
required
to
comply
with
certain
RCRA
permit
requirements
and
performance
standards.
Ultimately,
it
creates
more
public
confidence
in
the
permitting
process
and
so
promotes
a
more
stable
regulatory
environment.
For
today's
rule,
we
are
finalizing
our
decision
to
re­
institute
the
NIC
provisions
for
Phase
1
and
Phase
2
sources.
We
are
including
a
few
minor
changes
and
clarifications
to
improve
the
proposed
regulatory
language
based
on
commenters'
suggestions.
Section
63.1210(
b)
is
revised
so
that
Phase
1
sources
that
previously
58
We
recognize
that
there
may
be
instances
when
states
can
coordinate
the
Title
V
permit
re­
opening,
revision,
and
renewal
process
with
the
NIC
timeframe
requirements.
Where
this
is
possible,
we
encourage
states
(
or
other
permitting
authorities)
to
coordinate
the
two
processes.
By
coordinating
the
two,
duplication
with
respect
to
material
content
and
public
participation
would
be
eliminated
for
both
sources
and
states.
56
complied
with
the
NIC
requirements,
and
that
do
not
need
to
make
upgrades
to
comply
with
the
Replacement
Standards,
are
not
required
to
comply
with
the
NIC
again.
Sections
63.1210(
b)(
1)(
iv)
and
(
b)(
2)
have
been
revised
and
(
c)(
5)
has
been
added
so
that
sources
that
intend
to
cease
burning
hazardous
waste
prior
to
or
on
the
compliance
date
are
only
required
to
prepare
a
(
draft)
NIC,
make
a
draft
of
the
NIC
available
for
public
review
no
later
than
9
months
after
the
effective
date
of
the
rule,
and
submit
a
final
NIC
to
the
Administrator
no
later
than
one
year
following
the
effective
date
of
the
rule.
Last,
we
have
revised
language
in
§
63.1210(
b)
based
upon
a
commenter's
concerns
that
the
term
you
"
will"
implies
that
sources
are
required
meet
their
"
estimated"
dates
for
achieving
key
activities.
We
have
removed
"
will"
and
replaced
it
with
"
anticipate"
to
more
accurately
represent
the
objective
of
the
NIC,
which
is
for
sources
to
communicate
their
plans
for
complying
with
the
standards
in
two
years.
2.
Compliance
Progress
Report
In
the
proposal,
we
explained
why
we
thought
a
compliance
progress
report
would
be
beneficial.
In
short,
we
believed
it
would
help
regulatory
agencies
determine
whether
Phase
1
and
Phase
2
sources
were
making
sufficient
headway
in
their
efforts
to
meet
the
compliance
date.
The
progress
report
would
be
due
to
the
regulatory
agency
at
the
midway
point
of
the
3
year
compliance
period
and
would
serve
to
update
the
information
the
source
provided
in
its
NIC.
However,
because
we
do
not
have
any
experience
to
draw
upon
regarding
the
value
of
the
progress
report,
we
requested
comment
on
whether
or
not
it
should
be
required.
In
response
to
our
request
for
comment,
all
commenters
were
opposed
to
the
progress
report.
They
cited
several
reasons,
with
the
most
consistent
one
being
that
the
progress
report
serves
no
useful
purpose
and
imposes
unnecessary
additional
burdens
on
sources.
As
we
discussed
above,
sources
and
regulatory
agencies
will
be
focusing
on
the
NIC
as
well
as
initial
Title
V
applications,
re­
openings,
revisions,
and
renewals
during
this
three
year
compliance
period.
We
agree
with
the
commenter
who
noted
that
there
is
already
significant
interaction
between
sources
and
regulatory
authorities
during
this
period.
Furthermore,
we
learned
through
implementation
of
the
Interim
Standards
that
some
regulatory
agencies
found
it
difficult
to
manage
the
notices,
applications,
requests,
and
test
plans
that
were
due
prior
to
the
compliance
date.
Therefore,
we
have
decided
not
to
finalize
any
compliance
progress
report
requirements
for
today's
rule.

F.
Startup,
Shutdown,
and
Malfunction
Plan
Comment:
One
commenter
states
that
an
exceedance
of
a
standard
or
operating
requirement
during
a
malfunction
should
be
a
violation
not
only
because
source
owners
and
operators
need
an
incentive
to
minimize
exceedances
caused
by
malfunctions,
but
also
because
an
exemption
for
malfunction
periods
would
violate
the
plain
language
of
the
CAA.
The
commenter
notes
that
an
emission
standard
is
defined
by
42
U.
S.
C.
§
7602(
k)
as
a
standard
that
"
limits
the
quantity,
rate,
or
concentration
of
emissions
of
air
pollutants
on
a
continuous
basis,
including
any
requirement
relating
to
the
operation
of
maintenance
of
a
source
to
assure
continuous
emission
reduction,
and
any
design,
equipment,
work
practice
or
operational
standard 
."
The
commenter
concludes
that
a
standard
that
contains
a
malfunction
exemption
does
not
apply
"
on
a
continuous
basis"
as
required
by
the
statute.
Likewise,
the
commenter
concludes
that
an
exemption
for
startup
and
shutdown
periods
would
also
violate
this
unambiguous
statutory
language.
57
The
commenter
also
notes
that,
although
some
courts
have
held
that
a
technologybased
standard
must
provide
some
kind
of
an
exemption
for
unavoidable
technology
failures,
the
rationale
for
such
an
exemption
is
that
the
underlying
standard
is
based
on
the
performance
of
a
particular
control
technology
that
cannot
be
expected
to
function
properly
all
of
the
time.
The
commenter
believes
that
neither
the
rationale
nor
the
exemption
apply
to
section
112(
d)
standards,
which
are
not
based
on
the
performance
of
any
particular
technology
but
instead
must
reflect
the
"
maximum
degree
of
reduction"
that
can
be
achieved,
irrespective
of
the
measures
used
by
a
source
to
achieve
that
reduction.
CAA
§
112(
d)(
2).
The
commenter
states
that,
even
assuming
for
the
sake
of
argument
that
EPA
has
authority
to
depart
from
the
statutory
language
and
carve
out
a
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
exemption,
any
such
exemption
must
be
narrowly
drafted
to
apply
only
where
a
source
demonstrates
that
a
violation
was
unavoidable.
See,
e.
g.,
Marathon
Oil,
564
F.
2d
at
1272­
73.
As
EPA
recognizes,
emission
exceedances
that
occur
during
SSM
events
are
frequently
avoidable.
See
69
FR
at
21339/
3
(
noting
that
"
proper
operation
and
maintenance
of
equipment"
helps
avoid
exceedances
during
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
events),
69
FR
at
21339/
2
(
describing
the
industry
view
that
"
some"
exceedances
that
occur
due
to
malfunctions
are
unavoidable).
Thus,
the
commenter
concludes
that,
even
if
a
Marathon
Oil­
type
exemption
applies
to
a
§
112(
d)
standard,
it
would
be
unlawful
and
arbitrary
for
EPA
to
exempt
sources
from
liability
for
all
emission
exceedances
occurring
during
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
events.
Rather,
such
an
exemption
could
only
apply
where
a
source
demonstrates
that
a
given
exceedance
was
unavoidable.
Many
other
commenters
state
that
it
would
be
illegal
to
require
compliance
with
the
emission
standards
and
operating
requirements
during
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
events.
The
commenters
note
that
EPA
and
the
courts
have
long
recognized
that
technology
fails
at
times,
despite
a
source's
best
efforts
to
maintain
compliance.
For
this
reason,
the
courts
have
recognized
that
technology­
based
standards
such
as
EPA's
§
112(
d)(
2)
MACT
standards
must
account
for
such
unavoidable
technology
failures
if
the
standards
are
to
be
truly
"
achievable."
Thus,
the
standards
must
excuse
noncompliance
with
the
actual
emission
standards
during
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
events.
These
commenters
also
note
that
EPA
took
the
position
in
the
September
1999
final
MACT
rule
for
hazardous
waste
combustors
that
exceedance
of
an
operating
requirement
during
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
events
was
a
violation
if
hazardous
waste
remained
in
the
combustion
chamber.
The
commenters
note
that
industry
groups
challenged
the
rule,
and
while
the
D.
C.
Circuit
did
not
reach
this
issue
because
it
vacated
the
emission
standards,
it
pointed
out
that
"
industry
petitioners
may
be
correct
that
EPA
should
have
exempted
HWCs
from
regulatory
limits
during
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction,
permitting
sources
to
return
to
compliance
by
following
the
steps
of
a
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
filed
with
the
Agency."
CKRC
v.
EPA,
255
F.
3d
855,
872
(
2001).
Commenters
conclude
that,
after
reading
this
language,
EPA
officials
wisely
decided
that
hazardous
waste
combustors
should
not
be
required
to
meet
the
MACT
emission
standards
and
operating
limits
during
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
events.
Response:
We
agree
with
commenters
who
state
that
sources
must
be
exempt
from
technology­
based
emission
standards
and
operating
limits
during
startup,
shutdown,
58
and
malfunction
events.
Technology
is
imperfect
and
can
malfunction
for
reasons
that
are
not
reasonably
preventable.
The
regulations
must
provide
relief
for
such
situations.
We
believe
that
existing
case
law
supports
this
position.
See,
e.
g.,
Chemical
Mfr's
Ass'n
v.
EPA,
870
F.
2d
at
228­
230
(
daily
maximum
limitations
established
at
99th
percentile
reasonable
because
rules
also
provide
for
upset
defense
for
unavoidable
exceedances);
Marathon
Oil
v.
EPA,
541
F.
2d
at
1272­
73
(
acknowledged
by
commenter).
As
commenters
noted,
the
D.
C.
Circuit
also
intimated
in
CKRC
that
some
type
of
exception
from
compliance
with
standards
during
startup,
shutdown
and
malfunction
periods
was
required.
We
do
not
agree
with
the
commenter
who
contends
that
the
§
112(
d)
MACT
standards
are
not
technology­
based
standards
because
they
are
not
based
on
the
performance
of
any
particular
technology
but
instead
must
reflect
the
"
maximum
degree
of
reduction"
that
can
be
achieved,
irrespective
of
the
measures
used
by
a
source
to
achieve
that
reduction.
On
the
contrary,
the
standards
must
reflect
the
average
performance
of
the
best
performing
sources,
which
performance
is
achieved
using
technical
controls
 
air
pollution
control
devices,
and
for
some
pollutants,
hazardous
waste
feedrate
control.
Those
controls
can
fail
for
reasons
that
are
not
reasonably
preventable.
We
note
further
that
the
situation
was
the
same
in
the
Clean
Water
Act
cases
which
the
commenter
seeks
to
distinguish.
Like
section
112
(
d)
standards,
Clean
Water
Act
standards
are
technology­
based
(
reflecting
Best
Practicable
Technology
or
Best
Available
Technology,
see
CWA
sections
304
(
b)
and
301
(
b))
and
do
not
require
use
of
any
particular
type
of
technology.
See
also
Mossville,
370
F.
3d
at
1242
(
EPA
must
account
for
foreseeable
variability
in
establishing
MACT
floor
standards).
We
agree
with
the
commenter
who
states
that
any
exemption
from
the
emission
standards
and
operating
requirements
during
malfunctions
must
apply
only
where
a
source
demonstrates
that
a
violation
was
unavoidable.
We
note
that
the
term
malfunction
is
defined
in
§
63.2
as
"
any
sudden,
infrequent,
and
not
reasonably
preventable
failure
of
air
pollution
control
and
monitoring
equipment,
process
equipment,
or
a
process
to
operate
in
a
normal
or
usual
manner
which
causes,
or
has
the
potential
to
cause,
the
emission
limitations
in
an
applicable
standard
to
be
exceeded.
Failures
that
are
caused
in
part
by
poor
maintenance
or
careless
operation
are
not
malfunctions."
We
believe
this
definition
largely
addresses
the
commenter's
concern.
We
acknowledge,
however,
that
emissions
can
increase
during
malfunctions
and
potentially
exceed
the
standards
and
agree
that
exceedances
must
be
minimized.
Accordingly,
the
final
rule
(
and
the
current
rule
for
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns)
requires
that
sources
maintain
compliance
with
the
automatic
hazardous
waste
feed
cutoff
system
during
malfunctions
and
notify
the
permitting
authority
if
they
have
10
or
more
exceedances
of
an
emission
standard
or
operating
limit
during
a
6­
month
block
period
when
hazardous
waste
is
in
the
combustion
chamber.
See
§
63.1206(
c)(
2)(
v).
This
will
alert
the
permitting
authority
that
the
source's
operation
and
maintenance
plan
may
not
be
adequate
to
maintain
compliance
with
the
emission
standards
and
that
the
authority
may
need
to
direct
the
source
to
revise
the
plan
under
§
63.6(
e)(
3)(
vi).
Finally,
we
note
that
sources
must
report
all
excess
emissions
semiannually
under
§
63.10(
e)(
3)
if
an
emission
standard
or
operating
limit
is
exceeded,
including
during
malfunctions.
59
Comment:
One
commenter
states
that
any
exemption
for
emission
exceedances
during
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
events
would
violate
the
RCRA
mandate
for
standards
necessary
"
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment."
42
U.
S.
C.
6924(
a).
The
commenter
reasons
that,
because
EPA's
RCRA
standards
are
health­
based
rather
than
technology­
based,
no
unavoidability
defense
is
available.
Given
that
EPA
concludes
that
the
hazardous
waste
combustor
MACT
rule
satisfies
both
its
CAA
and
RCRA
mandates,
the
emission
standards
and
operating
requirements
cannot
be
waived
during
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
events.
Response:
We
agree
that
the
RCRA
mandate
to
ensure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
applies
at
all
times,
including
during
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
events.
Accordingly,
the
existing
MACT
requirements
for
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
give
sources
the
option
of
continuing
to
comply
with
RCRA
permit
requirements
to
control
emission
during
these
events,
or
to
comply
with
special
MACT
requirements
that
are
designed
to
be
proactive
and
reactive
and
intended
to
be
equivalent
to
the
incentive
to
minimize
emissions
during
these
events
provided
by
the
RCRA
requirements.
See
existing
§
63.1206(
c)(
2)(
ii).
The
special
MACT
requirements
require
sources
to
include
proactive
measures
in
the
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
to
minimize
the
frequency
and
severity
of
malfunctions
and
to
submit
the
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
to
the
permitting
authority
for
review
and
approval.
We
proposed
to
require
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
to
comply
with
those
same
provisions
providing
for
equivalence
between
the
two
sets
of
requirements,
and
promulgate
those
provisions
today
Comment:
One
commenter
states
that
the
rule
should
clarify
the
definitions
of
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunctions
to
preclude
sources
from
improperly
classifying
as
unavoidable
exceedances
those
exceedances
that
could
have
been
avoided
had
the
source
implemented
an
appropriate
operation
and
maintenance
plan.
Many
other
commenters
state
that
the
current
definitions
in
§
63.2
clearly
define
these
terms.
Response:
We
believe
the
definitions
of
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
are
clearly
defined
in
§
63.2,
and
combined
with
the
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
requirements,
will
preclude
sources
from
improperly
classifying
as
malfunctions
events
that
could
have
been
reasonably
prevented
by
following
appropriate
procedures
in
the
operation
and
maintenance
plan.
As
discussed
above,
the
definition
of
malfunction
clearly
states
that
failures
that
are
caused
in
part
by
poor
maintenance
or
careless
operation
are
not
malfunctions.
Comment:
One
commenter
states
that
all
stack
bypasses,
automatic
waste
feed
cutoffs,
and
excursions
from
the
operating
parameter
limits
should
be
considered
malfunctions.
Response:
All
failures
resulting
in
stack
bypasses,
automatic
waste
feed
cutoff,
and
excursions
from
the
operating
parameter
limits
are
not
malfunctions.
As
discussed
above,
failures
caused
in
part
by
poor
maintenance
or
careless
operation
are
not
malfunctions.
Comment:
One
commenter
states
that
the
rule
should
require
sources
to
expand
the
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
to
address
specific
proactive
measures
that
the
source
has
considered
and
is
taking
to
minimize
the
frequency
and
severity
of
malfunctions.
Many
other
commenters
believe
that
it
is
not
necessary
to
expand
the
60
scope
of
the
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
beyond
that
required
under
§
63.6(
e)(
3)
for
other
MACT
source
categories.
Response:
We
do
not
believe
that
it
is
necessary
to
expand
the
scope
of
the
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
generically
for
all
hazardous
waste
combustors
to
address
specific
proactive
measures
that
the
source
has
considered
and
is
taking
to
minimize
the
frequency
and
severity
of
malfunctions.
Imposing
additional
requirements
in
particular
situations
is
appropriate,
however.
For
example,
as
discussed
above,
this
expanded
plan
is
required
for
sources
that
elect
to
meet
the
RCRA
mandate
using
provisions
of
the
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan.
See
§
63.1206(
c)(
2)(
ii).
In
addition,
the
plan
with
expanded
scope
may
be
appropriate
for
sources
that
have
demonstrated
an
inability
to
minimize
malfunctions.
Consequently,
the
permitting
authority
should
consider
expanding
the
scope
of
the
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
on
a
site­
specific
basis
under
authority
of
§
63.6(
e)(
3)(
vii)
if
the
source
has
excessive
exceedances
during
malfunctions.
See
§
63.1206(
c)(
2)(
v)(
A)(
3)
defining
excessive
exceedances
during
malfunctions
and
requiring
reporting
of
the
exceedances
in
the
excess
emissions
report
required
under
§
63.10(
e)(
3).
Comment:
Two
commenters
state
that
all
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plans
should
be
submitted
for
review
and
approval
by
the
delegated
authority
and
made
available
for
a
60­
day
public
review
period.
Review
and
approval
of
the
plans
is
needed
in
light
of
EPA's
acknowledgment
that
most
excess
emissions
would
occur
during
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunctions.
One
of
these
commenters
also
believes
that
the
regulations
should
provide
for
the
public
review
period
to
be
extended
as
necessary
to
accommodate
a
thorough
public
review.
The
reviewing
authority
should
be
required
to
provide
a
written
response
to
public
comments
explaining
any
decision
to
reject
a
public
comment
suggesting
ways
for
a
facility
to
limit
emissions
during
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
events.
Many
other
commenters
have
concerns
with
requiring
review
and
approval
of
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plans,
except
as
required
under
§
63.1206(
c)(
2)(
ii)
for
sources
that
elect
to
meet
the
RCRA
mandate
using
provisions
of
the
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
as
discussed
above.
Response:
Commenters
express
the
same
views
here
that
they
expressed
under
the
rulemaking
the
Agency
recently
completed
to
revise
the
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
requirements
of
the
General
Provisions
applicable
to
all
MACT
source
categories.
See
68
FR
at
32589­
93
(
May
30,
2003).
EPA
concluded
in
that
final
rule
that
the
Administrator
may
at
any
time
request
in
writing
that
the
owner
or
operator
submit
a
copy
of
any
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
(
or
a
portion
thereof).
Upon
receipt
of
such
a
request,
the
owner
or
operator
must
promptly
submit
a
copy
of
the
requested
plan
(
or
a
portion
thereof)
to
the
Administrator.
In
addition,
the
Administrator
must
request
that
the
owner
or
operator
submit
a
particular
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
plan
(
or
a
portion
thereof)
whenever
a
member
of
the
public
submits
a
specific
and
reasonable
request
to
examine
or
to
receive
a
copy
of
that
plan
or
portion
of
a
plan.
These
provisions
to
provide
the
Administrator
and
the
public
with
access
to
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plans,
coupled
with
the
provisions
of
§
63.6(
e)(
3)(
vii)
under
which
the
Administrator
must
require
the
source
to
make
changes
to
a
deficient
plan,
should
ensure
that
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plans
are
complete
and
61
accurate.
We
note
that
under
§
63.6(
e)(
3)(
vii)
the
Administrator
must
require
the
source
to
revise
the
plan
if
the
plan:
(
1)
does
not
address
a
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
event
that
has
occurred;
(
2)
fails
to
operate
the
source
(
including
associated
air
pollution
control
and
monitoring
equipment)
during
a
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
event
in
a
manner
consistent
with
the
general
duty
to
minimize
emissions;
(
3)
does
not
provide
adequate
procedures
for
correcting
malfunctioning
process
and/
or
air
pollution
control
and
monitoring
equipment
as
quickly
as
practicable;
or
(
4)
includes
an
event
that
does
not
meet
the
definition
of
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
listed
in
§
63.2.
The
commenter
advocating
that
all
hazardous
waste
combustors
should
be
required
to
submit
their
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plans
for
review
and
approval
did
not
explain
why
the
concerns
the
Agency
expressed
in
the
General
Provisions
rulemaking
(
see
68
FR
at
32589­
93)
are
not
valid
for
hazardous
waste
combustors.
Accordingly,
we
do
not
believe
it
is
appropriate
to
deviate
from
the
General
Provisions
to
require
that
all
hazardous
waste
combustors
submit
their
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plans
for
review.

G.
Public
Notice
of
Test
Plans
1.
What
Are
the
Revised
Public
Notice
Requirements
for
Test
Plans?
Prior
to
the
proposal,
it
was
brought
to
our
attention
that
the
Agency
did
not
provide
any
direction
in
the
1999
final
rule
regarding
how
and
when
sources
should
notify
the
public,
what
the
notification
should
include,
or
where
and
for
how
long
performance
test
plans
should
be
made
available.
Consequently,
we
proposed
to
add
clarifying
language
to
the
§
63.1207(
e)(
2)
public
notification
requirement
for
approved
performance
test
and
CMS
performance
evaluation
test
plans
because
we
believe
that
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.
The
proposed
clarifications
are
based
upon
the
RCRA
Expanded
Public
Participation
Rule
(
60
FR
63417,
December
11,
1995)
requirements
for
public
notification
of
an
impending
trial
burn
test.
As
a
result,
we
did
not
feel
that
the
clarifications
imposed
any
new
or
additional
requirements
upon
sources
that
will
conduct
a
MACT
comprehensive
performance
test
or
confirmatory
performance
test.
Commenters
generally
supported
the
clarifications
to
the
public
notice.
59
However,
they
suggested
a
change
to
the
proposed
requirement
to
provide
notice
of
test
plan
approval
no
later
than
60
days
prior
to
conducting
the
test.
The
basis
for
suggesting
a
change
is
that
many
sources
had
not
received
approval
of
their
test
plans
60
days
prior
to
the
deadline
for
initiating
their
test
under
the
Interim
Standards.
Moreover,
several
sources
did
not
receive
approval
until
well
after
the
deadline
for
initiating
the
test.
The
problem
created
for
these
sources
is
that
the
required
60
day
notification
of
the
approved
test
plan
effectively
determines
when
the
source
will
be
able
to
begin
its
test.
In
other
words,
its
test
would
need
to
be
postponed
until
the
approved
test
plan
had
been
noticed
for
60
days.
Thus,
commenters
provided
several
possible
alternatives.
One
alternative
that
would
avoid
causing
delays
to
testing
is
to
require
the
public
notice
when
the
source
submits
its
test
plan.
Although
this
fulfills
the
notification
requirement,
this
alternative
has
a
shortfall:
the
notice
would
occur
at
least
one
year
59
See
69
FR
21347
 
21349.
62
(
barring
any
extensions)
in
advance
of
the
test
and
given
this
long
period
of
time,
the
test
plan
is
likely
to
be
modified
prior
to
approval.
A
second
alternative
is
to
provide
notice
of
the
test
plan
60
days
before
the
test
as
before,
but
regardless
of
approval
status.
This
alternative
is
improved
over
the
first,
but
still
faces
the
same
problem
of
potentially
not
offering
the
public
an
opportunity
to
view
a
final
approved
plan.
A
third
alternative
is
to
issue
notice
of
the
test
plan
as
soon
as
it
is
approved.
With
this
alternative,
the
public
will
have
the
most
up­
to­
date
information;
however,
it
may
not
be
until
a
few
days
prior
to
commencement
of
the
test.
Ideally,
the
second
and
third
alternatives
could
be
combined
to
provide
the
best
possible
chance
of
providing
the
public
with
an
approved
test
plan
in
a
reasonable
period
of
time
prior
to
the
test.
On
the
other
hand,
that
would
potentially
require
the
facility
to
issue
two
notices
if
the
test
plan
is
not
approved
60
days
prior
to
the
test.
We
do
not
believe
this
would
be
reasonable
given
that
sources
will
be
focused
on
activities
associated
with
the
impending
test.
In
consideration
of
practicality,
we
believe
that
the
second
alternative
provides
an
adequate
solution.
As
we
mentioned,
the
drawback
is
that
the
public
may
not
have
the
opportunity
to
view
an
approved
test
plan.
However,
we
believe
it
is
more
important
that
the
public
be
aware
of
a
source's
plans
(
i.
e.,
how
and
when)
for
conducting
the
performance
test.
60
This
way,
if
they
have
questions,
there
will
be
60
days
in
which
they
may
contact
the
regulatory
authority
or
the
source
before
the
test
is
scheduled
to
begin.
This
alternative
will
also
eliminate
the
conflict
associated
with
the
confirmatory
performance
test.
The
regulations
at
§
63.1207(
e)(
1)(
ii)
specify
that
a
source
must
submit
to
the
regulatory
authority
its
notice
of
intent
to
conduct
a
confirmatory
performance
test
and
the
applicable
test
plans
at
least
60
calendar
days
prior
to
the
date
the
test
is
to
begin.
Since
we
are
no
longer
requiring
that
the
test
plans
be
approved
before
issuing
public
notice,
sources
would
then
provide
notice
of
their
confirmatory
performance
test
plan
to
the
public
at
the
same
time
they
submit
their
notice
of
intent
and
test
plans
to
the
regulatory
authority.
Therefore,
we
are
requiring
that
sources
issue
the
public
notice
of
test
plans
60
days
in
advance
of
commencing
the
performance
test,
whether
their
test
plans
have
been
approved
or
not.
The
regulations
at
§
63.1207(
e)(
2)
have
been
revised
accordingly.
One
last
concern
related
to
the
public
notice
of
approved
test
plans
involves
sources
that
choose
to
conduct
a
performance
test
without
an
approved
test
plan
(
e.
g.,
both
time
extensions
provided
by
§
§
63.7(
h)
and
63.1207(
e)(
3)
have
expired
or
due
to
other
circumstances,
the
source
has
elected
to
begin
the
test
without
approval).
Because
we
did
not
believe
any
sources
would
choose
or
need
to
do
so,
we
did
not
propose
any
guidance
or
regulations
specific
to
issuing
notice
to
the
public
of
their
test
plans.
Nevertheless,
a
few
commenters
raised
this
possibility
indirectly
in
their
discussion
of
the
problematic
60
day
notice
of
approved
test
plan
requirement.
The
revised
proposal
addresses
this
concern
by
no
longer
requiring
that
test
plans
be
approved
before
issuing
public
notice.
Thus,
sources
that
choose
to
begin
their
test
without
an
approved
plan
will
have
complied
with
the
requirement
to
issue
public
notice.
Irrespective
of
the
public
notice
requirements
for
noticing
test
plans,
we
expect
that
sources
will
notify
their
60
We
expect
that
some
source's
test
plans
may
be
modified
after
notice
is
issued
and
prior
to
approval
or
commencement
of
their
test.
However,
even
under
the
previous
regulations,
test
plans
could
be
modified
after
they
had
been
approved
and
public
noticed.
It
is
often
a
necessary
consequence
as
sources
continue
to
prepare
the
combustion
unit
for
the
test.
63
regulatory
authority
of
their
decision
to
proceed
with
their
test
in
the
absence
of
plan
approval.
2.
What
Are
the
Revised
Public
Notice
Requirements
for
the
Petition
To
Waive
a
Performance
Test?
In
the
Final
Amendments
Rule
(
67
FR
6968,
February
14,
2002),
the
Agency
did
not
provide
direction
regarding
how,
when,
where,
and
what
should
be
included
in
the
public
notice
for
a
petition
for
time
extension
if
the
Administrator
fails
to
approve
or
deny
test
plans.
61
In
the
proposal,
we
believed
it
important
to
provide
clarification
regarding
when
the
notice
must
be
issued
and
what
it
should
contain.
Thus,
we
proposed
to
revise
paragraph
§
63.1207(
e)(
3)(
iv).
We
received
only
one
comment
in
response
to
the
proposed
requirements.
The
commenter
did
not
express
any
concern
over
the
requirements
themselves,
but
rather
suggested
a
change
to
terminology
used.
The
commenter
feels
that
the
terms
"
to
waive
a
performance
test"
or
"
waiver"
as
used
in
§
63.1207(
e)(
3)(
iv)
could
be
confusing
to
readers
when
we
are
actually
referring
to
a
time
extension
for
commencing
the
test.
Although
we
agree
the
terminology
could
be
confusing,
40
CFR
63.1207(
e)(
3)
clearly
uses
the
term
"
waiver"
in
the
context
of
an
extension
of
time
to
conduct
the
performance
test
at
a
later
date,
implying
that
the
deadline
can
be
waived
in
this
specific
situation.
The
use
of
the
term
waiver
is
derived
from
the
General
Provisions
requirements
for
requesting
a
waiver
of
performance
tests
(
§
63.7(
h)).
Thus,
§
63.7(
h)(
3)
provides
the
basis
by
which
sources
may
petition,
in
the
form
of
a
waiver,
for
a
time
extension
under
§
63.1207(
e)(
3).
In
consideration
of
the
above
and
that
the
existing
regulations
of
§
63.1207(
e)(
3)(
i)­(
iii)
consistently
use
the
term
waiver,
we
do
not
feel
that
a
change
to
§
63.1207(
e)(
3)(
iv)
is
warranted.

H.
Using
Method
23
Instead
of
Method
0023A
Comment.
Most
commenters
support
our
proposal
to
allow
the
use
of
Method
23
instead
of
Method
0023A
if
a
source
includes
this
request
in
the
comprehensive
test
plan
to
the
permitting
authority.
Some
commenters
believe
that
Method
23
should
be
allowed
in
all
cases
without
prior
approval
or
on
a
source
category
basis.
Response.
We
proposed
to
allow
sources
to
use
Method
23
for
dioxin
and
furan
testing
instead
of
SW­
846
Method
0023A
in
situations
where
the
enhanced
procedures
found
in
Method
0023A
would
not
increase
measurement
accuracy.
We
proposed
this
change
in
the
July
3,
2001,
proposed
rule,
and
again
in
the
April
20,
2004,
proposal.
See
66
FR
at
35137
and
69
FR
at
21342.
The
final
rule
promulgates
this
change
as
proposed.
See
§
63.1208(
b)(
1)(
i).
You
may
use
Method
23
in
lieu
of
Method
0023A
after
justifying
use
of
Method
23
as
part
of
your
performance
test
plan
that
must
be
reviewed
and
approved
the
delegated
permitting
authority.
You
may
be
approved
to
use
Method
23
considering
factors
including
whether
previous
Method
0023A
analyses
document
that
dioxin/
furan
are
not
detected,
are
detected
at
low
levels
in
the
front
half
of
Method
0023A,
or
are
detected
at
levels
well
below
the
emission
standard,
and
the
design
and
operation
of
the
combustor
has
not
changed
in
a
manner
that
could
increase
dioxin/
furan
emissions.
We
note
that
coal­
fired
boilers
and
combustors
equipped
with
activated
carbon
injection
systems
may
not
be
able
61
Sections
63.1207(
e)(
2)
and
(
e)(
3)
each
require
public
notice,
but
neither
had
provided
any
direction
on
how,
when,
where,
and
what
should
be
included
in
their
respective
notices
until
today's
final
rule.
64
to
support
use
of
Method
23,
however,
because
these
sources'
stack
gas
is
likely
to
contain
carbonaceous
particulate.
Thus,
these
sources
are
likely
to
benefit
the
most
from
using
Method
0023A.
The
final
rule
does
not
automatically
allow
use
of
Method
23
for
particular
source
categories
because
we
cannot
assess
whether
all
sources
in
a
category
meet
the
conditions
for
use
of
Method
23
 
generally
that
quality
assurance
may
not
be
improved­­
such
as
those
listed
above.
These
determinations
can
only
be
made
on
a
site
specific
basis
by
the
permitting
authority
most
familiar
with
the
particular
source.
Comment.
Commenters
do
not
believe
that
an
additional
petition
process
(
i.
e.,
under
§
63.1209(
g)(
1))
is
necessary
before
allowing
use
of
Method
23.
Instead,
EPA
should
require
that
the
use
of
Method
23
should
be
submitted
with
the
test
plan
to
the
regulatory
agency
for
approval.
Response.
We
agree
that
a
separate
petition
is
unnecessary.
Sources
should
include
a
justification
to
use
Method
23
in
the
performance
test
plan
that
is
submitted
for
review
and
approval.
This
will
allow
the
permitting
authority
to
determine
whether
use
of
Method
23
is
appropriate
for
the
source.
Comment.
Two
commenters
state
that
"
the
justification
of
the
use
of
Method
23
will
not
be
by
the
existing
system
of
a
petition
to
EPA,
but
will
be
included
as
a
part
of
the
performance
test
plan
that
is
submitted
to
the
delegated
regulatory
authority
for
review
and
approval.
This
means
that
the
expertise,
training,
and
decision­
making
will
not
be
consistent
across
the
country.
This
is
especially
a
problem
because
of
the
severe
resource,
training
and
staff
reductions
among
the
delegated
regulatory
authorities
across
the
country
and
from
region
to
region.
The
decision
to
allow
or
disallow
use
of
Method
23
should
come
specifically,
for
each
case,
from
EPA
consideration
of
the
submitted
justification,
based
on
the
knowledge
and
expertise
of
trained
and
experienced
EPA
staff.
This
is
important
for
uniformly
applying
the
testing
requirements
all
across
the
country."
Response.
We
disagree,
and
we
believe
the
responses
to
comments
in
today's
rule
make
clear
when
Method
23
is
an
acceptable
substitute
for
Method
0023A.
If
the
source
has
carbon
in
the
flue
gas,
as
is
the
case
with
coal­
fired
boilers,
boilers
with
carbon
injection,
and
other
sources
likely
to
have
a
substantial
amount
of
carbonaceous
particulate
matter
in
the
flue
gas,
Method
0023A
will
generally
be
preferable
because
it
includes
procedures
to
account
for
dioxin
and
furan
bound
to
carbonaceous
particulate
matter
found
in
the
probe
and
filter.
In
other
situations,
Method
23
will
generally
give
the
same
results
at
a
lower
cost.

I.
Extrapolating
Feedrate
Limits
for
Compliance
with
the
Liquid
Fuel
Boiler
Mercury
and
Semivolatile
Metal
Standards
Comment:
One
commenter
questions
whether
allowing
sources
to
extrapolate
metal
feedrates
downward
from
the
levels
achieved
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
to
establish
a
metal
feedrate
limit
will
ensure
compliance
with
the
emission
standards.
Response:
The
mercury
and
semivolatile
metals
standards
for
liquid
fuel
boilers
are
annual
average
emission
limits
where
compliance
is
established
by
a
rolling
average
mercury
feedrate
limit
with
an
averaging
period
not
to
exceed
an
annual
rolling
average
65
(
updated
hourly).
62
We
use
this
approach
because
the
emissions
data
used
to
establish
the
standards
are
more
representative
of
normal
emissions
than
compliance
test
emissions.
63
As
we
explained
at
proposal,
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
mercury
and
semivolatile
metal
emission
standards
for
liquid
fuel
boilers,
you
must
document
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
a
system
removal
efficiency
for
the
metals
and
backcalculate
from
the
emission
standard
a
maximum
metal
feedrate
limit
that
must
not
be
exceeded
on
an
(
not
to
exceed)
annual
rolling
average.
See
69
FR
at
21311­
12.
If
your
source
is
not
equipped
with
an
emission
control
system
(
such
as
activated
carbon
to
control
mercury)
for
the
metals
in
question,
however,
you
must
assume
zero
system
removal
efficiency.
This
is
because,
although
a
source
that
is
not
equipped
with
an
emission
control
system
may
be
able
to
document
a
positive
system
removal
efficiency
in
a
single
test,
that
removal
efficiency
is
not
likely
to
be
reproducible.
Rather,
it
is
likely
to
be
an
artifact
of
the
calculation
of
emissions
and
feeds
rather
than
a
removal
efficiency
that
can
reliably
be
repeated.
To
ensure
that
you
can
calculate
a
valid,
reproducible
system
removal
efficiency
for
sources
equipped
with
a
control
system
that
effectively
controls
the
metal
in
question,
you
may
need
to
spike
metals
in
the
feed
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
at
levels
that
may
result
in
emissions
that
are
higher
than
the
standard.
This
is
appropriate
because
compliance
with
an
emission
standard
derived
from
normal
emissions
data
is
based
on
compliance
with
an
(
not
to
exceed)
annual
average
feedrate
limit
calculated
as
prescribed
here,
rather
than
compliance
with
the
emission
standard
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test.
64
The
commenter
is
concerned
that
downward
extrapolation
from
the
levels
achieved
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
to
establish
a
metal
feedrate
limit
may
not
ensure
compliance
with
the
standard
because
system
removal
efficiency
may
be
lower
at
lower
feedrates.
This
is
a
valid
concern,
and
we
have
investigated
it
since
proposal.
We
conclude
that
downward
extrapolation
of
feedrates
for
the
purpose
of
complying
with
the
mercury
and
semivolatile
metals
emission
standards
for
liquid
fuel
boilers
will
ensure
compliance
with
the
emission
standards
under
the
conditions
discussed
below.
We
investigated
the
theoretical
relationship
between
stack
gas
emissions
and
feedrate
considering
vapor
phase
metal
equilibrium,
the
chlorine,
mercury,
and
62
If
you
select
an
averaging
period
for
the
feedrate
limit
that
is
greater
than
a
12­
hour
rolling
average,
you
must
calculate
the
initial
rolling
average
as
though
you
had
selected
a
12­
hour
rolling
average,
as
provided
by
§
63.1209
(
b)(
5)(
i).
This
is
reasonable
because
allowing
a
longer
period
of
time
before
calculating
the
initial
rolling
average
would
not
effectively
ensure
compliance
with
the
feedrate
limit.
You
must
calculate
rolling
averages
thereafter
as
the
average
of
the
available
one­
minute
values
until
enough
one­
minute
values
are
available
to
calculate
the
rolling
average
period
you
select.
We
note
that
this
is
an
approach
allowed
for
calculating
rolling
averages
under
different
modes
of
operation
at
§
63.1209(
q)(
2)(
ii).
At
that
time
and
thereafter,
you
update
the
rolling
average
feedrate
each
hour
with
a
60­
minute
average
feedrate.
63
See
USEPA,
``
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
HWC
MACT
Standards,''
September
2005,
Section
13.
64
The
emission
standard
accounts
for
long­
term
variability
by
incorporating
an
(
not
to
exceed)
annual
averaging
period
that
is
implemented
by
an
(
not
to
exceed)
annual
average
chlorine
feedrate
limit.
Thus,
because
the
emission
level
achieved
during
the
performance
test
relates
to
daily
(
or
hourly)
variability,
an
exceedance
of
the
emission
standard
during
the
test
is
not
a
violation.
66
semivolatile
metal
feedrates
for
liquid
fuel
boilers
in
our
data
base,
and
the
mercury
and
semivolatile
emission
standards
for
liquid
fuel
boilers.
65
We
considered
sources
equipped
with
dry
particulate
matter
controls
and
sources
equipped
with
wet
particulate
matter
controls.
Sources
Equipped
with
Dry
Controls.
For
sources
equipped
with
dry
controls
other
than
activated
carbon,
mercury
is
not
controlled.
Thus,
you
must
assume
zero
system
removal
efficiency.
Consequently,
if
you
are
in
the
low
Btu
subcategory
and
comply
with
the
mercury
standard
expressed
as
a
mass
concentration
(
ug/
dscm),
the
mercury
feedrate
limit
expressed
as
an
MTEC
(
maximum
theoretical
emission
concentration,
ug/
dscm)
is
equivalent
to
the
emission
standard.
66
If
you
are
in
the
high
Btu
subcategory
and
comply
with
the
mercury
standard
expressed
as
a
hazardous
waste
thermal
emission
concentration
(
lb/
MM
Btu),
the
mercury
feedrate
limit
expressed
as
a
hazardous
waste
thermal
feed
concentration
(
lb/
MM
Btu)
is
also
equivalent
to
the
emission
standard.
For
semivolatile
metals,
the
theoretical
relationship
between
emissions
and
feedrate
indicates
that
downward
extrapolation
introduces
only
a
trivial
error
 
0.17%
at
an
emission
rate
100
times
the
standard
irrespective
of
the
level
of
chlorine
present.
Id.
Nonetheless,
to
ensure
the
error
is
minimal
and
to
be
practicable,
you
should
limit
semivolatile
emissions
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
to
five
times
the
emission
standard.
Sources
Equipped
with
Wet
Scrubbers.
For
sources
equipped
with
wet
scrubbers,
we
conclude
that
the
approach
we
use
for
semivolatile
metals
for
dry
scrubbers
will
also
be
appropriate
to
extrapolate
a
semivolatile
metal
feedrate
limit
for
wet
scrubbers.
To
ensure
that
downward
extrapolation
of
the
feedrate
limit
is
conservative
and
to
be
practicable,
you
should
limit
semivolatile
metal
emissions
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
to
five
times
the
emission
standard.
For
mercury,
ensuring
control
with
wet
systems
is
more
complicated
because
the
level
of
chlorine
present
affects
the
formation
of
mercuric
chloride
which
is
soluble
in
water
and
easily
controlled
by
wet
scrubbers.
Elemental
mercury
has
very
low
solubility
in
scrubber
water
and
is
not
controlled.
The
worst­
case
situation
for
conversion
of
elemental
mercury
to
soluble
mercuric
chloride
would
be
when
the
chlorine
MTEC
is
lowest
and
the
mercury
MTEC
is
highest.
We
conclude
that
downward
extrapolation
of
mercury
feedrates
is
conservative
for
feedstreams
that
contain
virtually
no
chlorine,
e.
g.,
below
an
MTEC
of
100
ug/
dscm.
In
addition,
we
conclude
that
downward
extrapolation
is
appropriate67
for
boilers
feeding
chlorinated
feedstreams
provided
that
during
the
performance
test:
(
1)
scrubber
blowdown
has
been
minimized
and
the
scrubber
water
has
reached
steady­
state
levels
of
mercury
prior
to
the
test
(
e.
g.,
by
spiking
the
scrubber
water);
(
2)
scrubber
water
pH
is
minimized
(
i.
e.,
you
establish
a
minimum
pH
operating
limit
based
on
the
performance
test
as
though
you
were
establishing
a
compliance
65
USEPA,
``
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Standards,
Volume
IV:
Compliance
with
the
HWC
MACT
Standards,''
September
2005,
Section
2.5
and
Appendix
B.
66
Note,
however,
that
you
convert
the
MTEC
(
ug/
dscm)
to
a
mass
feedrate
(
lb/
hr)
by
considering
the
average
gas
flowrate
of
the
test
run
averages
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
to
simply
implementation
and
compliance.
67
Mercury
SRE
is
constant
as
the
mercury
feedrate
decreases.
67
parameter
for
the
total
chlorine
emission
standard);
and
(
3)
temperature
of
the
scrubber
water
is
maximized
(
i.
e.,
you
establish
a
maximum
scrubber
water
temperature
limit).

J.
Temporary
Compliance
with
Alternative,
Otherwise
Applicable
MACT
Standards
Comment:
One
commenter
requests
clarification
on
the
requirements
applicable
to
a
source
that
switches
to
an
alternative
mode
of
operation
when
hazardous
waste
is
no
longer
in
the
combustion
chamber
under
the
provisions
of
§
63.1206(
b)(
1)(
ii).
The
commenter
suggests
that
§
63.1206(
b)(
1)(
ii)
can
imply
that
the
complete
compliance
strategy
needs
to
be
switched
over
to
the
alternative
section
112
or
129
requirements,
even
though
compliance
with
the
Subpart
EEE
requirements
for
monitoring,
notification,
reporting,
and
recordkeeping
remains
environmentally
protective
under
Subpart
EEE.
For
example,
the
commenter
notes
that
§
63.1206(
b)(
1)(
ii)
could
be
incorrectly
interpreted
to
require
a
source
to
comply
with
illogical
requirements
when
the
source
temporarily
switches
to
alternative,
otherwise
applicable
standards,
including
standards
testing
and
opacity
monitoring
under
the
alternative
section
112
or
129
requirements.
The
commenter
states
that
this
interpretation
makes
little
sense
because
a
source
that
temporarily
changes
its
mode
of
operation
will
continue
to
do
testing
under
Subpart
EEE,
Part
63,
or,
in
the
case
of
opacity,
the
alternative
section
112
requirements
for
cement
kilns
would
necessarily
require
duplicate
systems
and
compliance
with
redundant
limits
because
a
source
may
already
be
using
a
bag
leak
detection
system
or
a
particulate
matter
detection
system.
The
commenter
suggests
only
requiring
sources
to
comply
with
the
otherwise
applicable
emission
standards
under
the
alternative
section
112
or
129
requirements
while
still
operating
under
the
various
associated
compliance
requirements
of
Subpart
EEE,
part
63.
Response:
The
commenter
requests
clarification
of
§
63.1206(
b)(
1)(
ii),
which
states
that
if
a
source
is
not
feeding
hazardous
waste
to
the
combustor
and
the
hazardous
waste
residence
time
has
expired
(
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),
then
the
source
may
elect
to
comply
temporarily
with
alternative,
otherwise
applicable
standards
promulgated
under
the
authority
of
sections
112
and
129
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
68
As
we
have
explained
in
previous
notices69,
sources
that
elect
to
invoke
§
63.1206(
b)(
1)(
ii)
to
become
temporarily
exempt
from
the
emission
standards
and
operating
requirements
of
Subpart
EEE,
Part
63,
remain
an
affected
source
under
Subpart
EEE
(
and
only
Subpart
EEE)
until
the
source
is
no
longer
an
affected
source
by
meeting
the
requirements
specified
in
Table
1
of
§
63.1200.
Of
course,
a
source
can
elect
not
to
use
the
alternative
requirements
for
compliance
during
periods
when
they
are
not
feeding
hazardous
waste,
but,
if
so,
the
source
must
comply
with
all
of
the
operating
and
68
Examples
include
40
CFR
part
60,
subparts
CCCC
and
DDDD
for
commercial
and
industrial
solid
waste
incinerators,
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
LLL
for
Portland
cement
manufacturing
facilities,
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
DDDDD
for
industrial/
commercial/
institutional
boilers
and
process
heaters,
and
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
NNNNN
for
hydrochloric
acid
production
facilities.
69
This
provision
has
been
discussed
in
several
Federal
Register
notices
including
64
FR
at
52904
(
September
30,
1999),
66
FR
at
35090,
35145
(
July
3,
2001),
67
FR
at
6979
(
February
14,
2002),
and
69
FR
at
21203
(
April
20,
2004).
68
monitoring
requirements
and
emission
standards
of
Subpart
EEE
at
all
times.
70
To
implement
§
63.1206(
b)(
1)(
ii)
a
source
defines
the
period
of
compliance
with
the
otherwise
applicable
sections
112
and
129
requirements
as
an
alternative
mode
of
operation
under
§
63.1209(
q).
In
order
to
be
exempt
from
the
emission
standards
and
operating
requirements
of
Subpart
EEE,
a
source
documents
in
the
operating
record
that
they
are
complying
with
the
otherwise
applicable
Section
112
and
129
requirements
specified
under
§
63.1209(
q).
The
commenter
recommends
that
the
complete
compliance
strategy
need
not
be
switched
over
to
the
alternative
section
112
and
129
requirements
when
temporarily
switching
to
the
alternative
standards.
In
general,
we
disagree.
The
intent
of
§
63.1206(
b)(
1)(
ii)
is
to
ensure
that
a
source
is
complying
with
all
requirements
of
sections
112
and
129
as
an
alternative
mode
of
operation
in
lieu
of
the
requirements
under
Subpart
EEE.
In
the
1999
final
rule
we
stated
that
the
source
must
comply
with
all
otherwise
applicable
standards
under
the
authority
of
sections
112
and
129.
Specifically,
the
source
must
comply
with
all
of
the
applicable
notification
requirements
of
the
alternative
regulation,
comply
with
all
of
the
monitoring,
recordkeeping,
and
testing
requirements
of
the
alternative
regulation,
modify
the
Notice
of
Compliance
(
or
Documentation
of
Compliance)
to
include
the
alternative
mode(
s)
of
operation,
and
note
in
the
operating
record
the
beginning
and
end
of
each
period
when
complying
with
the
alternative
regulation.
See
64
FR
at
52904.
A
source
that
elects
to
comply
with
otherwise
applicable
standards
under
§
63.1206(
b)(
1)(
ii)
must
specify
all
requirements
of
those
standards,
not
only
the
emission
standards
applicable
under
the
sections
112
and
129
standards,
but
also
the
associated
monitoring
and
compliance
requirements
and
notification,
reporting,
and
recordkeeping
requirements
in
the
operating
record
under
§
63.1209(
q).
The
commenter
suggests
that
a
source
should
be
able
to
comply
with
the
otherwise
applicable
emission
standards,
while
continuing
to
operate
under
the
associated
compliance
requirements
for
the
HAP
under
Subpart
EEE.
An
example
would
be
a
cement
kiln
source
complying
with
the
dioxin
and
furan
monitoring
requirements
under
§
63.1209(
k)
of
Subpart
EEE
for
the
dioxin
and
furan
standards
under
§
63.1343(
d)
under
Subpart
LLL.
We
did
not
determine,
when
promulgating
the
provisions
of
§
§
63.1206(
b)(
1)(
ii)
and
63.1209(
q)(
1),
that
the
monitoring
provisions
under
Subpart
EEE
are
equivalent
to
the
associated
monitoring
requirements
under
the
otherwise
applicable
112
and
129
standards,
or
indeed,
whether
they
are
even
well­
matched.
Such
a
determination
would
require
notice
and
opportunity
for
comment,
which
we
have
not
provided.
However,
this
should
not
be
interpreted
to
mean
that
a
similar
determination
could
not
be
made
on
a
site­
specific
basis
given
that
the
MACT
general
provisions
allow
a
source
to
request
alternative
monitoring
procedures
under
§
63.8(
f)(
4).
Certainly,
a
source
can
apply
under
this
provision
that
the
compliance
requirements
under
Subpart
EEE
satisfy
the
associated
monitoring
requirements
under
the
otherwise
applicable
112
and
129
standards.
We
also
disagree
with
the
commenter
that
emissions
testing
under
the
alternative
standards
of
sections
112
and
129
is
an
example
of
an
illogical
requirement
under
§
63.1206(
b)(
1)(
ii).
Performance
testing
generally
is
required
to
demonstrate
compliance
70
However,
the
operating
requirements
do
not
apply
during
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
provided
that
hazardous
waste
is
not
in
the
combustion
chamber.
See
§
63.1206(
b)(
1)(
i).
69
with
the
emission
standards
and
to
establish
limits
on
specified
operating
parameters
to
ensure
compliance
is
maintained.
In
order
to
take
advantage
of
the
alternative
under
§
63.1206(
b)(
1)(
ii),
a
source
needs
to
show
that
compliance
with
and
establish
operating
parameter
limits
for
the
otherwise
applicable
standards
of
sections
112
and
129.
Thus,
testing
in
order
to
establish
operating
parameter
limits
will
be
necessary.
However,
this
does
not
mean
that
a
separate
performance
test
with
the
alternative
sections
112
or
129
standards
is
necessarily
required.
We
note
that
a
source
can
make
use
of
the
performance
test
waiver
provision
under
§
63.7(
h)
of
the
general
provisions
to
request
that
the
performance
test
under
the
alternative
sections
112
and
129
standards
be
waived
because
the
source
is
meeting
the
relevant
standard(
s)
on
a
continuous
basis
by
continuing
to
comply
with
Subpart
EEE
for
the
relevant
HAP.
This
approach
may
be
practicable
for
sources
that
can
demonstrate
that
their
level
of
performance
during
testing
under
Subpart
EEE,
including
the
associated
operating
and
monitoring
limits,
will
undoubtedly
ensure
continuous
compliance
with
the
emissions
standards
and
the
associated
operating
limits
of
alternative
sections
112
and
129
standards.
Finally,
the
commenter
notes
that
Subpart
LLL
(
the
alternative
section
112
standards
for
cement
kilns)
includes
opacity
monitoring
while
Subpart
EEE
may
not.
The
commenter
states
that
this
unnecessarily
would
require
duplicate
systems
and
compliance
with
redundant
limits
because
of
the
bag
leak
detection
and
particulate
matter
detection
system
requirements
under
Subpart
EEE.
We
respond
that
Subpart
LLL
specifies
opacity
as
a
standard
(
see
§
63.1343(
b)(
2)),
and,
therefore,
cement
kilns
subject
to
Subpart
EEE
must
comply
with
the
opacity
standard
when
electing
to
comply
temporarily
with
the
requirements
of
Subpart
LLL.
We
note
that
the
opacity
standard
under
Subpart
EEE
does
not
apply
to
cement
kilns
that
are
equipped
with
a
bag
leak
detection
system
under
§
63.1206(
c)(
8)
and
to
sources
using
a
particulate
matter
detection
system
under
§
63.1206(
c)(
9).
However,
a
cement
kiln
may
use
an
opacity
monitor
that
meets
the
detection
limit
requirements
as
the
detector
for
a
bag
leak
detection
system
or
particulate
matter
detection
system.
See
Part
Four,
Section
VIII.
A­
C
of
the
preamble.

K.
Periodic
DRE
Testing
and
Limits
on
Minimum
Combustion
Chamber
Temperature
for
Cement
Kilns
Comment:
Several
commenters
oppose
the
need
for
cement
kilns
that
burn
at
locations
other
than
the
normal
flame
zone
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
standard
during
each
comprehensive
performance
test.
These
commenters
recommend
that
EPA
remove
the
requirement
of
§
63.1206(
b)(
7)(
ii)
for
cement
kilns
citing
that
existing
rule
provisions
(
i.
e.,
the
requirements
under
§
63.1206(
b)(
5)
pertaining
to
changes
that
may
adversely
affect
compliance)
are
sufficient
to
require
additional
DRE
testing
after
changes
are
made
that
may
adversely
affect
combustion
efficiency.
Commenters
question
EPA's
position
that
cement
kilns
that
burn
hazardous
waste
at
locations
other
than
the
normal
flame
zone
demonstrate
a
variability
in
DRE
sufficient
to
justify
the
expense
of
re­
testing
for
DRE
with
each
performance
test.
Commenters
point
to
EPA's
data
base
that
includes
DRE
results
from
over
30
tests
with
nearly
250
runs
showing
consistent
DRE
results,
including
sources
burning
hazardous
waste
at
locations
other
than
the
normal
flame
zone,
being
achieved
by
cement
kilns.
The
commenters
note
several
burdens
associated
with
DRE
testing
that
do
not
result
in
improved
environmental
benefit
including
the
purchase
of
70
expensive
exotic
virgin
chemicals
for
performance
testing,
the
risks
to
workers
and
contractors
associated
with
the
handling
of
these
chemicals,
and
increasing
the
length
of
operation
at
stressful
kiln
operating
conditions
necessary
to
conduct
DRE
testing
at
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperatures.
Alternatively,
commenters
recommend
that
EPA
revise
the
DRE
requirements
such
that
periodic
testing
is
no
longer
required
for
cement
kilns
(
that
burn
at
locations
other
than
the
normal
flame
zone)
after
they
have
successfully
achieved
the
DRE
standard
over
multiple
testing
cycles
(
e.
g.,
two
or
three)
under
similar
testing
regimes.
That
is,
the
source
should
only
be
required
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
DRE
standard
a
maximum
of
two
or
three
times
until
the
source
(
that
burns
at
locations
other
than
the
normal
flame
zone)
modifies
the
system
in
a
manner
that
could
affect
the
ability
of
it
to
achieve
the
DRE
standard.
Response:
We
are
revising
the
requirements
of
§
63.1206(
b)(
7)(
ii)
such
that
cement
kilns
that
feed
hazardous
waste
at
locations
other
than
the
normal
flame
zone
need
only
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
DRE
standard
during
three
consecutive
comprehensive
performance
tests
provided
that
the
source
has
successfully
demonstrated
compliance
with
the
DRE
standard
in
each
test
and
that
the
design,
operation,
and
maintenance
features
of
each
of
the
three
tests
are
similar.
These
revisions
do
not
affect
sources
that
burn
hazardous
waste
only
in
the
normal
flame
zone.
71
Prior
to
today's
change,
we
required
sources
that
feed
hazardous
waste
in
locations
other
than
the
flame
zone
to
perform
periodic
DRE
testing
every
5
years
to
ensure
that
the
DRE
standard
continues
to
be
achieved
over
the
life
of
the
unit.
See
§
63.1206(
b)(
7)(
ii).
We
justified
this
requirement
because
of
concerns
that
sources
that
feed
hazardous
waste
at
locations
other
than
the
flame
zone
have
a
greater
potential
of
varying
DRE
performance
due
to
their
hazardous
waste
firing
practices.
As
we
stated
in
the
1999
rule,
we
were
concerned
that
the
DRE
may
vary
over
time
due
to
the
design
and
operation
of
the
hazardous
waste
firing
system,
and
that
those
variations
may
not
be
identical
or
limited
through
operating
limits
set
during
a
single
DRE
test
(
similar
to
what
we
concluded
for
sources
that
burn
hazardous
waste
only
in
the
normal
flame
zone).
See
64
FR
at
52850.
Commenters
now
question
the
need
for
subsequent
DRE
testing
at
cement
kilns
that
feed
hazardous
waste
at
locations
other
than
the
normal
flame
zone
once
a
cement
kiln
demonstrates
compliance
with
the
MACT
DRE
standard.
The
regulatory
requirement
for
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
standard
has
proved
to
be
an
effective
method
to
determine
appropriate
process
controls
necessary
for
the
combustion
of
hazardous
waste.
We
are
not
convinced
that
only
one
DRE
test
is
sufficient
to
ensure
that
a
cement
kiln
that
burns
hazardous
waste
at
locations
other
than
the
normal
flame
zone
will
continue
to
meet
the
DRE
standard
because
temperatures
are
lower
and
gas
residence
times
are
shorter
at
the
other
firing
locations.
This
is
especially
true
given
the
industry
trend
to
convert
to
the
more
thermally
efficient
preheater/
precalciner
kiln
manufacturing
process.
72
Precalciner
kilns
use
a
secondary
firing
system
(
i.
e.,
flash
71
The
DRE
demonstration
for
these
sources
need
be
made
only
once
during
the
operational
life
of
a
source,
either
before
or
during
the
initial
comprehensive
performance
test,
provided
that
the
design,
operation,
or
maintenance
features
do
not
change
in
a
manner
that
could
reasonably
be
expected
to
affect
the
ability
to
meet
the
DRE
standard.
See
§
§
63.1206(
b)(
7)
and
63.1207(
c)(
2)(
ii).
The
source
would
ensure
continued
compliance
by
operating
under
the
operating
parameter
limits
established
during
this
DRE
test.
72
For
example,
Ash
Grove
Cement
in
Chanute,
KS
replaced
their
two
wet
process
cement
kilns
with
one
preheater/
precalciner
kiln
in
2001.
Holcim
Inc
in
Holly
Hill,
SC
has
also
recently
constructed
a
new
71
furnace)
at
the
base
of
the
preheater
tower
to
calcine
the
raw
material
feed
outside
the
rotary
kiln.
This
results
in
two
separate
combustion
processes
that
must
be
controlled
 
one
in
the
kiln
and
the
other
in
the
flash
furnace.
The
gas
temperature
necessary
for
calcining
the
limestone
raw
material
in
the
flash
furnace
is
lower
than
the
temperature
required
making
the
clinker
product.
We
conclude,
therefore,
that
it
is
necessary,
in
spite
of
the
concerns
raised
by
commenters,
to
retain
periodic
DRE
testing
to
ensure
continued
compliance
with
the
DRE
standard
necessary
for
the
control
of
nondioxin/
furan
organic
HAP.
We
also
acknowledge,
however,
the
concerns
raised
by
the
commenters.
Our
DRE
data
base
of
operating
cement
kilns
includes
results
from
approximately
25
DRE
tests
and
nearly
200
runs.
73
All
data
show
compliance
with
the
DRE
standard.
Of
these,
approximately
one­
quarter
of
the
data
are
from
cement
kilns
that
burned
hazardous
waste
at
locations
other
than
the
normal
flame
zone
(
e.
g.,
injecting
waste
at
midkiln
in
a
wet
process
kiln),
but
we
do
not
have
DRE
results
from
every
operating
cement
kiln.
Considering
available
DRE
data
and
the
concerns
of
the
commenters,
we
believe
that
DRE
testing
during
three
consecutive
comprehensive
performance
tests
is
sufficient
to
provide
needed
certainty
about
DRE
performance
while
reducing
the
overall
costs
and
toxic
chemical
handling
concerns
to
the
regulated
source.
Thus,
we
are
revising
the
requirements
of
§
63.1206(
b)(
7)(
ii)
such
that
cement
kilns
that
feed
hazardous
waste
at
locations
other
than
the
normal
flame
zone
need
only
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
DRE
standard
during
three
consecutive
comprehensive
performance
tests
provided
that
the
source
has
successfully
demonstrated
compliance
with
the
DRE
standard
in
each
test
and
that
the
design,
operation,
and
maintenance
features
of
each
of
the
three
tests
are
similar.
If
a
facility
wishes
to
operate
under
new
operating
parameter
limits
that
could
be
expected
to
affect
the
ability
to
meet
the
DRE
standard,
then
the
source
would
need
to
conduct
another
DRE
test.
Once
the
facility
has
conducted
another
three
DRE
tests
under
the
new
operating
limits,
then
subsequent
DRE
testing
would
not
be
required.
Accordingly,
we
are
revising
the
requirements
of
§
63.1206(
b)(
7)(
ii).
Comment:
Several
commenters
support
EPA's
proposal
to
delete
the
requirement
to
establish
an
operating
limit
on
the
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature
for
dioxin/
furans
under
§
63.1209(
k)(
1)
for
cement
kilns.
These
commenters
point
to
the
high
temperatures
of
approximately
2500
°
F
required
to
make
the
clinker
product.
These
high
temperatures
are
fixed
by
the
reaction
kinetics
and
thermodynamics
occurring
in
the
burning
zone
and
cannot
be
reduced
below
minimum
values
at
the
whim
of
the
operator
and
still
make
a
marketable
product.
In
addition
to
deleting
the
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature
limit
for
dioxin/
furans,
commenters
also
recommend,
for
similar
reasons,
that
EPA
delete
the
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature
requirement
under
§
63.1209(
j)(
1)
associated
with
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
standand.
Commenters
note
that
demonstrating
the
minimum
temperature
requires
operating
under
stressful
operating
conditions
that
can
lead
to
upset
conditions
and
potentially
damage
the
integrity
of
the
manufacturing
equipment.
Other
commenters
oppose,
however,
deletion
preheater/
precalciner
kiln
to
replace
two
wet
process
cement
kilns.
Keystone
Cement
Company
in
Bath,
PA
is
considering
replacing
their
two
wet
process
cement
kilns
with
a
new
preheater/
precalciner
kiln.
See
docket
item
OAR­
2004­
0022­
0384.
73
US
EPA,
"
Final
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards
and
Technologies,"
Section
23.4,
September
2005.
72
of
the
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature
limit
for
cement
kilns.
These
commenters
state
that
all
combustion
sources,
including
cement
kilns,
must
meet
a
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature
limit
to
control
dioxin/
furans
and
organic
HAP
emissions
given
that
some
cement
kilns
feed
hazardous
waste
at
locations
other
than
the
high
temperature
clinker­
forming
zone
of
the
kiln.
Response:
We
are
deleting
as
proposed
the
requirement
to
establish
a
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature
limit
for
dioxin/
furan
under
§
63.1209(
k)(
2)
for
cement
kilns.
See
69
FR
at
21343.
However,
we
retain
the
requirement
for
cement
kilns
to
establish
and
comply
with
a
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature
limit
for
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
standard
under
§
63.1209(
j)(
1).
74
As
discussed
in
the
1999
rule,
nondioxin/
furan
organic
hazardous
air
pollutants
are
controlled
by
the
DRE
standard
and
the
carbon
monoxide
and
hydrocarbon
standards.
See
64
FR
at
52848­
852.
This
standard
was
not
reopened
in
the
present
rulemaking.
We
note,
however,
that
the
DRE
standard
determines
appropriate
process
controls
necessary
for
the
combustion
of
hazardous
waste.
Establishing
and
monitoring
a
minimum
temperature
of
the
combustion
chamber
is
a
principal
factor
in
ensuring
combustion
efficiency
and
destruction
of
toxic
organic
compounds.
As
discussed
in
the
previous
response,
we
believe
this
is
especially
true
given
the
industry
trend
to
convert
to
the
more
thermally
efficient
preheater/
precalciner
kiln
manufacturing
process,
which
use
two
separate
combustion
processes.
We
conclude
that
it
is
necessary,
in
spite
of
the
concerns
raised
by
commenters,
to
retain
the
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature
limit
as
related
to
the
DRE
standard
to
ensure
that
combustion
efficiency
within
the
entire
kiln
system
is
maintained
for
the
control
of
nondioxin/
furan
organic
HAP.
However,
we
acknowledge
the
difficulties
that
cement
kiln
operators
face
in
establishing
a
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature
limit,
including
the
stressful
operating
conditions
necessary
to
establish
the
limit.
As
we
stated
at
proposal,
our
data
indicate
that
limiting
the
gas
temperature
at
the
inlet
to
the
particulate
matter
control
device
is
a
critical
parameter
in
controlling
dioxin/
furan
emissions
in
cement
kilns.
See
69
FR
at
21344.
Therefore,
we
believe
that
an
operating
limit
on
the
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature
is
less
important
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
dioxin/
furan
standard
than
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
DRE
standard.
Thus,
we
remove
the
requirement
to
establish
a
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature
limit
for
dioxin/
furan
under
§
63.1209(
k)(
2)
for
cement
kilns.
This
change
does
not
affect
the
other
operating
parameter
limits
under
§
63.1209(
k)
that
must
be
established
for
dioxin/
furans,
including
a
limit
on
the
gas
temperature
at
the
inlet
to
the
particulate
matter
control
device.
Comment:
One
commenter
supports
the
use
of
previous
minimum
combustion
zone
temperature
data,
regardless
of
the
test
age,
in
lieu
of
conducting
new,
stressful
74
Under
the
interim
standards,
cement
kilns
must
establish
and
continuously
monitor
limits
on
minimum
gas
temperature
in
the
combustion
zone
for
both
the
dioxin/
furan
and
DRE
standards.
As
discussed
in
the
preceding
paragraph,
a
source
may
not
need
to
conduct
DRE
testing
during
each
comprehensive
performance
test.
If
DRE
testing
is
required,
then
the
source
will
need
to
establish
a
minimum
combustion
zone
temperature
limit
as
required
under
the
DRE
standard.
However,
if
DRE
testing
is
not
required,
then
(
according
to
the
changes
made
today)
the
cement
kiln
will
not
be
required
to
establish
the
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature
limit
under
the
dioxin/
furan
standard
during
a
subsequent
comprehensive
performance
test.
The
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature
operating
limit
established
during
previous
testing
remains
in
effect,
however.
73
DRE
testing.
That
is,
if
a
cement
kiln
is
required
to
conduct
future
DRE
tests,
then
the
source
should
not
have
to
re­
establish
a
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature
limit
during
the
new
test.
Rather,
the
source
should
have
the
option
to
submit
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature
results
in
lieu
of
re­
establishing
the
limit.
Response:
We
reject
the
commenter's
suggestion
for
reasons
discussed
above.
We
believe
that
it
is
necessary
to
retain
the
link
between
the
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature
limit
and
the
DRE
test
itself,
which
will
ensure
that
the
combustion
efficiency
of
the
entire
system
will
be
maintained
for
the
control
of
nondioxin/
furan
organic
HAP.
Comment:
One
commenter
supports
deletion
of
the
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature
requirement
for
dioxin/
furan
under
§
63.1209(
k)(
2)
for
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
Response:
We
reject
the
commenter's
suggestion.
Our
data
base
of
dioxin/
furan
emissions
data
shows
substantial
variability
in
test
results
at
each
source.
75
This
may
indicate
that
factors
other
than
limiting
kiln
exit
gas
temperatures
may
be
influencing
significantly
dioxin/
furan
formation
in
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
As
such,
we
conclude
that
removing
the
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature
limit
would
not
be
appropriate
at
this
time
due
to
the
uncertain
nature
of
dioxin/
furan
formation
in
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
Thus,
we
are
retaining
the
requirement
to
establish
a
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature
limit
for
dioxin/
furans
under
§
63.1209(
k)(
2)
and
§
63.1209(
j)(
1)
for
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.

L.
One
Time
Dioxin
and
Furan
Test
for
Sources
Not
Subject
to
a
Numerical
Limit
for
Dioxin
and
Furan
Comment.
Commenters
support
the
one­
time
dioxin/
furan
test
for
sources
not
subject
to
a
numerical
dioxin
and
furan
standard.
Commenters
agree
that
previous
testing
should
be
allowed
to
document
the
one
time
test.
Response.
The
final
rule
requires
sources
that
are
not
subject
to
a
standard
with
numerical
dioxin
and
furan
levels76
to
conduct
a
one­
time
dioxin
and
furan
test
as
part
of
their
initial
comprehensive
performance
testing:
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
that
elect
to
control
the
gas
temperature
at
the
kiln
exit
rather
than
comply
with
a
dioxin/
furan
standard
of
0.20
ng
TEQ/
dscm,
solid
fuel
boilers,
liquid
fuel
boilers
with
wet
or
no
air
pollution
control
systems,
and
HCl
production
furnaces.
We
will
use
these
data
as
part
of
the
process
of
addressing
residual
risk
under
CAA
section
112(
f)
and
evaluating
future
MACT
standards
under
section
112(
d)(
6).
The
results
may
also
be
used
as
part
of
the
RCRA
omnibus
permitting
process.
Comment.
EPA
proposed
that
source
not
subject
to
a
numerical
dioxin
and
furan
limit
conduct
a
dioxin
and
furan
test
under
worst­
case
conditions.
Commenters
state
that
operating
under
worst­
case
conditions
is
inconsistent
with
the
CAA
Section
112(
f)

75
For
example,
dioxin/
furan
emissions
from
source
number
307
range
from
a
low
of
0.024
to
a
high
of
57.9
ng
TEQ/
dscm.
See
"
Source
Category
Summary
Sheets"
available
in
the
docket
or
USEPA,
"
Final
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Standards,
Volume
II:
HWC
Data
Base,"
September
2005.
76
These
sources
do,
however,
need
to
comply
with
the
carbon
monoxide
or
hydrocarbon
standards,
as
well
as
the
DRE
standard
as
surrogates
to
comply
with
today's
dioxin
and
furan
emissions
control
requirements.
74
process,
which
is
to
consider
actual
(
i.
e.,
normal)
emissions.
Commenters
suggest
that
we
require
the
tests
be
conducted
under
normal
to
above
normal
conditions.
Response.
Section
112
(
f)
standards
evaluate
allowable
emission
levels,
although
actual
emissions
levels
may
also
be
considered.
See
70
FR
at
19998­
999
(
April
15,
2005).
Although
we
agree
with
the
commenter
that,
in
general,
emissions
in
the
range
of
normal
to
maximum
are
considered
for
section
112(
f)
determinations,
we
believe
that
dioxin/
furan
testing
to
provide
information
of
use
in
section
112(
f)
residual
risk
determinations
should
be
conducted
under
conditions
where
controllable
operating
conditions
are
maximized
to
reflect
the
full
range
of
expected
variability
of
those
parameters
which
can
be
controlled.
This
is
because
dioxin/
furan
emissions
may
relate
exponentially
with
the
operating
conditions
that
affect
formation.
We
believe
that
dioxin/
furan
emissions
relate
exponentially
with
gas
temperature
at
the
inlet
to
an
ESP
or
fabric
filter,
77
and
are
concerned
that
emissions
may
also
relate
exponentially
with
the
operating
parameters
(
discussed
below)
that
affect
emissions
from
sources
subject
to
the
one­
time
dioxin/
furan
emissions
test.
Emissions
testing
under
operating
conditions
that
are
in
the
range
of
"
normal
to
above
normal"
may
be
exponentially
lower
than
emissions
under
operating
conditions
reflecting
maximum
daily
variability
of
the
source.
Since
testing
under
normal
operating
conditions
makes
no
effort
to
assess
operating
variability,
emissions
during
such
testing
would
fail
to
reflect
expected
daily
maximum
operating
variability
and
so
would
not
represent
time­
weighted
average
emissions
and
would
under­
represent
health
risk
from
chronic
exposure.
Although
we
acknowledge
that
sources
will
not
exhibit
maximum
operating
variability
each
day
of
operation,
we
believe
that
it
is
important
to
assess
the
upper
range
of
emissions
that
these
sources
may
emit
to
properly
evaluate
under
section
112(
f)
whether
the
MACT
standards
for
dioxin/
furan
for
these
sources
(
i.
e.,
absent
a
numerical
emission
standard)
protect
public
health
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety.
78
In
addition,
we
note
that
emissions
reflecting
daily
maximum
variability
would
be
most
useful
for
section
112(
d)(
6)
determinations
in
the
future
because
they
would
represent
the
full
range
of
emissions
variability
that
results
from
controllable
operating
conditions.
For
these
reasons,
the
final
rule
requires
sources
to
test
under
feed
and
operating
conditions
that
are
most
likely
to
reflect
maximized
expected
daily
variability
of
dioxin/
furan
emissions,
as
proposed.
Such
testing
is
similar
to
a
comprehensive
performance
test
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
a
numerical
dioxin/
furan
emission
standard
where
operating
limits
would
be
established
based
on
operations
during
the
test.
As
a
practical
matter,
however,
we
note
that
many
of
the
operating
parameters
discussed
below,
although
controllable
to
some
extent,
cannot
be
quantified
and
cannot
be
controlled
to
replicate
the
condition
in
a
future
test.
In
addition,
some
operating
parameters
we
identify
may
not
have
as
strong
a
relationship
to
dioxin/
furan
emissions
as
others.
Consequently,
the
operating
conditions
are
generally
described
subjectively.

77
See
USEPA,
"
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Standards,
Volume
IV:
Compliance,"
July
1999,
Chapter
3.
78
Dioxin/
furan
are
some
of
the
most
toxic
compounds
known
due
to
their
bioaccumulation
potential
and
wide
range
of
health
effects,
including
carcinogenesis,
at
exceedingly
low
doses.
Exposure
via
indirect
pathways
is
a
chief
reason
that
Congress
singled
out
dioxin/
furan
for
priority
MACT
control
in
CAA
section
112(
c)(
6).
See
S.
Rep.
No.
128,
101st
Cong.
1st
Sess.
at
154
 
155.
75
Based
on
currently
available
research,
you
should
consider
the
following
factors
to
ensure
that
you
conduct
the
test
under
operating
conditions
that
seek
to
fully
reflect
maximum
daily
variability
of
dioxin/
furan
emissions:
(
1)
dioxin/
furan
testing
should
be
conducted
at
the
point
in
the
maintenance
cycle
for
a
boiler
when
the
boiler
tubes
are
more
fouled
and
soot­
laden,
and
not
after
maintenance
involving
soot
or
ash
removal
from
the
tubes;
(
2)
dioxin/
furan
testing
should
be
performed
following
(
or
during)
a
period
of
feeding
normal
or
greater
quantities
of
metals;
(
3)
dioxin/
furan
testing
should
be
performed
while
feeding
normal
or
greater
quantities
of
chlorine;
(
4)
the
flue
gas
temperature
in
some
portion
of
the
heat
recovery
section
of
a
boiler
should
be
within
the
dioxin
formation
temperature
window
of
750
to
400
°
F
during
the
testing;
(
5)
the
testing
should
not
be
conducted
under
optimal
combustion
conditions
(
e.
g.,
combustion
chamber
temperature
should
be
in
the
range
of
normal
to
the
operating
limit;
hazardous
waste
feedrate
and
combustor
through
put
should
be
in
the
range
of
normal
to
maximum);
(
6)
for
units
equipped
with
wet
air
pollution
control
systems,
the
testing
should
be
conducted
after
a
high
solids
loading
has
developed
in
the
scrubber
system
(
consistent
with
normal
operating
cycles);
and
(
7)
for
solid
fuel
boilers,
the
sulfur
content
of
the
coal
should
be
equivalent
to
or
lower
than
normal
coal
sulfur
levels
(
within
the
range
of
sulfur
levels
that
the
source
utilizes),
and
the
gas
temperature
at
the
inlet
to
the
electrostatic
precipitator
or
fabric
filter
should
be
close
to
the
operating
limit.
In
addition,
unless
sulfur
compounds
are
routinely
fed
to
the
boler,
dioxin/
furan
testing
should
not
be
performed
after
a
period
of
firing
high
sulfur
fuel
or
injection
of
sulfur
additives.
See
69
FR
at
21308
for
more
information.
Comment.
Commenters
state
that
we
should
delete
the
one­
time
testing
requirement
for
dioxin
and
furans.
The
Clean
Air
Act
at
Section
114(
a)(
1)(
D)
allows
EPA
to
request
"
any
person"
to
sample
emissions.
Applying
the
Section
114
authority
to
an
entire
subcategory
of
sources
is
overly
broad,
particularly
in
the
context
of
having
already
established
appropriate
surrogates
for
dioxin
and
furan
in
a
MACT
rule.
Commenters
are
not
aware
of
EPA
taking
this
approach
in
previous
efforts.
(
Section
114
requests
have
focused
on
collecting
existing
information
from
sources
facing
future
MACT
standards).
Commenters
oppose
this
approach
because
it
established
a
precedent
they
do
not
favor,
and
will
bring
about
significant
costs
and
difficulties
to
provide
the
data.
They
suggest
that
we
delete
the
proposed
requirements
for
a
one­
time
dioxin
and
furan
test.
Response.
We
believe
that
section
114(
a)(
1)(
D)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
provides
us
the
authority
to
require
sources
to
conduct
a
one
time
test
to
generate
data
which
can
be
used
in
making
later
section
112
(
f)
determinations
for
the
source
category.
The
results
of
the
testing
may
also
inform
the
section
112(
d)(
6)
review
and
the
RCRA
omnibus
permitting
processes.
The
fact
that
section
114
specifically
indicates
that
a
purpose
of
gathering
information
under
section
114
is
to
assist
in
developing
national
rules
indicates
that
the
provision
can
have
wide
sweep
extending
to
all
sources
in
a
category.
See
69
FR
at
21307­
308
for
a
full
explanation.
We
believe
a
dioxin
and
furan
test
costs
approximately
$
10,000
when
conducted
along
with
other
testing.
We
do
not
believe
this
cost
is
significant,
and
sources
must
only
perform
this
test
once,
not
more
frequently
as
would
be
the
case
to
ensure
compliance
with
a
standard.
We
also
allow
sources
to
use
prior
testing
to
meet
this
requirement,
and
76
allow
sources
to
use
"
data
in
lieu"
so
they
can
test
one
source
if
they
have
more
than
one
of
the
same
identical
sources.
We
do
not
believe
that
obtaining
these
data
will
be
difficult,
and
note
that
the
permitting
authority
can
assist
sources
in
planning
their
tests.

M.
Miscellaneous
Compliance
Issues
Comment:
Several
commenters
state
that
§
63.1206(
c)(
3)(
iv)
requiring
an
automatic
waste
feed
cutoff
(
AWFCO)
if
a
parameter
linked
to
the
AWFCO
is
exceeded
should
be
revised
to
reflect
§
63.1206(
c)(
2)(
v)(
A)(
1).
Section
63.1206(
c)(
2)(
v)(
A)(
1)
states
that,
if
the
AWFCO
is
affected
by
a
malfunction
such
that
the
malfunction
itself
prevents
immediate
and
automatic
cutoff
of
the
hazardous
waste
feed,
you
must
cease
feeding
hazardous
waste
as
quickly
as
possible.
Response:
We
agree
with
commenters
in
principle,
but
note
that
the
automatic
waste
feed
cutoff
system
may
fail
for
reasons
other
than
a
malfunction.
That
is,
equipment
or
other
failures
are
malfunctions
only
if
they
meet
the
definition
of
malfunction
at
§
63.2.
Failures
that
result
from
improper
maintenance
or
operation
are
not
malfunctions.
Consequently,
the
final
rule
revises
§
63.1206(
c)(
3)(
iv)
to
state
that
if
the
AWFCO
is
affected
by
a
failure
such
that
the
failure
itself
prevents
immediate
and
automatic
cutoff
of
the
hazardous
waste
feed,
you
must
cease
feeding
hazardous
waste
as
quickly
as
possible.
Revised
§
63.1206(
c)(
3)(
iv)
does
not
refer
to
malfunctions,
however,
because
the
AWFCO
system
may
fail
for
reasons
other
than
a
malfunction.
The
reference
in
§
63.1206(
c)(
2)(
v)(
A)(
1)
to
malfunctions
is
appropriate
because
that
paragraph
addresses
requirements
during
malfunctions.
Comment:
Several
commenters
note
that
the
proposed
rule
did
not
include
a
sunset
provision
for
the
Interim
Standards
applicable
to
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
after
the
compliance
date
of
the
standards
we
promulgate
today
(
i.
e.,
the
"
permanent
replacement
standards").
Commenters
are
concerned
that,
although
the
Agency
intends
for
the
replacement
standards
to
be
more
stringent
than
the
Interim
Standards,
that
may
not
be
the
case
in
all
situations
because
of
the
different
format
used
for
some
of
the
replacement
standards.
For
example,
several
of
the
replacement
standards
for
cement
kilns
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
are
expressed
as
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions.
Response:
Although
we
are
promulgating
the
replacement
standards
in
a
format
that
ensures
they
are
not
less
stringent
than
the
Interim
Standards,
we
agree
with
commenters
that
not
sunsetting
the
Interim
Standards
may
lead
to
confusion
as
to
which
standards
apply.
Consequently,
we
include
a
sunset
provision
in
today's
rule
for
the
Interim
Standards.
The
Interim
Standards
will
be
superseded
by
the
final
rule
promulgated
today
on
the
compliance
date.
We
note,
however,
that
the
Interim
Standards
for
total
chlorine
continue
to
apply
to
sources
that
establish
health­
based
limits
for
total
chlorine
under
§
63.1215.
Consequently,
we
have
incorporated
the
total
chlorine
Interim
Standards
in
§
63.1215
as
they
apply
as
a
cap
to
the
health­
based
emission
limits.
Comment:
Several
commenters
state
that
the
rule
should
allow
extrapolation
of
ash
and
chlorine
feedrates
to
establish
feedrate
limits
corresponding
to
the
particulate
matter
and
total
chlorine
standards.
Commenters
believe
the
rationale
we
use
to
allow
extrapolation
of
metals
feedrates
is
also
applicable
to
ash
and
chlorine.
77
Response:
The
final
rule
does
not
allow
you
to
extrapolate
ash
and
chlorine
feedrates
achieved
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
to
establish
feedrate
limits
comparable
to
the
particulate
matter
and
total
chlorine
emission
standards.
We
do
not
allow
extrapolation
of
ash
to
the
particulate
matter
emission
standard
because
particulate
matter
(
i.
e.,
soot)
may
form
in
the
combustor,
particularly
at
times
of
unstable
combustion
conditions.
Consequently,
extrapolating
from
ash
feedrates
may
underestimate
particulate
matter
emissions
and
may
not
ensure
compliance
with
the
particulate
matter
emission
standard.
We
do
not
allow
extrapolation
of
chlorine
feedrates
to
the
total
chlorine
emission
standard
because
chlorine
feedrate
is
an
operating
parameter
limit
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
semivolatile
metal
emission
standard.
Because
an
increase
in
chlorine
feedrate
can
increase
the
volatility
of
semivolatile
metals
and
we
do
not
know
the
precise
relationship
among
chlorine
feedrate,
metal
volatility,
and
metals
emissions,
extrapolating
the
chlorine
feedrate
achieved
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
to
a
feedrate
comparable
to
the
total
chlorine
emission
standard
may
not
ensure
compliance
with
the
semivolatile
metal
emission
standard.
If
a
source
complies
with
the
semivolatile
metals
emission
standard
under
§
63.1207(
m)(
2)
where
the
performance
test
is
waived,
however,
by
assuming
zero
system
removal
efficiency
and
limiting
the
semivolatile
feedrate
(
expressed
as
a
maximum
theoretical
emission
concentration)
to
the
level
of
the
emission
standard,
the
source
may
request
under
§
63.1209(
g)(
1)
to
extrapolate
chlorine
feedrates
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
up
to
the
total
chlorine
emission
standard.
Comment:
Several
commenters
state
that
the
proposed
regulatory
language
under
§
§
63.1206(
b)(
9)(
i)
and
63.1206(
b)(
10)(
i)
is
inconsistent
with
the
proposed
preamble,
which
states
that
sources
should
be
allowed
to
petition
for
alternative
standards
provided
they
submit
information
showing
that
HAP
contributions
to
emissions
from
the
raw
materials
are
preventing
the
source
from
achieving
the
emissions
standard
though
the
source
is
using
MACT
control.
79
The
commenters
state
that
the
proposed
regulatory
language,
despite
the
intent
signaled
in
the
proposed
preamble,
inappropriately
excludes
the
provisions
of
§
§
63.1206(
b)(
9)(
i)
and
63.1206(
b)(
10)(
i)
as
an
alternative
option
when
complying
with
the
replacement
emission
standards
under
§
§
63.1220
and
63.1221.
Response:
We
agree
with
the
commenters.
The
proposed
regulatory
text
inadvertently
excluded
the
alternative
standard
provisions
from
use
by
cement
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
under
the
replacement
standards.
Accordingly,
we
are
revising
the
introductory
text
of
§
§
63.1206(
b)(
9)(
i)
and
63.1206(
b)(
10)(
i)
by
making
the
alternative
standards
available
under
the
replacement
standards.
Comment:
One
commenter
states
that
the
availability
of
the
alternative
standard
for
mercury
under
§
63.1206(
b)(
10)(
i)
should
not
be
conditioned
upon
mercury
being
present
only
at
levels
below
the
detection
limit
in
raw
materials,
as
specified
under
§
63.1206(
b)(
10)(
i)(
B).
The
commenter
suggests
that
the
approach
for
mercury
should
be
the
same
as
for
other
HAP
such
as
semi­
and
low
volatile
metals
under
§
63.1206(
b)(
10)(
i)(
A).
Response:
The
commenter
misreads
the
alternative
standard
provisions
under
§
63.1206(
b)(
10)(
i).
We
note
that
§
63.1206(
b)(
10)
includes
two
separate
provisions
for
cement
kilns.
The
first
provision
allows
sources
to
petition
for
an
alternative
standard
79
For
example,
see
69
FR
at
21268.
78
when
a
source
cannot
achieve
a
standard
because
of
HAP
metal
or
chlorine
concentrations
in
their
raw
material
feedstocks
cause
an
exceedance
of
a
standard
despite
the
source's
use
of
MACT
control.
See
§
63.1206(
b)(
10)(
i)(
A).
The
term
"
regulated
metals"
specified
in
§
63.1206(
b)(
10)(
i)(
A)
includes
mercury,
semivolatile
metals,
and
low
volatile
metals.
The
second
provision
allows
a
source
to
petition
for
an
alternative
mercury
standard
when
mercury
is
not
present
at
detectable
levels
in
the
source's
raw
materials.
§
63.1206(
b)(
10)(
i)(
B).
These
two
provisions
are
indeed
separate
as
discussed
in
the
1999
rule.
See
64
FR
at
52962­
967.
Also
note
that
the
conjunction
separating
paragraphs
(
b)(
10)(
i)(
A)
and
(
b)(
10)(
i)(
B)
is
"
or,"
not
"
and."
Given
the
potential
confusion
of
the
term
"
regulated
metals,"
we
are
clarifying
the
regulatory
text
by
specifying
the
three
metal
HAP
volatility
groups
that
comprise
the
term
"
regulated
metals."
See
revised
§
63.1206(
b)(
10)(
i)(
A).
Finally,
given
that
the
alternative
standard
provisions
are
similar
for
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
we
are
also
clarifying
§
§
63.1206(
b)(
9)(
i)(
A)
and
(
b)(
9)(
iv).

IX.
Site­
Specific
Risk
Assessment
under
RCRA
A.
What
Is
the
Site­
Specific
Risk
Assessment
Policy?
The
Site­
Specific
Risk
Assessment
(
SSRA)
Policy
has
undergone
several
revisions
since
its
inception
in
the
1993
draft
Combustion
Strategy.
Currently,
it
is
the
same
policy
as
we
expressed
in
the
1999
final
rule
preamble.
In
the
1999
rule,
we
recommended
that
for
hazardous
waste
combustors
subject
to
the
Phase
1
MACT
standards,
permitting
authorities
should
evaluate
the
need
for
an
SSRA
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
Further,
while
SSRAs
are
not
anticipated
to
be
necessary
for
every
facility,
they
should
be
conducted
where
there
is
some
reason
to
believe
that
operation
in
accordance
with
the
MACT
standards
alone
may
not
be
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
For
hazardous
waste
combustors
not
subject
to
the
Phase
1
standards,
we
continued
to
recommend
that
SSRAs
be
conducted
as
part
of
the
RCRA
permitting
process.
See
64
FR
52841.
Since
1999,
we
have
provided
additional
clarification
of
the
appropriate
use
of
the
SSRA
policy
and
technical
guidance
in
an
April
10,
2003
memorandum
from
OSWER's
Assistant
Administrator
to
the
EPA
Regional
Administrators
entitled,
"
Use
of
the
Site­
Specific
Risk
Assessment
Policy
and
Guidance
for
Hazardous
Waste
Combustion
Facilities"
(
see
Docket
#
OAR­
2004­
0022­
0083).
Most
importantly,
in
this
memorandum
we
reiterated
that
where
a
permitting
authority
concludes
that
a
risk
assessment
is
necessary
for
a
particular
combustor,
the
basis
for
this
decision
must
be
substantiated
in
each
case.
The
factual
and
technical
basis
for
any
decisions
to
conduct
a
risk
assessment
must
be
included
in
the
administrative
record
for
the
facility
per
40
CFR
§
§
124.7,
124.8,
124.9,
and
124.18.
In
addition,
if
the
facility,
or
any
other
party,
files
comments
on
a
draft
permit
decision
objecting
to
the
permitting
authority's
conclusions
regarding
the
need
for
a
risk
assessment,
the
permitting
authority
must
respond
fully
to
the
comments.
Any
permit
conditions
determined
to
be
necessary
based
either
on
the
SSRA,
or
because
the
facility
declined
to
conduct
an
SSRA,
also
must
be
documented
and
supported
in
the
administrative
record.
Today,
we
are
codifying
additional
regulatory
language
providing
authority
for
SSRAs
while
maintaining
the
same
basic
SSRA
policy.
It
is
important
to
note
that
all
of
the
requirements
of
Part
124
referred
to
above
will
continue
to
apply
to
actions
taken
in
accordance
with
the
additional
regulatory
language
we
are
codifying.
The
SSRA
79
regulatory
provisions,
which
establish
that
the
need
for
an
SSRA
should
be
determined
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
apply
equally
to
both
Phase
1
and
Phase
2
sources.

B.
Why
Might
SSRAs
Continue
To
Be
Necessary
for
Sources
Complying
With
Phase
1
Replacement
Standards
and
Phase
2
Standards?

EPA
conducted
a
national
evaluation
of
human
health
and
ecological
risk
for
the
MACT
standards
as
proposed
in
the
1996
NPRM
and
then
revised
the
evaluation
to
include
more
facilities
for
the
1999
final
rulemaking.
Based
on
the
results
of
the
final
national
risk
evaluation
for
hazardous
air
pollutants
(
excluding
non­
dioxin
products
of
incomplete
combustion),
we
concluded
that
sources
complying
with
the
MACT
standards
generally
would
not
pose
an
unacceptable
risk
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
For
today's
final
rule,
we
did
not
conduct
another
national
risk
assessment
as
we
did
for
the
1999
rule.
Rather,
for
both
the
April
20,
2004
NPRM
and
today's
final
rule
we
conducted
a
comparative
risk
analysis,
comparing
the
Phase
1
Replacement
and
Phase
2
Standards
to
the
1999­
promulgated
Phase
1
Standards,
to
determine
if
there
were
any
significant
differences
that
might
influence
or
impact
the
potential
risk.
Similar
to
the
proposal,
the
comparative
analysis
conducted
for
today's
final
rule
focused
on
several
key
characteristics:
emission
rates,
stack
height,
stack
gas
buoyancy,
meteorological
conditions
(
which
include
a
number
of
variables),
population
parameters
including
density
and
radial
distribution,
and
correlations
among
the
characteristics
themselves.
The
results
of
the
comparative
analysis
suggest
that
the
MACT
standards
for
both
Phase
1
and
Phase
2
sources
are
generally
protective.
Therefore,
separate
national
emissions
standards
under
RCRA
are
unnecessary.
See
Part
Seven:
How
Does
the
Final
Rule
Meet
the
RCRA
Protectiveness
Mandate?
Although
we
have
concluded
that
the
Phase
1
Replacement
and
Phase
2
standards
are
generally
protective,
as
we
discussed
in
the
2004
proposal
(
69
FR
21325),
there
may
be
instances
where
we
cannot
assure
that
emissions
from
each
source
will
be
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment,
and
therefore
an
SSRA
may
be
necessary.
Furthermore,
it
should
be
noted
that,
just
as
for
the
risk
assessment
for
the
1999
rule,
the
comparative
analysis
does
not
account
for
cumulative
emissions
at
a
source
or
background
exposures
from
other
sources.
Before
discussing
factors
that
may
lead
permit
authorities
to
consider
whether
or
not
to
conduct
an
SSRA,
it
should
be
noted
that
the
Agency
generally
does
not
expect
that
facilities
that
have
conducted
risk
assessments
will
have
to
repeat
them.
As
we
explained
in
the
1999
final
rule
preamble,
changes
to
comply
with
the
MACT
standards
should
not
cause
an
increase
in
risk
for
the
vast
majority
of
facilities
given
that
the
changes
will
likely
be
the
addition
of
pollution
control
equipment
or
a
reduction
in
the
hazardous
waste
being
burned
(
see
64
FR
52842).
Instances
where
a
facility
may
need
to
repeat
a
risk
assessment
would
be
related
to
changes
in
conditions
that
would
likely
lead
to
increased
risk.
For
example,
if
the
only
changes
at
a
facility
relate
to
the
exposed
population
(
a
new
housing
development
is
constructed
within
a
few
square
miles
of
the
source),
what
was
once
determined
to
be
protective
under
a
previous
risk
assessment
may
now
be
beyond
acceptable
levels.
Another
example
would
be
where
a
hazardous
waste
burning
cement
kiln
that
previously
monitored
hydrocarbons
in
the
main
stack
elects
to
install
a
mid­
kiln
sampling
port
for
carbon
monoxide
or
hydrocarbon
monitoring
to
avoid
restrictions
on
hydrocarbon
levels
in
the
main
stack.
Thus,
the
stack
hydrocarbon
emissions
may
increase
(
64
FR
52843,
footnote
29).
In
such
situations,
we
would
80
anticipate
that
the
risk
assessment
would
not
have
to
be
entirely
redone.
It
may
be
as
limited
as
collecting
relevant
new
data
for
comparison
purposes,
leading
to
a
decision
not
to
repeat
any
portion
of
a
risk
assessment.
Or,
it
may
be
more
inclusive
such
that
modifications
would
be
made
to
specific
inputs
to
or
aspects
of
the
risk
assessment
using
data
from
a
previous
risk
assessment,
risk
burn
or
comprehensive
performance
test.
In
recognition
of
this,
we
have
added
an
additional
factor
to
the
list
of
factors
at
270.10(
l)(
1)
to
indicate
that
a
previously
conducted
risk
assessment
would
be
relevant
in
evaluating
changes
in
conditions
that
may
lead
to
increased
risk.
The
factor
reads
as
follows:
"
Adequacy
of
any
previously
conducted
risk
assessment,
given
any
subsequent
changes
in
conditions
likely
to
affect
risk."
The
following
discussion
is
intended
mainly
to
address
facilities
that
have
not
yet
conducted
an
SSRA
(
i.
e.,
where
it
has
been
determined
that
one
is
needed).
In
the
proposal
we
discussed
our
conclusion
that
almost
all
of
the
proposed
standards
for
Phase
1
sources
were
equivalent
to
or
more
stringent
than
the
1999
final
standards,
with
the
exception
of
the
mercury
standard
for
new
and
existing
LWAKs
and
the
total
chlorine
standard
for
new
LWAKs.
However,
there
are
additional
standards
for
Phase
1
sources
finalized
in
today's
rulemaking
that
are
less
stringent
than
the
1999
final
standards.
In
addition
to
those
discussed
in
the
proposal,
the
following
standards
are
less
stringent
than
the
1999
final
standards:
mercury
for
new
cement
kilns
and
semi­
volatile
metals
for
existing
cement
kilns;
dioxin/
furan
for
existing
and
new
LWAKs,
mercury
for
existing
and
new
LWAKs,
and
total
chlorine
for
existing
and
new
LWAKs.
Because
these
standards
exceed
the
levels
which
were
evaluated
in
the
1999
national
risk
assessment,
especially
with
respect
to
mercury
and
dioxin/
furan
standards
for
which
the
national
risk
assessment
showed
high
end
risks
at
or
near
levels
of
concern,
permit
authorities
may
decide
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
that
an
SSRA
is
appropriate
to
determine
whether
the
less
stringent
Replacement
standards
are
protective.
In
addition,
the
comparative
analysis
results
suggest
concern
regarding
the
dioxin/
furan
standard
for
LWAKs
and
thus,
permit
authorities
may
consider
site­
specific
factors
in
determining
whether
the
standard
is
sufficiently
protective.
Specific
to
Phase
2
sources,
we
mentioned
earlier
that
we
conducted
the
same
comparative
risk
analysis
for
Phase
2
sources
as
we
did
for
Phase
1
sources
(
i.
e.,
by
comparing
the
Phase
2
standards
to
the
1999
final
standards
for
Phase
1
sources).
Although
several
MACT
standards
for
Phase
2
sources
are
more
stringent
than
the
BIF
standards
under
RCRA,
there
are
a
few
MACT
standards
that
may
be
cause
for
concern
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
as
they
are
either
less
stringent
than
some
of
the
1999
final
standards
or
the
comparative
risk
analysis
suggests
concern.
They
are:
the
particulate
matter
standard
(
and
certain
metals
such
as
antimony
and
thallium),
mercury
standard,
and
total
chlorine
standard
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
(
SFBs);
the
dioxin/
furan
standard
(
carbon
monoxide
or
total
hydrocarbon
as
surrogate
controls,
versus
a
numerical
standard)
for
HCl
production
furnaces;
and
the
dioxin/
furan
standard
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
(
LFBs)
with
dry
APCDs.
In
addition,
dioxin/
furan
emissions
data
for
LFBs
with
wet
or
no
APCDs
indicate
an
observed
level
(
1.4
ng
TEQ/
dscm)
of
more
than
three
times
the
highest
dioxin/
furan
standard
evaluated
in
the
1999
national
risk
assessment
(
69
FR
21285).
80
Thus,
these
standards
may
warrant
site­
specific
risk
consideration,
especially
80
The
comparative
analysis
did
not
specifically
suggest
concern
as
it
has
for
other
source
categories,
but
per
the
reference
to
the
proposal,
we
have
some
concern
regarding
the
protectiveness
of
the
standard.
81
with
respect
to
the
dioxin/
furan
standards.
That
is,
due
to
the
complexity
of
the
dioxin/
furan
formation
mechanism
and
given
the
toxicity
of
dioxin/
furans81,
an
SSRA
may
be
needed
based
on
the
specific
emission
levels
of
each
source
not
subject
to
a
numerical
standard.
For
additional
discussion
on
the
protectiveness
of
standards,
please
refer
to
Part
Seven:
How
Does
the
Final
Rule
Meet
the
RCRA
Protectiveness
Mandate?
There
are
also
site­
specific
factors
beyond
the
standards
that
can
be
important
to
the
SSRA
decision
making
process.
As
discussed
in
the
proposal,
examples
include
a
source's
proximity
to
a
water
body
or
endangered
species
habitat,
repeated
occurrences
of
contaminant
advisories
for
nearby
water
bodies,
the
number
of
hazardous
air
pollutant
emission
sources
within
a
facility
and
the
surrounding
community,
whether
or
not
the
waste
feed
to
the
combustor
is
made
up
of
persistent,
bioaccumulative
or
toxic
contaminants,
and
sensitive
receptors
with
potentially
significantly
different
exposure
pathways,
such
as
Native
Americans
(
69
FR
21326).
Also,
there
are
several
uncertainties
inherent
in
the
1999
national
risk
assessment.
82
Thus,
the
same
uncertainties
related
to
the
fate
and
transport
of
mercury
in
the
environment
and
the
biological
significance
of
mercury
exposures
in
fish
(
i.
e.,
once
mercury
has
been
transformed
into
methylmercury,
it
can
be
ingested
by
the
lower
trophic
level
organisms
where
it
can
bioaccumulate
in
fish
tissue),
as
well
as
the
risk
posed
by
non­
dioxin
products
of
incomplete
combustion,
remain
today
and
may
influence
a
permitting
authority's
decision.
Last,
we
are
finalizing
the
option
for
Phase
2
area
sources
to
comply
with
specific
MACT
standards
as
provided
by
CAA
§
112(
c)(
6)
specific
pollutants
authority.
These
area
sources
may
need
to
conduct
an
SSRA
for
the
remaining
RCRA
standards
that
they
choose
to
comply
with
(
i.
e.,
since
they
do
not
address
the
potential
risk
from
indirect
exposures
to
long­
term
deposition
of
metals
onto
soils
and
surface
waters).
83
In
addition
to
the
examples
provided
in
the
previous
paragraph,
we
also
expressed
that
an
SSRA
may
be
necessary
with
respect
to
the
proposed
thermal
emission
standards.
With
respect
to
Phase
1
sources,
we
had
noted
in
the
proposal
that
the
thermal
emission
standards
for
semi­
volatile
and
low
volatile
metals
for
cement
kilns
and
LWAKs
may
be
of
concern
because
they
directly
address
emissions
attributable
to
hazardous
waste
versus
a
source's
total
HAP
metal
emissions.
See
69
FR
21326.
However,
we
are
requiring
sources
to
comply
with
both
the
thermal
emission
standards
and
the
Interim
Standards
in
today's
final
rulemaking,
since
compliance
with
the
thermal
emission
standards
may
not
always
assure
compliance
with
the
Interim
Standards.
As
a
result,
the
thermal
emission
standards
for
cement
kilns
and
LWAKs
no
longer
pose
the
uncertainties
that
they
had
in
the
proposal.
84
In
regard
to
Phase
2
sources,
the
concern
at
the
time
of
proposal
was
with
respect
to
the
thermal
emission
standards
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers.
However,
the
comparative
analysis
for
today's
final
rulemaking
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
which
is
81
There
is
ongoing
uncertainty
in
cancer
and
other
health
effects
levels
for
chlorinated
dioxins
and
furans.
82
Uncertainties
stem
from
a
lack
of
information
regarding
the
behavior
of
mercury
in
the
environment
and
a
lack
of
sufficient
emissions
data
and
parameter
values
(
e.
g.,
bioaccumulation
values)
for
nondioxin
products
of
incomplete
combustion.
See
64
FR
52840­
52841.
83
Currently,
there
are
only
five
area
sources
that
this
may
apply
to;
they
are
interim
status
units
in
the
process
of
conducting
an
SSRA
as
part
of
their
final
permits.
84
An
exception
would
be
the
semivolatile
metal
Interim
standard
for
existing
cement
kilns,
which
is
less
stringent
than
the
1999
final
standard.
As
we
noted,
permit
authorities
may
consider
the
need
for
an
SSRA
as
a
result.
82
based
on
total
stack
emissions
from
these
sources
while
assuming
compliance
with
the
thermal
standards,
does
not
suggest
that
risks
for
LFBs
are
cause
for
concern
(
except
as
otherwise
noted,
e.
g.,
dioxins).

C.
What
Changes
Are
EPA
Finalizing
With
Respect
To
the
Site­
Specific
Risk
Assessment
Policy?

In
the
1999
final
rule
preamble,
we
included
a
revised
site­
specific
risk
assessment
(
SSRA)
policy
recommendation
to
account
for
promulgation
of
the
new
technology­
based
CAA
MACT
standards
for
Phase
1
sources.
We
recommended
that
permitting
authorities
evaluate
the
need
for
an
SSRA
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
for
hazardous
waste
combustors
subject
to
the
Phase
1
MACT
standards.
For
hazardous
waste
combustors
not
subject
to
the
Phase
1
standards,
we
continued
to
recommend
that
SSRAs
be
conducted
as
part
of
the
RCRA
permitting
process
if
necessary
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
We
indicated
that
the
RCRA
omnibus
provision
authorized
permit
authorities
to
require
applicants
to
submit
SSRA
results
where
an
SSRA
was
determined
to
be
necessary.
For
the
reasons
described
in
the
previous
subsection,
we
believe
that
additional
controls
may
be
necessary
on
a
site­
specific
basis
to
ensure
that
adequate
protection
is
achieved
in
accordance
with
RCRA.
Consequently,
because
SSRAs
are
likely
to
continue
to
be
necessary
at
some
facilities
(
mainly
those
that
have
not
previously
conducted
an
SSRA),
we
concluded
that
it
is
more
appropriate
to
include
a
regulatory
provision
that
explicitly
provides
for
the
permit
authority
to
require
SSRAs
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
and
add
conditions
to
RCRA
permits
based
on
SSRA
results.
Therefore,
instead
of
relying
on
RCRA
§
3005(
c)(
3)
and
its
associated
regulations
at
§
270.10(
k)
when
permitting
authorities
conduct
or
require
a
risk
assessment
on
a
site­
specific
basis
(
i.
e.,
as
applicable
to
those
newly
entering
the
RCRA
permit
process),
we
had
proposed
to
codify
the
authorities
provided
by
sections
3004(
a)
and
(
q)
and
3005(
b).
See
proposed
regulations
at
69
FR
21383­
21384,
§
§
270.10(
l)
and
270.32(
b)(
3).
In
proposing
to
codify
these
authorities,
we
stated
that
we
were
not
requiring
that
SSRAs
automatically
be
conducted
for
hazardous
waste
combustion
units,
but
that
the
decision
of
whether
or
not
a
risk
assessment
is
necessary
must
be
made
based
upon
relevant
factors
associated
with
an
individual
combustion
unit
and
that
there
are
combustion
units
for
which
an
SSRA
will
not
be
necessary.
Further,
we
explained
that
the
proposed
language
would
provide
notice
to
the
regulated
community
that
an
SSRA
may
be
necessary
to
support
a
source's
permit,
while
reminding
the
permit
agency
of
the
need
to
evaluate
whether
an
SSRA
would
be
necessary
on
a
site­
specific
basis.
Despite
our
efforts
to
explain
that
by
codifying
these
provisions,
we
are
only
modifying
the
statutory
authority
under
which
we
implement
the
SSRA
policy
while
maintaining
the
same
SSRA
policy
from
a
substantive
standpoint,
commenters
generally
opposed
EPA's
proposed
codification.
The
comment
most
frequently
presented
was
that
the
proposed
regulatory
language
is
not
helpful
to
anyone
(
i.
e.,
regulated
community,
the
public
or
permitting
agencies),
is
redundant
with
the
omnibus
authority,
and
sets
an
extremely
low
hurdle
for
regulators
to
require
SSRAs.
We
disagree
that
the
new
regulatory
language
is
not
helpful
and
that
it
sets
an
extremely
low
hurdle
for
regulators
to
require
SSRAs.
We
believe
that
the
new
provisions
are
beneficial
in
two
ways:
1)
they
provide
notice
to
the
regulated
community
83
and
public
that
an
SSRA
may
be
necessary
to
support
a
source's
permit;
and
2)
they
remind
the
permitting
agencies
of
the
importance
of
evaluating
whether
an
SSRA
would
be
necessary
on
a
site­
specific
basis.
The
new
regulatory
provision
in
no
way
expands
or
supplements
the
authority
on
which
EPA
had
previously
relied
 
i.
e.,
omnibus
and
§
270.10(
k),
thus
it
does
not
provide
any
more
or
less
authority
to
permit
authorities
(
i.
e.,
lower
or
raise
the
hurdle)
to
require
SSRAs.
We
agree
that,
because
the
proposed
language
provides
permitting
authorities
with
no
greater
authority
than
the
omnibus
authority,
it
is
somewhat
duplicative
of
§
270.10(
k).
However,
as
noted,
EPA
believes
this
provision
offers
important
benefits
to
both
the
agency
and
the
regulated
community,
and
as
explained
further
below,
EPA
has
adopted
a
slightly
modified
version
of
the
proposal
pursuant
to
RCRA
§
3004(
a)
and
§
3005(
b).
See
also
discussion
in
subsection
F.
Another
common
view
expressed
by
commenters
is
that,
although
extensive
risk
assessments
that
have
been
performed
for
more
than
a
decade,
showing
lack
of
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment,
EPA
continues
to
require
SSRAs
without
a
technical
evaluation
of
the
historical
results.
To
the
contrary,
EPA
Regional
permit
writers
have
found
that
certain
chemicals
(
especially
dioxin
and
mercury)
85
pose
excess
risk
in
certain
circumstances
 
even
under
the
Interim
Standards­­
and
consequently
find
it
necessary
to
assess
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment
based
on
site­
specific
conditions
at
the
facility.
In
EPA
Regions
7
and
10
for
example,
some
facilities
have
RCRA
risk­
based
permit
conditions
that
establish
more
frequent
sampling
or
limits
on
feed
rate
for
specified
metals
to
ensure
that
ecologically
sensitive
areas
are
not
adversely
impacted.
Many
commenters
also
state
that
CAA
§
112(
f)
residual
risk
process
is
the
appropriate
method
to
assess
risk
for
hazardous
waste
combustors
complying
with
MACT,
not
RCRA
risk
assessments.
Specifically,
one
commenter
argued
that
EPA
lacked
statutory
authority
to
rely
on
the
omnibus
provisions
to
require
SSRA
and
SSRAbased
controls
on
the
grounds
that
§
112(
f)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
establishes
a
specific
provision
to
control
any
residual
risk
from
combustor
emissions.
We
disagree
with
commenters
for
two
reasons.
First,
as
we
explained
in
the
1999
final
rule
preamble,
the
omnibus
provision
is
a
RCRA
statutory
requirement
and
the
CAA
does
not
override
RCRA.
Promulgation
of
the
MACT
standards,
therefore,
does
not
duplicate,
supersede,
or
otherwise
modify
the
omnibus
provision
or
its
applicability
to
the
sources
covered
by
today's
rule.
Second,
the
SSRA
under
RCRA
is
usually
conducted
prior
to
issuance
of
the
final
permit.
The
CAA
residual
risk
determination
is
generally
made
eight
years
after
promulgation
of
the
MACT
standards
for
a
source
category.
Accordingly,
a
permit
authority
currently
facing
a
permit
decision
could
not
rely
on
these
yet
unwritten
residual
risk
standards
to
resolve
its
identified
concern
that
the
MACT
standard
may
not
be
sufficiently
protective
at
an
individual
site.
In
addition,
even
though
we
believe
that
§
3005(
c)(
3)
and
its
associated
regulations
provide
the
authority
to
require
and
perform
SSRAs
and
to
write
permit
conditions
based
on
SSRA
results,
we
are
not
relying
on
these
provisions
as
the
authority
for
§
270.10(
l).
Rather,
we
are
relying
on
§
§
3004(
a)
and
(
q)
and
3005(
b).
See
69
FR
21327.

85
Dioxin
is
a
common
risk
driver
due
to
ongoing
uncertainty
in
cancer
and
other
health
effects
levels
for
chlorinated
dioxins
and
furans.
Mercury
is
also
a
common
risk
driver
due
to
uncertainties
implicit
in
the
quantitative
mercury
analysis.
See
discussion
in
Part
Seven,
Section
II.
and
64
FR
52997.
Thus,
it
is
not
uncommon
for
permit
authorities
to
require
risk­
based
RCRA
permit
limits
(
based
on
risk
assessment
results)
to
control
emissions
of
these
pollutants.
84
With
respect
to
the
costs
incurred
when
conducting
an
SSRA,
several
commenters
raised
the
concern
that
our
approximations
do
not
include
portions
of
actual
costs
(
e.
g.,
data
gathering,
QA/
QC,
and
third
party
consultants,
risk
assessors,
and
plant
personnel
time
to
coordinate
and
review
SSRA
efforts
and
collect
facility
data),
thus
resulting
in
artificially
low
costs.
Commenters
cited
additional
reasons
why
they
feel
that
EPA's
cost
estimates
are
too
low
including
our
assumptions
that:
(
1)
SSRAs
are
a
one­
time
or
infrequent
cost;
(
2)
most
SSRAs
fall
under
"
normal"
versus
"
unusual"
situations;
and
(
3)
the
cost
of
conducting
a
risk
burn
during
a
trial
burn
adds
only
20%
more
to
the
cost.
Regarding
the
comment
that
we
did
not
include
actual
costs
for
our
estimates
of
overall
costs
to
conduct
an
SSRA,
we
agree
that
some
costs
were
overlooked.
We
did
include
the
costs
related
to
conducting
an
SSRA
under
"
normal"
and
"
unusual"
conditions,
SSRA
data
collection
in
conjunction
with
a
regular
performance
burn,
and
a
full
independent
risk
burn
including
protocol,
sampling,
analysis,
and
report.
However,
we
did
not
capture
facility
time
associated
with
data
collection
and
management
related
to
the
SSRA.
Consequently,
we
have
revised
our
cost
estimate
for
performing
these
activities;
see
chapter
4
of
the
background
document
entitled,
Assessment
of
the
Potential
Costs,
Benefits,
and
Other
Impacts
of
the
Hazardous
Waste
Combustion
MACT
Replacement
Standards
 
Final
Rule,
[
INSERT
PUBLICATION
DATE
FOR
FINAL
RULE].
In
response
to
the
broader
comment
that
our
cost
estimates
are
too
low
(
for
several
reasons
mentioned
previously),
we
agree
that
our
estimate
of
a
20%
additional
cost
to
conduct
a
risk
burn
with
a
trial
burn
may
have
been
conservative
and
therefore,
we
have
adjusted
our
previous
estimate
to
include
a
range
of
20%
to
40%.
The
total
SSRA
cost
range
has
also
been
updated
from
$
141K
 
$
370K
to
$
157K
­
$
815K.
86
With
respect
to
our
assumption
that
the
majority
of
SSRAs
are
conducted
under
"
normal"
conditions
(
lending
to
overall
lower
cost
estimates),
we
do
believe
that
the
majority
of
future
SSRAs
will
fall
under
the
"
normal"
conditions.
87
We
believe
this
is
appropriate
due
to:
lack
of
new
facilities
coming
on­
line
for
which
there
is
no
previous
test
data;
availability
of
commercial
modeling
software;
and
finalization
of
the
"
Human
Health
Risk
Assessment
Protocol
for
Hazardous
Waste
Combustion
Facilities"
guidance,
or
"
HHRAP"
guidance.
However,
we
do
recognize
that
some
facilities
can
be
more
complex
than
others
in
the
hazardous
waste
combustion
universe.
Therefore,
we
have
identified
a
portion
of
facilities
that
are
likely
to
incur
"
unusual"
costs
for
a
future
SSRA
and
have
revised
our
cost
analysis
to
reflect
inclusion
of
these
higher­
cost
facilities.
See
background
document,
Assessment
of
the
Potential
Costs,
Benefits,
and
Other
Impacts
of
the
Hazardous
Waste
Combustion
MACT
Replacement
Standards
 
Final
Rule,
[
INSERT
PUBLICATION
DATE
FOR
FINAL
RULE].
Also,
we
maintain
our
assumption
that
SSRAs
generally
represent
a
one­
time
cost
unless
a
facility
significantly
changes
its
operations
or
if
receptors
change
such
that
an
increase
in
risk
is
anticipated
as
a
result.
Even
so,
as
explained
earlier
in
subsection
B.,

86
The
high
end
of
this
range
applies
only
to
those
systems
operating
under
"
unusual
conditions"
(
the
available
data
suggest
that
there
are
only
five
such
facilities).
87
Normal
conditions
assume
use
of
previously
collected
performance
burn
data,
use
of
standard
commercial
modeling
software
that
meet
Agency
guidance,
and
limited
interactions
with
State
and
Federal
oversight
authorities.
Unusual
conditions
assume
the
need
for
site­
specific
modeling,
extensive
interactions
with
stakeholders
and
regulators,
an
extended
time
frame,
and
targeted
ecological
analyses.
85
we
would
anticipate
that
the
risk
assessment
would
not
have
to
be
entirely
redone.
It
may
be
as
limited
as
collecting
relevant
new
data
for
comparison
purposes,
leading
to
a
decision
not
to
repeat
any
portion
of
a
risk
assessment.
Or,
it
may
be
more
inclusive
such
that
modifications
would
be
made
to
specific
inputs
to
or
aspects
of
the
risk
assessment
using
data
from
a
previous
risk
assessment,
risk
burn
or
comprehensive
performance
test.
With
respect
to
chemical
weapons
demilitarization
facilities,
we
recognize
that
due
to
their
specialized
waste
streams
and
multiple
treatment
units,
SSRAs,
in
many
cases,
are
not
one­
time
events
and
as
a
result,
their
SSRA
costs
are
relatively
high.
The
high
costs
can
be
attributed
to
the
necessity
for
each
chemical
weapons
demilitarization
facility
to
perform
surrogate
trial
burns
and
then
agent
trial
burns
for
each
furnace
and
each
agent
campaign
(
e.
g.,
GB
(
Sarin),
VX,
and
HD
(
Sulfur
Mustard)).
For
example,
a
chemical
weapons
demilitarization
facility
would
conduct
GB
trial
burns
on
all
the
furnaces
and
then
complete
destruction
of
the
GB
stockpile,
followed
by
VX
trial
burns
and
VX
stockpile
and
finally,
the
HD
trial
burns
and
the
HD
stockpile.
This
effectively
extends
the
input
to
the
risk
assessment
of
the
trial
burn
data
over
most
of
the
operational
life
of
the
facility.
Last,
several
commenters
raised
the
concern
that
EPA's
proposal
to
codify
the
authority
to
require
SSRAs
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
and
add
conditions
to
RCRA
permits
based
on
SSRA
results,
violates
the
due
process
protections
afforded
under
the
current
structure,
where
SSRAs
are
required
and
performed
pursuant
to
RCRA
§
3005(
c)(
3)
omnibus
authority.
Commenters
were
further
concerned
that
the
proposed
language
in
§
270.10(
l)
would
remove
existing
procedural
safeguards
by
allowing
the
Agency
to
require
a
very
expensive
SSRA
before
the
draft
permit
is
even
issued,
thus
violating
EPA's
own
procedural
standards
as
well
as
due
process.
It
appears
as
though
commenters
believe
that
the
procedures
(
and
procedural
protections)
currently
applicable
whenever
an
SSRA
is
conducted
are
unique
to
circumstances
in
which
the
permitting
authority
proceeds
under
the
authority
of
RCRA
§
3005(
c)(
3)
 
the
"
omnibus"
provision.
This
is
incorrect.
All
of
the
specific
procedural
requirements
the
commenters
have
raised
would
be
applicable
whether
the
permitting
authority
proceeded
under
§
270.10(
l),
as
EPA
proposed,
or
pursuant
to
RCRA
§
3005(
c)(
3)
and
§
270.10(
k),
as
is
the
current
practice.
All
of
the
requirements
established
in
Part
124
continue
to
apply,
whether
EPA
proceeds
under
§
270.10(
l)
or
under
§
270.10(
k).
As
we
discussed
in
the
proposal,
the
basis
for
the
decision
to
conduct
a
risk
assessment,
or
to
request
additional
information
to
evaluate
risk
or
determine
whether
a
risk
assessment
is
necessary,
must
be
included
in
the
administrative
record
for
the
facility
and
made
available
to
the
public
during
the
comment
period
for
the
draft
permit.
See
40
C.
F.
R.
§
§
124.7
[
statement
of
basis];
124.9
[
administrative
record
for
draft
permit];
124.18
[
administrative
record
for
final
permit].
If
the
facility,
or
any
other
party,
files
comments
on
a
draft
permit
decision
objecting
to
the
permitting
authority's
conclusions
regarding
the
need
for
a
risk
assessment,
the
permitting
authority
must
respond
fully
to
the
comments.
Any
permit
conditions
determined
to
be
necessary
based
either
on
the
SSRA,
or
because
the
facility
declined
to
conduct
an
SSRA,
also
must
be
documented
and
supported
in
the
administrative
record.
The
commenters'
concern
that
§
270.10(
l)
allows
the
permitting
authority
to
require
the
SSRA
prior
to
the
issuance
of
a
draft
permit,
and
therefore
the
applicant
would
have
no
opportunity
to
comment
or
challenge
that
determination,
is
equally
86
unfounded.
There
is
effectively
no
practical
or
substantive
distinction
between
the
circumstance
when
a
permit
authority
communicates
the
decision
that
an
SSRA
is
necessary
to
issue
the
permit
prior
to
issuing
the
draft
permit,
or
as
part
of
the
draft
permit.
In
either
case,
if
a
facility
refuses
to
provide
a
risk
assessment
or
data
to
support
a
risk
assessment
requested
under
this
provision,
the
regulations
at
part
124
make
clear
that
the
appropriate
recourse
is
for
the
permit
authority
to
deny
the
permit
(
See
40
CFR
§
§
124.3(
d);
124.6(
b)
and
270.10(
c).
The
basis
for
the
denial
would
essentially
be
the
same
in
either
case­­
that
the
information
before
the
agency
gives
rise
to
a
concern
that
the
MACT
may
not
be
sufficiently
protective,
which
the
agency
is
unable
to
dispel
based
on
the
information
before
it.
Consequently,
the
permit
authority
cannot
determine
that
the
permit
meets
RCRA's
standard
for
permit
issuance.
An
as
noted
above,
all
of
the
requirements
of
Part
124
would
apply
to
actions
taken
in
accordance
with
§
270.10(
l).
For
additional
discussion
on
this
issue,
please
refer
to
the
Response
to
Comments
background
document
for
this
final
rule.
88
Despite
the
many
reasons
offered
by
commenters
opposing
our
proposal,
we
continue
to
believe
that
our
proposed
approach
is
appropriate.
As
discussed
in
the
proposal
(
69
FR
21327)
and
in
the
previous
subsection,
although
the
Phase
1
Replacement
and
Phase
2
standards
provide
a
high
level
of
protection
(
i.
e.,
they
are
generally
protective)
to
human
health
and
the
environment,
thereby
allowing
us
to
nationally
defer
the
RCRA
emission
requirements
to
MACT,
additional
controls
may
be
necessary
on
an
individual
source
basis
to
ensure
that
adequate
protection
is
achieved
in
accordance
with
RCRA.
Until
today,
we
have
relied
exclusively
upon
RCRA
§
3005(
c)(
3)
and
its
associated
regulations
at
§
270.10(
k)
when
conducting
or
requiring
an
SSRA.
We
continue
to
believe
that
§
3005(
c)(
3)
and
its
associated
regulations
provide
the
authority
to
require
and
perform
SSRAs
and
to
write
permit
conditions
based
on
SSRA
results.
In
fact,
as
the
next
subsection
will
explain,
EPA
will
likely
continue
to
include
permit
conditions
based
on
the
omnibus
authority
in
some
circumstances
when
conducting
these
activities,
and
state
agencies
in
states
with
authorized
programs
will
continue
to
rely
on
their
own
authorized
equivalent.
However,
because
SSRAs
are
likely
to
continue
to
be
necessary
at
some
facilities,
we
are
finalizing
the
authority
to
require
them
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
and
add
conditions
to
RCRA
permits
based
on
SSRA
results
under
the
authority
of
RCRA
§
§
3004(
a)
and
(
q)
and
3005(
c).
Therefore,
we
are
finalizing
§
§
270.10(
l)
and
270.32(
b)(
3)
with
some
minor
modifications
to
provide
further
clarification
of
the
Agency's
intent.

D.
How
Will
the
New
SSRA
Regulatory
Provisions
Work?

The
new
regulatory
provisions
are
finalized
under
both
base
program
authority
(
§
3004(
a)
and
§
3005(
b))
and
HSWA
authority
(
§
3004(
q)).
That
is,
changes
made
to
regulations
applicable
to
boilers
are
promulgated
under
HSWA
authority,
whereas
changes
made
to
regulations
applicable
to
incinerators
are
promulgated
under
non­
HSWA
authority.
Consequently,
when
it
is
determined
that
an
SSRA
is
needed,
the
applicability
of
these
provisions
will
vary
according
to
the
type
of
combustion
unit
(
whether
it
is
regulated
under
3004(
q),
or
only
3004(
a)
and
3005(
b)),
and
the
authorization
status
of
the
state.
Depending
on
the
facts,
the
new
authority
would
be
88
See
final
Response
to
Comment
to
the
HWC
MACT
Standards,
Volume
5,
Miscellaneous.
87
applicable,
or
the
omnibus
provision
would
remain
the
principal
authority
for
requiring
SSRAs
and
imposing
risk­
based
conditions
where
appropriate.
See
69
FR
21327.
According
to
the
state
authorization
section
of
this
preamble
(
see
Part
Five,
Section
IV.),
EPA
does
not
consider
these
provisions
to
be
either
more
or
less
stringent
than
the
pre­
existing
federal
program,
since
they
simply
make
explicit
an
authority
that
has
been
and
remains
available
under
the
omnibus
authority
and
its
implementing
regulations.
Thus,
states
with
authorized
equivalents
to
the
federal
omnibus
authority
will
not
be
required
to
adopt
these
provisions,
so
long
as
they
interpret
their
omnibus
authority
broadly
enough
to
require
risk
assessments
where
necessary.
89
The
provisions
of
§
§
270.10(
l)
and
270.32(
b)(
3)
adopted
in
today's
rule
are
substantially
similar
to
the
provisions
EPA
proposed.
Section
270.10(
l)
continues
to
explicitly
provide
that
a
permit
authority
has
the
authority
to
evaluate,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
the
need
for
an
SSRA.
EPA
has
also
retained
its
proposed
language
that
explicitly
provides
that,
where
an
SSRA
is
determined
to
be
necessary,
the
permit
authority
may
require
a
permittee
or
an
applicant
to
conduct
an
SSRA,
or
to
provide
the
regulatory
agency
with
the
information
necessary
to
conduct
an
SSRA
on
behalf
of
the
permittee/
applicant.
The
final
provision
also
essentially
retains
the
standard
laid
out
in
the
proposal:
that
a
permit
authority
may
decide
that
an
SSRA
is
warranted
based
on
a
conclusion
that
additional
controls
beyond
those
required
pursuant
to
40
CFR
parts
63,
264,
265,
or
266
may
be
needed
to
ensure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
under
RCRA.
In
§
270.32(
b)(
3),
EPA
has
also
explicitly
codified
the
authority
for
permit
authorities
to
require
that
the
applicant
provide
information,
if
needed,
to
make
the
decision
of
whether
an
SSRA
should
be
required.
However,
EPA
has
adopted
some
further
clarifications
to
the
final
provisions
in
response
to
comments.
In
response
to
comments
that
the
regulatory
language
EPA
had
proposed
still
fails
to
provide
the
regulated
community
with
adequate
notice
that
an
SSRA
might
be
required,
and
what
that
might
entail,
EPA
has
included
additional
language
to
address
those
issues.
Specifically,
EPA
has
included
a
sentence
stating
that
the
information
required
under
§
270.10(
l)
can
include
the
information
necessary
to
evaluate
the
potential
risk
to
human
health
and/
or
the
environment
resulting
from
both
direct
and
indirect
exposure
pathways.
EPA
has
also
added
language
to
remind
permit
authorities
that
the
determination
that
the
MACT
standards
may
not
be
sufficiently
protective
is
to
be
based
only
on
factors
relevant
to
the
potential
risk
from
the
hazardous
waste
combustion
unit
at
the
site,
and
has
provided
a
list
of
factors
to
guide
the
permit
authority
in
making
that
determination.
See
subsections
E.
and
F.
for
further
discussion.
The
applicability
language
of
§
§
270.19,
270.22,
270.62,
and
270.66
also
has
been
amended
to
allow
a
permit
authority
that
has
determined
that
an
SSRA
is
necessary
to
continue
to
apply
the
relevant
requirements
of
these
sections
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
and
as
they
relate
to
the
performance
of
the
SSRA
after
the
source
has
demonstrated
compliance
with
the
MACT
standards.
As
previously
noted,
the
requirements
at
40
CFR
Part
124
continue
to
apply
to
actions
taken
to
implement
§
270.10(
l).
Thus,
if
the
permitting
authority
concludes
that
a
risk
assessment
or
additional
information
is
necessary
for
a
particular
combustor,
the
89
Authorized
states
are
required
to
modify
their
programs
only
when
EPA
enacts
federal
requirements
that
are
more
stringent
or
broader
in
scope
than
existing
federal
requirements.
This
applies
to
regulations
promulgated
under
both
HSWA
and
non­
HSWA
authorities.
88
permitting
authority
must
provide
the
factual
and
technical
basis
for
its
decision
in
the
permit's
administrative
record
and
must
make
it
available
to
the
public
during
the
comment
period
for
the
draft
permit.
If
the
facility
or
any
other
party
files
comments
on
a
draft
permit
decision
objecting
to
the
permitting
authority's
conclusions
regarding
the
need
for
an
SSRA,
the
authority
must
respond
fully
to
the
comments.
In
addition,
the
SSRA
must
be
included
in
the
administrative
record
and
made
available
to
the
public
during
the
comment
period.
Any
additional
conditions
and
limitations
determined
to
be
necessary
as
a
result
of
the
SSRA
must
be
documented
and
supported
in
the
administrative
record
as
well.
90
E.
What
Were
Commenters'
Reactions
to
EPA's
Proposed
Decision
Not
to
Provide
National
Criteria
for
Determining
When
an
SSRA
Is
or
Is
Not
Necessary?

In
the
proposal,
we
stated
that
we
were
not
proposing
national
criteria
(
e.
g.,
guiding
factors)
for
determining
when
an
SSRA
is
necessary.
Although
we
had
developed
a
list
of
qualitative
guiding
factors
for
permit
authorities
to
consult
when
considering
the
need
for
an
SSRA
in
the
September
1999
final
rulemaking
(
revised
from
the
April
1996
NPRM),
we
never
intended
for
them
to
comprise
an
exclusive
list
for
several
reasons.
Mainly,
we
felt
that
the
complexity
of
multi­
pathway
risk
assessments
precluded
the
conversion
of
the
qualitative
guiding
factors
into
more
definitive
criteria.
See
69
FR
21328.
Commenters
generally
agreed
that
the
risk
assessment
guidance
and
policy
should
not
be
codified.
They
agreed
in
principle
that
it
is
important
to
keep
the
decision
to
require
an
SSRA
flexible
because
factors
vary
from
facility
to
facility.
However,
several
commenters
raised
the
concern
that
the
proposed
language
of
§
270.10
(
l)
was
too
vague.
For
example,
one
commenter
suggested
that
any
additional
guidance
clarifying
how
risk
assessments
should
be
performed
and
that
providing
standards
or
goals
to
be
achieved
by
the
operating
conditions
would
be
helpful.
Another
commenter
felt
that
EPA
should
identify
specific
factors
that
the
regions
and
authorized
states
should
consider,
and
specific
criteria
that
should
be
met,
before
requiring
an
SSRA
or
additional
emission
controls
or
other
standards.
We
agree
with
commenters
that
additional
guidance
would
be
beneficial
and
have
taken
a
number
of
actions
in
this
regard.
First,
EPA
is
adopting
a
more
detailed
regulatory
provision
that
provides
a
non­
exclusive
list
of
guiding
factors
for
permit
authorities
to
use
in
determining
whether
the
MACT
will
be
sufficiently
protective
at
an
individual
site,
and
consequently,
whether
an
SSRA
is
warranted.
Section
270.10(
l)
now
requires
that
the
permit
writer's
evaluation
of
whether
compliance
with
the
standards
of
40
CFR
part
63,
Subpart
EEE
alone
is
protective
of
human
health
or
the
environment
be
based
on
factors
relevant
to
the
potential
risk
from
a
hazardous
waste
combustion
unit,
including,
as
appropriate,
any
of
the
specifically
enumerated
factors.
These
factors
reflect
the
eight
guiding
factors
that
EPA
has
discussed
in
several
rule
preambles.
See
61
FR
17372,
64
FR
52842,
and
69
FR
21328.
However,
EPA
has
also
incorporated
a
few
minor
revisions
to
reflect
the
standards
promulgated
today,
and
to
reflect
the
fact
that
the
factors
will
be
codified.

90
Additional
clarification
on
the
appropriate
use
of
the
SSRA
policy
and
technical
guidance
is
provided
in
the
April
10,
2003
memorandum
from
Marianne
Lamont
Horinko
entitled
"
Use
of
the
Site­
Specific
Risk
Assessment
Policy
and
Guidance
for
Hazardous
Waste
Combustion
Facilities."
(
See
Docket
#
OAR­
2004­
0022­
0083).
89
EPA
has
revised
the
language
of
the
factors
so
that
the
language
is
consistent
between
the
provisions.
Consistency
of
phrasing
is
generally
more
important
in
regulations,
which
are
binding,
than
in
guidance.
For
example,
some
of
the
factors
listed
in
the
1999
preamble
used
the
phrase
"
presence
or
absence"
while
other
used
the
phrase
"
identities
and
quantities."
EPA
has
adopted
the
phrase
"
identities
and
quantities,"
on
the
grounds
that
it
more
precisely
expresses
the
concept
intended
by
both
phrases.
EPA
has
also
made
minor
revisions
to
reduce
redundant
text,
and
to
shorten
the
provisions,
in
the
interests
of
clarity.
For
example,
rather
than
addressing
the
proximity
of
receptors
in
two
factors,
EPA
addresses
this
issue
in
a
single
factor.
However,
nothing
contained
in
either
of
the
original
factors
was
deleted
as
part
of
this
revision.
None
of
the
revisions
described
here
substantively
change
the
issues
to
be
considered
from
those
contained
in
the
original
eight
guiding
factors.
In
addition
to
these
minor
technical
revisions,
EPA
has
included
language
to
clarify
that
one
potentially
relevant
factor
for
consideration
is
the
"
identities
and
quantities
of
persistent,
bioaccumulative
or
toxic
pollutants
considering
enforceable
controls
in
place
to
limit
those
pollutants."
This
reflects
changes
made
between
the
proposed
and
final
MACT
standards
(
e.
g.,
the
proposed
rule
called
for
beyond­
the­
floor
dioxin
limits
for
some
sources;
those
were
not
promulgated
in
the
final
rule).
Another
change
is
the
EPA
has
deleted
the
factor
that
listed
"
concerns
raised
by
the
public."
The
regulation
will
allow
the
decision
to
be
based
on
any
one
of
the
listed
factors,
and
public
concern,
unaccompanied
by
an
identifiable
risk,
would
not
provide
an
adequate
basis
for
determining
that
an
SSRA
was
warranted.
Finally,
as
discussed
previously
in
subsection
B.,
EPA
has
added
an
additional
factor
to
indicate
that
a
previously
conducted
risk
assessment
would
be
relevant
in
evaluating
changes
in
conditions
that
may
lead
to
increased
risk.
The
factor
reads
as
follows:
"
Adequacy
of
any
previously
conducted
risk
assessment,
given
any
subsequent
changes
in
conditions
likely
to
affect
risk."
See
§
270.10(
l)(
1).
One
commenter
raised
the
concern
that
the
eight
guiding
factors
the
Agency
specified
in
its
Federal
Register
notice
at
64
FR
52842
(
September
30,
1999)
did
not
adequately
focus
on
the
central
question
of
whether
there
are
likely
to
be
emissions
that
would
be
uncontrolled
under
the
Subpart
EEE
final
rule.
They
argued
that,
as
an
example,
under
guiding
factor
#
5,
if
the
waste
containing
highly
toxic
constituents
are
being
addressed
by
the
Subpart
EEE
standards,
the
fact
that
there
might
be
such
wastes
should
not
justify
an
SSRA.
The
commenter
apparently
misunderstands
that
the
factors
were
not
intended
to
function
as
stand­
alone
criteria
for
requiring
an
SSRA
 
i.
e.,
to
use
their
example,
the
commenter
believes
that
the
mere
fact
that
highly
toxic
constituents
are
present
in
the
waste
would
justify
an
SSRA
without
consideration
of
whether
the
MACT
emission
standards
were
sufficiently
protective.
This
is
an
incorrect
reading
of
EPA's
proposed
regulation.
Rather,
the
factors
were
always
intended
to
function
as
considerations
that
might
be
relevant
to
the
determination
of
whether
the
MACT
was
sufficiently
protective.
However,
the
regulatory
structure
EPA
has
adopted
in
the
final
rule
makes
perfectly
clear
that
the
critical
determination
is
that
"
compliance
with
the
standards
of
40
CFR
part
63,
Subpart
EEE
alone
may
not
be
protective
of
human
health
or
the
environment."
Further,
the
provision
states
that
this
determination
is
to
be
based
only
on
factors
relevant
to
the
potential
risk
from
the
hazardous
waste
combustion
unit,
including,
as
appropriate,
the
listed
factors.
EPA
believes
that
these
provisions
make
90
clear
that
the
determination
of
whether
to
require
an
SSRA
is
to
be
based
on
consideration
of
the
conditions
at
the
facility
site,
including,
for
example,
an
evaluation
of
all
enforceable
controls
in
place
to
limit
emissions.
Further
discussion
of
EPA's
revised
provisions
can
be
found
in
subsection
F.
Second,
as
discussed
in
more
detail
below,
EPA
is
issuing
a
revised
risk
assessment
guidance
document
that
we
believe
will
provide
additional
insight
to
help
users.
While
clearly
delineating
between
risk
management
and
risk
assessment,
the
HHRAP
explains
in
great
detail
a
recommended
process
for
performing
and
reporting
on
cost­
effective,
scientifically
defensible
risk
assessments.
It
includes
numerous
recommended
defaults,
while
at
the
same
time
is
flexible
enough
to
incorporate
sitespecific
values.
Although
the
HHRAP
provides
numerous
recommendations,
it
remains
merely
guidance
and
consequently
leaves
the
final
decisions
up
to
the
permitting
authority.
We
believe
that
the
revised
HHRAP
guidance
will
provide
further
assistance
to
permit
writers,
risk
assessors
and
facilities
in
determining
whether
or
not
to
conduct
an
SSRA
and
what
and
how
much
information
is
required
for
the
SSRA.

F.
What
Are
EPA's
Responses
to
the
Cement
Kiln
Recycling
Coalition's
Comments
on
the
Proposal
and
What
is
EPA's
Final
Decision
on
CKRC's
Petition?

In
the
proposal,
we
provided
a
lengthy
discussion
in
response
to
CKRC's
petition
for
rulemaking
(
69
FR
21325
 
21331).
In
its
petition,
CKRC
presented
two
requests
with
respect
to
SSRAs:
(
1)
that
EPA
repeal
the
existing
SSRA
policy
and
technical
guidance
because
CKRC
believes
that
the
policy
and
guidance
"
are
regulations
issued
without
appropriate
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
procedures";
and
(
2)
after
EPA
repeals
the
policy
and
guidance,
"
should
EPA
believe
it
can
establish
the
need
to
require
SSRAs
in
certain
situations,
CKRC
urges
EPA
undertake
an
appropriate
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
process
seeking
to
promulgate
regulations
establishing
such
requirements."
Additionally,
CKRC
stated
that
it
does
"
not
believe
that
these
SSRAs
are
in
any
event
necessary
or
appropriate"
and
that
they
disagree
with
EPA's
use
of
the
RCRA
omnibus
provision
as
the
authority
to
conduct
SSRAs.
Finally,
CKRC
raised
three
general
concerns:
(
1)
whether
an
SSRA
is
needed
for
hazardous
waste
combustors
that
will
be
receiving
a
RCRA
permit
when
the
combustor
is
in
full
compliance
with
the
RCRA
boiler
and
industrial
furnace
regulations
and/
or
with
the
MACT
regulations;
(
2)
how
an
SSRA
should
be
conducted;
and
(
3)
what
is
the
threshold
level
for
a
"
yes"
or
"
no"
decision
that
additional
risk­
based
permit
conditions
are
necessary.
We
believe
our
tentative
decision
in
the
proposal
addressed
each
request
and
concern
presented
in
their
petition.
However,
in
its
comments,
CKRC
has
restated
many
of
the
same
issues
with
new
emphasis.
Thus,
we
believe
it
is
appropriate
to
address
their
major
comments
in
the
following
paragraphs.
9
1.
Whether
SSRAs
are
Necessary
for
Facilities
in
Full
Compliance
with
BIF
or
MACT
Regulations
In
its
comments,
CKRC
continues
to
question
the
need
for
any
SSRAs
at
facilities
that
are
in
full
compliance
with
the
MACT
EEE
standards.
CKRC
also
states
that
"[
our]

9
CKRC
provided
numerous
comments
organized
by
subtitles.
Rather
than
relying
on
this
format
in
the
preamble,
we
have
organized
the
comments
and
responses
according
to
the
concerns
initially
raised
in
the
petition,
and
consistent
with
the
discussion
presented
in
the
proposal.
91
Petition
challenged
EPA
to
explain
why,
if
there
is
any
need
for
SSRAs
at
all
under
RCRA,
there
is
a
rational
basis
for
why
it
has
limited
the
entire
SSRA
program
to
hazardous
waste
combustors."
They
argue
that,
"
The
point
is
that
if
the
"
omnibus"
words
in
RCRA
mean
what
EPA
says
they
mean
for
hazardous
waste
combustors,
why
do
they
not
mean
the
same
thing
for
all
of
the
other
TSD
facilities
that
also
pose
the
same
kind
of
"
what­
if"
hypotheticals
that
EPA
throws
out
in
its
preamble?"
As
discussed
above
in
subsection
B.,
and
in
greater
detail
below,
EPA
believes
that
risk
assessments
will
continue
to
be
necessary
at
some
facilities.
For
example,
based
on
the
inconclusive
results
from
the
national
risk
assessment
conducted
for
the
1999
final
rule
and
the
comparative
risk
analysis
conducted
for
today's
rule,
EPA
is
not
able
to
conclude
that
all
MACT
standards
will
be
sufficiently
protective
for
every
facility
(
e.
g.,
non­
dioxin
PICs
not
previously
modeled,
no
numerical
dioxin/
furan
emission
standard
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
with
wet
or
no
APCDs,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces,
etc.).
EPA
also
provided
examples
of
site­
specific
factors
that
might
lead
risk
assessors
to
decide
that
the
MACT
standards
may
not
be
sufficiently
protective,
and
therefore
an
SSRA
may
be
necessary
(
e.
g.,
if
a
source's
emissions
are
comprised
of
persistent
bioaccumulative
or
toxic
contaminants).
EPA
also
discussed
this
issue
at
length
in
both
the
2004
proposal,
and
the
1999
rule
preamble.
See
69
FR
21326
and
64
FR
52842.
Given
these
uncertainties,
the
SSRA
provides
significant
support
for
the
Agency's
1006(
b)
determination
supporting
the
elimination
of
separate
RCRA
emission
standards
for
MACT
EEE
facilities.
We
disagree
that
our
discussion
of
standards
(
and
site­
specific
factors)
that
may
warrant
a
risk
evaluation
at
certain
types
of
facilities
are
mere
"
what­
if"
hypotheticals.
The
examples
that
we
discussed
in
both
the
earlier
preambles
and
above
were
based
on
the
1999
national
risk
assessment
and
a
comparative
risk
analysis,
which
concluded
that
either
there
was
not
enough
information
to
make
a
definitive
protectiveness
determination
or
that
uncertainty
in
cancer
and
other
health
effects
levels
of
dioxin
and
furans,
for
instance,
make
it
difficult
to
draw
conclusions
about
potential
risks.
Furthermore,
the
discussions
with
respect
to
the
protectiveness
of
certain
standards
(
i.
e.,
some
are
less
stringent
today
than
the
1999
standards)
in
subsection
B.,
present
a
reasonable
basis
for
permitting
authorities
to
consider
whether
or
not
risk
should
be
evaluated.
In
support
of
our
position
that
the
examples
we
have
provided
in
the
1999
final
rule
preamble,
the
2004
proposed
rule
preamble,
and
this
final
rule,
are
more
than
"
what­
if"
hypotheticals,
we
have
placed
copies
of
completed
risk
assessments
where
riskbased
limits
were
found
to
be
necessary
in
the
docket
for
today's
final
rule
(
see
OAR­
2004­
0022).
The
CKRC
fails
to
acknowledge
that
there
are
many
aspects
of
hazardous
waste
combustors
and
the
combustion
process
itself,
which
make
this
category
of
TSD
facilities
different
from
others,
and
which
factor
heavily
into
our
SSRA
policy.
Consider
that
many
combustion
facilities
feed
a
wide
array
of
waste
streams
comprised
of
many
hazardous
constituents.
The
combustion
of
these
constituents
results
in
complex
chemical
processes
(
which
are
difficult
to
predict)
occurring
throughout
the
combustion
unit.
The
end
product
is
stack
emissions
comprised
of
a
variety
of
compounds
different
from
those
that
enter
the
process,
and
thus
are
difficult
to
predict
because
they
can
vary
greatly
based
on
the
many
variables
of
the
individual
combustion
unit,
making
them
difficult
to
address
(
i.
e.,
there
are
no
specific
emissions
standards
to
limit
certain
92
compounds
such
as
products
of
incomplete
combustion).
For
example,
in
attempting
to
maximize
the
destruction
of
organic
compounds,
products
of
incomplete
combustion
are
often
generated
as
a
consequence.
Further,
due
to
stack
dispersion,
hazardous
waste
combustors
have
the
potential
to
affect
several
square
miles.
Other
types
of
TSD
facilities'
operations
typically
do
not
encompass
such
complex
processes
or
have
the
potential
to
adversely
affect
receptors
for
several
square
miles.
It
should
be
noted
that
hazardous
waste
combustors
are
not
the
only
type
of
TSD
subjected
to
site­
specific
evaluations
of
risk.
We
take
a
site­
specific
approach
to
regulating
miscellaneous
units
under
Part
264,
subpart
X.
Because
it
is
not
possible
to
develop
performance
standards
and
emission
limits
for
each
type
of
treatment
unit
that
may
fall
under
this
broad
category,
we
rely
on
general
environmental
performance
standards
to
meet
our
mandate
under
§
§
3004
(
a)
and
(
q)
that
standards
governing
the
operation
of
hazardous
waste
facilities
be
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
For
example,
§
264.601(
c)
requires
"
Prevention
of
any
release
that
may
have
adverse
effects
on
human
health
or
the
environment
due
to
migration
of
waste
constituents
in
the
air,
considering: (
6)
the
potential
for
health
risks
caused
by
human
exposure
to
waste
constituents;
and "
For
all
intents
and
purposes,
subparts
X
units
are
subject
to
SSRAs
as
well.
In
addition,
the
question
of
whether
an
SSRA
continues
to
be
necessary
is
partly
a
function
of
the
fact
that
EPA
is
seeking
to
rely
on
CAA
MACT
standards
in
order
to
eliminate
RCRA
emissions
standards
for
these
facilities.
As
noted
above,
because
the
MACT
is
technology­
based,
and
because
of
uncertainties
in
our
national
risk
assessments,
permit
writers'
ability
to
conduct
an
SSRA
in
individual
cases
provides
important
support
for
our
deferral.
RCRA
§
§
3004(
a)
and
(
q)
mandate
that
standards
governing
the
operation
of
hazardous
waste
combustion
facilities
be
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
To
meet
this
mandate,
we
originally
developed
national
combustion
standards
under
RCRA,
taking
into
account
the
potential
risk
posed
by
direct
inhalation
of
the
emissions
from
these
sources.
With
advancements
in
risk
assessment
science
since
promulgation
of
the
original
national
standards
(
i.
e.,
1981
for
incinerators
and
1991
for
boilers
and
industrial
furnaces),
it
became
apparent
that
the
risk
posed
by
indirect
exposure
(
e.
g.,
ingestion
of
contaminants
in
the
food
chain)
to
long­
term
deposition
of
metals,
dioxins/
furans
and
other
organic
compounds
onto
soils
and
surface
waters
should
be
assessed
in
addition
to
the
risk
posed
by
direct
inhalation
exposure
to
these
contaminants.
We
also
recognized
that
the
national
assessments
performed
in
support
of
the
original
hazardous
waste
combustor
standards
did
not
take
into
account
unique
and
site­
specific
considerations
which
might
influence
the
risk
posed
by
a
particular
source.
Therefore,
until
EPA
was
able
to
revise
its
regulations,
to
ensure
the
RCRA
mandate
was
met
on
a
facility­
specific
level
for
all
hazardous
waste
combustors,
we
strongly
recommended
that
site­
specific
risk
assessments
(
SSRAs),
including
evaluations
of
risk
resulting
from
both
direct
and
indirect
exposure
pathways,
be
conducted
as
part
of
the
RCRA
permitting
process.
In
those
situations
where
the
results
of
an
SSRA
showed
that
a
facility's
operations
could
pose
an
unacceptable
risk
(
even
after
compliance
with
the
RCRA
national
regulatory
standards),
additional
risk
based,
site­
specific
permit
conditions
could
be
imposed
pursuant
to
RCRA's
omnibus
authority,
§
3005(
c)(
3).
93
Rather
than
establish
separate
emission
standards
under
RCRA,
EPA
decided
to
coordinate
its
revisions
to
the
RCRA
emissions
standards
for
hazardous
waste
combustors
with
the
adoption
of
the
MACT
standards
pursuant
to
§
112(
d)
of
the
CAA.
See
64
FR
52832.
In
the
rulemaking
establishing
the
MACT
standards
for
incinerators,
cement
kilns
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
(
Phase
1
sources),
relying
on
RCRA
§
1006(
b),
EPA
determined
that
in
most
cases,
the
MACT
standards
would
be
sufficiently
protective
that
separate
RCRA
emission
standards
and
operating
conditions
would
not
need
to
be
included
in
the
facility's
RCRA
permit.
However,
for
a
variety
of
reasons,
EPA
lacked
sufficient
factual
basis
to
conclude
that
a
complete
deferral
of
RCRA
requirements
could
be
supported
for
all
facilities.
Section
1006(
b)
conditions
EPA's
authority
to
reduce
or
eliminate
RCRA
requirements
on
the
Agency's
ability
to
demonstrate
that
the
integration
meets
RCRA's
protectiveness
mandate
(
42
U.
S.
C.
6005(
b)
(
1)).
See
Chemical
Waste
Management
v.
EPA,
976
F.
2d
2,
23,
25
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1992).
To
support
its
RCRA
§
1006(
b)
determination,
EPA
conducted
a
national
evaluation
of
both
direct
and
indirect
human
health
and
ecological
risks
to
determine
if
the
MACT
standards
would
satisfy
the
RCRA
mandate
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
That
evaluation,
however,
did
not
quantitatively
assess
the
proposed
standards
with
respect
to
mercury
and
nondioxin
products
of
incomplete
combustion.
This
was
due
to
a
lack
of
adequate
information
regarding
the
behavior
of
mercury
in
the
environment
and
a
lack
of
sufficient
emissions
data
and
parameter
values
(
e.
g.,
bioaccumulation
values)
for
nondioxin
products
of
incomplete
combustion.
Since
it
was
not
possible
to
suitably
evaluate
the
proposed
standards
for
the
potential
risk
posed
by
mercury
and
nondioxin
products
of
incomplete
combustion,
in
order
to
support
our
1006(
b)
determination,
we
continued
to
recommend
that
SSRAs
be
conducted
for
some
facilities
as
part
of
the
permitting
process
until
we
could
conduct
a
further
assessment
once
final
MACT
standards
were
promulgated
and
implemented.
Specifically,
we
recommended
that
for
hazardous
waste
combustors
subject
to
the
Phase
1
MACT
standards­­
hazardous
waste
burning
incinerators,
cement
kilns
and
light­
weight
aggregate
kilns­­
permitting
authorities
should
evaluate
the
need
for
an
SSRA
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
We
further
stated
that
while
SSRAs
are
not
anticipated
to
be
necessary
for
every
facility,
they
should
be
conducted
where
there
is
some
reason
to
believe
that
operation
in
accordance
with
the
MACT
standards
alone
may
not
be
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
For
hazardous
waste
combustors
not
subject
to
the
Phase
1
standards,
we
continued
to
recommend
that
SSRAs
be
conducted
as
part
of
the
RCRA
permitting
process.
See
64
FR
52841.
As
discussed
in
subsection
B.,
EPA
believes
that
SSRAs
may
continue
to
be
necessary
for
some
Phase
1
facilities.
For
the
Phase
2
sources,
our
comparative
risk
analysis
generally
indicates
that,
although
the
MACT
standards
for
Phase
2
sources
are
appreciably
more
stringent
than
the
current
RCRA
BIF
standards,
an
SSRA
may
be
necessary
to
confirm
that
a
facility
will
operate
in
a
way
that
is
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
Thus,
for
both
Phase
1
and
Phase
2
sources,
we
continue
to
believe
that
SSRAs
may
be
necessary
for
some
facilities.
91
We
generally
believe
the
MACT
standards
will
91
As
discussed
in
section
B.,
we
expect
that
facilities
that
have
previously
conducted
an
SSRA
will
not
need
to
conduct
another
in
consideration
of
today's
final
standards.
Only
those
facilities
newly
subject
to
the
RCRA
permitting
requirements,
or
existing
sources
where
changes
in
conditions
could
lead
to
increased
risk,
may
need
to
conduct
or
modify
an
existing
SSRA.
94
be
protective;
in
most
cases
they
are
substantially
more
protective
than
the
existing
RCRA
part
264,
265,
and
266
requirements.
However,
because
HWCs
manage
hazardous
waste
and
process
it
by
burning
and
emitting
the
by­
products
into
the
air,
a
multitude
of
potential
exposure
pathways
exist.
These
exposure
pathways
can
also
vary
substantially
based
on
site­
specific
factors
associated
with
an
individual
combustion
unit
and
the
surrounding
site.
Such
factors
make
it
difficult
for
the
Agency
to
conclude
that
a
single,
national
risk
assessment
provides
adequate
factual
support
for
its
determination
that
the
technology­
based
MACT
standards
will
be
sufficiently
protective.
This
is
further
complicated
by
the
fact
that,
for
certain
parameters,
the
Agency
lacked
sufficient
information
to
quantitatively
assess
the
risk,
but
is
relying
on
a
combination
of
quantitative
and
qualitative
assessments
of
the
MACT
standards'
protectiveness.
Nonetheless,
EPA
does
not
believe
that
the
uncertainty
is
so
great
that
it
would
preclude
a
deferral
under
1006(
b)
for
the
affected
categories
of
facilities;
nor
does
EPA
believe
that
these
uncertainties
necessarily
support
requiring
a
risk
assessment
for
all
such
facilities.
Conditions
at
the
facility
might
confirm
that
the
MACT
standards
are
sufficiently
protective,
without
the
need
for
a
facility­
wide
risk
assessment.
For
example,
if
the
results
of
the
MACT
testing
demonstrated
that
the
facility's
dioxin
emissions
fall
below
the
levels
estimated
in
the
database
EPA
used
for
its
comparative
risk
assessment,
the
uncertainties
in
EPA's
comparative
risk
assessment
would
not,
by
itself,
support
a
decision
to
require
an
SSRA.
Such
decisions
require
an
evaluation
of
the
conditions
at
the
site,
and
EPA
believes
it
important
to
retain
the
flexibility
for
permit
authorities
to
take
these
conditions
into
account.
Accordingly,
EPA
believes
that
the
regulatory
structure
adopted
in
today's
rule
strikes
the
appropriate
balance
between
these
competing
factors.
In
response
to
EPA's
statement
in
the
proposal
that
non­
HAP
emissions,
which
were
beyond
the
direct
scope
of
MACT,
may
pose
risk
which
could
necessitate
an
SSRA
(
69
FR
21326),
CKRC
pointed
out
that
the
same
could
be
said
for
other
types
of
TSDs,
such
as
landfills,
land
treatment
systems,
etcetera,
and
EPA
has
not
addressed
this
point
in
its
preamble.
As
previously
noted,
combustion
units
are
distinct
from
other
types
of
TSDs
due
to
the
wide
array
of
waste
streams
being
fed
to
the
unit,
the
complex
chemical
processes
throughout
the
combustion
unit,
stack
emissions
comprised
of
a
wide
variety
of
compounds
that
are
difficult
to
address,
and
the
potential
to
impact
receptors
for
several
square
miles
due
to
stack
dispersion.
A
further
distinction
is
that
EPA
is
seeking
to
rely
on
the
MACT
standards
to
eliminate
national
RCRA
stack
emissions
standards
under
§
1006(
b).
Unless
EPA
can
affirmatively
demonstrate
that
RCRA's
protectiveness
standards
are
met,
the
Agency
cannot
eliminate
RCRA
requirements.
A
number
of
uncertainties
remain
concerning
the
protectiveness
of
the
MACT
standards
based
on
the
uncertainties
remaining
in
the
supporting
national
risk
assessment
and
comparative
analysis,
and
the
variability
of
site­
specific
factors
from
one
facility
to
another.
Permitting
authorities'
ability
to
resolve
these
uncertainties
through
the
use
of
the
SSRA,
where
appropriate,
provides
important
support
for
the
Agency's
1006(
b)
finding.
Furthermore,
as
we
have
noted,
under
omnibus,
to
the
extent
permitting
authorities
believe
there
are
problems
with
other
types
of
TSDs,
they
can
impose
requirements
and
request
additional
information,
including
an
SSRA
in
accordance
with
§
270.10(
k).
Also
as
previously
noted,
Part
264,
subpart
X
specifically
incorporates
site­
specific
consideration
of
risk
into
its
regulatory
framework.
95
Next,
CKRC
comments
that
EPA
has
a
non­
discretionary
duty
under
CAA
§
112(
f)
to
address
and
take
care
of
any
"
residual
risk"
from
MACT
facilities
in
the
future
in
any
event.
We
discussed
why
we
do
not
believe
that
the
residual
risk
process
should
or
can
take
the
place
of
an
SSRA
under
RCRA
in
subsection
C.
of
this
SSRA
preamble,
as
well
as
in
the
1999
rule
preamble
(
64
FR
52843).
In
short,
because
the
residual
risk
standards
have
not
yet
been
established,
permit
writers
cannot
rely
on
this
process
in
reaching
current
permitting
decisions
or
in
acting
on
currently
pending
permit
applications.
2.
Codification
of
EPA's
Technical
Guidance.
In
response
to
our
explanation
in
the
proposal
that
risk
assessment
guidelines
should
be
flexible
and
reflect
current
science,
CKRC
gave
three
comments:
(
1)
not
a
word
of
the
current
SSRA
guidelines
has
been
changed
in
3
years;
(
2)
it
is
easy
to
write
regulations
that
have
provisions
that
might
be
applied
differently
in
different
situations,
and
at
least
many
basic,
fundamental
points
can
go
in
regulations,
while
some
details
can
be
in
guidance
 
EPA
writes
regulations
accompanied
by
"
fill
in
the
small
details"
guidance
all
the
time;
and
3)
EPA
seems
to
have
no
real
problems
with
regulatory
fixes
anyway.
In
addition,
CKRC
provides
several
comments
related
to
the
previous
three
throughout
their
comment
document,
which
are
addressed
below.
None
of
these
comments
address
the
specific
issue
EPA
raised,
which
is
that,
while
it
certainly
is
possible
to
codify
our
risk
assessment
guidance,
for
a
variety
of
reasons,
we
disagree
that
it
would
be
appropriate
to
issue
these
technical
recommendations
as
a
regulation.
As
we
previously
explained,
risk
assessment
 
especially
multi­
pathway,
indirect
exposure
assessment
 
is
a
highly
technical
and
evolving
field.
Any
regulatory
approach
EPA
might
codify
in
this
area
is
likely
to
become
outdated,
or
at
least
artificially
constraining,
shortly
after
promulgation
in
ways
that
EPA
cannot
anticipate
now.
In
support
of
this,
we
noted
specific
examples
of
problems
we
experienced
in
implementing
the
BIF
regulations.
See
69
FR
21330.
Further,
we
explained
that
at
the
time
of
codification,
BIF
risk
assessments
were
not
intended
to
address
indirect
routes
of
exposure,
thus
making
the
parameters
easier
to
implement.
Today,
however,
risk
assessments
are
more
complex
due
to
the
necessary
inclusion
of
multi­
pathway
and
indirect
exposure
routes.
Given
the
complexity
of
multipathway
and
indirect
exposure
assessments
and
the
fact
that
risk
science
is
continuously
evolving,
it
would
be
difficult
and
again,
overly
constraining,
to
codify
risk
parameters
today.
We
note
as
well,
in
this
regard,
that
several
commenters
agreed
that
codification
of
EPA's
risk
assessment
guidance
would
be
too
constraining
for
both
the
agency
and
the
regulated
community.
We
also
believe
that
a
guidance
approach
is
consistent
with
the
fact
that
permit
authorities
must
make
site­
specific
decisions
whether
to
do
risk
assessments
at
all.
We
think
that
it
makes
little
sense
to
allow
this
kind
of
flexibility
regarding
whether
to
do
a
risk
assessment
and
for
what
purposes,
while
prescribing
how
one
must
be
conducted
if
one
is
required.
In
fact,
permitting
authorities,
in
some
cases,
have
developed
their
own
guidance
methodologies
responsive
to
the
specific
needs
associated
with
their
facilities.
For
example,
North
Carolina,
Texas,
and
New
York
have
each
developed
their
own
risk
assessment
methodologies.
Further,
facilities
that
choose
to
conduct
SSRAs
themselves
can
choose
alternative
approaches
in
applying
methodologies
as
well.
We
think
this
flexibility
employed
in
the
field
supports
our
judgment
that
risk
assessment
96
methodologies
should
not
be
codified.
CKRC's
comments
failed
to
address
any
of
these
issues.
Turning
to
the
remainder
of
CKRC's
specific
points
 
CKRC's
assertion
that
the
technical
guidance
has
not
been
amended
in
the
past
three
years
is
inaccurate.
A
revised
HHRAP
guidance,
that
has
been
amended
to
take
into
account
the
technical
recommendations
from
both
the
public
comments
and
peer
review,
is
published
in
conjunction
with
this
rule.
In
addition,
as
noted
above,
in
some
cases,
permitting
authorities
have
developed
their
own
methodologies
responsive
to
the
specific
needs
associated
with
their
facilities.
With
respect
to
CKRC's
third
point,
the
regulatory
corrections
made
to
the
MACT
rules
were
necessary
either
to
fix
an
error
or
omission
or
to
resolve
potential
legal
issues.
To
codify
technical
tools
and
chemical
information
pertinent
to
the
risk
process
simply
is
not
prudent,
as
this
information
is
continually
changing
and
would
almost
always
be
out
of
date.
Granted,
when
this
information
is
presented
in
guidance,
it
can
just
as
easily
become
outdated,
however,
facilities
and
risk
assessors
are
free
to
use
the
most
up­
to­
date
air
modeling
tools
and
toxicity
values
available
(
i.
e.,
they
would
not
be
bound
to
regulations
requiring
the
use
of
obsolete
tools
and
information).
We
continue
to
believe
that
publishing
our
technical
recommendations
as
regulation
would
remove
much
of
the
flexibility
that
is
important
in
evaluating
risk
on
a
site­
specific
basis.
CKRC
discounts
EPA's
statement
that
codification
of
risk
assessment
is
the
exception
arguing
that
"
Neither
TSCA
or
CERCLA,
however,
specifically
commands
EPA
to
define
the
type
of
information
necessary
for
a
permit
application
through
the
rulemaking
process
as
RCRA
does.
Moreover,
the
TSCA
and
CERCLA
examples
EPA
cites
are
not
analogous
to
the
situation
where
a
permit
applicant
can
be
denied
a
permit
 
or
at
least
strung
through
months
or
years
of
tortuous
and
costly
submissions,
revision,
and
resubmission
­
to
obtain
a
permit."
Even
if
TSCA
and
CERCLA
were
not
considered
to
be
analogous,
that
does
not
change
EPA's
fundamental
rationale
that
codification
of
highly
technical
risk
assessment
guidance
is
not
appropriate.
EPA
does
not
believe
that
RCRA
§
3005(
b)
requires
EPA
to
codify
an
exhaustive
list
of
every
possible
piece
of
information
that
might
be
required
in
a
permit.
To
some
extent,
that
is
the
reason
for
having
a
permit
process
 
to
allow
site
specific
conditions
to
be
taken
into
account.
Nevertheless,
EPA
has
revised
part
270,
pursuant
to
RCRA
§
3004(
a)
and
§
3005(
b)
to
specifically
provide
that
a
risk
assessment
may
be
necessary,
where
there
is
reason
to
believe
that
the
MACT
standards
may
not
be
sufficiently
protective.
This
was
done
wholly
to
address
the
petitioner's
concern
that
the
current
regulations
do
not
adequately
provide
notice
that
an
SSRA
might
be
necessary
as
part
of
a
permit
application.
This
provision,
while
it
does
not
provide
as
much
detail
as
the
petitioner
wishes,
clearly
"
defines
the
type
of
information
necessary
for
a
permit
application."
CKRC
complains
that
the
Agency
did
not
address
in
its
proposed
response
the
petitioner's
discussion
of
the
"
strong
case
law
compelling
the
conclusion
that
`
guidance'
documents
EPA
has
issued
for
conducting
SSRAs
must
be
subjected
to
notice­
andcomment
rulemaking."
EPA
has
chosen
not
to
respond
to
CKRC's
legal
interpretation
because
we
believe
that
it
is
clear
that
the
guidance
documents
do
not
impose
mandatory
requirements,
and
therefore
need
not
be
issued
by
notice
and
comment
rulemaking.
Nevertheless,
EPA
notes
that
in
the
proposal,
the
Agency
explained
that
we
were
in
the
97
process
of
reviewing
the
guidance
documents,
and,
to
the
extent
we
found
language
that
could
be
construed
as
limiting
discretion,
we
committed
to
revise
the
documents
to
make
clear
that
they
are
non­
binding.
See
69
FR
21329.
We
specifically
noted
that
CKRC
indicated
in
its
petition
that,
in
its
view,
the
documents
contain
language
that
could
be
construed
as
mandatory.
While
EPA
does
not
necessarily
agree,
and
believes
that,
in
context,
it
is
clear
that
the
recommendations
in
the
documents
are
discretionary,
EPA
nonetheless
reviewed
the
documents
to
ensure
that
they
are
carefully
drafted.
Consequently,
under
the
standards
articulated
in
Appalachian
Power
Co.
v.
EPA,
208
F.
3d
1015
(
D.
C.
Cir.
2000)
and
subsequent
case
law,
the
final
HHRAP
guidance
is
truly
guidance
and
does
not
require
notice­
and­
comment
rulemaking.
The
HHRAP
explains
in
great
detail
an
acceptable
process
for
performing
and
reporting
on
cost­
effective,
scientifically
defensible
risk
assessments.
It
includes
numerous
recommended
defaults,
while
at
the
same
time
provides
the
risk
assessor
or
facility
full
opportunity
to
incorporate
site­
specific
values
in
place
of
the
defaults.
The
HHRAP
offers
numerous
recommendations,
but
requires
nothing.
EPA
has
placed
a
copy
of
the
final
guidance
document
in
the
docket
for
today's
action
(
see
OAR­
2004­
0022).
CKRC
believes
that
EPA's
technical
guidance
imposes
information
requirements
upon
the
RCRA
permit
applicant
that
are
not
contained
in
any
regulations
and
in
fact
exceed
by
orders
of
magnitude
any
information
requirements
contained
in
the
part
270
regulations.
We
disagree
that
anything
contained
in
HHRAP
is
"
required"
in
any
way.
Moreover,
to
the
extent
any
individual
facility
believes
the
information
requested
is
inappropriate
or
unnecessary,
they
can
challenge
that
as
part
of
the
permitting
process.
Lastly,
CKRC
argues
that
"
The
procedures
EPA
has
been
using
to
issue
and
revise
the
SSRA
guidance
do
not
by
any
measure
comply
with
the
full
panoply
of
procedures
and
protections
offered
by
the
APA
process.
Most
critically,
when
EPA
merely
solicits
comments
on
draft
guidance
documents,
it
has
no
duty
to
respond
to
comments
and
provide
a
rational
basis
and
justification
in
defense
of
its
choices
in
the
face
of
comments.
EPA
is
essentially
running
its
entire
SSRA
program
on
the
basis
of
"
draft"
guidance
versions
for
which
EPA
has
never
to
this
day
prepared
any
response
to
comments."
As
previously
noted,
EPA
believes
the
final
HHRAP
is
merely
guidance
and
therefore,
EPA
is
not
required
to
proceed
through
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
pursuant
to
§
553
of
the
APA.
However,
because
we
want
the
HHRAP
guidance
to
be
useful
and
clear,
we
have
solicited
public
review
and
comment.
As
a
result,
it
has
been
improved
over
the
years
by
including
revisions
to
the
guidance
based
upon
feedback
from
users
of
the
guidance
and
from
experience
in
the
field.
A
response
to
comments
document
has
been
prepared
and
released
along
with
the
final
HHRAP
and
final
MACT
rules,
even
though
the
Agency
was
not
required
to
do
so.
More
to
the
point,
because
it
is
only
guidance,
sources
will
have
the
opportunity
to
raise
questions
or
comments
on
anything
in
the
guidance
as
part
of
the
permitting
process
and
the
permitting
authority
will
be
required
to
respond
to
those
comments
as
part
of
the
permitting
process.
See
40
CFR
part
124.
Sources
will
also
have
the
right
to
challenge
the
responses
or
use
of
the
guidance
as
part
of
the
permitting
process.
3.
Codification
of
Criteria
for
Determining
that
Additional
Risk­
Based
Permit
Conditions
or
an
SSRA
Is
Necessary
CKRC
argues
that
EPA's
proposed
regulatory
changes
should
not
be
considered
as
a
partial
grant
because
EPA
has
not
codified
specific
criteria
in
the
proposed
98
regulations
for
permit
authorities
to
use
to
decide
whether
to
require
an
SSRA;
to
set
the
risk
levels
that
are
deemed
protective;
or
to
otherwise
provide
any
further
definition
as
to
what
it
means
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
In
its
petition,
CKRC
requested
that
after
we
repeal
the
policy
and
guidance
(
per
the
first
request),
"
should
EPA
believe
it
can
establish
the
need
to
require
SSRAs
in
certain
situations,
CKRC
urges
EPA
to
undertake
an
appropriate
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
process
seeking
to
promulgate
regulations
establishing
such
requirements."
As
discussed
at
length
in
both
the
proposal
(
69
FR
21325­
21327)
and
the
preceding
paragraphs,
we
believe
that
we
have
established
certain
circumstances
where
the
MACT
standards
may
not
be
protective
and
that
an
SSRA
may
be
warranted,
based
on
relevant
site­
specific
factors
associated
with
an
individual
combustion
unit.
Consequently,
we
are
finalizing
regulations
that
explicitly
authorize
permitting
authorities
to
conduct
or
require
an
SSRA
on
a
site­
specific
basis.
This,
in
our
view,
grants
the
second
of
CKRC's
requests.
Our
response
directly
addresses
a
number
of
CKRC's
concerns:
(
1)
through
a
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
process,
EPA
has
established
circumstances
in
which
an
SSRA
may
be
necessary;
and
(
2)
EPA's
regulations
will
now
explicitly
acknowledge
that
an
SSRA
might
be
necessary
as
part
of
the
permitting
process,
thereby
addressing
the
petitioner's
concern
that
EPA's
past
approach
of
relying
on
RCRA's
omnibus
authority
to
implement
this
policy
violates
the
requirements
of
RCRA
§
3005(
b).
And
as
discussed
further
below,
EPA
has
codified
criteria
for
permit
authorities
to
use
to
determine
whether
to
require
an
SSRA.
While
it
does
not
provide
exactly
what
CKRC
requested,
the
regulated
community
has
had
a
full
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
need
for
an
SSRA
both
as
part
of
the
1999
rulemaking
and,
again,
as
part
of
this
rulemaking
to
adopt
the
provisions
of
§
270.10(
l),
which
contain
an
explicit
reference
to
the
potential
need
for
an
SSRA
as
part
of
the
permitting
process
pursuant
to
RCRA
§
3004(
a)
and
§
3005(
b).
As
previously
explained,
§
270.10(
k)
does
not
explicitly
mention
the
potential
for
an
SSRA
to
be
required.
Although
the
rule
does
not
identify
a
priori
that
an
SSRA
will
be
required
in
an
individual
circumstance,
but
defers
that
determination
to
the
permitting
process,
the
final
rule
reflects
EPA's
findings
that
an
SSRA
is
not
anticipated
to
be
necessary
in
every
circumstance
 
only
where
site­
specific
conditions
give
the
permit
authority
reason
to
believe
that
additional
controls
beyond
those
required
pursuant
to
40
CFR
parts
63,
264,
265,
or
266
may
be
necessary
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
CKRC
argues
that
EPA's
decision
not
to
codify
national
criteria
renders
the
regulation
impermissibly
vague,
and
therefore,
"
in
their
view
totally
deficient
as
a
legal
matter."
The
petitioner
argues
that
the
rule
is
essentially
"
a
bootstrap
attempt
to
avoid
rulemaking
requirements
by
establishing
"
rules"
that
give
no
more
guidance
or
direction
than
general
terms
in
the
statute
and
in
no
way
channel
the
decision
maker's
discretion
or
put
the
public
on
notice
of
anything."
According
to
CKRC,
this
unbridled
discretion
is
manifest
in
three
ways:
(
1)
no
criteria
explain
how
a
permit
writer
is
to
decide
whether
to
require
an
SSRA;
need
merely
to
conclude
"
reason
to
believe";
(
2)
there
are
absolutely
no
limits
on
what
type
of
information
or
assessments
the
permit
writer
may
demand
and
the
proposed
reg.
does
not
even
hint
at
what
type
of
information
or
assessments
might
be
demanded;
and
(
3)
there
is
not
a
word
of
guidance
or
specification
as
to
what
it
means
to
"
ensure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment."
The
petitioner
argues
that
as
a
99
consequence,
the
proposed
§
270.10(
l)
would
be
struck
down
as
a
"
standardless
regulation."
EPA
disagrees
that
the
provisions
at
§
270.10(
l)
are
impermissibly
vague,
or
otherwise
inconsistent
with
the
cases
the
petitioner
cites.
In
the
cited
cases
the
courts
found
that
the
regulated
entity
bore
the
entire
burden
of
determining
how
to
comply
with
the
challenged
regulation
in
the
complete
absence
of
a
government­
generated
standard
or
guidance.
See
Maryland
v.
EPA,
530
F.
2d
215,
220
(
4th
Cir.
1975);
South
Terminal
Corp
v.
EPA,
504
F.
2d
646,
670
(
1st
Cir.
1974).
This
is
entirely
distinct
from
the
regulations
codified
at
§
270.10(
l).
In
§
270.10(
l)
EPA
identified
the
standard
for
when
a
risk
assessment
may
be
necessary:
where
the
regulatory
authority
identifies
factors
or
conditions
at
the
facility
that
indicate
that
the
MACT
standards
may
not
be
sufficiently
protective,
and
defers
the
articulation
of
the
more
precise
requirement
to
the
permitting
process,
where
the
onus
falls
on
the
permitting
authority
to
identify
the
basis
for
its
determination.
Until
the
permitting
authority
provides
this
further
guidance,
the
regulated
entity
incurs
no
obligation.
The
mere
fact
that
specific
factors
or
facility
conditions
that
form
the
basis
for
the
determination
that
an
SSRA
is
warranted
will
be
subsequently
identified
through
the
permitting
process
does
not
invalidate
the
regulation.
See
Ethyl
Corp
v.
EPA,
306
F.
3d
1144,
1149­
1150
(
D.
C.
Cir.
2002).
The
regulation
also
identifies
the
categories
of
information
that
might
be
required
for
MACT
EEE
facilities:
the
information
must
be
necessary
to
determine
whether
additional
controls
are
needed
to
ensure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment;
it
can
include
the
information
necessary
to
evaluate
the
potential
risk
from
both
direct
and
indirect
exposure
pathways;
or
it
can
include
the
information
necessary
to
determine
whether
such
an
assessment
is
necessary.
Here
as
well,
EPA's
reliance
on
the
permitting
process
to
provide
further
specification
of
the
required
information
is
not
improper.
Moreover,
as
discussed
above
in
subsection
C.,
in
response
to
commenters'
concerns,
EPA
has
revised
§
270.10(
l)
to
provide
more
detail,
both
with
respect
to
the
basis
for
the
determination
that
an
SSRA
is
necessary,
and
with
respect
to
the
type
of
information
the
permit
authority
might
need.
EPA
has
added
language
to
remind
permit
authorities
that
the
determination
that
the
MACT
standards
may
not
be
sufficiently
protective
is
to
be
based
only
on
factors
relevant
to
the
potential
risk
from
the
hazardous
waste
combustion
unit
at
the
site.
EPA
has
also
added
language
to
§
270.10(
l)
to
identify
guiding
factors
for
permitting
authorities
to
consult
in
determining
whether
the
MACT
will
be
sufficiently
protective
at
an
individual
site.
Although
the
list
of
guiding
factors
is
not
all­
inclusive,
they
offer
a
structure
for
risk
managers
(
as
well
as
the
regulated
community)
to
use
to
frame
the
evaluation
of
whether
a
combustor's
potential
risk
may
or
may
not
be
acceptable.
Finally,
we
note
that,
unlike
the
circumstances
in
the
cited
cases,
§
270.10
is
promulgated
in
the
context
of
an
existing
permitting
regime.
The
regulatory
standards
at
40
CFR
part
124
provide
further
structure
for
both
the
regulated
community
and
the
permit
authority.
For
similar
reasons,
EPA
disagrees
that
the
cited
cases
compel
the
Agency
to
establish
risk
levels
that
are
deemed
protective,
or
to
otherwise
provide
any
further
definition
as
to
what
it
means
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
We
discussed
at
length
throughout
the
proposal
the
reasons
we
believe
it
would
not
be
appropriate
to
codify
either
an
exclusive
set
of
national
criteria
for
determining
that
an
100
SSRA
(
or
additional
risk­
based
permit
conditions)
would
be
necessary,
or
a
uniform
risk
level.
The
decision
to
require
an
SSRA
is
inherently
site
specific,
thus
permitting
authorities
need
to
have
the
flexibility
to
evaluate
a
range
of
factors
that
can
vary
from
facility
to
facility.
See
69
FR
21328­
21331.
CKRC
has
neither
presented
new
factual
or
policy
reasons
that
would
cause
the
Agency
to
reconsider
the
tentative
decisions
presented
in
the
proposal,
nor
specifically
addressed
the
issues
underlying
EPA's
decision.
Instead,
the
petitioner
has
merely
reiterated
the
concerns
presented
in
its
petition
and
its
general
disagreement
with
EPA's
decision.
EPA
also
disagrees
that
its
new
regulatory
structure
grants
permit
writers
unbridled
discretion
for
many
of
the
same
reasons
that
EPA
does
not
believe
that
§
270.10(
l)
is
impermissibly
vague.
As
EPA
has
previously
explained,
the
requirements
at
Part
124
continue
to
apply
to
actions
taken
to
implement
§
270.10(
l).
Moreover,
the
language
of
§
270.10(
l)
makes
clear
that
the
onus
initially
falls
on
the
permitting
authority
to
identify
the
basis
for
its
conclusion
that
the
MACT
standards
may
not
be
sufficiently
protective.
As
both
part
124
et.
seq.,
and
EPA's
preamble
discussions
make
clear,
facilities
will
continue
to
have
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
and
challenge
the
determination.
See
§
§
124.10,
124.11,
and
124.19.
The
regulatory
structure
adopted
in
§
270.10(
l)
mirrors
the
structure
Congress
established
in
sections
3004
and
3005;
although
3004
directs
EPA
to
establish
national
standards,
section
3005
recognizes
that
those
standards
will
be
applied
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
through
the
permitting
process,
to
allow
site­
specific
conditions
to
be
taken
into
account,
and
to
supplement
those
standards
as
necessary.
EPA
has
also
provided
recommendations
through
guidance
on
how
an
SSRA
can
be
conducted.
Although
the
recommendations
are
not
binding,
they
provide
risk
managers
(
as
well
as
the
facility)
with
a
starting
point
from
which
to
determine
whether
a
combustor's
potential
risk
may
or
may
not
be
acceptable.
CKRC
argues
that
it
appears
that
rather
than
following
the
statutory
authorities
and
requirements
to
review
and
amend
regulations
every
3
years
as
necessary
(
RCRA
§
2002(
b)),
EPA
decided
to
take
the
easy
way
out
and
impose,
through
non­
rulemaking
"
guidance",
massive,
costly,
and
confusing
requirements
leaving
unbridled
discretion
to
its
permit
writers.
We
disagree
that
the
Agency
has
attempted
to
avoid
rulemaking
in
this
context.
EPA
has
conducted
several
rulemakings
to
amend
our
regulations.
The
first
was
in
1999,
when
we
adopted
revised
emission
standards
under
the
authority
of
both
§
112(
d)
of
the
CAA
and
RCRA
to
more
rigorously
control
toxic
emissions
from
burning
hazardous
waste
in
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
See
64
FR
52828.
At
the
time,
we
noted
that
"
today's
rule
fulfills
our
1993
and
1994
public
commitments
to
upgrade
emission
standards
for
hazardous
waste
combustors."
We
have
continued
to
revise
our
regulations
consistent
with
and
based
on
the
facts
before
the
Agency,
taking
into
account
the
arguments
presented
in
CKRC's
petition.
As
explained
above,
we
believe
that
the
facts
do
not
support
granting
all
of
CKRC's
requests.
Rather
we
believe
that
the
MACT
standards
will
generally
be
protective,
and
that
permit
authorities
should
reach
the
decision
to
require
an
SSRA
based
on
a
variety
of
factors
and
concerns
specific
to
their
sites.
In
addition,
as
previously
addressed,
we
believe
that
our
risk
assessment
guidance
should
remain
as
guidance.
Several
other
commenters
agree
that
the
guidance
should
not
be
codified.
101
The
petitioner
argues
that
the
regulation
EPA
has
proposed
to
adopt
is
so
vague,
that
it
is
essentially
not
a
regulation,
and
that
consequently,
even
if
finalized,
it
would
not
be
sufficient
to
comply
with
the
requirement
in
RCRA
§
3005(
b)
to
specify
in
regulations,
the
information
necessary
to
obtain
a
permit.
They
compare
the
level
of
detail
in
§
270.10(
l)
to
the
lengthy
regulations
(
codified
in
40
C.
F.
R.
part
270)
specifying
in
great
detail
the
information
required
when
one
is
submitting
a
RCRA
permit
application,
arguing
that
"
these
regulations
cover
75
pages
of
fine
print
in
Code
of
Federal
Regulations,"
to
demonstrate
that
this
regulation
would
be
insufficient
under
RCRA
§
3005(
b).
In
further
support
of
this
argument,
CKRC
cites
Ethyl
Corporation
v.
EPA,
306
F.
3d
1144
(
D.
C.
Cir.
2002).
EPA
disagrees
that
its
regulations
are
in
any
way
inconsistent
with
the
decision
in
Ethyl
Corp.
At
issue
in
that
case
was
a
regulation
issued
pursuant
to
section
206(
d)
of
the
CAA.
Section
206(
d)
provides
that
EPA
"
shall,
by
regulation,
establish
methods
and
procedures
for
making
tests
under
this
section."
42
U.
S.
C.
§
7525(
d).
The
court
found
that
"
with
CAP
2000,
[
the
challenged
regulation]
the
EPA
does
not
claim
to
have
itself
articulated
even
a
vague
durability
test.
Rather
CAP
2000
requires
that
`
the
manufacturer
shall
propose
a
durability
program'
for
EPA
approval.
40
C.
F.
R.
§
86.182301(
a).
It
thus
falls
on
the
forbidden
side
of
the
line."
Ethyl
Corp.,
306
F.
3d
at
323­
324.
The
Court
distinguished
the
challenged
regulation
from
the
situation
in
which
an
agency
issues
a
"
vague"
regulation,
and
relies
on
subsequent
proceedings
to
flesh
out
the
specific
details.
And
as
the
court
explained,
where
"
Congress
had
not
specified
the
level
of
specificity
expected
of
the
agency,
we
held
that
the
agency
was
entitled
to
broad
deference
in
picking
the
suitable
level."
306
F.
3d
at
323
(
citing
American
Trucking
Associations
v.
DOT,
166
F.
3d
374
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1999)
and
New
Mexico
v.
EPA,
114
F.
3d
290
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1997).
In
§
270.10(
l)
EPA
has
articulated
the
standard
for
when
a
risk
assessment
may
be
necessary:
where
the
regulatory
authority
has
identified
factors
or
conditions
at
the
facility
that
indicate
that
the
MACT
standards
may
not
be
sufficiently
protective.
EPA
has
also
adopted
a
list
of
factors
on
which
permit
writers
are
to
rely
in
reaching
this
determination.
EPA
has
also
identified
the
categories
of
information
that
might
be
required
for
MACT
EEE
facilities:
the
information
must
be
necessary
to
determine
whether
additional
controls
are
needed
to
ensure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment;
it
can
include
the
information
necessary
to
evaluate
the
potential
risk
from
both
direct
and
indirect
exposure
pathways;
or
it
can
include
the
information
necessary
to
determine
whether
such
an
assessment
is
necessary.
While
it
does
not
provide
as
much
detail
as
the
petitioner
wishes,
this
provision
unquestionably
"
defines
the
type
of
information
necessary
for
a
permit
application."
Thus,
the
issue
turns
on
the
level
of
specificity
that
RCRA
§
3005(
b)
requires,
and
EPA
does
not
believe
that
RCRA
§
3005(
b)
requires
EPA
to
publish
a
list
of
every
possible
piece
of
information
that
might
be
required
in
a
permit.
Section
3005(
b)
merely
establishes
a
broad
directive
that
"
each
application
for
a
permit
under
this
section
shall
contain
such
information
as
may
be
required
under
regulations
promulgated
by
the
Administrator,"
and
that
it
shall
include
the
information
contained
in
subsections
(
1)
and
(
2),
leaving
to
EPA's
discretion
to
determine
the
level
of
specificity
at
which
to
promulgate
regulations.
To
some
extent,
this
reflects
the
reason
for
having
a
permit
process
 
to
allow
site
specific
conditions
to
be
taken
into
account.
The
regulatory
102
structure
adopted
in
§
270.10
mirrors
the
structure
Congress
established
in
RCRA
§
3004
and
§
3005.
Despite
the
petitioner's
comparison
to
the
length
of
part
270,
the
length
of
these
provisions
are
not
indicative
of
any
determination
of
the
precise
level
of
detail
that
§
3005(
b)
requires,
but
reflects
the
fact
that
EPA
has
adopted
requirements
specific
to
individual
types
of
units.
Moreover,
notwithstanding
the
petitioner's
characterization,
the
language
at
§
270.10(
l)
is
comparable
to
many
other
provisions
in
40
CFR
part
270.
See,
for
example:
§
§
270.14(
b)(
8);
270.16(
h)(
1)­(
2);
270.22(
a)(
6)(
i)(
C);
270.22(
c).
Lastly,
CKRC
argues
that
the
proposed
regulation
is
particularly
problematic,
because
it
extends
beyond
"
information"
that
may
already
exist.
CKRC
says
that
it
is
one
thing
to
demand
that
a
party
go
out
and
gather
existing
information,
but
another
thing
to
demand
that
an
applicant
conduct
"
assessments."
Moreover,
nothing
in
the
regulations
prohibits
a
permit
authority
from
demanding
revised
assessments,
and
even
more
revised
assessments.
We
agree
that
permit
authorities
have
the
authority
to
require
facilities
to
provide
additional
information
beyond
that
which
already
exists.
However,
based
on
feedback
from
EPA
Regional
permit
writers,
SSRAs
generally
represent
a
one­
time
cost.
We
do
not
expect
that
facilities
that
have
conducted
risk
assessments
will
have
to
repeat
them.
As
discussed
in
the
1999
final
rule
preamble,
changes
to
comply
with
the
MACT
standards
should
not
cause
an
increase
in
risk
for
the
vast
majority
of
facilities
given
that
the
changes,
in
all
probability,
will
be
the
addition
of
pollution
control
equipment
or
a
reduction
in
the
hazardous
waste
being
burned
(
see
64
FR
52842).
Instances
where
a
facility
may
need
to
repeat
a
risk
assessment
would
be
related
to
changes
in
conditions
that
would
likely
lead
to
increased
risk.
92
In
such
situations,
we
would
anticipate
that
the
risk
assessment
would
not
have
to
be
entirely
redone.
It
may
be
as
limited
as
collecting
relevant
new
data
for
comparison
purposes,
leading
to
a
decision
not
to
repeat
any
portion
of
a
risk
assessment.
Or,
it
may
be
more
inclusive
such
that
modifications
would
be
made
to
specific
inputs
to
or
aspects
of
the
risk
assessment
using
data
from
a
previous
risk
assessment,
risk
burn
or
comprehensive
performance
test.
As
discussed
in
subsection
B.,
we
have
added
a
new
regulatory
provision
to
indicate
a
previously
conducted
risk
assessment
would
be
relevant
in
evaluating
changes
in
conditions
that
may
lead
to
increased
risk.
The
factor
reads
as
follows:
"
Adequacy
of
any
previously
conducted
risk
assessment,
given
any
subsequent
changes
in
conditions
likely
to
affect
risk."
4.
EPA's
Cost
Estimates
for
SSRAs
CKRC
raised
several
objections
to
our
cost
estimates
for
conducting
an
SSRA,
and
provided
higher
cost
estimates
($
200K
to
$
1M,
with
upper
bound
of
$
1.3M).
We
suggested
in
the
proposal,
that
the
higher
cost
figures
provided
by
CKRC
were
likely
incurred
prior
to
the
1998
release
of
the
Human
Health
Risk
Assessment
Protocol
(
HHRAP)
guidance
document.
We
believe
our
lower
cost
estimates
can
be
attributed
to
the
fact
that
we
based
them
on
the
conduct
of
future
SSRAs
that
will
benefit
from
substantially
better
guidance
and
commercially
available
software.

92
For
example,
hazardous
waste
burning
cement
kilns
that
previously
monitored
hydrocarbons
in
the
main
stack
may
elect
to
install
a
mid­
kiln
sampling
port
for
carbon
monoxide
or
hydrocarbon
monitoring
to
avoid
restrictions
on
hydrocarbon
levels
in
the
main
stack.
Thus,
their
hydrocarbon
emissions
may
increase.
(
64
FR
52843,
footnote
29.)
Another
example
would
be
if
the
only
change
at
a
facility
relates
to
the
exposed
population;
what
was
acceptable
in
a
previous
risk
assessment
may
not
be
any
longer.
103
Multiple
issues
regarding
the
cost
information
we
provided
in
the
proposal
are
raised
by
CKRC.
The
first
of
five
issues
is
that
CKRC
believes
that
EPA's
methods
for
calculating
costs
associated
with
future
SSRAs
do
not
include
data
gathering
costs,
QA/
QC,
third
party
consultants
in
addition
to
risk
assessors
and
plant
personnel
time
to
coordinate
and
review
SSRA
efforts
and
collect
facility
data.
We
disagree
with
this
statement
in
part;
the
estimates
developed
by
the
Agency
do
include
data
gathering
costs,
QA/
QC,
and
third­
party
consultants.
(
Refer
to
the
proposed
rule's
support
document
entitled:
Preliminary
Cost
Assessment
for
Site
Specific
Risk
Assessment,
November
2003,
Docket
#
OAR­
2004­
0022;
and
the
Assessment
of
the
Potential
Costs,
Benefits,
and
Other
Impacts
of
the
Hazardous
Waste
Combustion
MACT
Replacement
Standards
 
Final
Rule,
[
INSERT
PUBLICATION
DATE
FOR
FINAL
RULE]
for
a
description
of
how
the
estimates
were
arrived
at.)
However,
we
agree
with
CKRC
that
the
method
used
to
develop
SSRA
costs
does
not
capture
facility
time
associated
with
data
collection
and
management
related
to
the
SSRA.
Consequently,
we
have
adjusted
our
SSRA
cost
estimates
to
account
for
these
activities
by
incorporating
costs
associated
with
time
needed
for
facility
data
collection
and
management
efforts
associated
with
the
SSRA,
and
will
assume
that
engineering
staff
are
required
to
perform
these
tasks.
The
second
issue
concerns
the
extent
to
which
cement
kiln
SSRAs
are
consistent
with
EPA's
"
normal"
assumptions.
We
do
not
question
the
accuracy
of
the
costs
submitted
by
CKRC.
However,
it
is
not
clear
that
the
costs
submitted
by
CKRC
represent
typical
future
costs
for
SSRA
implementation
at
all
facilities
in
the
universe.
Certain
of
the
CKRC
cost
estimates
(
e.
g.,
those
submitted
by
Ash
Grove
and
Holcim)
reflect
implementation
of
SSRAs
over
a
number
of
years
in
the
1990s,
while
SSRA
implementation
was
in
its
early
stages.
In
other
cases
(
e.
g.,
estimates
provided
by
Solite)
costs
appear
to
be
consistent
with
EPA
estimates.
While
we
do
not
dispute
the
accuracy
of
these
costs,
earlier
costs
are
likely
to
reflect
the
deliberative
process
common
with
early
SSRAs.
For
the
third
issue,
CKRC's
points
out
that
EPA's
estimate
of
20
percent
additional
cost
for
adding
a
risk
burn
during
a
trial
burn
may
be
low;
CKRC
asserts
that
additional
test
costs
can
add
up
to
40
percent
depending
on
the
circumstances.
We
agree
with
this
and
have
adjusted
the
range
of
total
SSRA
costs
as
necessary
to
assure
that
a
range
of
additional
test
costs
for
separate
risk
burns
(
20
to
40
percent
incremental
cost)
are
included.
For
revised
figures,
see
background
document,
Assessment
of
the
Potential
Costs,
Benefits,
and
Other
Impacts
of
the
Hazardous
Waste
Combustion
MACT
Replacement
Standards
 
Final
Rule,
[
INSERT
PUBLICATION
DATE
OF
FINAL
RULE].
CKRC's
fourth
issue
is
that
EPA
does
not
appear
to
include
more
than
evaluations
of
stack
emissions
in
its
estimates
of
SSRA
costs.
We
disagree
with
this
comment.
The
estimates
of
SSRA
costs
developed
by
the
Agency
reflect
total
contractor
costs
for
performing
an
SSRA
at
a
facility
under
different
sets
of
conditions,
and
are
not
limited
to
stack
emissions.
In
the
fifth
cost­
related
issue,
CKRC
asserts
that
EPA's
average
estimates
might
be
reasonable
if
the
SSRA
process
were
limited
to
the
submission
and
acceptance
of
one
SSRA
effort.
CKRC
contends,
however,
that
its
members'
experiences
with
SSRAs
have
involved
coordination
with
state
and
regional
offices
and
multiple
revisions
and
submissions.
Again,
we
do
not
question
the
experiences
and
costs
of
specific
facilities.
104
However,
we
anticipate
that
the
2003
Memorandum,
Use
of
the
Site­
Specific
Risk
Assessment
Policy
and
Guidance
for
Hazardous
Waste
Combustion
Facilities,
and
the
Human
Health
Risk
Assessment
Protocol
for
Hazardous
Waste
Combustion
Facilities
guidance,
which
is
finalized
and
released
in
conjunction
with
today's
rule,
will
provide
facilities
and
regulators
with
a
clearer
understanding
of
SSRA
policy
and
guidance
and
will
support
a
more
efficient
SSRA
process.
EPA's
future
SSRA
cost
estimates
are
based
on
current
or
recent
cost
data
from
multiple
practitioners,
and
likely
reflect
a
more
efficient
process
than
that
experienced
by
some
CKRC
members
in
the
1990s.

X.
Permitting
As
discussed
in
the
proposal,
we
believe
that
the
permitting
approach
we
adopted
in
the
1999
final
rule
is
still
the
most
appropriate
means
to
avoid
duplication
to
the
extent
practicable
and
to
streamline
requirements.
Thus,
both
Phase
1
and
Phase
2
sources
will
comply
with
their
RCRA
emission
limits
and
operating
requirements
until
they
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
MACT
standards
by
conducting
a
comprehensive
performance
test
(
CPT),
submitting
a
Notification
of
Compliance
(
NOC)
documenting
compliance
to
the
Administrator
or
delegated
state,
and
then
requesting
to
have
their
RCRA
permits
modified
to
remove
the
duplicative
RCRA
requirements
(
unless
a
sunset
clause
had
been
added
previously
that
inactivates
specified
requirements
upon
compliance
with
MACT).
93
Ultimately,
the
MACT
air
emissions
and
related
operating
requirements
will
reside
in
the
CAA
Title
V
permit,
while
all
other
aspects
of
the
combustion
unit
and
the
facility
(
e.
g.,
corrective
action,
general
facility
standards,
other
combustor
specific
concerns
such
as
material
handling,
risk­
based
emission
limits
and
operating
requirements,
and
other
hazardous
waste
management
units)
will
remain
in
the
RCRA
permit.
A
new
pictorial
timeline
has
been
provided
to
highlight
milestones
of
the
MACT
compliance
process.
See
figure
1
at
the
end
of
this
section.

A.
What
is
the
Statutory
Authority
for
the
RCRA
Requirements
Discussed
in
this
Section?

EPA
is
finalizing
amendments
to
modify
RCRA
permits
in
today's
rule
pursuant
to
sections
1006(
b),
2002,
3004,
3005
and
7004(
b)
of
RCRA.
42
U.
S.
C.
§
§
6905(
b),
6912,
6924,
6905,
and
6074.
Our
approach
is
likewise
consistent
with
section
112(
n)(
7)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
which
indicates
that
EPA
should
strive
to
harmonize
requirements
under
section
112
and
RCRA
requirements
for
hazardous
waste
combustion
sources
With
respect
to
the
regulatory
framework
that
is
discussed
in
this
section,
we
are
finalizing
the
process
to
eliminate
the
existing
RCRA
stack
emissions
national
standards
for
hazardous
air
pollutant
for
Phase
2
sources
as
we
had
done
for
Phase
1
sources
in
the
1999
final
rule.
That
is,
after
submittal
of
the
NOC
established
by
today's
rule
and,
where
applicable,
once
RCRA
permit
modifications
are
completed
at
individual
facilities,
RCRA
national
stack
emission
standards
will
no
longer
apply
to
these
hazardous
waste
combustors
(
unless
risk­
based
permit
conditions
are
determined
necessary).
We
originally
issued
emission
standards
under
the
authority
of
section
3004(
a)
and
(
q)
of
RCRA,
which
calls
for
EPA
to
promulgate
standards
"
as
may
be
necessary
to
93
Although
we
expect
that
the
vast
majority
of
Phase
1
sources
will
have
had
their
RCRA
permits
modified
by
the
time
this
rule
is
promulgated,
we
acknowledge
that
there
may
be
a
few
permits
yet
to
be
modified.
105
protect
human
health
and
the
environment."
We
believe
that
the
final
MACT
standards
are
generally
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment,
and
that
separate
RCRA
emission
standards
are
not
needed
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
See
Part
Seven,
How
Does
the
Final
Rule
Meet
the
RCRA
Protectiveness
Mandate?
for
a
discussion
of
this
topic.
RCRA
section
1006(
b)
directs
EPA
to
integrate
the
provisions
of
RCRA
for
purposes
of
administration
and
enforcement
and
to
avoid
duplication,
to
the
maximum
extent
practicable,
with
the
appropriate
provisions
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
and
other
federal
statutes).
This
integration
must
be
done
in
a
way
that
is
consistent
with
the
goals
and
policies
of
these
statutes.
Therefore,
based
on
its
findings
regarding
the
protectiveness
of
the
MACT
standards,
and
pursuant
to
section
1006(
b),
EPA
is
generally
eliminating
the
existing
RCRA
stack
emission
standards
to
avoid
duplication
with
the
new
MACT
standards.
The
amendments
made
today
to
allow
new
combustion
units
to
comply
with
the
MACT
standards
upon
start­
up,
versus
the
RCRA
stack
emissions
national
standards,
are
based
on
the
principle
of
avoiding
duplication
between
programs.
We
are
not
stating
that
RCRA
permit
conditions
to
control
emissions
from
these
sources
will
never
be
necessary,
only
that
the
national
RCRA
standards
appear
to
be
unnecessary.
Under
the
authority
of
RCRA's
"
omnibus"
clause
section
3005(
c)(
3);
(
see
§
§
270.32(
b)(
2)
and
(
b)(
3)),
RCRA
permit
authorities
may
impose
additional
terms
and
conditions
on
a
site­
specific
basis
as
may
be
necessary
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
Thus,
if
MACT
standards
are
not
protective
in
an
individual
instance,
RCRA
permit
writers
will
establish
permit
limits
that
are
protective.
In
RCRA,
Congress
gave
EPA
broad
authority
to
provide
for
public
participation
in
the
RCRA
permitting
process.
Section
7004(
b)
of
RCRA
requires
EPA
to
provide
for,
encourage
and
assist
public
participation
in
the
development,
revision,
implementation,
and
enforcement
of
any
regulation,
guideline,
information,
or
program
under
the
Act.

B.
Did
Commenters
Express
any
Concerns
Regarding
the
Current
Permitting
Requirements?

Generally
speaking,
commenters
favor
maintaining
the
permitting
approach
and
requirements
referred
to
above.
This
approach
was
finalized
in
the
1999
rule
and
has
been
implemented,
and
in
a
few
cases
is
currently
being
implemented,
for
Phase
1
sources
complying
with
the
Interim
Standards
Rule.
However,
several
commenters
raised
similar
concerns
regarding
certain
aspects
of
the
transition
process
from
RCRA
to
MACT
and
Title
V
permitting.
1.
Removal
of
Duplicative
RCRA
Permit
Conditions.
One
comment
is
in
regard
to
Phase
1
sources
that
have
been
fully
transitioned
(
i.
e.,
have
had
duplicative
RCRA
permit
conditions
and
requirements
removed
or
that
have
been
"
sunsetted")
to
compliance
with
the
Interim
Standards
that
may
need
to
make
upgrades
to
comply
with
the
revised
Phase
1
MACT
Standards.
The
concern
is
that
Phase
1
sources
needing
to
make
upgrades
for
MACT
should
be
able
to
do
so
without
a
RCRA
permit
modification
(
unless
risk­
based
conditions
are
present).
We
agree
with
the
commenters
that
as
long
as
the
technology
upgrades
(
e.
g.,
equipment
changes
to
upgrade
air
pollution
control
equipment)
do
not
affect
any
remaining
conditions
in
the
RCRA
permit,
the
regulations
do
not
require
a
permit
modification.
For
those
Phase
1
sources
that
need
to
make
upgrades
to
comply
with
the
revised
standards,
they
should
address
the
specific
upgrades
in
their
draft
Notification
of
Intent
to
Comply
(
NIC)
and
during
the
106
informal
NIC
public
meeting
so
that
the
regulatory
authority
and
public
are
aware
of
the
source's
activities
and
plans
for
compliance.
We
encourage
early
communication
between
the
source
and
the
RCRA
permit
writer
to
ensure
a
common
understanding
of
whether
a
RCRA
permit
modification
will
be
needed.
Additionally,
Phase
1
sources
must
comply
with
the
provisions
of
§
63.1206(
b)(
5)
for
changes
in
facility
design.
We
do
not
anticipate
that
upgrades
made
to
comply
with
the
Replacement
Standards
will
adversely
affect
a
source's
compliance
with
the
Interim
Standards.
Therefore,
consistent
with
§
63.1206(
b)(
5)(
ii),
sources
must
document
the
change
in
their
operating
record,
revise
their
NOC
and
resubmit
it
to
the
permitting
authority
(
per
§
63.9(
h)),
and,
as
necessary,
revise
their
start­
up,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan.
94
Several
commenters
felt
that
we
should
re­
emphasize
the
importance
of
removing
duplicative
RCRA
permit
conditions
and
requirements.
We
agree
with
the
commenters
that
this
is
an
important
action
for
regulatory
agencies.
In
addition
to
comments
received,
we
also
have
learned
through
the
implementation
process
for
the
Interim
Standards,
that
some
state
agencies
are
not
removing
duplicative
requirements
from
the
RCRA
permit.
We
have
clearly
stated
in
several
preambles
and
guidance
documents
that
we
believe
it
is
appropriate
to
retain
only
the
RCRA
risk­
based
conditions
that
are
more
stringent
than
the
applicable
MACT
limits
(
i.
e.,
if
the
RCRA
condition
has
been
determined
to
limit
risk
to
an
acceptable
level
and
is
necessary
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment)
in
the
RCRA
permit
after
compliance
with
MACT.
95
However,
we
also
acknowledge
that
in
certain
cases
it
may
not
be
clear
which
compliance
requirement
is
more
stringent.
For
example,
standards
under
MACT
are
expressed
as
concentration
based
limits
(
micrograms/
dry
standard
cubic
meter)
while
certain
RCRA
standards
are
expressed
as
mass
emission
rate
limits
(
grams/
second).
Also,
averaging
times
between
the
two
programs
differ:
MACT
requires
hourly
rolling
averages
whereas
RCRA
requires
instantaneous
values.
This
is
an
unfortunate
consequence
of
moving
compliance
from
a
risk­
based
program
to
a
technology­
based
program.
Because
we
cannot
definitively
say
when
a
RCRA
requirement
is
more
stringent
than
a
MACT
requirement
and
consistently
apply
it
to
all
sources,
we
are
relying
on
sources
and
permitting
agencies
to
work
together
to
determine
which
requirement
is
more
stringent.
If
the
MACT
requirement
is
determined
to
be
more
stringent,
the
permitting
agency
can
remove
the
requirement
from
the
RCRA
permit
In
adopting
a
permitting
approach
to
place
the
MACT
air
emissions
and
related
operating
requirements
in
the
CAA
Title
V
permit
and
to
keep
all
other
aspects
of
the
combustion
unit
and
the
facility
in
the
RCRA
permit,
our
intent
was
and
still
is,
to
minimize
duplication
to
the
extent
practicable
and
to
eliminate
the
potential
for
dual
94
The
requirements
in
§
63.1206(
b)(
5)(
ii)
call
for
sources
to
revise
(
as
necessary)
the
performance
test
plan,
DOC,
NOC,
and
start­
up,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan.
For
sources
complying
with
the
Interim
Standards,
it
is
not
necessary
to
revise
the
performance
test
plan
or
the
DOC,
since
they
were
developed
in
preparation
for
compliance
with
the
Interim
Standards.
95
As
an
example,
a
RCRA
permit
could
specify
a
higher
minimum
operating
temperature
than
what
is
necessary
for
the
facility
to
achieve
compliance
with
MACT.
The
lower
minimum
operating
temperature
under
MACT
may
be
sufficient,
unless
the
RCRA
permit
authority
determines
that
the
higher
RCRA
temperature
is
necessary
to
limit
risk
to
an
acceptable
level
for
that
facility.
There
should
be
a
connection
between
the
RCRA
limit
and
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
when
retaining
a
RCRA
limit.
107
enforcement.
We
view
it
as
an
unnecessary
duplication
of
effort
between
programs
as
well
as
an
unnecessary
expenditure
of
resources
and
costs
for
both
facilities
and
regulatory
authorities
to
maintain
a
RCRA
permit
and
a
Title
V
permit
that
contain
duplicative
requirements,
when
there
are
viable
mechanisms
(
i.
e.,
Class
1
modification
procedure
at
270.42
Appendix
I,
section
A.
8,
or
Class
2
or
3
if
a
state
has
not
adopted
the
Class
1
procedure)
in
place
to
avoid
doing
so.
Nevertheless,
we
believe
that
states
should
have
the
flexibility
to
decide
how
they
will
allocate
their
resources,
which
is
why
we
did
not
include
a
single
transition
approach
for
implementing
agencies
to
follow
in
the
1999
rule
or
in
today's
rule.
So,
in
such
cases
where
a
state
agency
chooses
not
to
adopt
the
transition
language
(
i.
e.
the
Class
1
modification
procedure
at
270.42
Appendix
I,
section
A.
8)
into
their
state
requirements
(
e.
g.,
because
the
state's
procedures
are
broader
in
scope
or
more
stringent
than
the
federal
requirements)
or
is
unable
to
reach
an
agreement
between
its
RCRA
and
air
programs
regarding
which
standards
are
more
stringent,
the
Title
V
permitting
authority
should
document
these
issues,
including
any
continuing
RCRA
permit
requirements,
in
the
title
V
permit's
statement
of
basis
(
40
CFR
§
§
70.7(
a)(
5)
and
71.7(
a)(
5)).
This
will
help
to
ensure
that
the
source
is
clear
regarding
its
compliance
obligations,
which
is
a
main
goal
of
the
Title
V
program.
Further,
for
purposes
of
clarification
and
as
a
matter
of
courtesy,
we
urge
regulatory
authorities
that
choose
to
impose
dual
compliance
requirements,
to
also
provide
a
written
justification
to
the
source
explaining
the
reasons
for
their
decisions.
2.
Transition
of
Interim
Status
Phase
2
Units
from
RCRA
to
CAA
Permits
In
response
to
our
discussion
in
the
proposal
regarding
RCRA
permitting
for
interim
status
Phase
2
units
(
69
FR
21324),
two
commenters
suggest
that
EPA
establish
policy
and/
or
regulation
that
discourage
further
RCRA
permitting
work
for
interim
status
Phase
2
sources.
Their
comments
are
directed
our
statement
in
the
proposal
that
the
RCRA
combustion
permitting
procedures
in
40
CFR
part
270
also
continue
to
apply
until
you
demonstrate
compliance.
As
noted
in
this
statement,
we
intended
for
Phase
2
sources
to
continue
to
be
subject
to
RCRA
permitting
requirements
for
air
emissions
standards
and
related
operating
parameters,
including
trial
burn
planning
and
testing,
until
they
have
demonstrated
compliance
with
the
MACT
standards
by
conducting
a
comprehensive
performance
test
and
submitting
an
NOC
to
the
Agency.
However,
we
also
provided
several
factors
that
should
be
taken
into
consideration
when
determining
whether
to
proceed
with
the
RCRA
permit
process
such
as:
the
facility's
permit
status
at
the
time
the
MACT
rule
becomes
final,
the
facility's
anticipated
schedule
for
MACT
compliance,
the
priorities
and
schedule
of
the
regulatory
agency,
and
the
level
of
environmental
concern
at
a
given
site
(
69
FR
21324).
To
support
their
position,
the
commenters
noted
that
time
and
resources
would
be
conserved
and
duplicative
and
overlapping
activities
could
be
minimized
if
Phase
2
sources
were
permitted
solely
via
Title
V.
Also,
they
argued
that
it
would
avoid
expending
resources
to
modify
the
RCRA
permit
once
the
source
has
demonstrated
compliance
with
MACT.
We
agree
with
commenters
that
every
effort
should
be
made
to
conserve
resources
and
avoid
duplication
to
the
extent
possible.
However,
we
do
not
believe
it
is
appropriate
to
establish
policy
or
regulation
that
permitting
authorities
must
suspend
the
RCRA
permit
process
(
whether
it
pertains
to
interim
status
or
renewals),
especially
in
cases
where
considerable
time
and
effort
has
been
invested
and
the
permit
is
108
close
to
final
issuance.
As
before,
we
strongly
encourage
sources
and
regulatory
authorities
to
work
together
to
establish
an
approach
that
will
provide
for
the
most
practical
transition.
For
example,
we
strongly
recommend
that
sunset
provisions
be
included
in
a
permit
that
will
be
issued
well
in
advance
of
compliance
with
MACT
to
avoid
duplication
and
a
later
modification
to
remove
the
duplicative
RCRA
conditions.
Also,
it
would
make
more
sense
to
transition
a
source
to
MACT
compliance
prior
to
issuing
the
RCRA
permit
if
it
will
comply
with
MACT
early.
3.
Transition
from
Compliance
With
the
Interim
Standards
To
the
Replacement
Standards
A
specific
question
that
has
been
raised
relates
to
the
applicable
standards
and
operating
parameters
that
the
source
must
comply
with
during
the
period
between
the
rule's
effective
date
for
the
Phase
1
Replacement
Standards
and
submission
of
their
new
NOC.
Upon
the
publication
date
of
the
rule,
the
Replacement
Standards
(
and
Phase
2
Standards)
will
become
effective
and
sources
will
have
3
years
to
come
into
compliance.
During
this
3­
year
period,
Phase
I
sources'
existing
title
V
permits
will
either
be
reopened
to
include
the
Replacement
Standards,
or
the
permitting
authority
will
have
incorporated
the
Replacement
Standards
during
permit
renewal.
In
this
example,
a
Phase
1
source's
Title
V
permit
has
been
reopened,
revised,
or
renewed
and
includes
the
Replacement
Standards,
the
compliance
date
has
not
yet
passed,
no
new
documentation
of
compliance
(
DOC)
for
the
replacement
standards
has
been
included
in
the
operating
record,
and
the
source
has
not
yet
conducted
a
comprehensive
performance
test
and
submitted
a
new
NOC
(
therefore
it
still
has
an
NOC
containing
the
operating
parameters
for
compliance
with
the
Interim
Standards).
In
the
above
scenario,
the
question
asked
is
whether
the
source
should
comply
with
the
Interim
Standards
in
the
current
NOC
or
the
Replacement
Standards
in
the
Title
V
permit.
The
source
should
comply
with
the
Interim
Standards
until
the
compliance
date
of
the
Replacement
Standards.
Although
the
Title
V
permit
now
includes
the
Replacement
Standards,
the
permit
will
also
include
the
Replacement
Standards'
future
compliance
date.
With
regard
to
the
transition
from
the
Interim
Standards
NOC
to
the
Replacement
Standards
DOC,
we
are
revising
the
regulations
at
§
63.1211(
c)
to
render
the
NOC,
which
documented
compliance
with
the
Interim
Standards,
inapplicable
upon
inclusion
of
the
DOC
for
the
Replacement
Standards
in
the
operating
record
by
the
compliance
date.
Thus,
the
source
will
not
be
placed
in
a
situation
where
it
must
continue
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
operating
parameters
established
in
the
NOC
for
the
Interim
Standards,
while
seeking
to
comply
with
the
Replacement
Standards
and
operating
parameters
in
its
DOC.
Although
it
can
be
assumed
that
the
source
would
still
be
able
to
comply
with
its
Interim
Standard­
based
NOC
because
the
Replacement
Standards
are
the
same
as
or
more
stringent
than
the
Interim
Standards,
we
believe
that
the
revision
to
render
the
previous
NOC
inapplicable
provides
a
clearer
and
more
sensible
approach.
4.
Changes
to
Title
V
Permits
Both
the
Replacement
Standards
and
the
Phase
2
Standards
will
necessitate
permit
reopenings
or
revisions
to
some
existing
title
V
permits;
other
permits
will
incorporate
the
requirements
upon
renewal.
40
CFR
§
§
70.7
and
71.7
include
the
requirements
for
Title
V
permit
revisions,
reopenings,
and
renewals.
Also,
approved
Title
V
permitting
authorities
may
have
additional
requirements.
Please
refer
to
the
109
appropriate
permitting
authority
and
its
individual
Title
V
permits
program
to
determine
the
necessary
requirements
and
procedures.
With
respect
to
incorporating
minor
revisions
into
the
Title
V
permit,
one
commenter
had
asked,
for
example,
whether
revisions
made
to
the
NOC
to
reflect
minor
operating
changes
could
be
incorporated
into
the
permit
by
reference
rather
than
through
the
reopening
procedures.
Determining
the
appropriate
Title
V
permit
reopening
or
revision
requirements
is
based
on
the
nature
of
the
change
and
the
source
specific
permit
terms
and
conditions,
and
is
therefore
difficult
to
generalize.
We
recommend
that
sources
work
with
their
Title
V
permit
authorities
to
determine
the
appropriate
requirements
and
procedures
that
are
applicable
to
any
specific
situation.
However,
we
would
like
to
note
that,
when
incorporating
requirements
by
reference
into
the
Title
V
permit
is
appropriate,
this
does
not
necessarily
obviate
the
need
for
permit
revisions
if
the
material
incorporated
by
reference
is
subsequently
revised.
For
more
information
on
incorporation
by
reference,
please
refer
to
the
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards'
"
White
Paper
Number
2
for
Improved
Implementation
of
The
Part
70
Operating
Permits
Program"
(
March
5,
1996),
Section
II.
E.
2.
c.
This
paper
can
be
found
at:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
oarpg/
t5/
memoranda/
wtppr­
2.
pdf.

C.
Are
There
Any
Changes
to
the
Proposed
Class
1
Permit
Modification
Procedure?

In
the
NPRM,
we
proposed
a
new
Class
1,
with
prior
Agency
approval,
permit
modification
procedure
to
help
further
minimize
potential
conflicts
between
the
RCRA
permit
requirements
and
MACT
requirements.
See
69
FR
21384
and
proposed
§
270.42(
k).
During
implementation
of
the
Interim
Standards
for
Phase
1
sources,
it
became
evident
that
there
are
two
significant
instances
where
RCRA
permit
limits
may
overlap
with
MACT
requirements:
during
initial
(
and
future)
performance
testing
and
during
the
period
between
placement
of
the
documentation
of
compliance
(
DOC)
in
the
operating
record
and
the
final
modification
of
the
RCRA
permit
after
receipt
of
the
NOC.
We
discussed
several
existing
approaches
(
e.
g.,
a
class
2
or
3
modification,
request
for
approval
submitted
via
the
RCRA
trial
burn
plan
or
coordinated
MACT/
RCRA
test
plan,
or
through
a
temporary
authorization)
for
addressing
these
instances,
noting
that
none
provided
an
optimal
solution.
All
commenters
agreed
that
the
new
Class
1
modification
procedure
is
the
appropriate
and
most
efficient
method
to
enable
specific
RCRA
permit
conditions
to
be
waived
during
instances
of
overlap
referred
to
above.
However,
a
few
commenters
were
concerned
with
the
requirements
in
proposed
270.42(
k)(
2)(
ii)
and
(
k)(
3),
that
require
sources
to
submit
their
permit
modification
request
upon
approval
of
the
test
plan
and
the
requirement
for
the
Director
to
approve
or
deny
the
request
within
30
days,
or
within
60
days
with
an
extension.
This
timeframe
is
feasible
only
for
those
sources
that
have
received
approval
of
their
test
plans
at
least
60
days
prior
to
their
scheduled
date
for
commencing
their
performance
test.
We
acknowledged
the
potential
impracticality
of
this
requirement
in
the
proposal,
but
at
the
time
believed
that
few
sources,
if
any,
would
conduct
their
performance
tests
without
an
approved
test
plan.
While
this
still
may
be
true,
we
have
learned
that
sources
who
received
extensions
for
testing
(
so
that
they
would
have
an
approved
plan),
typically
commenced
their
test
shortly
after
approval.
Consequently,
this
still
would
not
allow
enough
time
to
review
and
approve
the
permit
110
modification
before
the
test
begins.
Thus,
the
new
Class
1
modification
would
be
of
no
benefit
to
facilities
that
conduct
their
tests
without
an
approved
test
plan,
or
to
facilities
that
received
extensions
and
need
to
begin
their
tests
upon
or
shortly
after
approval
of
the
test
plan.
Also,
we
found
one
other
circumstance
where
the
timeframes
could
be
problematic:
if
a
permitting
agency
has
allowed
sources
to
begin
pretesting/
testing
upon
approval
of
the
test
plan.
Again,
a
source
would
not
be
able
to
have
RCRA
permit
requirements
waived
in
time
to
begin
its
test.
We
agree
with
commenters
that
the
proposed
requirements
in
270.42(
k)(
2)(
ii)
and
(
iii)
do
not
provide
any
flexibility
to
waive
RCRA
permit
limits
for
sources
that
1)
do
not
have
an
approved
test
plan
but
choose
to
conduct
their
test;
2)
are
granted
an
extension
to
their
test
date
because
they
do
not
yet
have
an
approved
test
plan;
and
3)
may
begin
testing
upon
approval
of
their
test
plans.
Our
original
intent
to
require
prior
Agency
approval
for
the
new
Class
1
permit
modification
procedure
was
to
ensure
that
the
proposed
test
conditions
would
be
sufficiently
protective
when
specific
RCRA
requirements
are
waived
and
that
a
source
has
met
the
regulatory
requirements
for
performance
test
plans.
We
still
believe
that
review
and
approval
is
an
important
step;
however,
we
also
believe
it
should
not
be
a
barrier
and
therefore,
should
occur
in
advance
of
a
source
commencing
its
performance
test.
As
a
result,
we
have
revised
the
proposed
regulatory
language
in
270.42(
k)(
2)(
i)
to
specify
that
sources
submit
their
permit
modification
requests
with
their
test
plans,
to
allow
potentially
up
to
one
year
for
approval
(
i.
e.,
the
performance
test
plan
is
due
one
year
before
the
test
is
to
begin).
Also,
so
that
approval
does
not
impede
the
commencement
of
the
performance
test,
we
have
revised
the
proposed
language
in
270.42(
k)(
2)(
ii)
so
that
the
Director
can
choose
whether
to
issue
approval
of
the
permit
modification
request
contingent
upon
approval
of
the
performance
test
plan.
96
In
that
respect,
the
RCRA
permit
authority
would
continue
to
have
an
extra
measure
of
assurance
in
circumstances
that
may
demand
it.

D.
What
Permitting
Approach
Is
EPA
Finalizing
for
New
Units?

1.
Why
Did
EPA
Propose
A
Separate
Permitting
Approach?
As
discussed
in
the
proposal,
the
current
RCRA
regulations
at
§
§
264.340,
265.340,
266.100,
270.19,
270.22,
270.62,
and
270.66
do
not
address
how
or
when
new
combustion
units
will
comply
with
the
MACT
standards.
Consequently,
the
part
270
regulations
imply
that
a
new
unit
must
obtain
a
complete
RCRA
permit
before
it
can
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
MACT
standards.
It
was
never
our
intent
for
new
units
to
develop
a
trial
burn
plan
and
provide
suggested
conditions
for
the
various
phases
of
operation
in
the
RCRA
permit
application,
given
that
these
conditions
will
become
inactive
or
need
to
be
removed
from
their
permits
upon
demonstrating
compliance
with
MACT.
To
rectify
our
previous
omission,
we
suggested
several
options
that
would
allow
units
newly
entering
the
RCRA
permit
process97
(
and
that
will
comply
with
the
Subpart
EEE
requirement
upon
start­
up)
to
forego
certain
RCRA
permit
requirements
and
96
In
all
likelihood,
we
anticipate
that
the
RCRA
permit
authority
will
have
reviewed
the
modification
request
along
with
the
test
plans,
worked
with
its
Air
counterparts
and
the
source
to
resolve
any
concerns,
and
have
prepared
the
permit
modification
approval
prior
to
issuance
of
the
test
plan
approval.
97
Units
"
newly"
entering
the
RCRA
permit
process
refers
to
a
newly
constructed
facility,
thus
newly
constructed
hazardous
waste
combustion
unit;
an
existing
facility
that
constructs
a
new
unit;
or
an
existing
facility
that
converts
a
non­
hazardous
fuel
combustion
unit
to
a
hazardous
waste
fuel
combustion
unit.
111
performance
standards.
In
developing
the
options
that
would
enable
new
units
to
forego
certain
RCRA
requirements,
we
noted
the
importance
of
public
participation
opportunities
under
the
MACT/
CAA
framework
equivalent
to
those
provided
under
the
RCRA
framework.
Thus,
each
option
was
constructed
in
such
a
way
that
would
streamline
the
RCRA
requirements,
but
continue
to
provide
early
and
frequent
public
participation
commensurate
with
the
requirements
of
the
RCRA
Expanded
Public
Participation
Rule
(
60
FR
63417,
December
11,
1995).
2.
What
Options
Did
EPA
Propose
for
Permitting
New
Units?
In
our
preferred
approach,
we
proposed
that
new
units
not
be
required
to
develop
a
trial
burn
plan
and
provide
suggested
conditions
for
the
various
phases
of
operation
in
their
RCRA
permit
application.
Instead,
new
units
would
only
be
required
to
address
the
remaining
RCRA
activities
at
the
facility
in
their
permit
application
(
or
modification
request)
including
corrective
action,
general
facility
standards,
other
combustor
specific
concerns
such
as
materials
handling,
risk­
based
emission
limits
and
operating
requirements,
and
other
hazardous
waste
management
units.
While
this
approach
appears
to
be
ideal
from
the
standpoint
of
reducing
the
regulatory
burden
to
sources
and
RCRA
permit
authorities,
we
noted
that
even
though
a
new
unit
will
be
required
to
meet
the
RCRA
public
participation
requirements
as
part
of
the
permit
application
process,
the
operations
and
emission
information
specific
to
the
combustor
would
no
longer
be
provided.
Thus,
we
focused
on
certain
compliance
activities
under
the
MACT/
CAA
framework
(
i.
e.,
the
Notification
of
Intent
to
Comply
requirements)
that
would
allow
for
combustor­
specific
information
to
be
made
available
to
the
public
as
it
would
have
been
under
the
full
RCRA
permit
process.
Regarding
the
three
additional
approaches
or
"
options",
each
considered
a
different
point
in
the
RCRA
permit
process
where
a
new
unit
could
"
transition"
to
compliance
with
the
MACT
standards
(
see
69
FR
21319).
Under
the
first
option,
a
new
unit
could
transition
to
MACT
compliance
after
it
had
submitted
its
RCRA
Part
B
application.
The
Part
B
however,
would
not
include
the
trial
burn
plan
information.
The
new
unit
would
only
be
required
to
discuss
the
compliance
activities
related
to
the
combustor
as
part
of
the
RCRA
informal
public
meeting.
In
the
second
option,
we
proposed
that
a
new
unit
would
transition
after
its
RCRA
permit
has
been
issued.
Here,
the
new
unit
would
be
required
to
develop
a
trial
burn
plan
which
provided
its
proposed
operations
and
emissions
information
and
to
discuss
its
compliance
activities
via
the
RCRA
informal
public
meeting.
Then,
a
permit
would
be
issued,
but
it
would
not
contain
operating
and
emissions
requirements
in
order
to
avoid
a
future
modification
to
remove
them.
For
the
third
option,
the
transition
point
would
have
been
after
the
new
unit
places
the
DOC
in
its
operating
record,
which
is
the
compliance
point
for
MACT.
This
option
is
more
inclusive
than
the
second
because
it
requires
the
new
unit
to
have
a
draft
permit
that
covers
the
construction
and
shakedown
period.
3.
Which
Option
is
EPA
Finalizing?
For
today's
final
rule,
we
are
adopting
our
preferred,
proposed
approach:
new
units
will
not
be
required
to
follow
the
full
RCRA
permitting
process
for
establishing
combustor
operations
and
emissions.
Thus,
new
units
are
not
subject
to
the
combustorspecific
RCRA
permit
requirements
and
performance
standards
(
i.
e.,
to
develop
a
trial
burn
plan,
provide
suggested
conditions
for
the
various
phases
of
operation
in
their
permit
application,
and
subsequently
operate
under
those
conditions).
However,
because
112
these
units
remain
hazardous
waste
treatment
units,
they
are
still
required
to
obtain
a
RCRA
permit,
or
to
modify
an
existing
RCRA
permit
to
include
a
new
unit,
prior
to
construction.
They
need
only
address
the
remaining
hazardous
waste
management
activities
at
the
facility
in
their
permit
application
(
or
modification
request)
including
corrective
action,
general
facility
standards,
other
combustor
specific
concerns
such
as
materials
handling,
risk­
based
emission
limits
and
operating
requirements,
and
other
hazardous
waste
management
units.
As
we
noted
in
the
previous
section
and
will
discuss
again
more
thoroughly
in
the
next
section,
we
are
relying
on
the
NIC
process
to
provide
the
public
with
the
combustor­
specific
information
that
previously
would
have
been
provided
under
the
full
RCRA
permit
process.
Almost
all
commenters
supported
our
preferred
approach
to
not
require
that
new
units
complete
the
full
RCRA
permit
process
and
to
rely
on
the
NIC
requirements
and
the
MACT/
CAA
framework
to
provide
a
level
of
public
participation
that
is
commensurate
with
the
requirements
under
RCRA.
Commenters
generally
agreed
that
our
preferred
approach
achieves
this
goal
while
streamlining
the
RCRA
permit
process
for
new
units.
One
commenter
felt
that
the
Title
V
and
New
Source
Review
programs
(
NSR)
provide
sufficient
requirements
to
regulate
new
combustion
units.
We
disagree
that
either
or
both
of
those
programs
fully
address
the
hazardous
waste
and
public
participation
components
commensurate
with
that
provided
by
the
approach
we
are
finalizing
today.
For
instance,
a
unit
may
be
constructed
and
operating
before
a
Title
V
permit
is
issued,
which
directly
conflicts
with
RCRA's
early
public
participation
requirements.
Also,
in
some
instances,
public
participation
may
not
be
a
required
component
of
state
issued
NSR
permits
(
see
footnote
regarding
public
participation
and
SIPs
below).
However,
we
do
believe
that
the
NSR
program
will
play
an
important
role
regarding
the
exchange
of
information,
as
we
will
discuss
in
the
section
below.
With
respect
to
the
remaining
three
options
presented
in
the
proposal
(
69
FR
21319
 
21320)
that
suggested
a
transitional
approach
(
i.
e.,
each
option
explored
progressive
points
in
the
RCRA
permit
process
where
facilities
could
transfer
over
to
MACT
without
fully
completing
the
RCRA
process),
nearly
all
commenters
were
in
agreement
that
they
would
require
more
work
to
implement
than
is
necessary
and
consequently
oppose
them.
4.
How
Will
Permitting
for
New
Units
Work?
In
the
proposed
rule,
we
created
an
approach
that
utilizes
the
NIC
requirements
and
the
MACT/
CAA
framework
with
the
intent
of
ensuring
that
the
requirements
of
the
RCRA
Expanded
Public
Participation
Rule
would
continue
to
be
fulfilled.
The
four
requirements
for
public
participation
as
they
relate
to
hazardous
waste
combustion
units
are:
(
1)
permit
applicants
must
hold
an
informal
public
meeting
before
applying
for
a
permit;
(
2)
permit
agencies
must
announce
the
submission
of
a
permit
application
which
will
tell
community
members
where
they
can
view
the
application
while
the
agency
reviews
it;
(
3)
permitting
agencies
may
require
a
facility
to
set
up
an
information
repository
at
any
point
during
the
permitting
process
if
warranted;
and
(
4)
permitting
agencies
must
notify
the
public
prior
to
a
trial
(
or
test)
burn.
As
discussed
in
the
preamble
to
the
proposal
(
69
FR
21318),
we
believe
that
the
NIC
process
addresses
the
first
two
RCRA
public
participation
requirements.
The
NIC
process
requires
a
source
to
make
its
draft
NIC,
which
discusses
the
source's
plan
for
coming
into
compliance
with
the
MACT
standards,
available
for
public
review
and
to
hold
an
informal
public
meeting
to
discuss
the
activities
contained
in
the
NIC.
While
the
113
NIC
process
gives
the
public
an
early
opportunity
to
participate
in
the
unit's
compliance
planning
process
early
on,
a
few
components
are
still
missing
before
we
can
consider
the
first
2
RCRA
public
participation
requirements
to
be
fulfilled
under
the
MACT
framework.
One
component
is
that
there
is
no
permit
action
associated
with
the
NIC
requirements.
However,
the
NSR
program
can
provide
a
permit
mechanism
that
will
determine
whether
or
not
a
source
may
be
constructed.
98
The
steps
associated
with
obtaining
an
NSR
permit,
or
a
"
pre­
construction"
permit,
are
similar,
but
not
necessarily
identical
to
that
required
under
RCRA.
They
are:
(
1)
preparation
of
the
permit
application
(
sources
must
provide
the
location,
design,
construction,
and
operation
information)
and
participation
in
pre­
application
meetings;
(
2)
issuance
of
permit
application
completeness
determination
by
the
State;
(
3)
development
and
negotiation
of
draft
permit;
(
4)
opportunity
for
public
notice
and
comment
on
the
draft
permit;
(
5)
response
of
permitting
authority
to
public
comments;
(
6)
possible
administrative
and
judicial
appeals;
and
(
7)
permit
issuance/
denial.
99
A
second
component
is
that
the
NIC
does
not
provide
the
information
on
the
proposed
combustor
operations
or
emissions
information
that
would
normally
be
available
as
part
of
the
RCRA
process.
To
address
these
gaps
between
RCRA
and
MACT,
we
are
requiring
an
approach
similar
to
that
which
was
proposed.
New
sources
must:
(
1)
prepare
a
draft
NIC
and
make
it
available
to
the
public
at
the
same
time
as
their
RCRA
pre­
application
meeting
notice;
(
2)
provide
a
draft
of
their
comprehensive
performance
test
(
CPT)
plan
(
to
the
public)
to
coincide
with
the
draft
NIC
and
RCRA
pre­
application
meeting
notices;
and
(
3)
hold
their
NIC
public
meeting
with
their
RCRA
informal
public
meeting.
The
first
two
requirements
ensure
that
the
public
is
provided
with
most
of
the
same
information
that
would
have
been
available
via
the
RCRA
trial
burn
plan
prior
to
the
source
burning
hazardous
waste.
Other
information
not
required
by
the
NIC
or
CPT
plan,
such
as
the
combustion
unit's
design
specifications
will,
in
most
cases,
be
available
to
the
public
through
the
NSR
permit
application.
We
recommend
that
sources
submit
a
copy
of
their
NSR
permit
application
to
the
RCRA
permit
authority
so
that
this
information
is
readily
available
for
development
of
the
RCRA
permit.
The
third
requirement
allows
the
public
to
inquire
and
comment
on
both
the
new
unit's
proposed
activities
and
operations.
By
requiring
new
sources
to
develop,
notice,
and
hold
a
combined
public
meeting
that
encompasses
the
NIC,
draft
CPT
plan,
and
RCRA
preapplication
notice
information,
the
public
will
be
provided
with
all
information
related
to
the
combustor's
compliance
plans
as
well
as
its
operating
plans
and
emissions
estimates
prior
to
burning
hazardous
waste.
See
new
requirements
in
§
63.1212.
With
respect
to
the
requirements
we
are
finalizing
today,
we
received
only
one
comment
that
expressed
concern.
The
concern
is
that
the
requirement
to
submit
the
CPT
98
We
believe
that
the
majority
of
new
units
will
be
classified
as
major
sources
for
NSR
permitting
(
requiring
either
prevention
of
significant
deterioration
or
nonattainment
permits),
however,
those
that
do
not,
will
likely
be
required
to
obtain
a
minor
NSR
permit.
In
few
cases,
new
sources
(
e.
g.,
newly
constructed
as
opposed
to
modified)
may
not
be
required
to
obtain
an
NSR
permit
if
its
potential
to
emit
does
not
exceed
the
NSR
threshold
level.
99
With
respect
to
numbers
4
and
5,
many
States
omitted
the
public
participation
steps
in
their
federally
approved
SIPs.
This
was
the
reason
why
Sierra
Club
had
been
opposed
to
our
efforts
to
simply
rely
on
NSR
permitting
to
provide
public
participation
opportunities
that
would
have
been
otherwise
provided
under
the
traditional
RCRA
permit
process
for
new
units.
Today,
however,
many
SIPs
have
been
revised
to
address
public
participation
requirements.
114
plan
is
too
early
in
the
compliance
process.
For
example,
the
RCRA
application
is
submitted
approximately
2­
3
years
before
start­
up
whereas
the
CPT
plan
is
required
1.5
years
after
the
final
NIC
is
due.
100
The
commenter
feels
that
the
facility
would
not
have
enough
time
to
learn
about
the
"
detailed
nuances
of
the
system".
However,
the
commenter
does
note
that
it
is
possible
to
submit
the
CPT
plan,
but
it
will
not
be
as
complete
or
refined
as
it
would
be
if
it
was
submitted
according
to
the
deadline
for
existing
units.
We
agree
with
the
commenter
that
a
considerable
amount
of
planning
is
required
of
the
source
to
be
able
to
draft
the
CPT
plan
at
such
an
early
stage,
but
we
are
only
requiring
that
a
draft
of
the
CPT
plan
be
made
available,
with
the
final
CPT
plan
due
6
months
prior
to
the
source's
compliance
date.
Moreover,
at
this
early
stage,
we
liken
the
development
of
the
draft
CPT
plan
to
the
development
of
the
trial
burn
plan.
Even
though
it
may
not
be
as
complete
or
refined
as
it
will
be
when
the
final
CPT
plan
is
due,
we
believe
that
it
will
still
be
of
benefit
to
the
public
and
the
regulatory
authority,
but
also
to
the
source
in
terms
of
advance
planning
for
the
design
of
the
unit
through
start­
up
of
the
unit.
The
components
thus
far,
have
satisfied
the
first
(
2)
two
RCRA
public
participation
requirements.
The
third
RCRA
public
participation
requirement
enables
a
regulatory
authority
to
evaluate
the
need
for
and
require
a
facility
to
establish
and
maintain
an
information
repository.
The
establishment
of
an
information
repository
is
typically
required
only
when
there
are
concerns
or
unique
information
needs
of
a
community.
The
purpose
of
the
information
repository
is
to
make
information
regarding
the
facility
(
and
combustion
unit)
available
to
the
public
during
the
permit
issuance
process
and
during
the
life
of
the
permit.
In
the
preamble,
we
noted
that
although
the
Title
V
permit
process
contains
a
provision
that
any
materials
relevant
to
the
permit
decision
be
made
available
to
interested
persons
(
see
§
70.7(
h)(
2)
and
§
71.11(
d)),
the
information
may
not
be
made
available
until
well
after
the
combustor
is
constructed
and
operating.
Consequently,
we
have
chosen
to
adopt
additional
provisions
under
the
NIC
requirements
that
parallel
the
requirements
of
§
124.33.
We
had
proposed
two
options
that
would
allow
a
regulatory
authority
to
require,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
a
source
to
establish
an
information
repository
specific
to
the
combustor.
The
first
option
was
to
place
such
a
provision
in
the
NIC
regulations
and
the
second
option
was
to
amend
the
applicability
language
in
§
124.33
to
include
combustion
sources
that
will
comply
with
Part
63,
subpart
EEE
upon
start­
up.
Two
commenters
felt
that
the
second
option
would
create
problems
as
far
as
organization
(
i.
e.,
by
modifying
the
RCRA
regulations
to
include
a
provision
solely
for
new
units
complying
with
MACT).
We
agree
that
the
second
option
could
be
confusing
and
that
it
would
be
more
appropriate
to
keep
all
new
requirements
for
new
units
in
one
set
of
regulations.
Therefore,
we
are
finalizing
a
provision
that
will
allow
for
an
information
repository
to
be
established
specific
to
the
combustor
(
recall
that
a
repository
established
pursuant
to
the
RCRA
permit
will
include
documents
relevant
to
the
facility
only),
if
deemed
appropriate,
under
the
NIC
regulations.
See
new
§
63.1212(
c).
Under
the
NIC
regulations,
the
repository
could
include
the
NIC,
test
plans,
draft
Title
V
permit
and
application,
reports,
etcetera.

100
Comprehensive
performance
test
plans
are
required
to
be
submitted
one
year
in
advance
of
the
scheduled
test.
The
submittal
date
would
be
as
late
as
2.5
years
after
the
effective
date
of
the
rule
assuming
no
extensions
are
granted.
115
The
fourth
and
final
RCRA
public
participation
requirement
to
be
fulfilled
is
for
the
regulatory
authority
to
notify
the
public
of
an
impending
trial
burn
or
test
burn.
As
discussed
in
the
RCRA
Expanded
Public
Participation
Rule,
the
RCRA
permit
authority
will
typically
provide
the
notice
at
least
30
days
in
advance
of
the
test
(
60
FR
63426,
December
11,
1995).
Similarly,
the
MACT
regulations
require
an
existing
or
new
unit
to
provide
notice
to
the
public
that
the
CPT
plan
(
and
the
continuous
monitoring
system
performance
evaluation
test
plan)
is
available
for
review.
The
regulations
in
§
63.1207(
e)(
2)
fulfill
this
requirement.
Although
the
CPT
plan
may
not
be
approved
before
the
public
is
notified,
the
intent
is
to
provide
notice
to
the
public
of
a
future
test.
We
believe
that
the
MACT
regulations
provide
public
notice
of
the
test
plans
that
are
commensurate
with
the
RCRA
regulations
and
thus,
no
additional
regulatory
revisions
or
amendments
are
needed.
4.
a.
Process
for
New
Units
Seeking
An
Initial
RCRA
Permit
We
anticipate
that
the
process
for
new
units
seeking
an
initial
permit
will
work
as
follows.
Any
new
unit
would
begin
the
process
by
developing
and
compiling
the
information
necessary
for
the
RCRA
draft
permit
(
e.
g.,
information
required
for
the
part
A
application
at
§
270.13,
the
relevant
general
information
for
the
part
B
application
according
to
Part
270)
and
the
applicable
NSR
permit.
101
The
information
needed
to
compile
the
draft
NIC
and
draft
CPT
plan
would
be
gathered
simultaneously,
as
if
the
source
were
developing
the
trial
burn
plan.
When
the
source
has
compiled
its
RCRA
permit
application,
draft
NIC
and
draft
CPT
plan,
it
would
submit
a
RCRA
preapplication
meeting
notice
at
least
30
days
prior
to
the
date
scheduled
for
the
RCRA
informal
public
meeting
according
to
§
§
124.31(
b)
and
(
d).
At
the
time
of
the
RCRA
preapplication
meeting
notice,
the
source
would
also
issue
notice
of
the
NIC
public
meeting
(
at
least
30
days
prior
to
the
NIC
meeting)
according
to
§
63.1210(
c)(
3),
so
that
the
two
meetings
can
occur
at
the
same
time.
In
order
for
the
public
to
be
able
to
view
all
information
relevant
to
the
combustor
before
the
combined
RCRA
pre­
application
and
NIC
public
meeting,
the
source
would
make
the
draft
NIC
and
draft
CPT
plan
available
to
the
public
for
review
at
the
same
time
the
notices
for
the
meetings
are
issued.
To
aid
the
RCRA
permit
authority
in
its
development
of
the
draft
RCRA
permit
(
i.
e.,
mainly
for
purposes
of
evaluating
risk),
we
strongly
recommend
that
the
source
also
provide
copies
of
the
draft
NIC,
draft
CPT
plan,
and
NSR
application
(
if
applicable)
to
the
RCRA
permit
authority.
It
is
our
hope
that
the
availability
of
information
will
expedite
the
development
of
the
draft
permit.
All
notices
should
be
presented
to
the
public
in
sufficient
time
to
allow
for
a
combined
RCRA
informal
public
meeting
and
NIC
public
meeting.
Following
the
combined
public
meeting,
the
source
will
submit
its
RCRA
permit
application
and
the
RCRA
regulatory
authority
will
prepare
and
issue
a
draft
permit.
The
public
will
then
have
an
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
draft
permit
and
request
a
public
hearing.
Upon
resolution
of
any
issues
surrounding
the
draft
permit,
a
final
RCRA
permit
will
be
issued.
The
RCRA
process
is
the
same
as
before,
but
should
be
reasonably
101
Because
the
information
required
for
NSR
permit
is
less
comprehensive
than
a
RCRA
permit,
it
allows
for
a
much
shorter
time
period
for
issuance.
The
average
time
for
issuing
a
PSD
permit,
for
example,
after
receiving
an
application
is
slightly
more
than
7
months,
but
varies
depending
upon
public
involvement
and
negotiation
of
the
application
content.
USEPA.
Docket
A­
2001­
19,
Document
II­
A­
01.
NSR
90­
Day
Review
Background
Paper,
June
22,
2001.
116
shorter.
Finally,
the
new
unit
may
begin
burning
hazardous
waste
when
it
can
assure
it
will
operate
in
compliance
with
the
MACT
standards
(
i.
e.,
by
placing
a
documentation
of
compliance
in
its
operating
record
on
the
day
it
begins
burning
hazardous
waste).
See
new
regulatory
language
at
§
63.1212(
c).
To
aid
readers
in
understanding
the
above
process,
we
have
included
a
pictorial
timeline.
Please
see
figure
2.
Finally,
it
may
also
be
feasible
to
combine
an
NSR
pre­
application
meeting
and
public
notice
of
the
draft
NSR
permit
with
the
process
described
above.
Thus,
we
recommend
that
sources
work
closely
with
their
Air
and
RCRA
permit
agencies
so
that
the
NSR
public
notices
and
meetings
may
be
coordinated
with
the
RCRA
and
NIC
notices
and
meetings
so
time
and
resources
are
efficiently
utilized.
4.
b.
Process
for
New
Units
Modifying
An
Existing
RCRA
Permit
The
process
of
adding
a
new
unit
to
an
existing
permit
is
accomplished
through
a
Class
3
permit
modification
(
see
§
270.42
(
c)
for
requirements).
The
requirements
governing
public
notices
of
the
draft
NIC,
draft
CPT
plan,
and
holding
a
combined
public
meeting
are
essentially
the
same
as
new
units
seeking
an
initial
permit.
The
process
is
as
follows.
The
source
prepares
and
submits
its
RCRA
permit
modification
request
(
and
if
applicable,
NSR
application).
It
must
then
publish
a
notice
of
the
modification
request
seven
days
later,
followed
by
a
public
meeting
no
earlier
than
15
days
after
publication
of
the
notice
for
the
modification
request,
and
no
later
than
15
days
before
the
close
of
the
60­
day
comment
period.
As
with
new
units
that
are
submitting
an
initial
RCRA
permit
application,
it
is
also
important
for
sources
seeking
to
modify
their
permit
to
coordinate
their
NIC
public
meeting
with
their
RCRA
permit
modification
public
meeting.
This
is
made
possible
due
to
the
flexibility
of
the
NIC
public
meeting;
it
can
be
held
any
time
prior
to
the
10
month
deadline.
After
the
combined
public
meeting
and
the
close
of
the
comment
period,
the
permit
authority
will
either
grant
or
deny
the
modification
request.
If
approved,
the
source
may
then
begin
construction
or
modification
of
the
unit.
To
aid
readers
in
understanding
the
timing
of
the
above
process,
we
have
included
a
pictorial
timeline.
Please
see
figure
2.
Again,
it
may
be
feasible
to
combine
an
NSR
pre­
application
meeting
and
public
notice
of
the
draft
NSR
permit
with
the
process
described
above.
Thus,
we
recommend
that
sources
work
closely
with
their
Air
and
RCRA
permit
agencies
so
that
the
NSR
public
notices
and
meetings
may
be
coordinated
with
the
RCRA
and
NIC
notices
and
meetings
so
time
and
resources
are
efficiently
utilized.

E.
What
Other
Permitting
Requirements
Were
Discussed
In
the
Proposal?

At
proposal,
we
discussed
where
most
Phase
1
sources
would
be
in
terms
of
their
transition
from
their
RCRA
permit
requirements
to
compliance
with
the
MACT
Interim
Standards
(
see
69
FR
21321).
The
transition
process
was
discussed
with
respect
to
both
the
RCRA
permit
and
the
Title
V
permit.
However,
when
we
discussed
the
Title
V
permit
requirements
in
the
proposal,
we
did
not
elaborate
on
the
transition
between
the
Interim
Standards
and
Replacement
Standards.
Because
we
believe
that
such
a
discussion
would
be
helpful
to
readers,
we
have
included
general
information
describing
how
the
transition
process
would
work
for
most
sources
in
Section
B.
Did
Commenters
Express
any
Concerns
Regarding
the
Current
Permitting
Requirements?,
subsections
3
and
4.
117
For
Phase
2
sources,
we
proposed
the
same
permitting
approach
as
we
did
for
Phase
1
sources.
Today,
we
are
finalizing
as
proposed,
the
following
for
Phase
2
sources:
(
1)
the
new
Phase
2
emissions
standards
will
be
placed
only
in
the
CAA
regulations
at
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
EEE,
and
be
implemented
through
the
air
program;
(
2)
with
few
exceptions,
the
analogous
standards
in
the
RCRA
regulations
no
longer
apply
once
a
facility
demonstrates
compliance
with
the
MACT
standards
in
subpart
EEE
and
any
duplicative
requirements
have
been
removed
from
the
RCRA
permit;
and
(
3)
the
new
standards
will
be
incorporated
into
operating
permits
issued
under
Title
V
of
the
CAA
rather
than
be
incorporated
into
RCRA
permits.
Consequently,
we
are
finalizing
the
proposed
changes
to
§
§
270.22
and
270.66
to
implement
the
above.
Also
applicable
to
Phase
2
sources
via
today's
final
rule
are
the
changes
and
additions
we
finalized
in
the
1999
final
rule
for
Phase
1
sources.
These
include
a
streamlined
RCRA
permit
modification
procedure
to
allow
sources
to
make
upgrades
to
comply
with
MACT
(
§
§
270.42(
j)
and
270.42
appendix
I,
section
L.
9),
a
second
streamlined
RCRA
permit
modification
procedure
to
remove
conditions
from
a
permit
that
are
no
longer
applicable
(
§
270.42
appendix
I,
section
A.
8),
an
addition
to
§
270.235
to
specify
conditions
for
startup
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
and
integrate
them
with
the
CAA
program,
and
an
amendment
to
the
interim
status
regulations
at
§
270.72
to
exempt
interim
status
facilities
from
the
reconstruction
limitation
when
making
upgrades
to
comply
with
MACT.
Also,
we
are
finalizing
three
new
permitting
changes
that
are
applicable
to
both
Phase
1
and
2
sources.
Two
have
been
discussed
previously
in
this
section
and
are:
(
1)
a
new
streamlined
RCRA
permit
modification
procedure
designed
to
reduce
overlap
during
the
transition
from
RCRA
to
MACT
(
§
§
270.42(
k)
and
270.42,
appendix
I,
L.
10);
and
(
2)
regulatory
provisions
stating
that
new
units
are
no
longer
subject
to
the
full
array
of
RCRA
combustion
permitting
requirements.
The
third
change
is
discussed
above
in
Section
IX.
Site­
Specific
Risk
Assessment
Under
RCRA
and
finalizes
our
response
to
a
petition
for
rulemaking
with
respect
to
site­
specific
risk
assessments
(
SSRAs).
As
part
of
this
change
we
have
decided
to
adopt
regulatory
language
that
specifically
provides
clarification
of
authority
for
RCRA
permit
writers
to
evaluate
the
need
for
and,
where
appropriate,
require
SSRAs
and
to
add
conditions
to
RCRA
permits
that
they
determine,
based
on
the
results
of
an
SSRA,
are
necessary
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
Last,
as
explained
in
part
four
section
II.
A,
we
are
finalizing
our
decision
to
regulate
emissions
of
dioxin/
furans,
mercury,
polycyclic
organic
matter,
and
polychlorinated
biphenyls
from
Phase
2
area
sources
under
section
112
(
d).
102
This
means
that
Phase
2
area
sources
are
subject
to
MACT
standards
only
for
these
hazardous
air
pollutants
(
HAP)
in
the
final
rule.
To
reiterate,
they
are:
dioxin/
furans,
mercury,
and
polycyclic
organic
matter
(
controlled
by
the
surrogates
DRE
and
carbon
monoxide/
hydrocarbon).
For
the
remaining
HAP
(
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
and
metals
other
than
mercury),
Phase
2
area
sources
may
either
comply
with
the
MACT
102
As
explained
in
the
Comment
Response
Document
vol.
V,
although
§
502(
a)
allows
EPA
to
exempt
area
sources
from
title
V
permitting
requirements
if
EPA
finds
that
those
requirements
would
be
(
among
other
things)
"
unnecessarily
burdensome",
we
believe
that
Title
V
requirements
remain
appropriate
for
these
sources
given
the
highly
toxic
nature
of
the
HAP
and
the
importance
of
affording
opportunity
for
public
participation
as
provided
for
in
the
Title
V
permit
issuance
process.
118
standards
for
Phase
2
major
sources
or
continue
complying
with
the
RCRA
standards
and
requirements
of
their
RCRA
permit.
In
the
2004
proposal,
we
stated
that
we
were
not
making
a
positive
area
source
finding
for
Phase
2
area
sources
as
we
have
for
Phase
1
area
sources
(
69
FR
21212
and
21325).
Regardless
of
this,
however,
the
Phase
2
area
sources
are
still
subject
to
the
requirement
to
obtain
a
Title
V
permit
because
they
are
subject
to
section
112
standards
under
this
subpart.
See
§
502(
a)
of
the
CAA
and
40
CFR
§
§
70.3(
b)(
2)
and
71.3(
b)(
2).
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
Title
V
applications
for
the
Phase
2
area
sources
will
need
to
contain
emissions
information
relative
to
all
regulated
air
pollutants
(
to
determine
applicable
requirements,
fees,
etc.)
that
are
being
emitted
from
the
units
subject
to
the
MACT
standards,
not
just
the
specific
HAP
pollutants
regulated
by
the
MACT
standards
(
see
§
§
70.5(
c)(
3)(
i)
and
71.5(
c)(
3)(
i)).
Although,
the
permit
itself
would
contain
standards
only
for
the
HAP
subject
to
MACT
standards
(
the
§
112(
c)(
6)
HAP).
A
Phase
2
area
source
which
chooses
to
control
hydrogen
chloride,
chlorine
gas,
and
metals
other
than
mercury
by
continuing
to
comply
with
the
relevant
RCRA
standards
and
the
requirements
of
its
RCRA
permit
should
note
this
choice
in
its
Title
V
application
and
cite
to
the
relevant
requirements
of
this
subpart.
This
will
help
ensure
that
the
permitting
authority
is
aware
that
these
requirements
apply
in
lieu
of
the
MACT
standards
for
Phase
2
major
sources.
The
permitting
authority
should
also
document
this
choice
in
the
statement
of
basis
for
the
source's
Title
V
permit.
See
§
§
70.7(
a)(
5)
and
71.7(
a)(
5).
Finally,
for
the
units
at
a
source
which
are
subject
to
the
subpart
EEE
MACT
standards,
all
CAA
applicable
requirements
to
which
these
units
are
subject,
e.
g.,
State
Implementation
Plan
requirements,
not
just
the
relevant
Subpart
EEE
requirements,
must
be
included
in
the
Title
V
permits
issued
to
these
sources.
See
§
§
70.3(
c)(
2)
and
71.3(
c)(
2).
For
more
information
regarding
§
112(
c)(
6)
and
how
it
relates
to
Phase
2
area
sources,
see
Part
Four,
Section
II.
A.,
"
Area
Source
Boilers
and
Hydrochloric
Acid
Production
Furnaces".
119
Figure
1.
Time
Line
for
Phase
1
Replacement
Standards
and
Phase
2
Standards103
103
Because
of
the
variability
of
the
Title
V
program
requirements,
most
Title
V
permit
actions
(
application
due
dates,
revisions,
reopenings,
etc.)
are
not
included
in
this
timeline.
Please
refer
to
the
particular
source's
current
Title
V
permit
status,
the
Title
V
regulations,
and
the
individual
permitting
authority's
Title
V
program
requirements.
6.14.06
Public
Review
of
Draft
NIC
7.14.06
NIC
Public
Meeting
1.14.06
Initial
Notification
9.14.06
NIC
due
3.14.08
CPT
Plan
and
CMS
Performance
Evaluation
Test
Plan
Due
for
Phase
1
Sources
5.14.08
Request
for
Extensions
to
Compliance
Date
Include
NOC
in
Title
5
Permit
Modify
RCRA
Permit
9.14.08
DOC
in
Operating
Record
9.14.08
Compliance
Date
12.14.08
Notification
of
Test
Plan
Approval
or
Intent
to
Deny
3.14.09
Begin
Performance
Test
5.14.09
Performance
Test
Completion
8.14.09
NOC
Due
9.14.05
Effective
Date
of
Phase
1
and
2
Rule
9.14.07
CPT
Plan
and
CMS
Performance
Evaluation
Test
Plan
Due
for
Phase
2
Sources
Eligibility
Demonstration
for
Alt.
Total
Chlorine
Standard
due
120
New
Units
at
RCRA
Permitted
Facilities
 
Class
3
Modification
Timeline
June
14,
2006
(
9
months)
July
14,
2006
(
10
months)
September
14,
2006
(
12
months)

Effective
date
September
14,
2005
(
0
months)
NIC
Public
Meeting
Final
NIC
Due
Submit
Permit
Modification
Request
(
0
days)
Begin
Comment
Period
End
Comment
Period
(
67
days)

Public
Meeting
(
22
days)

Publish
Notice
(
7
days)
Public
Meeting
(
52
days)
Approve
/
Deny
Request
New
Units
at
Non­
RCRA
Permitted
Facilities
NoNOtice
of
tice
of
Pre­
application
Meeting
(
0
days)

Notice
of
Pre­
application
Meeting
(
0
days)
Informal
Public
Meeting
(
30
days)
Submit
Permit
Application
Public
Review
of
Draft
NIC
and
CPT
Plan
Figure
2.
NIC
and
CPT
Plan
Time
Line
for
New
Units
Part
Five:
What
Are
the
CAA
Delegation
Clarifications
and
RCRA
State
Authorization
Requirements?

I.
Authority
for
this
Rule.

Today's
rule
amends
the
promulgated
standards
located
at
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
EEE.
It
amends
the
standards
for
the
Phase
1
source
categories
 
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
that
burn
hazardous
waste,
and
it
also
amends
subpart
EEE
to
establish
MACT
standards
for
the
Phase
2
source
categories
 
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
that
burn
hazardous
waste.
Additionally,
this
rule
amends
several
RCRA
regulations
located
in
40
CFR
part
270
to
reflect
changes
in
applicability,
addition
of
a
new
permit
modification
procedure,
and
additions
related
to
site­
specific
assessments
and
permitting.

II.
CAA
Delegation
Authority.

Before
discussing
the
clarifications
being
finalized
today,
it
is
important
to
first
highlight
a
few
key
aspects
of
delegation
authority.
Recall
from
the
proposal
that
a
state,
local,
or
tribal
(
S/
L/
T)
agency
must
be
delegated
authority
under
CAA
section
112(
l)
before
it
can
exercise
the
delegable
provisions'
authorities.
The
delegable
authorities
can
be
found
in
40
CFR
63.91(
g)(
1)(
i),
also
known
as
Category
I
Authorities.
A
S/
L/
T
agency
that
has
applied
for
and
received
delegation
authority
can
approve:
test
plans,
requests
for
minor
and
in
most
cases,
intermediate
changes
to
monitoring
and
test
methods,
performance
test
waivers,
and
several
other
Category
I
Authorities.
Please
note
that
even
though
a
S/
L/
T
agency
may
have
an
approved
Title
V
permit
program,
it
cannot
exercise
delegable
authorities
or
be
the
primary
enforcement
authority
if
it
has
not
received
delegation
authority
under
CAA
section
112(
l).
Moreover,
when
a
S/
L/
T
agency
has
not
taken
delegation
of
a
section
112
standard,
the
agency
can
only
incorporate
the
section
112
standard's
requirements
into
its
Title
V
permits,
(
and
then
implement
and
enforce
these
requirements
through
its
title
V
permits)
when
it
has
adequate
authority
under
State,
local,
or
tribal
law
which
allows
it
to
conduct
the
above
actions
without
delegation.
See,
e.
g.,
the
proposed
Federal
Plan
for
Commercial
and
Industrial
Solid
Waste
Incinerators,
November
25,
2002
(
67
FR
70640,
70652).
Please
also
refer
to
69
FR
21335
of
the
proposal
and
the
fact
sheet
entitled,
Clean
Air
Act
Delegation
for
the
HWC
NESHAP
at:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
combust/
toolkit/
factshts.
htm
to
learn
more
about
the
advantages
of
receiving
delegation
authority.
Also,
we
would
like
to
point
out
that
there
are
several
delegation
options
that
S/
L/
T
agencies
can
receive.
Regardless,
many
S/
L/
T
agencies
choose
the
"
straight
delegation"
option
when
applying
for
delegation
approval.
Straight
delegation
means
that
these
agencies
have
agreed
to
implement
and
enforce
federal
MACT
standards
as
they
have
been
written
in
the
promulgated
requirements.
As
a
result,
many
EPA
Regions
and
states
have
established
memoranda
of
agreement
that
essentially
provide
automatic
delegation
of
each
future
MACT,
as
opposed
to
the
state
applying
for
delegation
of
each
future
MACT,
which
requires
a
rulemaking
to
implement.
For
more
information
related
to
the
delegation
options
and
procedures,
please
refer
to
the
fact
sheet,
Clean
Air
Act
Delegation
for
the
HWC
NESHAP
at:
122
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
combust/
toolkit/
factshts.
htm
and
EPA's
delegation
website
at:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttnatw01/
112(
l)/
112­
lpg.
html.

III.
Clarifications
to
CAA
Delegation
Provisions
for
Subpart
EEE.

In
the
proposal,
we
discussed
the
need
to
provide
additional
clarification
for
the
delegable
and
non­
delegable
authorities
within
Subpart
EEE
based
upon
our
implementation
experience
with
the
Phase
1
Interim
Standards
and
the
Clarifications
to
Existing
National
Emissions
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
Delegation'
Provisions
final
rule
published
on
June
23,
2003
(
68
FR
37334).
Although
the
June
23,
2003
final
rule
provided
clarification
and
streamlined
the
delegable
provisions
for
each
existing
NESHAP,
it
overlooked
several
non­
delegable
and
delegable
authorities
within
Subpart
EEE.
It
provided
clarification
on
the
non­
delegable
authorities
of
Subpart
EEE
as
they
relate
to
major
alternatives
to
the
standards
themselves
and
to
test
methods,
monitoring,
or
recordkeeping
and
reporting
under
the
General
Provisions.
104
However,
it
omitted
major
alternatives
specific
to
Subpart
EEE
such
as:
test
methods
under
§
§
63.1208(
b)
and
63.1209(
a)(
1);
monitoring
under
§
63.1209(
a)(
5)
and;
recordkeeping
and
reporting
under
§
63.1211(
a)
through
(
d).
Therefore,
the
following
paragraphs
will
explain
which
authorities
in
Subpart
EEE
are
delegable
and
are
not
delegable
to
S/
L/
T
agencies
that
have
been
delegated
authority
and
will
provide
some
examples
of
or
references
to
alternative
requests
associated
with
each
delegable
or
non­
delegable
provisions
authority.
To
review,
the
regulations
at
40
CFR
§
63.90
define
three
types
of
alternative
requests.
Alternative
requests
or
"
changes"
to
a
particular
delegable
or
non­
delegable
provision
are
classified
as
major,
intermediate,
or
minor
depending
upon
the
degree
(
i.
e.,
potential
to
be
nationally
significance,
potential
to
reduce
the
stringency
of
the
standard,
etc.)
of
change
being
requested.
An
alternative
request
that
qualifies
as
a
major
change
is
not
delegable
to
S/
L/
T
agencies,
even
when
they
have
delegation
authority.
These
requests
must
be
sent
to
the
EPA
Region
or,
if
it
concerns
a
test
method
under
§
§
63.7(
e)(
2)(
ii)
and
(
f),
63.1208(
b)
and
63.1209(
a)(
1)
or
a
standard
under
§
§
63.1200,
63.1206(
a),
or
63.1216
 
63.1221,
then
it
must
be
sent
to
our
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards
(
OAPQS).
105
An
alternative
request
that
qualifies
as
an
intermediate
or
minor
change
is
delegable.
However,
the
EPA
Region
may
choose
whether
or
not
they
will
delegate
authority
to
S/
L/
T
agencies
to
approve
intermediate
and,
even
some
minor
changes
during
the
delegation
approval
process.
In
addition
to
the
regulations,
the
guidance
document
entitled,
How
to
Review
and
Issue
Clean
Air
Act
Applicability
Determinations
and
Alternative
Monitoring
(
EPA
305­
B­
99­
004,
February
1999)
provides
a
listing
of
delegable
and
non­
delegable
authorities
in
Tables
1
and
2,
as
well
as
descriptions
and
examples
of
major,
intermediate,
and
minor
changes
in
Attachment
1.

104
For
example,
the
final
rule
included
approval
of
alternatives
to
requirements
in
§
§
63.1200,
63.1203
through
63.1205,
and
63.1206(
a);
approval
of
major
alternatives
to
test
methods
under
§
63.7(
e)(
2)(
ii)
and
(
f);
approval
of
major
alternatives
to
monitoring
under
§
63.8(
f)
and;
approval
of
major
alternatives
to
recordkeeping
and
reporting
under
§
63.10(
f).

105
For
contact
information,
please
visit
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
emc/
staffdir.
html.
123
A.
Alternatives
to
Requirements.

Any
change
to
a
promulgated
standard
is
considered
a
major
change
and
as
noted
above,
must
be
sent
to
OAQPS
(
see
contact
information
in
footnote).
The
reason
why
a
change
to
a
standard
must
be
sent
to
EPA
Headquarters
is
because
the
change
must
be
established
through
national
rulemaking,
regardless
of
the
degree
of
change
sought.
Thus,
only
OAQPS
can
approve
alternative
requests
for
changes
to
standards.
Additionally,
any
change
to
applicability
requirements
and
compliance
dates
(
e.
g.,
requirements
that
ensure
that
the
standards
are
achieved
as
EPA
intended)
are
also
considered
major
and
also
must
be
sent
to
OAQPS
for
approval.
Specific
to
Subpart
EEE,
alternative
requirement
requests
including
those
pursuant
to
§
§
63.1200,
63.1206(
a),
or
63.1216
 
63.1221
are
considered
major
changes
and
consequently
are
non­
delegable.
The
regulations
at
§
63.1214(
c)
correctly
identified
the
requirements
in
Subpart
EEE,
however
we
have
revised
them
today
(
as
we
proposed)
to
reflect
the
new
sections
that
house
the
Phase
1
Replacement
Standards
and
Phase
2
Standards.
There
are
a
few
exceptions
to
the
above,
however.
Subpart
EEE
incorporates
specific
provisions
for
sources
to
request
alternative
standards
which
are
delegable
because
they
have
been
established
through
rulemaking.
In
fact,
several
alternative
standards
are
self­
implementing
meaning
that
the
source
only
need
specify
in
their
DOC
which
standard
it
will
comply
with.
The
alternative
to
the
particulate
matter
standard
in
§
63.1206(
b)(
14)
and
the
emissions
averaging
standards
for
cement
kilns
with
in
line
kiln
raw
mills
and
preheater
or
preheater/
precalciner
kilns
with
dual
stacks
in
§
63.1204(
d)
and
(
e)
are
three
examples.
There
are
also
alternative
standards
that
sources
may
petition
to
comply
with.
They
include:
alternatives
to
the
standards
for
existing
and
new
LWAKs
at
§
63.1206(
9)
and
cement
kilns
at
§
63.1206(
b)(
10)
and
the
alternative
risk­
based
standard
for
total
chlorine
at
§
63.1215.
Sources
choosing
to
comply
with
these
alternative
standards
must
receive
approval
from
their
delegated
S/
L/
T
agency
prior
to
implementing
them.
106
With
respect
to
changes
to
compliance
dates,
requests
under
§
63.1213
specifically
allow
sources
to
request
an
extension
to
the
compliance
date
for
the
installation
of
pollution
prevention
or
waste
minimization
controls.
Again,
because
this
provision
has
been
specified
in
subpart
EEE,
it
is
not
considered
a
major
change
and
is
delegable.

B.
Alternatives
to
Test
Methods.

With
respect
to
test
methods,
we
noted
above
that
the
final
delegations
rule
stated
that
major
alternatives
to
the
test
methods
at
§
§
63.7(
e)(
2)(
ii)
and
(
f)
were
not
delegable.
Therefore,
as
we
proposed,
it
is
necessary
to
add
major
alternatives
to
63.1208(
b),
which
specifies
the
test
methods
sources
must
use
to
determine
compliance
with
subpart
EEE.
Also,
we
are
adding
the
CEMS
monitoring
requirement
under
§
63.1209(
a)(
1).
It
is
regarded
as
a
test
method
because
it
serves
as
a
benchmark
method
for
demonstrating
compliance
with
the
emission
standards.
Both
sections
are
delegable
to
S/
L/
T
agencies
as
long
as
they
have
been
delegated
authority
and
as
long
as
the
alternative
requests
comprise
minor
or
intermediate
changes.
However,
a
major
change
to
either
of
these
test
106
The
alternative
risk­
based
standard
for
total
chlorine
at
§
63.1215
requires
sources
to
submit
their
eligibility
demonstration
to
both
the
delegated
S/
L/
T
agency
and
to
the
Risk
and
Exposure
Assessment
Group
in
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
for
review,
even
though
the
delegated
S/
L/
T
agency
can
grant
or
deny
approval.
124
method
sections
must
be
sent
to
OAQPS
for
approval.
107
Only
OAQPS
can
approve
major
changes
to
test
methods
because
they
are
designated
in
the
standard
as
the
means
for
determining
compliance
with
an
emission
standard.
The
proposed
revisions
to
§
63.1214
are
finalized
today
to
include
major
alternatives
to
test
methods
under
§
§
63.1208(
b)
and
63.1209(
a)(
1)
as
non­
delegable
authorities.

C.
Alternatives
to
Monitoring.

For
monitoring,
the
final
delegations
rule
stated
that
major
alternatives
to
monitoring
at
§
63.8(
f)
were
not
delegable,
but
did
not
reference
monitoring
specific
to
subpart
EEE.
In
subpart
EEE,
the
monitoring
requirements
are
located
in
§
63.1209.
This
section
also
includes
two
provisions
specific
to
alternative
monitoring,
thus
removing
some
of
the
"
guesswork"
when
trying
to
discern
whether
a
request
for
change
is
minor,
intermediate,
or
major.
One
is
located
at
§
63.1209(
a)(
5),
Petitions
to
use
CEMS
for
other
standards
and
the
other
is
located
at
§
63.1209(
g)(
1),
Alternative
monitoring
requirements
other
than
continuous
emissions
monitoring
systems.
Each
is
discussed
in
the
following
paragraphs.
In
the
proposal,
we
explained
that
a
request
to
use
other
monitoring
in
lieu
of
a
CEMS
is
always
considered
a
major
change
due
to
CEMS
generally
being
considered
a
more
accurate
measure
of
compliance.
However,
if
a
source
requests
to
use
a
CEMS
in
lieu
of
a
required
operating
parameter,
it
may
be
considered
an
intermediate
change.
Since
publication
of
the
proposal,
performance
specifications
have
been
promulgated
for
PM
CEMS
(
and
mercury
CEMS)
108.
Consequently,
today
we
view
requests
per
§
63.1209(
a)(
5)
to
use
PM
CEMS
as
intermediate
changes
to
monitoring.
Although
the
implementation
of
PM
CEMS
according
to
PS­
11
(
69
FR
1786
and
40
CFR
part
60,
Appendix
B;
January
12,
2004)
and
Procedure
2
(
see
also
40
CFR
part
60,
Appendix
F)
is
largely
"
self­
implementing,"
sources
wishing
to
apply
to
use
of
PM
CEMS
should
develop
and
submit
QA/
QC
plans
specifying
audit
frequencies
to
account
for
site­
specific
stack
conditions.
We
believe
that
other
site­
specific
issues
that
may
need
to
be
addressed
prior
to
use
of
the
CEMS,
such
as
a
source's
request
to
deviate
from
PS­
11
or
a
source's
selection
of
the
correct
correlation
curve(
s),
are
properly
addressed
under
EPA's
established
policies
and
procedures
for
alternative
method
requests.
We
believe
that
a
petition
to
use
PM
CEMS
under
§
63.8(
f)
is
still
the
appropriate
mechanism,
but
that
sources
can
submit
their
petitions
to
their
delegated
S/
L/
T
agency
for
review
and
approval,
and
we
recommend
that
EPA
Regional
offices
work
with
these
agencies
to
monitor
implementation.
Thus,
with
the
exception
of
petitions
to
use
PM
CEMS
in
lieu
of
an
operating
parameter
which
is
considered
an
intermediate
change,
we
are
finalizing
our
proposed
revision
to
§
63.1214(
c)
to
include
major
alternatives
to
monitoring
under
§
63.1209(
a)(
5)
as
a
non­
delegable
authority.
Section
63.1209(
g)(
1),
Alternative
monitoring
requirements
other
than
continuous
emissions
monitoring
systems,
contains
the
other
alternative
monitoring
107
For
contact
information,
please
visit
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
emc/
staffdir.
html.
108
Although
performance
specifications
have
been
promulgated
for
mercury
CEMS,
there
has
not
been
as
much
experience
in
implementing
these
devices
for
hazardous
waste
combustion
sources
(
or
similar
sources)
as
there
has
been
for
PM
CEMS
at
this
time.
Therefore,
we
believe
it
appropriate
to
continue
sending
requests
to
use
mercury
CEMS
in
lieu
of
an
operating
parameter
to
the
appropriate
EPA
Region
for
review
and
approval.
125
provision.
This
provision
allows
sources
to
request
alternative
monitoring
methods
to
monitor
compliance,
except
for
those
standards
that
must
be
monitored
with
a
CEMS
(
e.
g.,
those
in
§
63.1209(
a)(
1)),
and
to
request
a
waiver
of
an
operating
parameter
limit.
We
provided
several
examples
of
alternative
parameter
monitoring
for
which
a
request
may
be
submitted
under
this
section
in
the
proposal
at
69
FR
21337.
They
include
use
of:
a
different
detector,
different
monitoring
location,
a
different
method
as
recommended
by
the
manufacturer,
or
a
different
averaging
period
that
is
more
stringent
than
the
applicable
standard.
In
the
proposal,
we
stated
that
we
believe
the
majority
of
requests
submitted
pursuant
to
§
63.1209(
g)(
1)
are
not
major
and
discussed
in
the
preamble
amending
the
language
in
§
63.1209(
g)(
1)
so
that
these
types
of
changes
could
be
reviewed
and
approved
by
the
delegated
S/
L/
T
agency.
However,
when
we
added
language
to
§
63.1209(
g)(
1)
to
allow
for
the
above,
we
inadvertently
referred
to
an
approved
Title
V
program
instead
of
a
S/
L/
T
agency
which
has
taken
delegation
of
subpart
EEE.
We
have
corrected
and
finalized
the
proposed
language.
Therefore,
whether
minor
or
intermediate,
requests
under
§
63.1209(
g)(
1)
may
be
sent
to
your
delegated
S/
L/
T
agency
for
review
and
approval.
Please
note
that
63.1209(
g)(
1)
cannot
be
used
when
requesting
major
changes
to
the
monitoring
required
by
the
standard.
Such
changes
typically
involve
new
unproven
monitoring
methods.
Unproven
monitoring
methods
refer
to
those
where
the
technology
or
procedures
are
not
generally
accepted
by
the
scientific
community
(
§
63.90(
a)).
If
you
are
uncertain
whether
your
request
constitutes
a
new
unproven
monitoring
method,
which
is
considered
a
major
change,
you
should
submit
your
request
to
your
EPA
Region.
The
regulatory
language
in
63.1209(
g)(
1)
has
been
revised
to
reflect
this
clarification.

D.
Alternatives
to
Recordkeeping
and
Reporting.

As
with
the
others,
the
final
delegation
provisions'
rule
only
cited
the
waiver
of
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
of
§
63.10(
f)
as
a
non­
delegable
provision.
Thus,
it
is
necessary
to
add
the
relevant
subpart
EEE
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
of
§
63.1211.
Section
63.1211
is
delegable
in
its
entirety
to
S/
L/
T
agencies
unless
an
alternative
request
is
determined
to
be
a
major
change.
An
alternative
request
that
is
a
major
change,
such
as
decreases
in
record
retention
for
all
records,
must
be
sent
to
your
EPA
Region
for
review
and
approval.
Similar
to
the
monitoring
section,
§
63.1211
contains
a
specific
alternative
provision.
Section
63.1211(
d)
Data
Compression,
allows
sources
to
request
to
use
data
compression
techniques
to
record
data
from
CMS
and
CEMS
on
a
frequency
less
than
that
required
by
§
63.1209.
We
view
the
alternative
request
to
be
a
minor
change
because
available
guidance
provides
criteria
for
defining
fluctuation
and
data
compression
limits.
See
64
FR
52961
and
52962,
September
30,
1999.
Therefore,
requests
submitted
under
63.1211(
d)
can
be
consistently
evaluated
by
delegated
S/
L/
T
agencies.
Section
63.1214(
c)
has
been
revised
to
specify
that
major
alternatives
to
63.1211(
a)
 
(
c)
are
non­
delegable
authorities.

E.
Other
Delegation
Provisions
Although
not
discussed
in
the
proposal,
it
is
important
to
note
that
issuing
applicability
determinations
is
another
delegable
authority.
The
EPA
document
How
to
Review
and
Issue
Clean
Air
Act
Applicability
Determinations
and
Alternative
Monitoring
(
EPA
305­
B­
99­
004,
February
1999)
provides
guidance
regarding
who
has
the
lead
for
126
issuing
applicability
determinations.
In
general,
Regions
may
delegate
the
authority
to
issue
applicability
determinations
to
S/
L/
T
agencies
when
the
determinations
are
routine
in
nature.
However,
delegation
of
authority
for
certain
applicability
determinations
should
be
retained
by
the
Regions.
These
include
applicability
determinations
that:
(
1)
are
unusually
controversial
or
complex;
(
2)
have
bearing
on
more
than
one
state
or
district
(
are
multi­
Regional);
(
3)
appear
to
create
conflict
with
previous
policy
or
determinations;
(
4)
are
a
legal
issue
which
has
not
previously
been
considered
(
a
matter
of
first
impression);
or
(
5)
raise
new
policy
questions.
It
is
recommended
that
Regional
offices
require
notification
when
S/
L/
T
agencies
issue
applicability
determinations.

IV.
RCRA
State
Authorization
and
Amendments
To
the
RCRA
Regulations.

Under
section
3006
of
RCRA,
EPA
may
authorize
qualified
states
to
administer
their
own
hazardous
waste
programs
in
lieu
of
the
federal
program
within
the
state.
Following
authorization,
EPA
retains
enforcement
authority
under
sections
3008,
3013,
and
7003
of
RCRA,
although
authorized
states
have
primary
enforcement
responsibility.
The
standards
and
requirements
for
state
authorization
are
found
at
40
CFR
Part
271.
Prior
to
enactment
of
the
Hazardous
and
Solid
Waste
Amendments
of
1984
(
HSWA),
a
State
with
final
RCRA
authorization
administered
its
hazardous
waste
program
entirely
in
lieu
of
EPA
administering
the
federal
program
in
that
state.
The
federal
requirements
no
longer
applied
in
the
authorized
state,
and
EPA
could
not
issue
permits
for
any
facilities
in
that
state,
since
only
the
state
was
authorized
to
issue
RCRA
permits.
When
new,
more
stringent
federal
requirements
were
promulgated,
the
state
was
obligated
to
enact
equivalent
authorities
within
specified
time
frames.
However,
the
new
federal
requirements
did
not
take
effect
in
an
authorized
state
until
the
state
adopted
the
federal
requirements
as
state
law.
In
contrast,
under
RCRA
section
3006(
g)
(
42
U.
S.
C.
6926(
g)),
which
was
added
by
HSWA,
new
requirements
and
prohibitions
imposed
under
HSWA
authority
take
effect
in
authorized
states
at
the
same
time
that
they
take
effect
in
unauthorized
states.
EPA
is
directed
by
the
statute
to
implement
these
requirements
and
prohibitions
in
authorized
states,
including
the
issuance
of
permits,
until
the
state
is
granted
authorization
to
do
so.
While
states
must
still
adopt
HSWA
related
provisions
as
state
law
to
retain
final
authorization,
EPA
implements
the
HSWA
provisions
in
authorized
states
until
the
states
do
so.
Authorized
states
are
required
to
modify
their
programs
only
when
EPA
enacts
federal
requirements
that
are
more
stringent
or
broader
in
scope
than
existing
federal
requirements.
RCRA
section
3009
allows
the
states
to
impose
standards
more
stringent
than
those
in
the
federal
program
(
see
also
40
CFR
271.1).
Therefore,
authorized
states
may,
but
are
not
required
to,
adopt
federal
regulations,
both
HSWA
and
non­
HSWA,
that
are
considered
less
stringent
than
previous
federal
regulations.
We
discussed
in
the
proposal
which
RCRA
regulations
we
intended
to
amend
and
their
impact
on
state
authorization
procedures.
Today,
we
are
finalizing
those
amendments
in
§
§
270.10,
270.22,
270.32,
270.42,
27062,
270.66,
and
270.235.
In
addition,
we
are
amending
the
regulations
in
§
§
264.340
and
266.100
to
reflect
changes
that
have
been
made
based
upon
comments.
Today's
amendments
fall
under
both
HSWA
and
non­
HSWA
authorities.
That
is,
changes
made
to
regulations
applicable
to
boilers
and
industrial
furnaces
are
promulgated
under
HSWA
authority,
whereas
changes
made
127
to
regulations
applicable
to
incinerators
are
promulgated
under
non­
HSWA
authority.
109
All
of
the
amendments
made
today
are
considered
to
be
either
less
stringent
or
equivalent
to
the
existing
Federal
program,
which
means
that
states
are
not
required
to
adopt
and
seek
authorization
for
these
provisions
regardless
of
whether
they
are
finalized
under
non­
HSWA
or
HSWA
authorities.
Nevertheless,
we
strongly
encourage
states
to
become
authorized
for
today's
amendments.
Experience
has
shown
that
when
states
have
been
authorized
for
previous
amendments
(
i.
e.,
those
finalized
in
the
1999
rule)
that
were
intended
to
facilitate
the
transition
from
the
RCRA
program
to
MACT
and
the
CAA
Title
V
program,
the
process
has
proven
to
be
less
cumbersome.
For
a
more
detailed
discussion
of
non­
HSWA
and
HSWA
authorities
with
respect
to
how
and
when
they
take
effect,
please
refer
to
the
proposal's
preamble
discussion
at
69
FR
21338.
Several
RCRA
sections
that
have
been
enacted
as
part
of
HSWA
apply
to
today's
rule:
3004(
o),
3004(
q),
and
3005(
c)(
3).
Thus,
if
a
state
is
not
authorized
for
the
boiler
and
industrial
furnace
regulations,
these
provisions
are
federally
enforceable
in
an
authorized
state
until
the
necessary
changes
to
a
state's
authorization
are
approved
by
us.
See
RCRA
section
3006,
42
U.
S.
C.
6926.
We
are
adding
today's
requirements
to
Table
1
in
271.1(
j)
where
rulemakings
promulgated
pursuant
to
HSWA
authority
are
identified.

Part
Six:
Impacts
of
the
Final
Rule
I.
What
Are
the
Air
Impacts?
Table
1
below
shows
the
emissions
reductions
achieved
by
the
final
rule
for
all
existing
hazardous
waste
combustors.
For
Phase
I
sources
 
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
 
the
emission
reductions
represent
the
difference
in
emissions
between
sources
controlled
to
today's
standards
and
estimated
emissions
when
complying
with
the
interim
MACT
standards
promulgated
on
February
13,
2002.
Thus,
the
significant
emissions
reductions
already
achieved
by
the
interim
standards
are
not
reflected
in
the
estimates
shown
in
Table
1.110
For
Phase
II
sources
 
solid
fuel
boilers,
liquid
fuel
boilers,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
 
the
reductions
represent
the
difference
in
emissions
between
today's
standards
and
the
current
baseline
of
control
provided
by
40
CFR
part
266,
subpart
H.
Nationwide
baseline
HAP
and
particulate
matter
emissions
from
hazardous
waste
combustors
are
estimated
to
be
approximately
12,650
tons
per
year
at
the
current
baseline
level
of
control.
Depending
on
the
number
of
facilities
demonstrating
compliance
with
health­
based
compliance
alternatives
for
total
chlorine,
the
total
reduction
of
HAP
and
particulate
matter
for
existing
sources
could
be
between
approximately
2,260
and
3,380
tons
per
year.
A
discussion
of
the
emission
estimates
methodology
and
results
are
presented
in
"
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
V:
Emission
Estimates
and
Engineering
Costs"
that
is
available
in
the
docket.

109
When
new
requirements
and
prohibitions
(
that
are
more
stringent
than
the
previous
federal
regulations)
are
imposed
under
non­
HSWA
authority,
the
new
federal
requirements
do
not
take
effect
in
an
authorized
state
until
the
state
adopts
the
federal
requirements
as
law.
Conversely,
when
imposed
under
HSWA
authority,
the
new
federal
requirements
are
federally
enforceable
in
an
authorized
state
until
the
necessary
changes
to
a
state's
authorization
are
approved
by
EPA.
110
USEPA,
"
Final
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Standards,
Volume
V:
Emission
Estimates
and
Engineering
Costs,"
Section
3,
July
1999.
128
Table
1
 
Nationwide
Annual
Emissions
Reductions
of
HAP
and
Other
Pollutants
Pollutant
Estimated
Emission
Reductions
(
tons
per
year)
Dioxin/
furans1
0.20
All
HAP
metals
19.5
Mercury
0.21
Semivolatile
metals
(
Cd,
Pb)
2.9
Low
volatile
metals
(
As,
Be,
Cr)
6.5
Other
metals
(
Co,
Mn,
Ni,
Sb,
Se)
9.9
HCl
and
chlorine
gas2
1220
Particulate
matter
2,140
1
Dioxin/
furan
emission
reductions
are
expressed
as
grams
TEQ
per
year.
2
We
are
promulgating
health­
based
compliance
alternatives
for
total
chlorine
for
hazardous
waste
combustors
other
than
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
in
lieu
of
the
MACT
technology­
based
emission
standards
(
see
Part
Four,
Section
VII
of
the
preamble
for
details).
Given
that
a
number
of
sources
may
elect
to
comply
with
the
health­
based
compliance
alternatives,
the
estimated
reductions
of
total
chlorine
represent
an
upper
bound
estimate.

II.
What
Are
the
Water
and
Solid
Waste
Impacts?

We
estimate
that
water
usage
for
existing
sources
will
increase
between
400
million
and
1.6
billion
gallons
per
year
as
a
result
of
today's
rule.
The
upper
range
estimate
represents
the
water
usage
assuming
no
sources
elect
to
comply
with
the
healthbased
compliance
alternatives
for
total
chlorine,
while
the
lower
range
estimate
represents
water
usage
assuming
all
sources
elect
the
alternative.
Water
usage
increases
are
estimated
for
reducing
combustion
gas
temperatures
with
evaporated
spray
coolers
for
dioxin/
furan
control
as
well
as
for
new
particulate
matter
and
acid
gas
air
pollution
control
equipment.
The
increased
water
usage
will
also
result
in
an
increase
in
wastewater
generation.
Depending
on
the
number
of
sources
that
elect
to
comply
with
the
health­
based
compliance
alternatives
for
total
chlorine,
we
also
estimate
that
up
to
775
million
gallons
of
wastewater
may
be
generated.
We
estimate
that
the
generation
of
solid
waste
will
increase
between
approximately
8,700
tons
and
12,200
tons
per
year
depending
on
the
number
of
sources
that
elect
to
comply
with
the
health­
based
compliance
alternatives
for
total
chlorine.
Of
these
totals,
approximately
250
tons
per
year
will
be
classified
as
hazardous
waste
subject
to
RCRA
Subtitle
C
regulations.
We
estimate
the
remainder
 
between
8,450
and
11,950
tons
per
year
 
will
be
classified
and
managed
as
a
non­
hazardous
industrial
waste
subject
to
Subtitle
D
of
RCRA.
The
costs
associated
with
these
disposal
and
water
requirements
are
accounted
for
in
the
annualized
compliance
cost
estimates.
A
discussion
of
the
methodology
used
to
estimate
impacts
is
presented
in
"
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
V:
Emission
Estimates
and
Engineering
Costs"
that
is
available
in
the
docket.
We
note
that
the
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
effects
for
both
floor
and
beyond­
the­
floor
options
are
discussed
in
the
technical
support
document
and
are
part
of
our
consideration
of
such
factors
under
section
112(
d)(
2).
129
III.
What
Are
the
Energy
Impacts?

We
estimate
that
the
national
annual
energy
usage
as
a
result
of
this
rule
will
increase
between
approximately
73
million
and
85
million
kilowatt
hours
(
kWh)
depending
on
the
number
of
sources
that
elect
to
comply
with
the
health­
based
compliance
alternatives
for
total
chlorine.
The
increase
results
from
the
electricity
required
to
operate
air
pollution
control
equipment
installed
to
meet
the
standards.
The
increase
energy
usage
costs
are
accounted
for
in
the
annualized
compliance
cost
estimates.
A
discussion
of
the
methodology
used
to
estimate
impacts
is
presented
in
"
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
V:
Emission
Estimates
and
Engineering
Costs."
We
note
that
the
energy
effects
for
both
floor
and
beyond­
the­
floor
options
are
discussed
in
the
technical
support
document
and
are
part
of
our
consideration
of
such
factors
under
section
112(
d)(
2).

IV.
What
Are
the
Control
Costs?

Control
costs,
as
presented
in
this
section,
refer
only
to
engineering,
operation,
and
maintenance
costs
associated
with
unit/
system
upgrades
necessary
to
meet
the
final
standards.
These
costs
do
not
incorporate
any
market­
based
adjustments.
All
costs
presented
in
this
section
are
annualized
estimates
in
2002
dollars.
We
estimate
there
are
a
total
of
267
sources111
that
may
be
subject
to
requirements
of
this
final
rule.
Of
this
total,
there
are
116
boilers
(
104
liquid
fuel
boilers
plus
12
solid
fuel
boilers),
92
on­
site
incinerators,
25
cement
kilns,
15
commercial
incinerators,
nine
(
or
seven)
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
and
ten
hydrochloric
acid
(
HCl)
production
furnaces.
Total
national
private
sector
engineering
costs
for
the
final
standards
are
estimated
at
$
40.2
million
per
year112.
This
estimate
reflects
total
non
market
adjusted
upgrade
costs
(
engineering,
plus
administrative
and
permitting),
excluding
chlorine
control
costs.
113
All
Phase
II
sources
combined
(
liquid
fuel
boilers,
coal
fired
boilers,
and
HCl
production
furnaces)
represent
86
percent
of
this
total.
The
average
private
sector
engineering
cost,
excluding
permitting
and
administrative,
is
projected
to
be
highest
for
liquid
fuel
boilers,
at
$
256,300
per
source.
Coal
fired
boilers
are
second
at
approximately
$
170,246
per
source.
Total
engineering
costs
to
cement
kilns
and
HCl
production
furnaces
are
estimated
to
average
$
113,600,
and
$
16,645
per
source,
respectively.
Commercial
incinerators
are
projected
to
experience
engineering
costs
 
111
For
purposes
of
this
discussion,
a
source
is
defined
as
the
air
pollution
control
system
associated
with
one
or
more
hazardous
waste
combustion
unit(
s).
A
facility
may
operate
one
or
more
sources.
Note
that
this
total
includes
two
LWAK
units
limited
by
system
burn
constraints.
Exclusion
of
these
two
units
results
in
a
total
of
265
independent
sources.
112Not
included
here
are
total
annual
government
costs.
These
costs,
with
or
without
chlorine
control,
are
approximately
$
0.5
million/
year
 
113
We
are
finalizing
the
incorporation
of
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.
The
total
engineering
cost
with
chlorine
control
is
estimated
at
$
46.7
million/
year.]
130
averaging
$
12,300
per
source.
On­
site
incinerators
and
LWAKs
will
face
the
lowest
engineering
costs
at
$
10,200
and
$
3,330,
respectively.
For
all
Phase
I
sources
(
141
sources;
commercial
incinerators,
on­
site
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns),
total
average
annualized
non
market­
adjusted
compliance
costs
(
including
permitting
and
administrative114)
are
estimated
at
$
39,700
per
source.
The
combined
Phase
II
sources
(
126
sources;
solid
and
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces)
have
total
average
annualized
non
market­
adjusted
compliance
costs
of
approximately
$
274,500
per
source.
Across
all
sectors
covered
by
today's
rule
(
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
sources),
total
annualized
compliance
costs
were
found
to
average
$
150,500
per
source.
Private
sector
engineering
costs
(
control)
costs
have
also
been
assessed
on
a
per
ton
(
U.
S.)
basis.
Captive
energy
recovery
sources
(
solid
and
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces)
burned
a
total
of
944,667
tons
of
hazardous
waste
in
2003.
These
facilities
are
projected
to
experience
the
highest
average
incremental
control
costs,
at
approximately
$
37
per
ton
of
waste
burned.
Commercial
energy
recovery
sources
(
cement
kilns
and
LWAKs),
burning
an
estimated
999,076
tons
in
2003,
are
projected
to
experience
average
incremental
control
costs
of
approximately
of
$
3.00
per
ton.
Captive
(
on­
site)
and
commercial
incinerators
burn
an
estimated
925,828
tons
and
447,524
tons
per
year,
respectively.
These
sources
are
estimated
to
experience
average
incremental
engineering
costs
of
$
2.15
per
ton
and
$
0.80
per
ton,
respectively.
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
requirements
in
this
final
rule,
will
cause
a
short­
term
disequilibrium
in
the
hazardous
waste
burning
market,
resulting
in
a
natural
economic
process
designed
to
reach
the
new
market
equilibrium.
Actual
cost
impacts
to
society
are
more
accurately
measured
by
taking
into
account
market
adjustments
in
the
targeted
industry,
plus
secondary
(
societal)
costs.
Total
market­
adjusted
costs
plus
secondary
costs
are
commonly
termed
Social
Costs,
and
are
generally
less
than
total
engineering
costs
due
to
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
VI
of
this
Section115.

V.
What
Are
the
Economic
Impacts?

Economic
impacts
may
be
measured
through
several
factors.
This
section
presents
estimated
economic
impacts
relative
to
market
exits,
waste
reallocations,
and
employment
impacts.
Economic
impacts
presented
in
this
section
are
distinct
from
social
costs,
which
correspond
only
to
the
estimated
monetary
value
of
market
disturbances.

114
See
Exhibit
4­
3
in
the
economic
assessment
background
document.
115Beyond­
the­
Floor
standards
were
assessed
for
all
floors.
These
findings
are
available
in
Appendix
F
and
G
of
the
engineering
background
document:
See:
Final
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Standards,
Volume
V
 
Emissions
Estimates
and
Engineering
Costs.
131
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.
Social,
liability,
and
informational
issues
are
not
incorporated
into
our
market
exit
analysis.
Market
exit
estimates
are
derived
from
a
breakeven
analysis
designed
to
determine
system
viability.
This
analysis
is
subject
to
several
assumptions,
including:
cost
assumptions
concerning
the
per
sector
baseline
cost
of
hazardous
waste
burning,
cost
estimates
for
necessary
pollution
control
devices
(
including
operation
and
maintenance),
prices
for
combustion
services,
and
estimated
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
may
occur
only
in
the
case
of
a
commercial
incinerator
closing
all
systems.)
We
estimate
that
39
systems,
representing
about
15
percent
of
the
total
affected
universe,
may
stop
burning
hazardous
waste
in
response
to
the
final
standards.
Approximately
59,000
tons
of
hazardous
waste
may
be
diverted
from
these
closed
systems.
These
estimates
assume
no
chlorine
controls
are
put
in
place
as
a
direct
result
of
the
rule116.
Of
the
estimated
39
market
exits,
26
are
projected
to
be
onsite
incinerators
and
8
are
liquid
fuel
boilers.
Three
commercial
incinerator
systems
may
exit
the
market
in
response
to
the
final
rule.
However,
these
systems
are
considered
economically
marginal
in
the
baseline.
Two
coal­
fired
boiler
systems
are
also
projected
to
exit
the
market.
No
cement
kilns,
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
or
HCl
production
furnaces
are
projected
to
exit
the
market
as
a
result
of
the
final
rule.
Market
exit
estimates
were
found
to
be
identical
when
the
cost
of
chlorine
control
is
included
in
the
model.

B.
Waste
Reallocations
Some
on­
site
combustion
systems
(
sources)
may
no
longer
be
able
to
cover
their
hazardous
waste
burning
costs
as
a
result
of
final
rule
requirements.
These
sources
are
projected
to
divert
or
reroute
their
wastes
to
different
hazardous
waste
combustion
sources
(
usually
some
type
of
commercial
unit)
117.
For
multiple
system
facilities,
this
diversion
may
include
on­
site
(
non­
commercial)
waste
consolidation
among
fewer
systems
at
the
same
facility.
Under
current
market
conditions,
non­
combustion
alternatives
are
generally
not
economically
feasible,
and
in
any
case,
would
normally
be
unable
to
achieve
the
RCRA
Land
Disposal
Restriction
Treatment
standards,
which
are
based
on
the
performance
of
combustion
technology
(
which
optimizes
destruction
of
organic
HAP).

 
116
Even
though
we
are
allowing
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.

 
117
This
analysis
includes
the
cost
of
waste
transport
to
alternative
combustion
sources,
burning
fees,
and
purchase
of
alternative
fuels
(
if
appropriate).
132
As
mentioned
above,
our
economic
model
indicates
that
approximately
59,000
tons
(
U.
S.)
of
hazardous
waste
may
be
reallocated.
This
figure
represents
approximately
1.8
percent
of
the
total
2003
quantity
of
hazardous
waste
burned
at
all
sources.
On­
site
consolidations
account
for
nearly
24
percent
(
13,915
tons)
of
all
diverted
waste.
Commercial
incinerators
are
projected
to
receive
the
vast
majority
(
42,722
tons,
or
73
percent)
of
all
off­
site
waste
reallocations.
Cement
kilns
and
LWAKs
are
projected
to
receive
the
remaining
reallocation
(
2,289
tons).
Currently,
there
is
more
than
adequate
capacity
to
accommodate
all
off­
site
hazardous
waste
diversions.

C.
Employment
Impacts
Today's
rule
is
projected
to
induce
employment
shifts
across
all
affected
sectors.
These
shifts
may
occur
as
specific
combustion
facilities
find
it
no
longer
economically
feasible
to
keep
all
of
their
systems
running,
or
to
stay
in
the
hazardous
waste
market
at
all.
When
this
occurs,
workers
at
these
locations
may
lose
their
jobs
or
experience
forced
relocations.
At
the
same
time,
the
rule
is
projected
to
result
in
positive
employment
impacts,
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)
Employment
dislocations
in
the
combustion
industry
are
projected
to
occur
when
facilities
consolidate
waste
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
dislocations
may
also
include
supervisory
and/
or
administrative
personnel.
Total
employment
dislocations
resulting
from
implementation
of
the
final
standards
are
estimated
at
310
full­
time­
equivalent
(
FTE)
jobs.
On­
site
incinerators
account
for
about
62
percent
of
this
total,
followed
by
commercial
incinerators
(
about
24
percent),
and
liquid­
fuel
boilers
(
about
12
percent).
The
large
number
of
on­
site
incinerators
drives
the
impacts
within
this
sector.
2.
Employment
Impacts
­
Positive
In
addition
to
employment
dislocations,
our
analysis
indicates
that
today's
rule
may
also
result
in
positive
employment
impacts.
These
positive
impacts
are
projected
to
occur
to
both
the
air
pollution
control
industry
and
to
combustion
firms
as
they
hire
personnel
to
accommodate
reallocated
waste
and/
or
comply
with
the
various
requirements
of
the
rule.
Hazardous
waste
combustion
sources
are
projected
to
need
additional
operation
and
maintenance
personnel
for
the
new
pollution
control
equipment
and
other
compliance
activities,
such
as
new
reporting
and
record
keeping
requirements.
The
total
annual
positive
employment
impact
associated
with
the
final
standards
is
estimated
at
323
FTEs.
Positive
employment
impacts
to
the
air
pollution
control
industry118
are
projected
at
93
FTEs,
or
about
29
percent
of
this
total.
At
183
jobs,

 
118
Manufacturers
and
distributors
of
air
pollution
control
devices
are
projected
to
increase
sales
as
a
result
of
this
action.
133
liquid­
fuel
boilers
are
projected
to
experience
the
greatest
positive
employment
impact
among
all
combustors.
While
it
may
appear
that
our
analysis
suggests
overall
net
positive
employment
impacts,
such
a
conclusion
would
be
inappropriate.
Because
the
positive
employment
impacts
and
employment
dislocations
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,
these
employment
estimates
reflect
within
sector
impacts
only
and
therefore
do
not
account
for
potential
displacements
across
sectors.
This
may
occur
if
investment
funds
are
diverted
from
other
areas
of
the
larger
economy.

VI.
What
Are
the
Social
Costs
and
Benefits
of
the
Final
Rule?

The
value
of
any
regulatory
action
is
traditionally
measured
by
the
net
change
in
social
welfare
that
it
generates.
Our
economic
assessment
conducted
in
support
of
today's
final
rule
evaluated
compliance
(
control)
costs,
and
economic
impacts,
as
discussed
above.
The
Assessment
also
analyzed
social
costs,
benefits,
small
entity
impacts,
and
other
impacts
(
e.
g.,
children's
health,
unfunded
mandates).
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
(
discussed
above),
examined
benefits,
and
followed
appropriate
guidelines
and
procedures
for
examining
equity
considerations,
children's
health,
and
other
impacts.
The
data
applied
in
this
analysis
were
the
most
recently
available
at
the
time
of
the
analysis.
Because
our
data
were
limited,
the
findings
from
these
analyses
should
be
more
accurately
viewed
as
national
estimates.

A.
Combustion
Market
Overview
The
hazardous
waste
industry
consists
of
three
key
segments:
hazardous
waste
generators,
fuel
blenders/
intermediaries,
and
hazardous
waste
burners.
Hazardous
waste
is
combusted
at
four
main
types
of
facilities:
commercial
incinerators,
on­
site
incinerators,
waste
burning
kilns
(
cement
kilns
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns),
and
industrial
boilers.
Commercial
incinerators
are
generally
larger
in
size
and
designed
to
manage
virtually
all
types
of
solids,
as
well
as
liquid
wastes.
On­
site
incinerators
are
more
often
designed
as
liquid­
injection
systems
that
handle
liquids
and
pumpable
solids.
Waste
burning
kilns
and
boilers
generally
burn
hazardous
wastes
to
generate
heat
and
power
for
their
manufacturing
processes.
As
discussed
above,
we
have
identified
a
total
of
267
hazardous
waste
burning
sources
(
systems)
currently
in
operation
in
the
United
States.
Liquid
fuel­
boilers
account
for
104
sources,
followed
by
on­
site
incinerators
at
92
sources.
Cement
kilns,
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces,
and
commercial
incinerators
account
for
25,
10,
and
15
sources,
respectively.
Solid
fuel
boilers
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
make
up
the
remainder,
at
12
and
nine
systems,
respectively.
These
267
sources
are
operated
at
a
total
of
145
different
facilities.
A
single
facility
may
have
one
or
more
combustion
systems.
Facilities
with
multiple
systems
may
have
different
types
of
hazardous
waste
burning
units.
Combustion
systems
operating
at
chemical
manufacturing
facilities
(
NAICS
325)
were
found
to
account
for
about
70
percent
of
the
total
number
of
facilities
and
manage
about
58
percent
of
all
hazardous
waste
burned
in
2003.
134
The
EPA
Biennial
Reporting
System
(
BRS)
reports
a
total
demand
for
all
combusted
hazardous
waste,
across
all
facilities,
at
3.32
million
tons
(
U.
S.
ton)
in
2003.
Commercial
energy
recovery
(
cement
kilns
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns)
burned
about
30
percent
of
this
total.
Hazardous
waste
destruction
at
on­
site
incinerators
and
commercial
incinerators
accounted
for
28
percent
and
13
percent,
respectively.
Captive
energy
recovery
accounted
for
the
remainder,
at
29
percent
of
the
total.
About
65
percent
of
all
hazardous
waste
burned
in
2003
was
organic
liquids.
This
is
followed
by
solids
(
14
percent),
inorganic
liquids
(
11
percent),
and
sludges
(
10
percent).
Hazardous
gases
were
found
to
represent
a
negligible
portion,
at
about
0.08
percent
of
the
total
quantity
burned
in
2003.
In
terms
of
hazardous
waste
generating
sources,
the
Basic
Organic
Chemical
Manufacturing
e
sector
(
NAICS
325)
generated
approximately
32
percent
of
all
hazardous
waste
burned
in
2001,
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
hazardous
waste
streams
generated
in
small
to
medium
quantities
by
diverse
industries.
Cement
kilns,
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
and
boilers
derive
heat
and
energy
by
burning
high­
Btu
(
solvents
and
organics)
liquid
hazardous
wastes.
119
Sometimes
these
wastes
are
blended
with
fossil
fuels
where
system
operators
choose
to
not
derive
all
of
their
energy
input
from
hazardous
waste.
Regulatory
requirements,
liability
concerns,
and
economics
influence
the
demand
for
hazardous
waste
combustion
services.
Regulatory
forces
influence
the
demand
for
combustion
by
mandating
certain
hazardous
waste
treatment
standards
(
land
disposal
restriction
requirements,
etc.).
Liability
concerns
of
waste
generators
affect
combustion
demand
because
combustion,
by
destroying
organic
wastes,
greatly
reduces
the
risk
of
future
environmental
problems.
Finally,
if
alternative
waste
management
options
are
more
expensive,
hazardous
waste
generators
will
likely
choose
to
send
their
wastes
to
combustion
facilities
in
order
to
increase
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
helped
stimulate
a
greatly
expanded
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
their
operations.

 
119
Many
cement
kilns
are
also
able
to
burn
a
certain
level
of
non
liquid
waste
135
Available
(
prior
to
this
final
rule)
excess
commercial
capacity
is
currently
estimated
at
about
21
percent
of
the
total
2003
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
rule.
The
baseline
essentially
describes
the
world
absent
the
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.
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
annualized
private
sector
compliance
(
engineering)
costs
of
$
40.2
million,
as
presented
in
Section
IV,
assume
no
market
adjustments.
Our
best
estimate
of
total
social
costs
incorporates
rational
market
adjustments
and
all
government
costs.
Under
this
scenario,
increased
compliance
(
engineering)
costs
are
examined
in
the
context
of
likely
incentives
hazardous
waste
combustion
facilities
have
to
continue
burning,
and
the
competitive
balance
in
the
market.
Total
annualized
market­
adjusted
net
private­
sector
costs
are
estimated
at
$
22.1
million120.
In
addition
to
the
net
private
sector
costs,
total
annual
government
costs
are
approximately
$
0.50
million.
Thus,
our
best
estimate
of
total
social
costs
of
this
final
rule
is
$
22.6
million
per
year.

 
120
We
are
finalizing
alternative
risk­
based
total
chlorine
standards
for
hazardous
waste
combustors
(
except
for
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces).
The
net
private
sector
costs
of
$
22.1
million/
year
may
be
considered
a
lower­
bound
estimate
that
assumes
facilities
emit
total
chlorine
(
TCl)
below
risk­
based
levels
of
concern
(
i.
e.,
no
TCl
controls
are
assumed
to
be
necessary.)
Total
net
private
sector
market­
adjusted
costs
would
increase
to
approximately
$
28.1
million
per
year
if
we
were
to
assume
all
sources
were
to
comply
with
technology­
based
TCl
standards
(
as
opposed
to
the
risk­
based
standards).
136
The
$
22.1
million
figure
incorporates
a
net
gain
to
selected
Phase
I
sources
and
an
estimated
$
3.6
million
cost
(
price)
increase
to
pre­
existing
customers
of
commercial
hazardous
waste
combustion
facilities.
On­
site
incinerators
are
projected
to
experience
total
market­
adjusted
cost
increases
of
approximately
$
1.5
million/
year.
All
phase
II
sources
account
for
approximately
$
31.9
million
in
increased
costs.
Our
economic
model
indicates
that,
of
the
Phase
I
source
categories,
commercial
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
LWAKs
would
experience
net
gains
following
all
market
adjustments.
The
total
net
gain
for
these
three
source
categories
is
estimated
at
$
14.8
million
per
year.
Commercial
incinerators
would
receive
about
98
percent
of
the
total
gain
($
14.5
million/
year).
Gains
to
commercial
facilities
occur
due
to
marginally
higher
prices,
increased
waste
receipts,
and
relatively
low
upgrade
costs,
when
compared
to
the
other
sources.

D.
Analytical
Methodology
and
Findings
­
Benefits
Assessment
This
section
discusses
the
monetized
and
non
monetized
benefits
to
human
health
and
the
environment
potentially
associated
with
today's
final
rule.
Monetized
human
health
benefits
are
derived
from
reductions
in
particulate
matter
(
PM)
and
dioxin/
furan
exposure,
and
are
based
on
a
Value
of
Statistical
Life
(
VSL)
estimate
of
$
6.2
million121.
Non
monetized
benefits
are
associated
with
human
health,
ecological,
and
waste
minimization
factors.
1.
Monetized
Benefits
Total
monetized
human
health
benefits
for
the
final
standards
are
estimated
to
range
from
$
5.61
million/
year
to
$
6.31
million/
year.
This
estimate
includes
human
health
benefits
associated
with
avoided
PM
and
dioxin/
furans
exposure.
The
range
is
driven
by
alternative
discount
rate
assumptions
(
no
discount
rate,
3
percent,
or
7
percent)
for
mortality
valuation.
PM
benefits
represent
99
percent
of
the
total
monetized
human
health
benefits.
Particulate
Matter
Results
from
our
risk
assessment
extrapolation
procedure122
are
used
to
evaluate
incremental
human
health
benefits
potentially
associated
with
particulate
matter
emission
reductions
from
hazardous
waste
combustion
facilities.
This
analysis
applied
avoided
human
health
benefits
factors
from
the
March
2004
Assessment
document123,
combined
with
more
recent
emissions
estimates
for
particulate
matter.
Reduced
PM
emissions
are
estimated
to
result
in
monetized
human
health
benefits
of
approximately
$
6.29
million
per
year.
This
is
an
undiscounted
figure.
Avoided
PM
 
121
Monetized
benefits
associated
with
avoided
premature
mortality
reflect
a
VSL
range
of
$
1.1
million
to
$
11.4
million,
with
a
central
VSL
estimate
of
$
6.2
million.
These
values
are
derived
from
willingness­
to­
pay
based
VSL
estimates
presented
in
U.
S.
EPA,
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis
for
the
Final
Clean
Air
Interstate
Rule,
March
2005
 
122
Inferential
Risk
Analysis
in
Support
of
Standards
for
Emissions
of
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
from
Hazardous
Waste
Combustors.

 
123
Assessment
of
the
Potential
Costs,
Benefits,
and
Other
Impacts
of
the
Hazardous
Waste
Combustion
MACT
Replacement
Standards:
Proposed
Rule,
March
2004
(
Chapter
6),
and
Addendum
to
the
Assessment.
137
morbidity
cases
account
for
$
3.42
million
of
this
total,
and
include:
respiratory
illness,
cardiovascular
disease,
chronic
bronchitis,
work
loss
days,
and
minor
restricted
activity.
Chronic
bronchitis
accounts
for
approximately
89
percent
of
the
total
value
of
avoided
PM
morbidity
cases.
All
morbidity
cases
are
assumed
to
be
avoided
within
the
first
year
following
reduced
PM
emissions
and
are
not
discounted
under
any
scenario.
Avoided
premature
deaths
(
mortality)
are
valued
at
$
2.87
million
per
year,
undiscounted.
Assuming
a
discount
rate
of
three
and
seven
percent,
PM
mortality
benefits
would
be
$
2.52
million
and
$
2.19
million,
respectively.
Our
discounted
analysis
of
PM
mortality
benefits
assumes
that
30
percent
of
premature
mortalities
occur
during
the
first
year,
50
percent
occur
evenly
from
the
second
through
the
fifth
years,
and
the
remaining
20
percent
occur
evenly
from
the
sixth
through
the
twentieth
years124.
Due
to
limitations
in
the
risk
analysis,
this
assessment
of
PM
benefits
does
not
consider
corresponding
health
benefits
associated
with
the
reduction
of
HAP
metals
carried
by
the
PM.
Dioxin/
furan
­
Dioxin/
furan
emissions
are
projected
to
be
reduced
by
a
total
of
0.2
grams
per
year
under
the
final
standards.
In
the
July
23,
1999
Addendum
to
the
Assessment,
cancer
risk
reductions
linked
to
consumption
of
dioxin­
contaminated
agricultural
products
accounted
for
the
vast
majority
of
the
0.36
cancer
cases
per
year
that
were
expected
to
be
avoided
due
to
the
1999
standards.
Cancer
risk
reductions
associated
with
the
final
standards
are
expected
to
be
less
than
0.36
cases
per
year,
but
greater
than
zero.
At
this
time,
the
Agency
is
still
using
a
cancer
risk
slope
factor
of
1.56
x
105
[
mg/
kg/
day]­
1
for
dioxin.
This
cancer
slope
factor
is
derived
from
the
Agency's
1985
health
assessment
document
for
polychlorinated
dibenzo­
p­
dioxins125
and
represents
an
upper
bound
95th
percentile
confidence
limit
of
the
excess
cancer
risk
from
a
lifetime
exposure.
For
the
past
several
years
the
Agency
has
been
conducting
a
reassessment
of
the
human
health
risks
associated
with
dioxin
and
dioxin­
like
compounds.
In
October
of
2004
this
reassessment126
was
delivered
to
the
National
Academy
of
Sciences
(
NAS)
for
review.
Evidence
compiled
from
this
draft
reassessment
indicates
that
the
carcinogenic
effects
of
dioxin/
furans
may
be
six
times
as
great
as
believed
in
1985,
reflecting
an
upper
bound
cancer
risk
slope
factor
of
1
x
106
[
mg/
kg/
day]­
1
for
some
individuals.
Agency
scientists'
more
likely
(
central
tendency)
estimates
(
derived
from
the
ED01
rather
than
the
LED01)
result
in
slope
factors
and
risk
estimates
that
are
within
2­
3
times
of
the
upper
bound
estimates
(
i.
e.,
between
3
x
105
[
mg/
kg/
day]­
1
and
5
x
105
[
mg/
kg/
day]­
1)
based
on
the
available
epidemiological
and
animal
cancer
data.
However,
risks
could
be
as
low
as
124
See:
U.
S.
EPA.
March
2005.
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis
for
the
Final
Interstate
Air
Quality
Rule.
 
125
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
 
126
U.
S.
EPA,
Exposure
and
Human
Health
Reassessment
of
2,3,7,8­
Tetrachlorodibenzo­
p­
Dioxin
(
TCDD)
and
Related
Compounds
National
Academy
Sciences
(
NAS)
Review
Draft,
December
2003.
[
Note:
Toxicity
risk
factors
presented
in
this
document
should
not
be
considered
EPA's
official
estimate
of
dioxin
toxicity,
but
rather
reflect
EPA's
ongoing
effort
to
reevaluate
dioxin
toxicity.]
138
zero
for
some
individuals.
Use
of
the
alternative
upper
bound
cancer
risk
slope
factor
could
result
in
a
higher
human
health
monetized
health
benefit
associated
with
premature
cancer
deaths
avoided
in
response
to
the
final
standard
for
dioxin/
furans.
The
assessment
of
upper
bound
cancer
risk
using
this
alternative
slope
factor
should
not
be
considered
current
Agency
policy.
The
standards
for
dioxin
in
today's
final
rule
were
not
based
on
this
draft
reassessment.
Total
non­
discounted
human
health
benefits
associated
with
projected
dioxin
reductions
are
estimated
at
$
0.02
million/
year.
These
benefits
may
range
from
$
0.01
million/
year
to
nearly
zero,
applying
a
discount
rate
of
3
percent
and
7
percent,
respectively.
Our
discounted
estimates
incorporate
an
assumed
latency
period
of
21
and
34
years
from
exposure
to
death.
2.
Non­
Monetized
Benefits
We
examined,
but
did
not
monetize
human
health
benefits
potentially
associated
with
reduced
exposure
to
lead,
mercury,
and
total
chlorine.
Non
monetized
ecological
benefits
potentially
associated
with
reductions
in
dioxin/
furan;
selected
metals,
total
chlorine,
and
particulate
matter
were
also
examined.
Finally,
waste
minimization
is
examined
as
a
non­
monetized
benefit.
Lead
­
The
final
standards
are
expected
to
reduce
lead
emissions
by
approximately
2.5
tons
per
year.
In
comparison,
the
1999
standards
were
expected
to
reduce
lead
emissions
by
89
tons
per
year,
and
were
expected
to
reduce
cumulative
lead
exposures
for
two
children,
ages
zero
to
five,
to
less
than
10
µ
g/
dL.
The
lead
benefits
associated
with
these
final
standards
are
therefore
expected
to
be
modest.
The
final
standards
will
also
result
in
reduced
lead
levels
for
children
of
sub­
populations
with
especially
high
levels
of
exposure.
Children
of
subsistence
fishermen,
commercial
beef
farmers,
and
commercial
dairy
farmers
who
face
the
greatest
levels
of
cumulative
lead
exposure
may
also
experience
comparable
reductions
in
overall
exposure
as
a
result
of
the
MACT
standards.
Mercury.
The
HWC
MACT
final
standards
are
expected
to
reduce
mercury
emissions
by
approximately
0.21
tons
per
year,
approximately
93
percent
less
than
the
130
Grandjean,
P.,
K.
Murata,
E.
Budtz­
Jorgensen,
and
P.
Weihe.
2004.
"
Autonomic
Activity
in
Methylmercury
Neurotoxicity:
14­
Year
Follow­
Up
of
a
Faroese
Birth
Cohort."
Journal
of
Pediatrics.
144:
169­
76;
Kjellstrom,
T.,
P.
Kennedy,
S.
Wallis,
A.
Stewart,
L.
Friberg,
B.
Lind,
P.
Witherspoon,
and
C.
Mantell.
1989.
Physical
and
mental
development
of
children
with
prenatal
exposure
to
mercury
from
fish.
Stage
2:
Interviews
and
psychological
tests
at
age
6.
National
Swedish
Environmental
Protection
Board
Report
No.
3642;
Crump,
K.
S.,
T.
Kjellstrom,
A.
M.
Shipp,
A.
Silvers,
and
A.
Stewart.
1998.
"
Influence
of
prenatal
mercury
exposure
upon
scholastic
and
psychological
test
performance:
benchmark
analysis
of
a
New
Zealand
cohort."
Risk
Analysis.
18(
6):
701­
713;
Davidson,
P.
W.,
G.
J.
Myers,
C.
Cox,
C.
Axtell,
C.
Shamlaye,
J.
Sloane­
Reeves,
E.
Cernichiari,
L.
Needham,
A.
Choi,
Y.
Wang,
M.
Berlin,
and
T.
W.
Clarkson.
1998.
"
Effects
of
prenatal
and
postnatal
methylmercury
exposure
from
fish
consumption
on
neurodevelopment:
outcomes
at
66
months
of
age
in
the
Seychelles
Child
Development
Study."
Journal
of
the
American
Medical
Association.
280(
8):
701­
707;
and
Myers,
G.
J.,
P.
W.
Davidson,
C.
Cox,
C.
F.
Shamlaye,
D.
Palumbo,
E.
Cernichiari,
J.
Sloane­
Reeves,
G.
E.
Wilding,
J.
Kost,
L.
S.
Huang,
and
T.
W.
Clarkson.
2003.
"
Prenatal
methylmercury
exposure
from
ocean
fish
consumption
in
the
Seychelles
child
development
study."
Lancet.
361(
9370):
1686­
92
139
four­
ton
reduction
expected
under
the
1999
Standards.
We
do
not
attempt
to
quantify
the
mercury­
related
benefits
associated
with
today's
final
standards.
However,
because
the
reduction
in
mercury
emissions
represents
a
fraction
of
the
reduction
expected
under
the
1999
Standards,
the
mercury­
related
benefits
of
the
final
standards
are
likely
to
be
less
than
the
corresponding
benefits
under
the
1999
Standards.
To
characterize
the
benefits
associated
with
reduced
mercury
emissions,
the
1999
Assessment
measured
changes
in
hazard
quotients
for
populations
living
near
hazardous
waste
combustion
facilities.
For
any
given
population,
the
hazard
quotient
is
the
ratio
of
the
actual
level
of
exposure
to
a
safe
level
of
exposure.
A
hazard
quotient
greater
than
one
implies
that
a
population
is
potentially
at
risk.
The
exposure
quotient
analysis
in
the
1999
Assessment
found
that
the
measurable
benefits
of
reduced
mercury
emissions
under
the
1999
Standards
were
likely
to
be
small
because
baseline
exposures
were
relatively
low.
In
addition,
many
of
the
studies
examining
the
adverse
health
effects
of
mercury
are
inconclusive.
Over
the
past
several
years,
however,
scientists
have
conducted
three
large­
scale
studies
of
individuals
in
the
Faroe
Islands,
New
Zealand,
and
the
Seychelles
Islands
examining
the
relationship
between
mercury
exposure
in
women
and
the
neurodevelopment
of
their
unborn
children130.
The
New
Zealand
and
Faroe
Islands
studies
both
found
a
statistically
significant
relationship
between
maternal
methylmercury
exposure
and
IQ
decrements
in
the
unborn
children
of
these
women.
In
its
2000
report
on
the
toxicological
effects
of
methylmercury,
the
National
Research
Council
suggested
that
integrating
the
results
of
all
three
studies
could
be
useful
for
risk
assessment
purposes131.
Such
an
integrative
risk
assessment,
later
published
by
Ryan
et
al.
in
2005,
served
as
the
basis
of
the
Agency's
health
effects
analysis
for
the
Clean
Air
Mercury
Rule
(
CAMR)
132.
The
regulatory
impact
analysis
for
CAMR
summarizes
several
of
the
adverse
health
effects
that
may
be
linked
to
mercury
and
reviews
the
epidemiological
literature
examining
the
link
between
these
effects
and
exposure
to
mercury133.
Total
Chlorine
We
were
not
able
to
quantify
the
benefits
associated
with
reductions
in
total
chlorine
emissions.
Total
chlorine
is
a
combination
of
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas.
The
final
standards
are
projected
to
reduce
total
annual
chlorine
emissions
by
about
107
tons
per
year134
(
HCl
production
furnaces
only).
Hydrogen
chloride
is
corrosive
to
the
eyes,
skin,
and
mucous
membranes.
Acute
inhalation
can
cause
eye,
nose,
and
respiratory
tract
irritation
and
inflammation,
and
pulmonary
edema.
Chronic
occupational
inhalation
has
been
reported
to
cause
gastritis,
bronchitis,
and
dermatitis
in
workers.
Long
term
exposure
can
also
cause
dental
discoloration
and
erosion.
Chlorine
gas
inhalation
can
cause
bronchitis,
asthma
and
swelling
of
the
lungs,
headaches,
heart
disease,
and
meningitis.
Acute
exposure
causes
more
severe
respiratory
and
lung
effects,
and
can
result
in
fatalities
in
extreme
cases.
The
exposure
levels
established
under
112(
d)(
4)
are
expected
to
reduce
chlorine
exposure
131
National
Research
Council
of
the
National
Academy
of
Sciences,
Toxicological
Effects
of
Methylmercury.
2000,
p.
299
132
Ryan,
L.
M.
Effects
of
Prenatal
Methylmercury
on
Childhood
IQ:
A
Synthesis
of
Three
Studies.
Report
to
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
2005;
U.
S.
EPA.
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis
of
the
Clean
Air
Mercury
Rule:
Final
Report.
March
2005.
133
U.
S.
EPA.
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis
of
the
Clean
Air
Mercury
Rule:
Final
Report.
March
2005.
134
This
is
a
lower
bound
estimate
that
assumes
all
other
sources
will
implement
112(
d)(
4)
and
will
not
move
to
reduce
TCl
emissions
from
current
baseline
levels.
140
for
people
in
close
proximity
to
hazardous
waste
combustion
facilities,
and
are
therefore
likely
to
reduce
the
risk
of
all
associated
health
effects.
Ecological
Benefits
­
We
examined
ecological
benefits
through
a
comparison
of
the
1999
Assessment
and
today's
final
standards.
Ecological
benefits
in
the
1999
Assessment
were
based
on
reductions
of
approximately
100
tons
per
year
in
dioxin/
furans
and
selected
metals.
Lead
was
the
only
pollutant
of
concern
for
aquatic
ecosystems,
while
mercury
appeared
to
be
of
greatest
concern
for
terrestrial
ecosystems.
Dioxin/
furan
and
lead
emission
reductions
also
provided
some
potential
benefits
for
terrestrial
ecosystems.
The
final
standards
are
expected
to
reduce
dioxin/
furan
and
selected
metal
emissions
by
about
12
percent
to
13
percent
of
the
1999
estimate,
resulting
in
fewer
incremental
benefits
than
those
estimated
for
the
1999
Assessment
(
and
later,
for
the
2002
Interim
Standards).
However,
the
1999
Assessment
did
not
estimate
the
ecological
benefits
of
MACT
standards
for
hazardous
waste
burning
industrial
boilers
and
HCl
production
furnaces.
These
systems
were
excluded
from
the
universe
in
1999
but
are
part
of
the
universe
addressed
by
today's
final
standards.
As
a
result,
while
the
total
ecological
benefits
of
the
final
rule
are
likely
to
be
modest,
areas
near
facilities
with
boilers
may
enjoy
more
significant
ecological
benefits
under
the
final
standards
than
areas
near
facilities
that
have
already
complied
with
the
2002
Interim
standards.
Mercury,
lead,
and
chlorides
are
among
the
HAPs
that
can
cause
damage
to
the
health
and
visual
appearance
of
plants.
135
While
the
total
value
of
forest
health
is
difficult
to
estimate,
visible
deterioration
in
the
health
of
forests
and
plants
can
cause
a
measurable
change
in
recreation
behavior.
Several
studies
that
measure
the
change
in
outdoor
recreation
behavior
according
to
forest
health
have
attempted
to
place
a
value
on
aesthetic
degradation
of
forests.
136
Although
these
studies
are
available,
additional
research
is
needed
to
fully
understand
the
effects
of
these
Haps
on
the
forest
ecosystem.
Thus,
these
benefits
are
not
quantified
in
this
analysis.
Emissions
that
are
sufficient
to
cause
structural
and
aesthetic
damage
to
vegetation
are
likely
to
affect
growth
as
well.
Little
research
has
been
done
on
the
effects
of
compounds
such
as
chlorine,
heavy
metals
(
as
air
pollutants),
and
PM
on
agricultural
productivity.
137
Even
though
the
potential
for
visible
damage
and
production
decline
 
135
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.)
 
136
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.
 
137
MacKenzie,
James
J.,
and
Mohamed
T.
El­
Ashry,
Air
Pollution's
Toll
on
Forests
and
Crops
(
New
Haven,
Yale
University
Press,
1989).
141
from
metals
and
other
pollutants
suggests
the
final
standards
could
increase
agricultural
productivity,
we
have
not
monetized
the
benefits
of
these
changes.
3.
Waste
Minimization
Benefits
Facilities
that
burn
hazardous
waste
and
remain
in
operation
following
implementation
of
the
final
standards
are
expected
to
experience
marginally
increased
costs
as
a
result
of
these
standards.
This
will
result
in
an
incentive
to
pass
these
increased
costs
on
to
their
customers
in
the
form
of
higher
combustion
prices.
In
the
1999
Assessment
we
conducted
a
waste
minimization
analysis
to
inform
the
expected
price
change.
The
analysis
concluded
that
the
demand
for
hazardous
waste
combustion
is
relatively
inelastic.
While
a
variety
of
waste
minimization
alternatives
are
available
for
managing
hazardous
waste
streams
that
are
currently
combusted,
the
costs
of
these
alternatives
generally
exceed
the
cost
of
combustion.
When
the
additional
costs
of
compliance
with
the
MACT
standards
are
taken
into
account,
waste
minimization
alternatives
still
tend
to
exceed
the
higher
combustion
costs.
This
relative
inelasticity
suggests
that,
in
the
short
term,
large
reductions
in
the
amount
of
hazardous
waste
requiring
combustion
are
not
likely
to
occur.
However,
over
the
longer
term
(
i.
e.
as
production
systems
are
updated),
companies
may
continue
to
seek
alternatives
to
expensive
hazardous
waste­
management.
This
may
include
process
adjustments
that
result,
to
some
degree
in
source
reduction
of
hazardous
waste
and
the
increased
generation
of
non
hazardous
waste.
To
the
extent
that
increases
in
combustion
prices
provide
additional
incentive
to
adopt
more
efficient
processes,
the
final
standards
may
contribute
to
longer
term
process­
based
hazardous
waste
minimization
efforts.
No
hazardous
waste
minimization
impacts
are
captured
in
our
quantitative
analysis
of
costs
and
benefits138.
A
quantitative
assessment
of
the
benefits
associated
with
waste
minimization
may
result
in
double­
counting
of
some
of
the
benefits
described
earlier.
For
example,
waste
minimization
may
reduce
emissions
of
hazardous
air
pollutants
and
therefore
have
a
positive
effect
on
public
health.
Furthermore,
emission
reductions
beyond
those
necessary
for
compliance
with
the
final
standards
are
not
addressed
in
the
benefits
assessment.
In
addition,
waste
minimization
is
likely
to
result
in
specific
types
of
benefits
not
captured
in
this
Assessment.
For
example,
waste
generators
that
engage
in
waste
minimization
may
experience
a
reduction
in
their
waste
handling
costs
and
could
also
reduce
the
risk
related
to
waste
spills
and
waste
management.
Finally,
waste
minimization
procedures
potentially
stimulated
by
today's
action
may
result
in
additional
costs
to
facilities
that
implement
these
technologies.
These
factors
have
not
been
assessed
in
our
analysis
but
are
likely
to
at
least
partially
offset
corresponding
benefits.
4.
Conclusion
Total
non­
discounted
monetized
human
health
benefits
associated
with
the
final
standards
are
estimated
at
$
6.31
million/
year.
Annualized
discounted
benefits
were
found
to
range
from
$
5.61
million
to
$
5.95
million/
year.
The
range
reflects
an
alternative
discount
rate
of
3
percent
and
7
percent
for
mortality
benefits.

138
Note
that
this
rule
does,
in
fact,
consider
hazardous
waste
feed
control.
Feed
control
can
be
implemented
by
each
source
through
waste
minimization
procedures.
See:
Final
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Standards,
Volume
V
 
Emissions
Estimates
and
Engineering
Costs.
142
It
is
important
to
emphasize
that
monetized
benefits
represent
only
a
portion
of
the
total
benefits
associated
with
this
rule.
A
significant
portion
of
the
benefits
are
not
monetized,
as
discussed
above,
due
to
data
and
analytical
limitations.
Specifically,
ecological
benefits,
and
human
health
benefits
associated
with
reductions
in
chlorine,
mercury,
and
lead
are
not
quantified
or
monetized.
In
some
regions
these
benefits
may
be
significant.
In
addition,
specific
sub­
populations
near
combustion
facilities,
including
children
and
minority
populations,
may
be
disproportionately
affected
by
environmental
risks
and
may
therefore
enjoy
more
significant
benefits.
Visibility
benefits
associated
with
reduced
PM
are
also
expected
from
this
final
rule.
For
a
complete
discussion
of
the
methodology,
data,
findings,
and
limitations
associated
with
our
benefits
analysis
the
reader
is
encouraged
to
review
the
Assessment
document140,
and
the
Addendum
to
the
Assessment.

Part
Seven:
How
Does
the
Final
Rule
Meet
the
RCRA
Protectiveness
Mandate?

As
discussed
in
more
detail
below,
we
believe
today's
final
standards
are
generally
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
We
therefore
finalize
and
apply
these
standards,
in
most
instances,
in
lieu
of
the
RCRA
air
emission
standards
applicable
to
these
sources.

I.
Background
Section
3004(
a)
of
RCRA
requires
the
Agency
to
promulgate
standards
for
hazardous
waste
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
as
necessary
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
The
standards
for
hazardous
waste
incinerators
generally
rest
on
this
authority.
In
addition,
§
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
established
emission
(
and
other)
standards
for
hazardous
waste
combustors
that
are
either
entirely
risk­
based
(
e.
g.,
site­
specific
standards
for
metals
under
the
Boiler
and
Industrial
Furnace
rule),
or
are
technology­
based
but
determined
by
a
generic
risk
assessment
to
be
protective
(
e.
g.,
the
DRE
standard
for
incinerators
and
BIFs).
The
MACT
standards
finalized
today
implement
the
technology­
based
regime
of
CAA
§
112(
d).
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
final
standards),
additional
controls
if
needed
to
protect
public
health
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety
or
to
prevent
adverse
environmental
effect.
RCRA
§
1006(
b)
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
140
Assessment
of
the
Potential
Costs,
Benefits,
and
Other
Impacts
of
the
Hazardous
Waste
Combustion
MACT
Final
Rule
Standards.
September
2005.
143
duplicative
standards
where
possible,
we
have
evaluated
the
protectiveness
of
the
standards
finalized
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.

II.
Evaluation
of
Protectiveness
For
the
purpose
of
satisfying
the
RCRA
statutory
mandates,
the
Agency
has
conducted
an
evaluation
of
the
degree
of
protection
afforded
by
the
MACT
standards
being
finalized
today.
We
have
not
conducted
a
comprehensive
risk
assessment
for
this
rulemaking
as
was
done
for
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
in
the
1999
MACT
rule
where
we
concluded
that
the
promulgated
standards
were
generally
protective
and
therefore,
the
RCRA
standards
need
not
be
retained.
However,
we
noted
that
in
certain
instances,
permit
authorities
may
invoke
the
omnibus
authority
(
RCRA
§
3005(
c)(
3)
and
its
implementing
regulations
at
§
§
270.10(
k))
if
there
is
some
reason
to
believe
that
additional
controls
beyond
those
required
pursuant
to
40
CFR
parts
63,
264,
265,
and
266
may
be
needed
to
ensure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
under
RCRA.
For
this
final
rule,
we
instead
compared
the
risk­
related
characteristics
of
the
sources
covered
by
the
1999
rule
to
the
sources
covered
by
today's
rule
(
e.
g.,
estimated
emissions,
stack
characteristics,
meteorology,
and
population).
For
a
description
of
the
methodology
and
technical
discussion
of
its
application,
see
"
Inferential
Risk
Analysis
in
Support
of
Standards
for
Emissions
of
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
from
Hazardous
Waste
Combustors,"
in
the
docket
for
today's
rule.
We
performed
a
large
array
of
statistical
comparisons
and
from
these
we
attempted
to
make
inferences
about
whether
risks
would
be
expected
to
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
that
today's
final
standards
are
generally
protective.
We
received
no
comments
either
in
support
of
or
in
opposition
to
our
use
of
the
comparative
analysis
to
evaluate
the
protectiveness
of
the
standards
being
finalized
today
or
our
view
that
the
standards
are
generally
protective.
While
we
regard
the
final
standards
as
generally
protective,
the
comparative
analysis
suggests
some
concern
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
(
SFBs)
with
regard
to
the
particulate
matter
standard
(
and
certain
metals
such
as
antimony
and
thallium),
mercury,
and
total
chlorine
standards
(
other
than
the
alternative
risk­
based
chlorine
standards).
The
analysis
also
suggests
some
concern
for
hydrochloric
acid
(
HCl)
production
furnaces
with
regard
to
the
dioxin/
furan
standard,
where
carbon
monoxide
and
total
hydrocarbon
serve
as
surrogate
control.
However,
because
both
SFBs
and
HCl
production
furnaces
comprise
such
small
source
categories
(
4
SFB
facilities
and
8
HCl
production
facilities),
it
is
difficult
to
reach
firm
conclusions.
For
example,
for
SFBs
it
was
not
possible
to
144
conduct
hypothesis
tests
that
could
be
considered
valid
involving
correlations
among
variables
for
a
number
of
variables
in
the
analysis
because
of
the
small
number
of
data
points
and
the
power
of
the
tests
to
detect
differences
for
those
that
were
conducted
was
very
low,
which
greatly
diminishes
the
value
of
the
results.
(
Indeed,
no
differences
in
correlations
were
found
for
SFBs
at
the
0.1
significance
level
­
the
level
of
significance
that
was
used
in
the
analysis.)
Similarly,
for
HCl
production
furnaces
the
power
of
the
tests
to
detect
differences
in
correlations
was
quite
low.
It
must
be
noted
that
the
comparative
analysis
methodology
was
not
intended
for
comparisons
that
involve
relatively
few
facilities
because
it
is
grounded
in
tests
of
hypotheses
and
levels
of
statistical
significance
which
generally
require
substantial
amounts
of
data
to
produce
firm
conclusions.
Nevertheless,
in
consideration
of
the
indications
of
possible
risks
for
the
aforementioned
standards,
permit
authorities
may
want
to
consider
site­
specific
factors
in
determining
whether
or
not
the
MACT
standards
are
sufficiently
protective
for
facilities
that
fall
into
these
categories.
The
comparative
analysis
may
also
raise
possible
concerns
for
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
(
LWAKs)
and
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
(
LFBs)
with
dry
APCDs
with
regard
to
the
dioxin/
furan
standards,
in
view
of
the
ongoing
uncertainty
in
cancer
and
other
health
effects
levels
for
chlorinated
dioxins
and
furans.
In
particular,
some
recent
estimates
of
the
carcinogenicity
of
these
compounds
that
consider
both
human
and
animal
data,
are
higher
than
earlier
estimates
derived
from
animal
data
alone.
However,
like
SFBs
and
HCl
production
furnaces,
LWAKs
and
LFBs
with
dry
APCDs
both
comprise
small
source
categories
(
3
LWAK
facilities
and
7
dry
APCD
LFB
facilities).
This
makes
it
very
difficult
to
reach
firm
conclusions
and
suggests
the
need
to
consider
site­
specific
factors
in
determining
whether
the
MACT
standards
are
sufficiently
protective
in
these
instances.
Except
as
noted,
we
believe
today's
final
standards
provide
a
substantial
degree
of
protection
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
We
therefore
do
not
believe
that
we
need
to
retain
the
existing
RCRA
standards
for
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
(
just
as
we
found
that
existing
RCRA
standards
for
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
were
no
longer
needed
after
the
1999
rule).
However,
as
previously
discussed
in
more
detail
in
Part
Four,
Section
IX,
site­
specific
risk
assessments
may
be
warranted
on
an
individual
source
basis
to
ensure
that
the
MACT
standards
provide
adequate
protection
in
accordance
with
RCRA.

Part
Eight:
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
I.
Executive
Order
12866:
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
Under
Executive
Order
12866
[
58
FR
51735
(
October
4,
1993)]
the
Agency,
in
conjunction
with
OMB's
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs
(
OIRA),
must
determine
whether
a
regulatory
action
is
"
significant"
and
therefore
subject
to
OMB
review
and
the
full
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;
145
(
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
methodology
applied
in
development
of
the
final
standards.
As
such,
this
action
was
submitted
to
OMB
for
review.
Changes
made
in
response
to
OMB
suggestions
or
recommendations
are
documented
in
the
public
record.
The
total
social
costs
for
this
rule
are
estimated
at
$
22.6
million
per
year141.
This
figure
is
significantly
below
the
$
100
million
threshold
established
under
point
number
one
above.
Thus,
this
rule
is
not
considered
to
be
an
economically
significant
action.
However,
in
an
effort
to
comply
with
the
spirit
of
the
Order,
we
have
prepared
an
economic
assessment
in
support
of
today's
final
rule.
This
document
is
entitled:
Assessment
of
the
Potential
Costs,
Benefits,
and
Other
Impacts
of
the
Hazardous
Waste
Combustion
MACT
Final
Rule
Standards,
September
2005.
We
have
also
prepared
an
Addendum
to
this
Assessment
entitled:
Addendum
to
the
Assessment
of
the
Potential
Costs,
Benefits,
and
Other
Impacts
of
the
Hazardous
Waste
Combustion
MACT
Final
Rule
Standards,
September
2005.
This
Addendum
captures
changes
made
to
the
rulemaking
following
completion
of
the
full
Assessment
document.
The
Assessment
and
Addendum
were
designed
to
adhere
to
analytical
requirements
established
under
Executive
Order
12866,
and
corresponding
Agency
and
OMB
guidance;
subject
to
data,
analytical,
and
resource
limitations.
Findings
presented
under
Part
Six
of
this
Preamble
were
developed
in
accordance
with
this
guidance.
The
RCRA
docket
established
for
today's
rulemaking
maintains
a
copy
of
the
Assessment
and
Addendum
for
public
review.
Interested
persons
are
encouraged
to
read
both
documents
to
gain
a
full
understanding
of
the
analytical
methodology,
findings,
and
limitations
associated
with
this
report.

II.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
We
have
prepared
an
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
document
(
ICR
No.
1773.08)
listing
the
information
collection
requirements
of
this
final
rule,
and
have
submitted
it
for
approval
to
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
under
the
provisions
of
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.
OMB
has
assigned
a
control
number
2050­
0171
for
this
ICR.
This
ICR
is
available
for
public
viewing
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Avenue
NW,
Washington
DC.
Copy
may
also
be
obtained
from
the
EDOCKET
on
the
EPA
web
site,
or
by
calling
(
202)
566­
1744.
The
information
collection
requirements
are
not
enforceable
until
OMB
approves
them.
The
public
burden
associated
with
this
final
rule
is
projected
to
affect
238
HWC
units
and
is
estimated
to
average
211
hours
per
respondent
annually.
The
reporting
and
 
141
This
figure
includes
approximately
$
0.5
million/
year
in
total
government
costs.
Total
social
costs
would
increase
to
approximately
$
28.6
million
per
year
if
we
were
to
assume
all
sources
were
to
comply
with
technology­
based
TCl
standards.
146
recordkeeping
cost
burden
is
estimated
to
average
$
5,640
per
respondent
annually.
Burden
means
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
disclose,
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
That
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
An
agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to,
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9.
When
this
ICR
is
approved
by
OMB,
the
Agency
will
publish
a
technical
amendment
to
40
CFR
part
9
in
the
Federal
Register
to
display
the
OMB
control
number
for
the
approved
information
collection
requirements
contained
in
this
final
rule.
The
EPA
requested
comments
(
see
70
FR
20748,
Apr.
21,
2005)
on
the
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
through
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques.

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.
The
RFA
provides
default
definitions
for
each
type
of
small
entity.
Small
entities
are
defined
as:
(
1)
a
small
business
as
defined
by
the
Small
Business
Administration's
(
SBA)
regulations
at
13
CFR
121.201;
(
2)
a
small
governmental
jurisdiction
that
is
a
government
of
a
city,
county,
town,
school
district
or
special
district
with
a
population
of
less
than
50,000;
and
(
3)
a
small
organization
that
is
any
not­
for­
profit
enterprise
which
is
independently
owned
and
operated
and
is
not
dominant
in
its
field.
After
considering
the
economic
impacts
of
today's
final
rule
on
small
entities,
I
certify
that
this
action
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
We
have
determined
that
hazardous
waste
combustion
facilities
are
not
owned
by
small
governmental
jurisdiction
or
nonprofit
organizations.
Therefore,
only
small
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.
147
Affected
individual
waste
combustors
(
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
solid
and
liquid
fuel­
boilers,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces)
will
bear
the
impacts
of
today's
rule.
These
units
will
incur
direct
economic
impacts
(
positive
or
negative)
as
a
result
of
today's
rule.
Few
of
the
hazardous
waste
combustion
facilities
affected
by
this
rule
were
found
to
be
owned
by
small
businesses,
as
defined
by
the
Small
Business
Administration
(
SBA).
From
our
universe
of
145
facilities,
we
identified
eight
facilities
that
are
currently
owned
by
small
businesses.
Four
of
these
facilities
are
liquid
boilers,
two
are
on­
site
incinerators,
one
is
a
cement
kiln,
and
one
is
a
lightweight
aggregate
kiln
(
LWAK).
Our
analysis
indicates
that
none
of
these
facilities
are
likely
to
incur
annualized
compliance
costs
greater
than
one
percent
of
gross
annual
corporate
revenues.
Cost
impacts
of
the
final
standards
were
found
to
range
from
less
than
0.01
percent
to
0.46
percent
of
annual
gross
corporate
revenues.
The
reader
is
encouraged
to
review
our
regulatory
flexibility
screening
analysis
prepared
in
support
of
this
determination.
This
analysis
is
incorporated
as
Appendix
H
of
the
Assessment
document,
and
updated
in
the
Addendum.

IV.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
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
final
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
for
any
of
these
categories.
The
aggregate
annualized
social
cost
for
today's
rule
is
estimated
at
$
22.6
million.

V.
Executive
Order
13132:
Federalism
Executive
Order
13132,
entitled
"
Federalism"
(
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
"
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
State
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications."
"
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications"
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
"
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government."
Under
Executive
Order
13132,
EPA
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
has
federalism
implications,
that
imposes
substantial
direct
compliance
costs,
and
that
is
not
required
by
statute,
unless
the
Federal
government
provides
the
funds
necessary
to
pay
the
direct
compliance
costs
incurred
by
State
and
local
governments,
or
EPA
consults
with
State
and
local
officials
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
regulation.
This
final
rule
does
not
have
federalism
implications.
It
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government,
as
specified
in
the
Order.
The
rule
focuses
on
requirements
for
facilities
148
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
various
State
representatives
on
our
Agency
workgroup.
These
representatives
participated
in
the
development
of
this
rule.

VI.
Executive
Order
13175:
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
Executive
Order
13175:
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
rule
included
Tribal
representation.
We
have
determined
that
this
final
rule
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
final
rule.
Furthermore,
this
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.

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

VIII.
Executive
Order
13211:
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
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
finalized,
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.
149
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
rulemaking
involves
environmental
monitoring
or
measurement.
Both
Performance
Based
Measurement
System
(
PBMS)
and
specific
measurement
methods
are
finalized
under
this
rule.
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.
Where
allowed,
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.

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
lowincome
populations.
This
section
briefly
discusses
potential
impacts
(
direct
or
disproportional)
today's
rule
may
have
in
the
area
of
environmental
justice.
We
have
recently
analyzed
demographic
data
from
the
U.
S.
Census,
and
have
previously
examined
data
from
two
other
reports:
"
Race,
Ethnicity,
and
Poverty
Status
of
the
Populations
Living
Near
Cement
Plants
in
the
United
States"
(
EPA,
August
1994)
and
"
Race,
Ethnicity,
and
Poverty
Status
of
the
Populations
Living
Near
Hazardous
Waste
Incinerators
in
the
United
States"
(
EPA,
October
1994).
These
reports
examine
the
number
of
low­
income
and
minority
individuals
living
near
a
relatively
large
sample
of
cement
kilns
and
hazardous
waste
incinerators
and
provide
county,
state,
and
national
population
percentages
for
various
sub­
populations.
The
demographic
data
in
these
reports
provide
several
important
findings
when
examined
in
conjunction
with
the
risk
reductions
projected
from
today's
rule.
We
find
that
combustion
facilities,
in
general,
are
not
located
in
areas
with
disproportionately
high
minority
and
low­
income
populations.
However,
there
is
evidence
that
hazardous
waste
burning
cement
kilns
are
somewhat
more
likely
to
be
located
in
areas
that
have
relatively
higher
low­
income
populations.
Furthermore,
there
are
a
small
number
of
commercial
hazardous
waste
incinerators
located
in
highly
urbanized
areas
where
there
is
a
disproportionately
high
concentration
of
minorities
and
low­
income
populations
within
one
and
five
mile
radii.
The
reduced
emissions
at
these
facilities
due
to
today's
rule
could
represent
meaningful
environmental
and
health
improvements
for
these
populations.
Overall,
today's
rule
should
not
result
in
any
adverse
or
disproportional
health
or
safety
effects
on
minority
or
low­
income
populations.
Any
impacts
on
these
populations
are
likely
to
be
positive
due
to
the
150
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
discusses
our
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.
This
action
is
not
a
"
major
rule"
as
defined
by
5
U.
S.
C.
§
804(
2).
