44452
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
127
/
Tuesday,
July
2,
2002
/
Notices
Barry
Dana,
Chief,
Penobscot
Indian
Nation,
River
Road;
Indian
Island,
Old
Town,
Maine
04468.
Franklin
Keel,
Bureau
of
Indian
Affairs,
Eastern
Regional
Office,
711
Stewarts
Ferry
Pike,
Nashville,
Tennessee
37214.
Donald
Soctomah,
Passamaquoddy
Tribe,
P.
O.
Box
301,
Princeton,
Maine
04668.
Kevin
R.
Mendik,
National
Park
Service,
Northeast
Field
Area,
15
State
Street,
Boston,
Massachusetts
02109.

Linwood
A.
Watson,
Jr.,
Deputy
Secretary.
[FR
Doc.
02–
16614
Filed
7–
1–
02;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6717–
01–
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL–
7240–
6]

Agency
Information
Collection
Activities:
Submission
for
OMB
Review;
Comment
Request
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(EPA).
ACTION:
Notice.

SUMMARY:
In
compliance
with
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
(44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.),
this
document
announces
that
the
following
Information
Collection
Request
(ICR)
has
been
forwarded
to
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(OMB)
for
review
and
approval:
Exclusion
Determinations
for
New
Non­
road
Spark­
ignited
Engines
at
and
Below
19
Kilowatts,
New
Non­
road
Compression­
ignited
Engines,
New
Marine
Engines,
and
New
On­
road
Heavy
Duty
Engines:
OMB
Control
Number
2060–
0395,
expiration
date
6/
30/
2002.
The
ICR
describes
the
nature
of
the
information
collection
and
its
expected
burden
and
cost;
where
appropriate,
it
includes
the
actual
data
collection
instrument.
DATES:
Comments
must
be
submitted
on
or
before
August
1,
2002.
ADDRESSES:
Send
comments,
referencing
EPA
ICR
No.
1852.02
and
OMB
Control
No.
2060–
0395,
to
the
following
addresses:
Susan
Auby,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Collection
Strategies
Division
(Mail
Code
2822T),
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460–
0001;
and
to
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(OMB),
Attention:
Desk
Officer
for
EPA,
725
17th
Street,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20503.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
For
a
copy
of
the
ICR
contact
Susan
Auby
at
EPA
by
phone
at
(202)
566–
1672,
by
E­
Mail
at
auby.
susan@
epa.
gov
or
download
off
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
icr
and
refer
to
EPA
ICR
No.
1852.02.
For
technical
questions
about
the
ICR
contact:
Nydia
Yanira
Reyes­
Morales,
Office
of
Transportation
and
Air
Quality,
by
phone
at
(202)
564–
9264,
or
by
E­
Mail
at
reyesmorales
nydia@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
Title:
Exclusion
Determinations
for
New
Non­
road
Spark­
ignited
Engines
at
and
Below
19
Kilowatts,
New
Non­
road
Compression­
ignited
Engines,
New
Marine
Engines,
and
New
On­
road
Heavy
Duty
Engines,
OMB
Control
Number
2060–
0395,
EPA
ICR
Number
1852.02,
expiration
date
6/
30/
2002.
This
is
a
request
for
extension
of
a
currently
approved
collection.
Abstract:
Some
types
of
engines
are
excluded
from
compliance
with
current
regulations.
A
manufacturer
may
make
an
exclusion
determination
by
itself;
however,
manufacturers
and
importers
may
routinely
request
EPA
to
make
such
determination
to
ensure
that
their
determination
does
not
differ
from
EPA's.
Only
needed
information
such
as
engine
type,
horsepower
rating,
intended
usage,
etc.,
is
requested
to
make
an
exclusion
determination.
Responses
to
this
collection
are
voluntary.
The
information
is
collected
by
the
Engine
Programs
Group,
Certification
and
Compliance
Division,
Office
of
Transportation
and
Air
Quality,
Office
of
Air
and
Radiation.
Confidentiality
to
proprietary
information
is
granted
in
accordance
with
the
Freedom
of
Information
Act,
EPA
regulations
at
40
CFR
part
2,
and
class
determinations
issued
by
EPA's
Office
of
General
Counsel.
An
agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to,
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9
and
48
CFR
Chapter
15.
The
Federal
Register
document
required
under
5
CFR
1320.8(
d),
soliciting
comments
on
this
collection
of
information
was
published
on
3/
08/
2002;
no
comments
were
received.
Burden
Statement:
The
annual
public
reporting
and
recordkeeping
burden
for
this
collection
of
information
is
estimated
to
average
seven
hours
per
response.
Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
Respondents/
Affected
Entities:
Engine
manufacturers,
equipment
manufacturers
and
importers.
Estimated
Number
of
Respondents:
12.
Frequency
of
Response:
On
Occasion.
Estimated
Total
Annual
Hour
Burden:
69
hours.
Estimated
Total
Annualized
Capital,
O&
M
Cost
Burden:
$116.
Send
comments
on
the
Agency's
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
to
the
addresses
listed
above.
Please
refer
to
EPA
ICR
No.
1852.02
and
OMB
Control
No.
2060–
0395
in
any
correspondence.

Dated:
June
24,
2002.
Oscar
Morales,
Director,
Collection
Strategies
Division.
[FR
Doc.
02–
16645
Filed
7–
1–
02;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560–
50–
U
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL–
7240–
3]

NESHAP:
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
for
Hazardous
Waste
Combustors
(Final
Replacement
Standards
and
Phase
II)—
Notice
of
Data
Availability
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(EPA).

ACTION:
Notice
of
data
availability.

SUMMARY:
This
notice
of
data
availability
(NODA)
presents
for
public
comment
the
data
bases
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
plans
to
use
to
propose
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
(NESHAP)
for
hazardous
waste
burning
combustors
(incinerators,
cement
kilns,
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
industrial
and
commercial/
institutional
boilers,
process
heaters,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces).
We
are
providing
this
opportunity
for
comment
to
ensure
that
the
data
bases
used
to
establish
the
VerDate
jun<
06>
2002
18:
10
Jul
01,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00035
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
02JYN1.
SGM
pfrm15
PsN:
02JYN1
44453
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
127
/
Tuesday,
July
2,
2002
/
Notices
standards
are
as
accurate
and
complete
as
possible.

DATES:
Comments
must
be
submitted
by
August
16,
2002.

ADDRESSES:
Comments
may
be
submitted
electronically,
by
mail,
by
facsimile,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier.
If
you
wish
to
comment
on
this
NODA,
you
must
send
an
original
and
two
copies
of
the
comments
referencing
Docket
Number
RCRA–
2002–
0019
to:
RCRA
Information
Center
(RIC),
Office
of
Solid
Waste
(5305G),
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Headquarters
(EPA
HQ),
Ariel
Rios
Building,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460–
0002;
or,
(2)
if
using
special
delivery,
such
as
overnight
express
service:
RIC,
Crystal
Gateway
One,
1235
Jefferson
Davis
Highway,
First
Floor,
Arlington,
VA
22202.
You
may
also
submit
comments
electronically
following
the
directions
in
the
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION
section
below.
You
may
view
the
data
bases
in
the
RIC.
The
RIC
is
open
from
9
am
to
4
pm
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
Federal
holidays.
To
review
docket
materials,
we
recommend
that
you
make
an
appointment
by
calling
703–
603–
9230.
You
may
copy
up
to
100
pages
from
any
regulatory
document
at
no
charge.
Additional
copies
cost
$
0.15
per
page.
For
information
on
accessing
an
electronic
copy
of
the
data
bases,
see
the
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION
section.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
For
general
information,
call
the
RCRA
Hotline
at
1–
800–
424–
9346
or
TDD
1–
800–
553–
7672
(hearing
impaired).
Callers
within
the
Washington
Metropolitan
Area
must
dial
703–
412–
9810
or
TDD
703–
412–
3323
(hearing
impaired).
The
RCRA
Hotline
is
open
Monday–
Friday,
9
am
to
6
pm,
Eastern
Standard
Time.
For
more
information
on
specific
aspects
of
this
NODA,
contact
Frank
Behan
at
703–
308–
8476,
or
behan.
frank@
epa.
gov,
or
write
him
at
the
Office
of
Solid
Waste,
5302W,
U.
S.
EPA,
Ariel
Rios
Building,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

Acronyms
Used
in
this
Notice
APCD—
Air
pollution
control
device
BH—
Baghouse
BIF—
Boiler
and
industrial
furnaces
CAA—
Clean
Air
Act
CFR—
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
D/
F—
dioxins
and
furans
EPA—
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
ESP—
Electrostatic
precipitator
FR—
Federal
Register
HAP—
Hazardous
air
pollutant
HCl—
Hydrochloric
acid
HWC—
Hazardous
waste
combustor
LVM—
Low
Volatile
Metals
MACT—
Maximum
achievable
control
technology
NESHAP—
National
emission
standards
for
hazardous
air
pollutants
NODA—
Notice
of
data
availability
PM—
Particulate
matter
RCRA—
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
SVM—
Semivolatile
Metals
Table
of
Contents
I.
General
Information
A.
How
Can
I
Get
Copies
Of
The
Data
Bases?
B.
How
and
To
Whom
Do
I
Submit
Comments?
C.
How
Should
I
Submit
CBI
To
the
Agency?
D.
What
Should
I
Consider
as
I
Prepare
My
Comments
for
EPA?
II.
What
Is
the
Purpose
of
this
NODA?
III.
Are
You
Affected
by
this
Notice?
IV.
What
Led
Up
to
this
NODA?
V.
What
Data
Are
Included
in
this
Notice?
VI.
What
Data
Handling
Decisions
Did
We
Make
and
What
Are
the
Data
Gaps?
A.
Data
from
Sources
No
Longer
Burning
Hazardous
Waste
Are
Excluded
B.
How
Are
Nondetect
Data
Handled?
C.
Missing
Source
Description
Information
D.
Use
of
Metals
Extrapolation,
Interpolation
and
Surrogates
VII.
What
Are
the
New
Data
Comment
Fields?
A.
What
Information
Do
We
Need
to
Consider
Subcategorization
Options?
B.
How
Will
We
Distinguish
Between
Worst­
Case
and
Normal
Emissions?
C.
What
Classifications
Do
We
Use
to
Address
Sootblowing
by
Boilers?

I.
General
Information
A.
How
Can
I
Get
Copies
Of
The
Data
Bases?

1.
The
Docket
EPA
has
established
an
official
public
docket
for
this
action
under
Docket
ID
RCRA–
2002–
0019.
The
official
public
docket
consists
of
the
documents
specifically
referenced
in
this
action,
any
public
comments
received,
and
other
information
related
to
this
action.
Although
a
part
of
the
official
docket,
the
public
docket
does
not
include
Confidential
Business
Information
(CBI)
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
The
official
public
docket
is
the
collection
of
materials
that
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
address
above.

2.
Electronic
Access
You
may
access
this
Federal
Register
document
electronically
through
the
EPA
Internet
under
the
Federal
Register
listings
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
fedrgstr/.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,
EPA
Dockets.
You
may
use
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket/
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
official
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search,
''
then
key
in
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number.
Certain
types
of
information
will
not
be
placed
in
the
EPA
Dockets.
Information
claimed
as
CBI
and
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute,
which
is
not
included
in
the
official
public
docket,
will
not
be
available
for
public
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
EPA's
policy
is
that
copyrighted
material
will
not
be
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
but
will
be
available
only
in
printed,
paper
form
in
the
official
public
docket.
To
the
extent
feasible,
publicly
available
docket
materials
will
be
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
When
a
document
is
selected
from
the
index
list
in
EPA
Dockets,
the
system
will
identify
whether
the
document
is
available
for
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Although
not
all
docket
materials
may
be
available
electronically,
you
may
still
access
any
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
the
docket
facility
identified
in
section
I.
B.
EPA
intends
to
work
towards
providing
electronic
access
to
all
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
For
public
commenters,
it
is
important
to
note
that
EPA's
policy
is
that
public
comments,
whether
submitted
electronically
or
in
paper,
will
be
made
available
for
public
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
as
EPA
receives
them
and
without
change,
unless
the
comment
contains
copyrighted
material,
CBI,
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
When
EPA
identifies
a
comment
containing
copyrighted
material,
EPA
will
provide
a
reference
to
that
material
in
the
version
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
The
entire
printed
comment,
including
the
copyrighted
material,
will
be
available
in
the
public
docket.
Public
comments
submitted
on
computer
disks
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
docket
will
be
transferred
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Public
comments
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
Docket
will
be
scanned
and
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Where
practical,
physical
objects
will
be
photographed,
and
the
photograph
will
be
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
VerDate
jun<
06>
2002
18:
10
Jul
01,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00036
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
02JYN1.
SGM
pfrm15
PsN:
02JYN1
44454
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
127
/
Tuesday,
July
2,
2002
/
Notices
docket
along
with
a
brief
description
written
by
the
docket
staff.
For
additional
information
about
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
visit
EPA
Dockets
online
or
see
67
FR
38102,
May
31,
2002.

3.
Obtaining
the
Data
Bases
Electronically
from
the
HWC
Web
Site
The
data
bases
can
be
obtained
either
as
described
above,
or
by
downloading
from
the
EPA
HWC
site
on
the
Internet.
If
you
want
to
download
the
data
bases
over
the
Internet,
you
can
do
so
from
our
``
HWC
MACT''
Web
site:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
hwcmact.
Please
consult
the
web
page
for
specific
instructions
on
how
to
download
the
data
bases.
Do
not,
however,
submit
comments
to
this
web
address.
Instead,
follow
the
instructions
provided
below.

B.
How
and
To
Whom
Do
I
Submit
Comments?
You
may
submit
comments
electronically,
by
mail,
by
facsimile,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier.
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
identify
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
comment.
Please
ensure
that
your
comments
are
submitted
within
the
specified
comment
period.
Comments
received
after
the
close
of
the
comment
period
will
be
marked
``
late.
''
EPA
is
not
required
to
consider
these
late
comments.
If
you
submit
an
electronic
comment
as
prescribed
below,
EPA
recommends
that
you
include
your
name,
mailing
address,
and
an
e­
mail
address
or
other
contact
information
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
Also
include
this
contact
information
on
the
outside
of
any
disk
or
CD
ROM
you
submit,
and
in
any
cover
letter
accompanying
the
disk
or
CD
ROM.
This
ensures
that
you
can
be
identified
as
the
submitter
of
the
comment
and
allows
EPA
to
contact
you
in
case
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
or
needs
further
information
on
the
substance
of
your
comment.
EPA's
policy
is
that
EPA
will
not
edit
your
comment,
and
any
identifying
or
contact
information
provided
in
the
body
of
a
comment
will
be
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
official
public
docket,
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
If
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
and
cannot
contact
you
for
clarification,
EPA
may
not
be
able
to
consider
your
comment.

1.
EPA
Dockets
Your
use
of
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
to
submit
comments
to
EPA
electronically
is
EPA's
preferred
method
for
receiving
comments.
Go
directly
to
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket,
and
follow
the
online
instructions
for
submitting
comments.
To
access
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
from
the
EPA
Internet
Home
Page,
select
``
Information
Sources,
''
``
Dockets,
''
and
``
EPA
Dockets.
''
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search,
''
and
then
key
in
Docket
ID
No.
RCRA–
2002–
0019.
The
system
is
an
``
anonymous
access''
system,
which
means
EPA
will
not
know
your
identity,
e­
mail
address,
or
other
contact
information
unless
you
provide
it
in
the
body
of
your
comment.

2.
E­
mail
Comments
may
be
sent
by
electronic
mail
(e­
mail)
to
rcra­
docket@
epa.
gov,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
RCRA–
2002–
0019.
In
contrast
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
EPA's
e­
mail
system
is
not
an
``
anonymous
access''
system.
If
you
send
an
e­
mail
comment
directly
to
the
Docket
without
going
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
EPA's
e­
mail
system
automatically
captures
your
email
address.
E­
mail
addresses
that
are
automatically
captured
by
EPA's
e­
mail
system
are
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
official
public
docket,
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.

3.
Disk
or
CD
ROM
You
may
submit
comments
on
a
disk
or
CD
ROM
that
you
mail
to
the
mailing
address
identified
in
the
ADDRESSES
section.
These
electronic
submissions
will
be
accepted
in
WordPerfect
or
ASCII
file
format.
Avoid
the
use
of
special
characters
and
any
form
of
encryption.

C.
How
Should
I
Submit
CBI
To
the
Agency?
Do
not
submit
information
that
you
consider
to
be
CBI
electronically
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
or
by
e­
mail.
Send
or
deliver
information
identified
as
CBI
only
to
the
following
address:
RCRA
CBI
Document
Control
Officer,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
(5305W),
U.
S.
EPA,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
RCRA–
2002–
0019.
You
may
claim
information
that
you
submit
to
EPA
as
CBI
by
marking
any
part
or
all
of
that
information
as
CBI
(if
you
submit
CBI
on
disk
or
CD
ROM,
mark
the
outside
of
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
as
CBI
and
then
identify
electronically
within
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
the
specific
information
that
is
CBI).
Information
so
marked
will
not
be
disclosed
except
in
accordance
with
procedures
set
forth
in
40
CFR
part
2.
In
addition
to
one
complete
version
of
the
comment
that
includes
any
information
claimed
as
CBI,
a
copy
of
the
comment
that
does
not
contain
the
information
claimed
as
CBI
must
be
submitted
for
inclusion
in
the
public
docket
and
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
If
you
submit
the
copy
that
does
not
contain
CBI
on
disk
or
CD
ROM,
mark
the
outside
of
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
clearly
that
it
does
not
contain
CBI.
Information
not
marked
as
CBI
will
be
included
in
the
public
docket
and
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
without
prior
notice.
If
you
have
any
questions
about
CBI
or
the
procedures
for
claiming
CBI,
please
consult
the
person
identified
in
the
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT
section.

D.
What
Should
I
Consider
as
I
Prepare
My
Comments
for
EPA?

You
may
find
the
following
suggestions
helpful
for
preparing
your
comments:
1.
Explain
your
views
as
clearly
as
possible.
2.
Describe
any
assumptions
that
you
used.
3.
Provide
any
technical
information
and/
or
data
you
used
that
support
your
views.
4.
If
you
estimate
potential
burden
or
costs,
explain
how
you
arrived
at
your
estimate.
5.
Provide
specific
examples
to
illustrate
your
concerns.
6.
Offer
alternatives.
7.
Make
sure
to
submit
your
comments
by
the
comment
period
deadline
identified.
8.
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
identify
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
response.
It
would
also
be
helpful
if
you
provided
the
name,
date,
and
Federal
Register
citation
related
to
your
comments.

II.
What
Is
the
Purpose
of
this
NODA?

This
NODA
affects
owners
and
operators
of
hazardous
waste
burning
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
industrial
and
institutional/
commercial
boilers,
process
heaters,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces.
We
are
providing
this
NODA
to
request
comment
on
data
bases
that
we
will
use
to
develop
proposed
standards
under
Section
112(
d)
(i.
e.,
MACT
standards)
for
these
source
categories
and
subcategories.
We
view
publication
of
this
NODA
as
a
critical
component
of
our
quality
assurance
program
that
we
are
using
to
ensure
and
maximize
the
quality,
objectivity,
utility,
and
integrity
of
information
that
we
plan
to
use
in
our
future
MACT
rule
making.
Section
515
of
the
Treasury
and
General
Government
Appropriations
Act
for
VerDate
jun<
06>
2002
18:
10
Jul
01,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00037
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
02JYN1.
SGM
pfrm15
PsN:
02JYN1
44455
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
127
/
Tuesday,
July
2,
2002
/
Notices
FY2001
(Pub.
L.
106–
554)
directed
OMB
to
issue
government­
wide
information
quality
guidelines.
The
OMB
guidelines
were
first
issued
on
September
28,
2001.
Pursuant
to
those
guidelines
EPA
is
developing
its
own
guidelines.
EPA's
information
quality
guideline
development
program
can
be
found
on
the
World
Wide
Web
at
this
URL:
http:/
/www.
epa.
gov/
oei/
qualityguidelines.
One
of
the
important
components
of
EPA's
draft
Information
Quality
Guidelines
is
to
provide
the
public
with
an
opportunity
and
vehicle
for
correcting
any
errors
that
might
be
present
in
data
and
information
that
the
agency
is
using
in
its
decision­
making.
This
NODA
provides
such
an
opportunity.

III.
Are
You
Affected
by
this
Notice?
We
anticipate
that
we
will
develop
revised
MACT
standards
for
hazardous
waste
burning
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
as
defined
at
40
CFR
63.1201(
a),
and
that
are
currently
subject
to
MACT
standards
at
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
EEE.
We
also
plan
to
develop
MACT
standards
for
boilers,
as
defined
at
40
CFR
260.10,
that
burn
hazardous
waste
as
defined
at
40
CFR
part
261.
This
definition
of
boiler
includes
devices
used
in
industry
as
process
heaters.
These
boilers
are
currently
subject
to
regulation
under
40
CFR
part
266,
subpart
H,
which
is
commonly
referred
to
as
the
Boiler
and
Industrial
Furnace
(BIF)
rule.
Please
note
that
the
MACT
standards
for
hazardous
waste
burning
boilers
and
process
heaters
would
apply
to
boilers
that
are
currently
exempt
from
certain
BIF
emission
standards
under
§
266.109
(Low
Risk
Waste
Exemption)
and
§
266.110
(Waiver
of
DRE
Trial
Burn
for
Boilers).
We
anticipate,
however,
that
we
will
propose
that
boilers
currently
exempt
from
part
266,
Subpart
H,
because
they
qualify
for
the
Small
Quantity
On­
Site
Burner
Exemption,
would
not
be
subject
to
the
MACT
standards
that
we
are
developing
for
boilers
that
burn
hazardous
waste.
Instead,
we
anticipate
proposing
that
those
boilers
would
be
subject
to
MACT
standards
the
Agency
is
developing
for
industrial
and
institutional/
commercial
boilers,
and
process
heaters,
that
do
not
(otherwise)
burn
hazardous
waste.
Those
boilers
would
be
subject
to
MACT
standards
for
boilers
and
process
heaters
that
do
not
burn
hazardous
waste
because
their
nonhazardous
waste
fuels
will
dictate
the
types
and
concentrations
of
HAP
emissions
rather
than
the
de
minimis
quantities
of
hazardous
waste
fuel
that
they
burn.
The
MACT
standards
for
industrial
and
institutional/
commercial
boilers
and
process
heaters
that
do
not
burn
hazardous
waste
are
scheduled
to
be
proposed
in
late
2002.
Finally,
we
are
also
developing
MACT
standards
for
HCl
production
furnaces
that
burn
hazardous
waste.
These
furnaces
are
a
type
of
halogen
acid
furnace
included
within
the
definition
of
``
industrial
furnace''
defined
at
§
260.10
and
are
currently
regulated
under
40
CFR
part
266,
subpart
H.
We
do
not
anticipate
proposing
MACT
standards
for
hazardous
waste
burning
sulfur
recovery
furnaces.
These
industrial
furnaces
are
subject
to
the
BIF
rule
if
they
burn
hazardous
waste
other
than
spent
sulfuric
acid
either
for
energy
recovery
or
to
recover
sulfur
values.
We
do
not
believe
MACT
standards
are
warranted
for
these
sources
because
available
emissions
data
indicate
that
emissions
of
hazardous
air
pollutants
are
very
low.
In
addition,
the
Agency
has
not
listed
these
furnaces
as
a
category
of
major
sources.
See
57
FR
31576,
July
16,
1992.
Sulfur
recovery
furnaces
burning
hazardous
waste
other
than
spent
sulfuric
acid
would
remain
subject
to
the
BIF
rule.

IV.
What
Led
Up
to
This
NODA?

Congress
amended
the
Clean
Air
Act
(CAA)
in
1990
to
require
that
hazardous
air
pollutants
be
controlled
by
technology­
based
standards—
standards
based
on
the
technical
capabilities
of
control
strategies
for
the
emitting
industry
in
question,
with
further
controls
required
later
if
significant
risk
remains
after
imposition
of
the
technology­
based
standards.
These
standards
would
apply
to
the
HWCs
discussed
in
this
notice.
On
September
30,
1999,
we
promulgated
standards
(referred
to
as
the
``
Phase
I''
rule,
64
FR
52828)
to
control
emissions
of
hazardous
air
pollutants
from
incinerators,
cement
kilns
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
that
burn
hazardous
wastes.
These
emission
standards
created
a
technology­
based
national
cap
for
hazardous
air
pollutant
emissions,
assuring
that
combustion
of
hazardous
waste
in
these
devices
is
properly
controlled.
Additionally,
the
rule
satisfied
our
obligation
under
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(RCRA)
to
ensure
that
hazardous
waste
combustion
is
conducted
in
a
manner
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
By
using
both
CAA
and
RCRA
authorities
in
a
coordinated
fashion,
we
consolidated
regulatory
control
of
hazardous
waste
combustion
into
a
single
set
of
regulations,
thereby
minimizing
the
potential
for
conflicting
or
duplicative
federal
requirements.
A
number
of
parties,
representing
interests
of
both
industrial
sources
and
of
the
environmental
community,
sought
judicial
review
of
the
rule.
On
July
24,
2001,
the
United
States
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
District
of
Columbia
Circuit
(the
Court)
granted
the
Sierra
Club's
petition
for
review
and
vacated
the
challenged
portions
of
the
rule.
However,
the
Court
invited
us
(or
any
of
the
parties
to
the
proceeding)
to
file
a
motion
to
delay
issuance
of
its
mandate
to
request
either
that
the
current
Phase
I
standards
remain
in
place
or
that
we
be
allowed
reasonable
time
to
develop
interim
standards.
On
October
19,
2001,
after
several
months
of
negotiation,
we,
together
with
all
other
petitioners
that
challenged
the
hazardous
waste
combustor
emission
standards,
filed
a
joint
motion
asking
the
Court
to
stay
the
issuance
of
its
mandate
for
four
months
to
allow
us
time
to
develop
interim
standards,
and
the
Court
granted
this
request.
In
the
joint
motion,
we
agreed
to
take
several
actions.
First,
we
agreed
to
issue
a
oneyear
extension
to
the
compliance
date
of
September
30,
2002;
on
December
6,
2001
we
published
a
final
rule
to
extend
for
one
year
the
compliance
date
for
Phase
I
sources
(66
FR
63313).
Second,
we
committed
to
(1)
publish
an
interim
rule
with
revised
emission
standards;
and,
(2)
finalize
several
compliance
and
implementation
amendments
to
the
rule.
These
interim
standards
and
compliance
and
implementation
amendments
were
promulgated
on
February
13
and
14,
2002
(67
FR
6792
and
67
FR
6968).
The
interim
standards
replace
the
vacated
standards
temporarily,
until
we
finalize
replacement
standards
that
comply
with
the
Court's
mandate.
Finally,
we
agreed
to
issue
these
final
replacement
standards
that
fully
comply
with
the
Court's
opinion
by
June
14,
2005.
Also,
in
this
rulemaking,
we
are
developing
MACT
standards
for
hazardous
waste
burning
industrial
and
institutional/
commercial
boilers,
process
heaters,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
producing
acid
from
hazardous
wastes.
These
sources
are
referred
to
as
Phase
II
sources
because
the
MACT
standards
for
these
sources
were
originally
scheduled
to
be
promulgated
after
the
Phase
I
source
MACT
standards
were
finalized.

V.
What
Data
Are
Included
in
This
Notice?
We
are
requesting
comment
on
six
separate
data
bases
that
compile
information
on
the
following
source
categories
or
subcategories:
incinerators,

VerDate
jun<
06>
2002
18:
10
Jul
01,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00038
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
02JYN1.
SGM
pfrm15
PsN:
02JYN1
44456
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
127
/
Tuesday,
July
2,
2002
/
Notices
1
See
``
Hazardous
Waste
Combustor
Data
Base
Report
for
Phase
I
and
II
Sources,
''
June,
2002,
for
our
response
to
comments
received
on
the
June
27,
2002
NODA.
2
We
are
not
aware
of
any
commercial/
institutional
boilers
that
burn
hazardous
waste.
cement
kilns,
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
coal­
fired
boilers,
liquid­
fuel
boilers,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces.
Each
data
base
summarizes
emissions
data
and
ancillary
information
on
HWCs
source
category
or
subcategory
that
we
extracted
from
available
test
reports.
Many
of
the
source
test
reports
were
prepared
as
part
of
the
compliance
process
for
the
current
RCRA
standards.
Ancillary
information
in
the
data
bases
includes
general
facility
information,
air
pollution
control
device
operating
information,
composition
and
feedrate
data
for
the
hazardous
waste,
fossil
fuels,
and
raw
materials,
combustion
gas
condition,
and
stack­
related
information.
This
NODA
is
an
invitation
to
comment
on
the
data
bases
that
we
will
use
to
develop
MACT
standards
for
HWCs.
As
discussed
below,
some
of
the
data
bases
have
been
noticed,
in
part,
for
comment
previously,
and
some
have
been
updated
since
they
were
last
publicly
available.
We
encourage
owners
and
operators
of
HWCs
to
review
our
data
bases
to
ensure
that
they
are
as
accurate
and
complete
as
possible,
and
to
provide
corrections
and
additions
in
the
form
of
comments
to
this
notice.
If
you
find
errors,
please
submit
the
pages
from
the
test
report
that
document
the
missing
or
incorrect
results
and
the
cover
page
of
the
test
report
as
reference.
We
encourage
comment
only
on
the
accuracy
and
completeness
of
the
data
bases
at
this
time.
We
do
not
seek
nor
will
we
use
or
respond
to
comments
on
how
to
use
the
data
bases
to
identify
MACT
standards.
Rather,
we
will
publish
and
seek
comment
on
a
MACT
standardsetting
approach
and
all
other
aspects
of
the
NESHAP
rulemaking
in
a
future
notice
of
proposed
rulemaking.
We
gathered
the
emissions
data
and
ancillary
information
for
the
data
bases
from
test
reports
submitted
by
these
sources
to
EPA
Regional
Offices
or
State
agencies.
The
test
reports
may
include
certifications
of
compliance
reports,
trial
burn
reports,
annual
performance
test
reports,
mini­
burns,
and
risk
burn
reports.
Below
we
summarize
our
efforts
to
collect
the
test
results
that
comprise
the
data
bases.
We
first
compiled
a
data
base
for
hazardous
waste
burning
incinerators,
cement
kilns
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
(i.
e.,
the
Phase
I
data
base)
to
support
the
April
1996
proposed
Maximum
Achievable
Control
Technology
(MACT)
standards
for
those
source
categories
(61
FR
17358,
April
19,
1996).
We
received
additional
test
reports
and
comments
on
errors
in
the
data
base
during
the
public
comment
period
of
the
proposed
rule.
The
revised
Phase
I
data
base
was
subsequently
published
in
the
Federal
Register
for
public
comment
(62
FR
960,
January
7,
1997).
The
data
base
was
again
revised
based
on
these
comments.
We
used
this
data
base
to
develop
the
Phase
I
MACT
standards
promulgated
on
September
30,
1999
(64
FR
52828).
Following
vacature
of
the
challenged
Phase
I
standards
and
promulgation
of
the
interim
MACT
standards
in
February
2002,
we
initiated
an
effort
with
EPA
Regional
Offices
and
State
agencies
to
update
the
data
base.
We
focused
on
collecting
compliance
testing
documents
from
Phase
I
sources
for
which
we
had
no
information,
obtaining
results
from
more
recent
testing
conducted
since
1997,
and
updating
the
universe
of
operating
hazardous
waste
combustors.
In
total,
we
obtained
an
additional
110
test
reports
during
our
2002
data
collection
effort.
The
current
data
bases
for
the
Phase
I
source
categories
included
in
today's
NODA
contain
test
results
for
over
100
incinerators,
25
cement
kilns,
and
9
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
In
many
cases,
especially
for
cement
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
the
data
bases
contain
test
reports
from
multiple
testing
campaigns.
For
example,
our
data
bases
contain
test
results
for
a
cement
kiln
source
for
the
years
1992,
1995,
and
1998.
The
data
base
for
Phase
II
combustors—
industrial
boilers,
commercial/
institutional
boilers,
process
heaters,
and
HCl
production
furnaces—
was
compiled
in
1999.
In
developing
that
data
base,
we
collected
the
most
recent
test
report
available
for
each
source
that
included
test
results
under
compliance
test
operating
conditions.
However,
this
most
recent
test
report
may
have
also
included
data
used
for
other
purposes
(e.
g.,
risk
burn),
which
we
also
included
in
the
data
base.
In
nearly
all
instances,
the
dates
of
the
test
reports
collected
were
either
1998
or
1999.
In
June
2000
we
published
in
the
Federal
Register
the
Phase
II
data
base
for
comment
(65
FR
39581,
June
27,
2000).
We
have
not
collected
additional
emissions
data
for
Phase
II
sources.
We
have,
however,
updated
the
Phase
II
data
base
to
address
comments
we
received
to
the
June
27,
2000
NODA.
We
also
revised
the
universe
of
sources
by
removing
those
sources
that
are
no
longer
burning
hazardous
waste.
In
addition,
we
updated
some
of
the
comment
fields.
Therefore,
if
your
facility
has
a
HWC
originally
included
in
the
Phase
II
rulemaking,
it
is
important
that
you
review
the
current
data
for
your
facility,
even
if
you
reviewed
the
Phase
II
data
base
when
it
was
originally
noticed.
1
Section
VII
of
today's
notice
describes
the
new
data
comment
fields
for
the
Phase
II
sources.
The
data
bases
for
the
Phase
II
sources
comprise
compliance
test
results
for
114
industrial
boilers,
11
process
heaters,
and
16
HC1
production
furnaces.
2
VI.
What
Data
Handling
Decisions
Did
We
Make
and
What
Are
the
Data
Gaps?
In
this
section,
we
describe
the
data
handling
protocol
used
during
development
of
the
data
bases.
We
also
identify
additional
information
that
we
would
like
to
have
and
encourage
owners
and
operators
to
submit
such
information
as
available.

A.
Data
from
Sources
No
Longer
Burning
Hazardous
Waste
Are
Excluded
The
data
bases
do
not
include
information
from
sources
no
longer
burning
hazardous
waste.
If
we
learned
that
a
source
had
stopped
burning
hazardous
waste
and
is
undergoing,
or
has
indicated
to
regulatory
officials
its
plan
to
begin,
RCRA
closure
procedures,
then
we
did
not
obtain
a
copy
of
that
source's
test
report.
Although
such
data
may
or
may
not
indicate
the
capabilities
of
control
equipment
in
general,
we
conclude
that
the
data
from
currently
operating
combustors
are
adequate
to
develop
standards
under
Section
112(
d).
We
identified
several
sources
that
are
no
longer
burning
hazardous
waste
and
removed
their
emissions
data
and
related
information
from
the
data
bases.
We
encourage
owners
and
operators
of
hazardous
waste
combustors
to
review
our
list
of
operating
combustors
to
ensure
it
is
accurate.

B.
How
Are
Nondetect
Data
Handled?
We
assume
that
analytes
in
feedstreams
or
emissions
reported
as
not
detected
are
present
at
one­
half
the
detection
limit.
This
is
consistent
with
how
we
handled
nondetect
measurements
in
the
September
1999
MACT
rule
for
Phase
I
sources
(66
FR
at
52844)
and
in
the
data
base
associated
with
the
June
2000
NODA
for
Phase
II
sources.
All
measurements
reported
as
not
detected
are
identified
as
such
in
the
data
bases.

C.
Missing
Source
Description
Information
Some
test
reports
omitted
source
description
information.
For
example,

VerDate
jun<
06>
2002
18:
10
Jul
01,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00039
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
02JYN1.
SGM
pfrm15
PsN:
02JYN1
44457
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
127
/
Tuesday,
July
2,
2002
/
Notices
3
Unless
specified
otherwise,
the
term
``
boiler''
means
industrial
and
commercial/
institutional
boilers,
and
process
heaters.

4
See
USEPA
``
Final
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Standards,
vol.
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards
and
Technologies,
''
July,
1999,
p.
3–
3.
5
Please
note
that
we
did
not
conduct
a
worst­
case
versus
normal
analysis
for
DRE
or
CO/
HC
data.
Under
current
RCRA
regulations,
all
sources
are
required
to
operate
under
good
combustion
conditions
by
complying
with
emission
limits
on
CO/
HC.
All
sources
are
also
required
to
comply
with
operating
limits
that
ensure
compliance
with
a
99.99%
DRE
requirement.
We
do
not
believe
that
emissions
of
organic
HAPs
will
be
lowered
Continued
some
of
the
boiler
descriptions
are
incomplete.
A
report
might
simply
say
the
source
is
a
boiler,
but
not
whether
it
is
a
watertube
or
firetube
boiler.
In
other
cases,
we
were
unable
to
determine
what
emission
control
equipment,
if
any,
is
installed
on
the
source.
Because
we
may
use
these
data
to
classify
and
group
the
data
when
identifying
MACT
standards,
we
encourage
owners
and
operators
to
provide
any
such
missing
source
description
information
as
a
comment
to
this
notice.

D.
Use
of
Metals
Extrapolation,
Interpolation
and
Surrogates
In
some
cases,
extrapolation
or
interpolation
of
metals
test
data
may
have
been
used
to
develop
operating
limits
(e.
g.,
metals
feed
rate
limits).
Extrapolation
means
setting
limits
outside
the
bounds
(above
or
below)
of
test
results,
and
interpolation
means
setting
operating
limits
between
the
bounds
of
the
test
results.
As
we
discuss
in
Section
VII
below,
we
need
to
know
whether
the
emissions
data
and
feedrates
represent
a
snapshot
of
normal
emissions
or
whether
they
represent
the
highest
emissions
the
source
has
determined
it
would
emit
under
a
mode
of
operation.
Given
that
subsequent
extrapolation
and
interpolation
of
the
metals
data
in
the
test
reports
may
change
the
classification
of
the
metals
data
in
the
data
bases,
we
encourage
owners
and
operators
to
identify
and
provide
information
on
test
results
in
the
data
bases
that
have
been
extrapolated
and
interpolated.
Another
situation
that
may
impact
the
classification
of
the
metals
data
is
the
use
of
surrogates.
For
example,
a
source
may
have
spiked
lead,
but
not
cadmium,
during
the
test
with
the
intent
to
use
the
system
removal
efficiency
of
lead
to
calculate
a
feedrate
limit
for
cadmium.
In
this
case,
our
data
bases
may
not
classify
properly
the
feedrate
of
cadmium.
We
encourage
owners
and
operators
to
identify
and
provide
information
on
test
results
where
metal
surrogates
were
used.

VII.
What
Are
the
New
Data
Comment
Fields?

We
have
added
several
data
comment
fields
to
the
data
bases
since
they
were
published
for
public
comment.
Because
we
may
use
these
data
comment
fields
to
classify
and
group
the
data
when
establishing
the
MACT
standards,
we
encourage
owners
or
operators
to
review
these
data
comment
fields
to
determine
if
our
designations
are
accurate.
The
new
data
comment
fields
that
are
particularly
important
pertain
to:
(1)
Classification
of
the
design
or
operation
of
the
source
to
enable
us
to
consider
establishing
MACT
standards
for
subcategories
of
a
source
category;
(2)
classification
of
emissions
data
as
to
whether
the
data
represent
the
highest
emissions
a
source
could
be
expected
to
achieve
or
normal
emissions;
and
(3)
characterization
of
sootblowing
operations
during
emissions
testing
for
boilers.
3
A.
What
Information
Do
We
Need
to
Consider
Subcategorization
Options?

It
may
be
appropriate
to
establish
different
MACT
standards
for
subcategories
of
a
source
category
if
the
types
or
concentration
of
uncontrolled
emissions
of
hazardous
air
pollutants
are
significantly
different
for
a
subset
of
that
category
because
of
the
design
or
operation
of
the
sources.
An
example
is
our
determination
that
incinerators
with
wet
emission
control
devices
and
equipped
with
waste
heat
recovery
boilers
can
have
much
higher
D/
F
emissions
than
incinerators
with
wet
emission
control
devices
but
without
heat
recovery
boilers.
4
We
have
evaluated
each
of
the
source
categories—
hazardous
waste
burning
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
boilers,
and
HCl
production
furnaces—
and
identified
information
that
we
may
need
to
classify
each
source
to
consider
subcategorization.
In
the
table
below,
we
list
the
classifications
and
describe
the
terms
for
purposes
of
this
rulemaking
effort.
We
encourage
owners
and
operators
to
review
the
classifications
for
their
sources
in
the
data
bases
to
ensure
they
are
accurate.

TABLE
1.—
CLASSIFICATION
OF
SOURCES
TO
CONSIDER
SUBCATEGORIES
Source
category/
classification
Description
Incinerators:
Waste
heat
boiler
........................................................
Equipped
with
a
waste
heat
recovery
boiler.
Liquid
injection
incinerator
..........................................
Feeds
only
pumpable
feedstreams
that
are
atomized
into
the
combustion
chamber
through
the
burner
nozzles.
Mixed
waste
incinerator
..............................................
Feeds
low
level
radioactive
waste.
Dry
APCD
...................................................................
Equipped
with
a
dry
emissions
control
device
(e.
g.,
ESP
or
BH)
as
the
initial
control
device.
Cement
kilns:
Short
kiln
.....................................................................
Equipped
with
a
precalciner,
in­
line
raw
mill,
and
by­
pass
duct.
Boilers:
Pulverized
coal­
fired
...................................................
Burns
pulverized
coal
in
suspension.
Stoker
coal­
fired
..........................................................
Burns
lump
coal
on
a
grate.
Liquid
fuel
boiler
..........................................................
Burns
liquid
(i.
e.,
pumpable
and
atomized)
or
liquid
and
gaseous
fuels
only.
HCl
production
furnaces:
Waste
heat
boiler
........................................................
Equipped
with
a
waste
heat
recovery
boiler.

B.
How
Will
We
Distinguish
Between
Worst­
Case
and
Normal
Emissions?
5
The
data
bases
comprise
emissions
data
from
tests
conducted
for
various
VerDate
jun<
06>
2002
18:
10
Jul
01,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00040
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
02JYN1.
SGM
pfrm15
PsN:
02JYN1
44458
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
127
/
Tuesday,
July
2,
2002
/
Notices
significantly
by
operating
at
lower
CO/
HC
levels
or
higher
DRE
levels.
6
The
term
``
floor''
refer
to
the
minimum
emission
standard
required
pursuant
to
section
112
of
the
CAA.
7
The
worst­
case
(WC)
classification
is
further
qualified
for
some
test
conditions
as
``
worst­
case,
highest
emissions''
(WC
HE),
as
discussed
in
the
text.
8
NA
means
the
Normal
Vs
Wors­
Case
classification
is
not
applicable.
9
Although
we
intended
to
collect
test
reports
from
the
most
recent
compliance
test
campaign,
we
conclude
that
for
some
sources
the
most
recent
test
reports
are
for
other
than
compliance
tests.
For
example,
for
some
sources,
we
apparently
have
emissions
data
only
for
a
risk
burn
representing
normal
emissions,
rather
than
worst­
case
emissions
under
a
compliance
test.
10
For
PM,
the
definition
of
worst­
case
is
more
inclusive.
If
the
test
report
for
one
or
more
test
conditions
in
a
test
campaign
indicates
that
the
test
is
a
trial
burn
or
certification
of
compliance
test,
we
assume
that
one
test
condition
represents
worsecase
PM
emissions
(unless
the
test
report
explicitly
states
otherwise)
even
if
the
test
report(
s)
does
not
explicitly
indicate
that
ask
was
spiked
during
the
test.
This
interpretation
is
appropriate
because
a
source
must
document
compliance
with
the
PM
standard
by
emissions
testing.
Sources
do
not
have
the
option
of
complying
with
an
ash
feedrate
option
(such
as
the
Tier
1
feedrate
limits
for
metals
and
chlorine)
in
lie
of
emissions
testing.
Consequently,
we
presume
the
PM
emissions
were
maximized
during
one
of
the
compliance
tests
(e.
g.,
by
detuning
the
APCD;
feeding
high
ash
content
wastes)
event
though
ask
spiking
may
not
be
specified.
purposes,
including
compliance
testing
(i.
e.,
RCRA
trial
burns
or
Certification
of
Compliance
tests),
risk
burns
(i.
e.,
emissions
testing
to
generate
emissions
data
to
perform
site­
specific
risk
assessments),
annual
performance
testing,
and
research
testing.
Therefore,
some
emissions
data
represent
the
highest
emissions
the
source
is
allowed
to
emit
(i.
e.,
worst­
case
emissions),
some
data
represent
normal
operating
conditions
and
emissions,
and
some
data
represent
operating
conditions
that
are
neither
normal
nor
worst
case,
i.
e.,
they
represent
operating
conditions
(and
emissions)
that
are
in
between
normal
and
worst
case.
We
may
choose
to
consider
whether
the
emissions
data
are
``
worst­
case''
or
``
normal''
to
consider
emissions
variability
appropriately
in
establishing
achievable
MACT
floor
6
emission
levels.
The
methodology
that
we
use
to
establish
the
MACT
floor
emission
levels
may
well
be
influenced
by
the
nature
of
the
emissions
data
that
are
used.
For
example,
we
may
choose
to
estimate
or
account
for
variability
in
different
ways
depending
on
whether
the
data
set
we
use
contains
worst­
case
emission
data,
data
within
the
range
of
normal
emissions,
or
a
mix
of
normal
and
worst
case
emissions.
Hazardous
waste
combustors
generally
emit
worst­
case
emissions
during
RCRA
compliance
testing
while
demonstrating
compliance
with
emission
standards.
For
real­
time
compliance
assurance,
sources
are
required
to
establish
limits
on
particular
operating
parameters
where
the
limits
are
derived
from
operations
during
compliance
testing.
Thus,
the
emission
levels
achieved
during
these
compliance
tests
are
the
highest
emission
levels
a
source
is
allowed
to
emit.
To
ensure
that
these
operating
limits
do
not
impede
normal
operations,
sources
generally
take
measures
to
operate
during
compliance
testing
under
conditions
that
are
worse
than
the
range
of
normal
operations.
For
example,
sources
often
feed
ash,
metals,
and
chlorine
at
higher
than
normal
levels
(e.
g.,
by
spiking
the
waste
feed)
to
maximize
the
feedrate,
and
they
often
detune
the
APCDs
to
minimize
collection
efficiency.
By
designing
the
compliance
test
to
generate
emissions
higher
than
the
normal
range
of
emissions,
sources
can
establish
operating
limits
that
will
not
impede
normal
operations
while
accounting
for
emissions
variability
covered
by
variation
in
the
feedrate
of
metals
or
chlorine,
for
example.
The
data
bases
also
include
normal
emissions
data.
Sources
will
sometimes
measure
emissions
of
a
pollutant
during
a
compliance
test
even
though
the
test
is
not
designed
to
establish
operating
limits
for
that
pollutant
(i.
e.,
it
is
not
a
compliance
test
for
the
pollutant).
An
example
is
a
trial
burn
where
a
lightweight
aggregate
kiln
measures
emissions
of
all
RCRA
metals,
but
uses
the
Tier
I
metals
feedrate
limit
(rather
than
the
Tier
III
emissions
limit)
to
comply
with
the
Hg
emission
standard.
Other
examples
of
emissions
data
that
are
within
the
range
of
normal
emissions
are
annual
performance
tests
that
some
sources
are
required
to
conduct
under
State
regulations,
or
risk
burns.
Both
of
these
types
of
tests
are
generally
performed
under
normal
operating
conditions.
Other
emissions
tests
may
generate
emissions
in­
between
normal
and
worstcase
An
example
is
a
compliance
test
designed
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
particulate
matter
standard
where:
(1)
The
APCD
is
detuned
to
achieve
worst­
case
emissions;
and
(2)
the
source
measures
Pb
and
Cd
emissions
even
though
it
elects
to
comply
with
feedrate
limits
for
those
metals
and,
thus,
does
not
spike
those
metals.
We
would
conclude
that
Pb
and
Cd
emissions
are
in
between
normal
and
worst­
case
emissions
because,
although
emissions
of
the
metals
are
likely
to
be
higher
than
normal
because
the
APCD
is
detuned,
emissions
are
not
likely
to
be
worst­
case
because
the
source
did
not
use
the
test
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
emission
standards
for
the
metals
(and
so
did
not
spike
the
metals).
To
identify
normal
and
worst­
case
emissions
data,
we
classify
emissions
data
for
each
pollutant
(i.
e.,
D/
F,
Hg,
PM,
SVM,
LVM,
and
HCl/
Cl2)
for
each
test
condition
as
worst­
case
(WC);
7
normal
(N);
in
between
(IB);
unknown
(U);
or
not
applicable
(NA).
8
We
encourage
owners
and
operators
to
review
our
classification
of
their
data
to
ensure
that
we
have
applied
the
terms,
as
we
define
them,
appropriately,
to
the
information
provided
for
each
test
condition
in
the
various
data
fields
(e.
g.,
APCD;
Spiking;
Comments;
Condition
Description,
BIF
Tier).
Please
note
that
these
classifications
apply
on
a
pollutant­
by­
pollutant
basis.
For
example,
some
pollutants
measured
during
a
test
condition
may
be
classified
as
representing
worst­
case
emissions
for
those
pollutants,
while
other
pollutants
measured
during
that
test
condition
may
be
classified
as
representing
normal
emissions.

1.
How
Do
We
Define
Worst­
Case
Data?
a.
Boilers
and
HCl
Production
Furnaces.
As
discussed
above,
the
data
bases
for
boilers
and
HCl
production
furnaces
are
comprised
of
all
test
conditions
run
during
the
most
recent
compliance
test
campaign
for
which
data
are
available.
9
For
the
metals,
total
chlorine,
and
particulate
matter
standards,
we
define
the
worst­
case
test
condition
for
a
pollutant
as
the
test
condition
with
the
highest
emissions
of
that
pollutant
meeting
any
of
these
criteria:
(1)
A
test
condition
where
the
feedrate
of
the
pollutant
(i.
e.,
metal,
chlorine,
or
ash)
is
maximized
by
spiking
or
other
means
(e.
g.,
feeding
waste
with
atypically
high
concentrations
of
the
pollutant);
or
(2)
a
test
condition
that
is
used
to
demonstrate
compliance
under
Tier
III
of
the
BIF
rule
for
the
pollutant;
or
(3)
a
test
condition
with
higher
emissions
of
the
pollutant
under
operating
conditions
that
would
not
have
been
classified
as
worst
case
as
discussed
above.
10
Test
conditions
meeting
the
third
criterion
are
classified
WC
HE
(i.
e.,
worst­
case,
highest
emissions)
to
clarify
that
the
test
condition
is
worst­
case
because
it
has
the
highest
emissions
for
the
test
campaign
even
though
its
operating
conditions
would
not
have
suggested
that
emissions
would
be
worst­
case.
It
may
be
helpful
to
present
some
examples
of
how
the
worst­
case
definition
works.
If
a
metal
were
spiked
during
a
compliance
test,
but
the
source
complied
with
the
Tier
I
feedrate
limits
VerDate
jun<
06>
2002
18:
10
Jul
01,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00041
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
02JYN1.
SGM
pfrm15
PsN:
02JYN1
44459
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
127
/
Tuesday,
July
2,
2002
/
Notices
11
That
is,
boilers
that
burn
liquid
or
liquid
and
gaseous
fuels
only.
12
See
USEPA.
``
Final
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards
and
Technologies,
''
July
1999,
Chapter
3.
13
Coal­
fired
boilers
are
boilers
that
burn
hazardous
waste
as
a
supplemented
fuel
with
coal.
14
An
emission
control
system
comprised
of
an
initial
wet
control
device
followed
by
an
ESP
or
BH
would
qualify
as
a
wet
system.
The
initial
wet
device
would
quench
the
gas
temperature
to
minimize
D/
F
formation.
Conversely,
an
emission
control
system
comprised
of
an
initial
dry
control
device
followed
by
a
wet
device
(e.
g.,
for
HCI
control)
would
not
be
classified
as
a
wet
APCD
for
purposes
of
this
subcategorization.
D/
F
may
be
formed
in
the
dry
control
device
before
the
temperature
of
the
gas
is
quenched
in
the
wet
device
below
the
optimum
range
for
D/
F
formation.
15
If
a
test
campaign
were
comprised
of
two
risk
burn
test
conditions,
neither
of
the
test
conditions
may
meet
the
definition
of
worst­
case.
16
USEPA,
``
Guidance
on
Metals
and
Hydrogen
Chloride
Controls
for
Hazardous
Waste
Incinerators,
''
December
29,
1988
(Volume
IV
of
the
Hazardous
Waste
Incineration
Guidance
Series).
17
This
proviso
simply
precludes
classifying
as
worst­
case
the
highest
normal
test
condition
in
a
test
campaign
comprised
of
only
ormal
test
conditions.
under
the
BIF
rule
for
that
metal,
we
nonetheless
classified
the
test
condition
as
worst­
case
for
that
metal
(if
there
were
no
other
test
conditions
with
higher
emissions).
We
reasoned
that
the
source
was
operating
under
worst­
case
conditions
during
the
test,
but
elected
to
comply
with
the
Tier
I
feedrate
limits
because
they
were
less
stringent
(i.
e.,
higher)
than
the
feedrate
levels
during
the
compliance
test.
As
another
example,
for
a
few
boilers,
emissions
could
be
higher
during
a
risk
burn
(conducted
under
conditions
that
appear
to
represent
other
than
worst
case
conditions
for
that
pollutant)
than
a
compliance
test.
In
these
cases,
we
assumed
the
boiler
was
operating
within
its
operating
limits
and
classified
the
test
condition
as
worst­
case,
highest
emissions
(WC
HE)
for
that
pollutant.
This
approach
ensures
that
we
use
available
emissions
data
representing
the
range
of
performance
of
the
source
to
identify
the
MACT
floor.
For
dioxin/
furan
emissions,
the
worstcase
classification
is
related
primarily
to
whether
the
source
uses
a
wet
or
no
APCD
versus
a
dry
APCD.
For
liquid
fuel
boilers
11
equipped
with
an
electrostatic
precipitator
(ESP)
or
baghouse
(BH),
we
define
the
worst­
case
test
condition
as:
(1)
The
test
condition
where
the
inlet
temperature
to
the
ESP
or
BH
is
maximized
(e.
g.,
during
a
worst­
case
metals
emissions
test);
or
(2)
a
test
condition
with
higher
emissions
of
the
pollutant
under
operating
conditions
that
would
not
meet
the
criteria
under
(1)
above.
The
test
condition
where
gas
temperatures
are
maximized
at
the
inlet
to
the
ESP
or
BH
should
represent
worst­
case
D/
F
emissions
because
D/
F
emissions
for
sources
operated
under
good
combustion
conditions
(e.
g.,
the
BIF
requirement
to
operate
at
carbon
monoxide
levels
below
100
ppmv)
are
primarily
a
function
of
the
temperature
of
the
dry
particulate
matter
control
device.
D/
F
formation
increases
exponentially
as
the
gas
inlet
temperature
increases.
12
We
considered
this
approach
for
coalfired
boilers,
13
but
determined
that
factors
other
than
gas
temperature
at
the
inlet
to
the
ESP
or
BH
appear
to
have
the
dominant
effect
on
D/
F
emissions.
For
example,
we
have
D/
F
emissions
data
for
two
coal­
fired
boilers,
both
of
which
operated
the
ESP
at
approximately
500
F.
At
that
temperature,
D/
F
emissions
could
be
expected
to
be
significant
if
surfacecatalyzed
formation
reactions
are
the
dominant
factor
affecting
emissions.
But,
D/
F
emissions
from
those
two
boilers
were
essentially
zero—
0.00
and
0.04
ng
TEQ/
dscm.
We
conclude
that
there
are
other,
unquantifiable
factors
that
affect
D/
F
emissions
from
coal­
fired
boilers.
Sulfur
is
known
to
inhibit
D/
F
formation,
and
we
suspect
that
the
sulfur
in
the
coal
is
a
major
factor
affecting
D/
F
emissions.
Given
that
we
cannot
objectively
identify
a
worst­
case
test
condition
for
D/
F
emissions
from
coal­
fired
boilers,
we
conclude
that
the
worst­
case
vs
normal
classification
is
not
applicable
and
classify
the
D/
F
emissions
data
as
NA.
For
purposes
of
assessing
variability
of
emissions
in
identifying
a
MACT
floor
level,
however,
we
would
consider
the
data
to
be
snapshots
of
normal
emissions.
We
had
similar
issues
when
classifying
D/
F
emissions
from
liquid
fuel
boilers
with
wet
or
no
APCDs,
and
HCl
production
furnaces,
all
of
which
have
wet
emission
control
systems.
For
sources
with
wet
APCDs,
14
D/
F
formation
in
the
emission
control
device
is
inhibited
because
the
gas
is
cooled
and
because
particulate
matter
is
continuously
flushed
from
the
control
device
rather
than
being
held
on
a
surface
(e.
g.,
of
an
ESP
plate
or
BH
bag)
where
particle
surface
reactions
can
form
D/
F.
Because
we
cannot
objectively
define
worst­
case
conditions
for
D/
F
formation
for
liquid
fuel
boilers
with
wet
or
no
APCDs,
we
conclude
that
the
worst­
case
vs
normal
classification
is
not
applicable
(as
designated
by
NA).
As
with
the
coal­
fired
boiler
D/
F
data,
however,
we
would
consider
the
data
to
be
snapshots
of
normal
emissions
for
purposes
of
assessing
variability
of
emissions
in
identifying
a
MACT
floor
level.
b.
Incinerators,
Cement
Kilns,
and
Lightweight
Aggregate
Kilns.
As
discussed
above,
the
data
bases
for
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
are
comprised
of
all
available
test
conditions.
The
data
bases
include
test
conditions
from
the
most
recent
test
campaign
as
well
as
older
test
campaigns.
We
use
the
same
definition
of
worst­
case
test
condition
as
we
use
for
boilers
and
HCl
production
furnaces,
as
we
describe
below,
except
that
we
apply
the
definition
to
the
test
conditions
within
each
test
campaign.
For
example,
assume
we
have
data
for
a
source
from
three
test
campaigns
run
over
a
period
of
10
years.
We
looked
at
each
test
campaign
individually
and
identified
the
worst­
case
test
condition
for
each
pollutant,
if
any,
15
for
each
test
campaign.
For
the
metals,
total
chlorine,
and
particulate
matter
standards,
we
define
the
worst­
case
test
condition
for
a
pollutant
as
the
test
condition
with
the
highest
emissions
of
that
pollutant
meeting
any
of
these
criteria:
(1)
A
test
condition
where
the
feedrate
of
the
pollutant
(i.
e.,
metal,
chlorine,
or
ash)
is
maximized
by
spiking
or
other
means
(e.
g.,
feeding
waste
with
atypically
high
concentrations
of
the
pollutant)
or
where
the
emission
control
device
is
detuned;
or
(2)
a
test
condition
that
a
cement
or
lightweight
aggregate
kiln
used
to
demonstrate
compliance
under
Tier
III
of
the
BIF
rule
for
the
pollutant,
or
that
an
incinerator
used
to
comply
with
Tier
III
of
the
risk
assessment
guidance;
16
or
(3)
a
test
condition
with
higher
emissions
of
the
pollutant
under
any
operating
conditions,
provided
that
another
test
condition
during
the
test
campaign
would
have
met
the
worstcase
definition
under
(1)
or
(2)
above.
17
As
discussed
for
boilers
and
HCl
production
furnaces,
test
conditions
meeting
the
third
criterion
are
classified
WC–
HE
(i.
e.,
worst­
case,
highest
emissions)
to
clarify
that
the
test
condition
is
worst­
case
because
it
has
the
highest
emissions
for
the
test
campaign
even
though
its
operating
conditions
would
not
have
suggested
that
emissions
would
be
worst­
case.
For
the
D/
F
standards,
we
use
the
same
classifications
that
we
used
for
liquid
fuel
boilers.
For
incinerators
with
wet
control
systems,
a
worst­
case
versus
normal
classification
of
D/
F
emissions
is
not
applicable.
For
incinerators
and
kilns
equipped
with
an
ESP
or
BH,
we
define
the
worst­
case
test
condition
as:
(1)
The
test
condition
where
the
inlet
temperature
to
the
ESP
or
BH
is
maximized
(e.
g.,
during
a
worst­
case
VerDate
jun<
06>
2002
18:
10
Jul
01,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00042
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
02JYN1.
SGM
pfrm15
PsN:
02JYN1
44460
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
127
/
Tuesday,
July
2,
2002
/
Notices
18
Please
note,
a
s
discussed
above,
the
Normal
and
In
Between
classifications
can
be
trumped
by
the
``
worst­
case
highest
emissions:
(WC
HE)
classification,
if
in
fact,
emissions
during
these
test
conditions
are
higher
than
emissions
during
a
test
condition
that
would
otherwise
be
classified
as
worst­
case.
19
Plase
note
that,
for
some
source
categories
where
there
are
substantial
emissions
data
for
only
lead
or
only
chromium
during
a
test
condition,
we
classified
the
lead­
only
or
chromium­
only
data
by
worse­
case
vs
normal.
In
addition,
we
did
not
apply
the
NA
classification
to
LVM
emissions
data
if
only
beryllium
emissions
data
were
missing.
This
is
because
beryllium
emissions
are
virtually
always
substantially
lower
than
either
arsenic
or
chromium
emissions,
and
thus,
do
not
contribute
substantially
to
LVM
emissions.
20
See
USEP,
``
Technical
Implementation
Document
for
EPA's
Boiler
and
Industrial
Furnance
Regulations,
''
March
1992,
p.
5–
14.
metals
emissions
test);
or
(2)
a
test
condition
with
higher
emissions
of
the
pollutant
under
operating
conditions
that
would
not
meet
the
criteria
under
(1)
above.

2.
How
Do
We
Define
the
Normal,
In
Between,
Unknown,
and
Not
Applicable
Classifications?
18
We
classify
emissions
data
as
normal
for
a
pollutant
if
the
available
information
indicates
that
the
test
was
run
under
operating
conditions
that
would
reflect
normal
operations.
For
example,
we
classify
risk
burns
(i.
e.,
emissions
testing
to
generate
emissions
data
to
perform
site­
specific
risk
assessments)
as
normal
for
all
pollutants
when
available
information
indicates
the
operating
conditions
were
normal.
We
classified
a
test
condition
as
``
in
between''
(IB)
for
a
pollutant
if
the
test
condition
was
a
compliance
test
(i.
e.,
trial
burn
or
certification
of
compliance
test)
for
the
pollutant
but
there
was
another
test
condition
(i.
e.,
WC
or
WC
HE)
with
higher
emissions.
We
classified
a
test
condition
as
``
unknown''
(U)
if
available
information
was
incomplete
to
classify
the
test
condition.
For
each
``
unknown''
classification,
we
indicate
the
information
we
need
to
classify
the
test
condition.
We
encourage
owners
and
operators
to
provide
the
information
and
supporting
documentation.
We
discuss
above
how
we
applied
the
``
not
applicable''
(NA)
classification
to
D/
F
data
for
sources
equipped
with
a
wet
or
no
APCD
and
D/
F
data
for
coalfired
boilers.
We
also
applied
the
NA
classification
to
the
following
situations:
(1)
Tests
conducted
prior
to
modifications
to
the
APCD,
because
emissions
data
prior
to
an
APCS
retrofit
may
not
be
representative
of
current
operations;
(2)
Miniburns,
research
tests,
demonstration
tests,
because
these
types
of
tests
are
generally
used
to
determine
emissions
under
modes
of
operation
that
may
not
be
representative
of
normal
or
worst­
case
operations;
(3)
Baseline
tests,
because
emissions
when
not
burning
hazardous
waste
are
not
relevant
to
establishing
a
MACT
standard
for
hazardous
waste
combustors;
(4)
Tests
where
not
all
metals
in
the
SVM
or
LVM
group
were
measured,
because
SVM
and
LVM
emissions
cannot
be
classified
as
worst­
case
or
normal
if
emissions
data
are
not
available
from
the
test
for
both
lead
and
cadmium
for
SVM,
and
for
arsenic,
beryllium,
and
chromium
for
LVM;
19
and
(5)
Tests
where
a
PM
run
exceeding
the
RCRA
emission
standard,
because,
if
a
PM
run
failed
the
0.08
gr/
dscf
RCRA
standard,
the
test
failed
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
RCRA
standards
and
the
test
could
not
be
used
to
establish
operating
limits.

C.
What
Classifications
Do
We
Use
to
Address
Sootblowing
by
Boilers?
Some
boilers
blow
soot
periodically
to
clean
the
steam
tubes
to
improve
the
energy
efficiency
of
the
boiler.
During
sootblowing,
emissions
of
PM
and
metals
can
increase
substantially.
To
account
for
the
impact
of
sootblowing
on
average
emissions
during
RCRA
compliance
testing,
we
advised
owners
and
operators
to
blow
soot
during
one
of
the
three
test
runs
whereby
the
potential
buildup
of
metals
and
PM
would
reflect
the
buildup
over
a
normal
operating
cycle.
20
We
also
provided
a
formula
for
calculating
average
emissions
accounting
for
the
frequency
and
duration
of
sootblowing
operations.
Some
boilers
did
not
blow
soot
during
testing,
some
were
silent
on
whether
they
blew
soot,
some
blew
soot
and
used
the
averaging
formula,
and
some
blew
soot
and
calculated
average
emissions
as
the
arithmetic
average
of
the
three
test
runs.
So
that
we
can
understand
how
each
source
handled
sootblowing
and
determine
how
best
to
account
for
sootblowing
in
developing
the
MACT
standards,
we
encourage
owners
and
operators
to
review
the
sootblowing
classification
we
assign
to
their
source
to
determine
if
it
is
accurate.
We
have
added
a
sootblowing
status
data
field
to
the
data
base
that
indicates:
(1)
The
sootblowing
run
(i.
e.,
R1,
R2,
or
R3);
or
(2)
``
No'',
indicating
the
boiler
does
not
blow
soot
during
normal
operations;
or
(3)
``
U''
(i.
e.,
unknown),
indicating
that
we
do
not
know
whether
the
boiler
blows
soot
during
normal
operations
or
whether
the
boiler
blew
soot
during
testing,
and,
if
so,
during
which
run.
For
test
conditions
classified
``
U'',
we
encourage
owners
and
operators
to
clarify
whether
the
boiler
blows
soot
during
normal
operations,
and
whether
the
boiler
blew
soot
during
the
test
condition
(and,
if
so,
during
which
run).

Dated:
June
20,
2002.
Elizabeth
A.
Cotsworth,
Director,
Office
of
Solid
Waste.
[FR
Doc.
02–
16643
Filed
7–
1–
02;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560–
50–
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL–
7238–
7]

Public
Notice
of
Final
NPDES
General
Permits
for
Facilities/
Operations
That
Generate,
Treat,
and/
or
Use/
Dispose
of
Sewage
Sludge
by
Means
of
Land
Application,
Landfill,
and
Surface
Disposal
in
EPA
Region
VIII
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(EPA).

ACTION:
Notice
of
issuance
of
NPDES
general
permits.

SUMMARY:
Region
VIII
of
EPA
is
hereby
giving
notice
of
its
issuance
of
the
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(NPDES)
general
permits
for
facilities
or
operations
that
generate,
treat,
and/
or
use/
dispose
of
sewage
sludge
by
means
of
land
application,
landfill,
and
surface
disposal
in
the
States
of
CO,
MT,
ND,
and
WY
and
in
Indian
country,
as
defined
at
18
U.
S.
C.
1151,
in
the
States
of
CO,
MT,
ND,
SD,
WY
and
UT
(except
for
the
Goshute
Indian
Reservation
and
the
Navajo
Indian
Reservation).
The
effective
date
of
the
general
permits
is
August
16,
2002.
The
NPDES
permit
numbers
and
the
areas
covered
by
each
general
permit
are
listed
below.

State
Permit
No.
Area
covered
by
the
general
permit
Colorado
.........................
COG650000
State
of
Colorado
except
for
Federal
Facilities
and
Indian
country
COG651000
Indian
country
within
the
State
of
Colorado
and
the
portions
of
the
Ute
Mountain
Indian
Reservation
located
within
the
States
of
New
Mexico
and
Utah.

VerDate
jun<
06>
2002
18:
10
Jul
01,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00043
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
02JYN1.
SGM
pfrm15
PsN:
02JYN1
