NESHAP: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors (Reconsideration), 52624-52653 [06-7251]
Download as PDF
52624
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 63, 264 and 266
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0022; FRL–8215–3]
RIN 2050–AG29
NESHAP: National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Standards for Hazardous Waste
Combustors (Reconsideration)
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: On October 12, 2005, EPA
promulgated national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants
(NESHAP) for new and existing
hazardous waste combustors.
Subsequently, the Administrator
received four petitions for
reconsideration of the final rule. In this
proposed rule, EPA is granting
reconsideration of and requesting
comment on several issues raised in the
petitions of the Cement Kiln Recycling
Coalition, the Coalition for Responsible
Waste Incineration, and the Sierra Club.
In addition, EPA is proposing several
amendments and corrections to the final
rule to clarify some compliance and
monitoring issues raised by several
entities affected by the final rule.
DATES: Comments. Written comments
must be received by October 23, 2006.
Public Hearing. A public hearing will
be held on September 21, 2006. For
further information on the public
hearing and requests to speak, see the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2004–0022, by one of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
• Fax: 202–566–1741.
• Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send
comments to: HQ EPA Docket Center
(6102T), Attention Docket ID No. EPA–
HQ–OAR–2004–0022, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Please include a
total of two copies. We request that you
also send a separate copy of each
comment to the contact person listed
below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
• Hand Delivery: In person or by
courier, deliver comments to: HQ EPA
Docket Center (6102T), Attention Docket
ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0022, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B–
108, Washington, DC 20004. Such
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:41 Sep 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket’s normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Please include a total of two copies. We
request that you also send a separate
copy of each comment to the contact
person listed below (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–
0022. The EPA’s policy is that all
comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and
may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comments include information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
the disclosure of which is restricted by
statute. Do not submit information that
you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or e-mail. Send or deliver information
identified as CBI to only the following
address: Ms. LaShan Haynes, RCRA
Document Control Officer, EPA (Mail
Code 5305W), Attention Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0022, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC,
20460. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. 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.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
We also request that interested parties
who would like information they
previously submitted to EPA to be
considered as part of this
reconsideration action identify the
relevant information by docket entry
numbers and page numbers.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information
the disclosure of which is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the HQ EPA Docket Center, Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0022, EPA
West Building, Room B–102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20004. This Docket Facility is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The HQ EPA Docket Center
telephone number is (202) 566–1742.
The Public Reading Room is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566–1744. A
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying docket materials.
Note: The EPA Docket Center suffered
damage due to flooding during the last week
of June 2006. The Docket Center is
continuing to operate. However, during the
cleanup, there will be temporary changes to
Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses,
and hours of operation for people who wish
to make hand deliveries or visit the Public
Reading Room to view documents. Consult
EPA’s Federal Register notice at 71 FR 38147
(July 5, 2006) or the EPA Web site at
https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
for current information on docket operations,
locations and telephone numbers. The
Docket Center’s mailing address for U.S. mail
and the procedure for submitting comments
to www.regulations.gov are not affected by
the flooding and will remain the same.
Public Hearing. The public hearing
will run from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Eastern
standard time, and will be held at the
Two Potomac Yard building, 2733 S.
Crystal Drive, Arlington, Virginia,
22202. Persons interested in attending
the hearing or wishing to present oral
testimony should notify Mr. Frank
Behan at least 2 days in advance of the
public hearing (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble). The public hearing will
provide interested parties the
opportunity to present data, views, or
arguments concerning this notice. If no
one contacts Mr. Behan in advance of
the hearing with a request to present
oral testimony at the hearing, we will
cancel the hearing. The record for this
action will remain open for 30 days after
the date of the hearing to accommodate
submittal of information related to the
public hearing.
E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM
06SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules
For
more information on this rulemaking,
contact Frank Behan at (703) 308–8476,
or behan.frank@epa.gov, Office of Solid
Waste (MC: 5302W), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Outline. The information presented in
this preamble is organized as follows:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
I. General Information
A. Does This Proposed Rule Apply to Me?
B. How Do I Obtain a Copy of This
Document and Other Related
Information?
C. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My
Comments for EPA?
II. Background
III. Summary of This Action
IV. Discussion of Issues Subject to
Reconsideration
A. Subcategorization of Liquid Fuel Boilers
by Heating Value
B. Correcting Total Chlorine (TCl) Data to
20 ppmv
C. Use of PS–11 and Procedure 2 as
Guidance for Extrapolating the Alarm
Set-Point of a Particulate Matter
Detection System (PMDS)
D. Tie-Breaking Procedure for New Source
Standards
E. Beyond-the-Floor Analyses to Consider
Multiple HAP That Are Similarly
Controlled
F. Dioxin/Furan Standard for Incinerators
With Dry Air Pollution Control Devices
G. Provisions of the Health-Based
Compliance Alternative
V. Other Proposed Amendments
A. Sunset Provision for the Interim
Standards
B. Operating Parameter Limits for Sources
With Fabric Filters
C. Confirmatory Performance Testing Not
Required for Sources That Are Not
Subject to a Numerical Dioxin/Furan
Emission Standard
D. Periodic Performance Tests for Phase I
Sources
E. Performance Test Waiver for Sources
Subject to Hazardous Waste Thermal
Concentration Limits
F. Averaging Method When Calculating 12Hour Rolling Average Thermal
Concentration Limits
G. Calculating Rolling Averages for
Averaging Periods in Excess of 12 Hours
H. Calculating Rolling Averages
I. Timing of the Periodic Review of
Eligibility for the Health-Based
Compliance Alternatives for Total
Chlorine
J. Expressing Particulate Matter Standards
Using the International System of Units
(SI)
K. Mercury Standards for Cement Kilns
L. Facilities Operating Under RCRA
Interim Status
VI. Revised Time Lines
VII. Technical Corrections and Other
Clarification
A. What Typographical Errors Would We
Correct?
B. What Citations Would We Correct?
C. Corrections to the NIC Provisions for
New Units
D. Clarification of the Applicability of Title
V Permit Requirements to Phase 2 Area
Sources
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
I. General Information
A. Does This Proposed Rule Apply to
Me?
Categories and entities potentially
affected by this action include:
NAICS code
Any industry that combusts hazardous waste as
defined in the final rule.
562211 ...................
4953
Incinerator, hazardous waste.
327310 ...................
327992 ...................
3241
3295
325 .........................
324 .........................
331 .........................
333 .........................
488, 561, 562 ........
421 .........................
422 .........................
512, 541, 561, 812
512, 514, 541, 711
924 .........................
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Category
28
29
33
38
49
50
51
73
89
95
Cement manufacturing, clinker production.
Ground or treated mineral and earth manufacturing.
Chemical Manufacturers.
Petroleum Refiners.
Primary Aluminum.
Photographic equipment and supplies.
Sanitary Services, N.E.C.
Scrap and waste materials.
Chemical and Allied Products, N.E.C.
Business Services, N.E.C.
Services, N.E.C.
Air, Water and Solid Waste Management.
This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
impacted by this action. This table lists
examples of the types of entities EPA is
now aware could potentially be
regulated by this action. Other types of
entities not listed could also be affected.
To determine whether your facility,
company, business, organization, etc., is
affected by this action, you should
examine the applicability criteria in 40
CFR 63.1200. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action
to a particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:41 Sep 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
SIC code
52625
Examples of potentially regulated entities
B. How Do I Obtain a Copy of This
Document and Other Related
Information?
In addition to being available in the
docket, an electronic copy of today’s
proposed rule will also be available on
the Worldwide Web (WWW). Following
the Administrator’s signature, a copy of
this document will be posted on the
WWW at https://www.epa.gov/hwcmact.
This Web site also provides other
information related to the NESHAP for
hazardous waste combustors.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
C. What Should I Consider as I Prepare
My Comments for EPA?
Submitting CBI. Do not submit this
information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information
that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD ROM that
you mail to EPA, 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
claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that
includes information claimed as CBI, a
copy of the comment that does not
E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM
06SEP2
52626
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
contain the information claimed as CBI
must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
Tips for Preparing Your Comments.
When submitting comments, remember
to:
• Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
• Follow directions—The agency may
ask you to respond to specific questions
or organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
or section number.
• Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as
possible.
• Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. Background
Section 112 of the CAA requires that
we establish NESHAP for the control of
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from
both new and existing major sources.
Major sources of HAP are those
stationary sources or groups of
stationary sources that are located
within a contiguous area under common
control that emit or have the potential
to emit considering controls, in the
aggregate, 10 tons per year (tpy) or more
of any one HAP or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP. The CAA requires
the NESHAP to reflect the maximum
degree of reduction in emissions of HAP
that is achievable. This level of control
is commonly referred to as MACT (for
Maximum Achievable Control
Technology). See CAA section 112(d)(2).
The so-called MACT floor is the
minimum control level allowed for
NESHAP and is defined under section
112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the
MACT floor ensures that the standards
are set at a level that assures that all
major sources achieve the level of
control at least as stringent as that
already achieved by the bettercontrolled and lower-emitting sources
in each source category or subcategory.
For new sources, the MACT floor cannot
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:41 Sep 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
be less stringent than the emission
control that is achieved in practice by
the best-controlled similar source. The
MACT standards for existing sources
can be less stringent than standards for
new sources, but they cannot be less
stringent than the average emission
limitation achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of existing
sources in the category or subcategory
for which the Administrator has
emissions information (where there are
30 or more sources in a category or
subcategory).
In developing MACT standards, we
also must consider control options that
are more stringent than the floor. We
may establish standards more stringent
than the floor based on the
consideration of the cost of achieving
the emissions reductions, any health
and environmental impacts, and energy
requirements. See CAA section
112(d)(2). We call these standards
beyond-the-floor standards.
We proposed NESHAP for hazardous
waste combustors on April 20, 2004 (69
FR 21198), and we published the final
rule on October 12, 2005 (70 FR 59402).
The preamble for the proposed rule
described the rationale for the proposed
rule and solicited public comments. We
received over 75 public comment letters
on the proposed hazardous waste
combustor rule. Comments were
submitted by industry trade
associations, owners and operators of
hazardous waste combustors,
environmental groups, and State
regulatory agencies and their
representatives. We summarized the
major public comments on the proposed
rule and our responses to public
comments in the preamble to the final
rule and in a separate, supporting
‘‘response to comments’’ document. See
70 FR at 59426 and docket items EPA–
HQ–OAR–2004–0022–0437 through
0445.
Following promulgation of the
hazardous waste combustor final rule,
the Administrator received four
petitions for reconsideration, pursuant
to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, from
Ash Grove Cement Company, the
Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition
(CKRC), the Coalition for Responsible
Waste Incineration (CRWI), and the
Sierra Club.1 Under this section of the
CAA, the Administrator must initiate
reconsideration proceedings with
respect to provisions that are of central
relevance to the rule at issue if the
petitioner shows that it was
impracticable to raise an objection to a
rule within the public comment period
or that the grounds for the objection
arose after the public comment period
but within the period for filing petitions
for judicial review.
On March 23, 2006, EPA published a
proposed rule granting reconsideration
of one issue—the particulate matter
(PM) standard for new cement kilns—
raised in the petitions of Ash Grove
Cement Company and CKRC. See 71 FR
14665. We intend to take final action on
this reconsideration issue as
expeditiously as possible.
1 These petitions are included in the docket for
this proposal. See items EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–
0022–0516 thru 0519. EPA also received petitions
from Ash Grove Cement Company and the CKRC,
Continental Cement Company, and Giant Cement
Holding, Inc. requesting that we stay the effective
date of the particulate matter standard for new
cement kilns. See items EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–
0022–0521 and 0523. In a notice published on
March 23, 2006, EPA granted a temporary threemonth administrative stay while the particulate
matter standard is under reconsideration. See 71 FR
14655. In addition, five petitions for judicial review
of the final rule were filed with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by the
following entities: Ash Grove Cement Company,
CKRC, CRWI, the Environmental Technology
Council, and the Sierra Club.
2 Ash Grove Cement Company also submitted to
EPA a petition for reconsideration. Ash Grove
Cement’s petition incorporated by reference the
petition of the CKRC.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
III. Summary of This Action
In today’s notice, we are granting
reconsideration of certain issues raised
by petitioners. We summarize below our
responses to petitions for
reconsideration and provide detailed
discussions in Section IV of this
preamble of the petitions we are
granting. We also are today proposing
other amendments to correct or clarify
provisions of the final rule. See
discussion in Section V of the preamble.
We also are presenting revised pictorial
time lines (from those provided in the
final rule) that highlight various
milestones of the MACT compliance
process. See discussion in Section VI of
the preamble. Finally, we are providing
advance notice of technical corrections
that we plan to promulgate when we
take final action on the amendments
proposed today. See discussion in
Section VI below.
We are granting reconsideration of
several issues (that are of central
relevance to the rule’s outcome) raised
by Sierra Club, the Cement Kiln
Recycling Coalition (CKRC),2 and the
Coalition for Responsible Waste
Incineration (CRWI). Accordingly, we
are requesting comment on specific
provisions of Subpart EEE of 40 CFR
part 63: (1) Subcategorization of liquid
fuel boilers; (2) correcting total chlorine
emissions data below 20 ppmv; (3) use
of PS–11 as a reference to develop alarm
set-point extrapolation procedures for
particulate matter detection systems
E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM
06SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
(PMDS); (4) approach to identify the
best performing single source when two
or more sources are tied for the lowest
aggregate SRE/feedrate score; (5)
beyond-the-floor analyses to consider
multiple HAP that are controlled by a
single control mechanism; (6) use of
post-proposal data to identify the
dioxin/furan standard for incinerators
with dry air pollution control devices or
waste heat boilers; and (7) three
provisions of the health-based
compliance alternative for total
chlorine. See discussion of these topics
in Section IV below.
We are proposing changes to several
other provisions in light of petitioners’
concerns or upon our own review, and
also are requesting comment on these
proposed changes.
We are not reconsidering the
remaining issues raised by Sierra Club
and CKRC 3 and have included in the
docket to this rulemaking letters
explaining our rationale to deny
reconsideration. In summary:
1. We deny Sierra Club’s petition
regarding our use of normal emissions
data, in addition to compliance test and
in-between data, in the regression
analysis to calculate the baghouse
universal variability factor (UVF) for
particulate matter. Among other things,
including normal data results in
imputing a lower standard deviation for
particulate matter emissions variability,
rather than a higher standard deviation
as Sierra Club incorrectly surmised.
2. We deny CKRC’s petition regarding
its concern that subcategorizing liquid
fuel boilers using a waste heating value
criterion of 10,000 Btu/lb to distinguish
between boilers that are burning waste
entirely for energy recovery versus
boilers that are burning waste fuels at
least in part for treatment is inconsistent
with the Agency’s policy 4 that wastes
with a heating value greater than 5,000
Btu/lb are burned for energy recovery.
The 5,000 Btu/lb criterion for burning
3 Note that, as discussed in Section II above, we
previously granted CKRC’s request to reconsider the
particulate matter standard for new cement kilns
given that new data indicate the single best
performing source could not achieve the new
source standard. Accordingly, we issued a stay of
the new source standard for particulate matter for
cement kilns (71 FR 14655 (March 23, 2006)) and
proposed to revise the new source standard for
particulate matter for cement kilns and make
corresponding revisions to the new source
standards for incinerators and liquid fuel boilers (71
FR 14665 (March 23, 2006)).
4 See 48 FR at 49166–167 (March 16, 1983). Note
that we discuss in Section IV.A.2 below that, under
the policy, we presume wastes with a heating value
of 5,000 Btu/lb or greater are burned for energy
recovery in a boiler or industrial furnace and
acknowledge that sources may be able to document
that wastes with a heating value below 5,000 Btu/
lb are also burned for energy recovery in particular
situations.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:41 Sep 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
for energy recovery is a policy providing
guidance on when combustors are
considered to burn hazardous waste as
fuel that carries specific regulatory
implications. This criterion is not in any
way affected by the 10,000 Btu/lb
criterion for subcategorizing liquid fuel
burners to establish MACT standards.
The 10,000 Btu/lb criterion divides
liquid fuel burners into two categories
based on the heating value of the
hazardous waste they burn, and is in no
way intended to replace the
longstanding 5,000 Btu/lb criterion for
energy recovery.
3. We deny Sierra Club’s petitions to
reconsider the following provisions
because the additional reasons we
provide in the final rule to support the
provisions, or the information we use to
support the provision, are corroborative
of information and rationales already
presented for public comment at
proposal and therefore do not justify
reconsideration. The additional reasons
embellish the rationale we presented at
proposal, generally in response to
comments.
• Use of particulate matter as a
surrogate for nonenumerated metals;
• Use of CO/HC as a surrogate for
dioxin/furan and as a surrogate for nondioxin/furan organic HAP for Phase II
sources
• Use of variability factors in setting
MACT Floors;
• Approach to establishing the
dioxin/furan standard for cement kilns
and for incinerators equipped with a
wet particulate matter air pollution
control device or no air pollution
control device;
• Subcategorization of incinerators to
establish separate dioxin/furan
standards for incinerators equipped
with a dry particulate matter air
pollution control device and those
without a dry particulate matter air
pollution control device;
• Approach to establishing the
mercury standard for cement kilns using
waste concentration data;
• Approach to evaluating a beyondthe-floor standard for total chlorine for
cement kilns; and
• Decision not to promulgate beyondthe-floor standards for total chlorine for
lightweight aggregate kilns and solid
fuel boilers using dry scrubbing.
4. We deny Sierra Club’s petition that
we reconsider the use of CO/HC as
surrogates for non-dioxin/furan organic
HAP for Phase I sources in this
rulemaking. As we explained at
proposal, we view the carbon monoxide,
hydrocarbon, and destruction and
removal efficiency standards as
unaffected by the Court’s vacature of the
September 1999 ‘‘challenged
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
52627
regulations’’ (see Cement Kiln Recycling
Coalition v. EPA, 255 F. 3d 855, 872
(D.C. Cir. 2001)) for Phase I sources,
since these rules were not challenged.
See 69 FR at 21221. We therefore did
not repropose those standards, and did
not consider comments that they be
revised as part of this rulemaking.5
IV. Discussion of Issues Subject to
Reconsideration
Stakeholders who would like for us to
reconsider comments they submitted to
us previously and that are relevant to
the reconsideration issues presented
below should identify the relevant
docket entry numbers and page numbers
of their comments to facilitate
expeditious review during the
reconsideration process. We plan to take
final action on today’s reconsideration
as expeditiously as possible.
A. Subcategorization of Liquid Fuel
Boilers by Heating Value
In the final rule, we redefined the
liquid fuel boiler subcategory into two
separate boiler subcategories based on
the heating value of the hazardous waste
they burn: Those that burn waste with
a heating value below 10,000 Btu/lb,
and those that burn hazardous waste
with a heating value of 10,000 Btu/lb or
greater. See 70 FR at 59422. Sources
would shift from one subcategory to the
other depending on the heating value of
the hazardous waste burned at the time.
Id. at 59476.
Sierra Club petitioned for
reconsideration stating that EPA
developed this subcategorization
approach after the period for public
comment and, thus, did not provide
notice and opportunity for public
comment.6 We are granting
reconsideration of this provision
because we determined that
subcategorization of liquid fuel boilers
was appropriate in response to
comments on the proposed rule, after
the period for public comment as Sierra
Club states. Furthermore,
subcategorization significantly impacted
the development of the emission
standards for liquid fuel boilers.
Consequently, we are accepting further
comment on this approach to
subcategorization but are not proposing
to change the approach. We believe the
5 Sierra Club has also filed a petition for judicial
review that challenges the use of CO/HC as a
surrogate for non-dioxin/furan for Phase II sources.
Although we believe this surrogate approach is
appropriate, if our position is not upheld we would
rethink this surrogate approach for Phase I sources
as well because the rationale is the same for all
hazardous waste combustor source categories.
6 See letter from James Pew to Stephen Johnson,
dated December 12, 2005, Section II, docket item
EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0022–0517.
E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM
06SEP2
52628
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
subcategorization approach is warranted
for the reasons provided in the final rule
and restate them below. Nonetheless,
we are open to comment and will
determine whether a change is
warranted.
1. Rationale for Subcategorization
We explained in the final rule that we
selected normalizing parameters for
emission standards that best fit the
input to the combustion device. See 70
FR at 59451. We used 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)
where hazardous waste is being used in
energy-recovery devices as a fuel. This
avoided the necessity of subcategorizing
based on unit size.
At proposal we used the thermal
emissions format for the liquid fuel
boiler standards. See 69 FR at 21283.
Commenters on the proposed rule
pointed out, however, that some liquid
fuel boilers burn lower Btu hazardous
waste because that is the only waste
available, and those boilers with waste
that has a low heating value are, in their
words, ‘‘penalized,’’ compared to those
boilers with waste that has 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 all liquid fuel boiler standards
were 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. See 70 FR at
59475. These measures would be
problematic, however. Increasing the
waste fuel heating value or decreasing
the mass concentration of HAP in the
waste is generally not possible because
boilers burn the waste generated by
their facility—they are not commercial
combustion units. Decreasing the mass
emission rate of HAP by increasing the
system removal efficiency would
require boilers burning lower heating
value waste to incur costs to control
HAP mass emission rates to levels lower
than required for boilers at facilities that
happen to generate waste with a 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 may be serving in part as a
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:41 Sep 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
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), 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 the final rule.)
Given these concerns, we 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 the same parameter used for the
other hazardous waste treatment
devices, gas flow rate, so that the
standard would be 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 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 subcategory. (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 standards apply. When
the source is burning at least in part for
thermal destruction, then the
concentration based standard 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 that are
sufficiently different to warrant separate
classification.
2. Selection of the Heating Value
Threshold
We next considered what an
appropriate as-fired heating value
would be for each liquid fuel boiler
subcategory and adopted a value of
10,000 Btu/lb as the threshold for
subcategorization. This is approximately
the heating value of commercial liquid
fossil fuels. See 63 FR at 33782, 33788
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(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 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 liquid waste
fuel being burned at cement kilns and
lightweight aggregate kilns, that burn
hazardous waste fuels to drive the
process chemistry to produce products,
to cross-check whether 10,000 Btu/lb is
a reasonable demarcation value for
subcategorizing liquid fuel boilers for
the purposes of this MACT. We
observed that 10,000 Btu/lb in practice
is the minimum heating value (or close
to the minimum value) found in burn
tank and test report data we have for
cement kilns and lightweight aggregate
kilns.7 Therefore, we believe the cement
kiln and light weight aggregate kiln data
confirm that this is an appropriate
cutpoint for subcategorizing boilers,
since cement kilns and lightweight
aggregate kilns 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.
The regulatory language
implementing this subcategorization
approach is provided in
§§ 63.1209(l)(1)(ii), 63.1209(n)(2)(v),
63.1209(o)(1)(ii), and 63.1217.
B. Correcting Total Chlorine (TCl) Data
to 20 ppmv
In the final rule, we corrected all the
total chlorine measurements in the data
base that were below 20 ppmv to
account for potential systemic negative
biases in the Method 0050 data. See 70
7 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.
E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM
06SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
FR at 59427–29.8 Sierra Club petitioned
for reconsideration stating that EPA
corrected the total chlorine
measurements in response to comments
on the proposed rule—after the period
for public comment—and used the
corrected data to revise the total
chlorine emission standards.9
We are granting reconsideration of our
approach to account for these method
biases to assess the true performance of
the best performing sources.
Reconsideration is appropriate because,
as Sierra Club states, we determined to
correct the total chlorine data after the
period for public comment on the
proposed rule, and correcting the data
significantly impacted the development
of the total chlorine emission standards.
To account for the bias in the method,
we corrected all total chlorine emissions
data that were below 20 ppmv to 20
ppmv. We accounted for within-test
condition emissions variability for the
corrected data by imputing a standard
deviation that is based on a regression
analysis of run-to-run standard
deviation versus emission concentration
for all data above 20 ppmv. This
approach of using a regression analysis
to impute a standard deviation is similar
to the approach we used to account for
total variability (i.e., test-to-test and
within test variability) of PM emissions
for sources that use fabric filters.
Under today’s reconsideration notice,
we are accepting further comment on
this approach to address method bias
but are not proposing to change the
approach. We believe this data
correction approach is warranted for the
reasons provided in the final rule and
restate them below. Nonetheless, we are
open to comment and will determine
whether a change is warranted.
1. Effect of Moisture Vapor
Commenters on the proposed rule
implied that stack gas with high levels
of gas phase water vapor will inherently
have the potential to be biased low,
particularly at emissions less than 20
ppmv. We concluded that there is no
basis for claiming that water vapor, per
se, causes a bias in SW–846 Method
0050 or its equivalent, Method 26A.
Condensed moisture (i.e., water
droplets), however, can cause a bias
because it can dissolve hydrogen
chloride in the sampling train and
prevent it from being captured in the
impingers if the sampling train is not
properly purged. Water droplets can
8 See also USEPA, ‘‘Technical Support Document
for HWC MACT Standards, Volume III: Selection of
MACT Standards,’’ Section 5.5, September 2005.
9 See letter from James Pew to Stephen Johnson,
dated December 12, 2005, Section IV, docket item
EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0022–0517.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:41 Sep 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
potentially be present due to
entrainment from the wet scrubber,
condensation in cooler regions of the
stack along the stack walls, and
entrainment from condensed moisture
dripping down the stack wall across the
inlet duct opening.
Although Method 0050 addresses the
water droplet issue by use of a cyclone
and 45 minute purge, a study by
Steger 10 concludes that a 45 minute
purge is not adequate to evaporate all
water collected by the cyclone in stacks
with a total moisture content (vapor and
condensed moisture) of 7 to 9%. At
those moisture levels, Steger
documented the negative bias that
commenters reference. See 70 FR at
59427. Steger’s recommendation was to
increase the heat input to the sample
train by increasing the train and filter
temperature from 120 °C (248 °F) to 200
°C (392 °F). We agree that increasing the
probe and filter temperature will
provide a better opportunity to
evaporate any condensed moisture, but
another solution to the problem is to
require that the post-test purge be run
long enough to evaporate all condensed
moisture. That is the approach used by
Method 26A, that EPA promulgated
after Method 0050, and that sources
must use to demonstrate compliance
with the final standards. Method 26A
uses an extended purge time rather than
elevating the train temperature to
address condensed moisture because
that approach can be implemented by
the stack tester at the site without using
nonstandard equipment.
We attempted to quantify the level of
condensed moisture in the Steger study
and to compare it to the levels of
condensed moisture that may be present
in hazardous waste combustor stack gas.
This would provide an indication if the
bias that Steger quantified with a 45
minute purge might also be applicable
to some hazardous waste combustors.
We concluded that this comparison
would be problematic, however,
because: (1) Given the limited
information available in the Steger
paper, it is difficult to quantify the level
of condensed moisture in his gas
samples; and (2) we cannot estimate the
levels of condensed moisture in
hazardous waste combustor stack gas
because, even though condensed
moisture may have been present during
a test, method protocol is to report the
saturation moisture level only (i.e., the
amount of water vapor present), and not
10 Steger, J.L., et al., ‘‘Laboratory Evaluation of
Method 0050 for Hydrogen Chloride’’, Proc of 13th
Annual Incineration Conference, Houston, TX, May
1994.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
52629
the total moisture content (i.e., both
condensed and vapor phase moisture).
We did conclude, however, that, if
hazardous waste combustor stack gas
were to contain the levels of condensed
moisture present in the gas that Steger
tested, the 45 minute purge required by
Method 0050 would not be sufficient to
avoid a negative bias. We also
concluded that this is potentially a
practical issue and not merely a
theoretical concern because, as
commenters note, hazardous waste
combustors that use wet scrubbers are
often saturated with water vapor that
will condense if the flue gas cools.
2. Data From Wet Stacks When a
Cyclone Was Not Used
The data for total chlorine underlying
EPA’s proposal came exclusively from
compliance testing. Commenters on the
proposed rule stated that Method 0050
procedures for addressing water
droplets (adequate or not, as discussed
above) were not followed in many cases
because a low bias below 20 ppmv was
not relevant to demonstrating
compliance with standards on the order
of 100 ppmv. We do not know which
data sets may be problematic because, as
previously stated, the moisture
concentration reported was often the
saturation (vapor phase only) moisture
level and not the total (vapor and liquid)
moisture in the flue gas. We also have
no documentation that a cyclone was
used—even in situations where the
moisture content was documented to be
above the dew point. We therefore
concluded that all data below 20 ppmv
from sources controlled with a wet
scrubber are suspect and should be
corrected.
3. Potential Bias Due to Filter Affinity
for Hydrogen Chloride
Studies by the American Society of
Testing and Materials indicate that the
filter used in the Method 0050 train
(and the M26/26A trains) may adsorb/
absorb hydrogen chloride and cause a
negative bias at low emission levels.
(See ASTM D6735–01, section 11.1.3
and ‘‘note 2’’ of section 14.2.3.) This
inherent affinity for hydrogen chloride
can be satisfied by preconditioning the
sampling train for one hour. None of the
tests in our database were
preconditioned in such a manner.
We are normally not concerned about
this type of bias because we would
expect the bias to apply to all sources
equally (e.g., wet or dry gas) and for all
subsequent compliance tests. In other
words, we are ordinarily less concerned
if a standard is based on biased data, as
long as the means by which the
standard was developed and the means
E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM
06SEP2
52630
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules
of compliance would experience
identical bias (since the level of control
would be reflected accurately).
However, because we corrected the wet
gas measurements below 20 ppmv to
address the potential low bias caused by
condensed moisture, this correction also
corrected for any potential bias caused
by the filter’s inherent affinity for
hydrogen chloride. This resulted in a
data set that is only partially corrected
for this issue—sources with wet stacks
were corrected for this potential bias
while sources with dry stacks were not
corrected. To address this unacceptable
mix of potentially biased and unbiased
data (i.e., dry gas data biased due to
affinity of filter for hydrogen chloride
and wet gas data corrected for
condensed moisture and affinity of filter
for hydrogen chloride), we also
corrected total chlorine measurements
from dry gas stacks (i.e., sources that do
not use wet scrubbers).
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
4. Deposition of Alkaline Particulate on
the Filter
Commenters on the proposed rule
were also concerned that hydrogen
chloride may react with alkaline
compounds from the scrubber water
droplets that are collected on the filter
ahead of the impingers. Commenters
suggested this potential cause for a low
bias at total chlorine levels below 20
ppmv is another reason not to use
measurements below 20 ppmv to
establish the standards. Although
alkaline particulate deposition on the
method filter causing a negative bias is
a much greater concern for sources that
have stack gas containing high levels of
alkaline particulate (e.g., cement kilns,
sources equipped with dry scrubbers),
we agreed with commenters that this
may be of concern for all sources
equipped with wet scrubbers. Our
approach to correct all data below 20
ppmv addressed this concern.
5. Decision Unique to Hazardous Waste
Combustors
We note that the rationale for
correcting total chlorine data below 20
ppmv to account for the biases
discussed above is unique to the
hazardous waste combustor MACT rule.
Some sources apparently did not follow
Method 0050 procedures to minimize
the low bias caused by condensed
moisture for understandable reasons.
Even if sources had followed Method
0050 procedures to minimize the bias
(i.e., cyclone and 45 minute purge) there
still may have been a substantial bias
because of insufficient purge time, as
Steger’s work may indicate. We note
that the total chlorine stack test method
used by sources other than hazardous
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:41 Sep 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
waste combustors—Method 26A—
requires that the cyclone and sampling
train be purged until all condensed
moisture is evaporated. We believed it
was necessary to correct our data below
20 ppmv data because of issues
associated exclusively with Method
0050 and how it was used to
demonstrate compliance with these
sources.
6. Determining Variability for Data at 20
ppmv
Correcting those total chlorine data
below 20 ppmv to 20 ppmv brought
about a situation identical to the one we
confronted with nondetect data. See 70
FR at 59464–66. The corrected
emissions data for the MACT pool of
best performing source(s) were now
generally the same values—20 ppmv.
This had the effect of understating the
variability associated with these data.
To address this concern, we took an
approach similar to the one we used to
determine variability of PM emissions
for sources equipped with a fabric filter.
In that case, we performed a linear
regression on the data, charting
variability against emissions, and used
the variability that resulted from the
linear regression analysis as the
variability for the sources’ average
emissions. In this case, most or all of the
incinerator and liquid fuel boiler
sources in the MACT pool had
(corrected) average emissions of TCl at
or near 20 ppmv. We therefore
performed a linear regression on the
total chlorine data charting average test
condition results above 20 ppmv against
the variability associated with that test
condition. The variability associated
with 20 ppmv was the variability we
used for incinerator and liquid fuel
boiler data sets affected by the 20 ppmv
correction.
We also considered using the
statistical imputation approach we used
for nondetect values. See 70 FR at
59464. The statistical imputation
approach for correcting data below 20
ppmv without dampening variability
would involve imputing a value
between the reported value and 20
ppmv because the ‘‘true’’ value of the
biased data would lie in this interval.
This approach would be problematic,
however, given that many of the
reported values were much lower than
20 ppmv; our statistical imputation
approach would tend to overestimate
the run to run variability. Consequently,
we concluded that a regression analysis
approach would be more appropriate. A
regression analysis is particularly
pertinent in this situation because: (1)
We consider data above 20 ppmv used
to develop the regression to be
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
unbiased; and (2) all the corrected data
averages for which we imputed a
standard deviation from the regression
curve are at or near 20 ppmv. Thus, any
potential concern about downward
extrapolation from the regression was
minimized.
We note that, although a regression
analysis is appropriate to estimate runto-run variability for the corrected total
chlorine data, we could not use a linear
regression analysis to address variability
of nondetect values. To estimate a
standard deviation from a regression
analysis, we would need to know the
test condition average emissions. This
would not be feasible, however, because
some or all of the run measurements for
a test condition are nondetect. In
addition, we were concerned that a
regression analysis would not accurately
estimate the standard deviation at low
emission levels because we would have
to extrapolate the regression downward
to levels where we have few measured
data (i.e., data other than nondetect).
Moreover, the statistical imputation
approach is more suitable for handling
nondetects because the approach
calculates the run-to-run variability by
taking into account the percent
nondetect for the emissions for each
run.11 A regression approach would be
difficult to apply particularly in the case
of test conditions containing partial
nondetects or a mix of detect and
nondetect values. Given these concerns
with using a regression analysis to
estimate the standard deviation of test
conditions with runs that have one or
more nondetect (or partial nondetect)
measurements, we concluded that the
statistical imputation approach best
assures that the calculated floor levels
account for run-to-run emissions
variability.
C. Use of PS–11 and Procedure 2 as
Guidance for Extrapolating the Alarm
Set-Point of a Particulate Matter
Detection System (PMDS)
Petitioner CKRC asks that EPA
reconsider its references to Performance
Specification 11 (PS–11) and Procedure
2 in the particulate matter detection
system (PMDS) provisions of the final
rule. We are granting reconsideration
because we developed the procedures
for extrapolating the alarm set-point for
PMDS, that included references to PS–
11 and Procedure 2, in response to
comments on the proposed rule and
after the period for public comment. See
70 FR at 59490.
11 For multi-constituent HAP (e.g., semi-volatile
metals) the emissions for a run could be comprised
of fully detected values for some HAP and detection
limits for other HAP that were nondetect.
E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM
06SEP2
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules
CKRC also states that the reference to
PS–11 for particulate matter CEMS (40
CFR part 60, appendix B) and Procedure
2 (Appendix F, Part 60) for use as
guidance to implement provisions to
extrapolate the alarm set-point of a
PMDS may effectively prevent its
members from utilizing this option due
to significant technical difficulties and
excessive costs.12 See
§ 63.1206(c)(9)(iii)(B). CKRC further
states that PS–11 and Procedure 2
contain a number of problems as they
would apply to cement kilns. CKRC’s
petition does not identify any such
problems or technical difficulties,
however, and only notes that it has filed
a petition for review in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
challenging EPA’s final rule adopting
PS–11 and Procedure 2, which case is
being held in abeyance.
Finally, CKRC states that use of a
regression analysis approach to
extrapolate the alarm set-point is not
justified or necessary to establish an
approximate correlation between the
particulate matter detector system
response and particulate matter
concentrations. CKRC suggests that an
alternative approach would be based on
a linear relationship passing through
zero and the mean of the PM
comprehensive performance test results.
When we reviewed the procedures in
the final rule for establishing the setpoint in light of CKRC’s concerns
regarding use of a regression analysis to
extrapolate the set-point and use of PS–
11 and Procedure 2 as guidance, we
identified several shortcomings of the
final rule: (1) More than the required
five test runs would be needed to
perform a meaningful statistical analysis
of alternative correlation models to
identify the most appropriate model; (2)
a general reference to use PS–11 and
Procedure 2 as guidance is overly broad
given that those provisions pertain to
PM continuous emissions monitors
(CEMS) and would not be applicable to
PMDS absent a specific PMDS
requirement; and (3) the final rule
contemplated establishing the set-point
after the comprehensive performance
test and, thus, did not provide for
operations under the Documentation of
Compliance. Consequently, we are
today proposing to revise the provisions
for establishing the alarm set-point by
extrapolation by: (1) Adding procedures
to establish the alarm set-point for
operations under the Documentation of
12 See letter from David P. Novello to Stephen L.
Johnson regarding ‘‘Petition for Reconsideration of
Certain Provisions of Hazardous Waste Combustor
MACT Replacement Standards Rule,’’ dated
December 9, 2005, p. 9, docket item EPA–HQ–
OAR–2004–0022–0520.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:41 Sep 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
Compliance; (2) revising procedures to
extrapolate the alarm set-point for
operations under the Notification of
Compliance; and (3) providing specific
rather than generic references to PS–11
and Procedure 2 provisions that must be
followed to extrapolate the alarm setpoint.
1. Summary of the PMDS Provisions in
the Final Rule
The final rule established revised
procedures for establishing the alarm
set-point if you elect to use a particulate
matter detector system (PMDS) in lieu of
site-specific operating parameter limits
for compliance assurance 13 for sources
equipped with electrostatic precipitators
and ionizing wet scrubbers, and in lieu
of a bag leak detection system for
sources equipped with a baghouse. See
70 FR at 59424 and 59490–91, and
§ 63.1206(c)(9).14 The rule explicitly
allows you to maximize controllable
operating parameters during the
comprehensive performance test to
account for emissions variability by, for
example, detuning the air pollution
control device (APCD) or spiking ash to
establish an alarm set-point that should
be routinely achievable considering
controllable parameters. If you elect to
use a PMDS, the rule requires you to
establish the set-point either as the
average of the test condition run average
detector responses during the
comprehensive performance test or as
the extrapolation of the detector
response after approximating the
correlation between the detector
response and particulate matter
emission concentrations. You may
extrapolate the detector response up to
a response value that corresponds to
50% of the particulate matter emission
standard or 125% of the highest
particulate matter concentration used to
develop the correlation, whichever is
greater. To establish an approximate
correlation of the detector response to
particulate matter emission
concentrations, the rule recommends
that you use as guidance Performance
Specification-11 for particulate matter
CEMS (40 CFR part 60, appendix B),
except that you need conduct only 5
runs to establish the initial correlation
rather than a minimum of 15 runs
required by PS–11. The final rule also
recommends that, for quality assurance,
you should use Procedure 2 of
13 That is, assurance of compliance with the PM
emission standard by continuous monitoring of a
surrogate parameter—PMDS detector response in
this case—for PM emission concentrations.
14 See also USEPA, ‘‘Technical Support
Document for HWC MACT Standards, Volume IV:
Compliance with the HWC MACT Standards,’’
September 2005, Appendix C.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
52631
Appendix F, Part 60, and the
manufacturer’s recommended
procedures for periodic quality
assurance checks and tests, except that:
(1) You must conduct annual Relative
Response Audits as prescribed by
Procedure 2; and (2) you need only
conduct Relative Response Audits on a
3-year interval after passing two
sequential annual Relative Response
Audits.
2. Proposed Procedures To Establish the
Set-Point for Operations Under the
Documentation of Compliance
The final rule was silent on how to
establish the set-point for operations
under the Documentation of
Compliance (i.e., in the interim between
the compliance date and submission of
the Notification of Compliance
subsequent to the comprehensive
performance test). Under today’s
proposal, we would add a new
provision that requires you to obtain a
minimum of three pairs of reference
method data and PMDS data, establish
a zero point correlation value, and
assume a linear correlation model to
extrapolate the alarm set point as the
PMDS response that corresponds to a
PM concentration that is 50% of the PM
emission standard or 125% of the
highest PM concentration used to
develop the correlation, whichever is
greater. The extrapolated emission
concentration could not exceed the PM
emission standard.
This is a reasonable approach to
establish an interim set-point for
operations prior to conducting the
comprehensive performance test to
document compliance with the
emission standards. Requiring the
additional testing needed to obtain
enough test runs to identify the actual
correlation mode—approximately 12
test runs—would discourage use of
PMDS because of the cost of the
additional testing. This is undesirable
because a PMDS should provide better
compliance assurance than the
alternatives of operating parameter
limits for electrostatic precipitators
(ESPs) and ionizing wet scrubbers
(IWSs) and a bag leak detection system
for fabric filters, even if the PMDS is
only approximately correlated with PM
concentrations.15 In addition, we note
that the actual correlation model that
best fits the combustor/PMDS may in
fact be linear or a concave down
polynomial, logarithmic, exponential, or
power correlation where PM
15 See discussion of the limitations of operating
parameter limits for ESPs and IWSs and bag leak
detection systems for fabric filters (76 FR at 21346–
47).
E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM
06SEP2
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
52632
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules
concentrations increase less rapidly
than the PMDS response (i.e., such that
assuming a linear correlation would be
conservative). Alternatively, the actual,
best-fit correlation model may be
nonlinear and concave up such that a
linear correlation assumption would not
be conservative. We specifically request
comment on the extent that this is
problematic and approaches to address
the issue.
The rule would require you to
extrapolate from the average of the test
condition run averages rather than from
the highest run of the test condition
given that the runs were intended to
replicate controllable operating
conditions. This would also provide a
more conservative extrapolation that is
appropriate given that you would
assume a linear correlation model, as
discussed above.
The rule would allow you to include
a zero point correlation value that you
establish under procedures in Section
8.6 (5) of Performance Specification–11
for PM CEMS (40 CFR part 60, appendix
B). Use of a zero point correlation value
is necessary to establish a linear
correlation given that only three test
runs would be required and is
consistent with PM CEMS correlation
procedures.
In addition, the rule would allow you
to use existing paired PM emissions
data and PMDS data that you may have.
For example, if you operate a COMS
that meets the detection limit
requirements of paragraph (c)(9)(i)(A)
and have continuous opacity monitoring
system (COMS) response data for PM
test runs, you may use those data pairs
to establish a linear correlation to
identify the initial set-point. To help
ensure that the data are representative of
the current design and operating
conditions of the combustor and PMDS,
the rule would require that: (1) The data
be no more than 60 months old
consistent with the data in lieu
provisions of § 63.1207(c)(2); and (2) the
design and operation of the combustor
or PMDS must not have changed in a
manner that may adversely affect the
correlation of PM concentrations and
PMDS response.
Finally, you would extrapolate the
alarm set point to the PMDS response
that corresponds to a PM concentration
that is 50% of the PM emission standard
or 125% of the highest PM
concentration used to develop the
correlation, whichever is greater. Of
course, the extrapolated emission
concentration must not exceed the PM
emission standard. Allowing this level
of extrapolation is consistent with PS–
11 procedures where the range of a PM
CEMS is up to 125% of the highest PM
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:41 Sep 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
concentration used to develop the
correlation. The range of the CEMS for
low emitting sources (i.e., defined by
Section 3.16 of PS–11 generally as
sources that do not emit PM at
concentrations that exceed 50% of the
PM standard during the most recent
performance test or on a daily average)
is the greater of 50% of the PM standard
or 125% of the highest PM
concentration used to develop the
correlation.
3. Revised Procedures To Extrapolate
the Alarm Set-Point for Operations
Under the Notification of Compliance
The final rule allowed you to
establish the set-point following the
comprehensive performance test as the
average of the test run average PMDS
response or by extrapolation. See
§ 63.1206(9)(ii and iii). Under the
extrapolation option, you would use
PS–11 and Procedure 2 as guidance to
identify the most appropriate
correlation model based on five
correlation tests.
In retrospect, we now conclude
(subject to consideration of comment)
that it would be difficult to use PS–11
procedures to evaluate correlation
models with only five correlation tests
(plus a zero point correlation value) to
identify the most appropriate model to
use for extrapolating the set-point. The
statistical criteria (i.e., confidence
interval half range percentage, tolerance
interval half range percentage, and
correlation coefficient) used to evaluate
alternative correlation models 16 are
directly affected by the number of test
runs. With very few test runs, the
confidence and tolerance intervals
would be relatively high and the
correlation coefficient would be
relatively low as an artifact of the
statistical procedures such that it would
be difficult to draw conclusions from
the analyses. For example, the rate of
decrease of the statistical factors used to
calculate the confidence and tolerance
intervals slows substantially at 10
degrees of freedom and greater, that
corresponds to 12 or more test runs. For
12 test runs, the value of the t-statistic
provided in Table 1 of PS–11 for the
half range of the 95 percent confidence
interval for the mean PM concentration
would be 2.228 while for 5 test runs and
15 test runs the t-statistic would be
3.182 and 2.160, respectively. See Table
1 in PS–11.
16 Alternative correlation models are: linear,
polynomial, logarithmic, exponential, and power
function. See Section 12.3 of PS–11.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Given that, as just shown, a minimum
of 12 test runs 17 over the range of PM
concentrations would generally be
needed to use the PS–11 procedures to
identify the best correlation model, we
considered requiring an additional eight
test runs during the comprehensive
performance test campaign to provide a
pool of 12 paired (i.e., PMDS response
and PM concentration) data point: Three
test runs and a zero point used for the
Documentation of Compliance
extrapolation; three test runs from the
comprehensive performance test to
document compliance with the PM
standard; and an additional five test
runs over a range of operating
conditions during the comprehensive
performance test campaign. We are
concerned, however, that requiring the
additional five test runs over the range
of operating conditions could be a
disincentive to implement a PMDS in
lieu of establishing operating parameter
limits for ESPs and IWSs and using a
bag leak detector system for fabric
filters.18 In addition to the cost of the
five additional test runs, you would
need to take measures to vary PM
concentrations during the testing to
provide useful correlation data, that
could be problematic (i.e., cost would be
incurred for modifications to design or
operations) for some sources.
We considered whether it would be
reasonable to continue with the
approach used for the Documentation of
Compliance—to assume a linear
regression model given the burden of
obtaining enough paired data to identify
the most appropriate correlation model.
There would now be seven paired data
available to define the linear regression:
the three test runs and zero point from
the Documentation of Compliance
combined with the three PM
comprehensive performance test runs.
We are concerned, however, that the
additional comprehensive performance
test data may provide little
improvement in defining the linear
regression because those new data
would likely be in the same PM
concentration range as the nonzero
point test runs used for the
Documentation of Compliance—
emissions that represent the high end of
the range of controllable emissions
variability.
17 This actually means 12 data points which
could be comprised of 11 test runs and a zero point
correlation value.
18 Note that, if you nonetheless happen to obtain
a minimum of 12 paired data points (e.g., from
current or historical testing within 60 months of the
compliance date) that provide a range of ‘‘as found’’
and compliance test-level PM concentrations, the
rule would require that you use PS–11 procedures
to identify the most appropriate correlation model
rather than to assume a linear model.
E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM
06SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Consequently, we have tentatively
concluded that three additional test
runs at ‘‘as found’’ (i.e., normal)
operating conditions and PM
concentrations at some point during the
comprehensive performance test
campaign 19 should be required to
expand the range and number of data
pairs to better define the assumed linear
regression. This would provide a pool of
10 data pairs: three test runs and a zero
point used for the Documentation of
Compliance extrapolation; three test
runs from the comprehensive
performance test to document
compliance with the PM standard; and
three test runs under ‘‘as found’’
operations.20
We are proposing that you would use
the linear regression defined by these 10
paired data to extrapolate the alarm setpoint to a response value that
corresponds to 50% of the PM emission
standard or 125% of the highest PM
concentration used to develop the
correlation, whichever is greater. It is
reasonable to extrapolate from the
highest PM concentration in the
correlation rather than the average of the
test condition averages (for the
comprehensive performance test) as
would be required under the
Documentation of Compliance because
the additional data pairs, and especially
the ‘‘as-found’’ data pairs, better define
the linear regression and remove some
uncertainty in the extrapolation.
We considered whether removing the
zero point correlation value may
improve the accuracy of the regression
given that you would be assuming a
linear regression when the relationship
between PMDS response and PM
concentrations may actually follow
another model (e.g., logarithmic). If the
regression is in fact nonlinear, using
only those data pairs in the high end of
the PM concentrations range—in the
range of ‘‘as-found’’ PM concentrations
to performance test concentrations—
may better estimate through linear
extrapolation the PMDS response at
higher PM concentrations. For
situations where the correlation may be
nonlinear and concave up, retaining the
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
19 The
‘‘as-found’’ test runs would be conducted
during the general time frame of the comprehensive
performance test: before, in between, or after
comprehensive performance test runs.
20 If you operate a COMS that meets the detection
limit requirements of paragraph (c)(9)(i)(A) and
have a minimum of three data pairs under ‘‘as
found’’ operations (or operations that result in a
substantial range of PM concentrations) that were
obtained within 60 months of the compliance date,
you must use those data to better define the linear
regression used to extrapolate the set-point for the
Documentation of Compliance. You would not be
required, however, to conduct additional ‘‘as
found’’ testing during the comprehensive
performance test campaign.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:41 Sep 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
zero point in the analysis may result in
a lower slope and thus a
nonconservative (i.e., too high)
extrapolated set-point. We also
considered, however, that if the PM
concentration range represented by the
data pairs was not substantial, deleting
the zero point may introduce substantial
additional uncertainty in the regression.
Therefore, we initially conclude that the
zero point should be retained to define
the linear correlation. Nonetheless, we
specifically request comment on this
issue.
4. Revising the Initial Notification of
Compliance Set-Point Established by
Extrapolation
The extrapolated alarm set-point
established in the initial Notification of
Compliance would be an interim
extrapolated set-point. We are proposing
that you must revise the alarm set-point
after each Relative Response Audit
(RRA).21
After the initial RRA, you would have
a pool of a minimum of 13 data pairs 22
that should be enough to use PS–11
procedures under Sections 12.3 and
12.4 to identify the most appropriate
correlation model rather than
continuing to assume a linear
correlation. Note that the PMDS would
not need to meet the PS–11 performance
specifications. The PMDS is used for
compliance assurance and is not a PM
CEMS that would be used for
compliance monitoring. Nonetheless,
the statistical criteria for evaluating the
correlation for a PM CEMS are also
applicable to evaluating the correlation
for a PMDS, and the criteria can be
compared for alternative correlation
models to the PM CEMS specifications
in Section 13.2 of PS–11 to identify the
most appropriate correlation model.
5. Specific Rather Than Generic
References to PS–11 and Procedure 2
The final rule stated that you should
use PS–11 as guidance to establish a
correlation and Procedure 2 for quality
assurance. In retrospect, we believe that
those references are overly broad and
21 Note that the rule continues to require you to
conduct annual RRAs as prescribed by Procedure 2,
except that you need only conduct RRA on a 3-year
interval after passing two sequential annual RRA.
A RRA is performed by collecting three PMDS and
PM concentration pairs for ‘‘as-found’’ source
operating conditions and PM concentrations.
22 The 13 data pairs would be comprised of: three
test runs and a zero point used for the
Documentation of Compliance extrapolation; six
test runs for the initial Notification of Compliance
extrapolation comprised of three test runs from the
comprehensive performance test to document
compliance with the PM standard and three test
runs under ‘‘as found’’ operations; and three test
runs under ‘‘as-found’’ operations for the initial
RRA.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
52633
could result in a permitting authority
inappropriately applying provisions
applicable to PM CEMS to a PMDS.
Consequently, we propose to provide
specific references to PS–11 and
Procedure 2 where compliance with
particular provisions would be required.
Examples are the requirement to use
Section 12.3 procedures of PS–11 to
characterize alternative correlation
models and Sections 12.4 and 13.2
procedures to identify the most
appropriate correlation model.
With respect to Procedure 2, there are
many quality assurance requirements
for PM CEMS that are not appropriate
for a PMDS, including absolute
correlation audits and response
correlation audits. Accordingly, we are
proposing to require compliance with
specific Procedure 2 requirements rather
than making a generic reference to use
Procedure 2 as guidance.
The Procedure 2 requirements that
would apply to a PMDS are the
requirements to perform an RRA. See
Section 10.3 (6) of Procedure 2. As
stated in the final rule, you must
conduct an annual RRA, except that you
need only conduct it on a 3-year interval
after passing two sequential annual
RRA. Today’s proposal would expressly
require you to comply with the
provisions of Section10.4 (6) that
establish the criteria for passing a RRA.
Those provisions state that, if you fail
the RRA, the PMDS is out of control.
If the PMDS is out of control, today’s
proposal would also require you to
comply with Section 10.5 of Procedure
2 that requires you to take corrective
action until your PMDS passes the RRA
criteria. If the RRA criteria cannot be
achieved, you would not be required to
perform a Relative Correlation Audit
(RCA) as provided by Section 10.5
(1)(ii), however. That provision is
appropriate for a PM CEMS but not a
PMDS. If the RRA criteria cannot be
achieved, today’s rule would require
you to re-establish the alarm set-point
without using extrapolation as the
average of the run averages of PMDS
responses for the most recent
comprehensive performance test to
demonstrate compliance with the PM
emission standard. See proposed
paragraph (c)(9)(iii)(A).
6. Operations When the PMDS Is
Malfunctioning
When reviewing the PMDS
requirements in the final rule in
response to the reconsideration petition,
we determined that the rule was silent
on operations when the PMDS is
malfunctioning because it is out of
control or inoperable, for example. We
believe it is reasonable to require that
E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM
06SEP2
52634
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules
operations when the PMDS is
unavailable be considered the same as
operations that exceed the alarm setpoint given that there would be no
information to conclude otherwise.
Thus, we are proposing to require you
to take corrective measures to correct
the malfunction or minimize emissions,
and the duration of the malfunction
would be added to the time when the
PMDS exceeds the alarm set-point. If the
time of PMDS malfunction and
exceedance of the alarm set-point
exceeds 5 percent of the time during any
6-month block time period, you would
have to submit a notification to the
Administrator within 30 days of the end
of the 6-month block time period that
describes the causes of the exceedances
and PMDS malfunctions and the
revisions to the design, operation, or
maintenance of the combustor, air
pollution control equipment, or PMDS
you are taking to minimize exceedances.
We also determined that the bag leak
detection system (BLDS) requirements
under § 63.1209(c)(8) did not include
provisions to address periods of time
when the BLDS is malfunctioning.
Accordingly, we are proposing to make
similar revisions to the BLDS
requirements.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
D. Tie-Breaking Procedure for New
Source Standards
In the notice of proposed rulemaking,
we described methodologies used to
determine MACT floors for HAP,
including the SRE/Feed approach 23
used specifically for those HAP whose
emissions can be controlled in part by
controlling the amount of HAP in the
hazardous waste fed to the source. See
69 FR at 21223–25. In general, the SRE/
Feed methodology is applicable to HAP
metals and chlorine. The SRE/Feed
approach identifies the sources in our
data base with the lowest hazardous
waste feedrate of the HAP and the
sources with the best system removal
efficiency for the same HAP. The best
performing sources (MACT pool) are
those with the best combination of
hazardous waste feedrate and system
removal efficiency as determined by our
ranking procedure. We then use the
emission levels from these sources to
calculate the emission level achieved by
the average of the best performing
sources. When determining the MACT
floor for new sources, we use the
emission level from the single source
with the best combination of hazardous
23 SRE means system removal efficiency and is a
measure of the percentage of HAP that is removed
prior to being emitted relative to the amount fed to
the unit from all inputs (e.g., hazardous waste,
fossil fuels, raw materials).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:41 Sep 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
waste feedrate and system removal
efficiency.
We also discussed how we
determined which sources are included
in the MACT pool. First, we ranked
each source’s hazardous waste feedrate
against all the other sources’ feedrates
on a HAP-by-HAP (e.g., mercury) or
HAP group (e.g., low volatile metals)
basis. Then we assigned a relative rank
of 1 to the source with the lowest
feedrate level, a rank of 2 to the source
with the second lowest feedrate, and so
on. Next, we applied the same ranking
procedure to each source’s system
removal efficiency for the same HAP.
The source with the best system
removal efficiency is assigned a relative
rank of 1, and so on. Then each source’s
feedrate ranking score and system
removal efficiency score were summed
to obtain an SRE/Feed aggregated score.
Finally, we arrayed the SRE/Feed
aggregated scores from lowest to highest
and the MACT pool was comprised of
the required number of sources with the
lowest SRE/Feed aggregated scores. For
new sources the MACT pool for a given
HAP or HAP group is comprised of the
single best performing source, that is,
the source with lowest SRE/Feed
aggregated score. See 69 FR at 21224.
In the final rule, we used the SRE/
Feed methodology for determining
MACT floors for HAP metals and total
chlorine.24 The preamble to the final
rule also presented a summary of our
responses to significant comments
regarding the SRE/Feed approach. See
70 FR at 59441–47. We also noted that
two analyses for new incinerators
identified multiple sources with
identical single best SRE/Feed
aggregated scores.25 This resulted in a
tie for the single best performing source
for the mercury and low volatile metals
new source standards for incinerators.
See 70 FR at 59447. In these instances,
we applied a tie-breaking procedure to
identify the single best performing
source and we selected the source with
the lowest emissions (of the tied
sources) as the criterion to break the tie.
The CRWI states that EPA’s tiebreaking procedure has not been the
subject of direct opportunity for public
comment. We agree with petitioner
CRWI. Because there were no ties for the
single best performing source in the
24 As noted in the preamble, there were a few
instances where the SRE/Feed methodology was not
used to determine the MACT floor for HAP metals
and total chlorine. See, for example, 69 FR at 21224.
However, we did use the SRE/Feed approach for the
standards addressed by CRWI’s petition for
reconsideration.
25 USEPA, ‘‘Technical Support Document for
HWC MACT Standards, Volume III: Selection of
MACT Standards,’’ September 2005, Appendix E,
Tables ‘‘SF–INC–HG’’ and ‘‘SF–INC–LVM.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
proposal rule, we did not discuss the
concept of selecting the source with the
lowest emissions as the criterion to
break ties. In addition, the tie-breaking
procedure (in the rare instances when a
tie occurs) is a key step in setting
standards because the selected directly
affects the stringency of the emission
standard. Therefore, we conclude that
there was no opportunity to comment
on this tie-breaking procedure and grant
CRWI’s petition for reconsideration.
The CRWI states in their petition that
EPA’s decision to break the tie by
selecting the source with the lowest
emissions results in a MACT floor that
is below (more stringent) what the other
best performers of the tied sources are
achieving.26 CRWI argues that selecting
the source with the lowest emissions is
inconsistent with the statutory mandate.
Additionally, CRWI argues that relying
on emission levels as the tie-breaker
between best performing sources is
inconsistent with EPA’s MACT floor
methodology because EPA adopted the
SRE/Feed approach while rejecting an
emissions-based approach.
The arguments presented in CRWI’s
petition for reconsideration have not
persuaded us that our tie-breaking
procedure—selecting the source (of the
tied sources) with the lowest emissions
as the single best performing source—
was erroneous or inappropriate. We
believe this approach is a reasonable
interpretation of section 112(d)(3), that
states the new source standard shall not
be less stringent than the emission
control that is achieved in practice by
the best controlled similar source
(‘‘source’’ being singular, not plural).
Moreover, we believe use of the
emission level as the tie-breaking
criterion is reasonable, not only because
it is a measure of control, but because
we have already fully accounted for
hazardous waste feedrate control and
system removal efficiency in the SRE/
Feed ranking methodology. To choose
either of these factors to break the tie
would give that factor disproportionate
weight. Nevertheless, given that the tiebreaker issue came up between proposal
and promulgation of the final rule and
so has not been the subject of direct
opportunity for public comment, in
26 The two instances in which there was a tie for
the single best performing source include mercury
and low volatile metals for incinerators. The two
sources tied in the mercury analysis had emissions,
including variability (the 99th percentile upper
prediction limit), of 8.1 and 907 ug/dscm. The low
volatile metals MACT floor analysis included a
three-way tie. The three sources had emissions of
23, 129, and 198 ug/dscm. See USEPA, ‘‘Technical
Support Document for HWC MACT Standards,
Volume III: Selection of MACT Standards,’’
September 2005, Appendix E, Tables ‘‘SF–INC–HG’’
and ‘‘SF–INC–LVM.’’
E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM
06SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
today’s notice of reconsideration we are
requesting public comment on our
decision to select the source (of all tied
sources) with the lowest emissions as
the single best performing source for
purposes of new source floor
determinations. In addition, we are
seeking comment on alternative tiebreaking criteria suggested by the CRWI
such as the single source (of the tied
sources) with the best system removal
efficiency, the single source (of the tied
sources) with the worst system removal
efficiency, or some form of averaging
(e.g., the 99th percentile upper
prediction limit) of the tied sources.
Because we are proposing to retain
the same tie-breaker procedure as in the
final rule, the new source emission
standards promulgated for mercury and
low volatile metals under
§ 63.1219(b)(2) and (b)(4) would not
change.
E. Beyond-the-Floor Analyses To
Consider Multiple HAP That Are
Similarly Controlled
In developing MACT standards, we
also must determine whether further
emission reductions are achievable
using different or additional control
technologies. We may establish
standards more stringent than the
MACT floor based on the consideration
of the cost of achieving the emissions
reductions, any non-air health and
environmental impacts, and energy
requirements. CAA section 112(d)(2).
We call these standards beyond-thefloor standards.
In the notice of proposed rulemaking,
we evaluated beyond-the-floor
standards for each HAP or HAP group
(i.e., semivolatile metals comprised of
lead and cadmium, low volatile metals
comprised of arsenic, beryllium, and
chromium). The beyond-the-floor
evaluations were discussed in the
preamble and presented in the technical
support document.27 As explained in
the technical support document, each
beyond-the-floor analysis was done
separately by HAP. For example, when
evaluating the cost of a beyond-the-floor
standard for dioxin/furans based on
activated carbon injection, we applied
the full cost of an activated carbon
injection system to the beyond-the-floor.
In a separate analysis, the same
approach was used when evaluating a
beyond-the-floor standard for mercury
based on activated carbon injection. We
received a public comment that the
27 See HAP-specific discussions in preamble (69
FR at 21240–21297). See also USEPA, ‘‘Draft
Technical Support Document for HWC MACT
Standards, Volume V: Emissions Estimates and
Engineering Costs,’’ March 2004, Section 4.6,
Appendices F and G.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:41 Sep 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
beyond-the-floor analyses for similarly
controlled HAP by a single type of
control device (e.g., activated carbon
injection) overestimate the costs for an
individual HAP because the control
system would reduce multiple HAP.28
The commenter argued that EPA may
have found additional beyond-the-floor
results acceptable had the control
device costs been apportioned properly
among the HAP.
To address this comment in the final
rule, we revised the beyond-the-floor
analyses to include an additional
analysis evaluating multiple HAP that
can be controlled by a single control
device (i.e., activated carbon injection
for dioxin/furans and mercury and
improved particulate matter control for
the nonvolatile metals and particulate
matter).29 Noting that the first
appearance of these new beyond-thefloor analyses was in the final rule, the
Sierra Club’s petition for
reconsideration argues that EPA
provided no opportunity to comment on
these analyses. We agree with petitioner
Sierra Club because we included these
additional analyses in the final rule in
response to a public comment.
Therefore, we are granting the Sierra
Club’s request for reconsideration of the
beyond-the-floor analyses that are based
on activated carbon injection and
improved particulate matter control. In
today’s notice, we are providing an
opportunity for public comment on
these beyond-the-floor analyses.
In addition, after reexamining the
beyond-the-floor analyses used in the
final rule for similarly controllable HAP
by a single control device and also the
issues raised in the petition for
reconsideration of the Sierra Club, we
are proposing to revise the beyond-thefloor methodology. The methodology is
presented in the technical support
document supporting this rulemaking;
however, a brief discussion of the
methodology is presented below.30 The
results of the proposed beyond-the-floor
analyses are also presented in this
support document.
The initial step would be to identify
a suite of beyond-the-floor standards for
each HAP or HAP group for each source
category or subcategory. The six HAP or
HAP groups include dioxin/furans,
mercury, particulate matter (as a
surrogate for the unenumerated metals
antimony, cobalt, manganese, nickel,
28 See comments of Sierra Club, docket item EPA–
HQ–OAR–2004–0022–0292, page 30.
29 USEPA, ‘‘Response to Comments on April 20,
2004 HWC MACT Proposed Rule, Volume I: MACT
Issues,’’ September 2005, pages 152–153.
30 USEPA, ‘‘Draft Technical Support Document
for HWC MACT Standards—Reconsideration of the
Beyond-the-Floor Evaluations,’’ July 2006.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
52635
and selenium), semivolatile metals, low
volatile metals, and hydrogen chloride
and chlorine (total chlorine). We call
this the comprehensive beyond-the-floor
analysis. For reasons discussed below,
beyond-the-floor evaluations for carbon
monoxide and hydrocarbons are done
separately. Next we identify an air
pollution control strategy capable of
achieving the potential beyond-the-floor
standards and estimate costs of these
controls using, when available,
standardized and peer reviewed cost
models developed by EPA.31 In the case
of control devices that are capable of
reducing emissions of more than one
HAP or HAP group, including activated
carbon injection (or carbon beds) and
improved particulate matter control, we
apportioned the total costs of the control
device to those HAP that would be
controlled by the technology. HAP
emission reductions and non-air quality
health and environmental impacts and
energy requirements were then
estimated.
We next determined whether the
comprehensive beyond-the-floor
analysis was achievable by applying the
statutory factors of the cost of achieving
the emission reductions, any non-air
quality health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements for
each HAP or HAP group. The cost
metric we would use to consider the
cost of achieving emissions reductions
is cost-effectiveness—dollars per unit
mass reduction (e.g., $ per ton
removed), a reasonable means of
assessing cost of control technologies
and strategies. See, e.g. Husqvarna AB v.
EPA, 254 F. 3d 195, 200 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
After considering these statutory factors,
we evaluated each of the six HAP or
HAP groups of the comprehensive
analysis to identify those beyond-thefloor standards where further emission
reductions appear achievable. If
emission reductions appear achievable
for all six HAP or HAP groups, then we
would propose beyond-the-floor
standards for these HAP. For cocontrolled HAP, however, if some
results appeared achievable while
others did not, we conducted a
subsequent analysis whereby the costs
associated with the unachievable HAP
are reapportioned to those co-controlled
HAP appearing achievable. We believe
this reapportioning step is necessary to
prevent costs of control of a cocontrolled HAP from being diluted by
costs from unachievable (too costly)
reductions of another co-controlled
HAP. Without the reapportionment of
31 USEPA, ‘‘EPA Air Pollution Control Cost
Manual,’’ available at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/
products.html.
E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM
06SEP2
52636
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
costs, these costs would be assigned to
a rejected beyond-the-floor standard.32
We then evaluated the beyond-the-floor
results after reapportioning costs to the
remaining co-controlled HAP to
determine whether the further
emissions reductions are achievable.
This iterative process continues until
we determine all standards appear
achievable or no beyond-the-floor
standards appear achievable. This
iterative process for co-controlled HAP
continues until all remaining cocontrolled HAP are judged achievable or
no beyond-the-floor standards appear
achievable for co-controlled HAP.
Applying this proposed methodology
would yield the same results as the
methodology used in the final rule.
These are beyond-the-floor standards of
68 mg/dscm 33 (0.030 gr/dscf) for
existing sources and 34 mg/dscm (0.015
gr/dscf) for new sources, and beyondthe-floor standards for liquid fuel
boilers for the dry air pollution control
device subcategory of 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm
for existing and new sources. Since the
standards would not change, we are not
reproposing them. We are, however,
soliciting comment on the revised
methodology for assessing achievability
of standards for co-controlled HAP.
As mentioned above, carbon
monoxide and hydrocarbons 34 are not
included in the comprehensive beyondthe-floor analysis. While a beyond-thefloor technology such as activated
carbon injection may provide additional
control of certain organic hazardous air
pollutants (HAP), we believe it is
inappropriate to evaluate (under this
comprehensive option) numerical
beyond-the-floor standards for carbon
monoxide and hydrocarbons. When
complying with the current standards
for carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons,
sources can elect to comply with either
standard (e.g., 70 FR at 59410–59411).
With respect to the carbon monoxide
standard, the use of activated carbon
injection (or any other beyond-the-floor
techniques evaluated in the
comprehensive analysis) would not
reduce or affect emissions of carbon
monoxide. Thus, there is no way to
32 Even though costs would be reapportioned
under this proposed approach, we note that
emissions reductions from a rejected beyond-thefloor standard of a co-controlled HAP would remain
a collateral benefit of other accepted co-controlled
HAP.
33 Note that we are proposing to revise this
standard from 68 mg/dscm to 69 mg/dscm in
today’s notice. See Section V. J below.
34 Carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons are widely
accepted indicators of combustion conditions and
are used (along with the destruction and removal
efficiency standard) as surrogates to control
emissions of nondioxin/furan organic hazardous air
pollutants.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:41 Sep 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
identify a numerical emissions limit for
carbon monoxide that would reflect
potential reductions in organic HAP
emissions because there is no direct
correlation between carbon monoxide
and emissions of organic HAP. Given
that we cannot identify a numerical
beyond-the-floor standard for carbon
monoxide and given that the majority of
sources elect to comply with the carbon
monoxide standard rather than the
hydrocarbon standard, we believe it is
not appropriate to include carbon
monoxide in the comprehensive
beyond-the-floor analysis.
We also have concerns about
identifying a beyond-the-floor standard
for hydrocarbons under this
comprehensive option. As we document
in the technical support document, a
significant percentage of total stack
organics (that would be measured by a
hydrocarbon monitor) are not organic
HAP (e.g., short-chain aliphatic
compounds like methane, propane, and
acetylene).35 We estimate that the
organic HAP emissions comprise
approximately 20% of total hydrocarbon
emissions. Furthermore, activated
carbon injection is estimated to capture
only a small fraction—13%—of the
organic HAP emissions. Thus, we
estimate that the use of activated carbon
injection would reduce organic HAP
emissions by less than 3% on average.
This estimate would allow us to identify
a potential numerical beyond-the-floor
standard for hydrocarbons that would
reflect reductions achieved by activated
carbon injection.36 However, we believe
it would be inappropriate to identify a
beyond-the-floor standard as part of the
comprehensive analysis because there is
much uncertainty in the 3% estimate.37
Furthermore, there are numerous factors
that affect combustion efficiency, and,
subsequently, hydrocarbon emissions.
Thus, a source may not be able to
replicate its hydrocarbon emissions
levels (and other sources may not be
able to duplicate those emission levels)
if the quantity of organic HAP that are
amenable to capture with activate
carbon injection decreases as a result of
one of the many factors that affect
combustion efficiency. Finally, given
that very few sources elect to comply
with the hydrocarbon standard rather
than the carbon monoxide standard (a
35 USEPA, ‘‘Draft Technical Support Document
for HWC MACT Standards—Reconsideration of the
Beyond-the-Floor Evaluations,’’ July 2006, Section
4.
36 For example, the beyond-the-floor standard for
a hydrocarbon MACT floor of 10 ppmv would be
9.7 ppmv.
37 USEPA, ‘‘Draft Technical Support Document
for HWC MACT Standards—Reconsideration of the
Beyond-the-Floor Evaluations,’’ July 2006, Section
4.1.1
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
standard for which we cannot identify
a numerical beyond-the-floor level
based on activated carbon injection), we
believe that it is more appropriate to
present estimated reductions of organic
HAP emissions that would result from
an activated carbon injection beyondthe-floor option in lieu of identifying
explicit beyond-the-floor standards for
carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons.
In its petition for reconsideration, the
Sierra Club also opposes inclusion of
costs associated with the disposal of
spent carbon as a solid and/or
hazardous waste when carbon injection
is used as a beyond-the-floor control
technology.38 We disagree because
disposal costs are one of the many direct
costs associated with operating a carbon
injection system (as well as an example
of a non-air quality health and
environmental impact). As mentioned
above, our cost estimates are based on
standardized and peer reviewed cost
models developed by EPA. Indeed, the
‘‘EPA Air Pollution Control Cost
Manual’’ includes specific cost inputs
for disposal costs not only for the
disposal of solid waste from carbon
adsorber systems, but also wastewater
disposal costs for wet scrubbers for acid
gas control, dust disposal cost for
baghouses and electrostatic precipitators
for particulate matter control, and waste
liquid collection and disposal costs for
wet scrubbers for particulate matter
control.39 Therefore, the cost estimates
presented in the technical support
document include disposal costs for
certain beyond-the-floor controls.40
In summary, we are accepting public
comment on the revised beyond-thefloor analyses and the conclusions.
F. Dioxin/Furan Standard for
Incinerators With Dry Air Pollution
Control Devices
We proposed to subcategorize
incinerators between wet or no air
pollution control devices and
incinerators equipped with dry air
pollution control devices or waste heat
38 See petition for reconsideration of the Sierra
Club, docket item EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0022–0517,
page 26.
39 USEPA, ‘‘EPA Air Pollution Control Cost
Manual,’’ EPA/452/B–02–001, January 2002,
sections 3.1, 5.2, and 6.
40 Nonetheless, we also conducted the
comprehensive analysis for new sources to
investigate the extent that disposal costs of spent
activated carbon injection would impact the
achievability of potential beyond-the-floor
standards. As presented in the technical support
document, when disposal costs are
(inappropriately) eliminated (reduced to zero), there
would be no changes to the conclusions proposed
regarding those standards that appear achievable.
See ‘‘Draft Technical Support Document for HWC
MACT Standards ‘‘ Reconsideration of the Beyondthe-Floor Evaluations,’’ July 2006, Section 5.2.
E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM
06SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
boilers.41 See 69 FR at 21214 (This is
not subcategorizing on the basis of an
emission control technology, but rather
on the basis of a basic difference in
process). Accordingly, we proposed
separate emission standards for each
subcategory for incinerators for dioxin/
furans.42 69 FR at 21240–42. The
standard proposed for existing
incinerators with dry air pollution
control devices or waste heat boilers
(the standard at issue in this discussion)
was 0.28 ng TEQ/dscm.43 69 FR at
21240. As discussed in the proposal,
this standard was based on an
evaluation of compliance test emissions
data of the MACT pool sources
comprising this subcategory of
incinerators. As noted in the petition of
the Sierra Club, one of the five MACT
pool sources was the Clean Harbors
Aragonite incinerator located in Utah.44
The consideration of these data in the
MACT floor analysis is the specific
point in contention in the Sierra Club’s
petition for reconsideration.
In the final rule, we adopted this same
subcategorization scheme and
promulgated separate dioxin/furan
emissions standards for each
subcategory of incinerators. See 70 FR at
59420, 59467. Our revised MACT floor
analysis yielded a calculated floor level
of 0.42 ng TEQ/dscm, that reflected
emissions variability. We then evaluated
whether this calculated floor level was
less stringent than the interim dioxin/
furan standard under § 63.1203(a)(1).
Because we concluded the calculated
floor level of 0.42 ng TEQ/dscm was less
stringent than the interim dioxin/furan
standard, we promulgated the interim
41 In its petition for reconsideration, the Sierra
Club also petitioned EPA to reconsider the decision
to subcategorize the hazardous waste incinerator
source category. As discussed in Section III above,
we have denied their request for reconsideration.
Therefore, we are neither soliciting comments nor
will we consider any comments received on the
decision to subcategorize the incinerator category.
42 Sierra Club also petitioned EPA to reconsider
the dioxin/furan standard for the subcategory of
incinerators with wet or no air pollution control
devices. This standard is not discussed in today’s
proposed rule because EPA has denied the
reconsideration request as discussed in Section III
above. Therefore, we are neither requesting
comments nor will we consider any comments
received on the dioxin/furan standard for
incinerators with wet or no air pollution control
devices.
43 See USEPA, ‘‘Draft Technical Support
Document for HWC MACT Standards, Volume III:
Selection of MACT Standards,’’ March 2004,
Appendix C, Table ‘‘E–INC/D+WHB–DF.’’ Note that
because the issue raised in the Sierra Club’s petition
does not affect the dioxin/furan standard for new
incinerators, the scope of this discussion will be
limited to existing incinerators.
44 EPA’s data base contains emissions data from
Clean Harbors Aragonite for six different test
conditions. The proposed dioxin/furan standard
was based, in part, on the trial burn data from Clean
Harbors Aragonite that was conducted in June 2001.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:41 Sep 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
dioxin/furan standard as the standard.45
Thus, the emission standard
promulgated for existing incinerators
with dry air pollution control devices or
waste heat boilers was either 0.20 ng
TEQ/dscm or 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm
provided that the combustion gas
temperature at the inlet to the initial
particulate matter control device is 400
°F or lower (§ 63.1219(a)(1)). The
analyses supporting these standards are
included in the technical support
document.46
As discussed in the final rule, the
calculated MACT floor increased from
0.28 ng TEQ/dscm to 0.42 ng TEQ/dscm
because we were alerted in comments to
the proposed rule that our MACT pool
analysis considered dioxin/furan data
that should not have been included.
Commenters stated that the Clean
Harbors Aragonite incinerator (source
327C10 in the data base) encountered
problems with its carbon injection
system during the emissions test from
which the data were obtained and
subsequently used in the MACT floor
analysis for this incinerator
subcategory.47 We investigated the
commenters’ claims after proposal and
confirmed the problems that were
encountered during testing. See 70 FR at
59419, 59432. Importantly, we
determined that these dioxin/furan
emissions data were not used to
establish operating parameter limits for
the carbon injection system based on
this test.48 Therefore, we no longer
designate this test condition as
‘‘compliance test’’ data, that is the type
of data upon which this MACT standard
is based. After concluding that these
emissions data are not appropriate for
inclusion in the MACT floor analysis,
we instead substituted in its place other
readily available compliance test
emissions data in our data base for that
facility. While the substituted emissions
data are indeed older than the
problematic data, these data are the
most recent valid compliance data
available to us for this source. As a
result of this data handling decision, the
45 Replacement standards can be no less stringent
than existing standards, including the interim
standards under §§ 63.1203–1205. See 70 FR at
59457–58.
46 See USEPA, ‘‘Technical Support Document for
the HWC MACT Standards, Volume III: Selection of
MACT Standards,’’ September 2005, Appendix E,
Table ‘‘E–INCDWHB–DF.’’
47 See USEPA, ‘‘Response to Comments on April
20, 2004 HWC MACT Proposed Rule, Volume I,
MACT Issues,’’ September 2005, Section 1.3.2, and
‘‘Technical Support Document for the HWC MACT
Standards, Volume III: Selection of MACT
Standards,’’ September 2005, Section 10.1.1.
48 See docket item EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0022–
0401.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
52637
calculated MACT floor increased as
discussed earlier.
The Sierra Club notes in its petition
that the promulgated MACT standard
for this subcategory of incinerators
increased from that proposed as a result
of EPA’s decision to use different
dioxin/furan emissions data from the
Clean Harbors Aragonite incinerator.
The Sierra Club states that EPA had
provided no opportunity to comment on
this data handling decision because it
was not reflected in the proposed rule.
We agree with petitioner Sierra Club
that it was impracticable for them to
raise its concern about the use of the
Clean Harbors Aragonite emissions data.
Therefore, we are granting the Sierra
Club’s petition for reconsideration for
this issue.
The Sierra Club contends that EPA’s
data substitution for the Clean Harbors
Aragonite incinerator is arbitrary and
capricious because EPA rejected the
newer test data to use older and worse
test data. The Sierra Club states that a
source encountering problems with its
air pollution control equipment does
not justify using other data from an
earlier test with higher emissions
because EPA had no reason to conclude
that the incinerator would perform
worse than the level it achieved while
encountering problems.
The arguments presented in the
petition for reconsideration have not
persuaded us, subject to consideration
of further comment, that our MACT
floor determination in the final rule was
inappropriate. We believe we correctly
identified the MACT floor for this
incinerator subcategory based on the
available emissions data. The Clean
Harbors Aragonite data from 2001
cannot be used in the MACT floor
analysis because these data simply are
not representative of performance due to
problems encountered. We note that the
substituted Clean Harbors Aragonite
data considered in the final rule MACT
floor analysis were not included in the
pool of the five best performing sources
for the dioxin/furan standard. If we had
simply excluded the problematic data
(and not substituted the older data),
then we would have promulgated the
identical emission standard because the
substituted data for Clean Harbors
Aragonite had no direct impact on the
floor analysis (i.e., the data were not
included in the MACT pool).
Nevertheless, because we changed the
floor determination between proposal
and promulgation in response to
comments received on the proposal, and
because we also made certain data
editing decisions (again in response to
public comment) that resulted in a
different data base being used for the
E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM
06SEP2
52638
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
floor determination than we used at
proposal, we are requesting public
comments on the MACT floor analysis
that supported the final rule.
Specifically, we are soliciting comment
on the final rule MACT floor analysis
that included our decision to replace the
2001 Clean Harbors Aragonite data with
other dioxin/furan emissions data in our
data base.
Because we are proposing to retain
the final rule MACT floor analysis for
the subcategory of incinerators
equipped with dry air pollution control
devices or waste heat boilers, the
emission standards promulgated for
dioxin/furans under § 63.1219(a)(1)(i)
and (b)(1)(i) would not change (subject
to consideration of public comment).
G. Provisions of the Health-Based
Compliance Alternative
The final rule allows you to establish
and comply with 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 established under §§ 63.1216,
63.1217, 63.1219, 63.1220, and 63.1221.
See 70 FR at 59413–19 and § 63.1215.
Sierra Club petitioned for
reconsideration stating that EPA
changed several provisions of the
health-based compliance alternative
after the period for public comment and
therefore did not provide notice and
opportunity for public comment.49 In
addition, Sierra Club states that three
new provisions are problematic: (1) It is
unlawful to allow sources to comply
with the health-based compliance
alternative without prior approval from
the permitting authority; (2) it is
unlawful to allow a source to obtain an
unlimited extension of the compliance
date if their eligibility demonstration is
disapproved and the source is unable to
change the design or operation of the
source to comply with the MACT
emission standards by the compliance
date; and (3) the Agency cannot rely on
the Title V program as the vehicle for
establishing health-based compliance
alternatives.
We are granting reconsideration of
these provisions because we developed
them in response to comments on the
proposed rule, after the period for
public comment as Sierra Club states.
Furthermore, to address Sierra Club’s
concerns, we are proposing to revise the
rule pertaining to these provisions as
follows: (1) The rule would state that
49 See letter from James Pew to Stephen Johnson,
dated December 12, 2005, Section XII, docket item
EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0022–0517.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:41 Sep 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
the operating requirements specified in
the eligibility demonstration are
‘‘applicable requirements’’ as defined in
40 CFR 70.2 or 71.2 and therefore must
be incorporated in the Title V permit;
(2) a source may comply with the
health-based compliance alternative
without prior approval from the
permitting authority provided that the
source has made a good faith effort to
provide complete and accurate
information and to respond to any
requests for additional information; and
(3) the compliance date extension
cannot exceed one year if the eligibility
demonstration is disapproved and the
source is unable to change the design or
operation to comply with the MACT
emission standards by the compliance
date. These provisions are discussed
below.
Note that we are accepting further
comment on these provisions in general
in addition to requesting comment on
the proposed revisions to the
provisions. We believe the provisions in
general are warranted for the reasons
provided in the final rule and restate
these reasons below. Nonetheless, we
are open to comment and will
determine whether changes are
warranted other than those we are
proposing.
1. Complying With the Health-Based
Compliance Alternative Without Prior
Approval From the Permitting Authority
Would Be Conditional
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. See 70 FR at
59484 and § 63.1215(e)(2)(i)(C).
We are today providing an
opportunity to comment on this
provision in general and on a proposal
to revise the rule to clarify that a time
extension is conditioned on your
making a good faith effort to submit
complete and accurate information and
to respond in a timely manner to any
requests for additional information.
Many commenters on the proposed
rule stated that requiring prior approval
of the eligibility demonstration would
be unworkable. Commenters were
concerned that the permitting authority
may not approve the demonstration
prior to the compliance date, even
though the source has submitted
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
complete and accurate information and
has responded to any requests for
additional information in good faith. A
commenter suggested that, if the
permitting authority has neither
approved nor disapproved the eligibility
demonstration by the compliance date,
the source may begin complying on the
compliance date with the alternative
health-based limits specified in the
eligibility demonstration.
We agreed with commenters that
requiring prior approval of the
eligibility demonstration may be
unworkable for the reason commenters
suggested. 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 HClequivalent emission rate limits and
associated chlorine feedrate limits you
present in your eligibility
demonstration.
When reviewing this provision in
response to Sierra Club’s petition for
reconsideration, we noticed that the
regulatory language at
§ 63.1215(e)(2)(i)(C) simply stated that
you could begin complying on the
compliance date with the health-based
alternative compliance requirements
absent approval from the permitting
authority if the permitting authority had
not issued a notice of approval or intent
to disapprove your eligibility
demonstration by the compliance date.
We inadvertently did not make the
provision conditional on your making a
good faith effort to provide complete
and accurate information and to
respond to any requests for additional
information in a timely manner.
Accordingly, we propose today to revise
that regulatory provision to say:
• 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 begin complying, on
the compliance date, with the HCl-equivalent
emission rate limits you present in your
eligibility demonstration provided that you
have made a good faith effort to provide
complete and accurate information and to
respond to any requests for additional
information in a timely manner.
If the permitting authority believes
that you have not made a good faith
effort to provide complete and accurate
information or to respond to any
requests for additional information, the
authority may notify you in writing by
the compliance date that you have not
E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM
06SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules
met the conditions for complying with
the health-based compliance alternative
without prior approval.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
2. An Extension of the Compliance Date
Granted Upon Disapproval of an
Eligibility Demonstration Cannot
Exceed One Year
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. See 70 FR at 59484
and § 63.1215(e)(2)(i)(B) and (D).
We are today providing an
opportunity for comment on this
provision in general and on a proposal
to revise the rule to limit the time
extension to (up to) one year. We are
tentatively persuaded by Sierra Club’s
argument that this limitation is needed
to be consistent with CAA section
112(i)(3)(B) (and the General Provisions
under Subpart A—§ 63.6(i)(4)(i)(A)).
Commenters on the proposed rule
were concerned that the permitting
authority may disapprove the eligibility
demonstration for the health-based
compliance alternative too late for the
source to make changes to the design or
operation of the combustor or related
systems to enable the source to comply
with the total chlorine MACT standard.
See 70 FR at 59484. We agreed with that
concern and therefore allowed the
permitting authority to extend the
compliance date. We inadvertently did
not limit the extension of the
compliance date to one year, however,
consistent with the General Provisions
and CAA section 112(i)(3)(B).
3. The Health-Based Compliance
Alternative Requirements Are
Applicable Requirements
We stated in the preamble to the final
rule in response to comments that,
because the health-based compliance
alternative requirements are clearly
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:41 Sep 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
defined (e.g., HCl-equivalent emission
limits, chlorine feedrate limits), 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 permits. See 70 FR at 59481.
Nonetheless, petitioner Sierra Club
states that the Agency cannot rely on the
Title V program as the vehicle for
establishing health-based compliance
alternatives.
We are today providing an
opportunity for comment on this
provision in general and on a proposal
to revise the rule to add clarifying
regulatory language stating that
§ 63.1215 requirements are applicable
requirements under part 70 and
therefore must be included in the Title
V permit as would any other applicable
requirement. We note that the final rule
specifies that operating requirements in
the Notification of Compliance are
applicable requirements for purposes of
parts 70 and 71 of this chapter, and that
the operating requirements specified in
the Notification of Compliance will be
incorporated in the Title V permit. See
§ 63.1206(c)(1)(iv)–(v). The health-based
compliance alternative is implemented
using an eligibility demonstration that is
independent from the Notification of
Compliance. See § 63.1215(c) and (e).
Accordingly, we propose today to add
new § 63.1215(e)(3) to clarify that the
health-based compliance alternative
requirements established in an
approved eligibility demonstration are
applicable requirements and must be
included in the Title V permit.
V. Other Proposed Amendments
A. Sunset Provision for the Interim
Standards
In the preamble to the final rule (70
FR at 59503) we indicated in response
to a comment that we were including a
sunset provision for the interim
standards in the final rule. However,
that provision was inadvertently
omitted from the rule. In today’s rule we
propose to incorporate sunset
provisions into §§ 63.1203, 63.1204, and
63.1205. As indicated in the referenced
preamble, the Interim Standards will be
superseded by the final replacement
standards on the compliance date for
the replacement standards. See
proposed additions to §§ 63.1203(e),
63.1204(i), and 63.1205(e).
B. Operating Parameter Limits for
Sources With Fabric Filters
In the final rule, we promulgated a
new paragraph § 63.1206(c)(8) that sets
forth operating parameter limits for
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
52639
sources equipped with a baghouse
(fabric filter) (70 FR at 59486). If you use
a baghouse to comply with one or more
emission standard(s), you are either
required to use a bag leak detection
system that meets the specifications of
§ 63.1206(c)(8)(ii), or meet the
particulate matter detection system
requirements specified in
§ 63.1206(c)(9). However, the current
language of § 63.1206(c)(9) appears to
restrict the particulate matter detection
system requirement to electrostatic
precipitators and ionizing wet
scrubbers. This was never our intent.
Consequently, in today’s notice we are
proposing to amend § 63.1206(c)(9) to
include baghouses.
C. Confirmatory Performance Testing
Not Required for Sources That Are Not
Subject to a Numerical Dioxin/Furan
Emission Standard
Section 63.1207(b)(3) of the final rule
requires a one-time only test for dioxin/
furan emissions for those sources that
are not required to meet a numerical
dioxin/furan emission standard. You are
only required to repeat this test if you
change the design or operation of the
source in a manner that may increase
dioxin/furan emissions. Because dioxin/
furan testing is the only component of
the confirmatory performance test (see
§ 63.1207(b)(2)), it logically follows that
confirmatory performance testing is not
required for these sources. Nevertheless,
the final rule did not include an explicit
exemption from the confirmatory
performance test requirement. In today’s
notice, we are proposing to add a new
paragraph (vi) to § 63.1207(b)(3) to
clarify this point.
D. Periodic Performance Tests for Phase
I Sources
Section 63.1207(d)(1) requires
periodic comprehensive performance
testing to begin no later than 61 months
after commencing the previous
comprehensive performance test.
Section 63.1207(d)(2) requires
confirmatory performance testing to
begin no later than 31 months after
commencing the previous performance
test. However, in the Interim Standards
Rule, promulgated on February 13,
2002, we added § 63.1207(d)(4) that
waived these periodic test requirements
under the interim standards (67 FR at
6815).
Section 63.1207(d)(4) also includes
language reinstating the periodic test
requirements upon promulgation of the
final replacement standards (i.e.,
October 12, 2005). Our intent was to
reinstate periodic testing only for
sources operating under the October 12,
2005 replacement standards, not the
E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM
06SEP2
52640
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules
interim standards. However, the current
language could also be misinterpreted to
require periodic testing by sources that
remain under the interim standards. In
today’s rule, we propose to amend
§ 63.1207(d) to clarify that periodic
comprehensive performance testing and
confirmatory performance testing are
only required for sources operating
under the final replacement standards.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble to the interim standards rule
(67 FR at 6802), periodic testing is not
required for sources that remain
operating under the interim standards.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
E. Performance Test Waiver for Sources
Subject to Hazardous Waste Thermal
Concentration Limits
In the 1999 final rule (64 FR at
52828), we waived the performance test
requirement for mercury, semivolatile
metals, low volatile metals, or hydrogen
chloride/chlorine gas for sources that
demonstrated that the maximum
theoretical emission concentration
(MTEC) did not exceed the emission
standard for that HAP. See § 63.1207(m).
In essence, this provision waives the
performance test if the constituent feed
rate (after conversion to an exhaust gas
concentration using continuously
monitored exhaust gas flow data) is less
than the applicable emission rate,
assuming that 100% of the constituent
in the feed is emitted from the
combustion unit.
In the 2005 final rule (70 FR at
59402), for certain source categories
(i.e., liquid fuel boilers, cement kilns,
and lightweight aggregate kilns), we
limited the feedrate of these same
constituents in proportion to the heat
input from hazardous waste. See, for
example, § 63.1217(a)(2)(ii). We refer to
these as hazardous waste thermal
concentration emission limits.50 In
today’s notice, we propose to amend
§ 63.1207(m) to waive performance tests
for any constituent whose thermal
concentration in the waste feed is at or
below the applicable thermal
concentration emission limit. This is
analogous to the performance test
waiver for sources that comply with
MTEC standards. Although performance
tests would not be required, the thermal
concentration emission limits would
remain in effect during source
operations.
50 Note that are granting reconsideration of the
decision to subcategorize the liquid fuel boiler
source category by heating value, which includes
standards based on this potential normalizing
parameter. See Section IV.A above.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:41 Sep 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
F. Averaging Method When Calculating
12-Hour Rolling Average Thermal
Concentration Limits
The replacement standards for cement
kilns and lightweight aggregate kilns
limit the emissions of semivolatile
metals (cadmium and lead) and low
volatile metals (arsenic, beryllium, and
chromium) from hazardous waste feeds
relative to the heating value of those
feeds. In order to monitor compliance
with those requirements,
§ 63.1209(n)(2)(iii) requires the source to
establish a 12-hour rolling average
feedrate limit for those metals on a
thermal concentration (e.g., pounds per
million British thermal unit) basis. The
limits are derived from operating levels
during the comprehensive performance
test.
For reasons discussed in the 1999
final rule (64 FR at 52922), EPA has
consistently required sources to
calculate most of their operating
parameter limits as the average of each
relevant test run average recorded
during the comprehensive performance
test. Section 63.1209(n)(2)(iii) describes
how to calculate the average thermal
concentration of metals for each test
run, but it does not explicitly describe
how to calculate the thermal
concentration limit. In today’s notice,
we are proposing to amend
§ 63.1209(n)(2)(iii) to indicate that the
metal thermal concentration limit is the
average of the individual test run
averages.
G. Calculating Rolling Averages for
Averaging Periods in Excess of 12 Hours
The final rule allows operators of
liquid fuel boilers to average certain
feed rate limits over a period of up to
one year. This applies to the mercury
and semivolatile feed rate limits.
§§ 63.1209(n)(2)(v)(A)(iv) and (n)(3)(v)
as well as §§ 63.1209(l)(1)(ii)(B)(5) and
(l)(1)(C)(5) all describe the same method
for calculating averages of longer than
12 hours upon initial compliance with
the rule. They require that you calculate
the average of all 1-minute average
values until you have acquired data for
the full averaging period (i.e., up to one
year). Thereafter, you are required to
update this value each hour using the
60-minute average feedrate from the
previous hour.
EPA recognizes that these approaches
may needlessly complicate data
management and could require
increased data storage. Therefore, we are
proposing to amend these sections of
the regulation in two ways. The first
change will explicitly allow you to
calculate long-term rolling averages
using only the 1-minute data that you
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
are otherwise required to record. If you
choose this approach, you would
calculate long-term averages in exactly
the same manner as all other rolling
averages, with the value being updated
every minute. There would be no
requirement to switch to a different
system after completion of the initial
averaging period. Alternatively, you
may still choose to use the hourly
update option specified in the current
regulations. If you choose this latter
option, however, we are proposing to
allow you to begin using hourly updates
after completing at least 12 hours of
monitoring using 1-minute updates.
(The current regulation only allows
hourly updates after completing the first
long-term averaging period, that could
be up to one year.) We believe that this
will allow you to begin ‘‘normal’’
monitoring operations as soon as
possible without any significant effect
on accuracy.
We wish to emphasize that the
definition of continuous monitor
requires that you maintain all oneminute average values in your operating
record regardless of whether you elect
one-minute or hourly updates to the
rolling average. Pursuant to § 63.10(b)(1)
of the MACT General Provisions, these
data must be retained for a period of at
least five years.
H. Calculating Rolling Averages
Most of the feed rate, emission rate,
and operating parameter limits
established in the HWC MACT rule are
monitored on a rolling average basis that
varies from hourly to annually.
Continuously monitored parameters
must be recorded at least once each
minute. The rolling average is then
calculated as the average of the oneminute values for the duration of the
most recent averaging period. For
example, a one-hour rolling average
temperature value would be calculated
by averaging the 60 most recent oneminute temperature readings, with a
new hourly rolling average value being
generated every minute.
In the 1999 final rule, the longest
permissible rolling average period was
12 hours. However, in the 2005 final
rule, we allowed up to annual averaging
for those emission standards that are
based on ‘‘normal’’ feed data. (See the
liquid fuel boiler standards for mercury
and semivolatile metals under
§ 63.1217.) In recognition of the fact that
these long-term averages would not vary
significantly over short time periods, we
chose to allow you to update these
rolling averages hourly, rather than
every minute. Our intent was to retain
one-minute updates for averaging
periods up to 12 hours while allowing
E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM
06SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules
hourly updates for longer averaging
periods. However, we inadvertently
specified hourly updates for several
parameters that are not subject to longterm (i.e., greater than 12-hour)
averaging. This occurred for three
parameters: the chromium feedrate in
liquid fuel boilers burning hazardous
waste with a heating value of 10,000 Btu
per pound or greater under
§ 63.1209(n)(2)(v)(B)(1)(i), the chromium
feedrate in liquid fuel boilers burning
hazardous waste with a heating value of
less than 10,000 Btu per pound under
§ 63.1209(n)(2)(v)(B)(2), and the
chlorine thermal concentration feedrate
limit for liquid fuel boilers burning
hazardous waste with a heating value of
not less than 10,000 Btu per pound
under § 63.1209(o)(1)(ii)(A)(3). In
today’s notice, we are proposing to
delete the hourly update references for
these three parameters.
I. Timing of the Periodic Review of
Eligibility for the Health-Based
Compliance Alternatives for Total
Chlorine
If you choose to comply with the
health-based compliance alternatives for
total chlorine, § 63.1215(h)(2)(i) requires
you to review your eligibility under that
alternative at least every five years. The
results must be submitted to the
regulatory authority for review and
approval. However, there is some
ambiguity in the exact timing of that
submission in the current regulatory
language.
In this action, we propose to eliminate
the ambiguity by amending
§ 63.1215(h)(2)(i) to indicate that the
results of your 5-year review are due to
the permitting authority at the time you
submit your comprehensive
performance test plan (as specified in
the current rule). This will most likely
be approximately four years (not five, as
indicated in the current rule) after your
last comprehensive performance test.
J. Expressing Particulate Matter
Standards Using the International
System of Units (SI)
In the final rule, we expressed the
particulate matter standards for
incinerators, cement kilns, and
lightweight aggregate kilns using
English units (gr/dscf) while expressing
the particulate matter standards for
liquid and solid fuel boilers using SI
units (mg/dscm). Our preference is to
52641
express all particulate matter standards
in SI units and we are proposing to
revise the particulate matter standards
in §§ 63.1216 through 63.1221 by
expressing the standards in SI units.51
When making the conversion from
English units to SI units, we are
proposing to convert the calculated
particulate matter results prior to the
step in which the results were rounded
to two significant figures. For example,
the calculated MACT floor for existing
incinerators was 0.0133 gr/dscf, that
was rounded to 0.013 gr/dscf (the latter
being the promulgated standard).52
Thus, our proposed approach would
convert 0.0133 gr/dscf to SI units. We
believe this approach for converting
English to SI units more accurately
reflects the MACT standards identified
in the final rule because making the
conversion to SI units after rounding the
results (in English units) can introduce
imprecision. In addition, we also would
recalculate and revise as necessary the
liquid and solid fuel boiler standards
using the same approach (i.e., existing
solid fuel boilers and existing liquid
fuel boilers). The table below shows the
results of the conversion to SI units.
PROPOSED PARTICULATE MATTER STANDARDS EXPRESSED IN SI UNITS
Type of source
Solid Fuel Boilers (§ 63.1216) ............................................................................................
Existing New .....
Liquid Fuel Boilers (§ 63.1217) ...........................................................................................
Existing New .....
Incinerators (§ 63.1219) ......................................................................................................
Existing New .....
Cement Kilns (§ 63.1220) ...................................................................................................
Existing New .....
Lightweight Aggregate Kilns (§ 63.1221) ............................................................................
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Source category
Existing New .....
Promulgated
standard
Proposed
standard
in SI units
68 mg/dscm
34 mg/dscm
80 mg/dscm
20 mg/dscm
0.013 gr/dscf
0.0015 gr/dscf
0.028 gr/dscf
0.0023 gr/dscf
0.025 gr/dscf
0.0098 gr/dscf
69 mg/dscm
34 mg/dscm
79 mg/dscm
20 mg/dscm
30 mg/dscm
3.5 mg/dscm
65 mg/dscm
5.3 mg/dscm
57 mg/dscm
22 mg/dscm
We acknowledge that several of the
particulate matter standards shown in
the table above may be revised as a
result of the reconsideration of the
particulate matter standard for new
cement kilns (71 FR at 14665). If any
particulate matter standards are revised,
we would apply the same procedure to
convert the new standards to SI units.
Accordingly, we propose to revise the
following particulate matter standards:
§§ 63.1216(a)(7); 63.1217(a)(7);
63.1219(a)(7) and (b)(7); 63.1220(a)(7)(i)
and (b)(7)(i); and 63.1221(a)(7) and
(b)(7).
K. Mercury Standards for Cement Kilns
In the final rule, we intended to
establish a two-pronged approach for
controlling mercury emissions from
cement kilns. See preamble discussion
at 70 FR at 59468. Step one establishes
a maximum concentration of mercury in
the hazardous waste feed. Step two
allows the source to choose between
either a traditional approach of limiting
the total mercury feed rate and relevant
operating parameters, or a maximum
theoretical emission concentration
(MTEC) approach. The MTEC is
calculated as described in
§ 63.1207(m)(2) except that, in this case,
it is calculated for the hazardous waste
feed(s) only.
Although we believe that the
preamble description of this approach is
clear, the regulatory language,
promulgated in §§ 63.1220(a)(2) and
(b)(2), is not.53 Our intent was to require
all affected cement kilns to comply with
§ 63.1220(a)(2)(i). In addition, the source
has the option of complying with either
§ 63.1220(a)(2)(ii) or (a)(2)(iii). However,
the current language could be
misinterpreted to allow the source to
comply only with § 63.1220(a)(2)(iii).
51 We are not proposing to revise the particulate
matter standards in §§ 63.1203 thru 63.1205
because affected sources are already complying
with these standards.
52 See USEPA, ‘‘Technical Support Document for
HWC MACT Standards, Volume III: Selection of
MACT Standards,’’ September 2005, Appendix F,
Table ‘‘APCD–INC–PM.’’
53 For brevity, the remaining regulatory citations
refer only to the standards for existing cement kilns.
However, the same changes are proposed for both
existing and new kilns.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:41 Sep 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM
06SEP2
52642
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Today, we are proposing to amend
§ 63.1220(a)(2) to more clearly reflect
our original intent. Conforming changes
to the mercury monitoring requirements
of § 63.1209(l)(1)(iii) and (iv) are also
proposed.
L. Facilities Operating Under RCRA
Interim Status
In response to the proposed rule (69
FR at 21198), one commenter expressed
concern that sources operating under
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) interim status would have
to obtain approval of the RCRA
implementing authority before
proceeding with facility modifications
required to meet the MACT standards.
The commenter noted that delays in
gaining that approval would adversely
affect a source’s ability to comply with
the MACT standards on time. We
responded to this issue in our response
to comments document.54 However, we
did not address it in either the preamble
or the final rule itself. Consequently,
this appears to be an ongoing source of
confusion among affected sources, as
well as some regulatory agencies. In
order to promote consistent
interpretation of the RCRA interim
status requirements across all
jurisdictions, the discussion that follows
reiterates EPA’s long-standing position
previously set forth in the comment
response document. States are strongly
encouraged to adhere to this
interpretation in order to facilitate
timely compliance with the HWC
MACT replacement standards.
At issue here is the interpretation of
§ 270.72(a)(3), that requires sources
operating under interim status to obtain
approval from the regulatory authority
for ‘‘Changes in the processes for the
treatment, storage, or disposal of
hazardous waste or addition of
processes * * *’’ The term ‘‘process’’
refers to the general category of waste
treatment, storage, or disposal (e.g.,
incinerator, cement kiln, boiler, etc.) as
indicated on the Part A permit form
(EPA Form 8700–23). It does not
include air pollution control devices,
monitoring equipment, or process
controls, none of which are identified
on the Part A form. Consequently,
changes to those monitoring and control
systems do not require approval under
§ 270.72(a)(3). Neither would a change
in operating conditions (e.g., an increase
in the combustion temperature) be
subject to § 272.72(a)(3) because
operating conditions are also not
included in the Part A permit form.
We note that sources subject to the
boiler and industrial furnace (BIF)
requirements (40 CFR part 266, subpart
H) under RCRA would be required to
submit revised certifications of
compliance when making any changes
that could affect emissions or operating
parameter limits. However, those
changes do not require prior approval of
the regulatory authority so they should
not impede your compliance with the
HWC MACT standards.
VI. Revised Time Lines
The time line labeled as Figure 1
published in the final rule at 70 FR at
59524, depicts an incorrect ‘‘effective’’
date for the Phase 1 Replacement
Standards and Phase 2 Standards final
rule. As a result, all subsequent dates on
the time line are also incorrect. The time
line labeled as Figure 2 published in the
final rule at 70 FR at 59525 incorrectly
includes the rule’s effective date, as well
as subsequent dates based on the
effective date. Today’s notice revises
both time lines to reflect the correct
dates or time frames associated with the
compliance activities for both Phase 1
and Phase 2 sources. In addition to
revising the dates, we felt it would be
helpful to include the following remarks
for both Figures 1 and 2.
With respect to figure 1, the time line
is now broken into three sections to
reflect the separate requirements (i.e.,
different time frames) negotiated for
Phase 1 sources for the Replacement
Standards. The first section of the time
line, beginning with the promulgation
date, provides compliance activities and
dates applicable to both Phase 1 and
Phase 2 sources. The second and third
portions of the time line represent Phase
1 and Phase 2 sources individually,
beginning with the first compliance
activity that specifies a different
deadline; that is, the comprehensive
performance test (CPT) plan and
continuous monitoring system (CMS)
performance evaluation test plan due
date.
Note that the dates on the time line
generally do not apply to sources that
elect to comply with the final standards
early, as well as to sources that have
received site-specific compliance date
or performance test date extensions.
Also, as a result of expanding the time
line into three sections from the
previous two, we have removed the note
at the bottom of the page, identified by
an asterisk that discussed Title V
requirements, to provide better visual
clarity. Rather, we have chosen to
reiterate it here in this notice. Therefore,
for the activity identified as Include
NOC in Title V Permit, we note that
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 time line. Please refer
to the particular source’s current Title V
permit status, Title V regulations, and
individual permitting authority’s
requirements.
Finally, the compliance activity dates
that are tied to when sources commence
their performance test are identified
with an asterisk. We characterize these
dates as ‘‘no later than dates.’’ This
assumes that the source commences
testing on the last allowable day. All
compliance activities marked with an
asterisk would therefore shift back by
the number of days the source
commences testing prior to the last
allowable day. For example, if a Phase
2 source commences testing on April 4,
2009 (versus the 14th, which is the last
allowable day without an extension),
then it must submit its CPT plan and
CMS performance evaluation test plan
on April 4, 2008. Also, that source must
complete its CPT by June 4, 2009 and
submit its notification of compliance no
later than September 4, 2009.
In regard to Figure 2, we have
removed the dates from the time line,
since they would not be representative
of a new unit’s compliance deadlines. A
new unit’s compliance activity
deadlines are based on when it begins
operations, which is the unit’s
compliance date and the date it must
place a Documentation of Compliance
in the operating record. Thus, the
effective date of the rule is not
applicable to new units and
consequently, the Notice of Intent to
Comply (NIC) provisions in
§§ 63.1210(b)(3) and (c)(1) that specify a
deadline based on the effective date of
the rule, also would not apply. Since we
have always intended that new units
follow the same NIC procedures as
existing units, we have revised
§§ 63.1210(b)(3) and (c)(1) to also
include the period of time between the
NIC activities so that they correctly
apply to both existing and new units.
(See Section VII.C (Clarifications to the
NIC Provisions for New Units) below for
additional discussion.) The time line
now reflects the period of time that
elapses between public review of the
draft NIC and CPT plan, the NIC public
meeting, and the final NIC submission
deadline. Aside from the corrections
54 USEPA, ‘‘Response to Comments on April 20,
2004 HWC MACT Proposed Rule, Volume IV:
Permitting,’’ September 2005, Pages 16–17.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:41 Sep 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM
06SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:16 Sep 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
of the compliance activities listed on
Figure 2. See 70 FR at 59522–59523.
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM
06SEP2
EP06SE06.000
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
made to this time line, we would like to
remind readers that the preamble to the
final rule contains a detailed discussion
52643
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 6560–50–C
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:16 Sep 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM
06SEP2
EP06SE06.001
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
52644
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules
VII. Technical Corrections and Other
Clarification
We identified minor drafting errors
and inadvertent omissions after
promulgation of the HWC NESHAP. In
this section we are providing advance
notice of technical corrections that we
plan to promulgate when we take final
action on this proposed rule. In
addition, we provide clarification of the
applicability of Title V permit
requirements to Phase 2 area sources.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
A. What Typographical Errors Would
We Correct?
We would revise § 63.1206(a)(2)(ii)(A)
to correct the cut-off date after which a
new or reconstructed source is subject
to the new source emission standards.
Currently, this paragraph incorrectly
specifies October 12, 2005, which is the
date the final rule was published,
instead of April 20, 2004, which is the
date the proposed rule was published.
See proposed revision to
§ 63.1206(a)(2)(ii)(A).
We also would correct the paragraph
heading to § 63.1206(a)(2) that currently
refers to ‘‘hydrogen chloride production
furnaces’’ instead of ‘‘hydrochloric acid
production furnaces.’’ See proposed
revision to § 63.1206(a)(2). In addition,
we would correct a provision that
inadvertently uses incorrect terminology
when referring to emissions of
‘‘hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas.’’
See proposed revision § 63.1206(b)(16).
We also would revise § 63.1210(b) to
clarify that the public meeting and
notice requirements of the notice of
intent to comply (NIC) provisions under
paragraph (c) of this section do not
apply to sources that have already
submitted their NIC. We would also
revise § 63.1210(b) to make clear that
the NIC certification requirements under
§ 63.1212(a) likewise do not apply to
sources that have already submitted
their NIC. See proposed revision to
§ 63.1210(b).
We also would correct the formula
under § 63.1215(b)(2) that is used to
calculate the annual average toxicityweighted HCl-equivalent emission rate
for each hazardous waste combustor
under the health-based compliance
alternatives for total chlorine. The
formula uses incorrectly the term ERtw
instead of ERLTtw for the annual average
HCl toxicity-weighted emission rate
considering long-term exposures. See
proposed revision to § 63.1215(b)(2).
We also would correct several other
typographical errors in § 63.1215. First,
paragraph (b)(6)(ii)(C) would be revised
by replacing the word ‘‘the se’’ with
‘‘these’’ and the term ‘‘Method 26/26a’’
with ‘‘Method 26/26A.’’ Additionally,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:41 Sep 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
paragraph (f)(5)(ii)(A) would be revised
by replacing the word ‘‘you’’ with
‘‘your.’’ Finally, we would revise
paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(3) so that the
term ‘‘aREL’’ (acute reference exposure
level) is used consistently throughout
§ 63.1215. See proposed revisions to
§§ 63.1215(a)(2), (b)(3), (b)(6)(ii)(C) and
(f)(5)(ii)(A).
We also would revise the total
chlorine standards for existing and new
liquid fuel boilers that burn hazardous
waste with an as-fired heating value of
10,000 Btu/lb or greater by expressing
the emission standard with two
significant figures. Currently, the total
chlorine standards under
§§ 63.1217(a)(6)(ii) and (b)(6)(ii) are
expressed with three significant figures.
This is inconsistent with how emission
standards are expressed in the HWC
NESHAP (see § 63.1217(d) and 64 FR at
52848). Therefore, we would revise the
total chlorine standard from 5.08E–02 to
5.1E–02 lb combined emissions of
hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas
attributable to the hazardous waste per
million Btu heat input from the
hazardous waste. See proposed
revisions to § 63.1217(a)(6)(ii) and
(b)(6)(ii).
B. What Citations Would We Correct?
We would revise an incorrect citation
in § 63.1206(b)(14)(iv) that refers
inadvertently to paragraphs (e)(2) and
(e)(3) instead of (b)(14)(ii) and (iii) in
§ 63.1206. See proposed revision to
§ 63.1206(b)(14)(iv).
Paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (ii) under
§ 63.1209 refer inadvertently to
paragraph (g)(2)(iv) instead of (g)(2)(v).
We would revise these incorrect
citations. See proposed revisions to
§§ 63.1209(g)(2)(i) and (ii).
We also would revise an incorrect
citation in § 63.1209(n)(2)(vii) that refers
inadvertently to paragraphs (l)(1)(i)
through (iii) instead of (n)(2)(ii) through
(vi). See proposed revision to
§ 63.1209(n)(2)(vii).
We also would revise an incorrect
citation in § 63.1215(a)(1)(i). This
paragraph refers inadvertently to
paragraph (b)(4) instead of (b)(7) of
§ 63.1215. See proposed revision to
§ 63.1215(a)(1)(i).
In the final rule, we amended
§ 264.340(b) by adding a new paragraph
(b)(5) stating that the particulate matter
standard under § 264.343(c) remains in
effect for incinerators that elect to
comply with the alternative to the
particulate matter standards under
§§ 63.1206(b)(14) and 63.1219(e).
However, the addition of paragraph
(b)(5) included a requirement that was
redundant to existing requirements
under paragraph (b)(3) of that same
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
52645
section. We would remove this
redundancy by combining the
requirements of paragraphs (b)(3) and
(b)(5) into a revised paragraph (b)(3).
See proposed revision to § 264.340(b).
We also would revise an incorrect
citation in § 266.100(b)(3) that contains
two subparagraphs designated as
(b)(3)(ii). This revision would
redesignate the second paragraph
(b)(3)(ii) as (b)(3)(iii). See proposed
revision to § 266.100(b)(3).
C. Corrections to the NIC Provisions for
New Units
In the final rule, we established
additional Notice of Intent to Comply
(NIC) provisions for new units to ensure
that the public would be provided
opportunities to participate early in the
regulatory development process. This
included providing the public with
combustor-specific information
equivalent to what would be required
via the RCRA permitting process for
hazardous waste combustors. Recall that
we no longer require new units to
develop trial burn plans and provide
suggested conditions for the various
phases of operation in their permit
applications or permit modification
requests. See 70 FR at 59520. The NIC
provisions for new units, located under
§§ 63.1212(b) and (c), were developed
with the above in mind.
While revising the time line for new
units (see Figure 2 shown above in
Section VI (Revised Time Lines)) it
became apparent that we overlooked the
fact that the final rule’s effective date
has no bearing on new units. A new
unit’s compliance activity deadlines are
based on when it begins operations,
which is the unit’s compliance date and
the date it must place a Documentation
of Compliance in the operating record.
Therefore, the NIC deadlines are only
based upon each individual NIC
compliance activity. For example, the
clock will begin when the new unit
provides the draft NIC and draft CPT
plan to the public for review. Once the
draft NIC and draft CPT plan are made
available for public review, the
combined public meeting must occur 30
days later, followed by the final NIC
submission an additional 60 days later.
Since the public meetings for the NIC
and the RCRA pre-application or
modification request must occur
simultaneously, we anticipate that the
new unit will plan accordingly and
work with its permitting authorities to
determine the most suitable time to
begin the NIC compliance process.
Although the time line for new units
has been corrected to remove the
effective date and the dates listed for the
NIC activities, the NIC regulatory
E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM
06SEP2
52646
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
language in § 63.1210(b)(3) and (c)(1)
must be amended to also account for
new units. While the additional NIC
provisions for new units are located in
§ 63.1212(b) and (c), they contain
several references to the core NIC
provisions in § 63.1210(b) and (c).
Obviously, we have always intended
that new units follow the same NIC
procedures as existing units, in
additionto the supplemental
requirements for new units. In
developing the additional requirements
under § 63.1212, we inadvertently
neglected to revise § 63.1210(b)(3) and
(c)(1) to include a specific number of
days between NIC compliance activities
in addition to the effective date.
Therefore, the NIC provisions under
§§ 63.1210(b)(3) and (c)(1) would be
revised to correctly apply to both
existing and new units.
Lastly, upon review of the regulations
at § 63.1212, we have discovered that
paragraph (b)(4) should have included
references to § 63.1210(c)(1) and (c)(2).
As discussed above, it has always been
our intent that new units follow the
same NIC procedures as existing units.
However, without the proper references
in § 63.1212(b)(4), the requirements of
§ 63.1210(c)(1) and (c)(2) could be read
to not apply to new units. Section
63.1212(b)(4) would be revised to clarify
that the core NIC provisions continue to
be applicable. Also, § 63.1212 (b)(1)
would be revised to remove ‘‘according
to’’ and ‘‘per’’ and add the words
‘‘pursuant to’’ so that it is consistent
with other paragraphs in (b); and
§ 63.1212(b)(3) would be revised to
correct a typographical error.
D. Clarification of the Applicability of
Title V Permit Requirements to Phase 2
Area Sources
In the preamble to the final rule, we
discuss the applicability of Title V
permit requirements to Phase 2 area
sources (see 70 FR at 59523). For
example, we note that 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 at 21212
and 21325). Regardless of this, however,
we explain that Phase 2 area sources are
still subject to the requirement to obtain
a Title V permit because they are subject
to section 112 standards. See section
502(a) of the CAA and 40 CFR 70.3(b)(2)
and 71.3(b)(2).
On this same page in the final rule
preamble, we further explain that, in
accordance with 40 CFR 70.3(c) and
70.5(c)(3), a Title V permit application
needs to include emissions information
relative to all regulated air pollutants
that are emitted from the subject units,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:41 Sep 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
not just the specific HAP pollutants
regulated by the MACT standards.
However, we then say, ‘‘Although, the
permit itself would contain standards
only for the HAP subject to MACT
standards (the section 112(c)(6) HAP).’’
Initially this phrase was part of a longer
sentence in a draft version of the
preamble and was inadvertently
incorporated into the final preamble.
While the intent of the sentence was to
note that a source cannot be required to
control more HAP than is regulated by
the relevant MACT standards, this
sentence is not needed given that Title
V permits cannot modify applicable
requirements to address additional
HAP. Moreover, this phrase is confusing
given that all applicable requirements
that apply to the subject area source
units, not just the relevant MACT
standard requirements, are required to
be included in the permits for these
units. Lastly, this phrase is confusing
because it was included at a point in the
discussion where permit applications,
not permits, were being discussed.
Therefore, in this action, we reiterate
that a Title V permit application needs
to include emissions information
relative to all regulated air pollutants
that are emitted from the units subject
to the MACT standards, not just the
specific HAP pollutants regulated by the
MACT standards. Additionally, all
MACT standards that apply to the
subject units (e.g., subpart EEE for
hazardous waste burning boilers and
subpart DDDDD for non-hazardous
waste burning boilers, etc.), as well as
all other applicable requirements that
apply to these subject units, e.g., State
Implementation Plan requirements, are
required to be included in the Title V
permits for Phase 2 area sources.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under Executive Order (EO) 12866
(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a ‘‘significant regulatory
action.’’ Pursuant to the terms of
Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that today’s proposed rule
constitutes a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ because this action raises novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President’s priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive
Order. Accordingly, EPA submitted this
action to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review under EO
12866 and any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations
have been documented in the docket for
this action.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
This proposed rule is not considered
to be an economically significant action
because the total social costs for this
proposed rule are significantly below
the $100 million threshold established
for economically significant actions.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. because there
is no additional burden on the industry
as a result of the proposed rule, and the
ICR has not been revised.
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.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impact
of today’s proposed rule on small
entities, a small entity is defined as: (1)
A small business as defined by the
Small Business Administrations’
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-forprofit enterprise which is independently
E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM
06SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules
owned and operated and is not
dominant in the field.
After considering the economic
impacts of today’s proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. EPA has determined that none
of the small entities will experience a
significant economic impact because the
notice imposes no additional regulatory
requirements on owners or operators of
affected sources. We continue to be
interested in the potential impacts of the
proposed rule on small entities and
welcome comments on issues related to
such impacts.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104–4, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local,
and tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,
EPA generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules
with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may
result in expenditures to State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or to the private sector, of $100 million
or more in any one year. Before
promulgating an EPA rule for which a
written statement is needed, section 205
of the UMRA generally requires EPA to
identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and
adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule.
The provisions of section 205 do not
apply when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, section 205
allows EPA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted. Before EPA establishes
any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed
under section 203 of the UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments
to have meaningful and timely input in
the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:41 Sep 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
EPA has determined that today’s
notice of reconsideration does not
contain a Federal mandate that may
result in expenditures of $100 million or
more for State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or to the
private sector in any one year. Although
our best estimate of total social costs of
the final rule was $22.6 million per
year, today’s notice does not add new
requirements that would increase this
cost. See 70 FR at 59532. Thus, today’s
proposed rule is not subject to sections
202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA has also
determined that the notice of
reconsideration contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments
because it contains no regulatory
requirements that apply to such
governments or impose obligations
upon them. Thus, today’s proposed rule
is not subject to the requirements of
section 203.
E. 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.’’
Today’s proposed rule does not have
federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. This rule, as
proposed, is not projected to result in
economic impacts to privately owned
hazardous waste combustion facilities.
Marginal administrative burden impacts
may occur at selected States and/or EPA
regional offices if these entities
experience increased administrative
needs or information requests. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this rule.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
52647
to develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ This notice of
reconsideration does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175. No affected facilities are
owned or operated by Indian tribal
governments. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this notice of
reconsideration.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
‘‘Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
applies to any rule that: (1) is
determined to be ‘‘economically
significant’’ as defined under 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 proposed rule is not subject
to E.O. 13045 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.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy
action’’ as defined in Executive Order
13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 Fed Reg 28355
(May 22, 2001) because it is not likely
to have a significant adverse effect on
the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. Further, we have concluded that
this rule is not likely to have any
adverse energy effects.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
As described in the October 2005 final
rule, 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
E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM
06SEP2
52648
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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. During
the development of the final rule, EPA
searched for voluntary consensus
standards that might be applicable. The
search identified the following
consensus standards that were
considered practical alternatives to the
specified EPA test methods: (1)
American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) D6735–01, ‘‘Standard
Test Method for Measurement of
Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from
Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources—
Impinger Method,’’ and (2) American
Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME) standard QHO–1–2004,
‘‘Standard for the Qualification and
Certification of Hazardous Waste
Incineration Operators.’’ Today’s notice
of reconsideration does not propose the
use of any additional technical
standards beyond those cited in the
final rule. Therefore, EPA is not
considering the use of any additional
voluntary consensus standards for this
notice.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 264
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Hazardous waste,
Insurance, Packaging and containers,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures, Surety
bonds.
40 CFR Part 266
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Environmental protection, Energy,
Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: August 24, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code
of Federal Regulations is proposed to be
amended as follows:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:41 Sep 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSIONS
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE
CATEGORIES
1. The authority citation for part 63
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. Section 63.1203 is amended by
adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 63.1203 What are the standards for
hazardous waste incinerators that are
effective until compliance with the
standards under § 63.1219?
*
*
*
*
*
(e) The provisions of this section no
longer apply after any of the following
dates, whichever occurs first:
(1) The date that your source begins
to comply with § 63.1219 by placing a
Documentation of Compliance in the
operating record pursuant to
§ 63.1211(c);
(2) The date that your source begins
to comply with § 63.1219 by submitting
a Notification of Compliance pursuant
to § 63.1210(b); or
(3) The date for your source to comply
with § 63.1219 pursuant to § 63.1206
and any extensions granted thereunder.
3. Section 63.1204 is amended by
adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:
§ 63.1204 What are the standards for
hazardous waste burning cement kilns that
are effective until compliance with the
standards under § 63.1220?
*
*
*
*
*
(i) The provisions of this section no
longer apply after any of the following
dates, whichever occurs first:
(1) The date that your source begins
to comply with § 63.1220 by placing a
Documentation of Compliance in the
operating record pursuant to
§ 63.1211(c);
(2) The date that your source begins
to comply with § 63.1220 by submitting
a Notification of Compliance pursuant
to § 63.1210(b); or
(3) The date for your source to comply
with § 63.1220 pursuant to § 63.1206
and any extensions granted thereunder.
4. Section 63.1205 is amended by
adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 63.1205 What are the standards for
hazardous waste burning lightweight
aggregate kilns that are effective until
compliance with the standards under
§ 63.1221?
*
*
*
*
*
(e) The provisions of this section no
longer apply after any of the following
dates, whichever occurs first:
(1) The date that your source begins
to comply with § 63.1221 by placing a
Documentation of Compliance in the
operating record pursuant to
§ 63.1211(c);
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(2) The date that your source begins
to comply with § 63.1221 by submitting
a Notification of Compliance pursuant
to § 63.1210(b); or
(3) The date for your source to comply
with § 63.1221 pursuant to § 63.1206
and any extensions granted thereunder.
5. Section 63.1206 is amended as
follows:
a. By revising paragraph (a)(2)
paragraph heading and the first sentence
of paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(A).
b. By revising paragraphs (b)(14)(iv)
and (b)(16) introductory text.
c. By revising paragraph (c)(9)
introductory text.
§ 63.1206 When and how must you comply
with the standards and operating
requirements?
(a) * * *
(2) Compliance date for solid fuel
boilers, liquid fuel boilers, and
hydrochloric acid production furnaces
that burn hazardous waste for standards
under §§ 63.1216, 63.1217, and 63.1218.
* * *
*
*
*
*
*
(ii) * * * (A) If you commenced
construction or reconstruction of your
hazardous waste combustor after April
20, 2004, you must comply with the
new source emission standards of this
subpart by the later of October 12, 2005,
or the date the source starts operations,
except as provided by paragraph
(a)(2)(ii)(B) of this section. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(14) * * *
(iv) Operating limits. Semivolatile and
low volatile metal operating parameter
limits must be established to ensure
compliance with the alternative
emission limitations described in
paragraphs (b)(14)(ii) and (iii) of this
section pursuant to § 63.1209(n), except
that semivolatile metal feedrate limits
apply to lead, cadmium, and selenium,
combined, and low volatile metal
feedrate limits apply to arsenic,
beryllium, chromium, antimony, cobalt,
manganese, and nickel, combined.
*
*
*
*
*
(16) Compliance with subcategory
standards for liquid fuel boilers. You
must comply with the mercury,
semivolatile metals, low volatile metals,
and hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas
standards for liquid fuel boilers under
§ 63.1217 as follows:
(c) * * *
(9) Particulate matter detection
system requirements. If your combustor
is equipped with an electrostatic
precipitator or ionizing wet scrubber
and you elect not to establish under
§ 63.1209(m)(1)(iv) site-specific control
E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM
06SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules
device operating parameter limits that
are linked to the automatic waste feed
cutoff system under paragraph (c)(3) of
this section, or your combustor is
equipped with a fabric filter and you
elect to use a particulate matter
detection system pursuant to paragraph
(c)(8)(i)(B) of this section, you must
continuously operate a particulate
matter detection system that meets the
specifications and requirements of
paragraph (c)(9)(i) through (iii) of this
section and you must comply with the
corrective measures and notification
requirements of paragraphs (c)(9)(iv)
through (v) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
6. Section 63.1207 is amended as
follows:
a. By adding paragraph (b)(3)(vi).
b. By revising paragraphs (d)(1),
(d)(2), and (d)(4).
c. By revising the first sentence of
paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii).
d. By revising paragraph (m).
§ 63.1207 What are the performance
testing requirements?
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(vi) Sources that are required to
perform the one-time dioxin/furan test
pursuant to paragraph (b)(3) of this
section are not required to perform
confirmatory performance tests.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) Comprehensive performance
testing. Except as otherwise specified in
paragraph (d)(4) of this section, you
must commence testing no later than 61
months after the date of commencing
the previous comprehensive
performance test used to show
compliance with §§ 63.1216, 63.1217,
63.1218, 63.1219, 63.1220, or 63.1221. If
you submit data in lieu of the initial
performance test, you must commence
the subsequent comprehensive
performance test within 61 months of
commencing the test used to provide the
data in lieu of the initial performance
test.
(2) Confirmatory performance testing.
Except as otherwise specified in
paragraph (d)(4) of this section, you
must commence confirmatory
performance testing no later than 31
months after the date of commencing
the previous comprehensive
performance test used to show
compliance with §§ 63.1216, 63.1217,
63.1218, 63.1219, 63.1220, or 63.1221. If
you submit data in lieu of the initial
performance test, you must commence
the initial confirmatory performance test
within 31 months of the date six months
after the compliance date. To ensure
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:41 Sep 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
that the confirmatory test is conducted
approximately midway between
comprehensive performance tests, the
Administrator will not approve a test
plan that schedules testing within 18
months of commencing the previous
comprehensive performance test.
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Applicable testing requirements
under the interim standards. (i) Waiver
of periodic comprehensive performance
tests. Except as provided by paragraph
(c)(2) of this section, you must conduct
only an initial comprehensive
performance test under the interim
standards (i.e., the standards published
in the Federal Register on February 13,
2002); all subsequent comprehensive
performance testing requirements are
waived under the interim standards.
The provisions in the introductory text
to paragraph (d) and in paragraph (d)(1)
of this section apply only to tests used
to demonstrate compliance with the
permanent replacement standards
promulgated on or after October 12,
2005.
(ii) Waiver of confirmatory
performance tests. You are not required
to conduct a confirmatory test under the
interim standards (i.e., the standards
published in the Federal Register on
February 13, 2002). The confirmatory
testing requirements in the introductory
text to paragraph (d) and in paragraph
(d)(2) of this section apply only after
you have demonstrated compliance
with the permanent replacement
standards promulgated on or after
October 12, 2005.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Carbon monoxide (or hydrocarbon)
CEMS emissions levels must be within
the range of the average value to the
maximum value allowed, except as
provided by paragraph (g)(2)(v) of this
section. * * *
(ii) Each operating limit (specified in
§ 63.1209) established to maintain
compliance with the dioxin/furan
emission standard must be held within
the range of the average value over the
previous 12 months and the maximum
or minimum, as appropriate, that is
allowed, except as provided by
paragraph (g)(2)(v) of this section. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(m) Waiver of performance test. You
are not required to conduct performance
tests to document compliance with the
mercury, semivolatile metals, low
volatile metals, or hydrogen chloride/
chlorine gas emission standards under
the conditions specified in paragraphs
(m)(1) or (m)(2) of this section. The
waiver provisions of this paragraph
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
52649
apply in addition to the provisions of
§ 63.7(h).
(1) Emission standards based on
exhaust gas flow rate. (i) You are
deemed to be in compliance with an
emission standard based on the
volumetric flow rate of exhaust gas (i.e.
µg/dscm or ppmv) if the twelve-hour
rolling average maximum theoretical
emission concentration (MTEC)
determined as specified below does not
exceed the emission standard:
(A) Determine the feedrate of
mercury, semivolatile metals, low
volatile metals, or total chlorine and
chloride from all feedstreams;
(B) Determine the stack gas flowrate;
and
(C) Calculate a MTEC for each
standard assuming all mercury,
semivolatile metals, low volatile metals,
or total chlorine (organic and inorganic)
from all feedstreams is emitted;
(ii) To document compliance with
this provision, you must:
(A) Monitor and record the feedrate of
mercury, semivolatile metals, low
volatile metals, and total chlorine and
chloride from all feedstreams according
to § 63.1209(c);
(B) Monitor with a CMS and record in
the operating record the gas flowrate
(either directly or by monitoring a
surrogate parameter that you have
correlated to gas flowrate);
(C) Continuously calculate and record
in the operating record the MTEC under
the procedures of paragraph (m)(1)(i) of
this section; and
(D) Interlock the MTEC calculated in
paragraph (m)(1)(i)(C) of this section to
the AWFCO system to stop hazardous
waste burning when the MTEC exceeds
the emission standard.
(iii) In lieu of the requirement in
paragraphs (m)(1)(ii)(C) and (D) of this
section, you may:
(A) Identify in the Notification of
Compliance a minimum gas flowrate
limit and a maximum feedrate limit of
mercury, semivolatile metals, low
volatile metals, and/or total chlorine
and chloride from all feedstreams that
ensures the MTEC as calculated in
paragraph (m)(1)(i)(C) of this section is
below the applicable emission standard;
and
(B) Interlock the minimum gas
flowrate limit and maximum feedrate
limit of paragraph (m)(1)(iii)(A) of this
section to the AWFCO system to stop
hazardous waste burning when the gas
flowrate or mercury, semivolatile
metals, low volatile metals, and/or total
chlorine and chloride feedrate exceeds
the limits of paragraph (m)(1)(iii)(A) of
this section.
(2) Emission standards based on
hazardous waste thermal concentration.
E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM
06SEP2
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
52650
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules
(i) You are deemed to be in compliance
with an emission standard specified on
a hazardous waste thermal
concentration basis (i.e., pounds emitted
per million Btu of heat input) if the HAP
thermal concentration in the waste feed
does not exceed the allowable HAP
thermal concentration emission rate.
(ii) To document compliance with
this provision, you must:
(A) Monitor and record the feedrate of
mercury, semivolatile metals, low
volatile metals, and total chlorine and
chloride from all hazardous waste
feedstreams in accordance with
§ 63.1209(c);
(B) Determine and record the higher
heating value of each hazardous waste
feed;
(C) Continuously calculate and record
the thermal feed rate of all hazardous
waste feedstreams by summing the
products of each hazardous waste feed
rate multiplied by the higher heating
value of that hazardous waste;
(D) Continuously calculate and record
the total HAP thermal feed
concentration for each constituent by
dividing the HAP feedrate determined
in paragraph (m)(2)(ii)(A) of this section
by the thermal feed rate determined in
paragraph (m)(2)(ii)(C) of this section for
all hazardous waste feedstreams;
(E) Interlock the HAP thermal feed
concentration for each constituent with
the AWFCO to stop hazardous waste
feed when the thermal feed
concentration exceeds the applicable
thermal emission standard.
(3) When you determine the feedrate
of mercury, semivolatile metals, low
volatile metals, or total chlorine and
chloride for purposes of this provision,
except as provided by paragraph (m)(4)
of this section, you must assume that
the analyte is present at the full
detection limit when the feedstream
analysis determines that the analyte is
not detected is the feedstream.
(4) Owners and operators of
hazardous waste burning cement kilns
and lightweight aggregate kilns may
assume that mercury is present in raw
material at half the detection limit when
the raw material feedstream analysis
determines that mercury is not detected.
(5) You must state in the site-specific
test plan that you submit for review and
approval under paragraph (e) of this
section that you intend to comply with
the provisions of this paragraph. You
must include in the test plan
documentation that any surrogate that is
proposed for gas flowrate adequately
correlates with the gas flowrate.
7. Section 63.1209 is amended as
follows:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:41 Sep 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
a. By revising paragraphs (l)(1)(iii)(B),
(l)(1)(iii)(C) introductory text,
(l)(1)(iii)(D)(1), and (l)(1)(iii)(D)(2).
b. By revising paragraphs
(n)(2)(iii)(A), (n)(2)(v)(A)(2)(iv),
(n)(2)(v)(B)(1)(i), (n)(2)(v)(B)(1)(ii),
(n)(2)(v)(B)(2), and the first sentence of
paragraph (n)(2)(vii) introductory text.
c. By revising paragraph
(o)(1)(ii)(A)(3).
§ 63.1209 What are the monitoring
requirements?
*
*
*
*
*
(l) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) * * *
(B) When complying with the
emission standards under §§ 63.1204
and 63.1220(a)(2)(ii)(A) and (b)(2)(ii)(A),
you must establish a 12-hour rolling
average limit for the feedrate of mercury
in all feedstreams as the average of the
test run averages;
(C) Except as provided by paragraph
(l)(1)(iii)(D) of this section, when
complying with the hazardous waste
maximum theoretical emission
concentration (MTEC) under
§ 63.1220(a)(2)(ii)(B) and (b)(2)(ii)(B),
you must:
*
*
*
*
*
(D) * * *
(1) Identify in the Notification of
Compliance a minimum gas flowrate
limit and a maximum feedrate limit of
mercury from all hazardous waste
feedstreams that ensures the MTEC
calculated in paragraph (l)(1)(iii)(C)(4)
of this section is below the operating
requirement under paragraphs
§§ 63.1220(a)(2)(ii)(B) and (b)(2)(ii)(B);
and
(2) Initiate an automatic waste feed
cutoff that immediately and
automatically cuts off the hazardous
waste feed when either the gas flowrate
or mercury feedrate exceeds the limits
identified in paragraph (l)(1)(iii)(D)(1) of
this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(n) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) * * * (A) When complying with
the emission standards under
§ 63.1220(a)(3)(i), (a)(4)(i), (b)(3)(i), and
(b)(4)(i), you must establish 12-hour
rolling average feedrate limits for
semivolatile and low volatile metals as
the thermal concentration of
semivolatile metals or low volatile
metals in all hazardous waste
feedstreams. You must calculate
hazardous waste thermal concentrations
for semivolatile metals and low volatile
metals for each run as the total mass
feedrate of semivolatile metals or low
volatile metals for all hazardous waste
feedstreams divided by the total heat
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
input rate for all hazardous waste
feedstreams. The 12-hour rolling
average feedrate limits for semivolatile
metals and low volatile metals are the
average of the test run averages,
calculated on a thermal concentration
basis, for all hazardous waste feeds.
*
*
*
*
*
(v) * * *
(A) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) 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
paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section.
Thereafter, you must calculate rolling
averages using either one-minute or onehour updates. Hourly updates shall be
calculated using the average of the oneminute average data for the preceding
hour. For the period beginning with
initial operation under this standard
until the source has operated for the full
averaging period that you select, the
average feedrate shall be based only on
actual operation under this standard.
*
*
*
*
*
(B) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) The 12-hour rolling average
feedrate limit is a hazardous waste
thermal concentration limit expressed
as pounds of chromium in all hazardous
waste feedstreams per million Btu of
hazardous waste fed to the boiler. You
must establish the 12-hour rolling
average feedrate limit as the average of
the test run averages.
(ii) You must comply with the
hazardous waste chromium thermal
concentration limit by determining the
feedrate of chromium in all hazardous
waste feedstreams (lb/hr) and the
hazardous waste thermal feedrate
(MMBtu/hr) at least once each minute as
[hazardous waste chromium feedrate
(lb/hr)/hazardous waste thermal
feedrate (MMBtu/hr)].
(2) Boilers that feed hazardous waste
with a heating value less than 10,000
Btu/lb. You must establish a 12-hour
rolling average limit for the total
feedrate (lb/hr) of chromium in all
feedstreams as the average of the test
run averages.
*
*
*
*
*
(vii) Extrapolation of feedrate levels.
In lieu of establishing feedrate limits as
specified in paragraphs (n)(2)(ii)
through (vi) of this section, you may
request as part of the performance test
plan under §§ 63.7(b) and (c) and
§§ 63.1207(e) and (f) to use the
semivolatile metal and low volatile
metal feedrates and associated emission
E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM
06SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules
rates during the comprehensive
performance test to extrapolate to higher
allowable feedrate limits and emission
rates. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(o) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) * * *
(3) You must comply with the
feedrate limit by determining the mass
feedrate of hazardous waste feedstreams
(lb/hr) at least once a minute and by
knowing the chlorine content (organic
and inorganic, lb of chlorine/lb of
hazardous waste) and heating value
(Btu/lb) of hazardous waste feedstreams
at all times to calculate a 1-minute
average feedrate measurement as
[hazardous waste chlorine content (lb of
chlorine/lb of hazardous waste feed)/
hazardous waste heating value (Btu/lb
of hazardous waste)]. You must update
the rolling average feedrate each hour
with this 60-minute average feedrate
measurement.
*
*
*
*
*
8. Section 63.1210 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b) introductory
text, (b)(3), and (c)(1) to read as follows:
§ 63.1210 What are the notification
requirements?
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Notification of intent to comply
(NIC). These procedures apply to
sources that have not previously
complied with the requirements of
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section,
and to sources that previously complied
with the NIC requirements of §§ 63.1210
and 63.1212(a), which were in effect
prior to October 11, 2000, that must
make a technology change requiring a
Class 1 permit modification to meet the
standards of §§ 63.1219, 63.1220, and
63.1221.
*
*
*
*
*
(3) You must submit the final NIC to
the Administrator no later than one year
following the effective date of the
emission standards of this subpart or 60
days following the informal public
meeting.
(c) * * * (1) Prior to the submission
of the NIC to the permitting agency, and
no later than 10 months after the
effective date of the emission standards
of this subpart or 30 days following
notice of the informal public meeting,
you must hold at least one informal
meeting with the public to discuss the
anticipated activities described in the
draft NIC for achieving compliance with
the emission standards of this subpart.
You must post a sign-in sheet or
otherwise provide a voluntary
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:41 Sep 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
opportunity for attendees to provide
their names and addresses.
*
*
*
*
*
9. Section 63.1212 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(3), and
(b)(4) to read as follows:
§ 63.1212 What are the other requirements
pertaining to the NIC?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) Prepare a draft NIC pursuant to
§ 63.1210(b) and make it available to the
public upon issuance of the notice of
public meeting pursuant to
§ 63.1210(c)(3);
*
*
*
*
*
(3) Provide notice to the public of a
pre-application meeting pursuant to
§ 124.30 of this chapter or notice to the
public of a permit modification request
pursuant to § 270.42 of this chapter; and
(4) Hold an informal public meeting,
pursuant to §§ 63.1210(c)(1) and (c)(2),
30 days following notice of the NIC
public meeting and notice of the preapplication meeting or notice of the
permit modification request to discuss
anticipated activities described in the
draft NIC and pre-application or permit
modification request for achieving
compliance with the emission standards
of this subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
10. Section 63.1215 is amended as
follows:
a. By revising paragraph (a)(1)(i).
b. By revising the definitions of ‘‘1Hour Average HCl-Equivalent Emission
Rate’’ and ‘‘1-Hour Average HClEquivalent Emission Rate Limit’’ in
paragraph (a)(2).
c. By revising paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3),
and (b)(6)(ii)(C).
d. By revising paragraphs (e)(2)(i)(B),
(e)(2)(i)(C), and (e)(2)(i)(D).
e. By adding paragraph (e)(3).
f. By revising paragraph (f)(5)(ii)(A).
g. By revising paragraph (h)(2)(i).
52651
emission rate (lb/hr) determined by
equating the toxicity of chlorine to HCl
using aRELs as the health risk metric for
acute exposure.
1-Hour Average HCl-Equivalent
Emission Rate Limit means the HClequivalent emission rate (lb/hr)
determined by equating the toxicity of
chlorine to HCl using aRELs as the
health risk metric for acute exposure
and which ensures that maximum 1hour average ambient concentrations of
HCl-equivalents do not exceed a Hazard
Index of 1.0, rounded to the nearest
tenths decimal place (0.1), at an off-site
receptor location.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) Annual average rates. You must
calculate annual average toxicityweighted HCl-equivalent emission rates
for each combustor as follows:
ERLTtw = ERHCl + ERCl2 × (RfCHCl/RfCCl2)
Where:
ERLTtw is the annual average HCl
toxicity-weighted emission rate
(HCl-equivalent emission rate)
considering long-term exposures,
lb/hr
ERHCl is the emission rate of HCl in lbs/
hr
ERCl2 is the emission rate of chlorine in
lbs/hr
RfCHCl is the reference concentration of
HCl
RfCCl2 is the reference concentration of
chlorine
(3) 1-hour average rates. You must
calculate 1-hour average toxicityweighted HCl-equivalent emission rates
for each combustor as follows:
ERSTtw = ERHCl + ERCl2 × (aRELHCl/
aRELCl2)
Where:
ERSTtw is the 1-hour average HCltoxicity-weighted emission rate
(HCl-equivalent emission rate)
considering 1-hour (short-term)
exposures, lb/hr
§ 63.1215 What are health-based
ERHCl is the emission rate of HCl in lbs/
compliance alternatives for total chlorine?
hr
ERCl2 is the emission rate of chlorine in
(a) * * *
lbs/hr
(1)
aRELHCl is the aREL for HCl
(i) Identify a total chlorine emission
aRELCl2 is the aREL for chlorine
concentration (ppmv) expressed as
chloride (Cl(-)) equivalent for each on*
*
*
*
*
site hazardous waste combustor. You
(6) * * *
may select total chlorine emission
(ii) * * *
concentrations as you choose to
(C) You must calculate the 1-hour
demonstrate eligibility for the risk-based average HCl-equivalent emission rate
limits under this section, except as
using these HCl and Cl2 emission rates
provided by paragraph (b)(7) of this
and the equation in paragraph (b)(3) of
section;
this section.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
(2) * * *
(e) * * *
1-Hour Average HCl-Equivalent
(2) * * *
Emission Rate means the HCl-equivalent
(i) * * *
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM
06SEP2
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
52652
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules
(B) Your 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 to achieve the
MACT standards for total chlorine
under §§ 63.1216, 63.1217, 63.1219,
63.1220, and 63.1221. If your eligibility
demonstration is disapproved, the
permitting authority may extend the
compliance date of the total chlorine
standards up to one year 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 MACT total chlorine standards.
(C) 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 begin complying, on the
compliance date, with the HClequivalent emission rate limits you
present in your eligibility demonstration
provided that you have made a good
faith effort to provide complete and
accurate information and to respond to
any requests for additional information
in a timely manner. If the permitting
authority believes that you have not
made a good faith effort to provide
complete and accurate information or to
respond to any requests for additional
information, however, the authority may
notify you in writing by the compliance
date that you have not met the
conditions for complying with the
health-based compliance alternative
without prior approval. Such notice will
explain the basis for concluding that
you have not made a good faith effort to
comply with the health-based
compliance alternative by the
compliance date.
(D) If your permitting authority issues
a notice of intent to disapprove your
eligibility demonstration after the
compliance date, the authority will
identify the basis for that notice and
specify how much time you will have to
submit additional information or to
comply with the MACT standards for
total chlorine under §§ 63.1216,
63.1217, 63.1219, 63.1220, and 63.1221.
The permitting authority may extend
the compliance date of the total chlorine
standards up to one-year to allow you to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:41 Sep 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 MACT
standards for total chlorine.
*
*
*
*
*
(3) The operating requirements in the
eligibility demonstration are applicable
requirements for purposes of parts 70
and 71 of this chapter and will be
incorporated in the title V permit.
(f) * * *
(5) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) You must determine your chlorine
emissions to be the higher of the value
measured by Method 26/26A, or an
equivalent method, or the value
calculated by the 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.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Proactive review. You must submit
for review and approval with each
comprehensive performance test plan
either a certification that the
information used in your eligibility
demonstration has not changed in a
manner that would decrease the annual
average or 1-hour average HClequivalent emission rate limit, or a
revised eligibility demonstration.
*
*
*
*
*
11. Section 63.1216 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(7) to read as
follows:
§ 63.1216 What are the standards for solid
fuel boilers that burn hazardous waste?
(a) * * *
(7) For particulate matter, except for
an area source as defined under § 63.2
or as provided by paragraph (e) of this
section, emissions in excess of 69 mg/
dscm corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
*
*
*
*
*
12. Section 63.1217 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a)(6)(ii), (a)(7), and
(b)(6)(ii) to read as follows:
§ 63.1217 What are the standards for liquid
fuel boilers that burn hazardous waste?
(a) * * *
(6) * * *
(ii) When you burn hazardous waste
with an as-fired heating value of 10,000
Btu/lb or greater, emissions in excess of
5.1 × 10 ¥2 lbs combined emissions of
hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas
attributable to the hazardous waste per
million Btu heat input from the
hazardous waste;
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(7) For particulate matter, except for
an area source as defined under § 63.2
or as provided by paragraph (e) of this
section, emissions in excess of 79 mg/
dscm corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(6) * * *
(ii) When you burn hazardous waste
with an as-fired heating value of 10,000
Btu/lb or greater, emissions in excess of
5.1 × 10 ¥2 lbs combined emissions of
hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas
attributable to the hazardous waste per
million Btu heat input from the
hazardous waste;
*
*
*
*
*
13. Section 63.1219 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a)(7) and (b)(7) to
read as follows:
§ 63.1219 What are the replacement
standards for hazardous waste
incinerators?
(a) * * *
(7) Except as provided by paragraph
(e) of this section, particulate matter in
excess of 30 mg/dscm corrected to 7
percent oxygen.
(b) * * *
(7) Except as provided by paragraph
(e) of this section, particulate matter in
excess of 3.5 mg/dscm corrected to 7
percent oxygen.
*
*
*
*
*
14. Section 63.1220 is amended as
follows:
a. By revising paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) and
(a)(7)(i).
b. By revising paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and
(b)(7)(i).
§ 63.1220 What are the replacement
standards for hazardous waste burning
cement kilns?
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Either:
(A) Emissions in excess of 120 µg/
dscm, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, or
(B) A hazardous waste feed maximum
theoretical emission concentration
(MTEC) in excess of 120 µg/dscm;
*
*
*
*
*
(7) * * *
(i) Emissions in excess of 65 mg/dscm
corrected to 7 percent oxygen; and
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Either:
(A) Emissions in excess of 120 µg/
dscm, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, or
(B) A hazardous waste feed maximum
theoretical emission concentration
(MTEC) in excess of 120 µg/dscm;
*
*
*
*
*
(7) * * *
E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM
06SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules
(i) Emissions in excess of 5.3 mg/
dscm corrected to 7 percent oxygen; and
*
*
*
*
*
15. Section 63.1221 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a)(7) and (b)(7) to
read as follows:
17. Section 264.340 is amended as
follows:
a. By revising the first sentence of
paragraph (b)(1) and paragraph (b)(3).
b. By removing paragraph (b)(5).
§ 63.1221 What are the replacement
standards for hazardous waste burning
lightweight aggregate kilns?
*
(a) * * *
(7) Particulate matter emissions in
excess of 57 mg/dscm corrected to 7
percent oxygen.
(b) * * *
(7) Particulate matter emissions in
excess of 22 mg/dscm corrected to 7
percent oxygen.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 264—STANDARDS FOR
OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
16. The authority citation for part 264
continues to read as follows:
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924,
and 6925.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:41 Sep 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
§ 264.340
Applicability.
*
*
*
*
(b) * * * (1) Except as provided by
paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(4) of this
section, the standards of this part do not
apply to a new hazardous waste
incineration unit that becomes subject
to RCRA permit requirements after
October 12, 2005; or no longer apply
when an owner or operator of an
existing hazardous waste incineration
unit demonstrates compliance with the
maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) requirements of part
63, subpart EEE, of this chapter by
conducting a comprehensive
performance test and submitting to the
Administrator a Notification of
Compliance under §§ 63.1207(j) and
63.1210(d) of this chapter documenting
compliance with the requirements of
part 63, subpart EEE, of this chapter.
* * *
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
52653
(3) The particulate matter standard of
§ 264.343(c) remains in effect for
incinerators that elect to comply with
the alternative to the particulate matter
standard under §§ 63.1206(b)(14) and
63.1219(e) of this chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 266—STANDARDS FOR THE
MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC
HAZARDOUS WASTES AND SPECIFIC
TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
18. The authority citation for part 266
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1006, 2002(a), 3001–
3009, 3014, 6905, 6906, 6912, 6921, 6922,
6924–6927, 6934, and 6937.
19. Section 266.100 is amended by
redesignating the second paragraph
(b)(3)(ii) as (b)(3)(iii).
§ 266.100
[Amended]
[FR Doc. 06–7251 Filed 9–5–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM
06SEP2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 6, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52624-52653]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7251]
[[Page 52623]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 63, 264, and 266
NESHAP: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors (Reconsideration); Proposed
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 52624]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 63, 264 and 266
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022; FRL-8215-3]
RIN 2050-AG29
NESHAP: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors (Reconsideration)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On October 12, 2005, EPA promulgated national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing
hazardous waste combustors. Subsequently, the Administrator received
four petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. In this proposed
rule, EPA is granting reconsideration of and requesting comment on
several issues raised in the petitions of the Cement Kiln Recycling
Coalition, the Coalition for Responsible Waste Incineration, and the
Sierra Club. In addition, EPA is proposing several amendments and
corrections to the final rule to clarify some compliance and monitoring
issues raised by several entities affected by the final rule.
DATES: Comments. Written comments must be received by October 23, 2006.
Public Hearing. A public hearing will be held on September 21,
2006. For further information on the public hearing and requests to
speak, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2004-0022, by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
Fax: 202-566-1741.
Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: HQ EPA Docket
Center (6102T), Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total
of two copies. We request that you also send a separate copy of each
comment to the contact person listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver comments
to: HQ EPA Docket Center (6102T), Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2004-0022, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B-108, Washington, DC
20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. Please include a total of two copies.
We request that you also send a separate copy of each comment to the
contact person listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2004-0022. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comments include information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified
as CBI to only the following address: Ms. LaShan Haynes, RCRA Document
Control Officer, EPA (Mail Code 5305W), Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2004-0022, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC, 20460. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. 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. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. We also request
that interested parties who would like information they previously
submitted to EPA to be considered as part of this reconsideration
action identify the relevant information by docket entry numbers and
page numbers.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only
in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the HQ EPA
Docket Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022, EPA West Building,
Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. This
Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The HQ EPA Docket Center telephone
number is (202) 566-1742. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744. A
reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
Note: The EPA Docket Center suffered damage due to flooding
during the last week of June 2006. The Docket Center is continuing
to operate. However, during the cleanup, there will be temporary
changes to Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses, and hours of
operation for people who wish to make hand deliveries or visit the
Public Reading Room to view documents. Consult EPA's Federal
Register notice at 71 FR 38147 (July 5, 2006) or the EPA Web site at
https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm for current information on
docket operations, locations and telephone numbers. The Docket
Center's mailing address for U.S. mail and the procedure for
submitting comments to www.regulations.gov are not affected by the
flooding and will remain the same.
Public Hearing. The public hearing will run from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
Eastern standard time, and will be held at the Two Potomac Yard
building, 2733 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, Virginia, 22202. Persons
interested in attending the hearing or wishing to present oral
testimony should notify Mr. Frank Behan at least 2 days in advance of
the public hearing (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble). The public hearing will provide interested parties the
opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning this
notice. If no one contacts Mr. Behan in advance of the hearing with a
request to present oral testimony at the hearing, we will cancel the
hearing. The record for this action will remain open for 30 days after
the date of the hearing to accommodate submittal of information related
to the public hearing.
[[Page 52625]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information on this
rulemaking, contact Frank Behan at (703) 308-8476, or
behan.frank@epa.gov, Office of Solid Waste (MC: 5302W), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. General Information
A. Does This Proposed Rule Apply to Me?
B. How Do I Obtain a Copy of This Document and Other Related
Information?
C. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
II. Background
III. Summary of This Action
IV. Discussion of Issues Subject to Reconsideration
A. Subcategorization of Liquid Fuel Boilers by Heating Value
B. Correcting Total Chlorine (TCl) Data to 20 ppmv
C. Use of PS-11 and Procedure 2 as Guidance for Extrapolating
the Alarm Set-Point of a Particulate Matter Detection System (PMDS)
D. Tie-Breaking Procedure for New Source Standards
E. Beyond-the-Floor Analyses to Consider Multiple HAP That Are
Similarly Controlled
F. Dioxin/Furan Standard for Incinerators With Dry Air Pollution
Control Devices
G. Provisions of the Health-Based Compliance Alternative
V. Other Proposed Amendments
A. Sunset Provision for the Interim Standards
B. Operating Parameter Limits for Sources With Fabric Filters
C. Confirmatory Performance Testing Not Required for Sources
That Are Not Subject to a Numerical Dioxin/Furan Emission Standard
D. Periodic Performance Tests for Phase I Sources
E. Performance Test Waiver for Sources Subject to Hazardous
Waste Thermal Concentration Limits
F. Averaging Method When Calculating 12-Hour Rolling Average
Thermal Concentration Limits
G. Calculating Rolling Averages for Averaging Periods in Excess
of 12 Hours
H. Calculating Rolling Averages
I. Timing of the Periodic Review of Eligibility for the Health-
Based Compliance Alternatives for Total Chlorine
J. Expressing Particulate Matter Standards Using the
International System of Units (SI)
K. Mercury Standards for Cement Kilns
L. Facilities Operating Under RCRA Interim Status
VI. Revised Time Lines
VII. Technical Corrections and Other Clarification
A. What Typographical Errors Would We Correct?
B. What Citations Would We Correct?
C. Corrections to the NIC Provisions for New Units
D. Clarification of the Applicability of Title V Permit
Requirements to Phase 2 Area Sources
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. General Information
A. Does This Proposed Rule Apply to Me?
Categories and entities potentially affected by this action
include:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of potentially
Category NAICS code SIC code regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any industry that combusts hazardous 562211.......................... 4953 Incinerator, hazardous
waste as defined in the final rule. waste.
327310.......................... 3241 Cement manufacturing,
clinker production.
327992.......................... 3295 Ground or treated
mineral and earth
manufacturing.
325............................. 28 Chemical Manufacturers.
324............................. 29 Petroleum Refiners.
331............................. 33 Primary Aluminum.
333............................. 38 Photographic equipment
and supplies.
488, 561, 562................... 49 Sanitary Services,
N.E.C.
421............................. 50 Scrap and waste
materials.
422............................. 51 Chemical and Allied
Products, N.E.C.
512, 541, 561, 812.............. 73 Business Services,
N.E.C.
512, 514, 541, 711.............. 89 Services, N.E.C.
924............................. 95 Air, Water and Solid
Waste Management.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be impacted by this
action. This table lists examples of the types of entities EPA is now
aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of
entities not listed could also be affected. To determine whether your
facility, company, business, organization, etc., is affected by this
action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR
63.1200. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. How Do I Obtain a Copy of This Document and Other Related
Information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
today's proposed rule will also be available on the Worldwide Web
(WWW). Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of this document
will be posted on the WWW at https://www.epa.gov/hwcmact. This Web site
also provides other information related to the NESHAP for hazardous
waste combustors.
C. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, 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 claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not
[[Page 52626]]
contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion
in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed
except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow it to be
reproduced.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
Explain your views as clearly as possible.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. Background
Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the
control of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from both new and existing
major sources. Major sources of HAP are those stationary sources or
groups of stationary sources that are located within a contiguous area
under common control that emit or have the potential to emit
considering controls, in the aggregate, 10 tons per year (tpy) or more
of any one HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. The CAA
requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in
emissions of HAP that is achievable. This level of control is commonly
referred to as MACT (for Maximum Achievable Control Technology). See
CAA section 112(d)(2).
The so-called MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for
NESHAP and is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence,
the MACT floor ensures that the standards are set at a level that
assures that all major sources achieve the level of control at least as
stringent as that already achieved by the better-controlled and lower-
emitting sources in each source category or subcategory. For new
sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission
control that is achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar
source. The MACT standards for existing sources can be less stringent
than standards for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than
the average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12
percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory for which
the Administrator has emissions information (where there are 30 or more
sources in a category or subcategory).
In developing MACT standards, we also must consider control options
that are more stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more
stringent than the floor based on the consideration of the cost of
achieving the emissions reductions, any health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements. See CAA section 112(d)(2). We call
these standards beyond-the-floor standards.
We proposed NESHAP for hazardous waste combustors on April 20, 2004
(69 FR 21198), and we published the final rule on October 12, 2005 (70
FR 59402). The preamble for the proposed rule described the rationale
for the proposed rule and solicited public comments. We received over
75 public comment letters on the proposed hazardous waste combustor
rule. Comments were submitted by industry trade associations, owners
and operators of hazardous waste combustors, environmental groups, and
State regulatory agencies and their representatives. We summarized the
major public comments on the proposed rule and our responses to public
comments in the preamble to the final rule and in a separate,
supporting ``response to comments'' document. See 70 FR at 59426 and
docket items EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022-0437 through 0445.
Following promulgation of the hazardous waste combustor final rule,
the Administrator received four petitions for reconsideration, pursuant
to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, from Ash Grove Cement Company, the
Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition (CKRC), the Coalition for Responsible
Waste Incineration (CRWI), and the Sierra Club.\1\ Under this section
of the CAA, the Administrator must initiate reconsideration proceedings
with respect to provisions that are of central relevance to the rule at
issue if the petitioner shows that it was impracticable to raise an
objection to a rule within the public comment period or that the
grounds for the objection arose after the public comment period but
within the period for filing petitions for judicial review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These petitions are included in the docket for this
proposal. See items EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022-0516 thru 0519. EPA also
received petitions from Ash Grove Cement Company and the CKRC,
Continental Cement Company, and Giant Cement Holding, Inc.
requesting that we stay the effective date of the particulate matter
standard for new cement kilns. See items EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022-0521
and 0523. In a notice published on March 23, 2006, EPA granted a
temporary three-month administrative stay while the particulate
matter standard is under reconsideration. See 71 FR 14655. In
addition, five petitions for judicial review of the final rule were
filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit by the following entities: Ash Grove Cement Company, CKRC,
CRWI, the Environmental Technology Council, and the Sierra Club.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 23, 2006, EPA published a proposed rule granting
reconsideration of one issue--the particulate matter (PM) standard for
new cement kilns--raised in the petitions of Ash Grove Cement Company
and CKRC. See 71 FR 14665. We intend to take final action on this
reconsideration issue as expeditiously as possible.
III. Summary of This Action
In today's notice, we are granting reconsideration of certain
issues raised by petitioners. We summarize below our responses to
petitions for reconsideration and provide detailed discussions in
Section IV of this preamble of the petitions we are granting. We also
are today proposing other amendments to correct or clarify provisions
of the final rule. See discussion in Section V of the preamble. We also
are presenting revised pictorial time lines (from those provided in the
final rule) that highlight various milestones of the MACT compliance
process. See discussion in Section VI of the preamble. Finally, we are
providing advance notice of technical corrections that we plan to
promulgate when we take final action on the amendments proposed today.
See discussion in Section VI below.
We are granting reconsideration of several issues (that are of
central relevance to the rule's outcome) raised by Sierra Club, the
Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition (CKRC),\2\ and the Coalition for
Responsible Waste Incineration (CRWI). Accordingly, we are requesting
comment on specific provisions of Subpart EEE of 40 CFR part 63: (1)
Subcategorization of liquid fuel boilers; (2) correcting total chlorine
emissions data below 20 ppmv; (3) use of PS-11 as a reference to
develop alarm set-point extrapolation procedures for particulate matter
detection systems
[[Page 52627]]
(PMDS); (4) approach to identify the best performing single source when
two or more sources are tied for the lowest aggregate SRE/feedrate
score; (5) beyond-the-floor analyses to consider multiple HAP that are
controlled by a single control mechanism; (6) use of post-proposal data
to identify the dioxin/furan standard for incinerators with dry air
pollution control devices or waste heat boilers; and (7) three
provisions of the health-based compliance alternative for total
chlorine. See discussion of these topics in Section IV below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Ash Grove Cement Company also submitted to EPA a petition
for reconsideration. Ash Grove Cement's petition incorporated by
reference the petition of the CKRC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing changes to several other provisions in light of
petitioners' concerns or upon our own review, and also are requesting
comment on these proposed changes.
We are not reconsidering the remaining issues raised by Sierra Club
and CKRC \3\ and have included in the docket to this rulemaking letters
explaining our rationale to deny reconsideration. In summary:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Note that, as discussed in Section II above, we previously
granted CKRC's request to reconsider the particulate matter standard
for new cement kilns given that new data indicate the single best
performing source could not achieve the new source standard.
Accordingly, we issued a stay of the new source standard for
particulate matter for cement kilns (71 FR 14655 (March 23, 2006))
and proposed to revise the new source standard for particulate
matter for cement kilns and make corresponding revisions to the new
source standards for incinerators and liquid fuel boilers (71 FR
14665 (March 23, 2006)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. We deny Sierra Club's petition regarding our use of normal
emissions data, in addition to compliance test and in-between data, in
the regression analysis to calculate the baghouse universal variability
factor (UVF) for particulate matter. Among other things, including
normal data results in imputing a lower standard deviation for
particulate matter emissions variability, rather than a higher standard
deviation as Sierra Club incorrectly surmised.
2. We deny CKRC's petition regarding its concern that
subcategorizing liquid fuel boilers using a waste heating value
criterion of 10,000 Btu/lb to distinguish between boilers that are
burning waste entirely for energy recovery versus boilers that are
burning waste fuels at least in part for treatment is inconsistent with
the Agency's policy \4\ that wastes with a heating value greater than
5,000 Btu/lb are burned for energy recovery. The 5,000 Btu/lb criterion
for burning for energy recovery is a policy providing guidance on when
combustors are considered to burn hazardous waste as fuel that carries
specific regulatory implications. This criterion is not in any way
affected by the 10,000 Btu/lb criterion for subcategorizing liquid fuel
burners to establish MACT standards. The 10,000 Btu/lb criterion
divides liquid fuel burners into two categories based on the heating
value of the hazardous waste they burn, and is in no way intended to
replace the longstanding 5,000 Btu/lb criterion for energy recovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 48 FR at 49166-167 (March 16, 1983). Note that we
discuss in Section IV.A.2 below that, under the policy, we presume
wastes with a heating value of 5,000 Btu/lb or greater are burned
for energy recovery in a boiler or industrial furnace and
acknowledge that sources may be able to document that wastes with a
heating value below 5,000 Btu/lb are also burned for energy recovery
in particular situations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. We deny Sierra Club's petitions to reconsider the following
provisions because the additional reasons we provide in the final rule
to support the provisions, or the information we use to support the
provision, are corroborative of information and rationales already
presented for public comment at proposal and therefore do not justify
reconsideration. The additional reasons embellish the rationale we
presented at proposal, generally in response to comments.
Use of particulate matter as a surrogate for nonenumerated
metals;
Use of CO/HC as a surrogate for dioxin/furan and as a
surrogate for non-dioxin/furan organic HAP for Phase II sources
Use of variability factors in setting MACT Floors;
Approach to establishing the dioxin/furan standard for
cement kilns and for incinerators equipped with a wet particulate
matter air pollution control device or no air pollution control device;
Subcategorization of incinerators to establish separate
dioxin/furan standards for incinerators equipped with a dry particulate
matter air pollution control device and those without a dry particulate
matter air pollution control device;
Approach to establishing the mercury standard for cement
kilns using waste concentration data;
Approach to evaluating a beyond-the-floor standard for
total chlorine for cement kilns; and
Decision not to promulgate beyond-the-floor standards for
total chlorine for lightweight aggregate kilns and solid fuel boilers
using dry scrubbing.
4. We deny Sierra Club's petition that we reconsider the use of CO/
HC as surrogates for non-dioxin/furan organic HAP for Phase I sources
in this rulemaking. As we explained at proposal, we view the carbon
monoxide, hydrocarbon, and destruction and removal efficiency standards
as unaffected by the Court's vacature of the September 1999
``challenged regulations'' (see Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA,
255 F. 3d 855, 872 (D.C. Cir. 2001)) for Phase I sources, since these
rules were not challenged. See 69 FR at 21221. We therefore did not
repropose those standards, and did not consider comments that they be
revised as part of this rulemaking.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Sierra Club has also filed a petition for judicial review
that challenges the use of CO/HC as a surrogate for non-dioxin/furan
for Phase II sources. Although we believe this surrogate approach is
appropriate, if our position is not upheld we would rethink this
surrogate approach for Phase I sources as well because the rationale
is the same for all hazardous waste combustor source categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Discussion of Issues Subject to Reconsideration
Stakeholders who would like for us to reconsider comments they
submitted to us previously and that are relevant to the reconsideration
issues presented below should identify the relevant docket entry
numbers and page numbers of their comments to facilitate expeditious
review during the reconsideration process. We plan to take final action
on today's reconsideration as expeditiously as possible.
A. Subcategorization of Liquid Fuel Boilers by Heating Value
In the final rule, we redefined the liquid fuel boiler subcategory
into two separate boiler subcategories based on the heating value of
the hazardous waste they burn: Those that burn waste with a heating
value below 10,000 Btu/lb, and those that burn hazardous waste with a
heating value of 10,000 Btu/lb or greater. See 70 FR at 59422. Sources
would shift from one subcategory to the other depending on the heating
value of the hazardous waste burned at the time. Id. at 59476.
Sierra Club petitioned for reconsideration stating that EPA
developed this subcategorization approach after the period for public
comment and, thus, did not provide notice and opportunity for public
comment.\6\ We are granting reconsideration of this provision because
we determined that subcategorization of liquid fuel boilers was
appropriate in response to comments on the proposed rule, after the
period for public comment as Sierra Club states. Furthermore,
subcategorization significantly impacted the development of the
emission standards for liquid fuel boilers. Consequently, we are
accepting further comment on this approach to subcategorization but are
not proposing to change the approach. We believe the
[[Page 52628]]
subcategorization approach is warranted for the reasons provided in the
final rule and restate them below. Nonetheless, we are open to comment
and will determine whether a change is warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See letter from James Pew to Stephen Johnson, dated December
12, 2005, Section II, docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022-0517.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Rationale for Subcategorization
We explained in the final rule that we selected normalizing
parameters for emission standards that best fit the input to the
combustion device. See 70 FR at 59451. We used 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)
where hazardous waste is being used in energy-recovery devices as a
fuel. This avoided the necessity of subcategorizing based on unit size.
At proposal we used the thermal emissions format for the liquid
fuel boiler standards. See 69 FR at 21283. Commenters on the proposed
rule pointed out, however, that some liquid fuel boilers burn lower Btu
hazardous waste because that is the only waste available, and those
boilers with waste that has a low heating value are, in their words,
``penalized,'' compared to those boilers with waste that has 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 all liquid
fuel boiler standards were 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. See
70 FR at 59475. These measures would be problematic, however.
Increasing the waste fuel heating value or decreasing the mass
concentration of HAP in the waste is generally not possible because
boilers burn the waste generated by their facility--they are not
commercial combustion units. Decreasing the mass emission rate of HAP
by increasing the system removal efficiency would require boilers
burning lower heating value waste to incur costs to control HAP mass
emission rates to levels lower than required for boilers at facilities
that happen to generate waste with a 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 may be
serving 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), 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 the final rule.)
Given these concerns, we 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 the same parameter used for the other
hazardous waste treatment devices, gas flow rate, so that the standard
would be 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 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 subcategory. (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 standards apply. When the source is burning at least in
part for thermal destruction, then the concentration based standard
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 that are sufficiently different to warrant separate
classification.
2. Selection of the Heating Value Threshold
We next considered what an appropriate as-fired heating value would
be for each liquid fuel boiler subcategory and adopted a value of
10,000 Btu/lb as the threshold for subcategorization. This is
approximately the heating value of commercial liquid fossil fuels. See
63 FR at 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 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 liquid waste fuel being burned at cement kilns
and lightweight aggregate kilns, that burn hazardous waste fuels to
drive the process chemistry to produce products, to cross-check whether
10,000 Btu/lb is a reasonable demarcation value for subcategorizing
liquid fuel boilers for the purposes of this MACT. We observed that
10,000 Btu/lb in practice is the minimum heating value (or close to the
minimum value) found in burn tank and test report data we have for
cement kilns and lightweight aggregate kilns.\7\ Therefore, we believe
the cement kiln and light weight aggregate kiln data confirm that this
is an appropriate cutpoint for subcategorizing boilers, since cement
kilns and lightweight aggregate kilns are energy recovery devices that
blend hazardous wastes into a consistent, high heating value fuel for
energy recovery in their manufacturing process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
The regulatory language implementing this subcategorization
approach is provided in Sec. Sec. 63.1209(l)(1)(ii), 63.1209(n)(2)(v),
63.1209(o)(1)(ii), and 63.1217.
B. Correcting Total Chlorine (TCl) Data to 20 ppmv
In the final rule, we corrected all the total chlorine measurements
in the data base that were below 20 ppmv to account for potential
systemic negative biases in the Method 0050 data. See 70
[[Page 52629]]
FR at 59427-29.\8\ Sierra Club petitioned for reconsideration stating
that EPA corrected the total chlorine measurements in response to
comments on the proposed rule--after the period for public comment--and
used the corrected data to revise the total chlorine emission
standards.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See also USEPA, ``Technical Support Document for HWC MACT
Standards, Volume III: Selection of MACT Standards,'' Section 5.5,
September 2005.
\9\ See letter from James Pew to Stephen Johnson, dated December
12, 2005, Section IV, docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022-0517.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are granting reconsideration of our approach to account for
these method biases to assess the true performance of the best
performing sources. Reconsideration is appropriate because, as Sierra
Club states, we determined to correct the total chlorine data after the
period for public comment on the proposed rule, and correcting the data
significantly impacted the development of the total chlorine emission
standards.
To account for the bias in the method, we corrected all total
chlorine emissions data that were below 20 ppmv to 20 ppmv. We
accounted for within-test condition emissions variability for the
corrected data by imputing a standard deviation that is based on a
regression analysis of run-to-run standard deviation versus emission
concentration for all data above 20 ppmv. This approach of using a
regression analysis to impute a standard deviation is similar to the
approach we used to account for total variability (i.e., test-to-test
and within test variability) of PM emissions for sources that use
fabric filters.
Under today's reconsideration notice, we are accepting further
comment on this approach to address method bias but are not proposing
to change the approach. We believe this data correction approach is
warranted for the reasons provided in the final rule and restate them
below. Nonetheless, we are open to comment and will determine whether a
change is warranted.
1. Effect of Moisture Vapor
Commenters on the proposed rule implied that stack gas with high
levels of gas phase water vapor will inherently have the potential to
be biased low, particularly at emissions less than 20 ppmv. We
concluded that there is no basis for claiming that water vapor, per se,
causes a bias in SW-846 Method 0050 or its equivalent, Method 26A.
Condensed moisture (i.e., water droplets), however, can cause a bias
because it can dissolve hydrogen chloride in the sampling train and
prevent it from being captured in the impingers if the sampling train
is not properly purged. Water droplets can potentially be present due
to entrainment from the wet scrubber, condensation in cooler regions of
the stack along the stack walls, and entrainment from condensed
moisture dripping down the stack wall across the inlet duct opening.
Although Method 0050 addresses the water droplet issue by use of a
cyclone and 45 minute purge, a study by Steger \10\ concludes that a 45
minute purge is not adequate to evaporate all water collected by the
cyclone in stacks with a total moisture content (vapor and condensed
moisture) of 7 to 9%. At those moisture levels, Steger documented the
negative bias that commenters reference. See 70 FR at 59427. Steger's
recommendation was to increase the heat input to the sample train by
increasing the train and filter temperature from 120 [deg]C (248
[deg]F) to 200 [deg]C (392 [deg]F). We agree that increasing the probe
and filter temperature will provide a better opportunity to evaporate
any condensed moisture, but another solution to the problem is to
require that the post-test purge be run long enough to evaporate all
condensed moisture. That is the approach used by Method 26A, that EPA
promulgated after Method 0050, and that sources must use to demonstrate
compliance with the final standards. Method 26A uses an extended purge
time rather than elevating the train temperature to address condensed
moisture because that approach can be implemented by the stack tester
at the site without using nonstandard equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Steger, J.L., et al., ``Laboratory Evaluation of Method
0050 for Hydrogen Chloride'', Proc of 13th Annual Incineration
Conference, Houston, TX, May 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We attempted to quantify the level of condensed moisture in the
Steger study and to compare it to the levels of condensed moisture that
may be present in hazardous waste combustor stack gas. This would
provide an indication if the bias that Steger quantified with a 45
minute purge might also be applicable to some hazardous waste
combustors. We concluded that this comparison would be problematic,
however, because: (1) Given the limited information available in the
Steger paper, it is difficult to quantify the level of condensed
moisture in his gas samples; and (2) we cannot estimate the levels of
condensed moisture in hazardous waste combustor stack gas because, even
though condensed moisture may have been present during a test, method
protocol is to report the saturation moisture level only (i.e., the
amount of water vapor present), and not the total moisture content
(i.e., both condensed and vapor phase moisture).
We did conclude, however, that, if hazardous waste combustor stack
gas were to contain the levels of condensed moisture present in the gas
that Steger tested, the 45 minute purge required by Method 0050 would
not be sufficient to avoid a negative bias. We also concluded that this
is potentially a practical issue and not merely a theoretical concern
because, as commenters note, hazardous waste combustors that use wet
scrubbers are often saturated with water vapor that will condense if
the flue gas cools.
2. Data From Wet Stacks When a Cyclone Was Not Used
The data for total chlorine underlying EPA's proposal came
exclusively from compliance testing. Commenters on the proposed rule
stated that Method 0050 procedures for addressing water droplets
(adequate or not, as discussed above) were not followed in many cases
because a low bias below 20 ppmv was not relevant to demonstrating
compliance with standards on the order of 100 ppmv. We do not know
which data sets may be problematic because, as previously stated, the
moisture concentration reported was often the saturation (vapor phase
only) moisture level and not the total (vapor and liquid) moisture in
the flue gas. We also have no documentation that a cyclone was used--
even in situations where the moisture content was documented to be
above the dew point. We therefore concluded that all data below 20 ppmv
from sources controlled with a wet scrubber are suspect and should be
corrected.
3. Potential Bias Due to Filter Affinity for Hydrogen Chloride
Studies by the American Society of Testing and Materials indicate
that the filter used in the Method 0050 train (and the M26/26A trains)
may adsorb/absorb hydrogen chloride and cause a negative bias at low
emission levels. (See ASTM D6735-01, section 11.1.3 and ``note 2'' of
section 14.2.3.) This inherent affinity for hydrogen chloride can be
satisfied by preconditioning the sampling train for one hour. None of
the tests in our database were preconditioned in such a manner.
We are normally not concerned about this type of bias because we
would expect the bias to apply to all sources equally (e.g., wet or dry
gas) and for all subsequent compliance tests. In other words, we are
ordinarily less concerned if a standard is based on biased data, as
long as the means by which the standard was developed and the means
[[Page 52630]]
of compliance would experience identical bias (since the level of
control would be reflected accurately). However, because we corrected
the wet gas measurements below 20 ppmv to address the potential low
bias caused by condensed moisture, this correction also corrected for
any potential bias caused by the filter's inherent affinity for
hydrogen chloride. This resulted in a data set that is only partially
corrected for this issue--sources with wet stacks were corrected for
this potential bias while sources with dry stacks were not corrected.
To address this unacceptable mix of potentially biased and unbiased
data (i.e., dry gas data biased due to affinity of filter for hydrogen
chloride and wet gas data corrected for condensed moisture and affinity
of filter for hydrogen chloride), we also corrected total chlorine
measurements from dry gas stacks (i.e., sources that do not use wet
scrubbers).
4. Deposition of Alkaline Particulate on the Filter
Commenters on the proposed rule were also concerned that hydrogen
chloride may react with alkaline compounds from the scrubber water
droplets that are collected on the filter ahead of the impingers.
Commenters suggested this potential cause for a low bias at total
chlorine levels below 20 ppmv is another reason not to use measurements
below 20 ppmv to establish the standards. Although alkaline particulate
deposition on the method filter causing a negative bias is a much
greater concern for sources that have stack gas containing high levels
of alkaline particulate (e.g., cement kilns, sources equipped with dry
scrubbers), we agreed with commenters that this may be of concern for
all sources equipped with wet scrubbers. Our approach to correct all
data below 20 ppmv addressed this concern.
5. Decision Unique to Hazardous Waste Combustors
We note that the rationale for correcting total chlorine data below
20 ppmv to account for the biases discussed above is unique to the
hazardous waste combustor MACT rule. Some sources apparently did not
follow Method 0050 procedures to minimize the low bias caused by
condensed moisture for understandable reasons. Even if sources had
followed Method 0050 procedures to minimize the bias (i.e., cyclone and
45 minute purge) there still may have been a substantial bias because
of insufficient purge time, as Steger's work may indicate. We note that
the total chlorine stack test method used by sources other than
hazardous waste combustors--Method 26A--requires that the cyclone and
sampling train be purged until all condensed moisture is evaporated. We
believed it was necessary to correct our data below 20 ppmv data
because of issues associated exclusively with Method 0050 and how it
was used to demonstrate compliance with these sources.
6. Determining Variability for Data at 20 ppmv
Correcting those total chlorine data below 20 ppmv to 20 ppmv
brought about a situation identical to the one we confronted with
nondetect data. See 70 FR at 59464-66. The corrected emissions data for
the MACT pool of best performing source(s) were now generally the same
values--20 ppmv. This had the effect of understating the variability
associated with these data. To address this concern, we took an
approach similar to the one we used to determine variability of PM
emissions for sources equipped with a fabric filter. In that case, we
performed a linear regression on the data, charting variability against
emissions, and used the variability that resulted from the linear
regression analysis as the variability for the sources' average
emissions. In this case, most or all of the incinerator and liquid fuel
boiler sources in the MACT pool had (corrected) average emissions of
TCl at or near 20 ppmv. We therefore performed a linear regression on
the total chlorine data charting average test condition results above
20 ppmv against the variability associated with that test condition.
The variability associated with 20 ppmv was the variability we used for
incinerator and liquid fuel boiler data sets affected by the 20 ppmv
correction.
We also considered using the statistical imputation approach we
used for nondetect values. See 70 FR at 59464. The statistical
imputation approach for correcting data below 20 ppmv without dampening
variability would involve imputing a value between the reported value
and 20 ppmv because the ``true'' value of the biased data would lie in
this interval. This approach would be problematic, however, given that
many of the reported values were much lower than 20 ppmv; our
statistical imputation approach would tend to overestimate the run to
run variability. Consequently, we concluded that a regression analysis
approach would be more appropriate. A regression analysis is
particularly pertinent in this situation because: (1) We consider data
above 20 ppmv used to develop the regression to be unbiased; and (2)
all the corrected data averages for which we imputed a standard
deviation from the regression curve are at or near 20 ppmv. Thus, any
potential concern about downward extrapolation from the regression was
minimized.
We note that, although a regression analysis is appropriate to
estimate run-to-run variability for the corrected total chlorine data,
we could not use a linear regression analysis to address variability of
nondetect values. To estimate a standard deviation from a regression
analysis, we would need to know the test condition average emissions.
This would not be feasible, however, because some or all of the run
measurements for a test condition are nondetect. In addition, we were
concerned that a regression analysis would not accurately estimate the
standard deviation at low emission levels because we would have to
extrapolate the regression downward to levels where we have few
measured data (i.e., data other than nondetect). Moreover, the
statistical imputation approach is more suitable for handling
nondetects because the approach calculates the run-to-run variability
by taking into account the percent nondetect for the emissions for each
run.\11\ A regression approach would be difficult to apply particularly
in the case of test conditions containing partial nondetects or a mix
of detect and nondetect values. Given these concerns with using a
regression analysis to estimate the standard deviation of test
conditions with runs that have one or more nondetect (or partial
nondetect) measurements, we concluded that the statistical imputation
approach best assures that the calculated floor levels account for run-
to-run emissions variability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ For multi-constituent HAP (e.g., semi-volatile metals) the
emissions for a run could be comprised of fully detected values for
some HAP and detection limits for other HAP that were nondetect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Use of PS-11 and Procedure 2 as Guidance for Extrapolating the Alarm
Set-Point of a Particulate Matter Detection System (PMDS)
Petitioner CKRC asks that EPA reconsider its references to
Performance Specification 11 (PS-11) and Procedure 2 in the particulate
matter detection system (PMDS) provisions of the final rule. We are
granting reconsideration because we developed the procedures for
extrapolating the alarm set-point for PMDS, that included references to
PS-11 and Procedure 2, in response to comments on the proposed rule and
after the period for public comment. See 70 FR at 59490.
[[Page 52631]]
CKRC also states that the reference to PS-11 for particulate matter
CEMS (40 CFR part 60, appendix B) and Procedure 2 (Appendix F, Part 60)
for use as guidance to implement provisions to extrapolate the alarm
set-point of a PMDS may effectively prevent its members from utilizing
this option due to significant technical difficulties and excessive
costs.\12\ See Sec. 63.1206(c)(9)(iii)(B). CKRC further states that
PS-11 and Procedure 2 contain a number of problems as they would apply
to cement kilns. CKRC's petition does not identify any such problems or
technical difficulties, however, and only notes that it has filed a
petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
challenging EPA's final rule adopting PS-11 and Procedure 2, which case
is being held in abeyance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See letter from David P. Novello to Stephen L. Johnson
regarding ``Petition for Reconsideration of Certain Provisions of
Hazardous Waste Combustor MACT Replacement Standards Rule,'' dated
December 9, 2005, p. 9, docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022-0520.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, CKRC states that use of a regression analysis approach to
extrapolate the alarm set-point is not justified or necessary to
establish an approximate correlation between the particulate matter
detector system response and particulate matter concentrations. CKRC
suggests that an alternative approach would be based on a linear
relationship passing through zero and the mean of the PM comprehensive
performance test results.
When we reviewed the procedures in the final rule for establishing
the set-point in light of CKRC's concerns regarding use of a regression
analysis to extrapolate the set-point and use of PS-11 and Procedure 2
as guidance, we identified several shortcomings of the final rule: (1)
More than the required five test runs would be needed to perform a
meaningful statistical analysis of alternative correlation models to
identify the most appropriate model; (2) a general reference to use PS-
11 and Procedure 2 as guidance is overly broad given that those
provisions pertain to PM continuous emissions monitors (CEMS) and would
not be applicable to PMDS absent a specific PMDS requirement; and (3)
the final rule contemplated establishing the set-point after the
comprehensive performance test and, thus, did not provide for
operations under the Documentation of Compliance. Consequently, we are
today proposing to revise the provisions for establishing the alarm
set-point by extrapolation by: (1) Adding procedures to establish the
alarm set-point for operations under the Documentation of Compliance;
(2) revising procedures to extrapolate the alarm set-point for
operations under the Notification of Compliance; and (3) providing
specific rather than generic references to PS-11 and Procedure 2
provisions that must be followed to extrapolate the alarm set-point.
1. Summary of the PMDS Provisions in the Final Rule
The final rule established revised procedures for establishing the
alarm set-point if you elect to use a particulate matter detector
system (PMDS) in lieu of site-specific operating parameter limits for
compliance assurance \13\ for sources equipped with electrostatic
precipitators and ionizing wet scrubbers, and in lieu of a bag leak
detection system for sources equipped with a baghouse. See 70 FR at
59424 and 59490-91, and Sec. 63.1206(c)(9).\14\ The rule explicitly
allows you to maximize controllable operating parameters during the
comprehensive performance test to account for emissions variability by,
for example, detuning the air pollution control device (APCD) or
spiking ash to establish an alarm set-point that should be routinely
achievable considering controllable parameters. If you elect to use a
PMDS, the rule requires you to establish the set-point either as the
average of the test condition run average detector responses during the
comprehensive performance test or as the extrapolation of the detector
response after approximating the correlation between the detector
response and particulate matter emission concentrations. You may
extrapolate the detector response up to a response value that
corresponds to 50% of the particulate matter emission standard or 125%
of the highest particulate matter concentration used to develop the
correlation, whichever is greater. To establish an approximate
correlation of the detector response to particulate matter emission
concentrations, the rule recommends that you use as guidance
Performance Specification-11 for particulate matter CEMS (40 CFR part
60, appendix B), except that you need conduct only 5 runs to establish
the initial correlation rather than a minimum of 15 runs required by
PS-11. The final rule also recommends that, for quality assurance, you
should use Procedure 2 of Appendix F, Part 60, and the manufacturer's
recommended procedures for periodic quality assurance checks and tests,
except that: (1) You must conduct annual Relative Response Audits as
prescribed by Procedure 2; and (2) you need only conduct Relative
Response Audits on a 3-year interval after passing two sequential
annual Relative Response Audits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ That is, assurance of compliance with the PM emission
standard by continuous monitoring of a surrogate parameter--PMDS
detector response in this case--for PM emission concentrations.
\14\ See also USEPA, ``Technical Support Document for HWC MACT
Standards, Volume IV: Compliance with the HWC MACT Standards,''
September 2005, Appendix C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Proposed Procedures To Establish the Set-Point for Operations Under
the Documentation of Compliance
The final rule was silent on how to establish the set-point for
operations under the Documentation of Compliance (i.e., in the interim
between the compliance date and submission of the Notification of
Compliance subsequent to the comprehensive performance test). Under
today's proposal, we would add a new provision that requires you to
obtain a minimum of three pairs of reference method data and PMDS data,
establish a zero point correlation value, and assume a linear
correlation model to extrapolate the alarm set point as the PMDS
response that corresponds to a PM concentration that is 50% of the PM
emission standard or 125% of the highest PM concentration used to
develop the correlation, whichever is greater. The extrapolated
emission concentration could not exceed the PM emission standard.
This is a reasonable approach to establish an interim set-point for
operations prior to conducting the comprehensive performance test to
document compliance with the emission standards. Requiring the
additional testing needed to obtain enough test runs to identify the
actual correlation mode--approximately 12 test runs--would discourage
use of PMDS because of the cost of the additional testing. This is
undesirable because a PMDS should provide better compliance assurance
than the alternatives of operating parameter limits for electrostatic
precipitators (ESPs) and ionizing wet scrubbers (IWSs) and a bag leak
detection system for fabric filters, even if the PMDS is only
approximately correlated with PM concentrations.\15\ In addition, we
note that the actual correlation model that best fits the combustor/
PMDS may in fact be linear or a concave down polynomial, logarithmic,
exponential, or power correlation where PM
[[Page 52632]]
concentrations increase less rapidly than the PMDS response (i.e., such
that assuming a linear correlation would be conservative).
Alternatively, the actual, best-fit correlation model may be nonlinear
and concave up such that a linear correlation assumption would not be
conservative. We specifically request comment on the extent that this
is problematic and approaches to address the issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See discussion of the limitations of operating parameter
limits for ESPs and IWSs and bag leak detection systems for fabric
filters (76 FR at 21346-47).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rule would require you to extrapolate from the average of the
test condition run averages rather than from the highest run of the
test condition given that the runs were intended to replicate
controllable