issue-1996-04-19•Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-04-19
Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-04-19
issue-1996-04-19Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-04-19Proposed Regulation
Published Federal Register documents, not public-inspection drafts. The GPO XML/text rendition is a research aid; the linked complete official PDF retains the printed layout and all graphics. Graphics are retained in that PDF and are not independently reproduced in this text rendition. Publication does not establish that every provision remains legally in force.
FR Doc. 96-9714 Accessibility Guidelines for Play Facilities; Notice of Meeting of Regulatory Negotiation Committee
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 77 (Friday, April 19, 1996)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 17271-17272] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 96-9714] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD 36 CFR Parts 1190 and 1191 Accessibility Guidelines for Play Facilities; Notice of Meeting of Regulatory Negotiation Committee AGENCY: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. ACTION: Committee meeting. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) has established a regulatory negotiation committee to develop a proposed rule on accessibility guidelines for newly constructed and altered play facilities covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Architectural Barriers Act. This document announces the times and [[Page 17272]] location of the next meeting of the committee, which is open to the public. DATES: The next meeting of the committee will be on May 8-10, 1996, beginning at 9:00 a.m. each day. The meeting will end at 4:30 p.m. on May 8 and 9, 1996 and at 12:30 p.m. on May 10, 1996. ADDRESSES: The next meeting of the committee will be held at the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Services, 2100 K Street NW., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Greenwell, Office of Technical and Information Services, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street NW., suite 1000, Washington, DC. 20004- 1111. Telephone number (202) 272-5434 extension 34 (Voice); (202) 272- 5449 (TTY). This document is available in alternate formats (cassette tape, braille, large print, or computer disc) upon request. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In February 1996, the Access Board established a regulatory negotiation committee to develop a proposed rule on accessibility guidelines for newly constructed and altered play facilities covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Architectural Barriers Act. (61 FR 5723, February 14, 1996). The committee will hold its next meeting on the dates and at the location announced in this notice. The meeting is open to the public. The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. Individuals with hearing impairments who require sign language interpreters should contact Peggy Greenwell by May 1, 1996, by calling (202) 272-5434 extension 34 (voice) or (202) 272-5449 (TTY). Lawrence W. Roffee, Executive Director. [FR Doc. 96-9714 Filed 4-18-96; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8150-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9708 Substituted Cyclohexyldiamino Ethyl Esters; Proposed Revocation of a Significant New Use Rule
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 77 (Friday, April 19, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17272-17273]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9708]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 721
[OPPTS-50598A; FRL-5355-5]
Substituted Cyclohexyldiamino Ethyl Esters; Proposed Revocation
of a Significant New Use Rule
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revoke a significant new use rule (SNUR)
promulgated under section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) for substituted cyclohexyldiamino ethyl esters based on receipt
of new data. Based on the data the Agency determined that it could no
longer support a finding that activities not described in the PMN may
result in significant changes in environmental exposure.
DATES: Written comments must be received by May 20, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Each comment must bear the docket control number OPPTS-
50598A (FRL-5355-5). All comments should be sent in triplicate to: OPPT
Document Control Officer (7407), Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Room G-099,
East Tower, Washington, DC 20460.
All comments which are claimed confidential must be clearly marked
as such. Three additional sanitized copies of any comments containing
confidential business information (CBI) must also be submitted.
Nonconfidential versions of comments on this rule will be placed in the
rulemaking record and will be available for public inspection. Unit III
of this preamble contains additional information on submitting comments
containing CBI.
Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by sending
electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. Electronic comments
must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special
characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be
accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1 file format or ASCII file
format. All comments and data in electronic form must be identified by
(OPPTS-50598A) (FRL-5355-5). No CBI should be submitted through e-mail.
Electronic comment on this notice may be filed online at many Federal
Depository Libraries. Additional information on electronic submissions
can be found under Unit IV of this preamble.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan B. Hazen, Director,
Environmental Assistance Division (7408), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. E-543A, 401
M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, telephone: (202) 554-1404; TDD: (202)
554-0551; e-mail: TSCA-H[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of October 8, 1992
(57 FR 46458), EPA issued a SNUR (FRL-3934-7) establishing significant
new uses for substituted cyclohexyldiamino ethyl esters. Because of
additional data EPA has received for this substance, EPA is proposing
to revoke this SNUR.
I. Proposed Revocation
EPA is proposing to revoke the significant new use and
recordkeeping requirements for the following chemical substance under
40 CFR part 721, subpart E. In this unit, EPA provides a brief
description for the substance, including its premanufacture notice
(PMN) number, chemical name (generic name if the specific name is
claimed as CBI), CAS number (if assigned), basis for the revocation of
the section 5(e) consent order for the substance, and the CFR citation
removed in the regulatory text section of this proposed rule. Further
background information for the substance is contained in the rulemaking
record referenced in Unit IV of this preamble.
PMN Number P-91-1243
Chemical name: (generic) Substituted cyclohexyldiamino ethyl esters.
CAS number: Not available.
Basis for revocation of SNUR: The SNUR was issued based on the fact
that releases to water could occur that may present an unreasonable
risk of injury to the environment. The PMN submitter provided data
demonstrating that even small quantities of water would render the
formulation containing the PMN substance unusable. Therefore any
manufacturing, processing or use of the substance would not involve
releases to water. EPA can no longer make the required finding under
Sec. 721.170(b)(4)(ii).
CFR Number: 40 CFR 721.2980.
II. Background and Rationale for Revocation of the Rule
During review of the PMN submitted for the chemical substance that
is the subject of this revocation, EPA concluded that regulation was
warranted under Sec. 721.170(b)(4)(ii) based on the fact that
activities not described in the PMN may result in significant changes
in environmental exposure. Based on these findings, a SNUR was
promulgated.
EPA has determined that it could no longer support a finding that
activities not described in the PMN may result in significant changes
in environmental exposure. The proposed revocation of SNUR provisions
for this substance designated herein is consistent with this finding.
In light of the above EPA is proposing to revoke the SNUR
provisions for this chemical substance. When this revocation becomes
final, EPA will no longer require notice of any company's intent to
manufacture, import, or process this substance. In addition, export
notification under section 12(b) of TSCA will no longer be required.
[[Page 17273]]
III. Comments Containing Confidential Business Information
Any person who submits comments claimed as CBI must mark the
comments as ``confidential,'' ``trade secret,'' or other appropriate
designation. Comments not claimed as confidential at the time of
submission will be placed in the public file. Any comments marked as
confidential will be treated in accordance with the procedures in 40
CFR part 2. Any party submitting comments claimed to be confidential
must prepare and submit a public version of the comments that EPA can
place in the public file.
IV. Rulemaking Record
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number OPPTS 50598A (including comments and data submitted
electronically as described below). A public version of this record,
including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which does
not include any information claimed as CBI is available for inspection
from 12 noon to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except legal holidays.
The public record is located in the TSCA Nonconfidential Information
Center, Rm. NE-B607, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at:
[email protected]
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer all comments received electronically into printed,
paper form as they are received and will place the paper copies in the
official rulemaking record which will also include all comments
submitted directly in writing. The official rulemaking record is the
paper record maintained at the address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the
beginning of this document.
V. Regulatory Assessment Requirements
EPA is revoking the requirements of this rule. Any costs or burdens
associated with this rule will also be eliminated when the rule is
revoked. Therefore, EPA finds that no costs or burdens must be assessed
under Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
605(b)), or the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous materials,
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements, Significant new uses.
Dated: April 11, 1996.
Charles M. Auer,
Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 721 be amended as
follows:
PART 721--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 721 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c).
Sec. 721.2980 [Removed]
2. By removing Sec. 721.2980.
[FR Doc. 96-9708 Filed 4-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9692 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A320-111, -211, and -231 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 77 (Friday, April 19, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17257-17259]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9692]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-249-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A320-111, -211, and -231
Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Airbus Model A320-111, -
211, and -231 series airplanes. This proposal would require visual
inspections to detect cracks of the fittings of the pressurized floor
at frame 36, and renewal of the zone protective finish or replacement
of fittings with new fittings, if necessary. This proposal is prompted
by a report of fatigue cracking found on the pressurized floor fitting
at frame 36 under the lower surface panel. The actions specified by the
proposed AD are intended to prevent such fatigue cracking, which could
result in failure of a floor fitting and subsequent depressurization of
the fuselage.
DATES: Comments must be received by May 31, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-NM-249-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location
between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France. This information may be examined at the FAA,
Transport Airplane
[[Page 17258]]
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Backman, Aerospace Engineer,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206)
227-2797; fax (206) 227-1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 95-NM-249-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 95-NM-249-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
The Direction Generale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the
airworthiness authority for France, recently notified the FAA that an
unsafe condition may exist on certain Airbus Model A320-111, -211, and
-231 series airplanes. The DGAC advises that, during a full-scale
fatigue test on a center fuselage test article, cracking occurred on
the pressurized floor fitting at frame 36 under the lower surface pane
after the accumulation of 102,560 simulated flights. The cracking has
been attributed to fatigue. Such fatigue cracking, if not detected and
corrected in a timely manner, could result in failure of a fitting and
subsequent depressurization of the fuselage.
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-57-1028, dated August 12,
1991, which describes procedures for visual inspections to detect
cracks of the six fittings of the pressurized floor at frame 36 under
the lower surface panel, and renewal of the zone protective finish, if
necessary. For cases where the length of the cracking is outside
certain limits, the service bulletin describes procedures for
replacement of all cracked fittings with new fittings. However, the
service bulletin permits further flight, under certain conditions, with
a fitting(s) that is cracked and the length of the cracking within
certain limits. The DGAC classified this service bulletin as mandatory
and issued French airworthiness directive 95-099-067(B), dated May 24,
1995, in order to assure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes
in France.
This airplane model is manufactured in France and is type
certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of
section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and
the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this
bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed
of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of
the DGAC, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD
action is necessary for products of this type design that are
certificated for operation in the United States.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design, the
proposed AD would require visual inspection(s) to detect cracks of the
six fittings of the pressurized floor at frame 36 under the lower
surface panel, and renewing the zone protective finish or replacement
of the fittings with new fittings, if necessary. The actions would be
required to be accomplished in accordance with the service bulletin
described previously.
Operators should note that, unlike the procedures described in the
referenced service bulletin, this proposed AD would not permit further
flight with cracking detected in any fitting. The FAA has determined
that, due to safety implications and consequences associated with such
cracking, the subject fittings that are found to be cracked must be
replaced. Therefore, for cases where one fitting is cracked and the
length of the cracking is outside certain limits, or where two or more
fittings are cracked, the proposed AD would require replacement of all
six fittings with new fittings. For cases where one fitting is cracked
and the length of the cracking is within certain limits, the proposed
AD would require replacement of that fitting prior to further flight,
and eventual replacement of the remaining five fittings. The
replacement procedures are provided in the service bulletin described
previously.
The FAA estimates that 22 Airbus Model A320-111, -211, and -231
series airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed
AD, that it would take approximately 3 work hours per airplane to
accomplish the proposed actions, and that the average labor rate is $60
per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed
AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $3,960, or $180 per airplane,
per inspection cycle.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that
no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of
this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in
the future if this AD were not adopted.
The regulations proposed herein would 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. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
[[Page 17259]]
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
Airbus Industrie: Docket 95-NM-249-AD.
Applicability: Model A320-111, -211, and -231 series airplanes;
manufacturer's serial numbers 002 through 008 inclusive, 010 through
014 inclusive, 016 through 078 inclusive, and 080 through 104
inclusive; on which Airbus Modification 21282P01497 (reference
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1029) has not been installed;
certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent fatigue cracking on the pressurized floor fitting at
frame 36 under the lower surface panel, which could result in
failure of a fitting and subsequent depressurization of the
fuselage, accomplish the following:
(a) Prior to the accumulation of 16,000 total landings, or
within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later, perform a visual inspection to detect cracks of the 6
fittings of the pressurized floor at frame 36 under the lower
surface panel, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-
1028, dated August 12, 1991.
(1) If no cracking is found, prior to further flight, renew the
zone protective finish in accordance with the service bulletin.
Repeat the visual inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed
12,000 landings.
(2) If only 1 of the 6 fittings is found to be cracked and that
crack is less than or equal to 0.59 inch (15 mm) in length, prior to
further flight, replace the cracked fitting with a new fitting in
accordance with the service bulletin. Thereafter, prior to the
accumulation of 500 landings following accomplishment of this
replacement, replace the remaining 5 fittings with new fittings in
accordance with the service bulletin.
(3) If only 1 of the 6 fittings is found to be cracked and that
crack is greater than 0.59 inch (15 mm) in length, prior to further
flight, replace all six fittings with new fittings in accordance
with the service bulletin.
(4) If 2 or more fittings are found to be cracked, prior to
further flight, replace all 6 fittings with new fittings in
accordance with the service bulletin.
(b) Replacement of all 6 fittings with new fittings in
accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1028, dated August
12, 1991, constitutes terminating action for the inspection
requirements of this AD.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113,
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall submit their
requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector,
who may add comments and then send it to the Manager,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 15, 1996.
S.R. Miller,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-9692 Filed 4-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9691 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 77 (Friday, April 19, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17259-17261]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9691]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-211-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 Series
Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model
MD-11 series airplanes. This proposal would require either replacement
or modification of the inboard and outboard flap actuators. This
proposal is prompted by a report of failure of the piston rod of the
inboard flap actuator due a manufacturing process error. The actions
specified by the proposed AD are intended to prevent failure of the
piston rod, which could result in uncommanded flap extension and could
lead to an asymmetric flap configuration, which could reduce
controllability of the airplane.
DATES: Comments must be received by May 31, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-NM-211-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location
between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. -
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from McDonnell Douglas Corporation, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard,
Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Technical Publications
Business Administration, Department C1-L51 (2-60). This information may
be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Gfrerer, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California
90712; telephone (310) 627-5338; fax (310) 627-5210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact
[[Page 17260]]
concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the
Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 95-NM-211-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 95-NM-211-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
The FAA has received a report of failure of the piston rod of the
inboard flap actuator on a Model MD-11 series airplane. This failure
occurred on the ground as the pilot was commanding the flaps to
retract. Analysis of the incident determined that hydraulic fluid
flowed through the broken piston rod and forced the flap to extend. The
extending inboard piston rod and flap had enough power to drive the two
outboard flaps to the extend position by way of the linking cables used
to keep the flaps symmetrical. Initial investigation revealed that the
apparent cause of this failure was an isolated case of a manufacturing
process error. However, further review revealed that the existing
design of the subject area is such that a broken piston rod is a
single-point failure of the flight control system that can drive a flap
to the extend position during any phase of flight. Such an uncommanded
flap extension, if not corrected, could cause an asymmetric flap
condition in the airplane and possibly could result in an uncommanded
roll. In addition, if this situation were to occur at altitude on an
extended overwater flight, the flap extension would cause increased
drag and decrease the airplane's range so that it may be unable to
reach its final destination.
The FAA has reviewed and approved McDonnell Douglas Alert Service
Bulletin MD11-27A057, dated August 31, 1995, which describes procedures
for:
Option 1: replacement of the inboard and outboard flap
actuators with new actuators; or
Option 2: modification and reidentification of the inboard
and outboard flap actuators; or
Option 3: modification and reidentification of the inboard
flap inboard actuator, the inboard flap outboard actuator, and the
outboard flap actuators.
The modification of the actuators involves drilling a hole in the
rod assembly and installing a rivet blow-out plug.
Accomplishment of any one of these options will minimize the
possibility of uncommanded flap extension in the event of a piston rod
failure.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the
proposed AD would require either the replacement or modification of the
flap actuators in accordance with either Option 1, Option 2, or Option
3, as described in the alert service bulletin discussed previously.
There are approximately 143 McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 series
airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA
estimates that 52 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this
proposed AD.
To accomplish the proposed actions associated with Option 1
(replacement of flap actuators) would take approximately 9 work hours
per airplane, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required
parts would be supplied by the manufacturer at no cost to the
operators. Based on these figures, the cost impact of Option 1 proposed
by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $540 per airplane.
To accomplish the proposed action associated with Option 2
(modification and reidentification of the inboard and outboard flap
actuators) would take approximately 25 work hours per airplane, at an
average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts would be
supplied by the manufacturer at no cost to the operators. Based on
these figures, the cost impact of Option 2 proposed by this AD on U.S.
operators is estimated to be $1,500 per airplane.
To accomplish the proposed actions associated with Option 3
(modification and reidentification of the inboard flap inboard
actuator, the inboard flap outboard actuator, and the outboard flap
actuators) would take approximately 27 work hours per airplane, at an
average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts would be
supplied by the manufacturer at no cost to the operators. Based on
these figures, the cost impact of Option 3 proposed by this AD on U.S.
operators is estimated to be $1,620 per airplane.
Based on the figures discussed above, the cost impact of this
proposed AD action on U.S. operators is estimated to be between $28,080
and $82,240 for the affected fleet. These cost impact figures are based
on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the
proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would
accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted.
The regulations proposed herein would 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. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
McDonnell Douglas: Docket 95-NM-211-AD.
Applicability: Model MD-11 series airplanes, manufacturer's
fuselage numbers 0447 through 0589 inclusive, certificated in any
category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For
[[Page 17261]]
airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the
performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/
operator must request approval for an alternative method of
compliance in accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD. The request
should include an assessment of the effect of the modification,
alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD;
and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request
should include specific proposed actions to address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent failure of the piston rod, which could result in
uncommanded flap extension and resultant asymmetric flap
configuration, which could reduce controllability of the airplane,
accomplish the following:
(a) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD,
accomplish either paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of this AD, in
accordance with McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin MD11-
27A057, dated August 31, 1995.
(1) Accomplish the actions specified as Option 1 (replacement of
the inboard and outboard flap actuators) in the Accomplishment
Instructions of the alert service bulletin; or
(2) Accomplish the actions specified as Option 2 (modification
and reidentification of the inboard and outboard flap actuators) in
the Accomplishment Instructions of the alert service bulletin; or
(3) Accomplish the actions specified as Option 3 (modification
and reidentification of the inboard flap inboard actuator, inboard
flap outboard actuator, and outboard flap actuators) in the
Accomplishment Instructions of the alert service bulletin
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall
submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 15, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-9691 Filed 4-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9690 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10 and MD-11 Series Airplanes and KC-10A (Military) Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 77 (Friday, April 19, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17261-17263]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9690]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-212-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10 and MD-11
Series Airplanes and KC-10A (Military) Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10
and MD-11 series airplanes and KC-10A (military) airplanes. This
proposal would require repetitive inspections to detect corrosion or
failure of the steel Hi-Lok fasteners at the inboard flap inboard
track, and replacement of corroded/failed steel Hi-Lok fasteners with
inconel Hi-Lok fasteners. The proposed AD also provides for termination
of the repetitive inspections by replacing all of the steel Hi-Lok
fasteners with inconel Hi-Lok fasteners. This proposal is prompted by
reports of failed and/or corroded steel fasteners found in the inboard
flap inboard track due to stress corrosion. The actions specified by
the proposed AD are intended to prevent such stress corrosion, which
could result in binding of the flap and inability of the flap to extend
or retract; this situation may lead to asymmetric flap deployment and
subsequent reduced controllability of the airplane during flight.
DATES: Comments must be received by May 31, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-NM-212-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location
between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from McDonnell Douglas Corporation, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard,
Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Technical Publications
Business Administration, Department C1-L51 (2-60). This information may
be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Atmur, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712; telephone
(310) 627-5224; fax (310) 627-5210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 95-NM-212-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 95-NM-212-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion of Service History
The FAA has received several reports of failed and/or corroded
fasteners found in the inboard flap inboard track on Model DC-10 series
airplanes. The failed fasteners were found on two airplanes, which had
accumulated 18,357 and 23,901 total landings, respectively.
Investigation revealed that the fasteners on these airplanes are made
of H-11 steel, which is susceptible to stress corrosion. Stress
corrosion in the fasteners in the inboard flap inboard track could
result in binding of the flap and inability of the flap to extend or
retract. If the flap fails to extend or retract, the resultant
asymmetric flap deployment could
[[Page 17262]]
result in reduced controllability of the airplane during flight.
The fasteners in the flap tracks on the Model DC-10 series
airplanes are identical to those installed on Model MD-11 series
airplanes. Therefore, the FAA has determined that Model MD-11 series
airplanes may be subject to the same failed/corroded fastener problem.
Discussion of Relevant Service Documents
The FAA has reviewed and approved McDonnell Douglas Service
Bulletin DC10-57-134, dated August 15, 1995 [for Model DC-10 series
airplanes and KC-10 (military) airplanes], and McDonnell Douglas
Service Bulletin MD11-57-031, dated August 15, 1995 (for Model MD-11
series airplanes). These service bulletins describe procedures for
repetitive visual inspections to detect corrosion or failure of the
steel Hi-Lok fasteners at the inboard flap inboard track; and
replacement of corroded/failed steel Hi-Lok fasteners with Hi-Lok
fasteners made of inconel.
These service bulletins also provide instructions for replacing all
steel Hi-Lok fasteners with inconel Hi-Lok fasteners, which, if
accomplished, eliminates the need for the repetitive inspections.
Replacement of steel fasteners with corrosion-resistant inconel
fasteners will minimize the possibility of fastener failure.
Discussion of the Proposed Rule
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the
proposed AD would require repetitive visual inspections to detect
corrosion or failure of the steel Hi-Lok fasteners at the inboard flap
inboard track. The proposed AD also would require replacement of
corroded/failed steel Hi-Lok fasteners with inconel Hi-Lok fasteners.
In addition, the proposed AD provides for an optional terminating
action for the repetitive inspection requirements by replacing all the
steel Hi-Lok fasteners with Hi-Lok fasteners made of inconel. The
actions would be required to be accomplished in accordance with the
service bulletins described previously.
The FAA is not proposing to mandate the replacement of all steel
Hi-Lok fasteners for several reasons:
1. Accessing the inboard flap inboard track area for inspection is
easily accomplished.
2. The corroded/failed fasteners are easily detectable by means of
a visual inspection.
3. The failure of a fastener may adversely affect the
controllability of the airplane; however, the visual inspections will
preclude the potential occurrence of multiple failed fasteners, which
could result in a catastrophic failure.
Differences Between the Proposed Rule and Relevant Service Documents
Operators should note that the proposed compliance time of 18
months for the initial and repetitive inspections differs from the
compliance times recommended in both of the referenced McDonnell
Douglas service bulletins:
Service Bulletin DC10-57-134 (for Model DC-10 series
airplanes) recommends a compliance time of 24 months.
Service Bulletin MD11-57-031 (for Model MD-11 series
airplanes) recommends a compliance time of 15 months. (The manufacturer
advised the FAA that it inadvertently specified a 15-month compliance
time in this service bulletin, and had intended that it be consistent
with the 24-month compliance time recommended in Service Bulletin DC10-
57-134.)
In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, the
FAA considered not only the degree of urgency associated with
addressing the subject unsafe condition, but the susceptibility of the
subject area to stress corrosion cracking. In addition, the FAA finds a
compliance time of 18 months will allow the inspection to be performed
at a base during regularly scheduled maintenance where special
equipment and trained maintenance personnel will be available, if
necessary. In consideration of these items, the FAA finds that the
initial and repetitive visual inspections conducted at the proposed
compliance time of 18 months will better ensure that any detrimental
effect associated with stress corrosion will be identified and
corrected prior to the time that it could adversely affect the
fasteners in the inboard flap inboard track.
Cost Impact
There are approximately 514 McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10 and Model
MD-11 series airplanes, and KC-10A (military) airplanes of the affected
design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 276 airplanes of
U.S. registry would be affected by the inspection requirements proposed
in this AD, that it would take approximately 2 work hours per airplane
to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the average labor rate is
$60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the
proposed inspection requirements on U.S. operators is estimated to be
$33,120, or $120 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that
no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of
this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in
the future if this AD were not adopted.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations proposed herein would 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. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
McDonnell Douglas: Docket 95-NM-212-AD.
Applicability: All Model DC-10 and MD-11 series airplanes, and
KC-10A (military) airplanes, certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability
[[Page 17263]]
provision, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or
repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For
airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the
performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/
operator must request approval for an alternative method of
compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD. The request
should include an assessment of the effect of the modification,
alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD;
and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request
should include specific proposed actions to address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously. To prevent stress corrosion cracking in the fasteners in
the inboard flap inboard track, which could result in binding of the
flap and inability of the flap to extend or retract, accomplish the
following:
(a) For Model DC-10 series airplanes and KC-10A (military)
airplanes: Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD,
perform a visual inspection to detect corrosion or failure of the
steel Hi-Lok fasteners at the inboard flap inboard track in
accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC-10-57-134,
dated August 15, 1995.
(1) If no corrosion or failure is detected, accomplish either
paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (a)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 18 months until paragraph
(a)(1)(ii) of this AD is accomplished.
(ii) Replace all steel Hi-Lok fasteners with inconel Hi-Lok
fasteners in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC-
10-57-134, dated August 15, 1995. Accomplishment of this replacement
constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspection
requirements of paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this AD.
(2) If any corrosion or failure is detected, prior to further
flight, accomplish either paragraph (a)(2)(i) or (a)(2)(ii) of this
AD, in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC-10-57-
134, dated August 15, 1995.
(i) Replace all corroded/failed steel Hi-Lok fasteners with
inconel Hi-Lok fasteners in accordance with the service bulletin.
Repeat the visual inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 18 months until paragraph
(a)(2)(ii) of this AD is accomplished
(ii) Replace all steel Hi-Lok fasteners with inconel Hi-Lok
fasteners, in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC-
10-57-134, dated August 15, 1995. Accomplishment of this replacement
constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspection
requirements of paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this AD.
(b) For Model MD-11 series airplanes: Within 18 months after the
effective date of this AD, perform a visual inspection to detect
corrosion or failures of the steel Hi-Lok fasteners at the inboard
flap inboard track in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service
Bulletin MD11-57-031, dated August 15, 1995.
(1) If no corrosion or failures are detected, accomplish either
paragraph (b)(1)(i) or (b)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (b) of this AD
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 18 months until paragraph
(b)(1)(ii) of this AD is accomplished.
(ii) Replace all steel Hi-Lok fasteners with inconel Hi-Lok
fasteners in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin
MD11-57-031, dated August 15, 1995. Accomplishment of this
replacement constitutes terminating action for the repetitive
inspection requirements of paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this AD.
(2) If any corrosion or failure is detected during the
inspection required by paragraph (b) of this AD, prior to further
flight, accomplish either paragraph (b)(2)(i) or (b)(2)(ii) of this
AD, in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin MD11-57-
031, dated August 15, 1995.
(i) Replace all corroded/failed steel Hi-Lok fasteners with
inconel Hi-Lok fasteners in accordance with the service bulletin.
Repeat the visual inspection required by paragraph (b) of this AD
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 18 months until paragraph
(b)(2)(ii) of this AD is accomplished.
(ii) Replace all steel Hi-Lok fasteners with inconel Hi-Lok
fasteners in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin
MD11-57-031, dated August 15, 1995. Accomplishment of this
replacement constitutes terminating action for the repetitive
inspection requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this AD.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.
Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA
Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send
it to the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 15, 1996.
S.R. Miller,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-9690 Filed 4-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9684 Meetings of the Indian Gas Valuation Negotiated Rulemaking Committee
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 77 (Friday, April 19, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 17266]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9684]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Minerals Management Service
30 CFR Chapter II
RIN 1010-AB57
Meetings of the Indian Gas Valuation Negotiated Rulemaking
Committee
AGENCY: Minerals Management Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of meetings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary of the Department of the Interior (Department)
has established an Indian Gas Valuation Negotiated Rulemaking Committee
(Committee) to develop specific recommendations with respect to Indian
gas valuation under its responsibilities imposed by the Federal Oil and
Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982, 30 U.S.C. 1701 et seq. (FOGRMA).
The Department has determined that the establishment of this Committee
is in the public interest and will assist the Agency in performing its
duties under FOGRMA. This document announces meetings of the Committee.
DATES: The Committee will have meetings on the dates and the times
shown below:
Wednesday, May 22, 1996--9:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Thursday, May 23, 1996--8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Friday, May 24, 1996--8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held in the Building 85 Auditorium at
the Denver Federal Center, located at West 6th Avenue and Kipling
Streets, Lakewood, Colorado.
Written statements may be submitted to Mr. Donald T. Sant, Deputy
Associate Director for Valuation and Operations, Minerals Management
Service, Royalty Management Program, P.O. Box 25165, MS-3100, Denver,
CO 80225-0165.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Donald T. Sant, Deputy Associate
Director for Valuation and Operations, Minerals Management Service,
Royalty Management Program, P.O. Box 25165, MS 3100, Denver, CO 80225-
0165, telephone number (303) 231-3899, fax number (303) 231-3194.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The location and dates of future meetings
will be published in the Federal Register. The meetings will be open to
the public without advanced registration. Public attendance may be
limited to the space available. Members of the public may make
statements during the meeting, to the extent time permits, and file
written statements with the Committee for its consideration.
Written statements should be submitted to the address listed above.
Minutes of Committee meetings will be available for public inspection
and copying 10 days after each meeting at the Denver Federal Center
address. In addition, the materials received to date during the input
sessions are available for inspection and copying at the Denver Federal
Center address.
Dated: April 12, 1996.
Robert E. Brown,
Acting Associate Director for Royalty Management.
[FR Doc. 96-9684 Filed 4-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9657 Special Local Regulation; Idle Hour South Channel Challenge, St. Clair River, MI
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 77 (Friday, April 19, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17270-17271]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9657]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
33 CFR Part 100
[CGD 09-96-001]
Special Local Regulation; Idle Hour South Channel Challenge, St.
Clair River, MI
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a special local
regulation for the United States waters of the St. Clair River South
Channel during the Idle Hour South Channel Challenge. This event will
be held on the St. Clair River South Channel, MI, from Saturday June 8,
through Monday June 10, 1996, on the St. Clair River South Channel.
This event will have an estimated 25 race boats racing a closed course
on the St. Clair River South Channel which could pose hazards to
navigation in the area. This regulation will restrict general
navigation between the St. Clair Flats Canal Lighted Buoy 7 and Harsens
Island Light 11. This regulation is needed to provide for the safety of
life, limb, and property on navigable waters during the event.
DATE: Comments must be received on or before May 20, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed to Commander (oan), Ninth Coast
Guard District, 1240 East 9th Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44199-2060. The
comments will be available for inspection and copying at the Aids to
Navigation and Waterways Management Branch, Room 2083, 1240 East 9th
Street, Cleveland, Ohio. Normal office hours are between 8 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Comments may also be hand
delivered to this address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lieutenant F.J. Milbry, Ninth Coast Guard District, Recreational
Boating Safety Affairs Branch, 1240 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, Ohio
44199-2060, (216) 522-3932.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments.
Persons submitting comments should include their name and address,
identify this rulemaking [CGD09-96-001] and the specific section of
this proposal to which each comment applies, and give a reason for each
comment. Persons wanting acknowledgment of receipt of comments should
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. The Coast Guard
will consider all comments
[[Page 17271]]
received during the comment period. It may change this proposal in view
of the comments. The Coast Guard plans no public hearing. Persons may
request a public hearing by writing to the Project Officer at the
address under ADDRESSES. If it determines that the opportunity for oral
presentations will aid this rulemaking, the Coast Guard will hold a
public hearing at a time and place announced by a later notice in the
Federal Register.
Discussion of Proposed Regulations
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a special local regulation on
specified waters of the St. Clair River South Channel, MI during the
Idle Hour South Channel Challenge. This event will have an estimated 25
high performance power boats racing a closed course race on St. Clair
River South Channel which could pose hazards to navigation in the area.
This event is expected to draw an estimated 200-300 spectator craft.
Pleasure craft will be able to transit the area on the north side of
the Channel during the event. Commercial vessels transit the St. Clair
Cutoff and will not be affected. This regulation is necessary to ensure
the protection of life, limb and property during this event.
Federalism Implications
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that the rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environment.
The Coast Guard is conducting an environmental analysis for this
event pursuant to section 2.B.2.c of Coast Guard Commandant Instruction
M16475.1B, and the Coast Guard Notice of final agency procedures and
policy for categorical exclusions found at 59 FR 38654; July 29, 1994.
Regulatory Evaluation
This regulation is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an
assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of
that order. It has been exempted from review by the Office of
Management and Budget under that order. It is not significant under the
regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation
(DOT) (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects the
economic impact of this regulation to be so minimal that a full
Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies
and procedures of the DOT is unnecessary.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard must consider whether this proposal, if adopted, will have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. ``Small entities'' may include (1) small businesses and not-
for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and
are not dominant in their fields and (2) governmental jurisdictions
with populations of less than 50,000.
Commercial vessel traffic will not be affected by any restrictions
because they transit a different area then that affected by this
proposal. Pleasure craft will be able to transit the area on the north
side of the Channel during the event. Therefore, because it expects the
impact of this proposal to be minimal, the Coast Guard certifies under
5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposal, if adopted, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Collection of Information
This regulation will impose no collection information requirements
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.
Proposed Regulations
In consideration of the foregoing, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend Part 100 of Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 100--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 100 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233; 49 CFR 1.46 and 33 CFR 100.35.
2. A temporary Sec. 100.35-T09-001 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 100.35-T09-001 Idle Hour South Channel Challenge, St. Clair
River, MI.
(a) Regulated area. That portion of the St. Clair River South
Channel, in United States waters, between the St. Clair Flats Canal
Lighted Buoy 7 and Harsens Island Light 11. (NAD 83).
(b) Special local regulation. This section restricts general
navigation in the regulated area for the safety of spectators and
participants. Any vessel desiring to transit the regulated area may do
so only with prior approval of the Patrol Commander.
(c) Patrol Commander. (1) The Coast Guard will patrol the regulated
areas under the direction of a designated Coast Guard Patrol Commander
(Officer in Charge, U.S. Coast Guard St. Clair Shores, MI). The Patrol
Commander may be contacted on channel 16 (156.8 MHZ) by the call sign
``Coast Guard Patrol Commander.''
(2) The Patrol Commander may direct the anchoring, mooring, or
movement of any boat or vessel within the regulated areas. A succession
of sharp, short signals by whistle or horn from vessels patrolling the
area under the direction of the U.S. Coast Guard Patrol Commander shall
serve as a signal to stop. Any vessel so signaled shall stop and shall
comply with the orders of the Patrol Commander. Failure to do so may
result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or
both.
(3) The Patrol Commander may terminate the marine event or the
operation of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for the
protection of life, limb, or property.
(4) All persons in the area shall comply with the orders of the
Coast Guard Patrol Commander.
(d) Effective date. This section is effective from 11:30 a.m. until
2:30 p.m., June 8, 9, and 10, 1996, unless extended or terminated
sooner by Coast Guard Group Commander Detroit, MI.
Dated: April 10, 1996.
G. F. Woolever,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 96-9657 Filed 4-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9602 Special Local Regulations; Beaufort Water Festival; Beaufort, SC
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 77 (Friday, April 19, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17269-17270]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9602]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 100
[CGD07-96-020]
RIN 2115-AE46
Special Local Regulations; Beaufort Water Festival; Beaufort, SC
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish permanent special local
regulations for the Beaufort Water Festival. This event will be held
annually on the last two weekends of July, between 7:30 a.m. and 7 p.m.
Eastern Daylight Time. Historically, the raft races, sailboat regattas,
aerial demonstrations, power boat races, and a parade of ships have
drawn approximately 600-1000 participants and 100-150 spectator craft
to the Beaufort River each day of the event. The anticipated
concentration of spectator and participant vessels associated with the
Beaufort Water Festival poses a safety concern. Furthermore, the nature
of the events and the closure of the Beaufort River between the Ladys
Island swing bridge and Spanish Point creates an extra or unusual
hazard in the navigable waters. These proposed regulations are
necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during
the event. By establishing these proposed permanent regulations, the
Coast Guard expects to give better notice of requirements related to
marine events, and also avoid the recurring costs of publication
related with temporary regulations. However, the establishment of these
proposed permanent regulations would not relieve the event organizers
from applying for an annual marine event permit.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 20, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Group
Charleston, 196 Tradd Street, Charleston, SC 29401, or may be delivered
to operations office at the same address between 7:30 a.m. and 3:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. The telephone
number is (803) 724-7621. Comments will become a part of the public
docket and will be available for copying and inspection at the same
address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
ENS M. J. DaPonte, Coast Guard Group Charleston at (803) 724-7621.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting written views, data, or arguments.
Persons submitting comments should include their names, addresses,
identify the notice (CGD07-96-020) and the specific section of this
proposal to which their comments apply, and give reasons for each
comment. The Coast Guard will consider all comments received during the
comment period. The regulations may be changed in view of the comments
received. All comments received before the expiration of the comment
period will be considered before final action is taken on this
proposal.
No public hearing is planned, but one may be held if the written
requests for a hearing are received, and it is determined that the
opportunity to make oral presentations will add to the rulemaking
process.
Discussion of Proposed Regulations
The proposed regulations are needed to provide for the safety of
life during the Beaufort Water Festival. These regulations are intended
to promote safe navigation on the waters of the Beaufort River between
the Ladys Island swing bridge and Spanish Point by controlling the
traffic entering, exiting, and traveling within these waters.
Historically, the raft races, sailboat regattas, aerial demonstrations,
power boat races, and a parade of ships have drawn approximately 600-
1000 participants and 100-150 spectator craft to the Beaufort River
each day of the event. The anticipated concentration of spectator and
participant vessels associated with the Beaufort Water Festival poses a
safety concern, which is addressed in these proposed special local
regulations. The proposed regulations would not permit movement of
spectator vessels and other nonparticipating vessel traffic within the
regulated area, between the Ladys Island swing bridge (032 deg.25'40''
N, 080 deg.40'10'' W) and a line drawn directly across the Beaufort
River at Spanish Point, on the 032 deg.24'00'' N parallel from 7:30
a.m. to 7 p.m., annually on the last two weekends of July. All
coordinates referenced use Datum: NAD 1983. However, the proposed
regulations would permit the movement of spectator vessels and other
non-participants between scheduled events and at the termination of the
last scheduled event, at the discretion of the Coast Guard Patrol
Commander.
[[Page 17270]]
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposal is not a significant regulatory action under Section
3(f) of the Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of
the potential costs and benefits under Section 6(a)(3) of that Order.
It has been exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget
under that order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies
and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040;
February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this
proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under
paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is
unnecessary. The proposed regulation would last for only 11 and one-
half hours each day of the event.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard must consider whether this proposal will have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. ``Small
entities'' include independently owned and operated small businesses
that are not dominant in their field and that otherwise qualify as
``small business concerns'' under Section 3 of the Small Business Act
(15 U.S.C. 632).
For reasons set forth in the above Regulatory Evaluation, the Coast
Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposal, if adopted,
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
Collection of Information
These proposed regulations contain no collection of information
requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.).
Federalism
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that the rulemaking does not have sufficient Federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environmental Assessment
The Coast Guard has considered the environmental impact of this
proposal consistent with Section 2.B.2. of Commandant Instruction
M16475.1B. In accordance with that section, this proposed action has
been environmentally assessed (EA completed), and the Coast Guard has
concluded that it will not significantly affect the quality of the
human environment. An environmental assessment and a finding of no
significant impact have been prepared and are available in the docket
for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.
Proposed Regulations
In consideration of the foregoing, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 100 continues to read as
follows:
PART 100--[AMENDED]
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233; 49 CFR 1.46 and 33 CFR 100.35.
2. A new section 100.715 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 100.715 Annual Beaufort Water Festival; Beaufort River, Beaufort,
SC.
(a) Definitions. (1) Regulated Area. A regulated area is
established on that portion of the Beaufort River, between the Ladys
Island swing bridge at 032 deg.25'40'' N, 080 deg.40'10'' W and a line
drawn directly across the Beaufort River at Spanish Point on the
032 deg.24'00'' N parallel. All coordinates referenced use Datum: NAD
1983.
(2) Coast Guard Patrol Commander. The Coast Guard Patrol Commander
is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the Coast Guard who has
been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Group Charleston, South
Carolina.
(b) Special local regulations. (1) Entry into the regulated area by
other than event participants is prohibited, unless otherwise
authorized by the Patrol Commander.
(2) Between scheduled events during the last two weekends of July,
the Patrol Commander may authorize vessels to resume normal operations
(3) After termination of the Beaufort Water Festival events on the
last two weekends of July, all vessels may resume normal operation at
the discretion of the Patrol Commander.
(c) Effective Dates. These regulations are effective annually from
7:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, on the last two weekends of
July, unless otherwise specified in the local notice to mariners.
Dated: March 25, 1996.
P.J. Cardaci,
Captain U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, Seventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 96-9602 Filed 4-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9572 Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non- Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; Recovery of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities; Availability of Final Environmental Impact Statement
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 77 (Friday, April 19, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17263-17264]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9572]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
18 CFR Part 35
[Docket Nos. RM95-8-000 and RM94-7-001]
Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-
Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; Recovery of
Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities;
Availability of Final Environmental Impact Statement
April 12, 1996.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of final environmental impact
statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has
prepared a final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the proposed
rulemaking published April 7, 1995, providing for open access non-
discriminatory transmission services by public utilities to satisfy the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The FEIS also
addresses the comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement.
DATES: The FEIS was made available on April 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
D.C. 20426.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Public Reference Room staff at (202) 208-1371.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared a final environmental
impact statement (FEIS) for the proposed rulemaking referenced above to
satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The
FEIS also addresses the comments received on the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) issued by the
[[Page 17264]]
Commission on November 17, 1995 (60 FR 58304, November 27, 1995).
On July 18, 1995, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to
Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues (NOI).\1\
The NOI described proposed cases for examination and established a
procedure for public comments. Thirty-six comments were received in
response to the NOI. A public meeting was held on September 8, 1995, in
Washington, D.C. The most frequently raised issue involves air quality
impacts, particularly the possible transport of nitrogen oxides
(NOX) emissions by Midwestern generating plants to airsheds in the
Northeast and the resulting impacts on ozone non-attainment areas in
the Northeast.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 60 FR 36752, July 18, 1995. The proposed rule in this
proceeding was issued March 29, 1995 (60 FR 17662, April 7, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the responses to the NOI, comments on the DEIS, and a
careful analysis of the major issues, the staff developed a study that
addresses the key potential environmental impacts of the rulemaking.
The staff used a modeling approach that includes a detailed
representation of the transmission grid. The model results and other
analyses allow the staff to examine a series of other issues, including
visibility; impacts on land, water and waste; and some potential
mitigation options. The modeling took into account comments from the
U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The FEIS finds, among other things, that the relative price of coal
and natural gas has a larger effect on NOX emissions than any
impacts of the rule. The proposed rules are projected to have only
slight impacts on NOX emissions, and the impacts are as likely to
be beneficial as harmful.
The FEIS has been placed in the public files of the FERC and is
available for public inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Public Reference and Files Maintenance Branch, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 208-1371.
Copies of the FEIS have been mailed to Federal and State agencies
and individuals who requested copies of the FEIS in response to the NOI
and the DEIS.
The FEIS is available to the public on the Commission Posting
System (CIPS). CIPS is an electronic bulletin board service which
provides access to the text of formal documents issued by the
Commission. CIPS is available at no charge to the user and may be
accessed using a personal computer with a modem by dailing (202) 208-
1397. To access CIPS, set your communications software to 19200, 14400,
12000, 9600, 7200, 4800, 2400, or 1200 bps, full duplex, no parity, 8
data bits and 1 stop bit. For further assistance, call the CIPS Hotline
at (202) 208-2474.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-9572 Filed 4-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9565 National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 77 (Friday, April 19, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 17257]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9565]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 77 / Friday, April 19, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 17257]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 1021
National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of reopening comment period and notice of public
hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) reopens the comment period and
schedules a public hearing on its notice of proposed rulemaking to
amend its implementing procedures under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA).
DATES: The public hearing will take place on May 6, 1996, from 1:00 pm
to 4:00 pm. The comment period is being reopened until May 10, 1996,
and comments must be received by that date to ensure consideration.
Late comments will be considered to the extent practicable. Persons
interested in participating in the hearing by telephone conference must
make advance arrangements by contacting the person in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice by April 29, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed rule should be addressed to Carol
M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance, EH-42,
U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington,
D.C. 20585-0119. Comments may be hand-delivered to room 3E-080 at the
Forrestal Building on workdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30
p.m. Comments may also be sent by facsimile to (202) 586-7031 or by
electronic mail to the following internet address:
[email protected]. The public hearing will take place in
Washington, D.C. For information on obtaining a transcript of the
hearing, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Pulliam, Office of NEPA Policy
and Assistance, at the above address, or telephone (202) 586-4600 or
leave a message at (800) 472-2756. Persons interested in participating
in the hearing by telephone conference must make advance arrangements
by calling one of the above numbers for instructions.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of proposed rulemaking to amend
DOE's NEPA implementing procedures indicated that DOE would hold a
public meeting if there were public interest in an opportunity to
present oral comments (61 FR 6414, February 20, 1996). The written
comment period closed on April 5, 1996. DOE has received comments from
25 individuals and organizations. One commenter requested public
hearings in various locations around the Nation. None of the other
commenters indicated an interest in amplifying their written comments
through an oral presentation. In view of the lack of widespread
interest in an opportunity for public hearings at regional locations,
DOE has decided to reopen the comment period and schedule a single
public hearing in Washington, D.C.
A DOE official will be designated to preside at the hearing. The
hearing will not be a judicial or an evidentiary-type hearing, but will
be conducted in accordance with the informal rulemaking procedural
requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, and
section 501 of the Department of Energy Organization Act, 42 U.S.C.
7191. The length of each presentation will be limited to ten minutes,
or as determined by the presiding officer based on the number of
persons who request an opportunity to speak at the outset of the
hearing. DOE will make arrangements upon request for public
participation in the hearing by telephone conference call from various
DOE regional offices. If you wish to present comments at the hearing
via telephone, you must call one of the numbers listed above by April
29, 1996, to make arrangements for a time to speak. The presiding
officer may establish additional procedures governing the conduct of
the hearing.
A transcript of the hearing will be prepared and made available for
public inspection at the U.S. Department of Energy Freedom of
Information Reading Room, room 1E-110 Forrestal Building, 1000
Independence Avenue S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585-0119, phone (202) 586-
6020.
Issued in Washington, D.C., April 15, 1996.
Peter Brush,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Environment, Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 96-9565 Filed 4-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9560 Equal Employment Opportunity on Federal and Federal-Aid Construction Contracts (Including Supportive Services)
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 77 (Friday, April 19, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17264-17265]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9560]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 230
[FHWA Docket No. 81-9]
RIN 2125-AD56
Equal Employment Opportunity on Federal and Federal-Aid
Construction Contracts (Including Supportive Services)
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Withdrawal of advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FHWA is withdrawing an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM) published on February 1, 1982, at 47 FR 4536.
Current FHWA Equal Employment Opportunity regulations include
provisions for supportive services which are intended to improve the
effectiveness of on-the-job training by Federal-aid highway
construction contractors. The 1982 ANPRM sought comments on these
supportive services provisions in an attempt to determine whether they
should be eliminated from current regulations or whether and how they
should be modified. The data and information received during the
comment period, as well as analysis initiated by the FHWA, indicate
that continuation of the provision would greatly assist in
strengthening the FHWA skills training program.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda J. Brown, Chief, Policy and
Program Development Division, Office of Civil Rights, 202-366-0471, or
Wilbert Baccus, Office of the Chief Counsel, 202-366-1396, Federal
Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C.
20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 1, 1982, the FHWA published an
ANPRM in the Federal Register (47 FR 4536) seeking public comment on:
(1) the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of the provisions
currently set forth in 23 CFR 230 subpart A; (2) whether they should be
eliminated; (3) whether and how they should be restructured; and (4)
whether an interagency agreement should be sought to obtain supportive
services through the U.S. Department of Labor's Targeted Outreach
Programs. The FHWA docket received 157 comments. State transportation
agencies, contractors, contractors' associations, unions, women and
minorities organizations, and other interested parties that commented
to the docket overwhelmingly supported the continuation of the
supportive services provisions. Nevertheless, all commenters agreed
that the program needed to be restructured to effectively benefit the
FHWA skills training program. Also, none of the commenters were in
favor of entering into an interagency agreement with the U.S.
Department of Labor to administer the On-the-Job Training/Supportive
Services (OJT/SS) program.
The FHWA agrees with the commenters, since FHWA's goal is to
increase the effectiveness of the OJT/SS program and the agency does
not propose to eliminate the OJT/SS program. Instead, the FHWA believes
that restructuring the program to permit recipients greater flexibility
in designing and implementing training programs is the most effective
way to strengthen the program.
Additionally, the FHWA has convened an implementation team on civil
rights regulations. The team consists of representatives from FHWA's
headquarters and field offices, whose goal is to review, streamline,
and simplify civil rights regulations and to integrate civil rights
requirements with other program requirements. As a result of the team
effort an NPRM will be published in 1996 to solicit comments on the
proposed revisions to the civil rights regulations.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The FHWA has determined that this action is not a significant
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 or
significant within the meaning of Department of Transportation's 1982
regulatory policies and procedures. Because this action simply
withdraws a 1982 ANPRM, it will have no economic
[[Page 17265]]
effect. Therefore, a full regulatory evaluation has not been prepared.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354,
5 U.S.C. 601-612), the FHWA has evaluated the effects of this rule on
small entities. The FHWA hereby certifies that this withdrawal of a
proposed action will not have significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism Assessment)
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that the withdrawal of the advance notice of proposed rulemaking will
not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation
of a federalism assessment.
Executive Order 12374 (Intergovernmental Review)
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205,
Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing
Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on
Federal programs and activities apply to this program.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This advance notice of proposed rulemaking did not contain a
collection of information requirement for purposes of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
National Environmental Policy Act
The agency has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has
determined that this action would not have any effect on the quality of
the environment.
Regulation Identification Number
A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations.
The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda
in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of
this document can be used to cross reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 230
Equal employment opportunity, Grant programs-- transportation,
Highways and roads, Minority businesses, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
(23 U.S.C. 140 and 315; 49 CFR 1.48)
Issued on: April 3, 1996.
Rodney E. Slater,
Federal Highway Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-9560 Filed 4-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9525 Amendments to Regulations Governing Collection of Royalties, Rentals, Bonuses, and Other Monies Due the Federal Government
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 77 (Friday, April 19, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17266-17269]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9525]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
30 CFR Part 218
RIN 1010-AC01
Amendments to Regulations Governing Collection of Royalties,
Rentals, Bonuses, and Other Monies Due the Federal Government
AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: MMS proposes to amend its regulations that specify how
payments are made for mineral lease royalties, rentals, and bonuses.
The changes are needed to incorporate revised U.S. Treasury
requirements. Also, MMS proposes clearer language for other parts of
this regulation.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before June 18, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments, suggestions, or objections regarding this
proposed amendment should be sent to the following addresses.
For comments sent via the U.S. Postal Service use: Minerals
Management Service, Royalty Management Program, Rules and Procedures
Staff, P.O. Box 25165 MS 3101, Denver, Colorado 80225-0165.
For comments via courier or overnight delivery service use:
Minerals Management Service, Royalty Management Program, Rules and
Procedures Staff, MS 3101, Building 85, Denver Federal Center, Room A-
212, Denver, Colorado 80225-0165.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David S. Guzy, Chief, Rules and
Procedures Staff, phone (303) 231-3432, FAX (303) 231-3194, e-Mail
David____G[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The principal authors of this rule are David
J. Menard of the Royalty Accounting Division, General Ledger Branch,
Jim McNamee of the Office of Policy and Management Improvement, and
David
[[Page 17267]]
S. Guzy of the Rules and Procedures Staff, Lakewood, Colorado.
I. Background
Section 218.51 of Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
``Method of payment,'' regulates the types of payments MMS accepts for
royalty and other payments due on Federal and Indian mineral leases.
The current regulation was published on September 21, 1984 (49 FR
37336). The regulation was amended on June 25, 1987 (52 FR 23812). The
amendment lowered the payment threshold from $50,000 to $10,000 for
royalty payments that must be made by Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT),
extended the EFT requirements to include deferred bonus payments from
successful bidders in competitive lease sales, and revised the
references on payment method in Part 218 to be consistent with the
amendment. An amendment published on October 26, 1988, changed the
reference to the U.S. Treasury's electronic communications system used
to process electronic funds transfers from ``Treasury Financial
Communication System'' to ``Financial Management Service Fedwire
Deposit System'' (53 FR 43200).
On January 31, 1994, the U.S. Treasury published a final rule
amending 31 CFR Part 206, Management of Federal Agency Receipts,
Disbursements, and Operation of the Cash Management Improvements Fund
(59 FR 4536). The rule requires executive agencies to use effective,
efficient disbursement mechanisms, principally EFT, in making their
payments. The rule also requires executive agencies to use EFT for
collecting funds.
The new U.S. Treasury requirement will have a minimal effect on
MMS' Royalty Management Program collection and disbursement system
because MMS has been using EFT since September 1984. Also, MMS has
increased EFT usage throughout the past several years. Although the
U.S. Treasury rule requires using EFT as the principal collection and
disbursement system whenever it is cost effective, practicable, and
consistent with current statutory authority, the U.S. Treasury will
allow other methods to be used. MMS will work with and encourage all
companies to use EFT to the extent it is cost effective and
practicable. However, some of MMS' collections and disbursements may
not lend themselves to using EFT.
II. Discussion of Proposed Rule
Because of the new U.S. Treasury requirement, MMS proposes to
revise the entire section at Sec. 218.51 to incorporate the new
requirement. To clarify the section, MMS proposes rewriting it in plain
English as Executive Order No. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
requires. MMS intends for the rewritten rule to be easy to understand
and specifically requests comments on its format and clarity. This rule
affects only the Royalty Management Program.
The proposed regulation changes the title of Sec. 218.51 from
``Method of Payment'' to ``How To Make Payments.'' This change makes it
easier to understand what information this section covers and assists
the reader in locating payment instructions for Federal and Indian
mineral lease royalties and other payments.
Section 218.51(a) of the proposed regulation defines relevant terms
used in the succeeding paragraphs of payment instructions. We added
definitions to avoid confusion about the meaning of significant terms
used in the payment instructions. Unclear language can cause delays in
receiving and depositing mineral lease payments sent to MMS.
Section 218.51(b) of the proposed regulation contains general
instructions that apply to all persons who pay money to MMS or to an
Indian Tribe or allottee. This revision presents the requirements for
all payments in one place rather than in the many paragraphs under the
existing regulation. This consolidation should assist persons in
locating the general payment requirements. MMS urges everyone to use
EFT for payments. When you want to begin using EFT and MMS has not
contacted you, contact MMS and we will provide the appropriate
instructions.
Section 218.51(c) contains specific instructions for persons making
non-EFT payments for each different category of payment. This format
will help people find the instructions that apply to the payment they
are concerned about.
Proposed Secs. 218.51(d) and 218.51(e) provide the addresses for
sending payments to MMS using the U.S. Postal Service, courier, or
overnight delivery service. This is a consolidation of information now
dispersed throughout the existing regulation and will make it easier to
find the correct address for sending payments to MMS.
Proposed Sec. 218.51(f) specifies what a person making a payment
must include on a payment. The information required varies by the
reason for the payment. This revised format would make it easier to
determine what is required for each category of payment.
Paragraph (g) of Sec. 218.51 explains when a payment to MMS is due.
It covers payments sent by EFT, the U.S. Postal Service, courier, and
overnight mail. It states that all payments are due to MMS at the time
required by law, regulation or lease terms, unless MMS approves a
change. It also states that if the requirement to submit payment is
suspended pending an appeal under 30 CFR 243.2, the original due date
for that payment does not change for purposes such as calculating late
payment interest. This rule would not effect any change in the existing
rules governing suspension of MMS orders pending appeal.
Paragraph (h) of Sec. 218.51 explains what happens if payments are
received late. MMS will impose late-payment interest charges and may
assess civil penalties.
Section 218.155(b) is proposed to be amended by changing the word
``cannot'' to ``may'' in the last sentence.
III. Procedural Matters
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department certifies that this proposed rule will not have a
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
The proposed rule is needed to comply with U.S. Treasury
requirements.
Executive Order 12630
The Department certifies that the proposed rule is not a
governmental action capable of interference with constitutionally
protected property rights. Thus, a Takings Implication Assessment need
not be prepared under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental Action and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.''
Executive Order 12778
The Department has certified to the Office of Management and Budget
that these proposed regulations meet the applicable standards provided
in sections 2(a) and 2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778.
Executive Order 12866
This document has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866 and is
not a significant regulatory action.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not contain information collection
requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and
Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
[[Page 17268]]
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
We have determined that this proposed rulemaking is not a major
Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment, and a detailed statement under section 102(2)(C) of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 [42 U.S.C. 4332 (2)(C)] is
not required.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 218
Coal, Continental shelf, Electronic funds transfers, Geothermal
energy, Government contracts, Indian lands, Mineral royalties, Oil and
gas exploration, Public lands-mineral resources.
Dated: March 13, 1996.
Bob Armstrong,
Assistant Secretary--Land and Minerals Management.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR Part 218 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 218--COLLECTION OF ROYALTIES, RENTALS, BONUSES AND OTHER
MONIES DUE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
1. The authority citation for part 218 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 25 U.S.C. 396 et seq., 396a et seq., 2101 et seq.; 30
U.S.C. 181 et seq., 351 et seq., 1001 et seq., 1701 et seq.; 31
U.S.C. 3335; 43 U.S.C. 1301 et seq., 1331 et seq., 1801 et seq.
2. Section 218.51 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 218.51 How to make payments.
(a) Definitions.
ACH. Automated Clearing House. A type of EFT using the ACH network.
Courtesy notice. An MMS-issued notice of rental or bonus due.
Deferred bonus payment. Lease bonus paid in equal annual
installments over a specified number of years.
EFT. Electronic Funds Transfer. Any paperless transfer of funds a
bank initiates through an electronic terminal. For MMS purposes, EFT is
limited to FEDWIRE and ACH transfers.
FEDWIRE. A type of EFT using the Federal Reserve Wire network.
Invoice document identification. The MMS-assigned invoice document
identification (four alpha and eight numeric characters).
Payment. Any monies for royalty, bonus, rental, late payment
charge, assessment, penalty, or other money sent to MMS.
Person. Any individual, firm, corporation, association,
partnership, consortium, or joint venture (when established as a
separate entity). The term does not include Federal agencies.
Report. Form MMS-2014, Report of Sales and Royalty Remittance.
RIK. Royalty in kind.
(b) Gneral instructions. You must make all payments to MMS
electronically to the extent it is cost effective and practicable. If
you pay money to MMS or to an Indian Tribe or allottee, you must follow
these procedures:
(1) If MMS instructs you to use EFT, you must use EFT for all
payments.
(2) Contact MMS before using EFT. MMS will provide you with EFT
payment instructions.
(3) Separate any payments on a Federal lease from any payments on
an Indian lease.
(4) If you are not required to use EFT, use one of the following
types of payment documents. MMS prefers you to use these payment
documents in the order presented:
(i) Commercial check drawn on a solvent bank;
(ii) Certified check;
(iii) Cashier's check;
(iv) Money order;
(v) Bank draft drawn on a solvent bank; or
(vi) Federal Reserve check.
(5) You must include your payor code on all payments.
(6) You must pay in U.S. dollars.
(c) How to complete a non-EFT payment. This paragraph explains to
whom you must make your payment payable when you do not use EFT.
(1) Make any payment on a Federal lease payable to: ``Department of
the Interior-Minerals Management Service'' or ``DOI-MMS.''
(2) For an Indian allottee payment, send a separate payment for
each Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) agency or area office represented
by the leases on your report or invoice document. You must include the
name of the applicable Bureau of Indian Affairs agency or area office
on your payment. Make it payable to: ``Department of the Interior-
Minerals Management Service for BIA [Name] Agency (allotted)'' or
``DOI-MMS for BIA [Name] Agency (allotted).''
(3) For an Indian tribal payment other than a lockbox payment, send
a separate payment for each tribe represented by the leases on your
report or invoice document. You must include the name of the Indian
tribe on your payment. Make it payable to: ``Department of the
Interior-Minerals Management Service for BIA [Name of Tribe]'' or
``DOI-MMS for BIA [Name of Tribe]''.
(4) For an Indian tribal lockbox payment, follow the instructions
MMS provides you on how to report and make the lockbox payment. These
instructions are specific to each tribe's lockbox written agreement
with the bank authorized to receive payments on the tribe's mineral
leases. You will receive these instructions from MMS when you are
required to use a tribal lockbox for reports and payments.
(d) Where to send a non-EFT payment when you use the U.S. Postal
Service. This paragraph explains how to send a payment document using
the U.S. Postal Service.
(1) for a payment to an Indian tribal lockbox, send it to the
lockbox address the tribe provides.
(2) For a Federal non-producing lease rental or deferred bonus
payment, send it to: Minerals Management Service, Royalty Management
Program, PO Box 5640, Denver, CO 80217-5640.
(3) For all other Federal and Indian lease payments other than
those going to an Indian tribal lockbox, send them to: Minerals
Management Service, Royalty Management Program, PO Box 5810, Denver, CO
80217-5810.
(e) Where to send a non-EFT payment when you use a courier or
overnight delivery service. This paragraph explains how to send a
payment document using a courier or overnight delivery service for all
Federal and Indian payments. You should send this type of payment to:
Minerals Management Service, Royalty Management Program, Building 85,
Denver Federal Center, Room A-212, Denver, CO 80225-0165.
(f) What to include on your payment. (1) If you are making a
payment for a Form MMS-2014, you must include both your payor code and
your payor-assigned document (3a) number.
(2) If you are paying an invoice, including RIK invoices, you must
include both your payor code and invoice document identification (four-
letter prefix and eight-digit number).
(3) If you are paying a bonus you must:
(i) See the Notice of Lease Offering for instructions on how to pay
the one-fifth bonus bid deposit for offshore oil, gas, and sulphur
lease bids;
(ii) See Sec. 218.155(c) for instructions on how to pay the four-
fifths bonus for an offshore lease. Use EFT and follow MMS
instructions;
(iii) See the sale terms of the Notice of Competitive Lease Sale
for instructions on how to pay the successful bidder's bonus in the
competitive sale of a coal, geothermal, or offshore mineral (other than
oil, gas or sulfur) lease; and
(iv) Use EFT for installment payments of deferred bonuses.
[[Page 17269]]
(4) If you are paying a lease rental you must:
(i) See Sec. 218.155(c) for instructions on how to pay first-year
rentals of an offshore oil, gas, or sulfur lease;
(ii) See the Notice of Lease Offering for instructions on how to
pay first-year rentals other than those covered in paragraph (f)(4)(i)
of this section; and
(iii) Include the MMS Courtesy Notice, when provided, or write your
payor code and government-assigned lease number on the payment document
when paying a rental that is not reported on Form MMS-2014 and not paid
by EFT.
(g) When is a payment to MMS due? (1) All payments are due to MMS
at the time law, regulation, or lease terms require unless MMS approves
a change according to 30 CFR 243.2 ``Suspensions of orders or decisions
pending appeal.'' If you file an appeal, and the requirement to submit
payment is suspended, the original payment due date for purposes such
as calculating late payment interest is not changed.
(2) If you use the U.S. Postal Service, courier, or overnight mail
to send your payment, it is due at the MMS addresses in paragraphs (d)
and (e) of this section before 4 p.m. Mountain Time on the due date,
regardless of when you sent it.
(3) If you use EFT to send your payment, it is due in the MMS
account by the payment due date. You are responsible for your actions
or your bank's actions that cause a late or incorrect payment. You will
not be held responsible for mechanical or system failures of EFT
payments.
(h) What happens if payments are late or overdue? (1) If MMS
receives your payment late, MMS will impose a late-payment interest
charge under Sec. 218.54.
(2) If you do not pay an amount you owe, MMS may assess civil
penalties under 30 CFR 241.20 and 241.51 or other applicable
regulations.
3. Paragraph (b)(1) of Sec. 218.155 is amended by revising the last
sentence to read as follows:
Sec. 218.155 Method of payment.
* * * * *
(b) * * * (1) * * * EFT may be used as a method of payment for the
one-fifth bonus bid amount.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-9525 Filed 4-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8241 Authority to Modify or Rescind Taxpayer Assistance Orders
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 77 (Friday, April 19, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17265-17266]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8241]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 301
[GL-001-96]
RIN 1545-AU01
Authority to Modify or Rescind Taxpayer Assistance Orders
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains proposed regulations regarding taxpayer
assistance orders. The proposed regulations provide that the authority
to modify or rescind taxpayer assistance orders is limited to the
Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner, or the Ombudsman. The proposed
regulations affect all taxpayers with respect to whom a taxpayer
assistance order is issued.
DATES: Written comments and requests for a public hearing must be
received by July 18, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: CC:DOM:CORP:R (GL-001-96), room 5228,
Internal Revenue Service, POB 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington,
DC 20044. In the alternative, submissions may be hand delivered between
the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. to: CC:DOM:CORP:R (GL-001-96), Courier's
Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert A. Miller, (202) 622-3640 (not
a toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Explanation of Provisions
This document contains a proposed amendment to the Procedure and
Administration Regulations (26 CFR part 301) under section 7811 of the
Internal Revenue Code. In Announcement 96-5 (1996-4 I.R.B. 99),
Administrative Initiatives to Enhance Taxpayer Rights, IRS indicated it
was increasing the power of the Ombudsman to assist taxpayers by
affording greater protection for taxpayer assistance orders. Effective
on the date of the Announcement 96-5, January 4, 1996, the power to
modify or rescind a taxpayer assistance order issued under section 7811
is limited to the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, or the Ombudsman.
The current regulations provide that taxpayer assistance orders may
be modified or rescinded by the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, or
Ombudsman and, additionally, the following IRS officials: a district
director, a service center director, a compliance center director, a
regional director of appeals, or the superiors of those officials.
Announcement 96-5 indicates that proposed regulations would be
published in early 1996 to reflect the policy restriction in authority
to modify or rescind taxpayer assistance orders. Under the proposed
regulations, officials other than the Commissioner, Deputy
Commissioner, or the Ombudsman may modify or rescind a taxpayer
assistance order only with the specific written authorization of the
Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, or Ombudsman.
Special Analyses
It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is
not a significant regulatory action as defined in EO 12866. Therefore,
a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined
that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
chapter 5) and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) do
not apply to these regulations, and, therefore, a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of
the Internal Revenue Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking will be
submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration for comment on its impact on small business.
Comments and Requests for a Public Hearing
Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations,
consideration will be given to any written comments that are submitted
timely (a signed original and eight copies) to the IRS. All comments
will be available for public inspection and copying. A public hearing
may be scheduled if requested in writing by a person that timely
submits written comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of
the date, time, and place for the hearing will be published in the
Federal Register.
Drafting Information
The principal author of these regulations is Robert A. Miller,
Office of Assistant Chief Counsel (General
[[Page 17266]]
Litigation), CC:EL:GL. However, other personnel from the IRS and
Treasury Department participated in their development.
List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 301
Employment taxes, Estate taxes, Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income
taxes, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Proposed Amendments to the Regulations
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 301 is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 301--PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION
Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 301 continues to read
in part as follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Par. 2. Section 301.7811-1 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)
and (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 301.7811-1 Taxpayer Assistance Orders.
* * * * *
(d) Authority to modify or rescind limited to Commissioner, Deputy
Commissioner, or Taxpayer Ombudsman. The Commissioner, the Deputy
Commissioner, and the Ombudsman may modify or rescind a taxpayer
assistance order. A district director, a service center director, a
compliance center director, a regional director of appeals, or the
superiors of those officials, may modify or rescind a taxpayer
assistance order only with the specific written authorization of the
Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, or the Ombudsman.
* * * * *
(h) Effective dates. This section is effective on March 20, 1992,
except paragraph (d) of this section which is effective on the date 90
days after the date of publication of these regulations as final
regulations in the Federal Register.
Margaret Milner Richardson,
Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
[FR Doc. 96-8241 Filed 4-18-96; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7872 Revised Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 77 (Friday, April 19, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17358-17536]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7872]
[[Page 17357]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 60, et al.
Hazardous Waste Combustors; Revised Standards; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 77 / Friday, April 19, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 17358]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 60, 63, 260, 261, 264, 265, 266, 270, and 271
[FRL-5447-2]
RIN 2050-AF01
Revised Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors
agency: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Agency is proposing revised standards for hazardous waste
incinerators, hazardous waste-burning cement kilns, and hazardous
waste-burning lightweight aggregate kilns. These standards are being
proposed under joint authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The standards limit emissions of
chlorinated dioxins and furans, other toxic organic compounds, toxic
metals, hydrochloric acid, chlorine gas, and particulate matter. These
standards reflect the performance of Maximum Achievable Control
Technologies (MACT) as specified by the Clean Air Act. The MACT
standards also should result in increased protection to human health
and the environment over existing RCRA standards. The nature of this
proposal requires that the following actions also be proposed:
proposing the addition of hazardous waste-burning lightweight aggregate
kilns to the list of source categories in accordance with 112(c)(5) of
the Act; exempting from RCRA emission controls secondary lead
facilities subject to MACT; considering an exclusion for certain
``comparable fuels''; and revising the small quantity burner exemption
under the BIF rule.
DATES: EPA will accept public comments on this proposed rule until June
18, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Commenters must send an original and two copies of their
comments referencing docket number F-96-RCSP-FFFFF to: RCRA Docket
Information Center, Office of Solid Waste (5305W), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Headquarters (EPA, HQ), 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Deliveries of comments should be made to the
Arlington, VA, address listed below. Comments may also be submitted
electronically through the Internet to: RCRA-D[email protected].
Comments in electronic format should also be identified by the docket
number F-96-RCSP-FFFFF. All electronic comments must be submitted as an
ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of
encryption.
Commenters should not submit electronically any Confidential
Business Information (CBI). An original and two copies of CBI must be
submitted under separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer,
Office of Solid Waste (5305W), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington,
DC 20460.
Public comments and supporting materials are available for viewing
in the RCRA Information Center (RIC), located at Crystal Gateway One,
1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor, Arlington, VA. The RIC is
open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal
holidays. To review docket materials, the public must make an
appointment by calling (703) 603-9230. The public may copy a maximum of
100 pages from any regulatory docket at no charge. Additional copies
cost $.15/page. The index and some supporting materials are available
electronically. See the ``Supplementary Information'' section for
information on accessing them.
A public hearing will be held, if requested, to discuss the
proposed standards for hazardous waste combustors, in accordance with
section 307(d)(5) of the Act. Persons wishing to make an oral
presentation at a public hearing should contact the EPA at the address
given in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. Oral presentations
will be limited to 5 minutes each, unless additional time is feasible.
Any member of the public may file a written statement before, during,
or within 30 days after the hearing. Written statements should be
addressed to the RCRA Docket Section address given in the ADDRESSES
section of this preamble and should refer to Docket No. F-96-RCSP-
FFFFF. A verbatim transcript of the hearing and written statements will
be available for public inspection and copying during normal working
hours at the EPA's RCRA Docket Section in Washington, D.C. (see
ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the
RCRA Hotline at 1-800-424-9346 or TDD 1-800-553-7672 (hearing
impaired). In the Washington metropolitan area, call 703-412-9810 or
TDD 703-412-3323.
For more detailed information on specific aspects of this
rulemaking, contact Larry Denyer, Office of Solid Waste (5302W), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC
20460, (703) 308-8770, electronic mail: Denyer.L[email protected].
For more detailed information on implementation of this rulemaking,
contact Val de la Fuente, Office of Solid Waste (5303W), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC
20460, (703) 308-7245, electronic mail: DeLaFuente.V[email protected].
For more detailed information on regulatory impact assessment of this
rulemaking, contact Gary Ballard, Office of Solid Waste (5305), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC
20460, (202) 260-2429, electronic mail: Ballard.G[email protected].
For more detailed information on risk analyses of this rulemaking,
contact David Layland, Office of Solid Waste (5304), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 260-
4796, electronic mail: Layland.D[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The index and the following supporting
materials are available on the Internet: (List documents) Follow these
instructions to access the information electronically:
Gopher: gopher.epa.gov
WWW: http://www.epa.gov
Dial-up: (919) 558-0335.
This report can be accessed off the main EPA Gopher menu, in the
directory: EPA Offices and Regions/Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER)/Office of Solid Waste (RCRA)/(consult with
Communication Strategist for precise subject heading)
FTP: ftp.epa.gov
Login: anonymous
Password: Your Internet address
Files are located in /pub/gopher/OSWRCRA
The official record for this action will be kept in paper form.
Accordingly, EPA will transfer all comments received electronically
into paper form and place them in the official record, which will also
include all comments submitted directly in writing. The official record
is the paper record maintained at the address in ADDRESSES at the
beginning of this document.
EPA responses to comments, whether the comments are written or
electronic, will be in a notice in the Federal Register or in a
response to comments document placed in the official record for this
rulemaking. EPA will not immediately reply to commenters electronically
other than to seek clarification of electronic comments that may be
garbled in transmission or during conversion to paper form, as
discussed above.
Glossary of Acronyms
APCD--Air Pollution Control Device
[[Page 17359]]
BDAT--Best Demonstrated Available Technology
BIFs--Boilers and Industrial Furnaces
BTF--Beyond-the-Floor
CAA--Clean Air Act
Cl2--Chlorine
CO--Carbon Monoxide
D/F--Dioxins/Furans
D/O/M--Design/Operation/Maintenance
ESP--Electrostatic Precipitator
EU--European Union
FF--Fabric Filter
HAP--Hazardous Air Pollutant
HC--Hydrocarbons
HCl--Hydrochloric acid
Hg--Mercury
HHE--Human Health and the Environment
HON--Hazardous Organic NESHAPs
HSWA--Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
HWC--Hazardous Waste Combustion/Combustor
ICR--Information Collection Request
LDR--Land Disposal Restrictions
LVM--Low-volatile Metals
LWAK--Lightweight Aggregate Kiln
MACT--Maximum Achievable Control Technology
MTEC--Maximum Theoretical Emission Concentration
NESHAPs--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
PM--Particulate Matter
PICs--Products of Incomplete Combustion
RCRA--Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RIA--Regulatory Impact Assessment
SVM--Semivolatile Metals
TCLP--Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
UTS--Universal Treatment Standards
Part One: Background
I. Overview
II. Relationship of Today's Proposal to EPA's Waste Minimization
National Plan
Part Two: Devices That Would Be Subject To The Proposed Emission
Standards
I. Hazardous Waste Incinerators
A. Overview
B. Summary of Major Incinerator Designs
C. Number of Incinerator Facilities
D. Typical Emission Control Devices For Incinerators
II. Hazardous Waste-Burning Cement Kilns
A. Overview of Cement Manufacturing
B. Summary of Major Design and Operating Features of Cement
Kilns
C. Number of Facilities
D. Emissions Control Devices
III. Hazardous Waste-Burning Lightweight Aggregate Kilns
A. Overview of Lightweight Aggregate Kilns (LWAKs)
B. Major Design and Operating Features
C. Number of Facilities
D. Air Pollution Control Devices
Part Three: Decision Process for Setting National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs)
I. Source of Authority for NESHAP Development
II. Procedures and Criteria for Development of NESHAPs
III. List of Categories of Major and Area Sources
A. Clean Air Act Requirements
B. Hazardous Waste Incinerators
C. Cement Kilns
D. Lightweight Aggregate Kilns
IV. Proposal to Subject Area Sources to the NESHAPs under
Authority of Section 112(c)(6)
V. Selection of MACT Floor for Existing Sources
A. Proposed Approach: Combined Technology-Statistical Approach
B. Another Approach Considered But Not Used
C. Identifying Floors as Proposed in CETRED
D. Establishing Floors One HAP or HAP Group at a Time
VI. Selection of Beyond-the-Floor Levels for Existing Sources
VII. Selection of MACT for New Sources
VIII. RCRA Decision Process
A. RCRA and CAA Mandates to Protect Human Health and the
Environment
B. Evaluation of Protectiveness
C. Use of Site-Specific Risk Assessments under RCRA
Part Four: Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards
I. Selection of Source Categories and Pollutants
A. Selection of Sources and Source Categories
B. Selection of Pollutants
C. Applicability of the Standards Under Special Circumstances
II. Selection of Format for the Proposed Standards
A. Format of the Standard
B. Averaging Periods
III. Incinerators: Basis and Level for the Proposed NESHAP
Standards for New and Existing Sources
A. Summary of MACT Standards for Existing Incinerators
B. Summary of MACT Standards For New Incinerators
C. Evaluation of Protectiveness
IV. Cement Kilns: Basis and Level for the Proposed NESHAP
Standards for New and Existing Sources
A. Summary of Standards for Existing Cement Kilns
B. MACT for New Hazardous Waste-Burning Cement Kilns
C. Evaluation of Protectiveness
V. Lightweight Aggregate Kilns: Basis and Level for the Proposed
NESHAP Standards for New and Existing Sources
A. Summary of MACT Standards for Existing LWAKs
B. MACT for New Sources
C. Evaluation of Protectiveness
VI. Achievability of the Floor Levels
VII. Comparison of the Proposed Emission Standards With Emission
Standards for Other Combustion Devices
VIII. Alternative Floor (12 Percent) Option Results
A. Summary of Results of 12 Percent Analysis
B. Summary of MACT Floor Cost Impacts and Emissions Reductions
C. Alternative Floor Option: Percent Reduction Refinement
IX. Additional Data for Comment
Part Five: Implementation
I. Selection of Compliance Dates
A. Existing Sources
B. New Sources
C. One year extensions for Pollution Prevention/Waste
Minimization
II. Selection of Proposed Monitoring Requirements
A. Monitoring Hierarchy
B. Use of Comprehensive Performance Test Data to Establish
Operating Limits
C. Compliance Monitoring Requirements
D. Combustion Fugitive Emissions
E. Automatic Waste Feed Cutoff (AWFCO) Requirements and
Emergency Safety Vent (ESV) Openings
F. Quality Assurance for Continuous Monitoring Systems
III. MACT Performance Testing and Related Issues
A. MACT Performance Testing
B. RCRA Trial Burns
C. Waiver of MACT Performance Testing for HWCs Feeding De
Minimis Levels of Metals or Chlorine
D. Relative Accuracy Tests for CEMS
IV. Selection of Manual Stack Sampling Methods
V. Notification, Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Operator
Certification Requirements
A. Notification Requirements
B. Reporting Requirements
C. Recordkeeping Requirements
VI. Permit Requirements
A. Coordination of RCRA and CAA Permitting Processes
B. Permit Application Requirements
C. Clarifications on Definitions and Permit Process Issues
D. Pollution Prevention/Waste Minimization Options
E. Permit Modifications Necessary to Come Into Compliance With
MACT Standards
VII. State Authorization
A. Authority for Today's Rule
B. Program Delegation Under the Clean Air Act
C. RCRA State Authorization
VIII. Definitions
A. Definitions Proposed in Sec. 63.1201
B. Conforming Definitions Proposed in Secs. 260.10 and 270.2
C. Clarification of RCRA Definition of Industrial Furnace
Part Six: Miscellaneous Provisions and Issues
I. Comparable Fuel Exclusion
A. EPA's Approach to Establishing Benchmark Constituent Levels
B. Sampling, Analysis, and Statistical Protocols Used
C. Options for the Benchmark Approach
D. Comparable Fuel Specification
E. Exclusion of Synthesis Gas Fuel
F. Implementation of the Exclusion
G. Transportation and Storage
H. Speculative Accumulation
I. Regulatory Impacts
II. Miscellaneous Revisions to the Existing Rules
A. Revisions to the Small Quantity Burner Exemption under the
BIF Rule
B. The Waiver of the PM Standard under the Low Risk Waste
Exemption of the
[[Page 17360]]
BIF Rule Would Not Be Applicable to HWCs
C. The ``Low Risk Waste'' Exemption from the Emission Standards
Provided by the Existing Incinerator Standards Would Be Superseded
by the MACT Rules
D. Bevill Residues
E. Applicability of Regulations to Cyanide Wastes
F. Shakedown Concerns
G. Extensions of Time Under Certification of Compliance
H. Technical Amendments to the BIF Rule
I. Clarification of Regulatory Status of Fuel Blenders
J. Change in Reporting Requirements for Secondary Lead Smelters
Subject to MACT
Part Seven: Analytical and Regulatory Requirements
I. Executive Order 12866
II. Regulatory Options
III. Assessment of Potential Costs and Benefits
A. Introduction
B. Analysis and Findings
C. Total Incremental Cost per Incremental Reduction in HAP
Emissions
D. Human Health Benefits
E. Other Benefits
IV. Other Regulatory Issues
A. Environmental Justice
B. Unfunded Federal Mandates
C. Regulatory Takings
D. Incentives for Waste Minimization and Pollution Prevention
V. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act
VII. Request for Data
Appendix--Comparable Fuel Constituent and Physical Specifications
PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
PART 260--HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL
PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
PART 264--STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
PART 265--INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
PART 266--STANDARDS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC HAZARDOUS WASTES
AND SPECIFIC TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
PART 270--EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE HAZARDOUS WASTE
PERMIT PROGRAM
PART 271--REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTHORIZATION OF STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE
PROGRAMS
PART ONE: BACKGROUND
I. Overview
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
revise standards for hazardous waste incinerators and hazardous waste-
burning cement kilns and lightweight aggregate kilns (LWAKs) under
joint authority of the Clean Air Act, as amended, (CAA) and the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended (RCRA). The emission
standards in today's proposal have been developed under the CAA
provisions concerning the maximum level of achievable control over
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), taking into consideration the cost of
achieving the emission reduction, any non-air quality health and
environmental impacts, and energy requirements. These maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) standards, also referred to as
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), are
proposed in today's rule for the following HAPs: dioxins/furans,
mercury, two semivolatile metals (lead and cadmium), four low
volatility metals (antimony, arsenic, beryllium, and chromium),
particulate matter, and hydrochloric acid/chlorine gas. Other toxic
organic emissions are addressed by standards for carbon monoxide (CO)
and hydrocarbons (HC).
This action is being taken for several reasons. First, this
proposal is consistent with the terms of the 1993 settlement agreement
between the Agency and a number of groups who challenged EPA's final
RCRA rule entitled ``Burning of Hazardous Waste in Boilers and
Industrial Furnaces'' (56 FR 7134, Feb. 21, 1991). These groups include
the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Inc., Hazardous
Waste Treatment Council (now the Environmental Technology Council),
National Solid Waste Management Association, and a number of local
citizens' groups. Under this settlement agreement, the Agency is to
propose this rulemaking by September-November, 1995, and finalize it by
December 1996.
Second, EPA has scheduled rulemakings to develop maximum achievable
control technology (MACT) standards for hazardous waste incinerators
and cement kilns. To minimize the burden on the Agency and the
regulated community, the Agency has combined its efforts under the CAA
and RCRA into one rulemaking to establish MACT standards, which also
would satisfy the RCRA settlement agreement obligations.
Third, the Agency's Hazardous Waste Minimization and Combustion
Strategy, first announced in May 1993, in addition to stressing waste
minimization, also made a commitment to upgrade the emission standards
for hazardous waste-burning facilities. The three categories of
facilities covered in this proposal burn over 80 percent of the total
amount of hazardous waste being combusted each year. [The remaining 15-
20 percent is burned in industrial boilers and other types of
industrial furnaces, which are to be addressed in the next rulemaking
for which a proposal is to be issued by December 1998 or sooner.]
Finally, as relates to the development of revised standards under
concurrent Clean Air Act and RCRA authority, most of these hazardous
waste combustion facilities are major sources of HAP emissions. They
therefore must be regulated under section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act.
In addition, EPA noted, when promulgating the RCRA rules for boilers
and industrial furnaces in 1991 and in a proposal to revise the
incinerator rules, that existing standards did not fully consider the
possibility of exposure via indirect (non-inhalation) exposure
pathways. 56 FR at 7150, 7167, 7169-70 (Feb. 21, 1991); 54 FR at 43720-
21, 43723, 43757 (Oct. 26, 1989). The Agency reiterated these concerns
in the Combustion Strategy announced in 1993 as one of the major
factors leading to its decision to undertake revisions to the standards
for hazardous waste combustors. As also noted in the Combustion
Strategy and elsewhere, site-specific RCRA omnibus authority, whereby
permit writers can impose additional conditions as are necessary to
protect human health and the environment, can be used to buttress the
existing regulations. See, e.g., 56 FR 7145, at n.8. Nevertheless, this
process is expensive, time-consuming, and not always sufficiently
certain in result. The Agency thus indicated, in the Combustion
Strategy, that technology-based standards could provide a superior
means of control by providing certainty of operating performance.
Because of the joint authorities under which this rule is being
proposed, the proposal also contains an implementation scheme that is
intended to harmonize the RCRA and CAA programs to the maximum extent
permissible by law. In pursuing a common-sense approach towards this
objective, the proposal seeks to establish a framework that: (1)
Provides for combined (or at least coordinated) CAA and RCRA permitting
of these facilities; (2) allows maximum flexibility for regional,
state, and local agencies to determine which of their resources will be
used for permitting, compliance, and enforcement efforts; and (3)
integrates the monitoring, compliance testing, and recordkeeping
requirements of the CAA and RCRA so that facilities will be able
[[Page 17361]]
to avoid two potentially different regulatory compliance schemes.
In addition, this proposal addresses the variety of issues, to the
extent appropriate at this time, raised in several petitions filed with
the Agency. These petitions are from the Cement Kiln Recycling
Coalition (Jan. 18, 1994), the Hazardous Waste Treatment Council (May
18, 1994), and the Chemical Manufacturers Association (Oct. 14, 1994).
II. Relationship of Today's Proposal to EPA's Waste Minimization
National Plan
EPA believes that today's proposed rule will create significant
incentives for source reduction and recycling by waste generators that
would, in turn, help facilities achieve compliance with the MACT
standards. RCRA, as well as the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA),
encourage pollution prevention at the source, and the Clean Air Act
mentions pollution prevention as a specific means of achieving MACT. In
Sec. 112(d)(2) of the CAA, Congress expressly defined MACT as the
``application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques
including, but not limited to, measures which reduce the volume of, or
eliminate emissions of, such pollutants through process changes,
substitution of materials and other modifications.''
In addition, in the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
(HSWA) to RCRA, Congress established a national policy for waste
minimization. Section 1003 of RCRA states that, whenever feasible, the
generation of hazardous waste is to be reduced or eliminated as
expeditiously as possible. Section 8002(r) requires EPA to explore the
desirability and feasibility of establishing regulations or other
incentives or disincentives for reducing or eliminating the generation
of hazardous waste. In 1990, the PPA reinforced these policies by
declaring it ``to be the national policy of the United States that
pollution should be prevented at the source whenever feasible'' and,
when not feasible, waste should be recycled, treated, or disposed of--
in that order of preference.
Although the Agency has devoted significant effort to evaluation
and promotion of waste minimization in the past 1, the Hazardous
Waste Minimization and Combustion Strategy, first announced in May
1993, recently provided a new impetus to this effort. The Strategy had
several components, among which was reducing the amount and toxicity of
hazardous waste generated in the United States. Other components of the
Strategy included strengthening controls on emissions from hazardous
waste combustion units; enhancing public participation in facility
permitting; establishing risk assessment policies with respect to
facility permitting; and continued emphasis on strong compliance and
enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For example, EPA prepared a report to Congress,
``Minimization of Hazardous Wastes'' (October 1986), that summarized
existing waste minimization activities and evaluated options for
promoting waste minimization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA held a National Roundtable and four Regional Roundtables
throughout the nation in 1993-94 to facilitate a broad dialogue on the
spectrum of waste minimization and combustion issues. The major
messages from these Roundtables became the building blocks for EPA's
further efforts to promote source reduction and recycling and
specifically for EPA's Waste Minimization National Plan, released in
November 1994.
The Waste Minimization National Plan focuses on the goal of
reducing persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic constituents in
hazardous waste nationally by 25 percent by the year 2000 and 50
percent by the year 2005. The central themes of the National Plan are:
(1) Developing a framework for setting national priorities for the
minimization of hazardous waste; (2) promoting multimedia environmental
benefits and preventing cross-media transfers; (3) demonstrating a
strong preference for source reduction by shifting attention to
hazardous waste generators to reduce generation at its source; (4)
defining and tracking progress in minimizing the generation of wastes;
and (5) involving citizens in waste minimization implementation
decisions. The Agency intends to continue its pursuit of hazardous
waste minimization under the National Plan and other Agency initiatives
in concert with the actions proposed in today's rule.
Of the 3.0 million tons of hazardous waste combusted in 1991,
approximately two-thirds of that amount were combusted at on-site
facilities (i.e., the same facilities at which the waste was
generated). Combustion at an on-site facility therefore presents a
situation in which the same facility owners and operators may have some
measure of control over generation of wastes at its source and its
ultimate disposition. Although close to 400 industries generated wastes
destined for combustion in 1991, much of the quantity was concentrated
in a few sectors. As a companion to this proposed rule, EPA is focusing
its waste minimization efforts on reducing the generation and
subsequent release to the environment of the most persistent,
bioaccumulative, and toxic constituents in hazardous wastes (i.e.,
metals, halogenated organics).
Analysis of waste minimization potential suggests that generators
currently burning wastes may have a number of options for eliminating
or reducing these wastes. We believe that roughly 15 percent of all
combusted wastes may be amenable to waste minimization. Three waste
generating processes appear to have the most potential in terms of
tonnage reduction: (1) Solvent and product recovery/distillation
procedures, primarily in the organic chemicals industry, (2) product
processing wastes, and (3) process waste removal and cleaning. In
addition, preliminary analyses of Toxics Release Inventory and
hazardous waste stream data indicate that over 3 million pounds of
hazardous metals are contained in waste streams being combusted. The
top 5 ranking metals (with respect to health risk considering
persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxicity) are mercury, cadmium, lead,
copper, and selenium. Additional analyses are underway to identify the
industry sectors and production processes that are chief sources of
these and other high priority hazardous constituents.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ USEPA, Office of Solid Waste, ``Setting Priorities for
Hazardous Waste Minimization'', July 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In today's rule, EPA is soliciting comment on two options to
promote the use of pollution prevention/waste minimization measures as
methods for helping meet MACT standards. These options (regarding feed
stream analysis and permitting requirements) are described in Part
Five, Section VI, Subsection D of this preamble. EPA is also seeking
comment on a proposal to consider, on a case-by-case basis, extending
the compliance deadlines for this rule by one year if a facility can
show that extra time is needed to implement pollution prevention/waste
minimization measures in order for the facility to meet the MACT
standards and that implementation cannot be practically achieved within
the allotted three-year period after promulgation of this rule (see
Part V, Section 1, Subsection C).
PART TWO: DEVICES THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE PROPOSED EMISSION
STANDARDS
I. Hazardous Waste Incinerators
A. Overview
A hazardous waste incinerator is an enclosed, controlled flame
combustion
[[Page 17362]]
device, as defined in 40 CFR 260.10, and is used to treat primarily
organic and/or aqueous wastes. These devices may be in situ (fixed), or
consist of mobile units (such as those used for site remediation and
superfund clean-ups) or may consist of units burning spent or unusable
ammunition and/or chemical agents that meet the incinerator definition.
B. Summary of Major Incinerator Designs
The following is a brief description of the typical incinerator
designs used in the United States.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For a more detailed description of incineration technology,
see ``Combustion Emissions Technical Resource Document (CETRED)'',
USEPA EPA530-R-94-014, May 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Rotary Kilns
Rotary kiln systems typically contain two incineration chambers:
the rotary kiln and an afterburner. The kiln itself is a cylindrical
refractory-lined steel shell 10-20 feet in diameter, with a length-to-
diameter ratio of 2 to 10. The shell is supported by steel trundles
that ride on rollers, allowing the kiln to rotate around its horizontal
axis at a rate of 1-2 revolutions per minute. Wastes are fed directly
at one end of the kiln and heated by primary fuels. Waste continues to
heat and burn as it travels down the inclined kiln. Combustion air is
provided through ports on the face of the kiln. The kiln typically
operates at 50-200 percent excess air and temperatures of 1600-
1800 deg.F. Flue gas from the kiln is routed to an afterburner
operating at 2000-2500 deg.F and 100-200 percent excess air where
unburnt components of the kiln flue gas are more completely combusted.
Auxiliary fuel and/or pumpable liquid wastes are typically used to
maintain the afterburner temperature.
Some rotary kiln incinerators, known as slagging kilns, operate at
high enough temperatures such that residual materials leave the kiln in
a molten slag form. The molten residue is then water-quenched. Another
kiln, an ashing kiln, operates at a lower temperature, producing a
residual ash, which leaves as a dry material.
2. Liquid Injection Incinerators
A liquid injection incinerator system consists of an incineration
chamber, waste burner and auxiliary fuel system. The combustion chamber
is a cylindrical steel shell lined with refractory material and mounted
horizontally or vertically. Liquid wastes are atomized as they are fed
into the combustion chamber through waste burner nozzles. Typical
combustion chamber temperatures are 1300-3000 deg.F and residence times
are from 0.5 to 3 seconds.
3. Fluidized Bed Incinerators
A fluidized bed system is essentially a vertical cylinder
containing a bed of granular material at the bottom. Combustion air is
introduced at the bottom of the cylinder and flows up through the bed
material, suspending the granular particles. Waste and auxiliary fuels
are injected into the bed, where they mix with combustion air and burn
at temperatures from 840-1500 deg.F. Further reaction occurs in the
volume above the bed at temperatures up to 1800 deg.F.
4. Fixed Hearth Incinerators
Fixed hearth incinerators typically contain two furnace chambers: a
primary and a secondary chamber. Some designs have two or three step
hearths on which ash and waste are pushed with rams through the system.
A controlled flow `underfire' combustion air is introduced up through
the hearths. The primary chamber operates in ``starved air'' mode and
the temperatures are around 1000 deg.F. The unburnt hydrocarbons reach
the secondary chamber where 140-200 percent excess air is supplied and
temperatures of 1400-2000 deg.F are achieved for more complete
combustion.
C. Number of Incinerator Facilities
Currently, 162 permitted or interim status incinerator facilities,
having 190 units, are in operation in the U.S. Another 26 facilities
are proposed 4 (i.e., new facilities under construction or
permitting). Of the above 162 facilities, 21 facilities are commercial
facilities that burn about 700,000 tons of hazardous waste annually.
The remaining 141 are on-site or captive facilities and burn about
800,000 tons of waste annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ USEPA ``List of hazardous waste incinerators,'' November
1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Typical Emission Control Devices for Incinerators
Incinerators are equipped with a wide variety of air pollution
control devices (APCDs), which range from no control (for devices
burning low ash and low chlorine wastes) to sophisticated state-of-the-
art units providing control for several pollutants. Hot flue gases from
the incinerators are cooled and cleaned of the air pollutants before
they exit the stack. Cooling is mostly done by water quenching, wherein
atomized water is sprayed directly into the hot gases. The cooled gases
are passed through various pollution control devices to control PM,
metals and organic emissions to desired or required levels. Most
incinerators use wet APCDs to scrub acid emissions (3 facilities use
dry scrubbers). Typical APCDs used include packed towers, spray dryers,
or dry scrubbers for acid gas (e.g., HCl, Cl2) control, and
venturi-scrubbers, wet or dry electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) or
fabric filters for particulate control.
Activated carbon injection for controlling dioxin and mercury is
being used at only one incinerator. Newer APC technologies (such as
catalytic oxidizers and dioxin/furan inhibitors) have recently emerged,
but have not been used on any full scale facilities in the U.S. For
detailed description of APCDs, see Appendix A of ``Combustion Emissions
Technical Resource Document (CETRED),'' US EPA Document #EPA530-R-94-
014, May 1994.
II. Hazardous Waste-Burning Cement Kilns
A. Overview of Cement Manufacturing
Cement refers to the commodities that are produced by heating
mixtures of limestone and other minerals or additives at high
temperature in a rotary kiln, followed by cooling, grinding, and finish
mixing. This is the manner in which the vast majority of commercially-
important cementitious materials are produced in the United States.
Cements are used to chemically bind different materials together. The
most commonly produced cement type is ``Portland'' cement, though other
standard cement types are also produced on a limited basis (e.g.,
sulfate-resisting, high-early-strength, masonry, waterproofed).
Portland cement is a hydraulic cement, meaning that it sets and hardens
by chemical interaction with water. When combined with sand, gravel,
water, and other materials, Portland cement forms concrete, one of the
most widely used building and construction materials in the world.
Cement produced and sold in the U.S. must meet specifications
established by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).
Each type requires specific additives or changes in the proportions of
the raw material mix to make products for specific applications.
B. Summary of Major Design and Operating Features of Cement Kilns
Cement kilns are horizontally inclined rotating cylinders,
refractory-brick lined, and internally-fired, that calcine a blend of
raw materials
[[Page 17363]]
containing calcium (typically limestone), silica and alumina (typically
clay, shale, slate, and/or sand), and iron (typically steel mill scale
or iron ore) to produce Portland cement. Generally, there is a wet
process and a dry process for producing cement. In the wet process, the
limestone and shale are ground up, wetted and fed into the kiln as a
slurry. In the dry process, raw materials are ground dry and fed into
the kiln dry. Wet process kilns are typically longer than dry process
kilns in order to facilitate water evaporation from the slurried raw
material. Wet kilns can be more than 450 feet in length. Dry kilns are
more thermally efficient and frequently use preheaters or precalciners
to begin the calcining process (i.e., the essential function of driving
CO2 from raw materials) before the raw materials are fed into the
kiln.
Combustion gases and raw materials move in a counterflow direction,
with respect to each other, inside a cement kiln. The kiln is inclined,
and raw materials are fed into the upper end (i.e., the ``cold'' end)
while fuels are normally fired into the lower end (i.e., the ``hot''
end). Combustion gases move up the kiln counter to the flow of raw
materials. The raw materials get progressively hotter as they travel
down the length of the kiln. The raw materials eventually begin to
soften and fuse at temperatures between 2,250 and 2,700 deg.F to form
the clinker product. Clinker is then cooled, ground, and mixed with
other materials, such as gypsum, to form cement.
Combustion gases leaving the kiln typically contain from 6 to 30
percent of the free solids as dust, which are often recycled to the
kiln feed system, though the extent of recycling varies greatly among
cement kilns.
Dry kilns with a preheater (PH) or precalciner (PC) often use a by-
pass duct to remove from 5 to 30 percent of the kiln off-gases from the
main duct. The by-pass gas is passed through a separate air pollution
control system to remove particulate matter. Collected by-pass dust is
not reintroduced into the kiln system to avoid a build-up of metal
salts that can affect product quality.
Some cement kilns burn hazardous waste-derived fuels to replace
from 25 to 100 percent of normal fossil fuels (e.g., coal). Most kilns
burn liquid waste fuels but several also burn bulk solids and small
(e.g., six gallon) containers of viscous or solid hazardous waste
fuels. Containers are introduced either at the upper, raw material end
of the kiln or at the midpoint of the kiln. EPA has also found that
hazardous waste-fired precalciners can still be considered part of the
cement kiln and, thus, would be part of an industrial furnace (per the
definition in 40 CFR 260.10). See 56 FR at 7184-85 (February 21, 1991).
This finding is codified at Sec. 266.103(a)(5)(I)(c). This is the only
time (and the only rulemaking) in which the Agency found that a device
not enumerated in the list of industrial furnaces in Sec. 260.10 can be
considered part of the industrial furnace when it burns hazardous
wastes separate from those burned in the main combustion device.
C. Number of Facilities
The Agency has emissions data from 26 facilities representing 49
cement kilns in the U.S. It should be noted that some facilities no
longer burn or process hazardous waste since they were required to
certify compliance with the BIF regulations in August 1992.
Of the hazardous waste-burning kilns for which we have emissions
data, 14 facilities use a wet process, 5 facilities use a dry process,
and the remaining 7 facilities employ either preheaters or preheater/
precalciners in the cement manufacturing process.
D. Emissions Control Devices
All hazardous waste-burning cement kilns either use fabric filters
(baghouses) or electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) as air pollution
control devices. ESPs have traditionally been employed in the cement
industry and are currently used at 17 of the facilities. Nine
facilities use fabric filters. A detailed description of these and
other air pollution control devices is contained in the technical
support document. 5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ USEPA, ``Draft Technical Support Document for HWC MACT
Standards, Volume I: Description of Source Categories'', February
1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Hazardous Waste-Burning Lightweight Aggregate Kilns
A. Overview of Lightweight Aggregate Kilns (LWAKs)
The term lightweight aggregate refers to a wide variety of raw
materials (such as clay, shale, or slate) which after thermal
processing can be combined with cement to form concrete products.
Lightweight aggregate concrete is produced either for structural
purposes or for thermal insulation purposes. A lightweight aggregate
plant is typically composed of a quarry, a raw material preparation
area, a kiln, a cooler, and a product storage area. The material is
taken from the quarry to the raw material preparation area and from
there is fed into the rotary kiln.
B. Major Design and Operating Features
A rotary kiln consists of a long steel cylinder, lined internally
with refractory bricks, which is capable of rotating about its axis and
is inclined at an angle of about 5 degrees to the horizontal. The
length of the kiln depends in part upon the composition of the raw
material to be processed but is usually 30 to 60 meters. The prepared
raw material is fed into the kiln at the higher end, while firing takes
place at the lower end. The dry raw material fed into the kiln is
initially preheated by hot combustion gases. Once the material is
preheated, it passes into a second furnace zone where it melts to a
semiplastic state and begins to generate gases which serve as the
bloating or expanding agent. In this zone, specific compounds begin to
decompose and form gases such as SO2, CO2, SO3, and
O2 that eventually trigger the desired bloating action within the
material. As temperatures reach their maximum (approximately
2100 deg.F), the semiplastic raw material becomes viscous and entraps
the expanding gases. This bloating action produces small, unconnected
gas cells, which remain in the material after it cools and solidifies.
The product exits the kiln and enters a section of the process where it
is cooled with cold air and then conveyed to the discharge.
Kiln operating parameters such as flame temperature, excess air,
feed size, material flow, and speed of rotation vary from plant to
plant and are determined by the characteristics of the raw material.
Maximum temperature in the rotary kiln varies from 2050 deg.F to 2300
deg.F, depending on the type of raw material being processed and its
moisture content. Exit temperatures may range from 300 deg.F to 1200
deg.F, again depending on the raw material and on the kiln's internal
design. Approximately 80 to 100 percent excess air is forced into the
kiln to aid in expanding the raw material.
C. Number of Facilities
EPA has identified 36 lightweight aggregate kiln locations in the
United States. Of these, EPA has identified seven facilities that are
currently burning hazardous waste in a total of 15 kilns.
D. Air Pollution Control Devices
Lightweight aggregate kilns use one or a combination of air
pollution control devices, including fabric filters, venturi scrubbers,
spray dryers, cyclones and wet scrubbers. All of the facilities utilize
fabric filters as the main type of emissions control, although one
facility uses a spray dryer, venturi scrubber and
[[Page 17364]]
wet scrubber in addition to a fabric filter. For detailed descriptions
of these and other air pollution control devices, please see Appendix A
of the draft EPA document Combustion Emissions Technical Resource
Document (CETRED). 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ USEPA, ``Draft Combustion Emission Technical Resource
Document (CETRED)'', EPA 530-R-94-014, May 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART THREE: DECISION PROCESS FOR SETTING NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS
FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (NESHAPs)
I. Source of Authority for NESHAP Development
The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act significantly revised the
requirements for controlling emissions of hazardous air pollutants. EPA
is now required to develop a list 7 of categories of major and
area sources 8 of the hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) enumerated
in section 112 and to develop technology-based performance standards
for such sources over specified time periods. See Clean Air Act (the
Act or CAA) Secs. 112(c) and 112(d). Section 112 of the Act replaces
the previous system of pollutant-by-pollutant health-based regulation
that proved ineffective at controlling the high volumes,
concentrations, and threats to human health and the environment posed
by HAPs in air emissions. See generally S. Rep. No. 228, 101st Cong.
1st Sess. 128-32 (1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The Agency published an initial list of categories of major
and area sources of HAPs on July 16, 1992. See 57 FR 31576.
\8\ See Part Three, Section III of today's proposal for a
discussion of major and area sources. Generally, a major source is a
stationary source that emits, or has the potential to emit
considering controls, 10 tons per year of a HAP or 25 tons per year
of a combination of HAPs. CAA Sec. 112(a)(1). An area source is
generally a stationary source that is not a major source. Id.
Sec. 112(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 112(f) also requires the Agency to report to Congress by
the end of 1996 on estimated risk remaining after imposition of
technology-based standards and to make recommendations as to
legislation to address such risk. CAA Sec. 112(f)(1). If Congress does
not act on the recommendation, then EPA must address any significant
remaining residual risks posed by sources subject to the section 112(d)
technology-based standards within 8 years after promulgation of these
standards. See Sec. 112(f)(2). The Agency is required to impose
additional controls if such controls are needed to protect public
health with an ample margin of safety, or to prevent adverse
environmental effects. Id. In addition, if the technology-based
standards for carcinogens do not reduce the lifetime excess cancer risk
for the most exposed individual to less than one in a million
(1 x 10-6), then the Agency must promulgate additional standards.
See Sec. 112(f)(2)(A).
II. Procedures and Criteria for Development of NESHAPs
NESHAPs are developed in order to control HAP emissions from both
new and existing sources according to the statutory directives set out
in Sec. 112. The statute requires a NESHAP to reflect the maximum
degree of reduction of HAP emissions that is achievable taking into
consideration the cost of achieving the emission reduction, any non-air
quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
Sec. 112(d)(2). In regulatory parlance, these are often referred to as
maximum achievable control technology (or MACT) standards.
The Clean Air Act establishes minimum levels, usually referred to
as MACT floors, for the emission standards. Section 112(d)(3) requires
that MACT floors be determined as follows: for existing sources in a
category or sub-category with 30 or more sources, the MACT floor cannot
be less stringent than the ``average emission limitation achieved by
the best performing 12 percent of the existing sources * * *''; for
existing sources in a category or sub-category with less than 30
sources, then the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the
``average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 5 sources
* * *''; for new sources, the MACT floor cannot be ``less stringent
than the emission control that is achieved by the best controlled
similar source * * *''. See Sec. 112(d)(3) (A) and (B).
EPA must, of course, consider in all cases whether to develop
standards that are more stringent than the floor (``beyond the floor''
standards). To do so, however, EPA must consider the enumerated
statutory criteria such as cost, energy, and non-air environmental
implications.
Emission reductions may be accomplished through application of
measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques, including, but
not limited to: (1) Reducing the volume of, or eliminating emissions
of, such pollutants through process changes, substitution of materials,
or other modifications; (2) enclosing systems or processes to eliminate
emissions; (3) collecting, capturing, or treating such pollutants when
released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point;
(4) design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards
(including requirements for operator training or certification); or (5)
any combination of the above. See Sec. 112(d)(2).
Application of techniques (1) and (2) of the previous paragraph are
consistent with the definitions of pollution prevention under the
Pollution Prevention Act and the definition of waste minimization under
RCRA/HSWA. These terms have particular applicability in the discussion
of pollution prevention/waste minimization options presented in the
permitting and compliance sections of today's proposal.
To develop a NESHAP, the EPA compiles available information and in
some cases collects additional information about the industry,
including information on emission source quantities, types and
characteristics of HAPs, pollution control technologies, data from HAP
emissions tests (e.g., compliance tests, trial burn tests) at
controlled and uncontrolled facilities, and information on the costs
and other energy and environmental impacts of emission control
techniques. EPA uses this information in analyzing and developing
possible regulatory approaches. EPA, of course, does not always have or
collect the same amount of information per industry, but rather bases
the standard on information practically available.
Although NESHAPs are normally structured in terms of numerical
emission limits--the preferred means of establishing standards--
alternative approaches are sometimes necessary and appropriate. In some
cases, for example, physically measuring emissions from a source may be
impossible, or at least impractical, because of technological and
economic limitations. Section 112(h) authorizes the Administrator to
promulgate a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard,
or a combination thereof, in those cases where it is not feasible to
prescribe or enforce an emissions standard.
EPA is required to develop emission standards based on performance
of maximum achievable control technology for categories or sub-
categories of major sources of hazardous air pollutants.
Sec. 112(d)(1). As explained more fully in the following section, a
major source emits, or has the potential to emit considering controls,
either 10 tons per year of any hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons or
more of any combination of those pollutants. Sec. 112(a)(1). EPA also
can establish lower thresholds where appropriate. Id. EPA
[[Page 17365]]
may in addition require sources emitting particularly dangerous
hazardous air pollutants (such as particular chlorinated dioxins and
furans) to be regulated under the MACT standards for major sources.
Sec. 112(c)(6).
Area sources are any source which is not a major source. Such
sources must be regulated by technology-based standards if they are
listed, pursuant to Sec. 112(c)(3), based on the Agency's finding that
these sources (individually or in the aggregate) present a threat of
adverse effects to human health or the environment warranting
regulation. After such a determination, the Agency has a further choice
as to require technology-based standards based on MACT or on generally
achievable control technology (GACT). Sec. 112(d)(5).
In this rulemaking, EPA is proceeding pursuant to Sec. 112(c)(6)
(i.e., imposing MACT controls on area sources), because these hazardous
waste combustion units emit a number of the HAPs singled out in that
provision, including the enumerated dioxins and furans, mercury, and
polycyclic organic matter. (See discussion below.)
III. List of Categories of Major and Area Sources
A. Clean Air Act Requirements
As just discussed, Section 112 of the CAA requires that the EPA
promulgate regulations requiring the control of hazardous air
pollutants emissions associated with categories or subcategories of
major and area sources. These source categories and subcategories are
to be listed pursuant to Sec. 112(c)(1). EPA published an initial list
of 174 categories of such major and area sources in the Federal
Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576).
B. Hazardous Waste Incinerators
``Hazardous waste incinerators'' is one of the 174 categories of
sources listed. The category consists of commercial and on-site
(including captive) incinerating facilities. The listing was based on
the Administrator's determination that at least one hazardous waste
incinerator may reasonably be anticipated to emit several of the 189
listed HAPs in quantities sufficient to designate them as major
sources. EPA used two emission rate values to evaluate the available
hazardous waste incinerator emissions data: the maximum emission rate
measured during the compliance test, and the average emission rate. The
data indicate that approximately 30 percent of the facilities meet the
major source criteria when using the maximum emissions rate value. When
using the average emissions rate value approximately 15 percent of
facilities meet the major source criteria.9 Those facilities
meeting the major source criteria do so for HCl and Cl2 emissions,
and one facility is also a major source for antimony emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For further details see USEPA, ``Draft Technical Support
Document for HWC MACT Standards, Volume I: Description of Source
Categories'', February 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It should be noted that a major source and boundary for considering
whether a source is a major includes all potential emission points of
HAPs at that contiguous facility, including storage tanks, equipment
leaks, and other hazardous waste handling facilities. The above
calculations for incinerators on whether a source is a major source
under Sec. 112 do not reflect these potential emission points.
Notwithstanding the fact that most HW incinerators are not likely
to meet the HAP emission thresholds for major sources, the Agency is
proposing to subject all HWCs to regulation under MACT as major
sources, under the authority of Sec. 112(c)(6). See Section IV below.
C. Cement Kilns
Another of the 174 categories of major and area sources of HAPs is
Portland Cement Manufacturing (cement kilns). In evaluating the
emissions data for the hazardous waste-burning cement kilns, 85 percent
of the cement kilns were determined to meet the major source criteria
when using the maximum emission rate value. Using the average emission
rate value, just over 80 percent of the hazardous waste-burning cement
kilns meet the major source criteria.10 Those facilities meeting
the major source criteria do so for HCl and Cl2 emissions, and one
facility is also a major source for organic emissions. It should be
noted that the calculation on whether a cement kiln is a major source
did not include potential emission points of HAPs at that contiguous
facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notwithstanding the fact that some hazardous waste-burning cement
kilns may not meet the definition of major source, the Agency is
proposing to subject all HWCs to regulation under MACT, as major
sources, under the authority of Sec. 112(c)(6). See Section IV below.
D. Lightweight Aggregate Kilns
Section 112(c)(5) authorizes EPA to amend the source category list
at any time to add categories or subcategories that meet the listing
criteria. EPA is proposing to exercise that authority by adding HW-
burning lightweight aggregate kilns to the list of source categories.
In analyzing the emissions data, EPA found that all hazardous
waste-burning LWAKs met the major source criteria for two HAPs, HCl and
Cl2, using either the average or maximum emission rate
value.11 It should be noted that the calculation on whether a LWAK
is a major source did not include potential emission points of HAPs at
that contiguous facility. EPA is therefore proposing today the addition
of hazardous waste-burning LWAKs as a source category in accordance
with section 112(c)(5) of the Act. In addition, as discussed below,
even if a LWAK would otherwise be an area source, EPA is proposing to
subject it to the same NESHAPS as major LWAK sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Proposal To Subject Area Sources to the NESHAPs Under Authority of
Section 112(c)(6)
EPA is today proposing to subject all hazardous waste incinerators,
hazardous waste-burning cement kilns, and hazardous waste-burning
lightweight aggregate kilns (i.e., both area and major sources) to
regulation as major sources pursuant to CAA Sec. 112(c)(6). That
provision states that, by November 15, 2000, EPA must list and
promulgate Sec. 112 (d)(2) or (d)(4) standards (i.e., standards
reflecting MACT) for categories (and subcategories) of sources emitting
specific pollutants, including the following HAPs emitted by HWCs:
polycyclic organic matter, mercury, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran,
and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. (Although the Agency has not
prepared the list, it is the Agency's intention to include hazardous
waste combustors.) EPA must assure that sources accounting for not less
than 90 percent of the aggregate emissions of each enumerated pollutant
are subject to MACT standards.
The chief practical effect of invoking Sec. 112(c)(6) for this
rulemaking is to subject area sources that emit 112(c)(6) pollutants to
the same MACT standards as major sources, rather than to the
potentially less stringent 112(d)(5) or ``GACT'' (``generally
achievable control technology'') standards.12 Today's proposal
constitutes one of many EPA actions to assure that sources accounting
for at least 90 percent of
[[Page 17366]]
emissions of Sec. 112(c)(6) pollutants are subject to MACT standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ EPA also solicits comment on an alternative reading of
Sec. 112(c)(6), whereby the provision would require MACT control for
the enumerated pollutants but not necessarily for other HAPs emitted
by the source, which HAPs are not enumerated in Sec. 112(c)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although Sec. 112(c)(6) requires the Agency to regulate source
categories that emit not less than 90 percent of the aggregate
emissions of the high priority HAPs, the Agency will use its discretion
to avoid regulating area source categories with trivial aggregate
emissions of specific Sec. 112(c)(6) HAPs. However, as an example of
the emissions that are possible from the HWC source categories, it is
estimated that HWCs presently emit in aggregate 11.1 tons of mercury
per year. Of this quantity, 4.6 tons per year can be attributed to
hazardous waste incinerators and 6.5 tons per year to hazardous waste-
burning cement and lightweight aggregate kilns. Also, it is estimated
that HWCs presently emit in aggregate 122 pounds of dioxins/furans (or
2.15 pounds TEQ) per year. Of this quantity, 9 pounds (or 0.2 pounds
TEQ) per year can be attributed to hazardous waste incinerators and 113
pounds (or 1.95 pounds TEQ) per year to hazardous waste-burning cement
and lightweight aggregate kilns. To show an example of how today's
proposal constitutes an action to assure that sources accounting for at
least 90 percent of emissions of Sec. 112(c)(6) pollutants are subject
to MACT standards, the document Estimating Exposure to Dioxin-Like
Compounds, Vol. II: Properties, Sources, Occurrence and Background
Exposures (EPA, 1994) estimates (on p. 29) that national emissions of
dioxins and furans (D/F) total 4.18 pounds TEQ per year. Based on this
estimation, HWCs account for 51 percent of the annual national
emissions of D/F. (Consequently, EPA expects these source categories to
be included in the list of sources to be controlled to achieve the
requisite 90 percent reduction in aggregate emissions of section
112(c)(6) pollutants.)
Congress singled out the HAPs enumerated in Sec. 112(c)(6) as being
of ``specific concern'' not just because of their toxicity but because
of their propensity to cause substantial harm to human health and the
environment via indirect exposure pathways (i.e., from the air through
other media, such as water, soil, food uptake, etc.). S. Rep. No. 228,
101st Cong. 1st Sess., pp. 155, 166. These pollutants have exhibited
special potential to bioaccumulate, causing pervasive environmental
harm in biota (and, ultimately, human health risks). Id. Indeed, as
discussed later, the data appear to show that much of the human health
risk from emissions of these HAPs from HWCs comes from these indirect
exposure pathways. Id. at p. 166. Congress' express intention was to
assure that sources emitting significant quantities of Sec. 112(c)(6)
pollutants received a stricter level of control. Id.
V. Selection of MACT Floor for Existing Sources
The starting point in developing MACT standards is determining
floor levels, i.e. the minimum (least stringent) level at which the
standard can be set.
All of the hazardous waste combustion units subject to this
proposed rule are already subject to RCRA regulation under 40 CFR Parts
264, 265, or 266. As a result, the Agency has a substantial amount of
data reflecting performance of these devices. These data consist
largely of trial burn data for hazardous waste incinerators and data
from certifications of compliance for hazardous waste-burning cement
kilns and LWAKs obtained pursuant to 266.103(c). These data consist of
at least three runs for any given test condition.
In using these ``short term'' test data to establish a MACT floor,
the Agency has developed an approach that ensures the standards are
achievable, i.e. reflect the performance over time of properly designed
and operated air pollution control devices (or operating practices)
taking into account intrinsic operating variability.
In addition, the Agency notes that the floor calculations were
performed on individual HAPs or, in the case of metals, in two groups
of HAPs that behave similarly (i.e., separate floor levels for each
hazardous air pollutant or group of metal pollutants). However, for
HAPs that are controlled by the same type of air pollution control
device (APCD), EPA has ensured that all HAP floors are simultaneously
achievable by identifying the APCD and APCD treatment train that can be
used to meet all floor levels. The ultimate floor levels thus derived
can be achieved using the identified technology. This approach is
consistent with methods used by EPA in other rules to calculate MACT
requirements where the HAP species present must be treated by a
treatment train. See, e.g., MACT Rules for Secondary Lead Smelters. 60
FR 32589 (June 23, 1995).
The Agency is not, however, treating hazardous waste-burning
incinerators, cement kilns, and LWAKs as a single source category for
purposes of developing the MACT floor (or for any other purpose). The
Agency's initial view is that there are technical differences in
performance for particular HAPs among the three source categories, and
therefore that the technology-based floors must reflect these operating
differences.
A. Proposed Approach: Combined Technology-Statistical Approach
This analysis first identified the best performing control
technology(ies) for each source category (i.e., incinerators, cement
kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns) and each HAP of concern by
arraying from lowest to highest all the particular HAP emissions data
from existing units within the source category by test condition
averages. These technologies comprise MACT floor. In cases where a
source had emissions data for a HAP from several different test
conditions of a compliance test, the Agency arrayed each test condition
separately. The Agency then identified the emission control technology
or technologies (and normalized feedrate of metals and chlorine in
hazardous waste) used by sources with emissions levels at or below the
level emitted by the median of the best performing 12 percent of
sources. The sources are termed ``the best performing 6 percent'' of
the sources, or ``MACT pool'', and the controls they use comprise MACT
floor.
The next step was to identify an emissions level that MACT floor
control could achieve. Thus, emissions data from all sources (in the
source category) that use MACT floor control were arrayed in ascending
order by average emissions. [This is referred to as the ``expanded MACT
pool'' or ``expanded universe''.] The Agency evaluated the control
technologies used by the additional sources within the ``expanded
universe'' as available data allowed to ensure that they were in fact
equivalent in design to MACT floor. The Agency then selected the test
condition in the expanded MACT pool with the highest mean emissions to
identify the emission level that MACT floor could achieve.
Because the emissions database was comprised of ``short-term'' test
data, the Agency used a statistical approach to identify an emission
level that MACT floor could achieve routinely. The Agency then
identified the test condition in the expanded MACT pool with the
highest mean emissions to statistically calculate a ``design level''
and a floor standard. The design level was calculated as the log mean
of the emissions for the test condition. The standard was calculated as
a level that a source (that is designed and operated to routinely meet
the design level) could meet 99 percent of the time if it has the
average within-test-condition emissions variability of the expanded
MACT pool. Although the Agency evaluated 90th and 95th percentile
limits, the 99th
[[Page 17367]]
percentile limit was chosen to: (1) More accurately reflect the
variability that could be present in emissions data, and (2)
appropriately characterize this variability in light of the consequence
of failing to achieve the emissions standards. Additional information
on how MACT floor levels were identified is provided in the ``Draft
Technical Support Document for HWC MACT Standards, Volume III:
Selection of Proposed MACT Standards and Technologies''.
In accounting for operating variability, the Agency solicits
comment on whether it may have overcompensated so that the identified
floor levels are unduly lenient. The test data on which the proposal is
based to some extent reflect worst-case performance conditions because
RCRA sources try to obtain maximum operating flexibility by conducting
test burns at extreme operating conditions. For example, many sources
spike wastes with excess metals and chlorine during compliance testing.
In addition, sources operate their emissions control devices under low
efficiency conditions (while still meeting emission standards) to
ensure lenient operating limits. It thus may be that the Agency's
emissions database is so inflated that separate consideration of
emissions variability may not be warranted. A floor level could be the
highest mean of the test conditions in the expanded MACT pool.
The Agency emphasizes that it would be preferable, for purposes of
setting these MACT standards, to have operational and emissions data
that better reflect long-term, more routine day-to-day facility
operations from all of the source categories. We believe that this type
of data would enable the MACT process to articulate a set of HAP
standards that would not create some of the issues raised in subsequent
sections of this preamble (such as the most appropriate resolution of a
variability factor, the optimum approach for considering the
contribution of cement and lightweight aggregate kiln raw material feed
to HAP emissions, and better identification among sources that are now
in an expanded MACT pool but which, with better data, would be
determined not to be employing the identified floor controls). As noted
in these subsequent sections, the Agency urges commenters to submit
these types of data.
B. Another Approach Considered but not Used
Although the Agency believes the proposed approach reflects a
reasonable interpretation of the statute, there are other possible
interpretations. One of these interpretations, termed the ``12 percent
approach'', was raised and, in fact, evaluated during the process
already outlined. This approach is presented here, along with the
results of the process in Part Four, Section VIII, for public
inspection.
This ``12 percent approach'' was evaluated in a like manner to the
Agency's preferred approach just described. Again, the best performing
control technology(ies) for each source category and each HAP were
identified by arraying the data by test condition averages. However,
the Agency identified the technology or technologies used by the best
performing 12 percent of the sources. After arraying emissions data
from all facilities in the source category that use the identified MACT
floor technology(ies) (i.e., the expanded MACT pool), the Agency
selected an emissions floor level based on the statistical average of
the 12 percent MACT pool, to which was added the average within-test
condition variability within the expanded MACT pool. The emissions
floor was then calculated at a level that a source with average
emissions variability would be expected to achieve 99 percent of the
time. The approach was not proposed because it could not be
demonstrated that sources within the expanded MACT pool using MACT
floor controls could achieve the floor levels. Again, the details of
the statistical methods employed are presented in the ``Draft Technical
Support Document for HWC MACT Standards, Volume III: Selection of
Proposed MACT Standards and Technologies''.
C. Identifying Floors as Proposed in CETRED
The discussion in the Draft Combustion Emissions Technical Resource
Document (CETRED) (U.S. EPA, EPA530-R-94-014, May 1994) presented one
methodology for establishing particulate matter (PM) and dioxin/furan
(D/F) technology-based emission levels for hazardous waste combustors
(HWCs). The document presented a procedure for establishing numerical
levels which took into account the natural variability that was present
in the Agency's PM and D/F emissions data. EPA received numerous
comments on the document.
The approaches outlined in CETRED were an initial and preliminary
attempt to apply the process by which the NESHAPs are to be established
for the existing types of hazardous waste combustors. The approaches in
CETRED focused solely on the performance of MACT and how to establish
the ``floor'' emission level under the MACT process.
In CETRED, determination of the MACT floor involved: (1) screening
unrepresentative data; (2) ranking all HWC sources based on the data
average, considering variability; (3) identifying the top 12 percent of
sources as the MACT pool; and (4) statistically evaluating the MACT
pool to set the MACT floor. These elements and considerations are
described in further detail in CETRED and the ``Draft Technical Support
Document for HWC MACT Standards, Volume III: Selection of Proposed MACT
Standards and Technologies''. The Agency specifically indicated the
preliminary nature of the CETRED approaches and, in light of further
deliberations and comments received, has considered and adopted other
approaches for this proposal. The comments received are found in the
docket.
In considering the use of a purely statistical approach to setting
MACT floors, the Agency recognized that whether sources could actually
achieve a statistically-derived MACT floor level on a regular basis was
significant in determining whether a purely statistical approach could
be appropriate or not. The Agency encountered difficulties in
identifying an appropriate purely statistical model for the combined
source category (HW incinerators, HW-burning cement kilns, and HW-
burning lightweight aggregate kilns) emissions database. Consequently,
the Agency abandoned a purely statistical approach and examined an
approach--referred to here as the ``technology approach''--that used
demonstrated technological capabilities as a key factor in selecting
MACT floor levels.
D. Establishing Floors One HAP or HAP Group at a Time
EPA believes it is permissible to establish MACT floors separately
for individual HAPs or group of HAPs that behave the same from a
technical standpoint (i.e., based on separate MACT pools and floor
controls), provided the various MACT floors are simultaneously
achievable. As set out below, Congress has not spoken to this precise
issue. An interpretation that allows this approach is consistent with
statutory goals and policies, as well as established EPA practice in
developing MACT standards.
As described earlier, Congress spec
FR Doc. 96-7872 Revised Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors
ified in section 112(d)(3) the
minimum level of emission reduction that could satisfy the requirement
to adopt MACT. For new sources, this floor level is to be ``the
emission control that is achieved in practice by the best
[[Page 17368]]
controlled similar source''. For existing sources, the floor level is
to be ``the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing
12 percent of the existing sources'' for categories and subcategories
with 30 or more sources, or ``the average emission limitation achieved
by the best performing 5 sources'' for categories and subcategories
with fewer than 30 sources. An ``emission limitation'' is ``a
requirement * * * which limits the quantity, rate, or concentration of
emissions of air pollutants'' (section 302 (k)) (although the extent,
if any, the section 302 definitions need to apply to the terms used in
section 112 is not clear).
This language does not expressly address whether floor levels can
be established HAP-by-HAP. The existing source MACT floor achieved by
the average of the best performing 12 percent can reasonably be read as
referring to the source as a whole or performance as to a particular
HAP. The statutory definition of ``emission limitation'' (assuming it
applies) likewise is ambiguous, since ``requirements limiting quantity,
rate, or concentration of pollutants'' could apply to particular HAPs
or all HAPs. The reference in the new source MACT floor to ``emission
control achieved by the best controlled similar source'' can mean
emission control as to a particular HAP or achieved by a source as a
whole.
Here, Congress has not spoken to the precise question at issue, and
the Agency's interpretation effectuates statutory goals and policies in
a reasonable manner. See Chevron v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984)
(indicating that such interpretations must be upheld). The central
purpose of the amended air toxics provisions was to apply strict
technology-based emission controls on HAPs. See, e.g., H. Rep. No. 952,
101st Cong. 2d sess. 338. The floor's specific purpose was to assure
that consideration of economic and other impacts not be used to ``gut
the standards''. While costs are by no means irrelevant, they should by
no means be the determining factors. There needs to be a minimum degree
of control in relation to the control technologies that have already
been attained by the best existing sources. Legislative History of the
Clean Air Act Vol. II at 2897 (statement of Rep. Collins).
Furthermore, an alternative interpretation would tend to result in
least common denominator floors where multiple HAPs are emitted,
whereby floors would no longer be reflecting performance of the best
performing sources. For example, if the best performing 12 percent of
facilities for HAP metals did not control organics as well as a
different 12 percent of facilities, the floor for organics and metals
would end up not reflecting best performance. Indeed, under this
reading, the floor would be no control, because no plant is controlling
both types of HAPs.
EPA is convinced that this result is not compelled by the statutory
text, and does not effectuate the evident statutory purpose of having
floor levels reflect performance of an average of a group of best-
performing sources. Conversely, using a HAP-by-HAP approach (or an
approach that groups HAPs based on technical factors) to identify
separate floors for metals and organics in this example promotes the
stated purpose of the floor to provide a minimum level of control
reflecting what best performing existing sources have already
demonstrated an ability to do.
EPA notes, however, that if optimized performance for different
HAPs is not technologically possible due to mutually inconsistent
control technologies (for example, metals performance decreases if
organics reduction is optimized), then this would have to be taken into
account in establishing a floor (or floors). (Optimized controls for
both types of HAPS would not be MACT in any case, since the standards
would not be mutually achievable.) The Senate Report indicates that in
such a circumstance, EPA is to optimize the part of the standard
providing the most environmental protection. S. Rep. No. 228, 101st
Cong. 1st sess. 168. It should be emphasized, however, that ``the fact
that no plant has been shown to be able to meet all of the limitations
does not demonstrate that all the limitations are not achievable''.
Chemical Manufacturers Association v. EPA, 885 F. 2d at 264 (upholding
technology-based standards based on best performance for each pollutant
by different plants, where at least one plant met each of the
limitations but no single plant met all of them).
All available data for HWCs indicate that there is no technical
problem achieving the floor levels for each HAP or HAP metal group
simultaneously, using the MACT floor technology. In the case of metals
and PM, the characteristics of the MACT floor technology associated
with the hardest-to-meet floor (e.g., the fabric filter with lowest
air-to-cloth ratio) would define the MACT floor technology for purposes
of determining achievability of floors and for purposes of costing out
the impact of the standards. Existing data show that approximately 9
percent of existing hazardous waste incinerators, approximately 8
percent of hazardous waste-burning cement kilns, and approximately 25
percent of hazardous waste-burning LWAKs are already achieving the
proposed floor standards for all HAPs.
Finally, EPA notes that the HAP-by-HAP or HAP group approach to
establishing MACT floor levels is not unique to this rule. For example,
the Agency has adopted it for the NESHAP for the secondary lead source
category (60 FR 32589 (June 23, 1995)) and proposed the same approach
for municipal waste combustors (59 FR 48198 (September 20, 1994)).
As discussed above, EPA has the authority to establish MACT floors
on a HAP group by HAP group basis and has done so in this case. In
doing so, EPA will ensure that such floors, taken as a whole, are
reasonably achievable for facilities subject to the MACT standards.
VI. Selection of Beyond-the-Floor Levels for Existing Sources
As discussed in Section V above, the MACT floor defines the minimum
level of emission control for existing sources, regardless of cost or
other considerations. The process of considering emissions levels more
stringent than the MACT floor for existing sources is called a
``beyond-the-floor'' (BTF) analysis and involves consideration of
certain additional factors, including cost, any non-air quality health
and environmental impacts and energy requirements, technologies
currently in use within these industry sectors, and also other more
efficient and appropriate technologies that have been demonstrated and
are available on the market (e.g., carbon bed for dioxin/furan
control).
Because there are virtually unlimited BTF emissions levels that the
Agency could consider, the Agency used several criteria in this
proposal to identify when to examine a particular beyond-the-floor
emissions level in detail, and also whether to propose a MACT standard
based on the beyond-the-floor emissions levels for existing sources.
The primary factor is the cost-effectiveness of setting MACT
standards based upon a more efficient technology than the MACT floor
technology(ies). If the Agency's economic analysis suggested that BTF
levels could be cost-effectively achieved (particularly if significant
health benefits would result from a lower emission level), then an
applicable BTF emission level control technology was identified to
achieve that level. The associated costs were then weighed along with
the other criteria. Dioxin/furans is an example
[[Page 17369]]
where the Agency considered a BTF level because a beyond-the-floor
emission level can be achieved in a cost-effective manner, achieving,
in addition, significant non-air quality environmental benefits.
VII. Selection of MACT for New Sources
For new sources, the standards for a source category (or sub-
category) cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. See
Sec. 112(d)(3). The following discussion summarizes the methodology
used by the Agency in developing today's proposed emissions standards
for new HWC sources.
The approach used to identify MACT for new sources parallels in
most ways the approach used to determine the MACT floor for existing
sources. For each HAP, the Agency identified the technology associated
with the single best performing source (for each source category). The
Agency used this best performing technology then looked at all
facilities operating the control technology, and determined the
achievable emission levels that represent ``the emission control that
is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source'' by
using the maximum value achieved by properly-operated technology
(adjusted upwards by a statistically derived variability factor). For
further details, see the technical background documents \13\ supporting
today's proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ USEPA, ``Draft Technical Support Document for HWC MACT
Standards, Volume III: Selection of Proposed MACT Standards and
Technologies'', February 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since MACT for new sources is to reflect optimized achievable
performance and is not necessarily limited to performance levels
currently achieved, the Agency also considered several other factors in
selecting the MACT new emissions limit. These factors included: (1)
Comparisons to other emissions standards which may indicate that a
technology is demonstrated and its level of performance (e.g., proposed
municipal waste combustors and medical waste incinerators regulations
and the European Union waste incineration standards); and (2) test
condition emissions variability.
As mentioned earlier, the Agency believes that it is appropriate to
compare the proposed emissions standards for new sources to other
existing or recently proposed standards applicable to hazardous waste
combustors or similar devices as a type of ``reality check'' that we
are developing the most rigorous emissions limits for new sources based
upon the best technologies available today.
The extracted data and data plots are presented in the background
document \14\ located in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ USEPA, ``Draft Technical Support Document for HWC MACT
Standards, Volume III: Selection of Proposed MACT Standards and
Technologies'', February 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIII. RCRA Decision Process
It is EPA's intention to eliminate duplicative or potentially
duplicative regulation wherever possible. In this section, we discuss:
(1) The RCRA mandate to ensure protection of human health and the
environment and how that mandate relates to the CAA technology-based
MACT standards; (2) how, for RCRA purposes, we evaluated the
protectiveness of the proposed MACT standards; (3) how, for RCRA
purposes, the Agency intends to continue its policies with respect to
site-specific risk assessments and permitting so that, in appropriate
situations, additional RCRA permit conditions can be developed as
necessary to protect human health and the environment; and (4) how
waste minimization opportunities may be considered at individual
facilities during the permitting process.
A. RCRA and CAA Mandates To Protect Human Health and the Environment
The Agency is proposing emission standards for HWCs under joint
authority of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). As noted earlier, section 3004(a)
of RCRA requires the Agency to promulgate standards for hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities as necessary to protect
human health and the environment. The standards for incinerators
generally rest on this authority. In addition, Sec. 3004(q) requires
the Agency to promulgate standards as necessary to protect human health
and the environment specifically for facilities that burn hazardous
waste fuels (e.g., cement and light-weight aggregate kilns). Using RCRA
authority, the Agency has historically established emission (and other)
standards for HWCs that are either entirely risk-based (e.g., site-
specific standards for metals under the BIF rule), or are technology-
based but determined by a generic risk assessment to be protective
(e.g., the DRE standard for incinerators and BIFs).
The MACT standards proposed today implement the technology-based
regime of CAA Sec. 112. There is, however, a residual risk component to
air toxics standards. Section 112(f) of the Clean Air Act requires the
Agency to impose, within eight years after promulgation of the
technology-based standards promulgated under Sec. 112(d) (i.e., the
authority for today's proposed standards), additional controls if
needed to protect public health with an ample margin of safety or to
prevent adverse environmental effect. (Cost, energy, and other relevant
factors must be considered in determining whether regulation is
appropriate in the case of environmental effects.)
As noted earlier, EPA's express intent is to avoid regulatory
duplication. RCRA Sec. 1006 directs that EPA ``integrate all provisions
of [RCRA] for purposes of administration and enforcement and * * *
avoid duplication, to the maximum extent possible, with the appropriate
provisions of the Clean Air Act * * *.'' The overall thrust of the
proposed rule is to have the CAA standards supplant independent RCRA
standards wherever possible (i.e., to have the CAA standards, wherever
possible, also serve to satisfy the RCRA mandate so that additional
RCRA regulation is unnecessary).
Under RCRA, EPA must promulgate standards ``as may be necessary to
protect human health and the environment.'' RCRA Sec. 3004(a) and (q).
Technology-based standards developed under CAA Sec. 112 do not
automatically satisfy this requirement, but may do so in fact. See 59
FR at 29776 (June 6, 1994) and 60 FR at 32593 (June 23, 1995) (RCRA
regulation of secondary lead smelter emissions unnecessary at this time
given stringency of technology-based standard and pendency of
Sec. 112(f) determination). If the MACT standards, as a factual matter,
are sufficiently protective to also satisfy the RCRA mandate, then no
independent RCRA standards are required. Conversely, if MACT standards
are inadequate, the RCRA authorities would have to be used to fill the
gap.
It should be noted that this RCRA risk evaluation can inform the
MACT decision process as well. For example, the RCRA risk evaluations
indicate the potential for significant risk via indirect pathways from
dioxins and furans originating in today's baseline air emissions for
HWCs. EPA is explicitly authorized to consider non-air environmental
impacts (such as exposure to HAPS which, after emission, enter into the
food chain and are eventually consumed by humans and other biota) in
determining whether to adopt standards more stringent than the MACT
floor. Thus, EPA can consider benefits from curbing these
[[Page 17370]]
indirect exposures as part of its beyond-the-floor determinations.
As discussed below, the Agency has conducted an evaluation, for the
purposes of satisfying the RCRA statutory mandates, of the degree of
protection afforded by the MACT standards being proposed today.
However, the Agency's current RCRA evaluation is not intended to have
any bearing on what we may or may not determine is necessary in several
years to satisfy the Sec. 112(f) provisions.
B. Evaluation of Protectiveness
To determine whether the MACT standards are consistent with the
Agency's mandate under RCRA to establish standards for hazardous waste
management facilities and to issue permits that are protective of human
health and the environment, the Agency conducted two types of analyses
to assess the extent to which potential risks from current hazardous
waste combustion emissions would be reduced through implementation of
MACT standards.
The first of these analyses was designed to assess the potential
risks to individuals living near hazardous waste combustion facilities
and to nearby aquatic ecosystems. The procedures used in this analysis
are discussed in detail in the background document contained in the
docket for today's proposal.15 The results are summarized in Part
Four of today's notice, ``Rationale for Selecting Proposed Standards''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ ``Risk Assessment Support to the Development of Technical
Standards for Emissions from Combustion Units Burning Hazardous
Wastes: Background Information Document,'' February 20, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second analysis of potential risk reduction was a more
qualitative evaluation of risks at the national level for those two
constituents (dioxins and mercury) which the Agency believes pose
significant health risks at the national level and which are found at
significant concentrations in hazardous waste combustor emissions. The
results of this analysis are presented in Section Seven, ``Regulatory
and Administrative Requirements'', as part of the discussion of
potential costs and benefits required under Executive Order 12866.
1. Individual Risk Analysis
The Agency assessed potential risks to individuals from both direct
inhalation of emissions (after dispersion in the ambient air) and
indirect exposure to emissions through deposition onto soils and
vegetation and subsequent uptake through the food chain. The analysis
focussed primarily on dioxins and related compounds since these have
been of major concern to the Agency from a risk perspective and because
there is enough information about the properties of these constituents
to allow for a quantitative analysis. The individual risk analysis did
also include risks from inhalation of metals, hydrogen chloride, and
chlorine (Cl2).
The Agency conducted an evaluation of risks from metals through
indirect exposure routes. With the exception of mercury, most of the
metals are not expected to accumulate significantly in the food chain,
and the risks from other indirect exposure routes (such as deposition
on soil and incidental ingestion of the soil) are not projected to be
significant, even with conservative assumptions.
With respect to mercury, the Agency suspects that there may be
significant individual risks near hazardous waste combustion
facilities, primarily through deposition, erosion to surface waters,
and accumulation in fish which are then consumed. However, the current
state of knowledge concerning the behavior of mercury in the
environment does not allow for a meaningful quantitative risk
assessment of emission sources which is precise enough to support
regulatory decisions at the national level. Specifically, there is
insufficient information with respect to speciation of the mercury into
various forms in emissions and with respect to the deposition and
cycling of mercury species in the environment to conduct a defensible
national quantitative assessment of mercury deposition, erosion to
surface waters, and bioaccumulation in fish. The Agency solicits
comment and information on the issue of the risks posed by mercury
emissions from hazardous waste combustion facilities.
The Agency also considered potential risks from emissions of non-
dioxin semi-volatile organics that are products of incomplete
combustion (PICs). However, the Agency was not able to conduct an
appropriate analysis for several reasons. First, the limited emissions
data now available to the Agency on non-dioxin PICs are not
sufficiently reliable to conduct an adequate assessment of risk.
Second, there is not a universally accepted set of parameter values for
some non-dioxin PICs with which to assess potential exposures (e.g.,
the use of octanol-water partition coefficients (Kow) to predict
bioaccumulation versus the use of empirical data and the extent to
which bioaccumulation of compounds such as phthalates and polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) occurs in domestic animals). The Agency
solicits comment on these issues and, in particular, requests data on
bioaccumulation of PAHs, phthalates, and other non-dioxin PICs in farm
animals used for food production and in other mammals and birds. The
Agency also intends to obtain a better set of data relating to the non-
dioxin PIC emissions from hazardous waste combustion facilities.
2. Individual Risks From Dioxins
In order to evaluate potential risks from dioxins to individuals
living near hazardous waste combustion facilities, the Agency selected
eleven example facility locations, consisting of areas in which five
actual cement kilns, four incinerators, and two lightweight aggregate
kilns are located. The example facility locations represent a variety
of environmental settings and facility characteristics. The purpose of
using example facilities was to incorporate as much realism as possible
into the Agency's risk assessment and to reduce the reliance on
hypothetical, conservative assumptions about either location or source
type characteristics. Site-specific characteristics considered in the
analysis include meteorological conditions, topography, and land use as
well as stack height and gas flow rates. However, the stack gas
concentrations used in the modeling of the example facilities were
derived from national emissions data. Therefore, while the example
facility analyses are useful for providing information to evaluate
national standards on a generic basis, they are not site-specific
assessments of any individual facility and cannot be regarded as such.
The Agency has identified a number of indirect exposure pathways
which are most likely to present significant risks. These include:
consumption of locally-produced meat, eggs, and dairy products and
consumption of fish from local waterways. Contamination of food occurs
from deposition of toxic emissions onto plants and soil with subsequent
ingestion by farm animals or, in the case of fish contamination, from
deposition directly into water bodies or onto soil and runoff into
surface waters with subsequent uptake in fish.
In assessing risks to the more highly exposed individuals, the
Agency assumed that certain segments of the population subsisted in
part on home-produced foods or fish obtained from nearby lakes or
streams. In addition, the Agency assumed that these individuals were
exposed in the farming and fishing areas most affected by the example
facilities' emissions. In its analysis of the eleven example
facilities, the
[[Page 17371]]
Agency attempted to identify the actual location of farms and water
bodies where subsistence activities might be expected to occur. For
dioxins, the highest exposures are expected to occur for individuals
whose diets include significant amounts of home-produced meat and eggs
or locally caught fish. Individuals likely to have high exposures
include subsistence farmers that raise beef cattle, dairy cows, or
chickens along with their families as well as subsistence fishers and
recreational anglers and their families.
In evaluating individual risks, the Agency projected both ``high
end'' and ``central tendency'' estimates of risks to the individuals of
concern in the analysis. The central tendency estimates were derived by
setting all emission rates, fate and transport parameters, and exposure
assumptions at central tendency values, as described in the risk
assessment background document. To derive high end risk estimates, the
Agency set the emission levels at the 90th percentile of the
distribution of available dioxin concentrations and, for most exposure
scenarios, set one exposure parameter to a high end value while keeping
all other parameters at central tendency values. For purposes of
evaluating the protectiveness of the standards, the Agency used a
target risk level of 10-5 for the high end individual risk, which is
consistent with the approach taken in the 1991 BIF rule.
3. Uncertainties in the Individual Dioxin Risk Estimates
Much of the information used to derive the individual risk
estimates for dioxins was taken from the Agency's draft Dioxin
Reassessment documents \16\ \17\ \18\. Those documents discuss in
considerable detail a number of the uncertainties associated with both
the cancer slope factor (the dose-response descriptor) and the many
parameters used in the exposure assessment. Some of these uncertainties
are also discussed in the risk assessment background document for
today's proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ ``Health Assessment Document for 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds Volume I
and II'', Office of Research and Development, June 1994.
\17\ ``Health Assessment Document for 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds Volume
III'', Office of Research and Development, August 1994.
\18\ ``Estimating Exposure to Dioxin-Like Compounds Volume I,
II, and III'', Office of Research and Development, June 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, there have been a large number of public comments on
the Dioxin Reassessment, which the Agency is now considering. If the
Agency decides to revise its assessment of either the toxicity or
exposure associated with dioxins prior to the final promulgation of
this rule, those revisions will be considered in the development of the
final rule.
The Agency is also conducting an external peer review of its risk
analysis supporting today's proposal. The results of this peer review,
which are expected during the comment period, will be available in the
public record for this rule and will be considered in developing the
final rule.
4. Qualitative Assessments of National Risks
While the individual risk assessment discussed above provides a
quantitative measure of the protectiveness of the proposed MACT
standard, there are other ways of evaluating potential impacts of
reducing emissions of hazardous constituents. One approach taken by the
Agency is to describe to the extent practicable what is known about the
national extent of risks from constituents such as dioxins and mercury.
To put that information in context with respect to this rule, the
relative contribution of hazardous waste combustion to other known air
releases of these constituents to the environment is then presented.
The Agency recognizes that it is not appropriate to quantitatively
correlate emissions with risk on a national scale; nevertheless, this
type of information is useful for qualitatively evaluating the
potential impact of the proposed MACT rule.
C. Use of Site-Specific Risk Assessments Under RCRA
As part of the Agency's Hazardous Waste Minimization and Combustion
Strategy, EPA currently has a national RCRA policy of strongly
recommending to all federal and state RCRA permit writers that, under
the omnibus permit provisions of RCRA Sec. 3005(c)(3), site-specific
risk assessments be performed as part of the RCRA permitting process if
necessary to protect human health and the environment. Regions and
authorized states have been implementing this national policy since
mid-1993 under the aegis of the omnibus and other applicable
authorities.
The Combustion Strategy announced this policy encouraging site-
specific risk assessments as part of the overall effort to ensure that,
under appropriate legal authorities, all RCRA combustion permits being
issued are sufficiently protective. Specifically, these site-specific
risk assessments were intended to address potential concerns about a
suite of hazardous air pollutants, among them dioxins, furans, metals,
and non-dioxin PICs, during the time it took for the Agency to upgrade
the technical standards for hazardous waste incinerators, boilers, and
industrial furnaces. This proposal is the first rulemaking that the
Agency has issued in the upgrading effort.
The question has arisen as to the status of the Agency's current
policy with respect to site-specific risk assessments, particularly
with respect to the HAPs for which standards are being proposed today
as well as for other non-dioxin PICs. As noted above, the Agency has
conducted a risk evaluation under RCRA of the degree of protection
afforded by the proposed MACT standards for the HAPs addressed in
today's rule. However, with respect to mercury and non-dioxin PICs, the
Agency does not at this time have sufficient reliable data to be able
to assess, on a national basis, the magnitude of the risks that can
routinely be expected from burning hazardous waste in HWCs. Although
the Agency has plans to obtain extensive and detailed PIC emissions
data from hazardous waste combustors in the coming months, it may be
some time before the Agency is in a proper position to make any type of
regulatory and policy judgment about the need, if any, for additional
national standards for these toxic organics. Indeed, at several sites,
the levels of some non-dioxin PICs have not previously been shown to be
of concern, at least to the extent that site-specific testing revealed
their presence and to the extent evaluated in site-specific risk
assessments.
The Agency is continuing its policy of recommending that, if
necessary to protect human health and the environment, site-specific
risk assessments be conducted as part of RCRA permitting for all
hazardous waste combustors (incinerators, boilers, and industrial
furnaces alike) until national standards for HAPs of concern are in
place. We expect that, in most situations prior to actual
implementation of facility measures to appropriately control the HAPs
addressed in this rule, the EPA regional and authorized state
permitting officials will find there is a necessity to conduct site-
specific risk assessments prior to final permit determinations. We also
note that the remaining uncertainties about the risks from non-dioxin
PICs and mercury would likely bear upon implementation of the national
policy. However, small on-site facilities are not likely to present the
same level of potential risk as other facilities. This industry segment
may not warrant site specific risk assessments with the same frequency
as the large on-site or
[[Page 17372]]
commercial facilities. Among the factors that the regions and states
should consider in their evaluation of the necessity for a site-
specific risk assessment are: (1) The current level of HAPs being
emitted by a facility, particularly in comparison to the MACT standards
being proposed and in comparison to the emissions assumptions and
exposure scenarios used in the RCRA risk evaluation of the proposed
MACT standards (detailed in the Background Document); (2) whether the
facility is exceeding the proposed HAP standards, particularly for
dioxins/furans and mercury, what immediate measures could be instituted
to reduce those emissions; (3) the scope of waste minimization efforts
at the facility with respect to the HAPs of concern and the status of
implementation of any facility waste minimization plan; (4) particular
site-specific considerations such as proximity to receptors, unique
dispersion patterns, etc.; (5) the PICs most likely to be found and
those most likely to pose significant risk; (6) the presence or absence
of other sources of HAPs in sufficient proximity as to exert a
significant influence on interpretation of a facility-specific risk
assessment; (7) the presence or absence of significant ecological
considerations, including for example high background levels of a
particular contaminant or proximity of a particularly sensitive
ecological area; and (8) the volume and types of wastes being burned.
This list is by no means exhaustive, but is meant only to suggest
significant factors that have thus far been identified. Others may be
equally or more important.
Continuation of the site-specific risk assessment policy rests
primarily on the RCRA requirement to ensure that all permits are
protective of human health and the environment. Until the Agency is in
a position to determine, on a national basis, whether additional
standards are needed to address toxic emissions, we anticipate this
policy will remain in effect. EPA's intention is to make that
determination, if sufficient data is in hand, by the time of the final
rule, now scheduled for issuance in December 1996. In that respect, we
emphasize the importance of the submission of detailed data on non-
dioxin PICs from commenters.
In the meantime, the omnibus provision in Sec. 3005(c)(3) provides
the regions and authorized states with the proper site-by-site
authority to ensure that these risk assessments are completed as part
of the permitting process. Other RCRA statutory and regulatory
provisions may apply as well. Furthermore, we encourage individual
facilities to work with their local communities in designing these risk
assessments and in carrying out the testing and analysis, so that the
confidence of local communities is maximized.
In addition, EPA strongly urges companies to explore waste
minimization opportunities as a means to reduce risks from combustion
emissions, particularly with respect to the HAPs of concern. Nearly
every state provides free pollution prevention/waste minimization
technical assistance. Further information on how to obtain this
assistance can be furnished by state permitting agencies or by
contacting the National Pollution Prevention Roundtable at (202) 466-
7272. Other sources of information include Enviro$ense, an electronic
library on pollution prevention, technical assistance, and
environmental compliance. Access is via a system operator (703) 908-
2007, via modem at (703) 908-2092, or via Internet at http://
wastenot.inel.gov/enviro-sense.
PART FOUR: RATIONALE FOR SELECTING THE PROPOSED STANDARDS
This part describes the Agency's rationale for today's proposed
standards and other options under consideration.
I. Selection of Source Categories and Pollutants
A. Selection of Sources and Source Categories
The Agency is proposing emissions standards for three source
categories: hazardous waste incinerators, hazardous waste-burning
cement kilns, and hazardous waste-burning lightweight aggregate kilns.
The Agency is not proposing to regulate emissions from CKs (in this
notice) or LWAKs that do not burn hazardous waste.
In this section, we discuss the Agency's analysis of subdividing
incinerators by size (i.e., small and large sources) and subdividing
cement kilns by process type (i.e., wet and dry). We also discuss the
scope of the MACT standards for cement kilns, and the existing RCRA
standards that control emissions of HAPs from equipment leaks and tanks
which are used to manage hazardous waste.
1. Consideration of Subdividing Incinerators by Size
Section 112(d) allows the Administrator to distinguish among
classes, types, and sizes of sources within a source category in
establishing MACT floor levels. Given that the size of incinerators, as
measured by gas flow rate in actual cubic feet per minute (acfm),
varies substantially (i.e., from 1,000 acfm to 180,000 acfm), the
Agency considered subdividing incinerators by size.
The basis for distinguishing between small and large incinerators
as well as the preliminary estimates of the resultant floor levels for
each category are presented in the docket and summarized below. The
Agency is not proposing separate standards (at the floor) 19 for
incinerators because: (1) the types and concentrations of uncontrolled
HAP emissions are similar for large and small incinerators; (2) the
same types of emission control devices are applicable to both small and
large incinerators; and (3) the floor levels would be generally
unchanged 20 (several floor levels would decrease somewhat), with
the exception that the LVM standard for large incinerators would
increase by more than a factor of four. We believe that the higher LVM
floor level for large incinerators would not be appropriate given that
approximately 80 percent of incinerators already are meeting the LVM
floor without subdividing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Note that we discuss in Part Four, Section III in the text
whether beyond-the-floor standards for D/F, Hg, and PM (as currently
proposed for all incinerators) are appropriate for small
incinerators.
\20\ And therefore, a level of complexity would be added to the
rule without substantial benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency invites comment on its determination that subdividing
incinerators by size would not be warranted. We also invite comment on
whether subdividing incinerators by other classifications (e.g.,
commercial versus on-site units) would be appropriate for establishing
MACT floor levels. Commenters should provide data and information on,
in particular: (1) how the types and concentrations of uncontrolled HAP
emissions are different for the suggested categorization of sources;
(2) whether and why MACT emission control technology would not be
applicable to a category of sources; and (3) other appropriate factors.
To investigate the effect on MACT floor levels of subdividing
incinerators by size, the Agency identified a gas flow rate of 23,127
acfm as a reasonable and appropriate demarcation between small and
large incinerators. This value was determined using a slope analysis
approach whereby gas flow rates for each source (for which the Agency
had data) were plotted in ascending order. The Agency chose the point
at which the slope markedly changed as the point of demarcation between
small and large incinerators. Approximately 57 percent of incinerators
for which we have gas flow rate data would be classified as small using
this approach.
[[Page 17373]]
Projected MACT floor levels for small and large incinerators are
compared to floor levels for combined incinerators (i.e., without
subdividing) in the table below:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small incinerators Large incinerators
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Floor levels for all incinerators
Floor level Floor level combined
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D/F (ng/dscm)....................... 0.2 TEQ or <400 deg.F............... 0.2 TEQ or <400 deg.F............... 0.2 TEQ or <400 deg.F.
PM (mg/dscm)........................ 180.................................. 180.................................. 180
Hg (g/dscm)................ 110.................................. 130.................................. 130
SVM (g/dscm)............... 230.................................. 270.................................. 270
LVM (g/dscm)............... 160.................................. 880.................................. 210
HCl + Cl2 (ppmv).................... 280.................................. 260.................................. 280
CO (ppmv)........................... 100.................................. 100.................................. 100
HC (ppmv)........................... 12................................... 12................................... 12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Consideration of Subdividing Cement Kilns by Manufacturing Process
The Agency also considered whether to subdivide the cement kiln
source category into wet and dry process kilns given that these types
of kilns are designed and operated differently. (See discussion in Part
Two, Section II.) MACT floor levels for wet and dry kilns are compared
to floor levels for combined cement kilns (i.e., without subdividing)
in the table below:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wet process kilns Dry process kilns
Pollutant ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Floor levels for all kilns combined
Floor level Floor level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D/F (ng/dscm)....................... 0.2 TEQ or 418 deg.F................ 0.2 TEQ or 547 deg.F................ 0.2 TEQ or 418 deg.F.
PM (mg/dscm)........................ 69................................... 69................................... 69
Hg (g/dscm)................ 83................................... 150.................................. 130
SVM (g/dscm)............... 870.................................. 57................................... 57
LVM (g/dscm)............... 220.................................. 49................................... 130
HCl + Cl2 (ppmv).................... 460.................................. 340.................................. 640
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subdividing cement kilns by process type would result in a mix of
impacts with varying degrees of significance. For wet kilns, the main
impact would be an increase in the SVM floor from 57 to 870 g/
dscm. The mercury floor, on the other hand, would drop from 130 to 83
g/dscm. The remainder of the floors would remain roughly the
same. For dry cement kilns, the main impact would be that the LVM floor
drops from 130 to 49 g/dscm. The dioxin/furan floor would
change by allowing a higher APCD temperature--547 deg.F rather than
418 deg.F.
The Agency is not proposing separate standards for wet and dry
process kilns because: (1) The types and concentrations of uncontrolled
HAP emissions are similar for both types of kilns; (2) the same types
of emission control devices are applicable to both types of kilns; (3)
for dry process kilns, the LVM floor level would drop to an extremely
low level that may be difficult for many kilns to achieve because of
the presence of these metals in raw materials; and (4) for wet kilns,
the SVM floor would increase to 870 g/dscm, a level much
higher than the industry can achieve.21 There may also be other
factors that should be considered, and the Agency invites comment on
those in addition to the factors noted above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See letter from Craig Campbell, CKRC, to James Berlow,
USEPA, undated but received February 20, 1996. We note that,
although the Agency is proposing a SVM standard of 57 g/
dscm, we invite comment on an alternative (and potentially
preferable) approach to identify MACT floor technology which would
result in a floor-based standard of 160 g/dscm. See Part
Four, Section IV in the text. Because we identified the alternative
approach late in the rule development process, we are inviting
comment on the higher standard rather than proposing it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that the cement industry has asserted that it is not
feasible to use a FF on wet kilns in cold climates because the ``high
moisture content of the gas will clog the fabric with cement-like dust
and ice.'' 22 This is not consistent with the Agency's
understanding. Although wet kilns located in cold climates that operate
at low flue gas temperatures (e.g., 350-400 deg.F) in order to
minimize formation of D/F and improve performance of activated carbon
injection systems may be required to improve insulation or take other
measures to minimize cold spots in the baghouse to limit corrosion, we
believe that appropriate measures can be readily taken. The Agency is
aware of two wet kilns that currently operate fabric filters in cold
climates (Thomaston, Maine, and Dundee, Michigan) at flue gas
temperatures below 400 deg.F. \23\ In addition, a wet kiln
burning hazardous waste in Paulding, Ohio, is currently upgrading its
PM control system to replace an ESP with a FF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See letter from Micheal O'Bannon, EOP Group, to Elliot
Laws, USEPA, dated February 14, 1996, p. 3 of Attachment.
\23\ See USEPA, ``Draft Technical Support Document For HWC MACT
Standards, Volume III: Selection of Proposed MACT Standards and
Technologies'', February, 1996, for further information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency invites comment on the appropriate criteria to be used
and upon its determination that subdividing cement kilns by process
type is not warranted. Commenters should provide data and information
on, in particular: (1) Whether the types and concentrations of
uncontrolled HAP emissions are different for wet and dry kilns; (2)
whether and why MACT emission control technology(ies) would not be
applicable to a wet or dry kiln; and (3) other appropriate factors.
3. Scope of the MACT Standards for Cement Kilns
The proposed NESHAP for cement kilns addresses only exhaust
combustion gas emissions from main stack(s), bypass stack(s), and
fugitive combustion emissions (e.g., leaks from kiln seals). The cement
kiln standards would not apply to process or fugitive emissions that
are not affected
[[Page 17374]]
by burning hazardous waste (such as emissions from raw material
processing or clinker cooler emissions). 24
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Today's proposal applies only to those kilns that burn or
process hazardous waste irrespective of the purpose of burning or
processing. The term ``burn'' means burning for energy recovery or
destruction, or processing as an ingredient. The Agency is
developing a NESHAP for cement kilns that do not process hazardous
waste in a separate rulemaking. That NESHAP will also regulate those
hazardous waste-burning cement kiln process and fugitive emissions
that would not be subject to today's rule (i.e., emission sources
other than the main or by-pass stack).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Current RCRA Controls on Equipment Leaks and Tanks
We note that the Agency has promulgated air emission standards
regulating fugitive emissions from equipment leaks (e.g., pumps,
compressors, valves) and tanks which are used to manage hazardous
waste. Accordingly, these devices are not addressed by today's
proposal. (Tanks and equipment leaks from HW management activities at
HWCs are regulated under RCRA standards. See, e.g., 40 CFR Parts 264
and 265, Subparts AA, BB, and CC. These controls are expected to be
consistent with MACT and are not being reevaluated here.)
B. Selection of Pollutants
As noted earlier, section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act contains a
list of 189 hazardous air pollutants for which the Administrator must
promulgate regulations establishing emissions standards for designated
major and area sources. The list of 189 HAPs is comprised of metallic,
organic, and inorganic compounds.
Hazardous waste incinerators and hazardous waste-burning cement
kilns and LWAKs emit many of the listed HAPs. Data available to the
Agency indicate that metal HAP emissions include antimony, arsenic,
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, and selenium
compounds. Organic HAPs emitted include chlorinated dioxin and furan,
benzene, carbon disulfide, chloroform, chloromethane,
hexachlorobenzene, methylene chloride, naphthalene, phenol, toluene,
and xylene. Hydrochloric acid and chlorine gas are prevalent inorganic
compounds found in stack emissions because of high chlorine content of
many hazardous wastes.
Today, the Agency is proposing eight emissions standards for
individual HAPs, group of HAPs, or HAP surrogates. These emission
standards cover dioxin/furan, mercury, particulate matter, semivolatile
HAP metals (lead and cadmium), low-volatile HAP metals (antimony,
arsenic, beryllium, and chromium), carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and
total chlorides. The following discussion presents the Agency's
rationale for proposing NESHAPs for these individual HAPs, group of
HAPs, or HAP surrogates.
1. Toxic Metals
In developing today's proposed rule, the Agency considered 14 toxic
metals that may pose a hazard to human health and the environment when
they are components of emissions from hazardous waste combustion
sources. Section 112(b) of the Act contains a list of 11 metal HAPs:
antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead,
manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium. The list of hazardous
constituents under RCRA 25 specifies three additional metals:
barium, silver, and thallium. Five of these metals (or their compounds)
are known or suspected carcinogens: arsenic, beryllium, cadmium,
hexavalent chromium, and nickel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ The list of hazardous constituents is contained in appendix
VIII of Part 261. Cobalt and manganese are not hazardous
constituents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To develop an implementable approach for controlling the metal HAP
emission levels, the Agency grouped metal HAPs by their relative
volatility and is proposing an emissions limit for the each volatility
group (i.e., the sum of emissions from the metals in the group cannot
exceed the limit). We selected the following three groups: (1) A high-
volatile group comprised of only mercury, (2) a semivolatile group
comprised of lead and cadmium, and (3) a low-volatile group consisting
of antimony, arsenic, beryllium, and chromium. The Agency's proposal
not to include the remaining seven toxic metals in these volatility
groupings is discussed later in this section.
Our data indicate that mercury is generally in the vapor form in
and downstream of the combustion chamber, including at the air
pollution control device (APCD). Thus, the level of emissions is a
function of the feedrate of mercury and the use of APCDs that can
control Hg in the vapor form (e.g., carbon injection, wet scrubbers for
some control of soluble HgCl). The semivolatile group metals typically
vaporize at combustion temperatures, then condense onto fine
particulate before entering the APCD. Thus, emissions of semivolatile
metals are a function not only of the feedrate of the metal, but also
of the efficiency of the particulate matter (PM) control device. Low-
volatile metals are less apt to vaporize at combustion temperatures and
therefore partition primarily to the bottom ash, residue, or clinker
(in the case of cement kilns) or adsorb onto large, easy-to-control
particles in the combustion gas. Thus, low-volatile metal emissions are
more strongly related to the operation of the PM APCD than to the
feedrate.26
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Although, at a given PM emission rate at a source,
emissions of LMV will be affected by LVM feedrate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that the dynamics associated with the fate of metals in a
combustion device are much more complex than presented here. Numerous
factors impact metals' behavior such as the presence of chlorine
(higher metal volatility associated with metal chlorides than metal
oxides), combustion conditions within the device (e.g., temperature
profile), inter-metal relationships, physical and chemical form the
metal exhibits when introduced to the device (e.g., valence state and
solid versus liquid), type and efficiency of the particulate control
device, and differences in the design and operation of sources (e.g.,
cement kiln dust recycling rate). See the technical background document
supporting today's proposal for more details.27
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ USEPA, ``Draft Technical Support Document for HWC MACT
Standards, Volume VII: Miscellaneous Technical Issues'', February
1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Setting an emission level for a number of grouped metals has
several advantages and disadvantages. One advantage is that fewer
individual standards are involved, which helps implementability.
Moreover, grouping allows a facility more flexibility in complying with
an emissions standard based on facility-specific characteristics (e.g.,
special characteristic waste streams) and operation requirements (e.g.,
reduced spiking of numerous metals). On the other hand, a disadvantage
of a group emission limit is that it potentially allows higher
emissions of the more toxic metals within a group (than if an
individual metal limit were established).28
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ We note that, for the risk assessment used to determine if
RCRA concerns would be adequately addressed by the proposed MACT
standards, we assumed that each metal in a volatility was emitted in
turn at the emission limit for that volatility group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency is proposing not to regulate directly emissions of the
remaining four metal HAPs (i.e., cobalt, manganese, nickel, and
selenium).29 The
[[Page 17375]]
Agency's rationale is based upon a combination of factors: (1)
Inadequate emissions data for Co, Mg, Ni, and Se; and (2) relatively
low toxicity of Co and Mn. The Agency specifically requests comment on
whether these four metals would be adequately controlled under the MACT
standards that would be provided by today's proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ The Agency acknowledges that three metals (barium, silver
and thallium), currently regulated by the BIF rule, would not be
regulated under this MACT proposal. EPA notes that these three
metals are not HAPs. The Agency believes that the combination of the
proposed particulate and metals standards would adequately control
emissions of these three metals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency is aware of two other approaches to group toxic metals.
First, the European Union has established three groupings to control
metal emissions from hazardous waste incineration units. One ``group''
includes only mercury, a second group consists of cadmium and thallium,
and the third group includes antimony, arsenic, chromium, cobalt,
copper, lead, manganese, nickel, tin, and vanadium. Section VII of this
Part summarizes the European Union emission standards.
A rulemaking petition 30 submitted to the Agency by the Cement
Kiln Recycling Coalition (CKRC) contained a report 31 (appendix D
of the petition) prepared by a technical advisory board to the CKRC.
Their analysis of stack emissions and cement kiln dust data suggests
three volatility groupings based on metal volatility demonstrated in
cement kilns. The groupings are: (1) Volatile metals including mercury
and thallium; (2) semivolatile metals consisting of antimony, cadmium,
lead, and selenium; and (3) low-volatile metals comprising barium,
beryllium, chromium, arsenic, nickel, manganese, and silver. See the
technical background document for further discussion on grouping metals
by volatility.32 The Agency requests comments on the
appropriateness of grouping metals by volatility and requests
supporting information and data on the appropriate composition of metal
volatility groups (i.e., for the metals discussed above).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ CKRC's rulemaking petition proposes to establish new
technology-based combustion emissions standards and was submitted to
EPA on January 18, 1994. CKRC's petition consists of four basic
components. First, the stringency of current BIF Rule toxic metal
limits should be increased by factors of 5 to 10 and applied to all
combustion devices (i.e., both BIFs and incinerators). Second, new
regulatory efforts for dioxin/furan standards should focus on a
toxic equivalency approach (TEQ) rather than on a total congener
approach. Third, the implementation of the new metals and dioxin/
furan standards should be applied uniformly to all types of
hazardous waste combustors (HWCs) and imposed at the same time.
Finally, EPA should conduct a rulemaking on indirect exposure risk
assessments before requiring their use. CKRC's petition has been
placed in the docket supporting today's proposal.
\31\ ``Scientific Advisory Board on Cement Kiln Recycling
(Process Technology Workgroup), Evaluation of the Origin, Emissions
and Control of Organic and Metal Compounds From Cement Kilns Co-
Fired With Hazardous Wastes,'' June 8, 1993.
\32\ USEPA, ``Draft Technical Support Document for HWC MACT
Standards, Volume VII: Miscellaneous Technical Issues,'' February
1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Toxic Organic Compounds
Burning hazardous waste that contains toxic organic compounds under
poor combustion conditions can result in substantial emissions of HAPs
originally present in the waste as well as other compounds, due to the
partial but incomplete combustion of the constituents in the waste
(known as products of incomplete combustion, or PICs). PICs can be
unburned organic compounds that were present in the waste, thermal
decomposition products resulting from organic constituents in the
waste, or compounds synthesized during or immediately after combustion.
The quantity of toxic organic compounds emitted depends on such factors
as the combustion conditions under which the waste is burned (including
time, temperature, and turbulence), the concentrations of the toxic
compounds in the waste, and the waste firing rate.
Since the majority of the 189 enumerated HAPs are organics, the
Agency has concluded (for today's proposal) that establishing
individual emission limits for each of the organic HAP compounds
emitted from these combustion sources would be impractical and not
implementable. Measuring each compound would be very costly and would
pose unreasonable compliance and monitoring burden on the regulated
community while achieving little, if any, emission reduction from the
approach presented in today's proposal. In addition, EPA and state
compliance oversight and enforcement efforts would also be unreasonably
costly without concurrent benefits. Also, the Agency does not have
adequate emissions data to support development of individual organic
emission limits 33 at this time. Therefore, the Agency is
proposing a multi-faceted approach to control the toxic organic HAPs to
be addressed under Sec. 112: (1) Emissions limits for dioxin and furan
on a toxicity equivalents (TEQ) basis; (2) limits on flue gas
concentrations of hydrocarbons (HC) as a HAP surrogate; (3) limits on
flue gas concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) also as a HAP
surrogate; and (4) emission limits for particulate matter (PM) to
control adsorbed semivolatile organic HAPs (see separate discussion on
PM below).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ The number of organic HAPs measured at each facility varies
widely with some facilities reporting measurements for a large
number of HAPs while other facilities measuring only a few HAPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, given the high toxicity of some dioxin and furan congeners
and the fact that standards ensuring good operating conditions alone
(i.e., temperature at the inlet of the APCD) will not always control
emissions of dioxin/furans
(D/F), the Agency has determined that proposing an emission standard
specifically for D/F is a necessary component to the multi-faceted
approach for toxic organics emissions control. The D/F standard
proposed today is based on TEQ (Toxicity Equivalents).34 TEQ is a
method for assessing the risks associated with exposures to complex
mixtures of chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin and dibenzofurans (CDDs and
CDFs). The method relates the toxicity of the 209 structurally related
chemical pollutants to the toxicity of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ The TEQ approach used for today's proposal is the I-TEQ/89
approach defined in USEPA, ``Interim Procedure for Estimating Risks
Associated With Exposures to Mixtures of Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-
Dioxin and -Dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs) and 1989 Update,'' March
1989. For a discussion of establishing D/F limits based on TEQ
versus total congeners, see USEPA, ``Combustion Emissions Technical
Resource Document (CETRED),'' May 1994, pp. 4-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the Agency is proposing to use carbon monoxide (CO) and
hydrocarbons (HC) as surrogates to control emissions of non-D/F organic
HAPs. We note that limiting CO and HC emissions to levels ensuring good
combustion conditions would also help minimize D/F precursors. CO and
HC emissions are both recognized indicators of combustion intensity and
completeness. Low CO flue gas levels are indicative of a combustion
device operating at high combustion efficiency (56 FR at 7149-54).
Operating at high combustion efficiency helps ensure minimum emissions
of unburned (or incompletely burned) organics. However, limiting CO may
not by itself absolutely minimize PIC emissions. This is because PICs
can result from small pockets within the combustion zone where adequate
time, temperature, turbulence, and oxygen have not been provided to
completely oxidize these organics.35 As combustion becomes less
efficient or less complete, at some point, the emissions of total
organics (measured as HC) will increase. A
[[Page 17376]]
portion of the HC emission is comprised of organic HAPs. Thus, CO
levels provide an indication of the potential for organic HAP emissions
and CO limits are therefore proposed as a measure to help prevent these
emissions. HC limits are proposed to document actual emissions of
organic HAPs.36
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ We note that there are emissions data indicating that even
though CO levels are below 100 ppmv, HC emissions can exceed 5 ppmv
(measured as propane with a heated sampling system), the upper HC
level that is generally representative of operating under good
combustion conditions. See 56 FR 7154, note 26 (February 21, 1991),
and Energy and Environmental Research Corporation, ``Surrogate
Evaluation of Thermal Treatment Systems,'' Draft Report dated
October 17, 1994, Figure 2-1.
\36\ We note that virtually all HWCs are already equipped with a
CO monitor because of RCRA requirements. In addition, several
incinerators, cement kilns and lightweight aggregate kilns are also
equipped with a HC monitor because of RCRA or state requirements or
voluntary initiative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notwithstanding today's proposal to establish MACT standards for
both CO and HC emissions for HWIs and LWAKs (CKs would be required to
comply with either a CO or HC standard for technical reasons discussed
in Section IV below), the Agency invites comment on whether standards
for both CO and HC (coupled with the D/F and PM standards to also
control organic HAPs) are unnecessarily redundant. Commenters should
provide data and information on how either CO or HC alone (but in
conjunction with
D/F and PM standards) would ensure proper control of organic HAPs. In
particular, commenters should address the fact that the Agency's
database indicates that HC levels can exceed good combustion condition
levels when CO levels are below 100 ppmv (thus suggesting that controls
on both CO and HC are needed). In addition, commenters should address
how the MACT standards proposed today for HC would or could ensure that
sources operate under good combustion conditions and thus minimize
emissions of organic HAPs.
If based on review of comments and further analysis the Agency
determines that standards for both CO and HC are not warranted, we
would consider, among other potential options, the following
alternative regulatory approaches: (1) Give each source the option of
complying with either the CO or HC standard (as proposed today for
technical reasons for by-pass duct gas for cement kilns); or (2)
establish a national standard for either CO or HC, but not both (the
Agency would determine which parameter is more appropriate and
establish a standard for that parameter). The Agency invites comment on
these alternative regulatory approaches or others that would ensure
proper control of organic HAP emissions.
3. Hydrochloric Acid (HCl) and Chlorine (Cl2)
Both hydrochloric acid and chlorine are designated HAPs that are
present in HWC emissions. However, the test method used to determine
HCl and Cl2 emissions (BIF methods 0050, 0051, and 9057, commonly
referred to as ``Method 26A'') 37 may not be able to distinguish
between HCl and Cl2 in all situations.38 Therefore, EPA
proposes combining the two HAPs into a single HCl and Cl2
standard. We believe this is appropriate because emissions of both of
these HAPs can be controlled by limiting feedrate of chlorine in
hazardous waste and wet scrubbing.39
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ We note that owners and operators of cement kilns have
argued that this method provides measurements that are biased high
because metallic salts penetrate the filter and the chloride is
incorrectly reported as HCl. EPA has considered this concern and
continues to believe that metallic salts do not significantly bias
the results. Nonetheless, we invite comment on this issue. If, in
fact, metallic salts can bias the results, we invite comment
particularly on how or whether the proposed MACT standards could be
adjusted given the inflated emissions database, and how compliance
with an adjusted standard could be demonstrated.
\38\ In the presence of other halogens (e.g., fluorine and
bromine) that are often constituents of hazardous waste, fossil
fuels or kiln raw materials, EPA is concerned that reactions can
occur in the impinger solutions used by the stack sampling method
that cause a portion of the Cl2 to be reported as HCl. Thus,
the HCl levels could be biased high, and the Cl2 levels could
be biased low. Nonetheless, the method does continue to give an
accurate determination of combined HCl and Cl2 levels in the
presence of other halogens.
\39\ We also note that, for purposes of determining whether the
proposed MACT standard would satisfy RCRA concerns, we evaluated the
level of protection that would be provided assuming (conservatively)
that 10 percent of the HCl/Cl2 standard would be emitted as the
more toxic Cl2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Particulate Matter (PM)
EPA is proposing to use particulate matter (PM) as a surrogate for
non-D/F organic HAPs (that are adsorbed onto the PM) and for the metal
HAPs which are not specified in the metals standards (i.e., Co, Mn, Ni,
and Se).40 More than 40 semivolatile organic HAPs can be adsorbed
onto PM and can, thus, be controlled by a MACT standard for PM.41
The metal HAPs that are not directly controlled by the MACT standards
for metals can also be controlled (at least partially) by a PM
standard. The low volatility metals are likely to be entrained in
larger particulates and the semivolatile metals are likely to be
condensed onto small particulates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ We note that PM 10 is a criteria pollutant under the Clean
Air Act. PM can also have adverse effects on human health even if
toxics are not adsorbed on the PM. Although EPA cannot control PM in
and by itself under Sec. 112(d) (it must be a surrogate for HAP
control), EPA may consider reductions in criteria pollutants in
assessing cost-effectiveness of MACT controls. See S. Rep. No. 228,
101st Congress, 1st Session, p. 172.
\41\ See memo from Larry Gonzalez, EPA, to the docket for this
rule (F-96-RCSP-FFFFF), entitled ``Semi-volatile Organic HAPs that
Can Be Adsorbed onto PM'', dated February 22, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency notes that we are proposing to use PM also as a
compliance parameter to ensure compliance with the SVM, LVM, and D/F
standards. As discussed in Part V, Section II, of the preamble, a site-
specific PM operating limit would be established as a surrogate for the
PM control device collection efficiency. Given that we are also
proposing a PM MACT emission standard, the site-specific operating
limit for PM could not exceed the PM standard.
C. Applicability of the Standards Under Special Circumstances
In this section, we discuss the applicability of the proposed MACT
standards under the following circumstances: (1) When a regulated metal
or chlorine is not present in the hazardous waste at detectable levels;
(2) when the source temporarily ceases hazardous waste burning; and (3)
when the source terminates hazardous waste burning.
1. Nondetect Levels of Metals or Chlorine in All Feedstreams
If no feedstreams to a HWC (e.g., on-site incinerator) contain
detectable levels of Hg, SVM, LVM, or chlorine, the source would not be
subject to the emission standard associated with the metal or chlorine
(e.g., if no feedstreams contain detectable levels of chlorine, the
HCl/Cl2 standard would be waived). In addition, performance
testing, monitoring, notification, and recordkeeping requirements
ancillary to the waived standard would also be waived. We believe that
this waiver is appropriate because the source would be incompliance
with the emission standard by default if it was not feeding the metal
or chlorine.
To be eligible for the waiver, the source must develop and
implement a feedstream sampling and analysis plan to document that no
feedstream contains detectable levels of the metal or chlorine (for
which a waiver is claimed).
The Agency invites comment on whether it is necessary to specify
minimum detection levels (or to take other measures) to ensure that
appropriate analytical procedures are used to document levels of metal
or chlorine in feedstreams.
2. Nondetect Levels of Metals or Chlorine in the Hazardous Waste Feed
The proposed MACT standards for mercury, SVM, LVM, or chlorine
would apply even if these constituents are not present at detectable
levels in the
[[Page 17377]]
hazardous waste. This issue is relevant for cement kilns and light-
weight kilns because, if these sources were not burning hazardous
waste, the proposed MACT standards would not apply. Cement kilns (CKs)
that do not burn hazardous waste would be subject to separate MACT
standards that the Agency is developing for those sources, and light-
weight aggregate kilns (LWAKs) that do not burn hazardous waste would
not be subject to any MACT standards.
It could be argued that a CK or LWAK that burns hazardous waste
with nondetect levels of Hg, SVM, LVM, or chlorine is not burning
hazardous waste with respect to that metal or the HCl/Cl2
standard. Accordingly, regulation should revert to any applicable MACT
standard for the source when not burning hazardous waste. The Agency
rejects this argument, however. A source cannot be subject to
regulation under two MACT source categories. Further, such an approach
would be extremely difficult to implement and enforce for CKs given
that compliance procedures would be different for the two source
categories.
3. Sources That Temporarily Cease Burning Hazardous Waste
Sources that temporarily cease burning hazardous waste would remain
subject to today's proposed standards. Similar to the discussion above,
such sources could argue that in the interim when hazardous waste is
not burned, MACT regulation should revert to the MACT standards
applicable to CKs or LWAKs that do not burn hazardous waste.
The Agency rejects this argument as well a
FR Doc. 96-7872 Revised Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors
nd for the same reasons
discussed above: a source cannot be intermittently subject to MACT
regulation under two source categories, and implementation and
enforcement would be extremely complicated. See the discussion below
regarding how to define temporary interruptions in waste burning versus
termination of waste burning.
4. Sources That Terminate Hazardous Waste Burning
A source that terminates hazardous waste burning would no longer be
subject to today's proposed rules. A source has terminated hazardous
waste burning when it: (1) ceases burning hazardous waste (i.e.,
hazardous waste is not fed and hazardous waste does not remain in the
combustion chamber); and (2) stops complying with the proposed
standards and begins complying with other applicable MACT standards
(i.e., cement kilns must comply with the MACT standards, when
promulgated, for kilns that do not burn hazardous waste). In addition,
today's rule would require sources that terminate hazardous waste
burning to notify the Administrator in writing within 5 days of the
termination.
Such sources could begin burning hazardous waste again under the
following conditions: (1) The source must comply with the MACT
standards applicable to new sources; (2) the source must submit a
notification of compliance with the standards (based on a comprehensive
performance test); and (3) prior to submitting the notification of
compliance, the source cannot burn hazardous waste for more than a
total of 720 hours, and hazardous waste may be burned only for purposes
of emissions pretesting (i.e., in preparation for the comprehensive
performance test) or comprehensive performance testing.
We are taking this position regarding termination of waste burning
to avoid the implementation and enforcement complications that could
result if a source could claim that it was not subject to the proposed
regulations during those periods of time that it was not burning
hazardous waste. Without these requirements, a source could vacillate
at will between being regulated and unregulated (or for CKs, between
being subject to regulation as a hazardous waste-burning kiln versus a
non-hazardous waste-burning kiln). We invite comment on whether these
requirements are reasonable and appropriate to address the Agency's
implementation and enforcement concerns.
II. Selection of Format for the Proposed Standards
A. Format of the Standard
When EPA regulates a source, it must determine on a case-by-case
basis what format the standards are. This section explains the reasons
why EPA chose the format it did for this specific source category. Due
to differing situations in other cases, other formats may be chosen for
other source categories.
1. Units
EPA investigated four formats for use in expressing today's
proposed standards: mass-based emissions; calculated mass-based
emissions; percent reduction; and concentration-based. The Agency
ultimately selected concentration-based standards for the reasons
discussed below.
The mass-based approach would set a limit of mass emissions per
unit time, i.e., kg/hr, lb/hr, etc. This approach was rejected because
it is inherently incompatible with technology based standards for
several reasons. First, a mass-based standard does not assure good
control at small facilities. Small facilities have lower flow rates,
would be allowed higher concentration of emissions, and thus could meet
a standard with no or minimal technological control. Also, it produces
an undue burden on larger facilities in that they would have to install
controls and small facilities would not. One potential consequence is
that it would cause an incentive for more small facilities, causing an
increase in emissions nationally. For these reasons, this option was
not chosen.
An alternate to the mass-based approach is the calculated mass-
based approach. This would involve EPA determining some appropriately
low level of metals and chlorine feed, multiplying that by a system
removal efficiency factor, and issuing the result as a mass-based
limit. One concern with this approach is EPA does not know what
feedrate would be appropriate. Any feedrate could be construed as
arbitrary. Also, the approach would result in a mass-based limit which
does not address concerns described in the preceding paragraph. It also
does not address how to set the other standards: CO, HC, PM, and
dioxin/furans. For these reasons, this option was not chosen.
A third approach is to set the standards based on a specified
percent reduction. This comports well with a technology-based approach
because it deals directly with determining what technology performs
most efficiently. However, there are problems with this approach.
First, it is difficult to determine where the percent reduction should
be applied: feed to stack, across the APCD train, or across a specific
control device. Use of feed to stack percent reductions present a
difficulty due to the measurement variability of feed samples and stack
emissions. APCD train or device specific percent reductions would be
difficult to implement. Facilities are not configured to sample inlet
emissions to the APCD train or to a specific APCD. Thus, facilities
would have to be reconfigured to allow inlet sampling. Stack sampling
would be required at both the outlet and, possibly, multiple inlet
points. This would significantly increase the testing burden. In
addition, implementation of any approach based on percent reduction
would involve substantial and expensive monitoring of operating
parameters to ensure that the specified percent reduction occurs during
operation. For these reasons, this approach was not chosen.
[[Page 17378]]
The approach that was chosen for these source categories is to set
concentration-based standards. This approach is consistent with how EPA
has historically based air emission standards. It favorably addresses
the problems of the other options. However, it does allow larger
facilities to emit higher mass emissions of HAPs. But mass-based levels
would result in higher emissions nationally by encouraging more smaller
facilities (see previous paragraph). This tradeoff, having higher mass
emissions at larger facilities but lower emissions nationally, was
considered acceptable for this proposal. Concentration based approaches
are also easier to implement and do not necessarily rely on the setting
of operating limits. For this reason, concentration-based standards are
regarded as preferable to the other options, and was chosen on that
basis.
It is possible that other units could be chosen for other source
categories. As explained in the introductory paragraph this is
consistent because other units might be more appropriate for other
source categories.
2. Correction to 7 Percent Oxygen and 20 deg. C
All standards are corrected to 7 percent oxygen and 20 deg. C. This
is because the data EPA used to derive the standards were corrected in
this manner. This is also consistent with the correction used for BIFs,
hazardous waste incinerators, MWCs, and MWIs.
3. Significant Figures and Rounding
All standards proposed here are expressed to two significant
figures.
For the purposes of rounding, we propose to require the use of ASTM
procedure E-29-90 or its successor. This procedure is the American
standard for rounding. Rounding shall be avoided prior to rounding for
the reported result.
B. Averaging Periods
Averaging periods are the time periods over which emissions or
feedstream and operating parameters are set. These periods require
consideration because of the inherent variability associated with the
operation of complying (i.e., properly designed and operated) MACT
devices. As noted above, facilities normally operate within certain
limits but do have emissions above and below these normal levels due to
the natural variability associated with the operation of a facility.
EPA must account for this variability when promulgating technology-
based standards. See, e.g., FMC Corp. v. Train, 538 F.2d 973, 986 (4th
Cir. 1976). If EPA were to establish a ``not-to-be-exceeded'' limit,
that limit would invariably be higher than if the limit were expressed
as an average emission level. That would tend to encourage higher
emitting, but low variability devices since they could meet the not-to-
exceed standard.
For instance, say EPA is considering establishing a standard on: an
instantaneous basis; a one hour average; and a 12-hour average. Also,
assume that the complying MACT facility has average emissions of 5 and
short-term perturbations as high as 300. In this case equally stringent
emissions levels could be: 300 on an instantaneous basis; on the order
of 10 for an hourly average; or closer to 5 for the 12-hour average. If
the limit were established at 300 on an instantaneous basis, this could
significantly favor a facility that has high perturbations less than
300, but average emissions of 250 (assuming the facility with average
emissions of 250 could meet the instantaneous limit, 300, with fewer
controls.) This facility would emit 50 times more of that HAP than a
facility operating at an emission average of 5, but would still comply
with the standard. To address the problem of setting limits on an
instantaneous basis, emissions and feedstream and operating limits are
established on the average with specified averaging periods.
1. Manual Methods
The MACT standards for HWCs (except those for HC and CO) were based
on the average of data from three test runs during which emissions were
measured by manual methods. EPA thus proposes that compliance be based
on the average of three manual methods test runs to be consistent with
data used to establish the standards. Chemical Waste Management v. EPA,
976 F.2d 2, 34 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (Noting that this is an inherently
reasonable approach and is consistent with the standard approach for
compliance under the Part 63 MACT standards.)
The standard could be set in such a way as to require all three
runs to be less than the standard. Such a standard would be derived by
choosing the highest data point from three manual test runs and would
result in an emission level higher than those proposed. The ``not-to-
be-exceeded'' approach was considered problematic for reasons just
described, so averaging was chosen.
Manual methods sample facility exhaust emissions for a period of
time. The minimum length of time required to sample is specified
indirectly by the manual method in the form of collection or gas flow
specifications. The results of the manual method test are reported as
an average over the sampling period. Therefore for manual method test
runs, the averaging period is the sampling period over which the sample
was collected.
EPA proposes no specific averaging period here for manual method
test runs, with one caveat discussed below. Instead EPA proposes to
rely on the minimum sampling volumes or collected sample (whichever the
method requires) specified by the manual methods. EPA invites comment
on whether minimum sampling periods for manual methods should be
specified directly.
EPA is proposing a three hour minimum sampling time for method
0023A. Three hours is also the minimum sampling period stated in method
23 to Part 60, appendix A. EPA is proposing a minimum sampling time in
order to ensure that each D/F run samples long enough to obtain
adequate samples of the various congeners to determine compliance with
the TEQ standard. This issue is important here because there is an
inconsistency between air rules and RCRA rules regarding how to treat
nondetected congeners when calculating the TEQ.
The document which defines the TEQ calculation, ``Interim
Procedures for Estimating Risks Associated with Exposures to Mixtures
of Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins (CDDs and CDFs) and 1989 Update''
(EPA/625/3-89/016, March 1989), uses in its examples the assumption
that all non-detects are zero. Also, Method 23 of Part 60 Appendix A,
the method used by air programs for determining total D/F congeners,
similarly states in Section 9, titled Calculations:
Any PCDD's or PCDF's that are reported as nondetected (below the
MDL) shall be counted as zero for the purpose of calculating the
total concentration of PCDD's and PCDF's in the sample.
Therefore, many assume that nondetects are zero for the purposes of
calculating site specific TEQs.
Unfortunately, RCRA programs in most instances use the nondetect
value, not zero, in the calculation of the TEQ. (See BIF method 23
found in Part 266, Appendix IX, section 3.4.) Since this rule would be
promulgated under both RCRA and CAA authority, this issue needs to be
resolved.
The Agency believes a facility will have to measure for 20 minutes
per run using SW-846 method 0023a to obtain enough sample to be useful
for the TEQ calculation. This leads EPA to believe that enough sample
will be collected during a three hour run to assure that
[[Page 17379]]
nondetected congeners are indeed not present. If a source complies with
the minimum sampling period and still has non-detects, then EPA
proposes allowing non-detects to be assumed to be zero.
This would also apply to other methods which have passed the Method
301 validation procedures and EPA has agreed are acceptable. In the
case of other methods, the facility would assume that non-detects are
zero if the method accumulates the same amount or more sample than
Method 0023A would in a three hour run. If a source chooses not to
comply with the three hour minimum, EPA would mandate that non-detected
congeners be assumed to be present at the detection level for the
purposes of the TEQ calculation.
EPA specifically invites comments on the selection of the proposed
minimum sampling time for the D/F method and the assumed concentration
of nondetected congeners in the calculation of the TEQ.
2. Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS)
EPA is proposing to require the use of five CEMS--CO, HC, O2,
Hg, and PM--and to allow the use of CEMS for SVM, LVM, HCl, and
Cl2. Presently, for cement kilns and LWAKs, continuous emission
monitoring of O2 and CO (or HC) is required under the BIF rule (40
CFR 266.103(c)(1)(v)). Emission limits and their associated averaging
period must be established for all of these pollutants (except for
O2) in keeping with the nature of compliance with a CEMS. (The
O2 CEMS is used to continuously correct the CEMS readings for the
other pollutants to 7 percent O2. There is no emission limit
specific to O2.) Hourly rolling average emissions data are
available to establish emission limits for CO and HC on an hourly-
rolling average.
Only manual method stack emissions data, however, are available to
establish appropriate emission limits and averaging periods for the
other standards: Hg, PM,42 SVM, LVM, and HCl and Cl2. This
presents a unique issue for the Agency to resolve since, in most cases,
EPA promulgates CEMS standards by collecting CEMS emissions data from
facilities run under ``normal'' conditions. The Agency would use this
CEMS data to calculate a statistically based CEMS emission standard,
assuming some confidence interval and number of annual exceedances.
Since no ``normal'' CEMS data exists, but worst-case manual test data
from trial burns and compliance tests does, an alternate approach must
be developed to derive a CEMS emission standard an its associated
averaging period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Note that the PM CEM is also used as an operating parameter
for PM APCD efficiency and that additional averaging periods apply
during normal operation. See Part Five, Section II.C.7. titled
``Particulate Matter'' for more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Approach to Establishing Averaging Periods for Hg, PM,43
SVM, LVM, HCl and Cl2 CEMS. One important issue concerning the
data is that it was obtained from trials burn and compliance test
results (similar to the comprehensive performance test, described in
section III of Part Five). These are generally worst-case tests
facilities used to establish operating limits under the BIF and
Incinerator rules. Facilities must be in compliance with all standards
at all times they are burning hazardous waste. Therefore, the emissions
represented by this data are the highest emissions the facility could
experience and be in compliance with the current BIF and incinerator
rules. In other words, the emissions data represents a not-to-be-
exceeded emission level for the given facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Note that the PM CEM is also used as an operating parameter
for PM APCD efficiency and that additional averaging periods apply
during normal operation. See Part Five, Section II.C.7. titled
``Particulate Matter'' for more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, let us examine how a facility would comply with today's
proposed emission standards if they were not to use a CEMS, but by
performing a comprehensive performance test and complying with the
standards using operating parameter limits. As a result of today's
proposed rule and as was the case in the BIF and incinerator rules, EPA
believes facilities will conduct a comprehensive performance test in
the same way current trial burns and compliance tests are conducted.
That is they will attempt to get the widest operating envelope possible
by intentionally running the facility under conditions which will
maximize emissions (by practices such as maximizing feed-rates, running
control devices less effectively, etc.) and yet not exceed any
applicable emission standards. Facilities will use the operating data
from the comprehensive test to establish and continuously monitor
operating limits for feedrate and device parameters. This defines the
facility's operating envelope. During normal operation, owner/operators
will operate in such a way that the facility is performing better than
the operating limits established during the comprehensive performance
test. Since exceedances of operating limits established during the
comprehensive performance test are a de facto violation of the
corresponding standard, this means that the emissions during normal
operation will at all times be lower than those during the
comprehensive test.
When complying with today's proposed standards using a CEMS, it is
important that facilities using a CEMS not be at a disadvantage
relative to facilities using operating parameter limits. There are two
ways a disadvantage could occur: when the emission standard is
numerically less and/or the averaging period is shorter. In the case of
manual stack tests, the averaging period is the stack sampling time.
Therefore, the CEMS emission limit would be equal in stringency to the
manual stack test limit if they both had the same numerical value and
the CEMS averaging period were equal to the sampling period for the
manual method.
Also, EPA believes facilities have a number of advantages using
CEMS. First, the assumptions to assure compliance are fewer and less
conservative (direct measure of the standard is the top of the
monitoring hierarchy; see section II.A. of Part Five.) CEMS are less
intrusive on the facility than operating parameter limits. Most
importantly, CEMS mean facilities need to monitor only one emissions
parameter to assure compliance rather than multiple operating limits,
often relevant to more than one standard.44
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ For example, an exceedance of an operating parameter limit
used to ensure compliance with the dioxin, mercury, SVM, LVM, and
HCl and Cl2 standards would be a violation of all those
standards. If a CEM were used for one or more of these standards, a
violation would only occur if the CEM limit were exceeded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, regardless of whether CEMS or operating limits are
used, both continually assure that the facility is meeting the
standard(s) at all times. CEMS are an alternate, more direct, method of
confirming a state of performance than are continuously monitored
operating parameter limits established through a comprehensive test. A
facility which complies with the standards in today's proposed rule
would experience its highest emissions during a comprehensive
performance test, when the facility establishes its operating envelope
to ensure it is in compliance with the standards at all times.
Therefore, a CEMS limit is equally stringent to a standard for a
comprehensive performance test if it is numerically equal and has the
same averaging period. For comprehensive performance tests, the
averaging period is the sampling time for the manual method. Therefore,
it is proposed that the CEMS standards be the same numerical limits
established for manual method comprehensive performance tests with the
averaging period equal to
[[Page 17380]]
the sampling period for three manual method test runs.
b. Averaging Periods for CO and HC CEMS. As stated previously, the
data used to derive today's proposed CO and HC standards proposed are
not manual methods data, but continuous emissions data based on a one-
hour rolling average. To be consistent with the data used to derive the
standards, it is proposed that the averaging periods for CO and HC CEMS
standards remain one-hour.
c. Averaging Periods for Other CEMS. Based on the discussion of
subsection I above, EPA proposes the following CEMS averaging periods
for CEMS. The numerical standard is the same as those proposed in
sections III through V of this part.
Three main assumptions were used in determining how long a facility
would have to sample to achieve the minimum levels specified in the
manual methods. They are assumptions for: sample flow rate; flue gas
oxygen content; and the detection limit or specified sample collection
specified in the method. For sample flow rate, EPA assumed a flow rate
of 0.5 scfm because this is either what is directly stated as the flow
rate in the methods or it is used by convention.
The Agency also assumed that the oxygen concentration in the flue
gas was 7 percent, the basis of today's standards. Oxygen
concentrations in the flue gas can change greatly, but EPA believes
that the derived sampling time is elastic relative to the assumed
oxygen concentration. In other words, the sampling times would change
roughly five to ten per cent over the range of oxygen concentrations
experienced by HWCs. This is not significant relative to other
assumptions made here, so a 7 percent oxygen concentration was assumed.
Finally, each method specifies a minimum analytical detection limit
or sample collection. We assumed that a test operator would collect
three times what is prescribed in the method to account for facility
variability, unknowns at a given site, etc. This is a conventional
approach used by testing contractors. This will be referred to below as
the ``collected sample.''
There are other issues which need to be addressed as well. One CEMS
can be used to comply with more than one standard and standards can
vary from subcategory to subcategory. Therefore, EPA proposes that the
sampling time used to derive the averaging period be the longest
sampling time which relates to the CEM averaging period. For an
example, see the discussion on the Hg and multi-metals CEM standards,
below.
Manual methods tests do not run on-the-hour, so an averaging
periods with some fraction of an hour would result if rounding were not
used. EPA believes it is reasonable and simpler to have integer value
hourly averages. Since the direct measure of a standard at the stack is
at the top of the monitoring hierarchy, a less conservative approach is
warranted in this case, so EPA proposes that averaging periods for CEMS
be rounded up to the nearest hour. (See section II.A. of Part Five for
more information on the monitoring hierarchy.)
Also, a resulting averaging period may be inappropriately short,
i.e., less than one hour. In this case EPA would establish an averaging
period of one-hour. This is reasonable since the averages for operating
parameters to control average emissions are one-hour. (See section
II.B.1. of Part Five for a discussion of averages for operating
parameters.) Monitoring of a standard continuously at the stack is at
the top of the monitoring hierarchy, while establishing operating
parameter limits is at the bottom. It would be inconsistent if an
averaging period for CEMS were less than those for operating parameter
limits, so a one-hour average will be proposed in this case.
For mercury (Hg) and multi-metal CEMS, it is proposed that the
averaging period be ten hours. SW-846 method 0060 would be the manual
method used to comply with these standards if a CEM were not used.
Emission standards for these HAP categories vary greatly from HAP-to-
HAP and within a HAP, from subcategory-to-subcategory. But the proposed
SVM standard for LWAKs results in the longest sample collection time.
EPA believes that an LWAK will have to sample for approximately 200
minutes per run to collect 15 g of sample to be in compliance
with the LWAK SVM standard. Three runs of 200 minute duration is 600
minutes, or ten hours.
For the HCl and Cl2 standard, it is proposed that the CEMS
averaging period be one hour. In this case, EPA has determined that a
facility would have to sample less than ten minutes per run to collect
the minimum amount, 300 g, of sample specified by the method.
If three times this sampling time were used to establish the averaging
time, it would result in one of roughly 30 minutes. This is
unreasonable for a CEMS averaging period, so EPA is proposing that the
averaging period be one hour.
Finally, it is proposed that the PM CEMS averaging period be two
hours. This is because a facility would have to sample for roughly 30
minutes per run to collect the minimum amount, 30 mg, of particulate
specified by the method. Three times this sampling time is 1.5 hours,
so after rounding an averaging period of two hours is proposed.
Table IV.2.1 summarizes the CEMS averaging period for the various
CEMS emission standards.
Table IV.2.1.--Averaging Periods for CEMS Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAP or standard CEMS averaging period
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM......................................... 2 hours.
Mercury (Hg)............................... 10 hours.
SVM........................................ 10 hours.
LVM........................................ 10 hours.
HCl and Cl2................................ 1 hour.
CO......................................... 1 hour.
HC......................................... 1 hour.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. All Averages are Rolling Averages. All CEMS averaging periods
are on a rolling-basis. In other words, each time a sample is recorded,
a new rolling average is calculated using the new sample and all
previous samples obtained during the specified averaging period. If
sample results are recorded every minute and the averaging period is
one hour, then the most recent sample is averaged together with the
results of the previous 59 samples to obtain the hourly rolling
average. When there are not enough data to obtain a rolling average,
one of two approaches would be used. We propose that for short-term
interruptions of the rolling average that the rolling average ``pick-
up'' where it left off, i.e., consider the one-minute average
immediately prior to the interruption to be the one minute average that
occurred prior to the current one-minute average. For longer term
interruptions, all available one minute averages would be averaged
together until the time period since the start of the rolling average
equals the averaging period for that parameter. Then there is enough
data to perform the rolling average as usual, and the rolling average
would continue as normal. For more information on the use of CEMS and
the rolling average, see Part Five, Section II.C. ``Compliance
Monitoring Requirements'' and the proposed regulations, Appendix J to
Part 60.
3. Feedstream and Operating Limits
Today, EPA is proposing specific monitoring requirements to ensure
facilities are in compliance with the standards during normal
operation. Some of these monitoring requirements require setting limits
on feedstream or operating parameters. These limits will
[[Page 17381]]
be set on an average. Other limits would be instantaneous limits, such
as those for fugitive process emissions.
It is proposed that four averaging periods be used for feedstream
and operating limits: twelve hour, one hour, ten minutes, and
instantaneous. All averages would be calculated on a rolling-average
basis with measurements taken every 15 seconds to obtain a one minute
average. The one minute averages are used to obtain the twelve hour,
one hour or ten minute rolling average. The use of one-minute averages,
i.e., the average of the previous 15 second averages within that
minute, is the current practice for HWCs. ``Instantaneous'' limits are
just that, values not to be exceeded at any time. Averaging does not
occur for ``instantaneous'' values. These definitions supersede
requirements in the Part 63 general provisions, which are less
stringent. Consult chapter 5, volume IV of the Technical Background
Document for more information regarding EPA's choice of the time
duration for averaging periods.
For discussion on what operating limits EPA is proposing and what
the averaging period will be for particular operating limits, see
section II of Part Five of this preamble.
III. Incinerators: Basis and Level for the Proposed NESHAP Standards
for New and Existing Sources
Today's proposal would establish maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) emission standards for dioxins/furans, mercury,
semivolatile metals (cadmium and lead), low volatile metals (arsenic,
beryllium, chromium and antimony), hydrochloric acid and chlorine
(combined), particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons from
existing and new hazardous waste incinerators (HWIs). See proposed
Sec. 63.1203. The following discussion addresses how MACT floor and
beyond-the-floor (BTF) levels were established for each HAP, and EPA's
rationale for the proposed standards. The Agency's overall procedural
approach for MACT determinations has been discussed in Part Three,
Sections V and VI for existing sources and in Section VII for new
sources.
To conduct the MACT floor analyses presented today, the Agency
compiled available data from hazardous waste-burning incinerators: both
commercial as well as on-site facilities. As discussed earlier, the
vast majority of these data were generated during trial burns to
demonstrate compliance with existing RCRA standards at 40 CFR Part 264,
Subpart O. Therefore, the data were obtained under proper QA/QC
procedures. These emissions data, however, represent worse-case
emissions that cannot be exceeded (because limits on operating
parameters are based on operations during the trial burn). As noted
earlier, the Agency invites commenters to submit data that reflect more
normal, day-to-day operations and emissions. This will enable the
Agency, among other things, to be better able to distinguish among
facilities that are now included in the expanded MACT floor pool but
which, upon closer inspection and with better data, may not be actually
employing the identified floor controls.
A. Summary of MACT Standards for Existing Incinerators
This section summarizes EPA's proposed emission levels for existing
incinerators for each HAP, HAP group, or HAP surrogate. The proposed
emission standards for HWIs are presented in the table below:
Table IV.3.A.1.--Proposed MACT Standards for Existing Incinerators
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAP or HAP surrogate Proposed standards \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dioxin/furans........................ 0.20 ng/dscm TEQ.
Particulate Matter................... 0.030 gr/dscf.
(69 mg/dscm).
Mercury.............................. 50 g/dscm.
SVM [Cd, Pb]......................... 270 g/dscm.
LVM [As, Be, Cr, Sb]................. 210 g/dscm.
HCl + Cl2............................ 280 ppmv.
CO................................... 100 ppmv.
HC................................... 12 ppmv.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All emission levels are corrected to 7 percent O2.
1. Dioxins and Furans (D/Fs)
a. MACT Floor. The Agency's analysis of dioxin/furan (D/F)
emissions from HWCs and other combustion devices (e.g., municipal waste
combustors and medical waste incinerators) indicates that temperature
of combustion gas at the inlet to the particulate matter (PM) control
device can have a major effect on D/F emissions.45 D/F emissions
generally decrease as the gas temperature of the PM control device
decreases, and emissions are lowest when the gas temperature of the PM
control device is below the optimum temperature window for D/F
formation--450 to 650 deg.F.46 Given that incinerators are
equipped with both wet and dry PM control devices that operate under a
range of temperatures, the Agency is identifying a MACT floor for D/F
based on temperature control at the inlet to the PM control device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ USEPA, ``Draft Technical Support Document For HWC MACT
Standards, Volume III: Selection of Proposed MACT Standards and
Technologies'', February 1996.
\46\ For example, during compliance testing of a cement kiln, D/
F emissions exceeded 1.7 ng/dscm (TEQ) at a ESP temperature of
435 deg. F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incinerators emitting D/F at or below levels emitted by the median
of the best performing 12 percent of incinerators have combustion gas
temperatures below 400 deg. F. These best performing sources were
equipped with venturi scrubbers to control PM. The gas temperature of
the wet air pollution control system for one source was 163 deg. F; gas
temperature data for the other best performing sources were not
available. Although gas temperatures at a wet PM control device would
normally be less than 200 deg. F, temperatures could be higher in the
presence of acid gases such as HCl and SO2. Consequently, the
Agency believes that it would be reasonable and appropriate to
generalize that gas temperatures of wet PM control devices are less
than 400 deg. F.
The Agency evaluated D/F emissions from all incinerators that are
equipped with wet PM control systems. Average D/F emissions for test
conditions ranged from 0.01 ng/dscm (TEQ) to 39 ng/dscm (TEQ). D/F
emissions were as high as 3.5 ng/dscm (TEQ) for incinerators that were
not burning substantial levels of known D/F precursors or were not
equipped with a waste heat boiler (WHB). (It is hypothesized that WHB-
equipped incinerators may have high (uncontrolled) D/F emissions
because D/F may be formed on particulate attached to boiler tubes as
combustion gases pass through the optimum temperature window (450-
650 deg. F) for D/F formation.) WHB-equipped incinerators using wet PM
control devices had D/F emissions ranging from 0.4 to 8 ng/dscm (TEQ),
and an incinerator equipped with a wet PM control device burning waste
comprised of approximately 30 percent PCBs had D/F emissions of 39 ng/
dscm (TEQ).
The Agency is consequently identifying temperature control to below
400 deg. F at the PM control device as the MACT floor. Given that
approximately 45 percent of test conditions in our database have
average D/F emissions below 0.20 ng/dscm (TEQ), we believe that it is
appropriate to express the floor as ``0.20 ng/dscm (TEQ), or
temperature at the PM control device not to exceed 400 deg. F''. This
would allow sources that operate at temperatures above 400 deg. F but
that achieve the same D/F emissions as 45 percent of sources that
operate below 400 deg. F to meet the standard without incurring the
expense of
[[Page 17382]]
lowering the PM control device gas temperature.
EPA estimates that 75 percent of incinerators are currently meeting
the floor level. The annualized cost for the remaining incinerators to
reduce D/F emissions to 0.20 ng/dscm (TEQ) or control gas temperature
at the PM control device to below 400 deg. F would be $3.0 million.
Achievement of the floor levels would reduce D/F TEQ emissions
nationally by 35 g/yr.
b. Beyond-the-Floor (BTF) Considerations. The Agency has identified
activated carbon injection (CI) operated at gas temperatures less than
400 deg. F as BTF control for D/F for incinerators.47 CI is
currently used by a commercial hazardous waste incinerators to achieve
emission levels routinely (based on quarterly stack testing) of less
than 0.20 ng/dscm (TEQ). CI is also used to reduce D/F emissions from
several municipal and medical waste incinerators (MWIs) in a similar
manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ We note that incinerators using wet PM control systems
would need to reheat the combustion gas before injecting the carbon.
This is because CI is not efficient at D/F (or Hg) removal at gas
temperatures below the dew point. Gas reheating in these situations
was considered in estimating the cost of compliance with the
proposed standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CI has been demonstrated to be routinely effective at removing
greater than 95 percent of D/F and some tests have demonstrated a
removal efficiency exceeding 99 percent at gas temperatures of 400 deg.
F or below.48 To determine a BTF emission level, the Agency
considered the emission levels that could result from gas temperature
control to less than 400 deg. F combined with CI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ USEPA, ``Draft Technical Support Document For HWC MACT
Standards, Volume III: Selection of Proposed MACT Standards and
Technologies'', February 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To estimate D/F emissions with temperature control combined with
CI, the Agency considered the range of emissions from sources in the
MACT floor database, as discussed above. Incinerators that are not
equipped with a WHB and not burning high levels of D/F precursors (the
vast majority of incinerators) could be expected to achieve D/F
emissions of less than 3.5 ng/dscm (TEQ) with temperature control only.
These sources could be expected to achieve D/F emissions of below 0.18
ng/dscm (TEQ) when using CI assuming a fairly conservative removal
efficiency of 95 percent.
There are three sources in our database equipped with WHBs. One
currently uses CI to achieve D/F emissions below 0.20 ng/dscm (TEQ)
when controlling PM with an ESP operating below 400 deg. F. Another
source had D/F emissions of 0.56 ng/dscm (TEQ) when controlling PM with
a wet system. This source could be expected to achieve D/F emissions
below 0.03 ng/dscm (TEQ) using CI at a removal efficiency of 95
percent. The third WHB-equipped incinerator in our database had D/F
emissions of 8.0 ng/dscm (TEQ) when controlling PM with a wet system.
This source could be expected to achieve D/F emissions below 0.40 ng/
dscm using CI at a removal efficiency of 95 percent. We note, however,
that the feed to this source during testing comprised approximately 10
percent hexachlorophenol, a D/F precursor.
Finally, one incinerator in the database that controlled PM with a
wet system had D/F emissions of 39 ng/dscm (TEQ). This source could be
expected to achieve D/F emissions below 2 ng/dscm (TEQ) when using CI
at 95 percent efficiency. We note, however, that the feed to this
source during testing comprised approximately 30 percent PCBs, known D/
F precursors.
The Agency has considered this information and determined that it
would be reasonable and appropriate to establish 0.20 ng/dscm (TEQ) as
an emission level that is achievable with BTF control. Although two
sources in our database that fed (during testing) high levels of D/F
precursors may not have been able to achieve that level if they had
been equipped with CI, we believe that those sources could achieve a
level of 0.20 ng by reducing the feedrate of D/F precursors.
We note that, because we have assumed a fairly conservative CI
removal efficiency of 95 percent to identify the 0.20 ng/dscm BTF
level, we believe that this adequately accounts for emissions
variability that would be experienced at a given source attempting to
operate under constant conditions (e.g., as during a performance test).
That is, because CI removal efficiency is likely to be up to or greater
than 99 percent, we believe that it is not necessary to add a
statistically-derived variability factor to the 0.20 ng/dscm BTF level
to account for emissions variability. Accordingly, the 0.20 ng/dscm
(TEQ) BTF level is proposed as the emission standard.
We invite comment on this issue, and note that if a statistically-
derived variability factor were deemed appropriate, the BTF level of
0.20 ng/dscm would be expressed as a standard of 0.31 ng/dscm (TEQ). We
note, however, that under this approach, it may be appropriate to use a
less conservative CI removal efficiency (i.e., because emissions
variability would be accounted for using statistics rather than in the
engineering decision to use a conservative CI removal efficiency), thus
lowering the 0.20 ng/dscm level to approximately 0.1 ng/dscm (TEQ). If
so, the BTF standard would be approximately 0.21 ng/dscm (TEQ) (i.e.,
virtually identical to the proposed standard) after considering a
statistically-derived variability factor.
EPA estimates that 50 percent of incinerators are currently meeting
a BTF level of 0.20 ng/dscm (TEQ). The incremental annualized cost for
the remaining incinerators to meet this BTF level rather than comply
with the floor controls would be $26.2 million, and would provide an
incremental national reduction of 38 g/yr in D/F TEQ emissions over the
floor level. This represents an overall reduction of about 95 percent
compared to baseline D/F emissions of 77 g/year.
EPA has determined that proposing a BTF MACT standard is warranted
and a number of factors support the proposed BTF level of 0.20 ng/dscm
(TEQ). D/F are some of the most toxic compounds known due to their
bioaccumulation potential and wide range of health effects at
exceedingly low doses, including carcinogenesis. Exposure via indirect
pathways was in fact a chief reason Congress singled out D/F for
priority MACT control in section 112(c)(6). See S. Rep. No. 228, 101st
Cong. 1st Sess. at 154-155 (1990). As discussed elsewhere in today's
preamble (and as qualified by the discussion below regarding small
incinerators), EPA's risk analysis developed for purposes of RCRA in
fact shows that D/F emissions from hazardous waste incinerators could
pose significant risks by indirect exposure pathways and that these
risks would be reduced by BTF controls. EPA is expressly authorized to
consider this non-air environmental benefit in determining whether to
adopt a BTF level. CAA section 112(d)(2).
As discussed in Part Seven of the preamble, the cost-effectiveness
of the BTF level for small on-site incinerators may be high. This is
because on-site incinerators are generally smaller than commercial
incinerators, have lower gas flow rates, and therefore have lower mass
emission rates of D/F. Thus, the cost per gram of D/F TEQ removed for
small incinerators is greater than for large (on-site and commercial)
incinerators. Accordingly, the Agency invites data and comment on: (1)
whether the BTF level is cost-effective for small incinerators; and (2)
whether the final rule should establish MACT standards at the floor
level (i.e., 0.20 ng/dscm (TEQ), or 400 deg. F) for these small
[[Page 17383]]
incinerators.49 50 Under this approach, the Agency would use the
same definition of small incinerator used to identify incinerators
subject to less frequent performance testing--incinerators with gas
flow rates less than 23,127 acfm.51
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See also discussion in Part Four, Section I (Selection of
Source Categories and Pollutants), regarding whether the Agency
should subdivide incinerators by size and promulgate separate floor
standards (and BTF standards, if warranted).
\50\ If after review of comments and further analysis the Agency
determines that subdividing incinerators is not appropriate but,
because of cost-effectiveness considerations, BTF levels are not
warranted for all types of incinerators, the Agency invites comment
on whether such cost-effectiveness and BTF decisions should be based
on incinerator size or whether the incinerator is a commercial or
on-site unit.
\51\ We also use this definition to request (elsewhere in the
text) comment on whether the requirement to use Hg and PM CEMS for
compliance monitoring should be relaxed or waived for small
incinerators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA notes further that the control technology on which the proposed
BTF standard is based, carbon injection, also controls mercury. The
ability and efficiencies of controlling two such high toxicity HAPs
with the same highly-efficient control technology is an important
factor in the Agency's decision to propose a BTF standard. The Agency
notes further that the absolute cost of achieving the proposed standard
is relatively low, particularly considering the toxicity of D/F (as
well as mercury, which, as just noted, would also be controlled). For
example, the proposed BTF levels would result in annualized costs of
$27 million to all HWIs or $15 per ton of hazardous waste burned.
Finally, EPA's initial view is that it may be necessary to adopt
further controls under RCRA to control D/F if it did not adopt the BTF
level. This would defeat one of the purposes of this proposal--to avoid
imposing emission standards under both statutes for these sources
wherever possible. These risks would, however, be reduced to acceptable
levels if emission levels are reduced to the proposed BTF level of 0.20
ng/dscm (TEQ).
2. Particulate Matter
a. MACT Floor. The Agency has a database for PM emissions from 74
HWIs that indicates a range (by test condition average) from 0.0003 gr/
dscf to 1.9 gr/dscf. For MACT determination, the median of the best
performing 12 percent of the HWIs in the MACT pool were analyzed and
found to be using the following APCDs to control PM: (1) A fabric
filter (with an air to cloth ratio of less than 10.0 acfm/ft2);
and (2) an ionizing wet scrubber (IWS) in combination with a venturi-
scrubber. Accordingly, these APCDs were tentatively designated as the
MACT floor technologies. To identify an emission level that these
technologies could be expected to achieve routinely, the Agency
examined the emissions from all incinerators (in the database) that
were equipped with these PM control devices. A MACT floor level of 240
mg/dscm (0.107 grains/dscf) resulted from the analysis based on
considerations discussed in Part Three, Section V, above.
This level, however, is higher than the current federal standard of
180 mg/dscm (0.08 grains/dscf).\52\ Thus, the Agency is not proposing
to use the statistically-derived approach to identify the MACT floor
emission level. The Agency has regulated PM emissions from hazardous
waste incinerators under RCRA (40 CFR 264.343(c)) since 1981 and all
RCRA-permitted incinerators have been required to meet the federal
standard of 0.08 gr/dscf (180 mg/dscm). The Agency, therefore, is
identifying the MACT floor at the regulated level of 180 mg/dscm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ This anomalous result is apparently attributable to: (1)
inability to consider emissions from only those HWIs truly using
MACT floor control (because of inadequate data to properly
characterize the design, operation, and maintenance of the control
device); and (2) use of a variability factor that is based on
emissions variability (during trial burn testing) that may be much
higher than many sources actually experience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The APCDs commonly used at HWIs to control PM to the current RCRA
standard are fabric filters, ESPs, IWSs, and venturi-scrubbers.
Accordingly, we have designated these technologies as MACT floor for PM
control. Approximately 95 percent of all test conditions in our
database have lower average levels (average over all runs of the test
condition) than the MACT floor level of 180 mg/dscm.\53\ This MACT
floor level will not impose any incremental burden on HWIs (except
compliance and related permitting costs) since it is the currently
enforceable level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ We presume that those few test conditions that exceeded the
180 mg/dscm standard occurred during failed trial burn tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Beyond-the-Floor Considerations. The Agency considered two
levels of more stringent BTF PM standards, 69 and 34 mg/dscm (0.03 and
0.015 gr/dscf), since well designed and well operated ESPs, IWSs, and
fabric filters can routinely achieve PM control at the 69 mg/dscm
level,\54\ while state-of-the-art ESPs, IWSs and FFs can achieve 34 mg/
dscm level. The Agency is proposing a BTF standard of 69 mg/dscm (0.03
grains/dscf) based on engineering evaluation of the emissions data from
HWIs. (We note that, as discussed in Sections IV and V below, it also
is consistent with the proposed standards for cement kilns and LWAKs).
Most of the HWIs having PM emissions between 69 to 180 mg/dscm (0.03 to
0.08 gr/dscf) range are likely to be using older APCDs that can be
upgraded to provide better PM control. Only 30 percent of all test
conditions \55\ in our database were found to have PM emissions greater
than the proposed BTF level of 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf). Analysis of
the test data appeared to indicate that some sources operated under
poor, non-normal conditions during one test condition resulting in high
PM levels, while much lower PM emissions were achieved during other
test conditions. As noted elsewhere, the Agency is specifically
concerned that the nature of these test data (and the absence of more
detailed, routine operations and emissions data) has interfered with
our ability to derive MACT standards that appropriately reflect the
lower, day-to-day emissions achievements of the best performing
facilities. The Agency will continue to refine its analysis in this
regard, and we specifically invite data and comments on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ We note also that, as discussed in the next section, cement
kilns with much higher inlet particulate loadings are currently
required to meet a 69 mg/dscm standard.
\55\ Representing 20 percent of the sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency estimates that 9 percent of existing incinerators can
achieve the proposed BTF levels using design, operation and maintenance
upgrades of their APCDs, while 11 percent facilities would require
installation of new fabric filters or other equivalent APCD (e.g., ESP
or IWS). The national annualized cost to HWIs to comply with the
proposed BTF level would be $2.7 million and would provide an
incremental reduction of PM emissions of 839 tons/year (52 percent)
from the baseline emissions level of 1606 tons/year. Accordingly, the
Agency believes that a BTF level of 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) is
appropriate.
The performance of many APCDs can be improved to achieve a more
stringent PM BTF level of 34 mg/dscm by adopting good D/O/M practices;
in other cases, the APCD may have to be upgraded or replaced. Upgrades
include techniques for ESPs such as humidification or increasing the
plate area or power input, and for FFs, increasing cloth to air ratio
and pressure drop across bags, or retrofits to modern fabrics like
heavy woven fiberglass. The Agency is concerned, however, that the cost
of such retrofitting to achieve PM levels of 34 mg/dscm (0.015 gr/dscf)
[[Page 17384]]
could be substantial. We also note that PM is not a HAP, but rather a
surrogate for non-dioxin/furan HAPs adsorbed on to PM and for metal
HAPs not directly controlled by a MACT standard. These HAPS would be
controlled to some extent by other proposed standards (e.g., metal-
specific standards; CO and HC limits to control organic HAPs). For
these reasons, we believe that controlling PM to the proposed BTF level
of 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) is appropriate. In addition, we also note
that the Agency has no information that a lower PM standard would be
needed to satisfy RCRA requirements.
3. Mercury
a. MACT floor for mercury. Mercury (Hg) emissions from incinerators
are currently controlled by controlling the feedrate of Hg and by using
wet scrubbers (although such scrubbers are used primarily for acid gas
control). Wet scrubbers can remove soluble forms of mercury species
(e.g., HgCl).
The Agency's Hg emissions database from 29 HWIs indicates that
baseline Hg emissions range from 0.05 g/dscm to a high of
1,360 g/dscm. To identify MACT floor control, EPA determined
that sources with Hg emissions at or below the level emitted by the
median of the best performing 12 percent of sources were controlling Hg
using either: (1) Hg feedrate control expressed as a maximum
theoretical emission concentration (MTEC) \56\ of 19 g/dscm;
or (2) wet scrubbers coupled with an MTEC of 51 g/dscm.
Analysis of emissions from all incinerators in the database using these
or better controls (i.e., lower Hg feedrates expressed as lower MTECs)
resulted in a MACT floor level of 130 g/dscm.\57\ To meet this
floor level 99 percent of the time, EPA estimates that a source with
average emissions variability must be designed and operated to
routinely meet an emission level of 57 g/dscm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ MTEC is the Hg feedrate divided by the gas flow rate, and
is an approach to normalize Hg feedrate across sources.
\57\ As discussed above in the text, we added a within-test
condition emissions variability factor to the log-mean of the runs
for the test condition in the expanded MACT pool with the highest
average emission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA estimates that approximately 70 percent of incinerators
currently meet the floor level. The annualized cost for the remaining
incinerators to meet the floor level is estimated to be $29.5 million,
and would reduce Hg emissions nationally by 7,166 lbs per year from the
baseline emissions level of 9,193 lbs per year.
b. Beyond-the-Floor Considerations. The Agency has considered two
alternative beyond-the-floor (BTF) controls for improved Hg control:
flue gas temperature reduction to 400 deg. F or less followed by either
activated carbon injection (CI) or carbon bed (CB). (As discussed in
the D/F section, we note that incinerators with PM control devices
operating below the dew point (e.g., venturi-scrubbers, ionizing wet
scrubbers) would have to reheat the combustion gas before using CI, and
would need to add a FF or other PM control device to remove the
injected carbon.) EPA believes that CI-controlled systems can routinely
achieve Hg emission reductions of 90 percent or better and that CB-
controlled systems can routinely achieve Hg emissions of 99 percent or
better.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ USEPA, ``Draft Technical Support Document For HWC MACT
Standards, Volume III: Selection of Proposed MACT Standards and
Technologies'', February 1996. See also memo from Shiva Garg, EPA,
to the Docket (No. F-96-RCSP-FFFFF), dated February 22, 1996,
entitled ``Performance of Activated Carbon Injection On Dioxin/Furan
and Mercury Emissions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For CI-controlled systems, EPA has identified a BTF emission
standard of 50 g/dscm, assuming first that a source has
controlled its Hg emissions to only 300 g/dscm using a wet
scrubber and/or feed control, and second, a CI removal efficiency of 90
percent. (The BTF emission standard corresponds to a design level of 30
g/dscm, i.e., a level that the device is designed and operated
to achieve routinely.) \59\ For CB systems, the BTF standard would be
5.0 g/dscm (assuming 99 percent removal efficiency).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ To achieve a standard of 50 g/dscm 99 percent of
the time, a source with average emissions variability must be
designed and operated to achieve an emission level of 30 g/
dscm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that another option for identifying BTF levels would be to
consider the CI or CB system as an add on to the floor controls
identified above. Under this option, emission levels prior to CI would
be assumed to be the floor level, 130 g/dscm. Thus, a CI
system at 90 percent removal could be expected to achieve a standard of
approximately 13 g/dscm. A CB system at 99 percent removal
could be expected to achieve a standard of approximately 1.3
g/dscm. We specifically request comment on whether this
approach of applying BTF reductions to the floor levels is appropriate.
We also note that an alternative approach to using a statistically-
derived variability factor to account for emissions variability would
be to assume a conservative control efficiency for the CI or CB BTF
technology. We believe that using a conservative removal efficiency
could adequately account for emissions variability. Under this
approach, we would conservatively assume that CI-controlled systems
could achieve a removal efficiency of 80 percent and that CB-controlled
systems could achieve an efficiency of 90 percent. When these removal
efficiencies are applied to the floor level of 130 g/dscm
(corresponding to a design level of 57 g/dscm), this would
result in emission standards of 11 g/dscm for CI-controlled
systems, and 5.7 g/dscm for CB-controlled systems.60 We
invite comment on this alternative approach to account for emissions
variability among runs within a test condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ The same approach could be applied to the previously
discussed approach of applying the BTF control to an assumed
emission level of 300 g/dscm. When assuming the
conservative removal efficiencies of 80 percent for CI and 90
percent for CB, this would result in BTF standards of 60 g/
dscm for CI-controlled systems and 30 g/dscm for CB-
controlled systems. A statistically-derived variability factor would
not be added because emissions variability is accounted for by
assuming conservative (i.e., lower-than-expected) removal
efficiencies for CI and CB systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons discussed below, EPA believes that a BTF level
based on use of CI is warranted and is proposing a MACT standard of 50
g/dscm. The proposed standard would result in nationwide Hg
emissions reductions of 757 lbs per year above the floor level and
7,922 lbs per year from baseline levels, and the incremental annualized
cost to achieve the BTF level over the floor level would be $7.7
million.
EPA has considered costs in relation to emissions reductions and
the special bioaccumulation potential that Hg poses and determined that
proposing a BTF limit is warranted. Hg is one of the more toxic metals
known due to its bioaccumulation potential and the adverse neurological
health effects at low concentrations especially to the most sensitive
populations at risk (i.e., unborn children, infants and young
children). Congress has singled out mercury in CAA section 112(c)(6)
for prioritized control. A more detailed discussion of human health
benefits for mercury can be found in Part Seven of today's proposal.
The chief means of control, activated carbon injection, also controls
D/F so that there are distinct efficiencies in control.61
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ As discussed for D/F, we invite comment on whether the
final rule should establish floor levels, rather than BTF levels,
for Hg for small incinerators. This is because the Agency is
concerned about the cost-effectiveness of the BTF levels for small
incinerators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency evaluated a more stringent standard of 8 g/dscm
for Hg emissions based on CB technology. This standard would result in
additional national Hg reductions of 960 lbs per year over the proposed
standard of 50
[[Page 17385]]
g/dscm at an incremental annualized national cost of $20
million. The Agency does not believe that a CB-based emission level of
8 g/dscm would be appropriate.
4. Semivolatile Metals (SVM) (Cadmium and Lead)
a. MACT Floor. Emissions of SVMs from HWIs are currently controlled
by PM control devices. In addition, some incinerators have specific
emission limits for these metals established under RCRA omnibus permit
authority. The Agency has a database for SVM emissions from 42 HWIs,
which indicates a range (by test condition average) from a low of 1.46
to a high of 29,800 g/dscm. For the MACT analysis, the median
of the best performing 12 percent of HWIs were found to be using: (1) a
venturi-scrubber (VS) 62 with a MTEC level of 170 g/dscm;
(2) a combination of ESP and WS with a MTEC level of 5,800 g/
dscm; and (3) a combination of VS and IWS with a MTEC of 49,000
g/dscm.63 Accordingly, we identified these technologies
as MACT floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Because virtually all other PM control devices (e.g., ESP,
FF, IWS) would be expected to have a SVM collection efficiency
equivalent to or better than a VS, a source equipped with any PM
control device and having a MTEC less than 170 g/dscm was
considered to be using MACT floor control.
\63\ We considered a FF to have equivalent (or better) SVM
removal efficiency compared to an IWS. Thus, we considered a source
equipped with a FF and any wet scrubber (ahead of the FF) and having
a MTEC less than 49,000 g/dscm to be using MACT floor
control. A FF alone may not provide equivalent control of SVM
because SVM can be volatile in stack emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To identify an emission level that these technologies could
routinely achieve, we evaluated the emission levels from all HWIs
equipped with these controls.64 We identified the test condition
in this expanded MACT pool with the highest average emission and used
procedures discussed above in Part Three, Section V, (i.e., addition of
a within-test condition emissions variability factor to the log mean of
the runs for this test condition) to identify a MACT floor level 270
g/dscm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ Sources with better controls (MACT technology and lower
feedrate expressed as MTEC) were also included in the expanded MACT
pool.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We estimate that approximately 65 percent of all incinerators
currently meet this MACT floor level. Sources not already meeting the
floor level can readily achieve it by making design, operation, or
maintenance improvements to their existing PM control system or by
retrofitting with a new PM control device.
The national annualized cost to HWIs to comply with the proposed
floor level is estimated to be $9.9 million, and would provide a
reduction in Cd and Pb emissions of 50 tons/year, a 94 percent
reduction in emissions.
b. Beyond-the-Floor Considerations. The Agency is not proposing a
more stringent BTF standard for SVM. We note that the floor level alone
would provide for a 94 percent reduction in emissions, and emissions at
the floor are not likely to trigger the need for additional control for
these sources under RCRA.
5. Low Volatile Metals (Arsenic, Beryllium, Chromium and Antimony)
a. MACT floor. The Agency has a database for LVM emissions from 41
HWIs, which indicates a range (by test condition average) from a low of
3.5 to a high of 133,000 g/dscm. For MACT analysis, the median
of the best performing 12 percent of HWIs achieved the LVM emission
levels using: (1) a venturi-scrubber (VS) for MTECs up to 1,000
g/dscm; and (2) an ionizing wet scrubber (IWS) for MTECs up to
6,200 g/dscm. Accordingly, we identified these technologies as
MACT floor.
In addition, we consider any PM control device to provide
equivalent LVM control to a VS. We therefore identified an ESP, IWS, or
FF with a MTEC up to 1,000 g/dscm as MACT floor control.
Similarly, we consider a FF or ESP as equivalent technology to a IWS.
Thus, a FF or ESP coupled with a MTEC up to 6,200 g/dscm is
also considered MACT floor control.
To identify an emission level that these technologies could
routinely achieve, we considered the emissions from all HWIs in our
database equipped with MACT floor control. We identified the test
condition in this expanded MACT pool with the highest average emissions
and added a within-test condition emissions variability factor to the
log-mean of the test condition runs. See Part Three, Section V, above.
Accordingly, we have identified a MACT floor level of 210 g/
dscm.
Approximately 80 percent of all test conditions in our database
achieved the MACT floor level even though many HWIs were equipped with
different APCDs or had higher MTECs. EPA believes that most HWIs would
be able to achieve the proposed MACT floor without installing an add-on
control system. The control technologies necessary to achieve the MACT
floor level are already being used by many HWIs for PM and acid gas
control.
The national annualized cost to HWIs to comply with the floor level
would be $7.7 million and would provide an incremental reduction in LVM
emissions of 25 tons/year (91 percent) from the baseline emissions
level of 27.3 tons/year.
b. Beyond-the-Floor Considerations. The Agency is not proposing a
more stringent LVM standard using BTF controls (i.e., better performing
PM control equipment). We note that the floor level alone would provide
for a 91 percent reduction in emissions, and emissions at the floor are
not likely to trigger the need for additional control for these sources
under RCRA.
6. Hydrochloric Acid and Chlorine
a. MACT floor for HCl/Cl2. The Agency's database for HCl/
Cl2 emissions from 59 HWIs indicates a range (by test condition
average) from a low of 0.1 to a high of 1068 ppmv (expressed as HCl
equivalents). For MACT analysis, the median of the best performing 12
percent of HWIs achieving the lowest HCl/Cl2 emission levels were
found to be using some kind of scrubbing using combinations of
absorber, ionizing wet scrubber, VS, packed bed scrubber (PBS), or
generic wet scrubber. In addition, the best performing sources had a
chlorine feedrate of up to 2.1E7 g/dscm, expressed as a MTEC.
Accordingly, we identified MACT floor control as wet scrubbing coupled
with a chlorine MTEC up to 2.1E7 g/dscm.
To identify an emission level that wet scrubbing with an MTEC up to
2.1E7 g/dscm could routinely achieve, we considered the
emissions from all HWIs in our database equipped with these controls.
We identified the test condition in this expanded MACT pool with the
highest average emissions and added a within-test condition emissions
variability factor to the log-mean of the test condition runs. See Part
Three, Section V, above. Accordingly, we have identified a MACT floor
level of 280 ppmv.
Over 90 percent of all test conditions in our database achieve this
MACT floor level. At current baseline levels, HWIs emit 1712 tons/year
of HCl/Cl2, and at today's proposed MACT standard, these emissions
would be reduced by 592 tons/year, a reduction of 35 percent. The
estimated annualized national cost to the industry to meet the proposed
MACT standard would be $4.5 million.
b. Beyond the-Floor Considerations. The Agency considered whether
to propose a BTF level and determined that it would not be warranted.
We note that emissions at the floor are not likely to trigger the need
for additional control for these sources under RCRA.
7. Carbon Monoxide and Hydrocarbons
As discussed in Section I above, the Agency believes that
establishing emission limits and continuous
[[Page 17386]]
monitoring of two surrogate compounds (hydrocarbons (HC) and carbon
monoxide (CO)) will help control emissions of non-dioxin organic HAPs
(in combination with PM control to control absorbed organic HAPs).
a. MACT Floor for HC. The Agency's database for HC emissions from
31 HWIs indicates a range (by test condition average) from a low of 0.2
to a high of 35.8 ppmv. Unlike certain cement kilns and LWAKs,
incinerators are not required to monitor HC under RCRA regulations.
Facilities generally obtained HC emissions data for their own
information and often used an unheated FID detector, in which soluble
volatiles and semivolatiles are condensed out before entering the
detector. Also much of the data were based on run averages (as opposed
to the maximum hourly rolling average format proposed today).65
Notwithstanding these shortcomings, the Agency used these data to
identify a MACT floor level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ The average of emissions over a run is lower than the
maximum hourly rolling average for the run. In addition, unheated
FIDs report lower HC levels than a heated FID that would be required
under today's proposal. Both of these factors would lead the Agency
to underestimate the cost of compliance. On the other hand, the HC
levels in the database were measured during worst-case, trial burn
conditions. Thus, these emissions are likely to be much higher than
during normal operations. This factor has lead the Agency to
overestimate compliance costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency identified MACT control for HC as operating under good
combustion practices (GCPs). GCPs include techniques such as thorough
air, fuel, and waste mixing, provision of adequate excess oxygen,
maintenance of high temperatures to destroy organics, design of the
facility to provide high enough residence times for destruction of
organics, operation of the facility by qualified and certified
operators, and periodic equipment maintenance to manufacturer-
recommended standards.
To identify the MACT floor level, the Agency conducted a
quantitative evaluation of the data combined with engineering judgment
to identify test conditions that appear to be conducted under good
combustion conditions. Since it is not possible to say with certainty
which test conditions were conducted using GCPs absent a detailed
examination of all test conditions, we conducted the analysis by
arraying the entire HC database from the lowest to the highest emission
levels. We then assumed that test conditions beyond a clear break-point
were not operated under GCPs. Based on the above analysis and a
statistical evaluation of the level that the average source can achieve
99 percent of the time, the Agency identified a MACT floor level of 12
ppmv.
We estimate that the annualized burden on HWIs to meet this floor
level would be $8.5 million. An annual reduction of 49 tons of HC
emissions (20 percent) is expected from the baseline levels of 239
tons/year.
EPA specifically invites comment on the approach used to identify
the MACT floor level and requests HC data on a hourly rolling average
basis, using heated FID monitors.
b. MACT floor for CO. RCRA regulations for HWIs were promulgated in
1981 and limit CO emissions to levels achieved during the trial burn.
(As noted elsewhere, facilities typically design trial burns to
maximize CO in order to provide operational flexibility.) Most of our
database for CO (from 59 facilities) is based on run-averages during
trial burns (rather than an hourly rolling average-basis; see
discussion below). The CO levels in our database that are on a run-
average basis range from 0.3 to 10,400 ppmv.
We are proposing today a maximum hourly rolling average (MHRA)
format for CO (and HC), which is the same format in which a standard of
100 ppmv (Tier 1) was proposed in 1990 for HWIs (see 55 FR 17862 (April
7, 1990)) and promulgated for CKs and LWAKs in 1991 (see 56 FR 7134
FR Doc. 96-7872 Revised Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors
(February 21, 1991)).
Although the Agency did not promulgate a final rule for CO
emissions from HWIs (because of Agency resource constraints), the
Agency published a guidance document 66 wherein a Tier 1 CO limit
of 100 ppmv HRA was recommended for control of PIC emissions if
warranted on a site-specific basis. Accordingly, subsequent trial burns
for HWIs have been conducted using a HRA format for CO. Our CO database
in the HRA format is comprised of 17 test conditions and has a range of
10 to 1,500 ppmv.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ USEPA, ``Guidance on PIC Controls For Hazardous Waste
Incinerators'', April 1990, EPA/530-SW-90-040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For MACT determination, the Agency conducted an analysis similar to
that described above for HC and a CO MACT floor level of 120 ppmv
resulted (e.g., MACT floor control is GCPs, and a break-point analysis
was used to identify sources likely to be truly using GCPs).
Nonetheless, since the Agency has previously proposed a CO limit of 100
ppmv and since this level is readily achievable by well-designed and
well-operated HWIs, the Agency is proposing 100 ppmv HRA as the MACT
floor.
We note that this floor level compares favorably with CO standards
for other types of incinerators such as medical waste incinerators for
which the proposed standard is 50 ppmv (60 FR 10654, February 27,
1995), and mass burn and fluidized bed municipal waste incinerators for
which the promulgated CO standard is 100 ppmv (60 FR 65382, December
19,1995).
The Agency estimates that at a 100 ppmv standard, national CO
emission reductions of 13,200 tons/year could be achieved from the
baseline level of 14,080 tons/year at an annualized national cost of
$17.4 million.
c. Beyond-the-Floor Considerations. The Agency considered more
stringent BTF limits for CO and HC. Although state-of-the-art HWIs
operating under GCPs should be able to routinely achieve levels below
100 ppmv HRA for CO and 12 ppmv HRA for HC, the Agency is concerned
that the incremental compliance cost may not warrant more stringent
standards.
EPA invites comments specifically on: (1) the use of CO and HC as
surrogates for non-dioxin organic emissions; and (2) data and
information and suggestions on an approach to identify a lower floor
level for HC that more accurately reflects the levels that are being
routinely achieved by HWIs operating under GCPs.
8. MACT Floor and BTF Cost Impacts
The annualized national cost to achieve the proposed standards is
estimated at $486,000 for each on-site incinerator unit and $731,000
for each commercial unit. The total (pre-tax) national annualized cost
is estimated to be $90 million for on-site and $25 million for
commercial incinerators. These costs include a CEMS cost of $130,000
per source annually. The most expensive HAPs would be dioxins and
mercury, for which BTF levels have been proposed, and would cost $3.0
million and $30 million respectively nationally at MACT floor levels,
and $29.2 million and $37.2 million respectively at BTF levels. These
costs include maintenance and operation of the equipment and CEMS. CEMS
account for 18 percent of the total compliance cost. Details of these
cost estimates have been provided in ``Second Addendum to the
Regulatory Impact Assessment for Proposed Hazardous Waste Combustion
Standards'' and are based on no market exit by any HWI and assuming
that the facilities have only a limited ability to pass through the
costs of the rule to generators.
The Agency, however, estimates that perhaps 4 of the 34 commercial
facility units and up to 51 of the 184 on-site facility units would
elect to cease
[[Page 17387]]
burning hazardous wastes as a result of today's proposals. Most of
these facilities burn small quantities of hazardous wastes. These
facilities would likely find it more economical to transport the
hazardous wastes to other facilities, while perhaps continuing to burn
other non-hazardous and industrial wastes, in lieu of incurring
expenditures to upgrade their units to continue to burn that small
quantity of HW under MACT standards. As such, the total quantity of
wastes burned would not be affected since those wastes would be burned
by other HWCs, for which there appears to be sufficient capacity
available.
B. Summary of MACT Standards For New Incinerators
1. Basis for MACT New
According to Section 112 of CAA, the degree of reduction in
emissions deemed achievable for new facilities may not be less
stringent than the emissions control achieved in practice by the best
controlled similar unit. This section summarizes EPA's rationale for
establishing MACT standards for new HWIs. The methodology for
determining the standards for new incinerators is similar to that for
existing sources, except that MACT floor control is based on the single
best performing technology, and the MACT pool is expanded to consider
emissions from any source using that technology. For more details see
``Draft Technical Support Document for HWC MACT Standards, Volume III:
Selection of Proposed MACT Standards and Technologies''.
The Agency is proposing the following standards for new HWIs:
Table IV.3.B.1--Proposed MACT Standards for New Incinerators
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAP or HAP surrogate Proposed standard a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dioxins/furans......................... 0.2 ng/dscm TEQ.
Particulate matter..................... 69 mg/dscm (0.030 gr/dscf).
Mercury................................ 50 g/dscm.
SVM [Cd, Pb]........................... 62 g/dscm.
LVM [As, Be, Cr, Sb]................... 60 g/dscm.
HCl + Cl2.............................. 67 ppmv.
CO..................................... 100 ppmv.
HC..................................... 12 ppmv.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a All emission levels are corrected to 7 percent O2.
2. MACT New for Dioxin/Furans
a. MACT New Floor. EPA examined its emissions database and
identified the single best performing existing source, and found that
the test condition with the lowest PCDD/F TEQ emissions had a test-
condition average of 0.005 ng/dscm. This facility employs a water
quench and wet scrubbing air pollution control systems (APCSs). The D/F
emission control by this source is being achieved by inhibiting the
formation of D/F in the APCD by rapid quench of the hot gases from the
combustion chamber. Therefore, the Agency selected wet scrubbing and
low APCD inlet temperature (400 deg. F) as the MACT floor control.
To determine an emission level that this the floor control could be
expected to achieve, the Agency considered data from all HWIs using the
MACT floor control. Using the same methodology as used for identifying
the floor level for existing sources, the Agency identified a MACT
floor level of 0.20 ng/dscm TEQ or an APCD inlet temperature of
400 deg. F.
b. Beyond-the-Floor (BTF) Considerations. As discussed above for
existing sources, the Agency selected activated carbon injection (ACI)
as the BTF technology. ACI is routinely effective in removing greater
than 95 percent of D/F from flue gases. The Agency had identified a BTF
level of 0.2 ng/dscm TEQ for the same reasons discussed above for the
BTF standard for existing sources.
The Agency also consider a carbon bed as a BTF technology to
achieve lower emission levels. As discussed for existing sources,
however, the Agency is concerned that the cost of carbon beds may not
be warranted given the incremental emissions reduction over a ACI-based
BTF standard.
3. PM Standard for New HWIs
The single best performing source in our database for PM emissions
was a source equipped with a FF having an air to cloth ratio of 3.8
acfm/ft \2\. Thus, this technology represents MACT new floor control.
When we considered emissions data from all sources equipped with this
level of control (or better), we identified a floor level of 0.039 gr/
dscf.
The Agency considered more efficient PM control (e.g., lower air-
to-cloth ratio, better bags) as BTF control that could achieve
alternative BTF levels of 0.03 or 0.015 gr/dscf. These are the same
controls investigated for BTF considerations for existing sources.
The Agency is proposing the same BTF standard for new sources as it
is proposing for existing sources--(69 mg/dscm or 0.03 gr/dscf). This
standard is readily achievable. The Agency is not proposing a 0.015 gr/
dscf standard because, as discussed for existing sources, it is not
clear that the additional cost is warranted considering the incremental
reduction in PM.
4. Mercury Standard for New HWIs
a. MACT New Floor. The single best performing source in our
database for Hg emissions was a source equipped with a wet scrubber
(WS) and having a MTEC of 51 g/dscm. The Agency considered any
wet scrubbing device an equivalent control technology (when coupled
with a MTEC up to 51 g/dscm) because of the ability to scrub
soluble forms of mercury species. Thus, the Agency identified MACT new
floor control as any wet scrubber coupled with a MTEC up to 51
g/dscm. When we considered emissions data from all sources
equipped with this level of control, we identified a floor level of 115
g/dscm.
b. Beyond-the-Floor Considerations. As for existing sources, the
Agency considered the use of both activated carbon injection (ACI) and
carbon bed (CB) as alternative BTF technologies. We are proposing a BTF
standard of 50 g/dscm for new sources based on use of ACI for
the same reasons we are proposing this standard for existing sources.
5. Semivolatile Metals Standard for New HWIs
a. MACT New Floor. The single best performing source in our
database for SVM emissions was a source equipped with a VS in
combination with a IWS, and having a MTEC of 49,000 g/dscm.
The Agency considered a wet scrubber in combination with a FF (coupled
with a MTEC up to 49,000 g/dscm) to provide equivalent or
better control of SVM. Thus, these technologies represent MACT new
floor control. When we considered emissions data from all sources
equipped with this level of control, we identified a floor level of 240
g/dscm.
b. Beyond-the-Floor Considerations. The Agency believes that state-
of-the-art FFs can achieve much lower emissions of SVM. For example,
the Agency has determined that MWCs equipped with a FF can achieve more
than a 99 percent reduction in SVM. See 59 FR 48198 (September 20,
1994). Given that we have identified a MACT new floor (design) level
for cement kilns of 35 g/dscm (see discussion in Section IV
below), we believe that a design level of 35 g/dscm for HWIs
is achievable, reasonable, and appropriate. To ensure that a source
that is designed to meet a SVM level of 35 g/dscm can meet the
standard 99 percent of the time (assuming the source has average
within-test condition emissions variability for sources equipped with
[[Page 17388]]
ESPs and FFs), the Agency has established a standard of 62 g/
dscm.
We note that SVM emissions at this level are not likely to result
in additional regulation of these sources to satisfy RCRA health risk
concerns.
6. Low Volatile Metals Standard for New HWIs
a. MACT New Floor. The single best performing source in our
database for LVM emissions was a source equipped with a VS with an MTEC
of 1,000 g/dscm. Given the LVM collection efficiency of a VS,
the Agency considered any PM control device (e.g., ESP, IWS, FF) to
provide equivalent or better collection efficiency. Thus, these
technologies represent MACT new floor control. When we considered
emissions data from all sources equipped with this level of control, we
identified a floor level of 260 g/dscm. (We note that this
floor level for new sources is higher than the floor level proposed for
existing sources. Although the statistically-derived emissions
variability factor was added to the same test condition for both MACT
existing floor and MACT new floor, the variability factor was greater
for test conditions in the MACT new expanded pool.)
b. Beyond-the-Floor Considerations. The Agency believes that state-
of-the-art PM control devices (e.g., ESPs, IWS, FFs) can achieve LVM
emission levels well below the floor level. Given that we have
identified a floor (design) level 67 for new CKs and new LWAKs of
35 g/dscm and 26 g/dscm, respectively (see discussion
in Sections IV and V below), we believe that a BTF design level of 35
g/dscm is achievable, reasonable, and appropriate for new
HWIs. To ensure that a source that is designed to meet a LVM level of
35 g/dscm can meet the standard 99 percent of the time
(assuming the source has average within-test condition emissions
variability for sources equipped with ESPs and FFs), the Agency has
established a standard of 60 g/dscm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ That is, the log mean of runs for the test condition in the
expanded MACT pool with the highest average emission. A within-test
condition emissions variability factor (based on test conditions in
the expanded MACT pool) is added to the log-mean for this test
condition to derive the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that LVM emissions at this level are not likely to result
in additional regulation of these sources to satisfy RCRA health risk
concerns.
As discussed elsewhere in today's proposal, we are encouraging but
not requiring sources to document compliance with the metals standard
using a multi-metal continuous monitoring system (CEMS). Given that
available information indicates that a multi-metal CEMS could not
effectively detect LVM emissions below 80 g/dscm, we are
proposing an alternative standard of 80 g/dscm for sources
that elect to document compliance with a CEMS.
7. HCl and Cl2 Standards for New HWIs
a. MACT New Floor. The single best performing source in our
database for HCl and Cl2 emissions was a source equipped with a
wet scrubber with a MTEC of 1.7E7 g/dscm. The Agency
considered any wet scrubber to be equivalent technology. Thus, MACT new
floor control is defined as wet scrubbing with a MTEC up to 1.7E7
g/dscm. When we considered emissions data from all sources
equipped with this level of control, we identified a floor level of 280
ppmv.
b. Beyond-the-Floor Considerations. The Agency believes that state-
of-the-art wet scrubbers can readily achieve better than 99 percent
removal of HCl and Cl2. Applying this removal efficiency to the
test condition in our database with the highest average emission (i.e.,
1,100 ppmv; no emission control device) results in an emission of 11
ppmv. We do not believe, however, that it is necessary to establish a
BTF (design) level 68 this low for HCl and Cl2. Accordingly,
we believe that it is reasonable and appropriate to establish a design
level of 25 ppmv which corresponds to a statistically-derived standard
of 67 ppmv.69
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ An emissions variability factor would be added to the log-
mean of the runs of this test condition to derive a standard.
\69\ The variability factor is based on within-test condition
emissions variability for incinerators equipped with wet scrubbers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that this level is consistent with the levels we are
proposing for new CKs (67 ppmv BTF level) and new LWAKs (62 ppmv floor
level). Further, we note that HCl and Cl2 emissions at this level
are not likely to result in additional regulation of these sources to
satisfy RCRA health risk concerns.
8. Carbon Monoxide and Hydrocarbon Standards for New HWIs
As with existing sources, CO and HC in conjunction with PM remain
the parameters of choice to monitor continuously for controlling non-
dioxin organics. Current regulations require continuous monitoring of
CO, but not of HC, and so the database of CO from incinerators is quite
extensive. However, the format of our CO data is mostly on a run
average basis as explained above. The CO levels of the best performing
facility in this database are less than 10 ppmv hourly rolling average
(HRA). The technology to achieve low level of non-dioxin organics is
``Good Combustion Practices'', which is the same as for existing
sources.
As such, we are proposing the same MACT standards for CO and HC as
for existing sources, but request comments on whether more stringent
standards would be more appropriate for new sources. The promulgated
standard for new large MWCs ranges from 50 to 150 ppmv based on type of
the device and the Agency would like to consider more stringent levels
for CO and HC that are representative of good combustion practices in
new HWIs in the final rule.
9. MACT New Cost Impacts
The annualized incremental costs (capital, operation and
maintenance) for a small, medium and large HWI based on today's
proposed control levels are estimated at $336K, $514K and $772K,
respectively. Major increases are due to installing FF, activated
carbon injection (for D/F and Hg control) and scrubbing devices (for
acid gas control). For this analysis, it was assumed that baseline
facilities can comply with existing regulations using a wet scrubber
and venturi-scrubber. Since the number of new facilities starting
construction every year is uncertain, total annualized incremental cost
for all the new HWIs in the U.S. due to today's proposal cannot be
estimated. The above costs include increased costs of APCS' needed
above baseline levels, and do not include costs of the main incinerator
system or the ancillary systems like fans, stack etc. Details of these
costs have been provided in the ``Regulatory Impact Assessment for the
Proposed Hazardous Waste Combustion MACT Standards''.
C. Evaluation of Protectiveness
In order to satisfy the Agency's mandate under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act to establish standards for facilities
that manage hazardous wastes and issue permits that are protective of
human health and the environment, the Agency conducted an analysis to
determine if the proposed MACT standards satisfy RCRA requirements, or
whether independent RCRA standards would be needed. These analyses were
designed to assess both the potential risks to individuals living near
hazardous waste combustion facilities who are highly exposed and risks
to other less exposed individuals living near such facilities. The
Agency evaluated potential risks both from direct inhalation exposures
and from indirect exposures through deposition onto soils and
vegetation and
[[Page 17389]]
subsequent uptake through the food chain. The Agency evaluated a
variety of exposure scenarios representing various populations of
interest, including subsistence farmers, subsistence fishers,
recreational anglers, and home gardeners.70 In characterizing the
risks within these populations of interest, both high-end and central
tendency exposures were considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ In addition, the Agency evaluated a ``most exposed
individual'' for the purpose of assessing inhalation risks. A most
exposed individual (MEI) is operationally defined as an individual
who resides at the location of maximum predicted ambient air
concentration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The primary exposure parameter considered in the high-end
characterization was exposure duration. For the baseline, 90th
percentile stack gas concentrations were also included in the high-end
characterization to reflect the variability in current emissions. For
dioxins at the floor, the high-end characterization also included 90th
percentile stack gas concentrations to reflect the large variation in
dioxin emissions using the floor technology (i.e., temperature
control). For the MACT standards, the Agency used the design value
which is the value the Agency expects a source would have to design in
order to be assured of meeting the standard on a daily basis and hence
is always a lower value than the actual standard for all HAPs
controlled by a variable control technology.71 The procedures used
in the Agency's risk analyses are discussed in detail in the background
document for today's proposal.72
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ For the semi-volatile and low volatility metals categories,
the Agency assumed the source could emit up to the design value for
each metal in the category for the purpose of assessing
protectiveness.
\72\ ``Risk Assessment Support to the Development of Technical
Standards for Emissions from Combustion Units Burning Hazardous
Wastes: Background Information Document,'' February 20, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The risk results for hazardous waste incinerators are summarized in
Table III.C.1 for cancer effects and Table III.C.2 for non-cancer
effects for the populations of greatest interest, namely subsistence
farmers, subsistence fishers, recreational anglers, and home gardeners.
The results are expressed as a range where the range represents the
variation in exposures across the example facilities (and example water
bodies for surface water pathways) for the high-end and central
tendency exposure characterizations across the exposure scenarios of
concern. For example, because dioxins bioaccumulate in both meat and
fish, the subsistence farmer and subsistence fisher scenarios are used
to determine the range.73
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ For the semi-volatile and low volatility metals categories,
the inhalation MEI scenarios are also used. For hydrogen chloride
and chlorine (Cl2) only the inhalation MEI scenarios are used.
Table III.C.1.--Individual Cancer Risk Estimates for Incinerators \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dioxins Semi-volatile metals \2\ Low volatile metals \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline............................. 2E-9 to 9E-5......................... 4E-9 to 7E-7........................ 2E-10 to 4E-6
Floor................................ 3E-9 to 5E-5 \4\..................... 5E-8 to 5E-7........................ 5E-8 to 8E-6
BTF.................................. 3E-9 to 2E-6 \5\.....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Floor................................ 3E-9 to 5E-5 \4\..................... 5E-8 to 5E-7........................ 5E-8 to 8E-6
BTF.................................. 3E-9 to 2E-6 \5\.....................
CEM Option \6\....................... ..................................... 2E-8 to 2E-7........................ 4E-8 to 6E-6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Lifetime excess cancer risk.
\2\ Carcinogenic metal: cadmium.
\3\ Carcinogenic metal: arsenic, beryllium, and chromium (VI).
\4\ Based on 20 ng/dscm TEQ, the highest level known to be emitted at the floor.
\5\ Based on 0.20 ng/dscm TEQ.
\6\ Based on SVM standard of 60 g/dscm and LVM standard of 80 g/dscm (applicable only if the source elects to document compliance
using a multi-metals CEM).
Table III.C.2.--Individual Non-Cancer Risk Estimates for Incinerators \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Semi-volatile metals \2\ Low volatile metals \3\ Hydrogen chloride Chlorine
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline..................... <0.001 to 0.02............... <0.001 to 0.2................ 0.001 to 0.05................ 0.008 to 0.7
Floor........................ <0.001 to 0.01............... <0.001 to 0.09............... 0.02 to 0.05 \4\............. 0.07 to 0.3 \5\
New Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Floor........................ <0.001 to 0.01............... <0.001 to 0.09............... 0.02 to 0.05 \4\............. 0.07 to 0.3 \5\
BTF.......................... <0.001 to 0.003.............. <0.001 to 0.03............... 0.004 to 0.01 \4\............ 0.02 to 0.07 \5\
CEM Option \6\............... <0.001 to 0.004.............. <0.001 to 0.06...............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Hazard quotient.
\2\ Cadmium and lead.
\3\ Antimony, arsenic, beryllium, and chromium.
\4\ HCl+Cl 2 assuming 100 percent HCl.
\5\ HCl+Cl 2 assuming 10 percent Cl 2.
\6\ Based on SVM standard of 60 g/dscm and LVM standard of 80 g/dscm (applicable only if the source elects to document compliance
using a multi-metals CEM).
[[Page 17390]]
The risk analysis indicates that for the semi-volatile and low
volatility metals category, the MACT standards for incinerators are
protective at the floor for both existing and new sources. The analysis
indicates that the CEM compliance option for new sources is also
protective. For hydrogen chloride and chlorine (Cl2), the MACT
standards for incinerators are also protective at the floor for both
existing and new sources. However, the analysis indicates that for
dioxins the proposed beyond the floor standards, rather than the floor
levels, are protective.
IV. Cement Kilns: Basis and Level for the Proposed NESHAP Standards for
New and Existing Sources
Today's proposal would establish new emission standards for
dioxins/furans, mercury, semivolatile metals (cadmium and lead), low
volatile metals (arsenic, beryllium, chromium and antimony),
particulate matter, acid gas emissions (hydrochloric acid and
chlorine), particulate matter (PM), hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide
(for the by-pass duct) from existing and new hazardous waste-burning
cement kilns. See proposed Sec. 63.1204. The following discussion
addresses how MACT floor and beyond-the-floor (BTF) levels were
established for each HAP, and EPA's rationale for the proposed
standards. The Agency's overall methodology for MACT determinations has
been discussed in Part Three, Sections V and VI for existing sources
and in Section VII for new sources.
To conduct the MACT floor analyses presented today, the Agency
compiled all available emissions data from hazardous waste-burning
cement kilns. As noted earlier, the vast majority of this database is
comprised of compliance test emissions data generated as a result of
Boiler and Industrial Furnace (BIF) rule requirements.74 The
Agency is also aware that additional emissions data will become
available. Sources of new data include test reports generated from
compliance recertification testing (required every three years under
the BIF rule for interim status facilities; see Sec. 266.103(d)),
results from voluntary industry initiatives and testing programs,
supplemental emissions testing conducted by individual companies, and
data from pilot-scale research by EPA's Office of Research and
Development. As timely and appropriate, notice of these additional
data, if used as a basis for standards in this rulemaking, will be
published to allow for review. However, we emphasize again that, for
purposes of setting MACT standards, it is preferable to have data that
reflect the normal, day-to-day operations and emissions. In addition,
the Agency believes that this type of data will substantially assist in
the appropriate resolution of some of the issues (e.g., variability,
proper identification of sources in MACT floor pools, raw material feed
contributions to emissions) that are raised in the following sections.
We invite commenters to submit this type of data and to discuss these
issues in their comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ By August 21, 1992, or by the applicable date allowed by an
extension by the Regional Administrator, owners and operators of BIF
facilities burning hazardous waste were required to conduct
compliance testing and submit a certification of compliance with the
emissions standards for individual toxic metals, HCl, Cl 2,
particulate matter, and CO, and where applicable, HC and dioxin/
furans. See 40 CFR Sec. 266.103(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the Agency requests comments on whether we should use
emissions data from cement kilns that no longer burn hazardous waste
for MACT floor determinations.75 Even though these cement kilns
subsequently decided to stop burning waste, we believe that their
emissions data represent the level of emission control achieved at a
kiln burning hazardous waste and are therefore appropriate for use in a
MACT analysis. Moreover, the air pollution control equipment employed
by these facilities is similar in type, design and operation to
equipment employed by the waste-burning industry as a whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ Cement kilns no longer burning hazardous waste include
three Southdown plants (Fairborn, OH, Knoxville, TN, and Kosmosdale,
KY) and North Texas Cement (Midlothian, TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency conducted a preliminary analysis of the effect on MACT
floor levels of removing these emissions data from consideration, and
found no significant impacts (see discussion later in this section on
MACT floor levels) other than for semivolatile metals and hydrocarbons
in the by-pass duct. The SVM floor would rise from 57 g/dscm
(today's proposed floor level) to approximately 1200 g/
dscm.76 This level is much higher than the cement industry can
achieve.77 Also, the Agency notes that a SVM floor of 1200
g/dscm may necessitate the need to consider adopting further
controls under RCRA to address potential risks that SVMs (especially
cadmium) may pose.78
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ The Agency notes that we are also taking comment on a SVM
floor level of 160 g/dscm (using an alternative approach
discussed later in this section). A SVM floor level of 1200
g/dscm appears unnecessarily high considering our proposed
floor analysis and that of others (e.g., see Part Four, section 9).
\77\ See letter from Craig Campbell, CKRC, to James Berlow, EPA,
undated but received February 20, 1996. We note that, although the
Agency is proposing a SVM standard of 57 g/dscm, we invite
comment on an alternative (and potentially preferable) approach to
identify MACT floor technology which would result in a floor-based
standard of 160 g/dscm. See discussion on SVM floor later
in this section. Because we identified the alternative approach late
in the rule development process, we are inviting comment on the
higher standard rather than proposing it.
\78\ The Agency doubts that a MACT beyond-the-floor level would
be warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the by-pass duct HC floor would be affected because
two-thirds of the HC data available to the Agency were generated by
these cement plants and would no longer be considered in the analysis.
This may make calculation of the HC MACT floor problematic using the
current MACT approach due to the limited remaining emissions data. The
remainder of the HAP floors would remain roughly at today's proposed
levels.
If EPA were to decide to exclude data from cement kilns that no
longer burn hazardous waste, the Agency then believes that emission
data from cement kilns that have made significant modifications or
retrofits to their manufacturing process (e.g., replacing a raw
material with one with different characteristics, installing new
control equipment) since the earlier emissions data were generated must
also be considered for exclusion from MACT analysis. The Agency
requests comment on whether we should use these emissions data (i.e.,
the data generated prior to significant process changes) in MACT
analysis. The commenter should also address how the Agency could
identify cement kilns that have made significant process changes and
the scope of modifications or retrofits that would significantly impact
emissions. Finally, since changes can affect some HAP emissions and not
others, the commenter should address whether this issue should be
decided on an individual HAP basis.
A. Summary of Standards for Existing Cement Kilns
This section summarizes EPA's rationale for identifying MACT for
existing cement kilns that burn hazardous waste and the proposed
emission limits. The discussion of MACT includes discussions of
``floor'' controls and considerations of ``beyond-the-floor'' controls.
Table IV.4.A.1 summarizes the proposed emission limits.
[[Page 17391]]
Table IV.4.A.1.--Proposed Emission Standards for Existing Cement Kilns
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAP or HAP surrogate Proposed standard a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dioxin/furans (TEQ)....................... 0.20 ng/dscm (TEQ).
Particulate Matter........................ 69 mg/dscm (0.030 gr/dscf).
Mercury................................... 50 g/dscm.
SVM (Cd, Pb).............................. 57 g/dscm.
LVM (As, Be, Cr, Sb)...................... 130 g/dscm.
HCl+Cl 2 (total chlorides)................ 630 ppmv.
Hydro-carbons:
Main Stack b............................ 20 ppmv.
By-pass Stack c......................... 6.7 ppmv.
Carbon Monoxide:
Main Stack.............................. N/A.
By-pass Stack c......................... 100 ppmv.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a All emission levels are corrected to 7 percent O2.
b Applicable only to long wet and dry process cement kilns (i.e., not
applicable to preheater and/or precalciner kilns).
c Emissions standard applicable only for cement kilns configured with a
by-pass duct (typically preheater and/or precalciner kilns). Source
must comply with either the HC or CO standard in the by-pass duct. A
long wet or long dry process cement kiln that has a by-pass duct has
the option of meeting either the HC level in the main stack or the HC
or CO limit in the by-pass duct.
1. Dioxin/Furans
a. MACT Floor. The Agency's analysis of dioxin/furan (D/F)
emissions from HWCs and other combustion devices (e.g., municipal waste
combustors and medical waste incinerators) indicates that temperature
of flue gas at the inlet of the PM control device can have a major
effect on D/F emissions.79 D/F emissions generally decrease as the
gas temperature of the PM control device decreases, and emissions are
lowest when the gas temperature of the PM control device are below the
optimum temperature window for D/F formation--450 deg.F to 650
deg.F.80 Given that CKs operate their ESPs and FFs under a range
of temperatures (i.e., from 350 deg.F to nearly 750 deg.F), the
Agency is identifying MACT floor for D/F based on temperature control
at the inlet to the ESP or FF.81
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ USEPA, ``Draft Technical Support Document For HWC MACT
Standards, Volume III: Selection of Proposed MACT Standards and
Technologies'', February 1996.
\80\ For example, consider kiln #1 at the Ash Grove Cement
Company in Chanute, Kansas. During BIF certification of compliance
testing in 1992, Ash Grove dioxins/furans emissions exceeded 1.7 ng/
dscm (TEQ) at a control device temperature of 435 deg.F. Testing in
1994 at a temperature of approximately 375 deg.F resulted in
emissions less than 0.05 ng/dscm (TEQ).
\81\ The Agency notes, however, that other factors can affect D/
F emissions including presence of precursors in the feed or as a
result of incomplete combustion and presence of compounds thought to
inhibit surface-catalyzed formation of D/F such as sulfur. Thus, D/F
emissions may be low (e.g., 0.2 ng TEQ per dcsm) even though the
temperature of stack gas at the inlet to the ESP or FF may exceed
400-450 deg.F, and D/F emissions may be relatively high (e.g., 0.3-
0.5 ng TEQ per dscm) even though the temperature may be below that
range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The emissions data for CKs includes results from 58 test conditions
collected from 19 cement plants, with a total of 28 kilns being tested.
The Agency's database shows that the average test condition D/F
emissions ranged from 0.004 to nearly 50 ng/dscm (TEQ).
Kilns emitting D/F at or below levels emitted by the median of the
best performing 12 percent of kilns had flue gas temperatures at or
below 418 deg.F at the inlet to the ESP or FF, while inlet temperatures
for other kilns ranged to nearly 750 deg.F. The Agency then evaluated
D/F emissions from all kilns that operated the ESP or FF at 418 deg.F
or less and determined that 75 percent had D/F emissions less than 0.2
ng/dscm (TEQ). The other 25 percent of kilns generally had TEQs less
than 0.8 ng/dscm (TEQ), although one kiln emitted 4.7 ng/dscm (TEQ).
The Agency is, therefore, identifying temperature control at the
inlet to the ESP or FF at 418 deg.F as the MACT floor control. Given
that 75 percent of sources achieve D/F emissions of 0.20 ng/dscm (TEQ)
at that temperature, the Agency believes that it is appropriate to
express the floor as ``0.20 ng/dscm (TEQ), or (temperature at the inlet
to the ESP or FF not to exceed) 418 deg.F''. This would allow sources
that operate at temperatures above 418 deg.F but that achieve the same
D/F emissions as the majority of sources that operate below 418 deg.F
(i.e., 0.20 ng/dscm (TEQ)) to meet the standard without incurring the
expense of lowering the temperature at the ESP or FF.
EPA estimates that over 50 percent of CKs currently are meeting the
floor level. The national annualized compliance cost 82 for CKs to
reduce D/F emissions to 0.20 ng/dscm (TEQ) or control ESP or FF inlet
temperature to below 418 deg.F would be $7.3 million for the entire
hazardous waste-burning cement industry, and would reduce D/F TEQ
emissions nationally by 830 grams/year (TEQ) or 96 percent from current
baseline emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ Total annual compliance costs are before consolidation and
do not incorporate market exit resulting from the proposed rule.
Also, CEM costs assume that no facilities currently have a HC
analyzer in place. Thus, these compliance costs may result in
overstated annual compliance costs. See the ``Second Addendum to the
Regulatory Impact Assessment for Proposed Hazardous Waste Combustion
MACT Standards'', February 1996, for details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Beyond-the-Floor (BTF) Considerations. The Agency has identified
activated carbon injection (CI) at less than 400 deg.F as a BTF
control for D/F for cement kilns because CI is currently used in
similar applications such as hazardous waste incinerators, municipal
waste combustors, and medical waste incinerators. The Agency is not
aware of any CK flue gas conditions that would preclude the
applicability of CI or inhibit the performance of CI that has been
demonstrated for other waste combustion applications.
Carbon injection has been demonstrated to be routinely effective at
removing greater than 95 percent of D/F for MWCs and MWIs and some
tests have demonstrated a removal efficiency exceeding 99 percent at
gas temperatures of 400 deg.F or less.83 To determine a BTF
emission level, the Agency considered the emission levels that would be
expected to result from gas temperature control to less than 400 deg.F
combined with CI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ USEPA, ``Draft Technical Support Document for HWC MACT
Standards, Volume III: Selection of Proposed MACT Standards and
Technologies'', February 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To estimate emissions with temperature control only, the Agency
considered the MACT floor database that indicates, as noted above, 25
percent of CKs operating the ESP or FF at temperatures above 418 deg.F
could be expected to emit D/F at levels above 0.2 ng/dscm (TEQ).
Although the majority could be expected to emit levels of 0.8 ng/dscm
(TEQ) or below, some could be expected to emit levels as high as 4.7 ng
TEQ.
When CI is used in conjunction with temperature control, an
additional 95 percent reduction in emissions could be expected.
Accordingly, emissions with these BTF controls could be expected to be
less than a range of 0.04 to 0.24 ng/dscm (TEQ) (i.e., 95 percent
reduction from 0.8 ng and 4.7 ng, respectively). Given that CI
reductions greater than 95 percent are readily feasible, the Agency
believes that it is appropriate to identify 0.20 ng/dscm (TEQ) as a
reasonable BTF level that could be routinely achieved.
The Agency notes that, because we have assumed a fairly
conservative carbon injection removal efficiency of 95 percent to
identify the 0.20 ng/dscm (TEQ) level, we believe that this approach
adequately accounts for emissions variability at an individual kiln
because CI removal efficiency is likely to be up to or greater than 99
percent. EPA thus believes that it is not necessary to add a
statistically-derived variability factor to the 0.20 ng/dscm (TEQ)
level to account for emissions variability at an individual kiln. Thus,
[[Page 17392]]
the 0.20 ng/dscm (TEQ) BTF level represents the proposed emission
standard.
EPA solicits comment on this approach, and notes that if a
statistically-derived variability factor were deemed appropriate with
the assumed conservative CI removal efficiency, the BTF level of 0.20
ng/dscm (TEQ) would be expressed as a standard of 0.31 ng/dscm (TEQ).
We note, however, that under this approach, it may be more appropriate
to use a less conservative, higher CI removal efficiency of 99 percent
(i.e., because emissions variability would be accounted for using
statistics rather than in the engineering decision to use a
conservative CI removal efficiency). Doing so would lower the 0.20 ng/
dscm (TEQ) level to approximately 0.04 ng/dscm (TEQ) (i.e., 99 percent
reduction from 0.8 ng and 4.7 ng results in levels of 0.008 ng to 0.047
ng/dscm (TEQ), respectively, and 0.04 ng is a reasonable value within
this range). If so, the D/F standard would be about 0.15 ng/dscm (TEQ)
(i.e., 0.04 ng/dscm TEQ plus the variability factor of 0.11 ng/dscm
TEQ).
We note that although CI is normally a relatively inexpensive
control technology to add to sources (with flue gas above the dew
point) that already have PM controls at the 69 mg/dscm level, CKs
present a special situation. This is because: (1) CI will remove Hg as
well as D/F (see discussion below regarding BTF control for Hg); (2)
CKs recycle as much collected PM as possible because it is useful raw
material and doing so reduces cement kiln dust (CKD) management cost;
(3) some CKs recycle the CKD by injecting it at the raw material feed
end of the kiln where the D/F may not be destroyed; and (4) to remove
Hg from the recycling system to ensure compliance with the Hg standard,
a portion of the CKD would have to be wasted.84
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ We note that most CKs currently dispose of a portion of CKD
to control clinker quality (i.e., to control alkali salts).
Nonetheless, the economics of CKD management are uncertain at this
time given impending Agency action to ensure proper management.
Thus, we believe that CKs will increase efforts in the future to
minimize the amount of CKD that is disposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, EPA has assumed that CKs that have to use CI to meet
the BTF standard (i.e., those that cannot achieve the standard with
temperature control alone) would install the CI system after the
existing ESP or FF and add a FF to remove the injected carbon with the
adsorbed D/F (and Hg). Although adding a new FF in series is an
expensive approach, it would enable CKs to meet both the proposed D/F
and Hg standards (as well as the PM, SVM, and LVM standards). Thus, the
cost of the CI and FF systems have been apportioned among these
proposed standards.
EPA estimates that 40 percent of CKs are currently meeting this BTF
level. The national incremental annualized compliance cost for the
remaining CKs to meet this BTF level 85 rather than comply with
the floor controls would be $6.6 million for the entire hazardous
waste-burning cement industry, and would provide an incremental
reduction in D/F (TEQ) emissions nationally beyond the MACT floor
controls of 20 grams/year (TEQ).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ We note that not every source with D/F emissions currently
exceeding 0.20 ng TEQ per dscm would need to install CI to meet the
standard. As noted previously in the text, 75 percent of sources
could be expected to meet the standard with temperature control
only. In estimating the cost of compliance with the standard, EPA
considered the magnitude of current emissions and current operating
temperatures to project whether the source could comply with the
standard with temperature control only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has considered costs in relation to emissions reductions and
the special bioaccumulation potential that D/F pose and determined that
proposing a BTF limit is warranted.86 D/F are some of the most
toxic compounds known due to their bioaccumulation potential and wide
range of health effects at exceedingly low doses, including
carcinogenesis. Further, as discussed elsewhere in today's preamble,
EPA's risk analysis developed for purposes of RCRA shows that emissions
of these compounds from hazardous waste-burning cement kilns could pose
significant risks by indirect exposure pathways, and that these risks
would be reduced by BTF controls. Finally, EPA is authorized to
consider this non-air environmental benefit in determining whether to
adopt a BTF level. As noted earlier, exposure via these types of
indirect pathways was in fact a chief reason Congress singled out D/F
for priority MACT control in section 112(c)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ We note that the D/F BTF control technology, CI, would also
be used to control mercury emissions beyond the floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, EPA's initial view is that it may need to adopt further
controls under RCRA to control D/F if it did not adopt the BTF MACT
standard. This would defeat one of the purposes of this proposal, to
avoid regulation of emissions under both statutes for these sources
wherever possible. These risks would, however, be reduced to acceptable
levels if emissions levels are reduced to 0.20 ng/dscm (TEQ).
For these reasons, the Agency is proposing a BTF level of 0.20 ng/
dscm (TEQ) for D/F emitted from hazardous waste-burning cement kilns.
2. Particulate Matter
a. MACT Floor. Cement kilns have high particulate inlet loadings to
the control device due to the nature of the cement manufacturing
process; that is, a significant portion of the finely pulverized raw
material fed to the kiln is entrained in the flue gas entering the
control device. CKs use ESPs or FFs to control PM to a 0.08 gr/dscf
standard under the BIF rule, unless the kiln is subject to the more
stringent New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) (see 40 CFR 60.60
(Subpart F)) of 0.3 lb/ton of raw material feed (dry basis) to the
kiln,87 which is generally equivalent to 69 mg/dscm or 0.03 gr/
dscf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ See Sec. 60.62 Standard for particulate matter for further
details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PM emissions data for CKs includes results from 54 test
conditions collected from 26 facilities, with a total of 34 units being
tested. The Agency analyzed all available PM emissions data and
determined that sources with emission levels at or below the level
emitted by the median of the best performing 12 percent of sources used
fabric filters with air-to-cloth (A/C) ratios of 2.3 acfm/ft\2\ or
less. Analysis of emissions data from all CKs using FFs with the 2.3
acfm/ft\2\ A/C ratio or less resulted in a level of 0.065 gr/dscf.
Because the NSPS is a federally enforceable limit that many cement
kilns are currently subject to, the Agency has chosen the existing NSPS
standard, not the statistically-derived limit discussed above, as MACT
for existing hazardous waste-burning CKs. Thus, the Agency is
identifying a MACT floor for PM and is identifying the floor level as
the NSPS limit of 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf). Given that the NSPS
standard was promulgated in 1971, the Agency believes that it is
reasonable to consider it as the MACT floor level. We note further that
30 percent of cement kiln test conditions currently meet the 69 mg/dscm
floor level.
As mentioned above, the NSPS standard for PM is expressed as 0.3
lb/ton of raw material (dry basis) feed to the kiln. Although we are
proposing to establish the floor level as the MACT standard (see BTF
discussion below) expressed as 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf), we
specifically invite comment on whether the standard should be expressed
in terms of raw material feed. We are proposing a ``mg/dscm'' basis for
the standard because a PM concentration in stack gas is commonly used
for waste combustors-hazardous waste incinerators, municipal waste
[[Page 17393]]
combustors, and medical waste incinerators. We note, however, that
using a ``mg/dscm'' basis for the CK standard would penalize the more
thermally efficient dry kilns (generally preheater and precalciner
kilns). This is because these kilns have lower stack gas flow rates per
ton of raw material feed because they do not need to provide additional
heat (by burning hazardous waste and/or fossil fuel) to evaporate the
water in the raw material slurry. Thus, wet kilns have higher gas flow
rates per ton of raw material than dry kilns because of increased
combustion gas and water vapor. This higher stack gas flow rate dilutes
the PM emissions and effectively makes a concentration-based standard
less stringent for wet kilns. Consequently, the Agency will consider
whether the final rule should express the floor standard as 0.3 lb/ton
of raw material (dry basis) feed to the kiln.
EPA estimates that 30 percent of cement kiln test conditions (in
our database) are currently meeting the floor level. The national
annualized compliance cost for the remaining CKs to reduce PM emissions
to the floor level would be $6.5 million for the entire hazardous
waste-burning cement industry, and would reduce PM emissions nationally
by 2400 tons per year.
b. Beyond-the-Floor Considerations. EPA considered but is not
proposing a more stringent beyond-the-floor level (e.g., 35 mg/dscm
(0.015 gr/dscf)) for cement kilns. For this analysis, EPA determined
that it does not have adequate data to ensure that, given the high
inlet grain loading caused by entrained raw material, CKs can routinely
achieve that emission level day-in and day-out with a single PM control
device--ESP or FF. We note that, to ensure compliance with a 35 mg/dscm
standard 99 percent of the time, a source with average emissions
variability must be designed and operated to achieve an emission level
of approximately 18 mg/dscm (or 0.008 gr/dscf). EPA estimates that 15
percent of CKs currently have average PM emissions below 18 mg/dscm.
Reducing the floor level from 69 mg/dscm to a BTF level of 35 mg/
dscm would require an improved technology such as the use of more
expensive fabric filter bags (e.g., bags backed with a teflon membrane)
or the addition of a FF for kilns with ESPs. The addition or upgrade of
FFs to all kilns could potentially be cost effective, since to meet the
proposed floor for SVM and LVM, as well as the proposed BTF for D/Fs
and Hg, addition of a new FF is projected for a majority of the kilns
(about 80 percent). Thus, a PM BTF level of 18 mg/dscm may be the
incremental cost between a fabric filter with conventional fiberglass
bags and state-of-the-art membrane-type bags for those kilns currently
employing FFs; the addition of new FFs with membrane bags for those
kilns with ESPs; or new FFs with membrane bags for the remaining
facilities which are not projected to need upgrades to meet the floor
and proposed BTF levels.
At first glance it may seem cost effective, primarily since an
improved BTF PM level would lead to added benefits with reduced SVM,
LVM, and condensed organics emissions. However, the Agency is uncertain
how facilities will meet the proposed SVM, LVM, D/FS, and Hg levels.
For example, kilns could meet the mercury BTF level with feedrate
control or carbon injection without addition of a new FF (potentially
incurring the penalty of reduced or eliminated kiln dust recycle).
Additionally, CKs could meet the D/F BTF level with PM control device
temperature reduction instead of carbon injection with an add-on FF.
Finally, kilns could meet the SVM and LVM floor levels with feedrate
control.
Therefore, many of the kilns may not add new FFs to comply with
proposed floor (e.g., SVM, LVM) or proposed BTF levels (e.g., D/FS, Hg)
and EPA's estimated engineering cost to meet the floor has been
conservatively overstated. Thus, it may not be accurate to conclude
that the BTF for PM is close to the incremental cost between FF fabric
types. Under this circumstance, the incremental cost is more accurately
the cost of many new FF unit additions which the Agency believes would
not be cost effective. For these reasons the Agency believes it is not
appropriate to propose a BTF PM standard of 35 mg/dscm for existing
CKs. EPA specifically invites comment on whether the final rule should
establish a BTF standard for PM of 35 mg/dscm (or 0.15 lb/ton of raw
material (dry basis) feed into the kiln).
3. Mercury
a. MACT Floor. Mercury emissions from CKs are currently controlled
by the BIF rule, and CKs have elected to comply with the BIF standard
by limiting the feedrate of Hg in the hazardous waste feed.88
Thus, the MACT floor level is based on hazardous waste feed control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ BIF Hg emission limits are implemented by establishing
limits, in part, on the maximum feed rate of Hg in total
feedstreams. Feedstream sources of mercury include hazardous waste,
Hg spiking during compliance testing, raw material, coal and other
fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury emissions from cement kilns range from 3 g/dscm to
an estimated 600 g/dscm. The Agency has Hg emissions data from
42 test conditions collected from 21 cement plants, with a total of 28
kilns being tested. Since mercury is a volatile compound at the typical
operating temperatures of ESPs and baghouses, collection of mercury by
these control devices is highly variable (e.g., Hg removal efficiencies
ranged from zero to more than 90 percent). Most of the mercury exits
the kiln system as volatile stack emissions, with only a small fraction
partitioning to the clinker product or CKD.
To identify the floor level for hazardous waste feed control, the
Agency determined that sources with Hg emissions at or below the level
emitted by the median of the best performing 12 percent of sources had
normalized hazardous waste Hg feedrates, or MTECs, (i.e., maximum
theoretical emission rates 89) of 110 g/dscm or less.
Analysis of all existing cement kiln sources using this hazardous waste
feedrate control resulted in a MACT floor level of 130 g/dscm.
To meet this standard 99 percent of the time, EPA estimates that a
source with average emissions variability 90 must be designed and
operated to routinely achieve an emission level of 81 g/dscm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ MTEC is the hazardous waste Hg feedrate divided by the gas
flow rate.
\90\ This represents the variability of emissions among runs
within a test condition included within the expanded MACT pool.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that raw materials and fossil fuels also contribute to
cement kiln Hg feedrates and emissions. Given that all sources must be
able to meet the floor level using the floor control, we investigated
whether all CKs could meet the floor level by only controlling
hazardous waste Hg feedrate to the MACT MTEC of 110 g/dscm. We
have determined that all CKs in the Hg emissions database, except for
one kiln with apparently anomalous data on mercury in raw material,
would be able to meet the floor level using floor control.91 The
one kiln reported substantially higher Hg feedrates in the raw material
than other kilns. We believe that this data may either be erroneous or
the kiln may have spiked Hg into the raw material during BIF compliance
testing. We specifically invite data and comment on the issue of normal
Hg content in raw material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ USEPA, ``Draft Technical Support Document for HWC MACT
Standards, Volume III: Selection of Proposed MACT Standards and
Technologies'', February 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA estimates that nearly 80 percent of CKs could currently comply
with the floor level. The total annualized compliance cost for the
remaining kilns
[[Page 17394]]
to reduce Hg emissions to the floor level is estimated to be up to $7.5
million for the entire cement industry, and would reduce Hg emissions
nationally by 7,200 lbs per year, or by 58 percent from baseline
emissions.
b. Beyond-the-Floor Considerations. The Agency has considered two
BTF control options for improved Hg control: flue gas temperature
reduction to 400 deg.F or less followed by either carbon injection (CI)
or carbon bed (CB). Either control option would be implemented in
conjunction with hazardous waste feedrate control of Hg. Due to the
uncertainty surrounding the actions that cement kilns will undertake in
achieving increased Hg control (i.e., with respect to reducing the Hg
content of the hazardous waste received at the kiln versus installing
the carbon injection technology to capture volatilized mercury without
reducing Hg content in the hazardous waste feed), the Agency assumed a
conservative emissions level attributable to feedrate control to which
the Agency applied the BTF control technology (i.e., 300 g/
dscm). EPA believes that CI systems can routinely achieve Hg emission
reductions of 80 to 90 percent or better 92 and that CB systems
can routinely achieve Hg emissions of 90 to 99 percent or
better.93
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ Memorandum from Frank Behan, USEPA, to RCRA Docket.
Discussion of mercury removal efficiency with activated carbon
injection during an emissions test at a Lafarge Corporation cement
kiln. February 26, 1996.
\93\ USEPA, ``Draft Technical Support Document for HWC MACT
Standards, Volume III: Selection of Proposed MACT Standards and
Technologies'', February 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BTF level under the CI-controlled option would, therefore, be
50 g/dscm (corresponding to a design level of 30 g/
dscm), based on 90 percent reduction after the source has controlled
its Hg emissions to 300 g/dscm by limiting Hg in the hazardous
waste. As discussed later, EPA is proposing a 50 g/dscm based
on this BTF option.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ To achieve a standard of 50 g/dscm 99 percent of
the time, a source with average emissions variability must be
designed and operated to achieve an emission level of 30 g/
dscm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BTF level under the CB-controlled option would be 8 g/
dscm (corresponding to a design level of 5 g/dscm), based on
99 percent reduction after the source has controlled its Hg emissions
to 300 g/dscm by limiting Hg in the hazardous waste.
We note that another control option for identifying BTF levels
would be to consider the floor hazardous waste feedrate control--MTEC
of 110 g/dscm or less--an initial component of BTF control
followed by either CI or CB. Under this approach, BTF emission levels
would be identified by first assuming sources would impose only
feedrate controls to meet the floor level of 130 g/dscm
(corresponding to a design level of 81 g/dscm). Thus, a CI
injection system at 90 percent removal could be expected to achieve a
standard of 13 g/dscm (corresponding to a design level of 8.1
g/dscm). A CB system at 99 percent removal could be expected
to achieve a design level of 0.8 g/dscm to which an emissions
variability factor would be added to identify the standard. EPA
solicits comment on whether this option of applying BTF reduction based
on CI or CB to the floor levels should be adopted.
We also note that an alternative approach to using a statistically-
derived variability factor to account for emissions variability would
be to assume a more conservative control efficiency for the CI or CB
BTF technology. We believe that using a more conservative removal
efficiency could be a means to adequately account for emissions
variability given that actual emissions using the BTF control would be
expected to be lower than the assumed emission level. Under this
approach, we would more conservatively assume that CI-controlled
systems could achieve a removal efficiency of 80 percent and that CB-
controlled systems could achieve an efficiency of 90 percent. When
these removal efficiencies are applied, this would result in emission
standards of 16 g/dscm for CI-controlled systems, and 8
g/dscm for CB-controlled systems 95. We invite comment on
these alternative approaches to account for emissions variability at an
individual plant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ The same approach could also be utilized with the
previously discussed approach of applying the BTF control to an
assumed emission level of 300 g/dscm. When assuming the
conservative removal efficiencies of 80 percent for CI and 90
percent for CB, this would result in BTF standards of 60 g/
dscm for CI-controlled systems and 30 g/dscm for CB-
controlled systems. Again a statistically-derived variability factor
would not be added because emissions variability is accounted for by
assuming conservative removal efficiencies for CI and CB systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA believes that CI is a cost-effective BTF control, and is
proposing a 50 g/dscm Hg emission standard based on that
control in conjunction with a preceding estimated hazardous waste
feedrate control resulting in an emissions level of 300 g/dscm
prior to the CI control. We estimate that 57 percent of CKs are
currently meeting this level. The incremental national annualized
compliance cost for the remaining CKs to meet this level rather than
comply with the floor controls would be $7.8 million, and would provide
an incremental reduction in Hg emissions of 2100 lbs per year
nationally beyond the MACT floor controls.
We specifically are interested in comment on whether CB is a cost
effective BTF control 96. The CB-based BTF emission level would be
8 g/dscm (assuming 90 percent removal efficiency). We estimate
that 22 percent of CKs are currently meeting this level. The
incremental national annualized compliance cost for the remaining CKs
to meet this level rather than comply with the floor controls (and
proposed CI-based level of 50 g/dscm) is estimated to be $34.8
million and would provide an incremental reduction in Hg emissions
nationally of 5,100 lbs per year from the floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ We also note that, while the Agency does not have
information to conclude that application of the carbon bed
technology would be problematic for cement kilns, carbon beds have
never been tested at a full-scale cement kiln. Thus, we invite
comment on the technical feasibility of CB control of Hg emissions
from CKs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency also invites comment on whether special consideration
should be given to kilns that may burn hazardous waste with non-detect
levels of Hg.97 Such kilns could be considered to be appropriately
regulated, with respect to Hg emissions, by only the standards the
Agency is developing for cement kilns that do not burn hazardous waste.
Thus, today's proposed Hg standards for waste-burning kilns would be
waived. To minimize implementation confusion and difficulties and to
accommodate enforcement concerns, if a CK at any time burns hazardous
waste with detectable levels of Hg, the kiln would be subject to
today's proposed rules at all times, even if it subsequently burned
waste with non-detect levels of Hg. Under the waiver, the owner and
operator would be required to sample and analyze the hazardous waste as
necessary to document that it continues to contain non-detect levels of
Hg. We invite comment on whether such a deferral to another MACT
standard (yet to be proposed for non-hazardous waste-burning CKs) is
workable, given the potential for piece-meal permitting and
enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ We also invite comment on what minimum detection levels
would be acceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has considered costs in relation to emissions reductions and
the special bioaccumulation potential that Hg poses and determined that
proposing a BTF limit is warranted. Hg is one of the more toxic metals
known due to its bioaccumulation potential and the adverse neurological
health effects at low concentrations especially to the most sensitive
populations at risk (i.e.,
[[Page 17395]]
unborn children, infants and young children). A more detailed
discussion of human health benefits for mercury can be found in Part
Seven of today's proposal. The indirect exposure pathway resulting from
airborne deposition of Hg is of particular concern, and a particular
reason that Congress singled out Hg for priority regulation in section
112(c)(6). See S. Rep. No. 228, 101st Cong. 1st Sess. at 153-55, 166.
EPA is specifically authorized to take into account such non-air
environmental benefits in assessing when to adopt BTF standards. As
noted below, hazardous waste-burning cement kilns are a significant
source of Hg emissions, and the BTF option will control those emissions
from 75 percent over baseline and 47 percent over the floor. EPA
believes the cost of controlling this especially dangerous HAP to be
warranted in light of the extent of control, magnitude of emissions,
limited effect on cost of treating hazardous waste (and no net effect
on the cost of cement), and the fact that the control technology,
carbon injection, will also control dioxins and furans. Finally, EPA
notes that control of Hg at the BTF level should eliminate the
uncertainty presently involved in individual RCRA permitting decisions
where permit writers may develop site-specific permit limits beyond
those required by current regulations if necessary to protect human
health and the environment.
4. Semivolatile Metals
a. MACT Floor. Emissions of SVM from CKs are currently controlled
under the BIF rule. Kilns use a combination of hazardous waste feedrate
control and PM control to comply with those standards. Accordingly,
MACT floor control is based on a combination of hazardous waste
feedrate control and PM control.
The SVM emissions data for CKs includes results from 45 test
conditions collected from 26 cement plants, with a total of 34 kilns
being tested. Baseline emissions of the semivolatile metals group
(consisting of cadmium a
FR Doc. 96-7872 Revised Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors
nd lead) ranged from 3 g/dscm to
slightly over 6,000 g/dscm. Cadmium and lead are volatile at
the usual high temperatures within the cement kilns itself, but
typically condense onto the fine particulate at baghouse and ESP
temperatures, where they are collected. As a result, control of
semivolatile emissions is associated with PM control. However, because
of the potential for adsorption for these two metals onto the fine PM
that is less effectively collected than larger-sized PM, the control
efficiency for semivolatile metals is likely to be lower than that for
total PM. As discussed earlier, all cement plants currently use either
baghouses or ESPs to control particulate emissions.
The Agency analyzed all available Cd and Pb emissions data and
determined that sources with emission levels at or below the level
emitted by the median of the best performing 12 percent of sources used
fabric filters with air-to-cloth (A/C) ratios of 2.1 acfm/ft\2\ or less
for a kiln system with a hazardous waste MTEC of 84,000 g/dscm
or less. Analysis of emissions data from all CKs using FFs with the 2.1
acfm/ft\2\ A/C ratio and with a HW MTEC of 84,000 g/dscm or
less resulted in a floor level of 57 g/dscm.
EPA notes that raw materials and fossil fuels also contribute to
cement kiln SVM feedrates and emissions. Given that all sources must be
able to meet the floor level using the floor control, EPA investigated
whether all CKs could meet the floor level employing the MACT
technologies without being forced to substitute raw materials. Our
preliminary evaluation determined that about 10 percent of sources had
raw material containing Cd and Pb in greater concentrations than
sources in the expanded MACT pool; thus, these sources may not be able
to achieve the floor with MACT alone. 98 Before we reach any final
conclusions on this point, the Agency believes that further data are
needed on the normal, day-to-day levels of Pb and Cd in raw material
feed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ USEPA, ``Draft Technical Support Document for HWC MACT
Standards, Volume III: Selection of Proposed MACT Standards and
Technologies'', February 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, one approach to address this issue (of sources with
higher levels of SVM metals in their raw materials than sources in the
expanded MACT pool and that, therefore, cannot meet the floor level
using floor control) is to: (1) identify the source with the highest
normalized (by MTEC) feedrate of metals in raw material; (2) assume the
source is also feeding hazardous waste with the floor control MTEC
level of the metals; and (3) project SVM emissions from the source
based on combined raw material and hazardous waste MTECs using a
representative system removal efficiency (SRE) from the expanded MACT
pool considering an appropriate variability factor (e.g., variability
of emissions among runs within a test condition in the expanded MACT
pool). The Agency has not yet conducted this type of analysis, but
intends to do so. Again, we also believe that data reflecting normal,
day-to-day levels of Cd and Pb in raw material feed is important in
pursuing this avenue of analysis. We invite comment on this approach.
The Agency also notes that the MACT pool for SVM consists entirely
of CKs employing FF controls; that is, no cement plants with ESPs are
in the MACT pool or expanded MACT pool. EPA believes that well
designed, operated, and maintained ESPs can achieve good control of
SVMs. In fact several CKS employing ESPs in our database currently
achieve the floor level of 57 g/dscm. Because the Agency is
concerned that the SVM floor analysis may be overly exclusive (because
comparably designed and operated ESPs were not considered in the MACT
floor analysis) in identifying the floor MACT level and technology, EPA
specifically requests comment on the merits of the following
alternative floor approach. This approach identifies comparably
designed and operated ESPs (in our SVM database) equivalent to the MACT
FF (and at the MACT MTEC) and includes these sources in the analysis as
an ``equivalent technology'' of MACT. The Agency has identified an ESP
with an SCA of 500 ft\2\/kacfm or better as an equivalent technology to
the MACT FF with an A/C ratio of 2.1 acfm/ft\2\. The Agency conducted
this analysis and determined that the floor level would increase from
57 to 160 g/dscm using this approach. To meet this standard 99
percent of the time, EPA estimates that a source with average emissions
variability must be designed and operated to routinely achieve an
emission level of 99 g/dscm. EPA investigated whether all CKs
could meet the floor level employing the MACT technologies without
being forced to substitute raw materials and determined that all CKs
(in the SVM emissions database) with the exception of one kiln would be
able to meet the 160 g/dscm level using this less restrictive
MACT definition. The Agency specifically requests comment on this
alternative floor approach and floor level.
EPA recognizes that PM, SVM, and LVM emissions from cement kilns
are similarly controlled, in part, by a good PM control (e.g., ESP,
FF). The floor control for SVM (FF with an A/C ratio of 2.1 acfm/ft\2\)
offers slightly more control than the floor control for LVM (FF with an
A/C ratio of 2.3 acfm/ft\2\ or an ESP with a SCA of 350 ft\2\/kacfm).
Thus, the controls necessary to achieve the SVM MACT floor level would
appear to be governing for control of these HAPs.
EPA estimates that 33 percent of CKs are currently meeting the
floor level of 57 g/dscm. The national annualized compliance
cost for the cement kilns to
[[Page 17396]]
reduce SVM emissions to the floor level would be $13.1 million, and
would reduce national Pb and Cd emissions by 29 tons per year or 94
percent from current baseline emissions.
b. Beyond-the-Floor Considerations. The Agency considered whether
to propose a more stringent level than the floor of 57 g/dscm,
but believes that it would not be appropriate. Since control of SVM
emissions is associated with PM control, a more stringent BTF level
would require CKs to upgrade to more expensive fabric filter bags
(e.g., bags backed with a teflon membrane) or the addition of a FF for
kilns with ESPs. Even though the engineering costs to comply with a BTF
SVM level would be modest for CKs, the resulting incremental reduction
in SVM emissions from the floor level would be minimal. Thus, the
Agency believes that lowering the SVM proposed standard is not
warranted based on the minimal impact on overall SVM emissions; the
floor already provides substantial control by reducing baseline SVM
emissions by 94 percent. Thus, the Agency is proposing a MACT floor SVM
standard of 57 g/dscm for existing cement kilns.
5. Low-Volatile Metals
a. MACT Floor. Emissions of LVM from CKs are also currently
controlled under the BIF rule. Kilns use a combination of hazardous
waste feedrate control and PM control to comply with those standards.
Accordingly, MACT floor control is based on a combination of hazardous
waste feedrate control and PM control.
The Agency has LVM emissions data which consists of 45 test
conditions collected from 26 cement plants, with a total of 35 kilns
being tested. Average emissions of the low volatility metals group
(arsenic, antimony, beryllium, and chromium) ranged from 4 g/
dscm to 520 g/dscm. Due to the relatively low volatility of
these metals, more than 70 percent of these metals typically partition
to the clinker product while the remainder typically condense onto
particulate and are collected in the APCD (in this case either an ESP
or baghouse). Thus, performance of the control devices is an important
factor in controlling LVM emissions.
To identify MACT floor, EPA characterized the LVM controls used by
kilns emitting LVM at levels at or below the level emitted by the
median of the best performing 12 percent of sources. MACT floor control
is thus defined as: (1) a baghouse (i.e., fabric filter) with an air-
to-cloth ratio of 2.3 acfm/ft \2\ or less with a hazardous waste (HW)
MTEC less than 140,000 g/dscm; or (2) an ESP with specific
collection area of 350 ft \2\/kacfm with a HW MTEC less than 140,000
g/dscm. Analysis of available emissions data for all CKs
employing either of these controls resulted in a floor emissions level
of 130 g/dscm.
EPA notes that raw materials and fossil fuels also contribute to
cement kiln LVM feedrates and emissions. Given that all sources must be
able to meet the floor level using the floor control, EPA investigated
whether all CKs could meet the floor level employing the MACT controls
without being forced to substitute raw material feed. EPA determined
that all CKs would be able to meet the floor level using floor control
without switching raw materials.99
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ USEPA, ``Draft Technical Support Document for HWC MACT
Standards, Volume III: Selection of Proposed MACT Standards and
Technologies'', February 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA estimates that 80 percent of CKs are currently meeting the
floor level. The national annualized compliance cost for the cement
kilns to reduce LVM emissions to the floor level would be $2.8 million
for the entire hazardous waste-burning cement industry, and would
reduce LVM national emissions by 1.7 tons per year or 49 percent from
current baseline emissions.
b. Beyond-the-Floor Considerations. The Agency considered whether
to propose a more stringent level than the floor of 130 g/
dscm. We determined that proposing such a BTF level is not warranted
for several reasons: (1) It would not likely be cost effective; (2) LVM
are not of particular concern because they are not bioaccumulative; and
(3) establishing the MACT standard at the floor would not trigger the
need for a more stringent RCRA standard.
Since control of LVM emissions is associated with PM control, a
more stringent BTF level would require CKs to either install new
control equipment or to upgrade existing control equipment (e.g.,
install more expensive FF bags). Even though the engineering costs to
comply with a lower LVM BTF level would be moderate, the resulting
reduction in LVM emissions is minimal since CK LVM national emissions
are estimated to be 1.7 tons/year for the entire industry at the floor.
Thus, a LVM BTF standard is not believed to be warranted based on this
limited reduction in LVM emissions.
6. Hydrochloric Acid and Chlorine
a. MACT Floor. HCl and Cl2 (also referred to as total
chlorine) emissions from CKs are currently regulated by the BIF rule.
CKs use the natural alkalinity of the limestone raw material and
hazardous waste feedrate control (of total chlorine and chloride) to
comply with those standards. No hazardous waste-burning cement kiln
currently employs a dedicated control device (e.g., wet scrubber,
venturi scrubber) designed specifically to remove HCl/Cl2 from the
flue gas. Accordingly, MACT floor is based on hazardous waste feedrate
control.100
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ Although owners and operators normally have no control
over the control provided by raw material alkalinity, we note that
kilns equipped with FFs appear to provide better control than kilns
equipped with ESPs. This may be due to the longer time of contact
between the gas stream and the alkaline dust as the gases pass
through the dust bed on the bags.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency has HCl and Cl2 emissions data consists of 52 test
conditions collected from 26 cement plants, with a total of 35 kilns
being tested. Total chlorine emissions from cement kilns range from
less than 0.1 ppmv to 220 ppmv. To identify MACT floor, EPA identified
the highest hazardous waste feed MTEC (i.e., normalized hazardous waste
feedrate of total chlorine) used by kilns emitting HCl/Cl2 at
levels at or below the level emitted by the median of the best
performing 12 percent of sources--1.6 g/dscm. The analysis of all
available emissions data for kilns with a hazardous waste MTEC for
total chlorine of 1.6 g/dscm or less resulted in a floor emissions
level of 630 ppmv. Our data indicate that 100 percent of the test
conditions in the Agency's database are achieving this floor value.
This determination is confounding given that the highest average
emissions from any test condition in the entire database, irrespective
of hazardous waste MTEC for total chlorine, was 220 ppmv. This
anomalous finding is apparently attributable to: (1) The data set
having very high average within-test-condition variability; and (2)
adding the average variability factor to the log mean rather than the
arithmetic mean of the single test condition with the highest
arithmetic mean within the expanded MACT pool (those sources using MACT
floor control). If that source had unusually high emissions
variability, then the log mean could be substantially higher than the
arithmetic mean, resulting in an unusually high emission level to which
the variability factor was added.
Because of these concerns, the Agency invites comment on
alternative approaches that may identify a more reasonable floor level.
One approach could be to add the average variability factor for the
data set to the arithmetic mean, rather than the log mean, of the
highest test condition in the expanded
[[Page 17397]]
MACT pool. In addition, if this still resulted in a calculated floor
level greater than any emission level in the database, irrespective of
hazardous waste MTEC for total chlorine, the floor level could be
capped at the highest emission level in the database--220 ppmv.
As for the metals EPA notes that raw materials and fossil fuels
also contribute to cement kiln chlorine feedrates and emissions. Given
that all sources must be able to meet the floor level using floor
control, EPA investigated whether all CKs could meet the floor level
employing the MACT controls without being forced to substitute raw
material. As discussed above, all CKs would be able to meet the floor
level using floor control without switching raw materials.
Sources would not incur cost to comply with the proposed floor
level because it is higher than any baseline emission levels in the
entire database, and there would be no emissions reductions at the
floor level.
b. Beyond-the-Floor Considerations. The neutralization provided
naturally by alkaline raw materials essentially acts as a dry scrubber
to help control HCl/Cl2 emissions. Therefore, we do not believe
that substantial further reductions could be achieved with the use of
dry scrubber systems. Wet scrubbers, however, could be expected to
provide 99 percent or greater removal of HCl/Cl2.
BTF control is therefore being defined as a wet scrubber in
conjunction with the floor control for hazardous waste chlorine
feedrate (defined by a MTEC of 1.6 g/dscm). Given that the proposed
floor level based on hazardous waste chlorine feedrate control only
would be 630 ppmv, the resulting BTF level would be 6.3 ppmv (at 99
percent removal).
Selecting a more effective control technology such as a wet
scrubber would be expensive and the Agency believes that a BTF level
would not be appropriate. For example, in one alternate investigation,
we evaluated a 25 ppmv HCl level. The Agency estimated in that case the
national incremental annualized compliance cost to meet this level
would be $17 million. This represents HCl/Cl2 emissions reductions
of 1,900 tons per year or a 71 percent reduction from baseline
emissions. The Agency believes that the total incremental costs
associated with a standard of 6.3 ppmv would be approximately equal to
the incremental costs at a BTF level of 25 ppmv. We also note that, at
a MACT floor standard of 630 ppmv, the Agency would not be required to
establish a more stringent standard under RCRA to ensure protection of
human health and the environment.
In summary, the Agency is proposing a MACT floor HCl/Cl2
standard of 630 ppmv for existing cement kilns.
7. Carbon Monoxide and Hydrocarbons
a. MACT Floor. As discussed in Section I above, the Agency believes
that control of non-dioxin organic HAP emissions can be achieved, in
part, by establishing emissions limits on two surrogate compounds: (1)
Carbon monoxide, and (2) hydrocarbons, and also by the presence of
controls for D/F. Both CO and HCs are not listed HAPs, but the Agency
is using them as surrogates for the enumerated organic HAPs of
Sec. 112(b)(1) which can be non-D/F products of incomplete combustion
(PICs). The Agency is not proposing main stack MACT standards on carbon
monoxide for existing cement kilns for reasons discussed below;
however, those kilns with by-pass ducts would be required to either
comply with a separate CO or HC limit in the by-pass duct.
i. Carbon Monoxide in the Main Stack. The Agency is not proposing a
main stack CO limit because CO is not a universally reliable indicator
of combustion intensity and efficiency in cement kilns due to CO
generation by process chemistry and evolution from the trace organics
in the raw material feedstocks.\101\ These feedstocks can generate
large quantities of CO emissions which are unrelated to the combustion
efficiency of burning the waste and fuel. Whereas all the CO from
incinerators is combustion-generated, the bulk of the CO from cement
kilns can be the result of process events unrelated to the combustion
conditions at the burner where the wastes are introduced, or CO can be
produced from CO2 (contained in the limestone) by dissociation at
high sintering conditions. As a result, few cement kilns were able to
certify compliance with the CO standard in the BIF rule
(Sec. 266.104(b)), but instead complied with the alternative carbon
monoxide standard of Sec. 266.104(c) that allowed CO to exceed the 100
ppmv limit provided that stack gas concentrations of HCs did not exceed
20 ppmv. Thus, the Agency believes it inappropriate to establish a CO
standard measured in the main stack for all cement kilns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ See 56 FR at 7150, 7153-55 (February 21, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Hydrocarbons in the Main Stack. CKs emit hydrocarbon (HC)
emissions that result from incomplete combustion of fuels and
desorption of trace levels or organic compounds from raw materials.
These HC emissions contain organic HAPs. Organics in the raw materials
are believed to be primarily from kerogen in the shale and limestone
which has a porous structure allowing for organic deposits. These
organics cause HC emissions because they are largely not destroyed
given that combustion gases flow counter-current to the raw-materials
(i.e., fuels are generally fired at the opposite end from where the raw
materials are fed).
Even when a CK is operated under good combustion conditions (and
thus is generating low or insignificant levels of fuel-related HC), HC
levels resulting from organics in the raw materials can range from 10
to 400 ppmv. This makes it problematic to use HC as the only or the
principal means to ensure good combustion efficiency of hazardous waste
fuels to minimize emissions of toxic PICs (i.e., non-D/F organic HAPs).
Wet Process Kilns and Long Dry Process Kilns. The BIF rule
currently limits HC levels in the main stack (i.e., the only kiln off-
gas stack) of wet and long dry kilns to 20 ppmv. EPA is aware of five
kilns that initially had stack HC levels exceeding the 20 ppmv limit.
Four of the kilns changed the source of shale used as raw material to
use a shale with lower organic content. (Shale comprises a small
fraction of raw material feed.) The fifth kiln feeds limestone with
(relatively) high levels of organic matter and has indicated that
transporting an alternative source of limestone to the site may be
prohibitively expensive. Other potential options, such as installing an
afterburner to destroy organics or reconstructing the kiln system to
otherwise destroy HC desorbed from the limestone, may likewise be
prohibitively expensive approaches.
EPA has determined that MACT floor for HC control for wet and long
dry kilns should be control based on the current federally-enforceable
BIF standards (i.e., control of organics in raw materials coupled with
operating under good combustion practices to minimize fuel-related HC),
and the floor level should be the BIF limit of 20 ppmv HC for such
kilns. We note further that the source could stop burning hazardous
waste and avoid having to comply with the HC floor level.
Cement Kilns with By-pass Ducts. Kilns that are equipped with a by-
pass duct (typically preheater or precalciner kilns) to divert a
portion of the kiln off-gas to a separate PM control device monitor
fuel-related HC separately from raw material-related HC. This is
because the by-pass duct diverts the kiln gas before it enters the
calcining zone where
[[Page 17398]]
the organics from the raw material are desorbed. Thus, in general,
fuel-related HC can be monitored in the by-pass duct, and raw material-
related HC can be monitored in the main stack. We invite comment on
whether hazardous waste fuel combustion by-products (e.g., chlorine)
can react with organic compounds desorbed from raw material to form
organic HAPs. If the Agency determines that hazardous waste firing can
substantially (adversely) affect emissions of organic HAPs from the
main stack, then we will consider limiting HC to 20 ppmv. This is the
limit we are proposing today for long kilns without a by-pass duct.
Monitoring HC in the by-pass is discussed later in this section.
The Agency's RCRA BIF rule does not control HC in the main stack of
cement kilns that comply with the BIF HC limit in the by-pass duct
because, under the RCRA rule, the Agency was concerned about PICs
derived from hazardous waste combustion rather than toxic organics
desorbed from raw materials. Therefore, any MACT standard for HC in the
main stack of these types of kilns must be a BTF standard since the
floor for these sources is uncontrolled, and these CKs do not otherwise
control organic HAPs in their stack emissions.
The Agency is concerned that main stack HC emissions contain HAPs
for several reasons: (1) Organics desorbed from raw materials, even
absent any influence from burning hazardous waste, contain HAPs; (2) it
is reasonable to hypothesize that the chlorine released from burning
hazardous waste can react with the organics desorbed from the raw
material to form generally more toxic chlorinated HAPs; and (3) some
preheater and precalciner kilns feed containers of hazardous waste at
the preheater or precalciner end of the kiln near the by-pass duct
entrance such that hazardous waste PICs may not have time to combust
efficiently. We are concerned that these hazardous waste PICs may be
emitted from the main stack, and that monitoring of the by-pass duct
may not be adequate to determine if inefficient combustion occurs. This
is because the by-pass duct gas may not be representative of kiln off-
gas when containers of hazardous waste are fed at the off-gas end of
the kiln.
However, the Agency does not now have sufficient data to quantify
the contribution of hazardous waste (if there is one) to HC emissions
in the main stack, and therefore to develop a MACT BTF standard for
main stack HC for this class of CKs. We are thus unable to propose
controls for HC from main stacks of cement kilns with by-pass stacks.
We invite data to remedy this situation as well as comment on this
issue. We also invite comment on an alternative of the same 20 ppmv
main stack HC standard for this class of cement kilns as for the
others.
iii. Emissions Standards for By-pass Ducts.\102\ The Agency is
proposing that cement kilns with by-pass ducts monitor and comply with
either a CO or HC concentration limit in the by-pass duct because
levels of CO and HC in the by-pass gas are more representative of
combustion efficiency than levels in the main stack.\103\ The BIF rule
currently limits HC (in the by-pass duct) to 20 ppmv.\104\ MACT floor
control is operating under good combustion conditions, including
conditions that provide adequate oxygen, temperature, turbulence, and
residence time. These controls will ensure that kilns with low organic-
containing raw materials are operating under good combustion conditions
to control PICs formed by the combustion of hazardous waste fuel.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ Most precalciner and some preheater kilns are equipped
with by-pass ducts where a portion (e.g., 5 to 30 percent) of the
kiln exhaust is diverted to a separate APCD, and, sometimes, a
separate stack. These gases are typically diverted to avoid a build-
up of metal salts that can adversely affect the calcination process.
\103\ Provided that: (1) hazardous waste is fired only into the
kiln (i.e., not at any location downstream from the kiln exit
relative to the direction of gas flow); and (2) the by-pass duct gas
is representative of kiln gas. To ensure by-pass gas is
representative of kiln gas, the by-pass duct must divert a minimum
of 10 percent of kiln off-gas as currently required in the BIF rule.
See 266.104(g).
\104\ The BIF rule provides for an alternative emissions
standard for CO of 100 ppmv. See Sec. 104(f).
\105\ When the by-pass duct is vented through a separate stack,
compliance with limits on CO or HC would ensure application of MACT
regarding fuel-related organic HAPs. When the by-pass is routed back
into the main (only) stack, compliance with limits on CO or HC will
likewise ensure application of MACT regarding fuel-related organic
HAPs. Absent these controls on the by-pass duct, fuel-related
organic HAPs could be either: (1) masked by raw material-related
HAPs, if the raw material contains substantial organics; or (2) if
the raw material contains low levels of organics, the kiln could
comply with the main stack standard (if one were proposed) while
operating under poor fuel combustion conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's MACT analysis of the existing by-pass duct data of the best
performing sources resulted in a HC MACT floor level of 6.7 ppmv. The
Agency's database for CO in the by-pass is incomplete for the purposes
of calculating a statistically-derived emission limit, but we believe
that it is reasonable and appropriate to establish the by-pass CO floor
level at the same level allowed in the BIF rule--100 ppmv. Under this
standard the facility would have the option of complying with either
the CO or HC standard in the by-pass duct.
The Agency also invites comment on requiring cement kilns with by-
pass ducts to comply with both the CO and HC standard (measured in the
by-pass duct). Given that CO in the by-pass duct should be related only
to fuel combustion efficiency, monitoring of CO in addition to HC may
be appropriate to ensure complete combustion of organics in the kiln;
however, the Agency is concerned that some CO may be generated from the
CO2 by dissociation at high sintering temperatures and thus
requests information and data on this option.
Cement kiln sources would not incur costs to comply with the
proposed floor level since all cement kilns with by-pass ducts (for
which EPA has data) currently meet the floor level for either HC or CO.
EPA also notes that approximately half of cement kilns that measured
both HC and CO in the by-pass achieved the floor level.
As mentioned above, the Agency is aware of a long wet process
cement kiln that is unable to comply with either the CO limit of 100
ppmv or the HC limit of 20 ppmv in the main stack. This kiln cannot
achieve either of these levels due to the relatively high organic
matter content in the limestone. Since the majority of the raw material
fed to the kiln is limestone, substitution with an alternative source
of limestone with lower organic content is not readily feasible (e.g.,
prohibitively expensive transportation costs of a substitute raw
material). The facility attempted to retrofit the kiln with a by-pass
duct thus allowing monitoring of CO or HC in the by-pass duct as
permitted by current BIF regulations. However, efforts to construct and
engineer this kiln with a by-pass duct were not successful due to the
length of the kiln.106
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ For example, the kiln experiences a substantial increase
in length due to expansion during start-up as the kiln heats up to
operating levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In coordination with state and regional officials, the cement kiln
was retrofitted with a mid-kiln sampling port that continuously draws
off a portion of the kiln combustion gas for analysis of HC or CO.
Since this sampling port does not divert a minimum of 10 percent of the
kiln off-gas from the kiln, it does not meet the Agency's current
definition of a by-pass duct defined in Sec. 266.104(g). The kiln's
mid-kiln sampling port diverts approximately 7 to 8 percent of the kiln
off-gas. The Agency specifically invites comment on allowing sources
with a mid-kiln sampling port, or other kiln gas extraction mechanism,
that is capable of continuously extracting a representative sample of
kiln off-gas to comply with
[[Page 17399]]
the same HC and CO standards proposed for kilns with by-pass ducts.
Commenters should specifically address how the gas extraction system
ensures that a representable sample of the kiln's fuel combustion gas
would be monitored for HC or CO.
b. Beyond-the-Floor Considerations. EPA has considered BTF control
for organic HAP emissions from the main stack of all CKs (including
those with by-pass ducts) based on use of a combustion gas afterburner.
We believe that a BTF level for CO of 50 ppmv and for HC of 6 ppmv are
readily achievable with an afterburner, but not appropriate. Therefore,
we are not proposing such a BTF standard. EPA has no data indicating
that any cement kilns are currently meeting these BTF levels with
existing controls. The annualized engineering costs for the cement
kilns to meet these BTF levels is estimated to be $280 million, and
would provide an incremental reduction in HC emissions nationally
beyond the floor controls of approximately 1500 tons per year and
65,000 tons per year for CO.
8. MACT Floor Cost Impacts
The total national annualized compliance costs 107 for
existing cement kilns to meet all the MACT floor levels are estimated
to be $34 million with the cost per cement kiln averaging $777,000. On
a cost per ton of hazardous waste burned, these total compliance costs
equate to $40 per ton of waste. We estimate that up to 2 cement
facilities will likely cease burning hazardous waste due to the
compliance costs associated at the floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ Compliance costs represent pre-tax compliance costs.
Because compliance costs are tax-deductible, the portion of pre-tax
costs borne by the firm would be between 70 and 80 percent of the
values shown above, depending on the specific firm's margin tax
bracket. See ``Regulatory Impact Assessment for Proposed Hazardous
Waste Combustion MACT Standards'', November 13, 1995, for details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency is proposing to go beyond-the-floor for two pollutants
for existing cement kilns: dioxins/furans and mercury. The total
national annualized compliance costs (i.e., total costs not incremental
costs from the floor levels) to meet the dioxin/furan and mercury BTF
levels in addition to the MACT floor levels for the remaining HAPs are
estimated to be $44 million with the cost per cement kiln averaging
$1.04 million. On a cost per ton of hazardous waste burned, these total
compliance costs increase to $50 per ton of waste. Again, we estimate
that up to 2 cement facilities will likely cease burning hazardous
waste due to the compliance costs associated with the proposed
standards.
B. MACT for New Hazardous Waste-Burning Cement Kilns
This section summarizes EPA's rationale for establishing MACT for
new cement kilns for each HAP, HAP surrogate, or HAP group. Table
IV.4.B.1. summarizes the proposed emissions limits for new cement
kilns, which were determined using the analytical process described in
Part Three, Section VII and in the technical background document.
Table IV.4.B.1.--Proposed MACT Standards for New Cement Kilns
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAP or HAP surrogate Proposed standard a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dioxin/furans (TEQ)....................... 0.20 ng/dscm (TEQ).
Particulate Matter........................ 69 mg/dscm (0.030 gr/dscf).
Mercury................................... 50 g/dscm.
SVM (Cd, Pb).............................. 55 g/dscm.
LVM (As, Be, Cr, Sb)...................... 44 g/dscm.b
HCl + Cl2 (total chlorides)............... 67 ppmv.
Hydrocarbons:
Main Stack c............................ 20 ppmv.
By-pass Stack d......................... 6.7 ppmv.
Carbon Monoxide:
Main Stack.............................. N/A.
By-pass Stack d......................... 100 ppmv.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a All emission levels are corrected to 7 percent O2.
b An alternative standard of 80 g/dscm would apply if the
source elects to document compliance using a multi-metals CEM.
c Applicable only to long wet and dry process cement kilns (i.e., not
applicable to preheater and/or precalciner kilns).
d Emissions standard applicable only for cement kilns configured with a
by-pass duct (typically preheater and/or precalciner kilns). Source
must comply with either the HC or CO standard in the by-pass stack. A
long wet or long dry process cement kiln that has a by-pass duct has
the option of meeting either the HC level in the main stack or the HC
or CO limit in the by-pass duct.
1. MACT New for Dioxins/Furans
a. MACT New Floor. As for existing cement kilns, the Agency is
identifying MACT new floor for D/F based on temperature control at the
inlet to the ESP or FF. EPA characterized the single best performing
source with the lowest TEQ dioxin/furan emissions and determined that
the best performing source had an inlet temperature of 409 deg.F or
less.
The Agency then evaluated D/F emissions from all kilns that
operated the ESP or FF at 409 deg.F or less and determined that 75
percent had D/F emissions less than 0.2 ng/dscm (TEQ). The other 25
percent of kilns generally had TEQs less than 0.8 ng/dscm (TEQ),
although one kiln emitted 4.7 ng/dscm (TEQ). The Agency notes that the
MACT new expanded pool was virtually identical (with the exception of
two test conditions) to the expanded pool of existing sources.
The Agency is, therefore, identifying temperature control at the
inlet to the ESP or FF at 409 deg.F as the MACT floor control. Given
that 75 percent of sources achieve D/F emissions of 0.20 ng/dscm (TEQ)
at that temperature, the Agency believes that it is appropriate to
express the floor as ``0.20 ng/dscm (TEQ), or (temperature at the inlet
to the ESP or FF not to exceed) 409 deg.F''. This would allow sources
that operate at temperatures above 409 deg.F but that achieve the same
D/F emissions as the majority of sources that operate below 409 deg.F
(i.e., 0.20 ng/dscm (TEQ)) to meet the standard without incurring the
expense of lowering the temperature at the ESP or FF.
b. Beyond-The-Floor Considerations. The Agency has identified
activated carbon injection (CI) at less than 400 deg.F as a BTF control
for D/F for cement kilns because CI is currently used in similar
applications such as hazardous waste incinerators, municipal waste
combustors, and medical waste incinerators. The Agency is not aware of
any CK flue gas conditions that would preclude the applicability of CI
or inhibit the performance of CI that has been demonstrated for other
waste combustion applications.
Carbon injection has been demonstrated to be routinely effective at
removing greater than 95 percent of D/F and some tests have
demonstrated a removal efficiency exceeding 99 percent at gas
temperatures of 400 deg.F or less. To determine a BTF emission level,
the Agency considered the emission levels that could result from gas
temperature control to less than 400 deg.F combined with CI.
As discussed for existing sources, when CI is used in conjunction
with temperature control, an additional 95 percent reduction in
emissions could be expected. Accordingly, emissions with BTF controls
could be expected to be less than a range of 0.04 to 0.24 ng/dscm (TEQ)
(i.e., 95 percent reduction from 0.8 ng and 4.7 ng, respectively).
Given that CI reductions greater than 95 percent are readily feasible,
the Agency believes that it is appropriate to identify 0.20 ng/dscm
(TEQ) as a reasonable BTF level that could be routinely achieved.
The Agency notes that, because we have assumed a fairly
conservative carbon injection removal efficiency of 95 percent to
identify the 0.20 ng/dscm (TEQ) level, we believe that this approach
adequately accounts for emissions variability at an individual kiln
because CI removal efficiency is likely to be up to or greater than 99
percent. EPA thus believes that it is not
[[Page 17400]]
necessary to add a statistically-derived variability factor to the 0.20
ng/dscm (TEQ) level to account for emissions variability at an
individual kiln. Thus, the 0.20 ng/dscm (TEQ) BTF level represents the
proposed D/F emission standard for new cement kilns.
EPA solicits comment on this approach, and notes that if a
statistically-derived variability factor were deemed appropriate, the
BTF level of 0.20 ng/dscm (TEQ) would be expressed as a standard of
0.31 ng/dscm (TEQ). We note, however, that under this approach, it may
be more appropriate to use a less conservative CI removal efficiency
(i.e., because emissions variability would be accounted for using
statistics rather than in the engineering decision to use a
conservative CI removal efficiency), thus lowering the 0.20 ng/dscm
(TEQ) level to approximately 0.04 ng/dscm (TEQ) (i.e., 99 percent
reduction from 0.8 ng and 4.7 ng results in levels of 0.008 ng to 0.047
ng/dscm (TEQ), respectively, and 0.04 ng is a reasonable value within
this range). If so, the D/F standard would be about 0.15 ng/dscm (TEQ)
(i.e., 0.04 ng/dscm TEQ plus the variability factor of 0.11 ng/dscm
TEQ).
For similar reasons as discussed for existing cement kilns, the
Agency is proposing a BTF standard for D/F of 0.20 ng/dscm (TEQ) for
new hazardous waste-burning cement kilns. Costs for new sources are
discussed in ``Regulatory Impact Assessment for Proposed Hazardous
Waste Combustion MACT Standards''.
2. MACT New for Particulate Matter
a. MACT New Floor. The Agency analyzed all available PM emissions
data and determined that the control used by the single best performing
source used a fabric filter with an air-to-cloth (A/C) ratio of 1.8
acfm/ft\2\ or less. Analysis of emissions data from all CKs using FFs
with the 1.8 acfm/ft\2\ A/C ratio or less resulted in a level of 0.065
gr/dscf.
For similar reasons discussed for existing cement kilns, the Agency
has chosen the existing NSPS standard (an established regulatory
benchmark for PM), not the statistically-derived limit, as the MACT for
existing hazardous waste-burning cement kilns. Thus, the Agency is
identifying a MACT floor for PM and is identifying the floor level as
the NSPS limit of 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) because it is the lowest
federally enforceable emission standard.
b. Beyond-the-Floor Considerations. EPA considered but is not
proposing a more stringent BTF level (e.g., 35 mg/dscm (0.0105 gr/
dscf)) for new cement kilns. For the same reasons discussed for
existing sources, the Agency believes that a more stringent level than
the floor is not warranted.
3. MACT New for Mercury
a. MACT New Floor. As discussed earlier, hazardous waste-burning
cement kilns control their mercury input (and therefore much of their
emissions) through control of the mercury content in the hazardous
waste. The Agency is defining the MACT floor technology as feedrate
control with a hazardous waste MTEC less than 28 g/dscm based
on performance of the best performing source. Analysis of all existing
cement kiln sources using this hazardous waste feedrate control
resulted in a MACT new floor level of 82 g/dscm. EPA estimates
that a source with average emissions variability must be designed and
operated to routinely achieve an emission level of 58 g/dscm
to meet this standard 99 percent of the time. Expanded MACT pools are
identical. The MACT new floor analysis results in the same floor as
existing sources because their respective expanded MACT pools are
identical.
EPA solicits comment on an alternative method to establishing the
MACT new floor. Under this alternative, the floor analysis would be
similar to the approach proposed today except that the variability
factor would be added to the average emissions from the single best
performing source. By contrast, under the approach proposed today, the
variability factor is added to the emissions of the highest emitting
source in the expanded MACT pool. Thus, under this alternative the only
purpose that expanding the MACT pool would serve is to identify the
variability factor. EPA notes that this approach results in a MACT new
floor of 53 g/dscm (4.4 g/dscm (average emissions
from the best performing source) plus the statistically-derived
variability factor of 49 g/dscm).
b. Beyond-the-Floor Considerations. The Agency has considered the
same BTF control alternatives for improved Hg control for new cement
kilns: hazardous waste feedrate control of Hg in conjunction with flue
gas temperature reduction to 400 deg.F or less followed by either
carbon injection (CI) or carbon bed (CB). The BTF design emission level
under the CI-controlled option is 30 g/dscm (assuming a source
has controlled its Hg emissions to 300 g/dscm controlling Hg
feed in the hazardous waste). The BTF emission standard corresponding
to a design level of 30 g/dscm would be 50 g/dscm
108. The Agency is proposing 50 g/dscm as the MACT
standard for new cement kilns. The Agency specifically requests comment
on establishing BTF emission standards based on the alternative
approaches discussed for existing cement kilns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ To achieve a standard of 50 g/dscm 99 percent of
the time, a source with average emissions variability must be
designed and operated to achieve an emission level of 30 g/
dscm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. MACT New for Semivolatile Metals
a. MACT New Floor. MACT new control is based on hazardous waste
feedrate control and PM control. EPA characterized the single best
performing source with the lowest SVM emissions and determined that the
best performing source used a fabric filter with an air-to-cloth ratio
of 2.1 acfm/ft \2\ or less for a kiln system with a hazardous waste
(HW) MTEC of 36,000 g/dscm or less. Analysis of all sources
(i.e., expanded MACT pool of facilities) using this technology or
better resulted in a floor level of 55 g/dscm for new cement
kilns.
EPA solicits comment on an alternative method to establishing the
MACT new floor. Under this alternative, the floor analysis would be
similar to approach proposed today except that the variability factor
would be added to the average emissions from the single best performing
source. Thus, the expanded MACT pool serves only to identify the
variability factor of the floor technology. EPA notes that this
approach results in a MACT new floor of 39 g/dscm (4
g/dscm (average emissions from the best performing source)
plus the statistically-derived variability factor of 35 g/
dscm).
b. Beyond-the-Floor Considerations. The Agency considered a more
stringent level than the floor level of 55 g/dscm based on
improved collection efficiency of the MACT floor FF. Since this level
is virtually identical to the floor level for existing sources and
considering that EPA is not proposing standards more stringent than the
floor for existing sources, the Agency believes for the same reasons
that a more stringent floor level is not warranted for new sources as
well. Finally, we note that establishing the MACT standard at the floor
would not trigger the need for a more stringent standard under RCRA.
5. MACT New for Low-Volatile Metals
a. MACT New Floor. MACT new control is based on hazardous waste
feedrate control and PM control. EPA characterized the best particulate
control device, and identified the floor technology as a baghouse
(i.e., fabric filter) with an air-to-cloth ratio of 2.3 acfm/ft\2\ or
less with a hazardous waste
[[Page 17401]]
(HW) MTEC less than 25,000 g/dscm. Analysis of the expanded
MACT pool resulted in a floor emissions level of 44 g/dscm for
new cement kilns.
EPA solicits comment on an alternative method to establishing the
MACT new floor. Under this alternative, the floor analysis would be
similar to the approach proposed today except that the variability
factor would be added to the average emissions from the single best
performing source. Thus, the expanded MACT pool only serves to identify
the variability factor of the floor technology. EPA notes that this
approach results in a MACT new floor of 30 g/dscm (4
g/dscm (average emissions from the best performing source)
plus the statistically-derived variability factor of 26 g/
dscm).
b. Beyond-the-Floor Considerations. The Agency considered a more
stringent level than the floor of 44 g/dscm based on improved
collection efficiency of the MACT floor FF. We initially determined
that selecting such a BTF level is not warranted for several reasons:
(1) It would not likely be cost effective considering the small
increment of LVMs removed; (2) LVM are not of particular concern
because they are not bioaccumulative; (3) establishing the MACT
standard at the MACT new floor would not trigger the need for a more
stringent RCRA standard.
The Agency is proposing an alternative compliance option for LVMs
for new cement kilns. Because the Agency anticipates the likelihood of
development of a multi-metals continuous emissions monitor (CEM) in the
near future and considering that the estimated detection limit for the
CEM to be approximately 80 g/dscm for the LVM metals combined,
the Agency is proposing an alternative standard of 80 g/dscm
should the source elect to document compliance using a multi-metals
CEM. Thus, the LVM standard is different depending on the compliance
method selected.
6. MACT New for Hydrochloric Acid and Chlorine
a. MACT New Floor. Cement kilns use the natural alkalinity of the
limestone used as raw material and hazardous waste feedrate control to
control HCl and Cl2 emissions. Thus, the MACT floor is based on
hazardous waste feedrate control.
EPA characterized the single best performing source with the lowest
HCl/Cl2 emissions and determined that the best performing source
used feedrate control with a hazardous waste (HW) MTEC of 1.6 g/dscm or
less. (Combined emissions of HCl and Cl2 were expressed as HCl
equivalents.) Analysis of the expanded MACT pool of facilities resulted
in a floor level of 630 g/dscm for new cement kilns, which is
the same result as for existing cement kiln sources because the
expanded MACT pools are identical for both existing and new cement
kilns.
Again, as discussed for existing cement kilns, this determination
is confounding given that the highest average emissions from any test
condition in the entire database, irrespective of hazardous waste MTEC
for total chlorine, was 220 ppmv. This anomalous finding is apparently
attributable to: (1) The data set having very high average within-test-
condition variability; and (2) adding the average variability factor to
the log mean rather than the arithmetic mean of the test condition
within the expanded MACT pool (those sources using MACT floor control)
with the highest arithmetic mean. If that source had unusually high
emissions variability, then the log mean could be substantially higher
than the arithmetic mean, resulting in an unusually high emission level
to which the variability factor was added.
Because of these concerns, the Agency invites comment on
alternative approaches that may identify a more reasonable floor level.
One approach could be to add the average variability factor for the
data set to the arithmetic mean, rather than the log mean, of the
highest test condition in the expanded MACT pool. In addition, if this
still resulted in a calculated floor level greater than any emission
level in the database, irrespective of hazardous waste MTEC for total
chlorine, the floor level could be capped at the highest emission level
in the database--220 ppmv.
b. Beyond-the-Floor Considerations. BTF control is being defined as
a wet scrubber in conjunction with the floor control for hazardous
waste chlorine feedrate. As discussed earlier for existing systems,
more stringent HCl and Cl2 control based on use of wet scrubbers
is readily achievable. The Agency is aware of two cement kilns (not
burning hazardous waste) that employ a wet and dry scrubber,
respectively, capable of HCl/Cl2 capture. Wet scrubber use within
the hazardous waste incineration industry is well established also,
often achieving capture efficiencies exceeding 99 percent. Considering
that average HCl/Cl2 emissions from existing cement kilns range
from less than 1 ppmv to 220 ppmv and that a well-designed and operated
wet scrubber would be expected to achieve removal efficiencies greater
than 90 percent, if not higher, the Agency believes that HCl/Cl2
control to a standard of 67 ppmv (corresponding to a design level of 25
ppmv 109) is readily achievable.110 Thus the Agency is
proposing a HCl/Cl2 standard of 67 ppmv for new cement kilns. See
``Regulatory Impact Assessment for Proposed Hazardous Waste Combustion
MACT Standards'' for further details on the costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ Considering the highest total chlorine data point of 220
ppmv with a 90 percent removal efficiency yields a design level of
approximately 25 ppmv.
\110\ The Agency notes that assuming a 99 percent capture
efficiency would result in a design level of approximately 2.2 ppmv
(corresponding to an emission level of 6.7 ppmv). Since the
application of wet scrubbers is still limited in the cement
industry, EPA believes that a total chlorine standard of 6.7 ppmv is
unnecessarily low and is thus assuming a more conservative total
chlorine removal efficiency of 90 percent. In addition, the Agency
notes that further controls under RCRA would not be necessary at a
level of 67 ppmv (corresponding to a design level of 25 ppmv) for
new cement kilns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. MACT New for Carbon Monoxide and Hydrocarbons
a. MACT Floor. The Agency believes that control of non-dioxin
organic HAP emissions (i.e., non-dioxin PICs that are also HAPs) can be
achieved by establishing emissions limits on hydrocarbons and carbon
monoxide. As discussed earlier for existing cement kilns, the Agency is
proposing a MACT standard of 20 ppmv for HCs in the main stack (not
applicable for preheater and precalciner kilns), and either a CO limit
of 100 in the by-pass duct or HC standard of 6.7 ppmv in the by-pass
duct. Thus, the proposed standards for new cement kilns are identical
to those for existing kilns.
b. Beyond-the-Floor Considerations. As for existing sources the
Agency requests comment on a main stack hydrocarbon standard of 6 ppmv
and a carbon monoxide standard of 50 ppmv for all new cement kilns
(including those with by-pass ducts) based on performance of a
combustion gas afterburner to burn-out incompletely combusted organics
that escape the primary combustion zone.
8. MACT New Cost Impacts
A discussion of the costs and economic impacts for new cement kilns
is presented in Part Seven of today's proposal.
C. Evaluation of Protectiveness
In order to satisfy the Agency's mandate under the RCRA to
establish standards for facilities that manage hazardous wastes and
issue permits that are protective of human health and the environment,
the Agency conducted an analysis to assess the extent to which
[[Page 17402]]
potential risks from current emissions would be reduced through
implementation of MACT standards. The analysis conducted for hazardous
waste-burning cement kilns is similar to the one described above for
hazardous waste incinerators. The procedures used in the Agency's risk
analyses are described in detail in the background document for today's
proposal.111 In evaluating the MACT standards, the Agency used the
design value which is the value the Agency expects a source would have
to design to in order to be assured of meeting the standard on a daily
basis and hence is always a lower value than the actual standard for
all HAPs controlled by a variable control technology.112
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ ``Risk Assessment Support to the Development of Technical
Standards for Emissions from Combustion Units Burning Hazardous
Wastes: Background Information Document,'' February 20, 1995.
\112\ For the semi-volatile and low volatility metals
categories, the Agency assumed the source could emit up to the
design value for each metal in the category for the purpose of
assessing protectiveness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The risk results for hazardous waste-burning cement kilns are
summarized in Table IV.4.C.1 for cancer effects and Table IV.4.C.2 for
non-cancer effects for the populations of greatest interest, namely
subsistence farmers, subsistence fishers, recreational anglers, and
home gardeners. The results are expressed as a range where the range
represents the variation in exposures across the example facilities
(and example waterbodies for surface water pathways) for the high-end
and central tendency exposure characterizations across the exposure
scenarios of concern. For example, because dioxins bioaccumulate in
both meat and fish, the subsistence farmer and subsistence fisher
scenarios are used to determine the range.113
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ For the semi-volatile and low volatility metals
categories, the inhalation MEI scenarios are also used. For hydrogen
chloride and chlorine (Cl2) only the inhalation MEI scenarios
are used.
Table IV.4.C.1--Individual Cancer Risk Estimates for Cement Kilns 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dioxins Semi-volatile metals 2 Low volatile metals 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................ 1E-8 to 9E-5............. 1E-9 to 4E-7............. 5E-11 to 5E-7
Floor........................... 4E-9 to 2E-5 4........... 3E-9 to 1E-7............. 9E-9 to 4E-6
BTF............................. 4E-9 to 2E-6 5...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Floor........................... 4E-9 to 2E-5 4........... 3E-9 to 1E-7............. 3E-9 to 1E-6
BTF............................. 4E-9 to 2E-6 5...........
CEM Option 6.................... ......................... 3E-9 to 1E-7............. 1E-8 to 4E-6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Lifetime excess cancer risk.
2 Carcinogenic metal: cadmium.
3 Carcinogenic metals: arsenic, beryllium, and chromium (VI).
4 Based on 0.2 ng/dscm TEQ as a central tendency estimate and 1.4 ng/dscm TEQ as a high-end estimate.
5 Based on 0.20 ng/dscm TEQ.
6 Based on SVM standard of 60 g/dscm and LVM standard of 80 g/dscm (applicable only if the
source elects to document compliance using a multi-metals CEM).
Table IV.4.C.2.--Individual Non-Cancer Risk Estimates for Cement Kilns 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Semi-volatile metals 2 Low volatile metals 3 Hydrogen chloride Chlorine
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................... <0.001 to 0.06.............. <0.001 to 0.004............ <0.001 to 0.04............. <0.001 to 0.06
Floor.............................. <0.001 to 0.004............. <0.001 to 0.01............. 0.01 to 0.1 4.............. 0.05 to 0.8 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Floor.............................. <0.001 to 0.004............. <0.001 to 0.005............ 0.01 to 0.1 4.............. 0.05 to 0.8 5
BTF................................ ............................ ........................... 0.001 to 0.01 4............ 0.005 to 0.08 5
CEM Option 6....................... <0.001 to 0.004............. <0.001 to 0.01............. ........................... ...........................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Hazard quotient.
2 Cadmium and lead.
3 Antimony, arsenic, beryllium, and chromium.
4 HCl + Cl2 assuming 100 percent HCl.
5 HCl + Cl2 assuming 10 percent Cl2.
6 Based on SVM standard of 60 g/dscm and LVM standard of 80 g/dscm (applicable only if the source elects to document compliance using
a multi-metals CEM).
The risk analysis indicates that for the semi-volatile and low-
volatile metals categories, the MACT standards for cement kilns are
protective at the floor for both existing and new sources. The analysis
indicates that the CEM compliance option for new sources is also
protective. For hydrogen chloride and chlorine (Cl2), the MACT
standards for cement kilns are also protective at the floor for both
existing and new sources. However, the analysis indicates
[[Page 17403]]
that for dioxins the proposed beyond the floor standards, rather than
the floor levels, are protective.
V. Lightweight Aggregate Kilns: Basis and Level for the Proposed NESHAP
Standards for New and Existing Sources
Today's proposal would establish maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) emissions standards for dioxin/furans, mercury,
semivolatile metals (cadmium and lead), low volatile metals (arsenic,
beryllium, chromium, and antimony), particulate matter (PM), acid gas
emissions (hydrochloric acid plus chlorine), hydrocarbons, and carbon
monoxide from existing and new hazardous waste-burning lightweight
aggregate kilns (LWAKs). See proposed Sec. 63.1205. The following
discussion addresses how MACT floor and beyond-the-floor (BTF) levels
were established for each HAP and EPA's rationale for the proposed
standard. The Agency's overall procedural approach for MACT
determinations has been discussed in Part Three, Sections V and VI for
existing sources and in Section VII for new sources.
Again, the Agency wishes to emphasize that these standards were
developed using a database that contains primarily short-term
certification of compliance data that may not adequately reflect more
normal, day-to-day operations and emissions. As noted earlier, EPA
believes it preferable to use long-term, more normal operating
emissions data for MACT standard-setting purposes and specifically
invites commenters to submit this type of data.
A. Summary of MACT Standards for Existing LWAKs
This section summarizes EPA's rationale for establishing the MACT
floor emission level and choosing MACT for existing LWAKs for each HAP,
HAP surrogate, or HAP group.
Table IV.5.A.1 summarizes the MACT standards for existing LWAKs.
The basis for the floor level and BTF considerations for each HAP or
HAP surrogate is then discussed.
Table IV.5.A.1.--Proposed MACT Standards for Existing LWAKs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAP or HAP surrogate Proposed standards \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dioxin/furans............................. 0.20 ng/dscm TEQ.
Particulate Matter........................ 0.030 gr/dscf (69 mg/dscm)
Mercury................................... 72 g/dscm.
SVM [Cd, Pb].............................. 12 g/dscm.\2\
LVM [As, Be, Cr, Sb]...................... 340 g/dscm.
HCl + Cl2................................. 450 ppmv.
CO........................................ 100 ppmv.
HC........................................ 14 ppmv.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All emission levels are corrected to 7 percent O2.
\2\ An alternative standard of 60 g/dscm would apply if the
source elects to document compliance using a multi-metals CEM.
1. Dioxin/Furans
a. MACT Floor. EPA has obtained dioxin/furan (D/F) emissions data
for only one LWAK. The data indicated an average test condition D/F
emission of 0.04 ng/dscm (TEQ). Based on the Agency's data on the
performance of D/F control technology, the Agency is identifying the
MACT floor for D/F based on temperature control at the inlet to the
fabric filter. EPA is therefore identifying the MACT floor level for D/
F emissions from LWAKs as 0.20 ng/dscm (TEQ) or (temperature at the PM
control device not to exceed) 418 deg. F.
Given that EPA is not aware of any LWAKs that exceed the floor
level, the rule would not require these sources to incur costs to
achieve compliance.
The Agency recognizes that its data on dioxin/furan emissions from
LWAKs is limited. Therefore, the Agency is inviting commenters to
submit additional performance data on LWAK D/F emissions.
b. Beyond-The-Floor Considerations. The BTF considerations for
LWAKs were the same as for CKs. Therefore, EPA is proposing a BTF
standard of 0.20 ng/dscm (TEQ) for the same reasons applicable to CKs.
As noted above, given that EPA is not aware of any LWAKs that exceed
the proposed BTF standard, LWAKs should not have to incur costs to
achieve compliance. EPA notes, however, that LWAKs would nonetheless be
required to comply with operating limits established during performance
testing and conduct periodic D/F testing to document compliance with
the rule. These costs are relatively low when compared to the cost of
complying with other provisions of today's rule.
2. Particulate Matter
a. MACT Floor. LWAKs, like cement kilns, have high particulate
inlet loadings to the particulate control device due to the nature of
the lightweight aggregate manufacturing process; that is, a significant
portion of the finely pulverized raw material fed to the kiln is
entrained in the flue gas entering the control device. LWAKs are
equipped with fabric filters, although one facility is equipped with a
spray dryer, venturi scrubber and wet scrubber, in addition to the
fabric filter, to control PM to a 0.08 gr/dscf standard under the BIF
rule. The PM data for LWAKs include results from 15 test conditions
collected from 6 facilities, with a total of 12 units being tested. The
Agency's database shows that the average controlled PM emissions ranged
from 0.0005 gr/dscf to 0.02 gr/dscf, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, dry
basis.
The Agency analyzed all available PM emissions data and determined
that sources with emission levels at or below the level emitted by the
median of the best performing 12 percent of sources used a fabric
filter with an air-to-cloth ratio of 2.8 acfm/ft2 or less. EPA's
analysis of all LWAKs employing this floor technology resulted in a
MACT floor emissions level of 110 mg/dscm (0.049 gr/dscf). EPA
estimates that 100 percent of LWAKs are currently meeting the floor
level. The national annualized compliance cost for LWAKs to meet the
floor level is estimated to be $290,000 for the entire LWAK industry.
b. Beyond-The-Floor Considerations. EPA is proposing a more
stringent beyond-the-floor (BTF) level of 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) for
LWAKs. As mentioned above, since 1971, some cement kilns have been
subject to the more stringent NSPS (see 40 CFR 60.60, Subpart F) of 0.3
lb/ton of raw material feed (dry basis) to the kiln, which is generally
equivalent to 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf). Because of design and process
similarities between LWAKs and cement kilns, such as high inlet grain
loading and similar APCDs, the Agency believes that 69 mg/dscm is
achievable for LWAKs.
EPA estimates that 80 percent of LWAKs are currently meeting this
BTF level. The Agency estimates that there would be no national
incremental annualized compliance cost for the remaining LWAKs to meet
the BTF level rather than comply with the floor controls. This is
because sources are already meeting the BTF level, or they would be
able to meet it with the upgrades or retrofits needed to meet the floor
level. The BTF level would provide an incremental reduction of 4 tons
per year, or 9 percent, in PM emissions nationally beyond that achieved
with floor controls. (Note that emissions reductions estimates are
based on the design level, not the standard.) Therefore, the Agency is
proposing a MACT standard of 69 mg/dscm (0.030 gr/dscf) for existing
LWAKs.
EPA considered but is not proposing an alternative more stringent
beyond-
[[Page 17404]]
the-floor level (e.g., 35 mg/dscm (0.015 gr/dscf)) for LWAKs. EPA notes
that, to ensure compliance with a 35 mg/dscm standard 99 percent of the
time, a source with average emissions variability must be designed and
operated to achieve an emission level of approximately 18 mg/dscm. EPA
estimates that 60 percent of LWAKs currently have average PM emissions
below 18 mg/dscm.
All of the remaining LWAKs may require the installation of new
fabric filters to comply with the proposed standards for all HAPs
discussed in today's rule. The average emissions level for the 40
percent of LWAKs that do not meet a PM emission level of 18 mg/dscm is
28 mg/dscm. All of these LWAKs would require an upgrade from fiberglass
bags to improved performance filter media on the newly installed fabric
filters. Although the engineering costs to comply with a PM design
level of 18 mg/dscm is modest for LWAKs, the resulting reduction in PM
emissions is minimal because 40 percent of the kilns are emitting at an
average emission level slightly above the BTF level. Lowering the PM
design level to 18 mg/dscm may not be appropriate based on this minimal
impact on overall PM emissions.
Thus, EPA specifically invites comment on whether the final rule
should establish BTF standard for PM of 35 mg/dscm (or 0.15 lb/ton of
raw material (dry basis) feed into the kiln).
3. MACT for Mercury
a. MACT Floor. Mercury emissions from LWAKs are currently
controlled by the BIF rule, and LWAKs have elected to comply with the
BIF standard by limiting the feedrate of Hg in the hazardous
waste.\114\ Thus, the MACT floor is based on hazardous waste feed
control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ EPA notes that one LWAK is equipped with a venturi
scrubber that can provide control of Hg. That kiln, however, is the
highest Hg-emitting kiln in our database because, EPA believes, it
burns waste with high levels of Hg.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The LWAK mercury emissions data reflect results from 13 test
conditions collected from 6 facilities, with a total of 10 kilns being
tested. The average mercury emissions for the test conditions ranged
from 0.4 g/dscm to 560 g/dscm.
To identify the floor level for hazardous waste feed control, the
Agency determined that sources with Hg emissions at or below the level
emitted by the median of the best performing 12 percent of sources had
normalized hazardous waste feedrates (i.e., MTECs) \115\ of Hg of 17
g/dscm or less. Analysis of all LWAKs using this level of
hazardous waste feedrate of Hg, or less (i.e., sources having a MTEC of
17 g/dscm or less), resulted in a MACT floor level of 72
g/dscm. To meet this standard 99 percent of the time, EPA
estimates that a source with average emissions variability among runs
of a test condition would need to design and operate the kiln to meet a
level of 36 g/dscm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ MTEC, or maximum theoretical emission concentration, is
calculated as the feedrate of (Hg) divided by the gas flow rate. It
is used to normalize feedrates of Hg (and other metals and chlorine)
across sources with different waste (or fuel) burning capacities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA estimates that approximately 70 percent of LWAKs can meet this
floor level. The national annualized compliance cost of the remaining
LWAKs to reduce mercury emissions to the floor level is estimated to be
$1.6 million for the entire hazardous waste-burning LWAK industry, and
would reduce mercury emissions by 540 po
FR Doc. 96-7872 Revised Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors
unds per year or by 86 percent
from current baseline emissions.
EPA notes that it considered whether all LWAKs would be likely to
be able to meet the floor level of 72 g/dscm using control of
hazardous waste feed for Hg at an MTEC of 17 g/dscm, given
that Hg emissions also result from Hg in the raw material feed. EPA has
determined that all LWAKs should be able to meet the floor level using
the floor control without substituting raw material.
b. Beyond-The-Floor Considerations. The Agency has considered
beyond-the-floor (BTF) control for Hg using carbon injection (CI) in
combustion gas at temperatures below 400 deg.F, coupled with the MACT
floor level control of Hg in the hazardous waste feed. As discussed for
CKs, EPA believes that CI can control Hg emissions at or above 90
percent removal efficiency.
To identify a BTF level, EPA considered two approaches that would
result in virtually the same BTF standard--6 g/dscm. Under one
approach, EPA would apply a 90 percent removal efficiency for CI to the
floor design level of 36 g/dscm to identify a BTF standard of
6 g/dscm, which includes a statistically-derived variability
factor.
Under a second approach, EPA could account for emissions
variability by using a conservative CI removal efficiency of 80 percent
to identify a BTF emission standard of 7.2 g/dscm (based on a
design floor level of 36 g/dscm). Under this approach, a
statistically-derived variability factor would not be added.
EPA invites comment on which approach would be more appropriate for
identifying a BTF level. EPA, however, is not proposing a BTF standard.
In conjunction with earlier evaluations, the Agency has evaluated
the cost and emissions reductions associated with an emission standard
of 8 g/dscm. Although the BTF levels presented above are
somewhat different, EPA does not believe that the difference is large
enough to significantly affect the information presented below.
One of 11 LWAKs in the database would be able to meet a BTF level
of 8 g/dscm currently. The national annualized compliance cost
for the remaining LWAKs to meet the BTF level is estimated to be $4.4
million for the entire hazardous waste-burning LWAK industry. The BTF
level would provide an incremental reduction of 60 pounds per year (72
percent) in Hg emissions nationally beyond that achieved with floor
controls.
EPA has considered the costs in relation to emissions reductions
and the special bioaccumulation potential that Hg poses and has decided
that the floor level of 72 g/dscm best balances those factors.
Mercury is one of the more toxic metals known due to its
bioaccumulation potential and the neurological health effects at low
concentrations. For further discussion see the mercury benefits
discussion in Section VII of today's preamble. EPA invites comment,
however, on whether there are cost-effectiveness or other factors that
would lead the Agency to promulgate a final rule based on the BTF
level.
4. Semivolatile Metals
a. MACT Floor. Emissions of SVM from LWAKs are currently controlled
under the BIF rule. LWAKs use a combination of hazardous waste feedrate
control and PM control to comply with those standards. Accordingly,
MACT floor control is based on hazardous waste feedrate control and PM
control.
The LWAK semivolatile metals (SVM) (consisting of cadmium and lead)
data reflect results from 13 test conditions collected from 6
facilities, with a total of 10 units being tested. Average emissions of
the SVM group ranged from 1 g/dscm to 1670 g/dscm.
Control of semivolatile emissions is associated with PM control (see
discussion of SVM control for existing cement kilns). All LWAKs are
equipped with a fabric filter as the air pollution control device,
although one facility is equipped with a spray dryer, venturi scrubber
and wet scrubber in addition to the fabric filter.
The Agency analyzed all available lead and cadmium emissions data
and determined that sources with emission levels at or below the level
emitted by
[[Page 17405]]
the median of the best 12 percent of sources employed either: (1) A
fabric filter with an air-to-cloth ratio of 1.5 acfm/ft \2\ or less
with a hazardous waste MTEC less than 270,000 g/dscm; or (2) a
fabric filter and venturi scrubber with an air-to-cloth ratio of 4.2
acfm/ft \2\ or less with a hazardous waste MTEC less than 54,000
g/dscm. Analysis of emissions data from all LWAKs using these
MACT technologies resulted in a floor level of 12 g/dscm.
EPA notes that raw materials and fossil fuels also contribute to
LWAK SVM feedrates and emissions. Given that all sources must be able
to meet the floor level using the floor control, EPA investigated
whether all LWAKs could meet the floor level employing the MACT floor
technologies without being forced to substitute raw material. EPA
preliminary evaluation determined that 25 percent of sources in the SVM
emissions database had raw material containing Cd and Pb in greater
concentrations than sources in the expanded MACT pool; thus, these
sources may not be able to achieve the floor with MACT alone.116
However, the Agency believes that the data on which this preliminary
finding is based may not reflect the normal, day-to-day Pb and Cd
levels in raw material feed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ USEPA, ``Draft Technical Support Document for HWC MACT
Standards, Volume III: Selection of Proposed MACT Standards and
Technologies'', February 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted in the earlier section on cement kilns, one approach to
address this issue (of sources with higher levels of SVM metals in
their raw materials than sources in the expanded MACT pool and that,
therefore, cannot meet the floor level using floor control) is to: (1)
Identify the source with the highest normalized (by MTEC) feedrate of
metals in raw material; (2) assume the source is also feeding hazardous
waste with the floor control MTEC level of the metals; and (3) project
SVM emissions from the source based on combined raw material and
hazardous waste MTECs using a representative system removal efficiency
(SRE) from the expanded MACT pool considering an appropriate
variability factor (e.g., variability of emissions among runs within a
test condition in the expanded MACT pool). The Agency has not yet
conducted this type of analysis, but intends to do so in the near
future. EPA also believes that data reflecting normal, day-to-day
levels of Pb and Cd in raw materials would be important for this type
of analysis, and specifically invites commenters to submit such data as
well as their views on the approach suggested above.
EPA estimates that 38 percent of LWAKs are currently meeting the
floor level. The national annualized compliance cost of the remaining
LWAKs to reduce SVM emissions to the floor level is estimated to be
$2.1 million for the entire LWAK industry, and would reduce lead and
cadmium emissions nationally by 0.66 tons per year, or by 97 percent
from current baseline emissions.
The Agency is proposing an alternative compliance option for SVMs.
Since the Agency anticipates the likelihood of development of a multi-
metals continuous emissions monitor (CEM) in the near future, the
Agency is proposing establishing a higher standard for sources using a
properly designed and operated multi-metals CEM. This alternative
compliance option would be based on the minimum detection limit of the
device, which is estimated to be 60 g/dscm for SVMs combined.
b. Beyond-The-Floor Considerations. The Agency considered whether
to propose a more stringent level than the floor of 12 g/dscm.
EPA has determined that a BTF standard would not be appropriate. Since
control of semivolatile emissions is associated with PM control, a more
stringent SVM BTF level would require LWAKs to upgrade to more
expensive fiberglass bags (e.g., bags backed with teflon membranes) or
the addition of newly installed FFs with improved performance media.
Although the engineering costs to comply with a BTF SVM level are
moderate, the resulting incremental reduction in SVM emissions from the
floor level is minimal because the floor level already provides
substantial control by reducing baseline emissions by 97 percent. Thus,
the Agency believes a SVM BTF standard is not appropriate and is
proposing a SVM MACT standard of 12 g/dscm for existing LWAKs.
5. Low-Volatility Metals
a. MACT Floor. Emissions of LVM from LWAKs are also currently
controlled under the BIF rule. LWAKs use a combination of hazardous
waste feedrate control and PM control to comply with those standards.
Accordingly, MACT floor control is based on hazardous waste feedrate
control and PM control.
The low volatility metals (LVM) (consisting of arsenic, antimony,
beryllium, and chromium) data reflect results from 13 test conditions
collected from 6 facilities, with a total of 10 units being tested.
Average emissions of the LVM group ranged from 10 g/dscm to
289 g/dscm. Due to the relatively low volatility of these
metals, performance of the APCD is the most important factor in
controlling LVM emissions.
The Agency analyzed all available LVM emissions data and determined
that sources with emission levels at or below the level emitted by the
median of the best 12 percent of sources used a fabric filter with an
air-to-cloth ratio of 1.8 acfm/ft \2\ or less with a hazardous waste
MTEC less than 46,000 g/dscm. Analysis of available emissions
data for all LWAKs employing these controls resulted in a floor
emission level of 340 g/dscm.
EPA notes that raw materials and fossil fuels also contribute to
LWAK LVM feedrates and emissions. Given that all sources must be able
to meet the floor level using the floor control, EPA investigated
whether all LWAKs could meet the floor level employing the MACT floor
technologies without being forced to substitute raw material. EPA's
preliminary evaluation determined that one of the sources in the LVM
emissions database had raw material containing LVM in greater
concentrations than sources in the expanded MACT pool; thus, this
sources may not be able to achieve the floor with MACT alone.\117\ EPA
requests comments on addressing this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ USEPA, ``Draft Technical Support Document for HWC MACT
Standards, Volume III: Selection of Proposed MACT Standards and
Technologies'', February 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One approach to address this issue (of sources with higher levels
of LVM metals in their raw materials than sources in the expanded MACT
pool and that, therefore, cannot meet the floor level using floor
control) is to: (1) Identify the source with the highest normalized (by
MTEC) feedrate of metals in raw material; (2) assume the source is also
feeding hazardous waste with the floor control MTEC level of the
metals; and (3) project LVM emissions from the source based on combined
raw material and hazardous waste MTECs using a representative system
removal efficiency (SRE) from the expanded MACT pool considering an
appropriate variability factor (e.g., variability of emissions among
runs within a test condition in the expanded MACT pool). The Agency has
not yet conducted this type of analysis but intends to do so in the
near future. EPA also believes that data reflecting normal, day-to-day
levels of LVM in raw materials would be important for this type of
analysis and specifically invites commenters to submit such data as
well as their views on the approach suggested above.
EPA estimates that 92 percent of LWAKs are currently meeting the
floor level. The national annualized cost of
[[Page 17406]]
the remaining LWAKs to reduce LVM emissions to the floor level is
estimated to be $380,000 for the entire hazardous waste-burning LWAK
industry; this would reduce LVM emissions nationally by 0.011 ton per
year or by 5 percent from current baseline emissions.
b. Beyond-The-Floor Considerations. The Agency considered whether
to propose a more stringent level than the floor of 340 g/
dscm. Since control of low-volatile emissions is associated with PM
control, a more stringent LVM BTF level would require LWAKs to upgrade
to more expensive fiberglass bags (e.g., bags backed with teflon
membranes) or the addition of newly installed FFs with improved
performance media. Although the engineering costs to comply with a BTF
LVM level are moderate, the resulting reduction in LVM emissions is
minimal since LWAK LVM national emissions are estimated to be 0.2 tons
per year for the entire industry at the floor level. Thus, the Agency
believes a LVM BTF standard is not appropriate and is proposing a LVM
MACT standard of 340 g/dscm for existing LWAKs.
6. Hydrochloric Acid and Chlorine
a. MACT Floor. HCl and Cl2 emissions from LWAKs are currently
regulated by the BIF rule. Only one LWAK facility currently utilizes a
venturi scrubber, which is a dedicated control device, designed
specifically to remove HCl/Cl2 (referred to as total chlorine
where combined HCl and Cl2 levels are expressed as HCl
equivalents) from the flue gas.
The total chlorine emission database reflects results from 13 test
conditions collected from 6 facilities, with a total of 10 units being
tested. Average total chlorine emissions range from 13 ppmv to 2080
ppmv. The Agency analyzed all available total chlorine emissions data
and determined that sources with emission levels at or below the level
emitted by the median of the best 12 percent of sources used either:
(1) Hazardous waste feedrate control of total chlorine with a MTEC less
than 1.5 g/dscm; or (2) venturi scrubber with hazardous waste MTEC less
than 14 g/dscm. The analysis of all available emissions data for LWAKs
using these technologies resulted in a floor emissions level of 2100
ppmv, which the Agency has identified as the MACT floor level. To meet
this standard 99 percent of the time, a source with average within test
condition emission variability would need to be designed and operated
to achieve an emission level of 1400 ppmv.
EPA notes that raw materials and fossil fuels also contribute to
LWAK chlorine feedrates and emissions. Given that all sources must be
able to meet the floor level using the floor control, EPA investigated
whether all LWAKs could meet the floor level employing the MACT floor
technologies without being forced to substitute raw material. EPA
determined that all LWAKs in the total chlorine emissions database
would be able to meet the floor level using floor control \118\ without
switching raw material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ USEPA, ``Draft Technical Support Document for HWC MACT
Standards, Volume III: Selection of Proposed MACT Standards and
Technologies'', February 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA estimates that 85 percent of LWAKs are currently meeting the
floor level. The national annualized compliance cost of the remaining
LWAKs to reduce total chlorine emissions to the floor level is
estimated to be $890,000 for the entire hazardous waste-burning LWAK
industry; this would reduce total chlorine emissions nationally by 190
tons per year or 6 percent from current baseline emissions.
b. Beyond-The-Floor Considerations. The Agency has considered BTF
controls for improved total chlorine control using a dry scrubber or
spray tower scrubber. A dry scrubber should achieve a total chlorine
removal efficiency of 90 percent, and a spray tower scrubber should
achieve a removal efficiency of 99 percent. Applying the 90 percent
removal factor (the more conservative of the two removal efficiencies)
\119\ to the highest test condition in the database resulted in a BTF
standard of 450 ppmv. To meet this standard 99 percent of the time, EPA
estimates that a source with average emissions variability (among runs
within a test condition) would need to meet a design level of 210 ppmv.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ The Agency believes that many, but not all, LWAKs could
use a dry scrubber without adversely affecting the quality of the
LWAK dust (which is primarily raw material) for incorporation into
products or recycling back into the kiln. See discussion in the text
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA believes that dry scrubbers or spray tower scrubbers are
appropriate controls and is proposing a 450 ppmv total chlorine
emission standard based on these controls. EPA estimates that 38
percent of LWAKs are currently meeting this BTF level. The national
annualized compliance cost for the remaining LWAKs to meet this BTF
level rather than comply with the floor controls is estimated to be
$5.0 million for the entire hazardous waste-burning LWAK industry. This
BTF level would provide an incremental reduction of 2200 tons per year
(80 percent) in total chlorine emissions nationally beyond that
achieved with the floor controls.
The Agency believes that both wet and dry scrubbing control
techniques are applicable to LWAKs for chlorine control. Dry scrubbing
is being used at some hazardous waste-burning LWAKs. Control efficiency
and outlet chlorine emissions levels are unclear due to conflicting
trial burn results, however. One potential problem with the application
of dry scrubbing to LWAKs is contamination of the captured LWAK dust
with dry sorbent. This may affect whether captured dust can be recycled
back into the kiln or incorporated into the final light weight
aggregate product. The addition of dry scrubbing could force some kilns
either to add a separate, additional FF dedicated to capturing the dry
sorbent or dispose of the mixed sorbent and LWAK dust. The Agency
invites comment on the effectiveness (and implications on dust
management) of dry scrubbing for control of chlorine in hazardous
waste-burning LWAKs.
The Agency also considered an additional BTF level of 25 ppmv for
LWAKs based on wet scrubbing alone. A further reduction from the
proposed BTF design level of 210 ppmv (based on dry scrubbing or spray
tower scrubbing) to 25 ppmv would require all thirteen LWAK sources to
either install new control equipment, or modify existing control
equipment. The incremental cost of this enhanced control would be
moderate to high for each of the individual LWAK sources. Although the
engineering cost for each facility is moderate to high, the overall
cost for LWAKs as a group is high since upgrades are required by every
facility. The Agency believes that the resulting moderate decrease in
total chlorine emissions may not justify this relatively high
engineering cost.
Based on cost-effectiveness considerations, EPA has determined that
proposing a BTF standard of 450 ppmv is warranted. As discussed
elsewhere in today's preamble, EPA's risk analysis developed for
purposes of RCRA shows that the emissions of total chlorine from
hazardous waste-burning LWAKs could pose significant risks by direct
inhalation, and these risks would be reduced by BTF controls.\120\
Thus, the BTF controls would make separate RCRA standards unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ EPA notes that under the BIF regulations, LWAKs are
currently subject to site-specific, risk-based emissions standards
for HCl/Cl2. EPA is uncertain why our risk assessment to
consider RCRA concerns under today's proposed rule shows that
baseline emissions for some LWAKs can pose significant risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the Agency requests comments on an alternative option
to identify the BTF level. Under this
[[Page 17407]]
option the 90 percent reduction in emissions provided by a dry scrubber
or spray tower scrubber would be applied to the floor level resulting
from hazardous waste feedrate control of total chlorine--2100 ppmv.
Thus, at 90 percent control efficiency, the BTF emission standard would
be 210 ppmv. To comply with this standard 99 percent of the time, a
source with average within test condition emissions variability would
need to be designed and operated to meet an emission level of
approximately 140 ppmv. EPA invites comment on whether this option is
more appropriate to establish the BTF level than applying the BTF
percent reduction to the test condition in the database with the
highest emissions.
As discussed above, EPA believes that a dry scrubber or spray tower
scrubber (in conjunction with the levels achieved using MACT floor
controls) are appropriate alternative controls. EPA estimates that 38
percent of LWAKs are currently meeting this alternative BTF level of
210 ppmv. EPA estimates that this BTF level would provide a further
incremental reduction in total chlorine emissions nationally beyond
that achieved with the proposed BTF standard of 450 ppmv. EPA invites
comment on this alternative approach to identify the BTF level.
7. Carbon Monoxide and Hydrocarbons
The Agency is proposing to use carbon monoxide (CO) and
hydrocarbons (HC) as surrogates for non-D/F organic HAPs.\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ This is in addition to controlling PM as a surrogate for
(condensed) semivolatile HAPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. MACT Floor.
i. Carbon Monoxide. The BIF rule currently limits CO emissions from
LWAKs to 100 ppmv on an hourly rolling average (HRA). See
Sec. 266.104(b). However, the BIF rule provides an alternative standard
that allows higher CO levels if HC levels are less than 20 ppmv.
LWAKs generally have low CO levels (i.e., less than 100 ppmv HRA)
achieved by operating under good combustion practices. Good combustion
practices include techniques such as thorough fuel, air, and waste
mixing; adequate excess oxygen; maintenance of adequate combustion
temperature; and blending of waste fuels to minimize combustion
perturbations. Accordingly, operating under good combustion practices
is identified as the floor control.
Given that 10 of 12 LWAKs for which EPA has CO emissions data have
maximum hourly rolling averages for the test condition of less than 100
ppmv, EPA believes it is reasonable and appropriate to identify the
floor level as the BIF limit of 100 ppmv. Two LWAKs have CO levels
exceeding the 100 ppmv level, however, and these higher levels (i.e.,
190 ppmv and 1900 ppmv) are allowed under the BIF rule. EPA is not sure
whether these elevated CO levels were caused by operating under poor
combustion conditions, or by trace levels of organics desorbing from
the raw materials.
If the CO were caused by organics desorbing from raw material, EPA
would consider this situation analogous to CKs that do not have a by-
pass duct (and thus stack emissions are affected by organics desorbed
from raw material). Accordingly, such LWAKs would be exempt from the CO
limit (and would be subject to a HC limit of 20 ppmv). (In this
situation, floor control (i.e., good combustion practices) could not be
used to meet the floor level.) EPA invites comment on how to
distinguish between LWAKs that have elevated CO levels because of poor
combustion (and that should be subject to the 100 ppmv floor level) and
LWAKs that have elevated CO levels because of desorption of organics
from raw material (and that should be exempt from the 100 ppmv floor
level). If an effective approach to distinguish between these
situations is developed, the final rule could distinguish among LWAKs
based on those high levels of organics in raw material versus those
with low levels.
EPA estimates that over 80 percent of LWAKs are currently meeting
the proposed standard. The national annualized compliance cost of the
remaining LWAKs to reduce carbon monoxide emissions to the floor level
\122\ is estimated to be $1.4 million for the entire LWAK industry;
this would reduce carbon monoxide emissions nationally by 600 tons per
year, or 81 percent from current baseline emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ EPA assumed that the LWAK with CO levels of 1900 ppmv
would need to install an afterburner to meet the floor level. EPA
acknowledges that this is inappropriate because all sources must be
able to meet the floor level using floor control--good combustion
practices. As discussed in the text, EPA invites comment on how to
identify appropriate MACT floor levels for sources that may have
elevated CO levels due to desorption of organics from raw material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Hydrocarbons. As discussed above, the BIF rule limits HC levels
to 20 ppmv HRA when CO exceeds 100 ppmv HRA. As with CO, floor control
is operating under good combustion practices. EPA believes it is
appropriate to establish the floor level at the lower of the BIF
emission limit or the levels that sources actually achieved. An
analysis of the available HC data determined that sources with emission
levels at or below the level emitted by the median of the best 12
percent of sources used good combustion practices as the control
technology. The analysis of all available emissions data for LWAKs
believed to be using good combustion practices resulted in a floor
emissions level of 14 ppmv.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ EPA notes that one of seven LWAKs in the HC database had
substantially higher test condition maximum HC levels (i.e., 13 ppmv
HRA) than the other sources (i.e., 6 to 8 ppmv HRA). As discussed in
the text above for CO, it is not clear whether the elevated HC
levels were caused by operating under poor combustion conditions or
desorption of organics from raw material. EPA invites comment on how
to address this situation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA estimates that 86 percent of LWAKs are currently meeting the
floor HC level. The national annualized compliance cost of the
remaining LWAKs to reduce hydrocarbon emissions to the floor level is
estimated to be $760,000 for the entire LWAK industry; this would
reduce hydrocarbon emissions nationally by 14 tons per year, or 31
percent from current baseline emissions.
b. Beyond-The-Floor Considerations. EPA considered BTF levels for
CO of 50 ppmv and for HC of 6 ppmv. Control of organic HAP emissions
would require the use of a combustion gas afterburner. Addition of an
afterburner to a LWAK would be expensive due to the requirement of a
large amount of auxiliary fuel to reheat the kiln exit flue gas to
temperatures required for organics burnout. Preliminary estimates
suggest that going beyond-the-floor for CO and HC would more than
double the national costs of complying with the proposed rule. EPA
believes that a BTF standard is not appropriate.
EPA estimates that 29 percent of LWAKs are currently meeting the
BTF level of 6 ppmv for HC and that 46 percent of LWAKs are currently
meeting the BTF levels of 50 ppmv for CO. The Agency has determined
that selecting these BTF levels is not appropriate. Therefore, the
Agency is proposing a MACT standard for hydrocarbons of 14 ppmv HRA and
for carbon monoxide of 100 ppmv HRA.
8. MACT Floor Cost Impacts
The total national annualized compliance costs for existing LWAKs
to meet all the MACT floor levels are estimated to be $3 million with
the cost per kiln averaging $390,000. These total compliance costs
equate to $39 per ton of hazardous waste burned. EPA estimates that one
LWAK facility may cease burning hazardous waste due to the compliance
costs associated at the floor.
[[Page 17408]]
The Agency is proposing to go beyond-the-floor for three pollutants
for existing LWAKs: dioxin/furans, mercury, and total chlorine. The
total national annualized compliance costs to meet the dioxin/furan,
mercury and total chlorine BTF standards in addition to the MACT floor
standards for the remaining HAPs are estimated to be $4 million with
the cost per kiln averaging $670,000. These total compliance costs
increase the cost per ton of hazardous waste burned to $56. EPA
estimated that one LWAK facility may cease burning hazardous waste due
to the compliance costs associated with this suite of floor and BTF
standards.
B. MACT for New Sources
This section summarizes EPA's rationale for establishing MACT for
new LWAKs for each HAP, HAP surrogate, or HAP group. Table V.5.B.1
summarizes the proposed MACT standards for new LWAKs, which were
determined using the analytical process described in Part Three,
Section VII and in ``Draft Technical Support Document for HWC MACT
Standards, Volume III: Selection of MACT Standards and Technologies''.
Table IV.5.B.1.--Proposed Emission Levels for New LWAKs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAP or HAP Surrogate Proposed Standards \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dioxin/furans............................. 0.20 ng/dscm TEQ.
Particulate Matter........................ 0.030 gr/dscf (69 mg/dscm).
Mercury................................... 72 g/dscm.
SVM [Cd, Pb].............................. 5.2 g/dscm \2\.
LVM [As, Be, Cr, Sb]...................... 55 g/dscm \3\.
HCl + Cl2................................. 62 ppmv.
CO........................................ 100 ppmv.
HC........................................ 14 ppmv.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All emission levels are corrected to 7 percent O2.
\2\ An alternative standard of 60 g/dscm would apply if the
source elects to document compliance using a multi-metals CEM.
\3\ An alternative standard of 80 g/dscm would apply if the
source elects to document compliance using a multi-metals CEM.
1. MACT New for Dioxin/Furan
a. MACT NEW Floor. EPA used the Agency's data on the performance of
D/F control technology to identify MACT floor controls and the floor
level for new facilities. The MACT floor level for D/F emissions from
LWAKs is 0.20 ng/dscm (TEQ) or (temperature at the PM control device
not to exceed) 418 deg.F.
b. Beyond-The-Floor Considerations. The BTF considerations for new
LWAKs were the same as for CKs. Therefore, EPA is proposing a BTF
standard for new LWAKs of 0.20 ng/dscm (TEQ) for the same reasons
applicable to CKs.
2. MACT New for Particulate Matter
a. MACT New Floor. EPA's analysis of available PM data shows that
the single best APCD for controlling particulate emissions is a fabric
filter with an air-to-cloth ratio less than 1.5 acfm/ft \2\ which
represents MACT technology for new sources. An evaluation of all
sources employing this technology shows that this technology can
consistently achieve a PM emission of 0.054 gr/dscf.
b. Beyond-The-Floor Considerations. For the same reasons as
discussed for existing LWAKs, the Agency is proposing a lower BTF
standard for new LWAKs. Therefore, the Agency is proposing the MACT
standard of 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) for new LWAKs.
As discussed above for existing LWAKs, EPA specifically invites
comment on whether the final rule should establish an alternative BTF
standard for PM of 35 mg/dscm (or 0.15 lb/ton of raw material (dry
basis) feed into the kiln).
3. MACT New for Mercury
a. MACT New Floor. The MACT new floor analysis is the same as
existing sources because the expanded pools for each, based on the
single best performing source, are identical. As discussed earlier,
LWAKs control their mercury input (and therefore much of their
emissions) through the control of the mercury content in the hazardous
waste. The Agency is defining the MACT floor technology as feedrate
control with a hazardous waste MTEC less than 17 g/dscm based
on performance of the single best performing source. Analysis of all
existing LWAK sources using this hazardous feedrate control resulted in
a MACT floor level of 72 g/dscm.
b. Beyond-the-Floor Consideration. The Agency is considering the
same two BTF options for new LWAKs as discussed for existing sources--
Option 1 is 6 g/dscm, and Option 2 is 7.2 g/dscm. The
Option 1 mercury BTF level of 6 g/dscm is achievable based on
the use of some degree of hazardous waste feedrate control and/or add-
on mercury control with injection of activated carbon, assuming a 90
percent reduction. The Option 2 level of 7.2 g/dscm represents
an achievable level based on both achievement of floor levels and use
of carbon injection, assuming conservative 80 percent reduction.
Therefore, EPA is proposing a mercury MACT standard of 72
g/dscm for existing LWAKs and requesting comments on possible
BTF standard of 6 g/dscm and 7.2 g/dscm.
4. MACT New for Semivolatile Metals
a. MACT New Floor. EPA characterized the single best performing
source with the lowest SVM emissions and determined that the best
performing source used a fabric filter with an air-to-cloth ratio of
1.5 acfm/ft2 or less for a kiln system with a hazardous waste (HW)
MTEC of 270,000 g/dscm or less. Analysis of all sources using
this technology or better (i.e., expanded MACT pool of facilities)
resulted in a floor level of 5.2 g/dscm for new LWAKs.
The Agency recognizes that 5.2 g/dscm is a low floor level
and is concerned about potential problems in its approach to setting
the MACT floor level. The expanded MACT pool included only one other
test condition besides the single best source, and EPA is concerned
that this low data set resulted in a low floor level. In addition, EPA
is concerned that the single best performing source may have low SVM
feedrates in the raw material, which could result in a floor level that
is unachievable. EPA invites comment on how to address these potential
issues.
The Agency is proposing an alternative compliance option for SVMs.
Since the Agency anticipates the likelihood of development of a multi-
metals continuous emissions monitor (CEM) in the near future, the
Agency is proposing establishing a higher standard for sources using a
properly designed and operated multi-metals CEM. This alternative
compliance option would be based on the minimum detection limit of the
device which is estimated to be 60 g/dscm for SVMs combined.
b. Beyond-the-Floor Considerations. EPA has determined that
proposing a BTF standard is not warranted for the same reasons that a
more stringent level was not proposed for existing sources. Therefore,
the Agency is proposing a semivolatile metals MACT standard of 5.2
g/dscm for new LWAKs.
5. MACT New for Low-Volatile Metals
a. MACT New Floor. EPA characterized the best particulate control
device and identified the floor technology as a fabric filter with an
air-to-cloth ratio of 1.3 acfm/ft2 or less with a hazardous waste
(HW) MTEC less than 37,000 g/dscm. Analysis of all existing
LWAK sources employing either of these technologies resulted in a floor
emissions level of 55 g/dscm for new LWAKs.
The Agency is proposing an alternative compliance option for LVMs.
Since the Agency anticipates the likelihood of development of a multi-
metals continuous emissions monitor
[[Page 17409]]
(CEM) in the near future, the Agency is proposing establishing a higher
standard for new sources using a properly designed and operated multi-
metals CEM. This alternative compliance option would be based on the
minimum detection limit of the device which is estimated to be 80
g/dscm for these LVM metals combined.
b. Beyond-the-Floor Considerations. EPA has determined that
proposing a BTF standard is not warranted for the same reasons that a
more stringent level was not proposed for existing sources. Therefore,
the Agency is proposing a low-volatile metals MACT standard of 55
g/dscm for new LWAKs.
6. MACT New for Hydrochloric Acid and Chlorine
a. MACT New Floor. EPA characterized the single best performing
source with the lowest HCl/Cl2 (total chlorine) emissions and
determined that the best performing source used a venturi scrubber with
a hazardous waste (HW) MTEC of 14 g/dscm or less. Analysis of all
sources using this technology or better (i.e., expanded MACT pool of
facilities) resulted in a floor level of 62 ppmv for new LWAKs.
b. Beyond-the-Floor Considerations. The MACT floor is characterized
by a technology that is able to achieve a 99 percent removal
efficiency. A BTF level is not warranted because the floor level is
based on a technology that is able to achieve the highest removal
efficiency for HCl/Cl2. Therefore, the Agency is proposing a HCl/
Cl2 MACT standard of 62 ppmv for new LWAKs.
7. MACT New for Carbon Monoxide and Hydrocarbons
a. MACT New Floor. The Agency believes that control of non-dioxin
organic emissions can be achieved by establishing emissions limits on
hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. As discussed earlier for existing
LWAKs, the Agency is proposing a MACT standard of 14 ppmv for HC and of
100 ppmv for CO, based on floor levels
b. Beyond-the-Floor Considerations. EPA considered control for
organic HAP emissions based on the use of a combustion gas afterburner.
Even though EPA believes that BTF levels for CO of 50 ppmv and for HC
of 6 ppmv are achievable with an afterburner, using these values for a
BTF standard is not appropriate and is not warranted at this time (see
discussion for existing LWAKs). Therefore, EPA is proposing a MACT
standard of 14 ppmv for HC and of 100 ppmv for CO for new LWAKs.
8. MACT New Cost Impacts
A detailed discussion of the costs and economic impacts for new
LWAKs is presented in Part Seven of today's proposal and ``Regulatory
Impact Assessment for Proposed Hazardous Waste Combustion MACT
Standards''.
C. Evaluation of Protectiveness
In order to satisfy the Agency's mandate under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act to establish standards for facilities
that manage hazardous wastes and issue permits that are protective of
human health and the environment, the Agency conducted an analysis to
assess the extent to which potential risks from current emissions would
be reduced through implementation of MACT standards. The analysis
conducted for hazardous waste-burning LWAKs is similar to the one
described above for hazardous waste incinerators and cement kilns. The
procedures used in the Agency's risk analyses are discussed in detail
in the background document for today's proposal.124 In evaluating
the MACT standards, the Agency used the design value which is the value
the Agency expects a source would have to design to in order to be
assured of meeting the standard on a daily basis and hence is always a
lower value than the actual standard for all HAPs controlled by a
variable control technology.125
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ ``Risk Assessment Support to the Development of Technical
Standards for Emissions from Combustion Units Burning Hazardous
Wastes: Background Information Document'', February 20, 1996.
\125\ For the semi-volatile and low volatility metals
categories, the Agency assumed the source could emit up to the
design value for each metal in the category for the purpose of
assessing protectiveness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The risk results for hazardous waste-burning lightweight aggregate
kilns are summarized in Table V.5.C.1 for cancer effects and Table
V.5.C.2 for non-cancer effects for the populations of greatest
interest, namely subsistence farmers, subsistence fishers, recreational
anglers, and home gardeners. The results are expressed as a range
representing the variation in exposures across the example facilities
(and example waterbodies for surface water pathways) for the high-end
and central tendency exposure characterizations across the exposure
scenarios of concern. For example, because dioxins bioaccumulate in
both meat and fish, the subsistence farmer and subsistence fisher
scenarios are used to determine the range.126
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ For the semi-volatile and low volatility metals
categories, the inhalation MEI scenarios are also used. For hydrogen
chloride and chlorine (Cl2) only the inhalation MEI scenarios are
used.
Table V.5.C.1.--Individual Cancer Risk Estimates for Lightweight Aggregate Kilns \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dioxins Semi-volatile metals \2\ Low volatile metals \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................ 2E-9 to 4E-7............. 1E-8 to 5E-7............. 9E-10 to 4E-7.
Floor........................... 1E-8 to 2E-6 \4\......... 1E-8 to 6E-8............. 5E-7 to 1E-5.
BTF............................. 1E-8 to 2E-6 \5\......... ......................... ........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Floor........................... 1E-8 to 2E-6\4\.......... 6E-9 to 3E-8............. 7E-8 to 2E-6.
BTF............................. 1E-8 to 2E-6\5\.......... ......................... ........................
CEM Option \6\.................. ......................... 6E-8 to 3E-7............. 2E-7 to 5E-6.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Lifetime excess cancer risk.
\2\ Carcinogenic metal: cadmium.
\3\ Carcinogenic metals: arsenic, beryllium, and chromium (VI).
\4\ Based on 0.2 ng/dscm TEQ as both a central tendency and high-end estimate.
\5\ Based on 0.20 ng/dscm TEQ.
\6\ Based on SVM standard of 60 g/dscm and LVM standard of 80 g/dscm (applicable only if the
source elects to document compliance using a multimetals CEM).)
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 77 / Friday, April 19, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 17410]]
Table V.5.C.2--Individual Non-Cancer Risk Estimates for Lightweight Aggregate Kilns \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Semi-volatile metals \2\ Low volatile metals \3\ Hydrogen chloride Chlorine
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................... <0.001 to 0.006............. <0.001 to 0.007............ 0.1 to 4................... 0.03 to 0.3.
Floor.............................. <0.001...................... <0.001 to 0.08............. 0.8 to 1\4\................ 4 to 7\5\.
BTF................................ ............................ ........................... 0.1 to 0.2\4\.............. 0.6 to 1\5\.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Floor.............................. <0.001...................... <0.001 to 0.01............. 0.02 to 0.04\4\............ 0.1 to 0.2\5\
BTF................................ ............................ ........................... 0.01 to 0.02\4\............ 0.07 to 0.1\5\
CEM Option \6\..................... <0.001 to 0.001............. <0.001 to 0.03............. ........................... ...........................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Hazard quotient.
\2\ Cadmium and lead.
\3\ Antimony, arsenic, beryllium, and chromium.
\4\ HCl + Cl2 assuming 100 percent HCl.
\5\ HCl + Cl2 assuming 10 percent Cl2.
\6\ Based on SVM standard of 60 g/dscm and LVM standard of 80 g/dscm (applicable only if the source elects to document compliance
using a multi-metals CEM).
The risk analysis indicates that for the semi-volatile and low
volatility metals categories, the MACT standards for lightweight
aggregate kilns are protective at the floor for both existing and new
sources. The analysis indicates that the CEM compliance option for new
sources is also protective. The analysis also indicates that for
dioxins, both the floor levels and the proposed beyond the floor
standards are protective. The analysis also indicates that for hydrogen
chloride and chlorine (Cl2), the proposed beyond-the-floor
standards for existing sources, rather than the floor levels, are
protective.
VI. Achievability of the Floor Levels
As discussed in sections III, IV, and V above, the MACT floor
levels were selected for each source category by identifying the best
performing sources for each individual HAP or HAP surrogate. This is
the approach typically used by the Agency in establishing MACT
standards.
Nonetheless, the Agency recognizes that this approach raises the
question of whether the selected floor levels will be achievable
simultaneously.
An alternative approach that would ensure simultaneous
achievability of the floor levels would be to identify the best
performing sources for a particular HAP or HAP surrogate (e.g., D/F or
PM) and to consider emissions only from those sources \127\ to
establish floor levels for the other HAPs or HAP surrogates. EPA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ Another option would be to consider emissions from other
sources that employ equivalent or better control for the other HAPs
or HAP surrogates. has not used this approach because it would
result in establishing unreasonably high floor levels for most HAPs
or HAP surrogates that arbitrarily reflect the control devices (and
emission levels) that happen to be used by sources that are
performing best solely for the selected, critical HAP or HAP
surrogate (e.g., D/F or PM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address concerns relating to the simultaneous achievability of
the proposed standards, which are a combination of floor and BTF
emissions levels, the Agency investigated whether sources could achieve
the proposed standards without making any upgrades to existing
equipment. It is important to note that, under the current approach
used by the agency in establishing MACT standards (i.e. the HAP by HAP
approach--utilizing the highest emitting source in the expanded MACT
pool), approximately 5 to 8 percent of the facilities currently
operating will meet all of the proposed standards. Furthermore, subject
to the data caveats noted for certain HAPs and source categories (which
the Agency believes can be resolved properly), it is the opinion of the
Agency that 100 percent of the facilities who use MACT floor and
beyond-the-floor technologies can meet all of the proposed standards
simultaneously.
Specific information and data pertaining to the analysis of
simultaneous achievability can be found in ``Regulatory Impact
Assessment for Proposed Hazardous Waste Combustion MACT Standards''.
VII. Comparison of the Proposed Emission Standards With Emission
Standards for Other Combustion Devices
Although not explicitly part of the MACT standard setting process,
EPA believes, for perspective, it is appropriate to compare the
proposed emissions standards to those of other waste-burning devices
and similar devices. (In some cases, such a comparison may show that a
particular technology or level of performance is demonstrated as well.)
The standards used for comparison have either been proposed by EPA or
are guidelines promulgated by the European Union (EU). The standards
for these various type of devices will be different for reasons
including: (1) Different statutory authorities and requirements; (2)
different levels of emission control for existing sources; and (3)
different potential to emit high levels of specific HAPs. Nonetheless,
EPA believes a comparison of standards is instructive.
Tables VII.1 and VII.2 contain the standards for municipal waste
combustors (MWCs), medical waste incinerators (MWIs), EU hazardous
waste combustors, and the standards proposed here for existing and new
facilities, respectively.
[[Page 17411]]
Table VII.1.--Comparison of Standards for Existing Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed HW Proposed HW cement
Large MWCs Proposed MWIs EU HWCs (\1\) incinerators kilns Proposed HW LWAKs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dioxin/Furan: ng/dscm TEQ and/or 30 Total (or 15 if 1.9 TEQ or 80 0.19 TEQ..........
Total congeners. testing less Total.
frequent).
(2)0.20 TEQ.
PM, mg/dscm..................... 27................ 30................ 13 24-hr avg......
13-39 30-min avg
(\2\).
(2) 69 2-hr avg
Hg, g/dscm............. 80 or 85% Reduct.. 470 or 85% Reduct. 130...............
(1) 50 10-hr avg 72 10-hr avg......
SVM, g/dscm............ Cd: 40............ Cd: 50............ Cd: 65............ 270............... 57................ 12.
Pb: 49............ Pb: 100........... Tl: 65............
Pb: 130 (\3\).....
LVM, g/dscm............ none.............. none.............. 1170 (\3\)........ 210............... 130............... 340.
CO, ppmv........................ 50 to 250 4 to 24 50 12-hr avg...... 52, 24 hr avg..... 100 1 hr avg...... Wet and Long, Dry 100 1 hr avg.
hr avg. 104, 30 min avg Kilns None.
(\4\). Kilns with By-pass
156, 10 min avg 100 in by-pass
(\4\). duct (or HC
cannot exceed
6.7) 1 hr avg.
HC, ppmv........................ None.............. None.............. 8, 24 hr avg...... 12 1 hr avg....... Wet and Long, Dry 14 1 hr avg.
8-16, 30 min avg Kilns 20 in main
(\2\). stack 1 hr avg.
Kilns with By-pass
6.7 in by-pass
(or CO cannot
exceed 100) 1 hr
avg.
HCl and Cl2, ppmv as HCl 31 or 95% Reduct.. 42 or 97% Reduct.. 8, 24-hr avg...... 280............... 630............... 450.
equivalents (\5\). 8-48, 30 min avg
(\2\).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: \1\ The EU HWC guidelines have been corrected from the European basis of 11% O2 and 0 deg.C to the US basis of 7% O2 and 20 deg.C. Both are
expressed on dry emissions.
\2\ The EU HWC PM, HC, and HCl guidelines are based either 97 % compliance with the lower number or 100% compliance with the higher number on a 30-
minute average over a year.
\3\ The EU LVM guideline is 1300 g/dscm and includes Sb, As, Pb, Cr, Co, Cu, Mn, Ni, V, Sn. If all metals are emitted equally, their
contribution is 130 2g/dscm. Pb, a SVM, was subtracted from this group, resulting in the 1170 g/dscm level.
\4\ The EU HWC CO guideline is based on either 95% compliance with the 156 ppm level on a 10 minute average or 100% compliance with the 104 ppm level on
a 30-minute average in any day.
\5\ The proposed MWC and MWI and the EU MWC guideline are for HCl only.
Table VII.2.--Comparison of Standards for New Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed HW Proposed HW cement
Large MWCs MWIs EU HWCs \1\ incinerators kilns Proposed HW LWAKs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dioxin/Furan: ng/dscm TEQ, and/ 13 Total (or 7 if 1.9 TEQ or 80 0.19 TEQ..........
or Total congeners testing less Total
frequent)
(2)0.20
PM, mg/dscm..................... 24................ 30................ 13 24-hr avg......
13-39 30-min avg
\2\.
(2)69 2-hr avg
Hg, g/dscm............. 80 or 85% Reduct.. 470 or 85% Reduct. 6.5...............
(1)50 10-hr avg 72 10-hr avg......
SVM, g/dscm............ Cd: 20............ Cd: 50............ Cd: 3.25.......... 62................ 55................ 5.2.
Pb: 20............ Pb: 100........... Tl: 3.25..........
Pb: 65 \3\........
LVM, g/dscm............ None.............. None.............. 585 \3\........... 60................ 44................ 55.
CO, ppmv........................ 50 to 150 4 to 24 50 12-hr avg 52, 24-hr avg..... 100 1 hr avg...... Wet and Long, Dry 100 1 hr avg.
hr avg. 104, 30 min avg Kilns None
\4\. Kilns with By-pass
156, 10 min avg 100 in by-pass
\4\. duct (or HC
cannot exceed
6.7) 1 hr avg.
[[Page 17412]]
HC.............................. None.............. None.............. 8, 24 hr avg...... 12 1 hr avg....... Wet and Long, Dry 14 1 hr avg.
8-16, 30 min avg Kilns
\2\. 20 in main stack 1
hr avg
Kilns with By-pass
6.7 in by-pass
(or CO cannot
exceed 100) 1 hr
avg
HCl and Cl2, ppmv as HCl 25 or 95% Reduct.. 42 or 97% Reduct.. 8, 24-hr avg......
equivalents \5\ 8-48, 30 min avg
\2\
(1)67 62.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\1\ The EU HWC guidelines have been corrected from the European basis of 11% O2 and 0 deg.C to the US basis of 7% O2 and 20 deg.C. Both are expressed on
dry emissions.
\2\ The EU HWC PM, HC, and HCl guidelines are based either 97 % compliance with the lower number or 100% compliance with the higher number on a 30-
minute average over a year.
\3\ The EU LVM guideline is 650 g/dscm and includes Sb, As, Pb, Cr, Co, Cu, Mn, Ni, V, Sn. If all metals are emitted equally, their
contribution to the guideline is 65 g/dscm. Pb, a SVM, was subtracted from this group, resulting in the 585 g/dscm level.
\4\ The EU HWC CO guideline is based on either 95% compliance with the 156 ppm level on a 10 minute average or 100% compliance with the 104 ppm level on
a 30-minute average in any day.
\5\ The proposed MWC and MWI standards and the EU HWC guideline are for HCl only.
VIII. Alternative Floor (12 Percent) Option Results and Option to
Address Variability
As described in Part 3, Section 5, EPA considered another approach
(termed the ``12 percent approach'') to establishing the MACT floor. In
this approach, the Agency selected an emissions floor level based on
the average emissions of the 12 percent MACT pool and the average
variability within the pool. As in the other approaches, the standards
are based on HW MTEC where appropriate, 3-run averages, and a 99th
percentile confidence interval.
Through the evaluation of the emissions database using this 12
percent approach, it was determined that various sources equipped with
floor controls would be unable to meet the floor emission limits. EPA
believes that, if this approach is used to determine emission
standards, a situation would be created that is arguably inconsistent
with the spirit of the Act. Furthermore, it could subject the regulated
community to an undue burden--one in which some facilities in the MACT
floor pool must add control equipment in addition to the recognized
floor controls in order to meet the floor levels. It could also place
EPA in a position of defending a floor-based standard in which the
identified floor control technology does not clearly achieve the
specified floor emissions levels for all of the facilities in the MACT
floor pool. Although we are inclined not to use this evaluation method
due to these concerns, we invite comment on this approach versus other
MACT floor approaches.
Additionally, information regarding the level of protection these
standards provide can be found in U.S. EPA, ``Risk Assessment Support
to the Development of Technical Standards for Emissions from Combustion
Units Burning Hazardous Wastes: Background Information Document'',
February 20, 1996.
A. Summary of Results of 12 Percent Analysis
Table VIII.1 shows the results of the 12 percent floor analysis for
existing sources:
Table VIII.1.--12 Percent Approach Mact Floor Results\1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incinerators Cement kilns LWA kilns
HAP Units ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stnd Stnd Stnd.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D/F................................. g TEQ......... 0.25......................... 0.23........................ 0.23.
Hg.................................. g/dscm........ 13........................... 32.......................... 32.
HCl/Cl2............................. ppmv................... 23........................... 25.......................... 1800.
SVM................................. g/dscm........ 53........................... 240......................... 61.
LVM................................. g/dscm........ 61........................... 46.......................... 57.
PM.................................. gr/dscf................ 0.024........................ 0.03........................ 0.012.
CO.................................. ppmv................... 100.......................... n/a......................... 100.
HC.................................. ppmv................... 12........................... Main \2\:20 by pass \3\:6.7 14.
(or CO 100).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All emissions levels are corrected to 7 percent O2.
\2\ Applicable only to long wet and dry process cement kilns (i.e., not applicable to preheater and/or precalciner kilns).
\3\ Emissions standards applicable only for cement kilns configured with a by-pass duct (typically preheater and/or precalciner kilns). Sources must
comply with either the HC or CO standard in the by-pass stack.
Table VIII.2 shows the results of the 12 percent approach
considering BTF analyses for select HAPs for existing sources:
[[Page 17413]]
Table VIII.2.--12 Percent Approach BTF Option\1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incinerators Cement kilns LWA kilns
HAP Units ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stnd Stnd Stnd
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D/F................................. g TEQ......... 0.25......................... 0.23........................ 0.23.
Hg..................................
Hg.................................. g/dscm........ 13........................... 8........................... 8.
HCl/Cl2............................. ppmv................... 23........................... 25.......................... 67.
SVM................................. g/dscm........ 53........................... 240......................... 61.
LVM................................. g/dscm........ 61........................... 46.......................... 57.
PM.................................. gr/dscf................ 0.024........................ 0.03........................ 0.012.
CO.................................. ppmv................... 100.......................... n/a......................... 100.
HC.................................. ppmv................... 12........................... Main \2\:20 bypass \3\ :6.7 14.
FR Doc. 96-7872 Revised Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors
(or CO 100).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All emissions are corrected to 7 percent O.
\2\ Applicable only to long wet and dry kilns (i.e., not applicable to preheater and/or precalciner kilns).
\3\ Emissions standard applicable only for cement kilns configured with a by-pass duct (typically preheater and/or precalciner kilns). Source must
comply with either the HC or CO standard in the by-pass stack.
Information pertaining to the calculation of these floor emission
levels can be found in U.S. EPA, ``Draft Technical Support Document for
HWC MACT Standards, Volume III: Selection of Proposed MACT Standards
and Technologies''.
B. Summary of MACT Floor Cost Impacts and Emissions Reductions.
Under the 12 percent approach, the total national annualized
compliance costs for existing sources to meet the MACT floor levels are
estimated to be: (1) for incinerators, $28 million, with the cost per
facility averaging $971,000; (2) for cement kilns, $59 million, with
the cost per facility averaging $879,000; and (3) for LWAKs, $3
million, with the cost per facility averaging $860,000. These total
compliance costs equate to $49 per ton of hazardous waste burned for
incinerators, $65 per ton of hazardous waste burned for cement kilns,
and $52 per ton of hazardous waste burned for LWAKs. EPA estimates that
up to four commercial incinerators will cease burning hazardous waste
due to the compliance costs associated at the floor, in addition to
three cement kilns and one lightweight aggregate kiln. However, we also
believe that the these estimates are exaggerated because they are based
on emissions levels determined during trial burns and compliance
performance tests, which produce emissions far in excess of the
emission levels most facilities achieve in day-to-day operation.
There would be substantial emissions reductions at the MACT floor
level, compared to baseline emissions. Table VIII.3 summarizes the
estimated national emissions for incinerators if the facilities were
operating at a level to meet the 12 percent MACT floor level. Also, the
estimated percent reduction of HAP emissions from baseline are shown.
Tables VIII.4 and VIII.5 show similar results for cement and
lightweight aggregate kilns.
Table VIII.3.--National Emissions Estimates for Incinerators 12 Percent
MACT Approach
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
reduction from
HAP Annual emissions at baseline
MACT floor level emissions
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dioxin/Furans (TEQ)............ 3.0 grams TEQ/yr....... 96
Mercury........................ 0.2 tons/year.......... 96
SVM (Cd, Pb)................... 1.0 tons/year.......... 98
LVM (As, Cr, Sb, Be)........... 0.8 tons/year.......... 97
HCl/Cl2........................ 293 tons/year.......... 83
Particulate Matter............. 650 tons/year.......... 67
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table VIII.4.--National Emissions Estimates for Cement Kilns 12 Percent
MACT Approach
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
reduction from
HAP Annual emissions at baseline
MACT floor level emissions
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dioxin/Furans (TEQ)............ 7.0 grams TEQ/yr....... 99
Mercury........................ 1.7 tons/year.......... 71
SVM (Cd, Pb)................... 4.0 tons/year.......... 87
LVM (As, Cr, Sb, Be)........... 0.9 tons/year.......... 73
HCl/Cl2........................ 761 tons/year.......... 71
Particulate Matter............. 1877 tons/year......... 56
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 77 / Friday, April 19, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 17414]]
Table VIII.5.--National Emissions Estimates for LWAKS 12 Percent MACT Approach
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual emissions at MACT floor Percent reduction from baseline
HAP level emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dioxin/Furans (TEQ)..................... (not determined) 128........... (not determined)
Mercury................................. 0.03 tons/year................. 91%.
SVM (Cd, Pb)............................ 0.04 tons/year................. 94%.
LVM (As, Cr, Sb, Be).................... 0.07 tons/year................. 67%.
HCl/Cl2................................. 2760 tons/year................. 9%.
Particulate Matter...................... 26 tons/year................... 45%.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Alternative Floor Option: Percent Reduction Refinement
The Agency is also considering whether to use a refinement
technique in establishing the MACT floor that would modify either the 6
percent approach, used as the basis of today's proposal, or the 12
percent option discussed previously. This refinement attempts to
address the unfavorable conditions (i.e. worst-case trial burn or COC
testing) under which the emissions data was generated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ The database is insufficient to make a realistic
determination of the emissions at the baseline or for the 12 percent
option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed elsewhere, EPA is concerned that our hazardous waste
emissions database is biased high due to the operating conditions that
generated the data (e.g., metals and chlorine spiking, non-optimal APCD
performance). Therefore, the analysis of this database results in floor
levels that are artificially inflated and not adequately representative
of day-to-day emissions levels. One simplified option to address this
concern is to apply a ``percent reduction'' to the calculated floor
levels derived from either the 6 percent or 12 percent approach. We
invite comment on this approach particularly with respect to the
appropriate percent reduction(s) to be applied. We also solicit
information and data based on routine facility operations and emissions
levels that could be used to calculate MACT floors that better reflect
day-to-day operations and that would avoid the potential difficulties
in attempting to determine the appropriate percent reduction(s) to be
used.
IX. Additional Data for Comment
The Agency has received submissions from various stakeholders
detailing alternative approaches to establish MACT floor and beyond-
the-floor levels. The Agency has placed these submissions into the
docket 129 for this rulemaking and specifically requests comment
on the approaches used and the emission levels identified. This section
provides some information on analyses conducted by the Cement Kiln
Recycling Coalition and Waste Technologies Industries to determine MACT
and MACT floor levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ In addition to the submission discussed in this section,
the petitions in the docket for this rulemaking include: (1)
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council (now Environmental Technology
Council), ``Petition for Rulemaking under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act to Establish Uniform National Performance Standards
for all Combustion Facilities based on the Best Available
Technology'', May 18, 1994; and (2) Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition,
``Petition for Rulemaking under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act to Modify the Rules for the Burning of Hazardous
Waste'', January 18, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Data from Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition
The Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition (CKRC) is a trade association
with a membership comprised of cement companies that burn hazardous
waste fuel and related companies engaged in the processing and
marketing of these fuels. CKRC conducted a technical analysis of the
hazardous waste-burning cement kiln's emissions database, identified
the best performing sources and MACT control technology, and determined
MACT floor emission levels for dioxin and furans and six metal HAPs.
CKRC's initial analysis specified separate MACT floor levels based on
cement kiln process type (i.e., separate floors were developed for
cement kilns employing dry production processes and wet production
processes).130 The MACT floor results are provided in Table IX.A.1
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ Environmental Risk Sciences Incorporated (prepared for
CKRC), ``An Analysis of Technical Issues Pertaining to the
Determination of MACT Standards for the Waste Recycling Segment of
the Cement Industry'' (Volumes I-III), May 3, 1995.
Table IX.A.1.--CKRC's Proposed MACT Floor Emission Levels for Existing Cement Kilns (Based on Dry and Wet
Process Sub-categories)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAP Dry process CKs Wet Process CKs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenic.............................. 3 g/dscm............ 32 g/dscm.
Beryllium............................ 0.3 g/dscm.......... 24 g/dscm.
Cadmium.............................. 30 g/dscm........... 62 g/dscm.
Chromium............................. 485 g/dscm.......... 125 g/dscm.
Chromium (VI)........................ 8 g/dscm............ 29 g/dscm.
Lead................................. 143 g/dscm.......... 911 g/dscm.
Mercury.............................. NA........................... 96 g/dscm.
Dioxins/Furans....................... 1.7 ng/dscm (TEQ)............ 2.0 ng/dscm (TEQ).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While CKRC states that sub-categorization is appropriate, they have
analyzed recent data based on no sub-categorization and arrived at the
floor levels and (generally) achievable beyond-the-floor (BTF) levels
presented in Table IX.A.2.131 Note that this subsequent re-
analysis does not differentiate cement kilns by process type (i.e., wet
and dry process). CKRC also emphasizes that the levels identified in
Table IX.A.2 were derived assuming testing under normal facility
operating conditions using hazardous waste as a fuel and does not
reflect use
[[Page 17415]]
of continuous emissions monitors for PM or individual HAPs. In
addition, CKRC emphasizes that, because of natural variations found in
the cement industry (e.g., high levels of metals in some raw
materials), not all kilns may be able to achieve these levels. CKRC
believes this reinforces the need for the ability to make site-specific
adjustments to the limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ Letter from Craig Campbell, CKRC, to James Berlow, U.S.
EPA, undated but received February 20, 1996.
Table IX.A.2.--CKRC's Alternate MACT Floor and Beyond-the-Floor Levels for Existing Cement Kilns (No Sub-
categorization)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAP MACT floor level BTF levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particulate matter................... 0.030 gr/dscf................ 0.025 gr/dscf.
Mercury.............................. 118 g/dscm.......... 80 g/dscm.
Semivolatile metals.................. 261 g/dscm.......... 150 g/dscm.
Low-volatile metals.................. 229 g/dscm.......... 130 g/dscm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We invite comment on CKRC's approach to identify MACT floor and BTF
levels.
CKRC presented this re-analysis of MACT emissions levels in tandem
with a recommendation that monitoring metals levels in collected cement
kiln dust (CKD) is a more effective approach to ensure compliance with
metals emission standards than monitoring the feedrate of metals in all
feedstreams. CKRC suggested that CKD monitoring for metals should be
used until CEM technologies become a workable alternative. Although CKD
monitoring for metals is currently allowed under the BIF rule in lieu
of feedstream monitoring and the same methodology is incorporated into
today's proposal (see proposed Sec. 63.1210(n)(2)), CKRC has suggested
revisions to the methodology to make it more workable. See Part Five,
Section II.C.4.c.v of this preamble for a discussion of CKRC's
recommendations.
B. Data from Waste Technologies Industries
Waste Technologies Industries (WTI) has submitted data and
information to the Agency pertaining to identification of MACT floor
levels for incinerators.132 WTI raises the following issues: (1)
in determining MACT floor, the Agency has not considered all of WTI's
emissions data that have been submitted to the Agency; and (2) the
Agency should subdivide the incinerator source category to develop
separate MACT standards for commercial versus on-site incinerators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ Letter from Barry Direnfeld, Swidler & Berlin, to Michael
Shapiro, dated January 23, 1996, with an attached letter from Fred
Sigg, Von Roll/WTI, to Sally Katzen, Office of Management and
Budget, dated January 19, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have investigated WTI's concern about not considering its
emissions data and, based on a preliminary analysis, determined that
WTI's data would not affect the MACT floor levels that the Agency has
identified for existing or new incinerators.133
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ See memorandum from Bruce Springsteen, EER, to Shiva Garg,
EPA, dated February 26, 1996, entitled ``Determination of the
effects of the inclusion of new WTI test burn data on the MACT
floors.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WTI is recommending that the Agency subdivide incinerators to
develop separate standards for commercial and on-site sources. WTI
notes that its emissions levels are substantially lower than the
standards that (it believes) EPA is considering for proposal. In
addition, WTI presents what it believes are appropriate MACT
limitations for existing commercial, off-site incinerators.134 The
table below compares WTI's suggested MACT limitations for commercial
incinerators to the Agency's proposed standards:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ See letter from Gary Liberson, Environmental Risk
Sciences, to Michael Shapiro, EPA, dated February 21, 1996.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant WTI's recommended standard EPA's proposed standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM (mg/dscm)......................... 33 (0.01 gr/dscf)............ 69 (0.03 gr/dscf).
SVM (g/dscm)................ 167.......................... 270.
LVM (g/dscm) 72........................... 210.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We invite comment on whether incinerators should be subdivided by
commercial, off-site units versus on-site units. Commenters should
consider the criteria EPA uses to determine whether to subdivide a
source category as discussed above in Section I of Part Four of this
preamble. We also invite comment on WTI's approach to identify MACT
limitations for commercial, off-site incinerators.
PART FIVE: IMPLEMENTATION
I. Selection of Compliance Dates
Sections A and B below explain when existing and new facilities,
respectively, would have to document compliance with the proposed MACT
standards. Section C presents a proposal for a one year compliance
extension in order to institute pollution prevention/waste minimization
measures.
EPA is proposing a different definition of compliance date for HWCs
than is provided by existing 40 CFR Sec. 63.2. Although that section
defines compliance date as the date when a source must be in compliance
with the standards, 40 CFR Sec. 63.7 requires performance testing to
document compliance with the emission standards (and performance
evaluations to document compliance with requirements for continuous
monitoring systems) after the compliance date. This use of the term
``compliance date'' is not consistent with the current RCRA definition
and regulatory requirements for HWCs.
To achieve more consistency and to avoid potential duplication and
conflict, the Agency is proposing to define compliance date for HWCs in
Sec. 63.1201 as the date when a HWC must submit the initial
notification of compliance. In addition, notification of compliance
would be defined as a notification in which the owner and operator
certify, after completion of performance evaluations and tests, that
the HWC meets the emissions standards, CMS, and other requirements of
Subpart EEE, Part 63, including establishing operating limits to meet
standards for which compliance is not based on a CEM.
[[Page 17416]]
For HWCs, initial compliance would thus mean that a facility has:
(1) completed all modifications necessary to meet the standards; (2)
conducted all emissions tests to verify compliance and set operating
limits; (3) installed and satisfactorily performance tested all
continuous monitoring systems (CMS) including continuous emissions
monitors (CEMS); and (4) postmarked a letter to the director that
transmits the (successful) emission results of the initial
comprehensive performance test, performance test results for CMS, and
all operating limits, and that states the facility is in compliance.
Requirements to ensure compliance after the initial compliance
notification are discussed in the preamble in Section II of Part Five.
A. Existing Sources
EPA proposes that a facility be in compliance with these standards
within three years after the date of publication of the final rule in
the Federal Register (which is also the effective date of the rule).
See proposed Sec. 63.1206(a). EPA believes that the vast majority of
sources (approximately 90 to 95 percent) would require substantial
modifications to operating and/or emission control equipment to comply
with the proposed standards. Three years is a reasonable estimate of
the time it will take for a facility to: read and analyze the final
rule; conduct tests to identify cost-effective approaches to comply
with the standards; complete the engineering analysis and design;
fabricate, install, start up and shake down the modified facility;
conduct preliminary emissions tests; conduct formal compliance testing;
analyze samples and evaluate test results; prepare the notification of
compliance; and obtain management certification of the results.
Nonetheless, the Agency believes that some sources would be able to
comply with the rule (i.e., submit a notification of compliance) before
three years after the date of publication of the final rule. For
example, some sources may require only minor modifications to emission
control equipment and could comply substantially sooner than sources
that need a major retrofit. Accordingly, we invite comment on how such
sources could be identified and strategies that could be used to
encourage or require them to comply at the earliest possible date.
We note that the CAAA allows a maximum compliance period of three
years (see Sec. 112(I)(3)(A)), unless a waiver is granted on a case-
specific basis. Section 63.6(i)(4)(i)(A) provides for a one year time
extension ``if such additional time period is necessary for the
installation of controls.'' If an owner or operator needs to modify the
RCRA permit in order to allow modifications to the facility necessary
to comply with the MACT standards, we believe inability to comply with
the MACT standards within three years because of the need to modify the
RCRA permit could constitute a valid reason for granting a time
extension under Sec. 63.6(i). See discussion below. That is, the
modification to the RCRA permit would be needed ``for the installation
of controls.''
Sources with RCRA permits can modify their facilities only after
complying with the permit modification procedures of 40 CFR 270.42. If
an owner and operator make a good faith effort to obtain the permit
modification in time to submit a notification of compliance under
today's proposed rule within three years of the effective date but
cannot do so for reasons beyond their control (for example, the state
in which the facility is located is in the process of receiving
oversight authority, or the Agency is unable to respond in a timely
manner to all permit modification requests), the Administrator may
grant a one-year time extension.
Note also that, as discussed above, the one-year time extension
provided by Sec. 63.6(i) applies to a different definition of
compliance than that proposed by today's rule for HWCs. By the date of
compliance under this proposal, a HWC must have submitted a
notification of compliance as defined above. Thus, although we are
proposing a one-year time extension for initial compliance for HWCs
using the procedures established in existing Sec. 63.6(i), a HWC must
submit a notification of compliance by the end of the time extension,
if granted, while other MACT sources would continue under the current
rules unamended (i.e., they would conduct their performance test after
the end of the time extension). See existing Sec. 63.7(a).
A special case for HWCs exists for an existing unit that would not
be subject to regulation on the effective date of this rule because it
does not burn a hazardous waste but which subsequently becomes subject
to regulation under today's proposed MACT standards because one of its
waste streams later becomes a newly identified or listed hazardous
waste. In this case, we propose that the facility be considered an
``existing source'', since it would be inappropriate to apply new
source MACT to a facility which has not altered its conduct, and which
only becomes subject to this rule because of additional regulatory
action taken by EPA (or an authorized state). Such a facility would
have three years after the date of publication in the Federal Register
of the final rule listing the waste as hazardous to come into
compliance with these regulations.135
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ Note that in other cases, an existing source that begins
to burn hazardous waste after the effective date of this rule (and
therefore changes its conduct) is classified as a new source and
would have to comply with today's rules when the hazardous waste is
first burned. The source would also have to obtain a RCRA operating
permit before commencing hazardous waste management activities since
it would be ineligible for interim status (assuming it is conducting
no other hazardous waste management activities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, EPA wants to ensure that only those facilities that plan
to comply with the new regulations are allowed to burn hazardous waste
during the compliance period. Accordingly, the rule would provide that,
if the owner or operator of an existing source did not submit a
notification of compliance by the applicable date, the source must
immediately stop burning hazardous waste when the owner or operator
first determines that the notification will not be submitted by the
applicable date (i.e., following the effective date, but well before
the compliance deadline) and could not resume burning hazardous waste
except under the requirements for new MACT sources. To comply with the
deadline for the initial notification of compliance, a source will have
had to begin making preparations well in advance of the deadline. We
invite comment on strategies that could be used to determine when a
source could realistically determine whether or not it will meet the
notification deadline and comply with the new standards.
We note that there would also be substantial RCRA implications for
a facility that does not comply with the applicable deadlines in a
timely fashion. In particular, the source could not resume burning
hazardous waste without being issued a RCRA operating permit. Further,
if the source had already been issued a RCRA operating permit,
hazardous waste could only be burned (after missing the deadline for
submitting an initial notification of compliance) for a total of 720
hours and only for the purpose of pretesting or comprehensive
performance testing. Finally, if a source with a RCRA operating permit
failed to submit an initial notification of compliance by the deadline,
the source must, within 90 days of missing the initial notification of
compliance, either submit a notification of compliance with MACT new
standards or begin RCRA closure procedures unless the Administrator
grants an extension of time in writing prior to the 90-day deadline for
good cause. Examples of good cause that the Agency would be willing to
evaluate
[[Page 17417]]
are: the facility now must undergo significant modifications in order
to comply with the more stringent MACT new standards that will take
longer to complete than the deadline allows, or the facility must
contract for substantial new services in order to show compliance with
the new standards.
EPA believes that these requirements are necessary to ensure that
owners and operators that elect not to comply with the standards do not
continue to burn hazardous waste beyond the date on which the source
determines that they will not comply with the promulgated standards.
B. New Sources
Section 63.6 states that new or reconstructed sources ``shall
comply with such standard[s] upon startup of the source.'' See also
proposed Sec. 63.1206(b). One exception, available only to facilities
which commence construction between proposal and promulgation, is in
the instance where a standard more stringent than the one proposed is
promulgated. In this instance, three years can be granted for the new
source to be in compliance with the standard which is more stringent.
The new source shall be in compliance upon startup with all standards
which are not more stringent than those proposed. Section 63.2 defines
new source as ``* * * any affected source the construction or
reconstruction of which is commenced after the Administrator first
proposes a relevant emission standard * * * .'' For discussion on
reconstruction, see section VII.C. of this part of this preamble.
C. One Year Extensions for Pollution Prevention/Waste Minimization
EPA is also seeking comment on a proposal to consider extension of
compliance deadlines for up to one year beyond the three year deadline
from the date of promulgation of this rule, on a case-by-case basis,
for facilities which request an extension to implement pollution
prevention/waste minimization measures that will enable the facility to
meet MACT standards and that cannot practically be implemented within
the three year compliance deadline.
During development of the Hazardous Waste Minimization National
Plan (released in 1994), some companies pointed out that short
compliance deadlines after the promulgation of some rules have
precluded them from completing necessary pollution prevention planning
and implementation that would facilitate meeting compliance
requirements through source reduction and environmentally sound
recycling. As a result, companies opt for installing often expensive
``end-of-pipe'' pollution controls in order to meet compliance
deadlines. In addition, once capital has been sunk into end-of-pipe
pollution controls which are large enough to handle current and future
waste volumes, there is little incentive for companies to then spend
money exploring pollution prevention/waste minimization options.
EPA believes that the three year compliance deadline for meeting
the MACT standards in this rulemaking should in most cases be
sufficient for a facility to complete the pollution prevention planning
and implementation that might be necessary to meet MACT standards. In
cases where facilities can provide information that shows that
additional time is necessary to complete this process, EPA is proposing
to grant up to a one year extension for facilities to complete
pollution prevention planning and implementation, and to satisfy all of
the procedures in this rule for demonstrating compliance. This proposed
extension is consistent with other portions of today's proposal,
including the section on permitting procedures which describes
pollution prevention/waste minimization options during the permitting
process.
II. Selection of Proposed Monitoring Requirements
Section 114(a) of the CAA requires monitoring to ensure compliance
with the standards and the submission of periodic compliance
certifications for all major stationary sources. Given that all HWCs
are subject to regulation as major sources, the proposed compliance
monitoring requirements discussed below would apply to all HWCs.
In this section we discuss the following: (a) the compliance
monitoring hierarchy; (b) how operations during comprehensive
performance testing would be used to establish limits for operating
parameters; (c) for each emission standard, requirements for continuous
emissions monitors (if any) and limits on operating parameters to
ensure compliance; (d) compliance with controls on fugitive combustion
emissions; (e) requirements for automatic waste feed cutoffs and
emergency safety vent openings; (f) quality assurance requirements for
continuous monitoring systems (CMS); and (g) protocols to ensure and
document compliance.
A. Monitoring Hierarchy
The proposed compliance monitoring requirements were developed by
examining the hierarchy of monitoring options available for specific
processes, pollutants, and control equipment. The approach involves
describing, on an emission standard specific basis, what monitoring is
required for a source to be in compliance. This approach was also used
for the secondary lead smelter MACT (59 FR at 29772, June 9, 1994),
another rule where the sources process hazardous waste.
The monitoring hierarchy is three-tiered. The top tier of the
monitoring hierarchy is the use of a continuous emissions monitor
system (CEMS, also known as ``CEM'') for that HAP or standard. In the
absence of a CEMS for that HAP or standard, the second tier is the use
of a CEMS for a surrogate of that HAP or standard and, when necessary,
setting some operating limits to account for the limitations of using
surrogates. Lacking a CEMS for either, EPA sets appropriate feedstream
and operating parameter limits to ensure compliance and requires
periodic testing of the source. In developing this proposal each tier
of the hierarchy was evaluated relative to its technical feasibility,
cost, ease of implementation, and relevance to its underlying process
emission limit or control device.
The proposed standards for hazardous waste combustors contain
monitoring requirements for process stack emissions and combustion
fugitive emissions. The proposed standards require either pollutant
monitoring directly through the use of a CEMS, surrogate monitoring
through the use of a CEMS, and/or parameter monitoring that indicates
proper operation and maintenance of a control device. Recordkeeping is
also required to ensure that specific work practices are being
followed. Section VI of this part discusses recordkeeping.
B. Use of Comprehensive Performance Test Data to Establish Operating
Limits
Limits on operating parameters (e.g., feedrate limits, temperature
limits) would be based on levels that are achieved during the
comprehensive performance test. See section III of this part for the
discussion on comprehensive performance tests.
1. Averaging Periods for Limits on Operating Parameters
The Agency is proposing various averaging periods for the limits on
operating parameters: a ten-minute rolling average; a one-hour rolling
average; and a 12-hour rolling
[[Page 17418]]
average.136 To show compliance with any of these rolling averages
with respect to operating parameters that are established based on
levels achieved during the comprehensive performance test (rather than
on manufacturer specifications), the monitor must make a measurement of
the parameter at least once each 15 seconds, and four 15-second
measurements must be averaged each minute to determine a one-minute
average. Then, each one-minute average is considered along with the
previous one-minute averages over the averaging period to calculate a
new rolling average level each minute. Thus, irrespective of the
averaging period, a new rolling average level is calculated each
minute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ We note that today's rule would establish an
instantaneous limit, i.e., a limit where no averaging is allowed, to
ensure that less than ambient pressure is maintained in the
combustion system at all times to control fugitive combustion
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The duration of the averaging period affects the number of one-
minute averages used to calculate the level. For example, if a limit is
based on a 12-hour rolling average, each new one-minute average is
added to the previous 719 one-minute average values to calculate a new
12-hour rolling average value each minute.
A ten-minute average is proposed when the Agency is concerned that
short-term perturbations above the limit will result in high emissions
that cannot be offset by lower emissions during periods of more
appropriate operation.137 Since the ten-minute average is used to
control short-term perturbations and does not control average
emissions, it will always be used with a one hour average designed to
control average emissions. (An exception is when the 10-minute average
is used to control a design specification of the APCD manufacturer. In
this event, a ten-minute average may be used alone.) It could be argued
that a short term averaging period other than ten minutes could be
used. However, the Agency is concerned about setting the averaging
period shorter than 10 minutes. Shorter averaging periods would result
in more extreme (i.e., absolute maximum or minimum) limits and could
lead to higher emissions. Conversely, EPA could set a short-term
averaging period longer than ten minutes, but believes that ten minutes
is an appropriate, achievable, conservative, and reasonable duration
for the short averaging period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ An example is for inlet temperature to dry PM APCDs to
control dioxin. Dioxin increases exponentially with increasing
temperature, so a short-term increase in temperature will not be
offset by short-term decreases in dioxin emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A one-hour averaging period is proposed in instances where the
Agency is less concerned about perturbations and/or wants to limit
average emissions.138 Hourly rolling averages are currently
required under the BIF rule and are required for some incinerators. The
value of one-hour averages will tend to be less extreme than 10-minute
averages since perturbations are averaged out over more normal data
and, thus, are better at controlling average emissions than 10-minute
averages. It could be argued that an averaging period shorter than one
hour would be appropriate, but EPA is selecting a ten-minute average to
control perturbations and believes this is sufficient. It could be
argued that averaging periods longer than one hour could also be
appropriate, but setting limits on operating parameters is at the
bottom of the monitoring hierarchy and, as such, a conservative
approach is preferable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ An example is flue gas flowrate. This parameter is
important, but slight increases in flow rate can be offset by
proportionate decreases in flowrate. Therefore, average flowrate is
important without regard to perturbations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The twelve-hour averages are being proposed in instances when the
Agency wants to control average emissions and is concerned that the
one-hour average may not be achievable or may be overly restrictive.
Twelve-hour averages are proposed only for feedrates: metals and
chlorine. For each of these, feedstream analysis is necessary to
determine the concentration in each of the feedstreams and this makes
using an averaging period shorter than twelve hours problematic. EPA
could use an averaging period longer than twelve hours, but believes
that twelve hours is achievable. EPA is concerned about this 12-hour
average in that it may be inconsistent with averaging periods for CEMS;
namely, it is longer than the metals, HCl, Cl2, or PM averaging
periods. A 12-hour average is inconsistent because, at the top of the
monitoring hierarchy, CEMS averaging periods should be longer, i.e.,
less conservative, than feedstream monitoring, at the bottom of the
hierarchy. EPA invites comment on this issue. Alternate averaging
periods for chlorine and metals feedrates are discussed below in the
appropriate sections.
As noted earlier, for compliance with these averaging periods, EPA
proposes that averages be calculated every minute on a rolling-average
basis. It is also proposed that the one-minute average be the average
of the previous four measurements taken at 15-second intervals. This is
the approach required by the BIF rule. All 15-second measurements would
be used without smoothing, rounding, or data checks. No 15-second
observations may be ``thrown out'' for any reason.
2. How Limits Would Be Established from Comprehensive Test Data
This section explains how operating limits for the averaging
periods discussed above are established from the comprehensive test
data. Note that all averages are rolling averages, based on a one-
minute average.
Ten-minute rolling averages would be established as the average
over all comprehensive test runs of the highest or lowest (as
specified) ten-minute rolling average for each run.
One of two approaches would be specified to establish limits on an
hourly rolling average basis: an average level or an average of the
highest or lowest (as specified) hourly rolling average. In most cases,
it is derived by averaging all of the one-minute averages during all
the runs of the comprehensive performance test. In the few cases when
an average of the maximum hourly rolling averages is specified, the
limit is derived by taking the average of the highest hourly average
for each run of the comprehensive performance test.
Twelve-hour rolling averages for feedstreams would be derived by
averaging all of the one-minute averages during all the runs of the
comprehensive performance test irrespective of the total duration of
the test.139 Separate twelve-hour averages would apply to all feed
locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ Or, if the source elects to define different operating
modes and conduct performance testing under each mode, the one-
minute averages would be averaged for all runs for each test
condition (representing each mode of operation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Example of How Limits Would Be Established
For example, if a facility were to have a fabric filter (FF), it
might have a limit on maximum FF inlet temperature on a ten-minute
average to ensure compliance with the dioxin and furan standard. If
this is the case, during the comprehensive performance test, the
facility would monitor FF inlet temperature. The facility would then
take the highest single ten-minute rolling averages of FF inlet
temperature from each of the three comprehensive test runs and average
them together. If these single largest ten minute rolling averages from
each of the three runs were 140, 150, and 160 deg.C, then the maximum
ten-minute rolling average for FF inlet temperature would be 150 deg.C.
If the same parameter were also to have an hourly rolling average
based on all data from all runs, the facility would
[[Page 17419]]
sum up all one-minute averages occurring during the comprehensive
performance test and average them together. This would become the
hourly rolling average for this parameter.
Twelve-hour feedrate limits are calculated similarly. For SVM, the
facility would sum the total feed from all runs of the comprehensive
performance test and divide that sum by the number of minutes of all
three runs of the comprehensive test. For this example, assume that
both Cd and Pb are fed during the comprehensive performance test, that
the feedrate for Cd was 5, 30, and 25 and for Pb was 100, 70, and 85
for each of the three runs of the comprehensive performance test and
that the time duration of each run was 205, 230, and 195 minutes. The
total amount of SVM fed would be 315 and the time duration of the test
would be 630 minutes. Therefore, the SVM limit would be 315, divided by
630 minutes, or 0.50. During normal operation the SVM feedrate would be
calculated every minute to ensure it does not exceed the 0.50 SVM limit
by averaging the current and previous 719 one-minute averages.
C. Compliance Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring requirements are proposed to ensure compliance with the
following emission standards: dioxin and furan (D/F), mercury (Hg),
semivolatile metals (SVM), low-volatile metals (LVM), carbon monoxide
(CO), hydrocarbons (HC), hydrochloric acid (HCl) and chlorine gas (Cl2)
(combined and reported as HCl), and particulate matter (PM). See
proposed Sec. 63.1210. Monitoring requirements for combustion fugitive
emissions are proposed as well.
Table V.2.1 summarizes today's proposed compliance monitoring
requirements.
1. Continued Applicability of RCRA Omnibus Authority
When a RCRA operating permit is issued under Part 270 after a
source has submitted its initial notification of compliance with the
proposed MACT standards, a permit writer would continue to have the
discretion currently provided by Sec. 264.345(b)(6) of the incinerator
standards and Secs. 266.102(e) subparagraphs (2)(i)(G), (3)(i)(E),
(4)(ii)(J), (4)(iii)(J), and (5)(i)(G) of the BIF standards to
supplement these operating parameter limits as necessary to protect
human health and the environment on a site-specific basis to ensure
that today's proposed emission standards are being met. This means the
RCRA permit writer's authority to use instantaneous limits or averaging
periods other than those specified here, or require operating
parameters in addition to those specified here, is maintained during
the RCRA permitting process. See proposed Secs. 264.340(b)(2)(iii) and
266.102(a)(2)(ii).
Table V.2.1.--Summary Table of Proposed Monitoring Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl &
Device Parameter D/F Hg PM SVM LVM CO & HC Cl2 Limits from Avg period Limits set as
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuous Monitor................ Stack CEMS.......... ........ (1) (1) (1) CEMS Stnds.......... varies.............. Units of Standard.
Max Inlet Temp to (2) ........ ........ ........ Comp Test........... 10 min.............. Avg of Max 10 min
Dry PM APCD. 1 hour.............. RA.
Avg over all runs.
Carbon Injection.................. Min Carbon Injection (2) ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ Comp Test........... 10 min.............. Avg of Min 10 min
Feedrate (Carbon 1 hour.............. RA.
Feed through Avg over all runs.
Injector).
Min Carrier Fluid (2) ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ Manuf Spec.......... 10 min.............. ....................
Flowrate or Nozzle
Pressure Drop.
Carbon Specs........ (2) ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ Comp Test........... n/a................. Same brand and type.
Carbon Bed........................ Max Age of Carbon (2) ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ Initial Comp Test... n/a................. Manuf specs (no C
(Time in-use). aging).
........ Conf Tests.......... n/a................. Normal C Change-out
Schedule.
........ Sub. Comp. Tests.... n/a................. Max C Age is the age
during subsequent
Comp Tests.
Carbon Specs........ (2) ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ Comp Test........... n/a................. Same brand and type.
Dioxin Inhibitor.................. Min Inhibitor ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ Comp Test........... 10 min.............. Avg of Min 10 min
Feedrate. 1 hour.............. RA.
Avg over all runs.
Inhibitor ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ Comp Test........... n/a................. Same brand and type.
Specifications.
[[Page 17420]]
Catalytic Oxidizer................ Min Fine Gas Temp at ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ Comp Test........... 10 min.............. Avg of Min 10 min
Entrance. 1 hour.............. RA.
Avg over all runs.
Max Age (Time in- ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ Manuf Spec.......... As specified........
use).
Catalyst Replacement ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ Comp Test........... n/a................. Same as used during
Specs:. previous Comp Test.
--Catalytic Metal
Loading (each
metal).
--Space Time........
--Substrate
Construction
(mat'ls, pore size).
Max Flue Gas Temp at ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ Manuf Spec.......... 10 min.............. As specified.
Entrance.
Good Combustion................... Maximun Batch Size, ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ Comp Test........... n/a................. Lightest batch fed.
Feeding Frequency, Least frequent
and Minimum Oxygen feeding Highest O2
Concentration. level.
Max Waste Feedrate.. ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ Comp Test........... 1 hour.............. Avg of Max 1 hour
RA.
Min Comb Chamber ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ Comp Test........... 10 min.............. Avg of Min 10 min.
Temp (Exit of Each 1 hour.............. RA
Chamber). Avg over all runs.
Good Combustion and APCD Max Flue Gas (2) (2) (2) (2) ........ Comp Test........... 1 hour.............. Avg of Max 1 hour
Efficiency. Flowrate or RA.
Production Rage.
Feed Control...................... Max Total Metals ........ (2) ........ ........ ........ Comp Test........... 12 hour............. Avg over all runs.
Feedrate (all
streams).
Max Pumpable Liquid ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
Metals Feedrate.
Max Total Ash ........ ........ (2) ........ ........ ........ ........ Comp Test........... 12 hour............. Avg over all runs.
Feedrate (all
streams).
Max Total Chlorine ........ ........ ........ ........ Comp Test........... 12 hour............. Avg over all runs.
Feedrate (all
streams).
Wet Scrubber...................... Min Press Drop (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) ........ Comp Test........... 10 min.............. Avg of Min 10 min RA
Across Scrubber. 1 hour.............. Avg over all runs.
Min Liquid Feed (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) ........ Manuf Spec.......... 10 min.............. n/a
Press.
Min Liquid pH....... ........ (2) ........ ........ ........ ........ Comp Test........... 10 min.............. Avg of Min 10 min RA
1 hour.............. Avg over all runs.
Min Blowdown (Liq (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) ........ ........ Comp Test........... 10 min.............. Avg of Min/Max 10
Flowrate) or Max 1 hour.............. min RA
Solid Content in Avg over all runs.
Liq.
[[Page 17421]]
Min Liq Flow to Gas (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) ........ Comp Test........... 10 min.............. Avg of Min 10 min RA
Flow Ratio. 1 hour.............. Avg over all runs.
Ionizing Wet Scrubber............. Min Press Drop (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) ........ Comp Test........... 10 min.............. Avg of Min 10 min RA
Across Scrubber. 1 hour.............. Avg over all runs.
Min Liquid Feed (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) ........ Manuf Spec.......... 10 min.............. n/a
Pressure.
Min Blowdown (Liq (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) ........ ........ Comp Test........... 10 min.............. Avg of Min/Max 10
Flowrate) or Max 1 hour.............. min RA
Solid Content in Avg over all runs.
Liq.
Min Liq Flow to Gas (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) ........ Comp Test........... 10 min.............. Avg of Min 10 min RA
Flow Ratio. 1 hour.............. Avg over all runs.
Min Power Input (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) ........ ........ Comp Test........... 10 min.............. Avg of Min 10 min RA
(kVA: current and 1 hour.............. Avg over all runs.
voltage).
Dry Scrubber...................... Min Sorbent Feedrate ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ Comp Test........... 10 min.............. Avg of Min 10 min
1 hour.............. RA.
Avg over all runs.
Min Carrier Fluid ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ Manuf Spec.......... 10 min.............. n/a
Flowrate or Nozzle
Pressure Drop.
Sorbent ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ Comp Test........... n/a................. Same brand and type.
Specifications.
FF................................ Min Press Drop (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) ........ ........ Comp Test........... 10 min.............. Avg of Min 10 min
Across Device. 1 hour.............. RA.
Avg over all runs.
ESPs.............................. Min Power Input (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) ........ ........ Comp Test........... 10 min.............. Avg of Min 10 min
(kVA: current and 1 hour.............. RA.
voltage). Avg over all runs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1=Stack CEMS is optional for the SVM, LVM, and HCl and Cl2 standards. If a CEMS is used for compliance, none of the feedstream and operating parameters for that HAP would apply.
(2)=If CEMS are not required in the final rule for PM and/or Hg, the operating limits for these parameters would apply.
Definitions:
``Comp Test''=Comprehensive Performance Test.
``Conf Test''=Confirmatory Performance Test.
2. Dioxin and Furan (D/F)
EPA is proposing that sources comply with the D/F standard by
establishing and complying with limits on operating parameters and
performing D/F test every 18 months (or 30 months for small on-site
facilities). Table V.2.2 summarizes these limits. See also proposed
Sec. 63.1210(j).
Table V.2.2.--Summary of Proposed Dioxin and Furan Monitoring Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How limit is
established from
Compliance using Limits from Avg. period comp performance
test
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particulate Matter (PM) Control. PM CEMS........... Comp Test......... 10 min............ Avg of Max 10-min
RAs.
1 hour............ Avg over all runs.
Good Combustion................. CO and HC CEMS.... MACT Std.......... 1 hour............ N/A.
Min comb chamber Comp Test......... 10 min............ Avg of Max 10-min
tempt: CMS at RAs.
exit of each
chamber.
11 hour........... Avg over all runs.
Max waste feedrate Comp Test......... 1 hour............ Avg of Max 1 hour
CMS. RAs.
[[Page 17422]]
For batch fed Comp Test......... None.............. N/A.
sources: limit on
batch size,
feeding
frequency, and
minimum oxygen.
Max Inlet Temp to Dry PM APCD... Temp CMS.......... Comp Test......... 10 min............ Avg of Max 10 min
RAs.
1 hour............ Avg over all runs.
Max Flue Gas Flowrate or Flowrate CMS or Comp Test......... 1 hour............ Avg of Max 1 hour
Production Rate. Production Rate. RAs.
Min Carbon Injection Feed....... Feedrate CMS...... Comp Test......... 10 min............ Avg of Min 10 min
RAs.
1 hour............ Avg over all runs.
Min Carrier Fluid Flowrate or same.............. Manuf Spec........ 10 min............ N/A.
Nozzle Pressure Drop.
Carbon Specs.................... Brand and Type.... Comp Test......... N/A............... Same brand and
type.
Max Carbon Age, Carbon Bed...... Max Carbon Initial Comp Test. N/A............... Manuf Specs (no C
Lifetime. aging).
Conf Tests........ N/A............... Normal C Change-
out Schedule.
Sub. Comp Tests... N/A............... Max C Age is the
age during sub.
Comp Tests.
Min Flue Gas Temp, Catalytic Inlet to Catalyst. Comp Test......... 10 min............ Avg of Min 10 min
Oxidizer. RAs.
1 hour............ Avg over all runs.
Max Age, Catalytic Oxidizer..... Time in use....... Manuf Spec........ As specified......
Catalyst Replacement Specs...... Catalytic Metal Comp Test......... N/A............... Same as used
Loading. during comp test.
FR Doc. 96-7872 Revised Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors
Space Time........
Substrate
Construct:
mat'ls, pore size.
Max Flue Gas Temperature, Inlet to Catalyst. Manuf Spec........ 10 min............ As specified.
Catalytic Oxidizer.
Min Inhibitor Feedrate.......... Feedrate CMS...... Comp Test......... 10 min............ Avg of Min 10 min
RAs.
1 hour............ Avg over all runs.
Inhibitor Specs................. None.............. Comp Test......... N/A............... Same brand and
type.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Evaluation of Monitoring Options. D/F partitions into two phases
in stack emissions: a portion is adsorbed onto particulate and a
portion is emitted as a vapor (gas). Given that there is no CEMS for D/
F, the Agency is proposing to require a combination of approaches to
control D/F emissions: (1) compliance with a site-specific PM limit to
control adsorbed D/F; (2) operation under good combustion conditions to
minimize D/F precursors; (3) temperature control at the PM control
device to limit D/F formation in the control device; and (4) compliance
with operating limits on
D/F control equipment (e.g., carbon injection) that a source may elect
to use.
b. Operating Parameter Limits. Today's proposed rule would limit
the following operating parameters to satisfy the combination of
approaches discussed in the previous paragraph.
i. Control of PM Emissions: To control D/F and other PICs that are
adsorbed to PM, the rule would require that sources limit PM emissions
to the site-specific level that occurs when demonstrating compliance
with the D/F (and SVM and LVM) emission standards. The site specific
operating limit for PM would be capped at (i.e., could not exceed) the
proposed national MACT standard of 69 mg/dscm. See section 7 of this
section for a discussion on the control of PM emissions.
ii. Good Combustion: CO and HC Limits. EPA is proposing CO and HC
standards to ensure good combustion to help minimize D/F precursors.
See discussion below (section 5 of this section) for the explanation of
the CO and HC emission standards.
iii. Good Combustion: Maximum Waste Feedrate. An increase in waste
feedrate without a corresponding increase in combustion air can cause
inefficient combustion that may produce (or incompletely destroy) D/F
precursors. Therefore EPA proposes to limit waste feedrate. For
incinerators, waste feedrate limits would be established for each
combustion chamber to minimize combustion perturbations. For CKs and
LWAKs waste feedrate limits would be established for each location
where waste is fed (e.g., the hot end where product is discharged, mid-
kiln, and at the cold end where raw material is fed.140
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ Waste feedrate limits would also be established for waste
fed into a preheater or precalciner system of a cement kiln
facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feedrate limits would be established on an hourly rolling average
basis as the average of the highest hourly rolling average for each
run. We specifically invite comment on whether it would be more
appropriate to establish the limit based on the average hourly rolling
average over all runs. EPA is not proposing this more stringent
approach because we consider waste feedrate to be a secondary control
parameter that may not require such strict control.
See also the discussion in section II.F.2 below for other
requirements to document compliance with feedrate limits.
iv. Good Combustion: Combustion Zone Temperature. As combustion
zone temperatures decrease, combustion efficiency can decrease
resulting in an increase in formation of (or incomplete destruction of)
D/F precursors. For this reason, the Agency proposes limiting
combustion zone temperature in each
[[Page 17423]]
chamber to the minimum level occurring during the comprehensive
performance test documenting compliance with the D/F standard.
BIFs and incinerators are already required to monitor combustion
zone temperature for compliance with metals emissions standards and
destruction and removal efficiency (DRE). Monitoring of combustion zone
temperature has been problematic, however, because the actual burning
zone temperature cannot be measured at many units (e.g., cement kilns).
For this reason, the BIF rule requires measurement of the ``combustion
chamber temperature where the temperature measurement is as close to
the combustion zone as possible.'' See Sec. 266.103(c)(1)(vii).
In some cases, temperature is measured at a location quite removed
from the combustion zone due to extreme temperatures and the harsh
conditions at the combustion zone. We are concerned that monitoring at
such remote locations may not accurately reflect changes in combustion
zone temperatures. For example, a reduction in heat transfer chain in a
wet cement kiln due to wear over time or decreasing raw material
feedrate (at a fixed heat input) in a cement or lightweight aggregate
kiln may increase temperature at the kiln outlet even if combustion
conditions actually caused a decrease in combustion zone temperature.
We specifically invite comment on how to address this issue. For
example, the final rule could require the owner or operator to identify
a parameter that correlates with combustion zone temperature and to
provide data or information to support the use of that parameter in the
operating record. The final rule could also enable the Director on a
case-specific basis to require the use of alternate parameters as
deemed appropriate, or to determine that there is no practicable
approach to ensure that minimum combustion chamber temperature is
maintained. In that case, the Director may determine that the source
could not comply with the regulations and, thus, could not burn
hazardous waste.
Note also that, in the final rule, we would revise the existing BIF
and incinerator rules to conform with the approach used in the final
MACT rule. Those conforming revisions would become effective six months
from the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register
and would remain in effect until the MACT standards take effect.
The temperature limit(s) would apply to each combustion zone into
which hazardous waste is fired. As examples, for incinerators with a
primary and secondary chamber, separate limits would be established for
the combustion zone in each chamber. For kilns, separate temperature
limits would apply at each location where hazardous waste may be fired
(e.g., the hot end where clinker is discharged; the mid-point of the
kiln; and the cold end of the kiln where raw material is fed).
EPA proposes that a ten-minute average be used to control
perturbations in combustion chamber temperature and that an hourly
rolling average be used to control average combustion chamber
temperature. The ten-minute average would be established as the average
of the minimum ten-minute rolling average for each run of the
comprehensive performance test. The hourly average would be established
as the average over all runs.
v. Good Combustion: Maximum Flue Gas Rate or Production Rate. Flue
gas flowrates in excess of those that occur during performance testing
reduce the time that combustion gases are exposed to combustion chamber
temperatures. Thus, combustion efficiency can decrease causing an
increase in D/F precursors.141 Accordingly, today's rule would
limit flue gas flowrate based on levels that occur during the
comprehensive performance test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\141\ We note that an increase in gas flow rate can also
adversely affect the performance of a D/F emission control device
(e.g., carbon injection, catalytic oxidizer). Thus, gas flow rate is
controlled for this reason as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For CKs and LWAKs, the rule would allow the use of production rate
as a surrogate for flue gas flowrate. This is the approach currently
used for the BIF rule for these devices, given that flue gas flowrate
correlates with production rate (e.g., feedrate of raw materials or
rate of production of clinker or aggregate). However, production rate
may not relate well to flue gas flowrate in situations where the
moisture content of the feed to the combustor changes dramatically.
Therefore, EPA invites comment on how to address moisture content in
feeds.
The gas flowrate or production rate limit would be established as
the average of the maximum hourly rolling average for each run of the
comprehensive performance test.
vi. Good Combustion: Batch Size, Feeding Frequency, and Minimum
Oxygen. Some HWCs burn waste or non-waste fuel in batches, such as
metal drums or plastic containers. Some containerized waste can
volatilize rapidly, causing a momentary oxygen-deficient condition that
can result in an increase in D/F precursors.142 To ensure that D/F
precursors are not increased over levels that occur during the
comprehensive performance test, the rule would establish site-specific
limits on maximum batch size, batch feeding frequency, and minimum
oxygen concentration at the end of the combustion chamber into which
the batch is fed, at the time the batch is fed.143
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ The requirements would apply when either hazardous or non-
hazardous waste fuels are batch fed because the potential for
oxygen-deficient conditions and an increase in D/F precursors is
present irrespective of whether the material fed is classified as a
hazardous waste.
\143\ EPA considered whether it would be practical to establish
a national minimum oxygen level for all HWCs in this proposed rule
and believes it is not practical. A limit on minimum oxygen content
would have to be established on a case-specific basis given that the
minimum oxygen level necessary for good combustion will vary from
source to source within a given source category, and will vary
within a given source over time as the type or volume of waste or
fuel varies. The Agency invites comment on whether the final rule
should require a case-specific limit on minimum oxygen content for
all HWCs rather than as proposed for only batch-fired HWCs. If so,
the limits would be established on a ten-minute and an hourly
rolling average as proposed for combustion chamber temperature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This requirement would apply to all HWCs that burn any waste or
non-waste fuel in batches (i.e., ram or equivalent feed systems) or
containers. For example, incinerators that use a ram to charge batches
of hazardous or nonhazardous waste would be subject to these
requirements. Cement kilns that feed containers of fuel at mid-kiln or
at the ``cold'', raw material feed end would also be subject to these
requirements, as would hazardous waste-burning cement kilns that feed
tires in batches.
The rule would provide a conditioned exemption from the (site-
specific) oxygen limit, however, for cement kilns that feed up to 1-
gallon containers into the ``hot'', clinker discharge of the kiln. We
do not believe that it is necessary to control the oxygen content of
combustion gases when these containers are fed into the hot end of the
kiln given that the oxygen demand from waste in the containers would be
insignificant compared to the oxygen demand from other (non-
containerized) fuel burned at this location. The frequency of firing
the containers would, however, be limited to the rate occurring during
the performance test.
There would be no averaging period associated with the limits on
these operating parameters. The maximum batch size a facility could
burn during normal operations would be limited by mass and would be
established based on the container or batch fired during the test
having the lowest mass. The minimum batch feeding interval (i.e., the
minimum period of time between batch feedings) a facility could burn
[[Page 17424]]
during normal operations would be established as the longest interval
of time between batch feedings during the comprehensive performance
test. The minimum oxygen content at which a facility would charge a
containerized waste into the burner during normal operations would be
the highest instantaneous oxygen level observed when any batch was fed
during the comprehensive performance test.
EPA specifically invites comment on whether the bases of these
three parameters are overly conservative. Rather than basing maximum
batch size on the smallest container fed during the comprehensive test,
EPA could establish maximum batch size based on the average container
mass. Feeding frequency could be based on the average time interval
between batches during the comprehensive test. Oxygen concentration
could be the average oxygen level occurring during the test. To address
this issue, EPA needs to know whether the proposed requirements are
overly conservative and why, or conversely, whether the options
described in this paragraph are not restrictive enough.
EPA specifically invites comment on other approaches to establish
limits for these parameters, and whether (and how) it would be
necessary to limit maximum volatility of the batch-fired material.
vii. Dry PM Collection Device Inlet Temperature. Formation of D/F
emissions on particulate matter increases with increasing temperature.
Above 350 deg.F and up to approximately 700 deg.F, emissions of D/F can
increase a factor of 10 for every 125 deg.F increase in
temperature.144 Consequently, today's rule would limit temperature
at the inlet to a dry PM control device to the maximum levels that
occurred during the comprehensive performance test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ See Chapter 7.2 of ``Draft Technical Support Document for
HWC MACT Standards, Volume IV: Compliance with the Proposed MACT
Standards'', February 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is proposed that a ten-minute rolling average be used to control
perturbations in temperatures and that a one-hour rolling average be
used to control the average temperature. The ten-minute rolling average
limit would be established as the average of the highest ten-minute
average for each run. The hourly average would be established as the
average of over all runs.
viii. Carbon Injection. Facilities may use carbon injection to meet
the D/F standard. Today's rule would limit the following carbon
injection parameters: minimum carbon injection rate; minimum carrier
fluid flowrate or nozzle pressure drop, and adsorption characteristics
of the carbon.
A minimum carbon feedrate limit is necessary to ensure that
facilities maintain the same D/F removal efficiency as was demonstrated
during the comprehensive performance test. It is proposed that minimum
carbon injection rate be maintained on a ten-minute and one-hour
average. The ten-minute average would be established as the average of
the minimum 10-minute rolling average for each run, and the one-hour
average would be established as the average over all runs.
A carrier fluid, gas or liquid, is necessary to transport and
inject the carbon into the gas stream. EPA proposes that either minimum
carrier gas flowrate or pressure drop across the nozzle be maintained
to ensure good flow of the injected carbon into the flue gas stream. It
is proposed that either limit be established on a 10-minute rolling
average and that the limit be based on the carbon injection
manufacturers specifications.
Finally, to ensure that D/F removal efficiency is maintained after
the performance test, carbon used after the test must have the same or
better adsorption properties as carbon used during the test. Thus, the
rule would require that facilities continue to use the same brand and
type of carbon that was used during the comprehensive test. The rule
would allow a source to obtain a waiver from this requirement from the
Director, however, if the owner or operator: (1) documents by data or
information key characteristics of carbon which affect removal of D/F
from combustion gas; (2) documents by data or information specification
levels corresponding to those characteristics; and (3) complies with
the specification.
ix. Carbon Bed. Some sources may elect to use a carbon bed to
control D/F. Today's rule would limit the age of the carbon and the
adsorption characteristics of the carbon to ensure that D/F control is
maintained.
Since carbon beds work by adsorbing certain chemicals, e.g., dioxin
and mercury, and the carbon in the bed becomes less effective as the
active sites for adsorption become occupied, an appropriate control
parameter for carbon beds is the amount of time the carbon in use. EPA
is particularly concerned about a facility's ability to know when a
carbon bed is spent, i.e., when enough active sites get occupied to
make the device inadequate for removing dioxin or mercury, and knowing
how often carbon must be replaced from the bed to ensure this does not
occur. This cannot be determined during the initial comprehensive
performance test. For that reason, the Agency proposes that facilities
follow the carbon bed manufacturer's specifications for the initial
comprehensive performance test.
No carbon aging would be required for this initial test. For
confirmatory tests, facilities would be required to follow the normal
change-out schedule specified by the manufacturer. For subsequent
comprehensive tests, the Agency proposes that the D/F test be conducted
at maximum carbon age, i.e., at the least frequent carbon change-out,
and that this age be maximum age allowable under normal operation.
Alternately, the Agency could use some form of a breakthrough
calculation and use this to assure compliance with the D/F standard. A
breakthrough calculation would give a theoretical minimum carbon
change-out schedule which the facility could use to ensure that
breakthrough, i.e., the dramatic reduction in efficiency of the carbon
bed due to too make active sites being occupied, does not happen.
However a breakthrough calculation can only be done after
experimentation determines the relationship between incoming adsorbed
chemicals and the adsorption rate of the carbon. The adsorption rate of
carbon can be determined experimentally, but the speciation of adsorbed
chemicals in a flue gas stream is site-specific and may vary greatly
within a given site over time. Therefore, EPA proposes using this
alternative only for the initial comprehensive test, when site data is
not available and the carbon bed is not aged. EPA believes that, for
subsequent comprehensive tests, the proposed option is preferable,
since it provides for the setting of the minimum carbon change-out on
subsequent D/F tests. EPA does not believe it is appropriate to use
breakthrough calculations for the second and subsequent comprehensive
test(s) since they do not take into account facility specific
characteristics, like the concentration of adsorbed chemicals in the
flue gas. EPA invites comment on an approach which would use
breakthrough calculations alone, to see if it can become workable in
another form than the Agency has envisioned.
An issue that is difficult to address is that carbon age is
dependant not only on time in service, but also the carbon bed inlet
concentration of substances (e.g., metals, PM) which adsorb or absorb
onto the carbon. There may be other factors that affect D/F removal
efficiency of the bed. The Agency invites comment on how to address
these issues.
[[Page 17425]]
Another issue is whether it is necessary to control temperature at
the inlet to the carbon bed. EPA does not believe this is necessary
since facilities will need a PM control device upstream of a carbon bed
and temperature at the inlet to dry PM APCDs is proposed to be
controlled. However, the consequences of a temperature spike at the
carbon bed can be severe: a temperature spike may cause adsorbed D/F
and Hg to de-adsorb and re-enter the gas stream, resulting in a
significant amount of D/F and Hg being emitted at the stack at once.
For this reason, the Agency invites comment on whether controlling
temperature at the inlet to a carbon bed is necessary.
Finally, as the case with carbon injection, to ensure that D/F
removal efficiency is maintained after the performance test, carbon
used post-test must have the same or better adsorption properties as
carbon used during the test. Thus, the rule would require that
facilities continue to use the same brand and type of carbon as was
used during the comprehensive test. The rule would allow a source to
obtain a waiver from this requirement, however, as discussed above.
x. Catalytic Oxidizer. Some facilities may use a catalytic oxidizer
to meet the D/F standard. Catalytic oxidizers used to control stack
emissions are similar to those used in automotive and industrial
applications. The flue gas passes over a catalytic metals, such as
palladium and platinum, supported by an alumina washcoat on some metal
or ceramic substrate. When the flue gas passes through the catalyst, a
reaction takes place similar to combustion, converting hydrocarbons to
carbon monoxide, then carbon dioxide. Catalytic oxidizers can also be
``poisoned'' by lead and other metals just as automotive and industrial
catalysts are.
The rule would require sources to establish site-specific limits on
the following operating parameters for catalytic oxidizers: minimum
flue gas temperature at the inlet of the catalyst, maximum age in use,
catalyst replacement specifications, and maximum flue gas temperature
at the inlet of the catalyst. The rule would allow a waiver from these
provisions if the owner documents to the Director that establishing
limits on other operating parameters would be more appropriate to
ensure that the D/F destruction efficiency of the oxidizer is
maintained after the performance test. The owner or operator would
provide such documentation, including how limits on the alternative
operating parameters would be established and appropriate averaging
periods, and a request for a waiver as part of the notification to
conduct the comprehensive performance test and draft test protocol. The
Director would grant the waiver in writing, if warranted.
Minimum flue gas temperature at the inlet of the catalyst is
necessary to ensure that the catalyst is above light-off temperature.
Light-off temperature is that minimum temperature at which the catalyst
is hot enough to catalyze the reactions of hydrocarbons and carbon
monoxide. EPA proposes that minimum flue gas temperature be maintained
on both a ten-minute and one-hour average. The ten-minute average limit
would be established as the average of the minimum ten-minute rolling
average for each run during the comprehensive performance test. The
hourly average limit would be established as the average hourly average
over all runs.
Due to poisoning and general degradation of the catalyst,
manufacturers often establish a maximum time in-use for the catalyst.
EPA proposes that the manufacturer's specification for maximum age be
used as maximum age of the catalyst.
When a catalyst is replaced, it must be of the same design of the
previous catalyst to ensure that the replacement catalyst will work as
efficiently as the previous one. Therefore, EPA proposes that the
following design parameters be used in specifying replacement
catalysts: loading of catalytic metals; space time; and monolith
substrate construction.
Catalytic metal loading is important because, without sufficient
catalytic metal on the catalyst, it would not properly function. Also,
some catalytic metals are more efficient than others. Therefore, EPA
proposes that replacement catalysts have at least the same catalytic
metal loading for each catalytic metal as the catalyst used during the
comprehensive performance test.
Space time, expressed in inverse seconds (s-1), is defined as
the maximum rated volumetric flow through the catalyst divided by the
volume of the catalyst. This is important because it is a measure of
the gas flow residence time and, hence, the amount of time the flue gas
is in the catalyst. The longer the gas is in the catalyst, the more
time the catalyst has to cause hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide to
react. It is proposed that replacement catalysts have at the same or
lower space time as the one used during the comprehensive performance
test.
Substrate construction is also an important parameter. Substrates
for industrial applications are typically monoliths, made of rippled
metal plates banded together around the circumference of the catalyst.
Ceramic monoliths and pellets can also be used. Because of the many
types of substrates, EPA proposes that the same materials of
construction, monolith or pellets and metal or ceramic, be used as was
used during the comprehensive performance test. Monoliths also form a
honeycomb like structure when viewed from one end. The pore density,
i.e., number of pores per square inch, is critical because they must be
small enough to ensure intimate contact between the flue gas and the
catalyst, but large enough to allow unrestricted flow through the
catalyst. Therefore, if a monolith substrate is used, EPA proposes that
the same pore density as the one used during the comprehensive
performance test. Finally, catalysts are supported by a washcoat,
typically alumina. EPA proposes that replacement catalysts have the
same type and loading of washcoat as was on the catalyst used during
the comprehensive performance test.
Finally, EPA believes it is also important to control maximum flue
gas temperature into the catalyst. This is because sustained high flue
gas temperature can result in sintering of the catalyst, degrading its
performance. The Agency proposes that maximum flue gas temperature into
the catalyst be controlled and that it be a ten-minute rolling average,
based on manufacturer specifications.
xi. D/F Inhibitor. Some facilities may use a D/F inhibitor (e.g.,
sulfur) to meet the D/F standard. In such cases, the rule would
establish a minimum inhibitor feedrate. Limits would be established on
both a ten-minute and one-hour average. The ten-minute average limit
would be established as the average of the minimum ten-minute rolling
average for each run, and the one-hour average limit would be
established as the average over all runs. See also the discussion in
section II.F.2 below for other requirements to document compliance with
feedrate limits.
This minimum inhibitor feedrate pertains to additives to
feedstreams, not naturally occurring inhibitors that may be found in
fossil fuels or hazardous waste. It is conceivable that a facility
would choose to burn high sulfur fuel or waste specially during the
comprehensive test and switch back to low sulfur fuels or waste after
the test, thus reducing D/F emissions during the comprehensive test to
levels that would not be maintained after the test. EPA invites comment
on whether and how to address this concern, including whether it would
be appropriate to establish
[[Page 17426]]
limits on the amount of naturally occurring inhibitor, either during
performance testing or as an operating limit. Comments and
documentation are also requested to help identify such inhibitors.
As was the case with carbon used in carbon injection and carbon
beds, EPA is concerned that facilities may use a less effective, and
presumably less expensive, D/F inhibitor during normal operation than
was used during the comprehensive performance test. For this reason,
the rule would require that facilities continue to use the same type
and brand of inhibitor as was used during the comprehensive test. The
rule would allow a source to obtain a waiver from this requirement from
the Director, however, if the owner or operator: (1) documents by data
or information key characteristics of the inhibitor which inhibit
formation of D/F; (2) documents by data or information specification
levels corresponding to those characteristics; and (3) complies with
the specification.
xii. Rapid Quench. Some facilities may elect to use a rapid quench
to lower flue gas temperature to meet the D/F standard. The rule would
not establish limits on operating parameters for rapid quench systems
because we believe that a maximum dry PM control device temperature is
sufficient to ensure that the quench was adequate. We note, however,
that a facility may use a rapid quench for control of D/F emissions yet
not have a dry PM control device. One way to address this situation is
to require that a maximum flue gas temperature be established at the
stack.
EPA doubts, however, that there will be any facilities which use a
rapid quench without a dry PM control device. Consequently, we invite
comment on whether the final rule should establish a maximum flue gas
temperature limit that would address such apparently hypothetical
situations.
xiii. Consideration of Feed Restrictions on Metals, Halogens, and
Dioxin Precursors. The rule would not establish feedrate limits on
metals, halogens, or D/F precursors to ensure compliance with the D/F
standard. Some research indicates that certain metals, copper for
instance, in the feed may catalyze the formation of D/F. However, this
research is inconclusive and there is not yet a consensus among the
research community that catalytic metal in the feed necessarily causes
increased D/F emissions.145 Therefore, EPA proposes not limiting
the feed of catalytic metals in the feed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ See Chapter 7.2 of USEPA, ``Draft Technical Support
Document for HWC MACT Standards, Volume IV: Compliance with the
Proposed MACT Standards'', February 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research and common sense has also indicated that the presence of
halogens, such as chlorine, in the feed may contribute to the
production of halogenated D/F. While the presence of chlorine in the
feed is necessary for the formation of chlorinated D/F, current science
seems to support the view that there is not a clear correlation between
the level of chlorine in the feed and the level of dioxin in the flue
gas. In other words, increasing halogen feedrate above de minimis
levels does not appear to cause increased emissions of chlorinated D/
F.146 Therefore, the rule would not limit the amount of chlorine
fed to ensure compliance with the D/F standard, particularly in light
of the suite of other compliance assurance measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ See Chapter 7.3 of USEPA, ``Draft Technical Support
Document for HWC MACT Standards, Volume IV: Compliance with the
Proposed MACT Standards'', February 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonetheless, we believe that it is prudent to require that chlorine
be fed at normal levels (or greater) during the D/F comprehensive
performance test. This is because, while more chlorine does not
necessarily form more dioxin, some chlorine is needed to form
chlorinated D/F. We invite comment on how to ensure that normal levels
of chlorine are fed during the comprehensive performance test. For
sources that do not elect to use a CEMS for SVM, LVM, HCl and Cl2
and, thus, must maximize chlorine feedrate during the test, this is not
an issue. We believe that the vast majority of sources will be in this
situation. For sources that elect to use such CEMS (assuming that
multi-metal and Cl2 CEMS become commercially available), defining
normal chlorine feedrates is an issue.
Some arguments have been made that the presence of organic dioxin
precursors in the feed would result in an increased level of D/F in the
flue gas. EPA has briefly examined certain facilities which feed dioxin
or known organic dioxin precursors (e.g., chlorophenol and
chlorobenzene) to those which are known not to feed organic dioxin
precursors. Although our limited study suggests that no strong
correlation exists between the level of dioxins or organic dioxin
precursors in the feed and D/F emissions, we do not believe the issue
has been sufficiently examined in detail (indeed, other evidence
suggests that a correlation might exist). EPA invites comment on
whether feed restrictions on D/F and organic dioxin precursors are
warranted and, if so, whether this should be an operating parameter or
a feed requirement during the comprehensive test (such as proposed for
chlorine).
3. Mercury (Hg)
Table V.2.3 Summarizes the proposed compliance monitoring
requirements and other options being considered for Hg. See also
proposed Sec. 63.1210(k).
Table V.2.3.--Proposed Hg Monitoring Requirements and Other Options Being Considered
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating limit avg
Compliance using Limits from Avg. period pd basis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Requirement............... CEMS.................. Total Hg or Multi- CEMS Std............. 10 hour..............
metal CEMS.
Option 1: Elemental Hg CEMS........ Surrogate CEMS........ Elemental Hg CEMS..... Comp Test............ 10 hour.............. Avg over all runs.
Max Flue Gas Flowrate Same.................. Comp Test............ 1 hour............... Avg of Max 1 hour
or Production Rate. RAs.
Min Press Drop, Wet Pressure Drop Across Comp Test............ 10 min............... Avg of Min 10 min
Scrubber. Scrubber. RAs.
1 hour............... Avg over all runs.
Min Liq Feed Press, Pressure.............. Manuf Spec........... 10 min...............
Wet Scrubber.
Min Liq pH............ pH.................... Comp Test............ 10 min............... Avg of Min 10 min
RAs.
[[Page 17427]]
1 hour............... Avg over all runs.
Min Liq/Gas Ratio, Wet Scrubber Liquid and Comp Test............ 10 min............... Avg of Min 10 min
Scrubber. Flue Gas Flowrate. RAs.
1 hour............... Avg over all runs.
Option 2: No CEMS.................. Max Total Hg Feedrate, Feedstream Analysis... Comp Test............ 12 hour.............. Avg over all runs.
all streams.
Max Inlet Temp to Dry Temp.................. Comp Test............ 10 min............... Avg of Max 10 min
PM APCD. RAs.
1 hour............... Avg over all runs.
Min Carbon Injection Feedrate CMS.......... Comp Test............ 10 min............... Avg of Min 10 min
Rate. RAs.
1 hour............... Avg over all runs.
Carbon Specs.......... Brand and Type........ Comp Test............ N/A.................. N/A.
Min Carrier Fluid Same.................. Manuf Spec........... 10 min............... N/A
Flowrate or Nozzle.
Max Carbon Age........ Max Carbon............ Initia............... N/A.................. Manuf Specs.
Conf Tests........... N/A.................. Normal C Change-out
Schedule.
Subsequent Comp Tests N/A.................. Max C Age is the age
during subsequent
Comp Tests.
Max Flue Gas Flowrate Flowrate CMS or Comp Test............ 1 hour............... Avg of Max 1 hour
of Production Rate. Production Rate. RAs.
Min Press Drop, Wet Pressure Drop Across Comp Test............ 10 min............... Avg of Min 10 min
Scrubber. Scrubber. RAs.
1 hour............... Avg over all runs.
Min Liq Feed Press, Pressure.............. Manuf Spec........... 10 min...............
Wet Scrubber.
Min Liq pH, Wet pH.................... Comp Test............ 10 min............... Avg of Min 10 min
Scrubber. RAs.
1 hour............... Avg over all runs.
Min Liq/Gas Ratio, Wet Scrubber Liquid and Comp Test............ 10 min............... Avg of Min 10 min
Scrubber. Flue Gas Flowrate. RAs.
1 hour............... Avg over all runs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Evaluation of Monitoring Options. Several types of CEMS exist or
are under development which measure Hg. Therefore, the rule proposes
use of a Hg CEMS to document compliance with the Hg standard.147
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\147\ In February 1996, the Agency initiated a demonstration
program to determine whether Hg (and PM) CEMS can comply with the
performance specifications proposed today. The demonstration will
also evaluate long-term durability (e.g., 6 months or longer) of the
CEMS. Results of the demonstration will be made available for review
and comment prior to promulgation of the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rule would allow two alternative CEMS approaches: the use of a
multi-metal CEMS or the use of a total Hg CEMS. (In addition, we
discuss below our concerns with allowing the use of an elemental Hg
CEMS.) If a facility elects to use a multi-metal (MM) CEMS for
compliance with the SVM and LVM standards, the MM CEMS can be used for
compliance with the Hg standard as well. See the discussion below on
SVMs and LVMs for discussion on MM CEMS. If a facility elects not to
use a MM CEMS, the source may use a total Hg CEMS.
In case the final rule does not require compliance with the Hg
standard using a CEMS, we also invite comment on ensuring compliance by
establishing limits on operating parameters.
b. Total Mercury CEMS. The rule would require use of a CEMS to
monitor Hg emissions (see below, small-on site sources could obtain a
waiver from the CEMS requirement.) If a facility elects not to use a MM
CEMS for compliance with all of the metals standards, EPA recommends
that facilities use a total Hg CEMS.
An example of such a unit is a total Hg CEMS made by the German
company Verewa and marketed in the US by Euramark. The device has
recently been certified by TUV, a quasi-governmental German agency
charged with approving compliance devices and methods. The CEMS uses
wet chemistry techniques prior to an elemental Hg UV absorption
analyzer to convert all species of Hg into elemental Hg. The analyzer
then determines the total Hg in the flue gas.
The performance specification for a total Hg CEMS are proposed here
as Part 60, Appendix B, Performance Specification 12. In addition, the
appendix to Part 63, Subpart EEE, Quality Assurance for CEMS would
require quarterly testing of the analyzer and relative accuracy testing
of the total system every 3 years (or 5 years for small on-site
facilities).
Also, EPA invites comments on allowing small on-site sources
(defined in Sec. 63.1208(b)(1)(ii) in the proposed regulations) to
obtain a waiver from the requirement of installing Hg CEMS. If the
waiver is promulgated and granted by the permitting authority, the
facility would demonstrate compliance with the Hg standard by
establishing operating parameter limits described in subsection d,
``Alternative to a CEMS,'' below.
c. Elemental Mercury CEMS. EPA invites comment on another approach
to continuously monitor Hg emissions, the use of an elemental Hg CEMS.
Although the elemental Hg CEMS may be less expensive than a total Hg
CEMS, EPA has several concerns with allowing the use of an elemental Hg
CEMS.
An elemental Hg CEMS does not measure species other than elemental,
or metallic Hg. It does not measure Hg
[[Page 17428]]
salts such as mercuric chloride (HgCl2). Therefore, it would be
necessary for the facility to measure elemental Hg using the CEMS and
elemental and Hg salts separately using manual methods during the
comprehensive performance test.
Data from the comprehensive test would be used to identify the
elemental Hg emission level at which the facility is considered to be
in compliance with the total Hg standard. However, following the
comprehensive test a facility could have higher levels of undetectable
Hg salt emissions than occurred during the comprehensive test. This
could happen in one of two ways: the scrubber may not be working as
effectively; or the Hg and halogen feed may have increased such that,
at a fixed scrubber efficiency, more Hg salts are emitted as a result.
Ensuring that the scrubber efficiency is maintained at performance test
levels can be accomplished using the parameters described above.
However, it is difficult to determine whether the same amount of Hg
salts, relative to the amount of total Hg, is being emitted. One could
correlate Hg and halogen feed with scrubber efficiency at various
scrubber conditions, but this would require many data points and seems
infeasible from a monetary and technical standpoint. Even if an
approach can be developed, the Agency is inclined to believe it would
require a lot of oversight to ensure it is done properly.
If the issue of correlating total Hg emissions to an elemental Hg
CEMS can be successfully addressed, establishing the site-specific
limit and the averaging period for the elemental Hg standard would then
have to be addressed. Facilities would be able to use the mean of the
results during the test, along with a variability factor, as their
site-specific elemental Hg level. The averaging period could be the
time duration of three runs of the comprehensive performance test, but
manual methods tests do not end on the exact hour and there may be more
than one comprehensive test with, likely, different sampling periods.
So, a problem would arise as to what averaging period to use.
For these reasons, EPA believes the use of an elemental Hg CEMS is
infeasible to implement under self-implemented MACT standards.
Nonetheless, if these issues can be resolved, the final rule may allow
some use of an elemental Hg CEMS.
d. Alternative to a CEMS. If the final rule does not require that
Hg emissions be continuously monitored, the rule would ensure
compliance with the Hg standard by establishing limits on operating
parameters. Also if the provision allowing small on-site facilities
(defined in Sec. 63.1208(b)(1)(ii) of the proposed regulations) to
waive the Hg CEMS requirement is promulgated and such a facility elects
not to use an Hg CEMS, the facility would have to establish these
operating parameter limits to document compliance with the Hg standard.
The proposed operating limits are: maximum Hg feedrate, Hg scrubber
operating parameters, maximum flue gas feedrate, minimum carbon
injection rate, and carbon bed operating parameters.
i. Maximum Hg Feedrates. Absent a requirement to monitor Hg
emissions with a CEMS, the final rule would establish a maximum Hg
feedrate limit. This is because the amount of Hg fed into the combustor
directly affects emissions and the ability of control equipment to
remove Hg. This maximum feedrate pertains to all feeds into the
combustor: hazardous waste, raw materials, additives, and fossil fuels.
Feedrate sampling and analysis protocols would be described in the
facility's waste analysis plan. The limit would be based on a twelve-
hour average and established as twelve times the hourly average
feedrate during all runs of the comprehensive performance test. See
also the discussion in section II.F.2. below for other requirements to
document compliance with feedrate limits.
As mentioned above in Subsection B, this twelve-hour average is
inconsistent with the ten hour averaging period for metals CEMS. CEMS
should have longer averaging periods than operating parameters such as
feedrates. Therefore, EPA invites comment on whether the averaging
period for Hg feedrate should be promulgated at six, instead of 12,
hours. EPA believes a six-hour averaging period for Hg feedrate is
sufficiently conservative, relative to the CEMS averaging period and
achievable.
ii. Max Inlet Temp to Dry PM APCD. High inlet temperatures to dry
PM APCDs can cause low recovery of Hg in the APCD. This is because Hg
volatility increases with increasing temperature. Therefore, absent a
requirement to monitor Hg emissions with a CEMS, the final rule would
control inlet temperature to a dry PM APCD. Limits would be based on
both a 10-minute and a one-hour average. The 10-minute average would be
the average of the maximum PM APCD inlet temperatures experienced
during each compliance test run and the one-hour average would be the
average over all runs.
iii. Carbon Injection. Some facilities may need to use carbon
injection as an aftertreatment to comply with the Hg standard. Absent a
Hg CEMS requirement, the final rule would establish controls on the
following carbon injection operating parameters: minimum carbon
injection rate, carbon specifications, and minimum carrier flowrate or
nozzle pressure drop. The controls would be established under the same
approach as proposed for carbon injection used for D/F control. See the
previous discussion.
iv. Carbon Bed. Rather than carbon injection, some facilities may
elect to use a carbon bed to control Hg emissions. Absent a requirement
to monitor Hg emissions with a CEMS, the final rule would establish
controls on carbon bed operating parameters under the same approach as
proposed for carbon beds used for D/F control. See the previous
discussion.
v. Maximum Flue Gas Flowrate or Production Rate. As discussed above
for compliance with the D/F standard, an increase in flue gas flowrate
can decrease collection efficiency of the emission control device.
Accordingly, absent a requirement to monitor Hg emissions continuously,
the final rule would limit flue gas flowrate or production rate under
the same approach as proposed for D/F compliance. See the previous
discussion.
vi. Wet Scrubber Parameters. The efficiency of wet scrubbers
directly affects the removal of Hg salts from flue gas. Key operating
parameters would include: maximum flue gas flowrate or production rate,
minimum pressure drop across the wet scrubber, minimum liquid feed
pressure, minimum liquid pH, and minimum liquid to gas ratio. Refer to
the section below on compliance requirements for the HCl and Cl2
standard for discussion on these parameters. Absent a requirement to
monitor Hg emissions continuously, the final rule would establish
limits on these parameters under the same approach as proposed for
compliance with the HCl and Cl2 standard.
4. Semivolatile Metals (SVM) and Low Volatile Metals (LVM)
Table V.2.4 Summarizes the proposed compliance monitoring
requirements and other options being considered. See also proposed
Sec. 63.1210 (l) and (m).
[[Page 17429]]
Table V.2.4.--Summary of Proposed SVM and LVM Compliance Monitoring Requirements and Other Options Being Considered
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating limit avg
Compliance using Limit from Avg period pd basis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option 1 (Facility Choice) CEMS.................. Multi-metal CEMS...... CEMS Std............. 10 hour..............
Proposed Option 2 (Facility Choice) Good PM Control....... PM CEMS (see PM for Comp Test............ 10 min............... Avg of Max 10 min
Others). RAs.
1 hour............... Avg over all runs.
Max Inlet Temp to Dry Same.................. Comp Test............ 10 min............... Avg of Max 10 min
PM APCD. RAs.
1 hour............... Avg over all runs.
Max Total SVM and LVM Feedstream Analysis... Comp Test............ 12 hour.............. Avg over all runs.
Feedrates.
Max Pumpable LVM Feedstream Analysis... Comp Test............ 12 hour.............. Avg over all runs.
Feedrate.
Max Chlorine Feedrate. Feedstream Analysis... Comp Test............ 12 hour.............. Avg over all runs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Evaluation of Monitoring Options. EPA proposes two compliance
options for the SVM and LVM standards: use of a multi-metal CEMS (MM
CEMS) or compliance with limits on operating parameters. A facility
would be allowed to use either of these options to demonstrate
compliance. We are not proposing to require the use of a CEMS because a
CEMS is not commercially available for LVMs and SVMs at this time, and
the Agency is uncertain whether a CEMS that could meet the proposed
performance specifications discussed below would be available at
promulgation of the final rule.
b. Option 1: Use of a Multi-metal CEMS to Document Compliance. EPA
is proposing to allow the use of a MM CEMS for compliance with the Hg,
SVM, and LVM standards. If a facility elects to use a MM CEMS, limits
on operating parameters would not be required.148
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\148\ Although a site-specific limit on PM would also not be
required for compliance with the SVM and LVM emission standards, it
would be needed to comply with the D/F standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing to allow the use of a MM CEMS (and may require the
use of MM CEMS if they would be commercially available by the
promulgation date of the final rule) because it is difficult to ensure
compliance with the emission standards by limiting operating
parameters. Sampling and analysis of feedstreams to monitor metals
feedrate has drawbacks in that representative sampling is sometimes
difficult and expensive to achieve,149 and the available
analytical methods may not extract all metals from some feedstreams
(and thus metal feedrates may be higher than indicated by analysis). In
addition, it is often difficult to use limits on operating parameters
of the metal emission control device to ensure that collection
efficiency is maintained. It is also difficult to ensure that the other
major factors that can affect metals emissions are adequately addressed
by operating limits. For example, factors that affect metal volatility
and subsequently metals emissions may include chlorine feedrates,
combustion chamber temperature, and temperature at the inlet of the
emission control device. Finally, the common process of spiking metals
during compliance testing to ensure an adequate operating envelope is
expensive, potentially dangerous to the testing crew that must handle
the toxic metals, and causes higher than normal emission rates during
compliance testing. If a MM CEMS were available, there would not be a
need to spike metals during compliance testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\149\ We note that several cement and light-weight aggregate
kilns have been fined because of inadequate feedstream analysis
plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. How to Address Metals that a CEMS May Not Be Able to Measure.
Several MM CEMS are currently under development, and not all of them
will be able to measure all metals in the SVM (Pb and Cd) and LVM (As,
Be, Cr, and Sb) groupings. Clearly, a MM CEMS cannot be used to
document compliance for a metal it cannot measure. For metals a MM CEMS
cannot measure, it is proposed that facilities assume that all of that
metal fed is emitted at the stack and that this metal feedrate be used
in calculating the emissions for the metal group. Alternately, EPA
could decide that a MM CEMS which does not measure all the metals could
not be used as CEMS for compliance with the SVM and LVM standards. EPA
invites comment on this issue.
For example, x-ray fluorescence analyzers do not measure Be. If a
facility chooses to use a MM CEMS which employs an x-ray fluorescence
analyzer, it would take the MM CEMS results for As, Cr, and Sb, and the
mass feedrate for Be (corrected to effluent concentrations by dividing
by the average gas flowrate) and sum the four together. This would
constitute the LVM emissions for the averaging period that would be
used to determine compliance.
ii. Performance Specifications for a MM CEMS. The performance
specification for a MM CEMS is proposed here as Part 60, Appendix B,
Performance Specification (PS) 10. Lacking a commercially available MM
CEMS to test prior to developing the performance specification created
unique challenges to developing a MM CEMS PS. The Agency's approach to
developing the PS was to base performance criteria as much as possible
on existing performance specifications. The Agency also worked closely
with MM CEMS developers, through the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, to ensure that the MM CEMS PS would be representative of the
performance of commercially available devices. EPA specifically invites
comment on the performance specification.
It is also proposed that special quality assurance (QA)
requirements also pertain to MM CEMS. (See subsection F.1. of this
section for more information on CEMS QA requirements.) We propose that
the owner/operator perform a relative accuracy test audit (RATA) on the
MM CEMS at least once every three years (five years for small on-site
facilities). The RATA compares the output of the MM CEMS to the
reference method. For the purposes of these source categories, the
reference method for stack metals determinations is the current BIF
Method 0012 (SW-846 Method 0060). The QA requirements also propose that
an absolute calibration audit (ACA) be conducted in years the RATA is
not
[[Page 17430]]
conducted. The ACA would involve making nine measurements using an NIST
traceable calibration standard at three levels for each metal the CEMS
measures. NIST traceable solutions of metals are currently available
which challenge the analyzer device only. EPA is currently developing
the NIST traceable metal standard which will challenge the entire
system, not just the analyzer.
c. Option 2: Use of Limits on Operating Parameters to Document
Compliance. If a source elects not to use a MM CEMS (or a CEMS is not
commercially available), the rule would require the source to establish
a site-specific PM limit and comply with limits on metals feedrate,
chlorine feedrate, and maximum temperature at the inlet to the PM
control device. These limits would be established during the
comprehensive performance test when the source demonstrates compliance
with the emission limits by manual stack sampling.
i. PM Limit. SVM and LVM (and adsorbed D/F) are controlled by the
PM control device. To ensure that the collection efficiency of the PM
device is maintained after the comprehensive performance test, EPA is
proposing to require that a PM limit be established as the lower of the
level occurring during the SVM, LVM, and D/F performance testing or the
MACT standard. For PM monitoring requirements see section 7, below.
ii. Maximum Inlet Temperature to Dry PM APCDs. High inlet
temperatures to dry PM APCDs can cause low recovery of metals in the
APCD because at higher temperatures a larger portion of some metals
will be in the vapor phase. (Dry PM control devices do not control
vapor phase metals.) This happens because metal volatility increases
with increasing temperature. Therefore, EPA proposes that the inlet
temperature to a dry PM APCD be maintained at a level no higher than
that during the comprehensive performance test.
The Agency proposes that maximum inlet temperature to a dry PM APCD
be maintained on both a 10-minute and a one-hour average. The 10-minute
average would be the average of the maximum inlet temperatures
experienced during each compliance test run and the one-hour average
would be the average over all runs.
iii. Maximum SVM and LVM Feedrate Limits. Given the correlation
between feedrate and emission rate, the rule would limit feedrate of
SVM and LVM to levels fed during the comprehensive performance test.
For LVM, feedrate limits would be set on both pumpable liquids and
total feedstreams separately. A separate limit is proposed for pumpable
feedstreams because metals present in pumpable feedstreams may
partition between the combustion gas and bottom ash (or kiln product)
at a higher rate than metals in nonpumpable feedstreams.
For SVM, the feedrate limit would apply to all feedstreams.
Separate limits would not be established for pumpable versus total
feedstreams. This is because partitioning between the combustion gas
and bottom ash or product does not appear to be affected by the
physical state of the feedstream. 150
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\150\ See USEPA, ``Draft Technical Support Document for HWC MACT
Standards, Volume IV: Compliance with the Proposed MACT Standards'',
February 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources would be required to perform sampling and analysis of all
feedstreams (including hazardous waste, raw materials, and other fuels
and additives) for SVM and LVM content to document compliance with the
feedrate limits. See also the discussion in section II.F.2. below for
other requirements to document compliance with feedrate limits.
The rule would base the feedrate limit for SVM and LVM on a twelve-
hour average basis. The limit would be established as twelve times the
average hourly feedrate during the comprehensive performance test.
Also, facilities would be required to record not only the total feed at
each individual feed location for SVM and LVM, but the total sum of the
SVM feed and the LVM feed at the various locations.
As mentioned above in Subsection B, this twelve-hour average is
inconsistent with the ten-hour averaging period for metals CEMS. CEMS
should have longer averaging periods than operating parameters such as
feedrates. Therefore, EPA invites comment on whether the averaging
period for all SVM and LVM feedrates should be promulgated at six,
instead of 12, hours. EPA believes a six-hour averaging period for all
SVM and LVM feedrates is sufficiently conservative, relative to the
CEMS averaging period and achievable.
The grouping of metals by volatility means that it is possible for
one metal within the volatility group to be used during performance
testing as a surrogate for other metals in that volatility group. For
instance, As may be used as a surrogate during the comprehensive
performance test for all LVMs. Similarly, lead could be used as a
surrogate for Cd, the other SVM. In addition, either SVM could be used
as a surrogate for any LVM. This will help alleviate concerns
facilities have voiced regarding the need to spike each metal during
BIF certification of compliance testing. Facilities would not need to
spike each metal to comply with today's rule, but only one metal within
the group (or potentially one SVM for both categories).
iv. Maximum Chlorine Feedrate. The rule would establish a maximum
feedrate for total chlorine and chloride based on the level fed during
the comprehensive performance test. A limit on maximum chlorine feed is
necessary because most metals are more volatile in the chlorinated
form. Although most of the volatilized SVM and LVM will condense to
particulate form before entering the PM control device, the metals
condense in a fine particulate fume that is more difficult for most PM
control devices to collect than larger particulate.
The rule would require sampling and analysis of each feedstream for
total chlorine and chloride to document compliance with the feedrate
limit for total feedstreams. The maximum feedrate would be based on a
twelve-hour average, and would be established as twelve times the
hourly average feedrate during the comprehensive performance test. Note
also the requirements for documenting compliance with feedrate limits
discussed in section II.F.2.
Again, this twelve-hour average is inconsistent with the one-hour
averaging period for HCl and Cl2 CEMS. CEMS should have longer
averaging periods than operating parameters such as feedrates.
Therefore, EPA invites comment on whether the averaging period for
chlorine feedrate should be promulgated at one, instead of 12, hours.
EPA believes a twelve-hour averaging period for chlorine feedrate is
not be sufficiently conservative, relative to the one-hour CEMS
averaging period. However, EPA also believes that a shorter averaging
period for feedrates may be difficult for some facilities, particularly
those with diverse feedstreams, to achieve routinely. For this reason,
the twelve-hour average is proposed and comment is sought on the one
hour-average.
We note that if a facility uses a CEMS for compliance with the Hg,
SVM, LVM, and HCl and Cl2 standards, there would be no need for
the facility to establish a total chlorine and chloride feedrate limit.
v. Special Requirements for Cement and Lightweight Aggregate Kilns
that Recycle Collected Particulate Matter. Cement kilns and lightweight
aggregate kilns that recycle collected particulate matter (which is
primarily raw material that is entrained in kiln gas) pose a
[[Page 17431]]
special problem to ensure compliance with metals emission standards.
These sources (particularly cement kilns) feed a variety of feedstocks
which makes feedstream analysis problematic. Also, when these sources
spike metals in feedstreams for purposes of performance testing, it may
take several hours or days to reach steady-state emissions.
Under the BIF rule, these sources must comply with one of three
requirements: (1) Daily monitoring of collected PM to ensure that
metals levels do not exceed limits that relate concentration of the
metal in the collected PM to emitted PM; (2) daily stack sampling for
metals; or (3) conditioning of the furnace system prior to performance
testing to ensure that metals emissions are at equilibrium with metals
feedrates. See 56 FR 7176-78 (February 21, 1991), existing
Sec. 266.103(c)(6), and proposed Sec. 63.1210(n). We propose to
continue to require that these sources comply with one of the three BIF
alternative approaches for compliance with the MACT metals standards.
We understand, however, that the approach of daily monitoring
collected PM to document compliance with the BIF metal standards (see
Section 10 of Appendix IX to Part 266, ``Alternative Methodology for
Implementing Metals Controls'') is not currently being used by any
facility because it is too complicated and burdensome. (The methodology
involves empirically relating the concentration of each metal in the
emitted PM to the concentration of the metal in collected PM (i.e., the
enrichment factor).) The Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition (CKRC) has
suggested several revisions to the methodology 151 including: (1)
Reduced testing frequency to establish and periodically confirm the
enrichment factor; (2) assuming PM emissions 152 are at normal
levels rather than maximum allowable levels; (3) a less conservative
approach to estimate the enrichment factor for nondetect metals in
collected PM (based on new sampling and analysis techniques and
improved understanding of metals behavior); and (4) allowing all kilns
to comply with a revised methodology, not just kilns that recycle
collected PM. (The Agency believes the approach may, in fact, be
appropriate for any HWC and invites comment on this matter.) In
addition, CKRC raises several questions regarding the statistical
foundations of the methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\151\ See letter from Craig Campbell, CKRC, to James Berlow,
EPA, undated but received on February 20, 1996.
\152\ Note that PM emissions from CKs are comprised primarily of
raw material entrained in the kiln off-gas. The material is known as
cement kiln dust (CKD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency invites comment on CKRC's recommendations to improve the
collected PM monitoring methodology and on other approaches to make the
methodology a more workable but effective compliance approach in lieu
of monitoring feedrates of metals in feedstreams.
5. Carbon Monoxide (CO), Hydrocarbons (HC), and Oxygen (O2)
EPA is proposing that facilities demonstrate compliance with the CO
and HC standards by using CEMS. See proposed Sec. 63.1210(p) and (q).
EPA is not proposing a standard for O\2\,153 but all of the
standards are based on correction to 7 percent O\2\. Therefore, EPA
proposes facilities monitor O2 by using a CEMS. Many HWCs are
already equipped with these monitors to comply with the existing
incinerator or BIF regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\153\ Except that batch-fired HWCs would be required to comply
with a minimum combustion chamber oxygen level prior to feeding a
batch to maintain compliance with the D/F standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes performance specifications for CO and O2 CEMS in
Performance Specification 4B of Appendix B, Part 60. EPA proposes a
total hydrocarbon (THC) CEMS performance specifications based on the
use of a heated flame ionization detector (i.e., heated FID). The HC PS
will be Performance Specification 8A contained in Appendix B, Part 60.
Both PSs are similar to those currently used for BIFs. The minor
proposed changes are discussed below.
a. Averaging Period for CO and HC CEMS. The averaging period for CO
and HC CEMS is proposed to be a one-hour rolling average. This is
because this a one-hour rolling average is the same averaging period
currently used in the BIF rule. Changing the averaging period would
necessitate changing the emission standard (see Part Four, Section II)
to maintain the same stringency for the different averaging period. EPA
does not believe this is warranted, so the one-hour rolling average is
proposed.
b. CO and HC CEMS Performance Specifications. Performance
specifications for CO and O2 CEMS are proposed here as Performance
Specification 4B. This performance specification is essentially the
same as the specification for BIFs provided in Appendix IX of Part 266.
This performance specification is the very similar to existing Appendix
B Performance Specifications 3 (for O2) and 4A (for CO). It
references many of the provisions of the two other specifications. What
the proposed specification does do is describe how the current BIF CEMS
performance specifications differ from performance specifications 3 and
4A and prescribes the BIF specifications in instances when differences
occur. EPA is proposing specification 4B because it believes it is
important to ``grandfather'' in the current performance specifications
for administrative and cost reasons. Performance specification 4B does
not differ substantially from the current Part 60 specifications.
Therefore, EPA invites comment on whether t
FR Doc. 96-7872 Revised Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors
o not propose performance
specification 4B and instead rely on the existing specifications 3 and
4A.
Also, performance specifications 3 and 4A (which performance
specification 4B refers to) requires a Relative Accuracy Test Audit
(RATA) be performed on the CEMS. It also allows for a waiver of the
RATA requirement if an acceptable substitute is used. The Agency is
currently moving away from requiring RATAs for CEMS for which cylinder
gases are available. Cylinder gases are available for both CO and O\2\,
so we invite comment on whether the RATA requirements not be included
in performance specification 4B. EPA would still require facilities to
perform quarterly absolute calibration audits (ACAs) using calibration
error (CE) test procedures for these CEMS. EPA invites comment on
whether the RATA requirement should not be promulgated and whether just
a quarterly ACA is adequate without a RATA.
HC CEMS performance specifications are proposed here as Performance
Specification 8A. It is identical to the performance specification
contained in section 2.2 of Appendix IX of Part 266, except the quality
assurance section has been deleted and placed in the appendix to
Subpart EEE, Part 63, to be consistent with the Agency's approach to
Part 60 performance specifications.
There is an existing performance specification, number 8, for a
volatile organic compound (VOC) CEMS. Performance specification 8 does
not rely on heated sampling lines and detector. A cold VOC monitor does
not measure less volatile hydrocarbons which, due to heating, are
measured by a heated FID but not a cold VOC monitor. (Heavy
hydrocarbons would condense out in the sampling line and in the
analyzer in a VOC CEMS and not be measured as hydrocarbon emissions.
Therefore, a VOC CEMS measures a subset of what a heated FID measures.)
Using the VOC performance specification would be problematic because
the emission standard was
[[Page 17432]]
established using the results from heated FIDs, not cold VOC CEMS. EPA
believes allowing compliance with a CEMS that measures only a subset of
the pollutants represented by the standard is inappropriate. For this
reason, we decided against proposing the use of performance
specification 8. EPA believes it is appropriate to propose performance
specification 8A to ``grandfather'' in the current specifications and
keep compliance monitoring in agreement with how the standard was
derived.
One issue that has arisen during the implementation of the BIF rule
is that the stated span values for the CO CEMS may lead to high error
in the facility's calculated emission value. For instance, a CK may
analyze for CO emissions in the bypass duct, and analyses in bypass
ducts can have very high oxygen correction factors, on the order of 10.
At the low range CO span of 200 ppm with an acceptable calibration
drift of 3 percent, or 6 ppm, this means that error in the standard due
to calibration drift would be 60 ppm if the oxygen correction factor is
ten. An absolute calibration drift of 60 ppm is more than half the CO
standard of 100 ppm and many believe this is unacceptable.
Therefore, EPA wishes to clarify the ranges for CEMS, stating that
the spans for low and high ranges are expressed at an oxygen correction
factor of 1. Facilities which normally operate at oxygen correction
factors more than 2 would have to use CEMS with spans proportionately
lower than the stated values, relative to the oxygen correction factor
at the sampling point.
In the example above, where the oxygen correction factor is 10, the
suggested value of the low range span for the CO CEMS would be 200
divided by 10, or 20 ppm. If the low CO range is 20, the oxygen
correction factor is 10, and the calibration drift is 3 percent of the
span of the range, then the absolute calibration drift would be 6 ppm.
Because the span value is a suggested value, the facility could use
a 25 ppm span value to satisfy this requirement. This modification is
contained in the CEMS Quality Assurance section of the proposed rules
and would apply to the other CEMS except the oxygen CEMS, where the
oxygen correction factor does not apply. It is proposed that
corresponding changes be made to the BIF rule as well.
An issue which also relates to the oxygen correction factor is that
it grows exponentially as oxygen levels increase, particularly at
oxygen concentrations above 15 to 17 percent. Some facilities
experience high oxygen correction factors at times of start-up or shut-
down because combustion has just commenced or is just completing and,
as a result, there is very high levels of excess oxygen in the
combustor. For this reason, EPA invites comment on whether it would be
appropriate to cap the oxygen correction factor at some multiplier
above the facility's normal operating correction factor for a specified
period of time, on the order of minutes, after a start-up or prior to a
shut-down.
6. Hydrochloric Acid (HCl) and Chlorine Gas (Cl2)
Table V.2.5 summarizes the proposed HCl/Cl2 compliance
monitoring requirements and other options being considered. See also
proposed Sec. 63.1210(o).
Table V.2.5.--Proposed HCl/Cl2 Compliance Monitoring Requirements and Other Options Being Considered
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating limit avg
Compliance using Limits from Avg period pd basis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option 1 (Facility Choice) Max Flue Gas Flowrate Same.................. Comp Test............ 1 hour............... Avg of Max 1 hour
or Production Rate. RAs.
Max Chlorine Feedrate. Feedstream Analysis... Comp Test............ 12 hour.............. Avg over all runs.
Min Press Drop, Wet Press drop across Comp Test............ 10 min............... Avg of Min 10 min
Scrubber. scrubber. RAs.
1 hour............... Avg over all runs.
Min Liq Feed Pressure, Pressure.............. Manuf Spec........... 10 min...............
Wet Scrubber.
Min Liq pH, Wet pH.................... Comp Test............ 10 min............... Avg Min 10 min RAs.
Scrubber.
1 hour............... Avg over all runs.
Min Liq/Gas Ratio, Wet Scrubber liquid and Comp Test............ 10 min............... Avg Min 10 min RAs.
Scrubber. gas flowrates.
1 hour............... Avg over all runs.
Min Sorbent Feedrate, Sorbent Feedrate...... Comp Test............ 10 min............... Avg of Min 10 min
Dry Scrubber. RAs.
1 hour............... Avg over all runs.
Min Carrier Fluid Carrier fluid flowrate Manuf Spec........... 10 min...............
Flowrate or Nozzle or pressure drop.
Pressure Drop, Dry
Scrubber.
Sorbent Specs, Dry Brand and Type........ Comp Test............ N/A.................. Same brand and type.
Scrubber.
Proposed Option 2 (Facility Choice) CEMS.................. HCl and Cl2 CEMS...... CEMS Std............. 2 hours..............
Additional Option.................. Surrogate CEMS........ HCl CEMS.............. Comp Test............ 2 hours.............. Avg over all runs.
Factors Affecting Cl2 TBD................... Comp Test............ TBD.................. TBD.
Formation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Evaluation of Monitoring Options. The rule would allow sources
the option of using separate CEMS to monitor HCl and Cl\2\ emissions or
to comply with limits on operating parameters.
HCl CEMS are commercially available and have been used at permitted
municipal waste combustor sources and
[[Page 17433]]
some HWCs for many years. Cl2 CEMS are currently being marketed by
a European manufacturer. Although the Agency prefers the use of CEMS
whenever they are available for compliance monitoring, we are concerned
that the use of CEMS to monitor HCl and Cl2 emissions may not be
cost-effective. This is because facilities are likely to be required to
monitor chlorine feed to demonstrate compliance with the SVM and LVM
standards anyway, given that a multi-metal CEMS may not be commercially
available for some time.154 Accordingly, the rule would allow, but
not require, the use of CEMS for HCl and Cl2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\ If we determine that multi-metal CEMS are commercially
available at promulgation and require their use in the final rule,
we may also require the use of CEMS to monitor HCl and Cl2
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that we considered the feasibility of allowing the use of
an HCl CEMS only, whereby the HCl CEMS would be used as a surrogate for
the HCl/Cl\2\ standard. As discussed below, we determined, however,
that this approach would be more complicated, more costly, have
technical problems, and/or provide less assurance of compliance. We
nonetheless invite comment on whether the use of an HCl CEMS as a
compliance parameter for the HCl and Cl2 standard could be a
workable approach.
b. Compliance Using Limits on Operating Parameters. If a source
elects not to use separate HCl and Cl2 CEMS to demonstrate
compliance with the HCl/Cl2 standard, the rule would require the
source to establish limits on the following operating parameters based
on operations during the comprehensive performance test to ensure it
maintains compliance with the standard: maximum feedrate of total
chlorine and chloride from all feedstreams, and limits on the acid gas
APCD operating parameters discussed below.
i. Maximum Flue Gas Flowrate or Production Rate. If flue gas
flowrates exceed those during the comprehensive performance test, the
HCl/Cl2 collection efficiency of the control device may not be
maintained which may result in emissions that exceed the standard.
Therefore, EPA proposes that maximum flue gas flowrate be controlled to
levels that are no higher than those during the performance test.
Alternatively, CKs and LWAKs may establish a maximum production rate
(e.g., raw material feedrate or clinker or aggregate production rate)
in lieu of a maximum gas flowrate given that production rate directly
relates to flue gas flowrate. The limit would be based on a one-hour
average and be established as the average of the maximum hourly rolling
average for each run of the comprehensive performance test.
ii. Maximum Total Chlorine or Chloride Feedrate. The rule would
limit the amount of total chlorine or chloride fed in all feedstreams
to levels that were fed during the comprehensive performance test
demonstrating compliance with the HCl/Cl2 standard. Sources would
be required to perform sampling and analysis of each feedstream for
total chlorine and chloride content to document compliance with the
feedrate limit for total feedstreams. See also the discussion in
section II.F.2 for other requirements to document compliance with
feedstream limits.
The total chlorine and chloride feedrate limit would be averaged
over a twelve-hour period and would be established as twelve times the
hourly feedrate during the comprehensive performance test.
We again note that there is an inconsistency between this twelve-
hour feedrate average and the proposed one-hour averaging period for
HCl and Cl2 CEMS. EPA invites comment on whether the averaging
period for chlorine feed should be promulgated at one, instead of
twelve, hours.
Note that if a facility uses a CEMS for compliance with the HCl and
Cl2, Hg, SVM, and LVM standards, no chlorine feed monitoring would
be required.
iii. Wet Scrubber Parameters. Wet scrubbers can be used to control
HCl and Cl2 emissions. To ensure that the control efficiency of a
wet scrubber is maintained at levels achieved during the comprehensive
performance test, the rule would require sources to establish limits on
the following operating parameters: pressure drop across the scrubber;
liquid feed pressure; liquid (blowdown) pH; and liquid to gas flow
ratio.
Pressure drop across a wet scrubber is an important parameter
because it is an indicator of good mixing of the two fluids, the
scrubber liquid and the flue gas. A low pressure drop would indicate
poor mixing and, hence, poor efficiency. A high pressure drop would
indicate good removal efficiency. Therefore, EPA proposes that the
pressure drop across the scrubber be limited to the minimum level
during the comprehensive performance test. Limits would be based on
both a ten-minute and a one-hour average. The ten-minute average limit
would be established as the average of the lowest ten-minute rolling
average for each run, and the hourly average limit would be established
as the average over all runs.
Scrubber liquid feed pressure is important because it directly
relates to the amount of scrubber liquid pumped into the scrubber and
is easier to measure than scrubber liquid flow directly. The more
scrubber liquid pumped into the scrubber, the better the removal
efficiency. If liquid flow were to decrease, the removal efficiency
would also decrease. EPA proposes that minimum liquid feed pressure be
maintained on a ten-minute average and that the limit be the minimum
value established by the scrubber manufacturer.
The pH of the scrubber liquid is also important because, at low pH,
the scrubber solution is more acidic and removal efficiency of HCl
decreases. We propose that the pH be determined from the blowdown
liquid. This is because it is the best indicator of scrubber efficiency
by measuring pH of scrubber liquid. EPA proposes that minimum pH of the
scrubber water be controlled on both a ten-minute and a one-hour
average. The ten-minute average limit would be established as the
average of the lowest ten-minute rolling average for each run, and the
hourly average limit would be the average over all runs.
EPA solicits comment on whether the alkaline reagent (such as lime)
concentration in the scrubber should be a control parameter for
alkaline wet-scrubbers. This parameter is closely related to the just
mentioned pH since the concentration of alkaline reagent in the
scrubber will keep the scrubber liquid pH high. EPA believes this
parameter is important because the alkaline reagent is what removes
Cl2 and, to a lesser extent, HCl from the flue gas. pH is a
secondary indicator of this parameter. EPA's concern is alkaline
reagent concentrations can be low enough to lower the efficiency of wet
scrubbers yet buffer the scrubber liquid enough to maintain pH.
However, the concentration of alkaline reagent in the scrubber liquid
can not be continuously monitored as easily as pH. We invite comment on
whether the concentration of alkaline reagent in the scrubber liquid
should be a control parameter for wet scrubbers, whether this parameter
should be in addition to or in lieu of the pH parameter, and what
averaging period(s) such a parameter should have.
In addition, EPA invites comment on whether a ten-minute average is
appropriate for pH (and/or alkaline reagent concentration). Some
facilities may not automate their wet scrubbers to add scrubbing
solutions as needed to maintain scrubber efficiency. Such facilities
make up batches of virgin scrubber solution and add it to the scrubber
liquid. In this case, it might be
[[Page 17434]]
more appropriate to establish a parameter ensuring that batches of new
scrubber solution is added to the wet scrubber prior to the scrubber
liquid pH (and/or possibly alkaline reagent) reaching a certain level.
Liquid to gas flow ratio is another important wet scrubber
parameter. A high liquid to gas flow ratio indicates good scrubber
removal, while a low liquid to gas flow ratio indicates less efficient
removal. EPA proposes that the minimum scrubber liquid to flue gas flow
ratio be controlled on both a ten-minute and a one-hour average. The
ten-minute average limit would be established as the average of the
lowest ten-minute rolling average for each run, and the hourly average
limit would be established as the average over all runs.
iv. Dry Scrubber Parameters. A dry scrubber removes HCl from the
flue gas by adsorbing the HCl onto some sorbent, normally an alkaline
substance like limestone. To ensure that the collection efficiency of
the scrubber is maintained at comprehensive performance test levels,
the rule would require sources to establish limits on the following
operating parameters: sorbent feedrate; carrier fluid flowrate or
nozzle pressure drop; and sorbent specifications.
Sorbent feedrate is important because, when more sorbent is fed
into the dry scrubber, removal efficiency for HCl and Cl2 will
increase.155 Conversely, lower sorbent feedrates tend to cause
removal efficiency to decrease. Therefore, EPA proposes that the
minimum sorbent feedrate into the dry scrubber be controlled on both a
ten-minute and a one-hour rolling average. The ten-minute average limit
would be established as the average of the lowest ten-minute rolling
average for each run, and the hourly average limit would be established
as the average over all runs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\155\ EPA notes that sorbent to a dry scrubber should be fed in
excess of the stoichiometric requirements for neutralizing the anion
component in the flue gas. Lower concentration of sorbent, even
above stoichiometric requirements, would limit the removal of acid
gasses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carrier fluid is some liquid or gas (normally air or water) which
transports the sorbent into the dry scrubber. Without proper carrier
flow to the dry scrubber the sorbent flow into the dry scrubber will
decrease, and efficiency will also decrease. Nozzle pressure drop is
also an indicator of carrier gas flow into the scrubber. At a
relatively high pressure drop, more sorbent is carried to the dry
scrubber. At lower pressure drop, less sorbent is carried to the
scrubber. Therefore, the rule would require that carrier fluid flowrate
or nozzle pressure drop be maintained to the minimum levels occurring
during the comprehensive performance test. Limits would be established
on both a ten-minute and a one-hour rolling average. The ten-minute
average limit would be established as the average of the lowest ten-
minute rolling average for each run, and the hourly average limit would
be established as the average over all runs.
As was the case with maintaining the quality of carbon used in
carbon injection and carbon bed systems for control of D/F and Hg, the
rule would require that the quality of sorbent be maintained after the
comprehensive performance test. Therefore, the rule would require
sources to continue to use the same sorbent brand and type as they used
during the comprehensive performance test. The rule would allow a
source to obtain a waiver from this requirement from the Director,
however, if the owner or operator: (1) documents by data or information
key characteristics of the sorbent which controls HCl and Cl2; (2)
documents by data or information specification levels corresponding to
those characteristics; and (3) complies with the specification.
As was the case for pH in wet scrubbers, EPA invites comment on
whether a ten-minute average is appropriate for sorbent feedrate. Some
facilities may not automate their dry scrubbers to add sorbent
solutions as needed to maintain scrubber efficiency. Such facilities
make up batches of virgin sorbent solution and add it to a dry scrubber
feed tank containing the sorbent. In this case, it might be more
appropriate to establish a parameter ensuring that batches of new
scrubber sorbent is added to the dry scrubber prior to the sorbent
concentration in the dry scrubber reaching a certain level.
c. Compliance Using Separate HCl and Cl2 CEMS. The rule would
allow sources to use separate HCl and Cl2 CEMS to demonstrate
compliance with the HCl/Cl2 standard. This option would allow for
the direct measurement of the standard, at the top of the monitoring
hierarchy, but does so at a higher cost relative to the previous option
of compliance with limits on operating parameters. EPA seeks comment on
whether the use of separate HCl and Cl2 CEMS is in fact cost-
effective and should be required in the final rule in lieu of allowing
compliance with operating limits.
Under this option, compliance would be demonstrated by measuring
HCl emissions (in ppmv) with the HCl CEMS and measuring Cl2
emissions (in ppmv) with a Cl2 monitor. Since the HCl and Cl2
standard is based on equivalents of HCl, the ppmv emissions of Cl2
must be multiplied by two and added to the HCl emissions to determine
the combined emission level. If this result is lower than the emission
standard, then the facility is in compliance with the HCl/Cl2
standard.
i. HCl CEMS. HCl CEMS are proven technologies, available worldwide,
and are currently required in the permits of many MWCs. Several HWCs
also use HCl CEMS. HCl CEMS are not expensive; the purchase cost are
$12,000 to $55,000.156
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\156\ See Chapter 2.6 of USEPA, ``Draft Technical Support
Document for HWC MACT Standards, Volume IV: Compliance with the
Proposed MACT Standards'', February 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Performance specifications for a HCl CEMS are proposed today as
Performance Specification 13 of Appendix B, Part 60. The proposed
appendix to Part 63, Subpart EEE, also proposes certain RATA and ACA
requirements.
ii. Cl2 CEMS. Cl2-specific CEMS are currently being
marketed by Opsis, a European CEMS manufacturer. These devices have
been certified for use in Germany and can also be used to monitor for
HCl, CO, NOX, SOX, and NH3. This device would likely be
a cost-effective option for new facilities or existing facilities
purchasing a suite of new CEMS.
Performance specifications for Cl2 analyzers are proposed here
as Performance Specification 14 of Part 60, Appendix B. The proposed
appendix to Part 63, Subpart EEE, also proposes certain RATA and ACA
requirements.
d. Consideration of Using an HCl CEMS Only. EPA requests comment on
whether the use solely of an HCl monitor for compliance with the HCl/
Cl2 standard could be workable. If so, this approach could be
allowed as an option in the final rule.
This approach would provide direct monitoring of the HCl portion of
the standard and act as a surrogate monitor for the Cl2 portion.
However, EPA is concerned that poor correlation between HCl and
Cl2 emissions may result in HCl being a poor surrogate for
Cl2. For an HCl CEMS alone to be a feasible surrogate monitor for
the HCl/Cl2 standard, this and other issues discussed below must
be addressed.
Cl2 and HCl form a post-combustion equilibrium. At
temperatures above 1000 deg.F the equilibrium is quite stable and
correlation is good. At lower temperatures, though, formation of
Cl2 is favored over HCl and the equilibrium no longer holds. All
HWCs experience temperatures lower than 1000 deg.F, so the HCl/Cl2
equilibrium does not hold. The formation of Cl2 under these
circumstances is dependent on a
[[Page 17435]]
number of site-specific conditions, such as the post-combustion
temperature profile and hence the rate of conversion to Cl2, and
residence time from the point where Cl2 formation is favored to
the stack. In fact, these conditions may vary at any given facility
depending on the circumstances at any time after combustion. Given that
HCl appears to be a poor indicator of Cl2 emissions, direct
measurement of Cl2 is desired.
If this issue can be adequately addressed, the use of only a HCl
CEMS to demonstrate compliance with the standard would involve
determining a site-specific HCl limit representative of the combined
HCl/Cl2 emissions. This would involve a comprehensive performance
test at maximum chlorine feed and under conditions which are worst-case
for Cl2 formation and emissions and optimal for HCl removal. The
resulting HCl level would become the site-specific limit to demonstrate
compliance with the HCl/Cl2 standard.
Limits on operating conditions would also be necessary to ensure
that the ratio of Cl2 to HCl emissions is not higher than
experienced during the comprehensive performance test, and that HCl
control equipment is not operated more efficiently (note emphasis)
after the performance test. Otherwise, the HCl emissions during normal
operations may under-predict combined HCl and Cl2 emissions.
7. Particulate Matter (PM)
As discussed above in the sections on operating limits for
compliance with the D/F, SVM, and LVM standards, a PM limit would be
established as the lower of either the levels that occurred during the
comprehensive performance test to demonstrate compliance with the D/F,
SVM, and LVM emission standards (as a compliance parameter for those
standards) or the national PM standard. Table V.2.6 below summarizes
the proposed monitoring requirements and options being considered.
Table V.2.6.-- Proposed PM Monitoring Requirements and Other Options Being Considered
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating limit avg.
Compliance using Limits from Avg. period pd basis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Requirement............... CEMS.................. PM CEMS............... CEMS Std............. 2 hours..............
D/F or SVM/LVM Comp 10 Min............... Lowest Avg Min 10 min
Test. RAs.
1 hour............... Lowest Avg over all
runs.
Option: Feedstream and Operating Max Flue Gas Flowrate Same.................. Comp Test............ 1 hour............... Avg of Max 1 hour
Parameter Limits. or Production Rate. RAs.
Max Ash Feedrate...... Feedstream Analysis... Comp Test............ 12 hour.............. Avg over all runs.
Min Press Drop, Wet Press drop across Comp Test............ 10 min............... Avg of Min 10 min
Scrubber including scrubber. RAs.
Ionizing Wet Scrubber.
1 hour............... Avg over all runs.
Min Scrubber Feed Pressure.............. Manuf Specs.......... 10 min............... N/A.
Press, Wet Scrubber
including Ionizing
Wet Scrubber.
Min Blowdown or Max Liquid Flowrate or Comp Test............ 10 min............... Avg of Min/Max 10 min
Solid Content in Liq, Solid Content. RAs.
Wet Scrubber
including Ionizing
Wet Scrubber.
1 hour............... Avg over all runs.
Min Liq/Gas Ratio, Wet Scrubber Liquid and Comp Test............ 10 min............... Avg Min 10 min RAs.
Scrubber including Gas Flowrates.
Ionizing Wet Scrubber.
1 hour............... Avg over all runs.
Min Pressure Drop, Pressure Drop Across Comp Test............ 10 min............... Avg Min 10 min RAs.
Fabric Filter. Fabric Filter.
1 hour............... Avg over all runs.
Min Power Input....... Voltage............... Comp................. 10 min............... Avg Min 10.
1 hour............... Avg over all runs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Evaluation of Monitoring Options. Continuous PM CEMS are
commercially available and installed on stacks worldwide. EPA proposes
that facilities maintain continuous compliance with the PM standard
through the use of a PM CEMS. PM CEMS are installed for compliance
purposes in the European Union (EU) with the EU hazardous waste
combustor PM standard of 13 mg/dscm. Germany has been in the forefront
in the development, certification, and application of PM CEMS.
i. Evaluation of PM CEMS feasibility and use. EPA in the past has
relied on opacity monitors to indicate compliance with a PM standard.
Opacity CEMS used in accordance with performance specification 1 have
been a valid tool to indicate PM APCD failures and the necessity for
corrective action as a result. However, opacity monitors are not,
relatively speaking, very sensitive. They are typically useful down to
about 45 mg/dscm. Today's proposed regulation will limit PM emissions
to 69 mg/dscm. Opacity monitors would not be sufficient because to
maintain compliance with 69 mg/dscm, facilities would generally need to
operate around 35 mg/dscm. Thus, emissions will typically be below the
detection limit of opacity monitors most of the time. While normal
emission levels below the detection limits of CEMS are acceptable,
facilities often desire the detection limit to be below one-tenth of
the emission limit, or 7 mg/dscm for the proposed standard. This gives
one sufficient
[[Page 17436]]
warning of how emissions are changing before the emission limit is
approached, and allows the facility, based on CEMS readings, to change
operations as necessary to be in compliance with the applicable
standard. EPA has relied on opacity CEMS because there has not been
available an acceptable quantitative monitor for continuous mass PM
emissions. Opacity CEMS standards are established at a given percent
opacity limit (generally 5-10 percent) over a 6-minute averaging period
and, as stated, cannot distinguish particulate concentrations below 45
mg/dscm. In other words, opacity CEMS as they are currently used can be
used to ensure PM APCD efficiency but not to determine mass emissions
in real time.
If possible, EPA desires a quantitative, continuous measure of PM
mass concentration rather than opacity. EPA has recently determined
that CEMS do exist that do this: beta gauges and light scattering based
CEMS. These CEMS rely on calibration of the device to manual
gravimetric measurements. Therefore, EPA is proposing use of CEMS based
on the availability of these newer technology PM CEMS and a related PM
CEMS Performance Specification for monitoring PM mass concentration.
This PS does not specify the type of CEMS used and allows the use of
opacity monitors, which can also be calibrated to relate opacity to
mass concentration. However, opacity is more sensitive to PM size
distribution and physical properties, and has high detection
limitations relative to the newer PM CEMS. As a result the calibration
will be less stable for an opacity CEMS calibrated according to the
proposed performance specification than one of the newer technology
instruments.
EPA believes that mass emission monitoring is feasible, and opacity
monitoring has borderline sensitivity relative to today's proposed PM
emission limit. The newer technology PM CEMS can give a real-time
quantitative measure of PM mass emissions while opacity CEMS cannot.
From a cost standpoint opacity monitoring is no less expensive than the
alternative proposed here. As a result, EPA proposes to require mass
emission monitoring rather than opacity monitoring.
The German approach to using CEMS for PM compliance monitoring is
based on the application of a practical engineering philosophy. PM CEMS
are used despite the known sensitivities to various factors such as
particle composition and size distribution since these devices are
designed to minimize the impacts of these changes on the accurate
measure of PM mass concentrations. The German experience on PM CEMS is
that at controlled sources, i.e., those with low loading or equipped
with PM control devices such as baghouses or ESPs, these sensitivities
are not as important as they are at facilities with no control or high
and/or highly varying grain loadings. The Germans have found that PM
CEMS can be calibrated to manual methods to achieve a statistically
reliable and enforceable calibration curve at controlled
sources.157
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\157\ See Chapter 2.1 of USEPA, ``Draft Technical Support
Document for HWC MACT Standards, Volume IV: Compliance with the
Proposed MACT Standards'', February 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At periods when the particle composition and size changes
dramatically, the PM CEMS calibration is not valid. However, this
occurs when fuel is changed or the PM control device fails and causes
very high grain loadings to occur. To account for the PM CEMS'
sensitivity to fuel type, the Germans mandate a new calibration be made
whenever the fuel is changed. During times of high grain loading the PM
CEMS cannot accurately determine how high the PM emissions were. But at
controlled devices, this only occurs when the PM control device fails
and/or otherwise exceeds the PM standard. Therefore, PM CEMS remain a
reliable indicator of compliance with a PM standard.
In Germany, calibration of the PM CEMS defines a statistically
derived site-specific calibration of the PM CEMS' response to various
PM loadings. This is done by installing a plate in lieu of a bag in the
baghouse or by varying the ESP voltage to allow various grain loadings
to flow through the control device to the stack. The PM CEMS and manual
methods are run simultaneously at various PM loadings to determine
emissions. These PM CEMS outputs and manual methods results are used to
statistically define the calibration curve for the PM CEMS.
EPA has tested several of these devices at a hazardous waste
incinerator and a cement kiln and has found that PM CEMS maintain
calibration, even in a water saturated flue gas.
ii. Types of PM CEMS available. The many types of PM CEMS fall into
three broad categories: accumulated mass, impaction, and light
scattering.
For accumulated mass PM CEMS, stack gas is extracted isokinetically
and particles are deposited on a sensing surface for mass measurement.
Two types of accumulated mass devices are -radiation
attenuators, commonly referred to as ``-gauge'' devices, and
loaded oscillators. EPA has tested a stack-type -gauge but
testing was inconclusive.158 EPA knows of no available stack-type
loaded oscillator device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\158\ See Chapter 2.1 of USEPA, ``Draft Technical Support
Document for HWC MACT Standards, Volume IV: Compliance with the
Proposed MACT Standards'', February 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For impaction devices, particles impact upon a sensor surface due
to the inertia imparted by the approaching gas stream. Two types of
impaction PM CEMS are contact electrification, commonly referred to as
``triboelectric'', and acoustic energy. Stack-type triboelectric
devices are commercially available and in widespread use in France.
However, EPA has concern about triboelectric PM CEMS since the physical
property of PM which they work on, contact electrification, can vary
the most from particle to particle even at controlled sources. For this
reason, facilities should be aware that triboelectric PM CEMS may not
be quantitative enough to be used for compliance with the PM standard.
Acoustic energy PM CEMS are not in widespread use.
Light scattering CEMS are preferred in Germany and are believed to
be the PM CEMS most suitable for making measurements at low particulate
levels typical of a well controlled source. Light scattering PM CEMS
operate by sending a light beam across a path and measuring the light
reflected back to a sensor at some angle from the source light. Several
hundred of these devices have been certified for stack-use in the EU.
EPA has also tested a time-dependant optical transmission device. Under
certain circumstances, it can give results comparable to those of the
light scattering device.
To be in compliance with the PM limit, facilities would comply with
the performance specifications and operating practices for the CEMS
proposed here. If a PM CEMS is used at a facility, no feedstream or
operating parameter limits will be necessary to document compliance
with the PM limit. If a PM CEMS is not used, compliance with limits on
feedstream and operating parameters will be necessary.
iii. Control of PM Emissions. We are proposing to use a PM CEMS as
a compliance parameter to ensure: (1) compliance with the national MACT
PM standard; and (2) that the collection efficiency of the PM control
device is maintained at performance test levels achieved when
documenting compliance with the SVM, LVM, and D/F standards. Thus, it
is necessary to
[[Page 17437]]
establish the PM limit as the lower of the level that occurs during the
SVM, LVM, and D/F performance tests or the MACT standard. This is
because a source could be operating well below the national PM standard
during the performance test and, after the test, operate the PM control
device at lower collection efficiency (e.g., to reduce operating costs,
or because of reduced efficiency from ``wear and tear''). In this case,
the source could continue to be in compliance with the national PM
standard, yet exceed the D/F, LVM, and SVM emission limits because of
increased emissions of adsorbed D/F, LVM, and SVM.
To ensure that the collection efficiency is maintained while
meeting the site-specific PM limit, the rule would require that
feedstocks with normal levels of ash, i.e., those levels which the
facility routinely experiences during normal operations, be fed during
the performance test. This would preclude a source from artificially
increasing the PM loading during the performance test using high ash
feedstocks to obtain a high site-specific PM limit. If this were the
case, the source could meet the PM limit during normal operations when
feeding feedstocks with normal ash content while operating the PM
control device under less efficient conditions. This could result in an
increase in emissions of metals and D/F adsorbed onto PM. We invite
comments on how to ensure that feedstocks with normal ash content are
fed during the comprehensive performance test.
The comprehensive performance tests would be conducted as follows.
During the D/F, SVM, and LVM comprehensive performance tests, the
facility would make manual measurements of D/F and metals and CEMS
measurements of PM. Emissions of PM would be limited to the national
standard of 69 mg/dscm during the tests. Following the tests the
facility would establish two site-specific limits for PM: a ten-minute
limit to control perturbations and a one-hour limit to control average
emissions. The ten-minute average would be based on the highest ten-
minute rolling averages occurring during each comprehensive test. The
hourly average would be the average of all one-minute averages
occurring during each comprehensive test. (Note that, if the facility
were to perform separate D/F and metals tests, the lowest of the two PM
averages would be the applicable PM limit.)
The facility need not determine or record two-hour averages to
document compliance with the MACT PM standard during normal operation,
only during the comprehensive test. Since the one-hour average is the
average of all one-minute averages during the comprehensive performance
test and the time duration of the test is longer than two hours, the
one-hour average would have a numerical value lower than the two hour
national standard. Demonstration of compliance with a lower numerical
limit over a shorter averaging period proves compliance with a higher
number over a longer averaging period.
In lieu of a site-specific PM limit, EPA could limit key operating
parameters for the PM control device to ensure that the device's
collection efficiency is maintained at performance test level. We are
concerned, however, that limiting key operating parameters (e.g.,
pressure drop across a fabric filter) may not be adequate because there
are many complex operating and maintenance factors that affect
collection efficiency of a PM control device. We believe that
continuous monitoring of a surrogate emission (i.e., PM) is far
preferable to continuous monitoring of operating parameters that less
effectively relate to collection efficiency. (We note, however, that if
the use of a PM CEMS is not required in the final rule, the rule would
establish limits on the PM control device operating parameters as the
next preferable approach.)
Also, EPA invites comment on allowing small on-site sources
(defined in Sec. 63.1208(b)(1)(ii) in the proposed regulations) to
obtain a waiver from the requirement of installing a PM CEMS. If the
waiver is promulgated and allowed by the permitting authority, the
facility would demonstrate compliance with PM by establishing operating
parameter limits described in subsection b, ``Operating Parameter
Limits,'' below.
iv. Proposed PM CEMS Performance and Calibration Specifications.
There are existing performance specifications (PS) developed by the
International Standards Organization (ISO) for PM CEMS. The ISO
specifications have been modified slightly to account for the US
regulatory environment. This PM CEMS PS is proposed here as Part 60,
Appendix B, Performance Specification 11. EPA invites comment on this
specification.
It is proposed that HWCs follow the German approach to using PM
CEMS. This approach involves deriving a site-specific statistically
derived calibration curve of PM CEMS response to manual methods results
for each fuel type. When the facility changes fuel type or supplier, a
new PM CEMS calibration would be performed.
It is proposed that PM CEMS be calibrated to the reference method,
40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Method 5. Performance specification 11 requires
that at least 15 measurements be made at least three grain loadings.
During calibration, Method 5 and the CEMS will be run simultaneously
during each of the 15 measurements. The average output response from
the CEMS is then compared to the results of each of the 15
measurements. Two calibration procedures are possible for PM CEMS:
linear and quadratic. The performance specification proposes that
facilities first calculate the calibration using the linear
relationship, then the quadratic. If the quadratic relationship proves
to be a better fit to the data, it is used. Otherwise the linear
relationship is used.
The quality assurance (QA) requirements for HWC CEMS propose that
an absolute calibrations audit (ACA) be performed quarterly (every
three months) and a relative calibration audit (RCA) be performed every
18 months (30 months for small on-site facilities). If the calibration
has drifted, a new calibration shall be performed. An absolute
calibration audit would not be required during quarters when a response
calibration audit is conducted.
Also, there is a concern that the suitability of a calibration
curve for a PM CEMS is dependant on the type of fuel used. For the
purposes of this source category it is proposed that fuel type be
defined by the physical state of the fuel: gas, liquid, or solid.
Therefore, a facility that burns only gas, liquid, or solid fuel would
need to generate only one calibration curve. Facilities which wish to
burn a combination of fuel types would need to establish a single or
multiple calibration curves which encompasses all combinations of fuel
mix. Facilities which use multiple curves must describe in their
quality assurance plan their methodology for deriving the curves and
how the proper curves will be used during normal operation. See the TBD
for more information on calibration due to fuel changes.
b. Operating Parameter Limits. If the final rule does not require
the use of a PM CEMS, we would rely on limits on ash feedrate and key
PM APCD operating parameters to ensure continued compliance with the PM
emission standard. In addition, if the provision allowing small on-site
facilities (defined in Sec. 63.1208(b)(1)(ii) of the proposed
regulations) to waiver the PM CEMS requirement is promulgated and the
facility elects not to use a PM CEMS, the facility would have to
establish these operating parameter limits to document compliance with
the PM emission limit.
[[Page 17438]]
i. Maximum Flue Gas Flowrate or Production Rate. EPA is concerned
that flue gas flowrates exceeding those of the performance test could
decrease the collection efficiency of the PM control device. For that
reason, EPA proposes limiting flue gas flowrate. Alternately, CKs and
LWAKs could limit production rate (e.g., production rate of clinker or
aggregate, or raw material feedrate) since production rate is
proportional to flue gas flowrate. Either flue gas flowrate or
production rate would be established as a one hour average. The one-
hour average would be the average of the maximum hourly rolling
averages occurring during the comprehensive performance tests.
ii. Maximum Ash Feedrate. A portion of the ash fed into a HWC is
emitted as PM. To limit the amount of PM emitted at the stack, maximum
ash feedrate would be used as a compliance parameter. As set out in the
BIF rule, however, EPA does not believe that an ash feedrate limit is
necessary for CKs or LWAKs because entrained raw materials comprise
virtually all of their PM emissions. See 266.103(c)(1)(iv) and 56 FR at
7146. Thus, for a cement or lightweight aggregate kiln, variation in
ash content of the hazardous waste is not likely to have a significant
effect on PM loading at the inlet to the PM control device or PM
emissions. Conceptually, however, the feedrate of ash in liquid feeds
and the rate at which air pollution control dust (e.g., cement kiln
dust) is returned to the kiln may have significant effect on the
loading of small particles. Absent a CEMS, EPA seeks comment on
addressing this issue.
It is proposed that the limit on ash feedrate be established on a
one-hour average to coincide with the other control parameters for PM.
This one-hour average for ash feed is also consistent with and
conservative relative to the two-hour (national) averaging period for a
PM CEMS.
iii. Wet Scrubber Parameters, including Venturi and Ionizing Wet
Scrubbers. Venturi and other wet scrubbers remove PM by capturing
particles in liquid droplets and separating the droplets from the gas
stream. The wet scrubber parameters pertinent to PM control are minimum
pressure drop across the wet scrubber, minimum liquid feed pressure to
the wet scrubber, minimum blowdown or solids content of the scrubber
liquid, and minimum liquid to gas ratio. Ionizing wet scrubbers have
the additional parameter of minimum power input. Parameters for
pressure drop, liquid feed pressure, and liquid to gas ratio are
described, below, in the section dealing with HCl and Cl2
standard. Parameters for blowdown or solids content and power input to
an IWS are described in the next paragraphs.
Blowdown is the amount of scrubber liquid removed from the process
and not recycled back into the wet scrubber. Blowdown is an important
wet scrubber parameter because, as scrubber liquid is removed and not
recycled, solids are removed as well and not recycled. Alternately,
solids content can be used as a direct indicator of solids content in
the scrubber liquid. When the scrubber liquid contains high solids,
there is a lack of a driving force for more solids to go into solution.
Conversely, when little or no solids are in the scrubber liquid, there
is a strong driving force for liquids to go into solution. Therefore,
establishing a maximum solids content for a wet scrubber is desirable.
If a PM CEMS is not required in the final rule, we propose that
either a minimum blowdown or a maximum solids content limit be
established. Both would be established on both a ten-minute and a one-
hour average. The ten-minute average would be the average of the
minimum, for blowdown, or maximum, for solids content, ten-minute
averages occurring during each run of the comprehensive performance
test. The one-hour average would be the average over all runs.
Power input to an IWS is important because IWSs charge the
particulate prior to it entering a packed bed wet scrubber. The
charging aids in the collection of the particulate onto the packing
surface in the bed. The particulate is then washed off of the packing
by the scrubber liquid. Therefore, power input to an IWS is a key
parameter to the proper operation of an IWS and EPA proposes that
facilities establish a limit on minimum power input to an IWS. This
limit would be established on both a ten-minute and one-hour average.
The ten-minute average would be the average of the minimum 10 minute
averages occurring during each run of the comprehensive performance
test and the one-hour average would be the average across all runs.
Facilities may obtain a waiver from these requirements for wet
scrubbers from the Director if they can identify other key parameters
which affect good control of PM through their use and use these
parameter limits during normal operation.
iv. Fabric Filters. Fabric filters (FFs), also known as baghouses,
are used to filter PM from stack flue gas prior to the stack.
Performance of a fabric filter directly affects PM emissions. Filter
failure is typically due to filter holes, bleed-through migration of
particulate through the filter and cake, and small ``pin holes'' in the
filter and cake. Since low pressure drop is an indicator of one of
these types of failure, pressure drop across the fabric filter is the
best indicator that the fabric filter has not failed.
If the final rule does not require the use of a PM CEMS, EPA
proposes that a limit on minimum pressure drop across the fabric filter
be established to ensure that collection efficiency is maintained. EPA
proposes that this limit be established on both a ten-minute and a one-
hour average. The ten-minute average would be the average of the single
lowest 10-minute rolling averages occurring during each run of the
comprehensive performance test. The one-hour average would be the
average over all runs.
EPA believes it would also be useful to establish other,
potentially better parameters as measures of collection efficiency for
the fabric filter. Collection efficiency from fabric filters is a
function of filter type, face velocity (which in turn is a function of
flue gas flowrate and filter material area), cake build-up on the
filter, and particulate matter characteristics (primarily particulate
size distribution). Unfortunately, the Agency is not aware of a way to
establish parameters for these indicators of collection efficiency.
Therefore, EPA invites comment on what type of parameters could be used
as better indicators of collection efficiency and on what averaging
period they should be established.
Facilities may obtain a waiver from these requirements for PM APCDs
from the Director if they can identify key parameters which affect good
control of PM through their use and use these parameter limits during
normal operation.
v. Electrostatic Precipitators. Electrostatic precipitators (ESPs)
capture PM by charging particulate in an electric field and collecting
the charged particulate on an inversely charged collection plate.
Electrical power is the product of the electrical voltage and the
current. High voltage leads to high magnetic field strength which
results in an increase in the saturation charge level the particle can
obtain, which in turn causes an increase in charged particle migration
to the collection plate. High current leads to an increased particle
charging rate and increased electric field strength near the collection
electrode due to a phenomena called ``ionic space charge'' and, thus,
increased collection at the plate. High voltage is also important on
the collection plates, since this will increase
[[Page 17439]]
collection of the inversely charged particles on the plates. Therefore,
maximizing both voltage and current is desirable for good collection.
Therefore, power input to the ESP is a direct function of ESP
efficiency since, the lower the power input, the lower the collection
efficiency.
For these reasons, EPA proposes that facilities establish a limit
on minimum power input to the ESP to ensure that collection efficiency
is maintained at performance test levels if the final rule does not
require the use of a PM CEMS. This limit would be established on both a
ten-minute and one-hour average. The ten-minute average would be the
average of the minimum 10-minute averages for power input which occurs
during each run of the comprehensive performance test. The one-hour
average would be the average over all runs.
Since very high power can be supplied to either the charging or
collection parts of an ESP, EPA also invites comment on whether power
input to each part of the ESP should be controlled.
Facilities may obtain a waiver from these requirements for ESPs
from the Director if they can identify more appropriate parameters that
would ensure that collection efficiency is maintained at performance
test levels.
8. Waiver of Operating Limits
We believe that a provision to waive any or all of the operating
limits discussed in this section is appropriate given that many sources
will employ unique and innovative combinations of emission control
devices. Fixed, national monitoring and compliance requirements may not
be applicable or reasonable in some situations. Accordingly, the
proposed rule would allow the Director to grant a waiver from any or
all of the operating limits discussed in this section if a source
documents in writing that other, more appropriate operating limits
would ensure compliance with the pertinent emission standard. See
proposed Sec. 63.1210(s). The documentation must include recommended
averaging periods for the alternative operating limits, and the basis
for establishing the limits based on operations during the
comprehensive performance test.
9. Request for Comment on Waiver of CEMS Requirements for Small, On-
Site Sources
We specifically invite comment on whether the final rule should
allow small, on-site sources the option of not having to use a mercury
and PM CEMS. Under a waiver, the source would be required to comply
with the operating limits discussed above in lieu of using a CEMS. As a
separate issue, EPA is proposing less stringent RATA and RCA
frequencies for the mercury and PM CEMS (and testing in general, see
section III of this part) for these sources.
Sources with a gas flowrate less than 23,127 acfm would be
considered small. See discussion in Part Four, Section I, for the
rationale for that demarcation between small and large units. See also
Sec. 63.1208(b)(1)(ii) of the proposed rule. We believe that this
waiver could be warranted because small, on-site sources may be better
able to effectively sample and analyze feedstreams to ensure compliance
with feedrate limits, and because their emission rates (i.e.,
environmental loading) would be less than from large sources.
We also invite comment on basing the definition of what is small on
a gas flowrate and the value proposed for defining what is a small
source.
D. Combustion Fugitive Emissions
Operating parameters on combustion fugitive emissions are necessary
to ensure that these emissions do not leak from the combustion device,
APCDs, or any ducting connecting them. The current BIF and incinerator
rules establish provisions for controlling combustion fugitive
emissions (see Secs. 266.102(e)(7)(I) and 264.345(d)). Today's proposed
rule would require sources to comply with those requirements, with
minor clarifications. See proposed Sec. 63.1207(b). Specifically, it is
proposed that sources shall:
--keep the combustion chamber and all ducting and devices from the
combustion chamber to the stack totally sealed against fugitive
emissions; or
--maintain the maximum pressure on an instantaneous basis in the
combustion chamber and in all ducting and devices from the combustion
chamber to the stack at lower than ambient pressure at all times;
159 or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\159\ That is, on an instantaneous basis, without an averaging
period. The recording system must record the instantaneous values
continuously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--use some other means of control demonstrated to provide equivalent
control. Support for such demonstration shall be included in the
operating record with prior written approval obtained from the
Director.
In addition, the rule would require the owner or operator to specify in
the operating record the method used for fugitive emission control.
EPA continues to believe this approach (already in effect for
incinerators and BIFs) is appropriate and is proposing to retain it
here. There are cases, however, particularly at munitions incinerators,
where combustion fugitive emissions are a problem even when less than
ambient pressure is apparently being maintained. In these cases, the
Director may require in the RCRA operating permit continual video
surveillance of the equipment to ensure there are no leaks. If leaks
occur, each occurrence is a violation, and would require an automatic
waste feed cut-off (AWFCO). In addition, as with all AWFCOs, the owner
or operator must identify the cause of the leak and identify remedial
action taken to minimize future occurrences.
We are also proposing to make conforming changes to the existing
BIF and incinerator requirements for combustion fugitive emissions. See
proposed Secs. 264.347(e), 265.347(c), and 266.102(e). The effective
date of these conforming requirements would be 6 months after
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, and so would
take effect before the MACT standard compliance date.
E. Automatic Waste Feed Cutoff (AWFCO) Requirements and Emergency
Safety Vent (ESV) Openings
We explain in this section that the source must be in compliance
with the CEMS-monitored emission standards and the operating limits at
all times. This would be ensured by requiring that all operating
parameters for which limits would be established (as discussed above)
must be interactive with an automatic waste feed cutoff (AWFCO) system.
Further, we also describe the periodic reporting requirements that
would apply if 10 AWFCOs that result in an exceedance of a CEMS-
monitored emission standard or operating limit occur during any 60-day
period. Finally we explain the consequences of, and reporting
requirements for, emergency safety vent openings.
1. Automatic Waste Feed Cutoff System
Sources must be in compliance with the CEMS-monitored emission
standards and operating limits at all times. See proposed Sec. 63.1207
(a)(1) and (a)(2). If a facility exceeds a standard or operating limit,
today's rule proposes that the hazardous waste feed be instantaneously
and automatically cut off. This requirement now exists under current
incinerator permits and the Agency's BIF rules (see
Sec. 266.102(e)(7)(ii)). After an AWFCO, the source must continue to
monitor all AWFCO operating parameters (and
[[Page 17440]]
CEMS-monitored emissions) and cannot begin feeding hazardous waste
again until all parameters come within allowable levels. Further, to
minimize emissions of regulated pollutants, including products of
incomplete combustion that could result from the perturbation caused by
the waste feed cutoff, combustion gases must continue to be routed
through the air pollution control system after a cutoff, and minimum
combustion temperature must be maintained for as long as hazardous
waste remains in the combustion chamber.
As currently required under the BIF rule, all AWFCO parameters must
continue to be monitored after an AWFCO, and hazardous waste firing
cannot resume until all parameters are within allowable levels. Thus,
all rolling averages must continue to be calculated even when hazardous
waste is not being burned.160
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\160\ This requirement that all parameters must continue to be
monitored after a AWFCO assumes that the operator intends to begin
burning hazardous waste as soon as the operating parameters return
to allowable levels. If not, however, it may not be practicable to
require monitoring of AWFCO parameters when hazardous waste is not
burned. We specifically request comment on a reasonable interval of
time after a AWFCO and before hazardous waste firing could be
resumed during which the operator would not be required to monitor
the AWFCO parameters. For example, if the operator did not intend to
begin burning hazardous waste for 8 hours after the AWFCO, it may
not be appropriate to require monitoring of AWFCO parameters during
that period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's proposed rule would require the following parameters to be
AWFCO parameters: 161
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\161\ We note that during the RCRA permitting process, permit
writers may identify additional operating parameters they determine
to be necessary on a case-specific basis in order for the source to
comply with the standards. See subsection C.1. of this part,
``Continued Applicability of RCRA Omnibus Authority,'' for more
information on this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--CEMS-monitored emission standards
--All applicable feedrate limits (e.g., hazardous waste, pumpable LVM
metals, total SVM and LVM metals)
--Minimum combustion chamber temperature (each chamber)
--Maximum combustion chamber temperature
--Maximum temperature at the inlet to the initial dry PM control device
--Maximum combustion chamber pressure (if used to control combustion
fugitive emissions)
--Maximum flue gas flowrate (or production rate)
--Minimum flue gas flowrate (where required (e.g., under
Sec. 63.1208(h)(1)) (or production rate)
--Limits on operating parameters of the emission control equipment
(e.g., carbon injection rate)
--Failure of the Automatic Waste Feed Cut-off system.
--Whenever continuous monitoring systems (CMS) or the measurement
component of the CMS registers a value beyond its rated scale.
We note that the current requirements for BIFs and incinerators do
not require a AWFCO whenever a measurement component of the CMS
registers a value beyond its rated scale or when the AWFCO system
fails. To ensure that those standards conform with today's proposal, we
are proposing to add this requirement to those rules. The effective
date of these conforming requirements would be six months after
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, and thus would
precede the MACT standard compliance date.
If an operating limit or CEMS-monitored emission standard is
exceeded after the hazardous waste feed has ceased but while hazardous
waste remains in the combustion chamber, it is a violation of the
relevant emission standard.162
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\162\ If an operating limit is exceeded (when hazardous waste is
in the combustion chamber), the source has violated the emission
standard for which the operating limit is used to ensure compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As currently required for BIFs, the AWFCO system and associated
alarms must be tested at least once every seven days when hazardous
waste is burned to verify operability, unless the owner or operator
documents in the operating record that weekly inspections will unduly
restrict or upset operations and that less frequent inspections will be
adequate. At a minimum, operational testing must be conducted at least
once every 30 days.
Under today's proposed rule, owners and operators would be required
to document in the operating log the cause of each AWFCO that is
associated with an exceedance of an operating limit or CEMS-monitored
emission standard 163 and document the preventive measures taken
to minimize future AWFCOs. Also, we are proposing a reporting
requirement for excessive AWFCOs caused by violations to alert
regulatory officials that a source is having operational problems.
Thus, regulatory officials can increase frequency of inspections and
review the sources operating plan. In addition, the Director may
specify requirements through the RCRA permit beyond recordkeeping and
reporting for addressing AWFCOs (i.e., approval to restart hazardous
waste feed, etc.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\163\ Not all AWFCOs are the result of an exceedance of an
emission standard or operating limit. AWFCOs which are not
associated with a violation must be recorded in the operating log
but need not be reported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Owners or operators would be required to submit an ``Excessive
AWFCO Report'' to the Administrator if more than 10 AWFCOs associated
with an exceedance of an operating limit or CEMS-monitored emission
standard occur during any 60 calendar-day period. After 10 such cutoffs
occur, the 60 calendar-day clock would begin anew. The report would
have to be postmarked within five calendar days of the tenth AWFCO
associated with an exceedance, and would have to document the cause of
each such cutoff and preventive measures taken to minimize future
cutoffs.
We invite comments on alternative exceedance frequencies that would
trigger the need to submit an Excessive AWFCO Report, such as incurring
5 cutoffs in any 30 calendar-day period. A shorter accounting period
would enable enforcement officials to better identify problem
facilities.
2. Emergency Safety Vent (ESV) Openings
Today's rule would require that combustion gases always pass
through the emission control system in place during the comprehensive
performance test. Thus, opening an emergency safety vent (ESV)
(including emergency vent stacks, bypass stacks, thermal relief valves,
and pressure relief valves) to bypass any part of the emission control
system would be a violation of that requirement and the emission
standard the by-passed control device is designed to control. See
proposed Sec. 63.1207(a)(3). We are also proposing to make conforming
changes to the RCRA incinerator standards of Part 264, Subpart O, to
provide consistency. While this section specifically addresses ESVs,
the requirements apply to any type of air pollution control bypass
stack while hazardous waste remains in the combustion chamber.
ESVs are safety devices which are designed to allow combustion
gases to bypass the air pollution control equipment in order to: (1)
Prevent ground-level releases which could endanger workers, in the
event of an overpressure, or (2) prevent damage to the air pollution
control equipment in the event of excessively high temperatures. An ESV
opening allows uncontrolled emissions to directly enter the atmosphere.
Some ESVs are situated prior to the secondary combustion chamber. This
chamber is important for organics destruction in an incinerator.
Further, since incinerators normally demonstrate compliance with the
regulatory performance standards while
[[Page 17441]]
using their secondary combustion chambers and air pollution control
devices, emissions from ESVs are expected to be in excess of levels set
by the performance standards for the respective devices.
There are situations where the alternative to opening an ESV (e.g.,
fugitive emissions at ground level, or even an explosion) are worse
from a health and environmental standpoint. Thus, EPA would like to
emphasize that simply eliminating an ESV itself is one solution, but
not appropriate in some cases. Rather, EPA believes that emergency (or
other) situations which would cause either an ESV opening or fugitive
emissions from the combustor
FR Doc. 96-7872 Revised Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors
can, and should be, prevented to the
greatest extent possible.
EPA believes that most facilities can readily make changes in their
operations which can reduce ESV openings. To minimize ESV openings,
facilities may need to repair or replace unreliable equipment, better
control the feeding of waste, or add redundant systems where necessary.
In the preamble to the proposed amendments for hazardous waste
incinerators (55 FR 17890, April 27, 1990), EPA proposed to clarify the
regulatory status of ESV openings. The Agency proposed that no ESV
openings be allowed while hazardous waste is in the unit. In this case
any ESV opening while hazardous waste remains in the unit would be a
permit violation and subject to enforcement action. This is being
reproposed today.
Also in the proposed rule for hazardous waste incinerators (55 FR
at 17891), EPA proposed to amend Sec. 264.345(a) to clarify that an
incinerator must operate in accordance with the operating requirements
specified in their permit whenever there is hazardous waste in the
incinerator. Today's rule is again proposing to amend Sec. 264.345(a)
to clarify that an incinerator must be operated in accordance with the
conditions specified in the permit and meet the applicable emission
standards at all times that hazardous waste or hazardous waste residues
remain in the chamber. (This is a conforming change.)
For BIFs, the regulations state that they must be operated in
accordance with the operating limits and the applicable emission
standards at all times when there is waste in the unit.
Sec. 266.103(c)(1). Further, Sec. 266.102(e)(7)(ii)(B) requires that
combustion gases must be routed through the air pollution control
system as long as waste remains in the unit. The BIF final rule
discusses that a BIF must be in compliance at all times that there is
hazardous waste in the unit, regardless of whether an automatic waste
feed cutoff has occurred. See 56 FR at 7160. The activation of the
automatic waste feed cutoff system does not relieve the facility from
its obligation to comply with the permit conditions while waste remains
in the unit. Today's rule does not propose any changes to this regime.
Finally, today's proposed rule would require the owner or operator
to record in the operating log the ESV opening, the reason for the
opening, and corrective measures taken to minimize the frequency of
openings. Further, the owner or operator would have to submit a written
report to the Administrator within 5 calendar days of each ESV opening
documenting the information provided in the operating log.
While it is understood that there can be mitigating circumstances
which require the use of ESVs, these instances should be minimized.
Therefore, it is proposed that the owner or operator prepare an ESV
Operating Plan in which the owner or operator shall address what they
will do to prevent the use of the ESV and release uncontrolled
emissions into the air and what they will do to minimize the hazard
from such releases (such as back-up systems, maintaining flame
temperature, and combustion air to combustion organics.) This plan is
analogous to the ``Preparedness and Prevention and Contingency Plan''
discussed in the 1990 proposed revisions to the hazardous waste
incinerator rule (55 FR at 17890). A corresponding change to the
current hazardous waste incinerator rules are proposed as well.
F. Quality Assurance for Continuous Monitoring Systems
EPA proposes specific quality assurance (QA) requirements for
continuous monitoring systems (CMS). These systems can be classified
as: continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS); analysis of
feedstreams; and continuous monitoring systems to comply with limits on
other operating parameters.
1. Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS)
The rule would require HWCs to comply with the general monitoring
requirements under Sec. 63.8 for all MACT sources except as discussed
below. In addition, the rule would establish in the appendix to Part
63, Subpart EEE, specific quality assurance (QA) and quality control
(QC) requirements for CEMS used by HWCs. These requirements would
supersede the requirements in Appendix F of Part 60 for these sources.
We are proposing an appendix to Subpart EEE in lieu of the requirements
of Appendix F because the proposed appendix to Subpart EEE would
incorporate various issues particularly relating to HWCs (e.g.,
requirements for specific CEMS not addressed by Appendix F; out-of-
control periods and data reporting are not relevant to HWCs because
HWCs cannot burn hazardous waste if the CEMS is not meeting performance
specifications).
a. Applicability of Sec. 63.8 Requirements. Most of the Sec. 63.8
monitoring requirements for MACT sources would apply to HWCs including
requirements for the owner and operator to develop and implement a
quality control program (Sec. 63.8(d)(2)) and conduct a performance
evaluation test in conjunction with the performance test to
demonstration compliance with the emission standards (Sec. 63.8(d)(2)
and (e)(4)). Section 63.8(f) also provides for approval of an
alternative monitoring method.
Several provisions of Sec. 63.8, however, would not apply to HWCs.
They are as follows:
i. Sec. 63.8 (c)(1)(I)-(iii), (c)(4), (c)(7), (c)(8), and (g)(5)
would not apply because these paragraphs address requirements relating
to operations when the CEMS is out of compliance with the relevant
performance specifications. Hazardous waste cannot be fed (or remain in
the combustion chamber) if the CEMS is not in compliance with
performance specifications.
ii. Sec. 63.8 (c)(4)(ii) and (g)(2) would not apply because these
paragraphs define continuous operation and data reduction
inconsistently with today's proposed rule. Under today's rule, the
performance specifications in Appendix B to Part 60 and the data
quality objectives in the appendix to Part 63, Subpart EEE, define
continuous operation specific to the CEMS.
b. Quality Assurance Procedures. The proposed appendix to Part 63,
Subpart EEE, defines quality assurance procedures for CEMS at HWCs. If
a CEMS component is not in compliance with applicable quality assurance
procedures or performance specifications (provided in Appendix B, Part
60), hazardous waste burning must cease immediately and cannot be
resumed until the owner or operator documents that the CEMS meets the
performance specifications.
The appendix would require owners and operators to develop and
implement a quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) program. It
would define requirements for determining compliance with calibration
and zero
[[Page 17442]]
drift specifications provided in Appendix B. It would also define
requirements for performance evaluations, that is, performance audits
including relative accuracy tests and absolute calibration audits.
The appendix also deals with issues specific to these source
categories. It establishes specific testing intervals for CEMS for
HWCs. It defines the one minute and rolling averages, the oxygen
correction factor, CEMS span values, and provides a provision to allow
the use of alternative span values. It provides procedures for
reestablishing a rolling average after short term interruptions such as
calibration and maintenance and long-term interruptions such as
periodic downtime for kiln maintenance or for weekends and holidays
when the facility is not being operated. It also allows up to 20
minutes of CEMS downtime for calibration purposes.
c. Conforming changes to the BIF and incinerator rules. Conforming
changes are also proposed to the BIF and incinerator rules: deleting
the current Part 266, Appendix IX, CEMS requirements; and, instead,
requiring the use of the Part 60, Appendix B, performance
specifications and the data quality specifications in the appendix to
Subpart EEE.
d. Zero Drift and Zero Gas Requirements. The Agency specifically
invites comment on two other issues which affect all CEMS: whether the
zero drift requirements contained in the appendix to Subpart EEE (and
the various performance specifications) should be promulgated, or
whether the zero gas requirements should be changed from the current 0-
20 percent levels to a 0-0.1 ppm level.
Many of the performance specifications require that zero gas, or
zero level gas, contain between 0 to 20 per cent of the measured
constituent. However, facilities often use just one zero grade gas for
all their CEMS, one of ``zero-grade nitrogen.'' Therefore, EPA invites
comment on whether this requirement should be changed from 0 to 20
percent to 0 to 0.1 ppm of the measured constituent.
e. EPA certification of CEMS. EPA invites comment on whether a
process should be established whereby CEMS manufacturers could certify
that their CEMS meet the established performance specifications. If
this were promulgated, a CEMS would not be allowed for use on a
hazardous waste combustor unless it has been certified by EPA. The CEMS
certification would be similar to the certifications used for TUV
approval in Germany and for CEMS used for compliance with EPA's acid
rain program.
Issues EPA needs to address in order to promulgate such a process
include: what benefits the regulated community and industry would incur
as a result of such a certification; how the program would work; and
whether a nongovernment agency could do this task.
vi. Correcting CEMS Readings for Moisture Content. One quality
assurance issue that must be considered is how often facilities need to
measure the moisture content of their flue gas. All the standards
proposed today are on a dry basis, so knowing the flue gas moisture
content to correct CEMS outputs to a dry basis is necessary. EPA is
considering two alternative approaches to obtain the moisture content
of the flue gas. One involves making periodic measurements of the
moisture content of the flue gas using Method 4, found in Part 60,
Appendix A. Under this scheme, a facility would take flue gas moisture
measurements quarterly, while conducting the ACA. This moisture level
would then be used to correct CEMS outputs for moisture throughout the
next quarter.
Another alternative is that facilities make instantaneous
measurements of the flue gas temperature at the CEMS sampling point.
The temperature would then be used to determine the saturation water
concentration of the flue gas. The saturation water concentration would
then be used to correct the CEMS output for moisture.
EPA favors using the saturation water concentration as a surrogate
for flue gas moisture because it is continuous, frequently
conservative, and cost-effective compared to running a manual method.
One issue with this approach is that facilities with wet APCS may have
a water concentration higher than the saturated water concentration due
to entrained water droplets in the flue gas. However, we do not have
data on the amount of entrained water droplets in the flue gas and,
thus, cannot determine at this point how important this issue is.
The Agency requests data and information from facilities with a wet
APCS regarding the total water concentration (including water droplets)
in the flue gas compared with the saturated water concentration. The
Agency will evaluate data and recommendations of commenters on these or
other approaches in making a determination on the best approach for the
final rule.
2. Analysis of Feedstreams
In this section, we discuss the following proposed requirements for
analysis of feedstreams: (1) required analysis plan; (2) requirement to
submit the plan for review and approval the Director's request; (3)
frequency of analysis; and (4) information that must be determined and
recorded to document compliance. (We note that HWCs are already subject
to these requirements under 40 CFR Parts 261, 264, 265, 266, and 270.)
We also request comment on analysis of gaseous feedstreams, including
natural gas. We also propose making a conforming change to the BIF and
incinerator rules to clarify that constituent monitoring is required
for all feedstreams.
a. Feedstream Analysis Plan. The rule would require (in
Sec. 63.1210(c)) an owner or operator to obtain an analysis of each
feedstream that is sufficient to document compliance with the
applicable feedrate limits. The owner or operator must obtain the
analyses for each feedstream prior to feeding into the combustor. This
is done in order to document compliance with the applicable feedrate
limits at all times.
To ensure that the owner or operator will obtain an adequate
analysis, the owner or operator would be required to develop and
implement a feedstream analysis plan and record it in the operating
record. The operating plan must specify at a minimum: (1) the
parameters for which each feedstream will be analyzed to ensure
compliance with proposed Sec. 63.1210; (2) whether the owner or
operator will obtain the analysis by performing sampling and analysis,
or by other methods such as using analytical information obtained from
others 164 or using other published or documented data or
information; (3) how the analysis will be used to document compliance
with applicable feedrate limits (e.g., if hazardous wastes are blended
and analyses are obtained of the wastes prior to blending but not of
the blended, as-fired, waste, the plan must describe how the owner and
operator will determine the pertinent parameters of the blended waste);
(4) the test methods which will be used to obtain the analyses;
165 (5) the sampling method which will be used to obtain a
representative sample of each feedstream to be analyzed using sampling
methods described in Appendix I, Part 261, or an equivalent method; and
(6) the frequency with which the initial analysis of the feedstream
will be reviewed or repeated
[[Page 17443]]
to ensure that the analysis is accurate and up to date.166
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\164\ When analytical information is provided by others, the
analysis plan must document how the owner or operator will ensure it
is complete and accurate.
\165\ The information must be provided whether the owner or
operator conducts the analyses or the analyses are obtained from
others.
\166\ The analysis must be repeated as necessary to ensure that
it is accurate and up to date. At a minimum, the analysis must be
repeated when the owner or operator is notified or has reason to
believe that the process or operation generating or producing the
feedstream has changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that guidance on developing a feedstream analysis plan is
provided in Waste Analysis At Facilities That Generate, Treat, and
Dispose of Hazardous Waste, (OSWER [Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response] #9938.4-03, April 1994). The document is available from the
National Technical Information Services (NTIS), publication # PB94-963-
603. In addition, in April 1995, EPA published a Notice of Availability
for public comment on Waste Analysis Guidance for Facilities That Burn
Hazardous Wastes-Draft (Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
# EPA 530-R-94-019) (see 60 FR 18402). This guidance document provides
assistance in developing waste analysis plans specifically for HWCs.
The comment period for this document closed on June 2, 1995, and EPA is
currently reviewing and evaluating the comments received.
b. Review and Approval of Analysis Plan. Under today's proposed
rule, the Director could require the owner or operator to submit the
analysis plan for review and approval at any time. Given that
feedstream analysis is a primary compliance approach for the SVM, LVM,
and HCl/Cl2 emission standards, it is imperative that the source
develop and implement an adequate analysis plan. Consequently, the
Agency would like to review and approve analysis plans for each
existing source at the time of initial compliance (i.e., initial
notification of compliance).167
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\167\ Analysis plans would be reviewed and approved for new
sources during the RCRA permitting process (i.e., prior to
commencement of construction).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of resource constraints, however, the Agency will review
analysis plans on a priority basis, considering factors such as whether
the source accepts off-site waste, volume of waste burned, and
compliance history.168 Therefore, the Agency wishes to preserve
flexibility on whether to require a source to submit its analysis plan
for review and approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\168\ Note that the analysis plan will be reviewed during
facility inspections as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. How to Comply with Feedrate Limits. To comply with the feedrate
limits, the source must: (1) know the concentration of the limited
parameter (e.g., SVM) in the feedstream at all times; (2) know the
feedrate of the feedstream at all times; and (3) record the feedrate
(the product of the concentration times the feedstream rate) in the
operating record. The source would know the concentration of the
parameter in the feedstream by implementing the analysis plan discussed
above.
The source would know the feedrate of the feedstream by using a
continuous monitor of the volumetric or mass flowrate.169 If a
volumetric flowrate monitor is used, the source must know the density
of the feedstream at all times if it is necessary to know the mass per
unit time feedrate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\169\ Quality assurance for the flowrate monitor is discussed
below in the text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order for a facility to know the concentration of the parameters
at all times, the source must record the feedrate in the operating
record. It would be preferable to reduce the burden on regulatory
inspectors to continuously record all of the parameters used to
calculate the feedrate (e.g., concentration of metal, volumetric
flowrate, density) as well as the feedrate itself. Other approaches may
be acceptable, however, such as continuously recording only volumetric
flowrate, but clearly noting in the record the concentration and
density associated with that volumetric flowrate so that the inspector
could readily confirm that the feedrate was not exceeded at the
recorded flowrates. If a source prefers the second approach, we
recommend that it informally notify the Director for concurrence.
d. Request for Comment on Monitoring Gaseous Feedstreams. We
request comment here on how to address the difficulty of continuously
sampling gaseous feedstreams--both natural gas and process gas--for
nonvapor constituents (metals, chloride salts).
Natural gas is a primary fuel for several HWCs. Under today's rule
(as well as the BIF regulations), this feedstream, like all other
feedstreams, would be subject to the continuous monitoring and
recording provisions, including feedstream sampling and analysis for
metal and chlorine constituents.
Facilities have questioned whether it is necessary to sample and
analyze natural gas for constituents they feel are not reasonably
expected to be present. Therefore, the Agency is soliciting data and
information on whether (and at what concentrations) the seven metals
that would be regulated in today's rule are likely to be present in
natural gas. Based on the information submitted by commenters, the
final rule could incorporate a number of options including: (1)
determine that natural gas feedstreams need not be considered in
feedrate determinations because levels of metals and chlorine and
chloride are not likely to be significant; (2) allow sources to make a
one-time, site-specific determination of metals and chlorine levels
that could be used for feedrate determinations provided that the
natural gas supplier does not change; or (3) establish generic
concentration levels for metals and chlorine and chloride that could be
assumed to be present. We also invite comment on these or other
approaches to address this issue.
Process gas feedstreams pose a similar problem. One approach for
these feedstreams would be to allow sources to make a one-time
determination of metals and chlorine levels (by sampling and analysis,
process knowledge, or other information) that could be used for
feedrate determinations until process changes or other factors occurred
that could change the composition of the gas. We invite comments on
this or alternative approaches to address this issue.
3. Quality Assurance for Continuous Monitoring Systems Other Than CEMS
Continuous monitoring systems (CMS) other than CEMS include the
systems associated with monitors such as thermocouples, pressure
transducers, stress/strain gages, flow meters, and pH meters. In
addition to the requirements discussed below, we are proposing to
require compliance with the general quality assurance procedures for
continuous monitoring systems (CMS) provided by existing
Sec. 63.8(c)(4). See proposed Sec. 63.1210(d). That paragraph requires
owners and operators to verify the operational status of CMS by, at a
minimum, complying with the manufacturer's written specifications or
recommendations for installation, operation, and calibration of the
system. To make current rules consistent with the ones which will be
promulgated here, EPA proposes making conforming changes to the BIF and
incinerator rules to incorporate quality assurance requirements for
CMS.
a. Sampling and Detection Frequency. We are proposing to require
that CMS (other than CEMS)170 sample the regulated parameter
without interruption, and evaluate the detector response at least once
each 15 seconds, and compute and record the average values at least
every 60 seconds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\170\ The proposed CEM performance specifications and data
quality objectives define acceptable sampling and detection
frequency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Exceeding CMS Span Would Trigger a AWFCO. The rule would also
[[Page 17444]]
require that the automatic waste feed cutoff (AWFCO) system be engaged
if the span of any CMS (other than a CEMS) is exceeded. This is because
it is not practicable to establish span values for each CMS as we have
proposed for each CEMS.
The issue arises because facilities have the discretion of
purchasing equipment with any span. For CMS, the span is defined as the
range between the highest certifiable reading a CMS can make (the
``upper span'') and its corresponding minimum (the ``lower span.'') If
a CMS were to have an upper span which is too low, say a thermocouple
with a upper span of 630 deg.C, there would be no way to document
accurately a temperature higher than 630 deg.C. This is a problem if
the facility routinely operates at a temperature of, say, 750 deg.C.
For this reason, it is important to ensure that CMS are operated within
their certified span.
III. MACT Performance Testing and Related Issues
Today's rule would require performance testing to demonstrate
compliance with the proposed MACT emission standards. The requirements
and procedures for MACT performance testing are discussed here. In
addition, HWCs would continue to be subject to the existing trial burn
requirements during the RCRA permitting process. The interaction
between the RCRA trial burn and the MACT performance test is also
discussed here. In addition, we discuss in this section the waiver for
performance testing for Hg, SVM, LVM, and HCl/Cl2 that would be
provided for sources that feed de minimis levels of these metals or
chlorine. Finally, we discuss in this section requirements for relative
accuracy tests for CEMS.
A. MACT Performance Testing
Two types of performance testing would be required to demonstrate
compliance with the proposed MACT emission standards: comprehensive
performance testing and confirmatory performance testing. See proposed
Sec. 63.1208.
1. Comprehensive Performance Testing
The purpose of the comprehensive performance test is to initially
and periodically thereafter: (1) demonstrate that the source is in
compliance with the CEMS-monitored emission standards (e.g., PM, Hg,
CO, HC); (2) conduct manual stack sampling to demonstrate compliance
with the emission standards for pollutants that are not monitored with
a CEMS (e.g., D/F, SVM, LVM, HCl/Cl2); (3) establish limits on the
applicable operating parameters provided by proposed Sec. 63.1210
(Monitoring Requirements) to ensure that compliance is maintained with
those emission standards for which a CEMS is not used for compliance
monitoring; and (4) demonstrate performance of CMS is consistent with
the requirements and quality assurance plan. Thus, the comprehensive
performance test has purposes similar to the RCRA trial burn and BIF
interim status compliance test. It would be more like a BIF interim
status compliance test, however, because of the low level of Agency
oversight and high degree of facility self-implementation, as discussed
below.
a. Operations During Comprehensive Performance Testing. Given that
limits will be established on operating parameters during the
comprehensive performance test, sources will likely want to operate
during the test at the edge of the operating envelope that they believe
is both necessary to operate efficiently and comply with the emission
standards. Accordingly, sources may elect to spike feedstreams with
metals or chlorine, for example, to ensure that the feedrate limits are
high enough to accommodate normal operations while allowing some
flexibility to feed higher rates at times.
In addition, sources may identify two or more modes of operation
for which separate performance tests would be conducted and for which
separate limits on operating conditions would be established. In this
situation, the source would be required to note in the operating record
under which mode of operation it was operating at all times. An example
of when two modes of operation must be identified would be a cement
kiln that routes its kiln off-gas through the raw meal mill to help dry
the raw meal. When the raw meal mill is not operating (perhaps one
third of the time), the kiln gas bypasses the raw meal mill. Emissions
of PM and other HAPs or HAP surrogates may vary substantially depending
on whether the kiln gas bypasses the raw meal mill.
When conducting the comprehensive performance test, sources must
also operate under representative conditions for the following
parameters to ensure that emissions are representative of normal
operating conditions: (1) types of organic compounds in the waste
(e.g., aromatics, aliphatics, nitrogen content, halogen/carbon ratio,
oxygen/carbon ratio) and volatility of wastes, when demonstrating
compliance with the D/F emission standard; and (2) cleaning cycle of
the PM control device (e.g., ESP rapping cycle) when demonstrating
compliance with the SVM and LVM emission standard when using manual
stack sampling and the D/F emission standard.
b. Frequency of Testing. The rule would require that the
comprehensive performance test be performed periodically because the
Agency is concerned that long-term wear-and-tear on critical components
(e.g., firing systems, emission control equipment) could adversely
affect emissions. Large sources (i.e., those with a stack gas flow rate
greater than 23,127 acfm) and sources that accept waste from off-site
would be required to perform comprehensive performance testing every
three years.
Small, on-site sources would be required to perform testing every
five years, unless the Director determines otherwise on a case-specific
basis. The proposed testing frequency would be less for small, on-site
sources because of cost-effectiveness concerns. In addition, we note
that, from the RCRA perspective, small, on-site sources are more
familiar with the wastes they burn, the waste may be more homogeneous
and less complex, and they burn smaller volumes of waste. Thus, their
emissions may not pose the same hazard as emissions from large or
commercial facilities. We invite comment on this approach.
The Director may determine, however, that a small, on-site source
may pose the same potential hazard as a large or off-site source
because of the factors listed above, compliance history, or other
reasons. Accordingly, the rule would allow discretion for the Director
to require a three-year testing frequency for such small, on-site
sources as warranted.
c. Agency Oversight. The proposed rule would require the owner or
operator to submit a ``notification of performance test'' to the
Administrator 60 days prior to the planned test date. The notification
must be accompanied by a site-specific test plan for review and
approval by the Administrator. This is consistent with the general
provisions for MACT sources provided by Sec. 63.7 (b) and (c). See
those paragraphs for provisions regarding: (1) Agency approval of the
test plan; (2) 30-day period for the Agency to approve or disapprove
the test plan; 171 and (3) notwithstanding Agency approval or
disapproval, or failure to approve or disapprove, the test plan, the
owner or operator must comply with the applicable requirements,
including the
[[Page 17445]]
deadline for submitting the initial and subsequent notifications of
compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\171\ Generally, Sec. 63.7(c)(3) provides that the source can
assume the test plan is approved if the Agency does not take action
within 30 days of receiving the original plan or any supplementary
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the Agency has the option of observing the performance
test.
d. Operating Conditions During Subsequent Tests. Although the rule
would allow the burning of hazardous waste only under the operating
limits established during the previous comprehensive performance test
(to ensure compliance with emission standards not monitored with a
CEMS), two types of waivers from this requirement would be provided
during subsequent comprehensive performance tests: (1) an automatic
waiver to exceed current operating limits up to 5 percent; and (2) a
waiver that the Director may grant if warranted to allow the source to
exceed the current operating limits without restriction. The rationale
and implementation of these waivers is discussed below.
The rule would provide an automatic waiver because, without the
waiver, the operating limits would become more and more stringent with
subsequent comprehensive performance tests. This is because sources
would be required to operate within the more stringent conditions to
ensure that they did not exceed a current operating limit. This would
result in a shrinking operating envelope over time.
Accordingly, EPA is proposing to allow sources to operate under the
``same'' operating conditions as the previous comprehensive performance
test in order to duplicate the current operating limits. It is not
practicable to require a source to operate under the exact same
operating conditions as the previous comprehensive performance test,
however. Therefore, the rule would allow sources to deviate during
comprehensive performance testing by up to 5 percent from the current
operating limits provided that the source accept operating limits based
on the new performance test levels that are the more stringent of the
current operating limits or levels achieved during the new performance
test. We invite comment on whether this provision would meet our
objective of ensuring that the operating envelope does not shrink over
time as subsequent comprehensive performance tests are conducted. For
example, an additional approach would be to provide for a site-specific
waiver of the 5 percent deviation limit to allow deviations from
current operating limits as warranted to ensure that the operating
envelope does not shrink.
The rule also proposes a waiver that the Administrator may grant if
warranted to allow the source to exceed the current operating limits
without restriction. This is because the source may want to operate
under less restrictive limits and believes that it can still comply
with the emission standards under the less restrictive limits. For
example, a source may want to burn a waste with higher metal or
chlorine content, and/or the source may want to install an improved
emission control device.
To accommodate such situations, the rule would allow the
Administrator to grant a site-specific waiver of the operating limits
if the source provides supporting documentation that it is likely to be
able to meet the emission standards under less restrictive operating
limits. The documentation must be submitted prior to or at the time of
submittal of the notification of performance test, and must include
empirical data or other data and information to support the request. If
the waiver request is submitted with the notification of performance
test (which must be accompanied by the test plan), the Director will
approve or disapprove the waiver request under the procedures for
approving or disapproving the test plan.
e. Testing Schedule and Notification of Compliance. The owner or
operator must submit to the Administrator a notification of compliance
under proposed Sec. 63.1211(c) documenting compliance with the emission
standards and CMS requirements, and identifying applicable operating
limits. (This provision is similar to Sec. 63.7(g).) The notification
must be postmarked by the 90th day following the completion of
performance testing and CMS performance evaluation.
The initial notification of compliance must be postmarked within 36
months after the date of publication of the final rule. Subsequent
notifications must be submitted within 90 days after the completion of
subsequent performance testing. Subsequent comprehensive performance
testing must be initiated 36 months for large and off-site sources or
60 months for small, on-site sources, respectively, after initiation of
the initial performance test.
Given the complexity of comprehensive performance testing and to
allow for unforeseen events, however, the rule would allow the
subsequent test to be initiated within a range of 30 days before or
after the 36 or 60-month anniversary. The rule would require that the
anniversary date remain based on the initial comprehensive performance
test. This would simplify recordkeeping and preclude a source from
intentionally scheduling the test toward the end of the 30-day grace
period and thus effectively obtaining a 37 or 61-month testing
frequency.
The rule would give a source the option of performing a
comprehensive performance test at any time before the 36 or 60-month
anniversary. A source may want to retrofit or add a new emission
control device prior to a test anniversary date. To do so, the source
would be required to conduct a new comprehensive performance test to
document compliance with emission standards and to establish new
operating limits. The rule would require the source to follow the same
procedures for this comprehensive performance test as discussed above
(e.g., submittal of notification of performance testing and test plan;
review and approval of test plan). Note that conducting a comprehensive
performance test prior to the normal anniversary date would establish a
new anniversary date.
f. Time Extensions for Subsequent Performance Tests. The rule would
allow the Administrator to grant up to a 1 year time extension for any
performance test subsequent to the initial comprehensive performance
test.172 This would enable the source to consolidate, into one
test, both the MACT-related performance testing and the RCRA trial burn
testing, which are both required for issuance and reissuance of RCRA
operating permits.173 (Trial burn testing requirements are
discussed below.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\172\ Note that we discuss in Part Five, Section I (Selection of
Compliance Dates) of the preamble that the rule would provide up to
a 1-year time extension to submit the initial notification of
compliance.
\173\ In addition, the source may experience a major outage
whereby the performance test could not be conducted within the 2-
month window around the anniversary date. This time extension
provision could address this situation as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, if the comprehensive performance test anniversary were
a date proximate to the date scheduled for the trial burn, we believe
it is reasonable to allow the source to conduct only one test to
satisfy both requirements (i.e., the MACT-related performance test and
the RCRA trial burn). To address this situation, the rule would allow
up to a one-year time extension for the performance test.174
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\174\ Note that, if the trial burn were scheduled before, rather
than after, the performance test anniversary date, there would not
be a problem because the source can conduct a comprehensive
performance test at any time prior to the anniversary date. If so,
the anniversary date is simply moved up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the trial burn and performance tests are consolidated, the
anniversary dates for subsequent performance tests would be
correspondingly adjusted. For example, if the anniversary date for a
[[Page 17446]]
confirmatory performance test for a large or off-site source is January
1 and the trial burn is scheduled for September 1 of that year, the
source may adjust the anniversary date of the confirmatory performance
test to September 1. This would also delay the anniversary date for
subsequent comprehensive performance tests by 9 months. As noted above,
under the proposal a maximum of 12 months delay could be granted.
The procedure for granting or denying a time extension would be the
same as those for existing Sec. 63.6(i) which allows the Administrator
to grant MACT sources up to 1 additional year (in addition to the 3
years beginning with publication of applicable standards (e.g., MACT
standards for HWCs) in the Federal Register) to comply with the
standard.175 (These are also the same procedures that would apply
to a request for a time extension for the initial notification of
compliance.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\175\ Note, however, that Sec. 63.6(i) applies to an entirely
different situation: extension of time for initial compliance with
the standard whereby performance testing is conducted after the date
of compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We invite comment on alternative maximum time periods for the
extension to allow sources to reasonably consolidate performance and
trial burn testing, and whether the time extension should be automatic
or require prior approval by the Administrator.
vi. Failure to Submit a Timely Notification of Compliance. If the
owner or operator does not submit a notification of compliance by the
required date, the rule would require the source to immediately stop
burning hazardous waste (the same manner as applied to BIFs certifying
compliance under RCRA Sec. 266.103 in 1991). If the source wanted to
burn hazardous waste in the future, it would be required to comply with
the standards and permit requirements for new MACT and RCRA sources.
For example, if the source were operating under RCRA interim status, it
would need to obtain a RCRA operating permit and meet MACT standards
for new facilities before hazardous waste burning could resume.
Moreover, the rule would require the source to obtain written approval
from the Administrator before hazardous waste burning could resume.
(For RCRA interim status sources, issuance of a RCRA operating permit
would constitute such written approval.)
g. Failure of a Comprehensive Performance Test. When a source
determines (e.g., based on CEMS recordings, results of analysis of
samples taken during manual stack sampling, or results of the CMS
performance evaluation) that it has failed any emission standard during
the performance test, it would be required to immediately stop burning
hazardous waste. If, however, a source conducts the comprehensive
performance test under two or more modes of operation and meets the
emission standards when operating under one or more modes of operation,
it would be allowed to continue burning under the modes of operation
for which it has met the standards.
For sources that fail one or more emission standards during all
modes of operation tested, the rule would enable the source to burn
hazardous waste only for a total of 720 hours and only for the purposes
of pretesting (i.e., informal testing to determine if it could meet the
standards operating under modified conditions) or comprehensive
performance testing under modified conditions.
Finally, failure to comply with an emission standard after initial
notification of compliance would be a violation of the rule.
We note that HWCs are currently subject to virtually these same
requirements under RCRA rules.
h. Applicability of Existing Part 63 General Requirements for MACT
Sources. Part 63 establishes requirements for performance testing in
Sec. 63.7 and requirements for extension of compliance dates in
Sec. 63.6(i). Some of these provisions would be directly applicable to
HWCs, some would be applicable in modified form, some would be
superseded by today's rule, and others are not applicable.
The following Sec. 63.7 requirements would be applicable to HWCs:
(1) Paragraph (a)(1) (Applicability) and (a)(3)
(2) Paragraphs (b) (Notification of performance test) and (c)
(Quality Assurance Program), except that all sources would be required
to submit the test plan for review and approval
(3) Paragraph (d) (Performance testing facilities)
(4) Paragraph (e) (Conduct of performance tests), except that
operating conditions during comprehensive performance testing would be
as discussed above (i.e., not normal operating conditions), and
operating conditions during confirmatory performance testing discussed
below would be under normal conditions as defined in that discussion.
Also, emissions during startup and shutdown would be included in the
performance tests, if the sources wishes to have the authority to burn
hazardous waste during those periods.
(5) Paragraph (f) (Use of an alternative test method)
(6) Paragraph (g) (Data analysis, recordkeeping, and reporting),
except that the test results would have to be reported 90 days after
completion of the test, rather than 60 days.
The following Sec. 63.7 requirements would not be applicable to
HWCs:
(1) Paragraph (a)(2) (establishing deadlines for performance
testing) because new HWCs would be required to obtain a RCRA operating
permit before commencing construction. The RCRA operating permit would
specify allowable periods of operation and operating conditions prior
to (and following) performance testing. Existing HWCs would be required
to submit a notification of compliance within 3-years of the date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
(2) Paragraph (h) (Waiver of performance tests), because the bases
for the waiver are not relevant to HWCs as follows: (1) the rule would
allow the Administrator to grant a time extension to submit a
notification of compliance; and (2) the purpose of periodic testing is
to determine whether sources are meeting the standards on a continuous
basis.
2. Confirmatory Performance Testing
Confirmatory performance testing for D/F would be required mid-way
between the cycle required for comprehensive performance testing to
determine if the source is continuing to meet the emission standard.
The Agency is proposing such testing only for D/F given: (1) the health
risk posed by D/F; (2) there is no CEMS for D/F; (3) there is no
feedrate limit of a material that directly and unambiguously relates to
D/F emissions (as opposed to, for example, metals feedrates, which
directly relate to metals emissions); and (4) wear and tear on the
equipment, including any emission control equipment, which over time
could result in an increase in D/F emissions even though the source
stays in compliance with applicable operating limits.
Confirmatory testing differs from comprehensive testing, however,
in that the source would be required to operate under normal,
representative conditions during confirmatory testing. This would
reduce the cost of the test while providing the essential information
because the source would not have to establish new operating limits
based on the confirmatory test.
a. Definition of Normal Operating Conditions. Normal operating
conditions would be defined as operations during which: (1) the CEMS
[[Page 17447]]
that measure parameters that could relate to D/F emissions--PM, CO,
HC--are recording emission levels within the range of the average value
for each CEMS (the sum of all one-minute averages, divided by the
number of one minute averages) over the previous 12 months to the
maximum allowed; and (2) each operating limit established to maintain
compliance with the D/F emission standard (see discussion in Part Five,
section II.C.1) is held within the range of the average values over the
previous 12 months and the maximum or minimums, as appropriate, that
are allowed. The Agency believes it is necessary to define normal
operating conditions in this manner because, otherwise, sources could
elect to limit levels of the regulated D/F operating parameters (e.g.,
hazardous waste feedrate, combustion chamber temperature, temperature
at the inlet to the dry PM control device) to ensure minimum emissions.
Thus, without specifying what constitutes normal conditions, EPA
believes the confirmatory test could be meaningless. On the other hand,
the proposed definition of normal conditions is broad enough to allow
the source flexibility in operations during the test.
When conducting the confirmatory performance test for D/F, sources
must also operate under representative conditions for the following
parameters to ensure that emissions are representative of normal
operating conditions: (1) types of organic compounds in the waste
(e.g., aromatics, aliphatics, nitrogen content, halogen/carbon ratio,
oxygen/carbon ratio) and volatility of wastes, when demonstrating
compliance with the D/F emission standard; and (2) cleaning cycle of
the PM control device (e.g., ESP rapping cycle).
Finally, when conducting the confirmatory test for D/F, the source
would also be required to conduct a performance evaluation of the CMS
that are required to maintain compliance with the D/F emission
standard.
b. Frequency of Testing. Large and off-site sources would be
required to conduct confirmatory performance testing 18 months after
the previous comprehensive performance test. Small, on-site sources
would be required to conduct the testing 30 months after the previous
comprehensive performance test. The same 2-month testing window
applicable for comprehensive tests would also apply to confirmatory
tests.
c. Agency Oversight, Notification of Performance Test, Notification
of Compliance, Time Extensions, and Failure to Submit a Timely Notice
of Compliance. The requirements that would apply to comprehensive tests
would also apply to confirmatory tests.
d. Failure of a Confirmatory Performance Test. When a source
determines (e.g., based results of analysis of samples taken during
manual stack sampling) that it has failed the D/F emission standard, it
would have violated the rule. The source would be required to
immediately stop burning hazardous waste. If, however, a source had
conducted the comprehensive performance test under two or more modes of
operation and met the D/F emission standards during confirmatory
testing when operating under one or more modes of operation, it would
be allowed to continue burning under the modes of operation for which
it has met the standards.
For sources that fail one or more emission standard during all
modes of operation tested, the rule would require the source to modify
design or operation of the unit and conduct a new comprehensive
performance test to demonstrate compliance with the D/F emission
standard and establish new operating limits. Further, prior to
submitting a notification of compliance based on the new comprehensive
performance test, the source could burn hazardous waste only for a
total of 720 hours, and only for purposes of informal pretesting or
comprehensive performance testing.
B. RCRA Trial Burns
HWCs are also subject to the existing permit requirements under
RCRA that are established at 40 CFR Parts 264, 266, and 270. Those
rules require HWCs (among other things) to conduct a trial burn to
demonstrate compliance with applicable emission standards. Operating
conditions are included in the permit to ensure that compliance is
maintained.
We are proposing to amend those rules today to refer to the
proposed MACT requirements. Thus, the existing RCRA emission standards
and ancillary requirements would be superseded by the proposed MACT
standards, with one exception: destruction and removal efficiency
(DRE).
1. The RCRA DRE Requirement Would Be Implemented Under RCRA Authority
The destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) requirement under the
RCRA standards would continue to apply to all HWCs. Although the DRE
requirement, which is statutory for incinerators, RCRA
Sec. 3004(o)(1)(B), could be proposed as a MACT surrogate parameter to
minimize organic HAPs by ensuring good combustion, we are not doing so.
This is because the DRE standard is complex and impracticable to self-
implement.176 Consequently, the Agency would continue to apply the
DRE standard under RCRA authority alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\176\ We note that, for this reason, the Agency chose not to
require BIFs operating under interim status to comply with the DRE
standard even though they were subject to all other emission
standards that would be applicable under a operating permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Coordinating Trial Burns and MACT Performance Tests
As discussed above, the rule would allow a source to consolidate a
trial burn test with a comprehensive or confirmatory test if the trial
burn test were conducted within a year after the anniversary date for
the MACT performance test.177 If the tests are consolidated,
however, the unified test must of course satisfy the objectives of both
tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\177\ If the trial burn were scheduled prior to the performance
test, the source could elect to consolidate the tests and, thus,
move up the anniversary date for the performance test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that the level of Agency oversight for trial burns is
substantially greater than the oversight that might be provided for
MACT performance tests. Accordingly, as current practice, the Agency's
implementation procedures for trial burns will deviate from those
proposed for the MACT performance tests. As examples, the Agency will
require that the test plan be submitted more than 60 days in advance of
the planned trial burn test, and extensive public participation will be
provided for review of the test plan, test results, and determination
of operating limits.
C. Waiver of MACT Performance Testing for HWCs Feeding De Minimis
Levels of Metals or Chlorine
Today's rule would provide a waiver of performance testing
requirements for Hg, SVM, LVM, or HCl/Cl2 for HWCs that feed de
minimis levels of these metals or chlorine.178. Under the waiver,
a source would be required to assume that all Hg, SVM, LVM, or chlorine
fed in each feedstream is emitted from the stack and to document that
resulting emission concentrations do not exceed the emission standards,
considering stack gas flow rate. Thus, the source would be required to:
(1) establish and comply with maximum feedrate limits for total
feedstreams for Hg, SVM, LVM, or chlorine; and (2) establish and comply
with, as a minimum stack gas flow rate, the flow rate used to document
compliance (by calculation
[[Page 17448]]
rather than emissions testing) with the emission standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\178\ Note that the term de minimis means simply low
concentration of metals or chlorine. It does not denote or imply low
risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To accommodate sources that may operate under a wide range of gas
flow rates, the rule would allow a source to establish different modes
of operation with corresponding minimum stack gas flow rate limits and
maximum feedrates for metals or chlorine. If a source uses this
approach, the operating record must clearly identify which operating
mode is in effect at all times.
Sources claiming the waiver would be required to do so in the
initial notification of performance test and would not be required to
establish or comply with operating limits for the performance test
(i.e., Hg, SVM, LVM, or HCl/Cl2) for which the waiver is claimed.
Sources eligible for a waiver from the Hg standard would not be
required to install a Hg CEMS.
D. Relative Accuracy Tests for CEMS
This section describes the testing requirements for CEMS proposed
today. Note that CEMS for multi-metals, HCl, and Cl2 are proposed
to be optional. Facilities need not perform tests described below for
CEMS they elect not to use.
A relative accuracy test audit (RATA) for Hg and multi-metal CEMS
would be required every three years (or five years for small on-site
facilities). RATAs for CO and O2 CEMS would be required
annually.179 RATAs for Hg and multi-metals involve comparing the
output of the CEM to the results of manual method tests in order to
determine the overall accuracy of the CEM and would be conducted in
conjunction with a comprehensive test. RATAs for CO and O2 would
be conducted during a comprehensive test or on the anniversary date of
the previous comprehensive test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\179\ Note that EPA invites comment on waiving the RATA
requirements for CO and O2, instead relying on quarterly
calibration error tests using cylinder gasses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A relative calibration audit (RCA) for PM CEMS would be required
every 18 months (30 months for small on-site facilities). These are
similar to a RATA in that they involve comparing the output of the CEM
to the results of manual method tests in order to verify the validity
of the CEM and its calibration, and would be conducted whenever a
comprehensive or confirmatory test is performed.
An absolute calibration audit (ACA) is a test which determines the
calibration error (CE) associated with a CEM. These audits do so by
challenging the analyzer using gas bottles or solutions of metals or
particulate with known concentrations of the compound being analyzed.
ACA's are conducted quarterly for all CEMS except for multi-metals,
which are conducted annually.
Calibration drift (CD) and zero drift (ZD) 180 tests are
conducted daily using cylinder gas bottles, filters, or internal (to
the CEMS) calibration standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\180\ Note that EPA invites comment on whether the ZD
requirements should be deleted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Selection of Manual Stack Sampling Methods
This section discusses the manual emission test methods that would
be required for emission tests and calibration of CEMS and relies
heavily on the BIF methods currently in Part 266, Appendix IX. EPA
previously proposed incorporating many of these methods in SW-846, Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes (60 FR 37974, July 25, 1995).
Accordingly, both the BIF and proposed SW-846 numbers are given.
The emission test method for D/F would be the proposed SW-846
Method 0023A (60 FR 37974, July 25, 1995). It is identical to the BIF
Method 23 in Appendix IX of Part 266 except Method 0023A requires that
collection efficiencies be determined for both the particulate and
sorbent. BIF Method 23 is the same as the Air Method 23 in Part 60,
Appendix A. Method 23 determines the efficiency off the sorbent only
and assumes the same recovery off the particulate as from the sorbent.
We are also proposing today to make a conforming change to the BIF rule
to require use of Method 0023A rather than Method 23.
It is proposed that BIF Method 0012 (SW-846 method 0060) be used as
the manual method test for Hg. The proposed manual emission test method
for the SVM and LVM standards is BIF Method 0012 contained in section
3.1 of Appendix IX, Part 266 (SW-846 method 0060). This method is also
commonly known as Air Method 29.
For compliance with the HCl/Cl2 standard, the rule would use
BIF Methods 0050, 0051, and 9057 contained in section 3.3 of Appendix
IX, Part 266, as the manual test method (SW-846 would retain the same
numbering). These methods are commonly known as Air Method 26A, found
in Appendix A of Part 60.
Existing Sec. 63.7 describes procedures for allowing the use of
alternative test methods for MACT sources. This procedure involves
using Method 301 of Part 60, Appendix A, to validate the proposed
method. The data from the Method 301 validation is submitted to EPA.
EPA then decides if the proposed method is acceptable. Absent this
approval under Sec. 63.7 procedures, alternate methods cannot be used.
V. Notification, Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Operator Certification
Requirements
Today's proposed rule would establish several notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for HWCs. This section
discusses the applicability to HWCs of existing requirements in
Secs. 63.9 and 63.10 and Parts 264, 265, 266, and 270. In addition, we
discuss in this section new requirements that would apply specifically
to HWCs. Finally, we discuss whether operator certification
requirements should be promulgated.
A. Notification Requirements
HWCs would be required to submit the following notifications:
Initial notification. The initial notification
requirements of existing Sec. 63.9(b) would apply. These notifications
are intended to alert regulatory officials that a source is subject to
the regulations. Even though all existing HWCs have already notified
the Administrator of their hazardous waste activities under RCRA
requirements, and new HWCs must notify the Administrator and obtain an
operating permit before commencing construction, these RCRA-required
notifications will not always be received by the same regulatory
officials implementing the MACT standards. For example, when a state is
authorized for Title V permitting, various state regulatory
authorities, including local air boards, could be the implementing
authority. In contrast, RCRA regulations are implemented by Agency and
state officials. Accordingly, to ensure that all appropriate regulatory
officials are apprised that a HWC is subject to the MACT and RCRA
regulations, we are proposing to retain the initial notification
requirement under Sec. 63.9(b).
Notification of performance test and CMS performance
evaluation. This notification includes the planned test date,
performance test plan (to demonstrate compliance with emissions), CMS
performance evaluation plan, and quality assurance plan. It is required
by existing Sec. 63.9(c), except that all sources must submit their
test plan and CMS performance evaluation plan for review and approval.
Notification of compliance. This notification includes
results of performance test and CMS performance evaluation and
certification by the owner and operator that the source is in
compliance with the applicable
[[Page 17449]]
standards. It is similar to that required by existing Sec. 63.9(h) with
several important differences. Under today's rule, a source must notify
that it is actually in compliance with all applicable standards, not
merely identify its status with respect to compliance as allowed by
Sec. 63.9(h). In addition, paragraphs (h)(2) (D) and (E) requiring the
source to identify the type and quantity of pollutants emitted and an
analysis of whether the source is a major or area source are not
applicable to HWCs. This is because today's proposed rule would apply
to all HWCs irrespective of whether it meets the definition of a major
source. Finally, today's rule would require the notification to be
submitted 90 days after completion of testing, rather than 60 days as
now required by paragraph (h)(2)(ii).
Request for extension of time to submit a notification of
compliance. A notification for a time extension for initial compliance
is provided by Sec. 63.9(c). Today's rule would require sources to
submit a notification of compliance after each performance test (both
comprehensive and confirmatory) and allow requests for time extensions
to submit those notifications.
Request for a time extension to consolidate a performance
test with a trial burn. Today's rule would allow a source to request to
consolidate a trial burn with a performance test if the trial burn test
date is no later than 12 months after the performance test anniversary
date.
To summarize applicability of existing Sec. 63.9 notification
requirements and to assist the regulated community in understanding the
applicable requirements, the following list is provided as guidance:
Paragraph (a) (Applicability and general information)
applies.
Paragraph (b) (Initial notifications) applies as discussed
above.
Paragraph (c) (Request for extension of compliance)
applies for the purposes discussed above.
Paragraph (d) (Notification that source is subject to
special compliance requirements) applies.
Paragraph (e) (Notification of performance test) applies
as discussed above.
Paragraph (f) (Notification of opacity and visible
emission observations) is not applicable because the rule would
establish a PM emission standard and other compliance/monitoring
requirements in lieu of opacity and visible emission standards.
Paragraph (g) (Additional notification requirements for
sources with CMS) applies.
Paragraph (h) (Notification of compliance status) applies
with the caveats discussed above.
Paragraph (i) (Adjustments to time periods or postmark
deadlines for submittal and review of required communications) applies.
Paragraph (j) (Change in information already provided)
applies. The rule would require the following additional notification
requirements:
Small quantity on-site burner exemption. See discussion in
Part Six, Section II.A.1.
Pre-trial burn period (shakedown). See discussion in Part
Six, Section II.F.1.
B. Reporting Requirements
HWCs would be required to submit the following reports:
Excessive AWFCO report. See discussion in Part Five,
Section II.E.1.
ESV opening report. See discussion in Part Five, Section
II.E.1.
For guidance to the regulated community, the applicability of the
existing reporting requirements under Secs. 63.10(d) (General reporting
requirements), 63.10(e) (Additional reporting requirements for sources
with CMS), and 63.10(f) (Waiver of recordkeeping or reporting
requirements) would be as follows:
Paragraph (d)(1) applies. This paragraph references the
reporting requirements in the specific standards for a source category,
in this case proposed Subpart EEE.
Paragraph (d)(2) (Reporting results of performance tests)
applies, except that the report may be submitted up to 90 days after
completion of the test.
Paragraph (d)(3) (Reporting results of opacity or visible
emission observations) does not apply because the rule would not
regulate opacity or visible emissions.
Paragraph (d)(4) (Progress reports) applies.
Paragraph (d)(5) (Periodic startup, shutdown, and
malfunction reports; and immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction
reports) does not apply. Given that HWCs could not burn hazardous waste
under the proposed rule except in compliance with all applicable
emission standards, operating limits, and CMS performance
specifications, the rule would not require a startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan as required by Sec. 63.6(e)(3) for other MACT sources.
There will be no excess hazardous waste emissions during these periods
(unless the HWC violates the standards) and the Agency does not need
information about how quickly a HWC is able to correct a malfunction or
come back into compliance again so that it may resume hazardous waste
burning.181
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\181\ One exception to this is the operation of cement kilns
when the hazardous waste feed has been cut off and there is no
hazardous waste remaining in the combustion chamber. In this
situation, the HWC emission standards, operating limits, and CMS
performance specifications would not apply. Given that the Agency
plans to propose MACT standards for cement kilns that do not burn
hazardous waste, however, a cement kiln that is temporarily not
subject to today's proposed standards because the waste feed has
been cutoff (and there is no hazardous waste remaining in the
combustion chamber) would nonetheless remain (or become) subject to
any MACT standards the Agency may promulgate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph (e)(1) (General) applies.
Paragraph (e)(2) (Reporting results of CMS performance
evaluations) applies.
Paragraph (e)(3) (Excess emissions and CMS performance
report and summary report) does not apply because HWCs cannot burn
hazardous waste except in compliance with all applicable standards.
Paragraph (e)(4) (Reporting continuous opacity monitoring
system data produced during a performance test) does not apply because
COMs are not required in this proposal.
Paragraph (f) (Waiver of recordkeeping or reporting
requirements) would not apply because the bases for considering the
waiver are not relevant to HWCs as follows: (1) Recordkeeping and
reporting should not be waived because ``the source is achieving the
relevant standards'' because recordkeeping and reporting would be the
primary means of compliance assurance for the HWC rules; (2)
recordkeeping and reporting should not be waived during a time
extension because the requirements would not apply until a HWC
submitted the initial notification of compliance irrespective of
whether a time extension were granted; and (3) recordkeeping and
reporting should not be waived if a time extension is granted for a
subsequent notification of compliance (because the source will be
burning hazardous waste under the standards).
C. Recordkeeping Requirements
Existing Sec. 63.10(b)(1) requires MACT sources to keep the records
discussed below for at least five years from the date of each
occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or
record. At a minimum, the most recent two years of data must be
retained off-site. The remaining three years of data may be retained on
site. Such files may be maintained on: microfilm, a computer, computer
floppy disks, optical disk, magnetic tape, or microfiche.
[[Page 17450]]
1. Information Required in the Operating Record
The rule would require HWCs to record the following in the
operating record:
Comprehensive test results used to determine operating
limits. See discussion in Part Five, Section II.B.
All operating parameter limits established. See discussion
in Part Five, Section II.C.
Operating data which substantiates compliance, including
minute-by-minute operating parameter data, including feedstream; and
minute-by-minute CEM data. See discussion in Part Five, Section II.B.
Documentation for performance test waiver. See discussion
in Part Five, Section III.C.
Description of and operating data substantiating
compliance with provisions to limit combustion fugitive emissions. See
discussion in Part Five, Section II.D.
For each occurrence of an exceedance of a CEM or operating
parameter limit, including what operating parameter of CEM limit was
violated: the cause of the violation, and what corrective action was
taken to ensure the violation will be prevented in the future. See
discussion in Part Five, Section II.E.1.
For each ESV opening: documentation that the ESV opened,
the reason for the opening, and corrective measures taken to minimize
the frequency of openings. See discussion Part Five, Section II.E.2.
ESV operating plan. See discussion Part Five, Section
II.E.2.
CEM quality assurance document, including: definition of
compliance with the calibration and zero drift specifications, and how
relative accuracy and absolute calibration audits will be performed.
See discussion Part Five, Section II.F.1.
Feedstream Analysis Plan, including: the parameters for
which each feedstream will be analyzed to ensure compliance; whether
the owner or operator will obtain the analyses by performing sampling
and analysis or by other methods; how the analysis will be used to
document compliance; the test methods used; the sampling method used;
and the frequency of testing. See discussion in Part Five, Section
II.F.2.
Other Continuous Monitoring Systems (CMS), including:
manufacturer's written specifications for installation, operation, and
calibration of a CMS; and technical specifications of CMS, such as
spans and percent error. See discussion in Part Five, Section II.F.3.
In addition, HWCs would be required to develop and keep in the
operating record a feedstream management plan that enables the source
to maintain compliance with CEM-monitored emission standards. Although
a facility using a CEM for compliance would not be required to comply
with feedrate limits, the owner and operator would be required to
develop a feedstream management plan (and include it in the operating
record) that will enable the source to know the feedrate in all
feedstreams of Hg (as well as other metals and chlorine if the source
elects to use a CEM for compliance monitoring) at all times to minimize
automatic waste feed cutoffs and exceedances of the emission standard.
Knowledge of Hg (and other metals and chlorine) concentration of
feedstreams can come from the waste generator, supplier, or other
information, and need not be obtained by sampling and analysis by the
burner. If the source experiences frequent AWFCOs or exceedances,
enforcement officials will determine if a feedstream management plan is
in place. If the plan is determined to be inadequate, the Director may
require that it be upgraded, taking into account whether a good faith
effort has been made to develop a plan, even if the plan is determined
to be inadequate.
Note that RCRA/HSWA already requires the facility owner to certify
no less than annually, that the facility has a waste minimization
program in place, and the certification must be maintained in the
facility's operating record. The facility owner is encouraged to
coordinate the development of the feedstream analysis plan and the
feedstream management plan with the facility's waste minimization
program. EPA published Interim Final ``Guidance to Hazardous Waste
Generators on the Elements of a Waste Minimization Program in Place,''
(1993) and the ``Pollution Prevention Facility Planning Guide'' (1993),
which provide information to facility owners on how to prepare analyses
of waste streams and options for reducing wastestreams using
alternative pollution prevention/waste minimization measures.
Information on these documents can be requested by calling the RCRA
hotline at 1-800-424-9346.
Many states provide free pollution prevention/waste minimization
technical assistance that may aid facilities in the development of
pollution prevention/waste minimization plans. At least 20 states have
requirements for certain facilities to prepare pollution prevention/
waste minimization plans. As noted elsewhere in today's rule,
facilities can get further information on available technical
assistance by contacting the National Pollution Prevention Roundtable
in Washington, D.C. at (202) 466-7272, or from Enviro$ense, an
electronic library of information on pollution prevention, technical
assistance, and environmental compliance, that can be accessed by
contacting a system operator at (703) 908-2007, via modem at (703) 908-
2092, or on the Internet at http://wastenot.inel.gov/enviro-sense.
2. Applicability of Sec. 63.10 Recordkeeping Requirements
The applicability of the existing recordkeeping requirements of
Sec. 63.10 would be as follows:
Paragraph (a) (Applicability and general information)
applies, except for (a)(2) that exempts sources that are operating
under a compliance extension. This is because sources that receive a
time extension to submit the initial notification of compliance would
not be subject to any of the propo
FR Doc. 96-7872 Revised Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors
sed standards. Further, sources that
receive an extension for a subsequent notification of compliance need
to comply with recordkeeping and reporting requirements to provide
compliance assurance given that they are burning hazardous waste during
the extension.
Paragraph (b) (General recordkeeping requirements)
applies, except for (b)(2) (iv)-(vi) that pertain to actions during
malfunctions, and (b)(3) regarding recordkeeping for applicability
determinations.
Paragraph (c) (Additional recordkeeping requirements for
sources with CMS) would apply, except for (c)(6)-(8), (c)(13), and
(c)(15) that pertain to malfunctions.
3. New Recordkeeping Requirements
The rule will also require recordkeeping requirements for the
following:
Comparable fuels. Sampling and analysis plan, including
revisions; and certifications from burners. Under Sec. 261.4 records
will be kept for as long as the generator manages a comparable fuel,
plus five years. See discussion in Part 6, Section I.E.6.
Comparable fuels. Results of sampling and analysis; and
records of off-site shipments for five years. See discussion in Part 6,
Section II.E.6.
Small quantity on-site burner exemption. Under
Sec. 266.108, records will be kept for 3 years. See discussion in Part
Six, Section II.D.
Regulation of residues. Under Sec. 266.112, records will
be kept until
[[Page 17451]]
closure. See discussion in Part Six, Section II.D.
D. Operator Certification
The Agency notes that section 129 of the Clean Air Act requires EPA
to develop and promulgate a model program for the training and
certification of municipal waste combustor (MWC) and medical waste
combustor (MWI) operators. Accordingly, the Agency has promulgated
operator certification and training requirements for MWCs and has
proposed requirements for MWIs. The Agency is today requesting comment
on whether similar requirements are necessary and appropriate for
operators of HWCs.
The MWC and MWI requirements call for (in part) full operator
certification of all shift supervisors and chief facility operators by
the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) or a State
certification program. In addition, a least one of the following
persons is required to be on duty at all times during which the unit is
combusting waste: a fully certified chief facility operator; a fully
certified shift supervisor; or a provisionally certified control room
operator.
We note that the ASME has recently established a Standard for the
Qualification and Certification of Hazardous Waste Incinerator
Operators (ASME QHO-1-1994, January 31, 1995). We request comment on
whether: (1) operator certification requirements are necessary for
HWCs; and (2) the ASME standard, or an equivalent State certification
program) is appropriate and sufficient
The ASME standard has been developed specifically for hazardous
waste incinerators. We are not aware of an equivalent standard for
operators of cement kilns and lightweight aggregate kilns that burn
hazardous waste. We note, however, that the Cement Kiln Recycling
Coalition has stated that it is committed to the development of an
operating training and certification program for its member
facilities.182 We invite comment and information from owners and
operators of waste-burning kilns regarding the need for a certification
standard and the status of development of a standard for such
combustors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\182\ Letter from Craig Campbell, CKRC, to Ronald Bastian,
Chairman, ASME QHO, dated January 5, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Permit Requirements
The rulemaking approach in today's proposal, to promulgate final
standards under joint RCRA/CAA authority, raises some challenging
implementation questions. In this section, permitting strategies are
discussed. EPA requests comment on how these strategies can be further
simplified while retaining basic environmental protection goals.
A. Coordination of RCRA and CAA Permitting Processes
The rulemaking approach chosen for today's proposal is to
promulgate the final standards for hazardous waste combustors under
joint RCRA/CAA authority. However, the standards will only appear under
40 CFR Part 63 (Clean Air Act section). The RCRA regulations in 40 CFR
Parts 264 and 266 will make reference to these Part 63 standards,
thereby incorporating them as RCRA standards as well. Thus, legally,
the new standards will be part of both the RCRA and CAA regulations and
both regulatory programs (RCRA & CAA) will have an obligation to
address these standards in permits issued under their authority.
Although the Agency believes that a single permit would be ideal to
implement these two programs, today's proposed approach does not always
eliminate the need for two separate permits. However, it does provide a
variety of options for State implementation. By using both the CAA and
RCRA authorities, today's approach provides maximum flexibility for
permitting authorities at the Regional, State, and/or local levels to
coordinate the issuance of permits and enforcement activities in the
way which most effectively addresses their particular situation.
Currently, combustion facilities are required to obtain two
permits; a RCRA permit and a CAA permit. Although it is EPA's long term
goal is to have one permit that would address both RCRA and CAA
requirements, it is difficult because (1) different pieces of the rule
rely on different authorities, and (2) significant coordination is
needed between Regional, State, and local authorities. After careful
consideration, EPA's goal in today's proposal is to coordinate as much
as possible between the two permitting programs to avoid duplication of
effort, inconsistent requirements, and redundant procedures.
EPA explored the possibility of requiring combustion facilities to
have only one EPA permit issued under either RCRA authority or CAA
authority. Promulgating these standards in the CAA regulations and
requiring only a CAA permit looked promising because RCRA allows EPA to
defer RCRA regulation to other authorities administered by EPA, if RCRA
core values are covered by the other federal requirements (RCRA Section
1006(b)(1)), in this case, the CAA. However, EPA believes that several
RCRA core requirements (e.g., corrective action, omnibus conditions,
DRE, etc.) cannot be addressed in a CAA permit, since the CAA does not
provide the legal authority to address them.
Promulgating these requirements under RCRA authority and issuing
only a RCRA permit is not possible because the CAA does not allow
permits for major sources to be waived. As previously discussed, all
facilities covered by this rulemaking will be considered major sources.
Also, CAA specific concerns (e.g., acid rain, criteria pollutants,
etc.) would not be addressed in a RCRA permit.
EPA considered placing the revised air emission standards in the
CAA regulations and including a RCRA permit-by-rule provision that
would defer to the CAA permit. Under this option, the CAA regulations
would contain the air emission requirements and the CAA permit would
contain the emission standards. In addition, a separate RCRA permit
would address RCRA-specific concerns (e.g., corrective action, omnibus
conditions, DRE, storage, etc.). This approach would avoid duplicating
air emission requirements in both permits. EPA is not proposing
regulatory language that would require this approach because there is
concern that it might limit the permitting flexibility of the
implementing agencies by specifying which program would be required to
address air emissions. Some states have expressed concerns about this
approach. Many states--for example, those that regulate air emission
standards under their hazardous waste program--may find it difficult to
implement this option; also, some states were concerned about the
ability of local permitting programs being solely responsible for the
air emissions permitting for these facilities. On the other hand, the
flexibility EPA is suggesting in today's proposal would not preclude
states from using this permitting approach.
More broadly, EPA has not specified any one permitting approach in
today's proposal. The flexibility the Agency is proposing would allow
states to decide which permitting approach to take. The important
things are that all substantive requirements are met and that a timely
and full opportunity for public involvement is provided during the
permitting process.
EPA has identified a range of possible permitting scenarios under
today's proposed approach. Some examples of
[[Page 17452]]
coordinated efforts between the RCRA and CAA programs include: (1)
issuing a single permit using both (or either) RCRA and CAA authority,
and (2) issuing two separate permits with close coordination between
the two programs.
In the first example, the two permitting programs would work
together to issue one permit that meets all the requirements of both
programs. This joint permit would include CAA-specific items (e.g.,
acid rain, criteria pollutants, etc.), RCRA-specific items (e.g.,
corrective action, omnibus conditions, DRE, etc.), and items common to
both programs (e.g., air emission standards, etc.). The permit would be
issued under joint authority and signed by the Director(s) of both
programs. This scenario is likely to be most appropriate where a State
has authority for both programs and the two programs have experience
working together. This approach could also be implemented by using the
CAA in combination with the RCRA permit-by-rule provision as discussed
above.
In the second example, the two permitting programs (one responsible
for RCRA, and one responsible for CAA) would coordinate their
permitting efforts. Each program would issue a permit. The requirements
common to both programs (e.g., stack emission standards, etc.) would be
included in one permit and the other permit would incorporate the
common requirements by reference. This approach would avoid duplicative
and conflicting requirements. In this example, each permit would go
through the applicable procedures for issuance. To coordinate permit
issuance, all public participation requirements (notices, comments,
hearings, etc.) could be combined. Under this approach permits would be
subject to applicable appeal procedures and enforcement provisions
under each program; however, EPA would not expect to enforce under both
permits. The appropriate enforcement response will be determined on a
case-by-case basis. We invite comment on this point in particular.
EPA will work with the States to identify issues relating to
streamlining the permitting programs and to develop any needed guidance
materials or model processes. Additionally, EPA will continue to pursue
a mechanism to issue one permit that would address both RCRA and CAA
requirements.
An Agency-wide initiative led by the Permits Improvement Team (PIT)
has recommended ways to improve permitting activities for all
environmental programs. Under this initiative EPA continues to seek the
best ways to permit facilities throughout its various media programs.
The approach in today's proposal is consistent with the current
direction of the PIT, which suggests avoiding duplication of effort by
incorporating the air emission standards into one permitting program.
EPA is committed to harmonizing these two permitting processes as much
as possible for the implementation of today's proposal.
B. Permit Application Requirements
EPA reviewed information required for permit applications under
both the CAA (Sec. 70.5) and RCRA (Part 270) to identify any
duplication that could be eliminated and to determine whether any CAA
or RCRA permit application requirements for hazardous waste combustors
could be combined. Historically, determinations for permit approval for
facilities regulated under the CAA generally focused solely on the
efficiency of the air pollution control device (APCD). Conversely, the
basis for permit approval under RCRA has traditionally been more
specific and related to details of the combustion unit and process (for
example, design characteristics of the unit, variability of the waste
burned, information on the type of waste to determine the effect it may
have on the quality of the operation of the unit over time, etc.).
Specific information requirements are listed in Secs. 270.15-270.26
(see specific technical information requirements in Sec. 270.19 for
incinerators and Sec. 270.22 for BIFs). For these reasons, EPA has
concluded that the current Part B information requirements and the
information requirements in the CAA regulations are not duplicative and
is proposing that both be retained under the existing regulations to
assure that all RCRA and CAA concerns are addressed.
Although some of the general information required under
Sec. 270.13, Contents of Part A of the RCRA permit application, is also
requested in Sec. 70.5 of the CAA permit application requirements, EPA
believes that because this information is so minimal, it would not be a
burden for the applicant to duplicate it on two separate applications.
Section 270.13 requires further information under the Part A, such as a
scale drawing of the facility showing the location of all past,
present, and future TSD areas, specifications of the hazardous waste
listed or designated under 40 CFR Part 261 to be handled at the
facility and a list of all permits or construction approvals received
or applied for under other programs, to list a few. In addition,
standards relating to the overall operation of the facility are listed
under Part B (Sec. 270.14). These standards include, but are not
limited to, chemical and physical analyses of the hazardous waste and
hazardous debris to be handled at the facility, description of the
security procedures, contingency plans, closure and post-closure plans
(including cost estimates) and a description of the continuing training
programs. Such standards are not required in the application for a CAA
permit. EPA has therefore concluded that it would be reasonable to keep
the application requirements where they now exist and cross-reference
them where appropriate.
C. Clarifications on Definitions and Permit Process Issues
Because of the incorporation of the technical standards into both
the RCRA and CAA regulations, as described previously, both RCRA and
CAA permitting procedures are applicable. For issues such as the
meaning of the term ``construction'', there could be confusion since
the definitions and interpretations under one Act differ from those
under the other. Our intent is not to reconcile these issues on a
national basis but to continue to let both apply. As in the past,
sources regulated under both Acts will need to coordinate with both
RCRA and CAA permitting authorities to see how these procedures apply
to them. We note in passing that this approach means that the most
restrictive limitations or processes will generally govern.
The Agency requests comment on whether these issues should be
addressed at the national level. EPA's current preference is not to do
so, but to leave flexibility for the states and EPA Regions to address
these issues.
1. Prior Approval
RCRA and CAA are similar in that both require EPA approval before
construction or reconstruction of a facility (generally) (Sections
61.07, 63.5, 270.10(f)). Both programs use hypothetical emissions data
to make the construction approval decision. If a facility is existing
before the effective date of the final regulation, both RCRA and CAA
require notification of operation but do not require approval of the
construction that has already occurred (Sections 60.7,
266.103(a)(1)(ii)). (Modification of a permitted facility also requires
prior approval.)
2. 50 Percent Benchmark
RCRA and CAA both classify a modification of a facility that costs
more than 50 percent of the replacement cost of the facility as
``reconstruction''. However, the significance of this term is different
under the two statutes. Under
[[Page 17453]]
RCRA, the issue of reconstruction is relevant to interim status
facilities. An interim status facility planning modifications which
constitute reconstruction must receive a RCRA permit prior to
construction of the modifications and operation (Sec. 270.72(b)). Under
the CAA, reconstruction subjects the facility to standards applicable
to new facilities (Secs. 60.15, 60.488, and 63.5).
3. Facility Definition
RCRA and CAA define ``facility'' differently. This definition has
bearing in determining the value of the facility with respect to the 50
percent rule on modifications just discussed. CAA defines facility as
the entire industrial process at the site (profit making productive
process and pollution control devices), while RCRA for purposes of
reconstruction refers to a ``comparable entirely new hazardous waste
facility'' (Section 270.72) excluding other industrial processes at the
site from consideration in the cost of the existing facility. For a
site where the only activities are RCRA hazardous waste activities, the
two definitions are identical. However, sites with non-RCRA industrial
activities will have differing cost figures for each rule. Therefore,
the two programs have differing determinations of how much
reconstruction can occur before the 50 percent benchmark is exceeded.
However, EPA believes this difference should not constitute a problem,
since the reconstruction determination has different applications under
each Act. The RCRA definition should be used for the RCRA application
to changes during interim status, and the CAA definition should be used
when determining applicability of new versus existing MACT standards.
4. No New Eligibility for Interim Status
This joint CAA/RCRA proposed rulemaking revises emission standards
for incinerators and BIFs and hence amends the original incinerator and
industrial furnace rules that were finalized in 1981 and 1991,
respectively. Because these rules established the date on which
incinerators and BIFs were first subject to a permit requirement, the
effective dates of those rules created the only opportunity for interim
status eligibility. Sec. 270.10(e)(1)(A)(ii). The interim status
windows that occurred in 1981 and 1991 thus will not and legally cannot
be modified by this rule. Of course, facilities currently burning
wastes that become newly listed under other, future rules would still
be able under existing law to qualify for interim status
(Sec. 270.42(g)).
To avoid the possibility that readers of Part 63 might be unaware
of their obligations under RCRA, EPA has inserted a note into Section
written Section 63.1206 to alert them to this point. This note states:
``an owner or operator wishing to commence construction of a HWI or
hazardous waste-burning equipment for a cement kiln or lightweight
aggregate kiln must first obtain some type of RCRA authorization,
whether it be a RCRA permit, a modification to an existing RCRA permit,
or a change under already existing interim status. Please see 40 CFR
Part 270.''
5. What Constitutes Construction Requiring Approval
RCRA and CAA both have restrictions requiring approval prior to
construction. The definition of construction under the RCRA regulations
and associated interpretations differ from the CAA approach to defining
construction (case-specific call, see Sections 60.5, 61.06) Facilities
need to comply with both and should be consulting with applicable
permitting authorities to assure appropriate site-specific
interpretations. We believe the RCRA construction definition is
generally broader (more restrictive) and thus will govern in most
cases. The Agency believes retaining the two differing definitions will
not cause problems since they are already being applied concurrently.
Also, the Agency feels that creating a third construction definition
for this small subset of the RCRA and CAA facilities would create more
confusion than it would eliminate.
D. Pollution Prevention/Waste Minimization Options
EPA believes pollution prevention/waste minimization measures may
provide facilities additional flexibility in meeting MACT standards.
Pollution prevention/waste minimization measures have been used by many
companies to modify processes and install new or improved technologies
which reduce or eliminate the volume and/or toxicity of hazardous
wastes generation that would otherwise enter combustion unit
feedstreams, or be treated or disposed of in some other fashion. EPA is
soliciting comment on two pollution prevention/waste minimization
options for reducing or eliminating hazardous constituents that enter
on-site as well as commercial combustor feedstreams, and that can be
considered in the definitions of changes in facility operating
parameters and/or new or improved control technologies for meeting MACT
standards.
The first option would require all facilities to provide adequate
information on alternative pollution prevention/waste minimization
measures that reduce hazardous constituents entering the feedstream,
particularly the most persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic
constituents, in all permit applications. EPA believes this approach is
consistent with the national policies of the Pollution Prevention Act
of 1990, CAA, RCRA, and over 20 states who encourage or require
pollution prevention plans. Facilities are encouraged to reference
existing EPA documents, such as the Interim Final ``Guidance to
Hazardous Waste Generators on the Elements of a Waste Minimization
Program in Place,'' (May 1993), which provides a guide for developing
pollution prevention/waste minimization programs. Facilities are also
encouraged to reference EPA's ``Pollution Prevention Facility Planning
Guide'' (May 1992), ``An Introduction to Environmental Accounting As A
Business Management Tool'' (June 1995), and ``Setting Priorities for
Minimization of Combusted Hazardous Waste'' (November 1995), and to
contact the National Pollution Prevention Roundtable, and state
pollution prevention technical assistance programs for additional
pollution prevention resources. These documents were published as aides
to facility owners in preparing analyses of pollution prevention/waste
minimization measures. EPA believes this approach provides maximum
flexibility to facilities for identifying controls through the
application of processes, or systems (including pollution prevention/
waste minimization measures) for reducing emissions.\183\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\183\ Under the Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(2), MACT standards
include, among other things, process changes, substitution of
materials or other modifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA believes in many cases, facilities may already be required or
encouraged to prepare this information in the more than 20 States which
have pollution prevention facility planning requirements already in
place. EPA believes this approach will promote consistency in States
which are requiring facilities to develop pollution prevention/waste
minimization plans as a basis for developing multi-media permits. This
approach will enhance, without duplicating, the requirements in this
proposal for facilities to prepare a feedstream analysis plan and a
feedstream management plan. In cases where this information has been
already developed by the facility in accord with State requirements
within 18 months prior to the date of application, no
[[Page 17454]]
additional pollution prevention/waste minimization information will be
required as part of the permit application.
In the second option, EPA proposes to give EPA Regions and States
discretion to make case by case determinations regarding whether a
facility must provide adequate information for reducing measures,
including pollution prevention/waste minimization measures, that will
minimize hazardous constituents entering the feedstream. EPA believes
this determination should be made based on the facility's ability to
verify that they have a waste minimization program in place as required
under RCRA, the extent to which the facility has reported pollution
prevention information in annual Toxic Release Inventory reports (for
facilities subject to TRI reporting requirements), and the extent to
which information has already been prepared under existing state
pollution prevention planning requirements, or in conjunction with
State or local pollution prevention technical assistance programs.
EPA believes this option provides the regulated community and
States broad flexibility to integrate existing pollution prevention/
waste minimization programs into the objectives of this rulemaking.
States, universities and local governments operate over 200 technical
assistance programs that work cooperatively with companies to identify
waste minimization options to reduce waste generation and management.
Some states combine this approach with compliance assistance, and a few
have in place enforceable waste minimization requirements ranging from
mandatory waste minimization plans to incorporating waste minimization
opportunities into permitting, inspection and/or enforcement
activities. As noted elsewhere, facilities can contact the National
Pollution Prevention Roundtable in Washington, D.C. at (202) 466-7272
for further information on technical assistance opportunities, or
Enviro$ense, an electronic library of information on pollution
prevention, technical assistance, and environmental compliance.
Enviro$ense can be accessed by contacting a system operator at (703)
908-2007, via modem at (703) 908-2092, or on the Internet at http://
wastenot.inel.gov/enviro-sense.
E. Permit Modifications Necessary To Come Into Compliance With MACT
Standards
This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would require facilities to come
into compliance with a number of new MACT emission standards within
three years following final promulgation of this rule. Some facilities
would need to perform facility modifications to come into compliance
with the MACT standards through changing operating parameters or adding
new or improved control technology(ies) to reduce emissions. For
example, incinerators that currently operate above the MACT PM
emissions standards would potentially need to add or modify
electrostatic precipitators (ESP) or baghouses to reduce emissions.
Incinerators with a need to reduce dioxin emissions may need to look
into establishing better controls on temperature or the use of carbon
injection. LWAKs with potential exceedances in acid gas emissions may
need to add control technology such as wet scrubbers. These facility
changes may need to be added to a facility's existing RCRA permit
through a permit modification. The facility, in this case, would need
to apply for and receive approval for a permit modification (unless it
is a class 1 modification) before commencing with its proposed
change(s).
This rule is being proposed under both RCRA and the Clean Air Act
Amendments. With regard to coming into compliance with these proposed
standards, the Clean Air Act creates a mandatory compliance deadline of
three years for facilities subject to these regulations (with a one
year allowance for an extension granted on a case-by-case basis). The
MACT standards are self-implementing in that they take effect in the
absence of a CAA permit. As mentioned earlier in this notice, the
Agency is also taking comment on whether it would be appropriate to
move up the compliance date of this rulemaking from the proposed three
year timeframe following promulgation to a timeframe closer to many
RCRA-based regulations, that of six months to a year. The Agency is
taking comment, as well, on any other timeframes which can be
considered both technically and legally feasible.
However, these sources also hold RCRA permits (or operate under
interim status) which likely would have to be modified as a result of
efforts to comply with the MACT emission standards. With respect to
facilities with RCRA permits, EPA is concerned that these facilities
could submit a high number of Class 2 or Class 3 permit modification
requests within the three year window before MACT compliance begins.
This large influx could potentially lead to difficulties in timely
processing of modification requests by EPA or State agencies. As a
result, facilities potentially would not have conformed their RCRA
permits to reflect the changes needed to meet the MACT standards. The
Agency anticipates that many of the permit modification requests will
contain either identical or similar proposed changes, given the
similarities in incinerator, cement kiln, and LWAK design and
operation. Given the large number and the potential for duplication of
modification requests, and the desire to achieve timely emissions
reductions, the Agency is considering options that will streamline the
RCRA permit modification process to ensure that necessary modifications
are made expeditiously, particularly in light of the fact that these
standards could potentially become effective in a shorter period of
time, depending on comments received from the public on this proposed
rulemaking.
In today's proposal, we are seeking comment on five main options
(referred to as modification options 1-5) which propose various
mechanisms to expeditiously authorize changes made to comply with this
rule. Also, the Agency is seeking comment on three approaches to
address whether EPA or a state would process necessary permit
modifications (referred to as implementation approaches 1-3) where a
state is authorized to issue RCRA incineration and BIF permits but is
not authorized to implement the new combustion rule. This situation
should arise only where a state does not adopt the necessary provisions
of the new rule within the time required by 40 CFR Part 271.21. EPA
strongly urges states to adopt this rule, once finalized, expeditiously
in order to streamline the processing of necessary modifications.
This notice seeks comment on which modification option or
combination of modification options would be the most viable. The
Agency is also taking comment on any combination of the above
implementation approaches and options if an intermediate option and
implementation approach combination seems more appropriate. Under the
current RCRA permit modification scheme, a permitted facility would
refer to Appendix I of 40 CFR 270.42 to determine if its proposed
modification is classified in the modifications table. A modification
may rank as Class 1, 2, or 3 (see 53 FR 37912 (Sept. 28, 1988)). A
higher modification class signifies an increased significance of the
facility change which is accompanied with a commensurate increase in
the level of public participation. Facilities can proceed with most
Class 1 changes without notifying the Agency, though some Class 1
modifications require prior Agency approval. Owners and operators must,
in all cases, notify the public and
[[Page 17455]]
the authorized Agency once they have made a Class 1 modification. For
cause, the Agency may reject any Class 1 modification.
Class 2 modifications provide for considerably more participation
by both the facility and the public including an informational meeting
between the owner and the public regarding the owner's request prior to
the Agency decision. Class 3 modifications substantially alter the
facility or its operations. As a result, they require the most Agency
review and are subject to more public participation requirements than a
Class 1 or 2 modification, including the full part 124 procedures for
processing draft permit decisions.
1. Proposed Options Regarding Modifications
To provide a procedural framework that allows these facilities to
make the necessary changes in RCRA permits, the Agency proposes to
amend the interim status and permit modification requirements.
a. Modifications During Interim Status. Interim status facilities
can make certain facility alterations with fewer procedural hurdles
than apply to permitted facilities. However, many changes do require
Agency approval. In addition, interim status facilities must adhere to
all reconstruction requirements found in 40 CFR Part 270.72 and must
revise their Part A permit applications. To ensure that facilities
making changes to come into compliance with today's proposed MACT
standards are not constrained by the reconstruction limits under
Sec. 270.72, the Agency is proposing to add a new sub-section as (b)(8)
that would exempt those facilities from the reconstruction limitation.
The Agency does not expect that the costs to come into compliance would
exceed the 50 percent limit for reconstruction--defined as 50 percent
of the cost of a new, comparable hazardous waste management facility.
However, since the limit is cumulative for all changes at the interim
status facility, there could be cases where this provision could pose
problems (e.g., where the facility had invested in a number of prior
changes).
b. Permit Modifications. For permitted facilities, EPA's goal is to
implement a procedural system which is as streamlined as possible, but
still allows for a satisfactory level of public input. The Agency
believes that a streamlined process can result in earlier achievement
of the more stringent MACT requirements by facilities, leading to more
environmentally protective operations. The approach is consistent with
general efforts within the Agency to improve environmental permits by
focusing on performance standards, rather than on a detailed review of
the technology requirements.
The Agency's first, most streamlined option is that the facility
would be given overall self-implementing authority (as it has under the
CAA) to perform all necessary facility modifications to comply with the
new standards without having to obtain a permit modification from
either the state or the Agency. This option provides the facility with
the greatest latitude and authority since it would allow the facility
the opportunity to make changes to its waste management process and to
operate under conditions which are different than those which are
specified in either the HSWA or base portion of its existing RCRA
permit. Under this option, there would be no immediate need for the
facility to request a permit modification to incorporate these
operating changes into the existing permit. These changes, provided
they enable the facility to meet the new CAA standards, would be
incorporated into the permit at some later date (e.g. during the permit
renewal process). It should be noted that this option does not provide
for public participation at the time the facility is altering its
process to comply with the new standards. Public involvement would
instead occur as part of a later permit action, such as permit
reissuance. It would also not provide for State or Federal agency
oversight prior to design or operating changes. This option is based on
the theory that, so long as the facility is meeting the applicable
performance standards, there may be no need to review how it comes into
compliance.
The Agency's second modification option would consider all
modification requests due to the MACT standards to be Class 1
modifications requiring no prior approval. The basis for this option
would be to ensure that facilities are capable of meeting the new
standards within the three year compliance window because like Option
1, it relieves the facility of possible delays associated with
obtaining prior approval for modifications needed to come into
compliance. It also puts substantial compliance responsibility on the
facility to make the correct changes within the allotted time.
The Agency's third option, for which rule language has been
proposed, would revise Appendix I of 40 CFR 270.42 to designate as
Class 1 modifications with prior Agency approval all initial requests
for permit modifications made by facilities in order to comply with
today's MACT standards. Appendix I of 40 CFR 270.42 would be revised to
reflect this classification by adding item L(9) entitled ``Initial
Technology Changes Needed to Meet MACT Standards under 40 CFR Part 63
(National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From
Hazardous Waste Combustors)''. The prior approval under this option
would provide for an Agency review of the proposed physical and
operational changes to the facility before they are implemented in
order to ensure that these changes do not lead to other undesirable
consequences.
Experience suggests that steps intended to reduce emissions may
not, in all cases, lead to enhanced environmental protection. On the
other hand, it could be argued that it should be the responsibility of
the facility, not the permitting Agency, to assure that the regulated
unit meets the required performance standards. EPA requests comment on
the need for Agency oversight.
The abbreviated procedures in options 1 through 3 would be limited
to facilities making initial changes to existing permits in order to
come into compliance with Sec. 112 standards. The procedures would not
apply to general retrofitting changes outside the framework of meeting
MACT related technology changes or to subsequent changes relating to
maintaining compliance with Sec. 112 standards. The Agency is aware
that the criteria for deciding on the classification of a modification
request deviate from past decision making criteria used to
differentiate among modification classifications in Appendix I of Part
270. Many of the changes facilities might make to conform to the new
standards would likely be Class 2 or 3 modifications under the current
scheme. However, the Agency believes that a streamlined approach may be
justified because EPA did not consider newer, more stringent standards
becoming effective under shorter timeframes when it developed the
current permit modification table. Also, these changes are mandated
under a different regulatory scheme for which the modification tables
were not designed to account. This streamlining of the modifications
process has been addressed in the past by the Agency to ensure that
changes made at facilities needed to meet LDR levels for newly listed
or newly identified hazardous waste could be met (see 54 FR 9596, March
7, 1989). These previous modifications needed to meet the LDR levels
for newly identified wastes were redesignated as Class 1 modifications.
These MACT standards impose more stringent operating standards than
[[Page 17456]]
current requirements; the Agency anticipates that the public will be
receptive to these improvements and upgrades. Also, the Agency would
still have control over the modification process under option 3 since
it would still be reviewing the details of proposed new equipment or
fixes to existing equipment.
The Agency's fourth modification option, like modification option
3, would consider all initial modification requests to existing permits
to be Class 1 modifications requiring prior approval by the Director,
but would give the Director the authority to elevate this modification
to a Class 2 modification if the Director believes that additional
public participation is warranted. This option to elevate a Class 1
modification requiring prior approval to a Class 2 modification would
apply only to facilities requesting modifications to comply with
today's proposed MACT standards. It would not apply to other class 1
modifications.
The fifth modification option represents a ``no change'' option.
Most modifications requested would likely be handled as Class 2 or 3
modifications given the types of facility changes we expect in response
to the MACT standards. Under this option, facilities would be urged to
submit their permit modification requests as soon as possible in order
to maximize the chances of completing the modification procedures,
including administrative appeals, prior to the compliance deadline. EPA
believes this alternative could thwart the Agency's chief objective of
minimizing RCRA/CAA interface problems, and would be difficult to
implement within the CAA compliance deadlines. Therefore, EPA does not
favor this alternative.
Finally, the Agency realizes that many states have not yet adopted
the modification table in Appendix I of 40 CFR 270.42. It hopes that
states will, at a minimum, adopt the modification scheme that is
promulgated in the final rule to ensure expeditious implementation of
the new MACT standards. Alternatively, if option 2 or 3 is selected in
the final rule, States that rely on a two-tiered system of major and
minor modifications could classify these changes as ``minor
modifications''.
In light of these proposed options for facilities attempting to
comply with the MACT standards proposed in this notice, the Agency is,
under a separate process, investigating ways to streamline the entire
RCRA permit modification and renewal process for all industry
categories to further reduce redundancies and inefficiencies in the
process, while making sure that the public has adequate notice and
involvement in the process. The Agency is in the early stages of this
effort and wishes to solicit comment from the public on ways to achieve
a more effective and efficient overall RCRA permit modification and
renewal system.
2. Proposed Approaches To Address Potential Implementation Conflict
As mentioned earlier, the Agency is also taking comment on three
companion approaches to deal with possible permit implementation
conflicts which may occur in the event that a state does not become
authorized to carry out the provisions of this rulemaking in time to
handle necessary modifications. These approaches are relevant to
modification options 2 through 5; if option 1 is chosen, no permit
modification will be necessary, so the issues discussed in this section
would not arise. It is important to remember that the standards in this
rule would take effect automatically under the CAA. Therefore, the
facility would be obligated under that statute to make the necessary
changes to achieve compliance. The issue discussed herein relates to
the respective roles of EPA and authorized states in processing RCRA
permit modification requests.
The Agency's first approach provides a narrow interpretation of the
scope of this rulemaking. Under this approach, only the numerical
standards imposed by this rulemaking would be viewed as within the
scope of this rule, and so, within the scope of HSWA. The manner in
which facility changes are performed would be interpreted to be beyond
the scope of the rule. Therefore, for those facilities needing a RCRA
permit modification to reflect changes in permit conditions, the
facility would be required to request the modification through the
agency(ies) that implement the portion(s) of the permit to be modified.
Under the Agency's second approach, both the proposed MACT
standards as well as the modification(s) needed to come into compliance
with these standards would be interpreted to fall within the scope of
today's HSWA rulemaking. Accordingly, the Agency would make the
modifications under HSWA for facilities in states that have not yet
become authorized for this rule. Although this approach would
facilitate changes, the Agency does recognize that it could potentially
create a possibility for conflict between state and federal permit
portions. In areas where these modifications would be inconsistent with
currently existing state-issued portions of the facility's permit, the
State would need to perform parallel modification procedures to correct
the inconsistencies. In the event that a State could not do this (e.g.
there is no ``cause for modification'' under the State regulations to
cover the type of change that would be necessary), EPA would attempt to
secure agreement from the state that the new HSWA conditions are more
stringent than any inconsistent state permit conditions and take
precedence over such conditions. The state might memorialize this
agreement through memorandum or letter to the facility or to the
rulemaking record. This approach might require an extensive amount of
communication between the State and the Agency, e.g. to come to
agreement that the HSWA change is an improvement over any conflicting
conditions in the state portion of the permit.
Under the Agency's third approach, in states that have not yet
become authorized under RCRA for this rule, the Agency would not only
modify the permit by adding conditions necessary for facilities to come
into compliance with these MACT standards, but would also delete or
modify conditions of the state portion of a permit if conflicts exist
between the state- administered base program portion of a permit and
the federally-administered HSWA portion. This approach is similar to
the second approach, except that all modifications to any portion of a
RCRA permit would be viewed as an integral part of EPA's role in
carrying out the new HSWA requirements.
VII. State Authorization
A. Authority for Today's Rule
Today's rule is being proposed under the joint authority of the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) and RCRA (42 U.S.C. 6924(o) and
6924(q)). The proposed approach would apply the new standards to both
regulatory programs. Although the proposed standards would be located
in 40 CFR Part 63, which addresses Clean Air Act requirements, the RCRA
regulations in 40 CFR Parts 264 and 266 would incorporate these
standards by reference. States may also promulgate these standards
under their CAA program, and then incorporate them by reference into
their RCRA regulations. Alternatively, States may promulgate these
standards in both the RCRA and CAA sections of their State code for
several reasons. Also, States without an approved CAA Title V permit
program may promulgate these standards under their RCRA program only.
Note however, that EPA strongly encourages States to adopt and apply
for
[[Page 17457]]
authorization or delegation under both regulatory programs for today's
proposed standards when finalized. (In the implementation of RCRA and
the CAA by States, there is no functional distinction between the
authorization of a State to implement RCRA in lieu of EPA, and the
delegation to a State to administer the CAA. See the discussion below.)
EPA believes that State implementation of this rule will facilitate the
coordination between the RCRA and CAA regulatory programs.
B. Program Delegation Under the Clean Air Act
Section 112(l) of the Clean Air Act allows EPA to approve State
rules or programs for the implementation and enforcement of emission
standards and other requirements for air pollutants subject to section
112. Under this authority, EPA has developed delegation procedures and
requirements located at 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart E, for NESHAPS under
Title III of the CAA (See 57 FR 32250, July 21, 1992). Related
requirements for permit programs under Title V are located at 40 CFR
Part 70 (See 58 FR 62262, November 26, 1993).
Under 40 CFR 70.4(a) and Sec. 502(d) of the CAA, States were
required to submit to EPA a proposed Part 70 (Title V) permitting
program by November 15, 1993. If a State CAA Title V program does not
receive EPA approval by November 15, 1995, the Title V program must be
implemented by EPA for that State.
Submission of rules or programs by States under 40 CFR Part 63 is
voluntary. Once a State receives approval from EPA for a standard under
section 112(l) of the CAA, the State is delegated the authority to
implement and enforce the approved State rules or programs in lieu of
the otherwise applicable federal rules (the approved State standard
would be federally enforceable). States may also apply for a partial
Title III program, such that the State is not required to adopt all
rules promulgated in 40 CFR Part 63. EPA will administer any rules
federally promulgated under section 112 of the CAA that have not been
delegated to the State.
The section 112(l) rule for delegation under Title III (see 58 FR
62262, November 26, 1993), is currently the subject of litigation. (See
Louisiana Environmental Network v. Environmental Protection Agency, No.
94-1042 (D.C. Cir., filed January 21, 1994).) The outcome of this case
could severely limit the ability of States to receive delegation for
air toxics standards that differ from the comparable federal standards.
A decision is expected in early 1996.
C. RCRA State Authorization
1. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States
Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize qualified States to
administer and enforce the RCRA program within the State. Following
authorization, EPA retains enforcement authority under sections 3008,
3013, and 7003 of RCRA, although authorized States have primary
enforcement responsibility. The standards and requirements for
authorization are found in 40 CFR Part 271.
Prior to HSWA, a State with final authorization administered its
hazardous waste program in lieu of EPA administering the Federal
program in that State. The Federal requirements no longer applied in
the authorized State, and EPA could not issue permits for any
facilities that the State was authorized to permit. When new, more
stringent Federal requirements were promulgated or enacted, the State
was obliged to enact equivalent authority within specified time frames.
New Federal requirements did not take effect in an authorized State
until the State adopted the requirements as State law.
In contrast, under RCRA section 3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), new
requirements and prohibitions imposed by HSWA take effect in authorized
States at the same time that they take effect in unauthorized States.
EPA is directed to carry out these requirements and prohibitions in
authorized States, including the issuance of permits, until the State
is granted authorization to do so.
Today's rule is being proposed pursuant to sections 3004(o) and
3004(q), of RCRA (42 U.S.C. 6924(o) and 6924(q)), which are HSWA
provisions. The rule would be added to Table 1 in 40 CFR 271.1(j),
which identifies the Federal program requirements that are promulgated
pursuant to HSWA. States may apply for final authorization for the HSWA
provisions in Table 1, as discussed in the following section of this
preamble.
2. Effect on State Authorization
Today's proposed rule is considered to be more stringent than the
existing standards in 40 CFR Parts 264 and 266. Thus, because today's
revised technical standards for hazardous waste combustors are being
proposed under HSWA authority, when finalized, this rule would be
implemented by EPA in authorized States until their programs are
modified to adopt this rule and the modification is approved by EPA.
Note that these standards would also apply to all covered facilities
under CAA authority, regardless of whether a State has been delegated
the provisions of the final rule because these standards would be
largely self-implementing.
Because today's rule is proposed pursuant to HSWA, a State
submitting a program modification may apply to receive interim or final
authorization under RCRA section 3006(g)(2) or 3006(b), respectively,
on the basis of requirements that are substantially equivalent or
equivalent to EPA's. The procedures and schedule for State program
modifications for final authorization are described in 40 CFR 271.21.
It should be noted that all HSWA interim authorizations will expire
January 1, 2003. (See Sec. 271.24(c) and 57 FR 60132, December 18,
1992.) In addition, note that 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart E provides for
interim approvals under the CAA only in limited circumstances.
Section 271.21(e)(2) requires that States with final authorization
must modify their programs to reflect Federal program changes and to
subsequently submit the modification to EPA for approval. The deadline
by which the State would have to modify its program to adopt these
regulations is specified in section 271.21(e). This deadline can be
extended in certain cases (see section 271.21(e)(3)). Once EPA approves
the modification, the State requirements become Subtitle C RCRA
requirements.
States with authorized RCRA programs may already have requirements
similar to those in today's proposed rule. These State regulations have
not been assessed against the Federal regulations being proposed today
to determine whether they meet the tests for authorization. Thus, a
State is not authorized to implement these requirements in lieu of EPA
until the State program modifications are approved. Of course, states
with existing standards could continue to administer and enforce their
standards as a matter of State law pending authorization for revised
standards. In implementing the Federal program, EPA will work with
States under agreements to minimize duplication of efforts. In most
cases, EPA expects that it will be able to defer to the States in their
efforts to implement their programs rather than take separate actions
under Federal authority.
States that submit official applications for final RCRA
authorization less than 12 months after the effective date of these
regulations are not required to include standards equivalent to these
regulations in their application.
[[Page 17458]]
However, the State must modify its RCRA program by the deadline set
forth in Sec. 271.21(e). States that submit official applications for
final authorization 12 months after the effective date of these
regulations must include standards equivalent to these regulations in
their application. The requirements a State must meet when submitting
its final authorization application are set forth in 40 CFR 271.5.
3. Streamlined Authorization Under RCRA
Recently, EPA has initiated a series of rulemakings intended to
streamline and speed the State authorization of RCRA rules. On August
22, 1995, EPA proposed abbreviated authorization procedures for certain
routine Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) provisions as part of the
Phase IV LDR rule (see 60 FR 43654 and 43686). This proposal would
implement streamlined authorization procedures for certain minor and
routine rulemakings for those States which certify that they have
authority equivalent to and no less stringent than the federal rule.
EPA believes that the abbreviated authorization procedures proposed in
the August 22, 1995, proposal would be appropriate for RCRA Subtitle C
authorization for those States that are approved to implement this rule
pursuant to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart E, and are simply incorporating
this rule into their RCRA regulations. EPA requests comment regarding
the use of this proposed procedure for this authorization scenario.
Note however, that EPA is not proposing to use RCRA authorization as a
substitute for CAA section 112(l) approvals.
The primary reason that EPA is proposing to use an abbreviated
authorization procedure when States are approved to implement this rule
under the CAA, is that the delegation process and requirements in Part
63 are similar to authorization under 40 CFR 271.21. For example,
section 112(l)(1) of the CAA requires that a program submitted by a
State ``shall not include authority to set standards less stringent
than those promulgated by the Administrator.'' Further, section 116 of
the CAA precludes a State from adopting or enforcing less stringent
standards than those under section 112. See 40 CFR Secs. 63.12(a)(1),
271.1(h), and section 3009 of RCRA. States may also establish more
stringent requirements as long as they are not inconsistent with the
CAA. Further, section 112(l)(5)(A) of the CAA requires States to have
adequate authorities to ensure compliance, similar to the requirement
in section 3006(b) of RCRA. Thus, for EPA to approve a State rule or
program, the procedures and criteria in 40 CFR 63.91(b) must be met, as
well as any applicable requirements of Secs. 63.92 through 63.94. These
requirements are equivalent to those under RCRA. Therefore, using an
abbreviated RCRA authorization procedure would prevent States from
going through substantial authorization procedures under both the CAA
program and the RCRA program.
EPA is also committed to streamlining the authorization process for
States that would not be incorporating delegated CAA standards stemming
from the final rule. EPA believes that authorized States have
experience implementing sophisticated combustion regulatory programs
and would have the ability to effectively implement today's proposed
standards. Thus, EPA requests comment on whether all States that are
authorized for the incinerator regulations under 40 CFR Part 264 and
the Boiler and Industrial Furnace (BIF) regulations should use the
authorization procedure proposed on August 22, 1995. EPA is also
developing a second authorization procedure for those RCRA rules which
have more significant impacts on State hazardous waste programs that is
slightly more extensive than the procedure proposed on August 22, 1995.
This second procedure is also intended to significantly streamline the
authorization process, and will be described in detail in the upcoming
Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR) proposal for contaminated
media. EPA believes that this second procedure may be more appropriate
for today's proposal, given its significance and complexity. In the
upcoming HWIR-Media proposal, EPA will request comment whether this
procedure should be used for RCRA authorization in this case.
VIII. Definitions
Many of the terms used in today's proposal have been defined either
in the Clean Air Act or in existing Sec. 63.2. For terms that are not
already defined, we are proposing definitions in Sec. 63.1201. In
addition, we are proposing conforming definitions to the existing RCRA
regulations in Secs. 260.10 and 270.2.
A. Definitions Proposed in Sec. 63.1201
We are proposing definitions for the following terms in
Sec. 63.1201: Air Pollution Control System, Automatic Waste Feed Cutoff
System, Cement Kiln, Combustion Chamber, Compliance Date, Comprehensive
Performance Test, Confirmatory Performance Test, Continuous Monitor,
Dioxins and Furans, Feedstream, Flowrate, Fugitive Combustion
Emissions, Hazardous Waste, Hazardous Waste Combustor, Hazardous Waste
Incinerator, Initial Comprehensive Performance Test, Instantaneous
Monitoring, Lightweight Aggregate Kiln, Low Volatility Metals, New
Source, Notification of Compliance, One-Minute Average, Operating
Record, Reconstruction, Rolling Average, Run, Semivolatile Metals, and
TEQ.
We believe that the definitions of these terms is self-explanatory
as proposed.
B. Conforming Definitions Proposed in Secs. 260.10 and 270.2
To avoid confusion and ambiguity, we are proposing conforming
definitions in Secs. 260.10 and 270.2 for the following terms that
pertain to implementation of the current RCRA requirements and RCRA
requirements that would not be superseded by the proposed MACT
standards: RCRA operating permit, DRE performance standard, closure and
financial responsibility requirements, addition of permit conditions as
warranted on a site-specific basis to protect human health and the
environment.
Because these definitions pertain to existing RCRA requirements,
the effective date for the definitions would be six months after the
date of publication in the Federal Register.
C. Clarification of RCRA Definition of Industrial Furnace
Today's proposed rule applies to combustion units that are already
subject to regulation under RCRA. These devices are presently
classified as hazardous waste incinerators or hazardous waste-burning
industrial furnaces, depending on their mode of operation. As discussed
below, the distinctions between these classifications (i.e.,
incinerator and industrial furnace) are important in determining the
level for Clean Air Act technology-based standards and also in applying
a variety of RCRA regulatory provisions.
From the RCRA perspective, the distinction between incinerators and
industrial furnaces (and boilers, for that matter) is important, among
other things, for determining facility eligibility for interim status,
the regulatory regime for classification of combustion residue (i.e.,
for example, product or non-product), and eligibility for Bevill status
for combustion residue. EPA defines industrial furnaces as those
designated devices that are an integral part of a manufacturing process
and that use thermal treatment to recover materials or energy. 40 CFR
260.10.
[[Page 17459]]
Other criteria in the rule indicate what it means to be an ``integral
part of a manufacturing process.'' The RCRA rules thus set out
``aspects of industrial furnaces that distinguish them from hazardous
waste incinerators'', 48 FR 14472, 14483 (April 4, 1983); 50 FR 614,
626-27 (January 4, 1985). These include whether the device is designed
and used ``primarily to accomplish recovery of material products'', the
``use of the device to burn or reduce raw materials to make a material
product'', ``the use of the device to burn or reduce secondary
materials as effective substitutes for raw materials, in processes
using raw materials as principal feedstocks'', ``the use of the device
to burn or reduce secondary materials as ingredients in an industrial
process to make a material product'', and ``the use of the device in
common industrial practice to produce a material product. 40 CFR
260.10.
EPA interprets the regulatory definition of industrial furnace as
applying only to devices that are enumerated in the rule and that also
satisfy the narrative portion of the definition, that is, functions as
an integral part of a manufacturing process, taking into account the
narrative criteria in the rule. Thus, for example, if a device which is
otherwise a cement kiln is not used as an integral component of a
manufacturing process, it is not an industrial furnace. See 56 FR at
7140, 7141 (February 21, 1991) (Device-by-device application of
industrial furnace regulatory definition); 48 FR at 14485 (April 4,
1983) (same). A cement kiln used primarily to burn contaminated soil
from Times Beach so as to destroy dioxins thus is not an industrial
furnace because it would not be an integral component of a
manufacturing process but essentially a waste treatment unit. Among
other things, it would not be used ``primarily for recovery of material
products.'' 40 CFR 260.10(13)(I); See also Background Document for the
Regulatory Definition of Boiler, Incinerator, and Industrial Furnace
(October 1984), at page 6. Conversely, a cement kiln making cement from
raw materials but burning some hazardous waste for destruction as an
adjunct to its normal activities could be classified as an industrial
furnace.
Industrial furnaces burning hazardous wastes for any purpose--
energy recovery, material recovery, or destruction--are currently
subject to the rules for BIFs in Part 266 subpart H. 56 FR at 7138; 40
CFR 266.100. In this regard, the BIF rule changed the previous
regulatory regime whereby if a combustion device burned hazardous waste
for destruction, it was regulated as an incinerator no matter what the
proportion of burning for destruction to other activities. 40 CFR
264.340(a) and 265.340(a) as promulgated at 50 FR at 665-66 (January 4,
1985); 48 FR at 14484 and n. 15 (April 4, 1983). However, a device must
still satisfy the regulatory definition of industrial furnace, and thus
must in the first instance be an integral component of a manufacturing
process. This means, among other things, that enclosed combustion
devices that burn hazardous wastes for destruction may not be
industrial furnaces. See 1984 Background Document for Definition of
Boiler, Incinerator, and Industrial Furnace (cited above), page 6. This
is because hazardous waste destruction devices may not be designing and
using the device primarily to accomplish recovery of material products,
may not be using the device to combust secondary materials as effective
substitutes for raw materials, etc.\184\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\184\ The Administrator specifically rejects the contrary
suggestion of the Agency's Environmental Appeals Board that ``the
purpose for which hazardous waste is burned at the facility has
little or no bearing on whether the facility meets the industrial
furnace definition.'' In re Marine Shale Processors, Inc., RCRA
Appeal No. 94-12 (March 17, 1995) p. 25 n. 32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART SIX: MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS AND ISSUES
I. Comparable Fuel Exclusion
EPA is proposing to exclude from the definition of solid and
hazardous waste materials that meet specification levels for
concentrations of toxic constituents and physical properties that
affect burning. Generators that comply with sampling and analysis,
notification and certification, and recordkeeping requirements would be
eligible for the exclusion.\185\ See proposed Sec. 261.4(a)(13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\185\ We note that DOW Chemical Company (Dow) in a petition to
the Administrator, dated August 10, 1995, specifically requested
that the Agency develop a generic exclusion for ``materials that are
burned for energy recovery in on-site boilers which do not exceed
the levels of fossil fuel constituents. . . . '' (Petition, at p.
3). This proposal also responds to that petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous waste is burned for energy recovery in boilers and
industrial furnaces in lieu of fossil fuels. There are benefits to this
energy recovery in the form of diminished use of petroleum-based fossil
fuels. Industry sources contend that in some cases, hazardous waste
fuels can be ``as clean or cleaner'' (meaning they present less risk)
than the fossil fuels they displace. This claim has not been documented
with full emissions and risk analysis. Industry further contends that
currently regulating these materials under normal hazardous waste
regulations acts as a disincentive to using them as fuels.
EPA's goal is to develop a comparable fuel specification which is
of use to the regulated community but assures that an excluded waste is
similar in composition to commercially available fuel and poses no
greater risk than burning fossil fuel. Accordingly, EPA is using a
``benchmark approach'' to identify a specification that would ensure
that constituent concentrations and physical properties of excluded
waste are comparable to those of fossil fuels. We note that this is
consistent with the main approach discussed in the Dow Chemical Company
petition of August 10, 1995, which also points out a number of benefits
that would result from promulgating this type of exemption: (1) support
for the Agency's goal of promoting beneficial energy recovery and
resource conservation; (2) reduction of unnecessary regulatory burden
and allowing all parties to focus resources on higher permitting and
regulatory priorities; and (3) demonstration of a common-sense approach
to regulation.\186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\186\ We also note there are other details in the DOW petition
that are congruent with aspects of today's proposal. The Agency
specifically invites comment on the DOW petition as part of this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rationale for the Agency's approach is that if a secondary
material-based fuel is comparable to a fossil fuel in terms of
hazardous and other key constituents and has a heating value indicative
of a fuel, EPA has ample authority to classify such material as a fuel
product, not a waste. Indeed, existing rules already embody this
approach to some degree. Under Sec. 261.33, commercial chemical
products such as benzene, toluene, and xylene are not considered to be
wastes when burned as fuels because normal fossil fuels can contain
significant fractions of these chemicals and these chemicals have a
fuel value. Given that a comparable fuel would have legitimate energy
value and the same hazardous constituents in comparable concentrations
to those in fossil fuel, classifying such material a non-waste would
promote RCRA's resource recover goals without creating any risk greater
than those posed by the commonly used commercial fuels. Under these
circumstances, EPA can permissibly classify a comparable fuel as a non-
waste. See also 46 FR at 44971 (August 8, 1981) exempting from Subtitle
C regulation spent pickle liquor used as a wastewater treatment agent
in part because of its similarity in composition to the commercial
acids that would be used in its place.
[[Page 17460]]
As discussed below, EPA seeks comment on a number of options
including what fossil fuel or fuels should be used as a benchmark, and
how to select appropriate specification limits given the range of
values both within and across fuel types. EPA also requests additional
data on hazardous constituents naturally occurring in commercially
available fuels. (The Agency's current data on fossil fuel composition
are provided in the docket to this rulemaking.)
Also, the exclusion would operate from the point of fuel generation
to the point of burning. Thus, the fuel's generator would be eligible
for the exclusion and could either burn the excluded comparable fuel on
site or ship it off-site directly to a burner. Thus, the Agency must
ensure that storage and transportation of excluded comparable fuel
poses no greater hazard than fossil fuel. The Agency invites comment on
whether the applicable Department of Transportation (DOT) and Office of
Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA) requirements are adequate to
address this concern so that separate, potentially duplicative RCRA
regulation would not be needed.
Note also that, because EPA is proposing to eliminate or amend
other combustion-related exemptions in this rulemaking (i.e., the
exemption for incinerators for wastes that are hazardous solely because
they are ignitable, corrosive, or reactive and contain no or
insignificant levels of Appendix VIII, Part 261, toxic constituents;
and the low-risk waste exemption under BIF), the inclusion of a
comparable fuels exemption may offset the effects of these changes at a
number of affected facilities.
EPA also invites comment on whether acutely hazardous wastes should
be ineligible for the exemption. See the section called ``CMA Clean
Fuel Proposal'', below, for what is considered an acutely hazardous
waste.
A. EPA's Approach to Establishing Benchmark Constituent Levels
1. The Benchmark Approach
EPA considered using risk to human health and the environment as
the way to determine the scope and levels of a ``clean fuels''
specification. However, the Agency encountered several technical and
implementation problems using a purely risk-based approach.
Specifically, we have insufficient data relating to the types of waste
burned and the risks they pose. To pursue a risk-based ``clean fuels''
approach, EPA needs to examine emissions from a number of example
facilities at which ``clean fuel'' would be burned. The Agency could
then analyze risks while the facility is burning the ``clean fuel''.
EPA also does not have sufficient data to determine the relationship
between the amount of ``clean fuel'' burned and emissions, especially
dioxins and other non-dioxin PICs. EPA also does not know how emissions
relate to real individual facilities as compared to example facilities
used to derive the ``clean fuel'' specification. (Emissions and/or
risks at a given facility could be higher than those of the example
facilities given site-specific considerations.) Without this, it is not
clear how the Agency can use risk to establish a ``clean fuel''
specification. The Agency requests data and invites comment on deriving
a risk based specification.
The Agency is instead proposing to develop a comparable fuel
specification, based on the level of hazardous and other constituents
normally found in fossil fuels. EPA calls this the ``benchmark
approach''. For this approach, EPA would set a comparable fuel
specification such that concentrations of hazardous constituents in the
comparable fuel could be no greater than the concentration of hazardous
constituents naturally occurring in commercial fossil fuels. Thus, EPA
would expect that the comparable fuel would pose no greater risk when
burned than a fossil fuel and would at the same time be physically
comparable to a fossil fuel.
2. The Comparable Fuel Specification
EPA is proposing to use this benchmark approach to develop a series
of technical specifications addressing:
(1) physical specifications:
--Kinematic viscosity (cST at 100 deg. F),
--Flash point ( deg.F or deg.C), and
--Heating value (BTU/lb);
(2) general constituent specifications for:
--Nitrogen, total (ppmw), and
--Total Halogens (ppmw, expressed as Cll-), including chlorine,
bromine, and iodine; \187\ and
\187\ See discussion below concerning another halogen, fluorine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) individual hazardous constituent specifications, for:
--Individual Metals (ppmw), including antimony, arsenic, barium,
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel,
selenium, silver, and thallium, and
--Individual Appendix VIII, Part 261, Toxic Organics and Fluorine
(ppmw).
(Note that ppmw is an alternate way of expressing the units mg/kg.) The
constituent specifications and heating value would apply to both gases
and liquids. The flash point and kinematic viscosity would not apply to
gases. EPA invites comment on wheth
FR Doc. 96-7872 Revised Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors
er this list of specifications
should be expanded to include other parameters, specifically ash and
solids content, to ensure that excluded comparable fuels have the same
handling and combustion properties as fossil fuels.
There are existing specifications for fossil fuels that are
developed and routinely updated by the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM). (See ASTM Designation D 396 for fuel oils and D 4814
for gasoline.) These requirements specify limits for physical
properties of fossil fuels, such as flash point, water and sediment,
distillation temperatures,\188\ viscosity, ash, sulfur, corrosion,
density, and pour point. The ASTM requirements do not limit specific
constituents in fuel. As a result, fossil fuels are quite diverse in
their hydrocarbon constituent make-up. Specific levels of hydrocarbon
constituents are a function of the crude oil, the processes used to
generate the fuels, and the blending that occurs. This makes ASTM
requirements for fuels of no use for deriving individual hazardous
constituent specifications, but useful for deriving physical
specifications. EPA invites comment on whether ASTM's physical
specifications for flash point and viscosity should be used instead of
the results of EPA's analysis.189 190
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\188\ The temperature at which a certain volumetric fraction of
the fuel has distilled.
\189\ The issue is that all analytical results should meet
ASTM's specifications. Thus, basing a specification limit on
analysis of samples will result in limits more restrictive than the
ASTM specification defining an acceptable fuel.
\190\ ASTM does not specify a heating value requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Standards for CAA Metal HAPs. EPA is proposing limits for two
metals that are not found on Part 261, Appendix VIII: cobalt and
manganese. EPA included these metals in the analysis because they are
listed in the Clean Air Act (CAA) as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).
See CAA, section 112(b). These metals are included because burning does
not destroy metals, and will cause the release of metals into the air.
Therefore, if a comparable fuel contained more of a metal than a fossil
fuel, the result would be more air emissions of that metal than would
be the case if the facility burned only fossil fuels. From a CAA
perspective, it would not be acceptable to increase emissions of CAA
HAP metals, relative to what would be emitted if fossil fuels were
burned.
[[Page 17461]]
Therefore, constituent levels (or detection limits) for the two CAA
HAPs are proposed as well.
b. Heating Value. With respect to heating value, the Agency is
concerned with the issues of overall environmental loading and
acceptability of the waste as a fuel. Comparable fuels may have a lower
heating value than the fossil fuels they would displace. In these
situations, more comparable fuels would be burned to achieve the same
net heating loads, with the result that more of the hazardous
constituents in the comparable fuel would be emitted (e.g., halogenated
organic compounds and metals) than if fossil fuel were to be burned.
This would lead to greater environmental loading of potentially toxic
substances, which is not in keeping with the intent of the comparable
fuels exclusion.
To address environmental loading, the Agency could establish a
minimum heating value specification comparable to the BTU content of
the benchmark fossil fuel(s). Fossil fuels have a higher heating value
than most hazardous waste fuels, however; so this approach might
exclude many otherwise suitable fuels. Therefore the Agency chose to
establish the specification(s) for comparable fuels at a heating value
of 10,000 BTU/lb.\191\ EPA chose 10,000 BTU/lb because it is typical of
current hazardous waste burned for energy recovery.\192\ However,
hazardous waste fuels have a wide range of heating values. Therefore,
EPA is proposing that, when determining whether a waste meets the
comparable fuel constituent specifications, a generator must first
correct the constituent levels in the candidate waste to a 10,000 BTU/
lb heating value basis prior to comparing them to the comparable fuel
specification tables. In this way, a facility that burns a comparable
fuel would not be feeding more total mass of hazardous constituents
than if it burned fossil fuels.\193\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\191\ Constituent levels presented in today's proposed rule have
been corrected from the fuel's heating value (approximately 20,000
BTU/lb) to 10,000 BTU/lb.
\192\ Consult USEPA, ``Draft Technical Support Document for HWC
MACT Standards, Volume II: HWC Emissions Database'', February 1996.
\193\ Note that the heating value correction would apply only to
allowable constituent levels in fuels, not to detection limits.
Detection limits would not be corrected for heating value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, EPA wants to ensure that currently defined wastes which meet
the comparable fuels exclusion have a legitimate use as a fuel.
Historically, the Agency has relied on a heating value of 11,500 J/g
(5,000 BTU/lbm) as a minimum heating value specification for
determining if a waste is being burned for energy recovery. (See
Sec. 266.103(c)(2)(ii).) EPA proposes this limit today as a minimum
heating value for a comparable fuel to ensure that comparable fuels are
legitimate fuels.
c. Applicability of the specifications. A separate issue is the
applicability of these specifications. EPA is proposing that these
specifications apply to all gases and liquids currently defined as
hazardous wastes. (However as noted elsewhere, used oil, and used crude
oil that is also a hazardous waste, would remain subject to regulation
as used oil under 40 CFR Part 279, even if it meets the comparable fuel
specifications.) The specifications for viscosity and flash point would
only pertain to liquid fuels. This is because gases are inherently less
viscous than liquids and flash point does not apply to gases.
Therefore, EPA proposes that the specifications for viscosity and flash
point not apply to gaseous comparable fuels.
d. Organic Constituent Specifications. With respect to Appendix
VIII organic toxic constituents and other toxic synthetic chemicals,
such as pesticides and pharmaceuticals, the Agency needs to ensure that
only waste fuels comparable to fossil fuels are excluded. Therefore,
the Agency proposes to limit the Appendix VIII constituents in
comparable fuels to those found in the benchmark fossil fuel. These
limits were calculated using a statistical analysis of individual
samples EPA obtained.
If the benchmark fossil fuel has no detectable level of a
particular Appendix VIII constituent, then the comparable fuel
specification would be ``non-detect'' with an associated, specified
maximum allowable detection limit for each compound. (Note exception in
the following section.) The detection limit is a statistically derived
level based on the quantification limit determined for each sample.
There are also compounds found on Appendix VIII which were not
analyzed for, either because an analytical method is not available or
could not be identified in time for this analysis. These compounds are
not listed in today's specifications. If EPA is able to identify
methods for analyzing these compounds and is able to analyze for these
compounds prior to promulgation, an appropriate specification level or
detection limit will be promulgated for Appendix VIII compounds missing
from today's specification. If EPA is not able to analyze for compounds
on Appendix VIII, we propose that the standard for these remaining
Appendix VIII constituents be ``nondetect'' without a maximum detection
limit proposed.
e. Specification Levels for Undetected Pure Hydrocarbons. A
corollary issue is that, since fossil fuels are comprised almost
entirely of pure hydrocarbons 194 in varying concentrations, it is
possible that many pure hydrocarbons on Appendix VIII, Part 261, could
be present in fossil fuel but below detection limits. Therefore, EPA
proposes allowing pure hydrocarbons on Appendix VIII to be present up
to the detection limits in EPA's analysis. Compounds on Appendix VIII
which contain atoms other than hydrogen and carbon would be limited to
``non-detect'' levels as described in the previous paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\194\ Excluding sulfur, carbon and hydrogen comprise 99.6 to 100
percent of liquid fossil fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
f. Specification Levels for Other Fuel-like Compounds. In addition
there are classes of fuel-like compounds that are not found in fossil
fuels. These include oxygenates, an organic compound comprised solely
of hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen above a minimum oxygen-to-carbon ratio.
Examples of oxygenates which are used as fuels or fuel additives
include alcohols such as methanol and ethanol, and ethers such as
Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE).195 However, Appendix VIII
oxygenates are not routinely found in fossil fuels and were not
detected in EPA's sampling and analysis program.196 Since
oxygenates can serve as fuels and are believed to burn well (i.e., may
not produce significant PICs), EPA invites comment on: (1) whether
these compounds should also be allowed up to the detection limits in
EPA's analysis; and (2) an appropriate minimum oxygen-to-carbon ratio
to identify an oxygenate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\195\ A compound such as 2,3,7,8-TCDD is not an oxygenate since
it contains atoms other than hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen. Compounds
such as Dibenzo-p-dioxin and Dibenzofuran are not oxygenates even
though they are comprised solely of hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen
because the oxygen-to-carbon ratio is too low.
\196\ See the appendix for this notice for the results of EPA's
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
g. Total Halogen Specification and Fluorine. Another issue is that
the methods for determining total halogens do not measure fluorine, the
lightest of the halogen compounds. Fluorine is, however, listed as an
Appendix VIII constituent and methods are available for measuring
fluorine directly. Therefore, EPA proposes that the total halogen limit
pertain only to halogens other than fluorine, i.e., chlorine, bromine,
and iodine. EPA also proposes that a fluorine limit be established
separately from the total halogen limit. Specification values for
fluorine are included in the specifications described below.
h. Specification Levels for Halogenated Compounds. EPA invites
comment on whether it is necessary to
[[Page 17462]]
specify limits for halogenated compounds found on Appendix VIII.
Nondetect levels of halogens were found in EPA's fossil fuel analysis
and the nondetect levels for total halogens were much less than those
of the individual halogenated compounds. Therefore, a waste that meets
the total halogen limit should, by default, meet the non-detect levels
specified for halogenated compounds. EPA prefers this approach since it
will simplify the comparable fuels specification and mean fewer and
less costly sampling and analysis of comparable fuel streams for
generators. We invite comment on this approach.
EPA also invites comment on whether this approach could be expanded
to other Appendix VIII constituents as well (e.g., whether the total
nitrogen specification level would ensure compliance with specification
levels for individual compounds containing nitrogen).
3. Selection of the Benchmark Fuel
Another issue is selecting the appropriate fossil fuel(s) for the
benchmark, and therefore the basis of the comparable fuel
specification. Commercially available fossil fuels are diverse. They
range from gases, such as natural gas and propane, to liquids, such as
gasoline and fuel oils, to solids, such as coal, coke, and peat.
EPA does not believe, from an environmental standpoint, that the
comparable fuel specification, which would exclude a hazardous waste
fuel from RCRA subtitle C regulation, should be based on fossil fuels
that have high levels of toxic constituents that may (or will) not be
destroyed or detoxified by burning (e.g., metals and halogens). One
would expect that solid fuels, such as coal, would have relatively high
metal and possibly halogen levels. Metals and halogens are not
destroyed in the combustion process and as a result can lead to
increases in HAP emissions, unlike organic Appendix VIII constituents
which (ideally) are destroyed or detoxified through combustion.
Therefore, EPA is not inclined to include a solid fuel as a benchmark
fuel. Also, we believe that basing the comparable fuel specification on
a gas fuel would be overly conservative and have no utility to the
regulated industry. Liquid fuels, on the other hand, are widely used by
industry and do not have disadvantages of solid or gaseous fuels.
Liquid fuels seem a good compromise among the fuel types. The Agency is
therefore proposing to base the comparable fuel specification on
benchmark liquid fuels.
However, even liquid fossil fuels are diverse and add to the
complexity of selecting a benchmark fuel. For instance, gasoline has
relatively higher levels of toxic organics, such as benzene and toluene
but lower concentrations of metals. Conversely, we have also found and
would continue to expect that typical fuel oils have lower
concentrations of toxic organics and higher concentrations of metals
than gasoline. We also have found that heavier fuel oils (e.g., No. 6)
contain more metals than lighter fuel oils (e.g., No. 2).197
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\197\ See the appendix to this notice for the results of EPA's
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, EPA could choose a vegetable oil-based fuel, such as
``tall oil'', rather than a fossil fuel. EPA has no data on
concentrations of hazardous constituents in these fuels, however. Also,
these fuels are not as widely used as commercial fuels. In keeping with
the benchmark approach, EPA believes it is appropriate to base the
comparable fuel specification on an appropriate and widely used type of
commercial fuel, i.e., fossil fuels.
We specifically request constituent data for gasoline, automotive
diesel, and No. 1 (kerosene/Jet fuel), No. 2 (different from automotive
diesel), No. 4, and No. 6 fuel oils. These data should be complete and
include analyses for all Appendix VIII constituents including nondetect
values. When supplying data during the comment period, commenters
should follow the same analytical and quality procedures EPA used. It
would assist the Agency greatly if the data were supplied in electronic
(1.44-MB PC or Macintosh floppy disk) as well as hard-copy form.
Electronic versions should be in a spreadsheet form (for instance,
Lotus 1,2,3, or Microsoft Excel) or an ASCII file with a description of
how the records are classified/organized into which fields. Consult the
Technical Background Document for a complete list of constituents and
additional information concerning EPA's sampling and analysis and
quality assurance protocols used.
B. Sampling, Analysis, and Statistical Protocols Used
This section describes the sampling, analysis, and statistical
protocols used to derive the comparable fuels specifications described
below. For more detailed discussion, refer to the Technical Background
Document.
1. Sampling
EPA obtained a total of 27 fossil fuel samples. They were comprised
of eight gasoline and eleven No. 2, one No. 4, and seven No. 6 fuel oil
samples. The samples were collected at random from sources across the
country: Irvine, CA; north west New Jersey; north east Connecticut;
Coffeyville, KS; Fredonia, KS; Norco, LA; Hopewell, VA; and Research
Triangle Park, NC.
Only one No. 4 fuel oil sample was obtained. Very little ``No. 4''
fuel oil 198 is sold in the United States. Rather, what is used as
No. 4 is essentially a blend of No. 2 and 6 fuel oils. These blends
vary, are contract specific, and are not No. 4 fuel oil, per se. EPA
specifically requests data on (genuine) No. 4 fuel oil constituent
levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\198\ No. 4 fuel oil is defined as fuel that meets the physical
specifications established by the American Society of Testing and
Materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Analysis of the Fuel Samples
Analytical methods have not been defined for all compounds on Part
261, Appendix VIII. Where analytical methods have not been defined,
analysis of those constituent levels in fossil fuels are not possible.
However, EPA is working on identifying methods for compounds on
Appendix VIII which were not analyzed for during this initial analysis.
If EPA is able to identify analysis methods for these compounds,
constituent specifications for these compounds will be included in the
final rule using the same methodology for constituent specifications
described in today's notice.
After the samples were obtained, they were analyzed at a laboratory
accustomed to analyzing fossil fuels. SW-846 methods were used whenever
possible. Where SW-846 methods were not available, established ASTM
procedures or other EPA methods for fuel analyses were used. Table
VI.1.1 summarizes the analytical methods used.
Table VI.1.1: Analytical Methods Used for Comparable Fuels Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Property of interest Method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heating Value............................. EPA 325.3/PARR.
Kinematic Viscosity....................... ASTM D240.
Flash Point............................... SW-846 1010.
Total Nitrogen............................ ASTM D4629.
Total Halogens............................ EPA 325.3/PARR.
Antimony.................................. SW-846 7040.
Arsenic................................... SW-846 7060.
Barium.................................... SW-846 7080.
Beryllium................................. SW-846 7090.
Cadmium................................... SW-846 7130.
Chromium.................................. SW-846 7190.
Cobalt.................................... SW-846 7200.
Lead...................................... SW-846 7420.
Manganese................................. SW-846 7460.
Mercury................................... SW-846 7470.
Nickel.................................... SW-846 7520.
Selenium.................................. SW-846 7740.
Silver.................................... SW-846 7760.
[[Page 17463]]
Thallium.................................. SW-846 7840.
Appendix IX Volatile Organics............. SW-846 8240.
Appendix IX Semivolatile Organics......... SW-846 8270.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the analysis was conducted in such a way as to ensure
the lowest detection limits, also called ``quantification limits,''
possible. Detection limits were determined by calculating the ``method
detection limit'' (MDL) for each analysis. To do this, EPA used a
modified version of the procedures defined by EPA in 40 CFR 136,
Appendix B, Definition and Procedure for Determination of Method
Detection Limits, Revision 1.1. The modification involved spiking for
each of the samples being analyzed instead of spiking once for all the
samples, as stated by the method.
One issue concerning the analysis is that, even when attempts are
made to minimize detection limits, detection limits can still be
extremely high. This is particularly so for volatile organic compounds
in the gasoline samples. There is no feasible analytical way to address
this issue, so it is addressed when deriving the comparable fuel
specification.
3. Statistical Procedures Used
Due to the small sample sizes of each fuel type, EPA used a
nonparametric ``order statistics'' approach to analyze the fuel data.
If enough data are received to determine the distribution of the
enlarged data set, statistical procedures appropriate to the
distribution, i.e., different than those described here, may be used
for the promulgated specification.
``Order statistics'' involves ranking the data for each constituent
from lowest to highest concentration, assigning each data point a
percentile value from lowest to highest percentile, respectively.
Result percentiles were then calculated from the data percentiles.
Consult the Technical Background document for more information
regarding the statistical approach.
EPA is considering using either the 90th or 50th percentile values
to determine the comparable fuel specification. If the exclusion were
to be based on specifications from one or more individual benchmark
fuels (e.g., separate gasoline or fuel oil based specifications), EPA
believes it is more appropriate to establish the specification(s) based
on the 90th percentile rather than the 50th percentile values. The 90th
percentile represents an estimate of an upper limit of what is in a
particular fuel while the 50th percentile values would exclude up to 50
percent of the fossil fuel samples. For composite specifications
(discussed in detail below), EPA is considering using either the 50th
or 90th percentile, but the considerations differ. A 50th percentile
analysis was conducted because it represents what, ``on average'', is
found in all potential benchmark fuels that were studied. A 90th
percentile was also conducted because it represents the upper bound of
what is found in all fuels. EPA invites comment on which percentile(s)
is appropriate for both the individual specifications as well as the
composite specification.
C. Options for the Benchmark Approach
As just described, EPA has several options for deciding what fossil
fuel(s) to use as the benchmark. The following options range from
developing a suite of comparable fuel specifications based on
individual benchmark fuels (i.e., gasoline, No. 2, No. 6) to basing the
specification on composite values derived from the analysis of all
benchmark fuels.
The Agency invites comment on which of the following options should
be selected. Again, EPA desires to provide constructive relief to the
regulated community by having a comparable fuel specification that can
be used in practice. On the other hand, EPA needs to ensure that the
release of toxic compounds is not increased significantly by burning
comparable fuels in lieu of fossil fuels. For this reason, we are
offering several options for comment. Commenters should also address in
their comments the justification needed to support their preferred
option.
The options discussed below are not the only possible options. If
commenters have other options they wish the Agency to consider, they
should recommend them and explain how they meet the objectives of a
benchmark approach to comparability.
1. Individual Benchmark Fuel Specifications
Under this option, EPA invites comment on establishing individual
specifications based on the benchmark fuels for which EPA has obtained
data: gasoline, and No. 2 and No. 6 fuel oils.\199\ \200\ Each would
have a unique set of constituent and physical specifications, based on
the individual benchmark fossil fuel. A generator would use one of
these specifications (after correcting for heating value) to determine
if a waste qualifies for the exclusion. As mentioned in subsection
A.2.B., above, heating value of a comparable fuel would have to exceed
11,500 J/g (5,000 BTU/lbm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\199\ This list could be expanded, depending on the amount and
quality of data received during the comment period.
\200\ EPA is reluctant to propose a No. 4 oil specification at
this time. As noted, EPA has been able to obtain only one sample of
No. 4 oil. EPA desires more data on genuine samples of this fuel
before establishing a comparable fuel specification based on No. 4
fuel oil. As is the case with other types of fuel, if a sufficient
number of samples are obtained, a No. 4 fuel oil comparable fuel
specification may be promulgated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA envisions that individual fuel specification(s) could be
implemented in one of two ways under this approach. First, a facility
could use any of the individual benchmark specifications, without
regard to what fuel it currently burns. This approach would provide
flexibility for the facility in choosing which specification to use.
Although this approach could allow higher emissions of certain toxic
compounds at the particular site than would be the case if they burned
their normal fuel(s), overall (total) emissions of hazardous
constituents may be lower since a comparable fuel is unlikely to have
high levels of all constituents. In addition, the amounts of excluded
waste may well be small relative to the quantity of fossil fuels burned
annually.
The second approach is to link the comparable fuel specification to
the type of fuel burned at the facility and being displaced by the
comparable fuel. In this case, if a facility burns only No. 2 fuel oil,
it could only use the No. 2 fuel oil comparable fuel specification to
establish whether its current waste stream is a comparable fuel.
Implementation issues include the following: what specification would
apply if a facility uses a gas or solid fuel, and what is the degree of
inflexibility introduced?
EPA prefers the first implementation approach, but invites comment
on whether a single fuel should be used to base a comparable fuel
specification and if so, which implementation should be adopted.
2. A Composite Fuel as the Benchmark
One issue associated with the single fuel specification approach is
that
[[Page 17464]]
gasoline has relatively high levels of volatile organic compounds while
No. 6 fuel oil has higher levels of semivolatile organic compounds and
metals. If a potential comparable fuel were to have a volatile organic
constituent concentration below the gasoline specification but higher
than the others, and a particular metal concentration lower than the
No. 6 fuel oil specification but higher than gasoline, it would not be
a comparable fuel since it meets no single specification entirely.
Therefore, EPA is concerned that establishing specifications under this
option would limit the utility of the exclusion.
To address this issue, one option is to use a composite approach to
setting the comparable fuel specification. In this option, EPA would
use a variety of liquid fuels from which certain compounds would be
selected to derive the complete specification.
EPA determined composite fuel specifications for this proposal by
compositing the data from all fuels analyzed (gasoline and the three
fuel oils individually). Compositing all the fuels has the advantage
that it may better reflect the range of fuel choices and potential for
fuel-switching available nationally to burners. A facility would be
allowed to use the composite fuel specification regardless of which
fuel(s) it burns.
One technical issue is that EPA has different number of samples for
each fuel type. Therefore, the fuel with the largest number of samples
would dominate the composite database. To address this issue, EPA's
statistical analysis ``normalizes'' the number of samples, i.e., treat
each fuel type in the composite equally without regard to the number of
samples taken.
The Agency has evaluated establishing a composite specification
using: (1) the 90th percentile aggregate values for the benchmark
fuels; and (2) the 50th percentile aggregate values for the benchmark
fuels. Under either approach, high gasoline volatile organic nondetects
would be omitted from the analysis.
The 90th percentile approach has the virtue of being representative
of a range of fuels that are burned nationally in combustion devices.
It also provides maximum flexibility for the regulated community.
However, the 90th percentile composite approach does allow for higher
amounts of toxic constituents than other approaches EPA is considering.
As a practical matter, though, no excluded fuel is likely to contain
constituent levels at or near all of the 90th percentile composite
specification level. EPA invites comment on this issue.
The 50th percentile approach ensures the comparable fuel
specification is representative of a range of benchmark fuels commonly
burned at combustion devices, perhaps even more so than the 90th
percentile approach since it better represents an ``average'' level for
fuels in general. It also provides flexibility for the regulated
community, though the specification levels (and potentially the
usefulness) would be lower than those resulting from the 90th
percentile approach. If facilities indeed are likely to have at least
several constituents near the 90th percentile composite levels, a 50th
percentile composite would be more restrictive and less useful than the
90th percentile composite approach.
EPA seeks comments on whether a composite of fuels should be used
to base a comparable fuel specification and, if so, whether a 90th or
50th percentile approach would be more appropriate. Further, the Agency
seeks comment on whether the exclusion should be based on a suite of
specifications comprised of the individual benchmark fuel-based
specifications plus a composite specification. Under this approach the
generator could select any specification in the suite as the basis for
the exclusion.
3. Waste Minimization Approaches
By proposing this comparable fuels exemption the Agency does not
wish to discourage pollution prevention/waste minimization
opportunities to reduce or eliminate the generation of wastes in favor
of burning wastes as comparable fuels. EPA solicits comments on the
effect of today's comparable fuels proposal on facilities' efforts to
promote source reduction and environmentally sound recycling (which
does not include burning for energy recovery as a form of recycling in
the RCRA waste management hierarchy.)
D. Comparable Fuel Specification
In this section, EPA will outline the five specifications discussed
above: gasoline, No. 2 fuel oil, No. 6 fuel oil, composite 50th
percentile values, and composite 90th percentile values. For reasons
stated above, the individual fuel specifications were based on the 90th
percentile values. EPA is not proposing any particular approach at this
time, but invites comments on which approach(es) should be promulgated
in a final rule. EPA is also presenting the results of the No. 4 fuel
oil sample for comparison.
1. Hazardous Constituent Specifications
a. Gasoline Specification. The gasoline-based specification is
presented in Table 1 of the appendix to this preamble. As stated above,
gasoline contains more volatile organic compounds (such as benzene and
toluene) than the other fuels. This results in detection limits for
volatile organic compounds an order of magnitude higher than the other
fuel specifications. EPA believes analysis of comparable fuels will
more likely result in detection limits much lower than gasoline and
similar to those associated with analysis of fuel oils. To address this
issue, EPA has performed an analysis of a fuel oil-only composite (one
which does not include gasoline in the composite) at the 90th
percentile to use as a surrogate for the volatile organic gasoline non-
detect values. Those values from the fuel oil-only composite are
presented as the volatile organic nondetect values in Table 1. EPA
invites comment on whether the approach of substituting fuel oil-only
volatile organic nondetect values in lieu of those values for gasoline
is appropriate.
b. Number 2 Fuel Oil Specification. The No. 2 fuel oil-based
specification is presented in Table 2 of the appendix to this preamble.
As suggested above, No. 2 fuel oil contains more volatile organic
compounds than the other fuel oils, but less than gasoline. In
addition, its metal concentrations are lower than the other fuel oils,
but more than gasoline.
c. Number 4 Fuel Oil Specification. The No. 4 fuel oil-based
specification is presented in Table 3 of the appendix. It follows a
similar trend, having fewer organic constituents than those previous
described, but more metals.
However, this specification is based on only one sample. The Agency
is concerned that one sample may not be representative of true No. 4
fuel oil. As a result, EPA believes that we will not be able to
promulgate a No. 4 fuel oil specification unless more data is received
during the comment period.
d. Number 6 Fuel Oil Specification. The No. 6 fuel oil-based
specification is presented in Table 4 of the appendix.
e. Composite Fuel Specifications. Two alternative composite fuel
specifications are presented in Tables 5 and 6 of the appendix. Table 5
presents a specification based on the aggregate 50th percentile values
for the benchmark fuels, and Table 6 presents a specification based on
the aggregate 90th percentile values of the benchmark fuels.
[[Page 17465]]
As was the case with the gasoline specification, volatile organic
detection limits for gasoline are quite large. For this reason, EPA is
relying on surrogate values for volatile organic detection limits, one
based on the detection limits from a fuel oil-only composite. For the
50th percentile composite fuel specification, the 50th percentile fuel
oil-only volatile organic nondetect values were used. The 90th
percentile composite fuel specification was handled similarly, using
the 90th percentile volatile organic nondetect values from the fuel
oil-only composite. See the discussion for the gasoline sample for
EPA's concerns regarding gasoline's high detection limits.
2. Physical Specifications (Flash Point and Kinematic Viscosity)
Alternative physical specifications for the options evaluated are
presented collectively in Tables 7 and 8 of the appendix. Table 7
presents the results of the analyses EPA conducted. Table 8 presents an
alternate approach, using the requirements for viscosity and flash
point for fuel oil specified by ASTM. Physical specifications for
viscosity and flash point for gasoline are not required by ASTM, but
their upper and lower limits, respectively, are available from other
reference sources.
When considering a composite physical specifications using the
reference values presented in Table 8, EPA believes it is appropriate
to use the second highest viscosity and second lowest flash point as
the specifications. This would have the effect of not considering the
extremes, No. 6 fuel oil viscosity (50.0 cSt at 100 deg.C) and gasoline
flash point (-42 deg.C), and using as the specification the viscosity
of No. 4 fuel oil (24.0 cSt at 40 deg.C) and the flash point of No. 2
fuel oil (38 deg.C). EPA believes this approach will result in
specifications which are representative of comparable fuels and the
fossil fuels they displace, and ensure adequate safety during
transportation and storage.
Subsection A.2.b. discusses the proposed minimum heating value of
11,500 J/g (5,000 BTU/lbm).
E. Exclusion of Synthesis Gas Fuel
EPA is also proposing to exclude from the definition of solid waste
(and, therefore regulation as hazardous waste) a particular type of
hazardous waste-derived fuel, namely a type of synthesis gas
(``syngas'') meeting particular, stringent specifications. The Agency
believes that many fuels produced from hazardous wastes are more waste-
like than fuel- or product-like, and must be regulated as such. We are
aware, however, of certain fuels and products produced from hazardous
waste that are more appropriately classified and managed as products
rather than wastes. EPA believes that syngas meeting the requirements
of the proposed exclusion is such a material. Syngas is a commercial
product which has important uses in industry as both a feedstock and
commercial fuel, and it may be used as both a feedstock and commercial
fuel at a manufacturing facility. The Agency is therefore proposing
this exclusion to clarify the distinction between syngas products
meeting these stringent specifications and hazardous wastes and other
waste-derived fuels. The Agency believes it is useful to provide a
conditional exclusion for these particular fuels, possibly before
promulgating the broader rule being proposed today. This is because,
although there may be much debate about the generic comparable fuel
specification levels discussed above, the syngas at issue here appears
to be well within the bounds of what would be excluded, whatever the
final rule levels may actually be for other comparable fuels.
The proposal applies to syngas that results from thermal reaction
of hazardous wastes which is optimized to both break organic bonds and
reformulate the organics into hydrogen gas (H2) and carbon monoxide
(CO). This process is more similar to a chemical reaction, rather than
to combustion. The process is optimized to produce an end-product,
rather than merely to destroy organic matter.
EPA is aware of one such process, proposed to be operated by Molten
Metals Technology (MMT). MMT intends to operate a catalytic extraction
process (CEP) unit that generates certain gas streams from the thermal
reaction of various hazardous wastes, including chlorinated hazardous
wastes. See letter of July 21, 1995, from Molten Metal Technology to
EPA. This letter and other information on the MMT process are in the
docket for today's proposed rule. MMT claims that the syngas generated
by the processes has legitimate fuel value (i.e., 6,000 to 7,000 Btu/
lb), has a chlorine level of 1 ppmv or less, and does not contain
hazardous compounds at higher than parts per billion levels. Thus, this
syngas possesses standard product indicia in the form of fuel value
plus being the output of a process designed to optimize these
properties, and the syngas product does not contain hazardous
constituents at levels higher than those present in fossil fuel.
To ensure that any excluded syngas meets these low levels of
hazardous compounds relative to levels in fossil fuels in order to be
excluded from the definition as a solid waste, the Agency is proposing
the following syngas specifications:
--Minimum Btu value of 5,000 Btu/lb;
--Less than 1 ppmv 202 of each hazardous constituent listed in
Appendix VIII of Part 261 (that could reasonably be expected to be in
the gas), except the limit for hydrogen sulfide is 10 ppmv;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\202\ All specification levels would be documented at normal
temperature and pressure of the gas at the point that the exclusion
is claimed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Less than 1 ppmv of total chlorine; and
--Less than 1 ppmv of total nitrogen, other than diatomic nitrogen
(N2).
EPA seeks comment on whether there are other hazardous waste-derived
synthesis gas fuels (i.e., other than MMT's) that meet the criteria for
this proposed exclusion.
We also note that conditions imposed for exclusion of syngas fuels
in no way precludes the use of syngas as an ingredient in
manufacturing, which is evaluated under a different set of criteria,
when the syngas is produced from hazardous waste. In other words, if
the syngas were to be used as either a product in manufacturing or
burned as a fuel, it would be excluded as a product when it met the
criteria for use as a product and was used for that purpose and
excluded as a fuel when burned.
If EPA adopts this exclusion for syngas fuel, we believe that the
implementation procedures for the generic comparable fuel exclusion
discussed subsequently in Section F would also be appropriate for
syngas. This includes requirements for the syngas producer to notify
the Regional Administrator that an excluded fuel is produced, a
certification that the syngas meets the exclusion specification levels,
and sampling and analysis requirements. EPA invites comment on these
implementation procedures for syngases and whether any of these
procedures should be modified to address any unique characteristics of
syngases.
Finally, we note that in Section F below we discuss whether the
burning of hazardous waste excluded under the generic comparable fuel
exclusion should be restricted only to stationary sources either with
air permits or that otherwise have their air emissions regulated by a
federal, state, or local entity. We specifically request comment on
whether this restriction would also be appropriate for excluded syngas.
Given that the Agency may undertake final rulemaking to provide an
[[Page 17466]]
exclusion for syngas before promulgating a generic exclusion for
comparable fuels, however, we request comment on whether more
restrictive requirements on burning excluded syngas would be
appropriate to minimize concern about burning a hazardous waste-derived
gas. For example, the exclusion could be limited to syngas which is
burned in an industrial boiler, industrial furnace (as defined in 40
CFR 260.10) or incinerator. We note that these units would not
necessarily have to be RCRA Subtitle C units.
F. Implementation of the Exclusion
The implementation scheme described here is adapted from the
current used oil management system and is tailored to the particular
characteristics of the comparable fuel universe.203 It provides
for one-time notification and certification, sampling and analysis, and
recordkeeping requirements. Other issues addressed include blending,
ensuring that the comparable fuel is burned, and treatment to meet the
specification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\203\ Note that used oil has its own separate management system,
as allowed under RCRA, tailored to the unique characteristics of
used oil recycling practices. The comparable fuel exclusion proposed
today would not apply to used oil because it is adequately and
appropriately managed under its own tailored system. Used oil will
still be managed under 40 CFR Part 279. This proposal in no way
reopens the used oil specification or management structure in 40 CFR
Part 279.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Notification and Certification
EPA proposes that a generator (or syngas producer 204) who
claims that a (currently defined) hazardous waste meets the
specification for exclusion must submit a one-time notification and
certification to the Regional Administrator. The notification would
state that the generator manages a comparable fuel and certifies
(through a responsible company official) that the generator is in
compliance with the conditions of the exclusion regarding sampling and
analysis, recordkeeping, blending, and ultimate use of the waste as a
fuel. EPA understands that a ``generator'' may be a company with
multiple facilities. For this reason, a single company would be allowed
to submit one notification, but must specify at what facilities the
comparable fuels notification applies. All other provisions apply to
each stream at the point of generation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\204\ Requirements applicable to the generator of an excluded
fuel would also apply to producers of excluded syngas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Sampling and Analysis
EPA believes it is appropriate that the generator document by
sampling and analysis that the hazardous waste meets the specification.
Until such documentation is obtained, the waste would not be excluded.
Waste analysis rules for TSDFs would apply to comparable fuel
generators. Consequently, generators would implement a comparable fuels
analysis plan.
The sampling and analytical procedures for determining that the
waste meets the specification must be documented in a comparable fuels
analysis plan. The comparable fuel analysis plan would involve sampling
and analyzing for all Appendix VIII constituents initially and at least
every year thereafter for constituents that the generator could have
reason to believe are present in the comparable fuel. EPA specifically
invites comment on whether to allow a generator to use process
knowledge to determine what compounds to sample and analyze for during
the first analysis, as well.
The generator would use current EPA guidance for developing waste
analysis plans to derive their comparable fuel analyze plan. This will
ensure that generators sample and analysis as often as necessary, i.e.,
more frequently than every year, for constituents present in the fuel
to ensure that excluded waste meets the specification.
Analytical methods provided by SW-846 must be used, unless written
approval is obtained from the Regional Administrator to use an
equivalent method. EPA invites comment on establishing a procedure
similar to Part 63, Appendix A, Method 301 to validate alternate
analytical methods. EPA also invites comment on whether to limit the
Agency's time to approve an equivalent method. In this case, the
Regional Administrator would have a set period of time, such as 60
days, to respond to the request. If an approval is not received within
60 days, the alternative method is considered approved. If the Regional
Administrator later rejects the method, the rejection would only
pertain to analyses conducted after the rejection of the method.
3. Use as a Fuel
An integral part of the comparable fuel exclusion is that the fuel
must be burned. To ensure that the comparable fuel is burned, the
person who claims the exclusion must either:
--Burn the comparable fuel on-site; or
--Ship the waste off-site to a person who in turn burns the comparable
fuel.
This provision would not allow any party to manage the fuel other than
those who generate or burn the fuel (and other than transportation
related handling). EPA is reluctant to allow persons other than the
generator and the burner to manage the comparable fuel because it would
likely be too difficult to ensure that the excluded fuel meets the
specification and is burned. We invite comment on how to allow third
party intermediaries, such as fuel blenders, to handle an excluded
comparable fuel without precipitating serious enforcement and
implementation difficulties.
Additionally, EPA is concerned that comparable fuel shipped
directly to an off-site burner may not in fact be burned. Therefore,
EPA invites comment on whether, for off-site shipments to a burner, the
following information should be retained in the record for each
shipment:
--Name and address of the receiving facility;
--Cross-reference to a certification from the facility certifying that
the comparable fuel will be burned;
--Quantity of excluded waste shipped;
--Date of shipment; and
--A cross-reference to the analyses performed to determine that the
waste meets the specification.
A comparable fuel which is not burned remains a hazardous waste and is
subject to regulation cradle-to-grave.205 This documentation would
provide a paper trail to ensure that the comparable fuel is burned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\205\ Note that the only disposal method for a comparable fuel
is burning. Any disposal method other than burning is a RCRA
violation, unless the comparable fuel is properly managed as a
hazardous waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA invites comment on whether the burning of a comparable fuel
should be restricted to only stationary sources either with air permits
or that otherwise have their air emissions regulated by a federal,
state, or local entity. EPA's primary concern is that excluded fuel may
be burned in unregulated combustion devices. EPA believes that
unregulated burners may be unaware of or unprepared to handle many
unique issues related to fuels other than fossil fuels. In addition,
EPA invites comment on whether comparable fuels should be allowed for
use in sources other than stationary sources, i.e., mobile sources (on-
and off-road automobiles, trucks, and engines) and small engines.
4. Blending To Meet the Specification
The issue of whether to allow blending to meet the comparable fuel
specification also needs to be addressed.
[[Page 17467]]
One alternative is to exclude only those comparable fuels that meet the
specification as generated and which are destined for burning. The
facilities would be required to demonstrate, for compliance purposes,
that the waste as generated meets the specification and to certify that
the waste is destined for burning.
If blending to lower the concentrations of hazardous constituents
in a waste were allowed to meet the specification, EPA believes that a
very extensive compliance and enforcement system would have to be
instituted to ensure that blending was done properly (with any
necessary storage and treatment permits) and that the resultant mixture
meets the specification continually. This alternative appears to
warrant a degree of oversight that may be infeasible from the industry
viewpoint and unworkable from the Agency's viewpoint. EPA is also
investigating whether blending removes the incentive for facilities to
engage in source reduction and recycling of waste. Finally, this
alternative raises the issue of whether blending is simply a form of
prohibited or objectionable dilution that could result in an overall
increase in environmental loading of toxic, persistent, or
bioaccumulative substances.
Complicating this issue is the fact that blending to lower
hazardous constituent concentrations in used oil is allowed. (40 CFR
279.50(a).) However, EPA believes it is appropriate to deviate from the
approach for used oil in this case. Used oil is better defined and
understood in its origins and use than currently defined hazardous
wastes. Used crankcase oil is a petroleum product analogous to a thick
fuel with enriched metal concentrations due to its use for lubricating
metal-bearing parts in situations of tight tolerance. In the case of
used oil, blending a thick fuel enriched with metals with a thinner
fuel with low concentrations of metals is appropriate since the
resulting mixture would be wholly a petroleum product with similar
levels of metals as other petroleum fuels.
Comparable fuels, however, differ substantially from used oil in
both the nature of materials to which the exclusion pertains and the
scope of the exclusion. A comparable fuel is presently defined as a
hazardous waste and is unlikely to be a petroleum distillate. The issue
of toxic organic constituents is important for comparable fuels due to
the diversity of processes and process ingredients from which potential
comparable fuels may result. This is not relevant for the used oil
rules since they deal with the post-use material stemming from a highly
consistent and well known petroleum distillate. Therefore, blending
used oil would result in a more predictable mixture, one which would be
expected to contain the same organic compounds in varying
concentrations. The same cannot be said for the large variety of
potential comparable fuels, which can vary significantly in the
constituents present.
The issue of metals in a comparable fuel is similarly different
from the case of used oil. While used oil does contain enriched levels
of metals relative to virgin oil or petroleum fuels, those levels are
greatly understood (relative to hazardous waste in general) due to
their use in only one process, the lubrication of metal-bearing parts.
Therefore, there is essentially a real-world limit to the amount and
type of metal that could be entrained in a used oil, so blending to
meet metal specifications is more appropriate. In the case of
comparable fuels if there were no prohibition on blending to meet
constituent specifications, a generator would be allowed to take a
predominantly metal waste, blend it into a fuel to levels lower than
the constituent specification levels, and (through pure dilution) meet
the exclusion. For these reasons, EPA believes the specially tailored
used oil program does not provide a satisfactory model to use for
addressing the issue of blending potential comparable fuels.
We also note that the LDR program specifically prohibits dilution
as a form of treatment. (40 CFR 268.3.) Allowing blending to meet the
specification may, in effect, allow dilution as a form of treatment
contrary to the LDR prohibition for these hazardous wastes. For these
reasons, EPA desires to stay consistent with other rules and policies
and not allow blending to meet the comparable fuels specification.
Similarly, EPA proposes that the specification for heating value be
met on an as-generated basis as well. In other words, blending would
not be allowed to meet the heating value specification. If the Agency
were to allow blending to meet the heating value specification, wastes
with no heating value could be blended with high heating value fossil
fuels and meet the comparable fuel heating value specification. EPA
does not believe this approach can be justified, allowing a waste which
as generated has little or no heating value to be a comparable fuel.
Therefore, we propose that heating value be met on an as generated
basis.
For these reasons, EPA is proposing that the comparable fuel
constituent and heating value specifications be met on an ``as
generated'' basis, and that blending to meet the constituent and
heating value specifications not be allowed. However, if the
constituent and heating value specifications have been met as
generated, EPA believes it may be appropriate for a comparable fuel to
be treated like any other fuel and allow it to be blended after the
constituent and heating value specifications have been met. This
includes blending for the purposes of meeting other physical
specifications (flash point and viscosity), pH neutralization, etc.
After blending, generators would have to retest the prospective
comparable fuel to ensure that blending did not increase the levels of
constituents to above the specification levels or decrease it to below
the heating value requirement. If the waste were blended with a clean
fossil fuel, such as No. 2 fuel oil, it would be sufficient to document
that the substance the prospective comparable fuel is being blended
with has lower constituent levels and a higher heating value than the
comparable fuel specification. If the waste is above constituent
specifications or below the heating value requirement after blending,
the waste would not be a comparable fuel.
EPA invites comment on the issue of blending only to meet the
physical specifications, flash point and kinematic viscosity.
5. Treatment To Meet the Specification
It is possible, as a technical matter, for hazardous wastes to
undergo treatment that destroys or removes hazardous constituents and
thereby produce a comparable fuel. Likewise, it is possible to treat a
waste such that the heating value of the waste is increased. For
example, distillation could remove certain organic constituents from
the waste matrix, thereby allowing the treated waste to meet the
comparable fuel specification. Similarly, decanting to decrease the
water concentration of the waste stream would increase the heating
value of the waste by concentrating those compounds which are burned.
The issue discussed here is whether such processes should be allowed
under a comparable fuel regime, and if so, under what circumstances.
The Agency is proposing to allow treatment under limited circumstances.
The Agency's concern about allowing such treatment is that it could
increase the incentive and opportunity for impermissible blending or
otherwise fraudulent treatment. Thus, at the least, EPA would seek to
set up controls to reduce the possibility of such practices
[[Page 17468]]
if treatment were allowed. This might be done by requiring treaters to
document that the comparable fuel specification is being satisfied
through treatment that destroys or removes hazardous constituents and/
or increases heating value by removing constituents from the waste, not
through blending or other dilution-type activities. Second, where the
treater has a RCRA permit for the storage/treatment activity (i.e.,
treatment of hazardous waste conducted in any unit except a 90-day
generator unit not subject to permitting requirements under
Sec. 262.34), the rule could authorize permit writers to add conditions
to the permit to assure the integrity of the permitted process. Such
conditions could take the form of extra conditions on the treatment
process, conditions on the wastes which could be treated to produce
comparable fuels, and additional sampling and analysis of both incoming
wastes and outgoing comparable fuels. The Agency solicits comment on
what limitations or conditions should be imposed on treatment
activities and whether and how to adapt such limitations or conditions
to the non-permitted context of 90-day generator units.
Finally, it should be noted that if hazardous wastes are treated to
produce comparable fuels, only the comparable fuel would be excluded
from RCRA subtitle C regulation. The hazardous wastes would be
regulated from point of generation until a comparable fuel is produced,
so that generation, transport, storage, and treatment of the waste
until production of the comparable fuel would remain subject to the
applicable subtitle C rules. Also any residuals resulting from
treatment remain hazardous wastes as a result of the derived-from rule.
6. Recordkeeping
It is proposed that documentation pertaining to verification that
the waste meets the comparable fuel specification and the information
on shipments be retained for three years. The sampling and analysis
plan and all revisions to the plan since its inception would be
retained for as long as the person claims to manage excluded waste,
plus three years. Certifications from burners (if required in the final
rule) would be retained for as long as the burner is shipped comparable
fuels, plus three years.
The generator would retain the records supporting its claim for the
exemption. For comparable fuels which are not blended, the records that
must be retained are the as generated results. For comparable fuels
which are blended to meet the flash point and/or kinematic viscosity
specifications, the records which must be retained are those after
blending.
7. Small Business Considerations: Inherently Comparable Fuel
Small businesses may, hypothetically, generate wastes (such as
mineral spirits used to clean automotive parts) that could meet a
comparable fuel specification. However, the Agency is concerned that
the proposed implementation scheme for the comparable fuel exclusion
may be overly burdensome to small businesses because of the small
volume of waste each business may generate. EPA requests data on
whether categories of high volume inherently comparable fuel from a
large number of small generators exist. If so, EPA would consider
providing an exclusion for these fuels in the final rule. For these
fuels to be excluded, the Agency would need constituent data from
various small generators indicating that these wastes would meet the
comparable fuel exclusion levels on a routine basis.
If an inherently comparable fuel exclusion were promulgated in the
final rule, the Agency would promulgate a petitioning process whereby
classes of generators could document that a specific type of waste is
virtually always likely to meet the comparable fuel specification. If
the Agency granted the petition through rulemaking, such waste would be
classified as inherently comparable fuel. As such, the generator would
not be subject to the proposed implementation requirements for the
comparable fuel exclusion: notification, sampling and analysis, and
recordkeeping. In addition, such inherently comparable fuel could be
blended, treated, and shipped off-site without restriction given that
it would be excluded from regulation as generated.
EPA invites comment on whether high volumes of comparable fuel is
generated from a large number of small generators. If so, the Agency
requires data on whether this approach provides relief to small
businesses while ensuring protection of human health and the
environment. In addition, EPA invites analytical data supporting
classification of particular wastes as inherently comparable fuel. The
Agency would provide notice and request comment on such data prior to
making a final determination that the waste is inherently comparable
fuel.
G. Transportation and Storage
Waste derived fuels can pose risks during transportation and
storage, not just when burned. For instance, comparable fuels could be
reactive and corrosive (virgin fossil fuels are neither), more volatile
than fossil fuels, or have other special properties affecting handling
and storage. The Agency believes we can exempt comparable fuels from
RCRA storage and transportation requirements and therefore rely on the
storage and transportation regulations of other federal and state
agencies. However, the affected industries may have more direct
knowledge of how these requirements actually affect shipments and
storage of the potential fuels, particularly with respect to the extent
of state regulatory controls. We are therefore asking commenters to
give EPA information on the adequacy of DOT and OSHA requirements
related to storage and transportation, particularly with respect to
whether a combustion facility (including an industrial boiler) will be
on proper notice about the nature and behavior of the comparable fuel
to allow for safe handling and burning.
In this regard, EPA believes it is appropriate to set a minimum
flash point for comparable fuels. (See section A.2. for a general
discussion concerning the Comparable Fuels Specification.) The flash
point is defined as the minimum temperature at which a substance gives
off enough flammable vapors which in contact with a spark or flame will
ignite. Setting a minimum flash point would ensure that under ambient
conditions the comparable fuel would not ignite during transportation
and storage.
A shortcoming of this approach is that a purchaser or other off-
site facility may desire a comparable fuel with a flash point lower
than the comparable fuel specified flash point. EPA does not wish to
preclude low flash point comparable fuels from the exemption.
Therefore, the Agency is inclined to allow some waiver of the minimum
flash point specification under certain circumstances.
EPA is proposing to allow low flash point comparable fuels if there
is some notice to intermediate carriers and the ultimate user of what
the flash point of this comparable fuel is. To do this, EPA needs to be
assured that these low flash point comparable fuels can be stored,
handled, and transported safely. EPA is inclined to believe current DOT
and OSHA requirements for transportation and storage of hazardous or
combustible liquids are adequate for this purpose, but we specifically
seek comment on this issue.
[[Page 17469]]
H. Speculative Accumulation
EPA is also proposing that comparable fuels remain subject to the
speculative accumulation test found in Sec. 261.2(c)(4). This means
that persons generating or burning comparable fuels must actually put a
given volume of the fuel to its intended use during a one-year period,
namely 75 per cent of what is on hand at the beginning of each calendar
year commencing on January 1. See the definition of ``accumulated
speculatively'' in Sec. 261.1(c)(8). (The rules also provide for
variances to accommodate circumstances where such turnover is not
legitimately practical. Sec. 260.31(a).) EPA applies this test to other
similar exclusions of recycled secondary materials in the rules (see
Sec. 261.2(e)(2)(iii).) This is because over accumulation of hazardous
waste-derived recyclables has led to many of the most severe hazardous
waste damage incidents. See 50 FR at 658-61 and 634-37 (January 4,
1985). There is no formal recordkeeping requirement associated with the
speculative accumulation test, but the burden of proof is on the person
claiming the exclusion to show that the test has been satisfied.
Sec. 261.2(f) and 50 FR at 636-37.
I. Regulatory Impacts
EPA also requests data from the regulatory community concerning the
regulatory impacts of this proposed comparable fuel exclusion. Impact
data includes the quantity of waste which would be excluded (by weight)
and the cost savings as a result of the exclusion. Based on the data
submitted, EPA will develop a full regulatory impact assessment during
the final rulemaking.
J. CMA Clean Fuel Proposal
The Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) submitted a proposal
to exempt certain ``clean'' liquid wastes from RCRA regulation
206. Unlike EPA's benchmark-based comparable fuel proposal, the
CMA approach would establish clean fuel specifications for mercury,
LVM, and SVM metals based on the technology-based MACT emission
standards proposed today. For mercury, CMA calculated the maximum feed
rate the facility would be allowed if it had a given gas flowrate, no
mercury control, and yet complied with today's proposed standards. This
would establish the maximum mercury concentration of the CMA ``clean
fuel'' specification. Limits would be established for LVM and SVM
metals in a similar fashion. For chlorine, CMA presented a
specification level based on the concentration of chlorine found in
coal. Limits for ash content would be derived from No. 4 fuel oil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\206\ See Revised CMA Proposal for Clean Waste Fuels Exemption
to RCRA dated March 1, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CMA proposal also appears to rely solely on adequate thermal
destruction of the organics to control potential organic contamination
and risks therefrom. Combustion would be limited to on-site boilers or
boilers owned and operated by the clean fuel generator, where these
boilers meet a 100 ppmv hourly rolling average CO limit.
CMA's clean fuel proposal would also establish limits on physical
specifications. The heating value of a CMA clean fuel would have to be
at least 5,000 BTU/lb, viscosity would have to be less that 26.4, and
the clean fuel must be a liquid.
Acutely hazardous wastes 207 would not be eligible for CMA's
proposed clean fuel exemption, nor would dioxin-listed wastes
(hazardous waste numbers F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, F028.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\207\ That is, discarded commercial chemical products listed in
Sec. 261.33 (``P'' listed wastes), and acutely hazardous (those with
``H'' hazard codes) wastes listed in Secs. 261.31 and 261.32
(hazardous wastes from non-specific and specific sources, ``F'' and
``K'' listed wastes, respectively.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA invites comment on CMA's proposed ``clean fuels''
specification. Specifically, EPA requests commentors address the
following issues and questions:
--Is reliance on the technology-based MACT emission standards approach
appropriate for establishing a clean fuel exemption under RCRA, either
with or without restrictions on the type of device that can be used to
burn the clean fuel? How does EPA justify not establishing specific
constituent limits for the other five RCRA metals?
--Does a CO limit alone ensure adequate destruction of toxic organics
in a clean fuel scenario? Would additional controls, such as an HC
limit, limits on inlet temperature to a dry PM APCD, DRE testing, and
site-specific risk assessment also be appropriate?
--Does CMA's proposal adequately address new facilities? Would it be
appropriate to allow off-site shipment to a facility not owned by the
generator if the generator owns no combustion device in the vicinity?
If so, how would EPA be able to ensure compliance regarding the CO
emissions (and possibly other testing and operational conditions) of a
combustion device not owned by the generator?
--Should CMA's clean fuel approach be expanded to include gaseous as
well as liquid fuels?
--Are there wastes other than those identified by CMA (acutely toxic
and dioxin-listed wastes) which should not be eligible for a ``clean
fuel'' exemption? If so, what would be the practical impacts of such
expanded ineligibility?
--Are data available documenting that emissions from burning a ``clean
fuel'' would not pose a significant risk for the potential combustion
and management scenarios in which the clean fuel exclusion from RCRA
might be used?
II. Miscellaneous Revisions to the Existing Rules
This section provides several miscellaneous revisions to the RCRA
hazardous waste combustion rules provided by 40 CFR Parts 260-270. We
note that we are also proposing other revisions to Parts 260-270 that
would be conforming revisions to ensure that the RCRA rules are
consistent with similar provisions of the proposed Part 63 rules. Those
proposed conforming revisions are discussed elsewhere in the preamble.
A. Revisions to the Small Quantity Burner Exemption Under the BIF Rule
The Agency is proposing to revise the small quantity burner (SQB)
exemption provided by Sec. 266.108 of the BIF rule because the current
exemption may not be protective of human health and the environment.
Under the exemption, BIFs could burn up to the exempt quantities absent
regulation other than notification and recordkeeping requirements.
Under a settlement agreement, the environmental petitioners in
Horsehead Resource Development Company, Inc., v. EPA (No. 91-1221 and
Consolidated Cases), the Agency must reevaluate whether the small
quantity burner exemption is sufficiently protective given that the
Agency did not consider indirect exposure pathways in calculating the
exemption levels. In addition, the petitioners argued that the
exemption is inconsistent with the intent of RCRA Sec. 3004(q)(2)(B)
which specifically allows the Administrator to exempt facilities which
burn de minimis quantities of hazardous waste because the exemption as
promulgated would allow sources to burn up to 2,000 gallons of
hazardous waste per month absent substantive emissions controls.
Petitioners believe that 2,000 gallons per month is not a de minimis
quantity.
EPA attempted to reevaluate exempt quantities considering indirect
exposure
[[Page 17470]]
pathways for, in particular, emissions of dioxins and furans (D/F).
Unfortunately, we were not able to adequately predict emission levels
of D/F for purposes of conducting a generic, national risk assessment
to back-calculate exempt quantities. We could not effectively predict
D/F emissions because: (1) There may be little relationship between
quantity of hazardous waste burned and D/F emissions (i.e., other
factors may result in high or low D/F emissions); and (2) there are
several site-specific factors that can affect D/F emissions, including
combustion efficiency (that is affected by factors such as combustion
zone temperature, oxygen levels, and residence time in the combustion
zone), gas temperature at the particulate matter control device, and
presence of precursors such as PCBs.
In addition, we found it difficult to identify an appropriate
indirect exposure scenario for purposes of assessing risk to support a
generic exemption. We note that to evaluate whether the proposed MACT
standards met RCRA protectiveness requirements, we analyzed 11 example
facilities assuming the example facilities emitted HAPs at the
regulatory option levels. We did not have site-specific stack gas
properties (e.g., gas flow rate, gas temperature, stack height) and
exposure information to conduct similar indirect exposure assessments
for example SQB facilities.
Given these difficulties, the Agency is proposing to revise the SQB
exemption to limit exempt quantities to 100 kg/mo (27 gal/mo), which is
the current exemption level for small quantity generators (SQG)
provided by Sec. 261.5. We believe that this is appropriate given that
SQG hazardous waste is already exempt from regulation and thus, may be
burned absent emission controls. We note, however, that the SQB
exemption can apply to facilities owned or operated by large quantity
generators. Thus, under today's proposal, wastes not eligible for the
SQG exemption could be eligible for the SQB exemption. Nonetheless, we
believe that 27 gal/mo is a reasonable level for the exemption because
it is truly a de minimis quantity and such quantities can be burned
absent emission controls under existing SQG regulations.
We believe that approximately 200 boilers are currently operating
under the SQB exemption. Many of these boilers are likely burning
quantities in excess of 27 gallons/mo, and s
FR Doc. 96-7872 Revised Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors
o would be subject to full
regulation as a BIF under today's proposal. We note, however, that we
are also proposing today a comparable fuels exclusion that would
exclude from the definition of solid and hazardous waste any material
that meets the proposed comparable fuels specification. Although we
currently have no information on how many SQBs could use the comparable
fuels exclusion, some heretofore SQBs are expected to be eligible for
this proposed exclusion.
Sources that burn hazardous waste that do not meet the comparable
fuels specification may determine that it is less expensive to send
their waste to a commercial burner than comply with the BIF
regulations. Those sources that choose to continue burning hazardous
waste would be required to comply with the substantive requirements of
the BIF rule. Since the BIF rule would subject some of these facilities
to RCRA regulation for the first time (assuming no other permitted
units are at the facility), these SQB facilities would be eligible for
interim status. See 56 FR at 7186 (February 21, 1991) for requirements
regarding permit modifications, section 3010 notifications, and Part A
permit applications. Such sources would also be required to submit a
certification of precompliance (required by Sec. 266.103(b)) within 6
months of the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register, and a certification of compliance (required by
Sec. 266.103(c)) within 18 months of the date of publication of the
final rule.
B. The Waiver of the PM Standard Under the Low Risk Waste Exemption of
the BIF Rule Would Not Be Applicable to HWCs
Section 266.109 of the BIF rule provides a conditional exemption
from the destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) standard and the
particulate matter (PM) emission standard. The DRE standard is waived
if the owner or operator complies with prescribed procedures to show
that emissions of toxic organics are not likely to pose a potential
hazard to human health considering the direct inhalation pathway. The
PM standard is waived if the DRE standard is waived and the source
complies with the Tier I or adjusted Tier I feedrate limits for metals.
We are proposing today to restrict eligibility for the waiver of
the PM standard to BIFs other than cement and lightweight aggregate
kilns. This is because: (1) Compliance assurance with the proposed MACT
standards for D/F, SVM, and LVM is based on compliance with a CEM-
monitored, site-specific PM emission limit;208 and (2) the
proposed MACT PM standard would be used to help minimize emissions of
adsorbed non-D/F organic HAPs. Given that this restriction for cement
and lightweight aggregate kilns is needed to ensure compliance with the
proposed MACT standards, the restriction would be effective at the time
that the kiln begins to comply with the MACT standard (i.e., when the
source submits the initial notification of compliance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\208\ Not to exceed the proposed national MACT standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, we note that, as a practical matter, we believe that this
proposed restriction of eligibility for the PM waiver for kilns will
have little or no effect on the regulated community. We are not aware
of any cement or lightweight aggregate kilns that both meet the
conditions for the exemption and have elected or intend to elect to
request the waiver.
The Agency solicits comment on the application of waste
minimization to lower the volume of waste streams fed to combustors so
that the combustor can meet the proposed revised SQB feed limitations.
Such reductions might be achieved by meeting the proposed HWIR
standards and thus removing entire streams from Subtitle C
requirements. The Agency is particularly interested in technical and
economic information about commercial or experimental processes to
reduce stream volume.
C. The ``Low Risk Waste'' Exemption from the Emission Standards
Provided by the Existing Incinerator Standards Would Be Superseded by
the MACT Rules
Section 264.340(c) exempts certain incinerators from the emission
standards if the hazardous waste burned contains insignificant
concentrations of Appendix VIII, Part 261, hazardous constituents which
would reasonably be expected to be in the waste. In implementing this
provision, the Agency has used various measures of risk potential to
define ``insignificant'' concentrations. We believe that a risk-based
waiver is inconsistent with today's proposed technology-based MACT
standards for incinerators, and in any case could not supersede those
standards. Thus, we are proposing that this provision no longer be
applicable to an incinerator at the time it begins complying with the
MACT standards (i.e., when the initial notification of compliance is
submitted).
We also note that Sec. 264.340(b) provides the same exemption from
emission standards if the hazardous waste burned does not contain any
(i.e., nondetect levels) of the Appendix VIII constituents. We are
proposing that this provision also be superseded by the proposed MACT
standards because: (1) Detection limits may be high for some
[[Page 17471]]
waste matrices; and (2) nontoxic organics in the waste can result in
emissions of toxic organics under poor combustion conditions or
conditions favorable to formation of D/F in the post-combustion zone
(e.g., a PM control device operating at temperatures above 400 deg.F).
D. Bevill Residues
1. Required Testing Frequency for Bevill Residues
The Agency is proposing to set a minimum sampling and analysis
frequency for residues derived from the burning or processing of
hazardous waste in units that may qualify for the Bevill exemption by
satisfying the requirements of Sec. 266.112 (a) and (b). The Agency
believes a minimum testing frequency is necessary to prevent large
quantities of hazardous residues from being managed in an
environmentally unsound manner.
Current regulations require that waste derived residue be sampled
and analyzed ``as often as necessary to determine whether the residue
generated during each 24-hour period'' meets requirements to qualify
for the Bevill exemption. Because large volumes of residue are
generated in any 24-hour period, it is possible that a facility may
have disposed of the residue after a sample had been taken, but before
the analysis results are received. The Agency stated in the preamble to
the BIF regulations (56 FR 42504 (August 27, 1991)) that ``if the waste
derived residue is sampled and analyzed less often than on a daily
basis, and subsequent analysis determines that the residue fails the
test and is fully regulated hazardous waste, the Agency considers all
residue generated since the previous successful analysis to be fully
regulated hazardous waste absent documentation otherwise.'' Residue
generated after the failed test may also be considered hazardous waste
until the next passing test. The residue disposal area or unit would
also become subject to Subtitle C requirements.
In the interest of protecting human health and the environment and
avoiding the scenarios mentioned above, the Agency is today proposing
that if a facility elects to sample and analyze less frequently than
every day, approval must be granted by the Regional Administrator and
the sampling and analysis frequency used must be based on and justified
by statistical analysis. The Agency is also proposing that, in the
event the Regional Administrator approves less than daily sampling at a
facility, the facility must, at a minimum, sample and analyze its
residues at least once every month for metals and once every six months
for other compounds. A more frequent minimum sampling frequency has
been proposed for metals because of the variability of metal content in
feed materials and because metals cannot be destroyed in the furnace.
The proposed sampling frequency will minimize the possibility of large
volumes of hazardous residues being placed on the land or otherwise
being stored or disposed of contrary to Subtitle C requirements. The
Agency does not believe these proposed requirements will unduly burden
the regulated community and requests comments on this issue.
The following factors must be considered when determining an
appropriate sampling frequency:
--Selection of a statistical method and distribution of data (normal or
log normal distribution)
--Feedrates of wastes and all other feed streams
--Volatility of metals in all feed streams
--Physical form of various feed streams (solid versus liquid)
--Type of feed system
--Levels and types of organic constituents in all feedstreams (for
example, difficulty of destruction or formation of by-products)
--Levels and types of metals regulated under RCRA, other than those
regulated by the BIF regulations (for example, selenium)
--Changes in feed streams
--Changes in operating conditions or equipment
--Operating conditions when sampling compared with those when not
sampling
--Trends in partitioning of metals in fly as compared with bottom ash
Facilities with a high variability of hazardous constituents in
their residues should closely examine these factors in deciding upon a
sampling frequency. Facilities with residues that exhibit little or no
constituent variability may be able to sample at the minimum frequency,
pending approval of less than daily sampling by the Regional
Administrator.
2. Dioxin Testing of Bevill Residues
a. Regulatory History. Under 40 CFR Sec. 266.112 of the boiler/
industrial furnace (BIF) rule, EPA codified procedures for owners and
operators of Bevill devices to determine whether their residues retain
the Bevill exemption when the facilities co-fire or co-process
hazardous waste fuels along with fossil fuels or normal raw materials.
These procedures were deemed necessary to ensure that the burning of
hazardous waste does not alter the residues so that they are no longer
the ``high volume, low hazard'' materials exempted by the Bevill
amendment. This test was upheld by the D.C. Circuit in Horsehead
Resource Development Co. v. Browner, 16 F. 3d 1246 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
Specifically, 40 CFR Sec. 266.112 requires facilities that claim
the Bevill exemption for residues from co-burning hazardous waste along
with Bevill raw materials to conduct sampling and analysis of their
residues to document that either: (1) Levels of toxic constituents in
the waste-derived residue are not significantly higher than normal
(i.e., when not burning hazardous waste) residues; or (2) levels of
toxic constituents in waste-derived residue do not exceed health-based
levels specified in the rule. This is commonly referred to as the two-
part Bevill test. The constituents for which analysis must be conducted
include: (1) Appendix VIII, Part 261, hazardous constituents that could
reasonably be expected to be in the hazardous waste burned, and that
are listed in Sec. 268.40 for F039 non-wastewaters (see 59 FR 4982 of
September 19, 1994); and (2) compounds that the Agency has determined
are common products of incomplete combustion (i.e., they may be formed
during combustion of the waste) and have been listed in Appendix VIII
of Part 266.
b. Addition of Dioxin/Furan Compounds to the Appendix VIII, Part
266 Product of Incomplete Combustion List. The Appendix VIII, Part 266
product of incomplete combustion (PIC) list does not currently include
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin (PCDD) and polychlorinated dibenzo-
furan (PCDF) compounds. In addition, most BIF facilities do not burn
wastes which could reasonably be expected to contain PCDD/PCDF
compounds. Thus, few Sec. 266.112 facilities have been analyzing their
residues on a routine basis for PCDD/PCDF compounds to determine
whether burning hazardous waste has affected the character of the
residue.
EPA believes that it is important to add PCDD/PCDF compounds to the
PIC list in order to make residue analysis for PCDD/PCDFs a mandatory
component of the two-part Bevill test. First, dioxin/furan compounds
are likely to be PICs and, as such, should rightfully be included on
the PIC list. As described in Chapter 4 of the May 1994 Draft
Combustion Emissions Technical Resource Document (CETRED), there is a
considerable body of evidence to show that PCDD/PCDF compounds can be
[[Page 17472]]
formed in the post-combustion regions of boilers, industrial furnaces
and incinerators, even if no PCDD/PCDF compounds are fed to the
combustion device. Secondly, the level of dioxins in residues can be
influenced by hazardous waste burning activities. The October 1994
Cement Kiln Dust Notice of Data Availability, which augmented the
December 1993 Report to Congress on Cement Kiln Dust, provided a
regression analysis to determine the impact of hazardous waste fuel use
on dioxin and furan concentrations. Every one of the dioxins and furans
evaluated appeared in significantly higher concentrations in cement
kiln dust generated by plants that burned hazardous waste fuel in
comparison with plants that did not burn any hazardous waste fuels. The
Report concluded that the strength and consistency of this relationship
for cement kiln dust was striking, and that it provides very strong
evidence that dioxin and furan concentrations in the dust are
systematically higher at plants that burn hazardous waste fuel.
Finally, it is important to note that, where the potential for
excess risks were identified in the Report, the constituents of concern
included metals and dioxin/furan compounds. Metals are already covered
by the two-part test of Sec. 266.112. However, it is equally important
to include PCDDs/PCDFs in the two-part test to make sure that residues
from hazardous waste-burning devices continue to meet the high volume,
low hazard criteria presumed by the Bevill exemption.
c. Use of Land Disposal Restriction Standards as Interim Limits for
PCDD/PCDFs. On November 9, 1993, EPA published an interim final rule
establishing alternate concentration limits for nonmetals to be used
for the health-based comparison portion of the two-part Bevill test
(i.e., 40 CFR Sec. 266.112(b)(2)). The alternate levels were based on
the land disposal restriction (LDR) limits for F039 non-wastewaters
pending further administrative action to determine whether more
appropriate health-based levels should be developed. Although the LDR
limits are not health-based levels, the Agency noted in the preamble
(58 FR at 59598 (Nov. 9, 1994)) that the technology-based LDR treatment
limits should serve to identify residues that have the ``low toxicity''
attribute that is one of the key bases for the temporary exemption of
Bevill residues from the definition of hazardous waste. See Horsehead
Resource Development Co. v. Browner, 16 F. 3d. The Agency also noted
that the LDR levels are promulgated limits and so have been scrutinized
and subject to public comment in previous rulemakings.
As part of today's proposal to add PCDD/PCDF constituents to the
Appendix VIII, Part 266 PIC list, the Agency would continue the interim
practice of basing the concentration limits for the health-based
portion of the two-part Bevill test on the LDR F039 nonwastewater
levels. The LDR regulation establishes concentration limits of 1 part-
per-billion (ppb) for total HxPCDDs, total HxPCDFs, total PePCDDs,
total PePCDFs, total TCDDs and total TCDFs. The Agency believes that
these levels for dioxin/furan compounds will serve as adequate
screening levels on an interim basis to ensure that residues from
hazardous waste-burning devices continue to meet the ``low toxicity''
attribute presumed by the Bevill exemption.
The Report to Congress on Cement Kiln Dust provides some support
for the 1 ppb PCDD/PCDF screening criteria. In baseline risk modeling
for fifteen case study facilities managing CKD on-site, dioxin/furan
compounds were not identified as contributors to adverse health effects
for either direct or indirect exposure pathways (see Report, Exhibit 6-
14). Risk from PCDD/PCDFs only reached levels of concern when the
Agency performed a sensitivity analysis to examine the change in risks
that would occur at five baseline facilities based on the hypothetical
management of CKD containing the highest measured PCDD/PCDF
concentrations found in EPA's sampling at 11 cement plants. The highest
concentrations were observed in samples from a cement facility, and
were at least 2\1/2\ times higher than concentrations observed at any
other facility. All of the samples from that facility exceeded 1 ppb
for at least one homolog listed as part of the LDR F039 criteria (i.e.,
total HxPCDDs, total HxPCDFs, total PePCDDs, total PePCDFs, total TCDDs
or total TCDFs). Thus, the levels which showed potential for adverse
health effects in the site-specific modeling would be screened by
application of the 1 ppb criteria listed in the F039 LDR. By
comparison, none of the samples from facilities other than the above
facility had any PCDD/PCDF homologs exceeding 1 ppb.
The Agency is proposing continued use of the LDR levels because it
does not believe that it is appropriate to establish a more specific
health-based level for dioxin/furan compounds at this time.209 A
separate regulatory process is underway which will establish controls
on management of cement kiln dust (60 FR 7366). Any health-based level
established in advance of these controlled CKD management standards
would quickly become obsolete because, at a minimum, the fate and
transport assumptions would be different. The Agency specifically
requests comment regarding whether the interim LDR F039 limits for
PCDD/PCDF constituents are appropriate. Alternatively, the Agency
requests information regarding an appropriate methodology for
establishing more specific health-based limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\209\ EPA notes that, by establishing LDR exemption levels for
Bevill residue, the Agency is not suggesting that: (1) the
technology-based treatment standards are equivalent to, or
appropriate to use as, health-based limits; or (2) Bevill excluded
residues should necessarily be subject to the LDR rules. See 58 FR
at 59603 (November 9, 1994). These issues are the subject of other
rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Clarification of Appendix VIII, Part 266 PIC List Applicability.
There has historically been some confusion regarding whether each of
the constituents listed on the Appendix VIII, Part 266 list must be a
mandatory component of the residue testing at every facility, or
whether a facility could exclude some of the constituents on the list.
Today, the Agency clarifies that the Appendix VIII, Part 266 list is
applicable to every facility in its entirety, without exclusion.
3. Application of Derived From Rule to Residues From Hazardous Waste
Combustion in non-Bevill Boilers and Industrial Furnaces
As part of a settlement agreement of the lawsuit over the 1991 BIF
regulations, EPA agreed to reconsider the appropriateness of applying
the derived from rule to residues from co-processing listed hazardous
waste fuels and raw materials in non-Bevill boilers and industrial
furnaces. An example would be an oil-fired boiler burning listed
hazardous waste fuel and generating emission control dusts or scrubber
effluents, which dusts or effluents would not be considered to be
Bevill excluded. If this type of burning occurs in a boiler or furnace
whose residues are otherwise within the scope of the Bevill amendment,
the residues remain exempted from subtitle C (i.e. remain exempted by
virtue of the Bevill amendment) so long as they are not ``significantly
affected'' by burning hazardous waste. Sec. 266.112. A residue is not
significantly affected if there is no statistically significant
increase between baseline, non-hazardous waste-derived residues, or if
hazardous constituents in the residue do not exceed health-based (or
health-based surrogate) levels. Id. Consistent with the settlement
agreement mentioned above, EPA solicits comment as to whether this
[[Page 17473]]
same type of test could be applied to burning of hazardous waste in
non-Bevill boilers and furnaces. The logic could be that if hazardous
properties are not contributed by the hazardous waste, the derived from
rule should not apply.
EPA's inclination is not to apply any type of significantly
affected test to residues at this time. The recently-proposed exit
levels, and methodology, in the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule
(HWIR) provide a means of automatic exit from the subtitle C system
when wastes (including derived-from wastes) are no longer hazardous.
Furthermore, the ``significantly affected'' test is closely linked to
the Bevill amendment, and in fact defines the scope of that amendment
in co-processing situations. EPA sees no persuasive reason to apply the
test to non-Bevill residues, particularly when the Agency has proposed
a means whereby such residues can automatically exit the system. It
appears to EPA to be the better approach to make subtitle C exit
determinations on the basis of hazards actually posed by the waste
rather than by comparisons with a non-waste baseline. (Indeed, this is
one component of the significantly affected test already. See
Sec. 266.112(b)(2).) The Agency solicits comment on this matter,
however.
E. Applicability of Regulations to Cyanide Wastes
The Agency has received several inquiries regarding the
applicability of Sec. 266.100(c)(2)(i) criteria for processing cyanide
wastes solely for metal recovery. Specifically, cyanide wastes do not
meet the common dictionary meaning of being an organic, but can be
destroyed by industrial furnaces. The Agency's intent of this exemption
was to preclude burning of waste streams that contain greater than 500
ppm nonmetal compounds listed in Appendix VIII of Part 61, that are
provided a level of destruction by the furnace. The Agency
inappropriately chose the word `organic' instead of `nonmetal' in the
above regulation. An amendment is being proposed to provide the needed
clarification that wastes containing cyanides are eligible to be
included in this exemption. We are also proposing similar amendments
(i.e., revisions to use the term ``nonmetal'' rather than ``organic'')
to subparagraphs (c)(2)(ii), (c)(3)(i)(B), and (c)(3)(ii).
F. Shakedown Concerns
There is a concern within the Agency that some new units do not
effectively use their allotted 720 hour pre-trial burn period (commonly
referred to as ``shakedown'') or extensions thereof to correct
operational problems prior to the trial burn period. This ineffective
use of the pretrial burn period can potentially lead to emission
exceedances which pose unnecessary risks to human health and the
environment. In addition, failure(s) during trial burn testing at one
or more test conditions reduce a facility's flexibility to burn
hazardous waste in a subsequent permit developed from the trial burn or
may even lead to a need to perform other trial burns or a termination
of the permit. A failure to perform adequate shakedown may also lead to
difficulties in making an interpretation of trial burn data and in
setting of permit conditions due to excessive variability in trial burn
operation.
The Agency believes that an approach using system start-up and
system problem solving with the use of a non-hazardous waste feed
followed by a gradual, carefully planned introduction of hazardous
waste feed is essential to avoid the potential problems which could
result from the burning of hazardous waste in an undiagnosed system
which may not yet be operating at steady state conditions. The absence
of this type of approach has caused many previous trial burns not to be
carried through to completion or has caused them to occur in a very
different fashion from that prescribed in the trial burn plan. Other
efforts during the trial burn have resulted in diminished operating
allowances or in the need for additional trial burn testing. As a
result of these occurrences, the Agency is proposing three options
which center around the pretrial burn period in an attempt to enhance
regulatory control over trial burn testing. The Agency is also
requesting comment on the applicability of these options to interim
status facilities. The shakedown period has, in the past, been applied
exclusively to new facilities and has not addressed existing facilities
operating under interim status. The Agency believes that these options
could apply to interim status facilities if the newly proposed waste to
be burned represented a very different waste than that which had been
burned.
As its primary option, the Agency would require that facilities be
required to show the Director prior to trial burn dates being scheduled
that the facility has provided a minimum showing of operational
readiness. This showing of operational readiness would be one which has
been established by the Director and would be incorporated as part of
the permit application process for both interim status and new devices.
The manner in which this notification of readiness would occur would be
determined by the Director. A trial burn could not be scheduled until
this minimum showing to the Director has occurred. Criteria for trial
burn readiness would include, but would not be limited to the following
examples: (1) The ability of a facility to show that it has operated
the device to be permitted under its planned trial burn conditions
(e.g. temperature, feedrate) for a specified time period set by the
Director, or (2) the ability of a facility to operate for a designated
period of time (to be established by the Director) without an Automatic
Waste Feed Cut-Off (AWFCO) occurring. To show readiness to the
Director, the composition of the feed stream to the device during this
showing would need to be nearly identical (if not identical) to the
waste intended to be burned during the operational lifetime of the
facility. This similarity should be consistent with respect to the
physical, thermal, and fluid characteristics of the waste not only
being burned during the trial burn tests, but also during the lifetime
of the facility. It is the Agency's belief that facilities which fail
their trial burn tests often fail because facilities tend to stress
their devices for the first time only during trial burn testing. The
system has to that point never undergone ``break point'' testing with
an increased feedrate or maximum capacity feedrate. A trial burn should
not be scheduled until a facility has shown the Director that it can
operate without constant shutdowns at feedrates consistent with that of
the trial burn.
A second option which the Agency offers for comment is a more
restrictive option. This option proposes requirements on both the
operations prior to and following the shakedown period. It incorporates
the notification requirements found in the primary option along with an
additional notification requirement which would occur prior to the
beginning of shakedown. This option would require a facility to notify
the Director that it has achieved steady state operation with non-
hazardous waste during this period leading up to shakedown at
operational levels set by Director (e.g. flowrates) which are
comparable to that to be tested at trial burn and to certify that the
device is ready to begin shakedown operations. As before, this option
would also require a facility to notify the Director following
shakedown that operational readiness with hazardous waste has been
achieved and to certify that the device is ready for trial burn tests.
Although this option would impose two more operational
[[Page 17474]]
requirements for a facility, it would ensure that the facility has
brought the device up to operational standards whereby the addition of
hazardous waste would not represent an excessive risk to human health
or the environment. The Agency believes that this option would also
provide for a more efficient trial burn since it has required a
facility to become operational without constant shutdowns prior to the
trial burn prior to shakedown and after shakedown. Portions of this
option may not be directly applicable to interim status facilities
since they have been burning hazardous waste to date and may have most
of their operational problems worked out.
A third option upon which the Agency is requesting comment is a
``guidance only'' option. Although this option would not impose any
specific regulatory requirements for a showing of operational readiness
prior to or after a shakedown period, it would provide guidance to
industry and permit writers on how to effectively achieve preparedness
prior to a trial burn without the need of formalizing it within the
constraints of the regulations. Permit writers would have the ability,
as they do now, to set readiness demonstration requirements if they
deem it necessary for a specific site.
G. Extensions of Time Under Certification of Compliance
The Boiler and Industrial Furnace Rule, at 40 CFR
Sec. 266.103(c)(7), allows a facility to obtain a case-by-case
extension under certain circumstances when events were outside of the
control of the facility. There have been questions as to whether this
provision meant that after August 21, 1992, a facility could no longer
apply for a case-by-case extension. The Agency wants to clarify that it
never intended this restrictive interpretation and so is proposing to
amend this section to provide the clarification. EPA intended the case-
by-case extension to apply at any time during the certification of
compliance cycle, including during Revised Certification of Compliance
under Sec. 266.103(c)(8), and during Periodic Recertifications under
Sec. 266.103(d). See 56 FR at 7182 (February 21, 1991). The basis of
granting the case-by-case extension is proposed to remain unchanged by
today's rule. Additionally, EPA is clarifying that the automatic one
year extension is not valid for facilities which were not in existence
on August 21, 1991.
H. Technical Amendments to the BIF Rule
1. Facility Requirements at Closure
EPA is today proposing to amend Sec. 266.103(l) to stipulate that
at closure, the owner or operator must remove all hazardous waste and
hazardous waste residues not only from the boiler or industrial
furnace, but also from its air pollution control system (APCS).
Although the APCS is an integral part of the facility, this minor
amendment will make it explicitly clear that no hazardous waste or
residues can remain in the APCS after closure.
2. Definitions under the BIF Rule
We are adding several definitions under Sec. 260.10 for frequently
used terms in combustion regulations like fugitive emissions, automatic
waste feed cutoff system, run, air pollution control system and
operating record. The purpose is to clarify these technical terms of
thermal treatment, expedite permit writing as well as increase the
enforceability of obvious technical violations. Some of these
definitions already exist in the air regulations.
I. Clarification of Regulatory Status of Fuel Blenders
EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 266.101 (``Management prior to
burning'') to clarify that fuel blending activities, including those
which constitute treatment, are regulated under RCRA. Section 266.101
(formerly 266.34) was written with the understanding that hazardous
waste fuel-blending activities were traditionally performed in
containers or tank systems where the storage standards of Part 264
could be applied. The Agency believes that protection of human health
and the environment is accomplished when the permit addresses the
containment of the waste being treated. Therefore, no direct reference
to ``treatment'' was included in Section 266.34; treatment was
understood to be implicit in the regulation, as shown by the reference
in section 261.6 to the ``* * * applicable provisions of Part 270.''
EPA has in fact explicitly interpreted Sec. 266.101 (formerly
Sec. 266.34) to require tank storage standards to apply to tanks in
which hazardous waste fuels are blended. See 52 FR 11820 (April 13,
1987).
More recently, it has come to the Agency's attention that fuel
blenders may be using devices such as microwave units and distillation
columns in their hazardous waste handling operations that differ from
the traditional fuel-blending practices. These practices are, in fact,
hazardous waste treatment activities requiring a RCRA permit, without
which the unit cannot operate. For many such operations, the
``miscellaneous unit'' requirements of Part 264, Subpart X, would
apply. Due to various inquiries regarding this issue, EPA has written
several policy memoranda confirming that treatment, as well as storage,
conducted by fuel blenders requires a RCRA permit. These memoranda are
part of the Agency's RCRA Permit Policy Compendium and are available
from the RCRA Hotline. They are also included in this rulemaking
docket. EPA is taking this opportunity to clarify this issue in the
regulations by revising the language in Sec. 266.101.
J. Change in Reporting Requirements for Secondary Lead Smelters Subject
to MACT
EPA recently promulgated MACT standards for the secondary lead
smelter source category. 60 FR 29750 (June 23, 1995). In that rule, the
Agency found, with unanimous support from commenters, that RCRA
emission standards were unnecessary at the present time for these
sources since the MACT standards provide significant health protection,
area secondary lead sources will be regulated by these MACT standards,
and the ultimate issue of the protectiveness of the standard will be
evaluated during the section 112(f) residual risk determination.
EPA is proposing here to modify existing Sec. 266.100(c), which
provides an exemption from RCRA air emission standards for (among other
sources) industrial furnaces burning hazardous waste solely for
material recovery. Secondary lead smelters complying with conditions
enumerated in Sec. 266.100(c)(l) and (3) are among this type of
industrial furnace. The Agency is proposing to amend Sec. 266.100(c)and
is proposing to add a new Sec. 266.100(g) to state that RCRA provisions
for air emissions do not apply to secondary lead smelters when the MACT
rule takes effect (in June, 1997), provided the smelters do not burn
hazardous wastes containing greater than 500 ppm nonmetal hazardous
constituents (or burn wastes enumerated in 40 CFR Part 266 Appendix
XI), submit a one-time notice to EPA or an authorized state, sample and
analyze as necessary to document the basis for their claim, and keep
appropriate records. These amendments also could take the form of an
exemption (subject to the same conditions) for such secondary lead
smelters from the present proposed rule.
This proposed amendment is similar to the exemption found in the
existing
[[Page 17475]]
RCRA BIF rules but does eliminate certain recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for secondary lead smelters presently required as a
condition of the RCRA exemption. The Agency tentatively does not
believe these extra reporting requirements are needed once the MACT
standards take effect. At the same time, secondary lead smelters
choosing to burn hazardous wastes different from those evaluated in the
secondary lead NESHAP (i.e. hazardous wastes with greater than 500 ppm
toxic nonmetals or those hazardous waste not listed in Appendix XI to
Part 266) would have to meet applicable standards for hazardous waste
combustion units (i.e. either the existing BIF standards or revised
standards based on MACT), as well as those for secondary lead smelters.
EPA would administer this proposal by not requiring a secondary lead
smelter that has already submitted a notification to EPA or an
authorized state under existing 266.100(c)(l) or (3), to renotify under
proposed 266.100 (g).
PART SEVEN: ANALYTICAL AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
I. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the
Agency must determine whether this regulatory action is
``significant.'' A determination of significance will subject this
action to full OMB review and compliance under Executive Order 12866
requirements. The order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the terms of the Executive Order.
The Agency believes that today's proposal, represents a significant
action. If adopted, the proposed rule would most likely result in a
cost greater than $100 million. As a result, this rulemaking action,
and supporting analyses, are subject to full OMB review under the
requirements of the Executive Order. The Agency has prepared
``Regulatory Impact Assessment for Proposed Hazardous Waste Combustion
MACT Standards'' and ``Addendum to the Regulatory Impact Assessment for
Proposed Hazardous Waste Combustion MACT Standards'' in support of
today's action; this report is available in the public docket for
today's rule. A summary of this analysis and findings is presented
below.
II. Regulatory Options
During the regulatory developmental phases, EPA considered seven
different regulatory MACT options for existing sources. Refer to the
RIA for a detailed discussion of the seven options. This preamble
discusses and assesses the floor option and the Agency preferred
option. For more detail on the specific methodology used in developing
floor and ``beyond-the-floor'' control levels, the reader should refer
to the preamble Options section, Part Four of this preamble. Below is a
summary of the impact of floor levels and the preferred option 1 on the
combustion industry.
III. Assessment of Potential Costs and Benefits
A. Introduction
The Agency has prepared a regulatory impact assessment to accompany
today's proposed rulemaking. The Agency has evaluated cost, economic
impacts, and other impacts such as environmental justice, unfunded
mandates, regulatory takings, and waste minimization incentives. The
focus of the economic impact assessment was on how the MACT standards
may affect the hazardous waste-burning industry. The Agency would like
to note that although the cement kiln industry profits are generated by
two components: cement production and hazardous waste burning, the RIA
only estimated the impact the MACT standards will have on hazardous
waste burning. The Agency is in the process of beginning an analysis
that will study the impact of today's rule on cement production, cement
prices, and competition in the cement industry. The Agency would like
to solicit comments and request information in this area as we begin
our research.
To develop cost estimates, EPA categorized the combustion units by
size, and estimated engineering costs for the air pollution control
devices (APCDs) needed to achieve the standards in the regulatory
options. Based on information regarding current emissions and APCD
trains EPA developed assumptions regarding the type of upgrades that
units would require. Because EPA's data was limited, this analysis is
meant to develop estimates of national economic impacts, and not site
specific impacts.
B. Analysis and Findings
Total annual compliance costs for the floor option and the Agency's
proposed standards range in costs from an estimated $93 million to $136
million.
Total Annual Compliance Costs
[Millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cement Commercial On-site
Options kilns LWA kilns incinerators incinerators Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 percent Floor.................................... $27 $2 $13 $50 $93
6 percent BTF...................................... 44 4 20 67 136
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This rule will result in a significant impact to the combustion
industry. The regulatory impact assessment used a number screening
indicators to assess the impact of this rule. One indicator the
analysis used was the average total annual compliance cost per unit.
This indicator assesses the relative impact the rule has on each
facility type in the combustion universe. According to this indicator,
cement kilns incur the greatest average incremental cost per unit
totaling $770,000 annually for the floor and $1.1 million annually for
the proposed standards, which include beyond the floor standards. The
cost per unit for LWAKs range from $490,000 to $825,000 and for on-site
incinerators from $340,000 to $486,000. Commercial incinerators annual
average cost per unit total $493,000 for the floor and
[[Page 17476]]
$730,000 for the proposed standards. One should note however, that the
per unit costs are presented assuming no market exit. Once market exit
occurs, per unit should be significantly lower particularly for on-site
incinerators.
Looking at the price per ton, in the baseline, cement kilns have
the lowest cost ($104 per ton) to burn hazardous waste today with
commercial incinerators have $800 per ton costs and on-site
incinerators have $28,460 per ton costs. For compliance costs, cement
kilns have the smallest impact ($40 to $50 per ton) with on-site
incinerators experiencing a high compliance cost of $47 to $57 per ton.
EPA also looked at baseline cost of burning hazardous waste as a
percentage of compliance cost. This indicator assesses the relative
impact of facilities within the sector but it also can be a predictor
for how prices might increase for burning hazardous waste. According to
the table below, the floor compliance costs are 40 percent of the
current baseline cost of burning hazardous waste for cement kilns and
over 20 percent for LWAKs. Many on-site incinerators and commercial
incinerators have existing APCDs and have larger volumes of waste to
distribute compliance costs across, thus compliance costs tend to be a
smaller addition to baseline costs.
Average Total Annual Baseline--Incremental Compliance
[Cost per Ton]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cement Commercial On-site
Options kilns LWA kilns incinerators incinerators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline...................................................... $104 $194 $806 $28,500
6 percent Floor............................................... $40 $39 $23 $47
6 percent BTF................................................. 50 56 31 57
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Baseline costs were calculated by identifying all costs associated with hazardous waste burning. Thus, for
commercial incinerators and on-site incinerators, all costs associated with unit construction, operation and
maintenance are included. This also includes RCRA permits and existing APCDs. The costs for on-site burners
are extremely high because total costs for incineration is distributed across the small amount of hazardous
waste burned. For cement kilns and LWAKs, only those incremental costs associated with burning hazardous waste
are included such as, permits. The cost of the actual units (which have a primary purpose of producing cement
or aggregate) are not included in the baseline. Also these costs are after consolidation occurs.
Although cement kilns incur a significant impact, they still have
the lowest average waste burning cost after the regulation. As the
table above illustrates in the post-regulatory scenario, cement kilns
cost per ton for burning waste would total $154 compared to a cost per
ton for commercial incinerators of $837. EPA expects that this
advantage for cement kilns in the market will allow them to continue to
set the market price for waste burning.
Not all facilities however, will be able to absorb the compliance
cost to this rule and remain competitive. The economic impact
assessment estimates that of the facilities which are currently burning
hazardous waste 3 cement kilns, 2 LWAK, 6 commercial incinerators and
85 on-site incinerators will likely stop burning waste in the long
term. Most of these units are ones which burn smaller amount of
hazardous waste.
C. Total Incremental Cost per Incremental Reduction in HAP Emissions
Cost effectiveness is calculated by first estimating the compliance
expenditures associated with the specific hazardous air pollutant
(HAP). The estimation of costs per HAP is often difficult to ascertain
because the air pollution control devices usually control more than one
HAP. Therefore, estimation of precise cost per HAP was not feasible.
Once the compliance expenditures has been estimated, the total mass
emission reduction achieved when combustion facilities comply with the
standards for a given option must be estimated. With the total
compliance costs and the total mass emissions, the total incremental
cost per incremental reduction in HAP emissions can be estimated. For a
more detailed discussion of how the cost per HAP was calculated, please
see chapter 5 of ``Regulatory Impact Assessment for Proposed Hazardous
Waste Combustion MACT Standards''.
Results of the cost-effectiveness calculations for each HAP for all
facilities are found below. For results on a facility-type level,
please see chapter 5 of the RIA. Considering all facilities as a group,
the results indicate that dioxin, mercury, and metals cost per unit
reduction are quite high. This is the case because small amounts of the
dioxin and metals are released into the environment. For other
pollutants, expenditures per ton are much lower.
Cost Effectiveness for All Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline 6 percent
to 6 floor to
HAP Unit percent 6 percent
floor BTF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D/F............................ $/g.............. $12,000 $560,000
Mercury........................ $/lb............. 2,600 5,400
LVM............................ $/Mton........... 407,000 NA
SVM............................ $/Mton........... 315,000 NA
Chlorine....................... $/Mton........... 7,000 2,240
Particulate.................... $/Mton........... 4,400 3,200
CO............................. $/Mton........... 1,360 NA
THC............................ $/Mton........... 2,800 NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: NA = Zero incremental reduction in HAP emissions (Dollars divided
by zero = NA).
D. Human Health Benefits
1. Dioxin benefits
Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated
dibenzofurans, hereafter referred to collectively as dioxins, are
ubiquitous in the environment. The more highly chlorinated dioxins,
which are extremely stable under environmental conditions, persist in
the environment for decades and are found particularly in soils,
sediments, and foods. It has been hypothesized that the primary
mechanism by which dioxins enter the terrestrial food chain is through
atmospheric deposition.210 Dioxins may be emitted directly to the
atmosphere by a variety of anthropogenic sources or indirectly through
volatilization or particle resuspension from reservoir
[[Page 17477]]
sources such as soils, sediments, and vegetation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\210\ USEPA, ``Estimating Exposure to Dioxin-Like Compounds'',
Volume I, June 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most well known incident of environmental contamination with
dioxins occurred in Seveso, Italy in an industrial accident. Symptoms
of acute exposures such as chloracne occurred immediately following the
incident. Since then, significant increases in certain types of cancers
have also been observed.211 After evaluating a variety of
carcinogenicity studies in human populations and laboratory animals,
EPA has concluded that 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and related
compounds are probable human carcinogens.212 EPA estimates that a
dose of 0.01 picograms on a toxicity equivalent (TEQ) basis per
kilogram body weight per day is associated with a plausible upper bound
lifetime excess cancer risk of one in one million (1 x 10-6).213
Toxicity equivalence is based on the premise that a series of common
biological steps are necessary for most if not all of the observed
effects, including cancer, from exposures to 2,3,7,8 chlorine-
substituted dibenzo-p-dioxin and dibenzofuran compounds in vertebrates,
including humans. Given the levels of background TEQ exposures
discussed below, as many as 600 cancer cases may be attributable to
dioxin exposures each year in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\211\ USEPA, ``Health Assessment Document for 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds, Volume II,
June 1994.
\212\ USEPA, ``Health Assessment Document for 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds, Volume
III,'' August 1994.
\213\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has also concluded that there is adequate evidence from both
human populations and laboratory animals, as well as other experimental
data, to support the inference that humans are likely to respond with a
broad spectrum of non-cancer effects from exposure to dioxins if
exposures are high enough. Although it is not possible given existing
information to state exactly how or at what levels exposed humans will
respond, the margin of exposure between background TEQ levels and
levels where effects are detectable in humans is considerably smaller
than previously thought.214
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\214\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dioxins are commonly found in food produced for human consumption.
Consumption of dioxin contaminated food is considered the primary route
of exposure in the general population. EPA evaluated data collected in
four U.S. studies, three of which included analyses of all 2,3,7,8
chlorine-substituted congeners of dibenzo-p-dioxin and dibenzofuran.
EPA's evaluation concluded that ``background'' levels in beef, milk,
pork, chicken, and eggs are approximately 0.5, 0.07, 0.3, 0.2, and 0.1
parts per trillion fresh weight, respectively, on a toxicity equivalent
(TEQ) basis.215 EPA then used these background levels, together
with information on food consumption, to estimate dietary intake in the
general population. That estimate is 120 picograms TEQ per day.216
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\215\ USEPA, ``Estimating Exposure to Dioxin-Like Compounds,''
Volume II, June 1994.
\216\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has also collected data on dioxins in fish taken from 388
locations nationwide and found that at 89 percent of the locations,
fish contained detectable levels of at least two of the dioxin and
furan compounds for which analyses were conducted.217 (Of the
2,3,7,8 chlorine-substituted congeners, only octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
and octachlorodibenzofuran were not analyzed.) Seven of the compounds,
including 2,3,7,8-TCDD, were detected at over half the locations.
Detection limits were generally at or below 1 part per trillion on a
toxicity equivalent basis. The median (50th percentile) concentration
in fish on a toxicity equivalent basis (TEQ) was 3 parts per trillion
(ppt) while the 90th percentile was approximately 30 ppt TEQ. Five
percent of the sites exceeded 50 ppt TEQ. At most sites, both a
composite sample of bottom feeders and a composite sample of game fish
were collected. At sites considered representative of background
levels, the median concentration was 0.5 ppt TEQ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\217\ USEPA, ``National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish,''
Office of Science and Technology, September 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has estimated that hazardous waste incinerators and hazardous
waste-burning cement and lightweight aggregate kilns currently emit
0.08, 0.86, and less than 0.01 kg TEQ of dioxins per year,
respectively, or a total of 0.94 kg TEQ per year. Excluding non-
hazardous waste-burning cement kilns, an emission rate of approximately
9 kg TEQ per year is estimated for all other U.S. sources.218
Therefore, hazardous waste-burning sources represent about 9 percent of
total anthropogenic emissions of dioxins in the U.S. The following
table shows hazardous waste-burning sources relative to other major
emitters of dioxins:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\218\ USEPA, ``Estimating Exposure to Dioxin-Like Compounds'',
Volume II, June 1994.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dioxin
emissions
Source category (kg TEQ/
year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical Waste Incinerators................................... 5.1
Municipal Waste Incinerators................................. 3.0
Hazardous Waste-burning Incinerators, Cement Kilns, and
Lightweight Aggregate Kilns................................. 0.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is information to suggest, however, that dioxin emissions
nationwide from all sources are higher than have been estimated. Public
comments on EPA's dioxin reassessment have identified a number of
possible additional sources of dioxins, including decomposition of
materials containing chlorophenols (i.e. wood treated with PCP), metals
processing industries, diesel fuel and unleaded gasoline, PCB
manufacturing, and re-entrainment of reservoir sources. Reservoir
sources may be a significant source of vapor phase dioxins. On the
other hand, emissions from at least one of the sources, medical waste
incinerators, is probably significantly overestimated. Supporting the
view that dioxin emissions may be higher than previously estimated are
indications that deposition may be considerably greater than can be
accounted for by presently identified emissions.
The impact of emissions on exposure and risk depends on the
relative geographic locations of the emission sources and receptors
which contribute to exposure and risk, primarily farm animals. This
applies to both near field dispersion and long-range transport and it
affects exposure and risk both in determining whether the trajectory of
an air parcel impacts receptors of concern and in determining the
chemical fate of the emissions. The fate of dioxins depends on
degradation processes that can occur in the atmosphere. These processes
can increase or decrease the toxicity of the original emissions through
dechlorination. This process can have different effects on different
emission sources, depending on the congener distributions, residence
time in the atmosphere, and climatic conditions.
Considering all these factors, it is apparent that hazardous waste-
burning sources contribute significantly to the overall loading of
dioxins to the environment, although the relative magnitude of the
contribution remains to be determined. While there is not a one-to-one
relationship between emissions and risk, it may be inferred that
hazardous waste-burning sources likely do contribute significantly to
dioxin levels in foods used for human consumption and, to an extent as
yet unknown, the estimated 600 cancer
[[Page 17478]]
cases attributable to dioxin exposures annually.
EPA estimates that dioxin emissions from hazardous waste-burning
sources will be reduced to 0.07 kg TEQ per year at the floor levels and
to 0.01 kg TEQ per year at the proposed beyond the floor standard.
These reductions would result in decreases of approximately 8 and 9
percent, respectively in total estimated anthropogenic U.S. emissions.
EPA expects that reductions in dioxin emissions from hazardous waste-
burning sources, in conjunction with reductions in emissions from other
dioxin-emitting sources, will help reduce dioxin levels over time in
foods used for human consumption and, therefore, reduce the likelihood
of adverse health effects, including cancer, occurring in the general
population.
2. Mercury Benefits
Mercury has long been a concern in both occupational and
environmental settings. The most bioavailable form of mercury and,
therefore, the form most likely to have an adverse effect, is methyl
mercury. Human exposures to methyl mercury occur primarily from
ingestion of fish. As a result of mercury contamination, there are
currently fish consumption bans or advisories in effect for at least
one waterbody in over two thirds of the States.
Nationally, about 60 percent of all fish consumption bans and
advisories are due to mercury. In several States the mercury advisories
are statewide, with the most widespread concerns being in the northern
Great Lakes states and Florida. The bans and advisories vary from State
to State with respect to the levels of concern, the recommended limits
on consumption, and other factors. Therefore, it is difficult to
develop a national estimate of potential risk based on this
information. Nevertheless, these bans and advisories provide one
indication of the extent and severity of mercury contamination.
Even low levels of mercury in surface waters can lead to high
levels of mercury in fish. EPA has estimated that bioaccumulation
factors, which represent the ratio of the total mercury concentration
in fish tissue to the total concentration in filtered water, range from
5,000 to 10,000,000 depending on the species of fish, the age of the
fish, and the waterbody the fish inhabit.
The most well known example of mercury poisoning from ingestion of
fish occurred in the vicinity of Minamata Bay, Japan. Severe
neurological effects resembling cerebral palsy occurred in the
offspring of exposed pregnant women. EPA has estimated what it
considers a safe level of exposure to methyl mercury. This level,
referred to as the reference dose, is 1E-4 mg/kg-day. The reference
dose is based on an evaluation of 81 maternal-infant pairs exposed to
methyl mercury in an incident in Iraq in which methyl mercury treated
seed grain was diverted for use in making bread. Sources of uncertainty
in the reference dose are the relatively small number of maternal-
infant pairs in the Iraqi study, the short duration of maternal
exposure (approximately three months), latency in the appearance of
effects (from as little as a month to as long as a year), possible
misclassification of maternal exposures, differences in the vehicle of
exposure (i.e., grain versus fish), and the selection of the neurologic
and behavioral endpoints used in the analysis. EPA intends to further
evaluate the reference dose for methyl mercury when the results from
studies of fish-eating populations become available.
EPA collected data on chemical residues in fish taken from 388
locations nationwide and found that at 92 percent of the locations,
fish contained detectable levels of mercury.219 (Detection limits
varied between 0.001 and 0.05 parts per million.) The median (50th
percentile) mercury concentration in fish was 0.2 ppm while the 90th
percentile was 0.6 ppm. Two percent of the sites exceeded 1 ppm. At
most sites, both a composite sample of bottom feeders and a composite
sample of game fish were collected. The highest concentration, 1.8 ppm,
was measured at a remote site considered to represent background
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\219\ USEPA, ``National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish,''
Office of Science and Technology, September 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar results have been obtained in other studies, strongly
suggesting that long-range atmospheric transport and deposition of
anthropogenic emissions is occurring. Air emissions of mercury
contribute, then, to both regional and global deposition, as well as
deposition locally. Congress, in fact, explicitly found this to be the
case and required EPA to prioritize MACT controls for mercury for this
reason. (See S. Rep. No. 228, 101st Cong. 1st Sess. at 153-54.)
An indication of the significance of mercury contamination in fish
is illustrated by combining data on the levels of mercury in fish with
data on fish consumption and comparing it to the reference dose for
methyl mercury. For example, a fish consumption rate of 140 g/day (a
90th percentile rate associated with recreational fishing) in
conjunction with a mercury concentration of 0.6 g/g (a 90th
percentile concentration) translates into an average daily dose of 1E-3
mg/kg-day, or 10 times the reference dose. Using the same fish
concentration with a mean fish consumption rate for recreational
anglers of 30 g/day gives a dose that is three times the reference
dose. At the median fish concentration of 0.2 g/g and a fish
consumption rate of 30 g/day, the dose is nearly 90 percent of the
reference dose. These results indicate that for persons who eat
significant amounts of freshwater fish, exposures to mercury are
significant when compared with EPA's estimate of the threshold at which
effects may occur in susceptible individuals. However, it must be
recognized that EPA's threshold estimate represents a lower bound; the
true threshold may be higher than EPA's estimate.
EPA has estimated that hazardous waste incinerators and hazardous
waste-burning cement and lightweight aggregate kilns currently emit
4.2, 5.6, and 0.3 Mg of mercury per year, respectively, or a total of
10.1 Mg per year. In addition, EPA estimates that approximately 230 Mg
per year are emitted by all other U.S. sources. Based on these
estimates, hazardous waste-burning sources represent about 4 percent of
total anthropogenic emissions of mercury in the U.S. Therefore,
hazardous waste-burning sources do contribute to the overall loading of
mercury to the environment and, it may be inferred, to mercury levels
in fish.
EPA estimates that mercury emissions from hazardous waste-burning
sources will be reduced to 3.3 Mg per year at the proposed floor levels
and to 2.0 Mg per year at the proposed beyond the floor standard. These
reductions would result in reductions of total anthropogenic U.S.
emissions of approximately 3 percent. EPA expects that reductions in
mercury emissions from hazardous waste-burning sources, in conjunction
with reductions in emissions from other mercury-emitting sources, will
help reduce mercury levels in fish over time and, therefore, reduce the
likelihood of adverse health effects occurring in fish-consuming
populations.
E. Other Benefits
Other benefits that EPA investigated included ecological benefits,
property value benefits, soiling and material damage, aesthetic damages
and recreational and commercial fishing impacts. Overall, the analysis
of the ecological risk suggest that only when assuming very high
emissions water quality criteria is exceeded in the watersheds small in
size and located near waste combustion facilities. These watersheds are
typically located near
[[Page 17479]]
cement kilns appear to exceed the water quality criteria. According to
the property value analysis, there may be property value benefits
associated with reduction in emission from combustion facilities. The
property value work is on-going and is undergoing refinements. In
addition, EPA investigated other benefits such as benefits received
from avoided clean-up as result of reduced particulate matter releases.
For further detail, please see chapter 5 of the RIA.
IV. Other Regulatory Issues
A. Environmental Justice
The U.S. EPA completed analyses that identified demographic
characteristics of populations near cement plants and commercial
hazardous waste incinerators and compared them to the populations of
county and state. The analysis focuses on the spatial relationship
between cement plants and incinerators and minority and low income
populations. The study does not describe the actual health status of
these populations, and how their health might be affected proximity to
facilities.
EPA used a sample of 41 cement plants was analyzed from a universe
of 113 plants and a sample of 21 commercial incinerators was analyzed
from a universe of 35. The complete methodology results of the analyses
are found in two reports filed in the docket titled, ``Race ,
Ethnicity, and Poverty Status of the Populations Living Near Cement
Plants in the United States and Race,'' ``Ethnicity, and Poverty Status
of the Populations Living Near Commercial Incinerators.'' Below is a
summary of the key results found in the studies.
The Agency looked at whether minority percentages within a one mile
radius are significantly different than the minority percentages at the
county for all cement plants and sample of incinerators, the results
are as follows:
27 percent of the universe of all cement plants (29
plants) and 37 percent of sample of incinerators (21 plants) have
minority percentages within a one mile radius which exceed the
corresponding county minority percentages by more than five percentage
points.
36 percent of the universe of all cement plants (41
plants) and 44 percent of sample of incinerators have minority
percentages within a one mile radius which fall below the corresponding
county minority percentages by more than five percentage points.
38 percent of the universe of all cement plants (43
plants) and 20 percent of sample of incinerators minority percentages
within a one mile radius which fall within five percentage points
(above or below) of the corresponding county minority percentages.
With regard to the question of whether poverty percentages within a
one mile radius significantly different from the poverty percentages
for the county for all cement plants. The results are as follows:
18 percent of the universe of all cement plants (20
plants) and 36 percent of the sample of incinerators (21 plants) have
poverty percentages at a one mile radius which exceed the corresponding
county poverty percentages by more than five percentage points.
22 percent of the universe of all cement plants (25
plants) and 37 percent of the sample of incinerators (21 plants) have
poverty percentages at a one mile radius which fall below the
corresponding county poverty percentages by more than five percentage
points.
60 percent of the universe of all cement plants (68
plants) and 28 percent of sample of incinerators (21 plants) have
poverty percentages at a one mile radius which fall within five
percentage points (above or below) of the corresponding county poverty
percentages.
B. Unfunded Federal Mandates
The Agency also evaluated the proposed MACT standards for
compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995.
Today's rule contains no Federal mandates under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMBRA for State, local or tribal
governments or the private sector. The Agency concluded that the rule
implements requirement specifically set forth by Congress, as stated in
the Clean Air Act and the Resource Conservation Recovery Act. In
addition, promulgation of these MACT standards is not expected to
result in mandated costs of $100 million or more to any state, local,
or tribal governments, in any one year. Finally, the MACT standards
will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
C. Regulatory Takings
EPA found no indication that the MACT standards would be considered
a ``taking,'' as defined by legislation currently being considered by
Congress. Property would not be physically invaded or taken for public
use without the consent of the owner. Also, the MACT standards will not
deprive property owners of economically beneficial or productive use of
their property, or reduce the property's value.
D. Incentives for Waste Minimization and Pollution Prevention
The RIA results do not incorporate waste minimization at this time.
However, the Agency did analyze the potential for waste minimization
and the preliminary results suggest that generators have a number of
options for reducing or eliminating waste at a much lower cost. To
evaluate whether facilities would adopt applicable waste minimization
measures, a simplified pay back analysis was used. Using information on
per-facility capital costs for each technology, EPA estimated the
period of time required for the cost of the waste minimization measure
to be returned in reduced combustion expenditures. The assessment of
waste minimization yields estimates of the tonnage of combusted waste
that might be eliminated. Comprehensive data to evaluate waste
minimization were not available. Improved information on the capital
investment and operating costs associated with waste minimization are
needed.
Overall, EPA was able to estimate that 630,000 tons of waste, a
significant portion of all combusted waste, may be amenable to waste
minimization. Three waste generating processes account for the
reduction. These processes include solvent and product recovery,
product processing waste, and process waste removal and cleaning. EPA
is continuing analysis of waste minimization options and requests
comments and information in this area. For a complete description of
the analysis, see the regulatory impact assessment.
E. Evaluation of Impacts on Certain Generators
EPA is aware of the potential impact today's proposal may have on
small business hazardous waste generators. The emission standards
proposed today will require many combustion facilities to install new
emission control equipment, undertake expanded monitoring, and comply
with additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Combustion
facilities will incur higher capital and operating costs as a result of
today's rule. Some facilities are predicted to leave the waste
management business altogether. As capacity decreases and costs
increase, facilities are likely to increase the waste management prices
they charge generators.
EPA believes many larger generators will respond to waste
management cost increases by accelerating their waste
[[Page 17480]]
minimization efforts. By undertaking cost-effective waste minimization
initiatives, companies can reduce the amount of waste requiring
combustion, thereby deflecting some of the impacts of increases in
waste management costs. The same waste minimization options may not be
so readily available to smaller businesses. Small businesses often do
not have the financial resources to make the capital or process
improvements necessary to minimize hazardous waste generation, even if
such improvements will have a net cost benefit in the long run. In
addition, small businesses often lack the technical expertise necessary
for effective waste minimization.
Those small businesses that are unable to minimize waste generation
will either incur higher costs to operate their businesses or, if
allowed under federal and state regulations, manage their hazardous
wastes using unregulated disposal options. Many small businesses,
because they generate less than 100 kg per month or less than 10 kg of
acutely hazardous waste per month, are classified as conditi
FR Doc. 96-7872 Revised Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors
onally
exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs). CESQGs are exempt from many
of the generator requirements under 40 CFR 262 and are not required
under the federal RCRA regulations to manage their wastes in TSDFs.
Many CESQGs, however, send their wastes to third-party collection
companies who mix CESQG waste with waste from larger generators and
manage it as a fully regulated hazardous waste. Increases in waste
management costs due to today's proposal could encourage some number of
third-party collection companies to segregate CESQG wastes and manage
them using less expensive, yet legal, alternatives, such as unpermitted
boilers, space heaters, and non-TSDF cement kilns.
EPA plans to revise the Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) issued
with today's rule to include additional analysis, as appropriate and
feasible, focusing on these issues. EPA is seeking comments on any of
the issues raised here.
V. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 requires Federal
agencies to consider impact on ``small entities'' throughout the
regulatory process. Section 603 of the RFA calls for an initial
screening analysis to be preformed to determine whether small entities
will be adversely affected by the regulation. If affected small
entities are identified, regulatory alternatives must be considered to
mitigate the potential impacts. Small entities as described in the Act
are only those ``businesses, organizations and governmental
jurisdictions subject to regulation.''
EPA used information from Dunn & Bradstreet, the American Business
Directory and other sources to identify small businesses. Based on the
number of employees and annual sales information, EPA identified 11
firms which may be small entities. The proposed rule is unlikely to
adversely affect many small businesses for two important reasons.
First, few combustion units are owned by businesses that meet the SBA
definition as a small business. Furthermore, over one-third of those
that are considered small have a relatively small number of employees,
but have an annual sales in excess of $50 million per year.
Second, small entities most impacted by the rule are those that
burn very little waste and hence face very high cost per ton burned.
Those that burn very little waste in their existing units will
discontinue burning hazardous waste rather than comply with the
proposed rule and dispose of waste off-site. EPA looked at the costs of
alternative disposal and concludes the costs of discontinuing burning
wastes will not be so high as to result in a significant impact.
Therefore, EPA believes that today's proposed rule will have a minor
impact on small businesses.
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Two
Information Collection Request (ICR) documents have been prepared by
EPA. One ICR document covers the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements for NESHAPs from hazardous waste combustors and the other
ICR document covers the new and amended reporting and recordkeeping
requirements for boilers and industrial furnaces burning hazardous
waste. Copies may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory
Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2136); 401
M St., SW; Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740.
The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for the NESHAP
collection of information is estimated to average 36 hours per
response. The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for the
BIF collection of information is estimated to average 2 hours per
response. These estimates include 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
respond to a collection of information; search existing data sources;
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or
otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are displayed in 40 CFR Part 9.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this
burden to Chief, OPPE Regulatory Information Division; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (2136); 401 M St., SW; Washington, DC
20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention:
Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any correspondence.
The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
VII. Request for Data
EPA requests the following data to help refine the RIA:
(1) Waste Quantity Burned: data on hazardous and non-hazardous
waste burned at on-site facilities (by combustion unit) broken down by
quantity of liquids, sludges, and solids.
(2) Price Data: Aggregate prices by waste type and how they vary by
geographic region and waste contamination level.
(3) Combustion Alternatives:
--Information on likelihood of on-site incinerators shipping waste to
on-site boilers as an alternative.
--Realistic waste minimization practices. Information on how combustion
and waste minimization prices become attractive.
--Information on the type of commercial incinerator most likely to
receive waste from on-site facilities to ship waste off-site.
(4) Capacity: practical capacity levels for each combustion unit.
[[Page 17481]]
Appendix--Comparable Fuel Constituent and Physical Specifications
Note: All numbers in the tables of this appendix are expressed
to two significant figures.
Table 1.--Detection and Detection Limit Values for a Possible Gasoline Specification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concentration Maximum
Chemical name limit (mg/kg at detection limit
10,000 BTU/lb) (mg/kg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Nitrogen as N......................................................... 9.2 ................
Total Halogens as Cl........................................................ 25 ................
Antimony.................................................................... (\1\) 7.0
Arsenic..................................................................... (\1\) 0.14
Barium...................................................................... (\1\) 14
Beryllium................................................................... (\1\) 0.70
Cadmium..................................................................... (\1\) 0.70
Chromium.................................................................... (\1\) 1.4
Cobalt...................................................................... (\1\) 2.8
Lead........................................................................ (\1\) 7.0
Manganese................................................................... (\1\) 0.70
Mercury..................................................................... (\1\) 0.10
Nickel...................................................................... (\1\) 2.8
Selenium.................................................................... (\1\) 0.14
Silver...................................................................... (\1\) 1.4
Thallium.................................................................... (\1\) 14
-Naphthylamine..................................................... (\1\) 670
,-Dimethylphenethylamine.................................. (\1\) 670
-Naphthylamine..................................................... (\1\) 670
1,1-Dichloroethylene........................................................ (\1\) 34
1,1,2-Trichloroethane....................................................... (\1\) 34
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane................................................... (\1\) 34
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane................................................. (\1\) 34
1,2-Dichloroethylene (cis- or trans-)....................................... (\1\) 34
1,2,3-Trichloropropane...................................................... (\1\) 34
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene...................................................... (\1\) 670
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene.................................................. (\1\) 670
1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene....................................................... (\1\) 670
1,4-Dichloro-2-butene (cis- or trans-)...................................... (\1\) 34
1,4-Naphthoquinone.......................................................... (\1\) 670
2-Acetylaminofluorene....................................................... (\1\) 670
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether................................................... (\1\) 34
2-Chloronaphthalene......................................................... (\1\) 670
2-Chlorophenol.............................................................. (\1\) 670
2-Piccoline................................................................. (\1\) 670
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol................................................... (\1\) 670
2,4-Dichlorophenol.......................................................... (\1\) 670
2,4-Dimethylphenol.......................................................... (\1\) 670
2,4-Dinitrophenol........................................................... (\1\) 670
2,4-Dinitrotoluene.......................................................... (\1\) 670
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol....................................................... (\1\) 670
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol....................................................... (\1\) 670
2,6-Dichlorophenol.......................................................... (\1\) 670
2,6-Dinitrotoluene.......................................................... (\1\) 670
3-3-Dimethylbenzidine....................................................... (\1\) 670
3-Methylcholanthrene........................................................ (\1\) 670
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine....................................................... (\1\) 670
4-Aminobiphenyl............................................................. (\1\) 670
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether.................................................. (\1\) 670
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol........................................................ (\1\) 670
5-Nitro-o-toluidine......................................................... (\1\) 670
7,12-Dimethylbenz[a]anthracene.............................................. (\1\) 670
Acetonitrile................................................................ (\1\) 34
Acetophenone................................................................ (\1\) 670
Acrolein.................................................................... (\1\) 34
Acrylonitrile............................................................... (\1\) 34
Allyl chloride.............................................................. (\1\) 34
Aniline..................................................................... (\1\) 670
Aramite..................................................................... (\1\) 670
Benzene..................................................................... 3500 ................
Benzidine................................................................... (\1\) 670
Benzo [a] anthracene........................................................ 340
Benzo [a] pyrene............................................................ 340
Benzo [b] fluoranthene...................................................... (\1\) 670
Benzo [k] fluoranthene...................................................... (\1\) 670
Bromoform................................................................... (\1\) 34
Butyl benzyl phthalate...................................................... (\1\) 670
[[Page 17482]]
Carbon disulfide............................................................ (\1\) 34
Carbon tetrachloride........................................................ (\1\) 34
Chlorobenzene............................................................... (\1\) 34
Chlorobenzilate............................................................. (\1\) 670
Chloroform.................................................................. (\1\) 34
Chloroprene................................................................. (\1\) 34
Chrysene.................................................................... 340 ................
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene..................................................... (\1\) 34
Cresol (o-, m-, or p-)...................................................... (\1\) 670
Di-n-butyl phthalate........................................................ (\1\) 670
Di-n-octyl phthalate........................................................ 340 ................
Diallate.................................................................... (\1\) 670
Dibenzo [a,h] anthracene.................................................... 340
Dibenz [a,j] acridine....................................................... (\1\) 670
Dichlorodifluoromethane..................................................... (\1\) 34
Diethyl phthalate........................................................... (\1\) 670
Dimethoate.................................................................. (\1\) 670
Dimethyl phthalate.......................................................... (\1\) 670
Dinoseb..................................................................... (\1\) 670
Diphenylamine............................................................... (\1\) 670
Disulfoton.................................................................. (\1\) 670
Ethyl methacrylate.......................................................... (\1\) 34
Ethyl methanesulfonate...................................................... (\1\) 670
Famphur..................................................................... (\1\) 670
Fluoranthene................................................................ (\1\) 670
Fluorene.................................................................... (\1\) 670
Hexachlorobenzene........................................................... (\1\) 670
Hexachlorobutadiene......................................................... (\1\) 670
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene................................................... (\1\) 670
Hexachloroethane............................................................ (\1\) 670
Hexachlorophene............................................................. (\1\) 17000
Hexachloropropene........................................................... (\1\) 670
Indeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene..................................................... (\1\) 670
Isobutyl alcohol............................................................ (\1\) 34
Isodrin..................................................................... (\1\) 670
Isosafrole.................................................................. (\1\) 670
Kepone...................................................................... (\1\) 1300
m-Dichlorobenzene........................................................... (\1\) 670
Methacrylonitrile........................................................... (\1\) 34
Methapyrilene............................................................... (\1\) 670
Methyl bromide.............................................................. (\1\) 34
Methyl chloride............................................................. (\1\) 34
Methyl ethyl ketone......................................................... (\1\) 34
Methyl iodide............................................................... (\1\) 34
Methyl methacrylate......................................................... (\1\) 34
Methyl methanesulfonate..................................................... (\1\) 670
Methyl parathion............................................................ (\1\) 670
Methylene chloride.......................................................... (\1\) 34
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine.................................................... (\1\) 670
N-Nitrosodiethylamine....................................................... (\1\) 670
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine................................................... (\1\) 670
N-Nitrosomorpholine......................................................... (\1\) 670
N-Nitrosopiperidine......................................................... (\1\) 670
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine........................................................ (\1\) 670
Naphthalene................................................................. 2800 ................
Nitrobenzene................................................................ (\1\) 670
o-Dichlorobenzene........................................................... (\1\) 670
o-Toluidine................................................................. (\1\) 670
O,O-Diethyl O-pyrazinyl phospho- thioate.................................... (\1\) 670
O,O,O-Triethyl phosphorothionate............................................ (\1\) 670
p-(Dimethylamino) azobenzene................................................ (\1\) 670
p-Chloro-m-cresol........................................................... (\1\) 670
p-Chloroaniline............................................................. (\1\) 670
p-Dichlorobenzene........................................................... (\1\) 670
p-Nitroaniline.............................................................. (\1\) 670
p-Nitrophenol............................................................... (\1\) 670
p-Phenylenediamine.......................................................... (\1\) 670
Parathion................................................................... (\1\) 670
Pentachlorobenzene.......................................................... (\1\) 670
Pentachloroethane........................................................... (\1\) 34
[[Page 17483]]
Pentachloronitrobenzene..................................................... (\1\) 670
Pentachlorophenol........................................................... (\1\) 670
Phenacetin.................................................................. (\1\) 670
Phenol...................................................................... (\1\) 670
Phorate..................................................................... (\1\) 670
Pronamide................................................................... (\1\) 670
Pyridine.................................................................... (\1\) 670
Safrole..................................................................... (\1\) 670
Tetrachloroethylene......................................................... (\1\) 34
Tetraethyldithiopyrophosphate............................................... (\1\) 670
Toluene..................................................................... 35000 ................
Trichloroethylene........................................................... (\1\) 34
Trichlorofluoromethane...................................................... (\1\) 34
Vinyl Chloride.............................................................. (\1\) 34
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Non-detect.
Table 2.--Detection and Detection Limit Values for a Possible Number 2 Fuel Oil Specification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concentration Maximum
Chemical name limit (mg/kg at detection limits
10,000 BTU/lb) (mg/kg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Nitrogen as N.......................................................... 110 ................
Total Halogens as Cl......................................................... 25 ................
Antimony..................................................................... (\1\) 6.0
Arsenic...................................................................... (\1\) 0.12
Barium....................................................................... (\1\) 12
Beryllium.................................................................... (\1\) 0.60
Cadmium...................................................................... (\1\) 0.60
Chromium..................................................................... (\1\) 1.2
Cobalt....................................................................... (\1\) 2.4
Lead......................................................................... 6.6 ................
Manganese.................................................................... (\1\) 0.60
Mercury...................................................................... (\1\) 0.11
Nickel....................................................................... (\1\) 2.4
Selenium..................................................................... 0.070 ................
Silver....................................................................... (\1\) 1.2
Thallium..................................................................... (\1\) 12
-Naphthylamine...................................................... (\1\) 1200
,-Dimethylphenethylamine................................... (\1\) 1200
-Naphthylamine...................................................... (\1\) 1200
1,1-Dichloroethylene......................................................... (\1\) 34
1,1,2-Trichloroethane........................................................ (\1\) 34
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane.................................................... (\1\) 34
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane.................................................. (\1\) 34
1,2-Dichloroethylene (cis- or trans-)........................................ (\1\) 34
1,2,3-Trichloropropane....................................................... (\1\) 34
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene....................................................... (\1\) 1200
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene................................................... (\1\) 1200
1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene........................................................ (\1\) 1200
1,4-Dichloro-2-butene (cis- or trans-)....................................... (\1\) 34
1,4-Naphthoquinone........................................................... (\1\) 1200
2-Acetylaminofluorene........................................................ (\1\) 1200
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether.................................................... (\1\) 34
2-Chloronaphthalene.......................................................... (\1\) 1200
2-Chlorophenol............................................................... (\1\) 1200
2-Piccoline.................................................................. (\1\) 1200
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol.................................................... (\1\) 1200
2,4-Dichlorophenol........................................................... (\1\) 1200
2,4-Dimethylphenol........................................................... (\1\) 1200
2,4-Dinitrophenol............................................................ (\1\) 1200
2,4-Dinitrotoluene........................................................... (\1\) 1200
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol........................................................ (\1\) 1200
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol........................................................ (\1\) 1200
2,6-Dichlorophenol........................................................... (\1\) 1200
2,6-Dinitrotoluene........................................................... (\1\) 1200
3-3-Dimethylbenzidine........................................................ (\1\) 1200
3-Methylcholanthrene......................................................... (\1\) 1200
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine........................................................ (\1\) 1200
[[Page 17484]]
4-Aminobiphenyl.............................................................. (\1\) 1200
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether................................................... (\1\) 1200
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol......................................................... (\1\) 1200
5-Nitro-o-toluidine.......................................................... (\1\) 1200
7,12-Dimethylbenz[a]anthracene............................................... (\1\) 1200
Acetonitrile................................................................. (\1\) 34
Acetophenone................................................................. (\1\) 1200
Acrolein..................................................................... (\1\) 34
Acrylonitrile................................................................ (\1\) 34
Allyl chloride............................................................... (\1\) 34
Aniline...................................................................... (\1\) 1200
Aramite...................................................................... (\1\) 1200
Benzene...................................................................... 21 ................
Benzidine.................................................................... (\1\) 1200
Benzo[a]anthracene........................................................... 610 ................
Benzo[a]pyrene............................................................... 610 ................
Benzo[b]fluoranthene......................................................... (\1\) 1200
Benzo[k]fluoranthene......................................................... (\1\) 1200
Bromoform.................................................................... (\1\) 34
Butyl benzyl phthalate....................................................... (\1\) 1200
Carbon disulfide............................................................. (\1\) 34
Carbon tetrachloride......................................................... (\1\) 34
Chlorobenzene................................................................ (\1\) 34
Chlorobenzilate.............................................................. (\1\) 1200
Chloroform................................................................... (\1\) 34
Chloroprene.................................................................. (\1\) 34
Chrysene..................................................................... 610 ................
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene...................................................... (\1\) 34
Cresol (o-, n-, or p-)....................................................... (\1\) 1200
Di-n-butyl phthalate......................................................... (\1\) 1200
Di-n-octyl phthalate......................................................... 610 ................
Diallate..................................................................... (\1\) 1200
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene....................................................... 610 ................
Dibenz[a,j]acridine.......................................................... (\1\) 1200
Dichlorodifluoromethane...................................................... (\1\) 34
Diethyl phthalate............................................................ (\1\) 1200
Dimethoate................................................................... (\1\) 1200
Dimethyl phthalate........................................................... (\1\) 1200
Dinoseb...................................................................... (\1\) 1200
Diphenylamine................................................................ (\1\) 1200
Disulfoton................................................................... (\1\) 1200
Ethyl methacrylate........................................................... (\1\) 34
Ethyl methanesulfonate....................................................... (\1\) 1200
Famphur...................................................................... (\1\) 1200
Fluoranthene................................................................. (\1\) 1200
Fluorene..................................................................... (\1\) 1200
Hexachlorobenzene............................................................ (\1\) 1200
Hexachlorobutadiene.......................................................... (\1\) 1200
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene.................................................... (\1\) 1200
Hexachloroethane............................................................. (\1\) 1200
Hexachlorophene.............................................................. (\1\) 29000
Hexachloropropene............................................................ (\1\) 1200
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene....................................................... (\1\) 1200
Isobutyl alcohol............................................................. (\1\) 34
Isodrin...................................................................... (\1\) 1200
Isosafrole................................................................... (\1\) 1200
Kepone....................................................................... (\1\) 2300
m-Dichlorobenzene............................................................ (\1\) 1200
Methacrylonitrile............................................................ (\1\) 34
Methapyrilene................................................................ (\1\) 1200
Methyl bromide............................................................... (\1\) 34
Methyl chloride.............................................................. (\1\) 34
Methyl ethyl ketone.......................................................... (\1\) 34
Methyl iodide................................................................ (\1\) 34
Methyl methacrylate.......................................................... (\1\) 34
Methyl methanesulfonate...................................................... (\1\) 1200
Methyl parathion............................................................. (\1\) 1200
Methylene chloride........................................................... (\1\) 34
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine..................................................... (\1\) 1200
N-Nitrosomorpholine.......................................................... (\1\) 1200
[[Page 17485]]
N-Nitrosopiperidine.......................................................... (\1\) 1200
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine......................................................... (\1\) 1200
N-Nitrosodiethylamine........................................................ (\1\) 1200
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine.................................................... (\1\) 1200
Naphthalene.................................................................. 1200 ................
Nitrobenzene................................................................. (\1\) 1200
o-Dichlorobenzene............................................................ (\1\) 1200
o-Toluidine.................................................................. (\1\) 1200
O,O Diethyl O-pyrazinyl phospho-thioate...................................... (\1\) 1200
O,O,O-Triethyl phosphorothionate............................................. (\1\) 1200
p-(Dimethylamino) azobenzene................................................. (\1\) 1200
p-Chloro-m-cresol............................................................ (\1\) 1200
p-Chloroaniline.............................................................. (\1\) 1200
p-Dichlorobenzene............................................................ (\1\) 1200
p-Nitroaniline............................................................... (\1\) 1200
p-Nitrophenol................................................................ (\1\) 1200
p-Phenylenediamine........................................................... (\1\) 1200
Parathion.................................................................... (\1\) 1200
Pentachlorobenzene........................................................... (\1\) 1200
Pentachloroethane............................................................ (\1\) 34
Pentachloronitrobenzene...................................................... (\1\) 1200
Pentachlorophenol............................................................ (\1\) 1200
Phenacetin................................................................... (\1\) 1200
Phenol....................................................................... (\1\) 1200
Phorate...................................................................... (\1\) 1200
Pronamide.................................................................... (\1\) 1200
Pyridine..................................................................... (\1\) 1200
Safrole...................................................................... (\1\) 1200
Tetrachloroethylene.......................................................... (\1\) 34
Tetraethyldithiopyrophosphate................................................ (\1\) 1200
Toluene...................................................................... 150 ................
Trichloroethylene............................................................ (\1\) 34
Trichlorofluoromethane....................................................... (\1\) 34
Vinyl Chloride............................................................... (\1\) 34
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Non-detect.
Table 3.--Detection and Detection Limit Values for a Possible Number 4 Fuel Oil Specification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concentration Maximum
Chemical name limit (mg/kg at detection limits
10,000 BTU/lb) (mg/kg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Nitrogen as N......................................................... 1500 ................
Total Halogens as Cl........................................................ 10 ................
Antimony.................................................................... (\1\) 11
Arsenic..................................................................... (\1\) 0.23
Barium...................................................................... (\1\) 23
Beryllium................................................................... (\1\) 1.1
Cadmium..................................................................... (\1\) 1.1
Chromium.................................................................... (\1\) 2.3
Cobalt...................................................................... (\1\) 4.6
Lead........................................................................ 9.9 ................
Manganese................................................................... (\1\) 1.1
Mercury..................................................................... (\1\) 0.18
Nickel...................................................................... 16 ................
Selenium.................................................................... 0.13 ................
Silver...................................................................... (\1\) 2.3
Thallium.................................................................... (\1\) 23
-Naphthylamine..................................................... (\1\) 200
,-Dimethylphenethylamine.................................. (\1\) 200
-Naphthylamine..................................................... (\1\) 200
1,1-Dichloroethylene........................................................ (\1\) 17
1,1,2-Trichloroethane....................................................... (\1\) 17
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane................................................... (\1\) 17
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane................................................. (\1\) 17
1,2-Dichloroethylene (cis- or trans-)....................................... (\1\) 17
1,2,3-Trichloropropane...................................................... (\1\) 17
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene...................................................... (\1\) 200
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene.................................................. (\1\) 200
[[Page 17486]]
1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene....................................................... (\1\) 200
1,4-Dichloro-2-butene (cis- or trans-)...................................... (\1\) 17
1,4-Naphthoquinone.......................................................... (\1\) 200
2-Acetylaminofluorene....................................................... (\1\) 200
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether................................................... (\1\) 17
2-Chloronaphthalene......................................................... (\1\) 200
2-Chlorophenol.............................................................. (\1\) 200
2-Piccoline................................................................. (\1\) 200
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol................................................... (\1\) 200
2,4-Dichlorophenol.......................................................... (\1\) 200
2,4-Dimethylphenol.......................................................... (\1\) 200
2,4-Dinitrophenol........................................................... (\1\) 200
2,4-Dinitrotoluene.......................................................... (\1\) 200
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol....................................................... (\1\) 200
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol....................................................... (\1\) 200
2,6-Dichlorophenol.......................................................... (\1\) 200
2,6-Dinitrotoluene.......................................................... (\1\) 200
3-3-Dimethylbenzidine....................................................... (\1\) 200
3-Methylcholanthrene........................................................ (\1\) 200
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine....................................................... (\1\) 200
4-Aminobiphenyl............................................................. (\1\) 200
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether.................................................. (\1\) 200
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol........................................................ (\1\) 200
5-Nitro-o-toluidine......................................................... (\1\) 200
7,12-Dimethylbenz[a]anthracene.............................................. (\1\) 200
Acetonitrile................................................................ (\1\) 17
Acetophenone................................................................ (\1\) 200
Acrolein.................................................................... (\1\) 17
Acrylonitrile............................................................... (\1\) 17
Allyl chloride.............................................................. (\1\) 17
Aniline..................................................................... (\1\) 200
Aramite..................................................................... (\1\) 200
Benzene..................................................................... 22
Benzidine................................................................... (\1\) 200
Benzo[a]anthracene.......................................................... 100
Benzo[a]pyrene.............................................................. 100
Benzo[b]fluoranthene........................................................ (\1\) 200
Benzo[k]fluoranthene........................................................ (\1\) 200
Bromoform................................................................... (\1\) 17
Butyl benzyl phthalate...................................................... (\1\) 200
Carbon disulfide............................................................ (\1\) 17
Carbon tetrachloride........................................................ (\1\) 17
Chlorobenzene............................................................... (\1\) 17
Chlorobenzilate............................................................. (\1\) 200
Chloroform.................................................................. (\1\) 17
Chloroprene................................................................. (\1\) 17
Chrysene.................................................................... 100
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene..................................................... (\1\) 17
Cresol (o-, m-, or p-)...................................................... (\1\) 200
Di-n-butyl phthalate........................................................ (\1\) 200
Di-n-octyl phthalate........................................................ 100
Diallate.................................................................... (\1\) 200
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene...................................................... 100
Dibenz[a,j]acridine......................................................... (\1\) 200
Dichlorodifluoromethane..................................................... (\1\) 17
Diethyl phthalate........................................................... (\1\) 200
Dimethoate.................................................................. (\1\) 200
Dimethyl phthalate.......................................................... (\1\) 200
Dinoseb..................................................................... (\1\) 200
Diphenylamine............................................................... (\1\) 200
Disulfoton.................................................................. (\1\) 200
Ethyl methacrylate.......................................................... (\1\) 17
Ethyl methanesulfonate...................................................... (\1\) 200
Famphur..................................................................... (\1\) 200
Fluoranthene................................................................ (\1\) 200
Fluorene.................................................................... 110
Hexachlorobenzene........................................................... (\1\) 200
Hexachlorobutadiene......................................................... (\1\) 200
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene................................................... (\1\) 200
Hexachloroethane............................................................ (\1\) 200
[[Page 17487]]
Hexachlorophene............................................................. (\1\) 5000
Hexachloropropene........................................................... (\1\) 200
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene...................................................... (\1\) 200
Isobutyl alcohol............................................................ (\1\) 17
Isodrin..................................................................... (\1\) 200
Isosafrole.................................................................. (\1\) 200
Kepone...................................................................... (\1\) 400
m-Dichlorobenzene........................................................... (\1\) 200
Methacrylonitrile........................................................... (\1\) 17
Methapyrilene............................................................... (\1\) 200
Methyl bromide.............................................................. (\1\) 17
Methyl chloride............................................................. (\1\) 17
Methyl ethyl ketone......................................................... (\1\) 17
Methyl iodide............................................................... (\1\) 17
Methyl methacrylate......................................................... (\1\) 17
Methyl methanesulfonate..................................................... (\1\) 200
Methyl parathion............................................................ (\1\) 200
Methylene chloride.......................................................... (\1\) 17
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine.................................................... (\1\) 200
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine................................................... (\1\) 200
N-Nitrosomorpholine......................................................... (\1\) 200
N-Nitrosopiperidine......................................................... (\1\) 200
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine........................................................ (\1\) 200
N-Nitrosodiethylamine....................................................... (\1\) 200
Naphthalene................................................................. 340
Nitrobenzene................................................................ (\1\) 200
o-Dichlorobenzene........................................................... (\1\) 200
o-Toluidine................................................................. (\1\) 200
O,O Diethyl O-pyrazinyl phosphoro- thioate.................................. (\1\) 200
O,O,O-Triethyl phosphorothionate............................................ (\1\) 200
p-(Dimethylamino)azobenzene................................................. (\1\) 200
p-Chloro-m-cresol........................................................... (\1\) 200
p-Chloroaniline............................................................. (\1\) 200
p-Dichlorobenzene........................................................... (\1\) 200
p-Nitroaniline.............................................................. (\1\) 200
p-Nitrophenol............................................................... (\1\) 200
p-Phenylenediamine.......................................................... (\1\) 200
Parathion................................................................... (\1\) 200
Pentachlorobenzene.......................................................... (\1\) 200
Pentachloroethane........................................................... (\1\) 17
Pentachloronitrobenzene..................................................... (\1\) 200
Pentachlorophenol........................................................... (\1\) 200
Phenacetin.................................................................. (\1\) 200
Phenol...................................................................... (\1\) 200
Phorate..................................................................... (\1\) 200
Pronamide................................................................... (\1\) 200
Pyridine.................................................................... (\1\) 200
Safrole..................................................................... (\1\) 200
Tetrachloroethylene......................................................... (\1\) 17
Tetraethyldithiopyrophosphate............................................... (\1\) 200
Toluene..................................................................... 110
Trichloroethylene........................................................... (\1\) 17
Trichlorofluoromethane...................................................... (\1\) 17
Vinyl Chloride.............................................................. (\1\) 17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Non-detect.
Table 4.--Detection and Detection Limit Values for a Possible Number 6 Fuel Oil Specification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concentration Maximum
Chemical name limit (mg/kg at detection level
10,000 BTU/lb) (mg/kg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Nitrogen as N......................................................... 3500 ................
Total Halogens as Cl........................................................ 10 ................
Antimony.................................................................... 6.5 ................
Arsenic..................................................................... (\1\) 0.20
Barium...................................................................... (\1\) 20
Beryllium................................................................... (\1\) 1.0
Cadmium..................................................................... (\1\) 1.0
[[Page 17488]]
Chromium.................................................................... (\1\) 2.0
Cobalt...................................................................... (\1\) 4.1
Lead........................................................................ 30 ................
Manganese................................................................... (\1\) 1.0
Mercury..................................................................... (\1\) 0.22
Nickel...................................................................... 36 ................
Selenium.................................................................... 0.12 ................
Silver...................................................................... (\1\) 2.0
Thallium.................................................................... (\1\) 20
-Naphthylamine..................................................... (\1\) 640
,-Dimethylphenethylamine.................................. (\1\) 640
-Naphthylamine..................................................... (\1\) 640
1,1-Dichloroethylene........................................................ (\1\) 20
1,1,2-Trichloroethane....................................................... (\1\) 20
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane................................................... (\1\) 20
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane................................................. (\1\) 20
1,2-Dichloroethylene (cis- or trans-)....................................... (\1\) 20
1,2,3-Trichloropropane...................................................... (\1\) 20
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene...................................................... (\1\) 640
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene.................................................. (\1\) 640
1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene....................................................... (\1\) 640
1,4-Dichloro-2-butene (cis- or trans-)...................................... (\1\) 20
1,4-Naphthoquinone.......................................................... (\1\) 640
2-Acetylaminofluorene....................................................... (\1\) 640
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether................................................... (\1\) 20
2-Chloronaphthalene......................................................... (\1\) 640
2-Chlorophenol.............................................................. (\1\) 640
2-Piccoline................................................................. (\1\) 640
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol................................................... (\1\) 640
2,4-Dichlorophenol.......................................................... (\1\) 640
2,4-Dimethylphenol.......................................................... (\1\) 640
2,4-Dinitrophenol........................................................... (\1\) 640
2,4-Dinitrotoluene.......................................................... (\1\) 640
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol....................................................... (\1\) 640
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol....................................................... (\1\) 640
2,6-Dichlorophenol.......................................................... (\1\) 640
2,6-Dinitrotoluene.......................................................... (\1\) 640
3-3-Dimethylbenzidine....................................................... (\1\) 640
3-Methylcholanthrene........................................................ (\1\) 640
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine....................................................... (\1\) 640
4-Aminobiphenyl............................................................. (\1\) 640
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether.................................................. (\1\) 640
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol........................................................ (\1\) 640
5-Nitro-o-toluidine......................................................... (\1\) 640
7,12-Dimethylbenz[a]anthracene.............................................. (\1\) 640
Acetonitrile................................................................ (\1\) 20
Acetophenone................................................................ (\1\) 640
Acrolein.................................................................... (\1\) 20
Acrylonitrile............................................................... (\1\) 20
Allyl chloride.............................................................. (\1\) 20
Aniline..................................................................... (\1\) 640
Aramite..................................................................... (\1\) 640
Benzene..................................................................... 11 ................
Benzidine................................................................... (\1\) 640
Benzo[a]anthracene.......................................................... 930 ................
Benzo[a]pyrene.............................................................. 530 ................
Benzo[b]fluoranthene........................................................ 420 ................
Benzo[k]fluoranthene........................................................ (\1\) 640
Bromoform................................................................... (\1\) 20
Butyl benzyl phthalate...................................................... (\1\) 640
Carbon disulfide............................................................ (\1\) 20
Carbon tetrachloride........................................................ (\1\) 20
Chlorobenzene............................................................... (\1\) 20
Chlorobenzilate............................................................. (\1\) 640
Chloroform.................................................................. (\1\) 20
Chloroprene................................................................. (\1\) 20
Chrysene.................................................................... 1300 ................
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene..................................................... (\1\) 20
Cresol (o-, m-, p-)......................................................... (\1\) 640
Di-n-butylphthalate......................................................... (\1\) 640
[[Page 17489]]
Di-n-octyl phthalate........................................................ 350 ................
Diallate.................................................................... (\1\) 640
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene...................................................... 350 ................
Dibenz[a,j]acridine......................................................... (\1\) 640
Dichlorodifluoromethane..................................................... (\1\) 20
Diethyl phthalate........................................................... (\1\) 640
Dimethoate.................................................................. (\1\) 640
Dimethyl phthalate.......................................................... (\1\) 640
Dinoseb..................................................................... (\1\) 640
Diphenylamine............................................................... (\1\) 640
Disulfoton.................................................................. (\1\) 640
Ethyl methacrylate.......................................................... (\1\) 20
Ethyl methanesulfonate...................................................... (\1\) 640
Famphur..................................................................... (\1\) 640
Fluoranthene................................................................ (\1\) 640
Fluorene.................................................................... 350 ................
Hexachlorobenzene........................................................... (\1\) 640
Hexachlorobutadiene......................................................... (\1\) 640
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene................................................... (\1\) 640
Hexachloroethane............................................................ (\1\) 640
Hexachlorophene............................................................. (\1\) 16000
Hexachloropropene........................................................... (\1\) 640
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene...................................................... 350 ................
Isobutyl alcohol............................................................ (\1\) 20
Isodrin..................................................................... (\1\) 640
Isosafrole.................................................................. (\1\) 640
Kepone...................................................................... (\1\) 1300
m-Dichlorobenzene........................................................... (\1\) 640
Methacrylonitrile........................................................... (\1\) 20
Methapyrilene............................................................... (\1\) 640
Methyl bromide.............................................................. (\1\) 20
Methyl chloride............................................................. (\1\) 20
Methyl ethyl ketone......................................................... (\1\) 20
Methyl iodide............................................................... (\1\) 20
Methyl methacrylate......................................................... (\1\) 20
Methyl methanesulfonate..................................................... (\1\) 640
Methyl parathion............................................................ (\1\) 640
Methylene chloride.......................................................... (\1\) 20
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine.................................................... (\1\) 640
N-Nitrosome
FR Doc. 96-7872 Revised Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors
thylethylamine................................................... (\1\) 640
N-Nitrosomorpholine......................................................... (\1\) 640
N-Nitrosopiperidine......................................................... (\1\) 640
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine........................................................ (\1\) 640
N-Nitrosodiethylamine....................................................... (\1\) 640
Naphthalene................................................................. 570 ................
Nitrobenzene................................................................ (\1\) 640
o-Dichlorobenzene........................................................... (\1\) 640
o-Toluidine................................................................. (\1\) 1300
O,O Diethyl O-pyrazinyl phosphothioate...................................... (\1\) 640
O,O,O-Triethyl phosphorothionate............................................ (\1\) 640
p-(Dimethylamino)azobenzene................................................. (\1\) 640
p-Chloro-m-cresol........................................................... (\1\) 640
p-Chloroaniline............................................................. (\1\) 640
p-Dichlorobenzene........................................................... (\1\) 640
p-Nitroaniline.............................................................. (\1\) 640
p-Nitrophenol............................................................... (\1\) 640
p-Phenylenediamine.......................................................... (\1\) 640
Parathion................................................................... (\1\) 640
Pentachlorobenzene.......................................................... (\1\) 640
Pentachloroethane........................................................... (\1\) 20
Pentachloronitrobenzene..................................................... (\1\) 640
Pentachlorophenol........................................................... (\1\) 640
Phenacetin.................................................................. (\1\) 640
Phenol...................................................................... (\1\) 640
Phorate..................................................................... (\1\) 640
Pronamide................................................................... (\1\) 640
Pyridine.................................................................... (\1\) 640
Safrole..................................................................... (\1\) 640
Tetrachloroethylene......................................................... (\1\) 20
Tetraethyldithiopyrophosphate............................................... (\1\) 640
[[Page 17490]]
Toluene..................................................................... 41 ................
Trichloroethylene........................................................... (\1\) 20
Trichlorofluoromethane...................................................... (\1\) 20
Vinyl Chloride.............................................................. (\1\) 20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Non-detect.
Table 5.--Detection and Detection Limit Values for a Possible Composite Fuel Specification--50th Percentile
Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concentration Maximum
Chemical name limit (mg/kg at detection limits
10,000 BTU/lb) (mg/kg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Nitrogen as N.......................................................... 170 ................
Total Halogens as Cl......................................................... 10 ................
Antimony..................................................................... 4.7 ................
Arsenic...................................................................... (\1\) 0.14
Barium....................................................................... (\1\) 18
Beryllium.................................................................... (\1\) 0.90
Cadmium...................................................................... (\1\) 0.90
Chromium..................................................................... (\1\) 1.8
Cobalt....................................................................... (\1\) 3.6
Lead......................................................................... 7.0 ................
Manganese.................................................................... (\1\) 0.90
Mercury...................................................................... (\1\) 0.11
Nickel....................................................................... 2.4 ................
Selenium..................................................................... 0.090 ................
Silver....................................................................... (\1\) 1.8
Thallium..................................................................... (\1\) 18
-Naphthylamine...................................................... (\1\) 220
,-Dimethylphenethylamine................................... (\1\) 220
-Naphthylamine...................................................... (\1\) 220
1,1-Dichloroethylene......................................................... (\1\) 17
1,1,2-Trichloroethane........................................................ (\1\) 17
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane.................................................... (\1\) 17
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane.................................................. (\1\) 17
1,2-Dichloroethylene (cis- or trans-)........................................ (\1\) 17
1,2,3-Trichloropropane....................................................... (\1\) 17
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene....................................................... (\1\) 220
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene................................................... (\1\) 220
1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene........................................................ (\1\) 220
1,4-Dichloro-2-butene (cis- or trans-)....................................... (\1\) 17
1,4-Naphthoquinone........................................................... (\1\) 220
2-Acetylaminofluorene........................................................ (\1\) 220
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether.................................................... (\1\) 17
2-Chloronaphthalene.......................................................... (\1\) 220
2-Chlorophenol............................................................... (\1\) 220
2-Piccoline.................................................................. (\1\) 220
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol.................................................... (\1\) 220
2,4-Dichlorophenol........................................................... (\1\) 220
2,4-Dimethylphenol........................................................... (\1\) 220
2,4-Dinitrophenol............................................................ (\1\) 220
2,4-Dinitrotoluene........................................................... (\1\) 220
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol........................................................ (\1\) 220
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol........................................................ (\1\) 220
2,6-Dichlorophenol........................................................... (\1\) 220
2,6-Dinitrotoluene........................................................... (\1\) 220
3-3-Dimethylbenzidine........................................................ (\1\) 220
3-Methylcholanthrene......................................................... (\1\) 220
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine........................................................ (\1\) 220
4-Aminobiphenyl.............................................................. (\1\) 220
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether................................................... (\1\) 220
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol......................................................... (\1\) 220
5-Nitro-o-toluidine.......................................................... (\1\) 220
7,12-Dimethylbenz[a]anthracene............................................... (\1\) 220
Acetonitrile................................................................. (\1\) 17
Acetophenone................................................................. (\1\) 220
Acrolein..................................................................... (\1\) 17
Acrylonitrile................................................................ (\1\) 17
[[Page 17491]]
Allyl chloride............................................................... (\1\) 17
Aniline...................................................................... (\1\) 220
Aramite...................................................................... (\1\) 220
Benzene...................................................................... 21 ................
Benzidine.................................................................... (\1\) 220
Benzo[a]anthracene........................................................... 140 ................
Benzo[a]pyrene............................................................... 140 ................
Benzo[b]fluoranthene......................................................... 140 ................
Benzo[k]fluoranthene......................................................... (\1\) 220
Bromoform.................................................................... (\1\) 17
Butyl benzyl phthalate....................................................... (\1\) 220
Carbon disulfide............................................................. (\1\) 17
Carbon tetrachloride......................................................... (\1\) 17
Chlorobenzene................................................................ (\1\) 17
Chlorobenzilate.............................................................. (\1\) 220
Chloroform................................................................... (\1\) 17
Chloroprene.................................................................. (\1\) 17
Chrysene..................................................................... 140 ................
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene...................................................... (\1\) 17
Cresol (o-, n-, or p-)....................................................... (\1\) 220
Di-n-butyl phthalate......................................................... (\1\) 220
Di-n-octyl phthalate......................................................... 120 ................
Diallate..................................................................... (\1\) 220
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene....................................................... 140 ................
Dibenz[a,j]acridine.......................................................... (\1\) 220
Dichlorodifluoromethane...................................................... (\1\) 17
Diethyl phthalate............................................................ (\1\) 220
Dimethoate................................................................... (\1\) 220
Dimethyl phthalate........................................................... (\1\) 220
Dinoseb...................................................................... (\1\) 220
Diphenylamine................................................................ (\1\) 220
Disulfoton................................................................... (\1\) 220
Ethyl methacrylate........................................................... (\1\) 17
Ethyl methanesulfonate....................................................... (\1\) 220
Famphur...................................................................... (\1\) 220
Fluoranthene................................................................. (\1\) 220
Fluorene..................................................................... 120 ................
Hexachlorobenzene............................................................ (\1\) 220
Hexachlorobutadiene.......................................................... (\1\) 220
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene.................................................... (\1\) 220
Hexachloroethane............................................................. (\1\) 220
Hexachlorophene.............................................................. (\1\) 5500
Hexachloropropene............................................................ (\1\) 220
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene....................................................... 140 ................
Isobutyl alcohol............................................................. (\1\) 17
Isodrin...................................................................... (\1\) 220
Isosafrole................................................................... (\1\) 220
Kepone....................................................................... (\1\) 440
m-Dichlorobenzene............................................................ (\1\) 220
Methacrylonitrile............................................................ (\1\) 17
Methapyrilene................................................................ (\1\) 220
Methyl bromide............................................................... (\1\) 17
Methyl chloride.............................................................. (\1\) 17
Methyl ethyl ketone.......................................................... (\1\) 17
Methyl iodide................................................................ (\1\) 17
Methyl methacrylate.......................................................... (\1\) 17
Methyl methanesulfonate...................................................... (\1\) 220
Methyl parathion............................................................. (\1\) 220
Methylene chloride........................................................... (\1\) 17
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine..................................................... (\1\) 220
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine.................................................... (\1\) 220
N-Nitrosomorpholine.......................................................... (\1\) 220
N-Nitrosopiperidine.......................................................... (\1\) 220
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine......................................................... (\1\) 220
N-Nitrosodiethylamine........................................................ (\1\) 220
Naphthalene.................................................................. 360 ................
Nitrobenzene................................................................. (\1\) 220
o-Dichlorobenzene............................................................ (\1\) 220
o-Toluidine.................................................................. (\1\) 270
[[Page 17492]]
O,O-Diethyl O-pyrazinyl phosphothioate....................................... (\1\) 220
O,O,O-Triethyl phosphorothinoate............................................. (\1\) 220
p-(Dimethylamino) azobenzene................................................. (\1\) 220
p-Chloro-m-cresol............................................................ (\1\) 220
p-Chloroaniline.............................................................. (\1\) 220
p-Dichlorobenzene............................................................ (\1\) 220
p-Nitroaniline............................................................... (\1\) 220
p-Nitrophenol................................................................ (\1\) 220
p-Phenylenediamine........................................................... (\1\) 220
Parathion.................................................................... (\1\) 220
Pentachlorobenzene........................................................... (\1\) 220
Pentachloroethane............................................................ (\1\) 17
Pentachloronitrobenzene...................................................... (\1\) 220
Pentachlorophenol............................................................ (\1\) 220
Phenacetin................................................................... (\1\) 220
Phenol....................................................................... (\1\) 220
Phorate...................................................................... (\1\) 220
Pronamide.................................................................... (\1\) 220
Pyridine..................................................................... (\1\) 220
Safrole...................................................................... (\1\) 220
Tetrachloroethylene.......................................................... (\1\) 17
Tetraethyldithiopyrophosphate................................................ (\1\) 220
Toluene...................................................................... 110 ................
Trichloroethylene............................................................ (\1\) 17
Trichlorofluoromethane....................................................... (\1\) 17
Vinyl Chloride............................................................... (\1\) 17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Non-detect.
Table 6.--Detection and Detection Limit Values for a Possible Composite Fuel Specification--90th Percentile
Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concentration Maximum
Chemical name limit (mg/kg at detection limit
10,000 BTU/lb) (mg/kg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Nitrogen as N......................................................... 1800 ................
Total Halogens as Cl........................................................ 25 ................
Antimony.................................................................... 5.8 ................
Arsenic..................................................................... (\1\) 0.22
Barium...................................................................... (\1\) 22
Beryllium................................................................... (\1\) 1.1
Cadmium..................................................................... (\1\) 1.1
Chromium.................................................................... (\1\) 2.2
Cobalt...................................................................... (\1\) 4.4
Lead........................................................................ 22 ................
Manganese................................................................... (\1\) 1.1
Mercury..................................................................... (\1\) 0.18
Nickel...................................................................... 18 ................
Selenium.................................................................... 0.12 ................
Silver...................................................................... (\1\) 2.2
Thallium.................................................................... (\1\) 22
-Naphthylamine..................................................... (\1\) 700
,-Dimethylphenethylamine.................................. (\1\) 700
-Naphthylamine..................................................... (\1\) 700
1,1-Dichloroethylene........................................................ (\1\) 34
1,1,2-Trichloroethane....................................................... (\1\) 34
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane................................................... (\1\) 34
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane................................................. (\1\) 34
1,2-Dichloroethylene (cis- or trans-)....................................... (\1\) 34
1,2,3-Trichloropropane...................................................... (\1\) 34
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene...................................................... (\1\) 700
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene.................................................. (\1\) 700
1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene....................................................... (\1\) 900
1,4-Dichloro-2-butene (cis- or trans-)...................................... (\1\) 34
1,4-Naphthoquinone.......................................................... (\1\) 700
2-Acetylaminofluorene....................................................... (\1\) 700
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether................................................... (\1\) 34
2-Chloronaphthalene......................................................... (\1\) 700
[[Page 17493]]
2-Chlorophenol.............................................................. (\1\) 700
2-Piccoline................................................................. (\1\) 700
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol................................................... (\1\) 700
2,4-Dichlorophenol.......................................................... (\1\) 700
2,4-Dimethylphenol.......................................................... (\1\) 700
2,4-Dinitrophenol........................................................... (\1\) 700
2,4-Dinitrotoluene.......................................................... (\1\) 700
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol....................................................... (\1\) 700
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol....................................................... (\1\) 700
2,6-Dichlorophenol.......................................................... (\1\) 700
2,6-Dinitrotoluene.......................................................... (\1\) 700
3-3-Dimethylbenzidine....................................................... (\1\) 700
3-Methylcholanthrene........................................................ (\1\) 700
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine....................................................... (\1\) 700
4-Aminobiphenyl............................................................. (\1\) 700
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether.................................................. (\1\) 700
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol........................................................ (\1\) 700
5-Nitro-o-toluidine......................................................... (\1\) 700
7,12-Dimethylbenz[a]anthracene.............................................. (\1\) 700
Acetonitrile................................................................ (\1\) 34
Acetophenone................................................................ (\1\) 700
Acrolein.................................................................... (\1\) 34
Acrylonitrile............................................................... (\1\) 34
Allyl chloride.............................................................. (\1\) 34
Aniline..................................................................... (\1\) 700
Aramite..................................................................... (\1\) 700
Benzene..................................................................... 3300 ................
Benzidine................................................................... (\1\) 700
Benzo[a]anthracene.......................................................... 610 ................
Benzo[a]pyrene.............................................................. 530 ................
Benzo[b]fluoranthene........................................................ 390 ................
Benzo[k]fluoranthene........................................................ (\1\) 700
Bromoform................................................................... (\1\) 34
Butyl benzyl phthalate...................................................... (\1\) 700
Carbon disulfide............................................................ (\1\) 34
Carbon tetrachloride........................................................ (\1\) 34
Chlorobenzene............................................................... (\1\) 34
Chlorobenzilate............................................................. (\1\) 700
Chloroform.................................................................. (\1\) 34
Chloroprene................................................................. (\1\) 34
Chrysene.................................................................... 610 ................
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene..................................................... (\1\) 34
Cresol (o-, n-, or p-)...................................................... (\1\) 700
Di-n-butyl phthalate........................................................ (\1\) 700
Di-n-octyl phthalate........................................................ 360 ................
Diallate.................................................................... (\1\) 700
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene...................................................... 360 ................
Dibenz[a,j]acridine......................................................... (\1\) 700
Dichlorodifluoromethane..................................................... (\1\) 34
Diethyl phthalate........................................................... (\1\) 700
Dimethoate.................................................................. (\1\) 700
Dimethyl phthalate.......................................................... (\1\) 700
Dinoseb..................................................................... (\1\) 700
Diphenylamine............................................................... (\1\) 700
Disulfoton.................................................................. (\1\) 700
Ethyl methacrylate.......................................................... (\1\) 34
Ethyl methanesulfonate...................................................... (\1\) 700
Famphur..................................................................... (\1\) 700
Fluoranthene................................................................ (\1\) 700
Fluorene.................................................................... 360 ................
Hexachlorobenzene........................................................... (\1\) 700
Hexachlorobutadiene......................................................... (\1\) 700
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene................................................... (\1\) 700
Hexachloroethane............................................................ (\1\) 700
Hexachlorophene............................................................. (\1\) 18000
Hexachloropropene........................................................... (\1\) 700
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene...................................................... 360 ................
Isobutyl alcohol............................................................ (\1\) 34
Isodrin..................................................................... (\1\) 700
[[Page 17494]]
Isosafrole.................................................................. (\1\) 700
Kepone...................................................................... (\1\) 1400
m-Dichlorobenzene........................................................... (\1\) 700
Methacrylonitrile........................................................... (\1\) 34
Methapyrilene............................................................... (\1\) 700
Methyl bromide.............................................................. (\1\) 34
Methyl chloride............................................................. (\1\) 34
Methyl ethyl ketone......................................................... (\1\) 34
Methyl iodide............................................................... (\1\) 34
Methyl methacrylate......................................................... (\1\) 34
Methyl methanesulfonate..................................................... (\1\) 700
Methyl parathion............................................................ (\1\) 700
Methylene chloride.......................................................... (\1\) 34
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine.................................................... (\1\) 700
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine................................................... (\1\) 700
N-Nitrosomorpholine......................................................... (\1\) 700
N-Nitrosopiperidine......................................................... (\1\) 700
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine........................................................ (\1\) 700
N-Nitrosodiethylamine....................................................... (\1\) 700
Naphthalene................................................................. 1300 ................
Nitrobenzene................................................................ (\1\) 700
o-Dichlorobenzene........................................................... (\1\) 700
o-Toluidine................................................................. (\1\) 1000
O,O-Diethyl O-pyrazinyl phophorothioate..................................... (\1\) 700
O,O,O-Triethyl phosphorothionate............................................ (\1\) 700
p-(Dimethylamino)azobenzene................................................. (\1\) 700
p-Chloro-m-cresol........................................................... (\1\) 700
p-Chloroaniline............................................................. (\1\) 700
p-Dichlorobenzene........................................................... (\1\) 700
p-Nitroaniline.............................................................. (\1\) 700
p-Nitrophenol............................................................... (\1\) 700
p-Phenylenediamine.......................................................... (\1\) 700
Parathion................................................................... (\1\) 700
Pentachlorobenzene.......................................................... (\1\) 700
Pentachloroethane........................................................... (\1\) 34
Pentachloronitrobenzene..................................................... (\1\) 700
Pentachlorophenol........................................................... (\1\) 700
Phenacetin.................................................................. (\1\) 700
Phenol...................................................................... (\1\) 700
Phorate..................................................................... (\1\) 700
Pronamide................................................................... (\1\) 700
Pyridine.................................................................... (\1\) 700
Safrole..................................................................... (\1\) 700
Tetrachloroethylene......................................................... (\1\) 34
Tetraethyldithiopyrophosphate............................................... (\1\) 700
Toluene..................................................................... 25,000 ................
Trichloroethylene........................................................... (\1\) 34
Trichlorofluoromethane...................................................... (\1\) 34
Vinyl Chloride.............................................................. (\1\) 34
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Non-detect.
Table 7.--Possible Physical Specifications--From EPA's Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel type (physical param) Gasoline No. 2 No. 4 No. 6 Comp. 50th Comp 90th
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flash Point ( deg.C)........... < 0 44 66 69 63 < 0
Kinematic viscosity (cSt @ 40
deg.C)........................ ........... 3.7 6.4 660 6.4 ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Kinematic viscosity for gasoline is less than measureable levels.
Table 8.--Possible Physical Specifications--From ASTM and Other Published Literature
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel type \220\ (parameter) Gasoline No. 2 No. 4 No. 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flashpoint ( deg.C).......................... \221\-42 38 55 60
Kinematic viscosity (cSt@40 deg.C).......... \222\ 0.6 3.4 24 50 (at 100 deg.C)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\220\ Fuel oil specifications from ASTM Designation D 396-92, Standard Specifications for Fuel Oils.
[[Page 17495]]
\221\ Felder, M.F., and R.W. Rousseau, Elementary Principles of Chemical Processes, John Wiley and Sons, New
York, 1978, 420.
\222\ Perry, Robert H., Don W. Green, and James O. Moloney, Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook: Sixth Edition,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1984, 9-13.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection
Administrative practice and procedure
Air pollution control
Aluminum
Ammonium sulfate plants
Batteries
Beverages
Carbon monoxide
Cement industry
Coal
Copper
Dry cleaners
Electric power plants
Fertilizers
Fluoride
Gasoline
Glass and glass products
Grains
Graphic arts industry
Heaters
Household appliances
Insulation
Intergovernmental relations
Iron
Labeling
Lead
Lime
Metallic and nonmetallic mineral processing plants
Metals
Motor vehicles
Natural gas
Nitric acid plants
Nitrogen dioxide
Paper and paper products industry
Particulate matter
Paving and roofing materials
Petroleum
Phosphate
Plastics materials and synthetics
Polymers
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
Sewage disposal
Steel
Sulfur oxides
Sulfuric acid plants
Tires
Urethane
Vinyl
Volatile organic compounds
Waste treatment and disposal
Zinc
40 CFR Part 63
Air pollution control
Hazardous substances
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
40 CFR Part 260
Administrative practice and procedure
Confidential business information
Environmental Protection Agency
Hazardous waste
40 CFR Part 261
Environmental Protection Agency
Hazardous waste
Recycling
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
40 CFR Part 264
Air pollution control
Environmental Protection Agency
Hazardous waste
Insurance
Packaging and containers
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
Security measures
Surety bonds
40 CFR Part 265
Air pollution control
Environmental Protection Agency
Hazardous waste
Insurance
Packaging and containers
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
Security measures
Surety bonds
Water supply
40 CFR Part 266
Energy
Environmental Protection Agency
Hazardous waste
Recycling
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
40 CFR Part 270
Administrative practice and procedure
Confidential business information
Environmental Protection Agency
Hazardous materials transportation
Hazardous waste
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
Water pollution control
Water supply
40 CFR Part 271
Administrative practice and procedure
Confidential business information
Environmental Protection Agency
Hazardous materials transportation
Hazardous waste
Indians-lands
Intergovernmental relations
Penalties
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
Water pollution control
Water supply
Dated: March 20, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, it is proposed to amend
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
I. In part 60:
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 USC 7401, 7411, 7414, 7416, 7429, and 7601.
2. Appendix B in Part 60 is amended by adding four entries to the
table of contents, and by adding new performance specifications 4B, 8A,
10, 11, and 12:
Appendix B--Performance Specifications
* * * * *
Performance Specification 4B--Specifications and test procedures
for carbon monoxide and oxygen continuous monitoring systems in
stationary sources.
* * * * *
Performance Specification 8A--Specifications and test procedures
for total hydrocarbon continuous monitoring systems in hazardous
waste-burning stationary sources.
* * * * *
Performance Specification 10--Specifications and test procedures
for multi-metals continuous monitoring sytems in stationary sources.
Performance Specification 11--Specifications and test procedures
for particulate matter continuous monitoring systems in stationary
sources.
Performance Specification 12--Specifications and test procedures
for total mercury monitoring systems in stationary sources.
* * * * *
Performance Specification 4B--Specifications and test procedures
for carbon monoxide and oxygen continuous monitoring systems in
stationary sources.
1. Applicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability. This specification is to be used for
evaluating the acceptability of carbon monoxide (CO) and oxygen
(O2) continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) at the time
of or soon after installation and whenever specified in the
regulations. The CEMS may include, for certain stationary sources,
(a) flow monitoring equipment to allow measurement
[[Page 17496]]
of the dry volume of stack effluent sampled, and (b) an automatic
sampling system.
This specification is not designed to evaluate the installed
CEMS' performance over an extended period of time nor does it
identify specific calibration techniques and auxiliary procedures to
assess the CEMS' performance. The source owner or operator, however,
is responsible to properly calibrate, maintain, and operate the
CEMS. To evaluate the CEMS' performance, the Administrator may
require, under Section 114 of the Act, the operator to conduct CEMS
performance evaluations at other times besides the initial test.
The definitions, installation and measurement location
specifications, test procedures, data reduction procedures,
reporting requirements, and bibliography are the same as in PS 3
(for O2) and PS 4A (for CO) except as otherwise noted below.
1.2 Principle. Installation and measurement location
specifications, performance specifications, test procedures, and
data reduction procedures are included in this specification.
Reference method tests, calibration error tests, and calibration
drift tests, and interferant tests are conducted to determine
conformance of the CEMS with the specification.
2. Definitions
2.1 Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS). This
definition is the same as PS 2 Section 2.1 with the following
addition. A continuous monitor is one in which the sample to be
analyzed passes the measurement section of the analyzer without
interruption.
2.2 Response Time. The time interval between the start of a
step change in the system input and the time when the pollutant
analyzer output reaches 95 percent of the final value.
2.3 Calibration Error (CE). The difference between the
concentration indicated by the CEMS and the known concentration
generated by a calibration source when the entire CEMS, including
the sampling interface) is challenged. A CE test procedure is
performed to document the accuracy and linearity of the CEMS over
the entire measurement range.
3. Installation and Measurement Location Specifications
3.1 The CEMS Installation and Measurement Location. This
specification is the same as PS 2 Section 3.1 with the following
additions. Both the CO and O2 monitors should be installed at
the same general location. If this is not possible, they may be
installed at different locations if the effluent gases at both
sample locations are not stratified and there is no in-leakage of
air between sampling locations.
3.1.1 Measurement Location. Same as PS 2 Section 3.1.1.
3.1.2 Point CEMS. The measurement point should be within or
centrally located over the centroidal area of the stack or duct
cross section.
3.1.3 Path CEMS. The effective measurement path should be (1)
have at least 70 percent of the path within the inner 50 percent of
the stack or duct cross sectional area, or (2) be centrally located
over any part of the centroidal area.
3.2 Reference Method (RM) Measurement Location and Traverse
Points. This specification is the same as PS 2 Section 3.2 with the
following additions. When pollutant concentrations changes are due
solely to diluent leakage and CO and O2 are simultaneously
measured at the same location, one half diameter may be used in
place of two equivalent diameters.
3.3 Stratification Test Procedure. Stratification is defined as
the difference in excess of 10 percent between the average
concentration in the duct or stack and the concentration at any
point more than 1.0 meter from the duct or stack wall. To determine
whether effluent stratification exists, a dual probe system should
be used to determine the average effluent concentration while
measurements at each traverse point are being made. One probe,
located at the stack or duct centroid, is used as a stationary
reference point to indicate change in the effluent concentration
over time. The second probe is used for sampling at the traverse
points specified in method 1, appendix A, 40 CFR part 60. The
monitoring system samples sequentially at the reference and traverse
points throughout the testing period for five minutes at each point.
4. Performance and Equipment Specifications
4.1 Data Recorder Scale. For O2, same as specified in PS
3, except that the span shall be 25 percent. The span of the O2
may be higher if the O2 concentration at the sampling point can
be greater than 25 percent. For CO, same as specified in PS 4A,
except that the low-range span shall be 200 ppm and the high range
span shall be 3000 ppm. In addition, the scale for both CEMS must
record all readings within a measurement range with a resolution of
0.5 percent.
4.2 Calibration Drift. For O2, same as specified in PS 3.
For CO, the same as specified in PS 4A except that the CEMS
calibration must not drift from the reference value of the
calibration standard by more than 3 percent of the span value on
either the high or low range.
4.3 Relative Accuracy (RA). For O2, same as specified in
PS 3. For CO, the same as specified in PS 4A.
4.4 Calibration Error (CE). The mean difference between the
CEMS and reference values at all three test points (see Table I)
must be no greater than 5 percent of span value for CO monitors and
0.5 percent for O2 monitors.
4.5 Response Time. The response time for the CO or O2
monitor shall not exceed 2 minutes.
5. Performance Specification Test Procedure
5.1 Calibration Error Test and Response Time Test Periods.
Conduct the CE and response time tests during the CD test period.
6.0 The CEMS Calibration Drift and Response Time Test Procedures
The response time test procedure is given in PS 4A, and must be
carried out for both the CO and O2 monitors.
7. Relative Accuracy and Calibration Error Test Procedures
7.1 Calibration Error Test Procedure. Challenge each monitor
(both low and high range CO and O2) with zero gas and EPA
Protocol 1 cylinder gases at three measurement points within the
ranges specified in Table I.
Table I.--Calibration Error Concentration Ranges
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO low CO high
Measurement point range range O2
(ppm) (ppm) (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................... 0-40 0-600 0-2
2...................................... 60-80 900-1200 8-10
3...................................... 140-160 2100-2400 14-16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operate each monitor in its normal sampling mode as nearly as
possible. The calibration gas shall be injected into the sample
system as close to the sampling probe outlet as practical and should
pass through all CEMS components used during normal sampling.
Challenge the CEMS three non-consecutive times at each measurement
point and record the responses. The duration of each gas injection
should be sufficient to ensure that the CEMS surfaces are
conditioned.
7.1.1 Calculations. Summarize the results on a data sheet.
Average the differences between the instrument response and the
certified cylinder gas value for each gas. Calculate the CE results
according to:
CE = |d/FS| x 100 (1)
Where d is the mean difference between the CEMS response and the
known reference concentration and FS is the span value.
7.2 Relative Accuracy Test Procedure. Follow the RA test
procedures in PS 3 (for O2) section 3 and PS 4A (for CO)
section 4.
7.3 Alternative RA Procedure. Under some operating conditions,
it may not be possible to obtain meaningful results using the RA
test procedure. This includes conditions where consistent, very low
CO emission or low CO emissions interrupted periodically by short
duration, high level spikes are observed. It may be appropriate in
these circumstances to waive the RA test and substitute the
following procedure.
Conduct a complete CEMS status check following the
manufacturer's written instructions. The check should include
operation of the light source, signal receiver, timing mechanism
functions, data acquisition and data reduction functions, data
recorders, mechanically operated functions, sample filters, sample
line heaters, moisture traps, and other related functions of the
CEMS, as applicable. All parts of the CEMS must be functioning
properly before the RA requirement can be waived. The instrument
must also successfully passed the CE and CD specifications.
Substitution of the alternate procedure requires approval of the
Regional Administrator.
8. Bibliography
1. 40 CFR Part 266, Appendix IX, Section 2, ``Performance
Specifications for Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems.''
* * * * *
[[Page 17497]]
Performance Specification 8A--Specifications and test procedures
for total hydrocarbon continuous monitoring systems in hazardous
waste-burning stationary sources.
1. Applicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability. These performance specifications apply to
hydrocarbon (HC) continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS)
installed on hazardous waste-burning stationary sources. The
specifications include procedures which are intended to be used to
evaluate the acceptability of the CEMS at the time of its
installation or whenever specified in regulations or permits. The
procedures are not designed to evaluate CEMS performance over an
extended period of time. The source owner or operator is responsible
for the proper calibration, maintenance, and operation of the CEMS
at all times.
1.2 Principle. A gas sample is extracted from the source
through a heated sample line and heated filter to a flame ionization
detector (FID). Results are reported as volume concentration
equivalents of propane. Installation and measurement location
specifications, performance and equipment specifications, test and
data reduction procedures, and brief quality assurance guidelines
are included in the specifications. Calibration drift, calibration
error, and response time tests are conducted to determine
conformance of the CEMS with the specifications.
2. Definitions
2.1 Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS). The total
equipment used to acquire data, which includes sample extraction and
transport hardware, analyzer, data recording and processing
hardware, and software. The system consists of the following major
subsystems:
2.1.1 Sample Interface. That portion of the system that is used
for one or more of the following: Sample acquisition, sample
transportation, sample conditioning, or protection of the analyzer
from the effects of the stack effluent.
2.1.2 Organic Analyzer. That portion of the system that senses
organic concentration and generates an output proportional to the
gas concentration.
2.1.3 Data Recorder. That portion of the system that records a
permanent record of the measurement values. The data recorder may
include automatic data reduction capabilities.
2.2 Instrument Measurement Range. The difference between the
minimum and maximum concentration that can be measured by a specific
instrument. The minimum is often stated or assumed to be zero and
the range expressed only as the maximum.
2.3 Span or Span Value. Full scale instrument measurement
range. The span value shall be documented by the CEMS manufacturer
with laboratory data.
2.4 Calibration Gas. A known concentration of a gas in an
appropriate diluent gas.
2.5 Calibration Drift (CD). The difference in the CEMS output
readings from the established reference value after a stated period
of operation during which no unscheduled maintenance, repair, or
adjustment takes place. A CD test is performed to demonstrate the
stability of the CEMS calibration over time.
2.6 Response Time. The time interval between the start of a
step change in the system input (e.g., change of calibration gas)
and the time when the data recorder displays 95 percent of the final
value.
2.7 Accuracy. A measurement of agreement between a measured
value and an accepted or true value, expressed as the percentage
difference between the true and measured values relative to the true
value. For these performance specifications, accuracy is checked by
conducting a calibration error (CE) test.
2.8 Calibration Error (CE). The difference between the
concentration indicated by the CEMS and the known concentration of
the cylinder gas. A CE test procedure is performed to document the
accuracy and linearity of the monitoring equipment over the entire
measurement range.
2.9 Performance Specification Test (PST) Period. The period
during which CD, CE, and response time tests are conducted.
2.10 Centroidal Area. A concentric area that is geometrically
similar to the stack or duct cross section and is no greater than 1
percent of the stack or duct cross-sectional area.
3. Installation and Measurement Location Specifications
3.1 CEMS Installation and Measurement Locations. The CEMS shall
be installed in a location in which measurements representative of
the source's emissions can be obtained. The optimum location of the
sample interface for the CEMS is determined by a number of factors,
including ease of access for calibration and maintenance, the degree
to which sample conditioning will be required, the degree to which
it represents total emissions, and the degree to which it represents
the combustion situation in the firebox. The location should be as
free from in-leakage influences as possible and reasonably free from
severe flow disturbances. The sample location should be at least two
equivalent duct diameters downstream from the nearest control
device, point of pollutant generation, or other point at which a
change in the pollutant concentration or emission rate occurs and at
least 0.5 diameter upstream from the exhaust or control device. The
equivalent duct diameter is calculated as per 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, method 1, section 2.1. If these criteria are not
achievable or if the location is otherwise less than optimum, the
possibility of stratification should be investigated as described in
section 3.2. The measurement point shall be within the centroidal
area of the stack or duct cross section.
3.2 Stratification Test Procedure. Stratification is defined as
a difference in excess of 10 percent between the average
concentration in the duct or stack and the concentration at any
point more than 1.0 meter from the duct or stack wall. To determine
whether effluent stratification exists, a dual probe system should
be used to determine the average effluent concentration while
measurements at each traverse point are being made. One probe,
located at the stack or duct centroid, is used as a stationary
reference point to indicate the change in effluent concentration
over time. The second probe is used for sampling at the traverse
points specified in 40 CFR part 60 appendix A, method 1. The
monitoring system samples sequentially at the reference and traverse
points throughout the testing period for five minutes at each point.
4. CEMS Performance and Equipment Specifications
If this method is applied in highly explosive areas, caution and
care shall be exercised in choice of equipment and installation.
4.1 Flame Ionization Detector (FID) Analyzer. A heated FID
analyzer capable of meeting or exceeding the requirements of these
specifications. Heated systems shall maintain the temperature of the
sample gas between 150 deg.C (300 deg.F) and 175 deg.C (350
deg.F) throughout the system. This requires all system components
such as the probe, calibration valve, filter, sample lines, pump,
and the FID to be kept heated at all times such that no moisture is
condensed out of the system. The essential components of the
measurement system are described below:
4.1.1 Sample Probe. Stainless steel, or equivalent, to collect
a gas sample from the centroidal area of the stack cross-section.
4.1.2 Sample Line. Stainless steel or Teflon tubing to
transport the sample to the analyzer.
Note: Mention of trade names or specific products does not
constitute endorsement by the Environmental Protection Agency.
4.1.3 Calibration Valve Assembly. A heated three-way valve
assembly to direct the zero and calibration gases to the analyzer is
recommended. Other methods, such as quick-connect lines, to route
calibration gas to the analyzers are applicable.
4.1.4 Particulate Filter. An in-stack or out-of-stack sintered
stainless steel filter is recommended if exhaust gas particulate
loading is significant. An out-of-stack filter must be heated.
4.1.5 Fuel. The fuel specified by the manufacturer (e.g., 40
percent hydrogen/60 percent helium, 40 percent hydrogen/60 percent
nitrogen gas mixtures, or pure hydrogen) should be used.
4.1.6 Zero Gas. High purity air with less than 0.1 parts per
million by volume (ppm) HC as methane or carbon equivalent or less
than 0.1 percent of the span value, whichever is greater.
4.1.7 Calibration Gases. Appropriate concentrations of propane
gas (in air or nitrogen). Preparation of the calibration gases
should be done according to the procedures in EPA Protocol 1. In
addition, the manufacturer of the cylinder gas should provide a
recommended shelf life for each calibration gas cylinder over which
the concentration does not change by more than 2 percent
from the certified value.
4.2 CEMS Span Value. 100 ppm propane. The span value shall be
documented by the CEMS manufacturer with laboratory data.
[[Page 17498]]
4.3 Daily Calibration Gas Values. The owner or operator must
choose calibration gas concentrations that include zero and high-
level calibration values.
4.3.1 The zero level may be between zero and 0.1 ppm (zero and
0.1 percent of the span value).
4.3.2 The high-level concentration shall be between 50 and 90
ppm (50 and 90 percent of the span value).
4.4 Data Recorder Scale. The strip chart recorder, computer, or
digital recorder must be capable of recording all readings within
the CEMS' measurement range and shall have a resolution of 0.5 ppm
(0.5 percent of span value).
4.5 Response Time. The response time for the CEMS must not
exceed 2 minutes to achieve 95 percent of the final stable value.
4.6 Calibration Drift. The CEMS must allow the determination of
CD at the zero and high-level values. The CEMS calibration response
must not differ by more than 3 ppm (3
percent of the span value) after each 24-hour period of the 7-day
test at both zero and high levels.
4.7 Calibration Error. The mean difference between the CEMS and
reference values at all three test points listed below shall be no
greater than 5 ppm (5 percent of the span value).
4.7.1 Zero Level. Zero to 0.1 ppm (0 to 0.1 percent of span
value).
4.7.2 Mid-Level. 30 to 40 ppm (30 to 40 percent of span value).
4.7.3 High-Level. 70 to 80 ppm (70 to 80 percent of span
value).
4.8 Measurement and Recording Frequency. The sample to be
analyzed shall pass through the measurement section of the analyzer
without interruption. The detector shall measure the sample
concentration at least once every 15 seconds. An average emission
rate shall be computed and recorded at least once every 60 seconds.
4.9 Hourly Rolling Average Calculation. The CEMS shall
calculate every minute an hourly rolling average, which is the
arithmetic mean of the 60 most recent 1-minute average values.
4.10 Retest. If the CEMS produces results within the specified
criteria, the test is successful. If the CEMS does not meet one or
more of the criteria, necessary corrections must be made and the
performance tests repeated.
5. Performance Specification Test (PST) Periods
5.1 Pretest Preparation Period. Install the CEMS, prepare the
PTM test site according to the specifications in section 3, and
prepare the CEMS for operation and calibration according to the
manufacturer's written instructions. A pretest conditioning period
similar to that of the 7-day CD test is recommended to verify the
operational status of the CEMS.
5.2 Calibration Drift Test Period. While the facility is
operating under normal conditions, determine the magnitude of the CD
at 24-hour intervals for seven consecutive days according to the
procedure given in section 6.1. All CD determinations must be made
following a 24-hour period during which no unscheduled maintenance,
repair, or adjustment takes place. If the combustion unit is taken
out of service during the test period, record the onset and duration
of the downtime and continue the CD test when the unit resumes
operation.
5.3 Calibration Error Test and Response Time Test Periods.
Conduct the CE and response time tests during the CD test period.
6. Performance Specification Test Procedures
6.1 Relative Accuracy Test Audit (RATA) and Absolute
Calibration Audits (ACA). The test procedures described in this
section are in lieu of a RATA and ACA.
6.2 Calibration Drift Test.
6.2.1 Sampling Strategy. Conduct the CD test at 24-hour
intervals for seven consecutive days using calibration gases at the
two daily concentration levels specified in section 4.3. Introduce
the two calibration gases into the sampling system as close to the
sampling probe outlet as practical. The gas shall pass through all
CEM components used during normal sampling. If periodic automatic or
manual adjustments are made to the CEMS zero and calibration
settings, conduct the CD test immediately before these adjustments,
or conduct it in such a way that the CD can be determined. Record
the CEMS response and subtract this value from the reference
(calibration gas) value. To meet the specification, none of the
differences shall exceed 3 percent of the span of the CEM.
6.2.2 Calculations. Summarize the results on a data sheet. An
example is shown in Figure 1. Calculate the differences between the
CEMS responses and the reference values.
6.3 Response Time. The entire system including sample
extraction and transport, sample conditioning, gas analyses, and the
data recording is checked with this procedure.
6.3.1 Introduce the calibration gases at the probe as near to
the sample location as possible. Introduce the zero gas into the
system. When the system output has stabilized (no change greater
than 1 percent of full scale for 30 sec), switch to monitor stack
effluent and wait for a stable value. Record the time (upscale
response time) required to reach 95 percent of the final stable
value.
6.3.2 Next, introduce a high-level calibration gas and repeat
the above procedure. Repeat the entire procedure three times and
determine the mean upscale and downscale response times. The longer
of the two means is the system response time.
6.4 Calibration Error Test Procedure.
6.4.1 Sampling Strategy. Challenge the CEMS with zero gas and
EPA Protocol 1 cylinder gases at measurement points within the
ranges specified in section 4.7.
6.4.1.1 The daily calibration gases, if Protocol 1, may be used
for this test.
Source:----------------------------------------------------------------
Monitor:---------------------------------------------------------------
Serial Number:---------------------------------------------------------
Date:------------------------------------------------------------------
Location:--------------------------------------------------------------
Span:------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of span
Day Date Time Calibration value Monitor response Difference (\1\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zero/low level:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
High level:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\=Acceptance Criteria: 3% of span each day for seven days.
FR Doc. 96-7872 Revised Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors
Figure 1: Calibration Drift Determination
[[Page 17499]]
6.4.1.2 Operate the CEMS as nearly as possible in its normal
sampling mode. The calibration gas should be injected into the
sampling system as close to the sampling probe outlet as practical
and shall pass through all filters, scrubbers, conditioners, and
other monitor components used during normal sampling. Challenge the
CEMS three non-consecutive times at each measurement point and
record the responses. The duration of each gas injection should be
for a sufficient period of time to ensure that the CEMS surfaces are
conditioned.
6.4.2 Calculations. Summarize the results on a data sheet. An
example data sheet is shown in Figure 2. Average the differences
between the instrument response and the certified cylinder gas value
for each gas. Calculate three CE results according to Equation 1. No
confidence coefficient is used in CE calculations.
7. Equations
7.1 Calibration Error. Calculate CE using Equation 1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.000
Where:
d = Mean difference between CEMS response and the known reference
concentration, determined using Equation 2.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.001
di = Individual difference between CEMS response and the known
reference concentration.
8. Reporting
At a minimum, summarize in tabular form the results of the CD,
response time, and CE test, as appropriate. Include all data sheets,
calculations, CEMS data records, and cylinder gas or reference
material certifications.
Source:----------------------------------------------------------------
Monitor:---------------------------------------------------------------
Serial Number:---------------------------------------------------------
Date:------------------------------------------------------------------
Location:--------------------------------------------------------------
Span:------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Difference
Run No. Calibration Monitor -----------------------------------------------
value response Zero/Low Mid High
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-Zero..........................
2-Mid...........................
3-High..........................
4-Mid...........................
5-Zero..........................
6-High..........................
7-Zero..........................
8-Mid...........................
9-High..........................
(1) Mean Difference =
(1) Calibration Error = % % %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 2: Calibration Error Determination
9. References
1. Measurement of Volatile Organic Compounds-Guideline Series.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, 27711, EPA-450/2-78-041, June 1978.
2. Traceability Protocol for Establishing True Concentrations of
Gases Used for Calibration and Audits of Continuous Source Emission
Monitors (Protocol No. 1). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ORD/
EMSL, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711, June 1978.
3. Gasoline Vapor Emission Laboratory Evaluation-Part 2. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, OAQPS, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, 27711, EMB Report No. 76-GAS-6, August 1975.
* * * * *
Performance Specification 10--Specifications and test procedures
for multi-metals continuous monitoring systems in stationary
sources.
1. Applicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability. This specification is to be used for
evaluating the acceptability of multi-metals continuous emission
monitoring systems (CEMS) at the time of or soon after installation
and whenever specified in the regulations. The CEMS may include, for
certain stationary sources, (a) a diluent (O2) monitor (which
must meet its own performance specifications: 40 CFR part 60,
Appendix B, Performance Specification 3), (b) flow monitoring
equipment to allow measurement of the dry volume of stack effluent
sampled, and (c) an automatic sampling system.
A multi-metals CEMS must be capable of measuring the total
concentrations (regardless of speciation) of two or more of the
following metals in both their vapor and solid forms: Antimony (Sb),
Arsenic (As), Barium (Ba), Beryllium (Be), Cadmium (Cd), Chromium
(Cr), Lead (Pb), Mercury (Hg), Silver (Ag), Thallium (Tl), Manganese
(Mn), Cobalt (Co), Nickel (Ni), and Selenium (Se). Additional metals
may be added to this list at a later date by addition of appendices
to this performance specification. If a CEMS does not measure a
particular metal or fails to meet the performance specifications for
a particular metal, then the CEMS may not be used to determine
emission compliance with the applicable regulation for that metal.
This specification is not designed to evaluate the installed
CEMS' performance over an extended period of time nor does it
identify specific calibration techniques and auxiliary procedures to
assess the CEMS' performance. The source owner or operator, however,
is responsible to properly calibrate, maintain, and operate the
CEMS. To evaluate the CEMS' performance, the Administrator may
require, under Section 114 of the Act, the operator to conduct CEMS
performance evaluations at other times besides the initial test. See
Sec. 60.13 (c) and ``Quality Assurance Requirements For Multi-Metals
Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems Used For Compliance
Determination.''
1.2 Principle. Installation and measurement location
specifications, performance specifications, test procedures, and
data reduction procedures are included in this specification.
Reference method tests and calibration drift tests are conducted to
determine conformance of the CEMS with the specification.
2. Definitions
2.1 Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS). The total
equipment required for the determination of a metal concentration.
The system consists of the following major subsystems:
2.1.1 Sample Interface. That portion of the CEMS used for one
or more of the following: sample acquisition, sample transport, and
sample conditioning, or protection of the monitor from the effects
of the stack effluent.
2.1.2 Pollutant Analyzer. That portion of the CEMS that senses
the metals concentrations and generates a proportional output.
2.1.3 Diluent Analyzer (if applicable). That portion of the
CEMS that senses the diluent gas (O2) and generates an output
proportional to the gas concentration.
[[Page 17500]]
2.1.4 Data Recorder. That portion of the CEMS that provides a
permanent record of the analyzer output. The data recorder may
provide automatic data reduction and CEMS control capabilities.
2.2 Point CEMS. A CEMS that measures the metals concentrations
either at a single point or along a path equal to or less than 10
percent of the equivalent diameter of the stack or duct cross
section.
2.3 Path CEMS. A CEMS that measures the metals concentrations
along a path greater than 10 percent of the equivalent diameter of
the stack or duct cross section.
2.4 Span Value. The upper limit of a metals concentration
measurement range defined as twenty times the applicable emission
limit for each metal. The span value shall be documented by the CEMS
manufacturer with laboratory data.
2.5 Relative Accuracy (RA). The absolute mean difference
between the metals concentrations determined by the CEMS and the
value determined by the reference method (RM) plus the 2.5 percent
error confidence coefficient of a series of tests divided by the
mean of the RM tests or the applicable emission limit.
2.6 Calibration Drift (CD). The difference in the CEMS output
readings from the established reference value after a stated period
of operation during which no unscheduled maintenance, repair, or
adjustment took place.
2.7 Zero Drift (ZD). The difference in the CEMS output readings
for zero input after a stated period of operation during which no
unscheduled maintenance, repair, or adjustment took place.
2.8 Representative Results. Defined by the RA test procedure
defined in this specification.
2.9 Response Time. The time interval between the start of a
step change in the system input and the time when the pollutant
analyzer output reaches 95 percent of the final value.
2.10 Centroidal Area. A concentric area that is geometrically
similar to the stack or duct cross section and is no greater than 1
percent of the stack or duct cross sectional area.
2.11 Batch Sampling. Batch sampling refers to the technique of
sampling the stack effluent continuously and concentrating the
pollutant in some capture medium. Analysis is performed periodically
after sufficient time has elapsed to concentrate the pollutant to
levels detectable by the analyzer.
2.12 Calibration Standard. Calibration standards consist of a
known amount of metal(s) that are presented to the pollutant
analyzer portion of the CEMS in order to calibrate the drift or
response of the analyzer. The calibration standard may be, for
example, a solution containing a known metal concentration, or a
filter with a known mass loading or composition.
3. Installation and Measurement Location Specifications
3.1 The CEMS Installation and measurement location. Install the
CEMS at an accessible location downstream of all pollution control
equipment where the metals concentrations measurements are directly
representative or can be corrected so as to be representative of the
total emissions from the affected facility. Then select
representative measurement points or paths for monitoring in
locations that the CEMS will pass the RA test (see Section 7). If
the cause of failure to meet the RA test is determined to be the
measurement location and a satisfactory correction technique cannot
be established, the Administrator may require the CEMS to be
relocated.
Measurement locations and points or paths that are most likely
to provide data that will meet the RA requirements are listed below.
3.1.1 Measurement Location. The measurement location should be
(1) at least eight equivalent diameters downstream of the nearest
control device, point of pollutant generation, bend, or other point
at which a change of pollutant concentration or flow disturbance may
occur, and (2) at least two equivalent diameters upstream from the
effluent exhaust. The equivalent duct diameter is calculated as per
40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, Method 1, Section 2.1.
3.1.2 Point CEMS. The measurement point should be (1) no less
than 1.0 meter from the stack or duct wall or (2) within or
centrally located over the centroidal area of the stack or duct
cross section. Selection of traverse points to determine the
representativeness of the measurement location should be made
according to 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, Method 1, Sections 2.2 and
2.3.
3.1.3 Path CEMS. The effective measurement path should be (1)
totally within the inner area bounded by a line 1.0 meter from the
stack or duct wall, or (2) have at least 70 percent of the path
within the inner 50 percent of the stack or duct cross sectional
area, or (3) be centrally located over any part of the centroidal
area.
3.2 Reference Method (RM) Measurement Location and Traverse
Points. The RM measurement location should be (1) at least eight
equivalent diameters downstream of the nearest control device, point
of pollutant generation, bend, or other point at which a change of
pollutant concentration or flow disturbance may occur, and (2) at
least two equivalent diameters upstream from the effluent exhaust.
The RM and CEMS locations need not be the same, however the
difference may contribute to failure of the CEMS to pass the RA
test, thus they should be as close as possible without causing
interference with one another. The equivalent duct diameter is
calculated as per 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, Method 1, Section 2.1.
Selection of traverse measurement point locations should be made
according to 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, Method 1, Sections 2.2 and
2.3. If the RM traverse line interferes with or is interfered by the
CEMS measurements, the line may be displaced up to 30 cm (or 5
percent of the equivalent diameter of the cross section, whichever
is less) from the centroidal area.
4. Performance and Equipment Specifications
4.1 Data Recorder Scale. The CEMS data recorder response range
must include zero and a high level value. The high level value must
be equal to the span value. If a lower high level value is used, the
CEMS must have the capability of providing multiple outputs with
different high level values (one of which is equal to the span
value) or be capable of automatically changing the high level value
as required (up to the span value) such that the measured value does
not exceed 95 percent of the high level value.
4.2 Relative Accuracy (RA). The RA of the CEMS must be no
greater than 20 percent of the mean value of the RM test data in
terms of units of the emission standard for each metal, or 10
percent of the applicable standard, whichever is greater.
4.3 Calibration Drift. The CEMS design must allow the
determination of calibration drift at concentration levels
commensurate with the applicable emission standard for each metal
monitored. The CEMS calibration may not drift or deviate from the
reference value (RV) of the calibration standard used for each metal
by more than 5 percent of the emission standard for each metal. The
calibration shall be performed at a point equal to 80 to 120 percent
of the applicable emission standard for each metal.
4.4 Zero Drift. The CEMS design must allow the determination of
calibration drift at the zero level (zero drift) for each metal. If
this is not possible or practicable, the design must allow the zero
drift determination to be made at a low level value (zero to 20
percent of the emission limit value). The CEMS zero point for each
metal shall not drift by more than 5 percent of the emission
standard for that metal.
4.5 Sampling and Response Time. The CEMS shall sample the stack
effluent continuously. Averaging time, the number of measurements in
an average, and the averaging procedure for reporting and
determining compliance shall conform with that specified in the
applicable emission regulation.
4.5.1 Response Time for Instantaneous, Continuous CEMS. The
response time for the CEMS must not exceed 2 minutes to achieve 95
percent of the final stable value.
4.5.2 Waiver from Response Time Requirement. A source owner or
operator may receive a waiver from the response time requirement for
instantaneous, continuous CEMS in section 4.5.1 from the Agency if
no CEM is available which can meet this specification at the time of
purchase of the CEMS.
4.5.3 Response Time for Batch CEMS. The response time
requirement of Sections 4.5.1 and 4.5.2 do not apply to batch CEMS.
Instead it is required that the sampling time be no longer than one
third of the averaging period for the applicable standard. In
addition, the delay between the end of the sampling period and
reporting of the sample analysis shall be no greater than one hour.
Sampling is also required to be continuous except in that the pause
in sampling when the sample collection media are changed should be
no greater than five percent of the averaging period or five
minutes, whichever is less.
5. Performance Specification Test Procedure
5.1 Pretest Preparation. Install the CEMS and prepare the RM
test site according to the specifications in Section 3, and prepare
the
[[Page 17501]]
CEMS for operation according to the manufacturer's written
instructions.
5.2 Calibration and Zero Drift Test Period. While the affected
facility is operating at more than 50 percent of normal load, or as
specified in an applicable subpart, determine the magnitude of the
calibration drift (CD) and zero drift (ZD) once each day (at 24-hour
intervals) for 7 consecutive days according to the procedure given
in Section 6. To meet the requirements of Sections 4.3 and 4.4 none
of the CD's or ZD's may exceed the specification. All CD
determinations must be made following a 24-hour period during which
no unscheduled maintenance, repair, or manual adjustment of the CEMS
took place.
5.3 RA Test Period. Conduct a RA test following the CD test
period. Conduct the RA test according to the procedure given in
Section 7 while the affected facility is operating at more than 50
percent of normal load, or as specified in the applicable subpart.
6.0 The CEMS Calibration and Zero Drift Test Procedure
This performance specification is designed to allow calibration
of the CEMS by use of standard solutions, filters, etc. that
challenge the pollutant analyzer part of the CEMS (and as much of
the whole system as possible), but which do not challenge the entire
CEMS, including the sampling interface. Satisfactory response of the
entire system is covered by the RA requirements.
The CD measurement is to verify the ability of the CEMS to
conform to the established CEMS calibration used for determining the
emission concentration. Therefore, if periodic automatic or manual
adjustments are made to the CEMS zero and calibration settings,
conduct the CD test immediately before the adjustments, or conduct
it in such a way that the CD and ZD can be determined.
Conduct the CD and ZD tests at the points specified in Sections
4.3 and 4.4. Record the CEMS response and calculate the CD according
to:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.002
Where CD denotes the calibration drift of the CEMS in percent,
RCEM is the CEMS response, and RV is the reference value
of the high level calibration standard. Calculate the ZD according
to:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.003
Where ZD denotes the zero drift of the CEMS in percent, RCEM is
the CEMS response, RV is the reference value of the low level
calibration standard, and REM is the emission limit value.
7. Relative Accuracy Test Procedure
7.1 Sampling Strategy for RA Tests. The RA tests are to verify
the initial performance of the entire CEMS system, including the
sampling interface, by comparison to RM measurements. Conduct the RM
measurements in such a way that they will yield results
representative of the emissions from the source and can be
correlated to the CEMS data. Although it is preferable to conduct
the diluent (if applicable), moisture (if needed), and pollutant
measurements simultaneously, the diluent and moisture measurements
that are taken within a 30 to 60-minute period, which includes the
pollutant measurements, may be used to calculate dry pollutant
concentration.
A measure of relative accuracy at a single level is required for
each metal measured for compliance purposes by the CEMS. Thus the
concentration of each metal must be detectable by both the CEMS and
the RM. In addition, the RA must be determined at three levels (0 to
20, 40 to 60, and 80 to 120 percent of the emission limit) for one
of the metals which will be monitored, or for iron. If iron is
chosen, the three levels should be chosen to correspond to those for
one of the metals that will be monitored using known sensitivities
(documented by the manufacturer) of the CEMS to both metals.
In order to correlate the CEMS and RM data properly, note the
beginning and end of each RM test period of each run (including the
exact time of day) in the CEMS data log. Use the following strategy
for the RM measurements:
7.2 Correlation of RM and CEMS Data. Correlate the CEMS and RM
test data as to the time and duration by first determining from the
CEMS final output (the one used for reporting) the integrated
average pollutant concentration for each RM test period. Consider
system response time, if important, and confirm that the pair of
results are on a consistent moisture, temperature, and diluent
concentration basis. Then compare each integrated CEMS value against
the corresponding average RM value.
7.3 Number of tests. Obtain a minimum of three pairs of CEMS
and RM measurements for each metal required and at each level
required (see Section 7.1). If more than nine pairs of measurements
are obtained, then up to three pairs of measurements may be rejected
so long as the total number of measurement pairs used to determine
the RA is greater than or equal to nine. However, all data,
including the rejected data, must be reported.
7.4 Reference Methods. Unless otherwise specified in an
applicable subpart of the regulations, Method 3B, or its approved
alternative, is the reference method for diluent (O2)
concentration. Unless otherwise specified in an applicable subpart
of the regulations, the manual method for multi-metals in 40 CFR
part 266, Appendix IX, Section 3.1 (until superseded by SW-846), or
its approved alternative, is the reference method for multi-metals.
As of March 22, 1995 there is no approved alternative RM to
Method 29 (for example, a second metals CEMS, calibrated absolutely
according to the alternate procedure to be specified in an appendix
to this performance specification to be added when an absolute
system calibration procedure becomes available and is approved).
7.5 Calculations. Summarize the results on a data sheet. An
example is shown in Figure 2-2 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix B,
Performance Specification 2. Calculate the mean of the RM values.
Calculate the arithmetic differences between the RM and CEMS output
sets, and then calculate the mean of the differences. Calculate the
standard deviation of each data set and CEMS RA using the equations
in Section 8.
7.6 Undetectable Emission Levels. In the event of metals
emissions concentrations from the source being so low as to be
undetectable by the CEMS operating in its normal mode (i.e.,
measurement times and frequencies within the bounds of the
performance specifications), then spiking of the appropriate metals
in the feed or other operation of the facility in such a way as to
raise the metal concentration to a level detectable by both the CEMS
and the RM is required in order to perform the RA test.
8. Equations
8.1 Arithmetic Mean. Calculate the arithmetic mean of a data
set as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.004
Where n is equal to the number of data points.
8.1.1 Calculate the arithmetic mean of the difference, d, of a
data set, using Equation 3 and substituting d for x. Then
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.005
Where x and y are paired data points from the CEMS and RM,
respectively.
8.2 Standard Deviation. Calculate the standard deviation (SD)
of a data set as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.006
8.3 Relative Accuracy (RA). Calculate the RA as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.007
Where d is equal to the arithmetic mean of the difference, d, of the
paired CEMS and RM data set, calculated according to Equations 3 and
4, SD is the standard deviation calculated according to Equation 5,
RRM is equal to either the average of the RM data set,
calculated according to Equation 3, or the value of the emission
standard, as applicable (see Section 4.2), and t0.975 is the t-
value at 2.5 percent error confidence, see Table 1.
[[Page 17502]]
Table 1
[t-Values]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
na t0.975 na t0.975 na t0.975
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2........................................................ 12.706 7 2.447 12 2.201
3........................................................ 4.303 8 2.365 13 2.179
4........................................................ 3.182 9 2.306 14 2.160
5........................................................ 2.776 10 2.262 15 2.145
6........................................................ 2.571 11 2.228 16 2.131
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The values in this table are already corrected for n-1 degrees of freedom. Use n equal to the number of
individual values.
9. Reporting
At a minimum (check with the appropriate regional office, or
State, or local agency for additional requirements, if any)
summarize in tabular form the results of the CD tests and the RA
tests or alternate RA procedure as appropriate. Include all data
sheets, calculations, and records of CEMS response necessary to
substantiate that the performance of the CEMS met the performance
specifications.
The CEMS measurements shall be reported to the agency in units
of g/m3 on a dry basis, corrected to 20 deg.C and 7
percent O2.
10. Alternative Procedures
A procedure for a total system calibration, when developed, will
be acceptable as a procedure for determining RA. Such a procedure
will involve challenging the entire CEMS, including the sampling
interface, with a known metals concentration. This procedure will be
added as an appendix to this performance specification when it has
been developed and approved. The RA requirement of Section 4.2 will
remain unchanged.
11. Bibliography
1. 40 CFR part 60, Appendix B, ``Performance Specification 2--
Specifications and Test Procedures for SO2 and NOx
Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources.''
2. 40 CFR part 60, Appendix B, ``Performance Specification 1--
Specification and Test Procedures for Opacity Continuous Emission
Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources.''
3. 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, ``Method 1--Sample and Velocity
Traverses for Stationary Sources.''
4. 40 CFR part 266, Appendix IX, Section 2, ``Performance
Specifications for Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems.''
5. Draft Method 29, ``Determination of Metals Emissions from
Stationary Sources,'' Docket A-90-45, Item II-B-12, and EMTIC CTM-
012.WPF.
6. ``Continuous Emission Monitoring Technology Survey for
Incinerators, Boilers, and Industrial Furnaces: Final Report for
Metals CEM's,'' prepared for the Office of Solid Waste, U.S. EPA,
Contract No. 68-D2-0164 (4/25/94).
Performance Specification 11--Specifications and test procedures
for particulate matter continuous monitoring systems in stationary
sources.
1. Applicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability. This specification is to be used for
evaluating the acceptability of particulate matter continuous
emission monitoring systems (CEMS) at the time of or soon after
installation and whenever specified in the regulations. The CEMS may
include, for certain stationary sources, a) a diluent (O2)
monitor (which must meet its own performance specifications: 40 CFR
part 60, Appendix B, Performance Specification 3), b) flow
monitoring equipment to allow measurement of the dry volume of stack
effluent sampled, and c) an automatic sampling system.
This performance specification requires site specific
calibration of the PM CEMS' response against manual gravimetric
method measurements. The range of validity of the response
calibration is restricted to the range of particulate mass loadings
used to develop the calibration relation. Further, if conditions at
the facility change (i.e., changes in emission control system or
fuel type), then a new response calibration is required. Since the
validity of the response calibration may be affected by changes in
the properties of the particulate, such as density, index of
refraction, and size distribution, the limitations of the CEMS used
should be evaluated with respect to these possible changes on a site
specific basis.
This specification is not designed to evaluate the installed
CEMS' performance over an extended period of time nor does it
identify specific calibration techniques and auxiliary procedures to
assess the CEMS' performance. The source owner or operator, however,
is responsible to properly calibrate, maintain, and operate the
CEMS. To evaluate the CEMS' performance, the Administrator may
require, under Section 114 of the Act, the operator to conduct CEMS
performance evaluations at other times besides the initial test. See
Sec. 60.13 (c) and ``Quality Assurance Requirements For Particulate
Matter Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems Used For Compliance
Determination.''
1.2 Principle. Installation and measurement location
specifications, performance specifications, test procedures, and
data reduction procedures are included in this specification.
Reference method tests and calibration drift tests are conducted to
determine conformance of the CEMS with the specification.
2. Definitions
2.1 Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS). The total
equipment required for the determination of particulate matter mass
concentration. The system consists of the following major
subsystems:
2.1.1 Sample Interface. That portion of the CEMS used for one
or more of the following: sample acquisition, sample transport, and
sample conditioning, or protection of the monitor from the effects
of the stack effluent.
2.1.2 Pollutant Analyzer. That portion of the CEMS that senses
the particulate matter concentration and generates a proportional
output.
2.1.3 Diluent Analyzer (if applicable). That portion of the
CEMS that senses the diluent gas (O2) and generates an output
proportional to the gas concentration.
2.1.4 Data Recorder. That portion of the CEMS that provides a
permanent record of the analyzer output. The data recorder may
provide automatic data reduction and CEMS control capabilities.
2.2 Point CEMS. A CEMS that measures particulate matter mass
concentrations either at a single point or along a path equal to or
less than 10 percent of the equivalent diameter of the stack or duct
cross section.
2.3 Path CEMS. A CEMS that measures particulate matter mass
concentrations along a path greater than 10 percent of the
equivalent diameter of the stack or duct cross section.
2.4 Span Value. The upper limit of the CEMS measurement range.
The span value shall be documented by the CEMS manufacturer with
laboratory data.
2.5 Confidence Interval. The interval with upper and lower
limits within which the CEMS response calibration relation lies with
a given level of confidence.
2.6 Tolerance Interval. The interval with upper and lower
limits within which are contained a specified percentage of the
population with a given level of confidence.
2.7 Calibration Drift (CD). The difference in the CEMS output
readings from the established reference value after a stated period
of operation during which no unscheduled maintenance, repair, or
adjustment took place.
2.8 Zero Drift (ZD). The difference in the CEMS output readings
for zero input after a stated period of operation during which no
unscheduled maintenance, repair, or adjustment took place.
2.9 Representative Results. Defined by the reference method
test procedure defined in this specification.
2.10 Response Time. The time interval between the start of a
step change in the system input and the time when the pollutant
analyzer output reaches 95 percent of the final value.
[[Page 17503]]
2.11 Centroidal Area. A concentric area that is geometrically
similar to the stack or duct cross section and is no greater than 1
percent of the stack or duct cross sectional area.
2.12 Batch Sampling. Batch sampling refers to the technique of
sampling the stack effluent continuously and concentrating the
pollutant in some capture medium. Analysis is performed periodically
after sufficient time has elapsed to concentrate the pollutant to
levels detectable by the analyzer.
2.13 Calibration Standard. Calibration standards produce a
known and unchanging response when presented to the pollutant
analyzer portion of the CEMS, and are used to calibrate the drift or
response of the analyzer.
3. Installation and Measurement Location Specifications
3.1 The CEMS Installation and measurement location. Install the
CEMS at an accessible location downstream of all pollution control
equipment where the particulate matter mass concentrations
measurements are directly representative or can be corrected so as
to be representative of the total emissions from the affected
facility. Then select representative measurement points or paths for
monitoring in locations that the CEMS will meet the calibration
requirements (see Section 7). If the cause of failure to meet the
calibration requirements is determined to be the measurement
location and a satisfactory correction technique cannot be
established, the Administrator may require the CEMS to be relocated.
Measurement locations and points or paths that are most likely
to provide data that will meet the calibration requirements are
listed below.
3.1.1 Measurement Location. The measurement location should be
(1) at least eight equivalent diameters downstream of the nearest
control device, point of pollutant generation, bend, or other point
at which a change of pollutant concentration or flow disturbance may
occur and (2) at least two equivalent diameters upstream from the
effluent exhaust. The equivalent duct diameter is calculated as per
40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, Method 1, Section 2.1.
3.1.2 Point CEMS. The measurement point should be (1) no less
than 1.0 meter from the stack or duct wall or (2) within or
centrally located over the centroidal area of the stack or duct
cross section. Selection of traverse points to determine the
representativeness of the measurement location should be made
according to 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, Method 1, Section 2.2 and
2.3.
3.1.3 Path CEMS. The effective measurement path should be (1)
totally within the inner area bounded by a line 1.0 meter from the
stack or duct wall, or (2) have at least 70 percent of the path
within the inner 50 percent of the stack or duct cross sectional
area, or (3) be centrally located over any part of the centroidal
area.
3.1.4 Sampling Requirement for Saturated Flue Gas. If the CEMS
is to be installed downstream of a wet air pollution control system
such that the flue gases are saturated with water, then the CEMS
must isokinetically extract and heat a sample of the flue gas for
measurement so that the pollutant analyzer portion of the CEMS
measures only dry particulate. Heating shall be to a temperature
above the water condensation temperature of the extracted gas and
shall be maintained at all points in the sample line, from where the
flue gas is extracted to and including the pollutant analyzer.
Performance of a CEMS design configured in this manner must be
documented by the CEMS manufacturer.
3.2 Reference Method (RM) Measurement Location and Traverse
Points. The RM measurement location should be (1) at least eight
equivalent diameters downstream of the nearest control device, point
of pollutant generation, bend, or other point at which a change of
pollutant concentration or flow disturbance may occur and (2) at
least two equivalent diameters upstream from the effluent exhaust.
The RM and CEMS locations need not be the same, however the
difference may contribute to failure of the CEMS to pass the RA
test, thus they should be as close as possible without causing
interference with one another. The equivalent duct diameter is
calculated as per 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, Method 1, Section 2.1.
Selection of traverse measurement point locations should be made
according to 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, Method 1, Sections 2.2 and
2.3. If the RM traverse line interferes with or is interfered by the
CEMS measurements, the line may be displaced up to 30 cm (or 5
percent of the equivalent diameter of the cross section, whichever
is less) from the centroidal area.
4. Performance and Equipment Specifications
4.1 Span and Data Recorder Scale.
4.1.1 Span. The span of the instrument shall be three times the
applicable emission limit. The span value shall be documented by the
CEMS manufacturer with laboratory data.
4.1.2 Data Recorder Scale. The CEMS data recorder response
range must include zero and a high level value. The high level value
must be equal to the span value. If a lower high level value is
used, the CEMS must have the capability of providing multiple
outputs with different high level values (one of which is equal to
the span value) or be capable of automatically changing the high
level value as required (up to the span value) such that the
measured value does not exceed 95 percent of the high level value.
4.2 CEMS Response Calibration Specifications. The CEMS response
calibration relation must meet the following specifications.
4.2.1 Correlation Coefficient. The correlation coefficient
shall be 0.90.
4.2.2 Confidence Interval. The confidence interval (95 percent)
at the emission limit shall be within 20 percent of the
emission limit value.
4.2.3 Tolerance Interval. The tolerance interval at the
emission limit shall have 95 percent confidence that 75 percent of
all possible values are within 35 percent of the
emission limit value.
4.3 Calibration Drift. The CEMS design must allow the
determination of calibration drift at concentration levels
commensurate with the applicable emission standard. The CEMS
calibration may not drift or deviate from the reference value (RV)
of the calibration standard by more than 2 percent of the reference
value. The calibration shall be performed at a point equal to 80 to
120 percent of the applicable emission standard.
4.4 Zero Drift. The CEMS design must allow the determination of
calibration drift at the zero level (zero drift). If this is not
possible or practicable, the design must allow the zero drift
determination to be made at a low level value (zero to 20 percent of
the emission limit value). The CEMS zero point shall not drift by
more than 2 percent of the emission standard.
4.5 Sampling and Response Time. The CEMS shall sample the stack
effluent continuously. Averaging time, the number of measurements in
an average, and the averaging procedure for reporting and
determining compliance shall conform with that specified in the
applicable emission regulation.
4.5.1 Response Time. The response time of the CEMS should not
exceed 2 minutes to achieve 95 percent of the final stable value.
The response time shall be documented by the CEMS manufacturer.
4.5.2 Response Time for Batch CEMS. The response time
requirement of Section 4.5.1 does not apply to batch CEMS. Instead
it is required that the sampling time be no longer than one third of
the averaging period for the applicable standard. In addition, the
delay between the end of the sampling time and reporting of the
sample analysis shall be no greater than one hour. Sampling is also
required to be continuous except in that the pause in sampling when
the sample collection media are changed should be no greater than
five percent of the averaging period or five minutes, whichever is
less.
5. Performance Specification Test Procedure
5.1 Pretest Preparation. Install the CEMS and prepare the RM
test site according to the specifications in Section 3, and prepare
the CEMS for operation according to the manufacturer's written
instructions.
5.2 Calibration and Zero Drift Test Period. While the affected
facility is operating at more than 50 percent of normal load, or as
specified in an applicable subpart, determine the magnitude of the
calibration drift (CD) and zero drift (ZD) once each day (at 24-hour
intervals) for 7 consecutive days according to the procedure given
in Section 6. To meet the requirements of Sections 4.3 and 4.4 none
of the CD's or ZD's may exceed the specification. All CD
determinations must be made following a 24-hour period during which
no unscheduled maintenance, repair, or manual adjustment of the CEMS
took place.
5.3 CEMS Response Calibration Period. Calibrate the CEMS
response following the CD test period. Conduct the calibration
according to the procedure given in Section 7 while the affected
facility is operating at more than 50 percent of normal load, or as
specified in the applicable subpart.
[[Page 17504]]
6.0 The CEMS Calibration and Zero Drift Test Procedure
This performance specification is designed to allow calibration
of the CEMS by use of calibration standard that challenges the
pollutant analyzer part of the CEMS (and as much of the whole system
as possible), but which does not challenge the entire CEMS,
including the sampling interface. Satisfactory response of the
entire system is covered by the CEMS response calibration
requirements.
The CD measurement is to verify the ability of the CEMS to
conform to the established CEMS response calibration used for
determining the emission concentration. Therefore, if periodic
automatic or manual adjustments are made to the CEMS zero and
calibration settings, conduct the CD test immediately before the
adjustments, or conduct it in such a way that the CD and ZD can be
determined.
Conduct the CD and ZD tests at the points specified in Sections
4.3 and 4.4. Record the CEMS response and calculate the CD according
to:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.008
Where CD denotes the calibration drift of the CEMS in percent,
RCEM is the CEMS response, and RV is the reference value
of the high level calibration standard. Calculate the ZD according
to:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.009
Where ZD denotes the zero drift of the CEMS in percent, RCEM is
the CEMS response, RV is the reference value of the low level
calibration standard, and REM is the emission limit value.
7. CEMS Response Calibration Procedure
7.1 Sampling Strategy for Response Calibration. The CEMS
response calibration is carried out in order to verify and calibrate
the performance of the entire CEMS system, including the sampling
interface, by comparison to RM measurements. Conduct the RM
measurements in such a way that they will yield results
representative of the emissions from the source and can be
correlated to the CEMS data. Although it is preferable to conduct
the diluent (if applicable), moisture (if needed), and pollutant
measurements simultaneously, the diluent and moisture measurements
that are taken within a 30 to 60-minute period, which includes the
pollutant measurements, may be used to calculate dry pollutant
concentration.
7.2 Correlation of RM and CEMS Data. In order to correlate the
CEMS and RM data properly, note the beginning and end of each RM
test period of each run (including the exact time of day) in the
CEMS data log. Correlate the CEMS and RM test data as to the time
and duration by first determining from the CEMS final output (the
one used for reporting) the integrated average pollutant
concentration for each RM test period. Consider system response
time, if important, and confirm that the pair of results are on a
consistent moisture, temperature, and diluent concentration basis.
Then compare each integrated CEMS value against the corresponding
average RM value.
7.3 Number of tests. The CEMS response calibration shall be
carried out by making simultaneous CEMS and RM measurements at three
(or more) different levels of particulate mass concentrations. Three
(or more) sets of measurements shall be obtained at each level. A
total of at least 15 measurements shall be obtained. The different
levels of particulate mass concentration should be obtained by
varying the process conditions as much as the process allows within
the range of normal operation. Alternatively, emission levels may be
varied by adjusting the particulate control system. It is
recommended that the CEMS be calibrated over PM levels ranging from
a minimum normal level to a level roughly twice the emission limit,
as this will provide the smallest confidence interval bounds on the
calibration relation at the emission limit level.
7.4 Reference Methods. Unless otherwise specified in an
applicable subpart of the regulations, Method 3B, or its approved
alternative, is the reference method for diluent (O2)
concentration. Unless otherwise specified in an applicable subpart
of the regulations, Method 5 (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A), or its
approved alternative, is the reference method for particulate matter
mass concentration.
7.5 Calculations. Summarize the results on a data sheet. An
example is shown is shown in Figure 2-2 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix
B, Performance Specification 2. Calculate the calibration relation,
correlation coefficient, and confidence and tolerance intervals
using the equations in Section 8.
8. Equations
8.1 Linear Calibration Relation. A linear calibration relation
may be calculated from the calibration data by performing a linear
least squares regression. The CEMS data are taken as the x values,
and the reference method data as the y values. The calibration
relation, which gives the predicted mass emission, y, based on the
CEMS response x, is given by
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.010
where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.011
and
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.012
The mean values of the data sets are given by
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.013
Where xi and yi are the absolute values of the individual
measurements and n is the number of data points. The values
Sxx, Syy, and Sxy are given by
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.014
From which the scatter of y values about the regression line
(calibration relation) sL can be determined:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.015
The two-sided confidence interval yc for the predicted
concentration y at point x is given by
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.016
The two-sided tolerance interval yt for the regression line is
given by
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.017
At the point x with kT=un' vf and f=n-, where
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.018
The tolerance factor un' for 75 percent of the population is given
in Table I as a function of n'. The factor vf as a function of
f is also given in Table I as well as the t-factor at the 95 percent
confidence level.
The correlation coefficient r may be calculated from
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.019
Table I.--Factors for Calculation of Confidence and Tolerance Intervals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
f tf vf n' un' (75)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7............ 2.365 1.7972 7 1.233
8............ 2.306 1.7110 8 1.223
9............ 2.262 1.6452 9 1.214
10........... 2.228 1.5931 10 1.208
11........... 2.201 1.5506 11 1.203
12........... 2.179 1.5153 12 1.199
13........... 2.160 1.4854 13 1.195
14........... 2.145 1.4597 14 1.192
15........... 2.131 1.4373 15 1.189
16........... 2.120 1.4176 16 1.187
17........... 2.110 1.4001 17 1.185
18........... 2.101 1.3845 18 1.183
19........... 2.093 1.3704 19 1.181
20........... 2.086 1.3576 20 1.179
21........... 2.080 1.3460 21 1.178
22........... 2.074 1.3353 22 1.177
23........... 2.069 1.3255 23 1.175
24........... 2.064 1.3165 24 1.174
25........... 2.060 1.3081 25 1.173
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.2 Quadratic Calibration Relation. In some cases a quadratic
regression will provide a better fit to the calibration data than a
linear regression. If a quadratic regression is used to determine a
calibration
[[Page 17505]]
relation, a test to determine if the quadratic regression gives a
better fit to the data than a linear regression must be performed,
and the relation with the best fit must be used.
8.2.1 Quadratic Regression. A least-squares quadratic
regression gives the best fit coefficients b0, b1, and
b2 for the calibration relation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.020
The coefficients b0, b1, and b2 are determined from
the solution to the matrix equation Ab=B where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.021
The solutions to b0, b1, and b2 are:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.024
Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.025
8.2.2 Confidence Interval. For any positive value of x, the
confidence interval is given by:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.026
Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.028
The C coefficients are given below:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.029
Where:
[[Page 17506]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.030
8.2.3 Tolerance Interval. For any positive value of x, the
tolerance interval is given by:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.031
Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.033
The vf and un, factors can also be found in Table I.
8.3 Test to Determine Best Regression Fit. The test to
determine if the fit using a quadratic regression is better than the
fit using a linear regression is based on the values of s calculated
in the two formulations. If sL denotes the value of s from the
linear regression and sQ the value of s from the quadratic
regression, then the quadratic regression gives a better fit at the
95 percent confidence level if the following relationship is
fulfilled:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.034
With f = n-3 and the value of Ff at the 95 percent confidence
level as a function of f taken from Table II below.
Table II.--Values for Ff
------------------------------------------------------------------------
f Ff f F
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... 161.4 16 4.49
2....................................... 18.51 17 4.45
3....................................... 10.13 18 4.41
4....................................... 7.71 19 4.38
5....................................... 6.61 20 4.35
6....................................... 5.99 22 4.30
7....................................... 5.59 24 4.26
8....................................... 5.32 26 4.23
9....................................... 5.12 28 4.20
10...................................... 4.96 30 4.17
11...................................... 4.84 40 4.08
12...................................... 4.75 50 4.03
13...................................... 4.67 60 4.00
14...................................... 4.60 80 3.96
15...................................... 4.54 100 3.94
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Reporting
At a minimum (check with the appropriate regional office, or
State, or local agency for additional requirements, if any)
summarize in tabular form the results of the CD tests and the CEMS
response calibration. Include all data sheets, calculations, and
records of CEMS response necessary to substantiate that the
performance of the CEMS met the performance specifications.
The CEMS measurements shall be reported to the agency in units of
mg/m3 on a dry basis, corrected to 20 deg.C and 7 percent O2.
10. Bibliography
1. 40 CFR part 60, Appendix B, ``Performance Specification 2--
Specifications and Test Procedures for SO2 and NOX
Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources.''
2. 40 CFR part 60, Appendix B, ``Performance Specification 1--
Specification and Test Procedures for Opacity Continuous Emission
Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources.''
3. 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, ``Method 1--Sample and Velocity
Traverses for Stationary Sources.''
4. 40 CFR part 266, Appendix IX, Section 2, ``Performance
Specifications for Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems.''
5. ISO 10155, ``Stationary Source Emissions--Automated
Monitoring of Mass Concentrations of Particles: Performance
Characteristics, Test Procedures, and Specifications,'' available
from ANSI.
6. G. Box, W. Hunter, J. Hunter, Statistics for Experimenters
(Wiley, New York, 1978).
7. M. Spiegel, Mathematical Handbook of Formulas and Tables
(McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968).
Performance Specification 12--Specifications and test procedures
for total mercury continuous monitoring systems in stationary
sources.
1. Applicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability. This specification is to be used for
evaluating the acceptability of total mercury continuous emission
monitoring systems (CEMS) at the time of or soon after installation
and whenever specified in the regulations. The CEMS must be capable
of measuring the total concentration (regardless of speciation) of
both vapor and solid phase mercury. The CEMS may include, for
certain stationary sources, (a) a diluent (O2) monitor (which
must meet its own performance specifications: 40 CFR part 60,
Appendix B, Performance Specification 3), (b) flow monitoring
equipment to allow measurement of the dry volume of stack effluent
sampled, and (c) an automatic sampling system.
This specification is not designed to evaluate the installed
CEMS' performance over an extended period of time nor does it
identify specific calibration techniques and auxiliary procedures to
assess the CEMS' performance. The source owner or operator, however,
is responsible to properly calibrate, maintain, and operate the
CEMS. To evaluate the CEMS' performance, the Administrator may
require, under Section 114 of the Act, the operator to conduct CEMS
performance evaluations at other times besides the initial test.
1.2 Principle. Installation and measurement location
specifications, performance specifications, test procedures, and
data reduction procedures are included in this specification.
Reference method tests, calibration error tests, and calibration
drift tests, and interferant tests are conducted to determine
conformance of the CEMS with the specification. Calibration error is
assessed with standards for elemental mercury (Hg(0)) and mercuric
chloride (HgCl2). The ability of the CEMS to provide a measure
of total mercury (regardless of speciation and phase) at the
facility at which it is installed is demonstrated by comparison to
manual reference method measurements.
2. Definitions
2.1 Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS). The total
equipment required for the determination of a pollutant
concentration. The system consists of the following major
subsystems:
2.1.1 Sample Interface. That portion of the CEMS used for one
or more of the following: sample acquisition, sample transport, and
sample conditioning, or protection of the monitor from the effects
of the stack effluent.
2.1.2 Pollutant Analyzer. That portion of the CEMS that senses
the pollutant concentration(s) and generates a proportional output.
2.1.3 Diluent Analyzer (if applicable). That portion of the
CEMS that senses the diluent gas (O2) and generates an output
proportional to the gas concentration.
2.1.4 Data Recorder. That portion of the CEMS that provides a
permanent record of the analyzer output. The data recorder may
provide automatic data reduction and CEMS control capabilities.
2.2 Point CEMS. A CEMS that measures the pollutant
concentrations either at a single point or along a path equal to or
less than 10 percent of the equivalent diameter of the stack or duct
cross section.
2.3 Path CEMS. A CEMS that measures the pollutant
concentrations along a path greater than 10 percent of the
equivalent diameter of the stack or duct cross section.
2.4 Span Value. The upper limit of a pollutant concentration
measurement range defined as twenty times the applicable emission
limit. The span value shall be documented by the CEMS manufacturer
with laboratory data.
2.5 Relative Accuracy (RA). The absolute mean difference
between the pollutant concentration(s) determined by the CEMS and
the value determined by the reference method (RM) plus the 2.5
percent error confidence coefficient of a series of tests divided by
the mean of the RM tests or the applicable emission limit.
2.6 Calibration Drift (CD). The difference in the CEMS output
readings from the established reference value after a stated period
of operation during which no unscheduled maintenance, repair, or
adjustment took place.
2.7 Zero Drift (ZD). The difference in the CEMS output readings
for zero input after a stated period of operation during which no
unscheduled maintenance, repair, or adjustment took place.
2.8 Representative Results. Defined by the RA test procedure
defined in this specification.
2.9 Response Time. The time interval between the start of a
step change in the
[[Page 17507]]
system input and the time when the pollutant analyzer output reaches
95 percent of the final value.
2.10 Centroidal Area. A concentric area that is geometrically
similar to the stack or duct cross section and is no greater than 1
percent of the stack or duct cross sectional area.
2.11 Batch Sampling. Batch sampling refers to the technique of
sampling the stack effluent continuously and concentrating the
pollutant in some capture medium. Analysis is performed periodically
after sufficient time has elapsed to concentrate the pollutant to
levels detectable by the analyzer.
2.12 Calibration Standard. Calibration standards consist of a
known amount of pollutant that is presented to the pollutant
analyzer portion of the CEMS in order to calibrate the drift or
response of the analyzer. The calibration standard may be, for
example, a solution containing a known concentration, or a filter
with a known mass loading or composition.
2.13 Calibration Error (CE). The difference between the
concentration indicated by the CEMS and the known concentration
generated by a calibration source when the entire CEMS, including
the sampling interface) is challenged. A CE test procedure is
performed to document the accuracy and linearity of the CEMS over
the entire measurement range.
3. Installation and Measurement Location Specifications
3.1 The CEMS Installation and measurement location. Install the
CEMS at an accessible location downstream of all pollution control
equipment where the mercury concentration measurements are directly
representative or can be corrected so as to be representative of the
total emissions from the affected facility. Then select
representative measurement points or paths for monitoring in
locations that the CEMS will pass the RA test (see Section 7). If
the cause of failure to meet the RA test is determined to be the
measurement location and a satisfactory correction technique cannot
be established, the Administrator may require the CEMS to be
relocated.
Measurement locations and points or paths that are most likely
to provide data that will meet the RA requirements are listed below.
3.1.1 Measurement Location. The measurement location should be
(1) at least eight equivalent diameters downstream of the nearest
control device, point of pollutant generation, bend, or other point
at which a change of pollutant concentration or flow disturbance may
occur and (2) at least two equivalent diameters upstream from the
effluent exhaust. The equivalent duct diameter is calculated as per
40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, Method 1, Section 2.1.
3.1.2 Point CEMS. The measurement point should be (1) no less
than 1.0 meter from the stack or duct wall or (2) within or
centrally located over the centroidal area of the stack or duct
cross section. Selection of traverse points to determine the
representativeness of the measurement location should be made
according to 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, Method 1, Section 2.2 and
2.3.
3.1.3 Path CEMS. The effective measurement path should be (1)
totally within the inner area bounded by a line 1.0 meter from the
stack or duct wall, or (2) have at least 70 percent of the path
within the inner 50 percent of the stack or duct cross sectional
area, or (3) be centrally located over any part of the centroidal
area.
3.2 Reference Method (RM) Measurement Location and Traverse
Points. The RM measurement location should be (1) at least eight
equivalent diameters downstream of the nearest control device, point
of pollutant generation, bend, or other point at which a change of
pollutant concentration or flow disturbance may occur and (2) at
least two equivalent diameters upstream from the effluent exhaust.
The RM and CEMS locations need not be the same, however the
difference may contribute to failure of the CEMS to pass the RA
test, thus they should be as close as possible without causing
interference with one another. The equivalent duct diameter is
calculated as per 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, Method 1, Section 2.1.
Selection of traverse measurement point locations should be made
according to 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, Method 1, Sections 2.2 and
2.3. If the RM traverse line interferes with or is interfered by the
CEMS measurements, the line may be displaced up to 30 cm (or 5
percent of the equivalent diameter of the cross section, whichever
is less) from the centroidal area.
4. Performance and Equipment Specifications
4.1 Data Recorder Scale. The CEMS data recorder response range
must include zero and a high level value. The high level value must
be equal to the span value. If a lower high level value is used, the
CEMS must have the capability of providing multiple outputs with
different high level values (one of which is equal to the span
value) or be capable of automatically changing the high level value
as required (up to the span value) such that the measured value does
not exceed 95 percent of the high level value.
4.2 Relative Accuracy (RA). The RA of the CEMS must be no
greater than 20 percent of the mean value of the RM test data in
terms of units of the emission standard, or 10 percent of the
applicable standard, whichever is greater.
4.3 Calibration Error. Calibration error is assessed using
standards for Hg(0) and HgCl2. The mean difference between the
indicated CEMS concentration and the reference concentration value
for each standard at all three test levels listed below shall be no
greater than 15 percent of the reference concentration
at each level.
4.3.1 Zero Level. Zero to twenty (0-20) percent of the emission
limit.
4.3.2 Mid-Level. Forty to sixty (40-60) percent of the emission
limit.
4.3.3 High-Level. Eighty to one-hundred and twenty (80-120)
percent of the emission limit.
4.4 Calibration Drift. The CEMS design must allow the
determination of calibration drift of the pollutant analyzer at
concentration levels commensurate with the applicable emission
standard. The CEMS calibration may not drift or deviate from the
reference value (RV) of the calibration standard by more than 10
percent of the emission limit. The calibration shall be performed at
a level equal to 80 to 120 percent of the applicable emission
standard. Calibration drift shall be evaluated for elemental mercury
only.
4.5 Zero Drift. The CEMS design must allow the determination of
calibration drift at the zero level (zero drift). The CEMS zero
point shall not drift by more than 5 percent of the emission
standard.
4.6 Sampling and Response Time. The CEMS shall sample the stack
effluent continuously. Averaging time, the number of measurements in
an average, and the averaging procedure for reporting and
determining compliance shall conform with that specified in the
applicable emission regulation.
4.6.1 Response Time. The response time of the CEMS should not
exceed 2 minutes to achieve 95 percent of the final stable value.
The response time shall be documented by the CEMS manufacturer.
4.6.2 Waiver from Response Time Requirement. A source owner or
operator may receive a waiver from the response time requirement for
instantaneous, continuous CEMS in section 4.5.1 from the Agency if
no CEM is available which can meet this specification at the time of
purchase of the CEMS.
4.6.3 Response Time for Batch CEMS. The response time
requirement of Section 4.5.1 does not apply to batch CEMS. Instead
it is required that the sampling time be no longer than one third of
the averaging period for the applicable standard. In addition, the
delay between the end of the sampling time and reporting of the
sample analysis shall be no greater than one hour. Sampling is also
required to be continuous except in that the pause in sampling when
the sample collection media are changed should be no greater than
five percent of the averaging period or five minutes, whichever is
less.
4.7 CEMS Interference Response. While the CEMS is measuring the
concentration of mercury in the high-level calibration sources used
to conduct the CE test the gaseous components (in nitrogen) listed
in Table I shall be introduced into the measurement system either
separately or in combination. The interference test gases must be
introduced in such a way as to cause no change in the mercury or
mercuric chloride calibration concentration being delivered to the
CEMS. The concentrations listed in the table are the target levels
at the sampling interface of the CEMS based on the known cylinder
gas concentrations and the extent of dilution (see Section 9).
Interference is defined as the difference between the CEMS response
with these components present and absent. The sum of the
interferences must be less than 10 percent of the emission limit
value. If this level of interference is exceeded, then corrective
action to eliminate the interference(s) must be taken.
[[Page 17508]]
Table I.--Interference Test Gas Concentrations in Nitrogen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas Concentration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon Monoxide........................ 50050 ppm.
Carbon Dioxide......................... 101 percent.
Oxygen................................. 20.91 percent.
Sulfur Dioxide......................... 50050 ppm.
Nitrogen Dioxide....................... 25025 ppm.
Water Vapor............................ 255 percent.
Hydrogen Chloride (HCl)................ 505 ppm.
Chlorine (Cl2)......................... 101 ppm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.8 Calibration Source Requirements for Assessment of
Calibration Error. The calibration source must permit the
introduction of known (NIST traceable) and repeatable concentrations
of elemental mercury (Hg(0)) and mercuric chloride (HgCl2) into
the sampling system of the CEMS. The CEMS manufacturer shall
document the performance of the calibration source, and submit this
documentation and a calibration protocol to the administrator for
approval. Determination of CEMS calibration error must then be made
in using the approved calibration source and in accordance with the
approved protocol.
4.8.1 Design Considerations. The calibration source must be
designed so that the flowrate of calibration gas introduced to the
CEMS is the same at all three calibration levels specified in
Section 4.3 and at all times exceeds the flow requirements of the
CEMS.
4.8.2 Calibration Precision. A series of three injections of
the same calibration gas, at any dilution, shall produce results
which do not vary by more than 5 percent from the mean
of the three injections. Failure to attain this level of precision
is an indication of a problem in the calibration system or the CEMS.
Any such problem must be identified and corrected before proceeding.
5. Performance Specification Test Procedure
5.1 Pretest Preparation. Install the CEMS and prepare the RM
test site according to the specifications in Section 3, and prepare
the CEMS for operation according to the manufacturer's written
instructions.
5.2 Calibration and Zero Drift Test Period. While the affected
facility is operating at more than 50 percent of normal load, or as
specified in an applicable subpart, determine the magnitude of the
calibration drift (CD) and zero drift (ZD) once each day (at 24-hour
intervals) for 7 consecutive days according to the procedure given
in Section 6. To meet the requirements of Sections 4.4 and 4.5 none
of the CD's or ZD's may exceed the specification. All CD
determinations must be made following a 24-hour period during which
no unscheduled maintenance, repair, or manual adjustment of the CEMS
took place.
5.3 CE Test Period. Conduct a CE test prior to the CD test
period. Conduct the CE test according to the procedure given in
Section 8.
5.4 CEMS Interference Response Test Period. Conduct an
interference response test in conjunction with the CE test according
to the procedure given in Section 9.
5.5 RA Test Period. Conduct a RA test following the CD test
period. Conduct the RA test according to the procedure given in
Section 7 while the affected facility is operating at more than 50
percent of normal load, or as specified in the applicable subpart.
6.0 The CEMS Calibration and Zero Drift Test Procedure
This performance specification is designed to allow calibration
of the CEMS by use of standard solutions, filters, etc. that
challenge the pollutant analyzer part of the CEMS (and as much of
the whole system as possible), but which do not challenge the entire
CEMS, including the sampling interface. Satisfactory response of the
entire system is covered by the RA and CE requirements.
The CD measurement is to verify the ability of the CEMS to
conform to the established CEMS calibration used for determining the
emission concentration. Therefore, if periodic automatic or manual
adjustments are made to the CEMS zero and calibration settings,
conduct the CD test immediately before the adjustments, or conduct
it in such a way that the CD and ZD can be determined.
Conduct the CD and ZD tests at the points specified in Sections
4.4 and 4.5. Record the CEMS response and calculate the CD according
to:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.035
Where CD denotes the calibration drift of the CEMS in percent,
RCEM is the CEMS response, and RV is the reference value
of the high level calibration standard. Calculate the ZD according
to:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.036
Where ZD denotes the zero drift of the CEMS in percent, RCEM is
the CEMS response, RV is the reference value of the low level
calibration standard, and REM is the emission limit value.
7. Relative Accuracy Test Procedure
7.1 Sampling Strategy for RA Tests. The RA tests are to verify
the initial performance of the entire CEMS system, including the
sampling interface, by comparison to RM measurements. Conduct the RM
measurements in such a way that they will yield results
representative of the emissions from the source and can be
correlated to the CEMS data. Although it is preferable to conduct
the diluent (if applicable), moisture (if needed), and pollutant
measurements simultaneously, the diluent and moisture mea
FR Doc. 96-7872 Revised Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors
surements
that are taken within a 30 to 60-minute period, which includes the
pollutant measurements, may be used to calculate dry pollutant
concentration.
A measure of relative accuracy at a single level that is
detectable by both the CEMS and the RM is required.
In order to correlate the CEMS and RM data properly, note the
beginning and end of each RM test period of each run (including the
exact time of day) in the CEMS data log.
7.2 Correlation of RM and CEMS Data. Correlate the CEMS and RM
test data as to the time and duration by first determining from the
CEMS final output (the one used for reporting) the integrated
average pollutant concentration for each RM test period. Consider
system response time, if important, and confirm that the pair of
results are on a consistent moisture, temperature, and diluent
concentration basis. Then compare each integrated CEMS value against
the corresponding average RM value.
7.3 Number of tests. Obtain a minimum of three pairs of CEMS
and RM measurements. If more than nine pairs of measurements are
obtained, then up to three pairs of measurements may be rejected so
long as the total number of measurement pairs used to determine the
RA is greater than or equal to nine. However, all data, including
the rejected data, must be reported.
7.4 Reference Methods. Unless otherwise specified in an
applicable subpart of the regulations, Method 3B, or its approved
alternative, is the reference method for diluent (O2)
concentration. Unless otherwise specified in an applicable subpart
of the regulations, the manual method for multi-metals in 40 CFR
part 266, Appendix IX, Section 3.1 (until superseded by SW-846), or
its approved alternative, is the reference method for mercury.
7.5 Calculations. Summarize the results on a data sheet. An
example is shown in Figure 2-2 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix B,
Performance Specification 2. Calculate the mean of the RM values.
Calculate the arithmetic differences between the RM and CEMS output
sets, and then calculate the mean of the differences. Calculate the
standard deviation of each data set and CEMS RA using the equations
in Section 10.
8. Calibration Error Test Procedure
8.1 Sampling Strategy. The CEMS calibration error shall be
assessed using calibration sources of elemental mercury and mercuric
chloride in turn (see Section 4.8 for calibration source
requirements). Challenge the CEMS at the measurement levels
specified in Section 4.3. During the test, operate the CEMS as
nearly as possible in its normal operating mode. The calibration
gases should be injected into the sampling system as close to the
sampling probe outlet as practical and shall pass through all
filters, scrubbers, conditioners, and other monitor components used
during normal sampling.
8.2 Number of tests. Challenge the CEMS three non-consecutive
times at each measurement point and record the responses. The
duration of each challenge should be for a sufficient period of time
to ensure that the CEMS surfaces are conditioned and a stable output
obtained.
8.3 Calculations. Summarize the results on a data sheet.
Calculate the mean difference between the CEMS response and the
known reference concentration at each measurement point according to
equations 5 and 6 of Section 10. The calibration error (CE) at each
measurement point is then given by
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.037
[[Page 17509]]
Where RV is the reference concentration value.
9. Interference Response Test Procedure
9.1 Test Strategy. Perform the interference response test while
the CEMS is being challenged by the high level calibration source
for mercury (after the CE determination has been made), and again
while the CEMS is being challenged by the high level calibration
source for mercuric chloride (after the CE determination has been
made). The interference test gases should be injected into the
sampling system as close to the sampling probe outlet as practical
and shall pass through all filters, scrubbers, conditioners, and
other monitor components used during normal sampling.
9.2 Number of tests. Introduce the interference test gas three
times alternately with the high-level calibration gas and record the
responses both with and without the interference test gas. The
duration of each test should be for a sufficient period of time to
ensure that the CEMS surfaces are conditioned and a stable output
obtained.
9.3 Calculations. Summarize the results on a data sheet.
Calculate the mean difference between the CEMS response with and
without the interference test gas by taking the average of the CEMS
responses with and without the interference test gas (see equation
5) and then taking the difference (d). The percent interference (I)
is then given by:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.038
Where RHL is the value of the high-level calibration standard.
If the gaseous components of the interference test gas are
introduced separately, then the total interference is the sum of the
individual interferences.
10. Equations
10.1 Arithmetic Mean. Calculate the arithmetic mean of a data
set as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.039
Where n is equal to the number of data points.
10.1.1 Calculate the arithmetic mean of the difference, d, of a
data set, using Equation 5 and substituting d for x. Then
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.040
Where x and y are paired data points from the CEMS and RM,
respectively.
10.2 Standard Deviation. Calculate the standard deviation (SD)
of a data set as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.041
10.3 Relative Accuracy (RA). Calculate the RA as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.042
Where d is equal to the arithmetic mean of the difference, d, of the
paired CEMS and RM data set, calculated according to Equations 5 and
6, SD is the standard deviation calculated according to Equation 7,
RRM is equal to either the average of the RM data set,
calculated according to Equation 5, or the value of the emission
standard, as applicable (see Section 4.2), and t0.975 is the t-
value at 2.5 percent error confidence, see Table II.
Table II
[t-Values]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
na t0.975 na t0.975 na t0.975
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2................ 12.706 7 2.447 12 2.201
3................ 4.303 8 2.365 13 2.179
4................ 3.182 9 2.306 14 2.160
5................ 2.776 10 2.262 15 2.145
6................ 2.571 11 2.228 16 2.131
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The values in this table are already corrected for n-1 degrees of freedom. Use n equal to the number of
individual values.
11. Reporting
At a minimum (check with the appropriate regional office, or
State, or local agency for additional requirements, if any)
summarize in tabular form the results of the CE, interference
response, CD and RA tests. Include all data sheets, calculations,
and records of CEMS response necessary to substantiate that the
performance of the CEMS met the performance specifications.
The CEMS measurements shall be reported to the agency in units
of g/m3 on a dry basis, corrected to 20 deg.C and 7
percent O2.
12. Bibliography
1. 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix B, ``Performance Specification 2--
Specifications and Test Procedures for SO2 and NOX
Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources.''
2. 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix B, ``Performance Specification 1--
Specification and Test Procedures for Opacity Continuous Emission
Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources.''
3. 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A, ``Method 1--Sample and Velocity
Traverses for Stationary Sources.''
4. 40 CFR Part 266, Appendix IX, Section 2, ``Performance
Specifications for Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems.''
5. Draft Method 29, ``Determination of Metals Emissions from
Stationary Sources,'' Docket A-90-45, Item II-B-12, and EMTIC CTM-
012.WPF.
6. ``Continuous Emission Monitoring Technology Survey for
Incinerators, Boilers, and Industrial Furnaces: Final Report for
Metals CEM's,'' prepared for the Office of Solid Waste, U.S. EPA,
Contract No. 68-D2-0164 (4/25/94).
7. 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A, Method 16, ``Semicontinuous
Determination of Sulfur Emissions from Stationary Sources.''
8. 40 CFR Part 266, Appendix IX, Performance Specification 2.2,
``Performance Specifications for Continuous Emission Monitoring of
Hydrocarbons for Incinerators, Boilers, and Industrial Furnaces
Burning Hazardous Waste.''
Performance Specification 13--Specifications and test procedures
for hydrochloric acid continuous monitoring systems in stationary
sources
1. Applicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability. This specification is to be used for
evaluating the acceptability of hydrogen chloride (HCl) continuous
emission monitoring systems (CEMS) at the time of or soon after
installation and whenever specified in the pertinent regulations.
Some source specific regulations require the simultaneous operation
of diluent monitors. These may be O2 or CO2 monitors.
This specification does not evaluate the performance of
installed CEMS over extended periods of time. The specification does
not identify specific calibration techniques or other auxiliary
procedures that will assess the CEMS performance. Section 114 of the
Act authorizes the administrator to require the operator of the CEMS
to conduct performance evaluations at times other than immediately
following the initial installation.
This specification is only applicable to monitors that
unequivocally measure the concentration of HCl in the gas phase. It
is not applicable to CEMS that do not measure gas phase HCl, per se,
or CEMS that may have significant interferences. The Administrator
believes that HCl CEMS must measure the concentration of gaseous HCl
thereby eliminating interferences from volatile inorganic and/or
organic chlorinated compounds. CEMS that are based upon infrared
measurement techniques, non-dispersive infrared (NDIR), gas filter
correlation infrared (GFC-IR) and Fourier Transform infrared (FTIR)
are examples of acceptable measurement techniques. Other measurement
techniques that unequivocally
[[Page 17510]]
measure the concentration of HCl in the gas phase may also be
acceptable.
1.2 Principle. This specification includes installation and
measurement location specifications, performance and equipment
specifications, test procedures, and data reduction procedures. This
specification also provides definitions of acceptable performance.
This specification stipulates that audit gas tests and
calibration drift tests be used to assess the performance of the
CEMS. The determination of the accuracy with which the CEMS measures
HCl is measured by challenging the CEMS with audit gas of known
concentration. There is no absolute determination of interference
with the measurement of gas phase HCl with other constituents in the
stack gases.
2. Definitions
2.1 Continuous Emission Monitoring System. The total equipment
required for the determination of the concentration of a gas or its
emission rate. The CEMS consist of the following subsystems:
2.1.1 Sample Interface. That portion of the CEMS used for one
or more of the following: sample acquisition, sample transportation,
sample conditioning, and protection of the monitor from the effects
of the stack effluent.
2.1.2 Pollutant Analyzer. That portion of the CEMS that senses
the pollutant gas and generates an output that is proportional to
the gas concentration.
2.1.3 Diluent Analyzer. That portion of the CEMS that senses
the concentration of the diluent gas (e.g., CO2 or O2) and
generates an output that is proportional to the concentration of the
diluent.
2.1.4 Data Recorder. That portion of the CEMS that provides a
permanent record of the analyzer output. The data recorder may
include automatic data reduction capabilities.
2.2 Point CEMS. A CEMS that measures the gas concentration
either at a single point or along a path equal to or less than 10
percent of the equivalent diameter of the stack or duct cross
section. The equivalent diameter must be determined as specified in
Appendix A, Method 1 of this Part.
2.3 Path CEMS. A CEMS that measures the gas concentration along
a path greater than 10 percent of the equivalent diameter (Appendix
A, Method 1) of the stack of duct cross section.
2.4 Span Value. The upper limit of a gas concentration
measurement range specified for affected source categories in the
applicable subpart of the regulations. The span value shall be
documented by the CEMS manufacturer with laboratory data.
2.5 Accuracy. A measurement of agreement between a measured
value and an accepted or true value, expressed as the percentage
difference between the true and measured values relative to the true
value. For these performance specifications, accuracy is checked by
conducting a calibration error (CE) test.
2.6 Calibration Error (CE). The difference between the
concentration indicated by the CEMS and the known concentration of
the cylinder gas. A CE test procedure is performed to document the
accuracy and linearity of the monitoring equipment over the entire
measurement range.
2.7 Calibration Drift. (CD). The difference between the CEMS
output and the concentration of the calibration gas after a stated
period of operation during which no unscheduled maintenance, repair,
or adjustment took place.
2.8 Centroidal Area. A concentric area that is geometrically
similar to the stack or duct cross section is no greater than 1
percent of the stack or duct cross-sectional area.
2.9 Representative Results. Defined by the RM test procedure
outlined in this specification.
3. Installation and Measurement Location Specifications
3.1 CEMS Installation and Measurement Locations. The CEMS shall
be installed in a location in which measurements representative of
the source's emissions can be obtained. The optimum location of the
sample interface for the CEMS is determined by a number of factors,
including ease of access for calibration and maintenance, the degree
to which sample conditioning will be required, the degree to which
it represents total emissions, and the degree to which it represents
the combustion situation in the firebox. The location should be as
free from in-leakage influences as possible and reasonably free from
severe flow disturbances. The sample location should be at least two
equivalent duct diameters downstream from the nearest control
device, point of pollutant generation, or other point at which a
change in the pollutant concentration or emission rate occurs and at
least 0.5 diameter upstream from the exhaust or control device. The
equivalent duct diameter is calculated as per 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, method 1, section 2.1. If these criteria are not
achievable or if the location is otherwise less than optimum, the
possibility of stratification should be investigated as described in
section 3.2. The measurement point shall be within the centroidal
area of the stack or duct cross section.
3.1.1 Point CEMS. It is suggested that the measurement point be
(1) no less than 1.0 meter from the stack or duct wall or (2) within
or centrally located over the centroidal area of the stack or duct
cross section.
3.1.2 Path CEMS. It is suggested that the effective measurement
path (1) be totally within the inner area bounded by a line 1.0
meter from the stack or duct wall, or (2) have at least 70 percent
of the path within the inner 50 percent of the stack or duct cross-
sectional area.
3.2 Stratification Test Procedure. Stratification is defined as
a difference in excess of 10 percent between the average
concentration in the duct or stack and the concentration at any
point more than 1.0 meter from the duct or stack wall. To determine
whether effluent stratification exists, a dual probe system should
be used to determine the average effluent concentration while
measurements at each traverse point are being made. One probe,
located at the stack or duct centroid, is used as a stationary
reference point to indicate the change in effluent concentration
over time. The second probe is used for sampling at the traverse
points specified in 40 CFR part 60 appendix A, method 1. The
monitoring system samples sequentially at the reference and traverse
points throughout the testing period for five minutes at each point.
4. Performance and Equipment Specifications
4.1 Data Recorder Scale. The CEMS data recorder response range
must include zero and a high-level value. The high-level value is
chosen by the source owner or operator and is defined as follows:
For a CEMS intended to measure an uncontrolled emission (e.g.,
at the inlet of a scrubber) the high-level value must be between
1.25 and 2.0 times the average potential emission concentration,
unless another value is specified in an applicable subpart of the
regulations. For a CEMS installed to measure controlled emissions or
emissions that are in compliance with an applicable regulation, the
high-level value must be between 1.5 times the HCl concentration
corresponding to the emission standard level and the span value. If
a lower high-level value is used, the operator must have the
capability of requirements of the applicable regulations.
The data recorder output must be established so that the high-
level value is read between 90 and 100 percent of the data recorder
full scale. (This scale requirement may not be applicable to digital
data recorders.) The calibration gas, optical filter or cell values
used to establish the data recorder scale should produce the zero
and high-level values. Alternatively, a calibration gas, optical
filter, or cell value between 50 and 100 percent of the high-level
value may be used in place of the high-level value, provided that
the data recorder full-scale requirements as described above are
met.
The CEMS design must also allow the determination of calibration
drift at the zero and high-level values. If this is not possible or
practicable, the design must allow these determinations to be
conducted at a low-level value (zero to 20 percent of the high-level
value) and at a value between 50 and 100 percent of the high-level
value.
4.2 Calibration Drift. The CEMS calibration must not drift or
deviate from the reference value of the gas cylinder, gas cell, or
optical filter by more than 2.5 percent of the span value. If the
span value of the CEMS is 20 ppm or less then the calibration drift
must be less than 0.5 parts per million, for 6 out of 7 test days.
If the CEMS includes both HCl and diluent monitors, the
calibration drift must be determined separately for each in terms of
concentrations (see PS 3 for the diluent specifications).
4.3 Calibration Error (CE). Calibration error is assessed using
EPA protocol 1 cyinder gases for HCl. The mean difference between
the indicated CEMS concentration and the reference concentration
value for each standard at all three test levels indicated below
shall be no greater than 15 percent of the reference concentration
at each level.
4.3.1 Zero Level. Zero to twenty (0-20) percent of the emission
limit.
[[Page 17511]]
4.3.2 Mid Level. Forty to sixty (40-60) percent of the emission
limit.
4.3.3 High Level. Eighty to one-hundred and twenty (80-120)
percent of the emission limit.
4.4 CEMS Interference Response Test. Introduce the gaseous
components listed in Table PS HCl-1 into the measurement system of
the CEMS, while the measurement system is measuring the
concentration of HCl in a calibration gas. These components may be
introduced separately or as gas mixtures. Adjust the HCl calibration
gas and gaseous component flow rates so as to maintain a constant
concentration of HCl in the gas mixture being introduced into the
measurement system. Record the change in the measurement system
response to the HCl on a form similar to Figure PS HCl-1. If the sum
of the interferences is greater than 2 percent of the applicable
span concentration, take corrective action to eliminate the
interference.
Table PS HCl-1.--Interference Test Gases Concentrations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas Concentration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon Monoxide.............................. 50050 ppm.
Carbon Dioxide............................... 101 percent.
Oxygen....................................... 20.91
percent.
Sulfur Dioxide............................... 50050 ppm.
Water Vapor.................................. 255 percent.
Nitrogen Dioxide............................. 25025 ppm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure PS HCl-1--Interference Response
Date of Test-----------------------------------------------------------
Analyzer Type----------------------------------------------------------
Serial Number----------------------------------------------------------
HCl--Calibration Gas Concentration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyzer Analyzer Percent of
Test gas Concentration response error span
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conduct an interference response test of each analyzer prior to
its initial use in the field. Thereafter, re-check the measurement
system if changes are made in the instrumentation that could alter
the interference response, e.g., changes in the type of gas
detector.
4.5 Sampling and Response Time. The CEMS shall sample the stack
effluent continuously. Averaging time, the number of measurements in
an average, and the averaging procedure for reporting and
determining compliance shall conform with that specified in the
applicable emission regulation.
4.5.1 Response Time. The response time of the CEMS should not
exceed 2 minutes to achieve 95 percent of the final stable value.
The response time shall be documented by the CEMS manufacturer.
4.5.2 Waiver from Response Time Requirement. A source owner or
operator may receive a waiver from the response time requirement for
instantaneous, continuous CEMS in section 4.5.1 from the Agency if
no CEM is available which can meet this specification at the time of
purchase of the CEMS.
4.5.3 Response Time for Batch CEMS. The response time
requirement of Section 4.5.1 does not apply to batch CEMS. Instead
it is required that the sampling time be no longer than one third of
the averaging period for the applicable standard. In addition, the
delay between the end of the sampling time and reporting of the
sample analysis shall be no greater than one hour. Sampling is also
required to be continuous except in that the pause in sampling when
the sample collection media are changed should be no greater than
five percent of the averaging period or five minutes, whichever is
less.
5. Performance Specification Test Procedure
5.1 Pretest Preparation. Install the CEMS, prepare the RM test
site according to the specifications in Section 3, and prepare the
CEMS for operation according to the manufacturer's written
instructions.
5.2 Calibration Drift Test Period. While the affected facility
is operating at more than 50 percent of normal load, or as specified
in an applicable subpart, determine the magnitude of the calibration
drift (CD) once each day (at 24-hour intervals) for 7 consecutive
days, according to the procedure given in Section 6. The CD may not
exceed the specification given in Section 4.2.
5.3 CE Test Period. Conduct a CE test prior to the CD test
period. Conduct the CE test according to the procedure given in
section 7.
6. The CEMS Calibration Drift Test Procedure
The CD measurement is to verify the ability of the CEMS to
conform to the established CEMS calibration used for determining the
emission concentration or emission rate. Therefore, if periodic
automated or manual adjustments are made to the CEMS zero and
calibration settings, conduct the CD test immediately before these
adjustments, or conduct it in such a way that the CD can be
determined.
Conduct the CD test at the two points specified in Section 4.1.
Introduce the reference gases, gas cells or optical filters (these
need not be certified) to the CEMS. Record the CEMS response and
subtract this value from the reference value (see the example data
sheet in Figure 2-1).
7. Calibration Error Test Procedure
7.1 Sampling Strategy. The CEMS calibration error shall be
assessed using the calibration source specified in Section 4.3.
Challenge the CEMS at the measurement levels specified in Section
4.3. During the test, operate the CEMS as nearly as possible in its
normal operating mode. The calibration gases should be injected into
the sampling system as close to the sampling probe outlet as
practical and shall pass through all filters, scrubbers,
conditioners, and other monitor components used during normal
sampling.
7.2 Number of tests. Challenge the CEMS three non-consecutive
times at each measurement point and record the responses. The
duration of each challenge should be for a sufficient period of time
to ensure that the CEMS surfaces are conditioned and a stable output
obtained.
7.3 Calculations. Summarize the results on a data sheet.
Calculate the mean difference between the CEMS response and the
known reference concentration at each measurement point according to
equations 1 and 2 of Section 8. The calibration error (CE) at each
measurement point is then given by:
[[Page 17512]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.055
Where RV is the reference concentration value.
8. Equations
8.1 Arithmetic Mean. Calculate the arithmetic mean of the
difference, d, of a data set as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.043
Where:
n=number of data points.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.044
When the mean of the differences of pairs of data is calculated, be
sure to correct the data for moisture, if applicable.
9. Reporting
At a minimum (check with the appropriate regional office, or
State, or local agency for additional requirements, if any)
summarize in tabular form the results of the CD tests and the
relative accuracy tests or alternative RA procedure as appropriate.
Include all data sheets, calculations, charts (records of CEMS
responses), cylinder gas concentration certifications (if
applicable), necessary to substantiate that the performance of the
CEMS met the performance specifications.
Performance Specifications 14--Specifications and test
procedures for chlorine continuous monitoring systems in stationary
sources.
1. Applicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability. This specification is to be used for
evaluating the acceptability of chlorine (Cl2) continuous
emission monitoring systems (CEMS) at the time of or soon after
installation and whenever specified in the regulations. This
performance specification applies only to those CEMS capable of
directly measuring the gas phase concentration of the chlorine
(Cl2) molecule. The CEMS may include, for certain stationary
sources, a) a diluent (O2) monitor (which must meet its own
performance specifications: 40 CFR part 60, Appendix B, Performance
Specification 3), b) flow monitoring equipment to allow measurement
of the dry volume of stack effluent sampled, and c) an automatic
sampling system.
This specification is not designed to evaluate the installed
CEMS' performance over an extended period of time nor does it
identify specific calibration techniques and auxiliary procedures to
assess the CEMS' performance. The source owner or operator, however,
is responsible to properly calibrate, maintain, and operate the
CEMS. To evaluate the CEMS' performance, the Administrator may
require, under Section 114 of the Act, the operator to conduct CEMS
performance evaluations at other times besides the initial test.
1.2 Principle. Installation and measurement location
specifications, performance specifications, test procedures, and
data reduction procedures are included in this specification.
Calibration error tests, and calibration drift tests, and
interferant tests are conducted to determine conformance of the CEMS
with the specification. Calibration error is assessed with cylinder
gas standards for chlorine. The ability of the CEMS to provide an
accurate measure of chlorine concentration in the flue gas of the
facility at which it is installed is demonstrated by comparison to
manual reference method measurements.
2. Definitions
2.1 Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS). The total
equipment required for the determination of a pollutant
concentration. The system consists of the following major
subsystems:
2.1.1 Sample Interface. That portion of the CEMS used for one
or more of the following: sample acquisition, sample transport, and
sample conditioning, or protection of the monitor from the effects
of the stack effluent.
2.1.2 Pollutant Analyzer. That portion of the CEMS that senses
the pollutant concentration(s) and generates a proportional output.
2.1.3 Diluent Analyzer (if applicable). That portion of the
CEMS that senses the diluent gas (O2) and generates an output
proportional to the gas concentration.
2.1.4 Data Recorder. That portion of the CEMS that provides a
permanent record of the analyzer output. The data recorder may
provide automatic data reduction and CEMS control capabilities.
2.2 Point CEMS. A CEMS that measures the pollutant
concentrations either at a single point or along a path equal to or
less than 10 percent of the equivalent diameter of the stack or duct
cross section.
2.3 Path CEMS. A CEMS that measures the pollutant
concentrations along a path greater than 10 percent of the
equivalent diameter of the stack or duct cross section.
2.4 Span Value. The upper limit of a pollutant concentration
measurement range defined as twenty times the applicable emission
limit. The span value shall be documented by the CEMS manufacturer
with laboratory data.
2.5 Accuracy. A measurement of agreement between a measured
value and an accepted or true value, expressed as the percentage
difference between the true and measured values relative to the true
value. For these performance specifications, accuracy is checked by
conducting a calibration error (CE) test.
2.6 Calibration Drift (CD). The difference in the CEMS output
readings from the established reference value after a stated period
of operation during which no unscheduled maintenance, repair, or
adjustment took place.
2.7 Zero Drift (ZD). The difference in the CEMS output readings
for zero input after a stated period of operation during which no
unscheduled maintenance, repair, or adjustment took place.
2.8 Representative Results. Defined by the RA test procedure
defined in this specification.
2.9 Response Time. The time interval between the start of a
step change in the system input and the time when the pollutant
analyzer output reaches 95 percent of the final value.
2.10 Centroidal Area. A concentric area that is geometrically
similar to the stack or duct cross section and is no greater than 1
percent of the stack or duct cross sectional area.
2.11 Calibration Standard. Calibration standards consist of a
known amount of pollutant that is presented to the pollutant
analyzer portion of the CEMS in order to calibrate the drift or
response of the analyzer. The calibration standard may be, for
example, a gas sample containing known concentration.
2.12 Calibration Error (CE). The difference between the
concentration indicated by the CEMS and the known concentration
generated by a calibration source when the entire CEMS, including
the sampling interface) is challenged. A CE test procedure is
performed to document the accuracy and linearity of the CEMS over
the entire measurement range.
3. Installation and Measurement Location Specifications
3.1 CEMS Installation and Measurement Locations. The CEMS shall
be installed in a location in which measurements representative of
the source's emissions can be obtained. The optimum location of the
sample interface for the CEMS is determined by a number of factors,
including ease of access for calibration and maintenance, the degree
to which sample conditioning will be required, the degree to which
it represents total emissions, and the degree to which it represents
the combustion situation in the firebox. The location should be as
free from in-leakage influences as possible and reasonably free from
severe flow disturbances. The sample location should be at least two
equivalent duct diameters downstream from the nearest control
device, point of pollutant generation, or other point at which a
change in the pollutant concentration or emission rate occurs and at
least 0.5 diameter upstream from the exhaust or control device. The
equivalent duct diameter is calculated as per 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, method 1, section 2.1. If these criteria are not
achievable or if the location is otherwise less than optimum, the
possibility of stratification should be investigated as described in
section 3.2. The measurement point shall be within the centroidal
area of the stack or duct cross section.
3.1.1 Point CEMS. It is suggested that the measurement point be
(1) no less than 1.0 meter from the stack or duct wall or (2) within
or centrally located over the centroidal area of the stack or duct
cross section.
3.1.2 Path CEMS. It is suggested that the effective measurement
path (1) be totally within the inner area bounded by a line 1.0
meter from the stack or duct wall, or (2) have at least 70 percent
of the path within the inner 50 percent of the stack or duct cross-
sectional area.
3.2 Stratification Test Procedure. Stratification is defined as
a difference in
[[Page 17513]]
excess of 10 percent between the average concentration in the duct
or stack and the concentration at any point more than 1.0 meter from
the duct or stack wall. To determine whether effluent stratification
exists, a dual probe system should be used to determine the average
effluent concentration while measurements at each traverse point are
being made. One probe, located at the stack or duct centroid, is
used as a stationary reference point to indicate the change in
effluent concentration over time. The second probe is used for
sampling at the traverse points specified in 40 CFR part 60 appendix
A, method 1. The monitoring system samples sequentially at the
reference and traverse points throughout the testing period for five
minutes at each point.
4. Performance and Equipment Specifications
4.1 Data Recorder Scale. The CEMS data recorder response range
must include zero and a high level value. The high level value must
be equal to the span value. If a lower high level value is used, the
CEMS must have the capability of providing multiple outputs with
different high level values (one of which is equal to the span
value) or be capable of automatically changing the high level value
as required (up to the span value) such that the measured value does
not exceed 95 percent of the high level value.
4.2 Relative Accuracy (RA). The RA of the CEMS must be no
greater than 20 percent of the mean value of the RM test data in
terms of units of the emission standard, or 10 percent of the
applicable standard, whichever is greater.
4.3 Calibration Error. Calibration error is assessed using
certified NIST traceable cylinder gas standards for chlorine. The
mean difference between the indicated CEMS concentration and the
reference concentration shall be no greater than 15
percent of the reference concentration. The reference concentration
shall be the greater of 80 to 120 percent of the applicable emission
standard or 50 ppm Cl2, in nitrogen.
4.4 Calibration Drift. The CEMS design must allow the
determination of calibration drift at concentration levels
commensurate with the applicable emission standard. The CEMS
calibration may not drift or deviate from the reference value (RV)
of the calibration standard by more than 2 percent of the reference
value. The calibration shall be performed at a level equal to 80 to
120 percent of the applicable emission standard.
4.5 Zero Drift. The CEMS design must allow the determination of
calibration drift at the zero level (zero drift). The CEMS zero
point shall not drift by more than 2 percent of the emission
standard.
4.6 Sampling and Response Time. The CEMS shall sample the stack
effluent continuously. Averaging time, the number of measurements in
an average, and the averaging procedure for reporting and
determining compliance shall conform with that specified in the
applicable emission regulation.
4.6.1 Response Time. The response time of the CEMS should not
exceed 2 minutes to achieve 95 percent of the final stable value.
The response time shall be documented by the CEMS manufacturer.
4.7 CEMS Interference Response. While the CEMS is measuring the
concentration of chlorine in the high-level calibration source used
to conduct the CE test, the gaseous components (in nitrogen) listed
in Table I shall be introduced into the measurement system either
separately or in combination. The interference test gases must be
introduced in such a way as to cause no change in the calibration
concentration of chlorine being delivered to the CEMS. The
concentrations listed in the table are the target levels at the
sampling interface of the CEMS based on the known cylinder gas
concentrations and the extent of dilution (see Section 9).
Interference is defined as the difference between the CEMS response
with these components present and absent. The sum of the
interferences must be less than 2 percent of the emission limit
value. If this level of interference is exceeded, then corrective
action to eliminate the interference(s) must be taken.
Table I.--Interference Test Gas Concentrations in Nitrogen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas Concentration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon Monoxide........................ 500 50 ppm.
Carbon Dioxide......................... 10 1 percent.
Oxygen................................. 20.9 1 percent.
Sulfur Dioxide......................... 500 50 ppm.
Nitrogen Dioxide....................... 250 25 ppm.
Water Vapor............................ 25 5 percent.
Hydrogen Chloride (HCl)................ 50 5 ppm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Performance Specification Test Procedure
5.1 Pretest Preparation. Install the CEMS and prepare the RM
test site according to the specifications in Section 3, and prepare
the CEMS for operation according to the manufacturer's written
instructions.
5.2 Calibration and Zero Drift Test Period. While the affected
facility is operating at more than 50 percent of normal load, or as
specified in an applicable subpart, determine the magnitude of the
calibration drift (CD) and zero drift (ZD) once each day (at 24-hour
intervals) for 7 consecutive days according to the procedure given
in Section 6. To meet the requirements of Sections 4.4 and 4.5 none
of the CD's or ZD's may exceed the specification. All CD
determinations must be made following a 24-hour period during which
no unscheduled maintenance, repair, or manual adjustment of the CEMS
took place.
5.3 CE Test Period. Conduct a CE test prior to the CD test
period. Conduct the CE test according to the procedure given in
Section 8.
5.4 CEMS Interference Response Test Period. Conduct an
interference response test in conjunction with the CE test according
to the procedure given in Section 9.
6.0 The CEMS Calibration and Zero Drift Test Procedure
This performance specification is designed to allow calibration
of the CEMS by use of gas samples, filters, etc, that challenge the
pollutant analyzer part of the CEMS (and as much of the whole system
as possible), but which do not challenge the entire CEMS, including
the sampling interface. Satisfactory response of the entire system
is covered by the RA and CE requirements.
The CD measurement is to verify the ability of the CEMS to
conform to the established CEMS calibration used for determining the
emission concentration. Therefore, if periodic automatic or manual
adjustments are made to the CEMS zero and calibration settings,
conduct the CD test immediately before the adjustments, or conduct
it in such a way that the CD and ZD can be determined.
Conduct the CD and ZD tests at the points specified in Sections
4.4 and 4.5. Record the CEMS response and calculate the CD according
to:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.045
Where CD denotes the calibration drift of the CEMS in percent,
RCEM is the CEMS response, and RV is the reference value
of the high level calibration standard. Calculate the ZD according
to:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.046
Where ZD denotes the zero drift of the CEMS in percent, RCEM is
the CEMS response, RV is the reference value of the low level
calibration standard, and REM is the emission limit value.
7. Calibration Error Test Procedure
7.1 Sampling Strategy. The CEMS calibration error shall be
assessed using the calibration source specified in Section 4.3.
Challenge the CEMS at the measurement levels specified in Section
4.3. During the test, operate the CEMS as nearly as possible in its
normal operating mode. The calibration gases should be injected into
the sampling system as close to the sampling probe outlet as
practical and shall pass through all filters, scrubbers,
conditioners, and other monitor components used during normal
sampling.
7.2 Number of tests. Challenge the CEMS three non-consecutive
times at each measurement point and record the responses. The
duration of each challenge should be for a sufficient period of time
to ensure that the CEMS surfaces are conditioned and a stable output
obtained.
7.3 Calculations. Summarize the results on a data sheet.
Calculate the mean difference between the CEMS response and the
known reference concentration at each measurement point according to
equations 5 and 6 of Section 10. The calibration error (CE) at each
measurement point is then given by:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.047
Where RV is the reference concentration value.
8. Interference Response Test Procedure
8.1 Test Strategy. Perform the interference response test
while the CEMS is being challenged by the high level calibration
source (after the CE determination has been
[[Page 17514]]
made). The interference test gases should be injected into the
sampling system as close to the sampling probe outlet as practical
and shall pass through all filters, scrubbers, conditioners, and
other monitor components used during normal sampling.
8.2 Number of tests. Introduce the interference test gas three
times alternately with the high-level calibration gas and record the
responses both with and without the interference test gas. The
duration of each test should be for a sufficient period of time to
ensure that the CEMS surfaces are conditioned and a stable output
obtained.
8.3 Calculations. Summarize the results on a data sheet.
Calculate the mean difference between the CEMS response with and
without the interference test gas by taking the average of the CEMS
responses with and without the interference test gas (see equation
5) and then taking the difference (d). The percent interference (I)
is then given by:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.048
Where RHL is the value of the high-level calibration standard.
If the gaseous components of the interference test gas are
introduced separately, then the total interference is the sum of the
individual interferences.
9. Equations
9.1 Arithmetic Mean. Calculate the arithmetic mean of a data
set as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.049
Where n is equal to the number of data points.
9.1.1 Calculate the arithmetic mean of the difference, d, of a
data set, using Equation 5 and substituting d for x. Then
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.050
Where x and y are paired data points from the CEMS and RM,
respectively.
10. Reporting
At a minimum (check with the appropriate regional office, or
State, or local agency for additional requirements, if any)
summarize in tabular form the results of the CE, interference
response, CD and RA tests. Include all data sheets, calculations,
and records of CEMS response necessary to substantiate that the
performance of the CEMS met the performance specifications.
The CEMS measurements shall be reported to the agency in units
of g/m3 on a dry basis, corrected to 20 deg.C and 7
percent O2.
11. Bibliography
1. 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix B, ``Performance Specification 2--
Specifications and Test Procedures for SO2 and NOX
Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources.''
2. 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix B, ``Performance Specification 1--
Specification and Test Procedures for Opacity Continuous Emission
Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources.''
3. 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A, ``Method 1--Sample and Velocity
Traverses for Stationary Sources.''
4. 40 CFR Part 266, Appendix IX, Section 2, ``Performance
Specifications for Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems.''
5. ``Continuous Emission Monitoring Technology Survey for
Incinerators, Boilers, and Industrial Furnaces: Final Report for
Metals CEM's,'' prepared for the Office of Solid Waste, U.S. EPA,
Contract No. 68-D2-0164 (4/25/94).
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
II. In part 63:
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. Part 63 is revised by adding subpart EEE, to read as follows:
Subpart EEE--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants From Hazardous Waste Combustors
Sec.
63.1200 Applicability.
63.1201 Definitions.
63.1202 Construction and reconstruction.
63.1203 Standards for hazardous waste incinerators (HWIs).
63.1204 Standards for cement kilns (CKs) that burn hazardous waste.
63.1205 Standards for lightweight aggregate kilns (LWAKs) that burn
hazardous waste.
63.1206 Initial compliance dates.
63.1207 Compliance with standards and general requirements.
63.1208 Performance testing requirements.
63.1209 Test methods.
63.1210 Monitoring requirements.
63.1211 Notification requirements.
63.1212 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
Appendix to Subpart EEE--Quality Assurance Procedures for Continuous
Emissions Monitors Used for Hazardous Waste Combustors
Sec. 63.1200 Applicability.
(a) The provisions of this subpart apply to all hazardous waste
combustors (HWCs): hazardous waste incinerators, cement kilns that burn
hazardous waste, and lightweight aggregate kilns that burn hazardous
waste.
(b) HWCs are subject to the provisions of part 63 as major sources
irrespective of the quantity of hazardous air pollutants emitted.
(c) When a HWC continues to operate when hazardous waste is neither
being fed nor remains in the combustion chamber, the source remains
subject to this subpart until hazardous waste burning is terminated.
(1) A source has terminated hazardous waste burning if:
(i) It has stopped feeding hazardous waste and hazardous waste does
not remain in the combustion chamber;
(ii) The owner or operator notifies the Administrator in writing
within 5 calendar days after hazardous waste burning has ceased that
hazardous waste burning has terminated.
(2) A source that has terminated hazardous waste burning may resume
hazardous waste burning provided that:
(i) It complies with requirements in this subpart for new sources;
and
(ii) The owner and operator submits a notification of compliance
based on comprehensive performance testing after burning has been
resumed. Hazardous waste cannot be burned for more than 720 hours prior
to submittal of the notification of compliance, and may be burned only
for purposes of emissions testing in preparation for performance
testing or performance testing.
(d) HWCs are also subject to applicable requirements under parts
260-270 of this chapter.
(e) The more stringent of requirements of an operating permit
issued under part 270 of this chapter or the requirements of this
subpart (and part) apply. If requirements of the operating permit
issued under part 270 of this chapter conflict with any requirements of
this subpart (and part 63), the requirements of this subpart (and part
63) take precedence.
(f) If the only hazardous wastes that a HWC burns are those exempt
from regulation under Sec. 266.100(b) of this chapter, the HWC is not
subject to the requirements of this subpart.
(g) Waiver of emission standards. (1) Nondetect levels of Hg, SVM,
or LVM in feedstreams. If no feedstream to a HWC contains detectable
levels of Hg, SVM, or LVM, the HWC is not subject to the emission
standards and ancillary performance testing, monitoring, notification,
and recordkeeping and reporting requirements for those standards
provided in this subpart. To be eligible for this waiver, the owner and
operator must also develop and implement a feedstream sampling and
analysis plan to document that no feedstream contains detectable levels
of the metals.
(2) Nondetect levels of chlorine in feedstreams. If no feedstream
to a HWC contains detectable levels of chlorine, the HWC is not subject
to the HCl/Cl2 emission standard and ancillary performance
testing, monitoring, notification, and recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for that standard in this subpart. To be eligible for this
waiver, the owner and operator must also develop and implement a
[[Page 17515]]
feedstream sampling and analysis plan to document that no feedstream
contains detectable levels of the chlorine.
Sec. 63.1201 Definitions.
The terms used in this part are defined in the Act, in subpart A of
this part, or in this section as follows:
Air pollution control system means the equipment used to reduce the
release of particulate matter and other pollutants to the atmosphere.
Automatic waste feed cutoff (AWFCO) system means a system comprised
of cutoff valves, actuator, sensor, data manager, and other necessary
components and electrical circuitry designed, operated and maintained
to stop the flow of hazardous waste to the combustion unit
automatically and immediately when any of the parameters to which the
system is interlocked exceed the limits established in compliance with
applicable standards, the operating permit, or safety considerations.
By-pass duct means a device which diverts a minimum of 10 percent
of a cement kiln's off gas.
Cement kiln means a rotary kiln and any associated preheater or
precalciner devices that produces clinker by heating limestone and
other materials for subsequent production of cement for use in
commerce, and that burns hazardous waste.
Combustion chamber means the area in which controlled flame
combustion of hazardous waste occurs.
Compliance date means the date by which a hazardous waste combustor
must submit a notification of compliance under this subpart.
Comprehensive performance test means the performance test during
which a HWC demonstrates compliance with emission standard and
establishes or re-establishes operating limits.
Confirmatory performance test means the performance test conducted
under normal operating conditions to demonstrate compliance with the D/
F emission standard.
Continuous monitor means a device which continuously samples the
regulated parameter without interruption except during allowable
periods of calibration, and except as defined otherwise by the CEM
Performance Specifications in appendix B, part 60.
Dioxins and furans (D/F) means tetra-, penta-, hexa-, hepta-, and
octa-chlorinated dibenzo dioxins and furans.
Feedstream means any material fed into a HWC, including, but not
limited to, any pumpable or nonpumpable solid or gas.
Flowrate means the rate at which a feedstream is fed into a HWC.
Fugitive combustion emissions means particulate or gaseous matter
generated by or resulting from the burning of hazardous waste that is
not collected by a capture system and is released to the atmosphere
prior to the exit of the stack.
Hazardous waste is defined in Sec. 261.3 of this chapter.
Hazardous waste combustor (HWC) means a hazardous waste
incinerator, or a cement kiln, or a lightweight aggregate kiln.
Hazardous waste incinerator means a device defined in 260.10 of
this chapter that burns hazardous waste.
Initial comprehensive performance test means the comprehensive
performance test that is used as the basis for initially demonstrating
compliance with the standards.
Instantaneous monitoring means continuously sampling, detecting,
and recording the regulated parameter without use of an averaging
period.
Lightweight aggregate kiln means a rotary kiln that produces for
commerce (or for manufacture of products for commerce) an aggregate
with a density less than 2.5 g/cc by slowly heating organic-containing
geologic materials such as shale and clay, and that burns hazardous
waste.
Low volatility metals means arsenic, beryllium, chromium, and
antimony, and their compounds.
New source means a HWC that first begins to burn hazardous waste,
or the construction or reconstruction of which is commenced, after
April 19, 1996.
Notification of compliance means a notification in which the owner
and operator certify, after completion of performance evaluations and
tests, that the HWC meets the emission standards, CMS, and other
requirements of this subpart, and that the source is in compliance with
operating limits.
One-minute average means the average of detector responses
calculated at least every 60 seconds from responses obtained at least
each 15 seconds.
Operating record means a documentation of all information required
by the standards to document and maintain compliance with the
applicable regulations, including data and information, reports,
notifications, and communications with regulatory officials.
Reconstruction means the replacement or addition of components of a
hazardous waste combustor to such an extent that:
(1) The fixed capital cost of the new components exceeds 50 percent
of the fixed capital cost that would be required to construct a
comparable new source.
(2) Upon reconstruction, the combustor becomes subject to the
standards for new sources, including compliance dates, irrespective of
any change in emissions of hazardous air pollutants from that source.
Rolling average means the average of all one-minute averages over
the averaging period.
Run means the net period of time during which an air emission
sample is collected under a given set of operating conditions. Three or
more runs constitutes an emissions test. Unless otherwise specified, a
run may be either intermittent or continuous.
Semivolatile metals means cadmium and lead, and their compounds.
TEQ means the international method of expressing toxicity
equivalents for dioxins and furans as defined in U.S. EPA, Interim
Procedures for Estimating Risks Associated with Exposures to Mixtures
of Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and -Dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs) and
1989 Update, March 1989.
Sec. 63.1202 Construction and reconstruction.
The requirements of Sec. 63.5 apply, except the following apply in
lieu of Secs. 63.5(d)(3)(v) and (vi) and (e)(1)(ii)(D), as follows:
(a) A discussion of any technical limitations the source may have
in complying with relevant standards or other requirements after the
proposed replacements. The discussion shall be sufficiently detailed to
demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that the technical
limitations affect the source's ability to comply with the relevant
standard and how they do so.
(b) If in the application for approval of reconstruction the owner
or operator designates the affected source as a reconstructed source
and declares that there are no technical limitations to prevent the
source from complying with all relevant standards or other
requirements, the owner or operator need not submit the information
required in paragraphs (d)(3) (iii) through (v) of this section.
(c) Any technical limitations on compliance with relevant standards
that are inherent in the proposed replacements.
Sec. 63.1203 Standards for hazardous waste incinerators (HWIs).
(a) Emission limits for existing sources. No owner or operator of
an existing HWI shall discharge or cause combustion gases to be emitted
into the atmosphere that contain:
(1) Dioxins and furans in excess of 0.20 ng/dscm (TEQ) corrected to
7 percent oxygen;
[[Page 17516]]
(2) Mercury in excess of 50 g/dscm, over a 10-hour rolling
average, and corrected to 7 percent oxygen;
(3) Lead and cadmium in excess of 270 g/dscm, combined
emissions, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and measured over a 12-hour
rolling average if compliance is based on a CEMS;
(4) Arsenic, beryllium, chromium, and antimony in excess of 210
g/dscm, combined emissions, corrected to 7 percent oxygen and
measured over a 10-hour rolling average if compliance is based on a
CEMS;
(5) Carbon monoxide in excess of 100 parts per million by volume,
over an hourly rolling average, dry basis and corrected to 7 percent
oxygen;
(6) Hydrocarbons in excess of 12 parts per million by volume, over
an hourly rolling average, dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen,
and reported as propane;
(7) Hydrochloric acid and chlorine gas in excess of 280 parts per
million by volume, combined emissions, expressed as hydrochloric acid
equivalents, dry basis and corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and measured
over a hourly rolling average if compliance is based on a CEMS; and
(8) Particulate matter (PM) in excess of 69 mg/dscm, over a 2-hour
rolling average and corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(b) Emission limits for new sources. No owner or operator that
commences construction or reconstruction of a HWI, or that first burns
hazardous waste in an existing incinerator, after April 19, 1996, shall
discharge or cause combustion gases to be emitted into the atmosphere
that contain:
(1) Dioxins and furans in excess of 0.20 ng/dscm (TEQ), corrected
to 7 percent oxygen;
(2) Mercury in excess of 50 g/dscm, over a 10-hour rolling
average, corrected to 7 percent oxygen;
(3) Lead and cadmium in excess of 62 g/dscm, combined
emissions, corrected to 7 percent oxygen and measured over a 10-hour
rolling average;
(4) Arsenic, beryllium, chromium, and antimony in excess of 60
g/dscm (or 80 g/dscm if compliance is based on a
CEMS), combined emissions, corrected to 7 percent oxygen and measured
over a 10-hour rolling average if compliance is based on a CEM;
(5) Carbon monoxide in excess of 100 parts per million by volume,
over an hourly rolling average, dry basis and corrected to 7 percent
oxygen;
(6) Hydrocarbons in excess of 12 parts per million by volume, over
an hourly rolling average, dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen,
and reported as propane;
(7) Hydrochloric acid and chlorine gas in excess of 67 parts per
million by volume, combined emissions, expressed as hydrochloric acid
equivalents, dry basis and corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and measured
over a hourly rolling average if compliance is based on a CEM; and
(8) Particulate matter (PM) in excess of 69 mg/dscm, over a 2-hour
rolling average and corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(c) Significant figures. The emission limits provided by paragraphs
(a) and (b) of this section shall be considered to have two significant
figures. Emissions measurements may be rounded to two significant
figures to demonstrate compliance.
(d) Air emission standards for equipment leaks, tanks, surface
impoundments, and containers. Owners and operators of HWIs are subject
to the air emission standards of Subparts BB and CC, part 264, of this
chapter.
Sec. 63.1204 Standards for cement kilns (CKs) that burn hazardous
waste.
(a) Emission limits for existing sources. No owner or operator of
an existing CK shall discharge or cause combustion gases (resulting
solely or partially from burning hazardous waste) to be emitted into
the atmosphere that contain:
(1) Dioxins and furans in excess of 0.20 ng/dscm, TEQ, corrected to
7 percent oxygen;
(2) Mercury in excess of 50 g/dscm, over a 10-hour rolling
average, and corrected to 7 percent oxygen;
(3) Lead and cadmium in excess of 57 g/dscm, combined
emissions, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and measured over a 10-hour
rolling average if compliance is based on a CEMS;
(4) Arsenic, beryllium, chromium, and antimony in excess of 130
g/dscm, combined emissions, corrected to 7 percent oxygen and
measured over a 10-hour rolling average if compliance is based on a
CEMS;
(5) Carbon Monoxide. For kilns equipped with a by-pass duct,
either:
(i) Carbon monoxide in the by-pass duct in excess of 100 parts per
million by volume, over an hourly rolling average, dry basis and
corrected to 7 percent oxygen; or
(ii) Hydrocarbons in the by-pass duct in excess of 6.7 parts per
million by volume, over an hourly rolling average, dry basis, corrected
to 7 percent oxygen, and reported as propane.
(6) Hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons in the main stack of kilns not
equipped with a by-pass duct in excess of 20 parts per million by
volume, over an hourly rolling average, dry basis, corrected to 7
percent oxygen, and reported as propane;
(7) Hydrochloric acid and chlorine gas in excess of 630 parts per
million by volume, combined emissions, expressed as hydrochloric acid
equivalents, dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and measured
over a hourly rolling average if compliance is based on a CEMS; and
(8) Particulate matter (PM) in excess of 69 mg/dscm over a 3-hour
rolling average and corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(b) Emission limits for new sources. No owner or operator that
commences construction or reconstruction of a CK, or that first burns
hazardous waste in an existing CK, after April 19, 1996, shall
discharge or cause combustion gases to be emitted into the atmosphere
that contain:
(1) Dioxins and furans in excess of 0.20 ng/dscm (TEQ) corrected to
7 percent oxygen;
(2) Mercury in excess of 50 g/dscm, over a 10-hour rolling
average, corrected to 7 percent oxygen;
(3) Lead and cadmium in excess of 55 g/dscm, combined
emissions, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, or if compliance is based on
a CEMS, 60 g/dscm, combined emissions, corrected to 7 percent
oxygen and measured over a 10-hour rolling average;
(4) Arsenic, beryllium, chromium, and antimony in excess of 44
g/dscm, combined emissions, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, or,
if compliance is based on a CEM, 80 g/dscm, combined
emissions, corrected to 7 percent oxygen and measured over a 10-hour
rolling average;
(5) Carbon Monoxide. For kilns equipped with a by-pass duct,
either:
(i) Carbon monoxide in the by-pass duct in excess of 100 parts per
million by volume, over an hourly rolling average, dry basis and
corrected to 7 percent oxygen; or
(ii) Hydrocarbons in the by-pass duct in excess of 6.7 parts per
million by volume, over an hourly rolling average, dry basis, corrected
to 7 percent oxygen, and reported as propane.
(6) Hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons in the main stack of kilns not
equipped with a by-pass duct in excess of 20 parts per million by
volume, over an hourly rolling average, dry basis, corrected to 7
percent oxygen, and reported as propane;
(7) Hydrochloric acid and chlorine gas in excess of 67 parts per
million, combined emissions, expressed as hydrochloric acid
equivalents, dry basis and corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and
[[Page 17517]]
measured over a hourly rolling average if compliance is based on a
CEMS; and
(8) Particulate matter (PM) in excess of 69 mg/dscm over a 2-hour
rolling average and corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(c) Significant figures. The emission limits provided by paragraphs
(a) and (b) of this section shall be considered to have two significant
figures. Emissions measurements may be rounded to two significant
figures to demonstrate compliance.
(d) Air emission standards for equipment leaks, tanks, surface
impoundments, and containers. Owners and operators of CKs are subject
to the air emission standards of subparts BB and CC, part 264, of this
chapter.
Sec. 63.1205 Standards for lightweight aggregate kilns (LWAKs) that
burn hazardous waste.
(a) Emission limits for existing sources. No owner or operator of
an existing LWAK shall discharge or cause combustion gases to be
emitted into the atmosphere that contain:
(1) Dioxins and furans in excess of 0.20 ng/dscm (TEQ), corrected
to 7 percent oxygen;
(2) Mercury in excess of 72 g/dscm, over a 10-hour rolling
average, and corrected to 7 percent oxygen;
(3) Lead and cadmium in excess of 12 g/dscm, combined
emissions, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, or, if compliance is based on
a CEMS, 60 g/dscm, combined emissions, corrected to 7 percent
oxygen and measured over a 10-hour rolling average;
(4) Arsenic, beryllium, chromium, and antimony in excess of 340
g/dscm, combined emissions, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and
measured over a 10-hour rolling average if a CEMS is used for
compliance;
(5) Carbon monoxide in excess of 100 parts per million by volume,
over an hourly rolling average, dry basis and corrected to 7 percent
oxygen;
(6) Hydrocarbons in excess of 14 parts per million by volume, over
an hourly rolling average, dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen,
and reported as propane;
(7) Hydrochloric acid and chlorine gas in excess of 450 parts per
million by volume, combined emissions, expressed as hydrochloric acid
equivalents, dry basis and corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and measured
over a hourly rolling average if compliance is based on a CEMS; and
(8) Particulate matter (PM) in excess of 69 mg/dscm over a 2-hour
rolling average and corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(b) Emission limits for new sources. No owner or operator that
commences construction or reconstruction of a LWAK, or that first burns
hazardous waste in an existing LWAK, after April 19, 1996, shall
discharge or cause combustion gases to be emitted into the atmosphere
that contain:
(1) Dioxins and furans in excess of 0.20 ng/dscm (TEQ), corrected
to 7 percent oxygen;
(2) Mercury in excess of 72 g/dscm, over a 10-hour rolling
average, corrected to 7 percent oxygen;
(3) Lead and cadmium in excess of 5.2 g/dscm, combined
emissions, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, or, if compliance is based on
a CEMS, 60 g/dscm, combined emissions, corrected to 7 percent
oxygen and measured over a 10-hour rolling average;
(4) Arsenic, beryllium, chromium, and antimony in excess of 55
g/dscm, combined emissions, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, or,
if compliance is based on a CEMS, 80 g/dscm, combined
emissions, corrected to 7 percent oxygen and measured over a 10-hour
rolling average;
(5) Carbon monoxide in excess of 100 parts per million by volume,
over an hourly rolling average, dry basis and corrected to 7 percent
oxygen;
(6) Hydrocarbons in excess of 14 parts per million by volume, over
an hourly rolling average, dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen,
and reported as propane;
(7) Hydrochloric acid and chlorine gas in excess of 62 parts per
million by volume, combined emissions, expressed as hydrochloric acid
equivalents, dry basis and corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and measured
over a hourly rolling average if compliance is based on a CEMS; and
(8) Particulate matter (PM) in excess of 69 mg/dscm over a 2-hour
rolling average and corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(c) Significant figures. The emission limits provided by paragraphs
(a) and (b) shall be considered to have two significant figures.
Emissions measurements may be rounded to two significant figures to
demonstrate compliance.
(d) Air emission standards for equipment leaks, tanks, surface
impoundments, and containers. Owners and operators of LWAKs are subject
to the air emission standards subparts BB and CC, part 264, of this
chapter.
Sec. 63.1206 Initial Compliance dates.
(a) Existing sources. (1) Compliance Date. Each owner or operator
of an existing hazardous waste combustor (HWC) shall submit to the
Administrator under Sec. 63.1211 an initial notification of compliance
certifying compliance with the requirements of this subpart no later
than [date 36 months after publication of the final rule], unless an
extension of time is granted under Sec. 63.6(i).
(2) Failure to meet compliance date. (i) Termination of waste
burning. If an owner or operator fails to submit the notification of
compliance as specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, hazardous
waste burning must terminate on the date that the owner or operator
determine that the notification will not be submitted by the deadline,
but not later than the date the notification should have been
submitted.
(ii) Requirements for resuming waste burning. (A) If a source that
fails to submit a timely initial notification of compliance has not
been issued a RCRA operating permit under part 270 of this chapter for
the HWC, the source may not resume burning hazardous waste until a RCRA
permit is issued.
(B) If a source that fails to submit a timely initial notification
of compliance has already been issued a RCRA operating permit under
part 270 of this chapter for the HWC, the source may resume burning
hazardous waste only for a total of 720 hours and only for purposes of
pretesting or comprehensive performance testing prior to submitting an
initial notification of compliance. If the owner and operator do not
submit an initial notification of compliance within 90 days after the
date it is due, they must begin closure procedures under the RCRA
operating permit unless an extension of time is granted prior to that
date in writing by the Administrator for good cause.
(C) The source must comply with the requirements for new sources
under this subpart.
(b) New sources. (1) Sources that begin burning hazardous waste
before the effective date but after the date of proposal. Each owner or
operator of a new source that first burns hazardous waste prior to
[date of publication of final rule] but after April 19, 1996 shall:
(i) For any requirements of this subpart (and part) that are not
more stringent than the proposed requirement, submit to the
Administrator a notification of compliance at the time specified in the
operating permit issued under part 270 of this chapter;
(ii) For any requirements of this subpart (and part) that are more
stringent than the proposed requirement:
(A) Submit to the Administrator a notification of compliance not
later than [date 36 months after publication of the
[[Page 17518]]
final rule], unless an extension of time is granted under Sec. 63.6(i);
and
(B) Comply with the standards as proposed in the interim until the
notification of compliance is submitted.
(2) Sources that begin burning hazardous waste after the effective
date. Each owner or operator of a new source that first burns hazardous
waste after [date of publication of final rule] must submit the
notification of compliance at the time specified in the operating
permit issued under part 270 of this chapter.
Note to paragraph (b) of this section: An owner or operator
wishing to commence construction of a hazardou
FR Doc. 96-7872 Revised Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors
s waste incinerator or
hazardous waste-burning equipment for a cement kiln or lightweight
aggregate kiln must first obtain some type of RCRA authorization,
whether it be a RCRA permit, a modification to an existing RCRA
permit, or a change under already existing interim status. See 40
CFR part 270.
Sec. 63.1207 Compliance with standards and general requirements.
(a) Compliance with standards. (1) Standards are in effect at all
times. A hazardous waste combustor (HWC) shall not burn hazardous waste
(that is, hazardous waste must not be fed and hazardous waste must not
remain in the combustion chamber) except in compliance with the
standards of this subpart, including periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction. Therefore, the owner or operator of a HWC is not subject
to the requirements of Secs. 63.6(e) and (f)(1) (regarding operation
and maintenance in conformance with a startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan) when burning hazardous waste.
(2) Automatic waste feed cutoff (AWFCO). During the initial
comprehensive performance test required under Sec. 63.1208, and upon
submittal of the initial notification of compliance under Sec. 63.1211,
a HWC must be operated with a functioning system that immediately and
automatically cuts off the hazardous waste feed when any of the
following are exceeded: applicable operating limits specified under
Sec. 63.1210; the emission levels monitored by CEMS; the span value of
any CMS detector, except a CEMS; the automatic waste feed cutoff system
fails; or the allowable combustion chamber pressure.
(i) Ducting of combustion gases. During a AWFCO, combustion gases
must continue to be ducted to the air pollution control system while
hazardous waste remains in the combustion chamber;
(ii) Restarting waste feed. The operating parameters for which
limits are established under Sec. 63.1210 and the emissions required
under that section to be monitored by a CEMS must continue to be
monitored during the cutoff, and the hazardous waste feed shall not be
restarted until the operating parameters and emission levels are within
allowable levels;
(iii) Violations. If, after a AWFCO, a parameter required to be
interlocked with the AWFCO system exceeds an allowable level while
hazardous waste remains in the combustion chamber, the owner and
operator have violated the emission standards of this subpart.
(iv) Corrective measures. After any AWFCO that results in a
violation as defined in paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section, the
owner or operator must investigate the cause of the AWFCO, take
appropriate corrective measures to minimize future AWFCO violations,
and record the findings and corrective measures in the operating
record.
(v) Excessive AWFCO report. If a HWC experiences more than 10
AWFCOs in any 60-day period that result in an exceedance of any
parameter required to be interlocked with the AWFCO system under this
section, the owner or operator must submit a written report within 5
calendar days of the 10th AWFCO documenting the results of the
investigation and corrective measures taken.
(vi) Limit on AWFCOs. The Administrator may limit the number of
cutoffs per an operating period on a case-by-case basis.
(vii) Testing. The AWFCO system and associated alarms must be
tested at least weekly to verify operability, unless the owner and
operator document in the operating record that weekly inspections will
unduly restrict or upset operations and that less frequent inspection
will be adequate. At a minimum, operational testing must be conducted
at least monthly.
(3) ESV Openings. (i) Violation. If an emergency safety vent opens
when hazardous waste is fed or remains in the combustion chamber, such
that combustion gases are not treated as during the most recent
comprehensive performance test (e.g., if the combustion gas by-passes
any emission control device operating during the performance test), it
is a violation of the emission standards of this subpart.
(ii) ESV Operating Plan. The ESV Operating Plan shall explain
detailed procedures for rapidly stopping waste feed, shutting down the
combustor, maintaining temperature in the combustion chamber until all
waste exits the combustor, and controlling emissions in the event of
equipment malfunction or activation of any ESV or other bypass system
including calculations demonstrating that emissions will be controlled
during such an event (sufficient oxygen for combustion and maintaining
negative pressure), and the procedures for executing the plan whenever
the ESV is used, thus causing an emergency release of emissions.
(iii) Corrective measures. After any ESV opening that results in a
violation as defined in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the owner or
operator must investigate the cause of the ESV opening, take
appropriate corrective measures to minimize future ESV violations, and
record the findings and corrective measures in the operating record.
(iv) Reporting requirement. The owner or operator must submit a
written report within 5 days of a ESV opening violation documenting the
result of the investigation and corrective measures taken.
(b) Fugitive emissions. (1) Fugitive emissions must be controlled
by:
(i) Keeping the combustion zone totally sealed against fugitive
emissions; or
(ii) Maintaining the maximum combustion zone pressure lower than
ambient pressure using an instantaneous monitor; or
(iii) Upon prior written approval of the Administrator, an
alternative means of control to provide fugitive emissions control
equivalent to maintenance of combustion zone pressure lower than
ambient pressure;
(2) The owner or operator must specify in the operating record the
method used for fugitive emissions control.
(c) Finding of compliance. The procedures of determining compliance
and finding of compliance provided by Sec. 63.6(f)(2) and (3) are
applicable to HWCs, except that paragraph (f)(2)(iii)(B) (testing is to
be conducted under representative operating conditions) is superseded
by the requirements for performance testing under Sec. 63.1208.
(d) Use of an alternative nonopacity emission standard. The
provisions of Sec. 63.6(g) are applicable to HWCs.
(e) Extension of compliance with emission standards. The provisions
of Sec. 63.6(i) are applicable to HWCs.
(f) Changes in design, operation, or maintenance. If the design,
operation, or maintenance of the source is changed in a manner that may
affect compliance with any emission standard that is not monitored with
a CEMS, the source shall:
(1) Conduct a comprehensive performance test to re-establish
[[Page 17519]]
operating limits on the parameters specified in Sec. 63.1210; and
(2) Burn hazardous waste after such change for no more than a total
of 720 hours and only for purposes of pretesting or comprehensive
performance testing (including demonstrating compliance with CMS
requirements).
Sec. 63.1208 Performance testing requirements.
(a) Types of performance tests. (1) Comprehensive performance test.
The purpose of the comprehensive performance test is to demonstrate
compliance with the emission standards provided by Secs. 63.1203,
63.1204, and 63.1205, establish limits for the applicable operating
parameters provided by Sec. 63.1210, and demonstrate compliance with
the performance specifications for CMS.
(2) Confirmatory performance test. The purpose of the confirmatory
performance test is to demonstrate compliance with the D/F emission
standard when the source operates under normal operating conditions.
(b) Frequency of testing. Testing shall be conducted periodically
as prescribed in this paragraph (b). The date of commencement of the
initial comprehensive performance test shall be the basis for
establishing the anniversary date of commencement of subsequent
performance testing. A source may conduct comprehensive performance
testing at any time prior to the required date. If so, the anniversary
date for subsequent testing is advanced accordingly. Except as provided
by paragraph (c) of this section, testing shall be conducted as
follows:
(1) Comprehensive performance testing. (i) Large or off-site
sources. HWCs that receive hazardous waste from off-site and HWCs with
a gas flow rate exceeding 23,127 acfm at any time that hazardous waste
is burned or remains in the combustion chamber shall commence testing
within 35-37 months of the anniversary date of the initial
comprehensive performance test, and within every 35-37 months of that
anniversary date thereafter.
(ii) Small, on-site sources. HWCs that burn hazardous waste
generated on site only and that have a gas flow rate of 23,127 acfm or
less shall commence testing within 59-61 months of the anniversary date
of the initial comprehensive performance test, and within every 59-61
months of that anniversary date thereafter. However, the Administrator
may determine on a case-specific basis that such a source may pose the
same potential to exceed the standards of this part as a large or off-
site source. If so, the Administrator may require such a source to
comply with the testing frequency applicable to large and off-site
sources. Factors that the Administrator may consider include: type and
volume of hazardous wastes burned, concentration of toxic constituents
in the hazardous waste, and compliance history.
(2) Confirmatory performance testing. (i) Large or off-site sources
shall commence confirmatory performance testing within 17-19 months
after the anniversary date of each comprehensive performance test.
(ii) Small, on-site sources shall conduct confirmatory performance
testing within 29-31 months after the anniversary date of each
comprehensive performance test.
(3) Duration of testing. Performance testing shall be completed
within 30 days after the date of commencement.
(c) Time extension for subsequent performance tests. After the
initial performance test, a HWC may request under procedures provided
by Sec. 63.6(i) up to a 1-year time extension for conducting a
performance test in order to consolidate performance testing with trial
burn testing required under part 270 of this chapter, or for other
reasons deemed acceptable by the Administrator. If a time extension is
granted, a new anniversary date for subsequent testing is established
as the date that the delayed testing commences.
(d) Operating conditions during testing. (1) Comprehensive
performance testing. (i) The source must operate under representative
conditions (or conditions that will result in higher than normal
emissions) for the following parameters to ensure that emissions are
representative (or higher than) of normal operating conditions:
(A) When demonstrating compliance with the D/F emission standard,
types of organic compounds in the waste (e.g., aromatics, aliphatics,
nitrogen content, halogen/carbon ratio, oxygen/carbon ratio), and
feedrate of chlorine; and
(B) When demonstrating compliance with the SVM or LVM emission
standard when using manual stack sampling (i.e., rather than a CEMS)
and the D/F emission standard, normal feedrates of ash and normal
cleaning cycle of the PM control device.
(ii) Given that limits will be established for the applicable
operating parameters specified in Sec. 63.1210, a source may conduct
testing under two or more operating modes to provide operating
flexibility. If so, the source must note in the operating record under
which mode it is operating at all times.
(2) Confirmatory performance testing. Confirmatory performance
testing for D/F shall be conducted under normal operating conditions
defined as follows:
(i) The CO, HC, and PM CEM emission levels must be within the range
of the average value to the maximum (or minimum) value allowed. The
average value is defined as the sum of all one-minute averages, divided
by the number of one-minute averages over the previous 18 months (30
months for small, on-site facilities defined in
Sec. 63.1208(b)(1)(ii));
(ii) Each operating limit established to maintain compliance with
the D/F emission standard must be held within the range of the average
value over the previous 18 months (30 months for small, on-site
facilities defined in Sec. 63.1208(b)(1)(ii)) and the maximum or
minimum, as appropriate, that is allowed; and
(iii) The source must feed representative types (or types that may
result in higher emissions than normal) of organic compounds in the
waste (e.g., aromatics, aliphatics, nitrogen content, halogen/carbon
ratio, oxygen/carbon ratio), and chlorine must be fed at normal
feedrates or greater.
(e) Notification of performance test and approval of test plan. The
provisions of Sec. 63.7 (b) and (c) apply. Notwithstanding the
Administrator's approval or disapproval, or failure to approve or
disapprove the test plan, the owner or operator must comply with all
applicable requirements of this part, including deadlines for
submitting the initial and subsequent notifications of compliance.
(f) Performance testing facilities. The provisions of Sec. 63.7(d)
apply.
(g) Notification of compliance. Within 90 days of completion of the
performance test, the owner or operator must postmark a notification of
compliance documenting compliance with the emission standards and CMS
requirements, and identifying applicable operating limits. See
Sec. 63.7(g) for additional requirements.
(h) Failure to submit a timely notification of compliance. If an
owner or operator determines (based on CEM recordings, results of
analyses of stack samples, or results of CMS performance evaluations)
that the source has failed any emission standard during the performance
test for a mode of operation, it is a violation of the standard and
hazardous waste burning must cease immediately under that mode of
operation. Hazardous waste burning could not be resumed under that mode
of operation, except for purposes of pretesting or comprehensive
performance testing and for a maximum
[[Page 17520]]
of 720 hours, until a notification of compliance is submitted
subsequent to a new comprehensive performance test.
(i) Waiver of performance test. The following waiver provision
applies in lieu of Sec. 63.7(h). Performance tests are not required to
document compliance with the following standards under the conditions
specified and provided that the required information is submitted to
the Administrator for review and approval with the site-specific test
plan as required by paragraph (e) of this section:
(1) Mercury. The owner or operator is deemed to be in compliance
with the mercury emission standard (and monitoring Hg emissions with a
CEMS is not required) if the maximum possible emission concentration
determined as specified below does not exceed the emission standard:
(i) Establish a maximum feedrate of mercury from all feedstreams,
and monitor and record the feedrate according to Sec. 63.1210(c);
(ii) Establish a minimum stack gas flow rate, or surrogate for gas
flow rate, monitor the parameter with a CMS and record the data, and
interlock the limit on the parameter with the automatic waste feed
cutoff system;
(iii) Calculate a maximum possible emission concentration assuming
all mercury from all feedstreams is emitted.
(2) SVM (semivolatile metals). The owner or operator is deemed to
be in compliance with the SVM (cadmium and lead, combined) emission
standard if the maximum possible emission concentration determined as
specified below does not exceed the emission standard:
(i) Establish a maximum feedrate of cadmium and lead, combined,
from all feedstreams, and monitor and record the feedrate according to
Sec. 63.1210(c);
(ii) Establish a minimum stack gas flow rate, or surrogate for gas
flow rate, monitor the parameter with a CMS and record the data, and
interlock the limit on the parameter with the automatic waste feed
cutoff system;
(iii) Calculate a maximum possible emission concentration assuming
all cadmium and lead from all feedstreams is emitted.
(3) LVM (low volatility metals). The owner or operator is deemed to
be in compliance with the LVM (arsenic, beryllium, chromium, and
antimony, combined) emission standard if the maximum possible emission
concentration determined as specified below does not exceed the
emission standard:
(i) Establish a maximum feedrate of arsenic, beryllium, chromium,
and antimony, combined, from all feedstreams, and monitor and record
the feedrate according to Sec. 63.1210(c);
(ii) Establish a minimum stack gas flow rate, or surrogate for gas
flow rate, monitor the parameter with a CMS and record the data, and
interlock the limit on the parameter with the automatic waste feed
cutoff system;
(iii) Calculate a maximum possible emission concentration assuming
all LVM from all feedstreams is emitted.
(4) HCl/Cl2. The owner or operator is deemed to be in
compliance with the HCl/Cl2 emission standard if the maximum
possible emission concentration determined as specified below does not
exceed the emission standard:
(i) Establish a maximum feedrate of total chlorine and chloride
from all feedstreams, and monitor and record the feedrate according to
Sec. 63.1210(c);
(ii) Establish a minimum stack gas flow rate, or surrogate for gas
flow rate, monitor the parameter with a CMS and record the data, and
interlock the limit on the parameter with the automatic waste feed
cutoff system;
(iii) Calculate a maximum possible emission concentration assuming
all total chlorine and chloride from all feedstreams is emitted.
Sec. 63.1209 Test methods.
(a) Dioxins and furans. (1) Method 0023A, provided by SW-846
(incorporated by reference in Sec. 260.11 of this chapter), shall be
used to determine compliance with the emission standard for dioxin and
furans;
(2) If the sampling period for each run is six hours or greater,
nondetects shall be assumed to be present at zero concentration. If the
sampling period for any run is less than six hours, nondetects shall be
assumed to be present at the level of detection for all runs.
(b) Mercury. Method 0060, provided by SW-846 (incorporated by
reference in Sec. 260.11 of this chapter), shall be used to evaluate
the mercury CEMS as required by Sec. 63.1210.
(c) Cadmium and lead. Method 0060, provided by SW-846 (incorporated
by reference in Sec. 260.11 of this chapter), shall be used to
determine compliance with the emission standard for cadmium and lead or
to calibrate and/or evaluate a CEMS as provided by Sec. 63.1210.
(d) Arsenic, beryllium, chromium, and antimony. Method 0060,
provided by SW-846 (incorporated by reference in Sec. 260.11 of this
chapter), shall be used to determine compliance with the emission
standard for arsenic, beryllium, chromium, and antimony or to calibrate
and/or evaluate a CEMS as provided by Sec. 63.1210.
(e) HCl and chlorine gas. Methods 0050, 0051, and 9057, provided by
SW-846 (incorporated by reference in Sec. 260.11 of this chapter),
shall be used to determine compliance with the emission standard for
HCl and Cl2 (combined) or to calibrate and/or evaluate the HCl and
chlorine gas CEMS as provided by Sec. 63.1210.
(f) Particulate Matter. Method 5 in appendix A of part 60 shall be
used to calibrate and/or evaluate a PM CEMS as provided by
Sec. 63.1210.
(g) Feedstream Analytical methods. Analytical methods used to
determine feedstream concentrations of metals, halogens, and other
constituents shall be those provided by SW-846 (incorporated by
reference in Sec. 260.11 of this chapter.)
Alternate methods may be used if approved in advance by the
Director.
Sec. 63.1210 Monitoring requirements.
(a) Continuous emissions monitors (CEMS). (1) HWCs shall be
equipped with CEMS for PM, Hg, CO, HC, and O2 for compliance
monitoring, except as provided by paragraph (a)(3). Owners and
operators may elect to use CEMS for compliance monitoring for SVM, LVM,
HCl, and Cl2.
(2) At all times that hazardous waste is fed into the HWC or
remains in the combustion chamber, the CEMS must be operated in
compliance with the appendix to this subpart.
(3) Waiver of CEMS requirement for mercury. The following waiver
provision applies in lieu of Sec. 63.7(h). A mercury CEMS is not
required to document compliance with the mercury standard under the
conditions specified and provided that the required information is
submitted to the Administrator for review and approval with the site-
specific test plan as required by Sec. 63.1209(e). The owner or
operator is deemed to be in compliance with the mercury emission
standard if the maximum possible emission concentration determined as
specified below does not exceed the emission standard:
(i) Establish a maximum feedrate of mercury, combined, from all
feedstreams, and monitor and record the feedrate according to
Sec. 63.1210(c);
(ii) Establish a minimum stack gas flow rate, or surrogate for gas
flow rate, monitor the parameter with a CMS and record the data, and
interlock the limit on the parameter with the automatic waste feed
cutoff system;
(iii) Calculate a maximum possible emission concentration assuming
all mercury from all feedstreams is emitted.
(b) Other continuous monitoring systems. (1) CMS other than CEMS
(e.g.,
[[Page 17521]]
thermocouples, pressure transducers, flow meters) must be used to
document compliance with the applicable operating limits provided by
this section.
(2) Non-CEMS CMS must be installed and operated in conformance with
Sec. 63.8(c)(3) requiring the owner and operator, at a minimum, to
comply with the manufacturer's written specifications or
recommendations for installation, operation, and calibration of the
system.
(3) Non-CEMS CMS must sample the regulated parameter without
interruption, and evaluate the detector response at least once each 15
seconds, and compute and record the average values at least every 60
seconds.
(4) The span of the detector must not be exceeded. Span limits
shall be interlocked into the automatic waste feed cutoff system
required by Sec. 63.1207(a)(2).
(c) Analysis of feedstreams. (1) General. The owner or operator
must obtain an analysis of each feedstream prior to feeding the
material that is sufficient to document compliance with the applicable
feedrate limits provided by this section.
(2) Feedstream analysis plan. The owner or operator must develop
and implement a feedstream analysis plan and record it in the operating
record. The plan must specify at a minimum:
(i) The parameters for which each feedstream will be analyzed to
ensure compliance with the operating limits of this section;
(ii) Whether the owner or operator will obtain the analysis by
performing sampling and analysis, or by other methods such as using
analytical information obtained from others or using other published or
documented data or information;
(iii) How the analysis will be used to document compliance with
applicable feedrate limits (e.g., if hazardous wastes are blended and
analyses are obtained of the wastes prior to blending but not of the
blended, as-fired, waste, the plan must describe how the owner and
operator will determine the pertinent parameters of the blended waste);
(iv) The test methods which will be used to obtain the analyses;
(v) The sampling method which will be used to obtain a
representative sample of each feedstream to be analyzed using sampling
methods described in appendix I, part 261, of this chapter, or an
equivalent method; and
(vi) The frequency with which the initial analysis of the
feedstream will be reviewed or repeated to ensure that the analysis is
accurate and up to date.
(3) Review and approval of analysis plan. The owner and operator
must submit the feedstream analysis plan to the Administrator for
review and approval, if requested.
(4) Compliance with feedrate limits. To comply with the applicable
feedrate limits of this section, feedrates must be monitored and
recorded as follows:
(i) Determine and record the value of the parameter for each
feedstream by sampling and analysis or other method;
(ii) Determine and record the mass or volume flowrate of each
feedstream by a CMS. If flowrate of a feedstream is determined by
volume, the density of the feedstream shall be determined by sampling
and analysis and shall be recorded (unless the constituent
concentration is reported in units of weight per unit volume (e.g., mg/
l));
(iii) Calculate and record the mass feedrate of the parameter per
unit time.
(d) Performance evaluations. (1) The requirements of Sec. 63.8(d)
(Quality control program) and (e) (Performance evaluation of continuous
monitoring systems) apply, except that performance evaluations of
components of the CMS shall be conducted under the frequency and
procedures (for example, submittal of performance evaluation test plan
for review and approval) applicable to performance tests as provided by
Sec. 63.1208.
(2) Performance specifications and evaluations of CEMS are
prescribed in the appendix to this subpart.
(e) Conduct of monitoring. The provisions of Sec. 63.8(b) apply.
(f) Operation and maintenance of continuous monitoring systems. The
provisions of Sec. 63.8(c) are superseded by this section, except that
paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(6) are applicable.
(g) [Reserved]
(h) Use of an alternative monitoring method. The provisions of
Sec. 63.8(f) apply.
(i) Reduction of monitoring data. The provisions of Sec. 63.8(g)
apply, except for paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(5).
(j) Dioxins and furans. To remain in compliance with the emission
standard for dioxins and furans, the owner or operator shall establish
operating limits for the following parameters and comply with those
limits at all times that hazardous waste is fed or that hazardous waste
remains in the combustion chamber:
(1) Maximum temperature at the dry PM control device. If a source
is equipped with an electrostatic precipitator, fabric filter, or other
dry emissions control device where particulate matter is collected and
retained in contact with combustion gas, the maximum allowable
temperature at the inlet to the first such control device in the air
pollution control system must be established and complied with as
follows:
(i) A 10-minute rolling average shall be established as the average
over all runs of the highest 10-minute rolling average for each run;
(ii) An hourly rolling average shall be established as the average
level over all runs.
(2) Minimum combustion chamber temperature. (i) The temperature of
each combustion chamber shall be measured at a location as close to,
and as representative of, each combustion chamber as practicable;
(ii) A 10-minute rolling average shall be established as the
average over all runs of the minimum 10-minute rolling average for each
run; and
(iii) An hourly rolling average shall be established as the average
level over all runs.
(3) Maximum flue gas flowrate or production rate. As an indicator
of gas residence time in the combustion chamber, the maximum flue gas
flowrate, or a parameter that the owner or operator documents in the
site-specific test plan is an appropriate surrogate, shall be
established as the average over all runs of the maximum hourly rolling
average for each run, and complied with on a hourly rolling average
basis.
(4) Maximum hazardous waste feedrate. The maximum hazardous waste
feedrate shall be established as the average over all runs of the
maximum hourly rolling average for each run, and complied with on a
hourly rolling average basis. A maximum waste feedrate shall be
established for each waste feed point.
(5) Batch size, feeding frequency, and minimum oxygen. (i) Except
as provided below, HWCs that feed a feedstream in a batch (e.g., ram
fed systems) or container must comply with the following:
(A) The maximum batch size shall be the mass of that batch with the
lowest mass fed during the comprehensive performance test;
(B) The minimum batch feeding frequency (i.e., the minimum period
of time between batch or container feedings) shall be the longest
interval of time between batch or container feedings during the
comprehensive performance test; and
(C) The minimum combustion zone oxygen content at the time of
firing the batch or container shall be the highest instantaneous oxygen
level observed at the time any batch or container was fed during the
comprehensive performance test.
[[Page 17522]]
(ii) Cement kilns that fire containers of material into the hot,
clinker discharge end of the kiln are exempt from the requirements of
this paragraph provided the owner or operator documents in the
operating record:
(A) The volume of each container does not exceed 1 gallon; and
(B) The frequency of firing the containers does not exceed the rate
occurring during the comprehensive performance test.
(6) PM limit. (i) PM shall be limited to the level achieved during
the comprehensive performance test;
(ii) During the comprehensive performance test the owner and
operator shall demonstrate compliance with the PM standards in
Secs. 63.1203, 63.1204, and 63.1205, corrected to 7 percent oxygen,
based on a 2-hour rolling average, and monitored with a CEMS;
(A) The owner or operator shall install, calibrate, maintain, and
continuously operate a CEMS that measures particulate matter at all
times that hazardous waste is fed or that hazardous waste remains in
the combustion chamber.
(B) The PM CEMS shall meet the requirements provided in the
appendix to this subpart.
(iii) The site-specific PM limit shall be determined from the
performance test as follows:
(A) A 10-minute rolling average shall be established as the average
over all runs of the maximum 10-minute rolling average for each run;
(B) An hourly rolling average shall be established as the average
of all one minute averages over all runs.
(7) Carbon injection parameters. If carbon injection is used:
(i) Injection rate. Minimum carbon injection rates shall be
established as:
(A) A 10-minute rolling average established as the average over all
runs of the minimum 10-minute rolling average for each run; and
(B) An hourly rolling average established as the average level over
all runs.
(ii) Carrier fluid. Minimum carrier fluid (gas or liquid) flowrate
or pressure drop shall be established as a 10-minute rolling average
based on the carbon injection system manufacturer's specifications.
(iii) Carbon specification. (A) The brand (i.e., manufacturer) and
type of carbon used during the comprehensive performance test must be
used until a subsequent comprehensive performance test is conducted,
unless the owner or operator document in the site-specific performance
test plan required under Sec. 63.1208 key parameters that affect
adsorption and establish limits on those parameters based on the carbon
used in the performance test.
(B) The owner or operator may request approval from the
Administrator at any time to substitute a different brand or type of
carbon without having to conduct a comprehensive performance test. The
Administrator may grant such approval if he or she determines that the
owner or operator has sufficiently documented that the substitute
carbon will provide the same level of dioxin and furan control as the
original carbon.
(8) Carbon bed. If a carbon bed is used, a carbon replacement rate
must be established as follows:
(i) Testing Requirements. Testing of carbon beds shall be done in
the following manner:
(A) Initial comprehensive performance test. For the initial
comprehensive performance test, the carbon bed shall be used in
accordance with manufacturer's specifications. No aging of the carbon
is required.
(B) Confirmatory tests prior to subsequent comprehensive tests. For
confirmatory tests after the initial but prior to subsequent
comprehensive tests, the facility shall follow the normal change-out
schedule specified by the carbon bed manufacturer.
(C) Subsequent comprehensive tests. The age of the carbon in the
carbon bed shall be determined as the length of time since carbon was
most recently added and the amount of time the carbon that has been in
the bed the longest.
(ii) Determination of maximum allowable carbon age. (A) Prior to
subsequent comprehensive performance tests, the manufacturer shall
follow the manufacturer's suggested change-out interval for replacing
used carbon with unused carbon.
(B) After the second comprehensive test the maximum allowable age
of a carbon bed shall be the amount of time since carbon has most
recently been added and the amount of time that the carbon the has been
in the bed the longest, based on what those two time intervals were
during the comprehensive performance test.
(iii) Carbon specification. (A) The brand (i.e., manufacturer) and
type of carbon used during the comprehensive performance test must be
used until a subsequent comprehensive performance test is conducted,
unless the owner or operator document in the site-specific performance
test plan required under Sec. 63.1208 key parameters that affect
adsorption and establish limits on those parameters based on the carbon
used in the performance test.
(B) The owner or operator may request approval from the
Administrator at any time to substitute a different brand or type of
carbon without having to conduct a comprehensive performance test. The
Administrator may grant such approval if he or she determines that the
owner or operator has sufficiently documented that the substitute
carbon will provide the same level of dioxin and furan control as the
original carbon.
(7) Catalytic oxidizer. If a catalytic oxidizer is used, the
following parameters shall be established:
(i) Minimum flue gas temperature at the entrance of the catalyst. A
minimum flue gas temperature at the entrance of the catalyst shall be
established as follows:
(A) A 10-minute average shall be established as the average over
all runs of the minimum temperature 10-minute rolling average for each
run;
(B) An hourly average shall be established as the average level
over all runs.
(ii) Maximum time in-use. A catalytic oxidizer shall be replaced
with a new catalytic oxidizer when it has reached the maximum service
time specified by the manufacturer.
(iii) Catalyst replacement specifications. When a catalyst is
replaced with a new one, the new catalyst shall be identical to the one
used during the previous comprehensive test, including:
(A) Catalytic metal loading for each metal;
(B) Space time, expressed in the units s-1, the maximum rated
volumetric flow of the catalyst divided by the volume of the catalyst;
(C) Substrate construction, including materials of construction,
washcoat type, and pore density.
(iv) Maximum flue gas temperature. Maximum flue gas temperature at
the entrance of the catalyst shall be established as a 10-minute
rolling average, based on manufacturer's specifications.
(8) Inhibitor feedrate. If a dioxin inhibitor is fed into the unit,
the following parameters shall be established:
(i) Minimum inhibitor feedrate. Minimum inhibitor feedrate shall be
established as:
(A) A 10-minute rolling average shall be established as the average
over all runs of the minimum 10-minute rolling average for each run;
(B) An hourly average shall be established as the average level
over all runs.
(ii) Inhibitor specifications. (A) The brand (i.e., manufacturer)
and type of
[[Page 17523]]
inhibitor used during the comprehensive performance test must be used
until a subsequent comprehensive performance test is conducted, unless
the owner or operator document in the site-specific performance test
plan required under Sec. 63.1208 key parameters that affect the
effectiveness of a D/F inhibitor and establish limits on those
parameters based on the inhibitor used in the performance test.
(B) The owner or operator may request approval from the
Administrator at any time to substitute a different brand or type of
inhibitor without having to conduct a comprehensive performance test.
The Administrator may grant such approval if he or she determines that
the owner or operator has sufficiently documented that the substitute
inhibitor will provide the same level of dioxin and furan control as
the original inhibitor.
(k) Mercury CEMS. (1) The owner or operator shall install,
calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate a CEMS for mercury at all
times that hazardous waste is fed or that hazardous waste remains in
the combustion chamber.
(2) The mercury CEMS shall meet Performance Specification 10, if
the CEM measures other metals as well as mercury, or Performance
Specification 12, if the CEM measures only mercury. Both performance
specifications are provided in the appendix to this subpart.
(3) The owner and operator shall comply with the quality assurance
procedures provided in the appendix to this subpart.
(l) Semivolatile metals (SVM). The owner or operator shall
demonstrate compliance with the SVM (cadmium and lead) emission
standard by either:
(1) CEMS. (i) Installing, calibrating, maintaining, and
continuously operating a CEMS that measures multiple metals at all
times that hazardous waste is fed or remains in the combustion chamber.
(ii) The multi-metal CEMS shall meet the requirements provided in
the appendix to this subpart; or
(2) Operating limits. Establishing and complying with the following
operating limits, except that cement kilns and lightweight aggregate
kilns must comply with alternative requirements provided by paragraph
(f) of this section:
(i) PM limit. (A) PM shall be limited to the level achieved during
the comprehensive performance test;
(B) During the comprehensive performance test the owner and
operator shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable PM standard
in Secs. 63.1203, 63.1204, and 63.1205, corrected to 7 percent oxygen,
based on a 2-hour rolling average, and monitored with a CEMS;
(1) The owner or operator shall install, calibrate, maintain, and
continuously operate a CEMS that measures particulate matter at all
times that hazardous waste is fed or that hazardous waste remains in
the combustion chamber.
(2) The PM CEMS shall meet the requirements provided in the
appendix to this subpart.
(C) The site-specific PM limit shall be determined from the
performance test as follows:
(1) A 10-minute rolling average shall be established as the average
over all runs of the maximum 10-minute rolling average for each run;
(2) An hourly rolling average shall be established as the average
of all one minute averages over all runs.
(ii) Maximum feedrate of Cd and Pb. A 12-hour rolling average limit
for the feedrate of Cd and Pb, combined, in all feedstreams shall be
established as the average feedrate over all runs.
(iii) Maximum total chlorine and chloride feedrate. A 12-hour
rolling average limit for the feedrate of total chlorine and chloride
in all feedstreams shall be established as the average feedrate over
all runs.
(iv) Minimum gas flowrate. An hourly rolling average limit for gas
flowrate, or a surrogate parameter, shall be established as the average
over all runs of the lowest hourly rolling average for each run.
(m) Low volatility metals (LVM). The owner or operator shall
demonstrate compliance with the LVM (arsenic, beryllium, chromium, and
antimony) emission standard by either:
(1) CEMS. (i) Installing, calibrating, maintaining, and
continuously operating a CEMS that measures multiple metals at all
times that hazardous waste is fed or remains in the combustion chamber.
(ii) The multi-metals CEMS shall meet the requirements provided in
the appendix to this subpart; or
(2) Operating limits. Establishing and complying with the following
operating limits, except that cement kilns and lightweight aggregate
kilns must comply with alternative requirements provided by paragraph
(f) of this section:
(i) PM limit. (A) PM shall be limited to the level achieved during
the comprehensive performance test;
(B) During the comprehensive performance test the owner and
operator shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable PM standard
in Secs. 63.1203, 63.1204, or 63.1205, corrected to 7 percent oxygen,
based on a 2-hour rolling average, and monitored with a CEMS;
(1) The owner or operator shall install, calibrate, maintain, and
continuously operate a CEMS that measures particulate matter at all
times that hazardous waste is fed or that hazardous waste remains in
the combustion chamber.
(2) The PM CEMS shall meet the requirements provided in the
appendix to this subpart.
(C) The site-specific PM limit shall be determined from the
performance test as follows:
(1) A 10-minute rolling average shall be established as the average
over all runs of the maximum 10-minute rolling average for each run;
(2) An hourly rolling average shall be established as the average
of all one minute averages over all runs.
(ii) Maximum feedrate of As, Be, Cr, and Sb. (A) A 12-hour rolling
average limit for the feedrate of As, Be, Cr, and Sb, combined, in all
feedstreams shall be established as the average feedrate over all runs.
(B) A 12-hour rolling average limit for the feedrate of As, Be, Cr,
and Sb, combined, in all pumpable feedstreams shall be established as
the average feedrate in pumpable feedstreams over all runs.
(iii) Maximum chlorine and chloride feedrate. A 12-hour rolling
average limit for the feedrate of total chlorine and chloride in all
feedstreams shall be established as the average feedrate over all runs.
(iv) Minimum gas flowrate. An hourly rolling average limit for gas
flowrate, or a surrogate parameter, shall be established as the average
over all runs of the lowest hourly rolling average for each run.
(n) Special requirements for CKs and LWAKs for compliance with
metals standards. Owners and operators of cement kilns and lightweight
aggregate kilns that recycle collected particulate matter back into the
kiln must comply with one of the following alternative approaches to
demonstrate compliance with the emission standards for SVM, combined
(cadmium and lead), and for LVM, combined (arsenic, beryllium, chromium
and antimony):
(1) Feedstream monitoring. The requirements of paragraphs (d) and
(e) of this section only after the kiln system has been conditioned to
enable it to reach equilibrium with respect to metals fed into the
system and metals emissions. During conditioning, hazardous waste and
raw materials having the same metals content as will be fed during the
performance test must
[[Page 17524]]
be fed at the feedrates that will be fed during the performance test;
or
(2) Monitor recycled PM. The special testing requirements
prescribed in ``Alternative Method for Implementing Metals Controls''
in appendix IX, part 266, of this chapter; or
(3) Semicontinuous emissions testing. Stack emissions testing for a
minimum of 6 hours each day while hazardous waste is burned. The
testing must be conducted when burning normal hazardous waste for that
day at normal feedrates for that day and when the air pollution control
system is operated under normal conditions. Although limits on metals
in feedstreams are not established under this option, the owner or
operator must analyze each feedstream for metals content sufficiently
to determine if changes in metals content may affect the ability of the
facility to meet the metal emissions standards under Secs. 63.1204 and
63.1205.
(o) HCl and chlorine gas. The owner or operator shall demonstrate
compliance with the HCl/Cl2 emission standard by either:
(1) CEMS. (i) Installing, calibrating, maintaining, and
continuously operating a CEMS for HCl and Cl2 at all times that
hazardous waste is fed or that hazardous waste remains in the
combustion chamber.
(ii) The HCl and Cl2 CEMS shall meet the requirements provided
in the appendix to this subpart; or
(2) Operating limits. Establishing and complying with the following
operating limits:
(i) Feedrate of total chlorine and chloride. A 12-hour rolling
average limit for the total feedrate of total chlorine and chloride in
all feedstreams shall be established as the average feedrate over all
runs.
(ii) Maximum flue gas flowrate or production rate. As an indicator
of gas residence time in the control device, the maximum flue gas
flowrate, or a parameter that the owner or operator documents in the
site-specific test plan is an appropriate surrogate, shall be
established as the average over all runs of the maximum hourly rolling
average for each run, and complied with on a hourly rolling average
basis.
(iii) Wet Scrubber. If a wet scrubber is used, the following
operating parameter limits shall be established.
(A) Minimum pressure drop across the scrubber. Minimum pressure
drop across a wet scrubber shall be established.
(1) A 10-minute rolling average shall be established as the average
over all runs of the minimum 10-minute rolling averages for each run.
(2) An hourly rolling average shall be established as the average
level over all runs.
(B) Minimum liquid feed pressure. Minimum liquid feed pressure
shall be established as a ten minute average, based on manufacturer's
specifications.
(C) Minimum liquid pH. Minimum liquid pH shall be established.
(1) A 10-minute rolling average shall be established as the average
over all runs of the minimum 10-minute rolling averages for each run.
(2) An hourly rolling average shall be established as the average
level over all runs.
(D) Minimum liquid to gas flow ratio. Minimum liquid to gas flow
ratio shall be established.
(1) A 10-minute rolling average shall be established as the average
over all runs of the minimum 10-minute rolling averages for each run.
(2) An hourly rolling average shall be established as the average
level over all runs.
(iv) Ionizing Wet Scrubber. If an ionizing wet scrubber is used,
the following operating parameter limits shall be established.
(A) Minimum pressure drop across the scrubber. Minimum pressure
drop across an ionizing wet scrubber shall be established on both a ten
minute and hourly rolling average.
(1) A 10-minute rolling average shall be established as the average
over all runs of the minimum 10-minute rolling averages for each run.
(2) An hourly rolling average shall be established as the average
level over all runs.
(B) Minimum liquid feed pressure. Minimum liquid feed pressure
shall be established as a ten minute average, based on manufacturer's
specifications.
(C) Minimum liquid to gas flow ratio. Minimum liquid to gas flow
ratio shall be established on both a ten minute and hourly rolling
average.
(1) A 10-minute rolling average shall be established as the average
over all runs of the minimum 10-minute rolling averages for each run.
(2) An hourly rolling average shall be established as the average
level over all runs.
(v) Dry scrubber. If a dry scrubber is used, the following
operating parameter limits shall be established.
(A) Minimum sorbent feedrate. Minimum sorbent feedrate shall be
established on both a ten minute and hourly rolling average.
(1) A 10-minute rolling average shall be established as the average
over all runs of the minimum 10-minute rolling averages for each run.
(2) An hourly rolling average shall be established as the average
level over all runs.
(B) Minimum carrier fluid flowrate or nozzle pressure drop. Minimum
carrier fluid (gas or liquid) flowrate or nozzle pressure drop shall be
established as a ten minute average, based on manufacturer's
specifications.
(C) Sorbent specifications. (1) The brand (i.e., manufacturer) and
type of sorbent used during the comprehensive performance test must be
used until a subsequent comprehensive performance test is conducted,
unless the owner or operator document in the site-specific performance
test plan required under Sec. 63.1208 key parameters that affect the
effectiveness of a sorbent and establish limits on those parameters
based on the inhibitor used in the performance test.
(2) The owner or operator may request approval from the
Administrator at any time to substitute a different brand or type of
inhibitor without having to conduct a comprehensive performance test.
The Administrator may grant such approval if he or she determines that
the owner or operator has sufficiently documented that the substitute
sorbent will provide the same level of HCl and Cl2 control as the
original sorbent.
(p) Carbon monoxide CEMS. (1) The owner or operator shall install,
calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate a CEMS for carbon
monoxide at all times that hazardous waste is fed or that hazardous
waste remains in the combustion chamber.
(2) The carbon monoxide CEMS shall meet the requirements provided
in the appendix to this subpart.
(q) Hydrocarbon CEMS. (1) The owner or operator shall install,
calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate a CEMS for hydrocarbons
at all times that hazardous waste is fed or that hazardous waste
remains in the combustion chamber.
(2) The hydrocarbon CEMS shall meet the requirements provided in
the appendix to this subpart.
(r) Oxygen CEMS. (1) The owner or operator shall install,
calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate a CEMS for oxygen at all
times that hazardous waste is fed or remains in the combustion chamber.
(2) The oxygen CEMS shall meet the requirements provided in the
appendix to this subpart.
(s) Maximum combustion chamber pressure. If a source complies with
the fugitive emissions requirements of Sec. 63.1207(b) by maintaining
the maximum combustion chamber zone pressure lower than ambient
pressure, the source must monitor the pressure instantaneously and the
automatic
[[Page 17525]]
waste feed cutoff system must be engaged when negative pressure is not
maintained at any time.
(t) Waiver of operating limits. The owner or operator may request
in writing a waiver from any of the operating limits provided by this
section. The waiver must include documentation that other operating
parameters or methods to establish operating limits are more
appropriate to ensure compliance with the emission standards. The
waiver must also include recommended averaging periods and the basis
for establishing operating limits.
Sec. 63.1211 Notification requirements.
(a) Notifications. HWCs shall submit the following notifications as
applicable:
(1) Initial notification. HWCs shall comply with the initial
notification requirements of Sec. 63.9(b).
(2) Notification of performance test and CMS evaluation. The
notification of performance test requirements of Sec. 63.9(c) apply to
all performance tests and CMS evaluations required by Sec. 63.1208,
except that all notifications shall be submitted for review and
approval at the times specified in that section.
(3) Notification of compliance. The notification of compliance
status requirements of Sec. 63.9(h) apply, except that:
(i) The notification is a notification of compliance (rather than
compliance status), as defined in Sec. 63.1200;
(ii) The notification is required for each performance test;
(iii) The requirements of Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(i) (D) and (E) pertaining
to major source determinations do not apply; and
(iv) Under Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(ii), the notification shall be sent
before the close of business on the 90th day following the completion
of relevant compliance demonstration activity specified in this
subpart.
(4) Request for extension of time to submit a notification of
compliance. HWCs that elect to request a time extension of up to one
year to submit an initial notification of compliance under Sec. 63.9(c)
or a subsequent notification of compliance under Sec. 63.1208(c) must
submit a written request and justification as required by those
sections.
(b) Applicability of Sec. 63.9 (Notification requirements). The
following provisions of Sec. 63.9 are applicable to HWCs:
(1) Paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), (i), and (j); and
(2) Paragraph (h), except as provided in paragraphs (a)(3) (iii)
and (iv) of this section.
Sec. 63.1212 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
(a) The following provisions of Sec. 63.10 are applicable to HWCs:
(1) Paragraph (a) (Applicability and general information), except
(a)(2);
(2) Paragraph (b) (General recordkeeping requirements), except
(b)(2) (iv) through (vi), and (b)(3); and
(3) Paragraph (c) (Additional recordkeeping requirements for
sources with CMS), except (c)(6) through (8), (c)(13), and (c)(15).
(4) Paragraph (d) (General reporting requirements) applies as
follows:
(i) Paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(4) apply; and
(ii) Paragraph (d)(2) applies, except that the report may be
submitted up to 90 days after completion of the test; and
(5) In paragraph (e) (Additional reporting requirements for sources
with CMS), paragraphs (e)(1) (General) and (e)(2) (Reporting results of
CMS performance evaluations) apply.
(b) Additional reporting requirements. HWCs are also subject to the
reporting requirements for excessive automatic waste feed cutoffs under
Sec. 63.1207(a)(2) and emergency safety vent openings under
Sec. 63.1207(a)(3).
(c) Additional recordkeeping requirements. HWCs must also retain
the feedstream analysis plan required under Sec. 63.1210(c) in the
operating record.
Appendix to Subpart EEE--Quality Assurance Procedures for Continuous
Emissions Monitors Used for Hazardous Waste Combustors
1. Applicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability. These quality assurance requirements are
used to evaluate the effectiveness of quality control (QC) and
quality assurance (QA) procedures and the quality of data produced
by continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) that are used for
determining compliance with the emission standards on a continuous
basis as specified in the applicable regulation. The QA procedures
specified by these requirements represent the minimum requirements
necessary for the control and assessment of the quality of CEMS data
used to demonstrate compliance with the emission standards provided
under subpart EEE, part 63, of this chapter. Owners and operators
must meet these minimum requirements and are encouraged to develop
and implement a more extensive QA program. These requirements
supersede those found in Part 60, Appendix F of this chapter.
Appendix F does not apply to hazardous waste-burning devices.
Data collected as a result of the required QA and QC measures
are to be recorded in the operating record. In addition, data
collected as a result of CEM performance evaluations required by
Section 5 in conjunction with an emissions performance test are to
be submitted to the Director as provided by Sec. 63.8(e)(5) of this
chapter. These data are to be used by both the Agency and the CEMS
operator in assessing the effectiveness of the CEMS QA and QC
procedures in the maintenance of acceptable CEMS operation and valid
emission data.
1.2 Principle. The QA procedures consist of two distinct and
equally important functions. One function is the assessment of the
quality of the CEMS data by estimating accuracy. The other function
is the control and improvement of the quality of the CEMS data by
implementing QC policies and corrective actions. These two functions
form a control loop. When the assessment function indicates that the
data quality is inadequate, the source must immediately stop burning
hazardous waste. The CEM data control effort must be increased until
the data quality is acceptable before hazardous waste burning can
resume.
In order to provide uniformity in the assessment and reporting
of data quality, this procedure explicitly specifies the assessment
methods for response drift and accuracy. The methods are based on
procedures included in the applicable performance specifications
provided in Appendix B to Part 60. These procedures also require the
analysis of the EPA audit samples concurrent with certain reference
method (RM) analyses as specified in the applicable RM's.
Because the control and corrective action function encompasses a
variety of policies, specifications, standards, and corrective
measures, this procedure treats QC requirements in general terms to
allow each source owner or operator to develop a QC system that is
most effective and efficient for the circumstances.
2. Definitions
2.1 Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS). The total
equipment required for the determination of a pollutant
concentration. The system consists of the following major
subsystems:
2.1.1 Sample Interface. That portion of the CEMS used for one
or more of the following: sample acquisition, sample transport, and
sample conditioning, or protection of the monitor from the effects
of the stack effluent.
2.1.2 Pollutant Analyzer. That portion of the CEMS that senses
the pollutant concentration and generates a proportional output.
2.1.3 Diluent Analyzer. That portion of the CEMS that senses
the diluent gas (O2) and generates an output proportional to
the gas concentration.
2.1.4 Data Recorder. That portion of the CEMS that provides a
permanent record of the analyzer output. The data recorder may
provide automatic data reduction and CEMS control capabilities.
2.2 Relative Accuracy (RA). The absolute mean difference
between the pollutant concentration determined by the CEMS and the
value determined by the reference method (RM) plus the 2.5 percent
error confidence coefficient of a series of test divided by the mean
of the RM tests or the applicable emission limit.
2.3 Calibration Drift (CD). The difference in the CEMS output
readings from the established reference value after a stated
[[Page 17526]]
period of operation during which no unscheduled maintenance, repair,
or adjustment took place.
2.4 Zero Drift (ZD). The difference in CEMS output readings at
the zero pollutant level after a stated period of operation during
which no unscheduled maintenance, repair, or adjustment took place.
2.5 Tolerance Interval. The interval with upper and lower
limits within which are contained a specified percentage of the
population with a given level of confidence.
2.6 Calibration Standard. Calibration standards produce a known
and unchanging response when presented to the pollutant analyzer
portion of the CEMS, and are used to calibrate the drift or response
of the analyzer.
2.7 Relative Accuracy Test Audit (RATA). Comparison of CEMS
measurements to reference method measurements in order to evaluate
relative accuracy following procedures and specification given in
the appropriate performance specification.
2.8 Absolute Calibration Audit (ACA). Equivalent to calibration
error (CE) test defined in the appropriate performance specification
using NIST traceable calibration standards to challenge the CEMS and
assess accuracy.
2.9 Response Calibration Audit (RCA). For PM CEMS only, a check
of stability of the calibration relationship determined by
comparison of CEMS response to manual gravimetric measurements.
2.10 Fuel Type. For the purposes of PM CEMs, fuel type is
defined as the physical state of the fuel: gas, liquid, or solid.
2.11 Rolling Average. The average emissions, based on some
(specified) time period, calculated every minute from a one-minute
average of four measurements taken at 15-second intervals.
3. QA/QC Requirements
3.1 QC Requirements. Each owner or operator must develop and
implement a QC program. At a minimum, each QC program must include
written procedures describing in detail complete, step-by-step
procedures and operations for the following activities.
1. Checks for component failures, leaks, and other abnormal
conditions.
2. Calibration of CEMS.
3. CD determination and adjustment of CEMS.
4. Integration of CEMS with the automatic waste feed cutoff
(AWFCO) system.
5. Preventive Maintenance of CEMS (including spare parts
inventory).
6. Data recording, calculations, and reporting.
7. Checks of record keeping.
8. Accuracy audit procedures, including sampling and analysis
methods.
9. Program of corrective action for malfunctioning CEMS.
10. Operator training and certification.
11. Maintaining and ensuring current certification or naming of
cylinder gasses, metal solutions, and particulate samples used for
audit and accuracy tests, daily checks, and calibrations.
Whenever excessive inaccuracies occur for two consecutive
quarters, the current written procedures must be revised or the CEMS
modified or replaced to correct the deficiency causing the excessive
inaccuracies. These written procedures must be kept on record and
available for inspection by the enforcement agency.
3.2 QA Requirements. Each source owner or operator must develop
and implement a QA plan that includes, at a minimum, the following.
1. QA responsibilities (including maintaining records, preparing
reports, reviewing reports).
2. Schedules for the daily checks, periodic audits, and
preventive maintenance.
3. Check lists and data sheets.
4. Preventive maintenance procedures.
5. Description of the media, format, and location of all records
and reports.
6. Provisions for a review of the CEMS data at least once a
year. Based on the results of the review, the owner or operator
shall revise or update the QA plan, if necessary.
4. CD and ZD Assessment and Daily System Audit
4.1 CD and ZD Requirement. Owners and operators must check,
record, and quantify the ZD and the CD at least once daily
(approximately 24 hours) in accordance with the method prescribed by
the manufacturer. The CEMS calibration must, at a minimum, be
adjusted whenever the daily ZD or CD exceeds the limits in the
Performance Specifications. If, on any given ZD and/or CD check the
ZD and/or CD exceed(s) two times the limits in the Performance
Specifications, or if the cumulative adjustment to the ZD and/or CD
(see Section 4.2) exceed(s) three times the limits in the
Performance Specifications, hazardous waste buring must immediately
cease and the CEMS must be serviced and recalibrated. Hazardous
waste burning cannot resume until the owner or operator documents
that the CEMS is in compliance with the Performance Specifications
by carrying out an ACA.
4.2 Recording Requirements for Automatic ZD and CD Adjusting
Monitors. Monitors that automatically adjust the data to the
corrected calibration values must record the unadjusted
concentration measurement prior to resetting the calibration, if
performed, or record the amount of the adjustment.
4.3 Daily System Audit. The audit must include a review of the
calibration check data, an inspection of the recording system, an
inspection of the control panel warning lights, and an inspection of
the sample transport and interface system (e.g., flowmeters,
filters, etc.) as appropriate.
4.4 Data Recording and Reporting. All measurements from the
CEMS must be retained in the operating record for at least 5 years.
5. Performance Evaluation
5.1 Multi-Metals CEMS. The CEMS must be audited at least once
each calendar year. In years when a performance test is also
required under Sec. 63.1208 of this chapter to document compliance
with emission standards, the performance evaluation (i.e., audit)
shall coincide with the performance test. Successive yearly audits
shall be at least 9 months apart. The audits shall be conducted as
follows.
5.1.1 Relative Accuracy Test Audit (RATA). The RATA must be
conducted at least once every three years (five years for small on-
site facilities defined in Sec. 63.1208(b)(1)(ii)). Conduct the RATA
as described in the RA test procedure (or alternate procedures
section) described in the applicable Performance Specifications. In
addition, analyze the appropriate performance audit samples received
from the EPA as described in the applicable sampling methods (i.e.,
SW-846 method 0060).
5.1.2 Absolute Calibration Audit (ACA). The ACA must be
conducted at least once each year except when a RATA is conducted
instead. Conduct an ACA using NIST traceable calibration standards
at three levels for each metal that is being monitored for
compliance purposes. The levels must correspond to 0 to 20, 40 to
60, and 80 to 120 percent of the applicable emission limit for each
metal. (For the SVM and LVM standards where the standard applies to
combined emissions of several metals, the average annual emission
concentration for each individual metal in a group for which a
standard applies should be assumed by projecting emissions based on
feedrate estimates determined from the waste management plan
required under Sec. 63.1210(c)(2) of this chapter. The estimated
average annual emission concentration should be used as a surrogate
metal emission limit for purposes of the ACA.) At each level and for
each metal, make nine determinations of the RA as defined in Section
8 of the applicable Performance Specifications using the value of
the calibration standard in the denominator of Equation (6).
5.1.3 Reference method. The reference method is SW-846 method
0060.
5.1.4 Excessive Audit Inaccuracy. If the RA using the RATA or
ACA exceeds the criteria in Section 4.2 of the Performance
Specifications, hazardous waste burning must immediately cease.
Before hazardous waste burning can resume, the owner or operator
must take necessary corrective action to eliminate the problem, and
must audit the CEMS with a RATA to document that the CEMS is
operating within the specifications.
5.2 Particulate Matter CEMS. The CEMS must be audited at least
once each quarter (three calendar months.) A response calibration
audit (RCA) shall be conducted every 18 months. An absolute
calibration audit (ACA) shall be conducted quarterly, except when an
RCA is conducted instead. The audits shall be conducted as follows.
5.2.1 Response Calibration Audit (RCA). The RCA must be
conducted at least every 18 months (30 months for small on-site
facilities defined in Sec. 63.1208(b)(1)(ii)). Conduct the RCA as
described in the CEMS Response Calibration Procedure described in
the applicable Performance Specifications (Sections 5 and 7). A
minimum of nine tests are required at three particulate levels. The
three particulate levels should be at the high-end, low-end, and
midpoint of the particulate range spanned by the current calibration
of the CEMS.
5.2.2 Absolute Calibration Audit (ACA). The ACA must be
conducted at least
[[Page 17527]]
quarterly, except when an RCA is conducted instead. Conduct an ACA
using NIST traceable calibration standards, making three
measurements at three levels (nine measurements total). The levels
must correspond to 10 to 50 percent, 80 to 120 percent, and 200 to
300 percent of the emission limit. At each level make a
determination of the instrument response and compare it to the
nominal response by calculating the calibration error CE:
Where:
RCEM is the CEMS response;
RN is the nominal response generated by the calibration
standard, and
REM is the emission limit value.
5.2.3 Excessive Audit Inaccuracy.
5.2.3.1 RCA. If less than 75 percent percent of the test
results from the RCA fall within the tolerance interval established
for the current calibration (see Sections 7 and 8 of the Performance
Specifications), then a new calibration relation is required.
Hazardous waste burning must cease immediately, and may not be
resumed until a new calibration relation is calculated from the RCA
data according to the procedures specified in Section 8 of the
Performance Specifications.
5.2.3.2 ACA. If the calibration error is greater than 2 percent
of the emission limit for any of the calibration levels, hazardous
waste burning must cease immediately. If adjustments to the
instrument reduce the calibration error to less than 2 percent of
the emission limit at all three levels, then hazardous waste burning
can resume. If not, the instrument must be repaired and must pass a
complete ACA before hazardous waste burning can resume.
5.2.4 Calibrating for Fuel Type. The owner or operator shall
derive a sufficient number of calibration curves to use for all fuel
type and mixtures of fuel type.
5.2.5 Reference Method. The reference method is Method 5 found
in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A.
5.3 Total Mercury CEMS. An Absolute Calibration Audit (ACA)
must be conducted quarterly, and a Relative Accuracy Test Audit
(RATA) must be conducted every three years (five years for small on-
site facilities defined in Sec. 63.1208(b)(1)(ii)). An Interference
Response Tests shall be performed whenever an ACA or a RATA is
conducted. In years when a performance test is also required under
Sec. 63.1208 of this chapter to document compliance with emission
standards, the RATA shall coincide with the performance test. The
audits shall be conducted as follows.
5.3.1 Relative Accuracy Test Audit (RATA). The RATA must be
conducted at least every three years (five years for small on-site
facilities defined in Sec. 63.1208(b)(1)(ii)). Conduct the RATA as
described in the RA test procedure (or alternate procedures section)
described in the applicable Performance Specifications. In addition,
analyze the appropriate performance audit samples received from the
EPA as described in the applicable sampling methods.
5.3.2 Absolute Calibration Audit (ACA). The ACA must be
conducted at least quarterly except in a quarter when a RATA is
conducted instead. Conduct an ACA as described in the calibration
error (CE) test procedure described in the applicable Performance
Specifications.
5.3.3 Interference Response Test. The interference response
test shall be conducted whenever an ACA or RATA is conducted.
Conduct an interference response test as described in the applicable
Performance Specifications.
5.3.4 Excessive Audit Inaccuracy. If the RA from the RATA or
the CE from the ACA exceeds the criteria in the applicable
Performance Specifications, hazardous waste burning must cease
immediately. Hazardous waste burning cannot resume until the owner
or operator take corrective measures and audit the CEMS with a RATA
to document that the CEMS is operating within the specifications.
5.3.5 Reference Methods. The reference method for mercury is
SW-846 method 0060.
5.4 Hydrogen Chloride (HCl), Chlorine (Cl2), Carbon
Monoxide (CO), Oxygen (O2), and Hydrocarbon (HC) CEMS. An
Absolute Calibration Audit (ACA) must be conducted quarterly, and a
Relative Accuracy Test Audit (RATA) (if applicable, see sections
5.4.1 and 5.4.2) must be conducted yearly. An Interference Response
Tests shall be performed whenever an ACA or a RATA is conducted. In
years when a performance test is also required under Sec. 63.1208 of
this chapter to document compliance with emission standards, the
RATA shall coincide with the performance test. The audits shall be
conducted as follows.
5.4.1 Relative Accuracy Test Audit (RATA). This requirement
applies to O2 and CO CEMS. The RATA must be conducted at least
yearly. Conduct the RATA as described in the RA test procedure (or
alternate procedures section) described in the applicable
Performance Specifications. In addition, analyze the appropriate
performance audit samples received from the EPA as described in the
applicable sampling methods.
5.4.2 Absolute Calibration Audit (ACA). This requirements
applies to all CEMS listed in 5.4. The ACA must be conducted at
least quarterly except in a quarter when a RATA (if applicable, see
section 5.4.1) is conducted instead. Conduct an ACA as described in
the calibration error (CE) test procedure described in the
applicable Performance Specifications.
5.4.3 Interference Response Test. The interference response
test shall be conducted whenever an ACA or RATA is conducted.
Conduct an interference response test as described in the applicable
Performance Specifications.
5.4.4 Excessive Audit Inaccuracy. If the RA from the RATA or
the CE from the ACA exceeds the criteria in the applicable
Performance Specifications, hazardous waste burning must cease
immediately. Hazardous waste burning cannot resume until the owner
or operator take corrective measures and audit the CEMS with a RATA
to document that the CEMS is operating within the specifications.
6. Other Requirements
6.1 Performance Specifications. CEMS used by owners and
operators of HWCs must comply with the following performance
specifications in Appendix B to Part 60:
Table I.--Performance Specifications for CEMS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CEMS Performance specification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon monoxide........................... 4B
Oxygen.................................... 4B
Total hydrocarbons........................ 8A
Mercury, semivolatile metals, and low 10
volatile metals.
Particulate matter........................ 11
Mercury................................... 12
Hydrochloric acid (hydrogen chloride)..... 13
Chlorine gas (diatomic chlorine).......... 14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.2 Downtime due to Calibration. Facilities may continue to
burn hazardous waste for a maximum of 20 minutes while calibrating
the CEMS. If all CEMS are calibrated at once, the facility shall
FR Doc. 96-7872 Revised Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors
have twenty minutes to calibrate all the CEMS. If CEMS are
calibrated individually, the facility shall have twenty minutes to
calibrate each CEMS. If the CEMS are calibrated individually, other
CEMS shall be operational while the individual CEMS is being
calibrated.
6.3 Span of the CEMS.
6.3.1 Multi-metals, Particulate Matter, Mercury, Hydrochloric
Acid, and Chlorine Gas CEMS. The span shall be at least 20 times the
emission limit at an oxygen correction factor of 1.
6.3.2 CO CEMS. The CO CEM shall have two ranges, a low range
with a span of 200 ppmv and a high range with a span of 3000 ppmv at
an oxygen correction factor of 1. A one-range CEM may be used, but
it must meet the performance specifications for the low range in the
specified span of the low range.
6.3.3 O2 CEMS. The O2 CEM shall have a span of 25
percent. The span may be higher than 25 percent if the O2
concentration at the sampling point is greater than 25 percent.
6.3.4 HC CEMS. The HC CEM shall have a span of 100 ppmv,
expressed as propane, at an oxygen correction factor of 1.
6.3.5 CEMS Span Values When the Oxygen Correction Factor is
Greater than 2. When a owner or operator installs a CEMS at a
location of high ambient air dilution, i.e., where the maximum
oxygen correction factor as determined by the permitting agency is
greater than 2, the owner or operator shall install a CEM with a
lower span(s), proportionate to the larger oxygen correction factor,
than those specified above.
6.3.6 Use of Alternative Spans. Owner or operators may request
approval to use alternative spans and ranges to those specified.
Alternate spans must be approved in writing in advance by the
Director. In considering approval of alternative spans and ranges,
the Director will consider that measurements beyond the span will be
recorded as values at the maximum span for purposes of calculating
rolling averages.
[[Page 17528]]
6.3.7 Documentation of Span Values. The span value shall be
documented by the CEMS manufacturer with laboratory data.
6.4.1 Oxygen Correction Factor. Measured pollutant levels shall
be corrected for the amount of oxygen in the stack according to the
following formula:
Pc=Pm x 14/(E-Y)
where:
Pc=concentration of the pollutant or standard corrected to 7
percent oxygen;
Pm=measured concentration of the pollutant;
E=volume fraction of oxygen in the combustion air fed into the
device, on a dry basis (normally 21 percent or 0.21 if only air is
fed);
Y=measured fraction of oxygen on a dry basis at the sampling point.
The oxygen correction factor is:
OCF=14/(E-Y)
6.4.2 Moisture Correction. Method 4 of appendix A of this Part
shall be used to determine moisture content of the stack gasses.
6.4.3 Temperature Correction. Correction values for temperature
are obtainable from standard reference materials.
6.5 Rolling Average. A rolling average is the arithmetic
average of all one-minute averages over the averaging period.
6.5.1 One-Minute Average. One-minute averages are the
arithmetic average of the four most recent 15-second observations
and shall be calculated using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.052
Where:
c=the one minute average
ci=a fifteen-second observation from the CEM
Fifteen second observations shall not be rounded or smoothed.
Fifteen-second observations may be disregarded only as a result of a
failure in the CEMS and allowed in the source's quality assurance
plan at the time of the CMS failure. One-minute averages shall not
be rounded, smoothed, or disregarded.
6.5.2 Ten Minute Rolling Average Equation. The ten minute
rolling average shall be calculated using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.053
Where:
CRA=The concentration of the standard, expressed as a rolling
average
ci=a one minute average
6.5.3 n-Hourly Rolling Average Equation. The rolling average,
based on a specific number integer of hours, shall be calculated
using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP96.054
Where:
CRA=The concentration of the standard, expressed as a rolling
average
N=The number of hours of the rolling average
ci=a one minute average
6.5.4 New rolling averages. When a rolling average begins due
to the provisions of Sec. 6.5.4.2 of this appendix or when no
previous one-minute average have been recorded, the rolling average
shall be the average all one-minute averages since the rolling
average commenced. Then when sufficient time has passed such that
there are enough one-minute averages to calculate a rolling average
specified in Sec. 6.5.2 or 6.5.3 of this appendix, i.e., when the
period of time since the rolling average was started is equal to or
greater than the averaging period, the average shall be calculated
using the equation specified there.
6.5.4.1 Short term interruption of a rolling average. When
rolling averages which are interrupted (such as for a calibration or
failure of the CEMS), the rolling average shall be restarted with
the one-minute averages prior to the interruption being the i=1 to
(60*N-1) values and the i=60*N value being the one minute average
immediately after the interruption. A short term interruption is one
with a duration of less than the averaging period for the given
standard or parameter.
6.5.4.2 Long term interruptions of the rolling average. When
ten minute rolling averages are interrupted for periods greater than
ten minutes, the rolling average shall be restarted as provided in
Sec. 6.5.4 of this appendix. When rolling averages with averaging
periods in excess of the averaging period for the given standard or
parameter, the rolling average shall be restarted as provided in
Sec. 6.5.4 of this appendix.
6.6 Units of the Standards for the Purposes of Recording and
Reporting Emissions. Emissions shall be recorded and reported
expressed after correcting for oxygen, temperature, and moisture.
Emissions shall be reported in metric, but may also be reported in
the English system of units, at 7 percent oxygen, 20 deg.C, and on
a dry basis.
6.7 Rounding and Significant Figures. Emissions shall be rounded
to two significant figures using ASTM procedure E-29-90 or its
successor. Rounding shall be avoided prior to rounding for the
reported value.
7. Bibliography
1. 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix F, ``Quality Assurance Procedures:
Procedure 1. Quality Assurance Requirements for Gas Continuous
Emission Monitoring Systems Used For Compliance Determination''.
PART 260--HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL
III. In part 260:
1. The authority citation for part 260 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921-6927, 6930, 6934, 6935,
6937, 6938, 6939, and 6974.
2. Subpart B of part 260 is amended by revising the definition of
``industrial furnace'' and adding the following definitions to read as
follows:
Sec. 260.10 Definitions.
When used in parts 260 through 270 of this chapter, the following
terms have the meanings given below:
* * * * *
Air pollution control system means the equipment used to reduce the
release of particulate matter and other pollutants to the atmosphere.
Automatic waste feed cutoff (AWFCO) system means a system comprised
of cutoff valves, actuator, sensor, data manager, and other necessary
components and electrical circuitry designed, operated and maintained
to stop the flow of hazardous waste to the combustion unit
automatically and immediately when any of the parameters to which the
system is interlocked exceed the limits established in compliance with
applicable standards, the operating permit, or safety considerations.
* * * * *
Cement kiln means a rotary kiln and any associated preheater or
precalciner devices that produces clinker by heating limestone and
other materials for subsequent production of cement for use in
commerce.
* * * * *
Combustion chamber means the area in which controlled flame
combustion of hazardous waste occurs.
* * * * *
Continuous monitor means a device which continuously samples the
regulated parameter without interruption except during allowable
periods of calibration, and, for CEMS, except as defined otherwise by
the applicable performance specification.
* * * * *
Dioxins and furans (D/F) means tetra, penta, hexa, hepta, and octa-
chlorinated dibenzo dioxins and furans.
* * * * *
Feedstream means any material fed into a HWC, including, but not
limited to, any pumpable or nonpumpable solid or gas.
* * * * *
Flowrate means the rate at which a feedstream is fed into a HWC.
* * * * *
Fugitive combustion emissions means particulate or gaseous matter
generated by or resulting from the burning of hazardous waste that is
not collected by a capture system and is released to the atmosphere
prior to the exit of the stack.
* * * * *
Industrial furnace means any of the following enclosed devices that
are integral components of manufacturing processes and that use thermal
[[Page 17529]]
treatment to accomplish recovery of materials or energy:
(1) Cement kilns
(2) Lime kilns
(3) Lightweight aggregate kilns
* * * * *
Lightweight aggregate kiln means a rotary kiln that produces for
commerce (or for manufacture of products for commerce) an aggregate
with a density less than 2.5 g/cc by slowly heating organic-containing
geologic materials such as shale and clay.
* * * * *
One-minute average means the average of detector responses
calculated at least every 60 seconds from responses obtained at least
each 15 seconds.
* * * * *
Operating record means all information required by the standards to
document and maintain compliance with the applicable regulations,
including data and information, reports, notifications, and
communications with regulatory officials.
* * * * *
Rolling average means the average of all one-minute averages over
the averaging period.
Run means the net period of time during which an air emission
sample is collected under a given set of operating conditions. Three or
more runs constitutes an emissions test. Unless otherwise specified, a
run may be either intermittent or continuous.
* * * * *
Synthesis gas fuel means a gaseous fuel produced by the thermal
treatment of hazardous waste and which meets the specification provided
by Sec. 261.4(a)(12)(ii).
* * * * *
TEQ means the international method of expressing toxicity
equivalents for dioxins and furans as defined in U.S. EPA, Interim
Procedures for Estimating Risks Associated with Exposures to Mixtures
of Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and -Dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs) and
1989 Update, March 1989.
* * * * *
PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
IV. In part 261:
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.
2. Section 261.4 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(13) to read as
follows:
Sec. 261.4 Exclusions.
(a) * * *
(13) Wastes that meet the following comparable fuel specifications,
under the conditions of paragraph (a)(13)(iv):
(i) Generic comparable fuel specification. (A) Constituent
specifications. For compounds listed below, the specification levels
and, where non-detect is the specification, maximum allowable detection
limits are: [values to be determined].
(B) Physical specifications. (1) Heating value. The heating value
must exceed 11,500 J/g (5,000 BTU/lbm).
(2) Flash point. The flash point must not be less than [value to be
determined].
(3) Viscosity. The viscosity must not exceed [value to be
determined]
(ii) Synthesis gas fuel specification.
(A) Synthesis gas (syngas) which is generated from hazardous waste
and which:
(1) Has a minimum Btu value of 11,500 J/g (5,000 Btu/lb);
(2) Contains less than 1 ppmv of each hazardous constituent listed
in Appendix VIII of this part that could reasonably be expected to be
in the gas, except the limit for hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is 10
ppmv; and
(3) Which contains less than 1 ppmv each of total chlorine and
total nitrogen other than diatomic nitrogen (N2).
(B) Measurements of concentrations of constituents specified in
paragraph (a)(13)(ii)(A) are to be taken at the temperature and
pressure of the gas at the point that the exclusion is first claimed.
(iii) Implementation. Waste that meets the comparable fuel
specifications provided by paragraphs (a)(13)(i) or (ii) of this
section is excluded from the definition of solid waste provided that:
(A) The person who generates the waste or produces the syngas must
claim the exclusion. For purposes of this paragraph, that person is
called the waste-derived fuel producer;
(B) (1) The producer must submit a one-time notice to the Director
claiming the exclusion and certifying compliance with the conditions of
the exclusion.
(2) If the producer is a company which produces comparable fuel at
more than one facility, the producer shall specify at which sites the
comparable fuel will be produced and each specified site must be in
compliance with the conditions of the exclusion at each point of
production;
(C) Sampling and analysis. (1) The producer must obtain information
by sampling and analysis as often as necessary to document that fuel
claimed to be excluded meets the comparable fuel specification provided
by paragraphs (a)(13)(i) or (ii) of this section. At a minimum, the
producer must sample and analyze the fuel for all constituents for
which specifications are established when the exclusion is first
claimed, and at least annually thereafter, for all constituents that,
using the results of the initial test and process knowledge, the
producer reasonably expects to be found in the comparable fuel.
(2) The producer must develop and implement a comparable fuel
sampling and analysis plan, using the same protocols used to develop
waste analysis plans, to document that the comparable fuel meets the
specifications.
(3) Analytical methods provided by SW-846 must be used unless prior
written approval is obtained from the Director to use an equivalent
method;
(4) If a waste-derived fuel is blended in order to meet the flash
point and kinematic viscosity specifications, the producer shall
analyze the fuel as produced to ensure that it meets the constituent
and heating value specifications and then analyze the fuel again after
blending to ensure that it meets all specifications.
(5) If not blended, the comparable fuel shall be analyzed as
produced.
(D) (1) Comparable fuel shall be burned on-site or shipped directly
to a person who burns the waste.
(2) No person other than the producer and the burner shall manage a
comparable fuel other than incidental transportation related handling.
(E) Treatment to meet the specification. (1) Bona fide treatment of
hazardous waste to remove or destroy constituents listed in the
specifications or to raise the heating value by removing constituents
or materials can be used to meet the specification.
(2) Owners and operators of RCRA permitted hazardous waste
treatment facilities qualify as producers of waste-derived fuel
eligible for the exclusion provided that the newly generated waste
results from bona fide treatment to remove or destroy constituents
listed in the specifications or to increase the heating value.
(3) Residuals resulting from the treatment of a hazardous waste
listed in subpart D of this part to generate a comparable fuel remain a
hazardous waste.
(4) Treatment by incidental settling during storage or blending
operations is not bona fide treatment for purposes of this exclusion;
and
(F) Blending to meet the specification. Blending a waste
containing, as generated, higher concentration(s) of hazardous
constituent(s) than allowed in the comparable fuel specifications with
materials with lower
[[Page 17530]]
concentrations of such constituents to meet the specifications is
prohibited. (An excluded comparable fuel, however, may be blended with
other materials without restriction.)
(G) Speculative Accumulation. Producers and burners are subject to
the speculative accumulation test under Sec. 261.2(c)(4).
(H) Recordkeeping. Producers claiming the exclusion must keep
records of:
(1) One-time notification to the Director required by paragraph
(a)(13)(ii)(B) of this section;
(2) Sampling and analysis or other information documenting that the
fuel meets the comparable fuel specification;
(3) The comparable fuel sampling and analysis plan; and
(4) For waste that is treated before meeting particular constituent
limits of the comparable fuel specification, documentation that the
treatment resulted in removal or destruction of those constituents to
meet the specification.
(I) Records Retention. Records must be retained for three years.
The sampling and analysis plan and all revisions to the plan shall be
retained for as long as the producer claims the exclusion, plus three
years.
PART 264--STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
V. In part 264:
1. The authority citation for part 264 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924, and 6925.
2. Section 264.340 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (b), (c),
and (d) as paragraphs (c), (d), and (e), respectively, and adding
paragraph (b), to read as follows:
Sec. 264.340 Applicability.
* * * * *
(b) Incorporation of MACT standards. (1) The requirements
applicable to hazardous waste incinerators under subpart EEE, part 63,
of this chapter are incorporated by reference.
(2) When an owner and operator begin compliance (i.e., submit a
notification of compliance) with the requirements of subpart EEE, part
63, of this chapter:
(i) The applicability provisions of Sec. 264.340(b) and (c) no
longer apply;
(ii) The performance standards provided by Sec. 264.343(b) and (c)
are superseded (i.e., replaced) by the subpart EEE, part 63, standards
such that an operating permit issued or reissued under part 270 of this
chapter must ensure compliance with the subpart EEE, part 63, standards
as well as the DRE performance standard under Sec. 264.343;
(iii) The operating requirements of Sec. 264.345(b)(1) through (4)
and the monitoring requirements of Sec. 264.347(a)(1) and (2) are
superseded (i.e., replaced) by the operating and monitoring
requirements of Sec. 63.1210 of this chapter such that an operating
permit issued or reissued under part 270 of this chapter must ensure
compliance with the subpart EEE, part 63, standards as well as the
remaining standards under Secs. 264.345 and 264.347; and
(iv) The operating requirements of Sec. 264.345(d)(1)-(3) and
Sec. 264.345(e) are superseded (i.e., replaced) by the operating and
monitoring requirements of Sec. 63.1207 of this chapter such that an
operating permit issued or reissued under part 270 of this chapter must
ensure compliance with the subpart EEE, part 63, standards as well as
the remaining applicable standards under Sec. 264.345.
* * * * *
3. Section 264.345 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding
paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 264.345 Operating Requirements
(a) An incinerator must be operated in accordance with operating
requirements specified in the permit and meet the applicable emissions
standards at all times that hazardous waste remains in the combustion
chamber. These will be specified on a case-by-case basis as those
demonstrated (in a trial burn or in alternative data as specified in
Sec. 264.344(b) and included with part B of the facility's permit
application) to be sufficient to comply with the performance standards
of Sec. 264.343.
* * * * *
(g) ESV Openings. (1) Violation. If an emergency safety vent opens
when hazardous waste is fed or remains in the combustion chamber, such
that combustion gases are not treated as during the most recent
performance test, it is a violation of the emission standards of this
subpart.
(2) ESV Operating Plan. The ESV Operating Plan shall explain
detailed procedures for rapidly stopping waste feed, shutting down the
combustor, maintaining temperature in the combustion chamber until all
waste exits the combustor, and controlling emissions in the event of
equipment malfunction or activation of any ESV or other bypass system
including calculations demonstrating that emissions will be controlled
during such an event (sufficient oxygen for combustion and maintaining
negative pressure), and the procedures for executing the plan whenever
the ESV is used, thus causing an emergency release of emissions.
(3) Corrective measures. After any ESV opening that results in a
violation, the owner or operator must investigate the cause of the ESV
opening, take appropriate corrective measures to minimize future ESV
violations, and record the findings and corrective measures in the
operating record.
(4) Reporting requirement. The owner or operator must submit a
written report within 5 days of a ESV opening violation documenting the
result of the investigation and corrective measures taken.
4. Section 264.347 is amended by adding paragraphs (e), (f), and
(g).
Sec. 264.347 Monitoring and inspections.
* * * * *
(e) Fugitive emissions. (1) Fugitive emissions must be controlled
by:
(i) Keeping the combustion zone totally sealed against fugitive
emissions; or
(ii) Maintaining the maximum combustion zone pressure lower than
ambient pressure using an instantaneous monitor; or
(iii) Upon prior written approval of the Administrator, an
alternative means of control to provide fugitive emissions control
equivalent to maintenance of combustion zone pressure lower than
ambient pressure;
(2) The owner or operator must specify in the operating record the
method used for fugitive emissions control.
(f) Continuous emissions monitors (CEMS). (1) Hazardous waste
incinerators shall be equipped with CEMS for compliance monitoring.
(2) At all times that hazardous waste is fed into the hazardous
waste incinerator or remains in the combustion chamber, CEMS must be
operated in compliance with the requirements of the appendix to subpart
EEE, part 63, of this chapter.
(g) Other continuous monitoring systems. (1) CMS other than CEMS
(e.g., thermocouples, pressure transducers, flow meters) must be used
to document compliance with the applicable operating limits.
(2) Non-CEM CMS must be installed and operated in conformance with
Sec. 63.8(c)(3) of this chapter requiring the owner and operator, at a
minimum, to comply with the manufacturer's written specifications or
recommendations for installation, operation, and calibration of the
system.
[[Page 17531]]
(3) Non-CEM CMS must sample the regulated parameter without
interruption, and evaluate the detector response at least once each 15
seconds, and compute and record the average values at least every 60
seconds.
(4) The span of the detector must not be exceeded. Span limits
shall be interlocked into the automatic waste feed cutoff system.
PART 265--INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
VI. In part 265:
1. The authority citation for part 265 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924, 6925, 6935, and 6936,
unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 265.340 is amended by redesignating paragraph (b) as
paragraph (c), and adding paragraph (b), to read as follows:
Sec. 265.340 Applicability.
* * * * *
(b) Incorporation of MACT standards. (1) The requirements
applicable to hazardous waste incinerators under subpart EEE, part 63,
of this chapter are incorporated by reference.
(2) When an owner and operator begin to comply (i.e., submit a
notification of compliance) with the requirements of subpart EEE, part
63, of this chapter, those requirements apply in addition to those of
this subpart, and the provisions of Sec. 265.340(b) no longer apply.
* * * * *
3. Section 265.347 is amended by adding paragraphs (c), (d), and
(e), to read as follows:
Sec. 265.347 Monitoring and inspections.
* * * * *
(c) Fugitive emissions. (1) Fugitive emissions must be controlled
by:
(i) Keeping the combustion zone totally sealed against fugitive
emissions; or
(ii) Maintaining the maximum combustion zone pressure lower than
ambient pressure using an instantaneous monitor; or
(iii) Upon prior written approval of the Administrator, an
alternative means of control to provide fugitive emissions control
equivalent to maintenance of combustion zone pressure lower than
ambient pressure;
(2) The owner or operator must specify in the operating record the
method used for fugitive emissions control.
(d) Continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS). (1) Hazardous
waste incinerators shall be equipped with CEMS for compliance
monitoring.
(2) At all times that hazardous waste is fed into the hazardous
waste incinerator or remains in the combustion chamber, CEMS must be
operated in compliance with the requirements of the appendix to subpart
EEE, part 63, of this chapter.
(e) Other continuous monitoring systems. (1) CMS other than CEMS
(e.g., thermocouples, pressure transducers, flow meters) must be used
to document compliance with the applicable operating limits.
(2) Non-CEM CMS must be installed and operated in conformance with
Sec. 63.8(c)(3) of this chapter requiring the owner and operator, at a
minimum, to comply with the manufacturer's written specifications or
recommendations for installation, operation, and calibration of the
system.
(3) Non-CEMS CMS must sample the regulated parameter without
interruption, and evaluate the detector response at least once each 15
seconds, and compute and record the average values at least every 60
seconds.
(4) The span of the detector must not be exceeded. Span limits
shall be interlocked into the automatic waste feed cutoff system.
PART 266--STANDARDS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC HAZARDOUS WASTES
AND SPECIFIC TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
VII. In part 266:
1. The authority citation for part 266 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 1006, 2002(a), 3004, and 3014 of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924, and
6934).
2. Section 266.100 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (b), (c),
(d), (e), and (f) as paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g), adding
paragraph (b), revising introductory text to paragraph (d)(1), revising
paragraphs (d)(2) (i) and (ii), revising the introductory text to
paragraph (d)(3), revising paragraphs (d)(3)(i)(B) and (d)(3)(ii), and
adding paragraph (h), to read as follows:
Sec. 266.100 Applicability.
* * * * *
(b) Incorporation of MACT standards. (1) The requirements
applicable to cement kilns and lightweight aggregate kilns under
subpart EEE, part 63, of this chapter are incorporated by reference.
(2) When an owner and operator begin to comply (i.e., submit a
notification of compliance) with the requirements of subpart EEE, part
63, of this chapter, those requirements apply in addition to those of
this subpart.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) To be exempt from Secs. 266.102 through 266.111, an owner or
operator of a metal recovery furnace or mercury recovery furnace must
comply with the following requirements, except that an owner or
operator of a lead or a nickel-chromium recovery furnace, or a metal
recovery furnace that burns baghouse bags used to capture metallic
dusts emitted by steel manufacturing, must comply with the requirements
of paragraph (d)(3) of this section, and owners or operators of lead
recovery furnaces that are subject to regulation under the Secondary
Lead Smelting NESHAP must comply with the requirements of paragraph (h)
of this section.
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(i) The hazardous waste has a total concentration of nonmetal
compounds listed in part 261, appendix VIII, of this chapter exceeding
500 ppm by weight, as fired, and so is considered to be burned for
destruction. The concentration of nonmetal compounds in a waste as
generated may be reduced to the 500 ppm limit by bona fide treatment
that removes or destroys nonmetal constituents. Blending for dilution
to meet the 500 ppm limit is prohibited and documentation that the
waste has not been impermissibly diluted must be retained in the
records required by paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this section; or
(ii) The hazardous waste has a heating value of 5,000 Btu/lb or
more, as fired, and so is considered to be burned as fuel. The heating
value of a waste as generated may be reduced to below the 5,000 Btu/lb
limit by bona fide treatment that removes or destroys nonmetal
constituents. Blending for dilution to meet the 5,000 Btu/lb limit is
prohibited and documentation that the waste has not been impermissibly
diluted must be retained in the records required by paragraph
(d)(1)(iii) of this section.
(3) To be exempt from Sec. 266.102 through 266.111, an owner or
operator of a lead or nickel-chromium or mercury recovery furnace,
except for owners or operators of lead recovery furnaces subject to
regulation under the Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP, * * *
(i) * * *
(B) The waste does not exhibit the Toxicity Characteristic of
Sec. 261.24 of
[[Page 17532]]
this chapter for a nonmetal constituent; and
* * * * *
(ii) The Director may decide on a case-by-case basis that the toxic
nonmetal constituents in a material listed in appendix XI or XII of
this part that contains a total concentration of more than 500 ppm
toxic nonmetal compounds listed in appendix VIII, part 261, of this
chapter, may pose a hazard to human health and the environment when
burned in a metal recovery furnace exempt from the requirements of this
subpart. In that situation, after adequate notice and opportunity for
comment, the metal recovery furnace will become subject to the
requirements of this subpart when burning that material. In making the
hazard determination, the Director will consider the following factors;
(A) The concentration and toxicity on nonmetal constituents in the
material; and
(B) The level of destruction of toxic nonmetal constituents
provided by the furnace; and
(C) Whether the acceptable ambient levels established in appendices
IV or V of this part may be exceeded for any toxic nonmetal compound
that may be emitted based on dispersion modeling to predict the maximum
annual average off-site ground level concentration.
* * * * *
(h) Starting June 23, 1997, owners or operators of lead recovery
furnaces that process hazardous waste for recovery of lead and that are
subject to regulation under the Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP, are
conditionally exempt from regulation under this subpart, except for
Sec. 266.101. To be exempt, an owner or operator must provide a one-
time notice to the Director identifying each hazardous waste burned and
specifying that the owner or operator claims an exemption under this
paragraph. The notice also must state that the waste burned has a total
concentration of non-metal compounds listed in part 261, appendix VIII,
of this chapter of less than 500 ppm by weight, as fired and as
provided in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section, or is listed in
appendix XI, part 266.
3. Section 266.101 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read
as follows:
Sec. 266.101 Management prior to burning.
* * * * *
(c) Storage and treatment facilities. (1) Owners and operators of
facilities that store or treat hazardous waste that is burned in a
boiler or industrial furnace are subject to the applicable provisions
of parts 264, 265, and 270 of this chapter, except as provided by
paragraph (c)(2) of this section. These standards apply to storage and
treatment by the burner as well as to storage and treatment facilities
operated by intermediaries (processors, blenders, distributors, etc.)
* * * * *
4. Section 266.102 is amended by redesignating paragraph (a)(2) as
(a)(3), adding paragraph (a)(2), revising the introductory text to
paragraph (d)(4), adding paragraph (d)(5), revising paragraphs
(e)(4)(i) (A) and (C), (e)(5)(i) (A) and (C), (e)(6)(i) (A), (B), and
(C), and (e)(6)(iii), revising the introductory text to (e)(7)(i), and
revising paragraphs (e)(7)(i)(C), (e)(8)(i) (A) and (C), and (e)(10),
to read as follows:
Sec. 266.102 Permit standards for burners.
(a) Applicability. (1) * * *
(2) Applicability of MACT standards to cement and lightweight
aggregate kilns. When an owner and operator of a cement or lightweight
aggregate kiln that burns hazardous waste begin to comply (i.e., submit
a notification of compliance) with the requirements of subpart EEE,
part 63, of this chapter:
(i) The emission standards provided by Secs. 266.104 through
266.107 are superseded (i.e., replaced) by the standards under subpart
EEE, part 63, except that the DRE requirement provided by
Sec. 266.104(a) and the enforcement provisions of those sections (i.e.,
Secs. 266.104(i), 266.105(c), 266.106(i), and 266.107(h)) continue to
apply;
(ii) The specific operating requirements (and associated monitoring
requirements) provided by paragraphs (e)(2)(ii), (e)(3), (e)(4), and
(e)(5) of this section are superseded by the standards under subpart
EEE, part 63, except that the provisions of paragraphs (e)(2)(i)(G),
(e)(3)(i)(E), (e)(4)(ii)(J), (e)(4)(iii)(J), and (e)(5)(i)(G) of this
section continue to apply to enable the permitting authority to
establish such other operating requirements as are necessary to ensure
compliance with the standards of subpart EEE, Part 63.;
(iii) An operating permit that is issued or reissued under part 270
of this chapter must ensure compliance with the subpart EEE, part 63,
standards as well as those Sec. 266.102 standards that continue to
apply.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(4) Except as provided by paragraph (d)(5) of this section, * * *
(5) When a cement or lightweight aggregate kiln becomes subject to
the standards of subpart EEE, Part 63, of this chapter, the provisions
of paragraph (d)(4) of this section continue to apply, except that the
operating requirements established under that paragraph will be those
sufficient to ensure compliance with the emission standards of subpart
EEE and the DRE requirement of Sec. 266.104(a).
(e) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Total feedrate of each metal in every feedstream measured and
specified under provisions of paragraph (e)(6) of this section;
* * * * *
(C) A sampling and metals analysis program for every feedstream;
* * * * *
(5) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Feedrate of total chloride and chlorine in every feedstream
measured and specified as prescribed in paragraph (e)(6) of this
section;
* * * * *
(C) A sampling and analysis program for total chloride and chlorine
for every feedstream:
* * * * *
(6) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) One-minute average. The limit for a parameter shall be
established and continuously monitored on a one-minute average basis,
and the permit limit specified as the time-weighted average during all
valid runs of the trial burn of the one-minute averages.
(B) Hourly rolling average. The limit for a parameter shall be
established and continuously monitored on an hourly rolling average
basis. The permit limit for the parameter shall be established based on
trial burn data as the average over all valid test runs of the highest
(or lowest, as appropriate) hourly rolling average value for each run.
(C) Instantaneous limit for combustion chamber pressure. Combustion
chamber pressure shall be continuously sampled, detected, and recorded
without use of an averaging period.
(ii) * * *
(iii) Feedrate limits for metals, total chloride and chlorine, and
ash. Feedrate limits for metals, total chlorine and chloride, and ash
are established and monitored by knowing the concentration of the
substance (i.e., metals, chloride/chlorine, and ash) in each feedstream
and the flow rate of the feedstreams. To monitor the feedrate of these
substances, the flowrate of each feedstream must be monitored under the
[[Page 17533]]
monitoring requirements of paragraphs (e)(6) (i) and (ii) of this
section.
* * * * *
(7) * * *
(i) Fugitive emissions. Fugitive emissions must be controlled by
the following and it must specify in the operating record the method
used for fugitive emissions control:
* * * * *
(C) Upon prior written approval of the Administrator, an
alternative means of control to provide fugitive emissions control
equivalent to maintenance of combustion zone pressure lower than
ambient pressure.
* * * * *
(8) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) If specified by the permit, feedrates and composition of every
feedstream and feedrates of ash, metals, and total chloride and
chlorine;
* * * * *
(C) Upon the request of the Director, sampling and analysis of any
feedstream, residues, and exhaust emissions must be conducted to verify
that the operating requirements established in the permit achieve the
applicable standards of Secs. 266.105, 266.106, 266.107, and 266.108.
* * * * *
(10) Recordkeeping. The owner or operator shall maintain files of
all information (including all reports and notifications) required by
this section recorded in a form suitable and readily available for
expeditious inspection and review. The files shall be retained for at
least 5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement,
maintenance, report, or record. At a minimum, the most recent 2 years
of data shall be retained on site. The remaining 3 years of data may be
maintained on microfilm, on a computer, on computer floppy disks, on
magnetic tape disks, or on microfiche.
* * * * *
6. Section 266.103 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (a)(2)
through (a)(7) as paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(8), adding paragraph
(a)(2), revising the introductory text to paragraph (b)(2)(ii),
revising paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(A), (b)(2)(iii), and (b)(5)(i) and
(iii), revising the introductory text to paragraphs (c) and (c)(4),
revising paragraphs (c)(4)(iv)(A) through (D), revising the
introductory text to paragraph (c)(7), adding a sentence at the end of
paragraph (d), revising the introductory text to paragraph (h),
revising paragraphs (h)(3) and (i), revising the introductory text to
paragraph (j)(1), and revising paragraphs (j)(1)(i) and (iii), and (k),
to read as follows:
Sec. 266.103 Interim status standards for burners.
(a) * * *
(2) Compliance with subpart EEE, part 63. When an owner and
operator begin to comply (i.e., submit a notification of compliance)
with the requirements of subpart EEE, part 63, of this chapter (and
that are incorporated by reference), those requirements apply in lieu
of the requirements of paragraphs (b) through (k) of this section.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Except for facilities complying with the Tier I or Adjusted
Tier I feedrate screening limits for metals or total chlorine and
chloride provided by Secs. 266.106(b) or (e) and 266.107(b)(1) or (e),
respectively, the estimated uncontrolled (at the inlet to the air
pollution control system) emissions of particulate matter, each metal
controlled by Sec. 266.106, and hydrochloric acid and chlorine, and the
following information supporting such determinations:
(A) The feedrate (lb/hr) of ash, chlorine, antimony, arsenic,
barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, silver, and
thallium in each feedstream;
* * * * *
(iii) For facilities complying with the Tier I or Adjusted Tier I
feedrate screening limits for metals or total chlorine and chloride
provided by Secs. 266.106(b) or (e) and 266.107(b)(1) or (e), the
feedrate (lb/hr) of total chloride and chlorine, antimony, arsenic,
barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, silver, and
thallium in each feedstream.
* * * * *
(5) * * *
(i) General requirements. Limits on each of the parameters
specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section (except for limits on
metals concentrations in collected particulate matter (PM) for
industrial furnaces that recycle collected PM) shall be established and
monitored under either of the following methods:
(A) One-minute average. The limit for a parameter shall be
established and continuously monitored on a one-minute average basis,
and the permit limit specified as the time-weighted average during all
valid runs of the trial burn of the one-minute averages.
(B) Hourly rolling average. The limit for a parameter shall be
established and continuously monitored on an hourly rolling average
basis. The permit limit for the parameter shall be established based on
trial burn data as the average over all valid test runs of the highest
(or lowest, as appropriate) hourly rolling average value for each run.
(C) Instantaneous limit for combustion chamber pressure. Combustion
chamber pressure shall be continuously sampled, detected, and recorded
without use of an averaging period.
* * * * *
(iii) Feedrate limits for metals, total chloride and chlorine, and
ash. Feedrate limits for metals, total chlorine and chloride, and ash
are established and monitored by knowing the concentration of the
substance (i.e., metals, chloride/chlorine, and ash) in each feedstream
and the flow rate of the feedstream. To monitor the feedrate of these
substances, the flowrate of each feedstream must be monitored under the
monitoring requirements of paragraphs (b)(5)(i) and (ii) of this
section.
* * * * *
(c) Certification of Compliance. The owner or operator shall
conduct emissions testing to document compliance with the emissions
standards of Secs. 266.104(b) through (e), 266.105, 266.106, 266.107
and paragraph (a)(5)(i)(D) of this section, under the procedures
prescribed by this paragraph, except under extensions of time provided
by paragraph (c)(7). Based on the compliance test, the owner or
operator shall submit to the Director on or before August 21, 1992, a
complete and accurate ``certification of compliance'' (under paragraph
(c)(4) of this section) with those emission standards establishing
limits on the operating parameters specified in paragraph (c)(1).
* * * * *
(4) Certification of compliance. Within 90 days of completing
compliance testing, the owner or operator must certify to the Director
compliance with the emission standards of Secs. 266.104(b), (c), and
(e), 266.105, 266.106, 266.107 and paragraph (a)(5)(i)(D) of this
section. The certification of compliance must include the following
information:
* * * * *
(iv) * * *
(A) One-minute average. The limit for a parameter shall be
established and continuously monitored on a one-minute average basis,
and the permit limit specified as the time-weighted average during all
valid runs of the trial burn of the one-minute averages.
(B) Hourly rolling average. The limit for a parameter shall be
established and continuously monitored on an hourly rolling average
basis. The permit limit for the parameter shall be established based on
trial burn data as the average
[[Page 17534]]
over all valid test runs of the highest (or lowest, as appropriate)
hourly rolling average value for each run.
(C) Instantaneous limit for combustion chamber pressure. Combustion
chamber pressure shall be continuously sampled, detected, and recorded
without use of an averaging period.
(D) Feedrate limits for metals, total chloride and chlorine, and
ash. Feedrate limits for metals, total chlorine and chloride, and ash
are established and monitored by knowing the concentration of the
substance (i.e., metals, chloride/chlorine, and ash) in each feedstream
and the flow rate of the feedstream. To monitor the feedrate of these
substances, the flow rate of each feedstream must be monitored under
the monitoring requirements of paragraphs (c)(4)(iv)(A) through (C) of
this section.
* * * * *
(7) Extensions of time. If the owner or operator does not submit a
complete certification of compliance for all of the applicable emission
standards of Sec. 266.104, 266.105, 266.106, and 266.107 as specified
in Sec. 266.103(C)(1), or as required pursuant to Sec. 266.103(d), he/
she must either:
* * * * *
(d) * * *. The extensions of time provisions of paragraph (c)(7) of
this section apply to recertifications.
* * * * *
(h) Fugitive emissions. Fugitive emissions must be controlled by
one of the following methods. The operator must specify in the
operating record the method selected.
* * * * *
(3) Upon prior written approval of the Administrator, an
alternative means of control to provide fugitive emissions control
equivalent to maintenance of combustion zone pressure lower than
ambient pressure.
(i) Changes. A boiler or industrial furnace must cease burning
hazardous waste when changes in combustion properties, or feedrates of
any feedstream, or changes in the boiler or industrial furnace design
or operating conditions deviate from the limits specified in the
certification of compliance.
(j) Monitoring and Inspections. (1) The owner or operator must
monitor and record the following, at a minimum, while burning hazardous
waste. All monitoring and recording shall be in units corresponding to
the units on the operating limits established in the certification of
precompliance and certification of compliance.
(i) Applicable operating parameters of paragraphs (b) and (c) of
this section shall be monitored and recorded under the requirements of
paragraphs (b)(5) (i) and (ii) of this section;
* * * * *
(iii) Upon request of the Director, sampling and analysis of any
feedstream and the stack gas emissions must be conducted to verify that
the operating conditions established in the certification of
precompliance or certification of compliance achieve the applicable
standards of Secs. 266.104, 266.105, 266.106, and 266.107.
(k) Recordkeeping. The owner or operator shall maintain files of
all information (including all reports and notifications) required by
this section recorded in a form suitable and readily available for
expeditious inspection and review. The files shall be retained for at
least 5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement,
maintenance, report, or record. At a minimum, the most recent 2 years
of data shall be retained on site. The remaining 3 years of data may be
maintained on microfilm, on a computer, on computer floppy disks, on
magnetic tape disks, or on microfiche.
* * * * *
7. Section 266.104 is amended by removing paragraph (f), and
redesignating paragraphs (g) and (h) as paragraphs (f) and (g),
respectively.
8. Section 266.105 is amended by revising paragraph (b),
redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (d) and adding paragraph (c),
to read as follows:
Sec. 266.105 Standards to control particulate matter.
* * * * *
(b) An owner or operator meeting the requirements of
Sec. 266.109(b) for the low risk exemption is exempt from the
particulate matter standard. Owners and operators of cement or
lightweight aggregate kilns are not eligible for this exemption,
however, upon compliance with the emission standards of subpart EEE,
Part 63, of this chapter.
(c) Oxygen correction. (1) Measured pollutant levels shall be
corrected for the amount of oxygen in the stack gas according to the
formula:
Pc=Pm x 14/(E-Y)
where Pc is the corrected concentration of the pollutant in the stack
gas, Pm is the measured concentration of the pollutant in the stack
gas, E is the oxygen concentration on a dry basis in the combustion air
fed to the device, and Y is the measured oxygen concentration on a dry
basis in the stack.
(2) For devices that feed normal combustion air, E will equal 21
percent. For devices that feed oxygen-enriched air for combustion (that
is, air with an oxygen concentration exceeding 21 percent), the value
of E will be the concentration of oxygen in the enriched air.
(3) Compliance with all emission standards provided by this subpart
shall be based on correcting to 7 percent oxygen using this procedure.
* * * * *
9. Section 266.108 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2), to read
as follows:
Sec. 266.108 Small quantity on-site burner exemption.
(a) * * *
(2) The quantity of hazardous waste burned in a device for a
calendar month does not exceed 27 gallons.
* * * * *
10. Section 266.109 is amended by revising the introductory text to
paragraph (b) and adding paragraph (b)(3), to read as follows:
Sec. 266.109 Low risk waste exemption.
* * * * *
(b) Waiver of particulate matter standard. Except as provided in
paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the particulate matter standard of
Sec. 266.105 does not apply if:
* * * * *
(3) When the owner and operator of a cement or lightweight
aggregate kiln become subject to the standards of subpart EEE, part 63,
of this chapter (i.e., upon submittal of the initial notification of
compliance), the source is no longer eligible for waiver of the PM
standard provided by this paragraph. At that time, the source is
subject to the PM standard provided by subpart EEE, part 63.
11. Section 266.112 is amended by adding a sentence at the end of
the introductory text to paragraph (b)(1), adding a sentence at the
beginning of paragraph (b)(1)(ii), adding a sentence before the last
sentence of paragraph (b)(2)(i), revising the first sentence of
paragraph (b)(2)(iii), redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (d),
and adding paragraph (c), to read as follows:
Sec. 266.112 Regulation of residues.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * * For polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated
dibenzo-furans, specific congeners and homologues must be measured and
converted to 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalent values using the calculation
procedure specified in appendix IX, section 4.0 of this part.
(ii) Waste-derived residue. Waste-derived residue shall be sampled
and
[[Page 17535]]
analyzed as required by this paragraph and paragraph (c) of this
section to determine whether the residue generated during each 24 hour
period has concentrations of toxic constituents that are higher than
the concentrations established for the normal residue under paragraph
(b)(1)(i) of this section. * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * * In complying with the alternative levels for
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzo-furans,
only the tetra-, penta-, and hexa- homologues need to be measured. * *
*
* * * * *
(iii) Sampling and analysis. Waste-derived residue shall be sampled
and analyzed as required by this paragraph and paragraph (c) of this
section to determine whether the residue generated during each 24-hour
period has concentrations of toxic constituents that are higher than
the health-based levels. * * *
(c) Sampling and analysis frequency. (1) The owner or operator must
sample and analyze residues at least once each 24-hour period when
burning hazardous waste, unless written, advance approval is obtained
from the Regional Administrator under paragraph (c)(2) of this section
for less frequent sampling and analysis.
(2) Requests for approval for less frequent sampling and analysis
(that is, less than once each 24-hour period) must be based on and
justified by a statistical analysis.
(i) The Regional Administrator shall not grant approval for a
sampling and analysis frequency of less than once each month.
(ii) At a minimum, the following information to support the request
for reduced sampling and analysis frequency must be submitted to the
Regional Administrator and must be contained in the facility's waste
analysis plan for residue sampling:
(A) The statistical methodology selected, reason for selection, and
the statistical procedures for calculating the sampling frequency;
(B) Analytical results used to generate the statistical database;
and
(C) A description of how the statistical database is to be
maintained and updated.
* * * * *
12. Appendix VIII to part 266 is revised to read as follows:
Appendix VIII to Part 266--Organic Compounds for Which Residues Must Be
Analyzed for Bevill Determinations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volatiles Semivolatiles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene................................ Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate.
Toluene................................ Naphthalene.
Carbon tetrachloride................... Phenol.
Chloroform............................. Diethyl phthalate.
Methylene chloride..................... Butyl benzyl phthalate.
Trichloroethylene...................... 2,4-Dimethylphenol.
Tetra chloroethylene................... o-Dichlorobenzene.
1,1,1-Trichloroethane.................. m-Dichlorobenzene.
Chlorobenzene.......................... p-Dichlorobenzene.
cis-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene.............. Hexachlorobenzene.
Bromochloromethane..................... 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol.
Bromodichloromethane................... Fluoranthene.
Bromoform.............................. o-Nitrophenol.
Bromomethane........................... 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene.
Methylene bromide...................... o-Chlorophenol.
Methyl ethyl ketone.................... Pentachlorophenol.
Pyrene.
Dimethyl phthalate.
Mononitrobenzene.
2,6-Toluene diisocyanate.
Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-
dioxins.
Polychlorinated dibenzo-furans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. In Appendix IX to Part 266, Section 2.0 of the Table of
Contents and the Appendix is revised to read as follows:
Appendix IX to Part 266--Methods Manual for Compliance With the BIF
Regulations
Table of Contents
* * * * *
2.0 Performance Specifications and Quality Assurance
Requirements for Continuous Monitoring Systems
2.1 Continuous emissions monitors (CEMS).
2.2 Other continuous monitoring systems.
* * * * *
Section 2.0 Performance Specifications and Quality Assurance
Requirements for Continuous Monitoring Systems
2.1 Continuous emissions monitors (CEMS).
2.1.1 BIFs shall be equipped with CEMS for compliance
monitoring.
2.1.2 At all times that hazardous waste is fed into the BIF or
remains in the combustion chamber, CEMS must be operated in
compliance with the requirements of the appendix to subpart EEE,
part 63, of this chapter.
2.2 Other continuous monitoring systems.
2.2.1 CMS other than CEMS (e.g., thermocouples, pressure
transducers, flow meters) must be used to document compliance with
the applicable operating limits provided by this section.
2.2.2 Non-CEM CMS must be installed and operated in conformance
with Sec. 63.8(c)(3) of this chapter requiring the owner and
operator, at a minimum, to comply with the manufacturer's written
specifications or recommendations for installation, operation, and
calibration of the system.
2.2.3 Non-CEM CMS must sample the regulated parameter without
interruption, and evaluate the detector response at least once each
15 seconds, and compute and record the average values at least every
60 seconds.
2.2.4 The span of the detector must not be exceeded. Span
limits shall be interlocked into the automatic waste feed cutoff
system.
* * * * *
PART 270--EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE HAZARDOUS WASTE
PERMIT PROGRAM
VIII. In part 270:
[[Page 17536]]
1. The authority citation for part 270 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912, 6924, 6925, 6927, 6939, and
6974.
2. Section 270.19 is amended by adding a sentence at the end of the
introductory text to the section.
Sec. 270.19 Specific part B information requirements for incinerators
* * * When an owner and operator begin to comply (i.e., submit a
notification of compliance) with the requirements of subpart EEE, part
63, of this chapter, specific requirements of Secs. 264.343, 264.345,
and 264.347 are superseded by the subpart EEE standards as provided by
Sec. 264.340(b).
* * * * *
3. Section 270.22 is amended by adding introductory text to read as
follows:
Sec. 270.22 Specific part B information requirements for boilers and
industrial furnaces burning hazardous waste.
When an owner and operator of a cement or lightweight aggregate
kiln begin to comply (i.e., submit a notification of compliance) with
the requirements of subpart EEE, part 63, of this chapter, specific
requirements of Secs. 266.104 through 266.107 are superseded by the
subpart EEE standards as provided by Sec. 266.102(a)(2).
* * * * *
4. In Appendix I to Sec. 270.42, an entry is added to section L.
Appendix I to Sec. 270.42--Classification of Permit Modification
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification Class
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
L. Incinerators, Boilers, and Industrial Furnaces
* * * * *
9.2 Initial Technology Changes Needed to Meet Standards under
40 CFR Part 63 (Subpart EEE--National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants From Hazardous Waste Combustors)''.. 11
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Class 1 modifications requiring prior Agency approval.
\2\ Denotes that this section will be dropped from Appendix I 4 years
following promulgation of this rule.
5. Section 270.62 is amended by adding introductory text and
revising paragraph (b)(2)(vii), to read as follows:
Sec. 270.62 Hazardous waste incinerator permits.
When an owner and operator begin to comply (i.e., submit a
notification of compliance) with the requirements of subpart EEE, part
63, of this chapter, specific requirements of Secs. 264.343, 264.345,
and 264.347 are superseded by the subpart EEE standards as provided by
Sec. 264.340(b).
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(vii) Procedures for rapidly stopping waste feed, shutting down the
combustor, maintaining temperature in the combustion chamber until all
waste exits the combustor, and controlling emissions in the event of
equipment malfunction or activation of any ESV or other bypass system
including calculations demonstrating that emissions will be controlled
during such an event (sufficient oxygen for combustion and maintaining
negative pressure), and the procedures for executing the ``Contingency
Plan'' whenever the ESV is used, thus causing an emergency release of
emissions.
* * * * *
6. Section 270.66 is amended by adding introductory text to read as
follows:
Sec. 270.66 Permits for boilers and industrial furnaces burning
hazardous waste.
When an owner and operator of a cement or lightweight aggregate
kiln begin to comply (i.e., submit a notification of compliance) with
the requirements of subpart EEE, part 63 of this chapter, specific
requirements of Sec. 266.104 through 266.107 are superseded by the
subpart EEE standards as provided by Sec. 266.102(a)(2).
* * * * *
7. Section 270.72 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(8) to read as
follows:
Sec. 270.72 Changes during interim status.
(b) * * *
(8) Changes necessary to comply with standards under subpart EEE,
part 63, of this chapter (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants From Hazardous Waste Combustors).
* * * * *
PART 271--REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTHORIZATION OF STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE
PROGRAMS
IX. In part 271:
1. The authority citation for part 271 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9602; 33 U.S.C. 1321 and 1361.
Subpart A--Requirements for Final Authorization
2. Section 271.1(j) is amended by adding the following entries to
Table 1 in chronological order by date of publication in the Federal
Register to read as follows:
Sec. 271.1 Purpose and scope.
* * * * *
(j) * * *
Table 1.--Regulations Implementing the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Register
Promulgation date Title of regulation reference Effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
[Insert date of publication of final Revised Standards for [Insert FR page [Insert date of
rule in the Federal Register (FR)].. Hazardous Waste numbers].. publication of final
Combustion Facilities. rule].
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-7872 Filed 4-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.