[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 231 (Monday, December 1, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72962-73003]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-27732]
[[Page 72961]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 60
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste
Incinerators; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 231 / Monday, December 1, 2008 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 72962]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0534; FRL-8743-1]
RIN 2060-A004
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste
Incinerators
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On September 15, 1997, EPA adopted new source performance
standards (NSPS) and emission guidelines (EG) for hospital/medical/
infectious waste incinerators (HMIWI). The NSPS and EG were established
under sections 111 and 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). The
Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council (Sierra Club)
filed suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit (the Court) challenging EPA's methodology for adopting the
regulations. On March 2, 1999, the Court remanded the rule to EPA for
further explanation of the Agency's reasoning in determining the
minimum regulatory ``floors'' for new and existing HMIWI. The Court did
not vacate the regulations, so the NSPS and EG remain in effect and
were fully implemented by September 2002.
On February 6, 2007, EPA published a proposed response to the
Court's remand and a proposed response to the CAA section 129(a)(5)
requirement to review the NSPS and EG every 5 years. However, following
recent court decisions and receipt of public comments regarding that
proposal, we chose to re-assess our response to the Court's remand.
Therefore, this action provides the results of EPA's reassessment in
the form of another proposed response to the Court's remand and
solicits public comment regarding it. This re-proposal also satisfies
the CAA section 129(a)(5) requirement to conduct a review of the
standards every 5 years.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before February 17,
2009. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information
collection provisions must be received by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) on or before December 31, 2008. Because of the need to
resolve the issues raised in this action in a timely manner, EPA will
not grant requests for extensions beyond these dates.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA by December 22, 2008
requesting to speak at a public hearing, EPA will hold a public hearing
on January 15, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2006-0534, by one of the following methods:
http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
E-mail: Send your comments via electronic mail to [email protected], Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0534.
Facsimile: Fax your comments to (202) 566-9744, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0534.
Mail: Send your comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0534. Please include a total of two copies. We request that a
separate copy also be sent to the contact person identified below (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Hand Delivery: Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/
DC), EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0534.
Such deliveries are accepted only during the normal hours of operation
(8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays), and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0534. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Public Hearing: If a public hearing is held, it will be held at
EPA's Campus located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive in Research Triangle
Park, NC, or an alternate site nearby. Contact Ms. Pamela Garrett at
(919) 541-7966 to request a hearing, to request to speak at a public
hearing, to determine if a hearing will be held, or to determine the
hearing location. If no one contacts EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing concerning this proposed rule by December 22, 2008, the
hearing will be cancelled without further notice.
Docket: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0534 and Legacy Docket ID No. A-91-61. All
documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center
EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the
EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Mary Johnson, Energy Strategies
Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-01), Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number: (919) 541-5025; fax number: (919) 541-5450; e-mail
address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Organization of This Document. The following
outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.
I. General Information
[[Page 72963]]
A. Does the proposed action apply to me?
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments?
II. Background
III. Summary
A. Litigation and Proposed Remand Response
B. Proposed CAA Section 129(a)(5) 5-Year Review Response
C. Other Proposed Amendments
D. Proposed Implementation Schedule for Existing HMIWI
E. Proposed Changes to the Applicability Date of the 1997 NSPS
IV. Rationale
A. Rationale for the Proposed Response to the Remand
B. Rationale for the Proposed CAA Section 129(a)(5) 5-Year
Review Response
C. Rationale for Other Proposed Amendments
V. Impacts of the Proposed Action for Existing Units
A. What are the primary air impacts?
B. What are the water and solid waste impacts?
C. What are the energy impacts?
D. What are the secondary air impacts?
E. What are the cost and economic impacts?
VI. Impacts of the Proposed Action for New Units
A. What are the primary air impacts?
B. What are the water and solid waste impacts?
C. What are the energy impacts?
D. What are the secondary air impacts?
E. What are the cost and economic impacts?
VII. Relationship of the Proposed Action to Section 112(c)(6) of the
CAA
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. General Information
A. Does the proposed action apply to me?
Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially affected by
the proposed action are those which operate HMIWI. The NSPS and EG for
HMIWI affect the following categories of sources:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of potentially
Category NAICS Code regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry....................... 622110 Private hospitals,
other health care
facilities, commercial
research laboratories,
commercial waste
disposal companies,
private universities
622310
325411
325412
562213
611310
Federal Government............. 622110 Federal hospitals,
other health care
facilities, public
health service, armed
services
541710
928110
State/local/Tribal Government.. 622110 State/local hospitals,
other health care
facilities, State/
local waste disposal
services, State
universities
562213
611310
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the
proposed action. To determine whether your facility would be affected
by the proposed action, you should examine the applicability criteria
in 40 CFR 60.50c of subpart Ec and 40 CFR 60.32e of subpart Ce. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of the proposed action
to a particular entity, contact the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments?
1. Submitting CBI
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or
deliver information identified as CBI to only the following address:
Ms. Mary Johnson, c/o OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room C404-02),
U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0534. Clearly mark the part or all of the information
that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that
you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version
of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the
comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information marked as CBI
will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming
CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
When submitting comments, remember to:
a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
b. Follow directions. EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
[[Page 72964]]
deadline identified in the preceding section titled DATES.
3. Docket
The docket number for the proposed action regarding the HMIWI NSPS
(40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec) and EG (40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce) is
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0534.
4. Worldwide Web (WWW)
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
the proposed action is available on the WWW through the Technology
Transfer Network Web site (TTN Web). Following signature, EPA posted a
copy of the proposed action on the TTN's policy and guidance page for
newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.
The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas
of air pollution control.
II. Background
Section 129 of the CAA, entitled ``Solid Waste Combustion,''
requires EPA to develop and adopt NSPS and EG for solid waste
incineration units pursuant to CAA sections 111 and 129. Sections
111(b) and 129(a) of the CAA (NSPS program) address emissions from new
HMIWI, and CAA sections 111(d) and 129(b) (EG program) address
emissions from existing HMIWI. The NSPS are directly enforceable
Federal regulations, and under CAA section 129(f)(1) become effective 6
months after promulgation. Under CAA section 129(f)(2), the EG become
effective and enforceable the sooner of 3 years after EPA approves a
State plan implementing the EG or 5 years after the date they are
promulgated.
An HMIWI is defined as any device used to burn hospital waste or
medical/infectious waste. Hospital waste means discards generated at a
hospital, and medical/infectious waste means any waste generated in the
diagnosis, treatment, or immunization of human beings or animals, in
research pertaining thereto, or in the production or testing of
biologicals (e.g., vaccines, cultures, blood or blood products, human
pathological waste, sharps). As explained in EPA's regulations,
hospital/medical/infectious waste does not include household waste,
hazardous waste, or human and animal remains not generated as medical
waste. An HMIWI typically is a small, dual-chamber incinerator that
burns on average about 800 pounds per hour (lb/hr) of waste. Smaller
units burn as little as 15 lb/hr while larger units burn as much as
3,700 lb/hr, on average.
Incineration of hospital/medical/infectious waste causes the
release of a wide array of air pollutants, some of which exist in the
waste feed material and are released unchanged during combustion, and
some of which are generated as a result of the combustion process
itself. These pollutants include particulate matter (PM); heavy metals,
including lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), and mercury (Hg); toxic organics,
including chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins/dibenzofurans (CDD/CDF); carbon
monoxide (CO); nitrogen oxides (NOX); and acid gases,
including hydrogen chloride (HCl) and sulfur dioxide (SO2).
In addition to the use of pollution prevention measures (i.e., waste
segregation) and good combustion control practices, HMIWI are typically
controlled by wet scrubbers or dry sorbent injection fabric filters
(dry scrubbers).
Waste segregation is the separation of certain components of the
healthcare waste stream in order to reduce the amount of air pollution
emissions associated with that waste when incinerated. The separated
waste may include paper, cardboard, plastics, glass, batteries, or
metals. Separation of these types of wastes reduces the amount of
chlorine- and metal-containing wastes being incinerated, which results
in lower potential emissions of HCl, CDD/CDF, Hg, Cd, and Pb.
Combustion control includes the proper design, construction,
operation, and maintenance of HMIWI to destroy or prevent the formation
of air pollutants prior to their release to the atmosphere. Test data
indicate that as secondary chamber residence time and temperature
increase, emissions decrease. Combustion control is most effective in
reducing CDD/CDF, PM, and CO emissions. The 2-second combustion level,
which includes a minimum secondary chamber temperature of 1800[deg]F
and residence time of 2 seconds, is considered to be the best level of
combustion control (i.e., good combustion) that is applied to HMIWI.
Wet scrubbers and dry scrubbers provide control of PM, CDD/CDF, HCl,
and metals, but do not influence CO, or NOX and have little
impact on SO2 at the low concentrations emitted by HMIWI.
(See Legacy Docket ID No. A-91-61, item II-A-111; 60 FR 10669, 10671-
10677; and 61 FR 31742-31743.)
On September 15, 1997, EPA adopted NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart
Ec) and EG (40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce) for entities which operate
HMIWI. The NSPS and EG are designed to reduce air pollution emitted
from new and existing HMIWI, including HCl, CO, Pb, Cd, Hg, PM, CDD/CDF
(total, or 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin toxic equivalent
(TEQ)), NOX, SO2, and opacity. The NSPS apply to
HMIWI for which construction began after June 20, 1996, or for which
modification began after March 16, 1998. The NSPS became effective on
March 16, 1998, and apply as of that date or at start-up of a HMIWI,
whichever is later. The EG apply to HMIWI for which construction began
on or before June 20, 1996, and required compliance by September 2002.
The CAA sets forth a two-stage approach to regulating emissions
from incinerators. EPA has substantial discretion to distinguish among
classes, types and sizes of incinerator units within a category while
setting standards. In the first stage of setting standards, CAA section
129(a)(2) requires EPA to establish technology-based emission standards
that reflect levels of control EPA determines are achievable for new
and existing units, after considering costs, non-air quality health and
environmental impacts, and energy requirements associated with the
implementation of the standards. Section 129(a)(5) then directs EPA to
review those standards and revise them as necessary every 5 years. In
the second stage, section 129(h)(3) requires EPA to determine whether
further revisions of the standards are necessary in order to provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public health. See, e.g., NRDC and
LEAN v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1079-80 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (addressing the
similarly required two-stage approach under CAA sections 112(d) and
(f), and upholding EPA's implementation of same).
In setting forth the methodology EPA must use to establish the
first-stage technology-based NSPS and EG, CAA section 129(a)(2)
provides that standards ``applicable to solid waste incineration units
promulgated under section 111 and this section shall reflect the
maximum degree of reduction in emissions of [certain listed air
pollutants] that the Administrator, taking into consideration the cost
of achieving such emission reduction, and any non-air quality health
and environmental impacts and energy requirements, determines is
achievable for new and existing units in each category.'' This level of
control is referred to as a maximum achievable control technology, or
MACT standard.
In promulgating a MACT standard, EPA must first calculate the
minimum stringency levels for new and existing solid waste incineration
units in a category, generally based on levels of emissions control
achieved or required to be achieved by the subject units. The minimum
level of stringency is called
[[Page 72965]]
the MACT ``floor,'' and CAA section 129(a)(2) sets forth differing
levels of minimum stringency that EPA's standards must achieve, based
on whether they regulate new and reconstructed sources, or existing
sources. For new and reconstructed sources, CAA section 129(a)(2)
provides that the ``degree of reduction in emissions that is deemed
achievable [* * *] shall not be less stringent than the emissions
control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar
unit, as determined by the Administrator.'' Emissions standards for
existing units may be less stringent than standards for new units, but
``shall not be less stringent than the average emissions limitation
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of units in the category.''
The MACT floors form the least stringent regulatory option EPA may
consider in the determination of MACT standards for a source category.
EPA must also determine whether to control emissions ``beyond-the-
floor,'' after considering the costs, non-air quality health and
environmental impacts, and energy requirements of such more stringent
control. EPA made such MACT floor and beyond-the-floor determinations
in the 1997 HMIWI rulemaking, and the Court remanded them in 1999 for
further explanation, leaving the standards in force in the meantime. As
mentioned above, every 5 years after adopting a MACT standard under
section 129, CAA section 129(a)(5) requires EPA to review and, if
appropriate, revise the incinerator standards. In addition to
responding to the Court's remand in Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658
(D.C. Cir. 1999), the proposed action constitutes the first 5-year
review of the HMIWI standards.
III. Summary
A. Litigation and Proposed Remand Response
1. What is EPA's general methodology for determining MACT?
In general, all MACT analyses involve an assessment of the air
pollution control systems or technologies used by the better performing
units in a source category. The technology assessment can be based
solely on actual emissions data, on knowledge of the air pollution
control in place in combination with actual emissions data, or on State
regulatory requirements that may enable EPA to estimate the actual
performance of the regulated units. For each source category, the
assessment of the technology involves a review of actual emissions data
with an appropriate accounting for emissions variability. Where there
is more than one method or technology to control emissions, the
analysis may result in a series of potential regulations (called
regulatory options), one of which is selected as MACT.
Each regulatory option EPA may consider must be at least as
stringent as the CAA's minimum stringency ``floor'' requirements.
However, MACT is not necessarily the least stringent regulatory option.
EPA must examine, but is not necessarily required to adopt, more
stringent ``beyond-the-floor'' regulatory options to determine MACT.
Unlike the floor minimum stringency requirements, EPA must consider
various impacts of the more stringent regulatory options in determining
whether MACT standards are to reflect ``beyond-the-floor''
requirements. If EPA concludes that the more stringent regulatory
options have unreasonable impacts, EPA selects the ``floor-based''
regulatory option as MACT. But if EPA concludes that impacts associated
with ``beyond-the-floor'' levels of control are acceptable in light of
additional emissions reductions achieved, EPA selects those levels as
MACT.
As stated earlier, the CAA requires that MACT for new sources be no
less stringent than the emissions control achieved in practice by the
best controlled similar unit. Under CAA section 129(a)(2), EPA
determines the best control currently in use for a given pollutant and
establishes one potential regulatory option at the emission level
achieved by that control with an appropriate accounting for emissions
variability. More stringent potential regulatory options might reflect
controls used on other sources that could be applied to the source
category in question.
For existing sources, the CAA requires that MACT be no less
stringent than the average emissions limitation achieved by the best
performing 12 percent of units in a source category. EPA must determine
some measure of the average emissions limitation achieved by the best
performing 12 percent of units to form the floor regulatory option.
More stringent beyond-the-floor regulatory options reflect other or
additional controls capable of achieving better performance.
2. What was EPA's methodology in the 1997 HMIWI rulemaking?
On February 27, 1995, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
regarding emissions standards for HMIWI (60 FR 10654). The proposal was
the result of several years of reviewing available information. During
the public comment period for the proposal, EPA received new
information that led EPA to consider the need for numerous changes to
the proposed rule, and on June 20, 1996, the Agency published a re-
proposal (61 FR 31736). EPA published the final rule on September 15,
1997 (62 FR 48348).
During the data-gathering phase of developing the 1995 proposal,
EPA found it difficult to obtain an accurate count of the thousands of
HMIWI that then operated nationwide, or to find HMIWI with add-on air
pollution control systems in place. A few HMIWI with combustion control
were tested to assess performance of combustion control in reducing
emissions. One unit with a wet scrubber, and a few units with dry
scrubbing systems were tested to determine performance capabilities of
add-on controls. (See 61 FR 31738.)
Altogether, data were available from only 7 out of the estimated
then-operating 3,700 existing HMIWI (60 FR 10674). EPA developed the
proposed regulations with the existing data, but EPA specifically
requested comment on EPA's MACT determinations and on EPA's conclusions
about the performance capabilities of air pollution control
technologies on HMIWI in light of the relatively small database (60 FR
10686).
a. EPA's Methodology in the 1997 Rulemaking for New HMIWI. In
determining the MACT floor for new HMIWI in the 1997 rulemaking, EPA
first examined the data available for various air pollution control
technologies applied to HMIWI to determine the performance capabilities
of the technologies (60 FR 10671-73, 61 FR 31741-43). To determine the
performance capabilities, EPA grouped all of the test data by control
technology and established the numerical value for corresponding
emission limitations somewhat higher than the highest test data point
for each particular control technology. (See Legacy Docket ID No. A-91-
61, items IV-B-46, 47, 48, and 49.) Following the determination of
performance capability, EPA identified the best control technology for
each air pollutant for each subcategory of HMIWI, and established the
numerical values for the floor regulatory option at the emission
limitation associated with that particular control technology. (See 60
FR 10673; Legacy Docket ID No. A-91-61, item IV-B-38; 61 FR 31745-46.)
Other, more stringent, beyond-the-floor regulatory options were
developed reflecting the actual performance of other, more effective,
control technologies (61 FR 31766-68).
In EPA's 1997 final standards, EPA selected a regulatory option for
new HMIWI that was, overall, more stringent
[[Page 72966]]
than the identified MACT floor (62 FR 48365). The final standards were
based on emission limits achievable with good combustion and a
moderate-efficiency wet scrubber for new small HMIWI (units with
maximum waste burning capacity of less than or equal to 200 lb/hr), and
good combustion and a combined dry/wet control system with carbon for
new medium HMIWI (units with maximum waste burning capacity of more
than 200 lb/hr but less than or equal to 500 lb/hr) and new large HMIWI
(units with maximum waste burning capacity of more than 500 lb/hr). Id.
These standards reflected the MACT floor emissions levels for new small
and large HMIWI, but were more stringent than the MACT floor for new
medium HMIWI, based on the floor-determination methodology EPA used as
described above. Id. EPA estimated that the standards would reduce
emissions from these units of HCl by up to 98 percent, PM and Pb by up
to 92 percent, Cd by up to 91 percent, CDD/CDF by up to 87 percent, Hg
by up to 74 percent, and CO, SO2, and NOX by up
to 52 percent (62 FR 48366).
b. EPA's Methodology in the 1997 Rulemaking for Existing HMIWI. For
existing units, EPA did not have sufficient emissions data to fully
characterize the actual emissions performance of the best performing 12
percent of existing HMIWI. Based exclusively on the data it did have,
EPA concluded that it did not have a clear indication of the technology
used by the best 12 percent of units. As a result, EPA used emission
limits included in State regulations and State-issued permits
(hereinafter referred to as regulatory limits) as surrogate information
to determine emissions limitations achieved by the best performing 12
percent of units in each subcategory (60 FR 10674). At that time, EPA
expected this information reflected levels of performance achieved on a
continuous basis by better-controlled units, since the units had to
meet these limits or risk violating enforceable requirements. EPA
assumed that all HMIWI were achieving their regulatory limits (60 FR
10674). Where there were regulatory limits for more than 12 percent of
units in a subcategory, the regulatory limits were ranked from the most
stringent to least stringent, and the average of the regulatory limits
for the top 12 percent of units in the subcategory was calculated. Id.;
61 FR 31744-45. Where the number of units subject to specific emissions
limitations did not comprise 12 percent of the population in a
subcategory, EPA assumed those units with regulatory limits were the
best performing units, and the remaining units in the top 12 percent
were assigned an emission value associated with ``combustion control.''
(See 60 FR 10674; 61 FR 31745; Legacy Docket ID No. A-91-61, item IV-B-
24 at 2.) In previous Federal Register notices regarding HMIWI (60 FR
10654, 61 FR 31736, and 62 FR 48348), this level of control was
referred to as ``uncontrolled,'' which is misleading because sources
with combustion control emit lesser amounts of CDD/CDF, CO, and PM than
would a truly ``uncontrolled'' source. Where regulatory limits did not
fill 12 percent of the source category, the average of the regulatory
limits plus enough combustion-controlled emission values to account for
12 percent of units in the subcategory was calculated. (See Legacy
Docket ID No. A-91-61, item IV-B-24 at 2-4.)
After calculating the averages of regulatory limits and combustion-
controlled emission values, EPA examined the resulting calculated
values to determine what level of air pollution control would be needed
to meet the calculated average values. (See 60 FR 10675-78; 61 FR
31755-56.) For many pollutants, the calculated averages presented no
clear indication of the type of air pollution control used by the best
performing units. However, the calculated values for three key
pollutants, PM, CO, and HCl, did provide a good indication of the type
of air pollution control used on the best performing 12 percent of
units. The level of air pollution control associated with the
calculated average values for PM, CO, and HCl formed the technical
basis of the MACT floor regulatory option considered by EPA (61 FR
31756, Table 13). The emission limitations assigned to each pollutant
reflected the actual performance of the technology on which they were
based. Finally, EPA developed a series of regulatory options based on
progressively more stringent technologies and assigned emission
limitations to each regulatory option based on the actual performance
capabilities of the technologies (61 FR 31757, Table 14).
In EPA's final standards promulgated in 1997, EPA selected a
regulatory option for existing HMIWI that was overall more stringent
than the floor, based on the floor determination methodology described
above (62 FR 48371). The final standards were based on emission limits
achievable with good combustion and a low-efficiency wet scrubber for
most existing small HMIWI, good combustion and a moderate-efficiency
wet scrubber for existing medium HMIWI, and good combustion and a high-
efficiency wet scrubber for existing large HMIWI (62 FR 48371). The
final standards allow small HMIWI that meet certain rural criteria to
meet emissions limits achievable with good combustion alone. Id. These
standards reflected the identified MACT floor emissions levels for
existing small HMIWI meeting rural criteria, medium HMIWI, and large
HMIWI, but were more stringent than the MACT floor for most existing
small HMIWI (i.e., non-rural), based on the methodology EPA used then
(62 FR 48371-72). The final standards for existing medium and large
HMIWI were structured so that either a dry scrubber or a wet scrubber
could be used to achieve the emission limits. EPA estimated that the
final EG would reduce emissions of CDD/CDF by up to 97 percent, Hg by
up to 95 percent, PM by up to 92 percent, Pb by up to 87 percent, Cd by
up to 84 percent, CO by up to 82 percent, HCl by up to 98 percent, and
SO2 and NOX by up to 30 percent (62 FR 48372).
Table 1 of this preamble summarizes the emission limits for the NSPS
and EG promulgated in 1997.
Table 1--Summary of Promulgated Emission Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limit for existing
Pollutant (units) Unit size \1\ HMIWI \2\ Limit for new HMIWI \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl (parts per million by volume L, M, S................ 100 or 93% reduction... 15 or 99% reduction
(ppmv)).
SR..................... 3,100.................. N/A \3\
CO (ppmv)............................ L, M, S................ 40..................... 40
SR..................... 40..................... N/A
Pb (milligrams per dry standard cubic L, M................... 1.2 or 70% reduction... 0.07 or 98% reduction
meter (mg/dscm)). \3\
S...................... 1.2 or 70% reduction... 1.2 or 70% reduction
[[Page 72967]]
SR..................... 10..................... N/A
Cd (mg/dscm)......................... L, M................... 0.16 or 65% reduction.. 0.04 or 90% reduction
S...................... 0.16 or 65% reduction.. 0.16 or 65% reduction
SR..................... 4...................... N/A
Hg (mg/dscm)......................... L, M , S............... 0.55 or 85% reduction.. 0.55 or 85% reduction
SR..................... 7.5.................... N/A
PM (grains per dry standard cubic L...................... 0.015.................. 0.015
foot (gr/dscf)).
M...................... 0.03................... 0.015
S...................... 0.05................... 0.03
SR..................... 0.086.................. N/A
CDD/CDF, total (nanograms per dry L, M................... 125.................... 25
standard cubic meter (ng/dscm)).
S...................... 125.................... 125
SR..................... 800.................... N/A
CDD/CDF, TEQ (ng/dscm)............... L, M................... 2.3.................... 0.6
S...................... 2.3.................... 2.3
SR..................... 15..................... N/A
NOX (ppmv)........................... L, M, S................ 250.................... 250
SR..................... 250.................... N/A
SO2 (ppmv)........................... L, M, S................ 55..................... 55
SR..................... 55..................... N/A
Opacity (%).......................... L, M, S, SR............ 10..................... 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ L = Large; M = Medium; S = Small; SR = Small Rural.
\2\ All emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxygen.
\3\ Not applicable.
c. Compliance by HMIWI. At the time of promulgation (September
1997), EPA estimated that there were approximately 2,400 HMIWI still
operating in the United States. Those units combusted approximately 830
thousand tons of hospital/medical/infectious waste annually. Of those
existing HMIWI, about 48 percent were small units, 29 percent were
medium units, and 20 percent were large units. About 3 percent of the
HMIWI were commercial units. EPA projected that no new small or medium
HMIWI would be constructed, and that up to 60 new large units and 10
new commercial units would be constructed.
After approximately 98 percent of the HMIWI that were operating in
1997 shut down or obtained exemptions, there remain only 52 existing
HMIWI at 47 facilities from the set of 2,400 that operated at
promulgation. Additionally, only 5 new HMIWI at 4 facilities began
operation following the 1997 rulemaking. The total 57 existing and new
units are estimated to combust approximately 146,000 tons of waste
annually. Of the 52 existing HMIWI subject to the EG, 33 are large
units, 16 are medium units, and 3 are small units (2 of which meet the
rural criteria). Twenty-three percent of the existing HMIWI (i.e., 14
units) are commercially owned. Of the five new HMIWI, three are large
units, one is a medium unit, and one is a small unit. Two of the new
units are county-owned but accept waste from other sources, similar to
commercial units. The actual emissions reductions achieved as a result
of implementation of the standards exceeded the 1997 projections for
all nine of the regulated pollutants. A comparison of the estimated
pollutant reductions versus the actual reductions is presented in Table
2 of this preamble.
Table 2--Comparison of Estimated Pollutant Reductions Versus Actual Pollutant Reductions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual
Estimated emissions emissions Emissions reduction Emissions reduction
Pollutant reduction, percent reduction, due to shutdowns/ due to compliance
percent \1\ exemptions with standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl.............................. 98................. 98.4 98.3............... 0.1
CO............................... 75 to 82........... 98.0 94.8............... 3.2
Pb............................... 80 to 87........... 98.2 95.9............... 2.3
Cd............................... 75 to 84........... 98.7 95.4............... 3.3
Hg............................... 93 to 95........... 97.8 94.6............... 3.2
PM............................... 88 to 92........... 95.6 92.8............... 2.9
CDD/CDF, total................... 96 to 97........... 99.4 97.3............... 2.0
CDD/CDF, TEQ..................... 95 to 97........... 99.4 97.2............... 2.2
-----------------------------------------
NOX.............................. 0 to 30............ 56.7 see footnote 2
SO2.............................. 0 to 30............ 76.2 see footnote 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects the effect of unit shutdowns and exemptions that were obtained, as well as the effect of compliance
with the promulgated standards.
\2\ Percentages cannot be accurately calculated because units were not required to conduct emissions testing for
NOX and SO2.
[[Page 72968]]
3. What was the Sierra Club's challenge?
On November 14, 1997, the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources
Defense Council (Sierra Club) filed suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court). The Sierra Club
claimed that EPA violated CAA section 129 by setting emission standards
for HMIWI that are less stringent than required by section 129(a)(2);
that EPA violated section 129 by not including pollution prevention or
waste minimization requirements; and that EPA had not adequately
considered the non-air quality health and environmental impacts of the
standards. For new units, the Sierra Club argued that to satisfy the
statutory phrase ``best controlled similar unit'' in CAA section
129(a)(2), EPA should have identified the single best performing unit
in each subcategory and based the MACT floor on that particular unit's
performance, rather than consider the performance of other units using
the same technology. The Sierra Club also argued that EPA erroneously
based the new unit floors on the emissions of the worst performing unit
using a particular technology. Regarding existing units, the Sierra
Club claimed that CAA section 129(a)(2)'s words, ``average emissions
limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of units,''
preclude the use of regulatory data, and that the legislative history
reflects congressional intent to prohibit EPA from relying on
regulatory data. Moreover, the Sierra Club claimed that using
regulatory data was impossible because such data existed for fewer than
12 percent of HMIWI, and that using it impermissibly imported an
achievability requirement into the floor determination. Finally, the
Sierra Club argued that EPA failed to require HMIWI to undertake
programs to reduce the Hg and chlorinated plastic in their waste
streams, in violation of CAA section 129(a)(3).
4. What was the Court's ruling?
On March 2, 1999, the Court issued its opinion in Sierra Club v.
EPA, 167 F.3d 658 (D.C. Cir. 1999). While the Court rejected the Sierra
Club's statutory arguments under CAA section 129, the Court remanded
the rule to EPA for further explanation regarding how EPA derived the
MACT floors for new and existing HMIWI. Furthermore, the Court did not
vacate the regulations, and the regulations remain in effect during the
remand.
a. The Court's Ruling on New Units. Regarding EPA's treatment of
new units, the Court first opined that EPA would be justified in
setting the floors at a level that is a reasonable estimate of the
performance of the ``best controlled similar unit'' under the worst
reasonably foreseeable circumstances. The Court observed that if an
emissions standard is as stringent as ``the emissions control that is
achieved in practice'' by a particular unit, then that particular unit
will not violate the standard. But this would result only if ``achieved
in practice'' means ``achieved under the worst foreseeable
circumstances.'' The Court then stated that in National Lime Ass'n v.
EPA, 627 F.2d 416, 431 n. 46 (D.C. Cir. 1980), it held that where a
statute requires that a standard be ``achievable,'' it must be
achievable ``under most adverse circumstances which can reasonably be
expected to recur,'' and the same principle should apply when a
standard is to be derived from the operating characteristics of a
particular unit. Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d at 665.
The Court refused to rule that EPA's approach of considering
emissions of units other than the single best controlled unit was
unlawful, and suggested that considering all units with the same
technology might be a justifiable way to predict the worst reasonably
foreseeable performance of the best unit. The Court also supposed that
EPA may have considered all units with the same technology equally
``well-controlled,'' so that each unit with the best technology is a
``best-controlled unit'' even if they vary in performance. Sierra Club
v. EPA, 167 F.3d at 665.
However, the Court concluded that the possible rationale for this
treatment of new units was not presented in the rulemaking record with
enough clarity for the Court to determine that EPA's path may
reasonably be discerned, and that EPA had not explained why the phrase
best controlled similar unit could encompass all units using the same
technology as the unit with the best observed performance, rather than
just the single best unit. Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d at 665. The
Court further directed EPA to provide additional explanation regarding
how the Agency had calculated the upper bound of the best-controlled
unit's performance through rounding. Id.
b. The Court's Ruling on Existing Units. With respect to existing
units, the Court first rejected the Sierra Club's statutory objections
to using regulatory data and ``uncontrolled'' (i.e., combustion-
controlled) emissions values. Then, after analyzing and rejecting the
Sierra Club's arguments that the plain language of the CAA and its
legislative history forbid EPA's methodology, the Court held that the
use of regulatory data is permissible as long as it allows a reasonable
inference as to the performance of the top 12 percent of units.
Similarly, as long as there is a reasonable basis for concluding that
some of the best performing 12 percent of units are combustion
controlled, EPA may include data points giving a reasonable
representation of the performance of those units. Sierra Club v. EPA,
167 F.3d at 662, 663.
However, the Court concluded that, although EPA said that it
believed the combination of regulatory and combustion-controlled data
gave an accurate picture of HMIWI performance, EPA did not account for
the possibility that HMIWI might be substantially overachieving the
permit limits, which would cause permit limits to be of little value in
estimating the top 12 percent of HMIWI performance. In addition, EPA
did not give a reason for assuming that HMIWI that were not subject to
permit requirements did not deploy emission controls of any sort. Id.,
at 663-664. The Court further questioned the rationality of EPA using
the highest of its test run data in cases where the regulatory data did
not alone comprise the necessary 12 percent. Id., at 664.
5. What was EPA's methodology in the 2007 proposed remand response?
Following the 1999 remand of the HMIWI MACT floors in Sierra Club
v. EPA, but prior to EPA's February 6, 2007, proposed response to the
Court remand, the Court issued a series of rulings in other cases
addressing MACT rules that were relevant to and guided EPA's
development of the February 2007 proposed response regarding HMIWI.
Those rulings and their relevance are fully explained in sections
III.A.4.c. and IV.A. of the preamble to EPA's February 2007 proposal
(72 FR 5510). The first of these was Nat'l Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 233 F.3d
625 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (NLA II), which involved EPA's MACT standards
under CAA section 112(d) for portland cement manufacturing facilities.
In that case, the Sierra Club argued that EPA should have based its
estimate of the top performing 12 percent of sources on actual
emissions data. But the Court determined that EPA's approach of
selecting the median performing plant out of the best twelve percent of
the plants for which EPA had information and setting the floor at the
level of the worst performing plant in the database using the same
technology as the median plant had not been shown to be unreasonable.
NLA II, 233 F.3d at 633.
In addition, the Court partially clarified its position regarding
EPA's approach of accounting for emissions
[[Page 72969]]
performance variability by setting floors at a level that reasonably
estimates the performance of the ``best controlled similar unit'' under
the worst reasonably foreseeable circumstances. First, the Court
stressed that EPA should not simply set floors at levels reflecting the
worst foreseeable circumstances faced by any worst performing unit in a
given source category. Second, the Court stated that considering all
units with the same technology may be a justifiable way to predict the
worst reasonably foreseeable performance of such technology only if
pollution control technology were the only factor determining emission
levels of that HAP. NLA II, 233 F.3d at 633.
In Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d 855 (D.C. Cir.
2001) (CKRC), the Court again addressed when it is appropriate for EPA
to base MACT floors on the performance of air pollution control
technology. The Sierra Club challenged EPA's MACT standards for
hazardous waste combustors (HWC), and argued that factors other than
MACT technology influenced the emissions performance of the best
performing sources.
The Court agreed that since the HWC rulemaking record showed that
factors besides technological controls significantly influenced HWC
emission rates, emissions of the worst-performing source using
technology may not reflect what the best-performers actually achieve.
CKRC, 255 F.3d at 864. EPA had claimed that MACT floors must be
achievable by all sources using MACT technology, and that to account
for the best-performing sources' operational variability we had to base
floors on the worst performers' emissions. But the Court stressed that
whether variability in the control technology accurately estimates
emissions variability of the best performing sources depends on whether
factors other than technological control contribute to emissions. The
Court stated that the relevant question is whether the variability
experienced by the best-performing sources can be estimated by relying
on emissions data from the worst-performing sources using technological
controls. Id., at 865. However, the Court also reiterated that if the
Agency can demonstrate with substantial evidence that MACT technology
significantly controls emissions, or that factors other than
technological control have a negligible effect, the MACT approach could
be a reasonable means of satisfying the statute's requirements. Id., at
866.
EPA's February 2007 proposed response to the HMIWI remand was based
on a reassessment of information and data that were available at the
time of promulgation in 1997, in light of the Agency's understanding of
the Court's rulings in the Sierra Club, NLA II, CKRC and other cases
discussed in our 2007 proposal notice. The proposed response would have
revised some of the emission limits in both the NSPS and EG. Relative
to the NSPS, the emission limits for CO, Pb, Cd, Hg, PM, and CDD/CDF
would have been revised. Relative to the EG, the emission limits for
HCl, Pb, Cd, and CDD/CDF would have been revised. EPA believed that the
revised emission limits proposed in February 2007 as a result of its
response to the remand could be achieved with the same emission control
technology currently used by HMIWI to meet the 1997 rule.
a. EPA's Methodology in the 2007 Proposal for New HMIWI. The
revised standards for new HMIWI in the 2007 proposal were based on the
same technologies upon which the 1997 final standards were based. In
general, we proposed emission limits for each air pollutant for each
subcategory of new HMIWI based on the highest observed data points
associated with the control technologies upon which the emission
standards were based, since we identified the ``best controlled similar
unit'' as one using the relevant control technologies for each
subcategory of new units. This was a similar MACT determination
approach to that used at the time of promulgation, with two significant
differences--the proposed limits did not include the addition of 10
percent to the highest observed emissions levels, nor did it include
the rounding up of those figures. The 2007 proposal's revised MACT
determination approach for new HMIWI and its rationale were explained
in detail in section IV.A.1. of the preamble to EPA's February 2007
proposal (72 FR 5510).
b. EPA's Methodology in the 2007 Proposal for Existing HMIWI.
Although the proposed revised standards for existing HMIWI in the 2007
proposal were generally based on the same technologies upon which the
1997 final standards were based, they also reflected a number of
changes to the MACT determination approach used at promulgation. In
determining the best performing existing HMIWI, regulatory limits that
reflected higher emissions levels than those corresponding to EPA's
combustion-controlled emission estimates were not used. Furthermore,
where actual emissions test data reflecting emissions performance were
available in the 1997 record, those data took precedence over other
types of data (i.e., regulatory limits or performance values) and were
the initial type of pollutant-specific values considered. Additionally,
where we had some indication that add-on controls may have been used
but there were no test data or regulatory limits for that source, we
did not use combustion-controlled emission estimates in the floor
calculations to represent the performance of those sources. Rather, an
average of the maximum dry and wet control system performance was
determined for each pollutant, and those values were added to the data
set towards comprising the best performing 12 percent. These default
performance values also were used where regulatory limits existed but
were higher than the default performance values.
In the 2007 proposal, the average emission limitation achieved by
the best performing 12 percent of existing sources was determined using
the median as a measure of central tendency. This approach resulted in
the emission level that corresponds to that of the best performing 6
percent of sources (i.e., the 94th percentile) representing the MACT
floor control level. MACT floors for each pollutant within each
subcategory were based on this approach. We then determined the
technology associated with each ``average of the best-performing 12
percent'' value by comparing the average values to average performance
data for wet scrubbers, dry injection fabric filters (also known as dry
scrubbers), and combustion controls (no add-on air pollution controls).
The technology needed to meet the average values reflected the
technology used by the 94th percentile unit and served as the basis for
the proposed revised MACT floor.
Numerical emission limits were determined by combining the
appropriate average emission value for each pollutant within each
subcategory of HMIWI with a variability factor. The 2002 compliance
test data for HMIWI were used in calculating pollutant-specific
variability factors. While these data were not available at the time of
promulgation of the 1997 rule, we believed that they were the best data
available in 2007 for providing a quantitative assessment of
variability of emissions from well-controlled HMIWI. To determine the
pollutant-specific variability factors, a statistical analysis was
conducted. Specifically, the emission limit for each pollutant was
determined based on the combination of actual emissions test data,
regulatory data, and estimated performance levels (as described
earlier) and a statistics-based variability factor calculated for each
pollutant. A detailed explanation of the 2007 proposed revised MACT
determination approach for existing
[[Page 72970]]
HMIWI and its rationale was set forth in section IV.A.2. of the
preamble to EPA's February 2007 proposal (72 FR 5510).
6. Why is EPA re-proposing a response to the remand?
EPA's decision to re-propose its response to the Court's remand is
based on a number of factors, including further rulings by the U.S.
Court of Appeals that issued after our 2007 proposal was published. In
addition, public comments regarding the 2007 proposal raised issues
that, upon further consideration, we believe are best addressed through
a re-proposal. One issue regards the use of emission limits included in
State regulations and State-issued permits as surrogates for estimated
actual emissions limitations achieved. As previously stated, EPA used
regulatory limits in its MACT floor determinations supporting the 1997
rulemaking for HMIWI. At that time, we believed this information could
be expected to reliably reflect levels of performance achieved by HMIWI
on a continuous basis. In the 2007 proposed response to the Court's
remand, with adjustments to our methodology as described above, we
continued to use some of the regulatory limits to determine achieved
MACT floor emissions limitations. Upon reassessment of the regulatory
limits and minimal emissions test data in the 1997 record, however, it
is uncertain how well the regulatory limits represented the performance
of each HMIWI. Given the uncertainty regarding whether the regulatory
limits that specific HMIWI were subject to at the time of promulgation
provided a reasonable estimate of emissions limitations achieved by
those HMIWI, the inability to gather additional information regarding
non-operational units (approximately 98 percent shut down or obtained
exemptions), and the fact that we now have some actual emissions data
from the HMIWI remaining in operation, we believe the best course of
action is to re-propose a response to the remand based on data from the
57 currently operating HMIWI. This data is the most reliable we have
obtained that reflects the emissions levels achieved in practice by the
best performing HMIWI.
Another issue regards EPA's previous reliance on control technology
performance as the sole indicator of HMIWI performance in making MACT
floor determinations, which did not necessarily account for other
factors that affect emissions (e.g., waste mix, combustion conditions).
Commenters on our 2007 proposal specifically asked that we revisit this
issue. Our treatment of this issue also addresses the Court's concern
with our 1997 rule's use of highest data points of units with best
performing technology, where control technology is not the only factor
that affects emissions. As we discuss in detail later in this notice,
although our work to-date in regulating HMIWI shows that control
technology significantly controls emissions, we are not able to
conclude that factors other than the controls have a negligible effect
on emissions performance and on the levels achieved in practice by the
best performing sources. While it is not possible to precisely quantify
the additional emissions reduction that is associated with waste
segregation or combustion conditions, we have found that it is possible
to account for those measures (and any other emission reduction
strategies) through the identification and use of actual emissions
levels in floor determinations, since these levels reflect emissions
performance resulting from the use of add-on controls and other
measures known to be used at HMIWI. Thus, the proposed revised MACT
emission limits are based on performance data from the best-performing
12 percent of existing HMIWI and the best-performing unit for new
HMIWI.
Following publication of our 2007 proposed remand response, the
Court issued a ruling in another case challenging EPA's MACT
methodology, specifically as applied to brick and ceramic kilns. In
Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875 (D.C. Cir. 2007), the Court reiterated
its holding in CKRC that EPA may not justify MACT floors by claiming
that floors must be achievable by all sources using MACT technology.
Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d at 880. The Court concluded that by
excluding a certain control technology from the agency's ranking of
best-performing kilns, EPA had impermissibly ignored the emission
levels actually achieved by best performers in order to ensure that the
MACT floor is achievable by all kilns. Sierra Club, 479 F.3d at 880-81.
The Court then referred to its ruling in CKRC declaring unlawful
EPA's method of estimating emissions among best performing sources by
basing MACT floors on levels achieved by worst performers using MACT
technology, and held that in the kilns rule EPA failed to show that the
emission levels achieved by the worst performers using a given
pollution control device actually predict the range of emission levels
achieved by the best performers using that device. Sierra Club, 479
F.3d at 882. The Court distinguished EPA's approach to kilns from the
permissible approach the agency had performed in Mossville
Environmental Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232 (D.C. Cir. 2004), in
which EPA's record evidence demonstrated that the floor reasonably
estimated actual emissions variability of the best-performing sources.
There, the Court held that MACT floors may legitimately account for
variability because each source must meet the specified standard every
day and under all operating conditions. Mossville, 370 F.3d at 1242.
The Sierra Club Court then addressed EPA's approach to considering
non-technology factors in the brick and ceramic kiln rule. The Court
stressed that EPA may not refuse to consider such factors in the MACT
floor merely because it is impossible to reliably quantify their effect
on emissions performance. Consequently, the Court rejected EPA's
approach in the kiln rule, in which the agency acknowledged that a non-
technology factor (clay type) had an appreciable effect on emissions
but for which EPA lacked data to quantify such effects. Sierra Club,
479 F.3d at 882-83. The Court further rejected EPA's argument that
since the non-technology factor in the kiln rule did not reflect a
deliberate step taken to reduce emissions, it did not amount to an
emission control or limitation achieved by kilns: The Court stated that
NLA II requires neither an intentional action nor a deliberate strategy
to reduce emissions, and that the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set
MACT floors based upon the ``average emission limitation[s] achieved''
without suggesting that this achievement must be the product of a
specific intent. Sierra Club, 479 F.3d at 883.
The Court's treatment of each of these issues caused us to reassess
our MACT floor approach in the HMIWI remand response.
7. Are the emission limits being revised as a result of the re-
proposal?
Yes, the proposed response to the remand would revise all of the
emission limits in both the NSPS and EG. Table 3 of this preamble
summarizes the emission limits being proposed in this action in
response to the Court remand for new HMIWI.
Table 3--Summary of Emission Limits Proposed in Response to the Remand
for New HMIWI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed
Unit remand
Pollutant (units) size \1\ response
limit \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl (ppmv).................................... L 0.75
M 1.8
S 4.5
[[Page 72971]]
CO (ppmv)..................................... L 2.9
M 1.9
S 8.2
Pb (mg/dscm).................................. L 0.00047
M 0.016
S 0.18
Cd (mg/dscm).................................. L 0.00012
M 0.0071
S 0.012
Hg (mg/dscm).................................. L 0.00093
M 0.0020
S 0.0075
PM (gr/dscf).................................. L 0.0048
M 0.0099
S 0.017
CDD/CDF, total (ng/dscm)...................... L 0.60
M 0.35
S 8.3
CDD/CDF, TEQ (ng/dscm)........................ L 0.014
M 0.0097
S 0.0080
NOX (ppmv).................................... L 110
M, S 38
SO2 (ppmv).................................... L 1.9
M, S 0.78
Opacity (%)................................... L, M, S 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ L = Large; M = Medium; S = Small
\2\ All emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxygen.
Table 4 of this preamble summarizes the emission limits being
proposed in this action in response to the Court remand for existing
HMIWI.
Table 4--Summary of Emission Limits Proposed in Response to the Remand
for Existing HMIWI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed
Unit remand
Pollutant (units) size \1\ response
limit \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl (ppmv).................................... L 2.4
M 2.5
S 4.5
SR 440
CO (ppmv)..................................... L 3.9
M 3.0
S 8.2
SR 12
Pb (mg/dscm).................................. L 0.013
M 0.017
S 0.18
SR 0.35
Cd (mg/dscm).................................. L 0.0041
M 0.0071
S 0.012
SR 0.068
Hg (mg/dscm).................................. L 0.0095
M 0.0079
S 0.0075
SR 0.0040
PM (gr/dscf).................................. L 0.0056
M 0.012
S 0.017
SR 0.030
CDD/CDF, total (ng/dscm)...................... L 1.6
M 0.63
S 8.3
SR 130
CDD/CDF, TEQ (ng/dscm)........................ L 0.029
M 0.0097
S 0.0080
SR 2.6
NOX (ppmv).................................... L 140
M, S 200
SR 110
SO2 (ppmv).................................... L, M, S 2.8
SR 43
Opacity (%)................................... L, M, S, 2
SR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ L = Large; M = Medium; S = Small; SR = Small Rural
\2\ All emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxygen.
B. Proposed CAA Section 129(a)(5) 5-Year Review Response
Section 129(a)(5) of the CAA requires EPA to conduct a review of
the NSPS and EG at 5 year intervals and, in accordance with sections
129 and 111, revise the NSPS and EG. We do not interpret section
129(a)(5), together with section 111, as requiring EPA to recalculate
MACT floors in connection with this periodic review. See, e.g., 71 FR
27324, 27327-28 (May 10, 2006) (``Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Large
Municipal Waste Combustors; Final Rule''); see also, NRDC and LEAN v.
EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083-84 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (upholding EPA's
interpretation that the periodic review requirement in CAA section
112(d)(6) does not impose an obligation to recalculate MACT floors).
Rather, in conducting such periodic reviews, EPA attempts to assess
the performance of and variability associated with control measures
affecting emissions performance at sources in the subject source
category (including the installed emissions control equipment), along
with developments in practices, processes and control technologies, and
determines whether it is appropriate to revise the NSPS and EG. This is
the same general approach taken by EPA in periodically reviewing CAA
section 111 standards, as section 111 contains a similar review and
revise provision. Specifically, section 111(b)(1)(B) requires EPA,
except in specified circumstances, to review NSPS promulgated under
section 111 every 8 years and to revise the standards if EPA determines
that it is ``appropriate'' to do so, 42 U.S.C. 7411(b)(1)(B). In light
of the explicit reference in section 129(a)(5) to section 111, which
contains direct guidance on how to review and revise standards
previously promulgated, EPA reasonably interprets section 129(a)(5) to
provide that EPA must review and, if appropriate, revise section 129
standards.
Section 129 provides guidance on the criteria to be used in
determining whether it is appropriate to revise a section 129 standard.
Section 129(a)(3) states that standards under sections 111 and 129
``shall be based on methods and technologies for removal or destruction
of pollutants before, during and after combustion.'' It can be
reasonably inferred from the reference to ``technologies'' that EPA is
to consider advances in technology, both as to their effectiveness and
their costs, as well as the availability of new technologies, in
determining whether it is ``appropriate'' to revise a section 129
standard. This inference is further supported by the fact that the
standards under review are based, in part, on an assessment of the
performance of control technologies currently being used by sources in
a category or subcategory.
This approach is also consistent with the approach used in
establishing and updating NSPS under section 111. Consistent with the
definition of ``standard of performance'' in section 111(a)(1),
standards of performance promulgated under section 111 are based on
``the best system of emission reductions'' which generally equates to
some type of control technology. Where EPA determines that it is
``appropriate'' to revise section 111 standards, section 111(b)(1)(B)
directs that this be done ``following the procedure required by this
subsection for promulgation of such standards.'' In updating section
111 standards in accordance with section 111(b)(1)(B), EPA has
consistently taken the approach of evaluating advances in existing
control technologies, both as to performance and cost, as well as the
availability of new technologies and then, on the basis of this
evaluation, determined whether it is appropriate to revise the
standard. See, for example, 71 FR 9866 (Feb. 27, 2006) (updating the
boilers NSPS) and 71 FR 38482 (July 6,
[[Page 72972]]
2006) (updating the stationary combustion turbines NSPS). In these
reviews, EPA takes into account, among other things, the currently
installed equipment and its performance and operational variability. As
appropriate, we also consider new technologies and control measures
that have been demonstrated to reliably control emissions from the
source category.
The approach is similar to the one that Congress spelled out in
section 112(d)(6), which is also entitled ``Review and revision.''
Section 112(d)(6) directs EPA to every 8 years ``review, and revise as
necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies)'' emission standards promulgated pursuant to
section 112. There are a number of significant similarities between
what is required under section 129, which addresses emissions of
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) and other pollutants from solid waste
incineration units, and section 112, which addresses HAP emissions
generally. For example, under both section 112(d)(3) and section
129(a)(2) initial standards applicable to existing sources ``shall not
be less stringent than the average emissions limitation achieved by the
best performing 12 percent of units in the category.'' Also, as stated
above, both sections require that standards be reviewed at specified
intervals of time. Finally, both sections contain a provision
addressing ``residual risk'' (sections 112(f) and 129(h)(3)). As a
result, EPA believes that section 112(d)(6) is relevant in ascertaining
Congress' intent regarding how EPA is to proceed in implementing
section 129(a)(5).
Like its counterpart CAA section 112(d)(6), section 129(a)(5) does
not state that EPA must conduct a MACT floor analysis every 5 years
when reviewing standards promulgated under sections 129(a)(2) and 111.
Had Congress intended EPA to conduct a new floor analysis every 5
years, it would have said so expressly by directly incorporating such
requirements into section 129(a)(5), for example by referring directly
to section 129(a)(2), rather than just to ``this section'' and section
111. It did not do so, however, and, in fact, section 129 encompasses
more than just MACT standards under section 129(a)(2)--it also includes
risk-based standards under section 129(h)(3), which are not determined
by an additional MACT analysis. Reading section 129(a)(5) to require
recalculation of the MACT floor would be both inconsistent with
Congress' express direction that EPA should revise section 129
standards in accordance with section 111, which plainly provides that
such revision should occur only if we determine that it is
``appropriate'' to do so. It would also result in effectively reading
the reference to section 111 out of the Act, a circumstance that
Congress could not have intended. Required recalculation of floors
would completely eviscerate EPA's ability to base revisions to section
129 standards on a determination that it is ``appropriate'' to revise
such standards, as EPA's only discretion would be in deciding whether
to establish a standard that is more stringent than the recalculated
floor. EPA believes that depriving the agency of any meaningful
discretion in this manner is at odds with what Congress intended.
Further, required recalculation of floors would have the inexorable
effect of driving existing sources to the level of performance
exhibited by new sources on a 5-year cycle, a result that is
unprecedented and that should not be presumed to have been intended by
Congress in the absence of a clear statement to that effect. There is
no such clear statement. It is reasonable to assume that if the floor
must be recalculated on a 5-year cycle, some, if not most or all, of
the sources that form the basis for the floor calculation will be
sources that were previously subject to standards applicable to new
sources. As a result, over time, existing sources which had not made
any changes in their operations would eventually be subject to
essentially the same level of regulation as new sources. Such a result
would be unprecedented, particularly in the context of a standard that
is established under both sections 129 and 111. Under section 111, an
existing source only becomes a new source and thus subject to a new
source standard when it is either modified (section 111(a)(2)) or
reconstructed (40 CFR 60.15). Given this context, it is not reasonable
to assume that Congress intended for existing sources subject to
section 129 standards to be treated as new sources over time where
their circumstances have not changed.
We believe that a reasonable interpretation of section 129(a)(5) is
that Congress preserved EPA's discretion in reviewing section 129
standards to revise them when the Agency determines it is
``appropriate'' to do so, and that the D.C. Circuit's recent ruling
regarding section 112(d)(6) supports this view (see NRDC and LEAN v.
EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008). In that case, petitioners
had ``argued that EPA was obliged to completely recalculate the maximum
achievable control technology--in other words, to start from scratch.''
NRDC and LEAN, 529 F.3d at 1084. The Court held: ``We do not think the
words `review, and revise as necessary' can be construed reasonably as
imposing any such obligation.'' Id. The Court's ruling in NRDC and LEAN
is consistent with our interpretation of section 129(a)(5) as providing
a broad range of discretion in terms of whether to revise MACT
standards adopted under sections 129(a)(2) and 111.
1. What was EPA's Approach in the 2007 Proposal Regarding the 5-Year
Review Requirement?
In the 2007 proposed response to the Court's remand, EPA also
proposed amendments that reflected changes determined to be appropriate
after completing the 5-year review. Following compliance with the EG in
2002, EPA gathered information on the performance levels actually being
achieved by HMIWI that were operating under the guidelines. Those HMIWI
that remained in operation either continued operation with their
existing configuration or were retrofitted with add-on air pollution
control devices in order to meet the 1997 standards. The 2002
compliance test information provided the first quantitative assessment
of the performance of the installed control equipment's ability to
attain the NSPS and EG limits. The compliance data indicated that the
control technologies that were installed and the practices that were
implemented to meet the 1997 NSPS and EG achieved reductions somewhat
superior to what we had expected, based on the regulatory data we had
used to establish the limits, under the 1997 limits for many of the
pollutants.
EPA used the compliance test data to develop the revised emission
limits proposed in February 2007 in response to the 5-year review
requirement. The proposed amendments did not reflect adoption of new
control technologies or processes, but reflected more efficient
practices in operation of the control technologies that sources used in
order to meet the 1997 MACT standards. The proposed amendments also
would have resulted in some changes to the performance testing and
monitoring requirements based on information received during
implementation of the HMIWI NSPS and EG. EPA's approach was explained
in detail in sections III.B. and IV.B. of the preamble to EPA's
February 2007 proposal (72 FR 5510).
We did not regard the proposed revised amendments under the 5-year
review as reflecting a recalculation of the MACT floors for their own
sake, or, as some have put it, ``MACT-on-MACT.'' Rather, consistent
with our
[[Page 72973]]
overall interpretation of the requirements of section 129(a)(5), the
proposed revised amendments reflected what we viewed as a more accurate
translation into numeric emissions rates of the emissions performance
achieved by the MACT technological controls we had identified in the
1997 final rule. This seemed a reasonable approach, since we now had,
for the first time, actual emissions data that indicated the emissions
levels achieved through application of the MACT technology, rather than
just the regulatory data and combustion-control emissions factors to
which we have been previously limited, and which, as discussed above,
we have since learned did not provide the most accurate estimation of
the emissions levels achieved by the best performing sources.
2. Why is EPA Re-Proposing Different Revised Standards under the 5-Year
Review?
Although we believe that the approach used in our 2007 proposed
response to the 5-year review of the HMIWI emission standards, as
promulgated in 1997, correctly addressed the intent of the CAA section
129(a)(5) requirement and resulted in proposed revisions to the
emission standards that would have appropriately reflected the
emissions levels achieved by the control technologies imposed by the
1997 final rule, we are re-proposing our response to the remand in
Sierra Club such that the proposed revised MACT standards, reflecting
floor levels determined by actual emissions data, would be more
stringent than what we proposed in 2007 for both the remand response
and the 5-year review, with the exceptions noted and discussed in
sections IV.A. and IV.B of this preamble. Consequently, we believe that
our obligation to conduct a 5-year review based on implementation of
the 1997 emission standards will also be fulfilled through this
action's re-proposal of the remand response. This is supported by the
fact that the revised MACT floor determinations and emission limits
associated with the remand response are based on performance data for
the 57 currently operating HMIWI that are subject to the 1997
standards, and by the re-proposal's accounting for non-technology
factors that affect HMIWI emissions performance, which the 2007
proposed remand response and 5-year review did not fully consider.
Thus, the proposed remand response more than addresses the technology
review's goals of assessing the performance efficiency of the installed
equipment and ensuring that the emission limits reflect the performance
of the technologies required by the MACT standards. In addition, the
proposed remand response addresses whether new technologies and
processes and improvements in practices have been demonstrated at
sources subject to the emissions limitations. Accordingly, the remand
response in this proposed action fulfills EPA's obligations regarding
the first 5-year review of the HMIWI standards and, therefore, replaces
the 2007 proposal's 5-year review proposed revisions.
C. Other Proposed Amendments
This proposed action puts forward the same changes based on
information received during implementation of the HMIWI NSPS and EG
that were proposed in 2007. The proposal also includes additional
changes regarding requirements for NOX and SO2 emissions
testing for all HMIWI, performance testing requirements for small rural
HMIWI, monitoring requirements for HMIWI that install selective non-
catalytic reduction (SNCR) technology to reduce NOX
emissions, and procedures for test data submittal. A summary of these
changes follows.
1. Performance Testing and Monitoring Amendments
The proposed amendments would require all HMIWI to demonstrate
initial compliance with the revised NOX and SO2
emission limits. Testing and demonstration of compliance with the
NOX and SO2 emission limits are not currently
required by the standards. In addition to demonstrating initial
compliance with the NOX and SO2 emission limits,
small rural HMIWI would be required to demonstrate initial compliance
with the other seven regulated pollutants' emission limits and the
opacity standard. Currently, small rural HMIWI are only required to
demonstrate initial compliance with the PM, CO, CDD/CDF, Hg, and
opacity standards. Small rural HMIWI also would be required to
determine compliance with the PM, CO, and HCl emission limits by
conducting an annual performance test. On an annual basis, small rural
HMIWI are currently required to demonstrate compliance with the opacity
limit. The proposed amendments would allow sources to use results of
their previous emissions tests to demonstrate initial compliance with
the proposed revised emission limits as long as the sources certify
that the previous test results are representative of current
operations. Only those sources who could not so certify and/or whose
previous emissions tests do not demonstrate compliance with one or more
revised emission limits would be required to conduct another emissions
test for those pollutants (note that most sources are already required
to test for HCl, CO, and PM on an annual basis, and those annual tests
are still required).
The proposed amendments would require, for existing HMIWI, annual
inspections of scrubbers, fabric filters, and other air pollution
control devices that may be used to meet the emission limits, as well
as a one-time Method 22 of appendix A-7 visible emissions test of the
ash handling operations to be conducted during the next compliance
test. For new HMIWI, the proposed amendments would require CO
continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS), bag leak detection
systems for fabric-filter controlled units, annual inspections of
scrubbers, fabric filters, and other air pollution control devices that
may be used to meet the emission limits, as well as Method 22 visible
emissions testing of the ash handling operations to be conducted during
each compliance test. For existing HMIWI, use of CO CEMS would be an
approved alternative, and specific language with requirements for CO
CEMS is included in the proposed amendments. For new and existing
HMIWI, use of PM, HCl, multi-metals, and Hg CEMS, and integrated
sorbent trap Hg monitoring and dioxin monitoring (continuous sampling
with periodic sample analysis) also would be approved alternatives, and
specific language for those alternatives is included in the proposed
amendments. HMIWI that install SNCR technology to reduce NOX
emissions would be required to monitor the reagent (e.g., ammonia or
urea) injection rate and secondary chamber temperature.
2. Electronic Data Submittal
Compliance test data are necessary for conducting 5-year reviews of
CAA section 129 standards, as well as for many other purposes including
compliance determinations, development of emission factors, and
determining annual emission rates. In conducting 5-year reviews, EPA
has found it burdensome and time consuming to collect emission test
data because of varied locations for data storage and varied data
storage methods. One improvement that has occurred in recent years is
the availability of stack test reports in electronic format as a
replacement for burdensome paper copies.
In this action, we are taking a step to improve data accessibility.
HMIWI sources will have the option of submitting, to an EPA electronic
data base, an electronic copy of annual stack
[[Page 72974]]
test reports. Data entry requires only access to the internet and is
expected to be completed by the stack testing company as part of the
work that they are contracted to perform. This option would become
available as of December 31, 2011.
Please note that the proposed option to submit source test data
electronically to EPA would not require any additional performance
testing. In addition, when a facility elects to submit performance test
data to WebFIRE, there would be no additional requirements for data
compilation; instead, we believe industry would greatly benefit from
improved emissions factors, fewer information requests, and better
regulation development as discussed below. Because the information that
would be reported is already required in the existing test methods and
is necessary to evaluate the conformance to the test method, facilities
would already be collecting and compiling these data. One major
advantage of electing to submit source test data through the Electronic
Reporting Tool (ERT), which was developed with input from stack testing
companies (who already collect and compile performance test data
electronically), is that it would provide a standardized method to
compile and store all the documentation required by this rule. Another
important benefit of submitting these data to EPA at the time the
source test is conducted is that it will substantially reduce the
effort involved in data collection activities in the future.
Specifically, because EPA would already have adequate source category
data to conduct residual risk assessments or technology reviews, there
would be fewer data collection requests (e.g., Section 114 letters).
This results in a reduced burden on both affected facilities (in terms
of reduced manpower to respond to data collection requests) and EPA (in
terms of preparing and distributing data collection requests). Finally,
another benefit of electing to submit these data to WebFIRE
electronically is that these data will greatly improve the overall
quality of the existing and new emissions factors by supplementing the
pool of emissions test data upon which the emission factor is based and
by ensuring that data are more representative of current industry
operational procedures. A common complaint we hear from industry and
regulators is that emissions factors are out-dated or not
representative of a particular source category. Receiving most
performance tests would ensure that emissions factors are updated and
more accurate. In summary, receiving these test data already collected
for other purposes and using them in the emissions factors development
program will save industry, state/local/tribal agencies, and EPA time
and money.
The electronic data base that will be used is EPA's WebFIRE, which
is a Web site accessible through EPA's TTN. The WebFIRE Web site was
constructed to store emissions test data for use in developing emission
factors. A description of the WebFIRE data base can be found at http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main. The ERT will be able
to transmit the electronic report through EPA's Central Data Exchange
(CDX) network for storage in the WebFIRE data base. Although ERT is not
the only electronic interface that can be used to submit source test
data to the CDX for entry into WebFIRE, it makes submittal of data very
straightforward and easy. A description of the ERT can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html. The ERT can be used to
document the conduct of stack tests data for various pollutants
including PM (EPA Method 5 of appendix A-3), SO2 (EPA Method
6C of appendix A-4), NOX (EPA Method 7E of appendix A-4), CO
(EPA Method 10 of appendix A-4), Cd (EPA Method 29 of appendix A-8), Pb
(Method 29), Hg (Method 29), and HCl (EPA Method 26A of appendix A-8).
Presently, the ERT does not handle dioxin/furan stack test data (EPA
Method 23 of appendix A-7), but the tool is being upgraded to handle
dioxin/furan stack test data. The ERT does not currently accept opacity
data or CEMS data.
EPA specifically requests comment on the utility of this electronic
reporting option and the burden that owners and operators of HMIWI
estimate would be associated with this option.
3. Miscellaneous Other Amendments
The proposed amendments would revise the definition of ``Minimum
secondary chamber temperature'' to read ``Minimum secondary chamber
temperature means 90 percent of the highest 3-hour average secondary
chamber temperature (taken, at a minimum, once every minute) measured
during the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance with
the PM, CO, and dioxin/furan emission limits.''
The proposed amendments would require HMIWI sources to submit,
along with each test report, a description, including sample
calculations, of how operating parameters are established during the
initial performance test and, if applicable, re-established during
subsequent performance tests.
D. Proposed Implementation Schedule for Existing HMIWI
Under the proposed amendments to the EG, and consistent with CAA
section 129, revised State plans containing the revised existing source
emission limits and other requirements in the proposed amendments would
be due within 1 year after promulgation of the amendments. That is,
revised State plans would have to be submitted to EPA 1 year after the
date on which EPA promulgates revised standards.
The proposed amendments to the EG then would allow existing HMIWI
to demonstrate compliance with the amended standards within 3 years
from the date of approval of a State plan or 5 years after promulgation
of the revised standards, whichever is earlier. Consistent with CAA
section 129, EPA expects States to require compliance as expeditiously
as practicable. However, because we believe that many HMIWI will find
it necessary to retrofit existing emission control equipment and/or
install additional emission control equipment in order to meet the
proposed revised limits, EPA anticipates that States may choose to
provide the maximum compliance period allowed by CAA section 129(f)(2).
In revising the emission limits in a State plan, a State would have
two options. First, it could include both the current and the new
emission limits in its revised State plan, which would allow a phased
approach in applying the new limits. That is, the State plan would make
it clear that the current emission limits remain in force and apply
until the date the new existing source emission limits are effective
(as defined in the State plan). States whose existing HMIWI do not find
it necessary to improve their performance in order to meet the revised
emission limits may want to consider a second approach where the State
would insert the revised emission limits in place of the current
emission limits, follow procedures in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B, and
submit a revised State plan to EPA for approval. If the revised State
plan contains only the revised emission limits (i.e., the current
emission limits are not retained), then the revised emission limits
must become effective immediately since the current limits would be
removed from the State plan.
EPA will revise the existing Federal plan to incorporate any
changes to existing source emission limits and other requirements that
EPA ultimately promulgates. The Federal plan applies to HMIWI in any
State without an approved State plan. The proposed amendments to the EG
would allow
[[Page 72975]]
existing HMIWI subject to the Federal plan up to 5 years after
promulgation of the revised standards to demonstrate compliance with
the amended standards.
E. Proposed Changes to the Applicability Date of the 1997 NSPS
HMIWI would be treated differently under the amended standards, as
proposed, than they were under the 1997 standards in terms of whether
they are ``existing'' or ``new'' sources, and there would be new dates
defining what are ``new'' sources and imposing compliance deadlines
regarding any amended standards. Since under this proposed rule the EG
for each pollutant and each subcategory would be more stringent than
the NSPS as promulgated in 1997, all NSPS units, with respect to the
standards as promulgated in 1997, would become ``existing'' sources
under the proposed amended standards and would be required to meet the
revised EG by the applicable compliance date for the revised
guidelines. However, those sources would continue to be NSPS units
subject to the standards as promulgated in 1997, until they become
``existing'' sources under the amended standards. Units for which
construction is commenced after the date of this proposal, or
modification is commenced on or after the date 6 months after
promulgation of the amended standards, would be ``new'' units subject
to more stringent NSPS emission limits than units for which
construction or modification was completed prior to those dates.
Thus, under these specific proposed amendments, units that
commenced construction after June 20, 1996, and on or before December
1, 2008, or that are modified before the date 6 months after the date
of promulgation of any revised final standards, would continue to be or
would become subject to the 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec NSPS emission
limits that were promulgated in 1997 until the applicable compliance
date for the revised EG, at which time those units would become
``existing'' sources. Similarly, EG units under the 1997 rule would
need to meet the revised EG by the applicable compliance date for the
revised guidelines. HMIWI that commence construction after December 1,
2008 or that are modified 6 months or more after the date of
promulgation of any revised standards would have to meet the revised
NSPS emission limits being added to the subpart Ec NSPS within 6 months
after the promulgation date of the amendments or upon startup whichever
is later.
IV. Rationale
A. Rationale for the Proposed Response to the Remand
This action responds to the Court's remand by proposing a response
that is based on data from currently operating HMIWI. This proposed
action replaces the February 2007 proposal that responded to the remand
based on data in the public record that supported the 1997 HMIWI
rulemaking.
1. New HMIWI
The Court raised three issues with regard to EPA's treatment of the
MACT floor for new units and the achievable emission limitations.
First, the Court asked EPA to explain why the floor was based on the
highest emissions levels of the ``worst-performing'' unit employing the
MACT technology rather than on the lowest observed emissions levels of
the best performing unit using the MACT technology. (See Sierra Club v.
EPA , 167 F.3d at 665.) Second, the Court requested further explanation
of why EPA considered multiple units employing the MACT technology,
rather than identify the single best-performing unit and basing the
floor on that particular unit's performance with that technology. Id.
Third, the Court requested further explanation of EPA's procedure for
determining the achievable emission limitation from the available data,
where EPA selected a numerical value somewhat higher than the highest
observed data point. Id.
The methodology used to determine the MACT floor and proposed
revised emission limits for new HMIWI addresses the three issues raised
by the Court. The methodology that supports this action does not base
the MACT floor for new units on the highest emissions levels of the
``worst-performing'' unit employing the MACT technology, nor does it
consider multiple units employing the MACT technology. As explained in
section III of this preamble, EPA relied on control technology
performance as the sole indicator of unit performance in making MACT
floor determinations that supported the 1997 rulemaking as well as the
2007 proposal. However, based on recently obtained information, we now
understand that factors other than the controls (e.g., waste mix and
combustion conditions) affect HMIWI performance, and those emission
reduction strategies must be accounted for in MACT floor
determinations.
In November 2007, we solicited information regarding waste
segregation practices from nine entities that own or operate HMIWI. The
nine entities chosen include various: (1) Types of facilities (i.e.,
hospitals, pharmaceutical operations, universities, and commercial
operations), (2) incinerator sizes (i.e., large, medium, and small
HMIWI), (3) incinerator ages (i.e., existing versus new), and (4)
control techniques (e.g., dry control systems, wet control systems, and
combustion controls). The responses to EPA's request for information
indicate that waste segregation is a common practice at HMIWI
facilities. Onsite waste segregation is practiced at the six hospitals,
the pharmaceutical facility, and the university that responded to the
questionnaire. Materials separated from the waste stream include
batteries, fluorescent light bulbs, paper and/or cardboard, glass, and
plastics. The commercial operations that dispose of waste generated
offsite indicated in their responses that they encourage waste
segregation from their clients through various efforts, including waste
management plans, contract requirements, and waste acceptance
protocols.
a. Development of the MACT Floors and Proposed Emission Limits for
New Units. Section 129(a)(2) of the CAA requires that EPA determine the
emissions control that is achieved in practice by the ``best controlled
similar unit'' when establishing the MACT floors for new units. Section
129 requires EPA to develop standards based on emission levels already
achieved in practice by one or more units. Thus, the MACT floor for new
units is based on the ``emissions control'' that is attained by any
emission reduction strategies at the best similar unit. The use of
actual emissions levels in the MACT floor determinations supporting the
proposed emission limits for new HMIWI accounts for all emission
reduction strategies (i.e., add-on controls or other emission reducing
measures) used by individual HMIWI.
MACT floors were determined for each air pollutant for each
subcategory of HMIWI using emissions data from the 57 currently
operating HMIWI. As explained in section III of this preamble, we
believe it is appropriate to re-propose a response to the remand based
on data from the currently operating HMIWI given the uncertainty
regarding the reliability of the regulatory limits for units operating
in 1997 and the lack of other more reliable data for those units. We
are retaining the large, medium, and small subcategories from the 1997
rulemaking. We continue to consider these subcategories to be
``classes'' of similar units in that all units within each ``class''
have been subject to the same regulatory requirements in the 1997 HMIWI
standards. Thus, when
[[Page 72976]]
determining MACT floors and proposed emission limits using data for
HMIWI within each ``class,'' we believe it is appropriate to continue
to apply those emission limits to HMIWI of similar size (e.g., data
from existing medium HMIWI would be used to determine emission limits
for new medium HMIWI).
Within each subcategory and for each pollutant, EPA determined the
best performing HMIWI based on an examination of the average emissions
levels for each HMIWI. That is, the MACT floor for each pollutant is
based on one unit (i.e., the unit with the lowest average emissions
level). MACT floors for each pollutant within each subcategory, with
the exceptions of NOX and SO2 for small HMIWI,
were based on this approach. We do not have any NOX or
SO2 emissions data for the two small HMIWI because they have
not tested for NOX or SO2 and are not required to
do so by the 1997 HMIWI standards. Both small units use wet scrubbers.
The best performing medium HMIWI with respect to NOX and
SO2 use wet scrubbers as well. In both of these instances,
the NOX and SO2 emission limits being proposed
for new medium HMIWI also are being proposed for new small units.
Although use of data from the medium units does not account for any
control strategies in addition to the wet scrubbers being used by the
small units, we believe that using the NOX and
SO2 emission limits for new medium HMIWI as surrogate
emission limits for new small HMIWI is the most appropriate way to
address these two instances. A summary of the add-on control
technologies used, in addition to any other emission reductions
measures, by the single best performing HMIWI on a pollutant-specific
basis within each subcategory is presented in Table 5 of this preamble.
Table 5--Summary of Add-On Control Technologies for Best Performing HMIWI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant Large HMIWI Medium HMIWI Small HMIWI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl.................................. Wet scrubber........... Wet scrubber........... Wet scrubber.
CO................................... Wet scrubber........... Dry scrubber........... Wet scrubber.
Pb................................... Carbon adsorber/wet Dry scrubber........... Wet scrubber.
scrubber.
Cd................................... Carbon adsorber/wet Dry scrubber........... Wet scrubber.
scrubber.
Hg................................... Fabric filter......... Wet scrubber........... Wet scrubber.
PM................................... Dry scrubber........... Dry scrubber........... Wet scrubber.
CDD/CDF.............................. Dry scrubber........... Wet scrubber........... Wet scrubber.
NOX.................................. Carbon adsorber/wet Wet scrubber........... Wet scrubber.
scrubber.
SO2.................................. Dry scrubber........... Wet scrubber........... Wet scrubber.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We then used emissions data for those best performing HMIWI to
determine emission limits to be proposed, with an accounting for
variability. EPA must exercise its judgment, based on an evaluation of
the relevant factors and available data, to determine the level of
emissions control that has been achieved by the best performing HMIWI
under variable conditions. The Court has recognized that EPA may
consider variability in estimating the degree of emission reduction
achieved by best-performing sources and in setting MACT floors. See
Mossville Envt'l Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1241-42 (D.C. Cir
2004) (holding EPA may consider emission variability in estimating
performance achieved by best-performing sources and may set the floor
at level that best-performing source can expect to meet ``every day and
under all operating conditions'').
MACT and other technology-based standards are necessarily derived
from short-term emissions test data, but such data are not
representative of the range of operating conditions that the best
performing facilities face on a day-to-day basis. In statistical terms,
each test produces a limited data sample, not a complete enumeration of
the available data for performance of the unit over a long period of
time. (See Natrella, Experimental Statistics, National Bureau of
Standards Handbook 91, chapter 1 (revised ed., 1966).) EPA, therefore,
often needs to adjust the short-term data to account for these varying
conditions. The types of variability that EPA attempts to account for
include operational distinctions between and within tests at the same
unit.
``Between-test variability'' can occur even where conditions appear
to be the same when two or more tests are conducted. Variations in
emissions may be caused by different settings for emissions testing
equipment, different field teams conducting the testing, differences in
sample handling, or different laboratories analyzing the results.
Identifying an achieved emissions level needs to account for these
differences between tests, in order for ``a uniform standard [to] be
capable of being met under most adverse conditions which can reasonably
be expected to recur[.]'' (See NLA I, 627 F.2d at 431, n. 46.) (See
also Portland Cement Ass'n, 486 F.2d at 396 (noting industry point that
``a single test offered a weak basis'' for inferring that plants could
meet the standards).)
The same types of differences leading to between-test variability
also cause variations in results between various runs comprising a
single test, or ``within-test variability.'' A single test at a unit
usually includes at least three separate test runs. (See 40 CFR
63.7(e)(3) (for MACT standards under section 112 of the CAA), and 40
CFR 60.8(f) (for NSPS under CAA section 111).) Each data point should
be viewed as a snapshot of actual performance. Along with an
understanding of the factors that may affect performance, each of these
snapshots gives information about the normal, and unavoidable,
variation in emissions that would be expected to recur over time.
To account for pollutant-specific variability at the best
performing HMIWI, we used emissions data for each test run conducted by
the best performing units. The amount of pollutant-specific test data
for the single best performing HMIWI within each subcategory varies
from 3 data points to 18 data points for large units; 3 data points to
21 data points for medium units; and 3 data points to 12 data points
for small units (excluding NOX and SO2 for which
there is no data for small units). Given the limited amount of test
data and the uncertainty regarding that short-term emissions test data,
we determined use of the 99.9 percent upper confidence level (UCL) to
be an appropriate method of estimating variability. The UCL represents
the statistical likelihood that a value, in this case an emission value
from the best performing source, will fall at or below the UCL value.
The average (or sample mean) and sample standard deviation, which are
two statistical measures calculated from the sample data, are used to
calculate the UCL. The average
[[Page 72977]]
is the central value of a data set and the standard deviation is the
common measure of the dispersion of the data set around the average.
The 99.9 percent UCL is appropriate for use in this analysis because
sources must meet the standards at all times, and as mentioned above,
the limited amount of test data introduces a degree of uncertainty.
To calculate the achieved emission limit, including variability, we
used the equation: 99.9 percent UCL = mean + 3.09 * standard deviation.
The mean and standard deviation are based on the test runs for the
single best performing HMIWI for each pollutant. Accounting for
variability using the 99.9 percent UCL means: ``For each pollutant, the
performance of the best performing HMIWI, on average, is estimated to
meet (i.e., not exceed) the emission limit 99.9 percent of the time.''
The emission values adjusted for variability are presented with two
significant figures according to standard engineering practices, and
these values represent the MACT floor-based emission limits being
proposed. The second significant figure was rounded up to the next
place value. EPA has, at times, presented emission limits with either
two or three significant figures. For the low concentrations being
proposed, two significant figures provide the appropriate precision. In
all cases, the significant figure approach and associated rounding does
not meaningfully change the proposed emission limits.
After determining the MACT floor-based emission limits for each
pollutant, EPA examined additional measures that could be taken to
further reduce emissions, but as discussed in section IV.A.1.b of this
preamble, EPA determined that these additional ``beyond-the-floor''
measures are not reasonable based on the high costs that would be
incurred and the minimal additional emissions reductions that could be
achieved. Therefore, all of the emission limits proposed in this action
for new HMIWI are based on the MACT floor level of control.
A summary of the pollutant-specific average emissions associated
with the best performing HMIWI, the emission values adjusted for
variability, and the emission limits being proposed for new HMIWI are
presented in Table 6 of this preamble.
Table 6--Summary of Average Emission Values, Emission Values With Variability, and Emission Limits for New HMIWI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission value
Average with Proposed
Pollutant (units) Unit size \1\ emission value variability emission limit
\2\ \2\ \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl (ppmv)..................................... L 0.190 0.745 0.75
M 0.46 1.73 1.8
S 1.03 4.47 4.5
CO (ppmv)...................................... L 0.87 2.88 2.9
M 0.68 1.86 1.9
S 2.27 8.18 8.2
Pb (mg/dscm)................................... L 0.000296 0.000470 0.47
M 0.0040 0.0154 0.016
S 0.073 0.174 0.18
Cd (mg/dscm)................................... L 0.000106 0.000116 0.12
M 0.00106 0.00807 \3\ 0.0071
S 0.0026 0.0115 0.012
Hg (mg/dscm) L 0.000695 0.000925 0.00093
M 0.00084 0.00200 0.0020
S 0.00292 0.00742 0.0075
PM (gr/dscf)................................... L 0.00106 0.00471 0.0048
M 0.00294 0.00983 0.0099
S 0.0076 0.0167 0.017
CDD/CDF, total (ng/dscm)....................... L 0.152 0.594 0.60
M 0.097 0.344 0.35
S 2.89 8.28 8.3
CDD/CDF, TEQ (ng/dscm)......................... L 0.0038 0.0135 0.014
M 0.00291 0.00972 \3\ 0.0097
S 0.00453 0.00792 0.0080
NOX (ppmv)..................................... L 66.9 101.0 110
M 15.0 37.8 38
S \4\ 15.0 \4\ 37.8 \4\ 38
SO2 (ppmv)..................................... L 0.46 1.82 1.9
M 0.336 0.773 0.78
S \4\ 0.336 \4\ 0.773 \4\ 0.78
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ L = Large; M = Medium; S = Small.
\2\ All values are measured at 7 percent oxygen.
\3\ Proposed emission limit reflects the proposed emission limit for existing HMIWI.
\4\ Emission value reflects data from best performing medium HMIWI.
Using the procedure described above for Cd and CDD/CDF, TEQ for new
medium units would result in emission limits slightly less stringent
than the proposed emission limits for existing medium units. In these
two instances, the proposed emission limits have been lowered to
reflect the Cd and CDD/CDF, TEQ emission limits for existing medium
HMIWI. Cadmium has been lowered from 0.0081 mg/dscm to 0.0071 mg/dscm,
and CDD/CDF, TEQ has been lowered from 0.0098 ng/dscm to 0.0097 ng/
dscm. These are not significant differences that we are adjusting for
and the differences are functions of the emissions data and data
operations (e.g., statistical procedures). The adjustments, however,
are necessary such that the MACT standards for new sources are no less
stringent than the MACT standards for existing sources.
Table 7 of this preamble summarizes the emission limits promulgated
in
[[Page 72978]]
1997, the emission limits proposed in 2007 in response to the Court's
remand, and the emission limits being proposed in this action in
response to the Court's remand for new HMIWI.
Table 7--Summary of 1997 Promulgated Emission Limits, Emission Limits Proposed in 2007 in Response to the
Remand, and Emission Limits Currently Being Proposed in Response to the Remand for New HMIWI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed
Unit size Remand response limit remand
Pollutant (units) \1\ Promulgated limit \2\ proposed in 2007 \2\ response limit
\2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl (ppmv).......................... L 15 or 99% reduction.... 15 or 99% reduction... 0.75
M 15 or 99% reduction.... 15 or 99% reduction... 1.8
S 15 or 99% reduction.... 15 or 99% reduction... 4.5
CO (ppmv)........................... L 40..................... 25.................... 2.9
M 40..................... 25.................... 1.9
S 40..................... 25.................... 8.2
Pb (mg/dscm)........................ L 0.07 or 98% reduction.. 0.060 or 98% reduction 0.00047
M 0.07 or 98% reduction.. 0.060 or 98% reduction 0.016
S 1.2 or 70% reduction... 0.64 or 71% reduction. 0.18
Cd (mg/dscm)........................ L 0.04 or 90% reduction.. 0.030 or 93% reduction 0.00012
M 0.04 or 90% reduction.. 0.030 or 93% reduction 0.0071
S 0.16 or 65% reduction.. 0.060 or 74% reduction 0.012
Hg (mg/dscm)........................ L 0.55 or 85% reduction.. 0.33 or 96% reduction. 0.00093
M 0.55 or 85% reduction.. 0.33 or 96% reduction. 0.0020
S 0.55 or 85% reduction.. 0.33 or 96% reduction. 0.0075
PM (gr/dscf)........................ L 0.015.................. 0.0090................ 0.0048
M 0.015.................. 0.0090................ 0.0099
S 0.03................... 0.018................. 0.017
CDD/CDF, total (ng/dscm)............ L 25..................... 20.................... 0.60
M 25..................... 20.................... 0.35
S 125.................... 111................... 8.3
CDD/CDF, TEQ (ng/dscm).............. L 0.6.................... 0.53.................. 0.014
M 0.6.................... 0.53.................. 0.0097
S 2.3.................... 2.0................... 0.0080
NOX (ppmv) L 250.................... 212................... 110
M, S 250.................... 212................... 38
SO2 (ppmv).......................... L 55..................... 28.................... 1.9
M, S 55..................... 28.................... 0.78
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ L = Large; M = Medium; S = Small
\2\ All emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxygen.
With one exception, the emission limits for new HMIWI being
proposed in this action are more stringent than the emission limits
proposed in 2007. The PM emission limit for new medium units being
proposed in this action is slightly higher than the limit proposed in
2007 (0.0090 gr/dscf versus 0.0099 gr/dscf). There are several
potential causes for this difference in emission limits. There are
three fewer medium HMIWI now, we have more emissions data to consider,
and, most importantly, the methodology used to determine the MACT
floors and emission limits in this action is different than in the 2007
proposal.
b. Consideration of Options More Stringent Than the MACT Floor for
New HMIWI. After establishing the MACT floor emission level for each
pollutant for new sources, EPA is required to look ``beyond-the-floor''
at additional measures that that could be taken to further reduce
emissions, considering the cost of achieving such additional reduction
and any non-air quality health and environmental impacts and energy
requirements associated with imposing additional requirements. For each
subcategory, EPA looked for control measures not anticipated to be
required by the new source floors, and where options were identified,
EPA estimated costs of the options for a model unit in each
subcategory. For large units, SNCR was identified as a potential option
to reduce NOX emissions. For this beyond-the-floor option,
total NOX reductions for new large HMIWI are estimated at
7,900 lb/yr at a cost of $110,000 per year. For medium units, the floor
level of control includes all known measures for reducing emissions,
and, consequently, no beyond-the-floor options were identified. For
small units, addition of a dry injection fabric filter (DIFF) and
activated carbon injection were identified as potential options to
reduce emissions of lead, mercury, and dioxin. For this beyond-the-
floor option, the total cost for a new small HMIWI is $210,000, and EPA
estimates emissions reductions of 0.45 lb/yr of lead, 0.0073 lb/yr of
mercury, and 0.0091 grams/yr of total CDD/CDF. A memorandum entitled
``Analysis of Beyond-the-Floor Options'' is included in the docket, and
presents detailed results of the beyond-the-floor options, including
estimates of reductions of air pollutants, costs, and secondary
impacts. Considering the cost-effectiveness (for all pollutants) of the
beyond-the-floor control measures, which averaged $27,000 per ton for
large units and $940 million per ton for small units, EPA determined
that the beyond-the-floor measures were not reasonable and, therefore,
MACT for new units is based on the MACT floor level of control for all
of the subcategories.
2. Existing Units
The Court raised three specific concerns regarding EPA's approach
for existing units in concluding that EPA had not adequately explained
why the combination of regulatory and uncontrolled (i.e., combustion-
controlled) data provided a ``reasonable
[[Page 72979]]
estimate'' of HMIWI performance. First, the Court ruled that EPA did
not discuss the possibility that HMIWI might be substantially
overachieving the regulatory limits, which would result in those limits
having little value in estimating the top 12 percent of HMIWI
performance (167 F.3d at 663). Second, the Court found that EPA gave no
reason for believing that HMIWI that were not subject to regulatory
limits did not employ any emission controls. Without this, the Court
concluded it was unable to assess the rationality in using
``uncontrolled'' (i.e., combustion-controlled) data for the units that
were not subject to regulatory requirements (167 F.3d at 664). Third,
the Court held that even if the regulatory data was a good proxy for
the better controlled units and there were shortfalls in reaching the
necessary 12 percent, EPA did not explain why it was reasonable to use
the highest of its test run data to make up the gap. Id.
With regard to the Court's first concern, additional Court rulings
issued after EPA's 2007 proposed response to the remand and public
comments regarding the 2007 proposal gave us reason to revisit our MACT
floor methodology, including the use of State regulations and State-
issued permits as a surrogate for estimated actual emission limitations
achieved. A comparison between the regulatory limits and emissions test
data in the 1997 record indicate that in some instances the emissions
data was higher than or about the same as the regulatory limit, but in
most instances the regulatory limit was higher than the emissions data.
Thus, we are no longer confident that the regulatory limits in the 1997
record provided a reasonable estimate of emission limitations for HMIWI
operating at that time. Use of those particular regulatory limits as
surrogates for actual emissions levels achieved also would not account
for factors other than control technology that we have since learned in
fact affect HMIWI performance. These uncertainties are two of the
reasons that this action's proposed remand response is not based on
information in the 1997 record but, rather, on data for the 57
currently operating HMIWI. This is not to say that as a general matter
it is inappropriate to use regulatory limits as a means to estimate the
emissions limitations achieved by best performing sources. In some
cases, it may be that such regulatory limits can be shown to reflect
the emissions performance achieved by both add-on controls and other
measures that affect such performance. In the case of HMIWI, however,
the regulatory data used in support of the 1997 rule was not adequate
for this, and cannot be used to support a MACT floor determination that
comports with the requirements of the CAA as interpreted by the Court.
The Court's second concern was that EPA had not made a finding that
HMIWI that were not subject to regulatory requirements did not use
emissions controls of any kind. The Court viewed such a finding as a
necessary prerequisite to using uncontrolled (i.e., combustion-
controlled) data for units not subject to regulatory requirements. EPA
continues to view the 1997 record as showing that most HMIWI were not
at that time equipped with add-on air pollution control. Therefore, the
use of uncontrolled emission estimates for units for which where there
was no indication air pollution control technology was in place and
applicable regulatory limits allowed higher levels of emissions than
our combustion-controlled emissions values reflected, was warranted for
purposes of identifying emissions levels achieved by combustion-control
alone. However, it did not necessarily reflect emissions levels as
influenced by measures other than the use (or lack of use) of add-on
control technology, such as waste segregation. EPA's decision to use
data for the 57 currently operating HMIWI to re-propose a response to
the Court remand fully addresses the Court's concern, in that the data
reflect all measures, add-on control technology or otherwise, that
affect the emissions levels achieved by the best performing sources.
For each HMIWI, we have detailed information regarding control
technologies used, as well as actual emissions data resulting from the
use of those technologies and any other measures.
The Court's third concern regarded our use of the highest of the
test run data to reflect uncontrolled (i.e., combustion-controlled)
emissions in cases where regulatory data did not comprise the necessary
12 percent of best performing sources. As described below, the
methodology that supports this action does not continue that approach.
a. Development of the MACT Floors and Proposed Emission Limits for
Existing Units. When establishing the MACT floors for existing units,
section 129(a)(2) of the CAA requires that EPA determine the average
emissions limitation achieved by the ``best performing 12 percent of
units'' in a source category. Thus, EPA must determine some measure of
the average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12
percent of HMIWI within each subcategory for each pollutant to be
regulated. The MACT floor for existing units is based on the level of
``emissions control'' that is attained by any emission reduction
strategies used by the best performing 12 percent of HMIWI. As is the
case with new HMIWI, the use of actual emissions levels in the MACT
floor determinations supporting the proposed emission limits for
existing HMIWI accounts for all emission reduction strategies (i.e.,
add-on controls or other emission reducing measures) used by individual
HMIWI.
We are retaining the large, medium, small, and small rural
subcategories from the 1997 rulemaking. As previously explained, we
continue to consider these subcategories to be ``classes'' of similar
units in that all units within each ``class'' have been subject to the
same regulatory requirements in the 1997 HMIWI standards. Thus, we
believe it is appropriate to determine MACT floors and proposed
emission limits using data for HMIWI within each ``class'' and to then
apply those revised emission limits to those same HMIWI within each
``class.''
Within each subcategory and for each pollutant, EPA determined the
best performing 12 percent of HMIWI based on an examination of average
emissions levels for each HMIWI. (Note that section 129 of the CAA does
not include the section 112 text regarding the MACT floor for existing
sources being based on the best performing 5 sources where there are
fewer than 30 sources in the category or subcategory.) In determining
how many HMIWI comprise the best performing 12 percent, we rounded up
the number of sources to the next whole number. This ensures that the
CAA section 129 requirement to consider the best performing 12 percent
of sources is met, as not rounding up would result in a number of
sources that would be less than 12 percent. Further, rounding of a
sample size is a common sampling technique (Cochran, William G.
Sampling Techniques. Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, 1977. page 76
and pages 72-87).
Table 8 of this preamble presents the total number of HMIWI in each
subcategory and the number of HMIWI that comprise the best performing
12 percent of units (i.e., the MACT floor pool) for each subcategory.
[[Page 72980]]
Table 8--Number of HMIWI That Are in Each Subcategory and That Comprise
the MACT Floors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Unit size Total number HMIWI in MACT
of HMIWI floor pool
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large................................... 36 5
Medium.................................. 17 3
Small................................... 2 1
Small Rural............................. 2 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next step in the MACT analysis for existing HMIWI was to
determine the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources. Our general approach to
identifying the average emission limitation has been to use a measure
of central tendency, such as the arithmetic mean or the median. First,
unit average emissions for each pollutant within each subcategory were
ranked from lowest to highest. Then, a MACT floor emissions level for
each pollutant was identified based on the arithmetic mean of the
emissions values for the best performing 12 percent of HMIWI within
each subcategory. MACT floors for each pollutant within each
subcategory, with the exceptions of NOX and SO2
for small HMIWI, were based on this approach. As previously explained,
we do not have any NOX or SO2 emissions data for
the two small HMIWI because they have not tested for NOX or
SO2 and are not required to do so by the 1997 HMIWI
standards. Both small units use wet scrubbers, as do the best
performing 12 percent of medium HMIWI (3 units) with respect to
NOX and SO2. In both of these instances, the
NOX and SO2 emission limits being proposed for
existing medium HMIWI also are being proposed for existing small units,
since they employ the same emissions control technology, and we do not
have information suggesting that the small units are employing other
measures that would further affect their emissions performance. A
summary of the various add-on control technologies used, in addition to
any other emission reduction measures, by the best performing 12
percent HMIWI on a pollutant-specific basis for existing large and
medium HMIWI is presented in Table 9 of this preamble.
Table 9--Summary of Add-On Control Technologies for Best Performing 12
Percent of Large and Medium HMIWI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant Large HMIWI Medium HMIWI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl............................. wet scrubber...... wet scrubber
CO.............................. wet scrubber; dry dry scrubber; wet
scrubber; fabric scrubber
filter.
Pb.............................. carbon adsorber/ dry scrubber
wet scrubber; dry
scrubber.
Cd.............................. carbon adsorber/ dry scrubber
wet scrubber; dry
scrubber.
Hg.............................. fabric filter; wet wet scrubber
scrubber; carbon
adsorber/wet
scrubber; dry
scrubber.
PM.............................. dry scrubber; dry dry scrubber; wet
scrubber/wet scrubber
scrubber; fabric
filter.
CDD/CDF......................... dry scrubber; wet scrubber
carbon adsorber/
wet scrubber; wet
scrubber.
NOX............................. carbon adsorber/ wet scrubber
wet scrubber; wet
scrubber; dry
scrubber.
SO2............................. dry scrubber; wet wet scrubber
scrubber.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 10 of this preamble presents the same information for
existing small HMIWI and for existing small HMIWI meeting the rural
criteria.
Table 10--Summary of Add-On Control Technologies for Best Performing 12
Percent of Small and Small Rural HMIWI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant Small HMIWI Small Rural HMIWI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl............................. wet scrubber...... combustion control
CO.............................. wet scrubber...... combustion control
Pb.............................. wet scrubber...... combustion control
Cd.............................. wet scrubber...... combustion control
Hg.............................. wet scrubber...... combustion control
PM.............................. wet scrubber...... combustion control
CDD/CDF......................... wet scrubber...... combustion control
NOX............................. wet scrubber...... combustion control
SO2............................. wet scrubber...... combustion control
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We then used emissions data for those best performing 12 percent
HMIWI to determine emission limits to be proposed, with an accounting
for variability. As previously explained in this preamble with respect
to development of emission limits for new HMIWI, EPA must exercise its
judgment, based on an evaluation of the relevant factors and available
data, to determine the level of emissions control that can be
customarily achieved by the best performing HMIWI under variable
conditions. To account for pollutant-specific variability at the best
performing HMIWI, we used emissions data for each test run conducted by
the best performing 12 percent of HMIWI within each subcategory. The
amount of pollutant-specific test data for the best performing 12
percent HMIWI within each subcategory varies from 33 data points to 60
data points for large units; 9 data points to 70 data points for medium
units; 3 data points to 12 data points for small units (excluding
NOX and SO2 for which there is no data for small
units); and 3 data points to 4 data points for small rural units.
Similar to the analyses for new HMIWI, we determined use of the 99.9
percent UCL to be an appropriate method of estimating variability. The
UCL represents the statistical likelihood that a value, in this case an
emission value from the average source in the best performing 12
percent of sources, will fall at or below the UCL value. The 99.9
percent UCL is appropriate for use in this analysis because sources
must meet the standards at all times, and the limited amount of test
data introduces a degree of uncertainty. To calculate the emission
limit, including variability, we used the equation: 99.9 percent UCL =
mean + 3.09 * standard deviation. The mean and standard deviation are
based on the test runs for the best performing 12 percent HMIWI for
each pollutant. Accounting for variability using the 99.9 percent UCL
means: ``For each pollutant, the performance of the average HMIWI
within the best performing 12 percent HMIWI is estimated to meet (i.e.,
not exceed) the emission limit 99.9 percent of the time.'' As described
for new HMIWI, the emission values adjusted for variability are
presented with two significant figures. After determining the MACT
floor-based emission limits for each pollutant, EPA examined additional
measures that could be taken to further reduce emissions. Table 11 of
this preamble presents a summary of the emissions reductions and costs
associated with the beyond-the-floor options for each subcategory.
[[Page 72981]]
Table 11--Summary of Beyond-the-Floor Emissions Reductions and Costs for Existing HMIWI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small rural
Large HMIWI Medium HMIWI Small HMIWI HMIWI
Pollutant reductions, reductions, Reductions, reductions,
lb/yr a lb/yr a lb/yr a lb/yr a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl............................................. 8,000 110 0 570
CO.............................................. 1,900 160 57 0
Pb.............................................. 47 0.23 3.4 0.32
Cd.............................................. 11 0 0 0.18
Hg.............................................. 39 0.8 0.12 0
PM.............................................. 5,400 1,100 180 0
Total CDD/CDF................................... 1.9 0.032 0.033 0.21
TEQ............................................. 0.027 0 0 0.0047
NOX............................................. 280,000 30,000 3,400 190
SO2............................................. 6,700 1,000 140 58
Total........................................... 300,000 32,000 3,800 820
BTF Cost........................................ $14,000,000 $1,200,000 $500,000 $390,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Sums of individual numbers may not equal totals due to internal rounding. CDD/CDF and TEQ emissions in grams
per year.
As discussed in section IV.A.2.b of this preamble, EPA determined
that these additional beyond-the-floor measures are not reasonable
based on the high costs that would be incurred and the minimal
additional emissions reductions that could be achieved. Therefore, all
of the emission limits proposed in this action for existing HMIWI are
based on the MACT floor level of control.
A summary of the pollutant-specific average emissions associated
with the best performing 12 percent HMIWI, the emission values adjusted
for variability, and the emission limits being proposed for existing
HMIWI are presented in Table 12 of this preamble.
Table 12--Summary of Average Emission Values, Emission Values With Variability, and Emission Limits for Existing
HMIWI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Emission value Proposed
Pollutant (units) Unit size\1\ emission with emission limit
value\2\ variability\2\ \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl (ppmv).................................... L 0.47 2.38 2.4
M 0.60 2.50 2.5
S 1.03 4.47 4.5
SR 135 432 440
CO (ppmv)..................................... L 1.03 3.88 3.9
M 0.95 2.96 3.0
S 2.27 8.18 8.2
SR 5.4 11.9 12
Pb (mg/dscm).................................. L 0.0032 0.0130 0.013
M 0.0041 0.0163 0.017
S 0.073 0.174 0.18
SR 0.226 0.346 0.35
Cd (mg/dscm).................................. L 0.00077 0.00408 0.0041
M 0.00116 0.00701 0.0071
S 0.0026 0.0115 0.012
SR 0.0380 0.0671 0.068
Hg (mg/dscm).................................. L 0.00210 0.00943 0.0095
M 0.00136 0.00782 0.0079
S 0.00292 0.00742 0.0075
SR 0.00158 0.00391 0.0040
PM (gr/dscf).................................. L 0.00143 0.00559 0.0056
M 0.0036 0.0119 0.012
S 0.0076 0.0167 0.017
SR 0.0128 0.0294 0.030
CDD/CDF, total (ng/dscm)...................... L 0.37 1.54 1.6
M 0.158 0.621 0.63
S 2.89 8.28 8.3
SR 30 122 130
CDD/CDF, TEQ (ng/dscm)........................ L 0.0074 0.0282 0.029
M 0.00306 0.00970 0.0097
S 0.00453 0.00792 0.0080
SR 0.62 2.59 2.6
NOX (ppmv).................................... L 73 135 140
M 63 193 200
S 63 \3\ 193 \3\ 200
SR 95 110 110
SO2 (ppmv).................................... L 0.80 2.71 2.8
M 0.90 2.79 2.8
S 0.90 \3\ 2.8 \3\ 2.8
[[Page 72982]]
SR 22.6 42.7 43
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ L = Large; M = Medium; S = Small; SR = Small Rural.
\2\ All values are measured at 7 percent oxygen.
\3\ Emission value reflects data from best performing medium HMIWI.
Table 13 of this preamble summarizes the emission limits
promulgated in 1997, the emission limits proposed in 2007 in response
to the Court's remand, and the emission limits being proposed in this
action in response to the Court's remand for existing HMIWI.
Table 13--Summary of 1997 Promulgated Emission Limits, Emission Limits Proposed in 2007 in Response to the
Remand, and Emission Limits Currently Being Proposed in Response to the Remand for Existing HMIWI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed
Remand response remand
Pollutant (units) Unit size\1\ Promulgated limit \2\ limit proposed in response limit
2007 \2\ \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HC1 (ppmv)........................ L 100 or 93% reduction. 78 or 93% reduction. 2.4
M 100 or 93% reduction. 78 or 93% reduction. 2.5
S 100 or 93% reduction. 78 or 93% reduction. 4.5
SR 3,100................ 3,100............... 440
CO (ppmv)......................... L 40.................. 40.................. 3.9
M 40................... 40.................. 3.0
S 40................... 40.................. 8.2
SR 40................... 40.................. 12
Pb (mg/dscm)...................... L 1.2 or 70% reduction. 0.78 or 71% 0.013
reduction.
M 1.2 or 70% reduction. 0.78 or 71% 0.017
reduction.
S 1.2 or 70% reduction. 0.78 or 71% 0.18
reduction.
SR 10................... 8.9................. 0.35
Cd (mg/dscm)...................... L 0.16 or 65% reduction 0.11 or 66% 0.0041
reduction.
M 0.16 or 65% reduction 0.11 or 66% 0.0071
reduction.
S 0.16 or 65% reduction 0.11 or 66% 0.012
reduction.
SR 4.................... 4................... 0.068
Hg (mg/dscm)...................... L 0.55 or 85% reduction 0.55 or 87% 0.0095
reduction.
M 0.55 or 85% reduction 0.55 or 87% 0.0079
reduction.
S 0.55 or 85% reduction 0.55 or 87% 0.0075
reduction.
SR 7.5.................. 6.6................. 0.0040
PM (gr/dscf)...................... L 0.015................ 0.015............... 0.0056
M 0.03................. 0.030............... 0.012
S 0.05................. 0.050............... 0.017
SR 0.086................ 0.086............... 0.030
CDD/CDF, total (ng/dscm).......... L 125.................. 115................. 1.6
M 125.................. 115................. 0.63
S 125.................. 115................. 8.3
SR 800.................. 800................. 130
CDD/CDF, TEQ (ng/dscm)............ L 2.3.................. 2.2................. 0.029
M 2.3.................. 2.2................. 0.0097
S 2.3.................. 2.2................. 0.0080
SR 15................... 15.................. 2.6
NOX (ppmv)........................ L 250.................. 250................. 140
M, S 250.................. 250................. 200
SR 250.................. 250................. 110
SO2 (ppmv)........................ L, 55................... 55.................. 2.8
SR 55................... 55.................. 43
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ L = Large; M = Medium; S = Small; SR = Small Rural.
\2\ All emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxygen.
b. Consideration of Options More Stringent than the MACT Floor for
Existing HMIWI. As discussed earlier regarding new HMIWI, after
establishing the MACT floor emission level for each pollutant for
existing sources, EPA is required to look ``beyond-the-floor'' at
additional measures that could be taken to further reduce emissions.
The beyond-the-floor options for large and medium HMIWI included the
addition of wet scrubber or DIFF controls (for units not already
projected to be operating both types of controls based on the MACT
floor requirements); replacement of DIFF controls; increased activated
carbon, sodium bicarbonate, and/or caustic usage; combustion
improvements; and addition of SNCR. For some units, no beyond-the-floor
measures were identified because we
[[Page 72983]]
estimated that to achieve the MACT floor limits, those units would have
to use all available add-on controls and other control measures. The
beyond-the-floor options for small units included addition of DIFF
controls, increased activated carbon and/or caustic usage, combustion
improvements, and addition of SNCR. EPA analyzed the additional air
pollutant reductions, costs, and secondary impacts for the beyond-the-
floor options, and detailed information on the analyses are available
in a memorandum entitled ``Analysis of Beyond-the Floor Options'' that
is included in the docket. Considering the cost-effectiveness (for all
pollutants) of the beyond-the-floor control measures, which averaged
$167,000 per ton for large units, $118,000 per ton for medium units,
$325,000 for small units, and $1.3 million per ton for small rural
units, EPA determined that the beyond-the-floor measures were not
reasonable and, therefore, MACT is based on the floor level of control
for all of the subcategories.
3. Opacity Limits for New and Existing Units
EPA also is proposing a revised opacity standard for new and
existing HMIWI as part of responding to the Court's remand. The 1997
standards require that opacity testing be conducted according to EPA
Test Method 9 of appendix A-4 of 40 CFR part 60. Method 9 specifies
that opacity shall be determined as an average of 24 consecutive
observations recorded at 15-second intervals (i.e., 6-minute block
average). Method 9 also specifies that opacity observations shall be
recorded to the nearest 5 percent at 15-second intervals. The opacity
data that we have is in terms of averages rather than single opacity
readings. Based on these averages alone, without any accounting for
variability, the MACT floor for new units, as well as existing units,
would be 0 percent. We then considered how to appropriately account for
variability given the differences in opacity testing versus testing for
the 9 regulated pollutants. We have continuous opacity monitoring
system (COMS) data for an HMIWI that is in the MACT floor pool for PM
for existing medium units. In that instance, we can determine the
single highest opacity reading. Because the level of opacity can be
impacted by the amount, type, and particle characteristics of PM in the
gas stream, as well as process operation, we believe that using the
highest opacity reading from one of the best performing HMIWI with
respect to PM is an appropriate method for determining the opacity
level that has been achieved under variable conditions. While opacity
may not be a reliable indicator of short-term mass emissions, opacity
can serve as an indicator of and provide qualitative information on the
operation and maintenance of particulate control equipment (Current
Knowledge of Particulate Matter (PM) Continuous Emission Monitoring,
EPA-454/R-00-039, September 2000). When PM emissions control devices
are operated and maintained in the same manner as during successful PM
emissions testing, our expectation is that PM emissions from those
sources meet the standards. Therefore, as a continuous check on proper
operation and maintenance of PM control devices, opacity can serve as
an appropriate surrogate for PM emissions. The single highest COMS
reading for the HMIWI that is in the MACT floor pool for PM is 1.1
percent. EPA commonly sets opacity standards based on whole numbers,
and rounding down would cause the unit upon which the standard is based
to have demonstrated performance at a level that would not meet the
standard. Thus, we rounded up and are proposing a MACT-floor based
opacity limit of 2 percent for both new and existing HMIWI.
4. Percent Reduction Limits for New and Existing Units
The 1997 standards included percent reduction limits for HCl, Pb,
Cd, and Hg for new and existing HMIWI. For those pollutants, sources
have had the option of demonstrating compliance by meeting the emission
limits (expressed as emissions rates) or the percent reduction limits.
For the 1997 rule, the percent reduction limits were developed using
the pollutant concentrations at the inlet and outlet of a control
device and reflected only the efficiency of the control device in
reducing specific pollutants. Because, as previously explained in this
preamble, factors other than control technology affect pollutant
emissions from HMIWI, and because we did not take these factors into
account when we set the 1997 standards based on percent reduction, we
now believe it is inappropriate to provide in this rule percent
reduction limits based only on control technology performance.
Moreover, not many HMIWI determined the efficiency of their control
devices, and none of the HMIWI used the percent reduction limits to
demonstrate compliance with the 1997 rule. None of the HMIWI
demonstrated compliance with the Pb, Cd, or Hg percent reduction limits
or even conducted the testing necessary to determine the efficiency of
their control devices. No medium or small HMIWI demonstrated compliance
with the HCl percent reduction limits or conducted control device inlet
and outlet testing. Eight large HMIWI tested for HCl at their control
device inlets and outlets, but all of those units were in compliance
with the HCl emission limit and, therefore, didn't need to rely on
their control technology efficiency calculations to show that,
alternatively, they were in compliance with the HCl percent reduction
limit. None of these eight large HMIWI are among the best performing 12
percent of large units for HCl (i.e., HCl emissions based only on
control technology outlet testing). Therefore, this action does not
propose revised percent reduction limits, and proposes to eliminate the
continued use of the 1997 percent reduction limits after the compliance
date of the proposed revised emission limits.
B. Rationale for the Proposed CAA Section 129(a)(5) 5-Year Review
Response
Earlier in today's notice, we explained that section 129(a)(5)
provides the Agency with broad discretion to revise MACT standards for
incinerators.
As we explained, we do not interpret section 129(a)(5) as requiring
that EPA in each round of review re-calculate MACT floors, and we
regard the D.C. Circuit's recent ruling in NRDC and LEAN v. EPA, in
which the Court held that the similar review requirement in section
112(d)(6) does not require a MACT floor re-calculation, as supporting
our view. Nevertheless, given the unique facts of this rulemaking, in
which due to issues with respect to the 1997 rulemaking record we have
had to re-calculate MACT floors based on more recent data in response
to the remand at a point in time following the statutory deadline for
conducting the section 129(a)(5) review, it may appear that we are
performing the ``MACT-on-MACT'' review that we believe is not
statutorily required by section 129(a)(5). We stress that our proposed
revised standards are the result of what we now think is necessary to
satisfy our initial duties under section 129(a)(2) to have set MACT
limits for HMIWI, in response to the Court's remand. Our action today
does not reflect an independent MACT floor reassessment performed only
under section 129(a)(5). However, since today's proposed revised
standards do reflect the emissions levels currently achieved in
practice by the best performing HMIWI, and we have no other information
that would cause us to reach different conclusions were a section
129(a)(5) review to be conducted in isolation, we believe that this
[[Page 72984]]
rulemaking responding to the Court's remand, based on the most current
HMIWI emissions information, will necessarily discharge our instant
duty under section 129(a)(5) to review and revise the current
standards.
In performing future 5-year reviews of the HMIWI standards, we do
not intend to recalculate new MACT floors, but will instead propose to
revise the emission limits to reflect the actual performance of the
emission reduction techniques that formed the basis of MACT, consistent
with our interpretation as presented earlier in today's notice. We
believe this approach reflects the most reasonable interpretation of
the review requirement of CAA section 129(a)(5), and is consistent with
how we have interpreted the similar review requirement of CAA section
112(d)(6) regarding MACT standards promulgated under section 112.
We believe that this action's proposed remand response fulfills our
obligations regarding the first 5-year review of the HMIWI standards
because the revised MACT floor determinations and emission limits
associated with the remand response are based on performance data for
the 57 currently operating HMIWI that are subject to the 1997 standards
and account for all non-technology factors that affect HMIWI
performance. The proposed remand response also addresses whether new
technologies and processes and improvements in practices have been
demonstrated at HMIWI subject to the 1997 standards. Table 14 of this
preamble provides a comparison between the emission limits promulgated
in 1997, the emission limits proposed in 2007 in response to the 5-year
review requirement, and the emission limits being proposed in this
action in response to the Court's remand for new HMIWI.
Table 14--Summary of 1997 Promulgated Emission Limits, Emission Limits Proposed in 2007 in Response to the 5-
Year Review Requirement, and Emission Limits Currently Being Proposed in Response to the Remand for New HMIWI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed
Unit size 5-Year review limit remand
Pollutant (units) \1\ Promulgated limit \2\ proposed in 2007 \2\ response limit
\2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl (ppmv).......................... L 15 or 99% reduction.... 15 or 99% reduction... 0.75
M 15 or 99% reduction.... 15 or 99% reduction... 1.8
S 15 or 99% reduction.... 15 or 99% reduction... 4.5
CO (ppmv)........................... L 40..................... 25.................... 2.9
M 40..................... 25.................... 1.9
S 40..................... 25.................... 8.2
Pb (mg/dscm)........................ L 0.07 or 98% reduction.. 0.060 or 99% reduction 0.00047
M 0.07 or 98% reduction.. 0.060 or 99% reduction 0.016
S 1.2 or 70% reduction... 0.64 or 71% reduction. 0.18
Cd (mg/dscm)........................ L 0.04 or 90% reduction.. 0.0050 or 99% 0.00012
reduction.
M 0.04 or 90% reduction.. 0.0050 or 99% 0.0071
reduction.
S 0.16 or 65% reduction.. 0.060 or 74% reduction 0.012
Hg (mg/dscm)........................ L 0.55 or 85% reduction.. 0.19 or 96% reduction. 0.00093
M 0.55 or 85% reduction.. 0.19 or 96% reduction. 0.0020
S 0.55 or 85% reduction.. 0.33 or 96% reduction. 0.0075
PM (gr/dscf)........................ L 0.015.................. 0.0090................ 0.0048
M 0.015.................. 0.0090................ 0.0099
S 0.03................... 0.018................. 0.017
CDD/CDF, total (ng/dscm)............ L 25..................... 16.................... 0.60
M 25..................... 16.................... 0.35
S 125.................... 111................... 8.3
CDD/CDF, TEQ (ng/dscm).............. L 0.6.................... 0.21.................. 0.014
M 0.6.................... 0.21.................. 0.0097
S 2.3.................... 2.0................... 0.0080
NOX (ppmv).......................... L 250.................... 212................... 110
M, S 250.................... 212................... 38
SO2 (ppmv).......................... L 55..................... 21.................... 1.9
M 55..................... 21.................... 0.78
S 55..................... 28.................... 0.78
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ L = Large; M = Medium; S = Small.
\2\ All emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxygen.
With two exceptions, the emission limits for new HMIWI being
proposed in this action are more stringent than the 5-year review
emission limits proposed in 2007. The Cd and PM emission limits for new
medium units being proposed in this action are higher than the 5-year
review limits proposed in 2007 (0.0050 mg/dscm versus 0.0081 mg/dscm
for Cd; and 0.0090 gr/dscf versus 0.0099 gr/dscf for PM). As explained
with respect to PM emissions in Table 7 of this preamble, there are
several potential causes for these differences in emission limits.
There are three fewer medium HMIWI now and we have more emissions data
to consider.
Table 15 of this preamble provides a comparison between the
emission limits promulgated in 1997, the emission limits proposed in
2007 in response to the 5-year review requirement, and the emission
limits being proposed in this action in response to the Court's remand
for existing HMIWI.
[[Page 72985]]
Table 15--Summary of 1997 Promulgated Emission Limits, Emission Limits Proposed in 2007 in Response to the 5-
Year Review Requirement, and Emission Limits Currently Being Proposed in Response to the Remand for Existing
HMIWI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed
Unit 5-Year review limit remand
Pollutant (units) size\1\ Promulgated limit \2\ proposed in 2007 \2\ response limit
\2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl (ppmv).......................... L 100 or 93% reduction... 51 or 94% reduction... 2.4
M 100 or 93% reduction... 51 or 94% reduction... 2.5
S 100 or 93% reduction... 51 or 94% reduction... 4.5
SR 3,100.................. 398................... 440
CO (ppmv)........................... L 40..................... 25.................... 3.9
M 40..................... 25.................... 3.0
S 40..................... 25.................... 8.2
SR 40..................... 25.................... 12
Pb (mg/dscm)........................ L 1.2 or 70% reduction... 0.64 or 71% reduction. 0.013
M 1.2 or 70% reduction... 0.64 or 71% reduction. 0.017
S 1.2 or 70% reduction... 0.64 or 71% reduction. 0.18
SR 10..................... 0.60.................. 0.35
Cd (mg/dscm)........................ L 0.16 or 65% reduction.. 0.060 or 74% reduction 0.0041
M 0.16 or 65% reduction.. 0.060 or 74% reduction 0.0071
S 0.16 or 65% reduction.. 0.060 or 74% reduction 0.012
SR 4...................... 0.050................. 0.068
Hg (mg/dscm)........................ L 0.55 or 85% reduction.. 0.33 or 96% reduction. 0.0095
M 0.55 or 85% reduction.. 0.33 or 96% reduction. 0.0079
S 0.55 or 85% reduction.. 0.33 or 96% reduction. 0.0075
SR 7.5.................... 0.25.................. 0.0040
PM (gr/dscf)........................ L 0.015.................. 0.015................. 0.0056
M 0.03................... 0.030................. 0.012
S 0.05................... 0.030................. 0.017
SR 0.086.................. 0.030................. 0.030
CDD/CDF, total (ng/dscm)............ L 125.................... 115................... 1.6
M 125.................... 115................... 0.63
S 125.................... 115................... 8.3
SR 800.................... 800................... 130
CDD/CDF, TEQ (ng/dscm).............. L 2.3.................... 2.0................... 0.029
M 2.3.................... 2.0................... 0.0097
S 2.3.................... 2.0................... 0.0080
SR 15..................... 15.................... 2.6
NOX (ppmv).......................... L 250.................... 212................... 140
M, S 250.................... 212................... 200
SR 250.................... 212................... 110
SO2 (ppmv).......................... L, 55..................... 28.................... 2.8
SR 55..................... 28.................... 43
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ L = Large; M = Medium; S = Small; SR = Small Rural.
\2\ All emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxygen.
With four exceptions, the emission limits for existing HMIWI being
proposed in this action are more stringent than the 5-year review
emission limits proposed in 2007. The HCl, Cd, and SO2
emission limits for existing small rural units being proposed in this
action are higher than the 5-year review limits proposed in 2007 (398
ppm versus 440 ppm for HCl; 0.050 mg/dscm versus 0.068 mg/dscm for Cd;
and 28 ppm versus 43 ppm for SO2). The PM emission limit
being proposed for small rural HMIWI is the same as the 5-year review
emission limit proposed in 2007. These differences in emission limits
are likely due to the fact that there are now four fewer small rural
HMIWI (leaving only two rural units).
C. Rationale for Other Proposed Amendments
1. Performance Testing and Monitoring Requirements
We are proposing some adjustments to the performance testing and
monitoring requirements that were promulgated in 1997. For existing
large, medium, and small HMIWI (i.e., all currently operating large,
medium, and small HMIWI), we are proposing retaining the current
requirements of the rule and adding the following requirements:
Demonstration of initial compliance with the revised
NOX and SO2 emission limits;
Annual inspections of scrubbers, fabric filters, and other
air pollution control devices that may be used to meet the emission
limits; and
One-time testing of the ash handling operations at the
time of the next compliance test using EPA Method 22 of appendix A-7 of
40 CFR part 60.
For existing small rural HMIWI, who have been subject to fewer
performance testing and monitoring requirements, we are proposing
retaining the current requirements of the rule and adding the following
requirements:
Demonstration of initial compliance with the revised
NOX, SO2, HCl, Cd, and Pb emission limits;
Annual compliance testing for PM, CO, and HCl;
Annual inspections of scrubbers, fabric filters, and other
air pollution control devices that may be used to meet the emission
limits; and
[[Page 72986]]
One-time testing of the ash handling operations at the
time of the next compliance test using EPA Method 22 of appendix A-7 of
40 CFR part 60.
Currently, existing HMIWI are not required to conduct initial
emissions testing for NOX or SO2. Existing small
rural HMIWI are not currently required to conduct initial compliance
testing for HCl, Pb, Cd, NOX, or SO2, and are
also not required to conduct annual compliance testing for any of the
nine regulated pollutants. In addition, existing HMIWI are not
currently required to conduct any testing of the ash handling. These
proposed requirements were selected to provide additional assurance
that sources continue to operate at the levels established during their
initial performance test. The proposed amendments would allow sources
to use the results of previous emissions tests to demonstrate
compliance with the revised emission limits as long as the sources
certify that the previous test results are representative of current
operations. Those sources whose previous emissions tests do not
demonstrate compliance with one or more of the revised emission limits
would be required to conduct another emissions test for those
pollutants (note that most sources are already required to test for
HCl, CO, and PM on an annual basis).
Additional requirements also are proposed for new HMIWI. For new
sources, we are proposing retaining the current requirements and adding
the following requirements:
Demonstration of initial compliance with the revised
NOX and SO2 emission limits;
Annual inspections of scrubbers, fabric filters, and other
air pollution control devices that may be used to meet the emission
limits;
Use of CO CEMS;
Use of bag leak detection systems for fabric-filter
controlled units; and
Annual testing of the ash handling operations using EPA
Method 22 of appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60.
For existing sources, we also are proposing to allow for the
optional use of bag leak detection systems. We also are clarifying that
the rule allows for the following optional CEMS use: CO CEMS for
existing sources; and PM CEMS, HCl CEMS, multi-metals CEMS, Hg CEMS,
integrated sorbent trap Hg monitoring, and integrated sorbent trap
dioxin monitoring for existing and new sources. The optional use of HCl
CEMS, multi-metals CEMS, integrated sorbent trap Hg monitoring, and
integrated sorbent trap dioxin monitoring will be available on the date
a final performance specification for these monitoring systems is
published in the Federal Register or the date of approval of a site-
specific monitoring plan. The proposed monitoring provisions are
discussed below.
a. Monitoring Provisions for SNCR. The proposed amendments would
require monitoring of secondary chamber temperature and reagent (e.g.,
ammonia or urea) injection rate for HMIWI that install SNCR as a method
of reducing NOX emissions. All HMIWI are currently required
to monitor secondary chamber temperature.
b. Bag Leak Detection Systems. The proposed amendments would
provide, as an alternative PM monitoring technique for existing
sources, and a requirement for new sources, the use of bag leak
detection systems on HMIWI controlled with fabric filters. Bag leak
detection systems have been applied successfully at many industrial
sources. EPA is proposing to remove the opacity testing requirements
for HMIWI that use bag leak detection systems.
c. CO CEMS. The proposed amendments would require the use of CO
CEMS for new sources, and allow the use of CO CEMS on existing sources.
Owners and operators that use CO CEMS would be able to discontinue
their annual CO compliance test as well as their monitoring of the
secondary chamber temperature, unless the source uses SNCR technology.
The continuous monitoring of CO emissions is an effective way of
ensuring that the combustion unit is operating properly. The proposed
amendments incorporate the use of performance specification (PS)-4B
(Specifications and Test Procedures for Carbon Monoxide and Oxygen
Continuous Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources) of appendix B of
40 CFR part 60.
The proposed CO emission limits are based on data from infrequent
(normally annual) stack tests and compliance would be demonstrated by
stack tests. The change to use of CO CEMS for measurement and
enforcement of the same emission limits must be carefully considered in
relation to an appropriate averaging period for data reduction. In past
EPA rulemakings for incineration units, EPA has selected averaging
times between 4 hours and 24 hours. Because sufficient CO CEMS data are
unavailable for HMIWI, EPA concluded that the use of a 24-hour block
average was appropriate to address potential changes in CO emissions
that cannot be accounted for with short term stack test data. The 24-
hour block average would be calculated following procedures in EPA
Method 19 of appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60. Facilities electing to use
CO CEMS as an optional method would be required to notify EPA 1 month
before starting use of CO CEMS and 1 month before stopping use of the
CO CEMS. In addition, EPA specifically requests comment on whether
continuous monitoring of CO emissions should be required for all
existing HMIWI.
d. PM CEMS. The proposed amendments would allow the use of PM CEMS
as an alternative testing and monitoring method. Owners or operators
who choose to rely on PM CEMS would be able to discontinue their annual
PM compliance test. In addition, because units that demonstrate
compliance with the PM emission limits with a PM CEMS would clearly be
meeting the opacity standard, compliance demonstration with PM CEMS
would be considered a substitute for opacity testing. Owners and
operators that use PM CEMS also would be able to discontinue their
monitoring of minimum wet scrubber pressure drop, horsepower, or
amperage. The proposed amendments incorporate the use of PS-11
(Specifications and Test Procedures for Particulate Matter Continuous
Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources) of appendix B of 40
CFR part 60 for PM CEMS, and PS-11 QA Procedure 2 to ensure that PM
CEMS are installed and operated properly and produce good quality
monitoring data.
The proposed PM emission limits are based on data from infrequent
(normally annual) stack tests and compliance would be demonstrated by
stack tests. The use of PM CEMS for measurement and enforcement of the
same emission limits must be carefully considered in relation to an
appropriate averaging period for data reduction. Because PM CEMS data
are unavailable for HMIWI, EPA concluded that the use of a 24-hour
block average was appropriate to address potential changes in PM
emissions that cannot be accounted for with short term stack test data.
The 24-hour block average would be calculated following procedures in
EPA Method 19 of appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60. An owner or operator
of an HMIWI unit who wishes to use PM CEMS would be required to notify
EPA 1 month before starting use of PM CEMS and 1 month before stopping
use of the PM CEMS.
e. Other CEMS and Monitoring Systems. EPA also is proposing the
optional use of HCl CEMS, multi-metals CEMS, Hg CEMS, integrated
sorbent trap Hg monitoring, and integrated sorbent trap dioxin
monitoring as alternatives to the existing methods for demonstrating
compliance with the HCl, metals (Pb, Cd, and Hg), and CDD/CDF
[[Page 72987]]
emissions limits. Because CEMS data for HMIWI are unavailable for HCl
and metals, EPA concluded that the use of a 24-hour block average was
appropriate to address potential changes in emissions of HCl and metals
that cannot be accounted for with short term stack test data. EPA has
concluded that the use of 24-hour block averages would be appropriate
to address emissions variability, and EPA has included the use of 24-
hour block averages in the proposed rule. The 24-hour block averages
would be calculated following procedures in EPA Method 19 of appendix A
of 40 CFR part 60. Although final performance specifications are not
yet available for HCl CEMS and multi-metals CEMS, EPA is considering
development of performance specifications. The proposed rule specifies
that these options will be available to a facility on the date a final
performance specification is published in the Federal Register or the
date of approval of a site-specific monitoring plan.
The use of HCl CEMS would allow the discontinuation of HCl sorbent
flow rate monitoring, scrubber liquor pH monitoring, and the annual
testing requirements for HCl. EPA has proposed PS-13 (Specifications
and Test Procedures for Hydrochloric Acid Continuous Monitoring Systems
in Stationary Sources) of appendix B of 40 CFR part 60 and believes
that performance specification can serve as the basis for a performance
specification for HCl CEMS use at HMIWI. In addition to the procedures
used in proposed PS-13 for initial accuracy determination using the
relative accuracy test, a comparison against a reference method, EPA is
taking comment on an alternate initial accuracy determination
procedure, similar to the one in section 11 of PS-15 (Performance
Specification for Extractive FTIR Continuous Emissions Monitor Systems
in Stationary Sources) of appendix B of 40 CFR part 60 using the
dynamic or analyte spiking procedure.
EPA believes multi-metals CEMS can be used in many applications,
including HMIWI. EPA has monitored side-by-side evaluations of multi-
metals CEMS with EPA Method 29 of appendix A-8 of 40 CFR part 60 at
industrial waste incinerators and found good correlation. EPA also
approved the use of multi-metals CEMS as an alternative monitoring
method at a hazardous waste combustor. EPA believes it is possible to
adapt proposed PS-10 (Specifications and Test Procedures for Multi-
metals Continuous Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources) of appendix
B of 40 CFR part 60 or other EPA performance specifications to allow
the use of multi-metals CEMS at HMIWI. In addition to the procedures
used in proposed PS-10 for initial accuracy determination using the
relative accuracy test, a comparison against a reference method, EPA is
taking comment on an alternate initial accuracy determination
procedure, similar to the one in section 11 of PS-15 using the dynamic
or analyte spiking procedure.
Relative to the use of Hg CEMS and integrated sorbent trap Hg
monitoring, EPA believes that the specifications and procedures
described in the May 18, 2005 Federal Register notice that promulgated
standards of performance for new and existing electric utility steam
generating units (70 FR 28606) could provide the technical basis for
site-specific monitoring plans. The options of using Hg CEMS or an
integrated sorbent trap Hg monitoring system would take effect on the
date a final performance specification is published in the Federal
Register or the date of approval of a site-specific monitoring plan. An
owner or operator of an HMIWI unit who wishes to use Hg CEMS would be
required to notify EPA 1 month before starting use of Hg CEMS and 1
month before stopping use of the Hg CEMS. The use of multi-metals CEMS
or Hg CEMS would allow the discontinuation of wet scrubber outlet flue
gas temperature monitoring. Mercury sorbent flow rate monitoring could
not be eliminated in favor of a multi-metals CEMS or Hg CEMS because it
also is an indicator of CDD/CDF control. Additionally, there is no
annual metals test that could be eliminated.
The integrated sorbent trap monitoring of Hg would entail use of a
continuous automated sampling system with analysis of the samples at
set intervals using any suitable determinative technique that can meet
appropriate criteria. The option to use a continuous automated sampling
system would take effect on the date a final performance specification
is published in the Federal Register or the date of approval of a site-
specific monitoring plan. Integrated sorbent trap monitoring of Hg
would allow the discontinuation of wet scrubber outlet flue gas
temperature monitoring. Mercury sorbent flow rate monitoring could not
be eliminated in favor of integrated sorbent trap monitoring of Hg
because it also is an indicator of CDD/CDF control. Additionally, there
is no annual Hg test that could be eliminated.
The integrated sorbent trap monitoring of dioxin would entail use
of a continuous automated sampling system and analysis of the sample
according to EPA Reference Method 23 of appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60.
The option to use a continuous automated sampling system would take
effect on the date a final performance specification is published in
the Federal Register or the date of approval of a site-specific
monitoring plan. Integrated sorbent trap monitoring of dioxin would
allow the discontinuation of fabric filter inlet temperature
monitoring. Dioxin/furan sorbent flow rate monitoring could not be
eliminated in favor of integrated sorbent trap monitoring of dioxin
because it also is an indicator of Hg control. Additionally, there is
no annual CDD/CDF test that could be eliminated. If integrated sorbent
trap monitoring of dioxin as well as multi-metals CEMS, Hg CEMS, or
integrated sorbent trap Hg monitoring are used, Hg sorbent flow rate
monitoring and CDD/CDF sorbent flow rate monitoring (in both cases
activated carbon is the sorbent) could be eliminated. EPA requests
comment on other parameter monitoring requirements that could be
eliminated upon use of any or all of the optional CEMS discussed above.
Table 16 of this preamble presents a summary of the HMIWI operating
parameters, the pollutants influenced by each parameter, and
alternative monitoring options for each parameter.
Table 16--Summary of HMIWI Operating Parameters, Pollutants Influenced by Each Parameter, and Alternative
Monitoring Options for Each Parameter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutants influenced by operating parameter (by control
Operating parameter/ monitoring device type) Alternative
requirement ------------------------------------------------------------ monitoring
Dry scrubber Wet scrubber Combined system options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum charge rate............. All............... All............... All............... None.
[[Page 72988]]
Minimum secondary chamber PM, CO, CDD/CDF... PM, CO, CDD/CDF... PM, CO, CDD/CDF... CO CEMS.\1,2\
temperature.
Maximum fabric filter inlet CDD/CDF........... .................. CDD/CDF........... Integrated sorbent
temperature. trap dioxin
monitoring system
(ISTDMS).
Minimum CDD/CDF sorbent flow CDD/CDF........... .................. CDD/CDF........... ISTDMS and multi-
rate. metals CEMS, Hg
CEMS or
integrated
sorbent trap
mercury
monitoring system
(ISTMMS).
Minimum Hg sorbent flow rate.... Hg................ .................. Hg................ ..................
Minimum HCl sorbent flow rate... HCl............... .................. HCl............... HCl CEMS.
Minimum scrubber pressure drop/ .................. PM................ PM................ PM CEMS.
horsepower amperage.
Minimum scrubber liquor flow .................. HCl, PM, Cd, Pb, HCl, PM, Cd, Pb, HCl CEMS, PM CEMS,
rate. Hg, CDD/CDF. Hg, CDD/CDF. multi-metals
CEMS, ISTDMS, and
ISTMMS.
Minimum scrubber liquor pH...... .................. HCl............... HCl............... HCl CEMS.
Maximum flue gas temperature .................. Hg................ .................. Hg CEMS, ISTMMS,
(wet scrubber outlet). or multi-metals
CEMS.
Do not use bypass stack (except All............... All............... All............... None.
during startup, shutdown, and
malfunction).
Air pollution control device All............... All............... All............... None.
inspections.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Optional method for existing sources; required for new sources.
\2\ Monitoring secondary chamber temperature could not be eliminated if the source uses SNCR technology.
Table 17 of this preamble presents a summary of the HMIWI test
methods and approved alternative compliance methods.
Table 17--Summary of HMIWI Test Methods and Approved Alternative Methods
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approved alternative
Pollutant/parameter Test method(s) \1\ method(s) Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM................................... Method 5, Method 29.... PM CEMS................ PM CEMS are optional
for all sources in
lieu of annual PM
test.
CO................................... Method 10.............. CO CEMS................ CO CEMS are optional
for existing sources
in lieu of annual CO
test; CO CEMS are
required for new
sources.
HCl.................................. Method 26 or Method 26A HCl CEMS............... HCl CEMS are optional
for all sources in
lieu of annual HCl
test.
Cd................................... Method 29.............. Multi-metals CEMS......
Pb................................... Method 29.............. Multi-metals CEMS......
Hg................................... Method 29.............. ASTM D6784-02, multi-
metals CEMS, Hg CEMS,
or integrated sorbent
trap mercury
monitoring system.
CDD/CDF.............................. Method 23.............. Integrated sorbent trap
dioxin monitoring
system.
Opacity.............................. Method 22.............. Bag leak detection Bag leak detection
system or PM CEMS. systems are optional
for existing sources;
and are required for
new sources in lieu of
annual opacity test.
Flue and exhaust gas analysis........ Method 3, 3A, or 3B.... ASME PTC 19-10-1981
Part 10.
Opacity from ash handling............ Method 22.............. None...................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA Reference Methods in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60.
[[Page 72989]]
V. Impacts of the Proposed Action for Existing Units
Over the last 3 years, about 25 percent (19 of 76 units) of the
existing HMIWI have ceased operation. This trend is not surprising, and
supports EPA's analysis, which shows that even in the absence of
increased regulatory requirements, less expensive alternative waste
disposal options are available for almost all facilities that operate
HMIWI. Therefore, EPA expects this trend of unit closures to continue
even in the absence of the proposed regulatory changes. The additional
costs that would be imposed by this action are likely to accelerate the
trend towards alternative waste disposal options, and our analysis
suggests that sources are likely to respond to the proposed increased
regulatory requirements by choosing to shut down existing HMIWI and
utilizing alternative waste disposal options rather than incurring the
costs of continued operation and compliance.
The EPA's objective is not to discourage continued use of HMIWI;
EPA's objective is to adopt EG for existing HMIWI that fulfill the
requirements of CAA section 129. In doing so, the primary outcome
associated with adoption of these EG may be an increase in the use of
alternative waste disposal and a decrease in the use of HMIWI.
Consequently, EPA's impact analyses of the proposed rule include
complete analyses of two potential scenarios. The first scenario, which
will be referred to as the ``MACT compliance'' option for the remainder
of this preamble, assumes that all units continue operation and take
the necessary steps to achieve compliance. The second scenario, which
will be referred to as the ``alternative disposal'' option for the
remainder of this preamble, assumes that all facilities choose to
discontinue operation of their HMIWI in favor of an alternative waste
disposal option. While several different disposal options, such as
sending waste to a municipal waste combustor or commercial HMIWI, may
be available to some facilities, EPA assessed the impacts of one
alternative waste disposal option. This option involves on-site
sterilization of the waste using an autoclave followed by landfilling
of the sterilized waste. EPA selected the autoclave/landfilling option
because it is widely available. The results of both options are
provided in the discussion of impacts. While the likely outcome of the
proposed rule revisions is somewhere in between the two options that
EPA selected for analysis (some units will comply with the standards
and some will discontinue operations), EPA's analyses provide a broad
picture of potential impacts.
As explained in section IV.A.2 of this preamble, the proposed
emission limits for existing HMIWI are based on the average of the best
performing 12 percent of sources for each pollutant in each
subcategory. This proposed action would require varying degrees of
improvements in performance by almost all HMIWI. Depending on the
current configuration of each unit and air pollution controls, the
improvements could be achieved either through the addition of add-on
air pollution control devices (APCD), improvement of existing add-on
APCD, increase in sorbent usage rates, and various combustion
improvements. More specifically, the improvements anticipated include:
most wet scrubber-controlled units adding a fabric filter-based system
for improved control of PM and metals; most units with fabric filter-
based systems adding a packed bed wet scrubber for improved control of
HCl; adding activated carbon injection or increasing activated carbon
usage rate for improved Hg and dioxin control; upgrading fabric filter
performance for improved control of PM and metals; increasing lime use
for improved control of HCl and, in a few instances, SO2;
and combustion improvements primarily associated with decreasing CO and
CDD/CDF emissions. We also project that a few units may require add-on
controls (SNCR) to meet the proposed NOX emission levels.
Facilities may resubmit their most recent compliance test data for each
pollutant if the data show that their HMIWI meets the proposed emission
limits. In these instances, facilities must certify that the test
results are representative of current operations. Those facilities
would then not be required to test for those pollutants to prove
initial compliance with the revised emission limits.
A. What are the primary air impacts?
EPA estimates that reductions of approximately 468,000 pounds per
year (lb/yr) of the regulated pollutants would be achieved if all
existing HMIWI improved performance to meet the proposed emissions
limits. If all HMIWI selected an alternative disposal method,
reductions of approximately 1.52 million lb/yr would be achieved. Table
18 shows the estimated reductions by pollutant for the two scenarios.
Table 18--Projected Emission Reductions for MACT Compliance and
Alternative Disposal Options for Existing HMIWI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reductions
Reductions achieved through
Pollutant achieved through alternative
meeting MACT disposal (lb/
(lb/yr) yr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl................................. 184,000 198,000
CO.................................. 6,860 20,200
Pb.................................. 361 420
Cd.................................. 22 35.1
Hg.................................. 637 682
PM.................................. 27,300 89,900
CDD/CDF............................. 0.0907 0.0985
NOX................................. 148,000 1,080,000
SO2................................. 100,000 126,000
-----------------------------------
Total............................... 468,000 1,520,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What are the water and solid waste impacts?
EPA estimates that, based on the MACT compliance option,
approximately 4,420 tpy of additional solid waste and 187,000 gallons
per year of additional wastewater would be generated as a result of
operating additional controls or using increased amounts of various
sorbents.
EPA estimates that, based on the alternative disposal option,
approximately 15,100 tpy of additional solid waste would be sent to
landfills. This option would result in no additional waste water
impacts.
C. What are the energy impacts?
EPA estimates that approximately 29,100 megawatt-hours per year of
additional electricity would be required to support the increased
control requirements associated with the MACT compliance option.
For the alternative disposal option, EPA estimates that
approximately 12,400 megawatt-hours per year of additional electricity
would be required to operate the autoclaves.
D. What are the secondary air impacts?
Secondary air impacts associated with the MACT compliance option
are direct impacts that result from the increase in natural gas and/or
electricity use that we estimate may be required to enable facilities
to achieve the proposed emission limits. We estimate that the
adjustments could result in emissions of 941 lb/yr of PM; 8,870 lb/yr
of CO; 9,290 lb/yr of NOX; and 1,880 lb/yr of SO2
from the increased electricity and natural gas usage.
For the alternative disposal option, EPA estimates secondary air
impacts of 692 lb/yr of PM; 5,040 lb/yr of CO; 2,550
[[Page 72990]]
lb/yr of NOX; and 4,980 lb/yr of SO2 from the
additional electricity that would be required to operate the
autoclaves. In addition, EPA estimates that landfilling would result in
an additional 626 tpy of methane and 0.03 lb/yr of mercury emissions.
E. What are the cost and economic impacts?
EPA estimates that for the MACT compliance option, the national
total costs for the 57 existing HMIWI to comply with this proposed
action would be approximately $21.1 million in each of the first 3
years of compliance. This estimate includes the costs that would be
incurred based on the anticipated performance improvements (i.e., costs
of new APCD and improvements in performance of existing APCD), and the
additional monitoring (i.e., annual control device inspections),
testing (i.e., initial EPA Method 22 of appendix A-7 test and initial
compliance testing), and recordkeeping and reporting costs that would
be incurred by all 57 HMIWI as a result of this proposed action.
Approximately 96 percent of the estimated total cost in the first year
is for emissions control, and the remaining 4 percent is for
monitoring, testing, recordkeeping and reporting.
EPA estimates that for the alternative disposal option, the
national total costs for the 57 existing HMIWI to dispose of their
solid waste by autoclaving and landfilling would be approximately $10.6
million per year. This estimate includes the costs that would be
incurred based on the purchase and operation of autoclaves and the
projected landfill tipping fees that would be incurred based on the
volume of waste to be landfilled.
Currently, there are 57 existing HMIWI at 51 facilities. They may
be divided into two broad categories: (1) Captive HMIWI, which are co-
owned and co-located with generating facilities and provide on-site
incineration services for waste generated by the hospital, research
facility, university, or pharmaceutical operations; and (2) commercial
HMIWI, which provide commercial incineration services for waste
generated off-site by firms unrelated to the firm that owns the HMIWI.
EPA analyzed the impacts on captive HMIWI and commercial HMIWI using
different methods. Of the 57 HMIWI, 14 are commercial and 43 are
captive.
Owners of captive HMIWI may choose to incur the costs of complying
with the proposed revised HMIWI standards or close the HMIWI and switch
to another disposal technology like autoclaving and landfilling or have
their waste handled by a commercial disposal service. EPA's estimate of
autoclaving and landfilling costs indicate that even without additional
regulatory costs, the costs of autoclaving and landfilling may be lower
than the costs of incinerating. However, even if all owners of captive
HMIWI choose to continue to operate with the additional regulatory
cost, the cost-to-sales ratios for firms owning captive HMIWI are low.
This reflects the relatively small share of overall costs that are
associated with hospital/medical/infectious waste management at these
firms. Of the 35 firms owning captive HMIWI, 22 have costs of
compliance that are less than 0.1 percent of firm sales. Of the 13 with
costs exceeding 0.1 percent of sales, only one, a hospital, has costs
exceeding 1 percent of sales, and their cost-to-sales ratio is 1.01
percent. Therefore, EPA expects no significant impact on the prices and
quantities of the underlying services of the owners of the captive
HMIWI, whether the costs are passed on or absorbed.
Impacts on commercial HMIWI are analyzed using the simplifying
assumption that they operate as regional monopolists (in general, only
one HMIWI is considered as a treatment option by generators located
nearby). The approach to modeling the impact for commercial HMIWI seems
very appropriate for all of the facilities except for one. The other
commercial HMIWI facilities have costs of compliance that are no more
than 6.1 percent of revenues. That one facility has a ratio of 28.5
percent. Even with monopoly pricing power and the highest estimated
waste throughput, it is not clear whether the company will be able to
acquire the capital and pass on such a large price increase. Additional
information and modeling would be required to project the outcome for
this facility with confidence. For more details regarding EPA's
analysis of the economic impacts, see the docket entry entitled
``Economic Impacts of Revised MACT Standards for Hospital/Medical/
Infectious Waste Incinerators.''
VI. Impacts of the Proposed Action for New Units
Information provided to EPA indicates that negative growth has been
the trend for HMIWI for the past several years. While existing units
continue to shut down, since promulgation of the HMIWI NSPS in 1997,
four new units have been constructed and one unit has been
reconstructed. This information indicates that in the absence of
further regulation, new HMIWI may be built. However, based on the
stringency of revisions being proposed for the NSPS, sources would
likely respond to the proposed rule by choosing not to construct new
HMIWI and would utilize alternative waste disposal options rather than
incur the costs of compliance.
Considering this information, EPA does not anticipate any new
HMIWI, and therefore, no impacts of the proposed NSPS for new units.
For purposes of demonstrating that emissions reductions would result
from the NSPS in the unlikely event that a new unit is constructed, EPA
estimated emissions reductions and other impacts expected for each of
the three HMIWI model plants.
A. What are the primary air impacts?
EPA estimated emissions reductions for each of the model plants to
demonstrate that the NSPS would, if a new unit were built, reduce
emissions compared to an HMIWI meeting the current NSPS. Table 19 of
this preamble presents the emissions reductions for the HMIWI model
plants. The three model plants (with capacities of 100 lb/hr, 400 lb/
hr, and 4,000 lb/hr) represent typical HMIWI. For pollutants where a
``zero'' value is shown, the model plant performance estimate meets the
proposed new source limit, which is not surprising since the models are
based on the performance of the newest sources, which are among the
best performers in the industry.
Table 19--Emissions Reductions on a Model Plant Basis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission reduction for HMIWI model plants (lb/
yr)
Pollutant -----------------------------------------------
100 lb/hr 400 lb/hr 4,000 lb/hr
capacity capacity capacity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl............................................................. 0 262 2,340
CO.............................................................. 30.5 5.15 124
[[Page 72991]]
Pb.............................................................. 0 0 3.82
Cd.............................................................. 0 0 0.296
Hg.............................................................. 0 0.245 2.51
PM.............................................................. 0 0 2,360
Dioxins/furans, TEQ............................................. 0 6.15x10-6 0
NOX............................................................. 863 3,120 0
SO2............................................................. 49 72 0
Total....................................................... 942 3,460 4,840
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What are the water and solid waste impacts?
While EPA believes it is unlikely that any new HMIWI will be
constructed, we estimated the following water or solid waste impacts
associated with the proposed NSPS for three different HMIWI model
sizes: for large units, we estimate 7,120 gallons per year of
additional wastewater and 51 tpy of additional solid waste; for medium
units, we estimate 877 gallons per year of additional wastewater and
5.7 tpy of additional solid waste; and, for small units, we estimate 30
gallons per year of additional wastewater and no additional solid
waste.
C. What are the energy impacts?
While EPA believes it is unlikely that any new HMIWI will be
constructed, we estimated the following energy impacts associated with
the proposed NSPS for three different HMIWI model sizes: For large
units, we estimate that 3,980 megawatt-hours per year of additional
electricity would be required to support the increased control
requirements; for medium units, we estimate 448 megawatt-hours per
year; and, for small units, we estimate 107 megawatt-hours per year.
D. What are the secondary air impacts?
Secondary air impacts for new HMIWI are direct impacts that would
result from the increase in natural gas and/or electricity use that we
estimate may be required to enable facilities to achieve the proposed
emission limits. While EPA believes it is unlikely that any new HMIWI
will be constructed, we estimated the secondary air impacts associated
with the proposed NSPS for three different HMIWI model sizes. For large
units, we estimate that the adjustments could result in emissions of 40
lb/yr of PM; 1,180 lb/yr of CO; 1,320 lb/yr of NOX; and 120
lb/yr of SO2. For medium units, we estimate that the
adjustments could result in emissions of 4.5 lb/yr of PM; 132 lb/yr of
CO; 149 lb/yr of NOX; and 14 lb/yr of SO2. For
small units, we estimate that the adjustments could result in emissions
of 1.2 lb/yr of PM; 32 lb/yr of CO; 35 lb/yr of NOX; and 4.2
lb/yr of SO2.
For the alternative disposal option, EPA estimated secondary air
impacts from the additional electricity that would be required to
operate autoclaves in lieu of each size of HMIWI. For large units, we
estimate secondary emissions of 66 lb/yr of PM; 478 lb/yr of CO; 241
lb/yr of NOX; and 471 lb/yr of SO2. For medium
units, we estimate secondary emissions of 5.0 lb/yr of PM; 36 lb/yr of
CO; 18 lb/yr of NOX; and 36 lb/yr of SO2. For
small units, we estimate secondary emissions of 1.2 lb/yr of PM; 9.1
lb/yr of CO; 4.6 lb/yr of NOX; and 9.0 lb/yr of
SO2. In addition, EPA estimates that an additional 59 tpy of
methane and 0.003 lb/yr of mercury emissions would result from
landfilling waste that would have been processed in a large HMIWI, 3.3
tpy of methane and 0.0002 lb/yr of mercury emissions would result from
landfilling waste that would have been processed in a medium HMIWI, and
0.5 tpy of methane and 0.00003 lb/yr of mercury emissions would result
from landfilling waste that would have been processed in a small HMIWI.
E. What are the cost and economic impacts?
While EPA projects that three new HMIWI would be constructed in the
absence of the proposed revisions, we believe that, in response to the
proposed revisions, sources may decide against constructing new HMIWI.
Nevertheless, we estimated the following costs associated with
installation and operation of air pollution controls needed to meet the
proposed NSPS: For new large units, $476,000 per year; for new medium
units, $195,000 per year; and, for new small units, $120,000 per year.
EPA's analysis of impacts of the proposed revisions to the HMIWI
standards on potential new HMIWI sources compares the with-regulation
estimated prices that would be charged by new large, medium, and small
HMIWI to the range of with-regulation prices estimated to be charged by
existing commercial HMIWI in various regional markets. This comparison
indicates that new large and medium commercial HMIWI may be viable, but
new small commercial HMIWI probably would not be viable. On the other
hand, generators of hospital/medical/infectious waste could have
reasons to purchase and install a new small HMIWI. Comparison of
autoclave treatment coupled with off-site landfill disposal shows that,
for new facilities as for existing ones, autoclave/landfill treatment
and disposal is generally less costly than incineration. Thus, the
motivation to improve waste segregation to minimize the waste that must
be incinerated is likely to continue.
VII. Relationship of the Proposed Action to Section 112(c)(6) of the
CAA
Section 112(c)(6) of the CAA requires EPA to identify categories of
sources of seven specified pollutants to assure that sources accounting
for not less than 90 percent of the aggregate emissions of each such
pollutant are subject to standards under CAA section 112(d)(2) or
112(d)(4). EPA has identified HMIWI as a source category that emits
five of the seven CAA section 112(c)(6) pollutants: polycyclic organic
matter (POM), dioxins, furans, Hg, and polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs). (The POM emitted by HMIWI is composed of 16 polyaromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH) and extractable organic matter (EOM).) In the
Federal Register notice Source Category Listing for Section 112(d)(2)
Rulemaking Pursuant to Section 112(c)(6) Requirements, 63 FR 17838,
17849, Table 2 (1998), EPA identified medical waste incinerators (now
referred to as HMIWI) as a source category ``subject to regulation''
for purposes of CAA section 112(c)(6) with
[[Page 72992]]
respect to the CAA section 112(c)(6) pollutants that HMIWI emit. HMIWI
are solid waste incineration units currently regulated under CAA
section 129. For purposes of CAA section 112(c)(6), EPA has determined
that standards promulgated under CAA section 129 are substantively
equivalent to those promulgated under CAA section 112(d). (See Id. at
17845; see also 62 FR 33625, 33632 (1997).) As discussed in more detail
below, the CAA section 129 standards effectively control emissions of
the five identified CAA section 112(c)(6) pollutants. Further, since
CAA section 129(h)(2) precludes EPA from regulating these substantial
sources of the five identified CAA section 112(c)(6) pollutants under
CAA section 112(d), EPA cannot further regulate these emissions under
that CAA section. As a result, EPA considers emissions of these five
pollutants from HMIWI ``subject to standards'' for purposes of CAA
section 112(c)(6).
As required by the statute, the CAA section 129 HMIWI standards
include numeric emission limitations for the nine pollutants specified
in section 129(a)(4). The combination of waste segregation, good
combustion practices, and add-on air pollution control equipment (dry
sorbent injection fabric filters, wet scrubbers, or combined fabric
filter and wet scrubber systems) effectively reduces emissions of the
pollutants for which emission limits are required under CAA section
129: Hg, CDD/CDF, Cd, Pb, PM, SO2, HCl, CO, and
NOX. Thus, the NSPS and EG specifically require reduction in
emissions of three of the CAA section 112(c)(6) pollutants: dioxins,
furans, and Hg. As explained below, the air pollution controls
necessary to comply with the requirements of the HMIWI NSPS and EG also
effectively reduce emissions of the following CAA section 112(c)(6)
pollutants that are emitted from HMIWI: POM and PCBs. Although the CAA
section 129 HMIWI standards do not have separate, specific emissions
standards for PCBs and POM, emissions of these two CAA section
112(c)(6) pollutants are effectively controlled by the same control
measures used to comply with the numerical emissions limits for the
pollutants enumerated in section 129(a)(4). Specifically, as byproducts
of combustion, the formation of PCBs and POM is effectively reduced by
the combustion and post-combustion practices required to comply with
the CAA section 129 standards. Any PCBs and POM that do form during
combustion are further controlled by the various post-combustion HMIWI
controls. The add-on PM control systems (either fabric filter or wet
scrubber) and activated carbon injection in the fabric filter-based
systems further reduce emissions of these organic pollutants, and also
reduce Hg emissions, as is evidenced by HMIWI performance data.
Specifically, the post-MACT compliance tests at currently operating
HMIWI that were also operational at the time of promulgation of the
1997 standards show that, for those units, the 1997 HMIWI MACT
regulations reduced Hg emissions by about 60 percent and CDD/CDF
emissions by about 80 percent from pre-MACT levels. (Note that these
reductions do not reflect unit shutdowns, units for which exemptions
were granted, or new units.) Moreover, similar controls have been
demonstrated to effectively reduce emissions of POM and PCBs from
another incineration source category (municipal solid waste
combustors). It is, therefore, reasonable to conclude that POM and PCB
emissions are substantially controlled at all 57 HMIWI. Thus, while the
proposed rule does not identify specific limits for POM and PCB,
emissions of those pollutants are, for the reasons noted above,
nonetheless ``subject to regulation'' for purposes of section 112(c)(6)
of the CAA.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993), this
action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it is likely to
raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive
Order. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866, and
any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket for this action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR) documents
prepared by EPA have been assigned EPA ICR number 2335.01 for subpart
Ce, 40 CFR part 60, and 1730.07 for subpart Ec, 40 CFR part 60.
The requirements in this proposed action result in industry
recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with review of the
amendments for all HMIWI, EPA Method 22 of appendix A-7 testing for all
HMIWI, and inspections of scrubbers, fabric filters, and other air
pollution control devices that may be used to meet the emission limits
for all HMIWI. Stack testing and development of new parameter limits
would be necessary for HMIWI that need to make performance improvements
in order to meet the proposed emission limits and for HMIWI that, prior
to this proposed action, have not been required to demonstrate
compliance with certain pollutants. Any new HMIWI would also be
required to continuously monitor CO emissions. New HMIWI equipped with
fabric filters would also be required to purchase bag leak detectors.
The annual average burden associated with the EG over the first 3
years following promulgation of this proposed action is estimated to be
44,275 hours at a total annual labor cost of $1,873,286. The total
annualized capital/startup costs and operation and maintenance (O&M)
costs associated with the monitoring requirements, EPA Method 22 of
appendix A-7 testing, storage of data and reports, and photocopying and
postage over the 3-year period of the ICR are estimated at $1,457,506
and $687,398 per year, respectively. (The annual inspection costs are
included under the recordkeeping and reporting labor costs.) The annual
average burden associated with the NSPS over the first 3 years
following promulgation of this proposed action is estimated to be 2,705
hours at a total annual labor cost of $102,553. The total annualized
capital/startup costs are estimated at $137,058, with total operation
and maintenance costs of $116,190 per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b)
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it currently displays
a valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for
this action, which includes these ICR documents, under Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0534. Submit any comments related to the ICR documents
for this proposed action to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES section at the
beginning of this action for where to submit comments to EPA. Send
comments to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC
20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA.
[[Page 72993]]
Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30
and 60 days after December 1, 2008, a comment to OMB is best assured of
having its full effect if OMB receives it by December 31, 2008. The
final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedures Act or any other statute unless the Agency certifies that
the proposed action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small government organizations, and small government
jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed action on
small entities, small entity is defined as follows: (1) A small
business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA)
regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction
that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or
special district with a population of less than 50,000; or (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise that is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The one
small entity directly regulated by this proposed action is a small
governmental jurisdiction that owns two HMIWI. We have determined that
this one small entity may experience an impact of approximately $1.56
million per year to comply with the proposed rule, resulting in a cost-
to-sales ratio of approximately 6.1 percent. The one small entity is a
commercial facility owned by a county in Texas. Because there are only
nine other commercial facilities and the closest are in Tennessee and
Kansas, the entity is a regional monopolist and is able to raise the
price by more than the per unit cost increase. We expect there to be a
reduction in the amount of its services demanded due to the price
change. Because of closures of captive HMIWI there may also be an
increase in the demand for its services that may reduce the decrease in
revenues associated with the price increase.
Three other entities are defined as borderline small: Their parent
company sales or employment in 2007 are above the SBA size-cutoff for
small entities in their NAICS codes, but are near enough to the size
cut-off that variations in sales or employment over time might move
them below the small business criterion. One of them is the facility
with a cost-to-sale a ratio of 28.5 percent. Additional information and
modeling would be required to project the outcome for this facility
with confidence.
Although the proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. For each
subcategory of HMIWI, we are proposing emission limits that are based
on the MACT floor level of control, which is the minimum level of
stringency that can be considered in establishing MACT standards.
Although under the CAA and the case law EPA can set standards no less
stringent than the MACT floor and, therefore, we were unable to reduce
the impact of the emission limits on the small entity that would be
regulated by the proposed rule, EPA worked to minimize the costs of
testing and monitoring requirements to the extent possible under the
statute. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this
proposed action on small entities and welcome comments on issues
related to such impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538
for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. This
proposed action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or
tribal governments or the private sector.
Therefore, this proposed action is not subject to the requirements
of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
This proposed action is also not subject to the requirements of
section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. There are 2
HMIWI owned by one small governmental jurisdiction that would be
regulated by this proposed action. For each subcategory of HMIWI, we
are proposing emission limits that are based on the MACT floor level of
control, which is the minimum level of stringency that can be
considered in establishing MACT standards. EPA can set standards no
less stringent than the MACT floor and, under this proposed action, all
HMIWI would be subject to emission limits based on the MACT floors.
Thus, the regulatory requirements being proposed would not be
considered as significantly or uniquely affecting the small entity that
would be impacted by the proposed rule because it would be subject to
standards based on the same minimum levels of stringency as all other
HMIWI.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255; August 10, 1999), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have
federalism implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government.''
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed action will not
impose substantial direct compliance costs on State or local
governments, and will not preempt State law. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, (65 FR 67249; November 9, 2000). EPA is not
aware of any HMIWI owned or operated by Indian tribal governments.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed
action from tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885; April 23, 1997)
as applying to those regulatory actions that
[[Page 72994]]
concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under
section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to influence the
regulation. This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order
13045 because it is based solely on technology performance.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355; May 22, 2001) because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. EPA estimates that the requirements in
this proposed action would cause most HMIWI to modify existing air
pollution control devices (e.g., increase the horsepower of their wet
scrubbers) or install and operate new control devices, resulting in
approximately 29,100 megawatt-hours per year of additional electricity
being used.
Given the negligible change in energy consumption resulting from
this proposed action, EPA does not expect any significant price
increase for any energy type. The cost of energy distribution should
not be affected by this proposed action at all since the action would
not affect energy distribution facilities. We also expect that any
impacts on the import of foreign energy supplies, or any other adverse
outcomes that may occur with regards to energy supplies would not be
significant. We, therefore, conclude that if there were to be any
adverse energy effects associated with this proposed action, they would
be minimal.
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by VCS bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through
OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable VCS.
This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA has
decided to use two VCS in this proposed rule. One VCS, ASME PTC 19.10-
1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' is cited in this proposed rule
for its manual method of measuring the content of the exhaust gas as an
acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B of appendix A-2. This standard
is available from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME),
P.O. Box 2900, Fairfield, NJ 07007-2900; or Global Engineering
Documents, Sales Department, 15 Inverness Way East, Englewood, CO
80112.
Another VCS, ASTM D6784-02, ``Standard Test Method for Elemental,
Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas Generated from Coal-
Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method),'' is cited in this
proposed rule as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 29 of appendix
A-8 (portion for mercury only) for measuring mercury. This standard is
available from the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM),
100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA
19428-2959; or ProQuest, 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106.
While the Agency has identified 16 VCS as being potentially
applicable to this proposed rule, we have decided not to use these VCS
in this rulemaking. The use of these VCS would be impractical because
they do not meet the objectives of the standards cited in this rule.
See the docket for this proposed rule for the reasons for these
determinations.
Under 40 CFR 60.13(i) of the NSPS General Provisions, a source may
apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or
alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing
methods, performance specifications, or procedures in the final rule
and any amendments.
EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and
specifically invites the public to identify potentially-applicable
voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should
be used in this regulation.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629) (February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income populations. This action would establish national standards that
would result in reductions in emissions of HCl, CO, Cd, Pb, Hg, PM,
CDD/CDF, NOX and SO2 from all HMIWI and thus
decrease the amount of such emissions to which all affected populations
are exposed.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: November 14, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
60 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as
follows:
PART 60--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart Ce--[Amended]
2. Section 60.32e is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding
paragraph (j) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.32e Designated facilities.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this
section, the designated facility to which the guidelines apply is each
individual HMIWI:
(1) For which construction was commenced on or before June 20,
1996, or for which modification was commenced on or before March 16,
1998.
(2) For which construction was commenced on or before December 1,
2008, or for which modification is commenced on or before [DATE 6
MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register].
* * * * *
(j) The requirements of this subpart as promulgated on September
15, 1997,
[[Page 72995]]
shall apply to the designated facilities defined in paragraph (a)(1) of
this section until the applicable compliance date of the requirements
of this subpart, as amended on [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register]. Upon the compliance date of the requirements
of this subpart, designated facilities as defined in paragraph (a)(1)
of this section are no longer subject to the requirements of this
subpart, as promulgated on September 15, 1997, but are subject to the
requirements of this subpart, as amended on [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE
FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register].
3. Section 60.33e is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.33e Emission guidelines.
(a) For approval, a State plan shall include the requirements for
emission limits at least as protective as the following requirements,
as applicable:
(1) For a designated facility as defined in Sec. 60.32e(a)(1), the
requirements listed in Table 1 of this subpart, except as provided in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(2) For a designated facility as defined in Sec. 60.32e(a)(2), the
requirements listed in Table 1A of this subpart, except as provided in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) For approval, a State plan shall include the requirements for
emission limits for any small HMIWI constructed on or before June 20,
1996, which is located more than 50 miles from the boundary of the
nearest Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (defined in Sec.
60.31e) and which burns less than 2,000 pounds per week of hospital
waste and medical/infectious waste that are at least as protective as
the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section, as
applicable. The 2,000 lb/week limitation does not apply during
performance tests.
(1) For a designated facility as defined in Sec. 60.32e(a)(1), the
requirements listed in Table 2 of this subpart.
(2) For a designated facility as defined in Sec. 60.32e(a)(2), the
requirements listed in Table 2A of this subpart.
(c) For approval, a State plan shall include the requirements for
stack opacity at least as protective as the following, as applicable:
(1) For a designated facility as defined in Sec. 60.32e(a)(1), the
requirements in Sec. 60.52c(b)(1) of subpart Ec of this part.
(2) For a designated facility as defined in Sec. 60.32e(a)(2), the
requirements in Sec. 60.52c(b)(2) of subpart Ec of this part.
4. Section 60.36e is amended as follows:
a. By revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
b. By revising paragraph (b);
c. By adding paragraph (c); and
d. By adding paragraph (d).
Sec. 60.36e Inspection guidelines.
(a) For approval, a State plan shall require each small HMIWI
subject to the emission limits under Sec. 60.33e(b) and each HMIWI
subject to the emission limits under Sec. 60.33e(a)(2) to undergo an
initial equipment inspection that is at least as protective as the
following within 1 year following approval of the State plan:
* * * * *
(b) For approval, a State plan shall require each small HMIWI
subject to the emission limits under Sec. 60.33e(b) and each HMIWI
subject to the emission limits under Sec. 60.33e(a)(2) to undergo an
equipment inspection annually (no more than 12 months following the
previous annual equipment inspection), as outlined in paragraph (a) of
this section.
(c) For approval, a State plan shall require each small HMIWI
subject to the emission limits under Sec. 60.33e(b)(2) and each HMIWI
subject to the emission limits under Sec. 60.33e(a)(2) to undergo an
initial air pollution control device inspection, as applicable, that is
at least as protective as the following within 1 year following
approval of the State plan:
(1) At a minimum, an inspection shall include the following:
(i) Inspect air pollution control device(s) for proper operation,
if applicable;
(ii) Ensure proper calibration of thermocouples, sorbent feed
systems, and any other monitoring equipment; and
(iii) Generally observe that the equipment is maintained in good
operating condition.
(2) Within 10 operating days following an air pollution control
device inspection, all necessary repairs shall be completed unless the
owner or operator obtains written approval from the State agency
establishing a date whereby all necessary repairs of the designated
facility shall be completed.
(d) For approval, a State plan shall require each small HMIWI
subject to the emission limits under Sec. 60.33e(b)(2) and each HMIWI
subject to the emission limits under Sec. 60.33e(a)(2) to undergo an
air pollution control device inspection, as applicable, annually (no
more than 12 months following the previous annual air pollution control
device inspection), as outlined in paragraph (c) of this section.
5. Section 60.37e is amended as follows:
a. By revising paragraph (a);
b. By revising paragraphs (b) introductory text and (b)(1);
c. By redesignating paragraphs (c) and (d) as paragraphs (d) and
(e);
d. By redesignating paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(5) as paragraphs
(c)(1) through (c)(4);
e. By adding a new paragraph (b)(2);
f. By adding paragraph (c) introductory text;
g. By revising newly redesignated paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4);
h. By revising newly redesignated paragraph (d);
i. By revising newly redesignated paragraph (e) introductory text;
j. By revising newly redesignated paragraph (e)(3); and
k. By adding paragraph (f).
Sec. 60.37e Compliance, performance testing, and monitoring
guidelines.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, for
approval, a State plan shall include the requirements for compliance
and performance testing listed in Sec. 60.56c of subpart Ec of this
part, with the following exclusions:
(1) For a designated facility as defined in Sec. 60.32e(a)(1)
subject to the emission limits in Sec. 60.33e(a)(1), excluding the
test methods listed in Sec. 60.56c(b)(7) and (8), the fugitive
emissions testing requirements under Sec. 60.56c(b)(14) and (c)(3),
the CO CEMS requirements under Sec. 60.56c(c)(4), and the compliance
requirements for monitoring listed in Sec. 60.56c(c)(5)(ii) through
(v), (c)(6), (c)(7), (e)(6) through (10), (f)(7) through (10), (g)(6)
through (10), and (h).
(2) For a designated facility as defined in Sec. 60.32e(a)(2)
subject to the emission limits in Sec. 60.33e(a)(2), excluding the
annual fugitive emissions testing requirements under Sec.
60.56c(c)(3), the CO CEMS requirements under Sec. 60.56c(c)(4), and
the compliance requirements for monitoring listed in Sec.
60.56c(c)(5)(ii) through (v), (c)(6), (c)(7), (e)(6) through (10),
(f)(7) through (10), and (g)(6) through (10). Sources subject to the
emission limits under Sec. 60.33e(a)(2) may, however, elect to use CO
CEMS as specified under Sec. 60.56c(c)(4) or bag leak detection
systems as specified under Sec. 60.57c(h).
(b) Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this
section, for approval, a State plan shall require each small HMIWI
subject to the emission limits under Sec. 60.33e(b) to meet the
performance testing requirements listed in Sec. 60.56c of subpart Ec
of this part. The 2,000 lb/week limitation under Sec. 60.33e(b) does
not apply during performance tests.
[[Page 72996]]
(1) For a designated facility as defined in Sec. 60.32e(a)(1)
subject to the emission limits under Sec. 60.33e(b)(1), excluding the
test methods listed in Sec. 60.56c(b)(7), (8), (12), (13) (Pb and Cd),
and (14), the annual PM, CO, and HCl emissions testing requirements
under Sec. 60.56c(c)(2), the annual fugitive emissions testing
requirements under Sec. 60.56c(c)(3), the CO CEMS requirements under
Sec. 60.56c(c)(4), and the compliance requirements for monitoring
listed in Sec. 60.56c(c)(5) through (7), and (d) through (k).
(2) For a designated facility as defined in Sec. 60.32e(a)(2)
subject to the emission limits under Sec. 60.33e(b)(2), excluding the
annual fugitive emissions testing requirements under Sec.
60.56c(c)(3), the CO CEMS requirements under Sec. 60.56c(c)(4), and
the compliance requirements for monitoring listed in Sec.
60.56c(c)(5)(ii) through (v), (c)(6), (c)(7), (e)(6) through (10),
(f)(7) through (10), and (g)(6) through (10). Sources subject to the
emission limits under Sec. 60.33e(b)(2) may, however, elect to use CO
CEMS as specified under Sec. 60.56c(c)(4) or bag leak detection
systems as specified under Sec. 60.57c(h).
(c) For approval, a State plan shall require each small HMIWI
subject to the emission limits under Sec. 60.33e(b) that is not
equipped with an air pollution control device to meet the following
compliance and performance testing requirements:
* * * * *
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(4) of this section,
operation of the designated facility above the maximum charge rate and
below the minimum secondary chamber temperature (each measured on a 3-
hour rolling average) simultaneously shall constitute a violation of
the PM, CO, and dioxin/furan emission limits.
(4) The owner or operator of a designated facility may conduct a
repeat performance test within 30 days of violation of applicable
operating parameter(s) to demonstrate that the designated facility is
not in violation of the applicable emission limit(s). Repeat
performance tests conducted pursuant to this paragraph must be
conducted using the identical operating parameters that indicated a
violation under paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(d) For approval, a State plan shall include the requirements for
monitoring listed in Sec. 60.57c of subpart Ec of this part for HMIWI
subject to the emission limits under Sec. 60.33e(a) and (b), except as
provided for under paragraph (e) of this section.
(e) For approval, a State plan shall require small HMIWI subject to
the emission limits under Sec. 60.33e(b) that are not equipped with an
air pollution control device to meet the following monitoring
requirements:
* * * * *
(3) The owner or operator of a designated facility shall obtain
monitoring data at all times during HMIWI operation except during
periods of monitoring equipment malfunction, calibration, or repair. At
a minimum, valid monitoring data shall be obtained for 75 percent of
the operating hours per day for 90 percent of the operating hours per
calendar quarter that the designated facility is combusting hospital
waste and/or medical/infectious waste.
(f) The owner or operator of a designated facility as defined in
Sec. 60.32e(a)(2) subject to emission limits under Sec. 60.33e(a)(2)
or (b)(2) may use the results of previous emissions tests to
demonstrate compliance with the emission limits, provided that the
conditions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(3) of this section are met:
(1) The designated facility's previous emissions tests must have
been conducted using the applicable procedures and test methods listed
in Sec. 60.56c(b) of subpart Ec of this part. Previous emissions test
results obtained using EPA-accepted voluntary consensus standards are
also acceptable.
(2) The HMIWI at the designated facility shall currently be
operated in a manner (e.g., with charge rate, secondary chamber
temperature, etc.) that would be expected to result in the same or
lower emissions than observed during the previous emissions test(s),
and the HMIWI may not have been modified such that emissions would be
expected to exceed (notwithstanding normal test-to-test variability)
the results from previous emissions test(s).
(3) The previous emissions test(s) must have been conducted in 1996
or later.
6. Section 60.38e is amended as follows:
a. By revising paragraph (a);
b. By revising paragraph (b) introductory text; and
c. By revising paragraph (b)(1).
Sec. 60.38e Reporting and recordkeeping guidelines.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this
section, for approval, a State plan shall include the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements listed in Sec. 60.58c(b) through (g) of
subpart Ec of this part.
(1) For a designated facility as defined in Sec. 60.32e(a)(1)
subject to emission limits under Sec. 60.33e(a)(1) or (b)(1),
excluding Sec. 60.58c(b)(2)(ii) (fugitive emissions), (b)(2)(viii)
(NOX reagent), (b)(2)(xvii) (air pollution control device
inspections), (b)(2)(xviii) (bag leak detection system alarms),
(b)(2)(xix) (CO CEMS data), and (b)(7) (siting documentation).
(2) For a designated facility as defined in Sec. 60.32e(a)(2)
subject to emission limits under Sec. 60.33e(a)(2) or (b)(2),
excluding Sec. 60.58c(b)(2)(xviii) (bag leak detection system alarms),
(b)(2)(xix) (CO CEMS data), and (b)(7) (siting documentation).
(b) For approval, a State plan shall require the owner or operator
of each HMIWI subject to the emission limits under Sec. 60.33e to:
(1) As specified in Sec. 60.36e, maintain records of the annual
equipment inspections that are required for each HMIWI subject to the
emission limits under Sec. 60.33e(a)(2) and (b), and the annual air
pollution control device inspections that are required for each HMIWI
subject to the emission limits under Sec. 60.33e(a)(2) and (b)(2), any
required maintenance, and any repairs not completed within 10 days of
an inspection or the timeframe established by the State regulatory
agency; and
* * * * *
7. Section 60.39e is amended as follows:
a. By revising paragraph (a);
b. By revising paragraph (c) introductory text;
c. By revising paragraph (c)(1);
d. By revising paragraph (d)(3); and
e. By revising paragraph (f).
Sec. 60.39e Compliance times.
(a) Each State in which a designated facility is operating shall
submit to the Administrator a plan to implement and enforce the
emission guidelines as specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of
this section:
(1) Not later than September 15, 1998, for the emission guidelines
as promulgated on September 15, 1997.
(2) Not later than [DATE 1 YEAR AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE
FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], for the emission guidelines as
amended on [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
Register].
* * * * *
(c) State plans that specify measurable and enforceable incremental
steps of progress towards compliance for designated facilities planning
to install the necessary air pollution control equipment may allow
compliance on or before the date 3 years after EPA approval of the
State plan (but not later than September 16, 2002), for the emission
guidelines as promulgated on
[[Page 72997]]
September 15, 1997, and not later than [DATE 5 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION
OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] for the emission guidelines
as amended on [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
Register]. Suggested measurable and enforceable activities to be
included in State plans are:
(1) Date for submitting a petition for site-specific operating
parameters under Sec. 60.56c(j) of subpart Ec of this part.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(3) If an extension is granted, require compliance with the
emission guidelines on or before the date 3 years after EPA approval of
the State plan (but not later than September 16, 2002), for the
emission guidelines as promulgated on September 15, 1997, and not later
than [DATE 5 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
Register] for the emission guidelines as amended on [DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register].
* * * * *
(f) The Administrator shall develop, implement, and enforce a plan
for existing HMIWI located in any State that has not submitted an
approvable plan within 2 years after September 15, 1997, for the
emission guidelines as promulgated on September 15, 1997, and within 2
years after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
Register] for the emission guidelines as amended on [DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. Such plans
shall ensure that each designated facility is in compliance with the
provisions of this subpart no later than 5 years after September 15,
1997, for the emission guidelines as promulgated on September 15, 1997,
and no later than 5 years after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register] for the emission guidelines as amended on
[DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register].
8. The heading to Table 1 to subpart Ce is revised to read as
follows:
Table 1 to Subpart Ce of Part 60-Emission Limits for Small, Medium,
and Large HMIWI at Designated Facilities As Defined in Sec.
60.32e(a)(1)
9. Amend Subpart Ce by adding Table 1A to subpart Ce to read as
follows:
Table 1A--to Subpart Ce of Part 60-Emission Limits for Small, Medium, and Large HMIWI at Designated Facilities
as Defined in Sec. 60.32e(a)(2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission limits
-----------------------------------------------
Pollutant Units (7 percent oxygen, HMIWI size
dry basis) -----------------------------------------------
Small Medium Large
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particulate matter................. Milligrams per dry standard 39 (0.017) 28 (0.012) 13 (0.0056)
cubic meter (mg/dscm)
(grains per dry standard
cubic foot (gr/dscf)).
Carbon monoxide.................... Parts per million by volume 8.2 3.0 3.9
(ppmv).
Dioxins/furans..................... Nanograms per dry standard 8.3 (3.7) or 0.63 (0.28) or 1.6 (0.70) or
cubic meter total dioxins/ 0.0080 0.0097 0.029 (0.013)
furans (ng/dscm) (grains (0.0035) (0.0043)
per billion dry standard
cubic feet (gr/10\9\
dscf)) or ng/dscm TEQ (gr/
10\9\ dscf).
Hydrogen chloride.................. Ppmv....................... 4.5 2.5 2.4
Sulfur dioxide..................... Ppmv....................... 2.8 2.8 2.8
Nitrogen oxides.................... Ppmv....................... 200 200 140
Lead............................... mg/dscm (grains per 0.18 (0.079) 0.017 (0.0075) 0.013 (0.0057)
thousand dry standard
cubic feet (gr/10\3\
dscf)).
Cadmium............................ mg/dscm (gr/10\3\ dscf).... 0.012 (0.0053) 0.0071 0.0041
(0.0031) (0.0018)
Mercury............................ mg/dscm (gr/10\3\ dscf).... 0.0075 0.0079 0.0095
(0.0033) (0.0035) (0.0042)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. The heading to Table 2 to subpart Ce is revised to read as
follows:
Table 2 to Subpart Ce of Part 60. Emission Limits for Small HMIWI
which Meet the Criteria under Sec. 60.33e(b)(1)
11. Amend Subpart Ce by adding Table 2A to subpart Ce to read as
follows:
Table 2a to Subpart Ce of Part 60-Emission Limits for Small HMIWI Which
Meet the Criteria Under Sec. 60.33e(b)(2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Units (7 percent HMIWI emission
Pollutant oxygen, dry basis) limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particulate matter............. mg/dscm (gr/dscf)...... 69 (0.030)
Carbon monoxide................ Ppmv................... 12
Dioxins/furans................. ng/dscm total dioxins/ 130 (57) or
furans (gr/10\9\ dscf) 2.6 (1.2)
or ng/dscm TEQ (gr/
10\9\ dscf).
Hydrogen chloride.............. Ppmv................... 440
Sulfur dioxide................. Ppmv................... 43
Nitrogen oxides................ Ppmv................... 110
Lead........................... Mg/dscm (gr/10\3\ dscf) 0.35 (0.16)
Cadmium........................ Mg/dscm (gr/10\3\ dscf) 0.068 (0.030)
Mercury........................ Mg/dscm (gr/10\3\ dscf) 0.0040
(0.0018)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 72998]]
Subpart Ec--[Amended]
12. Section 60.50c is amended as follows:
a. By revising paragraph (a);
b. By adding paragraph (m); and
c. By adding paragraph (n).
Sec. 60.50c Applicability and delegation of authority.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this
section, the affected facility to which this subpart applies is each
individual hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerator (HMIWI):
(1) For which construction is commenced after June 20, 1996 but no
later than December 1, 2008; or
(2) For which modification is commenced after March 16, 1998 but no
later than [DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register].
(3) For which construction is commenced after December 1, 2008; or
(4) For which modification is commenced after [DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register].
* * * * *
(m) The requirements of this subpart as promulgated on September
15, 1997, shall apply to the affected facilities defined in paragraph
(a)(1) and (2) of this section until the applicable compliance date of
the requirements of subpart Ce of this part, as amended on [DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. Upon the
compliance date of the requirements of the amended subpart Ce of this
part, affected facilities as defined in paragraph (a) of this section
are no longer subject to the requirements of this subpart, but are
subject to the requirements of subpart Ce of this part, as amended on
[DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register].
Compliance with subpart Ce of this part, as amended on [DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] is required on
or before the date 3 years after EPA approval of the State plan for
States in which an affected facility as defined in paragraph (a) of
this section is located (but not later than the date 5 years after
promulgation of the amended subpart).
(n) The requirements of this subpart, as amended on [DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], shall become
effective [DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register].
13. Section 60.51c is amended by adding definitions for ``Bag leak
detection system'' and ``Minimum reagent flow rate'' in alphabetical
order and revising the definition for ``Minimum secondary chamber
temperature'' to read as follows:
Sec. 60.51c Definitions.
Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is capable of
monitoring PM loadings in the exhaust of a fabric filter in order to
detect bag failures. A bag leak detection system includes, but is not
limited to, an instrument that operates on triboelectric, light-
scattering, light-transmittance, or other effects to monitor relative
PM loadings.
* * * * *
Minimum reagent flow rate means 90 percent of the highest 3-hour
average reagent flow rate at the inlet to the selective noncatalytic
reduction technology (taken, at a minimum, once every minute) measured
during the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance with
the NOX emission limit.
* * * * *
Minimum secondary chamber temperature means 90 percent of the
highest 3-hour average secondary chamber temperature (taken, at a
minimum, once every minute) measured during the most recent performance
test demonstrating compliance with the PM, CO, dioxin/furan, and
NOX emission limits.
* * * * *
14. Section 60.52c is amended as follows:
a. By revising paragraph (a);
b. By revising paragraph (b); and
c. By revising paragraph (c).
Sec. 60.52c Emission limits.
(a) On and after the date on which the initial performance test is
completed or is required to be completed under Sec. 60.8, whichever
date comes first, no owner or operator of an affected facility shall
cause to be discharged into the atmosphere:
(1) From an affected facility as defined in Sec. 60.50c(a)(1) and
(2), any gases that contain stack emissions in excess of the limits
presented in Table 1 to this subpart.
(2) From an affected facility as defined in Sec. 60.50c(a)(3) and
(4), any gases that contain stack emissions in excess of the limits
presented in Table 1A to this subpart.
(b) On and after the date on which the initial performance test is
completed or is required to be completed under Sec. 60.8, whichever
date comes first, no owner or operator of an affected facility shall
cause to be discharged into the atmosphere:
(1) From an affected facility as defined in Sec. 60.50c(a)(1) and
(2), any gases that exhibit greater than 10 percent opacity (6-minute
block average).
(2) From an affected facility as defined in Sec. 60.50c(a)(3) and
(4), any gases that exhibit greater than 2 percent opacity (6-minute
block average).
(c) On and after the date on which the initial performance test is
completed or is required to be completed under Sec. 60.8, whichever
date comes first, no owner or operator of an affected facility as
defined in Sec. 60.50c(a)(1) and (2) and utilizing a large HMIWI, and
in Sec. 60.50c(a)(3) and (4), shall cause to be discharged into the
atmosphere visible emissions of combustion ash from an ash conveying
system (including conveyor transfer points) in excess of 5 percent of
the observation period (i.e., 9 minutes per 3-hour period), as
determined by EPA Reference Method 22 of appendix A-1 of this part,
except as provided in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section.
* * * * *
15. Section 60.56c is amended as follows:
a. By revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
b. By revising paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(6);
c. By redesignating paragraphs (b)(7) through (b)(12) as paragraphs
(b)(9) through (b)(14);
d. By adding paragraphs (b)(7) and (b)(8);
e. By revising newly redesignated paragraphs (b)(9) and (b)(10);
f. By revising newly redesignated paragraph (b)(11) introductory
text;
g. By revising newly redesignated paragraphs (b)(12) and (b)(13);
h. By revising paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3);
i. By redesignating paragraph (c)(4) as paragraph (c)(5);
j. By revising newly redesignated paragraph (c)(5);
k. By adding paragraphs (c)(4), (c)(6), and (c)(7);
l. By revising paragraph (d) introductory text;
m. By revising paragraph (e) introductory text;
n. By adding paragraphs (e)(6) through (e)(10);
o. By revising paragraph (f) introductory text;
p. By adding paragraphs (f)(7) through (f)(10);
q. By revising paragraph (g) introductory text;
r. By adding paragraphs (g)(6) through (g)(10);
s. By redesignating paragraphs (h) through (j) as paragraphs (i)
through (k);
[[Page 72999]]
t. By adding paragraph (h); and
u. By revising newly redesignated paragraphs (i) and (j).
Sec. 60.56c Compliance and performance testing.
* * * * *
(b) The owner or operator of an affected facility as defined in
Sec. 60.50c(a)(1) and (2), shall conduct an initial performance test
as required under Sec. 60.8 to determine compliance with the emission
limits using the procedures and test methods listed in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (b)(6) and (b)(9) through (b)(14) of this section. The
owner or operator of an affected facility as defined in Sec.
60.50c(a)(3) and (4), shall conduct an initial performance test as
required under Sec. 60.8 to determine compliance with the emission
limits using the procedures and test methods listed in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (b)(14). The use of the bypass stack during a
performance test shall invalidate the performance test.
* * * * *
(4) EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or 3B of appendix A-2 of this part
shall be used for gas composition analysis, including measurement of
oxygen concentration. EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or 3B of appendix A-2
of this part shall be used simultaneously with each of the other EPA
reference methods. As an alternative to EPA Reference Method 3B, ASME
PTC-19-10-1981 Part 10 may be used.
* * * * *
(6) EPA Reference Method 5 of appendix A-3 or Method 29 of appendix
A-8 of this part shall be used to measure the particulate matter
emissions. As an alternative, PM CEMS may be used as specified in
paragraph (c)(5) of this section.
(7) EPA Reference Method 7E of appendix A-4 of this part shall be
used to measure NOX emissions.
(8) EPA Reference Method 6C of appendix A-4 of this part shall be
used to measure SO2 emissions.
(9) EPA Reference Method 9 of appendix A-4 of this part shall be
used to measure stack opacity. As an alternative, demonstration of
compliance with the PM standards using bag leak detection systems as
specified in Sec. 60.57c(h) or PM CEMS as specified in paragraph
(c)(5) of this section is considered demonstrative of compliance with
the opacity requirements.
(10) EPA Reference Method 10 or 10B of appendix A-4 of this part
shall be used to measure the CO emissions. As specified in paragraph
(c)(4) of this section, use of CO CEMS are required for affected
facilities under Sec. 60.50c(a)(3) and (4).
(11) EPA Reference Method 23 of appendix A-7 of this part shall be
used to measure total dioxin/furan emissions. As an alternative, an
owner or operator may elect to sample dioxins/furans by installing,
calibrating, maintaining, and operating a continuous automated sampling
system for monitoring dioxin/furan emissions as specified in paragraph
(c)(6) of this section. For Method 23 of appendix A-7 sampling, the
minimum sample time shall be 4 hours per test run. If the affected
facility has selected the toxic equivalency standards for dioxins/
furans, under Sec. 60.52c, the following procedures shall be used to
determine compliance:
* * * * *
(12) EPA Reference Method 26 or 26A of appendix A-8 of this part
shall be used to measure HCl emissions. As an alternative, HCl CEMS may
be used as specified in paragraph (c)(5) of this section.
(13) EPA Reference Method 29 of appendix A-8 of this part shall be
used to measure Pb, Cd, and Hg emissions. As an alternative, Hg
emissions may be measured using ASTM D6784-02. As an alternative for
Pb, Cd, and Hg, multi-metals CEMS or Hg CEMS, may be used as specified
in paragraph (c)(5) of this section. As an alternative, an owner or
operator may elect to sample Hg by installing, calibrating,
maintaining, and operating a continuous automated sampling system for
monitoring Hg emissions as specified in paragraph (c)(7) of this
section.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(5) of this
section, determine compliance with the PM, CO, and HCl emission limits
by conducting an annual performance test (no more than 12 months
following the previous performance test) using the applicable
procedures and test methods listed in paragraph (b) of this section. If
all three performance tests over a 3-year period indicate compliance
with the emission limit for a pollutant (PM, CO, or HCl), the owner or
operator may forego a performance test for that pollutant for the
subsequent 2 years. At a minimum, a performance test for PM, CO, and
HCl shall be conducted every third year (no more than 36 months
following the previous performance test). If a performance test
conducted every third year indicates compliance with the emission limit
for a pollutant (PM, CO, or HCl), the owner or operator may forego a
performance test for that pollutant for an additional 2 years. If any
performance test indicates noncompliance with the respective emission
limit, a performance test for that pollutant shall be conducted
annually until all annual performance tests over a 3-year period
indicate compliance with the emission limit. The use of the bypass
stack during a performance test shall invalidate the performance test.
(3) For an affected facility as defined in Sec. 60.50c(a)(1) and
(2) and utilizing a large HMIWI, and in Sec. 60.50c(a)(3) and (4),
determine compliance with the visible emission limits for fugitive
emissions from flyash/bottom ash storage and handling by conducting a
performance test using EPA Reference Method 22 of appendix A-7 on an
annual basis (no more than 12 months following the previous performance
test).
(4) For an affected facility as defined in Sec. 60.50c(a)(3) and
(4), determine compliance with the CO emission limit using a CO CEMS
according to paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (c)(4)(iii) of this section:
(i) Determine compliance with the CO emission limit using a 24-hour
block average, calculated as specified in section 12.4.1 of EPA
Reference Method 19 of appendix A-7 of this part.
(ii) Operate the CO CEMS in accordance with the applicable
procedures under appendices B and F of this part.
(iii) Use of a CO CEMS may be substituted for the CO annual
performance test and minimum secondary chamber temperature to
demonstrate compliance with the CO emission limit.
(5) Facilities using CEMS to demonstrate compliance with any of the
emission limits under Sec. 60.52c shall:
(i) For an affected facility as defined in Sec. 60.50c(a)(1) and
(2), determine compliance with the appropriate emission limit(s) using
a 12-hour rolling average, calculated each hour as the average of the
previous 12 operating hours (not including startup, shutdown, or
malfunction).
(ii) For an affected facility as defined in Sec. 60.50c(a)(3) and
(4), determine compliance with the appropriate emission limit(s) using
a 24-hour block average, calculated as specified in section 12.4.1 of
EPA Reference Method 19 of appendix A-7 of this part.
(iii) Operate all CEMS in accordance with the applicable procedures
under appendices B and F of this part. For those CEMS for which
performance specifications have not yet been promulgated (HCl, multi-
metals), this option for an affected facility as defined in Sec.
60.50c(a)(3) and (4) takes effect on
[[Page 73000]]
the date a final performance specification is published in the Federal
Register or the date of approval of a site-specific monitoring plan.
(iv) For an affected facility as defined in Sec. 60.50c(a)(3) and
(4), be allowed to substitute use of an HCl CEMS for the HCl annual
performance test, minimum HCl sorbent flow rate, and minimum scrubber
liquor pH to demonstrate compliance with the HCl emission limit.
(v) For an affected facility as defined in Sec. 60.50c(a)(3) and
(4), be allowed to substitute use of a PM CEMS for the PM annual
performance test and minimum pressure drop across the wet scrubber, if
applicable, to demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limit.
(6) An affected facility as defined in Sec. 60.50c(a)(3) and (4)
using a continuous automated sampling system to demonstrate compliance
with the dioxin/furan emission limits under Sec. 60.52c shall record
the output of the system and analyze the sample according to EPA
Reference Method 23 of appendix A-7 of this part. This option to use a
continuous automated sampling system takes effect on the date a final
performance specification applicable to dioxin/furan from monitors is
published in the Federal Register or the date of approval of a site-
specific monitoring plan. The owner or operator of an affected facility
as defined in Sec. 60.50c(a)(3) and (4) who elects to continuously
sample dioxin/furan emissions instead of sampling and testing using EPA
Reference Method 23 of appendix A-7 shall install, calibrate, maintain,
and operate a continuous automated sampling system and shall comply
with the requirements specified in Sec. 60.58b(p) and (q) of subpart
Eb of this part.
(7) An affected facility as defined in Sec. 60.50c(a)(3) and (4)
using a continuous automated sampling system to demonstrate compliance
with the Hg emission limits under Sec. 60.52c shall record the output
of the system and analyze the sample at set intervals using any
suitable determinative technique that can meet appropriate performance
criteria. This option to use a continuous automated sampling system
takes effect on the date a final performance specification applicable
to Hg from monitors is published in the Federal Register or the date of
approval of a site-specific monitoring plan. The owner or operator of
an affected facility as defined in Sec. 60.50c(a)(3) and (4) who
elects to continuously sample Hg emissions instead of sampling and
testing using EPA Reference Method 29 of appendix A-8 of this part, or
an approved alternative method for measuring Hg emissions, shall
install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous automated
sampling system and shall comply with the requirements specified in
Sec. 60.58b(p) and (q) of subpart Eb of this part.
(d) Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(4) through (c)(7) of this
section, the owner or operator of an affected facility equipped with a
dry scrubber followed by a fabric filter, a wet scrubber, or a dry
scrubber followed by a fabric filter and wet scrubber shall:
* * * * *
(e) Except as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, for
affected facilities equipped with a dry scrubber followed by a fabric
filter:
* * * * *
(6) Operation of the affected facility as defined in Sec.
60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above the CO emission limit as measured by the CO
CEMS specified in paragraph (c)(4) of this section shall constitute a
violation of the CO emission limit.
(7) For an affected facility as defined in Sec. 60.50c(a)(3) and
(4), failure to initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak
detection system alarm; or failure to operate and maintain the fabric
filter such that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent of
the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period shall
constitute a violation of the PM emission limit. If inspection of the
fabric filter demonstrates that no corrective action is required, no
alarm time is counted. If corrective action is required, each alarm is
counted as a minimum of 1 hour. If it takes longer than 1 hour to
initiate corrective action, the alarm time is counted as the actual
amount of time taken to initiate corrective action. If the bag leak
detection system is used to demonstrate compliance with the opacity
limit, this would also constitute a violation of the opacity emission
limit.
(8) Operation of the affected facility as defined in Sec.
60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above the PM, HCl, Pb, Cd, and/or Hg emission
limit as measured by the CEMS specified in paragraph (c)(5) of this
section shall constitute a violation of the applicable emission limit.
(9) Operation of the affected facility as defined in Sec.
60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above the CDD/CDF emission limit as measured by
the continuous automated sampling system specified in paragraph (c)(6)
of this section shall constitute a violation of the CDD/CDF emission
limit.
(10) Operation of the affected facility as defined in Sec.
60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above the Hg emission limit as measured by the
continuous automated sampling system specified in paragraph (c)(7) of
this section shall constitute a violation of the Hg emission limit.
(f) Except as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, for
affected facilities equipped with a wet scrubber:
* * * * *
(7) Operation of the affected facility as defined in Sec.
60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above the CO emission limit as measured by the CO
CEMS specified in paragraph (c)(4) of this section shall constitute a
violation of the CO emission limit.
(8) Operation of the affected facility as defined in Sec.
60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above the PM, HCl, Pb, Cd, and/or Hg emission
limit as measured by the CEMS specified in paragraph (c)(5) of this
section shall constitute a violation of the applicable emission limit.
(9) Operation of the affected facility as defined in Sec.
60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above the CDD/CDF emission limit as measured by
the continuous automated sampling system specified in paragraph (c)(6)
of this section shall constitute a violation of the CDD/CDF emission
limit.
(10) Operation of the affected facility as defined in Sec.
60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above the Hg emission limit as measured by the
continuous automated sampling system specified in paragraph (c)(7) of
this section shall constitute a violation of the Hg emission limit.
(g) Except as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, for
affected facilities equipped with a dry scrubber followed by a fabric
filter and a wet scrubber:
* * * * *
(6) Operation of the affected facility as defined in Sec.
60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above the CO emission limit as measured by the CO
CEMS specified in paragraph (c)(4) of this section shall constitute a
violation of the CO emission limit.
(7) For an affected facility as defined in Sec. 60.50c(a)(3) and
(4), failure to initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak
detection system alarm; or failure to operate and maintain the fabric
filter such that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent of
the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period shall
constitute a violation of the PM emission limit. If inspection of the
fabric filter demonstrates that no corrective action is required, no
alarm time is counted. If corrective action is required, each alarm is
counted as a minimum of 1 hour. If it takes longer than 1 hour to
initiate corrective action, the alarm time is counted as the actual
amount of time taken to initiate corrective action. If the bag leak
detection system is used to demonstrate compliance with the opacity
limit, this would also constitute a violation of the opacity emission
limit.
[[Page 73001]]
(8) Operation of the affected facility as defined in Sec.
60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above the PM, HCl, Pb, Cd, and/or Hg emission
limit as measured by the CEMS specified in paragraph (c)(5) of this
section shall constitute a violation of the applicable emission limit.
(9) Operation of the affected facility as defined in Sec.
60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above the CDD/CDF emission limit as measured by
the continuous automated sampling system specified in paragraph (c)(6)
of this section shall constitute a violation of the CDD/CDF emission
limit.
(10) Operation of the affected facility as defined in Sec.
60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above the Hg emission limit as measured by the
continuous automated sampling system specified in paragraph (c)(7) of
this section shall constitute a violation of the Hg emission limit.
(h) The owner or operator of an affected facility as defined in
Sec. 60.50c(a)(3) and (4) equipped with selective noncatalytic
reduction technology shall:
(1) Establish the maximum charge rate, the minimum secondary
chamber temperature, and the minimum reagent flow rate as site specific
operating parameters during the initial performance test to determine
compliance with the emission limits;
(2) Following the date on which the initial performance test is
completed or is required to be completed under Sec. 60.8, whichever
date comes first, ensure that the affected facility does not operate
above the maximum charge rate, or below the minimum secondary chamber
temperature or the minimum reagent flow rate measured as 3-hour rolling
averages (calculated each hour as the average of the previous 3
operating hours) at all times except during periods of startup,
shutdown and malfunction. Operating parameter limits do not apply
during performance tests.
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, operation
of the affected facility above the maximum charge rate, below the
minimum secondary chamber temperature, and below the minimum reagent
flow rate simultaneously shall constitute a violation of the
NOX emission limit.
(i) The owner or operator of an affected facility may conduct a
repeat performance test within 30 days of violation of applicable
operating parameter(s) to demonstrate that the affected facility is not
in violation of the applicable emission limit(s). Repeat performance
tests conducted pursuant to this paragraph shall be conducted using the
identical operating parameters that indicated a violation under
paragraph (e), (f), (g), or (h) of this section.
(j) The owner or operator of an affected facility using an air
pollution control device other than a dry scrubber followed by a fabric
filter, a wet scrubber, a dry scrubber followed by a fabric filter and
a wet scrubber, or selective noncatalytic reduction technology to
comply with the emission limits under Sec. 60.52c shall petition the
Administrator for other site-specific operating parameters to be
established during the initial performance test and continuously
monitored thereafter. The owner or operator shall not conduct the
initial performance test until after the petition has been approved by
the Administrator.
* * * * *
16. Section 60.57c is amended as follows:
a. By revising paragraph (a);
b. By redesignating paragraphs (b) through (d) as paragraphs (c)
through (e);
c. By adding paragraph (b);
d. By revising newly redesignated paragraphs (d) and (e); and
e. By adding paragraphs (f), (g), and (h).
Sec. 60.57c Monitoring requirements
(a) Except as provided in Sec. 60.56c(c)(4) through (c)(7), the
owner or operator of an affected facility shall install, calibrate (to
manufacturers' specifications), maintain, and operate devices (or
establish methods) for monitoring the applicable maximum and minimum
operating parameters listed in Table 3 to this subpart (unless CEMS are
used as a substitute for certain parameters as specified) such that
these devices (or methods) measure and record values for these
operating parameters at the frequencies indicated in Table 3 of this
subpart at all times except during periods of startup and shutdown.
(b) The owner or operator of an affected facility as defined in
Sec. 60.50c(a)(3) and (4) that uses selective noncatalytic reduction
technology shall install, calibrate (to manufacturers' specifications),
maintain, and operate devices (or establish methods) for monitoring the
operating parameters listed in Sec. 1A60.56c(h) such that the devices
(or methods) measure and record values for the operating parameters at
all times except during periods of startup and shutdown. Operating
parameter values shall be measured and recorded at the following
minimum frequencies:
(1) Maximum charge rate shall be measured continuously and recorded
once each hour;
(2) Minimum secondary chamber temperature shall be measured
continuously and recorded once each minute; and
(3) Minimum reagent flow rate shall be measured hourly and recorded
once each hour.
* * * * *
(d) The owner or operator of an affected facility using an air
pollution control device other than a dry scrubber followed by a fabric
filter, a wet scrubber, a dry scrubber followed by a fabric filter and
a wet scrubber, or selective noncatalytic reduction technology to
comply with the emission limits under Sec. 60.52c shall install,
calibrate (to manufacturers' specifications), maintain, and operate the
equipment necessary to monitor the site-specific operating parameters
developed pursuant to Sec. 60.56c(j).
(e) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall obtain
monitoring data at all times during HMIWI operation except during
periods of monitoring equipment malfunction, calibration, or repair. At
a minimum, valid monitoring data shall be obtained for 75 percent of
the operating hours per day for 90 percent of the operating days per
calendar quarter that the affected facility is combusting hospital
waste and/or medical/infectious waste.
(f) The owner or operator of an affected facility as defined in
Sec. 60.50c(a)(3) and (4) shall ensure that each HMIWI subject to the
emission limits in Sec. 60.52c undergoes an initial air pollution
control device inspection that is at least as protective as the
following:
(1) At a minimum, an inspection shall include the following:
(i) Inspect air pollution control device(s) for proper operation,
if applicable;
(ii) Ensure proper calibration of thermocouples, sorbent feed
systems, and any other monitoring equipment; and
(iii) Generally observe that the equipment is maintained in good
operating condition.
(2) Within 10 operating days following an air pollution control
device inspection, all necessary repairs shall be completed unless the
owner or operator obtains written approval from the Administrator
establishing a date whereby all necessary repairs of the designated
facility shall be completed.
(g) The owner or operator of an affected facility as defined in
Sec. 60.50c(a)(3) and (4) shall ensure that each HMIWI subject to the
emission limits under Sec. 60.52c undergoes an air pollution control
device inspection
[[Page 73002]]
annually (no more than 12 months following the previous annual air
pollution control device inspection), as outlined in paragraphs (f)(1)
and (f)(2) of this section.
(h) For affected facilities as defined in Sec. 60.50c(a)(3) and
(4) that use an air pollution control device that includes a fabric
filter and are not demonstrating compliance using PM CEMS, determine
compliance with the PM emission limit using a bag leak detection system
and meet the requirements in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(12) of this
section for each bag leak detection system.
(1) Each triboelectric bag leak detection system shall be
installed, calibrated, operated, and maintained according to the
``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' (EPA-454/R-98-015,
September 1997). This document is available from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA); Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards; Sector Policies and Programs Division; Measurement Policy
Group (D-243-02), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. This document is
also available on the Technology Transfer Network (TTN) under Emission
Measurement Center Continuous Emission Monitoring. Other types of bag
leak detection systems shall be installed, operated, calibrated, and
maintained in a manner consistent with the manufacturer's written
specifications and recommendations.
(2) The bag leak detection system shall be certified by the
manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations
of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic
foot) or less.
(3) The bag leak detection system sensor shall provide an output of
relative PM loadings.
(4) The bag leak detection system shall be equipped with a device
to continuously record the output signal from the sensor.
(5) The bag leak detection system shall be equipped with an audible
alarm system that will sound automatically when an increase in relative
PM emissions over a preset level is detected. The alarm shall be
located where it is easily heard by plant operating personnel.
(6) For positive pressure fabric filter systems, a bag leak
detector shall be installed in each baghouse compartment or cell.
(7) For negative pressure or induced air fabric filters, the bag
leak detector shall be installed downstream of the fabric filter.
(8) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
(9) The baseline output shall be established by adjusting the range
and the averaging period of the device and establishing the alarm set
points and the alarm delay time according to section 5.0 of the
``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance.''
(10) Following initial adjustment of the system, the sensitivity or
range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm delay time may not
be adjusted. In no case may the sensitivity be increased by more than
100 percent or decreased more than 50 percent over a 365-day period
unless such adjustment follows a complete fabric filter inspection that
demonstrates that the fabric filter is in good operating condition.
Each adjustment shall be recorded.
(11) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and
validation check.
(12) Initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak
detection system alarm; operate and maintain the fabric filter such
that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total
operating time in a 6-month block reporting period. If inspection of
the fabric filter demonstrates that no corrective action is required,
no alarm time is counted. If corrective action is required, each alarm
is counted as a minimum of 1 hour. If it takes longer than 1 hour to
initiate corrective action, the alarm time is counted as the actual
amount of time taken to initiate corrective action.
17. Section 60.58c is amended as follows:
a. By revising paragraph (a)(2)(iv);
b. By redesignating paragraphs (b)(2)(viii) through (b)(2)(xv) as
paragraphs (b)(2)(ix) through (b)(2)(xvi);
c. By adding paragraph (b)(2)(viii);
d. By revising newly designated paragraph (b)(2)(xvi);
e. By adding paragraphs (b)(2)(xvii) through (b)(2)(xix);
f. By revising paragraphs (b)(6) and (b)(11);
g. By revising paragraph (c) introductory text;
h. By revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2);
i. By adding paragraph (c)(4);
j. By revising paragraph (d) introductory text;
k. By revising paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(3);
l. By adding paragraphs (d)(9) through (d)(11); and
m. By adding paragraph (g).
Sec. 60.58c Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) If applicable, the petition for site-specific operating
parameters under Sec. 60.56c(j).
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(viii) For affected facilities as defined in Sec. 60.50c(a)(3) and
(4), amount and type of NOX reagent used during each hour of
operation, as applicable;
* * * * *
(xvi) For affected facilities complying with Sec. 60.56c(j) and
Sec. 60.57c(d), the owner or operator shall maintain all operating
parameter data collected;
(xvii) For affected facilities as defined in Sec. 60.50c(a)(3) and
(4), records of the annual air pollution control device inspections,
any required maintenance, and any repairs not completed within 10 days
of an inspection or the timeframe established by the Administrator.
(xviii) For affected facilities as defined in Sec. 60.50c(a)(3)
and (4), records of each bag leak detection system alarm, the time of
the alarm, the time corrective action was initiated and completed, and
a brief description of the cause of the alarm and the corrective action
taken, as applicable.
(xix) For affected facilities as defined in Sec. 60.50c(a)(3) and
(4), concentrations of CO as determined by the continuous emission
monitoring system.
* * * * *
(6) The results of the initial, annual, and any subsequent
performance tests conducted to determine compliance with the emission
limits and/or to establish or re-establish operating parameters, as
applicable, and a description, including sample calculations, of how
the operating parameters were established or re-established, if
applicable.
* * * * *
(11) Records of calibration of any monitoring devices as required
under Sec. 60.57c(a) through (d).
(c) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall submit the
information specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this
section no later than 60 days following the initial performance test.
All reports shall be signed by the facilities manager.
(1) The initial performance test data as recorded under Sec.
60.56c(b)(1) through (b)(14), as applicable.
(2) The values for the site-specific operating parameters
established pursuant to Sec. 60.56c(d), (h), or (j), as applicable,
and a description, including sample calculations, of how the operating
parameters were established during the initial performance test.
* * * * *
[[Page 73003]]
(4) For each affected facility as defined in Sec. 60.50c(a)(3) and
(4) that uses a bag leak detection system, analysis and supporting
documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and
specifications for bag leak detection systems in Sec. 60.57c(h).
(d) An annual report shall be submitted 1 year following the
submission of the information in paragraph (c) of this section and
subsequent reports shall be submitted no more than 12 months following
the previous report (once the unit is subject to permitting
requirements under title V of the Clean Air Act, the owner or operator
of an affected facility must submit these reports semiannually). The
annual report shall include the information specified in paragraphs
(d)(1) through (11) of this section. All reports shall be signed by the
facilities manager.
(1) The values for the site-specific operating parameters
established pursuant to Sec. 60.56(d), (h), or (j), as applicable.
(2) The highest maximum operating parameter and the lowest minimum
operating parameter, as applicable, for each operating parameter
recorded for the calendar year being reported, pursuant to Sec.
60.56(d), (h), or (j), as applicable.
(3) The highest maximum operating parameter and the lowest minimum
operating parameter, as applicable, for each operating parameter
recorded pursuant to Sec. 60.56(d), (h), or (j) for the calendar year
preceding the year being reported, in order to provide the
Administrator with a summary of the performance of the affected
facility over a 2-year period.
* * * * *
(9) For affected facilities as defined in Sec. 60.50c(a)(3) and
(4), records of the annual air pollution control device inspection, any
required maintenance, and any repairs not completed within 10 days of
an inspection or the timeframe established by the Administrator.
(10) For affected facilities as defined in Sec. 60.50c(a)(3) and
(4), records of each bag leak detection system alarm, the time of the
alarm, the time corrective action was initiated and completed, and a
brief description of the cause of the alarm and the corrective action
taken, as applicable.
(11) For affected facilities as defined in Sec. 60.50c(a)(3) and
(4), concentrations of CO as determined by the continuous emission
monitoring system.
* * * * *
(g) For affected facilities, as defined in Sec. 60.50c(a)(3) and
(4), that choose to submit an electronic copy of stack test reports to
EPA's WebFIRE data base, as of December 31, 2011, the owner or operator
of an affected facility shall enter the test data into EPA's data base
using the Electronic Reporting Tool located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html.
18. The heading to Table 1 to subpart Ec is revised to read as
follows:
Table 1 to Subpart Ec of Part 60-Emission Limits for Small, Medium,
and Large HMIWI at Affected Facilities as Defined in Sec. 60.50c(a)(1)
and (2)
19. Amend Subpart Ec by adding Table 1A to subpart Ec to read as
follows:
Table 1A--to Subpart Ec of Part 60-Emission Limits for Small, Medium, and Large HMIWI at Affected Facilities as
Defined in Sec. 60.50c(a)(3) and (4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission limits
-----------------------------------------------
Pollutant Units (7 percent oxygen, HMIWI size
dry basis) -----------------------------------------------
Small Medium Large
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particulate matter................. Milligrams per dry standard 39 (0.017) 23 (0.0099) 11 (0.0048)
cubic meter (grains per
dry standard cubic foot).
Carbon monoxide.................... Parts per million by volume 8.2 1.9 2.9
Dioxins/ furans.................... Nanograms per dry standard 8.3 (3.7) or 0.35 (0.16) or 0.60 (0.27) or
cubic meter total dioxins/ 0.0080 (0.00 0.0097 0.014 (0.0062)
furans (grains per billion 35) (0.0043)
dry standard cubic feet)
or nanograms per dry
standard cubic meter TEQ
(grains per billion dry
standard cubic feet).
Hydrogen chloride.................. Parts per million by volume 4.5 1.8 0.75
Sulfur dioxide..................... Parts per million by volume 0.78 0.78 1.9
Nitrogen oxides.................... Parts per million by volume 38 38 110
Lead............................... Milligrams per dry standard 0.18 (0.079) 0.016 (0.070) 0.00047
cubic meter (grains per (0.00021)
thousand dry standard
cubic feet.
Cadmium............................ Milligrams per dry standard 0.012 (0.00 0.0071 0.00012 (0.000
cubic meter (grains per 53) (0.0031) 053)
thousand dry standard
cubic feet) or percent
reduction.
Mercury............................ Milligrams per dry standard 0.0075 (0.00 0.0020 (0.00 0.00093 (0.00
cubic meter (grains per 33) 088) 041)
thousand dry standard
cubic feet) or percent
reduction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. E8-27732 Filed 11-28-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P