[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 127 (Tuesday, July 2, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44452-44460]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-16643]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-7240-3]
NESHAP: Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous
Waste Combustors (Final Replacement Standards and Phase II)--Notice of
Data Availability
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of data availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice of data availability (NODA) presents for public
comment the data bases the Environmental Protection Agency plans to use
to propose National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) for hazardous waste burning combustors (incinerators, cement
kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, industrial and commercial/
institutional boilers, process heaters, and hydrochloric acid
production furnaces). We are providing this opportunity for comment to
ensure that the data bases used to establish the
[[Page 44453]]
standards are as accurate and complete as possible.
DATES: Comments must be submitted by August 16, 2002.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, by
facsimile, or through hand delivery/courier. If you wish to comment on
this NODA, you must send an original and two copies of the comments
referencing Docket Number RCRA-2002-0019 to: RCRA Information Center
(RIC), Office of Solid Waste (5305G), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Headquarters (EPA HQ), Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460-0002; or, (2) if using special
delivery, such as overnight express service: RIC, Crystal Gateway One,
1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor, Arlington, VA 22202. You may
also submit comments electronically following the directions in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below.
You may view the data bases in the RIC. The RIC is open from 9 am
to 4 pm Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. To review
docket materials, we recommend that you make an appointment by calling
703-603-9230. You may copy up to 100 pages from any regulatory document
at no charge. Additional copies cost $ 0.15 per page. For information
on accessing an electronic copy of the data bases, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, call the RCRA
Hotline at 1-800-424-9346 or TDD 1-800-553-7672 (hearing impaired).
Callers within the Washington Metropolitan Area must dial 703-412-9810
or TDD 703-412-3323 (hearing impaired). The RCRA Hotline is open
Monday-Friday, 9 am to 6 pm, Eastern Standard Time. For more
information on specific aspects of this NODA, contact Frank Behan at
703-308-8476, or [email protected], or write him at the Office of
Solid Waste, 5302W, U.S. EPA, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Acronyms Used in this Notice
APCD--Air pollution control device
BH--Baghouse
BIF--Boiler and industrial furnaces
CAA--Clean Air Act
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
D/F--dioxins and furans
EPA--United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESP--Electrostatic precipitator
FR--Federal Register
HAP--Hazardous air pollutant
HCl--Hydrochloric acid
HWC--Hazardous waste combustor
LVM--Low Volatile Metals
MACT--Maximum achievable control technology
NESHAP--National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NODA--Notice of data availability
PM--Particulate matter
RCRA--Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SVM--Semivolatile Metals
Table of Contents
I. General Information
A. How Can I Get Copies Of The Data Bases?
B. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?
C. How Should I Submit CBI To the Agency?
D. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
II. What Is the Purpose of this NODA?
III. Are You Affected by this Notice?
IV. What Led Up to this NODA?
V. What Data Are Included in this Notice?
VI. What Data Handling Decisions Did We Make and What Are the Data
Gaps?
A. Data from Sources No Longer Burning Hazardous Waste Are
Excluded
B. How Are Nondetect Data Handled?
C. Missing Source Description Information
D. Use of Metals Extrapolation, Interpolation and Surrogates
VII. What Are the New Data Comment Fields?
A. What Information Do We Need to Consider Subcategorization
Options?
B. How Will We Distinguish Between Worst-Case and Normal
Emissions?
C. What Classifications Do We Use to Address Sootblowing by
Boilers?
I. General Information
A. How Can I Get Copies Of The Data Bases?
1. The Docket
EPA has established an official public docket for this action under
Docket ID RCRA-2002-0019. The official public docket consists of the
documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments
received, and other information related to this action. Although a part
of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of
materials that is available for public viewing at the address above.
2. Electronic Access
You may access this Federal Register document electronically
through the EPA Internet under the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is
available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system,
EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to
submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the
contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents
in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket
identification number.
Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets.
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public
docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic
public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be
placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent
feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in
EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the
index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the
document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket.
Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you
may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through
the docket facility identified in section I.B. EPA intends to work
towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available
docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper,
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment
containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that
material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's
electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the
copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will
be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph
will be placed in EPA's electronic public
[[Page 44454]]
docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.
For additional information about EPA's electronic public docket
visit EPA Dockets online or see 67 FR 38102, May 31, 2002.
3. Obtaining the Data Bases Electronically from the HWC Web Site
The data bases can be obtained either as described above, or by
downloading from the EPA HWC site on the Internet. If you want to
download the data bases over the Internet, you can do so from our ``HWC
MACT'' Web site: http://www.epa.gov/hwcmact. Please consult the web
page for specific instructions on how to download the data bases. Do
not, however, submit comments to this web address. Instead, follow the
instructions provided below.
B. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or
through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA,
identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject
line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your
comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments
received after the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.''
EPA is not required to consider these late comments.
If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA
recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail
address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also
include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM
you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM.
This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment
and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance
of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment,
and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a
comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the
official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public
docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment.
1. EPA Dockets
Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to
EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go
directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow the
online instructions for submitting comments. To access EPA's electronic
public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page, select ``Information
Sources,'' ``Dockets,'' and ``EPA Dockets.'' Once in the system, select
``search,'' and then key in Docket ID No. RCRA-2002-0019. The system is
an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
2. E-mail
Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to [email protected], Attention Docket ID No. RCRA-2002-0019. In contrast to
EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an
``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to
the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's
e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail
addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
3. Disk or CD ROM
You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the
mailing address identified in the ADDRESSES section. These electronic
submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid
the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
C. How Should I Submit CBI To the Agency?
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI
electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail.
Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following
address: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, Office of Solid Waste
(5305W), U.S.EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460,
Attention Docket ID No. RCRA-2002-0019. You may claim information that
you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information
as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the
disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk
or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion
in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit
the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside
of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information
not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's
electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any
questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
D. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that
support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at your estimate.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Offer alternatives.
7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket
identification number in the subject line on the first page of your
response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and
Federal Register citation related to your comments.
II. What Is the Purpose of this NODA?
This NODA affects owners and operators of hazardous waste burning
incinerators, cement kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, industrial and
institutional/commercial boilers, process heaters, and hydrochloric
acid production furnaces. We are providing this NODA to request comment
on data bases that we will use to develop proposed standards under
Section 112(d) (i.e., MACT standards) for these source categories and
subcategories.
We view publication of this NODA as a critical component of our
quality assurance program that we are using to ensure and maximize the
quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information that we
plan to use in our future MACT rule making. Section 515 of the Treasury
and General Government Appropriations Act for
[[Page 44455]]
FY2001 (Pub. L. 106-554) directed OMB to issue government-wide
information quality guidelines. The OMB guidelines were first issued on
September 28, 2001. Pursuant to those guidelines EPA is developing its
own guidelines. EPA's information quality guideline development program
can be found on the World Wide Web at this URL: http://www.epa.gov/oei/qualityguidelines. One of the important components of EPA's draft
Information Quality Guidelines is to provide the public with an
opportunity and vehicle for correcting any errors that might be present
in data and information that the agency is using in its decision-
making. This NODA provides such an opportunity.
III. Are You Affected by this Notice?
We anticipate that we will develop revised MACT standards for
hazardous waste burning incinerators, cement kilns, and lightweight
aggregate kilns, as defined at 40 CFR 63.1201(a), and that are
currently subject to MACT standards at 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE.
We also plan to develop MACT standards for boilers, as defined at
40 CFR 260.10, that burn hazardous waste as defined at 40 CFR part 261.
This definition of boiler includes devices used in industry as process
heaters. These boilers are currently subject to regulation under 40 CFR
part 266, subpart H, which is commonly referred to as the Boiler and
Industrial Furnace (BIF) rule.
Please note that the MACT standards for hazardous waste burning
boilers and process heaters would apply to boilers that are currently
exempt from certain BIF emission standards under Sec. 266.109 (Low Risk
Waste Exemption) and Sec. 266.110 (Waiver of DRE Trial Burn for
Boilers). We anticipate, however, that we will propose that boilers
currently exempt from part 266, Subpart H, because they qualify for the
Small Quantity On-Site Burner Exemption, would not be subject to the
MACT standards that we are developing for boilers that burn hazardous
waste. Instead, we anticipate proposing that those boilers would be
subject to MACT standards the Agency is developing for industrial and
institutional/commercial boilers, and process heaters, that do not
(otherwise) burn hazardous waste. Those boilers would be subject to
MACT standards for boilers and process heaters that do not burn
hazardous waste because their nonhazardous waste fuels will dictate the
types and concentrations of HAP emissions rather than the de minimis
quantities of hazardous waste fuel that they burn. The MACT standards
for industrial and institutional/commercial boilers and process heaters
that do not burn hazardous waste are scheduled to be proposed in late
2002.
Finally, we are also developing MACT standards for HCl production
furnaces that burn hazardous waste. These furnaces are a type of
halogen acid furnace included within the definition of ``industrial
furnace'' defined at Sec. 260.10 and are currently regulated under 40
CFR part 266, subpart H.
We do not anticipate proposing MACT standards for hazardous waste
burning sulfur recovery furnaces. These industrial furnaces are subject
to the BIF rule if they burn hazardous waste other than spent sulfuric
acid either for energy recovery or to recover sulfur values. We do not
believe MACT standards are warranted for these sources because
available emissions data indicate that emissions of hazardous air
pollutants are very low. In addition, the Agency has not listed these
furnaces as a category of major sources. See 57 FR 31576, July 16,
1992. Sulfur recovery furnaces burning hazardous waste other than spent
sulfuric acid would remain subject to the BIF rule.
IV. What Led Up to This NODA?
Congress amended the Clean Air Act (CAA) in 1990 to require that
hazardous air pollutants be controlled by technology-based standards--
standards based on the technical capabilities of control strategies for
the emitting industry in question, with further controls required later
if significant risk remains after imposition of the technology-based
standards. These standards would apply to the HWCs discussed in this
notice.
On September 30, 1999, we promulgated standards (referred to as the
``Phase I'' rule, 64 FR 52828) to control emissions of hazardous air
pollutants from incinerators, cement kilns and lightweight aggregate
kilns that burn hazardous wastes. These emission standards created a
technology-based national cap for hazardous air pollutant emissions,
assuring that combustion of hazardous waste in these devices is
properly controlled. Additionally, the rule satisfied our obligation
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to ensure that
hazardous waste combustion is conducted in a manner protective of human
health and the environment. By using both CAA and RCRA authorities in a
coordinated fashion, we consolidated regulatory control of hazardous
waste combustion into a single set of regulations, thereby minimizing
the potential for conflicting or duplicative federal requirements.
A number of parties, representing interests of both industrial
sources and of the environmental community, sought judicial review of
the rule. On July 24, 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) granted the Sierra Club's
petition for review and vacated the challenged portions of the rule.
However, the Court invited us (or any of the parties to the proceeding)
to file a motion to delay issuance of its mandate to request either
that the current Phase I standards remain in place or that we be
allowed reasonable time to develop interim standards.
On October 19, 2001, after several months of negotiation, we,
together with all other petitioners that challenged the hazardous waste
combustor emission standards, filed a joint motion asking the Court to
stay the issuance of its mandate for four months to allow us time to
develop interim standards, and the Court granted this request. In the
joint motion, we agreed to take several actions. First, we agreed to
issue a one-year extension to the compliance date of September 30,
2002; on December 6, 2001 we published a final rule to extend for one
year the compliance date for Phase I sources (66 FR 63313). Second, we
committed to (1) publish an interim rule with revised emission
standards; and, (2) finalize several compliance and implementation
amendments to the rule. These interim standards and compliance and
implementation amendments were promulgated on February 13 and 14, 2002
(67 FR 6792 and 67 FR 6968). The interim standards replace the vacated
standards temporarily, until we finalize replacement standards that
comply with the Court's mandate. Finally, we agreed to issue these
final replacement standards that fully comply with the Court's opinion
by June 14, 2005.
Also, in this rulemaking, we are developing MACT standards for
hazardous waste burning industrial and institutional/commercial
boilers, process heaters, and hydrochloric acid production furnaces
producing acid from hazardous wastes. These sources are referred to as
Phase II sources because the MACT standards for these sources were
originally scheduled to be promulgated after the Phase I source MACT
standards were finalized.
V. What Data Are Included in This Notice?
We are requesting comment on six separate data bases that compile
information on the following source categories or subcategories:
incinerators,
[[Page 44456]]
cement kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, coal-fired boilers, liquid-
fuel boilers, and hydrochloric acid production furnaces. Each data base
summarizes emissions data and ancillary information on HWCs source
category or subcategory that we extracted from available test reports.
Many of the source test reports were prepared as part of the compliance
process for the current RCRA standards. Ancillary information in the
data bases includes general facility information, air pollution control
device operating information, composition and feedrate data for the
hazardous waste, fossil fuels, and raw materials, combustion gas
condition, and stack-related information.
This NODA is an invitation to comment on the data bases that we
will use to develop MACT standards for HWCs. As discussed below, some
of the data bases have been noticed, in part, for comment previously,
and some have been updated since they were last publicly available. We
encourage owners and operators of HWCs to review our data bases to
ensure that they are as accurate and complete as possible, and to
provide corrections and additions in the form of comments to this
notice. If you find errors, please submit the pages from the test
report that document the missing or incorrect results and the cover
page of the test report as reference. We encourage comment only on the
accuracy and completeness of the data bases at this time. We do not
seek nor will we use or respond to comments on how to use the data
bases to identify MACT standards. Rather, we will publish and seek
comment on a MACT standard-setting approach and all other aspects of
the NESHAP rulemaking in a future notice of proposed rulemaking.
We gathered the emissions data and ancillary information for the
data bases from test reports submitted by these sources to EPA Regional
Offices or State agencies. The test reports may include certifications
of compliance reports, trial burn reports, annual performance test
reports, mini-burns, and risk burn reports. Below we summarize our
efforts to collect the test results that comprise the data bases.
We first compiled a data base for hazardous waste burning
incinerators, cement kilns and lightweight aggregate kilns (i.e., the
Phase I data base) to support the April 1996 proposed Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards for those source
categories (61 FR 17358, April 19, 1996). We received additional test
reports and comments on errors in the data base during the public
comment period of the proposed rule. The revised Phase I data base was
subsequently published in the Federal Register for public comment (62
FR 960, January 7, 1997). The data base was again revised based on
these comments. We used this data base to develop the Phase I MACT
standards promulgated on September 30, 1999 (64 FR 52828).
Following vacature of the challenged Phase I standards and
promulgation of the interim MACT standards in February 2002, we
initiated an effort with EPA Regional Offices and State agencies to
update the data base. We focused on collecting compliance testing
documents from Phase I sources for which we had no information,
obtaining results from more recent testing conducted since 1997, and
updating the universe of operating hazardous waste combustors. In
total, we obtained an additional 110 test reports during our 2002 data
collection effort.
The current data bases for the Phase I source categories included
in today's NODA contain test results for over 100 incinerators, 25
cement kilns, and 9 lightweight aggregate kilns. In many cases,
especially for cement and lightweight aggregate kilns, the data bases
contain test reports from multiple testing campaigns. For example, our
data bases contain test results for a cement kiln source for the years
1992, 1995, and 1998.
The data base for Phase II combustors--industrial boilers,
commercial/institutional boilers, process heaters, and HCl production
furnaces--was compiled in 1999. In developing that data base, we
collected the most recent test report available for each source that
included test results under compliance test operating conditions.
However, this most recent test report may have also included data used
for other purposes (e.g., risk burn), which we also included in the
data base. In nearly all instances, the dates of the test reports
collected were either 1998 or 1999. In June 2000 we published in the
Federal Register the Phase II data base for comment (65 FR 39581, June
27, 2000).
We have not collected additional emissions data for Phase II
sources. We have, however, updated the Phase II data base to address
comments we received to the June 27, 2000 NODA. We also revised the
universe of sources by removing those sources that are no longer
burning hazardous waste. In addition, we updated some of the comment
fields. Therefore, if your facility has a HWC originally included in
the Phase II rulemaking, it is important that you review the current
data for your facility, even if you reviewed the Phase II data base
when it was originally noticed.\1\ Section VII of today's notice
describes the new data comment fields for the Phase II sources. The
data bases for the Phase II sources comprise compliance test results
for 114 industrial boilers, 11 process heaters, and 16 HC1 production
furnaces.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See ``Hazardous Waste Combustor Data Base Report for Phase I
and II Sources,'' June, 2002, for our response to comments received
on the June 27, 2002 NODA.
\2\ We are not aware of any commercial/institutional boilers
that burn hazardous waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. What Data Handling Decisions Did We Make and What Are the Data
Gaps?
In this section, we describe the data handling protocol used during
development of the data bases. We also identify additional information
that we would like to have and encourage owners and operators to submit
such information as available.
A. Data from Sources No Longer Burning Hazardous Waste Are Excluded
The data bases do not include information from sources no longer
burning hazardous waste. If we learned that a source had stopped
burning hazardous waste and is undergoing, or has indicated to
regulatory officials its plan to begin, RCRA closure procedures, then
we did not obtain a copy of that source's test report. Although such
data may or may not indicate the capabilities of control equipment in
general, we conclude that the data from currently operating combustors
are adequate to develop standards under Section 112(d).
We identified several sources that are no longer burning hazardous
waste and removed their emissions data and related information from the
data bases. We encourage owners and operators of hazardous waste
combustors to review our list of operating combustors to ensure it is
accurate.
B. How Are Nondetect Data Handled?
We assume that analytes in feedstreams or emissions reported as not
detected are present at one-half the detection limit. This is
consistent with how we handled nondetect measurements in the September
1999 MACT rule for Phase I sources (66 FR at 52844) and in the data
base associated with the June 2000 NODA for Phase II sources. All
measurements reported as not detected are identified as such in the
data bases.
C. Missing Source Description Information
Some test reports omitted source description information. For
example,
[[Page 44457]]
some of the boiler descriptions are incomplete. A report might simply
say the source is a boiler, but not whether it is a watertube or
firetube boiler. In other cases, we were unable to determine what
emission control equipment, if any, is installed on the source. Because
we may use these data to classify and group the data when identifying
MACT standards, we encourage owners and operators to provide any such
missing source description information as a comment to this notice.
D. Use of Metals Extrapolation, Interpolation and Surrogates
In some cases, extrapolation or interpolation of metals test data
may have been used to develop operating limits (e.g., metals feed rate
limits). Extrapolation means setting limits outside the bounds (above
or below) of test results, and interpolation means setting operating
limits between the bounds of the test results. As we discuss in Section
VII below, we need to know whether the emissions data and feedrates
represent a snapshot of normal emissions or whether they represent the
highest emissions the source has determined it would emit under a mode
of operation. Given that subsequent extrapolation and interpolation of
the metals data in the test reports may change the classification of
the metals data in the data bases, we encourage owners and operators to
identify and provide information on test results in the data bases that
have been extrapolated and interpolated.
Another situation that may impact the classification of the metals
data is the use of surrogates. For example, a source may have spiked
lead, but not cadmium, during the test with the intent to use the
system removal efficiency of lead to calculate a feedrate limit for
cadmium. In this case, our data bases may not classify properly the
feedrate of cadmium. We encourage owners and operators to identify and
provide information on test results where metal surrogates were used.
VII. What Are the New Data Comment Fields?
We have added several data comment fields to the data bases since
they were published for public comment. Because we may use these data
comment fields to classify and group the data when establishing the
MACT standards, we encourage owners or operators to review these data
comment fields to determine if our designations are accurate.
The new data comment fields that are particularly important pertain
to: (1) Classification of the design or operation of the source to
enable us to consider establishing MACT standards for subcategories of
a source category; (2) classification of emissions data as to whether
the data represent the highest emissions a source could be expected to
achieve or normal emissions; and (3) characterization of sootblowing
operations during emissions testing for boilers.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Unless specified otherwise, the term ``boiler'' means
industrial and commercial/institutional boilers, and process
heaters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. What Information Do We Need to Consider Subcategorization Options?
It may be appropriate to establish different MACT standards for
subcategories of a source category if the types or concentration of
uncontrolled emissions of hazardous air pollutants are significantly
different for a subset of that category because of the design or
operation of the sources. An example is our determination that
incinerators with wet emission control devices and equipped with waste
heat recovery boilers can have much higher D/F emissions than
incinerators with wet emission control devices but without heat
recovery boilers.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See USEPA ``Final Technical Support Document for HWC MACT
Standards, vol. III: Selection of MACT Standards and Technologies,''
July, 1999, p. 3-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have evaluated each of the source categories--hazardous waste
burning incinerators, cement kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns,
boilers, and HCl production furnaces--and identified information that
we may need to classify each source to consider subcategorization. In
the table below, we list the classifications and describe the terms for
purposes of this rulemaking effort. We encourage owners and operators
to review the classifications for their sources in the data bases to
ensure they are accurate.
Table 1.--Classification of Sources To Consider Subcategories
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category/classification Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incinerators:
Waste heat boiler............. Equipped with a waste heat recovery
boiler.
Liquid injection incinerator.. Feeds only pumpable feedstreams that
are atomized into the combustion
chamber through the burner nozzles.
Mixed waste incinerator....... Feeds low level radioactive waste.
Dry APCD...................... Equipped with a dry emissions
control device (e.g., ESP or BH) as
the initial control device.
Cement kilns:
Short kiln.................... Equipped with a precalciner, in-line
raw mill, and by-pass duct.
Boilers:
Pulverized coal-fired......... Burns pulverized coal in suspension.
Stoker coal-fired............. Burns lump coal on a grate.
Liquid fuel boiler............ Burns liquid (i.e., pumpable and
atomized) or liquid and gaseous
fuels only.
HCl production furnaces:
Waste heat boiler............. Equipped with a waste heat recovery
boiler.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. How Will We Distinguish Between Worst-Case and Normal Emissions?\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Please note that we did not conduct a worst-case versus
normal analysis for DRE or CO/HC data. Under current RCRA
regulations, all sources are required to operate under good
combustion conditions by complying with emission limits on CO/HC.
All sources are also required to comply with operating limits that
ensure compliance with a 99.99% DRE requirement. We do not believe
that emissions of organic HAPs will be lowered significantly by
operating at lower CO/HC levels or higher DRE levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The data bases comprise emissions data from tests conducted for
various
[[Page 44458]]
purposes, including compliance testing (i.e., RCRA trial burns or
Certification of Compliance tests), risk burns (i.e., emissions testing
to generate emissions data to perform site-specific risk assessments),
annual performance testing, and research testing. Therefore, some
emissions data represent the highest emissions the source is allowed to
emit (i.e., worst-case emissions), some data represent normal operating
conditions and emissions, and some data represent operating conditions
that are neither normal nor worst case, i.e., they represent operating
conditions (and emissions) that are in between normal and worst case.
We may choose to consider whether the emissions data are ``worst-case''
or ``normal'' to consider emissions variability appropriately in
establishing achievable MACT floor \6\ emission levels. The methodology
that we use to establish the MACT floor emission levels may well be
influenced by the nature of the emissions data that are used. For
example, we may choose to estimate or account for variability in
different ways depending on whether the data set we use contains worst-
case emission data, data within the range of normal emissions, or a mix
of normal and worst case emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The term ``floor'' refer to the minimum emission standard
required pursuant to section 112 of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous waste combustors generally emit worst-case emissions
during RCRA compliance testing while demonstrating compliance with
emission standards. For real-time compliance assurance, sources are
required to establish limits on particular operating parameters where
the limits are derived from operations during compliance testing. Thus,
the emission levels achieved during these compliance tests are the
highest emission levels a source is allowed to emit. To ensure that
these operating limits do not impede normal operations, sources
generally take measures to operate during compliance testing under
conditions that are worse than the range of normal operations. For
example, sources often feed ash, metals, and chlorine at higher than
normal levels (e.g., by spiking the waste feed) to maximize the
feedrate, and they often detune the APCDs to minimize collection
efficiency. By designing the compliance test to generate emissions
higher than the normal range of emissions, sources can establish
operating limits that will not impede normal operations while
accounting for emissions variability covered by variation in the
feedrate of metals or chlorine, for example.
The data bases also include normal emissions data. Sources will
sometimes measure emissions of a pollutant during a compliance test
even though the test is not designed to establish operating limits for
that pollutant (i.e., it is not a compliance test for the pollutant).
An example is a trial burn where a lightweight aggregate kiln measures
emissions of all RCRA metals, but uses the Tier I metals feedrate limit
(rather than the Tier III emissions limit) to comply with the Hg
emission standard. Other examples of emissions data that are within the
range of normal emissions are annual performance tests that some
sources are required to conduct under State regulations, or risk burns.
Both of these types of tests are generally performed under normal
operating conditions.
Other emissions tests may generate emissions in-between normal and
worst-case. An example is a compliance test designed to demonstrate
compliance with the particulate matter standard where: (1) The APCD is
detuned to achieve worst-case emissions; and (2) the source measures Pb
and Cd emissions even though it elects to comply with feedrate limits
for those metals and, thus, does not spike those metals. We would
conclude that Pb and Cd emissions are in between normal and worst-case
emissions because, although emissions of the metals are likely to be
higher than normal because the APCD is detuned, emissions are not
likely to be worst-case because the source did not use the test to
demonstrate compliance with emission standards for the metals (and so
did not spike the metals).
To identify normal and worst-case emissions data, we classify
emissions data for each pollutant (i.e., D/F, Hg, PM, SVM, LVM, and
HCl/Cl2) for each test condition as worst-case (WC); \7\ normal (N); in
between (IB); unknown (U); or not applicable (NA).\8\ We encourage
owners and operators to review our classification of their data to
ensure that we have applied the terms, as we define them,
appropriately, to the information provided for each test condition in
the various data fields (e.g., APCD; Spiking; Comments; Condition
Description, BIF Tier). Please note that these classifications apply on
a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. For example, some pollutants measured
during a test condition may be classified as representing worst-case
emissions for those pollutants, while other pollutants measured during
that test condition may be classified as representing normal emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The worst-case (WC) classification is further qualified for
some test conditions as ``worst-case, highest emissions'' (WC HE),
as discussed in the text.
\8\ NA means the Normal Vs Wors-Case classification is not
applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. How Do We Define Worst-Case Data?
a. Boilers and HCl Production Furnaces. As discussed above, the
data bases for boilers and HCl production furnaces are comprised of all
test conditions run during the most recent compliance test campaign for
which data are available.\9\ For the metals, total chlorine, and
particulate matter standards, we define the worst-case test condition
for a pollutant as the test condition with the highest emissions of
that pollutant meeting any of these criteria: (1) A test condition
where the feedrate of the pollutant (i.e., metal, chlorine, or ash) is
maximized by spiking or other means (e.g., feeding waste with
atypically high concentrations of the pollutant); or (2) a test
condition that is used to demonstrate compliance under Tier III of the
BIF rule for the pollutant; or (3) a test condition with higher
emissions of the pollutant under operating conditions that would not
have been classified as worst case as discussed above.\10\ Test
conditions meeting the third criterion are classified WC HE (i.e.,
worst-case, highest emissions) to clarify that the test condition is
worst-case because it has the highest emissions for the test campaign
even though its operating conditions would not have suggested that
emissions would be worst-case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Although we intended to collect test reports from the most
recent compliance test campaign, we conclude that for some sources
the most recent test reports are for other than compliance tests.
For example, for some sources, we apparently have emissions data
only for a risk burn representing normal emissions, rather than
worst-case emissions under a compliance test.
\10\ For PM, the definition of worst-case is more inclusive. If
the test report for one or more test conditions in a test campaign
indicates that the test is a trial burn or certification of
compliance test, we assume that one test condition represents worse-
case PM emissions (unless the test report explicitly states
otherwise) even if the test report(s) does not explicitly indicate
that ask was spiked during the test. This interpretation is
appropriate because a source must document compliance with the PM
standard by emissions testing. Sources do not have the option of
complying with an ash feedrate option (such as the Tier 1 feedrate
limits for metals and chlorine) in lie of emissions testing.
Consequently, we presume the PM emissions were maximized during one
of the compliance tests (e.g., by detuning the APCD; feeding high
ash content wastes) event though ask spiking may not be specified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It may be helpful to present some examples of how the worst-case
definition works. If a metal were spiked during a compliance test, but
the source complied with the Tier I feedrate limits
[[Page 44459]]
under the BIF rule for that metal, we nonetheless classified the test
condition as worst-case for that metal (if there were no other test
conditions with higher emissions). We reasoned that the source was
operating under worst-case conditions during the test, but elected to
comply with the Tier I feedrate limits because they were less stringent
(i.e., higher) than the feedrate levels during the compliance test. As
another example, for a few boilers, emissions could be higher during a
risk burn (conducted under conditions that appear to represent other
than worst case conditions for that pollutant) than a compliance test.
In these cases, we assumed the boiler was operating within its
operating limits and classified the test condition as worst-case,
highest emissions (WC HE) for that pollutant. This approach ensures
that we use available emissions data representing the range of
performance of the source to identify the MACT floor.
For dioxin/furan emissions, the worst-case classification is
related primarily to whether the source uses a wet or no APCD versus a
dry APCD. For liquid fuel boilers \11\ equipped with an electrostatic
precipitator (ESP) or baghouse (BH), we define the worst-case test
condition as: (1) The test condition where the inlet temperature to the
ESP or BH is maximized (e.g., during a worst-case metals emissions
test); or (2) a test condition with higher emissions of the pollutant
under operating conditions that would not meet the criteria under (1)
above. The test condition where gas temperatures are maximized at the
inlet to the ESP or BH should represent worst-case D/F emissions
because D/F emissions for sources operated under good combustion
conditions (e.g., the BIF requirement to operate at carbon monoxide
levels below 100 ppmv) are primarily a function of the temperature of
the dry particulate matter control device. D/F formation increases
exponentially as the gas inlet temperature increases.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ That is, boilers that burn liquid or liquid and gaseous
fuels only.
\12\ See USEPA. ``Final Technical Support Document for HWC MACT
Standards, Volume III: Selection of MACT Standards and
Technologies,'' July 1999, Chapter 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We considered this approach for coal-fired boilers,\13\ but
determined that factors other than gas temperature at the inlet to the
ESP or BH appear to have the dominant effect on D/F emissions. For
example, we have D/F emissions data for two coal-fired boilers, both of
which operated the ESP at approximately 500 deg.F. At that temperature,
D/F emissions could be expected to be significant if surface-catalyzed
formation reactions are the dominant factor affecting emissions. But,
D/F emissions from those two boilers were essentially zero--0.00 and
0.04 ng TEQ/dscm. We conclude that there are other, unquantifiable
factors that affect D/F emissions from coal-fired boilers. Sulfur is
known to inhibit D/F formation, and we suspect that the sulfur in the
coal is a major factor affecting D/F emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Coal-fired boilers are boilers that burn hazardous waste as
a supplemented fuel with coal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given that we cannot objectively identify a worst-case test
condition for D/F emissions from coal-fired boilers, we conclude that
the worst-case vs normal classification is not applicable and classify
the D/F emissions data as NA. For purposes of assessing variability of
emissions in identifying a MACT floor level, however, we would consider
the data to be snapshots of normal emissions.
We had similar issues when classifying D/F emissions from liquid
fuel boilers with wet or no APCDs, and HCl production furnaces, all of
which have wet emission control systems. For sources with wet
APCDs,\14\ D/F formation in the emission control device is inhibited
because the gas is cooled and because particulate matter is
continuously flushed from the control device rather than being held on
a surface (e.g., of an ESP plate or BH bag) where particle surface
reactions can form D/F. Because we cannot objectively define worst-case
conditions for D/F formation for liquid fuel boilers with wet or no
APCDs, we conclude that the worst-case vs normal classification is not
applicable (as designated by NA). As with the coal-fired boiler D/F
data, however, we would consider the data to be snapshots of normal
emissions for purposes of assessing variability of emissions in
identifying a MACT floor level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ An emission control system comprised of an initial wet
control device followed by an ESP or BH would qualify as a wet
system. The initial wet device would quench the gas temperature to
minimize D/F formation. Conversely, an emission control system
comprised of an initial dry control device followed by a wet device
(e.g., for HCI control) would not be classified as a wet APCD for
purposes of this subcategorization. D/F may be formed in the dry
control device before the temperature of the gas is quenched in the
wet device below the optimum range for D/F formation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Incinerators, Cement Kilns, and Lightweight Aggregate Kilns. As
discussed above, the data bases for incinerators, cement kilns, and
lightweight aggregate kilns are comprised of all available test
conditions. The data bases include test conditions from the most recent
test campaign as well as older test campaigns. We use the same
definition of worst-case test condition as we use for boilers and HCl
production furnaces, as we describe below, except that we apply the
definition to the test conditions within each test campaign. For
example, assume we have data for a source from three test campaigns run
over a period of 10 years. We looked at each test campaign individually
and identified the worst-case test condition for each pollutant, if
any,\15\ for each test campaign.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ If a test campaign were comprised of two risk burn test
conditions, neither of the test conditions may meet the definition
of worst-case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the metals, total chlorine, and particulate matter standards,
we define the worst-case test condition for a pollutant as the test
condition with the highest emissions of that pollutant meeting any of
these criteria: (1) A test condition where the feedrate of the
pollutant (i.e., metal, chlorine, or ash) is maximized by spiking or
other means (e.g., feeding waste with atypically high concentrations of
the pollutant) or where the emission control device is detuned; or (2)
a test condition that a cement or lightweight aggregate kiln used to
demonstrate compliance under Tier III of the BIF rule for the
pollutant, or that an incinerator used to comply with Tier III of the
risk assessment guidance; \16\ or (3) a test condition with higher
emissions of the pollutant under any operating conditions, provided
that another test condition during the test campaign would have met the
worst-case definition under (1) or (2) above.\17\ As discussed for
boilers and HCl production furnaces, test conditions meeting the third
criterion are classified WC-HE (i.e., worst-case, highest emissions) to
clarify that the test condition is worst-case because it has the
highest emissions for the test campaign even though its operating
conditions would not have suggested that emissions would be worst-case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ USEPA, ``Guidance on Metals and Hydrogen Chloride Controls
for Hazardous Waste Incinerators,'' December 29, 1988 (Volume IV of
the Hazardous Waste Incineration Guidance Series).
\17\ This proviso simply precludes classifying as worst-case the
highest normal test condition in a test campaign comprised of only
ormal test conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the D/F standards, we use the same classifications that we used
for liquid fuel boilers. For incinerators with wet control systems, a
worst-case versus normal classification of D/F emissions is not
applicable. For incinerators and kilns equipped with an ESP or BH, we
define the worst-case test condition as: (1) The test condition where
the inlet temperature to the ESP or BH is maximized (e.g., during a
worst-case
[[Page 44460]]
metals emissions test); or (2) a test condition with higher emissions
of the pollutant under operating conditions that would not meet the
criteria under (1) above.
2. How Do We Define the Normal, In Between, Unknown, and Not Applicable
Classifications? \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Please note,a s discussed above, the Normal and In Between
classifications can be trumped by the ``worst-case highest
emissions: (WC HE) classification, if in fact, emissions during
these test conditions are higher than emissions during a test
condition that would otherwise be classified as worst-case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We classify emissions data as normal for a pollutant if the
available information indicates that the test was run under operating
conditions that would reflect normal operations. For example, we
classify risk burns (i.e., emissions testing to generate emissions data
to perform site-specific risk assessments) as normal for all pollutants
when available information indicates the operating conditions were
normal.
We classified a test condition as ``in between'' (IB) for a
pollutant if the test condition was a compliance test (i.e., trial burn
or certification of compliance test) for the pollutant but there was
another test condition (i.e., WC or WC HE) with higher emissions.
We classified a test condition as ``unknown'' (U) if available
information was incomplete to classify the test condition. For each
``unknown'' classification, we indicate the information we need to
classify the test condition. We encourage owners and operators to
provide the information and supporting documentation.
We discuss above how we applied the ``not applicable'' (NA)
classification to D/F data for sources equipped with a wet or no APCD
and D/F data for coal-fired boilers. We also applied the NA
classification to the following situations:
(1) Tests conducted prior to modifications to the APCD, because
emissions data prior to an APCS retrofit may not be representative of
current operations;
(2) Miniburns, research tests, demonstration tests, because these
types of tests are generally used to determine emissions under modes of
operation that may not be representative of normal or worst-case
operations;
(3) Baseline tests, because emissions when not burning hazardous
waste are not relevant to establishing a MACT standard for hazardous
waste combustors;
(4) Tests where not all metals in the SVM or LVM group were
measured, because SVM and LVM emissions cannot be classified as worst-
case or normal if emissions data are not available from the test for
both lead and cadmium for SVM, and for arsenic, beryllium, and chromium
for LVM; \19\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Plase note that, for some source categories where there are
substantial emissions data for only lead or only chromium during a
test condition, we classified the lead-only or chromium-only data by
worse-case vs normal. In addition, we did not apply the NA
classification to LVM emissions data if only beryllium emissions
data were missing. This is because beryllium emissions are virtually
always substantially lower than either arsenic or chromium
emissions, and thus, do not contribute substantially to LVM
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) Tests where a PM run exceeding the RCRA emission standard,
because, if a PM run failed the 0.08 gr/dscf RCRA standard, the test
failed to demonstrate compliance with the RCRA standards and the test
could not be used to establish operating limits.
C. What Classifications Do We Use to Address Sootblowing by Boilers?
Some boilers blow soot periodically to clean the steam tubes to
improve the energy efficiency of the boiler. During sootblowing,
emissions of PM and metals can increase substantially. To account for
the impact of sootblowing on average emissions during RCRA compliance
testing, we advised owners and operators to blow soot during one of the
three test runs whereby the potential buildup of metals and PM would
reflect the buildup over a normal operating cycle.\20\ We also provided
a formula for calculating average emissions accounting for the
frequency and duration of sootblowing operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See USEP, ``Technical Implementation Document for EPA's
Boiler and Industrial Furnance Regulations,'' March 1992, p. 5-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some boilers did not blow soot during testing, some were silent on
whether they blew soot, some blew soot and used the averaging formula,
and some blew soot and calculated average emissions as the arithmetic
average of the three test runs. So that we can understand how each
source handled sootblowing and determine how best to account for
sootblowing in developing the MACT standards, we encourage owners and
operators to review the sootblowing classification we assign to their
source to determine if it is accurate. We have added a sootblowing
status data field to the data base that indicates: (1) The sootblowing
run (i.e., R1, R2, or R3); or (2) ``No'', indicating the boiler does
not blow soot during normal operations; or (3) ``U'' (i.e., unknown),
indicating that we do not know whether the boiler blows soot during
normal operations or whether the boiler blew soot during testing, and,
if so, during which run. For test conditions classified ``U'', we
encourage owners and operators to clarify whether the boiler blows soot
during normal operations, and whether the boiler blew soot during the
test condition (and, if so, during which run).
Dated: June 20, 2002.
Elizabeth A. Cotsworth,
Director, Office of Solid Waste.
[FR Doc. 02-16643 Filed 7-1-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P