[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 6, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51368-51415]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22928]
[[Page 51367]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 60
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emissions
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste
Incinerators; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 74 , No. 192 / Tuesday, October 6, 2009 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 51368]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0534; FRL-8959-9]
RIN 2060-A004
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emissions
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste
Incinerators
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On September 15, 1997, EPA adopted new source performance
standards (NSPS) and emissions 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). In a
response to a suit filed by the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources
Defense Council (Sierra Club), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) remanded the HMIWI regulations
on March 2, 1999, for further explanation of EPA's reasoning in
determining the minimum regulatory ``floors'' for new and existing
HMIWI. The HMIWI regulations were not vacated and were fully
implemented by September 2002. On February 6, 2007, we published our
proposed response to the Court's remand. Following recent court
decisions and receipt of public comments regarding the proposal, we re-
assessed our response to the remand, and on December 1, 2008, we
published another proposed response and solicited public comments. This
action promulgates our response to the Court's remand and also
satisfies the CAA Section 129(a)(5) requirement to conduct a review of
the standards every 5 years.
DATES: The amendments to 40 CFR 60.32e, 60.33e, 60.36e, 60.37e, 60.38e,
60.39e, Table 1A and 1B to subpart Ce, and Tables 2A and 2B to subpart
Ce are effective as of December 7, 2009. The amendments to 40 CFR
60.17, 60.50c, 60.51c, 60.52c, 60.55c, 60.56c, 60.57c, 60.58c, and
Tables 1A and 1B to subpart Ec are effective as of April 6, 2010. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the
regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of
April 6, 2010.
ADDRESSES: 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 on the http://www.regulations.gov
Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., confidential business information or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically through
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center,
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: Mr. Ketan D. Patel, Natural Resources
and Commerce Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-03),
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-9736; fax number: (919) 541-3470; 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
A. Does the Final Action Apply to Me?
B. Where Can I Get a Copy of This Document?
C. Judicial Review
II. Background
III. Summary of the Final Rule and Changes Since Proposal
A. Remand Response
B. Clean Air Act Section 129(a)(5) 5-Year Review Response
C. Other Amendments
D. Implementation Schedule for Existing Hospital/Medical/
Infectious Waste Incinerators
E. Changes to the Applicability Date of the 1997 New Source
Performance Standards
F. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Exemption
IV. Summary of Major Comments and Responses
A. Applicability
B. Subcategorization
C. MACT Floor Approach
D. Emissions Limits
E. Monitoring
F. Emissions Testing
G. Alternatives to On-Site Incineration
H. Medical Waste Segregation
I. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
J. Economic Impacts
V. Impacts of the Final 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 Final 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 Final Action to Section 112(c)(6) of the
Clean Air Act
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
K. Congressional Review Act
I. General Information
A. Does the Final Action Apply to Me?
Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially affected by
the final action are those which operate hospital/medical/infectious
waste incinerators (HMIWI). The new source performance standards (NSPS)
and emissions guidelines (EG) for HMIWI affect the following categories
of sources:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of
Category NAICS Code potentially regulated
entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...................... 622110, 622310, Private hospitals,
325411, 325412, other health care
562213, 611310. facilities,
commercial research
laboratories,
commercial waste
disposal companies,
private
universities.
Federal Government............ 622110, 541710, Federal hospitals,
928110. other health care
facilities, public
health service,
armed services.
[[Page 51369]]
State/local/Tribal Government. 622110, 562213, State/local
611310. hospitals, other
health care
facilities, State/
local waste disposal
services, State
universities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the final
action. To determine whether your facility would be affected by the
final 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 final action to a
particular entity, contact the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. Where Can I Get a Copy of This Document?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW)
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a
copy of the final action will be posted on the TTN's policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following
address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information
and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
C. Judicial Review
Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), judicial
review of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for
review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit (the Court) by December 7, 2009. Under Section 307(d)(7)(B) of
the CAA, only an objection to this final rule that was raised with
reasonable specificity during the period for public comment can be
raised during judicial review. CAA Section 307(d)(7)(B) also provides a
mechanism for EPA to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, ``[i]f
the person raising an objection can demonstrate to EPA that it was
impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for public
comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period
for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review)
and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the
rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration to us should
submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Room 3000, Ariel Rios
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a
copy to the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and
Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20004. Moreover, under Section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to
enforce these requirements.
II. Background
Section 129 of the CAA, entitled ``Solid Waste Combustion,''
requires EPA to develop and adopt new source performance standards
(NSPS) and emissions guidelines (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 as
expeditiously as practicable after EPA approves a State plan
implementing the EG but no later than 3 years after such approval or 5
years after the date the EG are promulgated, whichever is earlier.
A 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. A 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
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, aluminum cans,
food waste, 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.)
The CAA sets forth a two-stage approach to regulating emissions
from
[[Page 51370]]
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 emissions
standards that reflect the maximum 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 or
to prevent (taking into consideration costs, energy, safety and other
relevant factors) an adverse environmental effect. See, e.g., NRDC and
LEAN v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1079-80 (DC 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 emissions 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 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 (excluding units which first met lowest
achievable emissions rates 18 months before the date such standards are
proposed or 30 months before the date such standards are promulgated,
whichever is later).''
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
and on September 15, 1997, adopted NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec)
and EG (40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce) using this approach 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 1997 NSPS apply to HMIWI for which construction began
after June 20, 1996, or for which modification began after March 16,
1998. The 1997 NSPS became effective on March 16, 1998, and apply as of
that date or at start-up of a HMIWI, whichever is later. The 1997 EG
apply to HMIWI for which construction began on or before June 20, 1996,
and required compliance by September 2002.
On November 14, 1997, the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources
Defense Council (Sierra Club) filed suit in the Court. The Sierra Club
claimed that EPA violated CAA Section 129 by setting emissions
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.
On March 2, 1999, the Court issued its opinion in Sierra Club v.
EPA, 167 F.3d 658 (DC 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 have remained in effect
during the remand.
On February 6, 2007, EPA proposed a response to the HMIWI remand.
The proposed response was based on a reassessment of information and
data that were available at the time of promulgation in 1997, in light
of the EPA's understanding of the Court's rulings in the Sierra Club,
National Lime Association (NLA) II, Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition
(CKRC) and other cases discussed in our 2007 proposal notice. The
proposed response would have revised some of the emissions limits in
both the NSPS and EG. Relative to the NSPS, the emissions limits for
CO, Pb, Cd, Hg, PM, and CDD/CDF would have been revised. Relative to
the EG, the emissions limits for HCl, Pb, Cd, and CDD/CDF would have
been revised. EPA believed that the revised emissions limits proposed
in February 2007 as a result of its response to the remand could be
achieved with the same emissions control technology currently used by
HMIWI to meet the 1997 rule.
On December 1, 2008, EPA re-proposed its response to the Court's
remand. EPA's decision to re-propose was based on a number of factors,
including further rulings by the U.S. Court of Appeals that were issued
after our 2007 proposal was published. In addition, public comments
regarding the 2007 proposal raised issues that, upon further
consideration, we believed would best be addressed through a re-
proposal. One issue regarded the use of emissions limits included in
State regulations and State-issued permits as surrogates for estimated
actual emissions limitations achieved. Another issue regarded 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).
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, today's final action constitutes the
first 5-year review of the HMIWI standards.
[[Page 51371]]
III. Summary of the Final Rule and Changes Since Proposal
A. Remand Response
Today's final response to the remand revises the December 2008
proposed emissions limits for both the NSPS and EG. The emissions
limits are being revised in response to a public comment on the
December 2008 re-proposal, which requested that EPA adjust the
statistical approach used to account for variability in the data and
consider the distribution of the emissions data in determining the MACT
floor emissions limits. The revised statistical approach results in
generally higher limits compared to the December 2008 re-proposal. (See
section IV.C.6 of this preamble for further information about this
revised approach.) We expect most sources should be able to meet the
revised limits using control technology already available to the
industry (e.g., wet scrubbers, dry scrubbers, or some combination of
these controls). (See section IV.C.2 of this preamble for further
information.) Similar to the 2008 re-proposal, the emissions limits in
today's final action do not include percent reduction alternative
standards, as discussed further in section IV.D.4 of this preamble.
Table 1 of this preamble summarizes the NSPS emissions limits being
promulgated in this action in response to the Court remand for new
HMIWI.
Table 1--Summary of Emissions Limits Promulgated in Response to the
Remand for New HMIWI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final remand
Pollutant (units) Unit size \1\ response limit
\2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl (ppmv)....................... L.................... 5.1
M.................... 7.7
S.................... 15
CO (ppmv)........................ L.................... 11
M.................... 1.8
S.................... 20
Pb (mg/dscm)..................... L.................... 0.00069
M.................... 0.018
S.................... 0.31
Cd (mg/dscm)..................... L.................... 0.00013
M.................... 0.0098
S.................... 0.017
Hg (mg/dscm)..................... L.................... 0.0013
M.................... 0.0035
S.................... 0.014
PM (gr/dscf)..................... L.................... 0.0080
M.................... 0.0095
S.................... 0.029
CDD/CDF, total (ng/dscm)......... L.................... 9.3
M.................... 0.47
S.................... 16
CDD/CDF, TEQ (ng/dscm)........... L.................... 0.035
M.................... 0.014
S.................... 0.013
NOX (ppmv)....................... L.................... 130
M, S................. 67
SO2 (ppmv)....................... L.................... 1.6
M, S................. 1.4
Opacity (%)...................... L, M, S.............. 6.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ L = Large (>500 lb/hr of waste); M = Medium (>200 to <=500 lb/hr of
waste); S = Small (<=200 lb/hr of waste).
\2\ All emissions limits are reported as corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
Table 2 of this preamble summarizes the emissions limits being
promulgated in this action in response to the Court remand for existing
HMIWI.
Table 2--Summary of EG Emissions Limits Promulgated in Response to the
Remand for Existing HMIWI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final remand
Pollutant (units) Unit size \1\ response limit
\2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl (ppmv)....................... L.................... 6.6
M.................... 7.7
S.................... 44
SR................... 810
CO (ppmv)........................ L.................... 11
M.................... 5.5
S, SR................ 20
Pb (mg/dscm)..................... L.................... 0.036
M.................... 0.018
S.................... 0.31
SR................... 0.50
Cd (mg/dscm)..................... L.................... 0.0092
[[Page 51372]]
M.................... 0.013
S.................... 0.017
SR................... 0.11
Hg (mg/dscm)..................... L.................... 0.018
M.................... 0.025
S.................... 0.014
SR................... 0.0051
PM (gr/dscf)..................... L.................... 0.011
M.................... 0.020
S.................... 0.029
SR................... 0.038
CDD/CDF, total (ng/dscm)......... L.................... 9.3
M.................... 0.85
S.................... 16
SR................... 240
CDD/CDF, TEQ (ng/dscm)........... L.................... 0.054
M.................... 0.020
S.................... 0.013
SR................... 5.1
NOX (ppmv)....................... L.................... 140
M, S................. 190
SR................... 130
SO2 (ppmv)....................... L.................... 9.0
M, S................. 4.2
SR................... 55
Opacity (%)...................... L, M, S, SR.......... 6.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ L = Large (>500 lb/hr of waste); M = Medium (>200 to <=500 lb/hr of
waste); S = Small (<=200 lb/hr of waste); SR = Small Rural (Small
HMIWI >50 miles from boundary of nearest SMSA, burning <2,000 lb/wk of
waste).
\2\ All emissions limits are reported as corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
B. Clean Air Act Section 129(a)(5) 5-Year Review Response
We are promulgating our response to the remand in Sierra Club such
that the 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 emissions standards
will also be fulfilled through this action's final remand response,
even as amended compared to the 2008 re-proposed standards. This is
supported by the fact that the revised MACT floor determinations and
emissions 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 final rule'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 final remand response more than addresses the technology
review's goals of assessing the performance efficiency of the installed
equipment and ensuring that the emissions limits reflect the
performance of the technologies required by the MACT standards. In
addition, the final remand response addresses whether new technologies
and processes and improvements in practices have been demonstrated at
sources subject to the emissions limits. Accordingly, the remand
response in this final 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 Amendments
This final action puts forward the same changes based on
information received during implementation of the HMIWI NSPS and EG
that were proposed in 2007 and 2008. The changes proposed in 2007
included provisions allowing existing sources to use previous emissions
test results to demonstrate compliance with the revised emissions
limits; annual inspections of air pollution control devices (APCD); a
one-time visible emissions test of ash handling operations; CO
continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) and bag leak detection
systems for new sources; and several approved monitoring alternatives.
The 2008 proposal included 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. The changes included in this final action
include revised provisions regarding waste segregation and removal of
exemptions regarding startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). The
removal of SSM exemptions is discussed in section III.F of this
preamble. The performance testing and monitoring amendments, electronic
data submittal provisions, waste segregation amendments, and
miscellaneous other amendments are summarized in the following
sections.
1. Performance Testing and Monitoring Amendments
The amendments require all HMIWI to demonstrate initial compliance
with the revised NOx and SO2 emissions limits.
The 1997 standards did not require testing and demonstration of
compliance with the NOx and SO2
[[Page 51373]]
emissions limits. In addition to demonstrating initial compliance with
the NOx and SO2 emissions limits, small rural
HMIWI are required to demonstrate initial compliance with the other
seven regulated pollutants' emissions limits and the opacity standard.
Under the 1997 standards, small rural HMIWI were required to
demonstrate only initial compliance with the PM, CO, CDD/CDF, Hg, and
opacity standards. Small rural HMIWI also are required to determine
compliance with the PM, CO, and HCl emissions limits by conducting an
annual performance test. On an annual basis, small rural HMIWI are
required by the 1997 standards to demonstrate compliance with the
opacity limit. The amendments allow sources to use results of their
previous emissions tests to demonstrate initial compliance with the
revised emissions 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 emissions
limits would be required to conduct another emissions test for those
pollutants. (Note that most sources were already required under the
1997 standards to test for HCl, CO, and PM on an annual basis, and
those annual tests are still required.)
The amendments require, for existing HMIWI, annual inspections of
scrubbers, fabric filters, and other air pollution control devices that
may be used to meet the emissions limits. The amendments require a
visible emissions test of the ash handling operations using Method 22
in appendix A-7 of this part to be conducted during the next
performance test. For new HMIWI, the amendments require CO 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 emissions limits; and
Method 22 visible emissions testing of the ash handling operations to
be conducted during each compliance test. For existing HMIWI, use of CO
CEMS is an approved option, and specific language with requirements for
CO CEMS is included in the 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 are approved options, and specific language for
those options is included in the amendments. HMIWI that install SNCR
technology to reduce NOX emissions are required to monitor
the reagent (e.g., ammonia or urea) injection rate and secondary
chamber temperature.
2. Electronic Data Submittal
The EPA must have performance test data to conduct effective 5-year
reviews of CAA Section 129 standards, as well as for many other
purposes, including compliance determinations, development of emissions
factors, and determining annual emissions rates. In conducting 5-year
reviews, EPA has found it burdensome and time-consuming to collect
emissions 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 have the option of submitting to an EPA electronic database an
electronic copy of annual stack test reports. Data entry will be
through an electronic emissions test report structure used by the staff
as part of the emissions testing project. The electronic reporting tool
(ERT) was developed with input from stack testing companies who
generally collect and compile performance test data electronically. The
ERT is currently available, and access to direct data submittal to
EPA's electronic emissions database (WebFIRE) will become available
December 31, 2011.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main,
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note that the option to submit source test data
electronically to EPA will not require any additional performance
testing. In addition, when a facility elects to submit performance test
data to WebFIRE, there will be no additional requirements for data
compilation. Instead, we believe industry will benefit from development
of improved emissions factors, fewer follow-up information requests,
and better regulation development, as discussed below. The information
to be reported is already required in the existing test methods and is
necessary to evaluate the conformance to the test method. One major
advantage of electing to submit source test data through the ERT is to
provide a standardized method to compile and store all the
documentation required to be reported 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., CAA 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 emissions 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 outdated or not representative
of a particular source category. Receiving most performance tests will
ensure that emissions factors are updated and more accurate. In
summary, receiving 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
emissions 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 stack tests data for various pollutants including
PM (EPA Method 5 of appendix A-3), SO2 (EPA Method 6 or 6C
of appendix A-4), NOX (EPA Method 7 or 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
[[Page 51374]]
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.
3. Waste Segregation
The amendments revise the waste management plan provisions for new
and existing HMIWI. Commenters on the 2008 re-proposal recommended that
EPA minimize or eliminate from the HMIWI waste stream any plastic
wastes, Hg and other hazardous wastes (e.g., Hg-containing dental
waste, Hg-containing devices), pharmaceuticals, and confidential
documents and other paper products that could be shredded and recycled.
One commenter recommended that EPA take action to regulate emissions of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polycyclic organic matter (POM)
from HMIWI. To address the various commenters' concerns, the waste
management plan provisions in Sec. Sec. 60.35e and 60.55c are revised
to promote the segregation of the aforementioned wastes. (See section
IV.H of this preamble for further information about the change to waste
management plan provisions.)
5. Miscellaneous Other Amendments
The amendments 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 emissions limits.''
The amendments add definitions for ``Bag leak detection system,''
``commercial HMIWI,'' and ``minimum reagent flow rate.'' ``Bag leak
detection system'' is defined to mean ``an instrument that is capable
of monitoring PM loadings in the exhaust of a fabric filter in order to
detect bag failures,'' and examples of such a system are provided.
``Commercial HMIWI'' is defined to mean ``a HMIWI which offers
incineration services for hospital/medical/infectious waste generated
offsite by firms unrelated to the firm that owns the HMIWI.'' ``Minimum
reagent flow rate'' is defined to mean ``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 emissions limit.''
The amendments require HMIWI 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.
To provide greater clarity, the amendments also include averaging
times and EPA reference test methods in the emissions limit tables for
existing and new sources. It should be noted that the averaging times
and EPA reference test methods added to the emissions limits tables are
not new requirements but simply a restating of requirements presented
elsewhere in the HMIWI regulations. Also, the inclusion of these
additional table columns should not be interpreted as reopening the
1997 standards themselves.
The amendments also incorporate by reference two alternatives to
EPA reference test methods (ASME PTC 19.10-1981 and ASTM D6784-02) to
provide HMIWI with greater flexibility in demonstrating compliance.
These alternative methods are described in greater detail in section
VIII.I of this preamble and were first presented in the preamble to the
December 1, 2008 re-proposal.
D. Implementation Schedule for Existing Hospital/Medical/Infectious
Waste Incinerators
Under the amendments to the EG, and consistent with CAA Section
129, revised State plans containing the revised existing source
emissions limits and other requirements in the amendments will be due
within 1 year after promulgation of the amendments. That is, revised
State plans have to be submitted to EPA on October 6, 2010.
The amendments to the EG then allow existing HMIWI to demonstrate
compliance with the amended standards as expeditiously as practicable
after approval of a State plan, but no later than 3 years from the date
of such approval or 5 years after promulgation of the revised
standards, whichever is earlier. Because many HMIWI will find it
necessary to retrofit existing emissions control equipment and/or
install additional emissions control equipment in order to meet the
revised limits, States may wish to consider providing the maximum
compliance period allowed by CAA Section 129(f)(2).
In revising the emissions limits in a State plan, a State has two
options. First, it could include both the current and the new emissions
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 1997 emissions limits remain in force and apply until the date
the revised existing source emissions 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
emissions limits may want to consider a second approach, where the
State would insert the revised emissions limits in place of the 1997
emissions 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 emissions limits (i.e., the 1997
emissions limits are not retained), then the revised emissions limits
must become effective immediately, since the 1997 limits would be
removed from the State plan.
EPA will revise the existing Federal plan to incorporate the
changes to existing source emissions limits and other requirements that
EPA is promulgating. The Federal plan applies to HMIWI in any State
without an approved State plan. The amendments to the Federal plan for
the EG would require existing HMIWI demonstrate compliance with the
amended standards not later than 5 years after today's final rule, as
required by CAA Section 129(b)(3).
E. Changes to the Applicability Date of the 1997 New Source Performance
Standards
HMIWI are treated differently under the amended standards than they
were under the 1997 standards in terms of whether they are ``existing''
or ``new'' sources, and there are new dates defining what are ``new''
sources and imposing compliance deadlines regarding the amended
standards. All HMIWI that complied with the NSPS as promulgated in 1997
are ``existing'' sources under the amended standards and are required
to meet the emissions limits under the revised EG or the 1997 NSPS,
whichever is more stringent, by the applicable compliance date for the
revised EG. (Note that the HCl emissions limit for small HMIWI and the
PM emissions limit for medium HMIWI are more stringent under the 1997
NSPS than under the revised EG, and HMIWI that complied with those 1997
NSPS are required to continue to do so.) In the interim, those sources
will continue to be subject to the NSPS as promulgated in 1997 until
the date for compliance with the revised EG. Units for which
construction is commenced after the December 1, 2008 proposal, or for
which modification is commenced on or after the date 6 months after
today's
[[Page 51375]]
promulgation of the amended NSPS, are ``new'' units subject to more
stringent revised NSPS emissions limits.
Thus, under these specific 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 the revised final NSPS, continue to be or would become
subject to the 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec NSPS emissions limits that
were promulgated in 1997 until the applicable compliance date for the
revised EG, at which time those units must comply with the amended
``existing'' source EG or 1997 NSPS, whichever is more stringent for
each pollutant. Similarly, HMIWI that met the 1997 EG must meet the
revised EG by the applicable compliance date for the revised EG. HMIWI
that commence construction after December 1, 2008 or that are modified
6 months or more after the date of promulgation of the revised NSPS
must meet the revised NSPS emissions limits being added to the subpart
Ec NSPS within 6 months after the promulgation date of the amendments
or upon startup, whichever is later.
This approach is justified because most HMIWI will have to install
additional emissions controls to comply with the revised standards. CAA
Sections 129(g)(2) and (3) define ``new solid waste incineration unit''
and ``modified solid waste incineration unit'' based on whether
construction of the new unit commences after the date of proposed
standards under Section 129 and on whether modification occurs after
the effective date of a Section 129 standard, respectively. While these
definitions might be read as referring to the dates EPA first proposes
standards for the source category as a whole and on which such
standards first become effective for the source category, we are
interpreting and applying them in this rulemaking to refer to the
proposal and effective dates for standards under this new rulemaking
record. The evident intent of the definitions plus the substantive new
unit and modified unit provisions is that it is technically more
challenging and potentially more costly to retrofit a control system to
an existing unit than to incorporate controls when a unit is initially
designed.
F. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Exemption
The 1997 standards included provisions in 40 CFR 60.56c and 60.37e
that exempted HMIWI from the standards during periods of SSM, provided
that no hospital waste or medical/infectious waste is charged to the
unit during those SSM periods. Neither our 2007 proposal nor our 2008
re-proposal would have changed these provisions. However, soon after
the date of our re-proposal, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Sierra Club
v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008), vacated provisions in EPA's CAA
Section 112 regulations governing emissions of hazardous air pollutants
during SSM periods. Specifically, the Court vacated 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1)
and 63.6(h)(1), which, when incorporated into CAA Section 112(d)
standards for specific source categories, exempt sources from the
requirement to comply with otherwise applicable Section 112(d)
standards during periods of SSM. While the Court's vacatur did not have
a direct impact on source category-specific SSM exemptions such as
those contained in the 1997 HMIWI standards, one commenter on the 2008
re-proposal stressed that the legality of SSM exemptions such as those
in the 1997 standards is questionable, and urged EPA to remove the
exemptions in the final rule. For the reasons set forth later in this
notice responding to comments, today's final rule removes the SSM
exemption from the HMIWI standards, such that the emissions limits
under these subparts apply at all times.
IV. Summary of Major Comments and Responses
A total of 22 separate sets of public comments were received on the
December 1, 2008 re-proposal. (One additional comment, received after
the deadline for public comments, was an addendum to an earlier
comment. See http://www.regulations.gov, docket ID no. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-
0534, for the complete public comments.) The comment period ended on
February 17, 2009. In addition to the comment letters, speaker comments
from a January 15, 2009, public hearing on the re-proposal were
recorded, and a transcript of the hearing was placed in the project
docket (document no. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0534-0361). The following sections
summarize the major public comments received on the re-proposal and
present EPA's responses to those comments. The major comment topics are
applicability; subcategorization; MACT floor approach; emissions
limits; monitoring; emissions testing; alternatives to on-site
incineration; medical waste segregation; startup, shutdown, and
malfunction; and economic impacts.
A. Applicability
Comment: While this issue was not raised in our re-proposal, one
commenter stated that subpart Ec should be amended to exempt units
already complying with subpart AAAA--the NSPS for new small municipal
waste combustors (MWCs)--or subpart BBBB--the EG for existing small
MWCs--consistent with the exemptions provided to MWCs in the 1997 HMIWI
rule.
Response: We are aware of two HMIWI at one facility that are
currently subject to rules for both HMIWI and small MWCs. We have
considered the appropriateness of exempting the two units from the
HMIWI rule or creating a separate HMIWI subcategory for the units, and
have concluded that exemptions and creation of a separate subcategory
are not warranted. One issue is the technological feasibility for the
facility to meet both the HMIWI and small MWC rules if there is the
possibility that the facility would have to implement different control
strategies to meet the limits in both rules. (Note that we do not
currently have any information to suggest that the facility would find
it technically impossible to meet both the revised HMIWI standards and
the small MWC standards.) For example, if the HMIWI rule were to
include stringent CO limits and the small MWC rule were to include
stringent NOX limits, it may be challenging for the facility
to meet the limits of both rules simultaneously by controlling
secondary chamber temperature; increasing the temperature to reduce CO
emissions would invariably increase NOX emissions. However,
by choosing to burn both types of waste and operate as both a small MWC
and a HMIWI, the facility has the responsibility to meet whatever set
of rules that applies based on its operating scenario and could avoid
this situation by choosing to burn one type of waste or the other
exclusively, or at least reducing the other type of waste to co-fired
levels. Also, the facility already employs additional control
strategies besides combustion control for reducing NOX
emissions (urea injection).
The facility typically burns 50 percent hospital/medical/infectious
(HMI) waste and 50 percent municipal waste in its two units. If we were
to grant an exemption to the HMIWI rule for this facility due to it
being subject to the small MWC rule and the facility were to increase
the amount of HMI waste burned to 70 percent and reduce the amount of
municipal waste burned to 30 percent, we could create a total
compliance loophole for the facility, given that the small MWC rule
includes a co-fired exemption for units burning 30 percent or less of
municipal waste. This would be an unacceptable outcome.
[[Page 51376]]
Another option to address this situation would be to create a
hybrid waste subcategory to include the two units, based on the
rationale that the units are burning a unique mixture of waste.
However, we did not provide an opportunity to comment on such an option
in the re-proposal, and have not had the opportunity to develop a
record to support such a new approach or its possibly unique regulatory
framework. Moreover, it is also not clear that such a hybrid
subcategory would fit within the statutory divisions of incinerator
categories set forth in Section 129(a)(1) of the CAA. Therefore, we
decided not to pursue that option for the final rule.
We believe it is reasonable for the facility to be subject to both
the HMIWI and small MWC rules when switching back and forth among the
types of waste burned, since this ensures that, when the facility
operates as either a HMIWI or small MWC, it is regulated as such and
does not avoid compliance obligations that all other incinerators
operating continuously as either HMIWI or small MWC must meet. We do
not expect that continuing to require the facility to comply with both
rules will be overly burdensome. The facility should be able to control
to the more stringent of the two rules.
B. Subcategorization
Comment: Four commenters stated that EPA's rationale for
subcategorization does not reflect any analysis of how the proposed
subcategories will help assure that what has been ``achieved'' by
better performers in a proposed subcategory results in a standard that
is ``achievable'' by other sources in that subcategory. Two of the
commenters argued that, without this assessment, the final subcategory
decisions will be arbitrary and may result in standards that are
unlawfully stringent. The commenters urged EPA to provide the necessary
assessment and rationale for its subcategory proposal. Another
commenter further urged EPA to reconsider its decision to retain the
categories defined by the 1997 HMIWI rule without defining additional
subcategories. The commenter suggested that EPA could keep the relation
between ``achieved'' and ``achievable'' by grouping existing units
based on control technology type and that EPA could address variability
by establishing subcategories that take into account non-technology
factors that affect emissions, as the commenter claimed is required
under Section 112(d)(3).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ While the commenter cited to CAA Section 112(d)(3), which
does not literally apply to NSPS and EG promulgated under Sections
111 and 129, we assume the commenter was referring to factors
relevant to MACT floor analyses in general, including those under
Section 129(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three commenters stated that EPA must develop a new subcategory for
commercial facilities, based on the claimed significant operational
differences between commercial and so-called ``captive'' units that are
attached to HMI waste generators. The commenters defined a captive unit
as one that is co-owned and co-operated by the generator of the waste,
while a commercial operator is in business to receive wastes from third
parties. The commenters stated that commercial HMIWI, unlike operators
of captive units, cannot use alternative forms of disposal (e.g.,
landfills), and claimed that EPA views their only alternative to the
standards as closure. According to the commenters, EPA not only has the
authority under Section 129(a)(2) to further subcategorize HMIWI, but
it is also mandated to do so due to an overly stringent standard that
is not ``achievable'' by commercial units. The commenters claimed that
wastes sent to a commercial unit are more heterogeneous than for
captive units. They also noted that the handling of medical wastes is
subject to numerous Federal and State requirements related to worker
and public health and safety, which the commenters claimed makes
segregation of wastes hazardous and impractical for operators of
commercial facilities. Thus, the commenters argued that waste
segregation cannot be a control ``achieved in practice'' that can be
used to determine floors for commercial units.
The same three commenters also argued that EPA provides no
rationale for its retention of the small rural class in the re-proposed
rule, and that its prior rationale regarding the unavailability of
alternative means of medical waste treatment beyond 50 miles from the
nearest standard metropolitan statistical area (SMSA) is unsupported.
According to the commenters, EPA's proposed retention of the small
rural subcategory is arbitrary and capricious.
Another commenter recommended that EPA establish new size
classifications, claiming that the distribution of HMIWI no longer
matches the three size categories EPA identified in 1995 when the rule
was first being developed. The commenter also noted that current
standards are based on subcategories defined in terms of feed rates
with no corresponding heating value. According to the commenter, a
reference waste heating characteristic must be established to adjust or
rate incinerators, given that there is currently no consistency or
basis for determining equivalent charging rate.
The same commenter further recommended that, based on its
facility's unique attributes--extremely large processing capacity,
customer generated waste material variability, waste mix, waste-to-
energy heat recovery technology, CEMS, 2+ second combustion gas
retention time, and high British thermal unit (BTU) waste content--EPA
should place its facility in a separate subcategory for extra-large
HMIWI. The commenter provided a list of suggested standards for such a
subcategory, based on upper confidence limits (UCLs) calculated using
EPA's methodology, that indicate 7 of the 11 promulgated standards
applicable to it could be tightened. The commenter noted that residual
risk analyses conducted under Maryland's stringent air toxics
regulations (provided in the commenter's public comments) show that the
resulting ambient emissions would meet all applicable requirements.
Response: Regarding the commenters' argument that EPA must show how
the proposed subcategories will result in a standard that is
``achievable,'' we do not believe that the CAA requires such an
analysis. In facing a similar claim, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
DC Circuit recently rejected the argument that a facility's claimed
differences between itself and other members of a source category in
the plywood and composite wood products (PCWP) MACT rule compels EPA to
set a unique standard that is achievable for that source. In NRDC v.
EPA, 489 F.3d 1364 (DC Cir. 2007), Louisiana-Pacific Corp. (L-P)
objected to EPA's refusal to establish a separate subcategory for its
wet/wet press process apart from the subcategory of all other press
processes, claiming that, at L-P's plant, EPA's identified MACT floor
control technology was not feasible and that L-P would experience
greater costs in complying with the MACT floor compared to other press
operators. Id., at 1375-76. The Court denied L-P's claims, explaining
that ``cost is not a factor that EPA may permissibly consider in
setting a MACT floor. [* * *] To the extent that L-P maintains that it
cannot comply with the MACT floor based on complete enclosure and
capture of emissions because it cannot enclose its presses, L-P also
relies on an incorrect premise that the MACT level of emissions
reduction is invalid if it is based on control technology that a source
cannot install. The 2004 rule does not require a source to use any
particular method to
[[Page 51377]]
achieve compliance: If L-P cannot use enclosure and capture, it may
utilize other compliance techniques. Hence, L-P fails to show that EPA
was arbitrary or capricious in refusing to create a subcategory for
it.'' Id. at 1376. The option provided by one commenter to
subcategorize based on control technology type is inappropriate, as it
would essentially endorse the type of unique treatment that L-P
demanded in the PCWP rule and that the Court rejected. Moreover, we are
unaware of any situations in the HMIWI industry where one type of
control would be technically applicable, but not another, such that
subcategorizing based on the ability to use certain controls would be
justified.
We evaluated three different subcategory options to try and address
the concerns stated by the commenters. The three options included: (1)
Option 1--no change to existing size categories; (2) Option 2--creating
a commercial subcategory (as suggested by three commenters) and
redistributing the size categories for the captive HMIWI (as suggested
by another commenter); and (3) Option 3--redistributing the existing
size categories to more evenly distribute the number of HMIWI (also
suggested by the other commenter).
Under Option 1, the size distributions would remain the same--large
(>500 lb/hr of waste), medium (>200 to <=500 lb/hr of waste), and small
(<=200 lb/hr of waste), with the latter category divided into small
rural and non-rural subcategories based on distance from the nearest
SMSA.
Under Option 2, commercial HMIWI would be categorized separately
from captive HMIWI, and the captive HMIWI further subcategorized as
follows--large (>1,000 lb/hr of waste), medium (>500 to <=1,000 lb/hr
of waste), and small (<=500 of waste), with no further
subcategorization of the latter category.
Under Option 3, the sizes would be redistributed as follows--large
(>1,500 lb/hr of waste), medium (>500 to <=1,500 lb/hr of waste), and
small (<=500 lb/hr of waste), with the latter category divided into
small rural and non-rural subcategories as under Option 1.
We conducted MACT floor analyses on all three options, using the
following methodology, which is described in more detail later in this
notice--(1) Ranking the emissions data from lowest to highest for each
pollutant; (2) determining the units in the MACT floor for each
pollutant; (3) determining the distribution of test run data for the
MACT floor units; and (4) calculating a 99 percent UCL for each
pollutant based on that distribution, using Student's t-test
statistics. We developed floor-based emissions limits based on these
UCL values, rounding up to two significant figures. We compared the
emissions limits to average emissions estimates for each HMIWI and
determined whether the HMIWI would meet the limits. We estimated the
number of HMIWI expected to meet at least nine limits, eight limits,
seven limits, etc. under each option. Based on our analysis, Options 1,
2, and 3 resulted in similar numbers of HMIWI meeting the limits. (For
more detailed results, see 2009 memorandum entitled ``Revised MACT
Floors, Data Variability Analysis, and Emission Limits for Existing and
New HMIWI,'' which is included in the docket for today's rulemaking.)
However, since we did not propose any subcategorization option
other than the small, medium and large size subcategories identified in
the 1997 rule, and did not provide an opportunity to comment on this
issue in the re-proposal, we have concluded that it would not be
appropriate at this time to promulgate emissions limits based on
Options 2 and 3. Moreover, we do not see a compelling need to make the
adjustments of Options 2 or 3, given that similar numbers of HMIWI meet
the limits under all three options. Simply re-adjusting the size
thresholds to reflect an even distribution of units post-MACT
compliance among the subcategories is not necessarily reasonable,
whereas the size thresholds from the 1997 rule continue to correspond
to the basic distinctions between the subcategories of units as
currently operated. Therefore, we selected Option 1 (no change to
existing size subcategories) as the best subcategory option on which to
base the emissions limits for promulgation.
Two other subcategory options were considered and rejected without
further analysis. The two options include (1) an extra-large
subcategory for one HMIWI facility (as suggested by one commenter), and
(2) a mixed waste subcategory for another HMIWI facility (an outgrowth
of a comment by another commenter, as discussed in the previous
section). In addition to the fact that we did not provide opportunity
to comment on this issue, we found no basis for creating a new
subcategory for this particular rulemaking to fit a single facility.
We disagree with the argument by three commenters that EPA's
retention of the small rural subcategory is unsupported by any
rationale. As we explained in the September 15, 1997 notice of final
rulemaking (62 FR 48370), alternative means of medical waste treatment
may not be available to some facilities that operate small HMIWI in
rural or remote locations. Facilities that operate small HMIWI in
remote locations could be faced with unique adverse impacts if required
to meet the more stringent emissions limits associated with small non-
rural HMIWI. Therefore, we continue to support subcategorizing
facilities based on the location of the facility and the amount of
waste burned, as allowed under Section 129(a)(2). The only remaining
small rural units are in Alaska and Hawaii, and the options are very
limited for alternative medical waste treatment in those States. There
are a very limited number of landfills and MWC facilities in those
States, and there are no commercial HMIWI. (The basis for this
information is a 2004 Chartwell Information document entitled Directory
& Atlas of Solid Waste Facilities.)
C. MACT Floor Approach
1. MACT-on-MACT
Comment: Several commenters argued that EPA's recalculation of the
1997 MACT floors using post-MACT compliance data results in so-called
``MACT-on-MACT'' standards that cannot be achieved and are contrary to
the CAA and the intent of Congress. Three of the commenters stated that
the CAA provides for a one-time setting of the MACT floor based on what
sources achieved at the time of the initial promulgation, not at the
time of subsequent revisions. According to those three commenters, the
proposed standards would force the HMIWI industry to shut down and
prevent installation of new HMIWI, without any consideration of the
costs of additional reductions or whether the emissions posed any risks
to human health and the environment. The commenters urged EPA to use
the population of pre-1997 HMIWI and their emissions data to establish
the revised MACT floors. One commenter stated that new data should only
be used for those units that have the same control equipment in place
as when EPA undertook the original rulemaking.
Three of the commenters objected to EPA's arguments for using the
post-MACT compliance data, namely that EPA is no longer confident in
the regulatory limits used in 1997 (based on a comparison of the
regulatory limits and emissions test data in the 1997 record) and that
the EPA questions their use as surrogates because they do not account
for non-technology factors (based on waste segregation data EPA
received after the 2007 proposal). Specifically, the three commenters
stated that EPA provides no justification for its change in using the
post-MACT
[[Page 51378]]
compliance data, noting that the Court, in Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d
658 (DC Cir. 1999), upheld EPA's data-gathering for the 1997 rule, and
did not dispute that EPA could make estimates based on the lack of
data. The three commenters further stated that EPA provides no support
for reassessing its determination in 1997 that emissions controls
significantly impact emissions, which the commenters indicated is a
finding that EPA continues to assert and that is supported by the data.
Regarding EPA's claim that it reset the floors in response to the
remand of the regulation in Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658 (DC Cir.
1999), the same three commenters argued that the Court's remand was
limited and did not vacate the 1997 floors. According to the
commenters, EPA cites no legal support that subsequent case law
invalidates a promulgated regulation not at issue in that case. The
commenters stated that, in the past, EPA has declined to account for
changes in law after its decision to impose new regulatory obligations,
based in part on the general presumption against law having a
retroactive effect. According to the commenters, this approach is
supported by case law, which holds that agencies are required to apply
the law at the time the decision is made. Aaacon Auto Transport v. ICC,
792 F.2d 1156, 1161 (DC Cir. 1986). The commenters also noted that the
2002 data used to set the proposed standards would not have been
available had the EPA responded to the 1999 remand in a more timely
manner.
The three commenters also argued that new public comments raising
issues with the 1997 floors are out of time and insufficient to require
EPA to go beyond the Court's remand order. The commenters pointed out
that Section 307(b) of the CAA requires any challenges to regulations
to be filed within 60 days, which has been held up in the relevant case
law. According to the commenters, any required revisions to address the
Court's limited remand does not justify reopening the time period for
judicial challenge of the floors. The commenters also argued that
another exception to the 60-day jurisdictional bar, that there was a
substantive violation of the statute, does not apply since the Court
did not find the 1997 floors in conflict with the statute.
Response: First, we disagree with the commenters' assertion that we
are employing a MACT-on-MACT approach to set limits that are not
achievable by HMIWI. The purpose of this action is not to force units
who have complied with a lawfully adopted MACT standard to have to
subsequently comply with another round of updated MACT standards, but
to respond to the Court's ruling that questioned the basis for the 1997
MACT standards and revise them such that they are clearly compliant
with the Court's several pronouncements of how MACT should be set in
the first instance. Moreover, the actual emissions data upon which the
revised standards rely comes directly from HMIWI that have in fact
achieved the resulting levels, which necessarily belies the assertion
that no HMIWI can achieve them. Regarding the commenters' argument that
our recalculation of the MACT floors was contrary to the CAA and intent
of Congress, it is clear from the Court's opinion in Sierra Club v. EPA
that EPA needed to revisit the MACT floors in order to respond to the
Court's concerns about the MACT floor approach we used in 1997, as
noted in its remand of the HMIWI regulations. The Court explicitly
``conclude[d] that there are serious doubts about the reasonableness of
EPA's treatment of the floor requirements, and remand[ed] the rule for
further explanation.'' 167 F.3d at 660. Regarding the existing source
floors, the Court even went so far as to suggest that, based on its
review of the record for the 1997 rule, ``EPA's method looks hopelessly
irrational.'' Id. at 664. Ultimately, the Court ordered the case
``remanded to EPA for further explanation of its reasoning in
determining the `floors' for new and existing [HMIWI].'' Id. at 666.
This remedy squarely placed the responsibility on EPA to either develop
an explanation for the MACT standards derived from the 1997 data set
that fully addressed the Court's concerns, or develop a different
methodology and/or data set that did so.
In the 2008 re-proposal, we decided to use post-compliance data to
recalculate the MACT floors because, based on our analysis, it became
impossible to fully address the Court's concerns about the suitability
of using regulatory limits and uncontrolled emissions values from the
1997 data set in rationally explaining the MACT floors for the 1997
rule. To respond to those concerns, we conducted an analysis comparing
the regulatory limits used in the 1997 data set to actual emissions
data for those HMIWI, and we determined that the regulatory limits used
to establish the MACT floors were not representative of actual
operation and did not account for non-technology factors that affected
HMIWI emissions performance. (For further information, see 2008
memorandum ``Comparison of Regulatory Limits with Emissions Test
Data,'' which is included in the docket.) Since it was no longer
possible to obtain actual emissions data from the full set of HMIWI
that were operating at the time of the 1997 rule's promulgation, the
most available alternative was to use the actual emissions data we
received from sources who chose to remain in operation and comply with
the 1997 MACT standards. With such data, we could actually identify the
emissions levels achieved by use of the MACT technologies and control
measures that HMIWI employed in order to meet the 1997 standards--
technology and measures which we had at that time assumed would be
necessary to comply with the standards. This verifying approach was
eminently reasonable, since it relied upon data that HMIWI recorded and
reported specifically for purposes of demonstrating compliance with the
1997 HMIWI MACT standards, and it addressed the Court's stated concerns
regarding the existing source floors. Those concerns, namely, were that
permit levels might not accurately estimate actual emissions
performance if sources are over-achieving the permit limits (167 F.3d
at 663), and that the assumption that unpermitted HMIWI did not deploy
emissions controls of any sort was not substantiated (Id. at 664).
While we agree with the commenters that control technology has a
major impact on pollutant emissions from HMIWI, we also acknowledge
that factors other than control technology (e.g., waste mix, combustion
conditions) can affect pollutant emissions and should be accounted for
in the MACT floor analysis. These non-control technology factors,
however, were not considered or reflected by the permit data and
uncontrolled emissions values data used in the 1997 rule. Therefore, we
needed to take further steps in order to be able to account for these
factors and ``provide a reasonable estimate of the performance of the
top 12 percent of units.'' Id. at 662. It is true that the Court in
Sierra Club did not rule that EPA had impermissibly ignored these
factors. Id. at 666. However, subsequent case law, specifically
National Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625 (DC Cir. 2000) (NLA II),
Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d 855 (DC Cir. 2001)
(CKRC), and Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875 (DC Cir. 2007) (Brick MACT
case), have made it abundantly clear that, in any MACT analysis, EPA is
currently expected by the Court to address non-technology factors.
Based on the actual emissions data we received, which necessarily
reflects both the use of
[[Page 51379]]
control technologies and any non-technology measures the best
performing sources happen to use, we were able to provide the
``reasonable estimate'' of the best performers' emissions levels that
the Court required in its remand. Therefore, we stand by the
reassessment we presented in the re-proposal, although, as discussed
later in this notice, we have made some adjustments in our statistical
analysis to correct for errors in the 2008 re-proposal.
Regarding the commenters' arguments about the impact of subsequent
case law, we do not expect that we could reasonably respond to the
Court's 1999 remand of the HMIWI rule in a manner that knowingly
disregards other flaws in EPA's prior MACT methodology that the Court
has since identified. In a recent MACT ruling in which the Court found
that EPA had failed to follow the rulings issued in other MACT cases,
the Court admonished the EPA that if ``[EPA] disagrees with the Clean
Air Act's requirements for setting emissions standards, it should take
its concerns to Congress. If EPA disagrees with this court's
interpretation of the Clean Air Act, it should seek rehearing en banc
or file a petition for a writ of certiorari. In the meantime, it must
obey the Clean Air Act as written by Congress and interpreted by this
court.'' 479 F.3d at 884. EPA takes this directive seriously and acted
consistently with the Court decisions in preparing this response to the
remand. We do not believe that the Court would view its own post-1999
MACT rulings as having changed ``the law'' (namely, the MACT
requirement of Sections 112 and 129) such that following those rulings'
instructions would reflect retroactive application of ``new'' law. The
commenters' reliance on Aaacon Auto Transport v. ICC, 792 F.2d 1156 (DC
Cir. 1986) is inapposite, as that case addressed an entirely different
situation of retroactive application of a new statutory provision;
here, instead, the governing statutory requirements have not changed,
EPA is acting in response to a Court's ruling that it had not
adequately shown that it had complied with those provisions, and the
Agency is acting subsequent to further rulings that interpret those
same provisions and purport to set forth general directions for EPA to
follow in all cases.
As for the comment that EPA could not have relied upon the 2002
compliance data if it had more swiftly responded to the remand, this
only suggests that if EPA had acted earlier the EPA would have been
forced to take additional steps to require the HMIWI industry to supply
emissions data. In no way would this support EPA disregarding the 2002
data we have in-hand and allow us to continue to rely upon data that
does not reasonably estimate emissions levels achieved by the best
performing units. Based on our analysis of the record, we determined
that the 1997 floors did not in all cases meet the requirements of the
CAA as interpreted by the DC Circuit. We attempted to explain one set
of revisions to the 1997 floors in a subsequent (February 2007) Federal
Register notice that relied upon the 1997 data set, and received new
public comments on that notice and took account of new case law that
convinced us that a new approach was required. Consequently, we have
chosen on our own to re-open the issues addressed in the 2008 re-
proposal.
Comment: One commenter stated that EPA's approach to revising HMIWI
standards under CAA Section 129(a)(5) is correct. The commenter said
that revising the MACT floors to reflect the actual performance of the
relevant best units satisfies Section 129(a)(5). However, four other
commenters objected to revising the floors under the technology review
provisions of Section 129(a)(5). The commenters argued that Section
129(a)(5) does not require resetting the floors, but only requires EPA
to consider developments in pollution control at the sources and revise
the standards based on our evaluation of the costs and non-air quality
impacts. The commenters stated that the use of new emissions data is
inconsistent with the reasoning EPA presented in other contexts (e.g.,
in the coke ovens residual risk/technology review rulemaking) that MACT
floors need not be recalculated when the EPA conducts its technology
review under CAA Section 112(d)(6). The commenters also argued that
this approach is inconsistent with the Court's decision on litigation
challenging the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) residual risk/technology
review rule that there need not be an ``inexorable downward ratcheting
effect'' for the MACT floors. See NRDC and LEAN v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077,
1083-84 (DC Cir. 2008). One of the commenters also claimed that EPA's
approach sets a precedent for all other sources subject to Section 129
or Section 112 MACT standards that could have dire implications on the
future viability of rules covering other sources (e.g., MWCs or waste-
to-energy facilities).
Response: Regarding the comment from the first commenter, as noted
in the preamble to the December 2008 re-proposal (73 FR 72971), we do
not interpret Section 129(a)(5), together with Section 111, as
generally requiring EPA to recalculate MACT floors in connection with
this periodic review when such review is not conducted together with
any other action requiring EPA to reassess the MACT floor. 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 (DC Cir. 2008) (upholding EPA's
interpretation that the periodic review requirement in CAA Section
112(d)(6) by itself does not impose an obligation to recalculate MACT
floors). However, in the unique case of HMIWI, MACT floor
recalculations for the 2008 re-proposal were conducted in order to
respond to the Court's concerns stated in its remand of the 1997
regulations, the public comments received on the February 2007
proposal, and recent court decisions, specifically Sierra Club v. EPA,
479 F.3d (DC Cir. 2007) (Brick MACT). This recalculation would have
been necessary even if the periodic review requirement of Section
129(a)(5) did not exist. However, Section 129(a)(5) does exist, and EPA
must, in addition to responding to the Court's remand, satisfy its
requirements. As we previously explained and continue to believe, in
this case, our obligation to conduct a 5-year review based on
implementation of the 1997 emissions standards is fulfilled through our
current remand response. This is supported by the fact that the revised
MACT floor determinations and emissions limits associated with the
current remand response are based on performance data for the 57
currently operating HMIWI that are subject to the 1997 standards, and
by our 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, our current remand response
more than adequately addresses the technology review's goals of
assessing the performance efficiency of the installed equipment and
ensuring that the emissions limits reflect the performance of the
technologies required by the MACT standards. In addition, the current
remand response addresses whether new technologies and processes and
improvements in practices have been demonstrated at sources subject to
the emissions limits. Accordingly, our current remand response fulfills
EPA's obligations regarding the first 5-year review of the HMIWI
standards and, therefore,
[[Page 51380]]
replaces the 2007 proposal's 5-year review proposed revisions.
2. Pollutant-by-Pollutant Approach
Comment: Numerous commenters objected to our continued use of the
EPA's longstanding pollutant-by-pollutant approach to choosing the best
performing HMIWI. The commenters argued that this approach essentially
created a hypothetical ``super unit'' and resulted in the selection of
a set of new and existing MACT floors (and standards) that no one
existing source has completely achieved and that cannot be
simultaneously achieved by any of the best performing sources. The
commenters stated that the ``best performing'' sources must be real
sources, not theoretical or hypothetical, based on the statute and
legislative history. S. Rep. No. 228, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. 169
(1989). According to the commenters, the proposed standards do not
reflect the performance of actual sources, and as such, these proposed
standards are not legal under Section 129.
One commenter argued that Section 129(a)(2) (and the similar
Section 112(d)(3)) does not speak in terms of the best performing
source for each listed pollutant but the best existing source for all
pollutants and what these sources can achieve on an overall basis. The
commenter claimed that Congress abandoned Section 112's previous focus
on individual pollutant standards in the 1990 CAA Amendments and also
adopted the technology-based multi-pollutant approach to regulating
toxics in use under the Clean Water Act (CWA). See S. Rep. No. 228,
101st Cong., 1st Sess. 133-34 (1989). The commenter concluded that if
one source can achieve a tight degree of control for one pollutant but
not for another, there may be no justification for including it in the
set of sources from which the floor is calculated. See, e.g., Tanners'
Council of America v. Train, 540 F.2d 1188, 1193 (4th Cir. 1976) (CWA
effluent limitations guidelines were deemed not achievable where plants
in EPA's data base were ``capable of meeting the limitations for some,
but not all, of the pollutant parameters'').
Two commenters stated that under CAA Sections 129(a)(2) and
112(d)(2) consideration of a higher level of control than the average
aggregate levels achieved by the best sources (i.e., using the
pollutant-by-pollutant approach instead of basing floors on levels of
the full set of pollutants achieved by particular units) must be done
only as a ``beyond-the-floor'' assessment, required to weigh economics
and other factors, and not be ``hidden'' in the floor evaluation, in
which costs may not be considered.
Multiple commenters also questioned the technical feasibility of
EPA's pollutant-by-pollutant approach. According to the commenters,
establishing MACT standards based on the best achievable emissions
limits for each type of pollution control equipment assumes that the
equipment can be combined in the same system and that the emissions
limits of each system are additive. The commenters stated that, in
practice, this outcome is likely not achievable due to the challenge of
finding pollution control equipment (e.g., fabric filters for PM
removal and wet scrubbers for HCl removal) that can work in concert
with each other. The commenters said that EPA should consider how the
different emissions controls may interfere with each other if employed
simultaneously. As an example, one commenter noted that employing a wet
scrubber to control HCl would saturate the gas stream, which would bind
the bags in the fabric filter used to control PM, thereby compromising
the filter's effectiveness. Some of the commenters also noted that the
interrelationships between pollutants must be considered in order to
ensure that the emissions control is operating effectively for control
of all of the related pollutants, and not just a single pollutant. For
example, commenters noted that improving combustion to control CO may
affect NOX.
Multiple commenters suggested EPA should revisit the MACT floors
for HMIWI and choose the best performing sources on an overall basis,
so that at least one source can meet all of the new source standards
and a certain portion of the existing sources can meet the existing
source standards. One commenter suggested that EPA combine the
individual pollutants into a single analysis to determine which control
provides the best overall control or otherwise determine that the MACT
floor resulting from the analysis is actually achieved by those sources
identified as the ``best controlled.'' According to various commenters,
one possible way for doing this would be to establish rankings for how
a HMIWI performs for each of the regulated pollutants and then sum the
individual pollutant rankings to determine the overall ranking for the
HMIWI.
Response: We disagree with the commenters who object to setting
MACT floors on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. We continue to interpret
Section 129 as supporting the pollutant-by-pollutant approach. Section
129(a)(4) says that the standards promulgated under Section 129 shall
specify numerical emissions limitations for each pollutant enumerated
in that provision. Section 129(a)(2) requires EPA to establish
standards requiring ``maximum degree of reduction of emissions.''
``Maximum degree of reduction of emissions,'' in turn is defined in
Section 129(a)(2) as including a minimum level of control (the so-
called MACT floor). EPA, therefore, believes--and has long believed--
that the combination of Section 129(a)(4), requiring numerical
standards for each enumerated pollutant, and Section 129(a)(2),
requiring that each such standard be at least as stringent as the MACT
floor, supports, if not requires, that floors be derived for each
pollutant based on the emissions levels achieved for each pollutant.
We also disagree with the commenters who complain that there may
not be any operating unit that currently employs the complete suite of
MACT technologies and meets the revised limits. The suite of MACT floor
controls identified by the final rule approach (specifically, the
combination of dry and wet control systems) is already used by four
existing HMIWI that meet most of the MACT floor standards. For example,
one HMIWI, equipped with a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA)
filtering system, carbon bed adsorber, and rotary atomizing wet
scrubber, is estimated to meet all nine revised emissions limits in the
final rule; another HMIWI, equipped with a lime injection system,
powdered activated carbon injection system, baghouse, and vertical
upflow two-stage multi-microventuri scrubber system, is estimated to
meet eight of the nine revised limits. Also, an estimated 42 of the 57
HMIWI are estimated to meet both the CO and NOX revised
limits simultaneously with existing combustion controls. (See 2009
memorandum entitled ``Revised Compliance Costs and Economic Inputs for
Existing HMIWI,'' which is included in the docket for today's
rulemaking.) The MACT control techniques for the various pollutants are
fully integratable and compatible. There do not appear to be any
conflicts where meeting the standard for one pollutant may jeopardize
the achievability of meeting another pollutant's limit. This conclusion
is supported in part by a review of available data and information. As
discussed above, there are currently four units that are achieving
most, if not all, of the floor standards (based on actual data for each
pollutant) using the complete suite of
[[Page 51381]]
MACT floor controls. Thus, we conclude that our approach results in
compatible MACT controls. Further, an evaluation of the emissions data
from units that have measured data for all pollutants supports our
conclusion. Our analysis shows that 12 percent (7 of 57 units)
simultaneously meet all of the MACT floor emissions levels. (For
further information, see 2009 memorandum entitled ``Revised Compliance
Costs and Economic Inputs for Existing HMIWI,'' which is included in
the docket for today's rulemaking.)
We also disagree with commenters claiming that it is inappropriate
to consider a suite of floor control techniques that may not be
currently in use by the source category. There is no reason not to
consider emissions data and controls in use at sources that may be the
best performers from some pollutants but not for other pollutants. The
MACT floor controls applicable for one pollutant do not preclude the
use of MACT floor controls for another pollutant. Therefore, it is
appropriate to consider controls at sources employing MACT controls for
some pollutants, but not all. For example, floor controls for existing
large HMIWI include wet scrubbers for HCl control, dry scrubbers or
combination dry/wet systems for PM and metals control, activated carbon
injection for CDD/CDF control, and wet scrubbers or dry scrubbers for
SO2 control. As noted previously, wet and dry systems are
demonstrated to be compatible, and it would be inappropriate to exclude
from the MACT floor pool those units equipped with wet or dry systems
because some of the control systems do better with some pollutants
(e.g., wet scrubbers with HCl) than others (see previous memorandum).
EPA disagrees strongly with commenters arguing that Congress has
directly addressed the issue of whether the MACT floor can be
established on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. With respect to the MACT
floor mandate of Section 112, there appears, rather, to be a
substantial ambiguity in the statutory language about whether the MACT
floor is to be based on the performance of an entire source or on the
performance achieved in controlling particular hazardous air
pollutants. The language regarding best performing ``sources'' (or, for
new sources, ``source'') could apply either to the sources' (or
source's) performance as a whole, or performance as to a particular
pollutant or pollutants. The same is true of the definition of
``emission limitation'' in Section 302(k), which refers to ``air
pollutants,'' but does not address whether the limitation must apply to
every pollutant emitted by a source, or just some of them. (The same is
true of the reference to ``air pollutants'' (in the plural) in Section
112(d)(2).) In this regard, we note that commenters in other MACT
rulemakings have assumed that Section 129, which governs today's rule
and which uses language essentially identical to Section 112 in
mandating MACT, requires a pollutant-by-pollutant approach to
establishing floors, because EPA is commanded to establish standards
for enumerated pollutants under Section 129(a)(4). We further note that
the DC Circuit, when reviewing the floor determinations we made in 1997
for HMIWI under Section 129 in Sierra Club v. EPA, noted that they were
set pollutant-by-pollutant and found no error in this approach (see 167
F.3d at 660) (although this aspect of the rule was not challenged
specifically). Indeed, the commenters who object so vehemently to the
pollutant-by-pollutant approach in this rule raised no such objection
when the opportunity to litigate the same approach in establishing the
1997 HMIWI standards was first presented.
EPA also believes that the commenters' reference to basing MACT
floors on the performance of a hypothetical or theoretical unit, so
that the limits are not based on those achieved in practice, is not
only wrong factually (see above), but just re-begs the question of what
the language in Sections 112(d)(3) and 129(a)(2) is referring to. We
did not base the controls or emissions levels on theoretical sources,
but on the performance of actual units in the HMIWI source category.
All of the MACT floors are achieved in practice (since they are based
on actual performance data). Moreover, the DC Circuit has emphasized
that EPA may use any reasonable means to determine what levels of
performance are achieved in practice. Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d at
663, 665. The commenters' reliance on cases that they claim preclude
EPA's use of a pollutant-by-pollutant approach does not compel a unit-
based approach, and the issue is not critical to EPA's position in any
event, since the record shows that some units are meeting all of the
floor limits and many are meeting several of them. At the very least,
the CMA v. EPA decision under the CWA supports the proposition that a
technology-based standard can be considered achievable even if all
limits are not yet met by a single unit. Since the floor standards are
demonstrably being achieved in practice by some sources, this issue is
largely academic.
In short, EPA is not persuaded that the floors must be established
on the basis of a unit's performance for all pollutants overall. We
continue to believe, as we explained in the 1997 final rule, that such
a reading would lead to results that are at odds with evident
congressional intent (and with the Court's rulings in NLA II, CKRC and
Brick MACT). To argue that Congress compelled this type of result is at
odds with both the language of Sections 112 and 129 and common sense.
Indeed, it would necessarily suggest that EPA could continue to adopt
floors that reflect ``no emissions reduction,'' even after the DC
Circuit so emphatically forbade that approach in the Brick MACT ruling
(Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875 (DC Cir. 2007).
As we stated in the preamble to the 1997 regulation (62 FR 48363),
we recognize that the pollutant-by-pollutant approach for determining
the MACT floor can, as it does in this case, cause the overall cost of
the regulation to increase compared to what would result under a unit-
based methodology. For example, the pollutant-by-pollutant approach for
the HMIWI regulation results in a stringent MACT floor for HCl based on
control using a wet scrubber, and stringent MACT floors for PM and
metals based on control using a dry scrubber. We interpret Section 129
of the CAA to require that the MACT floor be determined in this manner,
and we believe that Congress did in fact intend that sources subject to
regulations developed under Section 129 meet emissions limits that are
achieved by the best controlled unit for each pollutant, as long as the
control systems are compatible with each other. To our knowledge, there
is no technical reason why these two air pollution control systems
cannot be combined. (62 FR 48363-4) Combined dry/wet scrubber systems
are currently in operation on several HMIWI. In response to commenters'
concerns regarding the technical feasibility of combined dry/wet
systems, available data on the performance of combined dry/wet scrubber
systems indicate that the MACT floor emissions levels are achievable
and technically feasible. The performance of dry scrubbers with
activated carbon injection and the performance of wet scrubbers are
well-documented. The available data for combination dry/wet systems
provide no indication of operational or emissions problems that occur
as a result of combining dry and wet control systems. Regarding the
inverse relationship between CO and NOX with regard to
combustion control, it is incumbent upon the HMIWI facility to
determine whether combustion
[[Page 51382]]
conditions can be adjusted to meet both standards and, if not, install
add-on NOX controls as necessary, e.g., SNCR systems.
The MACT floor reflects the least stringent emissions standards
that EPA may adopt in accordance with Section 129(a)(2) regardless of
costs. Other statutory provisions are relevant, although they also do
not decisively address this issue. Section 129(a)(4) requires MACT
standards for, at a minimum, PM, opacity, SO2, HCl,
NOX, CO, Pb, Cd, Hg, and CDD/CDF emitted by HMIWI. This
provision certainly appears to direct maximum reduction of each
specified pollutant. Moreover, although the provisions do not state
whether there is to be a separate floor for each pollutant, the fact
that Congress singled out these pollutants suggests that the floor
level of control need not be limited by the performance of devices that
only control some of these pollutants well. (62 FR 48364)
Regarding the commenter's suggestion that EPA choose the best
performing sources on an overall basis, so that at least one source can
meet all of the new source standards and a certain portion of the
existing sources can meet the existing source standards, we reviewed
this approach and found that the suggested approach does not
consistently result in emissions limits that are at least as stringent
as would have resulted in 1997 if we had actual emissions data and used
the correct methodology. We estimate that four emissions limits for
large and small non-rural HMIWI and five emissions limits for medium
and small rural HMIWI calculated using the suggested overall unit-based
approach would be higher than the 1997 emissions limits. Further,
because not all pollutants are required to be tested (e.g.,
NOX and SO2), a substantial fraction of available
emissions data would have to be discarded in order to rank only those
HMIWI with a complete set of data for all nine pollutants (PM,
SO2, HCl, NOX, CO, Pb, Cd, Hg, and CDD/CDF).
Specifically, we would have to discard emissions data for 30 percent of
large, 40 percent of medium, 100 percent of small non-rural, and 50
percent of small rural HMIWI in order to calculate MACT floors using
the suggested approach. (See 2009 memorandum entitled ``Revised MACT
Floors, Data Variability Analysis, and Emission Limits for Existing and
New HMIWI,'' which is included in the docket for today's rulemaking.)
A unit-based approach would tend to result in least common
denominator floors where, as here, multiple pollutants are emitted,
whereby floors would no longer be reflecting performance by the best
performing sources for those pollutants. For example, if the best
performing 12 percent of units for HAP metals did not control acid
gases as well as a different 12 percent of units, the floors for acid
gases and metals would not reflect best performance. Having separate
floors for metals and acid gases in this example certainly promotes the
stated purpose of the floor to provide a minimum level of control
reflecting what best performing units have demonstrated the ability to
do.
Similarly, a unit-based approach that employs ranking of a weighted
average of pollutants would require EPA to assume priority for certain
pollutants (one unit may have lower NOX emissions but higher
CDD/CDF, for example). This approach would similarly tend to require
EPA to disregard the factual levels reflecting the best performers for
individual performers, but based on value judgments regarding the risks
presented by various pollutants. Such considerations are antithetical
to strictly performance-based analyses such as MACT floor
determinations. Indeed, reviewing EPA's primary copper smelters MACT
standard, the DC Circuit rejected the argument that risk-based
considerations have any place in the MACT context (see Sierra Club v.
EPA, 353 F.3d 976 (DC Cir. 2004).
3. Adequacy of Emissions Test Data
Comment: Multiple commenters argued that the proposed standards are
flawed because EPA has not demonstrated that the actual emissions data
on which the proposed rule is based adequately represent the full range
of performance of tested facilities. According to various commenters,
the emissions data were derived from performance tests conducted under
``representative operating conditions,'' rather than the ``worst
reasonably foreseeable circumstances'' contemplated by the case law.
See Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 665 (DC Cir. 1999). Commenters
stated that the proposed emissions limits did not adequately account
for variability, and said EPA should have sought out more test data and
specifically requested continuous monitoring data to properly
characterize variability.
Another commenter specifically recommended that EPA gather
additional data on emissions of medium HMIWI such as theirs before
finalizing the rule to ensure each medium HMIWI has data sufficiently
accurate and representative to properly set a MACT standard in
accordance with the CAA Amendments. According to the commenter,
rigorous quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures should
also be applied to the test data.
One commenter stated that, because the new regulations are solely
based on previous stack testing, the actual emissions tests need to be
reviewed by EPA for technical accuracy, as well as consistency.
Although there may have been insufficient time under the court-ordered
schedule, the commenter argued that proposed standards cannot be
defended technically in the absence of such an analysis.
The same commenter also stated that revisions to EPA's incinerator
test protocol are needed to ensure that the unit is being tested at
proper design conditions. At a minimum, the commenter said that
incinerator temperature, waste input rate and constituents, auxiliary
fuel consumption, quench rates (air and water), and chemical feed rates
need to be recorded during an incinerator test to determine whether the
operating and testing conditions were representative of the higher
emissions rates that can be experienced during normal operations. Given
that emissions are determined by waste characteristics, the commenter
recommended that a standardized realistic worst-case test waste be
used, which includes specific criteria components, as well as moisture
content and heating value. Incinerators would be tested with the
standard waste and the top 12 percent identified.
Response: First, in response to industry commenters who claim we
should have gathered more data, we note that nothing precluded them
from giving us more data to consider in responding to the Court's
remand, if they felt that the data submitted to us for purposes of
showing compliance with the 1997 standards was not representative of
their normal operations. We have reasonably used the data available to
us at the time we conducted this rulemaking, in the absence of being
provided with any other data. We agree with the commenters that
emissions tests might provide information on representative operations
only where owners and operators conducting the tests have endeavored to
reflect such representative operations at the time of the tests.
However, when conducting tests to establish various parameters to be
monitored, owners and operators may also endeavor to produce data for a
wide range of operating conditions. Moreover, we have taken several
steps to try and account for the emissions and operational variability,
including (1) obtaining additional emissions test data
[[Page 51383]]
from States and EPA Regions representing all available annual test
results for each unit, (2) using individual test run data for the best-
performing 12 percent of sources to calculate UCL values, (3) using a
substantial confidence interval (specifically, a 99 percent UCL value),
and (4) closely reviewing how the data are distributed (e.g., normally,
lognormally). Also, EPA's own review of emissions factors shows that
the variability of emissions between facilities is greater than the
variability within facilities.
We believe that the data quality concerns expressed by the
commenters have been addressed in a number of ways. First, EPA test
methods incorporate data quality assurance and quality control steps
and acceptance criteria at several levels. These provisions assure that
the data produced are of quality sufficient for decision making,
including compliance, when the methods are followed and the acceptance
criteria are met. Second, States further assure that testers adhere to
the test methods by providing third party oversight and review of
compliance tests conducted by industry, such as that being discussed
here. The States also implement the source testing audit program when
available, further assuring the high quality of emissions testing data.
Third, through internal and contractor support efforts for this
regulatory project, EPA conducted additional review of the initial
emissions test data to check for completeness and appropriate
characterization of process operations. Finally, EPA reviewed and
accounted for variability inherent in the emissions data used in
establishing the applicable emissions limit including applying
statistical confidence intervals.
Regarding the comment about revisions to EPA's incinerator test
protocol, the factors cited by the commenter could be considered in
setting site-specific compliance conditions. Such an approach may be
useful at the next technology review. The commenter's suggestion that
EPA use a standardized waste for testing is questionable, unless EPA
wanted to establish a certification testing program like the
residential wood combustion rule. However, such a program would be
cumbersome and could potentially eliminate a majority of the industry.
Comment: Three commenters stated that EPA did not consider the
accuracy and precision of the EPA test methods in proposing the
emissions limits for new and existing HMIWI. To support their argument,
the commenters referenced the findings of the Reference Method Accuracy
and Precision (ReMAP) program co-sponsored by the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME). According to the commenters, one of the
main objectives of the ReMAP project was to ensure emissions limits
would properly consider the inherent accuracy and precision limits of
the test methods used to demonstrate compliance, such that a facility
would not be in violation of a limit as a result of this inherent
variability. The commenters noted that the ReMAP program established
Precision Metrics for various reference methods and corresponding
pollutants (e.g., 42 percent for CDD/CDF Method 23), and
they compared these Precision Metrics to actual stack concentrations
and proposed emissions limits for several pollutants. Based on this
comparison, the commenters concluded that EPA did not adequately
address these Precision Metrics in establishing the proposed limits.
Response: As noted above, we already took into account variability
inherent in the data representing emissions and process operations in
establishing the emissions limit. By using UCLs to set our emissions
limits, we have inherently accounted for measurement precision. In
fact, the adjustments we made to the average stack concentrations for
the best-performing 12 percent of units to calculate the final
emissions limits more than account for the Precision Metrics cited by
the commenters. Thus, any additional adjustments of measurement to
account for method precision are unnecessary.
Comment: One commenter stated that there are significant
deficiencies in the emissions data used to establish the standards.
Some of the standards are based on data from a limited number of stack
tests. According to the commenter, there needs to be a standard for the
minimum number of stack tests that must be performed before its data
can be used as the basis for determining the top 12 percent performing
incinerators. Because of the waste characteristics and variability, the
commenter recommended a minimum of four tests. The commenter noted that
some of the units included in the top 12 percent are specialty
incinerators, which the commenter said are not representative of the
subcategory as a whole. The commenter also noted that another unit
incinerates municipal waste, which the commenter argued should cause
its data to be invalid for the proposed HMIWI standards. According to
the commenter, municipal waste would be expected to have a makeup that
produces significantly lower emissions for some pollutants (e.g., CDD/
CDF, Cd). The commenter recommended developing a testing metric (e.g.,
heating value, flue gas per pound of feed) and applying it to the data
used to indicate possible flaws (e.g., variations and/or abnormalities)
which would spur further investigation into the validity of the data.
Of the 45 emissions tests used to develop emissions limits for the
large subcategory, the commenter concluded that 38 of those tests could
be considered invalid because of too little testing or the
unrepresentative content of the incinerated waste stream.
Response: Regarding the commenter's argument about claimed
deficiencies in the emissions data used to establish the standards, we
do not believe that data from high quality tests should be dismissed
simply because there are only a few tests. As noted above, we have
reasonably relied upon the data we had available to us, and we have
already taken steps to alleviate concerns about the representativeness
of the measured data used to establish the emissions limit, including
calculating UCL estimates using standard statistical conventions.
Regarding the commenter's concerns about the specialty incinerators
and the facility that also incinerates municipal waste, we evaluated
creating separate subcategories for captive units (which would include
the specialty incinerators) and a separate subcategory for mixed waste
units, but as noted above, we ultimately rejected both options because
we did not provide an opportunity to comment on the issue of
subcategorization in the December 2008 re-proposal or a record that
would justify such a significant change in categorization. Another
option to address the facility incinerating municipal waste would be to
use only the emissions data from those tests conducted with 100 percent
medical waste, but that would limit the number of tests for that
facility. Also, we have found a significant amount of overlap in
emissions (including CDD/CDF and Cd) between the different test
conditions at the facility (e.g., 100 percent medical waste, 50 percent
medical waste, 20 percent medical waste, etc.), suggesting that such a
distinction in waste type is not very meaningful in this case. (See
2008 memorandum entitled ``Documentation of HMIWI Test Data Database,''
which is included in the docket.)
Comment: Three commenters stated that some emissions test data were
improperly excluded from the dataset, including data deemed ``non-
compliant,'' data collected at HMIWI subsequently shut down, and data
collected under specific ``test
[[Page 51384]]
conditions.'' The commenters argued that emissions test data from
compliance tests that were conducted in accordance with the applicable
reference test methods for affected HMIWI should not be arbitrarily
excluded from the re-stated MACT dataset, because that undermines the
entire data evaluation process. The commenters stated that EPA provides
no rationale for arbitrarily including data in some instances, and
excluding them in others. Thus, according to the commenters, EPA's
proposed standards are arbitrary and capricious. The commenters said
that inclusion of all valid test data provides a better representation
of the inherent variability of the various test methods and source
operation. According to the commenters, EPA's MACT floor dataset was
inconsistent, leading EPA to rely on an unrepresentative set of data.
The commenters recommended that EPA provide a clear description of
``representative HMIWI operation'' so that consistent criteria are
applied to evaluate whether valid emissions test data were properly
included or excluded from the MACT floor dataset.
Response: Non-compliant emissions data from the initial tests of
HMIWI were not included in the emissions database used to establish the
emissions limits. At the time of the initial test, operators were still
in the process of establishing their operating parameters and tuning
their emissions control devices and operating conditions to comply with
the regulation. Any non-compliant emissions data from the initial test
would be expected to trigger a change in HMIWI operation in order to
come back into compliance with the 1997 standards. Consequently, the
non-compliant emissions data from these tests would not be
representative of the typical operation of these HMIWI.
If non-compliant emissions data from an annual test were
substantially higher than the emissions typically seen from the
facility or were substantially higher than the emissions limit, this
strongly suggested that there was a problem during the test and
indicated that the test results would not be representative of the
typical operation of the HMIWI. Such data were excluded from the
pollutant averages for the particular facility. (It should be noted
that the data that were excluded amount to less than 1 percent of the
total set of emissions data for the industry.) For example, the
emissions data from tests on one unit did not meet the PM or Cd
emissions limit during an August 2006 annual test. A subsequent retest
of this unit for those same pollutants in November 2006 showed PM
emissions results less than 10 percent of those measured earlier, and
Cd emissions results about 0.1 percent of the previously measured
results. Consequently, we believe that the August 2006 PM and Cd test
results were not representative of the typical operation of the HMIWI,
and they were not included in the test data database. The PM and Cd
retest data from the November 2006 retest were included instead. (See
previous memorandum.)
We also excluded test data if we found errors in the calculations
or the test methods, or some important elements of the data needed to
calculate emissions in the form of the standard were missing. For
example, we excluded the TEQ emissions estimates provided for a 2005
annual test at a second HMIWI because the reported TEQ estimates were
greater than the total CDD/CDF estimates provided, a clearly incorrect
result. The total CDD/CDF estimates were believed to be the correct
values because they were well within the applicable emissions limit,
while the TEQ estimates were a few times higher than the applicable
limit. The 2001 annual test results for HCl at a third HMIWI were
deemed invalid because the HCl sample train did not meet the method's
95 percent sample collection efficiency requirement. There
was believed to be some contamination in the sample collection and/or
recovery during the 2005 Pb test at a fourth HMIWI, so a retest in
February 2006 was conducted. The Pb results from the February 2006
retest were included with the results of the 2005 annual test in the
test data database, replacing the 2005 Pb results. The first HCl test
run during a 2006 test at a fifth HMIWI was below the detection limit,
and the laboratory that analyzed the samples did not provide a
detection limit for this test run. In this case, we decided to delete
the results for this particular test run and calculated the HCl average
for the 2006 test using the results from the other two test runs.
Similarly, the second Hg test run during the 2003 test at a sixth HMIWI
was reported to be below the detection limit, but the data summary did
not include the measured Hg detection limit. Attempts to obtain the
detection limit for this test run from the facility were unsuccessful.
Consequently, we decided to delete the results for this test run and
calculated the Hg average for the 2003 test using the results from the
other two test runs. (See previous memorandum.)
A couple of annual compliance tests were excluded from the unit
averages because they were conducted under test conditions (e.g.,
reduced emissions control) that were not considered representative of
the typical operation of the HMIWI. The exclusion of these tests had
little impact on most of the pollutant averages for these HMIWI, and it
should be noted that these HMIWI are not in the MACT floors of the
pollutants of interest. One HMIWI was unable to meet the CDD/CDF
emissions limit during the 2003 and 2004 annual compliance tests
conducted without activated carbon. Only when activated carbon
injection was included as a second test condition during the 2004
annual compliance test was the facility able to meet the CDD/CDF
emissions limit. Consequently, we determined that the second test
condition was more representative of the typical, current operation of
the HMIWI. During a Hg annual compliance test, another HMIWI was unable
to meet the Hg percent reduction limit under the test condition with a
lower activated carbon injection rate, but was able to meet the limit
under the test condition with a higher activated carbon injection rate.
The Hg data meeting the limit were considered representative of the
typical operation of the HMIWI, and the other Hg data were rejected.
(See previous memorandum.)
Regarding the argument that EPA improperly excluded data available
from HMIWI that subsequently shut down, we believe that it is
appropriate in this particular rulemaking to base the MACT floor on
emissions data from facilities that are currently operating, since
those are the facilities that would be complying with the rule.
Comment: Three commenters stated that the treatment of individual
``non-detect'' data points within the MACT floor dataset should be
consistent and should represent the actual detection level of the
pollutant of concern. The commenters noted that non-detect or zero data
provided as part of the latest data request were considered equal to
the method detection limit, while CDD/CDF test data already in EPA's
project files were calculated at one-half the detection limit. While
this approach may be valid for total CDD/CDF, the commenters argued
that it could have a profound effect on TEQ.
Response: In response to the commenters, it should be noted that
section 9 of EPA Method 23 specifies that ``[a]ny PCDD's or PCDF's that
are reported as below the measurement detection level (MDL) shall be
counted as zero for the purpose of calculating the total concentration
of PCDD's and PCDF's in the sample.'' The CDD/CDF results reported in
the facilities' initial test reports and provided by States and EPA
Regions in the annual test summaries reflect this computation approach.
Consequently, by using one-half the detection limit in our review of
[[Page 51385]]
CDD/CDF data in full test reports, we were being conservative in our
estimation of CDD/CDF emissions. Nonetheless, we looked at those HMIWI
in the MACT floor for total CDD/CDF and TEQ to determine whether using
the full detection limit would make a substantial difference. When we
averaged in the results with all other CDD/CDF results for each
facility, we found on average essentially no difference in total CDD/
CDF emissions estimates (less than 1 percent) and only a small
difference in TEQ emissions estimates (0.1 to 20 percent) for the four
HMIWI size categories. (See 2009 memorandum entitled ``Comparison of
CDD/CDF Non-Detect Data--Full Detection Limit vs. \1/2\ Detection
Limit,'' which is included in the docket for today's rulemaking.)
4. Non-Technology Factors
Comment: Numerous commenters stated that the variability in non-
technology factors, such as the materials and composition fed to
combustion devices, must be adequately addressed in the rulemaking
process in order to promulgate a feasible rule, Sierra Club, 479 F.3d
at 883 and Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d 855, 865
(DC Cir. 2001). According to various commenters, EPA did not identify
the non-technology factors in the proposed rule or quantify their
effect on actual emissions performance, but instead claimed, without
supporting evidence, that using actual emissions levels accurately
reflects emissions performance resulting from the use of add-on
controls and other emissions reduction measures. Commenters argued that
the failure to make these findings renders the proposed standards
arbitrary. Another commenter disagreed, stating that EPA's proposed
floor approach for new and existing HMIWI is generally correct and that
EPA correctly observed that the use of actual emissions levels accounts
for all emissions reduction strategies.
Response: With regard to the commenters' argument, the CAA does not
require EPA to quantify the emissions reductions resulting from all
non-technology factors, but instead focuses on identifying the
emissions levels achieved by best performing sources no matter what
means they use to achieve them. This approach is supported by the DC
Circuit's decision in the Brick MACT case, which stressed the
importance of identifying emissions ``levels'' achieved by sources.
There can be no dispute that both the composition and level of
emissions exiting the incinerator reflect both the add-on control
technologies used by a unit (e.g., dry scrubber, wet scrubber,
activated carbon) that control the emissions and the non-technology
factors (e.g., waste material quantity and composition, combustion
conditions) that influence the level and composition of emissions. As
the Sierra Club Court noted in 1999, the less mercury fed into the
waste stream, the less mercury emissions will be coming out of the
stack. Whatever combination of add-on controls and non-technology
measures a unit is employing will, therefore, necessarily affect the
resulting emissions levels that are reflected in the actual emissions
data upon which the revised floors are set. It would be impossible for
those data to not reflect all those measures. This situation is quite
the opposite of what was presented in the 1997 rulemaking, in which the
floors were primarily derived from permit and regulatory levels that
were not necessarily reflective of actual emissions performance but
were assumed to reflect levels achievable by add-on control only. At
that time, to adjust floors downward to account for non-technology
factors, it might indeed have been necessary to be able to quantify
additional emissions reductions attributable to such measures.
Similarly, as the 2007 proposed remand response still in large part
relied upon the permit and regulatory levels, not knowing the
quantified reductions achieved by non-technology measures frustrated
estimating the emissions levels achieved in practice by HMIWI. But this
is simply not an issue under a methodology that depends upon the
measured emissions levels that result from whatever mix of add-on or
non-technology controls is being used, as under the 2008 re-proposal
and today's final rule. The non-technology factors cannot help but
affect the actual emissions data, and they are, therefore, necessarily
accounted for in the actual emissions data-based floors.
EPA's data gathering effort for this rulemaking included not just
initial and annual emissions test data obtained from EPA Regions,
State/local governments, and HMIWI facilities, but also a waste
segregation practices questionnaire sent to nine representative
entities in the HMIWI category (six hospitals, one pharmaceutical
facility, one university, and one company that owns 8 of the 14
commercial HMIWI). (See 2008 memoranda entitled ``Documentation of
HMIWI Test Data Database'' and ``Summary of Industry Responses to HMIWI
Waste Segregation Information Collection Request,'' which are included
in the docket.) While our analysis of the emissions test data indicates
a strong relationship between add-on control and emissions (e.g., wet
scrubbers achieve superior HCl control, while dry scrubbers achieve
superior PM and metals control), our review of the questionnaire
responses indicates that non-technology factors also play a role in
emissions reduction. All of the survey respondents, except for the
commercial company, practice onsite waste segregation to reduce the
volume of waste being incinerated. Most of the respondents started the
practice of waste segregation in the 1980s and 1990s. Five respondents
also accept offsite waste and require the offsite waste generators to
employ waste segregation practices. The commercial company encourages
waste segregation from its waste generator clients through a number of
efforts, including a waste management plan, contract requirements and
waste acceptance protocols, a dental waste management program, and
educational programs and supporting posters. All of the respondents
that practice onsite waste segregation separate batteries and
fluorescent bulbs (i.e., mercury waste) from the HMI waste stream.
Eight respondents separate paper and/or cardboard, four separate glass,
and three separate plastics from the HMI waste stream. Other materials
that are separated from the HMI waste stream include hazardous waste,
waste oil, wood, construction debris, refrigerants, and various metals
and metals-containing materials (e.g., aluminum, copper, lead, mercury,
steel, and electronics). (For further information, see 2008 memorandum
``Summary of Industry Responses to HMIWI Waste Segregation Information
Collection Request,'' which is included in the docket.) These waste
segregation efforts would certainly have an impact on the emissions of
CDD/CDF, mercury, and other pollutants from these HMIWI and would be
reflected in the emissions levels measured during their initial and
annual emissions tests and used in our test data analysis. As noted
previously, the nine entities surveyed were believed to be
representative of the HMIWI industry as a whole, so the conclusions
reached for the nine entities are also expected to apply to the entire
industry as well.
5. Straight Emissions Approach
Comment: Two commenters argued that the parenthetical language in
the Brick MACT decision equating the best performers with ``those with
the lowest emissions levels'' (straight emissions approach) was only a
legal dictum to
[[Page 51386]]
which EPA is not bound, and which is not cited in either the CKRC
decision or the CAA. The commenters cited Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d
875, 880 (DC Cir. 2007) (Brick MACT), and Cement Kiln Recycling
Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d 855, 861 (DC Cir. 2001). In citing EPA's
justification for the MACT floor approach used in the hazardous waste
combustor rulemaking, the commenters stated EPA's position that the CAA
does not require the Agency to equate the best performers with the
lowest emitters. The commenters specifically cited EPA's statement
that, ``as a legal matter, CAA Section 112(d)(3) does not specifically
address the question of whether `best performing' sources are those
with the lowest net emissions, or those which control HAP emissions
most efficiently.''
The commenters also noted that, since the Brick MACT decision, EPA
has determined that there are other ways to rank the best performing
sources and set the MACT floors than a straight emissions approach,
such as the approach used in the hazardous waste combustor rulemaking,
which combined the hazardous waste fed to the source and the source's
system removal efficiency (SRE). According to the commenters, the ``SRE
Feed'' methodology better identifies who the lowest emitters will be
over time, better assesses their performance (i.e., how much they will
emit as they operate), and better accounts for variability (e.g., non-
technology factors).
Response: It is not necessary to adopt a position regarding whether
the Brick MACT Court's references to ``emissions levels'' is dictum or
binding for purposes of this rulemaking. In the 1999 HMIWI case, the
Court very clearly stated that EPA's duty here was to use data that
allowed the Agency to reasonably estimate the emissions performance of
the best performing units. We have discovered that the permit and
regulatory data upon which the 1997 rule was based do not reliably
serve this purpose. Conversely, the actual emissions data from HMIWI do
enable us to estimate the performance of the best performers. We
believe that the use of actual emissions data, appropriately adjusted
for variability using statistical methods, sufficiently accounts for
the performance and variability of HMIWI operation. Regarding the
commenters' reference to CAA Section 112(d)(3) to support their
argument regarding the definition of ``best performing'' sources, we
assume the commenters also meant Section 129, which governs this rule.
We do not think the SRE Feed methodology can be successfully
adapted to determine MACT floors for HMIWI. This is because the SRE
Feed approach requires knowledge of the amount of hazardous materials
fed into the system and knowledge of the system's removal efficiency
for those specific materials, neither of which is known or measured in
the HMIWI industry. Such materials are mixed in with other waste and
cannot reasonably be measured separately, especially given the
occupational safety regulations to which HMIWI operators are subject.
6. Statistical Approach
Comment: Multiple commenters stated that the statistical
methodology EPA used to establish MACT floors did not properly account
for underlying non-technology factors such as feed material quantity or
composition or for normal operational variability within and across
unit operations, which led to unattainable emissions limits.
Three of those commenters supported the conditional use of the 99.9
percent UCL to quantify ``emissions limitation achieved'' as it applies
to variability above average emissions. However, the three commenters
had concerns about EPA's methods used to calculate statistical
parameters. The commenters stated that EPA should characterize
emissions data distributions before calculating statistics, instead of
assuming all data are normally distributed. Otherwise, according to the
commenters, it is difficult to determine if the statistics are valid.
When data are not normally distributed, the commenters recommended that
EPA transform the data prior to conducting its statistical
calculations. The commenters noted that EPA used the NORMSINV function
in Microsoft Excel to calculate the 99.9 percent UCL, which assumes
that the actual mean and variance of a data set is known. According to
the commenters, when the mean and variance are estimated from random
samples or a small subset of the total population, such as stack test
runs, the 99.9 percent UCL should be calculated with the Student t-
statistic using the TINV function in Excel, not normal statistics.
Two other commenters objected to the use of the 99.9 percent UCL to
account for variability in determining emissions limits. One of the
commenters argued that EPA provides insufficient explanation or
justification of its use of the 99.9 percent UCL. According to the
commenter, if the performance of the best performing HMIWI, on average,
is estimated to meet the emissions limit 99.9 percent of the time, then
it would be expected to exceed the emissions limit 8.76 hours per year,
which does not comply with the requirement that each source must meet
the specified floor every day and under all operating conditions.
Therefore, the commenter argued that the 99.9 percent UCL procedure
used by EPA is deficient and must be revised.
The other commenter stated that EPA's use of a 99.9 percent UCL to
estimate individual units' variability marks a sharp departure from
EPA's approach in other rulemakings (e.g., 90 percent and 95 percent
UCL), and said that EPA offers no real explanation for this departure
from past practice or why a 99.9 percent UCL would account for
variability but a lower UCL, such as 99 percent or 95 percent or 90
percent, would not. The commenter recommended that EPA correct its
floor approach to avoid the overcompensation for variability seen with
some of the floors for new units.
Two commenters stated that a more realistic assessment of an
individual unit's ability to meet an emissions limit during a
compliance test would use the 99.9 percent UCL for that unit/pollutant
instead of the average value.
Four commenters disagreed with EPA's decision to use individual
test run results to account for variability in setting MACT floors for
new and existing sources. The commenters urged EPA to use complete
performance test results instead. One of the commenters argued that EPA
is arbitrarily using different measures of performance for establishing
emissions standards on the one hand (using test runs) and measuring
compliance with these standards on the other (using whole tests),
without explaining why different measurement approaches are
appropriate. According to the commenter, it appears likely that
disaggregating test results leads to less protective floors by creating
false variability in individual units' performance. The commenter
recommended that EPA calculate the floors with and without
disaggregating individual test runs to ensure that its floors are not
less stringent as a result of that approach. The other commenters noted
that data limitations may not leave EPA an alternative to using test
run results in some cases, but they recommended that EPA use complete
test results where enough data exist to characterize emissions
variability.
Response: Based on the responses to our waste segregation practices
questionnaire, we believe that most HMIWI are practicing (or
encouraging the practice of) waste segregation of materials such as
batteries, fluorescent bulbs, paper, glass, plastics, and metals-
containing materials, which we expect
[[Page 51387]]
to impact the emissions of CDD/CDF, mercury, and other pollutants and
be reflected in the actual emissions data we use in our analysis. (See
2008 memorandum ``Summary of Industry Responses to HMIWI Waste
Segregation Information Collection Request,'' which is included in the
docket.) Consequently, we believe that using actual emissions data
sufficiently and inherently accounts for non-technology factors such as
feed material quantity or composition which influence the level and
composition of emissions. We also believe that our use of multiple
emissions tests and individual test runs for each HMIWI, where
possible, and our estimation of 99 percent confidence intervals for
MACT floor data sufficiently accounts for variability. The use of
multiple emissions tests allows us to evaluate ``between-test
variability,'' which can occur even where conditions appear to be the
same when two or more tests are conducted. As we noted in the preamble
to the December 1, 2008 re-proposal (73 FR 72976, 72980), 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 use of individual test runs (as opposed to
test averages or unit averages) allows us to evaluate ``within-test
variability.'' A single test at a unit usually includes at least three
separate test runs. (See Sec. 63.7(e)(3) (for MACT standards under
Section 112 of the CAA), and Sec. 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 unit (for new source MACT) or best-performing 12
percent of units (for existing source MACT), we used emissions data for
each test run conducted by those units. The amount of pollutant-
specific test data for those HMIWI varies widely for each size
category. Given the limited amount of test data and the uncertainty
regarding that short-term emissions test data, we have decided that
using the 99 percent UCL is an appropriate method of estimating
variability. The UCL represents the statistical likelihood that a
value, in this case an emissions value from the best performing source,
will fall at or below the UCL value. (Further discussion regarding the
99 percent UCL is provided later in this section.)
After reviewing the commenters' suggestion that we characterize
emissions data distributions before calculating statistics, we took a
closer look at our statistical approach. In statistics, skewness is a
measure of the degree of asymmetry of a distribution. Normal
distributions typically have a skewness of zero. Consequently, to
determine whether the emissions test data used in our UCL calculations
had a normal or lognormal distribution, we estimated the skewness of
the data using the SKEW function in Excel. Except as specified below,
those datasets with a skewness value greater than zero (when rounded to
a whole number) were categorized as lognormal, and all other datasets
were categorized as normal. Those data categorized as lognormal were
transformed (by taking the natural log of the data) prior to the
calculation of UCL values. When there were only a few data points
(e.g., one emissions test with three test runs), which is the case for
most datasets for small HMIWI, it was not possible to make a definitive
determination that the data were distributed normally or lognormally.
(In fact, assuming a lognormal distribution for those data often
resulted in UCL values that were substantially higher than the 1997
promulgated limits.) In those cases, we decided to use the normal
distribution in calculating UCL values, a conservative assumption which
provided a more protective emissions limit. When we had more data and
could make a more definitive determination about a dataset's
distribution, we treated the data as noted previously. In most cases,
we found that the larger datasets are lognormally distributed, although
there are some cases where they appear to be distributed normally, and
we treated the data as such when doing our UCL calculations. We believe
this approach is more accurate and obtained more representative results
than those at re-proposal.
Regarding the commenters' suggestion about using Student's t-
statistics in calculating the UCL values, we also decided to revisit
our statistical approach. We agree that we have only a relatively
small, random sample of emissions data available for our analysis,
which calls for the use of the Student's t-test, in accordance with
standard statistical practice. Consequently, we have decided to use the
TINV function in Excel (specifically the one-tailed t-value), rather
than the NORMSINV function, to calculate the UCL values. This approach
(using the Student's t-test) is consistent with approaches being taken
in other EPA rulemakings, such as Portland Cement.
In response to public comments on the size of the confidence limits
used at re-proposal and in light of the aforementioned changes in our
statistical approach, we also decided to reevaluate the percentiles
used in the UCL values. We evaluated four different percentiles (90,
95, 99, and 99.9 percent). The 99.9 percent UCL values estimated for
the 2009 final rule are substantially higher than the highest test runs
for the MACT floor units and are frequently higher than the emissions
limits in the September 15, 1997 promulgated standards, indicating the
99.9th percentile overcompensates for variability. Lower percentiles
(e.g., 90, 95, and 99 percent) are inherently more stable than the
99.9th percentile, with less uncertainty (less variability) than the
99.9th percentile from a statistical standpoint. However, the 90 and 95
percent UCL values are frequently lower than the highest test runs for
the MACT floor units and the stringent emissions limits in the December
1, 2008 re-proposal, indicating that those percentiles provide
insufficient compensation for variability.
The 99 percent UCL values are somewhat higher than the emissions
limits in the December 1, 2008 re-proposal but are well below the
emissions limits in the September 15, 1997 promulgated standards. The
99 percent UCL values are more in line with the highest test runs for
the MACT floor units than the other percentiles, indicating that the 99
percent UCL provides a more reasonable compensation for variability.
This approach results in standards more representative of the level of
emissions reduction that the best performing sources are actually
achieving. Accordingly, we have decided to use the 99 percent UCL to
estimate emissions limits for the 2009 final rule.
We disagree with one commenter's argument that the 99.9 percent UCL
must provide for the floor to be met every day and under all operating
conditions. The UCL is not about time, but about the population of
data. Accounting for variability using the 99.9 percent UCL goes beyond
the absolute
[[Page 51388]]
average but does not produce expectations of 0.1 percent noncompliance.
Setting the emissions limit at the UCL accounts for the possibility of
variability and the possibility that the average is outside the range.
These statistical procedures are used to help us identify the average
emissions limitation achieved by the best performing units, as Section
129(a)(2) of the CAA requires. Also, there is no practical upper limit
as to what a facility can emit, so the argument that that EPA must set
a floor at a level that equates to what a facility can meet at all
times is not consistent with the CAA's requirement that EPA estimate
the emissions levels achieved by best performing units.
Regarding the comment about our decision to use individual test run
results to account for variability, we felt it was necessary to use
test run results when we had data limitations (e.g., for small HMIWI)
and for consistency decided to take the same approach where data were
more plentiful. As noted previously, we believe that each data point
should be viewed as a snapshot of actual performance, which gives
information about the variation in emissions that would be expected to
recur over time.
D. Emissions Limits
1. HCl, CDD/CDF, and Metals Emissions Limits
Comment: One commenter argued that EPA's proposed HCl standards of
2.4 parts per million by volume (ppmv) for existing sources and 0.75
ppmv for new sources are based on biased data of indeterminate quality
and are unachievable. The commenter also claimed that setting the HCl
standards at such low levels will negatively impact the development and
application of CEMS, due to the lack of correlation between Method 26A
and CEMS at concentrations comparable to the proposed standards.
According to the commenter, the test results (Methods 26 and 26A and
RCRA SW 846 Method 0050) that EPA used to set the HCl standards contain
a known bias at low levels of HCl, varying widely with temperature and
moisture at HCl levels below 20 ppmv (all three methods), and having a
negative bias at HCl levels below 5 ppmv (Method 26A). The commenter
noted that all of the top performers in the large, medium, and small
non-rural categories use wet scrubbers to control HCl emissions, and
will have considerable moisture in the stack gas. Thus, the data from
every one of these sources has the potential to be biased. The
commenter argued that HCl data below 20 ppmv are not usable and/or
representative and are technically indefensible. The commenter
recommended that EPA follow the example of Office of Solid Waste (OSW),
which corrected all HCl values below 20 ppmv to 20 ppmv, used a
statistical method to impute a standard deviation for these test runs,
and calculated a floor standard based on those values.
Response: We are basing the HCl standards in this rulemaking on the
data we have available to us from the HMIWI source category, and can
base them only on that data. The sensitivity of Method 26A for HCl is
0.04 ppmv. Moisture is only an issue with Method 26A if the testing
contractor does not perform the method correctly. Unless we are given
data to the contrary, we assume that the HCl data in our dataset are
correct. These data, for this particular rulemaking, support the HCl
standards being adopted today.
Nonetheless, we acknowledge that the HCl standards in our re-
proposal were very close to the method detection limit for HCl. The
changes in statistical approach for the final rule have resulted in
increases to the HCl standards above 5 ppmv, which should address some
of the concerns listed above. Furthermore, based on reported HCl
emissions data for all HMIWI, we estimate that 64 percent of large, 82
percent of medium, and 100 percent of small/small rural HMIWI will be
capable of meeting the revised HCl standards, on average, based on
their currently used control measures. It should also be noted that
HMIWI subject to the 1997 NSPS have been meeting the 15 ppmv HCl
standard in that rule, which is below the 20 ppmv threshold level that
the commenter cited.
Comment: One commenter recommended that EPA set beyond-the-floor
standards for both HCl and chlorinated organic pollutants (including
CDD/CDF) based on removing chlorinated plastics from the waste stream.
According to the commenter, it is well established that the combustion
of chlorinated plastics increases emissions of HCl as well as CDD/CDF
and other chlorinated pollutants. The commenter stated that it is
achievable for HMIWI to remove chlorinated plastics from the waste
stream that they burn. The commenter said that EPA can gather data that
will quantify the total amount of HCl that is attributable to the
combustion of chlorinated plastics and set a standard reflecting the
maximum degree of reduction that is achievable through the removal of
chlorinated plastics from the waste stream.
The same commenter also recommended that EPA set beyond-the-floor
standards for metals based on removing all metals from the waste stream
before combustion, consistent with the requirements under Section
129(a)(2) and (3), which obligate EPA to require the maximum degree of
reduction in emissions that is achievable through the use of methods
and technologies before, during, and after combustion. The commenter
stated that metals do not belong in an incinerator because they cannot
be destroyed by incineration and are especially dangerous to public
health and deleterious to the environment. As far as the commenter
knew, EPA has never disagreed that removing metals from the HMIWI waste
stream is achievable technically and economically, and the commenter
noted that EPA has data from the MWC rulemaking that show materials
separation requirements are effective and cost-effective. (See Docket
A-89-08, various items.)
Given the language of Section 129 that requires the maximum degree
of reduction in emissions that is achievable through the use of pre-
combustion measures, the commenter argued that EPA has a duty to gather
information on these measures and evaluate such measures in its beyond-
the-floor analysis. According to the commenter, EPA's failure to gather
information about the precise reduction of emissions that will result
from such measures and failure to provide any explanation for rejecting
such a standard is unlawful and arbitrary. The commenter noted that EPA
has committed to set final standards by September 2009, and stated that
EPA should not delay issuance of final standards to conduct this data
gathering, but should commence data gathering now and revise the HMIWI
regulations to include beyond-the-floor standards in the future.
Response: As we explained in the 2008 re-proposal, the identified
beyond-the-floor add-on control measures we analyzed were not
reasonable on a cost-effectiveness basis, especially in light of the
significantly more stringent floor levels as compared to the 1997
rule's standards. We read the commenter's suggestion that we examine
additional beyond-floor measures but without delaying final action on
the re-proposal as recommending that we conduct the requested data
gathering and analysis for those measures in a subsequent rulemaking
action. A possible opportunity for that would be the next review of the
rule under Sections 129(a)(5) and (h)(3). In the interim,
[[Page 51389]]
however, we have decided to revise the waste management plan provisions
in Sec. Sec. 60.35e and 60.55c to promote the segregation of
chlorinated plastics and metals to the extent possible.
2. CO Emissions Limits
Comment: One commenter argued that the proposed CO emissions limits
will be unattainable by many applicable units, based on the emissions
data provided in the docket. The commenter stated that the add-on
controls evaluated by EPA do not reduce CO emissions, and that CO
emissions can be a function of the feed material composition (which the
commenter stated EPA did not evaluate). As a result, the commenter
stated, HMIWI operators will have very little latitude or options to
meet the proposed CO limits. Three other commenters stated that
historical CO CEMS data from well-performing commercial HMIWI
demonstrate that the proposed CO emissions limit is not achievable on a
continuous basis and argued that the existing 40 ppmv emissions limit
must be retained. The commenters further stated that the proposed CO
standards must include a reasonable, extended averaging period (e.g.,
24 hours) that accounts for the variability of the waste stream and
waste characteristics. The commenters noted that the proposed standards
are currently based on discrete 3-hour average data developed during
performance test conditions, which they said do not account for the
typical operational variability. According to the commenters, such
snapshot data are also not representative of long-term continuous
monitoring, placing facilities with CO CEMS at a competitive
disadvantage with any revisions to the CO standard.
The same three commenters also stated that the proposed CO standard
in combination with the 7 percent oxygen (O2) diluent
correction factor will pose technological monitoring challenges to
HMIWI that either choose or will be required to use CO CEMS, especially
given the variability of HMIWI operations and waste feed streams.
According to the commenters, costly monitoring systems (e.g., dual
range or ambient level monitors) will be needed, resulting in
additional QA activities. The commenters further stated that the
application of an O2 correction factor to the measured CO
concentration CEMS data may cause artificial exceedances of the CO
emissions standard at higher O2 operating scenarios.
Response: Based on our review of CO emissions data for all HMIWI,
we have found many HMIWI outperforming the existing 40 ppmv CO limit.
We believe that the CO limits developed using the revised statistical
approach are more representative of actual operation, and we estimate
that a substantial percentage of HMIWI with their current controls will
still be capable of meeting the revised limits (89 percent of large, 76
percent of medium, and 100 percent of small/small rural HMIWI, on
average). Therefore, we disagree that the 40 ppmv CO limit must be
retained.
Regarding the comment about the 3-hour average basis for the CO
limit, it should be noted that the 2008 re-proposal included an
amendment to Sec. 60.56c allowing sources using CEMS to demonstrate
compliance with the applicable emissions limit on a 24-hour block
average, instead of a 12-hour rolling average (as specified in the 1997
final rule). This amended provision should address concerns about the
ability of sources equipped with CEMS to demonstrate compliance with
emissions limits on a continuous basis (as opposed to a 3-hour annual
test) and would be consistent with past rulemakings for incineration
units (e.g., large and small MWCs).
Regarding the comment about the application of an O2
correction factor to the CO CEMS data, it should be noted that
correction to consistent standards (e.g., percent O2) is
necessary in order to compare to other units and to an emissions limit.
Applying an O2 correction factor to CO CEMS should only be a
problem at O2 levels greater than 15 percent. For comparison
purposes, we reviewed the O2 levels recorded in initial test
reports, and found only about 7 of 57 HMIWI reported O2
levels above 15 percent during at least one pollutant test run, and we
estimate that 6 of those 7 with their current equipment will still meet
the revised CO emissions limits, based on a comparison of the revised
limits to the average CO concentrations for those HMIWI.
3. Opacity Limits
Comment: Three commenters noted that EPA requested facility test
data from 2003 through 2006 for all pollutants except opacity, even
though annual opacity testing is required for all units. According to
the commenters, if EPA wanted to review and revise the opacity limit
pursuant to Section 129(a)(5), it should have requested opacity data
and should have used those data in the re-establishment of the MACT
standards. Instead, the commenters said, the proposed opacity limit was
inappropriately established from a single continuous opacity monitoring
system (COMS) located at a single HMIWI. The commenters argued that
data from a single unit are insufficient to set an emissions limit that
must be continuously achieved, and they said that EPA must seek
additional monitoring data. The commenters also noted that compliance
with the proposed opacity limit established by COMS is demonstrated
using a different measurement methodology (Method 9).
The same three commenters, plus a fourth commenter, stated that the
methodology that EPA used to establish the 2 percent opacity limit
fails to account for actual opacity monitoring capabilities and normal
operational variability, such as that included in PS-1 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix B). According to the commenters, the inherent potential error
of a COMS meeting PS-1 could greatly exceed the proposed opacity limit
value. The fourth commenter argued that opacity under the worst
foreseeable circumstances for the best-performing units would thus
easily violate the MACT floor, which the commenter said would violate
Sierra Club. 167 F.3d at 665.
All four commenters noted that, similar to COMS accuracy, Method 9
calls for recording visual observations to the nearest 5 percent at 15-
second intervals. The commenters stated that using a compliance method
with inherent potential accuracy levels exceeding the proposed 2
percent opacity limit appears problematic.
Given the limitations of Method 9 and the variability of all the
HMIWI subject to the revised opacity standard, the first three
commenters recommended that EPA establish an opacity standard based on
Method 9 data instead of COMS data from a single unit. All four
commenters argued that the current 10 percent opacity limit is
reasonable, and would allow conventional compliance determination
methods to be used, accounting for their limitations.
Response: The commenters' argument about how we established the
proposed opacity limit is somewhat misleading. While we acknowledge
that opacity data were inadvertently not included in the 2007-08 test
data request, we already had opacity data for nearly 90 percent of all
HMIWI from their initial compliance tests, and our initial opacity MACT
floor analysis was based on the best-performing 12 percent of sources
for opacity. As we stated in the preamble to the December 1, 2008 re-
proposal (73 FR 72983), based on the opacity averages alone, without
any accounting for variability, the MACT floor for opacity for existing
and new units would have been 0 percent. We tried to account for
variability by looking at the single highest opacity reading for HMIWI
in the MACT floor
[[Page 51390]]
for PM, based on opacity being an appropriate surrogate for PM. We
based our MACT floor opacity limit on the single highest COMS reading
(1.1 percent) for one of the HMIWI in the MACT floor for PM. Because we
commonly set opacity standards based on whole numbers and could not
round down without risking having the MACT floor unit not meet the
standard, we rounded up and proposed an opacity limit of 2 percent for
both new and existing HMIWI. However, we now believe this analysis was
incomplete. The analysis did not account for two other HMIWI in the
MACT floor for PM that could more effectively account for variability
for opacity. The maximum opacity averages for these two HMIWI are 5.87
and 4.17 percent. (See 2008 memorandum entitled ``Documentation of
HMIWI Test Data Database,'' which is included in the docket.) The
opacity data for these two HMIWI were measured using Method 9. Using
the same approach that we used at re-proposal, we are establishing an
opacity limit of 6 percent, by rounding up the highest opacity average
of 5.87 percent to the nearest whole number.
Regarding the commenters' arguments that the inherent potential
error of a COMS meeting PS-1 could exceed the proposed opacity limits,
the potential error (about 4 percent opacity at the highest) is not the
same as expected error (more on the order of 0.5 percent). Nonetheless,
the increase in the opacity limit to 6 percent should address the
commenters' concerns on this issue.
We disagree with the commenters' argument that a 10 percent opacity
limit be used to allow conventional compliance determination methods.
While opacity is read in 5 percent increments, average opacity can be
any number above 0. Method 9 values are averages of 24 readings, which
can include readings of 0 and an occasional 5 or 10 percent.
Regarding the commenters' argument that only Method 9 data should
be used to establish the opacity standard because that is the
measurement method that would be used to demonstrate compliance, the
commenters' argument is moot, since the revised opacity standard is now
based on Method 9 results.
4. Percent Reduction Limits
Comment: One commenter agreed with EPA's proposed elimination of
percent reduction alternatives. According to the commenter, EPA
correctly noted that standards based only on control technology
performance do not reflect the effects of non-technology factors and,
therefore, do not reflect the best units' actual performance.
Therefore, the commenter said, allowing units the option to meet these
percent reduction limits instead of emissions standards contravenes
Section 129, and EPA appropriately proposed to delete the percent
reduction limits.
Three other commenters argued that the percent reduction compliance
option that was available in the 1997 rule and in the 2007 proposed
rule should be re-evaluated and retained for commercial HMIWI, since
the ability for such units to reduce emissions is due almost
exclusively to the effectiveness of the control equipment (and not
waste segregation). According to the commenters, commercial HMIWI
facilities, unlike captive units, cannot practically control the waste
that is put in the containers they process, and applicable regulations
from the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
preclude them from practicing waste segregation at the time of
treatment. Thus, the commenters noted, they experience extreme
variability during stack tests (especially for volatile metals Cd, Pb,
and Hg) and will experience higher inlet concentrations than captive
units; since they operate at the same control efficiency, they will
exhibit higher stack emissions. The commenters stated that the percent
reduction option is a better assessment of the performance of the
control system for commercial units.
Response: We have decided not to include percent reduction limits
in the final rule. In addition to the reasons we provided in the re-
proposal, while commercial HMIWI facilities face greater challenges in
controlling the waste they receive, compared to ``captive'' units, they
are nonetheless capable of taking steps to educate their customers
(i.e., waste generators) regarding waste segregation and should also
have some control based on the waste management plans, contract
requirements, and waste acceptance protocols they negotiate with their
customers. Consequently, non-technology factors are under their control
to a limited extent, which does not support their rationale for a
percent reduction limit. The effect of raw material inputs on emissions
from HMIWI could instead be downplayed by a percent reduction limit
that allows more emissions provided a given level of removal
efficiency.
5. PCB and POM Emissions Limits
Comment: One commenter noted that EPA has interpreted the CAA as
allowing the Agency to meet the requirements of Section 112(c)(6) by
setting standards for incinerator emissions of 112(c)(6) pollutants
under Section 129. According to the commenter, EPA has acknowledged
that HMIWI account for a large portion of the aggregate emissions of
both PCBs and POM. Thus, to satisfy Section 112(c)(6), the commenter
argued that EPA must use its authority under Section 129(a)(4) to set
emissions standards for both of these pollutants. Noting EPA's argument
that its standards for CDD/CDF and Hg ``effectively reduce'' emissions
of PCBs and POM and thus satisfy Section 112(c)(6), the commenter said
that Section 112(c)(6) requires that these HAP be subject to MACT
standards. Because the best performing units used to set these
standards may be achieving reductions in PCBs and POM by means other
than just controlling CDD/CDF and Hg emissions--e.g., by ensuring that
no PCB-containing wastes are put in the incinerator or by not
incinerating chlorinated plastics--the commenter argued that EPA's
standards for CDD/CDF and Hg do not constitute lawful MACT standards
for PCBs and POM and, therefore, do not satisfy Section 112(c)(6).
Response: For the reasons we set forth in the 2008 re-proposal (see
73 FR at 72991-92) and in the preamble for today's rule (see section
VII), we continue to take the view that while the rule does not
identify specific limits for POM and PCB, emissions of those pollutants
are nonetheless ``subject to regulation'' for purposes of Section
112(c)(6). While we have not identified specific numerical limits for
POM and PCB, we believe CO serves as an effective surrogate for those
pollutants, because CO, like POM and PCBs, is formed as a byproduct of
combustion. We believe that dioxins/furans also serve as an effective
surrogate for PCBs, because the compounds act similarly and, thus, are
expected to be controlled similarly using HMIWI emissions control
technology--e.g., wet scrubbers or fabric filters (with or without
activated carbon). Furthermore, recent HMIWI emissions test data for
PCBs and dioxins/furans show that HMIWI well-controlled for dioxins/
furans also achieve low PCB emissions. (See 2008 memorandum entitled
``Documentation of HMIWI Test Data Database,'' which is included in the
docket.) It should also be noted that PCBs are generally found in
higher concentrations than dioxins/furans (also the case for HMIWI), so
HMIWI equipped with the aforementioned emissions controls would be even
more effective at reducing PCB emissions. Consequently, we have
concluded that the emissions
[[Page 51391]]
limits for CO function as a surrogate for control of both POM and PCBs,
and the limits for dioxins/furans function as a surrogate for PCBs,
such that it is not necessary to promulgate numerical emissions limits
for POM and PCBs with respect to HMIWI to satisfy CAA Section
112(c)(6).
To further address POM and PCB emissions, the final rule also
includes revised waste management plan provisions in Sec. Sec. 60.35e
and 60.55c that encourage segregation of the types of wastes that lead
to these emissions, such as chlorinated plastics and PCB-containing
wastes.
E. Monitoring
Comment: One commenter argued that the monitoring requirements in
the HMIWI regulations are inadequate because they do not provide for
emissions monitoring as required by Section 129. According to the
commenter, EPA's exclusive reliance on parameter monitoring for most
pollutants and units is unlawful. The commenter stated that EPA must
require all HMIWI to use the available CEMS (e.g., HCl, Hg, metals,
CDD/CDF) to monitor their emissions. The commenter indicated that CEMS
are the only requirements that can possibly provide data adequate to
ensure compliance with emissions standards and protection of public
health and the environment, consistent with Section 129(c)(1).
Two other commenters argued that continuous monitoring of CO with a
24-hour block average should be required of all existing incinerators
to assure efficient combustion. However, the two commenters stated that
continuous air monitoring of metals and other toxics should not be
adopted as an alternative to stack testing until CEMS accuracy and
reliability has been fully verified by EPA.
Response: The CAA provides us with broad discretion to establish
monitoring requirements as necessary to assure compliance with
applicable requirements. As we noted in the preamble to the 1997 final
rule (62 FR 48360), the most direct means of ensuring compliance with
emissions limits is the use of CEMS. As a matter of policy, the first
and foremost option considered by EPA is to require the use of CEMS to
demonstrate continuous compliance with specific emissions limits. Other
options are considered only when CEMS are not technically available or
when the impacts of including such requirements are considered
unreasonable (due to high costs, for example). When monitoring options
other than CEMS are considered, there is always a tradeoff between the
cost of the monitoring requirement and the quality of the information
collected with respect to determining actual emissions. While
monitoring of operations (operating parameters) cannot provide a direct
measurement of emissions, it is usually much less expensive than CEMS,
and the information provided can be used to ensure that the incinerator
and associated air pollution control equipment are operating properly.
This information provides EPA and the public with assurance that the
reductions envisioned by the regulations are being achieved. (62 FR
48360-1)
For the 1997 final rule, we developed testing and monitoring costs
for a range of options. (See Legacy Docket ID No. A-91-61, item IV-B-
66.) At that time, we concluded that the cost of CEMS were unreasonably
high relative to the cost of the incinerators and emissions controls
needed for compliance. (62 FR 48360-1.) For today's final rule, we also
compared the costs of CEMS for various pollutants to the costs of the
incinerators, emissions controls, and parameter monitors, and reached
the same conclusion as we reached before. (For further information, see
2009 memoranda entitled ``Revised Baseline Operating Costs for Existing
HMIWI'' and ``Revised Compliance Costs and Economic Inputs for Existing
HMIWI,'' which are included in the docket for today's rulemaking.)
Table 3 of this preamble presents the annual costs for CEMS, parameter
monitoring systems, emissions controls, and incinerators, based on
model unit cost calculations for all four HMIWI size categories.
Table 3--Comparison of Annual Costs for CEMS, Parameter Monitoring Systems, and Emissions Controls
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter monitoring Emissions
Pollutant CEMS systems controls Incinerators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO............................. CO CEMS: $149,300 Combustion control Secondary chamber Incinerator:
per year (yr). (charge rate, retrofit: $54,800-$366,000/
secondary chamber $15,100-$80,800/ yr.
temperature): $6,000- yr.
$9,900/yr.
HCl............................ HCl CEMS: Packed-bed scrubber Packed-bed
$171,400/yr. (flue gas scrubber:
temperature, scrubber $51,600-$104,000/
liquor flow rate and yr.
pH): $5,200/yr.
PM............................. PM CEMS: $195,200/ Fabric filter (fabric Fabric filter:
yr. filter inlet $130,000-$268,00
temperature): $4,200/ 0/yr.
yr.
Metals......................... Multi-metals
CEMS: $57,800/yr.
Hg............................. Hg CEMS: $313,900/ Activated carbon Activated carbon
yr. injection system injection
(activated carbon system: $5,400-
injection rate): $56,300/yr.
$4,800/yr.
CDD/CDF........................ Sorbent trap
biweekly
monitoring:
$37,900/yr.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the comment that CEMS for metals and other toxics should
not be adopted until their accuracy and reliability has been fully
verified, the re-proposal specified that the CEMS options would be
available to a facility only when a final performance specification has
been published in the Federal Register or when a site-specific
monitoring plan has been approved. This should address the commenters'
concerns.
F. Emissions Testing
Comment: One commenter appreciated EPA's efforts to improve
performance testing requirements and supported the proposed changes. A
second commenter objected to the provisions of Sec. 60.37e(f) allowing
[[Page 51392]]
submission of previous stack tests to show compliance with proposed
emissions standards for existing HMIWI, arguing that most of the stack
tests were conducted over 7 years ago, and are also not statistically
reliable because so few tests were conducted. The commenter stated that
the provisions disregard the attention that Section 129 expected EPA to
place on solid waste incinerators.
The second commenter also objected to the proposed one-time test
requirement for Pb, Cd, Hg, and CDD/CDF, arguing that a single test
result does not provide adequate assurance that the emissions standards
have been met or are continuously being achieved by operations
combusting a non-homogeneous waste stream. According to the commenter,
allowing a one-time test also provides a strong disincentive to
installing CEMS on HMIWI. The commenter noted that if EPA still wants
to reduce testing requirements, it could provide skip testing
provisions for these pollutants similar to existing provisions in Sec.
60.56c(c)(2), especially in future rulemaking, once the industry has
demonstrated sustained compliance.
Response: Regarding the comment objecting to the submission of
previous stack tests to show compliance with new emissions standards
for existing HMIWI, we attempted to address such concerns in Sec.
60.37e(f)(2) and (3), specifying that the HMIWI had to be operated in a
manner expected to result in the same or lower emissions, that it could
not have been modified such that emissions would be expected to exceed
the previous test results, and that emissions test results prior to the
year of the 1996 proposal could not be accepted. We believe that these
provisions are adequate to ensure an accurate and reliable result.
Furthermore, based on the language in the re-proposal, it is unlikely
that any commenter could have anticipated a change in the base year
(1996) for emissions tests that would be accepted to demonstrate
compliance with the revised emissions limits in the final rule, such
that the commenter would have had a meaningful opportunity to comment
on the issue.
Regarding the comment objecting to the one-time test requirement
for metals and CDD/CDF, the annual tests are intended to be surrogates
for combustion, particulate, and acid gas control, supplementing
existing continuous monitoring requirements. We believe that the annual
tests for combustion and particulate control and the continuous
emissions monitoring of activated carbon injection are sufficient to
ensure compliance with the metals and CDD/CDF emissions limits.
However, if the State implementing the HMIWI regulations for existing
units in its jurisdiction believes that more frequent metals and CDD/
CDF testing is a necessary requirement for those units, they have the
option to prepare State plans for EPA review that include those
requirements, or to simply require a particular source to conduct such
testing. Section 116 of the CAA preserves a State's authority to
regulate more stringently under Section 111. Given the more stringent
requirements in the HMIWI rule (relative to the 1997 rule) being
promulgated today, we do not want to impose additional testing
requirements that are not necessary to assure compliance with the
requirements of this final rule. Also, we did not provide an
opportunity to comment on such additional emissions testing in the
December 2008 re-proposal, and we would want to develop a fuller record
on any such requirements and provide an opportunity to comment on those
requirements before imposing them in a final rule. However, we would be
willing to consider such a change at the next technology review, if
such a change is necessary to reliably demonstrate compliance.
G. Alternatives to On-Site Incineration
Comment: Five commenters supported alternatives to on-site
incineration, such as autoclaving. One of the commenters stated that 90
percent or more of medical waste could be safely diverted from
incineration. The commenter further noted that alternative treatment
technologies like autoclaves and microwaves work, are available, and
are approved by regulatory agencies. The commenter argued that these
technologies provide a much healthier alternative to incineration.
Another of the commenters suggested EPA supplement its proposed rule to
specify a phase-in requirement that diverts all medical waste not
required by law or regulation to be incinerated to go to approved
alternative non-incineration disposal methods; the commenter also
recommended that EPA prohibit autoclave residues from being
incinerated. Three of the commenters stated that EPA should initiate a
ban on incineration of medical waste, and in the interim give
incentives to industries using safer, cleaner alternatives to
incinerating medical waste, such as autoclaving and microwaving.
Five other commenters noted the disadvantages associated with
incineration alternatives such as autoclaving. One of the commenters
noted that EPA's supporting documents for the proposed rule seem to
endorse such alternatives but fail to recognize that some facilities
generate waste types for which autoclaving and landfilling is not
adequate treatment. As examples, another of the commenters noted that
numerous research facilities insist that all of their waste be
incinerated, and three of the commenters noted that most States and
many local governments have imposed requirements on the disposal of
these types of wastes and identified incineration as an authorized
means of disposal; further, some States expressly require incineration
of pathological wastes and/or prohibit autoclaving or landfilling of
such wastes. With the proposed emissions limits, the same three
commenters expected that HMI waste incineration capacity will
disappear, and captive units will be limited by permit from accepting
wastes from off-site; as a result, the commenters concluded, some waste
generators will be left with a State requirement to incinerate waste,
with little or no available HMIWI treatment options and capacity. One
commenter noted that that sterilized waste is often transferred to
regional MWC facilities for incineration, especially in their
metropolitan area, and noted that MWC emissions limits are less
stringent than the current and proposed limits for HMIWI. Thus, the
commenter concluded, if the HMIWI regulation increases autoclaving and
reduces use of their facility, it will have a significant adverse
effect on air quality.
One of the commenters stated that EPA's studies for the proposed
rule also fail to recognize the environmental impacts of transporting
autoclaved medical wastes to regional landfills, such as depletion of
landfill space, landfill gas emissions, landfill leachate issues, and
impacts of waste transportation traffic. Another commenter noted that
autoclaving does not achieve the 90 percent volume reduction that can
be achieved with incineration and, with many landfills at or
approaching capacity, volume reduction prior to landfilling is a much
preferred option.
One commenter also noted that steam sterilization can result in the
release of uncontrolled Hg vapors from the autoclaving process, so any
medical waste displaced from their facility to autoclaves would result
in an increase in Hg emissions from the autoclaves or the MWC. The
commenter said that these potential impacts need to be assessed before
any standard is adopted.
Response: Section 129 of the CAA provides EPA with the authority to
establish emissions limits for the nine specified pollutants (HCl, CO,
Pb, Cd,
[[Page 51393]]
Hg, PM, CDD/CDF, NOX, and SO2). Today's action
satisfies EPA's obligation to respond to the Court's remand of the 1997
MACT floor determinations, as well as EPA's duty to conduct its first
periodic review of the standards and requirements of the HMIWI rule.
While a record that supported complete elimination of emissions of the
enumerated pollutants is theoretically possible, the record for today's
rule does not show that such an outright ``ban'' of incineration is
required to meet EPA's obligations.
We agree with the commenters that it is appropriate to address the
disadvantages and environmental impacts associated with incineration
alternatives such as autoclaving in background documentation for the
HMIWI rule, even though the revised standards in today's rule are
floor-based (for which we cannot consider costs) rather than beyond-
the-floor-based (where costs are to be considered). We also agree that
incineration is sometimes insisted upon or even required by some
research facilities and State and local governments, and we have
incorporated those comments into the revised background documentation
for the final rule.
Regarding the comment that some metropolitan areas require
autoclaved waste to be sent to MWC units, while the commenter is
correct that MWC limits are currently higher than the 1997 promulgated
HMIWI limits and the 2008 re-proposed HMIWI limits, the MWC standards
are on remand to the Agency, and EPA will be reviewing those standards.
At this juncture, we cannot predict the outcome of that remand
response.
Comment: One commenter stated that EPA's studies for the proposed
rule fail to recognize and consider all the risks to the public
associated with closing captive HMIWI and transporting medical/
infectious wastes to large commercial incinerators, especially in
regions such as the western U.S., where such commercial incinerators
are not well distributed.
Response: We believe that the revised emissions limits are more
representative of actual operation at HMIWI and will impact fewer HMIWI
than the December 2008 re-proposal, which should address the
commenter's concerns. Moreover, in this technology- and MACT floor-
based rulemaking, we do not believe that we could permissibly adopt
standards that are less stringent than the floor based on
considerations of risk. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 353 F.3d 976 (DC Cir.
2009).
H. Medical Waste Segregation
Comment: Contrary to what EPA stated in its summary of waste
segregation survey responses, two commenters argued that there is ample
evidence that the extent to which waste segregation is conducted by our
healthcare facilities is far from optimal, and that further waste
segregation could easily occur. Multiple commenters recommended that
EPA supplement the proposed rule to minimize or eliminate the inclusion
of plastic wastes (a chief contributor to dioxin formation), Hg (e.g.,
Hg-containing dental waste, Hg-containing devices), and other hazardous
wastes in the waste sent to incineration; end the burning of
confidential documents (e.g., medical records) and other paper products
that could be shredded and recycled; and require waste management plans
from all generators of medical waste that use incineration as a
disposal option. As examples, one of the commenters said captive HMIWI
could be required to train staff to minimize inclusion of Hg-containing
devices and other heavy metals from the waste stream; and commercial
HMIWI could be required to provide educational materials to encourage
customers to prevent inappropriate disposal of metals-containing
devices and other items into wastes supplied to the commercial HMIWI.
Another commenter supported the idea of enhancing waste management
practices at the point of generation and noted that their commercial
facility offers training sessions with hospitals and institutions on
the importance of separating items containing Hg and other hazardous
substances from the rest of their medical waste and has implemented and
manages recycling programs for paper, bottles, glass, cardboard,
metals, construction material, and sharps containers.
To ensure effective waste segregation by commercial facilities, one
of the commenters further recommended that EPA revise the regulation to
state that incinerator operators are responsible for all of the waste
in their possession and the emissions that result, and should clarify
for all incinerator operators that the term ``affected source'' in
Sec. 60.55c refers to them.
Four commenters noted that the proposed new rule for emissions from
HMIWI does not address pharmaceutical drugs, nor does it address how
hazardous pharmaceuticals are segregated from non-hazardous. The
commenters stated that not all incinerators, such as those in North
Carolina, are licensed to burn pharmaceuticals classified as hazardous.
The commenters recommended that EPA require each State to develop and
implement programs to ensure that hazardous and non-hazardous
pharmaceuticals are being segregated.
Response: While EPA's authority to set emissions standards under
Section 129(a)(2) reaches only incinerators of solid waste and does not
directly extend to generators of waste who are not owners and operators
of solid waste incineration units, we are amending the waste management
plan provisions in the final rule to promote greater waste segregation
(e.g., plastics, metals, PCB-containing wastes, pharmaceuticals). Given
the OSHA requirements to which commercial HMIWI operators are subject,
those operators cannot be expected to remove certain materials from the
waste they receive, but they can be expected to train and educate their
clients to conduct their own waste segregation, especially with regard
to the materials listed above. We are including language to that effect
in the waste management provisions of the final rule.
I. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
Comment: Three commenters argued that EPA should apply to the HMIWI
rule the decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC
Circuit (Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008)), which
vacated the SSM exemptions in EPA's General Provisions implementing
Section 112 on the grounds that the exemptions violate the CAA's
requirement that some Section 112 standards apply continuously. The
commenters stated that the reasoning provided by the court in its
decision also applies to the HMIWI rule.
According to one of the three commenters, the CAA makes clear that
EPA may not exempt sources from compliance with Section 129 emissions
standards during SSM events and that the current exemptions (found in
Sec. Sec. 60.56c(a) and 60.37e(a)) are unlawful. The commenter noted
that EPA restricted the current SSM exemption to periods when no
hospital or medical/infectious waste is being charged to HMIWI.
However, the commenter said this does not bring EPA's regulations into
compliance with the CAA or suffice to protect the public from toxic
emissions during periods of SSM, because HMIWI could stop charging HMI
waste during an SSM event but still emit toxic pollution through a
bypass valve directly to the environment. To the extent EPA is not
soliciting comment on the SSM exemption as part of its response to the
remand in Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d
[[Page 51394]]
658 (DC Cir. 1999) or its review of regulations under Section
129(a)(5), the commenter petitioned it to do so under the authorities
in Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. v. Department of Interior, 88 F.3d 1191
(DC Cir. 1996).
A fourth commenter argued that if the SSM court decision is upheld,
this would substantially impact the approach for establishing ``worst
reasonable foreseeable circumstances'' and the approach for
establishing emissions limits based on available data. According to the
commenter, emissions and controllability during periods of SSM are
different than ``normal operation,'' and the commenter noted that EPA
currently sets limits by reviewing data taken during ``normal
operation,'' since no one generally conducts stack tests during SSM.
One commenter requested that emissions from SSM events be included
in the calculations of a facility's potential to emit, which in turn
determines the applicability of some Federal requirements. The
commenter also recommended that emissions from SSM events should be
included in modeling to ensure that new or expanded sources do not
cause ambient air quality to exceed health-based levels. In lieu of
modeling, the commenter said there should be actual monitoring of SSM
events to accurately determine the individual types of toxic air
pollutants and amounts of toxic air pollutant releases. The commenter
recommended that there be mandatory penalties for SSM events based on
the amounts and toxicity of the emissions. To illustrate the point, the
commenter included documentation about bypass events at a local HMIWI.
Two additional commenters also requested that EPA conduct modeling to
assess the types and amounts of pollutants released during bypass
events and take appropriate steps to regulate these ``fugitive''
emissions. All three commenters recommended that pollution control
equipment be required for bypass events, whether the event is operator
error or violation.
Another commenter recommended that EPA revise the General
Provisions or the specific standards to subject SSM periods to
appropriate work practice standards, including procedures to minimize
emissions during those periods, rather than establish MACT emissions
limits that are impossible to meet during SSM. According to the
commenter, CAA Section 112(h) allows the Administrator to promulgate a
design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard, or
combination thereof, in lieu of an emissions standard where it is not
feasible to prescribe or enforce an emissions standard. The commenter
said that emissions measurement is not practicable during SSM periods.
Response: While the Court's ruling in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d
1019 (DC Cir. 2008), directly affects only the subset of CAA Section
112(d) rules that incorporate Sec. 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) by reference
and that contain no other regulatory text exempting or excusing
compliance during SSM events, the legality of source category-specific
SSM provisions such as those adopted in the 1997 HMIWI rule is
questionable.
To our knowledge, no HMIWI facilities have ever done any testing
during an SSM event, except perhaps the few that have CO CEMS (although
under the definition of ``malfunction'' in Sec. 60.51c, operators are
directed to monitor all applicable operating parameters during
malfunctions until all waste had been combusted or until the
malfunction ceases, whichever comes first). It would be very difficult
to do any meaningful testing during such an event because the exhaust
flow rates, temperatures, and other stack conditions would be highly
variable and could foul up the isokinetic emissions test methods (thus
invalidating the testing).
The 1997 rule excused exceedance of emissions standards during SSM
events only in instances where ``no hospital waste or medical/
infectious waste is charged to the affected facility.'' 40 CFR
60.56c(a). This means that in any SSM periods where such waste is being
charged and an exceedance of the standards occurs, the source is in
violation of the requirements of the standards. Based on the 1997 HMIWI
rule's definitions of the terms ``startup'' and ``shutdown,'' no waste
should be combusted during these periods, so emissions should be low
during them--essentially the emissions from burning natural gas. Under
Sec. 60.51c, startup is defined as the period of time between the
activation of the system and the first charge to the unit. For batch
HMIWI, startup means the period of time between activation of the
system and ignition of the waste. Shutdown is defined as the period of
time after all waste has been combusted in the primary chamber.
Shutdown must start no less than 2 hours after the last charge to the
incinerator for continuous HMIWI, and no less than 4 hours for
intermittent HMIWI. For batch HMIWI, shutdown must commence no less
than 5 hours after the high-air phase of combustion has been completed.
Consequently, it should not be possible for HMIWI to exceed the
applicable emissions limits during startup and shutdown periods. This
suggests that the exemption from standards during startup and shutdown
is of virtually no utility to HMIWI, such that there is any need for
EPA to retain the exemption in today's final rule.
Malfunctions present a similar situation in terms of how the 1997
rule functioned, if a slightly different situation factually. Again,
the SSM exemption of Sec. 60.56c(a) applied only where no hospital
waste and no medical/infectious waste was being charged. Under
Sec. Sec. 60.56c(a) and 60.37e(a) of the HMIWI rules, facilities are
required to stop charging waste as soon as a malfunction is identified
and not charge any additional waste. ``Malfunction'' is defined in
Sec. 60.51c as any sudden, infrequent and not reasonably preventable
failure of air pollution control equipment, process equipment, or a
process to operate in a normal or usual manner, but does not include
failures caused, in part, by poor maintenance or careless operation.
During malfunction periods, operators must operate within established
parameters as much as possible and continue to monitor all applicable
operating parameters. So, there should be low emissions during such
periods, but how low is not known. In any case, the rule as promulgated
in 1997 did not excuse exceedances of emissions standards during
malfunctions if hospital waste or medical/infectious waste was being
charged during the malfunction. Moreover, our final standards
established today are based on the best data available to the Agency,
and we have no data to support modifying the floors for malfunction
periods.
While EPA is still in the relatively early process of formulating
its strategy for addressing the SSM court decision and the numerous
Section 112 and 129 rules that contain varying provisions regarding SSM
events, we are revising the HMIWI rules in today's final rulemaking to
delete the 1997 rule's narrow exemption from emissions limits during
periods of SSM. As explained above, the exemption and definitions as
promulgated in 1997 provided virtually no utility, and we, therefore,
expect that today's deletion of the SSM exemption will have very
little, if any, impact on HMIWI units' compliance status. In the event
that sources, despite their best efforts, fail to comply with
applicable standards during SSM events (as defined by the rule), EPA
will determine an appropriate response based on, among other things,
the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during SSM
periods, including preventative and corrective
[[Page 51395]]
actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess
emissions. This approach is consistent with that discussed in a recent
letter by Adam M. Kushner, Director, Office of Civil Enforcement, to
counsel representing various industry associations, entitled ``Re:
Vacatur of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM) Exemption (40 CFR
sections 63.6(f)(1) and 63.6(h)(1))'' (July 22, 2009) (included in the
docket for today's rulemaking).
For the reasons discussed above, we disagree with the commenter who
claimed that, in the context of this rulemaking, removal of the SSM
exemption would substantially impact the MACT floor approach. Deletion
of the exemption should have no impact on the use and analysis of the
MACT compliance data upon which the revised standards are based in this
rule. This is because the 1997 rule's exemption provisions already had
a very limited focus, in excusing compliance with standards only when
HMI waste was not being charged to the incinerator; even under the 1997
rules, if HMI waste was being charged during an SSM event, the
standards continued to apply. Moreover, the commenter provided no
information to support its position. Therefore, it is similarly
unnecessary to accept other commenters' recommendations to specify
mandatory penalties during SSM events or impose unique pollution
controls for bypass events--these concerns should be adequately
addressed by today's removal of the SSM exemption, which includes
removal of the 1997 rule's exemption during SSM periods to the
prohibition of using a bypass stack.
We also disagree that it is necessary to revise the CAA Section 112
General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63 to impose work practice
requirements that apply in lieu of numeric emissions standards during
SSM periods, in the context of this CAA Section 129 rulemaking. The
commenter who suggested this approach cited CAA Section 112(h) as the
basis of authority for such a change, but neither that section of the
Act nor the part 63 General Provisions apply to standards promulgated
under Section 129, which by its terms requires numeric emissions
standards for the pollutants specified in Section 129(a)(4).
J. Economic Impacts
Comment: Two commenters argued that the proposed limits are
unattainable without significant financial investment, which they said
will ultimately be passed on to an already overburdened healthcare
system. The commenters urged EPA to reconsider the proposed rule. One
of the commenters suggested EPA keep emissions limits for existing
HMIWI at current levels.
A third commenter argued that this sort of rule could also have
severe adverse consequences on other industries, as well as the
economy, energy and natural resources, and environment. A fourth
commenter stated that the level of source shutdowns that has occurred
in the HMIWI industry should not be allowed to occur in other Section
112 or 129 source categories, as it would severely cripple the
manufacturing base of this country. The commenter urged EPA to consider
costs and other impacts when developing rules, as required under
Section 129. According to the commenter, the current financial crisis
demonstrates the tremendous impact on jobs and the broader economy due
to increased operational costs and facility shutdowns.
Response: We estimate that the revised limits for the final rule
will be viewed as more attainable than were the 2008 re-proposed
standards, and will result in less burdensome economic impacts for the
industry. (See 2009 memorandum ``Revised MACT Floors, Data Variability
Analysis, and Emission Limits for Existing and New HMIWI'' and 2009
report ``Economic Impacts of Revised MACT Standards for Hospital/
Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators,'' which are included in the
docket for today's rulemaking.) It should be noted that other rules do
not necessarily have to take the same MACT floor approach as that taken
in this rule (every industry, every situation is different), so the
argument that promulgation of this rule as proposed would adversely
affect other regulated industries is not a given. It should also be
noted that under Section 129 we cannot consider costs and other impacts
when we are establishing MACT floor requirements.
Comment: One commenter disagreed with EPA's estimation of economic
impacts, especially as it affects their facility. The commenter
specifically questioned EPA description of HMIWI demand as being
extremely price insensitive (i.e., that the price charged has little
effect on the quantity of medical waste incinerated and can be passed
on to customers in full). Based on their years of experience in selling
services, the commenter indicated that the demand for medical waste
incineration at their facility is a curve reflecting the interplay of
different customer groups, rather than a steep curve as presented in
EPA's analysis (details provided in public comment). Based on a
graphical depiction of their facility's fixed costs, variable costs,
and total costs overlaid with the demand structure, the commenter
stated that their facility makes only a modest profit and could not
operate at any level of volume profitably if the costs of complying
with the new regulations are added to the current cost structure
(graphical depiction provided in public comment).
The commenter recommended that the economic analysis be revised to
reflect the realistic economic impacts on their company. The commenter
noted that EPA's estimate of their gross sales ($12 million) is greater
than they have averaged in recent years, qualifying them as a small
business. The commenter also noted that there are no data or analysis
to justify EPA's estimate of their company's profits (greater than $30
million) after adoption of the proposed regulations. According to the
commenter, they will in fact be forced out of business.
Three other commenters noted that the economic analysis does not
mention the restrictions imposed by State and local governments in
resorting to alternative waste treatment methods.
Response: The demand curve we used in our economic analysis was
meant to apply to the industry as a whole, and, as such, some
assumptions and simplifications were necessary. Nonetheless, we have
reviewed the commenter's concerns in revising our economic analysis for
the final rule. We acknowledge the mistakes in our previous economic
analysis regarding the commenter's profits and sales and have addressed
them in our revised economic analysis. We have also addressed the
restrictions noted by the other three commenters in the revised
analysis. Finally, it should be noted that the revisions to the
emissions limits for the final rule should mitigate the economic
impacts described here.
Comment: One commenter stated that, although their company is a
small entity, they were not given the opportunity to participate in the
development of the proposed HMIWI rule, as provided under the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA). According to the
commenter, EPA did not conduct the appropriate analysis and incorrectly
assumed that their business had annual revenue exceeding the Small
Business Size Standards. The commenter provided tax returns documenting
their status as a small entity.
Response: We properly accounted for the impacts of the re-proposed
rule in 2008 based on our analysis of the data we then had. The base
year data we
[[Page 51396]]
were using in our economic analysis (2007) showed sales numbers that
indicated they were not a small business. After receiving public
comments and additional information, we have accounted for any recent
changes in small entity status and re-analyzed the economic impacts of
the rule on small entities. (See 2009 report ``Economic Impacts of
Revised MACT Standards for Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste
Incinerators,'' which is included in the docket for today's
rulemaking.) Because we are beyond proposal, we cannot convene a pre-
proposal SBREFA panel. After considering the economic impacts of this
final rule on small entities, we can certify that today's final rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. The one small entity directly regulated by today's
final rule is a small business that owns two HMIWI. We have determined
that this one small entity may experience an impact of approximately
$3.15 million per year to comply with the final rule, resulting in a
cost-to-sales ratio of approximately 45 percent. The small entity is a
company in Maryland, which owns and operates a commercial facility at
that location. There are only nine other commercial facilities, which
are owned and operated by other companies, and the closest are in North
Carolina and Ohio. Therefore, 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.
Two other entities are defined as borderline small: Their parent
company sales or employment in 2008 are above the SBA size-cutoff for
small entities in their North American Industry Classification System
(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. Based on 2008 sales data for these two entities,
the cost-to-sales ratio is less than 1 percent for one entity and 1.4
percent for the other. It should be noted that the entity with the
higher cost-to-sales ratio (1.4 percent) is a commercial unit and would
have the ability to pass the cost along to their customers and would be
expected to be able to afford compliance. Therefore, neither entity is
likely to incur significant impacts. (See 2009 memorandum entitled
``Updated Sales Information for Companies Considered Borderline Small
Entities,'' which is included in the docket for today's rulemaking.)
Although today's final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, we nonetheless have
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities, to the
extent allowed under this CAA MACT floor rulemaking. For each
subcategory of HMIWI, we are promulgating emissions 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. Under
the CAA and the case law, EPA can set standards no less stringent than
the MACT floor and, therefore, we were unable to eliminate the impact
of the emissions limits on the small entity that would be regulated by
the final rule. We nevertheless worked to minimize the costs of testing
and monitoring requirements to the extent possible under the statute,
in light of our final impacts analysis.
V. Impacts of the Final Action for Existing Units
Over the last three 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 regulatory changes. The additional costs
imposed by this action are likely to accelerate the trend towards
alternative waste disposal options. Our analysis suggests that sources
are likely to respond to the increased regulatory requirements by
choosing to minimize the current cost of on-site incineration (e.g.,
improve waste segregation), use alternative waste disposal options, or
send the waste to an off-site commercial incinerator.
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 final 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 or using chemical
treatment (e.g., ozone, electropyrolysis, chlorine compounds, alkali
agents), thermal treatment (e.g., plasma arc, microwave technologies),
or mechanical systems (e.g., shredding, compacting) may be available to
some facilities, EPA assessed the impacts of another 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 a
widely available and highly used alternative. The results of both the
MACT compliance and autoclave/landfilling options are provided in the
discussion of impacts. While the likely outcome of the 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 revised
emissions limits for existing HMIWI are based on the average of the
best performing 12 percent of sources for each pollutant in each
subcategory. This final action requires varying degrees of improvements
in performance by most 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 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 or caustic
[[Page 51397]]
use for improved control of HCl and, in a few instances,
SO2; and combustion improvements primarily associated with
decreasing CO emissions. We also project that a few units may require
add-on controls (SNCR) to meet the revised NOX emissions
levels. Facilities may resubmit their most recent compliance test data
for each pollutant if the data show that their HMIWI meets the revised
emissions 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 emissions limits.
A. What Are the Primary Air Impacts?
EPA estimates that reductions of approximately 393,000 pounds per
year (lb/yr) of the regulated pollutants would be achieved if all
existing HMIWI improved performance to meet the revised emissions
limits. If all HMIWI selected an alternative disposal method,
reductions of approximately 1.52 million lb/yr would be achieved. Table
4 shows the estimated reductions by pollutant for the two scenarios for
the 57 HMIWI currently operating.
Table 4--Projected Emissions Reductions for MACT Compliance and
Alternative Disposal Options for Existing HMIWI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reductions Reductions
achieved through achieved through
Pollutant meeting MACT (lb/ alternative
yr) disposal (lb/yr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl................................. 168,000 198,000
CO.................................. 1,140 20,200
Pb.................................. 313 420
Cd.................................. 15.6 35.1
Hg.................................. 605 682
PM.................................. 3,170 89,900
CDD/CDF, total...................... 0.0678 0.0985
CDD/CDF, TEQ........................ 0.00145 0.00183
NOX................................. 146,000 1,080,000
SO2................................. 73,700 126,000
-----------------------------------
Total........................... 393,000 1,520,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What Are the Water and Solid Waste Impacts?
EPA estimates that, based on the MACT compliance option,
approximately 3,840 tons per year (tpy) of additional solid waste and
86,000 gallons per year (gpy) 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 an estimated 5.40 million gpy in
wastewater impacts.
C. What Are the Energy Impacts?
EPA estimates that approximately 9,530 megawatt-hours per year
(MWh/yr) 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 MWh/yr 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 revised emissions limits. We estimate that the
adjustments could result in emissions of 279 lb/yr of PM; 3,260 lb/yr
of CO; 2,650 lb/yr of NOX; and 1,780 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 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 0.0330 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 final action
would be approximately $15.5 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 final action.
Approximately 95 percent of the estimated total cost in the first year
is for emissions control, and the remaining 5 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
[[Page 51398]]
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 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, the largest cost-to-sales ratio
is at a captive hospital HMIWI, and is equal to 0.995 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 2.0 percent of revenues. That one facility has a ratio of
approximately 45 percent. As noted previously, this facility 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. For more details regarding EPA's analysis of the
economic impacts, see the July 2009 docket entry entitled ``Economic
Impacts of Revised MACT Standards for Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste
Incinerators.''
VI. Impacts of the Final 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 promulgated for the NSPS, sources would
likely respond to the final 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 revised 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
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 a HMIWI meeting the current NSPS. Table 5 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 revised
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 5--Emissions Reductions on a Model Plant Basis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions reduction for HMIWI model plants (lb/yr)
-----------------------------------------------------
Pollutant 100 lb/hr 400 lb/hr 4,000 lb/hr
capacity capacity capacity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl....................................................... 0 45.8 968
CO........................................................ 0 7.97 0
Pb........................................................ 0 0 3.76
Cd........................................................ 0 0 0.293
Hg........................................................ 0 0.194 2.40
PM........................................................ 0 0 170
Dioxins/furans, total..................................... 0 5.34 x 10-4 0
Dioxins/furans, TEQ....................................... 0 6.02 x 10-6 0
NOX....................................................... 491 1,780 0
SO2....................................................... 37.8 31.9 0
-----------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 529 1,860 1,140
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 revised NSPS for three different HMIWI model sizes:
For large units, we estimate 7,120 gpy of additional wastewater and
50.8 tpy of additional solid waste; for medium units, we estimate no
additional wastewater and 23.6 tpy of additional solid waste; and, for
small units, we estimate 29.7 gallons per year of additional wastewater
and 2.68 tpy of 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 revised NSPS for three different HMIWI model sizes: for large
units, we estimate that 280 MWh/yr of additional electricity would be
[[Page 51399]]
required to support the increased control requirements; for medium
units, we estimate 416 MWh/yr; and, for small units, we estimate 9.90
MWh/yr.
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 revised
emissions limits. While EPA believes it is unlikely that any new HMIWI
will be constructed, we estimated the secondary air impacts associated
with the revisions to the NSPS for three different HMIWI model sizes.
For large units, we estimate that the adjustments could result in
emissions of 15.6 lb/yr of PM; 114 lb/yr of CO; 57.4 lb/yr of
NOX; and 112 lb/yr of SO2. For medium units, we
estimate that the adjustments could result in emissions of 2.71 lb/yr
of PM; 119 lb/yr of CO; 142 lb/yr of NOX; and 0.938 lb/yr of
SO2. For small units, we estimate that the adjustments could
result in emissions of 0.551 lb/yr of PM; 4.02 lb/yr of CO; 2.03 lb/yr
of NOX; and 3.97 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 65.5 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 4.98 lb/yr of PM; 36.3 lb/yr
of CO; 18.4 lb/yr of NOX; and 35.8 lb/yr of SO2.
For small units, we estimate secondary emissions of 1.25 lb/yr of PM;
9.09 lb/yr of CO; 4.60 lb/yr of NOX; and 8.98 lb/yr of
SO2. In addition, EPA estimates that an additional 58.5 tpy
of methane and 0.00308 lb/yr of mercury emissions would result from
landfilling waste that would have been processed in a large HMIWI, 3.29
tpy of methane and 0.000173 lb/yr of mercury emissions would result
from landfilling waste that would have been processed in a medium
HMIWI, and 0.549 tpy of methane and 0.0000289 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 promulgated revisions, we believe that, in response to
the promulgated 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
revisions to the NSPS: for new large units, $1.08 million per year; for
new medium units, $116,000 per year; and, for new small units, $118,000
per year.
EPA's analysis of impacts of the revisions to the HMIWI standards
on potential new HMIWI 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 overarching
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, although HMIWI treatment of some
wastes will continue to be required by regulation.
VII. Relationship of the Final 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: POM, dioxins,
furans, Hg, and 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 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 emissions limits 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 emissions 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 as promulgated in 1997 and as revised for
the 2009 final rule do not have separate, specific numerical emissions
limits 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
[[Page 51400]]
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 final rule does not identify specific
numerical emissions 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.
In lieu of establishing numerical emissions limits for pollutants
such as PCBs and POM, CAA Section 129(a)(4) allows EPA to regulate
surrogate substances. While we have not identified specific numerical
limits for POM and PCB, we believe CO serves as an effective surrogate
for those pollutants, because CO, like POM and PCBs, is formed as a
byproduct of combustion. We believe that dioxins/furans also serve as
an effective surrogate for PCBs, because the compounds act similarly
and, thus, are expected to be controlled similarly using HMIWI
emissions control technology--e.g., wet scrubbers or fabric filters
(with or without activated carbon). Furthermore, recent HMIWI emissions
test data for PCBs and dioxins/furans show that HMIWI well-controlled
for dioxins/furans also achieve low PCB emissions. (See 2008 memorandum
entitled ``Documentation of HMIWI Test Data Database,'' which is
included in the docket.) It should also be noted that PCBs are
generally found in higher concentrations than dioxins/furans (also the
case for HMIWI), so HMIWI equipped with the aforementioned emissions
controls would be even more effective at reducing PCB emissions.
Consequently, we have concluded, in response to the public comments
submitted on this issue, that the emissions limits for CO function as a
surrogate for control of both POM and PCBs, and the limits for dioxins/
furans function as a surrogate for PCBs, such that it is not necessary
to promulgate numerical emissions limits for POM and PCBs with respect
to HMIWI to satisfy CAA Section 112(c)(6).
To further address POM and PCB emissions, the final rule also
includes revised waste management plan provisions that encourage
segregation of the types of wastes that lead to these emissions, such
as chlorinated plastics and PCB-containing wastes.
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 OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information collection requirements are not
enforceable until OMB approves them. The Information Collection Request
(ICR) documents prepared by EPA have been assigned EPA ICR number
2335.02 for subpart Ce, 40 CFR part 60, and 1730.08 for subpart Ec, 40
CFR part 60.
The requirements in this final 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 emissions 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 emissions limits and for HMIWI that, prior to this
final 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 final action is estimated to be
44,229 hours at a total annual labor cost of $1,871,571. 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 three year period of the ICR are estimated at
$1,410,168 and $641,591 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 three
years following promulgation of this final 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 $137,658, with total
operation and maintenance costs of $116,192 per year. Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
EPA may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to, a
collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control
number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are
listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is approved by OMB, the EPA will
publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal Register
to display the OMB control numbers for the approved information
collection requirements contained in this final rule.
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 EPA certifies that the
final 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 final 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 final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not
[[Page 51401]]
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The one small entity directly regulated by this final action
is a small business that owns two HMIWI. We have determined that this
one small entity may experience an impact of approximately $3.15
million per year to comply with the final rule, resulting in a cost-to-
sales ratio of approximately 45 percent. (See 2009 report ``Economic
Impacts of Revised MACT Standards for Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste
Incinerators,'' which is included in the docket for today's
rulemaking.) The one small entity is a company in Maryland, which owns
and operates a commercial facility at that location. There are only
nine other commercial facilities, which are owned and operated by other
companies, and the closest are in North Carolina and Ohio. Therefore,
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.
Two other entities are defined as borderline small: Their parent
company sales or employment in 2008 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. Based on 2008 sales data for
these two entities, the cost-to-sales ratio is less than 1 percent for
one entity and 1.4 percent for the other. It should be noted that the
entity with the higher cost-to-sales ratio (1.4 percent) is a
commercial unit and would have the ability to pass the cost along to
their customers and would be expected to be able to afford compliance.
Therefore, neither entity is likely to incur significant impacts. (See
2009 memorandum entitled ``Updated Sales Information for Companies
Considered Borderline Small Entities,'' which is included in the docket
for today's rulemaking.)
Although the final rule will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless conducted an
analysis of the impacts of the final rule on the directly regulated
small entity and has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small
entities, to the extent allowed under the CAA MACT floor rulemaking.
Our impacts analysis is contained in the docket for today's final
rulemaking. For each subcategory of HMIWI, we are promulgating
emissions 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. Under the CAA and the case law EPA can set
standards no less stringent than the MACT floor. Therefore, we were
unable to reduce the impact of the emissions limits on the small entity
that would be regulated by the final rule. However, we worked to
minimize the costs of testing and monitoring requirements in light of
our final impacts analysis, to the extent possible under the statute.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This final 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 final action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or
Tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this final action
is not subject to the requirements of Section 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
This final 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. This final
action contains no requirements that apply to such governments, imposes
no obligations upon them, and will not result in expenditures by them
of $100 million or more in any one year or any disproportionate impacts
on them.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action 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 final 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 action.
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.
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 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 final 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 final 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 9,530 MWh/yr of additional electricity being used.
Given the negligible change in energy consumption resulting from
this final action, EPA does not expect any significant price increase
for any energy type. The cost of energy distribution should not be
affected by this final 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 final action, they would be minimal.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 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 EPA decides not to use available and
applicable VCS.
[[Page 51402]]
This final rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA has decided
to use two VCS in this final rule. One VCS, ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue
and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' is cited in this final 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
final 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 EPA has identified 16 VCS as being potentially applicable
to this final 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 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.
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 final 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.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this final
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. A
major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in
the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by
5 U.S.C. 804(2). This final rule will be effective on December 7, 2009.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: September 15, 2009.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 60 of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 60--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart A--[Amended]
0
2. Section 60.17 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(90) and (h)(4)
to read as follows:
Sec. 60.17 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(90) ASTM D6784-02, Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized,
Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired
Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), IBR approved for Appendix B
to part 60, Performance Specification 12A, Section 8.6.2 and Sec.
60.56c(b)(13) of subpart Ec of this part.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(4) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part
10, Instruments and Apparatus], IBR approved for Sec. 60.56c(b)(4) of
subpart Ec, Sec. 60.106(e)(2) of subpart J, Sec. Sec. 60.104a(d)(3),
(d)(5), (d)(6), (h)(3), (h)(4), (h)(5), (i)(3), (i)(4), (i)(5), (j)(3),
and (j)(4), 60.105a(d)(4), (f)(2), (f)(4), (g)(2), and (g)(4),
60.106a(a)(1)(iii), (a)(2)(iii), (a)(2)(v), (a)(2)(viii), (a)(3)(ii),
and (a)(3)(v), and 60.107a(a)(1)(ii), (a)(1)(iv), (a)(2)(ii), (c)(2),
(c)(4), and (d)(2) of subpart Ja, tables 1 and 3 of subpart EEEE,
tables 2 and 4 of subpart FFFF, table 2 of subpart JJJJ, and Sec. Sec.
60.4415(a)(2) and 60.4415(a)(3) of subpart KKKK of this part.
* * * * *
Subpart Ce--[Amended]
* * * * *
0
3. 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 after June 20, 1996 but no
later than December 1, 2008, or for which modification is commenced
after March 16, 1998 but no later than April 6, 2010.
* * * * *
(j) The requirements of this subpart as promulgated on September
15, 1997, shall apply to the designated facilities defined in paragraph
(a)(1) of this section until the applicable compliance
[[Page 51403]]
date of the requirements of this subpart, as amended on October 6,
2009. 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 October 6, 2009.
0
4. Section 60.33e is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.33e Emissions guidelines.
(a) For approval, a State plan shall include the requirements for
emissions limits at least as protective as the following requirements,
as applicable:
(1) For a designated facility as defined in Sec. 60.32e(a)(1)
subject to the emissions guidelines as promulgated on September 15,
1997, the requirements listed in Table 1A of this subpart, except as
provided in paragraph (b) of this section.
(2) For a designated facility as defined in Sec. 60.32e(a)(1)
subject to the emissions guidelines as amended on October 6, 2009, the
requirements listed in Table 1B of this subpart, except as provided in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(3) For a designated facility as defined in Sec. 60.32e(a)(2), the
more stringent of the requirements listed in Table 1B of this subpart
and Table 1A of subpart Ec of this part.
(b) For approval, a State plan shall include the requirements for
emissions 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)
subject to the emissions guidelines as promulgated on September 15,
1997, the requirements listed in Table 2A of this subpart.
(2) For a designated facility as defined in Sec. 60.32e(a)(1)
subject to the emissions guidelines as amended on October 6, 2009, the
requirements listed in Table 2B 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)
subject to the emissions guidelines as promulgated on September 15,
1997, 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)(1)
subject to the emissions guidelines as amended on October 6, 2009 and 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.
0
5. Section 60.36e is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. By revising paragraph (b); and
0
c. By adding paragraphs (c) and (d).
Sec. 60.36e Inspection guidelines.
(a) For approval, a State plan shall require each small HMIWI
subject to the emissions limits under Sec. 60.33e(b) and each HMIWI
subject to the emissions limits under Sec. 60.33e(a)(2) and (a)(3) 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 emissions limits under Sec. 60.33e(b) and each HMIWI
subject to the emissions limits under Sec. 60.33e(a)(2) and (a)(3) 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 emissions limits under Sec. 60.33e(b)(2) and each HMIWI
subject to the emissions limits under Sec. 60.33e(a)(2) and (a)(3) 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 emissions limits under Sec. 60.33e(b)(2) and each HMIWI
subject to the emissions limits under Sec. 60.33e(a)(2) and (a)(3) 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.
0
6. Section 60.37e is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraphs (a), (b) introductory text, and (b)(1);
0
b. By redesignating paragraphs (c) and (d) as paragraphs (d) and (e);
0
c. By redesignating paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(5) as paragraphs
(c)(1) through (c)(4);
0
d. By adding a new paragraph (b)(2);
0
e. By adding paragraph (c) introductory text;
0
f. By revising newly redesignated paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(4),
(d), (e) introductory text, and (e)(3); and
0
g. 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 emissions limits in Sec. 60.33e(a)(1), 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)(1) and
(a)(2) subject to the emissions limits in Sec. 60.33e(a)(2) and
(a)(3), 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
emissions limits under Sec. 60.33e(a)(2) and (a)(3) 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 emissions limits under Sec. 60.33e(b) to meet the
performance testing requirements listed
[[Page 51404]]
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.
(1) For a designated facility as defined in Sec. 60.32e(a)(1)
subject to the emissions limits under Sec. 60.33e(b)(1), 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) do not apply.
(2) For a designated facility as defined in Sec. 60.32e(a)(2)
subject to the emissions limits under Sec. 60.33e(b)(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)(ii) through
(v), (c)(6), (c)(7), (e)(6) through (10), (f)(7) through (10), and
(g)(6) through (10) do not apply. Sources subject to the emissions
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 emissions 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:
* * * * *
(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 designated facility does not operate
above the maximum charge rate or below the minimum secondary chamber
temperature measured as 3-hour rolling averages (calculated each hour
as the average of the previous 3 operating hours) at all times.
Operating parameter limits do not apply during performance tests.
Operation above the maximum charge rate or below the minimum secondary
chamber temperature shall constitute a violation of the established
operating parameter(s).
(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 emissions 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 emissions limit(s). Repeat
performance tests conducted pursuant to this paragraph must be
conducted under process and control device operating conditions
duplicating as nearly as possible those 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 emissions 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 emissions 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)(1) or (a)(2) subject to emissions limits under Sec.
60.33e(a)(2), (a)(3), or (b)(2) may use the results of previous
emissions tests to demonstrate compliance with the emissions 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.
0
7. Section 60.38e is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraph (a);
0
b. By revising paragraph (b) introductory text; and
0
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 emissions 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)(1) or
(a)(2) subject to emissions limits under Sec. 60.33e(a)(2), (a)(3), 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 emissions 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
emissions limits under Sec. 60.33e(a)(2), (a)(3), and (b), and the
annual air pollution control device inspections that are required for
each HMIWI subject to the emissions limits under Sec. 60.33e(a)(2),
(a)(3), 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
* * * * *
0
8. Section 60.39e is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraph (a);
0
b. By revising paragraph (c) introductory text;
0
c. By revising paragraph (c)(1);
0
d. By revising paragraph (d)(3); and
0
e. By revising paragraph (f).
[[Page 51405]]
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
emissions guidelines as specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of
this section:
(1) Not later than September 15, 1998, for the emissions guidelines
as promulgated on September 15, 1997.
(2) Not later than October 6, 2010, for the emissions guidelines as
amended on October 6, 2009.
* * * * *
(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 emissions
guidelines as promulgated on September 15, 1997, and on or before the
date 3 years after approval of an amended State plan (but not later
than October 6, 2014), for the emissions guidelines as amended on
October 6, 2009). 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
emissions guidelines on or before the date 3 years after EPA approval
of the State plan (but not later than September 16, 2002), for the
emissions guidelines as promulgated on September 15, 1997, and on or
before the date 3 years after EPA approval of an amended State plan
(but not later than October 6, 2014), for the emissions guidelines as
amended on October 6, 2009.
* * * * *
(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
emissions guidelines as promulgated on September 15, 1997, and within 2
years after October 6, 2009 for the emissions guidelines as amended on
October 6, 2009. 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 emissions guidelines as
promulgated on September 15, 1997, and no later than 5 years after
October 6, 2009 for the emissions guidelines as amended on October 6,
2009.
0
9. Table 1 to subpart Ce is redesignated as Table 1A and revised to
read as follows:
Table 1A to Subpart Ce of Part 60--Emissions Limits for Small, Medium, and Large HMIWI at Designated Facilities as Defined in Sec. 60.32e(a)(1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions limits
--------------------------------------------------------------- Method for
Pollutant Units (7 percent HMIWI size Averaging time demonstrating
oxygen, dry basis) --------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ compliance \2\
Small Medium Large
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particulate matter............. Milligrams per dry 115 (0.05)......... 69 (0.03)......... 34 (0.015).......... 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
standard cubic hour minimum Method 5 of
meter (mg/dscm) sample time per appendix A-3 of
(grains per dry run). part 60, or EPA
standard cubic Reference Method
foot (gr/dscf)). 26A or 29 of
appendix A-8 of
part 60.
Carbon monoxide................ Parts per million 40................. 40................ 40.................. 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
by volume (ppmv). hour minimum Method 10 or 10B
sample time per of appendix A-4
run). of part 60.
Dioxins/furans................. Nanograms per dry 125 (55) or 2.3 125 (55) or 2.3 125 (55) or 2.3 3-run average (4- EPA Reference
standard cubic (1.0). (1.0). (1.0). hour minimum Method 23 of
meter total sample time per appendix A-7 of
dioxins/furans run). part 60.
(ng/dscm) (grains
per billion dry
standard cubic
feet (gr/10\9\
dscf)) or ng/dscm
TEQ (gr/10\9\
dscf).
Hydrogen chloride.............. ppmv.............. 100 or 93%......... 100 or 93%........ 100 or 93%.......... 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
hour minimum Method 26 or 26A
sample time per of appendix A-8
run). of part 60.
Sulfur dioxide................. ppmv.............. 55................. 55................ 55.................. 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
hour minimum Method 6 or 6C
sample time per of appendix A-4
run). of part 60.
Nitrogen oxides................ ppmv.............. 250................ 250............... 250................. 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
hour minimum Method 7 or 7E
sample time per of appendix A-4
run). of part 60.
Lead........................... mg/dscm (grains 1.2 (0.52) or 70%.. 1.2 (0.52) or 70%. 1.2 (0.52) or 70%... 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
per thousand dry hour minimum Method 29 of
standard cubic sample time per appendix A-8 of
feet (gr/10\3\ run). part 60.
dscf)).
[[Page 51406]]
Cadmium........................ mg/dscm (gr/10\3\ 0.16 (0.07) or 65%. 0.16 (0.07) or 65% 0.16 (0.07) or 65%.. 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
dscf). hour minimum Method 29 of
sample time per appendix A-8 of
run). part 60.
Mercury........................ mg/dscm (gr/10\3\ 0.55 (0.24) or 85%. 0.55 (0.24) or 85% 0.55 (0.24) or 85%.. 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
dscf). hour minimum Method 29 of
sample time per appendix A-8 of
run). part 60.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Except as allowed under Sec. 60.56c(c) for HMIWI equipped with CEMS.
\2\ Does not include CEMS and approved alternative non-EPA test methods allowed under Sec. 60.56c(b).
0
10. Add Table 1B to subpart Ce to read as follows:
Table 1B to Subpart Ce of Part 60--Emissions Limits for Small, Medium, and Large HMIWI at Designated Facilities as Defined in Sec. 60.32e(a)(1) and
(a)(2)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions limits
--------------------------------------------------------------- Method for
Pollutant Units (7 percent HMIWI size Averaging time demonstrating
oxygen, dry basis) --------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ compliance \2\
Small Medium Large
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particulate matter............. Milligrams per dry 66 (0.029)......... 46 (0.020)......... 25 (0.011)......... 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
standard cubic hour minimum Method 5 of
meter (mg/dscm) sample time per appendix A-3 of
(grains per dry run). part 60, or EPA
standard cubic Reference Method
foot (gr/dscf)). 26A or 29 of
appendix A-8 of
part 60.
Carbon monoxide................ Parts per million 20................. 5.5................ 11................. 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
by volume (ppmv). hour minimum Method 10 or 10B
sample time per of appendix A-4
run). of part 60.
Dioxins/furans................. Nanograms per dry 16 (7.0) or 0.013 0.85 (0.37) or 9.3 (4.1) or 0.054 3-run average (4- EPA Reference
standard cubic (0.0057). 0.020 (0.0087). (0.024). hour minimum Method 23 of
meter total sample time per appendix A-7 of
dioxins/furans run). part 60.
(ng/dscm) (grains
per billion dry
standard cubic
feet (gr/10\9\
dscf)) or ng/dscm
TEQ (gr/10\9\
dscf).
Hydrogen chloride.............. ppmv.............. 44................. 7.7................ 6.6................ 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
hour minimum Method 26 or 26A
sample time per of appendix A-8
run). of part 60.
Sulfur dioxide................. ppmv.............. 4.2................ 4.2................ 9.0................ 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
hour minimum Method 6 or 6C
sample time per of appendix A-4
run). of part 60.
Nitrogen oxides................ ppmv.............. 190................ 190................ 140................ 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
hour minimum Method 7 or 7E
sample time per of appendix A-4
run). of part 60.
Lead........................... mg/dscm (grains 0.31 (0.14)........ 0.018 (0.0079)..... 0.036 (0.016)...... 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
per thousand dry hour minimum Method 29 of
standard cubic sample time per appendix A-8 of
feet (gr/10\3\ run). part 60.
dscf)).
Cadmium........................ mg/dscm (gr/10\3\ 0.017 (0.0074)..... 0.013 (0.0057)..... 0.0092 (0.0040).... 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
dscf). hour minimum Method 29 of
sample time per appendix A-8 of
run). part 60.
[[Page 51407]]
Mercury........................ mg/dscm (gr/10\3\ 0.014 (0.0061)..... 0.025 (0.011)...... 0.018 (0.0079)..... 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
dscf). hour minimum Method 29 of
sample time per appendix A-8 of
run). part 60.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Except as allowed under Sec. 60.56c(c) for HMIWI equipped with CEMS.
\2\ Does not include CEMS and approved alternative non-EPA test methods allowed under Sec. 60.56c(b).
0
11. Table 2 to subpart Ce is redesignated as Table 2A and revised to
read as follows:
Table 2A to Subpart Ce of Part 60--Emissions Limits for Small HMIWI Which Meet the Criteria Under Sec.
60.33e(b)(1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Units (7 percent Method for
Pollutant oxygen, dry HMIWI emissions limits Averaging time demonstrating
basis) \1\ compliance \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particulate matter............ mg/dscm (gr/dscf) 197 (0.086)............ 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
hour minimum Method 5 of
sample time per appendix A-3 of
run). part 60, or EPA
Reference Method
26A or 29 of
appendix A-8 of
part 60.
Carbon monoxide............... ppmv............. 40..................... 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
hour minimum Method 10 or 10B
sample time per of appendix A-4
run). of part 60.
Dioxins/furans................ ng/dscm total 800 (350) or 15 (6.6).. 3-run average (4- EPA Reference
dioxins/furans hour minimum Method 23 of
(gr/10\9\ dscf) sample time per appendix A-7 of
or ng/dscm TEQ run). part 60.
(gr/10\9\ dscf).
Hydrogen chloride............. ppmv............. 3,100.................. 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
hour minimum Method 26 or 26A
sample time per of appendix A-8
run). of part 60.
Sulfur dioxide................ ppmv............. 55..................... 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
hour minimum Method 6 or 6C
sample time per of appendix A-4
run). of part 60.
Nitrogen oxides............... ppmv............. 250.................... 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
hour minimum Method 7 or 7E
sample time per of appendix A-4
run). of part 60.
Lead.......................... mg/dscm (gr/10\3\ 10 (4.4)............... 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
dscf). hour minimum Method 29 of
sample time per appendix A-8 of
run). part 60.
Cadmium....................... mg/dscm (gr/10\3\ 4 (1.7)................ 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
dscf). hour minimum Method 29 of
sample time per appendix A-8 of
run). part 60.
Mercury....................... mg/dscm (gr/10\3\ 7.5 (3.3).............. 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
dscf). hour minimum Method 29 of
sample time per appendix A-8 of
run). part 60.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Except as allowed under Sec. 60.56c(c) for HMIWI equipped with CEMS.
\2\ Does not include CEMS and approved alternative non-EPA test methods allowed under Sec. 60.56c(b).
0
12. Add Table 2B to subpart Ce to read as follows:
Table 2B to Subpart Ce of Part 60--Emissions Limits for Small HMIWI Which Meet the Criteria Under Sec.
60.33e(b)(2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Units (7 percent Method for
Pollutant oxygen, dry HMIWI Emissions limits Averaging time demonstrating
basis) \1\ compliance \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particulate matter............ mg/dscm (gr/dscf) 87 (0.038)............. 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
hour minimum Method 5 of
sample time per appendix A-3 of
run). part 60, or EPA
Reference Method
26A or 29 of
appendix A-8 of
part 60.
Carbon monoxide............... ppmv............. 20..................... 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
hour minimum Method 10 or 10B
sample time per of appendix A-4
run). of part 60.
[[Page 51408]]
Dioxins/furans................ ng/dscm total 240 (100) or 5.1 (2.2). 3-run average (4- EPA Reference
dioxins/furans hour minimum Method 23 of
(gr/10\9\ dscf) sample time per appendix A-7 of
or ng/dscm TEQ run). part 60.
(gr/10\9\ dscf).
Hydrogen chloride............. ppmv............. 810.................... 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
hour minimum Method 26 or 26A
sample time per of appendix A-8
run). of part 60.
Sulfur dioxide................ ppmv............. 55..................... 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
hour minimum Method 6 or 6C
sample time per of appendix A-4
run). of part 60.
Nitrogen oxides............... ppmv............. 130.................... 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
hour minimum Method 7 or 7E
sample time per of appendix A-4
run). of part 60.
Lead.......................... mg/dscm (gr/10\3\ 0.50 (0.22)............ 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
dscf). hour minimum Method 29 of
sample time per appendix A-8 of
run). part 60.
Cadmium....................... mg/dscm (gr/10\3\ 0.11 (0.048)........... 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
dscf). hour minimum Method 29 of
sample time per appendix A-8 of
run). part 60.
Mercury....................... mg/dscm (gr/10\3\ 0.0051 (0.0022)........ 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
dscf). hour minimum Method 29 of
sample time per appendix A-8 of
run). part 60.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Except as allowed under Sec. 60.56c(c) for HMIWI equipped with CEMS.
\2\ Does not include CEMS and approved alternative non-EPA test methods allowed under Sec. 60.56c(b).
Subpart Ec--[Amended]
0
13. Section 60.50c is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraph (a);
0
b. By revising paragraph (i)(2);
0
c. By adding paragraphs (i)(3) through (i)(5); and
0
d. By adding paragraphs (m) and (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 April 6, 2010.
(3) For which construction is commenced after December 1, 2008; or
(4) For which modification is commenced after April 6, 2010.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) Approval of alternative methods of demonstrating compliance
under Sec. 60.8 including:
(i) Approval of CEMS for PM, HCl, multi-metals, and Hg where used
for purposes of demonstrating compliance,
(ii) Approval of continuous automated sampling systems for dioxin/
furan and Hg where used for purposes of demonstrating compliance, and
(iii) Approval of major alternatives to test methods;
(3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring;
(4) Waiver of recordkeeping requirements; and
(5) Performance test and data reduction waivers under Sec.
60.8(b).
* * * * *
(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 October 6,
2009. 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 October 6, 2009, except where the emissions limits
of this subpart as promulgated on September 15, 1997 are more stringent
than the emissions limits of the amended subpart Ce of this part.
Compliance with subpart Ce of this part, as amended on October 6, 2009
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 October 6,
2009, shall become effective April 6, 2010.
0
14. Section 60.51c is amended as follows:
0
a. By adding a definition for ``Bag leak detection system'';
0
b. By adding a definition for ``Commercial HMIWI''; and
0
c. By adding a definition for ``Minimum reagent flow rate''; and
0
d. By revising the definition for ``Minimum secondary chamber
temperature.''
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.
* * * * *
Commercial HMIWI means a HMIWI which offers incineration services
for hospital/medical/infectious waste generated offsite by firms
unrelated to the firm that owns the HMIWI.
* * * * *
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 emissions 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
[[Page 51409]]
during the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance with
the PM, CO, dioxin/furan, and NOX emissions limits.
* * * * *
0
15. Section 60.52c is amended by revising paragraphs (a) through (c) to
read as follows:
Sec. 60.52c Emissions 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 1A 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 1B 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 6 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.
* * * * *
0
16. Section 60.55c is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.55c Waste management plan.
The owner or operator of an affected facility shall prepare a waste
management plan. The waste management plan shall identify both the
feasibility and the approach to separate certain components of solid
waste from the health care waste stream in order to reduce the amount
of toxic emissions from incinerated waste. A waste management plan may
include, but is not limited to, elements such as segregation and
recycling of paper, cardboard, plastics, glass, batteries, food waste,
and metals (e.g., aluminum cans, metals-containing devices);
segregation of non-recyclable wastes (e.g., polychlorinated biphenyl-
containing waste, pharmaceutical waste, and mercury-containing waste,
such as dental waste); and purchasing recycled or recyclable products.
A waste management plan may include different goals or approaches for
different areas or departments of the facility and need not include new
waste management goals for every waste stream. It should identify,
where possible, reasonably available additional waste management
measures, taking into account the effectiveness of waste management
measures already in place, the costs of additional measures, the
emissions reductions expected to be achieved, and any other
environmental or energy impacts they might have. The American Hospital
Association publication entitled ``An Ounce of Prevention: Waste
Reduction Strategies for Health Care Facilities'' (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 60.17) shall be considered in the development of
the waste management plan. The owner or operator of each commercial
HMIWI company shall conduct training and education programs in waste
segregation for each of the company's waste generator clients and
ensure that each client prepares its own waste management plan that
includes, but is not limited to, the provisions listed previously in
this section.
0
17. Section 60.56c is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraph (a);
0
b. By revising paragraph (b) introductory text and paragraphs (b)(4)
and (b)(6);
0
c. By redesignating paragraphs (b)(7) through (b)(12) as paragraphs
(b)(9) through (b)(14);
0
d. By adding new paragraphs (b)(7) and (b)(8);
0
e. By revising newly redesignated paragraphs (b)(9), (b)(10), (b)(11)
introductory text, and (b)(12) through (b)(14);
0
f. By revising paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3);
0
g. By redesignating paragraph (c)(4) as paragraph (c)(5);
0
h. By revising newly redesignated paragraph (c)(5);
0
i. By adding paragraphs (c)(4), (c)(6), and (c)(7);
0
j. By revising paragraph (d) introductory text;
0
k. By revising paragraph (e) introductory text and paragraph (e)(5);
0
l. By adding paragraphs (e)(6) through (e)(10);
0
m. By revising paragraph (f) introductory text and paragraph (f)(6);
0
n. By adding paragraphs (f)(7) through (f)(10);
0
o. By revising paragraph (g) introductory text and paragraph (g)(5);
0
p. By adding paragraphs (g)(6) through (g)(10);
0
q. By redesignating paragraphs (h) through (j) as paragraphs (i)
through (k);
0
r. By adding paragraph (h); and
0
s. By revising newly redesignated paragraphs (i) and (j).
Sec. 60.56c Compliance and performance testing.
(a) The emissions limits apply at all times.
(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 emissions
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 emissions
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 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 60.17).
* * * * *
(6) EPA Reference Method 5 of appendix A-3 or Method 26A 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.
[[Page 51410]]
(7) EPA Reference Method 7 or 7E of appendix A-4 of this part shall
be used to measure NOX emissions.
(8) EPA Reference Method 6 or 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 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 60.17). 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.
(14) The EPA Reference Method 22 of appendix A-7 of this part shall
be used to determine compliance with the fugitive ash emissions limit
under Sec. 60.52c(c). The minimum observation time shall be a series
of three 1-hour observations.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(5) of this
section, determine compliance with the PM, CO, and HCl emissions 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 emissions 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 emissions
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
emissions 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 emissions 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 emissions 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 emissions limit using a CO CEMS
according to paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (c)(4)(iii) of this section:
(i) Determine compliance with the CO emissions 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 emissions limit.
(5) Facilities using CEMS to demonstrate compliance with any of the
emissions 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 emissions limit(s) using
a 12-hour rolling average, calculated each hour as the average of the
previous 12 operating hours.
(ii) For an affected facility as defined in Sec. 60.50c(a)(3) and
(4), determine compliance with the appropriate emissions 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 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 emissions 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 emissions 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 emissions 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
[[Page 51411]]
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 emissions 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:
* * * * *
(5) Use of the bypass stack shall constitute a violation of the PM,
dioxin/furan, HCl, Pb, Cd and Hg emissions limits.
(6) Operation of the affected facility as defined in Sec.
60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above the CO emissions limit as measured by the CO
CEMS specified in paragraph (c)(4) of this section shall constitute a
violation of the CO emissions 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 emissions 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 emissions
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 emissions
limit as measured by the CEMS specified in paragraph (c)(5) of this
section shall constitute a violation of the applicable emissions limit.
(9) Operation of the affected facility as defined in Sec.
60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above the dioxin/furan emissions limit as measured
by the continuous automated sampling system specified in paragraph
(c)(6) of this section shall constitute a violation of the dioxin/furan
emissions limit.
(10) Operation of the affected facility as defined in Sec.
60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above the Hg emissions limit as measured by the
continuous automated sampling system specified in paragraph (c)(7) of
this section shall constitute a violation of the Hg emissions limit.
(f) Except as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, for
affected facilities equipped with a wet scrubber:
* * * * *
(6) Use of the bypass stack shall constitute a violation of the PM,
dioxin/furan, HCl, Pb, Cd and Hg emissions limits.
(7) Operation of the affected facility as defined in Sec.
60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above the CO emissions limit as measured by the CO
CEMS specified in paragraph (c)(4) of this section shall constitute a
violation of the CO emissions 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 emissions
limit as measured by the CEMS specified in paragraph (c)(5) of this
section shall constitute a violation of the applicable emissions limit.
(9) Operation of the affected facility as defined in Sec.
60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above the dioxin/furan emissions limit as measured
by the continuous automated sampling system specified in paragraph
(c)(6) of this section shall constitute a violation of the dioxin/furan
emissions limit.
(10) Operation of the affected facility as defined in Sec.
60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above the Hg emissions limit as measured by the
continuous automated sampling system specified in paragraph (c)(7) of
this section shall constitute a violation of the Hg emissions 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:
* * * * *
(5) Use of the bypass stack shall constitute a violation of the PM,
dioxin/furan, HCl, Pb, Cd and Hg emissions limits.
(6) Operation of the affected facility as defined in Sec.
60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above the CO emissions limit as measured by the CO
CEMS specified in paragraph (c)(4) of this section shall constitute a
violation of the CO emissions 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 emissions 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 emissions
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 emissions
limit as measured by the CEMS specified in paragraph (c)(5) of this
section shall constitute a violation of the applicable emissions limit.
(9) Operation of the affected facility as defined in Sec.
60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above the dioxin/furan emissions limit as measured
by the continuous automated sampling system specified in paragraph
(c)(6) of this section shall constitute a violation of the dioxin/furan
emissions limit.
(10) Operation of the affected facility as defined in Sec.
60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above the Hg emissions limit as measured by the
continuous automated sampling system specified in paragraph (c)(7) of
this section shall constitute a violation of the Hg emissions limit.
(h) The owner or operator of an affected facility as defined in
[[Page 51412]]
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 emissions 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. 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 emissions 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 emissions 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 emissions 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.
* * * * *
0
18. Section 60.57c is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraph (a);
0
b. By redesignating paragraphs (b) through (d) as paragraphs (c)
through (e);
0
c. By adding paragraph (b);
0
d. By revising newly redesignated paragraphs (d) and (e); and
0
e. By adding paragraphs (f) through (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.
(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. 60.56c(h) such that the devices
(or methods) measure and record values for the operating parameters at
all times. 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 emissions 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
emissions 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
emissions limits under Sec. 60.52c undergoes an air pollution control
device inspection 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 emissions 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 may 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
[[Page 51413]]
document is also available on the Technology Transfer Network (TTN)
under Emissions Measurement Center Continuous Emissions 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.
0
19. Section 60.58c is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraph (a)(2)(iv);
0
b. By redesignating paragraphs (b)(2)(viii) through (b)(2)(xv) as
paragraphs (b)(2)(ix) through (b)(2)(xvi);
0
c. By adding paragraph (b)(2)(viii);
0
d. By revising newly designated paragraph (b)(2)(xvi);
0
e. By adding paragraphs (b)(2)(xvii) through (b)(2)(xix);
0
f. By revising paragraphs (b)(6) and (b)(11);
0
g. By revising paragraph (c) introductory text;
0
h. By revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2);
0
i. By adding paragraph (c)(4);
0
j. By revising paragraph (d) introductory text;
0
k. By revising paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(3);
0
l. By adding paragraphs (d)(9) through (d)(11); and
0
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 emissions
monitoring system.
* * * * *
(6) The results of the initial, annual, and any subsequent
performance tests conducted to determine compliance with the emissions
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.
* * * * *
(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
submissions 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
[[Page 51414]]
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 emissions
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.
0
20. Table 1 to subpart Ec is redesignated as Table 1A and revised to
read as follows:
Table 1A to Subpart Ec of Part 60--Emissions Limits for Small, Medium, and Large HMIWI at Affected Facilities as Defined in Sec. 60.50c(a)(1) and (2)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions limits
--------------------------------------------------------------- Method for
Pollutant Units (7 percent HMIWI size Averaging time demonstrating
oxygen, dry basis) --------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ compliance \2\
Small Medium Large
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particulate matter............. Milligrams per dry 69 (0.03).......... 34 (0.015)......... 34 (0.015)......... 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
standard cubic hour minimum Method 5 of
meter (grains per sample time per appendix A-3 of
dry standard run). part 60, or EPA
cubic foot). Reference Method
M 26A or 29 of
appendix A-8 of
part 60.
Carbon monoxide................ Parts per million 40................. 40................. 40................. 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
by volume. hour minimum Method 10 or 10B
sample time per of appendix A-4
run). of part 60.
Dioxins/furans................. Nanograms per dry 125 (55) or 2.3 25 (11) or 0.6 25 (11) or 0.6 3-run average (4- EPA Reference
standard cubic (1.0). (0.26). (0.26). hour minimum Method 23 of
meter total sample time per appendix A-7 of
dioxins/furans run). part 60.
(grains per
billion dry
standard cubic
feet) or
nanograms per dry
standard cubic
meter TEQ (grains
per billion dry
standard cubic
feet).
Hydrogen chloride.............. Parts per million 15 or 99%.......... 15 or 99%.......... 15 or 99%5.1....... 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
by volume. hour minimum Method 26 or 26A
sample time per of appendix A-8
run). of part 60.
Sulfur dioxide................. Parts per million 55................. 55................. 55................. 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
by volume. hour minimum Method 6 or 6C
sample time per of appendix A-4
run). of part 60.
Nitrogen oxides................ Parts per million 250................ 250................ 250................ 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
by volume. hour minimum Method 7 or 7E
sample time per of appendix A-4
run). of part 60.
Lead........................... Milligrams per dry 1.2 (0.52) or 70%.. 0.07 (0.03) or 98%. 0.07 (0.03) or 98%. 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
standard cubic hour minimum Method 29 of
meter (grains per sample time per appendix A-8 of
thousand dry run). part 60.
standard cubic
feet.
Cadmium........................ Milligrams per dry 0.16 (0.07) or 65%. 0.04 (0.02) or 90%. 0.04 (0.02) or 90%. 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
standard cubic hour minimum Method 29 of
meter (grains per sample time per appendix A-8 of
thousand dry run). part 60.
standard cubic
feet) or percent
reduction.
Mercury........................ Milligrams per dry 0.55 (0.24) or 85%. 0.55 (0.24) or 85%. 0.55 (0.24) or 85%. 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
standard cubic hour minimum Method 29 of
meter (grains per sample time per appendix A-8 of
thousand dry run). part 60.
standard cubic
feet) or percent
reduction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Except as allowed under Sec. 60.56c(c) for HMIWI equipped with CEMS.
\2\ Does not include CEMS and approved alternative non-EPA test methods allowed under Sec. 60.56c(b).
[[Page 51415]]
0
21. Add Table 1B to subpart Ec to read as follows:
Table 1B to Subpart Ec of Part 60--Emissions Limits for Small, Medium, and Large HMIWI at Affected Facilities as Defined in Sec. 60.50c(a)(3) and (4)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions limits
--------------------------------------------------------------- Method for
Pollutant Units (7 percent HMIWI size Averaging time\1\ demonstrating
oxygen, dry basis) --------------------------------------------------------------- compliance \2\
Small Medium Large
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particulate matter............. Milligrams per dry 66 (0.029)......... 22 (0.0095)........ 18 (0.0080)........ 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
standard cubic hour minimum Method 5 of
meter (grains per sample time per appendix A-3 of
dry standard run). part 60, or EPA
cubic foot). Reference Method
M 26A or 29 of
appendix A-8 of
part 60.
Carbon monoxide................ Parts per million 20................. 1.8................ 11................. 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
by volume. hour minimum Method 10 or 10B
sample time per of appendix A-4
run). of part 60.
Dioxins/furans................. Nanograms per dry 16 (7.0) or 0.013 0.47 (0.21) or 9.3 (4.1) or 0.035 3-run average (4- EPA Reference
standard cubic (0.0057). 0.014 (0.0061). (0.015). hour minimum Method 23 of
meter total sample time per appendix A-7 of
dioxins/furans run). part 60.
(grains per
billion dry
standard cubic
feet) or
nanograms per dry
standard cubic
meter TEQ (grains
per billion dry
standard cubic
feet).
Hydrogen chloride.............. Parts per million 15................. 7.7................ 5.1................ 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
by volume. hour minimum Method 26 or 26A
sample time per of appendix A-8
run). of part 60.
Sulfur dioxide................. Parts per million 1.4................ 1.4................ 1.6................ 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
by volume. hour minimum Method 6 or 6C
sample time per of appendix A-4
run). of part 60.
Nitrogen oxides................ Parts per million 67................. 67................. 130................ 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
by volume. hour minimum Method 7 or 7E
sample time per of appendix A-4
run). of part 60.
Lead........................... Milligrams per dry 0.31 (0.14)........ 0.018 (0.0079)..... 0.00069 (0.00030).. 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
standard cubic hour minimum Method 29 of
meter (grains per sample time per appendix A-8 of
thousand dry run). part 60.
standard cubic
feet).
Cadmium........................ Milligrams per dry 0.017 (0.0074)..... 0.0098 (0.0043).... 0.00013 (0.000057). 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
standard cubic hour minimum Method 29 of
meter (grains per sample time per appendix A-8 of
thousand dry run). part 60.
standard cubic
feet) or percent
reduction.
Mercury........................ Milligrams per dry 0.014 (0.0061)..... 0.0035 (0.0015).... 0.0013 (0.00057)... 3-run average (1- EPA Reference
standard cubic hour minimum Method 29 of
meter (grains per sample time per appendix A-8 of
thousand dry run). part 60.
standard cubic
feet) or percent
reduction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Except as allowed under Sec. 60.56c(c) for HMIWI equipped with CEMS.
\2\ Does not include CEMS and approved alternative non-EPA test methods allowed under Sec. 60.56c(b).
[FR Doc. E9-22928 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P